>>>Call of Duty IW is going to be SQ42 but better graphics>>>
Interesting that the CoD fans themselves very aggressively call the CoD:IW graphics "outdated" and vote it down like there is no tomorrow.
And that AAA studio you talk about is so unsure about the CoD:IW success that they pack an exclusive remastered version of their most successful CoD game into the CoD:IW package (which players cannot get elsewhere) just to be sure that they get enough sales. That is not MY opinion ... you find these comments all over the CoD discussion forums.
As i said before ... i find it ironic that it seems that i like CoD:IW more than the average CoD fan.
COD playerbase is one FPS lover audience that expects just that.
What people wanted the next COD to be, is what Battlefield 1 now announced to be. That is the wish to go back to some of the older COD titles instead of the futuristic sci-fi approach.
But as i am not really part of the COD playerbase the new game as announced is more interesting because it has gameplay elements i like.
Not sure why anyone would want automated gameplay or automated generation.just like with real world products,handcrafted is the best quality and imo is not even close in comparison.BTW i am not just pointing the finger at C but most ALL game devs.
I understand certain areas can be done well via automated but imo the WORLD is the most important part of the game that most all devs are ignoring.
I doubt the team really cares,their goal is to create a game that generates $$$$ and the selling of ships peripherals is EASY lure to draw in spenders.Point being,i highly doubt they care about the WORLD because 2-3 years the ONLY thing we pretty much witnessed was remnants of a space station and some very BORING SPACE.With a HUGE team they showed us ZERO effort in creating worlds or land ideas,so yeah i am correct on my assumption.
I really do not understand the like for games like SC and Eve,really baffles me,makes me feel i am totally correct in assuming it is all about the $$$ and ships and not the game and world because SPACE will NEVER ...100% never be anything but bland boring area.
The whole idea behind auto generating a world is something i thought about man years ago,but NOT as a single world generated but instead would allow a dev to create multiple worlds that can be landed on and inhabited,instead devs are using modern tech to cheapen and speed up game design,not something i enjoy watching.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The whole idea behind auto generating a world is something i thought about man years ago,but NOT as a single world generated but instead would allow a dev to create multiple worlds that can be landed on and inhabited,instead devs are using modern tech to cheapen and speed up game design,not something i enjoy watching.
We like it or not, you simply can't create the scope and scale of something of a planet alone, and simply hand-craft it to make it have amazing levels of content and detail, that's simply put as not worth the development effort by any studio around.
Either it is SC, ED, EvE, NMS, etc.. etc... PG is always a filler, it allows the massive scale and scope of the worlds you see on games like ED, yet they come with the flaws that is the content you have on those, on ED PG Planets are this "WOW!" factor but when it comes to gameplay there's little to it. And i don't think SC on the matter of PG Planets will escape that downside.
It's the classic choice, do you want quantity or quality? Because having one massive universe without sacrificing the quality that you could achieve by doing it on a smaller scale is just the giveaway.
ME is going to have over 100 solar systems for space exploration. You will make first contact with several alien races. You will colonize several planets. This involves exploration, study of atmosphere and plant animal life on the planets. Massive persistent universe. We are not sure about space combat or how ship flight works.
Call of Duty IW is going to be SQ42 but better graphics and made by a AAA studio.
???
1) Mass Effect is not any MMO, Star Citizen is, and that's for what i backed SC and i'll likely play Mass Effect as well, for 2 different games and gameplay experiences lol :chuffed:
2) COD is one undeniable FPS game that on this new game will introduce and yes some of space flight and combat, when SQ42 is the complete opposite (that is instead of a FPS with space flight and combat, it is a Space Sim with FPS elements)
Also meant for different audiences, it's like saying COD and ARMA are the same audience cause they're both FPS games. Common now, be serious. --'
More games, better for everybody! The people who have been complaining SC's gameplay is not what they wanted can possibly buy and have fun on the COD Space Sim Game!
I dont get it. SQ42 is a single player campaign for SC. COD has a single player campaign that involves space flight fighting first person combat space combat ect ect... Everything that SQ42 will have. Actually name one thing that SQ42 has that you will not see in the new COD.
>>>Call of Duty IW is going to be SQ42 but better graphics>>>
Interesting that the CoD fans themselves very aggressively call the CoD:IW graphics "outdated" and vote it down like there is no tomorrow.
And that AAA studio you talk about is so unsure about the CoD:IW success that they pack an exclusive remastered version of their most successful CoD game into the CoD:IW package (which players cannot get elsewhere) just to be sure that they get enough sales. That is not MY opinion ... you find these comments all over the CoD discussion forums.
As i said before ... i find it ironic that it seems that i like CoD:IW more than the average CoD fan.
Have fun
Yea the COD fans don't like it because of the scifi elements. They wanted more of the same old sitting on planet earth using tanks shooting at each other. When COD decided to make it space simulation combat that includes everything from flying ships to boarding ships floating in space shooting each other to planetary landing.
Not sure why anyone would want automated gameplay or automated generation.just like with real world products,handcrafted is the best quality and imo is not even close in comparison.BTW i am not just pointing the finger at C but most ALL game devs.
I understand certain areas can be done well via automated but imo the WORLD is the most important part of the game that most all devs are ignoring.
I doubt the team really cares,their goal is to create a game that generates $$$$ and the selling of ships peripherals is EASY lure to draw in spenders.Point being,i highly doubt they care about the WORLD because 2-3 years the ONLY thing we pretty much witnessed was remnants of a space station and some very BORING SPACE.With a HUGE team they showed us ZERO effort in creating worlds or land ideas,so yeah i am correct on my assumption.
I really do not understand the like for games like SC and Eve,really baffles me,makes me feel i am totally correct in assuming it is all about the $$$ and ships and not the game and world because SPACE will NEVER ...100% never be anything but bland boring area.
The whole idea behind auto generating a world is something i thought about man years ago,but NOT as a single world generated but instead would allow a dev to create multiple worlds that can be landed on and inhabited,instead devs are using modern tech to cheapen and speed up game design,not something i enjoy watching.
Some people see it as a silver bullet to solve a problem.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I dont get it. SQ42 is a single player campaign for SC. COD has a single player campaign that involves space flight fighting first person combat space combat ect ect... Everything that SQ42 will have. Actually name one thing that SQ42 has that you will not see in the new COD.
As there is ARMA games that do offer the same features as other COD games, yet they have complete different audiences. The fact 2 games have the X same feature do not mean they play the same.
And be serious now, COD is a FPS game, SQ42 isn't (neither it was ever claimed it was over having one FPS element that said to represent around 30% of gameplay). There's primary and secondary gameplay elements, there's also the difference of a game made for more casual or more hardcore players (that appeals to younger or older crowds).
You can say it's the same all day long, but if you're saying to me you're getting a in-depth Space Sim gameplay on a COD game as it is set to be on most of SQ42's gameplay.... Would you be able to defend such claim here with a straight face?
What I dont understand is how no mans sky is out but were are still waiting so long for this game especially with its Budget.
Because they make so much money selling ships they want to delay SC as long as possible so they will launch Marines, SQ42, and maybe some other stuff first. Don't want to kill the cash cow.
I wouldn't be surprise if a good section of their staff is working on new ship designs and creations.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I really hope they have space stations orbiting those planets, would love to look out the window and have a view like the ISS Space Station has
Yeah that's certainly going to be happen, for example the Landing Area on Crusader (the Gas Giant the current alpha map surrounds) is around this idea:
I'm eager to see what they can pull off on that section of visuals using PG.
When Brian Chambers mentions about blowing trees, spliters and while flying around min9 hinting that destruction will be there. Though it was said planets will not deform but the objects on the surface seems they will.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I was not expecting anything like that because they didn't say anything about it. One day everyone was "Yeah and the landing will be a loading screen while a cg shows your ship doing the landing and so" and, ok, it's the standard, it is the expected. Then, bam! Manual planetary landing on procedural generated planets.
Nobody was expecting that.
If RSI is quiet it is because they are plotting something (like they did with pg) and they are quiet for some time now. I hope what's next.
And about milking the cow, @Octagon7711, they'll sell stuff after release so delaying the updates to get money makes no sense (even less sense if you consider the refunds and some bad press the game gets for it's time on development). But I understand, had many bosses that thinks just like you, like if you take 9 women the baby will be born in 1 month.
You do realize none of this is every remotely close to being playable in the game, right? Like, they haven't even started to consider to make it possible. They just said "oh hey, CryEngine has some PG built into it" and that's it.
You do realize none of this is every remotely close to being playable in the game, right? Like, they haven't even started to consider to make it possible. They just said "oh hey, CryEngine has some PG built into it" and that's it.
You really don't know what you're talking about here. It's best to check facts and info we have here. If we talk about Facts, they had one in-engine PG last year when it was revealed, the prototype...
These days... In this images you're talking IN-GAME, as the article writer states the performance of this running on the game (around 45FPS on a gtx980), and 100 FPS on-engine.
As some have said the key test is when this stuff is released to the alpha.
However what is interesting is that they have set targets for this stuff: 2.6 and 2.7.
Since the launch of the alpha they have refrained from setting hard targets - which suggests that they are confident that this is going to drop in 2.6 and 2.7.
So from: the money has been used to buy an island; there is no game and no employees; its just jpegs; its just a video; there is no space station; no planets; only one station; no missions; hardly any missions; etc. etc.
to:
there is only one solar system; the planetary graphics shown are not very good; lets compare the game to a couple of upcoming AAA titles.
At least the discussion is moving in the right direction.
And if I was RSI I think I would be very happy being compared to CoD and ME and two big studios.
(I too think ME looks very good - even if all we have seen is a promo! - and believe the delay is because EA are now planning a "Destiny like game" - but that is just my opinion.)
Well, there's still no game and not even a single solar system. There's only screenshots of it. Once it's playable in the alpha the progress has been made, but not before.
I dont get it. SQ42 is a single player campaign for SC. COD has a single player campaign that involves space flight fighting first person combat space combat ect ect... Everything that SQ42 will have. Actually name one thing that SQ42 has that you will not see in the new COD.
As there is ARMA games that do offer the same features as other COD games, yet they have complete different audiences. The fact 2 games have the X same feature do not mean they play the same.
And be serious now, COD is a FPS game, SQ42 isn't (neither it was ever claimed it was over having one FPS element that said to represent around 30% of gameplay). There's primary and secondary gameplay elements, there's also the difference of a game made for more casual or more hardcore players (that appeals to younger or older crowds).
You can say it's the same all day long, but if you're saying to me you're getting a in-depth Space Sim gameplay on a COD game as it is set to be on most of SQ42's gameplay.... Would you be able to defend such claim here with a straight face?
I don't think you know what SQ42 is. Watch the trailer for sq42 then watch the trailer for codiw its the same thing just different story. Just like COD, Battlefield, Arma are basically the same game but with different story or atmospheres.
Please since I'm wrong it should be really easy to name something that SQ42 will have that CODIW will not. SQ42 is not a space sim its a single player space campaign. It will not be part of the persistant universe.
Well, there's still no game and not even a single solar system. There's only screenshots of it. Once it's playable in the alpha the progress has been made, but not before.
Still you come here making such un-truthful claims. If for you it's progress when it's released in-game then wait for it...
...don't say it's nothing but in-engine footage that is not even close neither haven't they even thought of how to add it in-game... When as clearly stated here they here have not only saw this working in the game and even analyzed it's performance while in-game & engine.
It's a matter of being truthful and not let your bias be used to spread mis-information or your opinions as facts.
Comments
Interesting that the CoD fans themselves very aggressively call the CoD:IW graphics "outdated" and vote it down like there is no tomorrow.
And that AAA studio you talk about is so unsure about the CoD:IW success that they pack an exclusive remastered version of their most successful CoD game into the CoD:IW package (which players cannot get elsewhere) just to be sure that they get enough sales. That is not MY opinion ... you find these comments all over the CoD discussion forums.
As i said before ... i find it ironic that it seems that i like CoD:IW more than the average CoD fan.
Have fun
What people wanted the next COD to be, is what Battlefield 1 now announced to be. That is the wish to go back to some of the older COD titles instead of the futuristic sci-fi approach.
But as i am not really part of the COD playerbase the new game as announced is more interesting because it has gameplay elements i like.
I understand certain areas can be done well via automated but imo the WORLD is the most important part of the game that most all devs are ignoring.
I doubt the team really cares,their goal is to create a game that generates $$$$ and the selling of ships peripherals is EASY lure to draw in spenders.Point being,i highly doubt they care about the WORLD because 2-3 years the ONLY thing we pretty much witnessed was remnants of a space station and some very BORING SPACE.With a HUGE team they showed us ZERO effort in creating worlds or land ideas,so yeah i am correct on my assumption.
I really do not understand the like for games like SC and Eve,really baffles me,makes me feel i am totally correct in assuming it is all about the $$$ and ships and not the game and world because SPACE will NEVER ...100% never be anything but bland boring area.
The whole idea behind auto generating a world is something i thought about man years ago,but NOT as a single world generated but instead would allow a dev to create multiple worlds that can be landed on and inhabited,instead devs are using modern tech to cheapen and speed up game design,not something i enjoy watching.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Either it is SC, ED, EvE, NMS, etc.. etc... PG is always a filler, it allows the massive scale and scope of the worlds you see on games like ED, yet they come with the flaws that is the content you have on those, on ED PG Planets are this "WOW!" factor but when it comes to gameplay there's little to it. And i don't think SC on the matter of PG Planets will escape that downside.
It's the classic choice, do you want quantity or quality? Because having one massive universe without sacrificing the quality that you could achieve by doing it on a smaller scale is just the giveaway.
Some people see it as a silver bullet to solve a problem.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
And be serious now, COD is a FPS game, SQ42 isn't (neither it was ever claimed it was over having one FPS element that said to represent around 30% of gameplay). There's primary and secondary gameplay elements, there's also the difference of a game made for more casual or more hardcore players (that appeals to younger or older crowds).
You can say it's the same all day long, but if you're saying to me you're getting a in-depth Space Sim gameplay on a COD game as it is set to be on most of SQ42's gameplay.... Would you be able to defend such claim here with a straight face?
I wouldn't be surprise if a good section of their staff is working on new ship designs and creations.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I'm eager to see what they can pull off on that section of visuals using PG.
When Brian Chambers mentions about blowing trees, spliters and while flying around min9 hinting that destruction will be there. Though it was said planets will not deform but the objects on the surface seems they will.
Have fun
This is a problem with it. I wrote a PG for quest/dungeon generation back in 90 and it was the most noticeable thing about it.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
These days... In this images you're talking IN-GAME, as the article writer states the performance of this running on the game (around 45FPS on a gtx980), and 100 FPS on-engine.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
However what is interesting is that they have set targets for this stuff: 2.6 and 2.7.
Since the launch of the alpha they have refrained from setting hard targets - which suggests that they are confident that this is going to drop in 2.6 and 2.7.
So from: the money has been used to buy an island; there is no game and no employees; its just jpegs; its just a video; there is no space station; no planets; only one station; no missions; hardly any missions; etc. etc.
to:
there is only one solar system; the planetary graphics shown are not very good; lets compare the game to a couple of upcoming AAA titles.
At least the discussion is moving in the right direction.
And if I was RSI I think I would be very happy being compared to CoD and ME and two big studios.
(I too think ME looks very good - even if all we have seen is a promo! - and believe the delay is because EA are now planning a "Destiny like game" - but that is just my opinion.)
Please since I'm wrong it should be really easy to name something that SQ42 will have that CODIW will not. SQ42 is not a space sim its a single player space campaign. It will not be part of the persistant universe.
Have fun
...don't say it's nothing but in-engine footage that is not even close neither haven't they even thought of how to add it in-game... When as clearly stated here they here have not only saw this working in the game and even analyzed it's performance while in-game & engine.
It's a matter of being truthful and not let your bias be used to spread mis-information or your opinions as facts.