Conversation via comments with Joshua A. C. Newman, maker of Shock:, went pretty well after I confessed to my reasons of disconnection from the game. Josh deserves some serious kudos for how he handles critiques of his game. I know I’m personally inclined to try to look like I’m as calm about negative feedback as Josh is, but having met him I suspect Josh actually is that calm, and I envy his facility with that. Me? It’s a case of making myself act like I think I should, and hoping my adrenal response will chill the heck out and follow suit.
Anyway.
Later on, I talked about melding Shock: and Diaspora together in a particular way that I thought would suit my sensibilities well, and allow some of the potency of Shock: to make its way into a game I’d feel more connected to. This is where the conversation got particularly interesting for me. Some excerpts follow, focusing on the line of thought that brings me here.
Fred: “… the lighter weight crossbreeding I’m proposing here is more about letting the issues exist out in the environment, and allowing players and characters to encounter them at what is perhaps a less breakneck speed, less strictly directed.”
Joshua: “Antagonists are the primary route toward keeping players focused on Issues. They’re the teeth.”
Fred: “That focus is a little too relentless for me, though. Because we’re looking at a relentless collision with the issues, the issues never get to sneak up on me. … Which is why at the end of the day I’m suggesting that embedding the issues in the setting, available to be explored but not constantly clubbing the characters, may be the way to get me my absorbed/sympathetic/identification itch scratched.”
Fred Hicks is a dad, a gamer, and a game publisher. He runs 
