Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Around The Verse - Level Design

CoticCotic Member UncommonPosts: 268
Some nice bits in this week's ATV


«1345

Comments

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    edited March 2017
    Kefo said:
    Can't check at work and on my phone but what part of the video do they mention the 5th studio?
    Reddit more phone friendly; Erin confirmed on the UK studio update part. Side of that one of the staff confirmed here. Studio on UK opened last year with 2 workers, now sits at 9 and expanding to 11 from what he said on this other post.
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    MaxBacon said:
    Kefo said:
    Can't check at work and on my phone but what part of the video do they mention the 5th studio?
    Reddit more phone friendly; Erin confirmed on the UK studio update part. Side of that one of the staff confirmed here. Studio on UK opened last year with 2 workers, now sits at 9 and expanding to 11 from what he said on this other post.
    Thanks for that
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    Some good stuff in that ATV episode, although still no gameplay.
    3.0 can't be too far away (can it?), you'd think they would show how the gameplay systems are progressing.

  • CoticCotic Member UncommonPosts: 268
    Yes I would really like to see some gameplay as well.
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 9,000
    Isn't 3.0 suppose to be a setup for setting up game play?

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    edited March 2017
    Isn't 3.0 suppose to be a setup for setting up game play?
    Yup, the gameplay mechanics when 3.0 was announced where pretty much what was road mapped to the 3.X updates.

    But from what we see on updates, it's showing a lot of work being put on content & its generation, together with mining now planned for 3.0, that's more for gameplay.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    Isn't 3.0 suppose to be a setup for setting up game play?
    Yep, and 3.0 was meant to be coming by the end of last year, when he announced that they must have had gameplay, they wouldn't have been able to just cram that in with 3 months to go and then do all the bug-testing etc.

    I'd just like to see some of this stuff in action rather than static screenshots or pans of individual elements.
  • BabuinixBabuinix Member EpicPosts: 4,000
    Isn't 3.0 suppose to be a setup for setting up game play?
    Yep, and 3.0 was meant to be coming by the end of last year, when he announced that they must have had gameplay, they wouldn't have been able to just cram that in with 3 months to go and then do all the bug-testing etc.

    I'd just like to see some of this stuff in action rather than static screenshots or pans of individual elements.




    I think they have already showed plenty of stuff in action that show's what their vision for core gameplay is.

  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Babuinix said:
    Isn't 3.0 suppose to be a setup for setting up game play?
    Yep, and 3.0 was meant to be coming by the end of last year, when he announced that they must have had gameplay, they wouldn't have been able to just cram that in with 3 months to go and then do all the bug-testing etc.

    I'd just like to see some of this stuff in action rather than static screenshots or pans of individual elements.




    I think they have already showed plenty of stuff in action that show's what their vision for core gameplay is.


    I think he meant in game where players can actually play it as opposed to "live" footage that never really materializes into the game
  • BabuinixBabuinix Member EpicPosts: 4,000
    Kefo said:
    Babuinix said:
    Isn't 3.0 suppose to be a setup for setting up game play?
    Yep, and 3.0 was meant to be coming by the end of last year, when he announced that they must have had gameplay, they wouldn't have been able to just cram that in with 3 months to go and then do all the bug-testing etc.

    I'd just like to see some of this stuff in action rather than static screenshots or pans of individual elements.




    I think they have already showed plenty of stuff in action that show's what their vision for core gameplay is.


    I think he meant in game where players can actually play it as opposed to "live" footage that never really materializes into the game
    When CIG feel it's ready to play they release it to backers, they showcased 2.0 before we could play it, same thing with 3.0. It's called ongoing game development.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    edited March 2017
    Babuinix said:
     It's called ongoing demo development.
    FTFY

    ---

    The only thing that matters is what we get to play, what they show via demos or in-house has no weight whatsoever until it is in the backers' hands.

  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko Member EpicPosts: 6,916
    Babuinix said:
     It's called ongoing demo development.
    FTFY

    ---

    The only thing that matters is what we get to play, what they show via demos or in-house has no weight whatsoever until it is in the backers' hands.

    Even non-crowdfunded games release sneak-peeks, screenshots and demo video's of development in progress. In a crowdfunded game, those are expected without a doubt.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    Sneak peeks of the game running in-house is more often the case though. Not demos showing the "vision" 50-odd months after the kickstarter started...

  • BabuinixBabuinix Member EpicPosts: 4,000
    Sneak peeks of the game running in-house is more often the case though. Not demos showing the "vision" 50-odd months after the kickstarter started...

    I don't quite follow you is there some kind of problem in showcasing gameplay demos of their intended vision for the game? Because that's been working out for them since the very beginning of the project and is something that the backers expect, want and cherish.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    Babuinix said:
    Sneak peeks of the game running in-house is more often the case though. Not demos showing the "vision" 50-odd months after the kickstarter started...

    I don't quite follow you is there some kind of problem in showcasing gameplay demos of their intended vision for the game? Because that's been working out for them since the very beginning of the project and is something that the backers expect, want and cherish.
    Yeah, course there's a problem. Just show the damn game rather than some animated concept art.

    Even CR eventually admitted putting a bunch of people to work on an Sq42 demo that never came to fruition was a complete waste of time.
    If people are placated by animated concept art instead of a real work-in-progress then they deserve all the shit that the bad side of crowdfunding can throw at them.


  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    edited March 2017
    If people are placated by animated concept art instead of a real work-in-progress then they deserve all the shit that the bad side of crowdfunding can throw at them.
    Look at them all working on ship sales: :D
    https://gfycat.com/FrequentQuestionableCaribou ... I actually really liked that GIF, just 1 of the 3 floors of the UK office time lapsing a full day of work.

    You should mind, a feature/tech prototype is as part of the "real work-in-progress" as its implementation. You should say "I want to see implemented features working in-game" instead.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • BabuinixBabuinix Member EpicPosts: 4,000
    edited March 2017
    Yeah, course there's a problem. Just show the damn game rather than some animated concept art.

    Even CR eventually admitted putting a bunch of people to work on an Sq42 demo that never came to fruition was a complete waste of time.
    If people are placated by animated concept art instead of a real work-in-progress then they deserve all the shit that the bad side of crowdfunding can throw at them.
    But they are indeed showing the game, they are playing in a controlled build using the tech they develop to showcase game mechanics that we should expect in the game, it's called game a alpha vertical slice in game development. You can watch those gameplay slices all the way back to their first demo's, it's part of their ongoing development cycle of a game that is in active development.

    I don't know what "people" you are talking about but Star Citizen backers eagerly expect to be showcased said demos as per the very early stretch goals.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    Babuinix said:
    Yeah, course there's a problem. Just show the damn game rather than some animated concept art.

    Even CR eventually admitted putting a bunch of people to work on an Sq42 demo that never came to fruition was a complete waste of time.
    If people are placated by animated concept art instead of a real work-in-progress then they deserve all the shit that the bad side of crowdfunding can throw at them.
    But they are indeed showing the game, they are playing in a controlled build using the tech they develop to showcase game mechanics that we should expect in the game, it's called game a alpha vertical slice in game development. You can watch those gameplay slices all the way back to their first demo's, it's part of their ongoing development cycle of a game that is in active development.

    I don't know what "people" you are talking about but Star Citizen backers eagerly expect to be showcased said demos as per the very early stretch goals.

    No they are not playing the game, they are showing demos which feature components solely created for that demo's purpose, it's why these sort of vertical slices are regarded as a complete waste of time.

    http://www.pcgamer.com/five-reasons-game-marketing-can-be-misleading/

    It was the exact same issue they ran into with Star Marine, essentially they built a vertical slice on an engine and assets that were in heavy development and were surprised when it all backfired on them.

    You might think that backers eagerly await demos, yet there was more demand for seeing a functioning Squadron42 than there was for any bullshot demo. Why would you want to see some natty demo when you should be able to see the actual game, even if it is early wip?

    It's like E3 where they show off all these game demos and half the time the final product is some significant backtrack on what was shown. Why would you want to put yourself in the position again?

  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 9,000
    I think they do show more concepts then anything else. Most videos are about what will happen in the future.  But it's alpha so that's expected.  I would also prefer videos about stuff that's launching in a day or a week but look at their schedule and how they constantly say they hope to have stuff done but can't give dates.

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • BabuinixBabuinix Member EpicPosts: 4,000
    Babuinix said:
    Yeah, course there's a problem. Just show the damn game rather than some animated concept art.

    Even CR eventually admitted putting a bunch of people to work on an Sq42 demo that never came to fruition was a complete waste of time.
    If people are placated by animated concept art instead of a real work-in-progress then they deserve all the shit that the bad side of crowdfunding can throw at them.
    But they are indeed showing the game, they are playing in a controlled build using the tech they develop to showcase game mechanics that we should expect in the game, it's called game a alpha vertical slice in game development. You can watch those gameplay slices all the way back to their first demo's, it's part of their ongoing development cycle of a game that is in active development.

    I don't know what "people" you are talking about but Star Citizen backers eagerly expect to be showcased said demos as per the very early stretch goals.

    No they are not playing the game, they are showing demos which feature components solely created for that demo's purpose, it's why these sort of vertical slices are regarded as a complete waste of time.

    http://www.pcgamer.com/five-reasons-game-marketing-can-be-misleading/

    It was the exact same issue they ran into with Star Marine, essentially they built a vertical slice on an engine and assets that were in heavy development and were surprised when it all backfired on them.

    You might think that backers eagerly await demos, yet there was more demand for seeing a functioning Squadron42 than there was for any bullshot demo. Why would you want to see some natty demo when you should be able to see the actual game, even if it is early wip?

    It's like E3 where they show off all these game demos and half the time the final product is some significant backtrack on what was shown. Why would you want to put yourself in the position again?

    What? They are indeed playing a game, one in active development which has multiple ongoing builds.
    What is released for public testing is just the tip of the iceberg of what they are developing.

    I understand gamers are eagerly awaiting for the release of Star Citize but you can't assemble a Video-Gaming company and make an ambitious game in a couple of years alone. Time is needed to assemble the team and to make the appropriated easements for it to work as a unity while building up the tools and the engine to make the ambitious game mechanics a possibility.

    Patience is key here while making an educated effort to understand star citizen game development unique requirements. 
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Babuinix said:
    Babuinix said:
    Yeah, course there's a problem. Just show the damn game rather than some animated concept art.

    Even CR eventually admitted putting a bunch of people to work on an Sq42 demo that never came to fruition was a complete waste of time.
    If people are placated by animated concept art instead of a real work-in-progress then they deserve all the shit that the bad side of crowdfunding can throw at them.
    But they are indeed showing the game, they are playing in a controlled build using the tech they develop to showcase game mechanics that we should expect in the game, it's called game a alpha vertical slice in game development. You can watch those gameplay slices all the way back to their first demo's, it's part of their ongoing development cycle of a game that is in active development.

    I don't know what "people" you are talking about but Star Citizen backers eagerly expect to be showcased said demos as per the very early stretch goals.

    No they are not playing the game, they are showing demos which feature components solely created for that demo's purpose, it's why these sort of vertical slices are regarded as a complete waste of time.

    http://www.pcgamer.com/five-reasons-game-marketing-can-be-misleading/

    It was the exact same issue they ran into with Star Marine, essentially they built a vertical slice on an engine and assets that were in heavy development and were surprised when it all backfired on them.

    You might think that backers eagerly await demos, yet there was more demand for seeing a functioning Squadron42 than there was for any bullshot demo. Why would you want to see some natty demo when you should be able to see the actual game, even if it is early wip?

    It's like E3 where they show off all these game demos and half the time the final product is some significant backtrack on what was shown. Why would you want to put yourself in the position again?

    What? They are indeed playing a game, one in active development which has multiple ongoing builds.
    What is released for public testing is just the tip of the iceberg of what they are developing.

    I understand gamers are eagerly awaiting for the release of Star Citize but you can't assemble a Video-Gaming company and make an ambitious game in a couple of years alone. Time is needed to assemble the team and to make the appropriated easements for it to work as a unity while building up the tools and the engine to make the ambitious game mechanics a possibility.

    Patience is key here while making an educated effort to understand star citizen game development unique requirements. 
    It always seems to come back to variations of "you don't understand game development"

    I get it that most of us aren't game devs but CIG isn't some mystical company where what they do is shrouded in mystery. Many of us have seen this before where a game dev produces some awe inspiring cinematic and tells you its all in game footage or this is what you can look forward to and then when the game releases its nothing like what was promised.

    The problem here is that CIG is showing off these awesome looking trailers and cinematics but at the end of the day most of it hasn't materialized into the game or if it has its been a pale shadow of what was originally promised. 

    Yes I realize its still (pre)alpha but you would think after showing off PG planets in engine and in real time 15ish months ago they would have something to put in for backers unless it was just a bullshot cinematic made to generate hype.


  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    Kefo said:
    It always seems to come back to variations of "you don't understand game development"

    Indeed. Always back to the "you aren't being patient enough" or "you just don't understand game development".

    ---

    It's 5 years.... and they are still prototyping key parts of the core game, they don't even have one whole system yet, they don't even have any professions yet, they don't even have any economy yet.  How much slack are people prepared to cut them?

    If this were to have anything at all to do with patience then that is CIG's fault because they expanded and kept expanding the scope of the game. Perhaps people don't want to wait 10 years for a game, that's not unreasonable in itself.

    Fatigue will become even more of a thing as this project moves on at its glacial pace, people will feel their time and money can be used far more productively on something that plans to deliver in an acceptable time-frame.
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,650
    edited March 2017
    idk why are you guys taking the thread on the direction of all others, haven't we had enough of the same tired, beaten and circular discussion?

    The poor horse will never find peace.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
Sign In or Register to comment.