Most of the gameplay mentioned under 3.2 isn't even under development. Its 'scheduled'.
The Star Citizen Thread v8
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
- Status
Most of the gameplay mentioned under 3.2 isn't even under development. Its 'scheduled'.
Well...In short...the biggest success/progress of 3.1 patch is that arrived on TIME!!!
Procedural planetary landings were first announced (ie: Marketed) in December 2015 during the live stream.
It took them a full two years to get them into a state where they could deliver a very un-polished "Alpha" after enjoying press and marketing ergo more pledges.
I can't imagine how many more years it will take to implement anything that has been announced, but apparently this is some kind of new super cool paradigm of PC game development where you announce a bunch of tech and take the cash in advance of putting it into an entertainment product that generally sucks while pointing at other games that have been delivered and talking about how everything you do one far off day will be so much better just so long as you have lots and lots of time and cash.
It took them a full two years to get them into a state where they could deliver a very un-polished "Alpha" after enjoying press and marketing ergo more pledges.
I can't imagine how many more years it will take to implement anything that has been announced, but apparently this is some kind of new super cool paradigm of PC game development where you announce a bunch of tech and take the cash in advance of putting it into an entertainment product that generally sucks while pointing at other games that have been delivered and talking about how everything you do one far off day will be so much better just so long as you have lots and lots of time and cash.
Last edited:
That's like the captain of the Titanic saying "Yeah the iceburg was really where we needed to be at this stage. We've made amazing progress across the Atlantic and reached our (refactored) destination on time"
I guess CIG are following the plan Chris laid out in 2016 to some (?) extent but the stuff he was discussing as taking months then is taking years and years for a crowd funded product that was already massively delayed at that point.
Last edited:
Planetary landings should be a big deal but even many of the faithful seem to have been rather unimpressed. Sure it's another nice object with some good detail, but once more riddled with bugs and we only have some tiny moons so far and a vast increase in memory load for it.
I'll consider it a big deal once we have all of Stanton so there are actual planets and the game is clearly handling swapping models/data/orbits/gravity properly, until then they're a big object. Norman's Sky does planetary landings after all and that's a little half-joke bit of software - let alone all the older games with planetary landings.
I'll consider it a big deal once we have all of Stanton so there are actual planets and the game is clearly handling swapping models/data/orbits/gravity properly, until then they're a big object. Norman's Sky does planetary landings after all and that's a little half-joke bit of software - let alone all the older games with planetary landings.
Colour me surprised! Of course, this is good for Star Citizen!
One thing i really appreciate in ED is how i can choose whatever ship i want to do almost anything. It might not be the best ship for the job, but i can configure it to my desires.
And this is how i can do this....
If this was SC, then i'd need different ship types for different tasks. Ok, some might say that's a good thing, specialized ships. Still, at this point, no flying ships you haven't bought anyway.
The measure of 'it is really cool to land on planets in a space game'.
Not good enough.
What purpose does it serve? What does it do? What does it bring to the game?
“It's cool” is a short-lived worthless and utterly pointless reason to add anything unless and until those questions can be answered in full. Being cool does not make anything a big deal, or indeed any kind of deal at all.
Last edited:
Sure.
But the flight model doesn't seem to change, the worlds they say are procedurally generated are heavily handcrafted, the mission structure (such as it is) isn't different so the overall effect is that you get a reentry animation when you get to a certain distance and when you leave your ship, you drop down and hope the ground will catch you.
As I said...I can see a little progress in the game, but not much. The potential is there for planetary landings to become much more than they are, but that can be said about everything in the game and it doesn't really change that the potential has yet to be realised.
Its a good start tho, granted but you are right. If the media and the internet show one thing with triple bold and underlined exclamation marks is that "cool" is not enough to keep something on the headlines. And "cool" doesnt make anything "good" something that the SC fanatics seem to understand under that term.
Because flying on planets is much, much more interesting than flying through space? In a game about flying ships, having more interesting flying makes a big difference in my book.
Maybe they shouldn't have made a game about space ships, then…
Not that it really matters — they could just have gone with that initial idea of (essentially) Freelancer 2, and given it Freelancer-like space. If they made the arbitrary decision to make space uninteresting (how?!), they could just as easily have made the decision not to do that.
I'm saying that "broken", the word you have used, contradicts the "coming along nicely" part.
Last edited:
Agreed, every game that collected 180 million dollars of pre-sales should put out a solid roadmap. Now if only CiG could check on them roadmap points without keep pushing half the content back to a later patch number and dropping another 25% of the stuff alltogether.
I don´t,because CIG roadmaps and schedules are there just to deceive the public as they are been proven wrong again and again....Other serious CO with some integrity will not dare to LIE that openly as CIG does....
Any idiot can publish a roadmap - implementing it thoroughly, well and on time is the win.
Chris Roberts has been promising a roadmap for Squadron 42 since last November, which he has already sold pre-orders for, which has had an annual release date every year since 2014 and which he said would be a copy of their internal JIRA development calendar.
The roadmap you are referring to has had multiple revisions since January with both core engine work and gameplay features moved further and further into future versions, and has has a backer poll attached to it to select which features should be prioritised.
So no, I am very glad that neither Frontier nor any other game or sim studio on the planet publishes roadmaps like CIG, I'd have nothing to play.
They don't decieve the public any more, only the remaining backers. Everyone has cottoned onto CIG.
Your SC videos are hilarious btw, my favorite is the failed ejection of the commando!
- Status