Return to “Games”

Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3046
TGS wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:32 pm
New Website just came online and it is pretty spiffy. Takes a bit to get used to, but then again so did the original.
I like it TGS! :thumbup: As you know they've been trailing it for a while now and I received the invitation from the Chairman's Club early this morning (UK) to take a look at it. :D

:shifty: Mind you they tried to sell me stuff at the same time. :lol:
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3047
TGS wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:32 pm
New Website just came online and it is pretty spiffy. Takes a bit to get used to, but then again so did the original.
It's telling that the only thing they've managed to finish is the website. And they've done that twice. Shows where their priorities are.

Dumb tech like capturing facial animations in real time can be done *after* the game is finished. I didn't pay for this game in order to wait 10 goddamn years to play it, but that's what we're looking at given the current rate of production. Spending resources on dumb website redesigns is contributing to that wait.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3048
Arclite wrote:
Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:05 pm
I didn't pay for this game in order to wait 10 goddamn years to play it, but that's what we're looking at given the current rate of production. Spending resources on dumb website redesigns is contributing to that wait.
"The day I see dragons in the sky is the day that Star Citizen launched prematurely" :ghost:

Hi,
do not take my post in the wrong way :angel: -- I offer you another viewpoint of the situation: the world is not ready.

If SC was out tomorrow, complete, perfect and fully featured as promised, only a minority of people worldwide would be able to enjoy it -- simply because the others would lack the hardware to make it run. Project SC has grown out of proportions and so have done the system requirements. At RSI they know it. Take a good look at their videos showcasing the game. You will notice small stutters, hiccups, late loading of resources (a door opens and for a split moment there is nothing on the other side of it). Who knows what else there is, but they managed to hide or disguise...
Those videos were not taken by an amateur on his 4-years old PC with a fragmented hard drive -- They were made by the devs who ran state-of-the-art hardware, the best of the best.
If the game runs suboptimally on their machines, how can it run properly on a PC that is less powerful?

And so you understand how a proper launch is crucial for the success of this game, especially after all the years of development, all the PR they made, all the interviews, all the money that they amassed and spent, and all the promises that were made. You saw what happened with NMS. Take that and multiply it by 3 orders of magnitude: it is what awaits RSI, SC and Mr. Roberts if -on launch- the game is any less than what was promised to be. People would breath fire, grow wings and take off roaring. Guess whoose blood they would be out for?
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3049
fox wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:09 pm
Arclite wrote:
Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:05 pm
I didn't pay for this game in order to wait 10 goddamn years to play it, but that's what we're looking at given the current rate of production. Spending resources on dumb website redesigns is contributing to that wait.
If SC was out tomorrow, complete, perfect and fully featured as promised, only a minority of people worldwide would be able to enjoy it -- simply because the others would lack the hardware to make it run. Project SC has grown out of proportions and so have done the system requirements. At RSI they know it. Take a good look at their videos showcasing the game. You will notice small stutters, hiccups, late loading of resources (a door opens and for a split moment there is nothing on the other side of it). Who knows what else there is, but they managed to hide or disguise...
Those videos were not taken by an amateur on his 4-years old PC with a fragmented hard drive -- They were made by the devs who ran state-of-the-art hardware, the best of the best.
If the game runs suboptimally on their machines, how can it run properly on a PC that is less powerful?
to be fair, SC in perfect condition would have at least one additional optimisation pass. which i think it didnt have in a while because they are continously adding stuff.
it'd probably run a fair bit better after such a pass
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3050
Arclite wrote:
Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:05 pm
It's telling that the only thing they've managed to finish is the website. And they've done that twice. Shows where their priorities are.
I doubt the people making the game is the same people who updated the website. I don't think the game is going to be delayed because someone is working on improving their page.
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3051
Etsu wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:59 pm
Arclite wrote:
Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:05 pm
It's telling that the only thing they've managed to finish is the website. And they've done that twice. Shows where their priorities are.
I doubt the people making the game is the same people who updated the website. I don't think the game is going to be delayed because someone is working on improving their page.
Every web developer you hire is one less game developer you can hire.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3052
fox wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:09 pm
Arclite wrote:
Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:05 pm
I didn't pay for this game in order to wait 10 goddamn years to play it, but that's what we're looking at given the current rate of production. Spending resources on dumb website redesigns is contributing to that wait.
"The day I see dragons in the sky is the day that Star Citizen launched prematurely" :ghost:

Hi,
do not take my post in the wrong way :angel: -- I offer you another viewpoint of the situation: the world is not ready.

If SC was out tomorrow, complete, perfect and fully featured as promised, only a minority of people worldwide would be able to enjoy it -- simply because the others would lack the hardware to make it run. Project SC has grown out of proportions and so have done the system requirements. At RSI they know it. Take a good look at their videos showcasing the game. You will notice small stutters, hiccups, late loading of resources (a door opens and for a split moment there is nothing on the other side of it). Who knows what else there is, but they managed to hide or disguise...
Those videos were not taken by an amateur on his 4-years old PC with a fragmented hard drive -- They were made by the devs who ran state-of-the-art hardware, the best of the best.
If the game runs suboptimally on their machines, how can it run properly on a PC that is less powerful?

And so you understand how a proper launch is crucial for the success of this game, especially after all the years of development, all the PR they made, all the interviews, all the money that they amassed and spent, and all the promises that were made. You saw what happened with NMS. Take that and multiply it by 3 orders of magnitude: it is what awaits RSI, SC and Mr. Roberts if -on launch- the game is any less than what was promised to be. People would breath fire, grow wings and take off roaring. Guess whoose blood they would be out for?
That's a failure of game design, not of people's hardware. This game was to have been released for a couple of years already. I'm starting to get an F-35 vibe here: took 25 years from conception to where we are today due to the ridiculous requirements and scope creep, and the aircraft isn't yet operational: it's still in "beta."
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3053
Arclite wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:06 pm
Etsu wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:59 pm
Arclite wrote:
Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:05 pm
It's telling that the only thing they've managed to finish is the website. And they've done that twice. Shows where their priorities are.
I doubt the people making the game is the same people who updated the website. I don't think the game is going to be delayed because someone is working on improving their page.
Every web developer you hire is one less game developer you can hire.
But hiring an extra game developer doesn't necessarily speed up development of the game whatsoever.
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3054
Arclite wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:06 pm
Etsu wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:59 pm
Arclite wrote:
Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:05 pm
It's telling that the only thing they've managed to finish is the website. And they've done that twice. Shows where their priorities are.
I doubt the people making the game is the same people who updated the website. I don't think the game is going to be delayed because someone is working on improving their page.
Every web developer you hire is one less game developer you can hire.
That's not how that works, and I suspect that you know that.
Arclite wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:09 pm
fox wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:09 pm
Arclite wrote:
Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:05 pm
I didn't pay for this game in order to wait 10 goddamn years to play it, but that's what we're looking at given the current rate of production. Spending resources on dumb website redesigns is contributing to that wait.
"The day I see dragons in the sky is the day that Star Citizen launched prematurely" :ghost:

Hi,
do not take my post in the wrong way :angel: -- I offer you another viewpoint of the situation: the world is not ready.

If SC was out tomorrow, complete, perfect and fully featured as promised, only a minority of people worldwide would be able to enjoy it -- simply because the others would lack the hardware to make it run. Project SC has grown out of proportions and so have done the system requirements. At RSI they know it. Take a good look at their videos showcasing the game. You will notice small stutters, hiccups, late loading of resources (a door opens and for a split moment there is nothing on the other side of it). Who knows what else there is, but they managed to hide or disguise...
Those videos were not taken by an amateur on his 4-years old PC with a fragmented hard drive -- They were made by the devs who ran state-of-the-art hardware, the best of the best.
If the game runs suboptimally on their machines, how can it run properly on a PC that is less powerful?

And so you understand how a proper launch is crucial for the success of this game, especially after all the years of development, all the PR they made, all the interviews, all the money that they amassed and spent, and all the promises that were made. You saw what happened with NMS. Take that and multiply it by 3 orders of magnitude: it is what awaits RSI, SC and Mr. Roberts if -on launch- the game is any less than what was promised to be. People would breath fire, grow wings and take off roaring. Guess whoose blood they would be out for?
That's a failure of game design, not of people's hardware. This game was to have been released for a couple of years already. I'm starting to get an F-35 vibe here: took 25 years from conception to where we are today due to the ridiculous requirements and scope creep, and the aircraft isn't yet operational: it's still in "beta."
The "Game" that was supposed to be released a couple of years ago was an inferior game based on a budget that was far less than what they ended up getting.

Oddly enough though as much as people like to claim "scope creep" in the context of Star Citizen, almost all of that scope was in the original plan. It just wasn't pitched to us because Chris never thought he'd get the money to do it all at once. So it was going to be done similar to how Elite Dangerous was done. In stages. Building upon previous successful iterations. Though who knows how well that would have worked in the case of this sort of game given the foundational work they are doing they would have likely struggled to add the depth and complexity had they "released" the game in any sort of intended final state.

Either way it seems as though most of the backers are on board with the way they are developing it. It's only the impatient people or those who have an agenda against the project who constantly seem to be at odds with it.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3055
TGS wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:33 am
Either way it seems as though most of the backers are on board with the way they are developing it. It's only the impatient people or those who have an agenda against the project who constantly seem to be at odds with it.
That's how I see it as well, fanboy...erm TGS. ;) :angel:

@ Etsu

I hope your circumstances continue to improve, Etsu. Are you back to game development yet? :)
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3056
Arclite wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:06 pm
Every web developer you hire is one less game developer you can hire.
Web developers are paid significantly less than game developers, and are paid mostly for the work they've done, and not in a fixed rate / month. And, as Dino said, simply throwing more man-hours at the problem doesn't mean it'll get fixed faster, or actually even fixed at all. Otherwise, China would already be building thermonuclear reactors and fusion drives for spaceships, with the amount of scientists they can throw at the problem :wave:
Image
Survivor of the Josh Parnell Blackout of 2015.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3057
TGS wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:51 am
Most of the issues I see detractors (including yourself) bringing up is simply not true.
Gimme some examples, otherwise I agree with your thoughts.

Their MMO, which has been in development since 2011, can't handle the pilot of a multicrew vessel disconnecting from the rest of the party. Their MMO doesn't have AI, and requires a full crew of people to fake a mission experience. Their MMO couldn't handle a rover driving on to a ramp without exploding, or feature two large ships fighting without turning into a slide show. Their MMO is so poorly programmed that they had to script a ship exploding when it got shot. Their MMO isn't a MMO.

Their MMO is being designed by a "visionary" who, given a year to develop a vignette to show off his dream for gameplay, could only come up with a fetch quest. A visionary who is more concerned about marketing VOIP and some shitty webcam over producing any kind of gameplay. A visionary who believes things done a decade ago are somehow novel or interesting. Their MMO is being designed by an incompetent.

It's a case study in poor design practices, the perils of shitty oversight, the gullibility of gamers, and the myth of the "Great Man" game developer. It's a condemnation of Chris Roberts and irrefutable proof that he is a fraud who is better at spending money than designing games.

TGS wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:26 pm
outlander wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:14 am
That was one long wall of text :wtf:

I personally think that CIG are abusing human stupidity and desire to ALWAYS HAVE MOAR SHINIES, but then so does pretty much everybody else these days, and I see no reason to attach the blame to one specific company, especially since they do actually work on their project, and their stated goals are not beyond what's physically possible or practical.
If CIG is abusing human stupidity and desire to always have more shinies, then so is pretty much every other consumer industry out there. Because that is literally the basis on which most consumer industries operate. Which if that is the case, then you cannot really blame CIG for that as they're just doing what everyone else does.
That is a really pessimistic and flawed view of capitalism. Abusing human stupidity wasn't the main driver for Apple to design the first smartphone, etc. They were driven by the free market.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3059
outlander wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:00 am
Arclite wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:06 pm
Every web developer you hire is one less game developer you can hire.
Web developers are paid significantly less than game developers, and are paid mostly for the work they've done, and not in a fixed rate / month. And, as Dino said, simply throwing more man-hours at the problem doesn't mean it'll get fixed faster, or actually even fixed at all. Otherwise, China would already be building thermonuclear reactors and fusion drives for spaceships, with the amount of scientists they can throw at the problem :wave:
So much wrong here.

First, CIG is based in LA, CA. The average web developer salary there is $80,073/yr. The average game developer salary there is $86,934/yr. These are, for all intents and purposes, the same.

Second, you absolutely can throw bodies at a problem and get faster outcomes for many software development tasks. If you couldn't, every game would be developed by one person. For some linear tasks, say developing the network code, there's diminishing returns in assigning more workers. For parallel tasks like ship building, mission creation, environment creation, and the like, you can throw bodies at the problem and achieve results proportionally.

As for China, they've been throwing educated bodies at their defense problems and, lo and behold, they're getting results. The Type -055 destroyer rivals any equivalent design in Asia, and possibly the United States. Also, they're developing not one, but two stealth fighters.

CIG has focused its resources in sales, not game development, and it shows: they are so far behind schedule that this game will not be completed within our lifetimes.
Post

Re: Star Citizen

#3060
TGS wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:33 am
Arclite wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:06 pm


Every web developer you hire is one less game developer you can hire.
That's not how that works, and I suspect that you know that.
Actually, that's exactly how it works. I've worked in software development for 20 years, so sorry, you can't bullshit me. If I hire too many UX designers, and not enough senior devs, I end up with lots of designs that never get implemented. If I hire too many web developers and not enough game developers, I end up with a gorgeous website that sells shit that doesn't exist. This is the exact situation we're in.
TGS wrote:
Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:33 am
Arclite wrote:
Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:09 pm
That's a failure of game design, not of people's hardware. This game was to have been released for a couple of years already. I'm starting to get an F-35 vibe here: took 25 years from conception to where we are today due to the ridiculous requirements and scope creep, and the aircraft isn't yet operational: it's still in "beta."
The "Game" that was supposed to be released a couple of years ago was an inferior game based on a budget that was far less than what they ended up getting.

Oddly enough though as much as people like to claim "scope creep" in the context of Star Citizen, almost all of that scope was in the original plan. It just wasn't pitched to us because Chris never thought he'd get the money to do it all at once. So it was going to be done similar to how Elite Dangerous was done. In stages. Building upon previous successful iterations. Though who knows how well that would have worked in the case of this sort of game given the foundational work they are doing they would have likely struggled to add the depth and complexity had they "released" the game in any sort of intended final state.

Either way it seems as though most of the backers are on board with the way they are developing it. It's only the impatient people or those who have an agenda against the project who constantly seem to be at odds with it.
Please show me a timeline that communicates when the final 1.0 game version will be released.

Please show me where facial animation capture and transmittal to avatar was in the "original plan."

I bloody wish CIG had developed Star Citizen the way Elite Dangerous was developed. Each stage of the way, E:D delivers a vertical slice: playable, fun, stable, and complete. Then iterate from there.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron