Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Snooker 19

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Billy View Post
    Hi, Matty66. Snooker 19 discussion here has been a little disappointing if I'm honest. There's far more chat about the game going on at the Steam forums. Just go to Discussions and search Snooker 19.

    I agree with what you say - the close-up views of the shots playing out are uncannily realistic. The rule errors, however, are unforgivable, even at this early stage. It's okay saying they'll hopefully be addressed with a future patch, but they shouldn't be there in the first place. And it's always the same rules that get overlooked, proving that it's always down to research laziness. This was made alongside World Snooker. Why couldn't they have simply employed the services of professional referee to oversee all possible in-game situations??
    Completely agree. The one thing that should have been perfect was the rules with world snooker being involved.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Matty66 View Post
      Completely agree. The one thing that should have been perfect was the rules with world snooker being involved.
      Someone at Ripstone will have been paid good money to oversee the rules, too. It makes my teeth itch when I think the likes of you and I could have done a better job.
      "Kryten, isn't it round about this time of year that your head goes back to the lab for retuning?"

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Billy View Post
        Hi, Matty66. Snooker 19 discussion here has been a little disappointing if I'm honest. There's far more chat about the game going on at the Steam forums. Just go to Discussions and search Snooker 19.
        I was looking forward to the game, but when they released the early trailers and it looked ugly, I wasn't impressed, then the bug reports and even feature decisions came out and I felt that settled it for me - I'm not spending good money on something that isn't finished and didn't impress me to start with. Hopefully the Hendry game will be better.

        They made a big thing in interviews about how they'd been at tournaments wiring up the players to scan them into the game, yet they don't look right and apparently all play identically, so what was the point?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by gavpowell View Post
          I was looking forward to the game, but when they released the early trailers and it looked ugly, I wasn't impressed, then the bug reports and even feature decisions came out and I felt that settled it for me - I'm not spending good money on something that isn't finished and didn't impress me to start with. Hopefully the Hendry game will be better.

          They made a big thing in interviews about how they'd been at tournaments wiring up the players to scan them into the game, yet they don't look right and apparently all play identically, so what was the point?
          Wasn’t really that bothered about how the players look but There is only so much they can do regards the players looks. They’re not exactly a big company so can only work with what they’ve got. Yes the game as it’s issues but I don’t believe it’s as bad as some think it and I wouldn’t hold out much hope with the Stephen hendry`s this is snooker. From what some have said its not looking great. I guess we’ll find out though when it’s released.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by gavpowell View Post
            I was looking forward to the game, but when they released the early trailers and it looked ugly, I wasn't impressed, then the bug reports and even feature decisions came out and I felt that settled it for me - I'm not spending good money on something that isn't finished and didn't impress me to start with. Hopefully the Hendry game will be better.
            I'd say you've done the right thing holding off buying. The game needs a lot of patching up but I wouldn't dismiss it just yet. And no, the graphics aren't brilliant, but AAA graphics are only going to happen when someone like EA Sports decides to take on the game... and I doubt that will ever happen.

            Like @Matty66 says, Ripstone are small outfit and have probably done just about what they can with what I'm sure will have been a relatively small budget... at least graphically.
            "Kryten, isn't it round about this time of year that your head goes back to the lab for retuning?"

            Comment


            • #36
              I still think bad graphics is a poor excuse these days - not bothered about photorealism but there are plenty of engines available for producing much better images, and if they were mapping the players, what for? They've not captured the likenesses or the movements!

              Also, companies of all size and reputation should be punished for releasing unfinished games - tester used to be a proper job...
              Last edited by gavpowell; 22nd April 2019, 09:16 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by gavpowell View Post
                I still think bad graphics is a poor excuse these days - not bothered about photorealism but there are plenty of engines available for producing much better images, and if they were mapping the players, what for? They've not captured the likenesses or the movements!

                Also, companies of all size and reputation should be punished for releasing unfinished games - tester used to be a proper job...
                Well that's just about every game developer these days.

                I might be wrong, but I don't remember the developers ever claiming they'd mo-capped the players. If they did, then you're right they've done a terrible job with what little animations there are.

                I'll still say it's about the size and budget, though. There's a reason games like Rory Mcilroy's PGA Tour have such stunning graphics, and that is the millions of pounds thrown into development and resources. Why do you think low-budget movies have such poor special FX when compared with blockbusters? You may as well say, "The tech is out there, so why don't all films, regardless of budget, have the same quality special FX?"
                Last edited by Billy; 22nd April 2019, 09:49 PM.
                "Kryten, isn't it round about this time of year that your head goes back to the lab for retuning?"

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Billy View Post
                  Well that's just about every game developer these days.

                  I might be wrong, but I don't remember the developers ever claiming they'd mo-capped the players. If they did, then you're right they've done a terrible job with what little animations there are.

                  I'll still say it's about the size and budget, though. There's a reason games like Rory Mcilroy's PGA Tour have such stunning graphics, and that is the millions of pounds thrown into development and resources. Why do you think low-budget movies have such poor special FX when compared with blockbusters? You may as well say, "The tech is out there, so why don't all films, regardless of budget, have the same quality special FX?"
                  Yes but the tech is out there for free in the case of game engines - even Cryengine from can be used free of charge, for example. The reason games are almost universally released in such a poor state is because people keep paying for them, often pre-ordering blindly and complaining they're broken! No incentive for the studios to fix anything, though CDProjekt have generally been good at releasing games in a good condition, so it can be done.

                  I can't find the interview where they were discussing the mocap - I may have misunderstood as they only told Murphy about how their 3d camera mapping worked when they scanned all the players at tournaments. Still an awful result mind...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by gavpowell View Post
                    Yes but the tech is out there for free in the case of game engines - even Cryengine from can be used free of charge, for example.
                    But you make it sound like creating a computer game with top-notch graphics and animations is the easiest thing in the world. It's clearly not, otherwise any fool could do it.
                    "Kryten, isn't it round about this time of year that your head goes back to the lab for retuning?"

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Billy View Post
                      But you make it sound like creating a computer game with top-notch graphics and animations is the easiest thing in the world. It's clearly not, otherwise any fool could do it.
                      Many of the devs at Lab42 worked on the WSC games so they have had 20 years to produce a good snooker game. They also mo capped 3 players for their 2005 game and look how good the animations were for that game
                      The AI in 2005 was good at break building (safely play not as good though) so why they couldn’t use parts of that code as a base for snooker 19 is a mystery to me ?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by zimrahil View Post
                        The AI in 2005 was good at break building (safely play not as good though) so why they couldn’t use parts of that code as a base for snooker 19 is a mystery to me ?
                        That code will be the exclusive property of Codemasters, Sega or whoever else was involved.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Having bought tons of snooker games over the years iv always enjoyed snooker on PS1 that game was a belter back then! PS2 comes around and I don't remember what version I had but was okish didn't enjoy it much then world championship pool comes around now that I loved playing. PS3 WSC Real 09 perfect game also but didn't like the arenas apart from that it was all good a practice room, option to play pool 8 or 9 ball tournament even snooker tournaments.

                          Snooker 19 all about an offical licenced snooker game, but no BBC or eurosport title in game, funds would be the issue with that!! graphical looks - great could be slightly better! Player animations still the same from past games no change, no walking around table, no chalk action, plus no ref no 're spotting balls, annoying white slider after every pot! No replays, no create a character for the tour, pros playing in qualifying events wtf? No grey area on white ball positioning aid,

                          I'm enjoying it though don't get me wrong it's great to play but needs work, I'm sick of my white ball speeding further than I hit an messes up my shot position then sometimes makes me lose games or miss out on getting 147s all because the speed percentage is different than what the white ball runs on the cloth. We need that white ball positioning aid like Wsc real had. Plus customize options for players don't do anything. An I don't think any of you noticed it! but having to push x to advance to go back o I'm needing to press it hard on my controller for it to work if I tap say x lightly it won't respond unless I give it a real press on the controller.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by oneshot View Post
                            [...] pros playing in qualifying events wtf?
                            So many people are calling the game out for this, but as has been confirmed by my questions here, the pros DO play in the qualifiers so the game has it right. The only weird aspect is that we seem to meet ONLY the top 16 in qualifiers. By simple law of averages that's wrong. The fact that we can draw top 16 in qualifiers is not wrong.

                            Originally posted by oneshot View Post
                            I'm enjoying it though don't get me wrong it's great to play but needs work, I'm sick of my white ball speeding further than I hit an messes up my shot position then sometimes makes me lose games or miss out on getting 147s all because the speed percentage is different than what the white ball runs on the cloth.
                            If your cue ball is travelling further than the power you set it at, that's because you're stopping it above dead centre of the sweet spot (the blue area). If you stop it below dead centre, then it will come up short. If you stop it bang on the centre line of the sweet spot, the cue ball will go precisely where the line indicated. And in fact the shot system goes even deeper than that. Missing dead centre of the sweet spot also means you won't necessarily be pushing the cue through straight, and may even miss the pot, despite having lined the guide lines up with the centre of the pocket.

                            Personally I think the power bar/accuracy meter is one of the game's best features. It's the first game that has actually simulated a need for a good cue action. In this game you can actually hit the ball badly (just as in golf games) and that's a first for snooker. I don't want a pot to be guaranteed just because I've positioned the guide lines on the centre of the pocket.
                            Last edited by Billy; 24th April 2019, 12:44 PM.
                            "Kryten, isn't it round about this time of year that your head goes back to the lab for retuning?"

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Billy View Post
                              So many people are calling the game out for this, but as has been confirmed by my questions here, the pros DO play in the qualifiers so the game has it right. The only weird aspect is that we seem to meet ONLY the top 16 in qualifiers. By simple law of averages that's wrong. The fact that we can draw top 16 in qualifiers is not wrong.



                              If your cue ball is travelling further than the power you set it at, that's because you're stopping it above dead centre of the sweet spot (the blue area). If you stop it below dead centre, then it will come up short. If you stop it bang on the centre line of the sweet spot, the cue ball will go precisely where the line indicated. And in fact the shot system goes even deeper than that. Missing dead centre of the sweet spot also means you won't necessarily be pushing the cue through straight, and may even miss the pot, despite having lined the guide lines up with the centre of the pocket.

                              Personally I think the power bar/accuracy meter is one of the game's best features. It's the first game that has actually simulated a need for a good cue action. In this game you can actually hit the ball badly (just as in golf games) and that's a first for snooker. I don't want a pot to be guaranteed just because I've positioned the guide lines on the centre of the pocket.
                              Completely agree. I’ve missed so many straight blacks because I didn’t hit the sweet spot especially if playing power shots with side.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Matty66 View Post
                                Completely agree. I’ve missed so many straight blacks because I didn’t hit the sweet spot especially if playing power shots with side.
                                What's your understanding of the power system and its nuances, Matty?

                                I've manged to establish that from baulk cushion to black cushion, without hitting any balls, is roughly 18%. This means from baulk cushion, down the table and back to baulk cushion should be roughly 36% (18% X 2). But when playing thin safety clips off a red, I've not been able to work out an optimum percentage for returning safely to baulk. You'd imagine, with a thin clip on a red, off the black cushion and back to baulk would be about 43% (the extra 6% allowing for the clip off the red). If playing off the red, then off two cushions and back to baulk would be about 48%, but so often when I play these shots my cue ball falls way too short and ends up somewhere round the middle of the table. So then the next time I try setting it in the high-50s and it's way too hard.
                                "Kryten, isn't it round about this time of year that your head goes back to the lab for retuning?"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X