Things that werent specified in the design posts they made.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Yes.Are you lot really arguing about scope creep or just arguing for the sake of it? Asking for an interested friend...
Ok...then the answer is Chris Roberts
Chris Roberts, the cause of - and solution to - all of life's problem's!Ok...then the answer is Chris Roberts
With apologies to Homer.
Which design posts? What are we limiting this to?
I’d presumed it was sq42 because he was involved in significant sequences. But, to be fair, I didn’t ask him, he was shy about talking and I didn’t push.
Oo, more gossip / details please
(Without getting your mate in bother of course)
Ha yeah..Now you've piqued my curiousity. I guess no names can be named due to NDAs, but blink once for Firesprite, twice for Turbulent, or three times for yet another third party we don't know about.
I’m not gonna give any info that may link them, but he’s uk based and freelances for a third-party that did/doing the work. I didn’t ask too much, and he didn’t want to talk too much, but yeah, some strange pipelines...
If anything particularly funny ever comes out, I’ll let you know
Are you lot really arguing about scope creep... in a Chris Roberts game... or just arguing for the sake of it? Asking for an interested friend...
For the sake of it. Having to run to a different system to clear some bounties and doing some other missions. Might as well
Although it is funny seeing people trying to argue against scope creep in SC, when it has to be the most extreme example of scope creep in a game that i'm aware of.
But that doesn't count. FD had to build the company first! And it was before the DDF where backers voted on stuff!
RSI Comm Link "Design Posts" you can filter them
I don't see the issue as about good or bad but about coherency.
Everyone is free to draw their line of what they enjoy or not but if you preach it one way and do it the other way consistency may be brought up.
I’d presumed it was sq42 because he was involved in significant sequences. But, to be fair, I didn’t ask him, he was shy about talking and I didn’t push.
Ha yeah..
I’m not gonna give any info that may link them, but he’s uk based and freelances for a third-party that did/doing the work. I didn’t ask too much, and he didn’t want to talk too much, but yeah, some strange pipelines...
If anything particularly funny ever comes out, I’ll let you know
Interesting in itself. Because that means if its A or B then the subcontractors are subcontracting (wouldn't be a surprise with Turbulent, they've taken a lot of work from CIG that isn't in their domain) or its C, which means there are more players in the game than we knew.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
No, I do not think anyone gets surprised by the "alpha excuse" to explain that SC is broken and incomplete, that is precisely the point.
The issue here is not that Star Citizen be an alpha and therefore broken, but that it has precisely been an alpha and still broken and incomplete for over 10 years and 400+ million paid for with no fixing or release in sight for at least several years.
So the discussion is rather:
A. Look, this game has been broken and incomplete for 10 years and there is no end in sight for when it will be fixed and released!
B. Yes, that is because the game is still broken.
A. Indeed, that is what I just said. But it has been like this for 10+ years already and 400+ millions have been paid for it and wasted!
A. Yes, the game is broken because it is broken.
B. ...
To add insult to injury CIG seems to be doing its utmost to contradict the more ardent backers using the alpha argument by treating SC for all practical purposes as a released product, be it by selling it as "playable now", or by stating via customer support that SC released as Early Access back in 2016, or by arguing its legal defense against refund suits on the fact a product has been released, or by Chris Roberts paying himself, his family and the Calders some handsome dividends usually reserved for cases where products have actually been released and generated profits after tax.
Last edited:
So, just to clarify (and link with filter would be good), we are only counting things that were not mentioned in those posts as being scope creep? Nothing CR said otherwise in forum posts or on video? Because that seems like a big omission.
Oh look, you’ve managed to forget about this again in the space of an hour…
Of course normally we wouldn’t get the kind of operational detail you’re requiring there. (IE a dev pulling out her hair saying: 'Christ, Chris thinks a land turret is identical to a ship-deployed space turret mine. Now I have to rework X, which was never designed for this, and ask Y to build Z. Maybe even dump X completely and rebuild it as V if Xv2 doesn’t work. This will add XYZx2 man-hours…'
But certain big pivots, like Server Meshing, simply cannot hide their resulting needless reworks, delayed downstream projects, and endlessly missed project deadlines.
If you want a very broad overview though, both SC & SQ42 being slated for 2014, yet still not being launched, may point you to the general scope creep impact that you’re looking for.
Well, If they've not said it in these design posts yet Chris said it would be coming that could be considered scope creep, yes. Atleast for gameplay related things. Oh and here the link:
Comm-Link - Roberts Space Industries | Follow the development of Star Citizen and Squadron 42
Roberts Space Industries is the official go-to website for all news about Star Citizen and Squadron 42. It also hosts the online store for game items and merch, as well as all the community tools used by our fans.
robertsspaceindustries.com