[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Thoughts on two-player campaigns

On Friday 03 September 2004 04:47 pm, Jens Granseuer wrote:
> On 01.09.2004 18:25, Dave Fancella wrote:
> > I came up with two alternatives.  One is to just rewrite the stories for
> > each map (no unit changes, nothing) to accomodate who wins each map, a
> > reasonable goal since it means you need twice as many mission briefings
> > as you'd ordinarily need, and you already need twice as many mission
> > briefings as maps, so 64 mission briefings for a campaign with a depth of
> > 16 maps.
> Even only rewriting the briefings seems like an insane amount of work to me

I'm in favor of the last solution, actually, which is to just ignore the story 
for multi-player mode and use a point system or something.  In order to make 
it so that at the end of the campaign you judge victory by how the story went 
you'd have to make the story accomodate each player winning different maps, 
but a point system eliminates it entirely.  A point system may not be the 
only way to do it, just the only way I've come up with.  ;)

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable, in the presence of many mapmakers 
and many writers, to write two briefings per map per side.  We are, however, 
not in the presence of that much manpower, so it's not an achievable goal at 
this time.  After we've done three or four campaigns, then it might make 
sense, and then limited branching might make sense too.  Don't know, won't 
know 'till we get there, really.  ;)  Just trying to explore some of the 
ideas early so when the time comes to actually decide we won't need a lot of 
discussion, or we'll be able to have more advanced discussion, and the best 
decision that can be made will be made, if it hasn't already been made.  (I 
get in trouble a lot, actually, for this sort of thing)


Visit my website!

From a certain point onward there is no longer any turning back. 
That is the point that must be reached.
		-- F. Kafka