Is there any difference here though? I mean I've posted some fairly reasonable explanations but because I'm not critical of the game and/or the company, I get labeled as a cultist. Tell me, how is that different than the RSI forums or /r/starcitizen subreddit?
Additionally, all I see is a bunch of illogical statements about how "fake" the presentation was or trollishly over-exaggerated comments. I'm all for criticism but at least have some unbiased evidence to support them!
Every forum has its extremes, your apparent lack of
any criticism of the game and its development is as extreme as some of the folks here who criticise
everything about it. Whatever the cause, there's some clearly worrying or disturbing trends surrounding the development of Star Citizen that are seemingly not even being acknowledged by a large part of its fanbase. I'm not saying people should blindly condemn CIG for the stuff they do, but at the very least publically raise an eyebrow and call them out on some of the stuff.
I've seen big publishers like EA, Ubisoft, Sony, Microsoft and Activision declared Satan incarnate for lesser things than what CIG seems to get away with.
I play Elite with some other folks, all of us absolutely love what this game represents but you wouldn't be able to tell from some of our conversations. The fact we are so critical of it is borne out of our passion for it to succeed into becoming what it has the potential to be. Yet, this also means we feel the need to point out what we think is holding it back.
This is what you don't see on the RSI forums at all, and sparsely on the SC subreddit, frequently padded with the required "I love this game and all of you and have the deepest respect...but...". It's just a bit uncanny, especially in light of the recent NMS drama over hype fueled by blind faith and fanboyism...
It's the same thing where people desperately try to avoid comparing SC, Elite and NMS at all because "they do different things". That's just wrong, they have massive similarities between them and discussion on which one did a certain feature better is not only natural and healthy, but might actually turn out to improve the genre as a whole. (Provided the discussion remains somewhat respectful and sufficiently supported with arguments, subjective or otherwise)
An umbrella statement like "the entire demo was fake" is as much ignoring the facts as pretending there was nothing questionable about it.
Examples of imo obvious and fair questions following this demo:
- Why does the FPS gameplay seem to be so incredibly unpolished/alpha when SQ42 is supposedly coming out by end-of-year.
- Why was there no actual AI beyond stationary NPCs, even though SQ42 is a singleplayer that's going to heavily rely on such tech.
- This entire sequence was choreographed/scripted, how are these quests going to be without player-driven gameplay?
- Voice acting everything like this takes an insane amount of work, is the release going to feature more than 3-5 hours of these quests?
- If so, how much time are they expecting to spend on them? (SWTOR took over 5 years to get all their writing and voice acting done)
I could go on, but I think my point is clear.
Being passionate about a game means not only cheering when things turn out right, but also questioning or criticising things that don't. Otherwise you come of as... a bit of a cultist. (The inverse is also true though)
Edit: apologies for wall of text 
got carried away typing.
