Naval War: Arctic Circle 75% down on Gamersgate

Herman Hum · July 28, 2014, 01:54:52 PM

Quote from: tgb on July 28, 2014, 12:18:22 PM
$6 roughly on Steam this week. Is this still being supported? Did all the bugs ever get squashed, and, more importantly, was the save issue ever fixed?

No save function was ever added. The game was abandoned by the developers 6 months after release. The source code has been released for anyone who wants to try their hand at fixing it.

Nefaro · July 28, 2014, 01:56:43 PM

Quote from: RyanE on July 28, 2014, 01:33:07 PM
I am curious what the attraction is for a naval simulation having 3D pictures of the units. To me, you are either the ship commander/officer in a 3D environment or in a command center monitoring the battle/situation on a map with units. Why is there an desire to having a 3D display connected to a map that really doesn't make use of the 3D capabilities?

I always felt that command used up too much development and CPU resources trying to get that little 3D window to display.

Because seeing missiles fired or exploding is some superb manly sheeit. Or just explosions in general. :D

It may have been a processing power sacrifice in 1999, with such limited hardware performance back then, but that shouldn't be an issue these days if the software is efficient.

Skoop · July 28, 2014, 01:57:45 PM

The attraction is we live in 2014 with 4 gig video cards out there, put them to work. Just love seeing the action play out in a 3d world. It's a luxury item though, not a deal breaker, I'm fine with command the way it is.

Herman Hum · July 28, 2014, 02:00:45 PM

Quote from: Nefaro on July 28, 2014, 01:56:43 PM
Because seeing missiles fired or exploding is some superb manly sheeit. Or just explosions in general. :D

It may have been a processing power sacrifice in 1999, with such limited hardware performance back then, but that shouldn't be an issue these days if the software is efficient.

Have you tried Global Conflict Blue 2? I think it has 3D images. However, I think they also recognize that building them is the slowest part of the game.

Skoop · July 28, 2014, 02:06:40 PM

I messed around with it once years ago, but it was in such a wip state, all the objects were generic place holders. The interesting thing is both are affiliated with warfare sims, it would make sense to merge the 2 projects and have the GCB guys just focus on the 3d objects for command.

RyanE · July 28, 2014, 05:54:36 PM

I kind of hope they don't do it. I want to see them focus limited resources on actual game play and UI. There are a bunch of games out there that let you see stuff flying around and exploding. Not sure I really want the Command guys distracted with it.

Nefaro · July 28, 2014, 07:27:00 PM

Quote from: RyanE on July 28, 2014, 05:54:36 PM
I kind of hope they don't do it. I want to see them focus limited resources on actual game play and UI. There are a bunch of games out there that let you see stuff flying around and exploding. Not sure I really want the Command guys distracted with it.

No, Command doesn't need 3D graphics even if it's software would run okay with it. It needs continued UI improvements & such and doesn't need such things.

But if some other title was being built up from scratch from someone else? Sure.. I wouldn't complain. Or if some people fixed this one up.

Herman Hum · July 29, 2014, 12:05:22 AM

Quote from: Nefaro on July 28, 2014, 07:27:00 PM

But if some other title was being built up from scratch from someone else? Sure.. I wouldn't complain. Or if some people fixed this one up.

I think that 3D images at any time are irrelevant and simply distract from the more important game functions. Just imagine if NWAC had never bothered to waste any of their time on silly 3D images, they might have spent that time and investment more profitably on adding a Save function or fixed their memory leaks. Every hour wasted on junk is one less hour spent on useful functions.

Toonces · July 29, 2014, 01:30:07 AM

WRT NWAC, like mentioned above, the source code was released. There is some potential for development I suppose, but I kind of get the feeling the community is too small to make the game a contender. I've goofed around with it some and if you're an enthusiast for the genre there is some interesting sandbox elements to it. For $6 it might be worthwhile if you're really into that type of game. I will say that CMANO is just far better, despite it being about 15x more expensive.

WRT 3D images, I certainly agree that they don't serve any use from making the game more accurate or whatever. But since it's a game, I personally love having the ability to watch the game's 3D images. After all, it's a game. It's just cool to watch. I wouldn't make 3D high on the priority list, though, at the expense of something like the UI or AI, or some other I.