Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - RSS Headlines   RSS Headlines   Twitter   Twitter
User information for Brooks

Real Name Brooks   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Zor
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Aug 22, 1999, 05:01
Total Comments 179 (Novice)
User ID 404
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Older >


News Comments > MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries Co-op & Steam Workshop Support Announced

32. Re: MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries Co-op & Steam Workshop Support Announced Dec 11, 2017, 10:28 Zor
 
DangerDog wrote on Dec 10, 2017, 14:35:
Looks like a game from ten years ago. They're really impressed with that one destructible building animation they have in the game, it sticks out though when it always looks exactly the same every time.

I mean shouldn't this be the target for actual gameplay in 2018?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC2lsZU_Y4A


That game still looks way better imo. They captured the sense of weight and scale almost perfectly.
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > GORN Early Access

1. Re: GORN Early Access Jul 11, 2017, 09:53 Zor
 
That Galaxy Quest reference, tho  
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > X-Wing XWVM Mod Video

16. Re: X-Wing XWVM Mod Video May 1, 2017, 16:54 Zor
 
This is looking absolutely fantastic. I'm really impressed with the improvements they're making. Love those explosions!  
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Starfighter Origins Tomorrow

20. Re: Starfighter Origins Tomorrow Apr 24, 2017, 18:01 Zor
 
It's cool and all that they're making it, but, I honestly would rather have a circa 2017 story-driven, military campaign space combat simulator, not one from the 90s. I want an X-Wing/Freespace series soft reboot with the visuals of Battlefront 2. And not aimed at consoles.

IMO they capture the look, visually, of Rogue One with the Battlefront footage. I desperately want that with a modern proper simulator and not some weak on-rails shooter.
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > NVIDIA Flow Video

16. Re: NVIDIA Flow Video Apr 24, 2017, 10:56 Zor
 
I think there are reasons to be cranky about Gameworks and reasons to be glad of it.

I'm glad there are hardware/software developers who are getting to create stuff like what we see in the video. It's very cool and I'm sure it was a rewarding challenge for them and they get to see their work shown off and hopefully implemented in the future.

But then, I'm sick of Nvidia's marketing management keeping a system like this so closed off from reality that we almost never see it implemented in games and whenever it is it's an afterthought (@ BL2 reference, which was a good example). I have the same gripes with dual GPU support as well.

Advances like this shouldn't be stuck behind proprietary hardware and it sucks that there are people at NV who still think it benefits them to keep it that way. I can't imagine developers are being incentivized enough or at all to bring these wacky features to their games at the exclusion of customers. You don't want to be the game developer who tells it's players that they're wrong for buying AMD.
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on the Star Citizen Roadmap

53. Re: Heroes of the Storm 2.0 Plans Apr 18, 2017, 10:52 Zor
 
Kxmode wrote on Apr 17, 2017, 22:35:
How do you explain the time and backer money used to go after The Escapist for producing a well-receiving and researched editorial that provided an eye-opening insight into CIG's inner workings?

If I could posit an educated guess, since obviously no one can actually confirm your assertion, he (CR) very likely used his own money and his own lawyer to handle that situation.

Kxmode wrote on Apr 17, 2017, 22:35:
The point, don't bring that rosy-eyed, horse excrement to this site. It won't work here. Except for a small few, most of us see Star Citizen as a long-con. That won't change until Chris ships his game, and we see what his madness has wrought.

As long as you're up front that it's your opinion that its a con and you're not simply asserting that it is, I have no issue with it. You're fully welcome, in my opinion, to be wrong. I can bring the light of good sense and logic wherever I please, tyvm!

IF and only if actual, concrete evidence of wrongdoing and a total flight from development and closure of their offices occurs and it becomes self evident that the project will not be completed then I will first want to examine the final reasons as to why such was decided and THEN will I make my own decision on if I felt the whole thing ended up being a massive con instead of just a failure. I'm ok with failure but obviously a scam or con would not be acceptable.

I get how everything that's happened can so easily prompt those who love the sensationalism of it to jump to the conclusions they do. It's fun to get mad when you have a mob, even a small one, to support your "anger" or whatever this is. Why don't I see what the rest of you clearly do? I guess I'm just a Vulcan or something. All the assumptions and heresay and conspiracy theories and illogical claims just hold no weight with me. I want empirical truth before I get on that boat. To me there is, and always has been, a clear lack of ill intention from CIG. They have shown me nothing at all that points to a desire to achieve anything less than what they've proposed. And by "shown me" I refer to all the weekly progress they report on. It may not always be huge from week to week but you know what? It's more than you can say for equally large projects that dive under the radar and stay there until they surface for an "open beta" and then spit their game out 3 weeks later and it's laughed at for being a shred of what they promised. Or worse, when they come out and say its canceled after a long period of silence (EQN!)

Their only "crime" is taking longer than anyone hoped they would, despite all the logic that should have informed them otherwise and prevented such silly hopes. Like I said, the crowd funded their stretch goals. The crowd turned this into a far larger project with a far far far longer development cycle. But lets get real. Even if they'd stayed at 2mil and kept the scope at just a new SP game with online co-op, or whatever the original pitch was, 2 years was still insanely optimistic and dumb of them to assert. Even in 2012 they probably didn't have the manpower or the right producer(s) to get that job done so quickly. To make a point, let's look at the Battletech kickstarter. That was funded in September of 2015 for a pre-established development team. They are now over 1.5 years into development of a vastly smaller game in terms of scope and even they are facing "delays" with a new target release of late summer to early fall. It's only a "delay" (air quotes) because they were forced to offer a release estimate. The point this makes is there simply is no cookie cutter that says how long game development should take. No two projects are alike and no two projects will go through the same iteration before the developers get it right. The only right length of time is however long it takes when and if it comes out and was done right the first time. You will never point to a great game and say "Damn this game is great but it just took way too long to make." But how quickly will we point to a shitty game and say they should have worked on it a few more years? Duh.
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on the Star Citizen Roadmap

52. Re: More on the Star Citizen Roadmap Apr 18, 2017, 09:58 Zor
 
Kxmode wrote on Apr 17, 2017, 22:09:
Zor wrote on Apr 17, 2017, 18:15:
See you in the 'verse, nuggets.

Is that the Star Citizen equivalent of the N-Word?

lol, no, I was evoking my love of Firefly and Battlestar there... but they toss around 'verse in CIG land as an homage.
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on the Star Citizen Roadmap

44. Re: More on the Star Citizen Roadmap Apr 17, 2017, 18:15 Zor
 
If anyone here thought that 2014 was even remotely realistic after the community funded all those stretch goals, the joke is squarely on you. Doesn't matter what CR and CIG said or didn't say. Fact is YES they were in way over their heads and didn't have the wherewithal to come out and set more realistic expectations given the way things went. Should they have stopped allowing pledges @ 2mil and start them up again after the release of SQ42? Maybe. Who's call was it to make? Theirs and theirs alone. I'm perfectly fine with their choice; I want all those things and I knew it was a possibility. They decided to let the river run and now face the consequences and responsibilities of that action--and that is to make good on ~65mil and then some of stretch goals, AS WELL as everything else they decided they think they can and want to do. And I want them to do all of those things. The simple reality is anyone and everyone who pledged any amount to the project was doing so in full (or willing rejection of) upfront knowledge that they were enabling CIG to do precisely what they want to do: "Help us make the game we've always dreamed of making." That's an open door, in case you missed it. A blank check as long as time and money are available. How people here and elsewhere continue to pretend that isn't the case I will never understand.

Have they had colossal fuck ups and missteps along the way? For sure. Have they stopped producing work? No. Have they stopped releasing updates? No. Do they show evidence of continued development week after week? Yes. Have they conquered technological challenges barring the way to the features and experiences they dream to offer? Yes. I could go on.

Wether you like it or not you're just being foolish if you continue to bring up 2014 like it's some sort of totem of their guilt. That is a joke dead and buried and only those who seek to perpetuate a pointless campaign of doubt and slander against a project that's given no cause to deserve it keep bringing it up. If the worst thing you can point to is mismanagement, bad communication, bad time estimates, and "feature creep" then who gives a crap? There isn't a software development studio on this Earth not guilty of the same. That's the petty, skin deep shit that people need to just forgive and forget and focus on what they actually produce, even if and when it takes them longer to do so than you were hoping. Heads up! They're on their schedule, not yours. Circle back to "Help us make the game we've always dreamed of making." That feature creep is as good a built-in assumption of such an open-ended pledge as I can think of.

Full disclosure--I am an original backer. I've got about $530 pledged to development, the last of which was all the way back in 2014. No regrets. See you in the 'verse, nuggets.
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue

6. Re: Out of the Blue Apr 12, 2017, 11:12 Zor
 
the whole peeing thing just sounds stress related to me especially, I'm assuming, if he's been house broken for so long..  
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Wars Battlefront II Commercial Leaks

7. Re: Star Wars Battlefront II Commercial Leaks Apr 12, 2017, 10:59 Zor
 
Prez wrote on Apr 12, 2017, 10:03:
Is anyone excited for this game? Considering how EA screwed up the first with their $60 initial release that had maybe $15 worth of content and their grossly overpriced season pass garbage that added in what should have been included in the main game, I'd be surprised if even diehard Star Wars fans were not going into this one with at least a bit of skepticism.

I'd categorize myself as a die hard fan, and I completely skipped the first one due to the above. I'm not holding my breath on this one either but it does look at least a bit more comprehensive from the teaser. The "untold soldier story" asserts at least some form of narrative and in that setting I can't get enough of that--it has good Rogue One vibe.

I have zero hopes that the space battle content will live up to my X-Wing/XvT expectations but oh well at least they're trying..
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Metaverse

20. Re: Morning Metaverse Dec 7, 2016, 16:45 Zor
 
descender wrote on Dec 7, 2016, 14:37:
There is a gaping canyon-sized difference between ignoring someone for holding different ideals and ignoring them for spreading blatantly false information. There are a small pile of posters here who have never seen a headline on Infowars they didn't like. Ignoring them isn't closing off my world view, it is improving it.

There is nothing inherently shitty about "talking politics". It only becomes a problem when people try to argue that their feelings are more important than facts. When you don't have facts to back up your arguments then you get cornered and essentially have to resort to getting emotional and irrational in the discussion.
Best comment on this site, ever. Thumbsup
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Gamescom Presentation

92. Re: Star Citizen Gamescom Presentation Aug 22, 2016, 12:30 Zor
 
whew that was a lot to read...

Alright, so, I think the top complaint I read in here was about the display of FPS combat. Yep, it looks bad. The animation and networking is mostly to blame and they keep talking about how all that is being worked on. The big rewrite of the whole networking layer is supposed to be included with alpha 3.0, but also:
We also continued working on vision stabilization for the first person view (1P). This is necessary to counter the head-bob that results from sharing the same rig between 1P and third person (3P) modes (meaning, essentially, that instead of being a floating camera, your characterís body and its movements are treated the same way as all the other characters you see.)

To achieve this weíve developed several techniques that effectively simulate how human eyes stabilize an image. The first deals with the eyes directly and eliminates all orientation changes from the body on the camera, which is most effective when the body is idle. The processes mirrors how human eyes stabilize an image on the retina. The second, head stabilization, which we patterned after how birds deal with this same problem, keeps your head at a fixed position by counter-translating body motions to maintain the perception of stability. The adjustments are only a couple of centimeters at a time, which are barely visible on 3P models. The end result of a great tool for designers and animators that allow them to tweak the amount of head-bob to a level most people perceive as realistic. This is an ongoing development process and there will be more tweaks and improvements in the coming month.

some video of them showing improvements they're working on:
https://youtu.be/FeXUMd4T5mw?t=3644
https://youtu.be/ZNV-Y5hauZ0?t=556

preview of upgrades to those slow animations people complain about (yes, they do know they are slow and irritating, the animation director even discusses it recently in Reverse the Verse 2.01):
https://youtu.be/g3rPBbVBrcI?list=PLVct2QDhDrB0Wr8oiWtstuyBJ1rail_0b&t=1454
Here they discuss in depth the state of animation and the future of animation for the game
http://imperialnews.network/2016/07/reverse-the-verse-episode-2-01-summary/

Another big issue is how long just one star system is taking to create for the PU. I think the obvious approach they are taking here is to get the R&D done on all the engine tech, get it all working right the first time in one example system, and THEN put all of that into the assembly line to crank out the rest of the 99 systems. You'll see the same thing happen for star systems as you do for starships at some point. Once the tools and pipelines are in place, the artists and content creators will fill that void, just as they have with all the ships and characters being built.

Next is certainly the big question mark in everyone's minds about the "mission" they showed off. Will this type of mission be sustainable from a development perspective? Maybe, maybe not. If they go the route of SWTOR, they have a TON of expensive work ahead of them. However I don't think that's the case for the full PU and this was just a demonstration of what they CAN do.

From what Tony and Chris have explained, the bulk of missions you will find are going to come from the simulated economy and subsumption AI system, as well as how both of those things get affected by player actions. There will also be a layer of more story driven narratives which will have to be hand crafted and performed in the way we saw in this demo. But, the most interesting content will of course be user-generated. When all the occupational gameplay systems are put in, people will find plenty to do without a mission terminal.

Moving on, a great point someone brought up was what exactly was the purpose of showing off the Drake Dragonfly that way? Who gets to keep it? Does anyone get to keep it? It was a fun tech demo to show what they CAN do but the question is how will something like that actually make it into persistent gameplay, etc. As far as they've said and as far as we've seen their goal is to mimic real life when it comes to physical items and inventory. In the case of that Dragonfly... well if you found it, you can turn it on (it's not locked or whatever they have in place), and you can transport it, I think according to the game, it's yours. Same with those crates of supplies they were trying to get off the moon. You don't "loot" in this game like you do in every other.

Then there is the big elephant in the room: player count and server instancing. Yes, the current system is terribly limited and certainly does not feel like a MMO yet. Well, of course not. They are working on an engine's networking layer that was never intended to be used that way. Are they working on it? Absolutely. Is it ready yet? Nope. Soon? Hopefully! A quote from a recent Around the Verse ep:
Another feature thatís got me really stoked is the server transition technology which is going to break down the walls between the isolated server instances and start to finally push all the players in the game together Ė thatís a bit farther out because we have to replace all the low-level CryEngine network code but itís going to have huge impact across a wide spectrum of gameplay and ultimately itís going to make the entire world feel a lot more alive.

I think ArcAge is the only MMORPG I can think of that's also used CryEngine as a baseline tech. I can only wonder how much and how long they had to hack at it to get their networking in place.

I just don't get the point in bitching about these things that aren't in yet. If you even bother to pay attention to all the weekly updates they create, you'd know what they are working on and know that all these things are known issues and are being sorted out over time. What's the point in complaining about the state of systems and engine tech that you all know isn't final--especially on the networking side? Just fucking have some goddamn patience and let them do what every other development team get's to do without you getting to watch all the fail before they find success and figure something out and get it right.

To those of you who just LOOOOVE to complain how LONG they've spent so far, put that shit to rest already. That's the most ignorant and tired complaint/argument repeated on any site that has a story about Star Citizen with a comments section. Not only is it patently absurd to accuse them of taking too long given the scope of the project and the amount of re-engineering and R&D needed to achieve the crazy shit they are dreaming up, it's even more absurd to accuse them of it when they've had to spend all these years just hiring up developers to match the size and resources and development pipelines that fully established companies have the benefit of when they start on something new. YES, there was preliminary work and designs being put to paper as far back as 2010 or 2011 but ffs there were only around 12 people working in the Austin office when they first "launched" on Kickstarter. CIG isn't Hello Games. Star Citizen isn't NMS. The game does not populate itself from art asset pools and math algorithms. To create this big of a revolution in PC gaming possibilities, you've got to spend a LOT of time finding developers who are up to and seeking out that challenge. The recent interview with Brian Chambers is very very telling in how the industry itself views the scope of this project. It's huge, it's daunting, and it's something they all are genuinely excited for and want to see happen.

This team will never cease to find people online who will scathe them for daring to show off what they DO have so far even when they knowingly have so much more to do and fix, which is really sad because that's exactly what they're supposed to do per the notion of crowd funded development. If they didn't do things like these gameplay demos, the internet would just bitch at them for that too.
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue

8. Re: Out of the Blue Aug 12, 2016, 11:29 Zor
 
I think it was a link from here but there was an article not too long ago that I followed the advice of and started putting my bean container in the fridge to keep the beans cold, which someone else referred to in an earlier comment but keeps them frozen. I feel like so far it's kept them fresher longer, and does improve the uniformity of the flavor.  
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 2.5 Nears

27. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.5 Nears Aug 8, 2016, 12:51 Zor
 
Tachikoma wrote on Aug 8, 2016, 11:49:
Bundy wrote on Aug 8, 2016, 10:43:
I'm surprised someone even tried playing SC with a gtx 760. It was always advertised as a high requirement game, especially in its unoptimised and unfinished state.

It sounds crazy even to myself since I`m an ex-hater, but I`m actually considering buying it. Problem is, it`s nigh on impossible to find out what this thing really is, since most people are either rabidly opposed or blindly enamoured with it.

So, has anybody without heavy bias played it? How bad are the framerates? I`m on 780ti + i7 2600k and 1080p Gsync monitor: Elite works flawlessly. I`d be reluctant to play under 60 fps.

Also how big (small) is the "universe"...read somewhere it`s a star system atm?

What I would recommend is watch some people streaming it on twitch or youtube. Keep an eye out for it at GamesCon in a couple weeks, as they plan to showcase Squadron 42. And keep another eye out for their free to fly week(end)s they do from time to time.

If you're only just curious then don't spend any money. If you really want to dive in and consume all the weekly content they put out and learn more than you wanted to know, then maybe you might consider backing. But if you have no intention of getting in on alpha and dealing with a less than ideal live service, then just wait and see what SQ42 is going to look like.

I stopped downloading client updates to it awhile back for a few reasons... there wasn't any persistence in the game yet, so I wasn't totally enamored with spending time in something that was just reset on each session. Then there was the issue of me trying to render the game on a crossfire card that didn't always perform as well as I felt it should (specifically the R9 295x2)

Now that persistence is in and very interesting content is coming with 2.6 and 2.7, I may steer some of my weekly gaming time towards it soon.

2.7 is supposed to introduce full space-to-ground gameplay with procedural planetary tech that they've been working on in Germany.

And for all you wankers saying 4 years is soooooo looooongggg... get a clue. Used to be developers would spend 4 years developing in the dark before you ever knew they were working on something. THEN they'd spend another year or 2 or more after they revealed it. That's what's molded public perception of how long games take to develop.

I always have to reference this when talking about time-to-develop: Blizzard itself took TEN YEARS to bring Diablo 3 to launch. I don't even care what anyone says about how long SC is taking when compared to that. It's just proof that games have no wrong or right length of development. You either suck it up and be patient, or you stop looking through the window at the circus.
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Steam Top 10

22. Re: Steam Top 10 Mar 28, 2016, 15:21 Zor
 
Freddie wrote on Mar 27, 2016, 19:52:
What was so radically different in the E3 demos ?

Nothing, really. They pulled the tablet app for whatever reason and the UI received iteration and the destruction detail and some animations were pulled back but gameplay wise I think the only thing missing is that tablet app.

3rd person, check
cover based shooter, check
bullet sponge enemies, check
looting supplies, check
seamless interior/exterior environments, check
co-op play, check
pvp, check
gadgets and gizmos and healing and turrets and seeker mines and shields and cover, check
changing skills on the fly in combat, check
weapon modding, check.

Oh ok, they took out the quicktime animation of looting a gun and checking it out... SONS OF BITCHES!
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Oculus Rift Preorders Won't Sell Out, No Charge Until Release

9. Re: Oculus Rift Preorders Won't Sell Out, No Charge Until Release Jan 6, 2016, 11:05 Zor
 
I think the thing to do for the first generation of it is wait and get it used. Shouldn't take long for that market to blossom.  
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Tech Bits

1. Re: Morning Tech Bits Dec 23, 2015, 13:27 Zor
 
"Transparent aluminum!?"  
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Saturday Previews

16. Re: Saturday Previews - SC String them along update Nov 23, 2015, 09:16 Zor
 
harlock wrote on Nov 23, 2015, 08:03:
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Nov 23, 2015, 05:23:
The release of 2.0 is proof

where is the release? in your fantasies? in your dreams?

show me the release of the core game you are talking about
here, let me google that for you
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed

20. Re: Op Ed No factual rebuttal to DS Nov 5, 2015, 10:15 Zor
 
Bub wrote on Nov 5, 2015, 06:54:
...as they have no factual rebuttal to the copious damming information he provides.
You mean allegations, right? That's all he's offered, realistically.
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Status Update

34. Re: Star Citizen Status Update Oct 19, 2015, 12:36 Zor
 
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Oct 19, 2015, 11:46:
CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 19, 2015, 11:32:
We're talking about a single map in CryEngine. An engine specifically made for FPS gameplay. And they can't hack a simple single level in any projected and scheduled amount of time? Does that give you confidence in this game's leadership? If so then more power to you, Sir...

One thing that set them back quite a bit was the way they decided to implement animations. Roberts wanted all of the character animations to be the same where every other game has separate animations for the first person view character vs the rest of the characters. Turns out this is not practical or possible with existing technology. So they ultimately had to redo all of the animations. That's a pretty big time sink for a lot of people.

And this is something that constantly makes me cringe. I really wish they hadn't bothered, at this point. IMO most players would never have noticed if they hadn't done this and would forgive them if they knew what the differences would otherwise look like. I think it would have been fine and have provided smoother gameplay if they didn't do this. At this point I just hope they can clean it up and really make it do what they want.
 
Avatar 404
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
179 Comments. 9 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Older >