Sataball is the only gameplay system I can think of that was added after the final $65m stretch goal was reached on December 6th, 2014. Other than that, the only content they are adding to the design document are ships which fulfill systems that were either planned from the start or added as part of one of the stretch goals from 2012-2014. The official excuse they’ve been using is that their concept artists need something to do now that the bulk of the game is being modeled and scripted.
But perhaps their pyramid scheme has to work that way:
“Wouldn’t it be great if…” -> Money -> Work on Idea #1 -> Post a new “wouldn’t it be great if” -> More Money -> Still work on idea #1.
This is complete conjecture unless Smart is your credible source. Call it a whale hunt or feature creep if you want, but there’s no evidence that this is a pyramid scheme. Your distance running analogy was more accurate: as they raised more money they put it towards a bigger team to create a bigger project.
So, maybe we will get SQ42 and some time later PU before they start working on Hydroponics in space (or slave trade…).
This invokes the question of whether it’s better to release a game incrementally or all at once. I have to imagine that making a good first impression is important with regards to the amount of content offered by your game, and that updates won’t draw as much attention from consumers (see Driveclub). But then again, Tom seems to be of the impression that games shouldn’t be judged by the sheer amount of content they include.
You’re using the term “gameplay” where it doesn’t exist yet. And where some of us strongly suspect it will never exist, or it will exist in the diminished form you get from a development team that has no idea what it’s doing*.
-Tom
- Aside from making millions of dollars.
And so that’s the crux of this then? It has been deemed acceptable to shit up the Star Citizen thread because you have already declared it to be a failure? I can’t even talk about their design document because it will never exist in any meaningful form?
I strongly suspect that you are wrong about Star Citizen, but somehow I don’t think I’ll even get to gloat if the game turns out to be good. You’ve all already written it off.
Dude look at the title of the thread…
The mind numbing defense and discussion of Roberts patently obvious fantasism is far more frustrating and boring than the fantasy itself.
At least the actual company and insane multi million dollar fleecing has this wild, unkempt gold rush feel about it.
He’s like a house bound, video game making Aguirre.
‘The vision’
Let me clarify my personal position - I think that Star Citizen with its full feature set (as dreamed by CR and many backers) is impossible, or at the very least extremely implausible. With some compromises it may be possible (but still a very difficult achievement, with a slim, but non-zero, chance of success). With many compromises and better focus/management, it has the potential to be a good game (eventually).
So I’m waiting. And watching. I’m curious to see what will happen.
I don’t recall anyone suggesting that you can’t talk about whatever you want to talk about. On the contrary, I was responding to your implication that if people weren’t optimistic about the game, they shouldn’t post in this thread. Furthermore, I don’t think anyone’s “shitting up” the thread; this still seems like a conversation to me. I appreciate your perspective and it makes the thread much better. But you’re in the unenviable position of being hopeful about a game that many of us are extremely pessimistic about. Don’t let it get you down! We want you to post, and we want to post as well.
Well, yeah, I’ve pretty much written it off for the same reasons I’d write off anything that seems like a mismanaged goat rope. But if it turns out to be good, I promise you’ll get to gloat all you want. Furthermore, you can do it while I’m playing and enjoying the game! And I promise you that deep down inside, I honestly and truly hope you get to gloat. There is no reason for anyone here to actually want a game to be bad.
-Tom
Scourge of project management: scope creep
At the end of the day, it’s the abstraction and simplification of reality that makes a lot of successful games as they are. Even things like 2nd Life, life is abstracted and simplified.
Here we have what seems like a complexitication process of a game that started off reasonable. “realism” makes for an extremely bad design goal for a game. People play games to get away from reality for goodness’ sakes.
I’m sorry if I implied that people should only post if they’re optimistic. I was merely perplexed by people who seem to despise everything about this game’s concept and yet love to hang out in its thread. What room is there for discussion if your position is “this game shouldn’t be made”? I don’t see how posting haikus or long-winded mockery enables any sort of discussion.
Thank you, but I get the impression that my mind numbing defense and discussion of Roberts patently obvious fantasism is boring more than just one person here.
How about schadenfreude?
Speak for yourself, lots of people like realism in their games.
I don’t see anyone saying the game shouldn’t be made. Furthermore, I don’t see anyone in this thread who “despises…the concept”. The point many of us are making is that it’s unlikely this game is being made and the concept seems far beyond the reach of the people promising it.
And just because you don’t like the prevailing direction of a discussion doesn’t mean it’s not a discussion. There’s room to talk about things and ridicule them!
You know what I mean. But to your point, the folks on this forum don’t strike me as the kind of people who want a game to be bad out of spite. While I understand your frustration, you seem to be projecting something that isn’t there onto a mostly polite discussion. I wouldn’t know firsthand, but I can almost guarantee you this is one of the most civil unmoderated Star Citizen discussions on the internet.
-Tom
Sometimes you are one of the few in a group that loves something.
I love Red Orchestra 2/Rising Storm and most people here make jokes about spawning, running 2 miles, then being shot by someone you can’t see. Despite my love I laugh along with those comments since they are partially true. :-)
-Todd
JonRowe
2954
I absolutely want this game to be good, and I want to play it. I love space flight games. Freelancer was one of the most played games of my high school/college experience. But boy is it hard to optimistic based on the evidence we have available.
And god yes do I love the Red Orchestra games and Arma 2-3. So much fun, because when you actually do get a kill, it feels worth it. Like the dark souls of FPS.
Lantz
2955
If the game comes out and does a quarter of what has been promised, I won’t just buy it, I will drop too much money on a new system to really enjoy it. I want it to succeed.
But, I can’t come up with an explanation for the reality of the delays and constant announcements of custom subsystem after custom subsystem that I think would be full games on their own that would allow for this to be anything other than a pipedream.
I’ve already dropped money on this so I would like to be wrong. But this keeps being delayed and new things being added and what with all the allegations of project and money mismanagement, it’s hard to feel optimistic that this will be anything but a truly epic train wreck. So if it is going to be a train wreck I would like to get my money’s worth.
Well, I’m certain I was not speaking for you. Nor did I ever intend to.
I guess my point was that I don’t play Arma 3 because mil-sim clan gameplay isn’t my “cup of tea”, but I think it would be absurd for me to go into the Arma 3 thread and say that its a horribly designed game because it doesn’t play like Battlefield. There’s nothing wrong with arguing that something in the same genre like Squad is better or saying that you feel there’s a lack of content or polish. But maybe you guys think that there’s nothing wrong with the first example of posting either.
I despise the manner in which RSI is funding its projects. While part of me wants SC and particularly Squadron 42 to turn out as terrific games, I would also love for the whole thing to crash and burn so hard that it scorches the earth and prevents any other developer from popping up with the same business model.
Having said my piece though, I won’t continue to harp on the notion.
Canuck
2960
Err… isn’t ARMA 3 a complete game? I don’t think anyone is criticizing Star Citizen for being a space Sim. If ARMA 3 was still in development and charging hundreds of dollars for each individual tank with no end of production in sight and then coming up stuff like having people drive around in canteen trucks to make sure that each individual soldier is properly fed then you would have an apt comparison.
People are certainly criticizing Star Citizen for focusing on realism (or immersion more precisely), which I think is akin to genre.
That’s not the criticism. You’ve missed the point entirely. The criticism is all the delay these new ideas bring.
