panbient wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 16:16:Flatline wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 15:47:
Has Warren Spector put anything good out since Deus Ex?
And when was the last time Chris Roberts put out something good?
Freelancer didn't see the light of day until he was removed from the project. So... Starlancer? Or 3 months before Deus Ex back in 2000 (and now I feel old).
Flatline wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 15:47:
Has Warren Spector put anything good out since Deus Ex?
panbient wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 08:26:theyarecomingforyou wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 06:08:
One thing that we can safely say is that CR has no intention of merely following the rest of the industry. This is a game that is going to be different, for better or worse.
I'm just going to quote Warren Spector's 7 big questions to ask about designing a game right now -Warren 'Deus Ex' Spector wrote:
1. What are we trying to do? What’s the core idea?
2. What’s the potential? Why do this game over all the others we could do?
3. What are the development challenges? Really hard stuff is fine — impossible or unfundable? Not so good…
4. Has anyone done this before? If so, what can we learn from them? If not, what does that tell us?
5. How well-suited to games is the idea? There are some things we’re just not good at and shouldn’t even attempt. A love story, for example!
6. What’s the player fantasy and does that lead to good player goals? If the fantasy and the goals aren’t there, it’s a bad idea.
7. What does the player do? What are the “verbs” of the game?
From my perspective it seems 'everything and anything' is the answer to 4 of those questions (and that's not a good answer). It lacks focus and definition. And really consider question #4, especially the last bit.
Again, like I said in the last massive E:D thread, it seems too many gamers are thinking with their hearts and not enough with their heads. It's not necessarily wrong but operating on feel rather than analysis tends to result in less than ideal outcomes.
I just wanted a game that played like Privateer and looked like X3 and I know I'm not the only one. It doesn't have to accurately simulate much of anything so long as it's fun and both SC and E:D seem to be avoiding that core KIS rule of making something fun - Keep It Simple!
Killcrit wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 08:05:
Interesting, I have not had fun in games for over a decade....
Killcrit wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 08:05:
Love the hate here.... Played for 6 hours of dogfighting last week.. had more fun than anything since BF2
Killcrit wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 08:05:
Interesting, I have not had fun in games for over a decade.... Maybe he's on to something that you casuals don't understand???
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Nov 24, 2014, 06:08:
One thing that we can safely say is that CR has no intention of merely following the rest of the industry. This is a game that is going to be different, for better or worse.
Warren 'Deus Ex' Spector wrote:
1. What are we trying to do? What’s the core idea?
2. What’s the potential? Why do this game over all the others we could do?
3. What are the development challenges? Really hard stuff is fine — impossible or unfundable? Not so good…
4. Has anyone done this before? If so, what can we learn from them? If not, what does that tell us?
5. How well-suited to games is the idea? There are some things we’re just not good at and shouldn’t even attempt. A love story, for example!
6. What’s the player fantasy and does that lead to good player goals? If the fantasy and the goals aren’t there, it’s a bad idea.
7. What does the player do? What are the “verbs” of the game?
CJ_Parker wrote on Nov 23, 2014, 22:56:Flatline wrote on Nov 23, 2014, 21:33:
I'm even less impressed about this than before. Whoever said it was like a teenager's first video game project nailed it.
At some point the game has to be "fun" instead of "complicated". The fact that the developers aren't able to so far say "We want this to be fun so realism/complexity is taking a back seat here" suggests either really inexperienced devs, or a design crew that doesn't know how to say no.
+1
There are many proposed gameplay mechanics by now that show very clearly that Chris Roberts has A) been out of the loop for over a decade and B) has never made a (massively) multiplayer online game before and now C) has never made a FPS ever before either.
There is a reason why no one has made some of the "revolutionary" features of Star Citizen FPS gameplay before. Because they SUCK. And not just on paper...
Finally, rumor has it that CR is not very good at taking 'no's' from anyone so his designers are probably like "ok, whatever, boss" as long as they get their paycheck on time every month.
CJ_Parker wrote on Nov 23, 2014, 22:56:If that was the case then he wouldn't have sacked half the Austin heads when they refused to move to LA, including Eric 'Wingman' Peterson and Chris 'The Next Great Starship' Olivia - these were some of the highest profile individuals involved in the game.
Finally, rumor has it that CR is not very good at taking 'no's' from anyone so his designers are probably like "ok, whatever, boss" as long as they get their paycheck on time every month.
CJ_Parker wrote on Nov 23, 2014, 22:56:No, they're just not suited to a multiplatform console-centric game. The game is trying to balance realism with fun and all gameplay mechanics are subject to change. For instance, when you're captured by a bounty hunter you don't have to wait there in prison as that would lead to griefing - instead the bounty hunter takes home a duplicate of you and you start in a nearby prison station / base.
There are many proposed gameplay mechanics by now that show very clearly that Chris Roberts has A) been out of the loop for over a decade and B) has never made a (massively) multiplayer online game before and now C) has never made a FPS ever before either.
There is a reason why no one has made some of the "revolutionary" features of Star Citizen FPS gameplay before. Because they SUCK. And not just on paper...
Redmask wrote on Nov 23, 2014, 12:23:Here's the PAX demo. Innovative elements include the first-person view being taken from the character's eyes, meaning no more floating gun models; projectiles fire in the direction the gun is pointing; the eyes move independently of the body when looking up and down; the limb damage system; zero-G, etc. There really is too much to list, so I recommend checking out the various videos.
So many disparate gameplay types and elements make it seem like this game will just be average at everything rather than specializing in one thing. I don't even want to contemplate trying to effectively QA a game like this either. But please link some of this promising material if you don't mind, I'd like to see what sets this FPS apart from others.
loomy wrote on Nov 23, 2014, 23:49:
this is an mmorpg alpha test you god damned geniuses. it's not counterstrike
you are going to have like 10 minutes of FPS a week in this game. the FPS module is just a TEST
...They outline a detailed limb-damage system which tracks four different damage levels for ten different limbs, explaining the visual and gameplay impact of injuries. They also discuss their version of respawning, available medical devices, how injuries can be healed, and how incapacitated teammates can be dragged to safety...
CJ_Parker wrote on Nov 23, 2014, 22:56:Flatline wrote on Nov 23, 2014, 21:33:
I'm even less impressed about this than before. Whoever said it was like a teenager's first video game project nailed it.
At some point the game has to be "fun" instead of "complicated". The fact that the developers aren't able to so far say "We want this to be fun so realism/complexity is taking a back seat here" suggests either really inexperienced devs, or a design crew that doesn't know how to say no.
+1
There are many proposed gameplay mechanics by now that show very clearly that Chris Roberts has A) been out of the loop for over a decade and B) has never made a (massively) multiplayer online game before and now C) has never made a FPS ever before either.
There is a reason why no one has made some of the "revolutionary" features of Star Citizen FPS gameplay before. Because they SUCK. And not just on paper...
Finally, rumor has it that CR is not very good at taking 'no's' from anyone so his designers are probably like "ok, whatever, boss" as long as they get their paycheck on time every month.
Flatline wrote on Nov 23, 2014, 21:33:
I'm even less impressed about this than before. Whoever said it was like a teenager's first video game project nailed it.
At some point the game has to be "fun" instead of "complicated". The fact that the developers aren't able to so far say "We want this to be fun so realism/complexity is taking a back seat here" suggests either really inexperienced devs, or a design crew that doesn't know how to say no.
Kedyn wrote on Nov 23, 2014, 22:07:That happens a lot. That is why I don't bother. I'll just wait for the finished products.
I'm not sure when it happened, but Star Citizen went from "the more I hear about it, the more I wish I had thrown money at it" to "the more I hear about it, the more I'm GLAD I kept my money".