Star Citizen IS a PC game. It will NEVER be dumbed down for a lesser platform. We will NOT limit the input options or supported peripherals to the lowest common denominator. We will NOT pass on features and technology just because they will only run on some hardware configurations.
I just upgraded my office rig to a pair of Titans running in SLI, driving a 4K monitor and a 1440P one (Thanks NVidia for the goodies!). We’re about ready to build the ultimate AMD rig with FOUR R9 290Xs and AMD’s eight core CPU driving a set of 4K monitors in Eyefinity (Thanks AMD!)
You think that’s a good approximation for console, even a next gen one like PS4 or Xbox One?
I LOVE the PC as a platform because it is open, is always moving forward, with new powerful components (usually at cheaper prices) becoming available to gamers available every year. A $3,000 high end PC gaming rig of today wipes the floor of dedicated graphics supercomputers costing over $1M 10 years ago. People were amazed at being able to get Giga flops of performance. Now we can obtain over 5 TERA flops on a single PCI-E GPU!!! The PC platform is great because it isn't static. It doesn't have rules or some controlling entity that decides what will and won’t be in the eco system. If a cool new disruptive technology like the Oculus Rift comes along it can have a chance to gain traction and become the next big thing.
Because of this Star Citizen will always be primarily a PC game and will embrace the best and newest tech.
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Nov 20, 2013, 06:05:The Half Elf wrote on Nov 19, 2013, 00:52:Crysis was released in November 2007; Far Cry 2 was released in October 2008. FC2 was built on the Dunia engine, which was a heavily modified version of the Far Cry engine (they really didn't have much in common). And I never implied it was made by Crytek, in fact it's because it wasn't that it was actually a decent game.
Um Crysis came out AFTER Far Cry 2, and Far Cry 2 used a modifed Far Cry 1 engine and was NOT done by Crytek. Far Cry 2's only 'cool' thing was setting stuff on fire. Beyond the countless linear roads, I wouldn't put it up against Crysis 1 or 2.
The Half Elf wrote on Nov 19, 2013, 00:52:Crysis was released in November 2007; Far Cry 2 was released in October 2008. FC2 was built on the Dunia engine, which was a heavily modified version of the Far Cry engine (they really didn't have much in common). And I never implied it was made by Crytek, in fact it's because it wasn't that it was actually a decent game.
Um Crysis came out AFTER Far Cry 2, and Far Cry 2 used a modifed Far Cry 1 engine and was NOT done by Crytek. Far Cry 2's only 'cool' thing was setting stuff on fire. Beyond the countless linear roads, I wouldn't put it up against Crysis 1 or 2.
SpectralMeat wrote on Nov 19, 2013, 09:38:
Just something to consider before you guys get all worked up about "that mofo spends our money on hardware"
"On 2646.215 I myself attacked & destroyed TCS Tiger's Claw in my Jalthi heavy fighter"Bakhtosh Redclaw Nar Kiranka
InBlack wrote on Nov 19, 2013, 09:34:My point is I am sure Nvidia and AMD would love to donate hardware and stuff for them to include their logo into the gameSpectralMeat wrote on Nov 19, 2013, 09:32:
Do you guys think he actually paid for those monitors and hardware?I just upgraded my office rig to a pair of Titans running in SLI, driving a 4K monitor and a 1440P one (Thanks NVidia for the goodies!).
I remember reading the BF3 devs blog before the game came out and they were getting boxes full of top of the line video cards from Nvidia
Do you actually think that Chris Roberts ever pays for anything anymore? Fuck hell no! Why would he? He already has YOUR MONEYZ!
SpectralMeat wrote on Nov 19, 2013, 09:32:
Do you guys think he actually paid for those monitors and hardware?I just upgraded my office rig to a pair of Titans running in SLI, driving a 4K monitor and a 1440P one (Thanks NVidia for the goodies!).
I remember reading the BF3 devs blog before the game came out and they were getting boxes full of top of the line video cards from Nvidia
I just upgraded my office rig to a pair of Titans running in SLI, driving a 4K monitor and a 1440P one (Thanks NVidia for the goodies!).
BitWraith wrote on Nov 19, 2013, 08:36:
27 million is a colossal amount of money. The guy almost can't help but pocket a large amount of that - and that's fine. The crowd-funding was a massive success, he deserves to reap the rewards. It's sort of like me getting funded a million bucks to design a flyer - I'd have to find things to spend money on to eat up all that cash.
bhcompy wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 19:08:Kosumo wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 17:21:
lol - the hanger module - do you think that it is as taxing as the full game will be? Is there any AI happing in the hanger module? I'd pick that The Sims has more going on than in the hanger CPU wise.
For the record, the EVE Online hangar, added in Incarna, is more taxing on the system with a single person first person view of your own apartment than a battle between 1000 ships.
Creston wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 14:01:Scheherazade wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 13:50:
During the walk around, someone had a PS4 at their desk (apparently sitting underneath a monitor).
So of course, the forums erupted in : "BETRAYAL!!!! this is a console port!!!!!"
The internet at its finest.
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 14:52:ItBurn wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 14:25:The problem with Crysis is that it had weak gameplay, a terrible narrative and was very poorly optimised. By the time people were able to play it at high settings there were games with much better gameplay, graphics and optimisation - Far Cry 2 being an obvious example. I can certainly understand why people refer to Crysis as a tech demo. Crysis 2 had a much better narrative, pace and optimisation - it was the better game, even if it went a bit too linear.
What? These features don't, in any way, turn the game into a tech demo. Far cry 2 and 3 are tech demos? I had a LOT more fun with Crysis 1 than Crysis 2. Crysis 2 is a COD clone. Crysis 1 is the evolution of Farcry 1. The reason it's less fun is debatable, but I think it's because they tried to go the more serious route.
dj LiTh wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 18:35:Kawlisse wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 18:08:dj LiTh wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 11:01:
A game thats suppose to have 1000x more features then X Rebirth in half the dev time, what could go wrong!
Dont get me wrong, the amount of time to make Star Citizen is really short compared to X rebirth !!! But what? it took 7 years to release a crap game like X rebirth ???? Animations are crap, in ship textures are crap, the only good looking thing is space.
X Rebirth is a total letdown. I am keeping my fringers crossed for Star Citizen.
Oh trust me, i think myself and countless other Bluesnews commentators would like nothing else then to be completely wrong in every regard about this game. In fact nothing would make me happier then to be wrong about this game.
ItBurn wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 15:05:theyarecomingforyou wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 14:52:ItBurn wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 14:25:The problem with Crysis is that it had weak gameplay, a terrible narrative and was very poorly optimised. By the time people were able to play it at high settings there were games with much better gameplay, graphics and optimisation - Far Cry 2 being an obvious example. I can certainly understand why people refer to Crysis as a tech demo. Crysis 2 had a much better narrative, pace and optimisation - it was the better game, even if it went a bit too linear.
What? These features don't, in any way, turn the game into a tech demo. Far cry 2 and 3 are tech demos? I had a LOT more fun with Crysis 1 than Crysis 2. Crysis 2 is a COD clone. Crysis 1 is the evolution of Farcry 1. The reason it's less fun is debatable, but I think it's because they tried to go the more serious route.
Crysis 1 is still one of the best looking games out there in my opinion, if you consider that it's open world. Compare it to any other open world shooter released to date and it looks better. I also disagree that Crysis 2 was the better game. I had more fun with the first. But whatever, that's just me.
KS wrote on Nov 18, 2013, 20:26:
I don't think they're saying it needs a powerful computer to run -- that's a stupid management decision if so.
You want to run on not just average but below average, but with a design that scales up graphics accordingly, so the high-end people are drooling all over it online.