Yes dmg model it will contribute to all ready problematic Crytek Multiplayer issue.And seems so far that it is even much worst problem that CIG doing net coding of Crytek engine as we can see they can't get stable 12 players on small map,I mean ***,after long delay and doing "their" code we get this?100 player in instance sound's like mission impossible I said before 32 player per instance it will be the best as they can get....now I even start to doubt that...
- Status
Yes dmg model it will contribute to all ready problematic Crytek Multiplayer issue.And seems so far that it is even much worst problem that CIG doing net coding of Crytek engine as we can see they can't get stable 12 players on small map,I mean ***,after long delay and doing "their" code we get this?100 player in instance sound's like mission impossible I said before 32 player per instance it will be the best as they can get....now I even start to doubt that...
No Can't do, and my belief is that is one of the reasons why Crytek is in the problem's lately,no one wants to build a game that looks great in single player but can't get stable in mp & have big PVP,I mean Crysis 2 was 16 players 8Vs8(right) not sure for crysis 3 but I guess is the same.Now we should to believe CR and his magic crew that they will fix all of that...hmmm..yet what we got atm is 6Vs6..but hey Constellation SALE start's!!!!!!!
Anyone surprised???
Last edited:
Okay, I know we aren't supposed to talk smack about SC backers, but I do find it maddening that whenever there is discussion about SC gameplay with regard to other space sims, invariably they'll start to talk about how these other games don't "feel immersive" and give you the experience of being "a canopy flying through space" rather than a pilot that's actually in your own ship.
I'm not sure I understand what they're talking about. Do they want more cinematics of people getting into and out of their ships? Is it the concept of walking around your ship? (Which isn't even in the game yet, so the comparison is inadequate anyway.) The thing is, NONE of these things matter. They are not important to actual gameplay.
Look at the games we've had in the past, such as Mechwarrior 2, Freespace and I-War, Starcraft and TA, Interstate 76, and so on. None of these games give you this visceral feeling of controlling . . . no, BEING an individual that goes on to actually do the things involved in playing the game. No, it's just a straight up abstraction (in varying degrees) of the activity the game is associated with. You don't need to climb into your Mech in Mechwarrior. You don't need to kick the tires and unlock your car in I-76. You don't need to shout orders to your marines in Starcraft, or write letters to their families when they die. Yet somehow these games are all amazing and fun despite that lack of cinematic immersive . Heck, even on the first-person front, it was more fun to bunny-hop and rocket-jump around a map in Quake 1 than to experience the lovingly-rendered explosions while you tear up, staring at the abandoned teddy-bear of some presumably dead child in a Call of Duty game.
What it boils down to is that games are freaking games. They can be realistic, like Arma, or abstract, like Tetris. But they should involve gameplay. And not only that, the gameplay should stand on its own even if the game was stripped down to wireframe models with fm-synthesized soundtracks and text instead of voice acting. (Now this is a shady area, as I know that there are games that are entirely about the experience, such as old-style adventure games, and modern stuff like The Stanley Parable, but if your game isn't purely experience based, then it sure better have some salient gameplay involved.)
But the most aggravating fact about it is that we're in an era where developers are trying to discard the cinematic and focus on gameplay, whether they're older developers trying to crowdfund the game they want to make, or younger, indie developers putting together fresh gaming concepts. Chris Roberts seemed like the former, but it's become quite evident that CIG just wants to focus on "immersive" and "cinematic" games, rather than putting together something functional from a gameplay perspective. (Though I'm not really surprised. Even when he made Wing Commander, it was clear he was more interested in the cinematic aspect, and his work in the 2000s only proves it.)
I could rant about kids nowadays being only attracted to flashiness and "cinematic experiences," except it's not just young gamers. I'm seeing older gamers, that have lived through the gaming eras of the 80s and 90s, following this same line, even though they've played enough to recognize good gameplay and no gameplay.
Sorry for the impromptu rant, but if you got repeatedly told by a number of people that the AC (in its current form, even) is far superior to any of the game examples I listed above, you would be a bit incensed too.
I'm not sure I understand what they're talking about. Do they want more cinematics of people getting into and out of their ships? Is it the concept of walking around your ship? (Which isn't even in the game yet, so the comparison is inadequate anyway.) The thing is, NONE of these things matter. They are not important to actual gameplay.
Look at the games we've had in the past, such as Mechwarrior 2, Freespace and I-War, Starcraft and TA, Interstate 76, and so on. None of these games give you this visceral feeling of controlling . . . no, BEING an individual that goes on to actually do the things involved in playing the game. No, it's just a straight up abstraction (in varying degrees) of the activity the game is associated with. You don't need to climb into your Mech in Mechwarrior. You don't need to kick the tires and unlock your car in I-76. You don't need to shout orders to your marines in Starcraft, or write letters to their families when they die. Yet somehow these games are all amazing and fun despite that lack of cinematic immersive . Heck, even on the first-person front, it was more fun to bunny-hop and rocket-jump around a map in Quake 1 than to experience the lovingly-rendered explosions while you tear up, staring at the abandoned teddy-bear of some presumably dead child in a Call of Duty game.
What it boils down to is that games are freaking games. They can be realistic, like Arma, or abstract, like Tetris. But they should involve gameplay. And not only that, the gameplay should stand on its own even if the game was stripped down to wireframe models with fm-synthesized soundtracks and text instead of voice acting. (Now this is a shady area, as I know that there are games that are entirely about the experience, such as old-style adventure games, and modern stuff like The Stanley Parable, but if your game isn't purely experience based, then it sure better have some salient gameplay involved.)
But the most aggravating fact about it is that we're in an era where developers are trying to discard the cinematic and focus on gameplay, whether they're older developers trying to crowdfund the game they want to make, or younger, indie developers putting together fresh gaming concepts. Chris Roberts seemed like the former, but it's become quite evident that CIG just wants to focus on "immersive" and "cinematic" games, rather than putting together something functional from a gameplay perspective. (Though I'm not really surprised. Even when he made Wing Commander, it was clear he was more interested in the cinematic aspect, and his work in the 2000s only proves it.)
I could rant about kids nowadays being only attracted to flashiness and "cinematic experiences," except it's not just young gamers. I'm seeing older gamers, that have lived through the gaming eras of the 80s and 90s, following this same line, even though they've played enough to recognize good gameplay and no gameplay.
Sorry for the impromptu rant, but if you got repeatedly told by a number of people that the AC (in its current form, even) is far superior to any of the game examples I listed above, you would be a bit incensed too.
As someone who's worked in sales and marketing for over 20 years the point is sales should not be the be all and end all at the expense of everything else, including credibility and good will. Nor is the need to make sales ever a justification for BSing your customers even though it happens. I can tell you with some authority that's just called being greedy and short sighted. It's very easy to sell to a customer as compared to keeping them long term.
To put it another way you stay in business long term by acquiring, growing and keeping your customer base, not treating them like idiots.
Last edited:
Ahh man I feel your pain totally...I am an old-school-game geezer and I can recall so many games from the past where Gfx didn't do big part at all and yet that games become big as their gameplay was unique.I change so many computer platforms in my 30+ years of gaming starting from:galaxia,Zx spectrum,c64,Amiga,atari,486....And all I can said yes Gfx&sound are important but game-play/Mechanics are the heart of each game,story line and overall atmosphere can play a big part as well...
Right, and I agree that story, music, and general atmosphere are essential to the experience. Freespace, for example, wouldn't be quite the game it was without those aspects. But at the same time, it would still be a great game, if only more abstract.
Take that stuff away from Star Citizen, and what do you have? (Well, to tell the truth, probably a better game. Less helmet flip please.)
Personally I think that there is a need to keep in mind that this development process is generally not accessible to the public. Also that normally games development is frequently about a publisher 'force shoehorning' a developer into making a game fit a 'marketable shoe'. The freeform and potentially perceptively scattergun approach to SC development is something that normally goes on behind the cover of PR and marketing.
I've observed before that there seems to be two diametrically opposed development styles going on with ED and SC - ED is building a universe to put stuff in, SC is building stuff to put in a universe - they seem like the two logical ways to approach a game development?
New image appeared from Gamescom.
http://images.gamestar.de/images/idgwpgsgp/bdb/2509265/bigimage.jpg
http://images.gamestar.de/images/idgwpgsgp/bdb/2509265/bigimage.jpg
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
That's a really great way of putting it. Hadn't thought of it that way before, but makes perfect sense!
Ahh, very well written post.
I feel the same, but when I try to tell it to others, I get outnumbered...to the point I start asking myself if the problem is in me. Or - am I getting older and are unable to cope with "modern gaming direction" ?
Don't forget though, that if you're generation 70/80s, our brains were trained and formed on totally different kind of games.
Nowadays kids are going through the same thing, just with modern games as a starting point.
They probably see our games as dumb, the same as we see their games as dumb.
It's all relative, but the fact remains that we were here from the beginnings, they were not, so be glad you can witness this madness and enjoy the ride
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
The team gettin ready for Friday. The image is from Sandi Gardiners facebook page.
I've been on that stair in that office! So fun... lol.
I love how the HOTAS is on the right, unused, while the guy plays with mouse and keyboard
As for the racing, why does it remind me of this game?
reminds me of this game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9R3z7VfX_Q
...but with crappier graphics and crappier gameplay
I love how the HOTAS is on the right, unused, while the guy plays with mouse and keyboard
As for the racing, why does it remind me of this game?
That is the first thing I thought as well. "Wow, that is a really nice HOTAS in the foreground, being completely wasted." If you are playing a car racing game, you ideally want to use a steering wheel, why on earth would you, when designing a flight racing game, not be using a flight stick.
As for the game, at first I thought there were rings to fly through (there aren't I see now) and the game that came to mind was Pilotwings 64. Interestingly enough, the review I found mimics many things I see critics saying on the SC site about SC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUk2woa9JGM
Except as a developer, I can tell you right now that one method will give you better results and one will give you logistical nightmares. You want to define the universe before putting stuff in it, lest the stuff not fit properly, leading to extra work in rebuilding the stuff.
Think of it this way. If you buy furniture to fill a house before the house itself is built, you could end up with all kinds of problems, such as too much or too little furniture, furniture not fitting, or furniture not matching the style or lighting of the house.
And Neo-ST, I've somewhat wondered that myself, whether perhaps my perceptions on good gaming differ from younger gamers of today because I've had a different gaming experience from my youth. But then I've talked to several younger friends about this recently, and more and more often, they are telling me that they've started to get bored of the modern, cinematic style of games and enjoy the more complex gameplay styles of the past that may not have the most amazing presentation.
For example, one of those friends had grown up playing Call of Duty, Uncharted, and several other "spectacle" games. But recently he started playing hardcore oldschool shooters, like Quake III, Warsow, and Painkiller. In his own words, he "can't go back to the vapid, mindless games of modern day" because they have all become mostly repetition to him, as they lack the gameplay that many of the old games had.
At the same time, I myself find it hard to appreciate some of the complex older games, because I've become accustomed to the niceties in modern games, like pretty graphics and music. (For example, despite owning the entire Wing Commander series through GOG, I don't really feel like actually playing them, as I've been spoiled by newer space sims.)
So I'm not so sure I'd judge it as a difference in the games we grew up with, but more on how much of that spectacle we've experienced. It's certainly amazing to see those cinematic experiences the first, second, and third times, but after the 10th experience, it starts to fade to the background, and the gameplay comes to the forefront.
This is inevitably what will happen with Star Citizen. We'll have seen the pretty graphics, immersive cinematics, the helmet flips, and so forth so many times that not only will we not care, they'll just get in the way of the thing we do care about: the gameplay. And if that gameplay isn't solid . . . well, at least there are alternatives . . .
Cool.
From the looks of the cockpit its the M50 doing some kind of planetside racing. So perhaps the M50 will be AC ready at gamescom? Looking forward to the livestream!
- Status