Tachikoma wrote on Aug 8, 2016, 11:49:
Bundy wrote on Aug 8, 2016, 10:43:
I'm surprised someone even tried playing SC with a gtx 760. It was always advertised as a high requirement game, especially in its unoptimised and unfinished state.
It sounds crazy even to myself since I`m an ex-hater, but I`m actually considering buying it. Problem is, it`s nigh on impossible to find out what this thing really is, since most people are either rabidly opposed or blindly enamoured with it.
So, has anybody without heavy bias played it? How bad are the framerates? I`m on 780ti + i7 2600k and 1080p Gsync monitor: Elite works flawlessly. I`d be reluctant to play under 60 fps.
Also how big (small) is the "universe"...read somewhere it`s a star system atm?
What I would recommend is watch some people streaming it on twitch or youtube. Keep an eye out for it at GamesCon in a couple weeks, as they plan to showcase Squadron 42. And keep another eye out for their free to fly week(end)s they do from time to time.
If you're only just curious then don't spend any money. If you really want to dive in and consume all the weekly content they put out and learn more than you wanted to know, then maybe you might consider backing. But if you have no intention of getting in on alpha and dealing with a less than ideal live service, then just wait and see what SQ42 is going to look like.
I stopped downloading client updates to it awhile back for a few reasons... there wasn't any persistence in the game yet, so I wasn't totally enamored with spending time in something that was just reset on each session. Then there was the issue of me trying to render the game on a crossfire card that didn't always perform as well as I felt it should (specifically the R9 295x2)
Now that persistence is in and very interesting content is coming with 2.6 and 2.7, I may steer some of my weekly gaming time towards it soon.
2.7 is supposed to introduce full space-to-ground gameplay with procedural planetary tech that they've been working on in Germany.
And for all you wankers saying 4 years is soooooo looooongggg... get a clue. Used to be developers would spend 4 years developing in the dark before you ever knew they were working on something. THEN they'd spend another year or 2 or more after they revealed it. That's what's molded public perception of how long games take to develop.
I always have to reference this when talking about time-to-develop: Blizzard itself took TEN YEARS to bring Diablo 3 to launch. I don't even care what anyone says about how long SC is taking when compared to that. It's just proof that games have no wrong or right length of development. You either suck it up and be patient, or you stop looking through the window at the circus.