OH MY GOD!!!!!!! someone call trading standards and maybe even the CIG. FD have stolen the current character model for SC. Just look at em they are exactly the same.
It's the T-pose that gave it away.
[big grin]
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
It's the T-pose that gave it away.
[big grin]
And so my friends, as we head to the end of the thread, at around the magical 10,000 posts mark, it's perhaps time to reflect on all the fun and joy we've had, and all the new fun and joy we can have in the upcomming 'Star Citizen Thread v6'.
Given that this thread has lasted about 3 months, let's take a second to express our SC-hopes for the next 3 months.
Being realistic, I don't really expect anything big. As I've said before, SQ42 holds little interest for me, and SC I'm not expecting to see before Q2 2017 in any beta form, with 'live' not much before Q4.
Given that this thread has lasted about 3 months, let's take a second to express our SC-hopes for the next 3 months.
Being realistic, I don't really expect anything big. As I've said before, SQ42 holds little interest for me, and SC I'm not expecting to see before Q2 2017 in any beta form, with 'live' not much before Q4.
I'm curious as to why you'd ballpark a beta period for SC at 6 months, given that alpha's been going on for so long
Last edited:
Hopeless optomism and, assuming SQ42 has landed prior, that the core mechanisms will (should be) be solid (relatively) by then.
Last edited:
I predict a rip-roaring rollercoaster ride of a citizencon demo with lots of nice pre-render that will be lapped up with zero demand for knowing when it'll be in the game. There'll be a city and a few earth likeish planets
It won't be believable as there'll be nothing to play or maybe a tech doing a one computer demo that looks little like the actual game - but the evidence threshold is so very very low for the citizens that most of the presentation could probably be done on the back of a couple of packets and it'd still go down like a storm
The press will lap it and the pretty screengrabs up - many others will be left saying "yes - but when? and what's the point when it's not in a state where you could demo it at gamescon and stun everyone?"
It won't be believable as there'll be nothing to play or maybe a tech doing a one computer demo that looks little like the actual game - but the evidence threshold is so very very low for the citizens that most of the presentation could probably be done on the back of a couple of packets and it'd still go down like a storm
The press will lap it and the pretty screengrabs up - many others will be left saying "yes - but when? and what's the point when it's not in a state where you could demo it at gamescon and stun everyone?"
Are you sure v6 is next? I heard they are considering going straight to v8
Fair enough, I see where you're coming from even if I don't share your optimism =P
That actually is a pretty accurate description of how it feels to me too.
They need to get something out ASAP.
SQ42 won't, on current form, be released before CoD:IW and this is a massive problem - not so much for those already invested in SC, but if trying to reach a wider FPS-playing audience. Clock is ticking.
Even after the GamesCom demo I'm not convinced by SC until we have real players using it.
SQ42 won't, on current form, be released before CoD:IW and this is a massive problem - not so much for those already invested in SC, but if trying to reach a wider FPS-playing audience. Clock is ticking.
Even after the GamesCom demo I'm not convinced by SC until we have real players using it.
Yeah, this is an absolutely critical part of understanding what SC gets wrong, even when it tries to get it right. It falls into the same category as their failing to simulate perception (or, worse, trying to simulate cinema), where it may be technically accurate that A, B, and C happens, but if you want to make the player feel like it's real, you have to make it look like it's actually D because that's how we're actually perceive the situation.
This is also why the over-use of terms like fidelity and immersion are often so horribly misapplied to this game: because they tend to be used for things that actually do simulate something accurately, when to create proper fidelity and immersion, they shouldn't.
But are you calling them out on it too soon?
Yeah, there is something to be said about this.
hey, thanks for the 10 dollar word for immersive. I'm going to try to use that today at work.
…which means 3–4 years per sim. Less if you include the expandalones.
+1 for contributing the Word of the Day: verisimilitude.
I think this is an astute observation that can be applied to many games discussions revolving around "realism".
Haha so next you're going to tell us that Falcon, Falcon 2.0, Falcon 3.0, and Falcon 4.0 are all just one game? Get real.
Well thats how rational person think......but not the "hardcore"SC fans....I bet they will be more then happy to see few more demos,new commercials and some hype videos before the new year....that could feed them untill next gamescom....citizencon....etc...2018....
Last edited:
If you think the first Falcon game took 16 years to develop, "you don't understand game development" (and are incorrect).
Been following the pedantic debate on defining simulation; it's all in the semantics and it's easy to talk past another person on sometimes seemingly simple topics without agreeing to definitions first.
My context on what would define simulation on a PC is X-Plane http://www.x-plane.com/desktop/home/
In my book ED nor SC are accurate enough to be called simulations in the league of X-Plane. They might be called that by gaming press and folks that only want to play Angry Birds or racing games and can't fathom training to use 30 control switches in a game.
Maybe we need a new term that defines a simugame genre of complex, but only somewhat realistically modeled games.
You're probably right. In the world of (terrestrial) flight sims, there is often the distinction made between "study" and "survey" sims. The DCS 'high-fidelity' (in a sense much closer to the meaning of the word than SC's usage of it) sims are study sims in themselves, where flight systems are modeled to utmost detail, including both flight models and systems modeling, while its Flaming Cliffs portion is a survey sim, in the sense that it's a more cursory look at the plane models in question.
But I think such a distinction, or even applying "survey" to games like ED or SC, is meaningless. There is no detailed systems modeling for a Cobra MkIII beyond what we see in the HUD, and this isn't because Frontier somehow was 'lax' in modeling the entirety of the systems in a Cobra MkIII, it's because there's nothing to model since such ships don't exist.
Part (or indeed, much) of the joy one gets from playing (or rather, operating) a sim like DCS is that you're getting a taste of the real thing. That's why modeling matters. On the other hand, SC and ED are escapism. Modeling there can only lead to verisimilitude (the word Vidar helpfully supplied), because there's nothing to which the word "fidelity" actually corresponds. We can only judge according to what we think it might be like, and that's what SC and ED and yes, Tie-Fighter et al have done/are doing. There cannot be fidelity, because we don't know the fides.
The same applies to Rogue System. How can we call that a high-fidelity simulation? We can't. We can only say that it takes a different approach to verisimilitude. All these space games are, in my opinion, on a continuum which is totally different in kind to the continuum of terrestrial flight sims, and we shouldn't use the same terminology for them.
Last edited:
I think CitizenCon will show a trailer of SQ42 and a more clear road map for it. I think they'll show other aspects of 3.0 like cargo or trading. I think the latest build of 3.0 will be playable to the attendants (I will be one of them).
I think the December live stream will do a recap of what was accomplished and the roadmap for 2017. I think if SQ42 hasn't been released yet it will either be during that live stream or an announcement will be made that they had to delay it for x months. I think 3.0 will definitely be released during the live stream, if not before.
I don't foresee many of the critics changing their stances though.
- Status