Star Citizen Thread v6

[MTBFritz]

Thanks Zetta for yet another very entertaining reddit link and all it encompasses.

Reading through the comments one post specifically jogged a memory.

The 2016 CitizenCon demo while wildly known as a marketing stunt by now was intended by CiG to show the kind of gameplay to be expected from 3.0. I dont hold my horses for sandworms because that was obviously tied directly to a planet which doesnt exist (or is not related, not sure if thats the same with CiG) in Star Citizen but the REST......the landing, the buggy driving and the fights among the way.....or was that silently dropped already (no need to answer that )

Personally I will boot up the old Citizencon footage when 3.0 hits and compare textures and animation as well as content. I wonder if the current version of 3.0 even comes close to the 2016 demo or if theres actually anything in there thats new since then.

Do I actively make life for CiG harder? I dont think so. In the end I believe that its only appropriate to expect AT LEAST the content that was promised a year ago. In truth tho I would expect much more. Its only because we are talking about CiG and SC that I would be satisfied with year-old conditions in 3.0

Many of the currently viable opinions among fans are also purely fan-constructed as well. Like a few of them (lets call them "cult ringleaders") come up with a plausible explanation and spread it among followers repeating it time and time again and after a while it turns into some kind of "truth". The cult leader (CiG) never gives a clear cut statement about the state of things but "hints" subtle stuff that would underline and support the theories made up by his underlings. CiG really makes up its own reality, facts and laws be damned. And there are obviously enough people who rather live in a lie then face the world. Their defense is iron clad as well. When challenged to provide evidence for claims all they have to do is to say "its in one of the ATVs..." and thats that. Chances are with all the sheer number of ATVs out there that there is indeed one which holds a snippet that "might" support his/her (any really) claim but going through them in order to find it will cost you years of your life so trying to challenge a ringleader and put him on the stand is self-defeating.....really clever

"Cult" is by now not a derogatory or offensive term....its a pretty precise description when observing CiG and its core community. People might not like it and a lot of people get offended when told the truth....doesnt make the truth any less true.

Would I have to deal with the pro-fans only....I would ve given in by now. These people are beyond help, they happily manufacture their own truth to live a life in rapture. Trying to address concerns or point out shortcomings marks you immediately for personal attacks or hate campaigns while even more fantastical versions are spun up in order to defeat your heretical claims. And I m not even out to "destroy" Star Citizen even tho I m sure the truth will eventually do just that.....

In the end I m still trying to figure out what the deal is with Star Citizen. And collecting facts as well as observing the development are pretty much the only tools I got. I frequent other forums because other people have a more developed attention to detail and can point out stuff that I miss thus helping me in my task. Of course the challenge is to sift through the absolute mass of material and distinguish between "facts" and opinions and disregard the hoaxes or constructs, recognizing potential shills on the way. It all has become very complex over the years and I sadly admit that the "system" as it is by now would make short work of any real newcomer ending up in this project. These people dont stand a chance and wouldnt it be for many SC ultras knee-jerking and reacting to skepticism in the only way they know (being abusive, aggressive and bringing up MrSmart....really folks, not a smart move when defending SC), their ranks would be far bigger then they currently are.

 

[MTBFritz]

Another post in the links provided by Zetta cracks me up

Well, they've been following the development, so it stands to reason that their perception of what the game will be has changed as the intent for the game has. There weren't even going to be planetary landings at all in the original scope of the game. So they are trading having more set piece planets (or empty ones) for having fewer more hand-crafted ones. Its pretty simple.

I interprete this as a trade-off, reducing or dropping originally claimed features but adding more versatile stuff at the same time which in the end would make Star Citizen better as a whole and not a linear experience.

While this sounds reasonable in the beginning I wonder if people forgot the influx of roughly 150 million dollars and the bloating of the company to its current size over the years? I think with all the resources and time spent so far its completely reasonable to expect old promises AND new stuff and dont simply settle for either one of them.

Salesman: I know sir, you purchased a basket of sweet fruit and you already paid for it as well.....many times over, I d also like to thank you for your patience in waiting on said basket but I m sorry to inform you that all we have available at the moment is a bunch of cucumbers and flower petals in a bucket.....oh...and no refunds.

Only that CiG doesnt acknowledge its past promises and failures and acts like they are "right on course" forgetting to mention obvious discrepancies and shortcomings making you think you are getting what you paid for and much much more

I ll repeat it because it might not be clear....


Star Citizen has to live up to a development cycle of 6+ years and financial value of 150+ million dollars. THAT will be the base of its evaluation. Not what they originally proposed. That they obviously fail to deliver their original proposal is shameful enough already but I thought I remind people because so many act as if getting the 2012 goals is good enough. Its not. We had an increase in scope and a following increase of funding which put the whole project on a completely different level. If the 2012 projection outlives the current 2017 state of the game I dont know what else to say. But as I mentioned before....some people are beyond help.

 

[MTBFritz]

Sorry for the spam

Spoiler

 

[Stigbob]

Sorry guys but all that fidelity is confusing me, with 3.0 will be released 5->10 star systems or 1 star system with 5->10 planets?

The current claim by Chris Roberts is that his massive game will have 5-10 systems, even though he sold 100 for launch day as a stretch goal. He also has a marked tendency to fib outrageously so taking that into account 2-3 systems would be exceeding his previous claim to performance ratio by several orders of magnitude, and 1 partial system would be about normal.

3.0 is the MVP.

Save yourselves get out now.

 

[MTBFritz]

incredible summary of Star Citizen from this link

The standard line is that the game's developers are focused on building the tools they need to make the rest of the game. Because Star Citizen's scope is so huge, it presents technical challenges that nobody's overcome before. Once those are solved, progress on the rest of the game will proceed quickly.

The counterpoint is: the game's scope is so huge because the developer's made tons of promises that are totally incompatible. Because they promised to make the game so incredibly detailed, they chose to build it on CryEngine, which is known for making glossy single-player FPSs. But they also promised it would be an epic spaceship-simulating MMO, so they have to accommodate giant spaceships flying across great distances at high speeds. That's like using a sculptor's hammer and chisel to build the Empire State Building.


They've had to do a bunch of hacks and workarounds just to get it to the point where up to 24 people can fly around mid-size ships at 20fps and shoot at each other. They're working on a bunch of different fancy tech solutions that will supposedly turn this into a full-fledged MMO with a shared persistent universe, player-driven economy, and intricate clan dynamics. There'll be hundreds of players in kilometer-long capital ships fighting Star Wars-esque battles for control of key planets. And each player's surroundings, from their station to their bed, will be rendered in Crysis-level detail.
So, the backers are right that if CIG pulls this off, it'll be amazing. But the much more likely scenario is that they've just set themselves an impossible task.


What moves this from incompetent to sinister is that they're selling this "vision" for huge amounts of money. There's folks who've proudly given tens of thousands of dollars to this "game" and they really couldn't have done that without the explicit encouragement of the developers. CIG has put way more work into milking their backers than they have into actually making a game that's fun to play.

 

[K-NINE]

incredible summary of Star Citizen from this link

Question: with only 5 - 10 systems planned, can I presume that if I purchased one of those expensive exploration vessels, I'll have mapped the entire known universe in a day or two (assuming that the expensive exploration JPEG I've paid for ever makes it into the game...)

 

[Stigbob]

http://www.bitesizeenglish.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hit-the-nail-on-the-head-610x426.jpg


Question: with only 5 - 10 systems planned, can I presume that if I purchased one of those expensive exploration vessels, I'll have mapped the entire known universe in a day or two (assuming that the expensive exploration JPEG I've paid for ever makes it into the game...)

I've frequently posted in the past few years that player numbers versus promised systems made exploration entirely unworkable, that was also before they cut 90-95% of the content. Never got anything approaching a coherent answer.

The games already failed.

 

[BurnyBurns]

The games already failed.

It might have the very moment Chris Roberts got thrown a bunch of money by people who can't and don't demand accountability at them. It's only now, that we see where the implications lead. Edit: Well we've been able to see it the past five years or so, but the longer this goes on, the more bizarre the state of the project gets and the clearer it becomes, that the thing is beeing mismanaged headlong into a wall.

 

[Asp Explorer]

the thing is beeing mismanaged headlong into a wall.

But it's a million-poly, high fidelity and ultra realistic wall, voice acted and motion captured by Famous Actors, and it's script is 1500 pages long.

 

[MTBFritz]

But it's a million-poly, high fidelity and ultra realistic wall, voice acted and motion captured by Famous Actors, and it's script is 1500 pages long.

If you put it that way I m becoming antsy with anticipation again....you are an evil evil man

 

[Knightshark]

Tzzzz.... https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/controversial/

This is getting some serious up/down voting.

 

[Thargon]

The current claim by Chris Roberts is that his massive game will have 5-10 systems, even though he sold 100 for launch day as a stretch goal. He also has a marked tendency to fib outrageously so taking that into account 2-3 systems would be exceeding his previous claim to performance ratio by several orders of magnitude, and 1 partial system would be about normal.

3.0 is the MVP.

Save yourselves get out now.

For those that want to:

---> THIS WAY: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/

 

[Thargon]

Having your cake and eating it - Reddit thread (with much White Knighting) regarding Planetary tech and (lack of) planets.

Edit: Best quote on that page ever - "I totally dont care if it is 5, 10 or 100 systems at launch. That problem is a simple rethorical discussion on who said what, when, why, and "howmygodCIGjustchangedaword".

https://np.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6o46n7/having_your_cake_and_eating_it_too_planetary_tech/

 

[ZioYuri78]

Thanks all for the answers.

The current claim by Chris Roberts is that his massive game will have 5-10 systems, even though he sold 100 for launch day as a stretch goal. He also has a marked tendency to fib outrageously so taking that into account 2-3 systems would be exceeding his previous claim to performance ratio by several orders of magnitude, and 1 partial system would be about normal.

3.0 is the MVP.

Save yourselves get out now.

Don't worry, i'm out since last year

 

[Calebe]

Wokawidget I was totally seriously being sarcastic.
.
Calebe

 

[Slythe]

Tzzzz.... https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/controversial/

This is getting some serious up/down voting.

From the linked original post on the Star Citizen development thread:

"Chris Roberts tells Gamestar he plans to launch with 5 to 10 star systems, not the 100 claimed in the 2012 Kickstarter"

I do have some sympathy with them on this one. If I remember it correctly originally they were planning on each planet containing just a few tiny but highly-detailed points of interest with a loading screen to take the player from orbit to the POI. Switching to modelling entire planets/moons (even if it is technically possible using their engine) completely changes the amount of work needed to model a system so a reduction in the number of systems/increase in the amount of time needed is entirely expected. As far as I could see the entire community of SC backers were in favour of the change, so it's not 100% the fault of the developers. Of course Chris Roberts should never ever have suggested it as a viable option in the first place or should have put more effort into telling them why it was a bad idea...

 

[Ian Skippy]

From the linked original post on the Star Citizen development thread:

"Chris Roberts tells Gamestar he plans to launch with 5 to 10 star systems, not the 100 claimed in the 2012 Kickstarter"

I do have some sympathy with them on this one. If I remember it correctly originally they were planning on each planet containing just a few tiny but highly-detailed points of interest with a loading screen to take the player from orbit to the POI. Switching to modelled entire planets/moons (even if it is technically possible using their engine) completely changes the amount of work needed to model a system and the backers were entirely in favour of this switch so a reduction in the number of systems is not unreasonable. Of course Chris Roberts should never ever have suggested it as a viable option in the first place or should have put more effort into telling them why it was a bad idea...

The number of 'handcrafted' places didnt change, and they now claim to have amazing PG tech. Once you have that tech, making a 100 systems with full planets is trivial, and you still only have to do the POI. The reason is different: with 30 POI per planet, 5 planets per system, and 100 systems, CIG set themselves the task of creating 15,000 POI. Turns out they realized they cant do that. So they reduce it and hide behind the 'PG is the reason and will make everything awesome!' line.

 

[1500]

From the linked original post on the Star Citizen development thread:

"Chris Roberts tells Gamestar he plans to launch with 5 to 10 star systems, not the 100 claimed in the 2012 Kickstarter"

I do have some sympathy with them on this one. If I remember it correctly originally they were planning on each planet containing just a few tiny but highly-detailed points of interest with a loading screen to take the player from orbit to the POI. Switching to modelling entire planets/moons (even if it is technically possible using their engine) completely changes the amount of work needed to model a system so a reduction in the number of systems/increase in the amount of time needed is entirely expected. As far as I could see the entire community of SC backers were in favour of the change, so it's not 100% the fault of the developers. Of course Chris Roberts should never ever have suggested it as a viable option in the first place or should have put more effort into telling them why it was a bad idea...

No, the entire community of SC was not in favor of it. And it is 100% the developers fault, they are the ones making the game and calling the shots.

 

[AJW]

From the linked original post on the Star Citizen development thread:

"Chris Roberts tells Gamestar he plans to launch with 5 to 10 star systems, not the 100 claimed in the 2012 Kickstarter"
...

It is worth noting that it isn't just the 2012 Kickstarter that claims 100 systems. The CIG website still says exactly the same thing:

ONE HUNDRED STARS AND GROWING
Star Citizen will launch with one hundred star systems, each with multiple landing points to explore. Star Citizen’s high-fidelity worlds are expertly crafted to give players an endless platform from which to launch their adventures; no matter where you go, there’s something you haven’t seen before!

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/about-the-game/universe

 

[Memnoch]

As long as they don't declare that any version of their game is the "launch" version then they can say what they like I guess. If they can create 5-10 worlds with PG and then sprinkle on the more highly detailed hand made stuff like stations and factories, surely churning out another 95 wouldn't be some impossible goal.

That description clearly has the original, much smaller, vision for the game, and it makes me wonder why they haven't updated it. This idea of having multiple landing points and now a fully explorable PG world where landing anywhere is possible seem mutually exclusive.

If what we get in 3.0 gives the mere illusion of what they show off and ends up in reality being more like a small number of POI on the surface and very little exploration outside of that, backers aren't going to be happy at all.

I shall watch closely and keep my money in my pocket for now.