CitizenCon 2024 Squadron 42 Demo Side-by-Side vs 2023 "I Held the Line Trailer"

[@FlashyJoer]

Finally... the lighting matches the source light. Bothered me to no end that the Vega sun is scientifically noted as blue tinged A0V main sequence star, but in 2023, the light coming off the star to light the initial scenes, especially those with Gillian and the player, were lit as though the light source was our own sun, a G2V main sequence star. It was too warm, on the kelvin scale. Now, in 2024, the lighting is cooler and matches what Vega's sun would output. It changes things all around, like the planet, the gas clouds, how much it lights up the scenes, but its more realistic, more immersive - its hard to accept a blue-toned sun giving off warm yellowish light, and now we dont have to suspend disbelief anymore. :)

[@pontifexinferno]

I'm a bit confused by this--isn't the 23 footage a good bit cooler than what we got this year? I think it's an improvement, but it looks a good bit warmer.

[@FlashyJoer]

@@pontifexinferno Go to 3:29 and compare 2023 "I Held The Line" footage (top) against the 2024 footage from this weekend. You will see it best represented there, what Im talking about.

[@skibidabndada6683]

That is so Nerdy that its interwsting again

[@BlursedToast]

I definitely agree with the Gillian and player scene. Though I also think that the initial flight through should be of the same blue tint as the 2023 video. I'm not sure why it would be warmer, I mean, even the ARK starmap has Vega categorized as a G class Dwarf star which is extremely far from the truth, it's Even categorized as an M dwarf in the galactepedia. But they definitely know this is a mistake, and the Ark Starmap itself is full of bugs and definitely needs a revamp. Hopefully they'll fix the color in the future

[@Whoareyoucalling]

But it doesn’t match the source light? Look at the sun it’s a blue giant, it’s going to emit blue light throughout the system which would diffuse through gas clouds and reflect have it off of all objects. The 2024 version looks as if there’s zero ambient light coming off the sun. The 2023 version is physically correct in how the sunlight would scatter through gas and the nearby environment.

[@tomvaneldik3123]

So much more detail on the Javelin now.

[@rvalent9366]

Character looks so much better wow

[@Chilla_Aquila]

Those wrinkle maps! Especially at 4:12

[@Taztorien]

you can already see what one year of polish has done, i always thought it was gonna be 3 years of polish 2 at min.

[@Platinumsniper]

I love how the pilots got personalized helmets.

[@emilylikestea]

Thanks for putting this comparison together

[@Reoh0z]

Yeah OP did a good job on this comparison.

[@ROrneli]

it looks more like gameplay when before it looked just like a cinematic

[@EpicSpeedademon]

Noticed that now uniforms got name tags. UEEN shoulder patches too.

[@JaleXelJela]

Yep, it's all smaller changes than last year. There's some interesting rank stuff going on too, and it looks like the Shoulder Boards have finally settled on two bars for junior officers, 3 for senior officers, so broader categories.

[@upholsteredhero5216]

Next year you can do a comparison for the 2025 re-re-release of that same trailer as well!

[@pelvist]

And in 2027 we can compare the 2025 one to the one they put put after announcing the next delay.

[@Albertrossus]

@@pelvist honestly think 2027 could be the year. but i also thought last year that 2026 could be the year.

[@MersageSW]

It makes sense why polishing takes 3 years for AAA games. They have to do this for every scene and every part of the game. Cyberpunk 2077 took 3 years after it's original announced launch date to polish, too.

[@yulfine1688]

well that and we saw 2 crashes plus the size of this game is much larger than the standard triple A which usually takes around 1.5-2 years so for cig to have 2.5 years total of polishing fits pretty well up to 3 since it just says 2026 which means the date will vary depending on how confident in polishing and fixing things like the crashes we saw.

[@zeroxception]

Cybepunk 2077 nearly sunk the company

[@MersageSW]

@@zeroxception But it did the opposite as of today

[@FlyingTexan]

@@yulfine1688 the game is only 30-40hrs and a chunk of that is cut scenes

[@hicks0792]

​@@FlyingTexanthe single player campaign is yes, most of this has been implementing systems that allow it all to work in the persistant universe aka the MMO multiplayer side of things, so the game is quite large due to how it handles all environments with no cut scenes, real localised gravity and air pressure etc. it doesn't have the usual tricks or cuts to make it much simpler to develop, it would obviously be substantially easier if they didn't have the multiplayer aspect they are building but it's a package deal here.

[@kira68200]

the music when the fleet is moving into battle position at 7:49 goes so F*CKING hard ! damn

[@SickPrid3]

2023 had this cool cinematic feel to it in 2024 they lowered the contrast making what should have been dark, gray

[@surject]

Like 3.24.2 in general, especially ships/cockpit ....don't really like it tbh. Looks more cartoony.

[@bleachorange]

The contrast was lower mainly due to the light source being changed. After seeing someone else talk about the star actually being a different color than our sun and it resulting in a different light that should be emitted, it makes sense. Its not just being anal. Each system needs to have a different 'feel', and color and light are one of the main ways to do that. If they adjust the light to match what the type of star should be, it accomplishes being accurate and nerdy with a design goal. This isnt the only system you will see in the game, and other lighting will be present. Also, if you notice, while the brights arent as bright, many of the objects on screen actually pop more and you can see them better in the new coloration.

[@Chilla_Aquila]

Ray-tracing has likely been enabled since, is more realistic now, everyone either looked sickly green or like they were wearing foundation and blusher in the 2023 version with nothing inbetween

[@j.d.4697]

But the new lighting shows more detail.

[@wdipuccio]

Depends on what you mean by cinematic. High contrast is kinda a cheap trick imo to make images look more punchy but not necessarily more cinematic. Preserving the dynamic range is more cinematic imo. I prefer older filmic looks as well as a lot of Sony’s color science for their video and cinema cameras. Their cameras tends to preserve a bit more of the artistic quality when lit by someone knowledgeable. But hey, everyone has their own opinion.

[@zeta4687]

not realized how much has changed if not having this side by side video even the javalin has changed

[@Thor_Asgard_]

New characters are improved alot, but the old exterior lighting was absolutely gorgeous.

[@LeifPetersen1986]

no old lighting is terrible.

[@Gungarr]

The old lighting was fake, now it's in game lighting.

[@armsman5322]

The 2023 lighting had much higher 'Bloom'. I guess it's a personnel preference as I dislike that higher bloom overall, which was probably due to the changes to the Main Sequence Star in the Vega system and how the lighting rig in 2023 used it. One thing's for sure: The character faces and other character aspects look a lot better - much lees 'uncanny valley' aspects to them; and the lighting rig and overall textures allow for higher detail to be visible on the screen. The other changes are due to different in engine camera tracking, and the different rendering methods they were using for some of the in game engine assets. I like the updated gas clouds and asteroids and the higher level of observable ship details in general, but the way the planet looks from orbit looked better to me in the 2023 version even though I realize it has more detail in the 2024 version. But, yeah, the rendering progress they've made in the past year really make the characters and ship assets look much better and show more fine details.

[@Billy-bc8pk]

@@Gungarr No it was not fake -- new lighting in 2024 is using the new global illumination implementation on the new renderer, which is why it looks different.

[@VortexStolenName]

I love how they are still saying the F8's are "nimble". Its like flying a semi truck, it is in no way nimble.

[@Matt_10203]

Yeah they definitely need some mobility buffs to fit the “agile apex predator” type fighter.

[@Billy-bc8pk]

Compared to the Hornet MK I's, the Ares Starfighters and the Hurricane, the F8s are definitely more nimble.

[@VortexStolenName]

@@Billy-bc8pk Pitch/Yaw/Roll in deg/s F8C: 35/35/120 Hurricane: 38/32/120 Ares: 43/38/120 F7C MKI: 56/45/150 what are you talking about?

[@Billy-bc8pk]

@@VortexStolenName Do you own all of those vehicles? Actually play with them in the game, the stats don't account for atmospheric drag; the Hornets behave horribly in atmo, and the Ares is great but is very slow because its manoeuvering thrusters aren't as aggressive as the F8; you can literally see how well it performs in PvP encounters on AvengerOne's streams; it's not as nimble as the F7A Hornet, but the F8 still dominates almost all the other ships thanks to its firepower +manoeuverability.

[@VortexStolenName]

@@Billy-bc8pk no, my wife took them in the divorce, the dog too :(

[@borgthepig]

6:28 actually the part where he says “we will not lose the system. We will not fall back, we will win! Because we have to” was featured in the I Held The Line video! It was later in the video and without audio, but it was showcased!

[@latech7671]

It was also featured in the 2018 trailer which is too this day the closest we have come to a standard Story-Trailer (like, only a couple minutes long but setting up story, mood and universe). I always really liked that speech (or as we now know that part of the speech). I really hope once they start the actual marketing (at the end of 2025 or first half of 2026) they do 1-2 more Story-Trailers like the one in 2018 (just with maybe a bit of gameplay also included) because those are always good to quickly show somebody the mood and feeling of the universe and story they want to show in SQ42

[@zegeek229]

Mark Strong looks soo much better in the live gameplay

[@zqwc]

The new one looks less cinematic but more like it was done in-engine. Can't really decide which I prefer since the original is what I would expect a movie studio to put out vs a game studio but the new one looks closer to what i expect the gameplay to look and feel like. The new one feels like it's missing alot of Ambient Occlusion.

[@ablazedguy]

Half the exterior camera moves in 2024 look like they were done by a drunk monkey, especially the terrible editing. This was put together under time pressure

[@hicks0792]

All of it was in engine last time though, this is the same in that regard it's just the changes that have been made to rendering and other aspects that make the difference.

[@BlursedToast]

I am offended by the fact that even in the updated version, Artemis's rings are not visible. It's probably the camera angle, but i hope they add them in eventually.

[@Thelexane78]

Thanks! So much changed. Even the ships model. I am not entirely sure that the new lighting is more cinematic, and the initial gaz clouds and asteroids are a bit step down, but overall I does seems to move forward.

[@JeffHiggins]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the lighting change is mainly adding in global illumination, which should be giving more realistic lighting, but it's definitely less "cinematic".

[@r.daneel.90]

The lensflares were almost totally removed, maybe due to gameplay reasons

[@macmanuelodumeru3708]

Performance reasons

[@cylab]

@@JeffHiggins actually in space, the global illumination is to bright in shadow areas now. you usually have a huge contrast and shadows are almost black, since you have no surroundings reflecting the sunlight into the shadows, so I was a bit disappointed. The rest of the scenes are better, though

[@JeffHiggins]

@@cylab I was thinking the same, in some areas yes, but you will also get a ton of reflected light off the planet itself. I do agree with you though, it should be more dramatic in space if the surface is pointing away from the planet & sun.

[@parkerxgps]

I appreciate less shaky cam. Helps to admire the graphics.

[@DrIcchan]

Oh wow, the exterier of the Javelin changed quite a lot.

[@Luciphell]

Their eye-tech makes Gary Oldman's character look less like a creepy mannequin and more like a person.

[@ganaelschneider]

that's awesome thanks!

[@FulguroGeek]

The global illumination make the game 10 times better all the deatils pop so much more!

[@vulcan4d]

Looks like some optimizations had to be made eaoecially with the nebula/cloud look. Besides that 2024 version rocks it.

[@Rontheebaptist]

Looks fantastic and was a really good story too as it goes. The demo was better than anything Disney have churned out in a while.

[@JaleXelJela]

It gave me big Battlestar Galactica vibes, and there's obvious visual cues from Serenity...all good things!

[@TheXasTube]

even though much has improved (including the detail on the javelin) I liked the more cinema-like look of the darker lighting on the fleet fly-in of the 2023 verions more.

[@claudianreyn4529]

Hopefully in 2068 I will afford to by the new RTX 92080 Ti to play the game and I will also make a credit to buy one of their ships by then, since they might run out of stock!

[@gkenny12]

Good call on the name tags additions

[@cmdrls212]

I prefer last year's lighting as it is far more dramatic but the ship models look way more detailed now.

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

It's funny how those silly manoeuvring thrusters on those Hornets are actually non-operational in the 2024 version, despite working back in 2023 🙂 But overall, it's an improvement to be sure.

[@stijnjanssens571]

i found them to be such a nice detail in the 2023 version, sad to see them go

[@kaollachan]

though the same, a bit wierd

[@Chilla_Aquila]

I thought they looked a little goofy, poking out of their holes like little worms, wonder if they're being reworked - they're still there just not functional in that scene, neither on the other Hornet

[@j.d.4697]

Just because they didn't use them doesn't mean they are not operational. The ones shown off were retro thrusters almost exclusively used to slow the ship down.

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

@@j.d.4697 Yes, that's what I said - the retro-thrusters that were shown articulating and working in 2023 were effectively dead in 2024 version.

[@MLAGGIONE]

2024 looks more streamlined, colour corrected and slightly more detailed. I am actually pumped for this game :))

[@DayLateGamerWill]

I prefer the 2023 visuals, especially that opening fly-in / fly-by

[@roko811]

ja, fand den Nebel aus dem die Schiffe kommen, damals besser.

[@calvinvail89]

Looks so much better now

[@LazzyRabbit]

Nice... ty!

[@restwellcloud-ix8ee]

I held the line

[@Reoh0z]

7:50 Did they just drop the bagpipes?

[@Whoareyoucalling]

Oddly enough both version have vastly different detail levels. 2023 has much more details in space and debris along with the ambient lighting, 2-24 has much more detail with ships and the planets.

[@fatcatgg]

Greeeen skybox xD

[@esdee108]

Nice work Jale

[@ross4814]

Interesting changes in color grading and some asset renders. The Fabric render looks a lot better.

[@bellidrael7457]

Some things are much more detailed, other things have a lot less detail. That's because it was a cinematic before, while this is actually rendered ingame.

[@HeatherMason455]

someone who really loves green mustve joined cig

[@Dumb-Comment]

or someone who really loved blue left

[@connorquigvids]

They completely changed the javelin shieeee

[@Dumb-Comment]

it's with the new maelstrom destructiuon system, same with the vanduul ships

[@connorquigvids]

@@Dumb-Comment Ooooo

[@Billy-bc8pk]

@@connorquigvids Yeah Maelstrom is finally complete (was finished for Squadron between 2023 and this past summer) and has been moved over to the PU branch as of the last two months.

[@Hamisback]

Environment looked better in the original, but the lighting is WAY better in the new one.

[@crackedjabber]

Isn't this a prerendered trailer vs in game engine? If that's the case, this is absolutely fantastic.

[@Unlighted4K0]

They are both in game.

[@JaleXelJela]

2023 is also in engine to some significant extent, they probably haven't ported it in from Maya or something. But 2023 was probably running in an unplayable "render mode" while 2024 is runtime playable.

[@paranoid9678]

i9ts part of the gameplay demo (tutorial that dose go on for 1 h)

[@LK-R]

my belief is all cutscenes in the 2024 gameplay are also pre-rendered. They released two versions of the first playthrough and the cutscenes were identical, pixel for pixel. even the glitches like the face swapping to different models at 5:13 were the same across both playthroughs.

[@paranoid9678]

​@@LK-R stuff isnt pre-rendered video when if you mean it like that you can change your character so this is impossible to pre render it predetermined path that is played in real time, audio/assets you need are predetermined and then played this way you can also make quick changes like changing models or adding things or change the lights they have a preset that takes asset from the game and can render thoses cutszenes in realtime it takes up less storage on you drive and is easier to do when you have (and they do have all the assets build for SC) that bug you did say with the swapping head could be a very easy fix, they could have two assets (head/faces) in two differend foulden that have the same name/number to it so that the engine dose not know with head it should use or they did set by accident two different assets for that position

[@OrbZero]

Skin shader got a LOT better. They also toned down contrast. Less punchy, but feels better.

[@DerCrafter]

I think I prefer the old skybox, also the colors of the planet feel much more dull and boring in the new version. The facial animations and ship models look much better in the new one.

[@Dumb-Comment]

the old planet was actually incomplete, there were no cities on the surface and the clouds are just a thin layer of texture, it was more of an image than an actual planet, you could even see the clouds casting shadows in the new one, a classic example of a painting could look more appealing than a photo

[@bleachorange]

I think almost everything, especially color, looks better in the new version. I do think specifically the nearby nebula clouds in space looked a bit better when they were more defined in the 2023 version, but the 2024 blending is much more realistic for far off nebula.

[@heathmorris6100]

I still don't understand why cig thinks space is green but everything else looks amazing

[@damazywlodarczyk]

Now you know why it all takes 13+ years, the 2023 demo looked fine, there was no need to change so much, the earlier work was wasted. We don't need best looking cutscenes, we need the game.

[@Billy-bc8pk]

The cutscenes are the game -- they're one and the same and share the same assets. Polish for the cutscenes is polish for the game. Most of the polish -- if you read the monthly reports -- are actually for the AI. They had a lot of trouble with their procedural emergent behaviour and getting stuck on the escalators, the trams, and the elevators. But they finally got most of that resolved.

[@Skar38rus]

so much work did under javeline, and no news about it

[@mckinney9739]

I’ll be real that very opening shot of the clouds looks better in the 2023 version

[@JaleXelJela]

I agree, I liked the contrasting clouds. Initially, I thought that maybe they had rendered the ships and actors with a transparency/key and comped it over an environment background generated in a different program. However, the cloud shapes and details match 1:1, so it's definitely the same cloud generation algorithm or assets as last year's. They may have some fancy features like subsurface scattering and cloud transparency dialed back for performance reasons during the live demo. However, they also have made some artistic choices or changed the lighting model to mute the colour palette, and I preferred the original.

[@KillahMate]

Well it's been a year, but I see they've completely rebuilt the Javelin exterior, and at least some of the interior... in case anyone was wondering how a game comes to be ten years late. Also hair and skin rendering looks significantly better.

[@JustMyLuck]

crazy thing is.. i dont think anyone would have cared about the difference in picture if it allowed it to release this year. just getting a final product is the issue we have. (dont get me wrong, the quality is insanely good and looks almost real in some areas. BUT.. i feel like that can be added later with a major update to s42 and starcitizen.) they go back and forth on adding new things it delays the campaign from releasing so they never make progress to make the game complete. that alone makes it hard for any developer to get any other job because they don't have a history of a complete game in the time they worked for star citizen. Ontop of that, it frustrates ALL who play the game because we hear / see all of the amazing things and then it takes 10+ years to see it almost complete because of the delays from the upgrades they always do from tech advancements and with them having to focus on two areas of the game (campaign and the persistant universe).

[@Billy-bc8pk]

Good. We don't need a game out there that's just "good enough". We have enough of them from AAA publishers. They don't care about their projects, they just want to get something out and call it "released". But if I were running a company again and I had two CVs in front of me -- one from someone who put in a ten year tenure at CIG working on groundbreaking tech and middleware advancements, and someone who did a two year stint at Ubisoft working on corposlop, I wouldn't even look through the Ubisoft person's CV and I would instantly hire the CIG person.

[@JustMyLuck]

@@Billy-bc8pk unfortunately , that's not how hiring usually works. it's about releases and ratings, experience.

[@MrDecelles]

It's a good job. They don't want a buggy mess and they don't want to compete vs GTA 6.

[@Tony186x]

I want to see them compete with GTA6, the battle of the decade, literally

[@Billy-bc8pk]

@@Tony186x Yes and no. Tech wise, SQ42 automatically wins. If you check out the leaks, GTA 6 is a nice evolution on GTA 5, including a ton of advancements they made with Red Dead Redemption 2. But at the same time, the gameplay logic is all the same, which isn't bad if you're into that sort of thing. But SQ42 has a ton of really cool middleware tech that adds a lot to the variety of gameplay present throughout the campaign, like the physical destruction, being able to cut open grates, having both stealth and Rambo-style approaches to level design, jumping/parkour puzzles, ground vehicles, boats, spaceships, and horror-themed levels.

[@JTanSC]

definitely prefer the more exaggerated shadows (more closer to real life) in the 2023 trailer

[@LKDesign]

I kind of liked the blue tint and the high contrast of the first fleet shot. Now it's all sick-green and flat. Also the Gauntlet's thruster light now looks boring and too tame. Curious to see what else is going to change and where I will actually get my nice beauty-shots now.

[@HubstepCamaro]

2023 art style was much better Of course the tech in the 2024 version is better, art is a huge step back

[@larkfeast]

2:53 so Chris Roberts is Mother?

[@cwarky7325]

Space is green now, no black shadows 💩

[@zeroneutral]

5:13 fidelity

[@robinrichards6275]

On some scenes I like the 2023 better. I think it's that freakin' green tint they put on everything😡

[@RazSkull673]

Don't like how the planet previously looked very Earth like and blue and the newer version looks like a greenish mist with some clouds. Obviously their new planetary tech is in play but they need to fix some of the coloring.

[@Omega_Prime7]

2024 does well in some areas where 2023 falls flat and vice versa.

[@larkfeast]

I prefer the shading of the 2023 version

[@nikkmann149]

Everything looks more....flat in 2024. Like graphically I can see the characters and ships have more detail, but the lighting itself seemed better in 2023.

[@raptorkysen177]

Clearly not the lightning is much.more accurate in the 2024 version , the 2023 version was more contrasted more dark because of less accurate lighting

[@_issu3]

The 2024 one i think is live rendering, 2023 seems more like a pre-rendered cutscene

[@nebulajumper6216]

The characters are better in the 2024 version, but the skybox and lighting was beter in the 2023 version.

[@r.daneel.90]

Flattenization strikes again, why CIG, why you hate contrast and dark tones

[@EVO_EVOLV]

I prefer last years lighting - it was way more dramatic 😮

[@EVO_EVOLV]

But dang! I don’t know, this years no doubt an upgrade 🤔 It just feels a little off in the beginning of the intro as the two pilots were doing strange maneuvers Lol but I feel like there was too much video game detail - a.k.a. too clear! We don’t need all that high res texture/ model information. I feel like they could take both versions and use the new tech from 2024 and sprinkle some of that dramatic/ cinematic movie quality on top.

[@G0DKILLER_]

yup, 2024 looks way better way more polished

[@Avenger85438]

I think I prefer the 2023 lighting. It may not be as "realistic" but hey that's always been an overrated aspersion in media.

[@ablazedguy]

This was supposedly playable from start to finish 8 years ago, yet almost every detail changed between 2023 and 2024. They are wayyyyyy behind 🙄

[@JaleXelJela]

You can play a game where some background details are placeholders, and some cutscenes are missing. A playable build is still a long way from release. And hey you can't be behind if you keep moving the end posts! 😂

[@ablazedguy]

@@JaleXelJela it's not just backgrounds, even the ship models are different, facial animations, cuscene editing and some camera moves.. just why? Will they replace it again before 2026?

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

@@ablazedguy its actually like depressing to think about the people who have to work on remastering this absolute piece of garbage

[@Billy-bc8pk]

@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n Then why are you wasting time following it? I do not waste time following games or commenting on games I do not like.

[@visionentertainment8006]

Sir? It's a fucking woman my guy

[@JaleXelJela]

That's common practice in many world navies...but more importantly for squadron 42, the player becomes an officer shortly afterwards (there's a time jump). Of they did sir/ma'am they would have to record a lot of lines twice.

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

@@JaleXelJela why do people insist on saying this ad nauseum lol its not even true "No. Female officers are not to be addressed as “Sir”. They are to be addressed (by lower-ranking personnel} as Ma'am or by their rank. I've seen female officers mistakenly called “Sir” and they didn't take it very well. It's the same thing as telling them, “you look like a man”.Aug 18, 2022"

[@Sioolol]

In only one year thay made this cutscene worse... impressive

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

dude Mark Strongs face is hilarious when it moves its like they used super mari o 64 face grabbing technology and animated it frame by frame...

[@gfdia35]

Oddly characters far better but almost prefer the less realistic space scenes lol

[@LemonToGo]

Not sure if I like the new look for the Javelin.

[@katoy9976]

50tb'lık tek oyun.

[@leedutfield964]

Wait this was the same trailer as last year? ahahahhahahah hahahah ha. o dear vapor wear lord. I mean it even looks worse in some parts now some how.

[@JaleXelJela]

Last year it was prerenderer segments in a longer feature, this year it was a live play demo of the whole level.

[@leedutfield964]

@@JaleXelJela So all that time and money was spent pre-rendering an actual level of the game for a feature instead of just making the game back then? No wonder it’s vapour wear. Watch as the release date slips another year. Then another. They use all the money putting on lavish events the devs drive their lambos to. If you are lucky by 2050 they might have shown every level as a citizen con (Con being the word of the day) trailer and finally let everyone play it. At which point I bet it is still as trashy as star field.

[@JaleXelJela]

@@leedutfield964 no, it's just different render options in the same engine. In one mode, it generates every frame to max fidelity regardless of how long it takes, and you can stitch them into a smooth frame rate for playback. In the other mode, you are racing to maintain a decent frame rate, so you cut back on things to keep performance to those metrics.

[@SolarWindsRider]

You can clearly see they re-did the animation, cameras and 3d models. It's not just a lighting polish pass. A normal thing to do on a "feature complete game that just needs polishing", yep. But you don't need to look at videos. 2026 release date itself shows that the game is far from complete and all that "complete" talk in 2023 was just marketing.

[@The-Nox-86]

You are so confidently incorrect, like a Brexit voter fed up of experts, or a Trump voter that thinks there's no Russian connection.

[@JaleXelJela]

At the time, I was arguing to folks that "feature complete" probably just meant that they had all of the game systems in - shooting, flying, ship damage, interactions etc etc etc. ...Not that all the content was there, all the art was final, or all the missions finished. It meant to me that they didn't need to develop new systems, but that the systems they had were still being improved and finished, missions being built out, and art made and improved. Not sure on the truth, but I think my interpretation of the phrase was closer than people who thought it meant that sq42 was fully playable with no placeholder or missing assets.

[@WTFWHATara]

@@The-Nox-86 You sound like a vaccine lover

[@loadingerror9975]

@@The-Nox-86 literal TDS like bro this is a wendys

[@Krieger04]

@@The-Nox-86 I agreed with the being incorrect part and then you started talking about how uninformed, blind and brainwashed you are. A real knee taking liberal.

[@theknifesong]

They still need two more years of milking the community with ship sales and lofty promises

[@OneTwoMark]

Imo 23 looks better, in most ways. Im guessing maybe 23 wasnt in game engine.

[@Billy-bc8pk]

Nah, the difference was 2024 was being played on a live machine in real-time -- some things they tuned to play for a live demonstration, so they likely cut back on some of the features. It crashed three times during the stage demonstration, so I don't think it was cranked entirely to the max.

[@Mnerd7368]

Godamn it. The 2023 visual quality is superior than the 2024 visual quality. I can check very clearly which one is better and to be honest 2024 visual quality is slightly ugliest in my opinion. Should have kept 2023 visual quality the same as last year. CIG really f*CK the visual quality from superb from 2023 to ugly in 2024 cause it's very greyish and dark black depressing. 2023 visual quality was colorful vibrant and I cannot believe CIG changed the visual quality because it was completely unnecessary. CIG devs should never overthinking and overdone the visual quality cause it will be a mess. Ohhh...well 😂

[@_ZeusWrath_]

2:15 - why in 2024 already on the observation bridge is there no black man!? while in 2023 he still was there! This is - racial discrimination! 😆

[@Billy-bc8pk]

While it is funny, you can tell some of the crew seemed to be randomly generated to fill out the bridge crew.

[@BR14Nx]

Sadly the intro flight is such a down grade 🤡

[@Muckylittleme]

Oddly this years demo made me less enthusiastic for the game. Not just that what should have been the one polished chapter was full of glitches and bugs and crashes and it will be another 2 years (again) but the gameplay looked very generic and I was actually bored watching the turret gameplay which was very console like and gamey, but worse still the enemy ships lining up and waiting to be shot was horrible. Yes it is supposed to be a tutorial a swell but that doesn't mean it has to be bland. It also totally detached us from the cinematic and battle which was also far too long. It would have been better to have the turret gameplay broken up with narrative and context from the cinematics and likewise the cinematics broken up with contextualised gameplay. The cinematics themselves were good but it lacked direction and pacing with the feeling of an epic space battle often losing focus and we had no idea who was winning or losing or why beyond the Kingship threat. Also many ships didn't seem to be part of the battle and there were no/few comms back and forth between ships as you would expect in a fleet battle. It needed to show the roles of different ships better and their effect on the battle. Above all the whole thing needed tightening up and a top quality editor to trim away the waste and some energy to the battle sequences. The Vanduul AI were a little disappointing and easy to defeat (Yes it's a tutorial but if you are wasting half a dozen with ease at the start of the story then their threat and the fear factor is greatly diminished from the start) Finally the gameplay to cinematic ratio was off and don't even get me started on the console smash "X" to play scripted animation gameplay mechanic. Most of the PU stuff was whitebox this, greybox that and concepts that we will unlikely see for years and while U understand limiting the number of systems 5 seems low and not enough to properly incorporate exploration and alien races. And the systems we are getting like Pyro are nothing like they were supposed to be. Pyro was supposed to planets full of volcanos and lava flows and instead we pretty much get Stanton biomes rehashed. Also Pyro was supposed to be mined out which is why it fell into lawlessness but now it is going to be resource heavy for base building and stuff. Also the idea that you can craft items cheaper and better than can be manufactured by the corporations who designed and manufactured them is nonsensical narratively and will cause economy issues.

[@Billy-bc8pk]

Just sounds like the game is not for you, which is fine. There is Call of Duty: Infinite Warefare, which sounds more up your alley. You should definitely check that out.

[@Muckylittleme]

@@Billy-bc8pk Game or interactive CGI movie? The game as described was for me which is why I pre-purchased it, but if the tutorial chapter is anything to go by it will crash and burn. I was surprised what a poor state it was in as well given this was their most polished and basic chapter. There is still hope because there is always hope, I'm just saying it didn't look like a game that had been in development for 10 years.

[@jonasweber9408]

Let the great downgrade begins 😂

[@ablazedguy]

I'm getting Watch dogs wibes, the downgrade is palpable..

[@comguaf8093]

omg it look so bad hahahah