Nowhere is she saying that the games dont share engine and assets. Thats all it takes to make my point right.
What? You said that the reason SQ42 isn't done is that it isn't a standalone game, when it is. Hell, CR already said SQ42 won't even have the final version of their flight model. Your excuses are getting increasingly flimsy.
And I sure hope the two games won't share an engine. That would be very dumb. A singleplayer sim doesn't need a lot of the **** an MMO sandbox does. There's absolutely no reason they need to wait for the PU version of the engine. And if assets are the bottleneck, then that reinforces my point: SQ42 is delayed because of mismanagement. They should have concentrated on getting SQ42 done.
I'm pretty damn sure that an SQ42 release would have been far better received than any of the modules they've released so far. If that had happened, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
Considering that advances in game graphics pretty much slowed down to a crawl in the last few years (you can blame consoles for a lot when it comes to that), this is the last thing I am afraid of. Original Crysis still looks very good, and that was released in 2007. Metro 2033 still looks better than most games on the market, that was 5 years ago.
This argument would hold a lot more water if they hadn't said that most of their assets from last year had been redesigned. They obviously thought their models no longer met the standards they were after.
Perhaps they dont have yet determined that the extent of loadout customization that should be allowed in SQ42? I mean, I think deciding about such a thing would come later, when they can actually test in game how much customization can player be allowed to do, to not break the intended mission flow and balance.
If they'd pinned something substantial down, they could have done more than repeating the same vague stuff they first talked about 3 years ago. And something as fundamental as ship customisation is something you want to have pinned down
before you start making missions (just like your flight models), not after. You can't make fun and balanced missions if you don't know what the player and enemy ships are capable of.
This is something this community knows a lot about. Actually, I'd say we know more about it than CR does. Over the last 15 years, while he's been making crappy movies, HLP's been designing space sim missions.
Before that, it was Arena Commander. Now its Alpha 2.0. My point is, early versions are being released, there is obvious progress happening with the game. Thats why I have confidence.
So your confidence comes from them making nothing but tech demos in the same amount of time a competent studio takes to make a full game. Okay then.
I could understand this attitude if CIG had released SQ42, not just glorified tech demos. 4 years in, and they've released less than they promised they would have by now. They're released substantially less than a competent studio does in the same timeframe. And this makes you feel confident about their ability to deliver a game this ambitious. How? I mean,
how?CIG has already stopped doing this long ago. The scope of the game was fixed when $65 million was reached (the last stretch goal). Asset polish here and there is not bloat, iterative development is not bloat.
Every single piece of art you saw last year has been revamped since then, every single ship has either been reworked or is scheduled to be.
https://i.imgur.com/sAHYFkm.pngYeah, they stopped doing this a long time ago. Definitely.
See:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90080.msg1807235#msg1807235
Small agile ships like fighters should feel like that, there is nothing wrong with them. Bigger ships should feel heavier (both turning and moving), their mass should be increased, but you dont need to change flight model for that. Cutlass should have its mass increased a bit IMHO, but its really not that bad. Its a nitpick at this point, obviously tweaking such individual ship parameters would come after the engine is stable, so they can be tested against each other in many scenarios.
Which is a crock of ****. Single-seat fighters shouldn't feel like they have weight? What kind of retard logic is that? Complete nonsense. I thought the point of this game was to feel like you're flying a ship, not that you are the ship, and ships handling like it's Hawken in space runs completely counter to that. Every single space sim I've ever played manages to have weightier fighters than SC does. That I think this is bad isn't because I don't like 6DOF gameplay, it's because it's a perfect case for why making a "realistic" space sim is dumb. SC's attempts at realism make it feel less realistic because realism is rarely conducive to good gameplay (especially in space), so they need to make glaringly obvious compromises (like weightless ships). Weightless ships are and feel much less realistic than not perfectly simulating your maneuvering thrusters, and it plays worse too.
I don't know why you even try, Aesaar. It seems like your efforts would be better spend talking to a wall. You'd probably get a more intelligent response from a wall at least.
I don't know anymore. Maybe because this is one of the few places where SC conversation isn't shut down by cultist morons. I'm stubborn.
Probably won't bother much longer. His arguments are increasingly circular. Arguing with someone too deluded to understand he's been comprehensively defeated gets boring.