I like SQ42, it is what it was expectable, and it brings back the WC vibe that was its core pitch back then. I see the argumentation is now "Oh but it took all these years...", tho that is a rather mute argument; moving the narrative to slow progress is already progress from that usual "it's a scam that will never release" we're used to.
What I mostly see are people who are not invested and have no interest in SC beyond hating it because 'crowdfunding', getting really concerned on my behalf about the $35 I spent for TWO AAA quality games not being spent wisely by CR and CIG. What a joke these folk are.
By the way, game packages are currently on sale for $35 for holiday special.
One game - in two parts!
Well it is certainly the value of two tripple A games, SQ42 isn't some simple side mission of SC.
Your point also seems to be missed by @eponyxDamor who thinks it would be much better and wiser to create two completely separate games using different mechanics!
Do you not even read what I wrote, or do you simply take such offense because I dare criticize CIG's glorified tech demo? I already acknowledged the fact that they're reusing assets for SQ42, which, as I said, MAKES IT EASIER.
In fact, you use this same logic in defense of the game taking so long. It makes no sense. If they aren't developing two separate games (as BOTH you and I claim), SQ42 should be a much easier game to create as it is a SINGLE PLAYER experience with MUCH SMALLER scope than SC. They're also REUSING ASSETS that they make for SC. It really isn't rocket science; SQ42 should be making much more progress than SC if given the same development time, just given the nature of the two games.
Do we really have to go into why making a SINGLE PLAYER game is easier than MAKING AN MMO?
Indeed, this is why when decisions that effect the development time of SC are made, like fully explorable planets instead of small areas you load into with skyboxes as an example, can also effect the development time for SQ42. You claim that SQ42 is much smaller in scope yet from a mechanics perspective the video footage we have seen of SQ42 does not really support this as most everything we see in SQ42 is also from SC and as I earlier pointed out the writers for SQ42 are most likely going to use all of the mechanics available for SC to be used in the story lines in SQ42. (please feel free to list all of the things that you believe will not be in SQ42 that will be in SC).
Yes, they COULD speed things up by cutting corners, the entire story of SQ42 could just be set on one ship and throw out a few repetitive missions in space with some scripted AI everywhere and call it the end. However that is not what they are doing.
The development time for the two games are linked in a much larger way which is why you won't see 'much more progress' in one than the other. When SC approaches something starting to resemble a beta, you will start seeing SQ42 being polished up with a run up for launch.
"Do we really have to go into why making a SINGLE PLAYER game is easier than MAKING AN MMO?"
This seems to be the Crux of your lack of understanding in relation to SC and SQ42.
This seems to be the Crux of your lack of understanding in relation to SC and SQ42.
What a fantastic argument with well-though out points. Thanks for clarifying.
As I said, please feel free to list all of the development that will be in Star Citizen that you believe will NOT be included in SQ42 development and we shall see what effect and impact this would have on your belief that SQ42 should somehow be significantly further ahead in development AT THIS TIME. We can do this without adding in the development time needed for SQ42 only features.
I do have to give them some major props because the game runs so much better now and has a great interface, not to mention the amazing music. Gameplay is pretty awesome, but it does still have a ton of bugs. I crashed multiple times but to be expected. It probably will not be totally playable until march when the serialization and a horde of optimization goes in. Takes up like 12 gigs of ram out of 16 i have right now.
Overall, 3.0 renewed my hope for the game, it is definitely getting to a playable state, with all the features we want.
What a fantastic argument with well-though out points. Thanks for clarifying.
SC is co-developed with SQ42. Things you see from assets to tech are shared, even when we seen the "render to texture" that does the hologram stuff is used for SC's new UI, comms, etc... That is also used on SQ42. When SC got PG Planets they decided to include them in SQ42 and we saw it on the mission they showcased.
It's just two of countless examples of this mutual benefit; when the future "face over IP" for facial tracking stuff in the SC is announced, they already been intensively working on mocap, tracking, etc... for their character assets, what ended up opening that potential in SC that they decided to use, and it goes on.
But one shouldn't be stating either SC or SQ42 is any "master game" that then the other re-uses its work.
Its backwards logic to say that, since they're reusing assets in a single player game, SQ42 should be at an earlier stage of development than its SC counterpart. YES I would expect SQ42 to be "near release" when SC enters beta (whenever that is), but SC isn't anywhere NEAR beta, and SQ42 isn't even in alpha.
You seem to have edited your original post quite a lot. I shall respond to this part of the amendment.
"Its backwards logic to say that, since they're reusing assets in a single player game, SQ42 should be at an earlier stage of development than its SC counterpart"
This wouldn't be backwards logic in the slightest. However it is not exactly what I stated either, a mechanic that is created is needed for both and used for both. Assets that are in one will mostly be in the other. It is a shared universe. This also means development times are closely related.
"YES I would expect SQ42 to be "near release" when SC enters beta (whenever that is), but SC isn't anywhere NEAR beta, and SQ42 isn't even in alpha."
Star Citizen is about 18 months out from nearing a beta all going reasonably well. I guess 'isn't anywhere NEAR beta' is going to be a personal feeling of how long a period of time this feels to the user. I am old, it does not seem a long time to me at all /shrug.
I like SQ42, it is what it was expectable, and it brings back the WC vibe that was its core pitch back then. I see the argumentation is now "Oh but it took all these years...", tho that is a rather mute argument; moving the narrative to slow progress is already progress from that usual "it's a scam that will never release" we're used to.
but to put themselves still at a pre-alpha portion of progress for what should be a much easier game to make compared to SC is kind of silly.
What is it that makes you think it is easier to make? It is only easier to make if you cut corners and build SQ42 as a separate game using separate mechanics to create a much more on rails experience where you are loading into small handcrafted areas.
That is just wasted development time overall, makes it much harder to add further chapters to down the line, it also happens to reduce possible experiences and interactions with the game, as can be heard in the directors cut of this video, CR calls the missions more of a sandbox type approach.
I'm 100% willing to admit that I don't keep up with SQ42/SC as much as possible, simply because the torrent of information coming from CIG is usually too much to sift through for truly meaningful information. So, I will concede that perhaps SQ42 has the same scope as SC; however, I still don't think that after 5-6 years of development that the tech demo released is anything other than disappointing. At this point, I do feel they should be further along, especially considering that SQ42 *is* a single player experience and they share assets with SC.
So, if you (and @MaxBacon ) say they added procedural planet tech/FOIP to SQ42 (since they share assets), I believe you, because I haven't been keeping up (as I said). However, after 5-6 years of development, I don't think adding procedural planet tech and FOIP would mean that they should only have an "early pre-alpha WIP pre-recorded tech demo" to show for it.
I like SQ42, it is what it was expectable, and it brings back the WC vibe that was its core pitch back then. I see the argumentation is now "Oh but it took all these years...", tho that is a rather mute argument; moving the narrative to slow progress is already progress from that usual "it's a scam that will never release" we're used to.
but to put themselves still at a pre-alpha portion of progress for what should be a much easier game to make compared to SC is kind of silly.
What is it that makes you think it is easier to make? It is only easier to make if you cut corners and build SQ42 as a separate game using separate mechanics to create a much more on rails experience where you are loading into small handcrafted areas.
That is just wasted development time overall, makes it much harder to add further chapters to down the line, it also happens to reduce possible experiences and interactions with the game, as can be heard in the directors cut of this video, CR calls the missions more of a sandbox type approach.
I'm 100% willing to admit that I don't keep up with SQ42/SC as much as possible, simply because the torrent of information coming from CIG is usually too much to sift through for truly meaningful information. So, I will concede that perhaps SQ42 has the same scope as SC; however, I still don't think that after 5-6 years of development that the tech demo released is anything other than disappointing. At this point, I do feel they should be further along, especially considering that SQ42 *is* a single player experience and they share assets with SC.
So, if you (and @MaxBacon ) say they added procedural planet tech/FOIP to SQ42 (since they share assets), I believe you, because I haven't been keeping up (as I said). However, after 5-6 years of development, I don't think adding procedural planet tech and FOIP would mean that they should only have an "early pre-alpha WIP pre-recorded tech demo" to show for it.
I can agree they are not exactly where they could be, it isn't out of the realm of normal development experience though. The larger the project, often the larger slips in projected time.
Star Citizens Scope is vast, SQ42 is shaping up to be a very immersive and unique experience. As long as the end experience is really cool, is it worth getting hung up on it taking a little longer to get there? Is it important?
Orinori said:As long as the end experience is really cool, is it worth getting hung up on it taking a little longer to get there? Is it important?
No, it isn't worth getting hung up on; as I said at the beginning of the discussion, I firmly sit in the "when its ready" camp. However, being a realist, I just think that the game development should be much further along (especially considering the originally estimated delivery date), all things considered. I don't think that is a particularly controversial opinion to hold, or really outside of the scope of reality. Furthermore, if CIG continues to take on every new technology during development, I really have doubts about the game's future.
Last I heard, SQ42 was to be broken up into three "episodes", each containing a set of missions; that was essentially the last time I checked in on development. Is that still the development plan for SQ42?
I challenge any of you detractors to download and install it. then recreate an exact duplicate of any time stamp from this video. You have 7 days, get to work.
So you're giving people 7 days and no money to duplicate something that took 5 years and 164+ million to make?
Also, using Lumberyard instead of Cryengine for Star Citizen is allegedly a breach of contract. Perhaps you didn't realize that. It's okay. Maybe CiG didn't realize that either.
175mill*. Pretty sure CIG knew exactly what they are doing and amazon made a deal with them. I wouldnt mess with Amazon XD
Well, I was giving a little leeway in dollars to account for unnecessary things like CiG's $15k space doors and $20k coffee makers but sure, let's go with 175 million.
As for the alleged "deal" with Amazon, Chris constantly uses the word partnership but no dialogue with Amazon or contract was ever mentioned in any of the news articles about it. Further analysis of the way various CiG employees talked about Amazon in post-lumberyard interviews implies that the only "deal" that was ever made was CiG downloading Lumberyard and agreeing to the license just like anyone can do (and just like Arillix is proposing "detractors" do).
Then again, if that's Chris's idea of a partnership and a "deal", it's no wonder why they'd be able to much up and breach that Crytek contract so badly. They clearly have no idea what the legal meaning of various terms is.
Alternatively, if there was a deal anyways (which it doesn't seem like there was but let's say hypothetically), CiG possibly made the deal with Amazon and didn't tell them about their Crytek contract. Which would be another kind of hilarity (not as hilarious as them not telling their bank Coutts about it when they took out that loan, though)
Please present your evidence that the door cost $15k. Also lets see the reciept that they paid $20k for the coffee machine also. This kind of bullshit is why it's hard to take you clowns seriously. You spout absolute nonsense without an ounce of proof but state it as fact.
As for the Crytek V CIG issue there's still a lot of info missing so until we see CIG's side there's little point in speculating about that outcome. It's funny how all the armchair devs like to throw out how CR is doing this or that wrong as if they have all the info but to me at least it's obvious that there's much more that we can't see. It's idiotic to speculate on anything given the information we have. I guess welcome to the internet though where everyone is an expert on everything.
IMO actions speak louder than words. I see CIG making progress, however slow towards building the game they promised and until that changes I'm going to STFU and let them do their thing.
I like SQ42, it is what it was expectable, and it brings back the WC vibe that was its core pitch back then. I see the argumentation is now "Oh but it took all these years...", tho that is a rather mute argument; moving the narrative to slow progress is already progress from that usual "it's a scam that will never release" we're used to.
I don't see anyone here (or anywhere semi-intelligent) making the "scam" argument, but when two years ago they were claiming they were within an imminent launch of SQ42, to now being an "early pre-alpha WIP" pre-recorded demo that is being termed a "vertical slice" you kinda have to wonder ...
I'm not saying it should have been released by now, but to put themselves still at a pre-alpha portion of progress for what should be a much easier game to make compared to SC is kind of silly. If they can't even get SQ42 out the door within a reasonable time frame (accounting for some leeway, given its an "indie" studio, if you can still call it that), especially given its limited scope compared to SC ... I don't hold out much hope SC.
After 5-6 years of development, they should have a lot more to show off. With a pre-recorded tech demo (thats what it is at this point, as its labeled an "early pre-alpha WIP" essentially showing off the tech they've added over the years), they should have at least spent a bit more time polishing it up, especially since they have been hyping this particular video up for nearly a year now.
When did they say launch was imminent on squadron 42 ever. I've seen them say they had completed the white box phase on most missions but that is no-where near complete at that stage.
I like SQ42, it is what it was expectable, and it brings back the WC vibe that was its core pitch back then. I see the argumentation is now "Oh but it took all these years...", tho that is a rather mute argument; moving the narrative to slow progress is already progress from that usual "it's a scam that will never release" we're used to.
I don't see anyone here (or anywhere semi-intelligent) making the "scam" argument, but when two years ago they were claiming they were within an imminent launch of SQ42, to now being an "early pre-alpha WIP" pre-recorded demo that is being termed a "vertical slice" you kinda have to wonder ...
I'm not saying it should have been released by now, but to put themselves still at a pre-alpha portion of progress for what should be a much easier game to make compared to SC is kind of silly. If they can't even get SQ42 out the door within a reasonable time frame (accounting for some leeway, given its an "indie" studio, if you can still call it that), especially given its limited scope compared to SC ... I don't hold out much hope SC.
After 5-6 years of development, they should have a lot more to show off. With a pre-recorded tech demo (thats what it is at this point, as its labeled an "early pre-alpha WIP" essentially showing off the tech they've added over the years), they should have at least spent a bit more time polishing it up, especially since they have been hyping this particular video up for nearly a year now.
When did they say launch was imminent on squadron 42 ever. I've seen them say they had completed the white box phase on most missions but that is no-where near complete at that stage.
A lot of the information I've been going off of has been from stuff in early-to-mid 2015 (the last time I really kept up with development). For reference, here is the article (interview with Chris Roberts, published March 2015 by Polygon) and quote:
"Squadron 42 will be toward the end of the year[2015]. That's sort of basically
Wing Commander single-player narrative story. And then at the very end
of the year we will release the very early alpha of the persistent
universe. It wont be nearly all of the systems and planets, but we plan
to have five or six systems you can fly between. You won't be able to do
all of the things we're planning on you to do, but probablytrading,
mining, piracy, combat and a lot of core stuff.
...
By the end of this year[2015] backers will have everything they originally
pledged for plus a lot more," Roberts says. "But of course our intention
is that it's a much bigger, more expansive, huger game than I ever
considered we could do."
This is also partly why I still thought SQ42 and SC would be mostly separate games in terms of scope. I assumed the reference to the single-player campaign narrative story and persistent universe were completely separate concepts in terms of actual, separate games. Not necessarily separately developed, but developed alongside each other (sharing assets) in rather different scope.
At this point, to my knowledge, SQ42 wasn't simply an "offline mode" of SC, but a smaller scope game more comparable to Wing Commander. Obviously, if what you guys are saying is true, then SQ42 really isn't a separate game (apart from marketing reasons), but rather an "offline mode" with a story line.
I can completely understanding wanting to play code that you can actually download, actually play and actually have fun. but I dont agree that it has to be 'finished'. My best gaming experiences EVER have been mostly by playing unfinished code.
and I am not saying 'ever' to be colorful or dramatic, nor do I speak from a position of inexperience. I mean very seriously exactly what I said
Well as with anything else in gaming, YMMV of course. Oh I've toyed around with unfinished games/projects myself, so I can understand your enjoyment of that also. It's all a matter of perspective there, I suppose.
Most games are never "finished", especially not now, in the era of day-one patches and constant updates, and so on. I don't mean that a game need be "perfect" or anything of the sort. Heck, I have bought into a few early-access titles, and one in particular I have been playing since it hit early access in around 2015 (?). Point being, the game was in a released state (even if unfinished) and myself and others were able to experience the real thing for ourselves.
I just think it's honestly hilarious that someone would think people are "jealous" of SC because it's (theoretically) making money. I mean I can somewhat understand being a fanboi, but for God's sake that idea is just idiotic. People have been handing their money to charlatans and schemes for thousands of years.
simply put you dont consider the definition of 'unfinished' to be applied to a good early access title but you do for SC.
which is actually fair and I totally see where you are coming from but I think that is what you are basically saying so fair enough
Hmm, well actually that's not what I intended to mean, but looking back at what I said you are right. No, I would absolutely consider the term 'unfinished' to be applied to any early access title, SC or other. I do believe that's one of the reasons the term 'early access' has become more common now; developers realizing they can sort of milk that term, put the game out sooner (money sooner, haha) but patch/update it later on. And as I said, I think most of us are sort of expecting that sort of thing nowadays.
And honestly, I wonder if our definition of 'finished' game is changing, or has changed, or will change. Now that most everything is online and developers remain able to make changes even years into a game's life, we may have very different criteria for what we consider games to be in terms of their 'done-ness' or whatever you want to call it.
"We are all as God made us, and many of us much worse." - Don Quixote
I can completely understanding wanting to play code that you can actually download, actually play and actually have fun. but I dont agree that it has to be 'finished'. My best gaming experiences EVER have been mostly by playing unfinished code.
and I am not saying 'ever' to be colorful or dramatic, nor do I speak from a position of inexperience. I mean very seriously exactly what I said
Well as with anything else in gaming, YMMV of course. Oh I've toyed around with unfinished games/projects myself, so I can understand your enjoyment of that also. It's all a matter of perspective there, I suppose.
Most games are never "finished", especially not now, in the era of day-one patches and constant updates, and so on. I don't mean that a game need be "perfect" or anything of the sort. Heck, I have bought into a few early-access titles, and one in particular I have been playing since it hit early access in around 2015 (?). Point being, the game was in a released state (even if unfinished) and myself and others were able to experience the real thing for ourselves.
I just think it's honestly hilarious that someone would think people are "jealous" of SC because it's (theoretically) making money. I mean I can somewhat understand being a fanboi, but for God's sake that idea is just idiotic. People have been handing their money to charlatans and schemes for thousands of years.
simply put you dont consider the definition of 'unfinished' to be applied to a good early access title but you do for SC.
which is actually fair and I totally see where you are coming from but I think that is what you are basically saying so fair enough
Hmm, well actually that's not what I intended to mean, but looking back at what I said you are right. No, I would absolutely consider the term 'unfinished' to be applied to any early access title, SC or other. I do believe that's one of the reasons the term 'early access' has become more common now; developers realizing they can sort of milk that term, put the game out sooner (money sooner, haha) but patch/update it later on. And as I said, I think most of us are sort of expecting that sort of thing nowadays.
And honestly, I wonder if our definition of 'finished' game is changing, or has changed, or will change. Now that most everything is online and developers remain able to make changes even years into a game's life, we may have very different criteria for what we consider games to be in terms of their 'done-ness' or whatever you want to call it.
I don't think any persistent, online game is ever truly "finished"; even Everquest still receives expansions to this day. However, "finished" games generally have a list of features that can be playable in a game loop of sorts, that constitutes actual gameplay reflected in description/advertisement. I think that is what CIG originally intended with their Minimal Viable Product (MVP), but I think people just took that a bit too far than it was intended. Another example would be E:D; its actually trying to accomplish many of the same things as SC, but it launched a MVP and continued to add to that product.
Warframe is a great example of a perpetually "unfinished" game, too; in fact, it still considers itself in beta (in title only), but it continually updates old systems that it originally contained as "complete" with new/revamped ones. The point of difference is that, at some point, it contained an initial set of features that it originally set out to create -- in a "complete" sense that allowed for a continual, playable game loop.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the "perpetual beta" tags that it seems many modern games (like Warframe) operate under, because it kind of removes any sort of responsibility the devs/publishers might be beholden to by consumers simply because "its beta". Perhaps responsibility isn't the right word for the intention I mean, but I think the idea is there, at least. As someone in the "release when its ready" camp, you still have to actually "release" something at some point and at least call it "complete until further revision is needed".
I like SQ42, it is what it was expectable, and it brings back the WC vibe that was its core pitch back then. I see the argumentation is now "Oh but it took all these years...", tho that is a rather mute argument; moving the narrative to slow progress is already progress from that usual "it's a scam that will never release" we're used to.
I don't see anyone here (or anywhere semi-intelligent) making the "scam" argument, but when two years ago they were claiming they were within an imminent launch of SQ42, to now being an "early pre-alpha WIP" pre-recorded demo that is being termed a "vertical slice" you kinda have to wonder ...
I'm not saying it should have been released by now, but to put themselves still at a pre-alpha portion of progress for what should be a much easier game to make compared to SC is kind of silly. If they can't even get SQ42 out the door within a reasonable time frame (accounting for some leeway, given its an "indie" studio, if you can still call it that), especially given its limited scope compared to SC ... I don't hold out much hope SC.
After 5-6 years of development, they should have a lot more to show off. With a pre-recorded tech demo (thats what it is at this point, as its labeled an "early pre-alpha WIP" essentially showing off the tech they've added over the years), they should have at least spent a bit more time polishing it up, especially since they have been hyping this particular video up for nearly a year now.
When did they say launch was imminent on squadron 42 ever. I've seen them say they had completed the white box phase on most missions but that is no-where near complete at that stage.
A lot of the information I've been going off of has been from stuff in early-to-mid 2015 (the last time I really kept up with development). For reference, here is the article (interview with Chris Roberts, published March 2015 by Polygon) and quote:
"Squadron 42 will be toward the end of the year[2015]. That's sort of basically
Wing Commander single-player narrative story. And then at the very end
of the year we will release the very early alpha of the persistent
universe. It wont be nearly all of the systems and planets, but we plan
to have five or six systems you can fly between. You won't be able to do
all of the things we're planning on you to do, but probablytrading,
mining, piracy, combat and a lot of core stuff.
...
By the end of this year[2015] backers will have everything they originally
pledged for plus a lot more," Roberts says. "But of course our intention
is that it's a much bigger, more expansive, huger game than I ever
considered we could do."
This is also partly why I still thought SQ42 and SC would be mostly separate games in terms of scope. I assumed the reference to the single-player campaign narrative story and persistent universe were completely separate concepts in terms of actual, separate games. Not necessarily separately developed, but developed alongside each other (sharing assets) in rather different scope.
At this point, to my knowledge, SQ42 wasn't simply an "offline mode" of SC, but a smaller scope game more comparable to Wing Commander. Obviously, if what you guys are saying is true, then SQ42 really isn't a separate game (apart from marketing reasons), but rather an "offline mode" with a story line.
That's why you take anything CRoberts says with a massive, world ending grain of salt. He's either a habitual liar or so inept at release dates that you should be worried either way about the status of the project. Either he's lying intentionally abou when it's due out or he's grossly underestimating dates even though his team is telling him otherwise (or they are too afraid to tell him proper dates which speaks to his management style still).
You don't have to look far for proof of incompetence either. Just look at the holiday livestream. They knew about it for a year, they knew the date and time they were going to start and yet it was something like 30 minutes before the scheduled start they announce they have to delay 24 hours because their pre recorded demo isn't ready. How bad of a project manager do you have to be to screw up that badly?
When CIG does live demos something usually goes wrong and tons of people freak out. I read quite a few people saying they shoulda just done a pre recorded demo show casing the new content. Now they do a pre recorded demo that looks great and quite a few people are saying "Its a prerecorded glued together movie only for display." I guess this is what people mean when u cant please everyone.
I feel like even if they released a good game tomorrow, people would find a million things to complain about. If they released it years ago without procedural generation, people would have complained about goals not being implemented into the game.
There is really no winning for CIG, other than making a ton of money. Even thats a problem, the more money the higher the expectations. I guess this is another problem with open development and inexperienced fan boi expectations.
I like SQ42, it is what it was expectable, and it brings back the WC vibe that was its core pitch back then. I see the argumentation is now "Oh but it took all these years...", tho that is a rather mute argument; moving the narrative to slow progress is already progress from that usual "it's a scam that will never release" we're used to.
I don't see anyone here (or anywhere semi-intelligent) making the "scam" argument, but when two years ago they were claiming they were within an imminent launch of SQ42, to now being an "early pre-alpha WIP" pre-recorded demo that is being termed a "vertical slice" you kinda have to wonder ...
I'm not saying it should have been released by now, but to put themselves still at a pre-alpha portion of progress for what should be a much easier game to make compared to SC is kind of silly. If they can't even get SQ42 out the door within a reasonable time frame (accounting for some leeway, given its an "indie" studio, if you can still call it that), especially given its limited scope compared to SC ... I don't hold out much hope SC.
After 5-6 years of development, they should have a lot more to show off. With a pre-recorded tech demo (thats what it is at this point, as its labeled an "early pre-alpha WIP" essentially showing off the tech they've added over the years), they should have at least spent a bit more time polishing it up, especially since they have been hyping this particular video up for nearly a year now.
When did they say launch was imminent on squadron 42 ever. I've seen them say they had completed the white box phase on most missions but that is no-where near complete at that stage.
A lot of the information I've been going off of has been from stuff in early-to-mid 2015 (the last time I really kept up with development). For reference, here is the article (interview with Chris Roberts, published March 2015 by Polygon) and quote:
"Squadron 42 will be toward the end of the year[2015]. That's sort of basically
Wing Commander single-player narrative story. And then at the very end
of the year we will release the very early alpha of the persistent
universe. It wont be nearly all of the systems and planets, but we plan
to have five or six systems you can fly between. You won't be able to do
all of the things we're planning on you to do, but probablytrading,
mining, piracy, combat and a lot of core stuff.
...
By the end of this year[2015] backers will have everything they originally
pledged for plus a lot more," Roberts says. "But of course our intention
is that it's a much bigger, more expansive, huger game than I ever
considered we could do."
This is also partly why I still thought SQ42 and SC would be mostly separate games in terms of scope. I assumed the reference to the single-player campaign narrative story and persistent universe were completely separate concepts in terms of actual, separate games. Not necessarily separately developed, but developed alongside each other (sharing assets) in rather different scope.
At this point, to my knowledge, SQ42 wasn't simply an "offline mode" of SC, but a smaller scope game more comparable to Wing Commander. Obviously, if what you guys are saying is true, then SQ42 really isn't a separate game (apart from marketing reasons), but rather an "offline mode" with a story line.
That's why you take anything CRoberts says with a massive, world ending grain of salt. He's either a habitual liar or so inept at release dates that you should be worried either way about the status of the project. Either he's lying intentionally abou when it's due out or he's grossly underestimating dates even though his team is telling him otherwise (or they are too afraid to tell him proper dates which speaks to his management style still).
You don't have to look far for proof of incompetence either. Just look at the holiday livestream. They knew about it for a year, they knew the date and time they were going to start and yet it was something like 30 minutes before the scheduled start they announce they have to delay 24 hours because their pre recorded demo isn't ready. How bad of a project manager do you have to be to screw up that badly?
Yes, lets just leave out evolving development in order to bash Chris Roberts some more! And for the live stream lets pretend that we know what caused the delay, ignore the fact that it was pushed back 24hrs because 2 or 3 hrs delay would not have been good for their global audience, or that anyone even cares about the delay at all so we can blame Chris Roberts some more!
grrr that CR, bad bad man! I heard he once pulled the legs off a spider! we are talking pure concentrated evil in this man!
I like SQ42, it is what it was expectable, and it brings back the WC vibe that was its core pitch back then. I see the argumentation is now "Oh but it took all these years...", tho that is a rather mute argument; moving the narrative to slow progress is already progress from that usual "it's a scam that will never release" we're used to.
I don't see anyone here (or anywhere semi-intelligent) making the "scam" argument, but when two years ago they were claiming they were within an imminent launch of SQ42, to now being an "early pre-alpha WIP" pre-recorded demo that is being termed a "vertical slice" you kinda have to wonder ...
I'm not saying it should have been released by now, but to put themselves still at a pre-alpha portion of progress for what should be a much easier game to make compared to SC is kind of silly. If they can't even get SQ42 out the door within a reasonable time frame (accounting for some leeway, given its an "indie" studio, if you can still call it that), especially given its limited scope compared to SC ... I don't hold out much hope SC.
After 5-6 years of development, they should have a lot more to show off. With a pre-recorded tech demo (thats what it is at this point, as its labeled an "early pre-alpha WIP" essentially showing off the tech they've added over the years), they should have at least spent a bit more time polishing it up, especially since they have been hyping this particular video up for nearly a year now.
When did they say launch was imminent on squadron 42 ever. I've seen them say they had completed the white box phase on most missions but that is no-where near complete at that stage.
A lot of the information I've been going off of has been from stuff in early-to-mid 2015 (the last time I really kept up with development). For reference, here is the article (interview with Chris Roberts, published March 2015 by Polygon) and quote:
"Squadron 42 will be toward the end of the year[2015]. That's sort of basically
Wing Commander single-player narrative story. And then at the very end
of the year we will release the very early alpha of the persistent
universe. It wont be nearly all of the systems and planets, but we plan
to have five or six systems you can fly between. You won't be able to do
all of the things we're planning on you to do, but probablytrading,
mining, piracy, combat and a lot of core stuff.
...
By the end of this year[2015] backers will have everything they originally
pledged for plus a lot more," Roberts says. "But of course our intention
is that it's a much bigger, more expansive, huger game than I ever
considered we could do."
This is also partly why I still thought SQ42 and SC would be mostly separate games in terms of scope. I assumed the reference to the single-player campaign narrative story and persistent universe were completely separate concepts in terms of actual, separate games. Not necessarily separately developed, but developed alongside each other (sharing assets) in rather different scope.
At this point, to my knowledge, SQ42 wasn't simply an "offline mode" of SC, but a smaller scope game more comparable to Wing Commander. Obviously, if what you guys are saying is true, then SQ42 really isn't a separate game (apart from marketing reasons), but rather an "offline mode" with a story line.
That's why you take anything CRoberts says with a massive, world ending grain of salt. He's either a habitual liar or so inept at release dates that you should be worried either way about the status of the project. Either he's lying intentionally abou when it's due out or he's grossly underestimating dates even though his team is telling him otherwise (or they are too afraid to tell him proper dates which speaks to his management style still).
You don't have to look far for proof of incompetence either. Just look at the holiday livestream. They knew about it for a year, they knew the date and time they were going to start and yet it was something like 30 minutes before the scheduled start they announce they have to delay 24 hours because their pre recorded demo isn't ready. How bad of a project manager do you have to be to screw up that badly?
Yes, lets just leave out evolving development in order to bash Chris Roberts some more! And for the live stream lets pretend that we know what caused the delay, ignore the fact that it was pushed back 24hrs because 2 or 3 hrs delay would not have been good for their global audience, or that anyone even cares about the delay at all so we can blame Chris Roberts some more!
grrr that CR, bad bad man! I heard he once pulled the legs off a spider! we are talking pure concentrated evil in this man!
Evolving development doesn't excuse such concrete statements about timelines that were completely missed on the order of years.
Concrete timelines XD, Dont think I have ever seen them give a concrete timeline. They give timid hesitant timelines followed by stating all the new tech they hadnt planned on including earlier on, basically implying it might take longer. Please provide a link to a concrete timeline XD
I like SQ42, it is what it was expectable, and it brings back the WC vibe that was its core pitch back then. I see the argumentation is now "Oh but it took all these years...", tho that is a rather mute argument; moving the narrative to slow progress is already progress from that usual "it's a scam that will never release" we're used to.
I don't see anyone here (or anywhere semi-intelligent) making the "scam" argument, but when two years ago they were claiming they were within an imminent launch of SQ42, to now being an "early pre-alpha WIP" pre-recorded demo that is being termed a "vertical slice" you kinda have to wonder ...
I'm not saying it should have been released by now, but to put themselves still at a pre-alpha portion of progress for what should be a much easier game to make compared to SC is kind of silly. If they can't even get SQ42 out the door within a reasonable time frame (accounting for some leeway, given its an "indie" studio, if you can still call it that), especially given its limited scope compared to SC ... I don't hold out much hope SC.
After 5-6 years of development, they should have a lot more to show off. With a pre-recorded tech demo (thats what it is at this point, as its labeled an "early pre-alpha WIP" essentially showing off the tech they've added over the years), they should have at least spent a bit more time polishing it up, especially since they have been hyping this particular video up for nearly a year now.
When did they say launch was imminent on squadron 42 ever. I've seen them say they had completed the white box phase on most missions but that is no-where near complete at that stage.
A lot of the information I've been going off of has been from stuff in early-to-mid 2015 (the last time I really kept up with development). For reference, here is the article (interview with Chris Roberts, published March 2015 by Polygon) and quote:
"Squadron 42 will be toward the end of the year[2015]. That's sort of basically
Wing Commander single-player narrative story. And then at the very end
of the year we will release the very early alpha of the persistent
universe. It wont be nearly all of the systems and planets, but we plan
to have five or six systems you can fly between. You won't be able to do
all of the things we're planning on you to do, but probablytrading,
mining, piracy, combat and a lot of core stuff.
...
By the end of this year[2015] backers will have everything they originally
pledged for plus a lot more," Roberts says. "But of course our intention
is that it's a much bigger, more expansive, huger game than I ever
considered we could do."
This is also partly why I still thought SQ42 and SC would be mostly separate games in terms of scope. I assumed the reference to the single-player campaign narrative story and persistent universe were completely separate concepts in terms of actual, separate games. Not necessarily separately developed, but developed alongside each other (sharing assets) in rather different scope.
At this point, to my knowledge, SQ42 wasn't simply an "offline mode" of SC, but a smaller scope game more comparable to Wing Commander. Obviously, if what you guys are saying is true, then SQ42 really isn't a separate game (apart from marketing reasons), but rather an "offline mode" with a story line.
That's why you take anything CRoberts says with a massive, world ending grain of salt. He's either a habitual liar or so inept at release dates that you should be worried either way about the status of the project. Either he's lying intentionally abou when it's due out or he's grossly underestimating dates even though his team is telling him otherwise (or they are too afraid to tell him proper dates which speaks to his management style still).
You don't have to look far for proof of incompetence either. Just look at the holiday livestream. They knew about it for a year, they knew the date and time they were going to start and yet it was something like 30 minutes before the scheduled start they announce they have to delay 24 hours because their pre recorded demo isn't ready. How bad of a project manager do you have to be to screw up that badly?
Yes, lets just leave out evolving development in order to bash Chris Roberts some more! And for the live stream lets pretend that we know what caused the delay, ignore the fact that it was pushed back 24hrs because 2 or 3 hrs delay would not have been good for their global audience, or that anyone even cares about the delay at all so we can blame Chris Roberts some more!
grrr that CR, bad bad man! I heard he once pulled the legs off a spider! we are talking pure concentrated evil in this man!
Evolving development doesn't excuse such concrete statements about timelines that were completely missed on the order of years.
Why not?
'we are going to build a shed, it will take a week at the most'
'it seems we won the lottery during the week, we are no longer building a shed, we are building something bigger'
because you say so? Perhaps we could say it doesn't excuse it for you? but then...you even have money in this damn thing?!
I like SQ42, it is what it was expectable, and it brings back the WC vibe that was its core pitch back then. I see the argumentation is now "Oh but it took all these years...", tho that is a rather mute argument; moving the narrative to slow progress is already progress from that usual "it's a scam that will never release" we're used to.
I don't see anyone here (or anywhere semi-intelligent) making the "scam" argument, but when two years ago they were claiming they were within an imminent launch of SQ42, to now being an "early pre-alpha WIP" pre-recorded demo that is being termed a "vertical slice" you kinda have to wonder ...
I'm not saying it should have been released by now, but to put themselves still at a pre-alpha portion of progress for what should be a much easier game to make compared to SC is kind of silly. If they can't even get SQ42 out the door within a reasonable time frame (accounting for some leeway, given its an "indie" studio, if you can still call it that), especially given its limited scope compared to SC ... I don't hold out much hope SC.
After 5-6 years of development, they should have a lot more to show off. With a pre-recorded tech demo (thats what it is at this point, as its labeled an "early pre-alpha WIP" essentially showing off the tech they've added over the years), they should have at least spent a bit more time polishing it up, especially since they have been hyping this particular video up for nearly a year now.
When did they say launch was imminent on squadron 42 ever. I've seen them say they had completed the white box phase on most missions but that is no-where near complete at that stage.
A lot of the information I've been going off of has been from stuff in early-to-mid 2015 (the last time I really kept up with development). For reference, here is the article (interview with Chris Roberts, published March 2015 by Polygon) and quote:
"Squadron 42 will be toward the end of the year[2015]. That's sort of basically
Wing Commander single-player narrative story. And then at the very end
of the year we will release the very early alpha of the persistent
universe. It wont be nearly all of the systems and planets, but we plan
to have five or six systems you can fly between. You won't be able to do
all of the things we're planning on you to do, but probablytrading,
mining, piracy, combat and a lot of core stuff.
...
By the end of this year[2015] backers will have everything they originally
pledged for plus a lot more," Roberts says. "But of course our intention
is that it's a much bigger, more expansive, huger game than I ever
considered we could do."
This is also partly why I still thought SQ42 and SC would be mostly separate games in terms of scope. I assumed the reference to the single-player campaign narrative story and persistent universe were completely separate concepts in terms of actual, separate games. Not necessarily separately developed, but developed alongside each other (sharing assets) in rather different scope.
At this point, to my knowledge, SQ42 wasn't simply an "offline mode" of SC, but a smaller scope game more comparable to Wing Commander. Obviously, if what you guys are saying is true, then SQ42 really isn't a separate game (apart from marketing reasons), but rather an "offline mode" with a story line.
That's why you take anything CRoberts says with a massive, world ending grain of salt. He's either a habitual liar or so inept at release dates that you should be worried either way about the status of the project. Either he's lying intentionally abou when it's due out or he's grossly underestimating dates even though his team is telling him otherwise (or they are too afraid to tell him proper dates which speaks to his management style still).
You don't have to look far for proof of incompetence either. Just look at the holiday livestream. They knew about it for a year, they knew the date and time they were going to start and yet it was something like 30 minutes before the scheduled start they announce they have to delay 24 hours because their pre recorded demo isn't ready. How bad of a project manager do you have to be to screw up that badly?
Yes, lets just leave out evolving development in order to bash Chris Roberts some more! And for the live stream lets pretend that we know what caused the delay, ignore the fact that it was pushed back 24hrs because 2 or 3 hrs delay would not have been good for their global audience, or that anyone even cares about the delay at all so we can blame Chris Roberts some more!
grrr that CR, bad bad man! I heard he once pulled the legs off a spider! we are talking pure concentrated evil in this man!
What does evolving development have anything to do with SQ42 pre recorded gameplay and it being delayed or are you just reaching for straws here?
Well this game is the most open development ever so how come we don't know what caused the delay? Is it because they are embarrassed at their continued incompetence and didn't want to say it?
Ok it was pushed back 24 hours to not inconvienance their global audience (overlooking the fact that many booked the day off for this stream and CIG still didn't announce the delay until the stream was almost supposed to go live). And I can point out posts showing people did care but you'd probably ignore the evidence anyway.
I'll give you a C for effort but in the future can you at least try to debate instead of your usual?
Concrete timelines XD, Dont think I have ever seen them give a concrete timeline. They give timid hesitant timelines followed by stating all the new tech they hadnt planned on including earlier on, basically implying it might take longer. Please provide a link to a concrete timeline XD
You already missed it. Look up the thread. Nice try, though.
I like SQ42, it is what it was expectable, and it brings back the WC vibe that was its core pitch back then. I see the argumentation is now "Oh but it took all these years...", tho that is a rather mute argument; moving the narrative to slow progress is already progress from that usual "it's a scam that will never release" we're used to.
I don't see anyone here (or anywhere semi-intelligent) making the "scam" argument, but when two years ago they were claiming they were within an imminent launch of SQ42, to now being an "early pre-alpha WIP" pre-recorded demo that is being termed a "vertical slice" you kinda have to wonder ...
I'm not saying it should have been released by now, but to put themselves still at a pre-alpha portion of progress for what should be a much easier game to make compared to SC is kind of silly. If they can't even get SQ42 out the door within a reasonable time frame (accounting for some leeway, given its an "indie" studio, if you can still call it that), especially given its limited scope compared to SC ... I don't hold out much hope SC.
After 5-6 years of development, they should have a lot more to show off. With a pre-recorded tech demo (thats what it is at this point, as its labeled an "early pre-alpha WIP" essentially showing off the tech they've added over the years), they should have at least spent a bit more time polishing it up, especially since they have been hyping this particular video up for nearly a year now.
When did they say launch was imminent on squadron 42 ever. I've seen them say they had completed the white box phase on most missions but that is no-where near complete at that stage.
A lot of the information I've been going off of has been from stuff in early-to-mid 2015 (the last time I really kept up with development). For reference, here is the article (interview with Chris Roberts, published March 2015 by Polygon) and quote:
"Squadron 42 will be toward the end of the year[2015]. That's sort of basically
Wing Commander single-player narrative story. And then at the very end
of the year we will release the very early alpha of the persistent
universe. It wont be nearly all of the systems and planets, but we plan
to have five or six systems you can fly between. You won't be able to do
all of the things we're planning on you to do, but probablytrading,
mining, piracy, combat and a lot of core stuff.
...
By the end of this year[2015] backers will have everything they originally
pledged for plus a lot more," Roberts says. "But of course our intention
is that it's a much bigger, more expansive, huger game than I ever
considered we could do."
This is also partly why I still thought SQ42 and SC would be mostly separate games in terms of scope. I assumed the reference to the single-player campaign narrative story and persistent universe were completely separate concepts in terms of actual, separate games. Not necessarily separately developed, but developed alongside each other (sharing assets) in rather different scope.
At this point, to my knowledge, SQ42 wasn't simply an "offline mode" of SC, but a smaller scope game more comparable to Wing Commander. Obviously, if what you guys are saying is true, then SQ42 really isn't a separate game (apart from marketing reasons), but rather an "offline mode" with a story line.
That's why you take anything CRoberts says with a massive, world ending grain of salt. He's either a habitual liar or so inept at release dates that you should be worried either way about the status of the project. Either he's lying intentionally abou when it's due out or he's grossly underestimating dates even though his team is telling him otherwise (or they are too afraid to tell him proper dates which speaks to his management style still).
You don't have to look far for proof of incompetence either. Just look at the holiday livestream. They knew about it for a year, they knew the date and time they were going to start and yet it was something like 30 minutes before the scheduled start they announce they have to delay 24 hours because their pre recorded demo isn't ready. How bad of a project manager do you have to be to screw up that badly?
Yes, lets just leave out evolving development in order to bash Chris Roberts some more! And for the live stream lets pretend that we know what caused the delay, ignore the fact that it was pushed back 24hrs because 2 or 3 hrs delay would not have been good for their global audience, or that anyone even cares about the delay at all so we can blame Chris Roberts some more!
grrr that CR, bad bad man! I heard he once pulled the legs off a spider! we are talking pure concentrated evil in this man!
Evolving development doesn't excuse such concrete statements about timelines that were completely missed on the order of years.
Why not?
'we are going to build a shed, it will take a week at the most'
'it seems we won the lottery during the week, we are no longer building a shed, we are building something bigger'
because you say so? Perhaps we could say it doesn't excuse it for you? but then...you even have money in this damn thing?!
Spoken like a true white Knight. Ensure you don't get mud on your armor arguing the silly.
I like SQ42, it is what it was expectable, and it brings back the WC vibe that was its core pitch back then. I see the argumentation is now "Oh but it took all these years...", tho that is a rather mute argument; moving the narrative to slow progress is already progress from that usual "it's a scam that will never release" we're used to.
I don't see anyone here (or anywhere semi-intelligent) making the "scam" argument, but when two years ago they were claiming they were within an imminent launch of SQ42, to now being an "early pre-alpha WIP" pre-recorded demo that is being termed a "vertical slice" you kinda have to wonder ...
I'm not saying it should have been released by now, but to put themselves still at a pre-alpha portion of progress for what should be a much easier game to make compared to SC is kind of silly. If they can't even get SQ42 out the door within a reasonable time frame (accounting for some leeway, given its an "indie" studio, if you can still call it that), especially given its limited scope compared to SC ... I don't hold out much hope SC.
After 5-6 years of development, they should have a lot more to show off. With a pre-recorded tech demo (thats what it is at this point, as its labeled an "early pre-alpha WIP" essentially showing off the tech they've added over the years), they should have at least spent a bit more time polishing it up, especially since they have been hyping this particular video up for nearly a year now.
When did they say launch was imminent on squadron 42 ever. I've seen them say they had completed the white box phase on most missions but that is no-where near complete at that stage.
A lot of the information I've been going off of has been from stuff in early-to-mid 2015 (the last time I really kept up with development). For reference, here is the article (interview with Chris Roberts, published March 2015 by Polygon) and quote:
"Squadron 42 will be toward the end of the year[2015]. That's sort of basically
Wing Commander single-player narrative story. And then at the very end
of the year we will release the very early alpha of the persistent
universe. It wont be nearly all of the systems and planets, but we plan
to have five or six systems you can fly between. You won't be able to do
all of the things we're planning on you to do, but probablytrading,
mining, piracy, combat and a lot of core stuff.
...
By the end of this year[2015] backers will have everything they originally
pledged for plus a lot more," Roberts says. "But of course our intention
is that it's a much bigger, more expansive, huger game than I ever
considered we could do."
This is also partly why I still thought SQ42 and SC would be mostly separate games in terms of scope. I assumed the reference to the single-player campaign narrative story and persistent universe were completely separate concepts in terms of actual, separate games. Not necessarily separately developed, but developed alongside each other (sharing assets) in rather different scope.
At this point, to my knowledge, SQ42 wasn't simply an "offline mode" of SC, but a smaller scope game more comparable to Wing Commander. Obviously, if what you guys are saying is true, then SQ42 really isn't a separate game (apart from marketing reasons), but rather an "offline mode" with a story line.
That's why you take anything CRoberts says with a massive, world ending grain of salt. He's either a habitual liar or so inept at release dates that you should be worried either way about the status of the project. Either he's lying intentionally abou when it's due out or he's grossly underestimating dates even though his team is telling him otherwise (or they are too afraid to tell him proper dates which speaks to his management style still).
You don't have to look far for proof of incompetence either. Just look at the holiday livestream. They knew about it for a year, they knew the date and time they were going to start and yet it was something like 30 minutes before the scheduled start they announce they have to delay 24 hours because their pre recorded demo isn't ready. How bad of a project manager do you have to be to screw up that badly?
Yes, lets just leave out evolving development in order to bash Chris Roberts some more! And for the live stream lets pretend that we know what caused the delay, ignore the fact that it was pushed back 24hrs because 2 or 3 hrs delay would not have been good for their global audience, or that anyone even cares about the delay at all so we can blame Chris Roberts some more!
grrr that CR, bad bad man! I heard he once pulled the legs off a spider! we are talking pure concentrated evil in this man!
Evolving development doesn't excuse such concrete statements about timelines that were completely missed on the order of years.
Why not?
'we are going to build a shed, it will take a week at the most'
'it seems we won the lottery during the week, we are no longer building a shed, we are building something bigger'
because you say so? Perhaps we could say it doesn't excuse it for you? but then...you even have money in this damn thing?!
Spoken like a true white Knight. Ensure you don't get mud on your armor arguing the silly.
Nothing silly about it otherwise you could have given a 'concrete' logical response! And thank you for the concern but my armor is not shiny, they are robes and they never get muddy!
Comments
Yes, they COULD speed things up by cutting corners, the entire story of SQ42 could just be set on one ship and throw out a few repetitive missions in space with some scripted AI everywhere and call it the end. However that is not what they are doing.
The development time for the two games are linked in a much larger way which is why you won't see 'much more progress' in one than the other. When SC approaches something starting to resemble a beta, you will start seeing SQ42 being polished up with a run up for launch.
"Do we really have to go into why making a SINGLE PLAYER game is easier than MAKING AN MMO?"
This seems to be the Crux of your lack of understanding in relation to SC and SQ42.
Overall, 3.0 renewed my hope for the game, it is definitely getting to a playable state, with all the features we want.
It's just two of countless examples of this mutual benefit; when the future "face over IP" for facial tracking stuff in the SC is announced, they already been intensively working on mocap, tracking, etc... for their character assets, what ended up opening that potential in SC that they decided to use, and it goes on.
But one shouldn't be stating either SC or SQ42 is any "master game" that then the other re-uses its work.
"Its backwards logic to say that, since they're reusing assets in a single player game, SQ42 should be at an earlier stage of development than its SC counterpart"
This wouldn't be backwards logic in the slightest. However it is not exactly what I stated either, a mechanic that is created is needed for both and used for both. Assets that are in one will mostly be in the other. It is a shared universe. This also means development times are closely related.
"YES I would expect SQ42 to be "near release" when SC enters beta (whenever that is), but SC isn't anywhere NEAR beta, and SQ42 isn't even in alpha."
Star Citizen is about 18 months out from nearing a beta all going reasonably well. I guess 'isn't anywhere NEAR beta' is going to be a personal feeling of how long a period of time this feels to the user. I am old, it does not seem a long time to me at all /shrug.
I'm 100% willing to admit that I don't keep up with SQ42/SC as much as possible, simply because the torrent of information coming from CIG is usually too much to sift through for truly meaningful information. So, I will concede that perhaps SQ42 has the same scope as SC; however, I still don't think that after 5-6 years of development that the tech demo released is anything other than disappointing. At this point, I do feel they should be further along, especially considering that SQ42 *is* a single player experience and they share assets with SC.
So, if you (and @MaxBacon ) say they added procedural planet tech/FOIP to SQ42 (since they share assets), I believe you, because I haven't been keeping up (as I said). However, after 5-6 years of development, I don't think adding procedural planet tech and FOIP would mean that they should only have an "early pre-alpha WIP pre-recorded tech demo" to show for it.
Star Citizens Scope is vast, SQ42 is shaping up to be a very immersive and unique experience. As long as the end experience is really cool, is it worth getting hung up on it taking a little longer to get there? Is it important?
Last I heard, SQ42 was to be broken up into three "episodes", each containing a set of missions; that was essentially the last time I checked in on development. Is that still the development plan for SQ42?
Please present your evidence that the door cost $15k. Also lets see the reciept that they paid $20k for the coffee machine also. This kind of bullshit is why it's hard to take you clowns seriously. You spout absolute nonsense without an ounce of proof but state it as fact.
As for the Crytek V CIG issue there's still a lot of info missing so until we see CIG's side there's little point in speculating about that outcome. It's funny how all the armchair devs like to throw out how CR is doing this or that wrong as if they have all the info but to me at least it's obvious that there's much more that we can't see. It's idiotic to speculate on anything given the information we have. I guess welcome to the internet though where everyone is an expert on everything.
IMO actions speak louder than words. I see CIG making progress, however slow towards building the game they promised and until that changes I'm going to STFU and let them do their thing.
When did they say launch was imminent on squadron 42 ever. I've seen them say they had completed the white box phase on most missions but that is no-where near complete at that stage.
"Squadron 42 will be toward the end of the year [2015]. That's sort of basically Wing Commander single-player narrative story. And then at the very end of the year we will release the very early alpha of the persistent universe. It wont be nearly all of the systems and planets, but we plan to have five or six systems you can fly between. You won't be able to do all of the things we're planning on you to do, but probably trading, mining, piracy, combat and a lot of core stuff.
...
By the end of this year [2015] backers will have everything they originally pledged for plus a lot more," Roberts says. "But of course our intention is that it's a much bigger, more expansive, huger game than I ever considered we could do."
This is also partly why I still thought SQ42 and SC would be mostly separate games in terms of scope. I assumed the reference to the single-player campaign narrative story and persistent universe were completely separate concepts in terms of actual, separate games. Not necessarily separately developed, but developed alongside each other (sharing assets) in rather different scope.
At this point, to my knowledge, SQ42 wasn't simply an "offline mode" of SC, but a smaller scope game more comparable to Wing Commander. Obviously, if what you guys are saying is true, then SQ42 really isn't a separate game (apart from marketing reasons), but rather an "offline mode" with a story line.
And honestly, I wonder if our definition of 'finished' game is changing, or has changed, or will change. Now that most everything is online and developers remain able to make changes even years into a game's life, we may have very different criteria for what we consider games to be in terms of their 'done-ness' or whatever you want to call it.
Warframe is a great example of a perpetually "unfinished" game, too; in fact, it still considers itself in beta (in title only), but it continually updates old systems that it originally contained as "complete" with new/revamped ones. The point of difference is that, at some point, it contained an initial set of features that it originally set out to create -- in a "complete" sense that allowed for a continual, playable game loop.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the "perpetual beta" tags that it seems many modern games (like Warframe) operate under, because it kind of removes any sort of responsibility the devs/publishers might be beholden to by consumers simply because "its beta". Perhaps responsibility isn't the right word for the intention I mean, but I think the idea is there, at least. As someone in the "release when its ready" camp, you still have to actually "release" something at some point and at least call it "complete until further revision is needed".
You don't have to look far for proof of incompetence either. Just look at the holiday livestream. They knew about it for a year, they knew the date and time they were going to start and yet it was something like 30 minutes before the scheduled start they announce they have to delay 24 hours because their pre recorded demo isn't ready. How bad of a project manager do you have to be to screw up that badly?
I feel like even if they released a good game tomorrow, people would find a million things to complain about. If they released it years ago without procedural generation, people would have complained about goals not being implemented into the game.
There is really no winning for CIG, other than making a ton of money. Even thats a problem, the more money the higher the expectations. I guess this is another problem with open development and inexperienced fan boi expectations.
grrr that CR, bad bad man! I heard he once pulled the legs off a spider! we are talking pure concentrated evil in this man!
MAGA
'we are going to build a shed, it will take a week at the most'
'it seems we won the lottery during the week, we are no longer building a shed, we are building something bigger'
because you say so? Perhaps we could say it doesn't excuse it for you? but then...you even have money in this damn thing?!
Well this game is the most open development ever so how come we don't know what caused the delay? Is it because they are embarrassed at their continued incompetence and didn't want to say it?
Ok it was pushed back 24 hours to not inconvienance their global audience (overlooking the fact that many booked the day off for this stream and CIG still didn't announce the delay until the stream was almost supposed to go live). And I can point out posts showing people did care but you'd probably ignore the evidence anyway.
I'll give you a C for effort but in the future can you at least try to debate instead of your usual?