|
Khanstant posted:Considering that No Man's sky, a game exclusively about simulated worlds/landscapes for exploration, can't even make that seem interesting or worthwhile, there's no way this game will. How old are you? It's understandable if you look back at it with today's viewpoint, but coming from having played on C64 or NES (SNES was released in 1991 in US and 1992 in Europe) - Seeing that WC released in 1990 you might want to check out the competition at that time, there was a lot of historical and "modern" flight sims with telephone book thick manuals, that were ultimately shallow experiences, because all they did was providing you a set of single missions without consequences or an overarching narrative, that made you care in any way (i.e. Battlehawks, Their Finest Hour, Secret Weapons) and only two years later you got the dynamic campaign theatre from Falcon 3.0 in 1992 - in 1990 everything else looked like rear end or was just primitive gameplay when you stripped away the graphics (Cinemaware looking at you). The next interesting space sim that progressed the genre, X-Wing came three years later in 1993, the year when also Doom appeared and doomed the gaming industry into eternal FPS clones. Westwood Studios wasn't even a powerhouse yet and created Eye of the Beholder one year later in 1991, Command & Conquer which then succeeded in spawning the RTS hype, came five years later in 1995. sorla78 fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Jan 3, 2016 |
# ? Jan 3, 2016 13:48 |
|
|
# ? Apr 27, 2024 17:01 |
|
Tie fighter wad the best 90s space shooty game. That poo poo owned
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 13:56 |
|
There was also the matter of (relative) mass appeal. There were other games that had dynamic campaigns, but they tended to be obscure and far too complicated for most gamers. F-16 Combat Pilot came out in 1988 and had some pretty swanky graphics for its time, and what (and how) you did mattered a lot for the overall outcome of a campaign. Even in the sim genre, though. it was overshadowed by Falcon AT and completely out of the picture when Falcon 3.0 caught up on the campaign side three years later. So what it did — and how early it did it — is a bit lost in the noise of the era. It really was that marrying of having some meaning to your actions (which mainly existed in sims), with a simple gameplay (that the sims definitely did not offer), and the cinematic storytelling of the Cinemaware and early Lucasart games that made the WCs such a catchy experience.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 13:59 |
|
Well Star Citizen has given us some of the best gifs ever
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 14:09 |
|
Tippis posted:There was also the matter of (relative) mass appeal. I just remembered Red Baron and sure enough it's 1990 with a dynamic campaign and career mode. It was a sim too but there was no clicking a million buttons to program your radar poo poo. Just energy management and shoot mans. Wikipedia says it had multiplayer too. Now that's a game that was ahead of it's time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Baron_%281990_video_game%29 I wish someone would make another cool WWI flightsim. Biplanes are much cooler than monoplanes and modern aircraft just suck for pick up and play fun.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 14:21 |
|
Smorgasbord posted:My brother is sucked deep into this ponzi scheme of a 'game', last I heard it was dead in the water but he insists that was just some malcontents stirring up trouble and everything is on track and he's making megabux selling jpgs of spaceships.... He's going to end up a homeless shell of a man clutching pictures of fake spaceships, right? Ask him when the game is supposed to be out. Toops posted:Dude ima be honest... I like Disco Lando. He's infinity less of an awkward cringe-cultist than Ben. He trolled CR in a Santa outfit during the holiday failstream, and that massive RtV eyeroll at the wulge, followed by "Dude, it's not all about buying ships..." was A+ in my book. I'm trying to like him, but every time he encounters any kind of controversy or issue he falls back on his position and assumes that asserting his authority is sufficient to address the problem. He's certainly not an advocate for the community. Neither is Ben. His primary job is to shut down criticism and keep funds flowing, and if the community devolves into a toxic hellscape where critical feedback is drowned out in a sea of white knighting then so be it. I'm sure he's a perfectly decent human being in person and likely a lot of fun (he plays the X-Wing miniatures game, which is cool), but he's a terrible community manager. Frankly the only person on the community staff that I thought was a professional was James, but he was both powerless and not a cultist. The best person to hang out with is Erin. He's this quiet, reserved dude who just wants to loving make games. Back in the day Bootcha hooked a few of us Goons up and we got to drink with Eric Peterson (the guy who did Wingman, sadly no longer with the company), and he brings Erin along. Best half an hour in my life. Erin's actually the reason I was so excited and enthusiastic about this project from the beginning. I assumed Chris would be the visionary and run around spouting bullshit while Erin actually produced a loving game. Instead it seems like even his brother can't hold up to Chris's scope creep.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 14:33 |
|
Tippis posted:There was also the matter of (relative) mass appeal. Aye, I also liked that I did not get much forewarning about it. It's release just hit me out of the nowhere. People tend to overlook that most didn't have online access back then, there was no online journalism to speak about, there was not the same scale of detailed discussion ad absurdum like in today's times, where there are thousands of forums dedicated to outlet opinion. Your information mainly came from print media that still published readers opinions in their reader's notes/letters sections - I didn't have a subscription and the magazines back then released on a monthly basis, it was easy to miss information: Also Summer and Winter CES (E3 only was formed in 1995) reports weren't that detailed as they are nowadays - the selection of screenshots was pretty limited and they tended to be tiny as printing was still expensive. Most CES reports simply were a listing of studio names and a short description of their projects that they presented with some impressions, interviews etc, some of the more important projects got one page reports - I didn't know about Wing Commander until it was tested and had already hit the shelves. It was the closest experience to playing something akin to Star Wars that you could have. You could maybe compare the circumstances of its release a bit to Half Life 2.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 14:34 |
|
Squadron 42: The Movie
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 14:47 |
|
Berious posted:I just remembered Red Baron and sure enough it's 1990 with a dynamic campaign and career mode. It was a sim too but there was no clicking a million buttons to program your radar poo poo. Just energy management and shoot mans. Wikipedia says it had multiplayer too. Now that's a game that was ahead of it's time. I loved Dynamix as a company - it's a shame what happened to Sierra On-Line in the end. Mechwarrior https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3NtRiInFaU, Deathtrack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8qFvJMCz3M, Die Hard (look at this beauty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_3dN9voPq0, Rise of the Dragon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKpkkQH6ZT4, Heart of China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY-PXqOXE4k and their Front Page Sports stuff. I still believe WW1 would make for some impressive simulation scenery with all those trench battles.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 14:54 |
|
EminusSleepus posted:Squadron 42: The Movie I'm fairly sure we've seen more footage of those pajama suits than we've seen gameplay footage from CIG. Every stream Chris brings that poo poo out even when cultists keep pestering him about some nerd game he clearly doesn't give a gently caress about.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 14:55 |
|
Berious posted:I'm fairly sure we've seen more footage of those pajama suits than we've seen gameplay footage from CIG. Every stream Chris brings that poo poo out even when cultists keep pestering him about some nerd game he clearly doesn't give a gently caress about. What is wrong with 2 and 4's faces?
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 15:07 |
|
Blazing Ownager posted:Given that supporting VR isn't all that hard makes this statement utterly ridiculous, unless you mean it in a "there will be no game, so of course it won't have VR." Sorry, that's pure and utter nonsense. The End.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 15:13 |
|
Haskell9 posted:Congratulations on your tremendous accomplishment. ....and has over 25 years of martial arts training (which, unless you're in my Facebook page, you probably wouldn't know). So there is that.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 15:17 |
|
Xaerael posted:All of it is, if you count Dust 514 as part of eve. heh yeah. I keep having Twitter arguments about "40 clients in ArcCorp". This despite the fact that - at no point in time - has there ever been more than 8-10 people in any instance, flying around, fighting in fps mode etc. In fact, 99% of the SC videos, are of people doing random poo poo with hardly any meaningful or consequential "gameplay".
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 15:19 |
|
Scruffpuff posted:This makes me think even more about how Chris doesn't understand how people think, or gaming in general. To be immersed in an experience like a game, has nothing to do with seeing the same things on your monitor that you would see in real life. Pure Gold.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 15:23 |
|
I bet that Ben's reply would be different if the result of the poll is in favor of YES I want monetization in Star Citizen
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 15:37 |
|
EminusSleepus posted:I bet that Ben's reply would be different if the result of the poll is in favor of YES I want monetization in Star Citizen Sorry there seems to be a problem with the polls, nothing to see here nuh-uh. *thread closed*
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 15:50 |
|
EminusSleepus posted:I bet that Ben's reply would be different if the result of the poll is in favor of YES I want monetization in Star Citizen Me thinks he doth protest too much.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 15:54 |
|
EminusSleepus posted:Squadron 42: The Movie 104 million dollars and they could only afford 2 mocap helmets. The rest have to make do with sticking rubber rings on their heads.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:00 |
|
Chalks posted:104 million dollars and they could only afford 2 mocap helmets. The rest have to make do with sticking rubber rings on their heads. errrmm you have mistaken a life preserver for a helmet.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:06 |
|
EminusSleepus posted:errrmm you have mistaken a life preserver for a helmet. In case they fall in the space water while fishing for all the whales. It makes sense if you think about it.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:12 |
|
This. What the gently caress is this, and who thought this poo poo made sense. 15,000 loving dollars for this poo poo?! And it's not even ALL of the ships, and buying this UNLOCKS the potential to BUY another ship? How can Star Citizen cultist idiots, you loving morons, can possibly defend this? With all you have seen of the alpha, how it's still completely behind schedule and being handled like a bunch C- high schoolers working on a project? This is legit making me angry. Fargin Icehole fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Jan 3, 2016 |
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:34 |
|
Rudager posted:It makes me angry because it shouldn't even be a conversation, you can't do anything they list in Star Citizen because it isn't even a loving game yet Just to follow this up, my post full of the links proving a claim wrong is at -14 reddit points, lmao. They really don't want their world view proven to be wrong.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:42 |
|
Fargin Icehole posted:This. What the gently caress is this, and who thought this poo poo made sense. how much does the javelin even cost? because lol I'm not going to their website to check myself
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:49 |
|
Unfunny Poster posted:Just to follow this up, my post full of the links proving a claim wrong is at -14 reddit points, lmao. then gently caress those idiots. i have no sympathy for idiots who ignore legitimate warnings from other people, choke on that poo poo for all i care.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:50 |
|
Fargin Icehole posted:This. What the gently caress is this, and who thought this poo poo made sense. Cultists shits will say: YOU CAN EARN EVERYTHING IN GAME if you ask them, can I earn that $250 ship in 1 week casual game then they will reply HELL NO!
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:50 |
|
Renegret posted:how much does the javelin even cost? $2500 and it is a standalone ship so there is no game for you even if you already have shelled out that kind of amount
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:52 |
EminusSleepus posted:I bet that Ben's reply would be different if the result of the poll is in favor of YES I want monetization in Star Citizen
|
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:53 |
|
If they haven't talked about doing it, why is he making the poll?
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:55 |
|
Saint Drogo posted:wait so this is un-monetized Star Citizen? Sorry forgot to add the context: the question is when star citizen has "launched" would it be OK for you if cig will monetized star citizen as in like a cash shop like most mmo
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:55 |
|
EminusSleepus posted:$2500 and it is a standalone ship so there is no game for you even if you already have shelled out that kind of amount I'm really glad this is going to crash as hard as it will because I'm not pleased with the precedent that it would set otherwise. Although, loving lol nerds and their money.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:55 |
|
serious norman posted:If they haven't talked about doing it, why is he making the poll? He didn't make the poll with his trex arms lol Sorry to confuse but here is the thread https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6176433/#Comment_6176433
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 16:57 |
|
EminusSleepus posted:$2500 and it is a standalone ship so there is no game for you even if you already have shelled out that kind of amount It's also just the shell of a ship with no weapons, shields, etc.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 17:14 |
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:It's also just the shell of a ship with no weapons, shields, etc. Yes, I forgot to mention that and their reasoning is for the owner/guild will have a goal in outfitting that ship into a battle ready machine or make it into a floating casino/strip bar Fakedit:ok the casino/strip bar part is my idea lol
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 17:18 |
|
Agrajag posted:then gently caress those idiots. i have no sympathy for idiots who ignore legitimate warnings from other people, choke on that poo poo for all i care. It wasn't a warning, it was just a list of things that were claimed to not be in EVE being shown to exist in EVE save for like 3 things (FPS, Gardening, and Planetary Landing). They got unjustifiably mad about it for some silly reason. Apparently reality doesn't fit the narrative. Mekchu fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jan 3, 2016 |
# ? Jan 3, 2016 17:29 |
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:I wanted something realistic and reachable though. Look deep in your heart and tell me you wouldn't be at least a little impressed if sc managed to shape up enough to beat out a poorly recieved mmo from 2010 And STO is a bad example in itself: it deserved 66% when it was first released, but since then it was sold and over the last ~4 years they have had regular updates and additions to gameplay. For awhile they were going back and re-doing missions and seasons to update and tweak them: in some cases reworking missions to be bigger, more story-focused and to take advantage of newer gameplay elements. They did also throw in a lot of pay aspects like lockboxes (loving things), but those are completely optional and not required if you want to simply grind for top-tier gear. They also added a LOT more voicework from STO actors (not the best talent but still recognizable actors from the series) and tying them into the expanded lore of the universe. For casual players the gameplay is unaffected, and I personally had a lot of fun just levelling characters up to max and starting a new tier (Engineer, Science or Assault) because end-gameplay doesn't appeal to me. So while it was a 66% on release, it would definitely rate higher if re-reviewed now after 6ish years of progress. SC could not afford to follow the same path of 'release mediocre MMO, go bust and sell it, new owner sinks a lot of money to bring it up to scratch over a few years' since they already started with the cashgrab of ships. They really don't have anywhere to go that isn't tapping the same limited market starting with a sub-par product.
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 17:33 |
|
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6191257/#Comment_6191257 https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6191337/#Comment_6191337
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 17:37 |
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:It's also just the shell of a ship with no weapons, shields, etc. loving lol
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 17:45 |
|
I wonder if the guy who made this video still believes in "A Promise"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRAt8tg-8co
|
# ? Jan 3, 2016 17:46 |
|
|
# ? Apr 27, 2024 17:01 |
|
EminusSleepus posted:Cultists shits will say: The really funny part? If the game ever comes out, poop-socking and botting will most likely make it possible to earn one in a matter of days. Come to think of it, even with the existence of the grey market before the game is even out, has there been any word on CIG's part as far as how they intend to tackle the inevitable bot farms, Unfunny Poster posted:It wasn't a warning, it was just a list of things that were claimed to not be in EVE being shown to exist in EVE save for like 3 things (FPS, Gardening, and Planetary Landing). To be honest, EVE's Planetary Interaction might as well be gardening for all the kind of futzing it requires (and it even lets you produce plankton, bacteria, and other forms of biomass). Also, since one of the higher-tier products is life stock, there has to be some kind of hay being farmed along the way, right? Tippis fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jan 3, 2016 |
# ? Jan 3, 2016 17:52 |