The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Snarfbuckle]

but I don't see a new date or even target for 1.0 production release.

Yea, this i agree with.

They have a VERY loose schedule and while I can understand if they might have a problem giving a proposed date if they honestly have no idea how long a problem takes they should at least be able to give a rough patch roadmap.

Sure, we have the 3.0 to 4.0 but from 3.0 to 4.0 or even 7.0 they should at least be able to give hint on the following:

- What are the minimum mechanics left to release SQ42.
- Is it 3.0
- Is it 3.1 (is MINING required?)
- Is it 4.0 (Jump-points seems like a required mechanic but they COULD push that before MINING since that is hardly a military job in SQ42)

So there might be certain aspects from each patch needed for SQ42 but should they not in that case be moved up before the other parts like mining and PLANTING CROPS?

Last time I checked SQ42 was not a Navy version of Farmville.

 

[Voivod]

It's a big universe guys... SC has only laid claim to a tiny tiny piece of it so far. There's room to enjoy both games, trust me, I do.

Really? Then why do you post things like this:

Try star citizen. they have a $35 intro pack. It'll blow your mind, and leave you asking why you wasted anytime with E: D..

then you realize you just did everything that was available to do in SC... and start thinking about coming back to E: D...

So, my suggestion is give E: D another try... it'll be at least another year (or two.. or three..) before SC is live, and you'll need something to fill the void until then. At that point, you can ditch E: D permanently

And please stop telling us SC is fun.
We've played it, the ones that find it fun, do, the ones that don't, don't.

Also

(and when they do, of course, I'll have to buy it as $50 expansion packs... as I have every single time they release one

FD have released one expansion for ED. Not sure what you've been buying "every single time"

 

[Rolan]

I see a lot of criticism here of how the SC was made, the decisions they made, the drama going on behind the scenes, how others could do it beter, blah blah, but very little on the actual game play.

Why on hearth would you go that way?

There is no gameplay to criticize, flying a ship to two stations, 3 missions (there are more but only 3 are "unique", many of the others are just the same one different location) and a little of FPS with some suits to buy... that's your gameplay? No multicrew mechanics, no mission system, no planetary landings, no NPCs (and no, the pirates and the Npcs of the shops are nothing to praise), no role/proffesion mechanics/whatever you wanna call it... (and a looong list of stuff btw)

When we can trade, do other missions, explore, build... if it's any good it will be said, if not it will be critizised and is how it should be. But please don't make it so easy for them to destroy you talking about gameplay when is one the things SC lacks, we have many ships but very little to do with them.

 

[Tippis]

Why on hearth would you go that way?

There is no gameplay to criticize, flying a ship to two stations, 3 missions (there are more but only 3 are "unique", many of the others are just the same one different location) and a little of FPS with some suits to buy... that's your gameplay? No multicrew mechanics, no mission system, no planetary landings, no NPCs (and no, the pirates and the Npcs of the shops are nothing to praise), no role/proffesion mechanics/whatever you wanna call it... (and a looong list of stuff btw)

When we can trade, do other missions, explore, build... if it's any good it will be said, if not it will be critizised and is how it should be. But please don't make it so easy for them to destroy you talking about gameplay when is one the things SC lacks, we have many ships but very little to do with them.

Virtual +1 because I haven't been diligent enough to spam that rep button since the last time.

 

[Monk]

Yea, this i agree with.

They have a VERY loose schedule and while I can understand if they might have a problem giving a proposed date if they honestly have no idea how long a problem takes they should at least be able to give a rough patch roadmap.

Sure, we have the 3.0 to 4.0 but from 3.0 to 4.0 or even 7.0 they should at least be able to give hint on the following:

- What are the minimum mechanics left to release SQ42.
- Is it 3.0
- Is it 3.1 (is MINING required?)
- Is it 4.0 (Jump-points seems like a required mechanic but they COULD push that before MINING since that is hardly a military job in SQ42)

So there might be certain aspects from each patch needed for SQ42 but should they not in that case be moved up before the other parts like mining and PLANTING CROPS?

Last time I checked SQ42 was not a Navy version of Farmville.

If there is a problem they do not know how long it might take to fix then they don't know how to fix it. That should be a red flag for them.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

FD have released one expansion for ED. Not sure what you've been buying "every single time"

This confuses me too.

Sure, at release the game cost 60 USD and horizons cost about 60 USD at release as well (if i remember correctly) but today you get both for 25 USD a piece.

And they complain even TODAY that Horizon is to expensive when it's 25 instead of the 60 it had on release a year ago.

Not that i can complain since i backed for enough money to get a lifetime pass so all I can do is complain about the lack of depth.

- - - Updated - - -

Why on hearth would you go that way?

There is no gameplay to criticize, flying a ship to two stations, 3 missions (there are more but only 3 are "unique", many of the others are just the same one different location) and a little of FPS with some suits to buy... that's your gameplay? No multicrew mechanics, no mission system, no planetary landings, no NPCs (and no, the pirates and the Npcs of the shops are nothing to praise), no role/proffesion mechanics/whatever you wanna call it... (and a looong list of stuff btw)

When we can trade, do other missions, explore, build... if it's any good it will be said, if not it will be critizised and is how it should be. But please don't make it so easy for them to destroy you talking about gameplay when is one the things SC lacks, we have many ships but very little to do with them.

Agreed.

Yea, we can fly between navigational points and look at the stars and imagine stuff, like better netcode.

And yes, we can LEAVE our ships and take people with us so that IS cool, but to say it has a lot of gameplay is rather extreme. It's an alpha testing ground at the moment for game mechanics and will continue to be so for each new mechanic they add until they get 4.0 out and other systems to visit.

EDIT:

The dogfighting that is essentially the CORE of the gameplay IS damn fun but then I can use the arena mode and skip the bad netcode.

 

[VidarSnipes]

This confuses me too.

Sure, at release the game cost 60 USD and horizons cost about 60 USD at release as well (if i remember correctly) but today you get both for 25 USD a piece.

60 USD for Horizons if you didn't have the base game, so in effect you were buying ED and ED:H in a bundle, or 45 USD for Horizons only.

 

[Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat]

Why on hearth would you go that way?

There is no gameplay to criticize, flying a ship to two stations, 3 missions (there are more but only 3 are "unique", many of the others are just the same one different location) and a little of FPS with some suits to buy... that's your gameplay? No multicrew mechanics, no mission system, no planetary landings, no NPCs (and no, the pirates and the Npcs of the shops are nothing to praise), no role/proffesion mechanics/whatever you wanna call it... (and a looong list of stuff btw)

When we can trade, do other missions, explore, build... if it's any good it will be said, if not it will be critizised and is how it should be. But please don't make it so easy for them to destroy you talking about gameplay when is one the things SC lacks, we have many ships but very little to do with them.

Rolan, the silent assassin, strikes again with another critical hit to the evangelical solar plexus region with an understated stab of realism.... Ouch!

 

[Snarfbuckle]

60 USD for Horizons if you didn't have the base game, so in effect you were buying ED and ED:H in a bundle, or 45 USD for Horizons only.

At best I can agree that Horizons as a standalone was too expensive at release but otherwise it was fine.

 

[Tippis]

To get the topic away from the daily everyone-tries-to-avoid-talking-about-ED-while-comparing-to-ED jostle, have a look at this piece of fiction:
http://www.redbull.com/en/games/stories/1331846115570/star-citizen-infographic-red-bull-games

I wonder how many backer-bucks CIG paid for them to post that fantasy.

• 1,750,211 players have backed so far? No, that many players have created an RSI account for some reason or another.
• The old 100 sextillion km claim, which is still a complete confusion of what it even measures (and wrong either way).
• The interpretation that this will be the final length of the game, when no-one knows what it even refers to yet.
• That the game currently has 77 systems, rather than not even one.
• That it will take 2 days to visit every system, which is unknown, and pathetically low if true.
• The notion that you can determine scope by script length.
• The notion that script length is a “favourable” point of comparison.
• Calling it a blockbuster (or AAA) before it has made a single dollar or even been released, and before we even know the number of sales.
• Implying that being expensive is something to brag about.

Oh my sides.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

To get the topic away from the daily everyone-tries-to-avoid-talking-about-ED-while-comparing-to-ED jostle, have a look at this piece of fiction:
http://www.redbull.com/en/games/stories/1331846115570/star-citizen-infographic-red-bull-games

I wonder how many backer-bucks CIG paid for them to post that fantasy.

• 1,750,211 players have backed so far? No, so many players have created an RSI account for some reason or another.
• The old 100 sextillion km claim, which is still a complete confusion of what it even measures (and wrong either way).
• The interpretation that this will be the final length of the game, when no-one knows what it even refers to yet.
• That the game currently has 77 systems, rather than not even one.
• That it will take 2 days to visit every system, which is unknown, and pathetically low if true.
• The notion that you can determine scope by script length.
• The notion that script length is a “favourable” point of comparison.
• Calling it a blockbuster (or AAA) before it has made a single dollar or even been released, and before we even know the number of sales.
• Implying that being expensive is something to brag about.

Oh my sides.

And nothing about the ONE thing that is actually different from other modern games so far that is actually one of the selling points, fully modeled 1:1 scaled ships?

I mean, the above statistics says NOTHING about the game (proposed or otherwise) or even game mechanics. It's just a bunch of NUMBERS for a game not yet released.

 

[marx]

Slightly off-topic, but might still be relevant about SC:

Pretty graphics alone does not a good game make, Rise of The Robots (1990's) already tried that and failed badly enough to be cited as the reason why devs should not rely on pixel polish to sell games (even though it had a nice soundtrack too, much better than 'Full Burn' lol cheesefest by Cliche Roberts).

Oh yes, I remember Rise of the Robots. It had great graphics, and gameplay that was bland at best. In the very same year, another 2D fighting game featuring robots was released for MS-DOS, called One Must Fall: 2097. Unlike RotR, it had graphics that were average at best, although it had great music and audio. However, gameplay was so good that to this day, it's considered one of, if not the, best 2D fighting games for the PC. I pick it up every couple of years or so, and the gameplay held up remarkably well, which is why the game has aged well.
That, and the audio. Music and sound tend to "age" much slower than graphics do.

Meanwhile, the problem with building on top-end graphics (fidelity and such) is that what's revolutionary today will be standard fare in two-three years. So focusing on wowing customers with incredible graphics only really works if you can release your game on a rather tight schedule.
As an excellent counter-example, Duke Nukem Forever planned this too, but they kept falling behind on their (optimistic schedule), then they kept switching engines to try and stay on top of the graphics race. In the very end, the eevil publishers that owned it contracted another dev studio to finish up the mess. The end result was a game that can be summed up as "eh, at least we released something, it's no longer vapourware". It certainly wasn't what it was originally advertised as, the Best Damn FPS Ever.

Of course, the money wasted on that game came from investors, generally rich people who (should) know the risks of game development. In my opinion, the big difference with Star Citizen is that they have raised extraordinary amounts of money from regular gamers, who might not be fully aware of the risks. However, it's not like the information on Chris Roberts' past projects and game development is general is not freely available to anyone who wants to go looking. So if in the end it does turn out to be a general waste of money, the signs were there.


Also, a fun aside: after DNF was released, I considered Elite 4 to be The longest-running vapourware since then. Well, we all know how that turned out.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Also, a fun aside: after DNF was released, I considered Elite 4 to be The longest-running vapourware since then. Well, we all know how that turned out.

Looking very pretty, great potential and might get close to Elite II: Frontiers gameplay options when they let us land on earth like planets.
So it got some way to go and I guess a few more years down the line.

Hopefully gameplay gets a bit deeper by then.

Graphics wise though:

While SC does indeed aim for incredible detail in line with FPS games since we DO walk around in first person I wonder how Frontier will handle it.

How limited will first person be since a lot of the graphics in space stations (detail wise) are hardly scaled or even very detailed for a first person experience with space legs.

EDIT: Perhaps a bit off topic but its an interesting thought due to the criticism of SC first person mode and detail. Elite needs some serious first person gameplay elements AND graphics for that.

 

[Jenner]

Reminder to please keep the topic on SC. We have a gaming forum with threads on many different games. This one is for SC, not for a meandering discussion of everything. Thanks.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Reminder to please keep the topic on SC. We have a gaming forum with threads on many different games. This one is for SC, not for a meandering discussion of everything. Thanks.

Apologies.

 

[LeSabre]

And nothing about the ONE thing that is actually different from other modern games so far that is actually one of the selling points, fully modeled 1:1 scaled ships?

I mean, the above statistics says NOTHING about the game (proposed or otherwise) or even game mechanics. It's just a bunch of NUMBERS for a game not yet released.

Because 1:1 scaled ships isn't important or relevant to gameplay in the slightest? In fact unless you are specifically told the ships scale you probably would never even think or ask about it. (Hint: it's a useless bullet point that is used to take money from easy marks, much like the terms 'fidelity' and 'immersion' since both of those things are broken regulary by poorly considered mechanics introduced by CIG)

It has no noteworthy game mechanics, fps/walking around has been done before many times and far better, flying a spaceship has been done before many times and far better, there's nothing above 'passable' levels of quality in SC. (But yay it's pretty right?)

 

[frostypaw]

And nothing about the ONE thing that is actually different from other modern games so far that is actually one of the selling points, fully modeled 1:1 scaled ships?

I mean, the above statistics says NOTHING about the game (proposed or otherwise) or even game mechanics. It's just a bunch of NUMBERS for a game not yet released.

Huh?

Other games have offered that for a long time. It's one of the least different things.

 

[dsmart]

Why on hearth would you go that way?

There is no gameplay to criticize, flying a ship to two stations, 3 missions (there are more but only 3 are "unique", many of the others are just the same one different location) and a little of FPS with some suits to buy... that's your gameplay? No multicrew mechanics, no mission system, no planetary landings, no NPCs (and no, the pirates and the Npcs of the shops are nothing to praise), no role/proffesion mechanics/whatever you wanna call it... (and a looong list of stuff btw)

When we can trade, do other missions, explore, build... if it's any good it will be said, if not it will be critizised and is how it should be. But please don't make it so easy for them to destroy you talking about gameplay when is one the things SC lacks, we have many ships but very little to do with them.

I'm out of rep because I gave you my last one this morning. Wait here while I go pillage the other threads in search of rep.

- - - Updated - - -

Rolan, the silent assassin, strikes again with another critical hit to the evangelical solar plexus region with an understated stab of realism.... Ouch!

He's the most dangerous off-White Knight. There is no defense against him; and offense is needlessly useless. That's why we rarely post or reply to him. We see his posts, nod, agree (for the most part), and move on - hoping he just posts his usual SC data without additional commentary. I worry that if the others start copying him, we're going to be in a lot of trouble because we'll lose all our lolz fodder.

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like the propaganda payments (to Red Bull and Wolf Larsen) must have cleared.

http://www.redbull.com/en/games/stories/1331846115570/star-citizen-infographic-red-bull-games

"To visit all 77 current systems would take you more than two days"

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Huh?

Other games have offered that for a long time. It's one of the least different things.

With fully modeled interiors that we can walk around and interact with and fly with in full 3d? I have not found any doing it on that level for the last 10 years.

EDIT: Sure, space engineers and other have the same idea but they are not on the same level (sure, that is my personal opinion).

 

[frostypaw]

With fully modeled interiors that we can walk around and interact with and fly with in full 3d? I have not found any doing it on that level for the last 10 years.

That's rather a shift from your original claim isn't it. "And nothing about the ONE thing that is actually different from other modern games so far that is actually one of the selling points, fully modeled 1:1 scaled ships?" Yup loads have that.