Star Citizen Video

A new Star Citizen video shows off 10 minutes of emergent gameplay from Star Citizen version 2.6 (thanks DSOGaming). This is posted to the Star Citizen channel, but so was another video we linked over the weekend which ended up being deleted, so we don't know how long this will last. Word from the description is that this shows an effort to secure a giant supply of amphetamines in the space combat game: "Get a taste of what's possible in Star Citizen Alpha 2.6 with this fun emergent adventure that sees players exploring and battling their way across the vast expanse of Crusader for a chance to capture the most valuable haul of all, Big Benny's!"

View : : :
82.
 
Re: Star Citizen Video
Dec 20, 2016, 19:50
82.
Re: Star Citizen Video Dec 20, 2016, 19:50
Dec 20, 2016, 19:50
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 20, 2016, 15:02:
Nonsense. Look at the unified first-and-third person animations, for instance - the only game that tried that is Arma and that's a horrible game. CIG has managed to incorporate vision stabilisation into the mix to create a viewspace that is exactly as others see it, which is important for multiplayer. Then there's the multi-crew ships with independent physics grids, something that hasn't been seen in any other game. There's the scope of the universe, with 64bit precision being used to render at incredible distances with incredible accuracy. If you really think the game isn't cutting edge and groudbreaking then you're not being reasonable.

And every one of those things has been tried or achieved in other games (you even admit it with ARMA!). 64-bit precision is unique to SC? Seriously? You haven't addressed my question at all. Why is CR the guy who will be able to put all of these together for the first time?

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 20, 2016, 15:02:
Nobody does. It's never been done before. It's like criticising JFK for trying to put a man on the moon by claiming nobody has ever done it before and nobody has been able to combine all the elements needed. No shit. Is your argument that developers should always play it safe and not bother to innovate?

Uhhh, ever heard of Blizzard? They've made careers out of combining the features of disparate games into a beautiful working whole. No one may have combined these particular features... and I wonder why?

No, my argument is that those who achieve generally have the skills or records that predict they will achieve. When you want someone to circumnavigate the Earth, you'll look for someone that has a history of managing long expeditions. If you're looking for someone to run a marathon, you look for someone that has run long races. NASA had a history of getting stuff done, which they built on. JFK didn't call up a model rocket club and put them in charge.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 20, 2016, 15:02:
Look, if you don't like the game then don't buy it. Chris Roberts isn't going to murder your first born if you don't. If you want to wait for it to be completed before deciding whether it's worth it then great - again, nobody is forcing you to buy it. What I don't understand is why so many people have an agenda to see the game fail.

So now we've finally got to the rhetorical dodges. You can't give me a reason why CR is the guy to make this advance, so you impugn my motives (in addition to hyperbolic strawmen). I'd love a game that brought space adventure/combat back into the mainstream. But every indication is that this isn't it. No matter what you say about me, it doesn't mean that you have established a single thing about CR capabilities and SC's feasibility...

This comment was edited on Dec 20, 2016, 20:56.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
2.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
3.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
4.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
5.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
6.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
7.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
31.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
8.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
9.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
11.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
19.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
23.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
45.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
46.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
50.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
55.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
47.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
48.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
10.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
12.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
13.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
15.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
17.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
18.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
22.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
26.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
25.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
27.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
29.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
32.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
        Re: Star Citizen Video
56.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
         Re: Star Citizen Video
38.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
39.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
41.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
        Re: Star Citizen Video
42.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
         Re: Star Citizen Video
43.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
         Re: Star Citizen Video
44.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
         Re: Star Citizen Video
51.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
          Re: Star Citizen Video
52.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
           Re: Star Citizen Video
53.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
           removed
54.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
           Re: Star Citizen Video
57.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
            Re: Star Citizen Video
60.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
             Re: Star Citizen Video
63.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
           Re: Star Citizen Video
69.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
           Re: Star Citizen Video
49.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
64.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
28.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
14.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
16.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
20.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
21.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
24.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
30.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
33.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
34.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
37.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
40.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
35.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
36.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
58.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
59.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
62.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
65.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
66.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
67.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
70.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
79.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
 82.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
     Re: Star Citizen Video
61.
Dec 19, 2016Dec 19 2016
68.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
71.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
72.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
73.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
76.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
77.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
74.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
75.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
78.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
80.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
81.
Dec 20, 2016Dec 20 2016
83.
Dec 21, 2016Dec 21 2016
84.
Dec 21, 2016Dec 21 2016
85.
Dec 23, 2016Dec 23 2016