i'm a bit concerned that they're saying they'll need 3 million to see the game through, that seems like quite the goal
[QUOTE=JerryK;47812565]i'm a bit concerned that they're saying they'll need 3 million to see the game through, that seems like quite the goal[/QUOTE]
I could make some of this with Unity and just the models, just give me a few weeks. Maybe a couple of months. It's more the art assets I guess?
I really didn't expect this, jesus. The "testimonials" sounded about as trustworthy of those from infomercials. The role-playing at the start was completely unnecessary and misrepresents the game imo. I'm enthusiastic about Squad, I played an earlier Alpha version and it plays great so far but good god that's one of the worst trailers for anything I've ever seen
[QUOTE=JerryK;47812565]i'm a bit concerned that they're saying they'll need 3 million to see the game through, that seems like quite the goal[/QUOTE]
where are you seeing 3 million?? The kickstarter goal is $149,718, with the final stretch goal being $1,000,000
[editline]26th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;47812646]I really didn't expect this, jesus. The "testimonials" sounded about as trustworthy of those from infomercials. The role-playing at the start was completely unnecessary and misrepresents the game imo. I'm enthusiastic about Squad, I played an earlier Alpha version and it plays great so far but good god that's one of the worst trailers for anything I've ever seen[/QUOTE]
The very very very beginning was alright, I didn't mind it showing the firefight with the guy RPing a bit, but once it got into "SGT WHAT TO WE DO???" and listed all the 'options' (?) they lost me
[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;47812853]where are you seeing 3 million?? The kickstarter goal is $149,718, with the final stretch goal being $1,000,000 [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]We are under no illusions and estimate it will cost in the region of $3 million dollars to fully fund the total vision of the project.[/QUOTE]
It means that in order to achieve everything they want, they'll need 3 million. If they reach the KS goal they can at least work with the bare minimum to make a smaller focused game.
I am not seeing how it uses all the power of the Unreal 4 engine. Looks not as good as Arma 3 imho.
Why should I play this instead of Arma 3?
[QUOTE=Impact1986;47813005]I am not seeing how it uses all the power of the Unreal 4 engine. Looks not as good as Arma 3 imho.
Why should I play this instead of Arma 3?[/QUOTE]
This is an early pre-alpha version of a game being made by members of a mod community, of course it's going to look rough at this stage. I don't know how you compare this to a game that's worked on a developer that employs a much bigger team and has been working on games and their own engine for over a decade. The gameplay of Squad will probably be a lot more focused and pubbie friendly than ArmA, if you've played the Project Reality mod for BF2 you'll know how it's probably going to go. As much as I love ArmA, it's an absolute nightmare when it comes to the public pvp game scene, everyone just plays Wasteland, AltisLife, and Battle Royale.
really cool that you can build structures and have squad based combat...i hope the maps are big allowing for vehicles that would trigger ambushes or raids
This trailer yet IMO. I'm so proud of it. as all hell. 11/10 best squad.
[QUOTE=JerryK;47812565]i'm a bit concerned that they're saying they'll need 3 million to see the game through, that seems like quite the goal[/QUOTE]
That's only like 400,000 sales. This game is such an unfulfilled niche that it'll make a lot more than that, in due time.
[editline]27th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Impact1986;47813005]I am not seeing how it uses all the power of the Unreal 4 engine. Looks not as good as Arma 3 imho.
Why should I play this instead of Arma 3?[/QUOTE]
Because it plays more like a game and less like a simulator. That should be enough for anyone who has actually played ARMA and gotten frustrated by how clunky it feels.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;47813005]I am not seeing how it uses all the power of the Unreal 4 engine. Looks not as good as Arma 3 imho.
Why should I play this instead of Arma 3?[/QUOTE]
Try finding a decent public server playing adversarial gamemodes that aren't wasteland and/or populated by people under the age of 12.
Squad's basically the successor to Project Reality, in which 90% of a given server's population would actually cooperate and communicate with one another. To put it simply, Battlefield but more realistic, you don't have thousands of different missions and modsets.
[editline]27th May 2015[/editline]
Anyway, I'm pretty disappointed that helicopters are a bloody strech goal, $1m (It's canadian dollars btw) at that. Transport was one of my favourite things to do in PR
I hope this does well and what they've shown does look good, but those stretch goals don't seem quite right. I thought those were all features they were planning to include in the game at some point already, but it's not clear at all if they will be added only if they reach those goals are not. They seem like fairly significant stretch goals but at the same time some of them seem like things that should be in the game anyway (Like the Helicopters).
It still looks like it's worth backing, it would be great if it reaches those goals. Project Reality is great.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;47812646]I really didn't expect this, jesus. The "testimonials" sounded about as trustworthy of those from infomercials. The role-playing at the start was completely unnecessary and misrepresents the game imo. I'm enthusiastic about Squad, I played an earlier Alpha version and it plays great so far but good god that's one of the worst trailers for anything I've ever seen[/QUOTE]
In what way does it misrepresent the game?
They've gotten what, near 40k of their goal? That isn't much all things considered.
While I love PR, I don't think Squad will budge on it. I'm sure some people might transfer over, but nothing gets the versatility than PR does.
Maybe Tactical Battlefield for ArmA 3, but I haven't played it.
35% of their goal within 12 hours is not bad at all.
I have to agree that the trailer is pretty cringy.
[QUOTE=Covalent;47815484]They've gotten what, near 40k of their goal? That isn't much all things considered.
While I love PR, I don't think Squad will budge on it. I'm sure some people might transfer over, but nothing gets the versatility than PR does.
Maybe Tactical Battlefield for ArmA 3, but I haven't played it.[/QUOTE]
They've gotten over 70k so far, over 1/3 of their goal after less than a day. I see no reason why this wouldn't be just as good as PR - it's pretty much an exact remake of Project Reality but with updated features/graphics.
Project Reality is like the only FPS where you can just straight up join a Server and have teamwork and communication going like everyone is using their microphone in huge 100p Servers.
[QUOTE=Covalent;47815484]They've gotten what, near 40k of their goal? That isn't much all things considered.
While I love PR, I don't think Squad will budge on it. I'm sure some people might transfer over, but nothing gets the versatility than PR does.
Maybe Tactical Battlefield for ArmA 3, but I haven't played it.[/QUOTE]
This can get way more versatility than PR does, PR's biggest limiting factor is its engine, Squad completely skips that part.
Looks clunky, kinda reminds me of Insurgency. I don't really like it..
[QUOTE=JerryK;47812565]i'm a bit concerned that they're saying they'll need 3 million to see the game through, that seems like quite the goal[/QUOTE]
Big profile kickstarters who have exterior funding have really skewed what people think making games costs.
Though at the same time if this was still a donation/volunteer thing, then I suppose 3million would seem high.
The Project reality guys: its like one or two devs from the team
[QUOTE=rshunter313;47816950]The Project reality guys: its like one or two devs from the team[/QUOTE]
Then which game was actually from the project reality guys. I thought they were already making standalone PR. Or is it actaully this game beceuse Im pretty bummed out if it is.
Looks very mediocre tbh...
[QUOTE=StrykerE;47813054]This is an early pre-alpha version of a game being made by members of a mod community, of course it's going to look rough at this stage. I don't know how you compare this to a game that's worked on a developer that employs a much bigger team and has been working on games and their own engine for over a decade. The gameplay of Squad will probably be a lot more focused and pubbie friendly than ArmA, if you've played the Project Reality mod for BF2 you'll know how it's probably going to go. As much as I love ArmA, it's an absolute nightmare when it comes to the public pvp game scene, everyone just plays Wasteland, AltisLife, and Battle Royale.[/QUOTE]
How is Squad more public friendly than Arma3? Did you actually play the game to know that?
[QUOTE=Skyguy113;47816702]Looks clunky, kinda reminds me of Insurgency. I don't really like it..[/QUOTE]
yeah I'll be more impressed when they show the 'large' scale that they had in PR.
right now it's just insurgency 2.0
also really disliking that some weapons don't have sights on them. Nearly every weapon now has some sort of magnification sight on it
This campaign is pretty poorly thought out. They're low-balling the amount people will pay towards a 'funded' goal, hoping people will work towards the stretch goals. Bad idea.
The average person doesn't pledge to a project if it's already "funded", which is going to hurt them. For a team of people who need wages, living expenses, and dev costs paid for over a year ~$150k won't help much.
The fact that their 'timeline' is a line with no times is also worrying. Listing dev time from "12 - 24 months" shows they really didn't think this through.
They'll hit the goal no problem and get a few stretch goals, but they should've asked for more to start with.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;47817283]How is Squad more public friendly than Arma3? Did you actually play the game to know that?[/QUOTE]
Playing Arma 3 is enough to know that
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;47817437]This campaign is pretty poorly thought out. They're low-balling the amount people will pay towards a 'funded' goal, hoping people will work towards the stretch goals. Bad idea.
The average person doesn't pledge to a project if it's already "funded", which is going to hurt them. For a team of people who need wages, living expenses, and dev costs paid for over a year ~$150k won't help much.
The fact that their 'timeline' is a line with no times is also worrying. Listing dev time from "12 - 24 months" shows they really didn't think this through.
They'll hit the goal no problem and get a few stretch goals, but they should've asked for more to start with.[/QUOTE]
Relying on the stretch goals for all that content is completely the wrong way to go about it, i don't think most of them will be reached with this. That stuff will be included in the game eventually though, which is good, but they haven't made that very clear on their Kickstarter page.
[QUOTE=Niklas;47817441]Playing Arma 3 is enough to know that[/QUOTE]
I'd agree.
Public Arma is very unstructured and uncoordinated, hence why I've been in a group for 90% of my time playing Arma multiplayer. The open sandbox of the Arma series leads to an inconsistency in gamemodes, which doesn't make it a gameplay environment that easily facilitates coordinated teamplay. The PR series certainly is a lot more structured because its more closed and focused. Yes, you lose the sandbox nature of a game like Arma, but it allows the game to be more focused and makes teamplay a lot easier to maintain because of the game's mechanics. I'd imagine these principles will reflect in Squad, and it seems to, from the gameplay footage I've seen so far.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
