westamastaflash
Lord Commander
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2007
- Messages
- 933
Well he was already at war with the elves. So i guess it was pointless. Oh well.
Spoiler :This is the beauty of Faeryl. On the surface she looks to be a uniter willingly giving up power in order to ensure the peace of her people. She establishes order, recognizes the talented among them and does so without any hint that she is pushing any personal agenda.
But what did she really do?
1. Protected her former Svartalfar allies by making sure they are given legal and cultural protection.
2. Sent Amelanchier away from the capital to guard the forts and the "untended" elven lands. He can defend her lands, a job he is suited for and Faeryl isn't insterested in doing anyway.
3. Sent Thessa even further abroad. Putting her in charge of diplomacy and external wars. Putting her in the most difficult spot and focusing her and those most most likely to figure out Faeryl's ruse as far away from Faeryl as possible.
4. Left Faeryl alone with the capital and the heart of the nation. The craftsmen, farmers, temples, artists, etc. Faeryl has a country to rule but doesn't have to be concerned with anything external to the world she governs. She has two levels of isolation between her and outside world, and therefor two levels of isolation between the outside world and her.
5. The only negative to this at all is her agreement to come together with Amelanchier and Thessa for empire wide decisions. But what empire wide decisions are left? Faeryl already controls every part she cares about. And even if an empire wide decision does come up she has full faith that she can trick Amelanchier and Thessa into doing exactly what she wants (which isn't hard because usually exactly what she wants will be whats in the best interests of the elven kingdom anyway).
Faeryl talks a good game, its a convincing argument. And it obviously worked thanks to a little guile and some help from Esus. But it isn't a compromise of any sort for Faeryl, short of Svartalfar victory it is exactly what she wants.
Yeah, I agree with this.I never do. I'm an avid roleplayer myself. My point is that well-written tragedy has the potential to really affect people emotionally, which is what the designers have done.
Yes, and you've pointed out something very important here. FFH gives us great characters to play with, with truly interesting stories and personalities. This is probably one of the reasons they're so easy to care about and bond with, as opposed to generic action hero # 3. But in my mind, and this is my subjective opinion, the key difference between theater and an interactive game like this, is the player.Yes, it provokes a strong reaction, but that's what tragedy is supposed to do. I realize that theater and RPGs are two different animals, but remember that FfH isn't even strictly a role-playing game. It's a 4X game with some role-playing elements in which the only real connection we have with the characters beyond that which we create ourselves is controlling the military, political, and economic arms of their empires. Oh -- and their card games.
This, I totally agree with.That the creators have managed to create such an incredibly rich world populated with such intriguing characters that they were able to provoke these kinds of reactions despite the lack of a game mechanic to truly immerse the player in the character is a testament to their creativity and their years of work.
I've sort of responded to this above. It's really the "out of the blue"-nature of the ending, coupled with the total lack of connection with the actual events and achievements of the player, that makes it feel unfair.Don't get me wrong, Old MacDonald. I'm not saying you shouldn't be upset. All I'm saying is that this tragedy is an integral part of the FfH experience that we've been given, and I think that to call it an unfair trick on the part of the creators is to do them a bit of a disservice.
Spoiler :What I usually like about FFH is that the game gives me all the great lore, and then lets me weave my own stories on top of that. I.e. Kael has set the stage and given me the tools, and when the game starts, I take over. I take his characters and his world, and based on my actions and my imagination, I continue evolving his creations.
This is especially true because FFH is not really an RPG or adventure where you have your character on screen and control him or her directly. This game hardly ever tells us anything about our characters during the gameplay - it leaves pretty much everything to the imagination. And so, the world and the characters in it becomes mine.
I guess that's part of why an ending such as this feels so wrong. In a way, I feel Kael should let go of his creation when I take over. I accept this is probably a hard thing to do, and I also accept that a scenario such as this must have a somewhat defined ending. But...
Spoiler :I find that this ending was so at odds with what actually happened in the scenario that it didn't feel comfortable at all. And that's why I call it unfair. It was completely unpredictable for me as the player, and it undermined everything I had achieved during the many hours I had spent on the scenario.
All this controversy over this? The hippus lovers must not have finished "The cult" yet
... I thought about this twist before I wrote it. It is, to a certain degree, unfair. ....
I think what you pointed out right at the end is the key here. In a regular game of FfH, the world develops along its own track, with the player helping to guide its development by participating in that world as a major power.
-snipped-
The scenarios, however, belong to Kael and Co. The developers set the stage for the Elven civil war and then give us the keys to let us fight out this important moment in Erebus history. The story of the scenario -- what happens before and after the battles -- is something separate and apart from our interaction with the game as players.
Spoiler :I think what happened was unpredictable for Arendel as well. But out of curiosity, what makes you say it was so at odds with what actually happened? Even if the Ljos win a military victory, you as a player did not execute Faeryl Viconia. You as a player did not specifically post guards around Arendel and prepare anti-illusion wards to protect her. I would argue that what happened was contrary to your expectations of what a Ljos victory would look like, but it was in no way out of character for either the people involved or the world that it takes place in.
I'm in no way saying that you shouldn't be dissatisfied with the ending, but consider it this way: With the scenarios, the developers are telling us a story that already exists. There is some player input of the "choose your own adventure" variety, where they can guide the story in one of two directions -- a Ljos military victory or a Svart military victory. But outside of that, in the scenarios we as players are still being told a story. We may not always like the story that we're being told, but again, it's like complaining to Jim Cameron thatSpoiler :the Terminator shouldn't have died at the end of T2 because it wasn't fair.
I appreciate the good discussion!
I love this discussion. Honestly my true love is storytelling more than game design and I easily antagonize longer over 6 paragraphs on a scenario desc than a 1000 lines of code (probably why I have so many bugs ).
I thought about this twist before I wrote it. It is, to a certain degree, unfair. But though a character suffers, the empire you won the war with does win. the Ljosalfar do survive, the svartalfar are crushed, despite the specific fate of individuals in the aftermath.
Spoiler :In the end though, I honestly don't feel like I always pick the story. I write the story but these characters drive it forward. In this case Faeryl simply wouldn't die. I had intended to write a celebratory story for a new world under the Ljosalfar banner, but I couldn't find it.
Arendel was to perfect for Erebus, her fall with Thessa and Amelanchier remaining in a new less idealistic elven nation seemed right. An elven nation fiercely guarded with internal subterfuge and secrects is perfect.
I also like to think that within that coffin Arendel remains alive, sustaining herself on a piece of fruit and nature magic. Though Cerrunous has no chance of discovering a secret hidden by Esus there may be some future for Arendel. If she is rescued unharmed, returns as an undead queen from the elven catacombs, or is as mad as Perpentach is yet to be discovered.
Btw, from this comment I'm sort of getting the idea that this ending will be considered "canon" in the future of Erebus. Am I right?
Spoiler :You are right, of course. I think that the reason it seems like a total loss for me is that in my mind, Faeryl = The Svartalfar. This may not be entirely reasonable, but I do fear that she will do everything in her power (and now she has lots of it) to make sure that she and her Svartalfar allies get what they want in the end.
I do agree that in general there are clear differences between what scenarios are supposed to do, and what the epic game is supposed to be like, and that a well defined ending is part of what you expect from a scenario. But typically, scenarios are far smaller, far more limited affairs, where you're more or less guided by the game designers throughout. So they naturally tend to flow towards the predetermined ending (or endings).
But this scenario is an epic struggle where the creators stay away from the action for most of the time. It's basically an epic game with advanced start, a couple of special units and less randomization than normal. So the differences between scenario and epic game gets blurred out a bit, and after you've spent 5-10 hours making history, such a forced and unexpected ending does feel wrong to me.
As an aside, this scenario already contains the possibility to decide for yourself what you want to do with your defeated foes (which is pretty cool, and would be neat to have in the epic game as well). So it certainly wouldn't have been inconsistent to give the player more options at the end, and have this ending as only one of maybe several endings, based on the player's choices.
So as Arendel, you could get the options to, say, execute Faeryl, imprison her, exile her or something entirely different... I don't know about you, but roleplaying Arendel I would probably choose one of the last two options - I mean, choosing to banish/exile Faeryl would probably extremely stupid and naive, but I don't think it would have been entirely out of character for Arendel to do something like that.
To me, the difference is about the player's participation in the story-creation-process. There is none of that in Terminator 2. The viewer watches, and that's it. Whereas in Fall from Heaven 2, I make the story. The war between the Svartalfar and the Ljosalfar was my war - it was based on Kael's foundation, but other than that it was all mine.
I would disagree here. I felt the storytelling hand of the developers to have more influence in this scenario than in some of the others. Each time you conquer an enemy, more story emerges.
Spoiler :I agree with you -- that's the action I would probably take as well. And I would say that's probably the reason Faeryl was able to pull off the stunt that she did.
I think this is the crux of the discussion right here -- you seem to be arguing that once you start a scenario, you are essentially taking control of it away from the developers and guiding it down a path of your choosing, with the expectation that the end result necessarily follows the actions that you have chosen, and that by interacting with the characters and events of the world that you are taking a sort of moral ownership stake in what happens to them in the context of a given game/scenario.
I, however, contest that there is no such ownership stake on the part of the player. The stories, crafted by the devteam, already exist. The stories might have multiple branching paths, but they are still a fixed, existing story in the same way as T2, Romeo and Juliet, or other works of fiction, and we are interacting with them in a limited way.
Spoiler :I would agree with you that there is potential for the player to feel cheated if there is a logical disconnect between the way the scenario plays out and what the final resolution is. If I won a military victory with the Ljos and the closing text began, "As Faeryl and her troops march triumphantly through the burnt wreckage of Evermore...", then yeah, I would be puzzled at best. But I don't believe it is reasonable to state, "The Ljos armies defeated the Svart armies, therefore Faeryl Viconia could not have managed to secretly change places with Arendel." One does not logically follow the other. That's why I argue that the ending toys with your expectations (= good storytelling) and not with the "reality" of the scenario (= bad storytelling). Again -- not trying to argue that you have to like the ending, but just that I don't think it's an unreasonable or unfair one.
Again, I'd like to express my appreciation to you for taking this on with me. I think it's entirely likely that we won't ever see eye-to-eye on this, but it's so rare to get a really good discussion like this on a forum that doesn't devolve into a flamewar. It's a tremendously interesting topic that really gets into the relationship between developers and players, and how both interact with a story.
If you're ever in Portland, OR, let's grab a beer!
Playing as Amel. and popped March of the Trees on turn 10, was able to wipe the floor with Volanna with about 15 treants and now have 6 good forested cities on turn 15.... this will be over quickly. (World Spell should prolly be disabled for this game)
On the other hand, Amelanchier really does need something to help him out because he is the prime target for all 3 Svart leaders and his allies don't really do much.