Line Of Defense vs Star Citizen

Line Of Defense vs Star Citizen

This is silly really; but since I’m tired of seeing it everywhere, and not responding, putting it all here means anyone can now just grab a link and go fight about it.

At the end of the day, they are different style games that share a common genre, have different production values, budget, teams and fan base etc. Comparison is futile.

Anyway, each of headings below, corresponds to one of the touted Star Citizen key features. I am using their feature list because if I were to include the complete Line Of Defense feature list, I would have to write a multi-page document that Star Citizen won’t have more than a few entries in.

So I’m going to keep it fair and only focus on their $85m, multi-studio (worldwide) feature set. They have a total of two (space combat, fps combat) key features. It’s kinda cute, really. And no, the hangar, persistent universe, and social/planetside modules, are not gameplay “features”. And SQ42 could pass for a feature, if it ends up with single and co-op play. Otherwise, it’s just a module that incorporates fps and space combat as far as I know.

In fact, the higher graphics fidelity (which I talk about in my Interstellar Citizens blog as well in my recent dev blog explaining why we opted for gameplay over visuals) in Star Citizen, is the only unique selling point of comparison, because comparing the two games is akin to comparing football and basketball just because a ball is in play, and there are people running around in shorts. Which is why comparing the two games is just silly because all they have in common is the space combat genre and an fps component.

And we’re perfectly happy with the graphics (1, 2) because a) that’s the art style I wanted b) any higher visual fidelity for such a massive multi-genre game, would mean beefy system requirements and a game that would be largely unplayable, given the number of clients (infantry, aerial, vehicle, naval) which can be in any scene (space doesn’t require that much processing) at any one time. So it was down to visuals vs gameplay. In all my games, I’ve gone with the latter.

Please note also that Line Of Defense is an indie game that went into development in 2010; and at the peak (during content creation) of development (we created our own custom engine), had around sixteen people working on it. To date, it has cost less than $20m to develop. All if it funded internally. Here is why we put it in [restricted] Early Access and this is what our dev updates and changelog look like.


No. It’s not that kind of the game. But is still bigger than what is currently in Arena Commander. And it already has accessible planets. With bases. Like, seriously.

The IP that the game is based on, has a much larger world from which a small section was carved out for this game. The Battlecruiser/Universal Combat games are the ones that use the entire universe in the IP. Through DLC, we plan to extend the LOD world until it spans the entire IP galaxy. We decided to start small.

Universal Combat CE 2.0 which uses the entire persistent universe, is currently free on Steam for anyone who wants to take a look and see how to do a massive, connected, persistent universe – with space and planets. And since that game is older now, that’s why I’m currently working on a design for a true sequel which I am going to be focused on after Line Of Defense and the Lyrius Expansion for UCCE20 are completed.


Yes. It’s finished. And it works. You can read more about it here.


Yes. It’s finished. And it works. In fact, in addition to the four massive stations (1, 2, 3, 4), we built a massive multi-deck carrier moving through space.

MULTI-SHIP (Star Citizen)

Yes. It’s finished. And it works. Aside from the fact that most of the fighters (x12), gunships (x7) and shuttles (x4) are multi-ship, even the vehicles are multi-crew, some with dedicated driver and gunner seats. And we even have an automated transport system of shuttles.

SPACE COMBAT(Star Citizen)

Yes. It’s finished. And it works, the flight dynamics and controls, as in all my games, are top notch etc.


Yes. It’s finished. And it works. It includes, fps infantry, aerial, naval, vehicular combat


Yes. It’s almost (we still have some movement tweaks to do) finished. And it works. In fact, unlike Star Citizen’s scaled-down Star Marine module, this is a full blown component for LOD. It’s a whole system all by itself with lots and lots of weapons, items etc. And it works inside buildings, stations, ships, on planets etc.

We built the fps engine first on top of the massive world, then built everything else on top it. Why? Because the ability to exist in fps mode on the planet, inside buildings (on the planet or in space), ships etc, made it the most critical component of the game. Not the flying, or the driving, or any of that.

Then we did the aerial dynamics for the jetpacks (and later the wingsuit/wingchute) so that we could get around the massive game world and be able to test the experience and the scope. All the other dynamics (vehicle, aerial, space, naval) all came after.

In fact, it wasn’t until much later in the development, that I finalized the design for the HAIS (High Altitude Insertion Suit) because I wanted infantry players to be able to transition (videos 1, 2, 3, 4) from anywhere on the planet to another, or from an airlock in a station or carrier, to the planet below.

The fps component was critical to the game, so everything associated with it, needed to be done right.


No. Don’t be silly. However, our scenes are so massive – and support so many players – that you can pretty much pick your own area to hang out in. In fact, the main deck on any of the four stations, is one huge central hub to hangout. Not to mention that the carrier itself has a massive dedicated rec/galley area on deck two.

What Star Citizen refers to as social hub/planetside, is just another restricted-access “level” that is an enclosed area. There is no “planet”.


Uhm, yeah. Even my Battlecruiser/Universal Combat games had this – at this scale (!). While Star Citizen just recently (this July) got 16 (!) players working in Arena Commander, since day one our world was designed to, and supports a large number of people in a massive persistent world – no sharding, no instancing. Online 24-7, hop-in, hop-out. No fuss. No muss.

STORYLINE (Star Citizen)

No. Aside from the background story driving this game’s premise. It’s not that kind of game. Which is what their Squadron 42 is.

ps: For those who tend not to read comments, please read this one.

25 thoughts on “Line Of Defense vs Star Citizen

  1. A much more concise version that even Mr.Smart’s detractors would have to accept is thus:

    SC took has taken in over $85 million in advance, it isn’t finished and is now being scrutinized as to whether or not is ever will be.

    LoD did not cost $85 million and it is a finished product that you can play right now.

    Whether or not one thinks that LoD is a great game or complete crap is irrelevant at this point. A finished, working product is automatically the winner when compared to anything that is unfinished and thus unusable.

    To put it metaphorically, even an old Dodge Omni that runs is going to win any challenge against a Ferrari with no engine in it.

    Therefore, any such comparisons between the two games are pointless. One game is tangible, the other still just a theory. Only when, and more importantly if, SC is ever completed can a fair comparison be made.

    (I, for one, am not holding my breath)

    1. Hello Von,

      your information is not correct.

      Line of Defense is in Steam Early Access. So it is still in development and not finished like the other game you mentioned. So it is indeed pointless to compare two projects, which have not reached their final state. As known, game mechanics and containment may vary in development process.

      In my opinion this whole act is a waste of energy which would be better spent in finishing the actual project.

      Kind Regards

  2. Where is the comparison part of this? It just reads like an ad for LOD, barely any comparison to speak of.
    1. It looks like a comparison to me. If you were expecting charts, tables, and graphs, sorry, that’s not how that works. Nothing is stopping you, or anyone, from making their own comparison though.

      Star Citizen currently has five key components on their feature list which I linked to.

      Line Of Defense has over fifty, which I also linked to. Technical achievements aside, it is a technologically superior game in every regard; without even getting into a feature comparison.

      So some would say there is “no comparison” to be made. That aside from the fact that they are different style of games.

      …and that’s why I tend to shy away from comparison type discussions. Both games were designed to do different things, and cater to a different audience. Star Citizen, without SQ42, has more in common with Elite Dangerous, than it does with Line Of Defense.

      But since my blogs started going up back on July 4th weekend, some people (aka Star Citizen fans) keep saying that they are designed to promote my game, while badmouthing another. No. My blogs are not – and never were about that. And only someone who doesn’t have a firm grasp of the English language, hasn’t actually read them (especially Interstellar Citizens) or who has a different agenda, will say that.

      And crying foul about my topic being an ad for my game, on my website, is probably the pinnacle of arrogance on your part.

      1. You’re making the claim that LoD is technologically superior to SC in every way, you do seem to be leaving out several features in the later for your comparison however.

        Will LoD offer fully customizable, player owned persistent ships?

        1. No, because I used tangible, achievable and “it is here now” features for the comparison because pipe dream based buzz words which only serve to populate feature lists, don’t count.

          Which is why I clearly stated, right in the beginning of the blog, that I was using common features as a comparison because if I used all features, it would just look a whole lot worse for SC. Especially for an $86m+ game made by over 500 people.

          That said, SC, unlike LOD, doesn’t have ground vehicles, you can’t swim (let alone drive subs in water bodies), exist in a planet with various climate zones, effects, day/night transitions etc Need I go on?

          Yeah, so that’s part of the reasons why comparing these two games is a waste of time. SC, aside from visual fidelity, is technologically inferior in every way possible.

          1. I only mention that aspect because that feature is a here and now one, albeit not fully fleshed out. As of now in AC 1.0 you are able to customize player owned ships via weapon loadouts. Right now I am able to load up AC 1.0, get in a ship I have purchased, change my weapon loadouts, and then proceed to dogfight with said ship. How is this a pipe dream? As for the future players will have the ability to change out different ship sub systems such as shield generators, thrusters, powerplants, etc.

            If I were to buy into your EA program right now am I able to fly a ship? Am I able to customize it in any way? Are there plans to allow the player to do so? How is LoD technologically superior in this aspect? It just seems unreasonable to me for you to make a blanket statement that SC is “technologically inferior in every way possible” to your game, LoD.

            1. You just made my point for me 🙂

              The ability to load weapons is an intrinsic part of every space combat game. And “future” features such as “changing out sub-systems” is also part of these games; and like most everything else, as basic as that is, it’s still not there.

              All your LOD questions are answered on the website. No point in my repeating them in a comment stream.

              1. And you’re missing my point.

                Of course you know what features are being worked on or are currently present in your game. Right now SC has the tech in place to modify ships that are player owned, they may not have the rest of the sub systems implemented as of now however it isn’t some giant leap in the tech to put those in the game. Just because they’re still working on the assets and execution of sub systems doesn’t mean its a pipe dream.

                Right now, players even piloting ships in the EA version of LoD is a “future feature” let alone owning or customizing them. These features are present in the current SC pre-alpha. How can you make the claim that LoD is better than SC in this aspect when you have no tech to show off?

                “That said, SC, unlike LOD, doesn’t have ground vehicles, you can’t swim (let alone drive subs in water bodies), exist in a planet with various climate zones, effects, day/night transitions etc Need I go on?”

                SC does have ground vehicles, the greycat buggy is in game right now. No ground vehicles are currently playable in LoD. If SC were to make the claim that they were going to include driving subs in bodies of water would your claim to include that feature be more reputable?

                The only proof I have seen of your tech being more advanced seems to be your word of your planned set of features vs those of SC

                1. You’re wrong and misinformed about everything you stated about LOD. Maybe you should go look at screen shots and movies; as well as read up on our pattern of public testing. Or better yet, scan the changelog.

                  And I never made any claim that “that LoD is better than SC in this aspect“. I assume you’re talking about aircraft. Again, you’re misinformed. See above.

                  the greycat buggy is in game right now“. Don’t make me laugh. Please. Do you even know what a ground vehicle is? And are you seriously comparing that to the Greycat hangar based buggy for indoors only use? when we talk about ground vehicles in LOD – or any game – we’re talking about, actual ground vehicles (of which LOD has sixteen e.g. the ACAV) running on a planet, like, you know here in these pre-alpha shots and movie.

                  “The only proof I have seen of your tech being more advanced seems to be your word of your planned set of features vs those of SC”. Nope. Wrong. Again. Try actually playing the game, or telling that to the testers taking screen-shots.

                  I know it’s hard to accept the fact that an $86m+ game is technologically inferior, even we set aside features alone, but that’s just the way it is unfortunately.

                2. I actually agree with the only proof of your “technological superiority” seems to be your word. Yes there are screenshots on steam, although a vast majority of them are from only about 5 or so users. But I kept paging through them and really never came across any screenshot that honestly seemed to prove your point.

                  Now I can find videos by the thousands of SC gameplay. But the very limited amount of videos I can find of LOD actual gameplay do not reflect your claim. Even those posted on your own youtube channel. I would really love to see some videos of actual players (not devs) being able to play this game, fly these craft (with multi-crew positions filled) while players openly fight below them. Such as it is, I can find the trailer (which states that the game was coming out in 2012), a couple of dev vids on your youtube channel that don’t really show gameplay and a very limited number of player videos that show the game as not so appealing and definitely not technologically superior.

                  Screenshots are nice, in the way that photos are nice. But an actual recording of the thing in action actually proves a point.

                  Just my two cents.

                3. I’ve seen the screen shots and the trailer for LoD. Yes this showcases vehicles being used, but am I to take still shots and a choreographed video as proof of LoD’s technical superiority?

                  You said that, “SC, aside from visual fidelity, is technologically inferior in every way possible.” This is in game technology that is playable in SC at this moment that is technologically superior to what is playable in LoD, plain and simple.

                  If you’re going to use technology currently under development in your game as “proof” of these claims why can’t SC do the same? Take the Gamescon demo, no we can’t play it at the moment but they definitely showed off some amazing tech. No transitions between modules, they just open the back hatch of a Cutlass multicrew ship and proceed to EVA through open space in an asteroid field and then board another derelict craft. After boarding the craft they show the devs powering up systems and restoring artificial gravity for the ship. Will this be a feature in LoD? Would we be able to disable a ships local gravity?

                  How about the engineering station in the ship? A player was able to run over to it, man the station, and modify the ships power distribution to shields, thrusters, weapons, etc. Is this tech present in LoD? Will people be able to move freely within a player controlled vehicle and interact with different systems? I haven’t been able to find any videos of this or any documentation stating the existence of this tech. Please let me know if I am mistaken, its much easier for me to follow the development of SC.

                  How about the tech involved in SC’s procedurally generated ship damage?

                  This demo also gave us a glimpse of the larger maps they’re able to utilize, they even showed off their system for 0.2c travel.

                  I am well aware of what a ground vehicle is, however my point is that they have the tech in place for them. No, the greycat is not a combat vehicle but is it a stretch of the imagination to believe that they could make one if need be? It just comes down to modeling it at this point, the tech is there. As of now, excluding your internal build which the public does not have access to, there are no usable ground vehicles in LoD

                  Once again, it just seems unreasonable to me to make the claim that LoD is technologically superior in every way, you said it yourself, they’re different style games. SC does different things than LoD does, and SC focuses on the ships, there’s no way your ship tech is going to be more advanced than that of Star Citizens, just like there’s no way Star Citizen will be able to have as many players in combat as LoD.

  3. I wish Line of Defense had a Linux version.

    I know it won’t ever. which is too bad. I haven’t had a windows machine in 18 years, and have been a gamer the whole time.. been following BC3K since it was new, and when it was announced there’d never be a Linux version, i never looked back..

    but I’ve still always wished.

    oh well, good on ya.

    1. Man, 18 years? No Windows machine? I don’t even know how to respond to that 🙂 But you do use Wine, right?

      And are you one of those guys who, since Usenet days, kept harping about me doing a Linux version of that game? That’s one helluva long wait; and I applaud you sir. 🙂

      But no seriously, I was never a fan of Linux for gaming. Back in the day, as you well know, it was just too much hassle. Actually, there was a time when I actually attempted to port that game. After days screwing around with SDL, I gave up. And it’s not like I was that experienced back then anyway. There is only so much of Linux that you can wing.

      Since then, I’ve never considered Linux – or any other OS – for my games. In fact, when Valve announced SteamOS, I laughed, and continued scrolling.

      Even when, over the years, I could afford to out-source a port, I still didn’t consider it. For me, making games has never been about money (sure, it’s nice to have), it’s always about my passion for the craft. So if my heart isn’t in it, I simply won’t do it, let alone fund it.

      If you and I were in contact over the years, I’d have found a way to convince you to get a Windows box. Is it too late? FYI UCCE, the spiritual successor to BC3K, is free on Steam. hint-hint 🙂

      1. Well, spurred on by the Humble Indie Bundle, and their generous use of Steam Keys, Valve certainly has made it easier to be a Linux gamer these days, to be sure.. with over 1400 titles, and hundreds in my own inventory. I’ve never needed a product like Windows less.

        I actually haven’t used WINE much for gaming. Oh sure, i’ve messed around with it here and there, even used it to try and play BC3000AD back in the day. That game held a lot of promise to me.

        But yea, I’ve used Linux this long more because it’s a project than a product. And as such, i’m assured it won’t crash along with the stock market, or have its own interests in mind in terms of what’s running under the hood of my computer.

        You made your case against it, and, I’ve respected that. Linux doesn’t come with a marketing department, so those behind it are really behind it for their own reasons.

        I am sorry Linux left such a foul taste in your mouth, especially as you are a developer. Commercially available development platforms are enough for many people, though, so who can blame you?

        Nevertheless, good luck with your stuff. I won’t be sacrificing my money or my gaming computer to a company that doesn’t have my computer’s best interests in mind. I’d rather give my money to the actual games I want to play, which are too many these days. I generally vote with my dollars, even though I’m just one vote. Know what i mean? I’m not going to try to change your mind about it. Good luck with your stuff.


  4. SEAMLESS SPACE & PLANETARY SCENES – yeah in regards to moving from the space station to the planet… that is in no, way, shape or form seamless.
    1. A lot of people confuse a seamless scene with a seamless transition.

      It means that the space and planetary scenes are within the world are connected. It has nothing to do with transition, which is what you’re talking about.

      There is a dev blog I linked to in paragraph five, in which it is explained for people who don’t understand the difference. Quote:

      And no, there is no seamless space < -> planet transition.

      A lot of people confuse a seamless scene which is how the world is built, with a seamless transition which is how players and assets move between those scenes.

      As described in world design FAQ entry, due to the significant size of the game world, as well as the design, the need for control over server population, performance considerations etc, there is no seamless space < ---> planet transition.

      Instead, going from planet to space, and vice versa, is done via jump gates. When players jump from one region to the other via a jump gate, the target scene is then loaded.

      Even though the engine is quite capable of handling a seamless transition, I opted not to do it for all the aforementioned reasons. It adds nothing to the game, other than the “cool” factor.

      Games (e.g. No Man’s Sky or the I-Novae Engine) with a procedural generated engine or similar, can do seamless transitions easily since they’re just seeded values for the world.

      In LOD, because the world is segmented, it is just a matter of loading the target scene (space or planet). If it were made seamless, then all we’d need to do is remove the jump gates and when you are within proximity of the planet, auto load it. I did this in my previous games, but I used an external camera flyby during loading of the target scene.

      The biggest issue with seamless transition is in memory and performance. Especially for games that have pre-built environments.

      1. You’re correct, yes. Your definition or interpretation of ‘seamless space & planetary scenes’ in this case is in regards to the seamless scene meaning, where all assets or worlds are connected in the one world.

        However, in regards to Star Citizen when they use that as a feature headline they are using the seamless transition definition. As they’ve previously promised, the game will have no loading scenes to accommodate and fulfill this seamless transition requirement Chris Roberts has set.

        Semantics maybe, worthwhile clarification for objectivity yes.

        1. Not the same thing.

          And I can tell you right now, that the visual fidelity of the game, not to mention their choice of engine, are going to make it a major task in the PU, which is supposed to be larger.

          In fact, have you seen the hangar and Arena Commander seamlessly connected? Right. So, here is what they’re facing, hence my commentary.

          Hangar, Arena Commander (incl Multi-Ship in 2.0), Social / Planetside, Star Marine, SQ 42, Persistent Universe (aka Star Citizen actual)

          These all the separate modules thus far. Note that SQ42 and the Star Citizen actual, are totally different game experiences.

          So, as a designer/developer, let me take SC actual as an example and draw up a gameplay summary. Anyone who knows any better, do feel free to chime in and correct me if I’m wrong:

          1) start the game, enter the “hangar” module. Pick a ship. Leave dock
          2) you are now in the game world. this, depending on the game mode, could either be SQ42 or the PU – both of which use the flight dynamics in “Arena Commander / Multi-Ship”
          3) you fly toward a planet, decide to land – you’re now in the make believe “social/planetside” module where you can mingle, buy/trade stuff, dance (!) etc via the “Star Marine” module. you leave
          4) back in your ship, and flying around, you happen across another ship (e.g. the derelict ship shown in the multi-ship demo at GC2015), and you enter it, again using the “Star Marine” module interacting with “Arena Commander / Multi-Ship” module running within the PU.

          Here is the issue….

          The social module (aka planetside) level, like the derelict ship in the GC2015 demo, are in the same world space, loading is still required.

          In the GC2015 demo, did you see them fly a ship, enter the derelict ship, leave, fly and land planetside, leave, return to their ship – all seamlessly?

          If all these modules are in the same world space, that is not the same as a seamless transition from space < --> planet because all these modules are just levels. They are akin to any fps game which uses portals (or similar) to connect one area to another; while only rendering/processing the area you are in.

          And Star Citizen does not have a planetary scene. It has a “level”, much like the hangar, Arena Commander, multi-deck ships, which are all in the same world space, and handled as described above.

          And those limitations of the engine which they’ve been tinkering with these past months, is precisely another reason why they needed 64-Bit precision.

          Aside from all that, ponder this. Arena Commander, the primary space combat module which is hitting 2.0 (/w Multi-Ship) at some point and needs to be incorporated into everything else, still has terrible flight dynamics and control, horrible networking (even with the recent 16 player increase, it still sux) etc

          With that in mind, tell me again how this is all supposed to work in the Star Citizen actual game which touts a PU? Have you stopped to ask yourself what will happen when, let’s just say 8 players, in multi-crew ships, are within the same PU area? And, while others are flying around, some are in infantry combat either planetside (fps), space (ship), inside (fps) another ship?

          As I’ve said before, the technology is simply not there. And if it is, they don’t have it nor do they have expertise, time and/or money to build it. What they have pitched and trying to achieve is technologically insurmountable. They should have stuck with the original game idea and called it a day. But no, that would’ve been too easy, and they won’t have been able to raise more than $6m (the max stretch goal on Kickstarter) to build it.

          ps: In case you were wondering, yes – you can already do all that in Line Of Defense. In fact, after flying around in space, dock with a station, you are immediately transported inside the station or carrier docking bay directly into fps mode. Seamlessly. And when you are flying around, enter a planet via a jump gate, you have access to the entire planet and your choice of landing spot. You’re not forced into a “level” and with restricted gameplay options. See How does the gameplay flow?

          1. Mostly going to copy this from the twitlonger, but i’ve added some additional thoughts at the bottom:

            I don’t know that I agree. I feel like every step of the way someone has said the next step of Star Citizen was impossible or insurmountable. First it was that the shooter and flying mechanics could exist in one space, but then AC let you land your ship and fire your pistol. Then it was that you could have people moving around inside of a ship while it flew in the world outside, all as one instance. Then at Gamescom they did exactly that. The modules take up a lot of space now and aren’t optimized, but as a game designer yourself I know you’re aware that optimization is usually one of the last steps of game design. The game as it is now isn’t packaged down or anything.

            I don’t follow it as closely as many SC fans, I only really tune in during major events and catch up on the modules to see how the game plays. So I guess you could say i’m less “hardcore” and, infact, if the game did have some form of loading I honestly wouldn’t care as long as it wasn’t intrusive. That’s just my opinion though, I suppose.

            I guess what I am getting at is I believe the whole seamless transition from mode to mode to mode is entirely possible; or at very least that from ship to ground is. I honestly don’t care if there is loading time when landing or warping, if it made the game run better i’d even prefer it. That said, I don’t think it’s impossible.

            As for the very valid thought “let’s just say 8 players, in multi-crew ships, are within the same PU area? And, while others are flying around, some are in infantry combat either planetside (fps), space (ship), inside (fps) another ship?” I think it was mentioned pretty early on that in each little sub instance that will make up the game there will be a hard limit on the amount of players (not the amount of ships) in each one before an instance is full. They talked early on about this, and it’s why they lost a lot of the Eve crowd that wanted huge 200 v 200 pvp fleet actions.

            When you warp in to, say, a planet’s orbit you’re actually placed in an instance. (Fiction wise, each instance is supposed to represent a different location in said planet’s orbit) They’ve said they want to design it so it automatically places you in the instance your friends may be in, but none the less there will be instancing simply out of necessity. If you free fly from location to location it will, supposedly, move you through the instances “seamlessly” (There’s that word again)

            As I understand it though, most of the PU design hasn’t been finalized. I can’t imagine they will change too much though, since instancing is honestly the only way I think the system could work.

            1. All valid thoughts

              This bit:

              I guess what I am getting at is I believe the whole seamless transition from mode to mode to mode is entirely possible; or at very least that from ship to ground is. I honestly don’t care if there is loading time when landing or warping, if it made the game run better i’d even prefer it. That said, I don’t think it’s impossible.

              And this is precisely why I described the various ways of doing it.

              Also, let the record show that I’ve never – ever – said anything akin to this:

              First it was that the shooter and flying mechanics could exist in one space, but then AC let you land your ship and fire your pistol. Then it was that you could have people moving around inside of a ship while it flew in the world outside, all as one instance.

              Why? Well because that’s all rudimentary stuff that any experienced dev can put together, especially with the likes of CryEngine. I’ve seen mods for games that do even more.

              As I mentioned in my Interstellar Citizens blog, my commentary as about the all-encompassing nature of Star Citizen actual, and what they’re claiming they’re going to do.

              since instancing is honestly the only way I think the system could work.

              Yup. But even so, doing it that way has a whole set of different problems. And now Chris says the game will be finished by end of 2016. That’s not even funny anymore.

              ps: If you have been following the development of SQ42, and the noise over cutting of features (e.g. co-op), that’s just a hint of the tech issues they’re facing now. Wait until they have to tackle it in Star Citizen actual.

              1. Before I really go on I do want to say that, while I do very much disagree, I understand where the skepticism of Star Citizen comes from; not just from you but from everyone who doubts the project. SC is definitely one of the most ambitious game projects to date, but that is also a part of what makes it special. It’s been a long time since a developer really said “Lets stretch what a PC can do” and I think that’s a big part of why people flocked to this project.

                Also, I do apologize if it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth. I was mostly reflecting on the sort of things i’ve heard this last year. It seems like everywhere i’ve turned someone has told me some part of SC is impossible.

                We spoke briefly about Scope Creep on Twitter, so I wanted to bring that here to a better format. I think you’re right that SC has suffered from it, but like I said there I still feel like it’s at a manage-able level so long as they don’t add anything else. In one of the interviews Chris mentioned that the shooter stuff was added because, with what they wanted to do with walking around outside of the ship, half of the design was already there. I think it’s the same for boarding and the like. I can’t imagine there’s anything else they would even try to shove in from here. No more ships, no more modules, just finish the game now.

                I hadn’t heard that they were cutting out co op for the single player campaign, that kind of sucks. Honestly i’m fine with it, but it has to be awful for people who wanted to play it with a buddy.

                1. As far as I understood it the coop feature will be delayed but will still come for sure, They just wont make it for SQ42 scheduled release. So it is not ideal indeed but I am used to that kind of behavior from any game developer these days.

Comments are closed.