Please don't throw stones at me...

The place to reminisce about the games that inspired Sol Contingency's development.

Moderator: SolC Development Leads

User avatar
Pumo
Posts: 41
Joined: 27 Apr 2013, 16:46
Location: Mexico
Contact:

Re: Please don't throw stones at me...

Postby Pumo » 03 Apr 2015, 16:56

Duper wrote:Pumo, I don't think that's what Homey meant. He was prefacing to Interplay for reason's they stated.


My comment was not directed to homey, but to poxy. :P
Will correct that on the post.
User avatar
Duper
Posts: 129
Joined: 12 Apr 2013, 04:01
Location: Portland, Oregon USA
Contact:

Re: Please don't throw stones at me...

Postby Duper » 03 Apr 2015, 16:58

*edit* Ah thanks Pumo. I retract then. ^^

Sylvester, if I could say one thing about "AAA" games.
DU is an indie company. They are wanting to attempt a AAA level game, but they won't get that. Why?

Because AAA games are backed and FUNDED by their publishers. ie. EA, Activision, UBI etc. Interplay is not doing that. Those studios also have many MANY people working on a project, sometimes in the hundreds, depending.

This isn't to say that DU couldn't/can't build a quality game. That's the cool thing about indie's; they don't have the red tape that AAA studios deal with. Unfortunately, they also have less resources. remember that Interplay is little more than about 5 lawyers and a handful of share holders. AND they're basically bankrupt. So this whole thing is on DU.

Can you imagine a game like CoD or Battlefield having to go to KS for funding??? yeah, no.
"The cat was Aready dead when I got there." - Curiosity
Sylvester_Ink
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Mar 2015, 17:12

Re: Please don't throw stones at me...

Postby Sylvester_Ink » 03 Apr 2015, 17:13

Duper wrote:Can you imagine a game like CoD or Battlefield having to go to KS for funding??? yeah, no.

They would be fun games to play? :P

But I suppose I should be a little more clear in my meaning. I'm more referring to KS projects that make the attempt at trying to be a "AAA" game, despite their budget, which is what a lot of these big projects seem to be trying to do. The difference is that some shoot for modest goals, whereas others try to match publisher-funded games. But making a AAA game and making a quality game are not criteria that should overlap. There are plenty of high-quality games that didn't need a huge budget to make. The developer just needs to have a more focused approach.

In all honesty, I'm not sure what people find so compelling about AAA games. I can't think of a single one I've played in the past 5 years. Except Dota 2 and CS:GO, I guess. But otherwise, they just aren't fun to play. They just look pretty.
LotharBot
Posts: 44
Joined: 18 Mar 2015, 23:13

Re: Please don't throw stones at me...

Postby LotharBot » 03 Apr 2015, 17:20

MadMax1998 wrote:Looks like this is how far along they are.

Descent: Underground . Very First Multi-player Test

I don't want to sound like an ass, but I had my flight physics down before showing anything to the world.


You mean like in this video? I also don't want to sound like an ass, but my first impression is that there's something wrong with your chording physics there. Maybe it's actually right and it just looks sluggish because of the way you're flying, but if that was the first thing I saw I'd wonder if you were going to make the Into Cerberon mistake of calling trichording a "bug". Your video is better both because you're a better pilot than them and because of the drone models, but I don't think it shows the right flight physics, at least not clearly enough for me to say "yep, that's pure Descent right there!"

Speaking as a pilot, neither video is a huge turn-off or a huge turn-on for me. They both have a clear "work in progress" vibe. They both make me want to follow up with questions like "will there be trichording in your game?" and "which game physics model are you trying to be most similar to: D1, D3, Miner Wars, or something else?" I've gotten suitable answers from you guys (through Verran). I've also gotten suitable answers from the D:U guys, so I'm not worried about their initial video being really rough (in fact, they debuted the initial video as part of a livestream, and they spent the next minute or so talking about how it's not right yet and how now that they've got a working basic game they can work on getting the physics values right.)

SolC has made a lot of progress since your initial video, and looks like a very good Descenty game, and it's a shame the PTMC made a mess of it. D:U is still pretty early, and also might become a really good Descenty game. I also wish they'd waited to show the world, starting the kickstarter after they had their flight physics nicely tuned. But I think they kinda stepped into a minefield and are just hoping to survive to the other side -- they were expecting to kickstart STFU, and they were expecting conceptual videos and their own reputation to be enough to make that happen, and then they got the IP but still had the same financial timeline and the added pressure of Descent pilots wanting to see Descent flight and being upset about the PTMC screwing you guys. So of course what we're seeing is rough! But given what I've seen and heard so far, I think they have what it takes to make Descent happen, and that makes me happy. A year from now I might have three awesome Descent games to play (don't forget D1 Retro!)
Sylvester_Ink
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 Mar 2015, 17:12

Re: Please don't throw stones at me...

Postby Sylvester_Ink » 03 Apr 2015, 18:14

LotharBot wrote:They kinda stepped into a minefield and are just hoping to survive to the other side -- they were expecting to kickstart STFU, and they were expecting conceptual videos and their own reputation to be enough to make that happen, and then they got the IP but still had the same financial timeline and the added pressure of Descent pilots wanting to see Descent flight and being upset about the PTMC screwing you guys.

I almost think they would have been better off not taking the Descent name in the first place, because of the expectations of Descent players. They probably weren't thinking of sticking as strictly to the original Descent concept until suddenly it became mandatory. (I suspect they weren't even planning on implementing the classic anarchy style of gameplay until the Descent name came along, instead choosing to focus on the team based aspect.)

But at the same time, money is money, and a well recognized brand is a well recognized brand. They wouldn't be near their current level of funding if it weren't for that name. So it's really a tough choice.

If I were in their shoes, I would probably have played it exactly the same.
User avatar
Duper
Posts: 129
Joined: 12 Apr 2013, 04:01
Location: Portland, Oregon USA
Contact:

Re: Please don't throw stones at me...

Postby Duper » 03 Apr 2015, 18:21

Sylvester_Ink wrote:
Duper wrote:Can you imagine a game like CoD or Battlefield having to go to KS for funding??? yeah, no.

They would be fun games to play? :P

But I suppose I should be a little more clear in my meaning. I'm more referring to KS projects that make the attempt at trying to be a "AAA" game, despite their budget, which is what a lot of these big projects seem to be trying to do. The difference is that some shoot for modest goals, whereas others try to match publisher-funded games. But making a AAA game and making a quality game are not criteria that should overlap. There are plenty of high-quality games that didn't need a huge budget to make. The developer just needs to have a more focused approach.

In all honesty, I'm not sure what people find so compelling about AAA games. I can't think of a single one I've played in the past 5 years. Except Dota 2 and CS:GO, I guess. But otherwise, they just aren't fun to play. They just look pretty.


Ya know.. they might be a whole more fun if they (big name games) were KS funded. ;D

So, it sounds like you and I are saying the same thing. Or at least I am understanding what you're saying. I think you said it more cohesively. Bastion is another example of a superb game made with very little money. ...seriously.. if anyone hasn't played that game.. do so. It's an esthetic masterpiece and the game play it beautifully old school without old school clunky-ness. The music alone is worth the money.
"The cat was Aready dead when I got there." - Curiosity
User avatar
1DVD4D2UDK
Posts: 2655
Joined: 08 Nov 2012, 00:10
Location: Pioneer, CA
Contact:

Re: Please don't throw stones at me...

Postby 1DVD4D2UDK » 03 Apr 2015, 21:30

Simply put, if a game panders to the way it's targeted game player base likes to
play - either alone or with friends, it's going to get played no matter what! :D 8-)
After closing your browser, it'll be with you - in back of your mind
waiting to inspire you, by what you've seen, heard, or read today
1DVD, 1DVD4D2UDK, 1DVD-DCLXVI, 1DeViLiShDuDe, @uToPLaY
http://descent-to-udk.deviantart.com http://1devilishdude.deviantart.com
User avatar
MadMax1998
Site Admin
Posts: 1554
Joined: 07 Nov 2012, 13:43
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: Please don't throw stones at me...

Postby MadMax1998 » 03 Apr 2015, 23:01

LotharBot wrote:
MadMax1998 wrote:Looks like this is how far along they are.

Descent: Underground . Very First Multi-player Test

I don't want to sound like an ass, but I had my flight physics down before showing anything to the world.


You mean like in this video? I also don't want to sound like an ass, but my first impression is that there's something wrong with your chording physics there. Maybe it's actually right and it just looks sluggish because of the way you're flying, but if that was the first thing I saw I'd wonder if you were going to make the Into Cerberon mistake of calling trichording a "bug". Your video is better both because you're a better pilot than them and because of the drone models, but I don't think it shows the right flight physics, at least not clearly enough for me to say "yep, that's pure Descent right there!"

I had proper triple chording at that point, and still do. You may not see it in the video because I don't use it?
Max
Sol Contingency Programming Lead
Sol Contingency Website
LotharBot
Posts: 44
Joined: 18 Mar 2015, 23:13

Re: Please don't throw stones at me...

Postby LotharBot » 03 Apr 2015, 23:19

MadMax1998 wrote:I had proper triple chording at that point, and still do. You may not see it in the video because I don't use it?


Actually I was thinking that your dual chording looked sluggish (I figure if you get dual chording right, trichording will work whether or not you show it; you'd have to go way out of your way to do otherwise.) Like I said, maybe it was right when that video was made, but it wasn't obviously unmistakably right -- as if you weren't chording long enough to reach full speed or something, so I can't tell whether full-speed chording is happening. So if that was the first thing I saw I'd definitely be asking you about how your game handled chording. And I'd be waiting to hear whether you gave the answer the IC guys gave, or the answer the DU guys gave -- "that's a bug" or "trichording, of course, duh."

Point being, it's hard to make an initial pitch for Descent pilots that will make them say "whoa! That's perfect Descent!" You had some chording and some actual D1 drones, and it wasn't adequate for me. So what's critical is the followup -- how you handle the questions about trichording and scaling and relative ship-to-weapon speeds and network models and so on. The trend from the initial KS video to MP video #1 was very positive -- from "that looks like miner wars" to "that looks like D3". I'm a lot less unimpressed now than I was 3 weeks ago. If MP video #2 shifts D:U in a more Descenty direction, that'll be a really good sign.
User avatar
Verran
Posts: 187
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 21:04
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Please don't throw stones at me...

Postby Verran » 03 Apr 2015, 23:24

Hey LotharBot & all,

Here is a more recent video (recorded 2 days ago), with me working out my Sidewinder 3D Pro & chording:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9ZIpG ... sp=sharing

In this video, I am testing out maneuverability (notice the nice, tight corner turns), aiming precision (you'll notice I target empty doors, weapon tokens, and other areas on the map) and general feel of my stick. It's tight. It feels right. We have a bit more testing and tweaking to do, but so far I am sold on the player/ship control implementation.

Notice: everything in the video is still a work in progress.
Last edited by Verran on 03 Apr 2015, 23:44, edited 2 times in total.

Return to “6DoF Games Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest