Since this is a time of renewal, spiritual and otherwise, I thought I’d ask a soul-searching question. Since WC will one day be “rejuvenated” with new games (oh yes, we know that will happen), what must those new games preserve or continue from the existing games in order to deserve the title “Wing Commander”?
A fair number in this Zone have in various “testy” threads claimed to know what is or is not wingcommanderish. Well, here’s your and everyone else’s chance to define the “essence” of WC. And it’s far more than an academic question. Speak to the people in that future staff meeting at Origin or its enterprising successor. Speak to the one or more current members of this Zone or in a related site or fan project who will be the ones, in whole or in part, to develop those new games.
Be as abstract or as concrete as you wish. Touch on any aspect of the games–storyline, game play, or infrastructure. (For example, must the new games carry on with the time line we’ve been “living” so far, or can they begin in a different century with all new faces, races, places, governments, techs, and crises? Must the setting be primarily military? Must the focus of the action be on one-or-two-person fighters as opposed to, say, multimanned corvettes or destroyers? Must the principal challenge be “jump-into-the-cockpit-and-blow-up-the-enemy”; is there further room for the sort of moral “battles” WCIV toyed with and Privateer assumed; is there any room for an entirely different, say strategic or puzzle-solving, format? Must the player play “the hero”? Must the games be largely “first-person”? At what point would a multi-player game cease to be WC-ish? May the games expand the current options to tweak parameters, perhaps allowing the player to create/modify the mission tree, experiment with characters’ personalities, or design ships/fighters from the ground up?)
In sum, what in the old games must the new games respect and protect? (Mind, this ain’t an invitation to tell everyone about your “dream game”. It’s about trying to frame and pass along what we truly value about WC in the here and now.)
A fair number in this Zone have in various “testy” threads claimed to know what is or is not wingcommanderish. Well, here’s your and everyone else’s chance to define the “essence” of WC. And it’s far more than an academic question. Speak to the people in that future staff meeting at Origin or its enterprising successor. Speak to the one or more current members of this Zone or in a related site or fan project who will be the ones, in whole or in part, to develop those new games.
Be as abstract or as concrete as you wish. Touch on any aspect of the games–storyline, game play, or infrastructure. (For example, must the new games carry on with the time line we’ve been “living” so far, or can they begin in a different century with all new faces, races, places, governments, techs, and crises? Must the setting be primarily military? Must the focus of the action be on one-or-two-person fighters as opposed to, say, multimanned corvettes or destroyers? Must the principal challenge be “jump-into-the-cockpit-and-blow-up-the-enemy”; is there further room for the sort of moral “battles” WCIV toyed with and Privateer assumed; is there any room for an entirely different, say strategic or puzzle-solving, format? Must the player play “the hero”? Must the games be largely “first-person”? At what point would a multi-player game cease to be WC-ish? May the games expand the current options to tweak parameters, perhaps allowing the player to create/modify the mission tree, experiment with characters’ personalities, or design ships/fighters from the ground up?)
In sum, what in the old games must the new games respect and protect? (Mind, this ain’t an invitation to tell everyone about your “dream game”. It’s about trying to frame and pass along what we truly value about WC in the here and now.)
