The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Nah.

We have the same old argument that CIG is being too ambitious. They're making it too hard on themselves. So I present you with the same old argument that you've been countered with time and again.

It's not me that anyone has to counter. I just sit back and enjoy the lulz :D
 
Why would it bring some very loud detractors with it?

He's right though if you blaze a trial into the wilderness after telling everyone you know the location of the magic Germans then reappear 5 years later with twigs in your hair, none of your companions, a strange infection and being chased by a bear. People will point at you and laugh.
 
Because people like to go with what they know. You know, risks and all that.

You can't really generalize like that.
People wouldn't play any new games if that was the case.

Also what exactly is the risk in waiting for a new game to be made?
People aren't critisizing CIG for trying to do something new, they're critisizing how they're doing it... and rightfuly so imho.
 
HAHA I know right?! That's good, because your arguments almost swayed me!!! :eek:

I pointed out some specific issues I had with Star Citizens development, you countered with a Braben quote about how we should applaud the effort of someone who tries to trailblaze something new and difficult. Firstly, David Braben OBE is a gentleman and a class act and I wouldn't expect him to say anything less about a rival; secondly while CIG may be trying to do something new and amazing, signs point to them failing for a variety of reasons.

Ed. But ultimately I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else to change their mind about SC - our lines are drawn, all we can do is wait and see what CIG can produce. Until then, grab a beer/popcorn/both and enjoy the thread. Welcome to all our new friends from reddit!
 
Last edited:
You can't really generalize like that.
People wouldn't play any new games if that was the case.

Also what exactly is the risk in waiting for a new game to be made?
People aren't critisizing CIG for trying to do something new, they're critisizing how they're doing it... and rightfuly so imho.

Whether it applies to CIG or not, it is a fair generalisation

People have inertia beyond what their mass gives them.
people in general and as a whole dislike change so will be resistant to new idea.
Yes there are always people with new ideas and early adaptors of those ideas, but generalisation are just that and refer to the bulk.

Try something different and there will always be a detractor even if they don't represent the majority

only once the new idea catches on and enough early adopters show it words does the mass move to accept it, and it becomes the new normal.

When it does not work, then the detractors crow they told them so.

That said I may be a little cynical, thought not in the original sense, or maybe, but nor do I comment on SC SQN42 or CIG specifically but Humans in general.

Hah, A Generalisation about a Generalisation, the new Meta
 
Last edited:
Nah.

We have the same old argument that CIG is being too ambitious. They're making it too hard on themselves. So I present you with the same old argument that you've been countered with time and again.



Trailblazing is hard. It will bring some very loud detractors with it.

It's not that, it's that the development cycle is all over the place. They don't need to reinvent the wheel to make something incredibly ambitious because that same wheel will work, regardless of how big it is. But if they're not project managing it well and games 101 basics aren't in place then it stands to reason they're going to have problems.
 
Last edited:
I pointed out some specific issues I had with Star Citizens development, you countered with a Braben quote about how we should applaud the effort of someone who tries to trailblaze something new and difficult. Firstly, David Braben OBE is a gentleman and a class act and I wouldn't expect him to say anything less about a rival; secondly while CIG may be trying to do something new and amazing, signs point to them failing for a variety of reasons.

Ed. But ultimately I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else to change their mind about SC - our lines are drawn, all we can do is wait and see what CIG can produce. Until then, grab a beer/popcorn/both and enjoy the thread. Welcome to all our new friends from reddit!
Ah, new friends ;)
 
You can't really generalize like that.

Why not? It's perfectly valid. Pretty much what Vasious said.

Whether it applies to CIG or not, it is a fair generalisation

People have inertia beyond what their mass gives them.
people in general and as a whole dislike change so will be resistant to new idea.
Yes there are always people with new ideas and early adaptors of those ideas, but generalisation are just that and refer to the bulk.

Try something different and there will always be a detractor even if they don't represent the majority
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also what exactly is the risk in waiting for a new game to be made?

The risks are many. Not enough money to fund the project, or too small a niche market to justify the game, to name a couple. There are real reasons why major publishers got out of the business of space sims.

People aren't critisizing CIG for trying to do something new...

They absolutely are. Bashing the attempt (whether successful or not) to realistically model the effects of the thrusters as a means to control the ships is a favourite pastime here. The attempt to merge a Space Sim with an FPS and an MMORPG is another new frontier that many here wish they would leave for later. How many times have you read or made the argument that you just want Squadron 42? What the original pitch was.
 
Reaching for the stars is to be applauded. The problem is when every time you get the rocket to the launch tower someone decides it isn't rockety enough, wheels it back to the hangar and tries to sell you a picture of the new rocketier rocket which will be launched at an unspecified future test...
 
They don't need to reinvent the wheel to make something incredibly ambitious because that same wheel will work, regardless of how big it is.

The scope of both is vast and quite different, and neither have been done before, so there is no right answer for either of the approaches.

I'm not saying there haven't been problems. That's par for the course when trailblazing. I personally did not back SC to see it made the same way as other games.


This thread really needs to move on from the same old arguments about the development process and instead focus on how game mechanics are shaping up. CIG isn't going to change their model now.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Reaching for the stars is to be applauded. The problem is when every time you get the rocket to the launch tower someone decides it isn't rockety enough, wheels it back to the hangar and tries to sell you a picture of the new rocketier rocket which will be launched at an unspecified future test...

I don't agree with your assessment, but you don't need to buy it either way.
 
Last edited:
I pointed out some specific issues I had with Star Citizens development, you countered with a Braben quote about how we should applaud the effort of someone who tries to trailblaze something new and difficult.

Its also the way they manage to continually find new and exciting ways to make things more difficult than they have to be.

Darn those ambitious folks over at CIG.....:rolleyes:
 
The risks are many. Not enough money to fund the project, or too small a niche market to justify the game, to name a couple. There are real reasons why major publishers got out of the business of space sims.

But those are not mine or any other gamers risk. Those are CIG's risks.
What does that have to do with people not liking change? :p


They absolutely are. Bashing the attempt (whether successful or not) to realistically model the effects of the thrusters as a means to control the ships is a favourite pastime here. The attempt to merge a Space Sim with an FPS and an MMORPG is another new frontier that many here wish they would leave for later. How many times have you read or made the argument that you just want Squadron 42? What the original pitch was.

But again, the vast majority of critisisms, aren't about all the features CIG wants to include into their game. I mean there are so many that I don't mind having some which I dislike if it means having others which I like a lot. The main critisism is the way they are developing it.
They can't even get a proper delta patcher 4 years in, they're re-designing ships for second or theird time... they're selling concepts of ships when they don't even have a clear idea of what concept ships they sold a year ago will do. Let alone building everything at the same time which means everything advances at snail pace... mocaping when a 3v3 match is laggy as hell and a myriad of other crappy decisions. They still don't have a concrete design document for all the features the game is supposed to have. That's really astonishing.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Whether it applies to CIG or not, it is a fair generalisation

People have inertia beyond what their mass gives them.
people in general and as a whole dislike change so will be resistant to new idea.
Yes there are always people with new ideas and early adaptors of those ideas, but generalisation are just that and refer to the bulk.

Try something different and there will always be a detractor even if they don't represent the majority

only once the new idea catches on and enough early adopters show it words does the mass move to accept it, and it becomes the new normal.

When it does not work, then the detractors crow they told them so.

That said I may be a little cynical, thought not in the original sense, or maybe, but nor do I comment on SC SQN42 or CIG specifically but Humans in general.

Hah, A Generalisation about a Generalisation, the new Meta

Again, you can't generalize that "people dislike change" and apply it to every situation.
I've literally never met a single gamer who's not interested in some new gameplay concept.
Also pretty sure people who have terminal illnessess wouldn't dislike a breakthrough in medicine that would change their illness from terminal to curable.
Plenty of examples of people not disliking change, which is why I don't think generalizing like that works.

Also, just because we're humans and there's always going to be a sceptic, doesn't mean the majority in every changing situation, are.
 
But those are not mine or any other gamers risk. Those are CIG's risks.

You're right. Those aren't risks for the consumers. Yet that doesn't stop consumers from complaining about the developer taking those risks.

Now that is what's really astonishing! :eek:

But again, the vast majority of critisisms, aren't about all the features CIG wants to include into their game. I mean there are so many that I don't mind having some which I dislike if it means having others which I like a lot. The main critisism is the way they are developing it.
They can't even get a proper delta patcher 4 years in, they're re-designing ships for second or theird time... they're selling concepts of ships when they don't even have a clear idea of what concept ships they sold a year ago will do. Let alone building everything at the same time which means everything advances at snail pace... mocaping when a 3v3 match is laggy as hell and a myriad of other crappy decisions. They still don't have a concrete design document for all the features the game is supposed to have. That's really astonishing.

I'm not going on a wild goose chase with you. I know that there are criticisms which pertain to other things, although I wouldn't say they're the vast majority, but I'm not talking about those. One endless pit at a time for me. :D
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with your assessment, but you don't need to buy it either way.

That is very true. When there is a retail product I can make that decision for myself :)I just hope they can get a retail product out this year. If they release behind COD:IW it might be hard for the non-invested consumer to see much difference between COD's single player campaign and SQ42 ep1. Which will have an effect on their new revenue streams.
I think even CiG will reach a critical mass at some point where looking inwards for more investment will suffer from sharply diminishing returns. Opinions are like earholes though, most people have 1 or 2 :)
 
You're right. Those aren't risks for the consumers. Yet that doesn't stop consumers from complaining about the developer taking those risks.

Now that is what's really astonishing! :eek:



I'm not going on a wild goose chase with you. I know that there are criticisms which pertain to other things, although I wouldn't say they're the vast majority, but I'm not talking about those. One endless pit at a time for me. :D


Well I'm not going to be playign football with you if you keep on moving the goalposts. :)
 
Well I'm not going to be playign football with you if you keep on moving the goalposts. :)


Now that would be you.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

If they release behind COD:IW it might be hard for the non-invested consumer to see much difference between COD's single player campaign and SQ42 ep1. Which will have an effect on their new revenue streams.

Squadron 42 will be heavily focusing on the space sim aspect. COD will be focusing on the FPS. I can't imagine COD's vehicle gameplay to be anywhere near what SC is doing for the space sim side of things.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom