[Megathread] Star Citizen

[stellvia]

To be devil's advocate: One could say NMS showing a number of features that were eventually cut lead to an expectation they would be in the final game. Same could be true of some of the in development features we've been shown by CIG.

But yes, while Edge has a proper optimistic but tempered expectation for the game, SC shows a lot more of their hand. It's also a game being designed specifically for high levels of fidelity. If 3.1 comes and mining is an extremely shallow experience similar to NMS, I would see that as a major development failure.

Their presentation avoided timetables for most of the content, but did mention one date of wanting 4.0 to release by Dec 2017. That would coincide with all of the major features being in the game, I think? PTU supposed to have like 5 systems playable by then, multicrew, fps, mining, salvage, repair, farming, FTL jump mechanics, etc. Not sure where crafting fits into that ... probably with the mining processing and refining? I wonder if they'll allow you to build ships you haven't pledged for at that point?

[Waaldo]

To be devil's advocate: One could say NMS showing a number of features that were eventually cut lead to an expectation they would be in the final game. Same could be true of some of the in development features we've been shown by CIG.

Everything that was cut from NMS was either said by the developers or shown in a trailer. We never really saw any gameplay. They clearly kept a lot of the game secret until release and created trailers using cinematic tools, knowing it wasn't going to live up to the hype they created.

But with SC, running around ships in real time while in flight, multi-crew ships, dog fighting straight to fps all being seamless. A large part of what I think of as the "core" features are already playable in the current SC alpha for all backers. Things like planets, quests, and single player are just busy work. Creating massive amounts of assets and dialogue, all things that are more time consuming than difficult. They have laid out the ground work for what this game is going to run on and now they have to polish and build upon it. I'm not saying that they don't still have a TON of hard work to do, but I think they are in a good spot right now.

Just like everyone else, I don't know if this game will ever see a full release, or if it will truly live up to it's expectations/hype. But I wouldn't compare it to the NMS colossal failure. CIG put's out more development info in 1 week than Hello Games did in the entire NMS development period.

[KyrtF]

What other space game has ships you can run all over in real time and interact with, multi crew ships along with things down the line as doing repairs on your own ship, also things like mining in SC is going to take some sort of skill in order to be effective at it, and flying at least in SC takes a little more skill than in Elite or NMS, the planet tech in NMS and elite is no where near as detailed as what SC is going to be when the tech is finalised.

Star citizen will have just about everything avaible in the game where as games like NMS and elite are missing all those things that improve gameplay by a large margin, in elite was bored within 50 hours of gameplay, NMS pretty much done everything in 50 hours also, those games don't have the depth that star citizen has in such things as exploration where you actually land on a planet and explore things, elite and NMS is not very interaction in many aspects of gameplay.

Star citizen will have most if not all the features it needs to function as a proper space MMO game, whats the point in have a big space ship if you cant do anything on it apart from fly it from point a to b.

The problem is that by the time Star Citizen is released, games like Elite Dangerous is planning to have many of those aspects too.

Other aspects such as the "skill" required for mining is simply a different way of doing things. That may end up better...it may also end up worse. All depends on the final implementation and just because CIG makes all sorts of promises now doesn't mean these aspects will actually work.

Even of they do...this isn't revolutionary. Its a simple design decision.

Same with the planetary design. Simply making things look better isn't revolutionary.

And comparing what SC will possibly have when it is launched in 2 or 3 years is missing the point.

Both NMS and ED have most of what SC plans to offer and both seem to be promising to add the rest as time goes on and the games expand. By the time SC releases, it probably won't be offering anything that other hames cannot match.

But even compared with how things are today...SC isn't revolutionary.

It may very well end up being better....but its not really doing anything that hasn't been done before. NMS more so offers you pretty much what SC plans. SC just has a different focus...a different way of doing things.

[Deleted]

What other space game has ships you can run all over in real time and interact with, multi crew ships along with things down the line as doing repairs on your own ship, also things like mining in SC is going to take some sort of skill in order to be effective at it, and flying at least in SC takes a little more skill than in Elite or NMS, the planet tech in NMS and elite is no where near as detailed as what SC is going to be when the tech is finalised.

Star citizen will have just about everything avaible in the game where as games like NMS and elite are missing all those things that improve gameplay by a large margin, in elite was bored within 50 hours of gameplay, NMS pretty much done everything in 50 hours also, those games don't have the depth that star citizen has in such things as exploration where you actually land on a planet and explore things, elite and NMS is not very interaction in many aspects of gameplay.

Star citizen will have most if not all the features it needs to function as a proper space MMO game, whats the point in have a big space ship if you cant do anything on it apart from fly it from point a to b.

lol

even WoW has traveling/interaction in moving objects since 10 years ago

the difference is that SC has much more uselles polygons, for fidelity.

[KyrtF]

Comparing SC to One Man's Lie is amusing. NMS flopped hard at delivering all of the shit the devs had promised, was in development for several years and still wound up failing to deliver on the content. The game is god damn empty, it's a single player game no matter what the devs tell you, and the game has a severe lack of depth in both the combat and space flight aspects of the game in itself. NMS is missing a butt load of content to make it a deep game, which Star Citizen will provide at release. Even ED didn't have a lot of features added until after the game had launched. Comparing SC to NMS and ED is downright stupid and illogical, they aren't even in the same realms.

Yes....NMS was in development for years.
NMS didn't live up to the hype
NMS had lots of features cut

Oh...the irony.

However....even so, NMS still does a good bit of what SC offers. Mining...combat...exploration...FPS and ship based systems....

Assuming that SC will have the content to make it a deep game on launch is fine....but content doesn't equate to revolutionary.

So what is there that makes SC "revolutionary"?

I don't think the term fits.

You are trying to argue SC will be a better game. And when and if SC launches it might be. I'm pointing out that game isn't revolutionary. That at the end of the day, its not really doing anything new...even if it launches with everything promised, its still only going to be matching much of what NMS does now and what ED has promised.

[kenn9530]

The problem is that by the time Star Citizen is released, games like Elite Dangerous is planning to have many of those aspects too.

Other aspects such as the "skill" required for mining is simply a different way of doing things. That may end up better...it may also end up worse. All depends on the final implementation and just because CIG makes all sorts of promises now doesn't mean these aspects will actually work.

Even of they do...this isn't revolutionary. Its a simple design decision.

Same with the planetary design. Simply making things look better isn't revolutionary.

And comparing what SC will possibly have when it is launched in 2 or 3 years is missing the point.

Both NMS and ED have most of what SC plans to offer and both seem to be promising to add the rest as time goes on and the games expand. By the time SC releases, it probably won't be offering anything that other hames cannot match.

But even compared with how things are today...SC isn't revolutionary.

It may very well end up being better....but its not really doing anything that hasn't been done before. NMS more so offers you pretty much what SC plans. SC just has a different focus...a different way of doing things.

No other space game has the level of detail in every ship that star citizen has, star citizen has chips up to 24 players currently and no other space MMO does that, along with custom build planets to a high quality, also a single player campaign that progresses into the MMO universe.

Elite or NMS most of the time are just played as single players games, star citizen tries to lean towards players teaming up if they want to but you have the option to hire a few crew members to operate stations on your ship to a certain degree.

Even if and when elite/NMS implement interiors and such its only going to be cosmetic, in star citizen you will be able to carry out repairs and such on your ship.

Star citizens scale is much larger than NMS/elite, it may not have that many star systems at launch (think i saw somewhere there will be around 50), but even if its not as much there is going to be so much to do.

in NMS you can do all the content the game has on one planet pretty much, in elite there is nothing really to do on planets, that may change in the future but star citizen will still have superior planet tech as they craft each planet to the lore they have so if fits properly.

NMS only offers exploration which was not even done that good, the mining/combat is just a simple feature that offers no extra depth and ships are designed very basic, NMS is a very basic space game with minimal depth to it, and elite is largely similar it just focuses on combat and trade better, star citizen combined all aspects of a space game into one game.

[Demoncrash]

[Cyclone Jack]

It may very well end up being better....but its not really doing anything that hasn't been done before. NMS more so offers you pretty much what SC plans. SC just has a different focus...a different way of doing things.

To say that is an extreme overview of the two games. It's like saying Soul Calibur 2 and Urban Champion offer the same experience, because they are both fighting games.

Just looking at the player character design, SC and NMS are polar opposites. SC's character model in both 1st person and as seen by other players (or 3rd person) are the same model. The only other game that I am aware that does this is Arma, as most 1st person games games completely cheat in this area (and mad props to Arma on that). NMS has no character model.

SC allows the player to seamlessly transition everywhere they go, from space station to ship interior to planet to EVA, etc. In NMS you just pop in/out of your ship, no transition, and no real ship interior except for the one angle of the cockpit your floating camera can see. In fact, I don't believe you can see the inside of your ship when you are on the outside (those tinted windows). These two things alone make both games feel very different, and allows both games to have vastly different experiences and levels of immersion. One isn't necessarily better than the other, depending on what the designer is trying to accomplish, but to say they are the same thing is absurd.

Further, SC is a multiplayer space sim, whereas NMS is a single player crafting game in space. Again, very different games and goals, and to say one offers what the other does not is flat out wrong.

[KyrtF]

No other space game has the level of detail in every ship that star citizen has, star citizen has chips up to 24 players currently and no other space MMO does that, along with custom build planets to a high quality, also a single player campaign that progresses into the MMO universe..

Without wanting to put SC down....we don't know what level of detail SC is going to ship with. If you are talking about stuff like ship interiors and so on....again, Elite is also planning to go that way when and if it introduces its own FPS system.

Elite or NMS most of the time are just played as single players games, star citizen tries to lean towards players teaming up if they want to but you have the option to hire a few crew members to operate stations on your ship to a certain degree..

And I am still not hearing from you anything that isn't being done today. ED is introducing multicrew and crew NPCs for example.

Even if and when elite/NMS implement interiors and such its only going to be cosmetic, in star citizen you will be able to carry out repairs and such on your ship.

Now you are talking about which implementation of the concept is "better". I'm asking what makes SC "revolutionary". Maybe being able to repair your ship will be great. Maybe it'll end up being one of those boring makework tasks noone wants to do.

Star citizens scale is much larger than NMS/elite, it may not have that many star systems at launch (think i saw somewhere there will be around 50), but even if its not as much there is going to be so much to do
.

Again...you are talking about SCs proposed level of content as opposed to anything that is "revolutionary".

In NMS you can do all the content the game has on one planet pretty much, in elite there is nothing really to do on planets, that may change in the future but star citizen will still have superior planet tech as they craft each planet to the lore they have so if fits properly.

NMS only offers exploration which was not even done that good, the mining/combat is just a simple feature that offers no extra depth and ships are designed very basic, NMS is a very basic space game with minimal depth to it, and elite is largely similar it just focuses on combat and trade better, star citizen combined all aspects of a space game into one game.

All aspects being...mining, trade, exploration, combat?

Again....both ED and NMS do these. SC plans to do them over 40 systems instead of millions. SC has ship interiors and an FPS aspect but that is planned for ED. SC has multicrew and crew NPCs...and that is coming for ED. SC has planetary landings and so does NMS, with ED doing it for airless worlds. SC has planet generation tech...and so does ED and NMS.

If SC had been released earlier....with all these systems integrated...then it might very well have been seen as revolutionary.

But it hasn't been released yet, and being realistic....I don't think it'll be released until 2018 or 2019. But it isn't doing or planning anything new or unusual that isn't being done today. Isn't even plannimg anything special or unusual.

Will it be a "good" game? I can hope so.
Will it live up to the hype? Almost certainly not.It'd be nice of it did.
Will it be "revolutionary"? No. Other games will do the same things, albeit differently. You are arguing SC will do things better....but being better isn't revolutionary.

- - - Updated - - -

Comparing anything to NMS is just plain offensive :P NMS is just an over glorified exploration game that’s all there is to it =/ As Angry Joe said, it’s as vast as an ocean with the depth of a puddle, the space combat, the economy, the trading system… even compared to Freelancer that’s over a decade years old already, it’s pretty bad >.<

The problem isn't that NMS does these things "badly".

The point is that NMS does do these aspects. If SC is just a vetter version of ED or NMS...what is it about SC that warrants the description "revolutionary"?

There isn't anything. Even IF SC lives up to the hype, it's still doing nothing that isn't being done today, never mind in two years when it launches.

SC might very well end up being the best game of its type...but describing it as "revolutionary" appears to just be pandering to the hype.

As things are now...compared with the games we have today....SC isn't revolutionary. To me, this is simply a good example of hyping up a product to levels of expectation that can't be met.

[stellvia]

Without wanting to put SC down....we don't know what level of detail SC is going to ship with. If you are talking about stuff like ship interiors and so on....again, Elite is also planning to go that way when and if it introduces its own FPS system.

You can't have it both ways. You don't get to both claim statements about SC's level of detail are invalid, while simultaneously claiming some future-planned Elite updates are going to be on the same level as SC. If SC's polish is in doubt until release, then Elite's claims are just as vacuous.

Especially when you literally have nothing to go by from Elite other than their word it will happen at some point in the future. Meanwhile CIG has already shown us plenty of the level of detail they are designing the game for. Including the fact backers are already flying many of the damn ships around in the PTU. It's not vaporware.

[KyrtF]

You can't have it both ways. You don't get to both claim statements about SC's level of detail are invalid, while simultaneously claiming some future-planned Elite updates are going to be on the same level as SC. If SC's polish is in doubt until release, then Elite's claims are just as vacuous.

Especially when you literally have nothing to go by from Elite other than their word it will happen at some point in the future. Meanwhile CIG has already shown us plenty of the level of detail they are designing the game for. Including the fact backers are already flying many of the damn ships around in the PTU. It's not vaporware.

《sigh》
The point I was making is that regardless of the level of detail or polish, the best that SC can hope for is the argument that it is better than the other games like it on the market.

And that argument...even if it turns out to be true...doesn't warrant calling it revolutionary.

There would have to be some huge leap somewhere to justify that....and SC doesn't qualify.

It isn't revolutionary. It isn't revolutionary now. Even when it was originally pushed via kickstarter....it wasn't revolutionary. Eve had Dust 514 for example.

So no. SC isn't revolutionary and can't be described as such. Its doing little or nothing that hasn't been done before.

And I said nothing about "vapourware". As it is....the only real criteria for vapourware is that it not be released. DNF for example was described as vapourware for years despite it being worked on and news being released. Even WC3 was described as vapoureare once.

SC and S42 have not been released. SC and S42 have both been repeatedly delayed. Neither have been given firm release dates. There are some demos available, some of these are even playable to one degree or another.

They are both likely to be released.....but if someone were to describe their current staus as vapourware, the description is valid. There is development...sure. There is a definite intent to release...certainly. But there are also shifting release dates, a lack of marketing, shifting design criteria and a lack of certainty that the games will be released. Faith..yes. Certainty...no.

As it is...I do think they'll be released. And I'm looking forward to seeing the games in action. I want to see how close they come to the hype.

But SC isn't revolutionary and right now...PTU notwithstanding...it IS vapourware. SC is promising us nothing we haven't seen in other games before....and more games will be in that niche by the time SC actually launches (which I expect to be in late 2018 if CIG holds true to their roadmap).

But if SC isn't revolutionary it might very well be an excellent game.

Or...it might not. That backers are flying ships around the PTU means nothing because we haven't seen how the whole interacts. Even the all important netcode isn't up to spec and won't be until 3.0.

So....will SC be good? Who knows.
Will it be revolutionary? No. It might be good....but it won't be revolutionary

Will I buy the game? Maybe...if its good enough
Will I back the game? No.

[kenn9530]

《sigh》
The point I was making is that regardless of the lebel.of detail or polish, the best that SC can hope for is the argument that it is better than the other games like it on the market.

And that argument...even if it turns out to be true...doesn't warrant calling it revolutionary.

There would have to be some huge leap somewhere to justify that....and SC doesn't qualify.

It isn't revolutionary. It isn't revolutionary now. Even when it was originally pushed via kickstarter....it wasn't revolutionary. Eve had Dust 514 for example.

So no. SC isn't revolutionary and can't be described as such. Its doing little or nothing that hasn't been done before.

And I said nothing about "vapourware". As it is....the only real criteria for vapourware is that ot not be released. DNF for example was described as vapourware for years despite it being worked on and news being released.
SC and S42 have not been released. SC and S42 have both been repeatedly delayed. Neither have been given firm release dates. There are some demos available, some of these are even playable to one dehree or another.

They are both likely to be released.....but if someone were to describe their current staus as vapourware, the description is valid.

As it is...I'm looking forward to seeing the games in action. I want to see how close they come to the hype.

But SC isn't revolutionary and right now...PTU notwithstanding...it IS vapourware. SC is promising us nothing we haven't seen in other games before....and more games will be in that niche by the time SC actually launches (which I expect to be in late 2018 if CIG holds true to their roadmap).

But if SC isn't revolutionary it might very well be an excellent game.

Or...it might not. That backers are flying ships around the PTU means nothing because we haven't seen how the whole interacts. Even the all important netcode isn't up to spec and won't be until 3.0.

So....will SC be good? Who knows.
Will it be revolutionary? No. It might be good....but it won't be revolutionary

Will I buy the game? Maybe...if its good enough
Will I back the game? No.

while i myself have never stated anything about the game being revolutionary even once, this is the first game on this scale to be completely open about the development process and many problems along the way, along with being mostly funded by players, no other company/developer would try a project like this let alone complete it. I'm sure there are other ways the game is funded but 128 million dollars completely crowd funded is unprecedented.

No other game on this level will be released with this level of quality once it is ready, the game was built from the ground up with these features, any game implementing these features at a later date won't be as refined as star citizen will be.

I have played ED/NMS and other space games and while some of them are good, they don't have that quality space feel to them, im excited about star citizen but im not hyping it up as the best game ever, i'm just hoping it will have that feeling that a space game should have which currently ED/NMS don't have for me.

Current features in SC now are higher quality that ED/NMS has currently, i would say in around a year squadron 42 should be almost with us.

Revolutionary may be subjective, star citizen has pretty much forced games like ED at least try to implement more features so you actually feel like your in a space game.

[Darkrulerxxx]

Traversing wormholes manually/ Seemless transition from person to ship from planet to space to other planet/procedural generation with high fidelity quality/ organizations dominating parts of space/ universe changing events...SC is revolutionizing games such as ED, NMS, EVE..etc... not to mention NMS is a single player game that was done horribly with those aspects.

i barely named a few of how it's going to be like.

NO GAME currently right now has the scope of what SC is promising, i consider that revolutionary.

and you need to re-read what vaporware is considered. With the amount of openness that Chris roberts has shown us, it is definitely not.

[1001]

Traversing wormholes manually/ Seemless transition from person to ship from planet to space to other planet/procedural generation with high fidelity quality/ organizations dominating parts of space/ universe changing events...SC is revolutionizing games such as ED, NMS, EVE..etc... not to mention NMS is a single player game that was done horribly with those aspects.

i barely named a few of how it's going to be like.

NO GAME currently right now has the scope of what SC is promising, i consider that revolutionary.

and you need to re-read what vaporware is considered. With the amount of openness that Chris roberts has shown us, it is definitely not.

Oh please. Just because one company talks about what it would like to do does not make it revolutionary, it's nothing but dreams until they can achieve it and banking on dreams is a fools errand, especially with someone like Chris Roberts at the helm.

Just a quick peruse through Elite's DDF (design discussion forums) https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumd...ussion-Archive or their development videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrrN...eBx6pkeWO2q5Xe shows an extremely large scope intended for the game. They just prefer to talk about what's arriving in the near future as opposed to an undetermined date in the future.

Star Citizen is doing some good stuff and what they intend for the game is also great but until they deliver....

[masterhorus8]

Oh please. Just because one company talks about what it would like to do does not make it revolutionary, it's nothing but dreams until they can achieve it and banking on dreams is a fools errand, especially with someone like Chris Roberts at the helm.

Just a quick peruse through Elite's DDF (design discussion forums) https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumd...ussion-Archive or their development videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrrN...eBx6pkeWO2q5Xe shows an extremely large scope intended for the game. They just prefer to talk about what's arriving in the near future as opposed to an undetermined date in the future.

Star Citizen is doing some good stuff and what they intend for the game is also great but until they deliver....

Yeah, and do you know WHY ED wants/"needs" to add these things? It's because they're trying to keep up with the SC hype. ED decided to take the safe approach and release a base game as early as they could. Then add the other stuff planned later down the road while charging all of the backers extra to get what they backed in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, it's a bit of a hyperbolic example, but still gets my point across. Here's what something looks like when you just keep adding thins onto the base instead of having it designed around it in the first place:
I present, the Sega Gensis plus the Sega CD and Sega 32X

[KyrtF]

I guess it's all a matter of perspective, a lot of people consider minecraft to be revolutionary, yet it also doesn't bring anything new to the table.
I'm not entirely sure that revolution is based on originality, either way, I don't think that the "revolutionary" word there as any weight on the hype the game is getting =/

It's simple.

Is there anything SC does or promises to do that hasn't been done or can't be done today? The answer is a straightforward no. This isn't adding 3D to 2D fighting games. This isn't inventing an entire new genre.

It's simply a game of a type and scale that already exists. Taking the usual examples - assuming both SC and ED develop along the lines the developers have siuggested, both will offer pretty much the same featureset as each other by the time SC releases. Trading, combat, p[iracy, smuggling, crafting, upgrades,. FPS, EVA, character generation, multicrew, and more. The difference will be in the gameplay and tone.

As for hype - when a game is described as "revolutionary", that tends to raise peoples expectations. Star Citizen, however, isn't revolutionary except, perhaps, in the way it has been funded. If a game is overhyped, the risk is that there will be a backlash. Even if it isn't overhyped, if it doesn't meet players expectations, whether or not they are realistic, you run into the same problem.

Star Citizen is at that point. More and more people arte expressing dissatisfaction with the way CIG have handled the development. One simply needs to look at the feed from CitizenCon. Expectations were not handled, and the result was a minor backlash. Not only on the CIG forums where CC didn't get the greatest of reviews, but also in the hall, on the day. The atmosphere wasn't great and CIG were actually heckled.

"Shame on you" and all that.

That's why I think applying description such as "revolutionary" are being banded around too freely. Good as the game might be, the simple, truth is that it isn't revolutionary. It's nowhere near revolutionary. But as part of the marketing hype, there is a risk in using such terms. And people are growing impatient.

They want the game. And it better be good.

- - - Updated - - -

NO GAME currently right now has the scope of what SC is promising, i consider that revolutionary.

And suppose ED adds the character generation. Suppose it ands multicrew. Suppose it adds an FPS mode and allows you to wander around your ship and the stations, and take part in boarding actions. Suppose it adds atmospheric landings. Suppose it adds a personal inventory system.

Everything you have listed is either already part of ED or promised for ED. Or appears to varying degrees in other games such as Eve or NMS. ED has been out for two years now. Eve has been out for over 10. NMS was just released. Elite started the entire genre 30 years ago. We've had Freelancer and FoFT and Star Trader. We have SWTOR. Elite Frontier had planetary landings and procedurally generated planets. And more. A lot of games do what Star Citizen offers, and some even do it on a larger scale

Regardless of whether SC ends up being a better game....it isn't revolutionary. So far, there is nothing on its featureset, or the way it does things, that hasn't been done before and isn't being done now.

And again - there is no guarantee that SC will be released. And again...being blunt - a few tech demos, no matter how impressive, don't make a game. Other games and systems have also been developed to the Alpha or Beta staged, but also not been released for one reason or another and are or were considered Vapourware. That CIG promises to - at some point in the future - release the game and has shown off some playable demos showcasing the basic tech doesn't really alter that.

I believe it will be released...but right now? it's vapourware. Still in development...still with lots of missing features...still with no release date. Being Vapourware doesn't mean it will never be released....

But we can only hope that it takes after Warcraft 3 rather than DNF or Daikatana.

[Darkrulerxxx]

It's simple.

Is there anything SC does or promises to do that hasn't been done or can't be done today? The answer is a straightforward no. This isn't adding 3D to 2D fighting games. This isn't inventing an entire new genre.

It's simply a game of a type and scale that already exists. Taking the usual examples - assuming both SC and ED develop along the lines the developers have siuggested, both will offer pretty much the same featureset as each other by the time SC releases. Trading, combat, p[iracy, smuggling, crafting, upgrades,. FPS, EVA, character generation, multicrew, and more. The difference will be in the gameplay and tone.

As for hype - when a game is described as "revolutionary", that tends to raise peoples expectations. Star Citizen, however, isn't revolutionary except, perhaps, in the way it has been funded. If a game is overhyped, the risk is that there will be a backlash. Even if it isn't overhyped, if it doesn't meet players expectations, whether or not they are realistic, you run into the same problem.

Star Citizen is at that point. More and more people arte expressing dissatisfaction with the way CIG have handled the development. One simply needs to look at the feed from CitizenCon. Expectations were not handled, and the result was a minor backlash. Not only on the CIG forums where CC didn't get the greatest of reviews, but also in the hall, on the day. The atmosphere wasn't great and CIG were actually heckled.

"Shame on you" and all that.

That's why I think applying description such as "revolutionary" are being banded around too freely. Good as the game might be, the simple, truth is that it isn't revolutionary. It's nowhere near revolutionary. But as part of the marketing hype, there is a risk in using such terms. And people are growing impatient.

They want the game. And it better be good.

- - - Updated - - -



And suppose ED adds the character generation. Suppose it ands multicrew. Suppose it adds an FPS mode and allows you to wander around your ship and the stations, and take part in boarding actions. Suppose it adds atmospheric landings. Suppose it adds a personal inventory system.

Everything you have listed is either already part of ED or promised for ED. Or appears to varying degrees in other games such as Eve or NMS. ED has been out for two years now. Eve has been out for over 10. NMS was just released. Elite started the entire genre 30 years ago. We've had Freelancer and FoFT and Star Trader. We have SWTOR. Elite Frontier had planetary landings and procedurally generated planets. And more. A lot of games do what Star Citizen offers, and some even do it on a larger scale

Regardless of whether SC ends up being a better game....it isn't revolutionary. So far, there is nothing on its featureset, or the way it does things, that hasn't been done before and isn't being done now.

And again - there is no guarantee that SC will be released. And again...being blunt - a few tech demos, no matter how impressive, don't make a game. Other games and systems have also been developed to the Alpha or Beta staged, but also not been released for one reason or another and are or were considered Vapourware. That CIG promises to - at some point in the future - release the game and has shown off some playable demos showcasing the basic tech doesn't really alter that.

I believe it will be released...but right now? it's vapourware. Still in development...still with lots of missing features...still with no release date. Being Vapourware doesn't mean it will never be released....

But we can only hope that it takes after Warcraft 3 rather than DNF or Daikatana.

again, ED started promising all this after SC has done this...you're neglecting the fact that ED rushed to get the base game out (i played ED a lot, there's a lot lacking), barely any content, very repetitive, and NOW after what has SC has laid out, they are quickly trying to do it.

you can't push out that SC isn't being revolutionary when ED tries to do it, but NOW you call SC vapourware when ED shows no development videos, behind the scenes, NOTHING...and SC has been showing everything about what they are doing, they have a playable PTU, and you keep calling it vapourware?

Absolutely ridiculous.....go away Evcro

[KyrtF]

again, ED started promising all this after SC has done this...you're neglecting the fact that ED rushed to get the base game out (i played ED a lot, there's a lot lacking), barely any content, very repetitive, and NOW after what has SC has laid out, they are quickly trying to do it.

Well...no. ED promised much of this even before their Kickstarter. There was talk about boarding actions and planetary landings and more. A lot of these were in Frontier and FE so the idea of carrying them over into ED isn't new or unprecedented.

you can't push out that SC isn't being revolutionary when ED tries to do it, but NOW you call SC vapourware when ED shows no development videos, behind the scenes, NOTHING...and SC has been showing everything about what they are doing, they have a playable PTU, and you keep calling it vapourware?

ED doesn't have to show development videos.

Unlike SC - it is actually released. It is a fully published fully realised game. And one which is being expanded upon and developed. Since it has been released, it cannot be vapourware. We have a pretty good idea about what is being planned for the game - the devs might not be as talkative about their future plans, but they do share every now and again. Whether or not they are able to follow through is another question

SC - despite the Test universe, despite the demos - has not been released. It is still in Alpha. It is still missing a lot of features and gameplay. It is nowhere near a release state and Alpha 4.0 isn't expected till the end of 2017....meaning no Beta or release until 2018 at the earliest. If it isn't delayed yet again. Which is very possible. Even probable.

That we have a PTU and various tech demos doesn't stop the game being vapourware. Being vapourware doesn't mean the game isn't being developed, or that it will never release. It also doesn't mean the game will be bad. But the game is still relatively undeveloped, it doesn't have a release date and other dates have slipped. It's been in development now for five years. That it has raised $130 million+ also is not a guarantee it won't be cancelled.

Do I think it will be cancelled? No. But it looks like SC will release in late 2018 or 2019, with 2020 not impossible. How long does a game have to be in development for it to qualify for Vapourware by your standards?

As I said before, the problem is that the backers are getting restless. CIG need to release something and soon. They say S42 isn't ready for release. But if they don't release it soon, then there is going to be more and more of a backlash. However - they also need S42 to be good because they need the backers to keep funding the project. They can't risk S42 being bad.

So when some of CIGs most loyal fans shout "Shame" during CC....that's a very worrying sign. So - yes. Vapourware. Alpha exists - as a series of small scale tech demos - but SC itself does not. And we've seen even less of S42, though by its nature, a good deal would overlap with SC. We can hope that now the engine has been (reportedly) finished development will speed up but so far, there isn't a lot to show.

As it is - I like these kind of games. I want SC to release and I want it to be good. But I ain't a fanboi, I ain't blind to the mistakes CIG have made, and I am aware that the game might never release - or release in a form that is very different form what is expected. I won't back it, but if it is good enough, I'll buy it when it is released.

[Onvious]

they added release date to Squadron 42 in website. (2017) i wonder they can make it ?

[Deleted]

they added release date to Squadron 42 in website. (2017) i wonder they can make it ?

that's not a release date

it's the next year after the current one keeping hope alive lol