Star Citizen Takes the Crowdfunding Crown, Raising More Than $4M 123
Zocalo writes "Star Citizen, Chris Roberts' attempt to reboot the Space Sim genre, hit a major funding milestone earlier today, exceeding the previous record of $4,163,208 secured by the game Project Eternity and more than doubling the initial funding target set by the producer of the Wing Commander series. With Stretch Goals now being passed every few hours bringing new features to the planned game, and David Braben announcing a new installment of the classic Elite using a similar funding model at Kickstarter could this be a wake-up call for the big game publishers to take another look at the genre? There are still two days left for Star Citizen funding as well, so if you feel like taking part, you can chip in either at the main RSI site or on Kickstarter."
Re:Is there really need for "rebooting" (Score:2, Insightful)
Wakeup Call (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's not a wake up call. Only if one of these games is successful like the "500 million US Dollar on the first day" latest Call of Duty sequel http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57551285/call-of-duty-black-ops-2-earns-$500-million-in-24-hours/ [cbsnews.com]
If one of these games, or better several, are huge hits, then the publishers will howl. Not before.
Yes we need a reboot because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Eve:
1) requires 15 a month (sucks).
2) requires you to engage in pvp or hit a harsh progression cap (drives away the pve market)
3) has a player base full of crooks!
X3:
1) not massive.
2) interface is egregiously klunky, complicated, and unintuitive.
So, yes, we need a reboot. However, space sims are really hard to do well. Space is pretty empty so there isn't nearly as much to do out there as there is to do on the surface of a planet. Especially when combat mechanics are concerned. Space combat usually falls into two categories, neither one of which is as fun and engaging as most ground combat systems. The two categories are:
1) arrow chasing. Most of the time you are flying, you are chasing the arrows on your HUD. Then, you have a split second when the enemy is in front of you, so you can shoot at them, and then you are right back to arrow chasing. You can't really appreciate the graphics if you are staring at that arrow most of the time, and it gets silly fast.
2) resource allocating. You let the AI do the fighting for you while you mostly just pick the targets and reallocate power. Fun from a tactical perspective, but not from an adrenaline perspective.
You can mix the two...usually that just makes it confusing. I am not saying it can't be done right, I am just saying the bar is really, really high. After watching bioware sink 100 million into a game that flopped largely because of unengaging combat and a boring endgame, I would be quite wary of investing in this.
But if he pulls it off, you will see me online. pew pew!
A letter and a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes we need a reboot because... (Score:2, Insightful)
Putting combat at the center of the game is the problem. We need economics (unpredictable markets, not gold sinks), politics (real complexity), religion, personal rivalries, grand stories (told by the players), crafting (unpredictable items; based on human abilities not player stats), exploration (map making and sharing; shifting resources or pathways), etc.... We need new games, not shinier explosions.