No, it's very simple actually. As with all things Star Citizen, it's ok when you do it or when someone wants to praise the game does it... but not when people who criticize the game do it.
Again it's not the act of criticizing it's what being criticized.
Complaining about bugs and poor performance in a game in alpha stage is not only a showcase of ignorance but blissfull naivety specially if one compares it with released games.
Again it's not the act of criticizing it's what being criticized.
Complaining about bugs and poor performance in a game in alpha stage is not only a showcase of ignorance but blissfull naivety specially if one compares it with released games.
It's indeed still very simple.
Very very simple actually. It's so simple we should mention it numerous times in case someone doesn't get it.
For example it's ok to compare to other games when it's a feature one game had from the get go, because it was using a ready engine and the other game didn't plan to include said feature for another x years, but it's not ok to compare to other games when it's one of the numerous things that Star Citizen does very bad.. like performance, content, existing gameplay, flight mechanics, lying developers, fair payment model, etc etc
In other words SC fans like to use the "hur dur it's an alphwaaaaa" excuse whenever it suits them.
No we just use it because we know every game in alpha stage has those same issues lol
And any other issues you mentioned can be aplied to other games and developers including Frontier/ED
Not all alpha games have the same issues, just like not all games stay in alpha for 6+ years or continually ask for money after they've made 180$ million in crowdfunded cash or have absolutely no release date.
As for all the other examples I mentioned, some of them can be applied to other games, some of them can be applied to FD,ED but ALL of them can be applied to CIG and SC... there's plenty more.. but you know that already don't you.
Again it's not the act of criticizing it's what being criticized.
Complaining about bugs and poor performance in a game in alpha stage is not only a showcase of ignorance but blissfull naivety specially if one compares it with released games.
It's indeed still very simple.
Will you admit that it's more fair to criticize a game remaining in alpha this long? Can they stay in alpha 5 more years and be immune to being called out for bugs and poor optimization?
What if their engine is simply poorly designed for the ever growing scope Chris wants? when is it OK to discuss that?
For me, this game fails the smell test of being a typical alpha. It is a mismanaged mess that doesn't seem to have a resolution in sight.
Easy? Is that why they've failed to make a good FPS, a good space sim, a good mmo and a good game in general with a ready engine?
I like how you think critics only cry/kick/shout and their opinion is just noise though.. what an honest way of deflecting any valid criticism.
Sure they have big scope but that's easy... just get Chris to say yes to everything, get everyone excited and have a ship-sale quickly afterwards It's worked wonders for him up to now.
I also like how SEVEN years later and people are still going on about all the troubles of creating a studio to make a game on a measly budget of millions and millions with no strings attached and no release date. Ahhh poor Chris
400 people, 180 million dollars and still , seven years later his game is in alpha with 15% of the features implemented in a very basic form. How dare people criticize him!
Calling any game in active development failed becaused it's features are not polished/optimized is laughable and only done by the really ignorant or people with a grudge.
There's plenty of games that took longer to present anything at all from stablished studios with deeper pockets than CIG but hey lets ignore it because it hurta the "cig is bad" narrative.
Where is the coherency? That is why it just noise really. What the haters call "criticism" is simply a showcase grieving resentfullness with a pinch of selective ignorance under the pretext to atack CIG and Star Citizen.
It's as useless now just like it was 3 years ago lol
But hey here's to 3 more years of waiting for CIG collapse whille saying "CIG cant do X feature"and moving goal post when they do.
There's plenty of games that took longer to present anything at all from stablished studios in deeper pockets than CIG but hey lets ignore it because it hurta the "cig is bad" narrative.
Where is the coherency? That is why it just noise really. What the haters call "criticism" is simply a showcase grieving resentfullness with a pinch of selective ignorance under the pretext to atack CIG and Star Citizen.
It's as useless now just like it was 3 years ago lol
But hey here's to 3 more years of waiting for CIG collapse whille saying "CIG cant do X feature"and moving goal post when they do.
Noone expects CIG to collapse other than a few ignorant people.. but that's just the same as the few ignorant people who say SC has more content than full released games. It's your fault if you pay attention to them and it's certainly your fault when you use what those people say to make a point like: "hur dur see? you said 90days till collapse and we're still here!! hur dur!!"... as if not collapsing is a positive remark to make for a company with 180million dollars of crowdfunded cash. It's astonishing how you don't understand how foolish that makes you seem.
Also, PLENTY of coherent criticism all over the place about CIG and SC.. in numerous articles/forum posts/reddit posts/etc... you just choose, again, to name everyone a hater and call their valid criticism "noise".
I'd also like you to show me these plenty of games that took longer than seven years to show something and it was worse than what CIG has shown us and they also had bigger budgets.
I bet you bring up the "but muh scope is bigger than your scope" argument at least once.
You chose to say the words "selective ignorance" without a hint of irony and I find that the funniest thing I've read all day
I'd also like you to show me these plenty of games that took longer than seven years to show something and it was worse than what CIG has shown us and they also had bigger budgets.
I bet you bring up the "but muh scope is bigger than your scope" argument at least once.
First off, I don't know why you think that scope is not an issue with this project. What don't you explain how scope isn't a problem? Scope is actually the biggest problem with this game. Period.
As far as games that took this long, how about Cyberpunk 2077? It's not even of the same scope and it's taken longer to show anything, AND it was announced around the same time (2012).
SWTOR is another that likely took at least 6 years. I mean who knew about Bioware working on an MMO as of 2006, so that would place it at 5 years and it was, apparently, in the works before that even.
Some other notables that were at the 6 years or more were Star Craft 2, TF2, FFXV, D3, Morrowind, Fallout 3, Spore, STO.
There is a plethoria of other games that are in the 5 year mark. All of these games ARE smaller in scope to what SC is. Whatever the technical difficulty is/was, it goes to show that these limitations can sometimes be non-trivial. So whether you're creating a massive game or something simple, it can make it take longer to get the job done.
Also, one thing I think that people seem to use in their criticism of SC is money. Yes, CIG has lots of it. However, we are talking about multiple offices across multiple time lines, with larger teams. All of this stuff is not helpful. Go and google anything that you want on efficiency and each of these things would be on anyone's top 5 list. You might think that a larger team is better, but they actually output a smaller amount on a per-developer basis than smaller teams that are co-located and working in the same time zone. So you actually pay more for less productivity.
I remember Chris Roberts telling us Kickstarter/Crowdfunding would be better to get away from the heads at Corporations, yet why are so many backers comparing it to how Corporations make games? This was supposed to be the better way.
I do find it strange the game has been in alpha for so long. Also, always thought alphas were and are always numbered 0.01 and so on. Normally 1.0 would be for beta testing. I wonder if they are actually telling us something just with the numbering system they are using.
Last issue this game seems to have is what should actually be in an alpha. Mining, quests, crafting should all be in the alpha, maybe not exactly working right but still it should be in if it is part of the core game.
Just a few issues I have with the game or should say making of the game.
“The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
―
George Carlin
Oh my someone please bring that list of multiple games that took forever from the most established companies like Blizzard (Titan,Diablo), Ubisoft (Beyond Good & Evil 2), ProjectRed (Cyberpunk) just to name a few.
CIG is a company created from scratch and doing not 1 but 2 highly ambitious games with most of the high tech made from scratch because it didint existed before.
Ofc there is plenty of valid criticism to be made like with any other game or project.
There will allways be things that in retrospective could have been done differently/better.
The issue is that neither you or the rest of the "everything Star Citizen and Chris Roberts is bad" crew seem to realise what making complex games actually entails or how crowdfunding works.
Hence why you keep crying about the wrong issues adnauseum for years on end:
-The Time it takes -The $millions backers wilingly give CIG -Bugs, Performance, Unfinished features
Another year same crying lol
It's like you've learned nothing from Elite... If you cut corners in building the core gameplay mechanics and network foudations you will later on find its very hard or even impossible to implement them.
That's how you end up with a bunch of shallow disjointed gameplay mechanics that hardly ressemble "a game" with no purpose at all lol
I'd also like you to show me these plenty of games that took longer than seven years to show something and it was worse than what CIG has shown us and they also had bigger budgets.
I bet you bring up the "but muh scope is bigger than your scope" argument at least once.
First off, I don't know why you think that scope is not an issue with this project. What don't you explain how scope isn't a problem? Scope is actually the biggest problem with this game. Period.
As far as games that took this long, how about Cyberpunk 2077? It's not even of the same scope and it's taken longer to show anything, AND it was announced around the same time (2012).
SWTOR is another that likely took at least 6 years. I mean who knew about Bioware working on an MMO as of 2006, so that would place it at 5 years and it was, apparently, in the works before that even.
Some other notables that were at the 6 years or more were Star Craft 2, TF2, FFXV, D3, Morrowind, Fallout 3, Spore, STO.
There is a plethoria of other games that are in the 5 year mark. All of these games ARE smaller in scope to what SC is. Whatever the technical difficulty is/was, it goes to show that these limitations can sometimes be non-trivial. So whether you're creating a massive game or something simple, it can make it take longer to get the job done.
Also, one thing I think that people seem to use in their criticism of SC is money. Yes, CIG has lots of it. However, we are talking about multiple offices across multiple time lines, with larger teams. All of this stuff is not helpful. Go and google anything that you want on efficiency and each of these things would be on anyone's top 5 list. You might think that a larger team is better, but they actually output a smaller amount on a per-developer basis than smaller teams that are co-located and working in the same time zone. So you actually pay more for less productivity.
Can we even say Cyberpunk 2077 is not of the same scope considering how little is known about the game or its aspirations? What size team are working on the game? CDPR have been divided up over 3 separate games TW3 (until mid 2016), Gwent (release 2018) and CP2077 so it might be that there was a very small team working on CP2077 until mid 2016. Perhaps what is most important though is that it is self funded, so how long it takes is largely irrelevant to the customer and with very little info it's not like it is constantly drawing attention to itself. CIG have been writing, rewriting, rewriting, rewriting, rewriting all on the backs of other people's money with very little to show for it while also drawing massive amount of attention to itself.
The difference between the games you listed and SC is that they produced full games in 6-7 years while SC sits at considerably less a game in comparison for the same amount of time, they don't even have 1 proper basic gameplay loop implemented after 6 years...
I think part of the issue is CR would say idiotic stuff like "more money = more staff = bigger game = faster game", he also implied (stated?) that having studios around the world would allow for the US studio to hand over the day's work to the UK who then might hand over to DE. Any one with any semblence of a brain on their shoulders would know this would never work so why would he insult people's intelliigence like that unless he was bullshitting?
I remember Chris Roberts telling us Kickstarter/Crowdfunding would be better to get away from the heads at Corporations, yet why are so many backers comparing it to how Corporations make games? This was supposed to be the better way.
I do find it strange the game has been in alpha for so long. Also, always thought alphas were and are always numbered 0.01 and so on. Normally 1.0 would be for beta testing. I wonder if they are actually telling us something just with the numbering system they are using.
Last issue this game seems to have is what should actually be in an alpha. Mining, quests, crafting should all be in the alpha, maybe not exactly working right but still it should be in if it is part of the core game.
Just a few issues I have with the game or should say making of the game.
Yeah, I don't like the numbering at all. We actually don't use numbered releases until release. So even beta would be 0.xx.xxxx
Also, I don't thinks it's necessarily atypical for games to remain in "alpha" for this length of time anymore. Remember that Ark even released an expansion while it was in "alpha". Notice I quoted alpha.
My biggest gripe with these new definitions of alpha and beta is that I don't want to test your game. I want the final copy. The biggest problem is establishing where they ACTUALLY are in development. For instance, Ark was irrelevant by the time it released. It was played out.
As far as alphas and content. I remember playing alphas where there were no textures on objects, nevermind missing features. I'm not opposed to missing features and it should be quite common for us not to see a feature complete version in alpha. Of course that also depends on what side of the spectrum you're living on. I'm chaotic old school
I'd also like you to show me these plenty of games that took longer than seven years to show something and it was worse than what CIG has shown us and they also had bigger budgets.
I bet you bring up the "but muh scope is bigger than your scope" argument at least once.
First off, I don't know why you think that scope is not an issue with this project. What don't you explain how scope isn't a problem? Scope is actually the biggest problem with this game. Period.
As far as games that took this long, how about Cyberpunk 2077? It's not even of the same scope and it's taken longer to show anything, AND it was announced around the same time (2012).
SWTOR is another that likely took at least 6 years. I mean who knew about Bioware working on an MMO as of 2006, so that would place it at 5 years and it was, apparently, in the works before that even.
Some other notables that were at the 6 years or more were Star Craft 2, TF2, FFXV, D3, Morrowind, Fallout 3, Spore, STO.
There is a plethoria of other games that are in the 5 year mark. All of these games ARE smaller in scope to what SC is. Whatever the technical difficulty is/was, it goes to show that these limitations can sometimes be non-trivial. So whether you're creating a massive game or something simple, it can make it take longer to get the job done.
Also, one thing I think that people seem to use in their criticism of SC is money. Yes, CIG has lots of it. However, we are talking about multiple offices across multiple time lines, with larger teams. All of this stuff is not helpful. Go and google anything that you want on efficiency and each of these things would be on anyone's top 5 list. You might think that a larger team is better, but they actually output a smaller amount on a per-developer basis than smaller teams that are co-located and working in the same time zone. So you actually pay more for less productivity.
I didn't say it wasn't an issue, of course it is.. the guy has promised everything to everyone. I said you can't keep on using that as an excuse.. yet here you are using it as an excuse in the first comparison you make. What's the point in even comparing anything to Star Citizen then when Chris Roberts has promised a bazilion features? Nevermind that seven years onwards and he hasn't implemented even a fraction of them. Star Marine is garbage?.. doesn't mind because SCOPE. Flight Mechanics crap?.. doesn't mind because SCOPE.
SWTOR took 6 years, then released. Cyberpunk 2077 has taken 6-7 years and is releasing next year? iirc It also comes from a studio that has made one of the greatest RPGs ever made among others... so we'll probably receive a good product.. let's wait and see. All the others.. 6 years and then released. Key word is RELEASE.
Star Citizen has taken 6-7 years and is still in alpha and nowhere close to release. It's in a horrid state even for an alpha with lots of key features not even implemented. But again, doesn't mind because SCOPE.
As for the money part.. you seem to forget that the money CIG has they can do whatever the hell they want with. They don't have a publisher to put a leash on them neither do they have a deadline. They can literally release the game whenever they want as long as people keep on giving them money.. and up to now they do.
The fact that Chris decided to create all these offices all over the world is down to his decision. One of his many management blunders.
Oh my someone please bring that list of multiple games that took forever from the most established companies like Blizzard (Titan,Diablo), Ubisoft (Beyond Good & Evil 2), ProjectRed (Cyberpunk) just to name a few.
CIG is a company created from scratch and doing not 1 but 2 highly ambitious games with most of the high tech made from scratch because it didint existed before.
Ofc there is plenty of valid criticism to be made like with any other game or project.
There will allways be things that in retrospective could have been done differently/better.
The issue is that neither you or the rest of the "everything Star Citizen and Chris Roberts is bad" crew seem to realise what making complex games actually entails or how crowdfunding works.
Hence why you keep crying about the wrong issues adnauseum for years on end:
-The Time it takes -The $millions backers wilingly give CIG -Bugs, Performance, Unfinished features
Another year same crying lol
It's like you've learned nothing from Elite... If you cut corners in building the core gameplay mechanics and network foudations you will later on find its very hard or even impossible to implement them.
That's how you end up with a bunch of shallow disjointed gameplay mechanics that hardly ressemble "a game" with no purpose at all lol
I've already mentioned about other games in my previous reply. Games took a long time then released (or in the case of Titan didn't and the assets where used to make Overwatch and sell 35million copies). SC is still an alpha after 6-7 years of development.
I won't reply to your comments about me crying. If you read my posts and think I'm crying then you need to re-evaluate your perceptive skills.
I like how you confirmed that SC has the same issues year after year though.
As for Elite.. FD has constantly refined the good core gameplay. They've also been slowly adding more content which was/is player main criticism. They have thousands of players playing at any one time and have already updated numerous of their mechanics many times. Engineering is pretty awesome now.. it's a pretty complicated mechanic so it took them sometime until they got it to a point everyone likes. Still many things you can criticize the game for but at least they've been adding/refining their gameplay to where their playerbase wants it. Which is another indicator to how long CIG has still to go... they haven't implemented many of their mechanics, let alone spend time refining/polishing them.
ED also got their flight mechanics down at a very early stage. SC still hasn't got a good flight model.
Feel free to regurgitate the same bullshit though. Anyone who's actually played both games recently can easily tell the difference in quality
Oh yeah all these studios across the world are really hurting the project , getting access to experienced Crytek Dev's including the guys who made it from scratch and allowed for seamless landings on highly detailed procedural planets and plenty of other amazing tech was a real blunder.
When you think haters can't be more out of touch they always find ways to surprise...
The mere fact that we are now comparing CIG/Star Citizen with the best companies in gaming who've been operating for 20+ years and releasing the best of the best is a testament of Chris Roberts brilliance in both game development and management.
It's one of the many open wound in the haters narrative and why they want so badly to see Star Citizen fail and see CIG collapse.
The mere fact that we are now comparing CIG/Star Citizen with the best companies in gaming who've been operating for 20+ years and releasing the best of the best is a testament of Chris Roberts brilliance in both game development and management.
Where do I send payment for this enlightening lesson of goal-post moving. I feel I have learned a lot.
Oh yeah all these studios across the world are really hurting the project , getting access to experienced Crytek Dev's including the guys who made it from scratch and allowed for seamless landings on highly detailed procedural planets and plenty of other amazing tech was a real blunder.
When you think haters can't be more out of touch they always find ways to surprise...
The mere fact that we are now comparing CIG/Star Citizen with the best companies in gaming who've been operating for 20+ years and releasing the best of the best is a testament of Chris Roberts brilliance in both game development and management.
It's one of the many open wound in the haters narrative and why they want so badly to see Star Citizen fail and see CIG collapse.
Well they actually do. You just dont get to see them most of the time. Game development wise no every game takes time and costs money.
The bigger scope and fidelity the game has the more it costs and time it takes.
Doing a single player and a mmorpg at the same time? Crazy hard.
Doing it with a brand new studio made from scratch? Even harder...done without a publisher and through crowdfunding alone.
Impossible to conceive some years ago...
Now it's happening in front of everyone. You might not like its direction or the time it's taking but it's happening either way.
Doesnt matter how much the critics cry, kick and shout, its just noise either way lol
You look at the gaming scene and there's nothing even remotely close to Star Citizen now or even in the horizon...
If it was easy to do someone had done it already right
I'd really like to know how long you think is fair to wait before offering serious criticism on chris and his team? When would even you lose patience and start getting on them?
I honestly believe that there are white knights that wouldn't criticize them even if it's in alpha ten years from now
CIG will continue to develop Star Citizen and Squadron 42 within the leadership and vision of Chris Roberts and theres nothing you or the rest of the resentfull bunch can do to change that.
Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of gamers across the globe will keep supporting it and be happy just watching its development.
It's just something you lot will have to live with.
Personally I haven't set a hard time limit for SC. In 1 year they will have reached 7 years from the original Kickstarter which means if they were AAA they would be released by that point. I think if they go a year or two beyond that it would be very fair to say that development of SC is very slow paced. However that will not be the point I'll freak out and be like "YOU JIPPED ME STARSCAM!!!"
I'm personally happy as long as I see development continually moving forward, as we have been. They say if you can't be happy outside a relationship no relationship will make you happy. If you can't be happy without Star Citizen, no Star Citizen will make you happy.
My expectations of MMOs have been tempered by over a decade of AAA developers giving us the same game over and over and over. I'm pretty happy to see anything that's actually new and fun in the MMO field regardless of the downsides. Buggy, slow development, whatever. When you have people pretending ESO and FF14 aren't WoW clones I'm not sure indie game enthusiasts are the ones with low standards. We just have them in different areas. We're more willing to accept slow development and bugs, AAA MMO enthusiasts are more willing to accept a complete lack of meaningful innovation.
Ah living up to his avatar and just trolling everyone Nevermind the numerous arguments people have brought up... just "haha in your face" without countering a single criticism
Comments
As with all things Star Citizen, it's ok when you do it or when someone wants to praise the game does it... but not when people who criticize the game do it.
..Cake..
Complaining about bugs and poor performance in a game in alpha stage is not only a showcase of ignorance but blissfull naivety specially if one compares it with released games.
It's indeed still very simple.
For example it's ok to compare to other games when it's a feature one game had from the get go, because it was using a ready engine and the other game didn't plan to include said feature for another x years, but it's not ok to compare to other games when it's one of the numerous things that Star Citizen does very bad.. like performance, content, existing gameplay, flight mechanics, lying developers, fair payment model, etc etc
In other words SC fans like to use the "hur dur it's an alphwaaaaa" excuse whenever it suits them.
..Cake..
And any other issues you mentioned can be aplied to other games and developers including Frontier/ED
Not all alpha games have the same issues, just like not all games stay in alpha for 6+ years or continually ask for money after they've made 180$ million in crowdfunded cash or have absolutely no release date.
As for all the other examples I mentioned, some of them can be applied to other games, some of them can be applied to FD,ED but ALL of them can be applied to CIG and SC... there's plenty more.. but you know that already don't you.
..Cake..
What if their engine is simply poorly designed for the ever growing scope Chris wants? when is it OK to discuss that?
For me, this game fails the smell test of being a typical alpha. It is a mismanaged mess that doesn't seem to have a resolution in sight.
The bigger scope and fidelity the game has the more it costs and time it takes.
Doing a single player and a mmorpg at the same time? Crazy hard.
Doing it with a brand new studio made from scratch? Even harder...done without a publisher and through crowdfunding alone.
Impossible to conceive some years ago...
Now it's happening in front of everyone.
You might not like its direction or the time it's taking but it's happening either way.
Doesnt matter how much the critics cry, kick and shout, its just noise either way lol
You look at the gaming scene and there's nothing even remotely close to Star Citizen now or even in the horizon...
If it was easy to do someone had done it already right
Is that why they've failed to make a good FPS, a good space sim, a good mmo and a good game in general with a ready engine?
I like how you think critics only cry/kick/shout and their opinion is just noise though.. what an honest way of deflecting any valid criticism.
Sure they have big scope but that's easy... just get Chris to say yes to everything, get everyone excited and have a ship-sale quickly afterwards
It's worked wonders for him up to now.
I also like how SEVEN years later and people are still going on about all the troubles of creating a studio to make a game on a measly budget of millions and millions with no strings attached and no release date.
Ahhh poor Chris
400 people, 180 million dollars and still , seven years later his game is in alpha with 15% of the features implemented in a very basic form.
How dare people criticize him!
..Cake..
Where is the coherency? That is why it just noise really. What the haters call "criticism" is simply a showcase grieving resentfullness with a pinch of selective ignorance under the pretext to atack CIG and Star Citizen.
It's as useless now just like it was 3 years ago lol
But hey here's to 3 more years of waiting for CIG collapse whille saying "CIG cant do X feature"and moving goal post when they do.
It's astonishing how you don't understand how foolish that makes you seem.
Also, PLENTY of coherent criticism all over the place about CIG and SC.. in numerous articles/forum posts/reddit posts/etc... you just choose, again, to name everyone a hater and call their valid criticism "noise".
I'd also like you to show me these plenty of games that took longer than seven years to show something and it was worse than what CIG has shown us and they also had bigger budgets.
I bet you bring up the "but muh scope is bigger than your scope" argument at least once.
You chose to say the words "selective ignorance" without a hint of irony and I find that the funniest thing I've read all day
SC entertainment never disappoints
..Cake..
First off, I don't know why you think that scope is not an issue with this project. What don't you explain how scope isn't a problem? Scope is actually the biggest problem with this game. Period.
As far as games that took this long, how about Cyberpunk 2077? It's not even of the same scope and it's taken longer to show anything, AND it was announced around the same time (2012).
SWTOR is another that likely took at least 6 years. I mean who knew about Bioware working on an MMO as of 2006, so that would place it at 5 years and it was, apparently, in the works before that even.
Some other notables that were at the 6 years or more were Star Craft 2, TF2, FFXV, D3, Morrowind, Fallout 3, Spore, STO.
There is a plethoria of other games that are in the 5 year mark. All of these games ARE smaller in scope to what SC is. Whatever the technical difficulty is/was, it goes to show that these limitations can sometimes be non-trivial. So whether you're creating a massive game or something simple, it can make it take longer to get the job done.
Also, one thing I think that people seem to use in their criticism of SC is money. Yes, CIG has lots of it. However, we are talking about multiple offices across multiple time lines, with larger teams. All of this stuff is not helpful. Go and google anything that you want on efficiency and each of these things would be on anyone's top 5 list. You might think that a larger team is better, but they actually output a smaller amount on a per-developer basis than smaller teams that are co-located and working in the same time zone. So you actually pay more for less productivity.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I do find it strange the game has been in alpha for so long. Also, always thought alphas were and are always numbered 0.01 and so on. Normally 1.0 would be for beta testing. I wonder if they are actually telling us something just with the numbering system they are using.
Last issue this game seems to have is what should actually be in an alpha. Mining, quests, crafting should all be in the alpha, maybe not exactly working right but still it should be in if it is part of the core game.
Just a few issues I have with the game or should say making of the game.
― George Carlin
CIG is a company created from scratch and doing not 1 but 2 highly ambitious games with most of the high tech made from scratch because it didint existed before.
Ofc there is plenty of valid criticism to be made like with any other game or project.
There will allways be things that in retrospective could have been done differently/better.
The issue is that neither you or the rest of the "everything Star Citizen and Chris Roberts is bad" crew seem to realise what making complex games actually entails or how crowdfunding works.
Hence why you keep crying about the wrong issues adnauseum for years on end:
-The Time it takes
-The $millions backers wilingly give CIG
-Bugs, Performance, Unfinished features
Another year same crying lol
It's like you've learned nothing from Elite...
If you cut corners in building the core gameplay mechanics and network foudations you will later on find its very hard or even impossible to implement them.
That's how you end up with a bunch of shallow disjointed gameplay mechanics that hardly ressemble "a game" with no purpose at all lol
Can we even say Cyberpunk 2077 is not of the same scope considering how little is known about the game or its aspirations?
What size team are working on the game? CDPR have been divided up over 3 separate games TW3 (until mid 2016), Gwent (release 2018) and CP2077 so it might be that there was a very small team working on CP2077 until mid 2016.
Perhaps what is most important though is that it is self funded, so how long it takes is largely irrelevant to the customer and with very little info it's not like it is constantly drawing attention to itself. CIG have been writing, rewriting, rewriting, rewriting, rewriting all on the backs of other people's money with very little to show for it while also drawing massive amount of attention to itself.
The difference between the games you listed and SC is that they produced full games in 6-7 years while SC sits at considerably less a game in comparison for the same amount of time, they don't even have 1 proper basic gameplay loop implemented after 6 years...
I think part of the issue is CR would say idiotic stuff like "more money = more staff = bigger game = faster game", he also implied (stated?) that having studios around the world would allow for the US studio to hand over the day's work to the UK who then might hand over to DE. Any one with any semblence of a brain on their shoulders would know this would never work so why would he insult people's intelliigence like that unless he was bullshitting?
Yeah, I don't like the numbering at all. We actually don't use numbered releases until release. So even beta would be 0.xx.xxxx
Also, I don't thinks it's necessarily atypical for games to remain in "alpha" for this length of time anymore. Remember that Ark even released an expansion while it was in "alpha". Notice I quoted alpha.
My biggest gripe with these new definitions of alpha and beta is that I don't want to test your game. I want the final copy. The biggest problem is establishing where they ACTUALLY are in development. For instance, Ark was irrelevant by the time it released. It was played out.
As far as alphas and content. I remember playing alphas where there were no textures on objects, nevermind missing features. I'm not opposed to missing features and it should be quite common for us not to see a feature complete version in alpha. Of course that also depends on what side of the spectrum you're living on. I'm chaotic old school
So, yeah, not a fan of the labeling.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I said you can't keep on using that as an excuse.. yet here you are using it as an excuse in the first comparison you make.
What's the point in even comparing anything to Star Citizen then when Chris Roberts has promised a bazilion features? Nevermind that seven years onwards and he hasn't implemented even a fraction of them. Star Marine is garbage?.. doesn't mind because SCOPE. Flight Mechanics crap?.. doesn't mind because SCOPE.
SWTOR took 6 years, then released.
Cyberpunk 2077 has taken 6-7 years and is releasing next year? iirc
It also comes from a studio that has made one of the greatest RPGs ever made among others... so we'll probably receive a good product.. let's wait and see.
All the others.. 6 years and then released. Key word is RELEASE.
Star Citizen has taken 6-7 years and is still in alpha and nowhere close to release.
It's in a horrid state even for an alpha with lots of key features not even implemented.
But again, doesn't mind because SCOPE.
As for the money part.. you seem to forget that the money CIG has they can do whatever the hell they want with. They don't have a publisher to put a leash on them neither do they have a deadline.
They can literally release the game whenever they want as long as people keep on giving them money.. and up to now they do.
The fact that Chris decided to create all these offices all over the world is down to his decision.
One of his many management blunders.
..Cake..
Games took a long time then released (or in the case of Titan didn't and the assets where used to make Overwatch and sell 35million copies).
SC is still an alpha after 6-7 years of development.
I won't reply to your comments about me crying.
If you read my posts and think I'm crying then you need to re-evaluate your perceptive skills.
I like how you confirmed that SC has the same issues year after year though.
As for Elite.. FD has constantly refined the good core gameplay.
They've also been slowly adding more content which was/is player main criticism.
They have thousands of players playing at any one time and have already updated numerous of their mechanics many times.
Engineering is pretty awesome now.. it's a pretty complicated mechanic so it took them sometime until they got it to a point everyone likes.
Still many things you can criticize the game for but at least they've been adding/refining their gameplay to where their playerbase wants it. Which is another indicator to how long CIG has still to go... they haven't implemented many of their mechanics, let alone spend time refining/polishing them.
ED also got their flight mechanics down at a very early stage. SC still hasn't got a good flight model.
Feel free to regurgitate the same bullshit though. Anyone who's actually played both games recently can easily tell the difference in quality
..Cake..
When you think haters can't be more out of touch they always find ways to surprise...
The mere fact that we are now comparing CIG/Star Citizen with the best companies in gaming who've been operating for 20+ years and releasing the best of the best is a testament of Chris Roberts brilliance in both game development and management.
It's one of the many open wound in the haters narrative and why they want so badly to see Star Citizen fail and see CIG collapse.
Too bad.
Where do I send payment for this enlightening lesson of goal-post moving.
I feel I have learned a lot.
..Cake..
LOL I love that you try so hard.
I honestly believe that there are white knights that wouldn't criticize them even if it's in alpha ten years from now
CIG will continue to develop Star Citizen and Squadron 42 within the leadership and vision of Chris Roberts and theres nothing you or the rest of the resentfull bunch can do to change that.
Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of gamers across the globe will keep supporting it and be happy just watching its development.
I'm personally happy as long as I see development continually moving forward, as we have been. They say if you can't be happy outside a relationship no relationship will make you happy. If you can't be happy without Star Citizen, no Star Citizen will make you happy.
My expectations of MMOs have been tempered by over a decade of AAA developers giving us the same game over and over and over. I'm pretty happy to see anything that's actually new and fun in the MMO field regardless of the downsides. Buggy, slow development, whatever. When you have people pretending ESO and FF14 aren't WoW clones I'm not sure indie game enthusiasts are the ones with low standards. We just have them in different areas. We're more willing to accept slow development and bugs, AAA MMO enthusiasts are more willing to accept a complete lack of meaningful innovation.
Nevermind the numerous arguments people have brought up... just "haha in your face" without countering a single criticism
All is well in La La Land.
..Cake..