CMDR_Orlando
Banned
Indeed an amazing presentation. Already at 15th position as the most viewed video from Star Citizen with almost half-million views after one day alone.
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
And why did CR make such a big deal about making sure the camera showed one person being in a ship outside a building, whilst someone else was inside the building? I'm no game developer, but that's not worthy of the demo, nor the reaction... .
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Justin Bieber has 843 million listens to 'Love Yourself', but I'm pretty sure it's not cited as an example of great song writing.
Last edited:
CMDR_Orlando
Banned
Maybe to point out that both players were in the same area and not in separated instances. That's why you rarely see any real windows in mmo's.
A very far away look into the future locations of Star Citizen: http://imgur.com/a/OPcaX
Lot's of potential lore and gameplay wise:
Justin Bieber has 843 million listens to 'Love Yourself', but I'm pretty sure it's not cited as an example of great song writing.
You just don't understand self loving development.
Or merely sheer surprise in that it actually worked
I remember that Freelancer door being broken before they even changed the cockpit, which was before they introduced the variants.
Wow...
Well other conspiracy theory destroyed.
Ben you should post more
Mostly this, yes.
Last edited:
Because we're back in the year 1999 and something like that is hugely impressive.
A demo with half a dozen (?) players in a single instance running on a local server isn't really much to get excited about though.
But there's nothing special about people being in the same area — especially not in an MMO — with or without windows. So that doesn't really explain anything. Plenty of MMOs have real windows that let people in the same area be on both sides of them…
Are you saying that the audience is this ignorant of modern computer games that they don't realise this?!
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
Hmm... Odd. Frontier Development have recently released an artbook of a ton of concept pieces for Elite: Dangerous and yet I haven't seen ANYBODY using that as the basis of their "hopes and dreams" about the future of E: D.
People do discuss the lore and some of the concepts of Elite naturally, but usually with the caveat that some of those things will either change by the time they come into the game, or that they can't be done due to having *realistic* expectations of what's possible with the Cobra engine.
However, some of the concepts, like ships and locations and planets and what not, some of them can be mentioned as coming into the game because FDev are actively researching how to get them into the game and working properly... and Elite Dangerous players have more reason to believe they can achieve those aims because for the most part, they have actually DELIVERED on many of the goals they set themselves.
Meanwhile backers of Star Citizen will literally grasp onto the *slightest* figment of information linked to SC and spin up all manner of theories and imagine all sorts of wild possibilities with it, without hardly any supporting evidence to suggest that CIG can deliver even a 1/100th of the content, gameplay and assets they claim that can.
Can anyone answer me my this one very ancient question: Why do we have to back or pre-order (buy jpgs, whatever you want to call it) SC? Why do we have to debate if they'll really deliver or not and base our investment depending on the answer to that question? Why do we have to invest ahead of time?
The thing is, ED's KS pitch sounded too obviously ambitious, I was skeptical of it so I didn't back. I decided to wait until it resembles something of a playable game and then went ahead and purchased it. Did the same thing with NMS, didn't purchase it because it still is too far behind in terms of making me buy itself.
Why can't we do the same for SC, especially now that they apparently made the money they needed to 150% finish their game already?
The most logical thing to do is to stop arguing and to wait, if we haven't paid for it already, for CIG to release something to the public in a playable form, and then decide if it's worth buying or not. There is a place for lots of space games yet. The genre isn't that big. We don't have to argue which game is better than the others since there are only three or four (or five if we count CoD:IW). We can judge each individually, and even if we buy all at the end, it wouldn't have cost us a fortune.
I'm thinking about quitting using forums altogether if only to keep myself from spending energy thinking about or participating in these pointless arguments.
The thing is, ED's KS pitch sounded too obviously ambitious, I was skeptical of it so I didn't back. I decided to wait until it resembles something of a playable game and then went ahead and purchased it. Did the same thing with NMS, didn't purchase it because it still is too far behind in terms of making me buy itself.
Why can't we do the same for SC, especially now that they apparently made the money they needed to 150% finish their game already?
The most logical thing to do is to stop arguing and to wait, if we haven't paid for it already, for CIG to release something to the public in a playable form, and then decide if it's worth buying or not. There is a place for lots of space games yet. The genre isn't that big. We don't have to argue which game is better than the others since there are only three or four (or five if we count CoD:IW). We can judge each individually, and even if we buy all at the end, it wouldn't have cost us a fortune.
I'm thinking about quitting using forums altogether if only to keep myself from spending energy thinking about or participating in these pointless arguments.
It's not really destroyed, though. In part because it doesn't actually disprove or even dispute the theory, but mostly because that line of reasoning looks at the wrong end of the maths.Wow...
Well other conspiracy theory destroyed.
Ben you should post more
It's not the upper bound that is a problem if you scale things down, but the lower bound. Scaling your system down by a factor of 20 million means you've lost a whole lot of precision — and it's that lower-end precision that would come into play with many of the issues that we see with SC.
Last edited:
So you're saying (genuine question) that if I have a building on a map and two players, one outside it and one inside it - and building has a single window with glass in it, that it causes instancing issues? But if you remove said glass it works fine?
As I say, I'm no dev
This. With the notable exception that SC features multicrew and fps, both things that ED lacks atm.
Everything else? SC has a lot to catch up to in gameplay systems, most of which are now planned to be ready by December.
+1 and other chars.
Yup I need to get away from this thread. Then again it took me 4 years to stop playing Forge of Empires. So my track record for quitting things I know are ultimately pointless wastes of my time and energy are not good...
- Status