game-editor.com

I agree with what most of Happy has said. However, you will need new dialogue to follow these alternatives threw otherwise things will seem half baked. Problem is how do you gauge where the balancing line falls? I suppose we would need some sort of criteria to filter all the suggestions.

I remember watching the making of Lord Of the Rings triology, where director, Peter Jackson & Co, had to deal with several branches to the story line. Their solution was to use the main character (Frodo) as the primary focus of the storyline anything else that drifted too far from him & his journey would be given the chop, except for stuff that illuminated things that were essential to explaining aspects of characters connected to him to tie-up loose ends filling in info about the world in general.

Should we adopt a similar focus attached to the hero and villain and supporting characters. Of course little details here and there that do drift but are essential to will need to be given for descriptive details of the game world.

We should be moving into locking parts of the story down, and fleshing it out. But before that is possible we need to nail down what we want from the story.

What kind of endings do we want? What kind of emotional attachments and reactions are we trying to create? Should this story be an epic tale of betrayal? The world we are setting up is one that is in the midst of a paradigm shift, so I think the major branching should reflect this. Of course as happyjustbecause said, we wouldn't want to just have choices of siding with big brother, or siding with the revolution. I'm imagining choices such as to save your father at the first opportunity (putting yourself before the cause) or to do as you are told, and have an easier fight against big brother. It would also be pretty cool if playing through the story dealt with strategic choices, so not only is it a matter of exploring different choices/endings, but also a matter of how to best fight big brother. Since the main character becomes a strong influence in the fight against big brother, the character will be in the position to make such choices.

I don't think we'll end up taking the approach of having branching dialogue per say, but rather we'll have branching events. We could if people really want branching dialogue, but it seems like unnecessary work, unless we actually want to exploit that kind of interaction.

GEuser wrote:Should we adopt a similar focus attached to the hero and villain and supporting characters. Of course little details here and there that do drift but are essential to will need to be given for descriptive details of the game world.

I think it should follow the player pretty closely. We can add extra tidbits in the way of newspapers/posters and other in game propaganda. Though thinking about it, taking the viewpoint of not the player, but the world, might serve better for emphasizing the paradigm shift. It would take a lot more planning to make this approach work, but I could see it being intense. This goes back to what we want out of the game story, an exploration of the shift between technology and ages, or a more hero based story.

I like the idea of having things like newspapers and propaganda that you can see. We should show the player the reason that things are bad, not just thrust them into the situation. Show some disparity among the people, show a protest, the conflict between the opposing sides. Instead of having things off screen and just hearing about it, the player should have an understanding of why big brother should be taken down.

I think that the hero of this story should just be one of many, not necessarily the one that saved everyone. The main character should have a large part in the conflict for sure, and perhaps the rebellion won't win without him, but don't make him the one the world is depending on. This could be shown by having the player cooperating with others, being one of many in a dialogue of how to overthrow their oppression, rather than him telling a speech and being the leader all the time. That's just my opinion anyways, I find that the hero story has been done too many times, I'd rather see the whole rebellion has heroes, with the main character being just one part of the entire resistance, but still being a great influence.

That's the kind of ending I'm picturing, the main character standing among many, starting to rebuild the society. People in the crowd should appreciate and acknowledge the great help that the main character has done, but it should go both ways, with the main character thanking the other rebels. I think that's more realistic and admirable than a crowd of people saying for he's a jolly good fellow for the main character.

I like the idea of branching things like saving your father rather than being part of some other battle that could use your help. And these choices should matter, have an actual impact on the world. Maybe the father is then able to help and later be inventing some helpful technology (assuming he's still the scientist I think we agreed upon) for the player. And if you choose to help with the battle, maybe it was a major victory and there's some kind of helpful weapon discovered there.

But if the father is saved, we should see the father more often, more included in the story than if that choice was not made. Have him be helpful to the story. Or have characters mention how they realize it was a hard decision to fight at the battle rather than to take the opportunity to save his father. Some recognition for the choices is all I'm saying.

It would also be pretty cool if playing through the story dealt with strategic choices, so not only is it a matter of exploring different choices/endings, but also a matter of how to best fight big brother.

That's a great idea too, not only focusing on personal issues, but just how to best deal with a situation. Sneaking in or gun's blazing, split up or stick together, go in the back way or through the sewers, try to talk your way out of it, or run away or fight, choices like these that are mainly varying gameplay would be great.

happyjustbecause wrote:I like the idea of having things like newspapers and propaganda that you can see. We should show the player the reason that things are bad, not just thrust them into the situation. Show some disparity among the people, show a protest, the conflict between the opposing sides. Instead of having things off screen and just hearing about it, the player should have an understanding of why big brother should be taken down...

I think the propaganda is a necessity, without a doubt. I also like the idea of having protests, but perhaps you see the aftermath of a protest, instead of it happening right in front of you. This way the player is able to come to his own conclusions about what had happened based on such evidence (ruined buildings, the overall morale of the people, etc)

The authorities would likely try to cover up any evidence of disturbance. They could try to paint the picture that everything is hunky-dory (when it obviously isn't) perhaps blasting propaganda through loudspeakers or something of the like. Or better yet, build some kind of propaganda around the protest itself, painting big brother to be the "hero" for ridding the community of these "delinquents" that would "dare to disturb the peace and endanger security". Again, pasting that all over the environment via loudspeakers, posters etc.

I had some ideas to expand on where you start in the game. Sort of going on what sky said here:

Skydereign wrote:...Of course as happyjustbecause said, we wouldn't want to just have choices of siding with big brother, or siding with the revolution. I'm imagining choices such as to save your father at the first opportunity (putting yourself before the cause) or to do as you are told, and have an easier fight against big brother. It would also be pretty cool if playing through the story dealt with strategic choices, so not only is it a matter of exploring different choices/endings, but also a matter of how to best fight big brother. Since the main character becomes a strong influence in the fight against big brother, the character will be in the position to make such choices.

Say you start the game enrolled in an institution (known as ISEE, an acronym for Institution of Skill Evaluation and Employment). In this institution, pupils are judged in areas such as strength, skill, intelligence, and loyalty. If an individual is lacking in these areas, students are expelled, most of whom will find refuge in the under-cities. Upon completion of your training, you will be assigned (or more accurately, forced into) an apprenticeship based on your grades and your rank/nobility. You have to choose at this point whether to stay, or drop out.

If you decide to stay, then your plan is to work your way up in high society in order to infiltrate Big Brother. You believe that if you are able to take the establishment down from the inside, you can then free your captive father.

Either that or you decide to drop out. You to hear whispers of a growing rebellion. A mysterious figure begins to mobilize a resistance against Big Brother. This intrigues you, gives you a feeling of hope. This may be a way to infiltrate Archstreptis and free your father.

Basically you have the same goal either choice. You either work within Big brother's system, or completely outside of it to try to rescue your father.

Skydereign wrote:What kind of endings do we want? What kind of emotional attachments and reactions are we trying to create? Should this story be an epic tale of betrayal? The world we are setting up is one that is in the midst of a paradigm shift, so I think the major branching should reflect this.

It would be quite the climax if after you rescued your father, he would either team up with you, or turn on you. Maybe rescuing him is not the final goal of the game, only the midpoint. After which you'll have to overthrow BB's empire with or without your dad's help.

I also think we should have some kind of double agent character, someone who, if you are still "In the system" will convince you to to join him to form a "new rebellion". Near the end, he'd reveal is true colors and betray you.

skydereign wrote:I don't think we'll end up taking the approach of having branching dialogue per say, but rather we'll have branching events. We could if people really want branching dialogue, but it seems like unnecessary work, unless we actually want to exploit that kind of interaction.

Yes, good decision. I just played through BTTF with my sister, and grew tired of pointless dialogue choices. Those got really annoying. I suppose they weren't branching choices per say, they were just choices for the sake of having choices.


Choices like these are stupid and pointless. No matter what you choose, the outcome will be the same.


Here is a mindmap I've started:
Mindmap viewer (Java applet)
Mindmap file (requires freemind)


There's a lot of details in the document missing. My main goal for this document is to compliment the original doc, and to easily map out the branching story. It is intended to be organic, so anyone who has anything they would like to add (or take away) feel free to speak up.

Jagmaster wrote:I think the propaganda is a necessity, without a doubt. I also like the idea of having protests, but perhaps you see the aftermath of a protest, instead of it happening right in front of you. This way the player is able to come to his own conclusions about what had happened based on such evidence (ruined buildings, the overall morale of the people, etc)

The authorities would likely try to cover up any evidence of disturbance. They could try to paint the picture that everything is hunky-dory (when it obviously isn't) perhaps blasting propaganda through loudspeakers or something of the like. Or better yet, build some kind of propaganda around the protest itself, painting big brother to be the "hero" for ridding the community of these "delinquents" that would "dare to disturb the peace and endanger security". Again, pasting that all over the environment via loudspeakers, posters etc.

I was thinking, as a possible ending, we could have the player realize that the revolution's shadowy leader is actually the leader of the previous regime (before big brother) and that it too was a thought controlled society. This truth could be found by collecting older pieces of propaganda, and perhaps the double agent character will help you come to this conclusion. Essentially the player, and almost everyone in the game, were brainwashed via typically dystopian propaganda, before big brother even came around. Of course big brother's regime, when taking over would make no reference to the previous leaders, and try erasing them from existence. This could go one of three ways, or all three, where the player can choose between big brother, the revolution, and destroy them both.

Jagmaster wrote:Say you start the game enrolled in an institution (known as ISEE, an acronym for Institution of Skill Evaluation and Employment). In this institution, pupils are judged in areas such as strength, skill, intelligence, and loyalty. If an individual is lacking in these areas, students are expelled, most of whom will find refuge in the under-cities. Upon completion of your training, you will be assigned (or more accurately, forced into) an apprenticeship based on your grades and your rank/nobility. You have to choose at this point whether to stay, or drop out.

If you decide to stay, then your plan is to work your way up in high society in order to infiltrate Big Brother. You believe that if you are able to take the establishment down from the inside, you can then free your captive father.

Either that or you decide to drop out. You to hear whispers of a growing rebellion. A mysterious figure begins to mobilize a resistance against Big Brother. This intrigues you, gives you a feeling of hope. This may be a way to infiltrate Archstreptis and free your father.

Basically you have the same goal either choice. You either work within Big brother's system, or completely outside of it to try to rescue your father.

Sounds like a good place to divide the story. My major concern though is that we'd need some way of catching the player's interest really quickly. We were previously considering throwing the player into an invasion, that way they get a taste of the gameplay and actiony side of the game. We could do it where your choice is actually before the academy, when they are recruiting people (capturing them).

Jagmaster wrote:I also think we should have some kind of double agent character, someone who, if you are still "In the system" will convince you to to join him to form a "new rebellion". Near the end, he'd reveal is true colors and betray you.

An O'Brien character would be great. A lot in terms of plot and subtlety can be done with a character like that.

Sounds like a good place to divide the story. My major concern though is that we'd need some way of catching the player's interest really quickly. We were previously considering throwing the player into an invasion, that way they get a taste of the gameplay and actiony side of the game. We could do it where your choice is actually before the academy, when they are recruiting people (capturing them).

Yeah, I like that way to divide the story also. Maybe the battle scene as the intro could be an over the top dream. This would give us an excuse to arm the player with a lot of power and keep the game pretty easy in the beginning. It could portray him as the hero that topples the regime or something. Then he wakes up in the institution after just being hit by the teacher yelling "WAKE UP!"

Thinking about it, branching dialogue wouldn't be that great of a thing, at least not in this game. I do this that there should be decisions though. So that there aren't just three endings, (big brother, the revolution, or destroying them both), but a lot more.

I second that an O'Brien like character would be cool to have, a betrayal can throw players off if we do it convincingly. We should do something to make it so that if the player replays the story though, the betrayal isn't always what the player has to experience. I don't know how we'd do that but, betrayals are kind of one time deals.

happyjustbecause wrote: Maybe the battle scene as the intro could be an over the top dream. This would give us an excuse to arm the player with a lot of power and keep the game pretty easy in the beginning. It could portray him as the hero that topples the regime or something. Then he wakes up in the institution after just being hit by the teacher yelling "WAKE UP!"

If we go for a dream sequence, there'll need to be some reason for the dream. This can take the form as a flashback as the regimes changed (switch to big brother), or perhaps war stories his father used to tell him. With those choices, we can go with two different takes on big brother.

Big Brother is an outside force that claimed the main character's home city by military force. The invasion would result in the traumatic experience that embodies the player's hatred for (and the evil behind) big brother. With the shift in power, either the already low class citizens would not notice much change, or be sent away as slaves to the ever growing empire. This change can be maintained without too much upheaval by the mass output of propaganda, and that the leadership did not change. I'm thinking that the propaganda will claim they have successfully defended against the foreign attackers, though with the tragic loss of their leader. The new head of state is big brother, who they insert into the history as a war hero, who helped defend against the previous attackers. The main character however knows that all of that is false, but cannot speak up due to the threat of being erased. In this kind of world they wouldn't mention the revolution, and therefore the player would need to have known about its existence prior to us having them choose to work within or outside the system to save his father.

The other take is one where big brother manages to gain control of the city without militaristic means. The shift in regimes is non-obvious, and may even be undetectable by the player in the beginning of the game. What is obvious is that they and all they know are placed into the ISEE. In this story, the player still has the war dream, but the dream is of the old war stories his father used to tell him. You are playing as the player's father (or grandfather) though you for a while just believe it is the player due to similar appearance. The dream plays out as the invasion from the previous scenario went. This war that the player is dreaming of has been erased from the current history, and everyone who still has memories of it have been removed (the player's father). In this world, the regime is less restrictive of information, and the player will have known of the underground revolution. If you choose to go with the revolution, you can eventually discover that the revolution's leader (the shady guy we mentioned before) is connected to the previous regime (perhaps its ruler). The major idea/revelation behind this version is that the player's previously thought freedom (before big brother) was really a dystopia in which they erased the war your father/grandfather fought in, and that he and all that he knows is a fabricated lie. From there you can either choose the lesser of two evils, or take down both regimes. This take explains why the shadowy leader of the revolution knows as much as he does about the workings of the government.

Of course in both of these, none of this information needs to be completely revealed. It is partially up to the player's choices and exploration that will make these dark truths come to light.

happyjustbecause wrote:I second that an O'Brien like character would be cool to have, a betrayal can throw players off if we do it convincingly. We should do something to make it so that if the player replays the story though, the betrayal isn't always what the player has to experience. I don't know how we'd do that but, betrayals are kind of one time deals.

Definitely. Replaying a game knowing someone is going to betray you can be very infuriating. It'd be great if you didn't need to rely on them, or perhaps even avoid them. We could make it so the more interact with a character, the more trust you build with them. This can eventually lead to certain scenes occurring, such as the O'Brien character betraying you. This makes sense given the character inspiration, as he lets you dig your own grave, by trusting him as a double agent.

I'm thinking the game will have a number of end states, so not just the win with big brother, win with the revolution, win by taking them both down, and so on. Another thing we should discuss is the science/technology side of the story. The reason for the steampunk world needs to be a strong point in the story.

skydereign wrote: If we go for a dream sequence, there'll need to be some reason for the dream. This can take the form as a flashback as the regimes changed (switch to big brother), or perhaps war stories his father used to tell him. With those choices, we can go with two different takes on big brother.

I think I like the second take more. The first one's good too, but the second seems a little for some reason. I like the idea that the regime wasn't taken purely by force, but through memory erasing and underground means. I also think it would make the revolutionaries more interesting, instead of just yelling about the destruction Big Brother has caused, they're yelling about how people's memories are being erased. This may offer more unique gameplay, since we could focus on story a lot, not only action, but once the rebels inform enough people, there would be a lot of fighting anyways.

I think the player should be able to find out more or less information depending on how much exploration he does and certain choices he makes. That would be a nice way to have multiple endings and multiple playthroughs. I've played games that kind of follow that formula and even though there's only a good and bad ending, I still enjoy making that one extra choice that makes it good ending (because I didn't know as much the first playthrough). But still, we can have even more endings that 2.

As far as the steampunk technology. Isn't our excuse for that just that the rebels are scrounging to get whatever types of materials they can? Making any machinery and weaponry they can manage to create. And did we kind of decide that B.B's army would have better technology, not really steampunk right? I've been picturing the rebels having steampunk rugged armor (not too heavy armor though) and weapons, while B.B's army would have sleek and smooth metal.

What is Big Brother's army anyways? Do we want robots or humans, or a mixture? I've been picturing a lot of robots, but we haven't discussed this at great detail yet.

Does Big Brother's army use steam technology at all, or is it more advanced?

happyjustbecause wrote:I think I like the second take more. The first one's good too, but the second seems a little for some reason. I like the idea that the regime wasn't taken purely by force, but through memory erasing and underground means. I also think it would make the revolutionaries more interesting, instead of just yelling about the destruction Big Brother has caused, they're yelling about how people's memories are being erased. This may offer more unique gameplay, since we could focus on story a lot, not only action, but once the rebels inform enough people, there would be a lot of fighting anyways.

Yeah, the second one is generally the more plot interesting story.

happyjustbecause wrote:As far as the steampunk technology. Isn't our excuse for that just that the rebels are scrounging to get whatever types of materials they can? Making any machinery and weaponry they can manage to create. And did we kind of decide that B.B's army would have better technology, not really steampunk right? I've been picturing the rebels having steampunk rugged armor (not too heavy armor though) and weapons, while B.B's army would have sleek and smooth metal.

Well, I'd like for the steampunk setting to be more than just due to a lack of resources. The world itself was at the steam age, and big brother is forcing a large scale change. There'll be a clash between the two technological ages, hopefully some moral dilemmas to adopting the newer sleeker tech. For instance, rushing such a change will result in casualties. So the regime's military will still use militarized steam technology (much heavier than typical steampunk machines) but they'll also have smooth metal machines.

happyjustbecause wrote:What is Big Brother's army anyways? Do we want robots or humans, or a mixture? I've been picturing a lot of robots, but we haven't discussed this at great detail yet.

We were mentioning basic automated machines, as well as some level of mech suits. They would definitely have steam tanks and other vehicles of that calibre. Another part of steampunk I like is the flying machines, so it'd be cool if we can work that in. I'm thinking for the actiony side of this game, we'll need to definitely have an expanded setting of multiple cities (which can add to the military side of it).

Sorry for my absence, I've been away for the past few days.

happyjustbecause wrote:I think I like the second take more. The first one's good too, but the second seems a little for some reason. I like the idea that the regime wasn't taken purely by force, but through memory erasing and underground means. I also think it would make the revolutionaries more interesting, instead of just yelling about the destruction Big Brother has caused, they're yelling about how people's memories are being erased. This may offer more unique gameplay, since we could focus on story a lot, not only action, but once the rebels inform enough people, there would be a lot of fighting anyways.

I second this as well. The first rendition was actually more or less what I pictured from the beginning, but the second rendition is more interesting. The memory erasing bit made me think of the plot from Capcom's Remember Me (haven't played it, but I read the synopsis on wikipedia one time). The difference though, is in that game, civilians actually upload thoughts to the internet (and having them manipulated) vs having them erased.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure if it's the best idea to have memories erased per say, but rather by making people forget the past history by re-writing it and cramming it down the people's throats or something. I'll put a little more thought into this later.

skydereign wrote:Well, I'd like for the steampunk setting to be more than just due to a lack of resources. The world itself was at the steam age, and big brother is forcing a large scale change. There'll be a clash between the two technological ages, hopefully some moral dilemmas to adopting the newer sleeker tech. For instance, rushing such a change will result in casualties. So the regime's military will still use militarized steam technology (much heavier than typical steampunk machines) but they'll also have smooth metal machines.

Yeah, I'd like to keep the steampunk style incorporated into Big Brother's tech, even if it's way more advanced than If we were to go with an electric thing for the new tech, we could incorporate some Tesla- coil type stuff. Maybe have a sleeker polished vehicles with plasma globes protruding out of them.

skydereign wrote:

happyjustbecause wrote:What is Big Brother's army anyways? Do we want robots or humans, or a mixture? I've been picturing a lot of robots, but we haven't discussed this at great detail yet.

We were mentioning basic automated machines, as well as some level of mech suits. They would definitely have steam tanks and other vehicles of that calibre. Another part of steampunk I like is the flying machines, so it'd be cool if we can work that in. I'm thinking for the actiony side of this game, we'll need to definitely have an expanded setting of multiple cities (which can add to the military side of it).

Yes! Airships!
But yeah, regarding the army, I was thinking more along the lines of a mix. Robots would most certainly serve to be the cannon fodders, and we'll want to have enough robots, so one can harvest the parts to make new stuff. The actual people would be the specialists and higher ranking soldiers. It would also be neat to have cyborg type people, with interesting prosthetic limbs and enhancements. They would make neat captains and the generals.

Jagmaster wrote:I second this as well. The first rendition was actually more or less what I pictured from the beginning, but the second rendition is more interesting. The memory erasing bit made me think of the plot from Capcom's Remember Me (haven't played it, but I read the synopsis on wikipedia one time). The difference though, is in that game, civilians actually upload thoughts to the internet (and having them manipulated) vs having them erased.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure if it's the best idea to have memories erased per say, but rather by making people forget the past history by re-writing it and cramming it down the people's throats or something. I'll put a little more thought into this later.

Yeah, in this kind of world, individually erasing memories would be too inefficient. Doing things through mass propaganda and rewriting of history is the best way to go. And it plays perfectly with the back story of the player's parents. Though I can see direct brainwashing being a very important tool for this kind of society. Perhaps they are researching it, and by a certain point in the game have successfully brainwash your father (and possibly other allies). You'll probably here rumours of this throughout the game, and depending on how quickly you act on it, the game will be easier or harder.

Jagmaster wrote:But yeah, regarding the army, I was thinking more along the lines of a mix. Robots would most certainly serve to be the cannon fodders, and we'll want to have enough robots, so one can harvest the parts to make new stuff. The actual people would be the specialists and higher ranking soldiers. It would also be neat to have cyborg type people, with interesting prosthetic limbs and enhancements. They would make neat captains and the generals.

Okay. The robots should start off as short distance radio controlled bots, with perhaps only a few states. As the game progresses, their military effectiveness will increase, and eventually be fully sustainable. As these robots progress, they'll have different ways of being destroyed (can disable control towers and so on). Saving your father really early and other similar actions can also have an impact in the difficulty of enemies (prevents him from building tech for the regime).

New Mindmap:

I copied over the old freemind map to this new browser-based program, since it supports real-time collab, and no extra download/uploads.

You should be able to edit the map!
Please make record of any changes in the changelog for now. Eventually we should migrate the map to github or something of the sort.

I haven't made any changes based on our most recent story decisions, so we'll have some cleaning up to do. I've also taken some of the other character design docs and attached them via the rich text editor (as indicated by the paperclips).

Cool, I'll be adding more to it within the week. I've been working on some characters for the bad guys, and one that I quite like is Edward Son. He'd be the main inventor behind the regime, and allegedly the father of the electric robots. Usually calm and collected, he looks at the regime through a business perspective. The player can manage to break his cool, which can lead to saving your father. Since he runs military innovation, he has the most connections to your father (and other inventors that have been captured), you must pursue him to save your father. The boss fight against him would probably look a lot like metal slug bosses.

Alright guys, here is the collaboration link. (I had assumed you could edit from simply from the link above, but apparently you must set up a collaboration session and link it to Google drive).
You will need to install the mindmap google app as indicated.

It also does require a google account. They will try to prod you into getting chrome, but it works just fine in firefox (if you use IE, well, ahmhmhmhm..... no.)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxtGX9H ... sp=sharing


Or... If you don't want to do that, you could make changes, click save, then copy and paste the share link here in the forums.

skydereign wrote:Cool, I'll be adding more to it within the week. I've been working on some characters for the bad guys, and one that I quite like is Edward Son. He'd be the main inventor behind the regime, and allegedly the father of the electric robots. Usually calm and collected, he looks at the regime through a business perspective. The player can manage to break his cool, which can lead to saving your father. Since he runs military innovation, he has the most connections to your father (and other inventors that have been captured), you must pursue him to save your father. The boss fight against him would probably look a lot like metal slug bosses.

Great, sound likes an interesting character. Look forward to reading about him in detail.

I was thinking, we might want to make the player's father be his adoptive father. His real parents probably won't be brought into it, as I can't think of a non-cliche way to add them in, that forwards the story. However, when joining the revolution, he reveals that his primary goal is to save his father. They warn him that if he joins, he must be relied on, and cannot just drop as soon as they save his father. And to that end, he won't be able to just go after his father with the revolution's resources. This gives him an incentive to rise in the ranks. Note he doesn't tell them who is father is (and he doesn't look like him). Later on when the player tries to have the revolution go save him, and the other scientists, they still refuse (perhaps this is at a desperate moment, as they got intel saying the scientists were going to die or some such). At this point they find out who is father is, and since they know him to be a vital piece to either side, they have the player lead the raid.