12th February 2005, 1:17 AM
Now "all range" (as SF64 calls it) levels aren't a bad idea. I've played enough space shooters that allow free movement in a level to know that. They do have to be done well though.
Oh and, the tank levels in SF64 were done very well namely because the tank was almost just an arwing that liked the ground a lot. You could even fly for short periods with the thing. Also, the combat was almost the same anyway, like it was ignoring your vehicle of choice. I think that's WHY it worked. Tank combat against other tanks? When you think about it, that's actually kinda boring... Fast tank combat against flying things with a focus on moving about as well as shooting? Worked great in 64 anyway...
As for the graphics being worse... I might have known... Rare spent a lot of time on that engine, and the main thing making that game one of the best looking games on the Gamecube is the fur and grass rendering. When you really zoom in you see how that trick works, but it is still pretty convincing under normal situations and enough to still make it a graphical amazer. I don't think Namco was given the source code for SFA, nor do I think they really cared about fur rendering. Kinda sad, because when it comes to humanoid animal creatures (hmm what's the best term here... I'll go with "demihuman", the term Chrono Cross and Xenogears use for such creatures) fur rendering REALLY helps. I'm sick of big hair CLUMPS on all my 3D characters... What, did they dip their heads in a big vat of baking grease before the game? What hair forms in big clumps or perfect helmet shaped mats naturally? :D
There's another thing there though. SFA takes place outside the ship on a planet full of demihumans and in natural surroundings. Grass and fur rendering can easily make such a situation look amazing. SFArmada however takes place either far away from natural environments or around totally smooth things like a base, and the character is inside a smooth piece of machinery. Fur and grass won't be nearly as impressive, if at all, so why even bother going to the work to make such an engine? Might as well make the engine focus on normal shooter stuff, and "the norm" should be good enough for that, no need to go all crazy go nuts making it look super powered amazing :D.
Eh, anyway the thing is all the concepts just said were fine. I believe I was always skeptical about the on-foot missions being workable, but I did conceed if they managed to make it as good as JFG in those parts then it would be great fun. That, as I expected, did NOT occur (I mean yeesh that would mean making two games at the same time pretty much, instead of half a game for the land parts). Land missions aren't a bad idea, but I think that it's been shown time and again that land fighting can't be half done. It must be as developed and well done as a straight out 3rd person shooter or it's boring. Since most developers won't have the time or resources to do something like that, maybe it's just best to not even bother with the land parts. Maybe it's best to just make another game completely for that part. Then you can focus entirely on one aspect.
Oh, the submarine level in SF64 was pretty fun wasn't it? It was basically just a flying level with slower response time (well you are moving through a substance where a cubic meter of it weighs a metric ton, probably more with all that pollution), but it was still pretty fun. That, along with how they managed the tank levels, really should be how they design any sort of alternate vehicle levels. They should basically control, and play, and fight, pretty much just like the arwing only with that vehicle's gimic. There's no shame in it, the alternate vehicles really are somewhat gimicky, only there to offer a change of pace, not a total gameplay overhaul.
So like, add in the motorcycle level, but make sure it's basically a cycle with a laser mounted on it where you basically drive along shooting things, and the gimic is bieng ground based until you jump the cycle over the PLENTIFUL ramps all over the level. Something like that NEEDS to be done on rails I think, but that's just an example. If you are considering a train, it better be a hover train, because if it's on tracks then there is no mobility, which means BORING.
Oh and, the tank levels in SF64 were done very well namely because the tank was almost just an arwing that liked the ground a lot. You could even fly for short periods with the thing. Also, the combat was almost the same anyway, like it was ignoring your vehicle of choice. I think that's WHY it worked. Tank combat against other tanks? When you think about it, that's actually kinda boring... Fast tank combat against flying things with a focus on moving about as well as shooting? Worked great in 64 anyway...
As for the graphics being worse... I might have known... Rare spent a lot of time on that engine, and the main thing making that game one of the best looking games on the Gamecube is the fur and grass rendering. When you really zoom in you see how that trick works, but it is still pretty convincing under normal situations and enough to still make it a graphical amazer. I don't think Namco was given the source code for SFA, nor do I think they really cared about fur rendering. Kinda sad, because when it comes to humanoid animal creatures (hmm what's the best term here... I'll go with "demihuman", the term Chrono Cross and Xenogears use for such creatures) fur rendering REALLY helps. I'm sick of big hair CLUMPS on all my 3D characters... What, did they dip their heads in a big vat of baking grease before the game? What hair forms in big clumps or perfect helmet shaped mats naturally? :D
There's another thing there though. SFA takes place outside the ship on a planet full of demihumans and in natural surroundings. Grass and fur rendering can easily make such a situation look amazing. SFArmada however takes place either far away from natural environments or around totally smooth things like a base, and the character is inside a smooth piece of machinery. Fur and grass won't be nearly as impressive, if at all, so why even bother going to the work to make such an engine? Might as well make the engine focus on normal shooter stuff, and "the norm" should be good enough for that, no need to go all crazy go nuts making it look super powered amazing :D.
Eh, anyway the thing is all the concepts just said were fine. I believe I was always skeptical about the on-foot missions being workable, but I did conceed if they managed to make it as good as JFG in those parts then it would be great fun. That, as I expected, did NOT occur (I mean yeesh that would mean making two games at the same time pretty much, instead of half a game for the land parts). Land missions aren't a bad idea, but I think that it's been shown time and again that land fighting can't be half done. It must be as developed and well done as a straight out 3rd person shooter or it's boring. Since most developers won't have the time or resources to do something like that, maybe it's just best to not even bother with the land parts. Maybe it's best to just make another game completely for that part. Then you can focus entirely on one aspect.
Oh, the submarine level in SF64 was pretty fun wasn't it? It was basically just a flying level with slower response time (well you are moving through a substance where a cubic meter of it weighs a metric ton, probably more with all that pollution), but it was still pretty fun. That, along with how they managed the tank levels, really should be how they design any sort of alternate vehicle levels. They should basically control, and play, and fight, pretty much just like the arwing only with that vehicle's gimic. There's no shame in it, the alternate vehicles really are somewhat gimicky, only there to offer a change of pace, not a total gameplay overhaul.
So like, add in the motorcycle level, but make sure it's basically a cycle with a laser mounted on it where you basically drive along shooting things, and the gimic is bieng ground based until you jump the cycle over the PLENTIFUL ramps all over the level. Something like that NEEDS to be done on rails I think, but that's just an example. If you are considering a train, it better be a hover train, because if it's on tracks then there is no mobility, which means BORING.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)