Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

Anyone else think SC should be bugless even at Alpha stage?
Normally having bugs in alpha is normal but, as SC supporters calim, CIG is doing something never done before and isn't following normal game development methods. Even more, CIG themselves repeatedly witheld release of features because it's not up to standard, inplying everything they release is perfect and up to standard. Shouldn't SC as is, even in Alpha, be spotless and perfect? Saying the current buggy state of SC is normal for alpha contradicts with everything fans, CIG and CR had been saying all these time.
 
Apparently the bartender is with Evocati

So, basically after 3 years of working on this and hyping it up, they have achieved an AI on the level of something that could be whipped up in an afternoon by a comptent dev.

I'm not even a competent dev but i could whip up an AI like this (hell, better with more features) in NWN2 using NWScript in a few hours.

Well done CIG! Once again you show how its possible to make something simple into something incredibly complex.
This pretty much. I just don't understand how CR can justify the delays in completing the animations and AI for this one NPC (and other NPCs cloned off him). Especially since this concept was already accomplished 9 years ago in The Sims 3 Late Night DLC. 😂 This TS3 expansion pack added the social aspect of night/club life to the base game (a feature which it seems CR has been trying to achieve? between the player(s) and NPCs planet side at the likes of stations like Arc Corp etc). Regardless, TS3 Late Night added the Mixology career which let your Sim work as a professional bartender. IMO the (inferior fidelity) TS3 Mixologist had far more superior bartender skill sets (by means of completed game play loops, career progression, player to bartender NPC AI interactions, and seamless bartender animations) than I've witnessed in SC to date. Like in this brief example of a player controlled bartender here:


The entire TS3 Late Night expansion pack added an entire new game world, new careers, new NPCs (e.g. bouncers, celebs) with associated AI routines, other functioning/cosmetic game content like dive/sports/karyoke etc type bars, interactive bar counters, multiple night club venues, interactive musical instruments, night club clothing, player to NPC social interactions, and even annoying Twilight vamps


And that was made by a significantly smaller dev team with even less resources. Yet released in an even shorter time than it's taken CI to achieve this feature creep milestone to date.

Leaves me wondering what if Chris had possessed better foresight. Hadn't been so stubborn and dead set on his simultaneous release model for SQ42 with the PU. If he had considered either a live service model. Or better yet, adopted the proven modular game design approach which Maxis/The Sims Studio took in developing The Sims franchise (i.e. release the base game and modular expansion packs as future drip feed DLC). Made it a goal to release the base game PU as the single (but complete) solar system that exists to date. With at least 70% of all promised backer ships. Then release the remaining ships with the fluff/extra feature creep as paid DLC. Like the C&P/prison break scenario, space spelunking, interactive sand worm POIs, vendor shops with their clothing/weapons/gear services, that annoying NPC hologram that tells bad jokes etc. etc. Released each station (Microtech, Arc Corp Olisar etc) with supporting fluff feature creep (like the bartender NPCs) as drip feed DLC on an annual basis.

He might have been able to at least meet his Kickstarter release schedule. Instead of being stuck in an infinite dev loop where he spends some 90% of the year in prep for Citizencon. Wasting precious dev labor/resources churning out ship jpgs and glossy movies. The other 10% spin doctoring and peddling said ship jpgs and glossy/non existent game play movies at Citizencon. A vicious cycle which he needs to keep the fan base motivated, engaged and lure in more backers. He might've been able to avoid this if he'd at least took a modular approach to SC. He would've been able to make real revenue from all the feature creep SC has become bloated with to date. Instead of having to rely on backer pledges. Because at least he would've released a game--regardless of how bare bones and bug infested of an MVP it might have been at launch. The Sims, NMS, Elder Scrolls Online, and that cancer that is Fallout 76 are current examples why he might have been successful had he taken this route.

ED's space legs feature is debuting next year. So it's hard to believe CR doesn't realize his "faking it until you make it" strategy will be near impossible to sell if Dec 31st 2020 ends without a SQ42 beta release. Will this result in a fire sale of the SC franchise to likes of the Exceptional A.$$.hats or Activision? Followed by a cashing in on a rainy day, multi million dollar Swiss bank account? Then a quiet, clandestine one way retreat on his yacht to a private, unplottable tropical island and permanent retirement?

He's got to have some form of a clandestine exit criteria strategy on a back burner somewhere. Because it's hard to believe some of the most fanatic of the backer faithful will be going quietly when the siren song finally ends. One can only fantasize what his planned end game strategy will be for ending the SC dream... :confused:
 
Last edited:
The point was actually that SC has technology that for some reasons FDEV still struggles to add into ED...
ED released years ago. SC hasn't accomplished any of the things you've mentioned until it releases.

Why does NMS and ED have "seamless" fast in-system travel and SC has you stuck in place while the objects at your destination load in? What would you call that?
 
That's not my point to defend CGI. My discussion I think was taken from another thread that started talking about VR.
The point was actually that SC has technology that for some reasons FDEV still struggles to add into ED like seamless transitions, multiplayer/multicrew, multiple terrain vehicles, planetary mining and so on.
Another example, SC has walking inside the ships since ever and FDEV still don't confirm if it will be available for Odyssey. It's kinda disappointing...
Please please, don't start us with this. For the few things that SC clunkily do and ED don't, how many are in the exact opposite positions?

And it's less about technical struggles than design decisions (you can be disappointed about, sure) so the gamedesign envisioned is eventually fulfilled, to iterate and improve afterwards, when with SC all this obsession for the mundane microdetailed fluff makes even a release of a "MVP" a real struggle, and an ever-piling mille-feuilles of technical debt.
 
Here comes the usual contradiction. Can SC be judged as a finished game and thus, compared to them (hint: that would not look good at all for SC..) or do we claim it's just a jumbled mess of an alpha thus we cannot compare or judge it ?

Aye - and there's the rub - it has long been in whatever state suits whichever discussion is on-going depending on viewpoint.

Overall, whatever it's claimed to be (in any moment) it is genuinely sad that it's where it is after so long and so much money. Even as a doubter of Genuine Cobblers (RIP*), I would have been delighted if a decent game had appeared, or maybe in time does.

* Retired In Portugal (make up your own TLA...)
 
My discussion I think was taken from another thread that started talking about VR.
The point was actually that SC has technology...


Yep it was. And the point was particularly odd there, as SC doesn't have VR support 😄

You mistook excitable hype talk for game realities. It's a common issue with SC ;)

seamless transitions, multiplayer/multicrew, multiple terrain vehicles, planetary mining and so on.


The thing is, SC hasn't actually nailed these things into a launch ready state. You're talking about all of them like they've taken them to that level.

  • Seamlessness: Ignoring the point that the game world isn't actually seamless (the whole of Quantum travel is essentially a glorified loading menu, etc etc), they still haven't proven various aspects of their core tech. Physics grids, which allow seamless transition between foot and ship gameplay, are still deeply unreliable on various fronts for example. (3.9's attempts to improve them have made it so that EVA transitions between them are borked, making EVA entry into ships a crap experience at best, and a deadly one at worst. Give it a go ;)).
  • Multiple terrain vehicles: They do have various options. The core option of 'cars' are essentially Cryengine... cars though. Not hugely laudable. The hover bikes have a notable tendency to ping off into space if they hit a rock wrong, so... somewhat compromised. And the Ballista is compromised on a design front (absurdly short missile range and can't climb hills...), as well as being just generally very buggy.

And on and on. Hand mining can be a martyr to minerals clipping through planetary surfaces, and has been known to trap many a prisoner in their sentence due to a litany of glitches from tool loss to menu malfunctioning when turning in spoils etc.

Have they really got this stuff into the game? Or have the got a bunch of half-finished systems in? Because that's more what it appears to be ;)

Systems which have no actual guarantee of getting rounded out and finished as more additions are piled on top. Will the Ballista ever be revisited and improved? Will physics grids ever prove fit for all their use cases? Will the famously flaky networking improve as greater loads are placed upon it with the promised larger, pilotable ships?

:unsure:

Guess we'll see. But in the meantime heralding them as a working game in concert, or laudable as stand-alone strands, seems fairly bizarre.
 
There's a point I think where 'who has what' comparisons become a bit moot - e.g. I'm bored with ED, but still having fun with NMS. Both are imho very good games in their own way, but how they play is chalk and cheese.

Each game must ultimately be judged on its own merits, against what it seemed the devs wanted to achieve.

Where I think you can compare is on quality and beat-rate of development and, in this regard, it's hard to argue that HG is anything other than stellar. Whether you like NMS or not, the rate of improvemnt and expansion leaves many (most?) companies in the dust.

Sorry, I went a bit OT there...
 
Last edited:
Except for the transitions out of prison. Regarding "seamless", why can't players turn their ship in quantum? Or quantum to arbitrary locations? How much have you spent on SC? Why aren't there any planets or moons on the roadmap?

And FYI we can all see the game on Twitch 24/7. We're quite familiar with it.
You can stop, turn your ship around and quantum back or quantum to another location. For arbitrary locations, there is an astroid belt between the orbits of arccorp and crusader. If you time it right you can stop there. Whenever I rent a miningship, I usually mine there.
 
A whole word salad about using SSE... something that has been around since early Pentium days (but it sounds good, backers will lap it up and think they understand game development)
To be fair, what they were talking about there was being able to (at runtime) use whichever SSE levels the CPU they're currently running on supports - which is a bit more complex than "tell the compiler to generate SSE stuff." The problem with just doing that is that if you tell the compiler to generate SSE4 instructions and then it hits one of those on a CPU without SSE4 support, the process just spontaneously combusts with a SIGILL. Not great. So they're basically making something that compiles versions of their hot code paths for each SSE level and swaps the right one in at runtime; they're also apparently using some fancy SIMD-friendly C variant from Intel for the code itself, rather than hand-writing intrinsics or relying on the compiler to figure out when something can be vectorised (which in my experience it basically never does).

Now don't get me wrong, the "compile them all, pick the right one at runtime" mechanism still isn't that complicated - I personally implemented that a couple of years back, took a week or so. Not to mention that there are also now some fairly recent open-source libraries that do most of the heavy lifting for you if you want. But either way, still a bit more involved than "turn the SSE flag on."

You know, i never even realized Peterson had left. Always assumed he was still there, beavering away in the background.
You must have not been paying too much attention during some of the Sunk Cost Galaxy episodes! :p
 
Last edited:
ED released years ago. SC hasn't accomplished any of the things you've mentioned until it releases.

Why does NMS and ED have "seamless" fast in-system travel and SC has you stuck in place while the objects at your destination load in? What would you call that?
A slow HDD?
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
There's no reason for worrying about the exploits at the moment because all charachters will be reset the day the game will be released.

Apologies for just cherrypicking on this particular statement but as it happens it is reflective of a wide spectrum of similarly flawed views about SC imo.

It is a text book example of catch 22. Some of the reasons why the game may not be actually released in the first place (at least not as sold/represented so far) is precisely because some of those current issues with "exploits", bugs, glitches and stability may not be fixable or even salvageable in a reasonable manner.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom