A lurker's thoughts

Hey everyone!

 

I've been lurking on these forums for a long time now but didn't feel like I had the time to jump into the conversation. Now that I'm better settled into my new place, I hope it's not a problem if I give my two cents on what we've seen so far. As of last April I had read through most of the posts here but it's been a while since then so I apologize if I'm going over some things which have already been said.

First off, more than anything else I'm just stoked to see a new Star Control title being released. SCII was my favorite game as a kid and I still enjoy it. So thanks to Stardock and everyone here for doing this.

Second, one of the big themes I gathered from the forums so far, and from the dev notes, is that different people want different things from this game. In other words, no matter what decision the devs make, someone is going to be disappointed. As I see it, that's to be expected, both because of time and money limitations and because a game can't be everything.

With those two points out of the way, I'd like to give my perspective on (1) why I think SCII was such a good game, (3) what we've seen in the materials released so far, and (3) a few questions for the devs and other founders. I don't think my perspective is any more valid or important than anyone else's, I just hope that it can be helpful in some way to the devs.

 

Star Control 2, AKA a Brilliant Little Game


I feel like SCII is one of those obscure gems of a game which did so many things right. I know I'm preaching to the choir with this, so I'll focus in on a few things which, in my opinion, pushed that game from "good" to "excellent": scope, gameplay/narrative agreement, and tone. 

Scope. It's telling that I can show SCII's starmap to one of my friends today and they are amazed at how much stuff there is in the game. There are about 500 systems, each with their own star, most with planets, and each of them can be visited. In fact, there is more content in the game then you can see given the game's time limit. This isn't inherently a good thing, but it worked for SCII in that this scope demonstrated, through the mechanics, how large the game world was. It also naturally steered your course of exploration--at first you only had the fuel and resources to visit nearby star systems, by mid game you could travel around the entire sector but it was very resource-costly, and by late game you had relatively easy access to the entire map via quasispace. The game also gives narrative hints of this scope, such as the Melnorme not know where the rainbow worlds are or races on opposite sides of the sector now knowing much about each other. 

I don't know if this kind of scope is amenable to the devs' vision with SC Origins but I certainly hope that it is. 

Gameplay/Narrative Agreement. When the game tells you that the Ur-Quan are an immensely powerful race with some of the most powerful ships in the galaxy, that narrative is confirmed through gamepaly in a way which is not contrived: the Dreadnaughts and Mauraders are very powerful and the Ur-Quan have the largest spheres of influence out of all the races. This might seem trivial, but so many games don't do this or don't do it well. In contrast SCII, consistently had gameplay and narrative reinforce each other. The Druuge are described as unscrupulous and you can actually be swindled by them or sell your crew into slavery (which, in turn, has consequences for recruiting people from the starbase). The Spathi are characterized as cowardly and they act it when they talk to you, their ships are designed to fight running away, and they end up slave-shielding themselves. The Ilwrath Avenger which is described as damaged and without a cloaking device actually is damaged and doesn't have a cloaking device. The Umgah are said to be biological wizards, and not only are they wizrds but you can get huge amounts of biological data from them. You get the idea. 

Doing this requires a lot of attention to detail and limits what you can and cannot do narratively in some cases but I personally feel that the yields are worth it. I hate it when my character in an RPG is way more badass in a cutscene then when I'm actually playing, or when an enemy who is supposed to be big and scary only is because they have plot armor, or when a legendary weapon ends up being rather run-of-the-mill, and so on. Being able to trust the narrative because that narrative is reflected through gameplay is a wonderful thing.

Tone. This is the most subjective of my categories, but SCII's tone was instrumental in how much I enjoyed it. Specifically, the game managed to be both a pulpy, humorous adventure story and a dark science fiction story. For example, SCII seemed to adeptly balance its silly moments with serious and poignant ones. It was the Pkunk who gave you the vision of the create about to be killed by the Ur-Quan; you can make the Traddash watch the Three Stooges but their history is of repeated nuclear holocaust and you can make them permanently hostile to you; the ORZ are one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in a game but both the Androsynth databanks and Arilou have pretty horrifying things to say about them. In other words, the game mixed levity with serious, and sometimes very dark, material. I mean, you can send more than one race to their death or see most of the galaxy wiped clean of life. 

Similarly, the game balances arcade-style combat and planet exploration with very scifi-y sensor readouts, an actual timer, and the starmap. Those little details of seeing a planet's axial tilt, mass, and so on add, in my opinion, a lot of value to the game, as do having planets and stars generally be presented how we would expect them to occur--hot rocky planets closer to the sun, gas giants further out, organic compounds on planets with active tectonics and liquids on the surface, etc. (As a side not, having the amount of fuel needed to land be correlated to the planet's mass is another superb example of gameplay/narrative agreement). At least for me, these small scifi touches allowed me to take the game a bit more seriously then if it was just focused on the more arcade-y aspects. 

I also really enjoyed how little information you had, even at the end of the game. You were going off into the unknown, learning for yourself, and that unknown was often dangerous and unfriendly. Presenting a universe where so much is unknown or just hinted at allows your imagination to fill in the gaps and makes the setting seem larger than it actuallyly is. 

There are a lot of other things that I like about SCII, but these are the main points which I feel make the game stand out from similar titles. 

 

Development so far: Mostly Promising


So, the game is still in pre-alpha and a lot still hasn't been decided but I feel like we've seen enough to get a rough idea of where the game is progressing. I'd like to give my thoughts on the story so far, the art style, and the proposed gameplay.

Story. First of all, I respect the decision to not include the original races until Fred and Paul can make a new game in the universe. I'm sad that we won't see some of the old cast (I personally think that a Star Control 1 era game where you're fighting with the Alliance would be awesome), but it is what it is and this gives the devs room to create their own cast of races. Second, I think the explanation of parallel universes is a brilliant one . . . though IIRC the explanation in SCII about Orz space, Truespace, Hyperspace and Quasispace was that they were layers one on top of each other, not petals connected via Quasispace. But that's a pedantic complaint and not terribly important. 

Having the player be taking one of the first hyperspace-capable ships into space and see what's out there is a very cool premise and feel very Star Trek (which I like), though that brings up a few questions right away:

  • Human technology was very primitive compared to almost every other race in SCII, and that's after a decade of fighting with the Alliance. I find the idea of Earth creating a ship which, presumably, will be a powerhouse by the end of the game pretty implausible. There might be an in-story reason why this might be the case--maybe we find a bunch of Precursor artifacts a-la SCI--but I'm overall not thrilled about the idea of going from the dumpiest ship in the galaxy to one of the best.
  • Given that this is Earth's first big foray into space, we presumably have the entire space program behind us, which makes me wonder why we would be doing things like collecting resources on planets. Analyzing new forms of life or collecting resources which are not plentiful in the solar system make sense, but we shouldn't be digging Iron and Uranium out of the ground. If it was something like surveying planets for future development that would make a bit more sense to me--and give a reason to have bright, shiny resource icons on the planet. 
  • Shouldn't ambassadors be handling xeno-relations after first contact and not us? Again, we have the resources of the entire human race and there are probably people more qualified to maintain good relations with the Tywom than us. 
Maybe these are non-issues due to story developments but I would want these to at least be lampshaded in the game.
 
Second, I like that we seem to be playing a canon character. It's less work for the devs and the story can be more focused. 
 
Art Design. To be honest, I haven't been thrilled. It's a lot more cartoony than I enjoy but that's just my personal taste. I don't think anything has looked bad, and I like the color palette and many of the critter designs, but I had hoped for something a little bit more . . . scifi and less caricatured. For example, I really don't like the giant mushrooms in the Venus screenshots. That said, I wouldn't want dark and gritty art assets (at least, not for everything) or photorealism. 
 
However, the devs have clearly put a lot of work in here and everything looks pretty good. The game seems to have a unified aesthetic which translates well between the different environments and objects (space, planets, ships, aliens). 
 
Gameplay. We haven't seen too much but I've generally liked what I've seen so far. The modular spaceship is exactly what I wanted and it looks like there are a lot of interesting module choices. The seamless transition from system view to planetfall is really cool. The idea of flying in a system with multiple gravity wells is a great idea and makes the part of me which loves Kerbal Space Program really excited. I like how the devs seem to be putting a lof of focus on missions and interactions with aliens. However, unless there is a story reason why we don't interact much with Earth I think it would be odd if the interactions with other human characters weren't just as important. 
 
With the Super Melee debate, I don't know that there is a correct way to go. Like the notes say, there are potential strengths and pitfalls of both. I personally feel that having system-wide battles would make it much easier to have more interesting and varied arenas to fight in but it's also a much more complicated thing to work out.
 
One concern that I have is that Origins will be more arcade-y than I enjoy.  I wouldn't want all of the mechanics to have an arcade feel. Similarly, I don't want everything in the plot to be lighthearted and silly. 
 
 
A Few Questions
 
In no particular order:
  • Is single player going to be the main focus of the game? That's very much what I want, though several people here on the forums have voiced that they want multiplayer to be the main attraction that keeps people playing.
  • What is multiplayer going to look like? Just super melee arenas? Different game modes? An MMO mode? 
  • Is every line going to be voice acted? I generally don't like it when every line of dialogue needs a voice actor because that sets a pretty hefty price on adding additional dialogue to the game. I think an approach similar to how the old Fallout games handled it--important characters have voiced lines and the rest don't--would work well.
  • How connected will this game be to the lore of the other ones? We know that Earth and the Precursors are in both the Ur-Quan and Origins universes, so does that mean that we'll be learning more about the Precursors? 
  • How much content will the game have? I know that we will be adding more, but about how long will the game be at launch and when it's had its updates? For that matter, wil updates just include more assets or will it add story content as well? 
  • What is the starmap going to look like? I personally think it would be really cool if it were the same (the star names would be different, of course) or if we used an actual starmap. Something like this
  • Will we be building up fleets again or will the flagship be our only ship?
  • For the devs: who do you see as your target audience for this game, besides the fans of the previous titles?
 
 
 
 
Again, these are just my opinions and I suspect that many of these ideas aren't new. I hope something in here is useful and we can make a great game. Looking forward to hearing from everyone. 
41,306 views 11 replies
Reply #1 Top

I am fairly confident that the focus of SCO is almost entirely on the single-player game.  And that is a good thing, because SCO is one of the best single player games ever made.  Stardock has never seemed to be to concerned with multiplayer in any of their games, at least that is my impression of them.  Games like Galactic Civilizations are not popular online games because they take too long to play, so it makes sense.  I have the impression that Supermelee might be the only multiplayer they ever do for SCO.  I would love it if they would expand multiplayer to a full-blown Subspace-like game with 1v1v1, 2v2, and 4v4 dueling zones, Space Hockey, Base Defense, and Capture The Flag zones... but I don't think they are going to do that.  I have the impression, and it may be completely wrong of course, that Stardock intentionally doesn't want to get involved with online gaming.  Or, at least, they want to be as minimally as possible.  And there are good reasons to avoid online gaming if you can succeed without it, so I understand that philosophy and why you would want to do that.  So I have come to just assume that SCO will not be a return of the online top down space combat game.  On the bright side, that means if I can find a way to make mine then I still get to be the one to revive the genre:-)

Your point about the narrative matching the gameplay is a subject I have never seen a modern gamer recognize before.  That is a fundamental aspect of the very different way that the hobbyist game industry made games that the modern game industry has still never evolved far enough to reach yet.  We literally can't make a game without a "background" to base it on, at least not in the "traditional" way that Avalon Hill/TFG games are made.  "The story designs the game, and the game writes the story."  Endlessly, back and forth, and in the end they are one and the same.  Only Avalon Hill and TFG ever made games this way, and it requires an entirely different method of game design than the computer game industry uses to achieve this.  They would have to re-invent themselves from the ground up to do it this way, their method is inherently incompatible with achieving this.

 

Reply #2 Top


Is single player going to be the main focus of the game? That's very much what I want, though several people here on the forums have voiced that they want multiplayer to be the main attraction that keeps people playing.

Don't think that because I'm so into the local multiplayer camp that I think Super Melee needs to be the main focus. I don't. I only think that local multiplayer is more important than internet multiplayer. I'm here participating because I want them to nail the combat mini game.

 


What is multiplayer going to look like? Just super melee arenas? Different game modes? An MMO mode? 

They've only announced the arenas so far, and we have no idea if mods will be available in multiplayer. (Otherwise, we'd get a space hockey mod).

 


For the devs: who do you see as your target audience for this game, besides the fans of the previous titles?

I want to know this too. "Which game's players are you looking to attract/steal?"

Reply #3 Top

Just as a small note, my feeling about the "layers on top of each other" description was that it was always one limited by the expressions of pitiful human language and understanding. So if petals is just another way to "say" it, then that's fine. It doesn't really feel conflicting to me. 

Also, "Orz space, Truespace, Hyperspace and Quasispace" etc aren't actually descriptions of parallel universes either, they seem to be existing within one universe, but in kind of different "places" (or "spaces" as the names suggest.) IDK. My feeling is that parallel universes would also have their own time, etc. 

But yeah, this stuff can get really complicated and I'm happy to just have it lampshaded as "a bit beyond your evolved capabilities at this time, Human"

Reply #4 Top

Quoting IBNobody, reply 2



Don't think that because I'm so into the local multiplayer camp that I think Super Melee needs to be the main focus. I don't. I only think that local multiplayer is more important than internet multiplayer. I'm here participating because I want them to nail the combat mini game.

If the plan is 1v1 Supermelee only with no intent to ever expand that later with DLC or something, I would actually agree with you.  Local/Console compatibility becomes the most important thing in that case because that is what it is... a sideshow to the main single-player game meant to played for fun on the side, or for combat practice for the main game, only while playing the main game.  Then, local MP for those brothers/best friends who decided they liked the supermelee as a head-to-head game.  With 1v1 only it is never going anywhere online, but will still be the same thing it was in SC2.  A thing that a lot of brothers/sisters/best friends decide is a favorite game to play sitting side by side at a console or even a PC.

+1 Loading…
Reply #5 Top

Quoting Kavik_Kang, reply 1

I am fairly confident that the focus of SCO is almost entirely on the single-player game.  


I'd like that. I'm not very familiar with Stardock so I'll take your word for their dev style. 


Quoting Kavik_Kang, reply 1

Your point about the narrative matching the gameplay is a subject I have never seen a modern gamer recognize before.  That is a fundamental aspect of the very different way that the hobbyist game industry made games that the modern game industry has still never evolved far enough to reach yet.  

 


I think we can point to plenty of modern titles which do this well so it's certainly not impossible. I think it's generally harder now than it was in the past because games overall have more mechanics and it's possible to make a good game which sells well without worrying about the narrative and gameplay always being in sync. 

 

Quoting IBNobody, reply 2

I'm here participating because I want them to nail the combat mini game.

 

Yeah, me too. 

Quoting IBNobody, reply 2

They've only announced the arenas so far

 

That makes sense given that they haven't nailed down what combat will be yet. 

 

Quoting sendingsignal, reply 3

Just as a small note, my feeling about the "layers on top of each other" description was that it was always one limited by the expressions of pitiful human language and understanding.

 

That would be a perfect lampshade. 

 

 

Reply #6 Top

I

Quoting hyunhochang, reply 5


I think we can point to plenty of modern titles which do this well so it's certainly not impossible. I think it's generally harder now than it was in the past because games overall have more mechanics and it's possible to make a good game which sells well without worrying about the narrative and gameplay always being in sync. 

 

Maybe we are talking about different things, I've never seen a computer game that did that at all.  The story and game never match each other at all in computer games.  They don't "model reality" in their method of game design, in fact they strive to ignore doing that as if it is a virtue.  They have quotes about it and everything, they are very proud of ignoring reality, haha!

 

Reply #7 Top

Quoting Kavik_Kang, reply 6



Maybe we are talking about different things, I've never seen a computer game that did that at all.  The story and game never match each other at all in computer games.  They don't "model reality" in their method of game design, in fact they strive to ignore doing that as if it is a virtue.  They have quotes about it and everything, they are very proud of ignoring reality, haha!

 

 

So explain what you are referring to because I can think of many, many titles which fit what I'm talking about. 

+1 Loading…
Reply #8 Top

It can be faked, kind of, I think you are thinking of some games that might have been faked well that way.  I can't remember any computer games where the game actually matched the story.  

I used to work in the board game industry, sort of "the high game design side" of the old board game industry.  Avalon Hill/Task Force Games type games, not RPGs and board games.  Our system of game design was, for a while, adopted by science as a their form of simulation design that they called "scientific modeling".  This was essentially their term for the Avalon Hill/TFG way of making games and simulations.  These games "simulate reality" and are designed to do that from the ground up.  Part of that process is that the game writes the story, and the story designs the game... back and forth, endlessly.  The is practically the exact opposite of the method the modern game industry uses, where they are actually proud that they don't "limit themselves" to representing reality.  That is the actually operative phrase of our form of simulation design, "representing reality".  You make things a whole lot easier on yourself by not trying, and separating the story/reality from the game.

One of the reasons I say that their method is just absolutely not conducive to creating games this way is that in the modern game industry the designer is almost never the person who writes the story.  You can "represent reality" of a story just as easily as real history or things in the real world.  For example Avalon Hill was usually representing the events of the real world and real history, WWII.  TFG was usually representing a story they wrote, a future history and future events in a made-up world.  If you aren't using real history, then the designer MUST be the writer of the story as well.  It can't possibly work any other way.  The game is constantly re-writing the story, and the story is constantly re-designing the game.  If you have to discuss these issues every time they game up... it would take 20 years to wind up with "design by committee" garbage.

To truly make the game and story match, one person has to be both the writer and designer.  As just one reason.  Another reason is that there isn't actually anyone in the modern game industry who knows how to design games this way, it is a lost art.  So that makes it a bit difficult for them to do, as well:-)

 

Reply #9 Top

Everything in video games is fake, Kavik. Every little detail. I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is.

+2 Loading…
Reply #10 Top

I think what you're saying is that, ideally, development of narrative and of mechanics go hand in hand and games are rooted in a realistic portrayal of the world. Given those criteria I would agree that very few games do both of these things, but that's not really what I was referring to.

 

My point was that SCII did a very good job about not having the narrative and mechanics work against each other and often had them reinforce each other. Other games which I have seen do this are often built around a few very solid core mechanics and a narrative is adapted to those mechanics--think games like Portal, Bioshock, Sid Meier's Pirates!, This War of Mine, and so on. These are games which tell a story through mechanics, which have the mechanics reinforce the narrative, or both. In contrast, we often see gameplay and narrative at odds in titles where the story idea is conceived first and a game adapted to that story. That doesn't mean that the game is bad--in fact, I think it's perfectly valid to tell a story through a game rather than develop a story from a game--but generally I feel that most games would be better if gameplay/narrative agreement was maintained. 

 

All this said, I've never made a video game or a board game with a story, so I'm not talking from experience or industry knowledge here. 

Reply #11 Top

Exactly.  I know Pirates! pretty well, so I see what you are meaning.  Pirates does represent "the life of a pirate" very well... Sid was a big fan of the hobbyist era games so he always did that at a basic level.  Civilization also does this more than most other computer games.  So, yes, that is a "light" version of what I am talking about.  And exactly the same concept.  It's not something generally recognized as even being an issue among modern gamers, that I have seen anyway.  It was always almost THE key issue with how we did things.  And we had a decades-well developed way of doing that.  

It's definitely always better that way in my mind, so I'd love to see SC match the story as much as it can with a separate writer and designer.  Like I said, their way of doing things makes this a nearly impossible thing to do well.  Well, by our standards, anyway.