[quote=“Shralla, post:1, topic:205”]
As near as I can tell, Infinity is going to be the last space sim all aboard the Kickstarter train. … there are a veritable ton of space sims that have recently popped up. Especially with the Kickstarter launching for Battlescape and not actually Infinity itself, why would anybody still be looking for new space sims? … As near as I can tell, it might have been impressive three years ago, but now there are so many competitors on the field and Infinity is showing up so late to the party that I just can’t imagine it’s going to go anywhere at this point. I was super excited for this game literally for years since I first saw the tech demo, but now I just don’t see that it’s going anywhere at all.[/quote]
I’ve been following Infinity since January 2007, and it’s now 2013 (nearly 2014). That’s almost 7 years
I too am tired of waiting, especially now that Infinity’s scope has been massively cut-down from a whole galaxy (The Quest For Earth) to just a single solar system (Battlescape). As far as I can see, Elite: Dangerous will offer virtually everything I originally wanted from Infinity (which was basically a multiplayer version of Frontier: Elite 2 with modern graphics), except maybe the planets won’t be quite as pretty as Infinity’s. But at least E: D seems to be quickly making progress towards a playable game that can be bought, where-as Infinity still seems stuck making the game ENGINE (i.e. little actual gameplay yet).
Apparently John Carmack (the developer of Doom, Quake, etc) once said “you can make a game engine or you can make a game”. Another way of looking at it is that you can spend forever perfecting your game engine (since better hardware & technology always comes along), or you can say “my game engine sucks in many ways, but it’s good enough to make a fun game”. For Infinity they have been stuck “making a game engine” for 7 years, and now they’ve been overtaken by other developers who know you don’t have to have a perfect game engine before you make a game. They’ll probably be writing sequels to those games (which come much closer to what they wanted in the first place) before Infinity: The Quest For Earth is anywhere near being released (if ever).
OK, enough moaning from me, here are some constructive ideas that might change my mind (and the minds of others like me):
Explain why planets & seamless planetary landings are useful in a game about multiplayer space combat (Infinity: Battlescape). In a game about trading & doing missions, planets & planetary landings have obvious uses (see Frontier: Elite 2). I can’t really imagine planets being useful in the ICP (Infinity Combat Prototype), apart from as eye-candy, unless one side was defending a planet (but how do you do that given the sheer size of real planets?).
Some gameplay videos, not just more tech demos.
An explanation of why things took so long, and why that won’t apply anymore (if the Kickstarter is successful). And what mistakes they’ve learnt from (e.g. Infinity QFE’s totally wrong time estimates).
They better NOT dangle the idea of Battlescape leading to Quest For Earth, because that’s basically saying “we know this game sucks, but it’s sequel will be great” (i.e. “don’t bother to back this game, but wait for the next one”).
[quote=“Lomsor, post:62, topic:205”]
It was his personal opinion taking into account his experience with seamless planetary landing.I don’t see how voicing opinions is a bad thing.[/quote]
I’ve seen developers on competing projects criticse things about each other’s projects (“as personal opinions”), and I’ve even done it myself (with my own project). It can easily lead to a slagging match & bad feelings, and ultimately people loose interest & respect in either project. It’s a slippery slope which you should avoid like the plague.
If your own project is good, then sell it on it’s OWN merits. No matter how much insight you have on someone else’s project (because you’re working on something similar), your criticisms are open to accusations of bias or worse (which are almost impossible to disprove).
And to make matters worse, he is guilty of many of the things he was suggesting would happen to other developer’s projects. That’s really just the worst thing to do, if you want to be taken seriously.
@dee ,That’s redicolous. No really. You are seeing things that arent really there.
Keith, Flavien and the rest of the team are all sane people and have over and over again said that they respect the work of the two new BIG projekts that have been fundet. A sign that space games are in fact back!
First you accuse the whole team of being aggressive, pretty much saying they are bad people for the job. Then you add something totally unrelated like the missing content updates. Dude (I don’t use that often but …) they don’t want publicity yet. They said that over and over. They aren’t ready. And, as I said, that creates situations like this.
They said that this discussion isn’t really positive for them because of the negativity that is posed toward them. But they didn’t censor it.
or the post above me that Keith deleted which speculated that Cloud Imperium is being a bit misleading on their poly counts?
Something weird with that. I don’t think the devs should be commenting on other games or studios in that fashion.
That being said, Keith made it right both times and I actually don’t care that much personally. Inovae has always been less than formal on the forums. But I’m just saying, if someone were to make the claim that dee is, they have some reason to do so.
@Saturday, Indeed. Both of these occasions weren’t pleasant. A product of human error, trigger happiness and foremost misunderstanding. They have been retracted but the backslash is still felt. So I think the team will learn from it. After all it’s the fist time they have to deal with competition and its implications.
I’m an understanding person and I can see both sides. The problem is that the misunderstanding and aggressiveness creates these situations.
@all, I’ll give an example so you guys can understand:
All people in this example are human beings and prone to human error and misunderstanding as well emotional reactions.
DevStudio A has been working on a project for a long time, most of it is disclosed and its potentials and goals aren’t really clear.
DevStudio B goes public and shows a lot about their project. It turns out it is a direct competitor to, what seems to be, the very similar project of DevStudio A.
People try to compare Project A with Project B disregarding the different developing times and states in which the projects are in.
Some of those people come to a baffling conclusion. Project B does everything Project A does just faster … and probably better.
Those people confront the devs of Project A directly trough their forums. Stating their conclusion.
DevStudio A feels assaulted because they don’t feel like both projects have the same goals and also because different developing times, funds and states in which both projects are in haven’t been regarded in the conclusion.
DevStudio A feels stress, feels the pressure of the competition. Their arguments aren’t enough because they can’t show the same information in form of videos, text and general idea of the project yet.
The complaining people from stage 4 aren’t happy because they aren’t shown these information which may make them not disregard Project A.
Incorrect information reaches DevStudio A. Their emotional state (just guessing, example remember) makes them trigger happy. They feel as the underdog and the information hints they are exploited. Without thinking further ahead they instantly shout out those claims. Human error.
The claims prove wrong. DevStudio A revokes the claims.
People from Stage 4 take said affair as proof for following:
- Project A is in fact inferior to Project B
- DevStudio A is trying to save what isn't savable anymore.
- DevStudio A is using unfair tactics against the definitely better Project B
Thus DevStudio A is bad and shouldn’t be supported.
DevStudio A is now even more insecure, still not having any real content to show to prove their point.
And thus continous the circle. That’s what I see here.
Look, people make mistakes. People can be inexperienced.
Please give them another chance and rethink your verdict again when the Kickstarter Launches, taking funding, scope, devtime and state of project into account. This way you can help humanity more then accusing people of just being bad.
That being said, the people that claim Infinity and Star Citizen are the same games, are making an egregious mistake that could only be made without doing even superficial research. I don’t really see them as competition persay. I judge the progress or lack thereof of Infinity on it’s own basis.
Interestingly, I did originally find Infinity because I was looking for a Freelancer replacement. This was back in 2007… Well now my wildest dreams have come true and not only do I get a replacement, I get something better than I ever imagined by the same guy who made Freelancer and the Wing Commander games I played as a kid. So I am pretty much on top of Star Citizen like white on rice.
However, what I realized with Infinity is that it was something I didn’t even know I wanted until it was introduced to me by the tech demos and the website and the community. I always knew it would be a bad Freelancer replacement in that it just was completely different from Freelancer. Now I have the Freelancer replacement and fully realize there is still room for Infinity too. They are truly completely different with great potential on both sides. And technically, Infinity has more potential. Infinity has [infinite] potency and less actuality whereas Star Citizen has awesome potency and more actuality.
Point is, I’m up for both if they address the points Chris drew out among their plans.
I said there was some uncertainity about how and when E:D would add seamless procedural planets to their game. Eve Online has been speaking of doing so for almost a decade, after all. More recently, X: Rebirth implemented their “walking-in-stations” but it’s been heavily criticized by their own community for being boring, repetitive and ugly. If you interpret what I said as “criticism” of our competitors, especially considering I pledged both for SC and E:D and said I was confident about them eventually being able to deliver in the same paragraph, well so be it.
Other points will probably be addressed later, but to come back on that particular point, we’ve been working in our spare time entirely for many years. The KS will allow us to work full time, and as a consequence, become a lot more reliable.
When you work in your spare time, you don’t have a fixed amount of hours you can put into the game every week. Sometimes people are simply over-busy due to their IRL work ( doing extra hours ), communication / arranging meetings is harder, etc…
The KS will allow us to boost our productivity by an order of magnitude.
Simple: Infinity is so promising that it’s worth caring about for the next decade if needed. There are few good games out there, especially in the MMO category… I’ve cared about it for over 4 years, and all I have given up is the anticipation of its release.
This is 2013 but unfortunately for you this isn’t 4chan. This forum has a number of creative developers who have to make money from selling software. Here is the truth outside of your piracy loving ghettos:
I would love for you to explain to me how it makes any difference to the creator of a product whether you take a copy of his work digitally or physically? Either way you are stealing a product without paying for it. Before you spread your false propaganda you should be aware that piracy is not the victimless crime you believe it to be.
Spreading that BS in a community that contains the people you are stealing from is the stupidest thing of all.
First, I don’t think he was saying that piracy isn’t bad for the creators. Just that the words aren’t exactly the same.
Second, when you steal something physically, you don’t make a copy, so your question doesn’t really make sense.
If you created a car, for example, and somebody stole it, you would end up with no car. But If somebody pirated it(somehow copied it magically without your consent), you would still own a car. That is the difference. Sure, maybe if there was no way to copy it, that person might(important word here) have bought the car from you instead, but that still doesn’t change the fact that piracy is NOT the same as theft. The way I see it, theft is a lot worse than piracy. It both involves owning something that you do not have the rights(like piracy), but also depriving someone of their lawful possession.
Anyway, people are getting riled up over nothing. Just wait a few months and we can all love or hate Inovae together when they finally reveal what they have been cooking up.
Because the pirates of the golden age of sail copied ships and their cargo, and let their targets go free. Same for modern pirates off the coast of Somalia.
Piracy is theft. Specifically, it’s theft by pirates. When someone pirates software it’s not specifically the bits of code or art assets they’ve stolen, it’s the developers time and/or income.
If that’s too abstract for you, then software piracy is fraud. Using software without paying for the license, when using said software or accepting the EULA is, in effect, a promise that you have, indeed, complied with the license, is akin to promising to pay someone to paint your fence and then refusing the pay them for their work once they have completed it.
So, are pirates thieves? Or are the fraudsters? Which one offends your overblown sense of indignation less?
Once again, EvE wasn’t designed for this and as such I don’t feel it really fits in to discuss concepts they’ve thrown around implementing for awhile, compared to new game engines which are being designed with that being a specific goal in mind.
On-topic… I can’t wait for the Kickstarter to get rolling, as THAT’S what we all really need to get back “into” the game again. All fingers crossed it goes well, for everybody involved!!
Don’t bother making anything. Why spend years designing anything. Why make any more new movies with people thinking it is ok to just take $100M spent on a new product for them selves.
