The Star Citizen Thread v 3.0
- Thread starter Jenner
- Start date
- Status
https://as.reddit.com/r/starcitizen...t_just_me_or_did_anyone_notice_how_little_20/
Apparently there is cool stuff incoming.
Apparently there is cool stuff incoming.
Last edited:
When you're right, you're right...
Again if this was under a "normal" program management (more than one project) then there would have been some serious corrections from early on. However what we see (far far away from the outside) is that some of the same mistakes keep looping in the process. This is deadly for any project, and I really don't want to know how much money this project has lost on that account.
Last edited:
It's funny, because this circlejerk is annoying for everyone involved, but it's restarted over and over when people defend CIG. They are taking super long to get to a playable state, which is a problem. And the defense mounted always repeats the same points: "It's the most complex game ever" / "Other games have taken longer" / "It hasn't actually been X years, but X-2 years".
And when all these points are shown to be bogus, it's back to "oh whatever, dates don't matter! Look at how amazing it will be!"
On the Star Citizen forums and on gamestar.de, there's about 4-6 users repeatedly stating the "fact" that Star Citizen has been in development for only 1.5 years, because "they had to build the studios and there was no development". Show that it's not true, and you get either "dates don't matter", or "Elite was in development since 2006".
Do you see the problem? There's a group of people actively and repeatedly stating things that aren't true. We're talking facts, hard dates, and such. You can't "debate" for how long SC has been in development. And yet the same incorrect information is brought up time and again. And everytime this happens, someone has to go in and correct it. Over and over and over and over.
1500, thanks for the link to https://www.themittani.com/features/exclusive-interview-star-citizens-chris-roberts - unfortunately for the white knights apparently Chris Roberts' evil twin was giving that interview and obviously said things that are not true. Or something. I wouldn't be surprised about such a claim. Posting that link on Reddit or gamestar.de would probably rile up the mob against you
Not sure if someone already brought this here, but summarizes the entire set of issues of Star Citizen very well:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/the-mo...4-million--so-where-is-it-213831707.html?nf=1
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/the-mo...4-million--so-where-is-it-213831707.html?nf=1
Development started in 2011. If we say for the sake of argument that this was December 2011, that's still nearly 4 years.
Last edited:
Hmm found this interesting confession of the White Knight link http://boards.4chan.org/v/thread/315601667/so-since-it-looks-like-the-star-citizen-generals I guess the other Knights will claim this as fake...well could be who knows......
And some new interesting articles with critic view on SC
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/the-most-ambitious-space-game-in-history-has-raised--94-million--so-where-is-it-213831707.html?nf=1
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/883/feature/10184/Star-Citizen-Death-of-a-Salesman.html
And some new interesting articles with critic view on SC
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/the-most-ambitious-space-game-in-history-has-raised--94-million--so-where-is-it-213831707.html?nf=1
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/883/feature/10184/Star-Citizen-Death-of-a-Salesman.html
Last edited:
Personally people who defend DS are no better to me than the die-hard SC fans. There is a reason DS has a bad reputation and anything he says is not valid.
Anyway what I agree with is what Erin stated, if they got $94 million and delivered a $6 million game, people would be in uproar. Then when they start spending millions on better mocap/actors/development people are saying they are wasting money. Bottom line is they are making a game of $94 million quality and not $6 million.
As for the new office, it was bound to happen they have grown and from sound of things it looks like its in outskirts of SM, which is good comapred to being on the pier rent wise. Also nobody wants to work in a bad/cramped enviornment.
Even with all that stated, they have little to show for a game in development for lets just say full 3 years. Many and I do mean countless early access games have achieved more in shorter period of time. This is what everyones problem is, for 3 years of development they have very little fo show for an early access game. Oh and what we do have access to it is terrible. They are striggling with the basics.
How can people look into the future of what could be if twy are struggling with badics after 3 years of development. That is the problem. You can't look into the future of what can be when there are some major issues right now in the present. Issues that are very critical to the future of the game. If CIG is failing now with the basics, what of the hard things to come?
Anyway what I agree with is what Erin stated, if they got $94 million and delivered a $6 million game, people would be in uproar. Then when they start spending millions on better mocap/actors/development people are saying they are wasting money. Bottom line is they are making a game of $94 million quality and not $6 million.
As for the new office, it was bound to happen they have grown and from sound of things it looks like its in outskirts of SM, which is good comapred to being on the pier rent wise. Also nobody wants to work in a bad/cramped enviornment.
Even with all that stated, they have little to show for a game in development for lets just say full 3 years. Many and I do mean countless early access games have achieved more in shorter period of time. This is what everyones problem is, for 3 years of development they have very little fo show for an early access game. Oh and what we do have access to it is terrible. They are striggling with the basics.
How can people look into the future of what could be if twy are struggling with badics after 3 years of development. That is the problem. You can't look into the future of what can be when there are some major issues right now in the present. Issues that are very critical to the future of the game. If CIG is failing now with the basics, what of the hard things to come?
Last edited:
But the money keeps on rising.. will they decide next year that they can't deliver a 94$ million dollar game because they have 110$ million?.. and hence keep on delaying it?
They can provide the game they said they would deliver and spend excess dev money on providing more content!
Just release a good playable version first.
So sick and tired of every excuse under the sun being used by CIG.
They also don't want to keep on moving every year.... also their offices didn't seem cramped to me.
Amen brother. Amen.
@voivod
I think you know what I mean on the money. There is an obvious difference between $6 million and $94
Well I guess it depends on what you spend it on.
If for the sake of argument a ship costs $1 mill from concept to get it fully functional in game (I have no idea how much it costs - just a ludicrously simple example) then does having another 80 odd ships make it a $94 mill game?
Or if you can hire another x number of high profile actors to mocap does that make it $94 mill worth?
What can you add that makes it so much better?
Last edited:
Well, more talent to help develop the game, that mocap shoot in UK that they did and a ton more content for release.
There is obviously ton more you can do development wise with $94 vs $6 million.
A good example of this would be say a $6 million yatch vs a $94 million one
Well, more talent to help develop the game, that mocap shoot in UK that they did and a ton more content for release.
There is obviously ton more you can do development wise with $94 vs $6 million.
A good example of this would be say a $6 million yatch vs a $94 million one
It just seems like a hard thing to quantify and things that add value will be different for everyone.
And in any case wasn't the first - "we can make it for this amount" $20 mill or so?
For example lots of people get really wet about the graphics but to me it's over the top. If you compare ED to minecraft for example there is a giant gulf (obviously minecraft is meant to look like it does). But if you compare ED to SC - for me at least - there really isn't enough difference to justify all that extra cost and load on the PC when the best you'll ever get is not quite as good as the real thing.
And honestly having expensive big name stars does nothing for me either. I know what Gary Oldman looks like - seeing something that looks like him a bit but still moves like a wonky PC mannequin (like all in game character models do) really doesn't add anything to the game.
Each to their own I guess.
Last edited:
Well there are going to be some major differences between $6 million and AAA games. There would of been a big difference between SC and ED if SC stayed at $6 million as well.
Actually the new Descent will be a good example of this. $650k game vs. a $20m ED vs. $94m SC
Honestly time will tell now what that difference will be once PU hits and they get to Beta. Or when we get SQ42. It will tell by those if the $94 million actually did anything. There are things they can do with that money but we will see if they have.
What I really enjoyed from ED development has been one mechanic at a time, put it out, super polish it and move to the next. There is a reason their core game is so good, but they also lack a lot in other departments, which could be a money limitation.
I wonder aometimes what ED would have with $94 million
.
Last edited:
@voivod
I think you know what I mean on the money. There is an obvious difference between $6 million and $94
Except its the same concept, they did not jump from $6 to $94 million, they had to hit 10, 15,20.... So its no different then what Voivod said when going from $94 to $110. So they stopped working on the $6million to make the 10million, then stopped on that to make the 20 million. You see the pattern? Why would that stop now? Why is 94 million the arbitrary number? In fact the same thing your saying now for 94 was said for 40, for 60, for multiple other funding levels.
Its because of that thinking that the Constellation has had multiple revisions, why many of the ships were done over, why the hangar were done over, the problem is that it never stops, its a perpetual excuse that keeps going.
Last edited:
The reason all those ships were reworked was actually because CIG made them before they nailed down mechanics, another big ticket item of their "slow" development
The reason all those ships were reworked was actually because CIG made them before they nailed down mechanics, another big ticket item of their "slow" development
The Constellation was redone to bring it up to the quality level of the Retaliator. But you are right, the reasons have been different for some of the ships.
It plain common sense that a high budged game there is more fund for having larger team produce longer and get more specialist in the right places to tackle every part of the game.
Producing games got more expensive due to how large the art team can get. To produce the asset up to high fidelity and polish and optimized level.
The specialist could be the better and experienced game writers. next to mocap actors.
AI get more time and specialist to do there thing.
Because of the modular production. Some key features are in other module. To release those features there need to be done a merge. This is big task on it's own. Especially if these feature act on flight model to. So to see the bulk of progress the merges need to be done and the next iteration of bring that to deliverable state to alfa backers.
Which means we are bound by those modules in solitary. That is a progress barrier.
Which is normal for a modular production
Well apparently a Producer not in the game industry but in software got bit annoy by this clueless about production gamers who negativity of some phantom issues. So he made a several part of production article of how that roles. Getting the gamers educated.
Producing games got more expensive due to how large the art team can get. To produce the asset up to high fidelity and polish and optimized level.
The specialist could be the better and experienced game writers. next to mocap actors.
AI get more time and specialist to do there thing.
Because of the modular production. Some key features are in other module. To release those features there need to be done a merge. This is big task on it's own. Especially if these feature act on flight model to. So to see the bulk of progress the merges need to be done and the next iteration of bring that to deliverable state to alfa backers.
Which means we are bound by those modules in solitary. That is a progress barrier.
Which is normal for a modular production
Well apparently a Producer not in the game industry but in software got bit annoy by this clueless about production gamers who negativity of some phantom issues. So he made a several part of production article of how that roles. Getting the gamers educated.
Well there are going to be some major differences between $6 million and AAA games. There would of been a big difference between SC and ED if SC stayed at $6 million as well.
Actually the new Descent will be a good example of this. $650k game vs. a $20m ED vs. $94m SC
Honestly time will tell now what that difference will be once PU hits and they get to Beta. Or when we get SQ42. It will tell by those if the $94 million actually did anything. There are things they can do with that money but we will see if they have.
What I really enjoyed from ED development has been one mechanic at a time, put it out, super polish it and move to the next. There is a reason their core game is so good, but they also lack a lot in other departments, which could be a money limitation.
I wonder aometimes what ED would have with $94 million
I wonder..
Maybe they could get things done quicker by having more people on it - dunno.
More money doesn't automatically = better.
Generic excuse 3 "You don't understand game development"
- Status