More alternatives in the development in the story

[Generaldau]

Subject:
More alternatives in the development in the story.

Description:

In the existing games, you can choose only from time to time between 2 different troopmovements on the map.

Would be nice to have more of that kind of features.
Also it should to be beter intergrated into the development of the story and the introduction of unittype by levels.
The overall progress of the game doesnt always have to be related to the winning of a single battle/campagne. It will be more interesting to see how the story goes if you fail/win some of the campaigns, but with a similair ending.

An example: a single event (return of Kane) trigger multiple alternative timelines and then gradutely convert into a single event again . see diagram below. Interesting see how it works with different factions aswel.

I would love to see some turnbased features back in the new game, like in the wrath of Kane.


Positive Effect:

A more dynamic development of the story. Adding an extra layer to the story beside factions.

Negative Effect:

If the timelines are not carefully structured, some players can get really confused.

Media:

http://www.commandandconquer.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=993

[RKTGX95]

id rather alternate endings than timeline that lead to the same one.

[AdmiralQ]

that would be cool

[=LEVIATHEN=]

I like this idea, though it could easily get unsteady. They developers would have to make it very obvious that the campaign will change once you have to choose which one to chase.
For example:
You're playing a mission as GDI. The game continues, when all of a sudden, you are forced to make a choice between two objectives. Your surveillance officer (e.g., Lieutenant Eva from RA2 and 3) shows up on screen somewhere and tells you that you have to make a choice between doing one thing or the other, and that your choice will effect the entire war.

[Lauren]

That's what they planned for the campaign in Kane's Wrath, sadly they had no time to finish it that way. :/

[Commander_McNash]

It sounds a bit like DoW2 or SC2 campaign which were nice in my opinion, different solutions to achieve the same result would bring more possibilities and replayability to the campaign.

[=LEVIATHEN=]

It sounds a bit like DoW2 or SC2 campaign which were nice in my opinion, different solutions to achieve the same result would bring more possibilities and replayability to the campaign.
Wait, SC2 had a separating campaign? Or just different ways of doing the mission?

[Lauren]

There were 2 pairs of mutually exclusive missions. But other then that it was completely linear. You just had to do only about half of the missions to complete the campaign.

[=LEVIATHEN=]

There were 2 pairs of mutually exclusive missions. But other then that it was completely linear. You just had to do only about half of the missions to complete the campaign.
Oh, so separate objectives that lead to different mission endings, but in the end, the campaign continued the same?

[Lauren]

One was "we could destroy the Zerg air base so we don't get flying units in the next mission or we could destroy their nydus network". The other was either help Tosh and get Spectre for the campaign or help Nova and get Ghosts. So in any case it didn't do much a difference.

[=LEVIATHEN=]

One was "we could destroy the Zerg air base so we don't get flying units in the next mission or we could destroy their nydus network". The other was either help Tosh and get Spectre for the campaign or help Nova and get Ghosts. So in any case it didn't do much a difference.
I think you're thinking of StarCraft 2...Oh wait.
I thought you meant Supreme Commander 2.