Space Engineers. And also in development: Dual Universe and Starbase.
Star Citizen Discussion Thread v11
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
- Status
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
No, they have never clarified that point... at least as of recently. At the origin, circa 2013-4 or so there are some posts form Erin Roberts in the old forums stating there would in fact be no beta at all. The goal would be to launch a SQ42 in gold and polished, which would point to at most a closed beta, if at all, of some sort. But with CIG, who knows.
Last edited:
I like it and enjoy it as well, I'm not ex military. Been playing for a couple of years now. I play about 6 hours a month with an org, but only at organised events. IE 10+ players with an aim such as 15 v15 ship2ship combat or a ground siege. Sometimes we just go out in a few ships and take on some missions. As I only have a small ship I like to crew up in a big ship belonging to other folk and we swap around roles, or in my little ship I support the team as a scout or CAP fighter. Single player is not as much fun, I think that this is a multiplayer team game. The ex military folk are useful when there are 10+ players as they know about radio discipline and have an idea of the organisation and leadership required with lots of folk working together, which I suppose should be obvious but isn't always
Last edited:
MTBFritz
I refunded X4 as well. Do you play SC? I ask that as apart from being based in space the implementation of the activities is very different.
I've heard of those - they're also in alpha development, right?
I've read a lot of people who like SC describe the things they were impressed with that isn't offered in other games. I've noticed they were mostly describing only mechnaics as present in SC and not game features in and of themselves. They were describing the features SC has or had advertized and in some cases the exact combinations + the way it was implemented in SC and present it as a plus over other games jsut for being in SC.
It's like saying "I like apples because it taste like an apple unlike a banana that doesn't taste like apples at all" apples will always win in that case and can not be argued with. What would be better is if they say they liek apples because the skin gave it a crunch, orange and pears didn't have, or apple pips has the right amount of cyanide to maintain their beautiful skin.
For me there would be a lot more credibility if they described mechanics they like, like weapon customization, smooth and gradual transition from standing to prone or physics based bullet penetration. Clearly defined mechanics that could be identified and objectively evaluated.
If you don't like it, then don't play it. I'll do my part, by not advising you pick it up.
Simple.
What I'm saying is if you don't want these guys to pick at everything you say you got to start talking about specific mechanics, man. You got steer the discussion towards whats good and whats bad about box loading or the way CIG did elevators. Saying you like what SC has, all the time, doesn't give these guys anything to talk about except question your preference despite the flaws. It's not just you, it's almost everyone who came here to say how much they like SC.
For example I'm playing M&B II bannerlord right now. One thing in that game is having kids so they could take over once my character die. The current implementation is a mess and might not even be completed yet but talking about specifics of that mechanics can get people talking about potential issues like what if my character die before the kid grows up. Someone might suggest dying be disable until the kid come of age... Saying being able to have kids in Bannerlord is unique, I like it if you don't like it don't play, doesn't make a good discussion.
More interesting.
Not that interested in debating with them over the merits of the mechanics, or lack thereof. Posted what I like about SC, and what I dislike in regard to ongoing development.
If others don't like the mechanics in SC, sure I'll read what they have to write - but it holds no bearing on what I prefer. And if folks are hell-bent on making this an "us vs. them" thing, let them knock themselves out - I'm staying out of that particular dance, and will continue playing the games I like.
I will continue to state my opinion on ongoing development by CIG, but that and a buck fifty will get a fellow a cup of joe.
=======================
Interesting aside: Stuck with a bug in E-D, where I can't find the Ringed Garden World HIP 111755 Visitor Beacon. Arrived at the planet, but no visitor beacon. Looked online and found some of those missions have been historically bugged. Of course I could also just be missing something simple.
You realise, of course, that the only ones doing that are the ones who can't discuss SC on its own merits, and always have to bring up unrelated and irrelevant games as a point of comparison (almost universally to say that those other games are worse somehow); who can't talk about generalities, but only about specifics or indeed about a very specific narrow selection of specifics (almost universally because when you take it to a general level, the specifics show up in a much less favourable light)…
Even more interesting detail about that: if you brought it up in a thread where it's on-topic, you might be able to get an answer, rather than have it act as just another illustration of a pretty silly pattern that keeps emerging in this thread, where the topic is SC…
It is inevitable I suppose that the first person finds his way to an ignore list. Since I find your attacks tiresome, you're now on mine.
No never had the urge to give it a try. My experience with SC comes from watching life streams and videos. I m not sure I agree. Walking/running in Star Citizen was meant to be an option not a must. Star Citizen originally was sold as a space sim game with space legs. X4 provides that even tho the space sim isnt the focus like it is in ED tho its flight model sure looks more fleshed out then SCs. Later in development CIG focused more and more on the walking part with partly ridiculous ideas (trains) which by now are an integral part of the "experience" even tho I doubt they are as valuable as some people make them out to be.
If you wanted to "dream" in X4 by standing in front of your ship glancing out over the landing platform you certainly can do that. That seems to be the core of Star Citizens activities. Go somewhere and enjoy the vista. SC provides some mission types by now but I dont understand why those are "great" while EDs missions are yawn boring? Walking distances in SC are way longer but again....dont see how thats good when people want to get into the action quick?
And I can agree that the games are different but they are both in space, aiming to provide what people asked for. Space legs. X4 does it in a more coherent form then SC does IMO.....with a game to support it even tho walking is at best an immersion tool or optional choice. Not enforced if you are not into it. Star Citizen somehow transformed into this second life space walking simulator where it feels like the ships are secondary and only there to support space legs not the other way around (like it should be). See when somebody says you cannot compare a FPS and a strategy game even tho both are in space....that seems to be a logical conclusion to me. But somehow Star Citizen always is "special" when it comes to directly comparing it to similar games. People claim ED and SC are completely different but have no problem stating that SC is superior to ED. How can that be when they are not the same type of game? X4 has a different focus or scale then ED but they are both the same type of game. SC is in the same pool as they are. Of course it tries to be different somehow because by now those games pull ahead in their respective fields of specialty. I guess even CIG recognized they wont be able to compete with ED in terms of flight simulation/model so their focus shifted. X4 makes the whole field smaller again because it covers more. It doesnt try to be better at flying even tho X4s flight model feels really good. They think "bigger" and empower you to actually create an empire you can build and control. Not just in your head like Star Citizen does but the whole game and its features/mechanics support this. Fleet battles? Sure. Not with your mates but then X4 didnt have the funding SC had. Maybe if all that money and goodwill has gone to a competent developer we all could enjoy an actual Star Citizen by now. CIGs Star Citizen wants to be that and more but it lacks the essential tools to accomplish it.
The worst thing is that I m watching CIG struggle and have the distinct feeling they are completely out of ideas. Dont know what to do or where they want to end up at even. The missions and their variations feel boring and ordinary. That Star Citizen captures peoples imagination is again based on the out-of-the-box cryengine trick FPS space legs as well as CIGs insane polishing focus. But its all hollow and shallow. We jokingly call it tier zero implementations but it looks like CIG is unable or unwilling to advance any of the things they already put in.
CIG pretty much preys on their take "being different" and they try their best to make mundane ordinary things appear extraordinairy. Like going from A to B. Or simply standing somewhere looking at the sunset. They add all the details and realism even tho at this stage of development all that work is basically wasted. But from where I m standing thats pretty much it isnt it? And sorry to say but thats a big fat box of nothing to me. There is no meat, no surprise...its just a nice wrapper. To this day we dont have a complete design paper on Star Citizen......an active project since 2012 which has cost over 350 million dollars. On top of that even CIG seems to not know exactly what the goal is. They like to keep vague and secretive even tho this shouldnt be the case in a transparent project. I understand that if CIG ever dedicates to a clear cut target they are on the clock because they have to accomplish that before another game sweeps in and does what they want to do. So they keep expanding the scope, keep expanding the game into areas which werent part of the discussion. Its a losing game because Star Citizen uses all its time and energy to keep up. They dont have anything special that makes em stand out as a game and they know it too. The ONE magic trick Star Citizen can do is to let you dream and it accomplishes that with its vanilla version since 2014. Everything since then is just evidence that they are not going anywhere. The planets are there but they dont stand for anything really. Not for a superior or even workable procgen technology. Not test beds for more planets. Planets are not tools or pipelines in Star Citizen. Planets actually ARE the content. Thats it. Here have a planet. You can fly to it and walk over it. Hope you have fun.
Hopeful backers like to take every announcement in stride looking to the next patch, the next year, the next announcement. But even tho we have weather and caves now...why are not all planets riddled with those? Inventing new tools should make those tools available to the game as a whole but that doesnt seem to be the case. Missions are in but again....why doesnt the existing system not support variety or depth to those? Why are there not more mission types available by now? Where is the actual result for all the years of waiting, the pipelines which by now should be in place, the tools which CIG spent millions on to create? CIG claims to have this international gigantic work force of 500+ people amd likes to throw buzzwords like "agile" and "refacturing" but why then does it feel like a dev team of 5 people working on SC in their spare time? The whole company can only ever focus on one tiny thing at once. Big efforts like TOW obviously has been are kept completely dark. Not announced, not shared. SC survival mechanics were mentioned in the past but CIG never has shown any urge to actually put em in. Then they did in one quick strike and nobody saw it coming. Why cant CIG honor its own roadmaps or keep em up to date?
"They are not the same game" is not something I m going to accept anymore. That they are "different" yes and thats to be expected. But at their core they are the same game type and thats important. Now its possible that no other game will be able to provide the dreamy feeling that SC gives you but if theres never a complete game because CIG cant do it.....was it all worth it then? And maybe it will be to you if you are one of the rare actual 45 dollars guys but do you really speak for all the folks who spend far more because they believed all the lies that Chris Roberts spun?
You completely missed what he was trying to say.
Yes. Forum etiquette is really horribly insulting, especially when mods have repeatedly said that this is the SC thread and that there's the entire rest of the forums for all your ED queries.
The well-recorded history of who says what in this series of threads is not an attack — it's just fact. If facts bother you, that's a whole different issue you need to sort out for yourself.
The problem with a public beta is people can see it and report on it.
Now, CIG might use the excuse "spoilers" once again as to not having a public beta. Perhaps blame all those nasty people who leak evocati builds as to why they don't do a public beta (and hell, it would not surprise me in the slightest if CIG used the "spoiler" excuse for not releasing SQ42 at all, its become that much of a joke excuse).
But i think the simple reason they won't do a public beta is because it means they won't actually have to show anything (beyond carefully curated marketing videos - where they conveniently forget the spoiler excuse once again), meaning beta/alpha it doesn't make any difference. They can simply say its in beta... but oh dear, beta has flagged up a few small issues, this means beta will have to last a bit longer than initially evisaged, so holding off release for just a few more months... and so on and so on. Basically the same as now, except the label is simply changed.
Said it earlier, i'm pretty certain SQ42 is still missing huge chunks of stuff needed to make it work, a lot of that stuff it shares with SC, so when we see things like CIG working on NPC AI for years, its safe to assume they don't have a separate AI waiting in the wings for SQ42, at best its going to be scripted encounters and dialogues, which would be 100% fine for just about any dev company, but probably not good enough for CR.
This has been my unfortunate experience as well. They fixate on what SC has, ignoring what it doesn't have, and also project what might come in the future onto what exists there now. Their penchant for talking about possible future stuff as if it already exists is bonkers in my opinion, but if, for example, they start talking about ED, they will only talk about it in terms of what it doesn't have in relation to SC and won't consider what ED might have in the future. Again, bonkers, and arguing in bad faith.
Space Engineers launched in Feb 2019.
Dual Universe is currently in NDA-protected Alpha, and due to enter public beta this year.
Starbase is in invite-only Alpha, and also due to enter public beta this year.
All of them provide the immersive gameplay you described in your comment I quoted. DU especially has some excellent Dynamic Server Meshing tech enabling their seamless MMO world to exist - that's what CIG are aspiring to and estimate a few years yet.
Hold on. In that case we skeptics should be held to the same standard shouldn't we? Or we are allowed to talk in generalities but fans must talk about specific mechanics?
Ask for specifics by all means if you seek clarification, but don't start badgering someone just because they say they like the space legs in SC or whatever.
- Status