you do realize that the term "in-game" doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be playable to the public. All it really means that it's within an internal build.
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
you do realize that the term "in-game" doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be playable to the public. All it really means that it's within an internal build.
No, then we would have someone who claims to be in a position to offer a qualified opinion, but anything we say about it — or any reference we make to what that person said — would still be hearsay.
…but that wasn't his premise. It was yours. The asinine bullcrap was something you invented to misrepresent what he was saying, which was an explanation of why all of this is just hearsay.
If it's not in the game yet, then it's not in-game. Until it has been released — until it's in the customer's hand — it's not in the actual game. If you want to say that it's in an internal build, you say that it's in an internal build — something that is not the actual game.you do realize that the term "in-game" doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be playable to the public. All it really means that it's within an internal build.
It's really not any more complicated than that.
Last edited:
I'm not defending them because it was a scripted presentation that was rehearsed so that they could showcase what 3.0 would essentially be like. Anyone else that doesn't see that needs to get their brain examined. I'm defending them about the claim that it's absolutely fake or pre-rendered in-engine videos. Anyone who believes that should be:
Last edited:
you do realize that the term "in-game" doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be playable to the public. All it really means that it's within an internal build.
Jeez ok. Just do me a favour and just wait until they get a game out before you spend anymore money on it.
So you're saying that it's fake and pre-rendered in-game videos, then, since it only “showcases what 3.0 would essentially be like” rather than, you know, actually being what 3.0 will be like.
You can't really have it both ways, you know, and being abusive about it won't change that fact. Oh, and funnily enough, you're the only one making this extraordinary claim that it was pre-rendered.
Last edited:
I don't really think anyone who has that opinion should feel 'shame' over it, it's only a dumb video game afterall, it's certainly not an important issue in the great scheme of things and as with all games will be quickly forgotten about when its time passes.
Besides, the world would be dull as PU if everyone had exactly the same opinions. (See what I did there?
)
So the working "Demo" is totally hands off for the press and public?
Red flag right there.
It's a shame as I would have thought CR and CIG would be champing at the bit to get as many people playing their new shiny precious, and from what I saw smooth and relatively glitch free playable demo.
Who wants to play a broken crysis mod when you have that?
Red flag right there.
It's a shame as I would have thought CR and CIG would be champing at the bit to get as many people playing their new shiny precious, and from what I saw smooth and relatively glitch free playable demo.
Who wants to play a broken crysis mod when you have that?
So when CR and the press say that it's a live demo, isn't saying that it's fake or pre-rendered hearsay?
This maybe a technicality but in order to qualify that, you would have to add a few words like "available in-game now". What you said has no intrinsic meaning to the singular term "in-game".
To be fair, SC's “physics” are… ehrm… let's generously call it “questionable”, and have been from the very start. So that particular detail doesn't offer much help to either side of the argument.
Not at all. SC's physics are 100% real and full of the finest fidelity possible. We know this because CR coded it himself.
Depends on what (or more precisely whom) you're referencing with the claim that it's fake. However, claiming that it's live just because CR and the press said so is hearsay. In fact, based on the press accounts, you've got hearsay already at that point since they haven't really been in a position to judge it properly.
…which by all accounts just means that it's not in-game anyway.
Last edited:
To be fair, SC's “physics” are… ehrm… let's generously call it “questionable”, and have been from the very start. So that particular detail doesn't offer much help to either side of the argument.
Probably not. But it demonstrates to me that unless they can fix the physics, I'm not going to be buying the game.
No, I'm saying that it was a months old build that they rehearsed what they wanted to do in that build and played that live "within that build" on stage on a local LAN because convention networks are shotty at best. No pre-rendered videos or in-editor play throughs.
Last edited:
edit: well
Last edited:
Leave it alone, I'd never spend so much time defending something I had nothing to do with. Go out to a bar and make love with a woman or something.
We can blow up the world more times than you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVGTsxdnKq0
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I'm sorry I last heard this when I was 22, it sounds great.
Yeah, that would make it a fake. A mock-up, if you like. A special-purpose not-actually-any-kind-of-code-that-will-be-released-because-they'll-do-it-in-actual-release-code-later demo.
So a special demo build, with only the assets they need, running on a local network. A technology demonstrator.
CMDR_Orlando
Banned
Star Citizen: Coop Pre-Rendered Trailer [big grin]
You know, if you removed the last two sentences it really would be impossible to tell if you were ironic or not.
- Status