Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

I feel playing a space simulator in the alpha.
Lol. There is no simulation and the only “space” thing about the environment is that incompetent game design has made it a pointless waste of time to travel through. Your feelings on the matter doesn't really change the facts of what's really there.

None of what you describe shows any presence of any kind of “space sim”, much less of a space simulator. It's just a bundle of simplistic standard components of every adventure game ever, padded out and strung together to give an illusion of heft and content.

I don't feel a white knight.[…] I defend SC here because
Again, your feelings on the matter doesn't really change the fact.
 
I have no theory, it doesn't matter for me who is in charge of the alpha if CIG still try to keep their promises.
I've heard a rumor somewhere (here ?) that Sandi and Chris are divorcing. If true, personnal problems are a good reason to step back a little from public life.

I don't want to join in the mass arguing with the token Star Citizen fan here :) but I will pick you up on this one thing

Sandi & Chris have taken the largest crowd funding figure on record straight from backers, hundreds of millions of dollars. If they are having "personal" problems it's completely unprofessional of them to put aside their obligations on this for a significant length of time. It puts them firmly on the same footing as any other failed crowd funding project where the original founders have simply decided "meh I've got the cash, I'm done".

Chris Roberts is the face of this project, he's supposed to be the "secret sauce", the "Colonel Sanders" marketing name that has garnered that investment from his fan base that want a game with his name slapped on a non-existing box. If he's taking a back seat while the project is still an unstable alpha barely a shadow of what he's promised then that's a major problem. The backers are real people with low/medium income jobs that can't just drop their professional lives for a year or so to sort out a few personal problems, they don't enjoy his hollywood lifestyle and are not afforded such luxuries.

My guess is that his personal situation has little to do with it and he is having the usual "creative differences" with people he's unable to work with, it must be quite damaging for his ego to have forbes calling your project "mismanagement on a galactic scale" and he's probably got "burnt out" again. They will probably continue to use his name as part of the deal but are doing the same thing as with Freelancer where he isn't involved, but they'll wheel him out for front facing events like citizencon and big interviews. They have probably framed it to him that he'll be like a James Haliday mysterious creator type that will add an air of mystery to the game world - they will probably add secret easter eggs in the broken alpha that might lead to his whereabouts, he doesn't have to do anything, gets paid and the believers will continue with his religion. He'd love that.

CIG need to be straight about his involvement, it's not very "open" behaviour torwards the people that foot the bill for this
 
Last edited:
Star Citizen, as a development project, has so many red flags in my opinion, that it just boggles the mind:

Perpetual Development

Software development, especially game development, that fails to meet its deadlines is so common that I mentally tack on an extra 50% to any estimate given about a game's release or patch. That being said, back in 2012, Chris Roberts promised a release in 2014, and in 2020 Star Citizen is farther than ever from a release.

Cart before the Horse Development

There's no denying that, for the most part, the game looks gorgeous. The million polygon models, the 4k textures, all the attention to minor details lovingly put into the game's assets, this game looks polished. The thing is, games in alpha shouldn't look polished. With the exception of a handful of assets in the game that are used for graphics testing purposes, everything else should be just good enough to get the job done.

The whole point of an Alpha, especially a playable Alpha like Star Citizen, is to get the game's mechanics working, so that they can be tested by the Alpha player base, so that the game breaking bugs, balance breaking exploits, and all the little things you didn't think of, but become obvious once you've got thousands of Alpha players logging in hundreds of hours. It's pointless to spend hundreds of man-hours on detail work on an asset that you discover has a fatal flaw in its current geometry. The polish comes later, after you've solidified the foundation of your game.

Penelope at Her Loom

Chris Roberts has a rather long history of being a perfectionist. As a result, this game's art assets being redone unnecessarily many times, often by a new artist. This is bad enough, but when you combine this the the above, what you basically get are hundreds of artists who are basically paid to look busy, rather than actually be productive.

The Whitewashed Tomb

Chris Roberts seems to be obsessed with the appearance of success. Hundreds of employees working from expensive studios spread across multiple countries. Expensive commissioned artwork, including paintings and sculptures of in-game assets. Slick marketing videos. Lavish spectacles at conventions celebrating the game. These are all things that many successful gaming development companies do... with the profits made from released games they made with their own money. Game development companies that are just starting out try to save as much money as possible, so that they can focus on making their first game.

The Kickstarter Lies

Chris Roberts' Kickstarter pitch, which raised millions of dollars, paints a very different picture of the state of development of Star Citizen in 2012, as opposed to what the reality was. Star Citizen in the 2012 Kickstarter Pitch was a game already a year into development by Chris and "his team," complete with a pre-alpha game play prototype. He claimed to have raised enough money to complete development, and all he needed a few million more to polish it up to AAA standards by 2014. It was only years after the fact that we discovered that all Chris really had was a few CryEngine3 machinima videos... created by CryTech itself as part of a deal with Chris... with Chris' good buddy (and CiG co-founder while also CryTech's attorney) Ortwin negotiating both sides of the deal. :rolleyes:

Shell Company Shell Game

Over the years, Chris Roberts has created dozens of shell companies in support of Star Citizen. While it isn't unusual for a single company to have several subsidiary companies, usually for tax purposes in other countries, dozens reeks of Hollywood Accounting. Speaking of which...

Hollywood Accounting

Hollywood Accounting is a practice where a company removes all profits it makes, by overcharging itself (via its subsidiary companies) for the services it performs. It gets its name from how film studios charge itself massive fees for distribution and marketing a film, do that a film that cost $45 million to make, and grossed over a billion dollars at the box office and home video, actually lost money... thereby cheating the people who actually made the film. We know Chris Roberts (the man) basically sold the rights to Star Citizen to himself (in the form of CiG) for millions of dollars. We know Chris Roberts (the man), plus friends and family, are all on the boards of directors of all those shell companies, and thus drawing salaries from them. Chris Roberts & Company have clearly learned the most important Hollywood lesson well.

There's an old saying: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action." The first couple things on my list is just plain old bad project management. It's the rest that transform Star Citizen from a good faith but badly managed attempt to make Chris Roberts' "dream game" into something that reminds me of the ending of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (spoiler warning).
 
Last edited:
Hollywood Accounting

Hollywood Accounting is a practice where a company removes all profits it makes, by overcharging itself (via its subsidiary companies) for the services it performs. It gets its name from how film studios charge itself massive fees for distribution and marketing a film, do that a film that cost $45 million to make, and grossed over a billion dollars at the box office and home video, actually lost money... thereby cheating the people who actually made the film. We know Chris Roberts (the man) basically sold the rights to Star Citizen to himself (in the form of CiG) for millions of dollars. We know Chris Roberts (the man), plus friends and family, are all on the boards of directors of all those shell companies, and thus drawing salaries from them. Chris Roberts & Company have clearly learned the most important Hollywood lesson well.

I think that the general Hollywoord approach Chris Roberts took is flawed (or is taking depending on his current Kim Jong Un style association with the project today). In the film industry it's very natural to contract companies to build sets and work on specifics like CGI or make-up and early on it seemed like he was throwing loads of cash at third party kit for AI, face-time gimicks, web assets etc.

Games are not built like movies, you are building a piece of technology that isn't necessarily compatable with third party stuff (we already heard about how one company built assets to the wrong scale that needed to be redone) companies like Rockstar (that he says he needs budgets/company similar to in order to make a decent game) have built their games on teqniques, engines & technology they've built up over successivly delivered titles that began very small, over decades. You can't just throw a AAA studio together and start making GTA VI.

Also developers are not the same as Hollywood creative assets, they are (relative to Hollywood) low paid generalists that work on Barbie games for a couple of years, then work on a Snowboarding game or a racing game or another FPS game. There are AI programmers however they don't build small AI specialist studios and expect games companies to pay them to integrate their AI tech into the game. I'm not saying it is completely unheard of, but in movies that's the norm - in games, the norm is to build an in-house AI team.
 
Last edited:
None of what you describe shows any presence of any kind of “space sim”, much less of a space simulator. It's just a bundle of simplistic standard.
I am just talking about me. The alpha in its actual state is the software that gave me the more feeling of space since I play videogame.
It doesn't work for you but for me it fully works. The alpha already give me something I was seeking in games since several decades.

What is a space sim for you ? We don't seem to have the same definition of it (I don't say my definition is the good one).
 
Star Citizen, as a development project, has so many red flags in my opinion, that it just boggles the mind:
Penelope at Her Loom

Chris Roberts has a rather long history of being a perfectionist. As a result, this game's art assets being redone unnecessarily many times, often by a new artist. This is bad enough, but when you combine this the the above, what you basically get are hundreds of artists who are basically paid to look busy, rather than actually be productive.
I don't think CR is a perfectionist. Perfectionism implies attentiveness and a clear idea of what he wants. If we're going by how he'd changed his mind saying thigs are wrong or not as good as he wanted it, I don't think it's enough to say he's a perfectionist. He's unhappy with the result, or changed his mind. So far I haven't see SC do things in a clear unified way you'd from a vision someone had, it's too much mix and match of what's the newest bling. Take the sxoanding scope for example, if he was a perfectionist, those things backers were asking for would have been tainting his vision of what he wanted SC to be and likely would have drew a line somewhere. I think he was taking any and all suggestions because he didn't have a clear idea to begin with. Like that clip of him and his hands trying to explain something.

For me to think of CR as a perfectionist he'd have to show a lot more interest in the project, follow up on his ideas and caught a mistake like wrong scale early on or keep up to date with how behind schedule each features are. I don't get any of that with CR, he's more of a dreamer, like a friend of mine, who knows what he likes but no clear image of what it is he wants.
 
I am just talking about me. The alpha in its actual state is the software that gave me the more feeling of space since I play videogame.
It doesn't work for you but for me it fully works. The alpha already give me something I was seeking in games since several decades.

What is a space sim for you ? We don't seem to have the same definition of it (I don't say my definition is the good one).
I think you'er retroactively assigning what you're looking for to what SC is. If you could humor me with a complete list of features for your dream space sim.
 
this seems to be the biggest problem in this thread. You talk to people who mainly consider the subjective immersion factor and extrapolate that quality on everything else. Mission grinding is great because I feel immersed. Traveling is great because I feel immersed. Waiting on the train is great because I feel immersed. Simply walking over barren empty landscapes is great because I feel immersed. I for one am capable to distinguish between immersion factor and other game qualities. And most criticism comes up because there hardly is anything else beyond that immersion.

Star Citizens immersion factor also comes in no small part from the promises of whats to come. People spend their time right now in a subpar limited tech-demo because they wait for CIG to deliver the dream. Pretty much anything currently in (missions, caves, mining) is stuff intended to keep the masses busy and distracted. People describe the current alpha while at the same time looking forward to future eventualities ("man I can get out of my seat, imagine how great it ll be when this and that is finally in the game" = everything is great). Star Citizens earliest reviews were optimistic and very good natured because people felt the potential these early stages of the game allowed for. Fast forward 5 years and it seems like CIG has been unable to build upon that potential. The world is a little bigger, there are a handful more places to go to and everything looks a little better (thanks to the 3.0 facelift) but basically the game is exactly the same.

I am for example not very impressed with Star Citizens mission system. The available missions are basic, badly scripted and consist mainly of fetch, kill or collect types. Considering that all of them are handcrafted rather then generated on the fly I would ve expected more depth, complexity, structure. They are not enhanced by smart AI or scripts, they dont even feature modifiers to ensure a random factor. They are as streamlined as it gets. As such the mission system in SC isnt very impressive, it certainly doesnt point out any strengths of SC in my opinion. And boxes teleporting into my hands or onto the ground seem to be immersion breaking but of course these impressions come from watching life streams rather then playing myself.

So you could feel immersed while doing missions but the missions are in fact bland, basic and pretty shallow to begin with. You simply take your feeling as the prime qualifier for measurable other qualities. But then you could simply get together with friends and drunk then everything is super duper, even kicking each other in the balls.

CIG is putting most of its effort into the visual department and they deserve praise and recognition for that. But most of the other qualities are subpar or simply bad. We are for the most part discussing the game qualities, not how it looks but that seems to be the point where every disagreement leads to somehow. Ant recently shotgunned the thread with a series of good looking screenshots and I for my part was a little confused because I couldnt see the connection to the "this is why SC is a great game".

Because it looks good? Yeah I m not that shallow....

Theres a ton of games out there which look great. And all the visuals dont help if the underlying game is crap. Mole was for the longest time happy to simply mine and fly around...spend time with his buddies but as soon as SCs underlying crappyness came up (glitches, bugs and disconnects) the "fun" seems to be gone. Strange. But thats exactly what we discuss for the most part. SCs limited engine choice and its potential performance based on the projects history. When it looks like the engine is bursting at the seams because its already running over capacity and and long existing issues remained unfixed and performance gets worse the more CIG tries....then thats not "hate" or being obsessed with SCs failure. Its acknowledging reality because sorry to say but reality has screamed into our faces for quite some time already. We ve all been fooled by the polygons and details to some degree.

Star Citizen doesnt even do VR, its simply looks good. But ED also looks good so why can SC fans easily bash and critizise ED for its perceived lacks but ignore the exact same issues in SC? Does the bias simply come from seamless transition? Or is it the empty promises leading people along? Because every SC backer, epecially the one who believes what he hears in various dev videos likes to delve in future scenarios when all the great and awesome things are in and working.

Once that happens I ll be wiling to (grudgingly) accept SCs qualities but right now, today I m judging it on what it actually brings to the table and it doesnt seem to be a whole lot to me. We can simply do the "wait and see" game but again.....CIGs track record in this regard are solidly on the side of the naysayers.
 
I am just talking about me.
And I'm saying that if you feel that SC is a space simulator, chances are that what you're after isn't actually a space simulator, because one of those would provide something in every way completely different to the things you claim to enjoy about SC.

There is no simulation.
There is no space.
There is just a bunch of trite and simplistic instances of babby's first Play Doh™ replicas of game activities, separated as far away from each other as possible.

If you get a “feeling of space” from that, then I would suggest you get a real game and just install a texture mod pack that replaces the ground with a starry skybox, and never use the “run” key. It'll functionally be the same.

What is a space sim for you ?
Something that offers a fairer and closer representation of the vast emptiness and strangeness of a sci-fi universe than, oh, say, Red Dead Redemption. Now I'll grant you that this isn't a fair comparison because SC achieves none of the complexity, detail, variety, spectacle, gameplay, artistry, design competence, and richness of content… but you know, conceptually.
 
No. Since Silent Service , Ultima Underworld and Red Baron, I have a checkbox list in mind. It's not complete with SC but the alpha checked a lot of its boxes.
suuuure... playing dungeons and dragons in the 80s made you think about space sims.. /s

you're just making that stuffs up because of your zealotry toward SC.
 
Hey lets be fair...if some game is "fun" to me then I dont really care what other people say either. It just "works" and thats the important part. But I m usually interested in the specifics. WHY is this game fun to me in particular? What are the important qualities that are responsible for me having fun? I can share my evaluations but my fun isnt dependant on other people agreeing with me or validating me. Due to this I enjoy pretty pixel heavy games (Avorion being the latest) that look as retro as they get, to a degree where my wife walks past and comments with "oh look, daddy booted up his C64 emulator again". I tried to explain to her that its not the visuals but the complexity and gameplay elements that hook me and provide the enjoyment but I suspect she likes to tease me ^^

The important fun is that I dont try to sell such games to her with stuff like "my game is superior to yours, your game sucks" simply because I take the "fun" I have and apply it as the main factor which would be a mistake.

I dont buy a car based on the feeling when I drive it. I value component quality, performance and comfort. Sure, I d like to not drive a potato so it should look nice too but I m only paying so much for exterior design.

Star Citizen is just a nice paintjob. Theres hardly anything under the hood. THATS why I consider it a bad game or not worth the money. There are all kinds of claims by the sales person but I m watching this car for quite some time now and most of the claims dont pan out. And it looks more and more like a 4 generation outdated trabbi (old east german car) under a Porsche hood.
 
suuuure... playing dungeons and dragons in the 80s made you think about space sims.. /s
you're just making that stuffs up because of your zealotry toward SC.
???
My space sim desire come with Descent 2. I was like "If we can combine the complexity of Ultima Underworld with the dogfight of Red Baron in a game like Descent 2, it will be such a good game..."

[edit] I've forgotten Descent 2 in my last post. My bad.
 
Last edited:
G06w2Wi.png

b122BaE.jpg

0yWEk7K.png

Btmfo4x.png
 
Don't forget orbital mechanics....or the lack of. Star Citizen's planets and moons revolve on their axes but are otherwise completely static, a physical and astronomical impossibility...

...Just in case anyone was really wondering why Quantum travel in SC consists of straight lines between 2 fixed points, if they attempted to simulate orbital mechanics at any point in the far future...none of it would work. This inevitably happens when some idiot designs a mode of travel before working out how it could and should be utilised correctly :)

One of the things that gets me about this project is despite it being sold as a space sim they tend to pay a lot of attention to the micro and not much attention to the macro.

Animations of missiles loading into the bays? Sure!
Accurately simulating the elements in the atmospheres rather than abstracting it? Sure!
Worrying about elevator panels? Sure!

Full size planets and orbiting? Nah, not interested.
 
Back
Top Bottom