Poor wording on my part - read "biome" as a terrain variety. Looks much better than what we have. And SC is not the only one that does this better, look at Space Engine ("ENGINE" not "Engineers") planets and you ill see how poor Elites land-able rocks are.
Star Citizen Thread v6
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Poor wording on my part - read "biome" as a terrain variety. Looks much better than what we have. And SC is not the only one that does this better, look at Space Engine ("ENGINE" not "Engineers") planets and you ill see how poor Elites land-able rocks are.
Yeah, i think the main problem is not about finding a sweet spot, but that the whole things is not good from the ground up. I mean, wasn't Arena Commander meant to be the testing ground for all this? Surely they had more than enough time to get the general model right, even if individual ships needed tweaking to account for their shape, engine placement, mass, etc. The problem seems more fundamental, in that after all this time and feedback, CIG seem set with the general flight model as it is. Sure, tweak, but the basic model has been achieved in CIGs eyes. This is a problem because it look like ships fly around like baloons being towed on strings. I am willing to accept that this is just how it appears and that to actually fly them it feels different... but to do that i would have to give CIG money (or wait for a free fly weekend) and then download the mega install. Not sure i'm quite willing to do that yet, at least not until there is a delta patcher available.
Well, i think that is something we can all agree on.
Difference being that FD didnt promise space legs or atmo landings or big game hunting, but just stated they would like to do it, at some point, eventually, maybe. On the other hand, CIG literally promised a huge list of things, and stated specifically at the start they would release it all in one big launch.
So, again: when do you expect the 1.0 launch with the KS and pledge promises. I am not talking about procedural birds (or did they formally add it to the list as well?). Just the things they themselves promised for the full release.
Give.
Me.
A.
Date.
Give.
Me.
A.
Date.
Well, I am free on Saturday if you are.
ahem, back on subject. Cannot agree with you more. They should at least be able to set an approximate date or at least point to the schedule they have that X can be delivered after Y mechanic is finished.
Otherwise the only thing they give us is the impression that they themselves have no clue how much work is left...and considering their track record with schedules and estimates...
I know people go on about GoT or Walking Dead or Breaking Bad... This thread is my guilty habit.
In some ways I wish CiG would come out and say on the record "Look, the game won't go into Beta before the end of 2018 at the earliest, so go away and tidy your house or do something productive for 18 months..."
I expect that might have an impact on sales?
In some ways I wish CiG would come out and say on the record "Look, the game won't go into Beta before the end of 2018 at the earliest, so go away and tidy your house or do something productive for 18 months..."
I expect that might have an impact on sales?
Also, ED is a game you can play already, even if you don't have all the features in there yet, while CIG is still battling high-tech problems while letting the basic concept fall to the wayside. Use the tech you have to finish a version, then improve it, because right now, we can't do much in the "game", but they're now putting all this effort into making the faces look nice (and making another ship model to sell that you still can't fly). It's like looking at a car designing company not being able to produce their car because they're still trying to solve the physical problems of making it fly, having antigravity, and a teleportation module, at the same time as the AI console has a nice naturally looking face with proper facial features. It's like having a smartwatch that can do everything, except tell the time...
Sooooo many features in SC seems over the top and unnecessary to me. I just want a game I can play. That minor thing has been forgotten.
Yup. Actually, I can do without a bunch of promised features, as long as they can come out with a playable game! Then, improve from there. They apparently have the persistent universe done, so start adding systems, planets, missions, make it happen, because that will take a huge effort and lots of money to do too. I suspect at the point when all the "technology" is finished, there won't be any money left to actually put in content.So, again: when do you expect the 1.0 launch with the KS and pledge promises. I am not talking about procedural birds (or did they formally add it to the list as well?). Just the things they themselves promised for the full release.
Give.
Me.
A.
Date.
I can imagine sales might suffer but at the same time, they could just make sales at fixed points in time with patch releases and those interested could pop in once per quarter and get an update and oogle the new planned ships.
Weekly shows and updates give an image of a "soon" release when it feels far away since 2016.
2018? You optimist! xD
Considering that after the facial feature animations and junk, they have to start creating a simulator engine for chemical and physical processes, and then create a to scale emulator of the universe. They only need 16 x 10^100000000000 computers to start. After all, it's not a game they're making, but a real life virtual world that will simulate life and the universal consciousness. We won't need to play it. It will play itself.
It won't be finished in the next billion years, if humanity even exists that long, but it will be finished about the time when our universe dies in a whimper of heat death. And boom! Star citizen bangs into a new universe. And life can start over.
(And that's just phase 1 of the development plan)
And reputation. I think they dug a hole too deep to climb out from. And instead of screaming for help and trying to fix it, they keep on digging even deeper, and telling everyone, "it's the right way, it's the right way..."
The thing is that they have to account for a lot of different sizes and type's of ship's. I mean the Idris vs Idris battle was only made possible some weeks ago. Arena Commander is a played in a very limited area to allow a broad testing for a game that includes as much gameplay mechanics as Star Citizen, it's not just the flying in space, but in atmosphere. Cargo Ships vs Fuel ships vs Fighters vs Capital ships and so on. There's a lot to balance and I'm sure it will come in due time.
Again with the "promises" vs "intentions" ? It's exactly the same for me. Both Chris Roberts and David Braben have their vision for their games that they would like to achieve, even if not everything is accomplished is good to see these "dino dev's" still going for it.
These games only stop being developed and features added when they become a financial burden. While their community support's them they can keep adding more and more stuff. That's the beauty of massive online space setting as it as an amazing range of possibilities and branches to develop and ofc monetize.
As for dates/development time discussion and perspective this post in spectrum is good for a bit of perspective and contextualization that usually goes missing when talking about dates and Star Citizen:
I would like to discuss with you about the development time of this game and compare it to other AAA games in a factual non emotional manner. I know it is an emotion loaded topic. I you want to participate on the discussion please try to keep your emotions calm. If you think, not another development time discussion, then just stay away. Nobody force you to join this discussion.Scope of SC Development:
Two AAA-Games
1.) Croud Founding (2 months):
Overview of development time of some AAA Games of different genre:
Challenges of SC:
The big budget and the fact that the project is under public focus since beginning of the project, makes life of the developers very difficult. The expectations are on a new level in the history of game design. In the same time the disappointments/concerns of the community from other failed game releases or failed open development projects are an issue for this project. The majority of people do not understand how long software development goes and works. The reason is, that publisher usually announce AAA titels earliest 2-3 years before release in order to start the marketing process. The hidden development phase is not in public focus usually. This fact makes the community believe, that the SC development is already to long. What is not the truth, especially when you take the scope (development of 2 AAA titles in parallel) into consideration. Compared to other development companies/big puplisher, CIG had to develop the company in parallel to the development of the game.
I believe that the development will take in total 7-10 years until the release of the game, what is totally ok for such a big project. I expect a release not before late 2019/early 2020. What is ok in my opinion, because in a regular development situation (not open development), i would be aware of the project not before 2017/2018.
Update:
My timeline where I am confident after all this discussion, is:
For F42 I am estimating a release between 2018 and incl. 2019.
Now it is your turn to start the discussion. I am looking forward for a factual and non-emotional discussion
Two AAA-Games
- Star Citizen Multiplayer Game - AAA Game
- Star Citizen Foundry 42 Single Player Game - AAA Game
1.) Croud Founding (2 months):
- Oct 2012 - Star Citizen has been announced - 7 staff members
- Nov 2012 - Croud founding campaign finised - 8 staff members
- Feb 2013 - Austin studio opens - 20 staff members
- Jun 2013 - LA studio opens - 32 staff members
- Aug 2013 - 1. Module released (Hangar) - 40 staff members
- Oct 2013 - Foundry 42 studio announced - 52 staff members
- Dec 2013 - Austin studio upgrade / Start of community content shows - 60 staff members
- Feb 2014 - Foundry 42 (Manchaseter studio) opens - 93 staff members
- Jun 2014 - 2. Module released (Arena Commander) - 139 staff members
- Aug/Oct 2014 - Module improvements - 156 staff members
- Dec 2014 - SC Alpha 1.0
- Feb/July 2015 - Frankfurt studio opens - 205 staff members
- Apr 2015 - Performance Capture starts
- Aug 2015 - Multicrew Demo and Planetside announcement- 260 staff members
- Dec 2015 - Module update (PU - SC Alpha 2.0)
- Jun 2016 - Module update (PU - SC Alpha 2.4)
- Aug 2016 - Module update (PU - SC Alpha 2.5)
- Oct 2016 - CitizenCon - Planatery tech anouncement - 363 staff members
- Dec 2016 - Module update (PU - SC Alpha 2.6):
- Aug 2017 - GamesCon - PU - SC Alpha 3.0 build presentation - 400+ staff members
Overview of development time of some AAA Games of different genre:
- Diablo III: 2001 - May 2012 - 11,5 years - First announcement: Jun 2008 -> public awareness: 4 years / hidden development phase: 7,5 years
- Diablo II: 199x - Jun 2000 - ? years - First announcement: May 1998 -> puplic awareness: 2 years / hidden development phase: ? years
- Star Craft II: 2003 - Jul 2010 - 7 years - First announcement: May 2007 -> public awareness: 3 years / hidden development phase: 4 years
- Final Fantasy XIV: Late 2004/beginning 2005- Sep 2010 - ~ 5,5 years - First announcement: 2009 -> public awareness: 1,5 years / hidden development phase: 4 years
- Final Fantasy XV: 2006 - Nov 2016 - 10 years - First announcement: 2006/2013 -> public awareness 10 years
- Doom 4: 2007 - May 2016 - 9 years - First announcement 2008 -> public awareness: 9 years / hidden development phase: ? years -> in 2007 it was already in development, no information when development starts.
- Mass Effect: early 2004 - end of 2007 - ~ 4 years - First announcement Oct 2005 -> public awareness: 2 years -> hidden development phase: 2 years
- Mass Effect Andromeda: 2012 - March 2017 - 5 years - First announcement: Jun 2015 -> public awareness: 2 years -> hidden development phase: 3 years
- Star Wars: The Force Unleashed: 2004 - 2009 (PC) - 5 years - First announcement: 2006 -> public awareness: 3 years -> hidden development phase: 2 years
- Star Wars Battlefront: ??- Sept 2004 - > 2,5 years? -> First announcement: 2002 -> public awareness 2,5 years -> hidden development phase: ?
Challenges of SC:
- Under public focus since beginning of the project (start of croud funding campaign) -> Usually publisher would announce a new game 2-3 years before release. The development phase seems then to be very short (in case that nothing unforseen happens). But in reality early development start several years before initial public announcement.
- Scope of project includes 2 AAA titles
- Company was not existing with the start of the development, compared to other big AAA titel development companies -> company has been developed during game development phase
- Very big budget: boon and bane at the same time -> extremly big expectations of community
- Very ambitious development goals - new technologies / size of game world / features / etc.
- Majority of community is too hyped and don't understand that good development takes time.
The big budget and the fact that the project is under public focus since beginning of the project, makes life of the developers very difficult. The expectations are on a new level in the history of game design. In the same time the disappointments/concerns of the community from other failed game releases or failed open development projects are an issue for this project. The majority of people do not understand how long software development goes and works. The reason is, that publisher usually announce AAA titels earliest 2-3 years before release in order to start the marketing process. The hidden development phase is not in public focus usually. This fact makes the community believe, that the SC development is already to long. What is not the truth, especially when you take the scope (development of 2 AAA titles in parallel) into consideration. Compared to other development companies/big puplisher, CIG had to develop the company in parallel to the development of the game.
I believe that the development will take in total 7-10 years until the release of the game, what is totally ok for such a big project. I expect a release not before late 2019/early 2020. What is ok in my opinion, because in a regular development situation (not open development), i would be aware of the project not before 2017/2018.
Update:
My timeline where I am confident after all this discussion, is:
- Alpha 3.0 in Oct 2017
- Alpha 3.1 in Jun 2018
- Alpha 3.2 in Dec 2018
- Alpha 3.3 in Jun 2019
- Alpha 4.0 in Dec 2019
- Beta 1.0 starting with Jun 2020 - Content adding and optimization
- Beta 2.0 starting with Dec 2020 - Content adding and optimization
- Release between Jun 2021 and Jun 2022 (incl time buffer to cover previous delays on my timetable)
- Starting post-release development for new after-release content and new functionalit. Adding new content continuesly.
For F42 I am estimating a release between 2018 and incl. 2019.
Now it is your turn to start the discussion. I am looking forward for a factual and non-emotional discussion
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...time-of-games-and-sc-development-time-/418335
Last edited:
Almighty Bob
Banned
FLIGHT MODELS, oh golly
Hopefully the link below will show how far we have come since I played my first fighter games. The graphics have improved beyond a doubt but time after time they fail in the flight model.
I submit that the reason for this is that most games do not punish you enough for going beyond the limits of your 'ship/plane' (IL2 is one game that does this fairly well). My uncles next door neighbour was a Luftwaffe pilot in WW2, he told me that he once crashed because he banked to far, too soon after take off for the wind conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYvZr_XCJJ4 25 secs in
So if it is not a SIM the flight model will be compromised, two problems with that.
1. We do not have any space combat models to simulate.
2. Devs do not always want to make difficult to use flight models, as it alienates players.
ED does one thing well, in a small manoeuvrable ship (especially in VR) you can damage a bigger ship for a few moments as you can fly in their blind spot, unfortunaly for the smaller ship that is spoilt by the shield technology.
I beg any developer to keep altering/fidgeting (wrong word I think) with their flight models as it is an almost impossible task to balance it out.
edit not fidget tinker is the correct nice English phrase I think
Last edited:
Almighty Bob
Banned
Difference being that FD didnt promise space legs or atmo landings or big game hunting, but just stated they would like to do it, at some point, eventually, maybe. On the other hand, CIG literally promised a huge list of things, and stated specifically at the start they would release it all in one big launch.
So, again: when do you expect the 1.0 launch with the KS and pledge promises. I am not talking about procedural birds (or did they formally add it to the list as well?). Just the things they themselves promised for the full release.
Give.
Me.
A.
Date.
Come on Sleuth no one answers questions like that on this thread you included.
My favourite is asking the forensic financial accountants here to predict when CIG will go bankrupt, or asking the legal experts who suggest the game is a scam if they have reported their concerns to the law enforcement authorities-- que silence.
In fact I applaud anyone who does have a stab/guess such questions.
I think one rather embarssing thing for SC is the fact after the small hyping last year about female characters to see a female actor trying to make facial expression on a male model. Because they still dont have playable female characers...It was hilariously awkward and i felt genuinly bad for her. Beside totaly being nightmare fuel....hearing a cute voice while the male character tries to express himself...uah.
I wouldnt be suprised if 3.0 will be a bit more stabilsed version of the demo people were able to play at the booths. But actually a seperate module to showcase "the planetary tech". I will laugh and cry so hard when that really should happen.
I wouldnt be suprised if 3.0 will be a bit more stabilsed version of the demo people were able to play at the booths. But actually a seperate module to showcase "the planetary tech". I will laugh and cry so hard when that really should happen.
You can see why the general public would find that difficult to distinguish since CIG clearly book that in conjunction with Gamescom to both tie in and take advantage of. Hence the live stream is titled "Gamescom presentation".
Funny how the media also don't seem to make any differentiation as there are numerous examples of them treating this as a fully fledged Gamescom demo and you yourself call it a "Gamescom show".
So what your saying is this is a special side show where CIG can show off any smoke & mirrors stuff they like and not abide by official rules of a trade show?
If it's nothing to do with Gamescom then they shouldn't use the "Gamescom" brand and should caveat it clearly not to confuse fans, casual observers and the press. It's certainly not appropriate in conjunction with their crowd funding activities that accompany these demonstrations.
Looking around at CIG fans commenting elsewhere, I would say that there is a general feeling that the stuff shown was at Gamescom and is not proof of concept so it's interesting that this "open" developer has left us all so confused.
Last edited:
And wasn't that reportedly 78GB by itself? Add that to the current PU, allow for some shared assets, and it's a huge amount of data for a glorified deathmatch FPS. But at least we can wallow in the unprecedented fidelity (briefly, before it crashes).
Last edited:
I actually enjoy Derek's posts regardless.
Now that moon, reminded me of something...
The Clangers?
Last edited:
Sure sure sure, the same old same old. These imaginary features that might one day be in a playable game are better than anything out there right now so CIG are clearly making the best game... never mind that every time any game is actually demo'd it's either a heavily scripted sequence of events with no gameplay outside of basic Cryengine shooting, or a terrible space game with abysmal FPS, netcode, and a balloon-based-ship flight mechanic. Of course, all these core functions are just totally being improved at all time and never mind that the focus keeps shifting away from the game onto fluff features that add nothing but a way to sell a new ship or piece of hardware that sells that fluff feature. The flight mechanics will be fixed one day. Just wait. Buy an Idris.
Man, if I were a dishonest person I'd be making a killing promising the best damn [insert genre] game on Kickstarter to farm $s off of hopeful dreamers. Bait and Switch scams are easy in the internet era, apparently. Your victims sell the concept for you.
I don't see the embarrassment at all. It's not like having both a female and male character with the quality,quantity and range of animations CIG is aiming can be considered an easy task. I mean Assassins Creed Unity cut off it's female avatar completely because of how much work it would take them for example.
What smoke&mirror's? What are those "official rules of a trade show"?
CIG did what they have done what they've allways done. Showcase their tech development and game design vision and intentions with a narrative live gameplay oriented by Chris Roberts. Bugs and warts it's a demonstration.
It's a live demo aimed specially to a backers convention. Way different of the demo's we would see in E3 for example.
And ofc bugs are part of the experience, you can't make a game as complicated as Star Citizen with as many systems working together without having to squash tons and tons of bugs along the way.
There are many examples of officially released broken games in the industry. Most of the time in a game's development the game doesn't feel very good at all as it lacks the finishing touches.
http://kotaku.com/five-things-i-didn-t-get-about-making-video-games-unti-1687510871
Last edited:
Almighty Bob
Banned
I am not sure how she would feel about being called 'cute' in 2017
Many males want to play as a female characters and visa versa- are you thinking that is uah, If so I'm sorry, male voices coming from female bodies and female voices from male bodies is okay in many modern thinking places. I do not know your location, politics or religion
I would not say uah myself
You are right its good for SC how could i forget. Its just a year for them to get a character model done, the perfectionist CR would never allow that.
Here is something different, i have to hand it to SC to be able to inspire their community to do work of arts.
- Status