On 8/24/07, Hogne Håskjold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To me changing holy to arcane just further adds to the complete and > utter mess of random stuff that seems to make up the current setting and > making it even more bland and boring. There is no lore based > consistency, no interesting history, no immersion of an exciting world. > There is only a vague mess which will be changed every time someone want > to balance something differently. > > A good setting is the very foundation of an exciting fantasy game, > without it we just have a chess game with fancy playing pieces... >
Personally, I was drawn to Wesnoth because of the subtlety and depth of the gameplay. I think that no amount of story can make poor or unbalanced gameplay into a good experience. That said, I enjoyed the development of the story in the first campaigns I played, and the development of the larger universe as well. I think that the current campaign selection process already does a good job of developing the universe in a (relatively) consistent way, without limiting the potential pool of user made content. Setting down a list of rules to be followed about how the universe is, IMHO, likely to stifle the creativity of what can happen in any given campaign. For example, how many UtBS or similar campaigns would be created if there were rules and guidelines that said campaigns, units, and the world in general should look like HttT? In summery, I think that the sort of controlled diversity that currently exists is sufficient, and perhaps even beneficial to the robustness of the Wesnoth universe. Just my two cents. George Birthisel aka Wintermute aka happygrue. -- http://www.wesnoth.org/ The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. "With your head full of brains and your shoes full of feet, you're too smart to go down any not so good street." - D.S.
_______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
