Victor Tombs wrote:Was PULSAR: Lost Colony not to your liking Flat? It's making good progress in development.
- Random
- Galaxies
- ...Yeah!
Victor Tombs wrote:Was PULSAR: Lost Colony not to your liking Flat? It's making good progress in development.
I backed it at VISIONARY level ThymineC and the only regret I have is that it didn't attract enough funding to achieve many of its stretch goals. They are still funding via their main site though so there is still a chance for some additional achievements.ThymineC wrote:Victor Tombs wrote:Was PULSAR: Lost Colony not to your liking Flat? It's making good progress in development.Haha, the Kickstarter video for that was pretty sweet. The sky looks absolutely stunning here.
- Random
- Galaxies
- ...Yeah!
That sounds like a great idea for a project Flat. I enjoy reading your ideas for LT so I could see such a game being of interest to me. I look forward to hearing what you finally decide to do.Flatfingers wrote:I did check out Pulsar. My antennae are always up for things like this.
While I'm all for making it, and I like a lot of its announced features, it's not something I'll be playing. The co-op features don't do anything for me, but more importantly, roguelike permadeath makes exploration too risky. But exploring systems is what I look for in games! (That's one of the reasons why Limit Theory is so attractive to me.)
Hey, maybe I know my next project now.
Indeed, thanks for dropping it. The third screen shot shows exactly what I'm talking about. A console in a big, empty room with boring floor tiles. That's a non-entity. Exactly the thing that's not worth spending a single developer's thought (or a single customer's penny) for.Hardenberg wrote:I'll just drop this here.
http://elliptic-games.com/
If we ere talking a ww2 sim, sure. But this is the future with heavy automation. There is no reason one should have to even leave their seat to access pretty much any ship system.Flatfingers wrote:Suppose on the other hand that starships are complex things composed of numerous systems with which you can interact in deep ways, and that you'll be flying one particular ship for many in-game hours. In this case, it basically becomes a character -- it's internally complex enough to have its own personality.
When ships are characters, interiors can be valuable because they give you an interface for interacting in multiple different ways with your ship, just like you would with an interesting person. Because these different gameplay interactions are something you'll do a lot of, the cost to implement them in visibly and functionally detailed ways pays itself off by helping each kind of gameplay feel as unique as possible.
That makes a lot of sense. Operating a ship is a pretty simple thing. A guy on the bridge cranked the engine repeater to the ahead flank position. The throttleman opens up the throttles. EOS may have called down to me and ordered me to light off another feed pump and condensate pump.What doesn't make sense is having lots of interactions with a complex technological artifact like a starship by mashing a few cooldown-timered buttons. In this case, one might as well be piloting a ship-shaped lump of metal that can spam magic powers. (Which is precisely what Cryptic did in Star Trek Online.) Rendering detailed ship systems through the metaphor of being physical places inside a ship helps make each kind of gameplay mode expressed through those locations more distinctive, and thus more enjoyable.
All this sounds like Star Citizen. I don't think LT should be like ST. They are two completely different beasts.Captain L Adama wrote:- spaceships could be multiplayer rooms, each with specific missions.
- fly small crafts yourself, bigger ships you can be a gunner etc.
- set the autopilot, then out of chair. To party in lounge and meet others. If you get message on watch...youre needed on deck. Head back.
- promotion tree. Begin as rookie with small ship. End as commander of multiple ships
- 2 person fighter craft, 8 person carriers for low scale recon/mission
- planetbases each planet with diffrent engines (dlc?)
- battlestar g. Colony style vessels wich you can visit.
Two thoughts on that:Gazz wrote:X3 and Rebirth are both great examples of trying to make the game "work" on too many scales.
In X3 you can fly a single fighter, upgrade it's weapons, use many different missiles, and buy lots of different upgrades.
And you can run a galactic empire with carrier fleets, weapon and ammo production, and whatnot.
The detailed gameplay of the former makes the gameplay of the latter highly frustrating and micromanagy because there are no mechanisms for abstraction. When you run 12 carrier fleets you still get to equip every laser and missile and piece of upgrade on every single bloody fighter.
In Rebirth you can leave the ship and run around on a space station... and you can command fleets of destroyers. (carriers once they implement production of fighters =)
They did flesh out neither of those aspects enough to be fun.
The gap between a single person and a ship is huge so crossing that line is very dangerous. LT doesn't do it. A ship is the smallest 3D entity in the game world. NPC (and "the player") may end up modeled as an abstract data construct that can "be" on a ship or station but that's about it.
Ship interiors can be a good thing but I don't believe they are workable if the player can have more than one ship active in space at the same time.
Star Citizen has gotten that part right. It's far smaller scale than LT because you'll never have more than a single ship. It's just not doable while dragging that level of detail through the entire gameplay.
This is why I don't want to see them. I spent years onboard a ship, and I know for a fact that no game would ever do it justice.Etsu wrote:The main reason to have ship interiors to me is: inmersion. A complex word, but I can't think of an alternative right now.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests