The Star Citizen Thread v5

[dumbo]

True, but they have filed taxes, made their quarterly reports and no alarm has been heard from the responsible accounting firm.

And if im not entirely incorrect their reports are more or less publicly available, just not down to individual notes, contracts and invoices.

The accounts of F42 are public, CIG's accounts have never been published.

In term of 'raising the alarm'? an alarm would be raised to people who 'own' the company (shareholders/owners). In the case of CIG, backers do not 'own' any part of the company.

 

[Tippis]

Well, he HAS been a director or producer in MOST of his games and movies, And apart from the Wing Commander movie the movies and games HAVE been good.

No.

He's been a director for WC1, WC3, WC4, and Strike Commander.
He's been a creative director for the WC2 mission packs.
He's been a producer (i.e. oversaw production) for WC1, WC2, WC3, WC4, and Strike Commander.
He's been an executive producer (i.e. gave the go-ahead and controlled the cash) for WCP, WC3, WC4, and Starlancer.

The means he had creative input on 5 games out of the 12 big-name games associated with him (that doesn't include the BBC micro games from the '80s, which no-one remembers him for anyway). Of those 12 games, the better ones are generally those he was the least involved with: WC2, Privateer, Starlancer, and Freelancer.

 

[Voivod]

So it's a bit of a wild card there and hopefully Dave Haddock CAN write but it seems at least that Chris stays out of that part..

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[VidarSnipes]

Well, he HAS been a director or producer in MOST of his games and movies, And apart from the Wing Commander movie the movies and games HAVE been good.

But sure, that is PAST works which in itself is a pedigree of sorts but not a guarantee for success.

Are his games considered good because of anything but nostalgia and lower standards of quality? Back then game having a story was revolutionary in itself, it doesn't mean they're any good by today's standards.

 

[frostypaw]

Are his games considered good because of anything but nostalgia and lower standards of quality? Back then game having a story was revolutionary in itself, it doesn't mean they're any good by today's standards.

I took the hit some months back and rewatched the WC movie/games through - they're really cringeworthy. There was much better storytelling to be found in those days, but it was a fun romp and I never expected anything more from CR or Sq42. Was actually quite looking forwards to it!

It's pure nostalgia.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

The accounts of F42 are public, CIG's accounts have never been published.

In term of 'raising the alarm'? an alarm would be raised to people who 'own' the company (shareholders/owners).

No, CIG is not a public company so those reports are not available AND an audit there would at most be reporting any oddities if the IRS requested it.

But In the USA, the external auditor also performs reviews of financial statements and compilation. In review auditors are generally required to tick and tie numbers to general ledger and make inquiries of management. In compilation auditors are required to take a look at financial statement to make sure they are free of obvious misstatements and errors. An external auditor may perform a full-scope financial statement audit, a balance-sheet-only audit, an attestation of internal controls over financial reporting, or other agreed-upon external audit procedures.

So yes, of course there could be shady accounting in a company, in ANY company but those are some VERY serious accusations and would require at least SOME proof to even require an investigation.

Their position is similar to a risk investment company with the exception that backers are not investors and there are no contracts that gives us full insight in their management.

At the same time, there is no guarantee in a regular risk investment that a project will succeed OR that a private investor have ANY say in the workings of said company EDIT: Unless of course they could PROVE criminal intent and perhaps fraud.

As for the public report in case of F42 that's UK law and I have found little in my brief search in who they are beholden to.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

How did you come to that conclusion?

I am merely basing it on the data that he is not LISTED as a writer. No clear facts though.

- - - Updated - - -

Are his games considered good because of anything but nostalgia and lower standards of quality? Back then game having a story was revolutionary in itself, it doesn't mean they're any good by today's standards.

If the GAMEPLAY of a game that is damn old is fun today as it was then, then it's good quality.

Sure, many games have the "rose coloured glasses" syndrome but not all.

 

[VidarSnipes]

I am merely basing it on the data that he is not LISTED as a writer. No clear facts though.

- - - Updated - - -



If the GAMEPLAY of a game that is damn old is fun today as it was then, then it's good quality.

Sure, many games have the "rose coloured glasses" syndrome but not all.

I'm discussing the story of the games, not their gameplay.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Only stronger WC was IV imho, also due of good acting performances. WC III is really cringe, and WC V was meh while having up to date production values. Issue with Squadron 42 story is that there's very mixed signals coming from CIG and unofficial channels - some say it is just dumb but fun adventure, some say it is overbearing story line lacking fun. WC level writing just won't cut it anymore these days unfortunately. That's why it is not really encouraging.

Again, of course, it can all be just speculation and there's some truly excellent story done for SQ42. If that happens, I will be very positively surprised. So far it is hard to keep that level of enthusiasm. But heck what do I know.

 

[X-Terminator]

Having seen their latest updates on new Ships, FPS pre-scripts, Character Designer, and seeing all their dev work I can see how hugely expensive they are and over detailed to the extent these guys are by being pumped up with so much pressures of competition that it's just way too much only to justify their own jobs. I would detest if FD were this way. They waffle instead of just getting the game out and it will simply play out as a few pre-scripted Missions with a one time impressive result and then nothing more. The Ship designs are just way too much fantasy with all these pointy bits that Space has no need for. I am so much happier that FD do what they do and the way they do it.
S.C. is an example of perverse competition and they are losing out by not releasing even 1 simple version of it even now.

I applaud FD. Well done!

[video=youtube;_abd4wLnx3Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_abd4wLnx3Y[/video]

 

[Snarfbuckle]

I'm discussing the story of the games, not their gameplay.

Unless you ONLY mean WC games but MOST older games i would say a lot of them had GREAT storylines and I would love remakes of them.

Wing Commander games were good, Privateer was better. Gameplay in WC3-4 was actually WORSE mainly since they decided to remove cockpits and have the floating HUD instead. It no longer felt like flying a ship.

 

[Tippis]

If the GAMEPLAY of a game that is damn old is fun today as it was then, then it's good quality.

That's a pretty big “if”, and since those old games are competing against the likes of the X-Wing / TIE Fighter series for the WC series; against Frontier for the Privateers; against Falcon or even the Microprose not-really-sims for Strike Commander; and against all the Lucasart and Cinemaware titles for the interactive storytelling elements, they all come out pretty poorly in comparison.

And since we're talking about direction and writing, here, the gameplay is irrelevant anyway even if it were any good…

As it happens, the WC games were universally poorly written, but the ones where Chris had any direct input were a always a shade worse than what Cantrell and the Beemans coughed up. Again, compare against what Lucasart and Cinemaware did — all Chris et al. offered were better production values on their generic scifi tropevaganzas.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

I would detest if FD were this way. They waffle instead of just getting the game out and it will simply play out as a few pre-scripted Missions with a one time impressive result and then nothing more.

I would hardly say FD does it better. Yes, the main core game was a straight up reworked version of 1984 Elite but content wise it IS very shallow and wide. It's getting better but several expansions have been poor at best (PP for example).

And as for quality, they NEED that level of quality or poor textures would be VERY visible due to the scale.

And as for mission structure they HAVE said they use more open ended mission structure.

http://www.pcgamer.com/inside-squadron-42-star-citizens-ambitious-singleplayer-campaign/#

- - - Updated - - -

That's a pretty big “if”, and since those old games are competing against the likes of the X-Wing / TIE Fighter series for the WC series; against Frontier for the Privateers; against Falcon or even the Microprose not-really-sims for Strike Commander; and against all the Lucasart and Cinemaware titles for the interactive storytelling elements, they all come out pretty poorly in comparison.

And since we're talking about direction and writing, here, the gameplay is irrelevant anyway even if it were any good…

Well, one cannot really compete against Tie Fighter, it IS straight up the best space combat simulator so far. X-Wing Alliance gets second place for storyline.

And I would not pit Frontier against Privateer since the games are VERY different. one is more Wing Commander in style and the other a full space simulator.

Same with Strike Commander since it is more of an action flight game than simulator.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I would hardly say FD does it better. Yes, the main core game was a straight up reworked version of 1984 Elite but content wise it IS very shallow and wide. It's getting better but several expansions have been poor at best (PP for example).

And as for quality, they NEED that level of quality or poor textures would be VERY visible due to the scale.

Nonsense. It is neither very shallow or simple. Issue is people expect very deep, complex story lines or experiences at this point. To get there with cleverly generated experiences takes incredible lot of effort - effort I don't see CIG is making (but what do I know about open development).

 

[Tippis]

Also, since we're talking about that legacy again, let me post this old list of what the Roberts' production posse has actually contributed in each of the “Chris games:”

Spoiler

Wizadore (1995)
• Chris Roberts: Written by.


Strykers Run (1986)
• C Roberts: Game design & original ideas; coding; graphics design.
• Erin Roberts: General inspiration.
• Simon Elms: General dogsbody.
• Nick Elms: Graphics design.


Times of Lore (1988)
• C Roberts: Director; game design & conception; storyline; coding; writing/dialogue/story.
• Paul C. Isaac: Storyline; coding; playtesting; programming; writing/dialogue/story.
• N Elms: Additional ideas; special thanks.
• Richard Garriott: Additional ideas; special thanks.


Wing Commander (1990)
• C Roberts: Design; director; graphics/3D Programming; lead design; programming; producer; software Engineer; space Systems.
• E Roberts: Design; QA; dogfight choreography.
• Warren Spector: Producer; documentation & reference editing.
• Steve Cantrell: Writing; dialogue; story; QA; documentation and & reference; documentation & reference editing; additional writing.
• Isaac: Programming.

↳ Secret Missions I

• C Roberts: Director; producer; programming.
• Spector: Documentation; producer.
• Cantrell: Design; writing; implementation; QA; documentation.
• Isaac: Programming.​

↳ Secret Missions II

• C Roberts: Producer; programming.
• Spector: Documentation.
• Cantrell: Documentation; special thanks.
• Isaac: Programming.​

Wing Commander II (1991)
• C Roberts: Producer.
• Spector: Documentation; documentation design & graphics.
• David Ladyman: Documentation design & graphics.
• Stephen Beeman: Director; story; software engineer.
• Ellen Beeman: Assistant director; script; story.

↳ Special Operations I

• C Roberts: Creative director.
• Ladyman: Packaging design & graphics.
• E Beeman: Story; script; documentation; consulting director.​

↳ Special Operations II

• C Roberts: Creative director.
• Ladyman: Packaging design & graphics.
• E Beeman: Story; script; documentation; consulting director.​

↳ CD ROM Edition

• C Roberts: 3D System; graphics; lead design; producer.
• E Roberts: Design; QA.
• Ladyman: Documentation design & graphics; packaging design & graphics.
• Cantrell: Additional documentation; QA; design; writing; implementation; special thanks.
• S Beeman: Programming; design; software engineering; story; dirctor.
• E Beeman: Writing; implementation; QA; documentation; story; script; assistant director; voice direction; consulting director.​

Wing Commander: Privateer (1993)
• C Roberts: Executive producer; original concept.
• E Roberts: Assistant producer.
• Joel Manners: Original concept; lead design.
• Ladyman: Document editing.

↳ Righteous Fire

• Spector: Producer​

Strike Commander (1993)
• C Roberts: Cameras; cockpit, HUD, & MFDs; director; graphics; library code; mission design; original outline; producer; RealSpace system programming.
• E Roberts: Assistant producer.
• Ladyman: Editing.
• Paul Steed: RealSpace buildings; RealSpace planes & vehicles; documentation graphics.
• Bill Baldwin: Cockpit, HUD, & MFDs; audio system; Realspace terrain editor; option scenes; library code.
• Isaac: RealSpace system programming; graphics primitives; cockpit, HUD & MFDs; mission system; RealSpace object editor; library code.
• Eric Hyman: Additional programming.

↳ Tactical Operations

• C Roberts: Producer.​

Super Wing Commander (1994)
• C Roberts: Original PC version.
• Ladyman: Editing.
• Hyman: Producer.
• Isaac: Programmer.


Wing Commander III (1994)
• C Roberts: Cast; director, FMV; executive producer; producer; story.
• Ladyman: Editor.
• Steed: Assistant art director; RealSpace objects; mission briefing & animations.
• Isaac: High-res 3D object editor.


Wing Commander: Armada (1994)
• C Roberts: Producer.
• Steed: Graphics/artwork.
• Ladyman: Editor.


Wing Commander IV (1996)
• C Roberts: Executive producer; director, FMV.
• Steed: Graphics/3D programming.
• Ladyman: Documentation.
• Eric Peterson: (historical note)


Privateer 2 (1996)
• E Roberts: Producer.
• Ladyman: Documentation.
• S Elms: Initial main plot design.
• N Elms: 3D artist/object design.
• Peterson: (historical note)


Wing Commander: Prophecy (1997)
• C Roberts: Special thanks.
• Syd *bleeping* Mead!: Concept art.
• David Swofford: Director of communications.
• Ladyman: Documentation editor.
• Isaac: Additional programming.


Starlancer (2000)
• C Roberts: Executive producer.
• E Roberts: Producer; original concept; game design.
• N Elms: Original concept; game design; art direction; mission design.
• S Elms: Assistant project coordinator.
• Peterson: Game design; assistant producer.


Freelancer (2003)
• C Roberts: Original concept; special thanks.
• Isaac: Lead programmer.

Some names should sound very familiar to those who have been following CIG; some names should be familiar from stuff they've done elsewhere; and some should seem strangely missing if one were to go by the general narrative of Chris' supposed historical magnificence.

 

[X-Terminator]

I agree with this 100%. I do not have S.C. but the more they hype it and hold back I just know that I already would've seen everything before I even load it up!

[video=youtube;2Y-CxC1nwBY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y-CxC1nwBY[/video]

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Nonsense. It is neither very shallow or simple. Issue is people expect very deep, complex story lines or experiences at this point. To get there with cleverly generated experiences takes incredible lot of effort - effort I don't see CIG is making (but what do I know about open development).

Have you seen Powerplay?

Calling those mechamics deep engaging gameplay is an insult to deep engaging gameplay.

 

[Zetta]

And as for mission structure they HAVE said they use more open ended mission structure.

http://www.pcgamer.com/inside-squadron-42-star-citizens-ambitious-singleplayer-campaign/#

That's for the single player game.
There is no way that the majority of missions in the MMO are going to be like this, consider how long it would take to create 2000 missions with branching, fail states etc. They have already said that the majority will be proceduarally generated and obtainable from the mission board.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

That's for the single player game.
There is no way that the majority of missions in the MMO are going to be like this, consider how long it would take to create 2000 missions with branching, fail states etc. They have already said that the majority will be proceduarally generated and obtainable from the mission board.

Of course, I was talking about the SQ42 mission system. Im pretty sure the PU will be similar to ED system.

 

[Zetta]

Of course, I was talking about the SQ42 mission system. Im pretty sure the PU will be similar to ED system.

Okay, I saw you mention the depth of Elite and then in the same paragraph bring up the mission system for a single player game as though there might be some comparison to be made.