Chris Roberts unveils Star Citizen

Phaethon360

Commented on 2012-10-11 23:20:58

Man, those run animations! IT TOTALLY RUINS THE IMMERSIVENESS OF THIS SPACE FLIGHT SIM! URRGGH!

In reply to

PT_G4MER

Commented on 2012-10-11 23:30:15

This is gonna fail. Just look at those running animations, they're awful !

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2012-10-11 23:42:28

The graphics should really be a lot more polished by now in general. I don't know why they'd put back-end work into game design and stuff. Those are finishing touches.

In reply to

IRAIPT0IR

Commented on 2012-10-12 00:09:10

Bad runnig animation = No Purchase.

Sorry Chris Roberts but for a SpaceFlight Sim those running animations that don't matter at all are just don't doing it for me.

In reply to

nostradamus

Commented on 2012-10-12 00:13:13

IS THIS REAL LIFE?!

In reply to

KORNdog

Commented on 2012-10-12 00:45:19 In reply to IRAIPT0IR

Posted by IRAIPT0IR

Bad runnig animation = No Purchase.

Sorry Chris Roberts but for a SpaceFlight Sim those running animations that don't matter at all are just don't doing it for me.

If it "didn't matter" they wouldn't have included it at all. And with that shitty animation, i kinda wish that where the case, because tech wise, it seems impressive. Genre is "garbage" though, as you would say.

In reply to

12021

Commented on 2012-10-12 05:25:47

Glorious >_<
I believe this crowd sourcing tactic will produce some wildly successful and innovative games in the future. Here's hoping a decent story is included..

In reply to

Zat

Commented on 2012-10-12 07:07:57

What do You mean by "running" animation?

In reply to

iosomewhere

Commented on 2012-10-12 07:46:44

If this is anything near what Wing Commander was..then count me in,looks awesome ! Trailer has a nice feel to it !

Don't care about the run animations,this is WIP,and not a final game ! Some stuff are placeholders and will be addressed at a later point as they do not matter right now and are just there to give the idea!

Glad Chris is making another game !

In reply to

Logion

Commented on 2012-10-12 12:52:23

Strange that he didn't make it a kickstarter. He sure seems to get a lot of support from his fanbase.

In reply to

Lafiel

Commented on 2012-10-12 14:40:19 In reply to Logion

Posted by Logion

Strange that he didn't make it a kickstarter. He sure seems to get a lot of support from his fanbase.

he has an own crowdfunder going on on his site, robertsspaceindustries.com
kickstarter wasn't "direct" enough for him

In reply to

jenesuispasbavard

Commented on 2012-10-12 17:31:03

omg space sim. Also, true depth of field means I'm buying this game (or whatever gets me access to the alpha builds).

In reply to

Tikimotel

Commented on 2012-10-12 20:39:14 In reply to iosomewhere

Agreed!!

In reply to

nostradamus

Commented on 2012-10-12 23:55:49 In reply to Lafiel

Posted by Lafiel

he has an own crowdfunder going on on his site, robertsspaceindustries.com
kickstarter wasn't "direct" enough for him

direct to his pocket.

~http://gnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Tim-Sc...

In reply to

SplitTongue

Commented on 2012-10-13 14:30:28

Kickass trailer, and the finished game will kick ass too no doubt ! What's the problem with running animations ? Cant see anything wrong about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhRQPhL1YU

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2012-10-13 18:28:19 In reply to SplitTongue

Posted by SplitTongue

What's the problem with running animations ? Cant see anything wrong about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhRQPhL1YU

Nothing. People were just giving kornDOG a hard time for comments he dropped in the what's up box.

In reply to

Tinks

Commented on 2012-10-13 18:45:54

Moments like these are what makes this place great

In reply to

Akumajo

Commented on 2012-10-13 20:30:00

Ok I actually found the graphics/gameplay demo of this game to be a little bit impressive however then I double checked and its a PC game... so I am left thinking even though it was impressive why was it not impressive enough?

The AMD Radeon HD 5870, a DirectX 11 hardware compliant level graphics card was released in late 2009 so what graphics 3d engine is this game using and is actually built given what we know of game development as a Dx 11 game? it should be more impressive honestly... thinking back on the old 3d graphics in the non-gameplay 3dmark 05, 3dmark 06a nd 3dmark Vantage where they each featured some space battle stuff and even taking into account that the graphics in this game look like they are pushing more polys... there is something off. like its not impressive enough... lets see what happens with the final game and how it will run and what it will require then.

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2012-10-13 22:16:43

Or maybe they're just making a game (with a fairly small budget) and not a friggin' tech demo. Kudos to the developer who focuses on game design instead of worrying about all the crazies on the internet who just cry about graphics all day.

In reply to

jenesuispasbavard

Commented on 2012-10-13 23:18:38 In reply to GriftGFX

Posted by GriftGFX

Or maybe they're just making a game (with a fairly small budget) and not a friggin' tech demo. Kudos to the developer who focuses on game design instead of worrying about all the crazies on the internet who just cry about graphics all day.

Problem is, when you're talking up about how awesome the PC is compared to consoles (see his pitch video on the website), people will expect it to look much better than current console titles, and this doesn't, yet. Of course, they have until 2014 to do it, and Cryengine 3 should get many updates during that time.

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2012-10-14 08:23:04

In its current state it already looks pretty awesome.

In reply to

Akumajo

Commented on 2012-10-14 22:18:56 In reply to jenesuispasbavard

Posted by jenesuispasbavard

Problem is, when you're talking up about how awesome the PC is compared to consoles (see his pitch video on the website), people will expect it to look much better than current console titles, and this doesn't, yet. Of course, they have until 2014 to do it, and Cryengine 3 should get many updates during that time.

GriftGFX you really should pay attention to that quote as well as mines... you don't really know how those "crazies" that you refer to or rather "PC gamers" will react.... they will demand top graphics as well as playable game.

Now who do you think funds or how do you think Futuremark get their money/funds to display their little useless tech demos that were released years ago?

And yes we all and I do understand they are trying to make a game... but its on the PC platform where people usually own $400+ graphics card, the CPU will set you for a current decent one t minimum $150+, $more for memory, $ more for a real gamers motherboard, etc, not to mention that Windows Vista and 7 each cost when released from $200 to $300.

And we all know how arrogant those "crazies" can be right?

In reply to

[quote=jenesuispasbavard]
Problem is, when you're talking up about how awesome the PC is compared to consoles (see his pitch video on the website), people will expect it to look much better than current console titles, and this doesn't, yet. Of course, they have until 2014 to do it, and Cryengine 3 should get many updates during that time.[/quote]

GriftGFX you really should pay attention to that quote as well as mines... you don't really know how those "crazies" that you refer to or rather "PC gamers" will react.... they will demand top graphics as well as playable game.

Now who do you think funds or how do you think Futuremark get their money/funds to display their little useless tech demos that were released years ago?

And yes we all and I do understand they are trying to make a game... but its on the PC platform where people usually own $400+ graphics card, the CPU will set you for a current decent one t minimum $150+, $more for memory, $ more for a real gamers motherboard, etc, not to mention that Windows Vista and 7 each cost when released from $200 to $300.

And we all know how arrogant those "crazies" can be right?

digi_matrix

Commented on 2012-10-14 23:19:27 In reply to SplitTongue

Posted by SplitTongue

Kickass trailer, and the finished game will kick ass too no doubt ! What's the problem with running animations ? Cant see anything wrong about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhRQPhL1YU

Thank you for that, the "gameplay" looked full of amazing potential. That'd be cool if 3rd person and 1st person were both supported.

Too bad the running animations make this a rental. I think I was close to throwing up when I saw those 2 seconds of animations.

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2012-10-14 23:31:14 In reply to Akumajo

Posted by Akumajo

GriftGFX you really should pay attention to that quote as well as mines... you don't really know how those "crazies" that you refer to or rather "PC gamers" will react.... they will demand top graphics as well as playable game.

Now who do you think funds or how do you think Futuremark get their money/funds to display their little useless tech demos that were released years ago?

And yes we all and I do understand they are trying to make a game... but its on the PC platform where people usually own $400+ graphics card, the CPU will set you for a current decent one t minimum $150+, $more for memory, $ more for a real gamers motherboard, etc, not to mention that Windows Vista and 7 each cost when released from $200 to $300.

And we all know how arrogant those "crazies" can be right?

Nope. I am a PC gamer. You are the crazy. It's not PC gamers I see ranting about graphics and shit all the time around here. It's you. And you clearly know jack shit about PC games and PC gamers. If you insist on generalizing (and you do):

PC gamers are actually the ones who are enthusiastic about this and not crying about relatively minor cosmetic details. And FYI most PC developers create their games to scale to a variety of hardware configurations, and most actual PC gamers are not people who are going out and spending $300-400 on a new GPU every year.

Lord knows what Futuremark has to do with any of this. The make demos and benchmarks. They're not pretending to make games. Well, except that game they made, which is actually pretty good. So.. Who cares? Not most PC gamers, I can tell you that. This world you've created mostly lives in fanboys heads.

You sound bitter about it too.

In reply to

[quote=Akumajo]

GriftGFX you really should pay attention to that quote as well as mines... you don't really know how those "crazies" that you refer to or rather "PC gamers" will react.... they will demand top graphics as well as playable game.

Now who do you think funds or how do you think Futuremark get their money/funds to display their little useless tech demos that were released years ago?

And yes we all and I do understand they are trying to make a game... but its on the PC platform where people usually own $400+ graphics card, the CPU will set you for a current decent one t minimum $150+, $more for memory, $ more for a real gamers motherboard, etc, not to mention that Windows Vista and 7 each cost when released from $200 to $300.

And we all know how arrogant those "crazies" can be right?[/quote]

Nope. I am a PC gamer. You are the crazy. It's not PC gamers I see ranting about graphics and shit all the time around here. It's you. And you clearly know jack shit about PC games and PC gamers. If you insist on generalizing (and you do):

PC gamers are actually the ones who are enthusiastic about this and not crying about relatively minor cosmetic details. And FYI most PC developers create their games to scale to a variety of hardware configurations, and most actual PC gamers are not people who are going out and spending $300-400 on a new GPU every year.

Lord knows what Futuremark has to do with any of this. The make demos and benchmarks. They're not pretending to make games. Well, except that game they made, which is actually pretty good. So.. Who cares? Not most PC gamers, I can tell you that. This world you've created mostly lives in fanboys heads.

You sound bitter about it too.