If by "game" we mean "virtual spaceship collectible game" and by "fun factor" we mean the fun of owning non-existent capital ships and dreaming about flying them.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
What you're talking about here is manually creating each planet.
You procgen the base planet and tune it manually after. Something similar to what Bethesda is doing with Starfield.
Everybody know it, CIG has always said that every procgen creation will have a human pass.
Turtles are back in the next patch !
Ugh, not even the PoIs are procedurally placed. It will be a farming fest with griefers camping the ever same locations. Superb game design. But apparently all the they are capable of.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
I dont think anyone is denying that fun can be had with crap games. You are a self proclaimed exemple.
Not sure what is the point you are trying to make about the alleged funding though. Theranos raised close to 1 $ billion. Madoff investment fraud was estimated by prosecutors at 64 $ billion. Etc. People putting money in something does not mean that something is good. In the case of SC, much like the blood analysis tech of Theranos or the investment tech of Madoff, it still is very much crap.
Everyone here (you too) denies that the actual fun given by SC can be the main reason of the exploding funding we see since the beginning of the year.
But for sure it doesn't fit well with the unplayable/game breaking bugs every 5 min narrative.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
No, that is not what is happening here. It is actually you who argues that because you have fun that must be the main reason of quality and/or funding. Even without offering any independent evidence linking both (such as good widespread scores/reviews, high live concurrency stats etc) to justify it.
All we are replying to that is that anecdotal fun or alleged funding do not necessarily mean there is a good product. The Theranos or Madoff frauds are just a couple such exemples. Much like the products offered in those highly funded cases, SC is also crap.
Last edited:
I know they've said that.
But what we are talking about in practical terms is CIG deciding what will be in every system, and on every planet. Do you think the system is generated based on rules? No, each planet will be decided upon by CIG, this system will have say 1 gas giant of x size, 1 icy planet of y size, 2 moon of z etc and they will design each system. No, wait, this system should have 2 gas giants and x number of moons, etc.
They will design exactly what will go in to a system, on to a planet, etc. Now they will use tools to 'generate' the planet, sure, you could call that procgen if you like.
They are to all intents and purposes manually creating every planet, every POI, every feature, every river, every settlement, every identifiable asset that you think differentiates SC from other games and being immersive and detailed.
They will never be able to create 100 systems with planets and biomes though. Because they are doing them manually. Tools like painting the surface block by block with detail and features takes a long time.
What are Bethesda doing? I'm not sure. I suspect the vast majority of their systems and planets are generated as they are in ED and NMS, and then they are manually adding all the core storyline cities and outposts and missions as they would with Skyrim, just being spread out over many systems and planets rather than over a single undulating landscape map. I imagine Starfield are doing something mid way between NMS (basically all procgen) and SC (basically hand crafted, hence 1 system so far).
Except that last official video I watched in SC planet gen they claimed they had given up on procgen the planets in game themselves and now mostly handcraft, it's not tuning, basically it's hand building. The tools themselves use procgen, ie 'we'll put trees on this plane, ice here" and etc, but they use them to hand craft the planet, every inch needs to be directly crafted by the developers so there's no procgen going on in the game itself during the planet generation.
Your formula is just bad.
It's been pointed out to you a few times, but that doesn't actually seem to be the case any more:
But don't worry, Chris says such a system can still really fire out the content...
"An artist should be able to crank out a moon, or even a base planet, in a day or two days." - Chris Roberts [2016]
Oh we know bud. We know...
That's nothing. Witness this guy's excitement at 'tortoise features'
I'm also not sure if this has ever been done before...
Well, that's good news then. Any ETA on sandwords?
Unfortunately Ray's analyses generally suck. (It doesn't help that most of the footage he's used there is from mass gatherings which had notably low frames, and then ended in 30Ks)
The server performance with 100+ players definitely does suck. And so does the client performance when those 100 players gather and try to actually do things together...
I mean, I don't think I'm being some harbringer of doom or anything when I say:
This is not good:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJYZ5OUl9Fc&t=100s
Well it didn't suck for me and my humble system.
I don't just follow Star Citizen from all the videoclips of all the back-to-bed bugs and various game crashes shown on this thread. I also try to watch Drew Wagar's stream. I follow his classic playthrus so I sometimes watch him on Star Citizen as well. The thing is, I find it highly boring to watch. He says he's having a whale of a time, but I don't see him doing anything
He goes into quantum ftl, opens the back of his ship, has a virtual beer and watches the stars streak by with his mates. Virtual beer is worse than non-alcohol beer... at least that's cold and wet
Please don't humblebrag about your 2070
Follow Kate instead of DW if you don't like what he does. When she opens the back of her ship, it's rarely to look at the stars
