Interiors Vs FDEV's Escape Argument

Mikaa

M
boppa_ said:
It'd give people a reason to use those smaller ships, wouldn't it? I don't see the argument against ship interiors, game play wise. It's almost as if FDev are making up excuses to cover up for a technical limitation, or lack of commitment to development time.
Click to expand...
Bingo. I'm starting to get the feeling that Odyssey was the last big push for Frontier, and considering how this launch (to beta) went over with the community, I'm starting to get the impression that the emotional investment in this IP has dried up.

This is clearly just speculation, but considering this is a brand new DLC release, with supposedly multiple years worth of content and effort put in, where's the enthusiasm to show off this new product?? The majority (if not all) recent communication from the company has been damage control and tempering expectations, not excitement and hype for the future. That's... a pretty bad sign IMHO. Despite having played ED for years, I'm newer to the forums, and many have stated that this is FDev's MO when it comes to releases, and Horizons was no different - Maybe there's some truth in that, but the tone of everyone involved (we the community, CM's, Dev's, Management) seems to be like we're all walking on eggshells when discussing what's to come in the future.

If I were to hazard a guess, the recent excuses for not doing ship interiors (aside from avoiding the obvious resource and time commitment to developing those gameplay loops) is because they might be trying to temper community expectations for further development beyond Odyssey. It's certainly possible that what we have now is it for big updates for ED. Ever.

I truly hope this week's "roadmap" will reveal more long term plans, and allow us to determine the level of commitment from FDev moving beyond the console launch. If they stick to the generic "we have lots of exciting things to show you , but we can't spoil it" rhetoric, then it'll be pretty telling to me that there's not a lot planned for the long term.
 

GraXXoR

GraXXoR
Ive always said that we should have exclusive content for S ships... currently, M ships can do everything.... leaving S ships as the readheaded stepchild....
We need more content for S ships and subsequent Armstrong Moments! (TM YAMIKS)
 

Stinja

S
Mikaa said:
I truly hope this week's "roadmap" will reveal more long term plans, and allow us to determine the level of commitment from FDev moving beyond the console launch. If they stick to the generic "we have lots of exciting things to show you , but we can't spoil it" rhetoric, then it'll be pretty telling to me that there's not a lot planned for the long term.
Click to expand...

"Words don't mean much ... see by our actions"

Source: https://youtu.be/MnSvQUzsX3s?t=2450


I will be very cautious on what they say, as Arthur himself said (approx 40:52 in), judge FDev by their actions.
 

M4RTH4

M4RTH4
If they were smart, they could roll in the Player Home idea into ship interiors. Just like with bobbleheads, ship kits, and paints, it don't do nothin' to the gameplay but look pretty.

And because it looks pretty, people will want it. May not be a popular choice, but they could even tie that in with ARX, make even more bank off of it. Even if that bunk bed is little more than decoration, having it in an exploration ship makes it feel like one could live in it while out in the black. Immersion does not always equal gameplay; having a scarred face makes you look like a pirate or bounty hunter, being sharply dressed makes you look like an experienced trader, a bit of dirt for an explorer, etc etc.

And all the streamers for the game, they could show off their interiors, how they set things up, free advertisement there. The money-making with player customization is always a safe bet, always provides a strong return.


But nooooooo, screw money, am I right?
 

AkenBosch

AkenBosch
boppa_ said:
It's possible that Frontier have underestimated the importance of immersion.
Click to expand...

This, for sure. I can't stand talks about "meaningful gameplay". What is "meaningful", in an activity I'm doing in my spare time just to pass it? I'm literally wasting time doing something that won't make me achieving nothing concrete in real life (terms and conditions apply). I'm enjoying my time feeling immersed in something that supposedly is nothing at all like my real life. If I feel the urge to constantly throw myself around pulling levers and turning knobs to achieve the goal of seeing flashy messages and increase my pretend money, might as well go do the same in real life. This not to say that a game is fine if you just stand still at a window, seeing the world go by (by the same reasoning, I'll just go look outside a real window at that point), but there's far too emphasis on "having something to do, at all costs", or else a game is "not meaningful".

Most game developers underestimate immersion these days, it's what the market demands after all.
 

Dartay

D
AkenBosch said:
This, for sure. I can't stand talks about "meaningful gameplay". What is "meaningful", in an activity I'm doing in my spare time just to pass it? I'm literally wasting time doing something that won't make me achieving nothing concrete in real life (terms and conditions apply). I'm enjoying my time feeling immersed in something that supposedly is nothing at all like my real life. If I feel the urge to constantly throw myself around pulling levers and turning knobs to achieve the goal of seeing flashy messages and increase my pretend money, might as well go do the same in real life. This not to say that a game is fine if you just stand still at a window, seeing the world go by (by the same reasoning, I'll just go look outside a real window at that point), but there's far too emphasis on "having something to do, at all costs", or else a game is "not meaningful".

Most game developers underestimate immersion these days, it's what the market demands after all.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the quality of any gameplay is totally dependent on the designers' imagination, creativity, budget, time and skill.

The setting in which the gameplay occurs and any involved constraints and limitations are an important influence on the end result – but they do not determine whether or not the gameplay can exist in the first place or whether it can be of quality. Others have mentioned examples such as Okami, with its gameplay built around ink wash paint, or excellent text-based games.
 

Stikkit

Stikkit
Mav359 said:
sorry if this has already been sugested but....

Arthur said one of the reasons you wouldn't want Interiors is becuase if you were in a hurry retreating from a base you would not want to have to make your way to the bridge through a large ship becuase of the urgent need to 'get out of there'

I though that was a weak argument becuase you should pick your battles, if you think a mission leads to danger and you pick a Cutter then you made that choice.

That aside though

When you land on any planet you can dismiss and recall your ship, that auto pilot feature already exists so why (if you did picked a large ship) could you not have had an option in planning your mission to 'Launch Upon Boarding' .... as soon as you board, the ship auto launches to orbit while you make your way to the bridge
Click to expand...
Because the argument is not formed by reason and logic but is a thin excuse to justify their inability to offer interiors. Had it been demonstrably at odds with the current gameplay mechanics then sure but I'm pretty sure ED has plenty of these.
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
AkenBosch said:
This, for sure. I can't stand talks about "meaningful gameplay". What is "meaningful", in an activity I'm doing in my spare time just to pass it? I'm literally wasting time doing something that won't make me achieving nothing concrete in real life (terms and conditions apply). I'm enjoying my time feeling immersed in something that supposedly is nothing at all like my real life. If I feel the urge to constantly throw myself around pulling levers and turning knobs to achieve the goal of seeing flashy messages and increase my pretend money, might as well go do the same in real life. This not to say that a game is fine if you just stand still at a window, seeing the world go by (by the same reasoning, I'll just go look outside a real window at that point), but there's far too emphasis on "having something to do, at all costs", or else a game is "not meaningful".

Most game developers underestimate immersion these days, it's what the market demands after all.
Click to expand...
When the world is happening and not just static just watching is fun. Seeing stuff spawn from nothing just because you're there - it'd require more than interiors to get it right. The first step is getting the world believable. Then you watch me go be transported as passenger in me own ships by AI in silly small map instances because I just believe it's all happening. And I know the ship just jumping in front of me will be there in the next sector when my ship jumps too.
 

Stinja

S
Navigare Necesse Est said:
When the world is happening and not just static just watching is fun. ... The first step is getting the world believable.
Click to expand...
This is why Grand Theft Auto games are consistently more immersive than other companies open world games: they build the world.

Sure there's technology limits, but GTA Vice City felt amazing to it's contemplates then jump to GTA5 and see the improvements, and you could sit about and watch NPCs do their thing.
Playing say an (earlier) Assassin Creed game (where you were actually like an assassin) vs Hitman 3, while yes different scope they're trying to achieve, shows how bigger worlds dont always mean more believable, and filling a smaller space with better AI can make a game more immersive too.

The problem is it takes more effort, and the developer has to be willing to commit that.
 

dekot

D
photomankc said:
An imaginary exchange:

"Why won't you add ship interiors... Braben said"


"Ship interiors are a tricky subject guys. There are a number of reasons beyond just the modeling and physical fitment that make this a challenge we may not be able to take on. The engine, despite early goals, did not evolve in a way that makes it reasonable to create space within space and to track both the ship and player or players as separate physical things that both interact in the world. There are serious limitations in how instancing works that also complicate this to the extreme. The physics systems in the game would need to be torn down to studs and reworked for this and unfortunately a few shortcuts that were needed to meet company goals to get a working product out earlier in the development cycle are really baked into the code now in a way that makes it unlikely we can ever promise that particular feature."

Now I just made up a bunch of stuff. None of that is in any way me 'knowing' why they aren't in or coming. Just my guessing. But that statement makes FAR FAR more sense than "You would have to run too far, and we can't imagine anything to do" without getting into the gory details of it all.


But I completely agree with you... people are proving they don't just want 'an' answer, they really want the answer they wanted to hear. They aren't coming, for whatever internal reasons are really at play. They've told us the answer.
Click to expand...
I don't know a thing about coding but I bet FD just doesn't care. Interiors sound like a lot of work and money.
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Stinja said:
This is why Grand Theft Auto games are consistently more immersive than other companies open world games: they build the world.

Sure there's technology limits, but GTA Vice City felt amazing to it's contemplates then jump to GTA5 and see the improvements, and you could sit about and watch NPCs do their thing.
Playing say an (earlier) Assassin Creed game (where you were actually like an assassin) vs Hitman 3, while yes different scope they're trying to achieve, shows how bigger worlds dont always mean more believable, and filling a smaller space with better AI can make a game more immersive too.

The problem is it takes more effort, and the developer has to be willing to commit that.
Click to expand...
Urban Open worlds are handicapped. The amount of detail crammed into one screen is so much that concessions have to be made. That shows in the number of locations that can be accessed. The majority of doors and windows however, remains just a texture. They compensate by action-packed gameplay but it's far less immersive than rural places like Fallout starts and Skyrim.
 

Alien

Alien
Hmmm .... How many different interiors would it really be? Let's list them all (grouping similar ship models together) ....
1. Sidewinder
2. Eagle & Imperial Eagle
3. Hauler
4. Adder
5. Viper mkIII & Viper mkIV
6. Cobra MkIII & Cobra mkIV
7. Diamondback Scout & Diamondback Explorer
8. Type 6 & Keelback
9. Dolphin [1]
10. Imperial Courier
11. Asp Scout & Asp Explorer
12. Vulture
13. Federal Dropship & Federal Assault Ship & Federal Gunship
14. Type 7
15. Alliance Chieftan & Alliance Crusader & Alliance Challenger
16. Imperial Clipper [2]
17. Krait Phantom & Krait MkII
18. Orca
19. Fer-De-Lance
20. Mamba
21. Python
22. Type-9 Heavy & Type-10 Defender
23. Beluga
24. Anaconda
25. Federal Corvette
26. Imperial Cutter

[1] While you might think the Dolphin, Orca and Beluga are the same model, and they might be, the fact they are incrementally bigger ships means they would have differing internal layouts.

[2] The same applies to the Imperial Clipper and Cutter, again, being a larger ship means it would have a different layout.

So, 38 ships, 26 internal layout models. Not as much as it might seem. Is it more work than all the settlements and stations and outposts? I don't know, but Frontier are a games development company, they employ developers, it's their job to make things like ship interiors.
 

cheesenbiscuits

cheesenbiscuits
Alien said:
Hmmm .... How many different interiors would it really be? Let's list them all (grouping similar ship models together) ....
1. Sidewinder
2. Eagle & Imperial Eagle
3. Hauler
4. Adder
5. Viper mkIII & Viper mkIV
6. Cobra MkIII & Cobra mkIV
7. Diamondback Scout & Diamondback Explorer
8. Type 6 & Keelback
9. Dolphin [1]
10. Imperial Courier
11. Asp Scout & Asp Explorer
12. Vulture
13. Federal Dropship & Federal Assault Ship & Federal Gunship
14. Type 7
15. Alliance Chieftan & Alliance Crusader & Alliance Challenger
16. Imperial Clipper [2]
17. Krait Phantom & Krait MkII
18. Orca
19. Fer-De-Lance
20. Mamba
21. Python
22. Type-9 Heavy & Type-10 Defender
23. Beluga
24. Anaconda
25. Federal Corvette
26. Imperial Cutter

[1] While you might think the Dolphin, Orca and Beluga are the same model, and they might be, the fact they are incrementally bigger ships means they would have differing internal layouts.

[2] The same applies to the Imperial Clipper and Cutter, again, being a larger ship means it would have a different layout.

So, 38 ships, 26 internal layout models. Not as much as it might seem. Is it more work than all the settlements and stations and outposts? I don't know, but Frontier are a games development company, they employ developers, it's their job to make things like ship interiors.
Click to expand...
Tier 0 ship interiors are already modeled and in game now,an acceptable tier 1 would be a second pass on the bridge,SRV - SLF hangers and corridors connecting them.
 

Mikaa

M
Don't forget, many of the ships can re-use assets (i.e. Clipper and Cutter, the Viper and Cobra series, the Federal Piggies). Yes, they vary in sizes, but hallways, crew quarters and access to powerplant/shields and other internals can re-use many of the same building blocks, if not entire rooms. Vehicles and Aircraft manufacturers in RL do this all the time - no need to re-invent the wheel every time. Biggest hurdle will be figuring out placement, as well as access to the customizable internals (though for a tier 1 implementation, I don't need that. Just access to personal quarters for customizable stuffs and changing out suits etc, as well as a hallway to a lift which can take me to the SRV bay, or exterior is good enough.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom