Jump to content

J.Random

Members
  • Posts

    947
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

689 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Grumpy Tech

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I sure hope they do have actual knowledge on the state of the project. But that's the "informed" part. How can anybody call them credible is beyond me. According to Nate, the game was on track to be released in, iirc, 2020, then it was almost done in 2021 (minor setback re: studio hijack, all talent has been headhunted, no worries, etc.), then they just needed time to polish it in 2022, it was ready to be released in 2023, then it became EA and what came out can't be described adequately without resorting to obscenities. Come on.
  2. I mean, informed? Sure. Informative? Credible? Hell no.
  3. No you don't. It's forbidden to discuss, remember? You're imagining things. Even I don't know what I'm talking about.
  4. And there is a certain aspect of the forums which can't be discussed on the forums, and which probably played not an insignificant role in discussion drought. So now devs and folks wearing rose-tinted glasses are stewing in their own juices. Which is bad for the product but who cares at this point.
  5. Oh, I remember KSP issues. But you do understand that this unironic comparison of yours is kinda ridiculous, right? On one hand you have a supposedly AAA sequel from a game studio led by somebody with a couple of decades of experience, bankrolled by a huge publisher, and, as claimed, building on top of previous success, taking into account all the previous errors and so on, on the other hand there's an actual indie game from a tiny inexperienced team, originally a single dev, branched off from an ad agency. And you had to add the "50 conflicting mods" strawman to the latter and, imo, still failed to make the comparison even remotely favorable towards KSP 2.
  6. I mean, you're not _entirely_ wrong. KSP1 had a very rough development and at times developers made asinine decisions. There were phantom forces (leading to Kraken drives) and physical glitches. But I don't recall - ever - saving at KSC just to return later and on load see the game presenting me a scene with one of the previously launched satellites, pretending it's KSC. I can't recall such drastic trajectory changes, where warping to a circularization maneuver I would find ship's trajectory, instead of being hyperbolic, suddenly representing a free fall collision course. The ablility to launch the same ship twice existed in KSP1 since forever. But in KSP2? There is (or was last time I checked) no autosave of the vehicle when you press the "launch" button. So if you try and load previously launched vehicle, you'll end up with a weird half-complete autosaved version of it. Because screw you, that's why. And because devs don't play their own game. At best, they're playing _with_ it. Pretty sure I said it already in some other thread, but: correct. Don't expect anything. When you're buying an EA title, you're paying the price asked for whatever is available at the time. There is zero (repeat: ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZILCH) obligation to actually finish whatever promised (if promised). You're paying the asked price for whatever is available AT THE MOMENT. End of story. Expect nothing.. And if you don't like it, then don't buy it.
  7. Well, he's too cautious to say it directly, of course. But he did say that the extra year is needed for QA and polish. Of course, he also said "quality and level of polish [the game] deserves". Maybe the EA release day kvolitea is what devs consider deserved by the title, idk.
  8. Arguably, NMS devs never actually delivered on their promises. Instead of alien but believable planetary systems (instead of planets nailed to their positions) leading to alien but believable biomes leading to alien but believable creatures and their behavior and interactions (who else remembers the "predator plant snatching a bird in flight" claim?), they first retconned a "it's all just a broken dying simulation" plot into the game, then dangled the shiny in front of the players, basebuilding and multiplayer (these last two were enough for most of the braindead public to declare that NMS is good now) and went on to creating thematic (mostly boring) "expeditions", barely improving the underlying mechanics.
  9. Were you playing with suspension settings? Because last time I checked, none of the wheels "appropriated" from KSP1 were rigged properly, so changing suspension stiffness would sink the wheel into the ground or raise the wheel above it, and steering would move parts of the model which aren't supposed to move, or those which are supposed to move but in the opposite direction. It's a clusterduck.
  10. It can't be cancelled, it's in EA. It may be abandoned, development stopped and support dropped, but it would almost certainly get labeled as "1.0" at the same time. As in, "Oh, we're so sorry, I guess we were too ambitious and the technology isn't there yet, but, anyway, whatever we have now is 1.0, enjoy, GLHF and thanks for all the fish, we're done here, over and out".
  11. The second question is kinda pointless and vague. It should probably be rephrased as "Do you think it will reach what you would consider 1.0-worthy level of quality". Otherwise it's just a question of whether IG will slap the "1.0 release" tag onto it at some point in the future, which they could do literally today, tomorrow, whenever their T2/PD bosses tell them to and nothing could stop them.
  12. I don't care about their "never been done before" bs. Read the paper.
  13. Erm. No? My understanding is that quads aren't going anywhere. CBT is just an algorithm for fast(-er) splitting/merging of terrain components at the LoD (PQS level) borders.
  14. It's actually seventh (not even counting PSP and other platform spinoffs).
  15. It's called a bullshot. I think I recall somebody mentioning that the scenes were made in the editor and prerendered for the trailer, so no fizzicks, no real-time lighting, just a bunch of parts set in a way to suggest that the game could handle it. In other words, a lie and a fake. You can actually notice that the lighting is quite a bit off in the second shot (look at the shadow "terminators" on the round tanks, leftmost tanks are about "half-moon", while the rightmost ones are so obviously in a "waning moon" state): it seems that whoever made it used point/omnidirectional light and put it way too close to the contraption.
×
×
  • Create New...