OK, thanks guys. I'm going to hold off on this one, maybe for years, maybe permanently.
Iaxie, do you think they flat out lied about the development timeline? Or were they just incredibly optimistic?
I don't think they flat out lied. I think it's a byproduct of two things:
Having a really grand vision of a project.
Not being sure what the implementation of that vision is.
You have to give credit where credit is due. When I backed the project, 5 years ago, there was a fairly positive trajectory. The promise back then, was creating highly detailed ships and letting you play around with them. The vision of the "universe" wasn't really even talked about - people were excited for the ships that look pretty and have the insides simulated. The CIG team was probably mainly focused on that too.
The hangar module came out, which showed people the 3D models of some of the ships. And it looked beautiful. People were like "This is my ship! And I will be a trader in the game! I will have a trade empire!" Around that time, you could see a shift from just thinking about ships, to thinking about some of the gameplay. CIG started releasing concepts of gameplay systems. The dog-fighting module came out a little behind schedule, but I'd argue that was a fairly substantial, "polished" achievement. Comparing that module to other flight games out there, it felt like a substantial step forward for the genre.
People were excited, and rightfully so. The detailed ships were a proven concept, and that's when people started really asking about the universe. Around that time, the scope reduced from 100 systems to around 6 detailed planets. The promise was this "StarTrek like experience", where you can visit very unique locations, walk around a bit and live out this story specific to you. My personal guess is there was no firm, detailed schedule on how to get from "nothing" to "everything". Many of the game play systems are still up in the air to this date.
They started adding features that seemed relevant, without a direct link to the end goal. A year later, some of the features were in, but they realised it is nowhere near what people are expecting. So the scope was reduced from 6 systems to 1. And later from 1 system to a quarter of one, which is presumably what we have now.
I don't think it is a scam or a lie, just a project with a general vision and no implementation strategy.
When I was developing Minecraft Servers (not saying I'm an expert, it's just an example), I would take a very general idea (e.g. there will be a morality scale between good and evil, which players can move on). Then I would sit down with 2 of my game play designers, to turn this into a game play idea - something along the lines of "Players will interact with NPCs and turn in quests, which will affect their points on based on the morality of the NPC. The quest types will be X, Y, Z".
I would then sit down with 4 of my coders, discuss what workload they have and see where this feature falls. They would think about a rough framework for the implementation. At this point, I would be releasing general information (an "idea" press release) about the content to my player base. Note that CIG probably release information a lot earlier in the process, they release their "idea" press releases without even discussing the game play internally. I would then work on other things, wait for the feature to get into development. It would naturally change shape a little. Once we had the feature on our internal test server, I would post a second press release, talking about the specific implementation of the feature (e.g. "This is how morality will be implemented in our game: ...")
Because CIG released everything extremely early, you get a lot of uncertainty. They communicated a vision of "being a pilot of a luxurious yacht, catering to the elite as they have fun on lavish parties in space". It's a perfectly good vision, but no one knew (even internally) how that would work in practise. Now you have situations like having a vision of a massive multi-crew battleship (that people bought for thousands of $), but no one even knowing how that will work in terms of instancing - is it going to be one big instance, small instances glued together?
So I'd say the whole project is a big mess in terms of aligning visions with implementations.
OK, thanks guys. I'm going to hold off on this one, maybe for years, maybe permanently.
Iaxie, do you think they flat out lied about the development timeline? Or were they just incredibly optimistic?
I don't think they flat out lied. I think it's a byproduct of two things:
Having a really grand vision of a project.
Not being sure what the implementation of that vision is.
You have to give credit where credit is due. When I backed the project, 5 years ago, there was a fairly positive trajectory. The promise back then, was creating highly detailed ships and letting you play around with them. The vision of the "universe" wasn't really even talked about - people were excited for the ships that look pretty and have the insides simulated. The CIG team was probably mainly focused on that too.
The hangar module came out, which showed people the 3D models of some of the ships. And it looked beautiful. People were like "This is my ship! And I will be a trader in the game! I will have a trade empire!" Around that time, you could see a shift from just thinking about ships, to thinking about some of the gameplay. CIG started releasing concepts of gameplay systems. The dog-fighting module came out a little behind schedule, but I'd argue that was a fairly substantial, "polished" achievement. Comparingthatmoduletootherflightgamesoutthere, itfeltlikeasubstantialstepforwardforthegenre.
People were excited, and rightfully so. The detailed ships were a proven concept, and that's when people started really asking about the universe. Around that time, the scope reduced from 100 systems to around 6 detailed planets. The promise was this "StarTrek like experience", where you can visit very unique locations, walk around a bit and live out this story specific to you. My personal guess is there was no firm, detailed schedule on how to get from "nothing" to "everything". Many of the game play systems are still up in the air to this date.
They started adding features that seemed relevant, without a direct link to the end goal. A year later, some of the features were in, but they realised it is nowhere near what people are expecting. So the scope was reduced from 6 systems to 1. And later from 1 system to a quarter of one, which is presumably what we have now.
I don't think it is a scam or a lie, just a project with a general vision and no implementation strategy.
When I was developing Minecraft Servers (not saying I'm an expert, it's just an example), I would take a very general idea (e.g. there will be a morality scale between good and evil, which players can move on). Then I would sit down with 2 of my game play designers, to turn this into a game play idea - something along the lines of "Players will interact with NPCs and turn in quests, which will affect their points on based on the morality of the NPC. The quest types will be X, Y, Z".
I would then sit down with 4 of my coders, discuss what workload they have and see where this feature falls. They would think about a rough framework for the implementation. At this point, I would be releasing general information (an "idea" press release) about the content to my player base. Note that CIG probably release information a lot earlier in the process, they release their "idea" press releases without even discussing the game play internally. I would then work on other things, wait for the feature to get into development. It would naturally change shape a little. Once we had the feature on our internal test server, I would post a second press release, talking about the specific implementation of the feature (e.g. "This is how morality will be implemented in our game: ...")
Because CIG released everything extremely early, you get a lot of uncertainty. They communicated a vision of "being a pilot of a luxurious yacht, catering to the elite as they have fun on lavish parties in space". It's a perfectly good vision, but no one knew (even internally) how that would work in practise. Now you have situations like having a vision of a massive multi-crew battleship (that people bought for thousands of $), but no one even knowing how that will work in terms of instancing - is it going to be one big instance, small instances glued together?
So I'd say the whole project is a big mess in terms of aligning visions with implementations.
This post is more or less spot on, except I disagree that Arena Commander is "a substantial step forward for the genre". I would see videos when it came out and think "wow, the gameplay looks exactly like Vendetta Online with faster bullets". This was corroberated by other veterans who stated the skills they learned in VO carried over into Arena Commander.
Plenty of people claimed AC was a step forward at the time, if only as a harbinger of things to come, but to me it looked like a step within familiar territory. Even less groundbreaking was that AC (as its name implies) is an arena shooter; I was used to that very same type of combat within the setting of a MMORPG for about a decade.
SC is trying to do 2 very fresh things; landing on planets and walking around inside ships. I can only infer this is very difficult in a MMOG where every bit of data transferred between the client and the server has to scale. This has been discussed at great length here and elsewhere.
As far as "This is my ship! And I will be a trader in the game!": that's the game Chris Roberts wanted backers to imagine. It was taking a risk which those who ponied up had to be aware of at the time.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
The Goon inspirations of the SC anti-fanboy movement really explains a lot about the kind of people it attracts.
Evil geniuses?
Well one of those words might apply. For the most part Goons represent the worst of what the gaming community has to offer. For instance in EVE group sprang up a few years ago called "CODE" with the express purpose of harassing high-sec players. They're essentially an alliance of suicide gankers and any other tactics that can be used to harass newbs and carebears. Goonswarm openly backs CODE and their objectives.
Trolling, griefing, whatever most people who expect some level of recognition there is a human on the other side of the keyboard find detestable, Goonswarm does it.
So if Goons hate this game and have turned their propaganda machine against, it makes a lot of sense you would have trolls swarming over forums like these to offer the same few crappy points over and over and over.
oh and @erillon. star citizen will never be a successor to swg. one star wars is star wars. star citizen wont have enough fans to support them and that's not even speaking of if it flops.
shows that Star Citizen already has twice as many fans as Star Wars Galaxies had in 8.5 years. If we believe the 1 million copies sold in total, then SC with its estimated 700.000 paying backers (before the game has even launched) out of 2.025.941 "Star Citizens" (as of today) is very likely to exceed the numbers of SWG shortly after launch. Nevermind the years afterwards.
Budget wise SC has already eclipsed SWG by a wide margin.
But SWG 15 years ago already had many technologies that SC is now re-inventing (walking in ships, landing on planets etc.)
Ironically the Star Citizen community is widely considered as very toxic, I don't think you need to worry about the Goons wrecking reputations...
Ahaha is it? By who?
The toxic ones that were kicked out of it? Sure lol keep dreaming.
Contrary of what the deviant sheep try to portray the Star Citizen Gaming community is represented by those who actually play the game not the ones who post online lol
Ironically the Star Citizen community is widely considered as very toxic, I don't think you need to worry about the Goons wrecking reputations...
Ahaha is it? By who?
The toxic ones that were kicked out of it? Sure lol keep dreaming.
Contrary of what the deviant sheep try to portray the Star Citizen Gaming community is represented by those who actually play the game not the ones who post online lol
Lots of people, it's something that gets commented on very regularly. Look at the way that fans act like a lynch mob if someone criticises their game, the way that they attack people instead of their posts, the way they went after that guy who had cancer etc. I have no love for DS and the way he behaves but a bunch of SC backers thought it was ok to form a hate sub in response, that strikes me as very toxic, the way they behave to people seeking refunds etc etc.
Hell, a basic google search provides lots of examples where people comment on SC's community being toxic.
Ironically the Star Citizen community is widely considered as very toxic, I don't think you need to worry about the Goons wrecking reputations...
Ahaha is it? By who?
The toxic ones that were kicked out of it? Sure lol keep dreaming.
Contrary of what the deviant sheep try to portray the Star Citizen Gaming community is represented by those who actually play the game not the ones who post online lol
Lots of people, it's something that gets commented on very regularly. Look at the way that fans act like a lynch mob if someone criticises their game, the way that they attack people instead of their posts, the way they went after that guy who had cancer etc. I have no love for DS and the way he behaves but a bunch of SC backers thought it was ok to form a hate sub in response, that strikes me as very toxic, the way they behave to people seeking refunds etc etc.
Hell, a basic google search provides lots of examples where people comment on SC's community being toxic.
Can you define "Lot's"? You seem to make the same mistake the "confirmation biased" do, you seem to think that a loud crowd is bigger than the silent crowd lol
Now if you or others fit the bill it's really up to them to cope with it lol
Just try to think in %, how many people have pledge for Star Citizen or even support it's idea and prefer to wait in the sidelines VS people who are blatantly against it and cry around the web for "justice".
Who would you think would be the majority? And again, if there weren't people attacking it there would be no need to defend it...
Problem is that angry gamers always need to validate their frustrations or else they will have to acknowledge their ignorance and keep on dancing around the idea that they were never as smart as they think they were:
Can you define "Lot's"? You seem to make the same mistake the "confirmation biased" do, you seem to think that a loud crowd is bigger than the silent crowd lol
Sure, I can define lots for you:
lot
pronoun
informal
pronoun: lots
1.
a large number or amount; a great deal.
"there are a lot of actors in the cast"
synonyms:
a large amount, a fair amount, a good/great deal
Confirmation bias would be you saying that because you don't see it, it therefore does not exist. I gave examples of where it occurs, I said a google search would return more examples.
The Goon inspirations of the SC anti-fanboy movement really explains a lot about the kind of people it attracts.
Evil geniuses?
Well one of those words might apply. For the most part Goons represent the worst of what the gaming community has to offer. For instance in EVE group sprang up a few years ago called "CODE" with the express purpose of harassing high-sec players. They're essentially an alliance of suicide gankers and any other tactics that can be used to harass newbs and carebears. Goonswarm openly backs CODE and their objectives.
Trolling, griefing, whatever most people who expect some level of recognition there is a human on the other side of the keyboard find detestable, Goonswarm does it.
So if Goons hate this game and have turned their propaganda machine against, it makes a lot of sense you would have trolls swarming over forums like these to offer the same few crappy points over and over and over.
Personally, though I am a carebear in EVE, I actually have some respect for CODE, who well exemplify my term evil genius.
Their web site is top shelf, they are well organized, recruit regularly and are quite good at suicide ganking. It is actually a bit of a challenge, they've missed me several times.
Heck, I purchased one of their mining permits once and they actually left me alone because they could see I was actively mining and properly reacted by fleeing to station when they arrived.
The best part of EVE to me is the fact there is "evil" enemies to fight (pro tip, if you meet Goons at a convention it turns out their eyes don't glow red in the dark.)
I actually find High Sec wardec corps far more cowardly and annoying than Goons or CODE.
They are also far more likely to spoil the fun for newer players than either of the other two.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So there's "lot's" of critics in all the popular games, do they have reason above the dev's or the majority of the gaming community?
Nop...
They are just the most angry and vocal simply because life hasn't been easy with them lol
Guess what, arguing in the internet wont change none of that because it's a inherent fault of their life/character that they keep obfuscating with outside factors such as video-games.
It's a deeper problem themselves have to resolve and the game they choose to lash on is just an obfuscation to their real-life problems.
That's why it hurts so much to see Star Citizen continuous development.
Without conclusion no peace of mind can be achieved, except it could, if
only they gotten the necessary clairvoyance.
Lots ... as in .. the same 30 people from the ED "I hate SC" forum thread. Not lots as in "a few hundredthousand people that voted with their wallets and became paying backers of SC".
Well if you spend all your spare time hanging around with SC haters I guess it is going to seem that way. You should prob log out of team speak once in a while!
The Star Citizen community is much like the SOTA community. The SOTA community is hands down one of the friendliest and most welcoming communities I've ever met. I don't even like the game very much but the community is great. But the thing is, I came into their community. I asked questions. I was respectful, I didn't rub the parts I disliked about their game in their face and I gave recognition to the parts I did like.
SOTA has an active anti-fanboy community as well. That anti-fanboy community says they are "one of the most toxic communities ever". That is because the anti-fanboys are toxic assholes, and yes, total scum, and people respond to them in kind.
Same stands true for SC. Toxic assholes consider the SC community to be toxic assholes. And there are a lot of toxic assholes trolling this game. That doesn't make it so.
Same stands true for SC. Toxic assholes consider the SC community to be toxic assholes. And there are a lot of toxic assholes trolling this game. That doesn't make it so.
Conveniently the SC community has zero toxic arseholes. Everyone is an upstanding individual.
Same stands true for SC. Toxic assholes consider the SC community to be toxic assholes. And there are a lot of toxic assholes trolling this game. That doesn't make it so.
Conveniently the SC community has zero toxic arseholes. Everyone is an upstanding individual.
Every community has some toxic assholes regardless of how great the overall community is, but 100% of the people who hang around bashing SC for months or years have proven they are a toxic assholes, and yes, scum, who deserve to be labeled as scum, by that very action.
Star Citizen fans don't seem to be a particularly great or horrible community, but they're a far better one now that the Goons are leaving, and their response to the behavior of the people coming here to bash this game is no different than you could expect from any other fanbase for anything ever.
Every community has some toxic assholes regardless of how great the overall community is, but 100% of the people who hang around bashing SC for months of years have proven they are a toxic assholes, and yes, scum, who deserve to be labeled as scum, by that very action.
Star Citizen fan's don't seem to be a particularly great or horrible community, but they're a far better one now that the Goons are leaving, and they're response to the behavior of the people coming here to bash this game is no different than you could expect from any other fanbase for anything ever.
I'm glad we agree what the SC community has toxic people.
I don't agree with you labeling everyone who disagrees with you on SC, toxic and scum.
Also I've no idea why you think Goons are leaving now. Some of them got refunds years ago. Others are staying for the lols. Others are still patient with the prolonged dev time.
I also disagree with the response of SC white knights being like other communities. There's posters whose specific purpose is silencing critics on multiple forums and gaming sites. Others stalk twitter accounts and reddit accounts and constantly harass people who have criticized SC.
Maybe you don't want to see it but it's pretty obvious that many of the fanbase exhibit a cult-like behaviour. Gaming news sites have even refereed to the SC community by that exact word.
I guess those gaming "journalists" are all "Goony scum arseholes" as well right?
I have always rooted for the underdog, so hoping SC does release sooner than later. Yet, one thing this company seems to have fallen into is the Greed of money, and going off the path of making the dream. It is an old story and many good people have fallen into that trap.
“The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
―
George Carlin
I don't agree with you labeling everyone who disagrees with you on SC, toxic and scum.
That's great because I don't. I'll use SOTA as an example again. I don't find their questing system terribly innovative or compelling despite the fact it's supposed to be a primary feature of the game. When asked for my honest opinion on SOTA I never leave out the downsides. Furthermore I feel qualified to give my opinion because I've invested at least 20 hours into the game so while I'm not going to comment on the endgame I'm perfectly qualified to comment on the new-player-experience.
If someone has a similar stance on SC that they just don't find the content compelling, that they are unsure the game will succeed etc. fine. They have their opinion and they are free to express it. Nothing wrong with that.
If went over to the SOTA section, the SOTA reddit, the SOTA forums etc. and attacked everyone who enjoys SOTA over and over and over and over and over for month on end like blorpykins and Aron_Swordmaster I would be a toxic asshole / scum.
And doing the same thing to SC makes you at toxic asshole and scum.
See it's not your opinion. It's your tiresome unwanted opinion repeated 50,000 times in a place nobody wants to friggin hear it.
Even if i didn't know who was running the show,just popped in for the first time out of nowhere Idaho and looked at the game so far ,i would be like umm no looks like very little effort. The size of this team,the amount of money,looks like less than 1/4 of that. So far after all this time and money,it is still just a virtual cash shop. I seriously do not know how this can end,if he ever announces a finished product it will get critiqued to no end and he can't have that.He has made more money than most developers out there and with no finished game,so why would he want to complete it.
If he ever announces a finished release,which i believe will NEVER happen,he will instead word it in a way that the game is never done.Anyhow when that time comes,he will still just be a virtual cash shop,VERY little will happen to the game afterwards,mostly more work on the cash shop items than the game. So for me,NO i don't like to support scammers and this has been and always will be a RMT operation,something we used to detest in a big way back in the day.
Good info. Hey Wizardry I sent you a message on this site a week or two ago. FYI.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Maybe you don't want to see it but it's pretty obvious that many of the fanbase exhibit a cult-like behaviour.
Nah, only what hateful people desperate to find things to lay against SC use, picking examples to label the generality of a much large community with extra hyperbole.
I guess as the "SC is a scam and will never release!!" has grown so tired, the community is one easy target as a way to continue the mudslinging.
Here's one for you as well "Obsessive Star Citizen Critics, or: The Tall Poppy Syndrome":
So that makes the haters a cult as well by the same logic? It's amazing really, when the topic is SC, terminology gets redefined at will just to make it as hyperbolic as possible. lol
Star Citizen is by no means a perfect case study of how to do crowd funding. They've made some good moves, being very open about development (3+ shows a week on it) and delays. The biggest mistake they made was starting it from scratch as crowdfunded. This garnered a lot of attention for the game, it was almost like someone leaked insider trading info on a stock, but it brought along a lot of people who probably shouldn't participate in these types of projects. Whether that's because of impatience (the "why does it take 5+ years?" crowd) or the ones who think a game in Alpha should be polished and rich in content.
That same attention has also brought a healthy crowd of people against the project, ranging from general skeptics on the scope of the game to people who just want to watch it burn because it's popular. Sadly because of the former, a lot of constructive criticism and general inquiries get dismissed as trolling. Take the E:D players: when I last checked they were on their 6th forum thread, the previous 5 having reached max limit, on why SC isn't as good as E:D. It also doesn't help that some people become wildly defensive about things they've spent money on when challenged.
For the most part, the SC community that is seen is not a representative of the whole. Majority of backers are either waiting for launch, and just checking in from time to time for updates, or are quietly enjoying what their is of the game. Sure players get salty over development decisions, but name one game that hasn't had their forums burnt down over something like that.
Comments
- Having a really grand vision of a project.
- Not being sure what the implementation of that vision is.
You have to give credit where credit is due. When I backed the project, 5 years ago, there was a fairly positive trajectory. The promise back then, was creating highly detailed ships and letting you play around with them. The vision of the "universe" wasn't really even talked about - people were excited for the ships that look pretty and have the insides simulated. The CIG team was probably mainly focused on that too.The hangar module came out, which showed people the 3D models of some of the ships. And it looked beautiful. People were like "This is my ship! And I will be a trader in the game! I will have a trade empire!" Around that time, you could see a shift from just thinking about ships, to thinking about some of the gameplay. CIG started releasing concepts of gameplay systems. The dog-fighting module came out a little behind schedule, but I'd argue that was a fairly substantial, "polished" achievement. Comparing that module to other flight games out there, it felt like a substantial step forward for the genre.
People were excited, and rightfully so. The detailed ships were a proven concept, and that's when people started really asking about the universe. Around that time, the scope reduced from 100 systems to around 6 detailed planets. The promise was this "StarTrek like experience", where you can visit very unique locations, walk around a bit and live out this story specific to you. My personal guess is there was no firm, detailed schedule on how to get from "nothing" to "everything". Many of the game play systems are still up in the air to this date.
They started adding features that seemed relevant, without a direct link to the end goal. A year later, some of the features were in, but they realised it is nowhere near what people are expecting. So the scope was reduced from 6 systems to 1. And later from 1 system to a quarter of one, which is presumably what we have now.
I don't think it is a scam or a lie, just a project with a general vision and no implementation strategy.
When I was developing Minecraft Servers (not saying I'm an expert, it's just an example), I would take a very general idea (e.g. there will be a morality scale between good and evil, which players can move on). Then I would sit down with 2 of my game play designers, to turn this into a game play idea - something along the lines of "Players will interact with NPCs and turn in quests, which will affect their points on based on the morality of the NPC. The quest types will be X, Y, Z".
I would then sit down with 4 of my coders, discuss what workload they have and see where this feature falls. They would think about a rough framework for the implementation. At this point, I would be releasing general information (an "idea" press release) about the content to my player base. Note that CIG probably release information a lot earlier in the process, they release their "idea" press releases without even discussing the game play internally. I would then work on other things, wait for the feature to get into development. It would naturally change shape a little. Once we had the feature on our internal test server, I would post a second press release, talking about the specific implementation of the feature (e.g. "This is how morality will be implemented in our game: ...")
Because CIG released everything extremely early, you get a lot of uncertainty. They communicated a vision of "being a pilot of a luxurious yacht, catering to the elite as they have fun on lavish parties in space". It's a perfectly good vision, but no one knew (even internally) how that would work in practise. Now you have situations like having a vision of a massive multi-crew battleship (that people bought for thousands of $), but no one even knowing how that will work in terms of instancing - is it going to be one big instance, small instances glued together?
So I'd say the whole project is a big mess in terms of aligning visions with implementations.
Plenty of people claimed AC was a step forward at the time, if only as a harbinger of things to come, but to me it looked like a step within familiar territory. Even less groundbreaking was that AC (as its name implies) is an arena shooter; I was used to that very same type of combat within the setting of a MMORPG for about a decade.
SC is trying to do 2 very fresh things; landing on planets and walking around inside ships. I can only infer this is very difficult in a MMOG where every bit of data transferred between the client and the server has to scale. This has been discussed at great length here and elsewhere.
As far as "This is my ship! And I will be a trader in the game!": that's the game Chris Roberts wanted backers to imagine. It was taking a risk which those who ponied up had to be aware of at the time.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Trolling, griefing, whatever most people who expect some level of recognition there is a human on the other side of the keyboard find detestable, Goonswarm does it.
They're spawned from http://www.somethingawful.com/ and basically work off a mix of huge numbers and reputation.
So if Goons hate this game and have turned their propaganda machine against, it makes a lot of sense you would have trolls swarming over forums like these to offer the same few crappy points over and over and over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies
shows that Star Citizen already has twice as many fans as Star Wars Galaxies had in 8.5 years. If we believe the 1 million copies sold in total, then SC with its estimated 700.000 paying backers (before the game has even launched) out of 2.025.941 "Star Citizens" (as of today) is very likely to exceed the numbers of SWG shortly after launch. Nevermind the years afterwards.
Budget wise SC has already eclipsed SWG by a wide margin.
But SWG 15 years ago already had many technologies that SC is now re-inventing (walking in ships, landing on planets etc.)
Have fun
The toxic ones that were kicked out of it? Sure lol keep dreaming.
Contrary of what the deviant sheep try to portray the Star Citizen Gaming community is represented by those who actually play the game not the ones who post online lol
Hell, a basic google search provides lots of examples where people comment on SC's community being toxic.
Star Citizen haters are the same as every other haters of other games: "The Scum of Gaming World" and that's the end of it tbh. They have no power and will never be able to arm-twist developers into doing what they think is the "best".
Now if you or others fit the bill it's really up to them to cope with it lol
Just try to think in %, how many people have pledge for Star Citizen or even support it's idea and prefer to wait in the sidelines VS people who are blatantly against it and cry around the web for "justice".
Who would you think would be the majority? And again, if there weren't people attacking it there would be no need to defend it...
Problem is that angry gamers always need to validate their frustrations or else they will have to acknowledge their ignorance and keep on dancing around the idea that they were never as smart as they think they were:
Well done.
..Cake..
Sure, I can define lots for you:
Confirmation bias would be you saying that because you don't see it, it therefore does not exist. I gave examples of where it occurs, I said a google search would return more examples.
Well that's objectively untrue, there are quite a few cases where people from the SC community behave appallingly just for criticism, not attacks.
Their web site is top shelf, they are well organized, recruit regularly and are quite good at suicide ganking. It is actually a bit of a challenge, they've missed me several times.
Heck, I purchased one of their mining permits once and they actually left me alone because they could see I was actively mining and properly reacted by fleeing to station when they arrived.
The best part of EVE to me is the fact there is "evil" enemies to fight (pro tip, if you meet Goons at a convention it turns out their eyes don't glow red in the dark.)
I actually find High Sec wardec corps far more cowardly and annoying than Goons or CODE.
They are also far more likely to spoil the fun for newer players than either of the other two.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Nop...
They are just the most angry and vocal simply because life hasn't been easy with them lol
Guess what, arguing in the internet wont change none of that because it's a inherent fault of their life/character that they keep obfuscating with outside factors such as video-games.
It's a deeper problem themselves have to resolve and the game they choose to lash on is just an obfuscation to their real-life problems.
That's why it hurts so much to see Star Citizen continuous development. Without conclusion no peace of mind can be achieved, except it could, if only they gotten the necessary clairvoyance.
A definition.
Have fun
SOTA has an active anti-fanboy community as well. That anti-fanboy community says they are "one of the most toxic communities ever". That is because the anti-fanboys are toxic assholes, and yes, total scum, and people respond to them in kind.
Same stands true for SC. Toxic assholes consider the SC community to be toxic assholes. And there are a lot of toxic assholes trolling this game. That doesn't make it so.
Everyone is an upstanding individual.
..Cake..
..Cake..
Star Citizen fans don't seem to be a particularly great or horrible community, but they're a far better one now that the Goons are leaving, and their response to the behavior of the people coming here to bash this game is no different than you could expect from any other fanbase for anything ever.
I don't agree with you labeling everyone who disagrees with you on SC, toxic and scum.
Also I've no idea why you think Goons are leaving now. Some of them got refunds years ago.
Others are staying for the lols. Others are still patient with the prolonged dev time.
I also disagree with the response of SC white knights being like other communities.
There's posters whose specific purpose is silencing critics on multiple forums and gaming sites.
Others stalk twitter accounts and reddit accounts and constantly harass people who have criticized SC.
Maybe you don't want to see it but it's pretty obvious that many of the fanbase exhibit a cult-like behaviour. Gaming news sites have even refereed to the SC community by that exact word.
I guess those gaming "journalists" are all "Goony scum arseholes" as well right?
..Cake..
― George Carlin
If someone has a similar stance on SC that they just don't find the content compelling, that they are unsure the game will succeed etc. fine. They have their opinion and they are free to express it. Nothing wrong with that.
If went over to the SOTA section, the SOTA reddit, the SOTA forums etc. and attacked everyone who enjoys SOTA over and over and over and over and over for month on end like blorpykins and Aron_Swordmaster I would be a toxic asshole / scum.
And doing the same thing to SC makes you at toxic asshole and scum.
See it's not your opinion. It's your tiresome unwanted opinion repeated 50,000 times in a place nobody wants to friggin hear it.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I guess as the "SC is a scam and will never release!!" has grown so tired, the community is one easy target as a way to continue the mudslinging.
Here's one for you as well "Obsessive Star Citizen Critics, or: The Tall Poppy Syndrome":
So that makes the haters a cult as well by the same logic? It's amazing really, when the topic is SC, terminology gets redefined at will just to make it as hyperbolic as possible. lol
That same attention has also brought a healthy crowd of people against the project, ranging from general skeptics on the scope of the game to people who just want to watch it burn because it's popular. Sadly because of the former, a lot of constructive criticism and general inquiries get dismissed as trolling. Take the E:D players: when I last checked they were on their 6th forum thread, the previous 5 having reached max limit, on why SC isn't as good as E:D. It also doesn't help that some people become wildly defensive about things they've spent money on when challenged.
For the most part, the SC community that is seen is not a representative of the whole. Majority of backers are either waiting for launch, and just checking in from time to time for updates, or are quietly enjoying what their is of the game. Sure players get salty over development decisions, but name one game that hasn't had their forums burnt down over something like that.