Ah man I was really looking forward to this. Oh well, a delay just means the game will be better when it comes out, I’d rather this delay than another trash 40k game be released
Duke Nukem Forever is the exception, and to be honest I'm not even sure if it counts as a 'delay' when they started over with new game engines multiple times...
Yeah development hell is a rough spot. Sometimes it can turn out great projects (Doom 2016 is a decent example, when it was originally meant to be Doom 4 it was closer to a call of duty style game) but alot of the time it turns into a mess. You already mentioned Duke Nukem forever, you also have Spore, Too human, Final Fantasy 15, Dead island 2, etc.
Depends on the proximity of the release date and the amount of delay honestly. A delay of only a few weeks very close to release tends to indicate that the release is going to be a mess, fortunately it is not the case here and the delay is significant.
I can think of only one time a two week delay didn’t result in a broken game anyway, but how much of that was because of the delay is impossible to know.
There are so many games to play, it makes no sense to release crap unless you’re in it for making money. Then you can release whenever and someone somewhere will buy it. See MW3.
I know it’ll be worth the improvements, but I’m allowed to be disappointed all the same. I swear they had a November release, so a week or so ago when I tried to find the release date, I couldn’t find it again, and instead just saw Winter 2023. I was bracing for a delay (still disappointed though).
here’s to hoping they don’t scrap a perfect story half way through again like they did in sub 2, I loved the original pre-release story, then they scrapped it for the boring one it is now
What was the pre-release story for BZ? I played it this year and thought the story was fine, though it didn’t manage to recapture the feelings of mystery and discovery of the first game
I want a truly massive nuclear submarine and be able to explore some of the actual deep parts of the ocean. Like they hype up the huge drop off in the first game. Maybe a bit of protection against the giant ghost laviathans.
I'm tempted to agree but on the other hand, I'd rather see the budget go towards a better game than designing for coop. The first one wouldn't be atmospheric at all if you had a laggy friend floating around you all the time.
Plenty of other survival games that have coop and are better suited for it.
I definitely understand for flight sims and other aviation games like Ace Combat, but it still seems more intuitive to tilt the stick in the direction you want to look, rather than the opposite direction.
I did the inverted vertical mouse for ages for the same reason, and then one day it just stopped working for me. I think I’d tried other systems and come back to my PC and it suddenly felt wrong. Then I went to normal mouse controls and discovered aiming was more natural and smoother, and I’d probably been sabotaging my aiming by forcing an extra layer of abstraction into it.
It’s weird, I thought of it like leaning back & forward to make it intuitive, and our brains can learn to make just about any adjustment with enough practice.
But IRL if you’re physically pointing at one spot and want to move your point of aim up and to to the right for instance, you move your hand up and to the right, just like the uninverted mouse movement. So you’re spending time IRL learning one movement and time in games learning the opposite movement. I think that’s why inverted was so much worse even though I did it that way from the start.
It’s weird, I thought of it like leaning back & forward to make it intuitive
That’s exactly what it’s live and it’s exactly why it’s intuitive and why when games came out, it was the standard.
But IRL if you’re physically pointing at one spot and want to move your point of aim up and to to the right for instance, you move your hand up and to the right,
But you’re not pointing in the games. You’re moving the view/camera. So to LOOK up and right (as opposed to point), you lean back and roll to the left
But you’re not pointing in the games. You’re moving the view/camera.
You are doing both. They are inherently coupled in this format. But in reality you are not leaning with your hand, you are pointing with your hand, and so the closest 1:1 mapping between movements is uninverted mouse controls.
Also I don’t know what “roll to the left” means here at all. You’d need to draw a diagram or something if you wanted me to understand that part. Your words alone are not enough to convey it.
I don’t know how anyone doesn’t. You’re controlling a camera. It’s how cameras/views have been controlled since graphics were invented. Just like when controlling a camera, to look up and left you would pull down and right.
Not sure if the only cameras you’re thinking of are tv/movie cameras or not, but cameras have been controlled non-invertedly for as long as I can remember.
What? Literally all cameras are controlled invertedly. It’s literally how human biomechanics work too. To look up, you tighten the muscles in the back of your neck, pulling your head back
Try playing a platformer where left moves your character to the right, and right moves left. AND down moves them up and up moves them down. You’d see how that’s unplayable, right?
Of course, how does it possibly make sense to only invert 1 axis? That seems to be the crazy option. Subnautica actually does support only inverting 1 axis (is it Y? Not sure), but not both.
In super mario 64, you click C left to look right because you’re controlling the camera. Just like every other game ever, you’re controlling a camera. Whether you’re looking at the back of the head of your character or not. When you’re using motion controlled aiming, and you have to look up and to the left, what do you do? You pull back on the controller, and rotate the device to the right. It’s crazy to me that you would use different motion when you’re controlling with a joystick versus controller physically
Sounds like it’s just what you grew up on, which as I explained I understand. It felt more natural to me to just use inverted Y axis because of flight sims, but Eventually I just changed because the times changed and standards changed. I didn’t want to be the guy that had to go in and change his settings whenever someone passed me a controller so I just adapted.
That feels awfully soon. I hope they can actually create enough new content for this, as Below Zero felt far too similar to the first. It felt more like a new game plus rather than a full-price sequal.
Yeah I felt like below zero could have gone without the above land content. It just wasn’t nearly as good as the rest of what they had made. I really missed having the submarine thing too
The first time you make the Cyclops and go “woah, that’s big”. When you are welcomed on board. When you walk about and go “oh, engine room. And 6 power cells”, when you flick all the lights on and off, when you have to start the engine, when it steers like a bus and you bonk everything I’m sight. When you first honk the horn. When you learn to drive using the cameras. When you learn you can build in it. When a creature attacks and you drop a bouy.
So many great firsts with the Cyclops.
The seatruck was fine. But it didn’t seem to have the personality of the cyclops
I remember reading somewhere that Below zero was originally intended to be an expansion, but got changed into a standalone release. The subnautica 2 they are working on now is entirely new.
I personally loved the building in the game. At least in 2 it was a lot better. Luckily they ported most of the improvements from 2 into the first game.
I'm in the middle of a Subnautica replay and it's very much "fuck man where is the thing" combined with "I swear that thing was right here last time I played."
Beta tester for the last few years here. Game is great and a ton of things were added/fixed by the lone dev left. It’s definitely a time capsule UI/performance wise but it’s way deeper then you’d think from screenshots or a description.
Going from their existing RED engine to Unreal is basically the same idea. Almost nothing from the original Cyberpunk game is going to be easily translated to the new platform. I think CDPR just set their development timeline back by at least 3 years.
Given how massive their game is, I'm doubtful. So much of what they did in the first game will have to be rebuilt. Compared to just reusing most of the original assets and code, this sounds like a lot more work.
Maybe, it might also be easier to reuse portions of the engine in Unreal Engine while using parts of Unreal (like its rendering engine) than you think though. Assets largely I’d expect to be portable or at least comvertable with a custom asset loader.
I’m talking a little out of my ass though, and neither of us is familiar with the code. Point being though, it’s a little different moving engines than rewriting a complicated web server (a project I have been a part of and would not recommend).
Aka “we don’t know the engine well enough yet to be aware of bottlenecks during our concepting phase and that’s challenging.”
They haven’t even seriously started on implementation with the engine yet for Cyberpunk. This is somewhat of a nothing article that’s trying to get clicks by making a very normal thing seem like a potential controversy.
I don’t see where it’s trying to make it sound controversial. Switching game engines isn’t a “normal” thing developers usually do very often, especially after releasing such high-profile games with an in-house engine.
And with how often you see gamers demand developers “just use a different engine” to solve some specific complaint I think it’s reasonable to remind people why that isn’t usually a good idea.
It’s not completely uncommon for a company to transition to a new engine between games when one fails to provide a sufficient solution for where they want to take the sequels.
Or just if daddy EA decides everyone needs to use Frostbite.
rockpapershotgun.com
Najnowsze