Remembers guys: when you'll eventually end disappointed by one or more things in Star Citizen, you shouldn't be entitled to your disappointment as everything said/promised/aimed for in SC is encapsulated inside many layers of "sort of" and "kind of".
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Remembers guys: when you'll eventually end disappointed by one or more things in Star Citizen, you shouldn't be entitled to your disappointment as everything said/promised/aimed for in SC is encapsulated inside many layers of "sort of" and "kind of".
Good to see you back with a typically well reasoned point.
In other words, it's not actually groundbreaking. You're straying far into all kinds of true scotsman and special pleading if you're need to pile on those kinds of conditions, just to narrow down the field of comparison to the point where your claim is suddenly true.
Just because it hasn't been done in CryEngine (one of the least used licensed engines out there) doesn't mean that it hasn't been done in other engines (and it has).
Last edited:
Excellent example is Achenar 3. I don't know the exact radius but it is a huge rocky world with 6.7G gravity. When descending (if you can take the time to not get tunnel vision to your eventual crash landing) you can see the horizon flatten out. You really get a sense of vastness on that planet after you have been on several potatoes with obvious horizon curve, even at ground level. I wonder, will CIG/RSI create any high-g worlds that would be very difficult to land on, safely?
EDIT:
Video...
[video=youtube;pF6KoB1U49Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF6KoB1U49Y[/video]
Last edited:
I love their approach to PG worlds with artistic control.
It's what they've always been called, and that's all that matters in the context of this conversation. If you can't accept that, then you are just talking past whoever you're arguing against.
You don't know their mass or the energy produced by the thrusters inside the game engine.
Yes. It does.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
It's a dang sci-fi space game. They don't need to have big ships to survive in their universe. If that isn't hardcore enough for you, then you are in the wrong place. Instead of making strawman arguments about things that CIG have never claimed, maybe you should make a well reasoned point to begin with.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Dunno. That would be cool though.
Last edited:
I think you hit the nail mostly on the head. I think the bulk of the procedurally generated missions will be text based and reside within the job well. However, I do think that these "higher quality" missions can also be procedurally generated as well. Not saying this is how they would do it but if I were designing, I would create a ton of "acts" that are open enough to mix. Then I would get a writer to write the dialog for these segments. Next I would see if there is a way to code a text to lip animation and have this parse the writer's dialog. Finally I would code it so that a random NPC in one of the various bars/dives will give you the quest.
Not sure how complicated that is but seems feasible
EDIT: Would also hire a handful of voice actors to and have them voice every piece of dialog.
Last edited:
…and it still doesn't make them sims. It's not much more complicated than that.
I don't have to. That was kind of the whole point, you know.
So which ships are more pronounced delays in how they start and stop their rotations? I can't say that I've seen any. There are those that rotate slightly slower, but that's not the same thing.
You're right. It makes them space sims. All that CIG has ever claimed SC to be.
Actually you do. A ship that 'apparently' has less mass could also have thrusters with much less power. Making proving the existence of inertia by comparing different ships very difficult.
Last edited:
Well, seems that "fidelity" has been used in different contexts by CR as well (micromanagement at this point): http://starcitizen.wikia.com/wiki/10_for_the_Chairman_Episode_39
It's frustrating!
I'll have to agree with Tippis. These are not "sims" by any stretch of the imagination. There did seem to be an initial sell as SC being a simulator early on (as demonstrated by people complaining about HOTAS problems).
FWIW I am not a hardcore sim freak. The real sim freaks define what "hardcore" means in terms of gamers.
The HOTAS issue does not demonstrate that CIG ever called SC anything more than a space sim.
No. It makes them space combat games.
Just because Chris likes to put a label on something doesn't mean the label is actually accurate.
Good thing that I didn't try to do that, then. All I tried to do was to determine if a ship is apparently affected by rotational inertia, and none of the SC ships appear to be — the lag and physical effects just aren't there.
The point you missed about different ships is that it would be pretty stupid to simulate inertia if you always cancelled it out, meaning no matter what you did and what you flew, there was always the same direct linear response.
Last edited:
I would like to know as well as the title alpha 3.0 is a bit odd.
alpha seems to have gone on for a very long time.
I mean the demo looked very very good, way better than ED missions, not even in the same ball park, it makes ED mission look very 1990's, but are we going to play it this decade where there is a release and a release in my mind means credits in game earned do not get a wipe.
At the moment I do not play SC. I have LTI aroura LN, but why play when my credits will just get wiped in the future, so I wait for the release, but WHEN !!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
By calling your game a simulator/sim specifically as opposed to anything else you immediately define your game in simulator terms.
How you label something absolutely affects how it is perceived. It's why genres, for their faults, are a thing.
EDIT: It's called marketing, or rather audience targeting. This sort of stuff really exists and companies spend a lot of money getting it right. Hint: I work in that industry.
Last edited:
Chris didn't invent the label.
SC was advertised as a realistic game, though. Besides, there are no engine limitations that require M50 or Mustang to be so small/hollowed out inside. What was the point of thrust modelling, of limited speeds in QD if rest of the game is so arcade'y? And I have to say, combat or even spaceflight never have been enjoyable in SC, so CIG have failed in that regard, too.
Last edited:
Then you should direct your blame to the gaming magazines that have called them space sims for decades.
And…?
Just because Chris likes to put a label on something doesn't mean the label is actually accurate.
SC was advertised as a sci-fi space game with artificial gravity, aliens, laser beams that travel slower than the speed of light, jump gates, shields, etc.
Big ass ships are cool. Tiny nimble ships are cool. It's a space game set in a different universe than ours.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
It's what everyone else but you uses to refer to those games. But I'm sure you'll just keep talking past me forever........ [wacky]
- Status