How the **** would I know that? Like I said, ask glitchspot. Like I said I just copied and posted so how could I answer that question? As far as KZ goes...it's not an impressive game by today's standards, however graphically it still looks more appealing than Star Citizen that's why I used it.

Star Citizen is very sterile looking and graphically that's not a formula for impressiveness. If you want to get a better example to what Star Citizen represents, I'd probably say Mirrors Edge is on the same level of simple boring but very clean graphics.

Look at those clean lines man...graphix king no?

how is that much different than this?

Is Mirrors Edge also a graphics king now? It can accomplish virtually the same polished clean look SC can on PC "graphically" but not exclusive to PC so you're not hyping that up as some other worldly graphical wonder!

Perhaps you only see what you want to see, but there are quite a few other people in here who have voiced that this games doesn't look graphically all that to them.

So now you're just arguing your opinion over others because you want people to agree with your preference since you can't deal with the fact that game isn't getting the kind of reaction you desire.

Like i said I understand the mechanics, I still think they are stupid.

No? Reading comprehension... I explained that SC has these weird gravitational fields that don't really fit as something that is realistic.

I'm just explaining that 1g of force being applied only causes you to accelerate, 1g of force being experience is that acceleration being resisted. So if you're sitting the chair is pushing up on you at 1g. You can create a 0g environment by diving in a plane, you're still being affected by gravity but there is nothing applying a force back you're body doesn't experience a force.

The gravitational fields are kind of silly and look a bit jarring. You hit a point and just fall.

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.

@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.

Starts from 1:58

Starts from 0"57

Any more questions?

Higher quality version, nothing in SC touches this remotely. From the realistic muscle deformation, complex texture layering, skin and hair shading, sublime lighting and model of Nate, to the insane quality of animation, UC4 is truly a new benchmark.

@neobone2: "OMG, have you ever heard of switch between cutscenes and ingame scenes in a game?

Your first image is a interactive cutscene, its the same technique which Until Dawn uses in the game.

And the second picture of SC is from a demo which was created in ONE WEEK, just for the demonstration of the gameplay in the Squadron 42 Singleplayer campaign."

Have you played Until Dawn. You can can zoom on the faces during gameplay and there is no loss in quality compared to interactive cutscene.

@neobone2 said:

@gpuking said:

@neobone2 said:

@gpuking said:

Way to take it out of context son, you sorely misunderstood me. I was referring to this zoomed in picture from earlier, forgive me for not being specific.

in game zoomed in

cutscene

See, the in game model has no depth, no SSS, lacking skin shaders, no stands of beard, no hair rendering to save on rendering budget, the difference is a galaxy apart.

This is a placeholder character is it really hard for you to understand?

EVERY character in SC Alpha looks like this guy in the first image.

EVERY player has this character.

I perfectly understand it's placeholder therefore UC4 looks better, how hard is it for you to understand? Also don't think even the final build would match the cutscene quality not without a drastic change in lighting engine, adding more dynamic lights, increasing memory budget to store LODs, increasing shader budget for hair rendering, more shaders and higher quality post processing. I'dwager the final model would not differ much at all from the placeholder in terms of rendering quality.

Its a PC game, made for the next gen GPUs "Polaris" and "Pascal" not a PS4 game.

The new GPUs have already almost ten times more teraflops then the PS4 GPU 1.84 teraflop, AMD Polaris over 10 teraflop.

No, it's made for a gtx 680 back then and it certainly wont require a 10tf gpu to run it not if CIG still wants to sell some copies. You really don't understand how game development and engine optimization work do you.

I will when I have the game since there's not much good quality media atm.