Exactly ! Let them think what they want ! And no I don’t want you to be banned. I am against the concept. It’s just to make you react and think.
If you want to let them think, let them search news, read DS blog if they want, judge themselves promotional videos etc. The fact that you don’t see how you are doing the opposite of what you say is just weird. You don’t own the Truth. Nobody does. I don’t. You don’t. So react on the news and say what you want on the content that is posted here, but stop to insanely repeat the same trolls posts after posts… This thread is unreadable. I posted a news that probably nobody saw. And the Rtv and Atv already are far away now… It’s impossible to continue like that. If you want, we open a topic and we discuss on the fact that Star Citizen is or is not goind to be released, etc. but stop destroying this topic, and stop trying to make people think what you think, especially because you are wrong.
I could say the same thing…you don’t have to post promotional videos here but I think I know what you really want…a feel good thread that glosses over SC’s problems and delays. What’s more your posting to just get me to ‘react’ could be construed as trolling, especially if you don’t believe in the concept. An attempt to get me to ‘think’ about getting banned perhaps so you can dissuade me from posting information? I really am amazed that you would resort to such tactics; an all too common approach on SC forums. Try keeping it honest and civil.
You don’t get it. to react and think of what you are doing on this thread. You’re making it unreadable. I start a new topic. If you are honest, we continue this conversation on the second thread.
Last news :
*
*
And finally, Adobe cutting-edge of the year attributed to CIG for their StarMap
Edit : oh and I don’t like the fact that they didn’t say a word on the SQ42 absence on the Rtv. They saw that a lot of people was disappointed about this. There should have been a question about it.
Sadly what you don’t get is this isn’t even the Star Citizen website - you should be appreciative to be able to post anything at all. And now you want to moderate the thread so only positive reviews are available? You mean you don’t get enough one sided, glowing reviews as it is over there on SC forums?
I don’t want to see only positive reviews. I just want to stop the infinite debate on “will SC be released or not ? Is it a scam or not ?” here. I have a negative reviews to share too on CIG, SC, etc but this is not the same thing as the infinite debate I talked above, that is sterile, and pollute this thread
Ok @INovaeFlavien lock the other thread, but manage this one if you want to be coherent.
@Zen : I just started viewing AtV, and they do exactly what it was missing on RtV. In fact, it’s even better to see how they handled the problem. Very good AtV, no ? Or is it impossible that you agree with this ? And you also can see that the question was asked during the rtv I think, just cut from Rtv to go to AtV, because you can see Brian Chambers speaking about it when looking to CR, or the guys beside him.
Look, I’m not going to go through every video with you to compare notes, isn’t going to happen. I view videos if it piques my interest and then I either comment or don’t. What interests me is the final product because I’ve done my time in Star Citizen and their crazy bran of fixing things and solving problems. Just know that if the game is everything it advertised I will be eating a lot of crow…as will you if it doesn’t.
This is why you actually don’t know that CIG staff is about 360 people and not 170. Because you don’t look at videos which could show some positive things on SC. So brilliant way to know the facts.
Well, that makes the case even more substantial: they have 360 employees and over $100 million yet they still are years behind! …
What’s more your attempt to create a new thread and calling it ‘Is Star Citizen a scam’ is disingenuous at best. Not only were you attempting to moderate this thread but you completely misrepresented what I said:
‘What’s more, I don’t believe CR intentionally mislead supporters but simply screwed the pouch (pooch).’
There it is - black and white. SC is not a scam, though some people seem to be of that opinion. Incompetent maybe, greedy perhaps but definitely not a scam. Clearly if someone is off topic it’s you. Anyway, I have had enough of this silliness. Night.
I am not saying that your point is invalid, just please consider the following: A new employee has to be “worked in” (or however it is called in english), which can take a few days to weeks during which the new employee isn’t productive at all and hindering the coworkers (asking about stuff etc). So it is plausible that they are behind schedule, depending when new employees started at the company (did they start a week ago? probably not very productive. Started over a year ago? Very productive).
Not to mention the ressources it takes to properly coordinate such a huge number of developers.
It is interesting to see the different approaches taken in the development of SC and Battlescape. Battlescape build as a dedicated engine for space travel and planetary landing. While SC (using the cyengine) is making an FPS engine suitable for planet size landscapes and space size environments.
It is clear that SC has an advantage render-wise. The cryengine has nice features like good looking trees volumetric shadows etc. And they are clearly showcased in the latest alpha demo. Also in closed environments like a space station, the FPS portal scene element really pays off. But outside of the handcrafted terrains, the scenery things break a bit down. The moon craters (gameplay alpha 3.0 video end) look not very good and they purposely land on the good looking (handcrafted) terrain part for some close combat interaction. But assuming that they are not faking things (its still a demo, so who knows) expanding the 32 bits cryengine into a 64 bits universe simulator is a huge exercise. One I did not expect them to be capable of doing to be honest.
The Battlescape engine looks solid in the space travel and planet rendering. The planet terrain has a lot of detail (not only in specific areas). Which is to be expected given that it was build for this purpose. The first person element is somewhat missing (always nice to walk on a planet and pick up stuff). But this is not necessary for battling which is the choice of gameplay. I personally think the graphics (trees,building) look not as good, and getting them on the level of the cryengine will be a lot of work, but rendering is not as important as gameplay so again this is not necessarily an issue.
It could be that both the top down approach of I:BS and the bottom up approach of SC will eventually (given enough time and resources) result in similar engines. But for some reason I still think I:BS has a better chance in succeeding in the end. SC has far more resources, but resources do not buy good code, only more designers. My main reason is, I simply do not believe software can be developed without stepwise sub-releases. Taking a development period of over 8 years is too long. The new alpha video is clearly meant to attract more funding, but with over half a million backers they must have reached everyone interested in a space game by now. So once the funding runs out, they are left with a half finished space game. Sub-releases could prevent this, but their bottom-up approach does not allow for this. So it could very well be that in a year or two SC runs out of money and their code is too buggy to build on further. I must admit that I was skeptical of I:BS as well (they took their time). But they pulled it off to make a working beta version and that is absolutely fantastic work. So keep on the good work and I hope the funding keeps coming.
(Of course it is not a battle between SC and I:BS, but then again, on some level it is, so comparing the two is somewhat justified :))
Trees were a last-minute addition to the kickstarter build, more to test out the system than anything.
All the buildings and space-stations are just low-poly mock-ups right now, completely untextured. Same mostly goes for the ship exteriors.
Star-Citizen ships, stations and buildings have months of work done to them by entire teams of people, sometimes as collaborations between multiple large studios. That you can consider what Inovae are doing for 00.3% of the budget is even in the same league is extraordinary.
P.S. That doesn’t mean I don’t still find almost all of the Star-Citizen ship designs ugly. I do.
Good neutral post asimo!° I agree on most parts, I am a little more confident that we see something released in ~2018/19 regarding SC, and I expected them being capable of reworking large parts of the engine as they own the original developers around my hometown. And I dont think no matter how much resources you’d put in in a reasonable time, in the end both extended engines would still be different, as the gameplay and focus of both games is.
But besides that, true words in your post, I can confidently add a +1
I think that comparison lacks a bit, until both games feature the same level of flawless multicrew ship / inside-walking and the same level of weapon- & thrusterphysics, which all has to be taken into account into the ship design. Nonetheless the I:BS ships still look extraordinary thats absolutely true!
No, the important words were the other several hundred that articulated a point. “To me” was not “I’m pulling this out of thin air”. It was a rhetorical use meaning “It’s obvious.”
I offer you the following link as a means of understanding the basics of American contract law.
There’s a contract in each Kickstarter contribution. The question is what are the limits of that contract. A company that offers a vague contract - which backers agree to when they give money - has a lot more wiggle room than a company that offers a very specific contract.
It’s also worth pointing out, and which I’m sure I’ve linked in this topic repeatedly before so I won’t again, that the Kickstarter Terms of Service makes it very clear that campaign owners are expected to fulfill their obligations and may be held legally liable should they fail to do so (presumably using regular consumer rights law in the jurisdiction the case is brought). There isn’t a problem at the moment as SC is still overpromising, it needs to fail to deliver for there to be a problem. However, if SC fails, don’t expect to get much as they’ll have gone bankrupt and the way the companies are structured means that the directors, including CR, will likely avoid much personal liability.
Long and short of it is, if you’re sceptical but invested, you should try and claw your money back the moment you think they’re unlikely to deliver, but CIG/RSI won’t necessarily be that happy to refund you.
They pretty much did this already to allow 64-bit. If they did it again, they would probably end up moving further away from the base engine. Though at this point they should just buy out the rest of Crytek and have them rebuild Cryengine completely without this daft forking business, and then sell/license the engine to help funding.
Not necessarily a bad idea. MGS were responsible for getting Freelancer over the line after all.
No, that’s a terrible idea. At least, it is if you don’t make him read off a script. Otherwise you just have the Molyneux effect all over again. You want him as Creative Director, then hide him away from the public eye as much as possible, only to let him out with rehearsed press statements.
they have rewritten cryengine more than 50%, not everything is replaceable in cryengine, cryengine is a very powerful engine by itself, dont under estimate it. There are enough reusable things in cryengine to help speed the project up. plus they have crytek team with them enough for the changes they require. so thats an invalid argument.
regarding chris roberts stepping down and bringing a publisher, well star citizen is a war against publisher and their lies and what they produce, similar to the crowd funded projects like elite, battlescape etc. plus chris roberts is doing a good job so far with the project, so removing him for some other managment team is actually a path for the star citizen project to fail at this point. Regarding vision for the project well from what someone from their team said, you have to shoot for the stars to reach the moon something along those lines, so what that means is that for us to enjoy a game with a lot of depth someone has to dream big enough to the point that they are able to achieve good enough of it, which in turn requires money and getting money is also an art, which is what fuels a dream project.
now just an addition there are two paths in software development amongst many that i am going to mention here
First path to developing a software goes along the lines, that if you have to build a car, start by first developing a skateboard, and then convert it into a cycle, then convert it into a bike and then convert it into the car. This is a valid software development approach, but as with any approach there are always pros and cons. The advantage with this approach is that you will be able to release a minimum viable product in a shortest span of time satisfying the consumer with a lot less features. But the problem with this approach is that in order to convert an skateboard into a cycle you will need to break several things in order to make new ones. It is not always possible to reuse things in the evolution of a software because you cant foresee the requirements of the future. This is the approach taken by elite, battlescape and many other games etc.
Second approach is that in order to develop a car first develop all the separate car systems and than combine and integrate them. With this approach the disadvantage is that it will take longer to finish the project, but once its done you can make any variants of that car in a short span of time. star citizen has taken this approach. which is also a valid approach.
both the methods to target the problem are correct with their respective pros and cons. so for us in the crowds this is a good learning experience. So at this point, I would not suggest things that may derail development of any project rather see what they achieve.
No-one is underestimating it. It was built around creating high-fidelity first-person environments in medium-sized environments. But it was never particularly good at networking, and the scale SC is asking for is significantly higher than anything the engine has been asked to do in the past. They’ve been spending a long time tearing out and rebuilding the guts of the engine, and as a result they’ll have been encountering entirely new bugs and problems with the CryEngine that wouldn’t arise under normal operating conditions.
That’s not really how iterative development works. You don’t just make a complete thing, then throw it away and build a better complete thing that does more. You start with the same thing and you add to it or replace bits that could be better with each iteration. The idea is explicitly to avoid too much waste in the process.
Except then you run into exactly the same problem CIG/RSI have constantly run into. Each individual team runs as a silo unless you enforce strong communication between them, which gets in the way of efficiency. It doesn’t matter how good your engine is, if it’s too heavy for the suspension and the rest of the car to handle, you’ll have to make changes somewhere.
…