0018035: A case against the switch to mechs - DEV Arcen

ID	Project	Category		Date Submitted	Last Update

0018035	Starward Rogue	Suggestion		Dec 19, 2015 3:02 pm	Dec 21, 2015 3:39 pm

Reporter	Pepisolo	Assigned To	Chris_McElligottPark
Status	closed	Resolution	won't fix
Product Version	0.204 (Mechs!)

Summary	0018035: A case against the switch to mechs
Description	This was a forum post, but I should probably post it on Mantis to ensure it doesn't get missed. There's also more discussion on the thread. I'm not marking this as major severity because it's not an urgent bug or anything, but personally I think it is a major issue. " I'm going to attempt to make one last case against the walking mech change as I feel it is a critical mistake that could have severe ramifications on the quality of the game further down the line. Let's look at the original vision of Starward Rogue. It's a kind of action based spin-off of The Last Federation, and an evolution of the original Airship Eternal idea. Flight, and aerial or space combat has always been a core concept. Practically every piece of art or code written so far has been made with this in mind. This is clearly evident in some ways, like all enemies in the game being ships, or the starscape windows that help create SHMUP-like backdrops, or the narrative that speaks of ships and vessels inside massive battleships, or the title of the game, etc, but it is also present in more subtle ways. When Misery was designing an enemy I'd guess he was thinking about space combat. When Dayton was designing a weapon he was probably imagining it blasting out from the cannon of a ship. There are subtleties inside every piece of art and code created so far that were borne out of the original concepts of ships and flight. If you swap out that original concept with walking mechs then rather than every piece of design being uniform and coherent, you are opening up the possibility of clashes and dissonance. Let's look at an example. OK, so we're a walking mech now and nothing else in the game is. If we stay with that imbalance then that's going to be very strange, so changes must be made. So what do we do? Make some grotesque Mr Potato Head-esque alterations to some of the existing designs by adding feet and arms? Keep all the old flying ships and add in newly designed more mechy floor based enemies and hope that people don't notice a schism in design style? How many pieces of game art have already been designed with ships in mind, let alone those already in the game? Instead of having a game with a consistent vision, you've now got a game that is one part the original Last Federation spin-off concept that took months if not years to design and one other part a Bionic Dues spin-off that was thought up only a few days ago. So, what are the benefits of this mech change? Firstly, we fast-track or bypass some of the remaining control and movement design problems that were already mostly solved. Secondly, we create a less unusual and more homogenized game design – instead of being a ship flying around within ancient alien structures, you're now a robot in a dungeon. The one is more avant-garde, but still potentially very interesting, the other is safe, and isn't going to ruffle any feathers. Is that a benefit? If the original vision of the game is going to be compromised by a change like this, then I would want a vastly bigger potential reward versus the risk. The current benefit is short-term and barely significant : hey, this mech seems kind of cool, and is a little bit easier to control than the old ship which hadn't been fully tweaked, yet, hurrah! For someone who still believes in the original vision of the game, I think it's an awful and foolhardy change. " https://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,18248.30.html
Tags	No tags attached.

Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
Dec 19, 2015 3:02 pm	Pepisolo	New Issue
Dec 19, 2015 3:06 pm	Pepisolo	Description Updated
Dec 19, 2015 3:06 pm	Pepisolo	Description Updated
Dec 21, 2015 3:39 pm	Chris_McElligottPark	Note Added: 0043872
Dec 21, 2015 3:39 pm	Chris_McElligottPark	Status	new => closed
Dec 21, 2015 3:39 pm	Chris_McElligottPark	Assigned To	=> Chris_McElligottPark
Dec 21, 2015 3:39 pm	Chris_McElligottPark	Resolution	open => won't fix