Return to “Games”

Post

Re: Stationeers

#2
Not gonna lie, something about this project screams "Nope nope nope" to me.

edit: have seen the review pages now; feel even more "nope nope" than before.

editedit: after looking at some of this guy's other work, I am now getting a very strong feeling of "Abandon ship!"
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Stationeers

#7
IronDuke wrote:Care to elaborate? :)

--IronDuke
- Too many buzzwords
- absurdly high graphics-card system requirements for something that looks very simple
- This should probably be mostly heavy on the CPU, or so I'd think - but instead, the CPU requirements are listed as "i5" and "i7" - that could mean anything - it's like they didn't even think about it. (spoiler: they probably didn't)
- 8GB of ram for simple textures like these is rather far-fetched unless they're trying to take memory leaks into account
- no actual promise of "real" lasting gameplay beyond the typical "build stuff" that everything offers these days: they haven't even considered endgame
- the promise to take an absurdly complex game (Space Station 13) that is fun because it is complex and make it "accessible", which clashes with how they constantly talk about how complex and difficult they want it to be
- "Science based" systems - what the heck does that even mean
- "Livestock farming" - in combination with the "science based", this means that artificial gravity is out - what are they planning, cows in spacesuits with magnetic boots?
- There is artificial gravity, which means the "science based" bit is already out
- The whole surgery/doctoring thing sounds way out of line with their "simple game"
- Breaking down their list of features vs their trailers shows that they don't actually have much solid gameplay
- - Build blocks, power generators, and link things to things - which is totally new for sure
- - You get a bar for temperature and pressure, and we set things you build on fire sometimes. You probably won't expect it, which is funny
- - Everything is science-based, except the stuff that's not: we'll destroy gravity if you don't build a room just so
- - It has physics. Most games don't have physics, right? Right?? Oh, and if you bust a wall next to space, we'll fling everything in the room at the hole. That's really hard to do, by the way. Really, seriously. We mean it. Really hard. Like... yeah. Hard.
- - We have cows! They usually don't walk through walls, either, probably
- - We have these factory things planned, like Factorio, even though that's like a whole game to itself and has absolutely nothing to do with Space Station 13
- - We'll have surgeries, and you can cure diseases! We're still figuring out how to do it - it'll either be a minigame, or you walk over to someone and hold "E" while a meter fills up
- - We'll multithread things at random. We've never really done it before, but it's simple, right? Complex things should go there, because that's totally how threading works - you're just a pleb that doesn't understand these things if you say otherwise.
- All they have so far is video of people walking through a fixed-model space station, staring at a conveyor belt, and some rather bad mining graphics. In my books, that's pretty scammy.
- Did I mention that they want you to have a really good computer to run it? Optimization issues, anyone?
- How do you lose "structural integrity" with a gravity-less block-based building system?
- They're basically trying to do absolutely everything. You know what happens to games that try to do absolutely everything? Typically, nothing. You know what happens to games that try to do absolutely everything with only a six-man team? They catastrophically fail.
- "The game has been a very long time coming, developed after attempts at other games of a roughly similar nature."
- Q: How long in Early Access? A: We're not in a rush!
- "We've deliberately kept the scope limited" Uhhhhh nope
- Q: What's the current state of the game? A: Well... we have a ton of fun at the studio (Goofing off, anyone?) "It starts, though, and you can play forever, which means it usually doesn't crash!"
- "The game is robust, so bugs shouldn't matter" (Do you even bugfix, bro)
- "Our current plan is to increase the price SUBSTANTIALLY after the game is released - BUY FAST, BUY NOW!" - yeaaaaah no
- "No firm decisions on pricing" <--- being vague, avoiding the very question they're trying to answer


That's just my initial impressions, too. It gets worse from there, after I actually started doing more research. Like others have said, this guy has a track record of failing to deliver/finish games - and of making poor-quality ones.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Stationeers

#9
Should also be noted that Dean actually has nothing to do with DayZ anymore. I don't know why, but he was pulled off the project and then it all went dark.

Dean essentially disappeared until releasing that VR game "Out of Ammo" that I liked a couple posts up.
However the track record still isn't good, back when he was a modder things were a lot better.

I had a chance to play Out of Ammo, and I can say that I actually had a great deal of fun. If anything can be said about him (Atleast with my experience) he knows how to make a fun experience.

I intend to wait and see.
:D
Post

Re: Stationeers

#10
I ended up buying this before my PC died, and now that it's back I've had a chance to try it.
Hot DAMN!

Its a super neat base constructor, with enough inventory management things that you can seriously bugger yourself up.

You think flooding your base in Dwarf Fortress is bad? Try accidentally letting toxins get into your main air management system.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron