Can it happen?

SEANMCAD

Often times SC project is refereed to as revolutionary which indirectly asks these questions

Specifically how is it revolutionary and if it is revolutionary then doesn't that mean other developers are not doing it?
and if other developers are not doing it my question is why?

is it because its technically unrealistic and not possible?
is it because those other firms are lazy?
is it because the whole thing is fake?

discuss with a focus on this core question:
why are other firms not doing what SC is going (game feature wise)?

kitarad

I don't think it is fake but I think some of the goals are unrealistic and probably will fail at some level. There will be a playable game but nowhere near what was promised.

Gdemami

SEANMCAD said:

why are other firms not doing what SC is going (game feature wise)?

1) Budget
2) Most devs aren't obsessed with fluff features like Chris Roberts is.

SEANMCAD

kitarad said:

I don't think it is fake but I think some of the goals are unrealistic and probably will fail at some level. There will be a playable game but nowhere near what was promised.

so in your mind is that why you think other firms are not doing it? because its not realistically possible.

fair answer

SEANMCAD

Gdemami said:

SEANMCAD said:

why are other firms not doing what SC is going (game feature wise)?

1) Budget
2) Most devs aren't obsessed with fluff features like Chris Roberts is.

so the question is (more or less) why is it being called 'revolutionary'

that I think is my real core question.

Gdemami

SEANMCAD said:

that I think is my real core question.

No, the real question is: Who is calling it revolutionary?

Fans? Roberts? Columnist that never wrote a single line of code? You get a picture...

kitarad

We have to see what they deliver before calling it revolutionary, don't you think ?

SEANMCAD

kitarad said:

We have to see what they deliver before calling it revolutionary, don't you think ?

oh I completely agree but it does seem a lot of people are calling the ideas revolutionary. 

So the question is, why are these ideas revolutionary? what is revolutionary about these ideas and why are other developers not engaged in those ideas?

kitarad

Isn't it like the soap ad that says 'whiter than white" . It's marketing not fact.

SEANMCAD

kitarad said:

Isn't it like the soap ad that says 'whiter than white" . It's marketing not fact.

well I am not sure its only marketing driving it but fair enough.

so are you saying that nothing in the SC ideas are revolutionary? and if so can you point to a game that has such ideas? doesnt have to be all of them (all ideas) but you know just point to something that suggests its already been done or not really that big of a deal

kitarad

I don't know enough about code, engines or the process of what can actually be done to be able to call an idea revolutionary. Ideas are just that it is not necessarily something tangible. Has anyone described convincingly and truthfully what has been released so far as revolutionary ?

SEANMCAD

kitarad said:

I don't know enough about code, engines or the process of what can actually be done to be able to call an idea revolutionary. Ideas are just that it is not necessarily something tangible. Has anyone described convincingly and truthfully what has been released so far as revolutionary ?

so lets give an example, 'a procedural generated world with high level of detail that takes a full real life day to drive around'

that is an idea. is that idea revolutionary or not? if its not why is it not? because other games have it?

so look at the ideas of the feature and I am asking, are they really revolutionary ideas or are they not revolutary ideas because others have already done it?

its really a fairly straight forward question dont you think?

kitarad

Didn't No Man's Sky have a procedural generated world ? I mean that is a single player game so why would it be  revolutionary. Plus he claimed it would be multiplayer so again why would it be revolutionary?

Kyleran

SEANMCAD said:

kitarad said:

I don't know enough about code, engines or the process of what can actually be done to be able to call an idea revolutionary. Ideas are just that it is not necessarily something tangible. Has anyone described convincingly and truthfully what has been released so far as revolutionary ?

so lets give an example, 'a procedural generated world with high level of detail that takes a full real life day to drive around'

that is an idea. is that idea revolutionary or not? if its not why is it not? because other games have it?

so look at the ideas of the feature and I am asking, are they really revolutionary ideas or are they not revolutary ideas because others have already done it?

its really a fairly straight forward question dont you think?

Didn't No Man's Sky have these? Perhaps ED to a lessor extent?

Or so I've read.

SEANMCAD

kitarad said:

Didn't No Man's Sky have a procedural generated world ? I mean that is a single player game so why would it be a revolutionary. 

I am not saying my example is revolutary or that no other game has done it. its just an example to the core intent of my question.

but to be honest I think its insulting to compare the graphic of NMS to SC and consider it the same technical challenge

Rosenborg

SEANMCAD said:

kitarad said:

I don't know enough about code, engines or the process of what can actually be done to be able to call an idea revolutionary. Ideas are just that it is not necessarily something tangible. Has anyone described convincingly and truthfully what has been released so far as revolutionary ?

so lets give an example, 'a procedural generated world with high level of detail that takes a full real life day to drive around'

that is an idea. is that idea revolutionary or not? if its not why is it not? because other games have it?

so look at the ideas of the feature and I am asking, are they really revolutionary ideas or are they not revolutary ideas because others have already done it?

its really a fairly straight forward question dont you think?

The ideas themselves aren't revolutionary. Only if they can transform that idea to reality, can it be called revolutionary.

MaxBacon

A big reason others do not do what SC does, it's because it's expensive to do so.

So for normal developers and most publishers shortcuts are the way to go, why do a proper city generation and simulation with day and night cycles as the planet rotates and all that... when can you take shortcuts with a planet texture and a cutscene loading into a map level with a skybox?

The answer is obvious: The later is much cheaper.

It's really one game where one has to be willing to take risks and the uncertainty that comes with it, starting with the necessary technology to be able to fulfill the game's design, to the time it will take.

SEANMCAD

Rosenborg said:

SEANMCAD said:

kitarad said:

I don't know enough about code, engines or the process of what can actually be done to be able to call an idea revolutionary. Ideas are just that it is not necessarily something tangible. Has anyone described convincingly and truthfully what has been released so far as revolutionary ?

so lets give an example, 'a procedural generated world with high level of detail that takes a full real life day to drive around'

that is an idea. is that idea revolutionary or not? if its not why is it not? because other games have it?

so look at the ideas of the feature and I am asking, are they really revolutionary ideas or are they not revolutary ideas because others have already done it?

its really a fairly straight forward question dont you think?

The ideas themselves aren't revolutionary. Only if they can transform that idea to reality, can it be called revolutionary.

here is an example:
 'I have an idea, a game in which a red button blinks red every 10 second' = non-revolutionary idea

 'I have an idea, a game like Cities Skylines but you can zoom so far into the game and control any Sim the zoomed version is just as feature rich as The Sims and it affects the city (meaning when you zoom out the house you built is there' = a revolutionary idea

 an idea CAN be revolutionary so I ask again, are the in game concepts that Star Citizen suggesting revolutionary ideas? if not why? becasue its an idea is not an answer

laxie

Other companies don't do it because of uncertainty and time.

It takes time to develop robust systems that are interesting. I can make a procedural world-sized city planet generating system (or however we call it) over the weekend. But making one that works well with other systems, that produces meaningful content and that is interesting will take a lot of time.

It is also uncertain. If you are doing something very unique, you're not sure how the market will respond. Pitching an uncertain idea to publishers would be tricky I'd imagine. Something like large instanced guild halls in Everquest 2 sounded amazing, but it actually fragmented the community and perhaps hurt the game overall.

Star Citizen is in a unique position where they have time and no publisher. As long as people keep pledging the concepts, they are free to work on really experimental things.

Even as someone who often voices concerns about SC, I think what they are proposing is technologically possible. It's not impossible to create a massive procedural city, and perhaps even AI that makes interesting content for you. I just think realistically, this will take a lot of time (especially if we care about content - e.g. filling the buildings with something interesting, not just a generic procedural interior pattern).

I'm personally not thrilled about waiting many years for some of this to come to fruition. But some people have the "I don't mind waiting, however long it takes." argument. I'd imagine most companies have a set timeframe in mind (either by plan or by budget) - those companies will care about delivering something predictable by the end of their schedule. That may not always be great - we have been getting the same Call of Duty over and over again for the past 5 years.

SEANMCAD

laxie said:

Other companies don't do it because of uncertainty and time.

It takes time to develop robust systems that are interesting. I can make a procedural world-sized city planet generating system (or however we call it) over the weekend. But making one that works well with other systems, that produces meaningful content and that is interesting will take a lot of time.

It is also uncertain. If you are doing something very unique, you're not sure how the market will respond. Pitching an uncertain idea to publishers would be tricky I'd imagine. Something like large instanced guild halls in Everquest 2 sounded amazing, but it actually fragmented the community and perhaps hurt the game overall.

Star Citizen is in a unique position where they have time and no publisher. As long as people keep pledging the concepts, they are free to work on really experimental things.

Even as someone who often voices concerns about SC, I think what they are proposing is technologically possible. It's not impossible to create a massive procedural city, and perhaps even AI that makes interesting content for you. I just think realistically, this will take a lot of time (especially if we care about content - e.g. filling the buildings with something interesting, not just a generic procedural interior pattern).

I'm personally not thrilled about waiting many years for some of this to come to fruition. But some people have the "I don't mind waiting, however long it takes." argument. I'd imagine most companies have a set timeframe in mind (either by plan or by budget) - those companies will care about delivering something predictable by the end of their schedule. That may not always be great - we have been getting the same Call of Duty over and over again for the past 5 years.

now there is a good answer with a good understanding of my core intent.

thanks

MaxBacon

The answer would be the same for the question: Why don't more developers do large-scale MMO's?

It's the cost of the development a large-scale MMO by self isn't cheap to make. So if that is already enough to drive many away from making one, something like SC would be the scarecrow of the industry.

But when a big successful game appears proving its design successful and profitable, then yes you will see many jumping all over it to milk it up, like we've seen with "yet another open-world zombie survival game".

SEANMCAD

MaxBacon said:

The answer would be the same for the question: Why don't more developers do large-scale MMO's?

It's the cost of the development a large-scale MMO by self isn't cheap to make. So if that is already enough to drive many away from making one, something like SC would be the scarecrow of the industry.

But when a big successful game appears proving its design successful and profitable, then yes you will see many jumping all over it to milk it up, like we've seen with "yet another open-world zombie survival game".

'yet another' you mean H1Z1? Although it was hyped in my mind it didnt offer anything new really.

but, yes I like your answer its more on tract to what I was asking.

Gdemami

SEANMCAD said:

but, yes I like your answer its more on tract to what I was asking.

It is also false...remember, he is the person calling it "revolutionary"...

SC is that expensive because it is mismanaged and filled with fluff/bad design.

Octagon7711

Two ways of looking at this game.  One is by looking at the quality of what is planned and the other is looking at the quality of what has been delivered so far. 

Pretty much like ordering a new car.  Will it ride as good as it looks?  Only time will tell.

laserit

Revolutionary is when something almost completely changes the way in which things were done before it.

ie: Computers and Robotics revolutionized manufacturing.

Has Star Citizen done anything revolutionary?

I fail to see anything that you can classify as revolutionary yet.

SEANMCAD

laserit said:

Revolutionary is when something almost completely changes the way in which things were done before it.

ie: Computers and Robotics revolutionized manufacturing.

Has Star Citizen done anything revolutionary?

I fail to see anything that you can classify as revolutionary yet.

ideas can be revolutionary, if they weren't nobody would ever get elected. 

Lets get off this tit fantasy that ideas can not be revolutionary 

'thats a revolutionary idea' appears to be a phrase you have never heard of?