| Page 89 of 274 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 Posted: Mon, 21st Apr 2014 18:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | KKND wrote: | Lol at anyone who's thinking that even a half of the things promised in this game will actually become a reality.
Double lol at anyone that pledged more than 15 bucks for a thing that doesn't even exist yet. |
Triple lol at registering just to post that. |
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh you're wearing the big boy pants now aren't you?
lolololol
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Il_Padrino
Posts: 7544
Location: Greece by the North Sea
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Apr 2014 19:51 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Apr 2014 20:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| KKND wrote: | | Werelds wrote: | | KKND wrote: | Lol at anyone who's thinking that even a half of the things promised in this game will actually become a reality.
Double lol at anyone that pledged more than 15 bucks for a thing that doesn't even exist yet. |
Triple lol at registering just to post that. |
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh you're wearing the big boy pants now aren't you?
lolololol |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Apr 2014 21:29 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Apr 2014 21:31 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Apr 2014 22:11 Post subject: |
|
|
There's many similarities, but it's the focus where it differs. Note, the below is what both "sides" (as if most of us won't be playing both  ) have outlined for their current project and what they've done in the past.
ED is about space combat first and foremost, like the old Elite games. There's certainly an economy, but it's fairly simplistic.
Star Citizen certainly has space combat, but the economy is probably a bigger aspect of the game, like in...*drumroll please* Freelancer.
That's the difference in focus. Now, as far as the scope goes, what makes SC's so much more ambitious is because practically everything can be done by players or by the AI. Trading, offering/accepting missions, controlling specific vessels. In ED there's much more restricted to the AI; your interaction with players will first and foremost be in combat; maybe a bit of trading too.
In other fields, the two games do some things the other doesn't. For example, where SC has gone for boarding and all that, ED is going for flying through a planet's atmosphere. Again, this stems from the fact that ED is more focused on the space combat and your ship.
I think the easiest way to make the difference between the two clear is exactly that: ED is about your ship, SC is about you (as a character).
And in before anyone comes hating me like a complete retard again because I'm not saying anything negative: no, I'm not speaking for or against either game. I think both are still very far from what they've promised and I'm not taking either in their current state as any indication of what they will be. SC should've gone dark instead of the modules, but ED has very cleverly made people forget about some of the shit they said they were gonna do (or what they have done - like the fly-by-wire thing in SC now; ED only has the slow turning, guided mode that is getting so much hate). Flying through a planet's atmosphere? I haven't seen anyone whinging about them not showing that yet - and physics wise, that is a massive change in flight dynamics 
I will play both of them and I will take them as they come when they're released. I just can't make a judgement on either based on the stuff they've shown so far. If you disagree...well, fuck you 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Apr 2014 22:21 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no9999
Posts: 3437
Location: Behind you...
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Apr 2014 22:54 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Apr 2014 23:52 Post subject: |
|
|
| Tungsten wrote: | | Werelds wrote: | Flying through a planet's atmosphere? I haven't seen anyone whinging about them not showing that yet - and physics wise, that is a massive change in flight dynamics
I will play both of them and I will take them as they come when they're released. I just can't make a judgement on either based on the stuff they've shown so far. If you disagree...well, fuck you |
from the outset, planetary landings was set to be a feature much further after retail hit, 1 year +
never ever was this supposed to happen from the start of when it goes retail. |
True, but that's part of the point. Star Citizen, right from the outset, had its ambitions set sky high. It was already clear then that it wasn't going to be done within a year and they never said that either (they originally said November 2014). Like others I had hoped that the modular approach would keep us entertained in the meantime, but clearly it hasn't and it may very well have become a problem in fact. Those ambitions only grew as the funding kept going up. For ED, adding the planetary landings in so much later (assuming it's still happening) poses a problem SC doesn't have: they're gonna have to make sure the physics work for it after the fact. So while I have concerns about some aspects of SC's physics, I also have concerns about that part of ED.
There's just a lot of overreacting about the DFM being buggy and what not. I don't know about you, but I'm not naive enough to even consider the idea of a tiny portion of the game being bug free, I expected lots of failure on this front. Originally I didn't even expect the DFM to be MP at all.
Funding is another point; I have serious concerns about the microtransactions and much more so than the space combat do I want to know how the in-game economy is going to work. But instead of people wanting to know that, most just keep going "lololol they have 45 million, just cashing in, game should be done by now". May I remind you of the absolutely ridiculous prices ED has set for itself? I wonder if everyone really thinks that ED is still stuck with the $1.5m they made off the Kickstarter - just because they're not open about it, doesn't mean they're not at much more than that by now. Because make no mistake, there will have been plenty of people shelling out 200 quid for that alpha access after the space combat videos. I wouldn't be surprised if they're closer to $15m than to $1.5m. And don't forget that all the shit Braben has spoken about is going to come in paid DLCs (such as the planetary landings above). SC may have the big budget now, but by the time ED has all its extras put in (if they do them all), it'll have had a similar budget.
Like I said, I think neither game is anywhere near representative of what they will be when they come out. And I really, really think that all the pooha around SC is focusing on the wrong damn things; namely the only things that can be directly compared to ED, which quite frankly are not the most important part of the game. Likewise, I think with ED people are way too focused on what's there, rather than what's to come.
I'm afraid of saying too much about either game, since I'm going to be called a hater or a fanboy no matter what, while in truth I honestly couldn't give a single flying fuck. I'll be playing both and I sincerely hope both result in exactly what their creators have outlined. The only reason I backed SC is because ED's KS was so utterly horrible, with 0 enthusiasm or passion showing from Braben himself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 00:14 Post subject: |
|
|
your fears are completely justified, but would be completely allayed if you had read the ED forums. The ridiculous prices (which I agree with were astronomical, especially alpha) did dissuade too many people buying in, and although that could have been why they cut it so close at kickstarter time, its also why the alpha builds have been (mostly) polished up VERY quickly, because there is a smaller focus group that are dedicated to testing and making a great game.
Frontier have been transparent about shares and investors (as far as we know, obviously) and they have gained more financing, from increased alpha / beta backing too. Planetary landings will happen or there will be outrage by 99% of the players in the game, which would not look good and hell, they have over a year to do it. As for the DLC's... anyone who is premium beta or above has free expansions anyway, so thats a bit of a non issue for many who backed the game.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 00:45 Post subject: |
|
|
No, the alpha builds have been so polished because there quite simply is less to deal with. Whether that's good or bad is debatable. SC will be a bigger game at release, but obviously will take longer so...meh situation either way for me 
The reason that there's a smaller focus group is because -and I mean absolutely no offense here- because the only people who backed it were people who saw Braben's name and were already throwing their wallets, creditcards, pocket change and quite possibly their first-, second- and third-born at the screen just to get it. I didn't back SC because it had Roberts' name on it. I also wasn't going to back ED just because it had Braben's name on it. I would've backed both, had Braben not looked like such a muppet in his presentations. I just couldn't justify backing it when there wasn't just nothing to show, but the people behind it (Braben included) didn't seem to give a flying fuck. Clearly that wasn't the case, but that's certainly how it looked during the KS. Sabin and I both felt the same back then; we're both hardcore fans of Elite and the Lancers ( ), but CR and his team seemed to be even more excited than we were (and they still do, CR is a like a little kid every time he gets to play ).
By the time I saw how much they had changed in all aspects, they'd already gone to these ridiculous packages we have now. I'm still debating whether to go to Premium Beta just to get all the DLC too and then spend the extra 20 to get into the beta a month from now. I'll still have spent twice as much as I have spent on SC by then though, just because I didn't buy into the name behind the project
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no9999
Posts: 3437
Location: Behind you...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 01:10 Post subject: |
|
|
Sadly (or not) I did back both because it was DB and CR. I grew up on Elite, sitting with my dad in awe (god I'm old), and although I didnt rate Freelancer that highly, CR previous games were also a huge part of my childhood on the ST and Amiga.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no9999
Posts: 3437
Location: Behind you...
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 02:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Well im asking for opinions in the subscribers section..
| Quote: | I dont see the point of having g-force at all.
We must have invented something by then come on..it takes place a thousand years from now.
Every organ that suffers from g-force will be replaced or whatever.
Its 2014 and we're growing ears on mice and 3d printing live tissue. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 10:20 Post subject: |
|
|
The point of g-force is to add to the tactical layer - giving players an option to push it with some risk involved.
They're doing everything they can to avoid an endless shooting/turning match - which tends to become very, very boring if that's all there is to it. It might be fun for a while - but the game is meant to last for hundreds and hundreds of hours. If the core gameplay is limited and samey - it doesn't matter how many brilliant features they add to it. It will become boring. That's what's going to happen to ED after a while - or so it looks like to me, though I'll gladly support it.
There's a reason space games stopped being commercially viable - and it's not all about evil publishers caring about money only. The genre struggled to evolve.
ED is like a step into the past with better visuals.
SC is about evolving the genre in as many ways as they can manage. Again, obviously, there's no way everything they're talking about will make it into the first release of the persistent universe - but if it's a success - they'll work on adding it.
Even if they manage but a fraction of promised features - it will still represent a significant leap above anything we've seen in the past in terms of features and scope of gameplay.
Obviously, you have to actually believe that they want to make the game they're talking about - and you have to believe that mistakes and delays are inevitable in any project approaching this scope.
Having gone "dark" from the start would have been a major mistake - because they'd be looking at a fraction of the final budget which keeps growing. They're hyping the game as much as they can to get as much money behind it as possible. The only thing bad about that would be if they didn't spend the money making the game and hiring people - but blew it on coke and whores.
The modular approach means they get to exhaustively test each major technical aspect of the game all the way until release - which means the final product is going to be much, much more stable than if they'd had to limit the amount of testers.
They're going about it in a very smart way, in my opinion.
All the doom and gloom from whiners and naysayers will dissipate once they get something fully playable in their hands. So, the "dark" approach would have been a minimal advantage and a huge disadvantage.
In fact, I think the DFM will go a long way to quell a good chunk of the children.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 10:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: | The modular approach means they get to exhaustively test each major technical aspect of the game all the way until release - which means the final product is going to be much, much more stable than if they'd had to limit the amount of testers.
They're going about it in a very smart way, in my opinion. |
No.
The modular approach is forcing them to get certain aspects done ahead of time, just because they need to get them out there. That also means maintaining separate builds with the confinements appropriate for those releases. As a developer, that sucks. I can't even begin to describe how fucking annoying it is to do that. Even on a fully automated build process, it still gives you at least 50% more work. And if shit goes wrong, you're doing triple the work.
The issues with the DFM and to some extent even with the Hangar module are a testament of that. I wish it was different, but it is actually slowing them down now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 10:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | Casus wrote: | The modular approach means they get to exhaustively test each major technical aspect of the game all the way until release - which means the final product is going to be much, much more stable than if they'd had to limit the amount of testers.
They're going about it in a very smart way, in my opinion. |
No.
The modular approach is forcing them to get certain aspects done ahead of time, just because they need to get them out there. That also means maintaining separate builds with the confinements appropriate for those releases. As a developer, that sucks. I can't even begin to describe how fucking annoying it is to do that. Even on a fully automated build process, it still gives you at least 50% more work. And if shit goes wrong, you're doing triple the work.
The issues with the DFM and to some extent even with the Hangar module are a testament of that. I wish it was different, but it is actually slowing them down now. |
Yes, because they're implementing the tech in a logical order - for instance, by implementing the megaserver technology and backend for DFM - and using the aspects of combat in DFM to finetune the combat in the actual game. They're also making DFM a permanent and meaningful part of the full game.
If you take care to listen to their thinking and planning with these modules, you'll realise that they spent a good deal of time thinking how to expand the game in a proper order.
Does it mean 100% optimal development? No, but it means a MAJOR budget boost and hype generating machine along with a very smart way of testing and implementing technology.
You can't do a crowdfunded game of this ridiculous scope and then just go dark. That would be beyond futile.
They don't have a publisher feeding them money and greenlighting every milestone.
But we don't have to agree.
Last edited by Casus on Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 10:47; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 10:34 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 17:06 Post subject: |
|
|
Release in 2016/2017 or am I being unreasonable? They're still at the R&D stage for a lot of this game's features and they're still tailoring the CryEngine (basically re-writing the whole thing is what I heard) and squeezing in new technologies.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dr-nix
Posts: 996
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 17:21 Post subject: |
|
|
| EternalBlueScreen wrote: | | Release in 2016/2017 or am I being unreasonable? They're still at the R&D stage for a lot of this game's features and they're still tailoring the CryEngine (basically re-writing the whole thing is what I heard) and squeezing in new technologies. |
Not everything they are working on (like the r&d for procedural generation) is going to be in the game at launch. They will keep adding stuff after they've launched it.
Assuming they keep the schedule then the first part of SQ42 (the singleplayer campaign) will be released early 2015 (Q1), the beta of the persistant universe should see the light of day sometime during 2015.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X | Noctua NH-D15 chromax.black | ASUS Crosshair VIII Dark Hero | 32 GB Trident Z 3600Mhz | Gigabyte Aorus PCIe4 1TB SSD | Corsair MP510 1TB SSD |ASUS RTX 3080 Ti TUF | Fractal Design Define 7 | Seasonic 850W Platinum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 17:48 Post subject: |
|
|
I very much doubt we'll see anything PU before 2016 - no matter what they're promising. It would certainly be a pleasant surprise, though.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
locke89
Posts: 2812
Location: Poland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morphineus
VIP Member
Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 23:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| KKND wrote: | Super lol at all the people who spent thousands of dollars on virtual space ships in a product that doesn't even exist yet  |
So your sole reason of existence is to spout rubbish about this game? What caused the butthurt or need to go on a propaganda mission?
You're sounding as silly as the fanboys, just that you are on the other side of the extreme |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Apr 2014 23:39 Post subject: |
|
|
How is it smart to spend thousands of dollars on a product that may not even come out in like, ever?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 89 of 274 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
