******Official Star Citizen / Squadron 42 Thread******

I'd love it to be in Manchester.... but it wont be. I think the best we can hope for is something similar to the PAX events, we have one in London each year dont we? That way its an event outside of the expo, and they'll do a little PR tied in with someone like Logitech, AMD, nVidia. Im not sure they'd rotate CitCon, cos it seems like a lot of the staff attend them.

I dont think we have a particularly reputable event though, not like E3, PAX, Gamescom etc. If there wasnt a strong event, it seems unlikely they'd travel somewhere just to do a meet & greet etc.

Would be good though.
 
Zethor said:
Poor quality gameplay there, I don't know why they had to add FPS combat to this game. At this point it's almost certain that some aspects of the game will fail, let's hope they the get space exploration/trade/combat right.
Click to expand...

I don't see what the problem is, for an alpha that's pretty sweet. If they improve that as well as they've improved AC I'll be a happy bunny!
 
PaulC2K said:
I'd love it to be in Manchester.... but it wont be. I think the best we can hope for is something similar to the PAX events, we have one in London each year dont we? That way its an event outside of the expo, and they'll do a little PR tied in with someone like Logitech, AMD, nVidia. Im not sure they'd rotate CitCon, cos it seems like a lot of the staff attend them.

I dont think we have a particularly reputable event though, not like E3, PAX, Gamescom etc. If there wasnt a strong event, it seems unlikely they'd travel somewhere just to do a meet & greet etc.

Would be good though.
Click to expand...

The Manchester studio is the largest CIG studio now so a lot of staff could attend quite easily for a big Squadron 42 reveal / release, however you are right in that isn't many large events of that kind in this country.

Perhaps it could be the Eurogamer expo in Birmingham September next year or there is a smaller indie and next-gen event in London in March.
 
Halfmad said:
I don't see what the problem is, for an alpha that's pretty sweet. If they improve that as well as they've improved AC I'll be a happy bunny!
Click to expand...

There are plenty of problems, the animations are horrid, the characters look like they're sneaking on their toes when they move, the shooting lacks "impact" and the entire encounter consisted of blindly spamming rounds which is lackluster for a supposedly tactical FPS (their claim not mine).

BF3 isn't even considered a great FPS, just a good one and you can't even compare the two. This is why it puzzles me they invested in what's essentially a FPS minigame, if you don't have the resources to get it right, why bother?

 
Last edited:
Animations are nowhere near final - still many basic features to be sorted out. I think they need to fix the basic character model and walking/running animations before the fps specific things can be tweaked.

I agree some of the demo did not do it for me (but I'm not a big fps fan anyway), but I'm sure these other features of being more tactical will be sorted out over time - and then taking into account players will naturally be more cautious in the PU because death means something. The only crazy offensive play you might get will be with players who don't care (and suffer the consequences) - otherwise that kind of play will be restricted to the "arena commander" style game within a game, simulation.

It is kind of needed in the scope of the game, because we are controlling human characters and with the whole UEE militarised nature of the human empire, fps is an inevitable feature. Still, I will likely be avoiding it mostly because it's not my preference, but that doesn't mean it's a waste of space.
 
Well no, you can't compare the two,
they're a good order of magnitude different in the number of developers working on it.
You can call it a minigame, but when the fps is meant to allow players to infiltrate other players ships and kill you. It's a bit more than an aside to the main game.
 
I think the key thing to think about is - although it may have begun as a "space sim", the goalposts have widened to a fully fledged space adventure/experience where we interact with the game through our human (and hopefully alien in the future) characters - so we must take into account and embrace all the different gameplay elements that are needed.

Combat is an inevitable gameplay feature - either through using small arms while running around on foot, turrets in spaceships/stations, or piloting spaceships - they are all necessary given we are controlling human characters.
 
Zethor said:
There are plenty of problems, the animations are horrid, the characters look like they're sneaking on their toes when they move, the shooting lacks "impact" and the entire encounter consisted of blindly spamming rounds which is lackluster for a supposedly tactical FPS (their claim not mine).

BF3 isn't even considered a great FPS, just a good one and you can't even compare the two. This is why it puzzles me they invested in what's essentially a FPS minigame, if you don't have the resources to get it right, why bother?

Click to expand...

I expect the FPS module to improve massively over the next 18 months, I'm not convinced the FPS module was started when they claimed it was either but I do hope the impact/sound etc is improved as those are usually the areas that kill a game for me. I don't think they have to follow current weaponry styles and sound effects though, this is a game set 900 years in the future, yes we may still use bullets of some kind (cheap and easy to make) but that doesn't mean they can't have some artistic license to alter sound and visual effects.
 
The FPS team has barely set the gaming world alight with their games.

I expect it to be mediocre but it's nice that it's there. I just wish they would sort the animations out asap, i hate seeing my character move like he's touching cloth.

Also ditched my Phoenix, damn ugly thing. Gone back to my Super Hornet and bought a couple of ships which the change.
 
Zethor said:
There are plenty of problems, the animations are horrid, the characters look like they're sneaking on their toes when they move, the shooting lacks "impact" and the entire encounter consisted of blindly spamming rounds which is lackluster for a supposedly tactical FPS (their claim not mine).

BF3 isn't even considered a great FPS, just a good one and you can't even compare the two. This is why it puzzles me they invested in what's essentially a FPS minigame, if you don't have the resources to get it right, why bother?
Click to expand...

You are comparing the Alpha of a game, which is just an evolution of the game before it with all the fundamentals included from all the previous battlefields, to a game made from scratch that is so early in its development that we are a good 6 months from even being able to Alpha test it.

All the animations etc are placeholders, just to give the backers an idea of the direction in which the FPS side will go with regards to early FPS mechanics, zero-G combat etc....so to say that you are almost certain that they will fail is just silly.

When the Dogfighting module was forced out it was a bit pony and people shouted to the high heavens at how rubbish the game will be.....now its evolving into something really good and people are singing a different tune. (except for the balance on k/b and Mouse vs joystick)

I'll never understand why people cant grasp that games arent very good when they are in such an early development stage and will evolve as it comes closer to being a final product.
 
Did any of you guys actually watch the stream?! :p

Chris specifically said that most of the animations for the fps module aren't in game as they are doing a full Mocap session for SQ42 in January which will then be implemented into cryengine...

Honestly! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom