cmdrk posted:

I can't get over the giant altar that Citizens put Chris Roberts and Tony Z on, given that they haven't made a game in literally 20 years. I assume Star Citizen is the perfect storm of nostalgia and midlife crisis spending for most of the 'investors' in this shitshow.

What bothers me more is that apparently sense cannot be talked into these people. God-Emperor Crobbler and favored son of the stimpire TONY Z can do no wrong. Nevermind that Sandi, Erin, and Ben Lesnick seem to have disappeared and the sexy bear can only be arsed to make token appearances once a year. The dreams.txt must go on.

Mirificus posted:

https://twitter.com/Jorunn_SC/status/1355968337587671040

Popete posted:

quote:

SC is Chris' dream game, I think Quantum is Tony's dream 'game'. Also, I expect them to license the tech to other studios when it shows what it can do, hence why its completely removed from CryEngine/Lumberyard.

quote:

Absolutely, this tech will revolutionize any games desire to simulate a massive economy, it may even get used in real world economics.

Tony is going to be in textbooks and lectures for decades.

quote:

With modifying, it would definitely allow open world games to have interactive systems that can be affected by the player without breaking. You could end up with a scaled up skyrim type game where the war is actually a little simulated, and decisions you make change the dynamics.

The Titanic posted:

They they grew up thinking "I remember him!" and he's just like them.

cmdrk posted:

I'm honestly surprised there aren't more John Videogames types that are successful as the Living Thumb insofar as grifting forum dads. Surely there's room for a Pepsi to Crobbler's Coke.

Richard Garriott, save us.

CIG posted:

...make sure we are trying to replicate what a distilled down version of the PU would play like rather than a Battlefield clone which serves no one. This is invaluable to me and the wider team as it helps us drive the core mixed arms experience.

reddit posted:

I'm sure they're working very hard on this... but I'm also 100% sure they're balancing around an unrealistic scenario where one side doesn't dominate the air and then slaughter everything on the ground with aircraft.

I have played thousands of hours of another large-scale combat game where people can bring as many aircraft as they want to the fight: Planetside 2. And air power was completely dominant until they implemented strong Ground-to-Air weapons that could serve as somewhat of a deterrent.
Some key differences:

* Planetside 2 has both a hard ceiling and a short maximum render distance, preventing aircraft from raining bombs from outside the defenders' range. Star Citizen has no such limitations.

* Planetside 2's weapons have a limited range that forces aircraft to get within the range of defenders' weapons. Star Citizen's weapons regularly reach 4km, the Crusader Ares S7 guns will reach ~8km... plus 30km torpedoes...

* Planetside 2 has a large number of dedicated, highly powerful Ground-to-Air weapons that can't be used by aircraft because they would be wildly overpowered as air-to-air weapons. These include vehicle-mounted flak weapons and G2A rocket launchers that many infantry carry. Star Citizen has a unified weapon mount system, so there are no ground-vehicle-only weapons to compensate for ground units' inability to dodge or avoid engagement. And while Star Citizen's infantry-serviced railgun is pretty good, it won't be effective against larger targets.

* And even with these attempts at balance in PS2, if the ground forces can't achieve a 'critical mass' of G2A power, aircraft can still dominate fights that don't take place entirely indoors.

TL;DR: In the PU, players will do whatever they can to win. Hover an updside down 890 Jump over the battlefield and the turrets can shoot at ground targets, while its capital-class shield keeps it safe. Hit Ballistas and Ursa Rovers from 10km with torps from an Eclipse. Load up literally everyone in Vanguards (or the current meta ship) to wipe away the enemy air forces, then slaughter anything on the ground. I sincerely doubt it's possible to achieve any semblance of a balanced "mixed arms experience" unless they go full 'Battlefield clone' and strictly limit what ships/vehicles are available to each side in order to prevent the use of tactics which would be commonly used in the PU.

Pixelate posted:

Yeah so now they say:

- It's changing to be more like the PU, with no limited maps or quick respawns.

Pixelate posted:

Another ToW update

They have always been at war with Release-asia

MedicineHut posted:

So close to full realization, yet so far.

Mirificus posted:

https://twitter.com/Jorunn_SC/status/1355968337587671040
https://twitter.com/Jorunn_SC/status/1356212800968929280
https://twitter.com/Jorunn_SC/status/1356214709150691334

cmdrk posted:

I'm honestly surprised there aren't more John Videogames types that are successful as the Living Thumb insofar as grifting forum dads. Surely there's room for a Pepsi to Crobbler's Coke.

Richard Garriott, save us.

Mirificus posted:

Pixelate posted:

Someone’s thought about this more than CIG...

DarkDobe posted:

Did anyone say sandiworm yet?

Zazz Razzamatazz posted:

That has the reek of The Crobbler all over it.

"No!" Chris exclaimed, stomping his foot, "They can't just respawn back in quick, there's no fidelity in that! They have to respawn 5 light years away and use mass transit to get back into the fight!! Change all that, and add some more blue pixels!"

Goatson posted:

I can't comprehend the desire to have multiple players to operate one ship. From design-point it's a doomed cause: what do when there are jobs no-one wants to do a la tank/healer because the tasks are repetitive and may feel forced? When you are a lonely gently caress whose social interactions are limited to global chat reactions? In a game where random groupings just can't and won't happen because what is instancing? Ooor, what will happen if one of the people accidentally (but inevitably) desyncs/logs out? What tools are there for the team when one of the players starts griefing? Or the common issue of npc AI being completely useless and unable to perform even the simplest of group-tasks almost in every game ever?

I know the answer to these is by now: CIG has already figured out everything, just you wait, nonbeliever. The kind of wishful game design these people show is just .... just.... why? Have these people who wish these kind of design traps ever played with other people? What is it that they see that I'm missing?

The Titanic posted:

The whole ground vs space ship debate has been thought out by almost everybody except CIG in how it could function.

When you have space ships with huge guns that can stop and hover in place and everybody gets a space ship... there is no point to anything else. Any ground vehicles will get destroyed without knowing what killed them.

If you make ground weapons powerful enough to kill somebody's $500 jpeg you've pissed off your buyers.

There really is no win situation here because instead of make a sandbox where people are free to play with the toys, you've put dollar values and expectations to what people buy externally from the game.

They effectively have to make the game pay to win, and on top of that their methods of player engagement don't put ground forces in any kind of advantage at all under any circumstances.


They should just... make a space game about space ships that fight each other in space. And only worry about balancing that area, which will already be super hard to begin with.

Goatson posted:

I can't comprehend the desire to have multiple players to operate one ship. From design-point it's a doomed cause: what do when there are jobs no-one wants to do a la tank/healer because the tasks are repetitive and may feel forced? When you are a lonely gently caress whose social interactions are limited to global chat reactions? In a game where random groupings just can't and won't happen because what is instancing? Ooor, what will happen if one of the people accidentally (but inevitably) desyncs/logs out? What tools are there for the team when one of the players starts griefing? Or the common issue of npc AI being completely useless and unable to perform even the simplest of group-tasks almost in every game ever?

I know the answer to these is by now: CIG has already figured out everything, just you wait, nonbeliever. The kind of wishful game design these people show is just .... just.... why? Have these people who wish these kind of design traps ever played with other people? What is it that they see that I'm missing?

The Titanic posted:

I didn't know he existed. And I came from the world of Doom 1, Commander Keen, shareware disks, and Atari/Commodore 64 cartridges.

Scruffpuff posted:

Hello fellow old-school enthusiast

The Titanic posted:

Every day I am more grey. Considering coloring everything purple for fun.

The Titanic posted:

So what you're missing here is that all this was designed not around being a video game, but around being a movie.

So while your bridge crew is doing a hot battle, your fighter pilots are swapping in and out and taking showers between missions and eating at the fidelity mess hall while the ship rocks from explosions.

In a movie, there's lots of background characters doing stuff. Cleaning rooms, fixing broken stuff, to have that rain of welding sparks shower over a scene where your scrappy pilots are holding a briefing in their room on a TV showing the action as it fizzes in and out.

All of SC has been designed around having "these moments".

The problem here is that players aren't out to make sure you capture those dramatic moments. They're going to shoot until the other player goes boom. They're probably not going to "lose you" because you went behind an asteroid to lick your wounds. They'll just also go around the loving asteroid and continue to shoot you.

So what you have SC doing is trying to build all of these ancillary, pointless things for people to do for dramatic moments that never make sense in an actual video game.

Not to mention they are bad at making these moments in anything but a cinematic prerendered YouTube video.

They want every fight to be Han Solo in the asteroid field evading the Star destroyers and having all that drama.

Thoatse posted:

Theaters of Chore

Thoatse posted:

Theaters of Chore

Scruffpuff posted:

He's not the only guilty party in this area. There are plenty of "horror" games out there that attempt to mimic films by using bizarre camera angles, cutscenes, quicktime events so that what's on your monitor approxmates what you'd see in a film.

Elderbean posted:

I dont care for cutscenes or quicktime events and I generally don't like it when games try to be cinematic.

I like fixed camera angles and prerendered backgrounds though. I still enjoy the REmake for it's atmosphere and its almost 19 years old. I wouldn't want the majority of games to use them though.

Pixelate posted:

Another ToW update

They have always been at war with Release-asia

The Titanic posted:

So what you're missing here is that all this was designed not around being a video game, but around being a movie.

So while your bridge crew is doing a hot battle, your fighter pilots are swapping in and out and taking showers between missions and eating at the fidelity mess hall while the ship rocks from explosions.

In a movie, there's lots of background characters doing stuff. Cleaning rooms, fixing broken stuff, to have that rain of welding sparks shower over a scene where your scrappy pilots are holding a briefing in their room on a TV showing the action as it fizzes in and out.

All of SC has been designed around having "these moments".

The problem here is that players aren't out to make sure you capture those dramatic moments. They're going to shoot until the other player goes boom. They're probably not going to "lose you" because you went behind an asteroid to lick your wounds. They'll just also go around the loving asteroid and continue to shoot you.

So what you have SC doing is trying to build all of these ancillary, pointless things for people to do for dramatic moments that never make sense in an actual video game.

Not to mention they are bad at making these moments in anything but a cinematic prerendered YouTube video.

They want every fight to be Han Solo in the asteroid field evading the Star destroyers and having all that drama.

Goatson posted:

Heck, movies rarely show traveling anywhere if doesn't belong to the narrative.

quote:

But as a game-maker, Google appears to have packed it in. Said one source familiar with Stadia’s first-party operations, citing another tech giant’s widely publicized failure to create video games: “Google was a terrible place to make games. Imagine Amazon, but under-resourced.”