[Megathread] Star Citizen

[Nihilan]

Years ago when i backed this game for $45 I was kind of hoping for something more akin to Freelancer 2.0. Casual flight, beautiful environments, good writing.

Now, years later, SC seems like its tailored to flight sim nerds and the FPS crowd and i cant even be bothered to log in and try it. Feature creep at its worst.

Gonna have to agree with Derek Smart on this one. Oh well.

[Darkrulerxxx]

Years ago when i backed this game for $45 I was kind of hoping for something more akin to Freelancer 2.0. Casual flight, beautiful environments, good writing.

Now, years later, SC seems like its tailored to flight sim nerds and the FPS crowd and i cant even be bothered to log in and try it. Feature creep at its worst.

Gonna have to agree with Derek Smart on this one. Oh well.

nice job not paying attention to any detail to what this game will actually be, it's just not flight sim and fps, good job being a sheep, listening to idiots like derek smart.

[Tommy T]

So wait.
I have to buy ships with real money?

I have no ships in my hangar. It directs me to a separate page with outrageous prices.

[Deleted]

It directs me to a separate page with outrageous prices.

Scam Citizen is working then. Can't wait till it's revealed it was all a big tech demo sham.

[Justin-Sane]

Do you not start with a basic ship or something? How are you supposed to play the game if you don't have a ship? That makes no sense. They let you make an account and install the game and launch it, but you can't get anywhere without a ship. Why not put an initial price on the game that comes with a starter ship?

[Waaldo]

Years ago when i backed this game for $45 I was kind of hoping for something more akin to Freelancer 2.0. Casual flight, beautiful environments, good writing.

Now, years later, SC seems like its tailored to flight sim nerds and the FPS crowd and i cant even be bothered to log in and try it. Feature creep at its worst.

Gonna have to agree with Derek Smart on this one. Oh well.

I also backed it years ago when it was on kick starter. I backed it because they advertised it as a space sim. There will be casual flight, beautiful environments and (hopefully)good writing, but the story mode wont be release until it's done. Right now it's basically an early access game where there are modules for you to test ships and do some quest. They have not veered from their original idea in the slightest.

You agree with Derek Smart because you are just as ignorant as he is. Learn to read before you buy something and stop blaming others for your own stupidity.

Here is the original Kickstarter, the very first time this game went public: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...en/description

The traditional publishers don't believe in PC or Space Sims. Venture Capitalists only want to back mobile or social gaming start ups.

We say they're wrong. We say that there is a large audience of PC gamers that want sophisticated games built for their platform. And inside this audience, a significant group of people that have always loved space games, and if given a quality one again will be happy to play it.

Let's put high-end PC gaming and Space Sims back on the map!

And that hero is you, the unappreciated PC gamer. The ignored Space Sim fan.

By meeting or surpassing our target on Kickstarter you tell the world that you want a PC based Space Sim and allow us to make this game.

[Nihilan]

Did my flight sim nerd comment cut too close to the chase?

For what its worth, there are varying levels of interactivity in space sims. All the way from the overly complex, fully physics modeled Independence War, to the more relaxed, arcade style sims where all you have to worry about is spacial awareness and weapons - as in the Freespace or Freelancer games. The focus of those games is on combat and storytelling without having to worry about whether or not you've got your left windshield wiper mapped to a convenient hotkey.

Excess realism quickly becomes tedious. That is kind of the whole point of video games.

[Deleted]

Do you not start with a basic ship or something? How are you supposed to play the game if you don't have a ship? That makes no sense. They let you make an account and install the game and launch it, but you can't get anywhere without a ship. Why not put an initial price on the game that comes with a starter ship?

They stopped giving loaners that stood in hangar cus ppl did think they got ships for free or something try jumping in that pod were u spawn in ur hangar.
edit.

You have to put ur ship in a slot before logging in to ur hangar if u got a package cus all have a ship.

[masterhorus8]

So wait.
I have to buy ships with real money?

I have no ships in my hangar. It directs me to a separate page with outrageous prices.

Yes, you have to buy a ship with real money. Lo and behold, buying a game costs money. Packages start at $45 for the basic ships and, till Feb 14th, come with both the Star Citizen access and Squadron 42. After Feb 14, SQ42 is being split as a separate game. Those "outrageous prices" are for ships that aren't meant to start with and will almost guaranteed be too expensive to maintain to be able to fly at the beginning of the game. Also, the prices past a certain point are mainly there for people that want to support the game more than a $45 package would. The ships up to the $170 range that are meant for solo players are akin to collector's edition packs for other games.

EDIT: Read above post about the hangar.

[Deleted]

Yes, you have to buy a ship with real money. Lo and behold, buying a game costs money. Packages start at $45 for the basic ships and, till Feb 14th, come with both the Star Citizen access and Squadron 42. After Feb 14, SQ42 is being split as a separate game. But you complaining about the prices is like going to a restaurant, looking at the wine section, and complaining about the $1000 wines while there is still a $5 wine.

Think u can play for free atm for a short period of time.

[masterhorus8]

Correct, but afterwards, if you'd like to continue to test/support the development of the game, it will cost money. These free fly weeks are meant to let people test out the game before committing and I do wish they did them more frequently.

[Deleted]

Wait wait... I'm confused as hell now. Therefore this free week, isn't free because you actually have to buy a ship to be able to drag your ass out of the hanger since none is provided for it?

Read the fine, print, bub.

[carnifex2005]

Wait wait... I'm confused as hell now. Therefore this free week, isn't free because you actually have to buy a ship to be able to drag your ass out of the hanger since none is provided for it?

It is free this week. You don't have to pay anything. If you want to continue to play after this week, you'll have to get a Star Citizen package, which is $45 for an Aurora or Mustang starter ship. If you buy a Star Citizen package before Feb. 14th, you'll get the standalone Squadron 42 Episode One game for free with it. After Feb. 14th, you'll have to pay $45 for both packages since Squadron 42 Episode One is a separate game that is releasing this year.

[Tradewind]

I downloaded SC now and while it looks great, my Saitek X55 doesn't work well with it, which kinda ruins the game.

Any one have any experience with this stick?

Alpha stuff. No official controller profiles exist as of yet outside of the standard stuff everybody has/uses. It'll work but only with some tweaking right now, check out this thread:

https://forums.robertsspaceindustrie...nder-v1-1-0/p1

Years ago when i backed this game for $45 I was kind of hoping for something more akin to Freelancer 2.0. Casual flight, beautiful environments, good writing.

Now, years later, SC seems like its tailored to flight sim nerds and the FPS crowd and i cant even be bothered to log in and try it. Feature creep at its worst.

Gonna have to agree with Derek Smart on this one. Oh well.

As someone said before, you obviously had no idea what you were buying into "years ago." Because most if not all of it was on the table for "years."

So wait.
I have to buy ships with real money?

I have no ships in my hangar. It directs me to a separate page with outrageous prices.

Do you not start with a basic ship or something? How are you supposed to play the game if you don't have a ship? That makes no sense. They let you make an account and install the game and launch it, but you can't get anywhere without a ship. Why not put an initial price on the game that comes with a starter ship?

Double answer!

You get free access and use of 3 ships until February 8th. They just don't show up in the hangar for now because they're "rentals." What you can do however is launch them into the mini-flight sim portion called Arena Commander or use the "Universe" button in game to spawn a ship into the Crusader open space using the consoles on the station (same as everyone else does).

If you like it and want to keep something, the basic game package starts at $45, gives you the game when it releases and a starter ship. You don't have to buy ships ever for "outrageous prices" if you don't want to. If you want more out of the starter ship in the game package, you can upgrade it for small increments as well, using what's known as a Cross Chassis Upgrade (CCU), but again not necessary.

Scam Citizen is working then. Can't wait till it's revealed it was all a big tech demo sham.

You're not contributing fuck all. Completely fuckin useless.

[Waaldo]

Did my flight sim nerd comment cut too close to the chase?

For what its worth, there are varying levels of interactivity in space sims. All the way from the overly complex, fully physics modeled Independence War, to the more relaxed, arcade style sims where all you have to worry about is spacial awareness and weapons - as in the Freespace or Freelancer games. The focus of those games is on combat and storytelling without having to worry about whether or not you've got your left windshield wiper mapped to a convenient hotkey.

Excess realism quickly becomes tedious. That is kind of the whole point of video games.

TIL people still think "nerd" is an offensive word. Sorry this game is too space simmy for you.

Maybe you should write a letter to RSI telling them that they include too many simulation elements in their simulator game. I'm sure they have a special bin for complaints like yours. Did they advertise this game as Freelancer 2? You are literally making stuff up and then blaming RSI for it. It's fucking sad.

- - - Updated - - -

Read the fine, print, bub.

Take your own, advice, blob.

[Deleted]

Download a free demo? Of course, I'm curious enough.

Good thing too, that I was curious; I might have spent actual money on it, were it not for this free week and that, dear friends, would've been a terrible waste of money.

SC looks pretty, that we can not deny. But that's the only good thing about it so far. Flying, shooting, taking off, landing, walking, running and basically everything else you can do, feels horrible. Comparable to a day 1 DayZ early alpha release, but worse.

On very high, it runs between 45 and 75 fps with a 980Ti at 1440p.

Sure, alphas are generally ill performing, buggy and all that.

Of the 2 space sim games we have, I do not know which is worse. ED has a pretty sweet engine, but is an utter bore of a game. SC should become a more engaging sim, but has what seems an utterly abominable engine.

You know what, I'll probably skip these half-arsed space sim games and patiently wait for a Quarantine remake or ETS with the T standing for Taxi.

[masterhorus8]

Please, do enlighten us on what's wrong instead of complaining. What about the "Flying, shooting, taking off, landing, walking, running, and basically everything else you can do, feels horrible". This is what's called non-constructive criticism. And regarding performance, it's in alpha. Actual, honest to god, alpha. There have been very minimal passes to optimization because overall, it does not effect the testing of bugs that they are wanting to fix, for now.

[Deleted]

Please, do enlighten us on what's wrong instead of complaining. What about the "Flying, shooting, taking off, landing, walking, running, and basically everything else you can do, feels horrible". This is what's called non-constructive criticism. And regarding performance, it's in alpha. Actual, honest to god, alpha. There have been very minimal passes to optimization because overall, it does not effect the testing of bugs that they are wanting to fix, for now.

As for its performance:

On very high, it runs between 45 and 75 fps with a 980Ti at 1440p.

Sure, alphas are generally ill performing, buggy and all that.

Taking off: The strafing is barely controllable because it basically boosts you upward/downward/etc. Unlike in E.D. where it actually works with controllable force.
Landing: Suffers from the same issues as taking off and what makes it even worse, is the automated landing option. This has no place in a SIM.
Flying: Latency is blatant which makes the already ridiculous targeting mechanism counter intuitive. Why not use ED's straight-forward system?
Walking around: Animations are horrid, avatars 'slide' across the map and glitch everywhere.

A few notes:
A. Include "imo" at the end of every statement I made, if that makes you feel better.
B. I used ED a few times as a comparison but that doesn't mean I think it's good game. It's a horrible game, if you ask me. Nevertheless, it does have a well functioning engine.

[stellvia]

You do realize, even today, they use automated docking to connect with the ISS right? And its a system originally rolled out by the Russians in 1985...
The idea that the far-future wouldn't have automated docking/landing (which you don't have to use btw) is silly. Risking damaging your ship or the station in the process. I would say its completely within the scope of simulating an all-encompassing spacefaring future to have something like that.

[Tradewind]

As for its performance:

Taking off: The strafing is barely controllable because it basically boosts you upward/downward/etc. Unlike in E.D. where it actually works with controllable force.
Landing: Suffers from the same issues as taking off and what makes it even worse, is the automated landing option. This has no place in a SIM.
Flying: Latency is blatant which makes the already ridiculous targeting mechanism counter intuitive. Why not use ED's straight-forward system?
Walking around: Animations are horrid, avatars 'slide' across the map and glitch everywhere.

For performance, that's not terrible considering the graphics level (CryEngine 3 with heavy mods). But of course, as you put, alpha is alpha after all. The game was touted from day one to push current generation hardware.

For your control problems, there's a few things to note. Smaller ships especially still have overpowered take off and low speed control thrust. This is something that's changing, from what I recall there's something in place already that needs to be toggled to make takeoff/landing a bit less "jumpy." I'm generally a shitty pilot anyway so I don't really care lol. Larger ships tend to be more controllable due to their mass.

For flying, what you need to remember is that the reason it feels different from ED is because of those same thrusters are gimbal controlled as opposed to independently fired thrusters like you see on say a space shuttle. To go from 90 degree thrust to 270 degree thrust, the thrusters must adjust themselves 180 degrees around the axis. You can see it happening if you zoom out into 3rd person view while flying. Now you might think "well that's stupid," but really it's just different than what you're used to in ED. Mostly because it's never been done before. Again, you get used to it. It's also not finalized.

Animations, I'll give you that one. But again, alpha! lol There's the most barebones mocap stuff in the current version. The SQ42 demo videos from the last citizencon or w/e have a much better example of animations.