-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Citizen Alpha 2.0 | The 'Verse Awakens
- Thread starter Raticus79
- Start date
I remember checking out the game back when the OP was new, visiting SC's subreddit and homepage, filing it all away in my memory and hoping to play it a year-or-so later. Here we are 19 months later and it all seems to be pretty much in the same state. ?
Do they have new investors? I figure they're still doing some kind of private crowd funding and persuading people to purchase ever more expensive virtual space ships. I guess with enough perennial whales they can keep this development going on forever.
Do they have new investors? I figure they're still doing some kind of private crowd funding and persuading people to purchase ever more expensive virtual space ships. I guess with enough perennial whales they can keep this development going on forever.
News came out about the content cuts in 3.0.0. Because we now have "bigger but fewer planets", some people think that's a gain in content, some people think it's an unclear tradeoff, and some people think it's a loss in content.
Since the whole situation is uncertain due to the lack of transparency from CIG, it makes for a lot of debate about different perspectives.
I'd argue no one knows what the game design of Star Citizen will look like. We might have some hints about 3.0.0, but they've barely outlined the gameplay loop. The one page design docs read like marketing fluff. They are clearly waiting to design what makes the game fun until the last possible minute.
If you just want an echo chamber with other people who are loving the development of Star Citizen and don't see any warning signs, then you are free to create and contribute to a community thread. The community thread could specify that it would be a thread only about the actual gameplay or enjoyment of Star Citizen / the modules developed.
As it is, this is a news and discussion thread. There's been some negative news about the reduced planets in 3.0.0 over the past few days, so it's natural the discussion would tend to focus on that. To my knowledge the only positive news is about preordering ground vehicles, but if you have some actual information (instead of weird threats and innuendos) to share, please do.
RadioactiveLobster
Member
Which is ridiculous for a game that's been in dev this long (at least publicly).
Hurston:
that is only because we knew the game before development started unlike normal published games. (other publisher would announce games only after a few years of development time)
that is only because we knew the game before development started unlike normal published games. (other publisher would announce games only after a few years of development time)
Cabbagehead
Member
It's not ridiculous at all actually. You just get to witness it all in real time. That's all.
Most normal games also have things like a design document and a budget which help set the scope of a project so the people making the game have at least a somewhat consistent idea of what the game they're making is.
For instance, the thing with the change in the number of star systems at launch and how the scope of planets has changed as well is that those changes should theoretically have a varying levels of impact on most other aspects of the game. Exploration is the obvious one that's been mentioned, but a change in scope like that should likely affect most game systems even if it's just in small ways (travel time and resource distribution and thus the economy, how aliens and other factions are included in the game world, possible changes in game lore, how PVP is handled since there will be fewer hubs where players congregate and various network issues related to that as well, etc...).
Under the best of circumstances, building a AAA single player game, and very likely the most ambitious MMO that's ever been promised would take years and years to even get to what they're calling the MVP. When scope fluctuates and everybody needs to adjust things they're working on as well as work that might have already been considered "finished" that only lengthens the process and frequently results in a lot of wasted work. It's one of the big dangers of having a scope that seems largely defined by estimating continued income through donations/sales.
Looking at the pace of development, it's going to be years before SC has all the basic gameplay systems in and even that only gets them to the point where they have to start tweaking balance and gameplay to make sure everything fits together and most importantly is actually fun (which is why most games tend to start with the mechanics and work more on content, graphics, bug fixes, and optimization later). If my skepticism comes from any place, it's the sheer amount of ambition in what they've promised combined with a development process that's difficult to wrap my head around. The head of the project seemingly having no idea as to how things are progressing is almost a distant third when compared to the first two concerns. That's not even getting into the issue that no developer has even come close to being able to generate content faster than players can consume it.
I don't want the game to fail but I also don't see how it comes together even remotely as promised any time before the mid-2020's at the very least.
Cabbagehead
Member
You are so wrong with the top half. But at least the last comment is sound logic though.
No he isnt. Pretty much every single game have a set scope, budget and design before starting production.
staticneuron
Member
Think of The AAA game development cycle as four phases. There's the concept phase, where the studio comes up with the idea for the game. There's the pre-production phase, where it creates the prototype and basic art that proves that idea is worth pursuing. Normally there is a pitch to pub and if it passes the game goes into full production phase, when the bulk of the work of creating it takes place. Last, there's the finaling phase, where the team optimizes and squashes the last bugs and gets the game in shape for retail.
Games often change scope during production phase especially if it is a new path or tech involved. Whether it is to go smaller or they push for larger elements or more nuanced elements. The idea that everything is fixed from start to finish is a false idea. Normally this stage isn't even shown to public. Any thing taken away or added are found in introspective or reviews. It is also during production where a pub can choose to cut loses if they feel an idea is unfeasible. The funny thing about this is we normally don't see that either unless a pub announces a game early (I will miss thee Scalebound), but during this, lore and design documents are abound. And that is one thing this production has had, from design docs and art and tech, also outlines of how mechanics will work in design docs. Of course they are hidden on the webpage often in big letters and/or discussed in the developer videos, but who is crazy enough to read/watch those things, right? Right? 3.0 which will have multiple professions and subsumption comes from a vacuum or pure luck right? They haven't been design and working on this all along could they?
I find all of this hard to believe as well.
I'm well aware of how productions work, I have worked on quite a few titles over the years. Of course scope change, and focus changes through the production cycle, but in most cases its nowhere near the scale of changes that Star Citizen go through. And yes, they do have a set scope, timeframe and budget. Then of course they deviate from that quite often, more money and time, or less scope for example. But you always start with a rather fixed starting point. Just pointing that out, people seem to think that Star Citizen is not so different from normal game productions, but as far as I can tell, it really is. If the game will be good or bad, or finished or not is besides the point, their production sure doesnt flow as a normal game does.
staticneuron
Member
They didn't start like a normal game production, there is unprecedented access and feedback during the alpha stages of the game. There is nothing normal about the game other than new tech taking time. If we didn't have playable iterations and can actually see and play some breakthroughs, I would understand all the concern. But as it stands, 3.0 with alot of major features that some have been concerned about is in the window for the next two months. It is amazing how many have recently come into say so instead of just waiting to see 3.0 alpha, then proclaiming how much they expect from CiG.
Cabbagehead
Member
I know, i was super vague with my "You are wrong" statement. Let me explain.
I was talking about the about, his lack of knowledge when it comes to CIG's beginnings as a studio and how they had to build and create new /old things that would suit their ambitions. Of course the technical and game production aspect are going to be similar or the same. But that doesn't mean it all applies.
Like a one size fits all type thing. Being modular and making two games at the same time. While still hiring developers and improving the engine, creating new features, tools and keeping update with new tech, as you try to put together builds for backers to play-tetlst in a live battlefield. Instead of a QA or NDA focus group type feedback loop. Changes everything.
This project is very different then the traditional methodologies just on the front facing development aspect alone. Its all a big risk. Something that is being watched by the community and something that almost caught up to CIG in 2015 as a studio. Before they pivoted internally to set down a far more soild plan of action. That was feasible.
__________________
The truth is CIG over the first two to three years. Through crowd sourced ideas and design feedback and their own design thoery-crafting/concepting. Have created hundreds upon hundreds of documents/design docs (some of which may be bad or poorly thought out) and ideas for the game. From cargo, trading, mining, permadeath, to FPS goals, to flight mechinacs...etc a good chunk of those things.
(But the funny thing is, people like Pep and RJ would call that stuff market pr fluff. For whatever reason, when that stuff is the life blood of game development and gives developers a roadmap. Its just being seen, i'm all its chaotic public.)
We're mere ideas and may not have been possible to do back then. From a technical, communication, tool and talent standpoint alone. Now they have such things at this stage and those things will continue to improve and make a good lot of that past think tank session into tangible gameplay or functionality.
Of course games in development can change scope to an extent and almost no game ever ends up exactly the way it was planned. It's not usually to the degree of starting to make a game with a $20-40 million budget and then ending up with $100 million extra and counting and increasing the scope as a result. When games are hit with major changes that often ends up causing years of delays and sometimes becoming a different game entirely (Resident Evil 4's development, Overwatch), and that typically results in a ton of work that had been done being thrown out. A lot of the time it's for the best, but the huge delays it usually causes are a real thing.
And yes, I've read though some of the design doc stuff they put out there, but again, since they've allowed their scope to fluctuate to the extent that it has based on funding, tech, etc..., and since they didn't go the route of implementing mechanics first, I would imagine that a lot of those mechanics have needed to be rethought. The mining doc for instance is from over 2 1/2 years ago (I'm sure mining has been mentioned in videos also, but there's no easy way to track where) . How many millions in funding ago was that? That was also when they were still planning on having 100+ solar systems at launch and there was less of a focus on being able to land on large planets. Does that change how players find mining spots? What happens if when they finally implement mining after all this time (and mining ship sales) if half the player base likes it and half think the mechanics aren't any fun? The player base has had all these years to build up their expectations for what they think mining will be and many of them have already spent real money on ships for that purpose. Anybody who has ever seen a class balancing discussion for an MMO knows how invested people can get in these things even without the financial investment.
This is a game that is supposed to have a ton of moving parts. There are so many different interlinked gameplay mechanics that haven't even begun to be implemented yet (at least as far as what the players have access to) and slightly changing how one thing will work often affects a lot of other mechanics to some extent. I'm sure each of us could pick apart and try to argue details of what others in the conversation are saying, but the big picture point I'm trying to make, and one I'm sure most people could agree with (with the disagreement just being over a matter of a degree) is that SC is a monstrously ambitious project being developed in a very non-standard way. From where CIG is now, to launching their MVP I think could be close a decade away (or possibly longer) depending on any other major roadblocks they might hit, and assuming that they can keep people funding the game over that long a period, which itself isn't a certainty. It's a very, very long haul and maybe it's just my casual following of the development but a lot of what I've seen from CIG feels way too much like "look at all this cool stuff that's coming soon(ish)" with stuff that's still a long ways off.
staticneuron
Member
A couple of things to start off with.
1. Yes we established that this is not normal. But it is also not a surprise as they stated they were going to retarget during the kickstarter. After they kickstarter was over they also polled backers and got feedback. So unusual in dev but also unusual in terms of them going bigger this was actually requested by backers.
2. You can't implement mechanics without having the underlying engine to support it. That is nonsense. Hence they have stated that they were working on the core tech while the design ideas were targets they were aiming for. They implementation may change or evolved after tech is done and are play tested.
3. Planetary landing may add to mining but doesn't detract from original plans. What you are doing is throwing alot of smoke in the air that doesn't make much sense. The mechanics are being introduced in alpha hence they can receive feedback and balancing. It is not set in stone so the idea of backers losing their minds at first iteration is hard to believe. Not to mention Mining is scheduled for 3.1 and they have planned this for quite some time. Which is next iteration.
4. And yes it looks like a big beast especially if you have not been following along but the fact is the information is there. Whether you choose to follow along versus make broad assumptions off of limited information is entirely up to you but really isn't indicative of what they are doing. There is alot of "what if's" in your post and that is understandable because they give general information instead of specifics until it is nailed down. Before the most recent ATV I imagine you could have said that trade and the economy was also nebulous and unknown since the last design doc. But as they showed and explained in video form, it is shaping up to look like they are infact following the design docs in terms of implementing mechanics.
So TL;DR: They are still working on game. The order in which you determine they "should" go into, doesn't make any sense considering the interdependency that is required.
iHaunter
Member
Cool stuff.
More SQ42 Teasing:
Now that's the kind of stuff I want to see. God, I love briefing animations.
Cabbagehead
Member
Great to hear. Lucky bastard!
Dictator93
Member
Splinter Cell on PC did this, and I wonder why few games have done it sincr. I love that.
Do we have a Star Citizen cycle jpg yet?
New video -> hype -> accusations of fraud ♺
That's a nice little trailer.
Yeah, I'll get some use out of this. Beats trying to maintain a precise analog stick tilt. I guess they'd have the various speeds for cinematic stuff anyway, so might as well use them like this.
Yeah, I'll get some use out of this. Beats trying to maintain a precise analog stick tilt. I guess they'd have the various speeds for cinematic stuff anyway, so might as well use them like this.
Outrun
Member
Awesome.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
The flying bits still look bad, we'll see.
Also I think they are directly trolling me with an even more giant thing of the worst part of the game, the giant blue glowing radar globe.
Most of the performance in the persistent universe (PU) is currently held back by the server, so it will probably be around 25-30 fps in an average server. We might see a small increase with the 3.0 alpha release. Most of the important updates in this department will come in later patches, depending on how work goes.
In the other modules (Star Marine, Arena Commander, Hangar) performance should be a lot better, i think 60fps should be very doable on those specs, but don't pin me on that
Yeah the radar looks very cheap and doesn't match the rest of the game.
Sounds like an interesting idea, though not sure how much use the lower speeds would get in practice... Does SC have a stamina meter?
At least to role play and immersion certainly, I would think. It's silly to see everyone running around Port Olisar all the the time.
The first iteration of a stamina meter should be in 3.0, although don't think it will be your classic meter. You'll just slow down and probably hear heavier breathing.
Cabbagehead
Member
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Cabbagehead
Member
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Some ships have a green one.
iHaunter
Member
I don't think so.
Mainly because the Network tech is coming in 3.1 and 3.2.
Network tech will make or break this game IMHO.
Cabbagehead
Member
Pretty much this.
If PUBG has thought me anything, is that Star Citizen is already dead.
😲😲😲
Cabbagehead
Member
Honestly, as much as I hope they'll manage to make a good portion of the grand "capital ship PVP" vision a reality some day, I would gladly settle for properly functioning multiplayer on a much smaller scale. You and a couple of your best buds, doing missions, wrecking shit. My preference would be a coop-focused story campaign that's separate from SQ42, but that ain't happening anytime soon.
Has anyone from CIG commented on the possibility of including coop in SQ42 recently? Seems to off the table for good, innit.
Has anyone from CIG commented on the possibility of including coop in SQ42 recently? Seems to off the table for good, innit.
Similar threads
- Locked