A "Star Citizen", as said in the current iteration, doesn't mean it's a game. Wonky sci-fi themed Garry's Mod server for 50 people equals Star Citizen in both fun and stability, for instance.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
A "Star Citizen", as said in the current iteration, doesn't mean it's a game. Wonky sci-fi themed Garry's Mod server for 50 people equals Star Citizen in both fun and stability, for instance.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Ben’s a free man but he really has a knack for posting where imo he perhaps shouldn’tExcellent
I look forward to the latest bout: Powered-Up Parry vs Weird Uncle Derek
Excellent
I look forward to the latest bout: Powered-Up Parry vs Weird Uncle Derek
For real though, Smart is just not a very nice person. Putting it mildly. It was tempting to initially see him as the Good Guy versus Evil Roberts, but they both kinda suck. :/
Ben is cool though.
Partly because The Backers aren't a hive mind. Many people who thought it means an MMO left years ago in disappointment, and have been replaced by people who never experienced the Initial Expectations for themselves. When they joined they were informed of the 'New Normal' and the true expectations and such.
As always, we aren't discussing reality but the re-construction of it in each of our own minds. And when the perspectives and experiences of part of reality, say Star Citizen, is too divergent, you may as well be discussing completely different topics. The inevitable endpoint is frustration and the conclusion the other side must be stupid or dishonest.
everyone on the internet but sc cultists know that sc is a scam at this point in history.
I respect you so please respect me.
How many years is it OK to take pledges for an MMO without getting two servers to share session state?
7 years for me is OK if priority on SQ42.
For what I suspect, 2 years for you from 2012. It's more or less ?
Oh come off it. Do you really want to suggest at any point backers thought or CIG were selling a 10 player PU? From early on they sold ships with bigger crew requirements than that. I have to say, and i'm willing to cop a ban for this, but it appears you are either trolling now or discussing things in bad faith. This is absoloutely pitiful as an argument.
At no point did CIG say anything like "The PU will be limited to just a few players per server." In fact, once they did start talking about numbers they were talking about hundreds or even thousands of players in an instance.
Now, i will agree they didn't call it a MMO. It seems as though they wanted to avoid calling it an MMO, but when you read their marketing materials, it always seemed more because they didn't want the associations that come with typical MMOs and also wanted to position themselves as something more than an MMO... a living breathing universe.
You ain't gonna get a living breathing universe with only 10 people.
Are you really so deseperate to believe that the MMO (or shall we say large scale number of players on a server) wasn't part of the initial pitch, or are you just being completely disingenious?
My respect goes out of the window you start trying to rewrite history to suit your beliefs.
There is a reason why the more extreme backers get called cutists.
You want us to take your equivocation as something worth serious consdieration and not you just trying to present a revised history? Give us a quote from CIG or CR where they implied that the PU was going to be just a few people per server.
Otherwise you can take that post you made and shove it where my respect for you is right now. In the sewer.
What proof do you have that in any point in history CIG's priority was SQ42?
And i mean proof, not CIG saying "Oh, we are focusing on SQ42 right now" as opposed to those times when they said "Oh, we are focusing on SC right now".
For a company which is meant to be so open in terms of development, we've never seen any proof of where their focus has been. We've had various roadmaps over the years, and now a roadmap to the roadmap is in the works. But we've never been given any proof of how far things are really along. And when asked for it, CIG play the "spoilers" card, whenever it suited them. And happily ignored the "spoilers" card when they wanted to show off a 1 hour video that somehow didn't contain spoilers (but didn't actually prove they had much in the way of SQ42).
Or you misunderstand it in your crusade against everything and everyone associated with SC. His argument suggests that the terminology is very broad, which is true. It extends all the way from MMO gaming nirvana down to minecraft-like situations. Need I remind you that FD markets ED explicitly as an MMO, and it is closer to minecraft than a full-blown MMO as well? It doesn't mean that everyone believes it would be like minecraft. It does mean there is a whole range of interpretations, and that inevitably many people will have different interpretations. Heck, even CIG themselves hardly had a consistent view of what it is they mean with it or want they want to actually do.
Honestly mate, the second you start typing you really want to insult some internet stranger so much you are willing to be banned for it should be the second you stop typing and make yourself a nice cup of tea.
Weasels are cute animals.
lol at the defense using interpretations, people really behaving like religious apologists
I know it can be confusing for some that to hear that their opinion isn't the Ultimate True Opinion that everyone automatically shares or should share. But it does explain quite clearly what is happening here, as it happens here every single time: Someone shows up and says:"Hey, I kinda can like this project!". This, in itself, is not normally a provocative statement in a sub-forum where people discuss non-FD games they enjoy. He is then bombarded by the usual people saying he should stop it, the project is a scam, and everyone involved with it is evil. The new person then has 30 seconds to comply, or else we're falling back on name-calling and other assorted insults. And when he politely asks for some basic common courtesy within minutes he get this:
"Cultists!"
"Religious Apologist!"
"Bad Faith!"
"Trolling!"
Classy guys.
1) I have no problems with anyone being a backer.
2) From my reading he is making no such argument like you suggest. I could be wrong, in which case he could clarify his meaning. Furthermore, there has never been in anything in CIG's marketing or statements to suggest at any point there were considering anything less than hundreds or thousands per server, as a minimum. In fact, if you listened to their statements, hundreds or thousands was always presented more like a minimum they would like to achieve.
3) Read back further on his comments and you see how he was thinking that CIG initially were not talking about any sort of MMO type game at all, when this is blatantly false. That they presented the PU as being a thing from day 1 and in no way suggested that it would be a limited thing. Just read their statements about it and its clear they are well into full blown MMO territory. Remember, LittleAnt want's to only count development from when SC started being an "MMO", so if it can be shown that SC was planned to be an MMO from day 1, he has to then accept the full timeline as development. He doesn't want to do that, so he tries to cast doubt on what CIG actually meant. LOL, in a way, he's spreading FUD!
4) Do you think they would have had a tenth of the success they did if they were really offering a very limited in scale and player numbers PU?
Regarding your last point, generally agree, but there are times when i'm more than willing to cross the line when I feel that someone is arguing in bad faith.
Last edited:
While I agree that we can be overly confrontational, in this particular instance i would say LittleAnt brought it upon himself.
He tried to present an alternate history in order to support his point of view, was shown he was mistaken with actual quotes from CIG, and then attempted to equivocate to try and show his point of view was still valid.
All because he doesn't want to count the first few years of development.
Put whatever label you want to on that or don't. But its very much typical behaviour for the sort of SC backer who wants to revise history to fit their own desires.
I'll add that there are people on the skeptical side that do the same, and i might even have been guilty of the same, but when someone presents actual hard facts, then its time to back down or face criticism of your behaviour.
Okay mate, keep on insulting people then. I'm out again.
Then you fail to understand a lot about what i post. Perhaps this happens when you jump in and pick out specific posts without following the whole chain of comments.
I have no problem with LittleAnt being a backer or enjoying the game. Likewise Sovapid or Mole or anyone else.
Do you see me ever having a go at Mole or sovapid for being backers or enjoying SC?