Gameplay in VR

Gortron

Gortron
In another thread there is a discussion about what constitutes gameplay and FDEV has said that atmospheric landings are going to be lots of work and (as far I understand) the game play is too hard to make so it’s on the back burner for now. If so that is fair enough and I don’t want to be another thorn in their bottom.

From a VR perspective though I couldn’t care less about the ‘gameplay’. I want to re-live scenes from Alien movies. Stuff like after a fiery atmospheric entry being buffeted about all over the place heading for a landing beacon. Unable to see much but clouds zooming past and then heavy rain slamming into the canopy, the windscreen wipers I didn’t know my ship had start to frantically wipe the canopy. If I get through that to the LZ the landing will be a struggle because of darkness and extreme Weather. Surely everyone here wants that kind of thing? I want that far more than getting out of my ship and killing dinosaurs when I get there.

I can’t be the only one that feels like that? What do other VR players want? We have bought the future, how do we want FDEV to deliver it…..
 

ebbrell

ebbrell
Will they introduce an oculas glove, so you can touch the panel you want.. or buttons on screen you want.

You need something you wanna see your hands appear. And you need a local open voice option. You cannot chat in chat box in vr
 

Ultra

U
Yeah I agree.

My favourite thing to do in Elite in the Rift is float, boost or drive around Planets so have been really hoping for Atmospheric landings to be put into the Game, even if they just start off with low Atmosphere models so we get a bit of colour added to the sky, some weather or liquid on the surface would also be great!

I'd love something on Space Engines level.
 

BigDuke6ixx

BigDuke6ixx
Gortron said:
In another thread there is a discussion about what constitutes gameplay and FDEV has said that atmospheric landings are going to be lots of work and (as far I understand) the game play is too hard to make so it’s on the back burner for now. If so that is fair enough and I don’t want to be another thorn in their bottom.

From a VR perspective though I couldn’t care less about the ‘gameplay’. I want to re-live scenes from Alien movies. Stuff like after a fiery atmospheric entry being buffeted about all over the place heading for a landing beacon. Unable to see much but clouds zooming past and then heavy rain slamming into the canopy, the windscreen wipers I didn’t know my ship had start to frantically wipe the canopy. If I get through that to the LZ the landing will be a struggle because of darkness and extreme Weather. Surely everyone here wants that kind of thing? I want that far more than getting out of my ship and killing dinosaurs when I get there.

I can’t be the only one that feels like that? What do other VR players want? We have bought the future, how do we want FDEV to deliver it…..
Click to expand...

Yes, I want that too. I think I'm in the wrong game though because the devs obviously don't have the ability to do this.
 

TorTorden_VR

T
BigDuke6ixx said:
Not in VR, I can't.
Click to expand...

I personally wouldn't.
The 'duplo-lego' take on the spaceship genre isn't something I found very engaging ;)

Especially loathed the limited flight system and "push button to land" just nailed the coffin shut.

I suppose we could keep waiting for Star citizen, but that's also dropping VR support.
Not supporting their Kickstarter or buying any packages from them has been one of my better decisions yet.
 
Last edited:

VR Mr Teatime

VR Mr Teatime
I too want to see atmospheric worlds and I know the COBRA engine is capable of it, as it is already generating a "low" fidelity "atmosphere" and associated surface features from Stellarforge today. I expect the complications are in developing the algorithms in Stellarforge to portray those features at an "interactive" fidelity we can fly around in. Those are not insurmountable but a lot of work, when they have to work in "real time" and not cause stutter etc. that did plague the early betas etc. of 2.0.

The gameplay thing is a wider issue, where there are limited interactions we can perform i.e. look for stuff, shoot stuff, limited scan stuff, scoop/buy stuff, dump/sell stuff and limited make stuff. There are also limited venues and beings we can do these things for and to and the reasons why we should other than "grinding out" credit for better stuff. Combined with the interactivity is the currently "mostly sterile" nature of the venues we go to - we see traffic in the stations and bases, but not much else.

VR helps mitigate some of the issues above in a major way for me because it gives almost total immersion in a way that a 2D monitor just cannot. In fact I'd go as far as saying that unless you are in VR you are not playing a 3D game. On a "normal" monitor you are playing a 2.5D game (there's a similar expression in CNC milling). So the immersion mitigates massively the lack of perceived gameplay for me because I can loiter around soaking up the majestic atmosphere (can't think of a better word) in a planetary ring system or sitting just outside the exclusion zone on an atmospheric planet dreaming of the day I will be able to go down there and dance among the clouds with strange sunsets and vistas (even if they are acidic ;) ).

I'd be quite happy to see additional interactive methods (gameplay) being worked on and introduced, but I also don't see the opening up of environment types as being mutually exclusive with that. Any game/development team is going to be using parallel workstream/sprints with different teams working on different areas of a title. So I struggle with this serial development concept being discussed as anywhere near FDev's reality (despite some with "agendas" or in ignorance wishing or believing this is the case). I suspect that some of the "we'll work on gameplay and put environmental features on the back burner" is more about PR and placating "the mob", than the actual reality in FDev's offices.

As for what I want to see in the future? So long as the environmental features are still being worked on, for release "when they are ready" and other lesser features are not excluding that development, then I'm happy to go about my business in the ED galaxy and take or leave other features as they are released (e.g. I will likely not use the engineers, as I don't feel driven to have the "best of the best" spaceship or feel that this is somehow "winning the game", which unfortunately is an endemic attitude in gaming (and has been since Pong in the 70's).

As a parting shot if I was running development I would mandate new "gameplay" features developed into an 80/20 split between non-blowing stuff up activities and blowing stuff up activities respectively i.e. for every 1 of the latter suggested and adopted into the development cycle, there has to be 4 of the former. IMHO that would "force" creative thinking, innovation and use of imagination, rather than copying "industry standard" tropes, which quite frankly is just being lazy.
 
Last edited:

BlackSpaceCowboy

BlackSpaceCowboy
I want to attack a base with my AI wingmen that I have formed a relationship with such that I care if they die. We attack a base that's defended by other ships. We take them on and destroy them. Then we pick off the anti air defenses. Then I order my AI wingman to drop the special EMP missile we configured for this mission.

We land and deploy our military tank like vehicles. We destroy enemy tanks and defensive vehicles. Then we start hauling expensive loot and selling it.
 

TorTorden_VR

T
Soopyyy said:
No its not, Evochron has been doing it for like a decade...
Click to expand...

True, I always keep forgetting that one.
But isn't that also quite simplified compared to what we want this to be?

Although I'm sure he's managed to improve a little bit on it since last I tried.
But I think we still want a little more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom