Quoting The_Rezonator_1,
reply 16
but i have to say, that making a change to a video game because of a weak stomach or being an incredibly morally conscious person, is wasteful. if its for a good reason, that imporves the game, fine, but for the OP's reason, just a waste. im not being personal, but its the same old arguement with swear words, its a word! being upset by an assortment of letters, is silly, YOU are the only one who gives the word power, and YOU are the one letting the word offend you. same with video games, if you think that a game mechanic is morally wrong or offensive, well, to be blunt, build a bridge and get over it. i realise it may not be easy, and that the word you used was it makes you un-easy, but.... its a game, simply a way of facilitating one aspect of play.
so, i could re-iterate my points and make more points, but its late and i cant be bothered... that and ill probably just offend the OP some more.
I don't take offense. In the same way I am able to be conscious that it's a game and play it the way it is, i can read your post and understand your point of view.
Nevertheless, i have to disagree about that :
Quoting The_Rezonator_1,
reply 16
im simply saying that changing a video game mechanic because of an irrational un-easiness due to killing numbers (which in themselves are in-conclusive as to what you are actually killing/destroying), is stupid and wasteful.
If you just think in game mechanics in a rationnal way, i am surprised you could be having fun in playing a video game, which is rationally speaking totally useless and unproductive. It's not even logic to have fun by watching a space battle, the whole point of sins.
My point is that : the fun factor depends of YOUR personnal point of view. I love sins because i am a Sci-Fi and science fan and that every battle is telling an exciting story. But bombing planets don't add to my fun, it spoiled it.
The whole point of a game is to give fun to the player. I didn't open that topic because i wanted to make you cry about poor little digital aliens or to bring the light of moral to you, numeric mass-killing heretics, I did it because i had that thought : "Thousands of people are playing to that game, i am probably not the only one that it bothers. Maybe it could interest some." And the fact is that, according to the answers, i am not the only one even if the majority don't feel concerned.
So, I don't think making this change is stupid because gaming is after all stupid, so is thinking only rationally in a video game. Nor i think it is wasteful because i don't want the nuking option to be removed, i want the players to be given the possibility to play the waythey are having the much fun with.
first, thankyou for not being offended, im not here to make enemies,
now, easiest points first, why do i enjoy the game? i enjoy the game because it has a unique style of play and offers many things that other games dont (or as far as i know, Sins is the only space based RTS i have atm), it challenges me to think in a more strategic way, and even allows me to play around a bit and make the game a little more realistic to myself (i.e. sending a small (5 ships) fleet with a colony ship to capture some asteroids in a neutral GW), rather than just capturing as much territory as possible and using brute force to win, as is common in most land based RTS games. once again, its also a challenge, but i do not feel uneasy about following a game mechanic just in order to acheive an end result, that, if not executed, cuts out a VERY large part of the game (i.e. massive, powerful fleets become useless as you just need to use culture and a small specialty fleet to conquer a planet). i also dont see how playing games are irrational, or how that relates to your main point, which was the fact that carpet nuking planets makes you feel uneasy because your are "slaughtering innocent civilians" who, next time you play, will be right back there populating entires planets in a matter of minutes after colonisation. thinking rationally in an RTS game is very important and not at all stupid, because that way, you would play like a FPS gamer, and would simply throw fleets into the grinder without upgrading or securing territory, because thats how FPS work, you rarely have to watch out for your own neck because of the little known fact that Superman is the secret guest star in all FPS games and so you somehow will not die unless someone shoves a nuke up your ass... and EVEN THEN, sometimes that isnt enough. rationality in all things, even video games are neccesary and i will explain why.
now, if it makes you feel uneasy, i have to and can/will accept that, after all, i used to be the same (vis a vie Lemmings) but the thing i take issue with is that you want to change a part of the game, BECAUSE you feel uneasy slaughtering civilians. now, lets say we implement a mechanic whereby you can send troops down to the planet to take it over. you and me are playing, i decide to nuke the planet rather than spend time and money on troops. i am now seen as a monster because i sat up in the clouds on my white horse and rained nuclear fire upon you... we now have division in the community between people who feel as you do and those who are indifferent, because, lets face it, ITS A GAME! you arent killing anyone. to clarify i dont mean YOU you, but people who believe as you do could possibly take things further. because now we have people who wont play with other people because of their style of planet conquering, or who will change aliegences due to their planet take over policies... or even bring things into the physical world, and harm people and property because of their beliefs.
THIS IS WHAT I TAKE ISSUE WITH!
yes the above mentioned may sound like an extreme outside chance, but it has happened before, peoples beliefs over a small thing became blown up so much that it was crazy.
To be fair, i do see merit in the ability to choose how you conquer a planet. the examples made (like using troops saves infrastructure whereas bombing is faster) are good ones, but they have to be made for the RIGHT reason, which is, to improve how the game functions, and to give more styles of gameplay. maybe we could make it that bombing planets make them uninhabitable for a while, for the reason that nuclear explosions on ice planets melt the ice, volcanic planets cause severe tectonic disturbances, desert planets become "glassed" and terran worlds become irradiated and less productive due to environmental damage. i agree, that, in principal, nuking planets isnt the best way to go in the spirit of the game. for instance, the high yield warheads upgrade for TEC is, in my opinion, totally useless and stupid, because all it does is lower your own population growth on that planet for a period of time (at least considering my style of play).
why nuke a planet which has potentially new tech on it? or the riches and intelligence of that planet/race. i think that the planet bombing could be looked at again, maybe in the next expansion they could re-work that entire side of the game, because simply replacing TEC nukes with precision missiles (etc etc for the other races) will not handle all the other problems that then come out of the woodwork
for instance, TEC conquers a Vasari planet, the poplation below are waiting for their fates... how do you remove the local populace with the least amount of damage to planetary structures and the least risk to your own forces? how do you reconcile the phisiological differences between humans and Vasari, let alone the vastly superior nature of Vasari tech?
Stardock will have to think long and hard about this.
but that is all just balance and how things will work and what will believable as seen from the context of the Sins story bible. i have to maintain that changing the game for what is purely a subjective moral objection is wrong. if the game involved you pulling the trigger to murder 'innocent' children, or rape the women, then i could imagine more people having an objection, in which case the game should be changed, but in this case, you are looking to add an option that allows players to take the 'moral high road' or not. and we are then setting precedent for potentially hazardous disagreements within the community.
sorry if i sound melodrammatic, but just look at the hostile reaction to those who spam carrier cruisers, or those FPS players who camp and rack up tons of kills. if there are as many people who think as you do as you say, then this may not be far from a reality, if the solution is not carefully monitored and executed.
If we make a change to the game, it cannot be because of a subjective moral objection to what is, essentially, an entirely fictional game mechanic.
