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:
San Diego, CA 08/21

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Joao

Real Name Joao   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Comet
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Jun 12, 2007, 15:42
Total Comments 90 (Suspect)
User ID 40334
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >


News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
100. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 20, 2016, 19:01 Comet
 
Drive to convince you? Security blanket?
Important to me?
No grounds to doubt this project?

When did I ever said there were no grounds to doubt this project?

I'm not trying to convince anyone. But you sure have your mind set that the project will fail for whatever reason.

You know what is the difference between you and me?
I don't create drama. I just look at the facts and numbers.

I don't think Chris is a genius. Don't claim I said something that I didn't.
But is this about Chris or Star Citizen?

You want to attack the person or the company policies? Go ahead.

But so far I have only seen speculation, some personal attacks and doubts they can achieve the goal.

You're emphasizing the negative and not seeing any of the positive

I'm on the other hand am neutral. If you haven't understood that yet than it is your problem.
I see the risks of a project like this. How feature creep could kill it and so on.
I've mentioned this in previous posts but it seems that you haven't noticed that part of my posts.

You see, you believe that I'm defending CIG or Chris or whatever simply because I gave examples of other AAA games with similar budgets and scope, that started development at about the same time as SC and will still take some time to be released.
Or how great developers have had their ups and downs and sometimes succeeded and sometimes they didn't.

This is not a defense. This is just reality.

Understand this and perhaps you might learn something.
It's easy to pass judgment but hard to judge fairly.

As in typical gossip magazine style, everyone wants to give an opinion about the most crowdfunded game of all times.

When someone simply points out another project like Mass Effect that started development at aout the same time and that we have only seen a couple of trailers, that information is dismissed.

Instead people prefer to judge the project based on their opinion of a person or certain business decisions.

As if only that factor will determine the success or failure of the project.

Your post Slashman just shows the problem.
You talk about TOS changes that you are right to be upset about.
But what does that have to do with CIG being able to create the game or not?

I don't know if they can. I have no reason to believe either of that. Same goes for many other AAA games in production.

I just wait and see.
I don't judge or anything. Star Citizen trailers look good. Their ideas for the game seem nice. They have the money. The team and so on.

And that is it. Same goes for other games I'm looking forward to and by the way. That I'm actually more interested in than SC.

If you don't understand this neutral , wait and see mindset than perhaps you're the one with the obsessive behavior.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
98. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 19, 2016, 12:03 Comet
 
If I understand correctly most of the people that believe the project will fail is because of Chris Roberts.

A 300+ project with several managers dealing with different parts of the game development and you guys think Chris is doing everything?

Some of you mention Rob Irving and point to interviews he did to support your opinion on why you believe the game will fail. I've watched these interviews and I only see a great developer stating that he joined the project because he loved the idea but left because it became a big 300+ people production. Same goes for Eric Peterson.
It's the difference between typical smaller budged Indie development vs big budget AAA development. And many devs these days prefer smaller projects because they indeed let you be more creative working with smaller teams.

That's what devs like Ken Levine did as well as many other devs in the industry that were tired of working in exaustive AAA games.
http://gingearstudio.com/why-i-quit-my-dream-job-at-ubisoft
http://gamerant.com/why-video-game-developers-are-going-independent/

Anyway. Let's suppose your right. That Chris has doomed the project and so on. And no one else his helping him keep the ship afloat.

First of all. Why is it that Chris Roberts is such a well know developer?

The answer is simple. He was extremely successful at the time.

Taken from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Roberts_(game_developer)

He developed about 10 games during his career.
Times of Lore, Bad Blood, Wing Commander 1, Wing Commaner 2 (as produccer), Strike Commander, Privateer, Wing Commander 3 and Wing Commander IV, Starlancer and Freelancer.

All of them were successful and only 1 of them he failed to deliver(Freelancer).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freelancer_(video_game)

Still the game was not cancelled. Most of the game development was done during Chris Roberts time on the project. But Microsoft instead of canceling decided to release it with a smaller scope.
As was stated back in the day. The issue was not that the game was in a development mess. The issue was not that it wasn't a good game.
The issue was that they couldn't deliver everything on time with the scope they wanted.
Still the game has a Metacritic of 85% and 8.9 user score. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/freelancer

And this is the problem of your opinion.
Your argument is based on one single game that Chris Roberts was unable to deliver on a timely cost efficient matter.
What about the other 9 games?
And what about the fact that all his games (Freelancer included) were a success?

If your argument is that the game will fail because of Chris Roberts and his ambition, fact still is that he only screwed up in one game out of 10. He reached complete success in 9 out of 10 games.

I think people are just jumping into conclusions way too soon.
jdreyer made a good post where he gives a valid argument.

SC Alpha only has 2 systems and we haven't seen all these 100 systems coming together yet.
I have no idea how much development has progressed behind closed doors.
Perhaps they will push the game to 2018. Perhaps they are running out of money and so on and on.

But that is the thing.
I don't know how much EA has done with Mass Effect Andromeda either. Or so many upcoming games that we have seen small demos or trailers and started development at about the same time as SC.
I'm just taking the cautious approach. Giving them the same benefit of a doubt as I give other developers that have taken 5+ years to build their high budget AAA games.
I waited 5 years for GTA V and loved the result. I waited 4 years for The Witcher 3 and loved the result. I did hate AC Unity result

If I don't complain about EA delaying Mass Effect to 2017, a game that started development in late 2012 and that we have only seen a few minutes of footage why complain about SC?

We all heard about SC just when it was just a concept. We saw a new company being built from scratch to create this game.
This is a process few in the public have ever followed so closely before.
IF SC was being built by EA we would probably only have seen some teaser last year and perhaps a trailer this year at E3 as they would have never shown anything in the first couple of years of game development.
How do I know this? That's what they are doing with Mass Effect. That started development in 2012. One teaser last year and a small trailer this year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect:_Andromeda

It is hard to understand why some of you are so ready to consider SC a failure taking into count that :

- There are 300+ devs working on the title much like many other AAA titles
- They have been developing the game for the last 3 and a half years and most of these more complex AAA titles can take 4-5 years to build
- Even if Chris Roberts will doom the project and is the source of all your criticism, fact still is that he has succeed in 9 out of 10 projects before.
- Chris may be a newbie in game development, but they do have some really talented people working on this.
- Rob Irvin left CIF for whatever reason. But if SC development is going so bad why are there 300+ people working on the project and some of them top devs that could get a job elsewhere?

Aren't some of you jumping into conclusions way too early?


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
85. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 17, 2016, 15:58 Comet
 
Quote from the article:

This however, is not your typical single-player fighter-only game of the ’90s. Players can buy multiple ships, customize them, capture and control mid-sized capital ships with the help of other players, lead boarding parties with first-person shooter gameplay, loot, trade, explore, name trade routes, etc.

As I read your post it doesn't really matter anything anyone will argue.
As I mentioned in previous post and will mention again.
I don't see them doing anything out of the ordinary and gave plenty of examples of top of the tops devs that have faced all kinds of issues.

You consider that SC will fail based on your opinion of Chris Roberts more than anything else. They have 300 people working on the title and obviously different people managing different parts of the game. But it doesn't matter. You have already decided they will fail.

You make some point about promised features that they haven't talked about much. In all honesty I'm sure some features will be changed or not included just like it happens in most game development.
But from one or other feature not making it into to final game to not delivering the core promise is another thing.

But anyway. Your entire opinion is based on your distrust of Chris Roberts and the promises they made.

But could you please just answer the following question?

Is CIG any different from other devs be it following the traditional funding model or crowdfunding and if so what makes them different?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
81. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 16, 2016, 18:07 Comet
 
I would just like to reiterate that in no way I'm defending CIG.

My opinion is simply that I don't see them doing anything out of the ordinary when compared to other developers/publishers and crowdfunded projects.

To better understand that we are all on the same page.
You know Peter Molyneux and how it was criticized not that long ago for failing to deliver?
The same might just happen with CIG.
The only difference (for now), is that unlike Peter Molyneux that downsized the dev team and gave indications that it would move to other projects, CIG is still actively growing and developing the game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godus

CIG might collapse. But you know what? Same can happen with so many developers. Ubisoft took the hit due to AC Unity poor state for instance.

Thus why I simply point out that if we give a fair chance to other developers that have only shown 5 minute trailers for games they've been developing over the last 5 years, than given that CIG is doing the exact same thing, they too should be given a fair chance as well.

With that said.
In reply to Kosumo points :

What other crowd funded project continue to sell stuff through out the whole development time?

A lot of them if not most. The more popular they are the most likely they'll try to get additional funds due to momentum. (just like Star Citizen)
Just to name a few :
Tormet Tides of Numeria - Has different pledge tiers as well as accepts any ammount people want to pledge
Kingdom Come Deliverance - Different pledge levels.
Elite Dangerous - Continued to accept pledges up until its release.
The popular Shemenue 3 - https://shenmue.link/order/ - Pledging up to $8000.
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?page_id=35139 - Pledge up to $12000
Bard's Tale IV - http://bardstale.inxile-entertainment.com/pledge - Up to $10000 tier or any custom ammount people want to pledge.

I could go on and on as there are plenty of examples.

Can you direct me to where on their site I can donate $17.50 or $111 or $69.69 or any other number that is not the amount which they sell a internet spaceship for?

Sure. Just go to the pledge store.
You got plenty of options such as this : https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Add-Ons/Shut-Up-And-Take-My-Money .
No rewards in that one. Just to give them support. If you want to give them $12, or $24 just add more items.
Or if you want SC or SQ42 go for the normal packages with the same price as the typical pre-order.

How do you know that it is only wealthy people, chances are that there are many people who are not wealth who have brought these ships becase of the way CIG insentivised them i.e. Limited time, Life time insurance, ect.
If wealthy people wish to donate more they could have just multiply copies of a $30 ship.

Taking into count that the average Joe doesn't win much more than $35000 a year (just checked it on Google), wasting $18000 on a project like this is pretty much trowing half of your anual wage through the window.
If you can do this, good for you. You are probably earning way above the average Joe. But most people can't.
Would you waste half of your yearly wage on any project?
And yes. Wealthy people can donate just by getting multiple copies. But obviously devs try to provide some kind of reward depending on how much you are pledging. Everyone does it.


To Slashman.
I don't dispute anything that you have stated. The project may fail because of their ambition.
But they have raised millions specially to try and deliver an ambitious game.
AAA games are high risk, ambitious titles in nature.
That's why so few publishers/developers can do it.
Ever heard of Halo MMO?
Read the article on Engadget about Microsoft Halo MMO that never was.

Microsoft wasted $90 Million during the course of 3 years (2004 to 2007). Back in 2004, $90 Million was a huge investment. Surpassing the budget for top games and the at the time top MMO World Of Warcraft that cost half of that. ($40 Million)

Did you know for instance that CD Projetk Red almost went bankrupt before The Witcher 2?
https://www.destructoid.com/cd-projekt-almost-failed-before-the-witcher-2-265199.phtml
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-06-seeing-red-the-story-of-cd-projekt

Here is the deal. We often criticize certain companies for not taking more risks and repeating the same formula every year. The companies that we often praise are those that have taken bigger risks and achieved success doing so. It's the case of CD Projekt Red that quite literally invested all their money on the success of The Witcher in a highly competitive landscape and trying to surpass companies with years of experience.

But let's face it. For each company that succeeds there are 10 other than fail. So as you can see I completely understand where you are going.
This is the nature of the AAA game development beast.
And there is nothing better than checking the following article to see just how bad things are : http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/1/3439738/the-state-of-games-state-of-aaa

You end your post with the following frase :

They should have shut the fuck up about building an FPS/space sim/MMO that no one has ever done before and delivered what could have been readily and easily delivered.

Sorry but I don't understand. Deliver a game other than what they have initially promised? Doing a FPS/space sim/MMO was the entire point of the campaign from the start. Check the following article from November 2012 :
http://gamerant.com/star-citizen-graphics-details-mods-pricing/

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
72. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 16, 2016, 04:33 Comet
 
Regarding the two comments bellow I'll just point out the following:

First check the article bellow on How The Witcher changed completely from how they were initially developing it

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-16-the-witcher-game-that-never-was

A change like the above is obviously something not possible to do in Kickstarter projects. But still most kickstarter projects suffer changes, adding more features or removing them while keeping the core promise intact.


Has for the insane amount of money to get the completionist package.
In any project you donate/invest the amount you want to donate/invest.
On Kickstarter any project allows you to pledge any amount of money you want.
Oculus Rift for instance had a pledge option that started at $5000.

There are insanely rich people in the world that have no issues pledging that amount or even more on projects with an unlikely positive outcome.

If I had the money would I do it? No way. Rather donate it to charity or projects with a bigger impact on humanity. Perhaps a project to send a satellite to a distant planet or whatever.
Well but what do I know? If I had millions I could perhaps do it all. $5000 on this one. $100.000 on that one.

Point is it is not up to me to judge in what people decide to waste their money on.
But above all the message is CIG is no different than any other crowd funding project because most projects on Kickstarter accept any ammount of money you're willing to give them.
So you could see things in another perspective.
CIG realized that there were extremely wealthy people wasting thousands of dollars on different options. So to provide these wealthy people an easier option and an inceptive, they created that pledge option.

If you disagree with their funding method than your issue is not with CIG but with the funding method.
Perhaps you believe that this funding methods should be prohibited or limited.

But that has little to do with CIG or any one resorting to crowd funding to raise money for their project.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
66. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 15, 2016, 20:14 Comet
 
Don't quite get where I was wrong.
Just like any developer they tried to get investors to support their project. And they got it.
How is that different from any other production? You do know that many projects publishers invest on end up cancelled or simply fail to be profitable?

Most of your post is about Chris.
Are we talking about Chris or CIG?

You disagree how CIG is handling the project? Then don't support it. Don't give them money.
You supported the project back when it was announced and disagree with how it is progressing? Well that is the thing in this kind of donations/investments.
They have a studio working on the project. So your options are limited.

They have hired a lot of people. Built a company and all that.
Imagine that you are a developer house and you got money from family, publishers and so on. With it you rented an office, hired people and so on. And during production of your game an investor approaches you and asks for his money back.
Your answer would probably be that you wouldn't be able to return it as it is being used to build the product.
Consider that instead of a game a company is building you a house. You have hired their services and promised them that they would get the first payment at the end of the month.
So the company buys the materials, hires some people and so on. In the end of the month you tell them that you have no money and you want to cancel the construction. How do you think that would go?

It's a similar issue here.
Regarding CIG, if you want your money back, then really. Internet forums aren't going to help you.

Either way, this is no different than what happens in the production of other games.
GTA V took almost 6 years to make. The release date was delayed multiple times meaning that the developer asked the publisher for more time to finish the game.
TAKE-Two gave Rockstar that time.
You aren't giving CIG that option.

Who is the most reasonable?

You see the difference here is that simply you have decided to take an emotional approach to this.
I've simply pointed out to you that in practice CIG acts much like any other dev studio.

But your response instead is more related to a person than a company.

Look at the following article just to get a picture of how things actually are in a developer house and how they can change.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-16-the-witcher-game-that-never-was

You may have enjoyed games like GTA V or Witcher 3. But you just saw the final product. You didn't have a look at the internal issues. The controversy and all that .
You just saw the result.

As much as you may dislike Chris and so on, the game isn't being built by one guy. And even if he calls all the shots and is some maniac, the result may end up being a great game. Or a great failure. Who knows?


Forget about Chris for a minute.
Give CIG the same treatment you give other companies that you have even less insight of what happens behind their doors.

If the game gets cancelled for whatever reason we can then come here and talk about the disaster.
If it gets released we'll judge it for what it is.

After all, this is what we did with other games right?

If you don't agree with me fine.
But in all honestly I simply can't understand why given how game development companies work, your treating this particular company differently?

Aren't they building the game after all?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
64. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 15, 2016, 16:51 Comet
 
After reading several response posts to a post I wrote a few days ago and seeing some of the later posts my conclusion is that as this project was crowdfunded and is being made in the open it attracts similar attention and reactions as public figures.
There are those that are predicting total failure. Those that think the game will be the best game ever but there is little space for the middle ground because much like a reality show or the articles in a gossip magazine, opinions are polarized and sensationalized.

Anyway. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Quite frankly I backed the project back in 2012 and I'm fully aware that it may fail much like it has happen with other multi million projects that got cancelled. Were released in a poor state or simply were not fun.

Still CIG is just like any other game developer/publisher.
Meaning, they have a similar structure. 300+ employees much like most AAA studios these days. Similar or higher budget to build AAA title.

Are they over promising? Is this a game impossible to create?
Perhaps. The one thing I know is that each year I see surprising new games I want to play.
Hell, CD Projekt Red went from building a smaller in scale, map based RPG to an open world one. And on top of that built a bigger open world game than any other "competing" developer had ever done before. Who would have predicted years ago they would become the "king" of the SP fantasy RPG genre?

Have you guys seen E3? I'm not really interested in COD games anymore, but one curious thing in the latest E3 trailer.
They showed a mission where the player starts inside a capital ship, gets into a fighter ship and launches, shoots some enemy ships, player gets out of the ship to do some Zero-G FPS.
Reminds you of something?

But what do you know? That didn't even impress me. What did impress me were games like Horizon, God Of War, Battlefield 1, Mafia 3, Mass Effect and so on. And those were only short trailers or demos.

These games caught my interest and much like SC I'll wait and see how they turn out. Perhaps I'll pre order one game if I really think it is worth the risk.
Perhaps I'll just wait for the reviews to avoid getting burned.

But one thing is sure. I won't pass judgement before they are released. And as most AAA games these days take 3-5 or even more years to create, I won't judge them if they get delayed.
I'll just wait. Sometimes it's worth the wait.
GTA V started development in early 2008 and was only released on consoles in late 2013. (almost 6 years)
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/02/the-long-bouncy-saga-of-pc-grand-theft-auto-v-delays/

Wasn't it worth the wait?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
34. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 12, 2016, 13:23 Comet
 
I was simply giving some examples of more recent or upcoming games that I hope will be good.

But if we're going to get into details so be it.
As far as I know, all the content/systems being built for SQ42 are in use in SC.

What is the difference between one single player mission in SQ42 and a multiplayer mission in Star Citizen?

Take it from CIG perspective. They have a budget to build say 200 missions with cutscenes, actors all that.
Do you really think they are wasting all the money in 35 missions for SQ42?

I don't get it. What is it about SC that polarizes some people so much? What is it that makes people accept the ambitiousness of a game like GTA V but find it abnormal in SC?

I've played games like Freelancer that had main story plus side missions, plus online mode that shared all the assets content and so on.
I've played games like Guild Wars 2 that had not only a main story but multiple personal stories geared towards each type of character. Star Wars The Old Republic provided countless story content all presented in traditional Bioware cinematic style.
Star Trek Online did the same plus tactical space combat as well.
GTA V provided a top of the tops single player story, loads of side missions plus a great online mode with character progression, multiple new gameplay modes and so on.

What is the difference between a developer building a mission for the single player part of GTA V or building an online mission?

As far as I know, both SQ42 and SC share the same gameplay.
Same assets and so on.

The same system that is used to build missions, content and so on for SQ42 is used for Star Citizen. NPC interaction are conducted in similar matter.

Look. SC may be ambitious but what is it in it that makes it so "special" for some of you to consider that such a game is impossible to make?

When people talk about SC it seems like their talking about this dream game in their head instead of actually looking at the concept behind the game.

I'm looking at the Stretch goal page in Star Citizen site as I write this. And in all honesty you should probably take a closer look at the vast amount of content, features and so on in complex AAA games and specially MMOs.

Not the best example perhaps, but take a look at what you can do in Start Trek Online for instance.

http://sto.gamepedia.com/Main_Page
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 2.4
27. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 2.4 Jun 12, 2016, 07:59 Comet
 
Everyone loves controversy. And as SC was able to raise more money then any other project a lot of people are just waiting to see it fail.

We got a lot of people just making predictions based on their knowledge of game development.
True. SC might burn and crash like so many other projects but I don't know how people can be more confident of this game failure then other projects.

Don't get me wrong. I hope you read my opinion with an open mind.

Some of my most highly expected games have been pushed to a 2017 release.
A couple of examples are Mass Effect Andromeda and Horizon : Zero Dawn.

Regarding these two games we have only seen a few minutes trailers and very little gameplay footage.
If you check Wikipedia, Mass Effect started development in 2012 and Horizon in 2011.

These games have been in development for about the same time or an even longer time than SQ42 and Star Citizen. SC crowdfunding campaign started in October 2012 after all.

Go to Youtube and check the available trailers for 2017 games like Mass Effect or Horizon. Then go check the available trailers for SC.
Imagine that SC was funded by a publisher and that you didn't have access to an alpha build. Much like you don't have access to an alpha build for upcoming games.

Could you really predict the games that would fail and succeed?

Look. Back when The Witcher 3 was in development, a disgruntled employee made some accusations regarding the game development state and how CD Projekt Red was providing an overly flattering impression of the game on the game trailers.

Check the articles : http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/10/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-issues/

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/witcher-3-studio-responds-to-crunch-accusations/1100-6422841/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2i7gmx/the_witcher_3_development_issues_in_major_crunch

And quoting the developer :
"“It looks like many gaffers are painting CDP as some magical dev studio with only the best of interests of the gamers in mind. Trust me they are not.”
“The bullshitting with The Witcher 3 started from day 1. PR is creating an overblown vision of a game that doesn’t exist while the team is in crazy crunch time for over a year now. There’s some bad shit going on that if GAF knew GAF would not like.”

Yep. That is a Witcher 3 developer comment. Almost seems like something critics would say about SC. Overblown vision. A game that doesn't exist. Team in crazy crunch time. Damage control and all that.

I just think people are jumping way too soon into conclusions and making harsh comments and baseless accusations.

Given the amount of money CIG has raised and the number of people involved in its development (more than the number of developers that worked on The Witcher 3 for instance), SC is a AAA production.
Few AAA games get developed in 2/3 years. If there is something people can criticize CIG about is of giving an overly optimistic estimated release date. But that is so common in game development and in crowdfunding that it is a bit naive if you aren't really prepared for that.
After all, the majority of crowdfunding projects aren't delivered on time. Back in 2012 more than 83% of crowdfunded projects were delayed.
SC is a high profile crowdfunding title, but it is not taking much more time than other high profile crowdfunding projects.

Just check articles like the following one :
http://money.cnn.es/interactive/technology/kickstarter-projects-shipping/

A final note.
I have backed SC back in October 2012. I supported the project and obviously would love if it turns out great. But then again I have no illusions. Making truly great games is hard. I don't expect this game to be better than so many other games that have tried to be the "best game ever" in their respective genre and failed.
Games like The Witcher 3 with a Metacritic of 90%+ are hard to come by.
By the time SC is released (if it gets released) I might just be more interested in another game than on playing a game I backed 5 years ago.

Then again I don't feel betrayed if they need time to build the game.
The only point I'm trying to get across is just that, crowdfunded or not, SC suffers the same issues as any other big budget AAA title.
As much as for instance, I'm anxious to see how the next Mass Effect plays out, I cannot claim it will be better or worst than any other upcoming title.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Free Week
33. Re: Star Citizen Free Week Apr 18, 2016, 16:48 Comet
 
Mass Effect Andromeda. Started development in 2012. Planned release date - 2017.

Star Citizen. Started development in 2013. Planned release date for single player SQ42 (according to latest trailer) 2016. Planned release date for Star Citizen - 2017+

What we have seen so far of Mass Effect Andromeda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Qx5vtu_vo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG8V9dRqSsw

What we have seen so far of Star Citizen and SQ42:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FF-ewiwmhs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSXcdvd-ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP6Ma_tfDlU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok_JC-ClscY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBYRIZA44Eg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rQDDc7Pxlc

I'm not going to "defend" CIG. Release dates have changed and all that.

But I fail to understand why is there so much speculation around this game.
Crowdfunded game or not, it is a AAA budget title.
I don't see anyone saying Mass Effect Andromeda will fail although it has been in development for about the same time as Star Citizen and has shown considerably less footage.

If Star Citizen game development was not so "open" to the public, with Alpha modules for people to try and so on, the image we would have of Star Citizen development would just be the polished pretty trailers.

So why the criticism when in truth most people don't really know much about game development or the real state of an in development game when they first show some gameplay footage in gaming conventions?

FYI. When The Witcher 3 was first announced, they showed some pretty cool in game footage. Seemed polished and all that.
The final game graphics were a bit different and people criticize CD Projekt Red because of it.
In a reply to those criticisms CD Projekt Red stated the following

"If you're looking at the development process," Iwinski begins, "we do a certain build for a tradeshow and you pack it, it works, it looks amazing. And you are extremely far away from completing the game. Then you put it in the open-world, regardless of the platform, and it's like 'oh shit, it doesn't really work'. We've already showed it, now we have to make it work. And then we try to make it work on a huge scale. This is the nature of games development."

Full article at Eurogamer if you want to read about development of Witcher 3.
That first footage was released in 2013 and they expected the game to be released in 2014.
But here is the important part. As stated by the developer, even though they expected the game to be released next year or so, according to him, "they were extremely far away from finishing the game.". He then states "you then put it in the open-world and it doesn't really work"

To put it simple. Demos don't mean anything. The one thing we all do know is that they have quite a few people working on the game. Some well known game veterans that worked on recent titles.
These game probability of success or failure is precisely the same as other AAA titles out there.

I won't predict SC failure just as I won't predict Mass Effect Andromeda or other AAA titles that have been in development during the last few years.
I'll just wait for the finished product. That according to them is not that far off. If it never comes out, than we can discuss it. Right now, let's just wait.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Mass Effect Andromeda Delayed
33. Re: Mass Effect Andromeda Delayed Mar 2, 2016, 18:41 Comet
 
Drayth wrote on Mar 2, 2016, 18:01:
I thiiiink I see what you did there...

Edit- No, yeah: I see what you did there.

Glad you noticed
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Mass Effect Andromeda Delayed
29. Re: Mass Effect Andromeda Delayed Mar 2, 2016, 17:58 Comet
 
This is vaporware.
Game is going to fail.

Come on. The game has been in development since end of 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect:_Andromeda

In 2014 they only had some concept footage to show. And now the game is being delayed to 2017. (5-6 years in development)

Come on people. It is obvious that they were too ambitious. Mass Effect Andromeda is rumored to allow planet exploration and traveling across the galaxy.

The game should be out by now

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Quantum Break PC Plans; Xbox Players Unhappy
26. Re: Quantum Break PC Plans; Xbox Players Unhappy Feb 12, 2016, 14:52 Comet
 
I own a Xbox One Ps4 and PC. The reason why some fans are upset is simple to understand. Their not upset with Microsoft. Their upset with themselves.
Let's face it. The reason why many of us, including myself have bought consoles is because of their exclusive titles. The truth is, we the consumers have made a big mistake by showing companies that we value content over a device capacity. So console makers, often invest more in content than in, for instance, making a more powerful console.

As an example. If you look back at console history, back in the PS2 days for instance, a console on release could compete with the high-end PC of the time. Eventually the PC would catch up, but still if you wanted a powerful gaming machine, a PS2 was a better value.
If you look at the newest consoles, on release date, people were already building $500 PCs that could compete and surpass consoles. Now in 2016, consoles continue to cost $400, but you can build $500 PC's that are more powerful.

Now that doesn't mean PC gamers in general invest on $500 PC's. People often buy a more expensive gaming PC because they are willing to pay for added immersion FPS and so on.
But still, console makers buy hardware at a far lower price than consumers do. So if a PC gamer can build a gaming PC for $500 that can compete and surpass a console, console makers could build a console with similar performance at an even lower cost and still be profitable. Specially considering all the extra services they sell. Such as subscriptions to play online.

But console makers soon learned that if they make some great games for their consoles, they can sell more devices without risking investment on more expensive hardware. And they even make more profit since the game sales already cover the production cost. It's a win-win.

So the issue here, is that when Microsoft decides to release one of their games on both systems, some people realize that their console value was just a false perception.
That in truth, if all the great console games were on PC, they would probably not buy a console. These subset of people that bough consoles to play their exclusives and not necessarily because they like the ease of use and console experience, get frustrated.

It's just that. As I mentioned at the start I own a Xbox One, PS4 and PC. The reason why I bought consoles was precisely because of exclusives. But I always knew my consoles were not as valuable as my PC. I just accept that, and enjoy the great console exclusives because above all I like to play games. Not get in platform wars.
Besides, many of these games would never exist, if Sony for instance, didn't have to make them to sell consoles.

I played Rise of The Tomb Raider on my PC because it offered a better experience. I played Halo on Xbox because it was exclusive and the only place to play it. I will play Quantum on PC. But for instance, I rather play FIFA on my console due to the bigger console community in that game and above all because in a game like Fifa I rather play with a game controller and know that the person on the other side is also using a game controller. I know there will be great Xbox One only exclusives much like I will enjoy the great VR experiences on PC or other exclusive games like for instance, the recent XCOM 2.
I never saw PC gamers get upset when PC exclusives go to consoles.
Why? They already made a choice to sacrifice console exclusives and in turn get better experience in most games and a vast number of other titles only available on PC.
In my case, I chose to waste lots of money on this addictive hobby and bought both consoles and a good PC.

I just came to the conclusion years ago that I couldn't get what I wanted without buying all the systems. If I didn't have money to spend I would just go for my personal preference. In my case PC. For others might be one of the consoles.

This comment was edited on Feb 12, 2016, 14:58.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Demands Escapist Retraction; Threatens Lawsuit
137. Re: CIG Demands Escapist Retraction; Threatens Lawsuit Oct 5, 2015, 17:34 Comet
 
Just to show that without evidence it is really one person word vs another.
Thomas Hennessy, CIG’s Videographer, commented on the latest controversy in a recent podcast interview

https://soundcloud.com/imperialnewsnetwork/innside-cig-thomas-hennessy/s-t5oor

Basically he states:
"Controversy sells either its true or not. It is sad. People are working hard and its almost like a personal attack...I would say this... If SC is a scam it is one of the worst scams ever. Because we are actually building a game. If it was really a scam why would open all these offices, hire all these people, doing all this work...It is unfortunate that sometimes headlines and controversy sells, but its not.."

Hear the interview yourselves and form your own opinions.
One thing is clear... The employees interviewed by the Escapist don't represent all other CIG employees.

How can we be sure of anything without evidence?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Demands Escapist Retraction; Threatens Lawsuit
132. Re: CIG Demands Escapist Retraction; Threatens Lawsuit Oct 5, 2015, 17:07 Comet
 

So after reading some of the comments here I really don't understand some people.

- If CIG doesn't do anything to protect their reputation, its because they have something to hide.
- If CIG does do something, its because they have something to hide and are trying to censor the press.

What the hell?

All of the sudden we have thousands of armchair CEO's predicting how much money CIG already spent with literally no information to back their claims.

So much so, that they even completely ignore the fact that they have opened a new studio in Germany and they are hiring more people. And for some reason none of them stop for a second to consider that in order to open or rent an office they would need to prove to the real state company or the bank that they are able to comply with their financial obligations.

Look. I don't know if CIG is running out of money or not.
It is pointless to make grand predictions of success of failure without actual data to corroborate our claims.

The only thing we know is that, CIG has pushed their expected release date due to supposed development challenges.
But then again, its not like its the first game having its release date pushed for one or more years.

With that said, I'm not defending CIG. I am concerned.
My reasoning is that by the end of this year they need to have something more meaningful to show. That is, if they are planning to release some kind of game in 2016 or 2017. That wouldn't surprise me since most AAA games do take about 4-5 years to develop. But I understand the frustration of some people that expected a game in 2015 instead of 2016. I'm one of them by the way.

But release schedule changes don't necessarily mean the project is going to fail. After all most of the recent great games all suffered release delays. GTA V, Witcher 3 and so on.

Look. Evidence is what we need. Not speculation.
Right now what we have is employees in one side defending CIG and some other employees criticizing CIG.

What we do have now, is CIG apparently willing to go to court with The Escapist to clear their name.
Meanwhile, we are still waiting for a reaction from The Escapist as well as evidence from other CIG critics.

Worst of all is reading comments from some people accusing CIG for using backer money on lawsuits. So how will CIG defend themselves and prove they are innocent of the accusations being thrown at them? Is there anyway to do it other than by legal means?

Some of you claim to have all the facts.
For instance, stating the FACT that some ex CIG employees have made some serious accusations.
But how some are dismissing the FACT that some OTHER CIG employees have shared their opinions in defense of CIG.

Or dismissing the fact that although some claim CIG is running out of money, no one was able to leak a document proving that they are indeed running out of money.

Or stating the FACT that CIG has built their own mo-cap studio but not stating the FACT that they know nothing about the cost of said studio, if they were able to get a return on investment on it or not. Again yet another armchair CEO.

And you people that simply dismiss any kind of critical line of thinking towards CIG, you are as bad as these armchair CEOs.
They gave you a 2015 roadmap and missed almost every single point in it. Of course some people are concerned. And just ignoring it and have faith that CIG will deliver doesn't solve anything.

Derek is right in one thing. Accountability.

CIG needs to be accountable. But at the same time CIG doesn't need unfunded accusations thrown at them.

Don't believe in anything unless there is evidence.
I won't believe in the project success unless they can show me major progress.

At the same time, I won't believe that CIG has misused project funds or is running out of money unless there is EVIDENCE.

Stop reacting to this as if it is a political game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Escapist Defends Star Citizen Sources
117. Re: Escapist Defends Star Citizen Sources Oct 5, 2015, 14:52 Comet
 
nin wrote on Oct 5, 2015, 08:45:
I fail to understand why people choose to believe in what a person says without any proof to back it up.

I don't give a fuck about the narcissist, but the lack of progress and an actual product is all people need to have doubt on the products success.


Definitely. That's my line of thinking as well.
It is one thing to be concerned/skeptic or whatever regarding the project. It is another to accuse CIG of committing a crime.

By the end of this year, CIG needs to have something more substantial to show. The game has been in development for 3 years.

I do understand and agree that some people expected the game to be released sooner rather then later.
But I also prefer a delayed game than a rushed one. Even if it takes a couple more years to release. After all most AAA games these days do take 4-5 years to make.

But obviously if no progress is shown people will get concerned.
I think people are willing to wait for a good product as long as they can show they're progressing at a good pace.

And that is the issue right now. Many of the components suffered delays.
So yes, I share the same opinion. I expect more results.
But I'm also willing to give them a chance to do it right as long as they can show decent progress.

What I won't do is accuse them of something without proof.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Escapist Defends Star Citizen Sources
114. Re: Escapist Defends Star Citizen Sources Oct 5, 2015, 02:57 Comet
 
Unbeliveble.

Loads of comments with nothing more than opinions with little to no documentation.

I fail to understand why people choose to believe in what a person says without any proof to back it up.

The only thing I see is people predicting failure because CIG missed the release schedule. Or predicting success because they have loads of money.

As if it was possible to predict success or failure without a closer look at the company.

AC Unity was released in an extremely poor state and no one was able to predict its failure. So much so that the game actually sold well due to its pre orders.

And then we have people analysing what Derek or CIG have written.
What is there to analyse if no one posts actual evidence?

One example of how easily people are deceived. Does anyone here knows how people found out that Sandi is Chris wife?
Because Sandi was introduced to one of Chris friends in the initial campaign livestream. It wasnt a question of being a secret. They simply wanted to keep their personal life private. In fact Chris has never shown any of his children pictures.

This was 3 years ago. Why is this so relevant now? Why didn't people complain back then?

Did they want to keep it a secret or did they wanted to keep it private?
Why is it then that people don't have an issue with Erin Roberts. He is Chris brother and was given a top level position in the company. He,unlike Sandi, wasn't even there from the start. Yet somehow few people have issues with Erin.

Someone here claims Sandi funded her movie with company money.
So can you please share with us the expense report stating that X amount of dollars have been spent in the production of Sandi's short?

And regarding delays or lack of content.
Sure, we expect more. I wont wait for ever. But can I really predict failure? Based on what experience? Why is it that it is acceptable if GTA V takes 5 years to develop and we claim SC will fail in its 3rd development year?

As for Derek. The best he could do in one of his replies to someone asking for irrefutable evidence that Sandi is not qualified for her position was : "She does not. Stop it"

So I'll ask again. Where is the evidence Derek? Post the documentation you have proving Sandi has lied regarding her credentials. So far you only accuse people abd show no evidence.

I obviously won't support a developer that is commiting a crime. But without evidence it is one person word vs the other.

I don't get it. Is it that hard to scan documents and post it for everyone to see?
So many conspiracy theories for what?

I will support anyone that can show me irrefutable evidence. As simple as that.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Escapist Defends Star Citizen Sources
88. Re: Escapist Defends Star Citizen Sources Oct 4, 2015, 13:26 Comet
 
Kxmode wrote on Oct 4, 2015, 00:12:
Evidence: "Sunny's Diner: The Star Citizen Podcast" interview with Sandi, skip to 17:00. Sandi claims to have a degree in International Business from the UCLA Anderson School of Management and also a degree in Marine Biology from Australia. Derek paid a lot to have a private investigation done and found neither of Sandi's claims to be true. It would not surprise me if CIG is trying to get that mp3 deleted from the hwcdn.libsyn.com servers (good luck with that). They've been busy for the past few months deleting just about anything that has any proof of wrongdoing.

So, where is the University response? Where is the letter from the University stating that Sandi doesn't have such credentials?

Why is it that you take Derek word for granted and dismiss Sandi claims?
Can you please share the letter or document confirming Sandi is lying?


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Escapist Defends Star Citizen Sources
86. Re: Escapist Defends Star Citizen Sources Oct 4, 2015, 13:15 Comet
 
Eirikrautha wrote on Oct 4, 2015, 10:59:

So much concern trolling. Let's deal with "facts" then, shall we?

Don't get me wrong, but have you even read my post? I'm not even defending CIG.
Imagine if someone you knew posted online that you've been lying about your qualifications. Do you understand the seriousness of that accusation? Do you understand that if you falsify your CV you can go to jail?

Some people have claimed that

- CIG is running out of money
- Sandi is a racist and has falsified her credentials, has no right to be in the position she is and so on.
- CIG has wasted project funds for personal gain

These are some pretty serious accusations.
We are all free to question the way CIG is managing the project much like we can question the way a sports trainer manages a sports team. But accusing them of committing a crime?

Such accusations need to be backed by proof. Where is that proof?
Can you point me to it?

It is one thing what you just posted. And that is your opinion. A valid one. I respect that and even share some of your views.
But you're not accusing CIG of committing a crime but rather that they have missed their initial release schedule and you disagree with certain decisions they have made.
Nothing wrong with that.

But that is a long way from the accusations being made.

The topic of this discussion is "Escapist Defends Star Citizen Sources".

I have no idea who is right regarding this. Perhaps there is indeed something wrong in CIG.
But so far we have no documents to prove that.

CIG has sent a letter to Escapist requesting them to retract from the article up until they (The Escapist) has been able to determine the veracity and source of such accusations.

The update has been posted on the Chairman response article at RSI.

I really don't know who is right or wrong but obviously no one should make such serious accusations without proof.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Escapist Defends Star Citizen Sources
78. Re: Escapist Defends Star Citizen Sources Oct 4, 2015, 04:24 Comet
 
Kxmode wrote on Oct 4, 2015, 00:12:

Evidence: "Sunny's Diner: The Star Citizen Podcast" interview with Sandi, skip to 17:00. Sandi claims to have a degree in International Business from the UCLA Anderson School of Management and also a degree in Marine Biology from Australia. Derek paid a lot to have a private investigation done and found neither of Sandi's claims to be true. It would not surprise me if CIG is trying to get that mp3 deleted from the hwcdn.libsyn.com servers (good luck with that). They've been busy for the past few months deleting just about anything that has any proof of wrongdoing.

And have you considered that perhaps Derek is lying?
In this case for instance the evidence is a document from these institutions confirming that she hasn't taken these degrees.
You have no evidence. You only have Derek word.
But why believe in one side and not the other? Derek may have the best intentions but we really don't know if his information is viable or not.

Stop being a politic trowing accusations and post the evidence. Post the documents that support your accusations. Take CIG to court.
3 months since Derek posted his first article. And we still only have his claims but no documents.

I'm not taking sides. I just want to make a an informed decision. And so far I have one side making serious accusations and in the other side CIG employees openly defending and supporting their company and considering it unfair the campain that some people have launched against Sandi.

So one side or the other is lying.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
90 Comments. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo