Star Citizen Thread v6

[Tippis]

Well, as I wrote there is no evidence

And as I said: exactly. Hence why all evidence points to “no.”

you claim to have an answer to the question we are all dying to find out (is the game good or bad?) based on 'evidence'.

No. That's just some nonsense you've dreamed up. I never made any such claim.

Where does it make sense here to ask me for 'evidence'?

Right about where you start to suggest that what I've provided does not support my conclusion based on… something. I'm asking you to provide that something — that evidence that would disprove what I said. Mind you: what I actually said, not the strawman you invented.

 

[Britney]

And as I said: exactly. Hence why all evidence points to “no.”


No. That's just some nonsense you've dreamed up. I never made any such claim.


Right about where you start to suggest that what I've provided does not support my conclusion based on… something. I'm asking you to provide that something — that evidence that would disprove what I said. Mind you: what I actually said, not the strawman you invented.

Can you enlighten me then: What did you actually say?

 

[Thargon]

Can you enlighten me then: What did you actually say?

Let's just agree to leave the topic until the end of July. Then we can return to this topic, point fingers of blame, say "ha ha!" (high pitched Simpon's voice) and say, we told you so.

 

[Tippis]

Can you enlighten me then: What did you actually say?

It's very simple:

They must be able to make a game that was made 27 years ago with updated graphics.

Must? All evidence points to “no.”
The modal verb you're looking for is “should.”

They should be able to make such a game, but must they be able to? No. Everything — both internally and externally — suggests otherwise. Many on the team have tried it before and failed. Many far better teams have tried the same thing, and failed. They themselves have long since seemingly stopped even trying.

Let's just agree to leave the topic until the end of July. Then we can return to this topic, point fingers of blame, say "ha ha!" (high pitched Simpon's voice) and say, we told you so.

Yeah, it's a silly tangent. Doubly so since 3.0 won't even resolve it — they'd have to go back and actually start making something more resembling the original KS pitch to even begin to demonstrate that ability, and it seems like they're rather unwilling to do that.

 

[MTBFritz]

Let's just agree to leave the topic until the end of July. Then we can return to this topic, point fingers of blame, say "ha ha!" (high pitched Simpon's voice) and say, we told you so.

always surprises me when people go on the warpath about someone stating his/her opinion.

If you want facts...look to Star Citizen or ask CiG directly. Oh they are not answering the critical questions? Well sheesh, looks like its not the most open development ever. There are contradicting official announcements and CiG refuses to clarify? Just pick the one you like the best. If someone claims to have "evidence" or "facts" and cannot present them to your satisfaction.....book it under "assumption" or "opinion". Theres really no need to get into an argument about it or try to "drive home" your point especially when it all breaks down into a confusing mess after 2 posts. Opinions is pretty much all we have at this point....and conclusions.

I kinda agree with the statement that the "absence of evidence is evidence" itself (especially after 6 years of development) but that doesnt mean everybody else needs to get it as well.

Quarreling and nitpicking about exact terms and quotes....well its getting tiresome and sometimes I m really surprised as to the direction its coming from (aka...not the "usual" people).


CiG has manufactured its hype and patch schedule in such a way that theres really nothing we can do except for sitting on our hands and waiting till 3.0 arrives. We can of course discuss the reliability of the current release date and theorycraft about its content but "facts" are nonexisting at this point.

 

[Thargon]

always surprises me when people go on the warpath about someone stating his/her opinion.

If you want facts...look to Star Citizen or ask CiG directly. Oh they are not answering the critical questions? Well sheesh, looks like its not the most open development ever. There are contradicting official announcements and CiG refuses to clarify? Just pick the one you like the best. If someone claims to have "evidence" or "facts" and cannot present them to your satisfaction.....book it under "assumption" or "opinion". Theres really no need to get into an argument about it or try to "drive home" your point especially when it all breaks down into a confusing mess after 2 posts. Opinions is pretty much all we have at this point....and conclusions.

I kinda agree with the statement that the "absence of evidence is evidence" itself (especially after 6 years of development) but that doesnt mean everybody else needs to get it as well.

Quarreling and nitpicking about exact terms and quotes....well its getting tiresome and sometimes I m really surprised as to the direction its coming from (aka...not the "usual" people).


CiG has manufactured its hype and patch schedule in such a way that theres really nothing we can do except for sitting on our hands and waiting till 3.0 arrives. We can of course discuss the reliability of the current release date and theorycraft about its content but "facts" are nonexisting at this point.

Mate. Sorry but why are you quoting me? I'm suggesting we drop the topic which has no benefit, we have no information, and it's just pointless bickering going nowhere?

 

[MTBFritz]

Mate. Sorry but why are you quoting me? I'm suggesting we drop the topic which has no benefit, we have no information, and it's just pointless bickering going nowhere?

Because my basic statement is "yeah, lets not worry too much and wait on the results" which was mirroring your post. I wasnt implying you did any of that.

 

[Britney]

It's very simple:


They should be able to make such a game, but must they be able to? No. Everything — both internally and externally — suggests otherwise. Many on the team have tried it before and failed. Many far better teams have tried the same thing, and failed. They themselves have long since seemingly stopped even trying..

I ignore the terminological nitpicking (english is not my mothertongue). The question for evidence that supports your claims is still unanswered (especially regarding the last one that draws conclusions about intentions or motivations). Actually nobody outside of that company was able to show the 'real state' of the program to the public yet. I would be happy if you were the first one who can solve that puzzle, because my impression is that nobody knows what is really happening behind the closed doors of CIG so far.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Nobody in CIG knows for sure either - as nearly everything is still at the concept stage and a "we envision X to be like Y" with a superdose of "new technology never attempted before" splattered all over a "solid technical foundation" that shifts every five minutes.

 

[Jezzah]

ahhh more downsizing.....love it

a little more and 3.0 will be a skeleton patch with the sole purpose to carry them well into 2018. No expectations fulfilled, certainly not over-delivering (lol)...just enough to keep the hope going and the suckers paying.

Have to agree. Seems like with it moving right in terms of release it gets smaller and smaller in content. Glad I refunded out of this mess last year.

 

[Tippis]

The question for evidence that supports your claims is still unanswered

No. It really isn't. It's been answered every time you've asked. The only reason you keep asking is because you skip over the nit-picking, which is what's actually important in what I'm saying — it's the part that would explain why your question had been answered in full. What “the real state of the program” might be was, is, and remains 100% irrelevant to what I'm saying, which is why I'm not giving you want you want in that regard.

 

[Thargon]

Nobody in CIG knows for sure either - as nearly everything is still at the concept stage and a "we envision X to be like Y" with a superdose of "new technology never attempted before" splattered all over a "solid technical foundation" that shifts every five minutes.

Hmmm who does know what's going on?

• We don't know
• Backers don't know
• Press don't know
• CIG don't know
• CRoberts don't know

:S :S :S

 

[Tippis]

On a different topic, we've been… ehm… commenting on the animation and camera work in SC, and what issues they've run into with their first-person perspective. Well, compare the ill-conceived dizziness mechanics they've chosen over a design more along the lines of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xeTMCPG2gg

 

[Britney]

No. It really isn't. It's been answered every time you've asked. The only reason you keep asking is because you skip over the nit-picking, which is what's actually important in what I'm saying — it's the part that would explain why your question had been answered in full. What “the real state of the program” might be was, is, and remains 100% irrelevant to what I'm saying, which is why I'm not giving you want you want in that regard.

Believe me, it is not that hard to establish a shared space of communication. What a waste of time.

 

[Skizomeuh]

On a different topic, we've been… ehm… commenting on the animation and camera work in SC, and what issues they've run into with their first-person perspective. Well, compare the ill-conceived dizziness mechanics they've chosen over a design more along the lines of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xeTMCPG2gg

That's the problem when you bet so much on Fidelity in that personality and focus on gameplay are ignored.

 

[Tippis]

That's the problem when you bet so much on Fidelity in that personality and focus on gameplay are ignored.

Yeah, and that's another thing about how silly their approach to fidelity is. This is a game that has — indeed, that fundamentally relies on — exceedingly tight camera control. And yet, that doesn't in the slightest reduce how well they can convey movement and physicality of the character. It turns out you don't need to jerk the camera around like a majority shareholder in PukeBags LLC to communicate that to the player. There are a bajillion other cues — or even just the same ones, but toned down — that you can use.

I've been ranting about it before but SC's whole notion of “fidelity” is backwards. They seem to think that if you replicate reality, you get fidelity. You don't, because reality isn't what we actually observe. What you have to replicate is perception and cognition, both of which have as their entire purpose to remove all the rough edges to give the brain something useful to work with. Removing those filters is not fidelity — it's a complete misapprehension of what you're actually trying to be fidelitous to, and it just hurts the brain and takes you out of the moment.

 

[Thargon]

I love looking back

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35555086

Also, this is a good article to read, probably hiding somewhere in the masses of past Star Citizen V1,V2,V3,V4 or V5 megathreads:

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/09/26/the-24-year-feud-that-has-dogged-star-citizen

 

[Maruun]

Hmmm who does know what's going on?

• We don't know
• Backers don't know
• Press don't know
• CIG don't know
• CRoberts don't know

:S :S :S

Spoiler

[video=youtube;8kL8nDPDTfY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kL8nDPDTfY[/video]

Dont worry with 3.0 release this year everything will be fine again!

 

[ChiefRedCloud]

Considering the dates have slipped by 1 week every week (every update of the plan) I would expect it to still slip further.

I believe the plan is over 1 month slippage since they started posting the detailed plans? Or is it longer? Not sure. But it is at least 1 month of slippage.

It must be tough getting ALL your ducks lined up properly but here's hoping that they will ....

[video=youtube;WS9GLbCd5wc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS9GLbCd5wc&list=PLbAXSQbhl2vIrcMhvNGxn4Db5El6u_D3h&index=2[/video]

Chief

 

[MTBFritz]

On a different topic, we've been… ehm… commenting on the animation and camera work in SC, and what issues they've run into with their first-person perspective. Well, compare the ill-conceived dizziness mechanics they've chosen over a design more along the lines of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xeTMCPG2gg

While interesting I dare to state "23" and think the speaker interprets much more into the design then there is. Whatever he says "fits" his explanation but it could be just coincidence and some of the descriptions made me think "really? dude...hes just twitching". On that note its pretty much like Star Citizen and CiG.

They deliver something and its up to the backer or player to make any sense of it because theres no clearcut explanation given by the creators themselves.