Archived Boards > The 158th Banshee Squadron

RELEASE: Exposition

<< < (16/18) > >>

Krackers87:

--- Quote from: The E on October 02, 2009, 05:02:12 pm ---
--- Quote from: Krackers87 on October 02, 2009, 04:49:46 pm ---Towards your first point, it follows the line of thinking that no one made you put in the free space disc to play the game, yet you did and chose to involve yourself in it for the fun, if you do decide to get in the fray, the battles themselves can be incredibly hair raising, just don't get lost or chase an enemy away from your group or your screwed (wing man mentality concept here)

--- End quote ---

I think there's a difference there. When playing FS2, you always have a clear sense of what you need to do to make the story go forward. Giving the player the option of saying "Screw it, I'm gonna sit this one out" undercuts any sense of dramatic urgency your story creates. In FS2, the player wants to do everything he can to win a mission, either because there's something awesome to be had in the next one, some new Weapon or ship to play with, or a cutscene, or even just a new chapter of the story.
Choosing my level of involvement is a part of the whole tactical thinking process you go through when playing a mission (Can I really take out that Cruiser? Or should I stick to hunting fighters? Can I call in support?). Point is, Sitting it out is never an option if you want to win the mission or survive it.
Here, on the other hand, I can do just that and still get rewarded for my efforts by seeing the next chapter. That, to me, is just wrong. As I said before, I might as well be watching a piece of machinima.

--- End quote ---

If the goal is to progress and the idea is to only involve yourself as much as necessary, what stops you from cheating your way through the game in FS2 using the codes? Is that not the same premise? One game you cheat by typing the words in, the other you find a safe place to sit away from enemys?

Just trying to understand your point of view is all, as i find it difficult to understand myself, as i seek enjoyment in getting in the fray/watching havoc envelop me/killing EVERYTHING (or trying to):p

General Battuta:
The approach used here was less fun. Without directed activity it was impossible to enter a flow state.

The E:
The existence of the cheat codes has nothing to do with my point. Yes, I can cheat my way through FS2. No, I don't particularly want to, because the story is engaging enough to give me the impetus I need to go out there and do things, and the basic gameplay entertaining and challenging enough that I want to be able to do it right.

FS2 gives you the impression that, while your overall contribution does nothing much to affect the story's outcome, your actions are still important on a local scale (Save that transport, Protect that cruiser, Gather Intel about big bad space flea from nowhere).
In Exposition, I know that even locally, my actions matter little to nothing.
You are missing a basic challenge/reward feedback loop here. If I do nothing in a mission, I don't want to go on to the next, I want to be reprimanded for my failure.

Now, Gameplay: In Exposition, at no point does it really feel like you are flying in atmosphere, much less a storm, or a gravity well. The only indication I have that I am not in some awful black-and-grey nebula somewhere in space is my wingman's word for it. I realize that, at the time these missions were created, the features necessary to implement gameplay changes like this wasn't implemented, but it added to the feeling of total underwhelmingness here. The point here is that it is not different enough from standard FS2 gameplay to keep me entertained long enough. TBP, for example, had Glide as a new feature. TVWP introduced ships with an awful lot of inertia. Some alteration of the basic physics might have gone a long way here.

Mongoose:

--- Quote from: The E on October 03, 2009, 05:28:14 pm ---The existence of the cheat codes has nothing to do with my point. Yes, I can cheat my way through FS2. No, I don't particularly want to, because the story is engaging enough to give me the impetus I need to go out there and do things, and the basic gameplay entertaining and challenging enough that I want to be able to do it right.

FS2 gives you the impression that, while your overall contribution does nothing much to affect the story's outcome, your actions are still important on a local scale (Save that transport, Protect that cruiser, Gather Intel about big bad space flea from nowhere).
In Exposition, I know that even locally, my actions matter little to nothing.
You are missing a basic challenge/reward feedback loop here. If I do nothing in a mission, I don't want to go on to the next, I want to be reprimanded for my failure.

--- End quote ---
I agree with this sentiment.  A person who's using cheat codes knows full well that they're introducing elements into the gameplay that were never intended to be there in the first place.  I generally only wind up using cheat codes either to fool around or for testing purposes.  When I'm actually playing the game to play it, however, I want to have the satisfaction of knowing that my own skills are making the difference within the context of the mission as it's presented.

But that's entirely different from the situation that Exposition presented.  Deciding to hang back and let my wingmen essentially complete the mission themselves wasn't introducing anything foreign into the mix like a cheat code would; it was a legitimate strategy based on what was present in the mission itself...a rather dull strategy, mind you, but a legitimate strategy nonetheless.  The retail FS campaigns, as well as the best fan-made ones, did an excellent job of conveying the feeling that your own skills as a pilot were the sole tipping point in whatever mission you found yourself in; that knowledge is truly what gives me the motivation to test my skills against the mission and attempt to accomplish its goals.  When that feeling is removed, however, I might as well put my joystick down and watch a cutscene play out.

I just finished a play-through of the wonderfully terrible Second Great War Part II, and one of its biggest mistakes reminded me a whole lot of Exposition.  There are so many missions when, due to the sheer number of fighters and bombers present, the player can just sit back and let things play themselves out, because his wingmen will prevail 99 times out of 100.  Exposition felt the same way to me...why should I risk getting myself killed and having to sit through the whole mission all over again when my presence isn't even required?

Polpolion:

--- Quote from: The E on October 03, 2009, 05:28:14 pm ---Some alteration of the basic physics might have gone a long way here.

--- End quote ---

Bear in mind that the VAST majority of the resources we were working with were well over two, or possibly even three years old. Simply getting them to function with modern SCP builds were a nightmare, and implementing even somewhat convincing in-atmosphere flight physics, while highly desirable, was less practical than simply re-writing the entire game to take place outside of the atmosphere.


--- Quote ---why should I risk getting myself killed and having to sit through the whole mission all over again when my presence isn't even required?
--- End quote ---

This is why there are no semi-accurate US Civil War first person shooters, and that is one of the reasons why Exposition seems so dull. It's only stupid in the context of the game, which is saying a lot because this IS a game.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version