There’s no good 1-for-1 way to represent it on a screen.
In real life, the entire image in one eye would be the scope, and the other would be everything else. On a monitor with a little scope pop up you have a small image-in-an-image that you’re looking at with both eyes and bouncing back and forth with to the surroundings. Your brain isn’t processing it the same way.
This is a case where i don’t think it is possible to replicate the real experience, but that doing image-in-image is a more annoying choice than others. I’d veto it on being annoying to play with grounds, and do hope what we see in the trailer either doesn’t represent how it works or is an option.
I’m hoping that was done for some sort of misguided “cinematic” reason for the trailer. I caught a moment at 0:50 that looks like full screen scoping in, and then later at 0:54 that looks like a clearly cinematic angle where the scope-in-screen seems visible in the corner.
It has a bright and cartoony aesthetic, which isn’t inherently bad. Objects are easily readable, and the style is very flexible for adding all sorts of characters from various settings. The style also ages better than attempting photo realism.
Otherwise, yeah sure it’s a shooter which happened to catch on for the younger audience especially, and the increase of social areas and events gave it more varied content.
I played it for about 10 minutes, it’s not really for me. I don’t think about it much, but I understand why someone might like it. Just because it isn’t for me doesn’t mean it’s bad. People that getting really riled up about it existing or being popular give the same aura as 12 year olds vocally making fun of things 10 year olds are into to prove how mature and sophisticated they are in comparison.
XCOM 2 came out in 2016. Let’s get another XCOM game. Maybe humanity pushing into space and creating a colony which then comes under alien attack. You have to defend the colony, cut off from earth, and take out the alien menace.
Honestly 5 had a lot going for it. It removed radio tower puzzles. It way cleaned up on absurd collectaton mechanics of 4, which had gone way too overboard. The survialist bunkers were a neat mechanic to replace a lot of collectaton stuff. I actually enjoyed the side games like the fishing. The gunplay and the customization was iterated on and improved. The editor where you could make your own missions and post them online was really cool (I made a lot of super complicated stealth missions).
The vibe of the game was pretty good, and the villains were engaging enough. It’s really just the main plot that falls to pieces and only at the very end does it become impossible to ignore how dumb it is.
I think that in mechanical design, 5 is a straight improvement on 3 and 4.
A first person scifi FPS-RPG. Developed in Ukraine. Very unique experience wrapped inside of a concept that’s been done before. High slavjank tolerance required.
It was a strange moment created by my accidental breaking on some game triggers. It was odd how easily and unintentionally I broke the flow of the level. I believe this was the only time in the game I needed to kill specific people as objectives.
Fair use is determined in a court. If somebody sues you, you can’t just say “Nah actually it’s fair use” and then not show up to court.
The C&D letter wasn’t a lawsuit yet, but a warning that one would be coming. The mod team had the choice of complying or going to court, which costs time and money. In court, even if they ended up winning, it’s not guaranteed that the dev team would be granted legal fees. Atop that, who wants to spend the next few months to years stressing on a court fight?
It’s an unfortunately lopsided situation where a C&D is enough to make most small time projects fold at the prospect of even having to go to court.
This is a really interesting video. My first question would be why this issue wasn’t caught early by the devs. The Id Tech 4 engine at the time was considered absolutely cutting edge stuff, and (as the video identifies) even it had to be constrained to interior environments. Halo 2 was using an iteration off of Halo:CE’s engine, so unlike Doom the engine wasn’t specifically built to do those shadow tricks. Who thought that they could rework an existing engine to do shadows like this, get it to work better than Id Tech 4 at doing outdoor spaces, and then get it optimized enough that not high end computers but X-Boxes could run it? And do all of that on top of actually just making the game itself inside of a market driven timeline?
Laid out like that, it looks like a crazy idea. I wonder if the art style was developer or management pushed, and who allowed it to get far enough that models were made with it in mind.
The exact problem with the released DNF is that it wasn’t a “late 90s game”. The late 90s-early 2000s style of games are right now very popular. There is, and has been a market for them.
The problems with the released DNF is that the producers didn’t have faith in any particular direction and kept having the devs start over again and again to chase trends. In the end, Gearbox got the rights to DNF and cobbled together a game nobody cared about. The released DNF was the most mediocre, trend chasing mid-00s game imaginable with all of the HALO and Call Of Duty game design influence that could be crammed in, while bringing nothing additional of value to the table.
The DNF 2001 Restoration project is already more enjoyable than the released game, proving that early 2000s style of game design is perfectly viable.
It’s a stand alone project building off of the 2001 build’s leak, trying to turn it into a completed game.
The download includes the leaked original content as well if you want to compare. The original content isn’t really playable as anything but novelty, since it’s more like the skeleton of a game than a game. The project has made strides in all aspects to turn half finished, often unpopulated locations into actual game levels. Pigcops are back, Duke’s model is improved, more voice acting included, level design with scripted encounters. Lots of stuff.