Relive Wing Commander Saga In Six EPIC Screenshots (April 1, 2014)

This is Next-Gen-Graphic you can't see without our new "Wing Commander Saga VR Interface Mark IV". I am still working on it.
 
Nuh uh - really mean would have been posting a link to the new development page for Unknown Enemy II.
 
Harsh? Sure some people may not like the game. But this smacks a little mean.

Saga is dark, everyone knows Saga is dark, especially the Saga team. It's kind of the obvious joke to make, I don't think there's any malice in it.

Also, I lol'd, as the kids say.
 
Sure, it's a modern edgy moody cool style decision, but it's not particularly Wing Commandery... The archetypal Wing Commander ship is brightly colored like a Super Soaker and stands out in space like a light bulb. Even The Darkening had relatively bright graphics. :)

wc2screenshot05.gif


(But then if they were going for Wing Commandery, they'd have used a WC game engine!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WC4, Privateer and Armada went with the whole subdued gritty style as well, so there's that. I think it's the whole sunlit/pitch black contrast FSO's got going that makes it look distinctly un-WCish. Heh, someone should totally make a black and white space-noir game in the FSO engine, that'd be something.
 
WC4, Privateer and Armada went with the whole subdued gritty style as well, so there's that. I think it's the whole sunlit/pitch black contrast FSO's got going that makes it look distinctly un-WCish. Heh, someone should totally make a black and white space-noir game in the FSO engine, that'd be something.
You mean, like Standoff? :) You don't need the FS engine for that. And I think the problem isn't the contrast - we had certainly made conscious decisions to have sharp contrasts between the light and the darkness in some parts of Standoff. The problem relates more to the lack of contrast, with Saga being generally dark. And this of course is also a stylistic decision, they wanted to highlight all those little lights they have on their ships. It just didn't work out too well in the end.
 
Pardon my bluntness, but all WC graphics engines suck big time visually, compared to modern engines, and the tools to work with them and script things suck even more.
The FSO engine was the graphically best and most accessible space game engine at that time, so it was used. There is a good reason nobody outside the WC community uses any WC engine. You have to be a WC-religious zealot to use them. And it is the same zealots that say a game cannot be WC-ish if it doesn't use a WC engine. I don't mind if someone thinks like that, but they have to accept that most people don't think like that, and still can be WC fans and enjoy the game.
Also there are projects with the FSO engine that use colorful ships and bright space. Like Quarto said, it was a design decision to not do that, and lots of people like that. You can also make the ships fly like in WC2 or Prophecy with the FSO engine, but it was a design decision not to do that, but go with WC3 look and feel.
You guys cannot still be WC vs. FS, that's so 90s. Both were great game series, and each one would stay exactly as great if someone put it into the engine of the other one. If there was a FS1 or FS2 port into the WCP engine or even that of WC1, I'd play it. I just would never ever code that, because the best thing in FS is the engine. I was never as fond of the story (which is why I never finished FS2), I always have been a WC fan. But the engine is just better in almost any comparison possible.

Also @ChrisReid, what you said is wrong IMO. The earlier WC games had those colorful ships (too colorful for me in WC2 TBH, that game looked like your Super Soaker collection, with all that round, colorful stuff), the later ones (WC3 and later) aimed for a more realistic style (getting a bit more colorful in WCP again, but never as bad as WC2). Saying that colorful is WC-ish and not colorful is not WC-ish is just not correct.

EDIT: UE and Standoff had a nice balance between the WC2 style and the later ones, I liked that. If only the textures had been a bit more detailed. But that was because of the engine I think, not because of the guys' ability to texture.
 
You mean, like Standoff? :) You don't need the FS engine for that. And I think the problem isn't the contrast - we had certainly made conscious decisions to have sharp contrasts between the light and the darkness in some parts of Standoff. The problem relates more to the lack of contrast, with Saga being generally dark. And this of course is also a stylistic decision, they wanted to highlight all those little lights they have on their ships. It just didn't work out too well in the end.

Heh, yeah, you also used the effect quite sparingly for mood, you never had the FSO-scenario where one would see someones awesome high quality model in regular gameplay and then lament not having ten minutes to fly around and see the lit side of it. I mean, I love the dramatic way it looked and how the engine handles light now, but I'm kinda conservative with my ambient darkness in FSO games these days mostly for that reason. The exception is that Babylon 5 mod they made because the models look horrible now and need to be hidden under a layer of dramatic effects. Heh, rather like the show, I suppose.

Pardon my bluntness, but all WC graphics engines suck big time visually, compared to modern engines, and the tools to work with them and script things suck even more.
The FSO engine was the graphically best and most accessible space game engine at that time, so it was used. There is a good reason nobody outside the WC community uses any WC engine. You have to be a WC-religious zealot to use them.

Of course, you'd have to be as much of a FS-fanatic to use hacked-to-death FSO over something more reasonable and up to date, like say Unreal 3, Unity, or the HL2 engine back when people still gave a shit about that. Hurr, hurr, hurr.
 
Well, @Dyret, you know that was 12 years ago.
Also I wrote space engine, and I wrote accessible. I am a programmer, so I know what I'm talking about.
Two of the engines you mentioned require lots of work if you want to build something other than a simple FPS. Unity is even worse for that purpose, and it didn't even exist.
 
I am a programmer, so I know what I'm talking about.

Then you know there are a million reasons why developers would stick with the one potentially outdated engine rather than switch to a newer, flashier one, most that probably amount to familiarity. Which is why it's just fine for saga to stick with FSO even if all its major assets have been redone from scratch like eleven times since those twelve years ago. I wasn't saying the Saga should use those engines at all (all which have had excellent space games made in them, more often than not by dedicated fans), I was simply pointing out the silliness of your 'zealot'-comments. I'm sure for instance Standoff would have been significantly more messy if the devs hadn't already made a full total conversion in the same engine. If they can make the vision engine work for them and look tolerably pretty, then why not stick with what works. It's the exact same thing your community is doing.
 
Sticking to something you are familiar with isn't the same as choosing something.
Otherwise I don't disagree with you.
 
Pardon my bluntness, but all WC graphics engines suck big time visually, compared to modern engines, and the tools to work with them and script things suck even more.
The FSO engine was the graphically best and most accessible space game engine at that time, so it was used. There is a good reason nobody outside the WC community uses any WC engine. You have to be a WC-religious zealot to use them. And it is the same zealots that say a game cannot be WC-ish if it doesn't use a WC engine. I don't mind if someone thinks like that, but they have to accept that most people don't think like that, and still can be WC fans and enjoy the game.
Also there are projects with the FSO engine that use colorful ships and bright space. Like Quarto said, it was a design decision to not do that, and lots of people like that. You can also make the ships fly like in WC2 or Prophecy with the FSO engine, but it was a design decision not to do that, but go with WC3 look and feel.
You guys cannot still be WC vs. FS, that's so 90s. Both were great game series, and each one would stay exactly as great if someone put it into the engine of the other one. If there was a FS1 or FS2 port into the WCP engine or even that of WC1, I'd play it. I just would never ever code that, because the best thing in FS is the engine. I was never as fond of the story (which is why I never finished FS2), I always have been a WC fan. But the engine is just better in almost any comparison possible.

Also @ChrisReid, what you said is wrong IMO. The earlier WC games had those colorful ships (too colorful for me in WC2 TBH, that game looked like your Super Soaker collection, with all that round, colorful stuff), the later ones (WC3 and later) aimed for a more realistic style (getting a bit more colorful in WCP again, but never as bad as WC2). Saying that colorful is WC-ish and not colorful is not WC-ish is just not correct.

EDIT: UE and Standoff had a nice balance between the WC2 style and the later ones, I liked that. If only the textures had been a bit more detailed. But that was because of the engine I think, not because of the guys' ability to texture.

Yeah, you're taking this waaaaaaaay too seriously. That's exactly why the WC Saga joke still works in 2014... :)
 
Back
Top