SavageMind November Feedback

How did you deal with SC2 planets? Those were even smaller.

Sorry About dual posts. When I originally posted it the website crashed with a 440 error.

To compare the two is not realistic. when SC2 came out the planet graphics were 2D and very much like Starflight 1 and 2 in scalability. The scale was as such that it wasn't a matchbox on a soccer ball like these currently are. It just came across as the lander was VERY fast. SC2 lander was tiny vs the surface area. The planets scale in the solar system were quite on par for scale except that the mother ship always seemed huge over the planets. That had to do with hardware capabilities and frankly scaled down would make it impossible to see the ship or you would have to make the planets huge. Hardware just couldn't handle that. Though if you think of it a year after this title came out, Frontier: Elite came out and just smoked SC2 in planetary graphics. Going from space and landing on a planet by going through the atmosphere was awesome. But I digress. If you noticed though in SC2 that the ship shrank considerably during the landing sequence in al versions. I still play the 3DO version on my 3DO.

I think the planets are butt ugly as well. The idea is okay but the planets themselves would need to be a bit bigger for it to become like a kiddies game.

But how will you legitimize landing on 5,000 gigantic planets? Especially when you just need some resources? This doesn't promote exploration, I can tell you that much. Have people forgotten No Man's Sky already? Those enormous planets are giant wastes that no one will EVER explore because there's no damn reason or time to explore a million billion gigantic planets. Small planet size promotes bite-sized adventures, promoting COMPLETE exploration through the cosmos. Instead of landing, exploring 1% and taking off again. That's part of the beauty of SCII in the first place.  

^ NMS got updated big time FOR FREE. You should check it out.

Also, why do you need to legitimize landing on 5000 planets? Do you not sleep at night 'cause you know you won't ever visit all the best parts of your own planet Earth?

Hunam...... Not even the bite-sized planets are something you can support now??? What ARE you on board with then? Are you just a naysayer about absolutely everything? There's a point where critique becomes taking a dump on any and every thing the developer comes up with.

Are you making a case for 5000 life-sized planet to explore, to "keep with the spirit" of Star Control? How would that be SC?? And here I thought you wanted to update the game, but stay as true as possible to the original. You even said that in comment reply #1! It's like you're either arguing with yourself, or arguing just to argue!

I don't legitamize 5000 huge planets. If they are scaled like SC2s it wouldn't be unreasonable for exploration. Maybe even a bit larger than what they are now. Like I said in SC2 the lander moved quite fast across what appeared to be a large surface area giving the illusion of greater size.  Here it is a rc car rolling on a soccer ball the illusion is gone when your perspective viewable halfway over the horizon.

What ass did you pull all these assumptions out of? You should know pretty dam well my stance on the planet size from this thread ---> https://forums.starcontrol.com/480090/page/2/#replies  NOWHERE have I advocated for a real life size planets.

Also, why in the hell Vaelzad upvoted your post since he knows it too?..

In my Reply #1 I asked Savage if he didn't like SC2 planet size either. There was no fecking argument there. And in Reply #5 I'm supporting bigger galaxy size, so you can't possibly explore all the planets for immersion reasons.

Quoting SavageMind1,

[/quote]

I think that a mini map should be added as well. I can't see conducting scans of a planet while in orbit wouldn't have at least a semi detail map of feathers or interesting objects as seen from orbit. it just doesn't seem right without one.

Is it really neccesary to conduct a scan or have a minimap with these tennis ball sized planets? Seems like a waste of time if you can already see everything from space.

Given the current parameters, it's not "needed". However it think by not having scans or mini maps, you lose the Star Control "flavor". It seems very much like "Spore" but with smaller planets. Keep in mind that scans help find things that may be hidden from  view and the mini map can help you zero in on it.

That could also be done by having a dog (fable) or like having the energy emissions make sound.

It's much more a cartoony game so I imagine you pressing a scan button while already on the surface and then, like for example in dragon age games, being pointed towards a treasure/energy source.

Resource gathering in SC2 was a huge grind and not fun at all, by making it faster you also make it more fun.

I pretty much agree on all points. I hate those planets... and the planetary exploration concept video a couple months ago outright made me physically nauseous. The exaggerated look, especially from space, needs to be dialed way, way back IMO.

Maybe planets should look more "realistic" until a scan is performed, revealing exaggerated details in more of a "holographic" style?

I think this is the general consensus - from space, everyone thinks they should be spherical. From the planet view, they can have an exaggerated look, no problem. 

Also, many people want them to be larger, with less of an arched horizon - but not too large that players have TOO MUCH of an area to explore.

I actually liked resource gathering. Gave the game that Starflight I & II feel and I think it kept it honest. There was plenty of ways around resource gathering if it really bothered you that much.

To my knowledge there are merely a majority of vocal critics to the look. I wouldn't call that general consensus. I prefer the exaggerated look over space marbles.

I don't really want to commit on planet sizes until I've had a chance to try it out.