That Earthling chick looks remarkably like a CGI character I've been developing:

Same brown-hair-white-bangs thing and all...

Anyway, can't wait for this game. Like I've been saying, it looks like it was made by people who loved Star Control 2, and that's exactly what I want out of a reboot. Oh, my, yes.

Only criticism: not a huge fan of the landing zone thing for the planet.

Oh, not because of the mini-game; that looks nifty enough. It's the fact that it looks like you can't choose your landing site, like you make planetfall where the game decides. 

Maybe I'm wrong, and we just didn't get to see the selection process for that...but you'd think--realistically, anyway--that'd be something the player could choose.

Other than that, yeah...can't wait.

Thanks.

Well, yes and no. 

I worked in games back in 2001, did a thing or two for indie flicks, but mostly just my own work, for fun and for my YouTube channel.

So, if you wanna be technical, I suppose the answer is 'yes'...but I'm not sure how much YouTube counts as 'professional' (even though I do get money from it).

Quoting fruitcake693,

reply 5

When he said "Go to the Blue planet" as a colorblind person   

I know that is not possible for everyone as the glasses are rather pricey.


Frogboy, will there possibly be a Colorblind enhanced skin or something to help folks like fruitcake?

Very valid point, maybe they can put in a hover over tooltip box with a bit of info for situations like that.

The real question is what does Wymdoo think they are and where did he get them?

QFT. Totally my objection as well.

Have to admit, the characters in SCO do look kind of cartoony.

Granted, they were slightly cartoonish in SC2, as well, but if we have a scale of "cartoony" on one end and "uber-realistic" on the other, SC2 is kind of in the middle, leaning slightly to realistic, while SCO is more halfway to cartoony from the middle.

I don't mind, exactly, and it's probably way too late to change it...but I kinna wish it weren't so.

I like this news.

And I'm going to be playing this game, cute or not; nearly everything I've seen, I like...and for nearly everything I don't like, I'm told that the improvement I expect is coming, or that my interpretation was incorrect and what I was hoping for is actually in there already.

Hurry up and finish this bloody game already! I wanna play!

Well, it helps take a game seriously. Or at least, more seriously. It lets us know the developers are taking us seriously.

Maybe that's a bit unrealistic, and I freely admit that it's a visceral thing rather than logical but that doesn't mean it's not still there.

Not sure that's really a fair comparison, given that the games themselves are kinna different. I actually never played either of them...or at least, not for particularly long; I was never a fan of Snorecraft, and I played EverQuest 1, but never 2.

But there are definitely times when a game's look is cartoony and I wish it wasn't. I remember the first preview I ever saw of Spore (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dvMDFOFnA), it looked like they were going for a certain amount of realism; not completely, but still...I was really looking forward to it. And yet, when the final game came out, it suddenly looked like Disney, certainly in comparison to the preview...and I was rather disappointed by that.

Those are also the only all-CGI movies we ever really see. That's not a fair comparison until we see what happens when there is a CGI flick that looks more like, say, GI Joe or Transformers rather than Looney Tunes, and isn't trying to make kids laugh the whole time.

(Actually, this almost describes most sci-fi movies these days; sure, there are actors, but they're up against greenscreens, the lot of 'em, and nearly everything else is animated...and those flicks do pretty darn well without being Disney-esque. Can ya fault us for wanting Guardians of the Galaxy instead of Finding Nemo?)

Well, I'm an animator and have worked in games; the aesthetics do matter to me. They matter to a lot of people.

The way something looks is part of the entertainment.

Well, I promise to you that you'll never hear--well, read--that kind of drek out of me. I usually do my best to get the grammatical order correct even when it's obviously a bit awkward, and I always, always, always use an Oxford comma.

Well, how about 'non-sweetened'?

I used to be guilty of it; I was attempting to find a middle ground between realistic and anime-style once, and the eyes came out creepy-as-hell.

I've learned my lesson, since.

But do you think that the game would have suffered for attempting a more realistic design? (Assume that the burden on the processor and graphics card was exactly the same, just for the sake of argument; this is about the look of the game, here.)

There is no reason it must take up more processing power if it were more realistic; a character only needs to be modeled differently, which can be accomplished without extra geometry if done correctly.

Now, now...non-sweetened is in the dictionary. (I checked).

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sweeten
Scroll down a bit.

QUOTE: "Related forms 
"nonsweetened, adjective"

Quoting Taslios,

reply 21

I made the spelling error, not you

Oh.

But I digress, we are here to talk about a soon to be released awesome game, not the nuances of the English language

True. Where were we...?

Oh. Right. Visual design. Cartoony vs realistic.

Well, it's really just a design thing: make the eyes less round and goofy, maybe make the colors not quite so vibrant, give them a bit more texture, a little more messiness. 

I mean, it doesn't take more polygons just to make the shapes different.