Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
You really think that real newbs in SC are minority ? That when I encounter 3 french newbs (because I simply ask in french regularly "Hello les nouveaux" in the chat to play with them) in a week, they are CIG marketing employees ? Interesting...The fact you think they aren't is the next level thing here. You should do some detective work next time you see an 'influx' of newbros.
Don't believe everything CIG tells you
In percentage, how much would you estimate the number of fake newbs accounts compared to the real ones? 10% ? 50% ? more ?
Oh sure. It was more the absurd arguments that:
- It plays like a rogue-like (even though it isn’t meant to). And rogue-likes are games.
- Is no buggier than many launch games…
- The inventory system is deliberately challenging. (When in reality it’s just very laggy, buggy, awkward to use [without standard QoL like nesting & sorting], and occasionally yeets players through ceilings…)
Miscasting bugs as design decisions is probably a step too far, even for SC aficionados
Thing is, if you consider it's a game, then you can evaluate it as such, and then it fails considerably. Then the cultists will scream "ITS ALPHA" which means, it's not a complete game, but the early development stage of one, and "alpha" means limited tests of that early dev effort. Which is not a game per se: it's a testing environment.
Oh sure, but that is so daft that it doesn't really warrant a response. Not after a decade of it at least, for me.Oh sure. It was more the absurd arguments that:
- It plays like a rogue-like (even though it isn’t meant to). And rogue-likes are games.
- Is no buggier than many launch games…
- The inventory system is deliberately challenging. (When in reality it’s just very laggy, buggy, awkward to use [without standard QoL like nesting & sorting], and occasionally yeets players through ceilings…)
Miscasting bugs as design decisions is probably a step too far, even for SC aficionados
Some SC fans go:"You cant officially review it, not fair!", and then some of you go:"Okay, then we call it not a game, nananana!". Both are daft, petty and clearly wrong. The idea that IGN or whatever gets to determine what a game is by virtue of writing (or not writing) a review is inane. Obviously SC is a game (in whatever state it may be) and clearly a limited number of people enjoy it a lot (for whatever reason). It shouldn't be that hard to acknowledge these two facts. Believe it or not, there are even crappier shovelware games than SC, and some people like those too.
As usual, distortion of my words. I was not even talking about SC in those points but about games in general.Oh sure. It was more the absurd arguments that:
- It plays like a rogue-like (even though it isn’t meant to). And rogue-likes are games.
- Is no buggier than many launch games…
- The inventory system is deliberately challenging. (When in reality it’s just very laggy, buggy, awkward to use [without standard QoL like nesting & sorting], and occasionally yeets players through ceilings…)
Miscasting bugs as design decisions is probably a step too far, even for SC aficionados
Varonica said about SC "it's not a game by definition" because :
"having to start over" >>> in all rogue games you have to start over at each session and they are games
"talking about bugs" >>> a lot of released games have bugs and they are games
"painful inventory system" >>> being easy to use or not doesn't define a game
Conclusion: these arguments used by Varonica to conclude that SC is not a game are wrong.
I don’t think anyone’s contesting the ‘backers can have fun’ bit. (After 9 years of dev you’d certainly hope there’s worthwhile stuff there
)The points about the alpha vs game definition centre more on stuff like:
- Can a new buyer assess it in the same way as launched titles, or even EA titles on Steam etc. Answer = not really. (Negative 'reviews' are generally eaten by the reddit churn etc, not preserved and aggregated into a player rating system.)
The gloss lavished on the alpha, and the monetisation raised from it, then heighten that issue. Shovelware games don’t have guys writing things like this post today
(Not sure if he’s Grand Admiral [$2.5k] or Space Marshall [$5k]
)That’s the key reason why the distinction is important.
Difference is, those shovelware games are complete, reviewed, and no one claims they are "alpha" in order to deflect criticism (I wont enter into the "early access" debate - talking about released games). Also even the worst of them have still a few atoms of self respect and sell for like $1. On the other hand, we have something that cultists claim is the BDSSE (while it falls short of that claim by a few light years), that it's better than X or Y in an imaginary competition (while X or Y are actually released, complete games), sells for hundreds of dollars (even thousands if you want your Idris), claims it's got never-done-before gameplay or technology, etc.
It's quite difficult to reconcile this shift in perception with reality...
(edit) ah VR Golgot was quicker than me, saying the same thing, sorry mate
I don’t think anyone’s contesting the ‘backers can have fun’ bit. (After 9 years of dev you’d certainly hope there’s worthwhile stuff there
The points about the alpha vs game definition centre more on stuff like:
- Can a new buyer assess it in the same way as launched titles, or even EA titles on Steam etc. Answer = not really. (Negative 'reviews' are generally eaten by the reddit churn etc, not preserved and aggregated into a player rating system.)
The gloss lavished on the alpha, and the monetisation raised from it, then heighten that issue. Shovelware games don’t have guys writing things like this post today
(Not sure if he’s Grand Admiral [$2.5k] or Space Marshall [$5k]
That’s the key reason why the distinction is important.
And absolutely none of that has anything to do with whether Star Citizen is a game.I dont need a 1000th repeat of what you guys think of monetization, or what other people write about Star Citizen, of how much that irritates you, or what people say is the best game, or whether they think it is better than a game you think is better, whether some random fan mistakenly thinks something has never been done before, whether you think statements by other games are consistent, whether you believe Roberts is honest, what will happen to the netcode or God knows whatever bugs you about Star Citizen. Regardless of if these things are true, or relevent to some larger point, it is simply has no bearing on whether SC is a game.Difference is, those shovelware games are complete, reviewed, and no one claims they are "alpha" in order to deflect criticism (I wont enter into the "early access" debate - talking about released games). Also even the worst of them have still a few atoms of self respect and sell for like $1. On the other hand, we have something that cultists claim is the BDSSE (while it falls short of that claim by a few light years), that it's better than X or Y in an imaginary competition (while X or Y are actually released, complete games), sells for hundreds of dollars (even thousands if you want your Idris), claims it's got never-done-before gameplay or technology, etc.
It's quite difficult to reconcile this shift in perception with reality...
(edit) ah VR Golgot was quicker than me, saying the same thing, sorry mate
Which it is. Obviously so. And being unable to concede basic facts makes you look as much the irrational 'cultist' as those you try to disparage. Anyway, its weekend here. Which means I'll be preparing for my birthday, followed by a trip to Barcelona. So not many games for me for a few days, Alpha or otherwise.
It is mostly around the events this happens and in the region of 25%. CIG love to pad their numbers. I'm amazed you haven't noticed it before.
But you can review and critic the alpha as you want. It's just stupid. Like telling a cook that his cake is ugly when he has not yet unmolded his cake or that a slab is not very solid while the mason is pouring fresh concrete.
If we take all the criticisms made on the flight model, power triangle or the inventory system of 2019, they are good to throw in the garbage.
You still didnt provide any solid argument as to why it's a "game", as there are both academic and conventional definitions for that, especially when cultists insist it's not a game but an alpha... Still didnt explain to us how those realities can somehow coexist.
(edit) there, a good example:
Of course, and I would agree in the context of that product being a test environment for early development efforts (a.k.a. "alpha").
And that doesnt bother you that hundreds of millions of $$ have been spent until 2019, to then throw away a good part of that effort ?
Last edited:
Soooo ... Just been scrolling through the deliverables tracker:
robertsspaceindustries.com
And according to that all the planned work on SQ42 episodes looks to complete at the end of June (2022) . Now there are still shared activities that run to the end of the year, but at the risk of being optimistic, is that a SQ42 shaped light at the end of the tunnel?
Edit: And is there no free-fly this weekend ?
Star Citizen Roadmap - RSI
The Roberts Space Industries Star Citizen and Squadron 42 roadmaps.
robertsspaceindustries.com
And according to that all the planned work on SQ42 episodes looks to complete at the end of June (2022) . Now there are still shared activities that run to the end of the year, but at the risk of being optimistic, is that a SQ42 shaped light at the end of the tunnel?
Edit: And is there no free-fly this weekend ?
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Not stupid, no. Few cooks or mason take 10+ years to deliver a dish or make a slab while disposing of record breaking funds though. What is actually stupid is to continue thinking that after such ungodly delays and wasted money the cook or mason are any good at their jobs and can deliver anything of quality.
Also even games released in Early Access get their fair share of public and game press reviews. Which is one of the main ways the market gets informed about the actual state of a product. Not the case for SC, and many prospective buyers are lacking that core and common element of information. As a result most of the info about SC out there is consequently more biased than the rest of released and reviewed games, which in turn (mis)leads some buyers (both new and old) into spending money that may have otherwise not being spent.
Last edited:
Sure, call it a game. It’s fine. I literally never said otherwise.
I’m just more interested in the real-world implications of doing so, rather than the daft semantic debate around it ¯\(ツ)/¯
Enjoy your hols. I’ll look forward to your next tortured attempt to call people here cultists. Always fun
I'm looking forward to the day when its a 1 billion dollar alpha.
I hope on that day CIG release a new concept ship for 10,000 dollars to allow the backers to celebrate in style... by giving CIG even more money.
The problem arises when you have the same people saying its a totally playable and fun game when its being talked up, but the moment criticism is aired it becomes "ITS ALPHA!!!"
They hide behind that alpha label like Batfink hides behind his wings.
That is a different issue though. Also, not quite sure what exactly is the "problem". Some gamers dont want to see criticism of their favourite game. Some gamers are hypocrites when it comes to their favourite games.
Oh no! Anyway...