Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[LittleAnt]

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.

Source: https://youtu.be/hGtLgpEl3IM




No, no, they are crap pretty much overall, physics, visuals, splashing effects, interaction, random deaths, underwater simulation, overall fidelity. Just pure unrestrained fail. Not much in them that is not crap to be honest. Exactly as 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."

Source: https://youtu.be/0WXr2XwCHl8

Just a big lol.
They are in game now and almost every SC player like that they are in game now and not in a distant future. They are not perfect and we don't care because they add fun to the game.
All the lowest efforts of CIG give me more fun than any other space game I've played/tested, so "A big thank you to CIG for all those low efforts"

 

[LittleAnt]

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.

CIG has asset guys that are paid to do assets. So strange ! They should fire them, existing assets are sufficients

 

[LittleAnt]

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!

You can add water without physics, why not ? SC is a space game first, water physic is absolutely not a priority. Have you seen the water physic of Cyberpunk, it's good no?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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.

Source: https://youtu.be/LdjdxOV2OXc

What do you mean? Chris spent a summer a few years ago reworking the physics engine. Therefore it is fixed, nothing else to be done about it now, because nobody is allowed to touch the code of Genuine Roberts.

Therefore any issues with the physics are just your imagination.

 

[VR Golgot]

Oh, we're still talking about 2022's big addition then?

 

[LittleAnt]

Are you more familiar with a forum or community where people speak with one unified "approved" voice?

I know but in this forum :

Point A : SC should be less complex. Nobobody contradict = everyone implicitly approving

Point B : SC should complexify this. Nobobody contradict = everyone implicitly approving

And, most important, nobody pointing that A contradict B because CIG bad, whatever they are doing.

 

[Viajero]

All the lowest efforts of CIG give me more fun than any other space game I've played/tested, so "A big thank you to CIG for all those low efforts"

I think we have touched on this point many times before. Even the worst of products have some people enjoying them. There is absolutely no shame in enjoying what you can from a crappy product. Be my guest and knock yourself out!

 

[varonica]

You can add water without physics, why not ? SC is a space game first, water physic is absolutely not a priority. Have you seen the water physic of Cyberpunk, it's good no?

It's not water without the physics, this is the issue in game with water, it's simply not water, it's just a coloured shader that doesn't actually follow any rules that water needs to.

Um, Cyberpunk? What the heck does that have to do with anything, you mean apart from the fact they got the water right when CIG couldn't? Is that what you mean. Look I understand you are invested in this game and feel you need to defend it from any and all criticism, but you need to pick the right hill to die on, and water isn't a hill!

 

[Agony_Aunt]

From refunds

 

[LittleAnt]

I think we have touched on this point many times before. Even the worst of products have some people enjoying them.

Correct. But you can change 'some' by 'million' for SC

 

[LittleAnt]

Um, Cyberpunk? What the heck does that have to do with anything, you mean apart from the fact they got the water right when CIG couldn't?

Water in Cyberpunk is crap and nobody care because it's not vital for the game, like in SC.

 

[VR Golgot]

It seems the January marketing budget has been renewed.

I wonder if that'll translate into 3.18 actually functioning before Q2?

 

[Viajero]

Correct. But you can change 'some' by 'million' for SC

I guess it is all relative. "Some" is perfectly applicable to a game that has quite a lot less concurrent players and unit sales than games like No Mans Sky, Elite itself, never mind EVE, etc etc. If we had actual review scores for SC, for exemple, we could discuss this on a more tangible and objective basis but CIG is doing its outmost to avoid those, the reason for that is likely they suspect the scores and reviews would simply reconfirm how crappy the game is, so . But as mentioned, no one is questioning that you can have fun with a crappy game, go ahead!

 

[VR Golgot]

Don't worry, Metacritic reviews are still coming in...

Because of the direction the game has taken, I said goodbye to SC as a potential player several years ago. At the same time, with more than $100, I am also one of the gullible who have participated in this orgy of money destruction.

After more than 10 years of development, a playable (i.e. largely bug-free) version is not in sight. Instead, the whole thing has turned into an orgy of selling virtual spaceships at real-money fantasy prices. A few years ago, even virtual properties on planets were considered for sale for real money.

Unplayable, cannot finish the first mission because i cant grab a simple package.
i tried 3 time now im out. do not buy this game it's buggy as hell

Dont fall for this scam. All the backers money seems to be spent on marketing.

 

[amigacooke]

I know but in this forum :

Point A : SC should be less complex. Nobobody contradict = everyone implicitly approving

Point B : SC should complexify this. Nobobody contradict = everyone implicitly approving

And, most important, nobody pointing that A contradict B because CIG bad, whatever they are doing.

Forums have different people and different people have different opinions.

This is mostly allowed in these forums.

 

[LittleAnt]

I guess it is all relative. "Some" is perfectly applicable to a game that has quite a lot less concurrent players and unit sales than games like No Mans Sky, Elite itself, never mind EVE, etc etc. If we had actual review scores for SC, for exemple, we could discuss this on a more tangible and objective basis but CIG is doing its outmost to avoid those, the reason for that is likely they suspect the scores and reviews would simply reconfirm how crappy the game is, so . But as mentioned, no one is questioning that you can have fun with a crappy game, go ahead!

So crappy that it made 100 millions funding last year and the average playtime (freefly included) is 50 hours

 

[LittleAnt]

Don't worry, Metacritic reviews are still coming in...

Because of the direction the game has taken, I said goodbye to SC as a potential player several years ago...

Lol... I haven't tested the game since several years but I will give you my review on it anyway. Very honest review

 

[Viajero]

So crappy that it made 100 millions funding last year and the average playtime (freefly included) is 50 hours

What CIG sells well is dreams of a future state of the game. Has been doing that for 11+ years. The actual real game though, is sadly still very mediocre and crappy.

Source: https://youtu.be/DoORnyOW-RE

I mean, if you want to believe CIG´s self published, non audited, trackers and financial "blog", a blog that lacks significant elements of basic financial reporting such as a basic balance sheet, be my guest.

And yet, amazingly despite those totally trustworthy "record braking" trackers and transparent "blog", SC has always had a much lower player concurrency number and of actual units sold than most acclaimed space games in a similar genre. And CIG does all it can to prevent reviews and critic scores. All clearly strong hallmarks of a good game.

 

[amigacooke]

So crappy that it made 100 millions funding last year and the average playtime (freefly included) is 50 hours

I expect those who have backed up to a decade ago feel the need to try to extract some sort of recompense for the vast sums ploughed into a game that is still in alpha.

 

[VR Golgot]

Stating that SC is a buggy alpha seems a fair assessment.

Stating that it's very likely to remain so for an extensive amount of time, equally so.

Some people learn from the past, some people don't ¯\(ツ)/¯

Source: https://youtube.com/shorts/EBbyRz7FJSU?feature=share