The problem from the start was that the goal was unreachable, and that there was not nearly enough actual work going into the engine to achieve the goal. I think it’s better that they took the time to improve on necessary things. They were pretty secretive, in fact, I don’t even know the faults of the 2010 demo. They hid the supposed faults very well, and never told us what they were. In the end, we have an achievable goal and a team that’s probably going to get bigger.
I don’t know if the original goal was unreachable. There are projects like the Elite clone games, Pioneer, Oolite, FFE3D and procedural engines like Space Engine that have separately some of the features that Infinity:TQE was to have, of course at a more primitive level. There was a time when these would have been the only real competition Infinity would have had and “good enough” would have been perceived as excellent. Now they have to compete with ED, SC and other great space games at a whole other level of detail and expectation and it will take even longer to have something suitably polished for release, especially considering that they also need to expand and consolidate their team, as they can’t work with just a few people across continents and be efficient enough anymore.
Of course I don’t know the details of the faults the engine used to have and I may be wildly off, but I think it was usable enough for a somewhat more limited vision than the original idea for Infinity Quest for Earth, but a more expanded vision than what Battlescape is. The idea of Battlescape does not completely appeal to me to be honest, but I do understand it;s just a stepping stone for better things.
1 Like
Thank you for the suggestions. We’re definitely trying to do everything we can to increase our profile, communicate why I:B is going to be an incredible game, and acquire more backers. While we wish we could raise $75k every single day the simple truth is we’re going to have some days that are better than others. I would like to take this opportunity to mention that we’re engaged in a number of ongoing conversations with members of the media.
We have a bunch of interviews and live streams scheduled through next week and we’re constantly trying to schedule more. Personally I think this is perfect as I’d rather we have a steady stream of media coverage rather than releasing all of it in 1 day. A side effect of this is that our backer acquisition is likely to come in spikes. Also many people have stated that they are waiting until they get paid or, for some reason, until the end of the campaign before they pledge.
We will be releasing additional videos over the course of the campaign including our own live stream. The first of these will likely come out sometime next week. Lastly it’s critically important that all of you are out there on the internet, at work, with your friends letting everybody know why this game is going to be amazing. If you’re buying groceries ask the cashier if he/she plays games, do they want to see something cool as hell, and show them our video on your phone (I’ve done this). Unfortunately some of the reporting that has been released about I:B so far has been a bit misinformed and it’s up to all of us to set the record straight and communicate what makes this game and this community so great.
Once again we can’t thank all of you enough for your support, the volume of traffic is making it difficult to respond to everything, but we’re absolutely reading all that you’re saying!
18 Likes
What about a large scale demo? Everything I’ve seen so far is all the streamer and a couple of devs. It’s very…boring, after having watched two or three, and that’s from someone who has been with you since very nearly the beginning.
Unless there is a technical reason, why not have a hundred players get online all at once? I’m sure you can find enough volunteers, and many of us could all stream or record for your use.
1 Like
I am a 100% with NavyFish and MarianR87, I think they absolutely nailed it.
IMHO we’re at a very crucial point of Infinity and its future, and I think sticking with small sites and overall especially just waiting for reaction is the most wrong thing you can do now.
As some others pointed out, like MarianR87, you guys at Inovae went out on kickstarter with a bad timing with lots of competitors already in place (or done, like ED), and especially ED hitting into the exactly same area with the procedural planets. You should be very much aware (and worried) of it, and, like NavyFish pointed out, transport in your videos and updates why nevertheless Infinity Battlescape is different to them, and why everyone here is so passionate about it. I agree with NavyFish, your kickstarter content does not need another live-gameplay video but needs to go a different route overall.
Nevertheless of course I encourage my colleagues and friends to support the kickstarter to do what I can do to help, maybe a few friends of mine will support. I am with you since GameDev.net and want this game done so much. But the fact that I need to explain them what this game is about after they dont get the idea having watched the pictures or skipping through parts of the videos shows that there is something not yet in place.
2 Likes
I’ve done all I can online, I’ve pasted some text and the KS link to all my steam friends, re-edited and bumped a few of my Star Citizen threads. Send PM’s on the SC forums to Wingman, Dave Haddock. Also sent the same to some of the Interstellar Marine devs. And will continue to bump the I:B thread on SC and ED forums over the next month.
I’ve also suggested the dev’s contact Kate Russell from the BBC Click (webscape) who is an avid Elite fan.
And lets not forget:
I’m going to have to disagree with these points:
- If the aim is to show people as much as possible before they get bored, why do you need multiple videos of transitions when one will show how it works?
- On it’s own, that sounds like marketing talk. Unless there’s a specific thing that allows their engine to do what others can’t (precision of the coordinate system, maybe?). If so, say what it is.
- I’d be very careful not to call out other developers by name, or even drop obvious hints. Gamers are a tribal bunch and they shouldn’t alienate Elite fans, No Man’s Sky fans (I think Flavien inadvertently did that already once already) or Star Citizen fans.
I also disagree with showing everything. There’s easily enough very good quality screenshots on the Battlescape page (including some concept art), to not need to skimp on quality. I’ve already seen someone on the Elite forum post the 2 slightly dodgy pictures from that page, saying “these are pictures from their actual web page, lol”. One in a canyon where the ground looks really really green and one with the gas giant in the sky where you can clearly see the placeholder trees aren’t looking great. Ditch those two and all other screen shots are great.
Some other points:
- Make it clear that the live streams are coming from a very early build. If possible ask the people doing them to make this very clear at the beginning. If anything Bluedrake was a bit too “this is going to blow your mind” and not enough “this is the tip of the iceberg”
- Mention briefly that the prototype proves the engine works and multiplayer functionality is robust. Then emphasise that the effort now is going into building the gameplay and content.
- Talk about the flight model. I believe that there are no space speed limits (or if there are, they are ridiculously high). If the warp drive is just a way to travel faster and you can still fully interact with other players, this should be made clear. These are points that many players weren’t happy about with ED (but don’t compare directly with them).
- An in game fly through the city / industrial complex and close to the water would be good too, if possible (even if you have to keep distance due to modelling detail).
3 Likes
It wasn’t multiplayer. It didn’t have HDR, or physical based lighting. It couldn’t render multiple planets at the same time ( well at some point the engine obviously could, but the 2010 tech demo had many problems ). It didn’t support rendering of oceans. It didn’t have an atmospheric model. The lighting wasn’t coherent ( nobody noticed that at sunset the ship didn’t red-en ), and the list goes on.
4 Likes
That is indeed quite the list. But to me personally the 2010 tech demo was still more impressive than the current opening Kickstarter video.
1 Like
That probably has something to do with the fact that it was 2010, I’m guessing that the current KS video would have had an even larger impact on you back then.
2 Likes
I think the current number of hours in game are simply an overkill! I would simply not link the HOURS of gameplay in kickstarter. Just don’t. If somebody is interested, he will find those videos anyways.
When the second cryengines got promoted, I was amazed by their engine videos with those subtitles explaining the feature you are currently seeing.
It would really be great to promote the things which are already existing similar to this.
2 Likes
I agree. We are so desensitized when it comes to good graphics that it is hard to remember how visuals looked like back in 2010. We tend to think they were the same, but if you start looking back, you will notice how these subtle differences make a huge impact overall.
The current Kickstarter video shows a lot of man-made structures, something that was not really displayed (aside from that one station) in the 2010 demo. Additionally, rivers, and water in general, looks a lot better now than it used to back then (for ground textures, with all the artifacts and clip-through’s that we saw earlier).
1 Like
One thing that I found very impressive in the livestreams was to see the formation flying close to the ground. It gives a much better sense of scale, seeing another spaceship of exactly the same size much closer and much smaller to the ground. It also shows how much fun it is to just explore the beauty of the planet surfaces and the atmosphere.
I think the same holds true for flying through the rings. Do that in formation, so people see how large those rocks are.
What I found the most beautiful about the old 2010 demo video was the night - day transition. It gives the planets an ‘alive’ feel when you see a sunrise or sunset (with mountains in the background etc.), instead of just the day side.
The livestreams are cool but very long and repetititve. The combat isn’t very interesting currently, but the racing is. I think this is partly because the racing is a clear interaction with the surface, but the combat isn’t. For the game, I’d advise to include the environment as much as possible in the gameplay, otherwise it becomes backdrop. Think of possible interactions with the surfaces, for example the way of landing, and maybe a way to scan the surface for resources underground and shooting probes into the ground.
Talking about landings: don’t land on plains in front of 2d tress. Land (again, together with a fellow pilot) on a mountain looking over a great valley.
One last point: the cockpit looks genuinely good, but it blocks the view with a slightly static image. I would switch more often between views.
What I think would Impress and communicate well is a demo video of 2 or 3 fighters in formation racing over the surface on the dark side of the planet towards the sunrise, looking at the stars and the ring from the cockpit. When in daylight, show them going over water and cities, and then off to the rings. Reaching the rings (sped up footage?), do a fly-by of a big rock, showing a fellow pilot closer to it, for scale. Then head of to the night side of the volcanic moon.
Emphasize beauty, scale and the multiplayer aspect.
For livestreams, think more of scenarios. For example, invite the player to follow in formation or to check out the sunset together. You don’t have a game yet so do not rely too much on improvisation, there are too little gameplay features for that yet. Set goals, together, and pay attention to the beauty of scale of the environment during the long trips.
Example scenario based on the cinematic I proposed earlier: one pilot flies in formation with the livestreamer at the day or night side of the earth planet. The pilot instructs him they will be meeting with a fellow pilot on the other side of the sunset/sunrise in a city or on a mountain. At rendezvous, you land close together and discuss a target consisting of two other fighters flying in the rings. You decide to attack them and ascend. In the rings, you fight. Spaceships explode QUICKLY, and the livestreamer is hopefully victorious. You then decide together to head of to the spacestation or somewhere else.
7 Likes
No, I’m saying that if they put the 2010 Tech demo video now, it would be more impressive than the current Kickstarter video.
1 Like
good points made here
For the main topic, it may be that the hardcore “shut up and take my money” fans pledged day 1 already. The drive will slow to a trickle unless new fans come in. We’re seeing few new faces on the forums, which matches the lack of recent drive activity (2,500 came from one person). Crafting the kickstarter with key selling points can help, but it may be that it’s downright hard to change jaded feelings towards space games where people immediately assume the worst. The way things have unfolded we may be overestimating the impact revisions can do. At any rate, the only option is to try and hope.
Specific personal impressions: watching the demo videos the first firefights I saw really impressed me on day one, but 4 hours of aimlessly flying around in a prototype starts to feel underwhelming. Maybe it’s worth curating the gameplay vids a bit or feeding players “highlight reel” situations whenever possible.
Showing something change procedurally in real time (if possible)/ tech demoing the engine’s capabilities might blow some minds. The most inspiring thing ever posted was the video with the galaxy where you could click and see info about any star in the galaxy. It wasn’t exciting gameplay but I think it really inspired the space nerd in us all. On the other hand tying it in with combat, since that’s the core gameplay, might be necessary.
3 Likes
great post wybo
Just an idea but if you could get ~4 players to hop into the proto and formation descend onto a planet and maybe have another two dudes suddenly attack them during the descent you could reproduce that “wow holy shit” feeling of the 2010 video?
1 Like
I’m glad to see this issue being discussed. Here is my take:
-
Gameplay: The Kickstarter video is cinematic, but after watching it I don’t feel like I know what the GAME is going to be like. Yes, it’s described somewhere in the huge amount of text below it, but many people won’t bother. You need a 10 minute video where you talk about the main gameplay aspects, along with in-engine footage to demonstrate each aspect you are talking about (I guess pure in-game video, with just audio of you talking, would be easiest to do but still acceptable). And sorry to say, but do NOT get Flavien to do the talking, as his English is really quite hard to follow (and also he doesn’t come across as very enthusiastic), please don’t bash me for giving my opinion.
-
The (live) streams from other people are hours long, but nothing much happens in them! They occasionally try shooting at other players, but usually half-hearted & rarely feels exciting. I know it’s a pre-alpha prototype, but it’s easy for people to NOT realise you’ve implemented the technology but hardly none of the gameplay yet. You might be able to partly get around this issue by limiting people to playing around (say) one moon (or small planet), and getting more players. That should lead to more eventful videos, which would hopefully give a better feel of what the gameplay is going to be like.
TBH, those videos make me worried that Battlescape’s huge scales mean that players will hardly ever meet. (The Infinity Combat Prototype was great fun, but the area was relatively small, and more importantly had a limited number of high-value targets. The videos I’ve seen don’t convince me you can replicate that on a large scale.)
- Technology: You need to list the I-Novae engine features (used by Battlescape) that make it basically unique as a game. Stuff which (say) Elite Dangerous Horizons DOES NOT HAVE, e.g. planets with atmospheres, optically correct atmospheres, 100s of players without any instances. But when mentioning these features, do NOT mention competitor games by name - that would come across as bashing, which would likely trigger White Knights of those games to bash you (not what you want).
Someone suggested a CryEngine 2 style video, where you have subtitles explaining what feature you are seeing. That would be really great, although a better gameplay video should come first.
-
A minor thing about the Kickstarter page is that it shows tons of (OK 9) very-similar-looking skin/pain jobs. As each picture of a skin takes almost a whole page, that means almost 9 screens worth of skins. TOTALLY overkill. Either shrink them down to thumbnails, or just show 3 skins.
4 Likes
+1 to everything Chris said.
You’ve shown the space to planet transitions and the fact the multiplayer works. I don’t think that needs much more on the next video. It should concentrate on gameplay.
My advice is to put together a selection of video clips and stills for the next video maybe 10-15 minutes long. Add a voice over, and maybe cut video back occasionally to whoever’s talking (Keith ideally, no offense to the others). Although that’s not necessary if it’s harder to set up.
Make the video and stills relevant to what is being said, where possible. So for example when you talk about ground installations, you could show the few seconds of the promo video of the Helicon taking off again. Make it obvious that’s intended for the actual game. Similar with the station.
Talk about ship classes and weapons, maybe showing stills of the concept art, or more models if any are ready.
Atmospheric and gravity effects on the ships, with stills and/or fly throughs of all the different planet types you have pictures or video for.
Mention variety of game play. Scouting, freighter escort, ambushes, hit and run attacks, full scale assault, teamwork, stealth?)
For sections you can’t show yet, just have sections from the prototype play and/or random images from the archive. I don’t think you actually need more, unless there’s anything you haven’t really shown yet.
Don’t talk up stretch goals for this one, but how the base game will be fun (because I don’t think that’s coming across well on the lengthy videos of the prototype).
Sorry if this sounds too critical.
Re-watching the old 2010 demo, I noted some other specific things that I found were very impressive:
- Seeing the starlight and planet through the rings, you can see millions of rocks. I guess this is just a texture and not yet the actual rock objects, but it is stunning nonetheless.
- Descending to a planet’s surfaces is more impressive than ascending from it
- Landing on a location in sunset/sunrise, with thick atmosphere, resulting in mountains becoming silhouettes against a very colourful sky
- Seeing the spaceship from outside as the sun shines on it
- Hearing the wind - I think this is a very important cue that you’re in an atmosphere and makes the whole environment feel real and alive
The feeling communicated by that video is one of exploration, serenity and realism. I feel the the KS trailer and livestreams do a good job of showing scale, multiplayer action etc. but they feel somewhat arcady.
The current combat shown in the videos is the simplest type possible: dogfights with unguided projectiles.
War thunder does a good job at making dogfights with static machine guns interesting because it’s all very slow and close together, and all the sounds are right etc., but that’s all due to details and the small scale.
Personally, I find lasers shot in pulses the least interesting type of weapons possible in a game. It does not give a sense of danger, power or speed and it doesn’t sound realistic. I’d go for weapons more like machine guns, with a high rate of fire, or pulse cannons that are really slow with high recoil, and guided missiles which have beautiful paths and explode nicely.
I think that the feeling of beauty, serenity, scale and realism of the engine, of the environment does not match the feeling of the shown gameplay. It’s currently communicating the exact same feeling I got from E:D and SC fights and that didn’t interest me.
As a kid I played a game called F22 Air Supremacy Something, and it was great to fly in formation, together, seeing your fellow (NPS) pilots - which were super important to me because I was a horrible pilot that couldn’t understand English back then - and in the distance a signal (no visual contact yet, just HUD) of enemies. The gameplay was slow - maybe too slow - but it was a great journey of serene formation flying, tension building before the fight and some intense dogfighting (mostly missiles), and then going back to formation flying again. I really think Infinity should aim in that direction. It fits the engine perfectly and it’s the opposite direction of the competitors which are going for flashy, arcady, frequent fights. In the end, the more enemy encounters you have, the less meaningful they become.
1 Like