|
The Saddest Robot posted:That was the most disgusting thing about the room. I can deal with the sequels in general, but having any book involving KJA indicates severe issues  Sappo569 posted:Why is it the most broke brained people always have their beds literally surrounded by stacks of stuff a large portion of the time the unironic answer is "depression" so 
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 24, 2025 16:46 |
|
|
I wonder what they'd say if they knew some of the most vocal and well-known E:D goon griefers are SC true believers and well entrenched already 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
DuckDynasty posted:This is where I may diverge from some in this thread. I view backers as victims through and through. They are in the midst of having what I believe is a massive fraud perpetrated on them. Each person reading this needs to decide if they feel that backers are victims or not. Victims deserve our support and empathy, not scorn and derision. Catching up from very far behind (and it sounds like there's some  to be had in the intervening pages), but I feel like I have to comment on this ahead of time-- by comparing them to OPCA litigants, aka sovcits.  This stems from that probably-well-known write-up by Justice Rooke that's the origin of the term OPCA in the first place (and a good, if long, read if you've got some spare cycles), but one of the referenced cases regarding gurus, tax evasion, and a claim of "I'm innocent because I'm gullible" stood out: Judge Meyer, R. v. Sydel posted:At the tax seminars most of the lecturers used aliases, as opposed to their real names. ... She did not regard this as suspicious or unusual, even though one of the lecturers went by the alias, “Sir Larry Loophole”. How could an intelligent, well educated, worldly, 39 year old professional, not be suspicious? (Emphasis mine). Justice Rooke closes the excerpt with the thought: quote:It appears this is not atypical. The justices of this Court routinely encounter OPCA litigants who seem quite willing to ‘pull the wool over their own eyes’. There's some obvious parallels there, both with Chris "We're not doing what a publisher would do because they're all terrified wusses, I'm not a publisher but I know more about publishing and could make more money than GTAV" Roberts, and a victim-cum-true-believer who's a worldly professional making enough to drop big bucks, yet willfully oblivious enough to ignore every red flag in favor of clinging to the reality they want to be true with regards to tax law (or game development). This is why backers, at this point, can be both victims in a legal sense, and still worthy of scorn and mockery. There's been years of evidence of a project going well and truly off the rails, even just looking at what's coming out of the horse's mouth: quote:If you have followed Star Citizen from our kickoff in October, 2012, you know that the game we’re building today is a bigger and more technically accomplished project than I thought was possible back then. The original crowd funding goal was to raise enough money to deliver regular community updates, access to the multiplayer dogfighting alpha and a single player campaign called Squadron 42. You can see the first goal, which was achieved on 25th of October 2012 here. It’s no secret that I originally thought I would have to build a smaller game first and then over time add features and content to get close to the full living universe that I have always wanted to realize. This community came together and, both through your financial support and your belief in the project, made something incredible possible. You went above and beyond in backing our dream and so we are going to, also. Because of you, we’re building cities where I had hoped for just landing pads, we’re building armadas of starships where I asked for squadrons and we’re populating a living, breathing world in ways I didn’t dare to dream of in 2012. (Emphasis mine, again). Says the man whose last success literally involved a 3rd party publisher showing up, ripping his project out of his hands, enforcing some of those "artificial deadlines" and extracting it from a scope creep development hell. But I digress. Threads hyping SC and banning naysayers were common on SA initially, but as more and more stories came out, more backers started looking at the evidence and saying "wait a second..." Beer went from venerated to estranged and banned entirely because he dared to be critical in public and was visible enough for that to be A Problem. Bootcha invested real loving money, then heard what the thread was saying, looked into it himself, and pulled it asap. Derek Smart('s legal beagle) was probably a large part of why so many people were actually able to get refunds, instead of the dead air, closed-with-no-response 6-month-old tickets and "no refunds unless you've got a really good sob story" responses from CIG. It's been years since that point. Years of rational people capable of changing their mind ejecting themselves from the fringes of the lunacy, while the smaller, denser core of rabid fans cling to each other with all the more fervor. At some point, though, you have to say "Yes, these are grown adults that have to take responsibility for themselves." There comes a point where "But I didn't know" just isn't an excuse anymore, because you should have known, you had it paraded in front of you and you closed your eyes, stuck your fingers in your ears and yelled "la la la" until the bad people trying to pull you out of the well looked at each other, shrugged, and left. But they only went as far as the microwave, to get some popcorn, and to set up some lawn chairs. Some of them have towels and umbrellas ready, for when the well finally erupts in a gigantic backwash from the sewer line and deposits the wet, stinking, and confused well-dwellers on the lawn. Some will probably even help going after the people who dug the well in the first place in court, if it comes to that. But that's not going to make all of the current well residents yelling "THIS IS FINE, AND IF ANYTHING SUCKS IT'S DEREK SMART'S FAULT" any less entertaining in the meantime, and mocking them even provides a valuable public service-- if one of the neckbearded well-sirens manages to croon someone uninitiated close enough to the well to start trying to pull them down into their collective funky embrace, having a bunch of people next to the well yelling "poo poo DON'T DO IT" interspersed with "HOLY poo poo THOSE DUDES IN THE WELL ARE HILARIOUSLY STUPID" helps. I mean hell, the latter is where I found out about Star Citizen in the first place, secondhand. Later an ad came up and I said "Star Citizen, I know that name from somewhere. Wait, poo poo, is that the kickstarter with $15,000 ship packages? Holy poo poo gently caress that." Very few things in this life are as effective at dissuading people from joining organizations as the public mockery of said organization is, and doubly so if the mockery is both factual and hilariously stupid. And, after all, intervention for people in a cult is significantly more difficult and less effective than preventing them from joining the cult in the first place. Ursine Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Aug 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Crazypoops posted:I guess my point is sometimes it's just pure luck that you aren't the idiot praising a fat lazy abusive failure for his innovative wheel reinventing. Once they get you to make that first payment (which is pretty easy to do if you're a fan of the genre) they're already in your brain rewriting poo poo like loving malware. It's certainly luck initially, sometimes the pitch sounds good and you don't necessarily go digging for stuff off the bat. My only point is that it's becoming harder and harder to not come across something to make you  a bit the longer this goes on, and the only way to avoid it entirely is to either stick to the echo chamber or pretend like every negative thing about Star Citizen that's ever been printed in the last 5 years was actually Derek Smart ghostwriting it, which is L Ron Hubbard levels of "They actually believe that?  " to anyone who's not suicidally naïve.Arms_Akimbo posted:I just can't get over how after five years, cig produces a video showing you not being able to use the shop, not being able to talk to NPCs, doors flying off into space, and not being able to get up from a chair without a cup of water clipping you through the map and they call it progress. In their defense, cleaning up and refactoring legacy 5-year-old code rarely has visible improvements, which is why it's always such a hassle to get clearance from management to do it-- given the option between "we should redo this existing feature properly before it gets to a point where we can't move forward anymore" and "ooh, new feature, just pile it on top of the old poo poo, we've got duct tape to hold it there", most non-developers want the latter until a situation occurs where the former can't be avoided anymore. It's obvious the former has happened and paying that particular piper is...well, this is basically the result. Their codebase had issues to begin with, but they've run the car for 150k miles with no maintenance and trying to fix it after the front's fallen off is always more ugly and time consuming than if you had just gotten the oil checked when you were supposed to. To me the real funny part is thinking about all this with the old 90-10 rule of software development in mind-- 90% of the project takes 90% of the time, then the last 10% takes 90% of the time. It sounds like hyperbole, but the grain of truth is that it's exceptionally easy to get most projects into a state where it seems mostly done, even potentially from the perspective of the developers working on the project. And it's also exceptionally easy to fall into the trap of thinking "oh, that was the hard part". The problem is that the last 10% is "details that aren't necessarily visible and so you don't think about it". Edge cases, input validation, hardware compatibility, screen ratios. Latency, dropped packets, exponentially increasing cross-talk if you're doing multiplayer. Merge collisions, code reviews, rewrites to handle features that are doing things in a different way than you expected because the features are relying on other things that do things in a way it's developers weren't expecting. Any computer science student can bang out a simple 3d platformer in unity by themselves over a weekend if they're sufficiently motivated, but turning it into a game takes a lot longer, and that complexity increases exponentially if you're not the only person doing it. And all of this, all of this, is just for a project that had defined requirements ahead of time. Throwing in more requirements because "well it's 90% done and we've got plenty of money left, so we'll just add this in real quick and--"  you've just restarted all of that and doubled the complexity, you're probably better off scrapping it and starting over now because otherwise you're going to end up with a legacy-level pile of spaghetti poo poo before it's even been released. "Oh we should make this single player game we've been working on an MMO!" "Oh it's a space sim but we should make it an FPS too!" "Oh and we need to add a player-based economy!" "Oh and we need to model blood systems for individual players for realism!" "Oh and the ship thrusters need to individually modify ship thrust!" "Oh and we need planetary landings, but no loading screens!" "Oh and we need ships that require more people to fly than we'll be able to keep track of in an instance, so every ship should be an instance but it can still talk directly with other instances and also the rest of the galaxy, and also that needs to have seamless transitions!" "Oh and grabby hands cargo!" "Oh and passenger ships and drink minigames for them!" "Oh and we can do VR after the fact!" So, bearing all of that in mind, and their current development rate, and current completion percent, if "10% done overall" is where they're falling into a rabbit hole of details that they need to clean up, it's going to keep happening again and again as they turn to other game mechanics that they haven't even started yet and say "poo poo, this is impossible to work as-is with our current tech stack and we need to refactor half of the codebase to make this new thing work at all". And again when they try to increase any of those features in scale to anything close to what they originally promised. I think the literal only thing going in their favor is that PC hardware has started to plateau, and even that's double edged-- they probably won't have the same "better graphics, new engine, clean cup, move down" temptation that killed Duke Nukem, but they also won't be able to rely on more powerful hardware to paper over optimization issues. Anyways I think the tl;dr is "I feel bad for anyone who's stuck doing development at CIG and hope they bail before this turns into even more of a black mark on their resume than it already is".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
BurtLington posted:Rest assured, the coffee in that cup is being realistically simulated with full fluid dynamics. I got to that ATV and quote:So the frustrating thing about this is that quite a few of those things USED to work before, but are now broken again. basically sums up that entire effortpost I made 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
Toops posted:Totally agree man, Git Flow is good. In my experience, what I described works better IF you have great management and great talent. The irony here is CIG seems to be implying they do what I described, which I support. But in reality, I've seen plenty of evidence that they're all working in disparate long-lived branches wthout any thought given to integrating those branches into an actual product. For starters, are you telling me planetary tech and moons are all integrated when the moons still have placeholder textures? Good one CIG, yeah I trust ya, 3.0 just around the corner right? Healthy is frequent single-feature pull requests and master merges with tags on deploys Healthier is taking a step back and seeing if anything can sanely be broken into submodules with their own repositories instead of forcing everyone to constantly pull thousands of commits from the singular repository I'm sure they're using, but I'll grant that that's probably a lot harder in a game client than it is for an enterprise app That said, how much do you want to bet that client code and server code is in different folders but the same repository at CIG
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
To be perfectly honest, I don't see anything wrong with the vending machine cosplay in and of itself-- people have been dressing up as esoteric joke characters/items for cosplay for years and tend to be taken as self aware goofy jokes. Likewise, the vending machine stonehenge, taken by itself, is pretty amusing-- it's the same sort of tongue in cheek nod to "yes, it's still a video game" that plenty of video games have-- New Vegas springs immediately to mind for obvious reasons, but there's similar random things hidden in any open-world game you could care to mention. The real problem is that, as mentioned, that's literally all there is to the game. While developers acknowledging the in-jokes and embedding easter eggs based on what the community is doing is common, the higher level's desperate grasp of "did we add any feature at all? what can we put in the teaser trailer? anyone? a new moon with a replace-me texture? oh, bob put a vending machine on the space station, perfect, that vending machine's what our next trailer is about" is extraordinarily telling. But yeah, my only point is that some of the making GBS threads on stuff for the sole reason of "It's SC doing it" comes off as very "NO FUN ALLOWED", there's plenty of actual stuff to mock without having to stretch for it. Mocking someone with a joke cosplay or the "immersion breaking" nature of a vending machine stonehenge is getting very close to a "legitimate over-immersed citizen complaint" kind of territory.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
G0RF posted:Well then just you WAIT 'til I get going on Snoopy Caps and Hip Sway! oh god there's so many parallels you could draw  
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
Scruffpuff posted:This is a microcosmic example of one of the most fundamental problems with the development of Star Citizen: the cart-before-the-horse, cargo-cult mentality. Yeah, I don't disagree that Roberts is just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks The only reason it comes to my mind at all is attempting to maintain at least some level of impartiality; allowing the things they're doing in any way correctly means the criticisms are more difficult to discard out of hand, whereas mocking even the concept of the thing means every other valid criticism is treated like it's on the same low level of "they're just attacking it because it's personal, ignore what they're saying". It's obvious from them pulling G0RF's infographics into the Reddit with no input from us that it's at least possible for some of them to read the evidence as laid out. But, that's just my take and I know that it's shovelling poo poo against the tide in a thread that gets like 5000 posts a week, so.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
tuo posted:"But boss, the specifications say that it'll only hold 190lbs..." Not weight related, but all I can think of now is comparing Olisar's rings to Galloping Gertie.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Crazypoops posted:You've just put an infinite more thought into the criticism of Chris then Chris has ever put into his whole life. I put more thought into the timing and logistics of my morning coffee shits than Chris has put into his game thus far, so that's not really saying much 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
I had to check just because they brought it up now; Breath of the Wild was ostensibly 4 years and $100 million. Croberts could have had nearly 2 fully fleshed AAA GOTY games at this point in both time and cost, if he wasn't a human dumpster fire when it comes to project management.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Goat Simulator Space Edition's looking pretty good guys
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Brian Chambers, claiming that his office is responsible for core design but doesn't know enough to answer a question about player interaction. Give him the benefit of the doubt, imo, I'm sure Chris shows up in his office twice a week to change what they're implementing. He's probably got some of those fridge magnets with "promised gameplay features", a whiteboard that's split into 3rds for 3.0/4.0/5.0, and Chris just sneaks in to shuffle things based on what Derek's tweeting about today
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
smellmycheese posted:A demo that contains NOTHING that was promised for 3.0, actually has elements removed from the current shitshow PTU, and is still a pile of crashy, buggy, poo poo. That's impressive work even for Croberts It's on a planet! Planetary landings for 3.0! That counts, right?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:Don't ask me design questions He can't say anything about future gameplay design because Chris shredded Ben to a pulp for answering design questions live without double checking with Chris and Derek said mean things about it, probably
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
G0RF posted:Well I think that was what I was stating. But just think what we'd have heard if Chris were being asked those same questions. He'd have been answering every one with absolute bullcrap. So while it should be alarming to people to get a lot of "I don't knows" on stuff they should've known last year, it's still better than "absolutely, we definitely are going to have that in. DENSELY LUSH FORESTS WERE NOT A JOKE." I'm watching/listening to it now so it may be more dumb than I'm envisioning, but Chris has kind of preemptively raised the bar in terms of "stupid things we're going to absolutely implement" years ago. Any sane game would have any people asking super dumb questions getting a response like "what the gently caress game do you think this is, gently caress no" but it's already too late for that. I should be working so naturally I'm doing this instead. "Now I do get a lot of design questions, and when those come in I always feel bad, like when they ask, you know, deep deep level design, I'm like you gotta talk to designers, you gotta talk to creatives on that, right?" "We're not gonna do that." "So about design--" "I just gotta imagine these are gonna be the stupidest questions I've ever heard. But I'm all for it, let's do this." "Alright, so, you wanna start this off?" "Right, so, about design-- hahaha-- but no I mean like, so" and into a question about what they can expect to see in the future THIS IS DUMB lmao at this is the small portion of 3.0 that's stable lmao at the streamer that hears "this is a small portion of 3.0 that's stable that we're happy with" and parses that as "the internal 3.0 build is entirely stable and everyone's happy with it internally" he probably knows exactly what the "big" blockers are but he can't talk about them off the cuff, all of the bugs they publicly comment on are either already fixed or carefully curated so as not to publicly confirm stuff that people in this thread have already guessed at-- imagine if he's like "yeah the biggest blocker right now is dealing with the fact that we can't put more than 10 people in the same server without everything crashing", or if the real reason they're got everyone pigeonholed is that the server trying to handle everyone going off in different directions is that if they're in the same general area the server only has to handle objects in that shared area but 10 people going off in 10 random directions just instacrashes everything and yeah the fact that the "big blocker" question spins off into talking about the QA process instead lol at the dancing between "this 3.0 build is solid" and "this 3.0 build is too hosed to go out to people as-is" "what's one of the bugs that you and your team handled that people are super amped to see"? what kind of dumbass question is that, people aren't amped to see individual bugfixes, they're amped to see features that work properly. what exactly does this streamer want him to say, "yeah we fixed this one specific bug of the 30 that involve people clipping through floors"? "you work at one of the studios, what are your people responsible for in this build specifically?" checks google "Brian Chambers - Development Director" - "Foundry 42 (Engine and Technology Development" The streamers should know this poo poo better than I do and again, what kind of dumbass question is that? Ostensibly this dude and his team are working on the buggy-rear end engine tech which means they're probably touching literally everything because literally everything is terrible right now, that ATV from last week talking about how people were sitting at tables fine and it's now broken is because they're loving with engine code on a week to week basis. They've probably got every person in the studio coming to them like "hey so last week you could place this drinking glass model on a table and it was fine and now when you do it it bounces through the ceiling, P1 blocker fix please" "I can tell you what we don't touch" yeah that's probably the only real answer for this, although the fact that "we don't do ships" when they're doing engine code is probably why the ships physics and doors are perpetually hosed "What are you most satisfied about what your team's done for 3.0" he's an engine developer, I know you're trying to sneak an answer about an unannounced feature or something but that isn't going to be what an engine developer is proud about, he's going to say "yeah the game itself is cool but this one aspect of this one bit of code in the physics engine is really elegantly set up and I'm super stoked about how modular and reusable this one aspect of it is, it took me a lot of work to set it up that way" lmao at the big bennys thing but I can see what he's trying to say, he's proud of the procgen stuff he's working on and it's always fun as a game developer to set up a baseline and have people go hog wild with it (see: minecraft redstone and people making computers out of it) it's just a reiteration of everything of the crap state things are in that, 5 years later, literally the only thing people have to actually do anything with is...a vending machine. because that just happened to be the only physics-enabled object with a hitbox that there was to do anything with. I see that "procedural generation" is still a magic term where citizens think you just say the proper incantation and get several planets worth of hand-crafted-but-procgenned content out of it I've already spent too much time on this and haven't hit a "I don't know yet" but I assume the questions get progressively more dumb
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
XK posted:What? What are you watching? You haven't hit an "I don't know" yet? Unmute that poo poo. lmao i told you i stopped watching at that point, i'm sure there's an hour of i don't knows but unlike CIG i have to actually do work to get paid and the questions i watched to that point were dumb as dogshit, it's almost like cig cultivating an ignorant community results in questions from people who don't even know what questions they should be asking quote:I'm just going to go ahead and call you out on having some kind of agenda. How much are you in for? lmfao if you're serious
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
XK posted:Please indulge me. What question was dumb as dogshit? The post you quoted has, in detail, my opinions on the first...what, 3 or 4? questions they asked him. If the live commentary is in some way unclear then I apologize for your inability to parse it but I'm not going to waste my time clarifying it if your first instinct is to A. skim the post and B. claim I have an agenda. I've got other poo poo to do so go read my post history ITT if you legitimately think I'm a shill.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
It really is 2016 all over again
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
XK posted:You literally blamed bad questions for Brian Chambers' inability to answer anything. quote:I've already spent too much time on this and haven't hit a "I don't know" yet  i think you might be reading things that aren't there, friend, not everyone who says a thing you disagree with is a chris roberts alt I watched the first 4 questions of an interview that presumably asks more than 4 questions, 3 of which were either "really stupid questions to be asking someone who's got 'engine developer' in his job title" or "no poo poo he's not going to give a straight answer to that, have you not been paying attention for the last 6 years" you're apparently assuming that because I commented on the first 4 questions, I'm espousing a full "every single question in the interview was stupid so chambers is perfect and fine" defense, which I'm not because I still haven't watched the rest of it yet
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:http://i.imgur.com/7o6p1eb.mp4 the look of a man who knows the only reason anyone at his place of work cares is because it's a convenient distraction from the content they're calling a game
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
XK posted:If you didn't watch anything beyond the first few minutes, you didn't witness the depth of everything he didn't know. It really was a completely disastrous showing. Given what's been posted in here and on reddit I don't doubt it, I was only offering my hot take on the questions as I was listening to them and didn't get far enough in for "the good stuff" yet. XK posted:I can see where he might've been coming from, if he only saw the first few minutes. The only thing I really took major issue with was blaming the questions. A studio lead should be able to answer even stupid questions. That just didn't sit right with me. I do agree that he should be able to answer even dumb questions, I'm just noting that of the questions I saw, some were dumb because they were trying to sneak some "oops I shouldn't have said that" preview about 3.0 content out of this guy (ie, "surely this isn't all there is to 3.0, what secret feature are you hiding"), and others were dumb because "there's literally no way anyone at CIG would answer that question honestly off the cuff" (specifically the "biggest blocker" question). And both of those are dumb because both are saying, from the view of the person asking the question, "I haven't been paying attention to anything that's happened in the last 6 years and only view things through a lens of what I want to be true"-- and again, from the small snippet that I've watched so far: quote:lmao at the streamer that hears "this is a small portion of 3.0 that's stable that we're happy with" and parses that as "the internal 3.0 build is entirely stable and everyone's happy with it internally" It's literally seconds between where Chambers finishes his statement about the state of 3.0 and the streamer leads off a question with his reinterpretation that chambers does nothing to correct. It's like a 20 second microcosm of the last 6 years in one condensed burst, it's great. But yeah, don't get me wrong, bad questions don't excuse someone giving a poo poo interview, it's just that in my own humble opinion the questions I saw were dumb ones to be asking for various reasons. I will say that while it was ongoing a copy/paste of a question about "where the hell is the 3.0 content" was apparently posed so I'm looking forward to seeing the "I don't know" answer for that one
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Colostomy Bag posted:After watching most of this fiasco it just dawned on me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:What. The. gently caress? immersed the camera in the wall
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Speaking of ancient history, I skipped like a year because nothing seemed to be happening (and I was mainlining cspam), and I just realized I haven't seen Ben anywhere. Did he legitimately eat himself into blindness now or was that hyperbole?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:Holy gently caress, all the big names are back. and the sequel THE RAMP quote:But... but... the thing is... what... why is... what is version one point oh? Because at this moment if you back Star Citizen you can download two point six three, you'll be able to download three point zero... VERY SOON... so it's, you know... the content we have, YOU have, so in the case of three zero you'll be able to GO BETWEEN THESE MOONS, when we go to three one we'll put HURSTON and STANTON in, you'll have more planets... we just... we give you THE GAME... so you're getting it as it's happening. I will literally never get tired of "the numbers are the important part" aspect of Chris's worldview, ever since he threw 2.0 on a prealpha build so he could "beat" elite: dangerous
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Sandweed posted:An old friend just contacted me wanting advice for buying a computer that could play star citizen, he showed me a laptop with a 1050 card in it and said this was the most expensive he could afford. I assumed he was joking, but he was dead serious LMAO. He claimed he hadn't given them any money. Find a bitcoin mining rig to sell him.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Palpek posted:What I'm getting from what he's saying is that they have data from 100 days of motion capture and they made a lot of in-game assets. They only need to make the actual game now...drat, it's written right there and he's getting away with it. Personally I'm just preemptively giggling about when they make more engine changes that make the mocap data useless
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Chris is more concerned about animation than having playable missions. Honestly I doubt Ben was lying about it. Like you say, they've (on and off) talked about having SQ42 done first, having chunks of it done, having played portions of it, for years now. I think far more likely is that they did have portions of it done but every time they changed the engine or models they had to scrap and redo any finished portions of SQ42, and even before that Chris was probably perpetually unhappy about how it wasn't "cinematic" enough or whatever, and now they've finally just said "gently caress it, we need to get the basics done before we can even start work on the actual game stuff that goes on top of it" but they can't just outright state that or their backers would collectively freak (although at this point probably not, but I'll come back to that). I think, in essence, that CIG and Chris have after 6 years barely gotten to a starting point, because they keep throwing sticks in their own spokes. There's a reason most AAA studios button up and work on their poo poo, because the initial work always looks like crap in the context of a finished video game. You don't make "vertical slices" and build outward, you build it like a casserole and you have to start from the bottom with foreknowledge about how big the final casserole's going to be. Which is why other game studios will work on multiple projects at once, because they want to have something for the people who work on the top layers to do while the people who work on the bottom layers are doing their work, and vice versa. CIG in general and Croberts specifically, however, have this thing where they have to show off what they're doing, so every year's presentation is the result of 3-6 months of work that are hacked together for the sole purpose of "showing something off", and all that work ends up discarded because it was a hack in the first place that causes huge, huge issues for later bits of the project. People complain about AAA games having "prerendered, scripted demos" or "only showing off the cinematics" well yeah, the cinematics don't require a working physics engine so the cinematic people started doing their own thing from Day 1 and that's the only thing that's actually "done" right now! But anyways. happyhippy posted:I can code a bit, but I can't see HOW they have had to do it again multiple times. off the cuff guess is that the mocap data is all saved as coordinates and distance/speed vectors, and they had to redo everything when they shrunk everyone to a microscopic in-game size to deal with the size of the galaxy, but I'm not going to get a job with CIG to confirm that directly
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
G0RF posted:How do you play a test portion for a single player game with no enemy AI, though? I mean, where is the play in a dogfighting game when there is no combat possible? What are you playing against? At best, it seems like you could fly around in unfinished maps taking in scenery. Don't they have enough AI to have that one "waves of pirates" game mode? I mean, them going backwards in terms of "things that are functional" isn't exactly new, but they seem to have had some level of AI implemented at some point, and "the AI necessary for an MMO PVE environment" is a whole different thing than "the AI needed for a ship to spawn at a set point in space and attack the only player-controlled ship in existence". Ursine Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
I saw a snippet of "SHOW US THE GAMEPLAY" at the beginning of a block of text before it got moderated out
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
The answer to having female avatars is "put a female voice on a male model"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
xXAdmiralBekHarXx posted:"speedrun through it" except they won't have any "cancel/skip animation/dialogue" buttons because chris didn't want to compromise his immersive vision
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Colostomy Bag posted:What's wrong with the loading screen? Listening to Roberts bitch...lol. it's not seamless and he's worried the backers are going to yell at him because there's a loading screen
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
the incredible invisible box
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
"We're not speed running this anymore, you guys, you're caught up" he says, as his demoers play the game at a speed that's half of what a reasonable person is going to play it at also lmao at physically picking up a box to take it out of the ship for a quest, is nobody "supposed" to be doing any of this solo? do you just drop it when you're jumped by AI and pray it doesn't clip through the ground?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
trucutru posted:And to think that a ship that is only $1,500 can be shot-down in a minute obviously the QA people here learned from playing Elite: Dangerous the most effective use of a ship with mass behind it is to ram other ships to death 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
kilus aof posted:How often are you going to be face to face with another player? Less than 1% of the time? And most of that with a helmet on. It's the wrong game to put it in. It is a total waste of development resources, server resources and client bandwidth. It would be really fun in some sort of face to face social game. It's A Thing in a bunch of social VR games so I bet croberts saw an article for one and said "poo poo we have to have that"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 24, 2025 16:46 |
|
|
Tippis posted:As for FaceRig, never mind the local processing and what that will do to your poor overtaxed CPU — imagine sending that data to everyone in the scene over an already overtaxed network. And remember, no draw distances! How much you want to bet you'll be getting facerig data for everyone on olisar when you're standing on the planet surface?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 15:37
|
|