Star Citizen Thread v6

[1500]

Erm - picking up cargo : https://youtu.be/k38JKOA_IOw?t=37s

Again, that is not gameplay because it does not mean anything. Picking up objects in the engine does not actually mean gameplay. Just means you can pick up objects in the engine. They are showing the tech, but how that actually translates to something to actually do, well they don't show that.

Also how is that cargo? Is there an inventory that they are not showing? Some means of tracking it? storing it? None of that is shown. So it is not cargo. It is like claiming that moving the vending machines is somehow showing cargo mechanics.

 

[n4p0l3on]

What? We're talking about the gameplay (or alleged lack thereof) in recent ATVs.

there was plenty of gameplay in 3.0 demo video from 2016 gamescom

but there is no game, even one year later.

 

[Komemiute]

5. Derelicts and wrecks look very nice, but I have a question. Since it's a persistent universe, does that mean the first players to find them will get all the goodies and leave the vast majority nothing but a nice object to look at?
6. Following on from 5, since these derelicts are all hand-crafted, does that mean a very limited number of them? And how fast will they be added after launch (assuming the game does indeed launch, and derelicts are indeed added after then)? Obviously only CIG can answer this.

I think your answer to this will be: Like all current MMORPG. Imagine the average quest in World of Warcraft. The relict is there and it get instanced for each group of player. Or if it doesn't get instanced it'll be just a grief-fest like (allegedly) all Elite's CGs in Open.

 

[Komemiute]

Iike in 3.0 gamescom 2016 demo? And where is that game now? Certainly not in my harddisk, nor even on my sc account.

Aw, gods- I almost forgot about that. We'll see this GamesCon if it'll end up with the press wetting themselves again at the yell of :"See?! SEE?!? The game is there! Just few more months! MONTHS I TELL YOU!"
Until GamesCon 2018...

 

[1500]

I think your answer to this will be: Like all current MMORPG. Imagine the average quest in World of Warcraft. The relict is there and it get instanced for each group of player. Or if it doesn't get instanced it'll be just a grief-fest like (allegedly) all Elite's CGs in Open.

Why do we need to imagine? Why has CIG not shown us how it will work?

 

[Thargon]

Again, that is not gameplay because it does not mean anything. Picking up objects in the engine does not actually mean gameplay. Just means you can pick up objects in the engine. They are showing the tech, but how that actually translates to something to actually do, well they don't show that.

Also how is that cargo? Is there an inventory that they are not showing? Some means of tracking it? storing it? None of that is shown. So it is not cargo. It is like claiming that moving the vending machines is somehow showing cargo mechanics.

Well, as it's a work in progress, I'm assuming that picking stuff up in Engine is showcasing their progress on object interactions in the game. If they showed you a shiny movie showing them moving stuff in game, you'd just claim they are scripted sequences. I don't see the difference.

How and what do you suggest is "In Game mechanics"? How do you differentiate this from scripted sequences? How is this different than 'in-engine' footage?

I think you're being a little pedantic over the definitions here.

 

[Thargon]

Again, that is not gameplay because it does not mean anything. Picking up objects in the engine does not actually mean gameplay. Just means you can pick up objects in the engine. They are showing the tech, but how that actually translates to something to actually do, well they don't show that.

Also how is that cargo? Is there an inventory that they are not showing? Some means of tracking it? storing it? None of that is shown. So it is not cargo. It is like claiming that moving the vending machines is somehow showing cargo mechanics.

Ohhhhh! I see what you are trying to say now.

Basically - Star Citizen - "What is the point?" - that what they have shown is pointless? Without a need or point in doing something? I guess. They have a lot of parts, just nothing holding it together I guess. They need the main gameplay loop is what you mean?

 

[Knightshark]

[FONT=&]Snippets of gameplay ≠ No gameplay[/FONT]

Well, what i have seen at best are demonstrations of potential gameplay mechanics that were implemented in the engine. What i didn't see yet are these mechanics implemented in a cohesive game, i.e. the PU. It is much easier to set up a scene with some gameplay mechanics that looks cool, but much more difficult to do implement these mechanics in a game at various instances such that still looks cool, is fun, and doesn't become boring or tedious upon repetition.

Just to be clear, ED is struggling with this, too. PP is cool on paper (and in the PP trailer), but the execution is abysmally boring in my opinion.

 

[JohnMice]

Thanks for fighting the good fight, even tho it falls on deaf ears.

Well I don't see it as fighting at all, just different people with different perspectives and ofc expectations.

Some more realistic or based in actual game development knowledge than other's.
In the end we are all gamers with affection for the sci-fi genre and the possibility of a game of the scope of Star Citizen is exciting to a broad range of gamers, not just space fans who like to fly spaceships.

Ignoring the continuous work of CIG and the constant stream of demos, video-updates and reports and dismissing it because it's not yet playable is misunderstanding the core foundation of Star Citizen as a game in development and a crowdfunding project that strives thanks to the showing of it's work in progress to the community.

Complaining that it takes time or that delays happen is missing the point completely. It's supposed to take time, you can't create such a massive ambitious game without running into problems that take time to figure out simply because no one needed to solve them before. There's a reason no other company has accomplished it by now despite the massive interest shown by gamers. What CIG already got established is a development model with the foundations on it's community engagement thus allowing it to not be hindered by money and more importantly time.

We have plenty of fresh examples of games that were rushed and failed horribly to make a good impression which in turn prevented or delayed tremendously the ability to reach their true potential. NMS and Andromeda come to mind but there are many more from several genres. These are games that are released and OK but leave gamers with a sour taste because they clearly could be much better if only the company had more time.

Like said before. CIG business model allows them to keep developing and adding content without the need to rush the foundations to create that big living breathing universe that Chris, and many gamers across the world always dreamed about since kid's.

The big publishers seem to be afraid of pushing for that "dream game" and keep rehashing the same old and limited tried formula that fails to make an everlasting impression.

As for gameplay in Star Citizen, there's underlying mechanics already in place that allow for plenty of it.

I'm talking about a physics grid that allows players to walk inside ships seamlessly which allows for multicrew and ship stealing/board, the zer0Gravity movement which enhances said boarding, the ability to fly very different ships and ofc the First person shooting part.

There are quest's with focus on combat and exploration mostly. That's only in the Universe module ofc. We have dedicated combat in ships and on foot and racing modules.

As for videos from ingame footage, there's plenty on Youtube to choose from the talented community of Star Citizen backers:

[video=youtube;crlbnw-KV6U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crlbnw-KV6U[/video]

[video=youtube;J_XQGreE8pU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_XQGreE8pU[/video]

[video=youtube_share;Rb4XE3c41Xg]https://youtu.be/Rb4XE3c41Xg[/video]

There's also the gamescom and citizencom demonstration of the possibilities of gameplay that the developed tech allows them and the direction in which Chris envisions the game to play out.

Even if it doesn't translate at 100% in the end it's the direction that matters, showing that to backers is important because they are the ones funding it.

 

[Voivod]

Oh god this DREAMS!!! speech and the EVIL publishers propaganda stuff again
6 years... still going strong and always accompanied by a bunch of videos.

I just wish the game released already so the voices can stop!

 

[Maruun]

Well I don't see it as fighting at all, just different people with different perspectives and ofc expectations.

Some more realistic or based in actual game development knowledge than other's.
In the end we are all gamers with affection for the sci-fi genre and the possibility of a game of the scope of Star Citizen is exciting to a broad range of gamers, not just space fans who like to fly spaceships.

Ignoring the continuous work of CIG and the constant stream of demos, video-updates and reports and dismissing it because it's not yet playable is misunderstanding the core foundation of Star Citizen as a game in development and a crowdfunding project that strives thanks to the showing of it's work in progress to the community.

Complaining that it takes time or that delays happen is missing the point completely. It's supposed to take time, you can't create such a massive ambitious game without running into problems that take time to figure out simply because no one needed to solve them before. There's a reason no other company has accomplished it by now despite the massive interest shown by gamers. What CIG already got established is a development model with the foundations on it's community engagement thus allowing it to not be hindered by money and more importantly time.

We have plenty of fresh examples of games that were rushed and failed horribly to make a good impression which in turn prevented or delayed tremendously the ability to reach their true potential. NMS and Andromeda come to mind but there are many more from several genres. These are games that are released and OK but leave gamers with a sour taste because they clearly could be much better if only the company had more time.

Like said before. CIG business model allows them to keep developing and adding content without the need to rush the foundations to create that big living breathing universe that Chris, and many gamers across the world always dreamed about since kid's.

The big publishers seem to be afraid of pushing for that "dream game" and keep rehashing the same old and limited tried formula that fails to make an everlasting impression.

As for gameplay in Star Citizen, there's underlying mechanics already in place that allow for plenty of it.

I'm talking about a physics grid that allows players to walk inside ships seamlessly which allows for multicrew and ship stealing/board, the zer0Gravity movement which enhances said boarding, the ability to fly very different ships and ofc the First person shooting part.

There are quest's with focus on combat and exploration mostly. That's only in the Universe module ofc. We have dedicated combat in ships and on foot and racing modules.

As for videos from ingame footage, there's plenty on Youtube to choose from the talented community of Star Citizen backers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crlbnw-KV6U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_XQGreE8pU

https://youtu.be/Rb4XE3c41Xg

There's also the gamescom and citizencom demonstration of the possibilities of gameplay that the developed tech allows them and the direction in which Chris envisions the game to play out.

Even if it doesn't translate at 100% in the end it's the direction that matters, showing that to backers is important because they are the ones funding it.

Thats the problem isnt it, sofar very little they showed actually ever happen to be playable. Just take the gamescom "livepresentation" in 2016 it wasnt shown as a tech demo that should show possiblitys it was marketed as "Look how far we are and this is what you get at the end of the year" just to hear that actual designing of 3.0 started in january 2017. So how the hell was that a presentation for anything that will come or be playable in 3.0.

He fished out ALOT of money and created ALOT of hype with it in a seperate theater and asking BACKERS to pay tickets to get lied to in the face. I remember foundly how we had discussion that the entire presentation was nothing but a huge hoax to get money. And all those diehard "informed" citizen telling us how that was real and 3.0 will come as well as SQ42 this year and citizencon will blow our minds away ect.
In the end those "informed" citizen had less idea about the state of the game after viewing all those fancy videos from AtV then the critiques that asked difficult questions.

And this gamescom wont be different, you will see again a "live-presentation" and claims that it will come end of year but chris get shot by the developers giving out dates as usual. And the citizen will gladly throw money at again receiving nothing but fancy videos and shiny expensive shipsales. We had this circlejerk for several years now and people still dont ask questions but rather nod like puppies that have a plastic bone infront of them gladly chewing on it.

 

[LeSabre]

Gotta love all the fuss over "physics grids" and "ship boarding" stuff, it's of course all completely revolutionary and never been done before, as long as you discount any game with multiple vehicle types that you can swap between. It's just jump out of the car, jump into the npc's lorry, drive into the airport, steal the plane, fly around a bit and then 3.0 it at full burn into a helicopter.

Seriously, there's nothing new about going from one vehicle to another in a game, even in a fully three dimensional environment, don't let the buzz words fool you into thinking it's any more complicated than that.

Gamescon this year, CIG show up, make more really quite impressive videos of stuff they wish they could code, rake in a bunch more money, then once again stall like crazy (hi there again Mr blocker) until Citcon where they rinse and repeat the flashy show, maybe once again charge entry for a "private" (although it gets broadcast to all, live) showing of their latest round of wishful thinking and maybe the video they've been working on for the last 9 months while completely forgetting they are supposed to be making a piece of software that people can use.

Every year, same thing, every year, they deliver a fraction (if anything) of their proposals while patting themselves on the back, every year, other games companies make awesome games that get played.

 

[Knightshark]

Gotta love all the fuss over "physics grids" and "ship boarding" stuff, it's of course all completely revolutionary and never been done before, as long as you discount any game with multiple vehicle types that you can swap between. It's just jump out of the car, jump into the npc's lorry, drive into the airport, steal the plane, fly around a bit and then 3.0 it at full burn into a helicopter.

Seriously, there's nothing new about going from one vehicle to another in a game, even in a fully three dimensional environment, don't let the buzz words fool you into thinking it's any more complicated than that.

Gamescon this year, CIG show up, make more really quite impressive videos of stuff they wish they could code, rake in a bunch more money, then once again stall like crazy (hi there again Mr blocker) until Citcon where they rinse and repeat the flashy show, maybe once again charge entry for a "private" (although it gets broadcast to all, live) showing of their latest round of wishful thinking and maybe the video they've been working on for the last 9 months while completely forgetting they are supposed to be making a piece of software that people can use.

Every year, same thing, every year, they deliver a fraction (if anything) of their proposals while patting themselves on the back, every year, other games companies make awesome games that get played.

I think the point is that you can walk around in these vehicles while they are moving. Of course, that only matters if you have some reason to walk around, i.e. there is something to do. Everyone is imagining capital ship battles with marines and fighter pilots on board. The thing just is that CIG doesn't even have a tech demo showing that their game supports this kind of grandeur...

 

[dayrth]

Well, as it's a work in progress, I'm assuming that picking stuff up in Engine is showcasing their progress on object interactions in the game. If they showed you a shiny movie showing them moving stuff in game, you'd just claim they are scripted sequences. I don't see the difference.

How and what do you suggest is "In Game mechanics"? How do you differentiate this from scripted sequences? How is this different than 'in-engine' footage?

I think you're being a little pedantic over the definitions here.

I think the point 1500 was trying to make is:

Picking up a box, carrying it to somewhere else and putting it down again is a mechanic.

Finding someone who wants to sell you a commodity, buying a quantity of it from them, THEN picking up the boxes, loading them in to the ship, THEN flying somewhere else, finding someone who want's to buy the commodity (for a higher price than you paid hopefully), and selling it to them. That is gameplay.

Having a nice map to run around and weapons to shoot, those are assets.

Having to get to the other side of a map to complete a task when the map is full of NPCs attacking you, trying to outflank you, waiting to ambush you in order to prevent you completing that task. That is gameplay.

 

[urFOOLISHNESS]

Why didn't they first build "the whole verse" but with nothing but stars and that station thing but a persistent albeit barren 'verse, then add content to it from the foundation up? Especially if it is supposed to be a seamless experience. The draw of space sim for me is the scale and mystery of it all. I am planning on buying a gaming PC just for this game. But not until I see the scale that I had hoped for.

 

[Thargon]

Why didn't they first build "the whole verse" but with nothing but stars and that station thing but a persistent albeit barren 'verse, then add content to it from the foundation up? Especially if it is supposed to be a seamless experience. The draw of space sim for me is the scale and mystery of it all. I am planning on buying a gaming PC just for this game. But not until I see the scale that I had hoped for.

Probably because, it would be boring with nothing to do. They wouldn't have gotten their original Kickstarter funding, let alone the stupid millions they (allegedly) have at the moment. Unless games/pregames/concepts show cool stuff, noone would back them.

 

[MTBFritz]

I guess thats something we had established years ago.


Pretty much everything about Star Citizen is flashy and......thats it. There is no underlying complexity except for the basic code and features that the CiG devs fail to implement (delta patcher anybody?). Most of their videos that get fans hyped up so much are little productions in cinebox which dont resemble the real game nor are any indication for progress made. Its just a video.

Star Citizen looks really beautiful from afar. Its when you step in and try to get some more information that you notice all these red flags. They only become bigger the more you follow the project and everything around it (SC community especially is a very telling thing). Thats the real bummer here. SC fans tell you that you know nothing until you start "digging into it" and research but doing so only uncovers all the lies, deceptions, malicious marketing tactics, toxic community and past failures so "digging in" is the last that that would help CiG sell this tech-demo. The most valuable videos, evidence and proof will come from fans just like Knightshark said. THOSE videos will be actually representing the game. Everything from CiG could be a hoax. Seeing as past presentation from CiG turned out I ll go with Hoax for now until they put something on the PU that makes me shut up. Thats why I m not really impressed with the videos linked by Jon93. It looks nice but so does a sunset and that ones free......

 

[LeSabre]

Why didn't they first build "the whole verse" but with nothing but stars and that station thing but a persistent albeit barren 'verse, then add content to it from the foundation up? Especially if it is supposed to be a seamless experience. The draw of space sim for me is the scale and mystery of it all. I am planning on buying a gaming PC just for this game. But not until I see the scale that I had hoped for.

If you're thinking about buying a gaming pc or even building one yourself, never do it for one game and never wait until that game is out because you'll be waiting a very long time and by the time it does arrive, you'll find you've missed out on a veritable smorgasboard of others. A pc is for life, not just for an unreleased game.

Also, they didn't build the whole play area because they couldn't then and can't now, the server power alone to have that map running the way they want it to run in the engine they have (all in real time, just an empty universe) would require more processor power than the mind can boggle. Imagine how much processor power it takes to render one planet at high detail, or one moon in a 3d engine, then multiply that by 3 (average planetary body count per system for SC apparently) and then by 100 (total systems). They want to do everything as visually impressive as possible, that takes a heavy toll on the servers as soon as there's any hint of activity from anyone touching anything.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Probably because, it would be boring with nothing to do. They wouldn't have gotten their original Kickstarter funding, let alone the stupid millions they (allegedly) have at the moment. Unless games/pregames/concepts show cool stuff, noone would back them.

Well, it did work for Elite but after two-three years it's still vast and shallow with several poor game mechanics added over the years.

 

[Thargon]

Well, it did work for Elite but after two-three years it's still vast and shallow with several poor game mechanics added over the years.

Agreed. Elite is and does feel a bit empty - because its so vast! - however in general although it does make you feel a bit lost, it is kind of shallow in general. I do think they have improved that a lot over the years though, and they are continually adding content. Anyway offtopic reply

But I don't think either 'game' would have gotten off the ground with funding if they didn't at least show some decent content.