The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
You know, it would help if when you tried to say that people had misunderstood something, you didn't then go on to say exactly the same thing they did…

So, no, he did not read from the wrong sources. Beta is not for adding functionality. Beta is for testing functionality and possibly adding content (and polish) that makes use of that functionality.

This, is wrong: "the current alpha build of SC only has 10% of the promised content from the KS campaign"
Maybe read fully the poster I was addressing.

Sure it´s possible when pilot in super-hornet is "Rhesus Monkey"...by the way I almost forgot how boring&lame is dogfighting in SC...TY for reminding me.....
I agree totally....and by saying things that larger&rare ships it´s going to cost 300% on post release...it´s just like opening door for more grey market traders...just great....

No sweat, twitch-skill space-sims are not for everyone.
 
Last edited:
This, is wrong: "the current alpha build of SC only has 10% of the promised content from the KS campaign"
Maybe read fully the poster I was addressing.
Sure, he's probably vastly overestimating that 10% number, but you still effectively said the exact same thing he did while accusing him of being wrong.
 
Question, if 3.0 has all the stuff that CR showed us in the power point do you think that would be an MVP or THE MVP?

THE MVP ofc
BOuttPp.png


But needs all this included plus some more:
Star-Citizen-Gamescom-2016-Alpha-3.0-Reveal-Professions-Star-Systems.png


f0ZrDum.png
 
Last edited:
What road map, It's to be released in 2016 remember?
2016 is still on their website for both Star Citizen and Sq42.

I just checked and here is a copy/paste: "2016 ANSWER THE CALL"

Edited: the earlier quote I pasted was from StarCitizenStatus.com and not the RSI/CIG/Whatev official site.
 
Last edited:
You've read from wrong sources I'm afraid. Alpha is not about "promised content" but about putting the systems in place to allow for the game mechanics that they need to accomplish for their game to be played as they want it to be played.

They don't need to be 100 systems wide when they can add all the core mechanics in one system and make it as deep gameplay experience as possible. After one system is in place the rest is copy+paste the mechanics and add new cosmetic design with their modular builds and give it some differentiation through clever art and design.
I'm not referring to any sources save my own 10+ years of direct personal experience in the field.

I formed and owned a computer gaming company. I designed several complete games detailing every single table & field in backend database schema to laying out the actions of single function in the front end clients. While I do not consider myself a programmer per se, I can program and certainly parse code. When my programming team signed off on a project alpha, ALL game content that I had listed in the design document was in there. Their signatures certified my design document had been completed in full. If I had told them I wanted 100 worlds, I would have either detailed each one in the design doc, or supplied some sort of detailed parameters for them to follow overall depending on the project scope. There is no "we'll spec that out later" half way through a project. It is all defined, in excruciating detail in the design doc, before the first line of code is written. A colleague of mine from another company once told me that a solid game is 70% design and 30% programming and I can't argue that.

I didn't use my personal definition of an alpha, its the industry standard.
 
I'm not referring to any sources save my own 10+ years of direct personal experience in the field.

I formed and owned a computer gaming company. I designed several complete games detailing every single table & field in backend database schema to laying out the actions of single function in the front end clients. While I do not consider myself a programmer per se, I can program and certainly parse code. When my programming team signed off on a project alpha, ALL game content that I had listed in the design document was in there. Their signatures certified my design document had been completed in full. If I had told them I wanted 100 worlds, I would have either detailed each one in the design doc, or supplied some sort of detailed parameters for them to follow overall depending on the project scope. There is no "we'll spec that out later" half way through a project. It is all defined, in excruciating detail in the design doc, before the first line of code is written. A colleague of mine from another company once told me that a solid game is 70% design and 30% programming and I can't argue that.

I didn't use my personal definition of an alpha, its the industry standard.

This looks so much like Business Application Software Development, for which I've been managing projects for the last 7 years. People in this thread had me convinced that the game industry is just the like a backwater of software development where anything goes. I'm comforted to know that someone is doing things the way that has been proven to work over decades of trial and error.
 
I'm not referring to any sources save my own 10+ years of direct personal experience in the field.

I formed and owned a computer gaming company. I designed several complete games detailing every single table & field in backend database schema to laying out the actions of single function in the front end clients. While I do not consider myself a programmer per se, I can program and certainly parse code. When my programming team signed off on a project alpha, ALL game content that I had listed in the design document was in there. Their signatures certified my design document had been completed in full. If I had told them I wanted 100 worlds, I would have either detailed each one in the design doc, or supplied some sort of detailed parameters for them to follow overall depending on the project scope. There is no "we'll spec that out later" half way through a project. It is all defined, in excruciating detail in the design doc, before the first line of code is written. A colleague of mine from another company once told me that a solid game is 70% design and 30% programming and I can't argue that.

I didn't use my personal definition of an alpha, its the industry standard.
sarcasm/
You obviously don't understand game development.
/sarcasm
 
Well since the staff making Star Citizen has 100+ years experience combined between their directors which have shipped and delivered multiple award winning games by the way. I'll just take their judgement and let them worry about it. [big grin]
 
((Lots of excellent text))

Your experience means nothing, because you don't understand game development. And if you understand game development, you don't understand star citizen development. (/sarcasm)

I have a question about the recent patch notes that were posted a few dozen pages back, did I read that right that they added crashes "on purpose" and "to gather performance data"? Was that genuine, or made up by someone else?
 
Last edited:
Well since the staff making Star Citizen has 100+ years experience combined between their directors which have shipped and delivered multiple award winning games by the way. I'll just take their judgement and let them worry about it. [big grin]
Well, we don't have a choice in the matter, do we?

I do think their process is not good, as evidenced by their, or lack thereof, deliveries so far.

Too much extended talk about design
Too many missed deadlines
Too many cut features
Too many added features
Too many mentions of rework

These are all indicators that the underlying process being followed (or not followed) has failed. It is possible to recover and right the ship (especially since they don't have a publisher keeping them accountable) but I'm not too impressed by the number of years of experience thus far.
 
I'm not referring to any sources save my own 10+ years of direct personal experience in the field.

I formed and owned a computer gaming company. I designed several complete games detailing every single table & field in backend database schema to laying out the actions of single function in the front end clients. While I do not consider myself a programmer per se, I can program and certainly parse code. When my programming team signed off on a project alpha, ALL game content that I had listed in the design document was in there. Their signatures certified my design document had been completed in full. If I had told them I wanted 100 worlds, I would have either detailed each one in the design doc, or supplied some sort of detailed parameters for them to follow overall depending on the project scope. There is no "we'll spec that out later" half way through a project. It is all defined, in excruciating detail in the design doc, before the first line of code is written. A colleague of mine from another company once told me that a solid game is 70% design and 30% programming and I can't argue that.

I didn't use my personal definition of an alpha, its the industry standard.

What kind of games do you produce?
 
Presentations are them saying showcasing the tech working, showing that they have the foundations done and how they used them, technological and design showcase, not that it's ready for release. You think the COD game was finished when they showcased that "gameplay" trailer? Why isn't it out yet? Why arent they releasing it now before Battlefield 1 release and are being late to the party by releasing it only in November?

No, you didn't read what I said. If they present something and say "this is what you'll have in December", then I would expect them to release a reasonably unbuggy product in December because what they showed was reasonably unbuggy. This is not what happened. I'm not saying that they're presenting a finished game (they didn't, and they didn't pretend to), and I'm not wanting them to release a finished game. I'm wanting them to release what they said they would.
 
Last edited:
No, you didn't read what I said. If they present something and say "this is what you'll have in December", then I would expect them to release a reasonably unbuggy product in December because what they showed was reasonably unbuggy. This is not what happened. I'm not saying that they're presenting a finished game (they didn't, and they didn't pretend to), and I'm not wanting them to release a finished game. I'm wanting them to release what they said they would.

Well they released 2.0 like they said they would, and it's playable and a lot of people are enjoying it even with the bugs. Following the same pattern 3.0 will follow in the end of the year and will be , like 2.0 was, updated as they go.

Just an example (3.0 brought A LOT of new players to Crusader).

https://as.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/4zegsn/ive_been_too_intimidated_to_play_but_i_shouldnt/

I'm a kickstarter backer. I've ended up firmly in 'whale' territory, but I've barely played yet. For two reasons, really -

1) It is a buggy mess and I wanted more stability and features before trying properly.
2) I find the idea that other people have been playing a long time intimidating. I am a Dad to a one year old and three year old, and small business owner, so I don't have a lot of time for gaming. I thought I would embarrass myself, frankly.
After the 3.0 demo, I figured it was time to give it a go. Yes there were bugs, but I powered through. Before long I knew roughly what I was doing. I started to enjoy myself.
A lot.
Getting stuck into the chat, it's abundantly clear how warm and helpful the community is. Every other line was someone offering help to someone else. There was no begging. People were jumping at the chance to help others.
I experienced the magic of multicrew. I found myself in someone else's connie, in a turret. When the pilot was ejected, I took the helm and led a largely unsuccessful S&R mission. At this point, I realised I was spending a good half an hour just tracking people down after a cutlass exploded.
What I took away from this is:
People are so helpful because this is a nice community, but they are also nice because the game mechanics make helping people fun. One of my favorite gaming moments of the last few years was seeing a stranded cutlass turret gunner who had decided to float for half an hour instead of respawn find his way onto my ship.
Finally, I don't think we'll have a problem filling multicrew ships. I used to worry about this all the time. I have a lot of very big ships. When I spawned my Starfarer, people were falling over themselves to join the crew. I don't think I'll have a problem with any of my bigger ships, after all.

tl;dr - this community is making the game far more fun than its current state should allow. Also, the mechanics that are in the game already serve to increase immersion so much that tedious S&R missions become gripping.



There's the other side with people not knowing what to do because there is no tutorial whatsoever, but if you go with the right mindset, understanding that the game is in alpha stage and under heavy development, you can have a great time, actually a memorable time because what you can do in Crusader is unique in the sense that no other game provides the mechanics that it already offers.
 
Last edited:
Well they released 2.0 like they said they would, and it's playable and a lot of people are enjoying it even with the bugs. Following the same pattern 3.0 will follow in the end of the year and will be , like 2.0 was, updated as they go.

Just an example (3.0 brought A LOT of new players to Crusader).

https://as.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/4zegsn/ive_been_too_intimidated_to_play_but_i_shouldnt/

I'm a kickstarter backer. I've ended up firmly in 'whale' territory, but I've barely played yet. For two reasons, really -

1) It is a buggy mess and I wanted more stability and features before trying properly.
2) I find the idea that other people have been playing a long time intimidating. I am a Dad to a one year old and three year old, and small business owner, so I don't have a lot of time for gaming. I thought I would embarrass myself, frankly.
After the 3.0 demo, I figured it was time to give it a go. Yes there were bugs, but I powered through. Before long I knew roughly what I was doing. I started to enjoy myself.
A lot.
Getting stuck into the chat, it's abundantly clear how warm and helpful the community is. Every other line was someone offering help to someone else. There was no begging. People were jumping at the chance to help others.
I experienced the magic of multicrew. I found myself in someone else's connie, in a turret. When the pilot was ejected, I took the helm and led a largely unsuccessful S&R mission. At this point, I realised I was spending a good half an hour just tracking people down after a cutlass exploded.
What I took away from this is:
People are so helpful because this is a nice community, but they are also nice because the game mechanics make helping people fun. One of my favorite gaming moments of the last few years was seeing a stranded cutlass turret gunner who had decided to float for half an hour instead of respawn find his way onto my ship.
Finally, I don't think we'll have a problem filling multicrew ships. I used to worry about this all the time. I have a lot of very big ships. When I spawned my Starfarer, people were falling over themselves to join the crew. I don't think I'll have a problem with any of my bigger ships, after all.

tl;dr - this community is making the game far more fun than its current state should allow. Also, the mechanics that are in the game already serve to increase immersion so much that tedious S&R missions become gripping.



There's the other side with people not knowing what to do because there is no tutorial whatsoever, but if you go with the right mindset, understanding that the game is in alpha stage and under heavy development, you can have a great time, actually a memorable time because what you can do in Crusader is unique in the sense that no other game provides the mechanics that it already offers.

What you say may be true, but my point remains. (They released 2.0 like they said they would, but it's not what they advertised because it's not what they showed at Gamescom 2015.) They did not deliver what they said they would, and on that track record I don't believe they will do any better with 3.0. Like I said, I might change my stance if 3.0 is actually released as advertised, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
It did NOT because that demo is NOT in the alpha. They promise it will be in December, which means nothing until December.
With open development where is the point of showing something half a year ahead on a games convention and locking it away again?

Oh right, fresh cash.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom