Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
So what happened to PG planets and landing on them?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
If there is anyone who is a pro at bad development, it would be him
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I am not mistaking anything. But do not believe me. Read what experts say about it.
That is the opinion from an independent developer working on his own space game as he analyses Star Citizen and what it is trying to achieve:
http://massivelyop.com/2015/10/21/ascents-lead-dev-offers-insight-on-the-star-citizen-controversy/
Have fun
I lol'd it, but totally wanted to awesome it and agree on it as well.
I believe it's pretty commonly accepted that development of SC under CR was slow-going. My guess is that, since we've seen what seems like much quicker development since he was replaced as being grand overseerer of everything, things are progressing at a much more normal rate now. That being said, I wouldn't trivialize the work. I mean DS has been working on it for nearly a decade now with little or nothing to show for it, and he still claimed that SC was impossible, so there must have been significant hurdles that they needed to overcome (yes I say needed as in they've overcome them now).
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
You go from one simple story mode to one full SP game release. From a game locked to gameplay of ship flying and combat, to one full-way integration of FPS mechanics through the entire game loop and within SP campaign.
With that said... What part of the "scope" was exactly years in dev and due the mistakes they did already admit to, had to be done again? Yup... Congratulations, you have reached enlightenment!
If you did not, well, then you're impossible to reason with.
Ahhhh, ok, thanks for clarifying.
My assumption that it's a collective, not a singular change. If you can make it through the article with the German-to-English translation quirks, it's actually a pretty good read. No, there is no red herring, but he does lament that he should have been more clear up-front because now he's having to answer these questions about schedule and date slips all the time. You can tell based on his response that there was intent to communicate that information, but it was just poorly communicated.
It may also answer some of your questions about how close to the ship date the delay announcement was left. He does indicate that right up until citizen con, SQ42 was on the schedule, but it was scratched at last minute due to animation chunkyness. Also, 3.0 was still planned as of Citizencon, but things just weren't up to snuff, so they went back to the drawing board on 3.0, since 3.0 would, essentially, be a complete game at that point.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
What fundamentally core gameplay feature, wasn't there on the pitched game, but was there (and is there now) when the scope increased?!
This statement is unbelievable, how can you not know? How can you not know that FPS wasn't part of the pitched game... How can you not know how much the design changed when it was announced and how many features derivate from its existence?
You know what the Star Citizen original scope for gameplay was?
What will the gameplay be like?
Star Citizen will feature gameplay similar to the original Wing Commander and Privateer, with a more realistic physics system. This means that it is NOT a ‘click to kill’ interface like most modern MMOs; your success in combat is going to depend as much on your skill with a space fighter as it will with your ship upgrades and your pocket book.
With the original gameplay scope in mind... look at the gameplay scope available on the Alpha right now... and tell me that "there wasn't anything added". You can't be serious...
http://i.imgur.com/DSwNSRk.png
The very pitched design as it shows, was one sequel to Wing Commander (SQ42) without any FPS Mechanics, and that online game-world. As the stretch goals rolled in that's when they started talking FPS; up until stretch goals related to FPS, like Boarding.
SQ42 only got confirmed FPS combat, I think on 2015. Showing the clear design changes expanding the scope of something that originally wasn't meant to be.
Are you confusing perhaps planetside fps combat? Now that might be something that was added is planetside landings but IDK.
SQ42 is again the biggest example of this, it did not had FPS combat within its missions. I think it was on a Q&A with Erin Roberts on 2015 that he confirmed that indeed it would have FPS included. And I do remember this because some discussions popped in from backers who didn't like that at all when it was mentioned; its very original pitch always implied the full space-sim on it (that's what I also expected).
The same way, on 2016 they did confirm SQ42 would have planetside missions, something that before was claimed to be not be part of it.
But its the same song and dances its been for the past couple years. Always......it coming dont wqrry about it. Those comments are as predictable as the 'here look at this ship sale we are having' at the end of every Chris Roberts appearance at a convention.
I saw some one make a claim that 'mining' was going to be put in 3.0. Has that ever been shown anyway where? Has there ever been a mining play through at a convention? Thats a serious question I dont know.
But what I want to know is there going to be the ability to unpack your dragonfly (inside the cargo hold of a bigger ship), get on it, start it up, lift off fly out a cargo bay door into open space, fly around that open space, fly back tot hat same ship or to another ship, fly INTO the cargo hold again, land, 'secure' it, then dismount? All without a single cut screen and all in the same 'zone'/open space.
Until I see that in the test bed I will contend that that movie they claimed was 'gameplay' was as fake as it gets.
Pretty sure that was all promised for 3.0. I suspect their inability to do any of that stuff they showed in the movie in the game has a lot to do with all these delays. But I suspect they will bait and switch and none of that stuff I just mentioned will make it in, they will add these side things like 'mining' and PG planets and maybe may their persistence a little more wider in scope.
Yeah, they definitely don't get into specifics. This is also the part where transparency hurts things. People want to believe that additional clarity will actually help them. However, the reality is that if they gave you (you being the collective Internet) additional insight into what was going on, the likelihood that you/they will understand it approaches zero, as the complexity of the feature or issue increases. The problem with this is that we're all fucking geniuses thanks to Google now, and that means that your ability to act as an expert on the problem is just one search away. PROBLEM!! You still don't know shit! But you've now got hundreds of people with the same incorrect assumptions, based on the first search result in Google, grouping together trying to convince people that you've got the answer to all their problems, when you don't! You know nothing!! THIS!
Is why a blanket statement of "An increase in scope" is completely acceptable to me. There was another great example related to SC animations by @Turrican187 at some point. It was very detailed and sounded very intelligent. I even understood tidbits since I've worked with games before. However, I'm no expert. So saving actually becoming an expert in animation, coming back here 5 years from now and responding, all I could say was "Cool!" or "That's interesting! I noticed some shitty animations, maybe that's what the problem is." The fact, yes fact, that you can't get people to read a 3 or 4 page article, or watch a 10 minute YouTube video only supports the idea that giving people MORE information is a dangerous thing.
PS That's just an opinion because, you know, I don't have a degree in psychology or anything
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Does it have to be inside a box? Really? xD
So if they implement all of that (we can already move ships within ships on the current alpha, the physic grids do support it).... without the box to "unwrap" your ship like a gift... You'll still claim it is fake?
Bonus: Here's a player docking a ship inside other ship... With the bonus of the SAME BUG (ship goes invisible) that happened on the Livestream demo of 3.0 (1:09):
See my comment above. Putting FPS mechanics in a game is not placing a gun in their hand. Also, depending on what you already had in the game, this could be non-trivial work. For instance, unless you just accept bullets as any other projectile, then you'd need a redesign of a lot of your framework to either add additional parameters to your classes for stuff like projectile type (if not already there), which would require refactoring of your base code, the level of this change would depend greatly on how lazy you were to begin with. If you're actively catching exceptions and doing something with them, maybe it can be mitigated, but if you aren't then it could mean that adding additional projectiles could cause crashes elsewhere in the game. Alternatively, you can add new classes, states, etc. for people who are pew pewing with puny guns. However, you also need to make sure that you've updated your code, as well, so that your little pew pew bullets don't like make a capital ship explode or something ridiculous.
So, depending on WHEN this decision was made could mean minor work, or could mean major refactors across the entire code base.
That being said, I'm not an expert in game development, so that's just my opinion based on what I know of game development.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I'm talking about what they originally pitched, and back then when SC was indeed pitched, we just had to look at that KS page and there was nothing about it. We saw SQ42 and we saw the whole you walking inside ships and so forth, but missions and such fully space-sim driven. I remember well when I backed SC from all I have read I didn't expect SQ42 to have FPS play on it, only on SC.
--John Ruskin