CIG also haven't delivered the scope they have priomised, and may never either. They might, in about 5 years time, release something which contains about 20% of the promised scope... maybe.
The Star Citizen Thread v8
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
- Status
CIG also haven't delivered the scope they have priomised, and may never either. They might, in about 5 years time, release something which contains about 20% of the promised scope... maybe.
I wonder what specifically makes you think that Star Citizen has far greater scope and vision then most AAA games when those games deliver yaw dropping titles with next gen graphics and groundbreaking features whereas CiG talks a lot about stuff (original wording btw) without going into details or delivering anything neither on time nor at all. The "scope" and "vision" you refer to seems to be based on the dreamcrafting of the fans who entered the hype train many many years ago and have been going full steam ever since without correction or limitation by CiG so right now there is a big discrepancy between the "vision" and what CiG actually does. Nothing they do is particulary impressive nor groundbreaking.
It wouldnt be so bad if CiG would at least come through on some of its promises so there would be at least "hope" when it comes to the game itself but after 6 ( I would say 7 but we know now that Chris ROberts lied about 2011) years we have a track record of "delivered promises" and all of em are underwhelming when it comes to expectations. I find it funny that fanatics make a careful distinction to praise Star Citizen based on the vision created by its community and not on the actual work CiG delivers. The usual apologies about it being in alpha and in early stage sound hollow by now when CiG is closing in on the year date working on netcode and its been as long since the last major content patch.
If at least I could see them doing something amazing, something that would justify the delays or problems they apparently have. But all I see are mediocre graphics (sorry, have you seen current graphics?) with placeholder if not outright bad mechanics as a foundation. Their developed technologies (PG for example) which was used as a "stopper" excuse for I dont know how many months is lackluster and obviously not up to the task.
Whenever I read through patch notes the very first thing that comes to my attention is all the fluff words, multiple lines all describing the same thing, stuff that isnt even in the patch but everything goes to make the list look bigger and more impressive. Now a lot of companies do this and I think its even expected, its called self-marketing but CiG takes it to new heights (or better.....lows) in this regard.
And thats what Star Citizen is in a nutshell today. Impressive at first sight and crushingly sobering once you take a closer look. Naturally a lot of people are disappointed and irritated with the lack of progress and how so many things that sounded awesome in the past from the mouth of the head honcho himself turned out in the end. Its not surprising to see people asking questions, many of them in a tone we are used to from forums. The fact that CiG either ignores or outright denies facts and leaves the explanation or rather....interpretation of given statements to its more fanatical fans doesnt help to clear things up.
People wonder why things go so slow. Almost none of them are game developers so taunting them for being "clueless" might not be the best approach to generate understanding and sympathy for the companies problems. Personally after all the trust and support directed at CiG I feel its their obligation to provide answers and transparency but whatever exits CiG is more on par with obscuration and confusion creating more questions then answers. If such a large company like CiG is unable to provide statements that the average backer can understand (whos money was good enough to take in the first place) then I would expect at least statements that fellow developers could get but from reading through various forums it seems that even experts on the topic seem to be confused as to whats going on and what CiG actually does because the terms they use are not fitting to the things that can be seen.
Granted I have no idea if a person I meet on an internet forum is an actual developer or not. Claiming to be one is as easy as claiming to make the BDSSE. Content and tone provide fare more credibility then simple claims and hollow words. And I am not talking about delving into technical detail that leaves the average person dumbfounded and wishing its all over (the course CiG takes....). A professional and knowing expert should be able to explain things in laymans terms so even people not being experts in the chosen field can follow. That would be CiGs job, after all they have a marketing department and a full subsection dedicated to customer "support".
One of the first things I noticed when I picked up on Star Citizens problems years ago was how one-sided specific attributes were.
- ridicule and personal attacks
- deflection and distraction to simple questions
- overwhelming praise of non existing things
versus
- questions and worries described in a manner I as a non-developer could actually understand and share
- staying on topic and asking CiG
It made the impression of facing a mob defending CiG with torches and pitchforks. It created anger and dissent on my side from simply reading it.
Sorry to strand you with a wall of text you are not interested in but in case you forgot this thread is about things STAR CITIZEN and not real-time raytracing. Is that even something CiG is using right now? Or is it part of the ever-growing technical debt they have? Or is it again something the community wants SC to have and its not actually intended to be used at all?
When it comes to cynicism then you are correct. There is a lot directed against CiG and most of it is well deserved by now. I think the best course of action would be to ignore it or come through with actual results that would shut up such people. The ribbing CiG gets on various forums (not only here) is often made in jest, humorous or riddled with sarcasm but all of these things are not toxic IMO.
It wouldnt be so bad if CiG would at least come through on some of its promises so there would be at least "hope" when it comes to the game itself but after 6 ( I would say 7 but we know now that Chris ROberts lied about 2011) years we have a track record of "delivered promises" and all of em are underwhelming when it comes to expectations. I find it funny that fanatics make a careful distinction to praise Star Citizen based on the vision created by its community and not on the actual work CiG delivers. The usual apologies about it being in alpha and in early stage sound hollow by now when CiG is closing in on the year date working on netcode and its been as long since the last major content patch.
If at least I could see them doing something amazing, something that would justify the delays or problems they apparently have. But all I see are mediocre graphics (sorry, have you seen current graphics?) with placeholder if not outright bad mechanics as a foundation. Their developed technologies (PG for example) which was used as a "stopper" excuse for I dont know how many months is lackluster and obviously not up to the task.
Whenever I read through patch notes the very first thing that comes to my attention is all the fluff words, multiple lines all describing the same thing, stuff that isnt even in the patch but everything goes to make the list look bigger and more impressive. Now a lot of companies do this and I think its even expected, its called self-marketing but CiG takes it to new heights (or better.....lows) in this regard.
And thats what Star Citizen is in a nutshell today. Impressive at first sight and crushingly sobering once you take a closer look. Naturally a lot of people are disappointed and irritated with the lack of progress and how so many things that sounded awesome in the past from the mouth of the head honcho himself turned out in the end. Its not surprising to see people asking questions, many of them in a tone we are used to from forums. The fact that CiG either ignores or outright denies facts and leaves the explanation or rather....interpretation of given statements to its more fanatical fans doesnt help to clear things up.
People wonder why things go so slow. Almost none of them are game developers so taunting them for being "clueless" might not be the best approach to generate understanding and sympathy for the companies problems. Personally after all the trust and support directed at CiG I feel its their obligation to provide answers and transparency but whatever exits CiG is more on par with obscuration and confusion creating more questions then answers. If such a large company like CiG is unable to provide statements that the average backer can understand (whos money was good enough to take in the first place) then I would expect at least statements that fellow developers could get but from reading through various forums it seems that even experts on the topic seem to be confused as to whats going on and what CiG actually does because the terms they use are not fitting to the things that can be seen.
Granted I have no idea if a person I meet on an internet forum is an actual developer or not. Claiming to be one is as easy as claiming to make the BDSSE. Content and tone provide fare more credibility then simple claims and hollow words. And I am not talking about delving into technical detail that leaves the average person dumbfounded and wishing its all over (the course CiG takes....). A professional and knowing expert should be able to explain things in laymans terms so even people not being experts in the chosen field can follow. That would be CiGs job, after all they have a marketing department and a full subsection dedicated to customer "support".
One of the first things I noticed when I picked up on Star Citizens problems years ago was how one-sided specific attributes were.
- ridicule and personal attacks
- deflection and distraction to simple questions
- overwhelming praise of non existing things
versus
- questions and worries described in a manner I as a non-developer could actually understand and share
- staying on topic and asking CiG
It made the impression of facing a mob defending CiG with torches and pitchforks. It created anger and dissent on my side from simply reading it.
Sorry to strand you with a wall of text you are not interested in but in case you forgot this thread is about things STAR CITIZEN and not real-time raytracing. Is that even something CiG is using right now? Or is it part of the ever-growing technical debt they have? Or is it again something the community wants SC to have and its not actually intended to be used at all?
When it comes to cynicism then you are correct. There is a lot directed against CiG and most of it is well deserved by now. I think the best course of action would be to ignore it or come through with actual results that would shut up such people. The ribbing CiG gets on various forums (not only here) is often made in jest, humorous or riddled with sarcasm but all of these things are not toxic IMO.
What scope is that, exactly?
…and the problem remains that CIG has no idea what the budget is. Without that knowledge, they're designing blind — it's all pointlessly, incompetently wasted effort. It being a PC game with varying hardware doesn't remove that consideration — in fact, it makes it that much more important, and yet, they have no idea what they're even aiming for.
It's something that requires them to redo the only thing they have — the art assets — to provide that option and have it look good.
Just just said how: it's about the surfaces, lights, shadows (and by extension of all of those, geometry) and materials are rendered. If they want to offer RTX, they need to have a firm grasp of those, and they don't. Before they can have that, they need to have a firm grasp of what will appear on screen, and they don't. Before they have can have that, they need to have a firm grasp of what players will be doing, and they don't. Before they can have that, they need to have a firm grasp of what actions and activities will be available to choose from, and they don't. Before they can have that, they need to have a firm grasp of what core mechanics they will have on offer, and they don't.
It pertains to RTX in that it would be insane for them to implement such a late-stage visuals-only feature when they have no idea what the game even is to begin with. It's particularly insane seeing as how they can only bare deliver visuals that stand up to last-gen console games, meaning they've failed at the only thing they've even begun to almost-kind-of delivered on (which, again, is the one thing they shouldn't be delivering on yet).
Last edited:
Including Star Citizen / CiG
The point is that until SC/CiG comes through on said promises they are not entitled to the praise but usually SC defenders use the scope and ambition like actually achieved attributes. Its hollow words with nothing backing them up. By now we have 6 years of experience and history revising CiGs actual expertise and reliability when it comes to creating a game.
I'll judge the game when it's released (if I can be bothered to actually install it)
MTBFritz, is that wall of text somehow directed at me? Some parts of it appear to be tangentially related to something I've said but the rest of it reads like angry yelling at clouds.
What is your point?
MTBFritz, is that wall of text somehow directed at me? Some parts of it appear to be tangentially related to something I've said but the rest of it reads like angry yelling at clouds.
What is your point?
Space sim with interstellar scale, ability to land at planets, with space legs, wandering inside space stations, boarding and fps gameplay, as far as I've understood it. I thought most people in this thread had a general understanding of what Star Citizen is supposed to be.
Plus all of the features they've promised on top of that, all which I probably don't even know about as I don't follow the project closely.
Elaborate?
In which way you would design the assets to make them compatible with RTX? Do you even know the technical requirements for assets to be RTX compatible?
What part of SC's art assets is not compatible with RTX?
Do you have sources for any of your claims?
Parts of it are directed at you yes and your behavior you demonstrate. Feel free to read it to "get my point" I m often surprised how difficult that seems to be but if you have any particular problems feel free to message me about them. I m simply sharing my view on CiG based on my experience with them. If I see things that actually support or enforce my views I think its worth pointing out. Most of the post is not "about you" but about "Star Citizen...you know....the topic of this thread. If you are not interested in defending the game despite all the glaringly obvious problems then you simply shouldnt do it.
Either way, feel free to ignore my post if its too hard to understand or read. I know even tho it surprises me that many people are actually irritated by words written on a forum and hardly anybody makes the effort to express himself properly. I realize there are people out there who manage to do that with a few chosen lines delivering a punch and result but alas I am not one of them
SC has yet to deliver the scope (let alone in a robust stable shape). SC since the beginning is based on dreams and promises. SC doesn't count then. QED.
So… like CoD, EVE, KSP, ME, and about a bajllion other games then? Hardly “no game ever.”
We do. That's why the whole “greater scope” nonsense seems… so nonsensical. It's all been done before, and unlike SC, other games have actually delivered on what CIG has been struggling with and failing at for so long.
Again, you just did. Or were you just guessing when you said what data RTX works with?
Do you? Because nVidia's own PR talks about “replacement” and “new techniques” and tools to turn old assets into new, compatible ones… By the way, is RTX available outside of DirectX?
Do you?
Last edited:
None of those games have all of these features - only parts of them.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. None of the games you mentioned have anywhere near the promised scope of SC. Whether SC will actually deliver all it has promised either, is beside the point. If I even know anymore what the actual point is supposed to be.
The only thing that comes close is ED, and it hasn't delivered its "space legs" portion either.
No I didn't. I asked you to.
I'd like to see this quote. If true, it's interesting, but I'd like to know more.
I'm not going to source your claims. That's your job.
Don't worry about MTBFRitz - he's our version of GORF. We should respond with MTBFRizt is TYPING!!! whenever he posts
But its worth reading what he says, he makes some good points.
Although he is wrong about the 7 years thing. CIG didn't develop anything that first year. The videos of CR sat at a computer pressing buttons was just PR. Crytek and perhaps other third parties did all the work that first year, resulting in the rather impressive kickstarter demo that looked like an awesome game and caused many people to back it.... which of course, still doesn't exist in game as a thing.
Last edited:
I've got a question for you!
I see you favour PvE. What are your thoghts on PvE in SC? Considering CIG haven't talked about the PvP/PvE slider or private servers in quite a while. Are you looking forward to the PvP in SC?
You are probably confusing me for someone else if you think I even remotely "favour PvE". Most of my disappointments with ED have to do with the game's almost complete disregard for sensible PVP balancing or the lack of meaningful PVP related gameplay.
I'm not particularly looking forward to PVP in SC - for one thing, they would need a flight model at least as good and meaty as ED's, and I'm not seeing it. Although the FPS boarding type of stuff might be interesting - but that depends, on so much of the rest of the game. I didn't enjoy the FPS COD minigame they released a while ago much. I felt like it wasn't doing enough with the unique aspects of the space setting, like zero-G for instance.
I'm not particularly looking forward to PVP in SC - for one thing, they would need a flight model at least as good and meaty as ED's, and I'm not seeing it. Although the FPS boarding type of stuff might be interesting - but that depends, on so much of the rest of the game. I didn't enjoy the FPS COD minigame they released a while ago much. I felt like it wasn't doing enough with the unique aspects of the space setting, like zero-G for instance.
Last edited:
CoD does. ME does. EVE had the same scope and delivered pretty much all of it. KSP did offers just about all of it and with far more fidelity if you expand it a bit.
I'm referring to the fact that SC's scope is not real and to the fact that other games have already done far more than SC has ever managed. Like you said, dreams don't count. A grand scope does not excuse incompetent development practices and endemic mismanagement (but those two offer good arguments why you shouldn't — and also awfully precise reasons why you will anyway
— alter your art and rendering pipelines when you don't even know what your end result should be yet).Yes you did, with your “surfaces, lights, shadows and materials” comment (and, as mentioned, by extension the underlying geometry) — stuff that nVidia will offer tools to convert, on top of requiring a different rendering pipeline.
I'm asking you to source yours. You're making an awful lot of claims about what RTX is and what it does and how easy it should be for CIG to add.
Last edited:
Good news friend!
I heard it from a firend whooo
heard it from a friend whoooo
Said that Chris very recently said the flight model needs improving or something.
So we can add that to list of a gaziilion things that Chris has said are definitely maybe going to happen at some point!
Sorry, i looked at your friend list, full of PvEers, including Mobius himself.
Are you referring to the space version of CoD? Infinity Wars or whatever it was called? I haven't played it. I was not under the impression it was even an open-world MMO, let alone one with an interstellar scale?
ME is linear story-based RPG where you can only land on certain pre-determined, handcrafted locations on planets and does not give you true freedom to explore an open galaxy. Not even close to what SC is supposed to be.
EVE only released a miniscule stump of space leg type play, didn't really have any actual gameplay associated with it (and eventually removed it, from what I hear) It also doesn't let you land on planets. It doesn't have cockpit based flight, which is another core feature of SC, which I neglected to mention I guess.
KSP revolves around a single star system, has no combat or multiplayer, no walking inside spaceships that I can tell.
Is this some kind of point of contention with someone here? You're not the first one replying to me, apparently triumphant, in simply repeating what I already said. Indeed, they don't count.
Thanks for the link, I may read that when I have the time and inclination for it. Finally someone providing something tangible in relation to my original post on the subject.
You would have to refer to a specific claim, if you want to contest something.
Just for clarity, I'm not making definite claims about the ease of adding it, I'm speculating, with what I thought was a reasonable amount of qualifiers such as "probably" and "most likely". It's an area I have some related expertise in, so I felt qualified to make some educated guesses. That does not mean I think it's impossible for it to be harder than I think, but if someone wishes to contest it, I would expect them to provide something more tangible than "CIG is too incompetent to do it" as an argument.
I have honestly no idea why he's there, probably he just sent me a request and I accepted it, because that's what I usually do.
Don't worry about MTBFRitz - he's our version of GORF. We should respond with MTBFRizt is TYPING!!! whenever he posts
Although he is wrong about the 7 years thing. CIG didn't develop anything that first year.
I said so myself /pout
“Supposed to be” doesn't cut it.
What it does fits with SC's scope, unlike SC itself.
Same with EVE (which, btw, has had both planetary landings and cockpit views). Same with KSP.
Again, the whole point here is that SC is often lauded for its “great scope” which isn't greater than the scope of many other games (notably Freelancer…). Nothing SC does hasn't been done before, indeed many of the games have done far more than what SC has managed. SC is not impressive because dreams are not impressive, and what SC has delivered does not stack up against what others have delivered.
If you want to compare scope to scope, then that's fine, and in that case, SC is nothing special.
If you want to compare delivery to delivery, then that's fine too, and in that case, SC is very special… but in that meaning that is reserved for instances when you can't use mental handicaps as a pejorative.
No game has delivered what SC dreams of is a nonsensical statement because you can apply that to anything. No game has delivered what SQ1 dreamed of either, or EVE, or ED, or SpaceWar or any creative product ever made — that's just the nature of the creative process.
You were the one trying to suggest that SC's dreams mattered in some way. That you agree with the rest of us that they don't isn't so much a matter of triumph as one of confusion as to why you'd even bring up such an irrelevant point to begin with.
Fair enough. The problem here, of course, is that as mentioned, CIG does not have a great track-record in this department. Or, just to be precise: they have a track record of jumping on the latest greatest thing and adding it to its list of (irrelevant and ultimately unfulfilled) dreams. Other games have tried the same — DNF and Daikatana being the most famous ones — and that particular club isn't one you'd really want to join. So it's less a matter of “probably” and “most likely” as “I'm sure they'll promise it, and that's a horribly stupid thing of them to do, all things considered.”
Last edited:
- Status