The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
dayrth
Volunteer Moderator
Thats exactly what it is, but I find that sad. The fact that there are those who are prepared to take advantage of people like that makes me angry.
LOL and here we go
nah...I simply wont bother we talked about this exact same thing already and whatever you bring to the table has been brought up, tasted and puked back out because its not good ^^
Allright, rehashing stuff brings nothing new to the table except leftovers.
But, let's run with it then.
- They are delayed
- They will work on it for a few more years
- When it's released it might be bad
Allright, what's the alternative?
- Force them to sell of all assets
- Fire everyone
- Take all the money and refund the backers
- Keep the leftovers (if there are any)
OR
- Let them try to get it done
And I don't even mean the persistent universe crap but simply Squadron 42 for single player - THE basics of the kickstarter.
I mean, it's not like they try to NOT get it done. You do not keep people on the clock at a workplace and ask them to produce absolutely nothing or play world of warships during work hours.
It's also the situation that they DO have a lot of assets done but they are not connected into a coherent whole.
And that IS the focus they DO have right now and would most likely be able to do it during 2017.
- Flight engine works
- Performance capture is done
- Most needed ship models are done
There are two choices if we would have then. Ask them to scrap EVERYTHING since 2012 OR let them at least finish the basic Squadron 42 that the majority of the backers kickstarted.
The first choice would be the WORST choice because then EVERYTHING would be wasted time and the second choice would salvage the CORE of the kickstarter.
And can we honestly think that they cannot create a linear Wing Commander clone with the assets they HAVE and the experience they have had with earlier Wing Commander games.
My effortpost ignored 
I wonder how new backers must feel when they realise that a game that was kickstarted in 2012 is stiil in alpha/pre-alpha - or whatever it is - doesn't really work well at all, stuggles with 16 players but is definitely going to handle 1000s.
And then they see that it's apparently taken 143 mill - and then they see the video with CR saying they make their plans based on how much money comes in each month.
And then it dawns on them that it isn't even fully funded and there is no end in sight.
- - - Updated - - -
Don't feel bad commander - it was good post. I was just too busy getting another beer and making my post!
And then they see that it's apparently taken 143 mill - and then they see the video with CR saying they make their plans based on how much money comes in each month.
And then it dawns on them that it isn't even fully funded and there is no end in sight.
- - - Updated - - -
My effortpost ignored
Don't feel bad commander - it was good post. I was just too busy getting another beer and making my post!
The "due to unforseen circumstances" announcement (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/122989586, about 04:30 in) suggests that CIG might deliver their show appearance a day late, if PC Gamer succeeds in "dragging them down" to the stream at some point tomorrow.
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
*Pffft!*
Really?
To opened a fresh account here on this forum to post *that*?
*Sighs* Aside from the facts that despite your best attempts to clear CIG of all blame, can you tell all of us naysayers here when 3.0 is coming out?
Also can you explain to folks here why 3.0 was said to be definitely coming out in "Late 2016" according to Roberts and co, yet just a few weeks ago, we had Tony Z openly telling the "faithful" that actually, CIG were only just *starting* to figure out and plan critical functionality that will be featured in 3.0... "later" this year....
So, what gives?
[Edit]
And just to add how obviously "impartial" your post was...
- Flight engine works
- Performance capture is done
- Most needed ship models are done
*Hahah!* The flight model *works* does it? According to who exactly? You mean the people who have said that the supposed flight model changes CIG recently implemented offered little change to the balsa wood ships in space, turret-ting endlessly to have any hope for scoring a hit during ship to ship combat?
Performance capture is *done*?!?! What?! Oh no no no mate, CIG have stated that there are MORE re-shoots for SQ42 being done as we speak, so no, performance capture is not *done*... Not even remotely.
Most needed ship models are done. Nope. Those ship models (the ships that do exist in the game rather than the jpegs that sell for hundreds of dollars that don't) haven't been *refactored* yet since they don't meet the grand unifying "vision" that C-Rob wants for his oft mentioned "fidelity".
Last edited:
In addtion showing us beforehand that awesome faithrestoring gameplay of 3.0 at gamescom...
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
-Ignore-
Last edited:
Fresh account? That's news to me.
Pfft, I have done nothing of the sort. They certainly have blame in several parts I merely disagree on what parts or at what magnitude.
This is one of the parts where I do agree that CIG has a lot of blame. Their proposed time projections is incredibly off or overly optimistic to be diplomatic.
Well, according to me it does. FLIGHT model works, other factors that are yet to be fully implemented after 3.0 is ship modules and better implemented armour (if they EVER get physics based damage right).
Sure, large ships still feels too light and and has damage issues but the core flight model is sound.
Yes, they had some reshoots to do but hardly something that would require a whole cast of actors to return and add new scenes. Of course additional performance capture needs doing when they expand with the FPS and ship interactions. Im talking about actors and Squadron 42 storyline.
.[/QUOTE]
Im talking about the Squadron 42 ones.
- Military ships for the campaign
- Capital ships for the campaign
- Vanduul ships for the capaign
Hell, a lot of them will only be visible from the outside so they dont even NEED to be fully done for a SQ42 release.
You make it sound as if the sceptics are the bad guys. Thats not true. Nobody here can force them to shut down. The world is doing that and the way the market works regardless whats being discussed in this thread or how many people are "against it". At best we discuss opinions based on whatever facts we have available.
But thats exactly what they are doing. I mean they got 143 MILLION dollars for it and obviously that isnt enough and judgeing the content they managed to produce with that amount of money I d dare to say its a bottomless pit which private people wont be able to fund. Only at that point no investor will touch it because face it....with THAT track record regarding reliability and timely production they are not a good bet to put money on. I m not sure what you are saying really. You expect people to be HAPPY with whatever is available at the moment and smile and hand over MORE money? Well its a personal decision. Some people seem to be happy with the PU, I m not one of them based on whatever I can watch on twitch and youtube. I dont agree with the claim of "open development" yet others are. I m not out to force others to see it my way. You dont need to appeal to me to "give CiG a chance to do this". They dont need my consent or my goodwill for doing so. If it comes to my money they DO need tho they better deliver tangible results else I might not be willing to part with it. I worked too hard for my money and contrary to Chris Roberts MY boss would fire my if I delayed my work cointinously and the results I bring to the table were subpar at best or cold-blooded copy-cats. I m not getting the royal treatment in the world. OTHER game companies dont get the royal treatment also. Why does CiG? Whats so special about them? Their dream? Yes its grand but it seems its IMPOSSIBLE for THIS company to fullfill. You dont need to give up on your dream but maybe its a good idea to put your money on a different horse? A horse that manages to reach the goal line and not be last? I dont know I might be strange when it comes to expectations for my money. As I said....I didnt find it lying on the ground and nobody just "gave it to me". I d rather not burn it if I dont see potential.
What I see them doing is going to great lengths and effort to convince people they are doing it (homestead video, fluffy words, ATVs consisting 80+% of talk and no show, announcing stuff "weeks away" then delay at the last possible moment). I dont actually see them getting it done. They dont have their basics down. They are still in the process of adding features and designing stuff and are generally unable to fixate core features.....SEVEN years in. Okay if they are trying and doing their best its time to release them of their job and replace them with someone who can actually DO it.
WE dont make them do anything. Maybe you didnt notice but CiG doesnt really care what we think and what we want. The decision to increase scope was done by Chris Roberts. The vote might ve been a good scapegoat but it certainly isnt the reason for it. Critical information about status and development is hidden and met with silence only to be released on third party sites and interviews. Regardless what we d ask them, they would only do what THEY want anyway. Dont believe the illusion that you or your word has any weight in that company....I mean they got your money right?
I m not sure what you mean. Cryengine comes with an in-build flight engine. If you mean the flight MODEL then yes, there is one.....if its good or finished tho is debatable. Come to think of it. Cryengine also comes with an in-build FPS support so I dont see the accomplishment with SM in its current state.
edit: Got it. No they are not done. We ve seen in-editor animations, female characters are not in yet, character customization isnt in yet. Id say they have the major part of performance capture ahead of them.
I m not really sure thats the case. You have a lot of people with different desires and I know a lot of people who stated they dont care for SQ42. The success of the kickstarter was that it was a grand design catering to many people. I m aware they have to start somewhere but saying that the majority of the backers wanted SQ42 only.....I mean....where do you get your info from?
Chris Roberts was unable to do that without a Publisher stepping in and taking control /wink. As far as I m concerned we are seeing a replay in new clothes
Last edited:
So why have they been done, and redone, and refactored, and rebalanced, and redone, and refactored, and rebalanced.............
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
Well if you have been here for a long time already (and I should know better, considering this forum shows how long each users had been on there with the "ranking" system) then I apologize for making that assumption.
For everything else I wrote however, I fully stand behind what I said, and find the answers you provided rather weak to be quite honest.
I mean, if the shooting for Squadron 42's main story and such "finished", then why did we have one of the guys working on it mentioning yesterday that *more* script re-writes are in the making to help give the mov... *ahem* I mean, "game" a more "movie-like" feel? Wouldn't that require more shoots involving the likes of Oldman, Hamill, Anderson, etc?
And sure, *you're* happy with the flight model, unfortunately, a lot more people are *not* happy about it, or the changes that effectively did nothing to alleviate the issues.
Last edited:
- No, the Illfonic situation was never "explained". Please go ahead and cite your sources because I'm quite certain I didn't miss anything in that regard. They killed Star Marine. Then they resurrected it. That has nothing to do with the "delay of the project" as per your original comment: "Let a third party handle FPS (Illfonic debacle): Which was a hard lesson in communication that definitely delayed the project"
- No, they did not "upgrade CryEngine". They created a custom engine (StarEngine) from the base CryEngine3, and only implemented 64-Bit precision in some parts. That is NOT the same thing as "upgrading CryEngine to 64-Bit". This has been discussed to death already. Look it up.
- The Nov 2014 date was for the original Vision 1.0 spec. That already had +18 month lee-way. They GRADUALLY increased the scope and peaked at $65m in Nov 2014. That being the month the original should have shipped. They could have built and shipped the game promised in Vision 1.0; then continued on with improvements as per Vision 2.0 IF gamers had continued giving money. You know, just like what every other company does. Your comment that not extending the game's scope would somehow "would have been RUBBISH in comparison of quality and gameplay and only utilized a FRACTION of the funding they received" is without merit, irrelevant and irresponsible. NOTHING they have shown now - at 23 months later - has shown ANY evidence that it's better than what they would have delivered in Nov 2014. Aside from the fact that - to date - they haven't even delivered 15% of what was promised in Vision 1.0. Nobody asked him to increase the scope. He did that all on his own. And if you're thinking of even typing out the words "...but the community voted for it", save yourself the trouble because, again, that one has been thoroughly debunked (with cited sources and metrics) to death. I wrote an entire blog about that. Excerpt from that discussion:
Last edited:
[video=youtube;rLwPMFrAbP0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLwPMFrAbP0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h30m20s[/video]
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLwPMFrAbP0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h30m20s
. Strange list.Personally...
Start with a sensible deadline for the project, based on the funding that CIG have available (minus refunds, also expect some income). e.g. "SC 1.0 must ship by Dec 2018". From that, work out a beta date - it's an MMO so 3-6 months? So mid 2018 maybe?
Once you have a deadline, work out the feature list that can be practically achieved by that date.
- we will have A,B,C.
- we may have D.
- everything else will be post-release or scrapped.
Give backers the the deadline and features, and work towards that goal.
Mar 5th, 2016.
Ben Parry has had numerous discussions with Derek on this forum about the 64bit code/method... giving examples of how it's been done, at one point even checking with another CIG coder to be sure something was 64bit. Derek's main theme of response was, "Pay Attention, Fool. That doesn't mean it's 64bit." Ben has done all but produce the actual source code (which is never going to happen) to explain their methodology - it doesn't matter, when you've just decided Water Isn't Wet.
Ben could produce an apple as evidence that fruit exists, and Derek would say "Once again, you aren't paying attention. So let me make it perfectly clear: that's not fruit." The 64bit arguments, CryEngine modifications, all of it... he hasn't seen the code. He has no (at least current) more inside knowledge than you or I do. Derek, TheAgent - they missed Lumberyard by a mile, having no clue what was happening on that front. So his opinion on such things - which he's perfectly free to share - should be taken with such factors in mind.
Detractors say "It's late! Why is it late?!?" You've pointed out the obvious, true answer: because what's being planned for delivery now, is an expanded product. But for reasons that are simply mystifying, detractors can't accept THE ACTUAL ANSWER as the answer. Which tells us that some people just aren't interested in the answer, whatever it is.
You've pointed out that the Flight Model is working... what's the reply? "I hate it! It's not working unless I don't hate it!" Which is a lovely self-sustaining viewpoint, one that can always exist if you wish for it to.
CR might have said on Day 1, "There will be a Red Button that make stuff happen." On Day 267, the Art Team decides the button looks better if it's Green. And for the next two years, detractors are going to be screaming "CR LIED! He promised a RED BUTTON!"
Oooook then.
Last edited:
Why did the crobbler say expanded scope and funding would not delay the game, Is he bad at managing game development or was he channeling his inner second hand car salesman ?.
The game was pitched as the BDSSE it isn't and it isn't going to be, the flight model is more than a little bit naff. That's not a good foundation for what was originally a space ship game before CIG went PG bird crazy.
Constantly changing your story is not a good look for a company, it's the mark of liars and criminals such as fraudsters. Think dates, features and the status of star marine if you want an example of CIG spinning like a top.
Simply put trust them at your peril.
- Status