[Megawolf492]

...the S to only be produced immediately following nebula missions and for entire lines of fighters only to come online during the period of the second incursion.

The Prometheus S started production after the first nebula missions because it needed the materiel from the nebula. Once they had the materiel, it was a simple matter of firing up the production line. And don't forget that we join the storyline 18 months into a war. That is plenty of time to create/finish fighters/bombers.

[Droid803]

If you pay attention to the FS2 briefing texts they actually say things along the lines of "You are now authorized to use _____". Very few of the technologies you gain access to are truly new - only the Erinyes (and Ares?) fit that category AFAIK. Everything else has been in standard circulation, just that different squadrons are authorized to use different craft.

The Prometheus S is supposed yo be the original FS1 Prometheus (despite changes in how it performs, that is what is stated), so it's not exactly a new development. The design and production facilities presumably existed ever since FS1 - they simply lacked the materiel to produce them, thus the Prom R was introduced. Once the require mats became available again and Prom S production resumed, there was no further reason to use the Prom R.

The out-of-game explanation for the Prom R is that it's a weaker "enemy" weapon, much like how VLLs and Shivan primaries are weaker than the player's weapons The Prom R was greated to make it so that the NTF don't feel better-armed than the Shivans. There is no reason for a player to be using it, aside from the marginally higher single-hit hull damage...which is pointless.

[qwadtep]

It's questionable whether the Erinyes is truly new--it always struck me as a black project that had probably been in use by SOC for quite some time before its "introduction."

[Akalabeth Angel]

Well I think the Hades has the same weapons that the Lucifer was armed with, in terms of beam cannons anyway.

For Freespace 2, the BFRed and BRed are both far superior. However the SRed (the most common) is outmatched by a number of GTVA weaponry. The Shivan AAA beam is inferior as well.

That's not quite right. The Sred is only outcasted out by the SVas the other beams are equivalent or superior to it's Vasudan or Terran equivalent.

Uh, pretty sure the BVas, VSlash, TerSlash, SVas all outclass the SRed. It's not about equivalents its about sheer firepower.
The BRed outclass the TerSlash and VSLash sure, but does the SRed? Can a Moloch take down a sobek or a deimos?

The BRed is certainly a killer weapon. But it's rare. Only on destroyers or the Lilith. In Freespace 2 we encounter a grand total of one Lilith Cruiser.

The SAAAf has less damage per pulse than friendly AAAf.

In terms of technology I don't really subscribe to the whole Shivan cruisers/destroyers being weak and ****ty in The Great War thing.  I just assume they were weak and ****ty because of game balance.  Since we now have the ability to prioritize and build entire warships around specialized and non-specialized weaponry complete with AI which makes use of this differentiation, it makes sense that Shivan capital ships were pretty capable even in the Great War.

What's more important that game statistics?
I don't think story and fluff trump raw game data.

[Droid803]

So many wrong weapon names.
It's LRed and SAAA.

There are no friendly shivans for SAAAf to ever be necessary (AAAf is used on friendly Terran/Vasudan ships, AAAh is used on hostile Terran/Vasudan ships due to their difficulty-based miss factor. Friendly anti-fighter beams are less accurate on high difficulty, while hostile beams are more accurate, which is the reason for the split. Nobody ever notices though, and to my knowledge next to no custom campaigns make use of this though. Heh.)

And I think he's rating the beam equivalents of the SRed, which would be the SGreen and SVas. Can't really compare slash beams since the Shivans don't have an equivalent. According to old wiki comments, some people do rate the SRed above the TerSlash due to its higher reliability instead of the higher-damage-but-erratic nature of slash beams.

[X3N0-Life-Form]

Yeah, the big problem is that Shivans don't have a true corvette-grade beam, which , in my opinion, is one of the main reasons the Moloch is hilariously outclassed by Alliance corvettes. I'd be careful about classifying the SVas as a cruiser weapon though, as it canonically is only mounted on Vasudan destroyers.

Also: some people have argued in the past that the SAAA is a bit more dangerous than the AAAf/h due to its higher refire rate.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Yeah, the big problem is that Shivans don't have a true corvette-grade beam, which , in my opinion, is one of the main reasons the Moloch is hilariously outclassed by Alliance corvettes. I'd be careful about classifying the SVas as a cruiser weapon though, as it canonically is only mounted on Vasudan destroyers.

Canonically the tech description for the Mentu states it has anti-ship beam cannons installed.
Though considering I just said the game stats should trump fluff, then take that for what you will. I've changed some of the turrets on the mentu in my own campaigns to SVas but in Freespace 2 I don't believe it ever appears with the weapon.

[Luis Dias]

You said, and I quote, that your idea of the Shivans is:
"the horror of living in the same space as a species that is several orders of magnitude more powerful than you are and you can't understand them, talk to them, deal with them, whatever." (emphasis mine)

That is your "core" idea. So I'm sorry, but you did say we couldn't talk to them. And couldn't deal with them.
But Bosch did TALK to them. He did DEAL with them. He may have even UNDERSTOOD them in time.

This is beyond silly. I also said that the thematic incorporated one-off surprises, like having the Shivans suddenly supernovae a sun in a completely outside scope of what we were fed to that point; have another Sathanas when we had hoped it was the last big juggernought coming our way (I still remember thinking we would be headed to "Shivantown" from that point on); having, yes, Bosch "talk" to these untalkable species, etc. But the "communication" point is also denied at the end, when we see the butchering of everyone inside the Iceni, just like in every alien horror movie. So much for the "alliance" with the shivans. All these narratives are written like a big "NOPE" to the player. NOPE, this wasn't the last Big Monster it was just one of 80+; NOPE, you can't deal with the shivans they will butcher you after all; NOPE, the whole war wasn't about what you thought it was about.

And in fact, you did not originally say "it doesn't mean we understand the Shivans." you said that the shivans cannot be understood.
There's a very definitive difference between failing to understand something, and being incapable of understanding.

I stand by that. The point is the vertigo. Of course, without the tension that perhaps we can finally understand them, there would be less dramatic interest. At the end though, you get the slap.

The absence of understanding Shivan motivation, history or true nature in either game does not preclude the possibility of understanding them in future. Nor does it preclude Bosch from successfully integrating himself into the Shivan force and gaining understanding, mutual respect, personal power, influence, etcetera. An author's musings on a story they've not been tasked to write does not canon make.

Thus the fact that Shivans are not understood is not their nature, it is simply the circumstance. But circumstances change.

Canon is what canon was. FS2 is canon so to speak, and to that I hold it dear. It does not mean someone can't continue the story and make them understandable, but that is beyond the scope of FS2. I was talking about that particular story and nothing else.

Lovecraft monsters from my outsider understanding cannot be understood because to do so invites insanity. If that assessment is true, then there's a very obvious difference between your HP Lovecraft ideal and the Shivans because the former has a literary mechanism to prevent talking, dealing with and understanding the enemy whereas the latter, Freespace 1+2, do not.

There's always a tension lurking. The idea is the battle between your own curiosity and the final cut of the Real that says a big NO to your questions. It's a metaphor for the human condition, really. We battle death on and on and on, science, medicine, all the amazing things we have achieved. And yet, the Last Big Question is monstruously unbeatable, despite all our hubris and achievements. FS2 is a metaphor for all this. GTVA thinks they have achived Godhood, immortality, or at least it's fighting it in equal terms, and with good faith, spirit, world war 2 hero figther style, we will win this ****. Yes, they get to know a lot of new things, new techs, from this nemesis.

What matters is the punch at the final arc. The whole big "You had no idea what you were dealing with, The Stars Are Not For Man" thing. This sort of punch can only be delivered as a big disappointment, and disappointments can only occur with a big build up of hope and accomplishments.

What the GTVA has shown is not an inability to understand and adapt, but rather an inability or unwillingness to consider the possible scope of the shivan threat, particularly given the age of the species as demonstrated through the ancient texts.

I think, and this is another subject entirely, this is a bit overstated. The fact they let Bosch do his own thing proves GTVA command wasn't entirely confident on their approach and decided to let this man serve as a spy to the shivanverse to see what would come off of it.

[Akalabeth Angel]

This is beyond silly. I also said that the thematic incorporated one-off surprises, like having the Shivans suddenly supernovae a sun in a completely outside scope of what we were fed to that point; have another Sathanas when we had hoped it was the last big juggernought coming our way (I still remember thinking we would be headed to "Shivantown" from that point on); having, yes, Bosch "talk" to these untalkable species, etc. But the "communication" point is also denied at the end, when we see the butchering of everyone inside the Iceni, just like in every alien horror movie. So much for the "alliance" with the shivans. All these narratives are written like a big "NOPE" to the player. NOPE, this wasn't the last Big Monster it was just one of 80+; NOPE, you can't deal with the shivans they will butcher you after all; NOPE, the whole war wasn't about what you thought it was about.

"Everyone" inside the Iceni? Everyone except Bosch and his officers which the Shivans took. Everyone except the comms officer that they left alive on the ship.
Bosch is the sort of man who doesn't give two ****s about the NTF as long as his long term goal is assured. But if he could achieve his goals of establishing a dialogue he'd chalk it up to a necessary sacrifice.
They took the important people and killed the rest. All this proves is that the Shivans are ruthless and they don't waste time on people who wont contribute.  It doesn't "deny" communication in any respect whatsoever.

If communication was denied, Bosch would have been killed. Everyone would have been killed. But NOT everyone was killed. Hence communication would continue.

And what did you expect? Did you expect the Shivans to come with a document for Bosch to sign? So much for the alliance? It's day ****ing one. Things don't happen overnight but the fact Bosch is taken alive suggests things will continue. If that continuation is bosch being tortured for information, or actual dialogue with some central authority is left in doubt. What is known is that the Shivans care enough about Bosch and his core people to spirit him away to their territory.

For all we know Bosch will pull a Kerrigan and become a shivan king which, understanding, communication and achieving not only an alliance but full local power. Or maybe his influence will spread a ripple of dissention among the shivans the same way that an outside culture disrupted the Zentraedi military in Macross/Robotech.

And in fact, you did not originally say "it doesn't mean we understand the Shivans." you said that the shivans cannot be understood.
There's a very definitive difference between failing to understand something, and being incapable of understanding.

I stand by that. The point is the vertigo. Of course, without the tension that perhaps we can finally understand them, there would be less dramatic interest. At the end though, you get the slap.

I disagree entirely.
The end of Freespace 2 proves one very important thing:

There's more to Shivans than killing. as evidenced by,

1. The fact that they took Bosch and his lieutenants alive
2. The actions of the Sathanas Fleet

The only slap in the face was with regards to the GTVA having things under control militarily.

Canon is what canon was. FS2 is canon so to speak, and to that I hold it dear. It does not mean someone can't continue the story and make them understandable, but that is beyond the scope of FS2. I was talking about that particular story and nothing else.

"nothing else" is a bit inaccurate since you've quoted an author's thoughts on both FS2 and the fate of bosch to support your theories.

More importantly, you take circumstance that the Shivans are not understood to be proof of its finality. And by doing so, you expand the scope past FS2 just like everyone else.
The shivans motives are not understood in either game, therefore they cannot be understood is NOT a provable theory, and its not a theory which can exist without making assumptions about FS3 and the future of the game. On top of that you choose to deride people who present alternative theories: "You're not going to win any Nobel prize here figuring out with precise a priori thought what *exactly* the shivan nature is.".

Your whole argument regarding the shivans is focused well beyond the scope of FS2 because it takes FS2's outcome of uncertainty as the final word on what will happen.  Rather than examining evidence to date to form a theory or where the story might go and how the shivans might develop, you take the lack of conclusive evidence to their nature to be proof of their indefinable nature and dismiss contradictory actions as random noise to add to that nature. The lack of evidence, isn't evidence.

For example, the lack of an alliance between Bosch with the Shivans at a laughably early stage of contact isn't proof there'll never be one. WE DON'T KNOW.

Also don't confuse narrative structure with character traits. The story defines the character's experience, it doesn't define who the Shivans are.

[Rheyah]

What's more important that game statistics?
I don't think story and fluff trump raw game data.

...almost everything?

You know I can make an Orion virtually invulnerable by changing a handful of armour statistics.  Game balance numbers are just that - balance numbers.  They really aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.  In fact, the design of the best mainstream campaign on this board (War in Heaven) predicates on just that concept.

[Luis Dias]

"Everyone" inside the Iceni? Everyone except Bosch and his officers which the Shivans took. Everyone except the comms officer that they left alive on the ship.
Bosch is the sort of man who doesn't give two ****s about the NTF as long as his long term goal is assured. But if he could achieve his goals of establishing a dialogue he'd chalk it up to a necessary sacrifice.
They took the important people and killed the rest. All this proves is that the Shivans are ruthless and they don't waste time on people who wont contribute.  It doesn't "deny" communication in any respect whatsoever.

If communication was denied, Bosch would have been killed. Everyone would have been killed. But NOT everyone was killed. Hence communication would continue.

Sure, and this is cool, it even gives everything an aura of mystery and doubt, increases the mythos, adds questions and ups the ante. Many times I even indulged myself into writing some weird fan fiction on what has had happened to Bosch. Again, I addressed this as an exception and how exceptions increased the thematic itself already twice times. How many more times do I need to restate it until you acknowledge it? I'm not even asking you to agree with me.

And what did you expect? Did you expect the Shivans to come with a document for Bosch to sign? So much for the alliance? It's day ****ing one. Things don't happen overnight but the fact Bosch is taken alive suggests things will continue. If that continuation is bosch being tortured for information, or actual dialogue with some central authority is left in doubt. What is known is that the Shivans care enough about Bosch and his core people to spirit him away to their territory.

It's proper alien horror territory, with all the walls in the Iceni painted blood red, etc. Peace talks start with a massacre and kidnapping of human officials. It falls fantastically well into the usual clichés, and I agree, the fact Bosch goes with the Shivans is a well-placed open question and it gives it a Sebastian* aura.

I disagree entirely.
The end of Freespace 2 proves one very important thing:

There's more to Shivans than killing. as evidenced by,

1. The fact that they took Bosch and his lieutenants alive
2. The actions of the Sathanas Fleet

The only slap in the face was with regards to the GTVA having things under control militarily.

"There is more to Shivans than killing" is not a refutation on their unintelligibility factor. If they were only "about killing" they would be far more intelligible. Now we even don't understand what they were trying to do, nor are we given a satisfactory answer. All that remains are mysteries. Which is cool.

"nothing else" is a bit inaccurate since you've quoted an author's thoughts on both FS2 and the fate of bosch to support your theories.

As seen in FS2, as understood by it. Lots of things you can write from that moment on. I know.

More importantly, you take circumstance that the Shivans are not understood to be proof of its finality. And by doing so, you expand the scope past FS2 just like everyone else.
The shivans motives are not understood in either game, therefore they cannot be understood is a provable theory, and its not a theory which can exist without making assumptions about FS3 and the future of the game. On top of that you choose to deride people who present alternative theories: "You're not going to win any Nobel prize here figuring out with precise a priori thought what *exactly* the shivan nature is.".

You missed the point. I am strictly characterizing the games so far. For instance, Blue Planet goes out on its way to "explain" what shivans are way more than both FreeSpace games had done so far. FreeSpace 3 does not exist, nor will it ever exist, so to even bring that up is a strawman.

You're whole argument regarding the shivans is focused well beyond the scope of FS2 because it takes FS2's outcome of uncertainty as the final word on what will happen.

I think you are now trying to tell me what I say and think. And this is outright unacceptable. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, I find that challenging and interesting in fact, but going out of your way to tell me that what I *really* think is not what I say or actually think falls outside of the scope of a civilized discussion. Having said this, I will clarify for the nth time that my evaluation comes from both games so far. If someone writes something that goes far beyond what has been done so far, great! Have at it! If it deviates too much from it, I will probably dislike it, and that's how far I can go with it. If it fails to even deliver any new perspective on it, it's probably fine but boring.

Is this clear now? Do you understand what I am saying?

Rather than examining evidence to date to form a theory or where the story might go and how the shivans might develop, you take the lack of conclusive evidence to their nature to be proof of their indefinable nature. The lack of evidence, isn't evidence.

It's my prerrogative to understand them in this vein. For me, the shivans play the part of an unforgiven, cruel, dark, unintelligible and inevitable force that work like a stop sign to any human aspirations on the galaxy. This is my take on FS2. All these narratives can be "proven wrong" in any sequels, fan fictions, etc., etc., exactly like this narrative was a denial of the lesson taken in FreeSpace 1. But that doesn't mean the narrative of FS1 wasn't clear. Nor the FS2's.

If you want to develop crazy** theories on how the shivans are this sort of empirically and scientifically predictable species if only we model them in the exact correct manner, and to do so you find you have to be really rigorous in your terminologies and so on, well that's great. That kind of "Hard Sci Fi" methodology of developing concepts is old-fashionedly great, and good things can come out of it. If you are thinking in building your own vision for your own world building, I can perfectly understand and applaud.

If however, you only want to force me into accepting your ortodoxy, well then, by all means continue trying. I'm not interested in it.

Also don't confuse narrative structure with character traits. The story defines the character's experience, it doesn't define who the Shivans are.

The Shivans are more mythological than "real", and what matters to me isn't what the shivans "truly are", but what is our human reality against them.




*a portuguese (true) mythos about a young king who got lost in battle and never came back, leaving the throne to spain for lack of heirs, always awaited by portuguese as if he were to come in a "myst" as a saviour from spanish rule.

** crazy in the good sense!

[Akalabeth Angel]

What's more important that game statistics?
I don't think story and fluff trump raw game data.

...almost everything?

You know I can make an Orion virtually invulnerable by changing a handful of armour statistics.  Game balance numbers are just that - balance numbers.  They really aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.  In fact, the design of the best mainstream campaign on this board (War in Heaven) predicates on just that concept.

War in Heaven is a load of melodramatic tripe in my opinion.
Numbers are everything because they define what a thing is within the context of a game.

[Rheyah]

What's more important that game statistics?
I don't think story and fluff trump raw game data.

...almost everything?

You know I can make an Orion virtually invulnerable by changing a handful of armour statistics.  Game balance numbers are just that - balance numbers.  They really aren't that important in the grand scheme of things.  In fact, the design of the best mainstream campaign on this board (War in Heaven) predicates on just that concept.

War in Heaven is a load of melodramatic tripe in my opinion.
Numbers are everything because they define what a thing is within the context of a game.

It is also one of the best designed campaigns, FRED wise, that I have ever seen.

It's also the approach I am taking.  I don't care about numbers.  200 damage is both 15 kt from canon and about 500 Mt.  All that matters is how they are used in game and what they are used for.

Numbers are nothing as far as I'm concerned.  Without context they mean nothing.

[Droid803]

Not a good a approach to analyzing canon FS/FS2.
There's often nothing to be discussed if not looking at table stats.

By the "how they are used in game and what they are used for measure" - what can you say about the capabilities of the SC Lilith, for instance, which appears once in all of FS2 deployed against GTVA corvettes and cruisers which have their beams locked because of a FREDding ****up, with no mention of it in the mission text, and is promptly disposed of with little difficulty by ALPHA ONE spamming maxims and trebuchets?

Absolutely nothing.

You might as well drop the discussion right there, because there'd be nothing to talk about if you're not willing to discuss tabled values and speculation based on that.

Look at the table stats and ctrl-click one down in FRED against an Orion and you realize what it's truly capable of.

[Lorric]

Indeed Droid.

Rheyah's opinion is quite interesting to me because on one hand he seems to put little stock in the numbers, but on the other, it is his balance changes in the campaign which he is making which first drew my interest to it. And he didn't just say "the game will play better if I do this" but he gives reasons as to why the changes have taken place, taking into account the canon of Freespace 2 and explaining what has changed. So I'm not sure where he's coming from.

Someone else can do similar with the Shivans in a campaign if they want, but to discuss the canon of Freespace and Freespace 2, the stats of the ships and weapons are a powerful tool.

[Akalabeth Angel]

You're whole argument regarding the shivans is focused well beyond the scope of FS2 because it takes FS2's outcome of uncertainty as the final word on what will happen.

I think you are now trying to tell me what I say and think. And this is outright unacceptable. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, I find that challenging and interesting in fact, but going out of your way to tell me that what I *really* think is not what I say or actually think falls outside of the scope of a civilized discussion. Having said this, I will clarify for the nth time that my evaluation comes from both games so far. If someone writes something that goes far beyond what has been done so far, great! Have at it! If it deviates too much from it, I will probably dislike it, and that's how far I can go with it. If it fails to even deliver any new perspective on it, it's probably fine but boring.

That's a load of bull****. I don't think you know what you're saying, probably because what you're saying changes with every post.
Saying conclusively that Bosch failed for example, is not evaluating the game "so far". At all. Referencing an author to support your argument is not "so far" either.

Because the answer to most questions regarding Freespace 2 is "We don't know". Saying the shivans cannot be communicated with, and bringing in an INCONCLUSIVE event to support that theory is going beyond the scope of FS2.

War in Heaven is a load of melodramatic tripe in my opinion.
Numbers are everything because they define what a thing is within the context of a game.

It is also one of the best designed campaigns, FRED wise, that I have ever seen.

It's also the approach I am taking.  I don't care about numbers.  200 damage is both 15 kt from canon and about 500 Mt.  All that matters is how they are used in game and what they are used for.

Numbers are nothing as far as I'm concerned.  Without context they mean nothing.

Computer games are BUILT on numbers. To say "numbers are nothing" in reference to a game, computer or otherwise, is a bit silly.

And numbers in Freespace 2 DO have context.
They have the context of being comparable to OTHER NUMBERS. And together, these comparisons of numbers and their interaction create the experience that the player indulges in.

Many would argue that games aren't about telling a story. They're about creating emergent experiences. Creating a scenario or mission wherein the player has the opportunity to have fun, to have their own personal and UNIQUE experience which emerges from the game play.  Creating a complex, scripted missions is ultimately self-defeating because it robs the player of creating their own emergent experiences, they're just playing through YOUR story as game designer. But if the player doesn't have the opportunity to have their own stories within the game, then what is the campaign except a slightly interactive movie in the same vein as the new "corridor shooter" Call of Duty games. Conversely look at something like Minecraft, which is hugely popular probably in large part because the player can do what they want, they can create their OWN stories. And sorry game designer but the stories they make are ultimately more personal and fulfilling than anything you can come up with because they're THEIR stories.

In Freespace 2 and other campaigns, the most rewarding missions were the ones where you had a bit of freedom to approach a problem in a way of your choosing. Picking your fighter, taking your loadout, and tackling the various mission objectives. Even the final mission, with its bitter-sweet ending, the player has a tremendous amount of latitude to succeed or fail in a way they see fit. Something memorable might be as small as a player saving one more transport which was reduced to only a few % of health.

I don't need to look at FS2 for this though, one can look at Blue Planet and a mission like Forced Entry, a mission with a set sequence of events and enemies but one that can be approached in a multitude of ways. The player can pick their fighter, their loadout, issue commands to various wings all in completely different ways than every other player. Their experience is unique.  Compare this instead to War in Heaven and a mission like Delende Este or whatever the final mission of chapter 1 is called, and what effect or agency does the player have? Zero. They're playing through a pre-written story, and frankly the story for that mission sucks. They're not accomplish anything in that mission beyond surviving it to see the epilogue. Don't care how complex the FRED design is when the story jumps the shark so hard that I forget nearly every mission that came before it. That is my lasting impression of War in Heaven, but in the case of Blue Planet and Forced Entry, it's the highlight mission in a series of highlights.


If the ultimate goal of FREDing a mission or for that matter, MAKING A GAME, is to enable the player to have fun then I know which mission succeeded and which failed. And I know which missions from which campaigns I'd emulate and which I would steer well clear of.

[Aesaar]

Many would argue that games aren't about telling a story. They're about creating emergent experiences. Creating a scenario or mission wherein the player has the opportunity to have fun, to have their own personal and UNIQUE experience which emerges from the game play.  Creating a complex, scripted missions is ultimately self-defeating because it robs the player of creating their own emergent experiences, they're just playing through YOUR story as game designer. But if the player doesn't have the opportunity to have their own stories within the game, then what is the campaign except a slightly interactive movie in the same vein as the new "corridor shooter" Call of Duty games. Conversely look at something like Minecraft, which is hugely popular probably in large part because the player can do what they want, they can create their OWN stories. And sorry game designer but the stories they make are ultimately more personal and fulfilling than anything you can come up with because they're THEIR stories.

In Freespace 2 and other campaigns, the most rewarding missions were the ones where you had a bit of freedom to approach a problem in a way of your choosing. Picking your fighter, taking your loadout, and tackling the various mission objectives. Even the final mission, with its bitter-sweet ending, the player has a tremendous amount of latitude to succeed or fail in a way they see fit. Something memorable might be as small as a player saving one more transport which was reduced to only a few % of health.

I don't need to look at FS2 for this though, one can look at Blue Planet and a mission like Forced Entry, a mission with a set sequence of events and enemies but one that can be approached in a multitude of ways. The player can pick their fighter, their loadout, issue commands to various wings all in completely different ways than every other player. Their experience is unique.  Compare this instead to War in Heaven and a mission like Delende Este or whatever the final mission of chapter 1 is called, and what effect or agency does the player have? Zero. They're playing through a pre-written story, and frankly the story for that mission sucks. They're not accomplish anything in that mission beyond surviving it to see the epilogue. Don't care how complex the FRED design is when the story jumps the shark so hard that I forget nearly every mission that came before it. That is my lasting impression of War in Heaven, but in the case of Blue Planet and Forced Entry, it's the highlight mission in a series of highlights.


If the ultimate goal of FREDing a mission or for that matter, MAKING A GAME, is to enable the player to have fun then I know which mission succeeded and which failed. And I know which missions from which campaigns I'd emulate and which I would steer well clear of.

Video games can most certainly be primarily about telling the player a story.  My favorite games are all overwhelmingly story-oriented.  Sandbox games like Minecraft or Garry's Mod have their place, but they'd never even come close to my personal "best games" list.  I rather enjoy playing through a pre-written story, for the same reason I might enjoy reading a book.  Might not be your cup of tea, and sometimes even I'm in the mood for something sandboxy, but to say that a tightly scripted story is self-defeating because "that's not what games are supposed to be" is complete grade-A bull****.

And the last mission of FS2 is a phenomenally poor example of player agency.  No matter how well you do, almost everyone dies.  In the end, the only thing you control in that mission is whether you personally survive.  Apocalypse is one of the FS2 missions with the least player agency, probably matched only by Their Finest Hour. 

Hell, one of FS2's stronger story elements is how powerless the player really is in the grand scheme of things.  It's not a story about agency, it's a story about lack of it.  No matter what you do, the Sathanas enters Delta Serpentis.  No matter what you do, the Psamtik dies and Bosch gets away.  No matter what you do, the Colossus gets destroyed.  No matter what you do, you never find out what the hell the Shivans were after.  It's the opposite of a player-crafted story.  It's a story that will carry on the same way no matter what you do, and what little you do manage to accomplish doesn't really affect the big picture at all.

In addition, just because you don't get War in Heaven (which you clearly don't, going by both this post and that facepalm-inducing series of posts you made in the WiH discussion thread) doesn't mean it fails as a game or a storytelling experience.  It just means that you, personally, don't like it.  I, on the other hand, find WiH to be far, far more engaging than AoA both in terms of mission design and in terms of story.

So no, I completely reject your notion that the more freedom the player has, the more fulfilling the story.  I haven't had a sandbox game experience that was anywhere near as fulfilling as Planescape Torment or even WiH, both of which have been described as interactive novels.

Honestly, this entire post is just you passing off your own personal preferences as objective fact.

[Akalabeth Angel]

In addition, just because you don't get War in Heaven (which you clearly don't, going by both this post and that facepalm-inducing series of posts you made in the WiH discussion thread) doesn't mean it fails as a game or a storytelling experience.  It just means that you, personally, don't like it.  I, on the other hand, find WiH to be far, far more engaging than AoA both in terms of mission design and in terms of story.

Planescape torment? You mean an open-world RPG where your dialogue CHOICES have definitive consequence? Where every player will choose a different combination of choices to accomplish the game in the way they see fit? Thank you for illustrating exactly what I'm saying. The story you experienced in the game, the conversations you had an the outcomes of those quests were unique to you. You determined your journey. I used Minecraft as an example but games with over-arching stories but player freedom within a mission have emergent gameplay as well, with a player approaching something like Deus Ex or Thief in different ways but playing the same story and ultimately playing it in a way they want to.

And btw an author blaming his audience for not "getting his story" is the height of arrogance (whether you wrote the story or were just a part of the team, the position is the same).  Battutu to his credit at least questioned me in an effort to understand what threw me off instead of your dismissive and condescending reaction. I wasn't confused at the end of the campaign because I didn't get it, I was pissed because my suspension of disbelief went out the window. And it went out the window because the campaign didn't set up the groundwork to make the ending believable. The campaign didn't come to a surprising but logical conclusion, rather it introduced a twist which hadn't been properly introduced.

And what threw me off is that despite the quality of the campaign the ending seemed like it was written by a 13 year old. With the most contrived series of misfortunes to befall the player one after another like a congo line of bad cliches. It's as though the author doesn't know how to write tragedy, and doesn't know how to set up a tragically damaged character so they throw every bad thing they can think of no matter if its consistent with anything that came before it or not and at the centre of this the player is just a spectator, and ultimately accomplishes absolutely nothing.

And I "get" what you're trying to do,  you're trying to take the character to their lowest point. I just don't agree with the execution because it's not believable.  There's nothing in the fiction that would foreshadow most of the events in that ending. Things fail to work, for no reason. Things gravitate towards other bodies, for no reason. The timing of some things is to the point of comedic. etcetera.

And its a shame because as I say the rest of the campaign was good quality, but after playing through it all I remember the opening cutscene, vague recollection of a VIP escort mission, the last mission and nothing else.  Reminds me of Edge of Tommorow, a decent summer sci fi flick which to me dropped from 7.5/10 to about 2/10 in the last few minutes for much the same reason, a contrived ending.

So no, I completely reject your notion that the more freedom the player has, the more fulfilling the story.  I haven't had a sandbox game experience that was anywhere near as fulfilling as Planescape Torment or even WiH, both of which have been described as interactive novels.

Choose your own adventure is in an interactive novel.
WiH is a Freespace 2 campaign with a lot of text.


By the way my notion is not about freedom = a more fulfilling story.
My notion is player freedom equating to a more fulfilling EXPERIENCE.

[Aesaar]

In addition, just because you don't get War in Heaven (which you clearly don't, going by both this post and that facepalm-inducing series of posts you made in the WiH discussion thread) doesn't mean it fails as a game or a storytelling experience.  It just means that you, personally, don't like it.  I, on the other hand, find WiH to be far, far more engaging than AoA both in terms of mission design and in terms of story.

Planescape torment? You mean an open-world RPG where your dialogue CHOICES have definitive consequence? Where every player will choose a different combination of choices to accomplish the game in the way they see fit? Thank you for illustrating exactly what I'm saying. The story you experienced in the game, the conversations you had an the outcomes of those quests were unique to you. You determined your journey. I used Minecraft as an example but games with over-arching stories but player freedom within a mission have emergent gameplay as well, with a player approaching something like Deus Ex or Thief in different ways but playing the same story and ultimately playing it in a way they want to.

And btw an author blaming his audience for not "getting his story" is the height of arrogance (whether you wrote the story or were just a part of the team, the position is the same).  Battutu to his credit at least questioned me in an effort to understand what threw me off instead of your dismissive and condescending reaction. I wasn't confused at the end of the campaign because I didn't get it, I was pissed because my suspension of disbelief went out the window. And it went out the window because the campaign didn't set up the groundwork to make the ending believable. The campaign didn't come to a surprising but logical conclusion, rather it introduced a twist which hadn't been properly introduced.

And what threw me off is that despite the quality of the campaign the ending seemed like it was written by a 13 year old. With the most contrived series of misfortunes to befall the player one after another like a congo line of bad cliches. It's as though the author doesn't know how to write tragedy, and doesn't know how to set up a tragically damaged character so they throw every bad thing they can think of no matter if its consistent with anything that came before it or not and at the centre of this the player is just a spectator, and ultimately accomplishes absolutely nothing.

And I "get" what you're trying to do,  you're trying to take the character to their lowest point. I just don't agree with the execution because it's not believable.  There's nothing in the fiction that would foreshadow most of the events in that ending. Things fail to work, for no reason. Things gravitate towards other bodies, for no reason. The timing of some things is to the point of comedic. etcetera.

And its a shame because as I say the rest of the campaign was good quality, but after playing through it all I remember the opening cutscene, vague recollection of a VIP escort mission, the last mission and nothing else.  Reminds me of Edge of Tommorow, a decent summer sci fi flick which to me dropped from 7.5/10 to about 2/10 in the last few minutes for much the same reason, a contrived ending.

So no, I completely reject your notion that the more freedom the player has, the more fulfilling the story.  I haven't had a sandbox game experience that was anywhere near as fulfilling as Planescape Torment or even WiH, both of which have been described as interactive novels.

Choose your own adventure is in an interactive novel.
WiH is a Freespace 2 campaign with a lot of text.


By the way my notion is not about freedom = a more fulfilling story.
My notion is player freedom equating to a more fulfilling EXPERIENCE.

None of the currently released content for BP was released while I was on the team (having joined in Feb 2013), so don't say "you" or "your".  I'm not responsible for any part of what BP currently is, but nice try. 

So I say again: you don't get WiH.  You were never going to like it because it didn't tell its story the way you wanted it to.  And that's ok, but it doesn't make it bad.  Battuta did an admirable job explaining to you why your complaints about the ending had no real basis, but gave up because, big surprise, there's no point in talking to a brick wall.  You did the same thing then that you've done in this thread: stuck to your position despite overwhelming arguments against it, all the while sounding contrarian and self-righteous.  Here, Luis tore your arguments apart and you either haven't noticed or don't want to.  Ever wonder why most of the discussions you're involved in on HLP just run in circles?

And you're still missing my point.  You don't seem to get that there are plenty of games with fixed storylines that are very good despite allowing the player no real control over the outcome.  Freespace 2 is one.  You brought up CoD as a negative example, but I'd say that Call of Duty 4's SP campaign made it one of the best shooters ever made.

See, for some people, a more fulfilling story can amount to a more fulfilling experience.  Torment wasn't a good game because choices impacted the story, it was a good game because it was brilliantly written.  Gameplay was most certainly not its strength.  There are two kinds of player freedom: freedom within the story, and freedom within gameplay.  Torment had some of the former, but not so much of the latter.  Homeworld had the latter, but none of the former.  Now, given your complaints about tightly-scripted stories, I'm going to guess that Homeworld was bad to you, because it offers you zero control over the story.  Freespace 2 must be bad for the same reason, if you're consistent.  Or are you going to admit that a game can be good in spite of player decisions having minimal effect on the narrative?  I reiterate: The notion that a tightly-scripted story is self-defeating because it isn't what games are supposed to do is complete bull****.

All games offer a varying amount of player freedom.  That's what makes them games.  That they might not offer you the amount or kind of freedom you might prefer doesn't make them bad, it just means they aren't for you.

I actually tend to measure free-roaming non-linear games by a different metric than linear games precisely because I know that while they might be a great deal of fun and I'll play them for a long time, they won't be anywhere near as fulfilling to me.  I like a good story.  The freedom I get within that story is a secondary concern.

[Luis Dias]

You're whole argument regarding the shivans is focused well beyond the scope of FS2 because it takes FS2's outcome of uncertainty as the final word on what will happen.

I think you are now trying to tell me what I say and think. And this is outright unacceptable. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, I find that challenging and interesting in fact, but going out of your way to tell me that what I *really* think is not what I say or actually think falls outside of the scope of a civilized discussion. Having said this, I will clarify for the nth time that my evaluation comes from both games so far. If someone writes something that goes far beyond what has been done so far, great! Have at it! If it deviates too much from it, I will probably dislike it, and that's how far I can go with it. If it fails to even deliver any new perspective on it, it's probably fine but boring.

That's a load of bull****. I don't think you know what you're saying, probably because what you're saying changes with every post.
Saying conclusively that Bosch failed for example, is not evaluating the game "so far". At all. Referencing an author to support your argument is not "so far" either.

Because the answer to most questions regarding Freespace 2 is "We don't know". Saying the shivans cannot be communicated with, and bringing in an INCONCLUSIVE event to support that theory is going beyond the scope of FS2.

This is my last communication with you on this point, and I'm beggining to feel it's my last, period. I'm tired of running around in circles repeating myself only to have you tell me I am a liar, someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, gish galloping or whatever, etc., etc.

My point has been consistent throughout. "Shivans are unintelligible" is the message within FS2. I stand by this. It's not an absolutist, unambiguous message at it, and I delved much deeper into this paradox in my own thesis, wherein I claim that it is patently obvious FreeSpace 2 is using the exact framework of the Exodus chapter of the Bible, putting Bosch in the place of Moses (making quite the commentary on the whole Moses figure himself that wouldn't be unfair at all, but I digress) as the figure who is going to do the undoable and actually communicate with the Real God of the Universe and go to "the promised land" to forge an "alliance" (after the God of the Universe making it patently clear to the egyptian pharaoh (Khonsu II) who's the "real god" after a competition of sorcery and magic - technology). Why has this template used? To convey the precise message that as humans we relate to the shivans as the hebrews related to the god of the bible, with terror, awe, adulation, panic.

Nevertheless, Bosch fails to bring this "Alliance" to the GTVA. The seas close down and a rift is created between us and "the gods of the galaxy" and Bosch. We don't get to know the Shivans. They remain unintelligible and uncommunicatable. This truth is not absolute, it is not stagnant. Bosch could come back as a mythical figure (it will undoubtedly be held as such by many mystics inside human space at least) and bring about the "good news" so to speak. A lot more could be written about this, but again, I am really clear on what I think about this subject, and if you are going to simplify what I have said to a single-noted simpletonic thing and declare that I am full of bull**** I'll just have to make my mind about the kind of person you are projecting in this forum and ignore you henceforth. I do not suffer certain things gladly.

They're playing through a pre-written story, and frankly the story for that mission sucks. They're not accomplish anything in that mission beyond surviving it to see the epilogue. Don't care how complex the FRED design is when the story jumps the shark so hard that I forget nearly every mission that came before it. That is my lasting impression of War in Heaven, but in the case of Blue Planet and Forced Entry, it's the highlight mission in a series of highlights.

If the ultimate goal of FREDing a mission or for that matter, MAKING A GAME, is to enable the player to have fun then I know which mission succeeded and which failed. And I know which missions from which campaigns I'd emulate and which I would steer well clear of.

FUN is a very loose concept though, and if its meaning is mere indulgence, I think you are correct and that's all fine. I do have my indulgences every day and I enjoy them. FORCED ENTRY is a very indulgent-ridden story chapter about how you're a goddamned hero and able to secure every ship into the node despite all the franctic action and ability you have to pull off to get **** done. It's an amazing piece of work, I'm so with you on that. And I get that you didn't like Delenda Est for the reasons you implied, but to unequivocally state it "sucks"? That's just moronic hyperbole. If your only criteria for "good" is "orgasmic indulgence always in-the-zone ****" then I think your criteria is poor, and you'll miss quite a lot in all things, especially anything remotely concerning art.



One final note. Your behavior has been like this ever since I recall any discussion with you with about anything really, and I gotta tell you, from what I've seen so far, people kinda don't like the way you come across with your points. I kinda abhor censorship in all forms but one, which is what I refer to as "self-emergent" censorship, and is simply defined by people simply stopping to give a **** about your ideas and comments, because the only thing that seems to come from them is just righteous rude contrarianism for its own sake and that's just not about being rude, it's much much worse than that: it's ****ing boring. Probably the worse sin in existence.