NPC, AI and physics have absolutely not the same constraints...
Except, what we are comparing here is the product, and the quality of the experience for the players. Not how difficult or simple it is for a dev team to do it or how "constrained" they are.
The way you lay out your argument strongly suggests that you are a member of the CIG dev team, or work for them directly or indirectly, instead of looking at the game as a player. The available product, the player experience, is what matters in the comparison. We do not care if Todd Pappy is having a hard time or "constrained". Nor should we. That is their problem, they can be taking all the wrong decisions even for trivial stuff for all I know.
Star Citizen is selling a space game that is supposed to include some of the
best NPC AI and
bestest proper physics. Well, if CIG claims that then it is perfectly reasonable to compare the current status of those (as lacking or broken as it may be for Star Citizen) with Star Field´s and see if CIG claims hold. Especially when both games have
released already and Star Citizen has even spent more money and been in development longer.
So? CIG is selling a space game that is supposed to include some of the
best missions and quests systems out there. Well, if CIG claims that then it is perfectly reasonable to compare the current status of those (as lacking or broken as it may be for Star Citizen) with Star Field´s and see if CIG claims hold. Especially when both games have
released already and CIG has even spent more money and been in development longer.
no, SF is post beta and launched (see, I try to avoid to use "released"), SC is an heavy alpha (and all major press companies know it and don't review it)
Alpha is just a vague term often used by CIG, SC cultists or white knights to obfuscate the fact SC is extremely buggy, unstable, broken and incomplete after 12+ years of development and 600+ millions wasted.
The only fact here is that both games have been released,
SC released in early access in 2016 according to CIG statements (not crowdfund anymore), and Star Field released also in early access on September 1st 2023. Bethesda simply decided to conclude its SF early access period on September 6th, whereas CIG has not yet announced a date for the end of its SC early access.
You can and you can also say that CIG is still working on it. Last year your list was longer and some elements of it have been delivered since. Next year, your list will be shorter. You think 10 years is too long, I think not.
I am also
"still working" on
a space ship that will get you to Pluto in under 6 months.
As for the list, it has not really gotten much shorter, especially if you consider that there are not many systems introduced by CIG that are not extremely broken and continue broken. A broken implementation =/= achieved.
SF is far superior if your trick your mind in believing SC is a solo RPG. But it's not. SF is not superior of inferior to SC because they are not in the same genre. It's like saying Witcher 3 is superior to WOW > stupid.
Many of the systems we are discussing have been sold and often described as a whole by Chris Roberts himself as, and I paraphrase,
"comparable or better to the best AAA games out there".
Well, as it happens Star Field is one of those AAA games, so let´s test Chris claims.
(I suspect there is potential here for a QuaversandWotsits meme
)
This is not about game genres, this is about how players can play (or can not play / play poorly, as is the case for Star Citizen) specific gameplay systems that have been sold by both CIG and Bethesda.
When you compare the player experience for those systems, you can tell that SC is still extremely crappy, bugged, broken and incomplete for the player when compared to Star Field. Star Field is vastly superior in most of those systems, and as a game overall.
