The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Oh sure it was clear that he made that video just to poke in the eye of the SC "hardcore"fan-base.....however don´t you think they deserved EVERYTHING that is been said in there?
I wonder if someone will make a comparison of CIG's promises over the years and the state of SC when it releases, as was the case with NMS. It might not be that easy, as a huge part of them are contained in their Youtube output, and that's under control of the CIG themselves.
Yeah, fan based theorycrafting and Star Citizen go hand in hand. So explaining away delivery failures as being mere fan speculation should be easy for CiG. Especially easy as the super-fans will probably go along with it and attack anyone with a working memory.
So this is about who he quoted and what was playing in the background (which was Star Citizen by the way, doesn't matter if it's from Major Tom or Tom Turbo, it's still Star Citizen)
But what about the points raised?
The CS derogatory labeling of customers happened and is a real issue.
The artwork plagiarism happened and is a real issue.
The TOS change happened and is a real issue.
The shift of focus happened and caused real delays.
Star Marine was announced (weeks, not months), then canceled, then claimed to have been in the game all along, then said to maybe become a thing again after all.
And yes even the space door happened and it's a proven fact that it is way more expensive than "some wood and a garage door opener".
And oh, the SQ42 delay? Totally happens right now. Because CIG absolutely claims they never mentioned a release date. Even though they did, multiple times, and still say 2016 in their own SQ42 trailer videos.
These things don't become untrue just because Derek Smart blogged about them. Perhaps the choice of reading quotes from his blog wasn't the most diplomatic one. However, do you have to be diplomatic about facts? The video is about broken promises, and for all intents and purposes, it hit the topic right on the money.
Like one guy said, why do you have to preface any criticism about SC with a whole paragraph stating that you love the game and have been a backer since day one - BUT you have one or two issues with the project. And even then you might be called a clickbaiter, liar, or worse, have your own life and/or that of your family threatened.
And you make tons of noise unrelated to the actual game, but trying to explain away its current state by referencing "industry developers" from Tumblr about "how hard" game development is. You're not exactly the best person to try to point at the game and say that it is the only thing that matters when you are constantly deflecting to other excuses.
The game is terrible. It is in a tech demo state that for all intents and purposes is still the vanilla CryEngine. The few demo videos they've released have not had their content make it into the end user client, but those videos are constantly linked to and referenced until they no longer can support anyone's claims about "how great" and "revolutionary" SC is. For example the pupil to planet video, or Gamescom 2015. Now people link to Gamescom 2016 until the few things in Alpha 3.0 that weren't scripted and cobbled together don't make it into the end user client and that will quietly be ignored. If "only the game" mattered, why are there so few links to videos of the actual game? Because it isn't a game, it's a terribly buggy CryEngine tech demo.
Last edited:
It´s always more comfortable to believe in lies and avoid to confront the truth.......the problem is the more you keep running away from the truth the more is going to hurt you when the truth finally get you......
What game? "It might be true" you admit and then blow off in the same sentence. Your mind; there is something very warped about it if you can't see the problem with what you just wrote.
…and since the game isn't even close to being out in spite of having spent double its intended development time, it seems to have earned it slot on that list quite nicely based on that fact alone.
Noise. Just noise because game development is indeed troubled and not linear. Its messy. Allways. The game was raised by CR merits and now is sustained by its own merits. Check their funding chart after the latest fps tech demo showcase. People like what they see. Repeatedly. And that is going for 4+ years. And it will not stop. No matter what anyone says or does.
The only thing that matters is the game. Until someone encounters bugs, or mentions delays. Then the discussion turns to game development, and how people on the outside obviously do not understand game development, or what is involved in taking on a project of such an ambitious scope (which has done nothing but become more ambitious since the original "vision").
If you want to discuss only the game, it's nigh impossible, because the game does not exist. It *might* exist, at some point, as many things are possible in an ever expanding universe. But as it stands, there's a grey (both literally and figuratively) thing called Star Citizen that does not have basic gameplay mechanics, a ton of bugs, and doesn't seem to be able to reach its initial scope.
While people decry Major Tom's videos as "cherry picked bugs," even though it's just him playing, we don't see many (any?) streams of SC without constant crashing, bugs, or doing the same thing ad nauseum coming from other backers.
If we are going to talk about only the things that are currently in SC without going off on wild dreamy tangents about what is promised, or what "may" come in future patches, then the discussion is going to be rather short.
If you want to discuss only the game, it's nigh impossible, because the game does not exist. It *might* exist, at some point, as many things are possible in an ever expanding universe. But as it stands, there's a grey (both literally and figuratively) thing called Star Citizen that does not have basic gameplay mechanics, a ton of bugs, and doesn't seem to be able to reach its initial scope.
While people decry Major Tom's videos as "cherry picked bugs," even though it's just him playing, we don't see many (any?) streams of SC without constant crashing, bugs, or doing the same thing ad nauseum coming from other backers.
If we are going to talk about only the things that are currently in SC without going off on wild dreamy tangents about what is promised, or what "may" come in future patches, then the discussion is going to be rather short.
Nope. None of the noise is caused by that.
It's very much relevant. What you're saying is akin to a car salesman who tells the customer to not worry about the purchase contract mentioning weird things. "The only thing that matters is this car. The rest is just noise."
Oh yes, you bet the TOS change matters. A developer touting their integrity and safeguards suddenly removing all accountability towards backers and making refunds virtually impossible is indeed a matter of importance.
Repeating it's not doesn't work, you can't hypnotize people by repetition.
Last edited:
It's extremely relevant as the angry cult descending on nay-sayers threaten the chances of :
Bug reports if people don't dare make them and the game will never be fixed.
Unbiased reviews, how can customers judge the game if honest reviewers come under attack.
The dev's having a clear view of their product, they can't judge how their games being received if anything "negative" gets mobbed.
Basically it's a really bad idea and it's doing nothing but hurting the game, the chance of it ever being released and the potential quality of the final product. Not to mention reducing the potential customer base due to the off-putting idea of being stuck in a game-world with these nutters.
I know people famously don't read ToS - but I do wonder if any new backers wouldn't be slightly put off by terms that absolve RSI of any responsibility to deliver anything and insist the backer has waived their legal rights.
That can't be emphasized enough and was the main reason why I did go for a full account-deletion refund and not a partial one, meaning backing out of Star Citizen completely. Even if the game gets released in perfect technical condition with every obscure feature in it: It is still online multiplayer with no private servers and that audience is simply ruining my immersion.
If I see some solo/group options, I might reconsider it. But I'm not going to share a 'universe' with that "no fun allowed" clientèle.
There is the truth: Video gamers don't know what they want.
You start with greyboxing on bleeding edge technology for exactly this reason. If you create assets and fancy demos years before you have an actual game ready, you are going to look outdated.
That may be the only thing that matters to you, but it's typical in life for other people to have differing priorities.
You brushing it to the side is a poorly veiled attempt at... poorly veiling... just how terrible CiG's business practices are. Those CS responses are ridiculous and if left unchecked with consumers simply saying "usual noise from usual suspects" they will be allowed to get away with such poor service. That doesn't even tough on the other issues that have been raised over the years.
So I disagree entirely and feel that your attempts to brush the genuine negatives surrounding the company aside as in poor taste.
- Status