Quo Vadis Space-Sims?

[Rainman]

Originally posted by Shooter
Geat a grip boys! What's the problem with other spacesims?
O.K. , WC is THE spacesim for all of us, but check out all the others arround. Maybe Starlancer is a little "Playstationish" but in the end it's a great game, and I'm looking forward to play Freelancer. Then you have Freespace, Tachyon, X - Beyond the Fontier and even (can I say this in the CIC? ), the Lucasarts series. So, Don´t say spacesims are dead, they are just going where no spacesim has never gone before. The only thing is that it's a long way to get there. That's deep.

You may have heard that Chris Roberts himself left Digital Anvil because Microsoft forced him to cut back Freelancers scale – IMHO the worst that could happen to the project.
And look at the HUGE marketing efforts Microsoft is putting into Freelancer [/sarcasm].
I’m sure you don’t have advertise a game as innovative as freelancer, the gaming magazines would already hype it – IF THEY WOULD AT LEAST RELEASE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE GAME. Have you ever visited The Lancers Reactor? That’s a great community which Digital Anvils seems to completely ignores trough it’s strictly No-Information-Policy.
You can bet that Freelancer will be a great game, like StarLancer, FreeSpace 1 & 2 or even Tachyon, a good game no one plays – this time because no one knows about it.

 

[Marcml30]

It seems as though the gaming genres go through high/low periods like everything else. Right now role-playing games seem to be the dominant one (Ultima, Baldurs, Torment, etc) with a large portion of the gaming industry trying to copy their success. Then there are the FPS games that are trying to be the next Doom/Quake/Half-Life. I just hope that we will see an innovative company come out with a successful space sim that will continue or replace WC as the "game to copy". After that we'll probably see the inevitable glut of wannabes. But hopefully this will happen before we're all crippled up with carpel tunnel syndrome from playing the mouse-driven RPG/FPS/RTS games.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I really liked StarLancer's FMV... when it was called the Wing Commander Movie! *rimshot*

No, but seriously, Chris Roberts didn't leave DA because MS cut back Freelancer... he *SOLD* DA to Microsoft, who have yet to announce any cuts to FL. CR is still with DA, but plans to leave after this development cycle.

 

[Rainman]

Re: Quo Vadis Space-Sims

Originally posted by Michael_A
I was around in '91 when WC1 was released. It was revolutionary in almost every way. From adding sound (other than annoying beebs) to gameplay and character development. The key to success in my opinion is to recapture that revolution. For so long games outstripped hardware so people were rushing out to by more powerfull systems, or CD-ROM kits (rememeber those), now the hardware is there but the software isn't taking full advantage. My suggestion would be to create a true 3D universe with actual 3D modeled planets. No more cutscenes then boom your 200 feet above a planets surface. Show atomosphere changes as you get closer, and play with gravity forces. Take a hint from other flight sims and make carrier landings a real hairball. WC3 did a good job of this but it could better. This level of detail might be unpopular with the console crowd but it would add dimensions to Space-sims that I think are lacking.
This is only my opinion.

I can’t agree with you. I think one of the main reasons for the demise of Space-Sims is that they just got to complex. Just compare some Space-Sims

Wing Commander 1 – Just go out and blast things
Wing Commander 4 – easy to control but hard to master because of lethal collisions

Freespace – You have about 10 ways to target an enemy

The point is (which I try to express clearly with my inferior English skillz ), Wing Commander Prophecy (The last succesful Space-Sim) did the right thing, it simplified the Game-Play in many ways (collisions where harmless, most missions where “Just go out, blast things and progress in a nicley written story”, etc).

Now compare Prophecy with StarLancer: Most, if not all, StarLancer Missions where time critical (eg. Mission 9 (?) where you have to defend the Reliant, if you dont kill off all of the turrets on the enemy cruser, the Reliant will be destroyed from “suddenly uncloaking bombers”) and putted the player in some kind of stress situation, which is defintly not appriciated by the average gamer.

I loved freespace tough because of it’s great story and the real challange it proposed (FreeSpace 2 is a LOT harder than Prophecy), but i think the features most advanced players appriciated where those who frightend off the casual player

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
I really liked StarLancer's FMV... when it was called the Wing Commander Movie! *rimshot*

No, but seriously, Chris Roberts didn't leave DA because MS cut back Freelancer... he *SOLD* DA to Microsoft, who have yet to announce any cuts to FL. CR is still with DA, but plans to leave after this development cycle.

That’s what Microsoft want’s you to believe, Chris Roberts it’s after all one of the founders of Digital Anvil, it is his brainchild. I’m pretty sure Microsoft didn’t put any marketing efforts into Starlancer to bring Digital Anvil in an position where they couldn’t refuse an acquisition offer from Microsoft. Look at this from Microsoft’s perspective: what profits do they make of just another an independent game developer whose games are only published by Microsoft, maybe plenty... but why not take full control Digital Anvil, a company full of industry veterans who know the art of crafting a great game? I’m sure you have heard about Microsofts X-Box – To ensure it’s success Microsoft simply HAS to come up with a few exclusive Killer-Games for it’s introduction.

Chris Roberts tried to realize his vision with Digital Anvil – I’m sure he would never left it if Microsoft would let him do his work how he wants it to be done and you can be sure he would have never left Digital Anvil complaining at the press about Microsoft’s business policies or intentions for Freelancer.

 

[redwolf]

Re: Re: Quo Vadis Space-Sims

Originally posted by Rainman
Now compare Prophecy with StarLancer: Most, if not all, StarLancer Missions where time critical (eg. Mission 9 (?) where you have to defend the Reliant, if you dont kill off all of the turrets on the enemy cruser, the Reliant will be destroyed from “suddenly uncloaking bombers”) and putted the player in some kind of stress situation, which is defintly not appriciated by the average gamer.
[/B]

Sorry mate, but I have to step in here and say you're an absolute pussy.

Combat flight sims are all about getting something done within a time limit. After all, there is only so much battering a CapShip can take! Enemy fighters don't ring the doorbell and say "Hi, we're your friendly neighbourhood enemy. We will give you time to escape before we try to kill you!"

Enemies attack whenever they think you are most vulnerable.

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by redwolf
Sorry mate, but I have to step in here and say you're an absolute pussy.

Combat flight sims are all about getting something done within a time limit. After all, there is only so much battering a CapShip can take! Enemy fighters don't ring the doorbell and say "Hi, we're your friendly neighbourhood enemy. We will give you time to escape before we try to kill you!"

Enemies attack whenever they think you are most vulnerable. [/B]

As i mentioned before I'm talking about the average gamer, not about myself. I finished StarLancer at hard, Prophecy at Nightmare but Wing Commander IV only at Ace

But i don't think it's good mission design to spawn some bombers near the objective you have to defend if you aren't able to kill xx % of turrets in xx seconds. Thats anoying, and people tend to not play anoying games.

 

[RFBurns]

Originally posted by Rainman

As i mentioned before I'm talking about the average gamer, not about myself. I finished StarLancer at hard, Prophecy at Nightmare but Wing Commander IV only at Ace

But i don't think it's good mission design to spawn some bombers near the objective you have to defend if you aren't able to kill xx % of turrets in xx seconds. Thats anoying, and people tend to not play anoying games.

Thats where the wingmen come into play, help out with turrets etc. But sometimes, even after ordering them to a specific task they "dally" about shouting "Im under fire!"
Spawing a hord of bombers so close to the objective is fine as long as your wing knows what to do. Probably be alot better if you order your wing to take out the first wave of bombers, but after more respawn, they should automatically know what to do without repeating orders! If you order your wing to take out bombers, they should retain those orders no matter how many times a group of enemy bombers respawn and it shouldnt matter how close or how far. Repeating orders is never done in real combat. A Stealth bomber that gets orders to take out radar installations does not need to call in for more orders after taking out the first of 10, he proceeds to the next target and takes it out until all targets per his orders are eliminated. If he has to ask "do I continue to take these out?" the brass whould order his butt home and get someone else that would do the job right the first time. Ok ok were talking about a game, but those elements could be applied to a mission in the game where you give orders once to your wing to take out incomming bombers, and if more spawn, they should already know what to do!

RFBurns

 

[Zor Prime]

Starlancer was a pretty good game. I'm sorry, but you are a pussy if you can't handle the 'stress' of completing your mission objective in a certain amount of time.

bomber: knock knock.
carrier: who's there?
bomber: your death bringer.
carrier: let us escape first.
bomber: ok we'll wait here motionless while your puny exuses for pilots pick us off one by one. NOT!!!

*carrier then spontaneously explodes*

[in taunting french accent]
bomber to player: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! you have failed your mission you puny sad sack excuse for a pilot!
player:this game is too stressfull. i quit.

THE END!

 

[RFBurns]

I never had any problem in a sim where there was a time limit. Good example is Longbow Gold where on a strike run taking out tank implacements and radar sites is critical for insertion of ground troups and air cover. In WCP and SO there are a few missions where time is crucial, you just have to pre plan enroute and prioritize targets. Then get your wing to properly follow your orders, and hopefully you dont have to repeat those orders!

RFBurns

 

[Rainman]

Originally posted by Zor Prime
Starlancer was a pretty good game. I'm sorry, but you are a pussy if you can't handle the 'stress' of completing your mission objective in a certain amount of time.

bomber: knock knock.
carrier: who's there?
bomber: your death bringer.
carrier: let us escape first.
bomber: ok we'll wait here motionless while your puny exuses for pilots pick us off one by one. NOT!!!

*carrier then spontaneously explodes*

[in taunting french accent]
bomber to player: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! you have failed your mission you puny sad sack excuse for a pilot!
player:this game is too stressfull. i quit.

THE END!

You just don’t get my point. I was talking about the average gamer, which represent majority of computergame sales today. I was talking of people who play games like the Sims, Deer Hunter or Diablo (which are all major box office successes), I was pointing out that most Space-Sims today just don’t seem to meet the demands of the mass market and I assumed that Space-Sims just have gotten to complex to satisfy the mass markets needs.

And because I said that the average gamer *may* not like to be putted in stress situations I’m a pussy? I really loved StarLancer, I paid about 100 US Dollars to get an import copy of that game way before it was released here in Austria, I finished it about 5 times but I just don’t agree with some of warthog’s mission design decisions - therefore I’m a pussy!?

And just to clarify what I meant as I took mission 9 as an reference. That’s the mission where the reliant tries to make it to a space station for repairs, suddenly a Cruser jumps in and attacks the reliant with torps, you are being told to kill off some fighters while the reliant accounts for the torps. After some time you have to kill about 6 torp bombers who spawn near the reliant – you have to shot down the torps that are being fired from that bombers (which is an some kind of tricky task because wingman just seem to refuse to attack either the torpedoes or the bomber at the hard difficulty setting, they seem try it tough at medium). After you killed off the bombers you are told to destroy the turrets on the “Krasnaya” (the destoryer) which far, FAR away from the reliant. If you need too much time to kill the turrets the reliant tells you that she has been hit and is going up (I *assume* that there are some kind of bombers decloaking near the reliant). I have nothing against the fact that time is critical in this scenario but I don’t think that warthog made the right decision in not giving the player a chance to prevent the Reliant’s destruction other than killing xx % of turets in xx seconds.

 

[RFBurns]

Time and time agian!

I dont have StarLancer but I would have to say some other sim games have the same circumstances, a finite amount of time to save a ship full of civies or cargo. One game, XWA has you carrying a probe to deliver and you run into an inspection station. If you listen to what the dockyard master says, youre toast cause a hord of pirates come in and blow away your probe attached to the belly of your ship! Talk about finite time to get to the hyper point!! I know this isnt exactly like taking out bombers and incomming torps, but similar in time restraint.

RFBurns

 

[RFBurns]

Originally posted by Napoleon
OK first off, Freespace sucked, the ships handled like rocks.

Finally someone that has the same opinion on FS flight characteristics! Rocks?...more like solid concrete bricks! And something with mass will tend to "slide" given speed and rate of turn or pitch. It felt like the ships were attached to invisible rails! Fighters should never, never, never have flight characteristics to the likes of bombers and vise versa. And wholy cap ship batman!...the size of those cap ships! (a bit carried away I think!)

RFBurns

 

[Marcml30]

Rainman: You're not a pussy. While I enjoy "reasonable" time-limit missions in a game, I don't like it when their only function is to make a mission more difficult. If anyone has played I-War and remembers the "move the boxes through the doughnut" training mission you'll know what I mean by tedious and boring. I also don't think I'd like a game composed soley of timed missions. What was great about WC was that it had easy and hard missions interspersed throughout the game. Something seen in the real world.

 

[Rainman]

Indeed – reasonable time limits are ok, they add to the tension of the game, but StarLancer’s major fault was that these limits where to tight measured in hard difficulty, you where just speeding between objectives in later missions, IMHO StarLancer should have had a stronger focus on dogfighting – but that’s just my opinion. Nevertheless I don’t think that’s the reason why StarLancer was such an commercial disaster. You can blame the poor marketing efforts of Microsoft, but I doubt that any Space-Sim would do well nowadays even with a good marketing machine behind it to back it up.

The question is what game developers could do to make, the once almighty Space-Sims, more attractive for the masses, what do you think have recent Space-Sims done wrong?

 

[RFBurns]

A good space sim would allow you to form in landing patterns, enter planet atmospheres and land on a landing pad manually. Then have the ability to walk around like in FPS games, walk up to things and make them do stuff, talk to people, throw a few things around etc! I think a good sim would include stuff like this and not just have all the action in the cockpit. Lots of interactivity is needed.

RFBurns

 

[Marcml30]

Originally posted by Rainman
StarLancer’s major fault was that these limits where to tight measured in hard difficulty, you where just speeding between objectives in later missions, IMHO StarLancer should have had a stronger focus on dogfighting but that’s just my opinion. Nevertheless I don’t think that’s the reason why StarLancer was such an commercial disaster. You can blame the poor marketing efforts of Microsoft

From the looks of the review that CGW magazine gave poor marketing and mission design weren't the only problem. I believe their word for it was "flacid".

The question is what game developers could do to make, the once almighty Space-Sims, more attractive for the masses, what do you think have recent Space-Sims done wrong?

No story immersion. I have not played any game since the WC games that made me care about the characters in the story. WC had some kind of campy scifi attraction like Trek and Battlestar Gallactica (to a lesser degree). And I disagree with you on the death of space sims - it's just in a lull. Not too long ago reviewers were complaining that there weren't enough RPG games - now look at it. The space sim genre will come back once people get sick of the RPGs and start looking for something else to play.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Then have the ability to walk around like in FPS games, walk up to things and make them do stuff, talk to people, throw a few things around etc! I think a good sim would include stuff like this and not just have all the action in the cockpit. Lots of interactivity is needed.

But then you risk trading quantity for quality (and a HUGE budget). Battlecruiser might be an example of this. Also, have you tried Hardwar?

 

[Zor Prime]

Rainman: I never said that YOU were a pussy. I said that you are a pussy if you can't handle the 'stress' of completing your mission objective in a certain amount of time. So far you haven't said that. But thats what makes a game interesting. How would you like to play a game with lets say, how about, 30 missions in it. And out of those 30, 25 are 'fly in, blow everything up, and return to base'. After about three of those, its gets old, real fast. DA made the missions like that, so that you really didn't know what to expect. It keeps the game interesting.

 

[Rainman]

“Alpha flight, this is commander Enriquez, I have orders for you that you storm to the hanger and jump into your Reaper fighters, you are to head straight to that one big textured brick where Alpha 1 will attack gun turrets for straight 5 minutes, meanwhile the rest of Alpha wing will fly circles around that brick like structure and complain about the damage they are taking – but by NO MEANS tell them to attack the gun turrets, they won’t attack because at the beginning of the game you set the annoy... ehh difficulty slider to hard, therefore they wont help you at all, at most they will distract the enemy.

After you killed off the almighty Turrets, Alpha 1, you are to intercept torpedoes for another 5 minutes, after that you continue killing turrets on another brick like structure, if you aren’t quick enough we will get destroyed – and you have another 15 minute wasted blasting turrets.”

That’s the only thing I disliked about StarLancer. Time limits are fine as long as they are *reasonable*. That wasn’t the case with most of StarLancers Missions – and it REALY sucked to fly a mission about 5 times just to be there where the designer wants you at the right moment.

Originally posted by RFBurns
A good space sim would allow you to form in landing patterns, enter planet atmospheres and land on a landing pad manually. Then have the ability to walk around like in FPS games, walk up to things and make them do stuff, talk to people, throw a few things around etc! I think a good sim would include stuff like this and not just have all the action in the cockpit. Lots of interactivity is needed.

RFBurns

You can't expand a concept that isn't already accepted by the market. Before we can talk about atmosphereic flight and running around in first person we have to solve the problems of recent Space-Sims.

 

[Kain]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Finally someone that has the same opinion on FS flight characteristics! Rocks?...more like solid concrete bricks! And something with mass will tend to "slide" given speed and rate of turn or pitch. It felt like the ships were attached to invisible rails! Fighters should never, never, never have flight characteristics to the likes of bombers and vise versa. And wholy cap ship batman!...the size of those cap ships! (a bit carried away I think!)

RFBurns [/B][/QUOTE]

yeah if you have a 166 everything is slow no those cap ships are just realistic.