The Star Citizen Thread v 4

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
http://www.pcgamer.com/inside-squadron-42-star-citizens-ambitious-singleplayer-campaign/
The one with more direct quotes is on german though so i linked the pcgamer interview
Cheers for that. Considering that article was December 2015, this are the most telling statements from it:
Foundry 42 wants the FPS component of Star Citizen to mirror the open-ended, player-driven design of its space sandbox.
Barclay also talks briefly about so-called ‘secondary stories’ that will populate the open world.
But here’s the thing. I didn’t see or play any of this. Squadron 42 seems to still be very much in the early stages of development, and I wasn’t shown a working build. Everything I saw was in the CryEngine editor or described verbally by one of the developers.

COD:IW will be late-alpha if not closed-beta right now, ready for its November release.
 
Last edited:
No it didn't, nonlinear order of missions, pretty much lets you choose the missions you go to over forcing them on you. SQ42 on this [aim to be] fully open-world, with you [hypothetically] exploring the solar system you will be at, for campaign missions, side-missions... and whatever content the developers [will] manage to put in.

Please, please, please... Could we avoid present tense for now.
 
Last edited:
They are different games, i think you're thinking too high of CoD to think they'll be able to offer more space sim than SQ42,

I don't think they'll be able to offer more space sim. I think they can do single player campaigns MUCH better since they've been doing it for years and have far better project management, mocap pipelines, etc. The trailer footage looks way better than anything from the Morrow tour and considering CIG started straying from the space sim years ago and no longer use "BDSSE" in favor of first person universe...

Infinite Warfare is not what I want exactly, but I can't deny they are massively successful at it and this is direct competition to S42. They've delivered many of the bestselling games of all time. This SHOULD have been released as a response to Star Citizen, not BEFORE. CR really dropped the ball and dragged his feet and the market is heading towards space saturation!

The next step is CR reacting and insisting on adding mechs or something.
 
Last edited:
Please, please, please... Could we avoid present tense for now.
Well, it should go both sides then, we're talking about both developers say their game is going to be and offer!


Infinite Warfare is not what I want exactly, but I can't deny they are massively successful at it and this is direct competition to S42.

The next step is CR reacting and insisting on adding mechs or something.

Not for me they aren't competition, the playerbase of CoD is a young crowd, while around both SC and ED you have the older peeps who look for more serious and less casual gameplay. On that aspect they will always remain 2 separate audiences, and the later is not the one a CoD game aims at. Different story if who announced this game would be ARMA.

I can also say the new CoD game, is also going to be direct competition to Infinity Battlescape, pulling off multiplayer matches with fight and transitions between ground and space, even though Infinity is set to have a much bigger scale, but there are differences and different audiences for both games with their own gameplay.
 
Last edited:
CoD is going to be released in November and to date we have only seen one trailer.

Well, it should go both sides then, we're talking about both developers say their game is going to be and offer!

To me there is a huge difference. There have been hundreds of CoD's so far, we have seen the trailers, then the games, we know what to expect. When i saw the CoD trailer i could easily imagine how this could realistically play as a CoD game.
Now SQ42 is a very different thing. CIG does not have any track record, they did not show that they even can deliver a good space FPS (see StarMarine), everything that sound great and raises anticipation seems to be still in the "concept" state, and nobody has seen any proof that SQ42 will deliver on the promises. This whole open-world, good side missions, good epic story, likeable characters setup sound wonderfull, but looking how the open world experts (e.g. ubisoft) struggle to bring these things together despite years of experience and working infrastructure doesn't really make me optimistic that CIG will succeed.

I do still believe that SQ42 will be fun, but i can hardly image that it will be the open-world scifi epic that is being promised.
 
To me there is a huge difference. There have been hundreds of CoD's so far, we have seen the trailers, then the games, we know what to expect. When i saw the CoD trailer i could easily imagine how this could realistically play as a CoD game.
Now SQ42 is a very different thing. CIG does not have any track record, they did not show that they even can deliver a good space FPS (see StarMarine), everything that sound great and raises anticipation seems to be still in the "concept" state, and nobody has seen any proof that SQ42 will deliver on the promises. This whole open-world, good side missions, good epic story, likeable characters setup sound wonderfull, but looking how the open world experts (e.g. ubisoft) struggle to bring these things together despite years of experience and working infrastructure doesn't really make me optimistic that CIG will succeed.

I do still believe that SQ42 will be fun, but i can hardly image that it will be the open-world scifi epic that is being promised.

For me it's about being a good game.

Also put Ubisoft there is the most awful example, their track record is simply not good when it comes to Open World Games, i don't think it's a matter of experience there, or the publisher just rushes the studios to get the game out the door, because way smaller companies have pulled of amazing games on the genre. So it just feels Ubisoft rushes open-world games out the door, when the good open world games around, were the outcome of long developments.
 
Last edited:
If Ubisoft is an awful example, why the hell would you use it as a template? Far Cry in Space, remember? Apparently it was good enough to steal.
 
Last edited:
If Ubisoft is an awful example, why the hell would you use it as a template? Far Cry in Space, remember? Apparently it was good enough to steal.

I give it the Far Cry, from the ones that end in madness that one went good. Also wasn't me that used it as template, was described as that by gamestar, one German mag article on SQ42.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a proof of less time and less money? The budget of CoD Modern Warfare can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

It is $50M on development only, i.e. a little less than one half of SC's total budget.



The fact that they have shown MoCap stuff probably does not prove anything. I.e. they have probably shown how they filmed several scenes for the game. But this does not mean that we are getting the movie only. We are yet to see. I doubt that there are going to be many people happy if they get FPS instead of a space sim.



It is hard to say anything now. We have only seen some trailers. It is hard to get the idea of what the game is going to be basing on the trailers. There is little info about physics, flight models and a lot of other stuff. Most probably you are going to use KB/M setup for everything CoD.

The scale is different. SQ42 should feature an open world with multiple systems. What CoD is going to offer? Is it going to offer such freedom? Or is it going to be the same as previous games of the series with linear progress? There is no answer yet to a lot of questions.

As for the release date, it should be release when it is ready, and when the release would fit better. I.e. CIG should fit the release in the right moment of time to avoid competition with other projects.

Its pretty funny, even when the evidence is right in your face some of the hardcore CIG defenders are in denial.

But lets do this just for the fun of it.


SQ42

Battle in the stars and face-to-face as you seamlessly transition between dogfighting and ground combat.Serve aboard a massive Navy capital ship as your custom character interacts and builds relationships with a living, breathing crew.Cutting-edge performance capture brings unprecedented emotion and life to some of your favorite actors.Powered by CryEngine, Squadron 42 pushes gaming graphics and fidelity to the next level.

Source

CoD IW

In this way, "you can be boots on ground, fighting through the streets of a city on earth, call down your Jackal, get into it, fly up through the atmosphere, engage in a dogfight over the orbit of earth, finish that dogfight, land on the deck of the carrier, get into the carrier, go up to the bridge, and order your ship to go to the next mission and all of it happens seamlessly with no loading screens."

According to Minkoff, Infinite Warfare will offer a seamless experience in which players are fully invested in not only their character, but also their vehicle. "It's kind of the Top Gun fantasy," he explained, noting that "it's your fighter that you get to upgrade and customize. You get to walk along the flight deck and have the flight crew preparing it for you and saluting you and you get into it and you fly out into these crazy missions that you chose to go to."

Instead of fragmenting the game by shoehorning in vehicle sequences, "they are seamlessly woven into the fiction of the character and the mechanics of the game," providing an experience that Minkoff described as being "completely holistic."

SQ42 no COOP as promissed, CoD IW including COOP

Otherwise its going to be the same, story progressing campaigns, sometimes on rail scripted events.

The scale is different. SQ42 should feature an open world with multiple systems

eh? no, SQ42 will not contain anymore open world than CoD IW, you are here talking about SC and that is another game.

Development time CoD IW 3 years and less than $100 Mil. going online November 2016

SQ42 development time 4 years and counting, release ? who knows, but its not going to be this year for sure.
 
Last edited:
For me it's about being a good game.

Also put Ubisoft there is the most awful example, their track record is simply not good when it comes to Open World Games, i don't think it's a matter of experience there, or the publisher just rushes the studios to get the game out the door, because way smaller companies have pulled of amazing games on the genre. So it just feels Ubisoft rushes open-world games out the door, when the good open world games around, were the outcome of long developments.

I don't think Ubisoft games are bad per se, most of the time not my taste but certainly high quality. So who does a better job? Bethesda? I don't think so. They have mostly weak characters, low fidelity, mediocre dialogue, generic main story. Only some of the side quest are excellent and the world building is good - but(!) they are iterating on the same concept for decades! Another example is Rockstar. They actually manage to have excellent open world, good story and side missions, cool characters, high fidelity. But they are too iterating on the identical game since the first GTA (or GTA 3 if you want to emphasise 3D).

CIG promises to do something entirely new from scratch but better or equal in any aspect to the current market. They started with CR's vision alone, with no team, no tech, no hard concept, and they have not demonstrated yet that they can deliver on that promise.

Now, of course, the big publishers have realised that the space theme is getting more and more attention, and it is much easier for them to adapt their working pipelines to make an action-space-scifi game. Therefore i would not be surprised if CoD or the next Mass Effect will come much closer to the promise of SQ42 than the original itself.
 
Its pretty funny, even when the evidence is right in your face some of the hardcore CIG defenders are in denial.

But lets do this just for the fun of it.

Squadron 42 is going to be a failure confirmed? Oh no, the great COD arrives, SQ42 can no longer exist!

Well i guess CIG option now is cancel SQ42 because of the new CoD game. [up]

Also if you're certain SQ42 won't come this year, then you shouldn't worry about competition because it would be then, several months past the CoD release, there, problem solved! ;)
 
Squadron 42 is going to be a failure confirmed? Oh no, the great COD arrives, SQ42 can no longer exist!

Well i guess CIG option now is cancel SQ42 because of the new CoD game. [up]

Also if you're certain SQ42 won't come this year, then you shouldn't worry about competition because it would be then, several months past the CoD release, there, problem solved! ;)

Nobody said that SQ42 will fail because of CoD. But it looks like we will get a huge chunk of the promised SQ42 experience from CoD.
 
Last edited:
CIG promises to do something entirely new from scratch but better or equal in any aspect to the current market. They started with CR's vision alone, with no team, no tech, no hard concept, and they have not demonstrated yet that they can deliver on that promise.

CIG started with no company, no offices, and so on. They are not building one ambitious game by itself, they had to build a company from the ground-up at the same time building the game.

You put that VS big companies with already several studios ready to work on the project, with usually already one engine created to build the game on, and with a budget set from Day-1, it's obvious CIG has a bigger challenge to take on.

And we knew this from day-1 as well.


But it looks like we will get a huge chunk of the promised SQ42 experience from CoD.
I don't believe CoD will be able to please the people who expect more a space sim aspect, and a non-casual gameplay.
CoD is literately a game made for children so they can't go that path. It's more of a FPS game + Space, while SQ42 is Space game + FPS.
 
Last edited:
That's not much of an excuse. Many game development teams form from the ground up and start with nothing, lease office space, hire staff. They don't use it as an excuse almost five years into a project.

" with usually already one engine created to build the game on"

Er, like CryEngine? No, because they modded it like every single game development company does with engines they use and need to alter to fit their project, it somehow doesn't count. He had CryTek make the damn prototype. Then hired a lot of CryTek. That DOES count as having an engine already along with folks familliar with it. You can't simultaneously claim that as an advantage AND a disadvantage when the argument calls for one.

It happens in this thread constantly depending on what point needs to be defended. The CryTek engineers! Frankfurt! Oh we have such huge German brains that know the engine inside and out! They helped make the engine!

What's that? Things are falling behind? We had to mod the engine! We don't have an advantage like the Cobra engine! OH WOE!
 
Last edited:
CIG started with no company, no offices, and so on. They are not building one ambitious game by itself, they had to build a company from the ground-up at the same time building the game.

This is exactly what i was saying! And for this reason i am reluctant to just assume that CIG will be able to deliver on all these wonderful promises that have been made, while others that start from a much better situation struggle to deliver games that match the "fidelity" of CR promises.
 
Last edited:
Squadron 42 is going to be a failure confirmed? Oh no, the great COD arrives, SQ42 can no longer exist!

Well i guess CIG option now is cancel SQ42 because of the new CoD game. [up]

Also if you're certain SQ42 won't come this year, then you shouldn't worry about competition because it would be then, several months past the CoD release, there, problem solved! ;)

Who said it was a failure, the problem here is that they are waiting so long that the other studios are catching up, so when they actually release something it will just be one among many. The first hype will be taken off and used to get the FPS space fix, if you already have eaten a cake, you are not really hungry enough to eat a second one.

There are not that many people that play space games, and the people you talk about do not find SQ42 that interesting.
SQ42 is not Arma in space, its more like some of the other shooters out there.
 
CoD is literately a game made for children so they can't go that path. It's more of a FPS game + Space, while SQ42 is Space game + FPS.

Wow, that's bit harsh. I know CoD players that are in their 30's and hold PhDs in nontrivial subjects. Yes, most of the CoD audience might be in their teens, but i really, really don't see that SQ42 is trying to appeal to a more mature audience, a more wealthy for certain, but not mature.
 
Yes, clinging to ARMA is baffling. There is nothing in SC remotely like ARMA, the FPS elements are a stock CryJoke. I guess you can claim ARMA's jankiness, but is that really a plus?

Remember when Illfonic was going to deliver an ARMA-like FPS? Yeah, that worked out great. They just have to sort out some jukes first, right? Ah, jukes. It's always the jukes that doom us!
 
Last edited:

dayrth

Volunteer Moderator
CIG started with no company, no offices, and so on. They are not building one ambitious game by itself, they had to build a company from the ground-up at the same time building the game.

Every games studio out there started with nothing and they did not have the advantage of crowd funding to keep them going during development. They had to hire there staff, build or modify an engine, get premises, build the company from the ground up and still release a product soon enough and good enough to keep them in business.

FD had to do this (not for Elite Dangerous but in 1994). They had to build there own engine from scratch (again not for ED). None of that stopped them from releasing a title every 1 to 3 years, sometimes 3 or 4 in one year.

WHy is CIG such a special case that we should keep giving them money to stay in business even though they don't seem able to deliver anything?


Dam, ninjad by maligna ;)
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom