Howdy, Stranger!

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

err

124»

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited December 2018
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    Torval said:

    Asheram said:
    Wouldn't that make making better games easier rather than discard all that work and starting over?


    Did Funcom use any assets from AoC to make their limited size world survival game? I haven't played that one just curious.
    I have no problem reusing assets and code. I reuse my code between every project I can. There's always custom stuff to write.

    MMO gamer outrage at asset flipping in a genre that has been a giant asset flip for 20 years is laughable anyway. Gamers are hypocrites. They'll damn a game in one thread and fight tooth and nail to defend their game doing the same thing in another. The FO76 threads have been great for that. It's weird.
    Come now Torval, good devs don't leave obvious asset re-usage (and yes, I'm looking at Blizzard here too.  WoW in the past has been one of the worst).  And where have I (the MMO gamer here, apparently) made excuses for asset flips or supported them in the past?

    I don't wanna see blatant asset flipping anywhere.  If you wanna reuse models with minimal/no edited features in a new way, that can work and is efficient if done intelligently and the model isn't a focal feature point object.  But there's a big difference between efficient and lazy, something you don't seem to acknowledge in your post.
    Yes they do. They most likely forked or cloned ARK from their git repo and built the game from there. It's not a big deal to me if they haven't ripped out or renamed old folder structures yet, or at all. What do I care? I don't care if they reuse assets either.

    These guys make survival games. If this game feels like Pirate Survival instead of Dino Survival then great. I'd think that's what their core demographic is looking for.

    Sometimes derivation works and sometimes it flops. Whether this works or not depends on if it is enjoyable to play, not the methods to build it. Bethesda just tried derivation and it didn't go as planned. Ubisoft just pulled off a few incredible derivative coups this year. MMO expansions are the grossest examples of rehash. See where I'm going?

    I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about how software developers should do things. I look at their results. If I like the results I'm happy because it's about the code. If I don't then whatever. I don't really like how a lot of software projects are run, so I don't get involved with them. It ends there for me.

    If these guys start pulling a bunch of crap like adding a cash shop later, or promising concurrency and not delivering, or any number of shenanigans studios pull lately, like selling DLC before they leave EA, then I'll take issue with that. I don't care how they develop the product up to that point.
    Really?  They reuse assets blatantly, without editing or modifying them to make them fresh?  Then why is it titular characters like Geralt look distinctly different throughout the series?  That would be one that re-usage would be absolutely expected, as he's the same character throughout, yet they modified his aesthetic for each game, even if they kept his basic features/model the same.  Same with characters like Triss.


    Again, there's a difference between being efficient and being lazy.
    There is a disparity between how things work and how you imagine they work.
    Elaborate then.  Is there not a difference between lazily porting assets, unchanged, in large swathes as opposed to modifying or sparsely using old assets?

    And no offense, but your code example is irrelevant.  The end user doesn't see the code.  It's not an art asset.

    image
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,776
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    Torval said:

    Asheram said:
    Wouldn't that make making better games easier rather than discard all that work and starting over?


    Did Funcom use any assets from AoC to make their limited size world survival game? I haven't played that one just curious.
    I have no problem reusing assets and code. I reuse my code between every project I can. There's always custom stuff to write.

    MMO gamer outrage at asset flipping in a genre that has been a giant asset flip for 20 years is laughable anyway. Gamers are hypocrites. They'll damn a game in one thread and fight tooth and nail to defend their game doing the same thing in another. The FO76 threads have been great for that. It's weird.
    Come now Torval, good devs don't leave obvious asset re-usage (and yes, I'm looking at Blizzard here too.  WoW in the past has been one of the worst).  And where have I (the MMO gamer here, apparently) made excuses for asset flips or supported them in the past?

    I don't wanna see blatant asset flipping anywhere.  If you wanna reuse models with minimal/no edited features in a new way, that can work and is efficient if done intelligently and the model isn't a focal feature point object.  But there's a big difference between efficient and lazy, something you don't seem to acknowledge in your post.
    Yes they do. They most likely forked or cloned ARK from their git repo and built the game from there. It's not a big deal to me if they haven't ripped out or renamed old folder structures yet, or at all. What do I care? I don't care if they reuse assets either.

    These guys make survival games. If this game feels like Pirate Survival instead of Dino Survival then great. I'd think that's what their core demographic is looking for.

    Sometimes derivation works and sometimes it flops. Whether this works or not depends on if it is enjoyable to play, not the methods to build it. Bethesda just tried derivation and it didn't go as planned. Ubisoft just pulled off a few incredible derivative coups this year. MMO expansions are the grossest examples of rehash. See where I'm going?

    I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about how software developers should do things. I look at their results. If I like the results I'm happy because it's about the code. If I don't then whatever. I don't really like how a lot of software projects are run, so I don't get involved with them. It ends there for me.

    If these guys start pulling a bunch of crap like adding a cash shop later, or promising concurrency and not delivering, or any number of shenanigans studios pull lately, like selling DLC before they leave EA, then I'll take issue with that. I don't care how they develop the product up to that point.
    Really?  They reuse assets blatantly, without editing or modifying them to make them fresh?  Then why is it titular characters like Geralt look distinctly different throughout the series?  That would be one that re-usage would be absolutely expected, as he's the same character throughout, yet they modified his aesthetic for each game, even if they kept his basic features/model the same.  Same with characters like Triss.


    Again, there's a difference between being efficient and being lazy.
    There is a disparity between how things work and how you imagine they work.
    Elaborate then.  Is there not a difference between lazily porting assets, unchanged, in large swathes as opposed to modifying or sparsely using old assets?

    And no offense, but your code example is irrelevant.  The end user doesn't see the code.  It's not an art asset.
    Because it's not all about art assets. This wasn't even about textures originally. This was people finding folder names and leaping to conclusions as to what that had to imply.

    Did you actually see something specific that shouldn't have been used or reused? Did they copy paste some blatant gimmick from ARK all over ATLAS? What exactly shouldn't have been used? That's the real question.

    If you just don't like the idea and have no specifics then we're done because I'm not interested in micromanaging other peoples projects from the theory side of things. I hate when my projects get micromanaged and I try really hard not to even go there with others.

    Now, if you actually have an instance where you think it was poorly done and shouldn't have been used then reference that and then maybe we can form an opinion because that's tangible. If you feel like they've been copy pasting something in a ridiculous manner then let's out that because I think it's cheap. Reuse where it makes sense. Don't be cheap when something should be developed from scratch whether that be code or art.

    To me, so far the game looks like the same artists that worked on ARK worked on ATLAS. It looks like they built it off their same core engine code and use the same kinds of lighting and all that. The parts that seem like ARK feel common to any survival type. The parts that look piratey don't look much like how it works in ARK at all. Also, it's early access and I'm cautious of those because they can flip flop directions at any time and that's happened.
    ConstantineMerus
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    Torval said:

    Asheram said:
    Wouldn't that make making better games easier rather than discard all that work and starting over?


    Did Funcom use any assets from AoC to make their limited size world survival game? I haven't played that one just curious.
    I have no problem reusing assets and code. I reuse my code between every project I can. There's always custom stuff to write.

    MMO gamer outrage at asset flipping in a genre that has been a giant asset flip for 20 years is laughable anyway. Gamers are hypocrites. They'll damn a game in one thread and fight tooth and nail to defend their game doing the same thing in another. The FO76 threads have been great for that. It's weird.
    Come now Torval, good devs don't leave obvious asset re-usage (and yes, I'm looking at Blizzard here too.  WoW in the past has been one of the worst).  And where have I (the MMO gamer here, apparently) made excuses for asset flips or supported them in the past?

    I don't wanna see blatant asset flipping anywhere.  If you wanna reuse models with minimal/no edited features in a new way, that can work and is efficient if done intelligently and the model isn't a focal feature point object.  But there's a big difference between efficient and lazy, something you don't seem to acknowledge in your post.
    Yes they do. They most likely forked or cloned ARK from their git repo and built the game from there. It's not a big deal to me if they haven't ripped out or renamed old folder structures yet, or at all. What do I care? I don't care if they reuse assets either.

    These guys make survival games. If this game feels like Pirate Survival instead of Dino Survival then great. I'd think that's what their core demographic is looking for.

    Sometimes derivation works and sometimes it flops. Whether this works or not depends on if it is enjoyable to play, not the methods to build it. Bethesda just tried derivation and it didn't go as planned. Ubisoft just pulled off a few incredible derivative coups this year. MMO expansions are the grossest examples of rehash. See where I'm going?

    I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about how software developers should do things. I look at their results. If I like the results I'm happy because it's about the code. If I don't then whatever. I don't really like how a lot of software projects are run, so I don't get involved with them. It ends there for me.

    If these guys start pulling a bunch of crap like adding a cash shop later, or promising concurrency and not delivering, or any number of shenanigans studios pull lately, like selling DLC before they leave EA, then I'll take issue with that. I don't care how they develop the product up to that point.
    Really?  They reuse assets blatantly, without editing or modifying them to make them fresh?  Then why is it titular characters like Geralt look distinctly different throughout the series?  That would be one that re-usage would be absolutely expected, as he's the same character throughout, yet they modified his aesthetic for each game, even if they kept his basic features/model the same.  Same with characters like Triss.


    Again, there's a difference between being efficient and being lazy.
    There is a disparity between how things work and how you imagine they work.
    Elaborate then.  Is there not a difference between lazily porting assets, unchanged, in large swathes as opposed to modifying or sparsely using old assets?

    And no offense, but your code example is irrelevant.  The end user doesn't see the code.  It's not an art asset.
    Because it's not all about art assets. This wasn't even about textures originally. This was people finding folder names and leaping to conclusions as to what that had to imply.

    Did you actually see something specific that shouldn't have been used or reused? Did they copy paste some blatant gimmick from ARK all over ATLAS? What exactly shouldn't have been used? That's the real question.

    If you just don't like the idea and have no specifics then we're done because I'm not interested in micromanaging other peoples projects from the theory side of things. I hate when my projects get micromanaged and I try really hard not to even go there with others.

    Now, if you actually have an instance where you think it was poorly done and shouldn't have been used then reference that and then maybe we can form an opinion because that's tangible. If you feel like they've been copy pasting something in a ridiculous manner then let's out that because I think it's cheap. Reuse where it makes sense. Don't be cheap when something should be developed from scratch whether that be code or art.

    To me, so far the game looks like the same artists that worked on ARK worked on ATLAS. It looks like they built it off their same core engine code and use the same kinds of lighting and all that. The parts that seem like ARK feel common to any survival type. The parts that look piratey don't look much like how it works in ARK at all. Also, it's early access and I'm cautious of those because they can flip flop directions at any time and that's happened.
    The audio has been reported both here by users (iirc) and Steam as being identical to ARK.  They've also reported actual environmental assets ported over completely unchanged.  At least cleverly hide or position the damn things to avoid it immediately sounding bells in the ARK player's head of "oh wow, it feels like I've been here dozens of times already."

    I get that basic models and textures are shared, but you can position, modify, or light those assets in a way that makes them seem new.  However, that takes skill and careful planning, the type of careful planning that doesn't result in delaying a release date AFTER the time/date had clearly passed.


    This studio doesn't have enough cred for me to ignore that shit.  At the same time, I can recognize it's not being sold for $60 which is why I said elsewhere I'm waiting on more details about how the gameplay differs from ARK.  Because if they don't do something significant enough, like it or not, those file folders and hidden menu options will paint a shitty picture of just how much time was actually spent developing this game.

    image
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,149
    The fact that they used assets from Ark is not an issue. They just did a very poor job of making it feel like a new game and that, IMO, is what people should be focusing on. 

    The problem with everyone making a big deal about it actually using assets is that most developers who create more than one game that are alike will in fact reuse some assets. The emphasis should be about the quality in which they did it.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    The fact that they used assets from Ark is not an issue. They just did a very poor job of making it feel like a new game and that, IMO, is what people should be focusing on. 

    The problem with everyone making a big deal about it actually using assets is that most developers who create more than one game that are alike will in fact reuse some assets. The emphasis should be about the quality in which they did it.
    Well, that was my point in debating with Torval.  There's effience in reusing base models, then there's porting audio and environments, for example, over wholesale without even using or changing them in a way that prevents ARK players from immediately recognizing the exact same assets.

    image
  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136
    edited December 2018
    The good news is that while the sounds are similar, or identical in some cases .... the art assets are entirely new from what I've seen. All of the mobs, terrain, buildings are certainly built off old Ark assets but have been changed. Like I said in another forum ... there is enough new and unique here to satisfy me.


    * Working on configuring our private server now, having issues with harvest permissions which is strange. The dev kit for private servers is nice so far.

    MadFrenchieTorval
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Redemp said:
    The good news is that while the sounds are similar, or identical in some cases .... the art assets are entirely new from what I've seen. All of the mobs, terrain, buildings are certainly built off old Ark assets but have been changed. Like I said in another forum ... there is enough new and unique here to satisfy me.


    * Working on configuring our private server now, having issues with harvest permissions which is strange. The dev kit for private servers is nice so far.

    In what ways do you mean?  Because that conflicts with what I'm reading from users elsewhere.  Not saying you're wrong, but that isn't the message I've been seeing.

    image
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,149
    Imagine how much longer it would have been before we saw this game if they hadn't reused stuff from Ark. 

    Now if only they had spent a bit more time polishing it and making it run well first :P
    MadFrenchie
  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136
    Most textures seem to have changed from what I remember in Ark. (Played all the DLC minus Extinction, and most of the mods). The grass texture is different from what I remember. The harvestables are different .. such as Turmeric, Arctic Raspberries, fiber. The trees are different from what I remember as well. The tropical palm tree's look the most similar but I didn't immediately register them as pastes from Ark. All of the creatures are obviously different, the ones I've seen at least. I haven't seen a croc or sarco yet to tell if that skin is different. The mantas are really similar, maybe even copies not sure though. As for the buildings, items, and clothing ... they have all obviously changed from what I remember as well. Smooth texture interior wood walls, doors are different. I think wood ceilings even look a bit smoother than I'm used to. Granted i'm only in the early stage of the game .. but enough seems newish that I'm happy. 

    I'd have to start taking screenshots of an Ark server and then compare it to Atlas to drive home the differences though.

    MadFrenchie
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Redemp said:
    Most textures seem to have changed from what I remember in Ark. (Played all the DLC minus Extinction, and most of the mods). The grass texture is different from what I remember. The harvestables are different .. such as Turmeric, Arctic Raspberries, fiber. The trees are different from what I remember as well. The tropical palm tree's look the most similar but I didn't immediately register them as pastes from Ark. All of the creatures are obviously different, the ones I've seen at least. I haven't seen a croc or sarco yet to tell if that skin is different. The mantas are really similar, maybe even copies not sure though. As for the buildings, items, and clothing ... they have all obviously changed from what I remember as well. Smooth texture interior wood walls, doors are different. I think wood ceilings even look a bit smoother than I'm used to. Granted i'm only in the early stage of the game .. but enough seems newish that I'm happy. 

    I'd have to start taking screenshots of an Ark server and then compare it to Atlas to drive home the differences though.

    No need to do this unless you just want to for informative purposes.  Thanks for sharing though, because again, what I've seen and read indicates differently.  I've not seen you post irrational stuff around here, so your input here holds weight imo.

    image
  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136

    No need to do this unless you just want to for informative purposes.  Thanks for sharing though, because again, what I've seen and read indicates differently.  I've not seen you post irrational stuff around here, so your input here holds weight imo.
    I can pop a few screen shots of the private server, perhaps people here can find the similarities between Atlas's models and Arks. The game is undeniably Ark ... there's no real question about that. I wonder how many assets they pulled from Dark and Light though .. I didn't play that one much. 
  • AethaerynAethaeryn Member RarePosts: 3,018
    Apparently you can move down the menu with a controller and chose a hidden "ARK menu" that lets you run the game offline as a MOD. . also there are folders . . apparently named from the ARK expansions in the games directory.  It is listed as an OCEAN mod according to some reviews.  Again, I am happy to play it if it is a mod and just as happy to be able to play offline.
    MadFrenchie

    Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Thanks for the screens!

    Wanna look at them when I'm not on my phone. 

    This one is shaping up to receive the same mixed, extreme reactions that ARK did.  The fact that Atlas will launch the ARK menu with "Ocean" as the selected DLC makes me suspicious of the idea that this wasn't merely an originally planned ARK DLC they decided they wanted to sell as a new title, though.  Afaik, Ocean was never an option in that menu in ARK, so it can't be explained away by mere oversight.
    Redemp

    image
  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136
    It probably was originally planned as a DLC - with extinction not doing as well as anticipated et al.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Redemp said:
    It probably was originally planned as a DLC - with extinction not doing as well as anticipated et al.
    Which wouldn't personally rub me the wrong way if they were up front about that.

    Would you have been angry had they said "hey, we got this new game Atlas, it was supposed to be an ARK DLC, but we wanted to do more with it and give you guys an entirely new survival experience!"?

    image
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    That would have explained a good bit of things and made a decent amount of sense.

    Them forking the game to work on a DLC, and then just running with the DLC to create a full game experience around it would put most of the things people are finding into logical context.
    MadFrenchie
  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136
    Not at all, DLC or EA game to catch the Holiday Break cash .. would have been fine by me. I've also heard a rumor that this  was made by modders and not the official team. No idea if that's true though.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited December 2018
    Redemp said:
    Not at all, DLC or EA game to catch the Holiday Break cash .. would have been fine by me. I've also heard a rumor that this  was made by modders and not the official team. No idea if that's true though.
    Me neither.  If they had been up front about that, I think they would've prevented a lot of angst (at least, aside from the server woes angst that every dev gets for having the audacity to have the same launch issues as pretty much every online game ever). I personally wouldn't be questioning their integrity like I am now about it.

    I don't get why devs continue to treat gamers as if we need to be lied to. 

    image
  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136
    edited December 2018
    The annoying thing for me about all of it was the quotes on the server capacity and size .... why shoot yourself in the foot like that. Clearly the game "Servers" can't support 44,000 right now and the excuse of "We meant 150 per node X "number of nodes"" really doesn't cut it. They don't get a pass on that from me. The other thing I don't understand is the vitamin system ... I can't fathom who could conceive of such a terrible mechanic. I get wanting there to be "Scurvy" in a pirate game but meh.

    *Also for those running private servers, be aware while the tools are robust there is a lack of real information on most of it currently. We're running into an issue of safe zones and harvest conflicts. Several iterations of scrapping the server and starting fresh so far. As far as running a private server this is par for the course, I only mention this to dissuade  those new to running their own private server from thinking it's easier than waiting on official.

    MadFrenchie
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Redemp said:
    The annoying thing for me about all of it was the quotes on the server capacity and size .... why shoot yourself in the foot like that. Clearly the game "Servers" can't support 44,000 right now and the excuse of "We meant 150 per node X "number of nodes"" really doesn't cut it. They don't get a pass on that from me. The other thing I don't understand is the vitamin system ... I can't fathom who could conceive of such a terrible mechanic. I get wanting there to be "Scurvy" in a pirate game but meh.

    *Also for those running private servers, be aware while the tools are robust there is a lack of real information on most of it currently. We're running into an issue of safe zones and harvest conflicts. Several iterations of scrapping the server and starting fresh so far. As far as running a private server this is par for the course, I only mention this to dissuade  those new to running their own private server from thinking it's easier than waiting on official.

    I was wondering about the boasts about the player count, but the cynic in me had already decided there was gonna be a caveat to the claim.  It doesn't absolve them, but it does have the effect of me not being surprised or disappointed about that particular point too badly.

    What is a pirate game without at least a mention of Scurvy, right?  But sucks it's associated with what appears to be a frustrating system.

    Keep us (or, at least, me) updated on its progress.  Again, I would love to have a pirate pirate exploration game in the vain of a larger ARK world, but I don't like to jump into something until I'm sure I can at least reliably experience the core gameplay loop.  Not mad at the launch day woes (other than the poor communication on the delays), and I'm curious how long it takes Grapeshot (as this studio is called) to iron out most of those.

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Also, shoutout to @MaxBacon for creating a thread named "err" that managed 4 pages of discussion.  That's no small feat! :D 
    ConstantineMerus

    image
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,149
    Also, shoutout to @MaxBacon for creating a thread named "err" that managed 4 pages of discussion.  That's no small feat! :D 
    We couldn't allow it to actually fail, that would have been a travesty.
    MadFrenchie
Sign In or Register to comment.