Flagship (First person space RTS) Kickstarter trailer - General

This was released a few days ago but i haven't seen it posted here yet. [video=youtube;A6zdOixScfQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6zdOixScfQ[/video] [url]https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2049430629/flagship-space-strategy-from-a-first-person-perspe[/url] Unfortunately it's not getting much attention at the moment, i've only seen one site mention the game has a kickstarter campaign. It's quite a unique idea, a space RTS where you build up an empire and command your fleet from the bridge of a ship sounds great.

It looks very ambitious, if they pull it off it could be incredible, but I've seen smaller games fizzle out with a massive kickstarter budget. Also ships exiting warp right in front of you will always be awesome.

Too bad it looks to be more of a cinematic game than a quality RTS. As harsh as it sounds, that's really what it looks like. I'm not really seeing... Anything in the way of gameplay that would resemble an RTS. If anything, it's like the realtime mode in Fallout Tactics, which sucked balls and really I can't think of any way to make it work properly. I guess some people are into that, I prefer movies for this type of thing, though. Those professional cameramen usually do a better job at providing an immersive experience than myself.

I remember this from that older trailer with the big monolith thing at the end: [video=youtube;IVr98bTzxH8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVr98bTzxH8[/video]

I will give them money when they release it and there are good reviews

This idea has been around for awhile: [url]http://unfairrandombrutality.com/blog/?cat=14[/url] What's weird is that both names are quite the same as well as the core concepts but I'm not sure if they may be made/thought of by the same person.

[QUOTE=Drury;46089987]Too bad it looks to be more of a cinematic game than a quality RTS. As harsh as it sounds, that's really what it looks like. I'm not really seeing... Anything in the way of gameplay that would resemble an RTS. If anything, it's like the realtime mode in Fallout Tactics, which sucked balls and really I can't think of any way to make it work properly. I guess some people are into that, I prefer movies for this type of thing, though. Those professional cameramen usually do a better job at providing an immersive experience than myself.[/QUOTE] I don't see why you don't think it resembles an RTS. You build an empire and ships, then command those ships using the central map table on the bridge. You give the ships in your fleet move orders, attack orders etc and it's fully three dimensional battles. It also has ship upgrades, research, you can swap out their weapons and similar things. RTS just means Real-Time Strategy, and the game is both of those things. What sort of things would make it a "quality RTS"?

Backed this a few days ago, as I own a OR and would really like some more games like this, they're even gonna support the SixSense STEM System which I also plan to get. Even though this project goes past the "The creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward" ToS change, they'll still hopefully deliver.

I'm not saying it's not an RTS, what I'm saying is it doesn't look like a good one. They've shown us less than 10 seconds of interaction with the game and even that seemed quite shallow, and judging from those 10 seconds I wouldn't even consider it an RTS, but they had written some words about resource-gathering and base-building so I guess it does pass. I'm not holding my breath until they show actual gameplay. Till then it's just a walking simulator.

[QUOTE=Drury;46090482]I'm not saying it's not an RTS, what I'm saying is it doesn't look like a good one. They've shown us less than 10 seconds of interaction with the game and even that seemed quite shallow, and judging from those 10 seconds I wouldn't even consider it an RTS, but they had written some words about resource-gathering and base-building so I guess it does pass. I'm not holding my breath until they show actual gameplay. Till then it's just a walking simulator.[/QUOTE] Misusing that term heavily.

[QUOTE=Drury;46090482]I'm not saying it's not an RTS, what I'm saying is it doesn't look like a good one. They've shown us less than 10 seconds of interaction with the game and even that seemed quite shallow, and judging from those 10 seconds I wouldn't even consider it an RTS, but they had written some words about resource-gathering and base-building so I guess it does pass. I'm not holding my breath until they show actual gameplay. Till then it's just a walking simulator.[/QUOTE] Your conception of RTS seems very one dimensional. I think it's just because almost all other RTS games have the same mechanics. Usually birds eye view, a UI to control things and so on. This is a different concept of RTS game with very personal interactive game play and perhaps more a realistic idea.

No, that is the definition of RTS. Without base-building and resource-gathering, it is not an RTS by definition, even if you market it a such. An RTS without those components is a different genre, RTT, real-time tactics. This game would be an RTT if you only command a fleet of starships, for example, in closed battles. This is an RTS if it is as they describe it, though.

So it's sort of a mixture of Total War and Mount & Blade, but in space? Shit if they pull it off and get it on steam I'll buy one for me and a few for my friends.

[QUOTE=Drury;46090482]I'm not saying it's not an RTS, what I'm saying is it doesn't look like a good one. They've shown us less than 10 seconds of interaction with the game and even that seemed quite shallow, and judging from those 10 seconds I wouldn't even consider it an RTS, but they had written some words about resource-gathering and base-building so I guess it does pass. I'm not holding my breath until they show actual gameplay. Till then it's just a walking simulator.[/QUOTE] So, gathering resources, managing colonies and planets, exploring the galaxy fighting off aliens with your fleet of ships by giving them orders such as what to attack, where to move, what weapons to use and similar things isn't in-depth? You choose ship upgrades, weapons, manage planets and colonies, tell ships in your fleet what to direct their power to, take control of other ships in your fleet and lots more things. The game isn't just sitting at the map station occasionally pressing a button. I don't get what more you want for it to count as an "In-depth RTS". It's not like you are just walking around the ship and everything happens automatically, you're in control of things and have to give orders. RTS means real time strategy. The game is in real time, and it is a strategy game. It's therefore an RTS. You could say that other RTS games are just clicking simulators as that's all you do. Those games don't have anything that this doesn't.

[QUOTE=nightlord;46091042]So, gathering resources, managing colonies and planets, exploring the galaxy fighting off aliens with your fleet of ships by giving them orders such as what to attack, where to move, what weapons to use and similar things isn't in-depth?[/quote] None of these are design elements, and don't actually add any depth to the game (as weird as it may sound). Design is not dictated by form. There are plethora open-world games which are as wide as an ocean and as deep as a puddle. You have thousands of things to do, but none of them are interesting, they are not interconnected and you just wander between them, not really paying attention most of the time. What is everything listed above good for if it's not balanced? Engaging? Doesn't have it's place in the broad picture? Games are about quality, not quantity, and depth is core of a quality game. A game throwing a bunch of elements at you isn't automatically deep, they all need their place and all need to be equally important. From the little gameplay they've shown us, this game seems to put big emphasis on the actual space battles, and that's a bit of a shame for an RTS game. [quote]RTS means real time strategy. The game is in real time, and it is a strategy game. It's therefore an RTS.[/QUOTE] Portal is a first person game and you shoot a gun at surfaces. Therefore it's a first person shooter :downs: Genres are not defined by their nametags, only vaguely described for easy identification. [QUOTE=Drury;46090482]I'm not saying it's not an RTS, what I'm saying is it doesn't look like a good one.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Drury;46091009]This is an RTS if it is as they describe it, though.[/QUOTE] [quote=nightlord;46091042]It's not like you are just walking around the ship and everything happens automatically, you're in control of things and have to give orders.[/quote] [QUOTE=Drury;46090482]They've shown us less than 10 seconds of interaction with the game[/quote] and as such it's difficult to judge (which for me equals bad game until proven otherwise) - they are not showing us anything other than walking and watching. Not saying the game has no chance of turning out to be good, just being cautious, as you all should. Hyping people over basically nothing is a popular thing among developers nowadays, especially on Kickstarter, and it's not okay. Not telling you what to do with your money, just friendly advice. I got burned one too many times. Then again, if you're in for fancy space battles with VR, I guess feel free to support, in this regard it already looks worth the money.

one of the things i'd have a problem with, is if it's just like, your ships you command are literally just like rts units that do as you say, i'd like to be more like, each ship has it's own captain & they can act independently and stuff and you just give the orders, whether or not they can fulfill them is up to the captains or somethin

[QUOTE=Drury;46095012]stuff[/QUOTE] Arguing for the sake of arguing something that is ultimately of absolutely no consequence

The only problem is that people don't read what I type and I have to repeat myself. I bet you don't even know what my point is.

[QUOTE=Drury;46095012]None of these are design elements, and don't actually add any depth to the game (as weird as it may sound). Design is not dictated by form. There are plethora open-world games which are as wide as an ocean and as deep as a puddle. You have thousands of things to do, but none of them are interesting, they are not interconnected and you just wander between them, not really paying attention most of the time. What is everything listed above good for if it's not balanced? Engaging? Doesn't have it's place in the broad picture? Games are about quality, not quantity, and depth is core of a quality game. A game throwing a bunch of elements at you isn't automatically deep, they all need their place and all need to be equally important. From the little gameplay they've shown us, this game seems to put big emphasis on the actual space battles, and that's a bit of a shame for an RTS game. Portal is a first person game and you shoot a gun at surfaces. Therefore it's a first person shooter :downs: Genres are not defined by their nametags, only vaguely described for easy identification. and as such it's difficult to judge (which for me equals bad game until proven otherwise) - they are not showing us anything other than walking and watching. Not saying the game has no chance of turning out to be good, just being cautious, as you all should. Hyping people over basically nothing is a popular thing among developers nowadays, especially on Kickstarter, and it's not okay. Not telling you what to do with your money, just friendly advice. I got burned one too many times. Then again, if you're in for fancy space battles with VR, I guess feel free to support, in this regard it already looks worth the money.[/QUOTE] If you think being about walk around, interact with things in a realistic manner (as in not just menus appearing out of nowhere), look at the battle taking place and control it all from a first person perspective is bad then are completely missing the point of this game. Of course there's an emphasis on the space battles, the game is an RTS where you are the fleet commander during those battles. Being able to see and control those space battles from first person is the main focus of it, immersion is important in this game. It's a shame that an RTS game focuses on being able to see actually see battles taking place? Point out one RTS game that doesn't have a focus on the battles and explain what you'd prefer they focus on. This isn't a traditional RTS where you need a certain build order to win and you can spam units, nor is it one where it all take place on a single map. It's more like Mount & Blade where you have an open world and you wander around doing what you want and building up your forces. Have you even read their kickstarter page? There's a lot more about the game there. Portal does not count as an FPS as it's got no combat. It's a first person puzzle-platform game. There's a new video: [video=youtube;lXy7W_8ygLs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXy7W_8ygLs[/video]

[QUOTE=Drury;46095110]The only problem is that people don't read what I type and I have to repeat myself. I bet you don't even know what my point is.[/QUOTE] I do read your post, i just think you are wrong

It's pretty impressive that they made this in Unity.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;46095424]I think it's too early to be even 50% sure whether this game is going to worth it's salt. For that reason I don't feel like these guys are in the right to be asking money for it just yet. Mind you, while they've shown some of the more gimmicky stuff like moving around your ship and staring into the eyes of your soulless crew, which you shouldn't get excited for because if you invest time into the game it WILL lose it's novelty really fast. All of this begs the question; what is the endgame and the meta game that leads up to it and how does the FPS elements contribute or subtract from that? they've shown us jack shit of the core strategic elements of the game, just vague ideas that need a lot of building upon to be a deep and rewarding experience. As far as my small imagination can ascertain, the spectacle will be good for impulse buys, but I am doubting it will do more than clunkify the hard core battles if you have to switch between glowing coffee tables and staring out the windows. And what even is the point of looking out the window if ungluing your eyes from the coffee table means you lose control of your ship and tactical data for precious moments?[/QUOTE] They're asking for money so they can finish the game. They've been working on it for a while but now they need more so they can get it done and release it.

Im honestly confused with kickstarter, Games that literally are just 2d "old retro " school pixel platformers drown in money while a high quality gme thats innovative like this gets no reception at all....

[QUOTE=Drury;46091009]No, that is the definition of RTS. Without base-building and resource-gathering, it is not an RTS by definition, even if you market it a such. An RTS without those components is a different genre, RTT, real-time tactics. This game would be an RTT if you only command a fleet of starships, for example, in closed battles. This is an RTS if it is as they describe it, though.[/QUOTE] Building bases in space is a little bit of a contrivance though. I think it's entirely possible to have an RTS without that. Take a look at Sins of a Solar Empire, Empire At War, and Sword of the Stars.

[QUOTE=werewolf0020;46095928]Im honestly confused with kickstarter, Games that literally are just 2d "old retro " school pixel platformers drown in money while a high quality gme thats innovative like this gets no reception at all....[/QUOTE] I 've only seen one popular site mention the game since the kickstarter began, despite them all posting one of the trailers when it released a few months ago and sounding quite excited about it. It seems they don't want to give the game any coverage when it needs it the most, if the Kickstarter doesn't succeed then it will be a long time before we see the game released and it probably won't be as good. It's a bit annoying when people say stuff like "I'll buy it when it's released" when the game might not even get released if this Kickstarter fails, although they've said they aren't going to just abandon it.

[QUOTE=Drury;46091009]No, that is the definition of RTS. Without base-building and resource-gathering, it is not an RTS by definition, even if you market it a such. An RTS without those components is a different genre, RTT, real-time tactics. This game would be an RTT if you only command a fleet of starships, for example, in closed battles. This is an RTS if it is as they describe it, though.[/QUOTE] You have a really warped definition of what Real Time Strategy means. Look at the context; you make decisions in real time based on strategic inferences with the primary objective to succeed at your intended goal. Just because like last two decades have set a certain tone for the genre doesn't mean every game from now and into the future has to follow the C&C Red Alert formula. This is a very outside the box concept that could be very interesting if it's done well.

Was this game directed by J.J Abrams? :v:

I like the concept, but no multiplayer and no ship building kind of puts me off.

[QUOTE=Firefox42;46097326]I like the concept, but no multiplayer and no ship building kind of puts me off.[/QUOTE] Where did you get the No ship building from? It even says "Build and command your fleet from the bridge of your flagship" near the top of the Kickstarter page and "build bases and expand your fleet" later on, the video also shows a ship being built. Multiplayer is something they've said they will possibly add after the game is released.

[QUOTE=nightlord;46097346]Where did you get the No ship building from? It even says "Build and command your fleet from the bridge of your flagship" near the top of the Kickstarter page and "build bases and expand your fleet" later on, the video also shows a ship being built. Multiplayer is something they've said they will possibly add after the game is released.[/QUOTE] I meant as in designing your own ships.