Star Citizen

Nigel_Strange · Post by **Nigel_Strange** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:34 am

So I got Arena Commander to work in Star Citizen. The game is still way in the beta stages, but the graphics are really nice. The controls will need some work.

What worries me, though, is the performance. Although the eye candy is top notch, the performance on my modest machine is lackluster. I mean, it's not made for today's computers, but for the computers yet to be.

In a way, it's a good stimulus for more computer and GPU advancements. I think since consoles have taken center stage, PC development has kind of stagnated, so this game will get people to look forward to buying more expensive, more advanced, more capable machines.

I want a more capable machine.

I just don't want to spend all the time and money to get and configure one.

Post by **DaveK** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 11:00 am

On the whole I favour Vice;'s idea of making the game fit the better end of what's most commonly available and used. I'm not really too happy with the idea that I will need to spend a lot of money every year on a new rig just to be able to play the latest game, especially when they can be quite expensive to play.

AcePalarum · Post by **AcePalarum** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 2:09 pm

Ever since I started buying relatively high-graphic PC games (i.e., anything sparklier than Windows Solitaire

) I've felt that a high-end computer should enhance your gaming experience. It shouldn't be required just to get the experience. (That's discounting a certain volume of problems related to system lag, which is what prompted my most recent desktop replacement.)

Keeping up with the times should not require keeping up with the Joneses.

AnFiach · Post by **AnFiach** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:51 am

I agree with you normally, but Chris Roberts has a reputation for pushing the limits on computer hardware and technology and I think that the majority of his backers expect it from him. One of his stated goals was to push the limits in order to broaden the appeal of pc gaming, thus attracting more users and more designers to a relatively stagnant market place (pc games). The majority of games released today are console ports and many games never make it to pc at all. With the rise of the casual game industry for mobile devices, the pc market has been diminished even further.

I think it important that someone make a high end game that shows others that pc gaming can be rewarding and profitable. It won't encourage the major publishers that have over the years bought up successful development houses, they make millions with their cookie cutter games and won't stray from the sure bet. It will however encourage more independent developers to take risks when developing new games.

Let's not forget though that SC is not all about eye candy either. The mind set is "How many features can we cram into this thing using current and next gen tech (next gen will be current gen by the time the game is released)?". All of those features which make the game appealing, come at a cost.

Then of course consider, the project is in alpha state. There's been no real effort to streamline performance as of yet and no real options for tweaking the settings are available in the gui beyond the very ambiguous low to very high settings menu. Even more so with them utilizing a game engine that is notorious for being hard on systems. That said, if we aren't keeping up with the Joneses, we aren't buying the latest and greatest games when they first launch either.

On the other side of the coin, not only can I not afford to upgrade constantly upgrade or buy new games but truth be told, when I do have the money, I'm reluctant to part with it for such frivolities (my wife moans about how I agonize for hours, even days or weeks before deciding to purchase things). In addition, game designers need to focus more on the quality of their work rather than the shiny bits. Too little substance and too little vision for today's offerings. If they could all be like Vice and offer quality of game play as well as nice graphics, it might be a perfect world. Let's not even get started with bugs and support/customer service. So value for money, I agree is a major factor, but all we can do is write an email complaint and refuse to patronize their businesses. Sadly there are too few customers out there that will stand on principle rather than fork over ever larger sums of cash for diminishing returns. The majority of the gaming community seems to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

All hope is not lost though. I purchased my pc from a retailer in march of 2012 for $549. It has run everything I've wanted to play, even STar Citizen, albeit with frames in the teens. In September of this year I purchased a much better graphics card for $190 (could have gotten the next tier up from the new one for the same price if I had waited a couple of week before ordering) and cannibalized a better power supply from an older machine which should grant me an additional 2 years of great gaming. It could go beyond that even I'm quite sure but I have a strong desire to use this pc to power a virtual pinball cabinet

Also I get most all of my games on sale, typically don't purchase the latest games till they have the bugs worked out and go on sale for 50% off or better (doesn't typically take long).

Sorry, my point is; We can still get a great gaming experience without constantly upgrading our machines and without going broke. No need to deny others who have the means and desire for it the opportunity to stretch the legs on their modern marvels.

To put it in perspective, what would another hobby cost you on a yearly basis? In the end we have to consider what we get out of it compared to what we put into it. Just think of any time you have a bbq. Normally it would cost maybe $30 to feed your family. Start inviting friends or extended family and the cost can skyrocket, but we hardly flinch at it and do it several times a year. If I went to the theater to watch a movie once a week by myself for a year, it would cost what I put into my pc that has given me over two years of daily entertainment, excluding fuel and refreshment costs. Nevermind any boost in productivity and communications enabled by our daily use of our computers.

Anyway, that's my highly bloated and wandering view on the subject hehe. Apologies for the eye strain.

Post by **Marvin** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:27 pm

From post: 174556, Topic: tid=11748, author=AnFiach wrote:To put it in perspective, what would another hobby cost you on a yearly basis?

True. My dad probably spends more on golf in a month than I spend on computer gaming in a year.

Nigel_Strange · Post by **Nigel_Strange** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:46 pm

Computers don't last forever. I try to take good care of mine, and it has lasted for years, but there is the everpresent low-key fear that something horrible will happen to it. My past computers have died mysteriously, leaving me with no option but to get a new one. When I do get a new one, i would like to believe that it will be an upgrade because the technology has advanced in 5 years. I don't want to find that nobody has been working on making more efficient, more powerful, or more capacious computers in the time because of lack of interest.

I agree, though, with not wanting to upgrade every two years. It is a hassle. It's not just the money, but it kind of feels like moving. A lot of data needs to get over, and there is always the concern that some data just didn't make it.

Post by **DaveK** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:49 pm

I agree that PC and game developers need to be encouraged to push beyond the present envelope. I'm all in favour of games that push the most modern rigs to their limits but . . . . I guess I just don't want one of the very very few games I'm tempted to play being amongst them

As to porting everything over to a new PC, it's not just the amount of stuff that has to be transferred (quite easy nowadays compared to past tasks) it's also the risk that a lot of software (and hence it's data) gets left by the wayside. I'd clean my machine far more often (for efficiency) but a complete reformat & reinstall and clean out takes me around two days of solid work to get everything back up and working, assuming the hardware can handle the new system. I've got a high end A3 photo printer that can now only do basic printing because the manufacturers won't write Windows 7 software for it (thanks HP - never again!

)

But when I do finally get a new kit I'll be celebrating the new power and capabilities and wishing my old kit had died a bit sooner!

Speaking of which I'm hoping to become a '10" tablet' owner this Christmas and so does anyone know how easy it is to show in game displays on one? drool, drool!

Sinbad · Post by **Sinbad** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:16 pm

Hi Dave, with regards to showing in-game displays on a tablet, I've noticed that there are a number of iPad/Tablet apps that allow you to extend the screen of your pc onto a tablet. Here are a couple (I haven't actually tried myself but they look pretty good)...

https://avatron.com/applications/air-display/
http://www.maxivista.com/ipad-as-second-monitor.htm

Post by **DaveK** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:40 pm

Thanks MCCON. As soon as I get the tablet I'll have a play!

Post by **DaveK** » Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:48 am

OK - the apps look good - I've already got two monitors and so using the tablet as a third for utilities like EvoMetrics would be cool. I'd also like to explore things like putting in-game displays on the tablet.

However my initial query needs a small rephrase. My tablet is here!! woohoo

It's a Samsung using Android so . . . . does anyone know how easy it is to show in game displays on an Android tablet? drool, drool!