Deal!
The Star Citizen Thread V10
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
- Status
Deal!
Surprise!!!CIG lied again....reworked 300 series going to arrive in 3.5 but ship interior does not look as it was advertised on the expo....here
on the left side you can see how CIG presented 300 series interior and on the right side this is how actualy looks in game
P.S. Don´t worry because CIG was thinking about anything and very soon for just 29.99$ you will be able to change&customize your ship interior!!!
on the left side you can see how CIG presented 300 series interior and on the right side this is how actualy looks in game
P.S. Don´t worry because CIG was thinking about anything and very soon for just 29.99$ you will be able to change&customize your ship interior!!!
Last edited:
Worlds apart, the actual ingame graphic looks poor and dirty compared to the high-rez demo version.
Is, is that a sink?
You just don't understand fidelity development. This is how it was always meant to be. If you remember differently then your memory must be faulty. Please report to the nearest backer HQ for reedification.
Yep,sink in space
...if anyone is interested to see reworked 300 series here bellow you can see all details in this video[video=youtube;3CWSOKNSO2Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CWSOKNSO2Q&t=[/video]
Last edited:
Like durrr! How else are you going to fill up your ice cube trays?
Yes, I'm serious. I thought Squadron 42 was supposed to be an episodic, cinematic, single-player mission-based game in the spirit of Wing Commander. If that's what it is, then it would have limited areas designed around specific scenarios/missions. You know, like a videogame as opposed to the giant sprawling immersive alternate reality that Star Citizen the mmo is supposed to be. I see no reason why you'd want SQ42 to have entire fully realized planets and star systems or free roaming or any of that junk. Isn't it basically modern AAA Wing Commander?
This is a bit of a stretch. You could not get into the interior when the 300i was at the expo. The only way to see the interior then was to glitch the 3rd person camera into the the ship.
Financially speaking?
Last edited:
Definitely not for a never been done before pc master race centric 2020+ beyond AAA game.
It's more likely that they simply added a basic interior and then adds "upgrades" ingame where one can replace the interior towards the spiffy interior once showed.
They have apparently added armour and some ship colour customization in-game at the moment in 3.5 PTU.
That said, the 350r which looked nice and sleek with it's pitch black polished exterior now looks like something dragged in the dust with it's dusky gray colouring.
Yes I can agree with that but thats not what "on rails" means. I admit that the original error/mistake lies with Agony-Aunt for using a term that is not appropriate but you still agreed with it thus deepening the confusion. Wing Commander was never on rails. The X-wing or Tie-fighter series were not on rails. You also make the mistake to bloat Star Citizen into something which it isnt.....an alternate reality. Star Citizen will AT BEST (and thats a high bar to pass....) be a video game when its done. Probably not a very good one compared to what other video games offer for much less money. It simply doesnt have the capabilities nor the technical foundation to do what you expect it to be. There are currently a lot of open-world games on the market. Thats what Star Citizen tries to accomplish. As a genre or feature its already late to the party. Right now it looks like Ubisoft is focusing heavily on open world and continouisly improve and enlarge that features limits.
As for an alternate reality I dont think its even possible today bar individuals who live in one already while walking through the real world. While you advertise a version of Star Citizen that it "wants to be" its advisable to stay on the ground and evaluate Star Citizen for what it is RIGHT NOW and what its possible limitations are and based on the technical foundation as well as the development focus demonstrated by CI-G over the past 4 or 5 years you are simply using terms and visions that are not applicable. Aiming high doesnt automatically forgive past mistakes or actions. Regardless of the eventual end goals companies and people have to answer to current events and actions and justify expense and duration and more importingly...continue to show constant progress and growth in order to get the necessary support. In terms of video game development I would assume that means overcoming technical hurdles or problems while adding to the game constantly. The fanatical fanbase mistakes these terms and applies "company progress and growth" to Star Citizen by happily bringing up the fake counter as if that would improve the state of the project in any capacity. CI-G growing and adding more side-branches is NOT equivalent to Star Citizen growing and improving. Accumulating more and more money is NOT equivalent to the game becoming better and better. Not what the real income is based on promises and not an actual equivalent value. Promises and visions have grown and been finetuned to trigger certain people and keep up the hype but the actual game (you know....the "real" result as it is now) doesnt compare to these visions and simply saying "it ll be all right once its finished, who cares about what it looks and plays like now?" is a folly and also not how real life works. Thats why Star Citizen reminds me more and more of a religion rather then a video game. Whats most important is your belief and your devotion. Hang on to your belief regardless of how numerous or good counter evidence is and keep donating money even tho you get next to nothing in return (devotion). Star Citizen is already ultra late when it comes to fuilfilling past promises. Some people probably have already given up on it alltogether because CI-G simply doesnt be capable to get its thing together at all. Constantly adding new stuff and reworking existing assets without fullfilling old promises. Its out of control and doesnt seem to be able to catch up to what "it wants to be" at all continuing to fall behind the curve and the rest of the pack the more time passes.
Many people avoid discussing religion in a circle of folks who have different faiths simply because its a powder keg for conflict and violence. Many religions are not compatible and advocate small but critical differences in world view or behavior. Now cults are different to religion because the focus usually is money in exchange for a preferrable world view and promise. Its a subtle difference but an important one because if money is the driving factor then everything deteriorates and degenerates into a scam rather then a true religious belief. Cults are on the same level as the scammer selling you a potion of healing promising you it ll cure all your problems.
CI-G centers around money, depends on it for survival and does everything to get it from its flock. If people with deep pockets, you know...the ones who enabled CI-G to stay afloat this far would actually evaluate what they really get for their cash on a factual basis and not a theoretical one I guess Star Citizen would ve folded back in 2015 when Mr.Smart announced it. Blind devotion and fanaticism avoided the collapse while at the same time CI-G downgraded and slowed development progress to compensate for the drastically reduced income. An income they basically draw FOR FREE. People still paying money into the project are not entitled to anything, have no garantuee to get something out of it at the end and also use extremes to keep the dream alive. Focus on the lie, not reality. Always look forward, forget the past and ignore current hardship. Disregard warnings and fend off accusations that threaten the vision, if not possible by arguments and rethoric use aggression.
Is it really surprising that Star Citizen has been labeled a cult?
Its not healthy nor supporting if CI-G owns a horde of lapdogs who simply lap up yet another vision of future-maybes, automatically disregard all current conditions on behalf of a "vision" and aggressively attack whoever doubts the companies capabilities or critizises the projects current state.
Worse....the 10 iterations of this thread have shown a very clear line of progression. If unable to counter arguments and doubts with real examples or evidence (which would be the state of the game or its technical foundation which enables features and the end goal) the course of action jumps to "play for time" by all means necessary.
- Zero tier implementation as justification for shortcomines or broken features
- reworking existing features to keep up hope for improvement
- pointing to next month or next year to gloss over current conditions
- claiming "to have fun" in defense of the projects current shortcomings despite all the evidence pointing in the other direction (frustrating)
- playing down existing competition and bloating up minor inconvinences in them in order to score points
We had our share of blatant lies as well where certain posters would spout made-up facts in order to derail its course. All of them were either rebutted by investigating or analyzing the existing game or remain unrefuted due to lack of information or because they are based on some intangible factor that is only applicable on an individual basis and says more about the individual then the game itself. Arguing on behalf of Star Citizen is a true test of devotion because the game itself doesnt provide the arguments required to defend it. So people make up arguments on its behalf.
Never forget that we are talking about a video game here, not a human or family members or religion. Thats why the constant mention of "hate" only supports the view of outspoken pro-SC fans to be cultistic or to be deluded.
And just to make it clear. I am not adressing the one-time purchase people who geniuinly have fun. They usually are not the ones who engage in heated disucssions or try to "prove" something. A lot of people purchase wares and things that they dont need on a daily basis. And if I buy something that doesnt hold up to its advertised promise I dont usually throw it away in disgust but try to get as much out of it as possible while adjusting my future reactions to the seller or product. So people buy in for 35 bucks and play the "game"...often having genuine fun. Sure, got no beef with that. My problem is with the folks who automatically label me a threat or hater for having a different opinion which I can back up while all they can do is make up another excuse, distract, disregard and point and laugh instead of accepting that Star Citizen "maybe" is not what it wanted to be back in 2012 and doesnt seem to have the capabilities to ever get done.
Instead spite-pledging is a thing it seems....or pushing back when faced with resistance as the only motive rather then discovering truth and facts. People happily invest hundreds of dollars on something that isnt worth cents in other games justifying this ridiculous expense to themselves by saying they "keep the dream alive" or because they have more money then they know what to do with (aka disposable income lol) and not because its an actual value they draw in return. Entertainment value is different to everybody. I might be "stingy" when it comes to parting with money and obviously the Free to Play market thrives on people who either misjudge entertaining value heavily or are prone to losing overview on actual expenses quickly. While the individual view on something is next to worthless to estimate a products quality the overall response of the audience as well as sales are far more expressive and are often used to transport or prove viability or quality.
The problem in Star Citizen is that the funding site often used in defense is not a reporting tool but a propaganda one. We dont know how the numbers come together exactly nor do we have actual insight into sales or quanitity. Worse...the funding counter has already been proven to be misleading yet people continue to bring it up completely disregarding how inexpressive it is. Also pointing to the 250 million RL dollars collected is not proof for quality but at best one for the gigantic waste of such a sum.
Articles and test/reviews are another tool to estimate a products value. They are used to fixate a products grouping or capability based on actual performance tests or demonstrations. In short.....stating what a product "is" and "is not" to come to their conclusions.
Star Citizen avoids this by floating in an ever lasting alpha or tech-demo state, refusing to reach certain milestones that could be evaluated on a factual basis (performance tests, stress tests, actual content), hiding behind zero-tier implementations and "early days" statements. Star Citizen in 2019 has not managed to commit to a clear message or goal but continues to be a vague and grand idea that enthralls some why confusing most. I am not surprised when I spot newcomers expressing their disbelief or disappointment into the projects sorry state and reports to the contrary make me suspicious. I still read and evaluate these positive reports but usually can disregard them because the poster obviously favors things that are unimportant to me or it becomes really apparent that its a made-up report in order to promote Star Citizen for something its not. Its okay to focus on the things that are important to you but if you deny facts or try to excuse mistakes or shortcomings on behalf of a company, which holds zero ties to you things are "off" making me believe there is an underlying agenda which could be anything from fanatic to investor to troll or so many other things...it gets a bit confusing in the current age
Last edited:
Last edited:
Ermagherd Frontier got their new forum out before SC launched... I cannot comprehend this!
of course you don't understand forum developments! buy a conda!
Ah, I can finally get my SC news again.
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Ah, I can finally get my SC news again.
There's news?
- Status