View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
03-13-2012, 05:28 AM
So I guess, specifically, they seem very concerned with the action they supply us. And somewhat, in a longterm sense, intrigued by the idea of action having bigger consequences through things like territory control.

But a lot less interested with supplying the action MEANING.

And I think good Foundry missions instinctively grasp that without necessarily being text heavy or while still making text optional.

And good text or good cutscenes give action meaning. Bad cutscenes or text are people talking without contributing meaning or, at least, humor.

And Trek, more than most IPs, is about action having meaning. Not just in terms of consequences or outcomes but in terms of giving you the feeling that every punch or gunshot has a meaning, even if it doesn't change the galaxy. People have motivations beyond just having orders.

Think about this: a standard trope in MMOs is that you're getting a cure for a sick child or defending a weak person. And that's super-common in Trek, along with weight put on whether you should help the weaker person because of the Prime Directive. (But MOST of the time, the Captain decides to help the weaker person. The Prime Directive is just an extra obstacle to provide tension.)

How often, in STO, are you hitting or shooting someone because they're picking on somebody weaker than they are?

I can only think of a couple of examples.

Trek is about force applied with reason in many respects.

In general, in STO, the only reason we're given is because the other guy is shooting at us or doing something fairly esoteric. So it winds up being about duty to Starfleet or the KDF. When most characters in the IP weren't driven by duty; again, duty was something they had to weigh against what they wanted to do, not what they wanted to do.

By making duty the rationale for a lot of the gameplay, that tension is eliminated.