Actually that is what they have been doing. CIG even said that is what they are doing. Who do you think makes all those demo's that don't make it into the game?
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Actually that is what they have been doing. CIG even said that is what they are doing. Who do you think makes all those demo's that don't make it into the game?
There were at least few times where CIG were referring to videos as what they want the game to look like, with one or two explicitly named as pre-visualisations. Just because you see it in a video doesn't mean it will make it into the game.
Edit: One example: where in the game can you reactivate a disabled ship like it was done with the Retaliator in the Gamescom 2015 video?
Last edited:
Whats the point of messing about with ovecomplicated recoil mechanics for every gun in a space-game. Just hand-wave it as energy weapons have no recoil and space capable projectile weapons have recoil countering vented barrels. If you really must you could give an EVA spaceman firing a bit of back thrust at the point of aim for every shot but it doesn't need to effect the weapons themselves at all, get the nipple jets to do the work. Also you could apply the same effect of firing in reverse to taking hits so EVA peeps get knocked around by impacts.
Disclaimer : Caring about realism in space videogames is a waste of time.
Disclaimer : Caring about realism in space videogames is a waste of time.
Interesting thought.
From what I can gather, a lot of the development time and effort is going into iterating development of the same features over and over again, because the design wasn't nailed down first. It's the old adage that weeks of coding can save hours of design effort. Only in CIG's case it's years, not weeks.
Is CIG spending a lot on marketing? They seem to be. When there's a sales push or a major gaming event, we see cinematic realisations of what it might be like to live in the Star Citizen universe. It's not real gameplay, although much of it is no doubt rendered in Star Engine. From their quality, it seems likely that a great deal of effort has been put into producing these trailers and demos.
Fewer imaginings and more actual product is what would make people like me start to take CIG seriously. I get the impression that the less charismatic Roberts brother is quietly working behind the scenes to rescue a successor to Wing Commander from the disorganised mess he has inherited. If folk keep throwing money at CIG he may well succeed, and I might get a decent game in return for the $25 I paid. But I'm not yet seeing any real signs that the Persistent Universe is turning into a game.
If you have faith in the face of very little concrete evidence, that's laudable, and I'm sure there's nothing anyone can do to shake your conviction. I hope you are eventually proven right.
Sorry going to have to pick you up on this. Which specific games have been in a similar state after 5 years of development? Do you have some insight into that fact?
I had some exposure during my time at Codemasters, I saw the original operation flashpoint when it was mostly a build with no engine a year before release. It still looked polished and had all of the mechanics in place. I can't imagine there are many examples of games that didn't have core fundamentals following five years. GTA would have had the city simulation and driving mechanism nailed etc but they'd be in crunch this far in. RSI still seem like they are pitching proof of concept work.
In my experience big games still look like big games after half a decade of work.
If there is one thing about this project I can say for certain. It is not normal, success or not.
That's not what he said.
In other news.
[video=youtube;C2SkxlggBpA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2SkxlggBpA&feature=youtu.be[/video]
Now, while there are some nice bits in the vid, that would not convince me to lay down $60 for a ship like he did, or even less for a basic package.
I'd be looking at that and thinking "erm... ill wait and see thanks"
And some of the things i saw were dowright horrible. The flight model still looks terrible. The HUD looks horrible, and the helmet overlay would annoy me nonstop (perhaps an option to remove it? But that would go against the fidelity thingy), i mean, i get annoyed with the Adder's cockpit when the top corner of the screen is obscured by the canopy.
Gamescom 2016 a "live" gameplay of version 3.0 being shown at a extra theater that people payed extra money for.
This livebuild was a showcase for what to be excited about at the end of the year 2016.
https://youtu.be/Z-3YBuFI3iI?t=1428
Start of 2017 they admitted they didnt even started yet in designing the gameplay and other things nessesary for 3.0 but were clearly able to "show" it in august 2016.
Now compare what they "showed" and what you are about get with 3.0.
Not really. Most games have the core mechanics ready(when I say ready I mean "usable") and working on pre-pre-pre-alpha(it's almost the first thing you do). Mostly because many of them will change or have to be adapted over time depending of how the game changes through alpha and in some rare cases in beta.
We haven't seen even the prototypes of most of what will make the game a game. BTW attacking others posters is a great way to get to the ignore list of many and to the ban list of the mods.
If you you want to post here you should be more... diplomatic, let's say it like that.
Last edited:
Exactly...but with SC i have bad feeling that they now on purpose are delaying any core mechanics implementation, because now the know they can not deliver what they promised and what backers are dreaming...
That was the gist of my original concern. I have no doubt they could knock out an amazing single player experience of some kind. Perhaps if they had invested in that first while all the MMO stuff was left on the back burner. Give the players out there a complete, single player experience while working on the Star Citizen game in the background. It seems to me that things are backwards? Not that I follow too closely but I hardly hear anything about SQ42. I think the last thing I heard was the rumour they sacked a development studio over its handling? Perhaps I heard wrong.
In old SC forums long time ago was poll about SC (MMO part) and SQ42 (SP part) and results was about 85 % backers want SC not SQ42..
And if you read SC forums now - all dream crafting is about SC not SQ42, basically almost no one cares about SQ42...
thats some strong denial in the face of logic....
SQ42 is the only bit that interests me. If they release it and if it's any good I'll probably buy it.
I'm not convinced that it'll meet either of those two criteria.
So you are in those 15 %, I am quite sure that almost all backers who spend 100 $ or more are MMO players and do not care about SQ42...I doubt that you can even use those "premium" ships in SQ42..
Most people probably see Squadron 42 as proof of concept, basically a demonstration that what they claim to do is possible. Both games will share a lot of assets and even tho SQ42 is expected to be a lot less "free" when it comes to gameplay (linear storypath etc) it should have a working flight model, certain mechanics and due to the promises made (hop-on / hop-off) a working multiplayer netcode. In general SQ42 would be LESS demanding because it wont have all the ship types, will only show specific locations and wont allow the player a sandbox experience so procedural planet generation isnt required as well as mining nor any of the other farming mechanics.
Yet we havent seen a SINGLE minute of SQ42 material yet. The explanation given for that (spoilers) is laughable at this point. This close to release it shouldnt be a problem to extract a few snippets from the almost finished game to produce a stunning trailer which hammers people out of their socks. Appearantly is IS a problem meaning it all could very well be smoke and mirrors. I am strongly suspicious and will wait with praise and parting of money until I have garantueed content in my hands. Until then CiG has to deal with my negative opinion (which shouldnt affect development one bit).
you got a link with that claim? Disregarding 15% out of 1.7x million backers is still flipping the bird to a crapton of people (yes, I can play the 1.7 million bogus number as well if it serves my purpose
I know its bogus, so is probably that poll...)I wish "somebody" who claimed to have used torpedos to awesome effects would post an evidence video of it to shut you skeptics up
Sorry. I backed SC at the kickstarter stage because I WAS interested in Squadron 42. That's what Star Citizen was in those days. Yes, that's why they got all that 6Mill USD in the first stage before it went stupid.
No, I don't really care about the PU. I certainly don't want the FPS module. I don't want fishtanks.
Let's just see some decent planets, atmospheric entry and space combat. Then focus on the fluff.
Oh and let's just start with a decent flight model shall we?
We are so fortunate to have networking experts commenting on that video and explaining why torpedoes don't work:
Everything is OK. They just need to increase the tickrate.
Last edited:
- Status