Great idea - I love being introduced to films I wouldn't normally (go to) watch. Three spring to mind, 'The Imitation Game' (excellent and horrible), 'Bronson' (mad and utterly mesmerising!) and 'The Purge II' (much better than expected).
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Stop this nascent piracy!
Yeah, one of the films I found that way was Being John Malkovich, something I might never have come across otherwise!
We had a cinema that ran wednesday specials. Often surprise stuff. I was a regular guest there and it mostly paid off. Being John Malovich was heavily appraised by a friend of mine - it took me a while until I finally watched it. In a special night with Fight Club all along.
No no, Yul Brynner was in it...
SaltEMike's current stream "Just chatting"
I thought Just Chatting was basically what young scantily clad ladies titled their streams. What can we expect from Mike's streams now?
SaltEMike's current stream "Just chatting"
I thought Just Chatting was basically what young scantily clad ladies titled their streams. What can we expect from Mike's streams now?
I don't know what you're implying, but if it involves lots of thin straps I think it would fit right in with Star Citizen!
...a scantily clad Mike...?SaltEMike's current stream "Just chatting"
I thought Just Chatting was basically what young scantily clad ladies titled their streams. What can we expect from Mike's streams now?
(Let me know how you get on with that...)
You can't really understand the level of immersion of SC without experiencing it.
Waking up in your ship floating in space, switching the light, sitting up in bed, getting up and feeling the thirst. Take a bottle in your hand, open it, drink it and put it on the edge of the kitchenette.
Walk to the pilot's seat and sit down. Dive to the ground and land between the trees on a snowy planet. Leave your seat, walk to the cargo bay. Press the button on the wall that opens the ramp and see the landscape appear while the door opens. Go down the ramp and find yourself facing an icy wind that pushes you back and prevents you from seeing more than 5m away. The visor of the helmet freezes, I have to clean it with my hand regularly. Glimpse the light of an outpost through the storm, climb the stairs, open the door and find yourself warm and safe. Go to the rover call station and call a ROC. Exit into the icy wind, go to the ROC and open the cockpit, climb in and turn on the engine. To park the ROC in the cargo bay of the ship, I have to do it twice because the cargo bay is narrow. I leave the ROC and close the door of the cargo bay. Go back to the pilot seat. A new day of mining begins...
All this without having opened a single menu, teleporting or having a loading screen. And that's just a small part of the immersive aspect of SC.
Last edited:
Untill some nasty bug rudely breaks that immersion. For less immersive game types those kinds of thing are more like "ahh such happens". And anyways it is still 2d flatscreen.
Why don't any of these "enlightened by the light of SC" make reference to the fact that the game has been in development for 10 years now? By what he says, does Wagar want to go on record as being in favor of the way CIG is developing SC?
Sorry, it's not something that can be ignored. I understand that many may be discovering SC now, but why isn't the same kind of assessment being made with ED?
I mean, Wagar (for example) says that he feels ED has no room for improvement, that its mechanics are already repetitive and boring, and that Frontier is wrong in game development... but the reality is that he's been playing a full game for 8 YEARS, is that reality worthless?
Let's stop with the Alphas, scopes and theroycrafting nonsense; currently both games have 10 years behind them, which one is a better game, more complete, more polished and, above all, more playable and enjoyable?
If SC has the "in development Alpha" label, do we have to ignore that reality?
All the "supposed" ED Refugees say the same things: "SC is mind-blowing, what immersive stuff it WILL HAVE, what mechanics it WILL HAVE, what a great universe it WILL HAVE...", everything for them is WOW, and not how boring and repetitive ED is. Sure, to say that about a game that IS NOT YET NOTHING, and that after 10 years you have to keep saying in every sentence the never ending "WILL HAVE", and belittle and overlook that Frontier has been giving you a COMPLETE game for 8 years.
It's clear... Frontier's mistake was that on December 16, 2014 they said Elite Dangerous was a Gold game... if today ED was still an "in development Alpha" game, obviously there would be no discussion, right? clearly ED would be better than SC, right?
Well that makes no sense, it's an invention of verse fans to justify SC's indefensible and exorbitant development time.
Sorry, someone who has played a couple of months to SC can not say that the game is the best Space Sim, not with the current state of the game; broken, with hardly any content, without stability, without develop any of its core technologies such as persistence or server meshing, etc... SC right now is a mediocre game, as it has been for the last 10 years. I can't take any of these guys' comments seriously, sorry.
Sorry, it's not something that can be ignored. I understand that many may be discovering SC now, but why isn't the same kind of assessment being made with ED?
I mean, Wagar (for example) says that he feels ED has no room for improvement, that its mechanics are already repetitive and boring, and that Frontier is wrong in game development... but the reality is that he's been playing a full game for 8 YEARS, is that reality worthless?
Let's stop with the Alphas, scopes and theroycrafting nonsense; currently both games have 10 years behind them, which one is a better game, more complete, more polished and, above all, more playable and enjoyable?
If SC has the "in development Alpha" label, do we have to ignore that reality?
All the "supposed" ED Refugees say the same things: "SC is mind-blowing, what immersive stuff it WILL HAVE, what mechanics it WILL HAVE, what a great universe it WILL HAVE...", everything for them is WOW, and not how boring and repetitive ED is. Sure, to say that about a game that IS NOT YET NOTHING, and that after 10 years you have to keep saying in every sentence the never ending "WILL HAVE", and belittle and overlook that Frontier has been giving you a COMPLETE game for 8 years.
It's clear... Frontier's mistake was that on December 16, 2014 they said Elite Dangerous was a Gold game... if today ED was still an "in development Alpha" game, obviously there would be no discussion, right? clearly ED would be better than SC, right?
Well that makes no sense, it's an invention of verse fans to justify SC's indefensible and exorbitant development time.
Sorry, someone who has played a couple of months to SC can not say that the game is the best Space Sim, not with the current state of the game; broken, with hardly any content, without stability, without develop any of its core technologies such as persistence or server meshing, etc... SC right now is a mediocre game, as it has been for the last 10 years. I can't take any of these guys' comments seriously, sorry.
Last edited:
I own SC, played it for months, and now I never play it anymore because it isn't even close to being a finished experience. Yes, it is pretty and immersive in places like the above comment, but it isn't even close to done as defined by its alpha designation, tons of missing features, and a god-awful amount of bugs in the game. Maybe it's better now; I haven't looked in a long time.
It's not a game yet; still a very polished, highly functional tech demo.
I'll wait for it to enter Beta before I play it again. Great graphics can't be the only thing it does well for it to be a game.
Last edited:
If that sort of thing appeals to you then take a look at The Long Dark. It's set in the Canadian wilderness, and whilst it can be brutally unforgiving to start with, persevere and it's really quite stunning in it's own way. Albeit the graphics are styalised rather than 'hi-def'.
Last edited:
I've experienced much of this in Space Engineers. I'll grant you that SE doesn't measure up to SC graphically, though with mods it can be pretty darn immersive!
I also get base-building, ship-building, properly imagined zero-G environments, pretty decent flight physics, life support mechanics, damage mechanics, etc. But I will grant you that SE doesn't come close to matching SC from an exploration perspective - your planets, cities, biomes, stations, etc - this is what attracted me to SC in the first place. Pity I couldn't get it to install.
BTW, the things you advocate, I get it - I totally enjoy that immersion in SE and games like Subnautica as well (though having to drink water and use the bathroom is a bit overzealous IMO), and I can't wait to hopefully experience something similar in Starfield next year.
Okay. That's gone on my 'take a look at list'. Thanks for posting the pictures.
Ditto.
For me (and other saying it in the DW video comment or elsewhere) the strong immersive aspect of SC ruined all other space games. Everything feel "fake" and gamey in comparison. ED is certainly more complete, polished, playable but the "more enjoyable" has been ruined by SC for me.
No, just hear DW, Kate or other well known refugee. For the immersive aspect and universe it's not "WILL HAVE" but already "HAS". Listen to DW, he talks about the immersive aspect SC has now, not in the future.
You can say it's mediocre if you want (but you should try dogfight and mining before saying it). But despite it's bugs, as said by DW it's already the more immersive space game on the market.
Last edited:
Do you think Drew could also tell me which genre of music is the bestest?