But those who do [push boundaries] are the ones who push the boundaries of gaming, one-day Naughty Dog pulled off Mocap for Uncharted, today it is a standard.
While I'm looking forward to seeing how SC turns out, I'm really hoping their method of doing things doesn't become industry standard. That's coming from someone who has followed this project since Nov 2012. I'm still hoping for a fun game to play some day, but I could do without the drama and rabid evangelization. r/spacesimgames now forbids referral codes because of SC.
clearly the mods of r/spacesimgames are filthy haters
While I'm looking forward to seeing how SC turns out, I'm really hoping their method of doing things doesn't become industry standard.
It's more about something that can drive more developers to be more ambitious, that pushes gaming forward, right now there's very little risk-takers but without them, we just have more of the same.
And we all know this is no lie, just have a quick look at the MMO genre presently.
While I'm looking forward to seeing how SC turns out, I'm really hoping their method of doing things doesn't become industry standard.
It's more about something that can drive more developers to be more ambitious, that pushes gaming forward, right now there's very little risk-takers but without them, we just have more of the same.
And we all know this is no lie, just have a quick look at the MMO genre presently.
Jusy had a look at the MMO genre. I see Crowfall, CU and Pantheon to name a few that are taking risks and being ambitious and they don't need 145 million+ of backers money to do it
Jusy had a look at the MMO genre. I see Crowfall, CU and Pantheon to name a few that are taking risks and being ambitious and they don't need 145 million+ of backers money to do it
All of them going through their own issues.
That is exactly my point, the big publishers need to be slapped get on it, with the money and studios they have they could make such ambitious projects far more possible than Indies trying to create MMO's.
Star Citizen is one of the ones that went far past the Indie level and is now a company with the setup and scale to take on such an ambitious project, yet it took them quite a while.
Jusy had a look at the MMO genre. I see Crowfall, CU and Pantheon to name a few that are taking risks and being ambitious and they don't need 145 million+ of backers money to do it
All of them going through their own issues.
That is exactly my point, the big publishers need to be slapped, with the money and studios they have they could make such ambitious projects far more possible than Indies trying to create MMO's.
I'll agree with you that some publishers need to step outside their comfort zone and take a few more risks. Thankfully there are indie devs who are stepping up to fill those shoes so you can't really say there are very few risk takers out there
I'll agree with you that some publishers need to step outside their comfort zone and take a few more risks. Thankfully there are indie devs who are stepping up to fill those shoes so you can't really say there are very few risk takers out there
When I say it, I mean the big players on the room, MMOs are known to be hard, long and expensive to make than other types of the games, it is Indies are going through nightmares trying to pull off one MMO decently. And so they are unable to reach what a large-scale production can give you.
This is why I see the genre currently at a mess, and it shows how many people shares this frustration at how things are playing out currently.
I'll agree with you that some publishers need to step outside their comfort zone and take a few more risks. Thankfully there are indie devs who are stepping up to fill those shoes so you can't really say there are very few risk takers out there
When I say it, I mean the big players on the room, MMOs are known to be hard, long and expensive to make than other types of the games, it is Indies are going through nightmares trying to pull off one MMO decently. And so they are unable to reach what a large-scale production can give you.
This is why I see the genre currently at a mess, it can't be the smaller ones creating the biggest games.
Ah gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
and why can't it just be the smaller ones creating the biggest games? Seemed to work well for Verant and Turbine when they made EQ and Asherons Call
and why can't it just be the smaller ones creating the biggest games? Seemed to work well for Verant and Turbine when they made EQ and Asherons Call
The big money factor. Presently, you can't really do the same thing a large-scale production without having one.
You have to scale down to what you can afford, like on animations, Indies usually struggle there because the big players will afford and get mocap and facial stuff, etc... while they have to work something out instead.
and why can't it just be the smaller ones creating the biggest games? Seemed to work well for Verant and Turbine when they made EQ and Asherons Call
The big money factor. Presently, you can't really do the same thing a large-scale production without having one.
You have to scale down to what you can afford, like on animations, Indies usually struggle there because the big players will afford and get mocap and facial stuff, etc... while they have to work something out.
Yeah but if your game is fun then people are willing to overlook bad animations. You'll have some who scream about immersion but eh it's a small subset of people. You focus on finding the fun and catering to your niche audience instead of creating the flashiest graphics around with mocap and trying to get everyone and their brother interested.
Thats really the problem today. When you try to create a game that caters to everyone you have big initial sales due to hype but then people realize the gameplay is garbage because it's too diluted trying to fit everything in.
Yeah but if your game is fun then people are willing to overlook bad animations. You'll have some who scream about immersion but eh it's a small subset of people. You focus on finding the fun and catering to your niche audience instead of creating the flashiest graphics around with mocap and trying to get everyone and their brother interested.
Thats really the problem today. When you try to create a game that caters to everyone you have big initial sales due to hype but then people realize the gameplay is garbage because it's too diluted trying to fit everything in.
Back then things were different when the pioneers were creating what would define the genre, but presently going big means big money.
Games without flashy graphics do not sell well, people are far more demanding, the majority doesn't look past the looks of the game were behind could be pretty fun gameplay. So there's far more focus on realism, on graphics, and similar stuff.
The games where the looks are great but the gameplay is not still come out with a balance, because of how the looks are also part of the gameplay experience so it counts. Of course different people care for the same thing differently.
Yeah but if your game is fun then people are willing to overlook bad animations. You'll have some who scream about immersion but eh it's a small subset of people. You focus on finding the fun and catering to your niche audience instead of creating the flashiest graphics around with mocap and trying to get everyone and their brother interested.
Thats really the problem today. When you try to create a game that caters to everyone you have big initial sales due to hype but then people realize the gameplay is garbage because it's too diluted trying to fit everything in.
Back then things were different when the pioneers were creating what would define the genre, but presently going big means big money.
Games without flashy graphics do not sell well, people are far more demanding, the majority doesn't look past the looks of the game were behind could be pretty fun gameplay. So there's far more focus on realism, on graphics, and similar stuff.
The games where the looks are great but the gameplay is not still come out with a balance, because of how the looks are also part of the gameplay experience so it counts. Of course different people care for the same thing differently.
Really? Cause there are many games out there that have old school graphics or ok graphics that are doing awesome in terms of sales. You need to look more at the indies who are going the old school look and turning a profit because their gameplay in fun.
Maybe 5-10 years ago there was a focus on flashy graphics and of course its still prevalent today but it's turning back to people don't give 2 shits about how good the game looks if it's complete garbage.
Too many devs are promising the world and showing off trailers with amazing graphics to build hype but their gameplay lacks and it's a generic mess
Really? Cause there are many games out there that have old school graphics or ok graphics that are doing awesome in terms of sales. You need to look more at the indies who are going the old school look and turning a profit because their gameplay in fun.
On the scale of the considered AAA titles, that is where the core of this expectation lies most.
For me this is kinda how I value games: 1 ) Visuals & Interface, the game must look good, and especially have one good interface, a game with a fun gameplay but with a bad interface will make me rage-quit. 2 ) Lore / Story, on the games I play I value a lot the store and/or the lore of the game world, this is something that attracts me on SC, also did on GW2 and ESO. 3 ) Gameplay mechanics.
I see the graphics are such a big deal because they do move one entire industry, the whole business of GPU's and such, the "next generation gaming", the further development and improvements towards game engines that are majority related to visuals, and so forth.
There's ofc the side of things where Indies find success outside this bubble, as Indies benefit from some people's frustration at that focus that graphics/visuals take over gameplay, but I'm not sure if that will ever reach a decent slice of the industry to take away graphics as that big selling point.
Personally I like the ship models in Eve much better. The funny thing is most of these ships will be available in the store for a lot less than these people paid for it, of course if the game ever comes to fruition.
As opposed to games that aren't even released yet?
Let them come!
All this "SC Killers" that would render SC irrelevant... Remember this?
All of them have come, people played them and moved on.... There's a lot of effort put on comparing, yet in practice, the survivor is the "mammoth" after all.
The uniqueness of SC, where it is and where they are taking it as it develops, will not be taken away just because you find X or Y game that also did X or Y features SC also has, when we play the entire thing, that's what forms the gameplay experience, hence what makes it unique.
I honestly didn't know that ME:A was competing with SC lol. Did your microwave send you this information?
I honestly didn't know that ME:A was competing with SC lol. Did your microwave send you this information?
That one and only "Smart" guy. It can compare to a microwave I believe, put some tinfoil on it and call it a day. But yeah there is that silly effort put on comparing SC with every game just because they have space on it, they supposedly become competitors.
The ME:A was indeed the most stretched comparative done, the only thing it has of space sim is this bug where the Nomad flies:
I honestly didn't know that ME:A was competing with SC lol. Did your microwave send you this information?
That one and only "Smart" guy. It can compare to a microwave I believe, put some tinfoil on it and call it a day. But yeah there is that silly effort put on comparing SC with every game just because they have space on it, they supposedly become competitors.
The ME:A was indeed the most stretched comparative done, the only thing it has of space sim is this bug where the Nomad flies:
Gotcha. I was honestly just joking with you But I never did hear of that comparison before. I always thought of these two games as completely different genres tbh. I had heard the CoD one a couple times. But that always seemed like hyperbole at best. I'm a wait and see myself kind of a guy.
Really? Cause there are many games out there that have old school graphics or ok graphics that are doing awesome in terms of sales. You need to look more at the indies who are going the old school look and turning a profit because their gameplay in fun.
On the scale of the considered AAA titles, that is where the core of this expectation lies most.
For me this is kinda how I value games: 1 ) Visuals & Interface, the game must look good, and especially have one good interface, a game with a fun gameplay but with a bad interface will make me rage-quit. 2 ) Lore / Story, on the games I play I value a lot the store and/or the lore of the game world, this is something that attracts me on SC, also did on GW2 and ESO. 3 ) Gameplay mechanics.
I see the graphics are such a big deal because they do move one entire industry, the whole business of GPU's and such, the "next generation gaming", the further development and improvements towards game engines that are majority related to visuals, and so forth.
There's ofc the side of things where Indies find success outside this bubble, as Indies benefit from some people's frustration at that focus that graphics/visuals take over gameplay, but I'm not sure if that will ever reach a decent slice of the industry to take away graphics as that big selling point.
See I would probably be a 2,3,1 guy going off your list. I still routinely load up earthbound and chrono trigger on the snes and play the hell out of it cause the story is awesome and the mechanics are superb in my opinion.
Theres always going to be games that try to push graphics visually and they might also pull off a decent story or mechanics but if half the team is focused on making the game look pretty then you will need to make sacrifices elsewhere.
Graphics will always rule the day that we can agree on but I think the indies are making more of a splash now as they take advantage of a stagnating market where most are just trying to copy the leader of the pack and make another generic knock off.
Really? Cause there are many games out there that have old school graphics or ok graphics that are doing awesome in terms of sales. You need to look more at the indies who are going the old school look and turning a profit because their gameplay in fun.
On the scale of the considered AAA titles, that is where the core of this expectation lies most.
For me this is kinda how I value games: 1 ) Visuals & Interface, the game must look good, and especially have one good interface, a game with a fun gameplay but with a bad interface will make me rage-quit. 2 ) Lore / Story, on the games I play I value a lot the store and/or the lore of the game world, this is something that attracts me on SC, also did on GW2 and ESO. 3 ) Gameplay mechanics.
I see the graphics are such a big deal because they do move one entire industry, the whole business of GPU's and such, the "next generation gaming", the further development and improvements towards game engines that are majority related to visuals, and so forth.
There's ofc the side of things where Indies find success outside this bubble, as Indies benefit from some people's frustration at that focus that graphics/visuals take over gameplay, but I'm not sure if that will ever reach a decent slice of the industry to take away graphics as that big selling point.
See I would probably be a 2,3,1 guy going off your list. I still routinely load up earthbound and chrono trigger on the snes and play the hell out of it cause the story is awesome and the mechanics are superb in my opinion.
Theres always going to be games that try to push graphics visually and they might also pull off a decent story or mechanics but if half the team is focused on making the game look pretty then you will need to make sacrifices elsewhere.
Graphics will always rule the day that we can agree on but I think the indies are making more of a splash now as they take advantage of a stagnating market where most are just trying to copy the leader of the pack and make another generic knock off.
For me it's, 3, 1, 2. Won't play a game with bad mechanics, especially if the combat sucks because of ultra long timers, stiff movements, or lots of bugs that never seem to get fixed.
"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
Comments
And we all know this is no lie, just have a quick look at the MMO genre presently.
That is exactly my point, the big publishers need to be slapped get on it, with the money and studios they have they could make such ambitious projects far more possible than Indies trying to create MMO's.
Star Citizen is one of the ones that went far past the Indie level and is now a company with the setup and scale to take on such an ambitious project, yet it took them quite a while.
This is why I see the genre currently at a mess, and it shows how many people shares this frustration at how things are playing out currently.
and why can't it just be the smaller ones creating the biggest games? Seemed to work well for Verant and Turbine when they made EQ and Asherons Call
You have to scale down to what you can afford, like on animations, Indies usually struggle there because the big players will afford and get mocap and facial stuff, etc... while they have to work something out instead.
Thats really the problem today. When you try to create a game that caters to everyone you have big initial sales due to hype but then people realize the gameplay is garbage because it's too diluted trying to fit everything in.
Games without flashy graphics do not sell well, people are far more demanding, the majority doesn't look past the looks of the game were behind could be pretty fun gameplay. So there's far more focus on realism, on graphics, and similar stuff.
The games where the looks are great but the gameplay is not still come out with a balance, because of how the looks are also part of the gameplay experience so it counts. Of course different people care for the same thing differently.
Maybe 5-10 years ago there was a focus on flashy graphics and of course its still prevalent today but it's turning back to people don't give 2 shits about how good the game looks if it's complete garbage.
Too many devs are promising the world and showing off trailers with amazing graphics to build hype but their gameplay lacks and it's a generic mess
For me this is kinda how I value games:
1 ) Visuals & Interface, the game must look good, and especially have one good interface, a game with a fun gameplay but with a bad interface will make me rage-quit.
2 ) Lore / Story, on the games I play I value a lot the store and/or the lore of the game world, this is something that attracts me on SC, also did on GW2 and ESO.
3 ) Gameplay mechanics.
I see the graphics are such a big deal because they do move one entire industry, the whole business of GPU's and such, the "next generation gaming", the further development and improvements towards game engines that are majority related to visuals, and so forth.
There's ofc the side of things where Indies find success outside this bubble, as Indies benefit from some people's frustration at that focus that graphics/visuals take over gameplay, but I'm not sure if that will ever reach a decent slice of the industry to take away graphics as that big selling point.
MAGA
Have fun
The ME:A was indeed the most stretched comparative done, the only thing it has of space sim is this bug where the Nomad flies:
Theres always going to be games that try to push graphics visually and they might also pull off a decent story or mechanics but if half the team is focused on making the game look pretty then you will need to make sacrifices elsewhere.
Graphics will always rule the day that we can agree on but I think the indies are making more of a splash now as they take advantage of a stagnating market where most are just trying to copy the leader of the pack and make another generic knock off.
Visit us over at Star Citizen Privateer!
"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