Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The FRED Workshop => Topic started by: Aardwolf on July 20, 2006, 08:30:45 pm
-
I have a basic idea for a few events and things I want in a campaign, and I plan to make it. Here are some ideas that I'm starting out with, and some principles I would like to follow, as well as general things that I have noticed:
- Both retail campaigns (but not FS:ST really), and the two user campaigns I've played (Homesick and Derelict) start off with conflict between the Terrans and Vasudans, or the Terrans and pirates. I want to try starting with a Shivan vs. GTVA war, and introduce other elements.
- Many attempts at adding new species are just stupid. I feel it may be necessary, but I want to be careful about doing it. One of two species I am willing to consider (which I've had floating around in my mind for a while, now, but have yet to use) is the Nkaya, a species with an organized society that is beetle-like in appearance (not mantlike (the Shivans)), and highly altruistic (at least within their own society). Come to think of it, my second species doesn't fit at all, so I won't even bother mentioning it. It would be better for an RTS or FPS of some sort.
- Character development is the reason I dislike Revenge: Final Conflict; it makes you have to put yourself in someone else's mind. I'm not great at that, and I'm not sure other people are either. Also, it makes it so different from FreeSpace. I don't want too much character development around the player. In Derelict it was acceptable, but it didn't seem that great to me. Around otehr characters, like admirals, scientists, and world leaders, character development might be a good thing. This is just my personal opinion.
- New technologies are great, but too many will make a user campaign un-FreeSpace-y. I want to avoid deviating from canon as best as I can, while creating an innovative plot. This plot may include technologies that need to be protected or captured (like the shielding systems in FS1)
- A variety of missions is necessary. You can't spend the entire first half of the game defending ships from pirates. Escort missions, attack missions, reconnaissance missions, story missions, and the occasional mission where things aren't what you'd expect from the briefing all need to be mixed in properly to create a good campaign.
- The Shivans are cool, but their motives are too unknown. They can't be left out of a campaign, really, but you can't have five Capella incidents without explaining why they're doing it. The same should apply to rebels, Vasudans, Terrans, and any other species you can come up with.
- The Ancients... if they aren't extinct, there needs to be a good explanation of where they've been all this time, and they probably shouldn't be hostile, seeing as how they were almost completely destroyed for being too expansionistic the last time; on the other hand, they would have had several thousand years to forget what caused their near-extinction. This is also just my opinion. I haven't played any campaigns or even missions containing the Ancients, but I think this may be applicable.
- Any time a new acronym or bit of pilot lingo is used, a parenthetical explanation should probably follow. Example: Mjollnir RBC's, or Remote Beam Cannons. I should probably steer clear of using too many of these, anyway.
- The main FS1 campaign ended with a conflict with the Shivans. So did the FS2 campaign (and so did Derelict). The only canonical exception to ending a campaign with the Shivans is FS:ST. Still, in Silent Threat, the GTD Hades incorporated Shivan technology into its turrets (other aspects as well?). Is it good to do it the same way, or should I try ending it with a conflict between the player's species (probably Terran, but possibly Vasudan, like in the Scroll of Atankharzim, very unlikely to be Shivan) and a species other than the Shivans? In FS1, the second-to-last mission threw in an HoL destroyer (the PVD Prophecy). Maybe a final clash between three power-players?
- The Hammer of Light is dead. They were destroyed in Operation Templar. I don't want to include them in my campaign, unless someone can come up with a darned good explanation of why I should. It doesn't make sense that any post-Capella campaign would include the HoL, unless, possibly, the destruction of Capella sparked some sort of resurgency in the Vasudans. It's possible, I suppose, but I don't want to make it the focus of my campaign.
- The mysteries left open at the end of FS2 demand answers, but am I really the one to give them? Is any player in a position to tell others what really happened? Sure, we can all theorize, and share our theories with fellow players, but telling them "This is the answer, everybody else is wrong" doesn't seem like something anyone but :v: should be able to do. Even they would need to gently disprove the people who theorized other things.
Any other general guidelines I should be aware of? I suppose some of these bulletted points could also serve as a set of rules for other people to follow, but I'm not going to suggest that. It would be too... presumptuous. And I'm not like that. Also, campaign and mission ideas are welcome. Technologies? See my thread in the General FreeSpace section (unless somebody moved it) if you have suggestions.
Wow. I wrote a lot.
-
I have a basic idea for a few events and things I want in a campaign, and I plan to make it. Here are some ideas that I'm starting out with, and some principles I would like to follow, as well as general things that I have noticed:
- The mysteries left open at the end of FS2 demand answers, but am I really the one to give them? Is any player in a position to tell others what really happened? Sure, we can all theorize, and share our theories with fellow players, but telling them "This is the answer, everybody else is wrong" doesn't seem like something anyone but :v: should be able to do. Even they would need to gently disprove the people who theorized other things.
Any other general guidelines I should be aware of? I suppose some of these bulletted points could also serve as a set of rules for other people to follow, but I'm not going to suggest that. It would be too... presumptuous. And I'm not like that. Also, campaign and mission ideas are welcome. Technologies? See my thread in the General FreeSpace section (unless somebody moved it) if you have suggestions.
Wow. I wrote a lot.
Both retail campaigns (but not FS:ST really), and the two user campaigns I've played (Homesick and Derelict) start off with conflict between the Terrans and Vasudans, or the Terrans and pirates. I want to try starting with a Shivan vs. GTVA war, and introduce other elements.
Well, this is a great way to start off any campaign, so long as the action isn't dull and the player can feel involved in one way or another. Warzone started off with a Shivan vs. GTVA conflict and grew into the primary antagonist later on.
Character development is the reason I dislike Revenge: Final Conflict; it makes you have to put yourself in someone else's mind. I'm not great at that, and I'm not sure other people are either. Also, it makes it so different from FreeSpace. I don't want too much character development around the player. In Derelict it was acceptable, but it didn't seem that great to me. Around otehr characters, like admirals, scientists, and world leaders, character development might be a good thing. This is just my personal opinion.
Revenge was a little off at character development, I'll agree. Transcend, on the other hand, is terrific at putting the player in the place of the primary protagonist, but that may simply be because Ransom Arceihn is a god of storytelling. I personally like the third person character development like in Derelict, Sync, or Homesick; it's how I developed my characters in Rogue Intentions.
A variety of missions is necessary. You can't spend the entire first half of the game defending ships from pirates. Escort missions, attack missions, reconnaissance missions, story missions, and the occasional mission where things aren't what you'd expect from the briefing all need to be mixed in properly to create a good campaign.
They can be interesting if you do them differently enough. I'm not sure if I could word that any better, but essentially every mission involving action in Rogue Intentions revolves around defending two corvettes as they make their way through GTVA space, but each mission has something that makes it unique and different from the last. Transcend was essentially the same way, as was Homesick. A variety of missions is good for some types of campaigns, especially for those where the player is based on a destroyer and carrying out various military operations. I guess that may be why :v: switched the player through squadrons so often.
The Shivans are cool, but their motives are too unknown. They can't be left out of a campaign, really, but you can't have five Capella incidents without explaining why they're doing it. The same should apply to rebels, Vasudans, Terrans, and any other species you can come up with.
Shivans can be left out of a campaign if the story or timeline demands it, but most Second Great War-era campaigns involve the Shivans to some extent. Rogue Intentions and Transcend are two campaigns that come to mind immediately that don't involve Shivans. I agree with you on motives demanding explanations, though.
The main FS1 campaign ended with a conflict with the Shivans. So did the FS2 campaign (and so did Derelict). The only canonical exception to ending a campaign with the Shivans is FS:ST. Still, in Silent Threat, the GTD Hades incorporated Shivan technology into its turrets (other aspects as well?). Is it good to do it the same way, or should I try ending it with a conflict between the player's species (probably Terran, but possibly Vasudan, like in the Scroll of Atankharzim, very unlikely to be Shivan) and a species other than the Shivans? In FS1, the second-to-last mission threw in an HoL destroyer (the PVD Prophecy). Maybe a final clash between three power-players?
I've always enjoyed endings where different groups all participate to some extent, where two or more groups are allied against one ala the Starcraft and Brood War endings, or where there's multiple groups aiming at separate goals that all involve a similar area or object (Homesick, for example). I liked the ending in Homeworld: Cataclysm for this very reason.
The Hammer of Light is dead. They were destroyed in Operation Templar. I don't want to include them in my campaign, unless someone can come up with a darned good explanation of why I should. It doesn't make sense that any post-Capella campaign would include the HoL, unless, possibly, the destruction of Capella sparked some sort of resurgency in the Vasudans. It's possible, I suppose, but I don't want to make it the focus of my campaign.
Pathways (http://www.game-warden.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1100) actually focuses on a resurgence of the Hammer of Light, though the details will be left In Secret™ for now. :nervous:
Any other general guidelines I should be aware of?
Whenever I develop a character, I actually follow Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces#Contents) guidelines as an outline. I can give you something more in-depth into this via PM if you're interested at all.
Some good points there. I agree with a lot of them, and it seems you've got a fair grasp on what and what not to put into a campaign. Should be interesting to see what everyone else has to say to this.
-
Defintily got the right ideas. To help a bit, I'll give some (cryptic) examples from my own campaign: Dreamcatcher: Creation.
I do not include Shivans except in their technology, and a couple of in-game movies desgined to confuse the player. ;7
I do include the Ancients, sort of, I mean they're extinct, but I found a cool way to incorporate their legacy again.
I also introduce a new species, though not a lot is seen of them in this campaign. They'll feature more prominently into the sequel.
I don't trust myself with character developement, so there isn't any. :D
-
I like continuity. Continuity is definitely good for a campaign. Continuity ftw. :yes:
-
Any other general guidelines I should be aware of?
Yes. Try to pay attention to what sort of loadouts are available to the player. Saying "our supply lines are stretched and we are running low" and then having hundreds of missiles and all the best guns widely available for use in the Weapons Loadout screen kind of negates the point. :p
Like in that one Warzone mission and in a good number of the latter Derelict missions, where the Terran Mara was selectable and it really shouldn't have been. (Also I would like to note that, in a post-Capella campaign, Prom-S production would probably have slowed to a trickle due to lack of argon.)
-
Big ships
Capital ships
Big ships are good
More big ships
(except maybe the Colossus cause its ugly if you ask me, thinking of making a model of it in black, dont know if I can do it thoug and I am currently FREDING on The Rebellion In Beta Cygni so I dont have much time)
/Dice
-
There are other entities beyond the NTF/Hammer of Light. The Parliament of Vasuda was summarily dissolved; that had to have annoyed a few folks. The same could have been said of some of the Terran blocs that became the GTVA.
Don't be conventional. Don't feel the need to warn the player what's coming. "That's the sound of the plot shifting without a clutch."
Your Ancients don't have to be Ancients. Or your Shivans really Shivans. Whoever they are may just have recovered and made use of those races technology.