Chairman Tickles
Banned
Interesting that the starter pack is now $45. Used to be $35....that's what I paid.
Suspicious.
Suspicious.
You already lost your little smug "dare" all on your own. Features aren't "meaningless" just because you apply some goalpost-moving limitation to try (and fail) to downplay them. It's absolutely hilarious how you argue that in a game about science fiction having fights between starfighters is "meaningless."
You can do plenty of quests, you can mine, you can explore planets for points of interest like ship derelicts and more, you can participate in racing events, you can fight on foot (both in the persistent universe and in its own self-contained feature, which is a full-fledged multiplayer FPS), you can compete in the leaderboards in the self-contained Arena Commander (both in single and multiplayer), you can drive land vehicles and hoverbikes. There's more, but I've proved my point plenty already.
You can interact with other players, which is what sandbox multiplayer games are all about, both in friendly and hostile ways, and that's an enormous chunk of "things to do" right there. You know, that's how people have been creating "actual stories" in online games since Ultima Online.
Looks like someone's been "proven wrong." Oops.![]()
So why do you keep coming in this thread then? If this was an official SC thread for backers, i don’t even think you would have the guts to come in and start trash talk. People like you and some other around here are only interested in negatives around SC. You guys “think” you know something about the project, you don’t fucking now nothing, not even 1%. This is not a game you watch on youtube for a half hour and say “this is boring, what a shit show bla bla bla” you can’t even compare it to normal days game. You have to do so much more research before you even want to back it because their is more around this game. To me the community is one of the best gaming communities i met. Everyone is nice, helpful and friendly for new backers. Maybe you need appreciate something like this and that it is different from normal closed development games. People would shit over EA, Ubisoft, CDPR, Rockstar, Sony etc etc all the time if they did the same open development and transparency like CIG does.
You have no proven anything, you have the exact same response as the other whales on Star Citizen message boards. Again, visiting empty cities and empty hangers and what not is not a feature. It is a game that is an empty husk of a shell and has nothing for you to do in it.
And as far as players go i hear that you only have 50 players max in any one server, sure sounds like you have lots to do with 49 other people spread across the galaxy. And stop calling this a full fledged multiplayer game, it is anything but a game, it was and continues to be a tech demo, nothing more.
You andAbriael_GN are the ones coming in here to talk trash might i remind you. This is a thread based on a fairly negative article about RSI and Chris Roberts and rightfully so. Please don't act like people can't come in here just because you deem it shouldn't happen. You get to have your opinion just like others get to have theirs. The problem though with your opinion is that it comes tainted with the tons of money you have thrown into this game hoping it turns out to be some great game, i had hoped it would be to back in the beginning when the kickstarter first happened but that isn't the case at all. Chris Roberts has burned through at least a QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLARS and has not shown anything meaningful in that time at all, you don't find that odd?
You admitted it yourself that you have spent at least $5500 dollars on this thing, no wonder you are so bitter about people judging what is right now a huge clusterfuck of a development.
These do nothing for me, pretty but boring... almost reminds me of
Not saying the game will be bad or anything, just that the "hype" videos are not helping
You're the one who said this.
Let me explain it once more, slowly. The "MMO" persistent universe has been part of the plans since the very beginning of the crowdfunding campaign.. The original Kickstarter page is still available and can be found here.
Basically. You're wrong, and there's no "come on dood" that changes that. May as well just admit that you said something ignorant and move on.
Also, the comparison with Spider-man is ridiculous. Spider-man is a great achievement in and of itself, but the difference in scale, persistence, and scope between the two games is massive.
1: it doesn't
2: it's not even in the same galaxy in terms of scale, scope, and features. Comparing apples to escalators does your argument no favors.
Sorry but i talk about PC games and not Console ports. Most PC games like mmo's / dota's / BR shooters etc all never really are done and go through faces.
Dota isn't the same as when it launched, wow isn't the same as when it launched. You can make this article for any of those gams without issue's.
This game is a open game project that will go on forever and ever and evolve forever and forever until the company goes out of business or activily decides to move on to another project.
Metacrits etc also isn't going to work for games like this as a result of this.
It's forbes and console gamers that honestly do not understand the concept of PC games and make random fud articles to get clicks.
my gripe with the game is that even when (and if) it's finished, i'm not gonna touch the main portion of it (the online open world stuff) because there will be tons of people with cash paid ships around to ruin the experience
also, it will probably have so much microtransactions to feed a small country.
my gripe with the game is that even when (and if) it's finished, i'm not gonna touch the main portion of it (the online open world stuff) because there will be tons of people with cash paid ships around to ruin the experience
also, it will probably have so much microtransactions to feed a small country.
The thing about Star Citizen is that it bit off more than it can/could chew.....I appreciate an ambitious game, but there's something about Star Citizen that's just not coming together.....The premise is one of Peter Molyneux like promise, but what they have relative to gameplay is not all that polished or good......Large/world/universe, you can do anything, fly your ships, land on planets, shoot your weapons........You just can't attempt a game that can literally do it all, because many aspects of Star Citizen the game will suffer, the sound effects, the animations, the actual gunplay/gameplay......You will never have enough manpower to realize this ambition with good quality and polish...
I think many PC gamers backed SC, not so much on the premise of great gameplay but because of it's graphical and technical promise......PC has not had a Crysis like game in years.....And because all the "best graphics threads was being led by predominantly console titles" PC guys doubled down on SC as a title no console game would touch in years and would be PC's most impressive looking game and poster child for said graphical debates.......The truth is, by the time SC releases, the new gen maybe upon us, where console graphics will be on a whole new stratoshpere......I think NMS was able to do something great, even without the graphical oomph of SC, at least they have something that plays well whilst being ambitious and we all know how long it took for them to rectify and improve some mechanics and add more polish......SC's graphics alone is a huge undertaking, to model these ships and the world, to get animation, Ai and sound on an acceptable level or proper gameplay across this vast world is going to be a world of hurt and an endless money and timesink.....
A game need to have limits, you need to curate an experience in order to deliver a focused and quality experience........Trying to be a jack of all trades type of game means that many aspects of the game will suffer.....and a higher and constant increase of time and money won't necessarily solve it.......
Snake29 can you understand that there are minuses with the game as it stands?
this is the most fair assessment of the game I have seen. Still though I’m not impressed by how broken the game looks. They still have so much to add in the game and it still needs some serious patches.Everything one needs to know about the actual Star Citizen game today:
I'm so thankful to this youtuber for confirming how unfinished and barely standing together Star Citizen is.
Cyberpunk2077 is going to render this experimental demo useless. The ship design were great, as well as the few procedural cities, but besides that Star Citizen is an empty incoherent skeleton that barely stands together.
compared to Sea of Thieves and fallout 76 at launch? YesI dont understand the whole "its playable" arguement. Does this current version has the same amount of content as the games its being compated too atm?
Then you can stop playing MMO's in general. Star Citizen universe will massive, people and Org's with large ships (even i have those ships and my Org does have ships for specific roles) will not even bother with starters. Star Citizen will not only be about combat. I am more interested in the science gameplay, exploration (like Prometheus the movie). Sure if you are going for a big expedition party you need security with you, others that can protect the cargo ship, science vessels. You need to think about what you equipment you bring with you on large scale missions like ammo for your ships, spare parts like coolers, shield gens, Avionic stuff, you can repair modules. Most ships have storage or storage rooms for this. Food for the crew, enough fuel, quantum fuel. Vehicles in your hangar bay like the URSA Rover or Cyclone buggies.
Big organised Org will travel more to more dangerous solar systems to build their settlement. With the Pioneer you can do that in the future.
Cant believe people in 2019 still believe these things will happen in SC. Science, exploration? I really don't know what to say,
I remember when so many people wrote off No Man's Sky as a complete failure that the developer could never fix. Yet despite all the arm chair experts claiming it would never happen, No Man's Sky just keeps getting better.
If the Star Citizen developers are committed to developing this project long term, i honestly don't see a problem with that.
I don’t think this game will reach the scale of No Man’s Sky. It’s already been seven years and they don’t even have a single galaxy let alone the systems in place to go up against it.
Derek is already preaching about it on his twitter like the moron he is. I'm surprised he's relent these days outside of sucking up to Something Awful forums when they use to mock him.Think Derek smart wrote that article lol that's no journalist
The thing about Star Citizen is that it bit off more than it can/could chew.....I appreciate an ambitious game, but there's something about Star Citizen that's just not coming together.....The premise is one of Peter Molyneux like promise, but what they have relative to gameplay is not all that polished or good......Large/world/universe, you can do anything, fly your ships, land on planets, shoot your weapons........You just can't attempt a game that can literally do it all, because many aspects of Star Citizen the game will suffer, the sound effects, the animations, the actual gunplay/gameplay......You will never have enough manpower to realize this ambition with good quality and polish...
I think many PC gamers backed SC, not so much on the premise of great gameplay but because of it's graphical and technical promise......PC has not had a Crysis like game in years.....And because all the "best graphics threads was being led by predominantly console titles" PC guys doubled down on SC as a title no console game would touch in years and would be PC's most impressive looking game and poster child for said graphical debates.......The truth is, by the time SC releases, the new gen maybe upon us, where console graphics will be on a whole new stratoshpere......I think NMS was able to do something great, even without the graphical oomph of SC, at least they have something that plays well whilst being ambitious and we all know how long it took for them to rectify and improve some mechanics and add more polish......SC's graphics alone is a huge undertaking, to model these ships and the world, to get animation, Ai and sound on an acceptable level or proper gameplay across this vast world is going to be a world of hurt and an endless money and timesink.....
A game need to have limits, you need to curate an experience in order to deliver a focused and quality experience........Trying to be a jack of all trades type of game means that many aspects of the game will suffer.....and a higher and constant increase of time and money won't necessarily solve it.......
compared to Sea of Thieves and fallout 76 at launch? Yes
Very well said. This is what I have been trying to say for years. Hard decisions need to be made, things need to be cut or they will forever have a laundry list of things they want to implement in the while still having the challenge to polish all of it. It’s just not a realistic design philosophy and he suckerd all of the backers into the pipe dream of an endless game where you can do anything. At least No man’s Sky knew this reality.The thing about Star Citizen is that it bit off more than it can/could chew.....I appreciate an ambitious game, but there's something about Star Citizen that's just not coming together.....The premise is one of Peter Molyneux like promise, but what they have relative to gameplay is not all that polished or good......Large/world/universe, you can do anything, fly your ships, land on planets, shoot your weapons........You just can't attempt a game that can literally do it all, because many aspects of Star Citizen the game will suffer, the sound effects, the animations, the actual gunplay/gameplay......You will never have enough manpower to realize this ambition with good quality and polish...
I think many PC gamers backed SC, not so much on the premise of great gameplay but because of it's graphical and technical promise......PC has not had a Crysis like game in years.....And because all the "best graphics threads was being led by predominantly console titles" PC guys doubled down on SC as a title no console game would touch in years and would be PC's most impressive looking game and poster child for said graphical debates.......The truth is, by the time SC releases, the new gen maybe upon us, where console graphics will be on a whole new stratoshpere......I think NMS was able to do something great, even without the graphical oomph of SC, at least they have something that plays well whilst being ambitious and we all know how long it took for them to rectify and improve some mechanics and add more polish......SC's graphics alone is a huge undertaking, to model these ships and the world, to get animation, Ai and sound on an acceptable level or proper gameplay across this vast world is going to be a world of hurt and an endless money and timesink.....
A game need to have limits, you need to curate an experience in order to deliver a focused and quality experience........Trying to be a jack of all trades type of game means that many aspects of the game will suffer.....and a higher and constant increase of time and money won't necessarily solve it.......
Very well said. This is what I have been trying to say for years. Hard decisions need to be made, things need to be cut or they will forever have a laundry list of things they want to implement in the while still having the challenge to polish all of it. It’s just not a realistic design philosophy and he suckerd all of the backers into the pipe dream of an endless game where you can do anything. At least No man’s Sky knew this reality.
compared to Sea of Thieves and fallout 76 at launch? Yes
Nice incomplete answer. Why cant I ever get a detailed answer about this? Everywhere. I'll need totry out this free week I guess. Imcoming over from ED, mind you.
dont lie to yourself SoT gameplay loop at launch was the exact same as SC, nonexistent. And I too would spend 7 years buliding a game if I had to hire 200+people over the span of that time and create a company and modify and entire engine.Both those examples weren't in development as long as SC is or will be. Both those games have a better gameplay loop compared to SC which doesn't really have one at all. SC allows it's players to create their own gameplay loop though. The thing is, is that both the examples you mentioned can do that as well... While also having a fully fleshed out loop provided by the devs, if you so choose to play that way.
You shouldn't compare SC to anything even remotely comparable... SC will lose every time.
SoT was definitely lean on content at launch. Every web site said so. But it is fully functional with MP gaming.dont lie to yourself SoT gameplay loop at launch was the exact same as SC, nonexistent. And I too would spend 7 years buliding a game if I had to hire 200+people over the span of that time and create a company and modify and entire engine.
also the small loop you consider SoT to have.. explain it to me real fast and I'll show you the parallels.
dont lie to yourself SoT gameplay loop at launch was the exact same as SC, nonexistent. And I too would spend 7 years buliding a game if I had to hire 200+people over the span of that time and create a company and modify and entire engine.
also the small loop you consider SoT to have.. explain it to me real fast and I'll show you the parallels.
answer my question please and dont tiptoe around itThe gameplay loop for SoT at launch was still more than there is for SC. It was extremely short on content though. Rare has since added a ton of content, and expanded the gameplay loop since. Meanwhile, SC remains in an Alpha state with no release date in sight, much less a fleshed out gameplay loop.
Over the last 6 plus years, Rare has accomplished far more in SoT than Roberts has with SC.... Despite the budget. Think about that for a second. SoT > SC.
Like I said. You'd be wise to not compare SC to other games. SC will lose the comparison virtually every time.
answer my question please and dont tiptoe around it