Damn I forgot how good Fort Freiheit looked. I miss the voice intro to the level and also the hand drawn character portraits.
2 Likes
I only tried to make a distinction in a viewpoint some of us might have, which should have no impact on how you feel about the game you received after pre-ordering it based on pre-release materials you saw. It’s not that that I think PP launched in acceptable state (visual downgrade isn’t even something I noticed, possible due to playing on lower settings and not having an access to betas), but for me it’s not really relevant as it wasn’t tied to my purchase decision. Therefore, my capability of empathize with you is limited.
Sure, and I personally always thought, that PP might be too of an ambitious project to take on by a small indie studio. I mentioned W3 as it was a small controversy back when. So I suppose downgrades are fine if the end product is great anyway? My point was that downgrades are a part of the course. Unfortunately, in PP the quality of the released game has some… hmm… blemishes, on top of lesser presentation then originally hinted at. I mean look at those destructon physics.
Though, at least on the surface, your original post wasn’t complaining about quality of 1.0 release, but visual downgrade alone:
I was wondering how many customers are aware of this downgrade, and what you think about it? Personally, I believe that this is greatly unfair that some 2 years old pre-alpha looks visually much superior to the supposedly ready to release product.
To which my answer is: it happens, planned features (including graphical flourishes) can be changed and scrapped for multitude of reasons, and it happens even in 10/10 commercial and critical darlings.
If your question really is: was PP released in state worthy of purchase, and is it everything that it was promised… then I would say no. But again, it’s not something I am personally affected by.
Well, what you refer to are beta builds, which I am pretty sure come with “it’s not a final product” closure. Those weren’t marketing materials, but builds for backers to see the progress of the game and give feedback on. A few things were experimented with but had to be scrapped for the final release. While I mourn things like fuel system more the shadows, it seems that a more robust lighting system was among the casualties.
And while an expactation that things will get better and not worse is understandable, things are not as simple as that. As game get developed and prepared for release some things might have to be sacrified along the way.
I think in an ideal world, one would develop the game fully, and then try to sell it, show it to public, but it simply not how the system works right now. And it leads to disappointments and misinformation; some extreme, some less so.
I think that you are on the verge of accusing Snapshot of false marketing. While you might feel, that the game you received isn’t up to standard, based of what you saw in the backer builds, I don’t think that would be an accurate description of what happened, nor do I believe that Snapshot has a responsibility to clarify that early-builds which are a subject to change have, indeed, changed. Nor do I see a proof of malicious intent.
As to your lack of satisfaction with what you got - that’s what refunds are for. If visual downgrade is as extreme as you say, it should have been apparent before 2 hour mark (if that was Epic’s policy back in December…)
So, I have tested a few things now. I can’t say I reach any conclusions, ratchet I’m somehow more confused now.
I checked that graphic setting, and it was set on Quality.
First thing I found is that game seems to recognize the only day and night. There are no mornings or evenings, I think because the map looks the same despite the sun position.
The second thing is that night does not look much different than a day. It is not much darker.
I thought that a change in scenery would be nice, so I went to help New Jerico with defence. New Jerico maps are one of the brightest in the game, so I thought that it would be a good move. And it was, as you can see on the screenshot below, shadows are clearly visible.
I have tried the same mission in the night time, and the effect is worse. The shadows are, again barely visible. This brings me to my next today’s observation.
Third thing are the lights. The Vehicle of the Phenix Point has some lamps, and there are active street lamps in the New Jerico base. But it looks like there are not an active source of light. Characters and object always cast shadow from the same side. You can stand before a light source, and it will not change the shadow direction. It looks in that demo cooked for PC Gamer Weekender situation looks the same, but to a lesser extent because there if character stod before lamps of the vehicle it does not cast a shadow in the direction of the lamps. Such thing I would call Work in Progress and Subject to Changes. Not diminishing the visual experience of the game.
So, Shadow experience depends on the map, it looks like. Why? I have no idea, and It may be the next question to the developer.
Example of Witcher 3 is wrong here, I think. This was a short trailer, while Phoenix Point Narrated Demo Gameplay was over 30 min gameplay footage. What we are comparing here?
The blog post you have give is interesting too.
The Phoenix Heavy Cannon being used to test some destruction physics
Something wit the testing hed to went terribly wrong because when I was testing Heavy Cannon in released 5 months ago game it looked like this:
I have paid for the game in good faith well before the release, trusting the word of Snapshot Games. A word they didn’t keep in some instances, or trying to slip out from there own promotional campaign in others.
And how to call it if not false marketing? I don’t believe they did it deliberately, but what counts are results, not the initial intentions. The truth is that they get much more resources they asked for, they moved the launch substantially too. Still, they did not deliver what they were showing and assured they would do. What they have released was pail shadow of what they were showing and talking form many months. The game was clearly untested with massive difficulty spikes and tremendous balance issues. 5 months after the release and things like adaptive evolution that was announced from day 1 are still nowhere to be seen.
2 Likes
I must agree with @Greyseer here. I’m far from accusing or offending anyone but it’s clear that devs didn’t deliver the game which had been promised before. Numerous videos here and there are sufficient to see that.
When I’d backed PP back then on Fig I thought of whole different experience. But above all I thought game will be finished when it was supposed to be finished, like 5 months ago.
2 Likes
Hmmm… I don’t think you are wrong. I never treated backer betas as a marketing material, but I suppose there is a reason why demos take place behind closed doors. And yeah, there is a hefty amount of things which were to be in the game, but never made it in.
I don’t remember “enemy evolution” to be ever pitched as anything more than what was delivered, though it’s impact on players strategies was to be greater then what we got in the end. Still, this system is to be overhauled, which I think is needed. I remember there being talk about enemies changing in size, and mutating from different animals depending on region, but that was early interviews well before fig campaign.
Remember that time shown on the clock is GMT so it could be midday in west Europe or Africa, but if mission was elsewhere then it was other time of day.
They saw problem that is why they tweaked visual settings. Probably lack of time to fix it properly [not finished game].
And they won’t admit it. Because in their process scope it was probably ready for the release, just “unpolished”.
But there is difference between “what was promised” and “what was tested in alpha builds”. Greyseer is frustrated that it isn’t like in those early materials which were part of promotion, but if I’m not mistaken in each of these videos is text explaining that what we see is not final product.
Here it is: Page Redirection
A mutating alien Threat
The Pandoravirus can mutate living forms, and it can incorporate DNA from multiple species and clone them rapidly. You will face an alien threat that mutates and evolves new forms in response to your tactics. Our procedural generation system for the aliens can generate a huge variety of challenges and surprises for you on the battlefield.
I know, I was looking at the position of the sun in relation to the mission place. There is a line around the planet that separates day and night, and that’s it all.
Still, they did it last minute. They didn’t mess too much with Backer Builds in that regard. I think that they had a golden opportunity between 4-5.
And they did not manage to “polish” it in 5 months?
I’m frustrated over the state of the game as a whole, not just the visual aspect of it. The visual aspect is the most obvious one and one that everyone can see. And what in the name of the Machine God it was if no promotional materials? For what reason they made it and they took it to the PC Gamer Weekender or wherever it was? For what reason, they put it on their Youtube channel, if not promotion purposes? Those disclaimers are just clever use of words. I did not see any text about not implementing the adaptive evolution system, that they have promised form the beginning. I did not see anything about difficulty spikes, or lack of balance on multiple levels either. Apparently, games are ready to release without any base testing nowadays.
I have back Iron harvest at the beginning too. I wonder if they will do the same trick and downgrade this game just for the release, because reasons. There is no indication of that, according to me.
1 Like
Developers of Iron Harvest have to be careful because they have strong competitors in country. 
And I suppose they have different scope of production. Iron Harvest will be strategy with procedural generation of global situation and of each battle?
That’s a very vague “back of the box” description, which doesn’t explain how the thing works. It also comes with animated gif, which present enemy “evolution” closely matching what we have in the final game.
Someone argued some time ago that “term” evolution means that aliens should evolve from a larva to different species, not act as variations on alien types and perhaps that might be right, I am not an expert on the theory of evolution. But as far as mechanics are concerned I don’t recall it being pitched as anything more than what was delivered, even if the way it works right now, isn’t exactly satisfying.
1 Like
Since the OP opted to hijack their own thread, I hope it’s okay to continue on the Evolution jag.
From early press and from the other official information, I expected to see raw and low level mutants in the first few missions. As the player progressed in their ability to counter these mutants, the mutants would evolve into more powerful and armored enemies. However, in reality one can face highly evolved enemies in just their first few missions. Not only that, one encounters Sirens (which are extremely evolved) before there are any lairs formed (Sirens do not come from nests). This totally knocks the stated purpose of evolution/mutation off the rails.
One shouldn’t expect to have their first encounter with Arthrons to be ones with full armor, machine gun and golden acid grenade launcher. But this is what the game can start throwing at the player from the very start.
3 Likes
This will be changed with the introduction of the Pandoran research system.
3 Likes
Two interviews where Snapshot Games’ staff themselves are talking about Pandora evolution. Pandora organisms should adapt to tactics and weapons used by the player to force him to change his playstyle. No such thing is in the game.
There are tock about Behemoths theretoo, but If I’m not mistaken they withdrew from the idea quite early.
Absolutely. If the memory serves me right, both alien mutations and player’s upgrades were pitched as sidegrades, with different equipment better aimed to counter certain enemy mutations meaning regular spike and drop in difficulty as enemy changes to mutations player is not currently best equipped to deal with. At least that’s how I remember understanding it - I won’t dig for exact quotes and interviews so this might be an expression of the memory, rather then factual recollection.
As you mention, the system as it is, has some serious issues, and alien research mentioned by UV sounds like a good improvement. Looking forward to it, and many said-to-be-worked on improvements.
1 Like
@UnstableVoltage Will you honour your earliest obligation and will you implement adaptive evolution in that form as you (Snapshot Games) have described on multiple occasions?
I have more questions regarding this topic:
I would like to ask you why shadows are barely visible on particular grounds?
For what purpose have you made Fort Freiheit demo? What was the purpose of taking it to PC Gamer Weekender, and What was the purpose of putting it on your official Youtube channel?
UV referenced Snapshot Proposed Changes published on the official feedback tool, specifically Pandoran Research System.
You ask strange questions, but I would like to see the answer. 
I know answer to the first one. Second I think is quite obvious, but links to the other not implemented element. Third, forth and fifth seem to also have obvious answers, but maybe I misjudge situation.
First thing first. It isn’t there or it doesn’t work well? For example, I remember shields being mentioned as counter to someone using snipers. But in my personal experience, I found snipers even more effective as they can aim around the shield, and take the shield arm down. Implimented as promised, but doesn’t get the result it was supposed to get.
I only spend 10 hours with the game before shelving it for a later time. During those hours I did see various types of enemy mutations, and them building up stats, but I don’t know how exactly it works: once an alien base generate an enemy, does it mutate it, if it doesn’t perform well? Or does it stay the same, and other mutations come from different bases only?
I just wish they would adapt their method of offense vs. no defense. If they keep getting wiped out by rushing the player, they should evolve into a more defensive role. Thus, forcing the player to adapt new strategies to find and root them out. As it is, it’s more of set up one’s defenses and wait for them to walk into ambushes. No wonder some players adapt a pure alpha strike approach to their play style. At least there can be some reward for doing so, as it changes up the game, instead of setting up a defense and saying, “come on, come to papa little chickie. I’ve got you in my sites!”
EDIT: If I recall correctly (with almost 1500 hours of game play), XCOM 2/WoTC) had AI that knew at time that the best offense can be good defense.
It dose not work.
I was going to write something after looking at those “conceptions” on canny yesterday. But I decided not, because it for sure would get out out of control. So, this situation looks like that for me now:
Developers announced very original enemy progression system form day one when they were offering the game to the people. This was one of the major selling points of the game. They were mentioning this system on multiple occasions, including during interviews at big game shows. They released the game without nothing that even closely resembles what they so often announced, of course not mentioning this fact to anyone. For 5 months after the official launch, they still did nothing regarding this no existing feature. And it looks like they just began to think what to do with this hot potato, and apparently it will still not be what they were promising from day 1.
And now cherry on top of this cake:
This is from the game’s store page on Epic. Clear false advertising that deliberately misleads people.
I think that this may well be my next question, I as a customer would like to ask and get an answer for.
@UnstableVoltage Why are you advertising your game using no existing features?
2 Likes
You’re being slightly (but not completely) unfair.
The Dynamic Difficulty system currently in place in PP was intended and believed by the devs to be the ‘adaptive evolution’ that they advertised. However, many of us pointed out on these forums that ‘we need a bigger gun’ was not evolution that ‘adapts to your tactics’ as advertised, any more than ‘we need more armour/hp/wp’ was. In fact, it wasn’t even as adaptive as the classic XCOM Alien progression curve, because the core enemy(s) remained essentially the same.
Some of us went even further, to suggest that - as Wormerine alludes to above - if we players relied on Snipers, the Pandas should evolve bigger shields that covered the whole of their bodies, rendering the classic Sniper tactic of ‘you’re only supposed to shoot his shield-arm off’ ineffective.
To their credit, Snapshot have responded to our criticisms and are working on what sounds like a much more sophisticated ‘Pandoran Research System’. How that will work, and whether it will satisfy the likes of you and me, remains to be seen, but at least they are responding to criticism.
Accusing them of ‘false advertising’ in this respect is unfair. By their own lights, they did create an ‘adaptive evolution system’. The fact that it wasn’t very good and didn’t satisfy most players is another matter - but it isn’t false advertising.
4 Likes