Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[Agony_Aunt]

Soooo ... Just been scrolling through the deliverables tracker:

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?

LOL, no chance. Even if the "episodes" are done, there are still tons of mechanics and tech that need to be done.

Plus they probably still need to redo all the mocap again, for reasons. And perhaps another 5 years redoing the mess hall scene.

 

[VR Golgot]

A reminder of why the 'cult' term is used regarding SC:

Here is a lengthy post in honour of Fritz...

In as few words as possible, how does Star Citizen and everything involved in its development resemble a cult?

It's the easiest to find any list of typical signs of a cult, and see how eerily they match. Let's pick one by a dude who did a lot of research on cults:

The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.

Yes.

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

As far as trying to trick friends into trying SC.

The group is preoccupied with making money.

Pledge-based everything.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

The very existence of this subreddit explains this.

Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

This one is a miss.

The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).

Not to extent of a full cult, but excessive control of feedback and even what is allowed to be written does fit here.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

SC being the best game ever, backers being the true enlightened gamers, Chris being the saviour from publishers etc.

The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

This needs no commentary

The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).

Chris is absolved of everything.Backers frequently excuse scummy marketing because it is to make SC dream real.

The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.

Don't say negative feedback or you will hurt the devs and the game will be delayed.

Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.

Those stories of backers spending stuff saved for other goals just to get more ships ring a bell? Not sure if someone ever actually cut ties with friends over SC opinions.

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.

Not quite, but some really do spend time evangelizing.

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

Not really, maybe metaphorically in terms of forums.
But read through these points, see how many are somehow covered by SC community, and now tell me that it is not an eerie thing to see.

Could do with a section on 'Hierarchies gated by payment tiers', but otherwise not bad

And why using it against critics of SC in 'pot calling kettle black' fashion is fairly daft

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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...

To some extent yes, but it also ties in to how some say its the best game ever, while hiding behind the alpha label, and they do go on to say things like "you're not meant to be having fun, you're meant to be testing it"

Like others have said, its not so much the semantics over whether the game label applies, its more of a case of them wanting to have it both ways. In short, it is a game when they need it to be, but not a game when they don't need it to be a game.

And these are the people who don't want to see criticism of their favourite game and are totally hypocrites.

 

[Ian Skippy]

To some extent yes, but it also ties in to how some say its the best game ever, while hiding behind the alpha label, and they do go on to say things like "you're not meant to be having fun, you're meant to be testing it"

Like others have said, its not so much the semantics over whether the game label applies, its more of a case of them wanting to have it both ways. In short, it is a game when they need it to be, but not a game when they don't need it to be a game.

And these are the people who don't want to see criticism of their favourite game and are totally hypocrites.

Let's suppose you are 100% correct, and they are 100% wrong. Why is it a problem that some other gamers are unreasonable about their favourite game? And since they are not going to change their mind, what is your plan? To complain for ten more years to people who already agree that some gamers are wrong about a game?

That, too, wouldn't be a problem in any meaningful way, but I am curious why this bothers you so much.

 

[VR Golgot]

As usual, distortion of my words. I was not even talking about SC in those points but about games in general.
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.

As generic definitions, sure.

But when applied to the specifics of SC (which is what Varonica was doing, and what you were also absolutely doing too), they’re absurd.

• Unintended impermanence (due to pre-alpha tech) is not the same as designed impermanence (rogue-lites).
• Pre-alpha bugs are much more significant than launch game bugs. Stating 'bugs are bugs' parity is daft.
• Unintended difficulty (due to bugs) is not the same as designed difficulty.

In abstract your list is fine. When actually applied to SC, it’s pure nonsense.

 

[LittleAnt]

As generic definitions, sure.

But when applied to the specifics of SC (which is what Varonica was doing, and what you were also absolutely doing too), they’re absurd.

• Unintended impermanence (due to pre-alpha tech) is not the same as designed impermanence (rogue-lites).
• Pre-alpha bugs are much more significant than launch game bugs. Stating 'bugs are bugs' parity is daft.
• Unintended difficulty (due to bugs) is not the same as designed difficulty.

In abstract your list is fine. When actually applied to SC, it’s pure nonsense.

And ? You still doesn't say that Veronica is wrong when she says that SC is not a game. Or maybe you agree with her?

 

[Ian Skippy]

As generic definitions, sure.

But when applied to the specifics of SC (which is what Varonica was doing, and what you were also absolutely doing too), they’re absurd.

• Unintended impermanence (due to pre-alpha tech) is not the same as designed impermanence (rogue-lites).
• Pre-alpha bugs are much more significant than launch game bugs. Stating 'bugs are bugs' parity is daft.
• Unintended difficulty (due to bugs) is not the same as designed difficulty.

In abstract your list is fine. When actually applied to SC, it’s pure nonsense.

He is still right though: none of that means SC is not a game. It doesn't matter if there are more, or more significant bugs, it just makes it a crappier game. But still a game. No difficulty, no matter how unintended, stops it from being a game.

It doesn't mean SC is of the same quality as the games he mentions, but it does mean SC is a game. The amusing part of this all that if this were a debate before a neutral panel, little ant would win.

LittleAnt:"This is my favourite game!" Streams himself playing.
Panel:"Counter point?"
You:"There is no game."
Panel:"Huh? We clearly just saw him play it."
You:"THERE IS NO GAME! HE IS A HYPOCRITE!!! JUST BECAUSE ITS ALPHA DOESNT MEAN YOU CANT CRITICIZE IT! THERE. IS. NO. GAME!!!!"
Panel:"Right...."

No matter if you are right about all the other stuff, this makes you look plain weird. If you say "my problem with this game is [huge list]" you can easily make a compelling argument. By denying there is a game, and disagreeing with LA by default no matter what he says, you lose what should be an easy debate.

Not that it matters, just thought I'd point it out. And now I have to start preparing for a concert.

 

[StuartGT]

Does the Star Citizen forum have a dedicated "Elite Dangerous Discussion Thread" where one can go and poke fun at Elite, Frontier, and CEO Braben all day, every day? I'm asking for a friend.

No.

No idea if they still do but they used to. The Elite thread (in the 'other games' section) would get all sorts of rants and stuff dumped into it from the general chat forum.

After the old RSI forums got canned, Spectrum's off-topic games section isn't maintained like these forums are - where discussion of individual games are pushed into single-threads. You can find many, many separate threads about Elite Dangerous there though if you want:

Spectrum - v7.46.3

RSI’s Spectrum is our integrated community and player interaction service, including chat, forums, game integration, and Player Organization facilities. Player Organizations (“Org”...

robertsspaceindustries.com

 

[Xink]

Not only is SC not a game, it is a scam.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Let's suppose you are 100% correct, and they are 100% wrong. Why is it a problem that some other gamers are unreasonable about their favourite game? And since they are not going to change their mind, what is your plan? To complain for ten more years to people who already agree that some gamers are wrong about a game?

That, too, wouldn't be a problem in any meaningful way, but I am curious why this bothers you so much.

Are you saying you don't believe me when i say there are people who literally do that?

Are you suggesting they are not wrong to hide behind an alpha label the moment the game is criticised but speak about it (and promote it) like its a released game otherwise?

 

[VR Golgot]

He is still right though: none of that means SC is not a game.

You:"There is no game."
Panel:"Huh? We clearly just saw him play it."
You:"THERE IS NO GAME! HE IS A HYPOCRITE!!! JUST BECAUSE ITS ALPHA DOESNT MEAN YOU CANT CRITICIZE IT! THERE. IS. NO. GAME!!!!"

Again, as already noted, I’m not arguing against calling SC a game:

Sure, call it a game. It’s fine. I literally never said otherwise.

So making up imaginary conversations where I am is in itself bizarre.

I’m merely pointing out why Ant’s particular argument is crap ¯\(ツ)/¯. (Not sure why it bothers you so much, seeing as you seem to agree on that front).

I think it’s time you realise that you are not actually a 'neutral panel' mate. You always attempt to paint this thread as a 'mirror cult', and happily insert memes into people’s mouths to achieve that end (see above). These are not the actions of a rational neutral observer I’m afraid. They’re the actions of someone who is trying to confirm their biases.

 

[VR Golgot]

And ? You still doesn't say that Veronica is wrong when she says that SC is not a game. Or maybe you agree with her?

Oh missed this. No I wouldn’t go that far. (Although I understand what V is saying about it not being like a released game).

I’d call it a pre-alpha early access game. And a very dubious one at that

 

[Viajero]

I’d call it a pre-alpha early access game. And a very dubious one at that

I think you misspelled severely buggy, broken and grossly incomplete piece of software crap after 10 years and 450 millions. Either that or you are just too polite for fudster scum

 

[Asp Explorer]

Star Citizen is definitely a game! It is progressing nicely and it's current alpha state only ought to last a little longer while they polish assets and tie up a few loose ends on the backend that have properly remained low-priority. Realistically it should be in a state for viable release in 12 months or so.

Now, who would like to buy me an Idris?

 

[VR Golgot]

I think you misspelled severely buggy, broken and grossly incomplete piece of software crap after 10 years and 450 millions. Either that or you are just too polite for fudster scum

British understatement, it’s a pain

(Just assume we mean things are 3x worse or better than what we actually say. Easy )

 

[VR Golgot]

Oh to be so forthright…

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/u4lin9

Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/u4lin9/i_just_played_for_first_time_in_at_least_a_year/

 

[varonica]

Star Citizen is definitely a game! It is progressing nicely and it's current alpha state only ought to last a little longer while they polish assets and tie up a few loose ends on the backend that have properly remained low-priority. Realistically it should be in a state for viable release in 12 months or so.

Now, who would like to buy me an Idris?

So where can I look up the pro gamer website reviews for the Star Citizen "game"?

 

[Mole HD]

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 ?

Sleut is right though...very few of the persistent arguments against SC's marketing or Ci¬G's business practises have any relevance as to whether Star Citizen is a 'game' or not...nor do the counter pro arguments insisting it's 'an alpha'.

It's a game simply because myself and many others have and still do play it, some of us for a few thousands of hours over the years...strictly as a point of view. It's nothing more than that and it certainly shouldn't be construed as more contrived than that either. It's always been my view...since I'm not overly complicated by having either a strictly narrow pro or negative Star Citizen viewpoint to peddle here... nothing new there.

All that may seem slightly contrary when taken alongside my endless and cynical criticism of both Ci¬G and the idiot Roberts, but hey...I was never a fan of the Wing Commander games and didn't like Freelancer either

 

[Frank]

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.

There aren't many bakers who slice off little pieces of their cake as they're baking it, to sell it off in their front shop

If they choose to do so then all the cake periodicals (is there one called Cakehole Monthly?) are well in their rights to review whatever half-baked goods this shop is selling

 

[Frank]

British understatement, it’s a pain

(Just assume we mean things are 3x worse or better than what we actually say. Easy )

Following the laws of understatement, this means that things are 9x worse than Golgot says <grin>