Beren Hurin
Onslaught Inc
RISE of LEGION
1932
   |
Posted - 2013.12.30 15:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
So one of the things that CCP could do to help to make the game become and feel more immersive, like it matters, is by making each battle highlight the subtle narrative that is taking place in each battle. I think they somewhat try to do this in a very data driven way showing the players in each battle and their points, along with the contractors. But this doesn't really embrace the possible depth inherent in an ambitious FPS/MMO.
So in a story you have characters, a setting, and a plot.
The characters in a story all have a part to play. In Dust the contractors are essentially just meaningless names and the players are essentially anonymous to each other save for the circumstantial interactions that enable a little bit of learning of individuals' habits and specialties.
- Doing something to highlight individual specialties or contributions as a battle initiates could assist in giving identities of parties involved. More visually showing how many and how big the opposing team's squads are, along with the squad's recent win/loss streak and most used suit/vehicle could give a sense of the imminence of your opponent's competition. How loyal are their faction warfare contributions? How often do they win in pub matches? Do they have any territory in PC? All of these points of information at the beginning of a game could grant an identity to your opponent helping your craft your own narratives.
-Similarly with contractors...We may not really care why we are fighting as mercenaries. But if there is no explanation for conflict, than the conflict itself feels meaningless, and players start to turn to other meaningless aspects of the game (like KDR) to temporarily force goals on a system it wasn't meant to hold. I suggest creating minor and unique random micro objectives/benefits/penalties of each contractor that fills out a sense of 'relationship' with the contractors. A battle between two logistics corporations' industrial outposts should FEEL different than a fight to defend a production depot owned by pirates from bombardment by an empire navy. You should feel the sense that the side you are fighting for isn't as agnostic about the results as you are and is willing to pay significantly to show this.
The setting also sets up the story to be enjoyed well by players. True Grit is trying to do this in FW with data about the system that they are in. I think similar information in pub matches, perhaps a bit of info in the war barge, and 10-20 seconds before the match for a little more perspective on where you are about to fight would be helpful in establishing the 'place' where you are, would set this up well. A map in the warbarge, some pre-game map 'fly-throughs'. Maybe even having your team 'ride in' on the MCC (or even vehicles?) over the more barren parts of a map as the district comes into view and a game timer counts down...?
Finally there is the story itself. This is the major content of what happens in each battle. Essentially you have the beginning, where each team deploys their assets and sets up their initial thrust and draws some battle lines with supporting equipment. Then you have the middle where the teams either overcome the enemy, sustain their initial advance, trade objectives, or falter under pressure. The background application somewhat 'narrarates' these events in a dry and robotic kind of way. Eventually, matches arc-down after each game finishes its climax, sometimes this is early on after one team dominates, or at the very end of a closely fought match. Either way, if the game were to facilitate the sense of urgency, and conflict, and achievement of each player's contribution to the story and its progression, this could heavily help immersion.
CCP needs to facilitate the drama of each battle to move it out of the sense of just being a lobby shooter. |