That wasn't an endorsement. It was an example. The idea that was fielded is a stupid idea. The point of a campaign mode (traditionally) is to flesh out plot and character development as well as provide a challenge to players by forcing them to work within a certain set of parameters.

You remove that, you have nothing but a boring sandbox of a single-player mode. The game is boring enough as it is, campaign and missions included. The game (to me) has completely stagnated in terms of replay value. I can only go one-man-army on a flood of poorly scripted AI soldiers so many times before it gets old.

Sorry, I should quote more: I was responding to the suggestion of putting mod factions up on the dev log, not your post. I agree with you on most of the things you're saying.

I wasn't suggesting they get endorsed - I was suggesting a look at how individual people approach modding/spriting/whatever. If all else fails you could probably just post more pictures of Data's abs.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that Cortex Command, as a moddable game, will always have the option of making the campaign ridiculously easy to finish, mod faction or no. Though if custom campaigns can be made then I suppose the modder would make the custom campaign proportionately difficult, at which point it is more a matter of balance than anything.

How would they not be fighting the same realtime battle? The fact of the matter is this: 1, CC can't do any kind of non splitscreen multiplayer; 2, CC isn't optimized well enough to be able to run two concurrent battles, and 3, COOPERATIVE inherently suggests multiple players on one team. It's already possible in Skirmish mode, why not campaign?

Hrm? I think I remember some guy asking for co-op versions of the campaign missions and the response being that it's only like 2 variables or something. So if that's correct then it's possible already?

i think what data was suggesting as the meta-game thing was more risk-like, with the outcomes of real-time battles played by one dude used in whoever he was playing. as that's more of a pseudo campaign, and even more like a bunch of skirmishes strung together with win/lose/funds transferred over between them, which is what you're going to be able to select a faction in. so, in that case, if you dont want to play a losing game, play with someone who isnt using dstech, or money cheats. or at least, thats what i've been able to gather from the tiny thumbs prom drew up and various snippets from data.
hopefully i interpreted you're response correctly grif, otherwise this comment is going to be a tad out-of-place.
in regards to what you said, the actual campaign is going to be able to be played co-operatively in real-time, but not that meta-game thing. you can currently play the campaign in multi-player, its just super hacky. i believe proper native support (ie a how many players screen) is coming.

as speculation, they're going to need a pretty decent array of maps for the meta-game to work well. or at least procedural enemy-base-placement.

For some reason I wasn't even thinking of playing co-op on the same computer. Nevermind then.

To explain what I meant, they would be on the same team, just never fighting the same battles. If you imagine the Cortex Command Planet divided up like a Risk board, at the start of the game both cooperating players (on the internet if they wanted) would advance into unowned territories, fight battles on their own, and reconvene back on the strategy board when done. Lag would be a non-issue because the only input which would need to be exchanged would be whether the other player won or lost. There would have to be a degree of cooperation as Risk-type games do require a good sense of strategy, even if it's not as much as you'd have with real-time cooperative fighting.

Don't bother posting a link to this thread here, either. If campaigns are modifiable enough, this could feasibly be created by the community. A minimal approach would be to construct a campaign mode in which a player moves a token ally representing a friend communicated with through IM, sort of like a game of chess over the phone. Territories would have a "take" button and players would have to perform a degree of self restraint but I think it could still be fun. Perhaps territories would have passwords on them which your ally could send to you to unlock.

I know this might sound like a super-watered down game mode, but considering it could possibly be constructed by the community and the fact that, as I said before, even Risk can get pretty intense, I think there is some value in this idea.

for christ's sake people

data's laid this down at least half a dozen times

THERE IS GOING TO BE A WORLD OVERLAY.
THERE WILL BE MISSIONS.
YOU CAN REPEAT MISSIONS.
GOLD EARNED ROLLS OVER, AND YOU "GAMBLE" X AMOUNT OF GOLD ON ONE MISSION.

there will obviously be some kind of territories etc w/e you want to call it to take over and probably you will have to defend "captured" territory at some point

an online metagame could easily work
why, who knows, as you wouldn't have any of the satisfaction of actually playing with a friend; it'd be like chess but with a several minute time delay to verify whether you can even move the pieces

I still feel like the RTS aspect of this game should be completely thrown out.

I don't see anyone here who doesn't seem to get that.




Then you're in luck! By the sounds if, it's going to be turn-based, not real time.

Let me rephrase. the whole "strategy" moniker should be thrown out. I don't see how this game is (or can be) strategic. Ever.

THOR, I know it's your job to be the angry guy or something, but I feel the need to point out that every game that has any kind of competitive play - be it against a computer or other players - is going to have some amount of strategy involved in trying to win. RTS's require strategy, yeah, it's in the name. But so do FPS's, fighting games, action games, shmups, RPGs, board games, and pretty much everything. So your argument that the game can't possibly have any strategy when the tools for competition are clearly there holds no water.

Also, what's up with mods? Any PC game worth it's salt is going to have mods. And yes, many of these mods will affect single player. Just look at games like Fallout 3 or Oblivion. Do you see Bethesda getting all bent out of shape because people are modding their finely crafted single player experiences? Hell no, that's PC gaming. Why is it a problem in the case of CC?

Censored, for the benefit of the glorious proleteriat - Seraph

Heh heh, this was devlog discussion wasn't it?

You know what I mean when I say strategy.

If you are talking about the game having genericized strategy elements, then it's not RTS or Turn-based Strategy. My argument is that the game, in my opinion as a critic, is not conducive to a "strategy"-style game, no matter what variety. The only strategy that exists in the game in its current incarnation is: "lol fly around the map and land on the other side of your enemies." That or "create an overpowered supersoldier with 20 guns that can destroy anything."

There's no strategy to this game. Even in the current scripted events, there's no strategy. Explain to me what you feel this game demonstrates in terms of strategy.

And this has nothing to do about being butthurt about mods. Mods are what make this game less boring (although only barely). My argument is against some kind of campaign mechanic allowing people to use Crobos or Darlos's Dumb Mod Pack v2.9 as a single-player system.

There's whole entire mountains of congruity and continuity issues, not to mention the fact that some are outright stronger than others. It is my opinion (of which I am entitled to) that this kind of system or mechanic would completely undermine a single-player campaign.

And if you want ot talk about other games that support third party mods? Let's go with your example: Fallout. That game franchise is supported by a rich history, abundant amounts of lore, a devout cult following, beautiful graphics, superb performance, and generally great reception.

That is not cortex command. There is no history, there is no story line, it looks awful (not to mention its its visual appeal is based almost completely on third-party content), and is a piss-poor game in terms of performance.

For Fallout, you have a game which is capable of supporting a rich and diverse modding community. In terms of Cortex Command, you have a game that is supported only by its modding community. Everything else is a rotted useless husk.

It's the most appropriately off topic thread on the forum: what is there to talk about with the dev log, afterall?




Thor, I'm a bit confused by your argument. Cortex command has no strategy in it... so there shouldn't be strategy in Cortex Command? I don't get it. That's like saying your car's out of gas so you shouldn't fill it up.