Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

TiberiusDuval

T
LittleAnt said:
You still don't understand my point. I really don't care when SF (or any other game) has started its development. How long a game is in alpha doesn't define solely a good or a bad alpha. I threw a bunch of intentionally skewed dates at you (after a simple one-minute search and I just picked the first few answers giving the earliest dates) and you dispute them like it matters (seriously? You really think I think SF started its development in 2004 because Howard talked about it over coffee in 2004?) If you really want to know what I think about the alpha of other games, I'll just say that CP2077 and EDO should have had an extra year of alpha and/or beta, nothing more.
If the game is complex the alpha will be long, if the game is simple the alpha will be short. If the company making the game think the game is not ready, the alpha continue if they have the money. For what CIG want to do and how CIG started, 10+ years of dev does not surprise me more than that.
Click to expand...
Both CP2077 and EDO are nowadays pretty playable RELEASED games with rare MAJOR glitches. No eternal tier 0 mechanics. SC is an eternal tier 0 alpha.
 

McGlashan

McGlashan
Mole HD said:
I wonder how many top selling game titles from universally recognised AAA game studios will be designed, developed and released before the Empire of Roberts manages to ship any working, fully realised and released game
Click to expand...

Literally every game that is ever released will beat that deadline.
Starfield is just another game that will come and go in the blink of an eye relative the development of SC, never mind what fanciful start date the defense force picks.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Viajero
LittleAnt said:
Credibility on which subject ?
You missed the point of my post.
Game A in alpha since 10 years.
Game B in alpha since 9 years.
Game C in alpha since 8 years.
Game D in alpha since 7 years.
Etc
Click to expand...
Credibility in most subjects you discuss here. I dont think I missed your point, but trying to argue it based on a disingenuous (and wrong) interpretation of an article will make you lose all your credibility here. Pretending Starfield dev time is comparable to SC alpha dev time is very disingenuous, on top of being factually wrong. By your same logic, SC would have been in development since at least 2000 etc etc. To add insult to injury you seem to ignore facts that you do not like:

SC´s alpha is quite different to others and generally worst in that it has been stuck without delivering a single product in gold or even going to beta for 12+ years and 550 millions wasted.

Those extreme and rather unique facts (world ever record of money spent in developing a video game, and probably the record of the longest alpha ever), for a product that is still currently majorly broken, are a likely indicative of technical and management problems that cant seem to be resolved in any reasonable manner.
 
Last edited:

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Viajero
LittleAnt said:
And you (for what I know), despite the release of x AAA games, will play the alpha of the evil CR's game in 2023 and probably in 2024 and the other years...
Click to expand...
Playing or even enjoying a game is not incompatible with said game being a mismanaged, broken, buggy and overall bad game. Plenty of people out there enjoying crappy games, nothing wrong with that.
 
Last edited:

Skizomeuh

Skizomeuh
TiberiusDuval said:
Both CP2077 and EDO are nowadays pretty playable RELEASED games with rare MAJOR glitches. No eternal tier 0 mechanics. SC is an eternal tier 0 alpha.
Click to expand...
That's the magic of eternal alpha: a feature you dislike/would prefer different in a released game won't change, instead in an eternal alpha you can keep your hopes high and deflect any criticism.
 
Last edited:

Intrepid3D

Intrepid3D
LittleAnt said:
I've said "it's here", not done. How can I say it's done as almost everything in SC is tier x and with bugs ?

For the rest of your text, 1 or 10 years of alpha is still alpha. Complex system needs more time than simplier ones, you perfectly know it. Starfield is in alpha since 10 years and nobody can tell you the level of bugs they have now. Perhaps they try to let you climb ladders since 4 years and will abandon the feature at release, you will not know. And they are only making a solo game evolution of Skyrim with a lot less complexities to manage. GTA6 is also a decade old and I don't hear you saying it's too long for an alpha (with an engine and dev teams much more in tune with their needs from the beginning than what CIG had at start).
Click to expand...
7 years and counting.... but on all other counts yes you're right, it has nothing like the complexity of Star Citizen.

I'm no advocate of how long its taking, not by a long way i'm quite critical of it myself, its frustrating but equally frustrating is armchair game dev's seeing a new COD game every couple of years think it should take no longer than that, lol, an indie studio with 20 people can knock out a game like that in 2 or 3 years using Unreal Engine or Unity, they often do, that type of game is about as easy as it gets, i can do it badly with Unreal Engine, Star Citizen on the other hand is right on the other end of the scale, even Bethesda, a well established studio needs a decade to make a similar game with half the complexity, they are not alone, decade long development in video games is not that uncommon, there are games that have taken 15 years.

Very few people want to commit the time and resources to a decade + long project because a lot can change in that time, look at Star Atlas. Elite Dangerous Odyssey. it took a long time, a lot of complex work, it is a good game though somewhat ruined by some ideas, mainly, IMO, as a concept its been surpassed.

There is a huge contradiction in some of the arguments about Star Citizen, because it just keeps going, it keeps growing in popularity.
Its not because too many people with too much money are too stupid, that's a low intelligence argument in its self, those people still chose where to spend their money, they spend it on things that brings them joy, just like the rest of us.
 

Intrepid3D

Intrepid3D
Agony_Aunt said:
Interesting video, and quite possibly this has happened or can happen in other games with PvP


If I get the story right, a PvPer killed a guy, and the target kept coming back and got killed over and over again, and then reported the PvPer for griefing, and CIG banned them(?), despite there being video evidence of the target coming back time and again.
Click to expand...

Lets see how long this thread lasts....

robertsspaceindustries.com

PVP and ship bed spawning. - Star Citizen Spectrum

I don't want to be in a situation where i'm reprimanded by CIG for killing someone over and over again because they spawned in my ships bed over and over again. This doesn't need explaining beyond...
robertsspaceindustries.com robertsspaceindustries.com
 

thistle

T
Intrepid3D said:
7 years and counting.... but on all other counts yes you're right, it has nothing like the complexity of Star Citizen.

I'm no advocate of how long its taking, not by a long way i'm quite critical of it myself, its frustrating but equally frustrating is armchair game dev's seeing a new COD game every couple of years think it should take no longer than that, lol, an indie studio with 20 people can knock out a game like that in 2 or 3 years using Unreal Engine or Unity, they often do, that type of game is about as easy as it gets, i can do it badly with Unreal Engine, Star Citizen on the other hand is right on the other end of the scale, even Bethesda, a well established studio needs a decade to make a similar game with half the complexity, they are not alone, decade long development in video games is not that uncommon, there are games that have taken 15 years.

Very few people want to commit the time and resources to a decade + long project because a lot can change in that time, look at Star Atlas. Elite Dangerous Odyssey. it took a long time, a lot of complex work, it is a good game though somewhat ruined by some ideas, mainly, IMO, as a concept its been surpassed.

There is a huge contradiction in some of the arguments about Star Citizen, because it just keeps going, it keeps growing in popularity.
Its not because too many people with too much money are too stupid, that's a low intelligence argument in its self, those people still chose where to spend their money, they spend it on things that brings them joy, just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...
I don't blame the backers for being deceived.

I blame CIG for being unprofessional, unethical, and continuing to deceive.
 

VR Golgot

VR Golgot
Intrepid3D said:
but equally frustrating is armchair game dev's seeing a new COD game every couple of years think it should take no longer than that
Click to expand...

So guys like Chris then ;)

"That's what we think will happen towards the end of 2016 because that's when we think we will have finished the content and get most of the polishing in," he says. "We are saying before then we think it still be rough around the edges and have issues."
Click to expand...

Etc etc etc
 

Intrepid3D

Intrepid3D
thistle said:
I don't blame the backers for being deceived.

I blame CIG for being unprofessional, unethical, and continuing to deceive.
Click to expand...

Some of their practices are deceptive, absolutely.

Recently take CR last letter of the chairman, 3.18 should take 3 months testing and be out by July, its been 9 months and counting, 4.0 isn't coming out in early 2023.
I think he knew that as he was writing that letter.

The next thing is Server Meshing, turns out that's going to take longer than they initially implied it would.

That's a couple of examples of a very long history and list of those sort of shenanigans.

Yes it bothers me, what bothers me even more is the fact that they use the money earned off the back of Star Citizen for Squadron 42, to me that is blatantly misappropriation of funds.

3X23i7O.png


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom