Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[Ed02349]

It's been one full week of wave 1 and 2 access.

I wonder if this is linked to the layoffs and declining funding/pledgiong/income this year?
Maybe its a way to reduce server cost?

SF have been an eye opener for some on this matter : the fidelity, the scope of SC... and what already exist in Stanton that other games gave up because too complex to do...

I think it's more of Bathessssda making compromises with the tools they have rather than dream big and not know if it was possible or not. Can't really praise Chris Roberts for doing the opposite because he didn't have a game engine to work from and instead of writing one (being the coder that he is/was) he chose to buy an off the shelf engine that is not known for flying vehicles. Both has game engine limitation, one decided to work within in, the toehr bull-headed tries to do things the engine wasn't designed to do.

 

[varonica]

too complex to do.

Like planets and ships you don't fall through? Ladders that work, corridors that don't dump you into space at any moment. Sure there's stuff that other games don't do, there's also stuff that SC claims to do but doesn't actually do with any sort of consistency and stability, so maybe that needs thinking about by the SC devs, the reason other people aren't doing it is because.....maybe it's simply to hard to do with current tech?

 

[cigwatch]

I think it's more of Bathessssda making compromises with the tools they have rather than dream big and not know if it was possible or not. Can't really praise Chris Roberts for doing the opposite because he didn't have a game engine to work from and instead of writing one (being the coder that he is/was) he chose to buy an off the shelf engine that is not known for flying vehicles. Both has game engine limitation, one decided to work within in, the toehr bull-headed tries to do things the engine wasn't designed to do.

This is the difference between a game developer and a virtual vehicle dealer. One is releasing a game after game, of varied quality, but always with crazy longevity in this case, knowing its craft and understanding what it means to deliver under certain constraints and focusing a good balance between content and game systems. The other is releasing spaceships (of varied quality as well) and adds a broken, limited sandbox with toy planets to play with them in, using a flight model that is still provisional after twelve years of tinkering with it.

 

[LittleAnt]

Aaaaaah, the scope. That's so practical. Don't need to deliver anything, just need to have a big enough scope to make people dream about what the game could be once it is released, then gladly open their wallets and inject more money. Rinse and repeat ! (CIG style)

I tell ya, the S C O P E, man !!!!!

The scope have already delivered a lot.
That's the scope that gave us good ship interiors with seamless transition from space to your pilot seat landed on ground. That's the scope that gave us derelicts in space explorable in eva.

You are correct, that's the scope that funded and keep funding CIG. Because if you wait for a good scope from other companies, you fell flat.

 

[kilvenny]

So scope is the new cope. SF is done how I was originally expecting SC to be done as a series of connected FPS levels. Disappointing - but given they will be a modders paradise this might be a genius approach, making it easy to tack on new FPS levels either to existing terrain or on planets. I do love the various in game nods to SC/ED/NMS, it seems like they looked at the strength and weaknesses of each game and tried to avoid them with their design decisions. Ramps work, no relentless survival mechanic, everywhere you go there is something of interest to head towards (normally a set piece location), virtually no travel delays, and interiors to name but a few.

 

[Frank]

virtually no travel delays

That's it. That's the selling point for me. Both Elite and SC just luv their "immersion". Nothing makes a universe feel more expansive than making you wait 5 minutes twiddling yer thumbs while yer waiting for bit where you need your fingers on yer controller to actually do some gaming

I'm hoping it'll be like the other Bethesda games and give you fast travel to parts of a map that you've already explored

 

[LittleAnt]

True that. Actual persistence, NPCs that do not T-pose or stand on top of furniture, no glitching through the floor or through the walls of a ship to the death, no own ship explosions for dropping a med pen, actual working AI, more than 1 incomplete system, crafting, exploration mechanics, factions and missions that work, ship modularity and customisation, base building, fauna, farming, modding support...

I mean, unlike Star Citizen, Star Field list of actual scope features is endless and, unlike Star Citizen, they do not break just by looking at them. You are too right, it has been a powerful eye opener for many to realize that SC tiny scope and broken engine is even more clearly laughable now.

Lol. SF is a solo game without server, persistance is not even a subject and every bug related to placement of objects mismatching the server positions simply can't exist. Easy to not have server related bugs when you don't have a server.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/166v87b

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/166v87b/not_quite_a_tpose/

 

[LittleAnt]

I think it's more of Bathessssda making compromises with the tools they have rather than dream big

For sure they have compromised a lot. Too much it seems.

 

[LittleAnt]

I'm hoping it'll be like the other Bethesda games and give you fast travel to parts of a map that you've already explored

You'd better like fast travel, you have to use it everytime and everywhere. Install the game on a SSD if you don't want to loose too much time.

 

[McGlashan]

SC has had its basic seamless ships/space/planets USP in place since 2017. The bulk of SF was produced since then, for multiple platforms, and released to positive reviews, while CIG has been spinning its wheels. Also, to claim it as a win for SC means ignoring the unbelievable jank that comes with their half-baked implementation. Not to mention all the other MIA features, and the fact that it's still an "alpha" tech demo with no release in sight, despite already being in development for 50% longer than SF.

You'd better like fast travel, you have to use it everytime and everywhere. Install the game on a SSD if you don't want to loose too much time.

Hilarious, coming from an "you only encounter those SC bugs if you're not running it on an SSD" apologist.

 

[Viajero]

Lol. SF is a solo game without server, persistance is not even a subject and every bug related to placement of objects mismatching the server positions simply can't exist. Easy to not have server related bugs when you don't have a server.

You are basically arguing that the SC engine has no issues, except those network related. Hope you realize how ridiculous that sounds.

If that was true we would already have SQ42 by now I am afraid. But we do not. No, SC issues go way beyond "network/server" appalling lag and desynch related stuff; from broken physics to broken geometries, broken collisions, to limited/crappy 64bits implementation, passing through broken asset or mission content, NPC behavior and a large etc.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/166v87b

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/166v87b/not_quite_a_tpose/

If you think that is representative I have some bad news for you:

Starfield Reviews

Starfield is an expansive sci-fi RPG from Bethesda Game Studios that offers a vast open world to explore. The game emphasizes freedom, allowing players to pursue side quests and space exploration...

opencritic.com

Meanwhile SC released early access is so buggy, incomplete and crappy that does not even deserve the attention of score reviewers. This is as best as SC can get these days:

 

[LittleAnt]

Hilarious, coming from an "you only encounter those SC bugs if you're not running it on an SSD" apologist.

It's a real advice if you want to enjoy SF at the max. Nothing related to SC.

 

[Ed02349]

For sure they have compromised a lot. Too much it seems.

At least they compromised to get a coherent game out and didn't fail so miserably they have to grovel for subscription money.

 

[VR Golgot]

Ah, it's a 'Game X = bad, so SC = good' day.

About a PC game averaging 9/10 in reviews

 

[Wan el mask]

It's a real advice if you want to enjoy SF at the max. Nothing related to SC.

Come on, everything you say on this thread is related to SC, one way or another. No point in hiding this fact.

 

[Surefoot]

SF have been an eye opener for some on this matter : the fidelity, the scope of SC...

Besides what others have answered I'll add: what fidelity ? do you mean the completely broken, cartoon-like physics ? or the ships that dismantle themselves when you look at them sideways ? Or the vast amount of useless things inside the ship that are there to make you think the game is "deep in scope" while they are just empty 3D assets with no function ? Or the "magic radar that sees everything" all the time ? Or the missiles that cannot track a stationary, huge target ? Or the lasers that travel at 100m/s or less ? or the stationary planets and magically hovering space stations ? Is that what you mean by "fidelity" ?
And by "scope" do you mean "a single star system with 4 planets and a few moons that's not even complete and still is missing the star itself ? Or a handful of random-gen fetch quests plus 2 (two !!) different "kill the bad guys" quests that are also place holders by the way ?

Oh and lifts, door and ladders in Starfield do not kill you.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Some people hyped themselves into not realizing Starfield would be another Morrowind reskin from the company that's been doing that for the past two decades, but that doesn't mean the tech's too complex. The team behind Kerbal Space Program weren't even gamedevs and were on a shoestring budget yet within a year had double precision coordinates, planetary reference frames, ships you could go inside of without loading screens, seamless transitions, etc.. Given the timeline, Star Citizen could be said to have copied it as KSP did it first. Maybe the tech was too complex for Chris.

It's no usual Bethesda open world. By all accounts it looks like a fully prcgen driven instanced RPG, which is more or less something completely different. It'd be like NMS with more RPG elements if it was seamless but the level of fidelity doesn't allow that yt, I guess.

 

[Viajero]

Besides what others have answered I'll add: what fidelity ? do you mean the completely broken, cartoon-like physics ? or the ships that dismantle themselves when you look at them sideways ? Or the vast amount of useless things inside the ship that are there to make you think the game is "deep in scope" while they are just empty 3D assets with no function ? Or the "magic radar that sees everything" all the time ? Or the missiles that cannot track a stationary, huge target ? Or the lasers that travel at 100m/s or less ? or the stationary planets and magically hovering space stations ? Is that what you mean by "fidelity" ?
And by "scope" do you mean "a single star system with 4 planets and a few moons that's not even complete and still is missing the star itself ? Or a handful of random-gen fetch quests plus 2 (two !!) different "kill the bad guys" quests that are also place holders by the way ?

Oh and lifts, door and ladders in Starfield do not kill you.

Yeah, that is a damning list, there is no actual fidelity in SC to speak of. The one some fans revert to is the "graphical" one, which is meh at best.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

So scope is the new cope. SF is done how I was originally expecting SC to be done as a series of connected FPS levels. Disappointing - but given they will be a modders paradise this might be a genius approach, making it easy to tack on new FPS levels either to existing terrain or on planets. I do love the various in game nods to SC/ED/NMS, it seems like they looked at the strength and weaknesses of each game and tried to avoid them with their design decisions. Ramps work, no relentless survival mechanic, everywhere you go there is something of interest to head towards (normally a set piece location), virtually no travel delays, and interiors to name but a few.

SF has done what is doable and possible. SC still struggles to understand what can be done and pushes forward imaginary tech that can realise the impossible. A dose of common sense has been lacking for over a decade in Robbers deluded mind. But it sure let the cash roll in like crazy.

 

[StuartGT]

Look, releasing a game to critical and commercial success is bad, ok

By never releasing a game, one gets to string along the payers who hope to one day Answer The Call.