Star Citizen - media blowout, Chris Robert's new game

Alex A. said:
The CryEngine cant possibly support a majority of the "persistent"-universe and MMO features they are touting.
Click to expand...
Your whole post is predicated on this assumption. I don't think that it's a fair assumption. The game they release won't be running on the same CryEngine as Crysis 3 - CIG has the source for the engine, and they've been adapting it and working on the instancing backend even as the more visible parts of the game were being released.

This project may yet fail for any number of reasons, but I think it's pretty disingenuous to pretend they're going to get to the end, and then realize the multiplayer will never work.
 
Monthly report: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14995-Monthly-Studio-Report
Foundry-42-UK-Space_Station_01s.jpg


I can't tell if this is a Bengal Carrier or the Dreadnought
Edit: Took a closer look it is the Retribution class Dreadnought
Dkwmk97.jpg
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
Your whole post is predicated on this assumption. I don't think that it's a fair assumption. The game they release won't be running on the same CryEngine as Crysis 3 - CIG has the source for the engine, and they've been adapting it and working on the instancing backend even as the more visible parts of the game were being released.

.
Click to expand...


I don't think your assumption is a fair assumption.
 
DogChainX said:
I haven't chimed in for a while. I've been busy with life, and hardly have had time to look at SC since 2012. Honestly, I've missed out on a WHOLE lot of DRAMA. Thank god.

I've only recently looked at this thread and this whole thing about SC not making any progress/etc. Understandable from what I've read and all of the rumors/etc.

However, I'm shocked to see the actual "HATE" that has come across the fans of this game. Not just discussion, but actual HATE for the backers of this game.

It'll be interesting how this game pans out. Sure, it might crash and burn...but I'm hopefully optimistic, and always have been. Now, back to life and to ignore this thread for another 3-6 months or so. I'll be spending a few extra dollars on backing this (maybe a mug, or something?).
Click to expand...


I haven't actually seen anyone being shitty towards backers unless provoked, though I haven't seen really much of that since I started watching this in the last week. I've mostly just seen people getting defensive whenever someone makes a snide comment about the game state.

Are the snide comments trolly *sure* are they justified? Sadly at the moment yes.
 
Frankie said:
Read Loriens posts throughout this thread and tell me he doesn't deserve it.
Click to expand...

Not just him though man, there are tons of people WAY into this game. Most of those people don't ever post here or anywhere for that matter. They just lurk.

I know it's all fair play in love/hate and video games forums but to actively want people to feel bad (really feel bad and be disappointed/experience loss of $, not just dumb trolling) just seems like a and place to be in life.

At the very least we'll get is a fascinating experiment in the industry with lessons learned and despite some of the folks denials, there's already been a ton of insight into what it takes to try to do this kind of thing with all the background content they produce.

I guess it just seems to waste better spent energy to concern oneself over wanting to "be right" about a video game outcome (and honestly, would someone like that look at their monitor and say, "heh, showed that guy on the Internet! I rule!).

It seems to be becoming more about the will it/won't it than the actual game for forums and media. That is in most part CIGs fault though. They should have started telling people about the delays as the goals became more and more ambitious. For those of us paying close attention in that first year, it makes total sense that it's taking longer and longer. It was apparent they were reaching or over reaching if you like.

That's admittedly just my perspective. More power to those that this is a big deal for and important thing. Sorry for the diatribe, carry on.
 
Did they have a playable demo of the baby PU for attendees? I still haven't seen a player walking around in a ship while it's moving. I noticed the EVA player rubber banding when viewed by a third person, lots of animation issues and rubber banding with the baby PU demo and as far as I know that was a local network.
 
Alex A. said:
The faster people realize this the better, DayZ as a ZOMBIE game has had broken zombies since inception. It will never get fixed and it will never change they already have close to 3 MILLION peoples hard-earned cash and the game hasn't left alpha since 2013 on a modified VR3 engine. The game has lost its kinetic advantage and now sits in the dumps with a skeleton playerbase.

Thus StarCitizen will never be what its fans want it to be a tragic story to a tragic game like MANY other Crowdfunded games
Click to expand...

What does Bohemia Interactive's buggy engine, coding and general inability to produce quality products have to do with Star Citizen? By that logic Star Citizen will be exactly the game I want because I kickstarted Path of Exile and it turned into a great game.

And yeah, if publishers like EA and Ubisoft were funding games like this one we wouldn't have had to crowdfund the thing in the first place. But I suppose a giant space sim was next on the list, right? Right after Battlefield 6 and Assassin's Creed: Industrial Revolution? :rolleyes:
 
Aix. said:
And yeah, if publishers like EA and Ubisoft were funding games like this one we wouldn't have had to crowdfund the thing in the first place. But I suppose a giant space sim was next on the list, right? Right after Battlefield 6 and Assassin's Creed: Industrial Revolution? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Battlefront is the EA version of this.
 
Aix. said:
What does Bohemia Interactive's buggy engine, coding and general inability to produce quality products have to do with Star Citizen? By that logic Star Citizen will be exactly the game I want because I kickstarted Path of Exile and it turned into a great game.

And yeah, if publishers like EA and Ubisoft were funding games like this one we wouldn't have had to crowdfund the thing in the first place. But I suppose a giant space sim was next on the list, right? Right after Battlefield 6 and Assassin's Creed: Industrial Revolution? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

1.) Chris Roberts Track record... :rolleyes:
2.) Companies who have been in the business of making games for about 3 decades knows whats possible and profitable. A multi-year quagmire of a passion project, that will never be fully developed is neither of those
 
So why can't Cry Engine support Star Citizen? It already is..... Large world is coming soon which has all the final pieces. The only question remaining is how good will the instancing / sharding scheme be. As far as I am concerned the original vision would be just fine with me (an actual sharded setup). However they have had some designs to change that into a single shard setup which seems extremely complicated to me, and I have doubts about that working.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
Battlefront is the EA version of this.
Click to expand...
I despise Battlefront its a complete step-back in features compared to BF4. However come November its going to be a fully-launched AAA title that's multi-platform created within a short 2-year cycle. It's going to sell tons of copies and people who love SW Universe are going to eat it up.

It's going to be profitable and that's because DICE knows what they are doing within the limitations of game development, Huge 32v32 space battles would of been a huge selling point but between DICE and EA there is a a level of oversight that keeps ideas realistic and goals on track.

Unlike your game that will never see the light of day fully featured
 
Last edited:
EA's level of over-site as you call it = how much can we fuck over our customers without them getting super pissed.
 
Alex A. said:
I despise Battlefront its a complete step-back in features compared to BF4. However come November its going to be a fully-launched AAA title that's multi-platform created within a short 2-year cycle. It's going to sell tons of copies and people who love SW Universe are going to eat it up.

It's going to be profitable and that's because DICE knows what they are doing within the limitations of game development, Huge 32v32 space battles would of been a huge selling point but between DICE and EA there is a a level of oversight that keeps ideas realistic and goals on track.

Unlike your game that will never see the light of day fully featured
Click to expand...

lol someone praising EA's business model, what has the world come too.
 
Alex A. said:
1.) Chris Roberts Track record... :rolleyes:
2.) Companies who have been in the business of making games for about 3 decades knows whats possible and profitable. A multi-year quagmire of a passion project, that will never be fully developed is neither of those
Click to expand...

1) Okay, so use Chris Roberts' track record to make your point; using DayZ didn't make any sense since CR has no affiliation with Bohemia and the projects aren't related at all, or even similar in nature.

2) It's been very clear for the last decade+ that most of the larger companies are unwilling to take the "risk" of developing new IP. If you're hailing the current popular model of annual IP refreshes with concurrently-developed quarterly paid DLC as what is best for PC gaming then I'm sure you're quite happy. Personally, I've wasted my money on enough buggy and/or feature-stripped rushjobs from big publishers over the years to believe that their methods are what is best for the consumer. Passion is precisely what's been missing from game development.
 
Alex A. said:
I despise Battlefront its a complete step-back in features compared to BF4. However come November its going to be a fully-launched AAA title that's multi-platform created within a short 2-year cycle. It's going to sell tons of copies and people who love SW Universe are going to eat it up.

It's going to be profitable and that's because DICE knows what they are doing within the limitations of game development, Huge 32v32 space battles would of been a huge selling point but between DICE and EA there is a a level of oversight that keeps ideas realistic and goals on track.

Unlike your game that will never see the light of day fully featured
Click to expand...

I've barely followed Battlefront development so I didn't know this, but if you're telling me that a AAA fully-featured PC game can't have 64 players on one server in 2015 because it's "not realistic" then you've been drinking the multi-platform corporate kool-aid far too long. PC games like Tribes 2 had 128-player matches back in 2001.
 
Aix. said:
1) Okay, so use Chris Roberts' track record to make your point; using DayZ didn't make any sense since CR has no affiliation with Bohemia and the projects aren't related at all, or even similar in nature.

2) It's been very clear for the last decade+ that most of the larger companies are unwilling to take the "risk" of developing new IP. If you're hailing the current popular model of annual IP refreshes with concurrently-developed quarterly paid DLC as what is best for PC gaming then I'm sure you're quite happy. Personally, I've wasted my money on enough buggy and/or feature-stripped rushjobs from big publishers over the years to believe that their methods are what is best for the consumer. Passion is precisely what's been missing from game development.
Click to expand...

My point is they are both games that sell the game based off key-features that will never come to fruition and their "transparent" development and early access is not for the consumer benefit but the developer being able accrue capital and then string along "customers" with absolutely no-risk.

What's the success rate on Kick-starter or crowd-funded games? Did people lose money on games that never came out?

Is buying a lottery ticket more ethical and sound then buying a complete product? Because that's basically what people are doing with crowdfunded games.

The difference is if Battlefront is shit you will know about it and spend your money wisely because its a complete product, what happens when SC doesn't meet expectations? Do you get your $900 pixle-ship money back?

SC is able to egg people into funding by playing on peoples dreams, if you don't help us make the game i guess you will never find out if it can be done Right? How can you know if the game were making is bad we just need more funding so _____ can be completed.

See how it works? Yeah EA is the bad guy :rolleyes:
 
Aix. said:
I've barely followed Battlefront development so I didn't know this, but if you're telling me that a AAA fully-featured PC game can't have 64 players on one server in 2015 because it's "not realistic" then you've been drinking the multi-platform corporate kool-aid far too long. PC games like Tribes 2 had 128-player matches back in 2001.
Click to expand...
Everything is for a reason, aside from balance and the game being Console-focused in it's development i'm sure someone decided it was best to be 20v20. I don't like it and most likely i wont be buying Battlefront but the great thing is we all can see what the final features are and vote with our wallets...

Just like Star Citizen...
 
Xaeos said:
Darkstarcow - There is already a very good playable "chunk" in Arena Commander 1.2, including the Hangar module and the social module. Version 1.3 is coming soon which they talked about on the livestream, I believe Star Marine has progress reports every week and will arrive in time, and they showed the early alpha for Alpha 2.0 which include multi-crew, FPS combat and a "little of everything" multiplayer.. Even if you wanted to play something right now, there's certainly evidence of progress.

The usual crew already posted most of the important stuff but just to recap...

Fly free code - CITCONFLIGHT2K15
CitizenCon Stream, split into multiple parts - https://www.youtube.com/user/RobertsSpaceInd/videos
My Referral Code - STAR-NFTL-9K7P (use this to gain free 5000 credits when registering your account!)

All in all looked like a great stream and showing continual progress. The game has swelled in size and scope since its original crowdfunding and its release dates have never been set in stone. I'm personally just fine with them taking all the time they need so long as there is indication of progress, because they're building something on an immense scale and scope not yet seen in gaming, in terms of both technical complexity and in-game system depth. Doing it right is far more important than doing it fast. Could they have had some basic single player title with a dogfighting multiplayer?. However, it would not be anything like the passenger transport or science/farming/medicine systems that we've seen being built and that is what I find exciting - a blue sky project, hopefully done right. Time will tell, but I see continual evidence they are making good on their promises bit by bit.
Click to expand...

How long have those modules been out? And I meant SQ42, they should have the starting area playable to give a feel for how the game is at the least at this point.

Why the hell do they even have a "con" if everything there is just rehashing the same things they put on their website? What can you honestly say that has been shown or demo'd that says $90 million, 261 employees, and over 2 years at minimum of work?
 
Moving on up in the referral world.

4Lesxr1.jpg




darkstarcow said:
How long have those modules been out? And I meant SQ42, they should have the starting area playable to give a feel for how the game is at the least at this point.

Why the hell do they even have a "con" if everything there is just rehashing the same things they put on their website? What can you honestly say that has been shown or demo'd that says $90 million, 261 employees, and over 2 years at minimum of work?
Click to expand...

how can they have a playable single player area for SQ42 ready in 1.5-2months?

They just finished the performance capture shooting a couple months ago, and it is pretty much required for every bit of SQ42...

I was actually surprised to see the Tour of the idris with npc's some what interacting even if audio syncing and their overall characters were unfinished from hair to detail layers as well as collision ect. once they get all those characters up to the Gary Oldman's quality i think it will change that tour for the better, but that was the intro single player area.
 
I for one hate the decision to use a Hollywood actor in a game. The voice is fine, but making him look like an actor was a poor decision. It results in the same problem movies have in which entirely different characters look the same. This is a shortcoming because there aren't too many good actors out there. No reason to do this in video games. I would hate if 5-10 years down the road the main characters from multiple video games looked the same... games have the ability to create unique characters.

I also imagine using their face will run up the actor's fees. Meaning less money for important stuff. I don't know CIG's finances, but I'd gladly shave off $20K-100K+ and not use an actors face. Or maybe he let them use it for free... doubtful.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on that speech video and actors in games in general. :D
 
It depends on how well it is done to me, they have some pretty nice facial capture tech going with lots of facial expression movements, and if it is a familiar voice i some times like to see the actual persons face that i recognize that voice from.

If they can match the quality of the Admiral speech across all main characters in a SP story i will be pretty impressed and SQ42 might actually offer something unique you don't see in many games when it comes to that character feeling alive.
 
Alex A. said:
Everything is for a reason, aside from balance and the game being Console-focused in it's development i'm sure someone decided it was best to be 20v20. I don't like it and most likely i wont be buying Battlefront but the great thing is we all can see what the final features are and vote with our wallets...

Just like Star Citizen...
Click to expand...

The people crowd funding Star Citizen are voting with their wallets. As PC gamers, it's become evident that if we want something developed with PC gaming in mind (often viewed as "niche" games) then we are going to have to have to fund it ourselves.

Personally, I'm tired suits deciding what I get to play based on mass appeal (i.e. multi-platform, streamlining, etc.). It's the same BS that keeps the same 20 radio songs on infinite repeat; luckily we have plenty of alternatives now. The nature of gaming development costs mean that it's tough without those big publisher dollars, but if they aren't willing to assume the risk of giving us what we want then it is we who need to assume the risk. It's simply the reality we live in; you don't have to like it or believe in it.

For a successful example, Grinding Gear Games wanted to make a "hardcore ARPG" complete with closed realm server support in a time when the options were basically age-old Diablo 2 or "wait another 5 years for Diablo 3." We knew no one else was willing to publish such a game, so many of us funded GGG and endured a few years of forum doomsayers while the game slowly, inexorably moved from super early beta to open beta to "release." Now Path of Exile is a badass 4-act ARPG that is constantly improving - they even recently overhauled their netcode which was something critics said would never ever happen.

Not buying something is hardly "voting with your wallet" especially when the developer has the ability to slap "Star Wars" on the cover which is akin to being able to print money. In the current state of PC gaming, I'll gladly risk my vote to get a game I truly want, and that's why I've funded PoE, Star Citizen, Toxikk, Ark, Natural Selection 2, etc.
 
Aix. said:
The people crowd funding Star Citizen are voting with their wallets. As PC gamers, it's become evident that if we want something developed with PC gaming in mind (often viewed as "niche" games) then we are going to have to have to fund it ourselves.

Personally, I'm tired suits deciding what I get to play based on mass appeal (i.e. multi-platform, streamlining, etc.). It's the same BS that keeps the same 20 radio songs on infinite repeat; luckily we have plenty of alternatives now. The nature of gaming development costs mean that it's tough without those big publisher dollars, but if they aren't willing to assume the risk of giving us what we want then it is we who need to assume the risk. It's simply the reality we live in; you don't have to like it or believe in it.

For a successful example, Grinding Gear Games wanted to make a "hardcore ARPG" complete with closed realm server support in a time when the options were basically age-old Diablo 2 or "wait another 5 years for Diablo 3." We knew no one else was willing to publish such a game, so many of us funded GGG and endured a few years of forum doomsayers while the game slowly, inexorably moved from super early beta to open beta to "release." Now Path of Exile is a badass 4-act ARPG that is constantly improving - they even recently overhauled their netcode which was something critics said would never ever happen.

Not buying something is hardly "voting with your wallet" especially when the developer has the ability to slap "Star Wars" on the cover which is akin to being able to print money. In the current state of PC gaming, I'll gladly risk my vote to get a game I truly want, and that's why I've funded PoE, Star Citizen, Toxikk, Ark, Natural Selection 2, etc.
Click to expand...

It is part of the reason i have no trouble throwing money at SC i spent $80 turning a Gladius into a Sabre, but i can't bring my self to buying any of the Dragon Age Inquisition DLC at full price $15 each knowing that money is going to EA. I will break down and get the DLC when it is like 50-75% off no sooner, there are limits to what i am willing to support EA or Craptovision or UIbishit. and that is to minimize the money they get from me.
 
PersonalJ said:
Did they have a playable demo of the baby PU for attendees? I still haven't seen a player walking around in a ship while it's moving. I noticed the EVA player rubber banding when viewed by a third person, lots of animation issues and rubber banding with the baby PU demo and as far as I know that was a local network.
Click to expand...

There was the guy walking around the Constellation before and after the battle. Supposedly they have (or will have?) "local grids" for all their ships already.
 
So any solid release dates yet? Or are they all scattered into the wind, still in "When it's ready" mode?
 
Flogger23m said:
I for one hate the decision to use a Hollywood actor in a game. The voice is fine, but making him look like an actor was a poor decision. It results in the same problem movies have in which entirely different characters look the same. This is a shortcoming because there aren't too many good actors out there. No reason to do this in video games. I would hate if 5-10 years down the road the main characters from multiple video games looked the same... games have the ability to create unique characters.

I also imagine using their face will run up the actor's fees. Meaning less money for important stuff. I don't know CIG's finances, but I'd gladly shave off $20K-100K+ and not use an actors face. Or maybe he let them use it for free... doubtful.

Anyways, those are my thoughts on that speech video and actors in games in general. :D
Click to expand...



The thing is, they are using facial capturing, this GREATLY enhances the "animation" of the faces and makes them look a lot more lifelike then just normal animation.

It doesn't mean they HAVE to look the same though, just look at Avatar or Rise of the Planet of the Apes, both of those use this kind of facial animation from actors that don't look exactly like them.

It's just easier to do it that way an dnot have to change things for the sake of changing them.

I assume they'll use it for some of the aliens too and they won't look exactly like the actors that portray that character.
 
Pringle said:
So any solid release dates yet? Or are they all scattered into the wind, still in "When it's ready" mode?
Click to expand...

Squadron 42 is only "2016" as per the one video. And PU is after that.

Also, I would say that all the negativity is actually the problem of having a transparent development. I've seen it before with other Kickstarter / Early Access games that turned out successful. Too many people forget that a good large scale game can't be created in only a couple years, and forgetting that many AAA games take 5+ years of development. You have a Kickstarter or Early Access game that only got off the ground a few years ago, and after a while everyone loses their shit and becomes a fucking critic.
 
Last edited:
Wildace said:
how can they have a playable single player area for SQ42 ready in 1.5-2months?
Click to expand...

They'd better be able to do a playable area in 1.5-2 months if they don't have any ready yet and want to release something respectable next year. And by "respectable" I don't mean half a dozen simple combat missions launched from a single capital ship, with three hours of awful, Hideo Kojima-style cutscenes, although I wouldn't be surprised if that's what an episode ends up being.
 
Wildace said:
how can they have a playable single player area for SQ42 ready in 1.5-2months?

They just finished the performance capture shooting a couple months ago, and it is pretty much required for every bit of SQ42...
Click to expand...

And they have been doing what exactly for the past 4 years?

I was actually surprised to see the Tour of the idris with npc's some what interacting even if audio syncing and their overall characters were unfinished from hair to detail layers as well as collision ect.
Click to expand...

That was a pretty poor showing for 10/2015.

Aix. said:
Personally, I'm tired suits deciding what I get to play based on mass appeal (i.e. multi-platform, streamlining, etc.). It's the same BS that keeps the same 20 radio songs on infinite repeat; luckily we have plenty of alternatives now. The nature of gaming development costs mean that it's tough without those big publisher dollars, but if they aren't willing to assume the risk of giving us what we want then it is we who need to assume the risk. It's simply the reality we live in; you don't have to like it or believe in it.
Click to expand...

Just because they are going PC only doesn't mean they aren't whoring themselves to the lowest common denominator already, as evident by the control system, catering to M+KB crowd and years long backlash they've been receiving (and mostly ignoring) on the forums.

Pringle said:
So any solid release dates yet? Or are they all scattered into the wind, still in "When it's ready" mode?
Click to expand...

One of the "positive" things from yesterday is they've learned their lesson and refrained from stating exact deadlines they would break anyway.

castun said:
Also, I would say that all the negativity is actually the problem of having a transparent development.
Click to expand...

The problem is problematic development, not a transparent one.
 
Headed back from the. UK, I got 2 pins iny bag :) I'm going to see if I can trade with someone for the gamescom constellation pin. I was so sleep deprived and drunk I wasn't sure if I was hallucinating when at the event lol.
 
Alex A. said:
My point is they are both games that sell the game based off key-features that will never come to fruition and their "transparent" development and early access is not for the consumer benefit but the developer being able accrue capital and then string along "customers" with absolutely no-risk.
Click to expand...

What a surprise that you fall into the same camp of detractors who have an axe to grind with crow funded development. Naturally grown adults choosing to pledge need self anointed white knights to protect them from themselves.

Alex A. said:
What's the success rate on Kick-starter or crowd-funded games? Did people lose money on games that never came out?
Click to expand...

People lose money by backing games without having done the proper due diligence about the people standing behind the project, just like everything else in life crowd funding is a calculated risk. Personally every project I have backed has delivered so far because the devs are experienced industry veterans, have a long history in the particular genre and a reputation which they don't wish to taint.

Alex A. said:
Is buying a lottery ticket more ethical and sound then buying a complete product? Because that's basically what people are doing with crowdfunded games.
Click to expand...

Farcical analogy and not even remotely comparable to crowd funded development.

Alex A. said:
The difference is if Battlefront is shit you will know about it and spend your money wisely because its a complete product, what happens when SC doesn't meet expectations?
Click to expand...

No, the difference is I already know that Battlefront is going the same homogenized mainstream garbage shat out by EA on a regular basis. It must really irk you that people spend their money how they choose rather than according to what you find acceptable, but I would rather risk my money with Roberts & co in the hope of delivering the space sim I have been wanting for over a decade than hand it over willingly to the likes of EA, Activision or Ubisoft in exchange for the same insipid trash they have been shoveling us year in year out.

Alex A. said:
Do you get your $900 pixle-ship money back?
Click to expand...

Anyone spending that much on a ship likely isn't going to be destitute as a result, not to mention the fact that you can get access to the game by buying the $45 package. Remind me again why you give a shit what other people spend their money on?

Alex A. said:
SC is able to egg people into funding by playing on peoples dreams, if you don't help us make the game i guess you will never find out if it can be done Right? How can you know if the game were making is bad we just need more funding so _____ can be completed.

See how it works? Yeah EA is the bad guy :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah...EA is absolutely the bad guy, it didn't win the golden poo award two years running for donating to children hospitals or building orphanages in Somalia.
 
It is not surprising they can move along with Sqd 42 pretty quick after the mocap is complete. They mentioned at least a year ago that they were already building out sets in engine. Plus it is still episodic, so they can release the intro plus X number of missions and then rinse and repeat until the story is complete. Hopefully they will not drag it out for another four years.
 
Will this game have Infantry then? I seen some characters moving around will you be able to shoot other people like in Norshar Canals?
I hope it has a Planetside 2 vibe to it......
 
god i hope not, planet side 2 is ok, but i definitely don't want to see any similarities to in in the star marine update. I would rather see some rainbow six 3 touches added, or swat.
 
Hoping I get to fly my Freelancer in the SC Alpha...its been sitting in my hanger for how many years now?
 
Comixbooks said:
Will this game have Infantry then? I seen some characters moving around will you be able to shoot other people like in Norshar Canals?
I hope it has a Planetside 2 vibe to it......
Click to expand...

Yes there is infantry based combat as part of the core FPS mechanics, but short term it is more inside of space stations and inside of multi crew ship FPS mechanics where you want to take someone's ship from them or liberate a space station from a group of pirates or npc's

Long term they have mentioned wanting actual Battlefield style ground based combat, but i wouldnt not expect that within the next 3 years.

Also if you need to make your Star Citizen Account still use my Referral code when you sign up STAR-3NY6-FGN3, you will get an extra 5,000 UEC (in game credits) at sign up, but you do not need to buy the game right now, just make your account and then you can buy the game later with your account when you are comfortable supporting or they have enough content you are interested in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top