The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

jcrg99

Banned
I just did, is reading a thread page so hard? I'll just PM you directly then.

2.5 Is going Live it seems! Grim Hex Hype!

Well... as I suspected. All the quotes that you shared, none of them were accusations that the entire demo was pre-rendered or cut-scenes, that was exactly what you tried to generalize in you recent comment.

They are all people suspecting that the demo had parts of it manipulated.
Hell. You should know what happemed with all the RSI previous demos and how people criticized them, and how bad that was to their image as good develoers to the average person interested in the game. Its pretty obvious that they would adopt a more careful approach when demoing whatever.

They even "added" to the presentantion moments to prove that weren't on rails, that the staff members made unexpected things, but that in fact, were visibly trained to be in that way, exactly to try to make people believe that the whole thing was legit. "Oh look... shouldnt happen in this way" (yeah Roberta, we were born yesterday). I doubt that they would be capable to make those accidents in any moment of the demo.

Roberts had a terrible job pretending. He definitely is a bad actor (but for some reason i loved his appearance to rescue Freddie Prinze in the WC Movie).

The thing is... it does not matter. A legit demo (which never is the case for any company and wouldnt be gor RSI too) still does not mean that it will work in people's machine, or that the features in such demo, demonstrates that RSI can deliver the game as promised in any acceptable and realistic time fram, considering needs and realities of the gaming market.

Even if they release this demo tomorrow and work smoothly in people'a machine, it will work because is empty map, because not too many are playing, because have not too many mechanics associated, still, certainly would have tons of bugs and nothing, absolutely nothing in this demo indicates that RSI can deliver working capital ships and fleets to be fully managed by players, delivering fleet vs fleet battles online, on high fidelity, and giving meaning to all this party of orgs and expensive capital ships sold by thousands of real dollars.
There is nothing, on sight, in possibly the next two years, that they are goimg to be able to deliver what they promised.
Everyone is just changing the narrative to "oh, but they released something".
That is pathetic for backers that gave them 20 times money that they needed directly from customers to deliver the BDSSE with all the features that I mentioned and are yet to be proven feasible to be done with their tech. Two years of delay and counting.
 
Last edited:

jcrg99

Banned
Also according to Gamestar Squadron 42 will finally be completed and released this year.

So it's only weeks away! Great year for space games.

You mean those clowns from that 2nd category German magazine? Sounds legit.

But maybe the 1st chapter be about just cut-scenes, dialogue choices, and your character had to complete that tutorial mission and some arena commander battles with one or other simple ship. They could deliver that. Lets keep the hope. Certainly CoD IW is not going to be match for that.
 
Last edited:
I understand where you are coming from, I don't believe anything RSI/CiG say for similar reasons.

This is the same reasoning I eventually felt I had to refund. They just aren't credible to me anymore. This whole "conspiracy" labelling wouldn't even be a THING if CIG weren't so damned stupid in dealing with the issues that have come up. Oh and the little matter of getting a game out there that looks like it's on a path to its apparent greatness and not some utterly undefined MVP.
 
This is the same reasoning I eventually felt I had to refund. They just aren't credible to me anymore. This whole "conspiracy" labelling wouldn't even be a THING if CIG weren't so damned stupid in dealing with the issues that have come up. Oh and the little matter of getting a game out there that looks like it's on a path to its apparent greatness and not some utterly undefined MVP.

Given how off track they are I feel offering refunds would do their PR some good.

Not fighting them with pointless arguments.

That TOS change which thy can't seem to enforce was also bad PR and a hostile move on their part.
 
And I stand by that because there is a lot in life that have nuances. ;)

So you proceed to completely ignore the current thrust of the discussion, and the one thing you cherry-pick in answering you fob off with another "nuances" argument. Please go ahead and explain what these nuances are.
 
I don't believe anything definitively when it comes to SC. You ask for proof for things that's fine, you also make claims that don't seem to hold that same standard. (No I'm not going to source where you do that, it's my perception after reading the many many posts you make and lack of response to others asking for a response.)

My point is use more constructive terms so some sort of civil conclusion can be made.

I respect your demand for evidence maintain that but helping me see your point would be more constructive without "conspiracy".

Not that it matters was simply a suggestion. I said please remember ;).

I tell people who call SC a scam to please refrain because it simply creates pointless debate that never goes anywhere.

While yes I don't site everything I type; however, this forum isn't a dissertation as well. I only speak my truths and I understand that others speak theirs too; however, most of mine...not all mind you...are based on a balanced opinion/approach. I see and understand what y'all are posting, but I interpret most of them as extremes because they don't consider other alternatives, i.e. a "my way or the highway" mentality. Furthermore, any dissenting opinion that doesn't conform to some narratives here gets mocked.

As for not answering things, I try to speak as bluntly and truthful as I possibly can so I don't have to elaborate. So if I don't answer, it's probably because no more can be added to the conversation or an impasse has been reached and I rather end it there instead of allowing to spiral down to a bickering contest; other sometimes I'm catching up on the thread and forget to respond.
 
While yes I don't site everything I type; however, this forum isn't a dissertation as well. I only speak my truths and I understand that others speak theirs too; however, most of mine...not all mind you...are based on a balanced opinion/approach.

Beautiful, here you imply that there is no one truth, that each has their own truth. So in other words, it can be both true that CIG will release SC as promised, and not. If you don't mean this, then don't use the word 'truth'.

I see and understand what y'all are posting, but I interpret most of them as extremes because they don't consider other alternatives, i.e. a "my way or the highway" mentality. Furthermore, any dissenting opinion that doesn't conform to some narratives here gets mocked.

And here you make a blanket statement that ignores clear exceptions, since people have in the past said or implied that their stance might change.

e: Whenever you're called out on your rubbish, you make these big sweeping philosophical statements that have no basis in the truth of how this thread has run. This is pathetic bri, you should be able to do better than this.

further edit: Honestly I think the reason you do this is that you take as your premise that CIG can't fail, rather than making it your conclusion, and so if it appears that your arguments aren't working it isn't because CIG can fail, since you assume it can't, and so there must be something else that makes you right. That's why you construct these big fluffy non-arguments that sound impressive but are ultimately useless. <- That's my hypothesis
 
Last edited:
So you proceed to completely ignore the current thrust of the discussion, and the one thing you cherry-pick in answering you fob off with another "nuances" argument. Please go ahead and explain what these nuances are.

I think that those two sites I linked to several pages back pretty much details the nuance of nepotism. Can nepotism instill some resentment in workplaces when a family member takes a high position, yes. Is nepotism completely bad....no. There are many businesses that are run with family members in high positions that are successful. The term itself isn't inherently bad, only the perception surrounding it is.

Going back to the term conspiracy, does it have a negative meaning yes because many of us have a perception that conspiracy is analogous to evil plots when, used how I used it, it means: any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

See how perception can change the meaning of a word?
 

jcrg99

Banned
I think that those two sites I linked to several pages back pretty much details the nuance of nepotism. Can nepotism instill some resentment in workplaces when a family member takes a high position, yes. Is nepotism completely bad....no. There are many businesses that are run with family members in high positions that are successful. The term itself isn't inherently bad, only the perception surrounding it is.

Going back to the term conspiracy, does it have a negative meaning yes because many of us have a perception that conspiracy is analogous to evil plots when, used how I used it, it means: any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

See how perception can change the meaning of a word?
In the case of RSI, the nepotism is visibly bad. There is no conspiracy. What exists are several situations that already proven that CR is a liar and cannot be trusted. Its that simple.
 
Last edited:
Beautiful, here you imply that there is no one truth, that each has their own truth. So in other words, it can be both true that CIG will release SC as promised, and not. If you don't mean this, then don't use the word 'truth'.

Perfect example of Schrodinger's cat and yes these are both truths simply because no one knows the final state of this game.

And here you make a blanket statement that ignores clear exceptions, since people have in the past said or implied that their stance might change.

e: Whenever you're called out on your rubbish, you make these big sweeping philosophical statements that have no basis in the truth of how this thread has run. This is pathetic bri, you should be able to do better than this.

further edit: Honestly I think the reason you do this is that you take as your premise that CIG can't fail, rather than making it your conclusion, and so if it appears that your arguments aren't working it isn't because CIG can fail, since you assume it can't, and so there must be something else that makes you right. That's why you construct these big fluffy non-arguments that sound impressive but are ultimately useless. <- That's my hypothesis

Nope, I'm simply detailing my thought process. It was asked why it is I sometimes don't respond back or "make claims that don't seem to hold that same standard", and I answered.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, this thread is about the hear and now. What happens in the future has little barring on what people think about this game now and most users here are critical of it regardless of their reasons. This wanton criticizing creates a perception that doesn't foster healthy discussion because the theme is that CIG is wrong and will fail instead of a more balanced could fail. The latter allows for open discussion while the former gates off any openess.

Again no! My predisposition is that CIG could fail but I believe they wont (cautious optimism). Just like above, I go into these highfalutin concepts to explain my thought process so you understand where it is I'm coming from and how I formulate my opinions.
 
Last edited:
Wow, you're actually cherry-picking your own quote. Nobody has said it's "so awesome it was pre-rendered", except you. I never disputed that people said it was pre-rendered. Do you even know what quotes are for?

Guess you didn't get the context, the "Star Citizen: So... something It's something" and their variations is a running ironic joke here. It's humour.
When the conspiracy theory's started emerging I made some funny phrases using that gag with irony. For example, Star Citizen: Presentation So Good It's Fake [up]

Just forum humour [big grin]
 
further edit: Honestly I think the reason you do this is that you take as your premise that CIG can't fail, rather than making it your conclusion, and so if it appears that your arguments aren't working it isn't because CIG can fail, since you assume it can't, and so there must be something else that makes you right. That's why you construct these big fluffy non-arguments that sound impressive but are ultimately useless. <- That's my hypothesis
The word you're looking for is sophistry.
 

jcrg99

Banned
I just watched an interview where Roberts basically confirmed Star Citizen PayToWin, making statements that demonstrate how difficult will be to get ships in game, how bigger ships will give access to more profitable missions and basically encouraging people to buy ships now for real dollars.
In one side, it does not matter because all this game dreamed, playable capital ships,fleets etc, never will see the light of the day. In other, it shows that even the vision wants to motivate cash grabbing now.
CR showing once again, how he lied at the beginning and for years to thousands of people.
 
Last edited:
I just watched an interview where Roberts basically confirmed Star Citizen PayToWin, making statements that demonstrate how difficult will be to get ships in game, how bigger ships will give access to more profitable missions and basically encouraging people to buy ships now for real dollars.
In one side, it does not matter because all this game dreamed, playable capital ships,fleets etc, never will see the light of the day. In other, it shows that even the vision wants to motivate cash grabbing now.
CR showing once again, how he lied at the beginning and for years to thousands of people.

Really? That's not entirely unexpected - but still not what I wanted to hear. Linky please?
 
Perfect example of Schrodinger's cat and yes these are both truths simply because no one knows the final state of this game.



Nope, I'm simply detailing my thought process. It was asked why it is I sometimes don't respond back or "make claims that don't seem to hold that same standard", and I answered.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, this thread is about the hear and now. What happens in the future has little barring on what people think about this game now and most users here are critical of it regardless of their reasons. This wanton criticizing creates a perception that doesn't foster healthy discussion because the theme is that CIG is wrong and will fail instead of a more balanced could fail. The latter allows for open discussion while the former gates off any openess.

Again no! My predisposition is that CIG could fail but I believe they wont (cautious optimism). Just like above, I go into these highfalutin concepts to explain my thought process so you understand where it is I'm coming from and how I formulate my opinions.

First off, you don't know what Schrodinger's cat is. If A = Not B, then A && B = False. This is basic logic, but you think that Schrodinger thinking up an illustration to why he thought quantum mechanics was ridiculous somehow applies here. That's stupid. It is correct to say "either A or B, but we don't know which yet". That's NOT the same as saying "A and B are both correct". Don't let your love of postmodern-ish contradiction blind you to basic logic.+

Secondly, alright, I actually believe that you're saying this stuff in good faith. But in my experience, it's really easy to say "oh, the issue is much more complex than it appears" to points that one defends, and really easy to oversimplify a point that one attacks. You have just done this: you say that everyone on here is unwilling to consider alternatives to their opinions (incorrect in how simplistic it is) but then you turn around and defend Chris Roberts with "oh you have to READ BETWEEN THE LINES" but then you don't actually elaborate. If you lose an argument, don't assume it's because the other person doesn't read between the lines. Step up and acknowledge and try to fix your argument. Stupid arguments that you defend with flawed processes is why people get annoyed with you, and it makes "fair exchange of ideas" very bloody difficult.

If you want "open discussion" like you claim, then you'd better learn to become accountable to your own arguments.

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

The word you're looking for is sophistry.

This is EXACTLY THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR

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

Guess you didn't get the context, the "Star Citizen: So... something It's something" and their variations is a running ironic joke here. It's humour.
When the conspiracy theory's started emerging I made some funny phrases using that gag with irony. For example, Star Citizen: Presentation So Good It's Fake [up]

Just forum humour [big grin]

"Haha guys, it was just a joke, shame on you that you didn't get it"

Should've stopped paying any attention to your 'arguments' long ago, but this confirms it
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom