I guess ED's design documents were pure speculation too? By that standard all design documents are pure speculation and won't lead to anything.
- Status
I guess ED's design documents were pure speculation too? By that standard all design documents are pure speculation and won't lead to anything.
Gotta say, aside from my personal history with elite, frontier and FFE, putting that aside and simply looking at the ship and station designs in the here and now, what I really enjoy is that they look robust. Like they're meant to survive in space, survive the odd scrape, and possibly outlast their pilot before being sold on second hand, scratches, scrapes and all. The scale also contributes to the sense that even most 'one-man' ships in elite could serve as something of a home.
To me, the elite universe always felt massive, disparate and often very harsh and alien in its own, ultimately futuristic way, it seemed in fact to dodge the routine transplantation of ideals, or even historical experience into the future which is so common with sci fi. There are so many worlds, and absolutely noone was hand crafting them all individually with an artistic vision, so in consequence the universe feels full of different social and cultural contexts, attitudes, experiences of life.
Were you to have them in a firefly style tv show, inevitably the individual worlds and cultures would be coloured by the vision behind the show, making the core of that show, be it characters or narrative arc or otherwise, the inexorable centre from which the elements of the universe emerge.
Elite gives you the sense, not only that you're very small in a very big universe, but that everyone else is too, and they really, really are not centred on you and what you're doing.
Excuse me, its a mouse shooter on a COD map in space.
Meanwhile
two very interesting questions. Long winded rambling answers leave me none the wiser. Are you able to summarise on their behalf?
Streaming would allow them to create a seamless experience... Read Dante's post:
Whoops you're right! Sorry, wrong answer from me then!
Yes often in field where change is expected they go for the 80 20 rule. And change will happen. Its a mix of creativity and engineering software.
Also both have no routine in developing this kind of games. So lot off gaps to fill in.
Freelancer is decade old
last Elite even more.
If you plan and design the 4th COD in the same decade. then you can plan much more accurate and less surprises. A more smooth production for 2 years. which is extended by 3 due to a third studio.
Neither response answers the question on my mind, the point that for me would make it a 'seamless experience'.
Let me ask it in the hope you or someone can give me a yes/no answer.
When engaged in this so called seamless planetary landing, simple question - am I in full control of the ship throughout?
I take your money on the promise of making an old skool space sim for sophisticated PC gamers who arent getting a lot of content, and deliver a mouse shooter, aimed at lowest common denominator crowd, with satans orange arrow for a HUD. This is outside of the expected or acceptable scope of possible changes, and not one that can be ascribed to creativity, unless of course you mean creativity in the sense of rincing the original backers who delivered the full necessary level of financial backing asked of them. Make the same side stepping apologist argument, I'll expose and correct you again.
Last edited:
You are in full control to sit back and watch the in-flight movie
Landings etc are, according to Wingman I believe, prerendered as that is the only way to make them as beautiful as they should be.
I'll hunt around for the link.
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/1737540/#Comment_1737540
You are in full control to sit back and watch the in-flight movie
Landings etc are, according to Wingman I believe, prerendered as that is the only way to make them as beautiful as they should be.
I'll hunt around for the link.
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/1737540/#Comment_1737540
You realize that comment by WM was meant as a joke...
You are in full control to sit back and watch the in-flight movie
Landings etc are, according to Wingman I believe, prerendered as that is the only way to make them as beautiful as they should be.
I'll hunt around for the link.
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/1737540/#Comment_1737540
S'what I thought, and all the long winded almost succeeded in obfuscating that point for anyone trying to establish the truth. Thanks for clearing it up.
Meanwhile in Elite, (and unlike in Star Citizen where it remains a figment of the imagination), you will be in full control of your ship as you fly down to the planet's surface. Because that's what they, and everybody else for that matter, mean by seamless planetary landings.
Last edited:
But everything Wingman said is gospel, remember?
It was also mentioned in either Wingmans Hangar or in that replacement show - the ponytail guy was talking about it and stated the same.
I'm sure you'll be able to find the one I mean - I don't have the psychic defences to go through all that stuff again.
I'd like to echo the point you make about scale, not just the 'majesty' of the scale of the universe as braben put it, and how it goes from the macro to the granular level, but also and in particular the scale of ships. For example some of the SC ships look way too small even for atmospheric craft, let alone the intersteller space ships they are meant to be, where to put it bluntly you'd expect the facility to at least empty your bladder at some point along the long haul journey. Meanwhile even the smallest of the elite craft looks appropriate for a mission of going from one star system to another. I'm guessing the choice to go cryengine and millions of polygon means there is a real pressure to reduce the size of every ship to the unfeasible leading to frigates in name only and fighter ships looking like short range orbital or atmospherics craft at best.
Last edited:
No it general game production. Expect change.
If not you follow something like the Waterfall method. finishing each state.
They call making games design and produce for a moving target.
While if you take change into account and haven't figuring out full out gameplay then iterate trough the dev stages. Some even don't follow much of design but go for agile method as change is more or less guaranteed. But it is possible to completely plan. If you stick to a 100% proven design. It could be for small project same style and type of game no loose ends very routine as already delivering a few off those clones in a row. But for innovation. Seeking out new gameplay. There is even less design or planning. Start with prototyping seeking out the fun a iterate on that.
In this case a similar game with FPS and space combat or warfare even with big capital ship is the game. Also Naval
Universal Combat from Derek Smart.
Your defence is based on arguing that game development companies are because of <insert irrelevant techno babble here> exempt from delivering on the most basic and fundamental of promises used to solicit your backing.
Consider I invite you as a lover of elegant menswear to back a kickstarter project for the production of a new line of dinner jackets. Having received the necessary backing it occurs to you that you can use the funding to go after the more lucrative womens lingerie market, meaning I have completely wasted my money while now you have chance to go after a more lucrative market off the back of the investment you have thus far received for a very different proposition.
Does this have anything to do with the intricacies of tailoring? Does talk of the arcane inner workings of sewing machines have anything to do with this? Is this a reasonable and acceptable change of scope? Feel free to babble on about the uniqueness and mysteries of garment manufacturing all night long but the answers remain the same: No, No & No.
Furthermore, the fact that men who privately like to wear ladies underwear will defend the betrayal using all manner of bogus arguments is irrelevant.
Last edited:
Trying to decode what CR, WM, and the rest of CIG says reminds me of a scene in the movie "A Christmas Story".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdA__2tKoIU
I'd love to get my hands on the decoder ring used to decipher what CR means when he talks about the flight model, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdA__2tKoIU
I'd love to get my hands on the decoder ring used to decipher what CR means when he talks about the flight model, etc.
For me, when I read the absurd rationalisations, this always comes to mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haT1yOrEtRs
psyron
Banned
Sums it up pretty well!
Edit:
Another reviewer who sold his SC ships and jumped over to ED.
-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHicMJh5e9Y
Edit2:
Very good review of ED with some comparisons to SC:
-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m_RKH6fqrs
More and more of the enthusiastic space sim lovers are jumping over to ED.
Very good sign!
Last edited:
Another reviewer who sold his SC ships and jumped over to ED.
-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHicMJh5e9Y
His comment on Freelancer/wing commander is very interesting.
He suggests that SC is being designed to try to appease 2 sets of fans, and those fans have very different expectations.
psyron
Banned
Yes, when watching all those new reviews on ED and SC i have that feeling that there is an overwhelming consensus that ED is much better than SC and more important that ED also has more potential in the coming years than SC with all the extensions like walking around and planetary landing.
It is really a great time to be an ED fan at the moment!
Concerning SC - CIG really has a hard time in front of them to fullfill their promises.
- Status