Rob Irving (Former Lead Designer of Star Citizen) interview - admits Escapists article is true

JohnP0100 · March 2016

Little-Boot said:

That isn't a synonymous example. If The Escapist relied on several vetted sources that confirmed each other's accounts... then even if the article was incorrect, they would have printed it in good faith. They would still win the court case.

So if 'The Escapists' vetted their sources (Make sure they were ex-CIG) and has multiple confirmation of what occurred at CIG, what's the problem in believing that's what occurred at CIG?

This very thread is about a former LEAD DESIGNER at CIG admitting that article is true.

Little-Boot · March 2016

JohnP0100 said:

Little-Boot said:

That isn't a synonymous example. If The Escapist relied on several vetted sources that confirmed each other's accounts... then even if the article was incorrect, they would have printed it in good faith. They would still win the court case.

So if 'The Escapists' vetted their sources (Make sure they were ex-CIG) and has multiple confirmation of what occurred at CIG, what's the problem in believing that's what occurred at CIG?

This very thread is about a former LEAD DESIGNER at CIG admitting that article is true.

Exactly. This is why I believe there is some truth in the article.

Distopia · March 2016

JohnP0100 said:

Then lets move onto the fact he admits Escapists article is 'true'.

And then, I believe we have formed a foundation to discuss things.

Let's start by exemplifying he admits there is some truth to it, not that it's "true". Some truth would imply there were liberties taken with the truth, or hint at some form of exaggeration/sensationalism. Otherwise he'd just say it's true, wouldn't he?

DKLond · March 2016

JohnP0100 said:

@DKLond ;
Yes. Good.
And onto the 'stop projecting', can you do that as well?
Once you have done that, I feel like we can communicate better.

Lets first start off by NOT attacking Rob by saying 'he wants to slack off cause I do'.

Then lets move onto the fact he admits Escapists article is 'true'.

Then (are you still with me?), lets examine what a normal person would do, if they saw an article that was filled with false statements and ask ourselves why Rob would phrase his answers that way.

Then lets make sure no one is accusing others of being 'you seem passionatly invested'.

And then, I believe we have formed a foundation to discuss things.

I don't know why repeating a clear falsehood would make it more convincing. It just makes your nature as a liar that much more obvious.

If you can come up with a question that I haven't already answered and you can stop being a child about your delusional campaign against people who don't agree with you, then I'll gladly answer.

Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time

AnnaTS · March 2016

I know this has nothing to do with the topic but the review of the drink near the end of the video was funny.

Distopia · March 2016

JohnP0100 said:

Little-Boot said:

That isn't a synonymous example. If The Escapist relied on several vetted sources that confirmed each other's accounts... then even if the article was incorrect, they would have printed it in good faith. They would still win the court case.

So if 'The Escapists' vetted their sources (Make sure they were ex-CIG) and has multiple confirmation of what occurred at CIG, what's the problem in believing that's what occurred at CIG?

This very thread is about a former LEAD DESIGNER at CIG admitting that article is true.

You can believe what you want to believe, who said you couldn't or there was a problem with that? That said... for me personally It's still a matter of what is actually true here, we really don't know any facts on that. I feel no abrupt need to make up my mind nor any pressure to do so, it's simply a matter of being patient and waiting to find out what is true, before I begin to formulate an actual opinion on the situation.

The rest is simple debate, which is a matter of considering possibilities.

gervaise1 · March 2016

Doesn't matter. Old news. Not relevant.
It was stuff like this that, imo, caused them to release the alpha.

The release of the alpha dealt brutal death to all the "there is no one working at RSC", "there is no game", "they have taken the money and bought an island" etc. etc. etc. garbage.

The alpha however is a double edged sword. All the warts and unresolved issues are there for all to see. If there is no tangible progress everyone will know.

And we can all make our own judgements rather than rely on "is it true, is it not true" articles. And as I said it is warts and all.

Potentially however it will be huge publicity for them. One of the reasons WoW was sucessful is that it had a very long "open" beta - 10 months prior to the US launch; the subsequent overlapping EU beta (a second testbed not a copy) ran for c.11 months prior to the EU launch. They promoted the game and protected against the day 1 server meltdown.

Now I suspect they would have preferred to have held off on the alpha a while if they could but - as it stands it is out there and I think its likely that "it" (whatever it is) will be released. And I am sure that Rob Irving will - rightly - include his contribution in his cv.

And in a week that has seen EQN buried; an announcement that alpha Landmark is suddenly a full game i.e. not much else is going to happen and a further slimming down at Carbine this is a good thing imo.

Arglebargle · March 2016

After these clear cracks appear in the SC defenders postions, the new defensive positions are being built as we write.

Sadly for them, Roberts' feet of clay reach pretty far up.

Jermzy · March 2016

So when is this game going to release?

Distopia · March 2016

Arglebargle said:

After these clear cracks appear in the SC defenders postions, the new defensive positions are being built as we write.

Sadly for them, Roberts' feet of clay reach pretty far up.

Why does everything have to result in this type of post? Lets all just jump in with vague passive aggressive jabs, that's the answer for sure..

DKLond · March 2016

Game is pretty ludicrous when it comes to scope and ambition.

There's no way it will be out until late 2017 at the earliest. Personally, I think 2018+ is much more realistic.

Also, there's no way the game will deliver all it promises to deliver. Then again, I've never played a truly ambitious game that delivered on all the hype. That never happens.

However, I do believe you have to aim high and be bold if you want to evolve gaming.

I'd rather take a chance and fail than play it safe with my money. But that's me.

I have no doubt working on Star Citizen with a focused and ambitious guy like Chris Roberts in charge must be very stressful - and definitely not for everyone.

Certainly, if you don't believe in the scope and the ambition, it's much better to leave. So, I think Eric and Rob made the right decision for everyone involved.

Distopia · March 2016

Jermzy said:

So when is this game going to release?

IF you believe one side..never, if you believe the other.. sometime.. so who knows.

JohnP0100 · March 2016

DKLond said:

JohnP0100 said:

@DKLond ;
Yes. Good.
And onto the 'stop projecting', can you do that as well?
Once you have done that, I feel like we can communicate better.

Lets first start off by NOT attacking Rob by saying 'he wants to slack off cause I do'.

Then lets move onto the fact he admits Escapists article is 'true'.

Then (are you still with me?), lets examine what a normal person would do, if they saw an article that was filled with false statements and ask ourselves why Rob would phrase his answers that way.

Then lets make sure no one is accusing others of being 'you seem passionatly invested'.

And then, I believe we have formed a foundation to discuss things.

I don't know why repeating a clear falsehood would make it more convincing. It just makes your nature as a liar that much more obvious.

If you can come up with a question that I haven't already answered and you can stop being a child about your delusional campaign against people who don't agree with you, then I'll gladly answer.

Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time

So.. Me asking you to not attack someone or project yourself to someone (like you have done in this very thread), is a 'delusional campaign against people'

Okay.. Am i being trolled here? Are you intentionally playing dumb? Really? REALLY?

If your post continues to be about attacking someone, I'm going to ask that you do not post any more of that garbage in my thread.

Seelinnikoi · March 2016

*supermarket voice comm speaker*

"Erillion to aisle three. Erillion to aisle three. We need cleaning in aisle three."

DKLond · March 2016

Seelinnikoi said:

*supermarket voice comm speaker*

"Erillion to aisle three. Erillion to aisle three. We need cleaning in aisle three."

Hehe, that might be fun

Arglebargle · March 2016

Distopia said:

Arglebargle said:

After these clear cracks appear in the SC defenders postions, the new defensive positions are being built as we write.

Sadly for them, Roberts' feet of clay reach pretty far up.

Why does everything have to result in this type of post? Lets all just jump in with vague passive aggressive jabs, that's the answer for sure..

Typing on my phone for one.

Roberts grandiose competence as a developer is wildly overestimated by a good chunk of his fans -- and by Roberts himself. Every time some evidence of this escapes the PR machine, excuses get made. There is a ton of history that should make folks wary of this project.

DKLond · March 2016

MisterZebub said:

Arglebargle said:

After these clear cracks appear in the SC defenders postions, the new defensive positions are being built as we write.

Sadly for them, Roberts' feet of clay reach pretty far up.

And here's not only why that is so, but why they'll be effective. Good job there Mister Thread Maker Man. You are handed what some on your side of the argument would consider a smoking gun, and all you managed to do with it was shoot yourself in the face, WITH A FUCKING THREAD TITLE no less! You showed your complete closed minded bias, and will to paint this new information only in the darkest possible light before any of us even sees what the Samuel Langhorn hell this new information is. That is why you anti-fans will always lose. You just can't help trying to push your agenda just that much harder, even if it means disingenuously bending the truth, something you accuse your opposition of doing on a daily basis, instead of letting people make up their minds themselves.

Now this new information, a person who actually worked in a pretty significant position on this game says that there is some truth to the points made in that article. Sadly though he is incredibly vague. Which makes me think since he said that he and CR aren't close, he isn't protecting him, but rather he is unwilling to say anything more as he fears litigation. That's really the point I feel you should focus on.

Here's why, faceless forum jockey's aren't the people who should be fighting this battle, the very people that opened this can of worms, The Escapist, and then fucked off into oblivion, just saw an important ex-member of the Star Citizen crew publicly give them the nod that yeah, at least some of the article holds water. So why then has there never been the promised follow up article? Could it be they also fear legal woes if they continue the fight? I think that is the hard truth we should all be considering.

To be fair, we have these crazies on both "sides".

There are really only two outcomes that will "prove" anything here.

Star Citizen gets released or it gets cancelled - eventually. Everything in-between will suffer increasing speculation and tons of blind hatred or praise.

Better get used to it sooner rather than later

But I agree that the overt liar who made this thread is not helping his own cause, as I tried to point out.

Erillion · March 2016

Distopia said:

JohnP0100 said:

Then lets move onto the fact he admits Escapists article is 'true'.

And then, I believe we have formed a foundation to discuss things.

Let's start by exemplifying he admits there is some truth to it, not that it's "true". Some truth would imply there were liberties taken with the truth, or hint at some form of exaggeration/sensationalism. Otherwise he'd just say it's true, wouldn't he?

So .. i watched the whole episode.

Thread title is misleading. Distopia summed it up well ... in ONE line of the interview in almost 32 min of the episode Rob mentions that there is SOME truth to it but certainly never says anything about the "Escapist article being true". He could refer to any one of the statements in the article e.g.
(from article: "Personally, I felt like the company was understaffed for what they were trying to do," CS3 stated. "....). Personally i doubt that he referred to any of the more outlandish statements like "racism".

What i take away from the Rob Irving interview w.r.t. Star Citizen:

1) He wanted to work in a smaller company on a very focussed type of game, not in a huge project like Star Citizen with 300 employees. So he moved on to a smaller project where he personally can make a bigger contribution.
2) Its very hard to be "the creative guy" alongside "THE" creative guy Chris Roberts
3) Someone needs to be the "meany" at some point and say "Nice idea! We write it down for the sequel but it won't be in THIS game. Now lets carry on and stay in time and in budget." IMHO that is what Erin Roberts is doing for quite some time now for Star Citizen ... and it has improved the project .... it should have been done earlier.
4) When a lot of the SC activities moved away from Austin (where he is working) to other places, it was one of the reasons for him to move on.

Other very interesting parts of the interview (not specifically SC related)

1) The anonymity of the internet brings out some of the worst in people (oh yes !)
2) There is a significant amount of people just playing a game to ruin other people's game (and what is mentally wrong with those guys ....)
3) That without the law threatening repercussions the veneer of civilsation would peel away quickly and some segments of society would do as they please (just as some do in internet games) and to hell with everyone else

So ... to sum it up .. good interview with a veteran of the gaming industry ... exaggerated conclusions by the OP based on a very small part of the interview, labelled with a misleading thread title.

Have fun

Pratt2112 · March 2016

DKLond said:

Oh, so it's an attack to give my impression of a nice low-key guy who'd rather be doing less challenging work?

It was a passive-aggressive jab at the guy, phrased in just a way so - when called out on it (as you have been) - you could come back with the kind of defenses you did. I'd call your comments "calculated". I wouldn't call them "well-intentioned"..

I've had that impression of him since I first saw him in Wingman's Hangar - along with the host. They both seemed like a couple of nice and entertaining guys who were ill-suited for a hugely ambitious project like Star Citizen - which surely demands you get in line with the vision.

A smaller project like rebooting Descent seems much more like their style - so I don't see a problem.

Again, passive aggressive. You don't know the person, at all. You don't know what they do or don't like, what they are or aren't well suited to working on. You're taking an outward "impression", and fitting it to a narrative that, conveniently, downplays or undermines his relevance to the project.

"Oh, he's being critical of SC? Well, he was never really cut out to work on it anyway".

Your comments were a condescending, passive aggressive jab at someone being critical of "your" game. You know it. Everyone else here reading it knows it. Stop trying to act like it wasn't, it's only making you look dishonest.

DKLond · March 2016

Pratt2112 said:

DKLond said:

Oh, so it's an attack to give my impression of a nice low-key guy who'd rather be doing less challenging work?

It was a passive-aggressive jab at the guy, phrased in just a way so - when called out on it (as you have been) - you could come back with the kind of defenses you did. I'd call your comments "calculated". I wouldn't call them "well-intentioned"..

I've had that impression of him since I first saw him in Wingman's Hangar - along with the host. They both seemed like a couple of nice and entertaining guys who were ill-suited for a hugely ambitious project like Star Citizen - which surely demands you get in line with the vision.

A smaller project like rebooting Descent seems much more like their style - so I don't see a problem.

Again, passive aggressive. You don't know the person, at all. You don't know what they do or don't like, what they are or aren't well suited to working on. You're taking an outward "impression", and conveniently fitting it to a narrative that, conveniently, downplays or undermines his relevance to the project.

"Oh, he's being critical of SC? Well, he was never really cut out to work on it anyway".

Your comments were a condescending, passive aggressive jab at someone being critical of "your" game. You know it. Everyone else here reading it knows it. Stop trying to act like it wasn't, it's only making you look dishonest.

I'm afraid you don't convince in terms of changing reality according to your biased misconception.

I think he comes off as an extremely laid-back guy, if that sounds better. I've seen all of the Wingman's Hangar episodes, and I always greatly enjoyed his interviews. He looked half asleep - but always had something entertaining or insightful to say. ALWAYS laid-back.

Kind of a slacker, really.

I quite like him, based on what I've seen.

If that's passive aggressive, so be it. I don't really care.

Distopia · March 2016

MisterZebub said:

Arglebargle said:

After these clear cracks appear in the SC defenders postions, the new defensive positions are being built as we write.

Sadly for them, Roberts' feet of clay reach pretty far up.

And here's not only why that is so, but why they'll be effective. Good job there Mister Thread Maker Man. You are handed what some on your side of the argument would consider a smoking gun, and all you managed to do with it was shoot yourself in the face, WITH A FUCKING THREAD TITLE no less! You showed your complete closed minded bias, and will to paint this new information only in the darkest possible light before any of us even sees what the Samuel Langhorn hell this new information is. That is why you anti-fans will always lose. You just can't help trying to push your agenda just that much harder, even if it means disingenuously bending the truth, something you accuse your opposition of doing on a daily basis, instead of letting people make up their minds themselves.

Now this new information, a person who actually worked in a pretty significant position on this game says that there is some truth to the points made in that article. Sadly though he is incredibly vague. Which makes me think since he said that he and CR aren't close, he isn't protecting him, but rather he is unwilling to say anything more as he fears litigation. That's really the point I feel you should focus on.

Here's why, faceless forum jockey's aren't the people who should be fighting this battle, the very people that opened this can of worms, The Escapist, and then fucked off into oblivion, just saw an important ex-member of the Star Citizen crew publicly give them the nod that yeah, at least some of the article holds water. So why then has there never been the promised follow up article? Could it be they also fear legal woes if they continue the fight? I think that is the hard truth we should all be considering.

The funniest part of this battle is it doesn't even revolve around the majority posting on MMORPG half the time.. ... Most of us here don't give two shits about CR, DS, The Escapist, half the posts on this game are about something going on some where else involving some "cult of CR believers", we don't care about SC or it's drama here at MMORPG.com, we care about finding the flaw in your post... Some just make that too damn easy.

Little-Boot · March 2016

Distopia said:

MisterZebub said:

Arglebargle said:

After these clear cracks appear in the SC defenders postions, the new defensive positions are being built as we write.

Sadly for them, Roberts' feet of clay reach pretty far up.

And here's not only why that is so, but why they'll be effective. Good job there Mister Thread Maker Man. You are handed what some on your side of the argument would consider a smoking gun, and all you managed to do with it was shoot yourself in the face, WITH A FUCKING THREAD TITLE no less! You showed your complete closed minded bias, and will to paint this new information only in the darkest possible light before any of us even sees what the Samuel Langhorn hell this new information is. That is why you anti-fans will always lose. You just can't help trying to push your agenda just that much harder, even if it means disingenuously bending the truth, something you accuse your opposition of doing on a daily basis, instead of letting people make up their minds themselves.

Now this new information, a person who actually worked in a pretty significant position on this game says that there is some truth to the points made in that article. Sadly though he is incredibly vague. Which makes me think since he said that he and CR aren't close, he isn't protecting him, but rather he is unwilling to say anything more as he fears litigation. That's really the point I feel you should focus on.

Here's why, faceless forum jockey's aren't the people who should be fighting this battle, the very people that opened this can of worms, The Escapist, and then fucked off into oblivion, just saw an important ex-member of the Star Citizen crew publicly give them the nod that yeah, at least some of the article holds water. So why then has there never been the promised follow up article? Could it be they also fear legal woes if they continue the fight? I think that is the hard truth we should all be considering.

The funniest part of this battle is it doesn't even revolve around the majority posting on MMORPG half the time.. ... Most of us here don't give two shits about CR, DS, The Escapist, half the posts on this game are about something going on some where else involving some "cult of CR believers", we don't care about SC or it's drama here at MMORPG.com, we care about finding the flaw in your post... Some just make that too damn easy.

I shamelessly enjoy the drama. Really couldn't give a shit about the rest of the stuff you mentioned though.

DKLond · March 2016

I find the drama extremely sad, really.

But I'm pretty good at not investing myself in things that can't be helped.

So, while I certainly care about gaming and what's being done to potentially improve it - I take care not to invest in the irrational mindset that seems to be the norm where SC is concerned. That includes both sides of the coin.

FlyByKnight · March 2016

"There's some truth to the article"

"So you're saying there's a chance it's ALL a lie!" - SC Cult

Distopia · March 2016

FlyByKnight said:

"There's some truth to the article"

"So you're saying there's a chance it's ALL a lie!" - SC Cult

Sorry you missed them, they went that way

Howdy, Stranger!

Rob Irving (Former Lead Designer of Star Citizen) interview - admits Escapists article is true

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Rob Irving (Former Lead Designer of Star Citizen) interview - admits Escapists article is true

Comments