Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Ok, now tell us how you really feel about Mike
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
You have to admit though that GRW being designed for muiltiplayer from the start suffers from bad enemy AI and worst friendly AI. For games designed for players to fight each other they don't even try with enemy AI. It just gets worst from there. Game mechanics are dumbed down for console compatibility to increase sales, gameplay is tweaked to encourage micro-transaction. World of Tanks and War Thunder suffers from poor balance and weird priorities to push premium sales. RDR2 Online dropped the interesting survival elements for a more grindy gameplay. AAA games focuses on graphics and cosmetic shops rather than gameplay mechanics relying on players competitiveness to hook them rather than actual game mechanics.I don't mind co-op in the slightest...probably why GR Wildlands is still high up on my playlist. The best mod I ever discovered was a private server mod for RDR online...now I get to play Red Dead co-op PvE with my favourite gang of mates.
I wonder if this thing about longivity isn't biased towards SC because games it is being compared to either had been released for years or is expected to be released soon. Even after SC is released the pro-SC camp will say stuff like, "but they've been playing it for decades before it was even released so the total longivity is longer".Hmm. I hadn't really sat and considered this point. Which game will outlast the others?
ED will survive for a few more years, it's still got a decent playerbase, a niche game that never had a huge playerbase at any point to begin with. Prediction: 2027.
Starfield will do a Fallout4/Skyrim. Be VERY VERY popular for, say, 5 years, and tail off but still have an active playerbase after that with mods etc. They won't be the space sim audience though. Based on skyim 12-15 years, Prediction: 2035.
I'll add NMS - it will continue for many years, perhaps 5-10 years before charging for something new. They made so much damn money they've been living off itthe liesfor years so far and actually turned it into a very good game, even if I don't personally enjoy it. Prediction: 2033.
And SC? A whale and his money etc (paraphrasing), so it won't end anytime soon. Or ... all of a sudden it will collapse in a flurry of legal action, backstabbing and financial accusations.
If there's an ED2 would that count towards the original game's longivity? Because SC had its development reset atleast once accouording to pro-SC group when the scope was expanded, engine switching, refactoring and all that. Wouldn't games like Battlefield count from Battlefield 1942 to the latest one? My argument is each game is an incremental development of the previous one much like each patch of SC or what's shown at each Citizencon. ED2 would probably have mechanics and maybe even codes taken from ED, just like SC's Tier 0. There had never been a llist of features that says "SC complete". Is there is a list of features the MVP will have or its just whatever state it is when CIG couldn't milk it anymore? What about War Thunder? That game was in open Beta for a while, does longivity include open Beta? Closed Beta? World of Warplanes and I think it was Archeage had a relaunch with significant changes to its gameplay, where do you start counting open Beta? Original launch? Final Launch? And then you have Early Access games...
TLDR:
It's not possible to compare a game that is unfinished with no set design goal with other games that has a clear scope. Maybe it's not fair to begin with to compare any game to SC at all because SC operates in its own universe of game development logic.
Just shows if SC had planned all its features before hand CIG would have realized they needed to write their own engine to accomodate everything the needed rather than try to force Cryengine to do things Chris Roberts came up with each time he has a brain-movement.
They hadn't planned on building the game they're building now and they're not admitting the game they're trying to do isn't viable or they made so many mistakes along the way its a giant duck that can't fly anymore.
GRW was built with the old standard Tom Clancy co-op PvE campaign in mind, the PvP nonsense was tacked on later and totally ruined with GR Breakpoint's absolute travesty of a Division style PvP focus (which is why none of us old school Tom Clancy game franchise fans play Breakpoint)...But 'Game mechanics dumbed down for console compatibility'...now where have I heard that well oiled PC master race nonsense before?
Yeah, you're right...I read it all over this forum when ED was released for Xbox GPP...Speaking as a multi-platform gamer of many years (Xbox, PS4/PS5 as well as PC)...it's utter nonsense, stop it
Just because console players primarily (since both PS and Xbox now have full M/KB support) use a controller and aren't forced into using 'office equipment' to play their games, doesn't mean game mechanics are dumbed down simply to suit the input method. Game developers design most modern era action games with a controller in mind since 90% of their sales are console based in the first place. The days of PC being the premier gaming platform have long since gone.
I've also heard (wrongly) from PC only players that console players rely on auto-aim...I hate it personally, never used it (since you can disable it) and I've never known anyone reasonably proficient with a controller using it either...It might be fine for someone new to using a controller, but it takes precision and control away from you just when you need it most...a bit like having someone else grab your mouse hand and moving the crosshair for you, nothing worse.
I mean, hell...I paid a damned sight more for my Nacom v4 pro or Razer Wolverine V2 pro controllers for the PS4/PS5 or the Xbox Elite V2 pro controller I use on PC than I did for my Logitech X56 HOTAS...console gaming isn't quite as cheap and cheerful as it used to be. Believe me, controllers aren't the clumsy, awkward and inaccurate things most dyed in the wool M/KB PC players imagine them to be...especially not the pro versions, even compared to the bog standard supplied bits of wobbly plastic that come free with any console, they're chalk and cheese.
FDev did absolute wonders with the Xbox UI for ED when you consider the sheer amount of control inputs necessary to play...a true feat of game design...and no, the game wasn't dumbed down just because a few thousand Xbox players were now in the mix. They just re-designed and adapted the UI...which is about the only root difference between a console game and a PC game these days...besides requiring more graphics options on PC.
Besides that niggly point, I heartily agree with the rest of your assessments...but poor Ai in games isn't due to the developers 'dumbing down' just for consoles...crap Ai is just crap Ai
Last edited:
Well, to be blunt, we only have CIG's word that most of the effort is going to SQ404. I mean, with the slow progress on SC, it would be hard to believe CIG were lying about that... but it is CIG.
I absoloutely agree with your stance about "misappropriation of funds" although i wouldn't term it like that. Backers are giving money for the development of SC when buying JPGs, but CIG have been absoloutely clear they are making 2 games with the money given.... so, its not like they are doing anything illegal in that regards, just shady as hell.
There is a saving grace here that some of what is being developed for SQ42 is useful for SC, but not all of it.
Thing is, back in the day, it was one product. Star Citizen, where you'd start out in the single player story (with drop in/drop out coop) called Squadron 42, after which, you'd graduate into the 'verse (with moddable private servers, hosted by you, or the live server hosted by CIG).
Then they split it, but they never split the funding or gave people a choice as to where their money went.
They've got themselves in a right old pickle there.
And currently have almost zero official SQ42 funds coming in at all. (Hope that tax credit rebate is juicy this year...)
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Was going to say indeed. There is absolutely zero evidence CIG is dedicating as many resources to SQ42 as some believe. This idea may very well be true but it seems to have been widely accepted by the community without any actual factual base other than CIG’s word for it.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
It’s worst than that. The PU game, SC proper, is sold as is, not crowdfunded anymore. Any ship package where the ship is already in the game is also sold as is, not crowdfunded anymore either. These funds have been and are fully realized by CIG and they can do with those as they see fit. There is absolutely zero obligation for them to reinvest in the PU (or invest in SQ42 either for that matter). And no need to explain anything to anyone except their real investors perhaps.
What the game is today is it. No guarantee or obligation it will grow or improve in the future. It’s down to CIG only discretion to decide where they (re)invest that money.
The only money that could be in question here would be concept money for ships not yet in game. But I dont think that represents as big a figure as all game packages and packages for ships already in game, already sold. Plus, from the moment a concept ship is in the game, the money paid for it becomes also realized by CIG and eliminated from the SQ42 misappropriation discussion.
Last edited:
Game devs didn't design their games and simplify controls so all commands could be input through a came controller?
You don't think they dumbed down/simplified AI teammate controls from the original Ghost Recon game? Ghost Recond 2 was console only and every game since all lacked the planning stage of the first game. Wildlands and Breakpoint being multiplayer made it even worst. They managed to eventually port Operation Flashpoint and its compolicated controls to consoles years later but none of the ArmA series made it to console. And I hear Operation Flashpoint unit control wasn't as good on console.
Flight sims and RTS generally don't make it to consoles but MS Flight Simulator 2012 is on Xbox. Is that before or after flight controllers and keyboards had become widely available for consoles? Up coming ArmA game is also slated for Xbox, but again is this because keyboard and mouse had become more widely available? Just because game developers made it a norm to design for consoles and their control scheme and has become standard doesn't mean controls and mechanics hasn't been dumbed down.
Aim Assist is a very clear example of immitating PC control on a console and it impacts gameplay. Hit register x instead of having to switch to something like a scope or binoculas to check if your shot hit. It's arguable, but it caters to the demographic on the console players who prefers a more casual experience and therefore games that gets the go ahead has mechanics that steers towards it. Instead of haivng 40+ keys for input or the fine control of a mouse they chose the easier path of designing for console limitation and apply it to everything else.
Another example and another way of looking at it is the Ace Combat series. Its designed to be an arcade dogfight game from the start. If the gameplay hadn't been dumbed down to fit the control scheme, why wasn't there an equivalent PC game at the time? They had to have created it for a market, presumably something that already exist or similar? In Ace Combat weapons are not limited to real world numbers, because the game was meant to be fast paced quick cinematic dogfights for its hook and compensate for the long flight of a flight sim. Flight model is simplified with very forgiving behavior, even tamer than any equvalent casual sim on PC and only after its success were there immitations on it on PC, some even went back to limited weapons and more controls. I think Falcon 4.0 was the big PC game around that time and it focused on realism, logically you'd think console games would follow the trend instead of creating a new ganre. There was a game on PS2 I remember that was more realistic than Ace Combat, but it was still simplified in both flight model and controls compared to PC games.
It's not about the PC master race, I wasn't around whenever that discussion was going on. It's about developers making a decision to make their game a certain way at the cost of gameplay mechanics. I referred directly to your comment on GRW coop (being a multi-pplayer game first) at the cost of AI and teammate control, and then continued with other decisions devs had made over the years that had now become industry standard.
Last edited:
Being more complicated and requiring several hundred keyboard inputs doesn't make a 'better' game (or gamer) is what I said...or meant at least
The reason I came back to PC after being an Xbox player for a good many years was my love of flight sims and the lack of peripherals on consoles...and the lack of ArmA to be fair. Don't mention the abomination CodeMasters made with the Xbox 360 release of Op Flashpoint...I did try it, since I had been a heavy Flashpoint player on it's first iteration on PC when it was released...it didn't last long either, exactly the same as the Xbox version of IL2 Sturmovik.
MFS 2020...it's as good on Xbox as it is on PC...but it's more a flight management sim as most GA flight sims are so doesn't really need complicated inputs outside of programming a Garmin autopilot...I've played it on both Xbox with a controller and PC with traditional hotas/M/KB controls but it had limited interest for me due to the lack of Messerschmitts trying to shoot my wings off
My main flight sims are still IL2 or DCS...and I honestly can't see them coming to console at any point due to them being primarily niche and specific titles aimed at a PC audience. As for anything outside of niche genre flight sims...game developers tailor their games to their markets, unfortunately these days, that means we as PC gamers get the cast-offs, port overs and also rans. As an aside, ArmA reforger (much simplified precursor to ArmA 4) is already out on Xbox
Like I said, I agree with most of your assertions but perhaps misunderstood your reference to dumbing down
The reason I came back to PC after being an Xbox player for a good many years was my love of flight sims and the lack of peripherals on consoles...and the lack of ArmA to be fair. Don't mention the abomination CodeMasters made with the Xbox 360 release of Op Flashpoint
...I did try it, since I had been a heavy Flashpoint player on it's first iteration on PC when it was released...it didn't last long either, exactly the same as the Xbox version of IL2 Sturmovik.MFS 2020...it's as good on Xbox as it is on PC...but it's more a flight management sim as most GA flight sims are so doesn't really need complicated inputs outside of programming a Garmin autopilot...I've played it on both Xbox with a controller and PC with traditional hotas/M/KB controls but it had limited interest for me due to the lack of Messerschmitts trying to shoot my wings off
My main flight sims are still IL2 or DCS...and I honestly can't see them coming to console at any point due to them being primarily niche and specific titles aimed at a PC audience. As for anything outside of niche genre flight sims...game developers tailor their games to their markets, unfortunately these days, that means we as PC gamers get the cast-offs, port overs and also rans. As an aside, ArmA reforger (much simplified precursor to ArmA 4) is already out on Xbox
Like I said, I agree with most of your assertions but perhaps misunderstood your reference to dumbing down
Last edited:
Zelda - Tears of the Kingdom says hello.
Oh he pitched for the Hollywood treatment alright
2016 said:
[Withdrawn] Cloud Imperium Games invests £15 million in its UK studio
The US-based video game company is increasing its investment in Foundry 42, a UK games studio it set up with support from UK government.
Talking of some things never changing...
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo85N7P5UeQ&t=1033s
It's all good, at the very least it got me thinking about how to word and type out a coherent argument instead of just saying console controllers dumbs things down.
Is PC games a niche because of the small player base or is it a niche because game devs refuse to develop games with more complicated controls than what would find on a controller? The earlier simplification of game mechanics applies. Is it a case of the current norm being the peek of gaming or is it that we are used to the decades long standard practice that we think of anything more involved as complicated.
In a way the game industry is training us to want less depth in games. There is no incentive for them to make anything more than visually stunning but bland games because spiffy graphics is what get people to buy games (sounds like SC original KS pitch), its less work for them. The weird thing is even consoles are becoming more like PCs now, but games remain pretty shallow and none of the big companies wants to try something new.
ArmA and Kerbal Space Program has a steep learning curve but, are they complicated or are we too used to games with simple mechanics and controls?
I rememeber seeing the The Division (fake) gameplay trailer where the player character automatically closed a car door. People were excited about it, but all I could think of was, it would have been great if there was a context button to close it or to open it and search the back seat for items instead.
I was going to say something about this in the previous post but it was already too long.
Is PC games a niche because of the small player base or is it a niche because game devs refuse to develop games with more complicated controls than what would find on a controller? The earlier simplification of game mechanics applies. Is it a case of the current norm being the peek of gaming or is it that we are used to the decades long standard practice that we think of anything more involved as complicated.
In a way the game industry is training us to want less depth in games. There is no incentive for them to make anything more than visually stunning but bland games because spiffy graphics is what get people to buy games (sounds like SC original KS pitch), its less work for them. The weird thing is even consoles are becoming more like PCs now, but games remain pretty shallow and none of the big companies wants to try something new.
ArmA and Kerbal Space Program has a steep learning curve but, are they complicated or are we too used to games with simple mechanics and controls?
I agree, but having more control input options does allow for more mechanics options. The old X-Wing vs Tie Fighter has a nice energy management where you can adjust them by increments using separate keys for + and -, shields, weapons and engines. The new Star Wars Squadrons has a more simplified version of the control. It might not seem like much but the fine tuning might affect how the game is played and definily affect challenge level. If they want to add some new feature, it'll have to replace something else. Basically having felwer controls puts a limit on the design of the game. Something that might be done manually like picking up items becomes automatic when you run over it, no choice about it. Games like Battlefield, instead of picking up a dropped weapon is simplified to an entire loadout. Call it quality of life or streamlining the game it all comes down to limiting the amount of player control to a fixed number of things it might be good for casual players, but it doesn't actually push games to become anything more than easy to play.
I rememeber seeing the The Division (fake) gameplay trailer where the player character automatically closed a car door. People were excited about it, but all I could think of was, it would have been great if there was a context button to close it or to open it and search the back seat for items instead.
You're referring to game franchise vs a game release. Elite as a franchise has been going since 1984, its longevity is in orders of magnitude greater than SC, unless you count it as a part of the Freelancer franchise.
Because you don't know how the game work.
When the gravity generator is 'on' in the ship, as soon as you enter it you are subject to the gravity of the ship. But if the generator is turned off (when the ship is in soft death), the general gravity is prevalent.
I'm drawing a parallel between Battlefield 3 building on from Battlefield 2 and using some codes there already with how some people say Star Citizen development had to restart when they switched game engine and the various refactoring and redesigning ships ending up with the current SC being a totally different game from original pitch. In a way maybe Star Citizen is a franchize in itself with SC origical pitch, current SC and SQ42.
Longest running unreleased franchise in history. Another first!