Star Citizen Will Apparently Look This Good On Your PC

By Nathan Grayson on October 23rd, 2013 at 8:00 pm.

Albeit from a less, er, flat point of view.

Things! Thing the first: I just realized that Star Citizen‘s universe is entirely terrifying. The latest trailer (which looks not-of-this-world pretty, but we’ll get to that in a second) depicts a star battle for the ages. Laser fire singes and sears, asteroids burst like burnt popcorn kernels, men die. And then, final, silent screams of his fallen foes still ringing in his memory, our intrepid hero clambers out of his cockpit. “Got the ice cream you wanted, honey!” he proudly proclaims. That was a trip to the grocery store. The future is so very bleak and cold – and yet bizarrely upbeat about it.

But Star Citizen looks incredibly nice! Almost suspiciously so, in fact. Chris Roberts and co, however, promise that everything we’re seeing is in-engine, and that next-gen rigs will absolutely be able to replicate it.

Roberts explained the tech behind the faux-commercial in a recent blog post:

“We’re pushing the limits with Star Citizen, and this commercial is our best example yet. It’s rendered 100% in-engine in real time at 4k resolution. We scale everything for the super high resolutions that will be the basis of tomorrow’s gaming experience; our assets are designed with high polycounts instead of having details baked into their textures. That’s a big part of why NVIDIA and AMD have been demoing Star Citizen at 4k! The next generation of CPUs and GPUs will make this kind of experience possible in gameplay, and we are building Star Citizen to be ready. With the Hornet commercial, we wanted to give our backers an early look.”

So basically, Star Citizen will be capable of looking this good – even if you’ll probably need a nuclear-powered supercomputer to make it happen.

Elsewhere in Roberts’ mad, ice-cream-murder-frenzy vision of space, a $25 million stretch goal is now in sight. If reached, it’ll allow for more sophisticated server infrastructure and a wider initial alpha test, meaning that the likes of Europe and Australia will be able to join in earlier. Previously, the plan was to start with North America and expand gradually after that.

So that’s where Star Citizen’s at this week. Check back next week for the stretch goal that allows Roberts Space Industries to bail out the US government.

__________________

« | »

, .

153 Comments »

  1. pupsikaso says:

    “in-engine” is not the same as “in-game”. This has been used by marketting for ages in video games. This in-engine, but pre-rendered and post-processed-to-the-stars clip is not what you will get in front of your computer monitor whenever the game releases.

    • Drinking with Skeletons says:

      I don’t know. Did you ever try the “uberprocessing” or whatever it was called in The Witcher 2? Turned the game into an almost literal slideshow for me, but Christ did it look nice. This could indeed be the next step on that path.

      • waltC says:

        When I first bought W2 I was using an 1 GB AMD 5770 and playing the game @ 1920×1200. If I turned on the “uber processing” I got a slide show, too. Had to turn it off. Then much later bought a 2GB 7850 (clocked to 1.05GHz ROOB) and now when I turn on the option I have to make sure it’s on because of the small impact it makes on my 1920×1200 frame rate…;) The difference is uncanny.

        These graphics look very nice and I think are definitely obtainable. Somebody many years ago asked me once where I thought “3d” would ultimately go (that was long before stereoscopy polluted the meaning of the abbreviation.) I said then, “To interactive movies, of course” and I didn’t mean FMV, either…;) I think we’re getting there and when 4k becomes ubiquitous, having fallen in price to the point at which most people can go 4k, I think we’ll get there. And that’s just the beginning!

        • TrixX says:

          The in-engine part is that they render it in engine. A lot of the video is done on pre-defined rails at the moment as the flight physics is incredibly simple at the moment. Come December we will get to have fun with the computer destroying Dogfighting Alpha module. As with all CryEngine games, 30FPS is the equivalent of 60FPS as far as acceptable framerates are concerned.

          Something else to mention is that nearly all the lighting, asteroids etcetera are just early placeholders for glamour shots. Those will get attention later in the dev cycle.

        • Amun says:

          What sucks though is that I want a 4K resolution in a 22”-24” panel (ie one that will fit on my desk), but that would make all the windows screen elements tiny as hell. Microsoft needs to move to a resolution independent model, but that would mean I would have to buy Windows 9: Hell on Earth Edition (TM).

          Steam OS, please deliver us from evil! Gaben is love! Praise be to Him!

          • kaffis says:

            Well, Windows 9 might not be hell on earth. Resolution-independent to support 4k screens might indicate that they acknowledge that there are things out there that aren’t touchscreens, for one. And for two, everybody knows that odd-numbered Windows versioning are the good releases.

          • airmikee99 says:

            If Microsoft keeps up their pattern, then Win9 should be awesome as all hell.

            Win8 – Crap
            Win7 – Great
            Vista – Steaming pile of crap
            XP – Great
            ME – Crap
            98 – Great

      • Specials4uc3 says:

        Witcher 2 looks easily as good as any trailer I saw, better to be honest. I use 2560×1440 with downsampling to 1080 for gaming and stuff looks amazing. Graphics are badass now, most trailers don’t need to fake it, by the time you deal with the video compression you have already lost the quality that a gamer with a good setup will be seeing on screen.

    • Docs says:

      Not according to the post on their website:

      “We’re pushing the limits with Star Citizen, and this commercial is our best example yet. It’s rendered 100% in-engine in real time at 4k resolution.”

      • Loiosh says:

        He’s correct in that it is in-Engine; however, if you want you can duplicate what they did on your own system. There’s a mod on the forums for how to spawn the ships and move around in them (though the consumer Hangar module does not include the asteroids used in this demo), so you are fully able to duplicate this. Yes, it looks that good ‘in-Game,’ today.

        • LionsPhil says:

          I guess for the 4K video they get some wiggle room in terms of framerate. Most gamers would balk at ~24FPS for actual gameplay, but it’s all they need for this.

          Also, honestly, those scenes are pretty darn empty.

          • Sc0r says:

            I think they say a lot about the game.
            Mostly negative stuff for me though.
            Two things I didn’t hope to see(hear) in this:
            -sound in space
            -a ship must explode into bits to be destroyed
            hrm. So, this means I need to wait for the next innovative team working on a space sim/shooter.

          • LionsPhil says:

            I thought it was always clear that the objective here was “make Wing Commander”, not “make something harder sci-fi than warm butter”.

          • bills6693 says:

            Right. If you were after hard sci-fi space combat, this is not the game.

            There was an interesting kickstarter a bit over a year ago that wanted to do real space combat. I.e. it was based a lot on acceleration, gravity, speeds, it was all physics modeled, it was going to be a realistic interpretation of how space combat could be – not fighter jets in space. (I’m sorry but banking your craft up in space wouldn’t slow you down like it does here! You turn your ship around 180 degrees and have the engines fire to slow you down.).

            The kickstarter failed. Not enough people wanted realistic space combat. They want fighter jets in space.

          • Volcanu says:

            What is the obsession with “noise in a vacuum” whenever there’s a post about a space game? Seriously, without fail some bright spark never fails to pop up and grumble about this point. Does it really matter that much? Without it I imagine the experience would be somewhat anaemic. More or less any ‘space’ game (hell, more or less any game) requires a pretty healthy suspension of disbelief, it baffles me that people care so much about it.

            The pursuit of ‘realism’ for realisms sake is not something of which I approve.

            Fin.

          • sith1144 says:

            Cant find the quote right now, but theyll include an option to turn off space sound.

          • analydilatedcorporatestyle says:

            You would get the sound of your own guns though(through the hull) and when entering ‘the sphere’ of an explosion!

    • Arglebargle says:

      Didn’t they get caught fudging an early video already?

      I will say that even with sound-in-space ™, this certainly looks better than Wing Commander – The Movie. Not that that would actually require much.

      • Jexiah8bit says:

        I imagine that the ships produce the sounds inside the cockpit as a way for fighter pilots to receive audio feedback in combat. Not that this is how the lore is for Star Citizen or anything else, but that is how I imagine it in most things space.

        • Drinking with Skeletons says:

          That is a brilliant idea and if I ever write a sci-fi book I will steal it.

          • MentalEngineer says:

            It’s already been had, unfortunately – this has been the explanation in Star Wars (at least the EU) since one of the Rogue Squadron books.

          • BwenGun says:

            It’s also fairly commonly used in other sci-fi series. For example Elizabeth moon has a character who remembers how when she was an ensign the captain of the ship she was on went into the computers and changed the default audio-feedback sounds with classical music so that the fighting of the ship became like a little orchestral piece.

          • Steed says:

            in Shattered Horizon you had the suit producing ‘Simulated Sound’ – if you turned off the power you could float silently through space, and it was quite beautiful… until someone shot you, or you drifted into the micrometeorite shower

          • MykulJaxin says:

            When I was playing Dead Space and went into an outer space part there was sound as I shot my plasma cutter. I screamed with glee and danced around as I pointed at the TV and mocked the idiocy of the writers/programmers/sound guys/whoever- “There’s no sound in space!” One friend pointed out that sound can travel through many mediums, not just air, and that Isaac might be able to hear the noise as the sound waves traveled through his arms into his ear drums. I’m assuming (using that same relatively uninformed logic) that you might be able to hear your own weapons fire. Incoming fire would naturally be a different story? Someone bring me back down to earth, I’m such a dreamer!

          • Razumen says:

            Yeah, I see no reason why you wouldn’t be able to hear the sound of a gun you’re firing with your own hands-of course it wouldn’t sound quite the same as having to travel through your own body would muffle it quite a bit. The same would be true for spacecraft – you would easily be able to hear the sounds of your own weapons firing and collisions from enemy fire/debris.

            How much this would relate to the unrealistic pew-pew of laser weaponry is anyone’s guess though.

        • Battjmo says:

          The new electric Mercedes supercar, on Earth, is so quiet that it has an option to make the stereo play fake engine noise to keep drivers awake. I imagine that would help out on a spaceship as well.

      • Laephis says:

        Wing Commander – The Movie was the first, and only, movie I’ve ever walked out of a theater during it.

      • cpy says:

        I hope there will be option to turn off sound in space simulation, i just want to hear my ship and perfect silence of space.

    • kaffis says:

      Look at the quote in this article, second sentence, right after “100% in-engine.” It says “real time.” So, yeah. That’s not pre-rendering. They scripted the animations and movement of the objects and camera, and then sat back and let the computer play it. That’s as close to gameplay performance as you can get before things like hit detection and AI are in to steal a few CPU cycles.

      • pupsikaso says:

        Look at the back of the box of any game released, right where it says “best game evah!!” So, yeah. Like I’m going to believe marketting drivel that’s been used for years. They say real-time rendered? I say bullshit. You say possible? I say yeh, if I run 4 nvidia titans at once, maybe.

        • Loiosh says:

          As I mentioned above, you can download the Hangar and do this (sans the weapon firing or asteroids) on your own. As for 3x Titans, I believe they were on 2x 780s, but I haven’t checked for certain. I’m sure they’ve clarified on the forums what they are using.

          But, those graphics are ‘in-Game’ in the sense it’s possible to do them in the engine that is available to consumers. The ‘game’ isn’t built yet (December is the first real alpha).

        • airmikee99 says:

          I don’t get it. You say you don’t believe marketing bullshit when they say it’s “real time”, and your evidence for not believing that phrase is the same marketing bullshit that says it’s “in-engine”.

          If you don’t believe marketing bullshit, fine, then don’t believe it. But if you pick and choose which pieces of marketing bullshit to believe in, your credibility disappears and you just sound silly.

        • mulberry says:

          Or you know, you could just admit you were wrong, but i guess moving the goalposts is another option.

        • Chalky says:

          So you’re trying to say that they’re passing off pre-rendered footage as real time footage, and then when someone points out that you’re completely wrong your response is “yeah, well lalalala not listening everything is fake lalalala”?

          You can download the hanger module right now and see how great the game looks.

          Remember that time it actually sounded like you knew what you were talking about? How fast the façade was abandoned, eh?

        • lurkalisk says:

          You’re being downright prohibitively negative. “I don’t care what anyone says…” isn’t exactly a conversation.

        • Steed says:

          They’re currently made of money, and probably inundated with free hardware besides, so yes – they will be running on ASTOUNDING rigs. We can’t run it like this, but they can.

    • Boozebeard says:

      Well when you actually think about it and realise all there is in this video is 2 spaceships and a few hundred meteorites that you don’t even see up close very often it’s pretty easy to imagine this is possible on modern hardware and honestly not that impressive or mind blowing.

      It’s not like it’s rendering a grand vista with thousands of self shadowing pieces of foliage or anything.

      • dmoe says:

        Except there are lots of lighting effect and surface details going on in that video. Because it doesn’t look as busy to you as say BF4 or some shot of some 3d fantasy game. In terms of “effects” there is a lot going on there at once for this so-called “in-game” trailer.

  2. CookPassBabtridge says:

    I was reading an article the other day asking how much it would take to run 4K, right now. The answer was “SLI Titans will give you 40 FPS”. Maybe prices will come down after xmas, but £1500 for cards alone is a bit prohibitive. Thats without the monitor that will be at least £500.

    Edit ah here it is http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pq321q-4k-gaming,3620.html

  3. Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

    “Honey” is his buyer, and “ice cream” is the street-name for the 700lb of recreational pharmaceuticals he has stashed in the back.

  4. FurryLippedSquid says:

    So many graphics.

  5. Dudeist says:

    I love space shoters, where you flying 50 km/h and bulllets? have speed of maybe 70 km/h. That make sense I’m sure.

    • Zenicetus says:

      The speeds don’t look good. It has that flying-through-molasses feel that I hated in the X3 series, but maybe it’s better in the actual gameplay. One can hope.

      I wish someone would throw 1/10 as much money at a remake of Independence War 2, the last cockpit-level space game where I enjoyed the feeling of speed, and huge star systems as combat arenas.

    • airmikee99 says:

      What kind of slow ass bullets have you been using?

      The slowest one I can find is a .38 special, traveling at 600 feet per second, which is 400 miles per hour.

      A 50. Cal travels around 3000 feet per second, or about 1200 miles per hour.

      70 km/h for a bullet is slower than a BB gun.

    • farrier says:

      Relative velocity. They’ll still be accelerated away by combustion/what-have-you and reach a max velocity relative to the source.

      Like if you can throw something 40 km/h while standing in place, then got in a car (EDIT: and the car is already going 40 km/h) and tried to throw it, it would still leave your hand at 40 km/h relative to you. You may also have a broken windshield.

    • Nurdell says:

      Or maybe, science has made it so humans react to near-light speeds and those ships fly at 0.5*c?!? Oh my science, that would explain all the things!

  6. Beelzebud says:

    So what exactly are they running this on to achieve the video?

  7. pupsikaso says:

    You know, that statement quoted in the article, it suddenly reminded me about the first Crysis game.

  8. FCA says:

    OK, the Hornet looks good, instead of that cobbled together looking spacecraft they’ve shown previously.

    Also: notice how it skips from approaching the planet, to landing. I guess the last part (landing, etc.) is just a cutscene. It reminded me really of Privateer 1. I’m not really complaining or anything, doing a full atmospheric version too is a bit hard, but it’s certainly not the final, ultimate everything space future combat simulation. It might be the penultimate though ;)

    Oh, and happy to see stretch goals not consisting of adding *more* to the game (it seems a tad… ambitious at the moment already), but more testing…

    • Docs says:

      I just don’t think they’ve started implementing anything like that yet or decided fully, they’ve said they might have it so you just go into autopilot and your ship will seamlessly fly down.

      The reason they wont be letting you fly down yourself isn’t really a technical limitation but a limit to the content they can produce, they don’t want you seeing all the empty areas behind the cities/towns they’ve built.

      • Loiosh says:

        Rob confirmed there will be no atmospheric transition in engine. You arrive at a planet and if it has a ground area built, be able to load into the ground area by going through a transition load (something like TERA’s loads between zones). That’s their goal right now.

        • Smashbox says:

          Kind of a bummer, but what I expected

          • Cinek says:

            Why a bummer? Almost all of the space games have been doing that for… ages.
            I’m perfectly fine with that – they spend development time on a core experience of the game. Instead of playing with stuff that will only waste your time in game (right now transitions are planned to take a few seconds – with what you guys suggest – it’d be a few minutes till you reach atmosphere and break through it. Not to mention the landing procedure itself.

        • pupsikaso says:

          That’s a shame. That infinite space project game thing had beautiful transitions from space to atmosphere.

          • kaffis says:

            And that’s the only thing it had. It’s demonstrated absolutely no ability to serve as a platform for good netcode (those ginormous numbers for position have to get sent over the internets!?), no ability to handle hitboxes and collision detection with those ginormous scales, and so on. Why people keep holding it up as proof of concept for a game is beyond me. It’s proof of concept of a virtual parking lot.

    • Christo4 says:

      you do realize that if they wanted to make a real descending through the atmosphere animation then they will have to render the whole planet right? you can’t just go straight to the base, you have to approach at an angle and it will take a few ten thousand km to descend properly.

  9. PopeRatzo says:

    Q4 2014

  10. Trif says:

    I just wish this engine could render colours other than teal and orange.

  11. Don Reba says:

    A space torpedo with wings, eh?

  12. Simplisto says:

    It’s unlikely to run at all on my PC, which as a supporter, is disappointing to say the least.

    • airmikee99 says:

      Was your PC built 25 years ago?

      This is a demo showing off the highest capabilities of the game, not the minimum requirements.

  13. carlo says:

    “See your authorized ship dealer for options.”

    And as luck would have it, Roberts Space Industries happens to be a authorized dealer. Just $110+, imagine that.

    On an unrelated note, that first enemy fighter in the video was a terrible shot. He was unable to hit that Hornet from about 20m away.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Also, the second pilot did not react at all to the hornet’s sudden manoeuvre, just trundled along, never changing speed or direction!

    • Christo4 says:

      i found it amusing that it had a rotating turret from the looks of it above and it didn’t turn to shoot the enemy behind it.

      • carlo says:

        The Hornet pilot in that video probably didn’t want to spend another $20 on that rotating turret.

        Not making this up: the pretend ship with the pretend ball turret costs more real monies.

        • airmikee99 says:

          Ugh, as beautiful as this game is, if it’s going to turn into a Pay-To-Win cashfest I may end up skipping it.

          MWO almost approached that level of stupidity, but the mechs that can only be purchased with real world money aren’t any better than the mechs that can be purchased with in game currency.

          • epmode says:

            While you’ll be able to buy in-game cash with real money, items will not be directly sold for cash once the game launches. Everything will be obtainable with in-game currency or by mission rewards or salvaging/theft.

          • PopeRatzo says:

            While you’ll be able to buy in-game cash with real money, items will not be directly sold for cash once the game launches. Everything will be obtainable with in-game currency or by mission rewards or salvaging/theft.

            We’ve never heard that one before.

          • Cinek says:

            Ships sold for in-game currency won’t have lifetime insurance.
            Items are already sold directly for cash. With 1000 VD = 1$. Current shop contains only entry-level items – and they’re horribly expensive. One of the lasers run for 16$. And it doesn’t have any insurance – so if you loose it – you loose it forever.

    • Matt_W says:

      It’s hard for me to imagine a situation where I would pay $110, not for the game, but for an in-game item for a game that is still 1 1/2 years (at least) from release.

      • Maxheadroom says:

        I know!
        I’ve pledged at the basic level for the basic ship and while I’d love to drop a few more quid on one of those fancy big ships (the kind me and my mates could walk around in) I could never justify the $225 asking price. I’d pay a tenth of that. Maybe. If i was drunk
        But people really are throwing that kind of money at in game items

        And I thought TF2 hats were mad

      • Toadsmash says:

        Kickstarter pledge rewards != realistic microtransaction schemes. Not even close to it, nor were they ever intended to be. Chris Roberts has his own quite strong opinions about pay to win schemes. I wouldn’t be too worried.

        I’m pretty sure the people throwing that sort of money at the game are doing it because they believe in the game and are just that fanatical about wanting to support Chris Roberts’ vision, and the ships are just a bonus for the distant future. You guys are missing the point.

        • Apocalypse says:

          Nah, some of them simply buy the stuff for epeen or because they really believe that this will give them the upper hand.

          *shrugs*
          I am not complaining about those guys, more money for the game is good, and mocking those guys later is fun as well ;-)

    • Zenicetus says:

      This model of selling pre-release perks has always seemed backwards to me, when you have no idea if the game will be fun or not.

      Call me old-fashioned, but I like what 777 Studios did with Rise of Flight — release the core of a very good WW1 air combat sim with a few planes you can fly. Establish first, that it’s a great game and worthy of being one of the classics in its genre. Then add some more planes, one at a time, and charge for those. If you like the sim, you buy the extra planes. Then a year or two after release when you want to keep up the cash flow, release some small item fluff like Field Mods (nonstandard but historical different gun setups, gauges, and aiming devices).

      I’ve probably spent at least $150 or more on Rise of Flight in addition to the original cost of the game when it first came out. Prove that first, and then sell the add-ons. I haven’t spent a dime on Star Citizen yet because, although I’m square in the middle of the target market as someone who loves cockpit-level space games and has played all the classics, and has plenty of disposable income too — I have no idea if it will be fun or not. Especially in singleplayer, which is all I care about.

      • Toadsmash says:

        Why are people confusing pledge incentives with product sales? Urghghghghgghghgh.

      • kaffis says:

        While this worked for Rise of Flight, and it’s a model that I can appreciate…

        777 Studios didn’t raise $24 million for the development of Rise of Flight with that model.

  14. Cytrom says:

    And just like that, the space shooter is finally reborn, and more glorious than ever.

  15. Stardreamer says:

    Problem: After roughly 17 years of usage the phase “Next-Gen” is starting to lose all meaning.

    Solution: Kill anyone still using it Start referring to the discreet generations with their numerical tag. We’re in Gen 8 or so, yes? Call it gen 8. You may even remove the space between: I don’t mind. “Gen8″. Simples. Talk about the next level as Gen9. Oh, and don’t forget to define these quite clearly.

    • Rikard Peterson says:

      Lose meaning? I thought “next gen” meant XBox 360 and PS3 – isn’t that true?

      • Napalm Sushi says:

        And there I was, thinking it referred to the Sega 32X.

      • carlo says:

        That is correct.

        Also, Xbox One and PS4 are “nexter gen”, the following generation will be “nextest gen”, and then we run out of meaningless marketing buzzwords.

        • airmikee99 says:

          I believe you are forgetting about: nexterest, nextester, nexterer, and nextestest.

        • pilouuuu says:

          Nexter gen already behind PC.

          • Cinek says:

            Which is kinda funny. I remember X360 release when my PC was notably weaker than a console. But now? My PC got twice the computing power of Xbox One, and It’s over 2 years old. So I laugh hard seeing that BF4 won’t run in native 1080p on a latest consoles.

    • FriendlyFire says:

      Next-gen has always had the same meaning: it’s the tomorrow of game consoles.

    • MacTheGeek says:

      What should we do about the indiscreet generations?

    • Shadow says:

      “Generation” is console vocabulary, since unlike the PC, which is constantly evolving, those lacking platforms only evolve once every 6+ years. And each generation is obsoleted by the PC before it’s even a thing.

      Star Citizen shows proof of how much console-oriented mainstream developers have been holding the PC back for the past few years, embracing the stagnancy imposed by consoles and championing “multi-platformism” to accomodate to the ever-increasing budgets and ever-decreasing innovation. Star Citizen shows how high-end PC games should be looking today (i.e. not like games made 3-4 years ago).

      Jaded? Yes. Elitist? When was the technical supremacy of the PC ever credibly disputed? I used to respect consoles when they were more unique, knew their place and kept their sometimes interesting but ultimately shallow games and gimmicky, nonsensical conventions to themselves.

      • Metalhead9806 says:

        I don’t know about you dude but i would hate to have to buy new hardware every year to run PC games… Is that something you want? without consoles “holding PC back” we would be spending thousands of dollars a year on hardware upgrades.

        • ZephyrSB says:

          Been there. Done that. Those were the glory days.

        • Cinek says:

          New hardware every year to run PC games? That never happen. Not even when Consoles were sitting away from PCs not affecting them in almost any way.
          The shortest period I remember between the updates was 2 years – and that’s just GPU update.

          You know that PC games got settings where you can tune details to your machine, don’t you? Of course you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t post such an ignorant comment.

          • Apocalypse says:

            To be honest, there is an absurd amount of people who know only max settings on the PCs and spend those dollars each year on their systems.

          • Shadow says:

            “The shortest period I remember between the updates was 2 years – and that’s just GPU update.”

            Bingo. Nobody said anything about necessarily spending thousands of dollars every year. Before the current stagnant situation, you couldn’t play games on max settings a year or so later, but you could chug along just fine slowly descending into medium quality. A year after that you’d be approaching low settings, and start feeling the need to upgrade some parts. And that was good, because you could see progress in PC gaming.

            Now, the ineludible fact is that I currently have a nearly 3-year-old setup (bought and assembled on November 2010, and only increased my RAM to 8 GB since then) and I can still play most games on high graphic settings. And my setup wasn’t cutting-edge even in its day: AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE, ATI Radeon HD 5850, 4 (now 8) gigs of RAM.

            Is that really a good thing? What does “high settings” even mean anymore? Should we really be glad there’s no progress because it saves us some money?

            Now that’s some food for thought. It was never necessary to destroy your financial future to keep up with PC gaming. That’s just a pro-console argument to justify complacent thought and the strictly controlled stagnancy.

        • Apocalypse says:

          I am fine with spending $1000 a year on hardware, so yes, consoles holding back. But hey, with family you need more than just one gaming pc anyway, and hardware wanders down the systems from year to year, so that $1000 sound like more than they actually are, considering that I need at least 2 work pcs anyway.

  16. LionsPhil says:

    All those graphics, and they still can’t fix their camera lens to not smear light sources all over the place.

  17. dagudman says:

    I guess it’s time to buy that Quantum Mechanics PC thingy that I have been saving all those millions of pounds for.

  18. Ninja Foodstuff says:

    I still think they need ten times that to make the game they think they’re going to make

    • airmikee99 says:

      That would make it the 2nd most expensive game to make, just slightly behind GTA V’s $265 million development cost.

      I think you’re overestimating how much it costs to produce a video game.

    • Toadsmash says:

      Making your dream project push the boundaries of innovation and consistent design excellence isn’t what makes game development expensive. It’s the outrageous production values people want to push that make these AAA titles play like action movies that knock the cost out of the park. Indie developers are proving that every day. Still, the scope of what this guy wants to do is truly massive. I’ve been worried about the guy biting off more than he can chew from the beginning.

      I think my biggest concern is that with a release window on paper from a very early point, this being a crowdfunded project is going to make it very… politically challenging, for CIG to take on the Blizzard/Rockstar axiom of game development where “it’s done when it’s done.” We’ll get a buggy, barely playable mess at the game’s release, but we’ll love the shit out of our buggy, barely playable mess.

  19. Singularity says:

    “Star Citizen Will Apparently Look This Good On Your PC” Star Citizen will apparently look better than this good on a PC without a 4K screen.

  20. silver722 says:

    Google is paying 80$ per hour! Work for few hours and have more time with friends & family! On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $4151 this last four weeks. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out http://goo.gl/w7ceUX

  21. jnqvist says:

    Man I love Nathan’s posts. I read even the stuff that I’m not interested in (which is deffinitely not the case here). The ‘Honey,I’m home!”part was just…well,Nathan. Keep it up yo!

  22. explodeydendron says:

    Looks like it’s shot through JJ Abrams’ asshole, with all that lens flare.

  23. frightlever says:

    So… I guess nothing could go wrong with a game that focuses so heavily on how it looks, meanwhile half the other stories on the site are about games with 8 bit graphics but whose gameplay is unique or interesting. Not to say that Star Citizen won’t be interesting.

  24. Metalhead9806 says:

    Ok so the game looks insane at 4k but what about the rest of us with mortal rigs? how does it look at 1080p with mid to high range hardware? Im not going to buy a 3 thousand dollar rig to play one game when everything i play can run at high/ultra 60fps+ on my current set up…

  25. aldo_14 says:

    As lovely as it looks, I can’t help but think the design (of the ships seen so far) is frequently horribly overcomplicated and flashy. I’m actually preferring the look of, say, Elite Dangerous because it’s much clearer visually (most of the ships I’ve seen can be reduced into a basic geometric shape, faithful to the original but still making sense in a form over function manner).

    A bit like, I guess, comparing Pacific Rim and Transformers; both show more or less the same thing in terms of having big stompy robots, but one goes for a level of overly inticrate detail that actually acts to compromise the visual effect.

    • Stardreamer says:

      Oh, if only this one insight could be welded to a rocket-propelled hammer and fired at the heads of every ILM member involved in Transformers! Spot on, Aldo XIV! Pacific Rim’s Yaeger designs were a master-class in how to give character and instant visual recognition to giant mechanical forms.

      I completely agree with you regarding the Elite ships vs Star Citizen’s as well. It’s something the X series designers could do with looking at tool, given their frequent tendency to over-complicate ships and structures. Elite’s historic geometric simplicity is paying dividends as their ships are still so recognisable despite their cutting-edge designs.

      • fooga44 says:

        Bullshit, the designs are totally generic humans in metal suits. If you want to see real design look at old transformers cartoons or stuff like Macross from japan. REAL designers. Not the generic wester metal-man bullshit you find in western hollywood films.

        • MrUnimport says:

          This is a joke, right? Japan has turned out hordes of samey tube robots that move and operate like giant men in suits.

        • dE says:

          Oh, Macross? The one that had an unfortunate spaceplane crash into a gundam toy?
          Honestly, none of the designs is superior in my books because the japanese mecha all look like gundams with random stuff attached to them. For crying out loud, some of those anime mecha wear metal skirts for no goddamn reason.
          And western design? Well it’s blocky tanks on legs for the most part. Not that super special either. It’s just two different schools of mecha design. None inherently more creative than the other.

          • MrUnimport says:

            Metal skirts are probably the most realistic thing about Gundam. Gotta protect those hip joints.

    • Zenicetus says:

      That’s the other thing that bothered me in the clip (besides the slow-looking speeds) — the thick frame around the canopy and restricted viewing area. Assuming this is a “traditional” space combat game where you acquire targets visually and aim your whole ship — WW2 fighter style — then why restrict the player’s view that much? They invented bubble canopies for fighters way back at the end of WW2, for a reason.

      I don’t need my cockpit to look like an homage to a Star Wars X-Wing, I need to see the damn enemy ship I’m chasing! Especially if there is TrackIR support.

      The cockpit of the medium-size ship you get in X3: Rebirth has the same problem. I suspect in both cases it might be a kludge to help the frame rate, which is an old trick with flight simulators. Block the view area so there isn’t so much to render. It still stinks, from the player’s perspective. A space fighter where you have to aim your whole ship to shoot something, should have a fantastic viewing system from the cockpit.

      • aldo_14 says:

        I have to admit, on a personal level, I’ve loved big-clunky-impractical cockpits ever since Privateer (even though, in reality, you’d expect no cockpit and all 360 degree video feeds).

        There’s maybe a bit of an artists bias coming in, in the sense that – in my very brief modding days – I’d love intricately designing these things and then insist on putting the players viewpoint such that they could admit it to. Even when someone would tell me how much it was a pain in the arse to fly it.

        Simple answer is to have a little key that zooms in/out from a hud position, so the cockpit is always there but visible… albeit that does bring in the issue of what point there is in having the cockpit, if all that info can be presented in a relatively clear display.

        (That said, my same complaint applies to the cockpit. Those little automated LCDs are flashy, but annoy the tits off of me. Why not an in helmet HUD, if you need that sort of thing? Or a single, context-sensitive, holographic display in one central area)

    • Razumen says:

      That’s one reason I always liked western mech designs over the Asian mecha ones; they just looked like more plausible warmachines and less like the teenage-fuelled power fantasy-enablers of so many anime series.

  26. Megakoresh says:

    I was never even remotely interested in space sims…. But this is just so goddamn fucking cool! I think I’m sold, when is this glory coming out? Don’t tell me it’s around the same time as Witcher 2 and DAI… If it is I will have to grow an extra pair of hands…

  27. SuicideKing says:

    I am the Hornet’s target market. :-/

  28. Rack says:

    Star Citizen might theoretically look that good on my PC if I were ever to try it, but it would also have a framerate of 1 frame per heat death of the universe.

  29. wodin says:

    Rogue System is the game to watch if your looking for a more realistic (if a sci fi game can be) experience.

    Seems he may have a publisher about to come on board aswell.

    http://www.roguesystemsim.com/index.html

    http://www.roguesystemsim.com/VForums/discussion/18/dev-entry-oct-24-2013

    • airmikee99 says:

      I’m always interested in any space sim game, but there really isn’t much of anything about Rogue System. Doesn’t appear he’s made any progress since the failed Kickstarter campaign, and his last entry says he is making sketches for a capital ship. At the rate he’s going by the time he finishes that game, Star Citizen will hit GOTY status and be on sale for 75% off on Steam. Not to mention the name is way too close to Rogue Squadron, and I can see Disney making him change the name as soon as they notice him.

  30. xStahl says:

    Doesn’t that maneuver in the end the Hornet makes need air ?

  31. Low Life says:

    Oh man, I really need to download the hangar module.

  32. SuicideKing says:

    Holy turret of the gods, that looks good.

  33. Talon2000uk says:

    Well they do say a picture is worth a thousand words. I think you just won that argument. :D

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>