Oh my, if FD released something as bad as SC the forums would go into absoloute meltdown!
Well, i suppose they could just slap an alpha label on it and everyone would accept it right? Right?
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Oh my, if FD released something as bad as SC the forums would go into absoloute meltdown!
Well, i suppose they could just slap an alpha label on it and everyone would accept it right? Right?
EDO added some nice things, but at the same time degraded the existing planets, it is absolutely normal that many people are unhappy. I can assure you that there would be only one or two guys on the forum complaining about the fact that some rivers in a certain place do not have perfect joining assets when seen up close.
Too bad there is none so and few chance you ever see them in game.
That's an opinion.
You are serious ? If Hello Games could proc gen villages tied with roads, players would be happy !
That's not my opinion but the opinion written by hundred of ED players (yes I read the ED forums).
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Rivers in Star Citizen suck so much no just because of some bad "joints", but in the whole implementation, no physics of any kind, no underwater friction or effect on motion, no splashing effects, no meaningful waves on impacts, lack of graphical fidelity and overall sloppy, crappy, poor craftmanship:
Camural explains it really well
Grumpy painfully highlights the same crappy implementation by CIG
etc.
The extremely crappy implementation of rivers is in essence the same for the rest of the development in SC for 11+ years.
Are those water bits actually from SC? That looks terrible. Has CR seen that? I bit he'd actually be quite upset that is released in that state. Refund time.
Seems there's a barrier around the player that makes the water shader/effects invisible within 10ft or so. Wouldnt CR want actual water on the players avatar? Who approved this crap?
Seems there's a barrier around the player that makes the water shader/effects invisible within 10ft or so. Wouldnt CR want actual water on the players avatar? Who approved this crap?
Lol. They are a really nice addition. They suck soooo much that you will not find one guy on SC saying "please remove them, I can't swim in them"
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Not sure that is a good argument though. Physics in Star Citizen, for exemple, also suck a lot but no one is saying "please remove some collision effects, I can not properly play the game with those the way they are". People just say "fix your crappy game CIG". But the game is still broken after 11+ years and 500+ millions pledged by backers. Well, it is the same with rivers.Lol. They are a really nice addition. They suck soooo much that you will not find one guy on SC saying "please remove them, I can't swim in them"
Last edited:
Exactly, CIG need to fix physic where it is usefull, not add physic in rivers now.
Love this forum :
"CIG need to simplify its game if it wants the game to work"
one guy adding visual rivers without physic
"CIG need to add real physic to rivers now"
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
CIG has rarely prioritized what needs to be prioritized. Case in point physics have been broken since day 1. Still are. You would think CIG would consider physics useful, alas, no.
I think you are overcomplicating it to much. Rivers in SC are crap, much like many other things in the rest of the game suck a lot, physics, AI etc. Those who point that out, whether in this forum or else where are simply saying "CIG fix your crap. It has been 11+ years and you have spent more than half a billion $ we gave you". I think that is fair.
Last edited:
One guy of the visual/planet team can't do physic/gameplay/debug job, I don't see where a priority has been broken here
They are crap only if you expect physics in them which, by your own definition, is not top priority. Visual bugs will be corrected (because, like it or not, SC is alpha). And for the visual quality, even if they are not uptodate with RDR2 rivers or with another game released x years ago, they are good enough to be a great addition to the game.
This is clearly a video of a team of highly skilled AIs jointly planning the next move.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
It was you who said:
Except, all kinds of physics have been broken in SC from day 1, still are: CIG has rarely prioritized what needs to be prioritized.
No, no, they are crap pretty much overall, physics, visuals, splashing effects, interaction, random deaths, underwater simulation, overall fidelity. Not much in them that is not crap to be honest. A very similar situation with the rest of the game features, physics, AI etc
This is Camural commenting on them after doing the video below. He pretty much sums it up:
"CIG gave us 20 new rivers so they can say: "Look we have more than 20 rivers now!" However, it looks cheaply put together (interns?), CIG didn't even check their work at all, water stops in mid air, delta looks horrible. Would be ok-ish f this would be our very first rivers, but they are not. Once again, CIG goes the way of lowest effort and this in year 11 with more than half a billion dollars. I am sure I can make videos about this for the next 10 year at least."
Last edited:
Are you more familiar with a forum or community where people speak with one unified "approved" voice?
The thing about water is, it's entirely physics, flow, resistance, turbulence, waves, it's all entirely physics, you can't do water without doing the physics side of it, what you end up with is....well, a shader!
No, the point is why are they adding rivers at all.
What we have here with SC is a mod for cryengine, not a game. The rivers are graphics assets manually added to individual fps maps.
Which is nice, I guess? But probably best to develop a game first rather than the assets.