Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Turnsky on March 08, 2006, 01:00:07 am
-
--- begin rant---
y'know what i miss?.. games with a certain "magic" to them, i mean, after a time, you can pick them up, and they're still fun to play over and over again, sorta like starlancer, despite its flaws, it remains a relatively fun game to play for an hour or two,
i miss space combat games, really, with a good story, etc. sure there's X3, but that's more of a trading engine, than a combat sim.
same with freespace. i mean, you can talk about "there should be an fs3, or a starlancer 2, or a freelancer 2, yadda yadda yadda yadda" until doomsday, it's not gonna make the game in question magically appear onfront of you.
what there needs to be is a competant game, that will revive this old genre of games, and not some overly difficult, console-based rehash of something that we all have seen before, and include all the modding support imaginable to keep the game and genre alive for some time to come
generally, i'm under the impression that we might see a possible revival after this WW2 game fad dies down to a managable level. because it's getting to that point of "yet another WW2 game is being released soon, whoop-de-freaking-do".
i suppose somebody will pick up the rather dead wingcommander francise, and make (or remake, who knows) another game with that name.. why?.. it's the name, freespace may be also a target, but less so, as Freespace is one of those titles that slipped below the radar due to poor marketing, independance war, the same.
i guess what it all boils down to is: "we might see a space sim but it might be a remake"
--- end rant---
in lighter news, i stumbled on this in lancersreactor the other day, and it might do the trick, might not, proof is in the play, as it were.
Dark Star one (http://)
i'll let you guys decide whether it's crap or not, but since it's combat-centric, there may be hope yet.
-
i pretty much have to agree. i was putting much hope into elite 4 but it seems to have become vaporware. theese days every game seems like old gameplay with new graphics. fps games havent really changed much sence doom. theres supposidly a new 6dof game comming out but its pretty much the same as the previous ones. as far as space sims go id like to get some older games that i missed out on. starlancer for example, the iwar games, some of the wing commander series. i found a copy of the mw4 compilation in a bargin bin for hella cheap. that was cool but i see the games shelf getting less and less intresting as time goes on. it just seems every idea has been overplayed to death and noone wants to put a huge budjet down on a game that could potentially be original.
-
What we truly need is some absurdly rich Powerball winner or poker player to go to Interplay and get the rights to the Freespace series from them. If I knew how to win at poker (which I've apparently forgotten lately), I'd go and make them a serious offer. But all I know how to to is lose to idiots with inside straight draws....
-
What we truly need is some absurdly rich Powerball winner or poker player to go to Interplay and get the rights to the Freespace series from them. If I knew how to win at poker (which I've apparently forgotten lately), I'd go and make them a serious offer. But all I know how to to is lose to idiots with inside straight draws....
that's a long shot at best, i think, our best hope (if you can call it that) is that onna the big publishing companies (microsoft game studios in particular) realise that there's still money to be made in the PC gaming market.
mind you, that's just as long of a shot, as it were.. our real best hope, would be the fans themselves, and indie development teams that up and release a true sleeper hit.
-
It seems like games have been caught playing the scale game lately, where it doesn't matter what new features you have - but you have to have everything bigger and more impressive than before. That's particularly possible with Space sims given that you have a virtually infinite amount of space to play around with - but it's making it work that's the key.
FreeSpace is of course suitable for a third game... but it probably won't happen. I-War 2 was great but I'm not sure there's anywhere for the game to really "go" from this point... although a Firefly total conversion would be quite nice to see. FreeLancer shouldn't be touched again with a seven foot barge pole - it was a great concept that was executed terribly. Wing Commander (as a franchise) is as dead as FreeSpace seems to be... although to be honest I don't have much of a problem with that as the mission formula (by the time Secret Ops came around) seemed very re-hashed.
All in all, I'd say a new player needs to enter the arena and show what really is possible... but perhaps it would be best to focus on one particular style of play rather than trying to encorporate them all and doing a poor job of it. If you're going to make a trading game... make it huge, easy to get into but with large levels of depth... if you're going to make a fighter sim in space then make it grand, loud and unashamed of what it is. Mixing them both to provide a watered down experience doesn't seem to work.. at least nobody has the formula right yet.
-
Anybody remember Tachyon: The Fringe ?
-
It seems like games have been caught playing the scale game lately, where it doesn't matter what new features you have - but you have to have everything bigger and more impressive than before. That's particularly possible with Space sims given that you have a virtually infinite amount of space to play around with - but it's making it work that's the key.
as the former head gaoler of the tower of london used to say: "it's all in the execution"
i did say space combat, not some wierd chimera of concepts and ideas. trading/combat/exploration/rpg/yadda/yadda
and yes, the next space sim would need to blow all other concepts completely out of the water, and beyond orbit if it wants to reach that bar and raise it. there's a lot of universes that have been created at some point or another, so there's a lot of life left in 'em, freespace for example, we've seen what?.. a scant 2 dozen plus star systems out of the countless billions that are in this galaxy alone?
-
I'd love to see a continuation of the Independence War series, and I think there's a lot of room for it to grow... But it won't ever happen. Particle Systems is beyond dead, and the space sim scene is nearly so healthy.
I find something really attractive about the larger ship gameplay. At this point, I'm not as interested in a small fighter so much as captaining a corvette. I-War did a decent job, but they missed a lot of things that would make the experience more immersive, rich and rewarding. They were just hitting the tip of the iceberg, IMO.
I've been putting a lot of thought into precisely what I want from a space sim recently, and have scribbled down some design-doc notes. Here's the dream list:
Steamlined and Intuitive User Interface – Every part of the ship is managed by a sim crewmember, leaving the player free to make command decisions. Should they desire to, the direct control of any system is just a keypress away.
Multiple Styles of Play – Players are free to explore a variety of different professions including: Pirate, Law Enforcement, Trader, Miner, Explorer, Passenger Transport and more.
Realistic Physics – Ships move through space "realistically". The game engine simulates linear and angular momentum, inertia and rotational moment of inertia, as well as the gravitational attraction of planetary bodies.
Simulated Ship Components – Unlike other space games where a ship's parts are props with “hit-points”, ship components interact with one another, and each have distinct quirks and characteristics. Damage to one component can have unexpected and interesting results throughout the vessel. As the game progresses, players are able to upgrade their ships with new components, and can eventually purchase new ships or construct unique vessels from the frame up.
Interactive Personnel – The player doesn't run his ship alone. The ship is crewed by “sims”, that have unique personalities and skills that change throughout the game. The crew not only adds personality to the game, but also affects the ship's performance. The game experience is deeply affected by the player's ability to manage his crew.
True Sandbox Gameplay – Many games which advertise “sandbox gameplay” set the player loose in a semi-interactive playground which the player can't actually change in any lasting way. In my dream game, the player exists in a constantly evolving game world that reacts to his actions (*sigh* it's nice to dream).
Unprecedented Freedom – Players are not only free to roam the game universe as they please, they are also free to explore the interior of their ship in first person, and can also stroll around space stations and starports (at least a little). The players is no longer trapped in the cockpit.
Looking back through it, most of these features sound like the realm of MMO's (I hear good things about Eve)... But I'm honestly not much interested in the MMO world. I'd much prefer a well developed single-player game... The ElderScrolls of the space sim genre. Massively single-player, as I like to joke.
Of course, it also ends up sounding more than a little like BC3000(etc)... Ugh. Ugggghhhhh.
Anyway, until I become independently wealthy, this will have to remain a dream. *shrug*
-
i think as far as trading games go, elite 2/first encounters, were about as immersive as you could get. the tech heirarchy was much higher than what you find in freelancer. if made modern they would be awesome. hitting a dot traveling at several thousant kph speed difference from you, it apears as a pixel on your screen for like a milisecond and you have to hit it with your laser. it would be an easyer hit if you could see the ship at a descent framerate.
id love to see newtonian physics in a game though. had i known iwar had it id have bought me a copy. newtonian is hard though cause of the potential infanate (or rather C-1) speed differences in combat. a system would need to be created to cap performance without apearing as though the physics are wrong perhaps have missions at a certain engagement envelope where youre allowed to reach a maximum velocity relitive to a fixed point in space (your base or mothership for example). you could make an excuse for this in the story, fuel limitations, knoledge of enemy capabilities, or civilized warfare (like what the clans use in battletech, where combat conditions are agreed upon before the battle). for example you are defending a base from attackers and you are given a maximum velocity envelope of 10,000 kph relative to the base. this can be mission specific or ship specific. also a ship would have a rotational envelope that specifies how fast the ship can turn (usually based on the ships structural soundness and g tolerance). ship control would work as follows:
you dont have direct control over your ships various thrusters, instead you tell the ship what you want to do with the controls, and it tries its best, based on the equipment it has, to get to that target control level. there is of course a slight latency in the effects of controls, you can max your throttle and it may take a few seconds to reach that level. the ship will try to reach the target control level you set as fast as it can.
your throttle controls the percentage of envelope that you ship will try to match based on your ships engine characteristics (rather than controlling your engine output directly). with a 10,000 kph envelope, half throttle will make your ship try to go 5000kph. so rather than trying to figure out how long to burn your engine at what speed, the ship does it for you and all you need to do is set the throttle to your desired speed. lateral thrusters should behave this way too (real space ships have 6dof control).
the ship (based on the characteristics of its lateral/vertical thrusters and main engine thrust vectoring) will automatically try to kill any lateral movement when you change your ships orientation (if you are traveling an 100 kph and turn 90 degrees, youre still going 100kph to the side. your lateral thrusters kick in to slow down that momentum and your main engine kicks in to increase your forward momentum in the new direction to the set velocity.
control of orientation depends on what orientation controll systems (rcs, thrust vectoring, ect) your ship has. rcs thrusters differ in effects from thrust vectoring. rcs thrusters can control a ships orientation withought altering the ships vector of motion and can operate pretty much at any time during flight. thrust vectoring requires that the main engine be running, which you dont actually have direct control over btw, but can potentially induce a faster turn. the ship will read your imputs and interpet them as desired percentage of rotational envelope. meaning half stick left would make the ship try to turn at half the max. rcs thrusters will fire to reach that rotation speed, if your main engine happens to be running at the time it can use its thrust vecotring to try to speed up the rate at which it reaches that control level. when you center stick, the ship will try its best to kill your rotation as fast as possible.
the result is less consistancy in your ships flight behavior. however your flying in a newtonian environment and combat is much more easyer to handel. it also takes more skill to fly. ships have their own unique handeling personality which could improve the tactical gameplay. of course in combat your envelope would be lesser than say a flight from one planet to another, where you would need a much higher speed. you would need to figure out a way to transition from freeflight mode to combat mode. so missions would be object central and engagement areas would be small. but it does seem a realistic take on space combatthat has the potential to be fun to play.
-
That Dark Star one link doesn't work btw.
Some of the things stated there are very difficult to design let alone implement from a coder's eyes though. Your basically suggesting a near self aware AI, or one so complex, with so many different goal possibilities and outcomes, that it can appear convincingly self aware. I don't mean to be the crusher of dreams, but some of those things are a long way off (for the IT world, not that long, for the game world, long).
I think of it this way, technology has developed faster than games. The latest graphics in games, its all only just to try and keep up. Gameplay is evolving, just much slower. "Spore" is a good example of what may eventually be a norm, procedural worlds based on reactions.
A game used to be made in a garage with 2 guys over a month or so. Now days its 4 or so years with a team of 30+ (I think these days that deve teams are reaching the hundreds though). As technology accelerates, the development time of games grow due to the time required for conventional art development of high resolution textures and advanced physics.
Eventually, procedural art / level creation will be a nice addition to our hard drives and graphics cards, but until then I'm afraid we're stuck with what we've got.
I like the concept behind the open source gaming community, yet so far, a lack of organization has hindered progress.
-
First....yes i remember tachyon...i'm still trying to get me a copy of it again....
Second....Newtonian physics are something good to have, but should be made an option, cause joe blow gamer won't get them (hell even i couldn't make anything much happen in Iwar2, which made me sad....it was more frustrating then fun to play, so i put it away before the story went anywhere). So sadly, while it would be cool to see the newtonian physics, it won't sell copies. and if we honestly want a return of space sims, its gotta sell to the masses to prove they're commercially viable, and then eventually we'll see more esoteric titles starting to appear.
Third...Why don't we do something more proactive. We've always been improving the freespace engine, and making it more and more advanced, and while its not maybe as shinny as the HL2 engine, its pretty damn impressive for a 6? year old game. so why not create a free original game based on that engine. completly new story, new models and what not. set it up so that its basically a pimp :pimp: for the genre, and we market it in such a manner to try and get the most exposure humanly possible. that way the next time we send emails to game publishers we can say X number of folk downloaded this game. That would show the viability of such a game, and hopefully we'd see more of them appearing commercially. Granted such an endeavour would be huge and complex on our part, and trying to get everyone together to pull it off would be rediculous. but it'll take an indy success to put space combat sims back on the market.
Fourth...no, actually i don't have a fourth point....
Fifth....this post took so long to write that someone made a good point ahead of me... There's no reason games should only be doable by a group of hired guns working for a corporation. there is still a way for the garage builders to be successful, it just has to be done in an organized fashion pulling talented interested folk from around the planet to contribute to the project. its basically just a larger scale of what we do here all the time. I'm an indie filmmaker, so the principle is the same. I can still make a great movie with virtually no budget while some films have a budget larger then some countries GNP and still suck. There's no reason why there a indie game of quality couldn't exist. its not even like the materials to make it are expensive....We have the technology, we can rebuild him....
Basically i'm saying if we want something done, do it ourselves...
-
Free time, money, lifestyle, clash of internet personalities are all a problem though.
You'd need a closely knit group of friends rather than randoms taken in for talents with little consideration to forum personalities and conflicts.
Plus Ferrium is already a strive towards what you propose, yet suffers from problems I've mentioned above. :(
But yes, it would be nice.
-
Here's the problem with indie devs making a space game, as opposed to indie movie makers: game devs have to deal with code, which is a monumental problem. The reason that my game projects have never been completely finished is because I don't have a commercially viable code base, and no coders to do anything about that problem.
-
Yeah that's a good point.
Art and code are two seperate things.
All the more so because code requires much more solid effort (via tertiary education, self taught or otherwise) few undergo the effort to learn those skills and then to apply their time to a game. Most go off into a large business and are raped by a corporation for the remainder of their lives.
Soon they won't be called games anymore, that word will be trademarked by EA. You will have to go out and buy EASB (Electronic Arts **** Box) and not play, but work on their next project to earn the right to play a game.
An extreme view if not a visionary one, but a metaphorical suggestion of what the game 'industry' may become.
-
I've been putting a lot of thought into how to 'properly' implement a game along the lines of 'Homeworld' meets 'Pirates!', with a touch of Eve's ability to change/upgrade your ship's loadout. So you could start off with a single trade/combat ship, but you could still effectively play the game with a massive fleet of Destroyers/Battleships etc.
I'm still torn whether to set it in a Space environment or some kind of fantasy setting where you can sail between floating islands (Imagine a Homeworld-esque interface with ships with Cannon and Boarding parties etc ;) )
Then, of course, I have to put a lot more time towards learning C++ ;)
-
Of course a steampunk setting would also be fun ;)
Ye olde flinklockes, hyperdrives, lightening zapping mages, and biogenic undead scourges.
Sort of like Warhammer 40k but more flintlockes! :)
-
I've been putting a lot of thought into how to 'properly' implement a game along the lines of 'Homeworld' meets 'Pirates!', with a touch of Eve's ability to change/upgrade your ship's loadout. So you could start off with a single trade/combat ship, but you could still effectively play the game with a massive fleet of Destroyers/Battleships etc.
I'm still torn whether to set it in a Space environment or some kind of fantasy setting where you can sail between floating islands (Imagine a Homeworld-esque interface with ships with Cannon and Boarding parties etc ;) )
Then, of course, I have to put a lot more time towards learning C++ ;)
I definitely like the way you think.
-
well, maybe, but don't forget there is the SCP, and the devs behind B5 IFH, commercial viability is the one stumbling block, and also kiddies, EA did have a space/combat/exploration/rpg/chimera/thingamebob, earth and beyond, remember that?.. it was shut down by EA after it enveloped westwood, while i agree that microsoft's business practices may leave something to be desired, it still let the comanies keep their names, instead, with ea, it's under their global electronic arts label.
but enough about EA,
Freelancer was poorly executed, yes, but there's plenty of universe in it to expand upon, so a potential sequel to freelancer, or even starlancer may be in there somewheres, anyway, i'm not talking about how well the game did, etc, i'm talking more of the francise of the game, if you look on the lancersreactor forums, there's still many a faithful freelancer fan on there, why?.. because the game could be modded to an extent where total conversions, new levels, etc were available to create, the only thing not available, was the ability to create a whole new story with tools, etc. a brilliant comparison would be the two games of freelancer and starlancer, the latter being very dead community wise.
moddability adds a lot of life to a game, and allows the players of the game the chance to "write their own story" so to speak, i think, in future, if devs, and publishers want to keep their games economically viable for some time afterwards, they had better not forget to add the mod tools in order to play them, or make the mod tools available later on, such as the relic developers kit for example. or a better example: Fred.
while i think freespace would be prime for a sequel, given the relative drought of simular genre games, and x3's notorious complexity (haven't even played it yet, but i've played x2), a good time for a mere announcement of the game would be sometime in the near future. but of course, that's purely up to the developers, and the publishers, as well, the pure and simple thing is, it's all the bottom line that decides whether or not a game gets the greenlight to go ahead with development.
hell, if you notice these days, most of the games you do see in development have some kinda pure multiplayer component, or face paced action, or some kinda world war 2 theme, etc, etc, there's hardly any science fiction, role playing, space combat, or anything of that like anywhere on the game shelves these days, oblivion's coming out, sure, but how many other titles do you see making an arrival any time soon?
the problem is, that publishers tend to follow a trend like sheep off a cliff, Ea does it, activision does it, and so on, and so forth, for example, how many totally original titles have we seen from EA? none, activision?.. none, Microsoft Game studios?.. ergh.. none, and the list goes on. Half life 2 is also the same, as it only raised the bar in quality in presentation, not gameplay, not in story, etc. at its core, it's still a simple 'shoot first, shoot some more, and when everybody's dead, hurl a paintcan at them' while the gravity gun is a nice novelty, that's just it, it's a novelty, it doesn't change its core gameplay one bit, it's the same with a lot of things i guess.
they all lack that 'epic' feel that makes you sit back and go.... 'woah' Freespace came close, Freespace 2, even closer, if any space sim wants to survive in this day and age it's gotta do something special, like make you sit back, speachless, and almost brought to the brink of tears (or beyond) because of its sheer scale or beauty, and with a tight story, it could be one of the greatest things ever. and i'm not talking about eyecandy here, cuz god knows a game is capable of that, i mean just the sheer awe-inspiring mass of it.
-
The other problem is immersion and story.
All too many games focus FAR too much on graphics and frills, and forget things like sound, music, storyline and execution.
TIE Fighter was a pretty primitive game, and X-Wing Alliance was just horrid compared to FreeSpace, but in both the level of immersion into the storyline was intense (Well, for the Family parts of XWA; The Rebel parts just felt out of place, and the DeathStar run at the end, while cool, really pulled you out of the immersion. It should have been an Easter Egg or something IMHO; I was more interested in chasing down the bastard that sold out my family in the game than blowing up the Deathstar!!!!)
The level in TIE Fighter where Harkov orders you to clear out a minefield in an unshielded TIE Interceptor, and them promptly tries to kill you (Because he's a traitor and has found out you're an agent of the Emperor), is one of the most awesome set-pieces I've played through in a game, and they did it so well it doesn't even feel like one!
The point when Thrawn's guys pop out of hyperspace to save your sorry ass and a huge battle.
It was so well done; Heck, you KNEW the Imperials were the 'bad guys', but playing TIE Fighter, you felt like you were the Good guys, mopping up rebels for the glory of the Empire ;)
Those games had a lot of soul....
Man, LEC has fallen so far since those days... :(
-
Freelancer - good game, excellent grapships and feel. has a few sor points. Mouse controls and pivotale turrets on fighters made the battles a bit too easy. Ship balance was lacking, especialyl capships. Thank god for mods.
Starlancer - good AI, excellent atmosphere. Fightgin was good, alltoguh the big ships were kinda lacking and the story was poor.
X series - idea is good, graphics are good, execturion was mediocre. Ship balance was awfull and the batels dull
X-Wing: Allaince - The best AI I ever seen. Fights were monumental and impressive, you really had a good sense of scale and danger. the only bad point- the stupid family missions in that transport of yours..too easy and dull.
Freespace - Hail to the king baby!
Wing Commander - not bad, but personally I found it lacking. Missions were too dull and graphics was kinda..bland.
-
Freespace3 *sigh* Someone needs to apply to work for\@ Volution (Sp?). Anyone live near it?
-
Freespace3 *sigh* Someone needs to apply to work for\@ Volution (Sp?). Anyone live near it?
freespace 3 is an improbability, however, a spiritual successor to the freespace francise, may not be such a long shot, i think that's the best we can hope to get out of Volition for the moment. We'll see what THQ lets them do for the moment, and if they let Voltion play with PC's, as well.
-
I see three reasons for the lack of space sims:
1. Space is mostly empty. Nowadays games MUST contain graphical splendour beyond compare and as space is mostly just blackness with some tiny white spots and a few bitmap-planets here and there, it's not enough for modern gamers.
2. No Messiah-title. By Messiah-title I mean an uber-popular game like Halo or Half Life 2 that raises the entire genre to spotlight. And where there is demand, there the game developers will go. Right now FPS-games are in the spotlight and probably will remain there for many years to come, with the power of Halo-, Battlefield- and Half Life-series. A Messiah-game usually reaches it's position by introducing not only stunning graphics, but whole new ideas (like HL2's physical engine or Battlefield 2's wide combat arenas, combat roles and many tactical features).
I'm not saying it's impossible, but when it comes to space sims, coming up with Whole New Ideas is hard. I mean, everything that can be invented, has been invented. Surely the graphics can be improved and all that, but new revolutionary ideas like the ability to toss around bricks and whatnot (HL2) aren't really possible in space sims.
3. The lack of joysticks. The decline of space/flight-simulators has also made joystick a rarity. Of my friends only a few own a joystick. My own stick is really old Logitech Wingman Extreme 3D, bought in the year one before two and I had actually forgotten it's existence, until my bro found it a few months ago (thank God, otherwise I'd still be playing FS2 with my trackball-mouse <.<). There are even gamers who don't even know what a joystick is.
Sorry for possibly confusing grammar, English isn't my mother tongue. I hope I made my point clear.
-
I'd like to comment on those points - not because I disagree but because I feel like it;
1.
That's mostly true - although it's quite a shame because there's some vast room for creativity there. By definition space-sims are going to contain two things: space and space ships. Both can be vast in scale and utterly jaw-dropping in detail and splendour. Where Half Life 2 can be acclaimed for having incredible facial structures and ragdoll physics - a space sim should be able to be acclaimed for having vast planets, suns, comets and other celestial bodies of huge variety.... not to mention starships of utterly huge scale. Star Wars isn't the only entity out there that should be able to feature a 7KM long space ship. This is science fiction we're talking about - there's no good reason not to see some dyson spheres.
2.
I agree that currently there's nothing to stand up for the space-sim genre and say "I am the definition of all that is good and popular about this genre". There used to be games that held this honor... X-Wing and Tie Fighter, Wing Commander, FreeSpace. FreeLancer tried to pull it off but simply wasn't good enough. X3 has the graphics but not the gameplay.
3.
Again I agree. FPSs and RTS games are probably the most accessable games out there as you have all the controllers already and you're presumably used to using them. That said - there's no good reason why space-sims can't run well with a simple mouse/keyboard combo. Heck... FreeSpace is perfectly playable with that hardware.
-
I see three reasons for the lack of space sims:
1. Space is mostly empty. Nowadays games MUST contain graphical splendour beyond compare and as space is mostly just blackness with some tiny white spots and a few bitmap-planets here and there, it's not enough for modern gamers.
2. No Messiah-title. By Messiah-title I mean an uber-popular game like Halo or Half Life 2 that raises the entire genre to spotlight. And where there is demand, there the game developers will go. Right now FPS-games are in the spotlight and probably will remain there for many years to come, with the power of Halo-, Battlefield- and Half Life-series. A Messiah-game usually reaches it's position by introducing not only stunning graphics, but whole new ideas (like HL2's physical engine or Battlefield 2's wide combat arenas, combat roles and many tactical features).
I'm not saying it's impossible, but when it comes to space sims, coming up with Whole New Ideas is hard. I mean, everything that can be invented, has been invented. Surely the graphics can be improved and all that, but new revolutionary ideas like the ability to toss around bricks and whatnot (HL2) aren't really possible in space sims.
3. The lack of joysticks. The decline of space/flight-simulators has also made joystick a rarity. Of my friends only a few own a joystick. My own stick is really old Logitech Wingman Extreme 3D, bought in the year one before two and I had actually forgotten it's existence, until my bro found it a few months ago (thank God, otherwise I'd still be playing FS2 with my trackball-mouse <.<). There are even gamers who don't even know what a joystick is.
Sorry for possibly confusing grammar, English isn't my mother tongue. I hope I made my point clear.
Trouble is, none of those is particularly restricted to a FPS. 1 is somewhat irrelivant, as beauty is what you make it. Homeworld2's backgrounds are a far cry from empty, and while not realistic by any stretch of the imagination, space can certainly be made to look "cool". 2 is a matter of marketing, generally, and says more about what's the industry trend than what gamers actually want. Plus, none of the "new ideas" are actually all that new; HL2's physics is just attempting to mimic reality a little better and the gravity gun is a cheap substitute for actually being able to pick something up and move it around with your hands without breaking out of the "walking gun" mentality. The physics code is more robust and all, but that's got nothing to do with innovation. Anything BF2 has going for it is just an extension of what came before. And Halo has nothing of remotely innovative quality if you boil it down. 3 is an issue but again that's self-fulfilling. I'd blame the lack of joysticks on the lack of fighter sims, rather than vice versa.
In short, the problem was that fighter sims were killed by a combination of bad marketing (Freespace 2) and bad games (Freelancer - it was marketed as a space fighter game but was really just a shooter in space) and the industry is too stuck in its rut right now to recover.
-
one thing freelancer managed to pull off really good was environment. it did a very good job of making space look good. it was also fairly vast and with lots of discoveries to be made. its story, flat gameplay, and short commodities and tech supplys are what killed it. we all know how crappy the story was. at least the put forth the effort to include a story telling capability to the engine (though lacking proper mod support). by flat gameplay i mean that there wasnt much verticality to it. everything was plannar. i guess that makes it easyer for the average joe blow to play but it always annoyed me. as for the short commodities list, by the end of the story youre already at tech level 6 or 7 and the game only goes up to tech level 10. so you could play the game for a couple days after the story was done with but trading games get dull once you own everything. it might have been better if you could purchase some of the larger ships and their weapons. of if there was more tech levels. also another thing that bugged me was that there were no hi tech light ships. meaning you had to buy a heavyer ship to mount higher tech weapons. then the matter of the pirates having the best ships. least they had the balls to be innovative. but i dont consider it a true space sim, rather an attempt to market space games to the fps crowd. i think space simds should be less about aiming and shooting but more about flying. sure combat is exciting, but id rather get the kill because of good flying raher than selecting the right weapon or being in the ship with the tighter turn radius.
-
You are very right.
One thing that Freelancer does that *no* other space sim I've played does nearly as well is de-emptify of space.
It was very but pleasantly surprising when I first played it.
See, like most games, you can see the dust-clouds and gas clouds and asteroid fields etc. from far away, and they're just your standard painted graphics.
The big surprise with Freelancer is that as you fly closer, you eventually find yourself INSIDE them, and you're like, "Woah...!". It's very cleverly done and pretty subtle.
It's not like in Freespace, or in fact every other space shooter, where the asteroid field is a firmly deliniated space, and you're either in it or not; In Freelancer it sort of... 'fades in' around you as you travel deeper into it until you're in a sort of Empire-Strikes-Back sort of situation ;)
Freelancer had a lot of atmosphere (haha) in its environment. If the storyline immersion had been as good as TIE Fighter's and the control system sorted out a bit more (Fighters like Freespace 2, Freighters more like Homeworld or MechCommander), it would easily have been one of the best space games in living memory...
-
if i could pick the ultimate features for a game id take freelancer's envornment, freespac's story and emersion, and of course my idea of an implementation of newtonian physics that i stated earlyer in the thread.
-
As long as you wouldn't stick with Freelancers graphics. The game would've been much much more fun to play if it had gone the route of having "realistic" looking ships... rather than the cartoon style they went with.
-
'eh? What do you mean?
Quality-wise, I thought the ships looked alright... the scale was a bit off (If you believe it, the Rhino freighter is only slightly larger than a Perseus!), but aside from that I thought it looked pretty good...!
Or do you mean the design of the ships? I'd agree there, espescially the freighters. Aside from the Rhino and the Dromedary they were all *BUTT UGLY*.
The fighters were okay 'tho. Certainly better than, say, the Ursa :D
r.e. Newtonian physics: I've decided this would be a BAD thing.
If you want Newtonian physics, pulse-based weapons are a total No No, as is Joystick control and large waves of fighters and bombers.
I played a game a while back, I think it was called Jumpgate or something like that, which was trying to be a Freespace/TIEFighter-style game, but with Newtonian physics.
It sucked.
The ship had two modes - Compensated mode, in which it handled like a classic space-sim fighter with ridiculous amounts of drift, and Free mode which was basically Elite.
In order to Not Die, you needed to play it with the ship in Free mode because in Comp mode, you'd be going too slowly to stand a chance of dodging anything - Inertia means you can't turn on a dime.
So that left Free mode - In this mode, it was like Jousting.
You and your target would speed towards each other trying to hit each other, then fly past at Ludicrous Speed, wait for your 5 light-year breaking distance to be over, then do the same until one of you died. It was tedious, and the crapness was compunded by the fact that 1) Missile range was so limited you had a 0.001s window of opportunity to fire the thing with a chance of hitting at those speeds and 2) Your guns were pulse-based and had sub-C travel times; This meant you had to aim ahead by such a ridiculous amount that a lot of the timew your target wasn't even in your FoV cone!!
The ONLY games *ever* that I have played with Newtonian physics that didn't suck was Elite 2: Frontier and Elite 3:Frontier 2: First Encounters.
They did it right - No fighters, just large ships with decent-range beam lasers, and battles were an occasional thing rather than an All The Bloody Time thing as it is in 99% of space games now...
Newtonian physics games require patience and a lot of tactical play, and are on average a lot less fun that standard WW2-style space shooters, 'tho this is mainly because people keep trying to make NewtPhys games the same way they make WW2-Phys games, which just doesn't work...
-
r.e. Newtonian physics: I've decided this would be a BAD thing.
If you want Newtonian physics, pulse-based weapons are a total No No, as is Joystick control and large waves of fighters and bombers.
I played a game a while back, I think it was called Jumpgate or something like that, which was trying to be a Freespace/TIEFighter-style game, but with Newtonian physics.
It sucked.
The ship had two modes - Compensated mode, in which it handled like a classic space-sim fighter with ridiculous amounts of drift, and Free mode which was basically Elite.
In order to Not Die, you needed to play it with the ship in Free mode because in Comp mode, you'd be going too slowly to stand a chance of dodging anything - Inertia means you can't turn on a dime.
So that left Free mode - In this mode, it was like Jousting.
You and your target would speed towards each other trying to hit each other, then fly past at Ludicrous Speed, wait for your 5 light-year breaking distance to be over, then do the same until one of you died. It was tedious, and the crapness was compunded by the fact that 1) Missile range was so limited you had a 0.001s window of opportunity to fire the thing with a chance of hitting at those speeds and 2) Your guns were pulse-based and had sub-C travel times; This meant you had to aim ahead by such a ridiculous amount that a lot of the timew your target wasn't even in your FoV cone!!
The ONLY games *ever* that I have played with Newtonian physics that didn't suck was Elite 2: Frontier and Elite 3:Frontier 2: First Encounters.
They did it right - No fighters, just large ships with decent-range beam lasers, and battles were an occasional thing rather than an All The Bloody Time thing as it is in 99% of space games now...
Newtonian physics games require patience and a lot of tactical play, and are on average a lot less fun that standard WW2-style space shooters, 'tho this is mainly because people keep trying to make NewtPhys games the same way they make WW2-Phys games, which just doesn't work...
Play IWar 2, it has Newtonian physics and you'll love it :p
-
Or Warhead, the game that inspired both I-War games. Warhead is pure shooting action, in fighters and doesn't involve any kind of jousting.
-
the scale was a bit off
There was this tiny planet somewhere in one of the Bretonia systems that looked pretty funny. I seem to remember that it was about 10 feet wide but could still suck you in.
-
'eh? What do you mean?
Quality-wise, I thought the ships looked alright...
Overall the graphics *were* clean and well presented. I just didn't like the comic-book style that they took on. I much prefer the gritty feel of something like I-War2.
-
Play IWar 2, it has Newtonian physics and you'll love it :p
Well, I don't know if you will love it... But you should.
God I love that game.
-
i just think the implementation of newtonian in all the games ive played is not quite suffietient. generally speaking realisim does not equate to fun, but that doesnt mean realisim cant be made fun if implemented properly. the way newtoian is implemented in a sim like orbiter is like trying to control a fly-by-wire aircraft with manual flight controls. it can be done, but its very difficult. you need a computer to translate your imputs into outputs that generate the desired motion. essentially an ai acts as a proxie between your flight controls and your ship. it tries its best to figure out a way of do what your demand of it. you say turn left and the ai fires rcs thrusters to rotate you left, gimbals main thrust to increase turning speed fires, lateral thrusters to cancel sideways drift, fire main thrusters to increase forward momentum, kills rotation, and shuts down all thrusters.
-
As long as you wouldn't stick with Freelancers graphics. The game would've been much much more fun to play if it had gone the route of having "realistic" looking ships... rather than the cartoon style they went with.
well, that irritated me to no end, somma the graphical touches, like smoke, etc, were nice, but it felt like it departed too far away from its starlancer roots,
nice and expansive, tho, and the in-engine character cutscenes were pretty good, too. in concept, if nothing else.
one thing that ticked me off royally with freelancer, was the overall scales of the ships, even tho i'm a little spoiled by FS2's scale of things, the capships seemed a little....small, compared to your liberty fighters, etc.
-
not to mention the dinky planets and stars
-
Well, I don't know if you will love it... But you should.
God I love that game.
Seriously. Hunt down an Amiga or Atari ST emulator and try Warhead :) It looks abysmal by todays graphics standards but it was written by one of Particle Systems main coders and the gameplay is just great :)
-
Can you recommend any *nix based Atari ST emulators?
-
I'm an Amiga man personally. I know they do exist though.
-
I found one called Steem that seems to work well enough. So far, Warhead is... infuriating. I should probably try to find a manual somewhere. ;)
-
It takes some getting used to. But once you start getting the good weapons it gets much better :)
-
Why does everyone hate freelancer!?!?!?! I've played that game and it really is fun. Its actually one of the closest games to freespace in the genre....
I really wish that people would learn how to end a series....
I'd love a freespace 3... I would definitly buy a freelancer 2 (actually, If I remember correctly, theres a fan made extension for freelancer called Freelancer: The Next Generation)...
However, I would REALLY love to see a sequel to Tribes: Vengeance.... (and Far Cry for that matter) Those are the two games I enjoy most and to see sequels would be a wonderful thing...
I actually read that theres supposed to be a sequel to FEAR, but idk too much about that one....
-
Someone posted a demo video of the new FarCry engine actually, it looked pretty stunning....
-
Someone posted a demo video of the new FarCry engine actually, it looked pretty stunning....
uhhh, that was me!!!!
-
:lol:
Forget I said it then ;)
-
Why does everyone hate freelancer!?!?!?! I've played that game and it really is fun.
I don't hate it. It's just nowhere near as good as FS1 let alone FS2.
-
I liked the atmosphere, but it couldn't really decide whether it was a Space Combat game or a Space Trading game, and it sort of wobbles between the two. It was very well executed in a lot of ways, it felt like an RPG because of levelling up and mouse control, but didn't have enough variation or depth to hold that side together.
It's a pity really, it had a hell of a lot of potential and looked gorgeous, particuarly in Asteroid fields etc, but just didn't have a long term factor for me.
-
my point isnt that freelancer is bad, freelancer looks (as far as environment, those ships are butt ugly) really good. its just that it failed in alot of areas too. unlike with freespace where everything was pretty much perfect in all aspects. i also do not consider it a true space sim because of the controls and the flatness of the gameplay. freelancer does score brownie points for originality though as there were alot of unique features. its a matter of relativity really. relative to other games, it kicks ass. relative to freespace, its just another space game.
-
However, I would REALLY love to see a sequel to Tribes: Vengeance....
http://www.starsiege2845.com/
What the Tribes/Earthsiege/Starsiege series is *supposed* to be :p
-
Flatness in Freelancer never bothered me..partially becosue in RL, planets usually are approximately on a plane.
the nebučlas and particle culds were excelletn adn the universe was so full and ALIVE. Things were constantly going on.
Patrols came by and scanned you, pirates attacked freighters and police came to help...ships had tons of meaningfull chatter with other ships and stations (they told you where they were from and where they were going or other similar stuff)
There are mods out there that truly make it shine..like new, balanced ships with fixed gunz, a new storyline.. and it really is excellent then..
-
my point isnt that freelancer is bad, freelancer looks (as far as environment, those ships are butt ugly) really good. its just that it failed in alot of areas too. unlike with freespace where everything was pretty much perfect in all aspects. i also do not consider it a true space sim because of the controls and the flatness of the gameplay. freelancer does score brownie points for originality though as there were alot of unique features. its a matter of relativity really. relative to other games, it kicks ass. relative to freespace, its just another space game.
Oh no crap its not as good as freespace.....
As for looks, it looks almost as good as X3 on 1280x960 resolution... Also, it doesnt need a powerful video card... I do like how it is executed.. Always something happening... So many ships, and the ship models actually look good IMO... I dont really see anything bad about it.... I love it!!!!
Also, it has VERY good voice acting, unlike X3... On par with freespace as a matter of fact... And the story line goes very well, you can also choose to ignore it and continue trading if you wish...
Flatness in Freelancer never bothered me..partially becosue in RL, planets usually are approximately on a plane.
the nebučlas and particle culds were excelletn adn the universe was so full and ALIVE. Things were constantly going on.
Patrols came by and scanned you, pirates attacked freighters and police came to help...ships had tons of meaningfull chatter with other ships and stations (they told you where they were from and where they were going or other similar stuff)
There are mods out there that truly make it shine..like new, balanced ships with fixed gunz, a new storyline.. and it really is excellent then..
Exactly my point... I havnt tried the mods and stuff, but I will once i finish the game...
-
flat solarsystems tend to be fairly empty bacause the system has evolved to the point where there is very little dibrits, and everything spins around the sun in the same direction. so a flat plannar system is a mature system and wouldnt have as much as far as nebulas and astroid fields go. in this example id consider it a realistic expression of a solar system. a system full of nebulas and stuff would be a newer immature solar system with partially formed planets spinning it totally chaotic orbits, heavy concentrations of gas and space dibrits everywhere. in other words it would be a mess. now there were plenty of messy systems too, but they were still fairly flat. space is a 3d medium and gameplay should express that. this is one of the reasons i dont consider it a true space sim. still i played and enjoyed the game and in all liklyhood, id play it again.
-
What I want is a space sim without all of that trading and upgrading crap. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong games, but from what I've seen, most of the recent space games have had that as a large focus. Then you have something like Eve, which in my opinion would be absolutely awesome if it wasn't a point-and-click RPG; the entire concept just sounds extremely boring. I don't give a damn about galactic economies, trade routes, evil corporations, or pirate factions. All I want is an engrossing, amazing, and linear storyline (I shouldn't have to play a game twenty times to see everything :p), awe-inspiring capital ships, non-stop action, and a general feeling of the immensity of the space environment. And no Newtonian physics, for the love of God. I once played a demo of a Russian space sim whose name I can't recall, and every mission played out like the "jousting" that Cyker described. The entire space sim genre is full of scientific impossibilities; Newtonian physics just seems like a poor attempt to inject "realism" while taking the fun out of gameplay.
In short, I want what I can never have: FS3 ;)
-
What I want is a space sim without all of that trading and upgrading crap. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong games, but from what I've seen, most of the recent space games have had that as a large focus. Then you have something like Eve, which in my opinion would be absolutely awesome if it wasn't a point-and-click RPG; the entire concept just sounds extremely boring. I don't give a damn about galactic economies, trade routes, evil corporations, or pirate factions. All I want is an engrossing, amazing, and linear storyline (I shouldn't have to play a game twenty times to see everything :p), awe-inspiring capital ships, non-stop action, and a general feeling of the immensity of the space environment. And no Newtonian physics, for the love of God. I once played a demo of a Russian space sim whose name I can't recall, and every mission played out like the "jousting" that Cyker described. The entire space sim genre is full of scientific impossibilities; Newtonian physics just seems like a poor attempt to inject "realism" while taking the fun out of gameplay.
In short, I want what I can never have: FS3 ;)
upgrading isn't so bad, particularly if it leans towards the "you maintain your fightercraft" department, i agree trading is as boring as hell, it has its place.
if freespace 3 was made, it should be slightly open-ended in terms of mission area, whilst be linear in structure. a multi-faceted mission area structure, if you will. where you could be battling in one area, and off into the distance, you can see the flashes of another battle, that you may have the option to jump out of the area, and help if you so wish, without having to worry about having to go through another loading sequence.
Newtonian physics have their place, most combat sims were fly-by-wire, as in, pull the stick back, fighter goes up, etc.
what i'd like to see, is a genuine free-for-all battle in a space sim, something that would make the battle of endor look like a campfire explosion by comparison. more visible craft than visible stars. a target rich enviroment, to quote schlock mercenary. ;)
-
i never really liked non-linear gameplay. its something that just doesnt work. it just tends to degrade the plot and confuse things. it really doesnt extend the life of a game, just means it takes longer to finish. look at freespace, id had a linear plot and it refuses to go away. so i think non-linear story lines are a feature game comanies need to get away from.
as far as openness goes, i think its become pretty much standard. games like freelancer have proven that it can be done and it would be an essential feature in a freespace 3 type game. of course in an fs3 type system, you can move between systems via nodes, but id like to be able to make intra system jumps at will, and be able to plot my own course. scale of a combat area allows for more tactical missions. giving the player multiple means to complete the mission. like where (to continue the fs3 alalogy) to set up an ambush of s shivan convy it from what position a cap ship jumps in to take out another capship (to attack a sathanas from the rear as opposed to from the front).
i still maintain that realistic physics can be implemented in a fun and playable manor. it would just take much though into the player-ship interface. now i wouldnt want fs3 to have it, games should try to keep a certain feel in their sequals but id like to see it in more games. for the flight sim crowd, realistic physics are mandatory, and they still have loads of fun.
-
i never really liked non-linear gameplay. its something that just doesnt work. it just tends to degrade the plot and confuse things. it really doesnt extend the life of a game, just means it takes longer to finish. look at freespace, id had a linear plot and it refuses to go away. so i think non-linear story lines are a feature game comanies need to get away from.
as far as openness goes, i think its become pretty much standard. games like freelancer have proven that it can be done and it would be an essential feature in a freespace 3 type game. of course in an fs3 type system, you can move between systems via nodes, but id like to be able to make intra system jumps at will, and be able to plot my own course. scale of a combat area allows for more tactical missions. giving the player multiple means to complete the mission. like where (to continue the fs3 alalogy) to set up an ambush of s shivan convy it from what position a cap ship jumps in to take out another capship (to attack a sathanas from the rear as opposed to from the front).
i still maintain that realistic physics can be implemented in a fun and playable manor. it would just take much though into the player-ship interface. now i wouldnt want fs3 to have it, games should try to keep a certain feel in their sequals but id like to see it in more games. for the flight sim crowd, realistic physics are mandatory, and they still have loads of fun.
while i agree that non-linearity shouldn't be a key gameplay component, i do believe that a large battlefield would be a cool feature, like, you fight in one area, have to jump out with the rest of the fleet, sit through the fleet in subspace, and see the fleet jump back into normal space all in the one sesson.
-
I also agree that open ended gameplay is great but I'd also settle for simply a really well made linear space combat sim ala Tie Fighter/Freespace.
-
I also agree that open ended gameplay is great but I'd also settle for simply a really well made linear space combat sim ala Tie Fighter/Freespace.
indeed, but, a trading "backbone"(in concept alone) would be a cool feature for any spiritual sequel to freespace, etc, like, to add some kind of life to the game, like, you're in the military fighters, escorting a cruiser through a civilian area, and seeing the alliance's economy spring to life by way of transports, mercenary fighters, police fighters, civil ships, shuttles, and whatnot, imagine something like new york and vegas all rolled into one, in space. then imagine a full on fighter battle among all that, all the aformentioned noncombatants scattering for cover as you're assisted by the less advanced police and mercs (protecting their charges, of course)
you don't see much of this except in games like the X series, etc. Freelancer came close, but not much.
-
i think trading games work well in an mmo environment. freelancer multiplayer is fun. youre not bogged down by a story line and can focus on the core aspects of the game, like trading and making money. also no big tech leaps induced by the story line. the freelancer story kinda kept you in fighters rather than freighters, so by the time you were done with the pliot and free to make money, your tech was already too near the top of the tech ladder. another fact that trading games fail at is the lack of tech levels. the game can be said to be over once you own the best ship and the best weapons and so much money you can pretty much do anything. games like elite where it was so difficult to make money at first kinda sucked and makes you not want to play them out full. when i started playing elite i didnt have a clue how to make money. i had to travel around and see what the market prices were in a system or two. freelancer was good because you could get trading tips by listening to the radio chatter. but there is a fine line between a military space combat game, and a space trading game. freespace is a military combat game and should be kept that way.
-
i think trading games work well in an mmo environment. freelancer multiplayer is fun. youre not bogged down by a story line and can focus on the core aspects of the game, like trading and making money. also no big tech leaps induced by the story line. the freelancer story kinda kept you in fighters rather than freighters, so by the time you were done with the pliot and free to make money, your tech was already too near the top of the tech ladder. another fact that trading games fail at is the lack of tech levels. the game can be said to be over once you own the best ship and the best weapons and so much money you can pretty much do anything. games like elite where it was so difficult to make money at first kinda sucked and makes you not want to play them out full. when i started playing elite i didnt have a clue how to make money. i had to travel around and see what the market prices were in a system or two. freelancer was good because you could get trading tips by listening to the radio chatter. but there is a fine line between a military space combat game, and a space trading game. freespace is a military combat game and should be kept that way.
and many trading games don't fully realise many aspects of such, like the X series of games, it focused purely on trading, as in shipping, wheras there's heaps of money to be made, such as bounty hunting, security, and of course, piracy.
-
i dont mind having missions in trading games, but it seems that all the missions in modern trading games suck. freelancer in paticular. they were all go blow **** up missions. the best mission variety ive seen was probibly in frontier. where missions can range from assasinations, spying, courior missions. also it had shady deals which might not get you paid if done wrong. id like to see more of that. id like to see more interspiecies relations. evolving markets. the capability to buy your own base or warship. have ships with multiple crew members (gunners captain ect). or build your own military or buisness if you want to. freelancer had the most comprehensive political engine ive seen. id like to see that extended. custom factions. anyone may start a faction and buy assets (bases, ships, planets, solar systems, ect) for that faction and decide who their friends are as well as enemies are. also you could decide stuff like member pay and such. also to combat the tech ladder problem, allow players to have research facilities, they can upgrade their technology by paying for r&d. to upgrade your guns for example. then once thats done you can buy manufacturing facilities to make the weapon, and sell those to other players. thatway the game dynamically generates content based on the actions of the players. in theory if you do it right you could have a game that never gets old.
-
i dont mind having missions in trading games, but it seems that all the missions in modern trading games suck. freelancer in paticular. they were all go blow **** up missions. the best mission variety ive seen was probibly in frontier. where missions can range from assasinations, spying, courior missions. also it had shady deals which might not get you paid if done wrong. id like to see more of that. id like to see more interspiecies relations. evolving markets. the capability to buy your own base or warship. have ships with multiple crew members (gunners captain ect). or build your own military or buisness if you want to. freelancer had the most comprehensive political engine ive seen. id like to see that extended. custom factions. anyone may start a faction and buy assets (bases, ships, planets, solar systems, ect) for that faction and decide who their friends are as well as enemies are. also you could decide stuff like member pay and such. also to combat the tech ladder problem, allow players to have research facilities, they can upgrade their technology by paying for r&d. to upgrade your guns for example. then once thats done you can buy manufacturing facilities to make the weapon, and sell those to other players. thatway the game dynamically generates content based on the actions of the players. in theory if you do it right you could have a game that never gets old.
variety is the spice of life in games, and lack of it are coffin nails.
-
not a big fan of sandbox games but I am enjoying Frelancer, having had it for > 1 year and never bothered to try it.
-
I wan't to see something that combines group AI with the Sandbox mentality, so instead of skirmishes, you can have two different groups, using fleet tactics against each other, like being one unit in a massive RTS situation, but with freedom of choice, you can participate in the interaction, on either side, you can trade and try to avoid the combat, or you could even sell weapons etc. Massive battles could take place, but they would not be scripted, it would simply be the computer AI battling against itself. If the two are not at war, depending on relations, you could still trade or possibly work as a freelancer for an ally.
The best example I can think of is that the combat side is not dissimilar to watching 2 computer AI's battling it out in a Homeworld skirmish map, but on a larger scale, with strategic points to fight for etc. RTS games have shown this sort of AI is possible, but it's never been applied to a free-roam type game.
-
not a bad idea for a campaign that >.>