[Klaustrophobia]

Speaking of further tweaks, I also enjoyed the fact that the two 'special guest appearence' ships at the pentultimate mission actually engage each other now. Before, they were rather omninus just hanging in space, but having them slugging it out just made the situtation seem that much more desperate.

Are you sure? On my end they always shot at each other (after the conversation was over) both in the original release and the 3.6.10 adapted version, allthough there was this annoying bug that stoped the music tracks after a few seconds. I'm really glad that one is gone for good.

wait, they didn't engage in EITHER version for me.  i figured they weren't supposed to.

[General Battuta]

I doubt that. Replay the mission, you'll probably see them firing.

[hurleybird]

Neither of the above alternatives could work, since the BtRL style only works on a very small scale - in fact nothing that happens in the first BtRL mission really impacts the second on the level of number of ships, never mind the presence of an entire warship.

It works on any scale. Just that as the scale becomes larger so does the work involved, and then some. How feasible it is depends on the team.

BP's persistent fleet is considerably more ambitious than anything in the retail FS2 campaign, and for that ambition to be realized, the missions need to be set up the way they are.

Or, put more simply: BP takes exactly the same approach that the retail FS2 campaigns do, namely, that all critical ships must be saved. You seem to be under the impression that some of the ships are somehow 'non-critical', but they aren't. For later missions to work, every warship has to make it through.

You cite the main FS2 campaign as giving an 'illusion of consequence', but the only reason that works is because the ships never reappear no matter what you do.

BP actually provides far more meaningful consequences: it allows you to succeed. In retail FS2 you can neither succeed or fail, since saving a ship has no impact.

You're logic is a bit twisted here. You rally against how difficult it would be to have the mission go on after ships die, and then you state how making it so every one must be saved is more 'ambitious'. That's an obvious contradiction.

And then you're comparison about the number of meaningful consequences in BP and retail FS2 is completely wrong. There are two meaningful consequences in every BP and FS2 retail (excluding some exceptions in FS2 retail's optional missions) mission, success or failure. The only difference is that FS2 has many non-meaningful consequences as well, and that's one of the reasons that it's a better designed. Whether a consequence is meaningful or not isn't as important as whether it *feels* meaningful. For example, in the final undercover missions in FS2, what if the player decides not to fire on the civilian ships and never takes the bait? In his mind he has made a meaningful choice, and for all he knows firing on the ships could have lead to more missions in that story arc. Also, when you can still complete the mission without saving all of your escorts, it makes saving ALL the escorts feel that much more gratifying. Do medals and achievements have meaningful consequences? No, but some players still enjoy them and find them rewarding!

You say that all of the ships are critical... then why not add some ships that aren't? Nothing is stopping you from adding more ships that are not critical, or other secondary objectives that are just there to be done!

The branching Wing Commander style could never work since there would be no way for the branches to merge: you couldn't have a dead ship come back to life.

There's just no way to bring a dead ship back, and no way to build a mission that works and is fun both with a ship and without it.

To answer each question, yes the branches can merge, to a degree. Otherwise there would be no way to get from one path to the other.



And yes you can build a mission that works with and without a ship. You just have to close the loop. For example, if you lost a ship in the first mission, and that consequence stuck with you throughout the game, then that would be very hard to script. If the existence of that ship only matter for the next 3, 2, or 1 levels then you don't have to do as much work. For example, you could save a ship in the first mission. In the 2nd mission you get intercepted by a destroyer and if you are sucesful in saving that ship in the first mission it sacrifices itself to take out the destroyer. On the third mission the no matter what the result of the first mission, that ship is gone. But if you saved it in the first you have the meaningful consequence of making the 2nd mission a lot easier for the player by taking out the destroyer.

EDIT: corrected a bit of bad grammar, was rushed into joining a L4D match when I posted this!

[Darius]

When I start getting paid to FRED campaigns, then I'd think about putting in the extra work for branching consequences. Until then...

[FoxtrotTango]

You seem to have missed the point where this story is already tested and proven and written in stone. It's a very story-driven campaign and those people who let the story take a backseat to the gameplay don't get many fans because most people like to see a motivational drive for the consequences in the campaign. This has a lot of motivation. You're just a bit too concerned with how the plot won't let you just let one of the ships die, and judging by your hastily-added comment tacked on at the end there, you're used to more open-ended games with a quicker pace and a story that's not as broad. Hence, Blue Planet is not your kind of campaign, and we can respect that. But you need to respect their decision to make and keep the campaign this way, even if it doesn't suit your very specific standards.

That said, let's let this small issue drop and get back to the discussion, please.

[hurleybird]

You seem to have missed the point where this story is already tested and proven and written in stone. It's a very story-driven campaign and those people who let the story take a backseat to the gameplay don't get many fans because most people like to see a motivational drive for the consequences in the campaign. This has a lot of motivation. You're just a bit too concerned with how the plot won't let you just let one of the ships die, and judging by your hastily-added comment tacked on at the end there, you're used to more open-ended games with a quicker pace and a story that's not as broad. Hence, Blue Planet is not your kind of campaign, and we can respect that. But you need to respect their decision to make and keep the campaign this way, even if it doesn't suit your very specific standards.

That said, let's let this small issue drop and get back to the discussion, please.

Liking L4D doesn't mean I'm a twitch gamer. MY favourite games are Planescape: Torment and Starflight

And yes this conversation needs to die. The whole thing started as a small comment that some of the people involved took offence to, and that's where it ballooned.  Even as you're telling me to let it go, you're pointing out that BP is the way it is because it is story driven, and that's dead wrong. You can add as many secondary objectives as you want to the missions in BP without needing to take away from the story at all. Lack of secondary objectives to engage the player, even ones that have no meaningful consequences (like in retail many FS2 missions) makes for worse design than if they were present. Some people just need to learn to accept criticism, and realize that no game or campaign is perfect.

[Dilmah G]

Wait. Since when was this conversation about Secondary Objectives? I was quite sure the primary objectives filled up enough of the player's time.


Eh. Have your own opinion mate.

[General Battuta]

You seem to have missed the point where this story is already tested and proven and written in stone. It's a very story-driven campaign and those people who let the story take a backseat to the gameplay don't get many fans because most people like to see a motivational drive for the consequences in the campaign. This has a lot of motivation. You're just a bit too concerned with how the plot won't let you just let one of the ships die, and judging by your hastily-added comment tacked on at the end there, you're used to more open-ended games with a quicker pace and a story that's not as broad. Hence, Blue Planet is not your kind of campaign, and we can respect that. But you need to respect their decision to make and keep the campaign this way, even if it doesn't suit your very specific standards.

That said, let's let this small issue drop and get back to the discussion, please.

Liking L4D doesn't mean I'm a twitch gamer. MY favourite games are Planescape: Torment and Starflight

And yes this conversation needs to die. The whole thing started as a small comment that some of the people involved took offence to, and that's where it ballooned.  Even as you're telling me to let it go, you're pointing out that BP is the way it is because it is story driven, and that's dead wrong. You can add as many secondary objectives as you want to the missions in BP without needing to take away from the story at all. Lack of secondary objectives to engage the player, even ones that have no meaningful consequences (like in retail many FS2 missions) makes for worse design than if they were present. Some people just need to learn to accept criticism, and realize that no game or campaign is perfect.

Let's just let it go, mate. Nobody got offended, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[-Norbert-]

Some people just need to learn to accept criticism, and realize that no game or campaign is perfect.

That the directors cut and the 3.6.10 re-release exist show pretty well that the BP team does take criticism seriously. Almost all the changes put in the directors cut were points criticised by people right here in this forum.

If Battuta had just answered "No, we don't like that" I could understand that comment of yours, but he tried (quite extensively) to tell you why they did what they did. Just because someone doesn't have the same taste like you doesn't mean they are incapable of taking criticism.

As for me, if a secondary objective/side quest has neither impact on the story nor any other benefit short of a "you did well" line in the de-briefing, I can do without them. It's just like those achivements in so many new games, that give you a small picture and a line of text but nothing else.
But just because I don't like those (or impact- and benefitless secondary objectives), doesn't mean I think any less of people who do happen to like them.

....as long as they grant me the same curtesy for my own opinion that is!

[General Battuta]

Let's just let it go.

[hurleybird]

Let's just let it go.

/lets go  

On a more positive note, I thought that some of the longer sequences of strung together missions (eg., chasing the ghost ship through all those nodes) was pretty well done. The dream sequence with the Lucifer was also highly cool 

[General Battuta]

I'm glad you enjoyed it. And I'm sorry we got hung up on discussing that particular disagreement.

No one campaign is for everybody, and there's always something to improve.

[Avatar]

Hey, I wanted to sound off on blue planet a bit.

I've had two main blue planet 'sessions' - the first was before the release of the VA version, and on a laptop with not enough juice to handle it. This led me to stop in A Time For Heroes, largely because I couldn't defeat it. I had been impressed with the music and a wide and interesting (and HARD) variety of missions, and found the vishnans somewhat goofy, and put down FS2 for a while.

Coming back to BP after almost a year felt ...good. I was glad to finish what I'd started, and really pissed off when the old version of the campaign crashed after finishing the final shooty mission before the proper conclusion. Pulled the soundtrack out of the .vp to listen to while I worked on various projects, dropped by to look for a fix, and found the director's cut.

So um... guess I'm going to drop a megapost after playing it five times, with two big chunks.

Vishnans and Shivans and Brahmans, oh my:
My biggest beef with the Vishnans came with the nature of their name... "Shivans" was always an external title for those zany quintapeds we humans applied, and it was always a best-fit rather than a proper name. FS1 ends with the protagonist remarking that they're the great preservers along with the great destroyers. Struck me as a bit odd that in BP the shivans knew of themselves as shiva. Wackily enough I'd have been okay with a line where the vishnans were like "yo homes just call us vishnans it'll fit with the current thing you got with our Destroyer buddies and keep you from getting too confused". Its odd that vishnan tech was so superior to shivan tech. An interesting alternative would have been vishnan technology being on par with shivan tech - meaning much less hardcore vishnan fighters - and downgrading the shivan forces in vishnan missions to bring back the HARD, but that's more of a fun thought than a proper quibble.

Kinda sad the Capella backgrounds with hundreds of Saths having a goddamn convention couldn't have been reused but with keepers thrown in. Having had a wall of Saths in the background "behind" Shiva and a wall of keepers "behind" Vishnu would have been sweet. I would have appreciated an exchange during that level where one of the wingmen says "how come we aren't up to our ass in all the non-Sathanas shivan capital ships?" and the other says "oh they're so busy throwing down with the Vishnans they can probably only spare fighters".

The Ancients can't be the Brahmans. I... that would make me sad. I hope that 'the ones that are now extinct with potential to create' Vishnu refers to in the final battle were the Ancients.

Wondering if the Petrarch was right at the end of FS2 and the Sath Fleet was moving from universe to universe. Brings up the possibility that the triumvirate is scattered between universes for the most part, and the majority of the shivans and their juggs were in the FS1/FS2 verse whilst the majority of the vishnans were in Sanctuaryverse. And who the hell knows where the Brahmans are. As an aside, kind of sad you're not splashing more judeochristian motifs into the shivans and correspondingly the vishnans.  The Lucifer especially artistically echoes its namesake with those two horns on its head and crucifix shape; you could bring in some of Vishnu's thematic imagery for the Vishnans. Dark blue / stormcloud coloring and patterns, conch, wheel, and lotus shapes could make some truly interesting ships. The current line just doesn't fit the Vishnu/angelic theme as well as the shivan ships fit the Shiva/demonic theme.

If Vishnu is sending Space Family Bei and the 14th Battlegroup back to their own universe as a way of warning them from war and restoring things to their rightful place, how come they don't punch the Sanctuary off the universe? Would have made an interesting encounter at least. Sammy Bei could have been like "hey you guys what gives we were bros just a second ago" and you'd have a mission where you fight them to save the Sanctuary. Would have helped cast apparently pure good entities as potentially misunderstood or complex, like FS1 and FS2 has cast the Shivans with their respective ending narrations. Or perhaps you might shift in the final battle from fighting shivans to fighting vishnans and shivans who are also fighting each other. Also if the Vishnans caused the 14th BG to go to the alternate universe as a way of giving the Beis a chance to get back together and see how much it sucks to not have Earth, the Great Psyche is going to feel really dumb when it reads about how Morian went all PTSD and GTVA Command got scared and told Morian to Do Something. Regardless, a slavish dedication to balance and order can and has lead to acts of unimaginable cruelty and destruction; not utilizing this to add some gray to the black and white of shiva/vishnu would be a shame.

And on the human side of things:
How come the GTVA can afford a line of blueberry flavor doom rays, pulse cannon, and little pew pew turrets and sweet ass new destroyers but no similarly massively improved fightercraft? Is that 'cause the Vasudans who didn't get their economy ruined post-Capella bankrolled the new ships and the terrans are left with just enough change to get two new fighters and a new mekhu that cycle-fires? The flavor text on weapons seems to indicate that it's mostly terran firms coming up with the new capital ship weapons...

Upon reflection, back-engineering some of the later War in Heaven prose into Age of Aquarius and expanding the dialogue upon arrival in Sol might have improved the final mission. Pointing out that the colonies bankrupted themselves for two decades building the portal to give the stars back to Earth would have made the tense response of the renjian even more confusing and frustrating to the characters. This would help explain why not -everyone- jumps ship along with the Bei family. Alternatively, a longer scene with an initially cordial first encounter could have gone sour more subtly and slowly, as well as eliciting more commentary from the secondary characters and more Earth backstory to frame WiH from the Renjian. Or maybe something like this:

Orestes: "we're back earth how rad is that"
Renjian: "yay cmon we'll escort you and hang out and talk about religiosity"
Orestes: "hang on I gotta phone call from command"
Temeraire: "also we fought shivans again like twice"
Renjian: "man they're still a problem?"
Temeraire: "too right bro good thing you guys have ships and stuff"
Renjian: "but ships have guns and guns are war and war sucks. "
Temeraire: "that's true, 50 years ago ursa bombers armed with positive vibrations DID destroy the lucifer before it turned earth into a radiated hellhole that might have looked like this. Here let me send you high def pics of your ashes we took in an alternate universe where our military dropped the ball on the whole shivans coming to kill all of us all the time issue."
Renjian: "oh yeaaaah. btw what lovely beam cannons you have"
Orestes: "yeah were supposed to use them to take control of sol if you guys don't get with the program and help us prepare for the next inevitable shivan onslaught"
Renjian: "DESPERTA FERRO"
Orestes: "oh what now"
Labouchere: "what does that even mean?"
Renjian: "WE DIE ON OUR FEET! Die warmongers that we are attacking without first asking what a beta aquilae convention is or why it would have jurisdiction over our stuff and what surrendering would entail. HELM, MANEUVER US TO TAKE AS MUCH ENEMY FIRE AS POSSIBLE."
Admiral Dad: "Defection and stuff"
Wingmen and all those other ships: "Man we should debate the importance of morality vs the expediency of wars of survival with the shivans and have some people support both sides"

[Darius]

 

Sorry, I can't stop smiling right now. We need more reviews like yours Avatar

[Androgeos Exeunt]

BlackDove would be half-proud, I guess.

Don't worry, Avatar. I doubt the Ancients are the Brahmans. Keep in mind what Dante has said about the Terrans not creating like the Brahmans of old. In that context, the Brahmans would be the Great Creators, while the Shivans are the Great Destroyers and the Vishnans the Great Preservers. The Ancients did not create. They destroyed, just like the Shivans, and that was probably why the Shivans exterminated them down to the last of their kind.

[General Battuta]

Great stuff, Avatar. And I can't respond to specifics per se, but let's just say that your thoughts are in lines with ours in a lot of respects.

Ancients =! Brahmans. And the 'Vishnan' name was presumably plucked from Samuel Bei's consciousness by the Vishnans themselves, not self-applied.

Remember that all the information you have on the Vishnans was provided by the Vishnans themselves. As you've suggested, there may be more ambiguity to them than a single encounter could supply.

[Avatar]

True, true. I mean what with the hints of quantum pulse communication between Space Family Bei and the preservers it certainly seems that they could have given themselves that title, but I'm getting the feeling that the long ubership dialogue was Bei-exclusive. Having Vishnu call Shiva, Shiva brings that otherwise external name internal to the triumvirate and seems iffy to me.

But seriously, how come the Vishnans let the Sanctuary leave? It clearly belongs in its own universe and is crewed by folks who have no business being alive in FS1/FS2 verse. Can Shiva file a complaint or something? "Dear Brahma, your preserver droids took pity on some guy and let him take a copy of his dead wife from this universe back to his universe. Love, the shivans PS we miss you"?

Anyhow. I guess I didn't really properly wrap up that extra long ramble: Guys, loved the hell out of BP and I can't wait for more. Been spreading the word around about it and showing it off as best as I can. Here's hoping for a super splendiferous AoA Special Edition sometime down the road with a few more tweaks in addition to War in Heaven and BP3: Son of Blue Planet.

also yay the ancients aren't the brahmans that would have been mega lame being killed off by their killbots

[General Battuta]

Best commenter ever!

but I'm getting the feeling that the long ubership dialogue was Bei-exclusive. Having Vishnu call Shiva, Shiva brings that otherwise external name internal to the triumvirate and seems iffy to me.

Remember, that's one of Sam's visions, presumably as relayed to him by Vishnu. His particular naming schema - remember, he named them Vishnans (I think) - is probably just being riffed off of.

It doesn't mean they call themselves Shivan/Brahman/Vishnan. That would be silly.

But seriously, how come the Vishnans let the Sanctuary leave? It clearly belongs in its own universe and is crewed by folks who have no business being alive in FS1/FS2 verse.

Very interesting question, isn't it? You'd think it would be problematic to the Balance.

As for the rest: hooray!

[Timerlane]

I assumed the other race that exhibited "potential" was the Vasudans from the (same)alternate universe(the other half of what would have been the GTVA), not the Ancients.

"Now extinct" seems to more logically suggest 'recently dead', and 'somewhere within the past 50 years' is a lot more recent than 8000+ years ago. (I'm assuming that without the assistance of the GTA fleets, the Vasudans were far too scattered to put up any real fight, and without the ability to send out a fleet distraction like the Terrans needed to get the Sanctuary safely away and hidden, there is probably no more left of the Vasudan race and culture than that of the Ancients(or non-Sanctuary Terrans).)

I also assumed Vishnu let the Sanctuary go as he felt Shiva had overstepped his authority/duty in that universe. Perhaps the "balance" to "be restored" was the banishing of Shiva, and/or perhaps releasing the Sanctuary's people from that universe was its own sort of balance/compensation for Shiva's overstepping?

Admittedly, the multiverse thing is a little confusing. The entities of the council(or at least the Vishnans, by Bei's log) are supposed to be beyond existing on a normal plane of existence, yet the knowledge from Bei's memories was apparently significantly new information to the Vishnans(shouldn't they know what happens in the other universes?). Yet, also somehow, Samuel Bei apparently had some destiny to be where he was, and had prior 'experience' with the Vishnans(the "ancient voices" from his dreams).

It also seems to have been hinted at that Vishnans(of some sort?) may have been responsible for the anomaly that sent the 14th Battlegroup to that universe. The same power fluctuations affect the entire fleet(not a momentary Stargate-esqe solar flare/subspace disruption) and send everyone all to the same universe? While we're at it, it's also a soon-to-be invasion force in need of some perspective? Seems like a rather impressive coincidence.

[General Battuta]

Admittedly, the multiverse thing is a little confusing. The entities of the council(or at least the Vishnans, by Bei's log) are supposed to be beyond existing on a normal plane of existence, yet the knowledge from Bei's memories was apparently significantly new information to the Vishnans(shouldn't they know what happens in the other universes?). Yet, also somehow, Samuel Bei apparently had some destiny to be where he was, and had prior 'experience' with the Vishnans(the "ancient voices" from his dreams).

There's a clue to answer this hidden in the campaign. It is tricky and probably requires a working knowledge of relativity.