Author Topic: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom  (Read 7388 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom

Are you adequately impressed now?
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
oh wow i never realised CIG were good at making impressive demos before now
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
But it was played live...
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
Are you adequately impressed now?
Not really.  Why should I be?  BF2142 had multicrew vehicles and modeled interiors back in 2006.  Battlefront 2 had multicrew vehicles and mediocre shooter boarding actions during space battles back in 2005.  This just looks prettier (and it does look very pretty).

You really need to understand that for people who haven't bought into the hype, this just looks like a better looking version of games we've played before.  There's absolutely nothing new or original show in any of these videos except shiny graphics.  AC still plays worse than modded FS2 and Diaspora.  Judging by videos I've watched of E:D, it plays worse than that too.  Fully crewed bombers aren't going to fix its problems.  But I have to say I'm looking forward to seeing all the Retaliator and Constellation owners get pissy about how their 250$ ships are getting blown up by fighters that cost a fraction of that.

Still, it's progress, and it makes me think SQ42 will probably be a decent game.  Not as good as FS2, because CR has no idea what good writing and good mission design is, but maybe something worth 30-45$.  I still see no reason to believe the PU is any closer to happening though.  Multicrew is by no means the biggest hurdle.

I'd also be curious to see how it looks when the ship is flying and you're not strapped into a seat.



And the FPS gameplay showed at Gamescom looks like the most generic shooter I could possibly imagine.  Someone really ought to let CR know that headbobbing is neither fun nor realistic.


Oh, I do have to give credit where it's due.  The new Retaliator sale is an amazing way of getting more money.

"Here's multicrew.  Get hype!  And here's our fancy bomber for 100$ less than we sold it last time, perfect for multicrew.  Oh but you need to pay an extra 150$ for torpedo launchers to make it work as a bomber.  And another 50$ to give it turret guns that aren't ****.  And probably 20$ for actual torpedoes.  Give us more money please!"

Selling ship modules is just a brilliant way of selling more crap to people.  People aren't buying as many ships?  Sell modules so people will buy them out of fear that their existing purchases will be obsolete without them.  CIG are very, very good at marketing.


Tangential: This is a small thing, but I find it very amusing that SC, a game that prides itself on *realism*, still fell into the common "gatling weapons overheat more" trope.  Gatling weapons are less susceptible to overheating than single-barreled guns.  That's the entire point of having multiple barrels.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2015, 09:17:25 am by Aesaar »

 

Offline Spoon

  • 212
  • ヾ(´︶`♡)ノ
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
They should really hire someone with all those crowd funding bucks to make actual good sounding gun effects. It's still as badly PEWPEWPEW sounding as during its first arenacommander days. Hell, wingcommander 3 had far better gun sounds than star citizen has right now.
Urutorahappī!!

[02:42] <@Axem> spoon somethings wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> critically wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> im happy with these missions now
[02:44] <@Axem> well
[02:44] <@Axem> with 2 of them

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
Maybe I've been spoiled by FS2_Open but I swear even retail FS2 sounded better. Not just the gun sounds, everything.

After watching the trailer, there may be a good game in here, but there is just as likely to be a horrible mess with a few playable sections. What really worries me about Star Citizen though is that it's going to be a failure and then people will start on again about how space sims are dead.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
oh wow i never realised CIG were good at making impressive demos before now

I was trying to find the "favorite" or "like" button to your comment but couldn't find it :D

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom


Why should I be?  BF2142 had multicrew vehicles and modeled interiors back in 2006.  Battlefront 2 had multicrew vehicles and mediocre shooter boarding actions during space battles back in 2005.  This just looks prettier (and it does look very pretty). You really need to understand that for people who haven't bought into the hype, this just looks like a better looking version of games we've played before.  There's absolutely nothing new or original show in any of these videos except shiny graphics.

I dont expect too much originality from Star Citizen. Even taking good aspects from previous space games and combining them in a shiny new package would make for a great game. The fact that it has been done before is in no way an argument against SC. And done in an inferior way - you really cant compare simple and unrealistic Battlefield vehicle system with the seamless SC way where you can walk around and interact with ship components. BF is not even a space game. The fact is, there arent many space games where you can walk around the ship while it is flying, too. I could probably count them all on fingers of one hand. So while it is not an entirely original concept, it is definitely something we need more of, IMHO.

Freespace wasnt very original in its time too - it just took the good things from other space games and combined them well.

Quote
]AC still plays worse than modded FS2 and Diaspora.  Judging by videos I've watched of E:D, it plays worse than that too.  Fully crewed bombers aren't going to fix its problems.  But I have to say I'm looking forward to seeing all the Retaliator and Constellation owners get pissy about how their 250$ ships are getting blown up by fighters that cost a fraction of that.

AC plays well and has potential. Yeah, I think modded FS or Diaspora is more fun, but these games are based on a flight model developed and optimized for many years, the best spaceflight model space games have to offer now. It takes time to pin it down. And about E:D, I play that game too, and I must say I prefer the latest AC builds flight style to E:D.

Quote
I'd also be curious to see how it looks when the ship is flying and you're not strapped into a seat.

This was demonstrated in the demo. It looks just as you would expect in a ship with inertial dampeners and artificial gravity. The devs have stated that things such as centrifugal forces and physical impulses from impacts will come later, too.

Quote
Selling ship modules is just a brilliant way of selling more crap to people.  People aren't buying as many ships?  Sell modules so people will buy them out of fear that their existing purchases will be obsolete without them.  CIG are very, very good at marketing.

Which is a good thing. The more money they raise from people with deep pockets, the higher quality the product can be - this is a crowdfunded game, no investors. As long as you dont NEED to buy those things to get the final game, I dont see anything wrong. I only own the base package (Aurora).


This demo is impressive because it shows the core SC technology, that is large world (up to 8.7 billion kilometres) + spaceship flight + first person mechanics, finally coming together in a playable way. There is a lot of content and gameplay still to add, but I believe now it is only a matter of time, not if, but when.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2015, 01:17:04 pm by 666maslo666 »
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
And the FPS gameplay showed at Gamescom looks like the most generic shooter I could possibly imagine.  Someone really ought to let CR know that headbobbing is neither fun nor realistic.

Without headbobbing, the player feels like sliding around instead of being grounded in the world. So headbob or not is an artistic choice, there is no objectively right answer, unless it is overdone. I happen to like moderate amount of head bob. Also, headbobbing does happen in real life, after all your head does bob when walking, but is visible only in periphery, because in the center of vision it is compensated by eye movement. This is similar to what SC is going to do, they have a special system where the center of screen wont experience head bobbing and there will be progressively more of it in the periphery. The only downside is that it will only work for screen center, you would need eye tracking to simulate this perfectly..
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
funny how every other FPS manages to feel pretty acceptable without star citizen's innovative, massively exaggerated headbob
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
funny how every other FPS manages to feel pretty acceptable without star citizen's innovative, massively exaggerated headbob

You can see the FPS demo here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuuCRbFb-PI

I do not consider this to be "massively exaggerated" headbob. It looks like a pretty mild headbob, very well done. Special touches like this is what separates "pretty acceptable" games from truly great games that push the industry forward bit by bit.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • Moderator
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
Which is a good thing. The more money they raise from people with deep pockets, the higher quality the product can be - this is a crowdfunded game, no investors. As long as you dont NEED to buy those things to get the final game, I dont see anything wrong. I only own the base package (Aurora).


 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom


Of course I am serious, more money for development can only make the game better and with more content. Especially an ambitious triple A game like SC, it takes a lot of money to develop all that content backers were promised. I expect they will burn through all that $80+ million of backer money by the time the game is released. I just hope the result will be worth it.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
Only if that money is well-spent. Which generally means being conservative about extending your plans and focusing on delivering what you initially promised.
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
More money is not at all a definite good thing in AAA dev.

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
I dont expect too much originality from Star Citizen. Even taking good aspects from previous space games and combining them in a shiny new package would make for a great game. The fact that it has been done before is in no way an argument against SC. And done in an inferior way - you really cant compare simple and unrealistic Battlefield vehicle system with the seamless SC way where you can walk around and interact with ship components. BF is not even a space game. The fact is, there arent many space games where you can walk around the ship while it is flying, too. I could probably count them all on fingers of one hand. So while it is not an entirely original concept, it is definitely something we need more of, IMHO.

Freespace wasnt very original in its time too - it just took the good things from other space games and combined them well.
That it's nothing new isn't meant to be an argument against SC, it's an explanation for why I'm not really impressed.

Freespace 2 has the advantage of story and mission design.  Historically, CR is terrible at both of those things.  Contrary to most CR fanboys, I don't think shinier Wing Commander or shinier Freelancer is something to get too excited over, and AC's current state does the game no favors.

And no, BF isn't a space game.  So what?  Space means fewer factors to consider, not more.  For example, IL-2: Battle of Stalingrad has been in development for less time than SC has.  It's a far more complete game with a significantly more complex combat environment and flight models than SC has.  The map has 82340 square kilometers of actual terrain.

SC has a half-baked 16 player closed arena deathmatch game which will soon let you move around the corridors of your ship while it's flying.

BTW, in BF2142, you could walk around the inside of Titans while they were moving.  Wasn't too smooth in multiplayer because netcode, but you could do it.  As for SC, remember we don't know how well it'll work in actual mutiplayer rather than a LAN.

Quote
AC plays well and has potential. Yeah, I think modded FS or Diaspora is more fun, but these games are based on a flight model developed and optimized for many years, the best spaceflight model space games have to offer now. It takes time to pin it down. And about E:D, I play that game too, and I must say I prefer the latest AC builds flight style to E:D.
AC plays well?  Have we played the same game?  The Hornet flies like ****, and TTK is so long boredom is a bigger enemy than the Vanduul are.  If this is CR's vision, it isn't fun.  Multicrew won't change that.  Neither will generic corridor shooter.

"It takes time to pin it down" would be a lot more convincing if Diaspora didn't have the exact kind of semi-newtonian combat environment SC is going for, yet it's still more fun.  This isn't an engine issue, it's a general gameplay issue.

Quote
Which is a good thing. The more money they raise from people with deep pockets, the higher quality the product can be - this is a crowdfunded game, no investors. As long as you dont NEED to buy those things to get the final game, I dont see anything wrong. I only own the base package (Aurora).
Alternatively, the more money they get, the more CR can let his imagination run wild and constantly increase the scope of the game until it isn't doable (which, IMO, happened a while ago).  Then he runs out of money.  How long does $86M last when you have 300 employees?

This isn't an implausible situation.  It's exactly what happened with Freelancer, and it's why CR had to sell Digital Anvil to Microsoft.  In interviews, CR talks about how if he didn't have this kind of money, he wouldn't be able to make the game he's promised.  I've never seen the problem with that.  I was much more excited about this project when it was demonstrably achievable, not the bloated mess it now is.

Quote
This demo is impressive because it shows the core SC technology, that is large world (up to 8.7 billion kilometres) + spaceship flight + first person mechanics, finally coming together in a playable way. There is a lot of content and gameplay still to add, but I believe now it is only a matter of time, not if, but when.
For SQ42, it's a matter of when (though whether it'll be a good game isn't).  For the persistent universe, it's definitely still a matter of if.  Basically, if they amend their PU ambitions to something like E:D, it's very doable.  But E:D isn't what they're going after.  CR wants **** like hundred ship battles with boarding actions and ****.  Multicrew isn't the biggest hurdle to overcome.  It's not even close.  Like I said, it's been done by games like Battlefield and Battlefront over and over again for years.  Do you know what the biggest hurdle is?  Netcode.  SC's netcode has undergone two overhauls over the last two years, and what's that done?  The max player count in AC has gone from 8 to 16.  16 single seat fighters.  A hundred potentially multicrew ships?  Lol.  EVE manages massive battles by incorporating time dilation, which SC can't do.

And apparently, according to a networking engineer over on Something Awful, their recent netcode overhaul aren't going to resolve this.  Actually, he claims current network and server technology can't manage it period.  IDK how credible he is, so take that as you will.  Most of that is over my head, but given how netcode issues remain pervasive in pretty much all fast-paced MP games, I don't hold out much hope for CIG.  Especially since Frostbite 3 is generally a much more robust engine than CryEngine is in everything from netcode to general optimisation, and Battlefield games still have netcode issues, despite being among the best working large scale FPS games on the market.

Without headbobbing, the player feels like sliding around instead of being grounded in the world. So headbob or not is an artistic choice, there is no objectively right answer, unless it is overdone. I happen to like moderate amount of head bob. Also, headbobbing does happen in real life, after all your head does bob when walking, but is visible only in periphery, because in the center of vision it is compensated by eye movement. This is similar to what SC is going to do, they have a special system where the center of screen wont experience head bobbing and there will be progressively more of it in the periphery. The only downside is that it will only work for screen center, you would need eye tracking to simulate this perfectly..
This is a core problem with SC's development.  They're taking gameplay proven to work by other games, and then throwing in pointless, completely unnecessary features for the sake of realism.  Your brain compensates for headbobbing.  Evidently, at some point in SC's thousand year timeline, it loses this ability.  All because CR can't stand the idea that the player's viewpoint might be a few centimeters away from the character model's eyes during the walk animation.  It's so dumb.

And the notion that without headbobbing, the player feels like they're sliding around is complete nonsense.  This is solved in most games by making the first person model give an indication of movement, not the viewpoint.  And it works perfectly well.

There's a reason games don't match first and third person animations.  This is one of them.  It's a stupid idea that adds absolutely nothing to gameplay, yet CIG spends months implementing it and it ends up looking and feeling like ****.  In SC, fun and logical gameplay decisions are subordinate to ~realism~ and ~immersion~ (god I hate that word).
« Last Edit: August 09, 2015, 08:50:24 pm by Aesaar »

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
There is no disjoint first and third person mode in reality. So yes, the devs could cheat and do the same ugly hack other games do, make two independent models and it will be good enough for the most part. Or they can take the time and effort to do it correctly, in an immersive and realistic way, so that there is only one model that looks correct from both first and third person. SC chooses the second, doing it right, and I wouldnt have it any other way. People did not pledge $86 million to have yet another game like all the others, they did so because they want to push some boundaries of immersion and realism.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
Oh please.  Using the same animations and models for 1st and 3rd person isn't "doing it right".  For one, it's a really inefficient use of resources.  You don't need the same amount of detail in a 3rd person model as you need in a first person model, purely because the latter is going to be seen from much closer.  The same is true of animations. 

Furthermore, 1st person animations have different requirements than 3rd person ones.  Example: when you're reloading a gun IRL, you don't lift the thing up to your face to do it.  You leave it more or less where you're holding it and you turn your head to see what you're doing.  But when you're playing a game, you don't want to lose control of your camera whenever you need to reload, especially not in fast-paced gameplay.  So animators, to make it clear that the gun's reloading and to tell the player when it's done, animates it so that the gun is clearly in your view while the animation is playing, even though that's not how it would look in real life.

First person animations need to smoothly transmit information while still looking good.  Third person animations need to look natural.  These are often not compatible.

You can see CIG struggling with this in the FPS preview.  The animations are trying to look natural from both perspectives, and they end up looking natural from neither.  The ADS animation for the pistol looks like the gun and the forearm are jammed in the player's face, and the rifle reload looks jerky as hell.  I suspect this is one of the reasons CIG never actually showed off the 3rd person animations for anything besides walking and crouching, even though CR was bragging about them during half the demo.

Whole FPS demo here, 3:25 to 3:35 show both pistol ADS and rifle reload.

Also why is the HUD (like the radar) wobbling when the player moves?  I can understand why the gunsight would, but for the other stuff? Is the helmet not securely strapped to the player's head?

See, developers don't "cheat" because they're lazy, they cheat because matching animations is completely unnecessary.  It adds nothing to gameplay, it looks worse, and it's more work for no reason.

I didn't pledge to get a game that pushes the boundaries of immersion and realism.  I (originally) pledged for a space sim, which by its very premise has already told realism to go **** itself.  Good thing too, because a realistic space combat game wouldn't be fun.


BTW, if headbobbing is ok despite your brain filtering it out IRL, why isn't the viewpoint tilted when the player aims down sights?  I tilt my head to do that, so shouldn't SC tilt the character's head?  This seriously breaks my immersion.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2015, 06:32:27 pm by Aesaar »

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
Quote
Oh please.  Using the same animations and models for 1st and 3rd person isn't "doing it right".  For one, it's a really inefficient use of resources.  You don't need the same amount of detail in a 3rd person model as you need in a first person model, purely because the latter is going to be seen from much closer.  The same is true of animations. 

They can still use LODs on the player model depending on camera distance, so with LODs is just as efficient as the old way.

Quote
First person animations need to smoothly transmit information while still looking good.  Third person animations need to look natural.  These are often not compatible.

The fact that they are the same thing in reality proves that it can be done. It just takes some time and effort. CIG animation system is brand new so it is still weird sometimes, but I expect it will look good a year from now.

Quote
The ADS animation for the pistol looks like the gun and the forearm are jammed in the player's face, and the rifle reload looks jerky as hell.  I suspect this is one of the reasons CIG never actually showed off the 3rd person animations for anything besides walking and crouching, even though CR was bragging about them during half the demo.

I disagree, first person animations already look very good. They may look a bit different than other games we are used to, but that is because they are actually done right, not faked. As for third person animations, those still look weird, however I suspect that has more to do with their new "jukes" system rather than unified animation system. Jukes system has to do with giving the player body correct inertia and blending that into animations, or something like that. It is why animation transitions are jerky. Again, I expect them to nail it sooner or later.

They did show zero-G animations in PU demo, both first and third person, and it looked great.

Quote
Also why is the HUD (like the radar) wobbling when the player moves?  I can understand why the gunsight would, but for the other stuff? Is the helmet not securely strapped to the player's head?

Yeah, that is weird.

Quote
BTW, if headbobbing is ok despite your brain filtering it out IRL, why isn't the viewpoint tilted when the player aims down sights?  I tilt my head to do that, so shouldn't SC tilt the character's head?  This seriously breaks my immersion.

Maybe it should tilt the head, I dunno. You have to realize that things are different when playing on a monitor vs. in real life. For example, when playing with Oculus Rift you do tilt your view a lot and it looks completely natural. But on a monitor, it may look like the world itself is tilted instead. These are things you just have to try to see how it looks.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • Global Moderator
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Star Citizen multi-crew demo from Gamescom
Quote
First person animations need to smoothly transmit information while still looking good.  Third person animations need to look natural.  These are often not compatible.

The fact that they are the same thing in reality proves that it can be done. It just takes some time and effort. CIG animation system is brand new so it is still weird sometimes, but I expect it will look good a year from now.

That wasn't Aesaar's point. If you reload a gun IRL, you move your head and look away from the action. Doing this ingame doesn't feel right because taking camera control away from the player in an FPS never does. The solution game developers have converged on is to use exaggerated movements that are visible no matter where the playeris looking.
Trying to serve both masters, staying "realistic" and being a good game, means compromising both approaches at not inconsiderable developer cost.

Quote
Maybe it should tilt the head, I dunno. You have to realize that things are different when playing on a monitor vs. in real life. For example, when playing with Oculus Rift you do tilt your view a lot and it looks completely natural. But on a monitor, it may look like the world itself is tilted instead. These are things you just have to try to see how it looks.

If complete realism is the goal, then little motions like that need to be in. If you're committed to not cheating in the ways that game devs normally do, then that has to be the case for every detail.
Let there be light
Let there be moon
Let there be stars and let there be you
Let there be monsters and let there be pain
Let us begin to feel again
--Devin Townsend, Genesis