Honest question, how is it technologically better? There’s just server instances with a single solar system. What does it, technology wise, do that is special?
Better than Starfield? I don’t know how to even begin to answer that. Starfield is a Bethesda RPG creaking along with the same structure going back to Morrowind. Space travel in Starfield consists of clicking on destinations and watching a cinematic. The X series has had better space ship stuff.
Holy shit, now we’re getting Star Citizen defenders. This thread delivers!
Edit: ha ha, whoops! Too many “Star” games! I’ll leave my comment so everyone can point and laugh at me.
Busy playing actual games.
That’s a design choice, not a matter of “technological advancement”.
But some design choices are due to the available tech’s capabilities.
It’s all about an illusion of progress.
Again, I don’t know how to explain this to you. Have you played Starfield and have you played what’s available for Star Citizen?
If you have, it’s pretty self-evident that one is on the cutting edge (too far, some would say) of tech and the other is a shambling mess of a patchwork engine barely holding itself together.
Note again, that I’m not saying Star Citizen is good. I know for a fact I’ll play a lot more Starfield than I ever will Star Citizen and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in that preference.
Edit: Also, by “design choice” are you implying that you think Bethesda’s Creation Engine (or whatever they’re calling it now) is capable of seamless loading between cells and they’re just choosing to not do that for the past few games?
Eh, I’m perfectly willing to believe Starfield isn’t technologically impressive, but there’s been a lot of discussion about SC’s technical flaws in this thread It’s jankiness is pretty well established. They also have the habit of claiming pretty straightforward things as massive technical breakthroughs. I wouldn’t describe it as cutting edge.
Star Citizen is 10 years into development on a very old cryengine branch where they shrunk everything to make it a single solar system instead of Far Cry jungle which also causes all kinds of physics issues. The animations and character models are dated and what things do look good are due to brute force high polygon counts with the associated performance concerns
They have been trying to add the ability to do any kind of multiple server sharding for 6+ years with nothing delivered.
They spend years on their Bartender AI and the AI in the game essentially doesn’t exist.
I honestly can’t think of a single technology in the game that is even current let alone bleeding edge.
What does Star Citizen seamlessly load? It’s just a single solar system.
I mean… That’s about a jillion times more than Starfield. Bethesda can’t load seamlessly from the same planet
Who is claiming Starfield is bleeding edge anything?
The claim was that Star Citizen was technologically light years ahead of starfield. @telefrog then claimed that Star Citizen was cutting edge.
For some reason there is this focus on a single feature with Starfield chose not to implement (probably because it’s way out of scope for their engine, which doesn’t have a great reputation I agree).
But it’s really important to understand that badly implemented jank isn’t “cutting edge” just because it is ambitious. The last 10% is 90% of the work even if your technical foundations are good. If not it is infinity of the work because you will literally never finish.
Their technology for separating marks from their cash seems pretty good to me :)
It is good, but it is still a decade old technology.
I mean, the catholic church has been doing it for 1000+ years.
Yes. That’s because it’s not a space sim and never billed itself as one. It’s an RPG set in space.
Yes
Clearly Starfield has the tech, they opted to utilize what was needed for an RPG, not a space combat sim. To wit. One person took 7 hrs to fly to Pluto; only to find that it’s just an orb placeholder. I mean, that’s just sloppy. They could have faked it in a million other ways if they wanted to.
It is. The engine was built specifically to power the game they were making. Nothing else.
That’s because there are none.
He’s talking about space ↔ planet transitions. Which I did back in 1996, and several others followed suit. Heck, to break the monotony in Universal Combat, I give the player a fast orbital approach because it’s patently boring to do it manually. So, I just cut to an external cam view during space ↔ planet transitions.
Indeed. One of them followed suit 3 years before.
But the key point is in the 2020s this stuff is not impressive, it’s just the SC people talk it up a lot because it’s more trouble than it’s worth in a lot of games so it’s something “special” about SC
I think it’s still impressive, and not that easy to pull off, even today. I think Frontier: Elite II managed it in 1993 because (and I’m speaking totally out of my ass here - someone please correct me, as I’ve wondered how this works for decades now) my guess is that the engine needed to re-draw the entire visible universe with every frame, which was only possible because of its simplified graphics.
Which also meant you could land on a planet and the stars in the sky would remain accurate even as the planet you were on rotated, which was and remains super-cool to me. There was never an engine switch from space to planet.
And I’m not up-to-date on Star Citizen, but I think that even Star Citizen does an engine switch from space to planet; it’s just disguised. At least, that’s what I remember reading about it a few years ago. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong about any of this. I’d love to know how this seamless transition stuff really works, and if it’s even possible these days without an engine-switch.