The Star Citizen Thread v8

[Bounder]

Bounder, I have another suggestion! Have you tested Evochron Legacy? Very similar to ED, even better in some ways. Has full newtonian flight model and very good hud to utilize it. Graphics are a bit retro, but very functional.

..i did give it a shot, but despite the positive reviews found it disappointing - i was put off by the gaudy, credulous 'skybox art', and the ship appeared to have space-speed limits... pretty much blowing the whole premise real ships in real space from the outset. I've only seen combat from YT vids but again, it looks more like ED than anything i'd associate with the Elite buzz; trading slow manoeuvring barrages at long range, with lots of flashy light and sound effects in place of any actual 'action'.

What i enjoy about Elite is the action - actually flying a high-performance ship, without any constraints, being able to pull crazy manoeuvres, to rotate equally well on all axes regardless of velocity relative to anything else, able to explore and utilise the full range of movement that is the core premise of "fusion-powered rocket tanks in space" - ie. no-holds-barred, twitch reflex scrappage. It's all about the ducking and weaving, turn'n'burn acrobatics, whilst maintaining situational and positional awareness and orientation relative to surrounding bogeys... dogfighting, basically.

Whereas in air combat we have natural, emergent doctrines of 'air combat manoeuvring' - the barrel roll, the 'split S' etc. etc., and the skill of bringing it all together - space combat adds its own unique twists on these martial arts, so in principle you can have the best of air combat, only with all the brakes off and all stops pulled... for an experience even more hectic and action-packed. Because isn't that what we want from a space combat game in the first place - to go beyond the earthly constraints of air flight? The central premise of Elite is to open up that undiscovered country of 'SCM' - space combat manoeuvring - basically, hardcore dogfighting, on steroids.

And this is why the anemic slow-pitching long-range barrage-trading special-FX spectaculars of ED and EL etc. just seem so dim-wittedly bankrupt to me. It's not just the squandered potential, so much as knowing - from experience with Elite - what is possible in terms of edge-of-seat arcade action, and so what i'm missing out on in any other game ostensibly in the same 'genre', but which completely fails to capitalise on its own core premise, instead opting for tired, misplaced air-flight tropes and noisy colourful razzmatazz.

CQB in space is fun in precisely the same way as the action in Meteors and Defender - same basic physics and gameplay, only in full 3D. Elite goes there. ED & EL etc. wander off in the complete opposite direction; spacey backdrops, cluttered HUDS and neon fanfares are simply no substitute for actual dogfighting thrills, and just don't provide any immersive hooks for me..

 

[ianw]

(STAR CITIZEN)..i did give it a shot, but despite the positive reviews found it disappointing - i was put off by the gaudy, credulous 'skybox art', and the ship appeared to have space-speed limits... pretty much blowing the whole premise real ships in real space from the outset. I've only seen combat from YT vids but again, it looks more like ED than anything i'd associate with the Elite buzz; trading slow manoeuvring barrages at long range, with lots of flashy light and sound effects in place of any actual 'action'.

What i enjoy about Elite is the action - actually flying a high-performance ship, without any constraints, being able to pull crazy manoeuvres, to rotate equally well on all axes regardless of velocity relative to anything else, able to explore and utilise the full range of movement that is the core premise of "fusion-powered rocket tanks in space" - ie. no-holds-barred, twitch reflex scrappage. It's all about the ducking and weaving, turn'n'burn acrobatics, whilst maintaining situational and positional awareness and orientation relative to surrounding bogeys... dogfighting, basically.

Whereas in air combat we have natural, emergent doctrines of 'air combat manoeuvring' - the barrel roll, the 'split S' etc. etc., and the skill of bringing it all together - space combat adds its own unique twists on these martial arts, so in principle you can have the best of air combat, only with all the brakes off and all stops pulled... for an experience even more hectic and action-packed. Because isn't that what we want from a space combat game in the first place - to go beyond the earthly constraints of air flight? The central premise of Elite is to open up that undiscovered country of 'SCM' - space combat manoeuvring - basically, hardcore dogfighting, on steroids.

And this is why the anemic slow-pitching long-range barrage-trading special-FX spectaculars of ED and EL etc. just seem so dim-wittedly bankrupt to me. It's not just the squandered potential, so much as knowing - from experience with Elite - what is possible in terms of edge-of-seat arcade action, and so what i'm missing out on in any other game ostensibly in the same 'genre', but which completely fails to capitalise on its own core premise, instead opting for tired, misplaced air-flight tropes and noisy colourful razzmatazz.

CQB in space is fun in precisely the same way as the action in Meteors and Defender - same basic physics and gameplay, only in full 3D. Elite goes there. ED & EL etc. wander off in the complete opposite direction; spacey backdrops, cluttered HUDS and neon fanfares are simply no substitute for actual dogfighting thrills, and just don't provide any immersive hooks for me..(STAR CITIZEN)

Just added a couple of things to get your post on topic - no need to thank me!

Liking the AV btw - a young Palin. Nice and very funny guy! (blackmail)

(STAR CITIZEN)

 

[Tippis]

I've been ray tracing since the 90s, and I am not "uninformed", so you're wasting your time.

Oh dear. Just reading that makes my PTSD (POV-Ray Triggered “So-what-do-we-do-in-the-meantime” Despondency) flare up all over again… [knocked out]

 

[McGlashan]

But I think he is seriously trying to develop the game at the same time. But in an incompetent manner, exacerbated by his desire to enrich himself as much as he can.

This games scope is not unrealistic.

What is planned that ED or NMS for example, don't have? Nothing.

FPS? Space combat? Trade? Resource gathering? Player interaction? NPCs?

You might not like how those game implement those features or the mechanics involved...but they are effectively there.

These games have already fulfilled the scope promised by SC....or at least, could do so quickly if they chose.

Also, the problem with the inevitable "ahhhh, but SC does all the things at once" argument is that by doing so, even ignoring prior art and how badly SC currently does them, it doesn't really bring anything new to the experience. Have you played FPS and third person sci-fi action games? Of course. Space combat games? Sure. Open world sandbox games? Yep. Driven vehicles around in FPS or third person games? Many times. And each time most likely to a higher standard than SC, the "master of none", will ever offer. Being able to do a lot of things worse than other games which do fewer isn't much of a boast.

Oh dear. Just reading that makes my PTSD (POV-Ray Triggered “So-what-do-we-do-in-the-meantime” Despondency) flare up all over again…

Non-real time render times haven't even changed much since then, you just get prettier, higher-resolution pictures at the end of it. Plus there's the option of throwing it at the cloud. It's pretty crazy to see things like that Star Wars RT demo though.

 

[Captain N]

Scope is scope. Production level is just that — a measure of the size of the production, and is not a factor in the scope. it's the size of the idea

That's complete nonsense. An idea has neither size nor scope - it's an abstract concept.

Production level determines, very directly, both the amount and complexity of art assets and quite directly affects scope. An indie game with a flat sphere for a planet does not have the same scope as a game that tries to model every grain of sand as an individual asset handcrafted by an artist, and explorable by a player using an in-game microscope.

Again, at the heart of it all, SC isn't a particularly complex game.

Wrong, it is a very complex game, and it was sold on that premise.

Largely irrelevant. SC has had 6 years or so of development. As with other games, its going to get judged on its budget, development time and current status as well as what its achieved.

By whom? Any reasonable judgement of a game would be based primarily on how fun it is when it's released.

It hasn't been done in SC either and doesn't look like it ever will. SoT comes close though. As does ED. As does NMS.

None of which I would contest. Who are you arguing with? It does seem like you are arguing, at least?

You are missing the point.

No game has delivered what SC plans or claims to deliver...because no game can.

Actually that was exactly my point, as written in the post you quoted, in different words. Well except with the difference that I would not state it as an absolute - I like to at least keep it open and give these guys a chance to finish their project.

What do you want from SC?

Good question! I have not thought about this much. I would like it to at least have VR support, because otherwise it's not going to even remotely contend with ED for me.

Otherwise, it should be basically a fun game (obviously) with more meaningful PVP interaction than what ED offers.

I'm less interested in whether they deliver all their promises regarding the scope and features of the game. I know the fanatics will riot if CIG scales back their roadmap, but I think it would be very reasonable of them to do so, just to deliver a product.

You are do focussed on "scope"

How am I focussed on scope? I'm only replying to posts, directly addressed to me, which seem to be arguing about scope. It's hard to reply to them without talking about scope.

At heart....SC is a Space Sim like Elite, with Elites mechanics, with added FPS gameplay.

"Added FPS gameplay" may not sound much, but means adding an enormous amount of content on top of the spaceship experience. Not only spaceships and stations need to have fully modelled interiors, everything needs to be modelled with such accuracy that it looks good even up close, in FPS mode.

That's before you even start thinking about the gameplay and "things to do".

Is it a reasonable thing to expect from a space game? I don't know. It sounds cool. But I have to admit, if I were developing a space game, I would not even dream of implementing such a thing. Well, dream maybe, but I'd never mention it to the fans.

All of these games had a scope and scale at least as big as that of SC

Except some crucial part of the scope missing, and therefore, smaller scope...

The only thing a AAA game has is budget.

Which determines the scope possible with that budget.

NMS took 12 people 3 years and less than $20 million.

The big differences between what SC plans to have and what NMS actually has and has implemented are...

art style
game mechanics
the multiplayer aspect is very undeveloped.

I agree, these are big differences. If they had a AAA level budget, they probably could have implemented better graphics and a fully developed multiplayer.

Its impact is actually minimal. Size of the play area affects issues such as game play, certain game mechanics and performance but little else.

You have to fill it with something, and developing that something takes time and money. The bigger area to fill, the more time and money.

Yes, you can repeat assets using PG, but that goes back to my "unique" assets point.

At this stage I am starting to wonder if you truly understand what the "scope" of a game actually is.

Telling us that SC will have space flight and FPS is part of the scope. Telling us that graphical density and quality is part of the scope?

Not so much

If you don't agree those are part of the project's scope, you don't seem to understand where most of the money in a game's budget go.

No, you were talking about that, because you misread/misinterpreted what I actually said, which is that I expected CIG would use engine modifications as yet another excuse to go back to the drawing board (an opinion based on CIG's track record), as me saying that going back to the drawing board would be a necessary result of incorporating RT technology, because you clearly feel qualified to dispute the latter argument even though I didn't make it.

Thanks for the correction, but that was in no way apparent from your original post, and I'm not even particularly interested in the whole subject of CIG allegedly using whatever excuses to justify whatever.

I was interested in the prospect of adding RTX into existing engines, which did not seem like something that would take too much development time.

But I'm a 20 year visual effects industry veteran, head of lighting at one of the world's largest vfx houses, I've been ray tracing since the 90s, and I am not "uninformed", so you're wasting your time.

All very interesting, but does not exempt you from the need to base your arguments on facts.

And yes I very much do feel like I'm wasting my time. I did not intend to spend my day arguing about Star Citizen, which is a game I do not care about very much.

 

[Cobra1984]

Good question! I have not thought about this much. I would like it to at least have VR support, because otherwise it's not going to even remotely contend with ED for me.

Well you're in luck, because CIG are focussing on implementing VR in January 2016 as reported on the various VR sites 2 years ago.

 

[Mu77ley]

No space game ever has delivered the scope that SC has promised. Dreams and promises don't count. What is your point?

No game ever will, and that includes SC.

 

[Captain N]

No game ever will, and that includes SC.

Did I not already say that much, and multiple times?

Well okay "No game ever" is a bit harsher than how I would have put it. I'd just say it's improbable.

 

[Mu77ley]

meaningful PVP

This statement brought to you by Oxymoron's-R-Us.

 

[Captain N]

Oh, so you're one of those people.

 

[Tippis]

An idea has neither size nor scope - it's an abstract concept.

…and the boundaries of that idea — what is part of it and what is not — is what's known as a scope.

Here is my idea for a game. It'll offer this, that, and the other, but not those things — that's not part of its scope.

Production level determines, very directly, both the amount and complexity of art assets and quite directly affects scope.

That is not what scope is. Scope is the boundaries of what your idea contains. How that is then operationalised in terms of, say, presentation and art assets, is a separate matter. Production level only indirectly affects scope in that, with a larger budget, you can actually bring a larger idea to fruition without requiring half a lifetime to do so, or you may take a much smaller idea and really polish it to a mirror sheen (that, again, would take too much effort for a smaller team to pull off).

An indie game with a flat sphere for a planet has the same scope as a AAA game with a lovingly hand-carved sphere for a planet if the activities that the planet enables are the same. The AAA game may have nice presentation as a result, but that's not the scope. It's the actual game part that matters and unless that game part is wholly dependent on all those carvings being there, then the two will not differ (nor does it make the latter exclusive to the AAA process — the indie game can offer the same, but it'll take longer and run a larger risk that the developer just loses interest).

Wrong, it is a very complex game, and it was sold on that premise.

No. It was sold on the premise that it would be like Freelancer, only bigger, and in first-person (which, coincidentally, the first Freelancer was also originally supposed to be). It was never to be as complex as, say, EVE online — its scope in terms of world size and player agency was a lot lower — but slightly more complex than, say, ED — again, that whole FPS business would require some additional dynamics, and the economy was supposed to be a bit more intricate than the background sim. It's nowhere near the insanity of, say, Dwarf Fortress or RimWorld. It would have some simple simulationist elements, but nothing like the complexity of, say, DCS or KSP.

How am I focussed on scope?

You brought it up as a (long-since disproven) argument why CIG's glacial development pace was somehow to be expected.

 

[Cobra1984]

I was interested in the prospect of adding RTX into existing engines, which did not seem like something that would take too much development time.

This is up to the engine devs - Crytek, Unreal etc. It's not something a licensee is going to do.

Perhaps if CIG had rolled their own engine from the start, perhaps if they still had a relationship with Crytek, but as it stands they're using the Amazon flavor of CryEngine 3.0 and it's working for making a space mmo about as well as you'd expect.

Having watched Erin Roberts explain their plans for networking I very much doubt they have the capabilities or talent to build their own RTX rendering without the SDKs that would normally be provided by the engine vendor.

That door closed when they threw in with Amazon Lumberyard so they are stuck with Cry 3.0 - that is the single most important factor limiting their scope and the reason that the dreams of Chris Roberts and his financiers will not and can not be realised.

It's fun to watch them try though.

Bless their little hearts.

 

[TenakaFurey]

But I'm a 20 year visual effects industry veteran, head of lighting at one of the world's largest vfx houses, I've been ray tracing since the 90s, and I am not "uninformed", so you're wasting your time.

I call shennanigans.

How can any of that be true if CIG has invented its patented Linear Light Pathway Simulators yet?

 

[Captain N]

Here is my idea for a game. It'll offer this, that, and the other, but not those things — that's not part of its scope.

Yes, you have now defined a scope for a game and I suppose you could describe it as "the size of the idea", but that is not independent of the size of the production.

The size of the production will be directly determined by the size of the "idea", or the scope defined in your design.

That is not what scope is. Scope is the boundaries of what your idea contains. How that is then operationalised in terms of, say, presentation and art assets, is a separate matter. Production level only indirectly affects scope in that, with a larger budget, you can actually bring a larger idea to fruition without requiring half a lifetime to do so, or you may take a much smaller idea and really polish it to a mirror sheen (that, again, would take too much effort for a smaller team to pull off).

An indie game with a flat sphere for a planet has the same scope as a AAA game with a lovingly hand-carved sphere for a planet if the activities that the planet enables are the same. The AAA game may have nice presentation as a result, but that's not the scope. It's the actual game part that matters and unless that game part is wholly dependent on all those carvings being there, then the two will not differ (nor does it make the latter exclusive to the AAA process — the indie game can offer the same, but it'll take longer and run a larger risk that the developer just loses interest).

This is just gobbledygook. If scope does not describe the operational size and cost of the project, then it is a useless term to describe the project. What would you use in its place?

It just sounds like you're now trying to twist the meaning of words to support your argument to make it look like you were right all along. Is it that hard to admit you were wrong?

No. It was sold on the premise that it would be like Freelancer, only bigger, and in first-person (which, coincidentally, the first Freelancer was also originally supposed to be)

That describes a very complex game.

It was never to be as complex as, say, EVE online

I'd say in its present form, EVE is less complex, than what SC has been marketed as.

It's nowhere near the insanity of, say, Dwarf Fortress or RimWorld.

Maybe in the context of simulational systems describing communities of AI agents, but it's hard to compare, as this is a completely different type of game.

You brought it up as a (long-since disproven) argument why CIG's glacial development pace was somehow to be expected.

Yes, I did, exactly once. Can you point me to someone disproving it?

This is up to the engine devs - Crytek, Unreal etc. It's not something a licensee is going to do.

On that basis, it does appear actually more likely that FD is going to add it to COBRA and retrofit ED to use it. But whether CIG can do it, depends on just how complex it is to do. I was under the impression their version of Crytek was already heavily customised.

 

[frostypaw]

This is just gobbledygook. If scope does not describe the operational size and cost of the project, then it is a useless term to describe the project. What would you use in its place?

It's not. That's exactly what scope means. That's why scope and detail are different words. This basic misunderstand might explain a lot. A project can have a HUGE scope that covers a whole galaxy but not have much detail and not cost a huge amount - Frontier First Encounters would be a good example of this.

Not sure at all what you think "operational size" means?

Sure it's a not a full, realistically scaled galaxy - neither was the one in the original Elite. It's still hundred star systems, with landable planets.

It still sounds larger than any open-ended vehicle based game that actually let's you disembark and explore on foot, and presents all its locations in FPS level graphical detail. Especially any such game that also has massively scaled multiplayer.

That's not a big deal - we have a vastly larger galaxy full of star systems with landable planets.

Now instead the big deal is exposed - that you think somehow stepping out on foot magically changes everything - which is odd seeing how quickly everyone runs to get back in a vehicle. More detail does not magically make a thing a better game - just prettier.

There is currently no large scale multiplayer in SC.

 

[Cobra1984]

The tech sets the scope guys, the dreams and ideas are beyond the scope of the engine.

What the worry is for an engine as old as the one CIG are using that it's already left behind regarding VR, 4k, Vulkan and I can only imagine RTX being the next big thing if the hardware hits consumer shelves.

They still don't have a backend, the frontend is outdated and the core is broken. It will take 10s of millions and years to be stable and playable, I've heard from one ex-CIG dev that (half jokingly) another 10 years is needed to get that engine to do what they want to do.

But the scope dream drives ship sales and keeps them in employment, and the talk of new rendering tech being 'easy to implement' (no it isn't) keeps a spark of hope amongst those who aren't ready to accept that CIG missed the boat - and all the other game engines are surpassing them at light speed when it comes to rendering, mmo networking and sheer performance.

Hell, the Cobra engine natively supporting VR and up to 8k has added years to the lifespan of ED.

Elite Dangerous in VR at 4k is technically possible, and the hardware to drive it is peeking over the horizon with 4k headsets already being demoed at the shows. In fact isn't there an 8k headset?

 

[Captain N]

With little googling, I found this:

Project scope is the part of project planning that involves determining and documenting a list of specific project goals, deliverables, features, functions, tasks, deadlines, and ultimately costs. In other words, it is what needs to be achieved and the work that must be done to deliver a project.

http://www.totallycommunications.com/latest/how-to-define-the-scope-of-a-project/

That's the definition of a project's scope.

Of course, you could use scope to describe the size of a game world - I suppose it can easily get confusing, as world scope and project scope are not entirely independent of each other - the scope of a game project is very much affected by the size of the game world. People in this thread may have used these concepts interchangeably, possibly even myself.

Yes, you could have a large game world with little detail in it, and have a small project scope.

 

[Tippis]

Yes, you have now defined a scope for a game and I suppose you could describe it as "the size of the idea", but that is not independent of the size of the production.

It mostly is, aside from those edge cases where it would take too long to realise otherwise. But even then, the scope is actually the same — it's the delivery that changes.

This is just gobbledygook. If scope does not describe the operational size and cost of the project, then it is a useless term to describe the project. What would you use in its place?

If by gobbledygook you mean “the actual meaning of the word” then yes. For a project, the word I would use is “budget.”

That describes a very complex game.
I'd say in its present form, EVE is less complex, than what SC has been marketed as.

Lol no, and LMAONO, in that order.

The first is not a very complex game. We can easily determine that by looking at Freelancer and compare it against what's habitually produced by indie studios in the same marketspace today.

If you think that EVE is in any way, shape, or form, less complex than what SC has been marketed as, then you a) are not familiar with even the most foundational parts of EVE, such as its market or production mechanics, or b) have not read up on SC — in particular, it's complete absence of any described dynamics, or c) are being silly just for the sake of being silly.

EVE is one of the most complex games on the market today because it heavily and very deliberately relies on emergent behaviour. It has dozens of interconnected systems, each of which is more complex than the entirety of SC — and explicitly so, because both CIG and the backers have made it clear that they do not want EVE's interactions to happen in their game. But that's also all there is. They have very vaguely talked about some bog-standard activities, but very little about the underlying mechanics and absolutely nothing about the dynamics they want to generate with those activities. So it's not actually marketed as a complex game at all because the fundamental parts of what could potentially make it complex have not even been described.

Maybe in the context of simulational systems describing communities of AI agents, but it's hard to compare, as this is a completely different type of game.

…in other words, it's far far far more complex. Comparing them is actually pretty trivial: what is the decision and outcome space for the player, and on what level of detail are the dynamics determined.

Yes, I did, exactly once. Can you point me to someone disproving it?

Well… we're on thread 8 now, which means that we have 7 threads before this that does so. If that's not enough, CIG's inability to even make scope a factor within their first 7 years of rather ruins the core assumption of that whole argument, had it even worked to begin with (which, as previously noted, it does not).

 

[Asp Explorer]

How can any of that be true if CIG has invented its patented Linear Light Pathway Simulators yet?

Pah - that got nuked to oblivion when Genuine Roberts decided a particular pixel needed to be green rather than blue.

It's been refactored into the Patented Photonic Pathway Predictor Production Program.

Although CIG would be far better off with another 6 P's

 

[frostypaw]

With little googling, I found this:

http://www.totallycommunications.com/latest/how-to-define-the-scope-of-a-project/

That's the definition of a project's scope.

Of course, you could use scope to describe the size of a game world - I suppose it can easily get confusing, as world scope and project scope are not entirely independent of each other - the scope of a game project is very much affected by the size of the game world. People in this thread may have used these concepts interchangeably, possibly even myself.

Yes, you could have a large game world with little detail in it, and have a small project scope.

Correct. Remember the example of FFE was just an example, not an exhaustive description of what scope can mean so don't try and pretend it was. Now we can move beyond "If scope does not describe the operational size and cost of the project, then it is a useless term to describe the project" as it does not describe either.