You know that was a pre-rendered scene right? And in now way represents what is in game (assuming there was a game).
The Star Citizen Thread v 3.0
- Thread starter Jenner
- Start date
- Status
You know that was a pre-rendered scene right? And in now way represents what is in game (assuming there was a game).
Actually the basic version of it is in the game dev stream that was shown in Gamescom 2015. Watch how the Constallation explodes. Also the explosion is tied to the newly finished Game Object State System. So that is completely in the Star Citizen engine and is not a pre-rendered scene. It is a pre triggered scene to show the progression.
Last edited:
Yep and it looked nothing like that and it looked like crap, got to love the constellation disappearing into a dot then reappearing exploding outward. So again, the new video is pre-visualized and is not representative of what we will see currently in game. While the new video looks very cool (although the fire effects look off), its not in game. And at the end of the day, its just yet another trailer from CIG that they have not implemented into a playable build. Also really graphics will only get them so far, at some point they need to make gameplay.
Last edited:
Yes but the point is it's just empty marketing.
Graphical effects are secondary to gameplay, is there a game/demo/alpha/gameplay footage/module where I can watch that nice explosion from the cockpit of my ship ?.
Or is it just another mini-trailer.
After closely listening to the guy's words I'm also left with the feeling that this video is still very much decoupled with their actual game.
It was also interesting afterwards when he was separating parts of the ship. Effects didn't engage on most of the separations and when it did it wasn't how and where it was supposed to appear.
On a more general SC note, I think so far all ex-employees that supposedly quit with some connection to the whole scandal we know of are on the 3D design.
We haven't seen/heard a programmer come forth. And usually programmers have the biggest issue with changing project scope (boy, do i know that...)
The biggest signal for issues with the project is if their chief solution architect resigns ..
It was also interesting afterwards when he was separating parts of the ship. Effects didn't engage on most of the separations and when it did it wasn't how and where it was supposed to appear.
On a more general SC note, I think so far all ex-employees that supposedly quit with some connection to the whole scandal we know of are on the 3D design.
We haven't seen/heard a programmer come forth. And usually programmers have the biggest issue with changing project scope (boy, do i know that...)
The biggest signal for issues with the project is if their chief solution architect resigns ..
Again, that explosion looks great.
CIG show have impressed us every here and then with nice little detailed snippets like this.
If they manage to start adding them all together into a playable game AND manage to make that game multiplayer, it's going to look great.
Then they'll have to add interesting gameplay mechanics to keep us occupied in a fun way so that we actually want to keep on playing this beautiful world
We're 3+ years in and we still only have snippets like this and tech demos to go along with.
They really need to start make meaningful stuff playable.
CIG show have impressed us every here and then with nice little detailed snippets like this.
If they manage to start adding them all together into a playable game AND manage to make that game multiplayer, it's going to look great.
Then they'll have to add interesting gameplay mechanics to keep us occupied in a fun way so that we actually want to keep on playing this beautiful world
We're 3+ years in and we still only have snippets like this and tech demos to go along with.
They really need to start make meaningful stuff playable.
I guess you guys really liked isolated and closed development where tech progress which is crucial for a game like SC is not being shared. Arccorp used to be a tech teaser too. So was the procedural damage shader and many other things by now they are being implemented in to SC.
If you like the publisher model then I am not sure SC is your type of game to follow since it keeps sharing insights on their development weekly. If you dislike all progress shown and discredit it you really don't support the project going forward.
If you like the publisher model then I am not sure SC is your type of game to follow since it keeps sharing insights on their development weekly. If you dislike all progress shown and discredit it you really don't support the project going forward.
Last edited:
Is there a game in there anywhere ?, it's that simple.
SQ42 was due for release November 2014 (from memory I haven't checked) yet it's not even in alpha yet. Give us a single playable mission, prove the game works. I understand stretch goals make development harder (and longer) so add parts later (like ED are doing with horizons).
Last edited:
Sheesh PhanttoM, stop being so calm, balanced and reasonable - you'll give all forums a bad name!
Last edited:
And here we go again with the classic "No critisism allowed" defense.
Yup, you like closed, isolated development and love publishers if you want actual gameplay after 3+ years of development.
That makes a lot of sense. /s
I tend to agree with Nowak as devs and publishers aren't generally required to share their progress.
However I would argue that CIG isn't a regular developer what with them being self-crowd-funded and yadayada. They should make preliminary releases to the public - which they acknowledged and committed to, but then failed to deliver.
Why make those promises in the first place? Oh, to attract money?
Well in that case we will put to scrutiny whatever they do release to squeeze out some info about the real state of the project 'inhouse'. And so far it's not all what it should be.
However I would argue that CIG isn't a regular developer what with them being self-crowd-funded and yadayada. They should make preliminary releases to the public - which they acknowledged and committed to, but then failed to deliver.
Why make those promises in the first place? Oh, to attract money?
Well in that case we will put to scrutiny whatever they do release to squeeze out some info about the real state of the project 'inhouse'. And so far it's not all what it should be.
With respect, it's not the binary choice that you're suggesting.
The ED Damocles video was based on game play and the debug camera with post production touch ups. At the time it came out we were both positive and critical. I remember the Lave Radio episode and discussion beforehand where Fozz was totally gushing and John Stabler and I pointed out a couple of critical things.
The video you linked up is great. The sequence of explosions in terms of ambition and achievement suggests a great deal of good intention and hard work. The problem in part is highlighted by how the touch ups are being talked about, not how they are done. The people on the ground producing that content and aiming for that content in engine are worthy of praise, but there's a scepticism attached to the receipt of such content owing to the way in which many things have been portrayed over the development cycle. It reminds me of a mythology really, quite a technical mythology - a little like when you play a science fiction roleplaying game and a player tries to 'out tech' the GM so they can pull off something particularly outrageous.
The 'transparency' of SC's development has never felt particularly transparent to me. Perhaps I'm a jaded British male who had his fill of spin from Tony Blair, but I've always felt I'm being told a story and that the actual work is being dressed in different shiny clothes before it gets presented to me and that has seemed to be revealed in the reactions of CIG when criticised. I have more respect for a coal face 'as is' reportage, which you would not get from a publisher model. It feels a little like SC is presenting to its backers, like it might do to a publisher on a regular visit.
The words associated with the project have started to take on a religious or romantic flavour. Now, that can be all part of the narrative, it was for a while with ED, but in that kind of movie story, you have to eventually get to the third act and the resolution where you're supposed to deliver the happy ending. We're certainly in the second act right now, amidst all the conflict and adversity.
To be fair, CIG shares insights because it is paid to do so via the subscriptions it collects. Which then begs the question, is a company truly open if they're charging for the privilege?
Another point I would make Nowak.
I don't consider my views as being the same as all others who are unconvinced by SC on this thread. Similarly I don't consider your views the same as others either.
I value your tireless opinion here and admire your persistence. Star Citizen needs its fans right now and I respect that. It may well be you will never convince folks here until the grand unveiling of the SC masterpiece, but please do keep posting. The counterpoint matters and without your points, this would not be an informed and varied discussion.
I don't consider my views as being the same as all others who are unconvinced by SC on this thread. Similarly I don't consider your views the same as others either.
I value your tireless opinion here and admire your persistence. Star Citizen needs its fans right now and I respect that. It may well be you will never convince folks here until the grand unveiling of the SC masterpiece, but please do keep posting. The counterpoint matters and without your points, this would not be an informed and varied discussion.
Yeah, here's hopping to some SQ42 gameplay.
My bet is a new trailer, it will be a nice trailer. But it won't be game-play.
I know Yaffle's asked to quash the ED/SC comparison talk but I think it's relevant here.
Braben's posting today of the procedural moon and zoom out is just a bit of video from their work in progress, no sound to it no polish no nothing it literally just seems to be from the code they have right now and as such it *is*.
While that SC video seems to be a cinematic, polished concept of what CIG are aiming for and is likely not representative and what their code currently does.
(I'm not saying Frontier aren't guilty of the misleading commercial thing)
Last edited:
- Status