Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Venek on August 29, 2009, 12:12:03 pm
-
This might be coming across as being hopelessly hopeful (I know, bad pun, so slap me), but given the popularity of the game on GOG.com and the relatively well-publicized efforts of the fine folks of SCP, I can't help but wonder if there might be some developer out there who'd be interested in bringing the Freespace franchise back from the dead. I've been reading some reviews on GOG.com by people who've bought it and, while it's akin to drinking Kool-Aid, they're all extolling the virtues of the game. It's consistently among the top sellers on the site and I'm sure that Turey's site for downloading the FSO installer has seen a big bump in traffic.
So, am I being an old-fashioned romantic or could there be life ahead for the space sim genre?
-
Actually, there is a developer who is interested in bringing it back, Volition, but there's not really a market for that type of game and Interplay is selling the IP for an "insane" amount.
-
There is a company that has expressed interest in bringing FS back. Small, unknown studio, called Volition or something like that.
As for the spacesim genre.....Hard to say. Maybe, if LucasArts' efforts to bring back X-Wing are a success, and if the new MechWarrior can rekindle interest in more complicated games, then yeah. I guess it could just become reality.
-
People need to learn how to think again first... FS2 is too complicated for most standards, most of my friends (on the intelligent end of the spectrum) didn't make it past training 2 before getting bored. People need to change.
-
That's because the training missions are, in fact, boring.
-
Actually, there is a developer who is interested in bringing it back, Volition, but there's not really a market for that type of game and Interplay is selling the IP for an "insane" amount.
Oh, what a shame. I know Interplay folded a while back and then got themselves out of bankruptcy, but I guess some things never change, huh? Well, at least I can still play Freespace SCP.
-
People need to learn how to think again first... FS2 is too complicated for most standards, most of my friends (on the intelligent end of the spectrum) didn't make it past training 2 before getting bored. People need to change.
Yeah, I got a couple friends hooked recently; they happened to be the ones who listened when I told them to sit through the training because it'd be worth it. The rest were like "forget training, I wanna play NOW", skipped to the first mission, realized they didn't know how to move or target or dodge missiles or do anything important, and lost interest. :rolleyes:
These days, people want games that they can just pick up and jump right into the action. FreeSpace simply doesn't work that way...
-
People need to learn how to think again first... FS2 is too complicated for most standards, most of my friends (on the intelligent end of the spectrum) didn't make it past training 2 before getting bored. People need to change.
Yeah, I got a couple friends hooked recently; they happened to be the ones who listened when I told them to sit through the training because it'd be worth it. The rest were like "forget training, I wanna play NOW", skipped to the first mission, realized they didn't know how to move or target or dodge missiles or do anything important, and lost interest. :rolleyes:
These days, people want games that they can just pick up and jump right into the action. FreeSpace simply doesn't work that way...
I find that a complex (and I mean complex, not complicated) game is more immersive.
-
People need to learn how to think again first... FS2 is too complicated for most standards, most of my friends (on the intelligent end of the spectrum) didn't make it past training 2 before getting bored. People need to change.
Yeah, I got a couple friends hooked recently; they happened to be the ones who listened when I told them to sit through the training because it'd be worth it. The rest were like "forget training, I wanna play NOW", skipped to the first mission, realized they didn't know how to move or target or dodge missiles or do anything important, and lost interest. :rolleyes:
These days, people want games that they can just pick up and jump right into the action. FreeSpace simply doesn't work that way...
I find that a complex (and I mean complex, not complicated) game is more immersive.
problem is we live in the console generation so anything that uses anything more than two analogue sticks (and its often too much to use more than 1 axis on both sticks) and 6 buttons is 'too' complicated for the average gamer in the developer/publishers eyes.
-
I recall someone on the Volition staff saying that any FS3 would likely be on a console.
And that, by extension, probably means it'd be a watered down arcade-y game.
-
People need to learn how to think again first... FS2 is too complicated for most standards, most of my friends (on the intelligent end of the spectrum) didn't make it past training 2 before getting bored. People need to change.
Yeah, I got a couple friends hooked recently; they happened to be the ones who listened when I told them to sit through the training because it'd be worth it. The rest were like "forget training, I wanna play NOW", skipped to the first mission, realized they didn't know how to move or target or dodge missiles or do anything important, and lost interest. :rolleyes:
These days, people want games that they can just pick up and jump right into the action. FreeSpace simply doesn't work that way...
I find that a complex (and I mean complex, not complicated) game is more immersive.
problem is we live in the console generation so anything that uses anything more than two analogue sticks (and its often too much to use more than 1 axis on both sticks) and 6 buttons is 'too' complicated for the average gamer in the developer/publishers eyes.
Actually, with some simplifications to the targeting system (ditching less important controls like 'target target's target"), you could easily fit FreeSpace onto a console controller. You have six axes (sticks + triggers), 12 buttons (face buttons + stick clicking + shoulder buttons + start + select + D-pad, and simple context menus could add even more functions. Console controllers have so many buttons that many old people won't play a modern console because the button-laden controllers intimidate them (a keyboard at least has the advantage of being laid out like a typewriter). Hell, you could free up buttons by requiring a multiplayer headset and giving commands to the AI through voice--"Alpha 2 attack my target" would cause Alpha 2 to break off and attack your target. This is not the SNES era where you couldn't really make anything more complex than Star Fox due to controller limitations.
Also, you don't have to present a whole bunch of different controls and features all in one boring training mission. You could thrust the player in medias res with limited functionality and a largely scripted first mission where new functions are introduced through voiceovers and/or pop-ups, teaching the player how to play the game while providing pretty explosions and giving them a taste of combat.
-
:wtf:
Freespace isn't so complicated that you can't skip the training missions the first time you play it. You just need to learn the controls, and for most people, that doesn't take three training missions. People that get bored during the training missions are normal people, and people that can't play FS without the training missions probably aren't interested in playing games period.
All the training missions do is atmosphere to the process of learning the controls, all while lengthening that process out to 40 times longer than it has to be.
-
People need to learn how to think again first... FS2 is too complicated for most standards, most of my friends (on the intelligent end of the spectrum) didn't make it past training 2 before getting bored. People need to change.
Yeah, I got a couple friends hooked recently; they happened to be the ones who listened when I told them to sit through the training because it'd be worth it. The rest were like "forget training, I wanna play NOW", skipped to the first mission, realized they didn't know how to move or target or dodge missiles or do anything important, and lost interest. :rolleyes:
These days, people want games that they can just pick up and jump right into the action. FreeSpace simply doesn't work that way...
I find that a complex (and I mean complex, not complicated) game is more immersive.
problem is we live in the console generation so anything that uses anything more than two analogue sticks (and its often too much to use more than 1 axis on both sticks) and 6 buttons is 'too' complicated for the average gamer in the developer/publishers eyes.
Actually, with some simplifications to the targeting system (ditching less important controls like 'target target's target"), you could easily fit FreeSpace onto a console controller. You have six axes (sticks + triggers), 12 buttons (face buttons + stick clicking + shoulder buttons + start + select + D-pad, and simple context menus could add even more functions. Console controllers have so many buttons that many old people won't play a modern console because the button-laden controllers intimidate them (a keyboard at least has the advantage of being laid out like a typewriter). Hell, you could free up buttons by requiring a multiplayer headset and giving commands to the AI through voice--"Alpha 2 attack my target" would cause Alpha 2 to break off and attack your target. This is not the SNES era where you couldn't really make anything more complex than Star Fox due to controller limitations.
Also, you don't have to present a whole bunch of different controls and features all in one boring training mission. You could thrust the player in medias res with limited functionality and a largely scripted first mission where new functions are introduced through voiceovers and/or pop-ups, teaching the player how to play the game while providing pretty explosions and giving them a taste of combat.
i though the keymap card supplied with FS1 was complicated, tbh i think i would take a lot to master, any one played resident evil 4 on the PC with a PS2 pad its a nighmare.
Id blow a fuse for the first few hours memorizing the combinations to get the AI to disarm a cruiser in real time so i could do it fast enough and not loose the front transport, I presume it would all be done in real time and not pause everytiem you star a journey into the context menus (kills the atmosphere for me)
I agree the targeting system could loose a few functions e.g. didnt know that "'target target's target" existed so have never used it and i wouldn't miss the external views either though burning away from a dying capship always looks cool.
another issue is the voice recognition imho this has always been hit and miss
-
I agree the targeting system could loose a few functions e.g. didnt know that "'target target's target" existed so have never used it and i wouldn't miss the external views either though burning away from a dying capship always looks cool.
But, how else are we going to target untargetable ships :shaking:?
-
You won't.
(Cheater. :P)
Id blow a fuse for the first few hours memorizing the combinations to get the AI to disarm a cruiser in real time so i could do it fast enough and not loose the front transport, I presume it would all be done in real time and not pause everytiem you star a journey into the context menus (kills the atmosphere for me)
For communication, voice recognition. Target the cruiser, say "Alpha wing, disarm turret one". Voice recognition is better than it used to be, you just have to say it in a firm, clear voice (oddly enough automated answering machines with voice recognition seem to get better at recognizing my voice when I get angry at them). We've come a long way from that SNES headset the Angry Video Game Nerd reviewed that could not distinguish between the words "fire" and "****".
:wtf:
Freespace isn't so complicated that you can't skip the training missions the first time you play it. You just need to learn the controls, and for most people, that doesn't take three training missions. People that get bored during the training missions are normal people, and people that can't play FS without the training missions probably aren't interested in playing games period.
All the training missions do is atmosphere to the process of learning the controls, all while lengthening that process out to 40 times longer than it has to be.
I learned the controls in the FreeSpace 1 and 2 demos, which had no training missions or tutorials at all. You were just tossed into missions (easy missions, but certainly not training-style missions) to fend for yourself.
FreeSpace's training missions are just poor. They're boring, the instructor has no personality (compare to MechWarrior 2's instructor, who constantly insults you and compares you to his pet dog--THAT's a memorable instructor), and no surprises happen.
-
Well, the tutorials ARE a training module, i.e. computer program. It fits the story canonically i suppose. An alternative would be for the community to create their OWN more interesting tutorials perhaps?
-
Please do :)
-
Having an NTF patrol show up and attack at the end of your training would be an interesting touch.
-
The "teach as you go" form of tutorial has been a welcome development over the past several years. The Splinter Cell games provide a good example: the original had you run through a rather straightforward training course that went over all of the necessary functions, while Pandora Tomorrow swapped that out by putting you in the same progressive situations within the context of the first mission. Half-Life 2 operated similarly, including that great little "playing fetch" sequence with Dog that introduced you to the Gravity Gun. For my money, getting introduced to certain functions as you come across situations where you need to use them is far less immersion-breaking than having to sit through a training mission that's really nothing more than an interactive version of reading the manual. That being said, though I may find FreeSpace's training missions boring now, I was perfectly content to sit through them the first time through.
i though the keymap card supplied with FS1 was complicated, tbh i think i would take a lot to master, any one played resident evil 4 on the PC with a PS2 pad its a nighmare.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. RE4 was originally released solely for the GameCube, and its controller worked perfectly fine. I don't think I ever heard any complaints about the PS2 port's controls, either.
-
I haven't bought a new game for months... I find most new games often incredibly shallow. I usually end up playing older games instead... I'm really really starting to dislike this 'console generation' more and more. To the point where I almost start hoping that piracy will destroy the industry so we can go back to the time where gamers = nerds & games = gameplay instead of this gamers = 'cool' & games = grinding or shallow shootan game #13251 bullcrap
*Ramble, rant rant :hopping: *
I feel like a grumpy old man talking about the good old days when I write stuff like this... i'm only 22 damnit!
-
The "teach as you go" form of tutorial has been a welcome development over the past several years.
Try writing an FS2 campaign that allows you learn as you go and you'll soon see why :v: didn't do it that way.
Learn as you go works well in FPSs or other genres where you can easily control the action. In FS2 you could very quickly get the player out of their depth doing that.
-
They kind of did that by spreading the six training missions over 8 in-game missions. It sure was better than six training missions back to back ( :ick: )
-
People need to learn how to think again first... FS2 is too complicated for most standards, most of my friends (on the intelligent end of the spectrum) didn't make it past training 2 before getting bored. People need to change.
Yeah, I got a couple friends hooked recently; they happened to be the ones who listened when I told them to sit through the training because it'd be worth it. The rest were like "forget training, I wanna play NOW", skipped to the first mission, realized they didn't know how to move or target or dodge missiles or do anything important, and lost interest. :rolleyes:
These days, people want games that they can just pick up and jump right into the action. FreeSpace simply doesn't work that way...
And yet ****loads of people play GTA 4 which is from what I've heard is basically half gameplay, and half "training missions" or tutorials.
-
The "teach as you go" form of tutorial has been a welcome development over the past several years.
Try writing an FS2 campaign that allows you learn as you go and you'll soon see why :v: didn't do it that way.
Learn as you go works well in FPSs or other genres where you can easily control the action. In FS2 you could very quickly get the player out of their depth doing that.
I do understand that FS2's comparatively open combat environment does present some unique challenges, and that the normal FPS model of hand-holding the player through the first few minutes isn't all that practical, but I think there's still a bit of room for improvement. I really like Woolie Wool's idea of tying the end of a training mission into a vaguely storyline-related occurrence. If you go back to FS1's model of physical flight training, instead of FS2's simulator modules, you can have the downtime at the end of a training mission or set of missions interrupted by actual craft jumping in, perhaps by something like a freighter under attack by one or two heavily-damaged enemy fighters at the lowest AI level. It'd be a way of ensuring that the player wasn't in over their head while simultaneously breaking up the Simon Says instructor routine.
-
So, basically, MechWarrior 4 training?
-
The "teach as you go" form of tutorial has been a welcome development over the past several years.
Try writing an FS2 campaign that allows you learn as you go and you'll soon see why :v: didn't do it that way.
Learn as you go works well in FPSs or other genres where you can easily control the action. In FS2 you could very quickly get the player out of their depth doing that.
I do understand that FS2's comparatively open combat environment does present some unique challenges, and that the normal FPS model of hand-holding the player through the first few minutes isn't all that practical, but I think there's still a bit of room for improvement. I really like Woolie Wool's idea of tying the end of a training mission into a vaguely storyline-related occurrence. If you go back to FS1's model of physical flight training, instead of FS2's simulator modules, you can have the downtime at the end of a training mission or set of missions interrupted by actual craft jumping in, perhaps by something like a freighter under attack by one or two heavily-damaged enemy fighters at the lowest AI level. It'd be a way of ensuring that the player wasn't in over their head while simultaneously breaking up the Simon Says instructor routine.
Not only would it break up the routine, but it would also provide a true test of all the various skills the pilot may have learned, as enemy pilots aren't going to hold anything back.
-
I doubt V wants to bring FS back. Or they would have done it a long time ago.
No, they are far from dead. http://www.volition-inc.com/History/2009
In fact they have been releasing one shiny looking game every year on average.
-
:v: has said relatively recently that they'd love to bring it back if they could, but the question in their minds then becomes whether or not doing so would be financially feasible, or whether or not they could obtain the necessary permission from THQ to do so. It's fairly evident that they still love the universe they created, and those who have looked in on the SCP in the past have seemed amazed by what the community has been able to accomplish.
(Note: this was not an "OMG FS3!!!1" post. :p)
-
Dunno, i always liked the training mission (not playin them anymore cause i don't have to... only the third one to get "wings" xD)
-
Flightskool is always a good investment.
Anywayz, V is making heaps of cash under THQ so I don't see why they cant make a FS3. Make it more like freelancer, EPIC WIN.
You're right its not a OMGLULWUTROFL FS3 post, its a cautiously optimistic outlook on the prospect of a continuety of the FS series one of these days. I don't care if I have graduated by then, I just want it.
-
Make it more like freelancer
No thanks, just make it like freespace. :P
-
Freespace but at the end we get honerably discharged after a d*** injury and can explore the universe FL style will be great.
-
That wasn't even great in Freelancer. :p
-
Iron Forge, do you want to FRED a universal amount of backgrounds, node positions and docking SEXPs to at least ten Arcadias ;7
Cos i don't :lol:
-
LOL if its to make a RPG freespace I don't mind. Who wants to pick up em modding tools and make a freespace mod for freelancer? AWESOME!!
-
Freelancer already has FS ships in it, Discovery mod i think.
EDIT Modding FL to FS would be easier haha.
-
Are RPGs really that great anyway?
I mean. A Freespace RPG would be what? The same battles, except with a bunch of stupid hauling and shipping for cash inbetween??
Just give me the battles.
Space RPGs don't honestly do it for me. I lost interest in Privateer. And EVE bored the hell out of me as soon as I started playing.
-
No i mean the fast paced gameplay storyline sytle but non linear, then after that open multiplayer.
And discovery has freespace ships? I don't see any and I've been playing it some time now.
-
Fast-paced and non-linear pretty much exclude each other. And open world gameplay? Please. It's fun in games like GTA, but FreeLancer, X3, EvE, all of those manage to make flying in space boring, IMHO.
-
No i mean the fast paced gameplay storyline sytle but non linear, then after that open multiplayer.
Like Mr. Vowel said, I don't think you can have fast paced and open-ended gaming in the same box. RPGs quite honestly about grinding. Whether your grinding by whacking monsters and getting XP, or whether you're grinding by mining some asteroids or hauling cargo here and there basically you spend a lot of time essentially "levelling up". There's nothing fast paced about that.
And quite honestly, what is there to do in the Freespace universe anyway?? Despite the frequency of pirates in 3rd party campaigns, I don't think most peace time adventures are going to see a lot of action. So what will the player be doing?? When there's no war going on they're just going to be flying around doing jack all and when the war does start then it's going to be mission after mission. So . . .
-
And discovery has freespace ships? I don't see any and I've been playing it some time now.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,55971.msg1152630.html#msg1152630
Ok, maybe not Discovery, but heres some proof :yes:
-
The "teach as you go" form of tutorial has been a welcome development over the past several years.
Try writing an FS2 campaign that allows you learn as you go and you'll soon see why :v: didn't do it that way.
Learn as you go works well in FPSs or other genres where you can easily control the action. In FS2 you could very quickly get the player out of their depth doing that.
FS1 was the start of the whole learn as you go, if you remember after doing the first few training missions you then got introduced later to shields and countermeasures in the "Advanced" training to get your advanced wings and the same goes in FS2. the problem with the system compared to modern games is the delivery i dont think a mid mission system would fit into the universe and the current system does the trick is to make it more interesting e.g. to maintain canon have the (I presume) AI instructor replaced by a character in a linked simulator then you could give the instructor pilot some personality, even change the gender if you want. I think more would be needed to make it more interesting but i haven't though that far ahead
-
You got introduced to shields later because they were only added as story elements later on. It was much the same with aspect seekers.
And even then you still had to do a tutorial mission.
-
No i mean the fast paced gameplay storyline sytle but non linear, then after that open multiplayer.
Like Mr. Vowel said, I don't think you can have fast paced and open-ended gaming in the same box. RPGs quite honestly about grinding. Whether your grinding by whacking monsters and getting XP, or whether you're grinding by mining some asteroids or hauling cargo here and there basically you spend a lot of time essentially "levelling up". There's nothing fast paced about that.
And quite honestly, what is there to do in the Freespace universe anyway?? Despite the frequency of pirates in 3rd party campaigns, I don't think most peace time adventures are going to see a lot of action. So what will the player be doing?? When there's no war going on they're just going to be flying around doing jack all and when the war does start then it's going to be mission after mission. So . . .
Generally if an RPG requires you to grind significantly rather than gain the levels you need just by playing through the quests, it's considered bad RPG design.
And if you avoid monster encounters and then complain about how you have to grind so much, then, well, you're doing it wrong.
-
You got introduced to shields later because they were only added as story elements later on. It was much the same with aspect seekers.
And even then you still had to do a tutorial mission.
A completely unnecessary tutorial mission. All you need to do is equip the player with only Rockeye-type missions for the first mission where basic flight controls are introduced, and in the second mission allow aspect seekers and include a popup explaining how to lock and fire them. Whether the player passes the mission or not can be the "test". Most of these concepts--shields, missile locking, afterburner control---take 10 seconds at most to fully explain.
-
And quite honestly, what is there to do in the Freespace universe anyway?? Despite the frequency of pirates in 3rd party campaigns, I don't think most peace time adventures are going to see a lot of action. So what will the player be doing?? When there's no war going on they're just going to be flying around doing jack all and when the war does start then it's going to be mission after mission. So . . .
You'd presumably be stuck as a traffic cop, a la the first mission of Destiny of Peace. Somehow, I don't think a whole campaign's worth of that would go over too well. :p
-
You got introduced to shields later because they were only added as story elements later on. It was much the same with aspect seekers.
And even then you still had to do a tutorial mission.
A completely unnecessary tutorial mission. All you need to do is equip the player with only Rockeye-type missions for the first mission where basic flight controls are introduced, and in the second mission allow aspect seekers and include a popup explaining how to lock and fire them. Whether the player passes the mission or not can be the "test". Most of these concepts--shields, missile locking, afterburner control---take 10 seconds at most to fully explain.
Why would you give a pilot a new tech and then just let them figure it out?
"If they die, they didn't learn it very well."
-
Because this is a game, not real life. Game players would rather fight real opponents in a real battle than target drones in some stupid simulator module overseen by an instructor whose voice makes Ben Stein seem lively by comparison. If you want a completely accurate reflection of military life, go enlist and enjoy the terrible food, possibility of violent death, and PTSD. They don't even have to be very difficult opponents, it just has to feel like a true battle.
-
Because this is a game, not real life. Game players would rather fight real opponents in a real battle than target drones in some stupid simulator module overseen by an instructor whose voice makes Ben Stein seem lively by comparison. If you want a completely accurate reflection of military life, go enlist and enjoy the terrible food, possibility of violent death, and PTSD. They don't even have to be very difficult opponents, it just has to feel like a true battle.
I'm a real player and I rather enjoy the quick tutorials instead of a jarring addition of new tech that everyone uses now and just assumes I know as well. A tutorial is... what? a few minutes in a long game?
It would be really weird, to me anyways, if on one mission shields just showed up with all the keys accompanying them.
-
No, intrinsic technologies like shields will always be there (why do you HAVE to learn how to equalize shields right away anyway), but there's no reason not to restrict things like aspect-seeking missiles, which are already restricted at the start of both of the FreeSpace games. So at the start of the first mission with aspect seekers you get a brief popup screen instructing you to wait for the circle to go over the enemy and go BEEEP before launching the fancy new missile, instead of making you sit through a training mission plinking Amazons. Introducing new concepts to players on the fly has become the standard for video games nowadays for a reason.
You don't need a whole series of training missions. The first squadron of enemy bombers that show up can be accompanied by an instruction to target their bombs and shoot them down. The first use of aspect seeking missiles can be accompanied by a popup explaining how to acquire aspect lock. You can teach things to players using a popup screen in seconds that would require minutes in a training mission. And once the player has learned the ropes, he can go into the option screen and disable the tutorials. You learn the concept through a brief explanation, and then learn the physical part of the skill through the challenge that comes after. What would be a long and boring diversion is blended into a real mission, providing a better experience.
-
No, intrinsic technologies like shields will always be there, but there's no reason not to restrict things like aspect-seeking missiles, which are already restricted at the start of both of the FreeSpace games. So at the start of the first mission with aspect seekers you get a brief popup screen instructing you to wait for the circle to go over the enemy and go BEEEP before launching the fancy new missile, instead of making you sit through a training mission plinking Amazons.
So a tutorial mission then? Only this one "counts"?
Are you asking for all tutorials to be removed? Or simply the ones later on? The tutorial missions are at most a few minutes, and you can skip them? I'm just not sure what the entire purpose would be. You want a break in realism for what? A few extra seconds saved?
-
Break in realism? This is a game with space fighters flying around WWII style shooting pew-pew laser guns at each other. When you introduce the skills in actual combat, there's some actual stakes involved to make it exciting. Simon Says with spaceships is not exciting no matter how you dress it up. There's no need to spend 20 minutes doing artificial exercises that don't have any importance in the actual conflict when you can combine learning a skill with the thrill of an actual conflict.
I think any dedicated training missions should be pared down to the absolute minimum and new skills be introduced to the player gradually through a series of brief tutorial screens and battle sequences emphasizing the new skill. The bomb shooting scene in the Perseus training missions in FS2 is not exciting. If, halfway through the first mission, a wing of enemy bombers show up and you have to stop them, that's exciting. The ten-second break from being in the cockpit is well worth the added excitement of it being a real fight against real enemies who are really out to get you and your mothership. I once had the idea of a potential FS2 sequel first mission that was almost entirely devoted to teaching the player the gameplay mechanics, but in the context of a massive fleet engagement between GTVA and Earth forces rather than a sterile training simulator module (this would be horrifyingly difficult to script in FRED2, but having an entirely new engine and mission format would make it easier).
If you were in an action game where one of the game mechanics was going down zip lines, would you rather go to some blatantly artificial obstacle course with some droning moron explaining the ins and outs of zip lines, or run across a zip line in your normal gameplay, be told about it by a brief screen/voiceover/wisecracking sidekick and then have to grab onto the zip line and ride it down? The same could apply to any sort of game, really. FreeSpace is not Il-2 Sturmovik on the hardest difficulty level, you don't need to take a damn class to figure it out.
-
Yeah you do. FS2 can be very intimidating to new players when they are presented with a screen full of keys.
Introducing combat mechanics during actual combat usually results in them being missed and the player not knowing how to use that mechanic. I've played plenty of games where the in-game tutorial was lax with its explanation and I only figured out how to do something much later on.
Your comments about an instructor are pretty silly anyway because you will have to include a simple tutorial of some sort anyway just so the player knows how to fly the ship and target things. So you're not talking about whether or not to have an instructor, simply how much of the instructor you have.
-
Can I jump in and stomp all over woolie's argument? .....no?
Oh well never mind then. :P
- Honestly, Woolie, if you think you know /anything/ about flying in FS2, you should come play a few games with some of the multi pilots.
During PXOs haydays a not too unrealistic recommended requirement for joining our games was "complete the single player game on insane with out having to retry a mission once."
This game has tiers and tiers of skill levels - that from the way you're talking I'm SURE you don't know most even exist.
Yet, through good fredding (and a lot of playtesting and balancing) most of these skills could be put into tutorials.
The initial tutorials do this in a way that also introduces the pilot to the universe, the lowly grunt, in FS1 this turns into a remarkable transformation of JESUS ONE, and in FS2 this continues more smoothly as an ever growing cog in the galactic war machine (well until you get skilled enough to start breaking missions because the designers didn't even imagine players could be as good as they got).
Most above-average in complexity games have tutorials like this, FS' is one of the better flowing and constructed ones.
Whilst, sure you could speed up the gaps between the trainers messages a tiny bit in places most of it is fine, it's just modern players being window lickers that makes it an issue.
If you had all the weapons and ships available to you at the start of the campaign as you do at the end, there would be very little sense of progression beyond the scope and scale of the missions slowly getting bigger.
....Which doesn't lead to as much a climactic ending as current, so the holding back of aspect seekers and some advanced ship stuff which is covered in later training isn't too bad either.
And, for people who have done it before, as was mentioned above, there's a skip button.
But I honestly wouldn't recommend anyone skip the training first time round - it's what I tell everyone I introduce the game to;
"DO NOT SKIP THE TRAINING, YOU WILL REGRET IT LATER."
And if you want to sit there and explain it to them first time around taking 10 seconds to do it, fine good for you, you do that and have them skip the training, see how much of it sinks in and how naturally they progress compared to the people who did fly the training and told you to fob off :P
-
Yeah you do. FS2 can be very intimidating to new players when they are presented with a screen full of keys.
Introducing combat mechanics during actual combat usually results in them being missed and the player not knowing how to use that mechanic. I've played plenty of games where the in-game tutorial was lax with its explanation and I only figured out how to do something much later on.
Your comments about an instructor are pretty silly anyway because you will have to include a simple tutorial of some sort anyway just so the player knows how to fly the ship and target things. So you're not talking about whether or not to have an instructor, simply how much of the instructor you have.
Well in this case the "instructor" would be a brief popup screen that explains the basics of something, rather than the mind-numbingly, soul-crushing, unbelievably dull voiceovers from the TSM modules, who is easily the worst training instructor dude in any game I've ever played.
As for the screen full of keys, how many of them are mostly redundant targeting keys like "target target's target" or "target cargo" or things the player doesn't need to know right away, like shield and energy management (hell, why not just add an option for automatic management?). The player only really needs to know the following controls in the first few missions:
Basic flight controls: yaw, pitch, roll, throttle.
Matching speed: Just hit Alt-M and be done with it.
Basic targeting: T, H, F, E, R, and B. Alt-H could be a menu option instead.
Afterburners
Primary and secondary weapon triggers. Put the cross over the circle and shoot.
Bank switching
That's it. The rest can be explained in later missions. The first mission could be carefully scripted to start with basic ship movement and introduce more mechanics one at a time providing a largely scripted pitched battle to add drama.
Can I jump in and stomp all over woolie's argument? .....no?
Oh well never mind then. :P
- Honestly, Woolie, if you think you know /anything/ about flying in FS2, you should come play a few games with some of the multi pilots.
During PXOs haydays a not too unrealistic recommended requirement for joining our games was "complete the single player game on insane with out having to retry a mission once."
Are you seriously expecting a set of tutorials for the single player game to prepare people for high-level multiplayer play? Forget about it! Getting good enough for high level multiplayer play takes dedication, practice, and lots and lots and lots of deaths even in the simplest games. No introductory tutorial can ever prepare you for skilled human opponents. No tutorial should even try. High-level multiplayer evolves over a game's lifecycle, and the transition to skilled multiplayer play is a matter for the community, as the game people play online two years after the game ships will be rather different from the game the developers first envisioned. Just look at Doom. A very simple game, right? You could learn it in five minutes, right? Most of the techniques used by modern Deathmatch players did not exist until 1995 or even 1996. Many of the levels can be seriously broken by players because Id Software never envisioned half the things players figured out how to do.
If FreeSpace 3 shipped with a detailed multiplayer tutorial, it would be largely obsolete in six months. Why bother? The game itself only needs to teach the player how to get by in the single player campaign on Medium and below. Teaching the player to be a video game version of Max Jenius is unnecessary and may even be counterproductive as player strategies and "metagame" evolve.
-
I actually thought that the training missions in FS2 are a little incomplete. They take like 5 minutes but barely tell you anything. There's a bunch of targetting buttons for example that I never use because I was never taught them as far as I know.
-
And when you look at these unused targeting buttons, how many of them do you ever think you needed to play the original FreeSpace 2 campaign on Hard or below?
-
There are quite a few useful targeting functions that never come up in the training missions. Target turret in reticle, 'V', is a particularly useful one when trying to take out a particular beam cannon; otherwise, you're left mashing 'K' until the correct turret pops up.
-
There's a difference between "useful" and "necessary to complete the original game". If you really want to get good, you have to be dedicated to getting good, and if you're dedicated you can study the really obscure targeting controls yourself, read the manual (does anyone read the manual anymore? Maybe they need to start making them with pretty illustrations and fancy paper again. MechWarrior 2's manual was more entertaining than any TSM module), read online play guides. Never mind that FS3 would invariably come out on a console, and for the console the obscurer targeting controls are, as the least important controls, the first thing that will be axed to fit the controls on a gamepad so the whole issue is moot.
-
The only thing truely necessary is the trigger and the throttle.
Personally, I wouldn't mind knowing a few more. Like isn't there a button that lets you target fighters attacking a friendly ship? I've never bothered to figure that one out but I would like to and it's pretty essentially. Assuming there is one, I know there was one for Xwing/tie fighter
-
Yes there is. At any rate, there are probably only going to be two or three targeting controls (probably equivalents for E, H, and B) with the computer weighing threats and sorting them by which ones are the most immediate threat to your mission objective. There's simply no room for all those buttons on a controller and it's the most expendable part of the control scheme. ETS and shield redirection are more likely to be present in the PC version and computer-managed in the console version. Micromanaging your energy distribution is probably something the computer can do better than you can anyway.
-
Well in this case the "instructor" would be a brief popup screen that explains the basics of something, rather than the mind-numbingly, soul-crushing, unbelievably dull voiceovers from the TSM modules, who is easily the worst training instructor dude in any game I've ever played.
I never had a problem with the instructor so this is just you assuming that your issues with him are universal. As far as I'm concerned he was pretty much spot on for what I'd expect from a GTVA instructor.
As for the screen full of keys, how many of them are mostly redundant targeting keys like "target target's target" or "target cargo" or things the player doesn't need to know right away, like shield and energy management (hell, why not just add an option for automatic management?).
And when exactly do you intend to teach them to the player then? If you try to introduce them during the first few active missions the player will miss them or forget them very easily as they're going to be swamped with other new keys while busy trying not to get killed. And if you don't introduce them straight away you run the risk of still being busy breaking immersion halfway into the game because there are controls you've forgotten to tell the player about or which weren't actually necessary until that point.
On top of that, the middle of a mission is not the place to get in-depth explanations of how stuff works. That might be fine for some controls but some of the controls required 2 or 3 messages to explain in full, so unless you're willing to have the player go away with a crappier understanding of what that particular key actually does, an in-game explanation is the wrong choice.
Finally there is an absolutely massive point you are missing. The fact that FS2 put all the boring learning into tutorial missions meant that it could hit the ground running when you actually got to the first mission. This greatly increases the replay value of the mission. Surrender, Belisarius! is a good, playable mission (albeit on the easy side) precisely because the player is expected to have already grasped the basics of dogfighting. By the time you get to The Romans Blunder all the stops have been pulled out and the game is simply running at normal difficulty (as evidenced by the number of people who can't get past it on Insane).
Ignore the tutorial and the earlier missions become fairly boring and predictable. Taking your example for instance, who the hell is going to want to play that again once they know how to fly? And the following mission is going to be equally boring cause you've not taught the player any of the basics for capship attacks meaning that they either have to be very easy or simply missed out for the first couple of missions.
Are you seriously expecting a set of tutorials for the single player game to prepare people for high-level multiplayer play?
Of course he isn't. Congratulations on missing his entire point.
He was on about the fact that the tutorials are much better preparation for multi than the methods you suggest for the reasons I gave above.
-
Personally, I wouldn't mind knowing a few more. Like isn't there a button that lets you target fighters attacking a friendly ship?
g
-
Target the ship -> Press G, shows target (targeting)attacking friendlies, works in reverse too (shows you friendlies (targeting)attacking hostiles).
And actually Woolie, I have a mission which does just that, it has no narration though and it's probably a mission that would frustrate people who aren't commited to mastering the game.
I had to ask for a new piece of functionality to be added to the game to do it properly though.
- R is a very useful button too, K as well.
All of the orders can be short-keyed (defaulted to Shift-A/S/D/P/Z/X/C/J/E/W/I)
Nothing is bound to D, yet equalise energy is bound to Alt-D.
V isn't that useful when sniping from long range for a combination of reasons (reticle isn't exactly centred + multi subsystem/turrets in similar places + V doesn't distinguish between nearside and un-hittable targets on the other side of the ship >.>).
Honestly buttons I *regularly* use in a coop on insane;
Ctrl, Space, Tab, 684279(numpad), E, Q, Z, D, H, R, V, K, Y, G, B, N, S, F, Alt-R, Shift-R, the shift combinations mentioned above, 123456789 (above the qwerty part of the keyboard though I tend to only use 3 heavily in that), home, insert, delete, end, page up, page down, arrow keys, F5-12, backspace, /, shift-/, ., ,, and I'll always press L once per mission.
Occasional usage of F4 for important stuff, F3 used to make the other F keys work.
Then 1 for typing to other players and all the external camera angles I use too.
And Shift-End gets a fair bit of usage on some missions too.
Bonus points for spotting the obvious odd one out.
In TvT this is somewhat simplified since I don't use E, R, V, K, B, N, any of the AI orders (apart from depart) even remotely as much.
Nevermind that all of this is assumed knowledge in multi there are a hell of a lot of anti missile and advanced turning techniques that you need to learn too, as well as shot timings (TvT furballs happen more in jousts amongst skilled players than tail-scampering like flight sims, though to unskilled observers this will still look like LOTS of circles).
And for a lot of people who played the game, for a long time, multi was all there was to the game.
If a proper and well structured mission was made it could save a lot of newbies a lot of embarrassment since a fair few of them come in (even having beaten the game on insane) expecting to be the beesknees, and fewer still - but a significant number of those just wont get it through their heads they're not particularly good until you crush them utterly (though the ones that pay attention when you do that tend to learn fairly quickly, especially if you explain after you beat them 11-0 in a game where 1on1 is intrinsically fair).
You're quite right I could have played through both FS1 AND 2 without the tutorial but it;
A) Made my first playthrough smoother.
B) Introduced me to the style of narration in the game in a natural way.
Quite a lot of subsequent games went on to do this as well.
The most recent I played that made a big thing of it, was CoD4.
A console version of this game would be so stripped down and barren it'd barely be any different to playing freelancer.
It wouldn't be freespace anymore, nor is that the generation a game like this should cater to.
-
Like Mr. Vowel said, I don't think you can have fast paced and open-ended gaming in the same box. RPGs quite honestly about grinding. Whether your grinding by whacking monsters and getting XP, or whether you're grinding by mining some asteroids or hauling cargo here and there basically you spend a lot of time essentially "levelling up". There's nothing fast paced about that.
And quite honestly, what is there to do in the Freespace universe anyway?? Despite the frequency of pirates in 3rd party campaigns, I don't think most peace time adventures are going to see a lot of action. So what will the player be doing?? When there's no war going on they're just going to be flying around doing jack all and when the war does start then it's going to be mission after mission. So . . .
despite being off-topic now, i want to share the experience of a friend on EVE-online.
<NovaJinx> holy ****
<NovaJinx> the most epic adventure ever
<NovaJinx> this is why I started playing games
01<mura> <.<
<NovaJinx> hmm
<NovaJinx> it's not like it matters if I spam for a bit
<NovaJinx> so let me just copy and paste the whole thing
<NovaJinx> 22:27 !NovaJinx • alright
<NovaJinx> 22:27 !NovaJinx • time for some blockade running
<NovaJinx> 22:27 !NovaJinx • wish me luck
<NovaJinx> 22:27 !EvilDango • lol
<NovaJinx> 22:27 !NovaJinx • only 2 hours left in this contract
<NovaJinx> 22:27 !EvilDango • fish is going to get raped
<NovaJinx> 22:27 !NovaJinx • I have to get the goods out there by then or I lose 4 million
<NovaJinx> 22:27 !EvilDango • i mean nova
<NovaJinx> 22:28 !NovaJinx • I don't mind if I get ransomed
<NovaJinx> 22:28 !NovaJinx • I can pay my way out and still profit a million or two
<NovaJinx> 22:29 !EvilDango • lolz
<NovaJinx> 22:29 !NovaJinx • it's just that if there's some fag gate camper who only kills everything he sees
<NovaJinx> 23:26 !NovaJinx • holy ****ing **** guys
<NovaJinx> 23:26 !NovaJinx • this **** was epic
<NovaJinx> 23:30 !NovaJinx • the godforsaken contract was a trap
<NovaJinx> 23:30 !EvilDango • lol
<NovaJinx> 23:30 !NovaJinx • it required me to deliver stuff to a station that was actually owned by private corporation and had no public access
<NovaJinx> 23:31 !EvilDango • nova likes traps
<NovaJinx> 23:31 !NovaJinx • so I arrived at the station and it wouldn't let me dock
<NovaJinx> 23:31 !EvilDango • haha
<NovaJinx> 23:31 !NovaJinx • a bunch of pirates jump in and open fire at me
<NovaJinx> 23:31 !NovaJinx • I take a look at the local channel and it's full of people, usually 0.0 sectors are near empty
<NovaJinx> 23:31 !NovaJinx • I turn around and escape back to the jump gate
<NovaJinx> 23:31 !EvilDango • haha
<NovaJinx> 23:31 !NovaJinx • only to hit a warp-blocking field
<NovaJinx> 23:32 !NovaJinx • and someone on the local chan says "get the badger! [my ship type, a slow hauler] it's in the bubble!"
<NovaJinx> 23:32 !NovaJinx • and I'm like FFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUU-
<NovaJinx> 23:32 !NovaJinx • my only path back to high security zone blocked
<NovaJinx> 23:32 !NovaJinx • like 20 people after me
<NovaJinx> 23:32 !NovaJinx • so I quickly make a run for antoher gate, no idea where it leads
<NovaJinx> 23:33 !NovaJinx • they had counted on my noobness and my slow ship that I wouldn't make it to another gate, so it wasn't blockaded
<NovaJinx> 23:33 !NovaJinx • I jump into a system, local chan show's there's only one other player there
<NovaJinx> 23:34 !NovaJinx • I warp to a random planet to examine maps to find another route to safe space
<NovaJinx> 23:34 !EvilDango • lol
<NovaJinx> 23:34 !NovaJinx • the guy on local says "Welcome to 0.0 [the lowest security area in the game]"
<NovaJinx> 23:34 !EvilDango • haha
<NovaJinx> 23:34 !NovaJinx • and I'm like "I hope you're not on my ass like the x^5 people behind me who set me up with a contract"
<NovaJinx> 23:34 !EvilDango • did you get raped there
<NovaJinx> 23:34 !NovaJinx • then I see like 20 people enter the local chan
<NovaJinx> 23:35 !NovaJinx • I choose a random gate and run there, then jump out
<NovaJinx> 23:35 !NovaJinx • I enter a completely empty system
<NovaJinx> 23:35 !NovaJinx • the dude who talked to me before sends a chat invite, I accept it
<NovaJinx> 23:35 !EvilDango • TRAP!!!
<NovaJinx> 23:36 !NovaJinx • asks me where I am and what ship I'm flying and tells me to come back to him, so he can get me out safe
<NovaJinx> 23:36 !NovaJinx • and I'm like "**** you, you're just one of that bunch"
<NovaJinx> 23:36 !EvilDango • haha
<NovaJinx> 23:36 !NovaJinx • and he's like "I'm glad you don't trust anyone out here. But I just hate to see new guys getting scammed"
<NovaJinx> 23:37 !NovaJinx • I consider my chances and understand that there isn't really anything I can lose anymore
<NovaJinx> 23:37 !NovaJinx • so I decide to go with whatever this guy's saying
<NovaJinx> 23:37 !EvilDango • rape?
<NovaJinx> 23:37 !NovaJinx • I jump back to the system where I was before, the pirate bunch is gone
<NovaJinx> 23:38 !NovaJinx • I warp to the guy and well, find out that he's one of the oldest of oldfags in EVE
<NovaJinx> 23:38 !NovaJinx • he has a private station and a ****ing huge-ass carrier
<NovaJinx> 23:38 !EvilDango • lol
<NovaJinx> 23:38 !NovaJinx • he gives me a frigate and tells me to board it, leaving my hauler to him
<NovaJinx> 23:39 !NovaJinx • another guy from his corp come in, apparently gives intel on the system I escaped from
<NovaJinx> 23:39 !NovaJinx • the warp gate to safe area is blocked from all common approach vectors
<NovaJinx> 23:40 !NovaJinx • he heads out and tells me to follow a bit later
<NovaJinx> 23:40 !NovaJinx • somehow he got his ship in the right angle from the gate that's not blocked
<NovaJinx> 23:40 !EvilDango • lol
<NovaJinx> 23:40 !NovaJinx • I warp to him and then to the gate, and I zoom past the pirate blockades
<NovaJinx> 23:40 !NovaJinx • then jump before the pirate guards have any time to react and run for safe space
<NovaJinx> 23:41 !EvilDango • lol lucky you
<NovaJinx> 23:41 !NovaJinx • the guy takes my hauler to the station, he has access to it
<NovaJinx> 23:41 !NovaJinx • delivers the cargo there and tells me to click "Complete" on the scam mission
<NovaJinx> 23:41 !NovaJinx • and BAM, I get 5million reward plus 4mil collateral I paid in advance
<NovaJinx> 23:41 !NovaJinx • mission completed
<NovaJinx> 23:41 !EvilDango • haha
<NovaJinx> 23:42 !NovaJinx • I donate the guy 2.5mil and dock at a safe station
<NovaJinx> 23:42 !NovaJinx • man
<NovaJinx> 23:42 !NovaJinx • I was ****ting bricks out there
<NovaJinx> there
<NovaJinx> you don't see **** like this in WoW
01<mura> holly ****
01<mura> that's awesome
01<mura> i could hear the epic soundtrack in the background playing
<NovaJinx> heh
<NovaJinx> there are two ways to play EVE: like any other MMORPG, which kills you with boredom
<NovaJinx> or like this, risking every damn thing you have and have a ****ing blast at it
It sounds like lot of fun and fast paced to me.
-
Its crap. Trust me I played it. More time spent sitting around waiting and ratting than doing anything.
-
despite being off-topic now, i want to share the experience of a friend on EVE-online.
Hhahahaha.
Let me share with you my friend's experience, as witnessed by me upon a visit to his house.
Situation:
Friend has just completed a quest. Now his ship has to destroy a defenceless base to collect the booty.
I arrive at my friends house, his ship is firing at the base. We talk for about 20 minutes. Every 10 or so minutes he "reloads" his ammo. We leave his house, go walk down to 7-11. Grab some drinks. Come back to his house. He reloads his ship. We talk some more, he shows me all his little metal spaceship figurines he's spent ****loads of money on. He reloads his ship. He talks about the table top game he's going to teach me. He reloads his ship. Then, after about an hour after I arrived, his ship destroys this base.
This is fast paced???????
-
Bonus points for spotting the obvious odd one out.
T?
-
Eve is damn boring, playing it is biggest mistake of my life, but somehow I like it. However its just to tie me over till I can find a FPS version of eve. Jumpgate may be promising... Basically I'm looking for mmo freelancer.
-
Of course he isn't. Congratulations on missing his entire point.
He was on about the fact that the tutorials are much better preparation for multi than the methods you suggest for the reasons I gave above.
No, it isn't. Nothing in a single-player campaign could be anything close to a decent preparation for multi, especially multi as it is practiced a year or two after release. At best you could have a dedicated multiplayer tutorial but that would only be sufficient for casual pub play and would have to be outside of the campaign because otherwise you'd be wasting the SP players' time.
A console version of this game would be so stripped down and barren it'd barely be any different to playing freelancer.
It wouldn't be freespace anymore, nor is that the generation a game like this should cater to.
You know, except for the 3D flight controls and the subsystems and the bombing runs...
The only things that would have to be simplified are targeting controls (I have the idea of bracketing non-targeted ships in gray and putting red "TGT" markers next to critical targets to make it easier to pick foes out with only two or three buttons) and ETS/shield management. Everything else can more or less be ported directly.
Finally there is an absolutely massive point you are missing. The fact that FS2 put all the boring learning into tutorial missions meant that it could hit the ground running when you actually got to the first mission. This greatly increases the replay value of the mission. Surrender, Belisarius! is a good, playable mission (albeit on the easy side) precisely because the player is expected to have already grasped the basics of dogfighting. By the time you get to The Romans Blunder all the stops have been pulled out and the game is simply running at normal difficulty (as evidenced by the number of people who can't get past it on Insane).
Ignore the tutorial and the earlier missions become fairly boring and predictable. Taking your example for instance, who the hell is going to want to play that again once they know how to fly? And the following mission is going to be equally boring cause you've not taught the player any of the basics for capship attacks meaning that they either have to be very easy or simply missed out for the first couple of missions.
First of all, one of the ideas behind my tutorial system was that once you finished the game you could and likely would turn the tutorials off. And if the first missions are too easy, you can run them at a higher difficulty level where you'll need all the skills you learned the first time around just to survive (yes, I think that FS3 should give mission designers the option of drastically changing the number and behavior of enemies on different difficulty settings.
Also, why is a difficulty curve a bad thing? It seems rather reasonable to me that The Romans Blunder should be a lot easier than Feint! Parry! Riposte!, which should be a lot easier than Argonautica, which should be easier than Clash of the Titans II.
-
First of all, one of the ideas behind my tutorial system was that once you finished the game you could and likely would turn the tutorials off. And if the first missions are too easy, you can run them at a higher difficulty level where you'll need all the skills you learned the first time around just to survive (yes, I think that FS3 should give mission designers the option of drastically changing the number and behavior of enemies on different difficulty settings.
skill-level-at-least says hi.
-
That could work, although doing it for a whole mission would be a rather complicated and inefficient way of going about it, but probably the best you could do in FRED2.
-
Bonus points for spotting the obvious odd one out.
T?
Heh, Woolie, you're quite wrong, you should come and play the mission me'n'E have been working on for the last fortnight or so.
As for console portage; Honestly, come play some Multi.
A lot of base level skill comes from micromanagement of the shields and ETS, as well as quick target management.
Also, the way you talk about it makes me think you don't really play on hard/insane even on single player because the energy system is REALLY important in a lot of situations.
-
No, it isn't. Nothing in a single-player campaign could be anything close to a decent preparation for multi, especially multi as it is practiced a year or two after release. At best you could have a dedicated multiplayer tutorial but that would only be sufficient for casual pub play and would have to be outside of the campaign because otherwise you'd be wasting the SP players' time.
Again you're missing the point.
The FS2 tutorials are better than your method because they actually teach you the lesser used stuff. Your method either teaches it badly or skips it claiming that there is no need to have it.
First of all, one of the ideas behind my tutorial system was that once you finished the game you could and likely would turn the tutorials off. And if the first missions are too easy, you can run them at a higher difficulty level where you'll need all the skills you learned the first time around just to survive (yes, I think that FS3 should give mission designers the option of drastically changing the number and behavior of enemies on different difficulty settings.
And then at some point you have to go back into the options menu and turn the difficulty back down because the missions have finally become more challenging than the easy ones you started with and now the difficulty is way too high.
Congratulations on the poor game design choice. Any campaign where you have to change difficulty levels halfway through is poorly designed as far as I'm concerned.
Also, why is a difficulty curve a bad thing? It seems rather reasonable to me that The Romans Blunder should be a lot easier than Feint! Parry! Riposte!, which should be a lot easier than Argonautica, which should be easier than Clash of the Titans II.
Again, missing the point.
Difficulty curves are completely different from a flat plateau at the start because the missions were designed to be played as a tutorial.
That isn't a curve, it's just poor game design.
-
First of all, one of the ideas behind my tutorial system was that once you finished the game you could and likely would turn the tutorials off. And if the first missions are too easy, you can run them at a higher difficulty level where you'll need all the skills you learned the first time around just to survive (yes, I think that FS3 should give mission designers the option of drastically changing the number and behavior of enemies on different difficulty settings.
So instead of having a tutorial mission like we have now which you can turn off, you want to incorporate them into the story missions and have the player ramp the difficulty up and down between missions?
It just seems like a lot of work to avoid something you don't even have to do anyways. Fiddling with difficulty levels during a campaign to get an even toughness is just time consuming and unavoidable in that plan because these aren't tutorials you can just skip. These are needed story missions.
-
No, I did not say that the player should ramp the difficulty up and down between missions. I said that if you played the campaign (all of it) on Hard, the early missions would only be slightly less difficult than the rest of the campaign. And hitting "Tutorials Off" in the options menu would make all tutorial boxes go away regardless of skill level.
Games do not generally have an "even toughness". They tend to get progressively more difficult as the game progresses. Early missions are easy, later missions are very hard.
-
Hold on, since we're at an empass.
Let me put it another way;
Pop-up tutorials are annoying (first time round let alone on replays, and even if you turn them off .. you still know they're there, still get the mental impression of a "DING" or "SHUUNG" or whatever noise the pop-up makes (or worse, none)), they're THE most annoying style of tutorial ever.
Tutorials in mini-pre-campaign are the best way to handle it, FreeSpace/CoD4's is a nice go-between.
But seriously, Pop-ups that detract from flow of gameplay make me want to BURN designers, from the toes up.
The slow kind of burning that makes them think about their demise for a few hours as they roast.
Pop-ups that grab focus are EVEN worse.
Worst computer mechanic that was EVER invented.
And you want to put it into a campaign? Once-only or not, it's still TERRIBLE.
-
No, I did not say that the player should ramp the difficulty up and down between missions. I said that if you played the campaign (all of it) on Hard, the early missions would only be slightly less difficult than the rest of the campaign. And hitting "Tutorials Off" in the options menu would make all tutorial boxes go away regardless of skill level.
You are talking about someone who has just completed the game on the default setting of easy having to ramp the game up to hard or even insane just to get some fun out of your non-tutorial, tutorial missions and then after a few missions hitting the real hard/insane difficulty level.
That's idiotic. The first missions would be challenging and then the later ones would be impossible.
-
What makes you think the missions with tutorial boxes in them won't themselves get harder as the story progresses? Do you think the game's just going to let nothing happen when it's not in the middle of teaching you something? I don't think a campaign at a fixed or very limited range of difficulty throughout its entire length (or worse, a sudden and severe jump in difficulty right in the middle with no curve at all) is desirable. Players gain skill with continued playing and the difficulty should rise slowly but constantly as the game progresses. The early missions would be actual missions with real combat and real danger (the lack of danger being one of the principal features that makes a lot of people hate training missions), not a Simon Says instructor routine with a few more ships as window dressing. Play it again on Medium and every mission is a bit harder than it was the first time around. Play it on Hard and you'll get Hard, with the difficulty curve becoming more unforgiving as the difficulty level rises.
Half-Life 2 took this to the extreme of diguising its tutorials as something else entirely (like the ball minigame with DOG or the helicopter gunship scene in New Little Odessa) but it still retains its replay value even though it's a lot easier at the beginning than near the end--it actually makes learning things entertaining rather than simple repetition of commands (and it can still be entertaining even if you have the hang of it because it's presented as part of the game and the plot and world are still developing around you). You're told how to do something, then you do a fairly easy version of it, and then harder and harder scenarios are presented as the game goes on.
-
You are all over the place now. I'm not even sure you even know what you're trying to argue anymore.
What makes you think the missions with tutorial boxes in them won't themselves get harder as the story progresses? Do you think the game's just going to let nothing happen when it's not in the middle of teaching you something?
No one said they wouldn't get harder. What they did say is that the missions that are tutorial are going to have to be easier than they are currently because instead of teaching someone something in a tutorial mission and then sending them off into the real mission to try it, you're cramming both together.
I don't think a campaign at a fixed or very limited range of difficulty throughout its entire length (or worse, a sudden and severe jump in difficulty right in the middle with no curve at all) is desirable.
You're suggesting players learn a new technique in a mission that is specifically designed for players who already know that technique. A mission that teaches you aspect seeking missiles while shooting down ships with said technique is going to be very hard because they're teaching it to you right now!
The difficulty level is going to ramp up because you've been thrown into a mission to use something you haven't used before. This is exactly what you've asked for.
Players gain skill with continued playing and the difficulty should rise slowly but constantly as the game progresses.
Except when you introduce a new feature midgame. If the missions get harder as time goes on, any new feature you bring in will be taught on the hardest mission they've played.
The early missions would be actual missions with real combat and real danger (the lack of danger being one of the principal features that makes a lot of people hate training missions), not a Simon Says instructor routine with a few more ships as window dressing. Play it again on Medium and every mission is a bit harder than it was the first time around. Play it on Hard and you'll get Hard, with the difficulty curve becoming more unforgiving as the difficulty level rises.
Who plays the training missions on medium or hard?
Half-Life 2 took this to the extreme of diguising its tutorials as something else entirely (like the ball minigame with DOG or the helicopter gunship scene in New Little Odessa) but it still retains its replay value even though it's a lot easier at the beginning than near the end--it actually makes learning things entertaining rather than simple repetition of commands (and it can still be entertaining even if you have the hang of it because it's presented as part of the game and the plot and world are still developing around you). You're told how to do something, then you do a fairly easy version of it, and then harder and harder scenarios are presented as the game goes on.
Emphasis mine. You've just described a tutorial mission as they stand now. Your only concern is they flat out tell you it's a tutorial mission. After the 10th time playing Half Life 2, I don't need to do the little tutorial missions no matter how fun you think they are.
-
[quote ]. A mission that teaches you aspect seeking missiles while shooting down ships with said technique is going to be very hard because they're teaching it to you right now!
The difficulty level is going to ramp up because you've been thrown into a mission to use something you haven't used before. This is exactly what you've asked for. [/quote]
You don't need a significant length of time to figure out aspect seeking missiles. All you need to know is that you keep the target in view and wait for the flashing circle and lock tone, then fire. The player would have learned to aim ahead in the very first mission so a new player should be using aspect seeking missiles correctly within 30 seconds of seeing the tutorial box.
Players gain skill with continued playing and the difficulty should rise slowly but constantly as the game progresses.
Except when you introduce a new feature midgame. If the missions get harder as time goes on, any new feature you bring in will be taught on the hardest mission they've played.[/quote]
FreeSpace is not a very complicated games. Learning a new feature like aspect-seeking missiles is not hard unless the player has some severe learning disability. A single wing of enemy fighters or similar challenge would be all the practice a player needs before throwing him back into the fire, and the less obvious it is to the player that it's "practice", the better.
Who plays the training missions on medium or hard?
The whole point is that the campaign would have no training missions, and if you're playing on Hard, the game will treat you as if you already know what you're doing and the missions will be hard from the word go. The higher the difficulty level, the tighter the difficulty curve gets, to increase replay value.
Emphasis mine. You've just described a tutorial mission as they stand now. Your only concern is they flat out tell you it's a tutorial mission. After the 10th time playing Half Life 2, I don't need to do the little tutorial missions no matter how fun you think they are.
Except that in many cases it's a hell of a lot more than a tutorial mission. The New Little Odessa has Odessa briefly explain the RPG and its function and then you have to fight a full-on boss battle with it. And even the DOG minigame is tied into the main story and feels like a natural part of the game.
A new player should be able to start FreeSpace 3's first mission, and fight his first enemies in two minutes. I think it can be done without severely compromising the gameplay or dragging him off to a separate training mission with no actual combat (combat essentially being the whole point of the game), and be playing "for keeps" from the start of the first mission to the end of the last mission.
-
No, I don't think so. Thrusting the player right into the middle of things, while it has its place as a story-telling device, is not that great a tool to teach people a relatively complex control setup like FreeSpace's.
Skippable tutorial missions are the best solution for this. That way, you can give people the option of going right to the action part, without having to do overly complicated missions that have training elements in them.
-
I for one don't think the controls for FS are hard at all. Of course, I love flight sims. Anything involving a powerful, expensive space ship should have a fair amount of control functions to make "flight ops" more realistic. I actually wouldn't mind more controls, but that would not fit in so well with the distances/speeds/time space presented in the FS universe. It worked better for X-Wing (which was FAR more primitive) to an extent, as a Star Destroyer might be some 40km distant (which in reality, is a very short distance). And if I remember correctly, X-Wing had less controls than FS ever did. However, you did get a cockpit, which made flying around for 30 minutes more entertaining.
I wish there were more games on the market like Il-2, Hornet, and Falcon (well... I never played Falcon, but do know it's a good deal more complicated than Hornet). As far as training missions go, most conventional fighter flight sims were a lot tougher than FS due to a lack of interaction. For instance, with the old F/A-18 and A-10 simulators, you'd get a text bit on what the idea of the simulation was as well as what systems you'd need to use. It was up to you to read the manual OR look up the keystrokes to find the functions to operate the virtual aircraft. In a way, that's actually a great deal more realistic than FS's presentation of a training environment. Later iterations of Hornet actually gave an interactive "ready room" where you could watch training videos and review tactics. And THAT could take a while... What FS did was make you feel like a junior officer being put through his/her paces - most sims don't do that. What it also did was make sure to a degree that the impression of "dumbards in the cockpit" was avoided. You're supposed to be an officer in a military organization. As such, you are a professional combatant who is highly trained, can take orders, but... just like a real officer, makes serious decisions and has to be able to spit out orders when appropriate. To that end, I think FS does a pretty darn good job while still being fun.
-Thaeris
-
Well the "dumbards in cockpit" are the people who are going to be buying your game, so the old school flight sim model of "hey there pilot, hope you read the manual because we can't be bothered to help you" really isn't a viable way to develop games in the era of eight-figure game budgets.
-
Well I never was one for catering to the lowest common denominator.
Unskilled and uninvested people make for poor opponents, why I would want more of those I don't know.
FS' gameplay holds up even now, and the training missions are a smooth preamble gateway into both the universe and the gameplay.
If the console generation are so stupid and moronic, and so ADHD inflicted that they can't sit down and be taught the basics immediately before launching off the deepend, it's the own fault.
That isn't to say you can't go ahead and make a campaign with tutorials all the way through it - however I for one don't think I could stomach it, most RTS do it and it's the thing that puts me off the genre the most, I don't want to be hand held for 90% of the campaign for 2 half-decent missions at the end.
-
Well most games that spread the tutorials out through normal gameplay allow you to turn them off. You won't see footage of experienced Rome: Total War players being hit with popup messages in their YouTube videos.
As for "catering the lowest common denominator", game developers are businesses that exist to make money. Developing AAA titles is so unbelievably expensive nowadays that you need to sell tens if not hundreds of thousands of copies to break even. You're not recoup the cost of developing FS3 by intentionally driving away "unskilled and uninvested" players. Scattering the tutorials throughout the game is the best way to keep these people in the game without watering the game down badly.
-
You don't need a significant length of time to figure out aspect seeking missiles. All you need to know is that you keep the target in view and wait for the flashing circle and lock tone, then fire. The player would have learned to aim ahead in the very first mission so a new player should be using aspect seeking missiles correctly within 30 seconds of seeing the tutorial box.
Yea on the hardest mission they've played you're going to throw a new feature at them and they'll have it in a few seconds. It took me longer than 30 seconds to get used to using aspect seeking missiles when I started playing, and I was in an easy tutorial mission. I think you're mistaking your current skill level for your new player level.
FreeSpace is not a very complicated games. Learning a new feature like aspect-seeking missiles is not hard unless the player has some severe learning disability. A single wing of enemy fighters or similar challenge would be all the practice a player needs before throwing him back into the fire, and the less obvious it is to the player that it's "practice", the better.
Which is exactly what the tutorial mission was. And for some reason you think that's bad. Why is bad to tell them it's practice? The giant popup window in the game telling them how to do it is going to be a big giveaway. The fact that they've never done it before will be another.
The whole point is that the campaign would have no training missions, and if you're playing on Hard, the game will treat you as if you already know what you're doing and the missions will be hard from the word go. The higher the difficulty level, the tighter the difficulty curve gets, to increase replay value.
The mission that teaches you how to use aspect seeking missiles IS a training mission. No matter how tough you make it or how quick you think they learn it. The missions that teach you something new ARE training missions.
As for treating you as if you already know what you're doing, you've stated it should only take them 30 seconds to get it period, so even on easy it should be assumed they know what they're doing.
And even the DOG minigame is tied into the main story and feels like a natural part of the game.
No it didn't. The part in Halo where the guys check your suit by having you run and jump around.... not fooling me either. It's very obvious they're tutorial missions and I wish I could skip them but I can't because they've been tied into the storyline.
A new player should be able to start FreeSpace 3's first mission, and fight his first enemies in two minutes.
Why? Why is this needed? Are players going to quit playing if the game teaches them how to actually play? Every time I play a new game I always play the tutorial.
I think it can be done without severely compromising the gameplay or dragging him off to a separate training mission with no actual combat (combat essentially being the whole point of the game), and be playing "for keeps" from the start of the first mission to the end of the last mission.
This would only affect brand new players that would actually need those missions, so how does this affect everyone else?
Well most games that spread the tutorials out through normal gameplay allow you to turn them off. You won't see footage of experienced Rome: Total War players being hit with popup messages in their YouTube videos.
Doesn't Rome: Total War force you into a tutorial the first time you play? I just reinstalled it on this computer and the tutorial was my only option.
-
Ever consider that producing titles which caused you to sit down and think might help counteract the short attention spans and supposed incompetance of the new generation? :drevil:
I mean seriously, though, my favorite shows as a kid were the technical shows on PBS... you know, where you learn about wildlife and math... I'm probably not the usual company.
I wouldn't change the training environment in FS for the world, though. It makes the universe feel real in a way, and gives a taste of the "regular" flight operations which you as a player are not forced to deal with. Regular sims did this by making it so you had to work to get a grasp on things... just like real pilots. FS does this in a way that it feels serious but still plays like a game.
And don't dare knock the training missions. If you've never played the game before, they're vital. I remember I first got into FS because of BtRL. When I found a better control scheme and changed a few things... but forgot precisely what I did, all I needed to do was jump back to the training mission. Due to the setup of the said training mission (as well as retail FS and FS2), whatever keystroke-function setup was in place at the time was displayed on the message bar. And that is VERY useful.
Lastly, no-one here wants a "dumbards in the cockpit" scenario for FS. You know why? It's because that was what SW Battlefront was for flight operations... to the letter. I need not say any more...
-Thaeris
-
I'm just flabbergasted that a game with completely skippable tutorial missions for new players is somehow WORSE than a mission that needs to shoehorn the tutorials into real game play, while not making it too easy for experienced players but not too hard for new players, all why telling a good story.
-
To non-hillbillify the old adage: "If it's not broken, do not bother fixing it."
-Thaeris
-
Which is exactly what the tutorial mission was. And for some reason you think that's bad. Why is bad to tell them it's practice? The giant popup window in the game telling them how to do it is going to be a big giveaway. The fact that they've never done it before will be another.
I don't think that is acceptable because there are no real stakes involved. Nobody gets killed if you screw up. You're not under any pressure.
The mission that teaches you how to use aspect seeking missiles IS a training mission. No matter how tough you make it or how quick you think they learn it. The missions that teach you something new ARE training missions.
But it's certainly different from a proper training mission in that it's a real battle with enemies out to kill you and/or vital mission objectives, and if you switch off the tutorials there would be almost no evidence of any "training" other than perhaps a suspiciously weak wing of fighters showing up.
As for treating you as if you already know what you're doing, you've stated it should only take them 30 seconds to get it period, so even on easy it should be assumed they know what they're doing.
No it didn't. The part in Halo where the guys check your suit by having you run and jump around.... not fooling me either. It's very obvious they're tutorial missions and I wish I could skip them but I can't because they've been tied into the storyline.
Maybe you didn't notice the character moments for Eli, Alyx, and DOG, story exposition, and advance of the plot at Black Mesa East. The story of the game never stops from the moment the G-Man wakes you up until the moment Breen dies.
Why? Why is this needed? Are players going to quit playing if the game teaches them how to actually play? Every time I play a new game I always play the tutorial.
Because I think the average modern gamer will quit. They want to be in the game doing their thing in minutes. My concept allows them to indulge this wish without severely simplifying the game. And since the average modern gamer are the people to whom :v: and THQ will need to sell a lot of copies of the game to to make money and ensure the continued existence of the franchise, it's rather important that the "console generation" sticks around to play the whole game.
Doesn't Rome: Total War force you into a tutorial the first time you play? I just reinstalled it on this computer and the tutorial was my only option.
Maybe, I don't remember that being so (although the tutorial was a single mission instead of several), but it could have been. However, the people who buy Total War games are not the kind of people who buy action games.
Maybe I should clarify a bit. I personally wouldn't mind a training segment provided the instructor was more like, say, MechWarrior 2's (especially the part where he compares you to his dog, that was loaded with incredible personality) and less like the droning TSM guy. However, I'm looking at it through the eyes of the average person who I think this game will be marketed at. He'll see the pretty explosions on the packaging and want to go blow up some spaceships. He'll get annoyed if he has to sit through something like the TSM modules from FS2 (especially if there are three of the things in a row) and tell his friends not to buy the game. Multiply this by several thousand times and it's a massive financial loss for :v:. So the trick is to introduce all the gameplay elements as you go along so as to have most or all of FS2's features without overtaxing the Console Kid's Ritalin-addled brain.
-
I don't think that is acceptable because there are no real stakes involved. Nobody gets killed if you screw up. You're not under any pressure.
It's a training mission. It's not supposed to have pressure!
But it's certainly different from a proper training mission in that it's a real battle with enemies out to kill you and/or vital mission objectives, and if you switch off the tutorials there would be almost no evidence of any "training" other than perhaps a suspiciously weak wing of fighters showing up.
You're right, it's a mission where you're supposed to be worried about incoming enemies and objectives, not how this new fangled thingy works.
Maybe you didn't notice the character moments for Eli, Alyx, and DOG, story exposition, and advance of the plot at Black Mesa East. The story of the game never stops from the moment the G-Man wakes you up until the moment Breen dies.
Oh I got the story. I knew about her and DOG before we had to play fetch for a time. The second time I played I knew even faster but I still had to sit there and play fetch. I know DOG is her pet and I know how to use the damn gun, I'd like to move on please.
Command and Conquer is another one that does that. Those first few missions make you do the same things.
"This is how you make soldiers" "I know"
"This is how you get Tiberium" "I know"
"This is how you make vehicles" "I know"
"This is how you sell stuff" "I know"
I can hardly play C&C games anymore because I can't stand sitting through 4-5 missions that teach me stuff I learned over a decade ago.
Because I think the average modern gamer will quit. They want to be in the game doing their thing in minutes. My concept allows them to indulge this wish without severely simplifying the game. And since the average modern gamer are the people to whom :v: and THQ will need to sell a lot of copies of the game to to make money and ensure the continued existence of the franchise, it's rather important that the "console generation" sticks around to play the whole game.
If a modern gamer has such a short attention span, then they can just turn off the completely skippable tutorials. In your preferred method, the player has to sit through all the tutorials again. Which is more likely to bore them?
Maybe, I don't remember that being so (although the tutorial was a single mission instead of several), but it could have been. However, the people who buy Total War games are not the kind of people who buy action games.
I'm not sure what this means? Action gamers have the attention span of a goldfish and need constant stimulation?
Maybe I should clarify a bit. I personally wouldn't mind a training segment provided the instructor was more like, say, MechWarrior 2's (especially the part where he compares you to his dog, that was loaded with incredible personality) and less like the droning TSM guy. However, I'm looking at it through the eyes of the average person who I think this game will be marketed at. He'll see the pretty explosions on the packaging and want to go blow up some spaceships. He'll get annoyed if he has to sit through something like the TSM modules from FS2 (especially if there are three of the things in a row) and tell his friends not to buy the game. Multiply this by several thousand times and it's a massive financial loss for :v:. So the trick is to introduce all the gameplay elements as you go along so as to have most or all of FS2's features without overtaxing the Console Kid's Ritalin-addled brain.
If he doesn't like the TSMs, there is a big ol skip button right there. You've already said the things it teaches are super easy and only take a few seconds, so it shouldn't matter, right? Why not just leave them be and let the gibbering mental patients who demand immediate action jump right in but people who want to learn how to play first do so without shoving it into the story?
-
I think what Woolie Wool prefers (and me, if I understand correctly) is something like this example:
FreeSpace 2 Mission 1
The mission starts with you doing NOTHING for a brief period. This is where a training message should appear and say [PRESS X TO MOVE IN N DIRECTION. PRESS Y TO TARGET. PRESS Z TO ACCELERATE/DECELERATE.]. When the first wing appears, a message then should appear and say [PRESS A TO TARGET HOSTILE. PRESS B TO SHOOT PRIMARY. PRESS C TO SHOOT SECONDARY.] Some other important training message can appear when the next wing comes and so on. You get the idea.
What he doesn't like is that the training missions, while necessary, aren't at all engaging. Even if you want to learn how to play, it's frustrating listening to the lifeless simulation teach you basics when you feel that you should've known them. What's more annoying is that it doesn't take a few seconds to finish. It might even last for long minutes, which isn't all that interesting if you've never played a space sim before. The example above has a mission that, although may last a while longer than a training mission (but shorter than three), is much more enjoyable because you don't have wait for the instructor to give you orders about the basics while doing nothing. If the HOW TO PLAY was a bit more engaging, then the number of players playing FreeSpace would probably be more than it is now might be the moral of the story.
-
Yes, I think the majority of console action gamers have the attention span of a goldfish and need constant stimulation, even if it is Alyx Vance's skinny jeans clad ass in the case of the fetch game, and that :v: will need to get a lot of these people hooked on the game to make it a success.
Also I did mention the tutorials can be turned off entirely and you'll be left to perform the mission objectives on your own. So instead of getting a popup telling you how to bomb capships, you're just asked to bomb the capship before it wipes out the GTD Whatchamacallit.
-
What he doesn't like is that the training missions, while necessary, aren't at all engaging. Even if you want to learn how to play, it's frustrating listening to the lifeless simulation teach you basics when you feel that you should've known them. What's more annoying is that it doesn't take a few seconds to finish. It might even last for long minutes, which isn't all that interesting if you've never played a space sim before.
Then I guess I'm just baffled that people are so sick of training missions that takes a few minutes total, that you only really have to do once or twice EVER and are completely skippable but think they should be pushed into the main storyline and made permanent.
I did the tutorial mission for FS1 and FS2 like twice each, ever, in a decade. I don't want them in the main campaign, I don't need them.
Yes, I think the majority of console action gamers have the attention span of a goldfish and need constant stimulation, even if it is Alyx Vance's skinny jeans clad ass in the case of the fetch game, and that :v: will need to get a lot of these people hooked on the game to make it a success.
Also I did mention the tutorials can be turned off entirely and you'll be left to perform the mission objectives on your own. So instead of getting a popup telling you how to bomb capships, you're just asked to bomb the capship before it wipes out the GTD Whatchamacallit.
Yes but a mission that is a tutorial mission with no tutorials is just a plain easy mission. Which totally screws over your gradual increase in difficulty. It's just a tutorial mission with no text.
-
Well, after the first mission, many missions would mix tutorials with long sections of straight combat. You might have only one or two info boxes per mission after the first mission (which is typically very easy anyway), and the rest being normal gameplay.
-
[Yes but a mission that is a tutorial mission with no tutorials is just a plain easy mission. Which totally screws over your gradual increase in difficulty. It's just a tutorial mission with no text.
Like the first mission of both FreeSpace and FreeSpace 2. ;7
-
Well, after the first mission, many missions would mix tutorials with long sections of straight combat. You might have only one or two info boxes per mission after the first mission (which is typically very easy anyway), and the rest being normal gameplay.
It just seems like such a pain to try to fit them into the game without making it too easy or hard when all you have to do is give the option to learn it once on its own and then never deal with it again.
If most people are going to turn them off after the first go around no matter what, why does it matter if they're in their own missions or not?
Like the first mission of both FreeSpace and FreeSpace 2. ;7
As the first mission in a game, it totally should be. Tutorials or not. Halfway through the game? Not so much.
-
By halfway through the game, you'd encounter at least one infoscreen popup, perhaps explaining some really obscure targeting function for very specific situations or exotic weapon like TAG missiles to reveal stealth fighters, and said stealth fighters will fight back. The basic flight controls could be explained in one mission with most of the game's features fully explained by mission 5 or so.
-
Well, I don't think that there needs to be a tutorial mission half way through the game for FreeSpace. Once you learn how to target with an aspect seeker, firing a bomb should be pretty obvious. If not, the secondary trigger failing to launch and an explanation telling you that you need to acquire lock should be enough.
-
Well, there's the fact that bombs can be shot down. If you just fire it the first chance you get it may blow up in your face.
-
So basically, Woolie, you're saying that you want a series of missions that basically amount to "A Game of TAG".
That's not going to fly. Ever.
-
No-one's gonna change retail, but there's nothing stopping Woolie from making his own tutorial missions. He could even release them as a standalone set or single mission.
-
We're not talking about FS2. We're talking about a hypothetical FS3. FS2 is what it is.
So basically, Woolie, you're saying that you want a series of missions that basically amount to "A Game of TAG".
That's not going to fly. Ever.
You know, except for the fact that the TAG-A missiles were worthless and your fighter sucked, which are the real reasons why everyone hates that mission.
(although I think Fury-like dumbfire TAGs carried in large quantities would be great against stealth fighters)
-
Or just a damned TAG primary...
-
The tutorial missions are very useful for a number of reasons:
1: It teaches you how to fly (duh!)
2: It means you're not overwhelmed 3 mins into the game and then killed as the combat flows very fast and you're still staring at the reference card looking for the target button
3: It teaches you some things you otherwise might not notice, like bomb targeting or closest attacking ship
Also even if you don't like this there is always the skip button!!
If the first 5 or so missions if freespace tried to not be 2 hard to teach me something I don't think I would have played it.
-
I think the training missions would be okay if they were just more interesting. The trainer voice is very bland, and the environment is even moreso. If the environment was for example leaving an Arcadia with a nice starfield etcetera it would be more appealing.
I understand people's argument to have them skippable, because they don't want to play them on the second go. But I also understand the appeal of having them in-game. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but really which one is implemented should be determined by which will be better for newer players. The needs of new players should always trump the needs of returning players, because if it were the other way around there wouldn't be any new or returning players playing the game in the first place.
Sometimes having them skippable is not a good thing. After a few years I replayed Half-Life 1 and after getting all the way to the alien world I realized I didn't know how to do long jumps so I had to go back and do the training anyway. If they just threw that into the game I wouldn't have had that problem.
A lot of First Person Shooters bring the training into the game (ie SiN, some Halo knockoff I can't remember). Putting you in an obstacle course for example, where there's a log so it says "press X to jump" then you get to another doorway and it's "press X to crouch" that sort of thing.
THOUGH, one thing to keep in mind, that as the character, you should know how to duck and jump. You're a human being after all. Whereas the character in Freespace wouldn't just be thrown into a combat situation. They need to have training, it's a part of the universe.
So . . . I think in the end I would probably disagree with Woolie Woo about bringing them in-game so to speak. But at the same time I agree that any training missions would need to be a lot more interesting. They sims are important because they fit the universe but those sims could be milked for much more than they are now. The FS2 training mission tell you two things, how to fly your ship, and that the simulator is boring. Why not for example have the training with a human being, like Snipes, who is not only entertaining but drops some story hooks into the conversation to get the player interested.
The ideal training mission I think would be skippable, but interesting enough that returning players choose NOT to skip it. Just because as basic as it is, it's still worth their time to play.
-
You know, except for the fact that the TAG-A missiles were worthless and your fighter sucked, which are the real reasons why everyone hates that mission.
(although I think Fury-like dumbfire TAGs carried in large quantities would be great against stealth fighters)
The Ulysses is basically the best dogfighter the game offers. There's nothing wrong with the ship. Sure, you have crappy primaries. But there's also nothing wrong with the TAGs, you just haven't figured out the best way to use them.
Because there's no training.
-
You know, except for the fact that the TAG-A missiles were worthless and your fighter sucked, which are the real reasons why everyone hates that mission.
(although I think Fury-like dumbfire TAGs carried in large quantities would be great against stealth fighters)
The Ulysses is basically the best dogfighter the game offers. There's nothing wrong with the ship. Sure, you have crappy primaries. But there's also nothing wrong with the TAGs, you just haven't figured out the best way to use them.
Because there's no training.
No, the TAG is a terrible missile. It has neither lock-on like dogfighting missiles nor can it be spammed like Tempests, it does no damage on its own, its effects are short-lived, and the secondary positions are even more spread out than the primaries, compounding the aiming difficulty. The Ulysses has a poor gun configuration, a small weapon load (criminal considering the weapon that is being tested), and one of its banks is a Prometheus . You're flying an outdated fighter with ****ty primaries and really ****ty secondaries, right after being introduced to the Perseus and Prometheus S, which are basically flying sex and the most versatile pieces of equipment (aside from the captured Maras, but those aren't exactly standard issue) in the whole game. You're facing a so many Shivan fighters that you will run out of TAGs and be all but unarmed. And it's a capship defense mission in the nebula. It's the perfect storm of everything people hate in space sims.
It's telling that I've never seen a major fan-made campaign that used TAGs to any siginificant degree, and I actually went out of my way to create a rationale for them (unstealthing stealth fighers) that is completely different from its original purpose. TAGs suck. A mission that makes you use TAGs as your primary armament sucks by extension, And when you add all the other aspects of the mission, it really sucks.
-
No, the TAG is a terrible missile. It has neither lock-on like dogfighting missiles nor can it be spammed like Tempests, it does no damage on its own, its effects are short-lived, and the secondary positions are even more spread out than the primaries, compounding the aiming difficulty. The Ulysses has a poor gun configuration, a small weapon load (criminal considering the weapon that is being tested), and one of its banks is a Prometheus . You're flying an outdated fighter with ****ty primaries and really ****ty secondaries, right after being introduced to the Perseus and Prometheus S, which are basically flying sex and the most versatile pieces of equipment (aside from the captured Maras, but those aren't exactly standard issue) in the whole game. You're facing a so many Shivan fighters that you will run out of TAGs and be all but unarmed. And it's a capship defense mission in the nebula. It's the perfect storm of everything people hate in space sims.
I can't agree with you more. I hate that mission. With a passion, because the game makes it harder than it really needs to be by forcing you to use, basically, ****. If you were flying a Herc 2 with both banks being Subachs and two secondary bays full of TAG-1s (instead of a Ulysses with one functional bank and a tiny amount of the missiles being tested), it would probably make more sense...
Though the TAGs are worthless ****s anyway, even WITH ULTRA-AAAs.
/me was killed by friendly beam fire from Warspite.
-
If anyone made FS3, it would need to accomplish the near impossible - Training missions that are interesting and yet teach you the basic skills you need to fly a fighter. Beyond that the entire control scheme would have to be MASSIVELY simplified. I mean for christs sake, FS2 uses almost EVERY SINGLE KEY ON THE ENTIRE KEYBOARD. I don't even USE half those keys. While the advanced stuff should be made available, there also should be a default basic view so it doesn't scare off half its playerbase. Freespace is very fun to play, its just that the first few missions need to be dumbified for the general masses. Once you get them hooked, you can throw anything at them.
-
I can't agree with you more. I hate that mission. With a passion, because the game makes it harder than it really needs to be by forcing you to use, basically, ****. If you were flying a Herc 2 with both banks being Subachs and two secondary bays full of TAG-1s (instead of a Ulysses with one functional bank and a tiny amount of the missiles being tested), it would probably make more sense...
Though the TAGs are worthless ****s anyway, even WITH ULTRA-AAAs.
That's just a bad mission design period in my opinion.
The worst of all is that your wingman is guardian and the shivans invariable waste the guy so you wonder, where's your wingman and then you see it sitting dead in space with 4 Maras shooting at it and wonder "I wonder why she's not dead yet". Takes you out of the moment. . .
-
The question in general, as I precieve it, is "what is FreeSpace or what should it be?" Well, first off it's a simulator. A simulator attempts to create a virtural environment which adheres to a set of laws or parameters under a given set of circumstances. Under that guise, I suppose any game is a sim... but, that's a separate tangent. FreeSpace is a non-Newtonian space simulation (the flight dynamics might be explained in a realistic manner via some new and/or nonexistant technology) which plays a good deal like Star Wars. In truth, you might even get away calling the flight dynamics realistic because you could get a spacecraft to perform the maneuvers as seen in FreeSpace. It's definately more "game" than "serious flight sim," but has enough environment/complexity that it feels somewhat real. As such, to retain the "real" element of the sim you need to incorporate those elements into gameplay.
Since the "hook" of the game is not full-blown Newtonian flight physics, you need to look at atmosphere. You see it in missions, but then you're just flowing with the story. As a "pilot," you want to "feel" that you're in a sophisticated, complex craft. That's where the training mission come in. The training mission establishes the fact that you're supposed to be in such a craft. That it could be dangerous if mishandled (though you know it's not). And most importantly, that YOU ARE a friggin' GTVA fighter pilot, an officer. The training mission sets a precedent. Any military flight sim sets these precedents: if you're flying off carriers, you're taught to fly a pattern. "Realistic" protocol creates a realistic, believable environment. Any gamer/simmer wants to feel like they're in the universe that the author of that universe created. It's the same for books. If you get rid of that environment, you remove a vital part of the said universe.
Now, could you make training missions more fun/entertaining? HECK YES. Let's imagine this:
FS3: Training Mission #1:
"Strapped in tight, rookie?" the instructor asks. You're inside the hangar bay of a GTD Orion, not some silly TSM. The story is set up so you've perhaps already graduated from that part of flight school... now you need to try the real deal. To add to this: ...note that FS2 already assumes you're a qualified pilot. They ask you to review your training. Like I said... atmosphere. Now, through dialogue between your instructor and prompts on the HUD, you maneuver your fighter to the launch port of the destroyer. "This is Tower... Alpha 1, you're clear for launch. Stand by for linkup with accelerator array." Here, we assume that "runway" on the Orion actually does something... clearly we also assume FS3 has complex launches and landings. "Alpha 1, this is launch officer, stand by for release in 3... 2... 1..." Your fighter shakes as it blasts off from the launch bay at full power... your instructor is right behind you in his fighter. "Well pilot, I'm sure you've already heard a lot about the Orion-Class Destroyer you'll be based on for the next few days while you complete your flight qualifications. The GTD [insert name here] is a proud ship with a proud heritage. In... blah blah blah... As the Orion-Class has been removed from front-line duties, several of the vessels have been retrofitted for service in alternate roles, such as training. Old [insert name here] is one such example." You clear the ship and cover some basics. You fly around, looking in awe upon other ships in the area, doing their "own thing." Dialogue is engaging as well as informative. You are made to feel like the GTVA as well as your own responsibilities are real and that your fighter is everything that a fighter is supposed to be: complex, powerful, expensive, and most of all, FREAKING AWESOME! You return to the Orion, enter the landing bay, and come to a stop. A ceiling arm comes and grabs your fighter (which you are now certain could destroy the entire Shivan Armada, of course) and sets it upon a landing fork. You are then debriefed and informed that your next mission will be live-firing practice on some old derelict from the second Shivan incursion... probably a Leviathan or some freighter.
I don't know about you, but that does not sound boring. As it's a training mission, you can still skip it, but there might be just enough to do that experienced players might not even mind playing it again. It sets a precedent for the universe. It makes FS real for the player.
I for one don't think FS should ever be like Half-Life or GoW in terms of training. You, the pilot, is not a "dumbard" as I've been saying. You are a professional officer, not some grunt on the ground with a gun. And, it's a sim, so the controls will be inherently harder than any shooter. The game should make you understand full well what controls to use and how to use them. And it should tell you in a manner that makes you feel like you're really there. Training missions do that. ATMOSPHERE.
-Thaeris
-
Personally, I really enjoyed the training missions in FS2, and I even liked the instructor. It really helped immersion because it was "real" training. Sprinkling popups throughout the campaign would have destroyed my suspension of disbelief. Even after turning them off, that "suspiciously weak wing of fighters" would bug me every time I play the mission.
-
Unless you can somehow make an in-game tutorial far better than anything I've seen in any game so far, I think training mission would be inevitable for a game like this.
I mean, I've tried to get a few people into this game, and even with me looking over their shoulder and explaining everything they still struggle to grasp a lot of things much to my disbelief. Even when they do seem to get it, they'll simply fail to recall random things that cause great difficulty even after having it explained to them three or four times previously.
Usually it's not until I tell them to go through the training missions that they finally get it.
I think we're biased observers in this case because we're already used to the controls and easily forget how thick people can be.
Heck, even in an ordinary first person shooter it's easy to forget how absurdly hard it can be to get the player to do anything that they didn't repeate a dozen times just then, even the simple act of looking up. If you've ever played a Valve game, even with their simple and easy to learn gameplay mechanics one thing you notice immediately is that they frequently set things up to "re-introduce" and "re-teach" many concepts just so the player will know to use it shortly afterwards, and they have such little faith in their players that they don't expect them to have the attention span to apply the same concept just ten minutes later. If you've ever gone through a Valve game with developer commentary, you can pretty much sum up most of the commentary as "players are stupid and this is what we had to do to get around that".
-
Yep. But while that works in an FPS it doesn't work as well in FS2. It's pretty hard to set up a situation where the player has to use a certain skill to progress without heavily penalising them if they don't or making it bloody obvious that you're teaching them the same skill again.
What makes you think the missions with tutorial boxes in them won't themselves get harder as the story progresses?
This is the point at which I realised you're not even bothering to read what I've written before going off half cocked to answer. I said the exact reverse of this. I said that missions with tutorial boxes in them are going to start off ridiculously easy and then rapidly get difficult as soon as they stop being tutorial missions in everything but name and become real missions.
It's this rapid change in difficulty I object to so strongly. It completely sucks when it comes to replays.
I don't think a campaign at a fixed or very limited range of difficulty throughout its entire length (or worse, a sudden and severe jump in difficulty right in the middle with no curve at all) is desirable.
Yet the latter is exactly what you are arguing for. As soon as the non-tutorial tutorial missions are finished there will be a jump in difficulty. Same as there was between the FS2 tutorials and the real thing. In the tutorials it was pretty obvious that the enemy drones couldn't kill you and were just there for target practice. Once the first mission started there was a jump because now it was serious. The enemy were a lot faster, smarter and could actually kill you. The difference was that the player was ready for the jump because they had the "Out of training, it's the real thing now" mindset. With your system the player never knows when he is in training and when it's real so the jump in difficulty is much more obvious.
Play it again on Medium and every mission is a bit harder than it was the first time around. Play it on Hard and you'll get Hard, with the difficulty curve becoming more unforgiving as the difficulty level rises.
Alright. Let's examine that claim. You've already stated the minimum number of things a player needs to learn to fly. So what happens when you play the campaign with the tutorials turned off? Well you won't get any pop ups but there's nothing to go in that particular time frame. Either you completely change the story or you make the player sit through the instructor telling him how to fly even though he already knows.
Now let's get to the combat, in the training mission you couldn't make the player face wing after wing of fighters as that would be cruel. Sure you can have more fighters turn up on hard but now you've got the issue of balancing a mission which has two very different ways to play it. In the end you end up making in effect two missions in one mission file. And if you're going to do that you might as well have just made two different missions and had the first one as a tutorial. That way both newbies and experienced players could enjoy the proper mission which otherwise only people who play on medium or hard get to see.
Players gain skill with continued playing and the difficulty should rise slowly but constantly as the game progresses. The early missions would be actual missions with real combat and real danger (the lack of danger being one of the principal features that makes a lot of people hate training missions), not a Simon Says instructor routine with a few more ships as window dressing.
I don't think that is acceptable because there are no real stakes involved. Nobody gets killed if you screw up. You're not under any pressure.
Great idea. Ever thought what happens if a newbie pilot dies from your "Real Danger"?
Trust me, I have.
What happens if the player does screw up? You've basically forced them to sit through the entire tutorial mission again. That's ****ing awful mission design.
So what happens if they just need a little more help than usual when it comes to combat? Well after the 3rd time having to listen to the instructor telling them how to fly the ship they're going to quit and never be heard from again. The FS2 tutorials allowed the player the opportunity to learn to dogfight in an atmosphere where they weren't at any serious risk. So it didn't matter if it took them 10 seconds or 10 minutes to kill a drone. They'd eventually do it and learn from it.
Unless you're willing to nerf the enemy fighters to the point where they aren't a real danger you are going to have players failing your non-tutorial tutorial missions. And you're going to make them extremely frustrated when they have to play again from the start.
Because I think the average modern gamer will quit. They want to be in the game doing their thing in minutes. My concept allows them to indulge this wish without severely simplifying the game. And since the average modern gamer are the people to whom and THQ will need to sell a lot of copies of the game to to make money and ensure the continued existence of the franchise, it's rather important that the "console generation" sticks around to play the whole game.
So you include a skirmish mode for the ADHD sufferers then. They can get blown up as much as they like and then realise they need to do the tutorials to actually get anywhere.
-
Yet the latter is exactly what you are arguing for. As soon as the non-tutorial tutorial missions are finished there will be a jump in difficulty. Same as there was between the FS2 tutorials and the real thing. In the tutorials it was pretty obvious that the enemy drones couldn't kill you and were just there for target practice. Once the first mission started there was a jump because now it was serious. The enemy were a lot faster, smarter and could actually kill you. The difference was that the player was ready for the jump because they had the "Out of training, it's the real thing now" mindset. With your system the player never knows when he is in training and when it's real so the jump in difficulty is much more obvious.
But the whole point is that you're never "in training" and every fight is real with actual enemies who are out to kill you from the very first enemy wing to the very last. They may differ in skill, equipment, and general difficulty, but they're all out to kill you dead. The very first enemies you fight would be real enemies flying real ships armed with real weapons that can really kill you.
Alright. Let's examine that claim. You've already stated the minimum number of things a player needs to learn to fly. So what happens when you play the campaign with the tutorials turned off? Well you won't get any pop ups but there's nothing to go in that particular time frame. Either you completely change the story or you make the player sit through the instructor telling him how to fly even though he already knows.
Now let's get to the combat, in the training mission you couldn't make the player face wing after wing of fighters as that would be cruel. Sure you can have more fighters turn up on hard but now you've got the issue of balancing a mission which has two very different ways to play it. In the end you end up making in effect two missions in one mission file. And if you're going to do that you might as well have just made two different missions and had the first one as a tutorial. That way both newbies and experienced players could enjoy the proper mission which otherwise only people who play on medium or hard get to see.
But the thing is that many newbie gamers don't want a training mission. They want action, real action, now. They're also the ones who will the game will have to be sold to. But they can't completely be left to sink or swim either. So you try to string along the various tutorial sequences and squeeze in as much action in them as you possibly can.
And yes, that sort of "two missions in one file thing" has been done in many games. Harder difficulty settings wouldn't just have harder enemies, they'd have more enemies, enemies would be added to places that previously didn't have them, and the entire gameplay strategy for the level would become more complex and demanding as you go from Easy to Hard. For instance, let's take Doom again. E1M1 is essentially an entirely different map on Hard than on Medium, and if you do what you do to pass the map on Medium on Hard you will die because powerful new enemies (Former Sergeants, not seen on Medium until two levels later) have suddenly been added to a formerly trivial level. The architecture is the same but your opposition and the way the level is played are completely different. On Medium and below it's a gentle cakewalk level, on Ultra-Violence it's well, ultra-violent.
Great idea. Ever thought what happens if a newbie pilot dies from your "Real Danger"?
Trust me, I have.
Uh, they die and start the mission over? And if a game, any game, makes you die more than a couple of times when first playing the first level on the default difficulty level, the first level is too hard. And yes, there's a difference between being easy enough to pass in one or two tries and impossible to lose.
What happens if the player does screw up? You've basically forced them to sit through the entire tutorial mission again. That's ****ing awful mission design.
So what happens if they just need a little more help than usual when it comes to combat? Well after the 3rd time having to listen to the instructor telling them how to fly the ship they're going to quit and never be heard from again. The FS2 tutorials allowed the player the opportunity to learn to dogfight in an atmosphere where they weren't at any serious risk. So it didn't matter if it took them 10 seconds or 10 minutes to kill a drone. They'd eventually do it and learn from it.
Unless you're willing to nerf the enemy fighters to the point where they aren't a real danger you are going to have players failing your non-tutorial tutorial missions. And you're going to make them extremely frustrated when they have to play again from the start.
If it takes them 10 minutes to down a drone, then they'll fail the first mission anyway (probably several times) because they won't be able to stop the Hercs. Either way you lose, the original FS2 way just makes you take a 10-minute sterile detour where nothing of importance happens before you lose. Besides, you could just hit a button to banish the popup screen if you've seen it before. FS2 has no "Instructor Shut Up button". It's not like these kids aren't used to pressing X all the time anyway (God of War III: Quick-Time Boogaloo: Press X to Not Die).
So you include a skirmish mode for the ADHD sufferers then. They can get blown up as much as they like and then realise they need to do the tutorials to actually get anywhere.
If you toss them into a sterile training environment with nothing exciting to do, the ADHD kids will quit. If you throw them into the shark pool without any help, they'll also quit. So therefore you split the difference--a mission with at least the illusion of mortal combat (and illusion can be a powerful thing, especially with modern game engines), that also teaches the fundamentals of game play. After the first mission, you can greatly reduce the number of tutorial boxes to a couple each mission (and eventually none), and turn up the difficulty. So Mission 1 is very easy but can be failed if you display stunning incompetence, Mission 2 is just a little bit less easy, mission 3 is starting to get more challenging, etc.
Trust me, I've tried to get quite a few people into FreeSpace 2, and most of them told me the training missions were too long and had nothing in them. Not some, most. It was depressing.
-
I just want to interject that TAGs, in fact, rock, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know how to use them.
Seriously, they're uber.
-
I just want to interject that TAGs, in fact, rock, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know how to use them.
Seriously, they're uber.
Where can I find this parallel universe version of FS2? Sounds interesting. :P
-
But the whole point is that you're never "in training" and every fight is real with actual enemies who are out to kill you from the very first enemy wing to the very last. They may differ in skill, equipment, and general difficulty, but they're all out to kill you dead. The very first enemies you fight would be real enemies flying real ships armed with real weapons that can really kill you.
I get that. I just disagree with it on a fundamental level. And the simple fact is that although you don't want to call level 1 for newbies a tutorial mission that is in effect what it is.
But the thing is that many newbie gamers don't want a training mission. They want action, real action, now. They're also the ones who will the game will have to be sold to. But they can't completely be left to sink or swim either. So you try to string along the various tutorial sequences and squeeze in as much action in them as you possibly can.
In the entire time I've been in this community you're one of the few people who has complained about the tutorials. We have lots of those newbie gamers coming here every week and I don't hear complaints about the tutorials turning them off. If you hear different I suspect it says more about the kind of people you're trying to get into FS2 than anything else.
Quite simply I don't think it's just a case of the newbie gamers wanting instant action so much as that being all they are ever given.
And yes, that sort of "two missions in one file thing" has been done in many games.
Yes. And in case you hadn't noticed my point is "Is it worth it?" To be honest I think not. For the same effort I could rewrite the mission so that it plays differently on every playthrough regardless of the difficulty. Thus allowing people who aren't particularly good at the game to see everything rather than just the super-gamers who can play on ultra-violent.
As far as I'm concerned that's far better design than having to redesign the mission for each difficulty level.
Uh, they die and start the mission over? And if a game, any game, makes you die more than a couple of times when first playing the first level on the default difficulty level, the first level is too hard. And yes, there's a difference between being easy enough to pass in one or two tries and impossible to lose.
Evidently you haven't thought this one through. They die. They start the mission again. And they have to sit through the same popup tutorial they heard once already.
Remember your entire argument is predicated on not losing the ADHD kids because they get bored easily. Congratulations. You just lost them. Which basically makes your entire argument pointless.
If it takes them 10 minutes to down a drone, then they'll fail the first mission anyway (probably several times) because they won't be able to stop the Hercs. Either way you lose
Incorrect. It may take 10 minutes with the first drone but you get dozens to practice on. By the time the player gets to the real missions they've already learned the skills they need to play the game. Your method simply pushes them in the deep end of the pool, throws some water wings at them and says "Look out for the sharks!"
the original FS2 way just makes you take a 10-minute sterile detour
And again you're confusing your personal dislike of the FS2 instructor with the concept of tutorial missions. I've not heard a single complaint about the sterile BtRL instructor. Yet that was a mission very much in the mould of the FS2 tutorials.
Besides, you could just hit a button to banish the popup screen if you've seen it before. FS2 has no "Instructor Shut Up button". It's not like these kids aren't used to pressing X all the time anyway (God of War III: Quick-Time Boogaloo: Press X to Not Die).
So your solution to the problem is to break flow, turn the tutorials off and hope these idiots remember to turn them back on at the start of the next mission? :lol:
-
I just want to interject that TAGs, in fact, rock, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know how to use them.
Seriously, they're uber.
Where can I find this parallel universe version of FS2? Sounds interesting. :P
The only problem they have is that their overwhelming firepower and incredible range often mean you get hit too if you're behind the target.
-
Man, this thread has ballooned since I last stuck my head in. I do agree with the sentiment that the training missions as they stand are very effective from a technical standpoint; the fact that they taught us all as well as they did is testament to that. I'll also agree that, given the type of game that FreeSpace is, progressive instruction probably wouldn't be nearly as effective, no matter how much I like that concept in general. (I'm glad you brought up those Valve commentaries, paul; they give some fascinating insights into game design at its most fundamental level.) But I also firmly agree with AA and Thaeris that there are many concrete ways to make those training missions far more interesting than they are now. Give the instructor an actual personality, as opposed to being a faceless trainer or simulation narrator. Have him/her chat with the pilot about current events, or the ship you're stationed on, or whatever. Add some other friendly ships to the mission as background pieces, doing things like hauling cargo or escorting a cruiser, to generate a bit of background chatter. Hell, like I suggested before, maybe go as far as to have a legitimate enemy attack at the end, albeit one that's pretty much survivable no matter what you do, just to make the player feel like they're part of a dynamic universe. (From the little I played of Tachyon, I think it pulled off something like that in its training mission.) Make the training missions something that older players would actually want to replay, instead of heading for the skip button every time (unless they're OCD like me and want those wings). All of that could be accomplished within the effective framework of the training missions we already have, but it would go a long way toward engaging the new player from the moment they first pick up the game.
-
I get that. I just disagree with it on a fundamental level. And the simple fact is that although you don't want to call level 1 for newbies a tutorial mission that is in effect what it is.
As I said, illusion is a powerful thing. With crafty mission design you can make someone feel like they did something cool even if their performance was pathetic by the standards of anyone with real experience at the game. Even if they didn't really earn it, if you make them think they just made it through a big fight it's far more gratifying than "you have successfully completed Class Z qualification for the GTF Hermaphroditus Space Inferiority Fighter".
In the entire time I've been in this community you're one of the few people who has complained about the tutorials. We have lots of those newbie gamers coming here every week and I don't hear complaints about the tutorials turning them off. If you hear different I suspect it says more about the kind of people you're trying to get into FS2 than anything else.
I don't know about you, but most of the people I tried to get into playing FreeSpace turned it down because they got sick of training missions. I find them tolerable. They could be a lot better (and some campaigns have training missions that ARE a lot better), but they're tolerable. However, it seems to me to me that a very large portion, perhaps overwhelming, of typical video game players will not find them tolerable. They whine about the missions taking too long. They complain that they're boring. They want to know when they'll be able to blow something big up, and more often than not I'm unable to convince them to stick with it.
So you have to work instant gratification and instant action into learning how to play the game without sacrificing FreeSpace's gameplay depth.
Quite simply I don't think it's just a case of the newbie gamers wanting instant action so much as that being all they are ever given.
It's a vicious cycle. Player demand for instant gratification suppresses the financial viability of games without instant gratification, and THQ is not a niche company. They're about big budgets and big audiences.
Yes. And in case you hadn't noticed my point is "Is it worth it?" To be honest I think not. For the same effort I could rewrite the mission so that it plays differently on every playthrough regardless of the difficulty. Thus allowing people who aren't particularly good at the game to see everything rather than just the super-gamers who can play on ultra-violent.
As far as I'm concerned that's far better design than having to redesign the mission for each difficulty level.
And somehow despite the game having radically faster progression on higher difficulty levels, Doom sold millions of copies and singlehandedly made Id Software a household names. If that's not success, nothing is. Changing the way the mission plays for higher difficulty levels is done because it works and has worked for a very long time. It also gives an incentive for players to play the game again and push themselves to the limit, because the game is like "Medium was cool huh? Try it on Hard and you'll see even more cool stuff!"
Evidently you haven't thought this one through. They die. They start the mission again. And they have to sit through the same popup tutorial they heard once already.
Remember your entire argument is predicated on not losing the ADHD kids because they get bored easily. Congratulations. You just lost them. Which basically makes your entire argument pointless.
splicing in quote from later because it is related
So your solution to the problem is to break flow, turn the tutorials off and hope these idiots remember to turn them back on at the start of the next mission? :lol:
I said press X to banish a popup screen, not disable tutorials. Playing through it the second time around. The screen dims--tutorial time! Bam, it's gone. Another box? Bam, it's gone. The Instructor Shut Up Button. If the player needs to reload the first mission more than twice the mission is too hard. Remember that looking intense and challenging is more important for the first mission than being intense and challenging. Seeing whole fleets slug it out in the background, even if they won't shoot at you and Command might even reprimand you for wandering outside your assigned zone (because in real world militaries playing Rambo and wandering off into parts of the battle that aren't your problem will probably not endear you to your superiors), makes an instant impression that can make the game's success in five seconds of hitting the Commit button.
Incorrect. It may take 10 minutes with the first drone but you get dozens to practice on. By the time the player gets to the real missions they've already learned the skills they need to play the game. Your method simply pushes them in the deep end of the pool, throws some water wings at them and says "Look out for the sharks!"
Well that's why enemies can come in different strengths. The first mission's enemies can only kill you if you do a colossal screw-up but they can kill you. The next mission's enemies are somewhat harder and the game is holding your hand less. And the third mission's are harder than those and the game's hardly holding your hand at all. Preferably the enemies should be made to appear stronger than they really are to make Alpha 1 feel like he is achieving something.
And again you're confusing your personal dislike of the FS2 instructor with the concept of tutorial missions. I've not heard a single complaint about the sterile BtRL instructor. Yet that was a mission very much in the mould of the FS2 tutorials.
Somehow I think the average person who downloaded BTRL is quite the same as the average person who rents an action game for the XBox 360 from Blockbuster. It's a fan work that tends to attract fan-type people who are really into what the game is about and will gladly sit through the tutorials. I thought the BTRL tutorial was hilarious, but THQ isn't selling games to those sorts of people because there aren't enough of them. Game audiences were much smaller and more dedicated even in 1999 (never mind in the early 90s or before) than they are today. Now the genre is mainstream and action games are marketed towards the same general demographic as meatheaded explosion movies. So to protect FreeSpace from being severely dumbed down, the game's early missions must be structured in a way so that you can get the fundamentals through that demographic's skulls while providing enough action and explosions to keep them stimulated until they've got the hang of it and making a huge first impression. Once that's done, it's smooth sailing from there on out.
I don't think training missions are necessarily horrible, but I think that they're horrible to the Target Demographic of modern action games, which is all THQ is going to care about. Twist of Fate has a couple of training missions (more elaborate than the TSM modules--the first even starts you off looking directly at the 1st Fleet orbiting Earth to make a big impression--but I'm not making it for those people.
(and speaking of those people, FS3 must have a VOIP mute command, because those people are also the people who call people who kill them "faggots". Nothing's worse than a VOIP temper tantrum.)
-
As I said, illusion is a powerful thing. With crafty mission design you can make someone feel like they did something cool even if their performance was pathetic by the standards of anyone with real experience at the game. Even if they didn't really earn it, if you make them think they just made it through a big fight it's far more gratifying than "you have successfully completed Class Z qualification for the GTF Hermaphroditus Space Inferiority Fighter".
Can be done in a tutorial mission too. Just because you can't think of methods to do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Putting them up against supposedly experienced NPC pilots would have the same effect. Letting them take on the instructor. There are ways to do it without needing to stick the player in a situation where they can get killed.
I don't know about you, but most of the people I tried to get into playing FreeSpace turned it down because they got sick of training missions. I find them tolerable. They could be a lot better (and some campaigns have training missions that ARE a lot better), but they're tolerable. However, it seems to me to me that a very large portion, perhaps overwhelming, of typical video game players will not find them tolerable. They whine about the missions taking too long. They complain that they're boring. They want to know when they'll be able to blow something big up, and more often than not I'm unable to convince them to stick with it.
Again you fail to distinguish between the specific FS2 tutorials and the method they were done in. Just because you found the FS2 tutorial missions boring (and I'll admit they were on the long side) you seem to assume that a hypothetical FS3 could only have boring tutorial missions. That's just ludicrous. You need to prove a flaw in the idea not simply the execution in a single game to make that point stick.
And somehow despite the game having radically faster progression on higher difficulty levels, Doom sold millions of copies and singlehandedly made Id Software a household names. If that's not success, nothing is. Changing the way the mission plays for higher difficulty levels is done because it works and has worked for a very long time. It also gives an incentive for players to play the game again and push themselves to the limit, because the game is like "Medium was cool huh? Try it on Hard and you'll see even more cool stuff!"
Doom sold millions cause it was basically the first big FPS. So your point is rather irrelevant.
I said press X to banish a popup screen, not disable tutorials. Playing through it the second time around. The screen dims--tutorial time! Bam, it's gone. Another box? Bam, it's gone. The Instructor Shut Up Button.
And that isn't going to get annoying? After you died you are going to have to close pop up boxes explaining the following.
Basic flight controls: yaw, pitch, roll, throttle.
Matching speed: Alt-M.
Basic targeting: T, H, F, E, R, and B.
Afterburners
Primary and secondary weapon triggers.
Bank switching
That's going to lose the ADHD kids pretty quickly. Even if they do close the pop up they're still going to have to do the action in order to progress.
Not to mention what the **** do you do if someone accidentally presses that button the first time they are playing the game and thereby misses the information they needed? I've lost count of the number of times in a pop up tutorial I've ended up spinning my wheels not knowing what to do cause I've cancelled a popup too quickly or cause it has vanished before I got the chance to assimilate the information it contained.
It's a fundamental flaw of all tutorial missions but it's aggravated when the player is able to close the pop ups themselves or make them vanish by carrying out the action immediately upon seeing the key they need to press.
If the player needs to reload the first mission more than twice the mission is too hard.
But we're talking about people supposedly turned off by 3 tutorial missions. And if they die twice they will now have gone through the same tutorial mission 3 times. You've lost them.
Remember that looking intense and challenging is more important for the first mission than being intense and challenging. Seeing whole fleets slug it out in the background, even if they won't shoot at you and Command might even reprimand you for wandering outside your assigned zone (because in real world militaries playing Rambo and wandering off into parts of the battle that aren't your problem will probably not endear you to your superiors), makes an instant impression that can make the game's success in five seconds of hitting the Commit button.
So stick that in the back of a tutorial mission simulation then.
Well that's why enemies can come in different strengths. The first mission's enemies can only kill you if you do a colossal screw-up but they can kill you. The next mission's enemies are somewhat harder and the game is holding your hand less. And the third mission's are harder than those and the game's hardly holding your hand at all. Preferably the enemies should be made to appear stronger than they really are to make Alpha 1 feel like he is achieving something.
And you've killed replayability on the same difficulty level. If I want to replay on easy I'm going to find the first mission ludicrously easy. This is the exact point I made right when this started. The first FS2 mission is still playable for me on easy now, maybe a touch easy but that's fine as it never reaches the level where I could play it with one hand behind my back.
Somehow I think the average person who downloaded BTRL is quite the same as the average person who rents an action game for the XBox 360 from Blockbuster. It's a fan work that tends to attract fan-type people who are really into what the game is about and will gladly sit through the tutorials.
Given that I wouldn't attempt to say who the BtRL fanbase was it's rather presumptuous of you to say you know who it is.
-
The only problem they have is that their overwhelming firepower and incredible range often mean you get hit too if you're behind the target.
I'm pretty sure Woolie's not playing on Insane or anything, so, y'know, damage cut.
-
Can be done in a tutorial mission too. Just because you can't think of methods to do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Putting them up against supposedly experienced NPC pilots would have the same effect. Letting them take on the instructor. There are ways to do it without needing to stick the player in a situation where they can get killed.
But if they can't theoretically be killed then the experience isn't the same as a real battle.
Again you fail to distinguish between the specific FS2 tutorials and the method they were done in. Just because you found the FS2 tutorial missions boring (and I'll admit they were on the long side) you seem to assume that a hypothetical FS3 could only have boring tutorial missions. That's just ludicrous. You need to prove a flaw in the idea not simply the execution in a single game to make that point stick.
Doom sold millions cause it was basically the first big FPS. So your point is rather irrelevant.
And pretty much every FPS thereafter has cleaved to the same formula, as well as most platform games, some flight games (see Descent), etc. Having a fixed number of enemies is more the exception than the rule.
That's going to lose the ADHD kids pretty quickly. Even if they do close the pop up they're still going to have to do the action in order to progress.
It's a lot less tedious than actually looking at it all again. A couple of seconds now and then is not much, and Neanderthal Man still has a fleet engagement with big explosions in the distance to satisfy his base desires. "Ooooh, pretty beams *hits X*"
Not to mention what the **** do you do if someone accidentally presses that button the first time they are playing the game and thereby misses the information they needed? I've lost count of the number of times in a pop up tutorial I've ended up spinning my wheels not knowing what to do cause I've cancelled a popup too quickly or cause it has vanished before I got the chance to assimilate the information it contained.
It's a fundamental flaw of all tutorial missions but it's aggravated when the player is able to close the pop ups themselves or make them vanish by carrying out the action immediately upon seeing the key they need to press.
There's no real way out of this. You either have tutorials (or cutscenes, or briefings, whatever) you can't skip or similar things that you can skip by accident. I guess you could make them unskippable the first time through but if the player is dead it probably because he wasn't paying attention the first time.
But we're talking about people supposedly turned off by 3 tutorial missions. And if they die twice they will now have gone through the same tutorial mission 3 times. You've lost them.
The tutorial mission is grandiose and flashy and dramatic. Eye-catching fleet engagements don't happen in basic training. They're still getting more gratification than they otherwise would.
So stick that in the back of a tutorial mission simulation then.
But basic training (in universe) would not happen in that sort of situation. And it might not be "real" enough.
And you've killed replayability on the same difficulty level. If I want to replay on easy I'm going to find the first mission ludicrously easy. This is the exact point I made right when this started. The first FS2 mission is still playable for me on easy now, maybe a touch easy but that's fine as it never reaches the level where I could play it with one hand behind my back.
Does every mission have to pose a challenge to be playable? I've replayed through many games where the first level was an absolute joke in terms of difficulty. Hell, FreeSpace 1 has such a mission to start with and it's perfectly replayable.
Given that I wouldn't attempt to say who the BtRL fanbase was it's rather presumptuous of you to say you know who it is.
We're talking about people who probably have never even heard of indie gaming or games that don't retail for $59.95 at their local Gamestop. At best indie games to them are something the weird geek kid in class plays. It's completely outside of their purview. We're talking serious Unwashed Masses types here. Remember that my argument is not really "Training missions are evil", but "FS3 will have to be sold to a demographic of total morons who want to be in the middle of things in two minutes or else to avoid being a commercial disaster in the current market. We must teach the morons how to play the game while continually distracting them from the fact that they are learning how to play the game."
-
Okay I have a question. Did the FS2 Demo have a training mission?
Because really. That's what's going to hook people. If they're playing the training mission, they've already bought the game. So if they drop it right away too bad. But if they're playign the demo then they get their pretty beams and so on. All I remember about the demo is that it was in a Nebula and there was another mission with a lot of ship to ship beam fire.
Oh and I also remember that the Hornet missiles were fakking awesome.
-
I haven't bought a new game for months... I find most new games often incredibly shallow. I usually end up playing older games instead... I'm really really starting to dislike this 'console generation' more and more. To the point where I almost start hoping that piracy will destroy the industry so we can go back to the time where gamers = nerds & games = gameplay instead of this gamers = 'cool' & games = grinding or shallow shootan game #13251 bullcrap
*Ramble, rant rant :hopping: *
I feel like a grumpy old man talking about the good old days when I write stuff like this... i'm only 22 damnit!
I'm only 18, and I share your sentiments. Happy now? :p
Okay I have a question. Did the FS2 Demo have a training mission?
Because really. That's what's going to hook people. If they're playing the training mission, they've already bought the game. So if they drop it right away too bad. But if they're playign the demo then they get their pretty beams and so on. All I remember about the demo is that it was in a Nebula and there was another mission with a lot of ship to ship beam fire.
Oh and I also remember that the Hornet missiles were fakking awesome.
The FS2 demo has TSM-107C, Class C Qualification for the Hercules Mark II Heavy Assault Fighter. 107C acquaints pilots with everything covered in 103C and also includes a short "Argo protection" segment.
In the FS2 demo campaign, the Herc II and Perseus are available as flyable ships, although the Perseus can only be flown if you complete the bonus objective in the first mission. Usable weapons are the Subach HL-7, the Prometheus R, the Maxim HiVel Cannon, the Rockeye heat-seeking missile, and the GTW-4a Tornado.
In the demo, the Prometheus R is a much better weapon to use than the HL-7 or the Maxim, and the Tornado performs worse than the Hornet in retail FS2. In addition, Rockeyes are smaller and can be mounted on ships in greater quantities.
The only graphical difference in the demo is the lock indicator, which is a circle instead of a rotating triangle.
-
I just want to point out that Androgeos hasn't played anything new and his qualifications for 'it sucks' are 'it won't run on my system.' :p
-
I just want to point out that Androgeos hasn't played anything new and his qualifications for 'it sucks' are 'it won't run on my system.' :p
QFT
-
:lol:
The Battle for Wesnoth isn't that old, you know.
-
I must confess... I would not mind at all if someone produced a "mini-campaign" based off of the FS2 demo... which I never played...
Regardless, training is good. Separates men from boys... pitiers of foos from foos... Spartans from... well, Sparta is not really a credible military power any more, is it?
And ask yourself this: if someone is not capable of sitting through what amounts to be an interactive informational session (sort of the real definition of training), is it worth trying to bring a story of depth and/or complexity to them anyway? After all, if you don't "have the time" to be taught anything, how does a story like FS have any appeal? The sim is about flying SPACE SHIPS W/GUNZ! As such, as a pilot, you need to know what you're doing. Without training, the game is... incomplete.
-Thaeris
-
Well, some say that the best way to learn it is to do it. Perhaps :v: followed this.
-
I must confess... I would not mind at all if someone produced a "mini-campaign" based off of the FS2 demo... which I never played...
Already been done. Not sure where it is (installer might install it...)
-
The GIGANTIC problem with watered down combat missions for tutorials is that it breaks immersion. It doesn't just slow it down for a minute. It shatters it into teeny tiny pieces. "Alright, let's go shoot down these bad guys!" BOOP Tutorial window pauses game. Immersion breaker.
Tutorial missions serve the twofold purpose of getting those annoying things out of the way early, and also give an atmosphere to the game. You are flying a VERY expensive piece of machinery, and if you value your career, you WILL NOT **** up with it. You don't get that with a "go blow up these horribly watered down bad guys."
-
/me squints, looks at the first post, and looks at the previous post.
It's a mark of HLP that we can go from New Life for Freespace to debating tutorial missions.
-
We always do that. Why else do you think HLP has to be maintained by so many moderators and administrators? :p
-
I'm for tutorials :nervous:
They're short, easy to make, get everything out of the way at the start, bundle up all the boring bits in one small package (enhancing the rest of the game), completely skippable and bring the feeling of "this is a powerful weapon" to fighters.
In-campaign learning though.... they're spread throughout the game, so you'll be doing them all the time, very difficult to make, lower the immersion (and thus, the decrease the fun of the game), are always going to leave bits you have to do that remind you of the tutorials and make you feel like you know nothing in the actual campaign.
Tutorials would be better if you could go back to them after skipping them, or maybe you can from the tech room... Perhaps, but if so a newbie wouldn't find them. So make them more obvious such as on the main menu.
They would also be better if they had a more lively instructor, eye candy, and lots of explosions. Which is very do-able.
-
Yeah, indeed.
- Interesting instructor with an attitude
- Some interesting shizz
- Mission flow that crawls faster than a snail
- EXPLOSIONZ
There gentlemen, is your successful tutorial. (As so many people have pointed out before me, :P)
-
You forgot. You need Michael Bay to make those explosions.
-
/me squints, looks at the first post, and looks at the previous post.
It's a mark of HLP that we can go from New Life for Freespace to debating tutorial missions.
Geeeeeeeeez...you're not kidding! I'm the guy who started this thread and I only wanted to know if anybody thought that the franchise might come back because it's so popular on GOG.com!
Glad I could be of assistance for such a stimulating discussion, though, that's always good, right? Even if it's off-topic? I think? :lol:
-
Yeah, it's good.
Everything here basically goes off on a tangent sooner or later.
-
Anyway getting back to our off topic discussion, as someone else has already said, a good training mission would be started with a launch out of a destroyer, an old outdated one, but with cool launch cradles and all sorts of stuff to look at. This is followed by a nice big planet model and the GTVA training HQ, which would be a huge base/spacedock with loads of other ships flying around everywhere. Then a veteran pilot cuts in on your wonder to begin the training. You feel as though you are really there passing basic training.
That would be good, yes? ;)
-
It better be done on an engine that could handle planet models properly, unlike the FS2 engine which makes them look crummy.
-
It better be done on an engine that could handle planet models properly, unlike the FS2 engine which makes them look crummy.
Well I would have thought that the FS3 engine should be able to handle planets pretty well. I mean the X3 engine can and that is not exactly new is it?
But yeah I could see that being something you would see in JAD if it were done on FSO !!
"As you can see the planet is a large ball of pixels, but that is just your bad canopy glass design"
"uuuuuuh, riiiiiigh... Can I go home now?"
-
I dunno, I think skybox planets look gorgeous.
-
Either way the planet was not meant to be the main part, but the runway launch off the carrier/destroyer and the huge GTVA training HQ to look at
-
I was never talking about skybox planets in FSO. I know they look gorgeous.
I was talking about planet models in FSO, which look like crap.
But a theoretical FS3 engine would probably be able to do planet models.
But yeah having a good backdrop to the training missions, especially the beginning, goes a long way as it gives the first impression of a game. You can keep a few more people if you manage to awe them in the very first moment.
-
That's how FS2 got me. The nebulae and explosion effects in the training were great.
-
It's probably a testament to the fact that because there's not too many space sims, I've not played the ones that have great planet effects. My experience only goes to X-Wing and FS (fun) and X-Plane and Space Combat (realistic). Personally, I thought the 3D planets in Cardinal Spear (especially the gas giant with the rings...) looked really cool. If we had shadows, you might achieve affects as seen in programs like Celestia.
If FS3 is ever to happen, these are the features I'd love to see:
-Newtonian physics
-Complex launches/landings
-Sophisticated weapon systems with advanced (otherwise stated as complex) targeting
-No speed cap and advanced space navigation (orbit planets, escape a moon's velocity... which you just took off from to massacre some Shivan bombers...)
-Cockpits!!! (though we'll be getting working ones soon with FSO... not just the non-functional ones)
-Advanced communication and control... devide flights into elements, etc.
-Better AI
-Modular user settings: import keystroke maps and voice control profiles. With that, every time you'd make a new pilot file, you wouldn't need to remake all of those things.
-Variable-density nebulas. Wouldn't you love to fly through a nebula with big, open areas, then retreat to a gas cloud to hide from enemy sensors?
-Atmospheric missions. True, we can already do this with FSO, but it would be nice if it came standard.
-Source code release after 3-5 years! ;7 You'd still need to buy the game after that period, but digging through the guts of the program to make mods wouldn't be a violation of the EULA.
Now if that happens before we implement all of those features with FSO (while making them both fun and realistic, per-se), one would be unable to describe the awesome/win with human words that would be...
-Thaeris
-
Some of those sound great. Some of them (Newtonian flight, solar system modeling, orbits and so on) sound like they don't really work with FreeSpace.
-
If you implemented Newtonian flight, planetary interaction, and orbital mechanics into the basic gameplay, it wouldn't be FreeSpace anymore, IMO.
Leave that for the mods/coders when the source code release happens, if you were to wish for the "Dream FS3".
Honestly though, all I really want to know is what :v: had planned - the story's all that really interests me. Most of the "features" can be, or will likely eventually be, achievable with FSO.
-
Sure they can. It's just a manner of working it into the storyline/environment.
I'm going off the fact that there has been no new official release of FS in SO LONG that those might be worth considering. You might argue that because the "casual gamer" does not seem to be attracted to an arcade sim like FS, if you up the ante' in physics you might be able to attract the flight/combat sim community.
Newtonian physics is an interesting suggestion, I admit. Employing it be a challenge, to say the least. You want a balance where you can do all the things a real space ship can do while still making it fun. You make it fun, perhaps, by citing that although the forward thrust of your ship is powered by its engines, a "gravometric drive" [or something like that] provides the force to keep it going along whatever flight vector you point your ship in. The "grav drive" (probably best simply described as an acceleration modifier) also counteracts "G-forces." By making its effects partial to a degree, you can then have control of thrusting up, down, left and right. Pull a maneuver that's too rough and you might black/red out. OR you might even damage your ship. In short, you invent tech for the game that allows real-world physics while making it play like a game. Arcade simmers and serious simmers alike are happy (I'm both, actually...)! Also fills the story with cool sci-fi tech.
If I'd add more wants, they'd probably be this:
-New, better damage model. You might still have "hit points," but you'd also have sensitive areas and ship limits. Get too much "nasty" to one point and you'll be in trouble. Overworking the engine or the reactor in general? When it goes critical, the integrity of the ship gradually, then progressively deteriorates. This brings me to another cool universe-expanding idea:
-Ejections: Say you're in a critical hit scenario - If you want to live, you've gotta bail! In this matter we also add another element to the universe: Support ships (if they were real) would imaginably do more than just rearm fighters. Already they can switch out modular subsystems, but they might provide pilots with consumable supplies for long-endurance patrols, they might refuel the fighters (though I doubt it: I'd assume the FS fighters rely on a nuclear fuel that's VERY dense and takes a VERY long time to expend), but they'd probably also be employed in the SAR role. Think about it: they're big, pretty fast, and reasonably rugged. There's no reason to assume they wouldn't be used to ferry personnel or pick up a downed pilot. That pilot has a space suit for a reason! If nothing else, it lets the mission have a story (and adds a cool game element).
-SKINS. Not only might you have the squad patch on your fighter, but the skin for the squad might also be unique. It would also work the same for all allies/enemies. Just another way to make the universe more dynamic.
In a way, I'd love to see FS3 as a sort of "Il-2 in space." Of course, it would loose the tedious stuff, etc., etc.
-Thaeris
-
I really think it'd no longer be FreeSpace.
What makes FreeSpace FreeSpace is what makes Halo Halo: streamlined, sleek, cinematic gameplay that promotes flow cognition and atmosphere above any kind of realism or complexity. Sometimes clutter really is just clutter.
-
True. Talk is cheap until it's actually implemented.
As far as Newtonian physics go... I would have added this in the last post had I remembered... you might even call FS a sim which relies on Newtonain physics. It's simply the matter that enough of a tangental force is applied to whatever direction the given ship is turning in that it moves in those perfect arcs. Of course, that's just from observations of the game. I'm not sure how the actual code does it because I've not yet needed to look. Still, that factor holds true. :D
-Thaeris
-
Uh, that's...not Newtonian physics? That's invisible vectors from the ether. In fact I'm not even sure it makes sense as that since it violates conservation of angular momentum, doesn't it?
-
Yup.
Whilst on the topic of Newtonian physics;
Thaeris could you name a space game that obeys the real laws of physics that's 'fun'?
Edit;
Well I-War 2 was "ok" and Asteroids is a good laugh, but all the other games I can find/have found are terrible.
-
Warhead.
That game was absolute class. :D
-
Sure they can. It's just a manner of working it into the storyline/environment.
I'm going off the fact that there has been no new official release of FS in SO LONG that those might be worth considering. You might argue that because the "casual gamer" does not seem to be attracted to an arcade sim like FS, if you up the ante' in physics you might be able to attract the flight/combat sim community.
Hmmn . . . so you want to move Freespace from a niche market to an even smaller niche market? Yeah not a good idea.
-
If it were ever a completed project, Laminar Research's Space Combat would have held potential. In its present form, it's pretty dull. Infinity, the only MMO I've ever seen that looks like it has promise, uses Newtonian physics. If you go to the site, you can download and play with the combat prototype. And that is actually quite fun...
In defense of my prior statements, perhaps I was misunderstood. IF you apply a sufficient force vector to a given body from the required directions, you can make that body travel in the direction you want with the magnitude you want. As I've said, I've not yet looked into the source code to see how the engine does it, but seeing as FS ships move in what appear to be perfect arcs, that movement IS explainable by actual mechanics. An actual spacecraft could maneuver like that. Would it be efficient with current technology? No. Practical? Hell no. But you could do it. THAT was my point.
-Thaeris
-
IF you apply a sufficient force vector to a given body from the required directions, you can make that body travel in the direction you want with the magnitude you want. As I've said, I've not yet looked into the source code to see how the engine does it, but seeing as FS ships move in what appear to be perfect arcs, that movement IS explainable by actual mechanics.
When the vector comes from nowhere, we call that 'violation of conservation of energy'.
The only way to justify FS physics is through technobabble - or by realizing that they're just there for fun.
-
I played a demo of a Russian space sim I think was called Home Planet that had a full Newtonian physics implementation. I found it to be absolutely terrible, as I spent most of the combat whizzing hundreds of kilometers in any direction past whatever I was targeting. Even if I had managed to get used to the flight system, I couldn't see it being much fun at all, as I'd have to constantly be fiddling with my ship's vector, inertial mode, thrust direction, and the like. All I want to do in space is point, aim, and shoot, and FreeSpace allows me to do so superbly (if not always skillfully).
I do like a few of Thaeris's ideas, though. Being able to eject from an exploding fighter and get picked up by a support craft could be fun, since it would give your wingmen a small chance of completing the mission objectives on their own. Launching and landing sequences would add a nice bit of immersion to the game. And localized, variable-density nebulae would be incredibly cool even in FS2 as it stands now.
-
I do really like the variable-density nebula idea. I think Freelancer had those (well, by nature it must have.)
-
The vector obviously comes from the ship. The power for that vector obviously comes from technobabble, as does the Loki's "flying" straight with the engines mounted so far above the center of mass: the moment from that force vector should be pushing it downward. There's undoubtably a lot of unrealistic elements in the FS universe, but I'm making the point that the motion of the ships is to some degree explainable as is.
So, no. I'm not just wrong.
-Thaeris
-
The vector obviously comes from the ship. The power for that vector obviously comes from technobabble, as does the Loki's "flying" straight with the engines mounted so far above the center of mass: the moment from that force vector should be pushing it downward. There's undoubtably a lot of unrealistic elements in the FS universe, but I'm making the point that the motion of the ships is to some degree explainable as is.
So, no. I'm not just wrong.
-Thaeris
When it's explainable via magic, it's not explainable.
In order for the ship to make a smooth, atmospheric turn, thrusters on both sides of the ship would need to gimbal and throttle dynamically in order to create the illusion of a swooping bank - a maneuver that takes more time than the pure Newtonian equivalent would. Now, if your point is that you can mimic atmospheric motion using only Newtonian thrust on a gross level, then that may be true; but if your point is that this is what FS ships are doing, then it makes no sense and it is just wrong.
-
I'm referring to concepts. Where's your imagination?
-Thaeris
-
My imagination is doing fine, thanks, as my fiction output should well evidence.
But reviewing your posts I can see that you backed off earlier from this claim
As far as Newtonian physics go... I would have added this in the last post had I remembered... you might even call FS a sim which relies on Newtonain physics. It's simply the matter that enough of a tangental force is applied to whatever direction the given ship is turning in that it moves in those perfect arcs. Of course, that's just from observations of the game. I'm not sure how the actual code does it because I've not yet needed to look. Still, that factor holds true.
and that the argument was in no small part based on talking past each other, so let's move on.
-
I'm referring to concepts. Where's your imagination?
-Thaeris
It's a bad concept even...
You could mimic atmospheric flight in a vacuum, but how you'd do it is basically magic. Not to mention it'd be pointless, inefficient, and uneffective.
The reason it's there is gameplay mechanics - it's what makes it fun. Not anything else.
-
He's just pointing out that it's possible. Which is, I believe, true.
Trying to explain it by the use of 'subspace drag' or whatever is probably not a good idea, though.
-
Yeah, it's possible, but that's simply trying to explain gameplay mechanics by using...weird logic.
Which is strange.
-
The reason for why you'd want a fighter to handle like that is strange. That is irrefutable.
The logic simply stating that due to a set of hypothetical conditions, the fighter can maneuver like that is not, as you put it, weird logic. It's a mere statement.
To conclude, the whole point with the physics discussion was to point out, as Battuta has said, that spacecraft could handle like that... and be accounted for with realistic physics. Simultaneously, the process needed to maintain such flight is very unreasonable. Unless, of course, you throw in some techno mumbo-jumbo as previously stated as well. I think I added that in the first time I brought up Newtonian physics. In fact, the original point (now very much secondary) was to somehow prove realistic physics in FS wouldn't be so far-fetched.
In that sense, I'd point out that my "hypothetical FS3" would not handle the same as FS2. It would be fun and easy to handle, ideally, but use realistic or "more realistic" flight dynamics. Perhaps you might consider it a graduation from the flight model BtRL used if no other example will suffice.
-Thaeris
-
Well, after the flight behavior you'd have to deal with the subluminal lasers and no additive velocity before you can get realistic physics in FS not being far fetched...
Sure, I guess FS3 could make it more realistic, but going full Newtonian would probably drive away more people than it would bring in.
-
Probably true.
As far as "lasers" are concerned, I usually go with "bolts of plasma" or that jazz. And then no one wants to talk about finite ammo for the Maxim, Avenger, Flail, etc.
The point would be to make the game have more of a believable feel to it. I like that sort of thing. However, taking into account recoil, center-of-mass shift due to expending ordnance, etc., would take away a lot of the fun. Not to mention... as has already been mentioned... the unrealistic ship designs often encountered.
The new physics would take into account a fixed CM (which FS already does) and not worry about a great deal of the little things. Any more on the specifics of this point and I might as well start logging algorithms...
-
The existing flight model is, I think, part of what defines FreeSpace's fun and accessibility.
The 'bolts of plasma' explanation is equal BS since any plasma weapon should have a very supersonic muzzle velocity, unfortunately.
-
It's basically the rule of cool going on here...but it's more like the rule of fun.
Whatever is fun goes. :nod:
Realism is great but fun comes first.
And it turns out we're all in agreement about that pretty much.
-
The thing is that there are (a lot?) already games out there using more realistic features that Freespace (drift, full Newtonian, limited ammo) and Freespace has that angle that that is not necessary, but that a pick up and play approach is much more fun.