Well maybe if all the npc's stand around like statues he can pull it off.
The Star Citizen Thread V10
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
- Status
Well maybe if all the npc's stand around like statues he can pull it off.
Genuine Roberts will be the ultimate players nemesis', he'd be there 24/7 unleashing his handwavium attacks to anyone who dared to challenge the Vision.
Yeah, that vid, and the stretch goals, aren't ageing well
Even the most die-hard of backers has already knocked the '100 systems at launch' rook off the board though. Some have cast their '1000 player shard' queen to the side too. I bet there's at least one concierge member who has doubts about the 'personal pets' bishop. And others who think the 'landing on Earth' knight is full of horsecrap. Some even whisper that the 9:1 army of NPC pawns, with Nemesis System emergent narratives & persistent background activities, might end up a bunch of mindless battle fodder....
It's shocking, I know.
I think against that backdrop, letting the PC Master Race crown slip wouldn't be seen as conceding the game. (Lord knows how many pieces would be left on the board though)
Well, i suppose we should all be happy CIG are working on releaasing a complete and polished game. Not some half finished bugfest like other game developers we could mention. It just shows how much better things can be without an evil publisher forcing half-finsihed and buggy software out of the door.
Oh... wait...
Funny how Chris sounded like system was already at an advanced stage of development. Everything he says sounds like that. Far from reality. A scammer, maybe not, a patented liar, definitely.Behold the vision of Chris Roberts! Over 4 years ago:
Hey, I was PC peep and I liked it
The mechanics were thin (add resistances / fears based on past encounters, iirc). But the dedicated effort was clearly large. Which made Chris throwing it out there as "oh we'll top that easy" in another Ten for the Stretchman ep yet another sign of giddy talking before walking...
We are gonna need a space ship shaped SSD later on.
we already have 1TB memory card.
https://petapixel.com/2019/01/09/lexar-launches-the-worlds-first-1tb-sdxc-memory-card/
Shaped?
Sized would be closer
Ignore. Was thinking you were talking about file sizes....should read stuff properly
I would like to see a far steeper acceleration curve against larger ships so small ships are damn fast but even on medium sized ships the values should be reduced a lot and anything like a large ship (elite and SC both) should really be wallowing in space.
Well, both CAN apply.Shaped?
Sized would be closer
Ignore. Was thinking you were talking about file sizes....should read stuff properly
It's quite possible they DID have that, but it was not any good and got scrapped and they started over.
Remember: every dollar on SC is worth 4. It'll probably apply to memory.
He already makes his first critical mistake in the firct couple of minutes when he defines "community"
"Everybody who is involved in the game either by monetary investment or simply talking about it."
That is so flawed that its kind of shocking to see an adult use it in the first place. Of course its but an effort to "level the playfield" so to speak but its not true. That definition would make ME part of the community and neither I nor the community at large see it that way. We are all in the "circle of interest" maybe but ho boy....community? Sounds like a brain fart of old Twerk17. But its his show so he makes the rules, just tells me that whatever is is going to say in the next hour and 20 minutes is of zero value and probably nothing else then trying to appease the toxics from ripping him apart. Good old Twerk never had the guts to come out with what he really thinks. Always mindful of his followers (most of which are SC pro-fans) so he is tip-toeing around sensitive topics and when he finally dares to adress one he does it like this....
I ll pick up one question of his before I closed the video because watching him fumbling around trying to find the "perfect mix" of being neutral irritated me. Also I refuse to be thrown into the same cauldron as the SC community at large. The community wouldnt accept me as a part anyway so much for Twerks definition.
"I m not sure what the negative side of the community tries to accomplish"
It should be a given why people do it if you think about it for a bit but just in case some people really need an answer to this.
There are of course several reasons to be negative about Star Citizen.
- trolling: there currently is hardly an easier target then SC fanboys to trigger with trolling posts. Do a video or throw in a comment and watch how drama errupts and the same old horse is dragged from its grave and beaten to death again. Trolls come in all forms and shapes. Some take the negative approach, others act like white knights or fanatics....depending on where they are active. This is another group of people Twerk thinks are "part of the community" yeah sounds about right.....
- realists: I would add Mole as an example for this group as he follows the game, is invested, likes the project but isnt too far gone to deny or refuse the obvious flaws and problems and also reports viable gameplay experiences unlike other more fanatic posters. I m sure Mole aint too popular whenever he speaks up and provides his view about the things he thinks are bad or need fixing. By all means he is positioned in the "neutral" core siding toward positive but for what its worth that isnt important to people when he says something that isnt praising SC. He will be pushed to being a hater or whatever same as everybody else who speaks ill of SC
- no-bullcrappers: this is everybody who is able to remember what CIG has promised and advertised in the past and constantly compares what we get against what we expected. A large percentage of posters in this thread are part of this group. They disregard the vision and future theories and stay with the "now" aka facts which is worlds apart from the stuff the fanboys drink. Some of these people are interested in the game itself, others are more into project management but we even had folks participating because the human psyche shows all its facets within this topic. People of this group usually call CIG out on what they missed to provide and call things as what they are and are often pushed out to the "haters" for it
- do-ers: some people point out flaws and mistakes, lies etc to affect change. Being a yes-men and constantly defending every action of CIG is not supporting change nor does it allow it. Some (a whole lot) things need work but in order for CIG to learn about whats important to the community it must be adressed...and sometimes in strong words too. You dont have to become disrespectful but if the flight model is crap then you should be able to call it exactly that without fanatics coming out of the woodwork claiming that its "better then this other game". Defending CIG only allows them to stay the course and prevents improvement. I m not sure how many kiddies are part of the SC community but due to the fact that a lot of adults never grew up I d say "a whole lot".. Never forget that DS started out as somebody who simply pointed out irregularities and flaws and was crucified for it...even punished by CIG itself.
I was thinking about adding "haters" to the list but I m really unable to identify any. Derek Smart who many will probably think of as a hater is really more of a troll. In order to "hate" something you need to have a motivation that invokes that feeling. Generally speaking people hate other people or things that wronged them somehow or threaten them. Star Citizen never did anything to me. I have no reason to "hate" Star Citizen. My life will not change nor be affected by Star Citizen becoming the next great game or a failure. Based on this definition I have some good reasons to "hate" certain individuals of the SC community due to their behavior and replies towards me. As was said in the past...the toxic community of Star Citizen is responsible for most of the negativity surrounding the project at this point by alienating a lot of neutrals and skeptics to a degree that calls for retaliation.
"Hate" in Star Citizen therefore comes down to internet wars with other people. The project is of no importance. It merely provides the ammunition to fuel this conflict aka "trench war". And blatantly speaking....CIG has provided a lot of ammo to the "haters" in this war forcing the white knights to retreat into delusion or fantastic scenarios which are so far off that they can be rightfully called "deluded". I do think that many of these "delusional" folks dont really believe what they say themselves. Its just a human reaction to say "anything" to "win" an argument...that includes making up facts on the fly completely disconnected from reality.
Toxcicity is a behavior pattern. Everybody can become toxic occasionally, that doesnt make him toxic in general. But Star Citizen triggers a certain group of people reliably who must have a reason or motivation for becoming toxic when faced with questions or criticism. We have discussed these factors a lot in the past so I dont need to repeat old stuff.
Just an example that even people who talk a lot of trash (like Twerk in that video....) make me think about certain things and evaluate myself and my behavior in order to keep a realistic grasp on the situation and not become toxic myself as a reaction.
"I m not sure what the negative side of the community tries to accomplish"
It should be a given why people do it if you think about it for a bit but just in case some people really need an answer to this.
There are of course several reasons to be negative about Star Citizen.
- trolling: there currently is hardly an easier target then SC fanboys to trigger with trolling posts. Do a video or throw in a comment and watch how drama errupts and the same old horse is dragged from its grave and beaten to death again. Trolls come in all forms and shapes. Some take the negative approach, others act like white knights or fanatics....depending on where they are active. This is another group of people Twerk thinks are "part of the community" yeah sounds about right.....
- realists: I would add Mole as an example for this group as he follows the game, is invested, likes the project but isnt too far gone to deny or refuse the obvious flaws and problems and also reports viable gameplay experiences unlike other more fanatic posters. I m sure Mole aint too popular whenever he speaks up and provides his view about the things he thinks are bad or need fixing. By all means he is positioned in the "neutral" core siding toward positive but for what its worth that isnt important to people when he says something that isnt praising SC. He will be pushed to being a hater or whatever same as everybody else who speaks ill of SC
- no-bullcrappers: this is everybody who is able to remember what CIG has promised and advertised in the past and constantly compares what we get against what we expected. A large percentage of posters in this thread are part of this group. They disregard the vision and future theories and stay with the "now" aka facts which is worlds apart from the stuff the fanboys drink. Some of these people are interested in the game itself, others are more into project management but we even had folks participating because the human psyche shows all its facets within this topic. People of this group usually call CIG out on what they missed to provide and call things as what they are and are often pushed out to the "haters" for it
- do-ers: some people point out flaws and mistakes, lies etc to affect change. Being a yes-men and constantly defending every action of CIG is not supporting change nor does it allow it. Some (a whole lot) things need work but in order for CIG to learn about whats important to the community it must be adressed...and sometimes in strong words too. You dont have to become disrespectful but if the flight model is crap then you should be able to call it exactly that without fanatics coming out of the woodwork claiming that its "better then this other game". Defending CIG only allows them to stay the course and prevents improvement. I m not sure how many kiddies are part of the SC community but due to the fact that a lot of adults never grew up I d say "a whole lot".. Never forget that DS started out as somebody who simply pointed out irregularities and flaws and was crucified for it...even punished by CIG itself.
I was thinking about adding "haters" to the list but I m really unable to identify any. Derek Smart who many will probably think of as a hater is really more of a troll. In order to "hate" something you need to have a motivation that invokes that feeling. Generally speaking people hate other people or things that wronged them somehow or threaten them. Star Citizen never did anything to me. I have no reason to "hate" Star Citizen. My life will not change nor be affected by Star Citizen becoming the next great game or a failure. Based on this definition I have some good reasons to "hate" certain individuals of the SC community due to their behavior and replies towards me. As was said in the past...the toxic community of Star Citizen is responsible for most of the negativity surrounding the project at this point by alienating a lot of neutrals and skeptics to a degree that calls for retaliation.
"Hate" in Star Citizen therefore comes down to internet wars with other people. The project is of no importance. It merely provides the ammunition to fuel this conflict aka "trench war". And blatantly speaking....CIG has provided a lot of ammo to the "haters" in this war forcing the white knights to retreat into delusion or fantastic scenarios which are so far off that they can be rightfully called "deluded". I do think that many of these "delusional" folks dont really believe what they say themselves. Its just a human reaction to say "anything" to "win" an argument...that includes making up facts on the fly completely disconnected from reality.
Toxcicity is a behavior pattern. Everybody can become toxic occasionally, that doesnt make him toxic in general. But Star Citizen triggers a certain group of people reliably who must have a reason or motivation for becoming toxic when faced with questions or criticism. We have discussed these factors a lot in the past so I dont need to repeat old stuff.
Just an example that even people who talk a lot of trash (like Twerk in that video....) make me think about certain things and evaluate myself and my behavior in order to keep a realistic grasp on the situation and not become toxic myself as a reaction.
Based on everything they've shown over its 8 years of development, while possible, it seems so hugely unlikely that it barely warrants a thought. At no point have they ever managed to reach an “advanced” stage of development, and at no point have they shown any inclination not to shove something out the door just because it was bad…
Granted, they have shown a tendency to scrap and start over, but that was due to simply getting distracted by some new shiny or by failing to get even to a very basic stage before realising they couldn't do it.
Exactly....delays are readily explained with "waiting for quality" or "making sure its perfect for our communities enjoyment" and then stuff gets released in a horribly buggy state, half-finished and usually a copy job from some other game not resembling any of the previous ATV episodes......errr I mean...you hater
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but.. there's no vertical thrust? Because I'm not exactly sure what I just witnessed.. possibly the worst homage to an A-6 Intruder.. ever?
When you consider he gets to help himself to lots of free cash it certainly points to a scam
Vertical thrust exists in game and if you check the comments there are people telling the guy he is taking off wrong and that is why it looks bad
So, in order to make the game look not bad, you should just thrust up. Taking off by angling your ship first and then going forward makes the game look bad, therefore you are just a goon fudster.
Vertical thrust exists in game and if you check the comments there are people telling the guy he is taking off wrong and that is why it looks bad
So, in order to make the game look not bad, you should just thrust up. Taking off by angling your ship first and then going forward makes the game look bad, therefore you are just a goon fudster.
Okay, with the comments it makes more sense, but that's still an.. interesting choice of a launch. I mean I have no IR Tracker or anything similar but never had problems with looking up in an ED ship cockpit and find an opening xD And we had a pretty competent parking radar, which I assume is present in SC as well. So as much as I like to fling excrement at SC, this is more a pilot error then shortcomings of the flight model then. Or just really bad keybinds for looking around.
Have you seen the cockpits in SC?
In some you can't see above your head due to the roof.
- Status