[Megathread] Star Citizen

[Val the Moofia Boss]

The main thing is having a place to keep your personal fleet, especially if you have a specialised fighter that can't travel very far on its own, or a miner that needs somewhere to drop off before heading back into the field.

The selection of "carrier" ships in Star Citizen is extremely limited.

So far, the only "carrier" ships in the game right now are the 890 Jump (can fit most small ships in the front hangar, has room for 1-3 small ships in the front hangar at once), the Carrack (can fit a few small ships in the top hangar but only 1), and the newly added Hercules Star Lifter (which can fit about half of the small ships, about 2-3 ships can fit in at once). However, as mentioned earlier, the game servers are unstable, so the game is set to delete any ships if its owner is more than a few kilometers away and there is no one else on board, so you can't leave your 890 Jump/Carrack/Star Lifter in orbit over a planet while you fly around in your smaller mining ship or a combat fighter or a passenger ship going to pick someone up.

IIRC the only other carrier ships that are planned are the Kraken (small, mobile spacestation with landing pads and hangars and player owned shops), the Idris (is ingame as an NPC ship, cannot be flown by players ATM, can carry multiple small ships in its hangar), and the Bengal (can carry multiple small ships, is ingame but cannot be flown by players ATM). However, given the current state of the game, I doubt that any of those three ships will ever be flyable by players (despite the Kraken and the Idris having been sold to backers for thousands of dollars).

[kenn9530]

snip

All ED does is offer some basic no skill required gameplay, nothing of real depth is in the game. A space game needs actual meaningful things to explore, the current planets in SC offer much more than the whole ED galaxy alone, if i cant explore cities, planets of different biomes with actual weather systems, ship crash sites along with amazing scenery and much more then thats not actual exploration, an explorer actually physically explores nad not just scans stuff most of the time.

In star citizen your not supposed to constantly travel between star system to star system, it requires a reasonable amount of preperation just to travel to one other system let alone a large number of systems, you will set one main star system as your home and work from there, you can be whatever you want to be in star citizen and dont even need a space ship.

You can only control one ship at a time, but you can loan your ship to friends so a fleet is nice to have but having all in one place only serves the purpose of ease of access, star citizen has way too many ships and there is no ship that could carry them all. Its fine for a single player game to offer the ability to access your ships easier, in SC its not meant to be as easy to just switch ships whenever. In SC you will pick a main role and mostly focus on that.

Star Citizen offers a true space game experience that any sci fi gamer has been waiting for a long time for, ED just doesnt offer all that much just small part of what a space game actually is.

[Kyanion]

they only add one more gameplay feature after years of development.

SC = years of development, The Game. You have the gall to bash other games after what SC is doing? Fucking lol.

- - - Updated - - -

I dont need to back anything up

Translation = My facts can not be proven, might be lies or are misinformation intended to deflect!

- - - Updated - - -

do some research

So players of a game are telling you what something REALLY is in a game and you just refuse to believe them. You counter by things SC does not have in game yet but are in the pipeline at some date.

- - - Updated - - -

All ED does is offer some basic no skill required gameplay, nothing of real depth is in the game.

Says the person that dropped 100 hours in the game mind you.

- - - Updated - - -

All ED does is offer some basic no skill required gameplay, nothing of real depth is in the game. A space game needs actual meaningful things to explore

Welcome to OpinionLand!

- - - Updated - - -

Star Citizen offers a true space game experience that any sci fi gamer has been waiting for a long time for

50 player server caps.
T-posing NPCs
Servers melting down after a few hours and crashing.
Game been in development over 8 year
Over 300+ million dollars spent on development


And those are just the highlights. That is the 'true space game experience' is it? I think I'll pass.

- - - Updated - - -

Star Citizen offers a true space game experience that any sci fi gamer has been waiting for a long time for, ED just doesnt offer all that much just small part of what a space game actually is.

Opinion: ALL sci fi gamers have been waiting for SC.
Opinion: Ed just doesnt offer all that much

[1001]

All ED does is offer some basic no skill required gameplay, nothing of real depth is in the game. A space game needs actual meaningful things to explore, the current planets in SC offer much more than the whole ED galaxy alone, if i cant explore cities, planets of different biomes with actual weather systems, ship crash sites along with amazing scenery and much more then thats not actual exploration, an explorer actually physically explores nad not just scans stuff most of the time.

In star citizen your not supposed to constantly travel between star system to star system, it requires a reasonable amount of preperation just to travel to one other system let alone a large number of systems, you will set one main star system as your home and work from there, you can be whatever you want to be in star citizen and dont even need a space ship.

You can only control one ship at a time, but you can loan your ship to friends so a fleet is nice to have but having all in one place only serves the purpose of ease of access, star citizen has way too many ships and there is no ship that could carry them all. Its fine for a single player game to offer the ability to access your ships easier, in SC its not meant to be as easy to just switch ships whenever. In SC you will pick a main role and mostly focus on that.

Star Citizen offers a true space game experience that any sci fi gamer has been waiting for a long time for, ED just doesnt offer all that much just small part of what a space game actually is.

Trollolololol

Right Ken?

[Advent]

Seems to me they're working backwards, and it's taking a really long time as a result. From what I've read, they're creating superfluous "features" and putting them in the tech alpha without the accompanying framework that the game will eventually require for them to actually work properly. Sounds weird to me, especially since based on what I played in one of those free-fly events, they don't even have the ability to keep people on the servers for very long at all. Why put the cart before the horse? It's like they decided to build the house before laying the foundation, which is so odd to me.

[Thestrawman]

In star citizen your not supposed to constantly travel between star system to star system, it requires a reasonable amount of preperation just to travel to one other system let alone a large number of systems, you will set one main star system as your home and work from there, you can be whatever you want to be in star citizen and dont even need a space ship.

It's surprising you know this since there's only one star system.

[Littlechamp]

By the end, this literally reads like a PR statement trying to sell me a dream... I'd be embarrassed if I posted something like this for what SC currently is.

Let's ignore how you still supposedly put 100+ hours into ED, though

But mate, you really need to be skilled to make lots of money that you can throw to trash, buy those 700 buck ships that can't fly.

[Dezerte]

Elite Dangerous seems more like a realistic simulator to me whereas Star Citizen appears to be a more arcade-type focused on a more cinematic and curated experience. They're different in that sense, and I think it's wrong to call either one the "true space game" when they appeal to different kinds of space enthusiasts.

And on supercruise, it's not a "glorified loading screen" because there is a lot of gameplay that happens within it (it's also based on the Alcubierre drive which I think is cool).

But I get that some of the criticism Star Citizen receives is harsh and in some cases unfair, and that one might feel inclined to say things of similar nature as a response.

[masterblaster0]

I dont need to back anything up, if you claiming its BS your the one that needs to actually needs to back up what you say, you cant claim something is a lie and not even give at least some small effort in attemting to prove that what you say isnt just your opinion. At least do some research and then you wouldnt prove yourself to be a fool.

I need to back up claims of things you won't back up? What a load of bullshit

[kenn9530]

I need to back up claims of things you won't back up? What a load of bullshit

If your the one claiming its BS its on you to prove it wrong by providing something actually tangable.

By the end, this literally reads like a PR statement trying to sell me a dream... I'd be embarrassed if I posted something like this for what SC currently is.

Let's ignore how you still supposedly put 100+ hours into ED, though

100 hours is nothing to put into a game, you can put 100 hours into a game and still think its boring and doesnt really offer that much but there might not be many games available that offer the same gameplay so your stuck with whats available.

Star Citizen is just a better space game plain and simple.

Elite Dangerous seems more like a realistic simulator to me whereas Star Citizen appears to be a more arcade-type focused on a more cinematic and curated experience. They're different in that sense, and I think it's wrong to call either one the "true space game" when they appeal to different kinds of space enthusiasts.

And on supercruise, it's not a "glorified loading screen" because there is a lot of gameplay that happens within it (it's also based on the Alcubierre drive which I think is cool).

But I get that some of the criticism Star Citizen receives is harsh and in some cases unfair, and that one might feel inclined to say things of similar nature as a response.

I would hardly call ED a realistic space sim, it barely offers a space sim experience as it is, most players who enjoy space games want to be an actual player but even with the ED expansion your still mostly just a ship.

It is a glorified loading screen the supercruise is a completely different instance of the game, just because you can see some signals and move around a little doesnt change that its just a terrible travel system, ED is built on instances upon instances. If you like it thats fine but it has no space travel feeling, if it at least was on the same map as all the planets then it might be a little better.

[Henako]

If your the one claiming its BS its on you to prove it wrong by providing something actually tangable.

This is backwards. You made the unsupported claim, which he criticized. You're now demanding that he support his criticism of your unsupported claims. The burden of proof is on you.

Star Citizen is just a better space game plain and simple.

Better for you, maybe

[Attackrabbit]

Star Citizen is just a better space game plain and simple.

And here I was thinking we weren't supposed to call it a game due to it still being in alpha...

[kenn9530]

And here I was thinking we weren't supposed to call it a game due to it still being in alpha...

An alpha is still a version of the game and its playable.

[Mehrunes]

All you are doing is making an assumtion, you have no facts because in reality they would of been working on the story at the very least for RDR2 as the game is a prequal so much of the story for RDR2 would have to been done during the first game to give those characters a detailed backstory, game still took 9 1/2 years to develop a single player game with a very basic online mode.

If the content of the very interview that you're using to harp on that RDR2's development started immediately after the release of RDR1 is "an assumption and no facts" (admittedly, it's understandable how you'd think I don't have any facts here as realizing this accusation makes no sense would require you to actually read that interview), then sure. Whatever lets you worm your way out of your double-think argumentation here And wow, they would have been working on the story at the very least? Thanks for admitting you don't even know what's done during pre-production during game development. That makes your "rebuttal" here all the more convincing.

Meanwhile your newest hot take that the work on RDR2 had to begin already during the development of the first game because you have some weird-ass view on prequels (never mind that the fact RDR2 makes Arthur Morgan a key figure in John Marston's life and yet he's not mentioned even in passing in RDR1 makes it crystal clear that it was made only after the fact due to RDR1' success), which is supported with absolutely fuck all while being contradicted by Rockstar's statements is totally not an assumption on your part One that contradicts even your own earlier statements about the development of RDR2. Then again the concept of consistent argumentation hasn't stopped you so far, so why would it suddenly start now.

[kenn9530]

If the content of the very interview that you're using to harp on that RDR2's development started immediately after the release of RDR1 is "an assumption and no facts" (admittedly, it's understandable how you'd think I don't have any facts here as realizing this accusation makes no sense would require you to actually read that interview), then sure. Whatever lets you worm your way out of your double-think argumentation here And wow, they would have been working on the story at the very least? Thanks for admitting you don't even know what's done during pre-production during game development. That makes your "rebuttal" here all the more convincing.

Meanwhile your newest hot take that the work on RDR2 had to begin already during the development of the first game because you have some weird-ass view on prequels (never mind that the fact RDR2 makes Arthur Morgan a key figure in John Marston's life and yet he's not mentioned even in passing in RDR1 makes it crystal clear that it was made only after the fact due to RDR1' success), which is supported with absolutely fuck all while being contradicted by Rockstar's statements is totally not an assumption on your part One that contradicts even your own earlier statements about the development of RDR2. Then again the concept of consistent argumentation hasn't stopped you so far, so why would it suddenly start now.

You must really suck at doing some basic research, because its stated Preliminary work on Red Dead Redemption 2 began during the development of the original game, and thats direct from history and overview of RDR2 on wiki, doesnt say when it started but it did actually start during the development of the origional game.

Until work has actually started on the real development of a game thats when actual development starts, all this pre production time is pointless as it could start 10 years before actual development or 6 months before. So the development i count for RDR2 is from the end of the first to when it released on PC and thats 9 1/2 years, and SC development didnt really start until after the kickstarter.

[Dezerte]

I would hardly call ED a realistic space sim, it barely offers a space sim experience as it is, most players who enjoy space games want to be an actual player but even with the ED expansion your still mostly just a ship.

It is a glorified loading screen the supercruise is a completely different instance of the game, just because you can see some signals and move around a little doesnt change that its just a terrible travel system, ED is built on instances upon instances. If you like it thats fine but it has no space travel feeling, if it at least was on the same map as all the planets then it might be a little better.

I most definitely must have played a different Elite Dangerous from you then.

[Kyanion]

100 hours is nothing to put into a game, you can put 100 hours into a game and still think its boring and doesnt really offer that much

Yeah okay maybe for you, but I'd know early if I was into a game or not and do something else if it was boring. I'd not sink over 100 hours over a period of weeks on it.

- - - Updated - - -

Star Citizen is just a better space game plain and simple.

Opinion. Not fact.

- - - Updated - - -

most players who enjoy space games

You don't know what most players want. I don't, you don't. Don't act as if you have the answer or know.

[kenn9530]

I most definitely must have played a different Elite Dangerous from you then.

ED has no realism feel at all, the supercruise is not realistic as the drive should only allow for slight movement at those speeds, not doing U turns when you miss a planet, your just flying the ship normally in supercruise so its not a very interesting system.

Star Citizen blows ED out of the water for anything to do with realism in a space sim.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't matter how many times you state this, it is still bullshit.

You either didn't actually play ED for any reasonable length of time, or you genuinely put over 100 hours into the game and enjoyed it. You are allowed to have enjoyed another space game you know, right? Nobody on the face of this fucking Earth puts over 100 hours into a game they don't like, one they think has nothing whatsoever to do. What did you do for so many hours?!

As I said before, and will only say once more, it is far more likely you pulled that 100 hour number out of your arse as something you could try and use to shit on ED and big SC up. How sad would that be if it were the case?


Given you hilariously think that SC has more, and better, content than almost any completed game ever released right now, I'm not sure you're qualified to state this. Your opinion, as I said, is the epitome of biased.

But by all means, prove your opinion is a fact.

At a certain point a game gets boring and you have tried just about everything it has, diablo 3 i have over 1000 hours on that and i can barely get a reason to play it anymore, so 100 hours is nothing and anytime i have tried to play it again its just boring pretty much straight away.

Im completely bored of WoW and have years played time on that but im still playing it the bare min to raid and mythic plus.

[Shakzor]

100 hours is nothing to put into a game, you can put 100 hours into a game and still think its boring and doesnt really offer that much but there might not be many games available that offer the same gameplay so your stuck with whats available.

Clearly something had you hooked, otherwise you wouldn't have played it for roughly 4 DAYS. If i think a game is boring, i definitely won't reach the 100h mark, often not even the 10h milestone. No sane person spends a hundred hours in a game they think is boring, when there is a comparable one they think is the holy grail of all existence.
And even if you come with the "yeah, but after that time", that is normal for games people enjoy to get bored of them after they've done everything they want, like hell, i played Monster Hunter World for like 700h, but i don't really log in anymore, because i got "bored" with it, having reached my goals. So it was indeed not boring, but you just reached your "goal" or whatever.

[Thestrawman]

Can we all just agree anything Kenn says about Elite Dangerous is a complete asspull as they've never touched the game and until they show proof of playing 100 hours should definitely be ignored all together.