Star Citizen Too Much Game for Consoles to "Handle"

[Quellist]

Sounds like he's cutting out a lot of regular PC gamers too, by his words its going to be a game for the truly rich PC elite only. Not all of us can afford GTX 780 cards and Liquid cooling systems...

You won't have to. It will be scalable, just as almost all PC games are. There will be a slew of tweakable options and optimisations, so it'll run on lower spec gaming machines albeit with less graphical fidelity. But that's par for the course for every PC game; Quality Vs. Performance. The difference here is that it the lower and higher ends of the quality settings are perhaps a little "upshifted" compared to the average PC port with the top end likely out of reach for even my GTX780 OC. I can max out every other PC game to date @ 1080 and don't begrudge the Titan or SLi gamer from having a few more bells and whistles than me. They paid for it and it's the first time in a long time there'll be something to really show off the best that games can be (if not downgraded or created for a "lowest common denominator" and ported wholesale), at the same time scaling for lower specs as well.

So basically its another Crysis specs-wise? I still cant max that bloody thing out on a 680. Ok, I can live with that, thanks

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Star Citizen has raised a butt ton of cash through crowdfunding. In fact, as of the last count, the game's fundraising efforts had accumulated more than $48 million or, if you want a more impressive sounding number, 4.8 trillion pennies.

That's 4.8 billion pennies.

Nah man, there are 100,000 pennies to one Dollar. Don't they teach anything in school these days?

On that note, it's not surprising that consoles can't run Star citizen, seeing as it needs 12 gigs of RAM. 12 gigs converts to 1.2 trillion bytes, right?

How many times do the contributors of this thread need to beat into you the concepts or "memory", "storage space", "interface options", "AI algorithms", "lack of corporate licensing restraints" and all sorts of other things before you understand why PC gaming has its fanbase?

Go back.

Reread my post.

...

I'll wait.

 

[grigjd3]

So, 48 million dollars comes to 4.8 billion (billion being 10^9) pennies, not 4.8 trillion (trillion being 10^12). Also, I believe you meant consolation (as in, makes one feel better) rather than conciliation (which refers to the status of a relationship between two parties).

 

[Clovus]

Wat?

The only way Sony could get them "on side" is to release a new console (dem system requirements), and if they do badly, they've already raised all the cash needed to build the damn thing, so they enter the market with a profit already...

...literally nothing you said makes sense.

And people said Minecraft/Crysis 1 on consoles was impossible, yet they got it on there.

Who said some version of Minecraft wouldn't be on consoles? You can play a version of it on your phone. If anyone said anything it was that the full PC version of Minecraft won't ever be on the 360/PS4, which is completely true. Those consoles don't have the memory to handle it.

Crysis with the original CryEngine was never released on the 360/PS3 since it was impossible. It was redone in the console-specific engine they created for Crysis 2. It was released after Crysis 2.

In both cases it was not just a matter of toning down the graphics.

But, yeah, is it possible that something titled Star Citizen will be on a console? Sure, but it won't be anything like the original PC version. It will be a completely different game written specifically for consoles. Everyone's already pointed out that it is not just about graphics. It will need a simpler physics model, less objects to simulate at once, and a completely different dumb-downed control scheme.

If the game is a big hit on PC, that doesn't mean that porting some version of it to consoles actually makes sense. The main draw of the game (a complex space simulator) will have to be cut out. It'll just be a basic space shoot-em-up. It's quite possible that the combat in Elite: Dangerous will be better than in SC, especially on the console, so it might have trouble competing in that niche on consoles. SC just doesn't seem like a good fit for consoles either.

 

[Kuuenbu]

Go back.

Reread my post.

...

I'll wait.

I did. Turns out I accidentally quoted a different post than I intended. Probably GangstaPony or one of the other 30 posters regurgitating the "omg u pc ppl r all abt da graffix"...

 

[Strazdas]

Incorrect, it isn't PC exclusive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis

Point stands, no game is "too advanced" to be put on weaker hardware as I've told Charcharo on here before. People can disagree with that but games such as those ones disprove them...oh and lets not go into about how its not the "real" game or any such thing as nobody likes repeat dances.

Wasn't going to, already had 2 examples. Yes, it was either update cost or Microsoft's concern with hard-drive space or something that resulted in that...I forget exactly, didn't really care for it.

I stand corrected, they did release it 4 years later. with most content cut.

Your point does not stand though, as it is evidently false. but we were over this already and you said you could put crysis on N64 and it still would be crysis so i see no point in trying to explain why thats wrong again.

It was hard drive space with minecraft and update costs in TF2 case.

So basically its another Crysis specs-wise? I still cant max that bloody thing out on a 680. Ok, I can live with that, thanks

funny thing with Crysis is that its scalable as hell. a 8600 can run it. a 780 cant max it.

I dont believe there is a GTX 760 TI.
GTX 760 is a high end card.
GTX 660 TI was one too.
The 750 TI is a high mid range card.

People that call GTX 770's mid range or even entryelevel OR call 1000$ PCs entrylevel are pretty much Crazy

The ranges usually go as follows:
X10-X40 -lowtier
X50-X60 - midtier
X70-X90 - highend

Hence 760 would count as midtier card, however as far as price/performance ratio goes its one of the best on the market.

 

[Vault101]

Boy these guys sure have some giant sticks up their asses don't they? They are so god-damn smug about this and must love being so elitist about something as trivial as video games. Fine, keep your silly space games if that makes you feel superior just because a subset of humanity won't get to play them because they chose the simplicity of consoles. I like Nintendo's philosophy of brining joy and fun to the world as opposed to the graphical penis measuring contest that seems to be so prevalent in PC land. More and more people are concerned with how stuff looks than whether they got any fun out of it. I hope all that RAM and FLOP's are enough to fill the hole in your black heart Chris Roberts.

..I think somones grapes are a little sour...

seriously though it was marketed as a hardcore PC game designed to push the hardware to the limits, I don't see what the issue is

 

[Rozalia1]

I stand corrected, they did release it 4 years later. with most content cut.

Your point does not stand though, as it is evidently false. but we were over this already and you said you could put crysis on N64 and it still would be crysis so i see no point in trying to explain why thats wrong again.

It was hard drive space with minecraft and update costs in TF2 case.

Still Crysis.

What is the fundamental of a game. Lets put it this way, if you ported a rhythm game where you pressed certain buttons at correct times to make music...and made into a platformer than yes it wouldn't be the same game. However taking a shoot shoot bang bang and porting over to a weaker system where its still a shoot shoot bang bang...its the same bloody game.
I've told you many times that lighting effects don't make a game, and I'll not change that opinion.

Okay.

Unless you're gay, then Nintendo hates your guts.

Nintendo sticks to the same damn game. To the same basic gameplay you can get since the days of the N64.

Star citizen is not just about graphics. Its about free roaming gameplay and exploration. An ever evolving galaxy that grows as time goes on. A galaxy full of highly detailed innards of the ships, even the massive capital ships and space stations. A persistent and alive galaxy. A galaxy that you can do anything in.

It is the space sims of the 90s taken to the next level. A level that veterans like EVE and X have failed to go to. It would be the Crysis of 2014, a game that showed that it is possible. That we do have the technology for games on this scale.

Crysis proved people wrong. That we can have lots of plants that have a real gameplay effect. That physics doesn't have to hamper a game so much. That water isn't a game's death sentence. And we have it all while also being absolutely huge in scale.

and the kicker: We would have a massive technically impressive game that is cheap. 1/2 of AAA budget. To show what we can do without being burdened by mandatory 2/3rd marketing budget where game development only gets 1/3rd.

When was the last time Nintendo pushed the envelope on scale, and pure technical prowess? When was the last time that Nintendo did that and had killer graphics to bring the almost-impossible to you? When was the last time Nintendo offered that brand of freedom? When was the last time Nintendo elevated gaming beyond hard-set limits?

Ill tell you: 30 years ago.

Nintendo sticks with the same tired scale and gameplay that its boring. Star Citizen is there to show the massive scale of games we COULD have had if the industry was on the right path.

IF this works, the stuff it does will filter out into future games. Just like the stuff that Crysis managed to do filtered out into future games.

Star Citizen succeeding will benefit every gamer, PC or console.

That's why people care.

Which was proven false if you are referring to what I think you are, lets not repeat misunderstandings now.

I'll have you know that Nintendo could become the top face, or top heel of the gaming industry tomorrow and no would question it, they're just letting the younger talent have the strap until their next inevitable title win. Whatever they do will be more over, and draw more money than the work of some small time performer who'll likely get jobbed out into oblivion down the road a couple of years from now, when their fans move on to the next fad. So lets not pretend that a relative nobody is somehow more important than what has been the franchise character of gaming, the mainstay, the workhorse.

The "they don't change up their character" complaints are also wrong by the way as Nintendo can and has reinvented themselves.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Well, I guess I'll have to content myself with replaying old Wing Commander games, then. A PC that could run this is too expensive, time-consuming and bulky for me to even consider right now. I understand them not wanting to port it, but some setting so that a mid-tier gaming PC could at least run the thing would be nice.

Also, given the death of optimization in the past decade or so, I sort of doubt that it really needs the specs they're talking about to run. If the average contemporary developer made Super Mario Bros. today, it would require better hardware than the original Deus Ex.

 

[Kuuenbu]

What is the fundamental of a game. Lets put it this way, if you ported a rhythm game where you pressed certain buttons at correct times to make music...and made into a platformer than yes it wouldn't be the same game. However taking a shoot shoot bang bang and porting over to a weaker system where its still a shoot shoot bang bang...its the same bloody game.
I've told you many times that lighting effects don't make a game, and I'll not change that opinion.

It is a game with vastly inferior shoot shoots and bang bangs, due to the restrictions of dual analog stick controls as opposed to keyboard and mouse. This is one of the reasons why games such as Quake and Unreal Tournament have far more gameplay depth than Halo or Call of Duty, and why those born prior to the 1990s greatly look down on the latter games.

 

[JET1971]

As for the graphical arms race, I'm not convinced it's entirely to blame for ludicrously inflated budgets. It takes no more time to make a high res texture than a low res one. A higher poly model might take a fraction more time, but the same model can be exported with lower poly counts (which can't be done the other way around). In fact, I'm almost certain that modellers do make highest poly models in the first instance before downsampling it. I used watch dogs as an example in poorly ported UIs above, but it also did something else, quite famously. The "bullshots scandal" with which it was inexorably associated showed that they had a version of the game with better models, textures and shaders. They then expended developer time and resources to make it worse in all regards. They spent money on downgrading the game.

Making 3d models is always done with higher poly count because it is easier to make a high poly model and remove detail until it looks good in the game than it is to start with a low poly and add details. In terms of time spent it is far the faster method and most cost effective.

As for texture quality it always starts at a much higher resolution an then downsized. Again it is easier to make higher quality then remove details as the resolution is lowered until you get the final version that looks "good enough". There is also the issue of when changing the resolution for a texture. Say the texture was first added into the game at 512x512 and after testing it was decided that 1024x1024 wouldn't make a noticeable performance hit you cannot resize the 512 to 1024. When you resize you can remove pixels and it will look decent and require minimal touch ups but if you make it bigger it becomes pixelated and requires enough touch up to be "May as well make a new one".

Then you have to consider the .dds format for textures, every time you save a .dds details are lost, so you need a highly detailed original texture to work with before adjusting resolution and final save. Thus 2048 on up is the norm for texture resolutions when being developed. 2048 resolutions to make the final 512 textures you see in the game as an example.

Star Citizen is probably using 4096 and up for base textures during development.

 

[Rozalia1]

Crysis was not about the shooting. It was the technical aspects of the game.

Its like cutting out all the dialogue and classes out of an RPG game and saying "see, your sword has a number at the end its still an RPG!"

Its not. You are just showing the amount of damage a weapon does. Showing numbers does not equal RPG.

Crysis relies on the graphics, the physics, and the sneak system. The lighting and foliage played a big part in that.

So the physics which allowed indirect kills and tactics is gone.
The sneaking system is gutted.
The game no longer has any freedom and all you do is go from A to b and tank all the targets with armor. using no other mode because they were all gutted and useless.

Its dishonest to say "look! its still the same game!" when only 10% of the original game remains. Crysis didn't rely on shooting, it relied on freedom that is no longer there.

What next, crapping in a big mac box and saying its still a big mac?

and right, Nintendo could "win" just like the xbox one could "win" tomorrow. Nintendo is old hat, and drags out the same tired corpse every single time. Nintendo is a company, and if they had any punches to throw they would have thrown them already.

Don't humanize a corporation by saying "its playing fair." Because its bullshit. Any company throws all the punches it can when it can. No CEO will embarrass himself in front of investors to play fair, and Nintendo just did.

No company will look for ways out like putting minigames on mobile if they could win.

face it, Nintendo is the equivalent of the Republican party. Old men grasping at the same old tricks to the same old audience until they no longer work. And they stopped working years ago.

And making money off a tired concept is not the same as innovating. Nintendo doesn't innovate shit anymore.

Come back to me when they invent engines that allows games to do impossible things with less power and I'll believe you. Until then, people like Nvidia, unreal, and Star Citizen are more important to gaming than Nintendo. Because engines and pushing the technical envelope make the world go around. It opens up brand new concepts and possibilities because we have less limits.

If no one pushed the technical envelope, we'd all be playing pong right now and Mario won't even exist.

In a couple years, pushing the envelope will have paid off and made gaming better and opened up new possibilities. Just like the last 30 years have made gaming better and broadened our horizons. We are no longer stuck to space shooters or pong and we have technical progress to thank for that. Its all about progress, and selling millions of the same franchises ain't it.

Technical progress opens the path to better and new gameplay.

People were just in tears and enthralled by the foliage tech, so much so that without such tech Crysis simply wouldn't be Crysis. Shooters are all about the shrubbery after all.
Anyway that 10% number is absurd unless you actually think lighting effects and graphical quality is actually 90% of the game...which would be very odd indeed.

Err, wasn't doing that. Merely stating that you can't hold the strap all the time, there are times where you'll be without it and have to let the younger talent hold it for a while while doing programs with other performers to get people invested in you again. Which is you know...how business usually works.

Nintendo has been the rising star going over the old guard, they've been the top face, they've even been the top heel so to say they are stagnant is simply wrong, they're always reinventing themselves and their role in the industry. It was only a couple of years ago they were the top drawing performer, before that they were the underdogs to heel Sony, and before that they were the top heel whose excellent heelwork got Sony (and others) over as the next big faces.
They've done 3D, motion controls, tablet controllers, double screens, "top of the range" devices, low powered devices, they've been hardcore, they've been casual, and their games are grossly underrated by the IGC (who care more about graphics than most)...so yeah your claims fall flat.

You put too much importance in engines clearly, they can make their effects as good as they like but if the game isn't an actual good game than all that is pointless.

Mate, I dont get it, I really do not.

A game is a very complex thing. It relies on many factors and things. Immersion is ONE of them for sure though.

Immersion comes from many things, be it storyline, gameplay, GRAPHICS, art style, physics, AI, effects etc.

Graphics can, have and are used to help gameplay. They DO help gameplay. So do effects, lightning and AI and physics.
Those need power. A lot of it.

You used to say that its theoretically possible to port STALKER to a PS2. Taking away the Dynamic Lightning, Weather effects, EAX, making worse textures and models, cut some shaders and other techniques and make maps smaller (by CUTTING CONTENT).
You will do it.
But thing is, you can NOT put the AI on the PS2. Even if the game looks 2.5D like DOOM by the time we are done with it, the PS2 simply can not handle the AI.
You will need to make a different game for it to work.
Sure the game may be good in its own right, make no mistake, but it will not be the SAME game but ported.

And to be fair, such an ugly, lifeless version of STALKER without all those tricks that help immersion ( a sellling point) and harm gameplay (lightning can illuminate the landcape during night, this is a gameplay element) will still just be too damn different.

The Crysis 1 that is on consoles is not THAT bad, it is playable and it has many of the features that make Crysis 1, well, Crysis 1.
But sometimes there are VAST differences in a game between versions. Crysis 1 simply cant play the same on a high level on consoles. The things that help immersion, the simplified AI (big change to gameplay) the worse effects that may aid gameplay result in a different game.

Its one thing to play a game with lower textures and models, lower framerate, longer loading times, lower resolution and wosre (but still the same) effects... its entirely different to play what is essentially a different game
In this case inferior unfortunately

Gameplay outside a few exceptions are ultimately a vehicle to get across the plot, characters, and other such elements.
Can lowered graphics do that, yes or no? The answer should tell you all you need to know regarding my stance.

It is a game with vastly inferior shoot shoots and bang bangs, due to the restrictions of dual analog stick controls as opposed to keyboard and mouse. This is one of the reasons why games such as Quake and Unreal Tournament have far more gameplay depth than Halo or Call of Duty, and why those born prior to the 1990s greatly look down on the latter games.

That so? So PC gamers playing with a controller are playing an inferior game? Sorry I think I'm overlapping your posts with others, don't think you're trying to make that point.

 

[Dragonbums]

I love how people openly laud and support this game for being PC only while completely ignoring consoles. Yet go into any console thread and these are probably the same people crying their tits out about how evil consoles are for having exclusive games and harming the consumers.