×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jumpgate Evolution Dev Interview, Dogfighting Video

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the bring-on-the-lasers dept.

Games 66

Massively recently interviewed Hermann Peterscheck, a producer for NetDevil's upcoming space-fighter MMO Jumpgate Evolution. He talks about the UI and the huge level of customization, as well as basic flight and zone design. Also available is a video showcasing space combat inside an asteroid belt. "We're still sort of working on [ship progression], but the idea is that you pick your first ship at level five, which is about an hour or so of gameplay. Basically there's sort of forks, so you start out in kind of a beginner ship and then there's like fighting types of ships, mining types of ships, cargo haulers and within that there's sort of sub-classes. So like, there's light fighters, medium fighters, heavy fighters, bombers. There's haulers that carry a lot of stuff, but move kind of slowly and there's haulers that carry lost stuff, short little courier shuttles that move really quickly."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

66 comments

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24911389)

eat my asshole, rump ranger.

Dogfighting? I think not... (3, Informative)

Shrubbman (3807) | more than 5 years ago | (#24911527)

When I hear of space fighter dogfighting I'm expecting to see something I can pull out my old underused Logitech Attack 3 to play, something with a damn cockpit view. That trailer does NOT deliver the goods I'm looking for in a space shooter. Boo.

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

aseth (893952) | more than 5 years ago | (#24911563)

That's what the original Jumpgate was all about.

The mouse control for flight has me... concerned. The best things about Jumpgate were the physics inspired flight and joystick controlled combat.

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24911677)

I used to think that but nowadays I don't know. Back when I was playing Elite in the 80's I remember thinking how awful the joystick controls were, I just wanted something analog/linear in nature instead of the on/off switches of the C64 joystick. Then I remember playing Privateer and thinking how awful the controls, this time I had full analog controls though. Same when playing Freespace. Even these analog joysticks felt clumsy.

Now this comes along and it actually does look better. I kinda like it. Although I haven't played it, it seems like it might be better. Years of playing FPS's have taught me that the mouse works best when trying to combine skill and accuracy.

Sure, mouse control not what you would want in real life, but a simulation doesn't have any of the feeling you get from doing something in real life. For example, flying a real plane with a joystick feels totally different than playing a game. Speaking from experience it's a whole lot easier. There is so much more feedback in real life that it's substantially easier to control. On the computer joystick control is just weird, unnatural and difficult.

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

Cecil (37810) | more than 5 years ago | (#24911681)

While I'm not going to complain overly about something that plays like Freelancer, which I did greatly enjoy, I do strongly, strongly feel your pain.

I wanted to get back into combat flight sim/space sims, so I went and ill-advisedly bought a Saitek X52 a few months ago only to discover that the entire genre of joystick games seems to be a barren wasteland with the number of games in the last 5 years countable on one or two hands.

It's a truly disappointing state of affairs, and every time a game comes out that should have joystick control and doesn't is just rubbing further salt into the wound. So yeah, I feel your pain.

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#24912221)

They have joystick control, but I'm a bit fuzzy after seeing the demo as to how it's going to work. It better not be anything like the mouse control we saw in that video, that's for sure. That would be horrendous.

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (3, Informative)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 5 years ago | (#24915525)

If you really want to exercise that joystick, take a look at Falcon: Allied Force.

Cheap game. No DRM of any kind. No CD needed to play. Huge online community.

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (2, Interesting)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 5 years ago | (#24915955)

My kingdom for a Freespace 2.

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922627)

I'm assuming you mean "a game like Freespace 2" not actually Freespace 2 [wikipedia.org], since the latter actually exists?

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

Tesen (858022) | more than 5 years ago | (#24997185)

Personally I want Elite III: First Encounters but modern :) That was a seriously kick ass game! X series does okay, but I loved being able to enter a planets atmosphere, drop in over landing destination or just cruise around the globe. It was also nice, that the planets and moons were treated as "apart" of your environment instead of just eye candy. Sure it was faked changing orbits, gravity etc but I loved it. Park over the planet, cut engines, begin to fall :)

Elite III, but with X2/X3's abilities to create your own bases anywhere in the universe. Lots of ships, modules etc. Gimmie!

Tes

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#24912529)

When I read dogfighting I was hoping for an online virtual dog-fight game, where you could train (read: starve and abuse) your pit bull and take him to some redneck house and fight them and bet money. Maybe as a minigame in the next Madden.

While I'm opposed to animal cruelty and think people who do real dogfights should be fed to their own dogs, I'm not opposed to VIRTUAL animial cruelty. Just ask my tamogatchi, or any of the residents of Hell, my animal crossing town.

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#24913493)

What's worse, gameplay wise it looks like it's all about point and click shooting. While the graphics are nice, looks like the gameplay doesn't really bring much over the "dogfight" sequence of the 1983 Star Wars game.

Shiny graphics on top of antiquated gameplays! Welcome to the late 2000s!

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24913771)

Seriously, they throw out all creativity and innovation to follow that same formula over and over again. When is somebody finally going to do a don't-point-or-click shooter?

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#24914333)

Unfortunately the game industry is roughly following the same path as the movie and music industry. Big budgets, always the same sounding/feeling crap following the big successful formulas. When what you care about is money, innovation doesn't sound like a necessarily sound risk to take. Allow me to predict that in 30 years you'll still be doing headshots by pointing and clicking.

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (2, Interesting)

d3ik (798966) | more than 5 years ago | (#24914703)

I think you need to read up on NetDevil a little more before passing judgement. This is a small group of developers who built the original Jumpgate in their free time out of their own pocket because they thought it was cool.

To respond to the GP and above... if you missed it from the comments in the article (and from original Jumpgate) the entire game environment is based on Newtonian physics. If you are piloting a large cargo ship with a full cargo load you have to deal with inertia issues, i.e. doing a full reverse burn at full thrust for a few seconds before you even think about docking at a station.

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

bishiraver (707931) | more than 5 years ago | (#24914727)

This is a small group of developers who built the original Jumpgate in their free time out of their own pocket because they thought it was cool.

And then ruined it...

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#24916563)

Newtonian physics, sure. But does it have frictionless space, i.e. no stopping unless you use thrusters in the opposite direction and no top speed?

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

bishiraver (707931) | more than 5 years ago | (#24923649)

The original had semi-frictionless space. No stopping unless you used thrusters in the opposite direction, or hit the 'break' thrusters which automatically slowed your velocity.

However, each ship had a limited top speed, boostable by after burners and other add-ons, that when completed would return your ship back to its original speed (not very cool imho).

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#24919009)

Newtonian physics? I haven't seen any of that in the video linked in the summary. The thrusters stay on to keep roughly the same speed, it turns like an aircraft (and yet a very arcadish aircraft) instead of positioning itself to use its thrusters for that, and so on..

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921979)

According to the comments, the video showed "flight assist mode" (essentially, flight for newbies).

You can actually see the enemy fighters do axis rotations while being carried along by inertia. It seems likely (given the comments above) that the PCs will also be able to do such when switching off the assist mode.

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

bishiraver (707931) | more than 5 years ago | (#24914679)

I'm pretty sure this is in 'noob mode.'

The original Jumpgate did indeed have great Joystick controls, with real newtonian physics to play around with. It was fun blasting past someone on afterburners and spinning quick and firing at them as they try to turn around and get at you.

I'm less concerned about this as I am with NetDevil's poor quality of service with the original. They didn't have enough players to really have an interesting gameworld on its own, so they added really stupid-acting giant purple space fish (squids..eels..manta rays..snails..) with simplistic AI. And that's all there was to shoot, because they liked to ban people who actually tried to compete/enact large PvP dogfights.

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917113)

Out of curiosity, have you tried Allegiance? It's primarily an online cockpit-view (though there are other camera views) space dogfighting game. It also has some fun strategic elements. Joystick is supported and by far the best way (I used a Force Feedback Pro, which was fantastic).

The game was originally a commercial product out of Microsoft Research, but didn't really go anywhere. MSR open-sourced the game, and it is now community supported, with the client available for free download.

http://freeallegiance.org/ [freeallegiance.org]

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24917309)

Jumpgate evolution reeks of Eve Online

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

CubeRootOf (849787) | more than 5 years ago | (#24920461)

I did not see anything in the interview or the trailer that suggested that you couldn't use a joystick.

The original Jumpgate had both available, mouse or joystick, and though the joystick was infinitly more fun, the mouse was usable.

Can you show me why you think they will not support joysticks?

Jumpgate Supports Joysticks. (1)

CubeRootOf (849787) | more than 5 years ago | (#24921197)

The parent is not 'Informative' The parrent is 'Wrong'. There IS joystick support. Do your research.

Re:Jumpgate Supports Joysticks. (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 5 years ago | (#24924285)

Does it support it for actual flying, or as a replacement mouse for moving a cursor around the screen?

Re:Dogfighting? I think not... (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 5 years ago | (#24939897)

I can pull out my old underused Logitech Attack 3 to play, something with a damn cockpit view.

The game will have first and third-person views. The videos have just all been in third-person.

I don't think so (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#24911543)

No inertia?
Sound traveling through vacuum?
Over-the-shoulder view?

Count me out on this one.

Re:I don't think so (4, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 5 years ago | (#24911573)

Two of your complaints are valid, but seriously, would you enjoy playing a game where the only sound you hear is your pilot shifting around in the cockpit?

Re:I don't think so (1)

Cecil (37810) | more than 5 years ago | (#24911731)

There is plenty one would realistically hear in a combat spacecraft, but most of it would be generated by the targeting computer, etc. In a completely silent combat environment, there is a wealth of information that can be conveyed aurally with great effectiveness. Explosions and gunfire sounds certainly wouldn't be my first choice, though I admit the traditional "whooshing" of ships flying nearby might have some small amount of value.

Re:I don't think so (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24912723)

You'd expect to 'hear' explosions as well - albeit some time after the fact. You'd (in theory) get a spherical, diminishing pressure wave travelling at the space equivalent of the speed of sound - which would cause a rumble or thud as it passed you.

My understanding is that the 'speed of sound' in space is a hell of a lot higher than on earth due to the lack of dampening. That being the case, explosions at least make sense.

If the onboard electronics were detecting and amplifying such sounds, then you'd also be able to hear some types of weaponry fire, although not until the projectiles had reached (or passed) you anyway.

Engine wakes and reaction thrusters (and, therefore, other ships) would be detectable in the same manner.

Re:I don't think so (1)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917157)

Uh... I guess you didn't do basic Physics then. How can you have a pressure wave in a vacuum as there is no fluid to have a pressure in.
Admittedly there is a certain amount of matter even in Hard Vacuum but the amounts are microscopic - certainly not enough to transmit any form of pressure wave with enough force to be detectable by human hearing.
As for your point about onboard electronics amplifying the sound of a shot that's passed you - what would be the point? That's like an Early Warning system that only ever says "That was a close one - it only just missed you."

Re:I don't think so (1)

MrResistor (120588) | more than 5 years ago | (#24994949)

The point, at least in a game environment, is to make up for all the cues you would have in a real environment that you don't have in the game, like peripheral vision for example.

Re:I don't think so (3, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#24911821)

If I made a fighter spacecraft or aircraft, I would also use audio to convey information.

If a fake sound helped identify the type of craft, I'd use it.

If a fake doppler sound effect rapidly helped convey that something is approaching (whenever fake sound is played it ascends in pitch) or leaving (descends in pitch), then I'd use that too.

I'd make a fighter spacecraft be able to shoot in almost any direction - in a vacuum you can shoot stuff sideways or backwards without the atmosphere causing "inconvenience".

BTW, I've always thought it might be interesting to have network equipment make sounds that are correlated to what they are doing - via say network monitoring software. Then a sysadmin could get used to a "normal baseline sound", and one day maybe the sysadmin might just detect that something is not quite right, way before things go belly up, and before the conventional warnings come in.

Re:I don't think so (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 5 years ago | (#24911691)

I don't understand that complaint about sound in space...

No sane space combat interface designer would leave out a sense so important to humans as sounds. Imagine you're sitting in a spacecraft fighting reds; one of them far away shoots at you.

You can hear the railgun fire as soon as your spacecraft detects the shot. Now imagine the cockpit is silent but for the shots that hit your hull.

Do you still have complaints about sound in space?

Re:I don't think so (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#24913551)

Why would it necessarily be a bad thing? Instead of trying to solve the problem for a game designer point of view, try to solve the problem from the point of view of an hypothetical spacecraft designer from the futuristic future. The problem remains, you naturally don't hear a sound in reality. So what do you do? You equip the spacecraft with sensors that can detect the kind of dangers you care to be warned about and you give them a warning sound or visual indication. That's actually how it works in modern fighters, because you can't hear it either when a missile is fired at you from 25 miles away.

Realism isn't such a bad thing unlike what so many game designers seem to think, and when it comes to space stuff they violate so many rules it's not a bit funny. It's a bit painful to think that 1961 Spacewar! was so much more realistic than all of these games. Realism isn't the enemy of fun, it can even enhance it.

Re:I don't think so (3, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#24915699)

Why would it necessarily be a bad thing?

Because it would sound boring as hell.

Realism isn't the enemy of fun, it can even enhance it.

Realism is not the enemy of fun, but blindly applying realism is. I cringe every time someone cries that something in a game isn't realistic. It's not supposed to be realistic, it's a game. It's supposed to maximize fun, not realism.

Re:I don't think so (1)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 5 years ago | (#24918441)

Unfortunately in the RO:O [redorchestragame.com] community, there has been no end of the realism debates over the years.. such is life.

If Jumpgate was being billed as a MMO-Space-Sim, then yes: It should definately be more sim oriented.
This article bills it as a "space-fighter MMO", so that in my mind makes it just a 3d version of Subspace.. and that's fine too.

On an aside.. i'd play a MMO space sim.... something the likes of the old X-Wing games [wikipedia.org] or the X^n [wikipedia.org] games.

Re:I don't think so (1)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 5 years ago | (#24924943)

On an aside.. i'd play a MMO space sim.... something the likes of the old X-Wing games or the X^n games.

You might like Vendetta Online, then. Its extreme low-budgetness does show through at times, and the fact that it's been in development for several years means that you're going to see some fairly jarring differences in quality between the various models and textures, but in gameplay terms it's basically X:Online.

Re:I don't think so (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 5 years ago | (#24915975)

Why would it necessarily be a bad thing? Instead of trying to solve the problem for a game designer point of view, try to solve the problem from the point of view of an hypothetical spacecraft designer from the futuristic future. The problem remains, you naturally don't hear a sound in reality. So what do you do? You equip the spacecraft with sensors that can detect the kind of dangers you care to be warned about and you give them a warning sound or visual indication. That's actually how it works in modern fighters, because you can't hear it either when a missile is fired at you from 25 miles away.

Oh, come on. If your hypothetical spacecraft of the future can detect small weapons fire, it should be perfectly capable of making "pew pew pew" sounds to let you know you're being shot at. Next time you feel the urge to gripe about how sound doesn't travel in a vacuum, how about pretending it's the flight control system synthesizing the sound of weapons fire to wake up the pilot?

Re:I don't think so (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#24924303)

when it comes to space stuff they violate so many rules it's not a bit funny

You mean like a ship with practically instant acceleration, particle/energy weapons, 'respawning' when it blows up, 'shields', practically infinite energy supplies, the fact that any one who could build such a craft would probably also have weapons that were far better at aiming themselves than the guy with a mouse, hrm, I'm sure I missed a few things ...

Seriously, you're talking about realism in a space combat game when I can't even buy a ticket into space for less than 10 years pay, let alone own a space craft?

Realism in a space combat game is like the Matrix ... There is no realism. Stop being a tool.

Re:I don't think so (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#24926869)

My point pretty much. There's already so many broken rules, breaking more only makes it worse. You pretty much have to break rules to make a game, that's a must, but the fewer the better, no matter the genre. It's just wrong to think that because you've broken a few rules it means you can break as many as you like.

Re:I don't think so (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 5 years ago | (#24916489)

Not sure I agree.
 
While EvE is a bit of a different beast, I usually play it with sound disabled.
 
It is amazing how uncluttered a game can feel when it is silent.

Re:I don't think so (1)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#24911707)

You know very little about the original Jumpgate so I will address your silly comments.

The original had Newtonian Physics. This made flying and fighting very hard for new players, it just had an incredible learning curve which threw new players out of the game. To combat this they introduced special thrusters which added a form of drag in the new game to make flying a bit more bearable. And also it will make breaking far less tedious.

Are you serious about the sound? Why would anyone want to play a game without sounds? That's just silly

Original jumpgate had many views, the old over the shoulder view made it impossible to fly in it without crashing into things and getting lost. I am glad that's changed for sure. I believe the devs rational was that they wanted people to see the ships they were flying. Wither way I'm sure you will be able to set cockpit view if you are dying for it.

Re:I don't think so (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#24913941)

You know very little about the original Jumpgate

I do? How do you draw that conclusion? I played it for months, actually. It wasn't perfect, but it was the best thing since Elite. If I were to fault it for something, it would be being too newbie friendly. And for 3do closing down servers.

Are you serious about the sound? Why would anyone want to play a game without sounds? That's just silly

It's even more silly to think that sound not propagating through space means "without sounds". You'll have the sound of your own engines, weapons, hull stress, radio and other instruments, and certainly sounds whenever you get hit by something.

Re:I don't think so (2, Informative)

Aereus (1042228) | more than 5 years ago | (#24913081)

Quoted from a comment below the article on Massively.com:

"Understand a few things before you QQ (listen up, it's important). You are looking at a newbie mission - in a Solrain newbie shuttle. This is the equivalent of "Go out and collect me 10 boar tusks young one; gain a level while you're at it. Congratulations, you're two!"

The flight mode is using "dampeners". That's a jargon way of saying flight-assist mode is turned on. This allows new players to spend their first few missions learning the game instead of learning how to fly. Once you disable dampeners you enter into a Newtonian physics based flight sim in Space."

Fun first, realism second (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#24913101)

Seriously, games are meant to be fun. That is their primary reason to exist. Thus that needs to take precedence over all other concerns. A highly realastic space combat game isn't likely to be any fun. I don't want a game that is concerned with having 100% accurate modeling of motion, I want one that's fun to fly.

All the space shooters that I remember the most fondly are quite unrealistic in many ways. Tie Fighter would be a great example. Love that game, probably the best space shooter of all time. However, nobody is going to call it realistic. The flying mechanics are something akin to being neutrally buoyant in water. There is no gravity, but there is friction that opposes your motion. Also, sound travels quite well, you hear enemy ships zoom by, hear explosions and that sort of thing. You can also change your view around to any number of external camera angles.

So it isn't realistic. Well, nothing about Star Wars is. However it is fun, and that's the reason I'll buy a game.

So if you are not going to buy a MMO because you don't feel it is real enough, well, good luck to you, I suspect you'll never play one then. The companies out there aren't in it to try and simulate reality, they are in it to entertain. Thus reality is going to take a back seat when it interferes with fun.

To me this is like whining that Introversion's Uplink isn't a realistic simulation of computer hacking. Well duh. Real hacking is fairly boring when you get down to it, not the sort of thing that'd make a good game. They made their game to be entertaining, not realistic (for example IPs aren't real in their game, with a select few exceptions).

If you want a realistic space sim, go play Orbiter. However don't bitch if it isn't exciting. Real space navigation isn't. If you want a fun space fantasy game, maybe Jumpgate is for you. However don't bitch when they put fun before reality. Orbiter is trying to make a rather accurate simulation, so accuracy comes before fun. Jumpgate is trying to make a successful MMO, so fun comes before everything else.

Re:Fun first, realism second (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#24913653)

reality is going to take a back seat when it interferes with fun

Not really. Realism always takes the back seat, period. I strongly doubt that these game designers considered even a second going with proper inertia/thrusting (unlike what you think there's not much gravity involved in this setting), or proper sound propagation. It's just out of the norm, out of the space shooter genre, out of the tiny box game designers restrict their thinking to when it comes to making a game. They don't omit realism because they deemed it not fun, they omit realism because they probably didn't even consider it, because no one does that sort of stuff anymore.

Of all the science-fiction movies I've seen, 2001 was the most realistic one, with regard to sound, vacuum, distances, etc.. everything since then has been about entire planetary systems that look like distances have been shrunk 1,000 times, going 10 times faster than light, shading that doesn't even look right, asteroid belts so packed you can't see through them, etc... Same sort of reason why most movie plots involve super natural stuff or unlikely plot elements, people can't be bothered with realism, I believe they don't appreciate vraisemblance anymore..

Re:Fun first, realism second (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#24915737)

I strongly doubt that these game designers considered even a second going with proper inertia/thrusting (unlike what you think there's not much gravity involved in this setting)

The game has proper physics, "noob" physics is an option you toggle. You'd be wrong.

or proper sound propagation.

Of course they didn't! They didn't because it'd be fuckin' boring! It doesn't even require a second of thought to realize that.

Of all the science-fiction movies I've seen, 2001 was the most realistic one, with regard to sound, vacuum, distances, etc..

2001 was also the worst (non B-movie) science fiction movie I've ever seen. That's hardly a great model.

Re:I don't think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24916469)

No inertia?
Sound traveling through vacuum?
Over-the-shoulder view?

Count me out on this one.

The original Jumpgate had inertia, if they left it out of this game, it was probably customer feedback. You know how hard it was to "stop" at an asteroid in the original game? About as hard as docking at the ISS I imagine.

Sound? Well, *some* of that sound is originating in your ship, and your ship is *not* a vacuum. Also, who'd want to play a silent game?

Over-the-shoulder view? Most games offer both FP and 3rd person. I imagine they will too. (This is still beta for pete sake!)

It's Vendetta-online all over (2, Interesting)

Jesrad (716567) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917127)

Reading their Features page, this game seems just a clone of vendetta online [vendetta-online.com]. Twitch-based combat ? Three nations to pick from ? Bots-shooting grind ? Pirate minor factions ? Epic battles with capital ships ? Player-driven economy where you deliver needed goods to space stations ? The only feature missing is the asteroid mining.

"there's like fighting types of ships, mining types of ships, cargo haulers and within that there's sort of sub-classes. So like, there's light fighters, medium fighters, heavy fighters, bombers. There's haulers that carry a lot of stuff, but move kind of slowly and there's haulers that carry lost stuff, short little courier shuttles that move really quickly"

Ah, yes, kinda like the Centurion, Behemoth, Raptor, etc...

Re:It's Vendetta-online all over (1)

bishiraver (707931) | more than 5 years ago | (#24923693)

Jumpgate came first, then Vendetta (which was a clone of Jumpgate), and now ND is remaking JG into something that might (we can all hope) be fun to play instead of infinitely annoying.

VO and JGC both suffered from the same problem: a max population of about... 25 pilots.

Re:I don't think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24917779)

http://vendetta-online.com

Solves a couple of those problems.

Pussy Nazi Sez (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24911579)

No pussy for YOU!

Starfox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24911989)

It looks a lot like Starfox Assault.
Even the sound effects are pretty much the same.

Not impressed (1)

asquithea (630068) | more than 5 years ago | (#24913109)

Looking at that video, this doesn't seem to have advanced much beyond the sort of game-play we got with Freespace.
For comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6VhyMzu12c [youtube.com]

Re:Not impressed (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#24915765)

How, exactly, is that supposed to be a bad thing? Freespace was amazing, a MMORPG version is a great thing.

Re:Not impressed (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 5 years ago | (#24922027)

Pretty much. I've yet to play a space combat game I liked as much as FS1 and FS2.

very old gameplay (1)

netjiro (632132) | more than 5 years ago | (#24914609)

Sigh, they really should have gotten this better. Come on. This gameplay style might have been fun a long time ago, for about 5-10 minutes. Today, MMO, hours... Nope. The I-War people got it right several years ago. Damn good game(s). In the early days even the Warhead (old amiga) got this right. Today, I would expect something a lot better.

Collisions (1)

partowel (469956) | more than 5 years ago | (#24915809)

I hope this game has REAL collisions.

As in you can RAM the other ship.

Some games, like EVE, completely ignore this.

You can ram moons, suns, other ships, asteroids, and you get ZERO damage.

Its a joke.

I hope that jumpgate evolution allows ramming.

Re:Collisions (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#24916611)

Realistic collisions? Don't be silly, if you add realism to the game you'll also have to add real distances/velocities and at those ramming is EXTREMELY unlikely.

Re:Collisions (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 5 years ago | (#24917109)

As a suggestion for a game where ramming matters (and which in some ways is similar to how Jumpgate looks, but with real cockpit view) try Allegiance. It was a commercial game out of MS Research that didn't really go anywhere, so they open sourced it (no joke) and it is now community supported. Great joystick support, fun gameplay, an interesting mix of dogfighting and strategic play. 2000-era graphics will run fine on any system, though they look a little boxy.

http://freeallegiance.org/ [freeallegiance.org]

Also, ramming is a big part of EVE. It doesn't do damage but it sure knocks stuff around...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...