Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: SkycladGuardian on October 15, 2015, 03:01:30 pm
-
I guess most of you guys know of Infinity, a game (or rather engine) in the making for now about 10(?) yearsan by some people now considered vapourware.
One of the game's main and most amazing feature is the seamless transition between space and atmospherical flight on a planet.
Anyhow, contrary to Chris Roberts the devs of Infinity narrowed down the scope of the game to be able to actually release something playable and (hopefully) enjoyable in a not so distant future and therefor are preparing a Kickstarter campaign, which starts next week October 21.
The game is now called "Infinity: Battlescape" and if I understand correctly will initially focus on a single solar system, which you can explore and where you can fight other players in multiplayer.
They also released a teaser video, yesterday:
-
It looks awesome.
BUT.
It also looked awesome 4 years ago so...
I wish them luck with the kickstarter, if it ever gets released and is actually good I'd be glad to throw some bucks at them.
-
KS campaign has started today! Their stuff looks pretty impressive IMO.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/309114309/infinity-battlescape
-
Ah Yup, that s the game with the cool looking planet demos that come out every other year.
Question is ... will they do anything else but cool looking planet demos (and that horrible instant action thing from ages ago) within the next 5 years. ;-)
-
Also, "seamless transition" between air and space is not exactly unique at this point. Orbiter has always had it, KSP has it, Evochron Mercenary has it (the latter is especially nice in that all those planets are fully procedural). It looks pretty and if it's not yet another multiplayer shooter, it could be interesting, but it'd need a lot more than "being able to fly outside atmosphere". Like, oh, an actual storyline.
-
Also, "seamless transition" between air and space is not exactly unique at this point. Orbiter has always had it, KSP has it, Evochron Mercenary has it (the latter is especially nice in that all those planets are fully procedural). It looks pretty and if it's not yet another multiplayer shooter, it could be interesting, but it'd need a lot more than "being able to fly outside atmosphere". Like, oh, an actual storyline.
KSP is using two different scenes to draw the orbital view and near-spaceship view, thats not what I would call seamless at all. Evochron Mercenary planets are much smaller than realistic scale.
-
It's "seamless" in KSP in that the end-user isn't able to see any abrupt transition between the two states. Hell, if the music didn't kick in once you hit space, there wouldn't be any immediate way to tell the difference.
-
KSP is using two different scenes to draw the orbital view and near-spaceship view, thats not what I would call seamless at all. Evochron Mercenary planets are much smaller than realistic scale.
You're talking about the map mode, which is a different thing altogether. The transition between "flying in atmosphere" and "flying in space" in KSP can't even be pinpointed without the musical cue. This is in contrast with games such as Starshatter, when the atmospheric and space phases of the mission are separated by some sort of abstraction with regards to reaching orbit and such things.
There is no real indication if Infinity: Battlescape is planning to include real-size planets or not. It's quite possible that for the sake of performance and gameplay it'd be scaled down, just like every in other game besides Orbiter (or Real Solar System mod for KSP). The systems I mentioned often can handle real sized planets, but the devs chose not to do it for whatever reason. Maybe because it dawns on them how mindbogglingly big planets actually are and how much space there is between them.
-
KSP is using two different scenes to draw the orbital view and near-spaceship view, thats not what I would call seamless at all. Evochron Mercenary planets are much smaller than realistic scale.
You're talking about the map mode, which is a different thing altogether. The transition between "flying in atmosphere" and "flying in space" in KSP can't even be pinpointed without the musical cue. This is in contrast with games such as Starshatter, when the atmospheric and space phases of the mission are separated by some sort of abstraction with regards to reaching orbit and such things.
There is no real indication if Infinity: Battlescape is planning to include real-size planets or not. It's quite possible that for the sake of performance and gameplay it'd be scaled down, just like every in other game besides Orbiter (or Real Solar System mod for KSP). The systems I mentioned often can handle real sized planets, but the devs chose not to do it for whatever reason. Maybe because it dawns on them how mindbogglingly big planets actually are and how much space there is between them.
Rendering real size celestial objects is the whole point of the Infinity Engine. One major key feature is multiplayer combat in a true to scale solar system.
-
KSP's engine is easily capable of managing a true-to-scale solar system, the reason the Kerbol system is scaled down is gameplay and accessibility.
-
They've just reached over50% of their minimum goal (153000$ of 300000$) and released a couple of new videos of their prototype. Nice stuff, but I've got the feeling that their marketing strategy is too passive. There is a slow but steady stream of pledges coming in, but I fear it won't be enough...
There's also a video by youtuber Bluedrake42 who's genuinely impressed by the game so far:
-
Planets look great, planetary rings not so much.. not dense enough when you fly through them. Elite: Dangerous rings are a lot denser.
-
Planets look great, planetary rings not so much.. not dense enough when you fly through them. Elite: Dangerous rings are a lot denser.
Since it's basically a pre-Alpha build there's still much room for improvement, though they had much better looking rings in their tech demo from 2010:
-
So the I-Novae team released some more gameplay videos of their prototype and updated their Kickstarter campaign page:
Also: an interview with one of the devs about the history of development and their vision for the game:
http://80.lv/articles/infinity-battlescape-a-passion-project/
-
Unfortunately the combat (so far) looks like the weakest part of the pitch I've seen. All those slow projectiles, easily dodged by the simple expedient of flying in a curved trajectory...
-
Well, it's a prototype and not even alpha yet. Most of the assets are placeholders (textures, models, effects) There's only one ship and one weapon. The finished game will have at least three different classes of fighter/corvette ships and one or two capital ship classes with different weapons and even a different flight model for atmospheric flight.
-
Yeah, but it's the Star Citizen problem all over again: they've committed themselves to providing certain elements of ~realism~ in the flight model, and you can see from gameplay footage that the result isn't very interesting on the basic flying-and-shooting-at-spaceships level. More ships and mechanics won't fix that, they have to be brave enough to go back to the drawing board and say 'this isn't working so we're throwing it out'.
-
Or just tweak the IFCS, thruster and ship characteristics until it works well. Turning a spacesim into an aeroplane sim is not the solution, IMHO. Even if flying an aeroplane is subjectively more fun for some people.
-
Or just tweak the IFCS, thruster and ship characteristics until it works well. Turning a spacesim into an aeroplane sim is not the solution, IMHO. Even if flying an aeroplane is subjectively more fun for some people.
It's not really that.
Just play Diaspora and you have all the characteristics of space flight, including drift and turning off axis and it FEELS GOOD.
Now you have Star Citizen which has a lot of complicated systems trying to basically do the SAME THING and while the way to achieves this result might be "more realistic" the resulting gameplay itself just "feels" crappy in comparison.
I.e. This isn't so much about "planes in space" vs. "authentic space ship movement", but more about failing to achieve gameplay that "feels good". And no matter what your aim or goal is ... there is no excuse in a game for gameplay that "feels bad/crappy". /shrugs.
-
Yeah, but it's the Star Citizen problem all over again: they've committed themselves to providing certain elements of ~realism~ in the flight model, and you can see from gameplay footage that the result isn't very interesting on the basic flying-and-shooting-at-spaceships level. More ships and mechanics won't fix that, they have to be brave enough to go back to the drawing board and say 'this isn't working so we're throwing it out'.
Since Battlescape is still very early in development, much can change. So far, the feedback from those who played the prototype was very positive (it seems everybody with a youtube channel and some subscribers (as in as few as 50) can get access to the prototype). And considering the fact that the devs are very moderate about the overall scope of the game and so far have shown a very clear-minded and sober approach to its design, I can imagine they are prepared to make more drastic changes to the game mechanics as long as the core features are preserved (seamless transitions, newtonian physics, true to scale solar system and huge online battles).
Btw, Another beautiful fan-made trailer:
-
Or just tweak the IFCS, thruster and ship characteristics until it works well. Turning a spacesim into an aeroplane sim is not the solution, IMHO. Even if flying an aeroplane is subjectively more fun for some people.
That's one hell of a false dichotomy you're setting up there, that a space sim either has flat Newtonian mechanics or is 'an aeroplane sim'. And it's bull****: go play Elite: Dangerous and you can immediately see how to make a game with a unique ~6DOF~ flight model which still has interesting gameplay rather than constant jousting. If the Infinity devs want to accomplish the same thing they are going to have to be willing to abandon ~realistic~ Newtonian flight mechanics, which they have for ten years said will be a feature of their game. My hopes aren't high, sadly.
-
Or just tweak the IFCS, thruster and ship characteristics until it works well. Turning a spacesim into an aeroplane sim is not the solution, IMHO. Even if flying an aeroplane is subjectively more fun for some people.
That's one hell of a false dichotomy you're setting up there, that a space sim either has flat Newtonian mechanics or is 'an aeroplane sim'. And it's bull****: go play Elite: Dangerous and you can immediately see how to make a game with a unique ~6DOF~ flight model which still has interesting gameplay rather than constant jousting. If the Infinity devs want to accomplish the same thing they are going to have to be willing to abandon ~realistic~ Newtonian flight mechanics, which they have for ten years said will be a feature of their game. My hopes aren't high, sadly.
In my opinion, Elite flight model is just awful. For some reason you cannot yaw well, you have to pitch instead. Like, WTF? It is incredibly frustrating. And it has some totally arbitrary relationship between turning speed and your velocity, which is very weird, as these should be independent variables.
Id say that Infinity flight model, unfinished as it is, is already superior to that mess.
-
You see, this is it exactly. You don't criticise E:D's flight model for feeling awkward, for rewarding degenerate gameplay, for not being fun simply to fly in. As far as you're concerned all that matters is that it's 'unrealistic'; or rather, that it's not catering to your pet physics nitpicks, because if you really wanted realism in space you'd be playing Orbiter. I just want a game where flying spaceships around and shooting at other spaceships is engaging and interesting; give me E:D any day.
-
Oh, it is awkward as hell, that is probably the main point of my criticism. What Elite is doing is called "artificial difficulty". Instead of fighting other players, you are fighting the controls. And yes, if there was some logical, physical reason for it, I could maybe excuse it, even tough it would still make the game more frustrating. But there is not even that, spaceships do not fly like aeroplanes. Artificial difficulty is a bad design decision, period.
On the other hand, you just cannot go wrong with a basic newtonian flight model. It may not be the pinnacle of space sims for first iteration, but it is not bad either.
-
Are you seriously implying that atmosphere-like controls are so difficult that you're "fighting the controls" instead of other players? Is it really so hard to roll-pitch instead of jawing?
-
It's even stupider than that, E:D's flight model isn't even remotely 'atmospheric'. You can fly backwards or sideways just fine. He thinks that if a game puts any limitations on your ship's movement then that's 'fake difficulty', even if it results in objectively better gameplay.
-
Are you seriously implying that atmosphere-like controls are so difficult that you're "fighting the controls" instead of other players? Is it really so hard to roll-pitch instead of jawing?
Yes, it is much, much harder than just yawing. Also very unintuitive. Which does not matter much for space trucking, but it makes the combat very bad. Id go as far as to say that Elite: Dangerous is a game with perhaps the worst flight model of all space sims. It is not just unfinished or unbalanced, it goes out of its way to be actively bad. Quite an achievement.
-
It's even stupider than that, E:D's flight model isn't even remotely 'atmospheric'. You can fly backwards or sideways just fine. He thinks that if a game puts any limitations on your ship's movement then that's 'fake difficulty', even if it results in objectively better gameplay.
You have to roll to turn and you cannot turn your ship well if you go faster. That is the very definition of an atmospheric flight. It is a mechanic which is directly ripped off from aeroplane sims and how real planes behave, in order to make the combat more aeroplane-like and less space-like. The fact that you can move sideways wont save the day.
Fake difficulty is just a failure of a game design. And I dont think it leads to better gameplay at all. Elite would be a considerably better game if it had a flight model like in Diaspora or Star Citizen (or Infinity Battlescape for that matter).
-
Its not like flight combat games are impossibly hard or that enemies in E:D can yaw while you can't. Just play it like any other flight sims but with coll space-y quirks.
If you really think that atmospheric roll-yaw turning is some huge difficulty obstacle then maybe you should look into getting a joystick or at least a gamepad.
And while you're out acquiring those maybe you'd want to acquire some skill too.
Calling this "fake difficulty" is like calling Ace Combat's lack of flares "fake difficulty". It's a game mechanic that encourages a different playstyle.
-
Id go as far as to say that Elite: Dangerous is a game with perhaps the worst flight model of all space sims.
...What are you even talking about?
-
Id go as far as to say that Elite: Dangerous is a game with perhaps the worst flight model of all space sims.
...What are you even talking about?
I am talking about the fact that I have never played any space sim with a worse flight model than Elite. And I have played almost all of them. It is like MS flight simulator with spacey backgrounds. It is taylor-made for people coming from aeroplane sim backgrounds, which I am most definitely not. Nor do I have a desire to invest time into learning an intentionally crippled and awkward and unrealistic control scheme. So I stick to slow space trucking in Elite (and even then sometimes hit the station on accident, lol, thats how bad it is). You can call it lack of skill, but then I have no desire to learn this particular skill, just like I have no desire to learn to play FPS games with a console gamepad when we have mice. Overcoming fake difficulty is not rewarding for me.
-
your definition of 'fake difficulty' is genuinely hilarious to me
"this fps is riddled with fake difficulty, if i look up and try to walk forward there's some bull**** force that keeps me in contact with the ground"
"what do you mean i can only move my king one square at a time, **** your fake difficulty"
-
So how much do you enjoy Orbiter
-
So I stick to slow space trucking in Elite (and even then sometimes hit the station on accident, lol, thats how bad I am).
ftfy
-
I decided to back Infinity. For the simple reason that they've done this from scratch, in about the same amount of time that FreeSpace Open has been Open and they've accomplished quite a lot for what they have done with no previous backing (that I'm aware of).
Sure, they don't stack up in individual areas as compared to AAA's, but that's because they're not one. They've taken a chance to make something because they want to, and it is something that is within a realm of interest to me. The more of that, the better off we all are when we can have something to point to and say "It could/should be something like THAT, but with something like THIS".
I do like that Space has picked back up again, it has been a dry wasteland up until now. I do get that the downside of that is: that it is either feast or famine in terms of how things cycle in public perception and as a result, there is probably some over-saturation taking place. I do think that just makes it more important to fund projects like this, especially since at a base level, they're really not asking for a lot.
I hope they can make it, one way or another. If not now, I hope that they'll still find some way to continue that allows for them to continue working on their vision for this engine because it really has a lot of potential.
-
I-Novae have reached the 300,000$ goal!
Sadly, it doesn't look too good for any of the stretch goals.
-
That's a good thing. Stretch goals are where crowdfunded projects go to die.
-
I tend to agree that once you get past the "but this doesn't make physical sense" mental block, the flight model of E:D is really well put together and very satisfying. Where it breaks the "Newtonian" model it does so for good gameplay reasons. The fact that "flight assist off" lets you drift in any direction but ALSO means you have to manually manage rotational correction is a particularly brilliant bit of design. It means that even when you've mastered the game, you have reasons to use both flight modes in and out of combat, rather than just "do everything manually" being the optimal strategy like it is in Star Citizen & Diaspora.
Back on topic, glad Infinity made it. Space sim renaissance hype train, whoo whoo!
-
As I understand the flight model of Infinity, it seems somewhat similar to E:D (haven't played it yet). Most of the time, you fly with flight assist, so that it handles like most non-newtonian space sims. By pressing the space bar you can deactivate it and take full control over the ship's thrusters.
-
Yeah but the great thing about E:D's flight model is that it puts artificial constraints on your flight envelope that make the joust-and-turn dogfighting that plagues Star Citizen and, from the looks of it, Infinity much less effective.
-
I think it's too early to judge Infinity on that account. As I said above, so far there's only one ship and one weapon type implemented. And I'm confident that as soon as test players overcome their "Whoa, seamless transition"-hype, lots of critical feedback about the combat will start to flow, since it's the most important feature of the game. There is no compelling story to counter sloppy gameplay design. So either they get it right, or modders will have to do it.
-
So it's been four months now since the end of the kickstarter campaign and I-Novae have now delivered the prototype to eligible backers. They streamed the launch event featuring a new playable ship (a bomber) and some added installations. Many things are still placeholders and unfinished, but the game still looks fun for the things you can do so far and I'm looking forward to playing the Alpha once it is released later this year.
One backer made some nice 4k screenshots:
https://forums.inovaestudios.com/t/prototype-4k-extreme-screenshots/2657
And here's the video of the launch event:
-
A necro just to notify you guys that the game is still actively developed. It's now in beta and the devs are aiming for a release this year. It looks gorgeous (considering the small team and tiny budget). I just hope they don't botch the marketing. I think this game could be fun, their netcode supports hundreds of players, so there is a potential for really epic battles, if there will be enough active players that is.
Check out their latest stream:
-
Holy crap, I love the look of this! !.
I love the premise, and the feel.
-
I've always loved the concept of this game - I still have artwork for the Silverbow fighter on my old computer. Granted, Battlescape is a bit different in the artwork/story direction than the original game is or rather was, but the awesome remains all the same...
I threw $20 at the Kickstarter when I had the chance, and I'm happy I did. Now, if I ever elect to play the game when it becomes available to me, I'll have to throw an uncomfortable amount at a new computer, a concept which I hold with mixed feelings.
-
Another update: The game will be available on Steam as Early Access next week September 27th. Here's the release trailer, they improved the visuals quite a bit:
-
Wait is this the really good miniatures game universe or...no it's not!