Sunless Skies [GOG, Steam, Official Site], the steampunk exploration RPG from Failbetter Games is to officially leave port in September.
It hasn't been smooth sailing for Failbetter, as they announced back in early February how they had to let a few people go as a result of underwhelming sales. Thankfully they've still been able to continue developing Sunless Skies into a full game.
Most recently (today), they've released quite a big patch (live on both GOG and Steam) that does a rework of combat to make it "fun and accessible". This includes a rework of the heat mechanics as well, where heat no longer builds up just from forward thrust, instead it will build up from strafing and firing weapons. If you overheat, you will be unable to strafe and you can now fire weapons while overheated, but you will take damage. Weapons will also now fire continuously while you're holding the button down, as soon as the cool-down ticks over that is.
They've also added full gamepad support, so you can kick back and relax with a pad in your hands if that's how you prefer to play your games. The developer said it was a "phenomenal amount of dev work to get it working correctly within Skies" and so there might still be some issues with it right now. I tested out the new gamepad support myself today and it was really quite nice. Piloting my space-faring locomotive with triggers for thrust and brakes, with A and X for weapons actually felt perfectly natural. It's a game that feels like it was really made for gamepads.
Movement has also been tweaked, to allow you to get up to maximum speed faster and they've given us a little more control when strafing. In addition, they're planning to add some difficulty modes which will adjust movement, but that's not due until closer to the full launch.
You can read more about the latest update here, there's quite a bit to this update that's worth taking a read.
You can grab it from GOG and Steam right now.
GOG links are affiliate links.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
In essence we agree with a lot of this, as far as I understand. But this dialogue is interesting. :)
At the same time; things change. Everything, including language, evolves over time. And so do genres.
Historically that is correct, but there are plenty examples of things emerging from their roots and by nature are quite different today. It's just so long ago that people now associate it differently. So in reality, it's all to do with perspective on time. For you the roots are clear, near and should be respected. But as years go by and computing power increase those roots are further and further afar from where computer RPGs are.
The interesting thing with this quote is that it seems that suddenly the tables are turned. It's YOU who's insisted on this game being a RPG based on your definitions, not me. I don't want to include this game into the framework of what a RPG is. But you, with your definitions, insist that it is so.
It is in fact me who say to you what you now say to me in your last sentence there. Quite interesting.
I can live with that. But yes, I do define a RPG as a game where you play a character as one of the requirements. I must admit that.
Furthermore, if we are to talk about the oldschool RPGs, I must admit (much to your pleasure now, I suspect) that I find many of the oldschool RPGs to in fact today more belong to the strategy bag than the rpg bag.
Times change! Walking down a predefined linear corridor with characters popping up like pawns on a board, taking turns to do their strategic moves... This, to me, smells more like turn-based strategy today. It is how they used to be back in the days (I'm soon 50 years old btw), yes indeed, but today such game mechanics are more welcome (warning, completely subjective perspective now) FOR ME in a strategy game than in a RPG. I get less attached to my characters in a game where they are simply just tools to achieve a goal - win a board game. With RPGs I want to be immersed in a world. Roleplay, yes BE a character. In a strategy game I want to consider statistics, strategies and probability. i want to win. In a RPG I want to experience and evolve a character.
(I still obviously define them as RPG, just to state the obvious. But meant as a perspective on how genres evolve and change over time).
You make a very rational point here, from a technical point of view it makes perfect sense. It's easy to agree.
But here's where I would claim that this is precisely why we can't just have a list of mechanical features to decide a genre. Games today, simply put, have everything in them. Absolutely everything. So if we at all want to keep genres as a way to identify and separate styles of games and gameplay, we need to do more than just follow technical specifications.
Unless, of course, we want to operate with "this is a 40%RPG, 20%FPS and 30% strategy, 10% platformer" game. But we don't. :)
Last edited by Beamboom on 8 March 2018 at 8:47 am UTC
Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe "oldschool" definition is indeed the correct one. Being old doesn't make it wrong, and people using a wrong definition nowadays quite often doesn't make that one right.
At the same time; things change. Everything, including language, evolves over time. And so do genres.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe whole thing comes from PnP and that's where the purest definition should remain.
Historically that is correct, but there are plenty examples of things emerging from their roots and by nature are quite different today. It's just so long ago that people now associate it differently. So in reality, it's all to do with perspective on time. For you the roots are clear, near and should be respected. But as years go by and computing power increase those roots are further and further afar from where computer RPGs are.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPIt is as if you'd call every movie an action movie just because a person in it does an action.
It is ridiculous and should make it obvious something is wrong with your definition.
The interesting thing with this quote is that it seems that suddenly the tables are turned. It's YOU who's insisted on this game being a RPG based on your definitions, not me. I don't want to include this game into the framework of what a RPG is. But you, with your definitions, insist that it is so.
It is in fact me who say to you what you now say to me in your last sentence there. Quite interesting.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPQuoting: BeamboomStill, when you see a RPG, you know it is a RPG. And this game here, is not a rpg.Honestly, this makes you come off as incredibly narrow-minded.
I can live with that. But yes, I do define a RPG as a game where you play a character as one of the requirements. I must admit that.
Furthermore, if we are to talk about the oldschool RPGs, I must admit (much to your pleasure now, I suspect) that I find many of the oldschool RPGs to in fact today more belong to the strategy bag than the rpg bag.
Times change! Walking down a predefined linear corridor with characters popping up like pawns on a board, taking turns to do their strategic moves... This, to me, smells more like turn-based strategy today. It is how they used to be back in the days (I'm soon 50 years old btw), yes indeed, but today such game mechanics are more welcome (warning, completely subjective perspective now) FOR ME in a strategy game than in a RPG. I get less attached to my characters in a game where they are simply just tools to achieve a goal - win a board game. With RPGs I want to be immersed in a world. Roleplay, yes BE a character. In a strategy game I want to consider statistics, strategies and probability. i want to win. In a RPG I want to experience and evolve a character.
(I still obviously define them as RPG, just to state the obvious. But meant as a perspective on how genres evolve and change over time).
Quoting: TheSHEEEPA game that fulfills all the conditions I posted earlier should not be an RPG just because the visual representation of travel & combat in the game is that of the ship instead of its captain?
You make a very rational point here, from a technical point of view it makes perfect sense. It's easy to agree.
But here's where I would claim that this is precisely why we can't just have a list of mechanical features to decide a genre. Games today, simply put, have everything in them. Absolutely everything. So if we at all want to keep genres as a way to identify and separate styles of games and gameplay, we need to do more than just follow technical specifications.
Unless, of course, we want to operate with "this is a 40%RPG, 20%FPS and 30% strategy, 10% platformer" game. But we don't. :)
Last edited by Beamboom on 8 March 2018 at 8:47 am UTC
0 Likes
Do continue the debate gentlemen .
I find it an interesting read
I find it an interesting read
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: BeamboomAt the same time; things change. Everything, including language, evolves over time. And so do genres.Quite wrong. What horror movie from 100 years ago would today no longer count as an horror movie? Maybe not scary any more, but still a horror movie.
Same is true for game genres. How are Wolfenstein 3D and the latest Call Of Duty not both FPS games? Assuming the latest CoD is actually first person, I lost interest in that series 10 years ago...
And how would the very first and the very recent Tomb Raider not both be in the same genre?
But, most importantly, why would you suddenly count two radically different games such as, say ADOM and Dishonored into the same genre? The gameplay is entirely different. And the gameplay is what defines the genre, and that can very much be quantified.
If you want to call one an RPG and the other an Action-RPG, fine. But just calling everything an RPG and being done with it shows an incredibly lazy mind.
Nope, genres do not change as time goes by. There is not a single example of this.
They are defined around the time they pop up and then remain.
And if something does not fit a genre, it is either a new genre or a mix.
Quoting: BeamboomHow does that turn the table around?Quoting: TheSHEEEPIt is as if you'd call every movie an action movie just because a person in it does an action.
It is ridiculous and should make it obvious something is wrong with your definition.
The interesting thing with this quote is that it seems that suddenly the tables are turned. It's YOU who's insisted on this game being a RPG based on your definitions, not me. I don't want to include this game into the framework of what a RPG is. But you, with your definitions, insist that it is so.
It is in fact me who say to you what you now say to me in your last sentence there. Quite interesting.
I said from the beginning that this game, by the logical definition of RPGs, is an RPG.
I also said that a game is NOT a pure RPG, just because it has some stats in it - which is what the comparison with action movies is about and in extension your comparison with a rally game.
Just because you play a driver* and your car has stats, does not make it an RPG.
*(which is very much debatable, since almost all rally games do not make this tangible at all, for example, who do play in Micro Machines and where is that person in the game?)
Quoting: BeamboomFurthermore, if we are to talk about the oldschool RPGs, I must admit (much to your pleasure now, I suspect) that I find many of the oldschool RPGs to in fact today more belong to the strategy bag than the rpg bag.Midlife crisis confirmed.
Times change!
Sorry, this is so absurd that I can't think of anything else...
Quoting: BeamboomWith RPGs I want to be immersed in a world. Roleplay, yes BE a character. In a strategy game I want to consider statistics, strategies and probability. i want to win. In a RPG I want to experience and evolve a character.Your immersion is subjective and therefore irrelevant to definitions. Besides, you can get immersed in every game out there. All depends on the person.
And surely you are not suggesting a definition of RPG that is subjective to everyone, because then we'd be discussing opinions, and that is rather pointless.
Imagine Steam asking you how you feel about a game to determine its genre ;)
If you really think "this is not an RPG to me, but maybe to someone else", then we should stop, as I'm not usually in the mood for Hippie nonsense. I prefer cold facts over kindergarden nice words.
Quoting: BeamboomUnless, of course, we want to operate with "this is a 40%RPG, 20%FPS and 30% strategy, 10% platformer" game. But we don't.We don't? That sounds to me like a useful definition that allows an image to be created in the mind of everyone who knows those four genres.
I mean, you could leave off the percentages and then we'd have a RPG-strategy-FPS-platformer. That would still not be entirely helpful, sure, but it is a very extreme case (in such, it is better to just watch a video). And it would be way more helpful than just saying "it's an RPG".
So... what is your definition of RPGs, then?
By everything you wrote so far, Sunless Skies should be an RPG to you. You do play a character (ship captain), who does have stats, portrait, etc., who can be evolved and the there are definitely quests and a story, if you require that for your definition.
And, no, "You know it when you see it", is not an answer, it's an excuse.
Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 8 March 2018 at 10:05 am UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: TheSHEEEPQuoting: BeamboomAt the same time; things change. Everything, including language, evolves over time. And so do genres.Quite wrong. What horror movie from 100 years ago would today no longer count as an horror movie? Maybe not scary any more, but still a horror movie.
Of course. And the oldschool RPGs are still RPGs (come on...).
But genres do change. They typically expand. Look at music. How the rock genre has expanded over the years. Or even the newer genres, like techno. If we took a techno track of today and showed that to a techno fan twenty years ago, he'd probably define it as something else amongst the genres then. It doesn't mean the old music no longer belong to the genre, but one would problably want to separate them to a stack of their own, add "oldschool" in front, or "retro".
There's no reason to claim it's anything different when it comes to game genres, quite the contrary. "RPG" (or, as the true purists call them, "crpg") is a term that today covers both realtime and turn-based gameplay, various perspectives, team based, etc.
And we now in this dicussion call the roots of computer RPGs "oldschool RPGs". That's a rational thing to do, because the genre since then has evolved.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPSame is true for game genres. How are Wolfenstein 3D and the latest Call Of Duty not both FPS games?
I don't even know how you came to this conclusion, so I'll skip this part of your post.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPIf you want to call one an RPG and the other an Action-RPG, fine. But just calling everything an RPG and being done with it shows an incredibly lazy mind.
Action rpg is a subgenre of RPG, a genre that also holds turn-based RPGs. Just like there's plenty subgenres to rock.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPNope, genres do not change as time goes by. There is not a single example of this.A ridiculously bold statment.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPThey are defined around the time they pop up and then remain.... Or a subgenre. Like rock, who has then evolved into a multitude of subgenres, all truly belonging to the main label "rock". Even the first rock'n'roll tracks from back in the days.
And if something does not fit a genre, it is either a new genre or a mix.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPJust because you play a driver* and your car has stats, does not make it an RPG.
Play AS a driver. Your role is a driver, not a car. You're not a car in those games, you navigate the vehicle as a driver.
But obviously it's not a RPG.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPMidlife crisis confirmed.
Sorry, this is so absurd that I can't think of anything else...
I knew you were going to like that. :)
But my point is, the RPG genre has evolved into being more about the characters and story, and less about the strategies and dice rolls.
Look at the latest X-com games. They are categorised as strategy, not RPG - even though they could just as well have been called "oldschool RPGs with a modern coat of paint": Turn based, team based, stat based, dice based, restricted/linear play fields, quests, grid based movements, world map, NPCs, it's got absolutely everything. But it's categorised under the label "strategy" today. And that's how I would describe those RPGs from back then too, to a new gamer today.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPIf you really think "this is not an RPG to me, but maybe to someone else", then we should stop, as I'm not usually in the mood for Hippie nonsense. I prefer cold facts over kindergarden nice words.
And I prefer that my opponents in a discussion at least TRY to understand what I'm saying, instead of constructing claims I never have expressed and make fun of those.
Last edited by Beamboom on 8 March 2018 at 12:40 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: BeamboomAnd yet one you failed to prove wrong.Quoting: TheSHEEEPNope, genres do not change as time goes by. There is not a single example of this.A ridiculously bold statment.
New sub genres are new genres, they can be influenced by or derived from existing ones, sure.
But that doesn't change the fact that an Action-RPG is neither a pure RPG nor a pure Action game. It is its own new (sub) genre. Calling it RPG (or Action) only is simply not sufficient.
The fact that it came to be did not at all change the nature of either the RPG nor the Action genre.
Just like in programming, a class having child classes does not change the parent class.
Quoting: BeamboomNo, rock did not "evolve". Rock is rock, has always been (well, once it appeared), will always be.Quoting: TheSHEEEPThey are defined around the time they pop up and then remain.... Or a subgenre. Like rock, who has then evolved into a multitude of subgenres, all truly belonging to the main label "rock". Even the first rock'n'roll tracks from back in the days.
And if something does not fit a genre, it is either a new genre or a mix.
New subgenres (and subgenres of subgenres) have sprung up, but calling any band/song/album of one those subgenres just "rock" does the actual thing as little justice as calling an Action-RPG just "RPG".
Besides, music genre definitions are even more messed up than game genres today...
Quoting: BeamboomBut my point is, the RPG genre has evolved into being more about the characters and story, and less about the strategies and dice rolls.No, what has changed is certainly not the RPG genre.
Instead, new subgenres (or mixes) have for the moment (and probably forever as they are easier to digest for most people) overtaken releases of the pure RPG genre.
But the fact that there still are actual RPGs being released shows that the more narrow definition of RPG is as valid today as it was 25 years ago.
Quoting: BeamboomLook at the latest X-com games. They are categorised as strategy, not RPG - even though they could just as well have been called "oldschool RPGs with a modern coat of paint": Turn based, team based, stat based, dice based, restricted/linear play fields, quests, grid based movements, world map, NPCs, it's got absolutely everything. But it's categorised under the label "strategy" today.X-COM as well as the old UFO games have always been strategy games, never anything else.
And games like XCOM or Battle Brothers or similar ones are not RPGs because you do not play a tangible role in those games. In most of them, there isn't even the mention of a "you", and if it is, it is for story only, not gameplay.
You cannot even partake in battles yourself, you are kind of a commander behind the lines. As such, they are not RPGs just as rally games aren't.
Quoting: BeamboomAnd that's how I would describe those RPGs from back then too, to a new gamer today.Then that new gamer would be in for a surprise if he played X-COM and then tried to play something like Dark Sun or Fallout.
It's not that they share absolutely nothing, but the gameplay focus is entirely different. And both Dark Sun and Fallout share way more with each other than any of them do with X-COM.
Quoting: BeamboomAnd I prefer that my opponents in a discussion at least TRY to understand what I'm saying, instead of constructing claims I never have expressed and make fun of those.I do fully understand what you are saying.
It's just mostly wrong.
Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 8 March 2018 at 1:52 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: TheSHEEEPBut the fact that there still are actual RPGs being released shows that the more narrow definition of RPG is as valid today as it was 25 years ago.
It actually doesn't show anything at all, other than that the original formula still is within the definition of the genre. As it obviously should be.
But we are practically down to semantics now, ("do a subgenre of a genre belong to that genre or is it a genre of its own"?) and that is a clear indicator that this lemon is now squeezed dry. I'm out. Thanks for your time. :)
Last edited by Beamboom on 8 March 2018 at 3:08 pm UTC
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me