Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[WotGTheAgent]

What happens in the extremely unlikely event that Sqn 42 releases to high acclaim or some official review process for SC appears as positive? I take it that such rampant abuse of common sense will be decried as shill pieces too?

If SQ42 releases as a good game, I'll say it's a good game. Same with Star Citizen. Until that happens, I'll continue to critique what I play every patch release.

And about the whole "some games take decades to make" thing, that can be true. Fortunately, those games did not pre-sell features that were cut along the development timeline. Now, you can argue that yes, like myself, you could pre-order Duke Nukem 4Ever way back when there were still Electronic Boutique's and Egghead Software's still in business -- but pre-ordering a game is different than pre-ordering for a specific feature.

Star Citizen has not only promised but pre-sold faction battles scaled to several hundreds or thousands of players -- they've pre-sold land claims and base building -- with an $800 ship tied to that as well. If they never get those features working, what then? What do people do with a $1,500 (or more) capital ship that cannot interact in any meaningful way with the game? What do they do with the Pioneer if they cannot build bases?

Besides some of the hilarious rumors, that's my main issue with SC. Game development is tough; features are scrapped, changed or reimagined all the time. SC is no different, except that its taken in tens of millions of dollars for those features -- features that might never exist.

 

[Dementropy]

They are race and company focused, not location focused.
Once all human companies assets will be done, the asset bank for the human race will be almost done.
They will reuse rooms, they already do it in Stanton.

Have CIG given any indication where they are on Xi'an/Vanduul/ummm...bird people? assets yet? Or if they have even started?

I just want to know if I should get a 5, 10, or 20-year calendar.

 

[Mole HD]

If SQ42 releases as a good game, I'll say it's a good game. Same with Star Citizen. Until that happens, I'll continue to critique what I play every patch release.

And about the whole "some games take decades to make" thing, that can be true. Fortunately, those games did not pre-sell features that were cut along the development timeline. Now, you can argue that yes, like myself, you could pre-order Duke Nukem 4Ever way back when there were still Electronic Boutique's and Egghead Software's still in business -- but pre-ordering a game is different than pre-ordering for a specific feature.

Star Citizen has not only promised but pre-sold faction battles scaled to several hundreds or thousands of players -- they've pre-sold land claims and base building -- with an $800 ship tied to that as well. If they never get those features working, what then? What do people do with a $1,500 (or more) capital ship that cannot interact in any meaningful way with the game? What do they do with the Pioneer if they cannot build bases?

Besides some of the hilarious rumors, that's my main issue with SC. Game development is tough; features are scrapped, changed or reimagined all the time. SC is no different, except that it's taken in tens of millions of dollars for those features -- features that might never exist.

I wholeheartedly agree...but outside of the business strategies, predatory marketing and money laundering shenanigans of the company(s) and individuals behind Star Citizen, hidden underneath all that is what's turning into a fairly decent game thousands of players enjoy playing.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

What happens in the extremely unlikely event that Sqn 42 releases to high acclaim or some official review process for SC appears as positive? I take it that such rampant abuse of common sense will be decried as shill pieces too?

In the modern world, unfortunately, most media pieces praising a game are suspect. We know Charlie Hall is a big ED fan, how much of this is because he genuinely enjoys the game or is being rewarded i guess we will never know, but it also means his articles are biased.

That's why you tend to have to look at what is there in a game and decide whether you like what you see rather than relying on "independent" reviewers. Sites like metacritic also help, but i'm sure they also suffer from influence from publishers, if not directly, then from the employees and developers. I've heard tales of publishers setting bonuses for developers and the development company based on metacritic reviews, so there is definite incentive there for the developers and the company to make accounts to push the score up so they get their bonuses.

And of course the flip side is true, if a game is being bashed, is it because its genuinely bad or are the press trying to generate some controversy to gain website hits? Are they perhaps being influenced by a competing publisher who has an interest in people not playing that game but their own?

In short, its always best to evaluate things yourself as much as you can, and not rely on other to tell you what your opinion should be.

And yes, this also applies to my own criticism of SC/CIG. I state my opinions and feelings, others should then evaluate what I say and decide for themselves whether they agree or disagree.

However, to run with your theoretical situation, where SQ42 releases to high acclaim from multiple sources including critical acclaim from sources that have previously bashed SC/CIG, eg: Angry Joe, so its clear that its beyond just people being paid to influence, then i'll probably be quite amazed.

I mean, i fully expect it to be a trope filled trash story with lots of cut scenes, a lot of walking down corridors, and the odd bit of combat in between. But i could be wrong!

But if it is good, then all it will show is that its possible for a bad (in my opinion) company to produce a good product. It doesn't suddenly make them a good company. EA make some very good games, i'm still not giving them money.

 

[Mole HD]

In the modern world, unfortunately, most media pieces praising a game are suspect. We know Charlie Hall is a big ED fan, how much of this is because he genuinely enjoys the game or is being rewarded i guess we will never know, but it also means his articles are biased.

That's why you tend to have to look at what is there in a game and decide whether you like what you see rather than relying on "independent" reviewers. Sites like metacritic also help, but i'm sure they also suffer from influence from publishers, if not directly, then from the employees and developers. I've heard tales of publishers setting bonuses for developers and the development company based on metacritic reviews, so there is definite incentive there for the developers and the company to make accounts to push the score up so they get their bonuses.

And of course the flip side is true, if a game is being bashed, is it because its genuinely bad or are the press trying to generate some controversy to gain website hits? Are they perhaps being influenced by a competing publisher who has an interest in people not playing that game but their own?

In short, its always best to evaluate things yourself as much as you can, and not rely on other to tell you what your opinion should be.

And yes, this also applies to my own criticism of SC/CIG. I state my opinions and feelings, others should then evaluate what I say and decide for themselves whether they agree or disagree.

However, to run with your theoretical situation, where SQ42 releases to high acclaim from multiple sources including critical acclaim from sources that have previously bashed SC/CIG, eg: Angry Joe, so its clear that its beyond just people being paid to influence, then i'll probably be quite amazed.

I mean, i fully expect it to be a trope filled trash story with lots of cut scenes, a lot of walking down corridors, and the odd bit of combat in between. But i could be wrong!

But if it is good, then all it will show is that its possible for a bad (in my opinion) company to produce a good product. It doesn't suddenly make them a good company. EA make some very good games, i'm still not giving them money.

Biased reviews...and yours or mine aren't?

Angry Joe is a Wing Commander level backer ...as much as he's lost face over SC...like countless other wide eyed boys who forked out on promises from the idiot Roberts, myself included

 

[Agony_Aunt]

They are race and company focused, not location focused.
Once all human companies assets will be done, the asset bank for the human race will be almost done.
They will reuse rooms, they already do it in Stanton.

This is one of those prediction level things i look forward to seeing how things unfold in the future.

Does CR think the way LA thinks? Is LA really CR?!

Or will he demand unique assets for every new system?

Such an exciting time to be alive!

Let's see how things unfold in the coming years and decades as they add new systems!

That is, if they can get the next Jesus tech to work.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Biased reviews...and yours or mine aren't?

Never said otherwise

All reviews are biased. We are biased by our impressions and attitudes. And that's how we form our opinions.

 

[VR Golgot]

It's all out there for anyone who may be slightly less informed to go spend most of their waking hours for an entire year just taking a fraction of it all in, both positive and negative.

Yeah but that’s the point. Reviews get aggregated for easy assessment. Steam, metacritic etc. Then you can dig further into the why of the ratings. Or not. But it’s there at a glance.

Assess SC at a glance and you’ll likely just get this stuff:

Source: https://youtu.be/m-Rz5PTMuaw

The official spin that all brands happily pump to the top of the search engines.

With most traditional journalists having thrown up their hands at covering SC over the years, that’s the primary mainstream signal out there at the moment. There isn’t much in the way of a check and balance for the brand narrative. At least for anyone who doesn’t want to spend hours digging

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I wholeheartedly agree...but outside of the business strategies, predatory marketing and money laundering shenanigans of the company(s) and individuals behind Star Citizen, hidden underneath all that is what's turning into a fairly decent game thousands of players enjoy playing.

And then it is up to the individual if it sits right with them giving money to a company that has lied its way to success.

It does help of course if the individual knows about the company and their history and is in a position to decide for themselves whether they agree that the company is shady or not before they decide whether they care about it.

But of course, that's not a story the faithful would tell you.

 

[Mole HD]

Yeah but that’s the point. Reviews get aggregated for easy assessment. Steam, metacritic etc. Then you can dig further into the why of the ratings. Or not. But it’s there at a glance.

Assess SC at a glance and you’ll likely just get this stuff:

Source: https://youtu.be/m-Rz5PTMuaw

The official spin that all brands happily pump to the top of the search engines.

With most traditional journalists having thrown up their hands at covering SC over the years, that’s the primary mainstream signal out there at the moment. There isn’t much in the way of a check and balance for their narrative. At least for anyone who doesn’t want to spend hours digging

And why do you think the snakes at Ci¬G marketing purposely named that video "What is Star Citizen"? Did you ever Google that exact phrase before that particular video was released?

I did, none of it was good

 

[WotGTheAgent]

I have zero problems with people enjoying SC -- I mean I play plenty of "bad" games that most of the gaming population can't stand. I get that. I take issue with:

1. The "Never Been Done Before" narrative, especially since all the tech CIG has "invented" has been utilized for years if not decades
2. The "Content Pipelines are Going to Explode (Once the Tools are Done)" narrative, because no, that's never been how game design and creation has worked, ever. Not ever. Making, testing and re-evaluating content takes the most time of any part of game development
3. The "Server Meshing is Coming Soon" narrative because if it isn't (and it isn't) SC is completely stalled and the grand dreams of those aforementioned thousand plus player battles are dead. So things are always coming soon, or T0, or refactored and there's not even a hint of a test of that technology, which means its not Coming Soon, it's years and years or maybe even a half a decade (or a full one) away
4. The "All it Takes to Enjoy Star Citizen is $45" narrative because while that's technically true, the starter ships are a really miserable slog without players much more heavily invested in the game helping you out. I also get an extremely MLM scheme vibe from anyone who heavily promotes Star Citizen (and Lord knows I've been hit up by friends for every MLM scam out there, from Primerica to whatever latest blockchain fad they've lost money on), but mostly this one is all heavily personal opinion and your mileage may vary

 

[Mole HD]

And then it is up to the individual if it sits right with them giving money to a company that has lied its way to success.

It does help of course if the individual knows about the company and their history and is in a position to decide for themselves whether they agree that the company is shady or not before they decide whether they care about it.

But of course, that's not a story the faithful would tell you.

And how many of the faithful post in here bar the odd drive-by shooter?

Although there seems to be random ED faithful's driving by just as much these days

 

[Dooguk]

And how many of the faithful post in here bar the odd drive-by shooter?

Although there seems to be random ED faithful's driving by just as much these days

Hey Mole. How is the real world treating you and the missus?

 

[Mole HD]

Hey Mole. How is the real world treating you and the missus?

I'm strangely enjoying the lack of cows n' tractors and liking the whole nursey thing

 

[Agony_Aunt]

And how many of the faithful post in here bar the odd drive-by shooter?

Does it matter? Its a place where i like to talk about SC/CIG and for others to ignore/agree/disagree with what i write and for me to do likewise with what they write.

If there aren't many faithful here, that's fine. Generally better, because then i don't have to listen to "never been done before" and "its coming soon" or be bombarded with screenshots of Asps in front... sorry, i mean Cutlasses in front of things.

 

[Dooguk]

Glad you still have your humour mate. I wish the both of you well.

 

[Mole HD]

Does it matter? Its a place where i like to talk about SC/CIG and for others to ignore/agree/disagree with what i write and for me to do likewise with what they write.

If there aren't many faithful here, that's fine. Generally better, because then i don't have to listen to "never been done before" and "its coming soon" or be bombarded with screenshots of Asps in front... sorry, i mean Cutlasses in front of things.

That makes both of us...apart from the sad lack of Cutty black screenies of course

 

[LittleAnt]

4. The "All it Takes to Enjoy Star Citizen is $45" narrative because while that's technically true, the starter ships are a really miserable slog

Less than 20 hours to get to a Titan.

 

[VR Golgot]

And why do you think the snakes at Ci¬G marketing purposely named that video "What is Star Citizen"? Did you ever Google that exact phrase before that particular video was released?

I did, none of it was good

Sure, but they did do it. Like I said, it’s what brands do

 

[Xink]

What happens in the extremely unlikely fantasy event that Sqn 42 releases to high acclaim or some official review process for SC appears as 'mostly positive'?

Pigs Cows fly.

I wholeheartedly agree...but outside of the business strategies, predatory marketing and money laundering shenanigans of the company(s) and individuals behind Star Citizen, hidden underneath all that is what's turning into a fairly decent game thousands of players enjoy playing.

Unfortunately (for CIG), a decent game when you've just spent over a decade raising 400M+ USD and have become the most well funded game company ever just isn't going to cut it.

With heavy funding and big promises come big expectations. Like delivering on the gameplay of the ships you've already sold but haven't made, or finished gameplay for. Not even that "big" an expectation to get what you paid for but the absolute minimum.

That there is a decent game underneath all the bugs and crud is such a low bar for a 400M game it's just.. a bit pathetic really.

400M USD. Decent game. Like wut?

Flip that on its head and ask yourself if the general public would see CIG in a favourable light if SC were released today, as is, and CIG went "that's all folks". Would the consumer protection agencies not rightly be all up their bums asking where is the DLC people pre-ordered? Would those buyers not insist on refunds for the goods they did not get?

Followed by uncomfortable to CIG questions such as "where has all the money gone?"