[Gray113]

Trashman,

Agree 100% with this

[Luis Dias]

I couldn't care less about "which universe is better", but I *do* care about whether if we are going to get well written thought provoking material or not. I also don't give a damn if your standards are lower than mine, just don't confuse things ok.

[Mikes]

Anyone else find it kinda weird how people who went nuts over games like "World of Tanks", "Planetside 2, or "Mechwarrior Online" (of all things lol) ...  that didn't even have a story or singleplayer... AT ALL ...

... take a look at this game with it's breathtaking visuals, the amount of details and immersion and it's persistant world, the modding ability and go.. uh meh, it's "probably" (probably? WT*?!) going to have a not so good story in the (additional) single player part!

Frankly... it's almost comical.


What's going on guys?

[Luis Dias]

You find it comical because you are unwilling to stop for a moment and consider the possibility that these are not the same kinds of people at all. Is it such a hard thing to do?

[Mikes]

You find it comical because you are unwilling to stop for a moment and consider the possibility that these are not the same kinds of people at all. Is it such a hard thing to do?

Actually I checked the old threads before I made this post.

You are right if you point out that it may not be *everyone*, but the point still stands.

Still comical.

[Luis Dias]

Very well then, I can only speak for myself.

[The E]

Anyone else find it kinda weird how people who went nuts over games like "World of Tanks", "Planetside 2, or "Mechwarrior Online" (of all things lol) ...  that didn't even have a story or singleplayer... AT ALL ...

... take a look at this game with it's breathtaking visuals, the amount of details and immersion and it's persistant world, the modding ability and go.. uh meh, it's "probably" (probably? WT*?!) going to have a not so good story in the (additional) single player part!

Frankly... it's almost comical.


What's going on guys?

Since when are games like Star Citizen with a strong emphasis on single-player content and MMO-ish arena shooters in any way comparable?

We care about the story because SC is going to have one. MWO and World of Tanks, on the other hand, were never going to.

[swashmebuckle]

After reading through this discussion, I think I will be disappointed if the story isn't some sort of bungling trope-filled cheesefest.

[Polpolion]

Anyone else find it kinda weird how people who went nuts over games like "World of Tanks", "Planetside 2, or "Mechwarrior Online" (of all things lol) ...  that didn't even have a story or singleplayer... AT ALL ...

... take a look at this game with it's breathtaking visuals, the amount of details and immersion and it's persistant world, the modding ability and go.. uh meh, it's "probably" (probably? WT*?!) going to have a not so good story in the (additional) single player part!

Frankly... it's almost comical.


What's going on guys?

What's so weird? WoT and Planetside 2, as far as I was aware, never even pretended to have singleplayer stories. They're just not expected from the games they're trying to be. With Mechwarrior Online you're just plain wrong. Years ago it originally was going to be a single player game, an actual reboot of the MechWarrior games. People were frustrated when it turned into a F2P multiplayer game, and had to begrudgingly warm up to it. And now people expect SC to have a strong singleplayer presence, so obviously people are going to be concerned if it has a lame story.

[Scourge of Ages]

The difference between Squadron 42 and WoT/MWO/Planetside is that that Squadron 42 will be a single player campaign. (I know, derp)

A single player campaign without a decent story and just steadily increasing difficulty/intensity is about as interesting as Pacman and just much longer; it's easy to get bored.

With Star Citizen or the other MMOs mentioned, they are all designed around dynamic situations and battles against real people. They're like procedurally generated campaigns that you can write your own stories to, and gameplay that is constantly shifting and always challenging, and always fairly fresh.

[NGTM-1R]

What's going on guys?

Study EVE for awhile and realize the power and importance of player-created narrative when interacting with other players and then you can pretend to some kind of understanding. Until then you're just blowing smoke.

[Mikes]

The difference between Squadron 42 and WoT/MWO/Planetside is that that Squadron 42 will be a single player campaign. (I know, derp)

So we are bashing Star Citizen, which features a full multiplayer persistent universe and full modding support, because it also includes Squadron 42, which is single player and this *additional* singleplayer campaign *might* have a WW2 in space story.

And we are not bashing other games that do not even include single player.  Nope we are all excited about those. Nevermind that Star Citizen is much more than just the singleplayer campaign.

Got it. Makes sense now....  Star Citizen sucks because it's gonna be WW2 in space again, and we know this because it's a Chris Roberts Game, who never made anything else but WW2 in space games. Except Wing Commander IV. And Strike Commander. And Privateer. And we ll also ignore that the singleplayer campaign is merely one half of the game. Yeah I see it now... it's so gonna suck! :coughs:



That is kinda how this thread reads anyways.

[Aesaar]

Star Citizen isn't WW2 in space, it's the 4th century Roman Empire in space.  And tbh, the world is already far more interesting than WC ever was.

[Luis Dias]

So we are bashing Star Citizen, which features a full multiplayer persistent universe and full modding support, because it also includes Squadron 42, which is single player and this *additional* singleplayer campaign *might* have a WW2 in space story.

I haven't seen any Star Citizen bashing. What I've seen is a realist lowering of expectations when it comes to story. I think what Roberts is trying to do is great, and I hope he succeeds, however those who are awaiting for the revival of a Freespace-like experience are just expecting too much.

Star Citizen isn't WW2 in space, it's the 4th century Roman Empire in space.  And tbh, the world is already far more interesting than WC ever was.

What do you mean, Roman Empire? This is interesting.

[The E]

Got it. Makes sense now....  Star Citizen sucks because it's gonna be WW2 in space again, and we know this because it's a Chris Roberts Game, who never made anything else but WW2 in space games. Except Wing Commander IV. And Strike Commander. And Privateer. And we ll also ignore that the singleplayer campaign is merely one half of the game. Yeah I see it now... it's so gonna suck!  :coughs:

I think you misunderstood basically everything said in this discussion. Some of us are worried that SC's single-player content will just be a rehash of things we've seen done in Wing Commander. None of us has commented on the multiplayer aspects at all, because there is little that we know about it at this point. We don't know if they're going for a strongly curated model a la Guild Wars, or a fully player-driven one a la EvE.

So yeah, we're looking at the SP stuff in isolation, and criticizing the tendencies we see there based on the past products of the developer involved.

We're not bashing other games for their lack of a Singleplayer campaign because, and this is an important point you seem to have missed entirely, they were never planned to have a single-player campaign. I mean, we also criticized StarCraft 2's single player campaigns, even though the SP content there is also only half the game! Tell me, were those discussions also wrong?

Squadron 42 may be an amazing game. Star Citizen the MMO may be an amazing experience. We don't really know at this point. But what we do know is what Chris Roberts has done before, we know his sensibilities, and we know what we would like to see in a game. And some of us feel that those sensibilities may make this game worse. Others feel differently, obviously.

I haven't seen any Star Citizen bashing. What I've seen is a realist lowering of expectations when it comes to story. I think what Roberts is trying to do is great, and I hope he succeeds, however those who are awaiting for the revival of a Freespace-like experience are just expecting too much.

This, pretty much. Some of us want a more FS-y game, and we're pretty sure we won't be getting it out of vanilla SC, and that makes us sad.
That does not mean we want SC to fail. A successful SC will create an ecosystem where big flashy spacesims may once again  flourish, and that is something everyone here has a stake in.

[Mikes]

What do you mean, Roman Empire? This is interesting.

Lots of information on the webpage. Not going to link it as they are going to switch to the new webpage in just a few hours (just google it then) and any link would be outdated tomorrow.

The name "Star Citizen" actually relates to it. Citizenship will be earned through military service (or bribes/bought). A lot of people are hoping for some real cynic "Star ship trooper" style references, although that is as much speculation as the WW2 witch hunt in this thread.

[Luis Dias]

Read it again (I had read it before a long time ago it seems), it's not that much info tbh, other than namedropping the RE, let alone describing it as the "4th century" one (which is what I was finding interesting). I wouldn't mind some Starship Troopers' fanservice.

[MatthTheGeek]

This, pretty much. Some of us want a more FS-y game, and we're pretty sure we won't be getting it out of vanilla SC, and that makes us sad.

Or just all the more determined to fix that ourselves.

Who's with me.

[Aesaar]

Luis Dias: As I understand it, the world is meant to feel a lot like the waning years of the Roman Empire.  There's a good deal of political tension between Earth (Rome) and Terra (Constantinople), a gradual eroding of the central authority, and a pretty big border threat the overstretched military is having increasing difficulty responding to.  Don't know how good SQ42's story will be, but I'm liking the universe so far.

This is a decent starting point.

Matth: I'm completely in.

[Mikes]

I think you misunderstood basically everything said in this discussion. Some of us are worried that SC's single-player content will just be a rehash of things we've seen done in Wing Commander. None of us has commented on the multiplayer aspects at all, because there is little that we know about it at this point. We don't know if they're going for a strongly curated model a la Guild Wars, or a fully player-driven one a la EvE.

Actually that was exactly what I commented on. (bold part)

None or few have commented on the multiplayer aspects at all - or at least not recently in the thread - despite the multiplayer being pretty much the central part of the game.

And there is quite a bit of information available... i.e. official server that will hold all  players in one persistent universe (stated to be scalable to millions of players), with battle instances limiting player count (number to be determined in alpha testing) to what allows it to offer actual space sim gameplay.

Aside from the official servers you will also be able to host your own private servers with full modding support. That alone is having a ton of people exited as heck.

Gameplay wise the persistent universe offers several of the usual and some unusual career paths, from the traditional trader, mercenary and pirate options to explorers (able to discover and explore everything from relics/space stations/abandoned ships to whole jump points and systems which they can then name if they are the first to discover it) to even a dedicated "racing" career (complete with special "racing ships" and ship variants) or even the ability to head your own company with planetside factories and all.

Also... the ability to multicrew the larger ships with your friends and, if attacked, call any friends within jump distance to help you with the battle.
We also know that we will not only be able to move around the interior of any ship, but also that there will be small arms and boarding actions on those ships.

Furthermore, persistent events: The example given was that if a player manages to kill the NPC "Dread Pirate Roberts" who was wreaking havoc in the border systems.... Dread Pirate Roberts will afterwards be dead and killing him will become part of the legacy of the character(s) who killed him.

They also have a rather unique part of dealing with death, where your character can actually die and you continue playing your next of kin or whoever you named as beneficiary in your will.
(Keep in mind this is not an RPG, so your character won't lose any stats and you will not lose any items or your ship either....... but frankly, I find it kinda cool that you can actually die - that is: after being disabled multiple times and having several limbs/body parts replaced.)

Actually... there is much more known about the universe and the multiplayer part than there is known about SQ42 (except that it is singleplayer with coop drop in drop out functionality.)
Which makes this thread especially weird with so many people focusing on that one singular aspect and especially on the one part that we actually do not know anything about yet: the story of SQ42.

I.e. Star Citizen is aiming at offering a "multiplayer Privateer" and "single player/coop Wing Commander" experience in one game, yet people in this thread appear to be somehow almost blind to the multiplayer part, which actually is the larger part of the game that people will most likely spend much more time on, if they have any interest in multiplayer games at all. Heck, it's already confirmed that people who do not have an interest in singleplayer games, will be able to completely skip SQ42 and start in the persistent universe right away when the full game is released.