Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Chicago, IL 11/17

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Daniel

Real Name Daniel   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname CJ_Parker
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Feb 11, 2006, 23:49
Total Comments 3756 (Veteran)
User ID 24408
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ] Older >


News Comments > More Red Dead Redemption Teasing?
24. Re: More Red Dead Redemption Teasing? Oct 17, 2016, 17:00 CJ_Parker
 
nin wrote on Oct 17, 2016, 16:57:
Lorcin wrote on Oct 17, 2016, 16:47:
...silhouettes of several cowboys...

Did you just assume their gender????

Serious question, no joke: What's the non gender term? CowPeople? Cowhumans? Maybe Cowhands?

Nah. It's cowboy and bullgirl. It balances out.

As for RDR or 2 or whatever... they can keep their console exclusive garbage. Fuck Rockstar.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
196. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed Oct 16, 2016, 17:36 CJ_Parker
 
Peeeling is 100% correct. Star Citizen development has been managed very poorly. What we are seeing now with the development of the cloud-based infracstructure, for example, should have been the first priority since it is the foundation for everything else. This "boring" foundation development should have been 2012/2013 priority material, not 2016.

Instead, CIG focused their development on fast results and around a ship pipeline beginning with the fancy JPEG concepts.
In short, they followed a purely revenue orientated project plan and not a long term project plan driven by the ultimate goal to deliver the full scope PU.

One could write novels about this but quick examples would be the many ship iterations and reworks. All of that is usually stuff that would be done post-release when the devs are fine-tuning, iterating, rebalancing and so on.
Or a game mode like racing. CIG did this because it was relatively quick to implement along with Arena Commander but in any normal game development, racing would have had very low priority.
Do the vast majority of the people want to race or do they rather want to trade, smuggle, bounty-hunt, mine, play a pirate etc. etc. etc.? Right.

It is because of this short term goal revenue driven development process that Star Citizen is now a clusterfuck of a project. CIG now somehow needs to turn the ocean liner around and attempt to optimize their processes for a longer term full scope content delivery plan but -no surprise- they are struggling hard against their chairman's piss-poor decisions of the past.

Frontier naturally did a much better job in that regard. They always had a long term vision for Elite Dangerous, released a basic version and are now delivering the full vision update by update for as long as people keep buying the expansions.

This is another advantage compared to SC. If E:D goes tits up, people will still have a fairly solid game to play (e.g. the 400bn star systems will not be fully explored during our lifetime or that of our children and grandchildren either ... it will take roughly 20,000 years!).
If SC runs out of funding or it suddenly dries up, well, I know CR claims that they could still "finish" the game but that is definitely 100% bullshit with 300 employees on the payroll and you can not downscale so easily after you have upscaled so massively. Not possible. Changing the workflows and majorly reversing the project schedule would take a tremendous effort that would not magically lead to faster content delivery. Quite the opposite. Things would get even more chaotic and collapse faster.
Anyway, if SC goes tits up, then you don't even really have a basic version of what was promised for the foreseeable future (remember... we will still be at only 1 single star system until about early or mid 2018).

So, you can say about Frontier or E:D what you want, like how the cockpits are ugly with the pee-yellow colors or how you hate David Braben's fancy glasses and that 400bn star systems sucks because YOU can not explore them all even if you played 24/7 for the rest of your life, BUT in terms of project planning E:D is objectively the vastly better managed project.

On a high level (long term project plan), Frontier are doing it exactly right and contrary to CR's usual inane random babbling when he loses himself in his pipedream fantasies like how you will hide in a cargo container and sneak on board a ship to shoot the pilot and hijack/steal the ship, it is a joy to listen to David Braben's very intelligent, very realistic (or often times British understatement even), factual statements when he talks about E:D.

Braben knows exactly what he wants and whether it can or will be done and he doesn't shy away from simply saying 'nope' to the gamers while Roberts 99% of the time says "oh that is something we definitely want to, sort of, look into in the future", no matter how crazy the idea might be.

If SC would have been driven by a project plan focused on content delivery, we'd be much further along today. We might not be at $120+ million and maybe we would have a little less FIDELITEH and no other Hollywood actors in S42 except Hamill but all of that would be fixable by the success of the game. CIG could have always prettified and polished things post-release like any sane developer would have done.
But it is what it is... we must live with this clusterfuck caused by revenue-driven development where fast results, ship JPEGS and "OMG-so-exciting-reveals" for game/community shows have always taken precedence over everything else which is now biting CIG in the ass massively.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Tech Bits
3. Re: Sunday Tech Bits Oct 16, 2016, 15:10 CJ_Parker
 
Oh nice. I can hardly wait for them to once again reset all privacy settings (plus remove some entirely) and reinstall Candy Crush, their shitty store, the Shitbox app and all the other crapware they usually reinstall without user consent every major update. Maybe in March with the added extra special feature that uninstalling via PowerShell no longer works? That would be really nice and consumer-friendly in typical MS fashion.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Trailer
40. Re: Star Citizen Trailer Oct 14, 2016, 16:57 CJ_Parker
 
NasWulf wrote on Oct 14, 2016, 16:04:
CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 14, 2016, 15:44:
... Oh, did I claim that it was fake as well? Oops. Nope. I didn't.

hmm I seem to have read you said the whole thing was faked scripted game play to cheer up the hype train ... you retracting that statement?

No retraction. The so called "live demo" of the mission on Tatooine was IMO 100% pre-recorded with actors on the HOTAS but the editor presentation was probably real. Why wouldn't it be? One should hope that after four years they at the very least have stable dev tools and what they showed was absolutely nothing special or impressive at all.
As I said, this looked just like any game/level editor has looked for the past few decades. Just a standard dev tool... but the cultists wet their pants over it... "OMGOMFG DIS WEEELLL ALLOW DEM 2 BUILT CONTANT SO FAST WE WEEEELLLL BEEE PLAYIN DA FULL GAYME NEXT YEEERRRR"... it was quite cute .

CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 14, 2016, 15:44:
It is quite worrying that this barebone, stripped down to full nekkidness version dipped into the 40s fps-wise on a high end rig like that.
This means that the full version with all systems in place will in fact require a "supercomputer" or massive scaling down but let's worry about that when we get closer to release in 2025...

The point is they are using current gen components to play thier demo tech and not a 3000$ rig with sli titan x gpus. and again are you saying that the demo was real and running in real time on a single 1080?

The original prerecording session was real, of course. Someone must have partially played, partially scripted (camera cuts, guy on the mountain top etc.) and then (pre-)recorded this at their office in Santa Monica before they went to CitCon to show it off there.
It doesn't surprise me that it did not run with SLI because SLI has been broken as fuck since day 1 of the very first hangar release in 2013. It causes more issues than it gives a performance benefit.

Considering what is missing in terms of gameplay features, animations, physics, particle effects, AI, general graphical fidelity (e.g. there is barely any lighting yet) and especially multiplayer etc. I am not impressed at all by the "performance" of this demo.
Imagine this same scenario with the full feature set, a dozen org mates accompanying the player on this mission and everything taking place on densely wooded Endor instead of a barren desert planet like Tatooine. Then we're heavily in slide show territory or crashing at loading the level...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Trailer
38. Re: Star Citizen Trailer Oct 14, 2016, 15:44 CJ_Parker
 
NasWulf wrote on Oct 14, 2016, 07:47:
CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 13, 2016, 22:16:
No, Sir. They faked it being a live demo to give the fanbois an illusion of a playable level while in reality it was all scripted.

also the moon landing was faked as well ... /facepalm

edit ... oh and the second half of the Con presentation where the artist were running the editor in real time doing the same type of game play planet scale was faked as well .. /doublefacepalm

Oh, did I claim that it was fake as well? Oops. Nope. I didn't. /quintuplefacepalm Rolleyes

By the way, the reaction on the cultist forums to the editor segment was hilarious. People were celebrating this as if CR just shit out a massive golden egg with ivory coating when in reality what you got to see was a standard development tool that allows level designers to place and align shit in the world. Whoopdeedoo... big deal? It looked exactly like any old editor or mod tool has looked for the last couple of decades.
But such is the way of the cultist... they are easily impressed by... everything.

If anybody brings up the question of it running on a supercomputer, the computer it was running on was in a i7 6core with a Nvidia 1080 8 gig with a Intel SSD. Not some super computer running SLI Titan X's and they were hitting 50 - 170 frames un-optimize

Yep. And it was missing at least 99.9% of all promised gameplay systems, zero AI (those Tusken raiders were dumb as a brick) and it was also missing 99.6% of the promised graphical fidelity. There was also obviously no multiplayer whatsoever, let alone anything resembling a PU or MMO environment with potentially dozens of other players or ships in the vicinity.
It is quite worrying that this barebone, stripped down to full nekkidness version dipped into the 40s fps-wise on a high end rig like that.
This means that the full version with all systems in place will in fact require a "supercomputer" or massive scaling down but let's worry about that when we get closer to release in 2025...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Trailer
26. Re: Into the Black Oct 14, 2016, 05:12 CJ_Parker
 
Rigs wrote on Oct 14, 2016, 03:28:
Alright, CJ, I've had enough. Stop going full-on Derek for a second (Never EVER go Full Derek!). I really couldn't care less about this SC crap anymore. It's impressive, yes and when I watched it I was really hoping, like most of us (even if we can't publicly admit it for fear of tarnishing our bad-boy hardcore PC elitist image), that this would someday be a 'thing' we could play and enjoy. Until then I have plenty to keep me busy, and plenty other shit to boil the blood in my poor veins about ( Next time, Mojang, NEXT TIME! Shakefist )...

^ agree ... I want SC to succeed as much as the next guy but I do not want to be strung along, lied to and be fed bullshit all the fucking time Wink .

If I understand what you're saying correctly, you're implying that they took the original stream 'Con footage and removed the bit where the guy was using a HOTAS to control the ship as it landed and then with the buggy/rover/whatever, yes? I watched the stream too and then watched what was uploaded to YT and this video here that is the subject of the post was uploaded a day after the stream was, not days later as a response to bitching on forums.

Now I'm not sure if I am understanding you correctly but two different pairs of shoes (have you followed the links I posted?). The damage control video is the Reverse the Verse Special Edition video and it is obviously a response to the CitCon criticism if you watch it and listen to what they are saying because it is referring to much of the CitCon backlash.

My other link lead to the Star Citizen: Full CitizenCon Presentation which is 100% without a doubt most definitely an edited version of what *I* watched that night. I watched it live on the RSI site... the only way I can imagine there being a difference is if they had different directors for the various streams? Or were you just drunk? Wink

In my version of the stream which you can find here there was a director changing camera views and mostly showing the gameplay, of course, but occasionally switching to other views where you could see a dude at a PC (IMO) pretending to control the action with a HOTAS (check at the 02:15:20 mark... it was not Chris Roberts, of course... Chris was only doing live commentary but not playing or he would have probably used a Shitbox controller as always ).

Anyway, why has that original footage been edited out for the version they put on YT? Or both YT versions for that matter... the cuts to the guy with the HOTAS are missing from the full presentation *and* from the video linked in this newsbit here which seems to be an all new version anyway and not taken directly from the show(?)

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Trailer
22. Re: Into the Black Oct 14, 2016, 00:17 CJ_Parker
 
Wow. Massive almost 90 minute damage control CitizenCon post mortem video here.

Background: Many of the spoiled brat fangirls of SC were enormously disappointed with the low amount of flashy trailers and demos that were shown this year. Everyone was expecting the promised Squadron 42 footage or some more viddies from the epic long delayed Star Marine.
The forums were on fire after CitCon with rivers of fangirl tears over CIG's inability to deliver more jawdrop™.
Because, God knows, Star Citizen fangirls are entitled to their bi-monthly jawdrop™ and have every right to pout if it don't happen!

So, all four studio leads (Erin - Manchester, Brian - Frankfurt, Tony - Austin, Chris & John - Santa Monica) took time out of their busy schedules and got together for this latest damage control video to put out the fires and reassure the fangirls that everything is fine in CIG land.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
165. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed Oct 13, 2016, 22:30 CJ_Parker
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 13, 2016, 21:12:
The mechanics are being built up over time but there's been substantial progress and Alpha 3.0 is really where the game starts to come together.

It's not coming together at all in 3.0. They have revealed at CitizenCon that travel to multiple star systems, which is the most basic essence and whole point of the game, won't be out before 4.0. And 4.0 won't be here before early 2018 at the very earliest (very optimistic estimate).
So, we already know right now that they will still be at less than 1% of the full scope PU delivery by early/mid 2018.
Less than 1%... guaranteed for the next ~18 months and you still pee your fancy pants in excitement over their awesome progress? Duuuuude?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Trailer
16. Re: Star Citizen Trailer Oct 13, 2016, 22:16 CJ_Parker
 
LCTR wrote on Oct 13, 2016, 21:42:
CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 13, 2016, 20:16:
SpectralMeat wrote on Oct 13, 2016, 19:53:
The tech in this video is pretty impressive.

Not really. Check out this video or this one here from five years ago. CIG just has higher graphical FIDELITEH but it'd be really sad if it didn't after all this time.

What cracks me up about this trailer is the fact that CIG had people actors at CitCon pretending to play the game with HOTAS and M/KB. So, even though it was easy enough to tell that this shit was entirely scripted, they tried to sell it to the fanbois attending the show as a real live gameplay demo. LOL. And then they wonder why people call this a fraud?

To be clear - you're accusing them of fabricating the event using actors pretending to control the action, but actually it was entirely scripted with no user interaction?

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Thanks for asking and my research actually just turned up more evidence of fraudulent actions than I expected.

I originally watched the CitizenCon live stream on the RSI site. During the show they had several cameras and when the demo of that mission shown here was presented, they kept switching back and forth between showing the in-game action and showing -what I am now calling actors- at the demo PCs pretending to play the game with HOTAS and MKB controls.

I remember this exactly in no small part due to the fact that I was positively surprised that they had a HOTAS instead of the usual Xbox controller they have been using for many other demos.

Now, when you go to the RSI YouTube channel where they have what they are calling the Star Citizen: Full CitizenCon 2016 Presentation you will see that they have actually replaced the entire demo segment with the trailer from above. You can no longer see the cuts to the people pretending to play the game. So CIG is obviously trying to cover up the fact that they faked this as being a live demo.

Unfortunately, Twitch search is not working at the moment or I would have tried to find the original stream with the now removed cuts in it. It already looked fishy during the live presentation because the guy pretending to play with the HOTAS wasn't doing a very good job (he barely moved the stick or the throttle during the ship's approach and landing... too bad CIG has edited the evidence out but I take that as a clear sign of cover-up).

By the way, let us pretend for fun that the guy at the show was really playing the game. This would mean that CIG must have recorded the play session (e.g. with Shadowplay). Why would they do that during a live demo? Why risk performance issues or other hiccups from recording the demo?
No, Sir. They faked it being a live demo to give the fanbois an illusion of a playable level while in reality it was all scripted.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Trailer
4. Re: Star Citizen Trailer Oct 13, 2016, 20:16 CJ_Parker
 
SpectralMeat wrote on Oct 13, 2016, 19:53:
The tech in this video is pretty impressive.

Not really. Check out this video or this one here from five years ago. CIG just has higher graphical FIDELITEH but it'd be really sad if it didn't after all this time.

What cracks me up about this trailer is the fact that CIG had people actors at CitCon pretending to play the game with HOTAS and M/KB. So, even though it was easy enough to tell that this shit was entirely scripted, they tried to sell it to the fanbois attending the show as a real live gameplay demo. LOL. And then they wonder why people call this a fraud?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
152. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed Oct 13, 2016, 16:23 CJ_Parker
 
Dude, you can twist and turn it which ever way you like. The problem is that as soon as CIG shows off something in their flashy trailers and demos you cultists immediately pretend like it has already been delivered when in reality it is usually months or years away.
If you go back then most of what CIG has shown in the numerous flashy trailers and demos over the years has never arrived in the game or, even if it has, in a half-assed fashion that did not even begin to match the quality of what was shown in said trailers & demos.

The simple truth of the matter is that we are approaching the end of the year 2016 and what we have is:

- Squadron 42: 0% delivery
- Persistent universe: Far less than 1% delivery
- Private servers: 0% delivery
- Mod tools: 0% delivery

Those are the cold, hard facts. It is ridiculous to claim that CIG have been making awesome progress these past four years. They haven't. Compared to the full scope all the way up to the final $65 million stretch goal, they have FUCK ALL to show for it today.
I am 100% convinced that there hasn't ever been a AAA game in the history of game development, except DN4ever maybe Wink , that has had a similarly poor output after four years (see, I'm even willing to give Roberts a break here because according to his counting we're at five years, not four).
Most MMOs like WoW, SWTOR etc. certainly had a fully playable alpha after four years with some features missing, parts of the world missing but they definitely weren't at less than 1% of the final thing or the projects would have been cancelled.

You know, I'm still looking forward to Squadron 42 and I want it to be delivered as polished as possible and I can absolutely wait for it patiently, too, but I'm calling a spade a spade here and unlike you cultists I'm not willing to stick my head in the sand, singing lalalalalala and pretending that everything is awesome when in reality everything is fucked up beyond recognition.
SC/S42 project management these past four years has been a complete clusterfuck of the most epic proportions. The numbers speak for themselves. Four years and FAR less than 1% delivery. It's a fact.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
142. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed Oct 12, 2016, 20:32 CJ_Parker
 
NasWulf wrote on Oct 12, 2016, 19:31:
CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 12, 2016, 18:47:
According to Chris Roberts' own words we are now five years in and what do we have?

Wait, what? I understand math is not your strong point, but lets see ... they just had their 4th "birthday" at CitCon, that interview in CS own words is from 2012 (4 years ago) and the original KS campaign was in October 2012 (4 y e a r s ago). Oh I forgot in 2011 he made a early prototype CGI demo to get things started ... i guess you can call that development time ... lol ... i mean ... wow

I don't need maths skills. I just need reading comprehension which you apparently lack but such is the way of the SC cultist. They only do selective reading when something suits their agenda and the agenda of their infallible cult leader Christ Roberts.

But I'm a nice guy so I'll copy&paste the relevant quote for you...

You have stated that you expect to have an Alpha up and going in about 12 months, with a beta roughly 10 months after that and then launch. For a game of this size and scope, do you think you can really be done in the next two years?

Really it is all about constant iteration from launch. The whole idea is to be constantly updating. It isn’t like the old days where you had to have everything and the kitchen sink in at launch because you weren’t going to come back to it for awhile. We’re already one year in - another two years puts us at 3 total which is ideal. Any more and things would begin to get stale.

^ see Chris own words "We're already one year in". Spoken in 2012. So we're at five years no matter how you wish to spin it.

edit , lets put in perspective the DEV times of other AAA Titles.

WoW .. 4.5 years + a years to polish
BF3 took about 6 years to make (from BF2 to release)
Elite: Dangerous took from 2011 to 2014 for full release (3 years)
Witcher 3 took 3.5 years
Titanfall took from 2011 to 2014 release (3 years using the source engine)
DOOM (2016) started in 2008 and released in 2016 (8 years)

on and on ... again , if it takes another 3 - 4 years and funding dries up , then the game is doom to be the next DNF ...

Cute... and? Then why did CR promise delivery in 2014? Why did he dismiss the interviewer's apparent skepticism with regard to the ambitious timeline? Why does he keep making up dates they can not meet? Why did the Squadron 42 trailer promise the game for this year? Why did Chris Roberts say at Gamescom last year that the "full PU" (his exact words... FULL PU) will be here by the end of 2016? Where is it? Why does everyone except for the guy making the game seem to know that things take time?

The really funny and ironic part is that back in 2012 cultists like you actually defended claims by Chris that the game could be done in two years. People like you posted the quote I posted above saying that doubters have no clue about game development and that Chris would be 100% right. When people mentioned that other games took a lot longer to make, i.e. brought up lists like you just did, then the cultists said that Chris would do the game much faster because there is no publisher holding him back and because of his superior experience and that any doubter should simply look at the first Squadron 42 trailer to see that the game is already in a very advanced state.
Now you say that the doubters who complain about the state of the game have no clue about game development and that the delays were always (of course) to be expected.

I'm not sure it gets more schizo than that but such is the way of the brainwashed cultist. Keep trucking, Space Cowboy!

For the record, I never bought Roberts' super-optimistic timelines and it became obvious to me quickly that all of his babbling was part of the fraud. He threw out some bait dates to make it seem that people would be getting what they pledge for in a soon-ish fashion when he must have known exactly that none of that would ever happen.

However, I never even in my wildest dreams expected them to suck *that* fucking hard. 2016 and we neither have Squadron 42 nor even 1% of what the PU as advertised was supposed to become when (if) it is ever finished. Wow. Talk about a massive epic failure to deliver. It doesn't get more pathetic than this... oh wait, it does... people actually defending this failure is even more pathetic. My bad.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
134. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed Oct 12, 2016, 18:47 CJ_Parker
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 12, 2016, 18:30:
As much as it may seem like a lost cause I think it's worth putting in the effort. There's only so long the critics of the game can bash the game before it proves them wrong, as it has done many times already.

Haha another ridiculous claim.

While it is true that the extreme doomsayers (of which I have never been a part FWIW) who predicted CIG would fold any minute now were proven wrong, everyone else (the regular skeptics) has not just been proven right but no one ever expected in their worst nightmares that CIG would suck as hard as they do.

I mean let's look at what we have here. According to Chris Roberts' own words we are now five years in and what do we have?

- Still no Squadron 42 which was originally promised to be out by November 2014 in its entirety. And what do we have? Not even a single episode and not even a single mission is done so it can be presented to the public at the annual fan show. L to the O to the L.
- A persistent universe with barely any persistence at all, a single half-assed star system out of 100, a 24 player max limit in a single fucking instance, ZERO finished gameplay systems... !Z-E-R-O! ... and to add insult to injury all of this half-assed shit is buggy as fuck, as stable as a wobbling bewb and connections about as reliable as back in the dial-up 56K US Robotic days

What CIG has "achieved" so far is so underwhelming that there are no words to properly describe the entire patheticness of it all.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
128. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed Oct 12, 2016, 15:43 CJ_Parker
 
MacLeod wrote on Oct 12, 2016, 15:33:
but has a post history of 59 posts, at least 50 of which are all about SC, and includes paragraph long rants about how they're doing everything right.

Sockpuppet much?


But... but... but... he is only interested in the SUPER-AWESOME TEKNOLOGEEEEE!!!111

I mean no other developer has ever had 64-bit precision in their game. No one has ever done procedural generation before. And no one has ever made a game where you can choose to play in 1st person or in 3rd person. ALL OF THIS IS GROUNDBREAKING U IDIOT!!!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
106. Re: Star Citizen MMO Oct 11, 2016, 22:01 CJ_Parker
 
Hanneth wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 21:56:
As for when 4.0, that will be late 2017. Chris said the are going for a release every 2-3 months.
3.0 - December 2016
3.1 - February-March 2017
3.2 - April-June 2017
3.3 - June-September 2017
4.0 - August-December 2017


^ LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
102. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed Oct 11, 2016, 20:26 CJ_Parker
 
djinn wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:58:
Agree with almost all your points, but have reservations for the above. What Palmer did with Oculus would seem to be a viable option for CIG if they ran out of cash. A lot of hard work is already paid for which is a springboard for future investors. With the SW franchise it would be added incentive to put in a few extra bucks as they could cut the convoluted stretch goals, focusing on one or two planets with loads of SW based content. A next gen Dark Forces maybe?

I don't see that happening because EA/Disney simply would not need this. Look at SWBF. EA/DICE could very easily produce a single player or (another) multiplayer Star Wars game based on their own work and their own assets.

DICE are experts at Frostbite. They have all the tools and a workflow to produce content in relatively high amounts per time unit.

What would they need CIG for? Art assets? No. DICE have photogrammetry where they port art straight from the movies to the game and say what you will about SWBF but the art (aside from looking very artificial) is second to none.

Would they need CIG for the multiplayer basis? Hell no. SWBF supports 40 players while CIG currently supports only 24 players per instance. The difference is that SWBF is somewhat stable at 40 players while SC is a lag/disconnect/crash fest many days of the week (with only a tiny fraction of the final feature set "stressing" the servers so far).

It remains to be seen whether CIG will ever be able to pull off a true persistent universe (MMO). At this time the "net code" is under extremely heavy construction (has been for months and months and won't be finished for another 12 to 18 months because SC 4.0 is the earliest where you can expect anything resembling MMO gameplay).

I really don't see why EA/Disney would be interested in SC/CIG at all. There is nothing -so far- they (or DICE for that matter) couldn't do better in a fraction of the time at less risk and money. Seriously.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
101. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed Oct 11, 2016, 20:03 CJ_Parker
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:50:
CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:25:
[Whining about the game running out of money]

Huh? I didn't. Dude? Seriously. Reading comprehension? I only replied to this other dude who was fantasizing about a Disney/EA takeover.
I know that there are enough cultists to keep CIG rolling for a long time to come, though this year's CitCon seems to have upset quite a lot of cultists going by the forums.

The question is: Are these the first signs of a real crash or are they going to get away with a little scraping?

I fully acknowledge that the jury is out on that. I've never been among the people saying that they will run out of money (that's -among others- jdreyer's specialty). I've just been critical of all the broken promises, pipe dream promises, hype machine lies, the pies in the sky and the fraudulent actions of CIG.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
99. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed Oct 11, 2016, 19:53 CJ_Parker
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:33:
The latest footage of the game is excellent. It wasn't long ago the critics were saying it wasn't possible to make the game that Chris Roberts pitched and that the funding would run out before.

Please stop repeating this retarded lie.

What the so called "critics" are claiming is not possible (and it won't be) is the vision of the full PU, i.e. that ~100+ people per instance (or whatever number of people you deem essential for this to be called as MMO) will be sharing this universe at the advertised fidelity and CIG has shown absolutely NOTHING in that regard.

Where are the videos of dozens of fighters attacking a capital ship with multicrew ships, EVA, boarding etc. all happening simultaneously?

No one ever claimed that procedural generation would not be possible (see Elite Dangerous with its 400 billion(!!!) star systems or NMS) or anything of the sort.

What is impossible or will be impossible is to piece of all of this together into a true MMO. That won't happen. If they ever deliver the game it will be instanced like fuck with a low player number per instance.

Remember: They have confirmed this CitCon that "travel to multiple star systems" won't be out before 4.0 (early 2018? mid 2018?). This means that the entire MMO infrastructure (multiple instances etc.) has also been delayed to AT LEAST 4.0. Until then we'll be stuck in Stanton, a single star system and a single instance with 24 players max... unless maybe they raise it to a whopping 32 players(?) ... wow ... a real MMO that is!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
97. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed Oct 11, 2016, 19:41 CJ_Parker
 
djinn wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 19:23:
Kxmode wrote on Oct 10, 2016, 21:57:
Mass Effect 1 kind of had procedural worlds that quickly angered players; especially the M35 Mako (what a nightmare of a vehicle!). BioWare learned from that mistake and made planet missions in ME2 and ME3 much more focused.
Am I wrong in this conclusion? If I am please let me know.

Hm. Remembering Mass Effect the opposite to the audience if what you say is true. I actually liked the Mako missions as they gave the impression of an expansive universe, even if it were all smoke and mirrors. It was enough to feel like it was bigger 'world' than it actually was. As opposed to the probing missions which felt like a total gimmick in the sequels.

I don't think he just meant the probing but also the story missions. Probing was boring as hell, yes, but it was still less boring than driving around in a shitty vehicle on barren planets with horrible, clunky controls.
So I'm going to have to side with Kxmode. I also found ME1 to be the worst of the series. The Mako did not really add anything to the gameplay in terms of a fun factor. It was terrible.

But SC is definitely a different beast. CIG used the Constellation Aquila for this demo which has a rover on board as a default but the missions are going to have to be fun for everyone including the vast majority of people who don't have a rover on their ship.
It's not like ME where everyone is Captain Shepard of the Normandy with a Mako (unless this here was Squadron 42 single player footage instead of PU but they advertised it as PU footage so let's assume it is).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed
95. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Delayed Oct 11, 2016, 19:25 CJ_Parker
 
djinn wrote on Oct 11, 2016, 18:51:
Rabbit trail: If they get their game systems solid but eventually run out of money, this would be a very easy pitch to take to Disney and retrofit to do something in the Star Wars universe. Since everything they've done so far is already paid for I'm sure Disney would unload buckets of cash to make that happen, especially since the franchise is currently making it's own comeback.

Sorry but those are complete bullshit pipe dreams. Disney has sided with EA for Star Wars game development. If Star Citizen goes tits up, EA would have to pick up the pieces. That is very unlikely in the first place for many reasons. If Star Citizen fails it's because it is a clusterfuck of a project. Why would EA or Disney buy a clusterfuck? Not gonna happen.

Besides, many employees would jump ship and EA mostly has people familiar with Frostbite or maybe Unreal but CryEngine is kind of exotic. Star Citizen's underlying CryEngine is so heavily modified by now that it's all but a custom engine now.
Why would EA/Disney buy this shit when the people they put to work on the leftovers would need a minimum of 6 months of training before they could even begin to work productively on the project?

Or why would EA/Disney undertake the massive effort of consolidating what has been worked on in L.A., Austin, Manchester and Frankfurt? There are so many, many reasons why *especially* places like EA or Disney would never ever do this... we could sit here all day and fill several novels with reasons.
At the end of the day, EA -if they *really* wanted to- could easily shit out something like what CIG has achieved so far in a much shorter time than it would take them to build something new from the imagined ruins of SC.

You also need to get into the mindset of a corp like Disney. Disney is not interested in awesome Star Wars games. They are only interested in games as a marketing vehicle and an additional source of income.
They will always try to take the minimalistic approach.
Little effort --> Maximum revenue.
Look at SWBF and the crap EA puts out. EA and Disney are a perfect match.
Star Shitizen is the antithesis of minimalist. It is megalomaniac clusterfuckery at its best (or worst depending on your point of view).

Aside from all the practical reasons like CIG's engine, employees and studio structure, your so called "rabbit trail" would totally go against what EA and Disney stand for from a business point of view. This is simply completely unthinkable and won't happen.

P.S.: This doesn't mean that I deem it entirely unthinkable that someone would be picking up (some of) the pieces but it won't be EA or Disney for Star Wars. No fucking way.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3756 Comments. 188 pages. Viewing page 19.
< Newer [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ] Older >




Blue's News is a participant in Amazon Associates programs
and earns advertising fees by linking to Amazon.



footer

Blue's News logo