Star Citizen Info Thread

Wanna see the new vid?
No?
But do, please, apparently it's not prerendered nor postprocessed but actual ingame footage (although "alpha"):

They played that trailer than did the reverse landing live in the stream.

Although, I think the grid physic is way more awesome than procedural seamless planet landing.

Well, I have to ask what is the point of such a huge procedurally generated, empty planet?

That is… beautiful. *wipes a tear away*

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Well, I have to ask what is the point of such a huge procedurally generated, empty planet?

It's too small to be a planet actually.

And the point is that people asked for seamless landing and with hundred of planets/moons too do would take too much time to make each hand made so they procedurally generated the surface.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Well, I have to ask what is the point of such a huge procedurally generated, empty planet?

The point is to answer on calls from people who accuse developers of being scammers who got the money and now don't work on anything and the game, they claim, will never get released.
Accusations by mostly those who didn't back the KS project.

Originally Posted by azarhal
It's too small to be a planet actually.

And the point is that people asked for seamless landing and with hundred of planets/moons too do would take too much time to make each hand made so they procedurally generated the surface.

I just think that it is pointless to make a huge empty "planet"… I do not see people would enjoy explore it. But perhaps I am wrong.

In my opinion It'd be better to have smaller scale "planets" with a lot of stuff to see and do instead.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
I just think that it is pointless to make a huge empty "planet"… I do not see people would enjoy explore it. But perhaps I am wrong.

In my opinion It'd be better to have smaller scale "planets" with a lot of stuff to see and do instead.

Most planets in the universe are empty rocks.

Originally Posted by azarhal
Most planets in the universe are empty rocks.

Yes, if they want it to be ultra realistic that is fine. But I think that they want to make a game, not a Universe simulator ?

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Yes, if they want it to be ultra realistic that is fine. But I think that they want to make a game, not a Universe simulator ?

Star Citizen is a Space Sim, Universe simulator might not be a bad description for it.

I think SC sort of falls between a game and a hardcore sim. The simulator crowd really likes everything to be just right.

Personally, I think I would enjoy the immersive effect of being able to go down to the surface of any world I see. They could spice it up by having you detect mysterious signals, pirate bases, and such like.

Originally Posted by azarhal
Star Citizen is a Space Sim, Universe simulator might not be a bad description for it.

Ok, I thought it was a game…. but I did not follow it all that much. In that case I have no complaints.

A Universe simulator could definitely be interesting… there is actually already a very good one out there, but I can't remember it's name now.. it is made in openGL, but it does not allow you to land on planets though. I used to be in to that one a long while ago… now if I could just remember it's name….

I read a recent article on the game that mentions that the Squadron 42 campaign will have an "open ended structure". Does that mean the single player game will be like Privateer where you have a main campaign but can stray away from it and do other missions? Or will it be like Wing Commander where you have very structured missions?

Originally Posted by DarNoor
I read a recent article on the game that mentions that the Squadron 42 campaign will have an "open ended structure". Does that mean the single player game will be like Privateer where you have a main campaign but can stray away from it and do other missions? Or will it be like Wing Commander where you have very structured missions?

Read this article.

Originally Posted by azarhal
Read this article.

Thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for.

Forgot all about this thread, sorry.

Well, they just hit 150M in funding - and they keep hiring people, so it doesn't look like they will run out any time soon.

3.0 is set for July - but I'd say it's smart to account for inevitable delays. Personally, I think there's a decent chance it will be out within a few months of that date.

It's a quantum leap in almost every way - and it should be the first version of the alpha that's going to be representative of the final experience in terms of core gameplay and activities. Very excited for it.

In terms of technology, content and features - the vision of this game is so far ahead of all other games - it's hard to describe. While I fully appreciate the reasons for being sceptical, especially if you're not following development closely - I'd say 3.0 should be a big help in alleviating the doubts of reasonable people. Ignorance and adversity for the sake of adversity can't be helped, though. Probably not even the final game can help that.

I think I will wait for that to come out before I get into more detail - but I just wanted to bump the thread so I don't forget again

Here are a few of the latest Around the Verse videos:

I highly recommend checking out the "Studio Update" segments in each of them - at the beginning, as they're very good at providing a detailed and tangible look into the work they're doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZIzExVmZMo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKRX0ZwzXqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y78PPfs1NXc

What this game will do with lighting, fog and interaction systems has impressed me most amongst countless other impressive things. There are so many possibilities for immersive gameplay. I will probably buy in if 3.0 comes out in good shape.

Originally Posted by Silver
What this game will do with lighting, fog and interaction systems has impressed me most amongst countless other impressive things. There are so many possibilities for immersive gameplay. I will probably buy in if 3.0 comes out in good shape.

What has impressed me the most would be the balls Chris Roberts has for going all in - instead of taking the easy route - whilst actually knowing what the hell he's doing at the same time

I've literally never seen anything like this in the history of the gaming industry.

It's the kind of game I used to dream about before I understood how the publisher model worked.

I would never have expected crowd-funding to achieve this kind of stage.

As for 3.0 - I expect it to be in rough shape upon release. I would withhold judgment until a month or two after - for them to get it polished up to a reasonable degree.

There's just way too much new technology in there to make a fully polished release realistic.

I think Star Citizen is already a success due to the new technology they have come up with. If Chris wanted he could license that tech. Hopefully he does because then gaming will take a quantum leap in terms of new interactive possibilities and probably whole new genres being spawned. I'm okay with him sitting on that tech until the game releases mind you.

I don't really care about technologies or genres in the game.
I was an immediate KS backer, one of those mainstream media basically calls "suckers".
And I remember why I backed it.

For ages there was no another Privateerlike game (M$ made one then forgot about the whole thing). And I want it.
But no, why try something new when everyone is making phonegames, DLCcows, roguelikes, grinders and usual copypaste trash. Feel free to add to it so called enhanced editions, remasters and other quick$ scams.

Even if in the end SC sux, I still want it.