I think you are all being trolled masterly atm 
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Only if you want it to fit so much that you can't see past it
Last edited:
No. It's the best objective fitting of the facts to a hypothesis. Why would I "want" any particular conclusion? I don't care.Only if you want it to fit so much that you can't see past it
We have court admission by CIG that the one single material that made the whole endeavor possible was not made by them but by another party that has no involvement on the project.
The whole thing was founded on a dishonesty from the beginning (that never even being officially acknowledged publicly by CIG), only the uninformed and/or biased people with sad emotional attachment would feel the need to disagree when others are calling the project as scam.
The whole thing was founded on a dishonesty from the beginning (that never even being officially acknowledged publicly by CIG), only the uninformed and/or biased people with sad emotional attachment would feel the need to disagree when others are calling the project as scam.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
You mean videos like this 2016 CitCon one?
Or perhaps this one regarding release dates of both SQ42 and SC?
Pretty sure many backers pledged a lot of money based on the hype of these at the time, so probably all worth it.
Regarding the discussion about the terminology, i.e. scam or not scam etc, I do not know if scam is the right term for SC or not but I wonder how we can call something where someone repeatedly and constantly says he/she is going to do something (the above 2 examples are just 2 among a legion of others) and asks for your money for it, and then he/she does not do it.
If it happens once or twice may be an honest slip or simply incompetence or bad performance, but when that scale and amount of misrepresentation in exchange for money becomes second nature and a very predictable pattern in how you do business over and over, over 8+ years... then how do we call that?
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
A few months before this video these human powered planes´ airworthiness was probably not there, but in the video we can see it there (broken but there).
Last edited:
Extremely Slow? Nearly a decade of dev time not one single star system completed. There is no basic concept for finishing the basic game loops. You mean that persistence when get a 30k while doing a Cargo run you cargo gets lost? Mining gameplay a fun loop? It a personal preference for me it is like the survival mechanics a boring loop and a boring gameplay implementation. Sure is progress made but are you happy with the speed of it?
My personal opinion is that CI g have reached the engine limitations ( I think the said it „we could not ad more content before ..“)
Fore the scam thing. Look incompetency is no scam that’s right but to know that you could not archive the goal but don’t tell it to your money givers is a scam or?
It is also a ponzi scheme. I think CR made a statement „if the money stops incoming we could complete SQ42 and finish with that money the PU“. So what we have seen is that without the calders money they where bankrupt. So what is a ponzi scheme?
The project takes tons of money because what you call 'whales' love it and new players too. They do what they want with their money. Spending money on what you like is normal.
Chris and Sandi hasn't been seen lately, it's a good news no ? For you, CR is the worst manager ever so anybody replacing him will be better...
Some cool pictures from Hasgaha (I know, SC = screenshot generator)
Last edited:
Its probably also a good idea not to play too much so you don't burn out on the game before its in a releasable state. (assuming that ever happens, and of course even if, it is years away yet).
Its also worth keeping in mind that the "they had to build the company first" narrative only came into being when CIG failed to meet their own self-imposed deadlines.
In 2012 CR/CIG didn't say "we have to build the company first". They showed off a slick demo, implying everything you were watching had already been developed (actual game engine footage!) and saying they could deliver the game they were promising in just 2-3 years. Build the company or not, that is what they promised the early backers. That they were going to make a revolutionary new space game in just 2-3 years (plus the year they had already spent!) with just a few million.
I actually found it quite unbeleivable to start with, but backers lapped it up, and many of those early backers are still around revising history, saying they had to build the company first, while memory holing what CR/CIG promised early on.
Look even at this SC looks so dated compared to other games. Here the competitor from 2016 ( released and rate gameThe project takes tons of money because what you call 'whales' love it and new players too. They do what they want with their money. Spending money on what you like is normal.
Chris and Sandi hasn't been seen lately, it's a good news no ? For you, CR is the worst manager ever so anybody replacing him will be better...
Some cool pictures from Hasgaha (I know, SC = screenshot generator)
)Beautiful game. If it was a space simulation I will certainly be playing it now. It just lacks all I love in SC.
I don't know a space simulation with better graphics than SC. If you know one, just tell us.
Unfortunately this is one of the main points why CIG gets lots of flack. Putting things on roadmap they cannot achieve and failing to hit their own deadlines for 8 years. BUT it helps string backers along. It helps them maintain faith that something good is coming soon, and when it doesn't it gets excused away. Look at the flack FD or other devs get when failing to hit deadlines for new content, but CIG always get a free pass. But its effectively the same whether its something being developed in alpha or not alpha. Its still new stuff, new content, new features. It still involves R&D work and implementation.
You also mentioned complexity in another post, and this is also a factor. Instead of going with decision trees for AI, which work, and can be done quickly and easily, CIG seem to always take a more complicated approach to everything. Problems that have been solved time and again are eschewed for more complex solutions that bring little to no benefit, and sometimes seem to bring more problems. This also adds to development time, in a project that already suffers enough from a long development time.
But again, CIG provide the excuses for the faithful to accept and repeat, and it allows them to kick the can further down the road.
Imagine if they had the competence or honesty to say duing the kickstarter that what they had planned then was going to take about 6-7 years to devleop,
Imagine if, when they kept offering stretch goals, instead of CR saying the addition of more goals and more funding wouldn't significantly delay features they would instead have said, the more we add, the longer it will take. That was the honest thing to say. By the time they hit the 65 million stretch goal they should have been telling backers it was going to take more than 10 years, probably a lot more, before those goals are met.
When they decided to add full planets instead of limited landing areas, they should have been honest enough to tell backers that it will be decades before they get 110 systems added.
But honest statements like that would probably turn a lot of people off funding. Better to let them believe its all coming sooner rather than later. Good things are coming, soon, just around the corner. Oh sure, we could make a new system every 2 months, but we've just got some other tech to implement first, but wait and see.
And the faithful accept this, and believe it, until things fail to materialize, and then its time to either bring out the latest excuse or to memory hole what was said.
Persistence is there to some extent. Its just every patch or two they perform a wipe, so the persistence is wiped away anyway.
Funny, because CIG are trying to release ToW, which is closer to what IW is than what SC is meant to be.
It as much a space simulation as SC ever will be.
I'd say SC has made progress, but if you have around 500 staff and around $300m funding then progress is the least you'd expect.
Take a step back, look at what has happened objectively, and wonder if something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Take a step back, look at what has happened objectively, and wonder if something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Not just a demo, but a "demo of actual game play."
Star Citizen Kickstarter said:
Star Citizen
Reclaim the stars in the exciting new Space Epic from legendary game designer Chris Roberts.
The scam thing isnt some wild theory coming out in order to "hurt" people or CIG. There are simply signs for SC being one and the more time goes by and the more CIG mucks up the more probable it becomes that it was a scam for quiet some time. The more time goes by the more time CIG has of course to hide it all are sweep it under the rug but regardless what people say has no impact on SCs development or course.
And despite the rabid refusal of many there are actually good reasons for Star Citizen being a scam.....from CIGs and Chris Roberts perspective. I dont need to repeat them all as they ve been stated often enough and most of them are valid tho not evidence to it really being one. It just looks and feels like one and I wouldnt be surprised in the slightest if investigative articles revealed the fact.
I get that some people are good-natured and dont want to assume the worst in people. I have to wonder how sheltered or young such people have to be in order to not have been punished by life so far to teach them otherwise. I come from the same shores and I consider myself lucky that I ve not been slammed more then I have so far but "life" certainly taught me some things and trusting a company or believing in a financial endeavor is the least of the things I learned to do. On the other end of the spectrum where people dont need much to assume the worst, thats called mistrust, its not hate by any means but of course this is mostly where the personal involvement starts. Because when asked about the reasons people discover that there actually are good ones for SC being a scam. You can of course decide to disregard signs and interprete them differently but at some point you have to look past so many flaws and condition yourself so much to focus on the good while ignoring the bad that even you realize what you are doing. As in many situations that are not life-threatening the fight or flight reflex still kicks in. We never hear about the people who flee so of course we only handle the people who "fight" but its a blind reaction without much sense or reason and on a forum where you cannot beat your opponent down and you can actually speak your mind without being interrupted it all comes down to WHAT you say and again....the more time passes the more doubt and worry piles about against CIG.
So you can of course dismiss the "scam" accuse immediately but saying its a crazy theory is a mistake, especially if you consider yourself a reasonable and responsible adult. I dont know how much time I spend planning and expecting trouble and scenarios that never become true. Better to be prepared then to be surprised eh? No doubt "scam" is also used as a cheap shot these days because thats the only thing you need in order to provoke a reaction.
Ant identifies the reaction accordingly. Extreme defensive reactions because of accusations and we all know that too. The question rather should be WHY people feel compelled to raise an extreme defensive reaction on behalf of something that is not them personally. Is the person too involved in some way? Financially (probable) or emotionally (equally probable)? Being unable to even acknowledge certain things further underlines this assessment. I remember the urge very well. Something I like being critizised so I speak up in defense but I ve learned that I dont have to speak up every time. There are actually good reasons for some criticism I cannot possibly deflect and in the end....you cant change everybody. Often enough arguments errupt because of a misunderstanding and dialoge usually is the way to clear things. The difference is the reason. If you simply speak up in order to defend your points will be hollow and unconvincing.....like talking to a drone that just regurgitates the same old same old. If you speak up in order to "understand where the other person is coming from" thats when you have the potential for a real talk. And sadly, that hardly happens anymore here. Theres too much joking, too much poking and too much fanatism involved. It doesnt matter if you only read or try to understand the other person in order to find holes or an angle of attack. By doing so you open yourself to the other perspective and I can honestly say I have seriously tried to understand people who still cling to the hype wagon. It usually ends at the "I am having fun" line. Its like faith in religion. Or preference of taste. Some people like chocolate, some people like vanilla. Nobody has to justify his or her preference. Its a perfect defense that cannot be broken. Sadly most of the pro-SC posts around here are stories of fun gameplay because "convincing through quality" is something Star Citizen cannot do (some people tried that but were debunked as hoaxes or shills). And if you really think it can be... prepare to get challenged on that assumption. Not to deny you your view but to correct you in accordance with reality. Its no wonder that ED is often mentioned as its doing a lot of things better, quicker and put them into a functional game. People calling upon ED or other games try to point to a lack or fundamental mistake within Star Citizen. It could be real SC fans who dont want to see CIG doing the same mistakes. It certainly helps to understand that CIG isnt concocting magic but cooks with hot water same as everybody else. And CIG received a lot of patience and goodwill but its not getting a free pass on things other companies are crucified for. But thats exactly whats happening here right? P2W is bad but its okay or doesnt matter in SC. Games get crushed in reviews because the result is less then what was expected. But Star Citizen hides behind an eternal alpha status and "things are hard" statements. We all wanted to see CIG doing something smart, doing something genius, prove the doubts and worries wrong and give us what we all wanted. So after watching the development for x years I ve grown disenchanted with the constant promises, the constant delays and at all times....the crushing disappointment in results. And blaming people for having unrealistic expectations is again "blaming the victim" because CIG certainly promised the sky during its hype drives. And they also received the money based on those promises. I expect them to deliver. I wont accept something that is "just as good" as game x. That would already be a failure. CIG sold the BDSSE. I expect the BDSSE and if they cant do it then Star Citizen failed.
But this forum is long past the "are you having fun" time already. Having fun or not is completel irrelevant in most things we talk about here regarding the project. When we analyze financial data or try to interprete roadmaps or the latest wishy-washy propaganda video out of CIG "having fun" simply isnt a factor. Some people dont get that. For them having fun justifies everything, all the delays, all the lying, all the deception and of course the massive waste of time, money and hope. You can share them with us and this certainly is the right place to post them but we are not a positive echo chamber where we just throw hype fluff at each other to enforce the narrative. You could say its a negative echo chamber but I ve thought about that in earnest and I think the bad simply outweighs the good so much that if we talk about everything SC equally the impression is that all we do is talking about the bad stuff. Also because Star Citizen still is at an early stage of development "fun" isnt yet important enough to warrant a lot of attention. Fundamental core strructure that enables fun later on is a lot more important but in Star Citizen....these things are grossly neglected to the point where it seems to be impossible to achieve (which certainly is the point right now). THIS is what people mean when they say CIG puts the cart before the horse. Some people dont care about all the effort, work, genius or hardship involved in something they consume. They want it to work or have fun. Thats it. If you are one of those people then sorry to break it to you but you dont really have anything important to say.....
The end justifies the means?
Hell no!!!!! With what we know Star Citizen could become the 10/10 review game BDSSE and all the bad things which happened during its development STILL STAND and are valid.
Agression while talking usually comes into play when one side has nothing to counter arguments and knows its losing the verbal battle. You could as well pull the "victim card" in order to retreat with your ego intact. But if it ends like this it never was a discussion in the first place. An earnest discussion (something that most people coming here claim to look for) involves opening yourself to views different from your own. Trying to understand the other person is important in order to come to a census or have a good time. Instead, often enough people dont even read what you post but simply "wait their turn" to speak and then push everything they think into one post regardless if what they say has been rendered void or outdated by previous posts. Too many people come in here and just speak their turn disregarding that what they say has been said numerous times, has been evaluated and interpreteted and we ve moved on. But these people dont care....they usually dont put in the time or effort to be up-to-date with their message and they are surprised when whatever they say has next to no impact.I could talk to my physics teacher about higher physics even tho I only learned the basics and he might even entertain me but he will never take me seriously and if I challenge him he will show me my limits. If I refuse his word he will challenge me with questions I wont be able to answer - as a result I will either change my view (submit) or raise to the challenge (fight) and you should be aware that your decision leads to people dropping the kids gloves and giving you their best shot.
Of course this is the time when the "you guys are just haters" card is shown which usually announces a retreat. And we wait for the next guy doing it all over again...welcome to version 12 in case you wonder why this thread has such a high post count ^^
There are a lot of things within Star Citizens development that seems strange / weird / whacky / suspicious. Worse......despite all these signs there simply is no result or even explanation that would justify the things we know about. "They had to build up the company first" might sound like a convincing argument.....if you are clueless (sorry) but its a bogus argument because this is a challenge EVERY company has to face and you can certainly cherry pick all the big bad publishers with their millions and gigantic teams but what about all the indi developers or self-made small companies who overcome this challenge? Why isnt CIG at least as good as they are? CIG has the supposed to have the brainpower and financial buffer to make this a non-issue but somehow its still a problem that even explains the 5 years of delay? Wow.....CIG must be really incompetent huh? People coming into the project NOW might think its well worth the 45 bucks and a good deal and it might even be that for them but its NOT when you consider how hard earned it all is. How much was sacrificed for it and how much bullying and human misery has been going along with its development. Thats why an oldtimer like me simply cannot stand there in awe of the shining fluff visuals and disregard all the dead ends, bugs, glitches and deception involved when watching CIG. Someone claiming to be a backer since 2013 and NOT being scpetical or sarcastic strikes me as "odd" to say the least but hey, what do I know. If people would invest half as much time, effort and brainpower into evaluating Star Citizen instead of defending it against "hate" I m sure the toxicity wouldnt be as bad.
Progress usually comes from acceptance. Ask any surviving addict. These guys can lie to themselves for years and never get better. It requires them to accept that they have a problem at which point they can look for ways to improve.
The same applies to Star Citizen. We need to identify, mark and confirm problems within the project before we can start fixing them. Only thats not happening at all is it? According to CIG everythng is going great and all the enablers of Star Citizen look right past the glaringly obvious problems with a "I m sure they gonna fix that, no worries" mindset. Its usually rooted in somebody who suspects there might be problems but who refuses to face them out of angst that it ll destroy his dream.
People who have a list of justifications or reasons ready to go fit that catergory. We all have lists. I certainly have my "anti-SC list" ready to throw out but I m also willing to sit down and talk seriously when we are past the cheap shots. Hardly anybody is willing to do that anymore these days /shrug you know....its corona, my online time has increased dramatically and I dont want to play all day long ^^