The launch woes were expected. The blatant asset recycling (apparently including asset folders still named "ScorchedEarth" and "Aberration") screams lazy flip on what amounts to a conversion ARK mod. That bothers me much more than any launch issues.
Hopefully as folks progress into the game it sets itself apart more. Keeping an eye on it, but the apparent lazy reusing of asset data keeps me from wanting to buy right now.
I don't see the bother. It has more of its own game by using the same engine as Ark than different battle royale games that are literal copy/pastes.
The scale of the world, the different focused gameplay theme abd the MMO network setup are worth of its own merits.
The copy many assets is just logical to me, re-creating things just for the sake of make them less resembling of Ark on the engine of Ark would be rather pointless. The actual lazy bit is having re-used things that were not good points from Ark, such as its UI.
Laziness in general is bad. No need to reinvent the wheel, but it definitely brings the "quality" factor down if many assets are obvious hand-me-downs.
In the end, what will draw me will be the mechanics, which is why I'm keeping an eye on it. If the mechanics stand out as novel, I'll give it a go.
I heard they paid $500,000 dollars to modders for their work through the mod sponsorship program should they not be able to use assets that they paid for in their game?
Would Tabula Risa fans be upset if the game they wish they had back made a similar game with assets from it?
What do you mean by the modder program? Wildcard paid the modders? What does that have to do with reusing assets? Who cares how they got them; my point is hand-me-down assets communicate cutting corners. That worries me.
Wouldn't that make making better games easier rather than discard all that work and starting over?
Did Funcom use any assets from AoC to make their limited size world survival game? I haven't played that one just curious.
I get what you're saying.
I'm sure it would save work, but I'm not so sure that would result in any better work in other areas due to the division of labor expertise (i.e. artists not making new models can't just jump on the PvP design team).
That said, I have to mention that the game also isn't being sold for $60 atm. As such, I wouldn't mark it off my list solely for that con. The things I wanna see before I take the plunge are stability in network/performance and mechanics that truly set it apart from its predecessor.
So small or large not sure observation here. Got it downloaded went to server list clicked pve na and each quadrant point to pick to spawn in had different ping highest was like 126 lowest was 87 I think. Needless to say wasn't able to enter any of them. So I decided to try the pvp servers and noticed the pings were alot lower 33 on some up to like 60 or so, there was one that had 1605 but all the rests ping seemed really doable for pvp. I wonder if they bought cheaper servers for the pve part.
P.S. also each one of those spawn in points says 150 player capacity and there are only 15 which = 2250 not 40k. Is that just the starter area population?
Wouldn't that make making better games easier rather than discard all that work and starting over?
Did Funcom use any assets from AoC to make their limited size world survival game? I haven't played that one just curious.
I have no problem reusing assets and code. I reuse my code between every project I can. There's always custom stuff to write.
MMO gamer outrage at asset flipping in a genre that has been a giant asset flip for 20 years is laughable anyway. Gamers are hypocrites. They'll damn a game in one thread and fight tooth and nail to defend their game doing the same thing in another. The FO76 threads have been great for that. It's weird.
Probably a bit more than just asset flipping complaints that are a problem. This reminded me of something I read today.
So small or large not sure observation here. Got it downloaded went to server list clicked pve na and each quadrant point to pick to spawn in had different ping highest was like 126 lowest was 87 I think. Needless to say wasn't able to enter any of them. So I decided to try the pvp servers and noticed the pings were alot lower 33 on some up to like 60 or so, there was one that had 1605 but all the rests ping seemed really doable for pvp. I wonder if they bought cheaper servers for the pve part.
P.S. also each one of those spawn in points says 150 player capacity and there are only 15 which = 2250 not 40k. Is that just the starter area population?
The only question really is if they have set the instance limits too high, given how they are handling it i am a bit surprised it is over 100, if they can have the game run stably with up to 150 players then that would be impressive and surprising. I am surprised they didn't start off with a limit of 50 per instance. Its possible that the spawn areas are set to a higher 'cap' and the player limits will be less outside of those areas, also whether or not the areas are heavily instanced themselves, having players in the same area but seperate instances seems probable. The difference between the PVE and PVP 'pings' is probably due to the PVE areas being the most populated, the PVP ones could be virtually empty.
I actually had to go look up what this game even was, and when I found the story about it.....well, let's just say I will be waiting/never buying this hehe.
Wouldn't that make making better games easier rather than discard all that work and starting over?
Did Funcom use any assets from AoC to make their limited size world survival game? I haven't played that one just curious.
I have no problem reusing assets and code. I reuse my code between every project I can. There's always custom stuff to write.
MMO gamer outrage at asset flipping in a genre that has been a giant asset flip for 20 years is laughable anyway. Gamers are hypocrites. They'll damn a game in one thread and fight tooth and nail to defend their game doing the same thing in another. The FO76 threads have been great for that. It's weird.
Come now Torval, good devs don't leave obvious asset re-usage (and yes, I'm looking at Blizzard here too. WoW in the past has been one of the worst). And where have I (the MMO gamer here, apparently) made excuses for asset flips or supported them in the past?
I don't wanna see blatant asset flipping anywhere. If you wanna reuse models with minimal/no edited features in a new way, that can work and is efficient if done intelligently and the model isn't a focal feature point object. But there's a big difference between efficient and lazy, something you don't seem to acknowledge in your post.
Wouldn't that make making better games easier rather than discard all that work and starting over?
Did Funcom use any assets from AoC to make their limited size world survival game? I haven't played that one just curious.
I have no problem reusing assets and code. I reuse my code between every project I can. There's always custom stuff to write.
MMO gamer outrage at asset flipping in a genre that has been a giant asset flip for 20 years is laughable anyway. Gamers are hypocrites. They'll damn a game in one thread and fight tooth and nail to defend their game doing the same thing in another. The FO76 threads have been great for that. It's weird.
Come now Torval, good devs don't leave obvious asset re-usage (and yes, I'm looking at Blizzard here too. WoW in the past has been one of the worst). And where have I (the MMO gamer here, apparently) made excuses for asset flips or supported them in the past?
I don't wanna see blatant asset flipping anywhere. If you wanna reuse models with minimal/no edited features in a new way, that can work and is efficient if done intelligently and the model isn't a focal feature point object. But there's a big difference between efficient and lazy, something you don't seem to acknowledge in your post.
Yes they do. They most likely forked or cloned ARK from their git repo and built the game from there. It's not a big deal to me if they haven't ripped out or renamed old folder structures yet, or at all. What do I care? I don't care if they reuse assets either.
These guys make survival games. If this game feels like Pirate Survival instead of Dino Survival then great. I'd think that's what their core demographic is looking for.
Sometimes derivation works and sometimes it flops. Whether this works or not depends on if it is enjoyable to play, not the methods to build it. Bethesda just tried derivation and it didn't go as planned. Ubisoft just pulled off a few incredible derivative coups this year. MMO expansions are the grossest examples of rehash. See where I'm going?
I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about how software developers should do things. I look at their results. If I like the results I'm happy because it's about the code. If I don't then whatever. I don't really like how a lot of software projects are run, so I don't get involved with them. It ends there for me.
If these guys start pulling a bunch of crap like adding a cash shop later, or promising concurrency and not delivering, or any number of shenanigans studios pull lately, like selling DLC before they leave EA, then I'll take issue with that. I don't care how they develop the product up to that point.
Really? They reuse assets blatantly, without editing or modifying them to make them fresh? Then why is it titular characters like Geralt look distinctly different throughout the series? That would be one that re-usage would be absolutely expected, as he's the same character throughout, yet they modified his aesthetic for each game, even if they kept his basic features/model the same. Same with characters like Triss.
Again, there's a difference between being efficient and being lazy.
Wouldn't that make making better games easier rather than discard all that work and starting over?
Did Funcom use any assets from AoC to make their limited size world survival game? I haven't played that one just curious.
I have no problem reusing assets and code. I reuse my code between every project I can. There's always custom stuff to write.
MMO gamer outrage at asset flipping in a genre that has been a giant asset flip for 20 years is laughable anyway. Gamers are hypocrites. They'll damn a game in one thread and fight tooth and nail to defend their game doing the same thing in another. The FO76 threads have been great for that. It's weird.
Come now Torval, good devs don't leave obvious asset re-usage (and yes, I'm looking at Blizzard here too. WoW in the past has been one of the worst). And where have I (the MMO gamer here, apparently) made excuses for asset flips or supported them in the past?
I don't wanna see blatant asset flipping anywhere. If you wanna reuse models with minimal/no edited features in a new way, that can work and is efficient if done intelligently and the model isn't a focal feature point object. But there's a big difference between efficient and lazy, something you don't seem to acknowledge in your post.
Yes they do. They most likely forked or cloned ARK from their git repo and built the game from there. It's not a big deal to me if they haven't ripped out or renamed old folder structures yet, or at all. What do I care? I don't care if they reuse assets either.
These guys make survival games. If this game feels like Pirate Survival instead of Dino Survival then great. I'd think that's what their core demographic is looking for.
Sometimes derivation works and sometimes it flops. Whether this works or not depends on if it is enjoyable to play, not the methods to build it. Bethesda just tried derivation and it didn't go as planned. Ubisoft just pulled off a few incredible derivative coups this year. MMO expansions are the grossest examples of rehash. See where I'm going?
I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about how software developers should do things. I look at their results. If I like the results I'm happy because it's about the code. If I don't then whatever. I don't really like how a lot of software projects are run, so I don't get involved with them. It ends there for me.
If these guys start pulling a bunch of crap like adding a cash shop later, or promising concurrency and not delivering, or any number of shenanigans studios pull lately, like selling DLC before they leave EA, then I'll take issue with that. I don't care how they develop the product up to that point.
Really? They reuse assets blatantly, without editing or modifying them to make them fresh? Then why is it titular characters like Geralt look distinctly different throughout the series? That would be one that re-usage would be absolutely expected, as he's the same character throughout, yet they modified his aesthetic for each game, even if they kept his basic features/model the same. Same with characters like Triss.
Again, there's a difference between being efficient and being lazy.
There is a disparity between how things work and how you imagine they work.
Elaborate then. Is there not a difference between lazily porting assets, unchanged, in large swathes as opposed to modifying or sparsely using old assets?
And no offense, but your code example is irrelevant. The end user doesn't see the code. It's not an art asset.
Wouldn't that make making better games easier rather than discard all that work and starting over?
Did Funcom use any assets from AoC to make their limited size world survival game? I haven't played that one just curious.
I have no problem reusing assets and code. I reuse my code between every project I can. There's always custom stuff to write.
MMO gamer outrage at asset flipping in a genre that has been a giant asset flip for 20 years is laughable anyway. Gamers are hypocrites. They'll damn a game in one thread and fight tooth and nail to defend their game doing the same thing in another. The FO76 threads have been great for that. It's weird.
Come now Torval, good devs don't leave obvious asset re-usage (and yes, I'm looking at Blizzard here too. WoW in the past has been one of the worst). And where have I (the MMO gamer here, apparently) made excuses for asset flips or supported them in the past?
I don't wanna see blatant asset flipping anywhere. If you wanna reuse models with minimal/no edited features in a new way, that can work and is efficient if done intelligently and the model isn't a focal feature point object. But there's a big difference between efficient and lazy, something you don't seem to acknowledge in your post.
Yes they do. They most likely forked or cloned ARK from their git repo and built the game from there. It's not a big deal to me if they haven't ripped out or renamed old folder structures yet, or at all. What do I care? I don't care if they reuse assets either.
These guys make survival games. If this game feels like Pirate Survival instead of Dino Survival then great. I'd think that's what their core demographic is looking for.
Sometimes derivation works and sometimes it flops. Whether this works or not depends on if it is enjoyable to play, not the methods to build it. Bethesda just tried derivation and it didn't go as planned. Ubisoft just pulled off a few incredible derivative coups this year. MMO expansions are the grossest examples of rehash. See where I'm going?
I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about how software developers should do things. I look at their results. If I like the results I'm happy because it's about the code. If I don't then whatever. I don't really like how a lot of software projects are run, so I don't get involved with them. It ends there for me.
If these guys start pulling a bunch of crap like adding a cash shop later, or promising concurrency and not delivering, or any number of shenanigans studios pull lately, like selling DLC before they leave EA, then I'll take issue with that. I don't care how they develop the product up to that point.
Really? They reuse assets blatantly, without editing or modifying them to make them fresh? Then why is it titular characters like Geralt look distinctly different throughout the series? That would be one that re-usage would be absolutely expected, as he's the same character throughout, yet they modified his aesthetic for each game, even if they kept his basic features/model the same. Same with characters like Triss.
Again, there's a difference between being efficient and being lazy.
There is a disparity between how things work and how you imagine they work.
Elaborate then. Is there not a difference between lazily porting assets, unchanged, in large swathes as opposed to modifying or sparsely using old assets?
And no offense, but your code example is irrelevant. The end user doesn't see the code. It's not an art asset.
Because it's not all about art assets. This wasn't even about textures originally. This was people finding folder names and leaping to conclusions as to what that had to imply.
Did you actually see something specific that shouldn't have been used or reused? Did they copy paste some blatant gimmick from ARK all over ATLAS? What exactly shouldn't have been used? That's the real question.
If you just don't like the idea and have no specifics then we're done because I'm not interested in micromanaging other peoples projects from the theory side of things. I hate when my projects get micromanaged and I try really hard not to even go there with others.
Now, if you actually have an instance where you think it was poorly done and shouldn't have been used then reference that and then maybe we can form an opinion because that's tangible. If you feel like they've been copy pasting something in a ridiculous manner then let's out that because I think it's cheap. Reuse where it makes sense. Don't be cheap when something should be developed from scratch whether that be code or art.
To me, so far the game looks like the same artists that worked on ARK worked on ATLAS. It looks like they built it off their same core engine code and use the same kinds of lighting and all that. The parts that seem like ARK feel common to any survival type. The parts that look piratey don't look much like how it works in ARK at all. Also, it's early access and I'm cautious of those because they can flip flop directions at any time and that's happened.
The audio has been reported both here by users (iirc) and Steam as being identical to ARK. They've also reported actual environmental assets ported over completely unchanged. At least cleverly hide or position the damn things to avoid it immediately sounding bells in the ARK player's head of "oh wow, it feels like I've been here dozens of times already."
I get that basic models and textures are shared, but you can position, modify, or light those assets in a way that makes them seem new. However, that takes skill and careful planning, the type of careful planning that doesn't result in delaying a release date AFTER the time/date had clearly passed.
This studio doesn't have enough cred for me to ignore that shit. At the same time, I can recognize it's not being sold for $60 which is why I said elsewhere I'm waiting on more details about how the gameplay differs from ARK. Because if they don't do something significant enough, like it or not, those file folders and hidden menu options will paint a shitty picture of just how much time was actually spent developing this game.
The fact that they used assets from Ark is not an issue. They just did a very poor job of making it feel like a new game and that, IMO, is what people should be focusing on.
The problem with everyone making a big deal about it actually using assets is that most developers who create more than one game that are alike will in fact reuse some assets. The emphasis should be about the quality in which they did it.
The fact that they used assets from Ark is not an issue. They just did a very poor job of making it feel like a new game and that, IMO, is what people should be focusing on.
The problem with everyone making a big deal about it actually using assets is that most developers who create more than one game that are alike will in fact reuse some assets. The emphasis should be about the quality in which they did it.
Well, that was my point in debating with Torval. There's effience in reusing base models, then there's porting audio and environments, for example, over wholesale without even using or changing them in a way that prevents ARK players from immediately recognizing the exact same assets.
The good news is that while the sounds are similar, or identical in some cases .... the art assets are entirely new from what I've seen. All of the mobs, terrain, buildings are certainly built off old Ark assets but have been changed. Like I said in another forum ... there is enough new and unique here to satisfy me.
* Working on configuring our private server now, having issues with harvest permissions which is strange. The dev kit for private servers is nice so far.
The good news is that while the sounds are similar, or identical in some cases .... the art assets are entirely new from what I've seen. All of the mobs, terrain, buildings are certainly built off old Ark assets but have been changed. Like I said in another forum ... there is enough new and unique here to satisfy me.
* Working on configuring our private server now, having issues with harvest permissions which is strange. The dev kit for private servers is nice so far.
In what ways do you mean? Because that conflicts with what I'm reading from users elsewhere. Not saying you're wrong, but that isn't the message I've been seeing.
Most textures seem to have changed from what I remember in Ark. (Played all the DLC minus Extinction, and most of the mods). The grass texture is different from what I remember. The harvestables are different .. such as Turmeric, Arctic Raspberries, fiber. The trees are different from what I remember as well. The tropical palm tree's look the most similar but I didn't immediately register them as pastes from Ark. All of the creatures are obviously different, the ones I've seen at least. I haven't seen a croc or sarco yet to tell if that skin is different. The mantas are really similar, maybe even copies not sure though. As for the buildings, items, and clothing ... they have all obviously changed from what I remember as well. Smooth texture interior wood walls, doors are different. I think wood ceilings even look a bit smoother than I'm used to. Granted i'm only in the early stage of the game .. but enough seems newish that I'm happy.
I'd have to start taking screenshots of an Ark server and then compare it to Atlas to drive home the differences though.
Most textures seem to have changed from what I remember in Ark. (Played all the DLC minus Extinction, and most of the mods). The grass texture is different from what I remember. The harvestables are different .. such as Turmeric, Arctic Raspberries, fiber. The trees are different from what I remember as well. The tropical palm tree's look the most similar but I didn't immediately register them as pastes from Ark. All of the creatures are obviously different, the ones I've seen at least. I haven't seen a croc or sarco yet to tell if that skin is different. The mantas are really similar, maybe even copies not sure though. As for the buildings, items, and clothing ... they have all obviously changed from what I remember as well. Smooth texture interior wood walls, doors are different. I think wood ceilings even look a bit smoother than I'm used to. Granted i'm only in the early stage of the game .. but enough seems newish that I'm happy.
I'd have to start taking screenshots of an Ark server and then compare it to Atlas to drive home the differences though.
No need to do this unless you just want to for informative purposes. Thanks for sharing though, because again, what I've seen and read indicates differently. I've not seen you post irrational stuff around here, so your input here holds weight imo.
No need to do this unless you just want to for informative purposes. Thanks for sharing though, because again, what I've seen and read indicates differently. I've not seen you post irrational stuff around here, so your input here holds weight imo.
I can pop a few screen shots of the private server, perhaps people here can find the similarities between Atlas's models and Arks. The game is undeniably Ark ... there's no real question about that. I wonder how many assets they pulled from Dark and Light though .. I didn't play that one much.
Apparently you can move down the menu with a controller and chose a hidden "ARK menu" that lets you run the game offline as a MOD. . also there are folders . . apparently named from the ARK expansions in the games directory. It is listed as an OCEAN mod according to some reviews. Again, I am happy to play it if it is a mod and just as happy to be able to play offline.
This one is shaping up to receive the same mixed, extreme reactions that ARK did. The fact that Atlas will launch the ARK menu with "Ocean" as the selected DLC makes me suspicious of the idea that this wasn't merely an originally planned ARK DLC they decided they wanted to sell as a new title, though. Afaik, Ocean was never an option in that menu in ARK, so it can't be explained away by mere oversight.
It probably was originally planned as a DLC - with extinction not doing as well as anticipated et al.
Which wouldn't personally rub me the wrong way if they were up front about that.
Would you have been angry had they said "hey, we got this new game Atlas, it was supposed to be an ARK DLC, but we wanted to do more with it and give you guys an entirely new survival experience!"?
Comments
Did Funcom use any assets from AoC to make their limited size world survival game? I haven't played that one just curious.
I'm sure it would save work, but I'm not so sure that would result in any better work in other areas due to the division of labor expertise (i.e. artists not making new models can't just jump on the PvP design team).
That said, I have to mention that the game also isn't being sold for $60 atm. As such, I wouldn't mark it off my list solely for that con. The things I wanna see before I take the plunge are stability in network/performance and mechanics that truly set it apart from its predecessor.
P.S. also each one of those spawn in points says 150 player capacity and there are only 15 which = 2250 not 40k. Is that just the starter area population?
https://medium.com/@morganjaffit/the-cost-of-doing-business-c09cc5cc8728
The difference between the PVE and PVP 'pings' is probably due to the PVE areas being the most populated, the PVP ones could be virtually empty.
I don't wanna see blatant asset flipping anywhere. If you wanna reuse models with minimal/no edited features in a new way, that can work and is efficient if done intelligently and the model isn't a focal feature point object. But there's a big difference between efficient and lazy, something you don't seem to acknowledge in your post.
Again, there's a difference between being efficient and being lazy.
And no offense, but your code example is irrelevant. The end user doesn't see the code. It's not an art asset.
I get that basic models and textures are shared, but you can position, modify, or light those assets in a way that makes them seem new. However, that takes skill and careful planning, the type of careful planning that doesn't result in delaying a release date AFTER the time/date had clearly passed.
This studio doesn't have enough cred for me to ignore that shit. At the same time, I can recognize it's not being sold for $60 which is why I said elsewhere I'm waiting on more details about how the gameplay differs from ARK. Because if they don't do something significant enough, like it or not, those file folders and hidden menu options will paint a shitty picture of just how much time was actually spent developing this game.
The problem with everyone making a big deal about it actually using assets is that most developers who create more than one game that are alike will in fact reuse some assets. The emphasis should be about the quality in which they did it.
* Working on configuring our private server now, having issues with harvest permissions which is strange. The dev kit for private servers is nice so far.
Now if only they had spent a bit more time polishing it and making it run well first :P
I'd have to start taking screenshots of an Ark server and then compare it to Atlas to drive home the differences though.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Wanna look at them when I'm not on my phone.
This one is shaping up to receive the same mixed, extreme reactions that ARK did. The fact that Atlas will launch the ARK menu with "Ocean" as the selected DLC makes me suspicious of the idea that this wasn't merely an originally planned ARK DLC they decided they wanted to sell as a new title, though. Afaik, Ocean was never an option in that menu in ARK, so it can't be explained away by mere oversight.
Would you have been angry had they said "hey, we got this new game Atlas, it was supposed to be an ARK DLC, but we wanted to do more with it and give you guys an entirely new survival experience!"?