...so should I be concerned that attempting to play that video gave me a BSOD? :pYou weren't only one. Video driver crashed when attempting to play that video, twice. Shortly followed by BSOD.
Regarding the voice, the first 2 are a bit strange, but you know what they say - in reality, not everyone has a nice voice.They damn well better in a professional acting project, though. :p
They damn well better in a professional acting project, though. :p
Even worse than the voice acting was the models and renders. **** looks like an Still-Render PC Game from 1994. Holy ****.I was thinking the same thing, the graphics look old as ****.
How do people get PAID TO MAKE THIS?
Even worse than the voice acting was the models and renders. **** looks like an Still-Render PC Game from 1994. Holy ****.
How do people get PAID TO MAKE THIS?
Once again - this is a 4X game. That is the in-game engine. Do you see the amount of detail on those ships? Hunderds of tracking turrets(with collision detection for each turret - no hit chance calculator). Newtonian physics. Per-polygon targeting. Subsystems. And that on one MEDIUM sized ship.
And then bring a whole fleet into a battle, against several opponents. Now imagine 4 fleets duking it out. Or 8. Now count the number of turrets and objects the game has to keep track of.
The engine is beautiful. Everyone saying otherwise is ignorant, or has his head stuck up so far up his ass it would take a geological team to pull it back out. Different game types have different engine requirements.
Would you like assistance removing your head from your ass, then?
It's a 4X game, as you said. We shouldn't be doing hundreds of guns with individual hit detection and tracking rates and crap like that because it's a damn 4X and that sort of thing is a needless drain on the processor which could instead, you know, be acting halfway competent with its own fleets rather than spectacularly ****ing up because it had to be stripped to bare bones to let the damn thing properly handle goddamn hit detection rather than having a competent AI or a lack of artifical cap on the number of ships in a fleet or the number of fleets in a battle so your computer doesn't pull a Chernobyl trying to handle it all.
Well, voice acting aside, it didn't look too unapproachable from the game-engine point of view, sure, it's not Crysis, but the 'Battleship Yamato' feel of all the Crew on parade on deck as though ti were an Earth-bound carrier was quite clever (though, the Leviathan was actually either not that big, or those marines are huge).
Even worse than the voice acting was the models and renders. **** looks like an Still-Render PC Game from 1994. Holy ****.
How do people get PAID TO MAKE THIS?
:wtf: :wtf:
Are you trying to get yourself killed here.
Such level of ignorance is....inexcusable.
Once again - this is a 4X game. That is the in-game engine. Do you see the amount of detail on those ships? Hunderds of tracking turrets(with collision detection for each turret - no hit chance calculator). Newtonian physics. Per-polygon targeting. Subsystems. And that on one MEDIUM sized ship.
And then bring a whole fleet into a battle, against several opponents. Now imagine 4 fleets duking it out. Or 8. Now count the number of turrets and objects the game has to keep track of.
The engine is beautiful. Everyone saying otherwise is ignorant, or has his head stuck up so far up his ass it would take a geological team to pull it back out. Different game types have different engine requirements.
Also:
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/swordofthestarsii/screenshots.html
You call this ugly?
http://www.gamershell.com/pc/sword_of_the_stars_2/screenshots.html?page=2
I still say it looks like it came straight out of the late 90s.Actually, those screenshots are older than the trailer, iirc.
Point: It's not impossible to have awesome graphics and detailed gameplay at the same time. Look at EVE online... their "Trinity" engine looks awesome. And if your response to that is going to be that having a whole fleet, in which each ship has all of these turrets and other stuff that would each take processor time, and that you can't have both... don't even bother... You can do it, on high end computers, and if you're not on a high-end computer, that's what detail settings are for. But rendering an in-game trailer with low graphics detail, or not even having "good looking" graphics to show? Fail.
That said, some of those screenshots you linked to and said "You call this ugly?" look a hell of a lot better than what they showed off in that trailer. Perhaps those screenshots are newer, and reflect them having realized (unlike TrashMan) how bad their graphics looked and having improved them to make up for it?
Nonetheless, if it's got good gameplay, I might get it anyway. But why the **** did they make an ingame trailer that has bad graphics, bad voice acting, and doesn't even show any gameplay?
Trashman; I'm a lurker over at Kerberos so I'm guessing from your passionate posting here that you go by the same name there? You play multi at all? Never tried myself but I must get into it.
One warning I will give; they (Kerberos, or almost exclusively Mecron, the lead designer) can be pretty wankerish if they don't like the implications or tone of a post so either lurk like I do or word it well.
Plus, bad VA work aside, SotS was amazing. Can't wait for II (Especially as it seems the Suuligi have returned [The Zuul's father race to the Morrigi being their 'mother' race, which will make little sense unless you've paid attention to the backstory of the game])
You know, when you become a competent game designer, then - and ONLY THEN - will your views of what should or should not be done in a game have any weight whatsoever.
And it's obvious you haven't played SOTS, or you'd know the AI is VERY good, that the single turn represents month, and thus combat represents months worth of manouvering.
Therefore, your ability to command and control is vital, represented in reinforcements and your command ability.
Maybe you like the SINS model where you have thousands of simple, insignificant ships that die in spades and everything is a spreadsheet calculation.
I rather prefer having fewer ships, but those ships being more important and detailed and tactics having a bigger influence. Which they do in SOTS.
Trashman; I'm a lurker over at Kerberos so I'm guessing from your passionate posting here that you go by the same name there? You play multi at all? Never tried myself but I must get into it.
One warning I will give; they (Kerberos, or almost exclusively Mecron, the lead designer) can be pretty wankerish if they don't like the implications or tone of a post so either lurk like I do or word it well.
Same handle there. Check out the mod sections. You might notice something ;)
Also, the SOTS forums are one of the most civil forums I've ever been. The devs constantly talk to people and are very fair, if strict sometimes.Plus, bad VA work aside, SotS was amazing. Can't wait for II (Especially as it seems the Suuligi have returned [The Zuul's father race to the Morrigi being their 'mother' race, which will make little sense unless you've paid attention to the backstory of the game])
Erm...no. You got the Zuul, The Sulligi (a.k.a, the Screamers) and the Suul'Ka (creators of Zuul). It's still not clear who he Sulligi are, but the current theory is that they are an offshot of the Morrigi race that sided with the Suul'Ka (if you recall the Morrigi talk about the "fall" and "great shame").
Also, the "Black-X" designation is for unexplained encounters, designated by order of encounter. Unless I'm mistaken, the Zuul are Black-13, Morrigi Black-14, the Von Neuman are Black-10...altouhg I fail to come to the 19 number, which is strange. Even counting the Grand Menaces...which would mean the people at Kerberos thought of a few new encounters for us. and after the Locust, System Killer, Puppet Master and PeaceKeeper...I shudder to think what's next.
It doesn't matter what the designer thinks; it matters what the end user thinks. I am a player, and mine is the only form of opinion that carries any weight or any use in designing a successful game.
Then what's the point of the complex hit detection you just described? Combat is totally abstracted at that scale. Unless it switches to a realtime mode for it? Which you strongly imply it doesn't.
Basically what you're describing is not only suspect from a programming standpoint, but also unnecessary complication now.
That's the SupCom model, not a Sins-specific one, but let's be honest: the Sins model represents a degree of abstraction that would be very much the amount of actual control you could project over combat at that scale. I don't like it, but it's reasonably accurate. If I had my way, we'd still be fighting it out with something like Steel Panthers in videogames but that style is dead. SotS' handling of combat however is neither accurate nor is it appealing.
On the comments about the trailers graphics; I think the dismissal of at the very worst, completely acceptable detail and modelling is pretty pathetic. Continued comparisions with Eve, a typically soul destroying repetitive XP grinding MMORPG, are equally irrelevent without even begining to talk about the size of the developers and available resources.
You can do it, on high end computers, and if you're not on a high-end computer, that's what detail settings are for. But rendering an in-game trailer with low graphics detail, or not even having "good looking" graphics to show? Fail.
[ ... ]
Nonetheless, if it's got good gameplay, I might get it anyway. But why the **** did they make an ingame trailer that has bad graphics, bad voice acting, and doesn't even show any gameplay?
It's probably an ingame trailer for the most part to cut down cost and doesn't display any actual gameplay because it's not due out for another year. That's why it's a Teaser.
The game did [ well ] and has a large and devoted fanbase.
You know, when you become a competent game designer, then - and ONLY THEN - will your views of what should or should not be done in a game have any weight whatsoever.
It doesn't matter what the designer thinks; it matters what the end user thinks. I am a player, and mine is the only form of opinion that carries any weight or any use in designing a successful game.And it's obvious you haven't played SOTS, or you'd know the AI is VERY good, that the single turn represents month, and thus combat represents months worth of manouvering.
Then what's the point of the complex hit detection you just described? Combat is totally abstracted at that scale. Unless it switches to a realtime mode for it? Which you strongly imply it doesn't.
Basically what you're describing is not only suspect from a programming standpoint, but also unnecessary complication now.QuoteThe reason for them doing it that way is that it allows for complex tactical options such as shooting individual turrets off ships. When an enemy is using for example any tupe of projector weapon these can be devastating up close yet have large easily target-able turrets for precision removal. In addition friendly fire is a distinct possibility. Also the ships have no hitbars, the only way to tell how much damage they ahve taken is to observe the damage on them directly.Therefore, your ability to command and control is vital, represented in reinforcements and your command ability.
This is further evidence of abstraction, you are not helping your point in the slightest.QuoteAgain not at all, in this game your ability to field a fleet is directly related to if you have a command ship in said fleet. If you do not or it is destroyed any subsequent battles or current battle reinforcements will be unable to come in. For example a Cruiser CnC allows up to 36 command points of ships, thats the cnc and 5 additional 6 pt cruisers. If your neemy ahs no command he is limited to I think 12 pts or 2 cruisers. Command ships are primary targets. Without them you cannot alter your fleet reserves, withdraw wounded ships from battle or change the fleet formation.Maybe you like the SINS model where you have thousands of simple, insignificant ships that die in spades and everything is a spreadsheet calculation.
I rather prefer having fewer ships, but those ships being more important and detailed and tactics having a bigger influence. Which they do in SOTS.
That's the SupCom model, not a Sins-specific one, but let's be honest: the Sins model represents a degree of abstraction that would be very much the amount of actual control you could project over combat at that scale. I don't like it, but it's reasonably accurate. If I had my way, we'd still be fighting it out with something like Steel Panthers in videogames but that style is dead. SotS' handling of combat however is neither accurate nor is it appealing.QuoteThats not how SoTS works though. its a TACTICAL 4x. The most important elements are tactical as in how you arrange your ships, the weapon choices you make etc. Sins has nothing like it, the ships are preformed and it uses a Hard rock paper scissors game style versus the much more flexible SotS where you ahve to find out the design your facing and then design a counter ship or strategy.
But please stop pretending like the graphics look good; they don't. And please stop operating under the false assumption that it takes huge amounts of money to get cool shaders and graphics like in EVE; it doesn't. Crysis maybe, but not EVE.
To be honest, I am actually waiting for them to refer to superior set of ship graphics that don't depend on slight of hand/no contact in order to achieve LOD. Or were they expecting to see rivets on a 1Km starship when the camera is no closer and 20M? Like I said...if they had a point of reference, one could debate, but as it is...its just inane internet hater talk and hence we probably all should not sweat it too much.
*shrug* Don't take it too personally, guys. It's an ugly world and a lot of people out there are feeling bad and worthless, all the time. They see the world through poop-coloured lenses.;)
If you think they're in the wrong, feel free to correct them in any thread where you see them talking nonsense. Just don't get overly defensive about it, and don't let them throw poop in your eyes too. SotS has nothing to apologize for in the graphics department; it's actually one of the most graphically rich strat titles on the market. SotS ][ will be even better. :D
--Arinn
I don't care what they were trying to do, or what they achieved, they shouldn't even be getting involved, it was only a few posts ago that you were pointing out the problems of design by committee, and this is exactly the sort of reason why they shouldn't be getting involved.
And whilst they may have been posting on their own Forum, you still saw fit to copy-paste it here.