 |
|  |
 |
|
darcy
|
|
It seems the designers of Moo3 are very concerned about the background story and the plot of the game. I've just read the Antaran history stuff, which is quite extensive for a strategy game, in my opinion.
Apparently the story is even actively influencing game design decisions. IIRC some races were cut because they don't "fit in" this sophisticated universe. I wonder, wasn't it part of the appeal that these races were simple? The Mrrshans were the fierce warriors, the Bulrathi were the tough and slow grunts. Of course they were cliché... but the cliché *worked*.
Reading some of the new race descriptions, it feels like I'm in a high-brow sci-fi movie. Is that necessary for a strategy game or is it too much? I still haven't made up my mind; after all, Alpha Centauri didn't suffer from the rich background story, but then again it was much easier to connect to.
I was surprised that plot gimmicks are supposed to be part of the Moo3 experience. But plot twists like discovering the 5 Xs or learning about the Harvesters, both acively guarded secrets, will work one time only, the first time we play. Being a game that is supposed to be played over and over again, on random maps, won't this stuff become annoying and predictable in all subsequent games?
Summing up, I wonder if it is a smart choice to invest so much into the story of what is in its essence an abstract strategy game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Alexfrog
|
|
I think that fleshing out the background story makes the different races more exciting. I certainly dont think the game loses anything from including all the storyline...
After a few plays it wont be new, but its cool at first....so its a plus.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Wainamoinen
|
|
I voted "no" - because I don't think a strategy game "needs" a plot. Strategy games from chess through Risk to MoO1 (which was pretty much a plot-free zone) have succeeded by being fun to play, rather than spinning an involving story.
Talking specifically about MoO3 however, a good story could add a lot to a game, as players become more involved in the action, identifying with certain actors. No-one here cheers the NOs, do they? They're uncaring, congenitally paranoid despots, and I'll have fun kicking over their sandcastles. Great, we've everyone's bad guys already. He likes Psilons, Gasbags float my boat, and she always plays Ithkul.
The danger with including a story is that gameplay gets bent out of shape to fit it in. A worry I have is that the Ithkul will play so differently from the other races, that as time goes by and players learn the quirks of the different races they are either always played, or always ignored.
The Harvester secrets will be a one off, as will the Antaran X's, but there are always new things to learn in a new game, that's part of the fun. I'm optimistic that the story will add to my enjoyment, and the extra surprises will mean extra fun learning the game, but I won't know until I've played it a few times.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Main_Brain
|
|
Economic World Center
Jul 2002 time: 06:25
|
|
Mhh not essentially a Plot but a Background really is Important like in Smac?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kalbear
|
|
Is it essential? Nope. I'll happily enjoy a game without a rich backstory and role-playing elements.
Does it make a game better? When done right, abso-friggin-lutely. SMAC tops my list of great games partially because the world captivated me and interested me, drew me in.
Civ worked similarly - at least early on, I loved reading the historical documents about the various wonders, units, and improvements. I found that fascinating why, say, monotheism was considered such a historically significant invention in their eyes, or what it produced.
Deux Ex was a totally similar vein. None of the plot elements were really necessary, but all the little sub-elements were what made me want to play it - and play it again.
Same goes for System Shock.
Same goes for StarCraft and Warcraft 3. WC3 I actually don't like all that much - that much super-fast micromanagement doesn't interest me, especially when it's compensating for poor AI - but I kept playing because I wanted to see how the game ended. SC was a great mix of all worlds.
So yeah, hearing that new sound clip from the intro really interested me. It set the game up in my mind, and dropped me into a world where the Ithkul could exist and I could actually root for them in some way.
It isn't necessary for a good game, but at least for me it's necessary for a great game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
darcy
|
|
One potential problem I see with stories/plots is that they often make me play the game like a roleplaying game.
Instead of taking everything as pieces in a complex game of strategy, I start roleplaying an Emperor. When an AI betrays an alliance, I get disappointed, because I want the (roleplaying) experience of joining forces with a trusted friend, although it might mean that the AI would value my interests more than its own, which would be stupid for a player.
Or I dislike a certain part of the fiction and allow my decisions to be influenced by that. For example I despised Morgan Industries' philosophy, and was inclined to ally against them, even if that wasn't the best strategic choice. Moo3 will probably make me prejudiced against the Ithkul and New Orions, as they are institutionalized as the "Bad Guys".
Yes, a game gains a lot from a background story which gives it depth, a theme, a meaning. But I believe it comes at a cost. It draws you in and you aren't an objective player anymore. Then you must actively separate yourself from the theme again in order to employ a pure "play-to-win" strategy.
Last edited by darcy on 24-01-2003 at 15:08
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|