It's been alluded to a few times that planned story had to be altered or discarded due to player actions. I think it's very cool that we're playing a game where we can influence the course of in-game events, but it's a bit confusing and frustrating with how invisible this process is.
On the one hand, I like the invisibility of it all, it's adds to the believably and immersion not having big "you progressed the story!" popups or whatever, but it's frustrating to have zero indication of what types of actions could even potentially have an effect. If this were a pen and paper RPG, we could assume the GM in always watching, and if we're going about our story progress "wrong" he'll either adapt the story or nudge us in the right direction. It seems this is what FD is going for, but with the scale of a computer game, the player has to assume that most of the "watching" is automated, and therefore inherently limited in scope to a degree. It would be nice to know, even vaguely, what sort of actions are "watched" for story progress, or what sort of things we did or did not do to affect the scrapped potential stories.
For example, with the SS1 plotline, it seems like FD wanted to move it forward, but players did not respond like we were "supposed" to, so the plot was hit with the relative bludgeon of a CG. Is there something players could have done without needing a GC? I know a lot of people were looking for wreckage and trying to move that plotline forward, but players felt at a dead end too. Was it matter of collecting scrap from signal sources and selling it on the black market, like the GC was? Would that have "moved" the plot, or would that be a wasted effort? If that was even a mechanic, was a matter of just outright quantity of scrap, or was it finding the "right" scrap? (on a slightly different note, if doing things like selling black boxes, wreckage, or escape pods is a way to progress story, it's REALLY weird and completely counter-intuitive that they are sold on the black market)
I think a lot of people want to be involved in the stories that are being told, but it's rather difficult without knowing if our actions are actually doing anything, or if we're like the toddler "playing" videogames along with Dad, uselessly mashing buttons on an unplugged controller.
I know that 2.1 is revamping the mission system, but a lot of the major plot points seem to take place outside of missions, and I think a little bit of visible framework, or even just a informal and vague peek behind the curtains, would really help a lot of people understand just what sort of things FD is watching and looking for.
It would help FD be able to tell better stories by letting us all be better players.
On the one hand, I like the invisibility of it all, it's adds to the believably and immersion not having big "you progressed the story!" popups or whatever, but it's frustrating to have zero indication of what types of actions could even potentially have an effect. If this were a pen and paper RPG, we could assume the GM in always watching, and if we're going about our story progress "wrong" he'll either adapt the story or nudge us in the right direction. It seems this is what FD is going for, but with the scale of a computer game, the player has to assume that most of the "watching" is automated, and therefore inherently limited in scope to a degree. It would be nice to know, even vaguely, what sort of actions are "watched" for story progress, or what sort of things we did or did not do to affect the scrapped potential stories.
For example, with the SS1 plotline, it seems like FD wanted to move it forward, but players did not respond like we were "supposed" to, so the plot was hit with the relative bludgeon of a CG. Is there something players could have done without needing a GC? I know a lot of people were looking for wreckage and trying to move that plotline forward, but players felt at a dead end too. Was it matter of collecting scrap from signal sources and selling it on the black market, like the GC was? Would that have "moved" the plot, or would that be a wasted effort? If that was even a mechanic, was a matter of just outright quantity of scrap, or was it finding the "right" scrap? (on a slightly different note, if doing things like selling black boxes, wreckage, or escape pods is a way to progress story, it's REALLY weird and completely counter-intuitive that they are sold on the black market)
I think a lot of people want to be involved in the stories that are being told, but it's rather difficult without knowing if our actions are actually doing anything, or if we're like the toddler "playing" videogames along with Dad, uselessly mashing buttons on an unplugged controller.
I know that 2.1 is revamping the mission system, but a lot of the major plot points seem to take place outside of missions, and I think a little bit of visible framework, or even just a informal and vague peek behind the curtains, would really help a lot of people understand just what sort of things FD is watching and looking for.
It would help FD be able to tell better stories by letting us all be better players.