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.
The specifics you mention are already provided in this "threadnaught" in due detail because people dont gloss over generalities from some and press others only. Whoever has the experience/knowledge can tap into memory or look up those comments because trying to squeeze specifics into every post you do would result in Frontier having to increase its postlength. And when you described the specifics 3 times already I can understand the reluctance to jump through hoops the moment someone new comes in who didnt bother to check the threads history and just wants to keep you busy. Its why school kids and students have to take all that wisdom in good faith at first. If the curiosity or hunger for it is there they can dig into whatever they want and the specifics will be there waiting. I know it happens but its simliar to when students receiving an F calling the teacher "haters" because they didnt like their work.
Nobody is being called out because he likes space legs btw.....I assume you know that full well?
I could try to find my old post where I broke down their mining
concept design document nonsensical theorycrafting in terms of what actual game mechanics and dynamics it would require to work.
Broke the word limit twice because there was so much silliness that had to be sorted out.
Thanks for proving my point....and to Esvandiary as well. This threadnaught (boy that term is awesome
) holds all the funnies and sads as well as more realistic theorycrafting then CIGs own forums. This is mostly because criticism and debate is allowed. That pro SC defenders cannot hold anymore is due to Star Citizens own insufficiencies and embarassing examples from the past...not because the "hate for SC" has somehow intensified.
"Time will tell" was something that was quoted often and universally accepted....and it does. Its just not such a success story for CIG and SC but we are all observers here without impact on how the story goes.
Genuine query: what's counted as a loading screen by people?
The answer will be manyfold because the purist term and understanding has been softened by now same as P2W or other industry terms. My earliest memory of a loading screen is a static black screen with print on it making it abundandly clear what I m looking at....
LOADING.................PLEASE WAIT
Later on things got a little more entertaining by looping animations, scrolling text or even mini-games all there to prevent you getting bored because low and behold the duration of loading screens got up. Loading screens split into smaller units but in the end you were waiting more then you played because every corner regardless what you wanted to do....loading screen.
So the pure definition isnt valid anymore but the concept is. Loading screens are time in gameplay that take control from you in order to utilize processing power to advance the program. Background loading only goes so far and especially in online games can result in nasty stutters and micro-lag so not optimal. For me, a loading screen is when you lose control and are reduced to observing. Cutscenes could very well be counted, especially the ones you cant skip (Borderlands 3...I m looking at you).
With that concept in mind Star Citizens forced animations can all be considered loading screens. Warp transit....loading screen. Riding the train....loading screen. The game puts you into a mini-grid where you can walk around to prevent you from getting bored but the actions are very limited and the space to do stuff in is tiny. This counts for the trains cabin as mjuch as for the ship.
Now having them is not the issue....even modern games use loading screens all the time but look for means to reduce the times. Some go for the "load once but make it a good one" approach where you have long loading times but gameplay itself is relatively free of interruptions. AFAIK Star Citizen has an epic front loading screen then is seeded with smaller ones throughout gameplay. Again....if the design is made well people usually dont care if its a "hidden loading screen" or not as long as it doesnt become annoying.
CIG and Chris Roberts advertised Star Citizen as a
true seamless game tho...this is a claim that requires proof and checks because from where I m standing.....its too vague and also incorrect. Minimizing loading times is an industry
standard these days. So if SCs seamless qualities are just another example of "lets make up fancy words for things that are boring and used by everybody else" then we should stop being excited about it as if nobody else does it.
Elite could of had a few potential 'please wait!' loading screens, but the team did a good job of hiding it using animations. For example, the hyperspace jump animation time is used to load in and generate the system you're jumping to.
Agreed and the length of said "loading screen" hints at the codes capabilities in regards to procgen. Many smaller assets are loaded "on the fly" without noticable interruption of gameplay. I would assume that a next-generation game would avoid the old pittraps and come up with a truly advanced solution. Maybe the solution is "space legs"? The human avatar mobility in SC often strikes me as needless and boring busy-work with more effort then pay-off but obviously....that opinion will vary with people too.
Another game to add to that list is Empyrion: Galactic Survival. It may still be in Early Access, but it's very playable.
Have it and even in its raw state (alpha) its very stable and very deep in complexity and depth already. Too raw for my taste so even tho I have it I m waiting for a more finished state before I get into it for real. Tested my patience to early access titles and yet again got shown that I dont have a high tolerance for "raw". But I m very impressed with what I sampled so far.
But nobody at CIG asked my opinion on it.
Nobody ever does. They just want your money but nothing above that. Your feedback and input is appreciated as long as its all praise and oozing positivity. When you critizise...you know very well what happens. Their TOS mirrors their thinking of backers. No rights whatsoever, keep providing the milk and while moos are tolerated any kind of stampede is quickly beaten down. The often quoted "vote for scope increase" never was the reason for CIGs decision to increase scope. They just needed a scapegoat thats all. I say that because its the one exception to CIGs usual development process.
Where you wait on your hands, are told next to nothing except for the hype bits which make you spend money and once you are presented with the results you better like it or else....
www.forbes.com
