Roberts Space Industries - Star Citizen

#22

So just because you can play the game to get them, doesn’t make also selling them an unfair advantage? What if you have more money and time than other players, surely that’ll put you in a virtually unassailable position?

If you’re going to base a game around PvP, then it’s pretty damn hard to make the game balanced when you’re allowing people to buy stuff to get advantages whilst also making them part of the grind. Planetside 2 almost got it right, but then I don’t think people ended up spending that much money on it.

#23

Well, I already talked about some of this stuff extensively in the other threads:

and

[quote=“Naiba, post:20, topic:136, full:true”]
Sure, but that could mean anything up to possible months of endless grinding to get to.[/quote]
We know that the Constellation package which is about 60 hours of non-grind gameplay. To buy it, it’s 225.00 USD.

[quote=“AngryMarine, post:15, topic:136”]
They bought it to get an advantage over the other players, not to selflessly help the game achieve the stretch goals, or to “make a dream possible”.[/quote]
How do you know this? I don’t think this is an accurate assessment of why people bought these larger ships. Anyone that is educated in the game design of Star Citizen would know that a larger ship is not an advantage, it’s only a different play style. Even if you have both a smaller ship and a larger ship, you can only fly one at a time. The motivation to throw money at CR comes from something other than besting other people. I think that it was both to make the dream possible and they were offering products that people drooled over. Cloud Imperium isn’t a charity, it’s a business. The backers are not philanthropists, they are smart capitalists, ie capitalists that both get a product in exchange for their money and make a better world while doing it. This is the same stance Tesla took with their car. You’re both buying an incredible vehicle, the epitome of auto manufacturing, and you are saving the environment, saving the future of this planet.

Star Citizen would not have been successful if people weren’t investing in the future of gaming, an amazing game, and a mouth watering ship. Remove any of those 3 things, and you will get a much diminished funding campaign.

#24

Thats not true. Those 60hrs was a number thrown out there. Dig through the info and that is far from confirmed.

Rubbish. That larger ship could haul more gold bullion to RSI Central than a smaller ship thus generating more income.

Its not successful yet.

So you’ve played it?

I think this ended ages ago. Now what is left is a duping campaign.

Whats going to happen with sales once…the game is released? With x amount of players buying it already who is left to purchase it once completed?

On another note. I cannot believe I read this crap… If you believe that you really need to get out and get involved in life, stop watching it pass you by from your window.

#25

Even though I’m not a supporter of Star Citizen I have to partially agree with Saturday (also, that’s a well written reply).
It isn’t all black and white and we should get back to discussing this on the serious level.

There may be people buying tons of ships to get advantages.
But there are also people who buy them because they like them,
or because they want to have the complete package,
or they want to have exclusives,
or they are huge fans and just want to put a big part of their money “invested” into the game hoping it gets more into the direction they wish it to go …

How much that makes sense in a moral way is disputable … but it sure worked the financial way.

Anyone know of games with the same/simmilar budgets? Would be interesting to see how they got their money.

If I-Novae would be in the place of Cloud Imperium I also would have poured a lot of money into ships … but only because there wouldn’t be much else to pour money into my favourite studio.

#26

[quote=“Lozza, post:24, topic:136”]
Thats not true. Those 60hrs was a number thrown out there. Dig through the info and that is far from confirmed.[/quote]
It’s confirmed that CR said it. I watched it during a live stream with my own eyes so I don’t have to dig through the info. And I think it was in one of the first 10 For the Chairman. Is it a solid number that is 100% guaranteed to be true on release? Of course not. But it serves the purpose of illustrating what they’re going for, which is at least not on the order of months as Naiba feared.

And yet the larger ship is so slow that it can’t outrun pirates or mercenaries in more nimble craft. It will be difficult to track targets. It will also have a larger sensor signature and be a bigger and easier target for missiles and guns.

[quote=“Lozza, post:24, topic:136”]
Its not successful yet.[/quote]
It’s been wildly successful in everything that has been accomplished so far. I would say that aspects of the development have already been successful. Community connection, marketing strategy, and the hangar module are all perfectly executed and complete. Their fundraising campaign I can confidently say has already been successful.

[quote=“Lozza, post:24, topic:136”]
So you’ve played it?[/quote]
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to predict with a high confidence the success of Star Citizen. There have been projects with much smaller scope, much less money, and a less skilled team with less ambition that have made at least fairly good games. This project has it all. I think it’s more reasonable given the current information to predict a successful outcome than to predict a failed outcome.

If Star Citizen accomplishes half of what they’re aiming for in the complete game, it will still be the best space game ever made, and still one of the best games ever developed. I think myself and the hundreds of thousands of other backers have a reasonable confidence that it will be at least fairly successful if not Earth-shatteringly so based on the past history of the individual teammembers, their logistics, and the progress they’ve made so far which, despite the DFM release delay, is ahead of schedule on the whole.

But we don’t have to wait too much longer for the next major module release. This weekend is PAX. DFM will be unveiled. Honestly, I predict their servers will either crash or be fairly spotty for the first week or two after release because we have 400,000 people that will be trying to log on all at once but get back to me after that and I’ll let you know… assuming my graphics card can handle it/a new one comes in time.

[quote=“Lozza, post:24, topic:136”]
I think this ended ages ago. Now what is left is a duping campaign.[/quote]
okay…

[quote=“Lozza, post:24, topic:136”]
Whats going to happen with sales once…the game is released? With x amount of players buying it already who is left to purchase it once completed?[/quote]
The same way Guild Wars, Adobe, or Microsoft keeps selling it’s software?

I know multiple people that won’t buy it until release. There is some number of people that will buy the game only afterwards. But I believe that most of their future income will come primarily from expansions, secondly from game copies, and thirdly buying in-game credits for cash.

Also how you worded your question isn’t a correct way to think about markets in the 21st century. How does any company continue to not only make profits, but grow profits, in saturated markets? They either steal customers from other companies in the market, or they just maintain their market share. Because the world’s population is growing, it’s actually the natural state of a profit margin to increase if you maintain market share. 10% of 200 million people is 20 million customers. 10% of 300 million in a market is 30 million customers. It also helps that the gaming market as a whole is expanding as a percentage of total population unlike something like non-smart phones.

[quote=“Lozza, post:24, topic:136”]
On another note. I cannot believe I read this crap… If you believe that you really need to get out and get involved in life, stop watching it pass you by from your window.[/quote]
That’s mature of you. All I offered was an explanation of how they made so much money, more money than other kickstarters for actual physical products, with more press, and with far larger markets. And you just get furious. Maybe you feel like Infinity is threatened by the release of Star Citizen and you’re feeling insecure. Fair enough, don’t take it out on me. I want Infinity to be successful. I’d rather not have the past 7 years of my life checking in on this game be a waste of time. But, closing your eyes and covering your ears to other successes in the industry is only going to make success harder, not easier. Analyze what Chris Roberts did, what worked, and extrapolate what you can from his success to make this crowdfunding campaign work.

#27

And what if Star Citizen prefers to hang out with other space sims instead of turn-based strategy games?

Seriously, what the hell.

Other than that, why don’t we all wait for SC to be out to judge it, and how much the paid-for ships are an (unfair or not) advantage?

1 Like
#28

I have also read it is not confirmed, things change.[quote=“Saturday, post:26, topic:136”]
It’s been wildly successful in everything that has been accomplished so far. I would say that aspects of the development have already been successful. Community connection, marketing strategy, and the hangar module
[/quote]

Its raising of cash has been successful, not the game. the hanger module, really, that is not a game.[quote=“Saturday, post:26, topic:136”]
past history of the individual teammembers
[/quote]

That history really isn’t anything that fantastic.[quote=“Saturday, post:26, topic:136”]
Also how you worded your question isn’t a correct way to think about markets
[/quote]
I wasn’t referring to how will they make money after release. What you are saying may be fine for a traditional company in a sense of the word. I am talking about with 400,000 people wanting to buy before the release, for whatever reason do you, or anyone for that matter really believe another 400,000 will buy after the fact?

“and make a better world while doing it” Is what you said, that is deluded, a better world. I’m not trying to offend you yet your fanboyism is very strong if you think that.

The kickstarter made 2 odd million, not the 40 million now. Allot of KS campaigns have been just as succesful, if not close??

What the F are you on… Really? You wouldn’t want to see me angry.[quote=“Saturday, post:26, topic:136”]
Maybe you feel like Infinity is threatened by the release of Star Citizen and you’re feeling insecure.
[/quote]
LOL is all I can think of… LOL

The others wont want to hang out with it. It will be that lonely space sim in the far corner of the universe by itself.

#29

So gamechanging microtransactions, yearly subscriptions, and an organized effort to monopolize their market by any means necessary?

Sure, that sounds like a company I’d want to support.

While somewhat immature… did you actually read your own post?

Reality-check: Is an airplanes-in-space computer-game really going to “make a better world”?

I mean, a game like KSP you could, hypothetically, make the argument that giving people a reason to learn rocket science could, potentially, maybe, see an overall increase in world-wide space research and exploration budgets which would probably at least lead to an increase in overall happiness similar to that which resulted from the non-stick Teflon frying pan. I still wouldn’t equate purchasing that game to making the world better (though Teflon frying pans definitively did).

So… how will throwing money at Star Citizen instead of MS research do so?

Because they’re asking us to pay now.

But yeah, welcome to the internet, it can be kind of hard to see what the colour of a person’s skin is through it so instead the bigots focus their bile on sexual orientation. To be fair, gay originally meant “happy” and is now, on the internet, used as a generally disparaging term for inanimate binary strings, so don’t get your politically correct knickers in a twist.

Now who needs to get out and get involved in life? It’s a law of human nature: if you can think of it, it’s someone’s fetish, and as long as both are consenting and on the same side of 18 it’s perfectly fine.

#30

At what part of my post did I refer to someones sexual persuasion. I am talking about a video game. That is what this topic is about. How about you leave it on topic!

#31

I never said it was a whole game. It’s simply a fraction of the game. A game has never been released this way before. I am judging each aspect of their release separately. The hangar module was successful in demonstrating the ease of their launching program, patch system, benchmark for graphics, and building an expectation by showing exactly the scope of their graphics detail and art style. Very specifically, this is what they set out to do with this module, and they met their goals. That’s it.

You also ignored the first thing I said. CR said it himself that the biggest benefit to crowdfunding isn’t necessarily the money, it’s being able to connect with your community so early in the process and in a way that involves them in the development to the same degree as a publisher. At this point, that is by far Cloud Imperium’s greatest success. They have an unparallelled connection with their community. I think the only game that might approach a quarter of the connection between developer and community that Cloud Imperium has would be CCP and the Eve community or this game, back in the old days. Even if everyone on the Star Citizen dev team dropped dead tomorrow and the game was never completed, they would have already been successful in demonstrating what is possible in building a community with a codependent and intertwined relationship with the developers, out of nothing.

And you also kind of ignored the second thing I said, marketing, which is distinct from how much money that was actually raised. CR’s marketing execution was incredible. First he conducted guerilla marketing in the form of a mysterious website with a countdown. That already generated a huge amount of buzz, much like when Breather launched (the next Uber, check it out). When everything launched on that day, he blew every other video game pitch I’ve ever seen away. He first created an idea, bigger than just Star Citizen. He connected with viewers that what we’re doing is changing the gaming industry forever. And we happen to be making the best game ever made while doing that. He framed his vision with a lot of positive superlatives. He demonstrated that he wasn’t just talk. He showed what he’d been working on and it was the best looking thing to date. He secured stories and interviews with widely read gamer publications like Rock Paper Shotgun and IGN. He eliminated risk to backers by having private investors. The value proposition was perfectly executed to the market by appealing only to the market and not everyone. And when you know exactly what your market wants, and you tell them what they’re already thinking, as if you’re reading their mind, you can make them spend an inordinate amount of money. That’s the holy grail of market research- mindreading your customers.

The only other people I’ve seen that pitch like he did, are people in venture capital and investment. Cloud Imperium accomplished their marketing directive.

[quote=“Lozza, post:28, topic:136”]
That history really isn’t anything that fantastic.[/quote]
There are two people that formed the genre of space sims- David Braben and Chris Roberts. Cloud Imperium has one of them. Chris Roberts is also an accomplished director and a pretty incredible producer.

Do you like the visuals in the movie Avatar? What about Tron, Transformers, Star Trek: Into Darkness, or Star Wars? They have Ryan Church as the primary concept artist. Those are all movies he was hired to do concept for. Ryan Church was handpicked by George Lucas to work on Star Wars Episodes 2 and 3 at Skywalker Ranch. Cloud Imperium also has Jim Martin (Star Trek, AI, The Matrix Reloaded), Geoffrey Mandel (Serenity/Firefly), and Justin Sweet (Avengers) designing the ships and assets. Former employees from EA and Activision. They have people from Bioware like Jason Spangler. People literally left their job at Crytek to work at CIG. John Likens who did the suit HUD for the Iron Man movies is doing the HUD for Star Citizen. In the streams you also meet people in the office that don’t have a formal introduction, for example the last video I watched showed a guy they brought in from Hollywood who’s specialty was explosions. That’s his only job in blockbuster films and in Star Citizen.

There are more than 212 people working on Star Citizen. Besides Elder Scrolls Online, that’s the biggest dev team currently working on a game in the industry.

[quote=“Lozza, post:28, topic:136”]
I am talking about with 400,000 people wanting to buy before the release, for whatever reason do you, or anyone for that matter really believe another 400,000 will buy after the fact?[/quote]

Maybe, or maybe not I don’t know. the only people that have an idea is CIG. What I do know is that if you look at the data, we have more people pledging per day now when not under a special promotion, than a year ago. About 9 or 10 times more actually and the delta is like 0. The amount is neither increasing nor decreasing on average. But we can do some rudimentary comparisons. A space sim from the 90’s like Elite 2 sold something like 500,000 copies iirc. It’s about what Star Citizen is doing. We’re in an age now where gaming is far larger than it was in the 90’s. I think there is potential for a lot more growth. A lot of people still haven’t even heard of Star Citizen. I think that once the game is released, there will be a huge influx of people. How huge? dunno. Again, Adobe sells it’s products to a saturated market and they haven’t gone out of business yet. (of course the subscription thing Runiat mentioned is very recent and not reflective of their sales model for almost their entire successful history). But again, if game sales don’t do it, the expansions will. Secret Missions was wildly successful in the 90’s.

[quote=“Runiat, post:29, topic:136”]
Reality-check: Is a airplanes-in-space computer-game really going to “make a better world”?[/quote]

[quote=“Lozza, post:28, topic:136”]
“and make a better world while doing it” Is what you said, that is deluded, a better world.[/quote]
Kingdom Come wouldn’t have conducted their project the way they did without their relationship with Cloud Imperium. They even had a private investor just like CI’s plan. The only problem was that Kingdom Come didn’t execute everything as well. They only had a couple pieces of the puzzle and suffered for it.

In 2010, Infinity Ward was essentially destroyed by Activision. The founders fired, most of the employees left. The Call of Duty franchise milked for every cent and the quality of the series dropping like a hammer. Activision didn’t give a shit. They were raking in millions for the shareholders. 60 year old men who can’t tell the difference between an Xbox and a microwave were the ones that determined the fate of one of the greatest developers in gaming. Do you think that’s the way it should be?

One of the biggest upsets in gaming history was in 2012. Bioware releases Mass Effect 3. The infamous ending enraged millions of people. It’s quite a feat to piss of that many people that quickly. Due to pressure from EA, Bioware had to produce an ending that was the exact opposite of what they said they would do. “1, 2, or 3”. Pick your color. The close to what would have been the best video game story of all time was devastated and it was nonsensical.

How many times do developers have to go through this shit. How many times are gamers going to be disappointed? We have the power to change the developer/publisher model by voting with our wallets. That’s the biggest part of Chris Robert’s vision that appealed to me and appealed to many others who pledged. My fanboyism in this regard is my passion for gaming as a whole and the rejection of the fuckedupness of the current model. I would have backed any game that wanted to change this so grandiosely.

[quote=“Lozza, post:28, topic:136”]
The kickstarter made 2 odd million, not the 40 million now. Allot of KS campaigns have been just as succesful, if not close??[/quote]
I feel like you’re learning about all the stuff we’re talking about as we’re talking about it. Which is fine, but I’m saying that’s the sense I get even though you already agreed SC was gay and prejudged it. It’s just a problem because I hope other people aren’t doing that. I hope people that see Infinity: Battlescape won’t do that.

Star Citizen had their month long initial campaign on both their own website and on Kickstarter simultaneously. The Kickstarter amount is 2.1 million. The combined RSI site and Kickstarter amount for the initial funding drive is $6,783,761.

edit* This is also an interesting article: http://ignitiondeck.com/id/crowdfunding-a-video-game/

#32

Fair enough ; however, I’ll still reserve my judgement (and my money) for when there will actually be a playable game.
I really hope it will be good even it ends up not being my thing, though. If it fails, it will be a devastating blow to crowdfunding and how people trust them.

I know my Internet, thank you.
I was simply pointing out the fact that, leaving aside the issue with using “gay” as a pejorative word, calling something unsexualized, genderless like Star Citizen “gay” is nonsensical and, well, kind of stupid (if depressingly common). I’m pretty sure people saying things like wanting to have sex with it are metaphorical. Though, again, this is the Internet - but I digress.
I was also subtly hinting that this particular little corner of the Internet was so far above this kind of things, and that it would be better for everyone if it stayed that way.
Or rather, that was what I tried to do, which visibly didn’t work. That’s no reason to be consescending, though.

Endless Space pretty much invented development by democracy - you can’t do more connected than that. Other than that, I could probably give dozen of examples of other developers who take their community seriously.
Not saying that CI should do more, simply that they are (fortunately) not the only one.

The starship, yes. The flying things, OKish. The rest? meh…

Well, yes…

There are some…

Hold on…

Ok, let’s sum up : could have been better.

Did he work on, you know, good movies?
Ok, I’m trolling, Star Trek was OK and with AI they had good visuals.

As good as those movies are otherwise, the ships were mostly correct, rarely more.
I mean, the quality is fine for any video game, but they’re not H.R. Giger.
And Serenity was disappointing. I mean, really, just plain space zombie wannabe? Putting characters in a bus with no good reason? Killing characters -only- because the audience won’t expect it? That’s -not- good storytelling.
But I troll digress again…

That … may not be a good news. While visually good for a (Hollywood) movie, this HUD looked very unpractical for a real human being. That’s nearly always the case with Hollywood HUDs, mind you, but if that’s all his credentials, he may not be best suited for making a videogame’s HUD.

Hollywood space explosions. Now that’s a tired old trope if there was ever one.

So they used their big money to go fetch big money people. It sets a minimum standard, sure, but still colour me unimpressed.

Also you have a point, SC won’t be screwed by the editors, that’s a good point. Scenario-wise, it may not change much AFAICT (CR seems good at staging more than storywriting), but that’s probably underestimating the potential for editors to make bad decisions.

#33

That is quantitative comparison using qualitative words. [quote=“Topperfalkon, post:22, topic:136”]
So just because you can play the game to get them, doesn’t make also selling them an unfair advantage? What if you have more money and time than other players, surely that’ll put you in a virtually unassailable position?
[/quote]
What if it does indeed take more time to earn what was bought with real $$ ? What if it takes 1 microsecond more? Rhetorical question indeed - we’re arguing vaporware right now, so really no empirical basis to the argument.

Roberts & co damned well know that P2W kills. Safest bet is most likely that they will keep improving on it, if they haven’t got it negligibly wrong to begin with. Which is helped by the perpetual (already) WIP dev strategy.

If you’re going to base a game around PvP, then it’s pretty damn hard to make the game balanced when you’re allowing people to buy stuff to get advantages whilst also making them part of the grind.

Assumption made without evidence, again.

If that’s the sort of discussion here, I’m out.

#34

[quote=“ThornEel, post:32, topic:136”]
Endless Space[/quote]
I think you’re right. But Endless Space is a relatively small game in terms of development man-hours. I am referring to much larger projects or potential large projects in the case of Infinity. Because if the scope is broad enough we could include that brick breaker that my friend made in college. It takes a lot of investment to have the community connection on the scale of a “AAA” game like Star Citizen. There are multiple teams of people who’s only job it is, is to cultivate the community. And you can’t have development as open as Endless Space to community contribution on a game that will have visual quality equal to a Hollywood film. The broader community doesn’t have the skills necessary. Some of the community does however, which is why they’re doing “Next Great Starship”.

[quote=“ThornEel, post:32, topic:136”]
Hollywood space explosions. Now that’s a tired old trope if there was ever one.[/quote]
That’s why I used it. XD

[quote=“ThornEel, post:32, topic:136”]
H.R. Giger[/quote]
He can’t do anything except Aliens and things that look like Aliens. Don’t get me wrong, he was perfect for Aliens which ended up winning an academy award for visual effects. But I’m not convinced he can draw any other genre except macabre. I haven’t seen any of his work that isn’t for something very specific to that style so I am open to convincing. For now, I’ll say he would have been a bad choice, even if he was available… unless

All 3 of those concept artists for Star Citizen have movies they worked on that were nominated for an Academy Award in visual effects. In the case of Ryan Church, Avatar, actually won Best Visual Effects.

[quote=“ThornEel, post:32, topic:136”]
It sets a minimum standard, sure, but still colour me unimpressed.[/quote]
In the words of Jamie Lannister, “As long as I’m better than everyone else, I suppose it doesn’t matter.”

That’s pretty incredible. So what video game visuals do impress you and Why? Specifically, what ships are out there in the game world or hell even the film world that have better 3D implementation or concept than Star Citizen?

And just for the record, I thought Star Trek 2009 and Star Trek: Into Darkness had perfect concept of the Enterprise. They made it both modern in terms of the 2000’s to the audience while still staying faithful to the feel of the ship from the original series. I don’t think it could have been any other way.

[quote=“ThornEel, post:32, topic:136”]
this HUD looked very unpractical for a real human being[/quote]
I think so too. Simply, it obscured too much vision in critical areas. They fixed it. Which is why SC is being developed this way. The community spoke up and they changed it.

#35

Avatar was created with latest-gen motion capture technology, skin translucency rendering algorithms, polarized light 3D technology, photorealistic polycounts, and probably a few other technological leaps I’m forgetting about, all of which took months to render on one of the world’s, at the time, top-200 supercomputers.

And they hired the concept artist? Well, better than whoever came up with the story, I guess…

They also know that even the suggestion of P2W can earn them tens of millions of dollars to spend on making their next game, or buying an island, and that no games last forever.

And they know that a good chunk of their costumer-base is more than happy to embrace P2W and might actually stop playing the game (and/or flame it everywhere, and/or demand refunds, hell hath no wrath like a fanboy scorned) if it doesn’t provide it.

To whom do they owe their loyalty? The people who funded development in hopes they could thereby buy their way to power, or the people who will only play the game if it’s kept to a reasonable, fixed, price?

Certainly, sir.

#36

I think you might be underestimating how concept artists are the entire movie or game. Writers and concept artists are the basis of what makes the art, art. Otherwise you have something technically pretty with no substance or rather nothing at all.

[quote=“Runiat, post:35, topic:136”]
To whom do they owe their loyalty?[/quote]
They owe their loyalty to everyone.

lolwut? Since when in gaming history has this ever been the case with anything except possibly some facebook or mobile games?

#37

Ye know, I think I heard a few people describe Avatar in exactly that way.

Personally I thought it was a great way to kill a bit of time, though admittedly my standards are lower while on intercontinental flights.

Cost of game: $40
Average pledge: $98

Since when in gaming history has this ever been the case with anything except possible some facebook or mobile games?

#38

Though you have to admit, the (barely seen for a few minutes) starship looks cool. Even more, it looks almost realistic (at least, compared to Hollywood standards/the rest of the film).
And I do think that it was pretty with no substance and the plotholes in the scenario were big enough to eat entire worlds. (And filling them probably means that mankind just collectively Darwined itself.)
And that it can’t hold a candle to the older, 4M$ budget Battle for Terra as far as similar themes are concerned.

While I feel that the price tag for such big names isn’t worth it, it does ensure that at least, their stuff will look good.

That’s… actually a very good question. Trying to avoid alien shapes, and keeping in mind that nostalgia probably clouds my mind, as well as the overall feel accompanying it (music, scenario…) :

I loved how the old Starcraft looked and felt (beyond the genre/tech limitations)
The Terrans looked like they bolted things together to make sturdy, cheap, effective stuff. Look at their Marine : a dude put in a thick tin can of an armour to stop things, given an AP slugthrower with a handle and a grenade launcher bolted on it. The Battlecruiser is a weapon platform put on an engine and covered with big armour plates everywhere.
I feel that beyond the awful, incoherent cliché mess of a scenario that Starcraft 2 pretends to have, its biggest failing is utterly screwing the unit design up on that regard.

Similarly, I’ve always loved the looks of Homeworld, though I’m not exactly sure why.
The ships weren’t exactly aerodynamic, even for some of the (possibly atmospheric-capable) fighters : the front is often flat, with a vertical cockpit giving both good visibility and a more unique looks. Ships often looked like they were heavily armoured as well to me, but it may be because of the engine limitations.

Legend of Galactic Heroes (watch it!) has interesting designs as well : they mostly fight with walls of thousands of 1km-long battleships, with coaxial weapons. And they don’t have windows, making them look quite functional.
The interior is more like an underground base than a starship, but given how big they are and that a hit generally means death…

I obviously can’t leave 2001 out, if only for its ‘trying to be realistic’ look, but it is lower-tech and as such not as relevant.
Similarly, the only first two Alien movies look good, but are basically interiors.
I have a soft spot for the old Star Wars, but that’s definitively nostalgia.

I mentionned the Avatar starship above, because it looked believable. I’m very curious about how those radiators work, but at least they are there. Though radiators would probably have nothing to do with SC and a realistic design wouldn’t have its place there.

There are most probably others, but I don’t have them in mind right now.

Oh, yes, there is one tiny little piece of design that blew me away, in the aforementioned movie Battle for Terra. But it’s not quite relevant, may well not be voluntary, and somehow a spoiler. So read it only after watching the movie :
-Spoiler (written in white)-

On Jim Stanton’s fighter, if you look at the paintjob, there is a clear roundel, separated by a dark S-shape. It looks like the deformed Tao symbol, but with two white sides separated by a dark band instead of a dark and a white ones.
So basically, it’s a deformed double-Yang instead of the traditional Yin-Yang one. If you think about it, it’s a monstrous symbol : where the Tao symbol means harmony, this means total unbalance on the Yang (life, day, movement, change…) side.
Which is the perfect symbol for the Humans, and particularly the military here : they developed so much that they conquered several planets, and then destroyed them in a war. Now, after having being nearly destroyed themselves, they are trying to conquer a new world to redevelop, even if it means destroying what’s already there. But at the same time, they aren’t exactly evil - they are desperate, trying to survive and doing it the only way they know.
And it’s a deformed symbol, which has two advantages there : it’s not too obvious, and the humans aren’t completely out of balance - if survival means xenocide of innocents, some won’t choose it.

I don’t know if it was consciously put there for this reason, if it was simply an unconscious choice from a designer feeling that it was the right symbol to put there, or if it is purely coïncidental.
But either way, I’ll defend that it was a stroke of genius. Told you, Avatar can’t hold a candle.

-/Spoiler-

#39

[quote=“Runiat, post:37, topic:136”]
I think I heard a few people describe Avatar in exactly that way.[/quote]

I think that the movie had plenty of substance… if there was no movie to use the Pocahontas trope before. But since it’s already been done multiple times, it just seemed unoriginal from a writing perspective.

That being said, I don’t think anyone could accuse Avatar’s environments or visuals to be lacking in substance. They are beautiful technically (proper reflections, specular effects, high poly count, textured) but also substantial (exotic- originally so, epic, tribal influences were a delightful mesh of African and South American inspirations, the creatures were the highlight)

[quote=“Runiat, post:37, topic:136”]
Cost of game: $40Average pledge: $98

Since when in gaming history has this ever been the case with anything except possible some facebook or mobile games?[/quote]
This is the first time a AAA game has convinced people to pay more than the minimum.

But only casual gamers for games that don’t require large amounts of skill would be of the persuasion to quit a game because they couldn’t buy their way to victory. This means that being able to buy to win was their primary objective. These are not the type of players that play Star Citizen, nor is it the type of game that is balanced to even allow this to happen, nor is it a game that doesn’t require skill and a larger investment of time than logging into your phone taking the elevator up to your office.

#40

I love the game but Starcraft looks like a cartoon and was completely unrealistic. All of the Blizzard games have that art style. I think the reason Starcraft 2 has a more refined style is because they now have the technology to do it. When you’re working with that pixel count in the original Starcraft, in order to convey a ghost is meant to be spec-ops and not on the front lines, you have a skinny vertical line of pixels while a marine or firebat is a thicker line of pixels. Basically, everything is a caricature.

Homeworld’s concepts don’t hold a candle to Star Citizen’s as far as ship design. They are bland as hell, especially the Vaygr. All of the ships except the Hiigaran battlecruiser and the homeworld ship itself are a smattering of polygons in almost random configurations. Sajuuk was also pretty terrible looking.

The ships in Legend of Galactic Heroes (never played or watched) look like guns that someone blew up in size and added engines to. If someone drew a concept like that for Star Citizen, they would be fired on the spot.

vs

I don’t even…

Battle for Terra? The human ships look like a rounded BSG original knockoff or a flying polygon.

1 Like
#41

SC fans’ demographics aren’t COD fans’.

…And this means that?

That’s not at all how I’d characterize Roberts & co’s intentions. They take people’s $$ in exchange for CIG’s vision of “BDSSE”, no different from anything you give money to in exchange for their product. Nowhere in the pledges is there effectively a seat on the design committee.