it looks good, but it's just pvp shooting. Sure, apparently the general system of virtuality allows for immersive and compelling cases already, where the world starts feeling real.
It's not enough to conclude it's a great game.
In a similar way the general system of interaction SHOULD theorically allow situations like missions where you're totally in control. If the system, in general, allows for example hacking computers, then the mission that's in the video posted in the previous page should be manipulated by players so as to allow different outcomes for it. For example if i can hack the computers then i could be able to activate defenses and have turrets kill the bad guys, or even blow up the whole building. That's a freedom that's given not by SCRIPTS, but by the general engine of the game. Then it occurs what designers mean saying "curious to see what the players come up with", cause we have tools, and missions are just the Canvas we draw our experiences on. That's when a game gets really interesting, otherwise it's a fake simulation.
the video in the previous page shows a simple mission of extraction of hostage, always good and fun, especially when the hostage is so hot. But when the game is super good, it simulates the building, BEFORE the scripts. The venting system, the patrol routes, the mentioned security turrets: THAT's the simulation factor. And to that the player should have different skills that are combined with the building features. THAT'S the way you design great gameplay.
In a similar way the general system of interaction SHOULD theorically allow situations like missions where you're totally in control. If the system, in general, allows for example hacking computers, then the mission that's in the video posted in the previous page should be manipulated by players so as to allow different outcomes for it. For example if i can hack the computers then i could be able to activate defenses and have turrets kill the bad guys, or even blow up the whole building. That's a freedom that's given not by SCRIPTS, but by the general engine of the game. Then it occurs what designers mean saying "curious to see what the players come up with", cause we have tools, and missions are just the Canvas we draw our experiences on. That's when a game gets really interesting, otherwise it's a fake simulation.
That's the whole point of SC and why they go crazy on tech, because laying the game-world in one emergent matter where the mechanics are there and the players just use them at their will to achieve what they want is properly one the most complex things to do, vs a simple linear mechanic that fall on a very scripted flow.
Game generated missions are more linear in terms of what it asks you to do, how you do it is where you have more freedom, but hacking is deff part of the design (both in SQ42 ability to undertake a mission in several ways, or in SC where e-warfare takes its play in PvEvP), it's very much about an emergent play (especially group play) and not one of those MMO's where you go to NPCs with question marks and follow a very linear progression until the late-game.
But in either way, there is so much that can be done when it comes to that sort of "sandbox" way of approaching content, it's not 100% sim of all things in a universe, just enough to provide a sandbox aspect to how it plays.
My hope is that they make a great space opera, and thanks to a versatile simulative UI, missions can be solved in multiple ways like in a Deus Ex mission, with stealth, with violence, with techy puzzles, with dialogues.
Achieve that level of freedom and the game will be a success. Since they can't possibly aim at making a real MMO atm, they should turn all the simulative aspects they got so far into GOOD level design and micro-interaction freedom.
Just copy the latest Deus Ex and give us good freedom in the single player missions. It'll give an amazing "illusion" of simulation. Since i repeat, a REAL universe simulation atm isn't feasible. Dazzle people with micro freedom, that's my advice and i hope that's also my prophecy!
And in the hope that maybe one of them CIG's will read this, i'll give em an example:
Say a mission is about boarding a ship to retrieve a device (what can be more traditional?). So you approach it and it's time to use different skills. You can hack it and steal in unseen, you can blast its front door and enter, you can talk your way in with charisma, you can bribe a guy to let you in, you can use the techy way jetpacking your way behind the ship's hull, hack some cables and open an exhaust vent, and so on. Then when you're in, there's a new array of choices to be made in FPS. Disguises, charisma talks, assassinations, air vents, or the more subtle, hard ways of finding important items like keycards lost in toilets and such!
the same philosophy can and should be used when you have to board ships that are apparently stranded and disabled and you have to find out what happened, and you know the rest.
Choices and freedom of interaction, that's the key to make a "simulation" when you can't do an "actual" simulation. Players will be dazzled. If you're listening, take this into consideration.
They are going to need another $200M in crowd funding I think.
Seriously, it may turn out to be the most amazing game ever built but as is so often the case people form unreasonable expectations of what a game should be and are disappointed when it fails to meet them.
I recommend you seriously study what has been delivered so far, maybe even buy a cheap starter package and try some of the activities everyone has told you about. (Watching videos can't really capture this)
See if you enjoy whats there so far, and look over the detailed roadmap for the future, and decide if you might like the game they are actually building vs the one you are creating in your own imagination.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
In a similar way the general system of interaction SHOULD theorically allow situations like missions where you're totally in control. If the system, in general, allows for example hacking computers, then the mission that's in the video posted in the previous page should be manipulated by players so as to allow different outcomes for it. For example if i can hack the computers then i could be able to activate defenses and have turrets kill the bad guys, or even blow up the whole building. That's a freedom that's given not by SCRIPTS, but by the general engine of the game. Then it occurs what designers mean saying "curious to see what the players come up with", cause we have tools, and missions are just the Canvas we draw our experiences on. That's when a game gets really interesting, otherwise it's a fake simulation.
That's the whole point of SC and why they go crazy on tech, because laying the game-world in one emergent matter where the mechanics are there and the players just use them at their will to achieve what they want is properly one the most complex things to do, vs a simple linear mechanic that fall on a very scripted flow.
Game generated missions are more linear in terms of what it asks you to do, how you do it is where you have more freedom, but hacking is deff part of the design (both in SQ42 ability to undertake a mission in several ways, or in SC where e-warfare takes its play in PvEvP), it's very much about an emergent play (especially group play) and not one of those MMO's where you go to NPCs with question marks and follow a very linear progression until the late-game.
But in either way, there is so much that can be done when it comes to that sort of "sandbox" way of approaching content, it's not 100% sim of all things in a universe, just enough to provide a sandbox aspect to how it plays.
well then that mission should probably be changed, because it showed scripted bits, with no emergent play. The character places a generator, then electricity comes back, and only then he's able to use the elevator and move on. That sounds linear to me, with no choices whatsoever. I understand though, that only playing can one estimate the gameplay's depth.
well then that mission should probably be changed, because it showed scripted bits, with no emergent play. The character places a generator, then electricity comes back, and only then he's able to use the elevator and move on. That sounds linear to me, with no choices whatsoever. I understand though, that only playing can one fathom the gameplay's depth.
The game has both mixed in, SQ42 on the case is heavily story-telling, while there can be different ways of undertaking the same mission (stealth, etc..) it still requires a linearity because it's just that type of game.
Now SC is different, it's that open-world sandbox and in there you face less script and more emergent play, so if you were to say steal the cargo one enemy ship of another player, you could just achieve it in different ways, from e-war, disabling the ship and get in leading to FPS fight, just destroying the ship and manually hauling cargo boxes back to your ship, that is the sort of freedom you can expect.
well then that mission should probably be changed, because it showed scripted bits, with no emergent play. The character places a generator, then electricity comes back, and only then he's able to use the elevator and move on. That sounds linear to me, with no choices whatsoever. I understand though, that only playing can one fathom the gameplay's depth.
The game has both mixed in, SQ42 on the case is heavily story-telling, while there can be different ways of undertaking the same mission (stealth, etc..) it still requires a linearity because it's just that type of game.
Now SC is different, it's that open-world sandbox and in there you face less script and more emergent play, so if you were to say steal the cargo one enemy ship of another player, you could just achieve it in different ways, from e-war, disabling the ship and get in leading to FPS fight, just destroying the ship and manually hauling cargo boxes back to your ship, that is the sort of freedom you can expect.
it sounds pretty good, but if there's no freedom in single player missions, it will soon enuff show in the PvP player-generated "adventures".
It means there are not enough tools to achieve emergent gameplay. Now a ship, like a building has "ducts", has different ways that lead to a common objective, that will give material to have fun, which is infact a sandbox!
So i repeat, if those missions are linear, everything will be, and the game will go the mass effect road of shallowness. That's what the haters mean saying it's a scam, though they don't know why, they just spout catch phrases.
it's not just my imagination, or dream game, as Kyleran says, it's the only way this game can work, by adding more freedom of choice during pvp and missions.
Sure, there's space combat. I love it, ever since X-wing, i loved Conflict Freespace, i love flying in space with a hotas, it feels so real and cool.
But i doubt it will be enuff to make a success out of SC.
Ah the famous emergent gameplay argument...I just have to tune out when I hear a pvpers go to of emergent gameplay is required....thing is not everyone wants emergent gameplay.
The pvpers in ED have been spouting the same nonsense and how having group and solo mode is bad and how the devs should force people to play in open yet they seem very much against a pvp and non pvp server...wonder why....
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Ah the famous emergent gameplay argument...I just have to tune out when I hear a pvpers go to of emergent gameplay is required....thing is not everyone wants emergent gameplay.
The pvpers in ED have been spouting the same nonsense and how having group and solo mode is bad and how the devs should force people to play in open yet they seem very much against a pvp and non pvp server...wonder why....
uhm, i didn't get much of that, but well i don't think people really know what they want, especially when something's entirely new, they don't know they can love it.
i don't think there's a lot of difference between "being in the open" and doing solo stuff, IF and it's a big IF, the game has a great general instrument of gameplay. at the cost of being repetitive, Deus Ex, Thief, System shock kinda design, are the "exemplars", the model the designers should base their online games on. It's a simple formula that needs to be applied to a gameworld, and then both PvP and PvE will feel the same.
most of the time i think you guys tend to overcomplicate matters, and just create confusion. You should see things in their design frameworks
Comments
Have fun
Even though in the video he's just standing there, I feel like that's an experience you can't get in maybe any game currently.
It's not enough to conclude it's a great game.
In a similar way the general system of interaction SHOULD theorically allow situations like missions where you're totally in control. If the system, in general, allows for example hacking computers, then the mission that's in the video posted in the previous page should be manipulated by players so as to allow different outcomes for it. For example if i can hack the computers then i could be able to activate defenses and have turrets kill the bad guys, or even blow up the whole building. That's a freedom that's given not by SCRIPTS, but by the general engine of the game. Then it occurs what designers mean saying "curious to see what the players come up with", cause we have tools, and missions are just the Canvas we draw our experiences on. That's when a game gets really interesting, otherwise it's a fake simulation.
the video in the previous page shows a simple mission of extraction of hostage, always good and fun, especially when the hostage is so hot. But when the game is super good, it simulates the building, BEFORE the scripts. The venting system, the patrol routes, the mentioned security turrets: THAT's the simulation factor. And to that the player should have different skills that are combined with the building features. THAT'S the way you design great gameplay.
the best blog of the net
Game generated missions are more linear in terms of what it asks you to do, how you do it is where you have more freedom, but hacking is deff part of the design (both in SQ42 ability to undertake a mission in several ways, or in SC where e-warfare takes its play in PvEvP), it's very much about an emergent play (especially group play) and not one of those MMO's where you go to NPCs with question marks and follow a very linear progression until the late-game.
But in either way, there is so much that can be done when it comes to that sort of "sandbox" way of approaching content, it's not 100% sim of all things in a universe, just enough to provide a sandbox aspect to how it plays.
Seriously, it may turn out to be the most amazing game ever built but as is so often the case people form unreasonable expectations of what a game should be and are disappointed when it fails to meet them.
I recommend you seriously study what has been delivered so far, maybe even buy a cheap starter package and try some of the activities everyone has told you about. (Watching videos can't really capture this)
See if you enjoy whats there so far, and look over the detailed roadmap for the future, and decide if you might like the game they are actually building vs the one you are creating in your own imagination.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
the best blog of the net
Now SC is different, it's that open-world sandbox and in there you face less script and more emergent play, so if you were to say steal the cargo one enemy ship of another player, you could just achieve it in different ways, from e-war, disabling the ship and get in leading to FPS fight, just destroying the ship and manually hauling cargo boxes back to your ship, that is the sort of freedom you can expect.
It means there are not enough tools to achieve emergent gameplay. Now a ship, like a building has "ducts", has different ways that lead to a common objective, that will give material to have fun, which is infact a sandbox!
So i repeat, if those missions are linear, everything will be, and the game will go the mass effect road of shallowness. That's what the haters mean saying it's a scam, though they don't know why, they just spout catch phrases.
it's not just my imagination, or dream game, as Kyleran says, it's the only way this game can work, by adding more freedom of choice during pvp and missions.
Sure, there's space combat. I love it, ever since X-wing, i loved Conflict Freespace, i love flying in space with a hotas, it feels so real and cool.
But i doubt it will be enuff to make a success out of SC.
the best blog of the net
The pvpers in ED have been spouting the same nonsense and how having group and solo mode is bad and how the devs should force people to play in open yet they seem very much against a pvp and non pvp server...wonder why....
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
i don't think there's a lot of difference between "being in the open" and doing solo stuff, IF and it's a big IF, the game has a great general instrument of gameplay. at the cost of being repetitive, Deus Ex, Thief, System shock kinda design, are the "exemplars", the model the designers should base their online games on. It's a simple formula that needs to be applied to a gameworld, and then both PvP and PvE will feel the same.
most of the time i think you guys tend to overcomplicate matters, and just create confusion. You should see things in their design frameworks
the best blog of the net