Star Prospector Has Good Prospects, Demo

By Jim Rossignol on January 30th, 2012 at 7:26 pm.


So I’ve not had a chance to play this yet, but there’s a good chance that the recently-release Star Prospector demo might be up the space-lane of a few of you. It’s a sort of RTS/RPG mix that developers Cryptstone describe like this: “The player takes on the role of a prospector, a one-person mining, salvage, and construction unit, taking on missions on remote planets across the galaxy in search of resources, technology, and adventure… The 100 missions in Star Prospector are randomly generated (including story centric missions). A random seed is used to create a unique galaxy every time the player creates a new profile.” I’ve posted the trailer below, so you can glimpse a bit of the world-exploring activity that the game entails, and if that intrigues you can download the demo here.


Neat.

, .

36 Comments »

  1. icupnimpn2 says:

    Without having played the demo or watched the video, is it a bit like Pikmin then?

    • jonfitt says:

      Without having played the demo or watched the video, I would say: yes.

      New game: try to guess what a game is like from the RPS article header only.

    • jonfitt says:

      However, my guess would be, it’s C&C with lightning guns.

      [EDIT] Ok, I watched the video, and I wasn’t a million miles off.
      Randomly generated levels leads to replayability but at potentially the cost of appearing homogenous/repetitive. It’ll be interesting to see if they pull it off.

    • LionsPhil says:

      The single constructor guy who is vital and the core of everything would be more TA.

      Shadows aside, it, uh, kind of looks graphically like it’s from the late ’90s, too, and not in any kind of particularly charming retro way. And I’m not reeeeeally seeing any interesting gameplay to mitigate. Two lines of guys walk up to each-other and take turns firing until one dissolves into a puff of fire particles.

    • Aklyon says:

      C&C already had lightning guns, though. Looks at Red Alert 3.

    • LionsPhil says:

      TA’s Zeus would like a word with you.

      Mostly it’s for the “3″, though. Seriously. :|

    • Ultra Superior says:

      it does not look very good, does it.

      I guess “Indie” games can afford to look like they don’t give a damn. They’re even cooler looking sloppy I guess.

      In this economy, everything goes!

    • Jimbo says:

      Is it a bit like SpellForce 2?

    • Premium User Badge

      Gap Gen says:

      icupnimpn2: It’s basically the scanning level from Mass Effect 2, without the Mass Effect 2. I think. I haven’t watched the trailer either.

    • BigSmallFeet says:

      I think someone should to watch the trailer

    • miudasgu says:

      The price is very cheap! VIA 8650 W8001 8 英寸 Google Android 2.2, Flash 10.1 support for gravity sensing RJ45 Table PC http://alturl.com/fg77k

  2. Koozer says:

    HARVESTER UNDER ATTACK

  3. jonfitt says:

    Hmm. I wonder if it is any relation to the Roguelike: rlprospector.
    http://code.google.com/p/rlprospector/

    • Twerty says:

      Yes, this sounds disturbingly similar to the Prospector roguelike… for a second I thought it was the same dev. Odd coincidence that such a niche concept has two incarnations.

    • BiggTedd says:

      Not even close to that other prospector game LOL!

    • treat says:

      This is what I thought when I saw the headline, and got crazy excited. That is, until I watched the trailer. I prefer to keep my TD games in my flash player.

  4. wodin says:

    Space Spiders..it’s across between a great film Moon and a not so great one Apollo (followed by a number can’t remember what though).

    looks like Tower defence aswelll..I hate tower defence..hate it.

  5. huw says:

    Hmm, the graphics aren’t great but the game looks alright anyway. I’m going to try the demo. So NUR!

  6. johnpeat says:

    I love allsorts of games but there are 2 words which drive me from any game screaming and crying

    and those words are…

    “Build Order”

    For me it implies a game within a game – some sort of spreadsheet element or some “hidden maths trick” which I can never, ever be bothered with.

    Is this really why people play RTS’s – to work out the best possible build order (and then click 50 times a second to implement it”??

    It’s like playing an FPS well because you’ve worked out a ‘racing line’ around the level and you can pull the trigger quicker :)

    • Nethlem says:

      Uhm i think you are understanding the concept of “build orders” wrong…
      First of all: Build orders in RTS usually only matter in multiplayer.

      And even then it’s nothing like a “hidden maths trick”, because there is no “best build order” and if there is one that RTS probably is crap because it lacks balance.

      A build order is basicly your strategy on how to play that round. It’s like playing chess where you chose your first moves depending on your overall strategy.

      How well a build order works does not depend on “math” but rather on your execution and what kind of “build order” your enemy puts on the table. Usually when the two players finnaly meet for a first battle all build orders fall apart because then players start reacting to each other.

      Or to make it short: A build order only matters at the start of the round and you chose one depending on the strategy you wanna go with for that round. It’s the same as opening moves and strategies for playing chess.

    • Aklyon says:

      Build order is multiplayer RTS games only. Everywhere else in the game it shouldn’t matter what you do if you’re decent enough at playing.

    • Premium User Badge

      jrodman says:

      Kind of not really tied to this article, but… I like the topic so I shall reply.

      In any sort of decent RTS, you have to know the build order to execute it well as sloppy play can be defeated by crisp play. However, that doesn’t mean that build orders are thoughtless nor that clicking faster wins. In fact build order is probably a poor choice of words. What’s usually meant is “an opening”. Like in chess, you have a certain sort of way of going about the beginning sequence that has a certain feel and certain branching points. You have to know it fairly well to play it fairly well, so it makes sense to play a particular one enough times to really learn it through and through instead of doing random things all over the place.

      One of the reasons that people have “openings” that they memorize or “learn” is because there’s a part of the game before you really start interacting with your opponent. As a result, there’s no reason to figure out how to play that part of the game during the game, and people decide what they’re going to do ahead of time, and from there it’s just execution. But once significant contact with your opponents occurs, you’re no longer on rails, and are now having to be reactive to the opponent. Sometimes the opponent might be totally passive and that may let you do what you pre-planned, but that’s just a bad opponent. In any close match you must incorporate the situation into your decision making, and it’s not a thoughtless exercise at all.

      What *is* true is that most RTS games end up emphasizing is crisp decision making and strong mechanics. You do need to be able to react quickly both tactically and mechanically to keep up with the best players. Mouse control, and focus are essential ingredients in being a top player, so there’s certainly a clickyclicky aspect to the play. That said, most players are far below the level of clickfrenzy, and facing off against a fair opponent is going to come down far more often to reading your opponent, and managing your goals effectively.

    • soldant says:

      Build orders only apply to MP RTS games, and in saying that despite what people are suggesting here it does end up boiling down to “this is a superior order do this” namely because the opening stages of the vast majority of RTS games are about establishing the economy. I used to play Supreme Commander online, and pretty much everyone’s “opening” was the same, and it would be a rush of T1 and then T3 units (T2 was ignored). The main goal is to establish the economy to power the war machine.

      Following that I partially agree with people that you adapt to what the opponent is doing but most of the time the competitive RTS players are still playing the big spreadsheet game or micro-ing their units. And actions per minute does count, unfortunately, because micro-ing is far too popular.

  7. Sarcophagus says:

    Did anyone find the trailer music really beautiful? It would be perfect for a late night study session.

  8. caddyB says:

    Is it any good though?

  9. Bishop149 says:

    Had a play around with the demo last night.
    Meh, pretty boring really. I know I only had access to low level stuff and 90% of the game was grayed out due to lack of money but the gameplay seem really repetitive. Build same base every level, tank rush enemy until dead.

    If the purpose of the demo is to showcase the games potential I say it fails pretty badly.

  10. Premium User Badge

    cairbre says:

    It didn’t rock my world I have to say.

  11. Premium User Badge

    The Sombrero Kid says:

    Who wouldn’t want to play this! although I’m not buying it from gamestop sorry.

  12. jeep says:

    is this made by the same guy who made the roguelike Prospector, or are they just borrowing some ideas from that game