Jump to content

ShadowOfHassen

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    669

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ShadowOfHassen

    What are your favorite songs in 0 A.D.?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    What I mean is, Omri's OG tracks are complete self-contained pieces. The other tracks are more like ambient sketches. 

    Aren't they all made by Omri?

     

    4 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

    I like the OG honor bound too:

     

    Yeah, it's just a little bit more-- is it still in the art repo? I've been meaning to pull the new full soundtrack and get it set up nicely so I can listen to it while doing stuff.

    What are your favorite songs in 0 A.D.?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Back to the topic, I prefer the tracks that are less "ambient" and more lyrical. We have several "ambient" style tracks now that I'm not a huge fan of, but I've chosen to sprinkle in anyway. My favorites are the older tracks, such as 

     

    and

     

     

     

    :) 

    Forging a city state is a good one--

     

    The soundtrack as a whole is a banger. I listened to 0 A.D. soundtrack and portal music as I wrote my first book that didn't deserve to be burnt with fire. Because it was Medival Fantasy, I favored more European/ Hellenistic sounding tracks, and those are still my favorite.

     

    I'm not sure I understand the difference between lyrical and ambient, I don't know a lot about music other than that it sounds good.

    What are your favorite songs in 0 A.D.?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Vantha said:

    I'd like the idea too, I might look into it. (Only for scenarios/campaigns or all maps?)

    I'd do it for all and make it default for the map-- but if you don't have a playlist for the map, it defaults to the civs. That way, map designers can pick 3–5 tracks that reflect the area they're making.

    What are your favorite songs in 0 A.D.?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Vantha said:

    Would be a really quick change... which civs would you add them to? Gauls and Britons?

    Yeah that would make the most thematic sense. Personally, I'd add it to the Helenestic civs too because I play those too and really like the song.

     

    4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    For some previous alpha it was decided to genericize the playlists a little, which is something I did not agree with. It made the soundscapes for all the civs too generic. For instance, hearing Celtic music when playing the Mauryas or whatever. Didn't make sense to me. Still doesn't make sense to me. My mod remedies this, but I'm not sure if I'll make a PR for the base game or not. 

    That does make sense-- it'd be kind of immersion breaking to hear something like Ammon Rah, if I played the Britons, or even Athenians. I don't think we have that problem, though?

     

    I wonder if we should have the map dictate the playlist first, then the civ because sometimes the map designer might have a specific song in mind. (I really wouldn't mind listening to Ammon Rah if I was Britons playing in the desert maps). Also looking forward to the campaigns, I'm pretty sure we'd want to dictate what music we want to play in a campaign then leave it up to the civ

    • Like 1

    What are your favorite songs in 0 A.D.?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Vantha said:

    Oh man, you're more than right, Tavern in the Mist really is brilliant. It's wonderful.

    I never got to listen to it in the game, though... it's one of the default soundtracks, which are superseded by the civ-specific ones. I'd love to have it somewhere else too. Maybe for the future German civ?

    It's not linked to one of the civs? Not even the Britons?!? That's a crying shame! Forget A27 feature freeze, we need to fix that!

    Oh, how did you find it, just listening to the soundtrack while working?

    • Like 1

    Narrative Campaign General Discussion?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    19 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    There would still be narrative campaigns, such as your tutorial campaign, but a practice campaign would take you through a series of challenges to rank up your skills. 

    Yeah. Just like a short mission with each civ to get players used to mechanics. You really wouldn't be able to do justice to a lot of the cool stories with just a single mission, so just give an overview of the history.

     

    Just to reiterate, this is a different project idea not the same as the idea before.

    • Like 1

    Narrative Campaign General Discussion?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    29 minutes ago, Vantha said:

    What about the idea of practice games  in between that we talked about at the beginning?

    How about instead of that after the tutorial campaign, we have a different campaign called the practice campaign where there is one or two missions for each civilization which just gives a basic overview of the civ, both gameplay wise and historically-- make it totally without stories and just a narrator giving the overview.

     

    It wouldn't be a ton of work long term and that would be a good second campaign to ship.

    Narrative Campaign General Discussion?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Vantha said:

    Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 all take place at the city and its surroundings. So, I'm hoping to be able to use the same map for all of them (the one that I'm creating right now). But we will only see whether that is actually possible once we get to the concrete implementation.

    Scenario 4 will definitely require a different map, though, if we decide for the idea with Hemeroscopium as the final target, since that city needs to be situated further to the North (somewhere not covered by the first map). But it might be possible to reuse parts of the first one for it.

    We might want to make some changes in between the three scenarios just minor ones but that’s beside the point… keep up the good work and make sure to back the map up!

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    Narrative Campaign General Discussion?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Vantha said:

    Yeah, but wouldn't it still be more exciting to fight e.g. the Battle of Cannae?

    Yes it would be exciting to fight. all I'm saying is that if there isn't a lot of information, we can get the battle to be as big as you need for the game. Things in general will need to be adjusted for scale. Quite a few battles had troops in the thousands on both sides, but that won't work with a population cap of even 500, so events will need some adaptation anyway. So have your final battle as big and exciting as you want. :-) (In reason of course)

    • Like 1

    Narrative Campaign General Discussion?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Vantha said:

    Here is what I suggest for scenario 4:

    I think the campaign should end in a big battle. 0ad is a game about warfare after all, so that's what people install the game for. Preferably, the player should get to carry out an attack this time. Mainly, because the tutorial should teach how to do that (and in scenario 3, the player only defends). But also because it simply a lot more fun from a role-playing perspective.

    However, we need a target. It can't be the Iberians this time since we made peace with them in scenario 3. The obvious (and ideal) choice would be Rome, but they weren't present in the region at the time at all (and I'll explain why that's important later).

    Now, it's not as impossible as it may seem to find historical events that suit our needs. Because here is what happened after Hasdrubal founded Carthago Nova:

    The city of Massalia was actually quite an important power in the region (and itself has a pretty interesting backstory, it was even candidate for the subject of this campaign at some point). Plus, it's Greek (and so its colonies), which allows us to include yet another popular ancient civilisation that players might have prior knowledge of.

    Of the said towns, Hemeroscopium ("Hemeroskopeion" in Greek) seems like the best choice (it's at least the one I was able to find the most about online). And it has the best-sounding name :D. So, I'd make it the final objective of the scenario to conquer this town.

    Now, it was not as big as one would wish, so the if there was a battle it was probably quite small and we have no historical record of it. That'd be the only drawback.

    However, after taking over the city we can have the player sign the Ebro Treaty (which among other cities was requested from Rome by Massalia). On the one hand, it prohibited Hasdrubal from marching further and taking more cities, but also granted much of the entire Iberian peninsula to Carthage (which is what Hasdrubal set out to do at the beginning of the campaign). And we can emphasise his diplomatic skills again. That would be such a satisfying end in my opinion.

    Sounds like a good plan just don't worry about the size too much. Scale in 0 A.D. isn't exactly 1:1 to real life anyway.

    • Like 1

    Narrative Campaign General Discussion?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    13 minutes ago, Vantha said:

    I think it's a great idea. I was originally not planning on teaching the player the diplomacy system, but this is a nice opportunity to do so. We could make scenario 3 focus on fortifying the city and repelling an assault. But in the end actually negotiate an alliance with the attackers: For instance, gifting them some food to help with a current shortage (and maybe arranging some intermarriages). And in exchange the player gets access to the Iberian embassy building in the next scenario (therefore the ability to hire mercenaries) to use in the large attack in the end (against some Roman target).

    That sounds like a plan we’d just have to design scenario 3 so the player couldn’t conceivably brute force their way to victory without becoming allies but we should be able to figure that out .

    • Like 2

    Narrative Campaign General Discussion?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Good observation. Perhaps after a scenario or two of war, the player finds it beneficial to ally with said enemy and halt hostilities. Run the full gamut. So then the player learns about the diplomacy and trading features that way, by making peace with a faction you were at war with. Common enemy? (Romans are encroaching now)

    Perhaps … we should teach alliances last I remember we were going to just have an allied group help you in one of the scenarios but this could work to as long as @Vantha and @Lion.Kanzen are ok with it 

    • Like 1

    Narrative Campaign General Discussion?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    17 minutes ago, ChronA said:

    Especially given that you guys seem to be trying to build a tutorial campaign, I recommend building your scenarios first and then writing your story around them, rather than coming up with story ideas now. It is hard enough to create compelling scenarios that are both entertaining and instructive. Trying to simultaneous line up those features onto a preset sequence of narrative beats is going to be nigh impossible. it will end up as an impenetrable jumble, where your story is constantly being interrupted by tutorial segments, and gameplay consists of a dry sequence of over-scripted set pieces intended to support the tutorials and story but lacking opportunities for organic creativity or challenge.

    Setting and premise is pretty much all you should have at this point. Save the rest for after the scenarios are in a playable state. Personally I think the best development sequence is tutorial -> gameplay -> tutorial -> story. Basically you start with a general outline of what skills you want to tutorialize, then you build a fun gameplay scenario to test those skills. At that point you finish up the tutorial scripting to work around the dramatic beats of the gameplay scenario. Then and only then do you write your story and characters. The skills you need to teach will inform your protagonist's motivation and the story problems that they will face, and the gameplay will inform their characterization.

    Starcraft 1's campaigns are a master class in doing this right, particularly the Terran campaign. Its tutorial goals are to teach you to control your units, how to build and defend a base, and finally how to command large armies. Thus we get gameplay and a story about an outnumbered group of refugees fleeing from the Zerg until they join up with an armed rebellion and overthrow on the colonial government. This ludo-narrative dramatic arc is supported by Jim Reynor's characterization: an inexperienced and reluctant leader who is radicalized by the scenario's unwillingness to give him the resources he needs to effectively protect his people, leading him and the player to get in bed with some really questionable characters and do some pretty messed up things to get the power to change that reality. It's a great tragic story arc that perfectly reflects the tutorialized gameplay progression of the campaign.

    Yeah you’re right. we already have a rough list of what we want to teach so we’ve kind of already done that , we’re just keeping the other stuff in mind while be build the maps.

    what I think both you and @Vantha are touching on is on the story to gameplay slider rts usually focus more on game play and I agree. But we can still do a pretty good story while we’re at it.

     

    but obviously with the tutorial gameplay and game mechanics first .

    Narrative Campaign General Discussion?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    28 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

    It depends on the generation. The first AoE was to use your imagination.

    Starcraft does have a lore.

     

     

    My first RTS was Age of Empires 3 and even know the Knight's of Saint John campaign is probably one of my favorite stories in video games. (Nostalgia mostly, but it was pretty good)

    Narrative Campaign General Discussion?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Vantha said:

    I don't think its comparable to movies. But you're right, players will click away if Hasdrubal starts talking in Phoenician. :P

     

    i believe that's something we should provide as well. A small page called something like "historical background" that explains the campaign's historical context. And helps players embed the story told into their existing knowledge (Carthage, Rome, Punic Wars, Hannibal, ...)

     

    Well, I'd actually prefer this. It's more like paging through a history book. But I'll leave that decision up to you writing minds.

    So what if we had a kind of overview when you start the campaign, a section called historical background, then we have a description that shows up in the scenario selection area and during loading and finally there is some dialog/ objective information in game.

     

    I mean, in a single scenario you might have multiple objectives I.E. destroy the tower, build a civic center, train 10 hopilites, and you kind of need to get the player to realize they need to do that.

    • Like 1

    Narrative Campaign General Discussion?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    39 minutes ago, Vantha said:

    Do we really need dialogue to tell the story?

    Certainly a hot take, but I find cutscenes (especially with voiceovers) in RTS's very awkward. Why would Carthaginian generals talk in English? And with the moments of silence in between shouted lines, speeches sound very unnatural and feel everything else but "real". If anything, it takes away from the immersion for me.

    In my mind, there are three ways to convey information in a video game (i.e. Plot)

    The first way is atmospheric story telling. I.E. there's a skeleton right next to a dark cave. The player then gets the impression that something dangerous is there.

    The second way is lore dumps. This could be a book or terminal in game, or the loading tip. They're nice to know information that flushes out the world. It's not necessary, though, and you can not look for it and ignore it.

    The final way I think information is given is direct information given to the player that is necessary for them to complete and/or understand the game. I call this dialog, though there could be a better way to say it. Basically, it's the thing that says. "Hey, Player, you need to get these elephants over the alps"

    Now, of course you could do this different ways. You could have a description before starting the scenario "One day Hannibal decided he wanted to take his elephants to go visit Rome, and to do so he needs to get over the alps"

    Or you could have direct dialogue (which is how you meant dialogue) like:

    "Hi Hannibal, what do you want to do today?"

    "Well, I've been thinking and I kind of want to take my elephants to go see Rome."

    "Well, first we'll have to get them over the alps"

    I wrote the examples rather silly, but I think you get the basic point.

    For scenarios for 0 A.D. We'll often need to make it very clear to the player what they need to do. And in those cases I think direct dialogue would be better. There's a rule in writing that isn't always right called show, don't tell. And I do think showing what is happening in cutscenes and dialogue is better than just telling with a text box that says. "Move the Elephants across the alps"

     

    I agree with @Lion.Kanzen with the translation. We wouldn't probably have voice actors, so that would give us a bit more wiggle room if we just have written dialogue to help address at least the silence problem.

    The only problem is you'd be brought out of the game whenever there's dialogue because you'd have to read it, so we'd probably use it sparingly anyway, mostly at the start and end of the scenarios.

     

×
×
  • Create New...