DLC? Are You Kidding Me? CONTENT PATCHES!

[grapedog]

I paid for the edition that comes with the additional 2 DLC's.

Now, before I've even gotten the DLC's I've already put over 375 hours into a single save.... and that is ACTUAL play time, not SETA. There are probably 10-15 hours in there of me taking a shower, or cooking dinner, or something along those lines that I wasn't physically at the keyboard, but otherwise that's 360 hours of at the keyboard playtime. On a normal $50 triple A title, I'll get maybe 20-30 hours if I'm lucky.... and it's not like they're often making games like Dragon Age or the original Deus Ex, where you can get 50-100 hours of playtime because you can do multiple things different ways. Occasionally you'll get a game like Planet Coaster, Total War, Civilization... which can be played for way longer that a regular game. That's more what I look for when I think of an X series title. I imagine it will only get better as more patching is done to address issues and make upgrades, as well as the addition of 2 for sure DLC's, and maybe more after.

I just hope DLC's are reasonably priced. A lot of companies like to gouge for DLC's... that would be a big turn off.

[Shehriazad]

I paid for the edition that comes with the additional 2 DLC's.

Now, before I've even gotten the DLC's I've already put over 375 hours into a single save.... and that is ACTUAL play time, not SETA. There are probably 10-15 hours in there of me taking a shower, or cooking dinner, or something along those lines that I wasn't physically at the keyboard, but otherwise that's 360 hours of at the keyboard playtime. On a normal $50 triple A title, I'll get maybe 20-30 hours if I'm lucky.... and it's not like they're often making games like Dragon Age or the original Deus Ex, where you can get 50-100 hours of playtime because you can do multiple things different ways. Occasionally you'll get a game like Planet Coaster, Total War, Civilization... which can be played for way longer that a regular game. That's more what I look for when I think of an X series title. I imagine it will only get better as more patching is done to address issues and make upgrades, as well as the addition of 2 for sure DLC's, and maybe more after.

I just hope DLC's are reasonably priced. A lot of companies like to gouge for DLC's... that would be a big turn off.

Well if the Split DLC follows the trend of the other factions we are to expect the following:

6ish Sectors of a Split main faction and maybe 1 Split subfaction that is allied to them WITHIN those sectors or an allied/opposing faction that has yet another 6 sectors.(it can be slightly more or less sectors, Im just taking an average here based on the other factions)

5-8 S Ship models
6 M Ship models
5-6 L Ship Models
2 XL Ships (Carrier + Resupply ship) and MAYBE a custom Builder ship...but that's a BIG maybe.

A BUNCH of custom Split station modules

Those are the ones' that seem LIKELY...now some MAYBES

New commodities and according factories for it as Split had to have their OWN economy since they were cut off
New weapons and ship parts
New Missions
New Guilds (rather likely, but we don't know who they will pick as enemies aside from Borons..or if they even still want to kill them)




As for pricing..of course I can only GUESS...but the Collectors UPGRADE is priced at 30€. Some of that were other bonus content aside from the promised DLC...so buying the Split DLC on its' own will have a pricetag anywhere between 10€ and 20€... and no matter where that lands, it seems justified for the amount of content that can be expected.

[grapedog]

I'm hoping that each DLC's not only addresses that single factions sectors, but updates and maybe add's 1-3 additional sectors... non-owned, or pirate/xenon/kha'ak controlled.

[Shehriazad]

I'm hoping that each DLC's not only addresses that single factions sectors, but updates and maybe add's 1-3 additional sectors... non-owned, or pirate/xenon/kha'ak controlled.

This could even happen in random patches...if Egosoft gets around to that I think they wouldn't be opposed to increase the universe of the base game if it makes sense...and it already does ^^

X3 and X:R both had one thing that X4 doesn't really shine quite as much yet...some very scenic places. I hope that they put that in some X.0 or X.5 patch once the Split dlc is out...and of course the Split space is allowed to look sexy as well!

[Falcrack]

I'm hoping that each DLC's not only addresses that single factions sectors, but updates and maybe add's 1-3 additional sectors... non-owned, or pirate/xenon/kha'ak controlled.

This could even happen in random patches...if Egosoft gets around to that I think they wouldn't be opposed to increase the universe of the base game if it makes sense...and it already does ^^

X3 and X:R both had one thing that X4 doesn't really shine quite as much yet...some very scenic places. I hope that they put that in some X.0 or X.5 patch once the Split dlc is out...and of course the Split space is allowed to look sexy as well!

I wouldn't say X3 was particularly more scenic than X4. X:R had more detail in certain sectors though compared to X4.

[Tomonor]

I wouldn't say X3 was particularly more scenic than X4. X:R had more detail in certain sectors though compared to X4.

The colours weren't so off, though. I mean, Bright Promise looks like someone had an interstellar puke.

[Nafensoriel]

In 2005:
-Lighting effects were simple. Effectively a flashlight and you only had a few of them on screen because processors couldn't handle more.
-Physics barely exists so it was a novelty to add. Even when added it was simple and often buggy.
-Models had effectively a quarter of the physical detail of today's models.
-Textures were limited to 480p or less for the most part. A 1080p texture was considered "high res".
-Animations were expected to be a little janky and they only had to apply to arms, legs, etc. Capes didn't have to move or if they did it was a static animation.
-Hud effects were simple opaque or semi-opaque and usually limited to the sides of the screen. You might have seen "floating" markers for FPS games with very limited information attached to them(such as location or distance)
-Particle effects were very simplistic and very taxing on CPU/GPU.
There is more but that's enough for now to show you a difference.

In 2015+:
-Realism is king. If you don't use realism you have to use semirealism with artsy tricks ala borderlands cel-shading.
-Lighting is complex even entering into reflected light(very expensive performance wise). You now can have dozens of lights per scene and often those lights are all dynamic and capable of casting their own individual shadow.
-Physics is now required. Even how a character walks is passed through a physics engine. Physics is also significantly more advanced than previously. An object can actually have more than one source of "push" at a time now.
-Models are absurdly higher poly than they used to be. The current Final fantasy MMO has models that hit 1 million plus. The age of just using a bump map or a texture to simulate surface detail are long dead.
-Textures are 2k, 4k, even 8k! What's worse is most of the time they have MULTIPLE LAYERS! The file size for textures has SKYROCKETED in the last 10 years.
-Animations for everything! That slide lock on your gun in COD# better actually move properly AND in sync with each bullet discharge or some lore nut is going to rage. That cape better flutter in the wind too! I also better not see those feet ever "float" over the terrain!
-Hud effects are now extremely complex. They float. They attach to objects. They contain WAAAAY more information than ever before. Most people don't know but hud effects actually cost a good chunk of performance. It's a drawcall and its a cpu/gpu drain for each and every one of them. When your "squad" all has floating health bars with distance markers, status effects, and other such "ready at hand" data there is a cost in performance.
Particle effects are massively more complex. Fires are expected to have embers. Explosions are expected to fling debris and produce varied blast smoke.. that floats in the air no less. Heck, even dirt is supposed to happen.

And yet:

- Explosions look better in X3
- Particle effects, beam weapons, and thruster trail effects are better in X3
- Textures have better art direction in X3, hiding lower model fidelity
- Said lower fidelity models have much better LOD regression, without the noticeable 'steps' and missing parts in X4's LODs
- Environmental reflections are more prominent and of higher quality in X3
- Hud information is more prevalent and useful in X3 (targeting monitors; stations etc. show up as selectable, directional icons; targetting indicators show off-screen ship positions, etc. etc.)

Going to leave the omnislash up for reference.
I loaded up x3 just to verify for myself what the x3 explosions look like. They are identical to every ship. The explosion at the end(read: scifi fusion bottle explosion) isn't really conducive to shipwrecks being left after a battle are they?
I'm not egosoft so I can't say with absolute certainty but if I put my dev hat on for a moment and look at how ships explode in x4 I notice a few things..
1] Combat is closer.
A big fusion bloom would entirely white out the screen and most likely cause issues with peoples eyesight for VR or people with sensitive eyes(or really everyone for a white flash). I would personally guess the large kaboom was not implemented due to the fact that it would be VERY annoying after the first few times and downright frustrating whenever a player died while being unable to see during the explosion. In dev terms its sacrificing realism for gameplay. The explosions themselves are actually much higher quality though we can touch on this in point 2.
Additionally, due to the more realistic tack X4 is on just so you know space explosions don't really do that whole elliptical bloom thing.
2] The entire budget of visual GFX is higher in X4 vs X3.
There are more lights. There are higher res textures. There are more textures. There is far more debris generated. The ships leave wrecks. Wrecks that glow and have additional effects.
Remember that whole thing about adding gfx fidelity in one place costs performance in another? Yeah, it still applies. X3 had one light bloom and some sprites. X4 has significantly more than that. The explosions are much better modelled as well.
----
As to particle effects.. If you seriously think they are better I have to consider you almost a troll. I don't mean to be rude but x3 particle effects are extremely outdated by todays standards.
----
Texture quality was always better in the past. In the past, a computer couldn't pump millions of polys. If you wanted something more "detailed" it was your art team doing to heavy load. If they could polish that flat texture just right it would LOOK like it was actually a hatch with 3D detailing. Trouble is back then you had a fraction of the total amount of art assets you do now. You recycled an absolute metric F**Kton of art. You had to. You had space limitations.
Today we don't have space limitations so there is a gradual shift away from efficiency and many of the new artists never really have to evolve their skill set to learn the old tricks.
Personally, I agree with you but at the same time, I also understand its impossible to get the same level of detail with the sheer number of textures a modern game requires.
----
LOD actually a weird thing. It's needed.. but how much? If you know you are being budget-starved by having to add bells and whistles what is a really good thing to skimp on that will have just about zero immersion impact on your players?
Again having a nice smooth LOD transition would be nice but "nice" dont pay bills or payroll.
----
Environmental reflections of x3 are nowhere near the quality of x4. Again like particles you are letting a preference and a familiarity cloud an objective judgement. The technology is more advanced. The effect is more accurate. Accurate effects that don't meet your expectations do not mean lesser quality. You also again forget that the budget overhead of EVERYTHING ELSE impacts things like this too. X3 had LESS to do per frame. X4 has more and still presents a better screen space quality.
----
The HUD of x3 was a bolted on monstrosity that, to this day, I am amazed worked at all. All those sprites /shudders. Though back then it was awesome.. and flat. It didn't care where the object was it was rendered flat.
X4 has a hud... built into the object you are operating or anchored to objects or parts of objects. On an order of magnitude one is a superior method. Just because, again, it doesn't meet your expectations does not mean it is not superior in every single possible way especially considering the immersion factor.
When you see something like this and think an old way is somehow better.. stop and ask yourself "could that old game have even done this?" first. X3 could flatly not render a hud as x4 can. No amount of art massaging would have made it work on the hardware of the time without giving up everything else first.
----
As to why Rebirth looks better as a game. This is on par with saying an FPS looks better than an RPG or RTS. Of course, it's going to look better. It has jack and shit of a simulation under the hood. It's not a living economy. It's not a living multifaction system. It's not a living universe. Its a scripted universe made exclusively for an ADVENTURE(read:space FPS) game. FPS games always win the beauty contest because they are totally empty under the hood.


-------------------------------
-------------------------------
@graff
Do you want blood from a stone? You do understand to make a game today requires the listed elements or its "lazy" or "on an old engine". If the game needs money spent on these things they don't have the same cash to spend on "gameplay" content.
This is the reality. The market demands prettier titles. The market demands more realistic elements. This is what your content is and no you won't ever get back the "old days" of content glut for another decade or two due to increased costs associated with the added fidelity.

[Max Bain]

Why are you comparing X3, a 10+ years old game with X4?
You have to compare X:R with X4 at least.
And then nearly every single aspect of the game looks worse (maybe asteroids look better).

As to why Rebirth looks better as a game. This is on par with saying an FPS looks better than an RPG or RTS. Of course, it's going to look better. It has jack and shit of a simulation under the hood. It's not a living economy. It's not a living multifaction system. It's not a living universe. Its a scripted universe made exclusively for an ADVENTURE(read:space FPS) game. FPS games always win the beauty contest because they are totally empty under the hood.

Whut? What you call a living multifactional system is in fact a "dead, empty not working system". Just read one of the plenty threads of people complaining that the economy/war does not work and is broken.
And saying that XR is a FPS compared to X4 is not true. Sure, X4 has the big and most important advantage that you can fly every ship, but XR is as much a FPS as X4.

[Ghalador]

Why are you comparing X3, a 10+ years old game with X4?

Well, if i am completely honest it looks bleak compared to X2.
I guess it really is the wow effect. X2 and X3 were special in their time period. X4 now doesn't bring anything really new and special to the table AND it does not shine with huge content.
They bet on the wrong horse! They are not going to graphically stun us into submission. This is 2019. They need to focus on the game aspect of the game.

[EmperorDragon]

INCORRECT
Do not spread or assume this kind of garbage. It is garbage. All game engines cannot work for all projects. There is no game engine commercially made outside of egosofts HQ that does what X games REQUIRE to exist without effectively rewriting them from scratch. You cannot make UE4 do it. You cannot make Frostbite do it. Do not continue to spread this asinine nonsense because you do not understand how game engines work.

Additionally, many game companies are finding out that commercial engines are a long term death sentence into mediocrity. Once you sign on you are limited to whatever the engine can do. It limits your vision to a tiny box. Sure you CAN buy UE4 and make the EXACT SAME GAME as 20 other companies.. or you can do your own thing and make something actually unique. You fail to mention how many of those indys never make any money even with millions in sales as well due to the above issues.

No software tools help development. Those tools exist because without them it would be prohibitive to use certain elements. In other words, the tools are a symptom of the extra man-hours required rather than a solution.

Whoa! You seem passionately defensive about the topic, borderline confrontational. I find it rather suspicious in fact...

It's funny though. The very reason I do not play AAA games anymore is exactly because indies offer so much more variety, innovation and lasting appeal at a fraction of the budget sold at half the price - ~80% of which is developed using the Unity engine. The Unreal and Frostbite engines, just like the CryEngine, is known for their limitations, not a good example to use in your rant.

[Shehriazad]

Engine stuff.

Saying that the other engines are only known for limitations is a horrible statement.

Unity has its own terrible problems. For example Pillars of Eternity will become more and more unplayable after certain playtime as load times increase exponentially the longer you play.
This is a known unity issue which is why less complex and short games run better on it.

It's also plagued by a lot of scam level games since unity outright encourages selling and buying assets with no quality control...thus a lot of games pop up on it with a bunch of generic bought assets trying to milk a quick dollar.

Unity has advantages of its own like ease of access.


Cryengine for example looks incredible but the performance is mediocre and it has absolutely terrible code base for online games.


Unreal has the advantage of being highly optimized and allowing beginners to make games with it but you are a bit more limited because of HOW you have to develop with it and integrating 3rd party tools comes with lots of trouble.


EVERY engine has drawbacks and strong points


Unity is used because it's good for SMALL games...big games with lots of "data points" can fall apart on it...indie games are usually relatively small in scale or have simple data points to avoid bloating. Just wanted to chime in because Unity is definitely not a perfect solution.


That said...the perfect engine does not exist.

[adeine]

Going to leave the omnislash up for reference.
I loaded up x3 just to verify for myself what the x3 explosions look like. They are identical to every ship. The explosion at the end(read: scifi fusion bottle explosion) isn't really conducive to shipwrecks being left after a battle are they?
I'm not egosoft so I can't say with absolute certainty but if I put my dev hat on for a moment and look at how ships explode in x4 I notice a few things..
1] Combat is closer.
A big fusion bloom would entirely white out the screen and most likely cause issues with peoples eyesight for VR or people with sensitive eyes(or really everyone for a white flash). I would personally guess the large kaboom was not implemented due to the fact that it would be VERY annoying after the first few times and downright frustrating whenever a player died while being unable to see during the explosion. In dev terms its sacrificing realism for gameplay. The explosions themselves are actually much higher quality though we can touch on this in point 2.
Additionally, due to the more realistic tack X4 is on just so you know space explosions don't really do that whole elliptical bloom thing.

They're entirely unrealistic in both games. Space explosions would look more like a firework, with very, very short-lived sparks and a lot of gas being expulsed. You wouldn't see a stereotypical explosion, let alone fire, to begin with. Nor would you hear a shockwave boom - the sound of an explosion in space would be more like a very tinny sounding impact on your hull as the gas and debris get to you. It's all flavour, the game is not really trying to be 100% realistic.

Haven't heard anyone complaining about eyestrain in X3, and since X4 isn't VR to start with this seems like a silly point to make. The UI doesn't work for VR either, but I'm not playing a VR game.

The point is X4's explosions are sub par when compared to X3 and other games and do not feel impactful.

2] The entire budget of visual GFX is higher in X4 vs X3.
There are more lights. There are higher res textures. There are more textures. There is far more debris generated. The ships leave wrecks. Wrecks that glow and have additional effects.
Remember that whole thing about adding gfx fidelity in one place costs performance in another? Yeah, it still applies. X3 had one light bloom and some sprites. X4 has significantly more than that. The explosions are much better modelled as well.

The textures are higher res, yeah, but the art direction makes them look a lot more bland. Textures in X3 were used to give the impression of detail and character to lower poly models whereas X4's textures tend to be flatter and more uniform, giving you the bare models to look at. I suspect this was done to accommodate the universal paint job system (just slap a different texture on the model) but ship designs do suffer as a result.

Really not a fan of how ship wrecks are rendered in X4 - the half constructed timber frame look with the perfectly uniform glow looks very odd, especially for larger ships. X3 had station wrecks, and they looked reasonable.

As to particle effects.. If you seriously think they are better I have to consider you almost a troll. I don't mean to be rude but x3 particle effects are extremely outdated by todays standards.

Of course they're outdated, and fidelity is in line with what was possible with the old engine. Doesn't change the fact that weapon projectiles, beams, explosion particles, missiles, etc. look better across the board in X3.

Heck, beam weapons in X4 look like a line of solid colour, without any scattering/fadeout or even associated sound whatsoever.

Texture quality was always better in the past. In the past, a computer couldn't pump millions of polys. If you wanted something more "detailed" it was your art team doing to heavy load. If they could polish that flat texture just right it would LOOK like it was actually a hatch with 3D detailing. Trouble is back then you had a fraction of the total amount of art assets you do now. You recycled an absolute metric F**Kton of art. You had to. You had space limitations.
Today we don't have space limitations so there is a gradual shift away from efficiency and many of the new artists never really have to evolve their skill set to learn the old tricks.
Personally, I agree with you but at the same time, I also understand its impossible to get the same level of detail with the sheer number of textures a modern game requires.

I'm not sure the 'fraction of assets' explanation holds up when you consider just how few ships are in X4 and how many of them use copy/paste textures. Again, I suspect the uniform paint job system is partially at fault for this.

It's definitely not impossible to do a better job at texturing ships.

LOD actually a weird thing. It's needed.. but how much? If you know you are being budget-starved by having to add bells and whistles what is a really good thing to skimp on that will have just about zero immersion impact on your players?
Again having a nice smooth LOD transition would be nice but "nice" dont pay bills or payroll.

I understand that X4 is a fundamentally budget starved product, and there are more important things for the game to get right. Honestly, I'd be okay with it if all of the above stayed the way it is now if the actual gameplay polishes up to be good. Graphics aren't incredibly relevant to what makes an X game great, and this is one of the most easily modded aspects of the game.

That doesn't mean the problems it has aren't real, or that X3 didn't do a better job in those areas.

Environmental reflections of x3 are nowhere near the quality of x4. Again like particles you are letting a preference and a familiarity cloud an objective judgement. The technology is more advanced. The effect is more accurate. Accurate effects that don't meet your expectations do not mean lesser quality. You also again forget that the budget overhead of EVERYTHING ELSE impacts things like this too. X3 had LESS to do per frame. X4 has more and still presents a better screen space quality.

Not familiarity or preference. I applied one of the more reflective venture paint jobs on a Paranid capital and the environmental reflection looked straight up pixelated and bad stretched over the big flat surface. Playing at high settings in 4k. The effect may be more accurate - I don't know if X3 bodged its environmental mapping - but it sure didn't have the same problems. Paranid ships in X3 were basically flying mirrors, and did not suffer from any of the pixelation issues when things reflected off your hull.

The HUD of x3 was a bolted on monstrosity that, to this day, I am amazed worked at all. All those sprites /shudders. Though back then it was awesome.. and flat. It didn't care where the object was it was rendered flat.
X4 has a hud... built into the object you are operating or anchored to objects or parts of objects. On an order of magnitude one is a superior method. Just because, again, it doesn't meet your expectations does not mean it is not superior in every single possible way especially considering the immersion factor.
When you see something like this and think an old way is somehow better.. stop and ask yourself "could that old game have even done this?" first. X3 could flatly not render a hud as x4 can. No amount of art massaging would have made it work on the hardware of the time without giving up everything else first.

X4's HUD is not rendered as part of the object you're operating (unless you count travel mode, SETA, and scanner indicators). X2 and I believe X:R tried to do some of that, with cockpit elements being part of the HUD information. X4 mostly uses the same system as X3 did, with a flat overlay and slightly tilted message box. The radar is the only thing that is straight up more advanced than anything X3 could do.

[EmperorDragon]

Saying that the other engines are only known for limitations is a horrible statement.

By merely adding the single word "only" to the statement makes it sound horrible indeed...

It's also plagued by a lot of scam level games since unity outright encourages selling and buying assets with no quality control...thus a lot of games pop up on it with a bunch of generic bought assets trying to milk a quick dollar.

Yes, the original point I made. Not all are moneymaking scams though, Empyrion uses a lot of Unity assets (often accused of being a lazy asset flip) but it's an awesome game! Soaked up 1000s of hours of my life. It's shaping up great and I cannot wait for 1.0.

[Shehriazad]

Luckily great games exist for Unity...it's just that its' inherent problems are not to be ignored.


If you make a game with a big world where you can change a lot of things within that world...the engine will eventually falter. This problem has persisted in Pillars of Eternity I for example.


They couldn't find a fix for it and by the time word got around the game was already finished and nothing could be done. Once you play it for 20 hours loading into a new zone would take about as long as saving does in X4...and 50+hours into the game once you're done almost everything there is to do...loading a new zone would mean you might as well go on coffee break for a while...which sucked because it's a CRPG with the game being split up into hundreds of small maps for world zones and dungeons. Every time you opened a chest, talked to an NPC or changed the state of an object, this would slow down the engine further.


But on the other hand I have also played quite a few unity games that aren't this complex in terms of data points and thus never faced this problem...it really depends on what game you want to make.

Making your own means you know what's going on but it's a HUGE time investment.
Using someone elses engine means you can start right away but EVERY SINGLE ONE has its' own proprietary problems.

There is no perfect solution...but in the case of Egosoft I have to say....X4 is a weird step back in some areas compared to X:R....the lighting for example is worse, which I don't understand since X4s engine is supposedly just an improved version of that engine.

[EmperorDragon]

If you make a game with a big world where you can change a lot of things within that world...the engine will eventually falter. This problem has persisted in Pillars of Eternity I for example.

Just a bit more off-topic, does the same problems persist in Pillars of Eternity II? I'm not a fan of isometric RPGs but it does look interesting, may very well give it a go.

[Shehriazad]

If you make a game with a big world where you can change a lot of things within that world...the engine will eventually falter. This problem has persisted in Pillars of Eternity I for example.

Just a bit more off-topic, does the same problems persist in Pillars of Eternity II? I'm not a fan of isometric RPGs but it does look interesting, may very well give it a go.

They changed some things around so loadtimes only increase very slightly.

That said PoE II is AMAZING if you are into RPGs in general. The story is great, there is LOADS of content and you have some really funny builds you can come up with since they made their own system instead of just going for D&D.

That said may have the isometric view but they avoided going too much for the old "feel" of it. You can even choose if you want to play it turn based or in realtime with realtime being the "real" mode and not an afterthought.
The naval combat is rather interesting because you don't actually fight that for real but it's presented to you like a pen and paper roleplaying game where you have to choose your actions and then watch it play out....with the boarding fights (should it come to one) being real again. It's a nice mix.


Personally I'd say it is 8/10 points for me due to some minor tech issues and a few small shortcomings, but well worth your money. The DLC vastly improves the experience.


But back to topic.

A few pages back people complained how turrets and AI need to be fixed and improved first before even thinking about dlc...beta patch 2.0 will have some surprises for you when fighting against K/Is and carriers....my Peregrine's shields got deleted in less than 3 seconds...turret tracking is way better now as well. So Egosoft is definitely listening to us...and even if you don't like the idea of DLCs, they will happen but by the time it arrives you will have a vastly improved base experience and quite a bit more content.

[Graaf]

@graff
Do you want blood from a stone? You do understand to make a game today requires the listed elements or its "lazy" or "on an old engine". If the game needs money spent on these things they don't have the same cash to spend on "gameplay" content.
This is the reality. The market demands prettier titles. The market demands more realistic elements. This is what your content is and no you won't ever get back the "old days" of content glut for another decade or two due to increased costs associated with the added fidelity.

I'm sorry but now you are just spewing nonsense.

[Nafensoriel]

Why are you comparing X3, a 10+ years old game with X4?
You have to compare X:R with X4 at least.
And then nearly every single aspect of the game looks worse (maybe asteroids look better).

As to why Rebirth looks better as a game. This is on par with saying an FPS looks better than an RPG or RTS. Of course, it's going to look better. It has jack and shit of a simulation under the hood. It's not a living economy. It's not a living multifaction system. It's not a living universe. Its a scripted universe made exclusively for an ADVENTURE(read:space FPS) game. FPS games always win the beauty contest because they are totally empty under the hood.

Whut? What you call a living multifactional system is in fact a "dead, empty not working system". Just read one of the plenty threads of people complaining that the economy/war does not work and is broken.
And saying that XR is a FPS compared to X4 is not true. Sure, X4 has the big and most important advantage that you can fly every ship, but XR is as much a FPS as X4.

Because X:Rebirth isnt a comparable title?
X:Rebirth is an adventure space game. It has none of the internal systems of X4. By even trying to compare the two you show an utter lack of knowledge in game design. It's on par with comparing an MMO to a single player FPS game.

[Nafensoriel]

/snipsnipity

Points 1 & 2]
X3 sized and duration explosions in X4s close combat style would have negative effects was my origional point. Still is and its still valid.
Explosions in space depend on what type of burst it is. A nuke tends to be photonic. It's bright in the atmosphere because of photons+mass=bright(very dumbed down science). In 1960something there was a near orbital test detonation in space that was videoed. Not sure if the internet has these or if you'd have to go hunting old university closets. Effectively nuclear booms in space are very "bland" light wise followed by a very unique halo burst. We don't detonate more nuclear devices in space anymore due to the fact that the radiation physically trashes satellites.
The surface secondaries are actually fairly decent for realism, however. Assuming you are seeing high-pressure atmo blowouts the dark orange flares are close enough for government work and no one without a physics degree is going to know better.

Art direction is subjective. The art esthetics of someone born in the 1950s is going to be different than one born in the year 2000. I don't care about the subjective. I care about total measurable fidelity. In such a comparison, X3 is a categoric loser compared to X4. Even the consideration of "dumbed down" ship design for a customization layer, which I don't agree with since adding such a layer adds detail automatically by design. What it doesn't do is dictate that design. It puts the choice in the end user ala skin choice.

Point 3]
Again subjective. I for one personally hated the "particle storm" of the 1990s-2000s when "fire" was just a spray of orange shapes.
Also. Notice that X4 weapons generate light. X3 weapons did not. Again objectively they are superior even beyond the subjective category because of things like this. Many of those old effects were done to simulate what we now just let lighting handle.

Point 4]
X4 textures(and modern games in general) have far more complex textures than previously with multiple layers. A "single texture" can have dozens of elements. Where before you had 12 textures you now have 12 textures in one element. It grossly limits the number of total assets the same person can generate. Honestly, as technology progresses this gets worse.
I don't disagree with you about the quality. I even mentioned that I feel a great many of the "old tricks" of design are being forgotten in the rush to acquire the new. I don't excuse any developer who falls into this trap I simply provide a reason why it exists. For us old farts(I'm assuming here correct if you are a 20 something!) when you grew up with the "art" era of games it's a bit disheartening.

Point 6]
Older reflection methods look smoother because they often fake the effect. I've seen the pixelation and don't think its due to anything other than a bug. Could be wrong though.

Point 7]
I won't go into the boring but the method used to do the cockpit hud is not "flat" Its actually rendered. So it has to be attached to an object(even if that's the camera). Use your number pad to turn your head while in the cockpit. Youll notice the display stays in the same location. You could not have done this style of display in x3 without redoing part of the engine. Trust me when I say it is rendered and it is attached to an object. X3 was attached to nothing but screen space as a sprite.
Heck, most games do this. You don't actually have a separate menu anymore all you do is render the menu in front of the camera and disable the UI.

[Max Bain]

Why are you comparing X3, a 10+ years old game with X4?
You have to compare X:R with X4 at least.
And then nearly every single aspect of the game looks worse (maybe asteroids look better).

As to why Rebirth looks better as a game. This is on par with saying an FPS looks better than an RPG or RTS. Of course, it's going to look better. It has jack and shit of a simulation under the hood. It's not a living economy. It's not a living multifaction system. It's not a living universe. Its a scripted universe made exclusively for an ADVENTURE(read:space FPS) game. FPS games always win the beauty contest because they are totally empty under the hood.

Whut? What you call a living multifactional system is in fact a "dead, empty not working system". Just read one of the plenty threads of people complaining that the economy/war does not work and is broken.
And saying that XR is a FPS compared to X4 is not true. Sure, X4 has the big and most important advantage that you can fly every ship, but XR is as much a FPS as X4.

Because X:Rebirth isnt a comparable title?
X:Rebirth is an adventure space game. It has none of the internal systems of X4. By even trying to compare the two you show an utter lack of knowledge in game design. It's on par with comparing an MMO to a single player FPS game.

You are kidding me, aren't you? And your last post proves again that you are joking.
I am playing computer games for over 30 games now and you are telling me now that I can not compare both games with each other because of "some deep inside engine" change, that has nearly zero effect to the player.
Both games have in common:

• Open world/universe

• You can build your own stations

• You can produce wares and sell them by demand

• You can trade

• You can mine asteroids

• You can order and have your own fleet

• You fly always a space ship

• Lore

• Highways

• Even the game engine seems to have the same core

The only differences are:

• Now you can fly all ships

• Complexity in ship fitting is simplified (no reactors and limitations in weapons except size)

• New map options

And you are trying to say that because of the background simulation of the economy the games are two completely differnt kinds but that is absolutely not the case. Except of broken balance and problems it has no effect to the player. I somehow doubt that you have played XR or why are you telling me that it is an Adventure??? Where is in XR the adventure part? I have built my own fleet, starbases and fought several big battles exactly like in X4, just that I had more different ships with better effects and graphics... sure I was only flying the skunk, but I could dock to any big ship and give orders while sitting on the bridge of the docked ship, so where is the difference - tell me please!? Just because XR at least HAD a short story does not make it an adventure game xD.

One example that makes it maybe a bit more clear:
Doom 2 had no real physics like we have in the new Doom game but they still are the same kind of game and indeed comparable. And Doom 2 is waaaay more different to modern Doom than XR to X4.