What I Want to See in Conduit 3 (Part 1: General Things)

#1CmoIsDaNam3Posted 12/12/2013 5:19:26 AM
Video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmm-RIB6aoA

Hey, with me running this short mini-commentary series on my YouTube channel for what I I want to see in Conduit 3, I thought about just posting it to here as well, there may be a few things in my video version that aren't covered here, but in any case here we go. :D

1.) High Voltage Software needs to take 3 years to develop Conduit 3

As most of you know, High Voltage Software for both Conduit 1 and Conduit 2 took two years to develop both games, but imagine if they took 3 years instead? That's an extra 50% longer to develop Conduit 3, and when a developer takes longer to make a game, its often a better game, that's why Smash Bros Brawl was delayed an extra year, and I think the same needs to happen with Conduit 3 to just make a better game period.

2.) Conduit 3 needs to run a constant/near constant 60 frames per second

Conduit 2 for the most part ran at 30 fps, there are a few times though where it will run at 60, or at least close to it, and that's usually in private matches for 1 v 1s or whatever, but with upgraded hardware I feel it should run a smooth 60 fps. Which would be awesome, but speaking of better hardware...

3.) Conduit 3 NEEDS to be on the Wii U

If Conduit 3 is to be successful, its has to be on the Wii U, which is a better system that is actually able to do HD and isn't as limiting as the original Wii, its pretty obvious that this needs to happen, but I might as well put it out there, and even though there are not a whole lot of Wii U's in peoples hands, I'm sure its more than the amount of Conduit players period.

4.) Game patches should range from 7 - 9 times.

Since Conduit 2 is a patchable game, it was patched 6 times, but most people I talk to wished it had one or two more patches to limit the effectiveness of some guns, and fix glitches in some maps and guns, so with more patches and better post-launch support it should be better, if HVS can patch the game more than 6 times that would be awesome, 9 times might be a little much, but if they can do it, why not?

Thank you for reading this, what are some ideas you guys have as far as stuff that covers all the things in Conduit 3? List them down, and have a good day. :)


~Cmo
---
Conduit, More, Often.
Emergence - A Conduit 2 Montage TRAILER: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmZJFZx9lDk COMING SOON
#2King_Boo922Posted 12/12/2013 6:18:21 PM
You don't think it's a little odd to ask for 3 years of development and patches? Why not just say you want the game actually finished this time. All the balancing and bug testing to happen before the game is released.
---
https://www.youtube.com/user/KingBoo922
#3Frozen_TitanPosted 12/13/2013 4:11:05 AM
King_Boo922 posted...
You don't think it's a little odd to ask for 3 years of development and patches? Why not just say you want the game actually finished this time. All the balancing and bug testing to happen before the game is released.

no post-release bug testing eh
question
suppose they spend lots of time and effort bug testing it pre-release, then release the game
players then find some bugs
u dont want them to fix said bugs because no post-release bug testing
am i reading u correctly
?
#4King_Boo922Posted 12/13/2013 7:52:50 AM
Frozen_Titan posted...
King_Boo922 posted...
You don't think it's a little odd to ask for 3 years of development and patches? Why not just say you want the game actually finished this time. All the balancing and bug testing to happen before the game is released.

no post-release bug testing eh
question
suppose they spend lots of time and effort bug testing it pre-release, then release the game
players then find some bugs
u dont want them to fix said bugs because no post-release bug testing
am i reading u correctly
?

If bugs are found, then yes they should be fixed. But with an extra year of development, I wouldn't expect any bugs, or at least very few. So giving the team more time an expecting more patches just seems counter intuitive.
---
https://www.youtube.com/user/KingBoo922
#5__CSNPosted 12/13/2013 10:08:01 AM
More development time =/= better finished product

Melee took considerably less time to develop and was actually playable at a competitive level, despite falling far short of 3S and other big dogs at the time.

Brawl was just f***ing awful. No attempt at balancing, no technical depth, a s*** ton of stage hazards, an unplayable online mode, and just about every broken, randomness-based feature that forms a casual's wet dream. The only people who think Brawl is good, or remotely playable without a competitive ruleset, suck at it. Delaying it did nothing to help since Sakurai devoted a massive amount of the development to a terrible campaign. Brawl is a party game that's just too unbalanced and random (f***ing bombs everywhere, FSs, disjointed hitboxes. etc. ) to even be considered for anything.
#6Frozen_TitanPosted 12/13/2013 1:18:32 PM
King_Boo922 posted...
Frozen_Titan posted...
King_Boo922 posted...
You don't think it's a little odd to ask for 3 years of development and patches? Why not just say you want the game actually finished this time. All the balancing and bug testing to happen before the game is released.

no post-release bug testing eh
question
suppose they spend lots of time and effort bug testing it pre-release, then release the game
players then find some bugs
u dont want them to fix said bugs because no post-release bug testing
am i reading u correctly
?

If bugs are found, then yes they should be fixed. But with an extra year of development, I wouldn't expect any bugs, or at least very few. So giving the team more time an expecting more patches just seems counter intuitive.

in that case, heres the follow-up question that in all honesty you have to have seen coming:

Have YOU ever programmed anything before or, to be general, are you an engineer of any kind?

there comes a point when overly extensive bug-testing becomes a waste of time and effort, for it is literally a search for specific scenarios in a near-infinitely wide state space. some pre-release bug-testing is obviously expected, but whether a handful of people can eliminate glitches to the point of there being "very few" left is largely based on luck - moreso than ingenuity. thus, after some point, it is much more efficient to let users, generally by freak chances, find the bugs for us.
after all, whats one of the major central creeds of engineering
If you've built something, good for you; it won't work the first time.
#7_SignalPosted 12/13/2013 3:30:47 PM
I understand that having a game that runs at 60 frames per second in HD quality would give the WiiU shooter community something to be proud of, but 60 frames per second is overkill unless everyone in the match has ping times of less than 17 ms, because 60 cycles per second is 16.7 milliseconds per cycle.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a game that ran smoothly and responsively at 60 frames per second. I just think it's impractical in a real world environment where we're playing with people with ping times of 200 - 300 ms.

For many years the motion picture standard speed was 25 frames per second. It is possible to achieve very smooth motion at 25 frames per second.

I'd rather have something that ran smoothy at the NTSC 30 frames per second than have any jitter at 60.

Actually maybe a compromise would be the way to go here. Run campaign at 60 fps and the multiplayer at 30. More on campaign in a minute.


As far as development time and the number of patches is concerned, I don't think you can put fixed numbers on either of those.

HVS patched C2 for three months and arguably they managed to give us a pretty playable game. At some point, they have to move on. The question is, how long should a developer continue to support and patch a game if there are problems? The answer has two aspects:

1. They should work until all reasonable problems with the game are fixed. This might not include every bug that the game has, but they should make an effort to fix most of them.

2. They should continue to support the game with patches and updates as long as the game continues to sell an appreciable number of units. If the game is still making them money, they should continue to actively support it.

As a side note, I really do think that HVS actually did a heroic job in patching this game to get it running as well as it does. They certainly met both the criteria that I mentioned above. Sure there are still small bugs, but by and large this is a playable game.

Development time just depends on the team developing it, and how many people are working at each stage. Whatever the case, the story needs to "feel" finished. I don't necessarily mean the end for the Conduit franchise, but rather that each level needs to feel like things that appear to have been intended for some function should function, and that the script and storyline seem complete.

Conduit 2 is the only campaign based game that I've ever finished and that says something. It says that the campaign was short. The campaign mode of the next game needs to be longer and less repetitive. They even joke in-game about video game designers re-using levels. Well, I said that they "joke" about it, LOL.

One final note, at least for now. I really think that Conduit needs to be rebooted. The Conduit franchise would be considered a business failure, and some people will never let that fact rest, no matter how great the next Conduit turns out to be. Those critics will remind everyone of how lackluster the first two games were, how they were copies of Halo, yada yada yada.

Conduit needs a fresh start without the stigma. Maybe call it The Gate. That sounds creepy enough.
---
We're on top for now!
Conduit2FC(36): 3354-2948-5226, (38): 4814-7986-3261
#8JVC-AshuraPosted 12/13/2013 5:14:39 PM
__CSN posted...
More development time =/= better finished product

Melee took considerably less time to develop and was actually playable at a competitive level, despite falling far short of 3S and other big dogs at the time.

Brawl was just f***ing awful. No attempt at balancing, no technical depth, a s*** ton of stage hazards, an unplayable online mode, and just about every broken, randomness-based feature that forms a casual's wet dream. The only people who think Brawl is good, or remotely playable without a competitive ruleset, suck at it. Delaying it did nothing to help since Sakurai devoted a massive amount of the development to a terrible campaign. Brawl is a party game that's just too unbalanced and random (f***ing bombs everywhere, FSs, disjointed hitboxes. etc. ) to even be considered for anything.


I strongly disagree with saying "Brawl was just f***ing awful"! It's true that melee is faster but that doesn't mean it's much more technical!

Moreover, the mind game is omnipresent in brawl but in melee, you don't need much of it to continue a combo you just started if you are technical. I love both games and even though i only play melee these days, i did a lot of brawl tournaments and i can assure you that brawl is a very competitive game!

On the other hand, if you play with other stages than the five starters and if you play with objects... And don't tell me that brawl is more unbalanced than melee cause, Fox is pretty OP to me.

Here are competitive matches if you wanna take a look^^: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NQn3h6F8D0
This one with MewtwoKing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpkkRbegUOI
---
Want some melee? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYgopUL8kk8&hd=1
#9Outsider1220Posted 12/13/2013 10:39:02 PM
Here's what I want to see

The Illuminati (Washington, Lincoln, and who knows who else) are historical figures snatched from time to fight what ever is in the ship the ASE summoned.

Romance between Ford and Andromeda is a no-brainer

In space levels, with gravity as a factor.

A close combat weapon like Halo's energy sword

This game has the potential to be a combination of Halo and Assassins Creed if done right.
#10King_Boo922Posted 12/14/2013 7:52:30 AM
Frozen_Titan posted...
King_Boo922 posted...
Frozen_Titan posted...
King_Boo922 posted...
You don't think it's a little odd to ask for 3 years of development and patches? Why not just say you want the game actually finished this time. All the balancing and bug testing to happen before the game is released.

no post-release bug testing eh
question
suppose they spend lots of time and effort bug testing it pre-release, then release the game
players then find some bugs
u dont want them to fix said bugs because no post-release bug testing
am i reading u correctly
?

If bugs are found, then yes they should be fixed. But with an extra year of development, I wouldn't expect any bugs, or at least very few. So giving the team more time an expecting more patches just seems counter intuitive.

in that case, heres the follow-up question that in all honesty you have to have seen coming:

Have YOU ever programmed anything before or, to be general, are you an engineer of any kind?

there comes a point when overly extensive bug-testing becomes a waste of time and effort, for it is literally a search for specific scenarios in a near-infinitely wide state space. some pre-release bug-testing is obviously expected, but whether a handful of people can eliminate glitches to the point of there being "very few" left is largely based on luck - moreso than ingenuity. thus, after some point, it is much more efficient to let users, generally by freak chances, find the bugs for us.
after all, whats one of the major central creeds of engineering
If you've built something, good for you; it won't work the first time.


I've done a very small amount of programming. Never got the hang of it as computers aren't really my thing. You almost talk as if getting a game out with no issues is impossible, the mario club does a pretty good job of keep all of nintendo's games running smoothly, for the most part.
Hasn't the work around for massive bug testing for the last few years just been to have an open beta? HVS could just do that.
---
https://www.youtube.com/user/KingBoo922