If they did actually say that - rather than it being another INN/fan miss-interpretation/exaggeration it would suggest they've learned nothing from the BDSSE fiasco...
The Star Citizen Thread v 4
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
- Status
If they did actually say that - rather than it being another INN/fan miss-interpretation/exaggeration it would suggest they've learned nothing from the BDSSE fiasco...
@ VidarSnipes: I'd say that the big thing on Horizons wasn't the ability to drive around on planets, but the technology required to generate them with such fidelity in the first place. ED models a lot of geological processes, and as far as I know, the only game that has a comparable level of realism in its generated worlds is Dwarf Fortress. Granted, DF is even more realistic in this sense, but it's a wholly different game and doesn't have to render things in 3D. Plus you usually dig deep beneath the earth there, which isn't a gameplay element in Elite.
If CIG will really achieve the same level of sophistication in their PG, I'll be mildly impressed. (Mildly because well, Elite already has.) On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of games with the ability to drive vehicles.
If CIG will really achieve the same level of sophistication in their PG, I'll be mildly impressed. (Mildly because well, Elite already has.) On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of games with the ability to drive vehicles.
Last edited:
Can you source your claim of CIG's claim that they have tech that will blow anything else out of the water?! Such dramatization!
There's also other games around with PG Tech, that can blow SC and ED out of the water as well, would FD have the best PG Planets technology on the gaming industry attm? I don't think so!
I did, in an earlier post, but let me help you.
There are no way to back pedal out of this one, now we wait to see it.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
That is my point, I'm going to keep this one alive until I see it!
Last edited:
Yeah, because the objective is do their own thing, not copying ED. They already aren't, if they were they were going for 1:1 scales and all the sim behind it, over the more rule of "cool" they seem to approach often. That's going to be the difference. Then we have also other games with PG Planets shown that gives them a voice on the matter, this isn't a SC vs ED, far from it.
Last edited:
Yeah, I kinda clumped the ability to drive on a surface with there being a surface you can drive on. I can't say anything constructive about the fidelity of planets, although right now they're kinda plain, with the majority looking like dustballs with some craters and valleys thrown in, at least when seen from a distance. I have yet to see a basalt plain, for example, though their existence might be reliant on the implementation of volcanism.
Last edited:
Agree, I'm not saying that FD are the best, never did that. What my point is that CIG are actually stating that what they have are never seen before! That includes I:, NMS, ED, and whatever there is out there.
Regarding coping, they now want spinning space stations, buggies, planetary gravity, PG and so on and so forth. I guess this is going to be ED with a CR touch
I was hoping they went in a completely different direction, but to me it looks like they are really paying attention to what they do at FD ATM.
Agree, I'm not saying that FD are the best, never did that. What my point is that CIG are actually stating that what they have are never seen before! That includes I:, NMS, ED, and whatever there is out there.
Regarding coping, they now want spinning space stations, buggies, planetary gravity, PG and so on and so forth. I guess this is going to be ED with a CR touch
I was hoping they went in a completely different direction, but to me it looks like they are really paying attention to what they do at FD ATM.
It's not much on copy, if he decided to go with PG Planets, there are things that are a must, and obviously expected if you you do are to land on them, so on what's expect-able that's the base isn't it? Now if we follow the rule of cool when it comes to gameplay i would bet CIG will try to cater the more main-stream crowd over the sim-crowd, as they already did with other things.
I mean the end-goal of PG Planets (not before release though) is actually let the players *build* on them, that is, setup some kind of outposts, or factories, and stuff like that.
That's uber-ambitious, for a game that is one MMO specially, and that ambition is fine, after they release the game first ofc!
So who does then?
I'm not saying you're wrong just wondering.
In my opinion I'm pretty sure ED has the most complete package of immersive gameplay/graphics/size/PG planet tech right now and it's only improving.
Maybe not the best in each individual department but as a whole, it's pretty awesome
It has one pretty advanced tech indeed. The works on I:B are really really impressive, ofc they are working on it for quite a long time already comparing to ED or SC. Games like NMS, still to be sure how in-depth will their tech be able to go. From a moment to the other we had a big-bang of space games, several of witch aiming at the PG planets, so it's only interesting to see all of this progressing at once and the several directions it's taking.So who does then?
I'm not saying you're wrong just wondering.
In my opinion I'm pretty sure ED has the most complete package of immersive gameplay/graphics/size/PG planet tech right now and it's only improving.
Maybe not the best in each individual department but as a whole, it's pretty awesome
Last edited:
Yeah right, many people don't even know who CR is, they love the idea of a new space game project that's it. In the end a lot of people felt for the marketing train and got court into its spin.
Some woke up and got out, some are still captured in the star citizen echo chamber.
Last edited:
It has been shown that INN transcripts are not actual transcripts of what was said. It seems to be expressed in such a way as to attract more customers, not to report on development.
Examples:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...8466&pagenumber=3764&perpage=40#post459718939
Are you talking about the TLDR's? The actual world-by-world transcripts on the questions mention, example the patch size is correct though, as quoted. edit, yeah the minimum viable product one is also there, you're talking about what they write on the TLDR's not the transcript itself.
Also there's parts of the examples given with cuts of context from the actual answers, as i can only imagine to attempt to manipulate the same context to try to highlight a big gap between the transcript and what's said.
Most specifically, attempting to attack who does the transcript for manipulating it, when that's not the case, and the case is pretty much not agreeing with what they write on the TLDR section.
Smoke and Mirrors much?
Last edited:
I'll give you that those are INN's TLAre you talking about the TLDR's? The actual world-by-world transcripts on the questions mention, example the patch size is correct though, as quoted. edit, yeah the minimum viable product one is also there, you're talking about what they write on the TLDR's not the transcript itself.
Also there's parts of the examples given with cuts of context from the actual answers, as i can only imagine to attempt to manipulate the same context to try to highlight a big gap between the transcript and what's said.
Most specifically, attempting to attack who does the transcript for manipulating it, when that's not the case, and the case is pretty much not agreeing with what they write on the TLDR section.
Smoke and Mirrors much?
Rs, not the word-for-word transcript. But it shows that those TL;DRs are in contradiction with what was actually said. The TL;DRs give a more optimistic twist on the information actually given in the videos. The TL;DRs are widely quoted, even here by Lysander Lysan. And that leads to people buying Star Citizen concept ships.I am sorry for giving the impression of smoke and mirrors. What I wanted to illustrate, is that I find a discrepancy between the videos and INN's reporting on the videos.
MaxLexandre, I noticed that you have a posting history purely confined to this thread. Do you play Elite
angerous or any other Frontier game, or are you just here to inform us on Star Citizen?I'll give you that those are INN's TL
I am sorry for giving the impression of smoke and mirrors. What I wanted to illustrate, is that I find a discrepancy between the videos and INN's reporting on the videos.
MaxLexandre, I noticed that you have a posting history purely confined to this thread. Do you play Elite
The matter of fact is that their job, that is being the transcript, is being performed, now if on the TLDR they are being bias towards one answer (even professional journalists are let's face it), all one needs to do is scroll down and check the full answer word-by-word. So the best to quote is not the TLDR, yet the real answer, and problem solved?
And yes i do play, currently on a break mostly waiting for multi-crew updates to horizons to see if i finally buy into it, as that interests me more.
Last edited:
In my opinion, the problem would be solved if the TL;DRs that everyone reads, gave a more neutral message. So that people only buy the current build of the game knowing that not all of the things mentioned in the videos, will arrive.The matter of fact is that their job, that is being the transcript, is being performed, now if on the TLDR they are being bias towards one answer (even professional journalists are let's face it), all one needs to do is scroll down and check the full answer word-by-word. So the best to quote is not the TLDR, yet the real answer, and problem solved?
I'm glad that you're e fellow Elite player. I hope you can enjoy the game without multi-crew for a while because there too, I am skeptical it will come within a year.
One of the biggest issues i may find with them, is when the message sent is like "this X feature is coming!" and in fact, things were said about something we will have on the far-future (post-release most likely), if you notice "far future" is mentioned on most if not all 10ftc but that part is like ignored and taken as they are doing that *now* or *by release*.
I'm recently checking here for transcripts: http://www.scqa.info/
Massive database of them, with no writer input over it.
On Multi-Crew i hope it comes around soon, it's really something that would roll me in again with friends together on the same ship, what i do on Pulsar, want to do on SC and ofc ED.
Last edited:
If you're not playing the game for the sole reason there's no multi-crew yet, I doubt you'll play it when there is.
There's quite a lot of features in the game besides multi-crew and if you don't like them I doubt multi-crew will be as fleshed out and detailed as to make you enjoy the game simply because of it.
Then again you said you enjoyed SC multicrew which is very basic for now.
Yeah attm there's a basic implementation of pretty much the pilot and turrets, needs a lot of more. SC has a big height on multi-crew on its direction as big ships to work properly need that crew, and that's why one of worries is that they don't make the gameplay there rewarding and it ends up with everybody soloing ships with NPC AI as the best option.
- Status