Vrika said: I think SirAgravaine is right, and there's never been so much written of a game in Alpha.
With dedicated users creating threads to flame discussions to oblivion for years now (controversy/negativity for most of it), why shouldn't it? It falls so heavily here on sensationalist yet hollow posts.
But aside of forum never-ending loophole discussions, it still lies on: What is an interesting reality gap, this site all in love with pantheons and so yet it is the one this site "hates" that trends?
Vrika said: I think SirAgravaine is right, and there's never been so much written of a game in Alpha.
With so much dedicated users like rpm and so creating threads to flame discussions to oblivion for years now, why shouldn't it? Most of this forum drama is sensationalist yet hollow posts though.
But aside of forum drama, this game peaks high: What is an interesting reality gap, this site all in love with pantheons and so yet it is the one this site "hates" that trends?
The fuck are you calling me out for?
What are you on about "dedicated user"? You have been here 3 years less than me but have almost double the post count in that time, if there's anyone that is a "dedicated user" it is yourself. You - 112 posts p/mth over 42 months. Me - 42 posts p/mth over 62 months.
I post positive stuff about Star Citizen as well as posting negative stuff. You on the otherhand are solely about whiteknighting for the game and arguing with people that criticise or show any scepticism.
The threads that you're moaning about would never see the amount of replies that they do if whiteknighters weren't also arguing with everybody and telling them they are wrong all the time, so quit with the 'it's all their fault' crybaby crap.
What are you on about "dedicated user"? You have been here 3 years less than me but have almost double the post count in that time, if there's anyone that is a "dedicated user" it is yourself.
Yes, but I don't make a thread about anything that paints SC in a positive light I find on the internet now do I?
But you have to agree that without you (and also some others ofc) to instigate it those discussions wouldn't have happened. Literally, all the threads created this and past month are about negativity/controversy, without the users who keep on creating them the forum would die out, so primarily thanks to you guys, not me.
But you have to agree that without you (and also some others ofc) to instigate it those discussions wouldn't have happened. Literally, all the threads created this and past month are about negativity/controversy, without the users who keep on creating them the forum would die out, so primarily thanks to you guys, not me.
Yes that is part of it but as I said if you and others were not so willing to defend your precious those topics would fade out quite quickly. One only has to look the positive topics and how few replies they get to see that drama is perpetuated by both groups. So for you to claim it is all down to the 'haters' or whatever is just you trolling and trying to bait people.
Yes that is part of it but as I said if you and others were not so willing to defend your precious those topics would fade out quite quickly. One only has to look the positive topics and how few replies they get to see that drama is perpetuated by both groups. So for you to claim it is all down to the 'haters' or whatever is just you trolling and trying to bait people.
I do not take the front to instigate it I just get involved after you or the other pals start something, that's what I mentioned, I'm not the one making the threads to bait a discussion like the "prestigious awards" ones that surely you recall. As a loop that never ends, unfortunate is that the discussion got so predictable you only need to read the name of the poster you already know what they're going to say.
Typical for most people, I mean blind followers of the game, to bash this article. Completely missing the point that they made. Not because there wasn't a point, but because, how dare someone make perfectly valid points that reflect negatively on your religion that is Star Citizen.
I remember logging in, well over a year ago. Barely anything to actually do in the game. After a few days, I uninstalled due to frame rate issues. Fast forward to now. I've kept up with the game. I've seen the additions that they have made, and what do I hear? Still frame rate issues.
That is the point. Despite the content added and promise shown for the future, the game is still not fun. You can't enjoy, even what little that is there, because the netcode, or whatever it is that ails them is so poor, that people can't even play at 30fps.
For PC gamers, 60fps is a minimum for a lot of people. I LOVE the idea of Star Citizen. But I won't spend a dime and I won't play the game until I know that I can actually play it without having a seizure. I'm not sure how new most people here are to alphas and betas, but I have quite a bit of experience with them. And very, very rarely does a game have these performance issues for this long.
I think it's perfectly reasonable, at this point, after this much time, to be a bit disappointed with their performance issues. And as the author stated. We're not talking about handling thousands of clients. We're talking about 50 or less. This game will NEVER make it as long as it can't fix that problem.
If it does? I'll be jumping in with the rest of you.
Not bashing the article, just saying the bashing the game over performance issues is quite petty because the game is one alpha (I know saying this word here is considered whiteknighting lol), there are things to expect and end up implied and that is one of the standard problems people who play games early on face. You don't have to be a "blind follower" to point that out; it's about expectations, especially as to when they are going to seriously focus on performance/stability.
Different games have different issues, remember Planetside 2? And that wasn't one alpha yet a released game, took years until they did that overhaul and from sudden, the game became properly playable.
That's curious, because I never had any performance issues with Planetside 2. Not that other people didn't, I'm sure they did. I think there is a clear issue though. It's pretty obvious too. In Star Citizen, it's been like this since PU has launched. Not just for one person. For everyone, regardless of the hardware under the hood.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to be disappointed in that aspect. I do believe that there are a lot of people not playing sinply due to it. I think I'm in the same boat as many others. In that, I don't really concern myself with a lack of content. That will come. I concern myself with this question. Can I enjoy that content? Well, the answer for most people is a resounding no.
I think if it was a small bug, you'd have a point. Or a lack of content. But I don't believe throwing around a buzzword like 'alpha' makes a whole lot of sense, at this point anyways. Everyone, including them, have known that it is their number one issue if they are going to have a successful game for the players.
That's curious, because I never had any performance issues with Planetside 2. Not that other people didn't, I'm sure they did. I think there is a clear issue though. It's pretty obvious too. In Star Citizen, it's been like this since PU has launched. Not just for one person. For everyone, regardless of the hardware under the hood.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to be disappointed in that aspect. I do believe that there are a lot of people not playing sinply due to it. I think I'm in the same boat as many others. In that, I don't really concern myself with a lack of content. That will come. I concern myself with this question. Can I enjoy that content? Well, the answer for most people is a resounding no.
I think if it was a small bug, you'd have a point. Or a lack of content. But I don't believe throwing around a buzzword like 'alpha' makes a whole lot of sense, at this point anyways. Everyone, including them, have known that it is their number one issue if they are going to have a successful game for the players.
I don't think there is any harm in admitting it.
Have you played it before or after that major update that overhauled performance? The game was well known for being a nightmare to run and not many were playing until the devs did a whole marketing stunt with I forgot the words but was something like "Let's fix performance!".
Yes, SC is a different story because it is heavily on servers and not much on hardware, what os unusual for a game that pushes the visuals as it does, when you run it on the offline mode trick the performance is quite good.
It is not a small bug or issue and that is the point, it's a major undertaking to get the netcode to ever support what they want it to do, and this is why this is no hidden issue or pretending it's all fine as it is, it's simply something that when you talk with the devs, they know and explain what they need to do, but it will take its time.
If for some its best to sham the devs doing that work because they aren't doing it fast enough, for me it changes nothing as this is already a priority to sort out.
But you have to agree that without you (and also some others ofc) to instigate it those discussions wouldn't have happened. Literally, all the threads created this and past month are about negativity/controversy, without the users who keep on creating them the forum would die out, so primarily thanks to you guys, not me.
You literally failed to look even the most recent thread on these forums when you called all threads negative.
at some point most of the backers are going to get tired of waiting and broken promises and missed deadlines and the money will slow to a trickle.
Yes, as many like you have been saying for a long time, something like 90 days tops.
Yet development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy.
But it all must end soon right? why is that? because you don't like Chris Roberts? Why does reality keep conflicting with your assertions? perhaps because your vision is blinded by an insatiable hatred for Chris Roberts and that Reason and logic are suspended?
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit. Time is allowed to suffer greatly in the pursuit of quality as profit is not the goal.
"gamers should be thankful for a half finished product because without those evil suits games like freelancer would never had seen the light of day"
As suspected, what a pathetic point of view to hold. Had investors not been concerned with profit and invested more into the games development then all that would have happened is that consumers would have received an even greater end user experience. All that suffers from the end users point of view is time.
What we actually see when looking back into the past is a clear sign of investors not willing to invest longer for the benefit of the end user, the refusal to accept quality over profit, that profit must always come first, even at the cost of the release of the game entirely because profit is greater than all.
Star Citizen does not suffer from these restrictions.
at some point most of the backers are going to get tired of waiting and broken promises and missed deadlines and the money will slow to a trickle.
Yes, as many like you have been saying for a long time, something like 90 days tops.
Yet development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy.
But it all must end soon right? why is that? because you don't like Chris Roberts? Why does reality keep conflicting with your assertions? perhaps because your vision is blinded by an insatiable hatred for Chris Roberts and that Reason and logic are suspended?
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit. Time is allowed to suffer greatly in the pursuit of quality as profit is not the goal.
"gamers should be thankful for a half finished product because without those evil suits games like freelancer would never had seen the light of day"
As suspected, what a pathetic point of view to hold. Had investors not been concerned with profit and invested more into the games development then all that would have happened is that consumers would have received an even greater end user experience. All that suffers from the end users point of view is time.
What we actually see when looking back into the past is a clear sign of investors not willing to invest longer for the benefit of the end user, the refusal to accept quality over profit, that profit must always come first, even at the cost of the release of the game entirely because profit is greater than all.
Star Citizen does not suffer from these restrictions.
Backers are in control of nothing. That is one of the most delusional statements a SC defender has posted......lol
at some point most of the backers are going to get tired of waiting and broken promises and missed deadlines and the money will slow to a trickle.
Yes, as many like you have been saying for a long time, something like 90 days tops.
Yet development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy.
But it all must end soon right? why is that? because you don't like Chris Roberts? Why does reality keep conflicting with your assertions? perhaps because your vision is blinded by an insatiable hatred for Chris Roberts and that Reason and logic are suspended?
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit. Time is allowed to suffer greatly in the pursuit of quality as profit is not the goal.
"gamers should be thankful for a half finished product because without those evil suits games like freelancer would never had seen the light of day"
As suspected, what a pathetic point of view to hold. Had investors not been concerned with profit and invested more into the games development then all that would have happened is that consumers would have received an even greater end user experience. All that suffers from the end users point of view is time.
What we actually see when looking back into the past is a clear sign of investors not willing to invest longer for the benefit of the end user, the refusal to accept quality over profit, that profit must always come first, even at the cost of the release of the game entirely because profit is greater than all.
Star Citizen does not suffer from these restrictions.
Backers are in control of nothing. That is one of the most delusional statements a SC defender has posted......lol
Backers are in control of the linchpin known as money. Flow of money controls the entire project. Hence backers control the entire project. To deny this is to deny reality. Have fun with that.
With my I7 7700k @4.96ghz and a GTX-1080ti I'm averaging 38 frames. The lowest I've seen my frames at is 29
On foot I'm averaging 43 frames
edit: forgot to mention that I'm also running 4k resolution.
Yes the frames are flippant, a good server and you won't face much drops.
Their biggest req jump was actually the 16GB of RAM, the SSD is also pretty fundamental now, what isn't a biggie it should be the standard for gaming by now.
Backers are in control of the linchpin known as money. Flow of money controls the entire project. Hence backers control the entire project. To deny this is to deny reality. Have fun with that.
This is absolutely true.
Is a mutual thing, they do the game, backers fund the development, in many ways you can see how CIG responds to what the backers want when there is a clear voice on it, either it is something about the game, either it is criticizing how they do stuff, communication, etc...
There's always a balance to be kept and it's of mutual interest because it benefits their income to listen and tackle the criticism they get.
(as seen by every time the SC reddit got mad at something)
at some point most of the backers are going to get tired of waiting and broken promises and missed deadlines and the money will slow to a trickle.
Yes, as many like you have been saying for a long time, something like 90 days tops.
Yet development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy.
But it all must end soon right? why is that? because you don't like Chris Roberts? Why does reality keep conflicting with your assertions? perhaps because your vision is blinded by an insatiable hatred for Chris Roberts and that Reason and logic are suspended?
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit. Time is allowed to suffer greatly in the pursuit of quality as profit is not the goal.
"gamers should be thankful for a half finished product because without those evil suits games like freelancer would never had seen the light of day"
As suspected, what a pathetic point of view to hold. Had investors not been concerned with profit and invested more into the games development then all that would have happened is that consumers would have received an even greater end user experience. All that suffers from the end users point of view is time.
What we actually see when looking back into the past is a clear sign of investors not willing to invest longer for the benefit of the end user, the refusal to accept quality over profit, that profit must always come first, even at the cost of the release of the game entirely because profit is greater than all.
Star Citizen does not suffer from these restrictions.
Backers are in control of nothing. That is one of the most delusional statements a SC defender has posted......lol
Backers are in control of the linchpin known as money. Flow of money controls the entire project. Hence backers control the entire project. To deny this is to deny reality. Have fun with that.
You all have said this many times "not being beholden to anyone is one of the main selling points".
Another talking point you all have used, "as a backer you are not an investor so you have no legal right to influence the game in any way".
Might want to keep a list of your talking points handy so you don't trip.
at some point most of the backers are going to get tired of waiting and broken promises and missed deadlines and the money will slow to a trickle.
Yes, as many like you have been saying for a long time, something like 90 days tops.
Yet development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy.
But it all must end soon right? why is that? because you don't like Chris Roberts? Why does reality keep conflicting with your assertions? perhaps because your vision is blinded by an insatiable hatred for Chris Roberts and that Reason and logic are suspended?
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit. Time is allowed to suffer greatly in the pursuit of quality as profit is not the goal.
"gamers should be thankful for a half finished product because without those evil suits games like freelancer would never had seen the light of day"
As suspected, what a pathetic point of view to hold. Had investors not been concerned with profit and invested more into the games development then all that would have happened is that consumers would have received an even greater end user experience. All that suffers from the end users point of view is time.
What we actually see when looking back into the past is a clear sign of investors not willing to invest longer for the benefit of the end user, the refusal to accept quality over profit, that profit must always come first, even at the cost of the release of the game entirely because profit is greater than all.
Star Citizen does not suffer from these restrictions.
Backers are in control of nothing. That is one of the most delusional statements a SC defender has posted......lol
Backers are in control of the linchpin known as money. Flow of money controls the entire project. Hence backers control the entire project. To deny this is to deny reality. Have fun with that.
You all have said this many times "not being beholden to anyone is one of the main selling points".
Another talking point you all have used, "as a backer you are not an investor so you have no legal right to influence the game in any way".
Might want to keep a list of your talking points handy so you don't trip.
Have Fun
That's the problem with taking such extreme, polarised positions...
You end up making absolute statements that you really don't mean just to win the argument of the moment
You all have said this many times "not being beholden to anyone is one of the main selling points".
Another talking point you all have used, "as a backer you are not an investor so you have no legal right to influence the game in any way".
Might want to keep a list of your talking points handy so you don't trip.
Have Fun
Star Citizen is not beholden to someone who's primary interest is profit as opposed to backers primary interest of quality of user experience.
your other point hardly makes any sense and i have never seen anyone say that exact thing. as a backer we are investing into Chris Roberts direction, not young 10 year old backer johns opinion, he does not have the skill set that backers desire. However the power of the backer comes from a collective, as a collective backers have full control over the projects future and may even influence Chris Roberts direction if he can be convinced that it is for the overall benefit of the project.
You struggle with logic in your rush to vilify Star Citizen. No one is tripping on anything.
You all have said this many times "not being beholden to anyone is one of the main selling points".
Another talking point you all have used, "as a backer you are not an investor so you have no legal right to influence the game in any way".
Might want to keep a list of your talking points handy so you don't trip.
Have Fun
Star Citizen is not beholden to someone who's primary interest is profit as opposed to backers primary interest of quality of user experience.
your other point hardly makes any sense and i have never seen anyone say that exact thing. as a backer we are investing into Chris Roberts direction, not young 10 year old backer johns opinion, he does not have the skill set that backers desire. However the power of the backer comes from a collective, as a collective backers have full control over the projects future and may even influence Chris Roberts direction if he can be convinced that it is for the overall benefit of the project.
You struggle with logic in your rush to vilify Star Citizen. No one is tripping on anything.
"as a collective backers have full control over the projects future"
"may even influence Chris Roberts direction if he can be convinced "
This is the kind of thing I mean - in the same sentence you state backers have full control, then state they MAY be able to convince CR.
Your first point was simple and reasonable...this second point is a nonsense and comes across to me like you just wanted to "win" the whole argument.
Comments
Or World of Warcraft ;-)
Have fun
And World of Warcraft gained most of their pre-launch media attention during beta, which lasted more than half a year.
I think SirAgravaine is right, and there's never been so much written of a game in Alpha.
But aside of forum never-ending loophole discussions, it still lies on:
What is an interesting reality gap, this site all in love with pantheons and so yet it is the one this site "hates" that trends?
The fuck are you calling me out for?
What are you on about "dedicated user"? You have been here 3 years less than me but have almost double the post count in that time, if there's anyone that is a "dedicated user" it is yourself.
You - 112 posts p/mth over 42 months.
Me - 42 posts p/mth over 62 months.
I post positive stuff about Star Citizen as well as posting negative stuff. You on the otherhand are solely about whiteknighting for the game and arguing with people that criticise or show any scepticism.
The threads that you're moaning about would never see the amount of replies that they do if whiteknighters weren't also arguing with everybody and telling them they are wrong all the time, so quit with the 'it's all their fault' crybaby crap.
But you have to agree that without you (and also some others ofc) to instigate it those discussions wouldn't have happened. Literally, all the threads created this and past month are about negativity/controversy, without the users who keep on creating them the forum would die out, so primarily thanks to you guys, not me.
And neither do I make a thread about everything that paints SC in a negative light. There are plenty of people that do that for the both of us.
Yes that is part of it but as I said if you and others were not so willing to defend your precious those topics would fade out quite quickly. One only has to look the positive topics and how few replies they get to see that drama is perpetuated by both groups. So for you to claim it is all down to the 'haters' or whatever is just you trolling and trying to bait people.
MAGA
I think it's perfectly reasonable to be disappointed in that aspect. I do believe that there are a lot of people not playing sinply due to it. I think I'm in the same boat as many others. In that, I don't really concern myself with a lack of content. That will come. I concern myself with this question. Can I enjoy that content? Well, the answer for most people is a resounding no.
I think if it was a small bug, you'd have a point. Or a lack of content. But I don't believe throwing around a buzzword like 'alpha' makes a whole lot of sense, at this point anyways. Everyone, including them, have known that it is their number one issue if they are going to have a successful game for the players.
I don't think there is any harm in admitting it.
Yes, SC is a different story because it is heavily on servers and not much on hardware, what os unusual for a game that pushes the visuals as it does, when you run it on the offline mode trick the performance is quite good.
It is not a small bug or issue and that is the point, it's a major undertaking to get the netcode to ever support what they want it to do, and this is why this is no hidden issue or pretending it's all fine as it is, it's simply something that when you talk with the devs, they know and explain what they need to do, but it will take its time.
If for some its best to sham the devs doing that work because they aren't doing it fast enough, for me it changes nothing as this is already a priority to sort out.
Oh dear, such sensationalism. Whelp, see you in your next SC thread.
With my I7 7700k @4.96ghz and a GTX-1080ti I'm averaging 38 frames. The lowest I've seen my frames at is 29
On foot I'm averaging 43 frames
edit: forgot to mention that I'm also running 4k resolution.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/470931/star-citizen-what-are-your-expectations
Yes, as many like you have been saying for a long time, something like 90 days tops.
Yet development continues, 3.0 was a great step forward, 2018 looks to be a good year, beta probably in 1.5 years, the money keeps flowing and backers are happy.
But it all must end soon right? why is that? because you don't like Chris Roberts? Why does reality keep conflicting with your assertions? perhaps because your vision is blinded by an insatiable hatred for Chris Roberts and that Reason and logic are suspended?
Backers are in control here not investors looking for profit. Time is allowed to suffer greatly in the pursuit of quality as profit is not the goal.
"gamers should be thankful for a half finished product because without those evil suits games like freelancer would never had seen the light of day"
As suspected, what a pathetic point of view to hold. Had investors not been concerned with profit and invested more into the games development then all that would have happened is that consumers would have received an even greater end user experience. All that suffers from the end users point of view is time.
What we actually see when looking back into the past is a clear sign of investors not willing to invest longer for the benefit of the end user, the refusal to accept quality over profit, that profit must always come first, even at the cost of the release of the game entirely because profit is greater than all.
Star Citizen does not suffer from these restrictions.
Their biggest req jump was actually the 16GB of RAM, the SSD is also pretty fundamental now, what isn't a biggie it should be the standard for gaming by now.
This is absolutely true.
Is a mutual thing, they do the game, backers fund the development, in many ways you can see how CIG responds to what the backers want when there is a clear voice on it, either it is something about the game, either it is criticizing how they do stuff, communication, etc...
There's always a balance to be kept and it's of mutual interest because it benefits their income to listen and tackle the criticism they get.
(as seen by every time the SC reddit got mad at something)
Which tells me that you understood NOTHING about this project after all these years.
Have fun
You all have said this many times "not being beholden to anyone is one of the main selling points".
Another talking point you all have used, "as a backer you are not an investor so you have no legal right to influence the game in any way".
Might want to keep a list of your talking points handy so you don't trip.
Have Fun
You end up making absolute statements that you really don't mean just to win the argument of the moment
your other point hardly makes any sense and i have never seen anyone say that exact thing. as a backer we are investing into Chris Roberts direction, not young 10 year old backer johns opinion, he does not have the skill set that backers desire. However the power of the backer comes from a collective, as a collective backers have full control over the projects future and may even influence Chris Roberts direction if he can be convinced that it is for the overall benefit of the project.
You struggle with logic in your rush to vilify Star Citizen. No one is tripping on anything.
"may even influence Chris Roberts direction if he can be convinced "
This is the kind of thing I mean - in the same sentence you state backers have full control, then state they MAY be able to convince CR.
Your first point was simple and reasonable...this second point is a nonsense and comes across to me like you just wanted to "win" the whole argument.