Star Citizen - media blowout, Chris Robert's new game

FearTheCow said:
Wow, you managed to use every excuse and then some...

You don't build a house, or mansion in this case, by putting up the walls, installing Windows, and doing the landscaping... All while a foundation and utilities haven't been put in. That is exactly what CR is doing, making mockups and selling visuals while the actual important parts haven't been built.
Click to expand...

How do you figure they aren't doing so? Half the criticism I hear is that they're taking too much time laying the foundation and why doesn't it look like a building yet and why are making it earthquake and flood resistant when that isn't necessary etc...

They seem to be building the game - there's a clear path of iterations made available to all backers that has taken them from a stubby little hangar module to a proof-of-concept where not only do multi-user ships fly, there's a rudimentary game loop with missions in an open area etrc. So you object to them offering things for sale during this crowdfunding/pre launch period? That's just how crowdfunding of games seems to have evolved. It bolsters the working income and generally gives players the opportunity to get certain content at savings (ie There is the plan for the baseline account to be $50-60 at proper launch instead of $45 etc. During the early days and special events you could pick up a basic game package for $25-35 and it would come with both SQ42 + SC! ). Every ship sale has a big bloody disclaimer that its paraphrased as "You do not need to buy this, all you need is a Game Package w/ keys for Star Citizen and/or Squadron 42. If you want to do so to contribute to the project, then that's cool, but you'll get all this stuff in game. Buying it now helps us and as such,w e'll give you some neat stuff at a discount and bonuses" . It isn't like they are spending extra time away from development to push this - these ships are being entered onto the pipeline and are necessary; many are even flyable immediately though of course concept sales state directly "This will take longer to be flyable since there are other things in the pipeline all ready".

If you look at any crowdfunded MMO, they typically sell in-game content in advance in some way - and some of them have exclusives which is something that I generally disagree with. Even non-MMO crowdfunded games offer the option to buy the game after the initial crowdfunding period - they call them "slacker backer" prices which still are lower than retail/launch, but maybe not with as much extra stuff or as cheap as the Kickstarter or first wave backers etc. Those who find out about the game's campaign later can still contribute and get in on the savings. They also tend to sell swag or allow higher level pledges that sometimes offer extra content (sound track, art book, or in game stuff like a special outfit etc) so it isn't just purely a pre-order etc. Even more importantly, many titles MMO and otherwise offer Stretch Goals that these purchases go towards unlocking, alllowing them to expand the game features as it becomes affordable - Star Citizen did this themselves earlier in development.

The entire crowdfunding system, usually while paired with open development and because of a long lead time between first wave confirmation funding and the finished title, typically offers something for sale. The vast majority of the time it isn't going to affect the development of the title. To use the analogy again, allowing homeowners to select which appliances or wallpaper they wish at a discount isn't going to stop the builders, electricians, and plumbers from building the house. All of those ships are going to be built anyway and the modelers, animators etc... are working on them no matter what. They already retain a pretty comprehensive staff of web developers and artists, so putting together a Ship Sale post is no much different than any of their other lore posts. Lastly, the store they already need to have sorted out and continues to exist, and even when the ships themselves are flight ready its easy to implement them on accounts thanks to a well honed Account Hangar system (which has changed a little since the early days, much like Spectrum). I can't see how the presence of them allowing some content for sale in this way is taking up resources that could realistically be used elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
What have they really accomplished in the last year? 2 years? 3 years? Chris Roberts said 3.0 was just weeks away last year, and it has only recently gone to a select few and been greatly cut down, does that not tell you anything? Fuck, pretty sure it was 2 years ago that Chris Roberts said at citizencon that SQ42 was only hours from being ready to be shown, and nothing has been said since in 2 years, does that not tell you anything?

For 2 years nothing new has been released other than jpegs to buy, doesn't that concern you?

They still can't more than a couple people on the server, and being this is supposed to be an MMO, doesn't that concern you at all?

Going off the defenders timeline, SC and SQ42 have been in full development for 2.5 to 3 years, and yet when it comes down to it, what has actually been accomplished in that time?
 
Xaeos said:
In response to DanD...

SNIP... the doomsaying has gone on forever and doesn't seem to be getting any more credible...

...I really, really don't get all the doomsaying ,especially when it has continued nearly since the beginning without much change. SNIP
Click to expand...

And those two little quotes are ironic because as time goes on the complaints are only getting MORE credible as we seem to be just as far away from the game now as we were a long time ago. So the longer it goes on with a trickle of new features, new ships and disconnected tech demos, but no actual GAME, the more likely it is that the doubters are correct. We keep waiting to see a framework of something that is going to be fleshed out. We keep being told it's almost there. And yet all we ever see are these little slices of it that never seem to be able to get put together.

I keep hearing about all these other games that have been delayed just like Star Citizen, but what other major games (and we're talking headline games here considering SC's budget) have had five+ years of full production (not something that was frozen for a decade due to copyright issues, etc) and yet are still in a pre-alpha state but went on release successfully? You've got things like the Elder Scrolls and Fallout series that are in the ballpark, along with Dragon Age but they were at or near release by this point. Star Citizen isn't even close. Even the faithful on here aren't expecting a release within the next year.

Once we start to see a game most of us will happily change our minds. It's looking less likely by the year though.
 
Xaeos said:
In response to DanD...

Your responses make sense if this was "normal" game being funded by a "normal AAA publisher" - but that's not what it was envisioned/funded to be by developers or (many) backers. I grant that there needs to be good project management and that feature creep is a potential issue for any developer, but I don't see evidence for this.
Click to expand...

How do you not see evidence of the feature creep becoming a problem? Creating a persistent MMO type sandbox on top of a story driven space combat and FPS game would be bad enough. Adding 100 star systems, salvage mechanics, Star Marine, etc. on top of all that has lead to a project scope that may be unrealistic. At some point it isn't even about resources, it's about coordination of resources and integration, which is harder than you think. More to the point, the scope of the game is problematic without someone directing the project and focusing on getting shit done. If you read anything from the developers, the only things you can see is that they are fluffing the bullet point list on any release content with minutia. The second thing you can see is that the developers are all over the map and aren't focused on the core framework of the game. Star Marine itself is an example of feature creep, and an example of the fact that we, the backers are actually doing the game play prototype testing for CIG. This tells me that there is a lack of vision beyond the broad strokes and no one internally who really knows how to get things done.

Xaeos said:
CIG started with an idea and began to obtain crowdfunding. Now, they had some "baseline" designs and timetables for the game predicated on the minimum funding goals; I see a lot of critics refer back to these as anything beyond evidence of "feature creep" erroneously. However, as I said before in the first 2+ years of development, funding continued at an astonishing pace and stretch goal after stretch goal was achieved. Hell, they even came to a point when they specifically stopped making new stretch goals despite ongoing funding, which should be evidence for reining in feature creep. During this time and through this funding many backers showed they wanted a much greater scope and vision, opened their wallets to prove it, and now CIG updated their plans features etc. I'd venture to say that I wouldn't consider the baseline framework for planned features to be complete until the start of 2014 at the earliest for instance and since then , they haven't been tacking on additional features - they've been building the ones on the docket. Yes, there are many of them but they didn't just appear without thought or appear impossible to provide - they were added when there was money and drive to do so from both CIG and the backers themselves.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is evidence of reigning in the feature creep, but not until it had already reached critical mass. Listening to the player base and adding features based on their want list is often a bad idea. When you look at game forums for any game and see what people throw into the comments and suggestions sections, you will find players asking for the things that make sense and shit that makes zero sense, isn't possible with current technology, or wouldn't even be worth having in the game and everything in between. The difference here is that CIG basically said "yes" more than other developers would because the potential player base is financing the game. This creates interesting dynamics which aren't comparable to another game, but you can't deny the inescapable truth. After five years, we have very little that resembles a full fledged game of any sort. Again, Squadron 42's absense is a huge red flag. It was pitched as a simple mission based space combat game. It's two years late. Alpha 3.0 is almost a year late. These time tables are from CIG itself.

Xaeos said:
Ever since Star Citizen became controversial in the eyes of some, there has been the continual cry that "the money is almost gone". I don't see any evidence of this being the case aside from armchair economists who work out some voodoo budgeting that with X players and Y pledges they can only have Z dollars left - which is overly simplistic in a number of ways and doesn't take a lot of public-announced facets into account (ie their tax breaks, the way the company is organized and with Squadron 42 / Studio 42 having separate funding, the amount of financial sector resources they have etc), not to mention the things only kept internally. They do not appear to be limping from month to month backed on latest ship sales in the past, nor currently. The people who used to claim "Its a scam!" switched over to "They're going to run out of money!" and if that actually happens I'll happily admit my mistake, but the doomsaying has gone on forever and doesn't seem to be getting any more credible.
Click to expand...

I won't speak to the varacity of the digging people have done on CIG, or the supposed reports from people who worked there and what they've said. I haven't verified these sources, nor do I know how trust worthy any of them are. Perhaps others can speak to this. However, I happen to know a guy who worked at Infinium Labs who was responsible for working on aspects of the Phantom console. We've talked about what it was like to work there and he's shared various stories with me which sound very similar to the reports of things going on behind the curtain at CIG. Their closures of studios and changing personnel constantly are also red flags. This is the type of behavior you see when a floundering company is running out of money. I'm not saying any of that's true, but there is enough information out there to let me know that something is up and even if a lot of this stuff is a lie, all lies are based on truth. To what extent, I couldn't say.

As for my "doom saying", I'll put it this way. I've known a lot of people in the game industry. It was a big thing in the Dallas area in the late 1990's through the early 2000's. While working at the Art Institute of Dallas, I met and spoke with people who worked on games for EA, Raven, Ensemble Studios, Bungee, 3D Realms, and more I'm probably forgetting. The computer animation program at the school was geared towards the gaming industry primarily. When I watch the behind the scenes videos about Halo 4, Battlefront II (2017) and everything in between, I've gotten the sense that not much has changed about the process, other than the political climate of game development which is more cut throat and ruthless than it was in years past. But technical development, engine coding, and many other aspects of game design are more or less the same in a broad sense. The details have changed, but like any other business, it's remarkably similar to what you know even if your information is somewhat outdated.

Now that that's out of the way, it's my sense that things are wrong with any project when deadlines are missed by years. Not months, not weeks, not days, or hours, but YEARS. Squadron 42, it's assets and game play mechanics were to be first, and the core of what would be expanded into Star Citizen. This is from Chris Robert's own face hole. The fact that this game is more than two years behind schedule and that CIG is strangely quiet about it like they hope we've forgotten about it isn't a good sign. Introducing Star Marine, which isn't much of anything mind you, isn't a good sign either. It shows yet another change in direction and a lack of project focus. To me, it looks like CIG has us play testing their prototype for the FPS elements of the game. This would be fine, except that these types of elements should have been hashed out long before Star Marine was released. This is my opinion, but it looks like something that was hastily thrown together because it was easier than pushing out SQ42 and makes it look like shit's getting done. Star Marine serves an important purpose, so it's something.

Xaeos said:
When I was speaking of "same level of quality" I meant in terms of game assets across generation, as I spoke about. Going back to modernize (visually or functionally) earlier developed content isn't simply adding superfluous "new" creeping content, but simply to ensure that all content is at a similar level of quality. Lots of the industry doesn't do this and it can be more or less visible depending on the particular game and situation, but when you have a game system that seems to be tacked on or doesn't "fit" sometimes lacking this is the reason. I'm glad we agree that the visual quality is excellent, but the rest of the critique makes no sense as it is applied to a non-feature-complete alpha; Crashes lack of optimization etc... doesn't mean that they're lacking quality or developing incorrectly... in fact, if they polished each alpha build to a mirror sheen I'm sure that many would criticize them for wasting effort on content likely to evolve and they'd be more justified in doing so than many other criticisms I've seen.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's indicative of a lack of direction, focus, and mismanagement. The idea is to get a game done quickly enough that going back and revamping the game's graphics won't be necessary. When you have a game that takes longer than five years to develop, this is problematic. The fact that CIG is going back and having to repolish so little content shows gross mismanagement and even some ineptitude. After five years, there is only around as much content as the Battlefront II (2017) beta. In some ways, Star Citizen has less to offer than that. BFII was built in two years and has a high degree of polish just like the first Battlefron (2015) game did. It's unusual for EA, granted, but that's getting off topic. The point is that Chris Robert's had a vision which sounded great, albeit a bit out there in terms of scope. I don't think he knows how to achieve his vision, or if it's possible in it's entirety. The fact that we have a handful of missions with very few locations, poor optimization, poor stability, etc. after five years or more is a sign that something is wrong. Either they are working too slowly, or they have no concise vision of how to accomplish the tasks at hand. Either one shows a lack of funding or proper management. Again, more red flags.

Xaeos said:
When it comes to discussing their progress, surmising that they're only "pretending" to be open or haven't developed much content seems to suggest either an ignorance of the design ethos or an inability to value those elements. You're correct that they're "building a MMO with better graphics than most AAA", but they're also attempting to make many never-before-seen features and depth. Many of these systems are built in such a way that they need others to be present - Think of it like a skyscraper. The "building" will just appear to be a random pattern of bricks over a wide area, then as the foundations are built, varying structures and supports are added, it will slowly take shape before growing taller and taller, and will still look much like a framework, with occasional hookups for electrical, plumbing etc It won't look like a magnificent building it was planned to be until its nearly fully finished! Aside from the issues with criticizing the lack of content in what is a (technically, pre) alpha, its noteworthy that these features I listed aren't just important to the hierarchical design and the eventual features, they are much more involved than most other games so it isn't a good comparison. For instance, in many titles an aircraft or spacecraft doesn't have a fully modeled and realistic, destructable set of conduits, wires etc... instead, its a simulation. Its far easier to make a craft give the illusion of damage by having it smoke and maybe change a model or two, while the math behind the scene is "If hit in this hitbox with this damage, do X amount of harm to chassis, reduce engine power 25% etc..". Conversely, if you shoot the left wing of my fighter, maybe you''ll hit the fully modeled interrior conduits and depending on which of those, it will affect power, shield etc.. and what is connected to what, logically and via physics; not to mention my ship is now imbalanced, thrusters and flaps may be inoperable, I may be venting atmosphere etc.... there's a LOT more going on here! For a similar example, take how the average player gets into a vehicle in many FPS that have them - they walk up to the model of the vehicle, press E and pop instantly into the cockpit! Star Citizen on the other hand doesn't do this - you walk up to the spacecraft and depending on that particular craft - ground or space based, there will be one or more animations. On the Hornet fighter, our avatar presses the right button on the right place, the cockpit dome swings up and a ladder extends from the side of the fighter. Once ready for boarding, you press the button again and your avatar begins a fully mo-capped climb up the ladder, seats themsleves in the cockpit, where the dome lowers as your avatar enters the startup sequence. The amount of work it takes to do it as SC does is tons more than the conventional, but it increases immersion significantly for me anyway (more on that soon). Many of Star Citizen's features are like this so to judge them because they "sound small" if governed by other games design is inaccurate. Regarding 3.0 and in fact recent Alpha 2.x, I know many others (including journalists) have generally been impressed because the "building" is slowly beginning to take shape and it proves that yes, they could actually pull off something this ambitious.
Click to expand...

First off, I know what they are trying to do and I have a sense of how hard this stuff is. I understand the depth, and feature set they want to provide, which is part of the problem. The "game" design has far too much "realism" and minutia required to build it as envisioned. This is where feature creep is a problem. Those cockpit animations you won't be watching, don't need to be so precise. All those animations for boarding ships, are unnecessary. I wouldn't say these shouldn't be done, but the larger universe framework needs to be built, SQ42 should be built, before they get bogged down in those details. It's like restoring a car and getting the drivers side front fender in pristine condition while the rest of the car disintegrates from rust. It's a car with no drive train, no wheels, no doors, no interior, no electrical, etc, but you've got a perflect front fender. It's doing detail work before the ground work is laid. This is mismanagement. We are effectively helping them do prototype game play testing, and some other asshole is sitting there in his cubicle polishing the shit out of assets for a game world that's years away from completion.

The tech demos shown at the Citizen Cons, are not indicative of anything. Depending on how those were made, that stuff can be thrown together in weeks. It's called smoke and mirrors. Most of what's been shown the last couple of years still isn't in the game. The fact that it isn't, should be a red flag to you and everyone else. What we've seen is impressive. There is no doubt about it, but Alpha 3.0 is almost a year late and these tech demos we keep seeing stil aren't part of any build we know of.
 
Xaeos said:
I really, really don't get all the doomsaying ,especially when it has continued nearly since the beginning without much change. Early deadlines don't mean jack and delays happen throughout the industry - the public nature of Star Citizen development including known funding etc.. exacerbates and highlights interest in any delays. Mix this with naysayers who continually move the goalposts far more than CIG themselves are accused of doing (I can remember when " Where's all the multiplayer ships they promised? See, they can't make anything more than a simple fighter with a second gunner which doesn't count. Multiplayer open ships like this are simply not possible. It will never happen and here's why" . When those made their debut , they moved onto the next "issue" )), along with a constant comparison to other titles that frankly are too different to be worth comparing (ie Battlefield) and it leads me to a couple of conclusions. Some people have vested interest in SC failing (clickbait journalists, a few devs and publishers etc), lots just want to troll or want the schadenfreude of being able to point and laugh / told you so, , but I think some "serious" backers don't really back for the same reason that I and many early backers did, or value the same parts of the game. I"m guessing that you don't really think the cockpit mocap boarding animations I described above hold much value to you or at least, don't think their inclusion is worth the additional work, for instance?
Click to expand...

Development has continued since the beginning at a snails pace. Early deadlines you say? Squadron 42 was supposed to be a mission based, space combat game. This is something Chris Roberts should know how to make and the bar for it wouldn't have been that high since we haven't seen such a game type in 10 years. It's the easiest type of AAA title to make. In 2012, he quoted a 3 year development cycle for it. That was an absolutely reasonable time frame for a AAA game like that, which reached the necessary funding for completion very quickly. In that time, with less money per project, EA has turned out two highly polished games (or will have by next week) with elements common to SQ42. In the time it's taken them to put out what little we have, Mass Effect Andromeda was created and then largely fixed. It's over 100 hours worth of content. It's got problems, etc., but it didn't have 162 million dollars backing it either. The Witchter 3 was produced in this time line with a high degree of polish, fantastic graphics etc. Deus Ex Human Revoltion was also produced in this time frame. Again, a high degree of polish, freedom, etc. So it isn't even an "EA slave driving" thing. Again, CIG is moving very slowly and has little to show for 162 million dollars and more than five years of development. Tons of companies have produced dozens, if not hundreds of hours of content, with far less money, in far less time. I use Battlefront II (2017) most often as the measuring stick against CIG because it involves space combat. Yes, the physics are simple by comparison but the base physics and all of that were figured out by the time Arena Commander was released. That was years ago. So tell me again how it's naysayers being unreasonable about the time tables?

Each game has it's own challenges, and it's own way of doing things. We've seen a lot of content put out by a number of companies while we've waited for Star Citizen, and even just SQ42. We are right to be concerned because CIG has given us very little in that time frame. Even if SQ42 was a little late, that would have been fine. It is two years late with no release date in sight. Why would that be? As others put it, they are less likely to get financial backing and it might totally stall the Chris Robert's crowd funded gravy train should SQ42 come out and bomb. There is no reason to bring it out now, even if it were complete. I mean, if the game was good, or complete then it certainly could be worth bringing out, as it would pacify the "naysayers" and bring in a revenue stream from an actual product. I think the real reason SQ42 isn't out is the fact that almost none of it exists. Again, the work used to make it would be a stronger foundation for Star Citizen than we've seen so far. Again, most of the assets, physics, and code would be applicable to both games. Yet, it's MIA.

To answer your last question in the paragraph, I'd have to say: Not yet. While I am fine with those additions to the game, it's clear that CIG's developers are concentrating on minutia to fluff a bullet point list in patch notes. Nothing more and nothing less. Animation cleanups and improvements are usually done towards the end of development, not before that. I'm fine with their inclusion, but that the tweaking going on has to be done per ship, and at this stage there are bigger fish to fry.

Xaeos said:
Let me give you a "Backer A" perspective (at least my own). I backed Star Citizen specifically because there were enough things refreshing, new and different that fit together. Unparalleled depth and immersion, things that had never before been tried much less on a MMO scale,
Click to expand...

I was with you until this part.

Xaeos said:
reasonable monetization without exclusive items/ships, and much more.
Click to expand...

Reasonable monetization? A rose by any other name still smells like shit. Some of the packages for backing the game include T-shirts, citizen cards, and other fluff items. $850 for a ship package isn't reasonable monetization.

Xaeos said:
I knew Chris Roberts' history
Click to expand...

No, you didn't any more than I did. You associated his name with Wing Commander and a few other projects as proof he could do what he claimed he could do. I bought the line like anyone else who spent money on this. As others have often pointed out, Chris Roberts only got shit done when he was held accountable to a boss. With him at the reigns, shit isn't getting done. He's busy buying big houses and Aston Martins or something.

Xaeos said:
and he quite honestly came forward way back when and said "I made some good stuff back then, but I think I can make something great if I wasn't beholden to certain interests and had the money to do it. Who's with me?" A lot of us said yes, knowing it was a risk. But that was what was exciting that if it pans out to even most of what we envisioned, it would be a great leap forward. With this in mind, I'm not too concerned about time or delays as long as I see ongoing progress - I know that delays happen throughout the industry but I truly "backed a project" not just "preordered a game". I don't want to see them truncate it or distill it down. I don't want to see them rush. I like when they make decisions that the experience is paramount. I'd be way more disappointed if they went back on their word and started with real money exclusives or rampant item mall nonsense. If I wanted to play "just a good enough space game" , I could do that. There's the Evochron series, No Mans' Sky, Everspace and others; on the MMO side there's EVE Online, Vendetta Online (a personal favorite - an indie space MMO that is somewhat simplistic but developed by a team of 4 and has run for well over a decade. Subscription based, very ethical etc), or the closest parallel to Star Citizen "Elite: Dangerous". Elite isn't a bad game, but it isn't as exciting or of the scope of Star Citizen - in fact, I think the SC that "B" type backers keep calling for would look a lot more like Elite to some extent, but it wouldn't be nearly as exciting. For me, pushing the envelope is why I backed Star Citizen and I want to see where this all goes. I'm not too concerned with time so long as I see progress. Star Citizen isn't my only project - I'm backing other innovative, immersion focused MMOs too because I want to see something fresh with a new type of delivery. Its always a risk - maybe it won't pan out, but even if it doesn't I'd rather get behind something with high aspirations and a reasonable (though not guaranteed) chance of accomplishment, then a beige bag of blah that's a sure thing.
Click to expand...

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I backed the game because I wanted it to succeed. I still do. I wanted, not only a resurgence in space combat games, but science fiction games, and I wanted the technological envelope pushed because it so rarely happens these days. I figured, it was worth $45 of my money on the off chance that it would pay off in some way. Even if the project dies on the vine, othe rdevelopers might take notice and develop space combat games in the future.

Xaeos said:
"B" type backers on the other hand, may have come into interest of the title later and look at things much differently. They see this as more of a pre-order and that the Alpha being playable may not register as a "true" alpha, because they're used to the major publishers offering alpha/beta access left and right, which is somewhat feature complete and representative of the game near launch. They may not care much about the immersion factors - they don't care about running a commercial Genesis starliner route or the ability to be a flight attendant on one, nor do they really care about all kinds of lore and depth of play - not if it extends development time even further. They want Squadron 42 to be another "Wing Commander" or "Xwing / TIE Fighter" single player sort of title, but they don't need famous hollywood grade actors or mocap, nor do they care about on-food combat, manning duty stations besides direct combat etc.. or anything else acting as a tutorial for the public universe. For the public universe, much of this stuff is cool, but sleeping in your ship or growing narcotics in your Endeavor's biodome, when you physically pick them yourself and put them into a cargo container you carry down the hall before placing them into the secret scan-blocking compartment etc.. isn;'t necessarily notably better than messing with a couple of inventory screens. Likewise there's no need to animate fully getting into every cockpit, chair or bed. They still want a AAA title, but they'd sacrifice the depth and immersive features that extend development for time-tested, traditional controls, content, and features that are not unlike those on existing ones. They're not roleplayers, they just want to shoot some bad guys and take on some missions. This fosters annoyance because they compare the surface of what they see and what they value to other AAA games and think things should be moving along quicker. They didn't back an idea, they pre-ordered a game and that game should be here in a timely manner, with recognizable features, and the remainder is cruft getting in the way.
Click to expand...

Squadron 42 was billed more or less as the spiritual successor to Wing Commander. So if anyone paid into the game for that, I don't blame them. I don't care about running cargo, or being a flight attendant. Simulating life, even in the future doesn't necessarily interest me. I like the persistent unvierse idea, etc., but not all of it interests me. I'm find with those elements being in there. That all sounds great in theory, but this is again feature creep whether you can see it or not. Simulating everything we could do in a space fairing society is a collossal waste of time and resources. At this stage of the game, you pick a few of these elements to integrate in the design and flesh the rest out later, when your core game is complete.

Xaeos said:
Maybe that's a core difference and to those backers I say - don't worry about things so much. Especially if you didn't invest a ton of money, I'd advise you to simply forget about Star Citizen until either initial release, or perhaps major Alpha builds iif youwish to monitor progress. Anything else will just be irritating. I'm pretty sure that even "B" type backers will enjoy the game immensely if the final product is within the sphere of what "A" type backers and the developers at CIG intend, butyou won't be able to enjoy yourself now if you're constantly thinking "don't bother with this stuff that's not important to me".
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they shouldn't bother with stuff that's not important to me. However, they've got too much going on to ever finish this game before it will require another engine change, graphics revamp, or total rebuild to stay relevant. This thing is headed towards being another Duke Nukem Forever. They've got to reign some of that shit in and do it at a later date. Not now.[/QUOTE]
 
here's another funny, yet old, one in case anyone missed it. not surprising, it does not exist on the official sc channel.



Screenshot-2017-11-6 Chris Roberts Plays Star Citizen.png


does anyone not remember the chris roberts freelancer fiasco? basically the same scenario - option paralysis and feature creep.

regarding the creative process (music for example), the number one things you do is a) set up creative constraints and b) set and adhere to a deadline. these days when you record music you can simply do overdub after overdub and then mix until your head explodes - there must be limits. the same thing could easily be applied to developing games or anything else. it appears that chris likes to be in control to his own detriment and there is nobody around that can reel him in back to reality. what finally saved freelancer was microsoft that finally cut the shit and cracked a whip.
 
Last edited:
Banyan said:
regarding the creative process (music for example), the number one things you do is a) set up creative constraints and b) set and adhere to a deadline. these days when you record music you can simply do overdub after overdub and then mix until your head explodes - there must be limits. the same thing could easily be applied to developing games or anything else. it appears that chris likes to be in control to his own detriment and there is nobody around that can reel him in back to reality. what finally saved freelancer was microsoft that finally cut the shit and cracked a whip.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Dan_D said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...

Which, maybe they should do again. I mean, if they're going to pay 2.5B for Minecraft, why not? They could pump in another couple-hundred million to Start Citizen, put the project on track, release for PC and XBOneX, and clean up. They could triple the overall funding amount, and it still comes in at an absolute bargain compared to Minecraft. Though the flip-side is that Minecraft already had a loyal global (and somewhat rabid) user base.

In all honesty, I don't really want to see this. I think it could cut down on the potential that SC has. I see them running the project in a technically better way. I guess I actually see it this way.

CIG+MS = Guaranteed Release, scaled back vision/product, more stable in the long run maybe.
CIG = Much better product IF they manage to pull it off, but there's always the question of whether that happens or not.

Hypothetically anyway... :D
 
Passed 1.9 million backers and flew from 161 and change to 164 mil following Citizencon

xd10Ale.jpg


:D
 
Lorien said:
Passed 1.9 million backers and flew from 161 and change to 164 mil following Citizencon



:D
Click to expand...

I really hope you don't have to much money and/or your life invested in this game. This game is not an investment. You do not hold bonds on the company and you are not an equity holder. Your donations are not given any guarentee.
 
J3RK said:
Which, maybe they should do again. I mean, if they're going to pay 2.5B for Minecraft, why not? They could pump in another couple-hundred million to Start Citizen, put the project on track, release for PC and XBOneX, and clean up. They could triple the overall funding amount, and it still comes in at an absolute bargain compared to Minecraft. Though the flip-side is that Minecraft already had a loyal global (and somewhat rabid) user base.

In all honesty, I don't really want to see this. I think it could cut down on the potential that SC has. I see them running the project in a technically better way. I guess I actually see it this way.

CIG+MS = Guaranteed Release, scaled back vision/product, more stable in the long run maybe.
CIG = Much better product IF they manage to pull it off, but there's always the question of whether that happens or not.

Hypothetically anyway... :D
Click to expand...

We do not want Star Citizen to be brought to the XBOX. Squadron 42, absolutely. That's fine. Star Citizen isn't possible on consoles without severely scaling back the graphics and potentially other elements of the game. I would like another company to step in, buy up CIG and then get the game on track. However, I would like something close to what was originally offered / pitched in the Kickstarter campaign to be brought out.

As far as I am concerned, give me a quality, story driven single player space combat game with some FPS portions of the game and it could be great. Being able to take that character, and create it RPG style and then share it with the persistent universe would be even better. This was my impression of the orignal sales pitch's intent for SQ42 integrating into SC anyway. An MMO like, persistent universe with that level of graphics detail would be spectacular. Star Marine adding an FPS game in the same universe with data shared between them would just be icing on the cake.

They need to scale back some of these professions, star systems, etc. and get the game built. Then over time they can worry about adding the rest of that shit into the mix.
 
So I read a thread on reddit where someone asked about stations and the fact that a game that's supposed to have thousands of players per instance, have small amounts of landing pads. Quite literally if they released an update today with 100 players able to play on the same server, there wouldn't be enough landing spots....
 
FearTheCow said:
So I read a thread on reddit where someone asked about stations and the fact that a game that's supposed to have thousands of players per instance, have small amounts of landing pads. Quite literally if they released an update today with 100 players able to play on the same server, there wouldn't be enough landing spots....
Click to expand...

I had the same thought about it when I fired up the thing the other day. The stations are way too small as implemented today to handle that kind of traffic.
 
It's almost as if the stations have been designed before consideration has been given to this issue, and will need a significant redesign once other gameplay aspects are nailed down, or possibly even that the number of players per instance has been grossly exaggerated...
 
Bawjaws said:
It's almost as if the stations have been designed before consideration has been given to this issue, and will need a significant redesign once other gameplay aspects are nailed down, or possibly even that the number of players per instance has been grossly exaggerated...
Click to expand...

No worries, it's just another asset they're going to spend even more dev time redesigning. It's all part of the plan, folks!

3.0 in 2019 :cool:
 
Bawjaws said:
It's almost as if the stations have been designed before consideration has been given to this issue, and will need a significant redesign once other gameplay aspects are nailed down, or possibly even that the number of players per instance has been grossly exaggerated...
Click to expand...

They were talking about a modular space station asset which would allow them to vary configurations in one of the tech demos at Citizen Con this year. It seems like this approach was to allow for rapid development of various stations to spread across the virtual universe. As a side benefit, it might allow them to scale these stations and add more platforms etc.
 
FearTheCow said:
So I read a thread on reddit where someone asked about stations and the fact that a game that's supposed to have thousands of players per instance, have small amounts of landing pads. Quite literally if they released an update today with 100 players able to play on the same server, there wouldn't be enough landing spots....
Click to expand...
LOL, they can't get 16 players in an instance to work properly, the landing is the least of their problems.
 
Meeho said:
LOL, they can't get 16 players in an instance to work properly, the landing is the least of their problems.
Click to expand...

Looking at these 100-player battle royale games and their horrible server tickrates, these guys had better stash some of that money for servers and infrastructure if the plan is epic space battles with tons of players involved.
 
Some > 4k test shots (3840x2400), imgur won't let me upload the uncompressed PNGs tho :/

peoMtFj.jpg


4BUDQ3i.jpg


aygsXJJ.jpg


f7wKkdC.jpg


And some shenanigans

X74OoJK.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lorien said:
60 player server stress testing in progress ;)

7yVKNXt.jpg


Twice as fast as 2.6.3 with up to 60 players.

Click to expand...


It also sounds like they ripped out a lot of the "core" to get these numbers although I dont have any verification.
 
Oh ya, love the video actually showing 48 to 60 players on one server with acceptable frame performance....oh wait...
 
FearTheCow said:
Oh ya, love the video actually showing 48 to 60 players on one server with acceptable frame performance....oh wait...
Click to expand...

And if a video of this did exist, what exactly are these 48-60 players doing? Flying around a vast empty space consisting of..........?

I guess you take milestones where you can get them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Wow this is the first I've heard of this game in years. I remember being so excited in 2012. Can't believe this is still in Alpha. Screenshots look beautiful though.
 
The 10 lucky Citizencon atendees selected to have their faces scanned, they will be made into NPCs in the near future :cool:

 
jhzero1984 said:
I've been waiting for something like this come along for a decade. Someone needs to invent a time machine so I can travel to 2014 to play this game :D
Click to expand...

October 20, 2012. lol

Not shitting on the game, it's just great going through some of these old comments. People like, "You're going to need at least a 670 for this game!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top