The Fear is Real Star Citizen perfecting their animation (Where to grasp at straws next?)

Sure whatever you say man, posting a link and adding humor is now arrogance.

Seeing as how Johan has been working at EA for 15 odd years with no other link to prior works on that page, giving his one title as "Technical director & pixel pusher - Frostbite." and you yourself said that Frostbite only moved away from DICE after BF3 published in 2011, that would mean that.......... I'll let you finish this off.

Man you are dripping with arrogance, pot and kettle.

"lol no surprise this loser clown is now trying to compare in engine renders to U4 youtube grabs from actual gameplay. best part is watching hermits spend thousands of dollars to play games with worse graphics than the ps4s best.

and no dice is not a top tier dev, nor is battlefront the best looking game. and just to aware you because i know you are completely clueless, dice had absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with the development of frostbite 3.

dont worry kid, maybe in 2017 or 2018 the pc will reclaim the crown for best graphics. if youre a good little boy and get good enough grades maybe your parents will even buy you whatever the newest GPU is at the time."

'lol at dat drop down in outter space.'

Which is exactly what happens when you move from a zero g environment into a gravity environment which is what is happening in that clip.

not top of the class at physics where you?

'Creating gravity wouldn't omit the fact the he's still in 0G 'outer space'!'

Err. yeah it would.

'He just wouldn't fall like that in space, period.'

Yes he would if he encountered this thing called Gravity.

'and no other forces are in play is another.'

but there are other forces in play, artificial gravity.

'

He quite rightly pointed out that your opinion was wrong and that you clearly have Zero understanding about Physics in space.

Just take it on the chin mate, you made yourself look foolish so the best thing you can do is try to bow out as gracefully as possible

'

Ah thank you, in the video it's very obvious and clear that the floor moves as well. It just didn't look like that in the low-res gif.

@shawty_beatz: No problem. About the gif try opening it in a new tab, let it load fully then relook at it.

@delta3074: I find it hilarious that he states something as a declaration of fact and then changes it to 'I gave my opinion'. I also find it crazy that he believes that transitioning from zero gravity immediately to an artificial gravity environment would be gradual and not abrupt.

Yeah, its the same with the earth gravity. When you flight in the earth atmosphere is the transitioning abrupt as well.

ITT: The usual mad cows collapse in their waste filled stalls and commence seizing.

It's always fun to read stupidity of usual suspects in every Star Citizen thread. That makes the thread even more entertaining than the new info.

Anyways,,, I like how they are doing everything to make the game immersive. But that's hardly a surprise because Chris worked at Origin, a company that specialized in making immersive worlds.

Their employees continued this trend at Looking Glass and Ion Storm. Glad the campaign will mostly feel like Deus Ex, Thief and Half Life offering complete player control.

It's depressing to see how the usual SC fanatics and apologists are using all kinds of excuses to obfuscate what should be obvious to anyone watching the video: The quality of animations in Star Citizen are pathetic when compared to the best in the business (R*, Ubisoft, ND etc).

No

And suddenly everyone has a degree in physics and game development

The only depressing thing here is your ignorance.

You are comparing apples wiith oranges and not understanding the differences between both.

Not to mention that one game is finished while the other is not and they are still working on the animations hence a brand new video about physiscs based animation transitions (which isnt even actual scripted animations derp) , its amazing this has to be spelt out for you.

what excuses?

1- the game is unfinished

2- this video isn't about animations. OP made it so. This is about transitions from gravity to zero-g and it's physics.

3- Those games are third person games with limited movesets. it's vastly easier to create complex systems without having to worry about about first person and multiple stances. And GTA's aniamtions aren't even great. wtf?

4- This is a space ship game. The fact that consolites have to resort to character animations is what's pathetic here. Should i compare damage modeling to shows you the gap between an alpha and a bunch fo finished games?

Nobody is resorting to animations, SC fans are hyping every aspect of this game to the moon and the animations are jenky and subpar. It doesn't matter that it's easier to do a game that has only third person, difficulty doesn't improve visual quality. Choices developers made will limit how good the animations are able to get.

I'd again argue a a single set of animtions is easier, you only need 1 set of animations to ever have to worry about, this simplifies a lot...

lol but he "isn't" moving from a zero g environment......thus everything you said that follows earns you a dunce cap for failing critical thinking.

For him to "leave the zero g environment" he would have to leave from being out in open space (like being inside of the ship). but he clearly is still in open space and simply (according to promoters here) moving into a gravity field.

Entering gravity field wouldn't omit the fact that he is still physically in open space buddy lol. You are here arguing so frantically against my post and you don't even have the basic understanding about how physics work and then you try to sound smug?

It's pretty clear you know next to nothing about how physics really work so if you did take a class on them your teacher failed you miserably lol.

Looks that way

Some serious anus pain in here

@waahahah: not this shit again

Nobody is resorting to animations,

Yes, they are. I don't see cows comparing the vehicle quality. Or environment texturing. It's always character models and animations, mainly UC4. Or hyper boxed in games like TO1886 with baked lighting and shadowing.

SC fans are hyping every aspect of this game to the moon and the animations are jenky and subpar.

Nobody is hyping the game anymore than other exclusives. It's just that SC has a massively open development and we're getting to see how aAAA game literally evolves for it's bare form. It's also a game to match GTA in ambition due to scope and detail. Ofcourse it's hype worthy. That said, even i admit that we have to wait for teh final product and it can fail. But how is it any different from hyping story trailers?

It doesn't matter that it's easier to do a game that has only third person, difficulty doesn't improve visual quality.

Da fuq? Ofcourse it matters. SC is first person. Third person games have better animations in general because they don't have to worry about causing motion sickness from the camera.

Why dont' we have awesome animations like DMC and Byaonetta in fps?

Choices developers made will limit how good the animations are able to get.

well duh. gameplay comes first.

I'd again argue a a single set of animtions is easier, you only need 1 set of animations to ever have to worry about, this simplifies a lot...

what single set? Every agme has multiple sets of aniamtions.

Look, no matter how much you want it, 3rd and 1st person make animation design inherently different.

I have no idea why people keep meantioning GTA5 when the aniamtions are anything but great. Good, not special.

Second, SC is unfinsinhed. Like i said with the character models, it'll only get better. EVERYTHING is getting better. it's almost certain that the aniamtions will atleats match the likes of BF and COD or whatever.

But if you still have doubts that perspective choice matters, here's MGS V, a game with great aniamtions, with a first person mod

da fuq i just read?

Open space doesn't really matter... that's not how 0g works, you're gravity doesn't stop being applied to you're body in space.

Granted I think I know what you mean, when you're in orbit you're essentially falling constantly so you experience 0g. Moving into and out of a gravity field shouldn't have any weird effect on you since you're essentially falling either way. But you're kind of wrong here, you're going to experience a sudden acceleration when entering a gravity field.

Everyone is hyping the animations in SC which aren't that good yet, there are certain aspects of the animations that look good but overall the fixed upper area looks stiff to compensate. People respond to these hype threads with reasonable assertions.

People like you keep running excuses why they aren't as good, they are more difficult to do, or the game isn't out yet. It's supposed to be out this year... when UC4 was revealed it had better animations a year ago. Its stupid to think they are going to completely overhaul the animations to ND's level in 6 months.

Nobody is hyping the game anymore than other exclusives. It's just that SC has a massively open development and we're getting to see how aAAA game literally evolves for it's bare form. It's also a game to match GTA in ambition due to scope and detail. Ofcourse it's hype worthy. That said, even i admit that we have to wait for teh final product and it can fail. But how is it any different from hyping story trailers?

Well the scope of the game has yet to be seen, space makes the game scope arguably smaller... It's pretty easy to create a lot of space. Other than having incredibly detailed ships that are board able I have yet to see anything beyond what we've seen in other space sim games. I'd consider games like GTA probably larger scope in terms of project work having to meticulously put together a city... There's some technical achievements that they are pulling off but I haven't seen where the majority of the game is going, and I can't help but feel other than the boardable interesting bits, it'll still likely be a shallow space sim. This is my biggest worry with the game.

Da fuq? Ofcourse it matters. SC is first person. Third person games have better animations in general because they don't have to worry about causing motion sickness from the camera.

Why dont' we have awesome animations like DMC and Byaonetta in fps?

I wouldn't say we don't have good animations in first person, they tend to be more rigid. But SC takes it to a new level because the viewpoint depends on which way the head is facing so they tend to look even more stiff. BF4 has really good animations, they just don't need a lot, since for gameplay purposes, you don't have to pick weapons up, or get into vehicles, its all designed to be fast and fun first, not attempting to be super immersive. Because getting into a tank while being shot it may be immersive, it's not fun and gets old quick.

Also i'ts pretty easy to disable camera shake, again they are pointing the camera on a point on the model that makes sense it doesn't have to be locked to the head bob. At least from the point of a developer, they can do anything unlike moders who might lock a particular view point. Like FPS mode probably locks the type of view that isn't meant for FPS, it's not nearly as bad aiming down the sight.

well duh. gameplay comes first.

Except most of the time these sort of animations get in the way of gameplay. They make movement feel sluggish because it's movement is responding to animtions not movement. An fps will map acceleration directly to user input, the animation that happens as a result of the movement. Games like GTA5 have a sluggish feel because it has to generally has to start/complete animations for movement.

I'm not sure where SC stands, i haven't played it. I don't see the animations as something thats equal to UC4... I also don't see any particular benefit for the way they are doing it. The problems with the other systems you pointed out, aren't exactly prevalent in games. Those issues were solved... I do see it as a technique that is inherently more limited and will hurt the visual presentation of player characters in the game.

what single set? Every agme has multiple sets of aniamtions.

Look, no matter how much you want it, 3rd and 1st person make animation design inherently different.

I have no idea why people keep meantioning GTA5 when the aniamtions are anything but great. Good, not special.

Second, SC is unfinsinhed. Like i said with the character models, it'll only get better. EVERYTHING is getting better. it's almost certain that the aniamtions will atleats match the likes of BF and COD or whatever.

But if you still have doubts that perspective choice matters, here's MGS V, a game with great aniamtions, with a first person mod

I mean animations for both first/3rd person, there are different sets which complicates things further than just dealing with 3rd.

I'm not sure 3rd/1st difference matter with my argument? First person doesn't need to animate the players body. But it doesn't need to animate other players bodies.

SC is supposed to be out this year, their animations will likely be fairly representative of the finished product, they'll get a bit better but it's not like they'll come out at naughty dog levels. There are very little contextual animations, there is a lot of procedural animations.

What is the MGS5 video supposed to show? That a mod is bad? It's using a perspective in game that for something that it wasn't intended for... Modders don't have the same control.

i swear its always the exact same posters.

Also this thread was created to show that the animations in SC have been updated..UC4 wasn't even mentioned until someone posted "UC4 still owns it" ....as if walking animations are something Star citizen fans are hyping. blew the entire thing out of proportion

@waahahah: Star Citizen is not schedule for this year that's the single player campaign which may or may not release this year. They showed a early version of SQ42 and showed very good animation in it don't confuse the online MMO with the SP portion. There already have a city that you can explore which looks highly detailed not just space and ships.

It's based on the same engine and I highly doubt they are making separate animations for the single player game. Again there are 2 things UC4 that SC won't have, extensive time working on those animations (ND has had like 15 years at this point animating nathan and friends), and their choice to make sure the FPS portion of the game use the same third person animations which means the third person animations will be locked in a rigid pose, they won't be as fluid during gameplay.

CIG has people who worked on uncharted games in the animation department including others with years of experience. I don't know anything how animation works with different views so I'm no expert you probably aren't either so I do not know how animation will turn out when they are constantly improving just like the video is shown. You act as if UC4 are beyond reachable at the animation level when I clearly seen a few flaws in their own animation from previous post, Drake jumping into a pond doesn't even look that natural

I'm not sure you understand how gravity, space and gravity fields work.

@waahahah:

Open space doesn't really matter... that's not how 0g works, you're gravity doesn't stop being applied to you're body in space.

Granted I think I know what you mean, when you're in orbit you're essentially falling constantly so you experience 0g. Moving into and out of a gravity field shouldn't have any weird effect on you since you're essentially falling either way.But you're kind of wrong here, you're going to experience a sudden acceleration when entering a gravity field.

............

Right, and I'd like to point out that you didn't contradict anything I said.

Not sure if you are mistaking my non-comment on "how" a gravity field would effect an object in space meant me saying it doesn't have an effect at all, but I simply didn't comment since the argument being made completely dismissed the fact that the object (astronaut) was still in open 0g space.

The under-lined portion seems like you're making an assumption of what you think I've argued but I never made that argument so I'm kind of confused about what you think I'm wrong about.

To clarify I mentioned the way the character fell as if he were "on earth" with all of the characteristic physics you'd expect from a game being played on earth. This is to note the fact that EVEN if an object in space were to be pulled by a gravitational force, it would still have to be with respect to the fact that it's being pulled in an overall 0g environment...I.E all of the movements wouldn't suddenly be free of 0g just because another force is in action.

Yes, I believe it should. Gravity is a force acting between to objects of some mass. If you were in a 0G environment "Deeeeeeeep space" or something and all of a sudden, literally 0 time, you found yourself 2m above a walkway that is exerting gravity upon you, you immediately cease to be in a 0G environment relative to this object.

ie. You would find that there is a force pulling you towards the walkway and conversely the walkway towards you, with a force roughly calculable by the gravity equation Fg = G*((m1*m2)/r^2), where m1 & m2 are you and the walkway's mass, r is the radius and G is the Gravitational Constant.

I think all Star Citizen is trying to do outside of how gravity normally works is put a hard line on where it starts taking effect instead of having a gradually increase force as you approach an object.

Are you trying to say that, that the whole station is still in 0G???

unless you are going to make up some random BS there is little to take way from how it "works" except some fanboy hot air you'll make up. But perhaps you are going to try to suggest that the ship itself has a gravitational field the same type a planet that has an atmosphere does?

lol that is really idiotic if that's your argument but it's the only one that would work for this moronic argument if you are claiming I don't know how something works.

So, I am guessing you have a detailed explanation of how the "gravity" field works on the ships?

Rationally thinking I figured it would be a magnetic type of gravity astronauts could turn on or off to keep them from drifting into space. People seem to be going to the extremes to make arguments work for this mess.

But I degrees, tell me which type of "force" is being used for the gravity of the ships since you seem to be the inside source for this info?

Hmmm, maybe read my second response. No need to get all narky.

Any objects of given mass exert a force on each other we call gravity. It doesn't need to be a planet, or indoors or outdoors. The comment you made about being in an overall 0G environment is not correct.

But this is science fiction, all you need to accept is that there "gravity" that happens at some distance away from the platform and in ships etc.

There is no such thing as "Magnetic type of Gravity" outside of science fiction.

"But I degrees, tell me which type of "force" is being used for the gravity of the ships since you seem to be the inside source for this info?"

Gravity is the force, duh. At least that is what the game is calling it.

At this point, I think it's important to understand exactly which type of force is being argued in the first place.

Id agree with you if we were talking about a gravitational field but not a gravitational pull. I never assumed people were trying to make an argument that the ships themselves created a gravitational field like that of a planet with an atmosphere and a radius around that operated on an independent gravitational pull separate from space.

If, however, the argument is simply a gravitational/magnetic "pull" then that logic doesn't hold up because they are not free of the 0g environment regardless of a force pulling in on direction or another.

You have to remember that in physics there is no such thing as a "pull" it is always a force. Gravity and magnetism etc. have a similar equation to determine the magnitude of these forces but are overall different.

Gravity is gravity is gravity, there is no difference between gravity from a planet to gravity from a grain of sand floating in space, or a person or a space station that person is near. Gravity is gravity. What we are going to get stuck on is that this game is making it's own rules up about the physics of gravity and instead of it getting weaker to the inverse square of the distance between objects, it is utterly abandoned beyond a set distance from the object that is creating a "Gravity Field".

I feel I may not be explaining this very well, sorry about that.

Well I retract the word "gravity" from my argument.

Still the movements with respect to the "force" supposedly pulling the characters to the ship aren't very convincing for....being in a 0g environment. Say what you will about force but we know this is supposed to be in 0g outer space but it looks like physics from an environment that could be in your back yard

That's exactly what it's supposed to do. If something is making artificial gravity then there is no 0G any more.

I'll try an analogy.

We say "Space" is 0G because the force of gravity is so weak that it hardly matters. It's still there, it doesn't go away, there is a force acting on us right now between us and the furthest galaxy away. It's just so small to be irrelevant. Or it could be relatively ignored, ie. when in orbit, gravity is still pulling you towards the planet, but like someone above mentioned you travelling at such a speed perpendicular parallel to the planet such that you appear to be perpetually falling. Net result is that the sum of the forces acting upon you are near 0 in magnitude.

But if you moved from a 0G suddenly to something that was exerting a force upon you ie. let's assume the walkway exerts a force on you similar to that of earth, it doesn't matter that you are still in space, what matters is you add all of the forces together (vectorially) and you can figure out which direction that force will move you.

So making some numbers up on the fly, force from 0G = 0 in no particular direction. Force from walkway (when you get close enough that the programmers deem it works lol) = 10, then overall force is 10.

Colloquially 1G = m * 9.8m/s^2 (m = you're mass).

Yes, then the whole gravity field idea has to come into play and that would be just like a planet or something with 100x more mass but I'm not convinced it's just not a bad physics system with convenient explanation to brush it under the rug.

Eh, maybe we both just call it science fiction, which it kind of is.

'Entering gravity field wouldn't omit the fact that he is still physically in open space buddy lol.'

Are you being willfully ignorant of what people are trying to tell you or are you just out of your depth?

no it wouldn't change the fact he is still in open space but the Gravitational forces that act on the astronaught would be exponentially stronger, the moment he entered the gravity field the forces applied would be exponentially larger than they are in a Zero g environment.

But i guess you are right and Stephen Hawkings knows f*** all about astrophysics.

I suggest you go and read some of his books as i have and actually learn something about how Gravitational forces actually work in space.

Have you ever been in a vomit comet? i have so i know full well what happens when you move from a Zero G environment into a gravity environment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y_L8pnDRvY

Gravity fields don't really exist in such a way that there is a hard cutoff at a certain point. For instance the sun pulls everything into it, from all over the place, and the further out you go the less gravity will pull you in. The type of gravity field in SC is more like a magnet, you'll hit a certain point and the attraction will just suck you in.

So you're body experiences 1g any where on earth when you're standing. You're body experiences 0g when you're falling. In SC's case you'll experience 0g up until the point of hitting the pad. But it looks weird because as soon as you're over the pad you accellerate towards it. This is one of those weird physics concepts you'll have to accept for SC to work. It does this with the ships as well boarding a ship has this weird area you cross and you're suddenly being pulled in a direction.

edit: My point though is your're explanation is wrong, its based on a fundamentally wrong idea, space is 0g... thats not how it works. If you made a building tall enough that it was in space... and stood on top of it, you'd still experience 1g. Because of gravitational force you experience 1g pushing down on the platform that's pushing up essentially.

Gravity only causes you to accelerate, you experience g-force when there is something that resists that acceleration. The weird gravity fields while wonky, work the the way they should, you are essentially in 0g until the pad creates resistance to the acceleration it's creating.

Listen mate. The game is unfinsihed.

I ahve no idea why you keep going over a system that's underevepment.

I remember reading about how horrible the character models where and now you have posters saying the examples aren't gameplay.

Why dont' you wait for more info and footage.

CIG release stuff all the time because backers lke it.

Ships keep looking better

Models keep looking better

Damage models keep looking better

It's all improving because it's alpha.

Take a seat and watch it unfold.

Uncharted 4 fanboys talking about realism, that is so wrong at so many levels.

holy shit :O

I don't know why you're upset about people pointing out flaws. Its gameplay being shown in system wars. This isn't a board to try to find people to agree with you.

sq42 or pu doesn't matter, they are fundamentally built on the same base, sq42 being the closer release its more comparable to what we'll see with the sp campaign. It will look better, there won't be tons of other players with their stiff looking models but it'll still make the player character look out of place if they don't use the same animations on other models.

And again we are duscussing what's unfolded so far, the animations aren't as good as naughty dog's yet, and probably won't be because of design choices. They will have more positions to deal with but the fundamental rule they are following is an inherent limitation.

Apart from FPS portions of the game we have yet to see how they'll really differentiate themselves with other mmo space sims. I'm excited for sq42 its been a while since we had a good campaign in a space sim, they all rely heavily on procedural generated content/missions and they tend to be... really boring. I'm hoping they are focused more on activities for players and not being glorified delivery men or state troopers.

@waahahah:

Not quite true with the building. The taller the building is the less force you will experience from earths and the buildings mass as you are further from the bulk of this mass.

Force of gravity is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between the centre of masses.

1g would be an approximation at this point, sea level is technical the only place you'll ever experience 1g. The changes are small enough they can be ignored. For instance to weigh 50% less you'd need a building 1500 miles tall. So just a building that reaches space would be 99% of 1g...

@deadline-zero0:

Nope. People are posting improvements because consolites can't realize that this is a real alpha. Not the "alphas" other devs shows.

SystemWars.. Don't post it hear if you're only looking for people to agree with you

Right. So where did the version of UC4 that ran at 60fps, had incredible hair shadders and great lighting go?

Oh right, it doesn't exist anymore. Becuase it wasn't alpha. If you honestly believe the scripted demos you've been saying are anywhere near as early has SC, you're delusional.

SC has only gotten better. UC4 already dropped it's framerate in half in it's second showing.

And alot of stuff is hidden. f you look at the Bishop senate speech vs the Old Man trailer, you can see a masive improvement to character models. Those where less than 6 months in between.

CIG isn't showing SQ42 on purpose.

The SP has always been 30fps, the MP is 60fps.

I don't care about character models, UC4 had better animations a year ago, SQ42 is supposed to release this year... and it's still not arguably rivaling the animation system naughty dog has been working with for the last 15 years.

Yes, the space stations, satalites, hangars, planetary cities, etc, just build themselves.

Just like modding the CEngine to able to produce 64bit coordinates and genrate large maps aswell a procedural system while mainting a single instance when teh engine was never built for this shit is just nothing.

It's just space. Like how GTA5 is just a bunch of terrain surrounded by water.

And? 64 bit really isn't as complex as you think... find and replace uint32 to uint64... so much scope

Also the under water is filled in gta5. There's tons of unique missions, dialog, an entire city. Like I said I have yet to see anything particularly good about the scope of this game. How many unique stations will there be? How much fodder generated quests? How much procedurally generated content? How much campaign? How much unique side missions.

The scope is almost entirely in the ships... I know they aren't planning hundreds of ships for the first release.... what about the PU? How much unique content is planned for that?

Again we can't assume the scope of the project because they tell us it's huge and space is huge. The ship aspect of it seems like the hardest thing they are doing, how the rest of the game will come along... I don't know they really haven't show us that. And Space sims have a large issue with copy/paste generate everything to it as a shortcut for create well designed content.

so, like every first person game. which fps turns the head in a different direction?

The animations you see aren't representive of the player action, although if you look at law breakers there's a moment where the character looks like he broke his neck while jumping... either way if they use a single set of animations that have to look in first person they can't take liberties to make the movements look more natural.

right. Unlike SC, which as alot of non combat mechanics and poses which require aniamtion rigs. Otherwise you end up with, wait, what was it.

oh right.......................................................................nekc glitches due to leaning

And they fixed this... again I don't see the issue here because they had some wonky things in the beta

Cool. And SC can't do that because it's not that kind of game. BF4 is an arcedy action shooter. SC is a sim. The fps combat is meant to be slow paced like SWAT, where you get shot in the leg and will bleed out if you're not careful.

Beyond that, there's EVA movements, cargo interaction and so forth.

Ok so again them having to animate more things doesn't make any 1 animation better. If they look stiff running they look stiff... it's not as visually impressive...

that's why there's a different animations for slow, medium and emergency entries to ships.

Ok haven't seen these yet, mostly just see them hit a gravity wall and awkwardly land on the ship.

And headbob has been reduce. Again, since the rig isn't in place, the headbobing isn't fully stabalized yet.

Ok what are you refering to with the rig? I was only pointing out that headbob can be fixed, it can't be fixed in just mods which you pointed out in MGS5

And SC isn't going for arcade. It's meant to compain an inertia and juke system to stop players from playing ti like COD and BF and be more tactical.

It's also meant to make players feel like a body and not camera on top of a pair of legs when outside combat.

These aren't good mechanics though, there have been very few games where being locked into animation frames for movement have been good. Even the souls series doesn't do this (it does lock attack frames), this is beyond inertia as its beyond real life tolerable if that's what they are doing.

Generally you can just throw animations around player movement/acceleration, that way the gameplay can be tweaked and the animations will likely procedurally adjust to it. You can make movement feel weighty without ever depending on animations...

And this system will likely just introduce new inconsistencies with MP and they'll have to work it out like Bf4 worked out stretchy necks that you keep pointing out.

yeah, i know. They're different perspectives to begin with.

well, when i've told you before why using system that other games with less character control and non combat mechanics isn't usefull, i don't know what to tell you anymore.

I don't think you know what you're talking about, the only real new thing we've seen is probably 0g environments.. They aren't sow much more extensive that the complexity is above and beyond games like uc4.

yes, neck glitches in BF weren't an issue that need patches to take out. Did they fix it anyway? I didn't play Hardline.

And i also need to see where BF let's interact with objects to transfer for cargo.

I've played bf4 for years and never saw these inconsistencies since the beta. And it's not like a wide spread issue so again SC "fixing" it is a mute point.

You don't need to interact with objects to have good gameplay animations...

sooooooooooooooooo...like i've been saying.

Wait you're saying the opposite, that SC is more complex because of a single set of animtions and therefor somehow more impressive. But its simpler now?

Ofcourse it a needs to aniamtie your and everybody elses body. it's a MP game. It's meant so that when you and your friends go pilot a ship together, you get to see eachotehr animate well

right but what you seem to be proposing is how dependant movement and other things are on animations. What i've been pointing out is how useful is this actually?

You point out glitches that have been fixed as evidence of needing this, You point out it needs to be weighting where player control generally has nothing to do with animations. Somehow I think you've said or implied it will look better in multiplier even though it already looks worse because of the stiffer animations..

player control, weight, momentum, are entirely different systems that don't need to depend on animation. The animation can generally happen based off the control/weight/momentum. Doing it the other way round isn't going to solve mp inconsistencies, there will be problems with this system as well... and it's already creating more jenk because the player face has to work with fps.

No, SQ42 is

yeah, but i don't know what an alpha for the pu as to do with it.

yeah, i know. i've been saying this since ever.

if you mean different arms flails for jumps since it's not a 3rd person game? Well, that's what i've been saying sinc ever. Unless ND makes an mp fps with this level of interactiivty, i can't contrast them completly.

Again SC vs SQ42 is essentially the same game, they are built on the same foundation, what's in sq42 is going to be completely in the pu. They aren't making 2 different games with 2 different engines with 2 different sets of animations...

Nathan is highly detailed and highly animated. Most of the characters are. There so many small contextual animations like if you duck behind sully you can see nathan/sully interact for a brief moment. These little things are generally incredibly prevalent during gameplay its generally a in a league of it's own when it comes to animations. They even animate the neck muscles on character's when they turn their head. It's an incredibly detailed animation system. You don't like the way nathan jumps.. w/e that isn't about qaulity. UC4 cut scenes are rendered in real time.

SC has good animations but they don't have the same level of detail. Their character models for sure will be better but they still don't hit ND's level in anything they've shown. SC/SQ42 being built on the same system.

I'll never play UC4 but I can recognize that their in a league of their own when it comes to animations. Considering its almost pixar level of detail.. it's a shame its not on PC because they'll never have the same fidelity in everything else.

They stated they were targeting 60fps for the game while showing 60fps SP trailers: link

It' a community manager that probably made a mistake. I've only seen the 30fps from the developers... 60fps target for mp.

Also completely irrelevant to the animations...

And yet they recorded their in engine E3 trailer at 60fps.

Ok, why does this matter? Exactly?