then why is this topic in the "writing for games" area?

Quote: Original post by ClonedPrince
then why is this topic in the "writing for games" area?

Because it was originally for a game, but it turned into a mass speculation about the future.

Quote: Original post by Spoonbender
I guess I have two problems with this. First, there's what I've been saying, that I just don't find it very plausible, and second, I just get that itchy "It could have been so much better if only they'd changed these few details in the story"-feeling. The fact that it's so close to being a really cool story makes the implausible bits seem even worse.

Well, first, thanks for sticking with this. Rather than go around about the nature of change, I'm wondering if it would help to relay the end result that the game world needs. I'm not wedded to any particularly story, so long as it achieves the correct ends.

Here's what I'm up against: I've decided that the game needs to start out on Earth. This is first for sheer sentimental reasons (identification / empathy with a wider audience), second for familiarity, third for the coolness factor of achieving a fulfilling sense of "what will tomorrow be like?" Then it will expand into the solar system, and on to the stars.

It's an open ended RPG-like game. So, no level barriers are possible, you can travel all over the planet. Okay, so I now have a huge problem. It is impossible to give you free roam of all the Earth's cities. There's just too much data.

Solution: Destroy the Earth to save it. [rolleyes][grin] (Reshape it, really.)

I need to deliver three types of terrestrial environments: Cities, towns and open terrains (savanna, desert, etc). Cities MUST be somewhat cookie cutter prefab environments. The characters and interior dressing and gameplay will be different, but the levels have to be mix & match with restrictions on view distance and poly limits per region (characters, props, etc.)

Towns need to be somewhat randomly generated building grids, both so you can engage in some town improvement and so that content creation is easier. (Open terrain will be its own problem, but comparatively easier.)

The Earth also needs to be homogenized so that I'm not saddled with thousands of architectural / cultural differences around the world, but rather three or four basic templates. So I've got to kick nations out into space, where it will be easier to both exhibit limited cultural differences (via ship & base design like in Freelancer) and easier to understand inter-colony conflict.

Okay, once that's achieved, I need some of the standard RPG gameplay: Monsters, exploration, danger. There's also a need to get rid of modern professions to some extent, wipe out some of the world's complexity, and in so doing generate a feeling of expansive freedom by making the career limitations a natural function of the game's world rather than arbitrary.

Wherever possible, I need also to reuse assets. So armored city interiors might be used for asteroid bases, or capital ships. Town plans could be used for stage 1 colony settlements and the interior of cylinder stations. Some of the enemies (like pirates, or crazed AI) also need to pop up on other planets, mixed in with the different alien threats you'll find.

So with those requirements, any story that makes sense I'm open to. The future has to be nanotech and AI driven because that simplifies gameplay in terms of meta-actions, minigames, leveling and item creation. It's sci-fi, not the typical medieval, and I want to (insane as it sounds) try to make it multi-world. And it has to be a recognizable, somewhat plausible future people can relate to (so no "we all become super evolved gods and leave the world to intelligent furry animals who just happen to become medieval sword swingers" as one game once proposed). Oh, and no mass die-offs like in Fallout, either (turns off potential women gamers)

I've tried to be careful in the storyline to emphasize that society still stands, but faces sweeping changes. I've been intentionally vague, for instance, about how much of the economy switches to hydrogen (obviously enough to keep things like a space program going). I'm also taking license to assume that great technological advance can happen in periods of calamity just as they happen in war, but that what suffers is democracy and freedom as we revert to survivalist organizational patterns mixed with old intercine conflicts (hence the fragmentation of nations).

Maybe blaming a collapse on nanotech might work and make more sense, but that's not a present concern, so it doesn't quite ring true. I will think about this. I think that issues such as global warming, fuel reserves, rampant technological progress and the threat of nuclear war and terrorism are deeper psychological concerns; and that if a story can address them optimistically, saying "yeah, we're in for a rough patch, but we survive nonetheless and thrive," then it compliments the whole point of the game, which is about surviving and thriving in the future.

Quote: Original post by ClonedPrince
what exactly are we going for here? are we talking about an RTS, RPG, action/adventure, or a futuristic MYST?

The genre is "role-playing empire game." It's about surviving and thriving in a fantastical future and changing the destiny of the human race. You start as an average citizen in 2105, an immigrant refugee who begins with nothing, and you must improve your fortunes through combat, stealth, trade or minigames involving building and alliances.

As you play, you discover that you can't die (nor quickload). Amidst your own personal struggle to stay afloat, you find that you're part of a larger struggle of titanic proportions. Earth's nations and factions expand dynamically on the map, fighting each other and competing first for the Earth and then all of space. You see all of this over centuries because something has made you virtually immortal, capable of living a complete life and then waking up as one of your descendants. But a handful of others also have this power, and you can choose to either win the game through allying with or defeating them, or you can ignore the storyline and just have fun in sandbox gameplay, building up your own dynasties and protecting them from periodic changes that sweep each game era.

Thanks for the clarification :)

Quote:
Maybe blaming a collapse on nanotech might work and make more sense, but that's not a present concern, so it doesn't quite ring true. I will think about this. I think that issues such as global warming, fuel reserves, rampant technological progress and the threat of nuclear war and terrorism are deeper psychological concerns; and that if a story can address them optimistically, saying "yeah, we're in for a rough patch, but we survive nonetheless and thrive," then it compliments the whole point of the game, which is about surviving and thriving in the future.

Hmm, I see your point. I don't think it's so different from present concerns though.
Today, we have the issue that we may need to cut down on our living standard, on a lot of things we take for granted.
We're currently overdoing a lot of things, creating global warming, wast amounts of population, destroying forests, and so on and so on.
Just add nanotech to that list. Once again, some new technology becomes widely available, people start taking advantage of it, and sooner or later, they take it so much for granted that they refuse to get get rid of it (or limit its use), even when it turns out to be a major contributing factor to the world's problems.

Nanobots would be able to shape matter pretty much at will. But they still need energy to function. If nanotech becomes really widespread, that's a lot of extra energy needed. Even today, parts of the US has trouble delivering enough electricity to its population. Imagine if everyone had a few billion nanobots working for them to constantly rebuilt their house every week, produce a yacht out of whatever junk is lying around, and so on. Lots of extra energy required, and no obvious way to keep up with demand.

That means, we get
- Some kind of economic collapse or setback, as blackouts become more widespread, and maybe people are even forced to some system for rationing power. This is bad news for pretty much every kind of industry. Also, the price per watt would go up drastically, which would hurt the economy too.
- All the extra power plants might mean accelerated global warming, more pollution, rising sea levels (or this could happen anyway), and so on, forcing even more change onto the world. Seaside cities may have to be evacuated, existing farmland will be ruined, which again hurts the economy (and may prompt more drastic action to avoid starvation, maybe using nanotech to produce synthetic food, again increasing the original energy problems).

Then you have a situation where lots of places with lots of nanobots would be left unattended or abandoned. That's your excuse for "wild" nanobots.

You also have a situation where some drastic changes are required for survival. Many cities have to be evacuated, energy and fuel prices have gone through the roof, meaning many more places have to be abandoned because they're too far from everything, and no one can afford the fuel neccesary to get around.
Then the next step might just be your big megacities, armored to protect against wild nanobots, and gathering practically the entire population both to minimize energy consumption an possibly just to avoid mass riots? (This is a lot of changes people have to get used to. Won't they blame their leaders for not preparing for this situation? In response, these (or later) leaders may just want to keep the population in easily controllable places? A situation like this would probably call for some tough leaders, probably not far from a dictatorship. And that allows you to fit in your revolts later on.

While all this is happening, both economy and science will probably falter, (which may in turn cause people to lose control over even more nanobots which can cause even more damage). You get a small dark age, when people are too busy adapting and surviving, to even think about science or maintaining advanced technology.

But once all this has been dealt with, the new cities have been built, people are safe from rising sea levels, pollution and wild nanobots, the stage would be set for your renaissance. People can start advancing technology again, the economy will get back on track, probably with expansion into space following relatively soon afterwards. But all the recent changes will definitely cause some drastic changes in social structure and culture, which should allow you to fit in the last components (revolts in city-states, ethnocentric communities, tearing down old cultures and so on)

How about that?

I don't think his world is possible, but I also don't think that the vast majority of players would care at all.