Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Decline Asteroids Outpost: immersive, open world, sandbox style, survival multiplayer experience for PC

Astral Rag

Arcane
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
7,771
Asteroids_Outpost_2.jpg


10873371d062_oshzbc.jpg

Outpost%28sierra%29.jpg

oops
dddpzuqo.jpg

NEW YORK – February 10, 2015 – Atari®, one of the world's most recognized publishers and producers of interactive entertainment, today announced the upcoming release of Asteroids: Outpost™ for PC. This bold re-imagining of the world-renowned 1979 arcade shooter puts players in the role of a deep space miner, as they struggle for survival in the asteroid belt. Asteroids: Outpost reinvents the classic Atari title as an open world, sandbox style, survival experience, where players mine, build and defend their base and grow their fortune as they go “from rocks to riches”.

Set in the distant future, Asteroids: Outpost thrusts players into a harsh deep space environment. While on a massive, unforgiving asteroid, players face the challenges of exploring the asteroid, collecting resources, scavenging for ore, crafting equipment, and expanding their territory as they build highly customized bases - all while forming alliances and fighting off other players in challenging multiplayer gameplay. Recurring showers of smaller asteroids represent a source of wealth and a threat as players shoot down these incoming projectiles to defend their claims and harvest their components.

“Asteroids is one of the most iconic titles in Atari’s portfolio of more than 200 games and franchises, and we’re looking forward to ushering the game into today’s digital gaming era,” said Fred Chesnais, Chief Executive Officer, Atari. “We’re paying homage to the original Asteroids by incorporating classic features such as asteroid blasting capabilities, while introducing a completely new premise and gameplay. Asteroids: Outpost will appeal to both fans of the classic Asteroids as well as enthusiasts of immersive survival games and expansive MMOs."

https://www.atari.com/news/early-access-asteroids-outpost-multiplayer-survival-game-coming-soon-pc
http://www.asteroidsoutpost.com/
 
Last edited:

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
That doesn't sound very agile. It sounds more like taking-their-sweet-time.
 

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
That doesn't sound very agile. It sounds more like taking-their-sweet-time.

Agile is a fad created using already existing methodologies organized in a fashion that is more concerned with how it sounds than its ability to successfully produce a product. It discourages planning and documentation and promotes aspects of design paralysis (ever changing requirements). It lacks any means to deal with failure and recovery and makes no effort to structure an exit plan. That is why they are "taking-their-sweet-time". I mean, for years we have been perfecting development systems and we have been getting better at them only to have some idiot come in and create a neckbeard system that completely ignores the proven elements of the development cycle. It is a management fad, nothing more.
 

Angthoron

Arcane
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
13,056
That doesn't sound very agile. It sounds more like taking-their-sweet-time.

Agile is a fad created using already existing methodologies organized in a fashion that is more concerned with how it sounds than its ability to successfully produce a product. It discourages planning and documentation and promotes aspects of design paralysis (ever changing requirements). It lacks any means to deal with failure and recovery and makes no effort to structure an exit plan. That is why they are "taking-their-sweet-time". I mean, for years we have been perfecting development systems and we have been getting better at them only to have some idiot come in and create a neckbeard system that completely ignores the proven elements of the development cycle. It is a management fad, nothing more.
Agile still has a start-and-end though, it's more about "how we get there" that's supposedly the difference from the traditional PM approach. What you're describing is shitty excuse of Agile.
 

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
That doesn't sound very agile. It sounds more like taking-their-sweet-time.

Agile is a fad created using already existing methodologies organized in a fashion that is more concerned with how it sounds than its ability to successfully produce a product. It discourages planning and documentation and promotes aspects of design paralysis (ever changing requirements). It lacks any means to deal with failure and recovery and makes no effort to structure an exit plan. That is why they are "taking-their-sweet-time". I mean, for years we have been perfecting development systems and we have been getting better at them only to have some idiot come in and create a neckbeard system that completely ignores the proven elements of the development cycle. It is a management fad, nothing more.
Agile still has a start-and-end though, it's more about "how we get there" that's supposedly the difference from the traditional PM approach. What you're describing is shitty excuse of Agile.

Nothing wrong with attending to such, but I think it spends so much time in "how we get there" that it forgets where it is going (there are numerous problems its approach creates due to its inability to lock down requirements and plan its execution). Also, it is such a fad right now that studios are picking it up as if it will some how magically solve all their problems. When I hear a someone say they are using such openly as if a selling point, warning bells start going off because the only reason to mention such is because it is a hyped fad (not saying these guys did advertise that, though a recent game did do this).

I understand the need to communicate with the client to truly achieve their "needs" (and this seems like it is perfect for KS type projects), but this opens up a huge can or worms to an indefinite cycle that ends up pissing off the client. While a static method of development is too restrictive in such cases, the idea that your requirements should be adjusted constantly as if a natural evolution of the cycle is a dangerous process that leads to infinite design loops.

Personally, I think that no single process of development is a winner, that such should be designed to fit the project, but I will say that the planning and documentation phase combined with a flexible, but directed set of requirements is necessary to achieve a quality completion. That to disregard those is to greatly endanger the projects goals.
 
Last edited:

Angthoron

Arcane
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
13,056
That doesn't sound very agile. It sounds more like taking-their-sweet-time.

Agile is a fad created using already existing methodologies organized in a fashion that is more concerned with how it sounds than its ability to successfully produce a product. It discourages planning and documentation and promotes aspects of design paralysis (ever changing requirements). It lacks any means to deal with failure and recovery and makes no effort to structure an exit plan. That is why they are "taking-their-sweet-time". I mean, for years we have been perfecting development systems and we have been getting better at them only to have some idiot come in and create a neckbeard system that completely ignores the proven elements of the development cycle. It is a management fad, nothing more.
Agile still has a start-and-end though, it's more about "how we get there" that's supposedly the difference from the traditional PM approach. What you're describing is shitty excuse of Agile.

Nothing wrong with attending to such, but I think it spends so much time in "how we get there" that it forgets where it is going (there are numerous problems its approach creates due to its inability to lock down requirements and plan its execution). Also, it is such a fad right now that studios are picking it up as if it will some how magically solve all their problems. When I hear a someone say they are using such openly as if a selling point, warning bells start going off because the only reason to mention such is because it is a hyped fad (not saying these guys did advertise that, though a recent game did do this).

I understand the need to communicate with the client to truly achieve their "needs" (and this seems like it is perfect for KS type projects), but this opens up a huge can or worms to an indefinite cycle that ends up pissing off the client. While a static method of development is too restrictive in such cases, the idea that your requirements should be adjusted constantly as if a natural evolution of the cycle is a dangerous process that leads to infinite design loops.

Personally, I think that no single process of development is a winner, that such should be designed to fit the project, but I will say that the planning and documentation phase combined with a flexible, but directed set of requirements is necessary to achieve a quality completion. That to disregard those is to greatly endanger the projects goals.
Yeah, good point, I agree. Generally, Agile requires a lot more internal discipline than the traditional projects, and that kind of thing usually requires a slave-driver with a whip, because I can't really imagine a gang of techies sticking to the plan without thinking of new features to implement. A great example of Agile gone wrong is Star Citizen - endless funding, endless features, endless development cycle. You know it's not going to end well, unless it's a company filled with geniuses and titans of self-discipline. Once you have the feature/iteration/reiteration mill rolling without anyone to guide it, you're in trouble.

Agile is basically a buzz word for people that have a very bare understanding of the word at the moment, a way to claim that they stick to a methodology. They don't really, because they fail to make it a proper project to begin with. But you know that, no sense to reiterate :)
 

Astral Rag

Arcane
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
7,771
What's going on in Asteroids Outpost?
No, seriously.


There's a lot that is strange about Asteroids Outpost, but the most obvious is surely the way this supposed evolution of Atari's 1979 arcade game has literally nothing in common with its classic ancestor.

In the original, you guided a triangular spaceship around a black play area, shooting large asteroids which then broke into smaller asteroids, which then broke into...and so on. It was simple, ingenious and one of those early game concepts that still works perfectly today.

In this bizarre spin-off, you play a space miner foraging for ore on an airless moon in a sort of base-building, tower defence, first-person shooter multiplayer sandbox thing, a jumble of genres and ideas that very rarely coalesces into something that makes sense.

To be fair, this is very early access indeed. It's pre-alpha, which means that any criticisms can be at least partially deflected by the knowledge that almost everything is incomplete. On the other hand, Atari is happy to charge £24.99 for the experience, so it clearly thinks there's already something here of value to gamers.

Here's what happens: you start the game by choosing a server, then selecting a spot on the map to stake your claim. You then get to choose the location of your base, and add a large turret to it. Then the game drops you into first-person mode and leaves you to get on with it. "It" in this case being the destruction of the meteorites - not asteroids - that are constantly falling around you, in order to extract their ore.

Even just getting this far means suffering some pretty egregious bugs and deciphering some opaque instructions, however. Placing your base is a clumsy affair, and if you click away the tutorial text box before committing to a spot, you may even find you can't even get started. Picking a spot is frustrating, thanks to a map that doesn't scroll, often displays incorrectly and locks you into an invisible placement grid that is infuriatingly fussy. After all that, if you accidentally place your base on a slope, it will end up lodged in the scenery. The game really struggles with slopes, angles and movement.

The "asteroids" themselves are another matter entirely. They fall constantly, and will understandably kill you if they land on your head. While they explode on contact with the ground, that doesn't give you any ore. Nor do they drop ore if shot down by your automated turret. Only when you take control of the turret - a simple task that isn't entirely clear, thanks to fussy context sensitive prompts - will the space rocks give up their precious contents.

Blast an asteroid from the sky, and a giant glowing lump will fall in its place. It might be iron, silver, ice, quartz or some other resource. Then you venture out in first-person, shoot the lump with one of two mining tools, and the relevant ore is added to your stores. Collected ore is then used to either build more modules for your base - a greenhouse will allow your O2 supply to recharge quicker, for example - or you can cash it in for a currency marked SC. This lets you buy upgrades for your suit and mining vehicle, as well as restock the ammunition for your weapons.

And, basically, that's it. There's no apparent goal and almost no challenge. In an hour's play, I amassed over a million SC and was able to unlock every upgrade - at least, I could when the upgrade buttons worked. I was able to build any base extension I wanted, and the only hurdle was my own waning interest in shooting more rocks then mining the rocks and then shooting more rocks and...God, this game is dull.

The sandbox element is almost completely superfluous. It's a sandbox in the same way that a literal box full of sand is. You can hop in your vehicle, once you've built a vehicle pad, and then drive slowly around a vast empty grey world, bouncing off tiny bumps and getting snagged on rocks. You can't mine anything out here, you can't do anything except drive around, looking at all the grey. It makes the Mako sections from the first Mass Effect look like Burnout Paradise.

The world is supposed to be brought to life by other players, but even this doesn't really make sense. You have an assault-slash-sniper rifle to kill other players, should you trundle over to their base, which you can enter in order to steal their ore. This is actually quicker and easier than grinding it out yourself, since there are currently no defences against such incursions, and the only penalty for being killed is that you respawn back at your own base. It's an odd mixture of abject tedium and horrible griefing. Not the best starting point for a PVP title.

Yet everything about the game feels clunky and awkward, from the menus to the actual shooting space rocks gameplay. Shots often visibly pass through asteroids with no effect, while the in-game currency is all over the place. It costs 115 SC to restock the ammo for the Quantum Tunneler mining device, but when you click to buy some it only charges you 23 SC. Even on supposedly "Ultra" graphics settings it offers up glitched explosions, blocky objects and texture pop. Key mappings fail to work, settings reset themselves and buttons fail to respond. It's a mess, frankly.

How much of this is down to it being in such early access? As always with this most controversial of distribution methods, it's impossible to say. Is there a compelling game here that could eventually emerge? I honestly doubt it. Even if all the rough edges and weird glitches were patched overnight, it's still hard to see what the actual point of the game is. If the game is rebalanced so that you can't upgrade and buy everything in a few hours, that will only make the grinding more pronounced. If the multiplayer aspect is enhanced, it only makes the mining more irrelevant.

There are a lot of gameplay pieces swirling around here, but none of them are particularly fun, and none of them seem to fit together to form a coherent whole. There's nothing at the heart of it, no single obvious idea, hook or goal to justify why you're going through this mindless, repetitive cycle of shooting and mining and looting other players. Where it goes from here is a total mystery.

The Asteroids branding is especially confusing. That Outpost doesn't even bother with the signature feature of the original game - that the asteroids break apart into smaller pieces - is indicative of the tenuous connection between the two. If anything, with so much of your time spent shooting upwards at objects hurtling from the sky, it resembles a Missile Command first person shooter far more than it does a new take on Asteroids. Suffice to say, on the back of Jeff Minter's current woes, those who feel the current custodians of the Atari brand have no understanding of the legacy they've inherited will find plenty to support their theory here.

Judged purely on its level of technical polish, and even with the Early Access caveat to excuse its wonkier aspects, this feels like a particularly roughshod experience for the money Atari is charging. As an update of an arcade classic, it's utterly baffling - the presence of rocks is literally the only thing they have in common. As a modern "open world sandbox survival game" it fails because there's nothing to do, nothing to find, and no reason to survive. It flounders as a multiplayer experience because there's no reason to kill each other, no meaningful reward for doing so and no penalty for your own demise.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of handing classic games over to indie developers and letting them riff on them in interesting and offbeat ways. An update doesn't have to be a remake, but it has to have something. Maybe Asteroids Outpost has just been released too early for us to see what that something is, leaving players stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place.




dfsqtnu3e.png


:negative:
 
Last edited:

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
I have no idea what this "Agile" business about. I'm more of the oldschool way, where you just start writing code until either something awesome comes out, or the entire thing turns into an unworkable mess. Of course, I also still write code in text editors rather than those fancy whatzit-thingies.
 

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
I have no idea what this "Agile" business about. I'm more of the oldschool way, where you just start writing code until either something awesome comes out, or the entire thing turns into an unworkable mess. Of course, I also still write code in text editors rather than those fancy whatzit-thingies.

Agile is not a "business", it is a Project development methodology, like the Waterfall Method, Iterative development methods like RUP, etc... It is a process for taking an idea and bringing it to fruition. The discussion here was with that process.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
891
Location
Canuckistan
My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
Agile would work if the many anointed software engineers actually knew about engineering. You put almost everything sufficiently complex together in iterations, but you need at least some sort of vision of where you're going before the mindless iteration. So many places buy into the idea of agile because it is a good idea, but completely fuck up the implementation.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
Agile is not a "business", it is a Project development methodology, like the Waterfall Method, Iterative development methods like RUP, etc... It is a process for taking an idea and bringing it to fruition. The discussion here was with that process.
Okay, now you're speaking in Greek. What does this mean to someone with an oldschool, "I pop open a text editor and start coding" approach?
 

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
Agile is not a "business", it is a Project development methodology, like the Waterfall Method, Iterative development methods like RUP, etc... It is a process for taking an idea and bringing it to fruition. The discussion here was with that process.
Okay, now you're speaking in Greek. What does this mean to someone with an oldschool, "I pop open a text editor and start coding" approach?

It is just a process of development that you might go through. They vary depending on method, for instance Rational Unified Process uses 4 basic phases of development: Inception (ie costs, risks, etc...), Elaboration (core design, modeling, etc...), Construction (building it), Transition (production, beta testing, optimizing, etc...). One who "codes from the hip" aka "I pop open a text editor and start coding" pretty much goes straight to the construction phase. This can work fine for small and simple projects, but doing this on anything very complex and you are asking for some serious problems.

Development-iterative.png


Most Traditional methodologies are very "engineering" like. They are very scientific in process, mapping out their entire plan and process before even touching the later stages. When you really know your requirements and they are not going to change much, a traditional Waterfall method works (ie you don't need to revise anything, its pretty straight forward from start to completion and so each "step" of the waterfall is one way). Problem is, not everything works like that. Many projects need to be revised as the requirements change. So, an iterative process for dealing with such is needed. This allows you to fix a given problem that planning didn't account for. So, within each stage, you can go back to the beginning of it or even before it and do another iteration through it to shore up the issues.

Agile focuses very specifically on that iteration process (in many ways to the exclusion of everything else) which was the what we were discussing as one of its good and bad points.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
[It is just a process of development that you might go through. They vary depending on method, for instance Rational Unified Process uses 4 basic phases of development: Inception (ie costs, risks, etc...), Elaboration (core design, modeling, etc...), Construction (building it), Transition (production, beta testing, optimizing, etc...). One who "codes from the hip" aka "I pop open a text editor and start coding" pretty much goes straight to the construction phase. This can work fine for small and simple projects, but doing this on anything very complex and you are asking for some serious problems.
The alternative is that NO CODING IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING, which, well, doesn't work very well either.

Iterative, as in, "compile it, watch it crash, fix it, rinse, repeat"?
 

Angthoron

Arcane
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
13,056
[It is just a process of development that you might go through. They vary depending on method, for instance Rational Unified Process uses 4 basic phases of development: Inception (ie costs, risks, etc...), Elaboration (core design, modeling, etc...), Construction (building it), Transition (production, beta testing, optimizing, etc...). One who "codes from the hip" aka "I pop open a text editor and start coding" pretty much goes straight to the construction phase. This can work fine for small and simple projects, but doing this on anything very complex and you are asking for some serious problems.
The alternative is that NO CODING IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING, which, well, doesn't work very well either.

Iterative, as in, "compile it, watch it crash, fix it, rinse, repeat"?
Or "Watch it work, but not be perfect yet, so take it back and improve it", which is why this is a methodology that IT companies like to use.

The boring definition is:
Iterative design is a design methodology based on a cyclic process of prototyping, testing, analyzing, and refining a product or process. Based on the results of testing the most recent iteration of a design, changes and refinements are made.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
So, it's exactly like what I said, only they've given it a pretentious corpspeak name? I knew there was a reason it was tripping my bullshit detectors.
 

Angthoron

Arcane
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
13,056
So, it's exactly like what I said, only they've given it a pretentious corpspeak name? I knew there was a reason it was tripping my bullshit detectors.
Pretty much, yeah.

Then again, every profession has its own pretentious jargon, so there's zero surprise that suits have that. It's a pretty hilarious jargon though.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
Yes, but usually the jargon MEANS something, and isn't just made to sound like a word so they can bandy it about pretentiously. A word which, incidentally, it is not.
 

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
Yes, but usually the jargon MEANS something, and isn't just made to sound like a word so they can bandy it about pretentiously. A word which, incidentally, it is not.

What jargon are you saying doesn't "mean something"?
 

Xenich

Cipher
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,104
The alternative is that NO CODING IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING, which, well, doesn't work very well either.

It is called "Design Paralysis", it basically means you spend all your time planning features and additions, but never getting anything done. It is why some think the planning and documentation phase of traditional processes are bad.


Iterative, as in, "compile it, watch it crash, fix it, rinse, repeat"?

Yes, but keep in mind that these are concepts of development and not specific to just coding. The idea is that you may need to revise at any stage. You might be planning your project and through the process of establishing various costs and risks, you find that your plan may have omitted something it needs and so in the process of reevaluating your plan you adjust it with this new information. You may get into the production of your product and find out that what sounded good on paper isn't working out in application, so you adjust it, go back up to the planning phase and adjust it as well as evaluate if your change in the production phase might affect other systems. It is a process of constant revising to improve, make better, shore up, and refine a given stage of the process (planning, design, implementation, maintenance, etc...).

Network Engineering has its own processes for developing systems. Cisco Life Cycle (Prepare, Plan, Design, Implement, Operate, Optimize) which is a process for dealing with network design and implementation. There are numerous types of "development methodologies" out there that were designed to structure an approach to various projects. Some are high level in their function giving a very basic overview of a process leaving the individual to decide best how to handle the details of a given approach and some are much more detailed. Regardless, when you are dealing with massively sized projects, you have to use some structured system of planning and development or you end up with all sorts of problems. That is not to say that these approaches don't create their own problems as well, but most of the time that isn't exactly a failing with a given system.
 

Angthoron

Arcane
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
13,056
Yes, but usually the jargon MEANS something, and isn't just made to sound like a word so they can bandy it about pretentiously. A word which, incidentally, it is not.
They have a meaning. All of them. There's actual dictionaries and terminology books dedicated to this shit, with formulae attached. See, to you a concept like iterative design is simple common sense. To someone else, it's a novel fucking idea. How do you get people from different spectrums of expertise, interest etc, different departments and such, to work together? Usually by having a mutual terminology that every side of the party understands. It's simple efficience. Yeah, it sounds artificial and feels unnecessary, but if you're able to describe a suit what you want without wasting a week and having him fall catatonic in the process, this really helps.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom