Page 487 of 667 FirstFirst ... 477483484485486487488489490491497 ... LastLast
Results 7,291 to 7,305 of 10004

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Star Citizen Thread v6

  1. #7291
    Originally Posted by BlackSpaceCowboy View Post (Source)
    Isn't the live demo evidence?

    I'm a developer. We only do live demos late in development. The hardest part is just getting something working. Polishing it and adding content is much smoother process.

    What would be sufficient evidence for you?

    I thought it was a scam too until I heard about 3.0 features. I find it hard to believe that after releasing 1.0, 2.0, 2.6 etc, that 3.0 won't happen. If 3.0 is released won't that be the evidence you seek?

    While I'm not as pessimistic as Cmdr Eagleboy and I'm sure CIG is making 3.0, live demo is insufficient to be the evidence CIG can pull it off. Were you following the game when the original 3.0 demonstration was shown in 2016? It was pretty much the same thing as this year's demo, without the face thing, without loading the buggy on the ship, and without some other small things. Other than that it was way more impressive, devoid of game-breaking bugs, and what's important, slated to be released before the end of 2016. In your opinion, what's the reason a state of the game seemingly deteriorated after a year of development? And isn't it a good reason to be sceptical of CIG demos and other claims?

  2. #7292
    Originally Posted by Backer42 View Post (Source)
    Look at Arena Commander miniPU 2.6, is it an okay first step for a newly founded indie developer? Absolutely, given the technical limitations...
    Honestly, I don't feel it is. I have seen more impressive tech demos from 1 man indie teams.
    And no, I am not just talking about graphics which everyone is always blinded by.

    Most of what I see in the miniPU are things that are fairly basic layers on top of an existing engine.
    All of their 'ground breaking' content is hidden away on the non public demos that get the marketing treatment.

  3. #7293
    Originally Posted by ZeeWolf View Post (Source)
    ...
    The problem with Star Citizen is it takes what essentially Cryengine/Lumberyard already does, pretty assets thrown around a map with a small instance of players. They have never really shown much more than that. ...
    Much more eloquently put than I
    Although I would hasten to add that they have 'shown' some cool tech; they have just not made it publicly available.
    Whether that is because they are not confident it will life up to public scrutiny is pure conjecture.

  4. #7294
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    It is evidence of them not making it. It's kaput.
    What do you mean? I saw the live demo. They had some glitches but what we saw doesn't exist in any other game.

    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    If someone struggles with getting something working *for a week* in my project, we call it a day and hand it over to different person. CIG had 6 years. No show
    So SC should have been complete in a week? They've completed countless tasks in their sprints.

    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    3.0 won't be released. It just won't happen.
    Now your reputation and credibility depend on SC failing. What's the point of taking such a position? I hope you're wrong.

    Again, I care more about Squadron 42, which I see as an achievable goal, than I do about the SC MMO.

  5. #7295
    Originally Posted by BlackSpaceCowboy View Post (Source)
    ...
    Now your reputation and credibility depend on SC failing. What's the point of taking such a position? I hope you're wrong.

    Again, I care more about Squadron 42, which I see as an achievable goal, than I do about the SC MMO.
    I hope that is a false statement also. I want the game experience that has been promised for SQ42.
    Sadly the evidence so far shows that they are struggling with even the most fundamental functionality

  6. #7296
    Originally Posted by Kerrash View Post (Source)
    I backed in 2012 before the KickStarter and was refused a refund

    This is starting to sound like S:C anonymous...
    lol...tbh I'm amazed you've not refunded. Remind me to take the mick next time I see you

  7. #7297
    Originally Posted by sleutelbos View Post (Source)
    Wait, what? You just described procedural generation. You cant say "We dont need to use PG, we could for example also use PG." And I have no clue where the conclusion "So PG is no huge problem." comes from. "Rather than PG we could use PG, so PG is easy." is hands-down the weirdest reasoning I have seen in this topic for a while. Add to that that CIG has been wholly unable to show they have even basic PG tech and I am just a bit lost by your post.

    So to make it clear: Yes, you do need PG. No, random is not the same. No, CIG has not shown any decent PG.
    This. I was about to degenerate in an insult, but I'm glad you managed to reason around it. Thanks! +rep.

  8. #7298
    Star Citizen: Has Some Glitches

  9. #7299
    Originally Posted by Wokawidget View Post (Source)
    lol...tbh I'm amazed you've not refunded. Remind me to take the mick next time I see you
    You are just jealous of all the fidelity I can enjoy

  10. #7300
    Originally Posted by BlackSpaceCowboy View Post (Source)
    What do you mean? I saw the live demo. They had some glitches but what we saw doesn't exist in any other game.
    What did you see that doesn't exist in any other game, in the unmitigated disaster that was the gamescon demo that was so bad Disco Lando apologised for it and it triggered a wave of refunds.

    I don't believe you watched it.

  11. #7301
    Originally Posted by BlackSpaceCowboy View Post (Source)
    They had some glitches but what we saw doesn't exist in any other game.
    ...

    Wat?!

  12. #7302
    Originally Posted by Kerrash View Post (Source)
    I hope that is a false statement also. I want the game experience that has been promised for SQ42.
    Sadly the evidence so far shows that they are struggling with even the most fundamental functionality
    I agree. I think "the most fundamental functionality" is a bit much. They do have ships.

  13. #7303
    Originally Posted by BlackSpaceCowboy View Post (Source)
    I agree. I think "the most fundamental functionality" is a bit much. They do have ships.
    Yes but when I mean 'fundamental' I mean the physics engine is so broken that players keep flying through ship hulls

  14. #7304
    Yes, but it's unprecedented glitching. Visionary, some say. You just don't understand flying through the hull development.

  15. #7305
    Originally Posted by BlackSpaceCowboy View Post (Source)
    So SC should have been complete in a week? They've completed countless tasks in their sprints.
    No, he doesnt say that. You know it, he knows it, we all know it. Stop being daft.

    A year ago 3.0 was 'a couple of weeks out'. fast-forward one year and 3.0 is 'a couple of weeks out', with a couple of features removed. That means development has gone backwards in one year. No honest person can call that good. No normal business accepts it. Yes, development is unpredictable. I work on the crossroads between AI and biological psychology. Things are state of the art, and unpredictable. Sometimes my ETAs are off, and when I think I need two weeks I need three. Sometimes even four, or five, or six. But as often I get things done sooner than expected. On average, my ETAs are solid, and projects move forward on the general timeline presented. As I am expected to. Unpredictability leads to a loss in accuracy of ETAs. But the average over many ETAs should still be solid. CIGs estimates have consistently been too positive, so its not a case of 'its unpredictable' but an issue with bias. That simply means upper management is either unable or unwilling to make proper estimations which is a bad sign.

    Honestly, when CR said it would be a couple of weeks last year. Do you think he was off by about a 1000% because he was incompetent? I doubt it. He knew it wasnt ready, would never be even remotely ready, but simply lied to keep the sales going. In janurary he announced they almost had a plan ready for 3.0. Which means that when he made his earlier announcement he knew there wasnt a plan yet but still openly said they were hoping to release 3.0 before even finishing the planning stage.

    Any sane person looks at that and says:"SCrew you CR. SCrew you."

    Beyond that I'll grab my crystal ball: they will release something called 3.0. It wont have the features promised for 3.0. It will be accompanied by more ship sales. The ship sale infrastructure will work fine. 3.0 will be a buggy mess. CR will say not to worry, because the next patch will be the next Jesus Patch. The cycle continues. You will drop off disappointed. One year from now the new BlackSpaceCowboy shows up here and says we are all haters. He is open minded, willing to give CIG a chance. 4.0 will definitely prove if SC is a scam or not. And so the cycle continues.