Jump to content

Star Citizen


Darkpriest

Recommended Posts

the only problem i have with that vid is the "in engine" stuff.... i mean... sure, it looks nice, but is it actually "in-game"... Usually in-engine is vastly different from in-game

 

EDIT: the 2nd vid, is it actually in-game? some player streamed it?

Edited by Darkpriest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say though, the scale looked very off when he went into the atmosphere. That planet came of as tiny to me.

 

I still wants this though. Preferably with a Newtonian flightmodel. :)

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They explained that the planet is only 1000 km diameter or something like that.

 

Watch this video where they show this is absolutely in-game (live demo in the CryEngine Editor):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69ck049Bg_I

 

I love how these guys just keep shooting you whiny ****s down. "It's vaporware!", "That's just in-engine!!", "They will just run with the money!!!".

 

It's so ****ing easy to be negative about everything, to always whine about every little detail. You can write any amount of **** because you know you never have to own up to it. But it sucks. It makes it boring to come here to these forums. 

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the whining decreased a lot since they started to show all the new ingame footage. Especially with the new public alpha, it slowly becomes very hard to call the game vaporware with keeping a straight face. I mean, yeah, it still needs *a lot* work, but you can totally see and feel where it's going.

Dudes like Derek Smart probably rotate in anger now, which I can only laugh about. :>

"only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to remind people that Mark Kern (lead of vanilla WoW) got his refund with the words "not on my money". And said that to ever have a hope of releasing the game they promised (biggest MMO to date) they would need at least ~200 million. And that's of course just the money, actually building it is the whole another problem. Personally, what i can see is 4 years of develompment and a pre-alpha at best. Yeah, if you use your imagination, you can see a game made on top of that. The issue though is whether they can actually make it, and the answer here is not as simple as some would like it to be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to remind people that Mark Kern (lead of vanilla WoW) got his refund with the words "not on my money". And said that to ever have a hope of releasing the game they promised (biggest MMO to date) they would need at least ~200 million. And that's of course just the money, actually building it is the whole another problem. Personally, what i can see is 4 years of develompment and a pre-alpha at best. Yeah, if you use your imagination, you can see a game made on top of that. The issue though is whether they can actually make it, and the answer here is not as simple as some would like it to be.

 

100 million if they just spent it idiotic stuff will give them game body that is playable and can be expanded in future (like most successful MMOs). As they have cult following like fan base that has given them already 100 million dollars, it is not impossible or even far reached task to get 100-200 million dollars from selling actual game when its is ready and continue the development of the game and then sell more and develop more and so on and so forth. Of course there is always high change that such hopes don't ever realize and they never achieve the goal they aim towards. But their current success gives indication that game have possibility to be actually successful MMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just want to remind people that Mark Kern (lead of vanilla WoW) got his refund with the words "not on my money". And said that to ever have a hope of releasing the game they promised (biggest MMO to date) they would need at least ~200 million. And that's of course just the money, actually building it is the whole another problem. Personally, what i can see is 4 years of develompment and a pre-alpha at best. Yeah, if you use your imagination, you can see a game made on top of that. The issue though is whether they can actually make it, and the answer here is not as simple as some would like it to be.

 

100 million if they just spent it idiotic stuff will give them game body that is playable and can be expanded in future (like most successful MMOs). As they have cult following like fan base that has given them already 100 million dollars, it is not impossible or even far reached task to get 100-200 million dollars from selling actual game when its is ready and continue the development of the game and then sell more and develop more and so on and so forth. Of course there is always high change that such hopes don't ever realize and they never achieve the goal they aim towards. But their current success gives indication that game have possibility to be actually successful MMO. 

 

That could've been possible if they stuck to their original pitch. They could've built the base and slowly added more stuff, like Elite does now. Problem is, that's not what they're doing. CR wants it to be "everything for everyone" from the very first day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I just want to remind people that Mark Kern (lead of vanilla WoW) got his refund with the words "not on my money". And said that to ever have a hope of releasing the game they promised (biggest MMO to date) they would need at least ~200 million. And that's of course just the money, actually building it is the whole another problem. Personally, what i can see is 4 years of develompment and a pre-alpha at best. Yeah, if you use your imagination, you can see a game made on top of that. The issue though is whether they can actually make it, and the answer here is not as simple as some would like it to be.

 

100 million if they just spent it idiotic stuff will give them game body that is playable and can be expanded in future (like most successful MMOs). As they have cult following like fan base that has given them already 100 million dollars, it is not impossible or even far reached task to get 100-200 million dollars from selling actual game when its is ready and continue the development of the game and then sell more and develop more and so on and so forth. Of course there is always high change that such hopes don't ever realize and they never achieve the goal they aim towards. But their current success gives indication that game have possibility to be actually successful MMO. 

 

That could've been possible if they stuck to their original pitch. They could've built the base and slowly added more stuff, like Elite does now. Problem is, that's not what they're doing. CR wants it to be "everything for everyone" from the very first day. 

 

 

They actually plan to release game sooner than most of the stretch goal stuff is ready (if they haven't changed their plans, as I don't follow the game's development, as I am not backer or I am not interested to play the game), although they have increased original scope some what with their single player campaign and FPS modes and such, which have delayed their project, but in my understanding otherwise they have not changed their plans in grand scheme of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I just want to remind people that Mark Kern (lead of vanilla WoW) got his refund with the words "not on my money". And said that to ever have a hope of releasing the game they promised (biggest MMO to date) they would need at least ~200 million. And that's of course just the money, actually building it is the whole another problem. Personally, what i can see is 4 years of develompment and a pre-alpha at best. Yeah, if you use your imagination, you can see a game made on top of that. The issue though is whether they can actually make it, and the answer here is not as simple as some would like it to be.

 

100 million if they just spent it idiotic stuff will give them game body that is playable and can be expanded in future (like most successful MMOs). As they have cult following like fan base that has given them already 100 million dollars, it is not impossible or even far reached task to get 100-200 million dollars from selling actual game when its is ready and continue the development of the game and then sell more and develop more and so on and so forth. Of course there is always high change that such hopes don't ever realize and they never achieve the goal they aim towards. But their current success gives indication that game have possibility to be actually successful MMO. 

 

That could've been possible if they stuck to their original pitch. They could've built the base and slowly added more stuff, like Elite does now. Problem is, that's not what they're doing. CR wants it to be "everything for everyone" from the very first day. 

 

 

They actually plan to release game sooner than most of the stretch goal stuff is ready (if they haven't changed their plans, as I don't follow the game's development, as I am not backer or I am not interested to play the game), although they have increased original scope some what with their single player campaign and FPS modes and such, which have delayed their project, but in my understanding otherwise they have not changed their plans in grand scheme of things.

 

Well, FPS and campaign are a big deal by themselves. In any case, we'll just have to wait and see i guess. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The persistent universe is only one part of it. Squadron 42 is pretty much the space flight shooter game, then there is Arena Commander, which is the generic multiplayer one (also includes racing and whatever type of games), and then there is Star Marine, which is the first-person-shooter. So actually what they do right now, is working on 3 games, which are interwoven into Star Citizen where it all comes together.

 

So even if Star Citizen itself will fail, there is still potential for a cool space ship shooter, space ship racer, and space first-person-shooter, which all are a possible thing to get finished.

"only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing any big danger signs to be honest, except maybe feature-creep and crunchtime burnout. They have nailed the different elements fairly well - of course as many point out, writing a good consistent story is gonna be tricky - but the openworld space sim genre is not really known for that, so no biggie.

 

If only they'll allow localized private servers with mods - my god, there would be so many glorious spinoffs.

 

 

It's so ****ing easy to be negative about everything .... It makes it boring to come here to these forums. 

 

Pot please meet kettle, I'm sure you'll both get along famously.

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the whining decreased a lot since they started to show all the new ingame footage. Especially with the new public alpha, it slowly becomes very hard to call the game vaporware with keeping a straight face. I mean, yeah, it still needs *a lot* work, but you can totally see and feel where it's going.

 

Dudes like Derek Smart probably rotate in anger now, which I can only laugh about. :>

 

I think the internet took it rather well considering after 80 million dollars only thing they had to show was the buggy garage for your ships. Perhaps this is a beautiful start for a new, nicer internet.

Edited by kirottu

This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between "in-engine" and "in-game" is actually negligible. The typical difference between the two is that one is something you can do, and the other is a predefined camera script that makes it move in ways a controlled actor can't. Eve Online does this all the time with their patch announcement cut-scenes. So, as a player, you probably can't replicate the path of the camera, but you can most likely see all of the same things from vantage points along the path that was created for the cut-scene.

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. - Julius Caesar

 

:facepalm: #define TRUE (!FALSE)

I ran across an article where the above statement was found in a release tarball. LOL! Who does something like this? Predictably, this oddity was found when the article's author tried to build said tarball and the compiler promptly went into cardiac arrest. If you're not a developer, imagine telling someone the literal meaning of up is "not down". Such nonsense makes computers, and developers... angry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the complaint was more about developers releasing "in-engine" footage with graphics and effects that are then not present or of reduced quality in the final product. Mostly so that console peasants don't feel bad about being console peasants. Erm, not that this would apply to a PC-only game. ;)

No mind to think. No will to break. No voice to cry suffering.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between "in-engine" and "in-game" is actually negligible. The typical difference between the two is that one is something you can do, and the other is a predefined camera script that makes it move in ways a controlled actor can't. Eve Online does this all the time with their patch announcement cut-scenes. So, as a player, you probably can't replicate the path of the camera, but you can most likely see all of the same things from vantage points along the path that was created for the cut-scene.

 

Engines are usually graphics and animation wise capable to much more than what can be used in actual gameplay situations. As in-engine demos even when they are rendered in real time there is no need for lots of things that you need in actual gameplay. Like for example it is easy to amp up graphics by dropping parts of map and disabling physics that aren't needed for the scene. Also animations can be amped up as you always know how many characters/vehicles/ships/etc. animated objects there will be in one scene what you can't necessary tell in actual gameplay situations. Because of these reasons in-engine demos shown in E3 and similar PR events can look much nicer than actual gameplay in finished game. And because of this sort of common PR tricks in-engine footages have collected quite lot infamy and people don't anymore trust them like they have in past.

 

Although it is possible to do such PR tricks in limited gameplay demos that are limited to smaller areas than actual full game. Witcher 3 for example disappointed some people because their early gameplay demos used effects and visuals that they had to remove from finished game as they were too heavy to work in full scope of Witcher 3 even though they worked in limited testing environment.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, I have to admit while I'm waiting to see how much this shapes up there are a few small irritations.

 

Every time I log into RSI I have to request a new password, because it apparently forgets what my password is. Or rather it continuously tells me I'm using the wrong one. I reset it, it'll work for a day, and then the next day "this is not the correct password".

 

Which is also annoying since I can't test out the Star Citizen launcher. It always tells me its an invalid login. >_<

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between "in-engine" and "in-game" is actually negligible. The typical difference between the two is that one is something you can do, and the other is a predefined camera script that makes it move in ways a controlled actor can't. Eve Online does this all the time with their patch announcement cut-scenes. So, as a player, you probably can't replicate the path of the camera, but you can most likely see all of the same things from vantage points along the path that was created for the cut-scene.

 

Eh, not really, when it's just "in-engine" there's likely little else eating resources (like network stuff, AI, other players...) how negligible this is depends highly on the complexity and optimization of said systems.

 

I seem to remember EVE has a camera mode to allow players to make these kinds of fancy vids, of course the hardware/logistics required to make something like the EVE trailers are pretty big reasons why it's not often done I'd imagine (even on beefy systems people tend to tune down most graphics settings to pretty damn low, turns out having to calculate trajectories on thousands of rockets/bullets/lazors/ships is kinda intensive on the CPU/GPU and that on top of all the other stuff that's going on in large battles...).

Edited by marelooke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The difference between "in-engine" and "in-game" is actually negligible. The typical difference between the two is that one is something you can do, and the other is a predefined camera script that makes it move in ways a controlled actor can't. Eve Online does this all the time with their patch announcement cut-scenes. So, as a player, you probably can't replicate the path of the camera, but you can most likely see all of the same things from vantage points along the path that was created for the cut-scene.

 

Eh, not really, when it's just "in-engine" there's likely little else eating resources (like network stuff, AI, other players...) how negligible this is depends highly on the complexity and optimization of said systems.

 

 

The problem with your argument is, frankly, you simply do not know enough about what you're speaking about. I'll use your statement about Eve Online as an example...

 

I seem to remember EVE has a camera mode to allow players to make these kinds of fancy vids, of course the hardware/logistics required to make something like the EVE trailers are pretty big reasons why it's not often done I'd imagine

No, the reason is exactly the same as one I stated above was the difference between in-engine and in-game: camera controls not available to the player. The Eve Online community has been asking the developer CCP for the tools to recreate the Eve trailers for more than a decade and they've only started working on one this year.

 

even on beefy systems people tend to tune down most graphics settings to pretty damn low, turns out having to calculate trajectories on thousands of rockets/bullets/lazors/ships is kinda intensive on the CPU/GPU and that on top of all the other stuff that's going on in large battles

 

While your assumptions make sense, they are ultimately incorrect. First, you are confusing two distinct parts of a game engine and treating them as if they are interchangeable:collision detection with particle systems. Second, Eve is an MMO-RPG, not a MMO-SIM, so what you call "trajectory" calculation for "bullets and lasers" is not done at all in the game. What you're thinking of in this case, hit and miss, is calculated server-side and has nothing to do with real physics. (Note: real math is involved, but it's not representative of reality. As I said, Eve is an RPG mechanically.) As far as your client drawing rockets and bullets, those are no different than drawing detailed terrain or a highly detailed human dace. What matters is the total number of vertexes, regardless of what they comprise, in the scene vs the throughput of your hardware, which is done by the CPU in one phase and the GPU in the final rendering and image projection. Most modern computer gaming hardware can handle Eve Online in the largest battles at the highest settings without needing to reduce graphics quality. However, this doesn't mean the frame rate will never drop, the server itself can cause that if the battle is overloading the server node through a mechanic called Time Dilation. Last, you mention AI and other players, both of which are not client-side in any MMO.

 

So, everything you mentioned made sense at the surface. However, if you know a little about how games work at the code level, things change. (Note: Knowing how to code is not the same as knowing how games are made. Believe me, I made poor assumptions too, until I read some actual textbooks on game development.) So, as I explained before, the difference between in-engine and in-game is most likely a distinction made by developers between what they can do in-engine and what the player could do in the player version of the software. I say "most likely" because it is my best guess. The meaning of those terms likely changes from developer to developer.

 

Edit for Clarification: Some types of collision detection are done client-side in MMO's. Wall and model-to-model collisions are often done client-side for rendering smoothness and to combat so called rubberbanding. That said, when it comes to hit or miss, anything RPG-like will most likely be server side, while FPS is likely to be client-side. As a result, one is more exploitable than the other... Just search on youtube for your favorite FPS and the words "wall hack".

Edited by Luridis

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. - Julius Caesar

 

:facepalm: #define TRUE (!FALSE)

I ran across an article where the above statement was found in a release tarball. LOL! Who does something like this? Predictably, this oddity was found when the article's author tried to build said tarball and the compiler promptly went into cardiac arrest. If you're not a developer, imagine telling someone the literal meaning of up is "not down". Such nonsense makes computers, and developers... angry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Heh. After sending in a bug report a week or so before Christmas about issues I'm having... Notably that I have to use the Account Recovery to reset my password every single time I want to log in, even if I've reset it 5 minutes before hand and logged out in that time I finally got a response from the Help team.

 

They tell me to use Account Recovery to reset my password.

  • Like 1

"Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. After sending in a bug report a week or so before Christmas about issues I'm having... Notably that I have to use the Account Recovery to reset my password every single time I want to log in, even if I've reset it 5 minutes before hand and logged out in that time I finally got a response from the Help team.

 

They tell me to use Account Recovery to reset my password.

 

It's not a bug, it's a feature 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Gotta pull up that thread.

 

PTU 2.4 is out now. Have to say that - despite the million bugs - it already feels like a real game now. They also added the first huge multi-crew ship which is... huge. You can really get lost in its corridor system.

"only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...