The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

CMDR_Orlando

Banned
CMDR_Orlando
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat said:
Oh I'm just *loving* the heaps of smug-posts coming from those people who are most invested into Star Citizen since that "live" presentation at Gamescom on Friday and some of the press picking up on it and furthering the hype.

However these same folks seem to easily forget though that for the vast majority of their time at the event, CIG was streaming what Star Citizen's persistent universe is actually like right NOW, a horrible mess of broken code and an ever-increasingly laundry list of game breaking bugs, and a distinct lack of any content... despite the very best efforts of the four Twitch streamers they brought along with them to try and make it look fun to play whilst simultaneously trying to completely ignore the glaring bugs occurring on a regular basis throughout.

And let's remember that the current state of the PTU follows on from similar flashy demos run at other gaming events in the previous couple of years, which also received glowing headlines from some press outlets and the like... Yet folks are supposed to believe that after this latest demonstration that things will be magically "fixed" come the arrival of 3.0 (an arrival which has that very vague "at the end of the year" date attached to it), and to simply gloss over and forget that CIG's best efforts with their game have been stunningly short of those same showreels and "live" performances they've done previously?

*Edit* Further on my point about their time at Gamescom, another that has to be highlighted is just how *few* people actually attended their booth during the 5 days there. Even after the big Friday presentation, it was notable just how empty CIG's booth was during the livestreams the following two days.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that, I thought it was a pretty good week for them:

Press Feedback:

» PC Gamer: Star Citizen 3.0's planetary landing blows No Man's Sky away
» Gamespot: How Star Citizen plans to do much of what no Mans Sky doesn't
» Eurogamer: Landing on a planet in Star Citizen looks spectacular
» RockPaperShotgun: Star Citizen Shows Off Alpha 3.0’s Seamless World
» Polygon: Star Citizen version 3.0 looks set to liven up the galaxy
» Massively OP: Gamescom 2016: Star Citizen’s annual presentation
» Kotaku: Here's A Reminder About How Huge Star Citizen Is
» PCGamesN: Planetary landings and space bike stealings in Star Citizen's live Gamescom demo
» EnGadget: Star Citizen' presentation hints the game is coming together
» GameReactor: Star Citizen demoed at Gamescom: The latest gameplay is worth getting excited about
» Inquisitr: Star Citizen Wow's At Gamescom, Showcases Brute Force Power Of PC Gaming
» Forbes: New 'Star Citizen' Demo Is The Perfect Antidote For Disappointed 'No Man's Sky' Players

UoSsv0v.jpg

ApgGk8z.png
 
Last edited:

szopin

S
GordFreeman said:
Another Nice Meltdown.

Yes, it's delayed. You can choose to meltdown about that, or get over it.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -


Wow...... that is just..... fantastic reading comprehension right there........ :eek:

No. But building it simultaneously is.
Click to expand...

I heard it's already in the game, also coming in 2.6, so should we get over it? It's not coming in 2.6, source pls?
 

Neo-ST

Neo-ST
CmdrKull said:
The flight model however may push me permanently away from that game. Am I just spoiled because of Elites flight model? There was no sense that I was flying a large craft. Maybe bigger ships feel different, but I flew 2 and I was disappointed. I'm not even an elite fanboy, I'm on a break from elite for a while, but it feels like you're at the controls of a powerful machine that is affected by far more powerful forces. SC doesn't feel like you're fighting gravity and momentum. That really disappointed me.
Click to expand...

You're not the only one. Flight model sucks since first iteration of AC (0.8), but you'll soon learn there are committed individuals who'll try to convince you otherwise and make you think the problem is on your side... ;)
 

Tippis

Tippis
briguy168 said:
All of this is predicated on the assumption that they are creating the assets and not working on the engine.
Click to expand...
No. All of it is predicated on the fact that all they ever release is dazzling PR and easy-to-sell art, not anything related to actual gameplay, game mechanics, or game dynamics — the things that actually matter.

What most gamers care about is what can be done in the game and the art assets, and CIG mostly caters to those people while also giving them a vague window to see how it's made. I can 100% tell you right now that they are working on the engine and are building it for all the features that were announced;
Click to expand...
How can you tell me that?
Especially when CIG doesn't actually cater to that first half, much less to anyone who actually wants to see the development going into the game. Again, they don't offer any information on what can be done (much less how it can be done and the gameplay basis of those activities) — they just toss out a new concept of a role so that they can sell yet another ship that ostensibly is tied to that role. How the role will fit into the game is never discussed.

The reason why they are "focusing" on eye candy is three-fold. One being that they won't have to waste more time creating art assets once the engine is ready. Two, revenue (regardless of your personal opinions, extra money is always nice to have). Three, re-read the above about showing "engine" work.
Click to expand...
Ok. That's one reason: money. It's a very bad reason when you try to brag about the whole “open development” and “backers are like publishers” nonsense.

If they're focusing on eye candy, they are wasting time creating art assets because the engine isn't ready yet; the game design isn't done; the foundation is not set. Once that is in place, they're going to have to adjust everything to make it work in what they've created. Hell, we know they're already wasting time on it because they keep remaking the assets — this will not stop until they can actually finalise them after the actual game design is nailed down.

As an aside, I suspect that the reason why those core careers haven't been implemented yet is because the engine couldn't handle them....just my .2¢
Click to expand...
…which is why you don't start with the assets. This is an alpha (well… no, not really, but for the sake of argument); people should be flying solid untextured cubes, running down wireframe corridors, and use in-game menus that make Excel look like Touhou Project — all to stress test and fine-tune game dynamics before anything nice-looking is built to encapsulate it.


1500 said:
Actually that's not true. Watch the Angry Joe review of NMS, he links all the things that were stated by Sean to be in the game but that were never actually added to the game. It was not players that hyped it up, it was Sean.
Click to expand...
…and people still filled in the gaps with their own dreams and fantasies. They hyped it up just fine, and the game is really good and chill if you ignore all of that.

Also, I'd rather floss with razor wire than watch Angry Joe.
 
Last edited:

Monk

Monk
I'm really looking forward to getting up close and personal with the planets. I've already compared NMS and ED, I'm ready to see SC against ED.

We've gotten to witness, on multiple fronts, how difficult it is to procedurally generate convincing worlds. Frontier's first cut was...rough...but it has improved by a lot since 2.0.

I expect SC planets to be rough after their initial release, as I could see in the Gamescom demo, but that will be yet another PG technology I get to watch evolve. So exciting!
 

Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat

Banned
I
CMDR_Orlando said:
I don't know about that, I thought it was a pretty good week for them:


http://www.pcgamer.com/star-citizen-30s-planetary-landing-blows-no-mans-sky-away/
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/how-star-citizen-plans-to-do-much-of-what-no-mans-/1100-6442819/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-08-20-landing-on-a-planet-in-star-citizen-looks-spectacular
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/08/22/star-citizen-3-0-gameplay-planetary-landing/
http://www.polygon.com/2016/8/19/12559536/star-citizen-version-30
http://massivelyop.com/2016/08/19/gamescom-2016-star-citizen-annual-presentation/
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2016/08/heres-your-regular-reminder-about-how-huge-star-citizen-is/
http://www.pcgamesn.com/star-citizen/star-citizen-landing-demo-gamescom-2016
https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/21/star-citizen-gamescom-demo/
http://www.gamereactor.eu/news/447963/Star+Citizen+demoed+at+Gamescom/
http://www.inquisitr.com/3440389/st...com-showcases-brute-force-power-of-pc-gaming/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...ntidote-for-disappointed-no-mans-sky-players/

http://i.imgur.com/UoSsv0v.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ApgGk8z.png
Click to expand...



Amazing. Game journos write hype pieces for a games' presentation demo at a computer trade show. Will wonders never cease?

Funny then that you never showed the screenshots of what those viewing figures were like the during the live streams before and after the presentation, or what they are like since Gamescom finished though.

Also, funnily enough, when folks here posted stories like Streetroller getting his refund which got covered by many of the same outlets, or the increasing number of negative headlines regarding Star Citizen in the last 3 months of so, those were angrily dismissed as "hyperbolic", "press bias", "paid for by Dorek Schmert!" and all sorts of other things.

So what is then? Are the press only being "honest" and "right" when reporting Star Citizen in glowing terms following another flashy demo piece (which has happened several times before with CIG demos)?
 

1500

1500
Tippis said:
…and people still filled in the gaps with their own dreams and fantasies. They hyped it up just fine, and the game is really good and chill if you ignore all of that.

Also, I'd rather floss with razor wire than watch Angry Joe.
Click to expand...

Sorry but Sean lied about what was going to be in the game, and he is the one that hyped the game up. Also disagree that the game is "really good", its bland and poorly done game that feels like a early access game. But this is the SC thread and we should be focusing on all the hype that CR and CIG have created for their own game.

If you want to ignore evidence of the lies that is up to you.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/08/17/broken-promises-of-no-mans-sky/
 
Last edited:

Monk

Monk
It doesn't matter if they have negative news or positive news...News on Star Citizen gets clicks, no matter how you look at it.

Avoid taking your reasoning any further than that when talking about the game journos. They are a shallow bunch only motivated by ad revenue.
 

Glock_N_Load

Glock_N_Load
Not a troll just common sense. At the last count I have seen, it was 117 million invested by game players. No game but a promise of a game. Vague release dates. And the "It will not be released before it's time". Stretch goal after stretch goal to delay release. A Gamescom presentation that's only good was to incite more investment and people will invest. If I could talk someone into giving me 117 mill to build them a house and there are not ANY completion dates in the contract, I would have it made. Hey people they are selling land in Florida CHEAP, I just bought a lot for myself right after I purchased this game.
 

Jex =TE=

Banned
J
I thought the SC show was great as I haven't been paying attention to it. Nice to see everything is there in reality. I'm not loading from the city to the space dock, what I see from my eyes is the same everywhere and doesn't change. That in itself is great.

The derelict ship must be part of the main story? Why bother spending that much time on a model like that to use it once. Who really cares - SC is going for missions, as in a story, along with open world presumably. So far it looks great though I'm hoping there's going to be some long jounrey's in supercruise so you can walk around your ship and stuff.

The really big question though is - can it deliver what we want which is deep engaging gameplay with stuff to do and paths to take. Fancy universes are only so good if you are able to do stuff in it. If, on top of all they have done so far, they can nail that aspect it's going to be the space game for the near future. If they muck it up CR better hide like Saddam did LOL
 

Tippis

Tippis
1500 said:
Sorry but Sean lied about what was going to be in the game, and he is the one that hyped the game up.
Click to expand...
Who cares. It's hype. Don't listen to it. Don't be sad when games don't live up to it. Don't contribute to it, because that just makes it worse. Players did all of that and now they're whining over a good game.

Again: if you don't fill in the gaps with your own dreams and fantasies, you won't be disappointed when those dreams don't come true. This has nothing to do with “evidence” or ignoring it — the evidence doesn't change the fact that NMS is a really chill exploration game.

Hell, your “evidence” (of what, exactly?) says the exact same thing:
For many, the sense of disappointment people are feeling is simply due to public expectation spiraling out of control. The hype grew too great, the story goes, and no game could live up to it. Or: people didn’t understand what the game was. While it’s true a lot of people invented a game in their heads called No Man’s Sky and then were baffled when that game didn’t appear, it’s also true that the game we were shown is not the same as the one we got.
Click to expand...
Anyway, this is not the NMS thread, so unless you want to make a case that its hype is foretelling the future of SC (something I'll probably agree with… except for how the actual game will turn out), it's probably best to get back on topic.
 

Monk

Monk
Now...California isn't in full swing just yet, but I'm wondering if CIG/RSI have a nice follow-up to the Gamescom hype today. A new patch, perhaps?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1500

1500
Tippis said:
Who cares. It's hype. Don't listen to it. Don't be sad when games don't live up to it. Don't contribute to it, because that just makes it worse. Players did all of that and now they're whining over a good game.

Again: if you don't fill in the gaps with your own dreams and fantasies, you won't be disappointed when those dreams don't come true. This has nothing to do with “evidence” or ignoring it — the evidence doesn't change the fact that NMS is a really chill exploration game.

Hell, your “evidence” (of what, exactly?) says the exact same thing:

Anyway, this is not the NMS thread, so unless you want to make a case that its hype is foretelling the future of SC (something I'll probably agree with… except for how the actual game will turn out), it's probably best to get back on topic.
Click to expand...

Its an example of players making apologize for the Dev's team and for games they champion. By your own statements its ok to ignore everything CIG have said or what CR have said, because after all its just hype and does not count. If we go down that road then nothing any Dev said can be trusted and we should just assume none of it is true.

Actually that is not my evidence, just an article I linked. Like I said AJ showed all the interviews with Sean, if you want to ignore everything that Sean said, then you can't complain when SC does not turn out like what CIG or CR says.


When players don't hold the Dev's responsible for the statements they say, Dev's will continue to lie and mislead customers. Dev's should be held responsable for their statements, for the hype they generate and for the expectations they create. If you wish to ignore all the hype that Sean has created, then go ahead.

Its the "fanboy" double standards that people will hold for games, the very things you are critical of SC/CIG about you apologize for NMS.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom