Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Yes, CB has learned a lot from making PN, Some wrong decisions along the way but its all a valuable leason for them as a PC Game Developer.
Some great concepts were shown and needed to be expanded on but alas that will not happen at this present time. Shame cos I really liked the concept of the game.
Their 1st PC game, not a great success but who knows what any future PC game may be forthcoming.
"We have improved the internal perception of the game inside Craneballs, were able to move some colleagues out of mobile games back to the Planet Nomads team and also hire a new game designer to give the game an overall consistency.
We want to improve the player immersion into the game, add more variety to weather, rebalance the survival and we still have much things to do, but we are certainly sure that we can plan the full game release in June 2019."
They are certainly not going to realize everything they planned in the beginning. But the game's not dead yet.
Also: "Waste of time to play" - wtf is that even supposed to mean? Each and every game is a waste of time. You play it for enjoyment only. And if I enjoy playing Planet Nomads, it's not more a waste of time than any other game.
I've put more than 80 hours in PN, so yeah it was already more fun.
And since they are dedicated to finish a minimal story set and modding support, I will gain a lot of it.
For me PN has been the game I always enjoy playing, Now I look forward to the final release and the updates along the way. Bravo Devs for daring to be different in creating a game like PN. Freedom to choose my own path ..... great.
500+ hrs in and I couldn't agree more.
textures still look blurry, eventhough everything is on ultra high setting, movement feels like i have sub 20FPS, yet i get 60+ FPS..
UI really bugs me, and more as ofter the UI dissapears in the lighting scheme of the game, making text near unreadable in the UI.. Overall the gme just doesnt give me any satisfaction, and it own went more downhill for me after it got onto steam..
Compared to other games of this genre, this is for me the least enjoyfull game of its type, pity at first i really enjoyed the initial concept, and to a point i still like the concept.
Just dislike really the way the concept turn out to be, and mostly how it looks, subpar to what i expect of a PC title..
As a player, I could see the lack of progress and direction that was mentioned in the Dev's article last month. 2017 was a great year for PN and a lot of fun to help the Devs debug things as we played along with them. I had hoped that momentum was going to continue into 2018. But, 2018 was the beginning of the end from my perspective. The game just never really moved forward with new and "interesting" things to do.
PN needed to have a story, universe expanse/travel, quests, etc. (ala No Man's Sky). The Devs referred to their work as the so-called "No Man‘s Sky clone". Having played both games, PN didn't achieve what NMS has done so well (and is still doing). But PN "blew the doors off" NMS in building and physics effects and that was very well done.
It is pretty clear to me that PN is in its twilight. So, expecting a great change at this point seems unrealistic. But these Devs did do a great job with the unique game they designed and for that I commend their efforts. Whether that team ever becomes anything more/better, time will tell and I wish them well. 🖖
When the devs add powered rotors, hinges and pistons along with logic circuits to the mix later on, things are going to get very interesting. I can see players like BC and Tang glued to their PC's for weeks devising new and crazy inventions using these new parts.
To be honest, if the devs forgot about the story and the survival part and concentrated only on more building materials, parts and construction, more existing players would be happier than those who wouldn't. I'd put money on it that most of the players use the creative mode to see what crazy new things they can invent than the number who play it for the survival or story aspect.
I imagine the OP being the type who would throw out their Mechano set or Lego bricks after putting only couple of parts together, realising their imagination isn't up to the task of figuring out what to do next.
Game + linear story = Time sink.
Game + imagination = Loads of fun.
A linear story has already been solved by the devs who created it, you are doing NOTHING they never imagined you doing.
PN is a totally different animal, devs are being surprised almost on a daily basis at what the players have done with the limited parts they've been given.
The first BCP video in my view that took PN by storm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLbq169xprQ
All done without the aid of logic gates.
I really hope they learn from the mistakes of PN and create PN2 "The Return", using all the knowledge they've gained to make it bigger, better and more interesting than PN was ever imagined to be.
I don't blame Craneballs entirely, without funding you can't make a complex game and they never got the funding. Sometimes people come running in, sometimes they don't. But the real failure here is has less to do with implementation and more to do with design. Months and years... years of asking "where do you see the game going?" ... "what features do you anticipate and/or hope for BEYOND just the millimetric expectations of the next quarter's roadmap?" ... "can you describe for us an example of the gameplay you envision in the final version of the game?" ... ... and nothing. Or as good as.
What that says, what it's said in all other stalled early access projects I've seen, is: "We didn't really get that far. We wanted to build a sandbox and just... I dunno... see where it goes." Well, it went. Sadly.
No game developer has ever released a smash hit straight out of the box since David Braben with Elite. But that was back in the days when game developers were few and the gamers were far more forgiving purely because there was so little choice. These days, you can't walk down the road without bumping into a game developer and the Indy market has never seen so much action. Granted, many of the Indy titles are games with graphics we were using on the Sinclair Spectrum but there are some really good Indy developers out there.
Sadly, what's lacking is imagination and so many copy too much of the same old things like yet another Transport Tycoon clone with better graphics. The number one reason for this is coders have to rely on logical thinking and that tends to override imaginative thinking. It's a fact that good coders make bad designers and good designers make bad coders, you really need one of each at least to succeed, imagination to create something innovative and logic to code it properly.
There also needs to be communication which is often forgotten in the gaming industry. Designers can imagine all sorts of things but only a coder can tell them if it can be done in a game reliably or not. Designers shouldn't be telling the players what they are going to do without going to the coders to see if it can actually be done first, giving the coders time to run tests for frame rate purposes if necessary, THAT is often where the biggest disappointments lie.
Designer says in his blog: We will have creatures with hundreds of legs.
Coder reads it and thinks: Yes, but you're only going to get 3 FPS at best.
The two scenarios that come from this are:
..1 The game has the creatures promised but terrible frame rates that make it unplayable.
..2 The creatures don't have anywhere near the number of legs promised.
Either way:-
Players playing the final game think: What a pile of cr** this game is.
Had the designers and coders communicated before the anouncement to the players, they could have reached a comprimise that would allow creatures with dozens of legs but still give reasonable frame rates, resulting in the game being playable. Players would have got what was promised and everyone is happy.
Ultimately, MARKETING is the biggest industry killer. You need to make the game attractive to a large audience in order to get the funding, while not promising anything you can't realistically deliver. It's a balance that is extremely difficult to master.
So true and they cannot possiobly understand why us backers are fed up with Craneballs. When many of us pledged lots of money into the kickstarter program only to find the developer gave up without even trying. I pledged over $150 USD for a high level pledge package which Craneballs quickly charged my credit card at the end of the kickstarter event. Then to make matters worst they lower my package to a tier 1 which was one quarter the price of my previous and never refunded my the diffence for it. So basically they ripped me off and didn't even care.