For writers working on documentation, story prose, announcements, and all kinds of Wesnoth text.
- Posts: 198
- Joined: January 1st, 2016, 4:40 pm
- Location: Hopelessly trapped within the Submachine
I am implying that, while less serious than campaigns, the tutorial does somewhat fit the tone. What you are proposing is a metric tonne less serious, and does not fit imo. It's razing the fourth wall to the ground and having characters act like they're in a third rate tv show.
I did not say it is a good tutorial. My position is that race specific tutorials are not needed, and that tactical hints (in some campaigns, on easy difficulty) should suffice for teaching the player how to play a certain race. Basics that are common to all races, like defense, ToD, etc. are already covered in the existing tutorial; maybe it could be expanded for a level, but that's about it.
It's explained in the tutorial. If the player cannot be bothered to pay attention to the basics in the tutorial (or to even play it), what makes you think they'd bother to play several different race-specific tutorials and pay attention to them?Aldarisvet wrote: ↑December 14th, 2019, 9:29 pmI must admit, in the very beginning I passed several of Wesnoth campaigns not even understanding what that 4-6 digits mean. For me it was like damage is random between 4 and 6 (even now I do not remember which of them is damage and which of them is number of attacks, I mean what of them goes first, ah, seems damage goes first because Dragonguard has 40-1). I really passed several campaigns absolutely without knowing basics of game mechanics.
It's reasonable that any commander would have someone to consult on strategy. And as far as I remember, most mainline campaigns DO start with a relatively inexperienced leader who could use some advice. It's not like it'd be a lecture in every scenario. It can even be an off-hand remark by a random soldier. And only on easy difficulty, in easy campaigns.Aldarisvet wrote: ↑December 14th, 2019, 9:29 pmAnd, it would be really impossible to make even something like what exists in HttT in other campaigns. Becase in HttT Konrad is young and Delfador is actually his teacher in the storyline. Such circumstances would be impossible in other campaigns of that arc exactly because the arc is storyline driven.
In any case, I've stated my position. If you're interested in making that stuff, more power to you. I just don't think it's worth the effort.
Good and evil are perspective based. As history has stated "winners write the history" would apply for realistic aspects. Also on the note of history, this get altered, facts get stretched and/or get replaced to make things even grander, heroes are made to be above the average person. However i am not going to touche politics and religion as this adds complications. however typically the "good side" trope are those that defend the weak, are not aggressive (preemptive strike is questionable due to reasons), relation/refugee (aspect has both). Now there are aspects as to being the good guys and that is who and where the characters are. example Lisa thought Konrad was evil based on "sides" and knowing what she knows. there is a lot of variables.
"hitting home" that tends to get people more motivated example ww1 and ww2 with the US. If something is far away and doesn't impact you best bet you are not going to do anything. Unless its like Eastern Invasion. But when you look at heroes in irl they are just random people during a battle and get noticed in media.Aldarisvet wrote: ↑December 15th, 2019, 11:21 amAnd now my position. A cliche that I am speaking about is that when a hero happily lived on his sweet home, then in the first scenario he was suddenly attacked by evil guys and the whole campaign is about fighting these evil guys with triumphal killing of main_bad_boy in the last scenario. If an author cannot create a reason for why the whole adventure begins other than main hero was driven away from his ordinary life because of some bad guys forced him to change his life, this author is using that worst cliche.
However you have just described the "first scenario" if you start a campaign it gives you the backstory and sets up the entire story. As far as I know all the mainline stories gives such details, some more than others. So could you please clarify whats the "problem" the scenario or the narrative backstory before the first scenario.
beginning a story and first scenario are 2 separate entities that fallow each other. in a interactive "fighting game" you are limited compared to a novel. novel you are able to add details give more backstory you are able to play with more ideas. a game needs to be interactive and entertaining you need to cut more details to not prolong game play. if the first scenario requires "hitting at home" it is what it is. Now depending on how maker wants to go with typically hitting at home at the beginning gives a good starting point regarding story, and game mechanics. you don't have elite/experienced troops or the resources giving more reason to flee. you need to look at many aspects.Aldarisvet wrote: ↑December 15th, 2019, 11:21 amI assure you that there are countless ways to begin the story other than "bad guys attacked my home". Still most of mainline campaigns use that worst clische (even HttT despite it is good campaign in general, but since it was one of the first campaign it would be unfair to blame Dave for using that cliche, it is others who overused the same plotline to be blamed). But not all! As I remember UtbS begins with a catastrophe, not some invasion, SoTA begins with Ardonna running from the academy, SoF begins with some conflict with elves blocking the passage and demanding high toll, TtoT begins with dwarves starting an expedition to investigate what happened with other clan. So you see it is no problem to create alternative beginning than "I was living peacefully in my village before these evil guys attacked us".