Navi1982
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Navi1982
-
-
I have an idea here, why wont Tonysmight and Navi1982 create a company and make a perfect ufo remake in 9-12 months? They seem to know eveyrthign about the bussiness, will be a cake walk.And since they pinpointed the most important weaknesses of the game (lack of 3d geoscape ) im sure it will sell like hot cakes.
I would be happy to participate in such a project. I think at least 5 people is needed in the team:
1. Сoncept designer and leader of the game - all conceptual ideas, game rules depend on this man. Programming and artistic skills is pleased. Also called game developer. And this man must be a good writer for scenarios. In ideal case - must be a project leader.
2. Art-designer with skills in some 2D and 3D graphical design programs (GDP).
3. Modeller with skills in 2D and 3D GDPs (obligatorily) and some programming skills is pleased.
4. Programmer OOP - with skills of interface programming, DB and experience with some general algorithms (maths, path finder, etc.)
5. Programmer for graphics 3D and 2D and experience with general algorithms (maths, path finder, etc.).
And some third party of works will be attached: Sounds, Musics, etc.
It is not strong description for team. But it is my vision for development such games. By the way, first 3 persons will be responsable for game visual look. Another 2 persons, in cooperation with 1st, will be responsable for game engine.
So also, the publisher must be found. Or do it on entusiasm
I think, for about 2 years game will be done may be less. In the case of sponsorship from the publisher - need about $120 000 (for my country/region) and about 50% from future sales. At the moment I have 3 (#2,#3,#5) candidates for the team, who is ready for that conditions. At the moment I working on game-design document with some illustrations. And still searching for sponsors (have 1 and making des-doc for him). Hope to be 1st person too (but will be happy with some assistence).
-
Curvatures on 2D map must be implemented
And poles then must be shown too. Really. Agree about engine - is not a good choice, must to be rewriten too. Tactical mecanics is well: somthing is enhanced, but other things is still remain not finished (ex. shots from behind another sited soldiers etc).Ok, theme of Cold War is good concept. Air interception is good thing too - I like it. Graphics and music is neutral, as attitude towards them.
But, again - there is a lot of work to be made. Chris and his team, hope next time your games will be more close to reality or at least deep enough thought (remember what I say (in other thread) about definitions of the world and handlings with it in good books). Waiting for another projects. Good Luck!
-
Of course, we can see there is a flat map, but not with a flat handling over it! Feel the difference?Just for funsies... here is a picture of NORAD's Command Centre....
Wot is that on the right hand side of the front wall?
Here I am completely agree with you!...A flat map. Looks an awful...
Yes, but from this post.... Can we consider the realism case closed now?
-
Max_Caine,
The arguments is so much obvious that it is difficult to miss. At least compare sales of last few remakes ... You surprised me, it's true.
-
bla-bla-bla... (cause you did not ask them!)
Are maps terrible for planning, like Navi1982 says?
I dont said that map is terrible for planning... I just said that maps, that do not reflect the real world (like is presented in the game) is realy terrible. Because by the sense of the (such a) game(s) you are fighting against aliens on the whole world... real world... that was in 1979 and still exist now... and hope will remain as is.
And I've said that curvatures on 2D maps (really I'm not against it) still should be implemented! That I've mean.
Furthermore, if your paragraph about restrictions were true, then where are the complaints? Why hasn't the board been drowned in them? Where's your evidence? There are a lot of things that people care about, but the number of people who care about the lack of a globe to the point where they complain about it are very small. VERY small. It seems that Chris has made a "book" that people are willing to read, based upon the evidence available.People read the books (different genres) because want to read these. And people is ready to swallow omissions for the sake of nostalgia or the love of it. But, what book will be better? Depends on the author: how adequately describe the world and he will handle it. So, this question of "what is better?" And I answered on it, pointing out the flaws.
I'm not asking the author or publisher to give me back the money for the (not so bad) book that has read. For this there is criticism or discussion of this book. A forum is the place where discussions are held. (this is my answer about why people do not revolt)
Hope my point of view is clear?
-
Hey, people... Again about 2D map (as in real HQs) vs 3D globe. If devs and others consider that 2D map is better than 3D globe - you are so wrong too! Any commander will tell you, that 2D map is good for display DATA about units and other statistical information... But, it is not good to make plans! Each commander understanding that and use globes (even if in its mind) in conjunction with maps. So, if globe is unrealisable on game's engine - then curvatures had to be implemented. Because it 2D maps show the globe, which means and methods of work with it (later about it).
Creating games only due to features of the engine - will always lead to harsh criticism (not I said it). It is also necessary to create supplement to the engine. Since the engine was not designed specifically for YOUR game or for further innovations in it.
By simplifying display on maps contrary to the apparent reality - induces permanent restriction, leading to a conflict between the inner world of the player and the world of the game. It causes unpleasant feelings. Player's attitude to the game must be like to a good book © think someoane said it already The game should clearly define the properties of their world and methods of interaction with it. In case of Xenonauts game - world is defined like real, but methods are in contradiction with this. This makes the game poorly written "book". If Chris will ignore that in his future projects - it will make for him bad reputation. Thus, I repeat again, should extract useful things from argumented critics.
That is all I wanted to say about 2D maps and 3D globes.
-
All the flaws you listed are very much accurate.
The lack of a geoscape globe is totally unacceptable. It was very characteristic of the original x-com, and is very cool. even new XCOM has a floating globe. The projection really brings a lot of issues with it, with 2d projection.
and the game is very slow, and boring. enemy turns take forever, moving units take forever and with 10+ units it became tedious.
very disappointing
About 10+ of soldiers - it is also an advantage of x-com. Even if it takes a little bit much time. But I do not understand - in the era of serious graphics card, how can use 2d sprites?
Just some words about evolution of such games series...
Quite obvious that the tactical mode of UFOs is a healthy solution to combine real-time (unacceptable in such games, but welcome) and turn-based strategy. Chess mode should be left as an option, but it was more a lack of x-com series. That is, I think that it is necessary to promote the genre of such games in the obvious ways. Good game of this genre, I believe should be a combination of:
- Globe of the good old X-COM: UFO Defense, but with adequate landscape and penalties or bonuses.
- Tactics of UFO: after ... series, but with the possibility of destruction of the walls and abandonment of the cell structure maps.
- Economy like in x-com: apocalypse with a variety of organizations or something like that.
- Come up with another concept of an alien invasion. Not bad attempts were in UFO:Aftermath and UFO:Extraterestrials. I think on one, completely different concept. It is suitable only for the continuation of one of the classic concept of an alien invasion. But will say it in another place.
-
FireStorm1010, I agree with you, but only with
Sure the orignal will be only one since it was first and magicIn rest - you and only people at his self decide play or not to play in remakes of originally X-COM. I just expressed my own opinion. I said it in order to in the future authors considered their mistakes. And I hope that criticism will contribute to this. I also said BRAVO for autors! But criticized the publisher. Even if he is same person. Thats mean, it is his another mistake (for player's point of view), but he may be know better about his situation with that game development. Hope in the near future Chris will develop better games, as it said - now he have finacial resources and experience. First steps is always hard. But if you want to run you must learn to walk first. In attempts to walking surely you must to elicit lessons from stumbles. Cruelly - but it is the essence of life.
-
I completely disagree with this statement. Xenonauts is superior to XCom in many ways. A few big ones I can think of: Better non-cheating alien AI, air combat is far more interesting and important to your success, better combat UI, better music and better graphics.
When I first time played x-com - it was on the i486-DX with 4MB of RAM and 40MB of HDD. Without soundblaster! That was cool! Only in the third x-com: apocalypse succeeded to play with sound. Sound in such games generally is turned off on the third day.
I mean, look at the games of the past, as far as they were well thought out. Then they were limited by resources of the hardware. And what now prevents implement ideas? Human resources - it's true. But resources are different!
-
Simple Globe in the laboratory of geography teacher - will be enough visualize what was going on. And do not need any excess virtualization technology.
-
...
Realistic modelling of the curve of the Earth in terms of flight paths and radar coverage is possible, but would confuse and annoy far more people than actually care about it and want it in the game. Radar circles are clear and easy to understand.
Hence the conclusion - you need to make a globe. Or do both, so that the player passed a lesson that the flat map does not reflect the true circumstances.
Having a 2D Geoscape and not modelling the curvature of the planet doesn't mean Xenonauts is incomplete, it just means we've taken different design decisions. You're allowed to disagree with the decisions we've made, of course, but then you're just arguing about personal taste. It doesn't mean the game is unfinished.It just means that the neglect of reality spoils the impression of the game and scoff their authors. Certainly not in my case, but I'm just stating a fact. If your decision is justified by reasons of clarity, then visibility spoiled immediately for technical education of people.
-
I started playing games genre x-com, just before the release of her second part. Thanks to my older friends I knew this genre and fell in love with him. However, this game does not even reach the original game as by design and by implementation. The only thing that has brought the game - it's a high resolution image and system of interceptions. That's probably all.
But I admire the author for his attempt to bring the project to release. I'm not saying that the author is an idiot - I just pointed out his mistakes, he also recognizes.
-
Chris, do not take it to heart. This is just my opinion. I think many agree with me, but not all. However, poor implementation of 2D map - this is not a sign to ignore 3D globe. Both options have advantages and disadvantages. I already talked about this for Seafireliv (see 2nd page).
-
Sorry for my tone... for me its simplest way to say what I thing about... English is not my native language. Ofcouse, you are right about positives... but in background of what I seen - it's look very small things. About 2D map - I've replied to Seafireliv on second page.
-
Thanks for Development diary... I just read it. In addition to interesting facts, except excuses's nothing I saw. And not just a game developer's fault. I'm happy for him just for the fact that he managed to find the strength and gather a team. Bravo! But! Release of the game became hasty. And the author should specify and work on its shortcomings. Publisher - is someone who hurried process. And it's fair that people are demanding a refund or rectify the shortcomings. Cause many people bought into the advertising that the game is a reproduction of bestseller x-com. But, in fact - its degradation!
-
I have nothing bad on 2D maps... But it should work like real 2D maps. For example as new google maps... where trajectory of flying (straight) is drawn by curves. And radar coverage is shown as very deformed circle on poles. Moreover, by rotating globe you can easy see everything on it and appreciate exact situation about distances. But when you said about monitoring map (in 2d) - it should be implemented too. Because in real situations strategists looking on all forms of earth representation.
-
1. Geoscape - more precisely, the flat world of ancient ... is missing three turtles, elephants and whales. Where the Globe? Crisis in knowledge of geometry? It is known that the shortest path from point A to point B - is a straight line. Projection on the ball - becomes an arc with a minimum angle. How the hell did fly over the poles? No wonder that interceptors do not make effective fly.
2. Radar network (grid) - Aliens, welcome to the poles! Build up your base. This is a consequence from "Geoscape".
3. It turns out that the radar is built closer to the poles - not detect UFOs around the base, equidistant, and has a narrow (teardrop) pattern detection area.
Gaps in tactical mode...
4. When should you give a command to stand behind the wall, it is not clear exactly where the cursor is. However, when a soldier is already behind the wall, the wall becomes transparent. Should be corrected to the wall became transparent when hovering.
5. Shooting... It is not necessary to copy the original game completely. Necessary to include some improvements. This applies to the shooting. It would be nice if for each weapon would be nominal distance from which, with proper experience of soldier hit on target to become 100%, minus a penalty for enemy evasion. If the enemy does not have this parameter, it should be introduced. So, for the rifle - the distance from the soldier to the enemy must be 2 or 3 cells. For a sniper rifle - distance should be even greater. A gun for 1 or 2 cells. If the soldier is located beyond this distance - chance to hit reduced to 0% (if exceeded the maximum distance) with all the penalties. If a soldier is closer to the enemy than the nominal distance, the hit rate should be reduced to 50% (maybe higher) with all the bonuses and penalties. However, do not show misses in to ground, when distance is closer than nominal. This logic is explained by the reaction of the enemy on his raised arms and dexterity (a physical ability to evade the shot). It makes sense to consider the orientation of the enemy towards the shooter: see or not see.
6. Somehow, all participants in the battle - deaf or not use auditory organs. How about such a thing? You can introduce quiet (light) armor to sneak up from behind the enemy. Or at least to hear which way to go. Do you remember X-Com: Apocalypse?
Truth be told, the game still has many disadvantages. Does not have any innovations over the old games of the series X-Com. I would even say - degraded in relation to those.
The guys that make the game - worthy of respect! But if they hope to interest players in this genre with such a game - they are badly mistaken.
Game series of UFOs - more justified, even with the impossibility to punch walls and with their stupid economy...
It seems that the game will still be a work in progress, and its release - this grave mistake of publishers.
Good luck to the developers! And listen to the wishes of the players on the forum. I hope that you will create a masterpiece in version 2.0
Xenonauts, The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, A Final Review
in Xenonauts General Discussion
Posted
For good luck, thank you. But, think about the project will not publish here...