As if Freelancer still didin't took 3 more years to release after Roberts left and that Starfield changed scope and was also delayed multiple times along the way or that Todd Howard got caught in as many or more overambitious quotes and flamboyant hype lol
Ah the entitled gamer complex, completely unable to see the forest from the trees and eager to just eat all the clickbait that feeds their hateboners and jaded personas.
Thank god they don't have problem waiting for games.
I don't think this 'Other games have been delayed, other games have had troubled developments, other games failed to deliver, other projects wasted time and money, other developers were terrible project managers' argument is quite as telling as you seem to think it is.
He is right though, what he purposely leaves out is the other half of the equation; the careful setting up, and managing of, expectations and timelines for their audience/funders. This, in combination with the perpetual delays, is what creates this unique phenomenon of constant ‘just out of reach carrot and/or finish line’ while also making exactly enough progress to please the ones on board. And they are good at it, I mean, even JoeB fell for it with his sweet summer child ‘Beta Q3 2022’ message. Ahh well, another day, month, year, and the CIG train just keeps rolling, who cares for a promised station if there is ‘so much fun’ to be had on the tracks, it’s the intention that counts…
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
...He is right though, what he purposely leaves out is the other half of the equation; the careful setting up, and managing of, expectations and timelines for their audience/funders. This, in combination with the perpetual delays, is what creates this unique phenomenon of constant ‘just out of reach carrot and/or finish line’ while also making exactly enough progress to please the ones on board. And they are good at it, I mean, even JoeB fell for it with his sweet summer child ‘Beta Q3 2022’ message. Ahh well, another day, month, year, and the CIG train just keeps rolling, who cares for a promised station if there is ‘so much fun’ to be had on the tracks, it’s the intention that counts…
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I think it is fair to point out the issues that every game has in development, but that is a tune you can only sing for so many years before you become rather hoarse. For me the biggest factor is this, if the funding just keeps coming in why finish the game? There were strategic reasons to make SQ 42 like the idea that it would lead players into the wider MMO. But it is also a way of putting back the launch date as the money just keeps rolling in.
As if Freelancer still didin't took 3 more years to release after Roberts left and that Starfield changed scope and was also delayed multiple times along the way or that Todd Howard got caught in as many or more overambitious quotes and flamboyant hype lol
Ah the entitled gamer complex, completely unable to see the forest from the trees and eager to just eat all the clickbait that feeds their hateboners and jaded personas.
Thank god they don't have problem waiting for games.
I don't think this 'Other games have been delayed, other games have had troubled developments, other games failed to deliver, other projects wasted time and money, other developers were terrible project managers' argument is quite as telling as you seem to think it is.
Off course it is. Just forget about the jadeness and axe to grind and take a look at all the other games and studios, standard or crowdfunded to see patherns of ocurrence of games taking a long time or longer than projected. That's not automatically mean there's any wrong doing. Simply some projects are harder to plan for and more complicated to realize than others. We can observe this across the industry for many years, kickstarters just exposed it further to the masses.
And cut the idiotic claims that studios are stalling development progress because of money. An officially released game is way more easy to sell and to a larger audience than one in alpha.
If studios are given money to make their game and it includes specific features/tech to reach the main vision then that's the priority goal. The time to get there being secondary. If there's funding there's time and there's will to do it that's how it should be. If you cut corners to rush your game it will come back to bite you further ahead cause you probably will hit tech roadblocks that prevents you from progressing the game further.
As if Freelancer still didin't took 3 more years to release after Roberts left and that Starfield changed scope and was also delayed multiple times along the way or that Todd Howard got caught in as many or more overambitious quotes and flamboyant hype lol
Ah the entitled gamer complex, completely unable to see the forest from the trees and eager to just eat all the clickbait that feeds their hateboners and jaded personas.
Thank god they don't have problem waiting for games.
I don't think this 'Other games have been delayed, other games have had troubled developments, other games failed to deliver, other projects wasted time and money, other developers were terrible project managers' argument is quite as telling as you seem to think it is.
Off course it is. Just forget about the jadeness and axe to grind and take a look at all the other games and studios, standard or crowdfunded to see patherns of ocurrence of games taking a long time or longer than projected. That's not automatically mean there's any wrong doing. Simply some projects are harder to plan for and more complicated to realize than others. We can observe this across the industry for many years, kickstarters just exposed it further to the masses.
And cut the idiotic claims that studios are stalling development progress because of money. An officially released game is way more easy to sell and to a larger audience than one in alpha.
If studios are given money to make their game and it includes specific features/tech to reach the main vision then that's the priority goal. The time to get there being secondary. If there's funding there's time and there's will to do it that's how it should be. If you cut corners to rush your game it will come back to bite you further ahead cause you probably will hit tech roadblocks that prevents you from progressing the game further.
If the money is rolling in, they are just going to let that keep going. That's not to say the game is not being developed mind you. But if you had a game ready to launch would you keep polishing and think about some expansions or release there and then? Not saying SC is ready for launch, but you don't move the milk cow onto pasture while it is still a great cash cow in the stalls.
...He is right though, what he purposely leaves out is the other half of the equation; the careful setting up, and managing of, expectations and timelines for their audience/funders. This, in combination with the perpetual delays, is what creates this unique phenomenon of constant ‘just out of reach carrot and/or finish line’ while also making exactly enough progress to please the ones on board. And they are good at it, I mean, even JoeB fell for it with his sweet summer child ‘Beta Q3 2022’ message. Ahh well, another day, month, year, and the CIG train just keeps rolling, who cares for a promised station if there is ‘so much fun’ to be had on the tracks, it’s the intention that counts…
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I think it is fair to point out the issues that every game has in development, but that is a tune you can only sing for so many years before you become rather hoarse. For me the biggest factor is this, if the funding just keeps coming in why finish the game? There were strategic reasons to make SQ 42 like the idea that it would lead players into the wider MMO. But it is also a way of putting back the launch date as the money just keeps rolling in.
The difference is scale of those problems. Every big game project has its own problems. Most of them go over original budget and timeline. But usually it's just by a moderate amount, for example they might need 50% extra.
Star Citizen has now used like 500% extra and it's nowhere near release. It's having problems on a completely different scale.
...He is right though, what he purposely leaves out is the other half of the equation; the careful setting up, and managing of, expectations and timelines for their audience/funders. This, in combination with the perpetual delays, is what creates this unique phenomenon of constant ‘just out of reach carrot and/or finish line’ while also making exactly enough progress to please the ones on board. And they are good at it, I mean, even JoeB fell for it with his sweet summer child ‘Beta Q3 2022’ message. Ahh well, another day, month, year, and the CIG train just keeps rolling, who cares for a promised station if there is ‘so much fun’ to be had on the tracks, it’s the intention that counts…
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I think it is fair to point out the issues that every game has in development, but that is a tune you can only sing for so many years before you become rather hoarse. For me the biggest factor is this, if the funding just keeps coming in why finish the game? There were strategic reasons to make SQ 42 like the idea that it would lead players into the wider MMO. But it is also a way of putting back the launch date as the money just keeps rolling in.
The difference is scale of those problems. Every big game project has its own problems. Most of them go over original budget and timeline. But usually it's just by a moderate amount, for example they might need 50% extra.
Star Citizen has now used like 500% extra and it's nowhere near release. It's having problems on a completely different scale.
I don't think we disagree here, that's why positive voices have been singing that song too long.
As if Freelancer still didin't took 3 more years to release after Roberts left and that Starfield changed scope and was also delayed multiple times along the way or that Todd Howard got caught in as many or more overambitious quotes and flamboyant hype lol
Ah the entitled gamer complex, completely unable to see the forest from the trees and eager to just eat all the clickbait that feeds their hateboners and jaded personas.
Thank god they don't have problem waiting for games.
I don't think this 'Other games have been delayed, other games have had troubled developments, other games failed to deliver, other projects wasted time and money, other developers were terrible project managers' argument is quite as telling as you seem to think it is.
Off course it is. Just forget about the jadeness and axe to grind and take a look at all the other games and studios, standard or crowdfunded to see patherns of ocurrence of games taking a long time or longer than projected. That's not automatically mean there's any wrong doing. Simply some projects are harder to plan for and more complicated to realize than others. We can observe this across the industry for many years, kickstarters just exposed it further to the masses.
And cut the idiotic claims that studios are stalling development progress because of money. An officially released game is way more easy to sell and to a larger audience than one in alpha.
If studios are given money to make their game and it includes specific features/tech to reach the main vision then that's the priority goal. The time to get there being secondary. If there's funding there's time and there's will to do it that's how it should be. If you cut corners to rush your game it will come back to bite you further ahead cause you probably will hit tech roadblocks that prevents you from progressing the game further.
If the money is rolling in, they are just going to let that keep going. That's not to say the game is not being developed mind you. But if you had a game ready to launch would you keep polishing and think about some expansions or release there and then? Not saying SC is ready for launch, but you don't move the milk cow onto pasture while it is still a great cash cow in the stalls.
You somehow missed the part that the 'money rolling in' is being spent opening studios, hiring developers, developing proprietary tech to enable the needed features etc. This is a big production on par or bigger than the RDR/GTA's and those require quite a lot of workforce.
...He is right though, what he purposely leaves out is the other half of the equation; the careful setting up, and managing of, expectations and timelines for their audience/funders. This, in combination with the perpetual delays, is what creates this unique phenomenon of constant ‘just out of reach carrot and/or finish line’ while also making exactly enough progress to please the ones on board. And they are good at it, I mean, even JoeB fell for it with his sweet summer child ‘Beta Q3 2022’ message. Ahh well, another day, month, year, and the CIG train just keeps rolling, who cares for a promised station if there is ‘so much fun’ to be had on the tracks, it’s the intention that counts…
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I think it is fair to point out the issues that every game has in development, but that is a tune you can only sing for so many years before you become rather hoarse. For me the biggest factor is this, if the funding just keeps coming in why finish the game? There were strategic reasons to make SQ 42 like the idea that it would lead players into the wider MMO. But it is also a way of putting back the launch date as the money just keeps rolling in.
The difference is scale of those problems. Every big game project has its own problems. Most of them go over original budget and timeline. But usually it's just by a moderate amount, for example they might need 50% extra.
Star Citizen has now used like 500% extra and it's nowhere near release. It's having problems on a completely different scale.
Moderate ammount? 50% extra? LoL where did you come up woth those?
Only problem I see is your ( and others ) inability to understand that budget and timelines aren't set in stone. Specially true in crowdfunding projects. One just has to look around to other crowdfunded mmo's or studios that reveal they are working on games in their infancy ( Riot's mmo, Ubisoft's Beyond&GoodEvil2 for ex.) to understand that.
I get it basic logic goes out of the way to acommodate shitting on games as an escape from jadeness or whatever. Doesn't it true or relevant though cause it's the same reash of false premises and half truths.
Ah, I get it now. You asked what we'll be playing in September, but you didn't say WHAT YEAR! It *was* a trick question
Obviously this September it'll be Starfield, since SQ42 doesn't exist. I actually doubt SQ42 will ever exist. Roberts has shown no ability to make a game for at least 20 years. He can imagine one very well, but doesn't seem able to actually finish one.
I still think Star Citizen has a chance of becoming reality, but probably only after someone replaces Roberts and the new team finally finishes the game.
Starfield is already done and about to be released. If it supports modding like other Bethesda games (like Skyrim), Starfield will probably be the top space game for at least 8-10 more years.
I still think Star Citizen has a chance of becoming reality, but probably only after someone replaces Roberts and the new team finally finishes the game.
Starfield is already done and about to be released. If it supports modding like other Bethesda games (like Skyrim), Starfield will probably be the top space game for at least 8-10 more years.
Quicker will SQ42 get finished than SC.
SQ42 is a cinematic story, linear, mission-based, pew pew, gg. SC is the collossus as the MMO that requires pretty difficult takes on tech especially when it comes to bring MMO scale to a space sim type game that invests so much on physicalization.
This also why I never get even Starfield against SQ42 comparations because they don't even hit the same notes, sq42 it's not open world, it's not RPG, it's far more comparable to a Mass Effect game than it ever would be SF.
You somehow missed the part that the 'money rolling in' is being spent opening studios, hiring developers, developing proprietary tech to enable the needed features etc. This is a big production on par or bigger than the RDR/GTA's and those require quite a lot of workforce.
That's why I said "That's not to say the game is not being developed mind you".
Ah, I get it now. You asked what we'll be playing in September, but you didn't say WHAT YEAR! It *was* a trick question
Obviously this September it'll be Starfield, since SQ42 doesn't exist. I actually doubt SQ42 will ever exist. Roberts has shown no ability to make a game for at least 20 years. He can imagine one very well, but doesn't seem able to actually finish one.
I still think Star Citizen has a chance of becoming reality, but probably only after someone replaces Roberts and the new team finally finishes the game.
Starfield is already done and about to be released. If it supports modding like other Bethesda games (like Skyrim), Starfield will probably be the top space game for at least 8-10 more years.
A space game that doesn't even have seamless flight from space to planet and vice versa will never be "the top space game" lol
At most it will be a cool sci-fi rpg ala mass-effect /fallout/outer worlds where the actual "space" stuff is secondary.
A space game that doesn't even have seamless flight from space to planet and vice versa will never be "the top space game" lol
At most it will be a cool sci-fi rpg ala mass-effect /fallout/outer worlds where the actual "space" stuff is secondary.
I think seamless flight from space to planet is one of the least important aspects of good space game. At the end of the day it's just a transition. It needs to work so that I can switch from space-flight to interacting with the planet, but like all transitions, it doesn't need to be pretty it just needs to be over fast enough.
I think seamless flight from space to planet is one of the least important aspects of good space game. At the end of the day it's just a transition. It needs to work so that I can switch from space-flight to interacting with the planet, but like all transitions, it doesn't need to be pretty it just needs to be over fast enough.
I mean all that's know of SF show that the space aspect of the game is rather secondary to the planets, you be in space, open a map, click to load into planet, open a map, click to jump to new system, there is a rather limited scope there.
It's also a game that's obviously not goint to be appealing because of its space sim aspects, this is not the type of game you will play with your HOTAS setups and such; it's always good to remember a game having space does not make put it on the lines of a space sim. Same story goes for NMS & others.
I think seamless flight from space to planet is one of the least important aspects of good space game. At the end of the day it's just a transition. It needs to work so that I can switch from space-flight to interacting with the planet, but like all transitions, it doesn't need to be pretty it just needs to be over fast enough.
I mean all that's know of SF show that the space aspect of the game is rather secondary to the planets, you be in space, open a map, click to load into planet, open a map, click to jump to new system, there is a rather limited scope there.
It's also a game that's obviously not goint to be appealing because of its space sim aspects, this is not the type of game you will play with your HOTAS setups and such; it's always good to remember a game having space does not make put it on the lines of a space sim. Same story goes for NMS & others.
Two interesting things Starfield has is the ability to build your own ship, and power management while in space. It has the normal dogfighting, and you can manually divert power to the shields, the guns, the engines, etc. You can target the enemy's shields, guns, engines, etc, too. You can even board enemy ships and claim them after defeating the crew.
While not a real space simulator, it isn't just a point-and-click while in space game either.
Starfield has over 250,000 lines of dialogue, 1,000 planets 100 of which have life. Buildable outposts, like bases, and buildable ships. NPC companions, factions, and a persuasion system.
And it comes out in a month! When does SQ42 or SC come out? Nobody knows. Nobody knows if either of those games will ever come out.
I think seamless flight from space to planet is one of the least important aspects of good space game. At the end of the day it's just a transition. It needs to work so that I can switch from space-flight to interacting with the planet, but like all transitions, it doesn't need to be pretty it just needs to be over fast enough.
I mean all that's know of SF show that the space aspect of the game is rather secondary to the planets, you be in space, open a map, click to load into planet, open a map, click to jump to new system, there is a rather limited scope there.
It's also a game that's obviously not goint to be appealing because of its space sim aspects, this is not the type of game you will play with your HOTAS setups and such; it's always good to remember a game having space does not make put it on the lines of a space sim. Same story goes for NMS & others.
I think Starfield isn't a space sim.
But Babuinix was talking about "space game", not "space sim", and Starfield is definitely a space game.
I think seamless flight from space to planet is one of the least important aspects of good space game. At the end of the day it's just a transition. It needs to work so that I can switch from space-flight to interacting with the planet, but like all transitions, it doesn't need to be pretty it just needs to be over fast enough.
I mean all that's know of SF show that the space aspect of the game is rather secondary to the planets, you be in space, open a map, click to load into planet, open a map, click to jump to new system, there is a rather limited scope there.
It's also a game that's obviously not goint to be appealing because of its space sim aspects, this is not the type of game you will play with your HOTAS setups and such; it's always good to remember a game having space does not make put it on the lines of a space sim. Same story goes for NMS & others.
I think Starfield isn't a space sim.
But Babuinix was talking about "space game", not "space sim", and Starfield is definitely a space game.
A real space sim would probably be very boring, depending on how detailed it is. A true simulator would probably require quite a bit of time just to take off, with all the checks and setting that would have to be done. I doubt anybody would really want to play a game like that.
Unless you abstract it to a "launch now" button. And at that point it's not a real sim anymore. Real space maneuvers would take hours in a real simulator.
Two interesting things Starfield has is the ability to build your own ship, and power management while in space. It has the normal dogfighting, and you can manually divert power to the shields, the guns, the engines, etc. You can target the enemy's shields, guns, engines, etc, too. You can even board enemy ships and claim them after defeating the crew.
While not a real space simulator, it isn't just a point-and-click while in space game either.
Starfield has over 250,000 lines of dialogue, 1,000 planets 100 of which have life. Buildable outposts, like bases, and buildable ships. NPC companions, factions, and a persuasion system.
And it comes out in a month! When does SQ42 or SC come out? Nobody knows. Nobody knows if either of those games will ever come out.
Yes, but it will always be towards the big mainstream audience which means those elements will forcefully superficial as to appeal to the broader audience. Of course when you have a sim type of crowd, things like scripted landings and take offs and such, on top of the no seamless transitions, those do are obvious turn offs. If you're not part of that crowd, then yeah, that wouldn't really matter to you.
SC is also no pure space sim, it's an approach that's meant to be complex nuf especially on flight and combat, but at the same time is not doing so via realistic physics, otherwise it would indeed be overly boring and make the game even more niche.
I will play SF, but for its theme and open-world RPG nature as it does not get to even close be what I been looking for with SC that is the space sim MMO type.
A space game that doesn't even have seamless flight from space to planet and vice versa will never be "the top space game" lol
At most it will be a cool sci-fi rpg ala mass-effect /fallout/outer worlds where the actual "space" stuff is secondary.
I think seamless flight from space to planet is one of the least important aspects of good space game. At the end of the day it's just a transition. It needs to work so that I can switch from space-flight to interacting with the planet, but like all transitions, it doesn't need to be pretty it just needs to be over fast enough.
That just shows you don't play space games. It's absolutely a milestone. Tech and design wise.
The act of being in a planet or space and be able to point in any direction and seamlessly go anywhere is pretty big for the sense of freedom, discovery, scale, exploration, and general believability of being a dude having adventures on space.
With that said Starfield doesn't have flight in planets or vehicles to traverse long terrain distances which hints at the gameplay being in constricted areas.
So more like Skyrim/Fallout in a sci-fi setting.
We wont be exploring actual planets but small areas stiched with smokescreen which is completly fine for a rpg game heavy on narrative and charater development but ultimately not a "top space game" for those who care about the space/flight/sim aspect of the space game genre.
Two interesting things Starfield has is the ability to build your own ship, and power management while in space. It has the normal dogfighting, and you can manually divert power to the shields, the guns, the engines, etc. You can target the enemy's shields, guns, engines, etc, too. You can even board enemy ships and claim them after defeating the crew.
While not a real space simulator, it isn't just a point-and-click while in space game either.
Starfield has over 250,000 lines of dialogue, 1,000 planets 100 of which have life. Buildable outposts, like bases, and buildable ships. NPC companions, factions, and a persuasion system.
And it comes out in a month! When does SQ42 or SC come out? Nobody knows. Nobody knows if either of those games will ever come out.
Yes, but it will always be towards the big mainstream audience which means those elements will forcefully superficial as to appeal to the broader audience. Of course when you have a sim type of crowd, things like scripted landings and take offs and such, on top of the no seamless transitions, those do are obvious turn offs. If you're not part of that crowd, then yeah, that wouldn't really matter to you.
SC is also no pure space sim, it's an approach that's meant to be complex nuf especially on flight and combat, but at the same time is not doing so via realistic physics, otherwise it would indeed be overly boring and make the game even more niche.
I will play SF, but for its theme and open-world RPG nature as it does not get to even close be what I been looking for with SC that is the space sim MMO type.
Agreed, that is what I was thinking (I highlighted the part I'm talking about). NMS is close enough for me, with actual take-offs and landings, not scripted ones. NMS also has the rudiments of inertia and gravity effects in space.
I expect Starfield to be abstracted similar to Skyrim and most MMO's. In LoTRO for example, you can run on foot for 20 minutes, and cover what a true sim would take days or weeks to do. Travel speed has been compressed immensely. SQ42 and SC, if they ever come out, will no doubt do the same thing.
My hope is that Starfield will be the beginning of a long running space opera incorporating ideas, tropes, and features across several sci-fi sub-genres.
A comparison to No Man's Sky feels more apt than Star Citizen or Elite. From some game play footage, they seem to share some similarities with building, scanning, and mining. I expect Starfield will interest a lot of NMS players. They will be different though. Where No Man's Sky is a homage to science fiction roots, exploring themes of sentience and reality, I expect Starfield will be a more thematically focused experience with character growth and a more central narrative.
As if Freelancer still didin't took 3 more years to release after Roberts left and that Starfield changed scope and was also delayed multiple times along the way or that Todd Howard got caught in as many or more overambitious quotes and flamboyant hype lol
Ah the entitled gamer complex, completely unable to see the forest from the trees and eager to just eat all the clickbait that feeds their hateboners and jaded personas.
Thank god they don't have problem waiting for games.
I don't think this 'Other games have been delayed, other games have had troubled developments, other games failed to deliver, other projects wasted time and money, other developers were terrible project managers' argument is quite as telling as you seem to think it is.
Off course it is. Just forget about the jadeness and axe to grind and take a look at all the other games and studios, standard or crowdfunded to see patherns of ocurrence of games taking a long time or longer than projected. That's not automatically mean there's any wrong doing. Simply some projects are harder to plan for and more complicated to realize than others. We can observe this across the industry for many years, kickstarters just exposed it further to the masses.
And cut the idiotic claims that studios are stalling development progress because of money. An officially released game is way more easy to sell and to a larger audience than one in alpha.
If studios are given money to make their game and it includes specific features/tech to reach the main vision then that's the priority goal. The time to get there being secondary. If there's funding there's time and there's will to do it that's how it should be. If you cut corners to rush your game it will come back to bite you further ahead cause you probably will hit tech roadblocks that prevents you from progressing the game further.
If the money is rolling in, they are just going to let that keep going. That's not to say the game is not being developed mind you. But if you had a game ready to launch would you keep polishing and think about some expansions or release there and then? Not saying SC is ready for launch, but you don't move the milk cow onto pasture while it is still a great cash cow in the stalls.
THIS!
They did it backwards. Now they owe people a game in advance. Once this game is released, what are they going to do for income? People already bought the game.
Star Citizen has become the poster child for how to not run a project. It’s like watching someone do a brainmap - and instead of choosing the 3 most important aspects to keep the project moving forward - they try to do everything, because people are obviously not allowed to question wether to spend 4 months developing «pee physics in space» or finishing up dialogue and quests would be a better thing to focus on
Elite Dangerous and No Mans sky Both have seamless planet to space flight. So what?
Star Citizen has the LEAST amount of 'content' of any of the 'space' games/sims.
Starfield really isnt a great example. Like I said, obvious post is obvious. But always good to see the resident fanbois all come out in full spin mode.
There is a great youtube video about how certain studios are able to create certain games. Doesnt mention Star Citizen at all, but every failing point on why certain 'cant miss' studios often not only miss but fail. Is because they dont create the right 'team' to do what needs to be done to actually make the game they want to.
But really SC comes down to what we (those of us who are still alive anyway) said over 10 years ago...Chris Roberts has never and will never be able to ever finish anything. Had there not been the inconceivable faucet of money continuously pouring into this project it would have disappeared years ago. They have raised how much now? No matter who you ask there is no way no how ANYONE could have predicted they would have gotten that much money. Also if you had said..."Chris Roberts will have a billion dollars to make Star Citizen what will he deliver?". I would think no one, not ecen the biggest skeptics would have predicted he would have as LITTLE to show for the amount of money they have raised, as they actually have. The white knights would have said he could have created an alternate reality with that much money, Not a tech demo (alpha at best) single system playfield with 2 or 3 planets.
What was the original boast? A hundred systems with a thousand planets? I cant remember now. But it was certainly way way way way way more than what actually exists.
So if you want to talk about SC feel free. SQ 42 'should' be 'easy' its a single player game. Which was claimed to be finished 5 or 6 years ago. DIdnt Roberts Brother claim he had played the WHOLE campaign?
The whole excuse has been scope. Remember almost 5 years ago now when they got that venture capiltal? We all thought THAT meant they would actually have to deliver SOMETHING. But here we are 5 years later and SQ 42 is no closer ro being completed or released than it was then. That 46 or whatever million they got was what we said it was...a tax write off.
Comments
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
And cut the idiotic claims that studios are stalling development progress because of money. An officially released game is way more easy to sell and to a larger audience than one in alpha.
If studios are given money to make their game and it includes specific features/tech to reach the main vision then that's the priority goal. The time to get there being secondary. If there's funding there's time and there's will to do it that's how it should be. If you cut corners to rush your game it will come back to bite you further ahead cause you probably will hit tech roadblocks that prevents you from progressing the game further.
Star Citizen has now used like 500% extra and it's nowhere near release. It's having problems on a completely different scale.
Only problem I see is your ( and others ) inability to understand that budget and timelines aren't set in stone. Specially true in crowdfunding projects. One just has to look around to other crowdfunded mmo's or studios that reveal they are working on games in their infancy ( Riot's mmo, Ubisoft's Beyond&GoodEvil2 for ex.) to understand that.
I get it basic logic goes out of the way to acommodate shitting on games as an escape from jadeness or whatever. Doesn't it true or relevant though cause it's the same reash of false premises and half truths.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Quicker will SQ42 get finished than SC.
SQ42 is a cinematic story, linear, mission-based, pew pew, gg. SC is the collossus as the MMO that requires pretty difficult takes on tech especially when it comes to bring MMO scale to a space sim type game that invests so much on physicalization.
This also why I never get even Starfield against SQ42 comparations because they don't even hit the same notes, sq42 it's not open world, it's not RPG, it's far more comparable to a Mass Effect game than it ever would be SF.
At most it will be a cool sci-fi rpg ala mass-effect /fallout/outer worlds where the actual "space" stuff is secondary.
I mean all that's know of SF show that the space aspect of the game is rather secondary to the planets, you be in space, open a map, click to load into planet, open a map, click to jump to new system, there is a rather limited scope there.
It's also a game that's obviously not goint to be appealing because of its space sim aspects, this is not the type of game you will play with your HOTAS setups and such; it's always good to remember a game having space does not make put it on the lines of a space sim. Same story goes for NMS & others.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
But Babuinix was talking about "space game", not "space sim", and Starfield is definitely a space game.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
SC is also no pure space sim, it's an approach that's meant to be complex nuf especially on flight and combat, but at the same time is not doing so via realistic physics, otherwise it would indeed be overly boring and make the game even more niche.
I will play SF, but for its theme and open-world RPG nature as it does not get to even close be what I been looking for with SC that is the space sim MMO type.
The act of being in a planet or space and be able to point in any direction and seamlessly go anywhere is pretty big for the sense of freedom, discovery, scale, exploration, and general believability of being a dude having adventures on space.
With that said Starfield doesn't have flight in planets or vehicles to traverse long terrain distances which hints at the gameplay being in constricted areas.
So more like Skyrim/Fallout in a sci-fi setting.
We wont be exploring actual planets but small areas stiched with smokescreen which is completly fine for a rpg game heavy on narrative and charater development but ultimately not a "top space game" for those who care about the space/flight/sim aspect of the space game genre.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
As of right now...
There is no Starfield multiplayer mode planned. Bethesda has confirmed several times that Starfield is a single-player adventure only.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/They did it backwards. Now they owe people a game in advance. Once this game is released, what are they going to do for income? People already bought the game.
Star Citizen has the LEAST amount of 'content' of any of the 'space' games/sims.
Starfield really isnt a great example. Like I said, obvious post is obvious. But always good to see the resident fanbois all come out in full spin mode.
There is a great youtube video about how certain studios are able to create certain games. Doesnt mention Star Citizen at all, but every failing point on why certain 'cant miss' studios often not only miss but fail. Is because they dont create the right 'team' to do what needs to be done to actually make the game they want to.
But really SC comes down to what we (those of us who are still alive anyway) said over 10 years ago...Chris Roberts has never and will never be able to ever finish anything. Had there not been the inconceivable faucet of money continuously pouring into this project it would have disappeared years ago. They have raised how much now? No matter who you ask there is no way no how ANYONE could have predicted they would have gotten that much money. Also if you had said..."Chris Roberts will have a billion dollars to make Star Citizen what will he deliver?". I would think no one, not ecen the biggest skeptics would have predicted he would have as LITTLE to show for the amount of money they have raised, as they actually have. The white knights would have said he could have created an alternate reality with that much money, Not a tech demo (alpha at best) single system playfield with 2 or 3 planets.
What was the original boast? A hundred systems with a thousand planets? I cant remember now. But it was certainly way way way way way more than what actually exists.
So if you want to talk about SC feel free. SQ 42 'should' be 'easy' its a single player game. Which was claimed to be finished 5 or 6 years ago. DIdnt Roberts Brother claim he had played the WHOLE campaign?
The whole excuse has been scope. Remember almost 5 years ago now when they got that venture capiltal? We all thought THAT meant they would actually have to deliver SOMETHING. But here we are 5 years later and SQ 42 is no closer ro being completed or released than it was then. That 46 or whatever million they got was what we said it was...a tax write off.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2018/12/20/billionaire-clive-calder-and-son-invest-46-million-in-studio-behind-crowdfunded-game-star-citizen/
Its always fun going back in time and watching videos or reading articles, and how poorly all those have aged.
No one with any brain cells left still thinks this thing will release, especially in ANY form that Roberts originally sold.