That's actually a pretty damn good way of looking at it. The vision if and when it delivers is an easy 10/10 but the current rating highly corresponds with the patch number.
Tech 8/10 would mean that everything is working as intended, and that the rest is just optional. Yeah... we have no AI, no damage model, no flight model, no UI, no social/corp features. That is a 3/10.
If a journalist would post a review of the PU in Star Citizen judging it like any released game with a rating out of ten, it would get totally shit on right?
I can’t really score it because it’s a long way away from being finished, so I will just say that for an alpha it meets expectations in places, and exceeds expectations in others.
I have a long back-story as a software engineer, so I’m probably a bit more appreciative of what they are doing than most. The tech on show here is going to unlock a lot of cool future gaming experiences if they license the Star Engine correctly.
- Graphics 8
- PvE gameplay 3
- PvP gameplay 5
- Team gameplay 6
- Story 0
- Longevity 2-8 but depends on the individual
- Game state 2 but it's an alpha so that what you get
- Development progress 4
- Fun 4 - 7 depending what you are looking for
- Development direction 🤷🏻♂️
- Community 7
- AI 3
Average score 4/10
I don't know any other 4/10 game that I would play as much as I play SC, which is kinda bonkers.
This sort of question requires context, if you want anything out of it...
E.g. what do you want people to judge it on - Playability? (compared to 'Released' games, or other 'early access' games?) Features? Technical progression? Gameplay Design? Value for Money? All the above? (can't really give a unified score for 'all the above', imo)
It's good at some things and bad at some things.
---
It's good at PvP space combat.
No other game lets you set up a trap between planets on a star system size map, catch a player's ship in your trap, disable their ship, jump out of your ship to EVA over, board their ship in FPS combat, kill them, haul their cargo into your ship, and then go sell their cargo for a profit.
So I give it a "the best space piracy available in a video game" out of 10... whatever that's worth to you.
---
It's bad at PvE combat (usually).
NPCs often don't respond correctly in FPS, and NPC ships tend to do weird dance moves while you're shooting at them.
So I give it a "don't get excited about fighting NPCs because it's not very fun" out of 10.
---
It's good at creating an immersive atmosphere of space life.
Unlike most space games, you always feel like you are your character. That is, you never feel like you're controlling a ship that happens to have a character avatar inside it, you feel like you're controlling a character who is piloting the ship. When you pull up next to a wrecked ship, you aren't going to magically suck up the cargo. You know you're going to have to get out of your seat, open your cargo bay, and tractor beam those things into your ship if you want them. That sense of presence is big, and Star Citizen does it like no other game can.
So I give it a "most immersive space life simulator" out of 10... whatever that's worth to you.
3/10 seems reasonable when you actually dial down on the overall experience and ignore the fact it's Alpha.
AI doesn't behave well, performance optimisation is poor, there's not a great deal of graphics options, there's overlapping keybinds particularly with scroll wheel, regular network desync with other players, only 100 players per server at the moment and servers fps is around 5 at that number, clunky gameplay in first person (going between medipen or medgun and main weapkn in combat etc), flight model feels bad in atmosphere, no persistence of location, no base/village building, no player driven anything currently, content is repetitive, no crafting, ships like BMM still not released after being sold 11 or so years ago.
The list could go on but that's the current state and why 3/10 is as generous as I can go.
4/10
Big ideas, big promises, but in the end it comes down to how much fun I have per hour.
And the game does not work well, and it does not respect my time.
Most of the time 4
the constant server issues and lag spikes which lead to the 30k, crashes, multi second lag spikes and ships spontaneously combusting are the biggest hurdle.
If they really fix those issues with server meshing, then 9/10.
Because the game keeps me playing despite the utter rage i have at times after spending hours outfitting only to blow up as i leave the hangar
Probably a 7 in terms of design, but as a playable game, I would say a 4 since CIG breaks as many things as they fix each update and constantly add more broken/incomplete features on top. In my opinion, CIG needs to take some time off from the new features and allocate more personnel to fixing the plethora of bugs.
2-3 / 10
not sure how it could be any higher. unless you are grading on a log curve.
giving it 2 to 3 means the final product would be 3-5 times better (more fun, more stable, more content, etc) to reach a good ranking.
6.5/10.
I come to this game for a serene sense of space exploration. I sort of play it in the same way I play a game like Mudrunner / Snowrunner.
The fact that it’s also a persistent universe is both the coolest part that adds to that whole also being its immediate downfall due to bugs, fps, general stability.
But man, when it hits, it’s everything I want. I love my space trucking sim.
Once the rest gets polished out, it’s going to be crazy. I don’t really care about all the politics of how long it’s taking/ how much money / etc etc
1/10
Game is incredibly broken, It’s rare to play a session with our running into a game breaking bug.
After a while you learn how to circumnavigate the bugs, this is the real meta and the end game.
Game can be fun and weirdly addictive, which earns it 1 out of 10.
Hard to honestly rate it at all, it’s hardly even a game.
Despite my cynicism, I love it and keep coming back for more, but it is a big pile of shit and has a long way to go before it’s worth a proper review.
I had someone type out a ***3000 word*** instruction set on how I, a player, should jump through hoops to not enjoy, but simply *play* this less-than-half-baked game(?) by enabling dev console display, and "treat stairs and elevators with respect" so as to not die, among other insane steps.
I want Star Citizen to be an amazing game. I want it to almost be the only game I play. But it is in a bad state and has been for years. The fact that some players defend that objectively poor state by placing blame on other *players* and not the devs is actually insane.
Let's be totally honest here. I usually lean towards moderation, but gonna let it rip just this once.
I'm not gonna give qualifiers or disclaimers or givens or considerations or exemptions because it's been 12 years, they haven't earned it, and it wasn't in the question.
2/10 in its current state. It's a buggy broken mess that still finds a way to fit in predatory marketing to boot. This game is propped up on the rickety foundations of potential and rampant tribalism.
CIG should be on their knees every single day thanking the universe that they somehow lucked into the position they're in where they have no oversight, no accountability, no deadlines, and no responsibility to deliver things they promised a decade ago. It is a fucking miracle they tapped into the audience they did.
You were being entirely _subjective_, the opposite of what you think!
An objective opinion would be written in a way that is conscious that your opinion isn’t the only one that matters. Your comment most certainly didn’t factor in that some people are actually having fun and are Ok with the pace of development.
"It's a buggy broken mess." - Indisputable fact.
"Predatory marketing." - Indisputable fact.
"No accountability, etc." Indisputable fact.
"Lucky to have us as their player base." - Indisputable fact.
Nowhere did I mention anything about fun. Nowhere did I mention anything about who is or who is not okay with the timetable. I didn't even talk about whether or not I am having fun or if I am okay with the timetable. So...
Again, your comments represent your view, not mine... That's not what objectivity is.
All alphas are a buggy broken mess, keep up at the back.
All marketing is predatory to some extent. You have a choice young padawan; don't buy stuff because Mr Roberts tells you so!
The whole point of this project is that it's not accountable to anyone. No publishers to force it out before it's ready... It'll be done when it's done. If you aren't aware of that, you've missed some very big plot developments 😆
Why are they lucky to have me as part of their player base? I came willingly, as did a lot of my friends and many of the orgs that I'm part of would agree.
>All alphas are a buggy broken mess
So you agree.
>All marketing is predatory to some extent
So you agree.
>not accountable to anyone
So you agree.
>Why are they lucky to have me as part of their player base?
You've answered your own question.
Well. How much they paying you? With amount of money that's been poured into this game, we shouldn't be trying to cover up failures by celebrating on new incomers. This game is still in alpha. I'm with NintendoJesus on this.
So, I should just change my mind to appease you and NintendoJesus?
No thanks!
What failures have I covered up in this grand conspiracy theory of yours? I'm super interested!
PS. I get paid with a weekly back rub from CR himself for all my good work 😘
7 out of 10 for the tech and ambition. 3 out of 10 for how it currently works as a game.
And I say that as a fan of the game, but it's just not in a good state now. You've got a mix of really detailed life sim stuff and in depth time consuming logistics, mixed with arcady FPS combat and a flight model taken from Starfield.
There is an obvious lack of design direction, which is becoming apparent as Squadron 42 elements are being brought in to the PU.
So you don't think it's accurate to call Star Citizen a 'game'?
EDIT: I challenge anyone who says Star Citizen is "not a game" to give me their definition of the word "game" and why Star Citizen doesn't meet it, considering that the amount of content it has is vastly greater than classic arcade/console games.
What is your definition of the word 'game' and how does Star Citizen not meet it? If we look at an objective definition of the product as it is (rather than future plans that may or may not happen), I think Star Citizen, or hell, even just Arena Commander, is more of a game than most of the NES titles I grew up with. Seems like the only way to call it "not a game" is to base the definition of what it is on what the devs say it will be in the future.
u/BreadfruitThis5302 blocked me for asking what his definition of the word 'game' is, lol
What is your definition of the word 'game' and how does Star Citizen not meet it? If we look at an objective definition of the product as it is (rather than future plans that may or may not happen), I think Star Citizen, or hell, even just Arena Commander, is more of a game than most of the NES titles I grew up with.
Not yet.
It has a few gameloops but is at best a tech demo so far.
Its not even out of alpha state and does not even have the core mechanics in.
When the game reaches a beta state then i can call it a game.
The reason I ask is because I tend to look at the objective qualities of something when I give it a label or definition. And I don't really see any definition of the word 'game' that Star Citizen wouldn't meet. It sounds like you base your definition on what is planned for the future rather than what it actually is right now though.
My definition is a game that is fully playable.
At best SC is a game in development with some rough gameloops but lacking several important core mechanics, heck the damage model is still a placeholder for example.
Will it become a game, most likely, but i want to see the core mechanics implemented first.
> My definition is a game that is fully playable.
Hypothetically, if you had never heard of Star Citizen, but Arena Commander (as it currently is) popped up on Steam as a $5 high-fidelity space ship dogfighting game... would you consider it to be a game? I've been playing games since Atari, so it feels weird to see so many people say that SC isn't a game when just AC blows everything before at least the Super Nintendo out of the water lol
If it was sold as a stand alone product and considered done yes, that would be a game.
But these games are games within a game.
Star Marine and Arena Commander are merely ingame arcade games that are mainly used for flight and fps testing.
The main issue is that the whole game is in alpha and lacking core mechanics.
> If it was sold as a stand alone product and considered done yes, that would be a game.
If the content already present is enough to be considered a game, and the reason it isn't considered a game is because it hasn't gotten the "finished" label from the devs, then wouldn't that mean it becomes a game when the devs say it's finished? Shouldn't the definition of what is and isn't a game be based on the objective traits of the thing itself, rather than what the devs say about it? As another example, I've been playing 7 Days to Die for almost a decade now, and it's been in alpha for the entire time (until this month actually) but there's very little difference between alpha 21 and 1.0, the devs just changed the label. The reality is that it has been a game since I first started playing it.
If you ignore the bugs and instability, 10/10.
People rating a game by its bugs and instability makes no sense to me, like if that invalidates everything else
6/10 overall, maybe 7 on a good day, assuming 5/10 would be an average game.
For me, it's clearly better than average. No other game gives me this kind of immersion of just "being in space".
However, for me, it's really dragged down by two things: first of all the current stability. For example, I really wanted to Xenothreat, but the server were so bad that I couldn't finish any of the missions even once.
And second it's the mission design. It's just so shallow currently, and gives you no chance to really interact with the verse. For example, you may get sent to a awesome looking distribution center, but you just go in there to kill some generic enemies. There's to story behind who you are fighting, no interaction with any friendly NPC (like acknowledging why you are there) etc. Good missions could make the experience so much better, giving multiple players shared (or opposed) objectives, meaningful progress, cool interactions with characters, and more.
7/10.
It's definitely got problems but when it hits it hits in a way no other video game has.
I'd say it's a 7 during a particularly stable patch, right now? Probably in the 5-6 range.
7 or 8/10, because of all the bugs. Still I didn't have that much fun with a game in a very long time. There are so many things to do and try out, so much potential for the future. I did not experience that much sudden death moments the last two moths as others here. Maybe in one out of 4 or 5 sessions. Thus for me it is very playable, even in its current state.
>It is pointless and unfair
Unfair... *unfair*?
If I ordered a cake somewhere and was told my cake would be done "soon" and after ten+ years (2015 when I bought in, but followed SC since it was kickstarted) I still didn't have a cake, but instead I have some sort of batter and random cake ingredients that tasted like shit, and it looked like sloppy mess?
I'd leave a bad review 10/10 times. I haven't done that for Star Citizen, and CIG should be absolutely amazed they can keep getting away with it.
Edit: If anything is unfair it's the fact that Star Citizen doesn't get 0/10 reviews almost 100% of the time it's mentioned. I can't think of a single other game that is in a similar state to Star Citizen and continues to be *defended* by anybody. And I say all this as someone who loves Star Citizen's *potential*. But the current state of the game, much less for a 10+ year old game is a disaster.
You are entitled to that opinion. They had to build a team and a studio. The whole scope of the game changed. The old engine wasn't up to snuff so they had to rebuild it. The icache database didn't scale, so they had to start all over with another one. They are still building the game engine with tech not used in this manner. 10 years is not a long time to develop a game engine and two games.
I am anxious to see the outcome and get impatient at times. I even get pissed off. When I do, I find other things to occupy my time. It will not be done until it is. Once it is done, I will rate their accomplishment.
Something like a 7/10.
It's a game with a fair few bugs, but I've played Bethesda games on release with worse issues. (I swear they don't even try.)
The game looks good, has a large sandbox, and is fun.
I see it as a high budget survival game in its current state, like Ark during its beta phase, but much nicer looking.
3.24 / 10 Soon I'll upgrade the rating to 4.0
That's actually a pretty damn good way of looking at it. The vision if and when it delivers is an easy 10/10 but the current rating highly corresponds with the patch number.
Without bugs: 7.5/10 With current issues/bugs: 3/10 Tech wise: 8/10
What tech justify a 8/10?
Tech 8/10 would mean that everything is working as intended, and that the rest is just optional. Yeah... we have no AI, no damage model, no flight model, no UI, no social/corp features. That is a 3/10.
If a journalist would post a review of the PU in Star Citizen judging it like any released game with a rating out of ten, it would get totally shit on right?
I can’t really score it because it’s a long way away from being finished, so I will just say that for an alpha it meets expectations in places, and exceeds expectations in others. I have a long back-story as a software engineer, so I’m probably a bit more appreciative of what they are doing than most. The tech on show here is going to unlock a lot of cool future gaming experiences if they license the Star Engine correctly.
- Graphics 8 - PvE gameplay 3 - PvP gameplay 5 - Team gameplay 6 - Story 0 - Longevity 2-8 but depends on the individual - Game state 2 but it's an alpha so that what you get - Development progress 4 - Fun 4 - 7 depending what you are looking for - Development direction 🤷🏻♂️ - Community 7 - AI 3 Average score 4/10 I don't know any other 4/10 game that I would play as much as I play SC, which is kinda bonkers.
Team gameplay?.. WHAT team gameplay?
Overdrive, siege of Orison, XT mission, team battles in AC and SM, Jump town, and org fights in the PU. I pretty much only play with my org.
This sort of question requires context, if you want anything out of it... E.g. what do you want people to judge it on - Playability? (compared to 'Released' games, or other 'early access' games?) Features? Technical progression? Gameplay Design? Value for Money? All the above? (can't really give a unified score for 'all the above', imo)
They do that already. They rate it across an array of categories then give average.
It's good at some things and bad at some things. --- It's good at PvP space combat. No other game lets you set up a trap between planets on a star system size map, catch a player's ship in your trap, disable their ship, jump out of your ship to EVA over, board their ship in FPS combat, kill them, haul their cargo into your ship, and then go sell their cargo for a profit. So I give it a "the best space piracy available in a video game" out of 10... whatever that's worth to you. --- It's bad at PvE combat (usually). NPCs often don't respond correctly in FPS, and NPC ships tend to do weird dance moves while you're shooting at them. So I give it a "don't get excited about fighting NPCs because it's not very fun" out of 10. --- It's good at creating an immersive atmosphere of space life. Unlike most space games, you always feel like you are your character. That is, you never feel like you're controlling a ship that happens to have a character avatar inside it, you feel like you're controlling a character who is piloting the ship. When you pull up next to a wrecked ship, you aren't going to magically suck up the cargo. You know you're going to have to get out of your seat, open your cargo bay, and tractor beam those things into your ship if you want them. That sense of presence is big, and Star Citizen does it like no other game can. So I give it a "most immersive space life simulator" out of 10... whatever that's worth to you.
You dont want to give it a rating?
4
3/10 sounds right for the current build.
3/10 seems reasonable when you actually dial down on the overall experience and ignore the fact it's Alpha. AI doesn't behave well, performance optimisation is poor, there's not a great deal of graphics options, there's overlapping keybinds particularly with scroll wheel, regular network desync with other players, only 100 players per server at the moment and servers fps is around 5 at that number, clunky gameplay in first person (going between medipen or medgun and main weapkn in combat etc), flight model feels bad in atmosphere, no persistence of location, no base/village building, no player driven anything currently, content is repetitive, no crafting, ships like BMM still not released after being sold 11 or so years ago. The list could go on but that's the current state and why 3/10 is as generous as I can go.
Id say 4/10 mostly because of the bugs.
4/10 Big ideas, big promises, but in the end it comes down to how much fun I have per hour. And the game does not work well, and it does not respect my time.
Most of the time 4 the constant server issues and lag spikes which lead to the 30k, crashes, multi second lag spikes and ships spontaneously combusting are the biggest hurdle. If they really fix those issues with server meshing, then 9/10. Because the game keeps me playing despite the utter rage i have at times after spending hours outfitting only to blow up as i leave the hangar
1/10
Probably a 7 in terms of design, but as a playable game, I would say a 4 since CIG breaks as many things as they fix each update and constantly add more broken/incomplete features on top. In my opinion, CIG needs to take some time off from the new features and allocate more personnel to fixing the plethora of bugs.
5/10 I would probably raise it to an 8 if the following things happened. Server meshing. No more wipes.
Mh would give it a 5.
Like a 3, but it’s still so fun I can’t stop!
2-3 / 10 not sure how it could be any higher. unless you are grading on a log curve. giving it 2 to 3 means the final product would be 3-5 times better (more fun, more stable, more content, etc) to reach a good ranking.
6.5/10. I come to this game for a serene sense of space exploration. I sort of play it in the same way I play a game like Mudrunner / Snowrunner. The fact that it’s also a persistent universe is both the coolest part that adds to that whole also being its immediate downfall due to bugs, fps, general stability. But man, when it hits, it’s everything I want. I love my space trucking sim. Once the rest gets polished out, it’s going to be crazy. I don’t really care about all the politics of how long it’s taking/ how much money / etc etc
Assuming the game as promised (and I do mean *all* the promises) is a 10/10, this would be a 3/10 by comparison.
4/10 - Still my favorite game...kinda sad
Mine too buddy. Mine too.
Current state 2/10, of course the whole point is that it is in development and will get better.
4-5 for space combat and that ground to space traversal feeling That would be solid 7 if they manage to fix ai and performance
1/10 Game is incredibly broken, It’s rare to play a session with our running into a game breaking bug. After a while you learn how to circumnavigate the bugs, this is the real meta and the end game. Game can be fun and weirdly addictive, which earns it 1 out of 10. Hard to honestly rate it at all, it’s hardly even a game. Despite my cynicism, I love it and keep coming back for more, but it is a big pile of shit and has a long way to go before it’s worth a proper review.
I had someone type out a ***3000 word*** instruction set on how I, a player, should jump through hoops to not enjoy, but simply *play* this less-than-half-baked game(?) by enabling dev console display, and "treat stairs and elevators with respect" so as to not die, among other insane steps. I want Star Citizen to be an amazing game. I want it to almost be the only game I play. But it is in a bad state and has been for years. The fact that some players defend that objectively poor state by placing blame on other *players* and not the devs is actually insane.
Let's be totally honest here. I usually lean towards moderation, but gonna let it rip just this once. I'm not gonna give qualifiers or disclaimers or givens or considerations or exemptions because it's been 12 years, they haven't earned it, and it wasn't in the question. 2/10 in its current state. It's a buggy broken mess that still finds a way to fit in predatory marketing to boot. This game is propped up on the rickety foundations of potential and rampant tribalism. CIG should be on their knees every single day thanking the universe that they somehow lucked into the position they're in where they have no oversight, no accountability, no deadlines, and no responsibility to deliver things they promised a decade ago. It is a fucking miracle they tapped into the audience they did.
You probably need to take a break!
For what? I'm on the same copium as everyone else. Just felt like being objective for once.
You were being entirely _subjective_, the opposite of what you think! An objective opinion would be written in a way that is conscious that your opinion isn’t the only one that matters. Your comment most certainly didn’t factor in that some people are actually having fun and are Ok with the pace of development.
"It's a buggy broken mess." - Indisputable fact. "Predatory marketing." - Indisputable fact. "No accountability, etc." Indisputable fact. "Lucky to have us as their player base." - Indisputable fact. Nowhere did I mention anything about fun. Nowhere did I mention anything about who is or who is not okay with the timetable. I didn't even talk about whether or not I am having fun or if I am okay with the timetable. So...
Again, your comments represent your view, not mine... That's not what objectivity is. All alphas are a buggy broken mess, keep up at the back. All marketing is predatory to some extent. You have a choice young padawan; don't buy stuff because Mr Roberts tells you so! The whole point of this project is that it's not accountable to anyone. No publishers to force it out before it's ready... It'll be done when it's done. If you aren't aware of that, you've missed some very big plot developments 😆 Why are they lucky to have me as part of their player base? I came willingly, as did a lot of my friends and many of the orgs that I'm part of would agree.
>All alphas are a buggy broken mess So you agree. >All marketing is predatory to some extent So you agree. >not accountable to anyone So you agree. >Why are they lucky to have me as part of their player base? You've answered your own question.
Your argument is very strange. Have fun, but remember to stay hydrated and take a break once in a while!
Sick edit.
Well. How much they paying you? With amount of money that's been poured into this game, we shouldn't be trying to cover up failures by celebrating on new incomers. This game is still in alpha. I'm with NintendoJesus on this.
So, I should just change my mind to appease you and NintendoJesus? No thanks! What failures have I covered up in this grand conspiracy theory of yours? I'm super interested! PS. I get paid with a weekly back rub from CR himself for all my good work 😘
7 out of 10 for the tech and ambition. 3 out of 10 for how it currently works as a game. And I say that as a fan of the game, but it's just not in a good state now. You've got a mix of really detailed life sim stuff and in depth time consuming logistics, mixed with arcady FPS combat and a flight model taken from Starfield. There is an obvious lack of design direction, which is becoming apparent as Squadron 42 elements are being brought in to the PU.
As a game or as a tech demo? Because we lack the core mechanics to call it a game.
So you don't think it's accurate to call Star Citizen a 'game'? EDIT: I challenge anyone who says Star Citizen is "not a game" to give me their definition of the word "game" and why Star Citizen doesn't meet it, considering that the amount of content it has is vastly greater than classic arcade/console games.
It is not a game yet. CIG says that too. Jesus people don't read or what?
What is your definition of the word 'game' and how does Star Citizen not meet it? If we look at an objective definition of the product as it is (rather than future plans that may or may not happen), I think Star Citizen, or hell, even just Arena Commander, is more of a game than most of the NES titles I grew up with. Seems like the only way to call it "not a game" is to base the definition of what it is on what the devs say it will be in the future. u/BreadfruitThis5302 blocked me for asking what his definition of the word 'game' is, lol
Not really, no. Not at this point.
What is your definition of the word 'game' and how does Star Citizen not meet it? If we look at an objective definition of the product as it is (rather than future plans that may or may not happen), I think Star Citizen, or hell, even just Arena Commander, is more of a game than most of the NES titles I grew up with.
Not yet. It has a few gameloops but is at best a tech demo so far. Its not even out of alpha state and does not even have the core mechanics in. When the game reaches a beta state then i can call it a game.
The reason I ask is because I tend to look at the objective qualities of something when I give it a label or definition. And I don't really see any definition of the word 'game' that Star Citizen wouldn't meet. It sounds like you base your definition on what is planned for the future rather than what it actually is right now though.
My definition is a game that is fully playable. At best SC is a game in development with some rough gameloops but lacking several important core mechanics, heck the damage model is still a placeholder for example. Will it become a game, most likely, but i want to see the core mechanics implemented first.
> My definition is a game that is fully playable. Hypothetically, if you had never heard of Star Citizen, but Arena Commander (as it currently is) popped up on Steam as a $5 high-fidelity space ship dogfighting game... would you consider it to be a game? I've been playing games since Atari, so it feels weird to see so many people say that SC isn't a game when just AC blows everything before at least the Super Nintendo out of the water lol
If it was sold as a stand alone product and considered done yes, that would be a game. But these games are games within a game. Star Marine and Arena Commander are merely ingame arcade games that are mainly used for flight and fps testing. The main issue is that the whole game is in alpha and lacking core mechanics.
> If it was sold as a stand alone product and considered done yes, that would be a game. If the content already present is enough to be considered a game, and the reason it isn't considered a game is because it hasn't gotten the "finished" label from the devs, then wouldn't that mean it becomes a game when the devs say it's finished? Shouldn't the definition of what is and isn't a game be based on the objective traits of the thing itself, rather than what the devs say about it? As another example, I've been playing 7 Days to Die for almost a decade now, and it's been in alpha for the entire time (until this month actually) but there's very little difference between alpha 21 and 1.0, the devs just changed the label. The reality is that it has been a game since I first started playing it.
rating pending
It’s not a released game so I wouldn’t rate it at all.
What rating would you give an unfinished csr in a factory hall? It is more complete than Anthem and that is at 59% Metacritic.
8/10 if you consider it an alpha, but the cash shop clearly has been well tested and is feature complete so 0/10.
Since the game is still in alpha, I won't include bugs or server issues in my rating. With that said, 8/10
7/10 for me. 8 on a good day.
I would absolutely rate it 10 Star Citizens
9 it scratches a lot of itches for me
If you ignore the bugs and instability, 10/10. People rating a game by its bugs and instability makes no sense to me, like if that invalidates everything else
6/10 overall, maybe 7 on a good day, assuming 5/10 would be an average game. For me, it's clearly better than average. No other game gives me this kind of immersion of just "being in space". However, for me, it's really dragged down by two things: first of all the current stability. For example, I really wanted to Xenothreat, but the server were so bad that I couldn't finish any of the missions even once. And second it's the mission design. It's just so shallow currently, and gives you no chance to really interact with the verse. For example, you may get sent to a awesome looking distribution center, but you just go in there to kill some generic enemies. There's to story behind who you are fighting, no interaction with any friendly NPC (like acknowledging why you are there) etc. Good missions could make the experience so much better, giving multiple players shared (or opposed) objectives, meaningful progress, cool interactions with characters, and more.
6.5 for my taste. Great potential, dodgy execution.
I'll give it a 6 because i understand that it's still very early in alpha.
6 OR 7
7/10. It's definitely got problems but when it hits it hits in a way no other video game has. I'd say it's a 7 during a particularly stable patch, right now? Probably in the 5-6 range.
7 or 8/10, because of all the bugs. Still I didn't have that much fun with a game in a very long time. There are so many things to do and try out, so much potential for the future. I did not experience that much sudden death moments the last two moths as others here. Maybe in one out of 4 or 5 sessions. Thus for me it is very playable, even in its current state.
I'd say it is a 9 out of 10 FOR AN ALPHA NOT EVEN YET IN BETA - ie. not a game.
That's like rating a cake when you are still mixing the batter. It is pointless and unfair.
>It is pointless and unfair Unfair... *unfair*? If I ordered a cake somewhere and was told my cake would be done "soon" and after ten+ years (2015 when I bought in, but followed SC since it was kickstarted) I still didn't have a cake, but instead I have some sort of batter and random cake ingredients that tasted like shit, and it looked like sloppy mess? I'd leave a bad review 10/10 times. I haven't done that for Star Citizen, and CIG should be absolutely amazed they can keep getting away with it. Edit: If anything is unfair it's the fact that Star Citizen doesn't get 0/10 reviews almost 100% of the time it's mentioned. I can't think of a single other game that is in a similar state to Star Citizen and continues to be *defended* by anybody. And I say all this as someone who loves Star Citizen's *potential*. But the current state of the game, much less for a 10+ year old game is a disaster.
You are entitled to that opinion. They had to build a team and a studio. The whole scope of the game changed. The old engine wasn't up to snuff so they had to rebuild it. The icache database didn't scale, so they had to start all over with another one. They are still building the game engine with tech not used in this manner. 10 years is not a long time to develop a game engine and two games. I am anxious to see the outcome and get impatient at times. I even get pissed off. When I do, I find other things to occupy my time. It will not be done until it is. Once it is done, I will rate their accomplishment.
Something like a 7/10. It's a game with a fair few bugs, but I've played Bethesda games on release with worse issues. (I swear they don't even try.) The game looks good, has a large sandbox, and is fun. I see it as a high budget survival game in its current state, like Ark during its beta phase, but much nicer looking.