Jump to content
Bleep_Bloop

What are the actual chances of this game being any good?

Recommended Posts

Lets get real people. What are the actual chances of this game being any good? Seeing how many games out there, like on steam, with similar genres/tags (open world stuff) with great promises failing miserably.

 

Like if they ever manage to make game live up to its hype, it would be on the same level as entropia universe/eve or even become game of the decade.I really want this game to be good it has so much potential if done right.

 

I still dont understand how they can possibly make this whole game without using instances for each planet. Wouldnt that be extremely unstable?

 

Also on the kickstarter page they quote Brian Fargo vouching for their game.  The same guy who made wasteland 2 and torment:tides of numenera? I really hope they dont consider that a standard to follow.

 

Am I the only one here with doubts about the final product

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Bleep_Bloop and welcome to our forum.

 

Not sure if this is the best way to introduce yourself in a positive way, but that's your choice.

We know our project is ambitious and we don't force anyone to believe the Novaquark team on words alone. We communicate as much as possible on the game development, we show what we can show. We do our best to avoid overpromising things (we stick to what seems to be technically feasible to us) and we try to be as transparent as possible in the development process, then it's up to the players to make their own opinion. 

 

If you have a hard time to imagine how a game can contain many planets without being extremely unstable, keep in mind that the game world won't be hosted on just one single hardware server, but hosted on a server cluster. 

 

we suggest to look at:

- This page on our website describing the "single shard" technology: http://www.dualthegame.com/technology


- This video explaining visually how the game world is splitted in real time across many servers to keep a global stability and handle the workload proportionally to the number of players gathering in specific areas: 

 

After that, if you still have questions, feel free to ask.

 

About Brian Fargo:

You might not like the games delivered by his studio (maybe they don't suit your tastes) but they have been successful and the numbers disagree with your opinion. The fact that you don't like them doesn't mean they are bad. Beside, it would make no sense to compare Wasteland 2/Torment: Tides of Numenera with Dual Universe as they are two completely different types of games (the first ones are rpg solo games with deep storyteling designed by developers in 3D isometric view, the other one is a Massively Multiplayer Online RPG Sandbox in first person view where the story is made by players).

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums Bleep, i would suggest you watch all of the DevDiaries and DevBlogs. You will quickly see that they are showing legit parts of the gameplay and not movie-edited trailers. Once you have seen the progress of the game they share with us i want to hear if your opinion stays the same or not. I for one think that they are going to make this work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit unsure posting in this thread but even if you as a player dont like DU you "should" cheer it on.

 

When released the single shard universe technology will push the mmo technology light-years ahead. It will show that it is technically possible to push the current limits on current hardware.

 

It only takes 1 person with a good idea to change the status quo. ;)

 

(And a lot of work, some luck and supportive people around you.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I'm not a professional games critic or industry expert by any means.

 

Honestly, the current state of Eve Online, and why it had even worked out so far, is because CCP had about 3-4 absolutely brilliant game-play designers to whom the continued success of the MMO and the 300-ish person staff can bet attributed to. It's somewhat of a fluke that some of their game mechanics have turned into the brilliant core game-play loop that Eve is today.

 

From NovaQuark thus far we've seen that they have a great idea for an MMO, and what looks like the server technology to make it work, what concerns me the most currently is their core game-play loop and some of their attitude towards it. We've been shown bits and parts of game-play mechanics, such as how ore scanning will work or that engines will provide linear force as well as torque from their placement location, etc. But I feel that we're not told the overarching game-play 'plot', and instead we're piecing the core game-play loop together in our heads based on our individual gaming experiences, and what we've been shown so far.

 

As for my personal concerns - the biggest one would be the evidently poor graphical performance in the 'dev diary' videos they have been releasing recently. I'm aware this is "pre-alpha footage", but entire scenes dipping below 20 FPS, or horrible stuttering on cinematic camera panning is hinting to me one of two things: Either they are, for some reason, not using a high-end system for the recording of these videos and doing it incorrectly (eg. using a highly performance taxing method of recording the desktop), or there's still major underlying rendering problems to be solved. I hope it's the former, rather than the latter.

 

Currently Dual Universe is showing great potential, and rapid progress in some areas. However I still reserve my doubts about the core game-play loop, and have a bunch of detailed game-play related questions I doubt NovaQuark would be willing to answer.

 

Edit: I'm aware that 'optimizations' come later in the development cycle, however if they already have culling and occlusion, there's only so much to be done to slash up the voxel rendering. My best example would be Space Engineers: At the time I got it, I had a then-top-tier graphics card and processor, and would average around 50 FPS on max settings. After two years of 'performance improvements' I now get an average of 60 FPS. Hooray optimization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, the current state of Eve Online, and why it had even worked out so far, is because CCP had about 3-4 absolutely brilliant game-play designers to whom the continued success of the MMO and the 300-ish person staff can bet attributed to. It's somewhat of a fluke that some of their game mechanics have turned into the brilliant core game-play loop that Eve is today.

 

From NovaQuark thus far we've seen that they have a great idea for an MMO, and what looks like the server technology to make it work, what concerns me the most currently is their core game-play loop and some of their attitude towards it. We've been shown bits and parts of game-play mechanics, such as how ore scanning will work or that engines will provide linear force as well as torque from their placement location, etc. But I feel that we're not told the overarching game-play 'plot', and instead we're piecing the core game-play loop together in our heads based on our individual gaming experiences, and what we've been shown so far.

 

As for my personal concerns - the biggest one would be the evidently poor graphical performance in the 'dev diary' videos they have been releasing recently. I'm aware this is "pre-alpha footage", but entire scenes dipping below 20 FPS, or horrible stuttering on cinematic camera panning is hinting to me one of two things: Either they are, for some reason, not using a high-end system for the recording of these videos, or there's still major underlying rendering problems to be solved. I hope it's the former, rather than the latter.

Well, in the last devdiary they did say they are updating the baking of textures... optimisation can be a bitch. Optimisation ALWAYS comes last on any developement cycle. And the january udpate devdiary had far higher framerate than that DevDiary on the Server Technology - the one with the very low framerate. Also, that old video had its framerate low, cause afaik, they hosted server, cllient and reocrding on the same PC - and an unoptimised game on top of that.

 

Also, EVE is - at its very core - a PvP game. It's gameplay loop is built around that.

 

1) Build a capital to start the loop.

 

2) Buy ship

 

3)

 

a ) Explode ships

 

or

 

b ) Get exploded.

 

4)

 

a ) sell loot

 

or

 

b ) 1. return to 2). 

 

(Optional) 2. Ragequit, cool off for half an hour, then get back into the game.

 

5) Train skills for ships that your capital allows you to be comfortable with returning to 2).

 

EVE is a sandbox as far as its economy goes. It's pretty much on rails in comparison to DU's scope. NQ shouldn't force players into "do jobs for money so you can be killed or kill faster". If people want to play as builders, they should. IF people want to play as Security Detail in a city they should be allowed to. RP in DU is crucial, as in EVE, RP is the biggest joke I've ever seen.The RP happens on the forums, not the actual RPG, in-game. In-game those RPers are forced to "Go blow stuff up" or "Get blown up" loop. And that loop can't apply on people who live in Safezones in DU, because they want to experience a social part of the game.

 

So the gameplay loop, if you follow the EVE logic of "kil lor be killed", is not gonna change. And for the most part, it's what people will opt into, that is, until people start bitching how Builders have all the tech in the game, and miners end up the equivalent of the Misty Mountain dwarves from all the people stuck in EVE's loop in DU.

 

So the arguement "I can't find a loop to default into" is a GOOD thing for the game. It means there are a lot of options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what your definition of good is. Many people think no mans sky is good.

If you mean will it live up to its hype the answer is no. I think the game will still be successful though.

 

What exactly would make it unstable?

 

I have never heard of either of those games so here is a egg.

egg-thumb.png?w=350&h=200&crop=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However I still reserve my doubts about the core game-play loop, and have a bunch of detailed game-play related questions I doubt NovaQuark would be willing to answer.

 

You make it sound like NQ is being deceitful.

 

I would be very interested to hear those questions. If only so we can better understand your position and judge for ourselves how essential these questions are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a healthy level of skepticism is perfectly fine to have. However, i would just say to make sure to educate yourself on the game as well. Saying things like there are tons of these games on steam to me seems misinformed. While there are several space survival games, none of them are mmos, most are single players with multiplayer added later, many run on a traditional server solution at no monthly cost to the player, and many are using the wrong technology/solution because of the reasons listed. Space engineers is a great example of this.

 

As far as performance goes I know some of the interviews were done with footage from JC's laptop that was also hosting the server as twerk mentioned. When i look at this game i do not have a lot of concerns about the technical plausibility of the game. I know most/all of what they are claiming is possible. My only concern is if its financially a good investment for NQ. That is why i was happy to hear about the monthly fee for this game. if they had said it would be f2p I probably would have called BS on their claims. 

 

Mostly I think if this game does not do well it will be because of:

Game play design or loops not feeling fulfilling

Missing the mark on difficulty to reward or speed(takes 10 years to gather enough to build a ship)

Lack of pvp balance with the vast amount of freedom of ship building and game world modification

Or as i mentioned before the game not being financially viable with the tech claims made

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get real people. What are the actual chances of this game being any good? Seeing how many games out there, like on steam, with similar genres/tags (open world stuff) with great promises failing miserably.

 

Like if they ever manage to make game live up to its hype, it would be on the same level as entropia universe/eve or even become game of the decade.I really want this game to be good it has so much potential if done right.

 

I still dont understand how they can possibly make this whole game without using instances for each planet. Wouldnt that be extremely unstable?

 

Also on the kickstarter page they quote Brian Fargo vouching for their game. The same guy who made wasteland 2 and torment:tides of numenera? I really hope they dont consider that a standard to follow.

 

Am I the only one here with doubts about the final product

As you can already see, NQ is active here and answers questions and concerns. And, if you search for similar threads as this one, you can see that they always told us what DU will be about and what mechanics are not implemented. Those "we will not do this, because...." answers are the reason I believe them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's reasonable to have doubts, as it is a pre-alpha game that is still months away from it's Alpha. That being said, NQ has always been extremely open about what will and will not be in the game and the current state of the game. They have shown plenty of gameplay from their current version and have never censored bugs. They have frequent Q&A sessions with the community and are active in interacting with the community. 

 

I would recommend watching the dev diaries and reading the various Q&As.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's reasonable to have doubts, as it is a pre-alpha game that is still months away from it's Alpha. That being said, NQ has always been extremely open about what will and will not be in the game and the current state of the game. They have shown plenty of gameplay from their current version and have never censored bugs. They have frequent Q&A sessions with the community and are active in interacting with the community. 

 

I would recommend watching the dev diaries and reading the various Q&As.

 

I agree, I spent several weeks going through everything including DU on Youtube, and I read through this forum as if its everything I have to do, and I read the Devblogs, and Devnotes, Ask questions when I don't know or can find the answer ,and the more I know about this, the more certain I become. Which is why I backed the game.

 

I feel that the OPs aggressive approach is kind of unnecessary when all the info and answers are right there at your fingertips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah sorry for the rushed intro, but im glad i got some good answers. As for the steam games I was talking about those with the typical 'Early Access' 'Open World' 'Sandbox' 'Crafting' tags etc...which have been in EA for years and are basically dead/showing very little signs of progress. Not the best comparison in term of genre, but still. What I meant is what are the chances of this game reaching its full potential? 

 

And i must clarify about brian fargo's games : Im not saying they are good or bad but if you read the steam/gog reviews, both of those games are (in)famous for being a huge disappointment/not living up to the promises, having kickstarter strech goals and promised content cut out. Im not making up anything go check steam they both have 'mixed' reviews and a score of 60%. Both of these games were a hit&run money grab relying on nostalgia to sell. The devs knew most of the money would be made off the pre-orders/day of release purchases before actual reviews came out, thats why both of them had 2 'premium' versions costing around 70$ and 100$.

 

I understands the devs cant say anything bad about his games since hes vouching for them that would be bad business. But if they truely consider that sucessful then im not sure they are on the right track.

 

Will definitely follow this project. Might even pledge to get an alpha key when alpha comes out.

 

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bleep_Bloop very nice of you not to make a hit and run yourself.

 

Its very natural and healthy to be sceptical and going from your answer I do concider you a real sceptic and not a pseudo-sceptic.

 

NQ did a kickstarter to get the funds to remain independant. They had a lot of work done to show us their vision for the game. Work that was funded for 2 years before the kickstarter. They had a lot more to show and tell than some ideas and concept art. JC/NQ had prototyped the basic proof of concept.

 

Before, during and after the kickstarter JC and Nyzaltar have always been very open about their progress. As companies go NQ is honest and transparent. This in turn lead many people to follow and back the game.

 

Yes, DU is crazy ambitious but its realistic in its goals.

 

I invite you to stay sceptical and exercise critical thinking while following this game. If at some point you wish to become more involved with the project we can all benefit from your points of view.

 

 

PS: do endorsments matter? FYI Chris Roberts also endorsed DU. I'm sure that raises a few eyebrows as well. How about IGN? Or whatever magazine people read these days. The only endorsment that means anything are the words of the community backing and playing the game.

 

Catch you later. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah sorry for the rushed intro, but im glad i got some good answers. As for the steam games I was talking about those with the typical 'Early Access' 'Open World' 'Sandbox' 'Crafting' tags etc...which have been in EA for years and are basically dead/showing very little signs of progress. Not the best comparison in term of genre, but still. What I meant is what are the chances of this game reaching its full potential? 

 

And i must clarify about brian fargo's games : Im not saying they are good or bad but if you read the steam/gog reviews, both of those games are (in)famous for being a huge disappointment/not living up to the promises, having kickstarter strech goals and promised content cut out. Im not making up anything go check steam they both have 'mixed' reviews and a score of 60%. Both of these games were a hit&run money grab relying on nostalgia to sell. The devs knew most of the money would be made off the pre-orders/day of release purchases before actual reviews came out, thats why both of them had 2 'premium' versions costing around 70$ and 100$.

 

I understands the devs cant say anything bad about his games since hes vouching for them that would be bad business. But if they truely consider that sucessful then im not sure they are on the right track.

 

Will definitely follow this project. Might even pledge to get an alpha key when alpha comes out.

 

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

 

First off: Steam reviews

Everyone is biased in some way (depending on your preferred games, played games, media, YT videos, promotions, involvements in some community,....) and only very very few people actually objectively rate a game, based off of facts and not personal interest. Then there are ofc those people (or kids) who think early access = alpha and then realize that this game is buggy as hell and very limited because many mechanics are missing. Part of this problem is the industry, wanting to sell games at an early stage to get money for development, thus releasing those early access games. If this backfires and the game isn't good, buggy, not fun or whatever then the studio will cancel the project and move on. Is this running away with money? I don't think so. I didn't follow those two games you mention but I guess there were cheaper bundles - no one forced you to buy those expensive premium versions. So it's YOUR choice if you want to spend more money (for nostalgia or whatever reason) or not, but I don't think you can blame the devs for it.

 

There are many examples of games which promised a lot...and delivered nothing. But honestly: it's YOUR money. If I pay someone / for something I inform myself BEFOREHAND to know the risks. I watch videos, read the devblogs, watch interviews, compare statements from different interviews in regards of consistency, read the forum, talk to the devs themselves,.... If you don't do that and just throw your money at some random people, well it's your fault then if you never get the game you wanted (yeah, devs can change their mind and change the game too, sucks but happens).

 

So to me, steam reviews are just a general direction indicator because of above reasons. I absolutely LOVED gothic. It was one of the best games I ever played (well, after portal series) and it's not rated that well. Because people are different. Same with Just Cause 3, "only" 70+ % but I just love it.

Steam reviews can be a huge motivator for people but can ruin you at the same time. Take alpha for example. If DU would be on steam and people buy into alpha, because "yay, early access!!!! I'm soooooooooooooooooooooo exited !!!!!!" and then they realize it's a REAL alpha with bugs, lots of testing, crap game mechanics and so on (well I hope not, but you never know :D). Do you really think this will help the game? Or will it most likely kill DU completely because some people are just stupid?

 

From my experience with NQ/DU: I'm involved in the community a lot and I talk to NQ about several different topics. They were always open for discussion, answered questions, talked to us (those who would listen) and encouraged our participation in some vital game mechanics.

 

If you want alpha access, it might be a good idea to buy into it before it starts. They'll probably won't sell any more alpha tickets once alpha starts (just my guess, nothing official).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DU is going to be great.
''Lets make Dual Universe great''
Its going to be awesome, I can feel it.
I come from the future, not a distant one, from 2018, and the game is awesome, trust me.
B) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DU is going to be great.

''Lets make Dual Universe great''

Its going to be awesome, I can feel it.

I come from the future, not a distant one, from 2018, and the game is awesome, trust me.

B) 

 

 

I don't. For some reason I feel like your lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Megaddd:

 

We can understand your concerns, fears and/or doubts.

It's a natural reaction, especially in the era where a lot of projects are either promising the moon (which they can't deliver) or just failing.

So being skeptical is totally understandable. However, allow me to clarify/correct a few of your statements: 

 

1) EVE Online success:

 

EVE Online current gameplay loops are not what they are today just because of CCP designers. They have really talented people, no doubt about that. However, the gameplay loops you are refering haven't been as precise as they are now right from the beginning. There is a lot of work from the designers, that's a fact, but these loops where born from emergent gameplay at first: CCP developers have admitted themselves that when they launched the game in the first year, players have used the game mechanics in ways they hadn't think about. Then, they analysed what people liked to do in game and listen to the community feedback. Saying the success of the game was reached because they had 3-4 absolutely brilliant people is very reductive to say the least:

- They started with good base with open game mechanics.

- They have talented and reactive developers.

- They kept listening to their community. 

It's the combination of these 3 factors (not just one) that brought them success.

 

2) Not much gameplay has been shown until now:

 

Regarding Dual Universe, yes indeed, you have mostly seen technical stuff for the moment and very little from the gameplay.

Is it because we want "to hide" the gameplay side? Jumping to this conclusion is a bit oversimplying the situation.

 

Here are a few facts:

 

- The pros and cons of having proprietary techs:

 

Until a few months ago, the Novaquark team kept prioritizing and building the tech, for several important reasons:

 

The project is technologically ambitious, our studio is coming from nowhere (no past track record for the studio, even in the people in it are experienced), and the combination of these two points made it very hard to be taken seriously right from the beginning, especially in the current context where overpromising has become a common thing. So the first thing we had to address is to show some proof saying "Hey guys, this is really possible!".

 

The other important reason is because it's just common sense to start by building the tech before the gameplay. It's only once we know the capabilities of our tech - after testing it - that we can build a gameplay adapted to it.

 

Some could argue we are taking a very long time to build our tech compared to other studios able to show advanced gameplay just only one year (or sometimes even 6 months) after they started the project. Why is there so much difference between them and us? Simply because they started the project with an engine with many features implemented. This kind of engine is great to have a short development cycle. However, "ready-to-use" game engines have a drawback: you can't expect making a game really different frow what has been done before.

 

Dual Universe is in this case. We tested affordable game engines (Unity and Unreal Engine) in the early days of the studio and we came to the conclusion that they wouldn't allow Novaquark devs to do exactly what they had in mind. We hadn't the time (and the man power) to build a complete game engine from scratch. So we opted for a middleground solution: we've chosen Unigine, which was a very good base to start with (especially for planetary simulation), with not too many technical constraints (generally proportional to the number of features already implemented in the game engine). However, having not many features already implemented in the game engine is a double edged sword: having less features implemented from the start than popular game engines, means more things to develop on our side: the massively multiplayer tech, the voxel tech, and some of the graphics tech (to be optimized for a massively multiplayer context).

 

Then, after all of this reached a reasonably advanced state (it's not finished yet), we were able to start the gameplay development. And that's where Novaquark was a few months ago. As you can imagine, it wasn't possible to show advanced gameplay footage just a few weeks after having seriously started the development of this part. It takes at least months to have something meaningful to show.

 

- The lack of gameplay loops in the early days of sandbox games:

 

As CaptainTwerkMotor stated, you won't find complete predefined game loops, at least not at the beginning. In this regard, we have exactly the same open-minded approach than CCP Developers in the early days of EVE Online. It's also what happened, to some extent, for Minecraft. In the early days of a sandbox game, developers give "tools" to the players and those "create" the gameplay loops they like. Then the developers make improvements to the game to favorize the emergence of popular gameplay loops. That's, in our opinion, how a successful sandbox game can be born: synergy between developers and the community, not just game design decisions made by developers.

 

So yes, you will see gameplay mechanics in the future that could be used as pieces of a gameplay loop. But you probably won't see a complete gameplay loop, or if we do such kind of video, then it will be to show some example, not to say "This is how the game is meant to be played". Moreover, the Alpha will launch with just a few of the gameplay bricks we have planned on the long run, precisely to get feedback on the first ones by alpha testers, and adapt/improve the following ones coming into the game.

 

3) The poor graphical performance in the Dev Diary videos:

 

You're right, the framerate of the recent DevDiary videos is not a decent one.

If you have read the comments under those videos, you might have seen that we already replied regarding this concern.

While we have currently a good framerate in-game on a high-spec machine, when it comes to recording it, the framerate displayed in the video is far from being representative of the current framerate in-game. We made tests with Shadowplay and OBS, and while tweaking the parameters improved a bit the framerate in the videos, this is still far from being perfect. Yes, we admit we haven't any expert (yet) in this domain inside the team at the moment. However, we have taken note of advices made by some professional streamers and youtubers following our Youtube channel and we are going to have a dedicated machine to record videos for DevDiaries in the future. We planned to have it for the March DevDiary of March, but it might be too tight in the schedule to make it happen next week. We will give an update on this topic next week.

 

Long story short:

If you have questions, ask them. We will do our best to answer them :)

We can't promise we will be able to give you only satisfying answers (as you might have a lot of "too soon to give you a detailed answer on this gameplay aspect") but it's sure you won't have any answer if you don't ask first. 

 

@All:

 

If you would like to see some dedicated videos to a specific topic already presented in the previous videos, just let us know: I can't promise anything right now, but I can transmit to the devs what are the topics you would like to see developed.

 

@Bleep_Bloop:

 

We won't go "Early Access" on Steam any time soon (if we go one day, as it's not even certain either). We want to wait until we're close to have all the main gameplay mechanics implemented in game and a decent stable version. We are very well aware that the Steam Community is composed of a lot more people that want to play a nearly-finished game than testing a game in its early stages... And that's perfectly fine: we totally understand that a lot of people are not interested in experiencing the intermediate stages of a game development. As for your question "what are the chances of this game reaching its full potential?", unless someone has a working crystal ball... No one can answer this question accurately. The chances are something that can vary a lot in a development process, according to the decisions taken and the unexpected events. So far, we think (but you are free to think otherwise) the odds are good, as we haven't hit any "wall" that seems like an impossible obstacle. Our private investors, who saw the success of the Kickstarter campaign, are ready to help even further in the game development, as promised. So as far as we know, there is no dark cloud in the sky at the moment.

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah sorry for the rushed intro, but im glad i got some good answers. As for the steam games I was talking about those with the typical 'Early Access' 'Open World' 'Sandbox' 'Crafting' tags etc...which have been in EA for years and are basically dead/showing very little signs of progress. Not the best comparison in term of genre, but still. What I meant is what are the chances of this game reaching its full potential? 

 

Hey Bleep,

I always am proponent for crowd funding as I think independent studios need the support of its community and players to be independent as they ought to be and deliver the content without a publisher intruding. In the beginning of the "Early Access" -Period I was open and thought: Cool! Why not? And I had been bitterly disappointed from many games. In some cases afterwords I even thought it might have been fraud from the very beginning. And I now think about buying an Early Access Game twice and collect as much information as possible before I buy. That's why I understand your fears. I feel that many devs (especially on steam) jumped on this bandwagon to profit from the hype. But I do also think when you dive a bit deeper into the information provided by NQ, that you can't compare the "Early Access Games" elsewhere with this crowdfunded game. There are risks for sure, as in every "business", but all I know about the game and the goals NQ has is realisable. It is a very exciting and new type of game and the possibilities the player will have does make it very difficult to make any predictions. If I where you, I would consider, if I want to play the game in alpha or wait for the release. But keep in mind that all big publisher (no names) do almost the same with games, they just don't call it "Early Access" and you have to pay much more (Season Pass, DLC, etc) ;)

 

Cheers,

Villspor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Megaddd:
 
The other important reason is because it's just common sense to start by building the tech before the gameplay. It's only once we know the capabilities of our tech - after testing it - that we can build a gameplay adapted to it.
 
We've chosen Unigine, which was a very good base to start with (especially for planetary simulation), with not too many technical constraints (generally proportional to the number of features already implemented in the game engine). However, having not many features already implemented in the game engine is a double edged sword: having less features implemented from the start than popular game engines, means more things to develop on our side: the massively multiplayer tech, the voxel tech, and some of the graphics tech (to be optimized for a massively multiplayer context).
 
You won't find complete predefined game loops, at least not at the beginning
The Alpha will launch with just a few of the gameplay bricks we have planned on the long run, precisely to get feedback on the first ones by alpha testers, and adapt/improve the following ones coming into the game.
 
We are going to have a dedicated machine to record videos for DevDiaries in the future. We planned to have it for the March DevDiary of March, but it might be too tight in the schedule to make it happen next week. We will give an update on this topic next week.
 
If you have questions, ask them. We will do our best to answer them :)
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

 

 

You're right, I was being excessively dramatic for the sake of presenting how I feel about the situation.

 

I appreciate the insightful reply, It's exactly what I was hoping for, when I was voicing my skepticism.

 

As for my questions, I will most likely have to make a powerpoint slideshow or a video to properly express them, at least without a wall of text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From my experience with NQ/DU: I'm involved in the community a lot and I talk to NQ about several different topics. They were always open for discussion, answered questions, talked to us (those who would listen) and encouraged our participation in some vital game mechanics.

 

 

I can confirm :) They are very dedicated providing us with as much info as possible. (I think the last post of NQ-Nyzaltar speaks for itself.)  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for my questions, I will most likely have to make a powerpoint slideshow or a video to properly express them, at least without a wall of text.

As I said before I would be very interested in hearing them.

If a wall of text is what it takes, go for it.

 

We like to discuss things on this forum.

Nyzaltar/NQ reads the forum, if you have valid questions you should give everyone here a chance to reflect on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for skepticism, because its the best way you avoid people getting all hyped, and then rage-quitting and writing a dozen negative reviews when things don't go according to their imagination. I'd much rather be pleasantly surprised by a game than disappointed.

 

So, in that spirit, let's be realistic here. DU is not going to launch with a thousand features and all kinds of super deep gameplay. That takes years and years to develop, and if you come into this expecting a game as deep and intricate as EVE or as filled with content as WoW, you're going to be disappointed.

 

But I'm totally fine with that, because I never played EVE for the gameplay, as weird as that sounds. I played EVE for the relationships and the conflicts, and neither of those things can be manufactured. All I ask of Novaquark is that we be given a game worth fighting over, and the stories will take care of themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that a game like Dual Universe should actually start with less than more. Put enough in there for the basics of survival gameplay: research, crafting, exploration, conflict and communication. See where the players go and adjust the field to comply with that direction. NQ would be wise to etch in stone those qualities it sees as essential to their vision of the game, then let the game loose. With an ear to the ground on emergent player gameplay development and a defined list of what the game is meant to be, NQ will have a model of success already proven by EVE Online.

 

From what I've heard JC say in his numerous videos this is already the direction NQ have chosen. Therefore, I believe this game and its future is currently in good hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that a game like Dual Universe should actually start with less than more. Put enough in there for the basics of survival gameplay: research, crafting, exploration, conflict and communication. See where the players go and adjust the field to comply with that direction. NQ would be wise to etch in stone those qualities it sees as essential to their vision of the game, then let the game loose. With an ear to the ground on emergent player gameplay development and a defined list of what the game is meant to be, NQ will have a model of success already proven by EVE Online.

 

From what I've heard JC say in his numerous videos this is already the direction NQ have chosen. Therefore, I believe this game and its future is currently in good hands.

EVE is not "Successful". Given the numbers on subscribers CCP puts out, they should be no real reason for them to be bought out by another company, not with a 500000 (supposed) playerbase, of average 16.5 USD (across the board, PLEX costs more than sub) subscription input a month. I'm stating a fact here. CCP had the chance to expand to new territories with the game, but people wanted more of the same. I personally, would like to see NQ adding new things, not catering to the same playerbase, over and over. That's why EVE will never actually reach high numbers in players (the 500000 subscribers number is a lie, people just muiltibox).

 

Why? Well, cause EVE suffers from certain things that keep it back from being widely accessible :

 

a ) a bad GUI - let's face it, EVE's GUI is modular, cause CCP doesn't care for new players. They sell Skillpoints at this point to veterans.

 

b ) daunting micromanagement - nobody plays a game to feel like going to work

 

c ) there's nothing to do if you don't feel like shooting things, or shooting rocks. I have no issue with shooting things, but when the game has a stationspin counter, you know something's wrong with EVE.

 

d ) disparity in skillpoint training and a community that's stuck up its rear, saying "we hire new pilots - ~5 million Skillpoints or above". Because as we all know, you start the game as a new pilot with 3 months in it already. It's the equivalent of "hiring fresh students out of university with 10 years experience mandatory on the field". That in Propositional Logic, is called a Logical Paradox and EVE is riddled with those.

 

But since EVE's playerbase is "the same old thing but new", EVE will never be the game it could be, cause CCP is polishing the same old turd for 14 years. I mean, they ran out of ship ideas and they just started reworking their old models, go figure.

 

I personally don't want to see that in DU. Shake things up by INJECTING new things in the gameplay, not by stirring the pot with nerfs and tweaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...