Star Citizen Megathread - Star Marine isn't doomed after all! - Games

[QUOTE=Big Bang;50526719]In the world where purchases are not investments and aren't interchangeable terms. I bought a ship, I want a ship, I didn't get a ship in the promised time, I want my money back. The muddling of terms that CIG uses doesn't free them of their commercial obligations.[/QUOTE] Your logic falls to peices here. Contractual obligations? The contract CIG wrote themselves? If "pledge" is a muddled term, then why do you think its fine to assume one way or the other? either its muddled or its not, you cant say its muddled AND they are somehow contracted to treat them like purchases. You'll find it's not muddled, and that its clear everywhere you can give SC money that its a pledge. and the ships themselves are delivered, if you "buy a digital ship" and its put in your hangar, usable in arena commander and the PU, what the heck is your complaint exactly? That the game you bought the ship for isnt good enough yet?

Oh boy 2 new pages of posts, was there an update or- Oh. Just more of this.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;50526719]In the world where purchases are not investments and aren't interchangeable terms. I bought a ship, I want a ship, I didn't get a ship in the promised time, I want my money back. The muddling of terms that CIG uses doesn't free them of their commercial obligations.[/QUOTE] What is this "promised time" for the ships? As far as i know they haven't give any guaranteed dates for when ships will be available by.

Something not drama, will people be playing CoD: ∞? it looks like a small linear game similar to what SC is trying to accomplish.

[QUOTE=Ithon;50527450]Something not drama, will people be playing CoD: ∞? it looks like a small linear game similar to what SC is trying to accomplish.[/QUOTE] I'm sure it'll be a fun romp, but stating the obvious, it's going to be an arcadey fast get-into-the-action shooter above all else. I'm not sure what to expect of any spaceflight but I'd assume it's going to feel more like a setpiece for story

I got my starting bug fixed in the end. Had to completely re-install my graphics drivers. It was screwing with others games too [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ithon;50527450]Something not drama, will people be playing CoD: ∞? it looks like a small linear game similar to what SC is trying to accomplish.[/QUOTE] Watching the trailer it seemed like there was almost too much going on. The space combat is really hard to follow. Space combat starts at 2:20 [video]https://youtu.be/PmaZw1xMxBQ?t=140[/video]

call of duty: squadron 42 was honestly my first thought even at the short interviews they released after the reveal

It's amazing how desperate and illogical someone can become when their arguments have been shot down and they've got no ground to stand on. Welcome to crowdfunded game development, stranger. The year is 2016, and you seem a little slow to catch on, but you'll come to terms with the way the industry works eventually. It's a big, scary world out there, but always remember, you're responsible for your own money. You know, the age old idea of Caveat emptor. If you think you're likely to pussy out at the first sign of a delay, throw a tantrum and demand your money back, here's my advice. Never again pay for something that hasn't yet been made. You simply haven't the guts for it. The idea behind freedom of choice is intelligent decision making. Some of us learn through experience, and what you've learned today is that you lack the temperament for early access. May the lesson serve you well, and may your experience teach you to have more realistic, reasonable expectations in the future.

[QUOTE=Wazbat;50527665]I got my starting bug fixed in the end. Had to completely re-install my graphics drivers. It was screwing with others games too [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] Watching the trailer it seemed like there was almost too much going on. The space combat is really hard to follow. Space combat starts at 2:20 [video]https://youtu.be/PmaZw1xMxBQ?t=140[/video][/QUOTE] the huge mess of things happening in space combat definitely has that michael bay vibe I was expecting, and on the surface it reminds me of project sylpheed (an arcadey space game I [I]really [/I]enjoyed), but it also looks like it's going to be completely inconsequential and just be a timed 'kill X ships/survive for 5 minutes' bit before you're led to the actual linear parts and the set pieces do their things without you

[QUOTE=dai;50527829]the huge mess of things happening in space combat definitely has that michael bay vibe I was expecting, and on the surface it reminds me of project sylpheed (an arcadey space game I [I]really [/I]enjoyed), but it also looks like it's going to be completely inconsequential and just be a timed 'kill X ships/survive for 5 minutes' bit before you're led to the actual linear parts and the set pieces do their things without you[/QUOTE] Yeah, the actual combat itself seems to be the same linear mess as every other game, however you do see a bit of freedom in the beginning, where the crew asks the captain what their target is and he selects the destination. Maybe you'll have to prioritise certain missions in order to define the eding, sort of like other games. Or maybe I'm expecting too much from this [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] Yeah, there's "ace" targets, will probably be "kill x ace targets to be able to board" [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/e9FyO9g.png[/IMG]

Wanted to bring up an actual topic for discussion that you all might have some genuine interest in. Correct me if my gaming knowledge is faulty, but I've never really seen a multi-part singleplayer game developed alongside an MMO that's literally linked to said singleplayer game mechanically and progression wise. It's concerned me somewhat when thinking about the fact that since SQ42 and the PU are being developed by two separate teams that you might run into issues with...how do you say it, feature creep of a sort? New mechanics get introduced into the PU MMO side, and old systems get revamped, but at a certain point each part of SQ42 gets released and has its mechanics and systems finalized. Does anyone else feel like that might make a jarring transition between parts of SQ42 once they're all out and played sequentially? It's like going from Witcher 1 to Witcher 3 and noticing the huge differences between games. Dunno if I made much sense there, but hopefully you all can hash out my meaning.

[QUOTE=Visorak06;50527968]Wanted to bring up an actual topic for discussion that you all might have some genuine interest in. Correct me if my gaming knowledge is faulty, but I've never really seen a multi-part singleplayer game developed alongside an MMO that's literally linked to said singleplayer game mechanically and progression wise. It's concerned me somewhat when thinking about the fact that since SQ42 and the PU are being developed by two separate teams that you might run into issues with...how do you say it, feature creep of a sort? New mechanics get introduced into the PU MMO side, and old systems get revamped, but at a certain point each part of SQ42 gets released and has its mechanics and systems finalized. Does anyone else feel like that might make a jarring transition between parts of SQ42 once they're all out and played sequentially? It's like going from Witcher 1 to Witcher 3 and noticing the huge differences between games. Dunno if I made much sense there, but hopefully you all can hash out my meaning.[/QUOTE] I'm guessing its just using the PU systems with the missions for the story on top of it, I mean, thats what Freelancer SP pretty much is.

[QUOTE=Visorak06;50527968]Wanted to bring up an actual topic for discussion that you all might have some genuine interest in. Correct me if my gaming knowledge is faulty, but I've never really seen a multi-part singleplayer game developed alongside an MMO that's literally linked to said singleplayer game mechanically and progression wise. It's concerned me somewhat when thinking about the fact that since SQ42 and the PU are being developed by two separate teams that you might run into issues with...how do you say it, feature creep of a sort? New mechanics get introduced into the PU MMO side, and old systems get revamped, but at a certain point each part of SQ42 gets released and has its mechanics and systems finalized. Does anyone else feel like that might make a jarring transition between parts of SQ42 once they're all out and played sequentially? It's like going from Witcher 1 to Witcher 3 and noticing the huge differences between games. Dunno if I made much sense there, but hopefully you all can hash out my meaning.[/QUOTE] From what I understand, Squadron 42 is optional, and the only thing you're likely to gain from it in the PU is a way to earn 'citizen' status faster.

[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50528099]I'm guessing its just using the PU systems with the missions for the story on top of it, I mean, thats what Freelancer SP pretty much is.[/QUOTE] That [I]does[/I] mean having to QA existing SQ42 episodes when advancing them to keep up with the PU's frequent updates, and while that's not something I imagine CIG would have some kind of problem with, it's one more responsibility to take on. Although I'd wait to hear it spoken officially in relation to the actual SQ42 release (which is still expected this year, CitizenCon is the only likely announcement window unless it gets shuffled to the end-of-year holiday livestream), as I understand it from past CIG statements, there will be different tiers of reward to your PU transition depending on the difficulty level you cleared SQ42 at. It's been stated that your reward for finishing SQ42 will be a ship, but it's unclear as to precisely which and it's likely that they'll vary with the difficulty. There will also be an ironman mode, where death = restart campaign. I imagine there's going to be an easy "let me see the storyline" mode and the reward for that will probably be at best just Citizenship and a bit of starting UEC as a discharge bonus. The replayability of SQ42 and its branching storyline is slightly at odds with the concept of transferring your character to the PU, so I'm looking forward to an explanation of the restrictions on the transfer system when they've figured out how it works. A fairly old 10ftC statement by Chris amounted to, you will have some options when you start: play SQ42 and begin your PU career by finishing/early-exiting (as an outlaw) the campaign; take the initial tutorial training that's provided with SQ42 but skip the campaign (in which case you begin the game with a minor credit debt to the UEE for the training and you have one real-life year to pay it off or else you're marked as criminally delinquent until you pay up assuming you aren't already an outlaw); or skip the tutorial altogether and step into the PU completely fresh with no responsibilities, no burdens, a clean slate, and a ship with crappy parts to take off in. I haven't heard much new about this since, but I haven't heard anything that firmly contradicts it either.

I thought that I cancelled my subscription to this quarterly debate.

Gs, pls. I cant drink anymr. This gaem sucx

Eh, I paid for the game because I've been playing Freelancer since I was like 8. While it is not made yet, I am willing to risk my money to have another game just as good.

Well whatever happen, i have only spent 30$, no big deal for me.

[QUOTE=Wazbat;50527665] Space combat starts at 2:20 [video]https://youtu.be/PmaZw1xMxBQ?t=140[/video][/QUOTE] The thing that separates COD is how [I]fluid[/I] it is. It blows what we have seen from Star Citizen out of the water. It may just be a linear/pseudo-open game like Crysis, but its presentation is phenomenal. Examine Star Citizen (as is) closely and it is quite frankly a clunky turd. Movement is awkward, ships are clumsily designed, animations are overblown, gunplay is crap, and the pacing is completely schizophrenic; it takes an eternity to open a door, but ships die in an instant under enemy fire. None of this applies to what we've seen from COD. I am aware that CGI are working to rectify some of these issues, but I'll have to see it to believe it. The Call of Duty trailer has all the immersive bullshit that SC has, but it moves at a good pace and never feels like it's taking its time for the sake of pixel wank like SC does. [quote]I give CoD a lot of credit in this post, but it's still CoD, and as childish as it is for me to say it, CoD doing it first cheapens the experience for me.not only did CoD steal SQ42's thunder, it's trailer alone highlights a level of detail that is straight up absent in SC. It's hard to make a fair comparison at all, because we haven't seen much of SQ42, and the only piece of SC in our hands that isn't on a server of some kind, the hangar module, has very little to actually do in it. But it's still there. The character animations are laughable, the character models are jankey and unimpressive, the gunplay isn't great outside the ships, the animations to get into the ships are jarring and often bugged. Nearly every "First-Person" aspect of this "First-Person-Universe" is unfinished, unimplemented, and downright unimpressive. In 2.4, I could see my player characters high-resolution eyeballs and I wasn't trying to look at them. And all that is before I get to the unbearable UI, and other various bugs with the game. Why does the launcher download limit not work? Using the internet while patching the game is surprisingly difficult...[/quote] Someone [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/4o1qtx/lets_talk_about_call_of_duty/]made a very good post on reddit[/url] about this. If CGI wants Squadron 42 to truly shine, they will need to step up their game because they're no longer operating in a competition vacuum.

I thought that gameplay demo was [B]fucking cool[/B] and what I hope, but don't [I]remotely[/I] expect Squadron 42 to be like. I mean, obviously it's all scripted and the space flight is hugely simplified for the sake of keeping it ultra fast and accessible, but all those awesome transitions between walking on a capital ship, to getting launched out of a tube, to fighting in zero G, to fighting on a capital ship again, to getting back into a ship was just amazing. I was laughing the whole way through because I couldn't stop thinking to myself "a God damn Call of Duty game of all things is outdoing Star Citizen in the whole FPS->Space Sim thing." I have an extremely hard time imagining Star Citizen feeling remotely smooth or intuitive. Just the way the game fundamentally works, I can't imagine it. At best, I expecting an ARMA level of jank. I hope they do better, but I'm not counting on it. Yeah, yeah, I know that's a gross over-simplification of the whole thing, and I know people are going to hate me because Call of Duty is the anti-Christ and absolutely must be ridiculed and nothing should ever want to be anything like it, but fuck. If you want a target to shoot for in how smooth and seamless a game should feel in going between all these extremes, that's it. Also I hate how cool it is to hate Call of Duty.

[QUOTE=Saber15;50529295]The thing that separates COD is how [I]fluid[/I] it is. It blows what we have seen from Star Citizen out of the water. It may just be a linear/pseudo-open game like Crysis, but its presentation is phenomenal. Examine Star Citizen (as is) closely and it is quite frankly a clunky turd. Movement is awkward, ships are clumsily designed, animations are overblown, gunplay is crap, and the pacing is completely schizophrenic; it takes an eternity to open a door, but ships die in an instant under enemy fire. None of this applies to what we've seen from COD. I am aware that CGI are working to rectify some of these issues, but I'll have to see it to believe it. The Call of Duty trailer has all the immersive bullshit that SC has, but it moves at a good pace and never feels like it's taking its time for the sake of pixel wank like SC does. Someone [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/4o1qtx/lets_talk_about_call_of_duty/]made a very good post on reddit[/url] about this. If CGI wants Squadron 42 to truly shine, they will need to step up their game because they're no longer operating in a competition vacuum.[/QUOTE] I disagree. Look closely at the way that ship moves in that sequence. It's all on rails, corridor nonsense (Or looks very much like it is.) I don't think I'd like Star Citizen to be designed like that. As for fluidity, I find that the way ships handle now are far better than they were at the start of Arena Commander. The presentation *feels* infinitely better than what I saw in that trailer. Don't get me wrong, Call of Duty's great at creating very cinematic set pieces, but the gameplay has little substance beyond the tight niche it's good at. It's certainly no good for people who have the slightest grasp of how said weapons and vehicles are actually supposed to work, but great from the perspective of Michael Bay fans. I mean, it's kind of hard not to be disdainful of the franchise when they tried to make an AT4 recoilless rifle a SAM launcher.

The space missions are actually completely free form and flight is 6DOF in a 3D space. They are also optional, interestingly.

I don't care to write a huge spiel going into the details of what I just wrote, but at least read the post that Saber15 linked, because it's important to have perspective on the game and not be afraid to compare the two games. Star Citizen feels like shit in a lot of small ways that add up to really sour the whole package. Yes, I know it's WIP, but CoD is a good reference point to compare against (note: not copy, but compare against) in a hell of a lot of ways. [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] Also I've had a morbid curiosity for like 5 years now about what a AAA huge corporation zillion dollar budget space sim might look like, and Infinite Warfare is hilariously close to what I imagined. Now I just need a AAA Rockstar developed open world space GTA game and hell will have officially frozen over and my favorite genre will become the dominant genre in gaming.

[media]http://imgur.com/a/wgEPD[/media] glorious $245 jpegs

that command module is hilariously ugly

[QUOTE=krail9;50530727]that command module is hilariously ugly[/QUOTE] It's the ribbed canopy that does it. Bad choice.

it has a beefy fallout metalwork vibe going on, not sure I like it but I'm sure a lot of people will click with the design. For reference, the original module concepts looked like this- [t]http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/starcitizen/images/5/5e/Caterpillar_atv8_3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140731172910[/t] [t]http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130920200536/starcitizen/images/8/8d/Open-Flightdeck0homework1.jpg[/t] [t]http://jimmartindesign.co/images/starcitimg/cat-model-render5.jpg[/t] looking at the old cutaway, your view was dashboard-height like every spaceplane we knew at the time, and probably meant your view was total garbage (thus the navigator below), where now the glass goes all the way down to floor level and there's no more underside nav. still the weird ribs around it feel like a really amateur design compared to the everything else we've seen of the ship. Another thing that really sticks out is that the nose got shorter and wider, probably to account for what space they needed inside mixed with the compromise to allow the nearby module's bay to open. Could have been a bit more gracefully tackled but they were dealing with a lot of community demands to undo what they were trying to do before that. Also, the third picture in that set doesn't match up to the cockpit glass, could that be the tractor beam operator on the other side, or [for some reason] the front end turret enclosure? [t]http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130903214543/starcitizen/images/c/cb/Cat-Model-Render3.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=archangel125;50531240]It's the ribbed canopy that does it. Bad choice.[/QUOTE] I rather like it, fits with the ships utilitarian and industrial aesthetic.

The Drake style guide does seem to boil down to "ugly work machines for scummy people", and I can get behind that. If you want luxury aesthetics Origin's line of ships is there for you, and to a slightly lesser and different extent the Aegis and Consolidated Outland styles. [video=youtube;OVNReJfQRt0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVNReJfQRt0[/video] This week's Jump Point repost is [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15383-Galactic-Guide-Nemo-System"]the Galactic Guide to the Nemo system[/URL], an aquatic terraformed world with giant seabed oil reserves the UEE still doesn't understand (as the planet was lifeless when they found it), complete with the tourist trap that is the Space Whale (not an actual creature). [t]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/media/16k7nlqe9wkonr/source/Nemo_Image_2.jpg[/t]

I don't think it's just the ribbing that causes it to be ugly actually, I think the shape of the front half does more to make it ugly. You've got a tiny, narrow cockpit on a fairly large, flat, and wide surface. There's no real flow of any kind to it and it all just looks [I]wrong[/I].