nBSG fans, get some Kleenex

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-01-26 02:31pm

You'll need it.

Teaser trailer for the Freespace nBSG mod, which - if I understand correctly - will be released as a freeware, standalone game.

Homepage
Forums

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2006-01-26 02:41pm

Does that mean i don't need to find my freespace disks?

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-01-26 02:44pm

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.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2006-01-26 03:24pm

Holy shit, that looks awesome.

And this is a stand-alone mod, you say?

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-01-26 03:27pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Holy shit, that looks awesome.

And this is a stand-alone mod, you say?

Apparently. They're building it on top of the Freespace II engine, and since it's open source, they can redistribute it.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-01-26 04:01pm

Sweet!

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2006-01-26 04:07pm

From reading it, they've been working on this thing for months. Why are we only hearing about this now!

I hope they can stick as close to the show as much as they can. Such as launching out of a tube which would be awesome. A team member said the trailer is a bit outdated from reading the thread there so I hope they've enhanced it by a ton and release a new trailer.

A crazy dream was inspired from this, a sim game with the CIC attached! Now that'd be a crazily fantastic multiplayer game.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-01-26 05:30pm

Soontir C'boath wrote:From reading it, they've been working on this thing for months. Why are we only hearing about this now!

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.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-01-26 05:36pm

Excellent. We saw a very promising trailer a while back, but this teaser's shown that the project's moving along great.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-26 06:09pm

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.

Ypoknons · Post by **Ypoknons** » 2006-01-26 06:31pm

The Babylon Project is also built on FS2-SCP and it's also standalone. You haven't heard about nBSG for FS2-SCP probably because it was kept pretty quiet on the forums - Omniscaper is pretty much the driving force behind the project. You should look at the Viper-7 model. It's incredible.

Admiral Valdemar - certainly I-War 2 has the Newtonian physics, but on the other hand it's tough to fly a fighter in I-War2. The fov pretty much means that fighters end up being tiny and you rely on the auto aiming, and most realism mods tend to make it so that you die really quickly, as is "realistic". FS2's longer dogfights are easier to get into as a fighter pilot. Try flying a Starfury in Buda5 to see what I'm talking about - one error and you're toast, and enemy fighters are terribly difficult to hit. If you made the fighters larger, it'll still be difficult to get the scale of things right.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-01-26 07:02pm

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.

Maybe I-War 2 isn't well suited for starfighter combat simulation, but Valdemar does have a point about Newtonian combat being important, and FS2 being rather overrated.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2006-01-26 07:13pm

I'm guessing flying in I-War 2 is basically like playing a 3D version of, say, Asteroids or Sinistar. If so, then such gameplay is more or less impossible for me to actually play, personally.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-01-26 07:24pm

maybe flying vipers isn't for you

Or... maybe such games should, like Independence War, have an "Action/Simulation" option so that those who want Newtonian combat can have it, and those who want aerofighter combat can have it.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-26 07:31pm

Sorry, but in nBSG they fly realistically and I-War 2 is a sim I've had plenty of dogfights in fighters and enjoyed every one. So what if it's hard to control (which it isn't if you have any sense of spacial dynamics) and you die easier? How does making the game an arcade shooter make it a nBSG simulator?

It doesn't.

May as well have kept the models the same from FS2 and just renamed the game, because it's no more accurate just because it has models that happen to be from a TV series.

Ypoknons · Post by **Ypoknons** » 2006-01-26 08:10pm

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.

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.

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.

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2006-01-26 08:40pm

I am seriously digging all that fire that Galactica is spitting out.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-01-26 08:50pm

I think I was sold at "Free Standalone Game", expecially considering my currently cash-straped position.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-01-26 08:57pm

Ypoknons wrote:
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.
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.

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.

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.

The FS2 engine was always a 'ww2 dogfight' engine. It was a slow one too, and only recently have modders even begun to add in more newtonian effects.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-01-26 10:35pm

SylasGaunt wrote:I am seriously digging all that fire that Galactica is spitting out.

Yes, though they seem to have confused the missile tubes with gun batteries.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2006-01-26 10:47pm

Meh. Was hoping that they'd use a Vendetta-style flight model. As it is it just looks like a re-tread of every other space shooter with the added limitations of being based on BSG (i.e. only one capital ship, three types of fighters and nothing of importance can happen in the plot so as not to interfere with the TV show.)

Also, seeing as how I've yet to find a fan-made mod or even a professionally-made expansion pack to an existing game that didn't absolutely suck balls, I think I'm going to pass on this one.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-01-26 10:52pm

Ypoknons wrote:
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.
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.

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.

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.

But that doesn't mean I can't bitch about the fact that they're not making the game the way I'd prefer it. If I go to play a game based on an existing franchise I expect it to be true to the franchise so that I can re-enact certain scenes, manuevers, and what-have-you from what I've seen on the television. Others may be more forgiving. If you take the time to read my post in it's entirety, you'll note that I qualified my statement with the phrase "for me." Furthermore, my very next post in this thread included the suggestion that such a game could incorporate an option for both styles of play as was incorporated in I-War 1.

I still maintain that Freespace 2 is wildly overrated.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-01-27 01:02am

Build it on the fucking B5-IFH engine. Which does the 3d space combat beautifully...

Ypoknons · Post by **Ypoknons** » 2006-01-27 08:57am

Uraniun235 wrote:I still maintain that Freespace 2 is wildly overrated.

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?

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2006-01-27 12:12pm

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.

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.