The combat space sim: Finally dead? [Archive]

routlaw

07-10-2002, 01:56 PM

Like probably a lot of the posters on this forum, I'm a huge fan of the PC space sim-their combination of dynamic science fiction storytelling, exotic weaponry, and balls-to-the-wall action have captivated ever since I got my grubby young hands on copies of X-Wing and Wing Commander. Even though the genre has experienced somewhat of a decline since they heyday of the early 1990s, there's always been a few reasonbly-old efforts on the shelves and a few more on the horizon that are worth paying attention to, as a fan of the genre.

I've been looking for both lately. And outside of a couple 'Elite' style trader-games and some sure-to-dissapoint MMORPGs, there's simply nothing to be found in the genre. I concede the fact that the last crop of combat space sims (Starlancer, XWA, and Freespace 2) sold fairly poorly, but that seemed more out of the games being either mediocre (Starlancer, XWA) or not marketed at all (FS2). That hasn't stopped other genres from pumping out games, though-there are plenty of dismally-selling CRPGs and niche RTS games out there, produced despite the fact that they aren't going to see a fraction the kind of sales that their big name coutnerparts (Westwood,Blizzard,Bioware, etc.) are seeing.

Is it safe to call the combat space sim (as defined by the X-Wing/Tie Fighter/Wing Commander games) dead? Or is the genre just taking an extended hiatus, waiting for the right time to re-emerge (like the CRPG genre did back in '97 and '98)?

God I hope it's the latter. One can only replay Freepsace 2 so many times. :(

Doug Erickson

07-10-2002, 02:03 PM

What? Where's the love for Derek Smart? You're not a Coke machine, are you?

I-War 2 was alright, but it really felt like work sometimes.

The new CGM has a preview of some Elite-alike that looks promising. I'd kill for a good fixed-campaign Freespace 2 clone, though.

Mark Asher

07-10-2002, 02:04 PM

It certainly looks like big budget space sims are dead.

Derek Smart is still working in that genre. Freelancer is yet to arrive.

But I haven't heard of any new space sim games getting the green light in the last year or so.

Erik

07-10-2002, 02:12 PM

Elite might be coming out for the GBA:

http://www.frontier.co.uk/press/release/elitegba.html

Tom Chick

07-10-2002, 02:33 PM

The new CGM has a preview of some Elite-alike that looks promising. I'd kill for a good fixed-campaign Freespace 2 clone, though.

You might be talking about John DiCamillo's Starshatter, which looks promising, but isn't really an Elite-alike. John posts here occasionally, so maybe he'll drop in and plug it.

You can download a demo from www.starshatter,com, but it just gives you a look at the basic mechanics. I'm particularly interested in how it implements the dynamic campaign. I also like the idea of incorporating some traditionally harder core elements like sensor management.

-Tom

Ben Sones

07-10-2002, 02:39 PM

No, I think he's talking about Eve Online, which is basically an online Elite. It looks much better than Earth and Beyond, at least.

Starshatter is also pretty neat. I've always thought that it would be neat to have a space sim designed from a "real world" sim angle; the Falcon 4.0 of the sci-fi world, so to speak. Starshatter is a bit like that.

Robert Sharp

07-10-2002, 02:42 PM

I can't remember where, but I read that the genre was coming back again, meaning there was going to be another round of attempts to make money. Console space sims sell pretty well (such as Rogue Squadron), and some of them are quite good, if you are interested. As for PC games, they may do well if games like Lock On and Project One sell well and revitalize the sim genre in general (which needs it desperately). The problem is that it is such a niche genre. The last crop of great games didn't sell well, though you could argue that sales were hurt by releasing all of them (I-War, Freelancer 2, X, and the one with Bruce Cambell) at the same time, roughly.

Dave Long

07-10-2002, 02:44 PM

I just bought Colony Wars: Vengeance for the PSOne. If you like space sims, you ought to play it. The original Colony Wars was a top title and the sequel is better. It's heavy on the action, but it's got some great gameplay and visuals. Haven't played Colony Wars III: Red Sun but I don't think it's quite as good as the other two.

--Dave

Tom Chick

07-10-2002, 02:57 PM

Egad, Dave, a space sim on the PS1? I don't think I could stomach it, even if it is as good as the second Colony Wars (which was pretty good).

If we're talking console space sims, then I'll say it again: Jedi Starfighter ain't bad. It's no Rogue Leader, but it ain't bad.

-Tom

routlaw

07-10-2002, 03:09 PM

I enjoyed the original Star Wars: Starfighter on the PS2 to some degree. It wasn't as deep as the PC space sims I'm used to (no energy management, no real targeting systems, barebones wingmen commands), but it wasn't that bad for what it was trying to do.

Rogue Leader, OTOH, was pretty mind-numbing. The game had state of the art tech, but it also sported some pretty obvious 1980's-era rail-shooter gameplay. Considering how smiliar the two games are, I can't figure out why I dislike RL so much, but can tolerate Starfighter.

Doug Erickson

07-10-2002, 03:10 PM

Colony Wars 3 is quite a bit better than 2 (which I thought stunk) CW3 has a bit more an an "Elite" feel to it, but it has much better ground missions than 2 and a much smoother difficulty progression.

I know exactly why I hate Rogue Leader: the areas are incredibly confining, you spend more time absorbing hits than evading them, the ships lack any sense of inertia, the map sucks, the mission objectives are represented poorly in gameplay, and the enemy AI might as well be the pathing for a 2D shooter.

I'd probably like RL better if it were railed, like the original arcade SW title - most of the flaws I listed could be excused if you didn't constantly have to grapple with finding where you are and how far you are from an ill-defined objective.

Desslock

07-10-2002, 03:18 PM

>One can only replay Freepsace 2 so many times

No kidding. My favourite computer game in the past 10 years.

Freelancer (which isn't exactly a conventional sim because of its control scheme) is basically it right now from major publishers, plus Derek's projects and stuff from smaller publishers (like X-Beyond the Frontier 2).

I guess you could count Earth and Beyond, but even Westwood is avoiding characterizing it as a sim, probably because they had to slow down the gameplay to make it viable as an online game. Verant is working on a space sim component to SW Galaxies.

Alan Au

07-10-2002, 03:29 PM

I wouldn't say that the space combat sim is dead the same way I might say text adventures or rail-shooters are dead. The problem as I see it is that developers would have to top Freespace 2. I also wonder if publishers are hesitant to pour resources into a traditionally niche genre, particularly given its recent track record.

- Alan

milo

07-10-2002, 04:15 PM

I concede the fact that the last crop of combat space sims (Starlancer, XWA, and Freespace 2) sold fairly poorly, but that seemed more out of the games being either mediocre (Starlancer, XWA) or not marketed at all (FS2). That hasn't stopped other genres from pumping out games, though-there are plenty of dismally-selling CRPGs and niche RTS games out there, produced despite the fact that they aren't going to see a fraction the kind of sales that their big name coutnerparts (Westwood,Blizzard,Bioware, etc.) are seeing.

Of course, the big difference is that it is easy to point to FPS and RTS and CRPG and MMORPG games that have been very successful recently. So companies are willing to take the gamble and make a game in one of those genres in the blind hope of having a hit, or a near-hit by riding on the genre's coat-tails. I guess it's kind of like how more people buy lottery tickets when the payout is $100 million than they do when it is "only" $10 million. Right now, the payout on combat space sims is rather lower than that, and they are generally pretty expensive to make if you want to follow in the footsteps of Chris "But What I Really Want to Do is Direct" Roberts.

If you are looking for a new combat space sim, you are going to have to look pretty hard.

The only new development in the traditional mission-based combat space sim genre that I know of are games by small developers. There is a Russian game studio working on something called "Homeplanet." I know a guy who has created a whole series of arcade style space combat sims entitled "StarWraith" in DarkBasic. Brian Hook has a couple of space sim projects simmering on back burners, one of which is a traditional shoot-em-up. And then you have my game, Starshatter. And that is about it. Everything else in development is either a Homeworld-style RTS, an online persistent world Elite game, or the Diablo-esque Freelancer.

Starshatter is a bit different from most previous combat space sims. It uses a dynamic campaign engine to generate missions, rather than having everything be scripted out in advance. It allows you to fight in space or in atmosphere, using Newtonian or arcade style physics. It allows you to fly fighters as in Wing Commander, or larger starships as in Starfleet Command. You can even graduate to commanding a carrier battle group and take control of a carrier, a cruiser, two destroyers, and sixty fighters. If I were to compare it to another title, that title would be Babylon 5: Into the Fire.

Starshatter is inching ever closer to beta status. The next demo v3.5 should be ready around the end of July. This was originally going to be the beta release, but I won't have music or multiplayer done by then. Sigh. Too much work to do.

Anonymous

07-10-2002, 05:25 PM

God I hope it's the latter. One can only replay Freepsace 2 so many times. :(

Well, FS2 does still have a very active mod (http://www.3dactionplanet.com/hlp/) and campaign (http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/) community, though most seem to have a hard time actually finishing one occasionally. Now, of course, they've got the source code (http://www.3dactionplanet.com/hlp/) to play with, so they're going to try some fun stuff with it.

They're also always looking for help, if you're into that kind of thing.

Aszurom

07-10-2002, 05:30 PM

Milo,

Say Co-op Multiplayer and I'll drive 1000 miles to bring you a beer.

Anonymous

07-10-2002, 06:28 PM

I'm just glad to hear that the genre isn't entirely dead, which I thought it really was, since I hadn't really heard of anything in development after I-War 2 was released until I heard about Jumpgate on the old boards a while back (I forgot about Freelancer). I played it for awhile, and although I recently quit, it was fun while it lasted, and I might go back to it someday. My understanding is that Earth and Beyond and Eve Online are really going to be more point and click oriented (if you read the JG boards anyway :)). If that's really true, count me out.

Mark Bussman

07-10-2002, 06:29 PM

/me forgot to log in. :roll:

Dave Long

07-10-2002, 06:46 PM

I think the biggest thing preventing the creation of space sims at the major publishers is very simply that Interplay/Volition built it and no one came. Freespace 2 sold like 7,000 copies the last time I saw numbers on it. That's just pitiful. It was the nails in the coffin, the hole in the ground and almost all the dirt piled on top.

The game only did well critically. It was a huge commercial failure of (IMO anyway) epic proportions.

We had a good discussion about the game on the old board and one thing we pretty much all agreed on is that the joystick game is dying and close to death if it isn't dead already. No one buys joysticks for games anymore because there are so very few games that need 'em. So when a developer builds something like a space sim, the tools just ain't there at the PC to play them.

--Dave

Jason McCullough

07-10-2002, 06:58 PM

Holy crap, that's low numbers.

milo

07-10-2002, 07:38 PM

Yeah, a little too low.

The last numbers I saw had Freespace 2 selling about 85,000 units in the US. It probably topped out at around 200,000 units worldwide.

Things got really ugly after 1999 when FS2 was released. Starlancer, Allegiance, X:BTF, IWar 2, each reported less than 30,000 units in the US. I don't have numbers for Star Trek: Bridge Commander or Battlecruiser Millenium, but I'd be surprised if either of them broke 50,000 units worldwide.

--milo

Tom Chick

07-10-2002, 07:47 PM

I don't have numbers for Star Trek: Bridge Commander or Battlecruiser Millenium, but I'd be surprised if either of them broke 50,000 units worldwide.

Ouch. I always knew Battlecruiser was a niche title, but I would have thought the Star Trek license would have done better numbers than that. However, come to think of it, I don't imagine the license helped sales much for stuff like New Worlds or Armada.

-Tom

Supertanker

07-10-2002, 07:53 PM

I figured the numbers were low when Totally Games announced there would be no sequel to Bridge Commander and then canned a number of people. Part of the problem may be that the Star Trek license is kind of tainted. There have been so many bad titles that when the rare good one comes along, the reviews all start out by saying, "Hey, this Star Trek game doesn't suck!"

milo

07-10-2002, 09:01 PM

Whoa. As I said, I don't have access to any numbers on ST:BC or BCM. I'm just extrapolating from some sparse anecdotal evidence online. Either or both of them could have done better than my Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.

"Part of the problem may be that the Star Trek license is kind of tainted."

Could be. I'm not sure how strong the ST:TNG license really is these days. It's been off the air so long that I can't really remember what the individual episodes were about anymore. It might have been better to time the release of the game for just after Nemesis comes out in theaters, rather than going for the Christmas rush...

--milo

Anonymous

07-10-2002, 09:42 PM

"I'm not sure how strong the ST:TNG license really is these days. It's been off the air so long"

It's on TV at least once a day on TNN. (They bought the rights to yank it off of syndication, in order to be the exclusive source for the show.) In their ads for the show, they are constantly bragging about how great their ST:TNG ratings are. So, ya might be wrong.

Anonymous

07-10-2002, 09:45 PM

The Star Trek license is tainted. Hell, the movies are tainted. Saw MIB2 today, and there was a trailer for Nemesis, and as soon as people figured out it was a Star Trek movie (when the Enterprise-E sailed onto screen), I heard the grumbles.

I cut my teeth on X-Wing... my favorite PC game of all time is the TIE Fighter's Collector's CD. I love space sims, and simply put, this genre is as dead as can be right now.

I-War2 was mind-numbingly frustrating and boring. It had potential, the grpahics were gorgeous, but there was a limit to my patience. I'd play 15 minutes on a mission only to get killed in the final, frustrating 16th minute, meaning I'd have to restart the whole damn thing and try and try again. I don't have that kind of time anymore, and that is far from my idea of fun.

Freespace/Freespace 2 were okay, but they simply didn't light anyone's fire.

I think the problem is that for 90-percent of these games, the plots are all the same. Take Alien "X", put in in conflict with Federation/Confederation/Imperial Human empire, and then throw mysterious Alien "Y" in halfway through. It's the same ol' same ol', and the gameplay is the same ol' same ol', and the missions are same ol' same ol. The only thing that really improves are graphics, but those can't carry a genre alone.

I think the only way to really relight this genre is for LucasArts to wait a while and then release a jaw-droppingly gorgous X-Wing game, and have someone actually come up with space combat multiplayer that is actually fun and addictive and popular (which is the hardest part). I'm talking cinematic-quality graphics that blow past what anyone has ever seen, or imagined.

The only problem is that the Star Wars prequels are really screwing things up. I take a look at the fighter designs there and I don't want anything to do with them. The Naboo fighter looks incredibly lame, especially compared against the sleek menace of an A-Wing or the brute looks of a B-Wing. But LucasArts is so tied into making Episode I, II, III products, the original trilogy is quickly becoming ancient history.

milo

07-10-2002, 10:09 PM

It's the same ol' same ol', and the gameplay is the same ol' same ol', and the missions are same ol' same ol. The only thing that really improves are graphics, but those can't carry a genre alone.

But then you suggest that to re-light this genre we need a game with jaw-droppingly good graphics? And multiplayer? Wouldn't it make more sense to address some of the other issues you raised instead? Like more interesting missions, or more tactical gameplay that relies more on movement and weapon selection than on energy and shield management?

Granted, I'm not sure that it can be done. There is precious little source material to go on if you want to design a compelling space battle. For example, each Star Wars film has had less of an emphasis on space combat than the one before (OK, ESB and RoTJ were a tie). And even if someone did come up with something innovative and exciting, it's not clear that the audience is still there.

--milo

MarchHare

07-10-2002, 10:09 PM

You know what would revitalise the genre and sell big time? A MMOG along the lines of Elite or Privateer using the Star Wars license. You could be a trader, a smuggler, bounty hunter, mercenary, pirate, or even be a pilot in the Imperial Navy chasing down the smugglers and pirates. If you could find them, you could even join with the Alliance and fly strike missions against Imperial outposts. In a persistant world, and if it was done right, that game would rule.

Who wouldn't want to pilot a YT-1300 Transport smuggling spice from Kessel past an Imperial blocade to sell to Jabba on Tatooine?

Brad Grenz

07-10-2002, 10:10 PM

I'm not that bothered that Lucas Arts isn't doing more original trilogy space sims. How many times can you play through the movies and have it still be interesting? Christ, after X-Wing and Tie Fighter you've seen both sides. Throw in X-Wing vs Tie Fighter and Alliance and you've played through with/against your friends and from yet another perspective. I wish to hell they would have spread to some of the expanded universe stuff (back when I cared we just called them novels and comics). They could have built campaigns based on Timothy Zahns' books, but no... I have to keep knocking out Death Stars like I'm playing intergalactic whack-a-mole.

I don't think the genre's dead, though. There are a few multi=platform hybrid game, on foot and in ship, like Dirk Diggler: Bounty Hunter (or whatever it's called) from Warthog, and Maelstrom. Both those are Xbox/PC games, maybe even PS2.

I hope the genre gets heathier. I bought Starlancer when it first came out, full price, and liked it, so I guess that makes me a diehard fan. Didn't do anything new or different, but it played well and had great production values. I don't think they ever released a patch for the game, which is either impressive, or sad. I'm still playing Tachyon: The Fringe (Bruce Campbell's game).

Anonymous

07-10-2002, 10:19 PM

"Saw MIB2 today, and there was a trailer for Nemesis, and [...] I heard the grumbles."

Well, if you were sitting near me in a theater where they showed a preview for MIB2, you would have heard me grumbling. What a crappy lookin' movie. I can't stomach the ads, let alone the thought of going to the theater and seein' that shit. The cinematic equivalent of Taco Bell food.

Anonymous

07-10-2002, 10:29 PM

As far as what would spice up space warfare sims, I think this would go a long way:

A "Red Faction" I-MOD like system fully implemented on the spaceships, so you can punch great big holes in the opposing starships, blow off their engines and watch the engines tumbling off into space (perhaps even toward your own ship, so you have to duck 'em), blow out the hell of the cockpits and see people flying off into space, etc., etc.

MORE DETAIL, MORE SENSE OF WONDER, MORE TERROR! I want to see giant scars on the outside of ships exactly where I've cut holes in them with lasers. I want to be able to blow off big pieces of enemy ships, and vice-versa. I want to be able to keep fighting after I've had a wing shot off, struggling to survive.

I hate that all these space sims thus far only seem to show generic damage on the ships I'm shooting at, until they just blow up in a boring fashion. In order to get a real feel of chaotic, dangerous combat, I want to have to dodge the crippled wrecks of opponents, to see exciting representations of the damage I'm doing to my opponents.

Another feature that would help in this regard: a replay system, as seen in all of those console racing games. I want to be able to watch the combat I just went through with exciting exterior camera angles. Most space sims allow you to see your ship from the outside, but it's impossible to fight or pilot from such angles. Give me a good replay option afterwards, with cinematic camera angles and frequent cutting between appropriate angles to get me excited about what I just accomplished (or how spectacularly I just failed). If console racing games can do this well, how 'bout space combat games?

Desslock

07-10-2002, 10:48 PM

>The last numbers I saw had Freespace 2 selling about 85,000 units in the US. It probably topped out at around 200,000 units worldwide.

Yeah, that's consistent with the numbers I've seen domestically. It only sold about half that before coming down in price though. Drag.

>War2 was mind-numbingly frustrating and boring. It had potential, the grpahics were gorgeous, but there was a limit to my patience.

I really liked IWar 2 - I wouldn't complain at all if there was another game or two of its quality coming down the pipe in the genre.

>Freespace/Freespace 2 were okay, but they simply didn't light anyone's fire.

Freespace 2 certainly lit mine. The first game was solid, but the second game is, in my opinion 'natch, the best game the genre's ever produced. One of the most intelligent games ever, with great plot, music, graphics, interface and incredible gameplay. There's always room for improving the AI in these games, but otherwise I think it was just about perfect.

Bridge Commander at least tried to do something different, but I'm not surprised it didn't sell well. It sold decently in its first month, but never really had much buzz. No space sim really has, since Xwing vs. Tie Fighter. That was the last commercially "big" space sim.

Stefan

Kool Moe Dee

07-10-2002, 10:50 PM

Anonymous

07-10-2002, 10:52 PM

I'm not just saying a vast improvement in graphics... actually talked to Larry Holland about this once. What we need is also a revolution in gameplay, as well.

For one, I think the Holy Grail would be actually re-enacting something like the Battle of Endor. X-Wing Alliance tries, but it pulls a lot of magic tricks to make you think the battle is larger than it actually is. But could you imagine something where there aren't just 10-12 fighters flying around, but hundreds? (We're talking CPU power a few years down the line, though.)

Plus, you can do more things with more fighters in the sky; maybe you're a squadron commander and you have to lead your squadron into the area of the fight where all of you can make a decisive difference, etc, etc. Then you can weave in an out of gigantic capital ships, making them accidentally trade fire with each other.

Yeah, it's rather fanciful and a lot of wishful thinking, but it's that kind of thing that would simply be an awesome experience.

Anonymous

07-10-2002, 11:23 PM

"You didn't play Bridge Commander, I guess. "

You caught me. It doesn't seem to load on my Diamond Stealth Lite 3D card.

Dave Long

07-11-2002, 07:04 AM

I apologize for the wrong number above. I guess I forgot a zero. I did dig up this link...

http://www.volitionwatch.com/articles/ArticleDisp.php?ID=11

...which notes the number in PC Gamer at around 26,000 in April of 2000 which was about six months after release. By that time, the original game had been marked down and the GOTY Edition was out. I don't think Interplay did a lot of full price sales on the game. I was one of them though...as Stefan has noted, it's just about perfect as a genre game.

--Dave

Ben Sones

07-11-2002, 07:14 AM

I thought that I-War 2 did a lot of really interesting things, even if it did many of them somewhat clumsily. The combat, in particular, was more entertaining than the typical space sim turning battle.

I also remain impressed with Freelancer, which I had the opportunity to sit down and play for about an hour at E3 this year. If there really is an issue with "joystick games," then it will be interesting to see how this game does, since it's made for mouse and keyboard.

Robert Sharp

07-11-2002, 08:51 AM

Well Lucas and Verant are planning to release an expansion down the road to Star Wars Galaxies that will let you fly ships. If the interface uses a joystick, instead of the RPGmouse interface that Earth and Beyond will use, it could help bring some interest back. The game itself should be huge by that point, and they are going to allow you to be bounty hunters, traders, fighters, etc. with these ships, so that might help. I, for one, would love that kind of environment. I really thought XW:A would foster an online community, with the whole gunnery thing and multiplayer fights, but it didn't work too well.

milo

07-11-2002, 11:20 AM

I also remain impressed with Freelancer, which I had the opportunity to sit down and play for about an hour at E3 this year. If there really is an issue with "joystick games," then it will be interesting to see how this game does, since it's made for mouse and keyboard.
Please share!

The descriptions I have read of Freelancer's control system make it sound like a choose-your-own-rail shooter (although I have not played it myself). Did you find the game impressive because of the control system or in spite of it?

--milo

Brian Rucker

07-11-2002, 11:38 AM

I'm pretty curious about Starshatter myself. I'll download that demo when it comes out, milo. Freelancer is also another game I'd like to hear more about.

The game I'd really like to see, but never will, would be a Terminus 2. Vicarious Visions had some genuinely great ideas in Terminus but it didn't seem to quite play out as well as it could have. There was dynamic trading and mission generation and NPCs that could develop individual 'relationships' of alliance or hostility as they encountered each other. They could even place bounties on each other or on you. The starship design was equally excellent with many tradeoffs to consider when putting your craft together - bigger wasn't always better. That's one thing that has put me off to many space sims in the past - designing a ship generally meant saving up to buy Mk VI as soon as possible - it's just like spending experience points to raise a level in a CRPG. More subtle options dealing with stealth considerations, weight and inertia, energy consumption, storage and generation, cargo capacity vs. onboard gear and weapons as part of a zero sum game makes for much more possible customization than simply saving up to buy a bunch of big guns and better torpedoes.

Unfortunately Terminus didn't offer a very good window into the relationships between NPC ships nor any way to communicate (aside from 'drop your cargo') or adjust your relationships with them (even Privateer allowed you to hail ships in passing just to chat). You could affect your standing with the three major factions or individual station chiefs but that was about it. The lack of overall production values didn't help either and the laggy and unstable multiplayer universe finally did her in.

If X:BtF 2 manages to keep the scope and complexity of the economic engine while making the actual space sim more, I dunno, exciting then it could really be worth a look. There's also supposedly a new Elite coming out for the PC but that was a rumor I heard ages ago.

Ben Sones

07-11-2002, 11:50 AM

The descriptions I have read of Freelancer's control system make it sound like a choose-your-own-rail shooter (although I have not played it myself). Did you find the game impressive because of the control system or in spite of it?

Because of it, at least in part. I mean, there are other aspects of the game that are also impressive (like the big dynamic galaxy), but I rather liked the controls.

It's a lot less like a rail shooter than it might seem from the descriptions. You can guide your ship manually whenever you want, using the mouse. It works as well as a joystick. But much of the time you'll want to use one of the many autopilot modes, which allow you to follow ships in a few different ways, go to specified locations, and so forth. In combat you can set the autopilot to follow the ship that you are fighting, then focus on shooting (you can move the targeting cursor independent of your heading, within limits). I guess that's a bit like a rail shooter, although it doesn't really feel like one, since you can take control of the thrusters if you want to. It definitely takes the emphasis off manuevering, but given that manuevering in most space sims boils down to ships taking high speed passes at each other until one dies, I really didn't miss it.

Jason Cross

07-11-2002, 12:42 PM

Freelancer, though the hardcore space-simmers will instantly deride it for the control scheme, probably stands the best chance of revitalizing the genre. Because of the control scheme.

Let's face it, Joe Average doesn't have a joystick, he doesn't want to manage a four-way hat and sixteen buttons, etc. Freelancer's mouse control scheme stands the best chance of breaking out of the Space Sim Grognard market.

I played it, and found it surprisingly fun. It was the first space sim I played in a long time that was still pretty action packed, but where I didn't feel like I was criss-crossing or spinning in circles in empty space. It also became immediately apparent that aiming with a joystick in a space sim is like aiming with a joystick in an FPS - the mouse is just infinitely more precise and intuitive.

I had a lot more fun actually playing Freelancer at E3 than I thought it would be. I really hope people give the control scheme a chance.

Now the rest of the game may be a broken mess...I don't know. E3 isn't exactly the place to judge the meta-game. =)

milo

07-11-2002, 01:28 PM

No, I have no problem with using the mouse to steer a space ship. My joystick recently conked out on me, so I've been playing Starshatter with mouse and keyboard for weeks, and I find it to be just as much fun, if not as realistic, as playing with a HOTAS. Mouse control seems to work better with arcade style physics, but is still playable even in Newtonian mode.

The thing I don't "get" about Freelancer is the neuronet autopilot system. Aside from "follow that car" and "run away!" what else can you do with it? What happens when you and the target decide to follow each other? When I steer the ship myself, I don't think in terms of discrete maneuvers. I think about where I want to be in relation to the target/threat and then I just go there. Pushing a button to do the following sounds restrictive and artificial.

But since you have tried it and I haven't, I will take your word for the fact that it turns out to be fun anyway. :)

It was the first space sim I played in a long time that was still pretty action packed, but where I didn't feel like I was criss-crossing or spinning in circles in empty space.

Space sims have always had a hard time conveying the sense of a 3D world. (I think this may be a bigger obstacle for new players even than not having a joystick.) There is no terrain and no walls to act as reference points. The ships themselves are often so far separated as to appear nothing more than dimensionless dots on the HUD. The game tends to look and feel two-dimensional, and I think that causes inexperienced players a) to become disoriented and b) to use 2D movement strategies.

One way to help solve this problem is to use 3D motion trails. Whether they are drawn on the HUD, or generated by the ships' drive plumes, they provide a visual cue to give the player a sense of movement and relative distance.

--milo

Ben Sones

07-11-2002, 02:52 PM

Trails help, but the biggest problem with space sims is that they DO take place in empty space. Manuevering, in any sim, boils down to getting the enemy into a firing position. But in most sims there are challenges that make the process tricky. In flight sims you have to deal with physics, and gravity, and the ground. You have to worry about maintaining energy, so you seek an altitude advantage. The enemy can't move in every possible direction (you can be fairly certain that most aircraft won't break off into a 90-degree climb, for instance), so you try to out-think his defensive manuevers. In physics-heavy sims you have even more to deal with--your aircraft manuevers differently at different velocities, so you have to manage speed to match your combat strategy.

In space sims you just have the physics, and in most space sims you don't even have that (I appreciate the ones that do, however, such as I-War and Starshatter and Terminus). Maneuvering is reduced to turning to face your opponent, in pretty much any way you can. It's often not even a turning battle, because the ships in most sims can corner on a dime. It's more like a joust; you pass and fire, and then turn around and do it again. Adding Newtonian Physics helps; adding avionics that offer more options than "turn" and "fire" and "divert energy to shields" also helps. I'd like to see a space sim take it a lot farther and postulate what real, semi-near future space combat might be like, based on modern air combat. It would probably take place at considerable range, and involve a great degree of stealth and energy management (since velocity is not limited by air friction in space), a cat and mouse game that's one part finding the enemy and one part getting into a favorable firing position. The weapons involved probably wouldn't be guns and lasers, with a few Stinger-like missiles thrown in the mix. Think about it--you are surrounded by millions of miles of empty vacuum. Why not pack a rack of tactical nuclear missiles? Like sub warfare, one good shot can end a fight... you just have to get that one good shot.

The thing I don't "get" about Freelancer is the neuronet autopilot system. Aside from "follow that car" and "run away!" what else can you do with it?

There are a few different flavors of "follow that car," and you can tweak your flight path without breaking out of autopilot. But like I said, it's mostly not about the manuevering.

milo

07-11-2002, 03:56 PM

In space sims you just have the physics, and in most space sims you don't even have that (I appreciate the ones that do, however, such as I-War and Starshatter and Terminus). Maneuvering is reduced to turning to face your opponent, in pretty much any way you can. It's often not even a turning battle, because the ships in most sims can corner on a dime. It's more like a joust; you pass and fire, and then turn around and do it again.

Newtonian physics are not the answer to this problem. Realistic physics make dogfighting in space practically impossible. Any sim that tries to use realistic physics and still have dogfighting will be forced to cheat the physics at some point.

One way to assert the primacy of maneuver in space is to get rid of shields on fighters. Give fighters armor that can withstand perhaps a dozen solid gun hits and one near miss with a homing missile. Give the fighters active countermeasures to spoof the missiles.

Result - you can no longer safely joust: head to head gun passes are mutually assured destruction, and even then only if you are as good a shot as the computer. In order to succeed you must maneuver into a position where you can take a shot at your enemy and none of your enemies can take a shot at you. You can no longer concentrate on a gun shot when your missile threat receiver starts screaming at you - you must drop a decoy and break turn. Likewise you can use your own missiles to pressure your enemy into breaking off an attack on something you are protecting - your wingman or the carrier for instance. Or even yourself.

It is very difficult to defend against a coordinated attack from two separate fighters at once. This means that you and your wingman need to work together, picking off enemy units one at a time, while simultaneously watching for a counterattack. It also means that if you lose your wingman you are in deep trouble, and so the stakes are raised and the emotional involvement of the player is raised.

(IWar did some of these same kind of things, but they did it by using limited shield coverage instead of decoys.)

The downside is that combat becomes kind of hard, especially if you are used to the style of Wing Commander...

--milo

Anonymous

07-11-2002, 04:58 PM

"One way to assert the primacy of maneuver in space is to get rid of shields on fighters."

Yeah, for some reason "shields" have become something that is taken for granted in cheap sci-fi films, games, and stories since Star Trek. Seems strange since they are an entirely fictional creation.

Babylon 5 did that aspect of space combat right; no shields, and a lot of spaceship design attention paid to how gravity is generated in outer space.

Jason McCullough

07-11-2002, 05:18 PM

Shields are taken for granted because any weapon damaging enough to look cool will blow up an unshielded object in seconds. Playing a instadeath game isn't too fun. :(

Sean Tudor

07-11-2002, 05:32 PM

(IWar did some of these same kind of things, but they did it by using limited shield coverage instead of decoys.)

One thing I do like about I-War 2 is the sense of how vast "space" is. The combat model IMO is just right.

One thing which I don't like about I-War 2 is the difficulty of the missions. It's not as bad as the original I-War though.

I am still stuck on the Haven mission in the 2nd Chapter of I-War 2. As usual you have to be able to manage about 50 things at once. :roll:

Alan Au

07-11-2002, 05:39 PM

One way to assert the primacy of maneuver in space is to get rid of shields on fighters. Give fighters armor that can withstand perhaps a dozen solid gun hits and one near miss with a homing missile. Give the fighters active countermeasures to spoof the missiles.
Well, this is one of the reasons why TIE Fighter was such a blast (pun intended) to play. The ideology of the unshielded ship made for a much more intense experience.

Cap ships seem much more vulnerable in space without shields. Sure they've got mass going for them, but that's a double edged sword as you lose most of the manueverability. Still, pilots need a place to keep all of their stuff...

- Alan

Brian Rucker

07-11-2002, 05:44 PM

Shields are taken for granted because any weapon damaging enough to look cool will blow up an unshielded object in seconds. Playing a instadeath game isn't too fun. :(

Tell that to jet combat flight simmers. One near miss with a missile can do you in - "Archer Inbound!" The drama comes from the electronics battle and maintaining situational awareness which probably isn't quite as viscerally thrilling as a Star Wars dogfight but has a charm of its own.

I think I agree with Ben in that I tend to enjoy the average flight sim more than the average space sim because physics adds flavor to maneuvering. Whether I'm pulling blinding g's in a screaming, wild, turn as I try to burn off excess speed in my Viper while praying for tone on the bandit on my 3-9 line or I'm just struggling to drag the nose up, one more goddamn foot, in a bullet riddled Spad VII and stalling just, precisely, right so that I can rudder into a passing Fokker as he soars past - there's always an opponent out there that adds drama and it isn't an aircraft. And like Ben I tend to appreciate those space sims that at least make a nod to physics for similiar reasons.

Robert Sharp

07-11-2002, 07:21 PM

Brian Rucker

07-12-2002, 05:53 AM

Well, Babylon 5 had the WhiteStars, which were not shielded, but did have some sort of inertia dampening armor that allowed them to take hits, as long as they weren't straight on. Something like that could be implemented, depending on the weapon types in a given game. As for the physics problem, unless you are flying too close to black holes or in an atmosphere, not much can be done to add that to a space sim.

This is true but one way a space sim can compensate is through creative use of thrusters and an attempt to simulate a frictionless environment. We talked a bit about HUDs before and a good implimentation can make positional, relative, maneuvering much easier. Knowing which thrusters to hit, for how long, and when to stop can add a bit of drama to an otherwise never ending, circling, duel. It's a bit like playing a musical instrument. I'm not asking for exacting Newtonian physics but something that captures the feel of space combat. Again, Terminus did a good job with that as did I-War. Then again, I'm open to other ideas. Maybe the Freelancer system of simplicity will be well implimented. Just have to wait and see.

MarchHare

07-12-2002, 01:59 PM

Shields are taken for granted because any weapon damaging enough to look cool will blow up an unshielded object in seconds. Playing a instadeath game isn't too fun.

I seem to remember having a lot more fun in TIE Fighter when I was flying the weaker craft without shields (TIE Fighters, Interceptors, and Bombers). Once every mission involved flying the TIE Advanced, Defender, or Missle Boat, your craft was so overpowered that you didn't really have to worry about being destroyed.

Jason McCullough

07-12-2002, 02:43 PM

Well, instadeath *can* be fun, but it requires a completely different style of game. I'd imagine it also isn't as popular.

Anonymous

07-12-2002, 05:24 PM

A selectable option to restart right where you died might make it acceptable to the masses.

Jason McCullough

07-12-2002, 05:41 PM

A selectable option to restart right where you died might make it acceptable to the masses.

Yep, or in-mission saves. That was what made unshielded craft in Tie Fighter so frustrating.

Bub, Andrew

07-12-2002, 05:44 PM

You just replayed TIE Fighter didn't you McCullough? Did it stand up? I imagine it did. My first experience with it was the CD-ROM collection and I remember getting a real kick out of that mission where you're Darth Vader's wingman.

Desslock

07-12-2002, 07:07 PM

>You just replayed TIE Fighter didn't you McCullough? Did it stand up?

The version that shipped with the Xwing Collector's Edition definitely stands up. It was completely redone using the 3D accelerated graphics engine that was added in a patch to Xwing vs. TIE fighter (prior to the Balance of Power expansion).

Jason McCullough

07-12-2002, 08:20 PM

I agree with Desslock: it's just as good today as it was then (the XvT engine rerelease, that is).

I'm playing off and on, so I've only got to mission 10 or so. I'm trying to get every secondary and bonus goal on the hard difficulty level and write up how to do it.

There's two ways: you need to either be an inhuman fighter pilot, or exploit scripting oversights like no one's business.

Fun fun fun, though, but I still get really angry when my T/F gets blown up by a stray shot a half-hour into the mission. So far, the hardest mission is B2M5, the Lusla; here's my bit from the not-finished strategy guide:

B2M5
This is the hardest mission in the game, but here's the cheeseball way
to do it. Make sure the CRL takes hits and fires back at the T/Bs
before you move within firing range of it. Clear off all 4 of Z-95
Killiam while you wait, but make sure the CRL doesn't light you up.
Once Killiam is gone, the CRL will be so intent on blowing up the T/Bs
that it'll happily ignore you as you fly in, park, and blow off all its
weapons. Don't attack any Z-95s at all until all the Y-Wings are dead,
as the destruction of the Z-95s triggers more Y-Wings. Clear off the
Y-Wings as they arrive, but make sure to help take out the M/CRV at some
point. The hard part is blowing up the M/FRG; it's hard to get a decoy
for it. Just ignore the E/Ss and focus on the M/FRG, as it'll flee once
the E/Ss take serious damage. Make sure and inspect/destroy SHU Omlaut
when you get a chance, too.

Boilerplate descriptions around a cheesy trick. Surprisingly, B5M1, where you need to take out like 8 T/As, a minefield, and a bunch of rebel fighters by yourself in a T/I, wasn't bad at all:

B5M1
This mission isn't as hard as it looks. Here's what you do:
1. Destroy the T/Is.
2. Destroy all the mines but one. If you really want to, you can blow
up the last mine and then take out the T/As, but it's easier to wait
and do it with backup. I wasn't able to destroy more than half of
them this way without dying, and T/A Delta launches early this way
for some reason (this "feature" isn't the mission editor code, so
go figure.)
3. Inspect and destroy the CNT/Ds.
4. Inspect and destroy SHU Lambda. I headed directly for the Protector
once the Osprey arrived to get it quickly.
5. Destroy the T/Bs. Make sure you don't run into them, they're slow.
6. Destroy the X-Wings.
7. Destroy the Y-Wings.
8. Destroy the T/As. Occasionally fly back towards the Osprey; you
don't want to be too close to the Protector.

The Osprey will show up as soon as you finish destroying the CNT/Ds, and
bring 3 shielded T/Is to help. While you're shooting things you'll need
to keep an eye out for damaged ships fleeing back to the hangar, as
you'll need to get every one of them for the bonus objectives. The
only hard parts are making sure you don't miss any ships, and the tedium
of clearing out the mines,; I only took two mines out on each pass to
ensure I didn't get hit. The shielded T/Is do an *excellent* job on the
T/As.

B9M2 requires getting lucky, though.

wumpus

07-12-2002, 08:49 PM

Kool Moe Dee

07-12-2002, 09:18 PM

milo

07-12-2002, 11:06 PM

@Jason:

I've not played the game, so perhaps I'm just a little confused by your descriptions of the missions. It sounds like the odds are twenty or thirty to one against you. Let me see, how can I put this...

Why aren't you dead? Why don't four or five or ten enemy fighters gang up on you and just kill you? Or do you also have like twenty or thirty wingmen?

--milo

Brian Rucker

07-12-2002, 11:21 PM

These kinds of scripting exploits don't strike me as "fun". I appreciate the desire to be a completist and a masochist as well as the next guy, but.. isn't this exactly the kind of stuff we're supposed to complain about in today's games? Puzzle missions? Arbitrary mission scripting? Ridiculous AI? Exploits?

Doing it in your free time, for the sheer enjoyment of it all.. is a little scary.

That's why a lot of those things are secondary or bonus/secret goals. They're not needed to advance, but skilled/maniacal players can unlock goodies or be otherwise rewarded for their skill.

Hey, I thought people liked that kind of stuff!

When I first played TIE Fighter I didn't know there was an alternative to scripted missions and, frankly, I had a ball. Star Wars, cool voices, special effects, secret mission objectives, etc. Even when I go back to play it again I still enjoy it but I'd say it's despite the puzzle-like missions rather than because of them. All in all, if you have to have a game like that it doesn't hurt to have well designed and varied missions, which TIE Fighter did.

Since those wonderful, naive, days I've discovered dynamic campaigns and randomized missions. They may not be as sculpted but I tend to find the experience much more enjoyable as I feel I'm playing the game rather than having it play me - being the rat in the maze isn't my ideal role as gamer. If there's a good strategic underpinning (trade, war, etc.) each tactical battle doesn't have to be an epic tale - the sort you can only get through scripting. Meaning comes from context in these cases. It also forces a player to deal with his environment as an unpredictable entity and rely more on the systems being simulated rather than a learned knowledge of a particular mission that's being replayed. Situations like fleeing or overcoming failures are now possible solutions rather than moot. Being able to play through mistakes and having that add drama rather than forcing a save-and-restore is really a plus for immersion.

Anyhow, my two cents as usual.