|
New footage of the Connie in flight with multi-crew 100% functional
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Sometimes I like it when the thread gets filled with seriousposts about Star Citizen's future. Then sometimes I like it when the thread gets filled with shitposts about jpegs and fidelity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
mormonpartyboat posted:hello derek have you read any good books lately? • Conspiracy of Fools and/or The Smartest Guys in the Room • Risk Issues and Crisis Managment • Managing the Unexpected • Introduction to Political Psychology …and just for fun. • Strategic Intelligence Management • Legacy of Ashes
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:Here is the promise of SQ42 straight from the funding goal page. All backers are entitled to it depending on when they backed. And apparently at the end of the year, it is going to be a stand-alone $45 package which will no longer include Star Citizen. Well they did say that they would split it up into 3 ages ago, so that's not a difficult guess, though I think it will be around that number / episode. Which sounds great in theory, though they also mentioned that it would be ~60 missions / episode including all the branching missions. If this includes the same mission with an alternate "help A do x" or i"stop A from doing x" counted as 2 then it will reduce the actual number greatly. As for the shady part: As a StarCraft 2 fan - nothing shady about this, as long as the content is there in each episode  quote:I don't believe that there will be anything tangible in the upcoming AC 2.0. And by the time the dust settles, everyone will be wondering why it's not AC 1.47 (or whatever) Seriously, why even quote yourself when it is obviously wrong?  There are issues with Star Citizen without having to make stuff up."I don't believe that there will be anything tangible in the upcoming AC 2.0. And by the time the dust settles, everyone will be wondering why it's not AC 1.47 (or whatever)" It is obviously completely different from AC 1.xx and has very little in common with it. If you wanted to find some criticism here it would be easy: They have obviously not followed their own iterative approach plans and have built a completely forked version of AC1.x "I believe that they will try to get that 2.0 build out in the PTU in time for the anniversary sale on or before 11/26." This was true, but wasn't exactly hard to guess. "That 2.0 build won't i) have fps (aka Star Marine) in it" This was obviously wrong. What could have been a valid criticism could be sataball being thrown away, which is a shame. "have anything "persistent" about it" This is true. "iii) have anything previously promised (see below) in it Probably won't support any new ships. And if it does, there will be maybe one multi-crew ship (still trying to find out which one is the likely candidate)" Obviously wrong. 2 multicrew ships, 2 new variants for a single seater and a long list of features. The issue isn't a lack of content / progress, it's a painfully obvious lack of QA. I mean I know you have a hard-on on Star Citizen bashing, but at least try to stick to the actual issues instead of making them up. Reposting incorrect predictions also looks silly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Counterpoint: StarCraft 2 is not very good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:Counterpoint: StarCraft 2 is not very good. Great, now I need a trigger warning before coming into this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:New footage of the Connie in flight with multi-crew 100% functional Is that IL-2 1946?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Taking bets on whether Star Citizen or Half-Life 2: Episode 3 will release first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Darkpriest667 posted:Is that IL-2 1946?  I really want another Il-2 1946
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Iglocska posted:Well they did say that they would split it up into 3 ages ago, so that's not a difficult guess, though I think it will be around that number / episode. It's shady because they promised to ship a specific product, in a specific form, at a specific time. Splitting it into less than the sum of its parts will i) make it take longer to deliver as promised ii) end up not delivering as promised Iglocska posted:Seriously, why even quote yourself when it is obviously wrong? I don't believe that there will be anything tangible in the upcoming AC 2.0. And by the time the dust settles, everyone will be wondering why it's not AC 1.47 (or whatever) There is nothing "tangible" in it because it's NOT what was promised for 2.0. There is nothing persistent about it, it's buggy, it's not the entire game world promised, it doesn't have the features promised, it's not an official roll-out etc. Need I go on? Because I have an entire page (from an upcoming WIP blog) I can just copy and paste; but you probably won't even bother to read it. I believe that they will try to get that 2.0 build out in the PTU in time for the anniversary sale on or before 11/26. Oh? You think it "wasn't hard to guess"? Considering that they've never - ever - made - any loving milestone? Like ever? And I guess the fact that it wasn't ready, but they rushed it out anyway, was indication to you, that they were, you know, on schedule this time? That 2.0 build won't i) have fps (aka Star Marine) in it ii) have anything "persistent" about it iii) have anything previously promised (see below) in it No, it wasn't wrong. i) they folded Star Marine (which doesn't exist in 2.0 btw) into the PU ii) then never delivered it in the 2.0 release anyway. The fps poo poo that's in there, is what's been in their since Gamescom and is the same fps engine component (Illfonic) they claimed they were going to rip out. If you think the fps in 2.0 is the new build, you're a fool who is part of the disinformation campaign. Probably won't support any new ships. And if it does, there will be maybe one multi-crew ship (still trying to find out which one is the likely candidate) I specifically used the words probably and maybe because I wasn't sure. In the end, they released 3, not 1 ship, and 2 were multi-crew, 1 was a variant. Do you know how many ships are in the game and which have been built but which are not in 2.0? There's a list. Do you want me to go fetch it? So yeah, I was spot on for the most part. You don't have to like it, but that's on you. And don't give me this crap about QA. Only an idiot would try to say that they didn't know about all the issues in the 2.0 build as they were about to release it. It's not a QA issue. They rushed it out for the anniversary in order to regain support, make money, and meet the Nov 30th deadline. D_Smart fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:
Myself also, I played it very heavily for a few years. It was a fun game and I had a blast learning how to fly on that game. It was unforgiving but fun. I actually enjoyed flying in bomber squadrons the most in multiplayer online. I haven't played it in years, but it was a very good game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Il-2 1946 was the last game I got in a big cardboard box. I never once managed to take off and just crashed into the ground if I went into instant play, so I managed to play it more than any other flight sim
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Taking bets on whether Star Citizen or Half-Life 2: Episode 3 will release first. In all honesty, Star Citizen. CiG at least pretends to make games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Did anyone else stop reading Dereks posts about 3 weeks ago or is it just me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:Il-2 1946 was the last game I got in a big cardboard box. Turn on invincibility in the difficulty settings and enjoy being able to ricochet off the ground 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:Did anyone else stop reading Dereks posts about 3 weeks ago or is it just me? I stopped paying attention too because it takes more than 10 seconds to read his posts
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Derek "I was spot on for the most part" Smartpeter gabriel posted:Did anyone else stop reading Dereks posts about 3 weeks ago or is it just me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
I'm a busy poster, my shitposting time is too valuable. I don't got time for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Turn on invincibility in the difficulty settings and enjoy being able to ricochet off the ground Ooooooh, I wonder where it is, I think I stuck it in the garage in a box
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Renegret posted:I'm a busy poster, my shitposting time is too valuable. I don't got time for that. Same here, efficient shitposting is good for all
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Iglocska posted:Great, now I need a trigger warning before coming into this thread. Trigger warning: Starcraft 2 is poo poo and Squadron 42 will probably have a better storyline. Well, Kerbal Space Program and E:D have a better storyline.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:Ooooooh, I wonder where it is, I think I stuck it in the garage in a box Grab it off GoG* or Steam. It's  + much easier to install/patchThe GoG version is better
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:09
|
|
D_Smart posted:I don't believe that there will be anything tangible in the upcoming AC 2.0. And by the time the dust settles, everyone will be wondering why it's not AC 1.47 (or whatever) Ignoring all the rest, because this one is the most egregiously wrong and easily verifiable. Also, because that's not what tangible means. Where is the list of features promised for 2.0, and which of those features are not currently included? And I don't mean a list of features that you have invented as a strawman, such as persistence (which was never promised for 2.0), so that you can hold them to promises never made; I mean an actual promised list of features from CIG which are not currently in the PTU build. With some kind of source that is not Derek Smart.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Thank you, avatar giver.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:It's shady because they promised to ship a specific product, in a specific form, at a specific time. Splitting it into less than the sum of its parts will i) make it take longer to deliver as promised ii) end up not delivering as promised They promised a ~60 mission long campaign. If it's a third of the story, but as long in terms of gameplay it's cool with me. Again, my issue here is that they're probably not honest about how they are counting the branching missions. quote:I don't believe that there will be anything tangible in the upcoming AC 2.0. And by the time the dust settles, everyone will be wondering why it's not AC 1.47 (or whatever) I haven't seen any promises about it being the entire game world, nor a comprehensive list of features. 2.0 actually has a lot of features, that's not the problem, the problem is that it's a broken mess. quote:I believe that they will try to get that 2.0 build out in the PTU in time for the anniversary sale on or before 11/26. This has nothing to do with milestones. They said they were close and it was obvious that they'd try to finish it for their biggest source of yearly income - sadly it's obvious they haven't actually finished it, they just rushed it out of the door, again you're focusing on the wrong issues. quote:That 2.0 build won't i) have fps (aka Star Marine) in it ii) have anything "persistent" about it iii) have anything previously promised (see below) in it I think it is indeed a new build and I think it's a step back from what illfonic has shown. What makes you think it's not a new build? Illfonic was working on SATABALL, if they really just pasted their work in there, there would have been no reason not to include that. quote:Probably won't support any new ships. And if it does, there will be maybe one multi-crew ship (still trying to find out which one is the likely candidate) 2 new variants, not 1, just to be technically correct (which is the best type of being correct!). People were hoping for the 2 multi crew ships to be in there - they are and they've added 2 (pretty pointless) variants in addition. quote:So yeah, I was spot on for the most part. You don't have to like it, but that's on you. No you were not and I don't like the fact that insisting on your wrong predictions being the truth can so easily be used to dismiss any criticism that CIG would get. You see I want this game to succeed, but I also realise that things are getting hosed up in many ways. Now you see I want the actual issues that surround the game to be brought to attention instead of seeing more ramblings about obvious half-truths. CIG needs to be held accountable, because obviously they just run loose without that. quote:And don't give me this crap about QA. Only an idiot would try to say that they didn't know about all the issues in the 2.0 build as they were about to release it. It's not a QA issue. They rushed it out for the anniversary in order to regain support, make money, and meet the Nov 30th deadline. Are you serious? Where did I say they didn't know about the issues? The QA process should not only involve detecting issues but also fixing them. They've obviously taken their current semi-functional nightly build and pushed it out to the masses skipping over the entire QA and bugfix process to make it for the sale. How the gently caress am I wrong about this? Iglocska fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Guys, we need more new accounts that come defend the honor of Star Citizen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Someone from reddit, please gift me a Phoenix and/or Connie. I will then, by Canadian law, be required to white knight Star Citizen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
The denial is strong in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Someone from reddit, please gift me a Phoenix and/or Connie. I will then, by Canadian law, be required to white knight Star Citizen. Here you go: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Star Citizen is the best game. Please don't say otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
When are they going to show skill-based energy fighting and not tumbling end over end repeatedly as you and your opponent try to shoot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
CRobbers gave us Star Citizen, which birthed out this thread, the best thing to happen. Though the Baby PU is stillborn. Casualties of birthright, we all understand that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Iglocska posted:Here you go: I only accept Corsairs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Octopode posted:Ignoring all the rest, because this one is the most egregiously wrong and easily verifiable. Also, because that's not what tangible means. You don't want me as a source because unlike you and your ilk, I have - and continue to do - extensive research on this enfolding train-wreck. I maintain meticulous records in several Evernote notepads so I don't have to pull poo poo out of my rear end. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=164480&perpage=40&pagenumber=13#post452938475 http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&pagenumber=476#post452985405 Which brings me to... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:29
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:I only accept Corsairs. 
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Thank you, avatar giver. But now it will be harder to find this quote  Octopode posted:I'm sorry that reality doesn't fall neatly into the personal narrative you've constructed where all people who choose to spend money on a game of their choosing suffer from some mental disorder that you get to play the hero and save them from. The reality is that people see something in the game that excites them, and they are willing to spend money because of that. Mirificus fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:I only accept Corsairs. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Neil Armstrong is spinning in his grave. Star Citizen is the best game of all time. Voting 10 on metacritic, brb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:08 |
|
D_Smart posted:You don't want me as a source because unlike you and your ilk, I have - and continue to do - extensive research on this enfolding train-wreck. I maintain meticulous records in several Evernote notepads so I don't have to pull poo poo out of my rear end. So which of those features aren't in 2.0 right now?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:32
|
|