[Axem]

There's a few questions I've been pondering about creating campaigns, and I'd like to pose these questions to the players of campaigns since you are the audience and you seem to love giving opinions!


1.) Would you rather have a campaign full of new and untested ideas or tried and true ones?
One criticism of Blue Planet Act 3 was that none of the missions were really standard fare and people were pretty divided if this was a good thing or not. Is a mix needed instead, sandwiching more normal missions in between radical ones? Do radical departures of gameplay just hurt a campaign? To have fun, would just simple missions with "attack this" "escort that" "scan over there" be enough?

2.) Do you tend to view your interaction with a campaign as a strict "first-person-like" affair (you are the character), or a "third-person-like" affair (you see the story through the character's eyes, like a book). Or do you change your interaction based on how the campaign expresses the intent? (aka the don't care option)
There's the age old debate of silent vs voiced protagonist and FreeSpace has its share of both in its many campaigns. But ones that take a voiced protagonist approach sometimes receive the criticism, "the player character would never say what I would!" or "I didn't really connect with any of the characters" and say it detracts from the experience. Do you think these come from the style used, or just bad writing? (Or would you assume the role of the Player Character, even if they make decisions that you would not.)

3.) How important is a story? Are you just happy with a flimsy pretense to shoot up rebels and kill Shivans? Or do you need an elaborate political crisis and motivation to go to war?
Does it need to culminate in a galaxy-spanning event, saving all of humanity? Does a story need to make concrete amounts of sense or can you still enjoy a light story by just rolling with everything?

Bonus edited-in question: Would you play a campaign with a story that you find really bad, but has really good gameplay?

4.) How much effort should be used to create a setting?
A campaign author may spend hours writing on how and why this planet has a problem with syndicate crime, detailed dossiers on important characters, or timelines that explain the human race from World War 2 to the Neo-Terran Conflict. Is a background necessary to enjoy, is it a bonus, or just words that you'd rather not read unless absolutely required? (Or would you like to read things, but FreeSpace's awful interface font prevents you from doing so?) Is putting any of the setting establishment into the campaign a good thing, or should it all be regulated to optional reading?

5.) How important are the structures/orders of battle?
By this I mean, should the campaign authors have a definitive list of active assets in a theater and only use them, or just smack down any number of corvettes as the mission needs corvettes to attack. Should we ever find a destroyer with no capital ship escort or a cruiser in the middle of nowhere just being there to be attacked by someone. Should each battle mean something to the story, or can some be there for some pleasurable blowing up time that doesn't change the story or tide of battle.

6.) Should a campaign be about something (a theme, a question) or do those literary devices just belong in other media and not games? Does any attempt at symbolism or dramatic devices just take away from the enjoyment of a campaign?

7.) Does the use of generally known music hurt the enjoyment of a campaign? Do you just think of the original source instead of the campaign?


I'd like to hear your thoughts on these as players, not as a creator (for any FREDders that reply). I've mostly outlined extreme positions, but feel free to indicate any moderate feelings toward one or another. I don't mean this to be a "tell me what to do" type of survey (unless my own positions are extremely opposite to everyone else's), but sometimes I wonder if the effort I spend in one thing is wasted because no one takes notice or knows to notice it. I'll respond with my own thoughts a bit later so the discussion doesn't start off with people just responding to what I think.

[An4ximandros]

1) If I have to choose an extreme, I'd rather have each mission with a new mechanic. If I could have it my way however, I'd like to have new ideas with them spread out through several missions.
 Example: New mechanic is about using virus plot device to hack a Sathanas and use it's Beam cannons to blow up a Shivan fleet being repaired in a shipyard.
 Alternatively we could just hack the engines of the Juggernaut and get it to ram the shipyard.
 I'd like to see more use of the virus mechanic in other missions, possibly subdued so that a newer one takes charge of the new mission (can hack a Lilith that shows up for example, but the new mission revolves around TAGs & Drone swarms.)

2) Since this is not an RPG in which I can make whatever the hell I want (FSO is limited in that regard, without massive FREDing anyway), I'd rather have a third person story in which 'my' character develops into a point in which a fake choice is logical.

3) I need story, story is the heart of a mod. I need to know the details if you want me to remember or even give a damn about what's happening on screen. Without a story we play nothing more than 'fancy' gauntlet missions.

EDIT: 3.5) It depends. If the story is pretty bad, by which I mean bad enough to make me not enjoy the setting, I would not play. It might have the best FREDing in the universe and it may have been made by the goddamn Batman in his free time, but if I can't get into it then it's simply another gauntlet to me.

4) As much as the author feels it necessary. But only if it interweaves with the above point. (I consider how to violate the laws of physics to be bonus shenanigans, not necessary unless it adds to the story in some important way.)

5) Having a structure can absolutely add a new level of complexity that makes me appreciate how much the author puts into a story. Not only does it add immersion, but for me, it's the difference between a video game and a work of art.

6) Video games are a melting point of all art forms in my view. We can have all the powerful tools of literature, the cinematic experience of a movie & the deep involvement of the player. To me it should always ask hard questions or show a theme that we can ponder upon.

7) I don't mind non-self made tracks, but they have to fit in with the atmosphere. Music can make or break games & movies alike.

[Axem]

Nice points so far. (I've also added an extra question in for question 3.)

Re point 2: I have seen comments that go along the lines of "it would have been cool to have be able to do X, but I know that would have been a lot of work". It's interesting that campaigns can be forgiven for not going the extra mile sometimes, as long as they've shown enough effort that they could probably have (with 10 years of dev time ).

[blowfish]

1) Ditto to An4ximandros.  New gameplay dynamics are more fun than purely conventional gameplay, but overall I think it's best to have a mix.

2) Personally I've found third person stories to be much more engaging, even when I can't identify with everything the character says/does.  I also acknowledge that doing this right is a lot more work, and difficult to get right.  This has been my experience with other video games as well (for instance, in Crysis, Nomad rarely spoke and wasn't that interesting, whereas in Warhead, Psycho had a lot of dialogue and some third person cutscenes which made him a more interesting protagonist).  The silent protagonist can be done well too sometimes (for instance, the Half Life series, though this may be atypical).

3) Story is important because it anchors the gameplay in a definite setting and clear objectives.  It doesn't necessarily need to culminate in something galaxy-shaking, though if done right this certainly adds a sense of importance to the gameplay.

3.5) Maybe.  Depends on how bad the story, and how good the gameplay.

4) Setting is important, but I think for the most part that it needs to be shown primarily through gameplay - intelligence entries and other text-based exposition are a bonus.  Those are the kind of thing I'll read if I'm really engaged in the setting while playing.

5) A campaign definitely feels more complete if everything is well accounted for.  But how well this works depends a lot on the campaign (for instance, both BP chapters exist in a setting where this is easy to do, whereas in a campaign crosses much of GTVA space this would be more difficult).  It's definitely better if each battle means something to the story, though not absolutely critical (it's best to keep filler to a minimum though).

6) I don't think this is strictly necessary, though if done right it definitely adds to the story.

7) You have to be careful with well-known music.  It can be used right, but if there are too many tracks from the same place it can get distracting.  If possible, use less iconic tracks from a variety of sources.

[NGTM-1R]

1.) As always: Execution counts. Concept is nothing without it. If you do it badly, it ain't gonna matter how new and fresh it was; if you do it well, only the most hipster will deny you some praise for it no matter how old the idea.

2.) Campaigns with a silent protagonist are generally first-person experiences, campaigns with a voiced one third-person. It's the classic CRPG problem: you may not have a response, no matter if you give "me" only one or several, that I find suits my reaction to the situation. Rather than unfairly criticize the maker of the campaign for the limitations of their medium I simply alter how I view the work.

Granted this gives an edge to the first-person experience in immersion, but I'd like to think I can recognize that sort of bias and adjust my opinions to account for it.

3.) When you get right down to it a deep story is in many ways antithetical to the FreeSpace experience. No, I'm not kidding, I've mentioned this in discussions from Blue Planet all the way back to lo those many eons ago when I was contemplating a sequel to my Cleaning Crew campaign. You are a fighter pilot engaged in active combat; your access to information is limited by many factors from military secrecy to simply not having the time between your other activities. You go where you're told and accomplish the missions you're assigned.

As such deep storytelling will on some level always hurt you, because it is inherently unlikely the viewpoint character will have either the interest or the perspective for it. The incidentals and atmospherics are far more important for FS storytelling. (Go dig out my posts from 2005 about the CBs barfing when asked to handle something formatted like it was actual message traffic to see how deep you can take the rabbithole there without actually creating grand story.)

Yes, you can beat it. You can beat a lot of things. You can probably beat Mr. Cuddles. It's still something that got in the way.

3.5.) I genuinely don't know because I don't think I've ever seen it happen. No, I never played Second Great War Part 2, why?

4.) However much it takes to make it work. I'm the sort of guy who'll scold you for not doing something in the Tech Room properly or fixing your Capella-era tech descriptions, but it's a relatively minor matter to the campaign itself. See also commentary about the viewpoint character's probable limitations of time, interest, and access to information.

5.) As long as you're not tossing in a corvette I've previously killed, you're okay. I accept some behind-the-curtain freedom. So you've gotta have a list to avoid mistakes like that. Further structure  and further sharing it with me is optional but highly welcomed. But it's war, and things that aren't supposed to happen do and people **** up and I'll accept the lone destroyer on the grassy knoll because that sort of thing happens on occasion. Don't abuse it.

As to each mission serving a narrative purpose, while I highly recommend it, I don't think it's absolutely necessary so long as most do. Then again, I don't think I've seen too many cases where a mission didn't serve a narrative purpose of some sort because FREDding a mission takes effort. Our inherent laziness and the non-serialized nature of our works means we're generally not going to spend effort on filler material.

6.) Every time you choose to be about something that isn't actually telling a coherent and convincing narrative, I'm going to come to your house and leave flaming dog poop on your front porch. That's not my opinion about gaming. That's my opinion about storytelling. You want to be symbolic? Get the **** out! You want to have a theme? Better goddamn well do it without impacting the narrative in any way! Symbolism and theme and that sort of thing are stuff that's read out of the story by the consumer, not inserted into the story by the writer. If you're trying to manage the audience that much you've already lost.

7.) Not in the slightest. (Assuming the cavets that apply to created music as well, i.e. you better know what you're doing.)

[Nohiki]

1.) WiH Act 3 was indeed quite infuriating, although I admit the fault was my utter lack of skill The way I see it, when i play a mod for FreeSpace, I expect FreeSpace, not FTL, Homeworld or anything else (Not as a theme, but as a game type). It is welcome to garnish the campaign/mod with a few extra missions that are outside the box, but I didn't like the whole campaign built on that, unless it's done really well. Turning the ship to tell it where to go and switching turrets between 3 modes is NOT a capship command mission. The FS engine was never made for that, and I don't think any amount of scripring will ever do, that is a case for multiplayer game (I remember there being some capship bridge simulator, that's what I expect from that). The only other thing that has been attempted I know of is RTS - windmills did that pretty good, but again, It's no Homeworld.

2.) As said above, it's pretty much impossible to make first person in FreeSpace. The best I can think of is something like Mass Effect, where you can pick your dialogue option, but the result is the same none the less, you just sound goodie or badass about it, and as soon as you give the player character any line that I have no control over, it's 3rd person for me.

3.) Depends on the mod. Derelict for example would be completely average without a story, but I don't think ShmupSpace needs any. Furthemore, anything set outside of the canon FreeSpace timeline should have at least some story to explain what is going on, even if it's just in the mod.ini description (Think Allied Worlds).
Personally, story is the most important thing to me, and it can keep me going through things I would have shift-deleted with extreme prejudice otherwise (Looking at you, shadow genesis)

3.5) If it's enjoyable, the story is not really necessary.

4.) IMHO in freespace, every part of the story can be skipped (no need to go and read tech room, fiction and cmd. briefings are easily skipped...), so it really doesn't matter. Who wants to will read it, otherwise they just check objectives, equip their ship and go.

5.) As far as limited assets go, it depends on who are you exactly in the game. A multi racial empire with access to resources from dozens of systems or a merc group flying hercs and maybe having a corvette as a base? It makes sense in BP, in the Freespace campaign, not that much...

6.) I like this in a game, but i'd leave this to the author and his competence. It is good if you can write, but if that's not your cup of tea, maybe you should think of something else.

7.) It has to fit the moment, then I don't care where it came from. (And being the barbarian I am, most of the time I don't even know xD)

@NGTM-1R, point 5: I object, the Generation in Transcend was awesome even though it was a zombie

[NGTM-1R]

@NGTM-1R, point 5: I object, the Generation in Transcend was awesome even though it was a zombie

There are exceptions to all rules! That was a good one. (The Generation was renamed from Persistence for being too symbolic, incidentally.)

[Mongoose]

Lots of heavy questions here, but I'm in a writing mood, so let's see what happens.

1) Like the previous responses to this, I think a mix of innovative ideas and more traditional gameplay is usually the best way to go.  I haven't played BP3 yet (it's on my increasingly-long list, I swear! ), so I can't speak for what the team did there, but I could see how having brand-new mechanics thrown at you in every single mission could produce some mental overload.  I know I only tried that capship-command mission from WiH once, and there was so much info being thrown at me I had no idea what I was doing, so I never went back to it.  I've always liked the design philosophy that Valve has mentioned in a few of their gameplay commentaries: first introduce a new mechanic, then let the player mess around with it in a fairly-controlled environment, then turn them loose.  I think more standard fare can serve well as a buffer between the segments that introduce more radical innovation, since it gives the player time to incorporate the new elements into their playstyle.  And to touch on the last part, while I do like to see campaign designers trying new things, I don't think it's absolutely necessary: even today, it's completely possible to make a bog-standard retail campaign that's still a lot of fun.

2) I think NGTM-1R gets it right for me too.  More traditional retail-style campaigns are very much a first-person experience for me: I'm Alpha 1, doing awesome stuff and blowing up Shivans all over the place, and my actions generally reflect what I feel like I'd do in that situation.  I can still feel immersed by third-person campaigns, but it's a different sort of immersion: I'm controlling someone else, and viewing the universe through their eyes, instead of injecting myself right into the story.  I don't think the inability to connect with a character is just a result of this style, but instead some sort of flaw in the writing: I may not always agree with what a character is doing, but I always want to feel like there's a good reason for it, that it makes sense in terms of what they've experienced and is consistent with their personality.  Sometimes it's even refreshing when a player character makes decisions completely opposite to what I think I would have done, because then I'm really experiencing something new.

3) I would say that a story is important for keeping me invested in the gameplay (because let's face it, once you've blown up a few thousand Shivan fighters, it's not exactly a novel experience), but it doesn't have to be some deep elaborate narrative experience: even a simple story can be effective if it's told well.  And not every story has to be about stopping the Third Shivan Incursion and saving humanity.  I have to think of Homesick as an example: it largely consists of a few ships trying to get home, but I'd list it as one of the most compelling stories ever told in this game.  And I daresay that most of us wouldn't have enjoyed your own offerings nearly as much if we felt that everything had to be srs bzns and make complete logical sense.

3.5) Considering that I've willingly played Second Great War Part 2 more than once, I think you have your answer to this one. But seriously, if there's a good chunk of gameplay that I find enjoyable, I'm perfectly capable of turning my brain off and just rolling with it.

4) Like some previous answers, I think that the amount of setting work should be left up to whatever the author feels like writing, or at least what they feel is necessary to get their story across.  I'm always up for some good world-building, and I've certainly spent my fair share of time sifting through Tech Room entries.  (As you noted, though, the default game interface doesn't make this the most enjoyable thing in the world to do.)  I don't think that huge lists of entries are absolutely necessary for a good campaign, but they are a nice bonus; for instance, I very much enjoyed the BP team's take on the capabilities of retail FS2 weaponry, versus their own enhancements.  I think it's definitely a good thing to put as much world-building to the campaign itself as possible, without turning every mission into straight-up info-dumping of course.  At the very least, adding a decent amount of material into campaign briefings is probably preferable to hiding it away in the Tech Room; the fiction viewer allows for a lot more flexibility in this department, too.

5) I was extremely impressed by the fact that the BP team essentially put together a whole list of in-theater ships and their activities for WiH, but I don't think it's necessary for every campaign to go quite that far: it's okay to have some random cruisers and corvettes pop up as-needed, as I don't think it disrupts the player's suspension of disbelief at all.  However, you don't want to swing too far in the opposite direction, lest you wind up like an infamous campaign I mentioned earlier: these ships are huge expensive things crewed by lots of people, so they shouldn't be treated as disposable toys.  I think it's fine to have some random "filler" missions in a campaign that don't necessarily advance the main story, provided they're enjoyable enough and don't get too numerous.  After all, even in an active warzone, real military combat duty comes with a lot of down time.  I can't remember if it was Derelict itself, or another campaign of that era, but there was one old patrol mission I enjoyed where absolutely nothing at all happens, and your fellow pilots turn it into something of a joke.

6) I'm mostly with NGTM-1R here, and I don't limit this to just gaming either.  If you're going to bash me over the head with some over-arching theme to the point where it gets in the way of the narrative, I'm probably going to strongly dislike it.  Focus on telling a good enjoyable story before all else, and then you can layer what you want on top of that.

7) Other than your own legendary offerings, I don't think I've ever come across a piece of music in a campaign that I previously recognized from somewhere else, so I haven't had this problem yet.  I do feel like it's a good idea to generally avoid popular and well-known music, just because it can have the effect of ripping the player out of the moment.

[swashmebuckle]

This might seem like a cop out response, and obviously anybody who makes things will take into consideration people's opinions of their past efforts, but I really think it's best if you let most of these questions answer themselves as you work on a given project. This is taking things to an unrealistic extreme, but it would be pretty lame if you set out to create a 7-10 mission campaign with a speaking protagonist and an overarching theme of the heroic individual against society that alternated traditional and novel mission mechanics with an all-Rush soundtrack because those were the things that people said that they liked best in other campaigns they've played.

I'd just start with whatever it is you find most compelling out of all the stuff you have bouncing around in your head and let it develop naturally. If that's a high concept endeavor that blows everyone's mind, awesome. If it ends up being very similar to the FS2 campaign, awesome. If you fail spectacularly trying to pull off "A 203rd Scorpions production of Smiles of a Summer Night", awesome. You have an original voice and the way you execute any of the things these questions are about will be different from how they have worked in anyone else's campaign. So yeah, I say trust your own creative instincts and don't be afraid to auteur **** up (or not) if it feels right.

[Deepstar]

1.) I do not need a campaign of new ideas, i like Standard missions also and they are enough for me. There are unnumberable campaigns out there only with standard missions and except only for few, they are good.

2.) Actually i do really do not care about that my pilot say much during a campaign. But for me it is important, that he is active as a squadron/wing leader and will confirm at least orders from command. I do not like it, that i was Alpha 1 in FreeSpace 2, but the real leader was Alpha 2 or Beta 1 sometimes. But i accepted this, because it is voice acted and it is designed that the player could be either male or female and there were no speaker for both and there is also no gender function like in Starlancer. But in User-made campaigns without voice... i think it is important to show, that you are really a leader of a wing or a squadron. But i personally do not have to be inform about his/her whole life story and i do not need a very talktive character, especially in a military campaign in which you should only talk about mission related things, remember the unwelcomed family history sentence in Clash of the Titans II?

3.) I think that a campaign must have a sense. This sense and the story behind it can be very simple, but it have to make sense after all. I can not play a campaign which takes place 2 years after capella and have a mission with 2 SJ Sathanases and 3 GTVA Colossuses..., happened to me yesterday.  Campaigns like Aeos Affair, Incursion do not have much story behind it, but they make sense after all and they have a imageable scenario within the Freespace universe. This is important for me, except it is a parody like JAD or DEM.

4.) Background informations are a bonus only, i have to say, that i never read the "Capella" entry in Inferno R1's intelligence section, and i never read the technical database entries from FreeSpace, FreeSpace 2 and any other campaigns at all. The first time i read really all entries was during my Freespace Great War and Silent Threat Let's Play last year. And i will read all entries in the following Let's Plays also, but for myself... this was never important. Even this background information can be intesting DURING the campaign in (command)-briefings.

5.) So long a battle is "realistic" it is okay to use the ships you need, but i think, that you should maintain the strengh of a faction. Even there can be some surprises with ships you do not know about before, you should use this "surprise" not in every mission.

6.) This does not matter for me, it can be interesting to play something, but i have also fun with "Kill the enemy" campaigns as well...

7.) If i hear Freespace original soundtracks in a mission, i think that this mission plays in the same universe. If there are a non-freespace campaign which uses Freespace music, it will confuse me. Also i have problems to hear tracks used in Blue Planet before (for example) in a campaign that has no reference to Blue Planet after all....

[0rph3u5]

1.) Would you rather have a campaign full of new and untested ideas or tried and true ones?
One criticism of Blue Planet Act 3 was that none of the missions were really standard fare and people were pretty divided if this was a good thing or not. Is a mix needed instead, sandwiching more normal missions in between radical ones? Do radical departures of gameplay just hurt a campaign? To have fun, would just simple missions with "attack this" "escort that" "scan over there" be enough?

I'm not going to comment on WiH3 here...

I really like departures from the standard gameplay as it is a way to prevent things from getting repetetive and providing a challange. Overcoming challanging passage is for my a prime incentive to play on and on for hours. However I still want to know what I'm playing so I reminder of the identity of the gameplay even in new concepts and challanges would be a nice touch.

2.) Do you tend to view your interaction with a campaign as a strict "first-person-like" affair (you are the character), or a "third-person-like" affair (you see the story through the character's eyes, like a book). Or do you change your interaction based on how the campaign expresses the intent? (aka the don't care option)
There's the age old debate of silent vs voiced protagonist and FreeSpace has its share of both in its many campaigns. But ones that take a voiced protagonist approach sometimes receive the criticism, "the player character would never say what I would!" or "I didn't really connect with any of the characters" and say it detracts from the experience. Do you think these come from the style used, or just bad writing? (Or would you assume the role of the Player Character, even if they make decisions that you would not.)

First: Protagonist =/= player avatar

That depends on what is to be conveyed. I'm really tempted to talk FRED/story writing here. But to make it short: my preference as a player is that to no particular style but to a well told story where the role of the player avatar serves the narrative, not the narrative the role of the player avatar.

3.) How important is a story? Are you just happy with a flimsy pretense to shoot up rebels and kill Shivans? Or do you need an elaborate political crisis and motivation to go to war?
Does it need to culminate in a galaxy-spanning event, saving all of humanity? Does a story need to make concrete amounts of sense or can you still enjoy a light story by just rolling with everything?

I really prefer to have a more than a pretense to shoot something. The scope of the narrative should just suit the theme of the narrative.

Bonus edited-in question: Would you play a campaign with a story that you find really bad, but has really good gameplay?

Maybe. It depends if I have to make an exclusive choice, if not I will play it but not right away.

4.) How much effort should be used to create a setting?
A campaign author may spend hours writing on how and why this planet has a problem with syndicate crime, detailed dossiers on important characters, or timelines that explain the human race from World War 2 to the Neo-Terran Conflict. Is a background necessary to enjoy, is it a bonus, or just words that you'd rather not read unless absolutely required? (Or would you like to read things, but FreeSpace's awful interface font prevents you from doing so?) Is putting any of the setting establishment into the campaign a good thing, or should it all be regulated to optional reading?

I like effort put into a setting, however don't like that I have to know every detail the author(s) obessesed about to understand the story as it goes along.
Example: I really like the effort put into the Ubuntuu-philosophy in WiH, however my enjoyment is not lessend by not having read their manifesto, tennets etc.

5.) How important are the structures/orders of battle?
By this I mean, should the campaign authors have a definitive list of active assets in a theater and only use them, or just smack down any number of corvettes as the mission needs corvettes to attack. Should we ever find a destroyer with no capital ship escort or a cruiser in the middle of nowhere just being there to be attacked by someone. Should each battle mean something to the story, or can some be there for some pleasurable blowing up time that doesn't change the story or tide of battle.

EDIT: lots of the editing here

I prefer a definite and limited set of assets to be there but sometimes they may not improve the experience. Limited assets give a sense of power for me as a player as made a difference destroying ship A or saving ship B - sometimes however the sense of power gained doesn't help the experience at all, esspecially in a more tragic story. Secondly limited ressources allow me to relate to a ship like "I really hate ship C because they always get away with X".

6.) Should a campaign be about something (a theme, a question) or do those literary devices just belong in other media and not games? Does any attempt at symbolism or dramatic devices just take away from the enjoyment of a campaign?

There should be a theme underlying the action so that my actions as player have a meaning, even if that meaning is outlandish to me personally. My player-actions having a meaning empowers me as a player as I do something that isn't just stareing at the screen killing time.

7.) Does the use of generally known music hurt the enjoyment of a campaign? Do you just think of the original source instead of the campaign?

Associations with music (for me at least) are more emotional than rational, and therefor hard to press into words and definitive recollections. If what's happening on the screen doesn't stand in stark contrast to the emotinal association previously established it doesn't really matter.


EDIT: Although I'm talking about empowering me as a player being a good move for a developer, I'd like to clearify that empowering the player can also be a bad move.

I really enjoy a good tragedey which draws from the lack of power of the protagonist in relation to his/her envoirment. Video games however usually don't appricate this branch of the metaphorical tree of narratives but there is hoping for Games as a medium to mature.

[Luis Dias]

1.) Would you rather have a campaign full of new and untested ideas or tried and true ones?
One criticism of Blue Planet Act 3 was that none of the missions were really standard fare and people were pretty divided if this was a good thing or not. Is a mix needed instead, sandwiching more normal missions in between radical ones? Do radical departures of gameplay just hurt a campaign? To have fun, would just simple missions with "attack this" "escort that" "scan over there" be enough?

Don't be facetious! Come on, WiH act 3 was amazing, and I love the new gameplay! The big problem with it is the complete lack of a learning curve, bringing the audience to understand every single ability we have. The Gef mission is hilarious in this respect, giving us a completely new ship with new tactics, gameplay, etc. and the first thing we see is a destroyer launching a ****ton of missiles against us. It would have been hilarious in something like JAD, but in BP I kinda panicked.

2.) Do you tend to view your interaction with a campaign as a strict "first-person-like" affair (you are the character), or a "third-person-like" affair (you see the story through the character's eyes, like a book). Or do you change your interaction based on how the campaign expresses the intent? (aka the don't care option)
There's the age old debate of silent vs voiced protagonist and FreeSpace has its share of both in its many campaigns. But ones that take a voiced protagonist approach sometimes receive the criticism, "the player character would never say what I would!" or "I didn't really connect with any of the characters" and say it detracts from the experience. Do you think these come from the style used, or just bad writing? (Or would you assume the role of the Player Character, even if they make decisions that you would not.)

Problem is everyone is different. In BP's case, I'm somewhat numbed to Laporte. I can't stand her! Every time I click to make her say something I cringe almost immediately afterwards. And I don't think it's a problem of "writing". The writing is good. I just do not identify with her character. But others might. So that poses an amazing problem to the devs, and that's a choice in style that only you can make. Do you want to tell a story about a character that might not be identified by the player? Do you want to "voice" the player's mind? Or do you want to be Freeman style silent?

Unless you devise a system where we can really say what we think (and let the world react accordingly), which is something no one has ever done till this day, this problem is persistent.

3.) How important is a story? Are you just happy with a flimsy pretense to shoot up rebels and kill Shivans? Or do you need an elaborate political crisis and motivation to go to war?
Does it need to culminate in a galaxy-spanning event, saving all of humanity? Does a story need to make concrete amounts of sense or can you still enjoy a light story by just rolling with everything?

I am deeply suspicious of the "need" to have a melodramatic hyper important mega epic story that's about saving the world the galaxy. I think what is important is that the story is sufficiently rich and interesting, with clear writing and purpose. There's too much emphasis on the galaxy saving shtick on most AAA titles that is really tiresome.

Bonus edited-in question: Would you play a campaign with a story that you find really bad, but has really good gameplay?

I have clicked escape many times in campaigns when somebody started talking the worst kind of lines ever. It infuriates me. I don't mind "no writing". I mind pretensious bad writing. Unless it's corny and camp.

4.) How much effort should be used to create a setting?
A campaign author may spend hours writing on how and why this planet has a problem with syndicate crime, detailed dossiers on important characters, or timelines that explain the human race from World War 2 to the Neo-Terran Conflict. Is a background necessary to enjoy, is it a bonus, or just words that you'd rather not read unless absolutely required? (Or would you like to read things, but FreeSpace's awful interface font prevents you from doing so?) Is putting any of the setting establishment into the campaign a good thing, or should it all be regulated to optional reading?

Really? I like both. How's that for an answer? Sometimes I like "maximalist" settings, sometimes I just like corny, campy things. Sometimes I enjoy to read a good Dostoievsky book, sometimes I like to see Star Trek. Go figure! It's all about quality though. Spend time in creating a deep setting if you really feel into it, and if you feel people will enjoy it. If the setting is interesting and brings curious things to think about, I'll love it! If it's just a boring thing that the developer "had" to go through, and when reading it feels like a bore, then why bother?

Focus on what drives you, and you'll see that people will love it. Minimize everything that you don't care, or are bored with. Because if you are bored about those things, you'll probably bore other people with your end product as well.

5.) How important are the structures/orders of battle?
By this I mean, should the campaign authors have a definitive list of active assets in a theater and only use them, or just smack down any number of corvettes as the mission needs corvettes to attack. Should we ever find a destroyer with no capital ship escort or a cruiser in the middle of nowhere just being there to be attacked by someone. Should each battle mean something to the story, or can some be there for some pleasurable blowing up time that doesn't change the story or tide of battle.

WELL that depends on the nature of the campaign, doesn't it? If it's corny, then I'll admit a ****ton of waves of anything. If it's meant to be rigorous and thoughtful, then that kind of thing would detract from the wider campaign. I think filler is bad generally - why waste your time in wasting other people's time? And when people announce their campaigns will have 50 missions and so on, I always think "Wow, that's probably a lot of filler". I prefer 5 amazing missions ala WiH than 50 missions ala Alpha1genericcampaign. HOWEVER, filler missions are an excellent way to provide a good learning curve!

6.) Should a campaign be about something (a theme, a question) or do those literary devices just belong in other media and not games? Does any attempt at symbolism or dramatic devices just take away from the enjoyment of a campaign?

The worst is the attempt at the middle: be somewhat about something, pretending it's important stuff, but not really. Half-witty stuff bores me to death. To me, either full on meaningful stuff or completely corny, meaningless (comedic?) amazing gameplay.

7.) Does the use of generally known music hurt the enjoyment of a campaign? Do you just think of the original source instead of the campaign?

There's a moment where the suspension of disbelief is cracked and we get "wait, what?". Not everytime though. I gave a criticism on how BP used Icarus, for instance. At the moment, I was thinking way more about the music and less about what was going on on the screen... OTOH, I loved, absolutely loved the placing of Requiem in UT2. Go figure.

[MatthTheGeek]

1.) Would you rather have a campaign full of new and untested ideas or tried and true ones?
Tried and true ideas are good. They comport less risks, require less time and effort to do right, especially for beginner FREDers, and ensure you don't need to worry a lot about introducing mechanics right, enabling the player to directly throw himself into the story and your missions.

The problem is that we already have about a hundred campaigns made from those. Which means between a thousand and two thousands "classic" missions.

Repetition can kill good things. Just dropping that out there...


2.) Do you tend to view your interaction with a campaign as a strict "first-person-like" affair (you are the character), or a "third-person-like" affair (you see the story through the character's eyes, like a book). Or do you change your interaction based on how the campaign expresses the intent? (aka the don't care option)
The "don't care" option. As long as they're done right, I have no problem with either. We've had many examples of both styles done right over the past dozen years. Both have pros and cons.


3.) How important is a story? Are you just happy with a flimsy pretense to shoot up rebels and kill Shivans? Or do you need an elaborate political crisis and motivation to go to war?
Does it need to culminate in a galaxy-spanning event, saving all of humanity? Does a story need to make concrete amounts of sense or can you still enjoy a light story by just rolling with everything?
Well I don't need a truly excellent story to enjoy a game. But I must admit that one of the major strengths of FSO and FRED, and dare I say, the very thing that makes this community still alive and kicking after all these years, is that it's a nearly unparalleled medium to tell a story. As far as I'm concerned, it would be a shame to not fully embrace this.


Bonus edited-in question: Would you play a campaign with a story that you find really bad, but has really good gameplay?
I would. At the very least, the good gameplay elements could serve as an inspiration for other FREDers.


4.) How much effort should be used to create a setting?
Entirely up to the campaign maker as far as I'm concerned. We have dozens of campaigns that have little to none additional information aside from what you see in missions, and they aren't any less enjoyable.

On the other hand, I strongly believe the extremely detailed background of Blue Planet accounted for a large part for its success. It shows very strong implication of the campaign maker, the importance given to detail, and as a result encourages discussion and implication from the players.

It also depends a lot on what you're trying to do. If you plan to make sequels to your campaign, or are making something outside of the FS universe, like Antagonist, WoD, DE (and that isn't based on an existing IP like Diaspora), then it is more likely players will want to read additional background. If one of the goals of your campaigns is to expand on some little-explored portion of the FS universe, like the Unification Wars or Between the Ashes, additional background kinda imposes itself. If you're making a parallel story to the events of FS1 or FS2, canon is in most cases more than enough for you. If you're a beginner FREDer and you're making your first campaign, you might want to focus on getting the technical skillset right first before focusing on the story.


5.) How important are the structures/orders of battle?
Pretty much the exact same answer and arguments as above. This kind of details are, for all intents and purpose, backstory elements. It shows the commitment to detail and coherence, but many campaigns have done just as well without it.


6.) Should a campaign be about something (a theme, a question) or do those literary devices just belong in other media and not games? Does any attempt at symbolism or dramatic devices just take away from the enjoyment of a campaign?
Up to the campaign maker. No preference whatsoever.


7.) Does the use of generally known music hurt the enjoyment of a campaign? Do you just think of the original source instead of the campaign?
I don't generally know music.

[Lorric]

I was originally going to state you should simply do whatever fills you with the most enthusiasm. But since you actually want to know people's preferences, I'll answer your questions.

1. I haven't played BP3, so can't comment on that. But the thing about new ideas is that you can't say until you see what they are. So this would be either I guess. New ideas are nice as there are many tried and true campaigns, but more tried and true campaigns are nice too, because they are tried and true.

2. First person silent protagonist is the safe bet. But you can have fun with being in the shoes of someone else also if it's done right. If you go down the latter road, I think you should try to distance the player from the character to avoid this kind of thing, treat the player character like all the other characters, and let the player be watching the story unfold. BP1 did that. You could even have the player play as several pilots over the course of a campaign. Spoon did that with WoD. Wing Commander Saga put you in the shoes of the pilot, and I had some issues with Sandman, and went to flat out disliking him around two dozen missions in, but warmed to him in the end. It's a potentially dangerous path to do that, the other three options (silent/just another main character/several pilots) all seem safer to me.

3. Gameplay>story for me. But stories are also important to me. I would play a game with excellent gameplay and a shambles of a story, but not the reverse of that. But if you get both aspects right, I'll be thrilled, and it'll all mean so much more. I would probably need a good story if the gameplay wasn't enjoyable on it's own.

I don't need to be the prime hero or anything, or it to be vast in scope, I once toyed around with the idea of trying to instead of make a WoD campaign, make a FS1 campaign based on the Vasudan Imperium demo, where you would be sent to stop that force you start out in as a rookie. It would simply have been a series of battles to stop that Vasudan force that you start out in that is hitting soft GTA targets. Even my WoD campaign is only intended to be about evacuating Alpha Draconis. I wouldn't mind seeing something smaller scale but focused like that.

4. The more information the merrier as far as I'm concerned, I love a good story, but as I said, I can play a campaign with great gameplay and no story/ a shambolic story.

5. I'm not sure. I like to feel effort has gone into such things, and it can really enhance a battle, but as long as you just understand what you have to do, that is the minimum requirement, and works just fine.

6. It doesn't NEED to be. But it can also potentially really enhance a campaign. Maybe even make you think about it when you're not playing.

7. I do tend to think of the original source, but if it's music from another game, and created for that game, I don't think I've ever had a problem with it. But if you did something like, say, stick Imperial March in a campaign that had nothing to do with Star Wars that would probably be a problem for me, along with any such equivalent. I'd stay away from known music from television, film, and lyrical songs.

As for you, I wouldn't put effort into something that you won't get enjoyment yourself from. If it's something you like, it won't matter if no one else notices/likes it.

[General Battuta]

As a dev I've got to say I would ignore pretty much every opinion in this thread, except I guess Swash's.

Heterodoxy in storytelling is a good thing. There's no optimum approach, just correct choices for the story you're trying to tell. Valve is a great example - the Internet has developed a cult around Valve's storytelling orthodoxy, but Valve itself finds their orthodoxy uncomfortable, and it's actively harmed a number of their projects. You need the freedom to make the right calls.

[AndrewofDoom]

1.) Would you rather have a campaign full of new and untested ideas or tried and true ones?
One criticism of Blue Planet Act 3 was that none of the missions were really standard fare and people were pretty divided if this was a good thing or not. Is a mix needed instead, sandwiching more normal missions in between radical ones? Do radical departures of gameplay just hurt a campaign? To have fun, would just simple missions with "attack this" "escort that" "scan over there" be enough?

As a player, radical changes from standard gameplay only work if and only if the entire premise of the campaign is radical changes from standard gameplay. The Antagonist, Windmills, and SHMUPSpace work well because that's their entire premise and people expect it. The problem with Tenebra was that people expected something like the first two acts of WiH, but were surprised by how unlike them it was. To me, Tenebra by itself was great, if a bit of a learning curve (gotta let the player learn the mechanics needed more for the...exotic missions). But it just feels weird when put next to what it's supposed to be, a continuation of WiH Act 2. It's fine to me personally since I wouldn't expect the Fedayeen to follow...standard procedure.

As a modder, I personally try to avoid gimmick of the day type of missions, as they leave lots left unexplored. Rather, I opt for making a more gimmick of the week, having a series of missions use the same gimmick to help realized and help explore all the avenues you could possibly do with it (ie an entire act of a campaign centered around tower defense, capship command, etc).

But you say "I want to have this cool mission where it does this cool and unique things, but my campaign is mostly standard fare...". It's still possible and workable in mind, but it really needs to follow this:

• It needs to be an extension of what is the standard fare for the setting and typical player control for such setting and not throw them into a different genre. (Most of the missions in Tenebra actually follow this. Except Eyes in the Storm, which throws you off into the RTS genre).
• Should not violate a person's right to have a non standard control configuration (Eyes in the Storm violates this BIG TIME. I found myself unable to use most of it because I have a different control layout until I found out its "equivalent" to my control setup. That's where scripting has its advantages, as it's control layout independent...)
• For me personally, any gimmick I throw at the player should be something that the player should have to keep continuously returning to make what they just learned in this special mission more meaningful than a throwaway gimmick. (In the example of WiH, One Future is continuation of what The Blade Itself introduced, Her Finest Hour expands on what Aristeia did, and Universal Truth extends on what Ken started.)
• How often you deploy these "special" missions should be a consideration. Too many of them and they stop feeling special (which could be the argument of Tenebra being bad from my point of view).

To summarize my mess, a mixed bag of standrad missions and "special" missions can work if the special missions are used not so often.

2.) Do you tend to view your interaction with a campaign as a strict "first-person-like" affair (you are the character), or a "third-person-like" affair (you see the story through the character's eyes, like a book). Or do you change your interaction based on how the campaign expresses the intent? (aka the don't care option)
There's the age old debate of silent vs voiced protagonist and FreeSpace has its share of both in its many campaigns. But ones that take a voiced protagonist approach sometimes receive the criticism, "the player character would never say what I would!" or "I didn't really connect with any of the characters" and say it detracts from the experience. Do you think these come from the style used, or just bad writing? (Or would you assume the role of the Player Character, even if they make decisions that you would not.)

The problem I have with the silent protagonist is that the only way I can interact with the world is where I shoot my pew pew lasers and who's throat I decide to shove my Tempests down. While there have been some mods that let you make choices that affect the story, they don't make a lasting impact in the game world nor do they represent all the possible answers someone could make. If you're going to let me make a choice in what I say, I want to say it in the way I want to say it after all! Current technology we have right now makes a silent protagonist seems not really a part of the world they just so happen to be in...just this incredibly powerful ghostly entity.

Obviously that's not possible to do right now until we develop an AI that can understand what people say....which may be a while before then. Which is why I'm actually more comfortable having a voiced protagonist, even if that character's ways of expression and moral compass don't even match mine. This way, the author can make some dynamics between all characters.

3.) How important is a story? Are you just happy with a flimsy pretense to shoot up rebels and kill Shivans? Or do you need an elaborate political crisis and motivation to go to war?
Does it need to culminate in a galaxy-spanning event, saving all of humanity? Does a story need to make concrete amounts of sense or can you still enjoy a light story by just rolling with everything?

I'm here to blow **** up, like I hope most you people are here for. As such, in video games stories are just a nice thing to have. If the game itself isn't fun, then there's nothing a story can do to save it. If the game is good, then the story can only help make a good game even better. If you can make a good game, just go write a novel or make a TV show, or webshow, a comic. Just not a video game.

However, the storyline should be as non-intrusive to the gameplay as possible. War in Heaven is actually pretty good about it letting the player skip dialogue.

Bonus edited-in question: Would you play a campaign with a story that you find really bad, but has really good gameplay?

Yes. Gameplay is what makes video games unique as an art medium.

4.) How much effort should be used to create a setting?
A campaign author may spend hours writing on how and why this planet has a problem with syndicate crime, detailed dossiers on important characters, or timelines that explain the human race from World War 2 to the Neo-Terran Conflict. Is a background necessary to enjoy, is it a bonus, or just words that you'd rather not read unless absolutely required? (Or would you like to read things, but FreeSpace's awful interface font prevents you from doing so?) Is putting any of the setting establishment into the campaign a good thing, or should it all be regulated to optional reading?

It's entirely up to how in depth the author wants to go with his/her world. I'll read it and enjoy it (or not if it isn't well thought out and/or written). Critical stuff to the world the author is building should be expanded in the tech room however.

5.) How important are the structures/orders of battle?
By this I mean, should the campaign authors have a definitive list of active assets in a theater and only use them, or just smack down any number of corvettes as the mission needs corvettes to attack. Should we ever find a destroyer with no capital ship escort or a cruiser in the middle of nowhere just being there to be attacked by someone. Should each battle mean something to the story, or can some be there for some pleasurable blowing up time that doesn't change the story or tide of battle.

It's entirely up to how in depth the author wants to go with his/her world. It should however be noted structure in battles (especially larger ones) should be done in a way that does not remove player agency in them. As a bonus, I'm actually looking at Dimension Eclipse's order of battle right now for this.

6.) Should a campaign be about something (a theme, a question) or do those literary devices just belong in other media and not games? Does any attempt at symbolism or dramatic devices just take away from the enjoyment of a campaign?

It's really entirely up to the author how in depth they want to get with plot. Though, I feel that most people will miss out on any symbolism and other literary devices since most people are there to go pew pew pew and see boom BOOM BOOM.

7.) Does the use of generally known music hurt the enjoyment of a campaign? Do you just think of the original source instead of the campaign?

Since not all of us have a composer inside of us, we're more or less forced to use music that has been used elsewhere for the majority. And until we make the technology to manufacture Belisariuses, it will remain that way.

Those are my thoughts on this. Lots of *words* from me who usually doesn't say much.

[aeon48m]

1. If the new and untested ideas are good, then yes, I would much rather have those. If those ideas seem alright at first but are lacking in implementation, I will probably prefer some standard missions instead. However, a campaign based entirely on just doing standard missions and shooting more fighters and killing more turrets and destroying even more bombs can get repetitive and boring very quickly.

2. See below. It's gameplay and fun that makes video games, and FS2 mods good, not writing. If I wanted to read some good writing, I'd read a book.
 
3. Well, for me, I play games, FS2 mods included mostly to have fun. Now, I'm not very much okay with a game or mod for FS2 putting having an awesome story in front of gameplay, fun, or other things, and when that happens I usually won't have a very good time with that mod/game/thing. A good story, setting, fluff, plot, theme, ect, is, to me at least, supposed to be the cherry on top the delicious cake that is the gameplay, and when you try to bake a cake that's composed entirely of cherries then I'm not going to have a good time trying to eat it.

Bonus question: Yes.

4. See above.

5. See above. I'm okay with a bunch of random ships appearing out of nowhere if those random ships then are part of a good fun mission, and limiting yourself to not put any more ships in because order of battle is just something that I have a problem with, as you're sacrificing gameplay for plot in a video game.

6. Well, a mod/game based entirely around a certain theme and sacrificing other elements, such as gameplay probably won't be enjoyed much by me, but when it's done well I'll probably have fun. I think. I dunno, I've never really thought about this much, and I don't think I've really played much games that are based entirely around a certain theme.

7. Meh.

[Luis Dias]

As a dev I've got to say I would ignore pretty much every opinion in this thread, except I guess Swash's.

I think that's the proper attitude.... I also tend to abhor "focus-groups based design".

[Shivan Hunter]

I was going to go on and an about how you can make a **** campaign from an excellent "formula" and you can make an awesome one that breaks all the guidelines that a "formula" would suggest... but then I realized something.

If a campaign has 5 of each ship type available in all its missions... then it's the best campaign ever made (tied, of course, with all the other campaigns that have 5 of each ship type available in all their missions). It doesn't matter how nonsensical the story is or how confusing the gameplay is. If your campaign has 5 of each ship type available in all its missions, you get a free pass. It's amazing. You're promoted to Admiral. Now go read a book.

[0rph3u5]

As a dev I've got to say I would ignore pretty much every opinion in this thread, except I guess Swash's.

I think that's the proper attitude.... I also tend to abhor "focus-groups based design".

+1 for "screw focus-groups"

However Axem asked the question and there is no reason not to answer it ... If he requires this feedback he should have it; as someone who made campaigns I can relate to to the wish for feedback about specific points ...

A little confused that Battuta is the one practically saying "screw feedback" (WiH census polls...)