Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=84553
The game is based on the Freespace 2 engine which is now open source. Certain files from FS2 are still needed but the team will package them together with the mod itself so there will be no need to have the original game.
Apparently. They're building it on top of the Freespace II engine, and since it's open source, they can redistribute it.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Holy shit, that looks awesome.
And this is a stand-alone mod, you say?
I consider this good news. Every time I hear about a big modding project and all they have is an idea and some models, I quickly kill any exitement that might have been building and forget about it. Lots of ambitious mods spring-up, but few actually live to completion. These guys have been working for two years and have a lot of work done. So the only thing likely to kill their game is the owners of the nBSG copyright suddenly deciding to be assholes. Therefore, I have allowed myself to become very exited.Soontir C'boath wrote:From reading it, they've been working on this thing for months. Why are we only hearing about this now!
If you take a realism centrist than I-War 2 style Newtonian physics will be for you. But you must remember that Freespace 2 not only came before the Newtonian wave (though it was after I-War 1) but as sci-fi it has nothing to replicate, and that is a universe on its own. Whilst I absolute endorse realism in games, I fully accept branching out from realism for others - Black and White's god powers, Battlezone's hover tanks, Freedom Force. In spite of their selective portrayal of reality, especially in the form of physics, they are not worse games for it because it is part of their premise.Uraniun235 wrote:I don't know about you, but for me, the whole point of making a "Star Trek/Babylon 5/Battlestar Galactica/Hello Kitty" game is not "oh hey we put in a model that looks like a Viper isn't this neat?" but "oh hey this feels like I'm actually flying a Viper against inbound Cylons!", and a big part of that is being able to duplicate what's been seen on TV/movies.
In flight sims, realism may be either not possible, or a turn-off for many categories of gamers. For example, B5: I've Found Her, is a beautiful freeware starfury simulator with fully newtonian movement and show-accurate dogfights. The problem? It's hard as hell trying to figure out vector addition while you're being shot at by a squadron of Frazis and trying to keep your aim.Ypoknons wrote:If you take a realism centrist than I-War 2 style Newtonian physics will be for you. But you must remember that Freespace 2 not only came before the Newtonian wave (though it was after I-War 1) but as sci-fi it has nothing to replicate, and that is a universe on its own. Whilst I absolute endorse realism in games, I fully accept branching out from realism for others - Black and White's god powers, Battlezone's hover tanks, Freedom Force. In spite of their selective portrayal of reality, especially in the form of physics, they are not worse games for it because it is part of their premise.Uraniun235 wrote:I don't know about you, but for me, the whole point of making a "Star Trek/Babylon 5/Battlestar Galactica/Hello Kitty" game is not "oh hey we put in a model that looks like a Viper isn't this neat?" but "oh hey this feels like I'm actually flying a Viper against inbound Cylons!", and a big part of that is being able to duplicate what's been seen on TV/movies.
That said, the nBSG mod does have a universe to replicate. It is only flawed if you see it as a nBSG simulator - if realism is what you're looking for, then you can decry it. But I do not mind an arcade interpetation. C&C General is an arcade interpetation of real life - yet some enjoy it. Believe or not, game mechcanics DO change in the nBSG mod, so it will feel different from FS2 in less drastic ways. I doubt fighters will be as heavily shielded as in FS2. So it's a stylistic interpetation of nBSG. As long as people know they're not getting a straight port of the show, it's fine. You also have to prove that your experience with Newtonian physics in space combat sims reflects the experience of others. Of course I wanted I-War 2 to sell well - but would it have sold well, even given all the marketing it deserved?
In Call of Duty, are you getting an Operation Flashpoint or America's Army level of realism? Nope. But are my gaming tastes somehow bad if I prefer a stylistic interpertation of reality? Not necessarily. It's a mix of the real and gaming convention that I find comfortable with, a mix that I will enjoy, and that's all that matters.
Is a realistic game always better than something that is not entirely realistic? Rome Total War's dominance of the strategy genre has us thinking yes, but RTW is only one case in one genre. Even for say HL2, though it had great physics for the world around you, its gameplay mechanics hardly reflected the realities of gun combat.
Yes, though they seem to have confused the missile tubes with gun batteries.SylasGaunt wrote:I am seriously digging all that fire that Galactica is spitting out.
Dude, I have no problem with aerofighter combat. I played and loved Wing Commander and X-Wing (although I never got around to playing TIE-Fighter) and I know full well that such a style of play can be immensely rewarding. I'm not trying to attack arcade-style dogfight games.Ypoknons wrote:If you take a realism centrist than I-War 2 style Newtonian physics will be for you. But you must remember that Freespace 2 not only came before the Newtonian wave (though it was after I-War 1) but as sci-fi it has nothing to replicate, and that is a universe on its own. Whilst I absolute endorse realism in games, I fully accept branching out from realism for others - Black and White's god powers, Battlezone's hover tanks, Freedom Force. In spite of their selective portrayal of reality, especially in the form of physics, they are not worse games for it because it is part of their premise.Uraniun235 wrote:I don't know about you, but for me, the whole point of making a "Star Trek/Babylon 5/Battlestar Galactica/Hello Kitty" game is not "oh hey we put in a model that looks like a Viper isn't this neat?" but "oh hey this feels like I'm actually flying a Viper against inbound Cylons!", and a big part of that is being able to duplicate what's been seen on TV/movies.
That said, the nBSG mod does have a universe to replicate. It is only flawed if you see it as a nBSG simulator - if realism is what you're looking for, then you can decry it. But I do not mind an arcade interpetation. C&C General is an arcade interpetation of real life - yet some enjoy it. Believe or not, game mechcanics DO change in the nBSG mod, so it will feel different from FS2 in less drastic ways. I doubt fighters will be as heavily shielded as in FS2. So it's a stylistic interpetation of nBSG. As long as people know they're not getting a straight port of the show, it's fine. You also have to prove that your experience with Newtonian physics in space combat sims reflects the experience of others. Of course I wanted I-War 2 to sell well - but would it have sold well, even given all the marketing it deserved?
In Call of Duty, are you getting an Operation Flashpoint or America's Army level of realism? Nope. But are my gaming tastes somehow bad if I prefer a stylistic interpertation of reality? Not necessarily. It's a mix of the real and gaming convention that I find comfortable with, a mix that I will enjoy, and that's all that matters.
Is a realistic game always better than something that is not entirely realistic? Rome Total War's dominance of the strategy genre has us thinking yes, but RTW is only one case in one genre. Even for say HL2, though it had great physics for the world around you, its gameplay mechanics hardly reflected the realities of gun combat.
Eh sorry I quoted you and was writing with Admiral Valdemar in mind. I did notice your acceptance of aracde type games. That said, is it the fact that FS2 is overrated because it lacks the option for Newtonian physics, or is it something else?Uraniun235 wrote:I still maintain that Freespace 2 is wildly overrated.
Um, Open Source? That's news to me. I've done some heavy modding to I-War 2, and I've been following it for years - while the devs are WONDERFUL at helping modders, and the mod tools are quite extensive, it's not open source, not by a long shot.Admiral Valdemar wrote:Yeah, looks nice. Thing is, you're flying like a plane. Wow.
Not getting that. People wank too much over FS2. What this should have been built on was the I-War 2 engine, which is also open source in near totality.
Then I'd get excited.