![]() Hopefully as the game's development involves, it'll become meaningful and contribute something to play. ![]() One or preferably both of two or three things could easily make alignment actually mean something:ġ) some AIs being 'natural' enemies of the player (whether based on race or their own alignment for example) that entails going to war with them doesn't equate to a bad act (perhaps even equating to an act of good if the AI alignment the player declares war on is evil, with it being an act of evil if a good player declares war on another good aligned AI) - at least this would ensure that your label of good or evil meant something in relation to actual decisions you'd made Ģ) AIs + independents reacting differently to the player based on alignment, including diplomacy etc - this would ensure you being good or evil meant something beyond a label.ģ) General extension to ways in which the player can 'win' a game, and general improvement of diplomacy etc.Īs it is currently, it doesn't make much sense or have much meaning, and for the purposes of having fun and also having the best chance of victory is best ignored - but that does strike me as a shame, a wasted opportunity based on incomplete design. fight) and then implies (by having an alignment system at all) that if you'd done y something else would have occurred - except you can't really do y and there wasn't really much of something else that would have occurred if you had. It's like the game pushes you to do x (i.e. ![]() ![]() I think the real crux of the issues with alignment are that they are at odds with the nature of the game - it is, at least at present, totally combat-centric, so to have alignment swing around for playing the game in the way it is (currently) set up to be solely played makes it kind of meaningless. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |