Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [gamerglotze] First X32I: Redemption (Crysis Space Mod) Trailer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[gamerglotze] First X32I: Redemption (Crysis Space Mod) Trailer - Page 2

post #11 of 26
http://translate.google.com/translat...85&sl=de&tl=en

EDIT: I can't get most of the mirrors to load and the one I can is rated poorly on WOT.
Edited by jouno53 - 1/5/10 at 11:08am
post #12 of 26
As stated previously, the X32i linked to above has nothing to do with the current iteration of the game. That version of X32i - made in 2008 - was a one-man project, whereas the current version, the space-sim, is a much more substantial project which started production in 2009. The website that has been linked to has got its links muddled up. (I appreciate that we haven't exactly made it entirely clear!)
post #13 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourteentoone View Post
But isn't the real question, "What IS the realistic portrayal of space combat?"

Star Wars : TIE Fighter is regarded as one of the finest space sims of all time. Is that 'realistic'?

And the follow-up is:

"It's science-FICTION, so shouldn't we try to make it entertaining?"
TIE Fighter isn't realistic in the slightest... Actually very few games try to portray realism completely because it's just too much to program. Not to mention many programs and people who work in the gaming industry severely lack a proper understanding of Physics. I-War 2 attempted to bring realistic Newtonian Physics but it still had it's fair share of highly unrealistic moments, however it is probably the closest of all games.

Freespace 2 is just an air based fighter set in a space backdrop. It's entertaining, but not a sim.

Also, Science-Fiction doesn't imply fantasy physics nor is Scifi meant to be entertaining, it is meant to be thought provoking and provide a glimpse into a possible future.
post #14 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdek View Post
TIE Fighter isn't realistic in the slightest... Actually very few games try to portray realism completely because it's just too much to program. Not to mention many programs and people who work in the gaming industry severely lack a proper understanding of Physics. I-War 2 attempted to bring realistic Newtonian Physics but it still had it's fair share of highly unrealistic moments, however it is probably the closest of all games.

Freespace 2 is just an air based fighter set in a space backdrop. It's entertaining, but not a sim.

Also, Science-Fiction doesn't imply fantasy physics nor is Scifi meant to be entertaining, it is meant to be thought provoking and provide a glimpse into a possible future.
True, but you have to think, in the future, space based fighter craft could have compensational thrusters and computer control to make them fly more intuitively. Just because it's in space doesn't mean that you have to go floating around backwards and such.
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdek View Post
TIE Fighter isn't realistic in the slightest...

It's entertaining, but not a sim.
You basically answered the question for me.

Ultimately, this begs the question... why does it come under the category 'Space Sim' anyway? And also, are any of the so called 'Space Sims' (Wing Commander, etc.) actually 'Space Sims' at all.

If it's not a 'Space Sim' what is it? Space Shooter?

It comes down to how strictly one wants to define a 'simulation'. Because I believe that term can be defined very very broadly.

Technically speaking...'The Sims' is a simulation.

In any case -- I'm glad this discussion has come up
post #16 of 26
Well first I'd like to say a big THANKS! to fourteentoone for posting on here. I did vote for the mod and you have fully garnered my interest in this game. I can't wait to play this baby hands down!
The Core
(5 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 Z77 Extreme4 Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 
RAM
32GB 
  hide details  
Reply
The Core
(5 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 Z77 Extreme4 Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 
RAM
32GB 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdek View Post
The biggest problem with a lot of these "Space Sims" is the totally unrealistic portrayal of space combat...
The biggest problem with 99% of FPS is the totally unrealistic portrayal of combat.

You could enter ANY game genre into that statement, and it's generally true. Empire management? Check. City building? Check. RTS? Check.

It's more about what's fun.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 750 MSI P55-GD65 2x Sapphire 5770 8GB Corsair Dominator 1600 DDR3 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
4x WD 640GB (2x RAID) W7-64 Corsair 750TX Cosmos 1000 
MouseMouse Pad
MX518 Logitech G15 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 750 MSI P55-GD65 2x Sapphire 5770 8GB Corsair Dominator 1600 DDR3 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
4x WD 640GB (2x RAID) W7-64 Corsair 750TX Cosmos 1000 
MouseMouse Pad
MX518 Logitech G15 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh View Post
True, but you have to think, in the future, space based fighter craft could have compensational thrusters and computer control to make them fly more intuitively. Just because it's in space doesn't mean that you have to go floating around backwards and such.
Yeah, but things like speed limits which is common in a lot of games make no sense. Neither does the design of many spaceships, for example, Wings are fairly useless in space combat as they simply provide a larger surface area to fire against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tainok View Post
The biggest problem with 99% of FPS is the totally unrealistic portrayal of combat.

You could enter ANY game genre into that statement, and it's generally true. Empire management? Check. City building? Check. RTS? Check.

It's more about what's fun.
Yeah, well the only games I really consider Simulators are games like Falcon 4.0 and iRacing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fourteentoone View Post
You basically answered the question for me.

Ultimately, this begs the question... why does it come under the category 'Space Sim' anyway? And also, are any of the so called 'Space Sims' (Wing Commander, etc.) actually 'Space Sims' at all.

If it's not a 'Space Sim' what is it? Space Shooter?

It comes down to how strictly one wants to define a 'simulation'. Because I believe that term can be defined very very broadly.

Technically speaking...'The Sims' is a simulation.

In any case -- I'm glad this discussion has come up
More of a space based shooter I'd say. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the game is fun, but it peeves me when games attempt to portray themselves as Sims with highly implausible physics mechanics. I'm a Mechanical Engineer by education, and I look at everything from a physics standpoint.
post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdek View Post
Yeah, well the only games I really consider Simulators are games like Falcon 4.0 and iRacing.
Gotcha. Space Sim has just been the defacto genre for these games, simply because 'Space Shooter' has been used for so long by 2D arcade shooters, and these types are usually little more complex than point and shoot.

Obviously they're usually very far off in physics, and it's usually about as realistic as Lord of the Rings is to medieval warfare, but it's the closest we generally have.

Do you have a suggestion, considering that 'Space Shooter' is already taken?



Edit: Space flight and the physics of a vacuum are so incredibly complex (yes, they are, to people that don't know them) that games need to bridge the gap and make it seem familiar. Wings could be 'feasible' for a spread of weapons hardpoints while being sturdy enough to not easily break off. (Weak explanation, I know) Controlling something with no significant friction and no top speed is very difficult - I've messed with newtonian physics space simulators, and while they're fun in their own, it's considerably harder to grasp than Star Wars combat, and you lose the 'AWESOME ZOOOOOOOM' effect.

Another example - in harder scifi where they follow the laws of physics, they even bridge the gap by making space seem like an ocean. Submarine styled combat - even if you don't see an enemy, it's treated with lots of radar, etc. All but even the HARDEST of sci-fi don't even acknowledge that it's nigh impossible to fortify a large location (a planet, a system) in three dimensions. How many times in stories/movies/games have you seen a row of ships fly up to another row of ships.. which are sitting in a ring around a planet? Why don't you.. go around?

All space/scifi needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and things need to be done to bridge the gap.
Edited by Tainok - 1/5/10 at 11:57am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 750 MSI P55-GD65 2x Sapphire 5770 8GB Corsair Dominator 1600 DDR3 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
4x WD 640GB (2x RAID) W7-64 Corsair 750TX Cosmos 1000 
MouseMouse Pad
MX518 Logitech G15 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 750 MSI P55-GD65 2x Sapphire 5770 8GB Corsair Dominator 1600 DDR3 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
4x WD 640GB (2x RAID) W7-64 Corsair 750TX Cosmos 1000 
MouseMouse Pad
MX518 Logitech G15 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tainok View Post
Edit: Space flight and the physics of a vacuum are so incredibly complex (yes, they are, to people that don't know them) that games need to bridge the gap and make it seem familiar. Wings could be 'feasible' for a spread of weapons hardpoints while being sturdy enough to not easily break off. (Weak explanation, I know) Controlling something with no significant friction and no top speed is very difficult - I've messed with newtonian physics space simulators, and while they're fun in their own, it's considerably harder to grasp than Star Wars combat, and you lose the 'AWESOME ZOOOOOOOM' effect.
It is, and I believe it's why many games have never attempted to go to close to being truly realistic.

Quote:
Another example - in harder scifi where they follow the laws of physics, they even bridge the gap by making space seem like an ocean. Submarine styled combat - even if you don't see an enemy, it's treated with lots of radar, etc. All but even the HARDEST of sci-fi don't even acknowledge that it's nigh impossible to fortify a large location (a planet, a system) in three dimensions. How many times in stories/movies/games have you seen a row of ships fly up to another row of ships.. which are sitting in a ring around a planet? Why don't you.. go around?

All space/scifi needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and things need to be done to bridge the gap.

Well, one of the largest constraints will always be gravity, and when you approach a planet there are only so many ways you can truly approach it due to orbital mechanics. True, you can approach from above and below, but to get to those positions requires significantly more energy then following a gravity assisted path. But yeah, it is generally silly, I don't believe many movies or games have truly captured the essence of what space combat will truly be.

Shattered Horizon is pretty good in that regard, but it's a FPS not a game dealing with ships in space.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Game News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [gamerglotze] First X32I: Redemption (Crysis Space Mod) Trailer