The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Nor me. I'd like to see SC as a great game.

CIG just need to pull their finger out and get on with the job - instead of faffing around endlessly with nonsense.

Agreed definitely don't want to see it fail. I want it to be excellent so I can finally enjoy it.

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

"5-ish years"? We didn't even know the game existed 4 years ago. Not to mention that CIG had to set up 4 offices and ramp up staff to ~330 people from less than 10.

Please for the love of god don't mention the building offices. It's five years according to CR sop lease don't defend or change what he said.

He said they were in Dev a year ahead of Kickstarter, that puts them on track for 3 years.

Scope/feature creep happened and a serious gross misunderstanding of modern game development timetables. CR was using feature film timelines; not modern video game ones.

Despite the delays they still haven't come close to implementing most of their core features.
 
Please for the love of god don't mention the building offices. It's five years according to CR sop lease don't defend or change what he said.

He said they were in Dev a year ahead of Kickstarter, that puts them on track for 3 years.

Scope/feature creep happened and a serious gross misunderstanding of modern game development timetables. CR was using feature film timelines; not modern video game ones.

Despite the delays they still haven't come close to implementing most of their core features.
Did I believe that the game would come out in 2 years as promised in 2012? No. In fact even though I was very interested in the game and followed it daily I didn't back until 2015. Chris is no doubt a smart guy and a respected game developer, but there was 0% chance the game would be complete in 2 years.

1) Chris was coming back from an extremely long hiatus in game development, and had little to no knowledge of the ins and outs of the CryEngine or modern game engines in general. He coded much of the pitch demo himself, with help from Crytek, but if you actually watch the video the demo is some basic scripting in the CryEngine with no significant changes to any sort of physics or gameplay mechanics that are not already available in the CryEngine.

2) CIG was a team of like 14 people, half of which weren't game developers (Ben, Sandi, Eric, etc.). It would have taken more than a year (and it did) to grow the company to a decent size and hire the people to make the game, and it's not an easy task to add people to a development team, especially in the software engineering field. The engineers need to get acquainted with code, get used to the development pipeline, etc. It's a huge logistical task to manage software development. If I can put it as an analogy, it's like dozens of people trying to paint the same picture. The more people you have, the more repo managers you need, and the merge requests just get piled up and you start having merge issues and it's all a giant mess.

3) Call of Duty, even with established studios, take 3 years to make. This should give you a perspective on how long game development really takes. The Division took 7 years to build, if you include the time they spent on making their Snowdrop engine, similarly to how CIG is building their engine right now.

To put it frankly, I had never worked in game development and I knew making the game even with the original pitch would have been impossible to make in 2 years. While Chris might have learned a lot about modern game development the past 2-3 years leading the project at CIG, his release dates were extremely optimistic. Use my Call of Duty example as a yard stick, compare the engine features and gameplay mechanics of Star Citizen and COD and make your own assumptions about the release date. I'm not going to say it's not CIG's own fault for putting out false expectations, but if you've followed the game for a decent amount of time you should know better than to keep believing in their release date goals. The release dates will stabilize as major engine changes are implemented, as R&D work is extremely hard to gauge the deadlines of.

So with that said, let's be precise. It was my impression that henry1491 was referring to people getting frustrated after 5-ish years of waiting, when it's been less than 4 years since KS. You can't really wait for something you don't know about.
 
"5-ish years"? We didn't even know the game existed 4 years ago. Not to mention that CIG had to set up 4 offices and ramp up staff to ~330 people from less than 10.

I agree with your general point though. The endless snark is just exhausting to wade through.

Got it, so game development doesn't begin until the general public knows about it, even if the lead developer himself says otherwise.
 
"I think that this is more a reflection of irritation and disappointment after 5(ish) years" was the original quote. I'm saying it's an exaggeration that backers were waiting for 5 years because they didn't even know it was being made for a chunk of that time.

The Division took 7 years to build (with a stable dev team from the beginning) if you include the time they spent on making their Snowdrop engine, similarly to how CIG is building their engine right now. But before release I wouldn't say that it was a title I had waited 7 years for.
 
gigantism;44 06472 said:
"I think that this is more a reflection of irritation and disappointment after 5(ish) years" was the original quote. I'm saying it's an exaggeration that backers were waiting for 5 years because they didn't even know it was being made for a chunk of that time.

The Division took 7 years to build (with a stable dev team from the beginning) if you include the time they spent on making their Snowdrop engine, similarly to how CIG is building their engine right now. But before release I wouldn't say that it was a title I had waited 7 years for.

That quote doesn't say we've waited five years for it, I'd rather interpret that as disappointment that five years of development has only this much to show for it.

Also, the Division had only been in development since 2013.

e: and the 'tech' argument to claim it's been in development longer doesn't work because by the same token Star Citizen 'tech' has been in development since well before 2009 via CryEngine 3.
 
Last edited:
That quote doesn't say we've waited five years for it, I'd rather interpret that as disappointment that five years of development has only this much to show for it.

Also, the Division had only been in development since 2013.

e: and the 'tech' argument to claim it's been in development longer doesn't work because by the same token Star Citizen 'tech' has been in development since well before 2009 via CryEngine 3.
That's also a valid interpretation.

I would draw a distinction with your 2nd comparison, however, the distinction being that Massive's dev team had total control over developing Snowdrop 7 years before The Division's release whereas you can't say the same with CIG and CryEngine 3 until 2012 (or 2011 if you count CR)
 
Last edited:
If ACID is such an achievement for CIG, just wait until they hit Brewer's CAP Theorem...

"We have this problem, and we're the first to ever encounter it, ever..."
 
I have a question about the planet landings in SC.

If I remember correctly, they were only proposed as cutscene landings on pre made areas on otherwise inaccessible planets, which was cool in the design philosophy of the original pitch.

However, then David Braben up and promised full scale planets which are fully accessible, that you could roam about even if there's nothing on them.

It was only after FD actually got very close to doing that and they rightfully bragged about it with a few teaser tech videos that PG planet landings became a promise for SC.

Am I wrong about this? Or was it a promise from before that.

I'm absolutely certain FD promised the free form planet landings first and CR came later cause he couldn't stand being one upped but I'm not sure about the exact gap between the promises.
 
Last edited:
I FINALLY got home internet, 4.5 weeks after moving in to my new flat! So one of the first things I did was watch the Alpha 3 demo that has been discussed at such length over the last few days :).

Rather than worrying whether it was being played live, or a build just for Gamesom, I just treated it as CIG showing the best possible version of what they have. There were plenty of things that were technically impressive, and I really liked the new ship HUD. I thought the little orrery was fantastic, and would prefer that they keep it simple, rather than over develop it in future; of course, the SC star systems are designed with gameplay in mind rather than realism, so they can be made to fit in a simple orrery much better than those in ED can. The seamless transition from space station to ship to planet was impressive too. The terrain generation looked rather 90s noise mapping though

As for the gameplay, I wasn't too impressed, sadly. The flight model still looks like a kid playing with their toy in third person, and the combat looked pretty terrible, with wimpy audio. While the mission presentation was in a different league to those in ED, I have to wonder how many such handcrafted missions are possible in the PU; things look pretty solid on the mission from for SQ42 though :). I've seen people play the same missions over and over in the current build, getting different outcomes; this is just daft for a PU!
 
Last edited:
That's also a valid interpretation.

I would draw a distinction with your 2nd comparison, however, the distinction being that Massive's dev team had total control over developing Snowdrop 7 years before The Division's release whereas you can't say the same with CIG and CryEngine 3 until 2012 (or 2011 if you count CR)

Wiki quote : "The development of the game started in 2011"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Citizen#Development

Chris Roberts quotes from 19th October 2012 :

"I’ve been working with a small team over the course of the past year to get the early prototyping and production done" minus one year from the day he said that is 19th October 2011.

"We’re already one year in - another two years puts us at 3 total which is ideal. Any more and things would begin to get stale."

Source : https://www.themittani.com/features/exclusive-interview-star-citizens-chris-roberts
 
I have a question about the planet landings in SC.

If I remember correctly, they were only proposed as cutscene landings on pre made areas on otherwise inaccessible planets, which was cool in the design philosophy of the original pitch.

However, then David Braben up and promised full scale planets which are fully accessible, that you could roam about even if there's nothing on them.

It was only after FD actually got very close to doing that and they rightfully bragged about it with a few teaser tech videos that PG planet landings became a promise for SC.

Am I wrong about this? Or was it a promise from before that.

I'm absolutely certain FD promised the free form planet landings first and CR came later cause he couldn't stand being one upped but I'm not sure about the exact gap between the promises.


I remember vividly that PG was a stretch goal in the sens of "we'll spend some time looking into this, but no promises" for SC. Back then, the cultists proclaimed that handcrafted is better than PG in every way, and that PG could not possibly bring anything worthwhile to the game.

Ya hear me, cultists? I'm saying that CIG did the right thing in bringing PG into the fold.

Looking at the transitions in the 3.0 demo makes it obvious that it was staged as hell. They did what they could to make it look like actual gameplay, but for the most part it's only bits and pieces held together by cutscenes. I stand by my earlier statements: I'll believe 3.0 when I see it, and I am not going to get overly excited again like back when they showed Star Marine.

They should bring that back. Maybe they could hire someone who's good at that stuff? Like, I dunno, some small studio that already exists and that has a lot of experience with CE?

That december release date? No way it's gonna have trading, piracy and all that stuff in it. Well maybe in embryonic form with randomized pricings and a prototype UI, but no full fledged implementation. Kinda like the system map they showed in 3.0, which was just a few circles and a few spheres, and had the crowd cheer for some weird reason.

20160819_221357.jpg


Seriously, that has these guys cheering?
 
Kinda like the system map they showed in 3.0, which was just a few circles and a few spheres, and had the crowd cheer for some weird reason.

Seriously, that has these guys cheering?

That was pretty impressive back when I first saw it in 1993.
I mean there was some impressive stuff in the demo, but cheering for things like this and the ladder honestly baffles me.

Though to be fair I might cheer if I saw a boarding ladder deploy in ED. It would space legs are coming.

CMDR CTCParadox
 
[h=1]Star Citizen: Bugsmashers - Episode 31[/h][video=youtube;rviZvBdJOUs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rviZvBdJOUs[/video]
 
I don't agree, and I think you are being overly simplistic about it or just not understanding how encompasses a wide range of mechanics needed for the future.
It doesn't matter if you agree or not — it's a simple fact.

What they've done is not hard and is not persistence other than in the most trivial meaning of the word — definitely not the meaning it has when talking about online games or indeed games in general. They're touting as a great achievement something that would be a waste of lead on everyone else's penned-down-on-a-napkin feature list because it's so self-evident that you'll have it. It's like making a to-do list for the day and adding “wake up” to it in big bold letters — unless there's something wrong, that part shouldn't even need to be mentioned. Hell, not having it might be worth adding to the feature list because that's such an odd-ball design choice that you probably have some strange plan to go along with it.

If at some point they decide to add persistence to the game, then maybe we can be ”meh” about it (since it's to be expected of an MMO) but until then, what they've added in 2.x is at best worthy of a curious raised eyebrow to say “wait… you didn't have that before?” Of course, they rather need to have a proper world state before it can be made persistent, and that looks like it's a long way off.
 
Last edited:

Jex =TE=

Banned
…which means 3–4 years per sim. Less if you include the expandalones.

Haha so next you're going to tell us that Falcon, Falcon 2.0, Falcon 3.0, and Falcon 4.0 are all just one game? Get real.

Oh look!!

Spanning well over a decade, the Falcon 4.0 series is one of the longest running game series using the same code base in PC history.

You will of course be able to provide citations for your next responses won't you because so far, you've both been wrong on your assertions.
 
Oh look!!
Yes, look. 3–4 years per game.

84–87 -> Falcon
–88 -> Falcon AT
88–91 -> Falcon 3.0
–93 -> MiG-29 / Hornet NSF
94–98 -> Falcon 4.0

Falcon 4 being maintained and expanded on almost continuously since release does not change either the start date or the release date.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom