Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[Viajero]

When I'm wrong, I say it. And when I talk about something existing in game, I check it before.

This “game”, and what we discuss here, is much more than just “in game”. The article is just exactly the same, it discusses critical issues not necessarily “in game”. Now in this thread, and even after your careful “checks“, you have been shown to be wrong before, admittedly so even several times. Do we now need to conclude you don’t understand this development in the same way you conclude dismissing that article then?

 

[Viajero]

The general tone of the article is "it can't be done" and he bases his conclusion on nothing tangible.

The article bases that conclusion on 10+ years of alpha and 450+ millions spent for zero products delivered. I think that factual track record is quite a solid base, don’t you think?

 

[VR Golgot]

The general tone of the article is "it can't be done" and he bases his conclusion on nothing tangible.

I prefer when you talk about a possible future lack of funding, that's at least a valid reason for a 'impossible to do'.

Ok I’ll help out:

Chris’s objective of having the graphical fidelity, systemic complexity and twitch gameplay of the best single player campaigns available (The Order: 1886, Shadow of Mordor, and CoD are games he’s sought to match or better in those regards), based in an enormous bespoke open world, featuring enormous living spaceships, which is also an MMO with the bestest player counts ever seen… is mad. Structurally ludicrous, and destined to fail as a concept.

It’s impossible.

We could go into details in each area on specific promises. The single shard claims. The 1000s of players in one area. The ever expanding 100+ roster of solar systems featuring new discoverable life etc. The capital ships the size of a small town with a village’s worth of NPCs inside them, all living their best lives, while the captain dictates the behaviours of his fleet RTS style and prays that that enemy boarding party doesn’t make it through… On and on we could go. Delving into all the crazy cumulative claims, and all the crazy money that has been thrown at these dangled dreams.

But the short story really is that top line. The overall pitch of the game is just not humanly, or technically, possible.

We’re all just hanging out waiting to see if anything worthwhile gets made by mistake

having a stable game or being able to jump in other systems. It only depends on which dreams are the most important in your wish list.

'Having a stable game' is not a dream. Or even something game producers dangle as one. It’s kind of a baseline…

 

[StuartGT]

What is stable anyway?

 

[Surefoot]

We’re all just hanging out waiting to see if anything worthwhile gets made by mistake

That was my bet when i backed the project. I suppose quite a few of us had the same idea (probably Mole too). Back then before 2014 it was still 50/50 getting something at all to be honest, depending on how much CR did learn from his previous failures (in hindsight, he did not, obviously). The jury is still out on what we'll get by 2030... Now that's SQ42 is officially pushed back 2 more years, and the PU 4+ years (that's a 2025 date here, remember people getting banned from CiG forums and Reddit when they posted about a tentative 2018 release...), we start the cycle again. One positive thing, this will continue to entertain us for a long time, maybe into my retirement if i ever get one.

 

[Mole HD]

That was my bet when i backed the project. I suppose quite a few of us had the same idea (probably Mole too). Back then before 2014 it was still 50/50 getting something at all to be honest, depending on how much CR did learn from his previous failures (in hindsight, he did not, obviously). The jury is still out on what we'll get by 2030... Now that's SQ42 is officially pushed back 2 more years, and the PU 4+ years (that's a 2025 date here, remember people getting banned from CiG forums and Reddit when they posted about a tentative 2018 release...), we start the cycle again. One positive thing, this will continue to entertain us for a long time, maybe into my retirement if i ever get one.

One thing I have noted... leaving previous years' development stagnancy where it belongs... Ci¬G and the more 'optimistic' backers (to avoid using derogatory terms) are using 2022 as a restarting or reimagining of the 2016 pre 3.0 to present era where the entire development of Star Citizen is on the cusp of 'becoming'....which happens per chance to also be a clever marketing strategy. They've dangled server meshing (or sharding) as well as the supposedly imminent release of another star system to reimagine themselves...the same could be said of those 'optimistic' backers.

..and yes, you're quite correct in your description of what I imagined when I first pulled the trigger and backed the project. I've struggled to explain exactly what my thinking and expectations behind backing Star Citizen were back then and what they are currently, @VR Golgot hit the nail on the head there. We're all still hanging out waiting for something half decent to accidentally happen... totally despite the Idiot Roberts and not because of him

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I'm a programmer and everyone with a minimum of intelligence know that.

You just declared anyone who doesn't know that you're a programmer is stupid. Anyone here not know LA is a programmer? Sorry, you're stupid!

It's not big news and I don't see why you need my approval on this subject. That's exactly why SC is so long to do, because SC is complex. But 'complex to do' is not 'impossible to do'.

Not asking for your approval, asking for your opinion on it. You latched onto the one mistake in the article and ignored everything else about, so i'm asking you, what do you think of it. We know its taking a long time, we know its complex. What about the point raised where as you add more systems you make it exponentially more difficult to do? Surely, as a programmer, you understand this. Hell, even non-programmers can understand this, it doesn't require a PhD.

The general tone of the article is "it can't be done" and he bases his conclusion on nothing tangible.

So you're saying that he is wrong about how adding more functionality makes everything many times more complicated. That there is no point at which building a game you're going to get to the point which makes it impossible to deliver?

I prefer when you talk about a possible future lack of funding, that's at least a valid reason for a 'impossible to do'.

Well, we can do that as well, but perhaps one topic at a time

Well, what about the point about backers ageing? How people's priorities and tastes change as they get older. Yes, i'm sure you can say that your tastes haven't changed, that you still expect to be playing SC in 10 or 20 years, etc. But you don't agree its a valid point? For older backers perhaps not much has changed in their lives, but we often see posts from people saying since they backed SC they got a job, got married, had kids, and now have no time for SC.

What about the point that publishers can be a good thing? That visionaries need someone above them, telling them when its time to stop dreaming and start delivering? Wouldn't you say that's a good point? Or have you swallowed CIG's line that all publishers are evil? As a programmer, surely you value the need for someone who will control the scope of a product? If a client kept asking for more and more and more, surely at some point you would start telling them "No, stop, its getting unmanagable!"

 

[Mole HD]

You just declared anyone who doesn't know that you're a programmer is stupid. Anyone here not know LA is a programmer? Sorry, you're stupid!



Not asking for your approval, asking for your opinion on it. You latched onto the one mistake in the article and ignored everything else about, so i'm asking you, what do you think of it. We know its taking a long time, we know its complex. What about the point raised where as you add more systems you make it exponentially more difficult to do? Surely, as a programmer, you understand this. Hell, even non-programmers can understand this, it doesn't require a PhD.



So you're saying that he is wrong about how adding more functionality makes everything many times more complicated. That there is no point at which building a game you're going to get to the point which makes it impossible to deliver?



Well, we can do that as well, but perhaps one topic at a time

Well, what about the point about backers ageing? How people's priorities and tastes change as they get older. Yes, i'm sure you can say that your tastes haven't changed, that you still expect to be playing SC in 10 or 20 years, etc. But you don't agree its a valid point? For older backers perhaps not much has changed in their lives, but we often see posts from people saying since they backed SC they got a job, got married, had kids, and now have no time for SC.

What about the point that publishers can be a good thing? That visionaries need someone above them, telling them when its time to stop dreaming and start delivering? Wouldn't you say that's a good point? Or have you swallowed CIG's line that all publishers are evil? As a programmer, surely you value the need for someone who will control the scope of a product? If a client kept asking for more and more and more, surely at some point you would start telling them "No, stop, its getting unmanagable!"

Not getting into the argument between Ant and the rest of the forum...but that article made some good points. As for the particular point of contention on here arising from that article...when it was penned, I've no doubt that the medigun rufie bug was still relevant as being of note. It was a big thing for a while and was much reported on externally to the usual SC circles... It remained for a patch then was disabled...I couldn't see any negatives on how the writer expressed it...but then, I understood his take on it within the context of the entirely neutral and unbiased article.

I have a particular dislike of selective reading and comprehension (as well as TL;DR's), not quite as common on here (sometimes) as it is prevalent on reddit, spectrum or other popular purveyors of disinformation...absolutely anything quoted or taken out of context can mean many things to just as many different people and is usually far from what was originally implied or intended

 

[Agony_Aunt]

One thing I have noted... leaving previous years' development stagnancy where it belongs... Ci¬G and the more 'optimistic' backers (to avoid using derogatory terms) are using 2022 as a restarting or reimagining of the 2016 pre 3.0 to present era where the entire development of Star Citizen is on the cusp of 'becoming'....which happens per chance to also be a clever marketing strategy. They've dangled server meshing (or sharding) as well as the supposedly imminent release of another star system to reimagine themselves...the same could be said of those 'optimistic' backers.

..and yes, you're quite correct in your description of what I imagined when I first pulled the trigger and backed the project. I've struggled to explain exactly what my thinking and expectations behind backing Star Citizen were back then and what they are currently, @VR Golgot hit the nail on the head there. We're all still hanging out waiting for something half decent to accidentally happen... totally despite the Idiot Roberts and not because of him

Looking forward for the "optimistic" to start declaring that development only really started in 2022!

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Not getting into the argument between Ant and the rest of the forum...but that article made some good points. As for the particular point of contention on here arising from that article...when it was penned, I've no doubt that the medigun rufie bug was still relevant as being of note. It was a big thing for a while and was much reported on externally to the usual SC circles... It remained for a patch then was disabled...I couldn't see any negatives on how the writer expressed it...but then, I understood his take on it within the context of the entirely neutral and unbiased article.

I have a particular dislike of selective reading and comprehension (as well as TL;DR's), not quite as common on here (sometimes) as it is prevalent on reddit, spectrum or other popular purveyors of disinformation...absolutely anything quoted or taken out of context can mean many things to just as many different people and is usually far from what was originally implied or intended

So, at the time of writing it was possibly still an issue?

Well, there we go.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

What is stable anyway?

Chris: Its where i keep my horses!

 

[Mole HD]

So, at the time of writing it was possibly still an issue?

Well, there we go.

Possibly...or at least the writer assumed it was still a current issue. Not every writer of articles on Star Citizen is a regular player or even follows current patches and bug fixes that they would know...researching an article is only as good as what you're given at the time of writing. That was what I took from it anyway

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Backer suggests that if this was Roman times SC critics would be fed to the lions.

It prompted some hilarious replies on refunds.

Rome only took as long as it did because 70% of the people working on it were in Marketing, though.
“Buy this aquaduct”, they would say.
“That’s not an aqueduct, it’s a mosaic of an aquaduct”, the people would respond.
“Shut up, it’s in Alpha”, the Marketeers would retort, “… and besides, do you realise how long it took the Etruscans to build Bologna?”
“You don’t know anything about aquaduct development” shouted a passer by.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

2 years ago....

 

[[VR] Merkir]

It prompted some hilarious replies on refunds.

Rome only took as long as it did because 70% of the people working on it were in Marketing, though.
“Buy this aquaduct”, they would say.
“That’s not an aqueduct, it’s a mosaic of an aquaduct”, the people would respond.
“Shut up, it’s in Alpha”, the Marketeers would retort, “… and besides, do you realise how long it took the Etruscans to build Bologna?”
“You don’t know anything about aquaduct development” shouted a passer by.

Absolutely priceless... my wife was wondering why I was roaring with laughter... “That’s not an aqueduct, it’s a mosaic of an aquaduct.”

 

[Agony_Aunt]

 

[LittleAnt]

You just declared anyone who doesn't know that you're a programmer is stupid. Anyone here not know LA is a programmer? Sorry, you're stupid!

Sorry, mistranslation.
"Everyone with a minimum of intelligence know that. I'm a programmer and know it also from experience."

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Sorry, mistranslation.
"Everyone with a minimum of intelligence know that. I'm a programmer and know it also from experience."

Fair enough.

So you are agreeing the proposed scope of SC is already at a level which may be considered unmanageable/unachievable?

 

[LittleAnt]

Fair enough.

So you are agreeing the proposed scope of SC is already at a level which may be considered unmanageable/unachievable?

I've said it before. I think not every promises will be delivered. For example I said last year that I though the first plan for SM was not doable. Now they have a new plan which I found more doable.
If I support the project, it's because what will be delivered (which will not be 100% of the promises) should be superior to most of what other space games has to offer.

 

[LittleAnt]

So, at the time of writing it was possibly still an issue?
Well, there we go.

No.
And at the time of the bug, everyone said it was a bug. He talks about it like something normal and planned.