It's one of the most anticipated games ever. Doesn't hurt to try and leech some of that glory on that piece of mess that is SC.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Because as they've explained a few times now, in they're mind those games do have relevance to the point they're making.
Its something I find odd about the Forum PvP meta in this thread. You can mention another game as long as it paints Star Citizen, Chris Roberts or CIG in a negative light. Otherwise, the thread-faithful are waving their hands like a grass to their primary school teacher at moderators.
I played for more then an hour so far and didn't notice any bugs or glitches it's working great tho' it is demanding game but changing and adjusting video settings is easy and honestly the difference between ultra/high/medium is not that so drastically different the game still looks nice even with medium settings only if I choose low settings I could see the noticeable difference.....
P.S.I also use elevator in CP2077 and I didn't need to scroll my mouse!!!
What is this witchcraft?!!!
Ho, but it was relevant. In this forum, CIG alpha with bugs during several years = bad VS another company alpha with same bugs during several years = good.
Okay, we get that.
But I think its fair to point out that if you're going to use that for comparison:
1) Cyberpunk is a single player game that has actually been released.
2) We've seen nothing of SQ42 for a few years, and SC (which is a multiplayer thing) is still in Alpha.
Nah...not a witchcraft and it's my bad actuaIly as I just found out that using a"scroll-mouse" in elevators is pretty common thing for any games in ALPHA stages in fact CP 2077 change that just 2 days prior the game release!!!
Last edited:
There are no games that paint SC in a good light.
Davliex games, as far as I can tell.
…and as demonstrated, they don't. He even managed to demonstrate that himself by explaining that the one thing he wanted to compare, he knew nothing about. So the “explanation” is bunk. And it's entirely ok to bring up other games but they're not the topic of the thread. You'll note that he didn't actually discuss SC for much of that — he just kept posting about the other game without actually making a point. This is particularly remarkable since he loves making things up, such as…
The only one who has ever claimed this is you. And your claiming something that profoundly stupid (not to mention unfounded) does not make it relevant.
So stop defending it and see it for what it is in isolation. Then ask yourself, is this what I was expecting for investing less than 50 Euros in 8 years? It probably is. But what if you had spent hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of euros, would you still feel the same?
Except it wasn’t.
The subject was comparing Star Citizen to its particular cohort: games past and present that during the "Alpha" stage of development (that is, not feature complete) could be played by regular people who have backed the project financially. That would be most crowdfunded games, as well as those in early access.
This approach has one huge advantage over the more traditional approach of game development: bug fixing. Because the game in development is out there "in the wild," it runs into all those bugs that get missed in traditional testing environments. The one that happens because someone has a 20 year old device driver on their computer for a device that maybe three people on the planet currently use. The one that happens because a player has an off-brand sound card. The one that happens because two device drivers don't play well together in this particular game. The one that happens because you tried to make the game foolproof, and (like everyone else in history) you have underestimated the resourcefulness of fools.
But if you want to use this advantage, you have to get people playing the game. And that means that the game has to be consistently playable. You want as large a player base as possible, playing as much as possible, doing as many different things as possible. That doesn't happen when your game is such a buggy mess, that most players log into the game some time after a patch, and have such a poor experience that they go do other things.
Star Citizen is the only game of this nature I've backed that doesn't take advantage of the huge gift backers bring to the table: themselves as testers, and their machines as test beds. It's the only game of this type where I've sat back and waited for further development not because I don't enjoy the game play, or because I'd played out what little content there was (because it's an Alpha), but because when checking out gameplay streams, it looks to be such a buggy mess that it is completely unappealing to me... which is really saying something.
CIG's atypical approach to this type of development is just one example of it ignoring the best practices of the industry when developing its game(s). Take altogether, it adds up to a level of incompetence that staggers the mind, except for one niggling detail that casts it into a new light: in every other Kickstarter I've ever backed that has failed to meet its obligations like CIG has, the creative(s) behind the project all but ruined themselves financially (and sometimes physically, thanks to the huge amount of hours they're working without compensation, since they'd already taken people's money) in their attempts to deliver on their promises.
The Roberts Clan, in contrast, have siphoned enough money from this project to buy themselves a mansion, sports cars, and luxurious vacations. All the while working a grueling 40 hours per week (if that). They've created dozens of shell companies in what appears to be a Hollywood Accounting scheme to drain money out of this project and into their pockets. If their UK company, the only shell company required by law to publicize their financials, is in any way typical of the rest of their byzantine network of shell companies, this is to the tune of 10% of the gross, not the net, every time money changes hands internally.
And that is why I don't consider CIGs performance to be incompetence, but rather a deliberately crafted façade to rake in money from people who just see the polished AAA visuals being produced by the studios, but fail to see the fetid rot beneath. People who see the shiny gold flash, but lack the experience to tell gold from pyrite.
After all, if you can two million dollars from passing off a machinima video as a working alpha, at no cost to you, when you can continue to repeat that formula, and rake in 30-40 million dollars by hiring hundreds of artists instead?
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
You stubornly keep missing the crucial point of difference in scale, frequence and impact. All games have their share of bugs, especially on release, which is in essence what you are saying, but which sadly does not bring in any relevancy to the discussion unless you add the context of scale, frequence and impact so to be able to compare. There is no question about there being bugs, there will alway be. You are repeatedly bringing up a non issue. The actual issue is rather how much and how often the bugs, performance and stability issues impact the players experience.
So far Cyberpunk expected issues on release do not seem to be significant enough to prevent it being well on its way to a top percentile long term critic review score. Even if you account for the initial lower Steam scores. We also have a very solid track record by CDPR fixing bugs, and which was exactly the same issue with The Witcher 3.
Star Citizen bugs, performance and stability issues, on the other hand, are probably orders of magnitude worst and we can see it day in day out. And CIG´s track record in improving the alpha is abysmal. They represent the text book definition of game breaking, whereas CP issues still allow it to receive those stellar reviews.
One game is still broken and no where near ready after 9-10 years, still owed to funding backers, and is fully deserving of some of the harshest criticisms. The other, release day issues included, just works.
Last edited:
The other is a solo game, the multiplayer version of it (not intended to be a MMO) is nowhere near ready after 8 years.
Last edited:
You never stop, do you? You're in an exhaustingly boring loop buddy.
many people that actually play the game have already told you that CP77 works fine and there is far less and far minor bugs than SC. But you continue on the same stupid behavior by comaring the two. I have the impression that you talk a lot but don't play at all the games you are talking about.