SWGB2 Campaign

[CorranSec]

Protocol droid narrator: I'm still uneasy. This narration would be in place of a briefing or opening cinematic, which are both things that would be great. And once again, it pushes the boundaries of disbelief to a, well, unbelivable extent. People will look at it and say, "Oh, they tried to do what AoM did, except it's dumbly obvious and doesn't work."

 

Vostok: Mortal enemies are the most obvious enemies and, more importantly, the established enemies and the ones that fit with the timeline. What would you prefer? Rebels fighting the Smugglers Union? Trade Fed fighting Empire? Hutt Cartel fighting Old Republic?

I don't see how only fighting against one other civ in the campaign makes the civs less unique. They can fight against all the others in multiplayer, scenarios and random maps, where realism and SW storyline doesn't matter.

Once again, you return to interfering with the lives of the main movie characters. I tell you again, it simply won't work. They have established event timelines that run all the way through the current SW timeline. They tried to do this in the original GB, and as a result the campaign storylines (especially Rebel and Imperial) are thus little more than fairly pointless side thoughts which never distract from the actual game.

So you want the briefings to be like those in StarCraft? Well, leaving the issue of having movie characters involved aside, putting the player in the position of an invisible commander once again lessens the realism. That was one of the problems with StarCraft. Somehow you were an Executor, Commander and Cerebrate, who was never mentioned by name. It didn't seem real, merely a device by which you're told what to do, and that is the kind of thing that really detracts from a good story.

Why should we have these briefings instead of my idea, in which each campaign features a new (or already existing, but minor) character, who the player basically identifies with, but still controls? My plan offers far more story avenues, especially with characterisation and all that, but it also increases the realism without it feeling forced.

[JediMasterEd]

He's got a point with the between game breifings. The Starcraft ones were ok but there was no actual character they were talking to in the game, not you yourself.

The idea of having the computer control the hero's is a VERY bad idea. Reason being, if you had to escort him/her to a specific area on the map and along the way, there is an ambush with more units than the ones escorting the hero, what do you do? The hero is already picked a path and you can't stop and search for another way around. What if he/she just randomly walks out of your base and you don't even notice it? What do you do? What if the tight sopt the hero is in is even tighter than expected and risks dying? Will he/she continue to fight or retreat? Unless you can overcome these obsticles, it's pointless to allow the computer control a hero, especially a mission critical one.

[lukeiamyourdad]

StarCraft's ingame briefings couldn't have been better for the time. It explained things clearly and basically told you a story which was its purpose.

 

What if you're playing a Jedi and an unknown voice representing the Force talking to you narrates. It's possible...

[CorranSec]

Ed: That's what I'm trying to say about the briefings. However, I'm not talking about a computer controlling the hero. You order the hero about just as you would any other in-game unit. It's you that has to move the hero to the specific area, and you'll have some guys with him that can protect him, and so on. I never wanted to computer to control the hero.

 

Luke's dad: The only way the briefings really told a story was with the conversations/banter between the actual characters (Arcturus Mensk and Raynor for example), which were actually very well done. However, these could have been better achieved in cinematics, rather than having a briefing where they talk to the invisible character.

 

Which of these sounds better?

Method 1: StarCraft briefing. Computerised woman tells you (Unknown Commander) that you have to protect a supply convoy. Mensk pops up and starts telling you about how crucial this is to the rebellion, but Raynor also pops up and gets into an argument. You just get on with the mission.

Method 2: Cinematic. Commander Devlin (main character), a good friend of Jim Raynor's and high-ranking within the Terran rebels, walks into a command room. Raynor is already there, and greets Devlin. They communicate with Arcturus through a vidscreen, and the three of them get into an argument. Finally Raynor storms off, and Devlin follows him. They go and undertake the mission.

It's clear to see that number 2 is a far better choice. Even if it wasn't a cinematic, having my fictional Devlin actually participate in the briefing rather than you just sit there and be talked to would be much more exciting and enjoyable, deepening the story to a great extent.

 

If you were playing a Jedi, you could still be a Jedi with a name and a personality, rather than an invisible presence in a briefing room. And the Force talking to you? Someone get Vostok in here. That will throw off all previous perceptions of what the Force actually is, not to mention that all the missions will either sound ridiculous (The Force ordered me to hijack an Imperial convoy!) or be ridiculous for an RTS (By the will of the Force, I shall travel to a far-off shrine).

Must I also point out the possible political and religious problems? God told me to do this, this and this... and I don't want to have to mention the words 'For Allah'...

[Darth Windu]

I dont know if this is like starcraft or not, but i really liked the pre-mission breifings in 'Command & Conquer: Red Alert' where the Allied generals, or Stalin, conversed with you, told you what you needed to do, provided cinematics etc. Far superior to the junky breifings in GB.

[lukeiamyourdad]

StarCraft is an old game. You can't blame them for this. of course cinematics in these days would be far better.

 

Isn't the Force supposed to be a guide? Shouldn't it be a source of wisdom? Of counseling? I'm not talking about getting direct orders from the force('cause it really sounds ridiculous). I'm talking about some tips from the force. Since if you're a jedi, you can meditate and predict if something bad is going to happen then you should hear the force give you some tips. A bit like the Terran Robot thingy that always talks to you without ever doing anything. It just counsils you on various situations and giving you tips to bypass them. This is what I think the force should be if you're playing a Jedi Character.

 

And this is stupid to start comparing various fictionnal situation with real life. Or you would ban all the video games on the market and movies also.

[CorranSec]

Windu: I preferred the StarCraft briefings to the C&C ones, but the point is that the C&C ones still place you as the invisible commander, which is something I want to avoid.

 

Luke: I know that StarCraft is an old game. Were you referring to me when you said this?

 

The Force can sometimes be a guide. But only Jedi Masters can tap into its flow, and even then, they only get vague flashes of insight, and they're often wrong. Luke saw a glimpse of his friends on Bespin and in danger- and look how that one turned out.

The Force is not a direct source of information, and a direct source is what we want for briefings. You're not just going to be able to sit meditating for a while and then suddenly get an image of an enemy supply convoy, complete with coordinates and data on their protection forces. It's not an appropriate springboard for a mission. It could be used to some extent in a few missions- a Force sensitive character in the game might have an insight that their enemies are gearing up for an attack- but this would only be as plot point, not as the reason for every mission.

The Terran robot woman, the Zerg Overmind and that Protoss guy (I forget his name) are nonetheless direct sources. Should the Force pop up and say "Your base is under attack" and stuff like that? I don't think so.

You've proposed something that could be used, and is a good idea in some ways, but can't stand up to support an entire campaign or even an entire mission (without extensive plot surrounding it, eg a Jedi gets a flash of insight and goes off against orders to destroy a hidden enemy base that he saw in his flash of vision).

 

Am I comparing fictional situations with real life? I can't remember doing so. I did compare your idea with the movies though, which is entirely justified.

[Darth Windu]

Corran - the way i see it, we can go either of three ways-

1. Invisible Commander - ala C&C: Red Alert

2. Pre-established Character - ala C&C: Tiberian Sun

3. 'Flashback' - ala SWGB

 

The problem with 2 & 3 is that it makes the player distant from the action, as you are not liken to it. 1 would be the best, because you are placed directly in the action and are told be superiors what you have to accomplish etc.

 

If there are any other ways i have left out, please tell me. Otherwise i would go with 1.

[JediMasterEd]

Sorry Corran for misunderstanding you. It sounded like computer controlled heroes to me...

 

In my opinion about the briefing, as long as they explain what you're up to, objectives and why is fine with me. I really don't like long and extensive briefings though...that' s just me...

[Admiral Vostok]

I'd prefer an invisible commander a la StarCraft. I think it involves you in the action more, they are actually talking to you rather than a third-person character who you might not even like.

 

Perhaps to this extent there is a way that YOU could be included as a hero in the game. For example, they take your player name and give it to a character. Before embarking on the campaign you choose what you might look like. This would be repeated at the start of every civ's campaign, so you aren't the same character the whole way through. This way makes you more part of the action, and avoids having to make up another EU character.

 

Having the Force talk to you, while ideal, is totally wrong. This has already been established, but there is no way this could be reasonably implemented.

[CorranSec]

The problem is that the invisible commander isn't actually involved in the action, as he/she is, indeed, invisible. The commander might not actually be you at all. Mensk could indeed be talking to my fictional Commander Devlin, who is out of sight, and you might just be a security camera recording the briefing.

But must we actually be ourselves to be 'involved in the action'? I say no. Vostok's proposal doesn't place us as us anyway, it's still just an avatar. And that's plenty fine with me.

When the Royal Theatre Company puts on Romeo & Juliet at The Globe Theatre in England, do the actors get annoyed because it's not actually them who's part of the action, but actually Romeo & Juliet? Of course not! The point is that it's an enjoyable play, and enjoyable to be the actor.

Thus, in GB2, it's an enjoyable story, and it's enjoyable to fight your enemies in the actual missions. Legions of action games place you in the role of an actual established person, which you often see doing stuff you don't control in the cutscenes- Tommy Vercetti in Vice City, John Dalton in Unreal 2, Cate Archer in No One Lives Forever. Other RTS games have done this too. In AoM you 'are' Arkantos, in WarCraft you 'are' Arthas and co, and so on. Those two RTS games were between them liked by nearly all the strategy gaming community, and the storylines were far better than those of C&C and StarCraft, with their invisible commanders. GB2 can do this too.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Hello everyone.

 

Now I've been away for a few days...

 

Corran-

 

1.StarCraft Thingy: Yes I was. StarCraft is old that's why you only see avatars talking.

2.Comparing life and fiction: I was referring to what you said about ''god'' told me to do and what ''allah'' told me to do and how you compared the ''the force told me to do'' with both of those. That's what we shouldn't do.

 

3.Actually, StarCraft is the best selling RTS of all times (yes it is true). Now for Vice City, No one lives forever and Unreal 2...well Vice City is third person shooter, Unreal and No one lives forever are 1st persons. Nevertheless, they are shooters with a story(better then dumb old shooter games without a story) so you can't compare that to any RTS.

 

No seriously in AoM did you ''felt'that you ''were'' Arkantos? I didn't.

So I say invisible commander is the best since it puts you behind the eyes of the errrr...commander. Were you behind the eyes of Arkantos in AoM? And Arthas in WC? I don't think so.

[Admiral Vostok]

Actually I believe StarCraft has the best story by far for any computer game. It is, as Luke's Dad said, the best-selling RTS of all time, so there is no denying it is a great game.

 

As Luke's Dad also pointed out, half of the games you mentioned aren't RTS. For those you did mention that were RTS, you were kind of right about Arkantos - except for those missions were you 'play as' that Egyptian chick... forget her name... and as for WarCraft 3 you do not play as Arthas/Thrall/etc, that's why when you click on them they say "What do you want?"

 

Actually having thought about it, I don't really care what form the campaigns/briefings/missions take, as long as they don't pull any silly EU stunts (making unimportant characters and events more important than they deserve).

[Sithmaster_821]

Its Amanra, by the way.

 

I prefer in-game cinematics as opposed to graphical briefings, as they make the campaign more intresting and more memerable. But if they are going to do them, they should do them right, with unit animations a la AoM, and no dumb blinking units like in Warcraft.

[Admiral Vostok]

Yeah, what Sith said.

[CorranSec]

1. StarCraft Thingy: I'm not sure what Luke meant by this, but my point is that even if the technology couldn't handle full-fledged cinematics (although it could, and there were some in the game), the commander could be an actual person, and an avatar taking part in the briefing.

2. I wasn't comparing games to real life, I was looking at possible ethical, political and religious problems, such as that members of religious groups such as Muslims would take offense at the idea. It's happened.

3. ... okay, hurrah, StarCraft is the best-selling RTS of all time. What precisely was this said in response to?

I said in my post that NOLF, Unreal and GTA:VC were shooters, so you didn't really need to say that. I was just pointing out that games which have a central, fully-fleshed character that you 'play' often have great storylines. Compare GTA:VC to the original GTA3, which was more like StarCraft, in that the hero was always silent and had no real story surrounding him at all.

I didn't actually feel that I was Arkantos in AoM, but I didn't feel that I was anyone in StarCraft, and so Arkantos was a huge improvement. It's a bit like the Romeo and Juliet metaphor. The actors aren't actually being themselves- it's not the story of Leo DiCaprio and Claire Danes, or whoever it was that played Juliet- but are instead playing Romeo and Juliet. So in a way, you 'play the part' of Arkantos, Amanra, Ajax and all the rest, just as Leo played Romeo, and controlled what he did.

This may not make sense to some, and others will feel that they didn't play any parts. But to go back to the play metaphor... *allows space for groans*... if you're the director of the play/movie, you don't need to be Leo or Romeo. You see them do their stuff, you take shots of them with a camera, and tell them what to do, how to act, what to say. And this is enjoyable.

The concept of actually 'being' a person and controlling everything that they do is impossible in any game, because of the obvious problems inherent in controlling a character during a cutscene. But in an RTS it's even more difficult, as you can never actually be behind anyone's eyes, apart from if the camera took that view during a cutscene. You could be my Commander Devlin, but would he be sitting at a computer screen, clicking on units and right-clicking to move them? I don't think so.

There is an obvious suspension of disbelief involved in games, especially RTSs. It's clear that no general would actually command forces from a top-down view with the push of a button, and there's all sorts of other issues like the fact that the process construction of bases, battles and the destruction of the opposition's base is so short. But we ignore these in the interests of having fun.

 

Vostok: Okay, so you wrote a post, and then said that you don't care. Fine with me. But you just had to put in a parting shot about EU, didn't you? *sigh*

 

Sith: WC3's actual 'cinematics,' which came once or twice per campaign, were far superior to anything AoM had, so I wouldn't go foaming at the mouth just yet. I actually found the in-game cutscenes of the two games to be quite similar. Both had different camera shots of the in-game units in in-game locations, except that WC3 had the avatars appear at the bottom of the screen when a character spoke. That wasn't too good, as the movements of the avatar faces didn't match up properly, but I have no idea what these 'dumb blinking units' are.

[lukeiamyourdad]

1. Nothing else to say.

 

2. That's stupid. screw them or ban everything in the world.

 

3. Actually, I felt I was the executor/commander/cerebrate in StarCraft. I guess this is just a question of liking certain types over another. This will never end. Let's end this discussion before it turns into another ''windu type'' discussion.

[Sithmaster_821]

The units flashed whenever they began to talk, and then the avatar began to ramble, but it look like it was dubbed from japanese or on the weather channel, cause the avatars didnt fit with the words. AoM was a lot better in terms of in game cinematics. A lot more happened in AoM's cinematics. In Warcraft, they just explained the storyline and pushed the game along, but in AoM they were entertaining and exciting. My favorite one was the end of I think #20, when Osiris is summoned and the meteors fall and Osiris kills all of the bad guys.

[Admiral Vostok]

Corran, I hate to break this to you but the play metaphor doesn't work. The primary mode of entertainment comes from watching the play, not acting in it.

 

Nevertheless you make some good points. I don't think there is really any "right" way to do this for RTSs. However, I think I would prefer the AoM/WC3 approach: you aren't really a commander or playing a part of a character, you control and act as the army as a whole. There may be important characters (Arkantos/Amanra/Arthas/Thrall/etc) but you don't "play the part" of these characters - you are not them and they are not you. You don't really play any part, except that of everyone in the army at the same time.

 

It's sort of hard to explain, but this idea is a good one for an RTS, where you do control/play an entire army, not just a single character. There isn't a metaphor (like a play) that describes this, you're not even really playing the part of a god-like entity looking down on them.

 

Anyway I think I'm rambling.

[CorranSec]

Luke's dad:

1. Aye.

 

2. I don't want ban everything, but this is a specific thing which may indeed cause much discontent. This was just another reason why the 'talking Force' idea was bad.

 

3. So you felt like you were a person in StarCraft? Well, that's personal preference, and you could also just be saying that to bolster your argument. But the point is that there was no evidence, and for all that I know, you could just be a security camera.

And the other point is that the WC3/AoM way was far better, because we knew who the main character was, and it was a real person.

 

Sith:

Yes, the dubbing etc was not that good, but the in-game cutscenes were nonetheless good. Did the AoM ones not push the storyline along? That's what cutscenes are meant to do. And the most definitely happened in WC3's actual cinematics- eg the end of the Orc campaign, where Thrall and Grom killed someone, or the end of the Human campaign, where Arthas (accompanied by choral music) strode into the council chamber and murdered his father. WC3 had an astounding story (primarily with the whole Arthas thing, although it was basically a ripoff of SC's), and it is foolish to disregard it.

They both had good points and bad points. I loved WC3's cinematics, and they were far superior in terms of graphics etc. We each have our own opinions about storyline etc, such as Sith's point as a staunch opposer of anything Blizzard.

 

Vostok:

Okay, kill the damned play metaphor... and then go on to support my case? You are puzzling. Nonetheless, thanks for the backup.

 

You think you're rambling? All of my recent posts struggle to fall under a page in Word. Scary.

[lukeiamyourdad]

2. Actually many movies could be banned, many games could be ban. Did you heard what they banned in the US? In elementery school, they banned many books for the stupidest reasons. Like they banned some book talking about dolphins because not all kids lives near the ocean so it's discriminating them. Another about mountains suffered the same fate and countless others. This falls in the same category.

 

3.Actually in SC, when someone was giving an order to the cerebrate/executor/commander, he's really talking to you. Or else it's stupid...but it's personnal preferences so let's end it here.

[Sithmaster_821]

Yeah, Blizzards actual cinematics arent half bad. Too bad I rarely can suffer through an entire campaign to see one:) If only Blizzard made games as well as they made movies...

 

I think that the whole "control the army not the person" fits the RTS better. Thats what RTS's are about, controlling armies. It is just natural to do it that way.

 

2. Actually many movies could be banned, many games could be ban. Did you heard what they banned in the US? In elementery school, they banned many books for the stupidest reasons. Like they banned some book talking about dolphins because not all kids lives near the ocean so it's discriminating them. Another about mountains suffered the same fate and countless others. This falls in the same category.

Yeah, the goddam Republicans in the House now want to disallow kids from buying games where one character attacks another. Im serious. So that not only means EVERY RTS is out the window, even games like Sonic or Mario or Link must be bought by a person 18 years or older. That means some 7 year old can go watch a Disney movie by himself, but he needs his mommy to hold his hand when buying the accompanying game, which contains the same level of violence.

[JediMasterEd]

*goes wide eyed*You've got to be kidding...do you have the link to this potential ban of games to children under 18? I want to see the site if there is one cause this will never happen, hopefully. Many will argue about it...big time. I would, and you'd probably see me infront of the White House with a picket sign. Why do that anyway? Violence? That's what the game ratings are for. Why else?

[Sithmaster_821]

It was in the NY Times Magazine a couple a weeks ago. It wasnt a ban, just that you have to be 18 years or older to buy certain games where you (im quoting from memory I apologize) "kill or are engaged in combat with another human or human-like character". There was other stuff like prostitution and selling drugs, but thats what caught my eye. Cause when you think about it, almost every game has combat with another human or human-like character. Remember, its only the proposed bill. It still has to pass both houses and, even if it made it that far, it would be watered down.

 

I think they should do it by ESRB ratings too, and, you never know, another Congress person could submit a bill that uses ESRB instead of the stupidity of the current one.

[Admiral Vostok]

This is getting a bit off topic but here's my two cents:

 

When will people learn that banning stuff isn't going to change the world. Violent video games don't make psychos, psychos exist already. Australia has access to all the same stuff Americans do (infact, half of your R rated movies become MA here, which means you have to be 15 not 18 to see them, so we technically get more) and we have a tiny fraction of the violence the US does. Stop killing yourselves, Americans!

 

Now back on topic:

 

Corran: just because I agree with you doesn't mean I'm going to put up with another of you weak metaphors

 

I totally agree with Luke's Dad on the whole "I am a character in StarCraft" issue. They aren't talking to surviellance cameras!