Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re: Competiting religion and alternate setting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Re: Competiting religion and alternate setting

    Are any of you feeling confused and out of your depth by the wealth of competing gameplay and possibilities introduced so far in the main thread?

    Yes? No? Regardless, here's MOAR possibilities to add to your confusion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E9K19lJn-Q

    A video by Gaijin Goombah of Game Theory fame on Ubisoft's upcoming Ghost Recon: Wildlands, specifically the religious element of the antagonistic faction.

    A few people brought up (including myself) the possibility of creating a SotU "church" variant of sort; in a similar vein, the idea of a "competing religious figure" was also broached. Ubisoft's Wildlands is therefore an intriguing consideration;

    So far, we've generally assumed the religious competition (if it exists) to be generally positive or "weird" but not necessarily "bad". What if instead the antagonists were a morally bankrupt cartel using faith to prop up it's illicit activities in a war-torn hellscape, and you (the PC), decided to fight fire with fire, using a different but equally morally bankrupt version of the faith to challenge their power?

    Maxds' proposal was something along of the lines of SoW meets SotU w/ religious flair. That kind of setting has SoW+SotU plastered all over it.

    For the record, I wouldn't recommend going down that route, but let it not be said i don't fairly represent both sides of the argument.



    #2
    The limitations of the game engine have prevented the computer opposition from posing any real threat (see SoW, SotU and most recently Suits to Skirts) and consequently diminishing the effect of having opposition in the narrative. Coupled with that, it's impossible to lose in any Selectacorp game. I, for one, would like to have lose conditions which humiliate and spur the player on to try again. Therefore, I'm in favor of sticking to our core strengths, and having the player play only against his own choices. As an aside, I'd also like to speak out against the RNG.

    Comment


      #3
      At the risk of annoying Max by moving into mechanics discussion; It's important to stress that Artificial Intelligence doesn't really exist. What all "games" do instead is attempt to simulate (through various means) something that looks like "organic human behavior" to the casual observer. Now, I will be the first to admit that the way we've done in SotU and S2S isn't that. After the novelty of the first few attacks wear off, you quickly see through the curtain of the proverbial wizard of oz and see it for what it is; the game merely taking a few points off your resource stats every turn, using an RNG system of sorts. This was in part why, in S2S, i advocated having an RNG event where "nothing bad" or even "something good" happened, to help feed into the illusion of "realism".
      Thing is though, i'm pretty sure that even with the game engine that we have (which really only enables turn by turn RNG from a given pool) we can actually achieve something that feels very organic; having two clearly defined "factions" that not only undermine the player's, but EACH OTHER's stat pools; all of a sudden, you're faced with a system that feels MUCH more organic AND chaotic AND believable. I'll make a full on mechanics post on this eventually, but i just wanted to get this thought out there for now.

      Comment


        #4
        Interesting concept. It is possible to introduce a counter narrative theoretically. Well worth investigating-- keen to hear more
        Always working behind the scenes

        Comment

        Working...
        X