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
You didn’t say you’d made the engine or that it works for anyone who just watches the video.
Saying: “We have been building…” “The idea is…” “We’re building…” “This is the dream…” etc.
Is not: “WE BUILT IT AND IT WORKS! LOOK AT IT WORKING! HOW AWESOME IS THIS! FUND US SO WE CAN PUT A GAME IN IT!” 
It doesn’t help that the kickstarter video doesn’t show a single transition thanks to how it’s cut together. It plays out like a Star Citizen trailer where they just cut out all the hidden loading screens between maps.
7 Likes
I do believe the planetary transitions down and then up should be showing in greater detail, in short at the beginning a lot sooner than it currently is, and one longer one to give a better look later in the video. In my opinion playing to the strengths of the prototype is key. But also so is telling the opening story for the game.
All those suggestions seem good and mostly sound similar to the 2010 tech demo.
What we can’t forget tough, is that the current Kickstarter video also does have its plus sides, a lot of people really enjoyed the music, and it shows the epicness they want to actually put in the game, something the 2010 video didn’t do and most of the suggestions here didn’t include. Should we just throw that out? It’s about the game they want to make, not the engine they “finished”. Sure they maybe should have said that a little more clearly that that is the case but the game is what they are pitching.
I think they should consider making another video or several ones considering these suggestions and put it right under the Kickstarter one. Picture something similar to all those engine "trailers’ from the past put together in one. And maybe, maybe if it’s really better, which I would really be surprised by, as their cinematic trailer took quite some time make, they could swap it.
2 Likes
Your are correct the video has many plus sides.
1 Like
Also talk about the mechanics that the devs want the game to have, without promising anything (stealth, scanning, hacking?), how that will affect the game, and how developer tier backers and community as a whole will get a say in the development.
Also show your passion!
I seemed to have missed the Everspace KS only learning about the game and going to the KS page a minute ago, https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rockfishgames/everspace/description
Soo? What has this to do with this topic.