Talking about crazy prices. I read they have a million high club bar which only allows people who have pledged at least 10K to the game. The players list showed something like 208 members, wow.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
It's just a blue sphere, followed by a featureless desert-looking environment... really not all that interesting or exciting.
That's ok, it actually doesn't exist at all, <snip>
What? I never said anything couldn't be done; I merely described a rather bland screenshot.
<snip>
The question for me would be- would I rather have a small but intricately crafted and interesting environment? Or a huge, empty and largely pointless randomly generated environment? The answer, for me, is the former... the more I see of this game the less I think it is for me.
If this was a typical "pre-release" beta then we could certainly apply the "what you see is what you are going to get, there will be no miracle patch" approach.
This is an alpha however which - so far - is being updated monthly. About as raw as one gets these days. And the stuff being talked about isn't even released to alpha yet - let alone e.g. the vegetation and fauna overlays and whatever else might get added.
As CrazKanuk jokes it is indeed funny watching the ever shifting: "there is no company, no game, its just jpegs, it can't be done, its only a static boring station, there are no planets, there is only one planet, there (will be) only one solar system.
As it stands a game - most but probably not all people will agree - is being developed. Will it be a "good" game - time will tell. Passing judgement on it at this stage however - probably a little premature.
<snip> I am not quite sure why you think my opinion relates to some abstract unattributed quotation about their being no game or company? <snip>
I don't. I was simply reflecting on what CrazKanuk had said in response to what you wrote. Which I feel is sadly true.
As you say we can only comment on what we see now - although even that is somewhat premature given that this stuff hasn't been incorporated into the alpha yet. Admittedly they must be confident though. Then we can comment and in time - assuming the game is released - we can judge.
(Same deal with Pantheon several weeks ago as well - maybe people are used to pre-release "betas")
Anyway apologies for what I wrote coming across as suggesting your "opinion relates to some abstract unattributed quotation about their being no game or company?".
Talking about crazy prices. I read they have a million high club bar which only allows people who have pledged at least 10K to the game. The players list showed something like 208 members, wow.
So they wasted all these resources on a minute fraction of a percent of the backers? Crazy!
Because it'll make for a better game... perhaps one worth playing on release? Why wouldn't I hope for that? I like it when good games are released.
I don't see it like that. I am a supporter of Star Citizen but i do not want people to throw 10K on the game just because. In fact, all my friends that i know that bought SC i always recommend buying the cheapest Star Citizen package and that's it, if you feel that you want to spend more later on a better ship you can easily upgrade.
I wouldn't find it being moral if i were to push/incentive people to buy expensive ships for the sake of helping the game making money.
Of course it affects you. The fact that people spend money on ships is how the whole culture of pixel-buying surrounding this game was formed. It's how it affects development and why we have ships pre-sold years before they are even in your hangar among numerous other things.
If you can't see that then you're blinded by Chris' beautiful facial features.
Because it'll make for a better game... perhaps one worth playing on release? Why wouldn't I hope for that? I like it when good games are released.
I don't see it like that. I am a supporter of Star Citizen but i do not want people to throw 10K on the game just because. In fact, all my friends that i know that bought SC i always recommend buying the cheapest Star Citizen package and that's it, if you feel that you want to spend more later on a better ship you can easily upgrade.
I wouldn't find it being moral if i were to push/incentive people to buy expensive ships for the sake of helping the game making money.
Ah, I think we misunderstood each other. I meant; I hope they tick off a few more of their pledges. I also do not hope they get anyone else to fork out $10k... I find that sort of marketing tactic that preys on collectors, completionists or people with poor impulse control very concerning. If people are rich and $10k is pocket change, that is one thing, but if they feel an compulsion to buy new items, then that is quite another.
Of course it affects you. The fact that people spend money on ships is how the whole culture of pixel-buying surrounding this game was formed. It's how it affects development and why we have ships pre-sold years before they are even in your hangar among numerous other things.
If you can't see that then you're blinded by Chris' beautiful facial features.
It does not affect me. Everything you described on your post does not affect me, i bought a Starter package of Star Citizen and i am happy with it, i don't want to spend more money and i don't have to!
I'd ask to refrain from insulting/baiting comments as your last sentence hints towards, i'd prefer not having to start reporting your posts.
I guess we should stay on topic and make Max's job easier.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
So many threads on this forum with the ability to create your own threads with your own topics to discuss.
Why do you feel so entitled to change the discussion of any topic to anything you want? Is the objective to get the moderators to close the thread? I don't get it.
I was responding to the post above mine about the prices. So I talked about the million mile high club. That probably would of been the end of it but apparently others felt the need to respond.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
So many threads on this forum with the ability to create your own threads with your own topics to discuss.
Why do you feel so entitled to change the discussion of any topic to anything you want? Is the objective to get the moderators to close the thread? I don't get it.
I am not sure who you are referring to, but you have been complicit in any change in the topic, so I am unclear how you are occupying this poacher/ gamekeeper duality.
Also, how was a discussion on randomly generated content not supposed to move into the realms of the scope of the game; it is fundamental to the overall scope.
Even the discussions i was having are pushed to complete different directions. The directions that end on flame wars, people banned and the thread locked.
And far i see the tone and comments of some posts on replies towards me is already of baiting/insult like sgel's latest post and others on past pages...
Not to derail this thread some more but, as I'm sure you know this is the internet and anything put on the internet is usually considered an open invitation to respond and share one's opinion. As to negative comments the best tactics are to ignore the ones you consider negative and just respond to what you consider positive posts. This often keeps from getting into flaming wars and dragging out unwanted conversations. Trust in the mods to step in and do their jobs as needed. Hopes this helps.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I don't think he's trollling or baiting. When I read that part of his post I thought about some of the amusing freeze frames people have taken of Chris Roberts, ie
Oh common being honest here, i'm not ingenuous when i understand what the intention is try to wind up the poster. And it's a very common practice on forum discussions, but you need to go low to play a discussion like that.
It's like some people have to be carrying those things you label papers with, X comment is negative = Goon / Derek Smart Alt Account.... X comment is positive = Cultist / Deluded Backer.
So I saw those type of comments enough times to know that several times there's ill-intention behind it. And i don't think anybody is immune to bait
Oh common being honest here, i'm not ingenuous when i understand what the intention is try to wind up the poster. And it's a very common practice on forum discussions, but you need to go low to play a discussion like that.
It's like some people have to be carrying those things you label papers with, X comment is negative = Goon / Derek Smart Alt Account.... X comment is positive = Cultist / Deluded Backer.
So I saw those type of comments enough times to know that several times there's ill-intention behind it. And i don't think anybody is immune baits
To be honest both are irritating, those who kneel at the alter of CIG and those who want to burn it at the stake. Most annoying are those who enter into a discussion with the intention of provoking a reaction.
The way I see it, CIG still have a lot to prove and a lot of development money to justify; but that in no way means they are not trying to create the game they have advertised to date. My concern is over abortive work, changing scope, which may result in a sub-par product; and more so that a MVP may not be adequate to stave off bad press. But I hope for a good game.
Their version of PG is a bunch of tiles that are randomly linked together. Not many tiles either as you can see them repeated many times.
ED has algorithms that can sculpt entirely unique worlds with many interesting geographical features like huge craters, valleys, mountain ranges etc etc. This is nowhere near what ED is doing.
Oh common being honest here, i'm not ingenuous when i understand what the intention is try to wind up the poster. And it's a very common practice on forum discussions, but you need to go low to play a discussion like that.
It's like some people have to be carrying those things you label papers with, X comment is negative = Goon / Derek Smart Alt Account.... X comment is positive = Cultist / Deluded Backer.
So I saw those type of comments enough times to know that several times there's ill-intention behind it. And i don't think anybody is immune to bait
You can't control what other people do, you can control how you respond to it. You never 'have' to take the bait. If you feel you have to respond to every negative post, you will have a life filled with arguments which amount to nothing when there done.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I like SC and back them but if I think they're doing something wrong or crazy I will talk about it.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
1- Opinion and view on what i make from the studio reports, talks with developers and others that mentioned about more stuff that we haven't saw here on PG (like plant-life & destruction of surface objects).
2- Another opinion and view that knowing overall how CIG works with marketing they would not show everything they have to a german magazine with 2 events coming up that would end up with nothing to show of new on those if that was the case.
3- And most importantly: they already hinted at PG for an "upcoming event" that is either Gamescon or Citizencon... when asked about if ATV 100 EP wasn't the perfect time to unveil all we haven't saw on PG.
So it is the opinion and view that i make from it. As you should put of yours as "In my opinion those pics are all they have to show.".
Because opinions do not become facts just because we state them as such.
The only thing we are sure of is they selling jpegs of ships and promise to deliver. We still waiting for the deliver part and glad to know you believe they have a bunch of stuff that only they have seen. I have yet to find a point in which they decided to make the scope bigger. Which is the reason for delays and reason that the game is going to launch with 1 solar system instead of the original 20. Not to mention the fact that the 20 solar systems were already paid for when CIG raised 6 million dollars. But yea lets be gung ho about this game.
Their version of PG is a bunch of tiles that are randomly linked together. Not many tiles either as you can see them repeated many times.
ED has algorithms that can sculpt entirely unique worlds with many interesting geographical features like huge craters, valleys, mountain ranges etc etc. This is nowhere near what ED is doing.
Comments
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
As you say we can only comment on what we see now - although even that is somewhat premature given that this stuff hasn't been incorporated into the alpha yet. Admittedly they must be confident though. Then we can comment and in time - assuming the game is released - we can judge.
(Same deal with Pantheon several weeks ago as well - maybe people are used to pre-release "betas")
Anyway apologies for what I wrote coming across as suggesting your "opinion relates to some abstract unattributed quotation about their being no game or company?".
What people do with their money is up to them. Doesn't affect me at all if they do it and how much they do spend.
@Octagon7711 thread's topic complete derail btw
I don't see it like that. I am a supporter of Star Citizen but i do not want people to throw 10K on the game just because. In fact, all my friends that i know that bought SC i always recommend buying the cheapest Star Citizen package and that's it, if you feel that you want to spend more later on a better ship you can easily upgrade.
I wouldn't find it being moral if i were to push/incentive people to buy expensive ships for the sake of helping the game making money.
It's how it affects development and why we have ships pre-sold years before they are even in your hangar among numerous other things.
If you can't see that then you're blinded by Chris' beautiful facial features.
..Cake..
I'd ask to refrain from insulting/baiting comments as your last sentence hints towards, i'd prefer not having to start reporting your posts.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Why do you feel so entitled to change the discussion of any topic to anything you want?
Is the objective to get the moderators to close the thread? I don't get it.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Also, how was a discussion on randomly generated content not supposed to move into the realms of the scope of the game; it is fundamental to the overall scope.
And far i see the tone and comments of some posts on replies towards me is already of baiting/insult like sgel's latest post and others on past pages...
... Yeah right.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
It's like some people have to be carrying those things you label papers with, X comment is negative = Goon / Derek Smart Alt Account.... X comment is positive = Cultist / Deluded Backer.
So I saw those type of comments enough times to know that several times there's ill-intention behind it. And i don't think anybody is immune to bait
The way I see it, CIG still have a lot to prove and a lot of development money to justify; but that in no way means they are not trying to create the game they have advertised to date. My concern is over abortive work, changing scope, which may result in a sub-par product; and more so that a MVP may not be adequate to stave off bad press. But I hope for a good game.
ED has algorithms that can sculpt entirely unique worlds with many interesting geographical features like huge craters, valleys, mountain ranges etc etc. This is nowhere near what ED is doing.
But they have a blue skybox.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
If anyone's interested in examples http://inara.cz/gallery/7