Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Boom Owl

Moldy Crow: So Disappointed...

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mep said:

@StevenO Dark Forces had its own engine and predates Quake.

Dark Forces came out soon after Doom, with its own game engine that was much more advanced than Doom's. While Doom had only 2D levels, DF was fully 3D. 
Dark Forces was the state of the art when it came out.

10 hours ago, ThalanirIII said:

For its day, true. But it's undeniably not great now. It comes down to nostalgia really. 

That is like saying that The Last Supper fresco was okay for its day but its not great now. Or that Citizen Kane was okay for its day, but not great now.

The technique in a piece of art needs to be judged within its own medium's constraints.
If given the same constraints, there is no other thing that comes even close to it, then the work is a masterwork regardless of how many later stuff has come out that is better just because they aren't restricted to the same constraints.

DF needed to run on machines that couldn't load and much less display a picture taken with your phone today, on processors that would need hours to display this forum page.

The fact that many other shooters have come out later that require hardware 100 or 1000 times more powerful to display content 100 or 1000 times more complex doesn't take the quality of masterwork to anything before.

(And don't get me started with cases like X-Wing and TIE Fighter, that delivered a kind of gameplay that was at least 10 times more deep and complex in those machines than what EA's Battlefront games is delivering today with much more powerful hardware)

Edited by Azrapse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pimpbacca said:

 

 

I remembered this scene distinctly for some reason. The ship is shown "in game", so it's not that hard to get an idea of scale

DarkF-ship-anoat.jpg

And see, Wook, WoTC? They didn't take the first appearance of it as gospel, in terms of size. Which is stupid! It's appropriately sized in the games and cutscenes.
 

See that? FFG did the scale right. (It has two seats, it's really not what you'd call a multi person starship so much as you'd call it a coup in space.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Azrapse said:

(And don't get me started with cases like X-Wing and TIE Fighter, that delivered a kind of gameplay that was at least 10 times more deep and complex in those machines than what EA's Battlefront games is delivering today with much more powerful hardware)

The complexity & depth of a game does not mean that it's better than another. BF 2015 was meant to appeal to people who had never played a SW game before, and it did that. There's a reason X wing & TIE fighter don't have reboots (I'd love one, don't get me wrong).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Well, when compared to other ships (Y-Wing and X-Wing in particular), the idea of the HWK holding two crew is actually very feasible. Not the most comfortable option, but do able.

 

as for the size debate, it is one that is not helped by FFG. In x-Wing, it is one size, but in their RPG, it is closer in size to a YT-1300. 

Yeah, I think it all depends on the source. Is it a fighter or a freighter. Is is just bigger than an X-wing or nearly as big as the falcon. In X-wing it is a fighter that handles like a freighter, wtf that is all about.

Edited by Mep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ThalanirIII said:

The complexity & depth of a game does not mean that it's better than another. BF 2015 was meant to appeal to people who had never played a SW game before, and it did that. There's a reason X wing & TIE fighter don't have reboots (I'd love one, don't get me wrong).

Did you mean "popular"? Because you wrote "better"... And then you went on explaining why BF is more popular than X-wing.

Or you truly mean that "popular" = "better"?

I mean, even if you want to argue that "better" is something subjective, you only need to compare the awards TIE Fighter (1994) won with the awards Battlefront (2015) won from the game industry.
While one was considered one of the greatest games of all time and game of its year, the other barely got some recognition to its sound effects...

Edited by Azrapse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

Did you mean "popular"? Because you wrote "better"... And then you went on explaining why BF is more popular than X-wing.

Or you truly mean that "popular" = "better"?

You were suggesting BF15 was worse than  X wing and TIE Fighter because of its simplicity. I was saying that they aimed to do different things and are therefore not directly compatible.

 

Fwiw, popular arguably does mean better because more people enjoy it, more people buy it, and it earns more money for the studio. That sounds 'better' to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  @AzrapseVery true. You have to judge a thing in the context of its time. DF really took the FPS to a whole new level with both game play and story telling. Something Doom never did. Quake was really playing catch up to Dark Forces even if in the end it prove to be the engine of choice due to its support of openGL 3D graphic acceleration and their partnership with 3dfx voodoo. That is however all after Dark Forces' time. Like most video games, its day in the sun wasn't very long. Actually back then, games had a much shorter life span than they do today.

Flight sims were all the rage back in the 90s. For some reason they stopped being popular or being made? I blame consoles for the death of many great things. One can say the same about MMOs and their eventual decline. Now it is apps on phones. Yeah, they sure are popular but is something like Mobile Strike actually good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look. I love my flight sims and I want them back.

But getting mad at Battlefront's Fighter Squadrons for not being as in depth is BEYOND. SILLY. It's a completely different type of mindset and approach to Star Wars fighter combat and you know what? I really like Fighter Squadrons. I like it, perhaps not as much as XWA or even Rogue Squadron, but you know what?

It's accessible, it's fast, it's fun, it's easy. It's a good time.

What's so bad about just a good time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThalanirIII said:

Fwiw, popular arguably does mean better because more people enjoy it, more people buy it, and it earns more money for the studio. That sounds 'better' to me.

Ah, okay. Well, good to know, because there is no point to discuss it further.
I would never dare to say in a public forum that the Transformer movies are better than Citizen Kane, because they make more money than the other.
Or that Justin Bieber is better than Mozart, because of the same reason.

But I am not truly surprised that there are people that think like that. Sad, yes. Surprised, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mep said:

Yeah, I think it all depends on the source. Is it a fighter or a freighter. Is is just bigger than an X-wing or nearly as big as the falcon. In X-wing it is a fighter that handles like a freighter, wtf that is all about.

If I was in charge of fixing the Crow's canon I could guarantee you it'd be done right.

There is only one other person that surpasses/rivals my knowledge on the Crow, and that's one Millennium Falsehood.  He's the guy that made this years ago.

the_incredible_cross_sections_moldy_crow

 

Hell it's why I know the guy, we're buddies. But seriously, if he and I were allowed to sort out the HWK-290? Not only would it be properly sorted out and perfectly finished up.

We'd make **** sure nobody ever wronged the vessel type again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Look. I love my flight sims and I want them back.

But getting mad at Battlefront's Fighter Squadrons for not being as in depth is BEYOND. SILLY. It's a completely different type of mindset and approach to Star Wars fighter combat and you know what? I really like Fighter Squadrons. I like it, perhaps not as much as XWA or even Rogue Squadron, but you know what?

It's accessible, it's fast, it's fun, it's easy. It's a good time.

What's so bad about just a good time?

I'm not mad that Battlefront is not as deep as X-wing. I would be stupid to claim that when it is not even half as deep as Rogue Squadron was, that was already "X-wing for those that can't".
I think Rogue Squadron filled up a market that X-wing couldn't fill up by itself.

What makes me mad is that there isn't a proper X-wing-like game to complement Battlefront, as X-wing and Rogue Squadron complemented each other in the 90s.
Mad that the Star Wars videogame license has fallen on the hands of EA, no less, that guarantees that they will shamelessly aim at the absolute minimum common denominator audience, that plays games not because they are good, but because they are popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Captain Lackwit

That image is neat.

Two thoughts:

1. The manuverability portion suggests it should have something like the E-Wings dial. The gimbled wings mean 1 hard turns, and really any hard turn should be at minimum white. 

2. The goggles used for visibility could factor in somehow. Not sure how...guess the 360 arc covers it already. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal preference, here. Since it's too late to buff the statline into something the HWK-290 should have, I think it makes sense to promote the "Moldy Crow" to fill the general support / electronic warfare type role it was likely intended to fill back in Wave 3. 

Moldy Crow, 3pts
HWK-290 Only
Your upgrade bar gains the [System] and [Tech] upgrade icons. You may ignore the "Large Ship Only" restriction when equipping upgrade cards.

Now there you have a capable high-tech, moddable support ship. Countermeasures, Sensor Jammer, Pattern Analyser... let's go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Azrapse said:

Ah, okay. Well, good to know, because there is no point to discuss it further.
I would never dare to say in a public forum that the Transformer movies are better than Citizen Kane, because they make more money than the other.
Or that Justin Bieber is better than Mozart, because of the same reason.

But I am not truly surprised that there are people that think like that. Sad, yes. Surprised, no.

There is no metric for 'better' in most things which involve opinion. Mathematics? You can define 'better'. Videogames, music, or movies are not the same.

Does better mean 'earned more money'? Then Bieber > Mozart. Does better mean 'remembered for longest'? Then Mozart < Bieber (probably).

Going back to the example of Dark Forces, I'll say BF 2015 is better every time - graphics, gameplay, multiplayer, variety...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Captain Lackwit Yeah, that is a great image. The freighter information suggests that some how it can fit 6 passengers in there somewhere ...... That schematic is more true to the Hawk in the video games.

 

@Azrapse Consoles killed PC gaming. We get battlefront because it is a simple cheese console game. Back in the 90s the average IQ of your PC user was much higher than today and the games made for the PC were a lot smarter. Now everything is made for the mass market and that excludes the great games made back in the 90s. Of course games cost a lot more to make these days, so that is a huge factor why niche games aren't made anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mep said:

@Captain Lackwit Yeah, that is a great image. The freighter information suggests that some how it can fit 6 passengers in there somewhere ...... That schematic is more true to the Hawk in the video games.

 

@Azrapse Consoles killed PC gaming. We get battlefront because it is a simple cheese console game. Back in the 90s the average IQ of your PC user was much higher than today and the games made for the PC were a lot smarter. Now everything is made for the mass market and that excludes the great games made back in the 90s. Of course games cost a lot more to make these days, so that is a huge factor why niche games aren't made anymore.

The Witcher, Dishonored, Assassin's Creed, Halo, CoD 4... examples off the top of my head of modern 'simple cheese console game'. They might be made for mass market but that doesn't make them worse. Also, IQ is never a good thing to bring up in an argument that's not about IQ/statistics.

I don't know why everything is strikethrough!??

 

Edited by ThalanirIII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ThalanirIII said:

The Witcher, Dishonored, Assassin's Creed, Halo, CoD 4... examples off the top of my head of modern 'simple cheese console game'. They might be made for mass market but that doesn't make them worse. Also, IQ is never a good thing to bring up in an argument that's not about IQ/statistics.

I don't know why everything is strikethrough!??

 

:rolleyes:

41 minutes ago, Mep said:

@Azrapse Consoles killed PC gaming. We get battlefront because it is a simple cheese console game. Back in the 90s the average IQ of your PC user was much higher than today and the games made for the PC were a lot smarter. 

Yes, you seem to be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ThalanirIII Sorry, DOS wasn't for idiots. It did make you feel like one though. The graphical user interfaces were made to make computers more accessible to the masses by dumbing the interface down. You had to be smart to make DOS work and the sky is blue. It is what it is.

BTW, you just listed a bunch of games that owe their origins to Dark Forces and battlefront is console cheese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

@Captain Lackwit

That image is neat.

Two thoughts:

1. The manuverability portion suggests it should have something like the E-Wings dial. The gimbled wings mean 1 hard turns, and really any hard turn should be at minimum white. 

2. The goggles used for visibility could factor in somehow. Not sure how...guess the 360 arc covers it already. 

 

I already love the HWK in X wing, if it had the E-wing's dial, I might never play another ship ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

:rolleyes:

Yes, you seem to be right.

I added the edit because I didn't want to make it look like the strikethrough was permanent.

I could be a monkey typing on a keyboard & my points would still make sense. Insulting my intelligence is a bit of  a giant strawman. (See, intentional strikethrough ;))

22 minutes ago, Mep said:

@ThalanirIII Sorry, DOS wasn't for idiots. It did make you feel like one though. The graphical user interfaces were made to make computers more accessible to the masses by dumbing the interface down. You had to be smart to make DOS work and the sky is blue. It is what it is.

BTW, you just listed a bunch of games that owe their origins to Dark Forces and battlefront is console cheese.

I've never used DOS, I have no idea - I'm just commenting on how using IQ in an argument often backfires.

Just because game B has its origin in game A, doesn't make game B worse than A. In fact, since it's innovating on a base game, it's arguably better (assuming the innovations are better). Football evolved into the game it is today from older games, but that doesn't make them better than football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThalanirIII said:

Football evolved into the game it is today from older games, but that doesn't make them better than football.

Well, that's also a strawman, but failed one. 
Chickens evolved from dinosaurs, and that doesn't make chicken better than dinosaurs.

For the case that we are discussing, videogames, they have different dimensions, not just one.
Compare Battlefront 2015 with Battlefront II (2005).
There is an evolution in graphics and sound. But a clear involution in diversity, game modes, depth, etc.

Again, I insist, there is not point on keeping on discussing since the moment you said "More sales equals better". I don't care about sales. I am not a **** investor. I am a player and a consumer, and I want the best value for my money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mep said:

@StevenO Dark Forces had its own engine and predates Quake.

The hawk may be of proper scale but it does feel smallish for a multi-person ship, much like the Phantom feels way too small.

That could be.  Never played Quake nor did I the original Dark Forces.  At least those old FPS didn't give me the motion sickness that the new ones do although that could just my nice 24" 16x10 ratio monitor doesn't like them.

I'm not sure it's really small for a "multi-person" ship as I don't recall it hauling more than 2 and even then adding a couple more seat really isn't going to take that much more space.  I rather like the size they picked as I never really saw it as a Falcon sized ship and always viewed it more as an oversized/commercial fighter sized ship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Azrapse said:

Well, that's also a strawman, but failed one. 
Chickens evolved from dinosaurs, and that doesn't make chicken better than dinosaurs.

For the case that we are discussing, videogames, they have different dimensions, not just one.
Compare Battlefront 2015 with Battlefront II (2005).
There is an evolution in graphics and sound. But a clear involution in diversity, game modes, depth, etc.

Again, I insist, there is not point on keeping on discussing since the moment you said "More sales equals better". I don't care about sales. I am not a **** investor. I am a player and a consumer, and I want the best value for my money.

My point with the football analogy (not a strawman, an analogy) was to show that just because of B being derived/innovated/developed from A, does not show B's inferiority. @Mep said that the games I listed had origins in dark forces, and I replied saying that that doesn't make them worse.

I'm not saying that BF2015 is more in depth, has more modes, has a better story. However it does what it aims to better than the original - that is to be playable instantly, with no practice, and to look/sound like star wars. It's designed for the mass market and does that very well. I'd much rather it be battlefront III - but that didn't happen. What we got was what EA wanted.

My original point here, bolding to show what my point was - BF2015 did what it aimed to do, very well.

7 hours ago, ThalanirIII said:

You were suggesting BF15 was worse than  X wing and TIE Fighter because of its simplicity. I was saying that they aimed to do different things and are therefore not directly compatible.

 

Fwiw, popular arguably does mean better because more people enjoy it, more people buy it, and it earns more money for the studio. That sounds 'better' to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mep said:

@Captain Lackwit Yeah, that is a great image. The freighter information suggests that some how it can fit 6 passengers in there somewhere ...... That schematic is more true to the Hawk in the video games.

 

@Azrapse Consoles killed PC gaming. We get battlefront because it is a simple cheese console game. Back in the 90s the average IQ of your PC user was much higher than today and the games made for the PC were a lot smarter. Now everything is made for the mass market and that excludes the great games made back in the 90s. Of course games cost a lot more to make these days, so that is a huge factor why niche games aren't made anymore.

Whoooaaaahohohohoho dude your thoughts on gaming are a bit... Um.

Anyway, yeah. That schematic is really true to it. There's a few errors, Falsehood admits, he'd like to rre-do it someday. But there is definitely not space for six passengers. Not six living ones, anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this thread has devolved.

If we're going to talk video games I certainly think that many of the older games have a good be more "it" than a lot of the newer titles I've seen.  I'm sorry but to me just improving the graphics and sound in a game are a far cry from actually improving the game.  Sure there are some that really attempt to make use of those additional resource hogs but a lot of the time it's just an excuse to boost hardware requirements.  For the most part video game graphics easily reached the "plenty good enough" status year ago but, at least to me, the current photo realism is a bit too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...