GrimHex for example is for pirates not griefers (@azerhal ). But admittedly both end up there right now.
2.5 doesn't have any mechanics that support the piracy playstyle (no missions generation, no cargo to steal, no ransom system, etc), so anyone calling themselves pirates in there are terribly twisting what they are doing.
Well, one could make the argument that you can kill someone and steal his ship; and you can deactivate comm satellites to stay hidden when doing something illegal. So there is some piracy mechanics there. But in general I totally agree that those mechanics are very rudimentary for now, and what is going on in GrimHex is very much blurs the line between piracy and griefing. My point was mostly that we have to distinguish between both when we discussing the question if SC will be like EVE. :-)
CIG too greedy and dishonest. That will ruin the game for a lot of people.
Dishonest in way way exactly?
Chris claiming that Star Marine would launch in 3-5 weeks. He did this to create hype for sales. That was over a year ago. Then when they didn't deliver they tried to claim that Star Marine was already in the game. But when that blew up in their faces they have continued to work on it and I guess it will be out by December.
Chris claiming that Star Marine which is a core feature of the game wasn't written in the correct format to be properly integrated with the game. Core features not written in the correct language? BS
Right now they are still claiming that SQ42 will be released in 2016. Noone believes this even the most diehard fans.
They also claimed the entire game would be finished in 2014. This claim was made during the hype in which they were raising money. Now everyone claims the scope of the game has increased but it hasn't when you actually pay attention to detail you notice nothing was added.
...with that, however, I disagree. I don't want to derail the threat and everybody can have his own opinion. But if postponed release dates are your major argument for CIG being dishonest, I can only say that I am perfectly happy with waiting however long it takes to get a good game and not another No Mans Sky fiasco (as we a re on the topic of comparing SC to other games ;-) ).
There will be a no mans sky fiasco regardless if it releases or not. The hype some people have generated for this game it will never live up to expectations in some people's mind. Just look at this forum and some of the theorycrafting about what they want to do with what has been promised.
There will be a no mans sky fiasco regardless if it releases or not. The hype some people have generated for this game it will never live up to expectations in some people's mind. Just look at this forum and some of the theorycrafting about what they want to do with what has been promised.
Nope, not at all. Different situations, one game was a "surprise box" nobody even knew or played the game before release, the other is one game that you can play right now and up until release.
Saw a discussion with TotalBiscuit where he points this out as well (8:55):
There will be a no mans sky fiasco regardless if it releases or not. The hype some people have generated for this game it will never live up to expectations in some people's mind. Just look at this forum and some of the theorycrafting about what they want to do with what has been promised.
I agree with @MaxBacon. But I also agree that some people will be disappointed due to the hype. Now, you can blame that hype on CIG, but I would rather say that it is just the nature of such a crowdfunded project, in which the community is much closer to the development.
Finally, there is a big difference between a game not living up to crazy expectations, and a game not delivering what was promised (NMS). However, there can be no doubt that SC promises much, hence my patient stance on the development time.
Feel free to use my Star Citizen referral link to get a small sign-up bonus.
CIG too greedy and dishonest. That will ruin the game for a lot of people.
Dishonest in way way exactly?
Chris claiming that Star Marine would launch in 3-5 weeks. He did this to create hype for sales. That was over a year ago. Then when they didn't deliver they tried to claim that Star Marine was already in the game. But when that blew up in their faces they have continued to work on it and I guess it will be out by December.
Chris claiming that Star Marine which is a core feature of the game wasn't written in the correct format to be properly integrated with the game. Core features not written in the correct language? BS
Right now they are still claiming that SQ42 will be released in 2016. Noone believes this even the most diehard fans.
They also claimed the entire game would be finished in 2014. This claim was made during the hype in which they were raising money. Now everyone claims the scope of the game has increased but it hasn't when you actually pay attention to detail you notice nothing was added.
...with that, however, I disagree. I don't want to derail the threat and everybody can have his own opinion. But if postponed release dates are your major argument for CIG being dishonest, I can only say that I am perfectly happy with waiting however long it takes to get a good game and not another No Mans Sky fiasco (as we a re on the topic of comparing SC to other games ;-) ).
I wouldn't expect you to just believe everything at face value. But I do expect you to read the post and pay attention at least. And you should at least consider the fact that a missed release date has a degree of truth which would allow for variable timeframes. It does not allow for unlimited variables in which the timeframe is completely ignored and given an infinite measure.
There will be a no mans sky fiasco regardless if it releases or not. The hype some people have generated for this game it will never live up to expectations in some people's mind. Just look at this forum and some of the theorycrafting about what they want to do with what has been promised.
Nope, not at all. Different situations, one game was a "surprise box" nobody even knew or played the game before release, the other is one game that you can play right now and up until release.
Saw a discussion with TotalBiscuit where he points this out as well (8:55):
You can play SC right now but that doesn't change the fact that people are talking about all the awesome things they are going to do when X feature is released because Chris knows how to sell ideas.
When those ideas have as much substance as a fart in the wind then people are going to be sorely disappointed.
I wouldn't expect you to just believe everything at face value. But I do expect you to read the post and pay attention at least. And you should at least consider the fact that a missed release date has a degree of truth which would allow for variable timeframes. It does not allow for unlimited variables in which the timeframe is completely ignored and given an infinite measure.
I honestly read your post and thought I understood your point. If that was not the case: I didn't want to put words in your mouth. Now, I am not sure what you mean by "degree of truth" here, but bottom line I cannot deny that some release date announcements were not kept and had to be postponed for a long time. Other major content promises are already playable and were delivered on time.
For me that is part of software development on that scale, and I can live with it. At the same time I had more fun over the last two years following the game development, playing the alphas and talking to ppl in the community, than with most AAA games.
But that is me. If you feel CIG is betraying (for lack of a better word, or maybe that is the right one) their backers by not sticking to every release date, sometimes postponing content several months, then yes: SC is nothing for you right now.
Now we really derailed this thread... For this I apologize to the OP
Feel free to use my Star Citizen referral link to get a small sign-up bonus.
You can play SC right now but that doesn't change the fact that people are talking about all the awesome things they are going to do when X feature is released because Chris knows how to sell ideas.
When those ideas have as much substance as a fart in the wind then people are going to be sorely disappointed.
The point of fact remains. The game will be out there to play up until it is released, there will be no sudden surprise on release day on a game set to have a long alpha and beta period, witch is what i disagreed with your "NMS fiasco", as the background that led to it is not SC's reality due the way it is developed.
Now for those people who expect everything to be in-game by release day, just because a developer ever mentioned something... Those are deluding themselves of things that were never confirmed for release.
You can play SC right now but that doesn't change the fact that people are talking about all the awesome things they are going to do when X feature is released because Chris knows how to sell ideas.
When those ideas have as much substance as a fart in the wind then people are going to be sorely disappointed.
The point of fact remains. The game will be out there to play up until it is released, there will be no sudden surprise on release day on a game set to have a long alpha and beta period, witch is what i disagreed with your "NMS fiasco", as the background that led to it is not SC's reality due the way it is developed.
Now for those people who expect everything to be in-game by release day, just because a developer ever mentioned something... Those are deluding themselves of things that were never confirmed for release.
Hmm I guess my post wasn't all that clear. I don't necessarilary mean the official SC release being a NMS fiasco but rather as features get added to the game.
Chris has sold these ideas and some of them have been allowed to run wild in backers minds for years so when/if they do get implemented they will most likely not live up to the expectations and fantasies that people have thought up.
We already know everything isn't going to be in the game at release. Chris already stated he's shooting for a minimum viable product.
Chris has sold these ideas and some of them have been allowed to run wild in backers minds for years so when/if they do get implemented they will most likely not live up to the expectations and fantasies that people have thought up.
We already know everything isn't going to be in the game at release. Chris already stated he's shooting for a minimum viable product.
The game has a ton of plans of things that might or might not happen (side of the obvious Stretch Goals), they are not fully confirmed features. Specially when he talks about several things with "far future", things he wants eventually to do, but NOT confirmed to be on the game by release. People might expect them at release, but they weren't ever confirmed for it.
As for expectations, i am one of those persons that know that no game looks as good as it looks on its trailer, we always want things to be "that good", that's how it normally plays out, but hype is hype and this at the end applies to pretty much any game.
Chris has sold these ideas and some of them have been allowed to run wild in backers minds for years so when/if they do get implemented they will most likely not live up to the expectations and fantasies that people have thought up.
We already know everything isn't going to be in the game at release. Chris already stated he's shooting for a minimum viable product.
The game has a ton of plans of things that might or might not happen (side of the obvious Stretch Goals), they are not fully confirmed features. Specially when he talks about several things with "far future", things he wants eventually to do, but NOT confirmed to be on the game by release. People might expect them at release, but they weren't ever confirmed for it.
As for expectations, i am one of those persons that know that no game looks as good as it looks on its trailer, we always want things to be "that good", that's how it normally plays out, but hype is hype and this at the end applies to pretty much any game.
The problem is that Chris hasn't detailed what the MVP is going to be so some of those stretch goals could be cut in with a up in the air timetable of putting them back in.
I can agree to your second point with a added caveat. Every game will have hype associated with it but it's the levels of hype that matter. Some hype tempered with a good footing in reality is a good thing but when hype has literally entered orbit then it will never end well
SC will be a totally different kind of fiasco as compared to NMS, I have no doubt.
Personally, I think CR and CIG pushed the hype to sell product, and that is going to bite them in the ass when the minimum viable product is delivered.
They generated the hype, they will have to live with the consequences.
Besides being space simulators they are rather different games and Eve have become the game it is today due to a long process, It was made by a handful of people and released '03 with just 20K players. Then it slowly grew into the game it is today.
SC is a high budget game, it is pay2win and have a very high profile just now, And it seems to me that they aren't going for exactly the same type of players either.
The question is like asking if Lineage Eternal will become another Wow.
Besides being space simulators they are rather different games and Eve have become the game it is today due to a long process, It was made by a handful of people and released '03 with just 20K players. Then it slowly grew into the game it is today.
SC is a high budget game, it is pay2win and have a very high profile just now, And it seems to me that they aren't going for exactly the same type of players either.
The question is like asking if Lineage Eternal will become another Wow.
That's irrelevant to a point of a complete design of EvE to be player-driven... ...to the opposite design of SC to be AI-driven.
Means the players not being able to drive the game-world, just impact the game-world the AI would drive... makes it impossible to SC to become "another EvE".
That's irrelevant to a point of a complete design of EvE to be player-driven... ...to the opposite design of SC to be AI-driven.
Means the players not being able to drive the game-world, just impact the game-world the AI would drive... makes it impossible to SC to become "another EvE".
Yes and no. AI-driven will only push the aspect of EvE away to the forums instead of in-game, but some players will still try to take over a system because the real issue is the EvE-mentality all those ex-EvE players are going to bring over to SC, not really what the mechanics allows.
That's irrelevant to a point of a complete design of EvE to be player-driven... ...to the opposite design of SC to be AI-driven.
Means the players not being able to drive the game-world, just impact the game-world the AI would drive... makes it impossible to SC to become "another EvE".
Yes and no. AI-driven will only push the aspect of EvE away to the forums instead of in-game, but some players will still try to take over a system because the real issue is the EvE-mentality all those ex-EvE players are going to bring over to SC, not really what the mechanics allows.
That is true. But in the end it is not sure that they will be able to do so. SC allows itself to be influenced by its community, but I haven't seen any indication of CIG surrendering control to any fraction of players.
So I am not worried.
Feel free to use my Star Citizen referral link to get a small sign-up bonus.
That's irrelevant to a point of a complete design of EvE to be player-driven... ...to the opposite design of SC to be AI-driven.
Means the players not being able to drive the game-world, just impact the game-world the AI would drive... makes it impossible to SC to become "another EvE".
Yes and no. AI-driven will only push the aspect of EvE away to the forums instead of in-game, but some players will still try to take over a system because the real issue is the EvE-mentality all those ex-EvE players are going to bring over to SC, not really what the mechanics allows.
That is true. But in the end it is not sure that they will be able to do so. SC allows itself to be influenced by its community, but I haven't seen any indication of CIG surrendering control to any fraction of players.
So I am not worried.
I'm not talking about control but more of an "armed forced occupation". Organisation/clan/guild/whateveryouwanttocallit could theoretically take over the majority of the instance player slots in an area (what ever instances will cover) and impose their "law" (via destroying any passing ships they can't id) even if the rest of the game doesn't recognize them as the "owners" of the place and they have no control over what the NPCs are doing.
Unless SC has a persistent universe that supports multiple thousands of players, rather than the odd dozen or so, then its a bit of a silly question, a bit like how many elephants can you fit in a mini.
But this would a gain be a question of mechanics, no?
If players hog an instance the next one gets put in a new one and is therefore not threatened. Plus if I remember correctly, the plan was/is that while you can spawn in the instance of a friend, some slots are always reserved for other players or even enemies, thus no group can get powerful enough to control a region as you describe.
Again, we are a bit adrift in speculation and of course have to wait and see. I believe that CIG is watching the development of opther games (EVE, NMS, ED) and tries to learn from their failures and successes.
Feel free to use my Star Citizen referral link to get a small sign-up bonus.
Nope, not at all. Different situations, one game was a "surprise box" nobody even knew or played the game before release, the other is one game that you can play right now and up until release.
Well, yes and no.
We have seen SC.
But the first game under the SC brand is going to be SQ42, which noone has seen, much less played, and as far as I can understand, noone WILL play until release, to avoid spoilers... (Lamest excuse ever, but that is their story, and they are sticking to it.)
So in short, the first game under the SC brand to be released will be just as much a "surprice box" as NMS.
They are completely different focus and goals. While CCP is trying to make money and create a nice sandbox environment. CIG is trying to suck all the money they can out of players and the game will evolve around such ideas. One company operates from standard business practices which result in players who do not feel cheated. The other company doesn't care how their players feel so long as they get a good amount of cash from them before they leave the game.
When you create a game like CCP did and it evolves around players then you get something like EVE is today. Star Citizen is a different beast entirely because the companies goals will certainly reflect upon the gameplay.
But the first game under the SC brand is going to be SQ42, which noone has seen, much less played, and as far as I can understand, noone WILL play until release, to avoid spoilers... (Lamest excuse ever, but that is their story, and they are sticking to it.)
As a SP Campaign what we will see of it before release is the typical trailers, teasers and some gameplay bits (mission play-troughs, etc...).
Even on Alpha/Beta games that do have story/campaign, those are usually purposely locked before release.
EVE? Silly. EVE was a low budget slow starting niche game. Now its high budget but still niche. SC is one of the most expensive games world has ever seen, it will either be the best there was or just another major flop. It will never get the slow start chance EVE had, it will shine or burn.
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
But the first game under the SC brand is going to be SQ42, which noone has seen, much less played, and as far as I can understand, noone WILL play until release, to avoid spoilers... (Lamest excuse ever, but that is their story, and they are sticking to it.)
As a SP Campaign what we will see of it before release is the typical trailers, teasers and some gameplay bits (mission play-troughs, etc...).
Even on Alpha/Beta games that do have story/campaign, those are usually purposely locked before release.
Well, if the engine is a rehash of something old, yeah, they lock that part off. They can handle it with internal testing. But even Blizzard knows that when you build something new from scratch, like they did in SC2 and D3, you actually give the players a few missions to playtest. Add to that the SC projects claimed dedication to openess and player feedback, then it becomes directly criminal that they have not released at least the first few missions of SQ42 to get some actual feedback on how the game plays and lives up to expectaions.
With most players only having seen streams of SC PU play, I personally think there is a real risk that some people will by into the hype and buy SQ42 expecting more or less a single player version of that. And that might lead to a NMS like situation, which was really my point.
Comments
Saw a discussion with TotalBiscuit where he points this out as well (8:55):
Finally, there is a big difference between a game not living up to crazy expectations, and a game not delivering what was promised (NMS).
However, there can be no doubt that SC promises much, hence my patient stance on the development time.
When those ideas have as much substance as a fart in the wind then people are going to be sorely disappointed.
Now, I am not sure what you mean by "degree of truth" here, but bottom line I cannot deny that some release date announcements were not kept and had to be postponed for a long time. Other major content promises are already playable and were delivered on time.
For me that is part of software development on that scale, and I can live with it. At the same time I had more fun over the last two years following the game development, playing the alphas and talking to ppl in the community, than with most AAA games.
But that is me. If you feel CIG is betraying (for lack of a better word, or maybe that is the right one) their backers by not sticking to every release date, sometimes postponing content several months, then yes: SC is nothing for you right now.
Now we really derailed this thread... For this I apologize to the OP
Now for those people who expect everything to be in-game by release day, just because a developer ever mentioned something... Those are deluding themselves of things that were never confirmed for release.
Chris has sold these ideas and some of them have been allowed to run wild in backers minds for years so when/if they do get implemented they will most likely not live up to the expectations and fantasies that people have thought up.
We already know everything isn't going to be in the game at release. Chris already stated he's shooting for a minimum viable product.
As for expectations, i am one of those persons that know that no game looks as good as it looks on its trailer, we always want things to be "that good", that's how it normally plays out, but hype is hype and this at the end applies to pretty much any game.
I can agree to your second point with a added caveat. Every game will have hype associated with it but it's the levels of hype that matter. Some hype tempered with a good footing in reality is a good thing but when hype has literally entered orbit then it will never end well
Personally, I think CR and CIG pushed the hype to sell product, and that is going to bite them in the ass when the minimum viable product is delivered.
They generated the hype, they will have to live with the consequences.
SC is a high budget game, it is pay2win and have a very high profile just now, And it seems to me that they aren't going for exactly the same type of players either.
The question is like asking if Lineage Eternal will become another Wow.
...to the opposite design of SC to be AI-driven.
Means the players not being able to drive the game-world, just impact the game-world the AI would drive... makes it impossible to SC to become "another EvE".
SC allows itself to be influenced by its community, but I haven't seen any indication of CIG surrendering control to any fraction of players.
So I am not worried.
If players hog an instance the next one gets put in a new one and is therefore not threatened.
Plus if I remember correctly, the plan was/is that while you can spawn in the instance of a friend, some slots are always reserved for other players or even enemies, thus no group can get powerful enough to control a region as you describe.
Again, we are a bit adrift in speculation and of course have to wait and see.
I believe that CIG is watching the development of opther games (EVE, NMS, ED) and tries to learn from their failures and successes.
We have seen SC.
But the first game under the SC brand is going to be SQ42, which noone has seen, much less played, and as far as I can understand, noone WILL play until release, to avoid spoilers... (Lamest excuse ever, but that is their story, and they are sticking to it.)
So in short, the first game under the SC brand to be released will be just as much a "surprice box" as NMS.
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
When you create a game like CCP did and it evolves around players then you get something like EVE is today. Star Citizen is a different beast entirely because the companies goals will certainly reflect upon the gameplay.
Even on Alpha/Beta games that do have story/campaign, those are usually purposely locked before release.
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
With most players only having seen streams of SC PU play, I personally think there is a real risk that some people will by into the hype and buy SQ42 expecting more or less a single player version of that. And that might lead to a NMS like situation, which was really my point.