Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
Fixed that for ya.
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Fixed that for ya.
Fixed that for ya.
I'm not so sure about that. There's certainly $140 million of something, somewhere.
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
A perfect example of delusion writ large....
But hey, according to some folks here, Cymelion is completely in the right, and all us naysayers on this forum are just spreading FUD.....
But hey, according to some folks here, Cymelion is completely in the right, and all us naysayers on this forum are just spreading FUD.....
Does that mean that he/she bought a functional Idris jpeg and a damaged Idris peg? Perhaps if he changed the file extension he might have two fully functional Idris jpegs
Cymelion's points are at least well-written... certainly more noteworthy than an endless stream of "Genuine Robers says Buy an Idris!" ...
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
Does that mean that he/she bought a functional Idris jpeg and a damaged Idris peg? Perhaps if he changed the file extension he might have two fully functional Idris jpegs
More like that person not apparently realizing that actually, the Idris' he/she saw were not in-game models flying around within the game environment of Star Citizen, but rather "in-engine" demos and sizzle reel footage that were designed to wow those that saw it.
Just been reading this months PC Gamer previewing the biggest games of 2017, it starts with a two page spread for SQ42. The quotes are fun. "SQ42 ... building on the impressive space piloting systems seen in SC proper." Followed by, "much of what we know is based on Andy's visit from last year". However when you look in the article properly the visit took place in 2015! Finally we have, "SC proper looking so promising as of the 3.0 update we saw at Gamescom." Hmm and the packers are playing v 2.6.x.
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
Thorn, what's the point in making "well-written" points, when those "points" are at best utter nonsense based on nothing more than promo footage that CIG have endlessly churned out at the expense of actual worthwhile gameplay footage to promote/show off?
Also, I can't help but notice that you didn't say that any of what Cymelion said in his comment was actually "correct" too. I mean, Cymelion IS right about what they have seen eh?
Also also... According to Cymelion, the acting talent involved in the filming of Squadron 42 have been commenting favourably about their time on set... Except, apart from the possible exception of Mark Hamill (who possibly feels a debt of gratitude for Roberts giving him an avenue back into acting via the Wing Commander games), I've seen virtually none of the other actors, outside of official CIG videos showing them on-set, say a "thing" about SQ42.
Nada.
Zilch.
So what is Cymelion talking about?
Last edited:
Have you ever seen any of CIG's major streams? They are full of sales of ships of varying descriptions - along with the inevitable "You don't have to buy them, but you are backing the game if you do!" and of course plenty of "Just do it!" as a lulzbouquet garni.
…to say nothing of the scattered “design documents” they've produced, which offer very little in the way of explaining actual game dynamics and mechanics, and a whole lot about visualising some imagined gameplay that this shiny new spaceship (buy now!) just so happen to (maybe, eventually…) realise (buy now!).
Of course - buying an Idris now is what sensible people would do - as the ship prices at the moment are a tiny fraction of what they will be in-game upon release
If it was that promising 5 months ago, imagine how amazing it'll be once they decide what's actually in it, develop it, and deliver it!
If they wait another six years for release - it'll be even better!!!!!
Actors are usually required to do some
Promotion as part of their contract (junkets, red carpets etc). Acting in a video game isn't really revelled in Hollywood. It keeps them busy between projects and is a cool experience but bragging about something you haven't seen the finished product is usually like shooting yourself in the mouth.
Most actors don't even see the final cut until the premiere.
Not to take away from your point, I wouldn't read too much into their silence.
Not saying things aren't off the tracks, just the actors probably don't really care at this point.
(Guess, by no means fact).
Mate the reason people aren't rushing to provide you with a quote from Chris about all stretch goals being fully funded is that none is needed. 'Stretch goal' is a clearly understood term in the context of a kickstarter. It means 'if this level of funding is reched this feature WILL be in the game'. It's not an aspirational target, it's not something that may get introduced later if they have the money, it is categorically supposed to be in the game if that tier of funding is reached and without any additional funding being required.
Nobody here is misrepresenting anything. The stretch goals are on the website, shown as fully funded. At the point they hit the stated level of funding, those elements of the game are supposed to be paid for in full and therefore are part of the 'base game' if by 'base game' we mean 'the stuff people are already supposed to have paid for'.
That is not spin, libel or misinformation. It is a factual statement of what 'stretch goals' are. If you would personally be OK with some of those things not being in the game at release that's fine, you can make your own mind up about what you would and would not be personally satisfied with but that does not in any way redefine what clearly understood terms mean.
I am going to say it again so that it's absolutely clear - if an item is shown as a stretch goal and the funding level next to it is shown as achieved, that feature is supposed to be already paid for by the definiton of 'stretch goal' that anybody who has ever paid into a kickstarter understands.
It doesn't matter what you, or indeed what Chris Roberts might think about that. That is how kickstarters work.
Last edited:
Of course - buying an Idris now is what sensible people would do - as the ship prices at the moment are a tiny fraction of what they will be in-game upon release
So tell me good Sir, which of these wondrous chariots of dreams would befit the discerning Citizen about The 'Verse?
My immersion chariot of choice was the Freelancer. It promised all sorts of interesting gameplay possibilities for my parambulations in the 'Verse. Of course, none of that materialised, they've changed it so many times, tried to persuade me to spend more cash on "variants", and it only became playable relatively recently.
It's a bucket of <cough> refactored.
Probably end up with a second-hand one. Then find out it's two halves of different chariots welded together.
I think CIG have enough money and 'momentum' to survive 2017 in their current state, but I don't expect them to be around in anything like the same shape by end-2018 - I've nothing to back that up, just a feeling.
The elephant in the room for CIG, I'd suggest, is that the longer they leave release of either product the more old and tired their engine will look compared to new projects arriving on newer engines, and the more products that they will be fighting/reviewed against, in an increasingly saturated market. On the plus side, PCs will on average more powerful the longer they leave things...
Whereas if they release early with a weak or buggy product they probably (rightly) expect the fallout to make NMS-fallout (not a new game... although...) look like a minor inconvenience.
Neither looks terribly nice, and suggests CIG is firmly on the horns of a rather nasty dilemma.
Options... well... keep milking the magic-money-cow for a long as they can, then when the pips are squeaking, put out anything claiming it to be MVP, promote some schmuck to president (perhaps they can wait 4 years...?) and quickly retire. Pull a Houdini and actually deliver a half-decent game. Claim an episodic release paradigm, and release tinsy-tiny modules in baby-steps. Hope to sell the whole product, including devs, to a publishing house, and walk off into the sunset.
Well, I'm out of ideas - any other suggestions?
I really do hope they manage to pull a 'Houdini', whereas what I expect, well, that's a bit different.
The elephant in the room for CIG, I'd suggest, is that the longer they leave release of either product the more old and tired their engine will look compared to new projects arriving on newer engines, and the more products that they will be fighting/reviewed against, in an increasingly saturated market. On the plus side, PCs will on average more powerful the longer they leave things...
Whereas if they release early with a weak or buggy product they probably (rightly) expect the fallout to make NMS-fallout (not a new game... although...) look like a minor inconvenience.
Neither looks terribly nice, and suggests CIG is firmly on the horns of a rather nasty dilemma.
Options... well... keep milking the magic-money-cow for a long as they can, then when the pips are squeaking, put out anything claiming it to be MVP, promote some schmuck to president (perhaps they can wait 4 years...?) and quickly retire. Pull a Houdini and actually deliver a half-decent game. Claim an episodic release paradigm, and release tinsy-tiny modules in baby-steps. Hope to sell the whole product, including devs, to a publishing house, and walk off into the sunset.
Well, I'm out of ideas - any other suggestions?
I really do hope they manage to pull a 'Houdini', whereas what I expect, well, that's a bit different.
Last edited:
Probably end up with a second-hand one. Then find out it's two halves of different chariots welded together.
It's worse than that. Whoever built this immersion chariot ripped out all the fancy HUD, welded the main door shut, sold the front guns for scrap, installed some old 8-track and shoved pencils in all the speakers, let tramps use the sink as a bathroom, and worst of all held a open rave in the cargo bay.
It still smells of vicks vapo-rub
- Status