This game has been Greenlit by the Community!

The community has shown their interest in this game. Valve has reached out to this developer to start moving things toward release on Steam.

Critical Point : Incursion
Sgt.Psycho Jul 3, 2013 @ 4:22pm
Sgt.Psycho's take on CP:I Core Principles
This is a response to http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/updates/92955708/1372859457

There is no TLDR guys :)

----------------

Okay, I'll bite and give you some feedback.

I'll speak from the perspective of a player who has been obsessed with tactical FPS for a long, long time. SWAT iterations, CS/S, TOAOT (shoutout to StealthyXIIGer), R6 (Ravenshield, none of this modern stuff), GR, OpFP, all the way back to UT(Q2)/AQ1-2 which afaik started the genre.

Until widespread broadband killed lans, I was involved for a number of years in CS/Q3 competition, and was part of the committee that organised my city's major lanparty and help organise/manage the state competitions that fed into the nationals (AGL) and eventually the internationals (CPL, etc).

I was only involved in the state comps, but that gives you an idea of my background and experience. Suffice to say I have plenty of years in it.

The concern that I have for this game fall into two parts, mirroring your comments.
How is this different to market leaders in tactical combat like CS/COD?
I have not played the game but based on your provided videos here are what I feel are the major quality issues:
* Low FPS, even in (assumed) lan with players teleporting around and lag. I'll accept that at least part of this is the recording process but it doesn't seem even close to commercial smoothness, let alone what pro-comp players will demand. When you have players who are investing $4K+ in their systems (I know one who bought a $1K bleeding-edge video card every year) they will have zero tolerance for this. If you can't provide 60FPS minimum with full frame interpolation to netcode, they're not interested.
* Really jerky and limited animations which limit both game immersion and tactical gameplay. It actually looks more like Arma 1 than CS/COD. Leg and head animations are particularly poor, while idles are far too short. Transitions are clunky and unnatural.
* Modelling issues. Headshot damage is compared armour vs no armour. Problem being the guy with armour is just wearing a beret. (I'll assume placeholder, but not a good look)
* Firing seems both a bit random (I get little feedback from it) and also heaps of hitscan/nospray regardless of what the player is doing, almost like it's interp'ing. Accurate modelling aside, combat looks like hitboxing, unfun and not very tactical, like a UT1 DM 'realguns' mod
* If you're going to have falloff, then model ballistics realistically. Or do some weapons just arbitrarily do no damage past X metres, which appears to be what you're saying?
* (Apparent) Instascoping, 'nuf said. This is matter of taste, but ragequit worthy for some. Would like to see how you handle melee-range noscoping.
* CQC?
* Movement is not particularly tactical and seems to favour early DM models over tactical shooters. Where is prone, covering fire, corner-fire, hurdling and sprinting?
* Poor sound cueing (although I'd have to test stereo HRTF cues to verify) and lack of variety/appropriateness in sound - why does the female character make the male sounds?
* Lack of weapons. I'm not seeing any grenades, tactical items or anything new in terms of inventory. I assume this will come in time, but to draw a crowd you're going to need either Excellence or "Guns. Lots of guns."
* Comms. None shown. I'll assume that teamspeak is a given, but would like to see what you have in place/planned for CS-style key verbal binds or other to facilitate team tactics and strategy
* Objectives. None shown bar team DM.

...and that's just a quick look at the FPS basics without even covering competition-level requirements. Given that at first glance CP:I is sub-par in just about every respect to CS/COD, I just don't see much to tempt people to buy in.

This is a common Greenlight complaint. If you want to compete with the big boys you need to either step up, or else explore unexploited niches. I accept that development funding is limited, and I can't expect a AA/AAA game, but as a player I have to ask, is it worth it?

This brings me to the second point:
Entertainment FPS vs Hardcore FPS
A multiplayer-only FPS lives or dies by it's community.

Until you can demonstrate that you have a superior tactical model and combat engine, imho (and I'm not dissing you) then you will not generate enough hype and support to keep the game going, and developing more content to keep it fresh and evolving.

Counter-strike (and Call of Duty) stood on the shoulders of predecessors that broke new ground in radical ways, refining it with superb mechanics that were unsurpassed for years. There's a reason they're still around, more than a decade later.

Imho, competition-level gamers are a cut above (several cuts depending on the snobbishness) your 'average' gamer in terms of demanding quality and performance. This is an environment where bare microseconds separate winning or losing, and game balance hangs on the edge of knife, with every factor inspected with exacting discrimination.

The goal is a worthy one, yes, and until you've had the pleasure of watching your opponent literally smash their keyboard or mouse to pieces over an awesome play, or feel the surging roar of the crowd in the dying seconds of a final qualifier, you don't know what hardcore gaming is. (Not that I am a hardcore gamer, btw)

Being multiplayer only, CP:I needs to deliver excellence not only in standard FPS, but in game balance and competition-level play. CPL and so forth need assurance it can cut it at that level. It's very demanding. International sports players don't buy their equipment at K-Mart and the like, I can assure you that cyberathletes are just as picky and demanding, and will not settle for second-best.

In the final analysis, as I just said to another MP-only dev, you need to build your community, grow it and keep improving. The alternative is to end up like Monday Night Combat[www.steamcharts.com], faded and forgotten. Even awesome premises and great gameplay can result in inexplicable failure[www.steamcharts.com].

Keep at it, follow your vision and make CP:I all it can be.

Good luck!

Edit: Minor formatting
Last edited by Sgt.Psycho; Jul 3, 2013 @ 10:31pm
Showing 1-6 of 6 comments
< >
TOP-Proto - Dominating Studios  [developer] Jul 3, 2013 @ 10:26pm 
the video states its alpha quality, and was done several months ago :)

We do not know exactly how our game will be percieved but we got a good idea.
We know we wont be able to please everybody, but we will be going for the mainstream.

Its nigh on impossible to get good animations ingame without excellent animation staff with obscene amounts of time to dedicate to the animations, alongside resource to support the animation staff. I think we will be forgiven with the animations provided we give good basic animations (walking, crouching etc) and not so good custom animations to start.

We will obviously be improving what we can, when we can.

Our vision however does not mean we will start as a "competitive ready" game on day one of release, we want to balance it, test it more, balance it some more and knock out any bugs we get. Once we are stable then we will look at what the community is doing and how theyre reacting.
Sgt.Psycho Jul 3, 2013 @ 10:50pm 
*spreads hands* I can only judge by what I can see.

You've got about 10 seconds (or less) to capture someone's vote, before they hit that Next button, it's just like advertising. We're only here to ask answer the question "Would you buy this game?"

This is a Day 1 Greenlight submission, and is now coming up to a year old. Why is there only two videos? Why are they months old? Why only a handful of pics? You've got lotsa guns? Great, show 'em off!

To trot out my much-worn GL complaint, "how hard is it to mash the screencap button?" I'm alpha testing other GL games and have submitted literally dozens of shots to them, for bug testing and promotional reasons.

I realise dev time is precious - so offload content capture to one of your supporters, and get another to manage the Greenlight page to keep everything up to date and tidy.

Show us your game at it's best, not it's worst. Show us what the game is, not what it was.

That said, I've been following CP:I since it was submitted and there has been a lot of work done. I haven't written it off. After I wrote the above I went further and there's been a lot more work done in your feature list and changelog. This is heartening.

A lot of what I said was missing is actually in the alpha, but just not immediately visible in the submission description.
TOP-Proto - Dominating Studios  [developer] Jul 4, 2013 @ 9:34am 
The amount of news we chose to share/hold back is very deliberate at this moment in time.

We will be ramping up when we are closer to the time.
Firebolt.de Dec 8, 2013 @ 12:13am 
@Sgt.Psycho: They are working for 7 years on it only yet. Maybe you should give the team some more time FFS!
Sgt.Psycho Dec 8, 2013 @ 11:37am 
Originally posted by Firebolt.de:
@Sgt.Psycho: They are working for 7 years on it only yet. Maybe you should give the team some more time FFS!
As you can see from the wall o' text I gave them plenty of time. That took me a good hour to research and write up. What I was referring to mostly was the fact that the game had been submitted, and then almost abandoned on Greenlight for more than six months.

I could have just pressed downvote and next, maybe thrown in a snarky one-line comment. Instead I took the time to speak about what I felt was needed given the 'core principles' espoused.

Seven years is several generations in game-time. There are now so many team FPS games, I'm not sure how this will go.

Good to see it's been Greenlit, I'll leave the reviews and future of this game in hands of the players. Best of luck, all.
{dTa}aRny  [developer] Dec 9, 2013 @ 2:16am 
Originally posted by Sgt.Psycho:
Originally posted by Firebolt.de:
@Sgt.Psycho: They are working for 7 years on it only yet. Maybe you should give the team some more time FFS!
As you can see from the wall o' text I gave them plenty of time. That took me a good hour to research and write up. What I was referring to mostly was the fact that the game had been submitted, and then almost abandoned on Greenlight for more than six months.

I could have just pressed downvote and next, maybe thrown in a snarky one-line comment. Instead I took the time to speak about what I felt was needed given the 'core principles' espoused.

Seven years is several generations in game-time. There are now so many team FPS games, I'm not sure how this will go.

Good to see it's been Greenlit, I'll leave the reviews and future of this game in hands of the players. Best of luck, all.

your feedback from the DEV team is highly appreciated, do continue to stick around and we would welcome you to play our beta when it's ready.
Showing 1-6 of 6 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50