The Star Citizen Thread

[Boomotang]

The vision is:

"A high fidelity, hand crafted, open world, space sim from the perspective of an FPS experience inside of a working persistent universe".

For Squadron 42 the vision is:

"A high fidelity, hand crafted, story driven space sim which introduces you to the SC universe from the perspective of an FPS experience."

Just because the vision is bigger than you prefer doesn't mean that it isn't good.

The key is that it's all from the perspective of your character, not you ship. Your ships are your homes and your key tools to the universe. But you aren't your ships.

The measurements to keep development on track are all there. High fidelity, hand crafted, from an FPS experience. They set the standard with the Hornet. In other words, going forwards all game assets (ships, NPCs, environments or levels, asteroids, space stations) have to meet the level of fidelity, feel just as hand crafted, and work from an FPS perspective as much as the Hornet.

 

[Boomotang]

That's a good start, so here are some follow-up questions:

It looks like there will be a lot of exploration in SC - that fits the "discovery" part, but how would you make it immersive? How would you make it cinematic? Would the planets be full of aliens with incredible dialogue? Would they all be under imminent danger from asteroid impacts or invasions by other aliens?

Well, what you're asking for is more than a vision. You're talking about the details. The vision/mission statement doesn't break down the 'how'.

By your standards, this one is no better:

"Head for the stars, take a ship and trade, bounty-hunt, pirate or assassinate your way across the galaxy."

"Would the planets be full of aliens with incredible dialogue? Would they all be under imminent danger from asteroid impacts or invasions by other aliens?"

If you don't apply the same level of scrutiny to ED as you do towards SC then you're just talking about preferences, in which there is no right or wrong.

Arena Commander will be arena-based PvP. How would you get some discovery in there?

This question is just silly. It's only a part of the game. Hence only a part of the vision applies to it.

Squadron 42 will be a Wing Commander-style branching combat game, which makes discovery more difficult and constrains the ability to add cinematic elements like disagreements between characters. How would you work around those issues to deliver on the vision?

You don't. You have a separate, but linked, vision for Squadron 42. They're meant as two different experiences inside the same universe. (same assets, same gameplay mechanics, same environment, same backstory, different game(one is MMO while the other is a single player campaign)) They have enough people working on it separately to pull it off. Most games' 'single player campaigns' and 'multiplayer modes' do not share the same vision. But that doesn't stop them from being well done.

 

[Boomotang]

Look, I'm not judging ED's vision. But some of you ARE judging SC's. It's 'not defined' is the general consensus from those who think it doesn't measure up.

So in order to do that you have to have some sort of standard by which you are judging. If you are asking us what our vision for SC would be, then you have to provide your standard, or your example of what you think is a good vision. Preferably something comparable, like a video game. Obviously what you think ED's vision is would be best, since we all know that's what you're comparing it to. If no standard is provided then it becomes an exercise in futility as you keep shifting the goals.

If this is your standard:

"Head for the stars, take a ship and trade, bounty-hunt, pirate or assassinate your way across the galaxy."

...then it does not live up to the same scrutiny as you're giving other examples. The same questions you use to poke holes in other visions poke the same holes through this statement.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

Well, what you're asking for is more than a vision. You're talking about the details. The vision/mission statement doesn't break down the 'how'.

You're right the vision is only the start. It's more like an organising principle you can use to figure out the details. I'm afraid I'm not sufficiently well-versed in game visions to give you a brilliant one, ED's vision statement included. I spend a great deal of time prodding Frontier about the problem and offering suggestions - I'd heartily encourage Star Citizen backers to do the same.

 

[CMDR Crumpeteer]

The vision is:

"A high fidelity, hand crafted, open world, space sim from the perspective of an FPS experience inside of a working persistent universe".

For Squadron 42 the vision is:

"A high fidelity, hand crafted, story driven space sim which introduces you to the SC universe from the perspective of an FPS experience."

Just because the vision is bigger than you prefer doesn't mean that it isn't good.

The key is that it's all from the perspective of your character, not you ship. Your ships are your homes and your key tools to the universe. But you aren't your ships.

The measurements to keep development on track are all there. High fidelity, hand crafted, from an FPS experience. They set the standard with the Hornet. In other words, going forwards all game assets (ships, NPCs, environments or levels, asteroids, space stations) have to meet the level of fidelity, feel just as hand crafted, and work from an FPS perspective as much as the Hornet.

Fidelity means loyalty. Elite's ships are more faithful to previous games than SC's are to CR's old games, so in that sense I could say E: D has a higher level of fidelity. But I know you mean graphical detail

 

[Mr.Nowak]

That's a good start, so here are some follow-up questions:

It looks like there will be a lot of exploration in SC - that fits the "discovery" part, but how would you make it immersive? How would you make it cinematic? Would the planets be full of aliens with incredible dialogue? Would they all be under imminent danger from asteroid impacts or invasions by other aliens?

Arena Commander will be arena-based PvP. How would you get some discovery in there? Does unrealistic stuff like third-person view take you further away from immersiveness? What does a cinematic dogfight look like?

Squadron 42 will be a Wing Commander-style branching combat game, which makes discovery more difficult and constrains the ability to add cinematic elements like disagreements between characters. How would you work around those issues to deliver on the vision?

Just to be clear, I don't mean the above as a criticism - I respect that you're making an honest attempt to answer a difficult question. These questions are easy to ask and terribly difficult to answer, but the conversation is important because backers should be posing them to CIG at every turn.

1. First off the graphics are high fidelity and realistic. Which sets the tune and mood for settings. Also aliens will be in the game and stuff like derelict ships and abondoned stations to explore on foot will also be available. The feel is going to be cinematic. There will also be alien invasions of certain solar systems too.

2. Arena Commander is just a "virtual game" inside the Star Citizen universe. There is no discovery it's just simulation game to test our the basic dogfighting of the game but it will remain as a game inside the game to test our combat and even do a moba like experience without losing your ship.

3. Squadron 42s is a singleplayer campaign with story. It's just like a movie with interaction. There will be character interactions with wingman and they will also change their battlefield behaviour according to your relationship with them. Chris was a producer on a few holywood movies and know's how to do it right atleast for a game in my opinion.

I like meaningful talks.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

I like meaningful talks.

Agreed - in fact from what you're saying, it would be more accurate to say CIG are building a single engine for three essentially unrelated games. Looking at the trouble Frontier have catering to such different demographics, that could work well - CIG could dial up the mechanical complexity for Arena commander to provide the sort of PvP challenge its players want, but nerf it for Squadron 42 so they can use different flying styles to tell you about the different pilots.

 

[Mr.Nowak]

Agreed - in fact from what you're saying, it would be more accurate to say CIG are building a single engine for three essentially unrelated games. Looking at the trouble Frontier have catering to such different demographics, that could work well - CIG could dial up the mechanical complexity for Arena commander to provide the sort of PvP challenge its players want, but nerf it for Squadron 42 so they can use different flying styles to tell you about the different pilots.

To be honest they are essentially building 3 games.

1. Singleplayer game. (Foundry 42)

2. Space game (CIG Santa Monica, CIG Austin, VoidAlpha, CGbot, Behaviour Interactive)

3. FPS game (Illfonic, CGbot, Behaviour Interactive)

But they all share assets and work with each other. Above i listed what they mainly work on and their lead studios are marked in bold.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

To be honest they are essentially building 3 games.

So how would you describe the vision for each game? Would you expect Arena Commander's biggest fans to overlap much with Star Citizen's? Should the goal be to maximise the number of people that like all the games or the number that love at least one?

 

[Mr.Nowak]

So how would you describe the vision for each game? Would you expect Arena Commander's biggest fans to overlap much with Star Citizen's? Should the goal be to maximise the number of people that like all the games or the number that love at least one?

I mean they all overlap really.

Singleplayer is going to be a Wing Commander / Mass Effect like experience with less freedom because it's a military based campaign. It will include some RPG elements though. It will be very influenced by movies.

Space game is going to be handcrafted 125 solar systems at first with player influenced economy and after it will be procedurally generated content with player run economy. Each planet will have 1-4 landing zones. It's going to be an experience right between Elite : Dangerous and Mass Effect.

First Person Shooter is going to be like Rainbow Six. It will be realistic brutal and deadly. Will include things like EVA suits, Magnetic boots with several other things like medics. Ship boarding actions will also be tied in to this heavily.

 

[Boomotang]

Agreed - in fact from what you're saying, it would be more accurate to say CIG are building a single engine for three essentially unrelated games. Looking at the trouble Frontier have catering to such different demographics, that could work well - CIG could dial up the mechanical complexity for Arena commander to provide the sort of PvP challenge its players want, but nerf it for Squadron 42 so they can use different flying styles to tell you about the different pilots.

When it's all said and done, I think they might nerf AC by restricting weapons and equipment. This would keep the PU hostile and unforgiving if you do something stupid. But you'd probably want battles to last a bit longer in AC.

For example, if out in the wild in non-UEE territory, there is nothing stopping you from exploring by yourself in your freelancer, and then stumbling upon an Idris Frigate with a complement of Hornets. In that case you are screwed unless you see it soon enough and can either avoid it or book it out of there. Encounters are not meant to be balanced in all areas of the open world.

But they'll want the game-within-the-game (Arena Commander) to be balanced both in numbers and the ships abilities. Probably a point based system, where different ships and equipment are worth so many points. You load out your team with a certain point cap in mind. But that's just a theory.

The way SC is handling complexity is kind of like a hybrid automatic/manual transmission car. You can get into the nitty and gritty if you want to. But you don't have to in order to enjoy the experience. Although you may have to if you want to be 'competitive' in the more challenging areas of the game.


It's fairly unique in how SC is developing it's different 'games', SC, AC, and SQ42. The difference from developing them at different times like some companies might do sequels is that they are very tightly integrated with each other.

Squadron 42 will introduce you to the universe if you choose to play it. And your actions will determine how you start out in the PU. AC will be talked about inside the PU. Your options inside AC will probably be determined by the PU (ships you have available) and rewards from AC can potentially carry over into the PU. Plus you get the whole 'seamless' feel in-fiction because you aren't ever closing the SC game out into Windows and launching the AC game or vice versa.

 

[Boomotang]

So how would you describe the vision for each game? Would you expect Arena Commander's biggest fans to overlap much with Star Citizen's? Should the goal be to maximise the number of people that like all the games or the number that love at least one?

I think they're equally focusing development on all of them, because the core gameplay is the same for all of them. The difference is the experience. SC is more risk/reward/make your own story. AC is more of a tournament type gameplay, like X-Wing vs TIE-Fighter or COD multiplayer. Squadron 42 is more traditional cinematic story.

The only thing I think some people may skip is Squadron 42 because of todays focus on multiplayer, some people aren't as interested in doing a story by themselves. But for the most part people's interests will probably overlap all three quite a bit. AC will be an essential training tool for those more interested in the PU, and for those more interested in AC your actions in the PU will probably determine your options (which ships you can fly) in AC.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

So what would you say to the argument that third-person view should be enabled by default in Arena Commander (as it makes PvP more gung-ho) but disabled in the official PU servers (as it harms immersion) and only available for cut scenes in Squadron 42 (as it doesn't tell you about your character)?

 

[Boomotang]

So what would you say to the argument that third-person view should be enabled by default in Arena Commander (as it makes PvP more gung-ho) but disabled in the official PU servers (as it harms immersion) and only available for cut scenes in Squadron 42 (as it doesn't tell you about your character)?

I think we need to wait and see what advantages 3PV gives you compared to the disadvantages with first hand experience and not speculative doom and gloom. It will be a work in progress throughout the alpha.

I think it has the potential to hurt 'competitive balance' in all areas. If it does, then it will hurt immersion too. But if the advantage isn't high enough, then it won't be immersion breaking because you don't have to use it.

There's too much whine on here about that specific feature without any hands on testing. And the FIRST test build hasn't been released yet.


I think it should be the same in the PU and AC, with added features for spectating (not playing in the match) in AC. That it shouldn't give enough of an advantage, and be more of a spectator tool.

But if it does give a noticeable advantage, it doesn't break the game for me. The game has too much upside for this potential downside in my eyes. Disappointment is a part of life, and we can't ever get everything that we want. No one will be 100% satisfied with a product that is designed to be used by hundreds of thousands or millions of people. On the flip side, a product that isn't meant to be used by that many people will never have the resources to push the boundaries in certain areas.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

I think we need to wait and see what advantages 3PV gives you compared to the disadvantages with first hand experience and not speculative doom and gloom. It will be a work in progress throughout the alpha.

...

I think it should be the same in the PU and AC, with added features for spectating in AC. That it shouldn't give enough of an advantage, and be more of a spectator tool.

That's interesting - I take the point the PU is a balancing act and it's too soon to say, but actually I'd argue third-person view in SQ42 is the more interesting question anyway. There's no need to worry about balance and advantages there, as the AI can be tuned however is appropriate. But limiting third-person view gives them a load more options for being cinematic - for example, they could go the Top Gun route and have scripted instances with luxurious tracking shots of plane parts (like Wing Commander's docking sequence) or they could go the Star Wars route and have fancy transitions between scenes to show off the worlds you visit (like Wing Commander's cut scenes). Either way, restricting third-person view would make it feel special and help them tell their story.

 

[Boomotang]

That's interesting - I take the point the PU is a balancing act and it's too soon to say, but actually I'd argue third-person view in SQ42 is the more interesting question anyway. There's no need to worry about balance and advantages there, as the AI can be tuned however is appropriate. But limiting third-person view gives them a load more options for being cinematic - for example, they could go the Top Gun route and have scripted instances with luxurious tracking shots of plane parts (like Wing Commander's docking sequence) or they could go the Star Wars route and have fancy transitions between scenes to show off the worlds you visit (like Wing Commander's cut scenes). Either way, restricting third-person view would make it feel special and help them tell their story.

Yes, it could. I think there will be a mixture of first person 'cutscenes' and traditional cutscenes in SQ42. They both have their place.

 

[Dante80]

A nice album with DFM pics taken from this video.

http://imgur.com/a/oaJBA

 

[Iskariot]

Also when I say made out of Lego I mean everything looks kinda bolted on and they look like ships that 10 year old boys draw when bored.

You must know some very talented 10 year old. I know You know it is nonsense .
I suppose it just is not your style/taste. Personally I love it very much. The designs are very utilitarian, although the beautiful redesigned Eagle looks also very fighter plane-like and that is rare in the Elite universe.

I am very dismayed by the SC designs in general. Far too many useless flimsy wingy bits and odd protrusions that would burn off when entering an atmosphere. I suppose shielding will come in there. But some of the ships look downright awkward and absurd.
I do not mind ugly designs you know; I love for example the Apache AH-64 combat helicopter because it's utilitarian ugliness somehow enhances its character. But some of the SC designs are in another category altogether. I would not enjoy spending time with them in the game because these designs repulse me.

Also the Elite ships are designed form the start with cargo in mind. That is why the standardized cargo system works extremely well compared to the weird lengths I have seen some SC fan redesigns go to just to accommodate a little bit of cargo.

Another point is that Elite ship design has a history that goes back 30 years. Because of this famous heritage the shapes are basic in general, but they have been enhanced with great detail and functionality for in game use. Being an Elite old timer I love what FD has done with the classic designs.

Goes to show: tastes differ.

 

[Mr.Nowak]

Ship building in Star Citizen from what i read and saw is nearly as difficult as building a real ship. Based on reading a lot of Jump Point magazines. They take months to get a ship from concept to a working model. So many part's of the ship are taken in to consideration including Atmospheric flight. Sometimes i wonder that there is too much detail in design, utility and realism.

 

[Dante80]

Some nice new pictures of the BMM

http://imgur.com/gallery/0q9En