Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zomnivore

  1. Pretty neat. Hellcat is interesting, especially seeing it in a full 360. Reads pretty fishy, and cat like, not sure if I like the bottom jaw's spike bit, maybe it should look more functional snipping bits looks a lil impractical as is. Flows nice tho. (The transition from the ice-cat skull to a fish read is really slick. on the top half) Maybe bring the bottom jaw spike back further, and maintain the mouth/top half, but have the throat/bottom half, be an extension of the mouth in some way, maybe like with additional ice bits to make it read like a larger, weird morph of a neck into an aggressive giant jaw. After all this stuff is mean and turning folks into monsters, why not a monster-mouth-throat. Could almost tread the resident evil dog territory, but with the ice I think you could make it read cleaner. Two paths you could go with that route, either keep the throat functional, or monster it up and use bits of newly exposed spine to read as like another internal row of teeth...sort of like the duel sets you see in like snakes or something. Anyhow the top portion of the ice-skull reads really cat-skull like, but with a floursh and the bottom ice bit interacts to make it weird and bug-bite-ery and maybe thats not as interesting as it could be. ** I'd remove the tongue because it misleads you with what the final look will be. Keeping the line flowing is cool, but thats kind of not going to be there, so if it needs something more (to keep that line/make you like the jaw more) then its doing you a diservice, by being a distraction. #everyonesacritic ** Took a lil and came back to say that, the flourishes/embelishing is an interesting angle to take to define a creeping horor mystery monster, and an interesting angle that I haven't seen before. There are factors I didn't take into account with having to have this monster read in a set of monsters that will look similar in theme, and maybe the bottom jaw helps break up uniformity across the batch. Dunno. Also maybe the bug element reads better when you have a pack of them.
  2. Another problem is map design. An aiming system like in Chivalry really lends itself to a map with a lot of variation in elevation. The maps are small, and packed with pretty big variations, that run through the maps.
  3. If you read, a lot...I think you get zombie levels of over the genre's normal blend. Generally speaking fantasy is the zombies, of the book world. Normally speaking, its the genre everyones taking a shot at, and you get over exposed to medicore writing through it. Sort of like the over exposure to bad zombie survival games.
  4. @ the comment earlier about not really caring because gameplay is where its at...I get that, generally, but world building is like a subtle layering that adds a subversive level of engagement for me. Warhammer's mmo really sold the IP, and made me love the game, and that alone let me push through some pretty fail design. The spare content spots etc. its a hard thing to gauge, in Warhammer they really sold the first 10 levels, and for that cut, the game was the best game on the market, and then after that, they just didn't have the production value they needed to float the product. its one of those things I think this game is unqiuely staged to do well, for a low price point, so I'm kind of trying to push it as a thing, to try and go for, n explore. The tile/parcel setup for worlds is also really well suited for incremental releases. Which imo mmos need more then anything.
  5. I don't see how this isn't on topic for gdiscussion. Crowfall exists, and is in the genre of fantasy, and its all pretty relevant for engagement with the product.
  6. I had some thoughts that I was mulling over, and they're not quite formed enough to really plot out there, but I think I've got a general sentiment thats ready to be shared. One of the reasons I was excited about this game, is because of the politics, and game of thrones. Game of thrones is fantasy, but its not trade mark fantasy...its political fantasy. For me the hunger represent a space in the game that could go thematically sort of enviornmental with an almost kind of dark souls level of atmosphere where you get area thematic hook towards subtle horror. Then you've got the sort of item system, and a survival game level kind of looting, and now we're really building up an atmosphere thats worth paying attention to. Tension and consequence and danger. So generally, fantasy really isn't doing it for me, on brunt alone. How about you? Whats got you hype? What do you think the game could draw on for keeping the fantasy element fresh.
  7. I've participated in a world record game event, wasn't fun for the gameplay itself. Never found out if they actually got it. pcgamer.com/1000-player-fps-world-record-attempt-happening-this-sunday-you-can-help/ vimeo.com/37800358
  8. The honest answer is no. The blunt answer is HELL NO. The serious answer is to say, that while cool, the gameplay probably breaks down at those levels, and the game itself would make your individual contributions seem insignificant and an unfun waste of your time. Thats if you accept that technically its possible, to make that function in a reasonable manner consistent with your experience at say 32v32 players in a medium sized map. Gameplay design limits player numbers OFTEN in many cases because the gameplay itself can only support a fun experience at a set expected number of players. Too few, or too many, and the game becomes unworkable. A naturalistic way of looking at it is to say, if it was reasonably, possible, and fun, then it would already have been done, and reasonably successful...to say in other words. Its not been done, because it can't be done. Yet.
  9. Whoops I forgot to add EQ: Next -Landmark. I'll agree that EQ: Next is probably vaporware at this point...and also note that I'm here because of it.
  10. It'll be exciting to see how it works. From my experience in everquest next, I know voxels even at a simple level can seriously hammer computers. Optimization is probably a serious dealio. Who knows what'll happen! Science is science and this is a science problem I'll leave to those practicing their science.
  11. Imo. it lends the project credibility if its fans actually look like they can gauge the risk they've taken in backing it, and accept the risks.
  12. Failure is always and will always be a reality with ventures like this. I think he's selling a buildable real product, and not doing anything drastically scummy, although I think it could easily become a little sleazy with only a little effort. Thats problem with things like this, you just have to put yourself out there. I backed Doublefines game, and they didn't do right imo. They shipped the game out in chuncks and imo mismanaged the project and heavily reused assets to meet their obligation for completing the game and in general I think they also went a bit far off the deep end into the social justice/gamer gate conflict, and really exploited their platform....but they got the game done...and technically did what they said they would do, and thats about what you can expect. I don't like double fine anymore but they got a game out there, and I was a part of that, and its just that sorta...naturalism of things and events cummulating into what may be a distasteful situation for one or more parties involved. I think I'm still proud that I backed it, as it helped push crowd funding, but generally I've got an evolving perspective on my involvement in that project. I really wanted one last hurrah with DF, and I got what I wanted, and closed the chapter on them being in my desires for gaming, at least good enough to be able to move on. In general I think thats kind of ok. ITS OK for people and things to evolve over time, and its a reasonable expectation. I think Doublefine genuinely tried really hard, but made some serious mistakes, and thats ok. The situation with CF may very well end up that way for you, or you may find yourself in love, and an annoying fanboy to someone else with a different perspective. Reality is really real yo. You get to have interesting nuanced consequences for a variety of actions, and its all very engaging, and complex and deep n stuff. ** @ OP directly I think Peter Molyneux is reasonably called a liar. I don't really know if J Todd is. Peter may not actually functionally be lying, and may be consistently mislead about the level of fullfillment that can be expected on features, but generally I think you can/have to own that, at some point and come clean...I don't really know that I've ever seen that moment with Peter Molyneux. So generally I find it socially acceptable to call him a liar, even if it may not be accurate. Generally speaking I think he's past the point of reasonable doubt. If J Todd made mistakes in the past, I don't know that he got to the point where he passed the limits of reasonable doubt. There's the other aspect of coming back from failure and trying to do better, I think Kickstarter is a vehicle for that. I think Chris Roberts is a good example of someone using it as an opportunity to make a come back. I personally think Chris Roberts will fail, but its undeniable that he's trying, and doing the best he can to accomplish the full scope of his vision, and I think he has the potential to succeed. I'm more cynical in that, I think he's technically over reaching what computers can do, and thats my personal cynicism. I don't technically have the depth of understanding to understand how much of an over reach it really is, and if its actually in line with scaling visions of technological progression and his expected delivery date.... RSI will be a moment in history one way or another, and thats because gamers put it all on the line, and REALLY put their money where their mouths are. I don't know if CF is brave like that, or if thats even desirable. I think its brave to want an MMO to succeed in this market, and all...but I don't really think its THAT brave. I think its disrespectful to Chris Roberts, and generally really disrespectful/distasteful to those brave people backing Star Citizen, to use them as a cheap joke, and to belittle their dreams...even if you think their fascination with ship exclusives is an example of addictive behavior.
  13. That seems pretty dumb. So you know exactly how the feature would be implemented in this game? Everyone's to assume it means crit, or the exact same iteration of combat we've seen from a previous game, when they're building a new combat system? I dunno. I think thats a jump cut to a different position. RNG in context of combat, is varied as all hell. random number generation for damage isn't the only way random number generation can affect combat. You can go deeper. Like randomly selecting a body part to hit. etc. random things that apply rng, without randomly selecting damage directly. The context for rng to exist in the game is massive, and honestly diffusing that seems like a red herring to safe face. Just take the knee. * For a different perspective on rng, think of movement and how movement systems can affect cones of fire and bullet placement for guns in fps. Rainbowsix comes to mind...its just another system that can create RNG, and use it in a way that feels well gated, and lends itself to the experience.
  14. Sorry its hard to communicate with concepts I don't feel are fully represented by words in my vocabulary. Aggressive? eh, I guess, I was having fun with it, take it as you may. Tone is always hard to convey. Generally if you're not in the gaming culture you might not find it a playful tone, but then again maybe you are, and you have a different perspective of the culture, either way. Eh. I'll try to dig into more of what you said later, but I'm busy working on a model. In general, though at the end of the day, I fully expressed my ideas, and if you still don't grasp what they mean in terms of concepts you might just have to settle with not comprehending, brains are difficult, and understanding is hard. I suggest you re-read in case you're making simple mistakes. For instance in call of duty/hl2 comparisons I didn't make an allusion to pacing being the thing being noted.
  15. What I'm saying is you like variance, you just don't know that you like variance. You're not saying anything that qualitatively changes my point. You like a style of variance, in a setting, that you know you like, you dislike a style of variance in a setting you know you dislike variance, but there are different styles that can fit in those settings...that you might like. You don't know, I don't know, its why there's got to be a respect for those potential opportunities. Disrespecting those opportunities is basically giving up a ton of value that you can gain, from an undiscovered style of variance you might like a lot. true rng, fake rng, adjusted rng, to me its all in the same genre.
  16. I really want a game that explores prop-hunt mechanics for its stealth system.
  17. I think RNG has enough depth and nuance to it, as a system, that it should be experimented with. That being said, I do not know if I want this game to be the vehicle for that exprimentation...so Its hard to want the cake, and to eat it too :C
  18. The problem is that if you don't accept that generally people are very similar, and that people want to be noticed, and have their opinions given attention without the context of another thread, distracting from what they want to say, then you're going to have a large population of people who don't want to engage in forums. The idea that topics should be important or interesting is besides the point. Forums are about community, and community-community interaction, threads are just the vehicle for other people to share, their feelings in a format that they feel like best represents, and guards them from/to social groups. poorly made socksty threads are important for forums, and ultimately are a teaching mechanism important for the health of the community, and increase the depth of the social bond between players on forums. Sod off with you, and your click-hate, I just want to click-bait. Kappa #onfiretoday #tenforten
  19. If people actually hated rng, they'd hate the tetris style rng of the map generating system (name escapes me). You don't intrinsically hate rng, you just hate rng in a style you've considered to represent rng. The skinner box wouldn't work if people hated rng. IN FACT I think you actually deeply appreciate RNG, and just hate how its been hackily executed in the past and shoved into games lazily.
  20. I'm not making any hogwash claim. Anyone with as much experience as me has an inate sense of feel in games, and can easily understand when some form of feedback is an illusion...or feels 'wrong'. (although thats not to say that means the same thing) You understand why people instantly understood that call of duty campaigns were garbage , and that you literally couldn't die in places? That didn't happen to be discovered because of a sixth sense. You understand subtle flaws in pacing or narrative, if you've read enough. What I'm saying is, you're disrespecting my, and other's experience, and the skill and depth of experience in gaming. Sod off with that nonsense. **** if system A lights a light bulb, and system B lights a light bulb, but you have to push a button that doesn't have a plastic slip over the switch, and the metal is sharp, you're not going to like it. There are subtle variations to a system in games, that change how it feels. This is maybe not apparent to you, because you're a scrub/noob, but as an experienced player this is patently obvious to most folks. Sometimes this shows itself as "Gun feel". You might like a gun in call of duty 4, and that same gun you hate in call of duty 5 (or w/e freaking system they have for sequels titles). They might both hold the same space in the design for a midrange weapon, but subtle things with how they've changed the gun, adjust the feel, and you might dislike the changes without knowing exactly why. Sometimes this problem shows up, in balance tweaking. A certain overpowered thing might feel really good, but not JUST because its overpowered, and when its adjusted to be more inline with balance, certain aspects of the ability are removed, or reduced in how vividly they feel. That can make them feel samey, or homogenized if they clipped out an important 'feel' portion of their kit (like in a moba). I can tell you, that I've very easily been put off on a recent big title release from a simple error in feel. Sometimes thats FOV problems, but in general those are fixable, and not a big deal, but still important feel problems for most people...no in this case the game was Titan Fall, and they had adjusted the pilot shooting to have slight differences in how the guns move horizontally vrs vertically, and they didn't have that same adjustment in the titans. I liked how the titans felt, and didn't feel like that I was being forced to play with an annoyingly adjusted gun system in the other. One felt natural and intutive one felt like something done arbitraily, maybe to delinate skill depth between the two, but ultimately failed me as entertainment. The problem wasn't nessecarly that they'd done it, but that I hated how it felt. Gamers have a progression of games and game-sense leading into new titles, and sometimes people ignore that progression, and how it informs 'feel' and other problems that learned behaviors create in game design...when feel comes into play. ....... Call of duty campaigns and Half life 2 campaigns are both highly linear although ones probably more akin to rail shooter design, but to get a sense of being within the ball park of a comparison, they're both attempting to be linear in gameplay, that goes through set pieces to get to plot points and to get there the games have you participate somewhat with fps gameplay. in call of duty, its less interesting because your progression is almost 100% assured (you have to push W I assume to go through the levels) so, the reward for getting to that set piece is less. Half life 2, is insanely easy, and although the ability to fail is almost an illusion, it feels differently, then Call of Duty, because you CAN lose, even if that lose state is only passingly slapping you on the wrists, its a form of feedback missing in call of duty, and removes the depth for the reward of getting to through the plot. In half life 2, losing is the illusion of punishment, in call of duty, there's an illusion that you can lose. The sense of what that reality is, is a feel sense, and its inate to the experience, you 'get it' because you feel it, even if you don't dig in and analyze what those feelings mean. *** Don't go on trying to pretend like I'm not making sense, when you're the one not using your senses. EH! GET REKT SCRUB! 360 noscope #rekt #calltheamberlamps #theseaisrising #salt #fightthesetears #ahahahahah #huehuehuehue #ajajajajajajaja #Kukukukuku #kekekekee #gutbusterisacrimeagainsthumanity #okkindofgettingboredofthesehashtagsnow #tryingtoohard
  21. I'm not about to waste my time and money looking at half baked reduced graphics when I spent good money on a good computer.
  22. People whining about RNG imo. don't have a full grasp of what they're saying. You don't dislike RNG, you dislike a style of RNG you've encountered in the past. There are too many factors in RNG to simply go "durr rng sucks" its like saying you dislike pie, when you actually dislike cake. They're deserts. RNG is as broad as that, at the least.
  23. People are smart. Gamers have an intuitive sense of game mechanics, and feel is far more subtle then you're making it sound.
  24. There is no such thing as a WoW killer. WoW isn't a static thing. Its an adapting game platform, and WoW can become WoW 2.0 easily with as much money and talent they can shovel at the problem. WoW can't be killed if the team running it isn't incompetent.
  • Create New...