I think that Midnitewolf is hinting at something different than what you're presuming.Imperial Good wrote: ↑Sat, 17. Apr 21, 09:53Because that would conflict with some of the other storylines and require an impossible amount of work from story writers and scripters.Midnitewolf wrote: ↑Sat, 17. Apr 21, 01:08Ahh that infamous "Story" that ruins so, so much of any sort of emerging "Sandbox" type of gameplay. Why can't I "join" them and turn them into an amazing galaxy spanning faction but nope....we got to have story in our 'Sandbox".
Personally the bigger question I have is why HAT still exists as a separate, degenerate, faction after that storyline. After that storyline they could just merge them into ARG and players would likely not notice a difference to the universe. The HAT representative (for the Minotaur Raider blueprints, e.t.c.) could be retained but with ownership converted to ARG and the more illegal aspects given to SCA.
I rather agree with the notion that a linear story of any kind tends to conflict with a true sandbox, so all vestiges of linear storytelling outside of maybe some opening segments just to get new players' feet wet should go entirely. Then, you don't have a story to require impossible amounts of work from your story writers, and there don't need to be any concessions to the story from gameplay.
I mean, that's more-or-less what X4 has been doing with its story, anyway, compared to earlier games. X4 definitely worked to try to embrace a dynamic storytelling system where you can ally with most of the factions with a few obvious exceptions if you so chose, and it was advertised on letting you pick your own path with a story that adapts to your choices and such and such.
Now, they could go further down the rabbit hole of emergent storytelling, and do Dwarf Fortress-like work to try to make AI characters that try to respond to what actions the player takes or what missions they take in more ways than the game currently does. I.E. recognize the player as basically playing all sides and not fully trusting them, or taking them as a pacifist if they tend to take trade missions and not combat missions, especially if it involves working for both sides of factions at war, or even having missions that chain together more naturally, like building a defense station, then trying to keep it surrounded with laser towers and stocked with more materials. One of the things from X3: AP I thought was a big fumble was that they had these companies that didn't really exist in a stock market where you could never fail to make money because the companies couldn't go bankrupt, but you could have mini-companies in X4 (part of larger factions) that have their own little directors that have their own goals and individual bank accounts and assets, and one getting wiped out (either by player action or inaction, including just going bankrupt because pirates keep looting their freighters) would lead to another random personality spawning. If these are the ones generating missions due to some script of priorities, players would likewise be able to eventually create their own emergent story of a relation with some of these procedural companies.
Emergent storytelling through procedural elements is certainly hard and largely unexplored waters, and doesn't go well with full voice acting, but it suits a sandbox a lot better than scripted linear plots that don't care who you are or what you've done or what reasons the player had for doing them. I still find it funny if I put off stuff like Operation Final Fury or the main Argon-side war plot in X3 AP or X4's Solborn stuff where they treat me like a rookie who has to prove himself when I show up to boot camp as an admiral with my own carrier and an escort of a few destroyers.