Hey I’m no fan of Chris Roberts or Star Citizen! I don’t want to shut down anti-SC opinions, I completely agree with most of them.
My whole point was that posting stuff from DS is a sure way of getting people to ignore your opinions rather than listen to them.
1 Like
Being that more people listen to DS’s opinion than yours, I wouldn’t be so eager to dismiss them. In fact it gives the impression of being a SC zealot unable to take criticism.
1 Like
Arguing for banning “wrong” opinions has the same effect 
1 Like
Who argued to ban anything?
I did not equate DS or his opinions with terrorist organisations. I used the analogy of citing a source that no one respects.
Here’s a much better one:
If you wanted to have a serious discussion about American immigration policy, I’d recommend citing peer-reviewed research rather than Donald Trump’s Twitter account.
(Note that’s another analogy, I’m not equating DS with DT.)
1 Like
No one respects? I do. And a good number of people. If you persist on broad allegations and outright misinformation, it only undermines your arguments, not to mention your credibility.
1 Like
only to point out that in the link posted there, aren’t DS opinions, but simply a list of features promised by CR and not acomplished.
It is a very long list and it is not an opinion, everyone can verify that list simply watching the promised made vs what you have now.
I can’t understand why someone is so salty about this.
1 Like
Obviously you haven’t read many of the posts because there are a lot of in depth analysis regarding finances, engines and questionable practices. I can’t understand why after 5 years with an excess of $150 million with little to nothing to show for it people are still in denial. I guess that’s why scams continue to this day - people are just plain gullible.
1 Like
I do think DS needs a better obsession. Like making good sci-fi games. Jury is still out on whether he’s right about SC, we’ll have to see.
4 Likes
‘Jury is still out’ gives a very broad sense of what could finally be shipped as a full game, and that is quite worrying for what CR will say is a minimal viable product so he and his wife and brother can escape legally from the project with big golden parachutes. Not 100 systems as promised, not even 5 at the rate they are going, more like 3-4 at most. So, a tiny tiny game which will fill up quickly with players and get crowded and boring real quick.
Framerates so low its sub 5-12fps slide shows - how will they optimise this up to 60fps or over 90fps for VR, or 120+ for extreme rig gamers as they will be expecting. Or even 144hz gaming onwards on 4K screens - How?
Cryengine was and is already optimised for Crysis3 @60 maybe 90fps. How in the hell will they get up past 25/30fps, and who will settle for 30 fps in areas with stations and 12 other players in a game like this when and if released 2019> and beyond.
The networking appears to not be working, and I do not believe this recent test CIG say they carried out. 12-60? or so players. I hope they do manage this. Time will tell though as with all of CIG’s broken promises. So many years into development and still with a hopeless back-end networking. Even with AWS backend, good for lots of things I’m sure but still a handful of players makes the game fall over at slide show framerates. Not promising is it after so much time.
Game engines will have far surpassed lumberyard by then, including the standard Cryengine. Bleeding edge game engine lumberyard is not. Head and face look and animation not much better than in Crysis3, in fact worse in places. All the tech they say they are building just does not seem to make a lot of difference if you look hard enough at what they are doing.
At the current rate of development CIG won’t be able to release any first part1 or small PU game by 2020. Who will be throwing money at them still then in 2020. How many years of showing almost nothing for progress will backers put up with.
Wait and see if there is a full released game, watch the reviews - and if good, then buy a copy.
1 Like
Guys I’m firmly in the “SC is a hilariously bad trainwreck” team but I see no point in expressing that opinion on this forum…
Spend the 10$, get an acc on SomethingAwful and read/post away in the “let’s laugh at SC” central:
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800238
There is really no point in doing that here as that will only serve to alienate sc fans that might wanna try out Battlescape and also you are really not reaching that many people and not getting up to date on all the endless drama.
6 Likes
No thank you, somethingawful forums is just a vile vitriol filled place. Just reading the SC thread on the ED forums and a couple of DS large posts/articles he writes each week is enough for me. And to politely debate things here and just here. Even though Matt and friends and I disagree on various SC subjects, doing so here in polite company is all I would want to do.
I was $400 into SC when I got my refund a few months back, and from 2012-2016 a really big fan of the project. very active on the old forums and did engage in lots of theory crafting for sure. Which was great for a time when I thought it would and was all going to happen. Can anyone still say that now.
The machine will keep rolling as long as there is money to make it roll, so you can’t really say it’s not going to happen, until it doesn’t happen. There might be huge inefficiencies, wastage and over-promises, but that’s not going to have any influence as long as there is money to fuel the SC beast, who knows maybe they get $100mil from some angel investor once the money dries out. TBH this thing falling flat on its face makes no difference once the money has been distributed to the directors and a few hundred man team, losing credibility doesn’t really matter when your house is paid off and your personal financial future is secure from unrelated investments.
And Coach has a point, this thread is toxic, we don’t need to be showing this to anyone on either side of the fence, who knows what impression they will get.
1 Like
Toxic, really you think that. I couldn’t be more polite in my posting and trying to debate with others, I’m not wired in such a way to insult people and be vile online. We have here I would say the least toxic SC thread outside of the SC forums. I would like to debate the pros and cons of the project as time goes on.
I do feel a little bitter from time to time having been sucked in so totally in 2012 I have to admit, post refund and all the personal stress I felt building up to taking that decision. Can we still not debate the project as things develop?
1 Like
I would suggest just maybe splitting the thread into a
“Star Citizen diss and critique thread 
”
and a
"Star Citizen discussion, talk and positivity thread 
"
So everybody knows exactly what kind of opinions and talking points they are about to read when entering the thread and there is no more need to shut people down or defend opinions.
With topics where there is such a heated debate going on, constantly talking about what should be allowed to be said is just not fun.
7 Likes
There was a point in time for during 2014 when I was very much into buying ships. Small cheaper single birth ships just for me is what Liked best. And did enjoy buying and melting to buy two Mustangs when they came out, the Delta and the cheap fighter version which came with lifetime base insurance. Made a point to try and get all my ships with that base insurance, like others at the time it was kind of an obsession to get LTI. I missed the KS by a week so did not have LTI rights, so gifted all my ships to a friend who then gifted them all back to me with LTI 
Deep space salvage recovery was the thing I wanted, working up to buying the reclaimer. Searching old wrecks and doing life pod recovery. A BrownCoat org member, and the Browncoat life I rather thought would be good. I wrote many a long post in my thread: Space Walk EVA missions and Salvage deep inside wrecked ships. Like Firefly (pilot) & Event Horizon about how this could happen.
With lots of thoughts about EVA long before it happened ingame. Sadly though the EVA proved in reality nothing like what we thought we would get, maybe in time it will be more fleshed out. Like with life lines one can attach for going deep inside wrecks, with work pods and lights etc to recover life pods and break open parts of ships which are sealed etc… full on theory crafting.
What roles did you guys want from the finished game.
Why should another site protect another company’s questionable practices, some would even say scams by removing those who are trying to correct the record and many broken promises pushed by SC fans? Are all sites now suppose to have two threads, one pro and one con, just because SC has such a reputation? What, SC doesn’t have enough money for more dubious PR that now other sites threads need to be whitewashed? What’s more, some of us will not be able to post our opinions on one thread while others will be able to post their opinions on both threads - hardly seems equitable. I don’t believe SC fans should be treated above I-Novae fans; I know they are special but they are special for a different reason.
2 Likes
Regardless of your intentions the result will always be toxicity.
There’s a reason why that thread on SA is stuffed into a subsection of the games section, it’s not prime time material.
and @JonnyRedHed SA is a very fragmented place full of different opinions and styles of discourse, from shitty and vile to really nice and awesome. To call it toxic as a whole is real damn ignorant, I mean go to debate and discussion and tell me that’s a “toxic” place.
Reminds me on what was done on the Limit Theory forum with the “The General Unhappiness [About Josh’s Absence] Megathread” which was a good thing to happen for the forum and the community. It kept the forum readable for those interested into the game’s related topics and mechanics (or anything else) and a place for those who wanted to raise and express their concerns about the game continuously. +1 for that idea.
2 Likes