The Star Citizen Thread
- Thread starter Ril
- Start date
- Status
So you prioritize gameplay. Are you a Minecraft player, perhaps?
Square people and pigs?
Because that's why gamers get graphics like in Minecraft - they don't demand any better. When gamers are content with this kind of graphics the game studios won't use money to make it better either. It's a total different player group than those who back SC or ED. Especially SC.
Hehe, now that you brought that up, I really have been a minecraft player for a number of years. And the first thing I tried to do in the game was...make the graphics better..(and about 100.000 other players used my mods)
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/171437-☢-128x-☢-deuteros-☢-working-on-145/
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/663448-wip-avaritia-16x-19pre4-v102-1310-dragons/
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/91760-64x14x-albion-texture-pack-1812-terrafirmacraft/
I think though that you misunderstood what I was trying to say, and - ironically - Minecraft is a good example for that. As someone that has been playing for more than 25 years now, I learned to value gameplay and mechanics a lot more than how a game looks. And minecraft was that little indie game that "got it right" and opened a vast and creative world to millions of players, young and old alike. Despite the graphics style it had.
Don't get me wrong, everyone wants a game that is stunning to look at. But the meat and bones of what gaming is about - at least for me that is - is not the graphics or the technology behind a title. Its how much fun you have while playing.
I am glad to see that SC and ED are doing a great job in both departments. Thats why I support both btw...
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/171437-☢-128x-☢-deuteros-☢-working-on-145/
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/663448-wip-avaritia-16x-19pre4-v102-1310-dragons/
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/91760-64x14x-albion-texture-pack-1812-terrafirmacraft/
I think though that you misunderstood what I was trying to say, and - ironically - Minecraft is a good example for that. As someone that has been playing for more than 25 years now, I learned to value gameplay and mechanics a lot more than how a game looks. And minecraft was that little indie game that "got it right" and opened a vast and creative world to millions of players, young and old alike. Despite the graphics style it had.
Don't get me wrong, everyone wants a game that is stunning to look at. But the meat and bones of what gaming is about - at least for me that is - is not the graphics or the technology behind a title. Its how much fun you have while playing.
I am glad to see that SC and ED are doing a great job in both departments. Thats why I support both btw...
Last edited:
You gotta be joking right? Has it not occured to you that Minecraft started with basically no development resources to speak of, and that the look and feel was also partially a conscious design decision?
Also, people play Harpoon and similar sims not for graphics but for the gameplay. Doesn't mean that a game with the same gameplay but better graphics would be a bad thing, but a game with good graphics but bad gameplay usually gets played by nobody.
So yeah, if it's graphics vs. gameplay, gameplay all the way. You play the game, not the graphics.
So you prioritize gameplay. Are you a Minecraft player, perhaps?
Square people and pigs?
Because that's why gamers get graphics like in Minecraft - they don't demand any better. When gamers are content with this kind of graphics the game studios won't use money to make it better either. It's a total different player group than those who back SC or ED. Especially SC.
As someone who has enjoyed Minecraft since it was in alpha and have backed both ED and SC, how am I "a total different player group than those who back SC or ED. Especially SC."
The priority of gameplay or graphics depends entirely on how important the way things look is to the experience the devs are trying to create. Games are 'experiences' not simulators (unless they are simulators).
I don't have fun playing games that looks bad. It totally kills the immersion for me and reminds me I'm playing a game.
It's like if I'm watching a movie and some actor turned to the camera and said "To you who are watching this movie ... blah blah ...". Or the A Knight's Tale movie where they start signing Queen "We will rock you". It throws my mind out of the movie and into the cinema chair where I sit, and ruin the movie for me. For the same reason I don't go to the cinema to watch real life dramas, because they remind me of where I am - in the cinema. I hate that. So fun for me is founded in the fantasy and immersion.
I only buy a game if ... it has good gameplay AND is looking good AND is not a mouse game AND it's not 3rd person AND it's not from Microsoft or Sony.
Graphics are part of gameplay. You cannot separate the two. They are forever linked. How you see the game world affects how you react to it and play in it.
It's one of the reasons why people who only care about being 'the best', and gaining any advantage they can, always turn their graphics down to the lowest possible settings even if they can run smoothly at higher settings. Because it's easier to pick out targets against simpler, less detailed backgrounds, with less particles from explosions to look through.
Your gameplay experience in a game that is intended to be as photo-real as possible is going to be way different from one that is trying to look cartoonish, or simply doesn't have the resources to go for high fidelity. But a cartoon look may be what the project is going for because the devs want the gameplay that it entails.
All this to say, that if you're devoting a lot of resources to high fidelity graphics, it doesn't mean that those efforts aren't affecting the gameplay. They are.
It's one of the reasons why people who only care about being 'the best', and gaining any advantage they can, always turn their graphics down to the lowest possible settings even if they can run smoothly at higher settings. Because it's easier to pick out targets against simpler, less detailed backgrounds, with less particles from explosions to look through.
Your gameplay experience in a game that is intended to be as photo-real as possible is going to be way different from one that is trying to look cartoonish, or simply doesn't have the resources to go for high fidelity. But a cartoon look may be what the project is going for because the devs want the gameplay that it entails.
All this to say, that if you're devoting a lot of resources to high fidelity graphics, it doesn't mean that those efforts aren't affecting the gameplay. They are.
You're thinking of aesthetics. Graphics vs. aesthetics is an important distinction, and the bit in A Knight's Tale is actually the best example I've heard (but apparently I can't rep Viking for it yet). The scene juxtaposes visuals that would be called "photorealistic" if it were a game with audio that would be better described as "stylised" - that has nothing to do with graphics, but is a massive aesthetic choice. It sets you up for a romp with a medieval backdrop where the heroine is allowed to wear clothes from the other end of the millenium if it suits her character better. That sort of film isn't everyone's cup of tea, and starting the film that brazenly immediately tells you whether and how you're going to enjoy the next couple of hours.
I suppose I'm thinking of both. Graphics aren't an artistic choice while aesthetics are. But graphics directly affects aesthetics because it enables you to attempt certain aesthetic decisions. I still believe that graphic fidelity has a role to play in how you play the game.
Camo is a lot more effective in games with very high resolution textures for both the camo and the background which it's supposed to blend in to. The ability to render lots of foliage like grass and bushes changes the dynamics in a game. PlanetSide 2's cloaking effect is a prime example of the different effects on gameplay that high and low graphics settings provides.
Last edited:
PBR is a great example of how limitations go a long way to improve something. In forums for games where there are 'sandbox' elements, a lot of people start to whine whenever limitations or restrictions are put on things. They see them as "artificial limitations on their fun" in doing whatever they want to do.
But putting artificial limitations on graphics is exactly what PBR is doing. If a material has a very high reflectivity to it, like a mirror, then the shader makes it impossible for you to give it high levels of sub-surface scattering as well. Likewise, the shader for a rough surface will not allow you to give it high values of reflectivity at perpendicular viewing angles. Single sliders affect multiple attributes of the material where in the past you had to adjust multiple sliders to try and achieve the same effect. The difference is that PBR doesn't let you stray from reality, while before PBR it was hard just to GET TO reality.
These limits aren't artificial in real life. It's the physics of light. But they're artificial in a computer environment because you can write shaders any way that you want to. There's nothing stopping you, computationally-wise, from creating a material that has the translucence and refractiveness of glass, but doesn't reflect at all at glancing angles (the fresnel effect). It MAY not look very good though BECAUSE it doesn't mimic how we see things on a daily basis in the real world.
Implementing PBR, or a similar technique, has at least 2 benefits I can think of for both SC and ED. It will look better because it will closely mimic the way light works in real life, and both games are striving for photo-real high fidelity.
It will speed up production in the long run once there are no more conversions to do. Less choices for the graphics artists means that they work faster. Leather is leather. Aluminum is aluminum. They don't have to spend nearly as much time tweaking the values to get the materials to look right.
But putting artificial limitations on graphics is exactly what PBR is doing. If a material has a very high reflectivity to it, like a mirror, then the shader makes it impossible for you to give it high levels of sub-surface scattering as well. Likewise, the shader for a rough surface will not allow you to give it high values of reflectivity at perpendicular viewing angles. Single sliders affect multiple attributes of the material where in the past you had to adjust multiple sliders to try and achieve the same effect. The difference is that PBR doesn't let you stray from reality, while before PBR it was hard just to GET TO reality.
These limits aren't artificial in real life. It's the physics of light. But they're artificial in a computer environment because you can write shaders any way that you want to. There's nothing stopping you, computationally-wise, from creating a material that has the translucence and refractiveness of glass, but doesn't reflect at all at glancing angles (the fresnel effect). It MAY not look very good though BECAUSE it doesn't mimic how we see things on a daily basis in the real world.
Implementing PBR, or a similar technique, has at least 2 benefits I can think of for both SC and ED. It will look better because it will closely mimic the way light works in real life, and both games are striving for photo-real high fidelity.
It will speed up production in the long run once there are no more conversions to do. Less choices for the graphics artists means that they work faster. Leather is leather. Aluminum is aluminum. They don't have to spend nearly as much time tweaking the values to get the materials to look right.
I'm going off of SC more and more as time goes by. There's the pretty amusing flop that was the DFM reveal event, there's the rather insane pricing models, and then there's the fact that the SC community is.. well, icky. And unfortunately seems like the moderators/devs are too. (referencing this: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=813295 and a general sense of the community that I got earlier, when I frequented the SC forums).
Tbh, I'm partly wondering if I should just ask for a refund or something from CIG - the way they've been moving, and the way they've been handling.. well, shall we say, inclusivity... has left me very disappointed.
Tbh, I'm partly wondering if I should just ask for a refund or something from CIG - the way they've been moving, and the way they've been handling.. well, shall we say, inclusivity... has left me very disappointed.
Good luck with that ... However, I might be able to help you with buying your ship. It depends on what you have though.
What pricing models? The game isn't finished. All that's available are pledges. If you want to pre-order the game all you have to pay is $30. You call that insane? The "prices" for the ships right now won't even be available when the PU goes live. You can pledge or donate as little or as much as you want.
If you'd like to compare Alpha prices though, you have SC's at $40 and ED's at $300.
Alpha is entirely optional too, so how is that a valid comparison?
How about: Elite is £35 for a game that will come out some time this year. Star Citizen is $40 for a game that might come out in 2 years... If you're lucky, and the next stretch goal isn't "we found cryengine too limiting, so we're building a holodeck".
How about: Elite is £35 for a game that will come out some time this year. Star Citizen is $40 for a game that might come out in 2 years... If you're lucky, and the next stretch goal isn't "we found cryengine too limiting, so we're building a holodeck".
Ok, this is very disturbing.
I have deserted the SC forums a long time ago, so I already knew that the community was... well, let's just say, "not very nice".
But if official moderation follow the same trend...
Is that link working? I see a blank page. Did we get rumbled already?
Google has its cache of course.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T2BVqlgvlr8J:www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D813295+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
I always thought it pretty toxic over there but I did not think it this bad.
Let's agree to not less this place sink so low.
Google has its cache of course.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T2BVqlgvlr8J:www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D813295+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
I always thought it pretty toxic over there but I did not think it this bad.
Let's agree to not less this place sink so low.
Last edited:
I agreed with you right up until that last sentence.
So buying ships in SC is a pledge, but buying Alpha access in ED is a price?
BOTH are either "prices" OR "pledges" (depending on how you chose to define it). They have just chosen to offer different things in their respective stores.
SC includes alpha access at a very low level, but sells ships instead.
ED has a much higher cost for gaining entry to Alpha/Beta, but sells no ships.
Different ways but equally valid. And no. The different starting positions you could pledge for during EDs KS doesn't count since A: they aren't available anymore and B: it's not really a ship. Just a starting position. If you pick a start position with a certain ship, that ship is the only one you are going to get (until you restart). You won't have a huge hangar with a whole collection of ships in.
Now, personally I prefer EDs approach since that leaves out the whole issue of people being able to buy every single ship in the game and having access to it from day one when the game launches. Not because of any unbalancing issues between players. I don't care about that since the same "imbalance" will be present in ED after a couple of months when new players comes along and wants to play with people who have been playing since day one. No, the reason I'm against that way of doing business is that I think people are basically destroying their own enjoyment of the game when they never have to work their way towards these ships. It just takes away the sense of accomplishment. But as I said, that's just how I feel about it. Not some sort of universal truth.
yeah, that GAF link got taken down.. Here's the original article, I think this won't be moderated away into nothingness ^^.
http://www.lauresh.com/2014/05/sexism-in-star-citizen.html
I've submitted a support ticket to CIG's customer support, asking if a refund is possible (because, let's be frank - I don't want to support a company with these kinds of policies, and I'm downright ashamed to be a backer there...) - let's see if anything happens or if it all gets swept under the rug.
(p.s. Apologies to the mods over here if this is overstepping any bounds - but I think we're a more mature community here and this might be worth discussing)
I'm one of those who have collected most ships in SC, if not the largest collection for a single player, but I can only speak for myself when I say that I will do the same as everyone else and earn credits to upgrade my ship, add extra equipment, buy cargo, etc. And I can only fly one ship at a time. It's no difference than if I had only a simple Aurora to begin with. Actually, I will rent out most of my ships at a break-even level. I see it as a service, directed especially at new players or players who lost their only ship and must start over.
I will do exploring, bounty hunting, mining, trading, and more in the game. Using one ship at a time. It won't destroy my sense of accomplishment. The ship rental business is a side job that won't take up much of my time.
Last edited:
- Status