Star Citizen, Roberts Space Industries - Chris Roberts' life support and retirement fund [2012-]

[Jay]

It's an eternally changing tech demo made for unrealistic PC requirements.
Yes it looks good but it never looks very playable.

I get that DF has always this "fanboy" approach where everything is always spectacular. It's their format.
But it's a bit irresponsible of them to praise this game like that and not mention the predatory whale-oriented cash grab it has become.

Really?
Watched the vid, never read the write up if there was one, so maybe that's what your talking about?

What makes the specs unrealistic? Is it using unreleased hardware?
In the vid he mentioned about the, basically spec creep.

The whole point of DF is about the technology and tech break down etc
If you want a review they have the eurogamer site for that and plenty of other places.

Do they mention if they like the games etc, sure but that's not what DF remit is all about.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

>4 years ago when I tried an alpha for the first time with a R9 290X, there wasn't any hardware that could run the game comfortably at decent framerates.
Nowadays, there's no hardware that can run the game comfortably at decent framerates, as they showed the game on a >$1000 2080 Ti, top of the line CPU and SSD and it still ran/loaded like crap.

It's likely that 4 years from now there'll be no hardware that can run the game, again.


So yes, the requirements are unrealistic if you can never have hardware good enough to play the game no matter how many thousands you spend on a PC.


About eurogamer reviews, well it's a really convenient slippery slope that you'll never be able to review Star Citizen because it'll never be a game at this pace.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

>4 years ago when I tried an alpha for the first time with a R9 290X, there wasn't any hardware that could run the game comfortably at decent framerates.
Nowadays, there's no hardware that can run the game comfortably at decent framerates, as they showed the game on a >$1000 2080 Ti, top of the line CPU and SSD and it still ran/loaded like crap.

Which is really important when you consider how this is funded. If RSI stop now, with the game as it is, maybe in four years time ordinary PCs will be able to play it. But if they keep requiring more hardware to run it, the people who paid to make this game will never get to play the thing short of buying a $2000 PC designed for the task! People who ponied up the funds years ago have had their hardware requirements ignored, and now they have to also buy big-ticket hardware.

Maybe it'll be a streamed only game and you'll rent gameplay time from RSI directly?

 

[Dictator]

I am not surprised people are unhappy about us covering Star Citizen's Alpha 3.7 - but I am surprised perhaps about the vehemence of the negativity at times reading some of the commentary on it. My original script spent about 5 minutes talking about "why the game is controversial" - but then I realised I am not writing for EG; rather for DF. Also the "why is this game controversial" thing has been written 1000X times at this point from people that can explain it much better than me. So I rewrote to focus on technical aspects - first the achievements from 7 years of development and build up, then the negative aspects/ realistic look at the game's current status, and then the fact that it is a buggy. Last 5 mins of the video are me basically saying the current release does not meet the game's design vision - which is somehow controversial?

I generally disagree with the idea that SC or Squadrfon 42 are somehow cheating or something or perhaps find the idea not applicable or meaningful. It is a once and a life-time game design, development and idea: and I find the fact that it is different iinteresting. It has definitely produced some really neat technical design that a normal development cycle just would not allow, probably due to internal publisher mandates or the fact that its design document is "we do it all until we cannot anymore". Some people like that idea, others do not!

(To start another paragraph with I) I enjoy those technical things and wanted to finally start covering it in some way on the channel.

 

[DavidGraham]

I enjoy those technical things and wanted to finally start covering it in some way on the channel.

I for one enjoyed the video tremendously, I always wanted to know how far SC has pushed the envelope technically, and it seems it didn't disappoint.

As for performance, the video shows the game running at 40fps on a 2080Ti @4K Max settings, which is acceptable to me, it is certainly much better than something recent like the crap that is Ghost Recon Breakpoint, where you can hardly run it 1080p60 on a Ultimate settings with a 2080Ti. The game has half the details of SC and has no advanced features like ray tracing, yet it continues to run poorly.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I generally disagree with the idea that SC or Squadrfon 42 are somehow cheating...

It's only 'cheating' when people compare it to other games as if it's on the same level. It's like someone taking a motorbike to the 100M and beating all the other competitors and people saying, "wow, that guy's really fast." As a technical process, which is all you're interested in, it's not a competition and SC can't be cheating. When it comes to singing its praises though as the best thing of this generation, as PSman1700 said, it's that sense of 'cheating' that makes the game attract the dislike.

 

[PSman1700]

I am surprised perhaps about the vehemence of the negativity at times reading some of the commentary on it.

On the youtube channel your getting positive reactions, till example. People seem to want more. Your not getting much hate outside of here? I'm not seeing it. It was imo a different and very good video, about tech that's ahead of the time. The SSD advantages this game has is perhaps a look in the future of how much of a difference they can make, when games are written to do so. Fast travel, loading, streaming without stutter. It's graphics are beyond anything else just because their upping the ant weekly (or monthly?) and focus on the latest hw, but if they didn't we would never see anything... well using the powers of a 2080 or a ssd, until a new gen of consoles arrives.
In another DF vid you could go more in on the tech details, different environments etc, and test on lesser hardware. People who don't like it don't have to watch, i hope

I'm looking at the DF vid and just enjoying the tech and graphics. Do people have to pay to play the game or? Only watched someone playing it in a local store (demo pc), people clog up around and are stunned wondering what game it is.

As for performance, the video shows the game running at 40fps on a 2080Ti @4K Max settings

It didn't look unplayable in the DF vid atleast.

as they showed the game on a >$1000 2080 Ti, top of the line CPU and SSD and it still ran/loaded like crap.

Sotc on ps2 was pushing gfx on that platform, and it was doing 15/20fps for the most. Some enjoyed it anyway, with nice graphics for a ps2 late gen title. 40 fps with next gen gfx ain't that bad.
Some current AAA games run at 30 and still drop below that, which then in your eyes run like crap.

as PSman1700 said, it's that sense of 'cheating' that makes the game attract the dislike.

So Crysis was kinda cheating cause almost no one was able to run it smooth? It was like this the best looking of the gen cause it was focussing on the latest and future tech. Still melting pc's to this day

 

[Jay]

About eurogamer reviews, well it's a really convenient slippery slope that you'll never be able to review Star Citizen because it'll never be a game at this pace.

Then maybe it never gets reviewed, but it's not really the DF section to really cover it in that regard, it's not a slippery slope.

One side of the site is for technical breakdowns, the other is reviews etc.

I'm not dismissing your frustration with SC, just that how you relate it to the DF video.

Also seemed playable, with adequate hardware, expensive top of the range hardware, no denying that.

 

[milk]

So Crysis was kinda cheating cause almost no one was able to run it smooth? It was like this the best looking of the gen cause it was focussing on the latest and future tech. Still melting pc's to this day

And Crysis was deservedly criticised at the time of release for it's unrralistic expectations. Also important, was that once they started targetting consoles, crytek devs themselves admited the OG game relied heavily in sheer bruteforce. That's what tipically happens when you don't set boundaries. Lazydevness takes over.

 

[PSman1700]

From a purely visual perspective, ill be shocked if this isnt surpassed quite handily by next gen console games

I doubt it will be the standard, perhaps later in the gen. Next gen pc games with highest RT i assume surpass it from the start in things that rely on RT atleast.

Death Stranding have better terrain.

Does it? Hard to compare to DS terrain, DS is quite barren, no trees etc, just mountains. Haven't seen much of SC's mountain environments.

Mid gen and PC version of RDR2 looks better

In some departments but as a whole, sc is next gen, they target next gen hw or better said beyond that (2080ti).

This was not a good video by DF

Yeah a really educated response there. The video was good, it's just analysing another playable game.

A potentional hzd on ps5/ps6 etc would never be playable.

Also important, was that once they started targetting consoles, crytek devs themselves admited the OG game relied heavily in sheer bruteforce heavily. That's what tipically happens when you don't set boundaries. Lazydevness takes over.

The console versions werent even close, different engine too. Lazy devs or devs limited by hardware, both aren't optimal. Best of both worlds doesn't exist

 

[milk]

I also recomend John Carmak's interview on Joe Rogan's podcast. At one point there, Carmak laments the long dev cycle that Rage took. He blamed it on iD's culture of "It releases when it is done" which had worked well enough for them in the past, but which saw its limits with Rage taking 6 years.
As he said himself, as they allowed themselves to take too long with rage, the world changed around them, and the games rage was being compared against at launch were very different from the ones 2 years prior, which is when he now thinks they should have done everything possible to get the game out in a shippable state.
I've already said I think by the time SC is done, it won't compare that favoravly with its contemporaries. As much as they rewrite and add to their engine, legacy will be a burden, and the more game and content they have already built, the heavier that burden will be.

 

[PSman1700]

Lemme guess, consoles are doing much better right?

 

[milk]

The console versions werent even close, different engine too. Lazy devs or devs limited by hardware, both aren't optimal. Best of both worlds doesn't exist

They weren't even close. True. But in the interviews that I read that, they were not talking so much about the final product, but rather, purely technical choices. They admited PC crysis could have been not as cruel to PCs, had they chosen smarter algorithmic paths to solve certain problems.

 

[cheapchips]

My original script spent about 5 minutes talking about "why the game is controversial" - but then I realised I am not writing for EG; rather for DF

I'm a ex-backer and found the lack of strong framing off putting. I can understand not wanting to go there on the project's well documented controversies. It's pretty dull at this stage. The thing for me is that not everyone coming to your video is really aware of quite how shady CIG, or their many shells, have behaved. Or how many of the promised features you mentioned are well in the future, if they ever arrive.

It felt like you attached the 'DF seal of approval' to the project, when it should really be the 'DF seal of this is interesting tech and demos to look at, but crowdfunder beware!' :smile:

Love your work (usually!). ;-)

 

[iroboto]

We should definitely separate CIG and SC from the tech analysis. At least from a thread perspective. As a backer I get the anger at seeing any positive praise for SC.

But at the same time; as a DF viewer; I’m really looking for understanding the underpinning of the tech. Why we need certain hardware; or what certain hardware is responsible for doing.

That tuition is dramatically different from the political landscape; and I think if I wanted to shit on CIG it shouldn’t be on this thread or st least directed at DF for providing an analysis that no one else will.

For those of us who are really old in Canada; you may remember the time we invested a lot of resources to building the Avro Arrow. That was a genuine multi billion vapour ware back in 1980s. But it still had by far the best technology of its time for aircraft; and despite the money spent on things like Avro Arrow, the moon landing, etc; it should be okay to also appreciate the challenges that needed to be overcome by human ingenuity to get there.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

And Crysis was deservedly criticised at the time of release for it's unrralistic expectations. Also important, was that once they started targetting consoles, crytek devs themselves admited the OG game relied heavily in sheer bruteforce heavily. That's what tipically happens when you don't set boundaries. Lazydevness takes over.

At the same time it was praised by people with that had a brain that actually knew you could configure the graphics settings to have it playable even on a relative toaster of the time.

I think where the disconnect comes in with things like this is people expecting to always be able to run things at "Ultra" settings. Unfortunately because of people like this we don't really see anyone pushing the graphics envelope on PC like we used to. They are too scared of the negativity of implementing advanced forward looking features that can't comfortably be run on currently released hardware even if it's perfectly playable at lower settings.

/sigh. Tempted to go on a rant about this, but not going to.

I really REALLY missed the days when it was possible for a developer to push the envelope at the highest end of their graphical settings while still providing playable graphical settings for an incredibly large range of hardware.

IMO, the rise of benchmarking sites was the death of innovation in PC gaming graphics. Everything has to be immediately playable at the highest max settings no matter what or you'll face unreasonable backlash. OMG, my 2 year old PC (that was the pinnacle of technology at the time) can't run the newest game at settings the hardware wasn't designed to run at, the HORROR! Quick give it a 1/10 review. /puke. Let's conveniently forget that it runs just fine if the person would have turned down some of the settings.

Sorry, this whole thing wasn't aimed at you, just at that whole general hogwash that Ultra settings are meant to be run on years old hardware or anything but the highest end and sometimes not even then.

All the complaining over the years has done is just meant that developers no longer include forward looking graphical features. Everything else is exactly the same as it was in Crysis. You just have what used to be High or Medium settings now called "Ultra." It's a disgrace, IMO, WRT to tech advancement.

Regards,
SB

 

[chris1515]

I doubt it will be the standard, perhaps later in the gen. Next gen pc games with highest RT i assume surpass it from the start in things that rely on RT atleast.



Does it? Hard to compare to DS terrain, DS is quite barren, no trees etc, just mountains. Haven't seen much of SC's mountain environments.



In some departments but as a whole, sc is next gen, they target next gen hw or better said beyond that (2080ti).



Yeah a really educated response there. The video was good, it's just analysing another playable game.

A potentional hzd on ps5/ps6 etc would never be playable.



The console versions werent even close, different engine too. Lazy devs or devs limited by hardware, both aren't optimal. Best of both worlds doesn't exist

The barren land of Death Stranding looks much better than the current barren land of Star Citizen. And I can add tons of games looking better than Star Citizen Planet HZD too, Ac Origins and Odyssey.

The city looks horrible too and the place with vegetation looks horrible too. It will probably progress but after 7 years of development this is a poor showing.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

I get the disdain for the game itself - at this point, it would probably be quicker and cheaper for any backers to learn rocket science, build a series of starships, and foster a collection of interplanetary colonies.

But DF doesn't seem like the right place for pointing out the egregious shortcomings of the developer's commercially creative philosophy.

That said, I hope Hello Games manages to keep updating NMS and beat SC to the punch. Just for the poetry of it.

 

[PSman1700]

They admited PC crysis could have been not as cruel to PCs, had they chosen smarter algorithmic paths to solve certain problems.

Well that i can agree on. Besides that, Crysis was next gen for it's time, could and still can compete well with PS4/XOne games.

quite how shady CIG

That's what i don't like about it's creators, very true. But i assume i don't have to pay anything if i want to play it now? No loss for me then

Love your work (usually!).

The 'politics' behind the game are probably bad, but one can also ignore that and only look at the technical side of things.

But at the same time; as a DF viewer; I’m really looking for understanding the underpinning of the tech. Why we need certain hardware; or what certain hardware is responsible for doing.

And that's what i mean atleast, only the tech, since it's pushing SSD tech like next gen consoles will, it's looking like a next gen game, and it runs quite well considering (40fps on a 2080Ti).

At the same time it was praised by people with that had a brain that actually knew you could configure the graphics settings to have it playable even on a relative toaster of the time.

I think where the disconnect comes in with things like this is people expecting to always be able to run things at "Ultra" settings. Unfortunately because of people like this we don't really see anyone pushing the graphics envelope on PC like we used to. They are too scared of the negativity of implementing advanced forward looking features that can't comfortably be run on currently released hardware even if it's perfectly playable at lower settings.

/sigh. Tempted to go on a rant about this, but not going to.

I really REALLY missed the days when it was possible for a developer to push the envelope at the highest end of their graphical settings while still providing playable graphical settings for an incredibly large range of hardware.

IMO, the rise of benchmarking sites was the death of innovation in PC gaming graphics. Everything has to be immediately playable at the highest max settings no matter what or you'll face unreasonable backlash. OMG, my 2 year old PC (that was the pinnacle of technology at the time) can't run the newest game at settings the hardware wasn't designed to run at, the HORROR! Quick give it a 1/10 review. /puke. Let's conveniently forget that it runs just fine if the person would have turned down some of the settings.

Sorry, this whole thing wasn't aimed at you, just at that whole general hogwash that Ultra settings are meant to be run on years old hardware or anything but the highest end and sometimes not even then.

All the complaining over the years has done is just meant that developers no longer include forward looking graphical features. Everything else is exactly the same as it was in Crysis. You just have what used to be High or Medium settings now called "Ultra." It's a disgrace, IMO, WRT to tech advancement.

Regards,
SB

Cannot agree more, i mean how else is tech going to be pushed without games like Crysis? That's just the nature of the pc, tech evolves and games followed that tech. For the PS4, the order still looks in the range of say last of us 2, in those 7 years. On pc RT made it's way but people needed to get expensive GPU's for that, but those games also did something new at the same time. Guess it's trade-offs then.

The barren land of Death Stranding looks much better than the current barren land of Star Citizen. And I can add tons of games looking better than Star Citizen Planet HZD too, Ac Origins and Odyssey.

The city looks horrible to and the place with vegetation looks horrible too. It will probably progress but after 7 years of development this is a poor showing.

You gotta have to do better then that, a night still of a youtube video. it's like visiting the rockys at night lol. Seems cherry picked sorry.

But DF doesn't seem like the right place for pointing out the egregious shortcomings of the developer's commercially creative philosophy.

True, DF is there for technical analysis and to admire graphics and compare them to other graphical intensive games. Not the politics behind them, for me atleast.

 

[iroboto]

The barren land of Death Stranding looks much better than the current barren land of Star Citizen. And I can add tons of games looking better than Star Citizen Planet HZD too, Ac Origins and Odyssey.

The city looks horrible too and the place with vegetation looks horrible too. It will probably progress but after 7 years of development this is a poor showing.

This is an issue with content creation more so than the underpinning technology.

Well perhaps more accurate to say an issue with content creation with respect to the underpinning technology.

TLDR; it takes years to make good looking worldly scenes. These guys have been focusing on space more than the planets. There is just way too much scope in this title for it to be beautiful everywhere.