Star Citizen Megathread - Fly FREE thru Dec 14th! Link in OP - Games

The Cutlass suffers from really poor proportions and poor choices on the part of the modeler. The concept art looked so much better but I feel it got misunderstood in translation to 3D. I mean, when you compare: [HELLO I FUCKED UP AND LINKED A PATH OF EXILE SKILL TREE IMAGE THAT'S ALSO INCIDENTALLY OUT OF DATE INSTEAD OF THE CONCEPT ART, KEEP MOVING] to [url]http://i.imgur.com/gxFKKG6.jpg[/url] the proportions got really whacky in the 3D model and while on the concept art the front winglets definitely don't go as far out as the rear engines do, they definitely don't stop where the rear engines begin either.

[QUOTE=Hammernipples;48126752][URL]http://i.imgur.com/eYMxcli.jpg[/URL] to [URL]http://i.imgur.com/gxFKKG6.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE] one of these is not like the other and damn, where did you find that old-ass skilltree [editline]6th July 2015[/editline] and the cutlass is cool, hopefully it doesn't get changed too much in the rework, although the exterior texturing could use work

[QUOTE=Hammernipples;48126752]The Cutlass suffers from really poor proportions and poor choices on the part of the modeler. The concept art looked so much better but I feel it got misunderstood in translation to 3D. [B]I mean, when you compare: [url]http://i.imgur.com/eYMxcli.jpg[/url] to [url]http://i.imgur.com/gxFKKG6.jpg[/url][/B] the proportions got really whacky in the 3D model and while on the concept art the front winglets definitely don't go as far out as the rear engines do, they definitely don't stop where the rear engines begin either.[/QUOTE] What the fuck? How do you compare this. Do i have to be on drugs?

[QUOTE=krail9;48129861]one of these is not like the other and damn, where did you find that old-ass skilltree [editline]6th July 2015[/editline] and the cutlass is cool, hopefully it doesn't get changed too much in the rework, although the exterior texturing could use work[/QUOTE] Offtopic but I think that's the skill tree from Path of Exile or whatever.

Holy FUCK was I not in it yesterday. I don't even remember looking up the Poe skill tree! [url]http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2013/rsi/cutlass_01.jpg[/url] [url]http://i.imgur.com/gxFKKG6.jpg[/url] There's the concept art I thought I had posted. :v: There's the comparison I'm trying to make. FUCK.

If it wasn't illifonic not doing the FPS, who do you think should had been the better shoe to fit the fps?

[QUOTE=Ithon;48131602]If it wasn't illifonic not doing the FPS, who do you think should had been the better shoe to fit the fps?[/QUOTE] That requires too much insider/industry information to answer meaningfully. We can only look at Illfonic and know that they have little experience making quality games, nevermind games on a AAA scale that feel real and fit into a serious metagame.

[QUOTE=Hammernipples;48124547][url]http://dereksmart3000ad.tumblr.com/post/123125564079/interstellar-citizens[/url] So Derek Smart wrote a really interesting piece about Star Citizen today and I think he's made quite a lot of good points, and even his ego-stroking serves a purpose. (is this a sign of the apocalypse?) Has quite a length introduction though.[/QUOTE] I think he is completely right in a lot of his points. Derek Smart and his games have been the butt of jokes for a couple decades, but he's seriously been trying to make Star Citizen since at least 1996. The Battlecruiser series is still arguably the most complex and comprehensive space sim out there. I've been saying this since day one. Star Citizen will be half the game Chris Roberts says it will be, and a quarter of the game its fans hope it will be.

[QUOTE=Ithon;48131602]If it wasn't illifonic not doing the FPS, who do you think should had been the better shoe to fit the fps?[/QUOTE] I think the most likely alternative would just be creating yet another studio from scratch

[QUOTE=Mbbird;48131633]That requires too much insider/industry information to answer meaningfully. We can only look at Illfonic and know that they have little experience making quality games, nevermind games on a AAA scale that feel real and fit into a serious metagame.[/QUOTE] without hindsight, what are or were the options when cloud imperium went looking for someone to make the fps module? [QUOTE=Why485;48131644]I think he is completely right in a lot of his points. Derek Smart and his games have been the butt of jokes for a couple decades, but he's seriously been trying to make Star Citizen since at least 1996. The Battlecruiser series is still arguably the most complex and comprehensive space sim out there. I've been saying this since day one. Star Citizen will be half the game Chris Roberts says it will be, and a quarter of the game its fans hope it will be.[/QUOTE] all I want is a good single player.

[QUOTE=Ithon;48131717]without hindsight, what are or were the options when cloud imperium went looking for someone to make the fps module? [/QUOTE] I'm saying that Facepunch is not the place to be asking questions like this. What are we supposed to say? I doubt any of us know of any small, available, unworking as of early 2014 development teams that would fit into the financial budget of the Star Citizen project.

I think this game will get made but people just [I]vastly[/I] underestimate how much work and time it will take. I think they should have moved to creating their own engine as soon as their funding started ballooning, it may have added more time but it would have been a nice thing to show off and would make it so much easier in the long run. Barring a fuckton more dosh, I don't think we'll be seeing much from this game until late 2016. I'm betting closer to 2018 for full release. Its just usually how long games take to make (~5 years) but this is even larger in scope than some of those. Infinity Quest For Earth has been having a decent amount of news on their FB lately, and that game has been in production for I think 8 years now. They moved to jsut creating their own engine eventually and went dark, since they plan to market the engine to fund Infinity. I think that game will get made, but it has no direct funding and a miniscule dev team of guys working on it as a side project. I believe this game will be made, I just do not buy RSI's timelines in the slightest.

If they'd gone to a new engine we might be able to load our hangars right now. SC's development is behind schedule according to any past timeline they've given us, it's clear, but I don't know that engine from scratch is the solution either, not for a game of its scope.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48131898]If they'd gone to a new engine we might be able to load our hangars right now. SC's development is behind schedule according to any past timeline they've given us, it's clear, but I don't know that engine from scratch is the solution either, not for a game of its scope.[/QUOTE] I think a custom engine is the solution for a game of this scale, even if they cobble it from separate engine components. CryEngine isn't the solution for SC and I've always wondered why they chose it. I'd be more willing to accept a crazy delay if I knew this was the case, not sure about anyone else though.

[QUOTE=paindoc;48131916]I think a custom engine is the solution for a game of this scale, even if they cobble it from separate engine components. CryEngine isn't the solution for SC and I've always wondered why they chose it. I'd be more willing to accept a crazy delay if I knew this was the case, not sure about anyone else though.[/QUOTE] I disagree, I think cryengine is as good as any other, I mean I'm sure experts could argue over whether it should be cryengine or ue4 or something, but I doubt it would be much difference in the end and I think you vastly underestimate the work that goes into making one - working out stuff like the large world tech and instance management would be just as challenging in a proprietary engine, but on top of that there's all the graphical and fps stuff that cryengine already has

There's no reason to make their own engine from scratch.

[QUOTE=Hammernipples;48124547][url]http://dereksmart3000ad.tumblr.com/post/123125564079/interstellar-citizens[/url] So Derek Smart wrote a really interesting piece about Star Citizen today and I think he's made quite a lot of good points, and even his ego-stroking serves a purpose. (is this a sign of the apocalypse?) Has quite a length introduction though.[/QUOTE] It seems as if he doesn't quite know what the game was original pitched as (which has not changed at all) or what the devs are hoping to achieve. It was never just a space combat game, from the start it's been intended as a first-person universe with FPS, trading, combat, exploration etc. It's not really a space combat game primarily. I'm fairly sure that pretty much all of those things for his list of things that have changed after the initial kickstarter were there from the start in some way. There aren't really any major features they've added since the start, there's been no feature creep. There's been some fairly small additions or expanding upon things, but nothing that has completely changed what the game was going to be. The stretch goals were mostly things they had already planned for, anyway. It just lets them get them in earlier.

[QUOTE=Hammernipples;48124547][url]http://dereksmart3000ad.tumblr.com/post/123125564079/interstellar-citizens[/url] So Derek Smart wrote a really interesting piece about Star Citizen today and I think he's made quite a lot of good points, and even his ego-stroking serves a purpose. (is this a sign of the apocalypse?) Has quite a length introduction though.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.reaxxion.com/10195/why-star-citizen-is-likely-going-to-be-a-complete-disaster]The article has now moved to here.[/url] The link in this post now only directs to a super quick summary. [editline]6th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=nightlord;48132751]It seems as if he doesn't quite know what the game was original pitched as (which has not changed at all) or what the devs are hoping to achieve. It was never just a space combat game, from the start it's been intended as a first-person universe with FPS, trading, combat, exploration etc. It's not really a space combat game primarily. I'm fairly sure that pretty much all of those things for his list of things that have changed after the initial kickstarter were there from the start in some way. There aren't really any major features they've added since the start, there's been no feature creep. There's been some fairly small additions or expanding upon things, but nothing that has completely changed what the game was going to be. The stretch goals were mostly things they had already planned for, anyway. It just lets them get them in earlier.[/QUOTE] At the beginning, there wasn't even supposed to be a Star Citizen. Before the campaign started, there were rumor articles going around that Chris wants to come back to make another Wing Commander. They all specifically mention Wing Commander, and not Privateer or Freelancer. When the funding started, there was no Star Citizen planned for the immediate future, it was just something they would work on while building Squadron 42. The funding was supposed to be primarily for Squadron 42, but they threw in the MMO-like persistent universe universe as a silly stretch goal for 4 million. He didn't plan on reaching it. All he needed was the 2 million to show enough interest that the private investors he had lined up would believe that the game was worth funding. There are a lot of people who backed from that era with the intention of just wanting a new Wing Commander. As for myself, I backed because I wanted Freelancer+, which is what the description of Star Citizen was at the time. [url=http://i.imgur.com/zH7Oxmc.png]The 4 million stretch goal was the beginning of what Star Citizen is now[/url]. He blew past the 4 million goal for Freelancer+, not Star Wars Galaxies with a focus on space. On the first person universe stuff specifically, no. Chris had planned out that it would just be like Freelancer where you move between rooms with a menu. In something very recent it was outright stated that was the plan. However, there is so much material to search through and I just can't find it, so you'll have to take my word for it, or not if you so choose. Either way, Chris Roberts loves to dream big, and he needed to keep the hype train rolling to keep the funding coming in. Star Citizen ballooned into this massive "first person universe" we have now, and CIG consistently keep shooting themselves in the foot by making things so much more complicated than they need to be, in the pursuit of "immersion" without regard for how much work something like that involves. A good recent example is their animation system that has been giving them a lot of trouble for all the very reasons that almost nobody does animations this way. There are very good reasons that the vast, vast majority of games separate their camera from the third person model, and CIG is finding out first hand why. I've been following Star Citizen unhealthily closely since before Squadron 42 was even announced. Since before there was even a Star Citizen. I remember watching the GDC 2012 announcement live, and I remember how the initial funding drive went, when they added a Kickstarter after some persuasion, and when the stretch goals started to get more and more ridiculous once they blew past all their initial goals and outline for a game. [B]Edit:[/B] Fixed a few factual errors.

[QUOTE=Why485;48133371][url=http://www.reaxxion.com/10195/why-star-citizen-is-likely-going-to-be-a-complete-disaster]The article has now moved to here.[/url] The link in this post now only directs to a super quick summary. [/quote] With that summary, it's even more clear he has no idea what he's talking about. [QUOTE=Why485;48133371]At the beginning, there wasn't even supposed to be a Star Citizen. Before the campaign started, there were rumor articles going around that Chris wants to come back to make another Wing Commander. They all specifically mention Wing Commander, and not Privateer or Freelancer. When the funding started, there was no Star Citizen. The funding was for Squadron 42 alone. They threw in a persistent Freelancer like universe as a silly stretch goal at I believe it was 4 million. He didn't plan on reaching it. All he needed was the 2 million to show enough interest that the private investors he had lined up would believe that the game was worth funding. There are a lot of people who backed from that era with the intention of just wanting a new Wing Commander. As for myself, I backed because I wanted Freelancer+, which is what the description of Star Citizen was at the time. He blew past the 4 million goal for Freelancer+, not Star Wars Galaxies with a focus on space. On the first person universe stuff specifically, no. Chris had planned out that it would just be like Freelancer where you move between rooms with a menu. In something very recent it was outright stated that was the plan. However, there is so much material to search through and I just can't find it, so you'll have to take my word for it, or not if you so choose. Either way, Chris Roberts loves to dream big, and he needed to keep the hype train rolling to keep the funding coming in. Star Citizen ballooned into this massive "first person universe" we have now, and CIG consistently keep shooting themselves in the foot by making things so much more complicated than they need to be in the pursuit of "immersion" without regard seeming regard for how much work something like that involves. A good recent example is their animation system that has been giving them a lot of trouble for all the very reasons that almost nobody does animations this way. There are very good reasons that vast, vast majority of games separate their camera from the third person model, and CIG is finding out first hand why. I've been following Star Citizen unhealthily closely since before Squadron 42 was even announced. Since before there was even a Star Citizen. I remember watching the GDC 2012 announcement live, and I remember how the initial funding drive went, when they added a Kickstarter after some persuasion, and when the stretch goals started to get more and more ridiculous once they blew past all their initial goals and outline for a game.[/QUOTE] That doesn't seem right at all. Looking at the stretch goals, a persistent universe was not one of them. There are references to both Star Citizen, and squadron 42 - implying they are both seperate things. [url]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals[/url] A persistant universe is what the game was initially advertised as, It was something that was there from the start. There are plenty of references to it in the kickstarter campaign, it was definitely not just for Squadron 42. For example, here are just a few of them from the Kickstarter: [quote] [B] A huge universe to explore, trade and adventure in[/B] Space is unending, endless and so are your opportunities. Strike out to make your fortune amongst the Stars or sign-up for a tour of duty in the UEE Fleet. [B] Constantly expanding and evolving universe[/B] We’re committed to making Star Citizen a living, breathing universe that is its own entity. It will be a constantly shifting and evolving place for players to explore and affect. [/quote] [quote] [B] The conflict never ends [/B] Upon completion of your tour you’ll re-enter the persistent Star Citizen universe... [/quote] [quote] Real quick, Star Citizen is: A rich universe focused on epic space adventure, trading and dogfighting in first person. Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play) Persistent Universe (hosted by US) Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by YOU) No Subscriptions No Pay to Win [/quote] Funding began in october 2012, and slightly over a week later the Kickstarter began which makes mention of having a persitant universe, nothing has changed. The kickstarter also mentions that they aren't going to find a publisher. [quote] Instead of taking this prototype to a publisher for a green light, we are cutting out the middleman and taking it to you.[/quote]

I don't agree with everything he says. He has some of the historical details wrong and has more than a few dumb Derek Smartisms, but many of his smaller points (such as why space sims need very specialized engines or clever design workarounds) and bigger point that he's trying to make (why Star Citizen as Chris promised can't happen) are correct. Or at least, I believe them to be. I've been highly critical of Star Citizen for a [I]very[/I] long time, despite how much I want to believe they can do it. If they can pull this off it is the my dream game and holy grail of space sims, and calling it the holy grail of space sims is an apt analogy in more ways than one.

It seems to me that this is the same shit that happened when Arena Commander was delayed by six months (which, admittedly, is a fucking long time), and doomsayers crawled out of the woodwork to be able to say I told you so. I see it in the Rust subforum all the time, too. The predictions of doom weren't nearly so shrill and loud when patches were coming out one after another to Arena Commander and it really looked like we were making consistent strides forward towards FPS/Planetside/2.0/PU/Heaven itself opening its gates, but now that [I]visible[/I] progress slowed and there hasn't been any new toys to placate the mob recently, everyone's getting nervous and scared. Have we forgotten the leak already? It's not as if we don't see evidence that CIG's working. People would feel a lot better if CIG would give a release date -- until they inevitably miss that release date because of ordinary development and get crucified in the forums. And now that they don't give release dates to avoid creating backer anger, they're viewed with suspicion like Star Citizen is a house of cards about to collapse. I mean, are people legitimately expecting Chris to take the money and run to Belize? Also, wow, fuck Derek Smart. At first I thought he was just a cranky old game dev with a stick up his ass who's jealous that Chris has all this crowdfunding money and he doesn't (which is probably unfair, but hey), but he's actively concern trolling CIG now: [QUOTE][B]If you feel that you have been misled[/B] when you backed the Star Citizen project after Oct, 2012, and you want [B]a chance to get your money back[/B], the FTC has setup a special department that deals with crowd-funding complaints. You can fill out this form. Then select [B]“Internet services, online shopping, or computers”[/B] then [B]“Online shopping”[/B]. You can read more about that over here.[/QUOTE] How about you just fucking contact CS and ask for a refund because you've lost faith in the project? Trying to get the FTC on CIG is just being a shitlord. It's utterly unnecessary and so fucking out of touch. Fuck him. Plus only Americans can usefully appeal to the FTC, thanks for thinking of the rest of us, Derek, you asshole. Encouraging people to take CIG to the FTC is a dick move no matter how you feel about the project, unless he's got documented proof that CS are somehow denying refunds. If anything, CS will be happy to make you whole and send you off unless you've backed so much that it's going to be financially complicated to refund you.

The game was never just freelancer+. If you're so sure of that, can you please show where that is said, without a persistent universe mentioned? It's mentioned in the kickstarter many times, it's mentioned in the first documents released on their site, it's mentioned in the stretch goals (as in improvements to it). It's even in the initial announcement video from GDC 2012. From the start that has been what the game was going to have, there was going to be Star Citizen and Squadron 42. The game has always been intended to be a first person universe. You've misunderstood what the 4 million strech goal is. It's not the adition of the persistant universe, it's the adition of more content for it - specifically a ship and more star systems. The goals on their site are the same and it's worded differently there: [quote]Star Citizen will launch with 50 star systems and feature an additional flyable ship, the Drake Interplanetary Cutlass.[/quote] Nothing has changed with the game, a first-person universe is what the developers intended all along and that's what it was first shown as.

[QUOTE=nightlord;48133461]That doesn't seem right at all. Looking at the stretch goals, a persistent universe was not one of them. There are references to both Star Citizen, and squadron 42 - implying they are both seperate things. [url]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals[/url] [B]A persistant universe is what the game was initially advertised as, It was something that was there from the start.[/B] There are plenty of references to it in the kickstarter campaign, it was definitely not just for Squadron 42. For example, here are just a few of them from the Kickstarter: [/QUOTE] It wasn't. It was just a sort of in the distance, yeah it'd be awesome kind of thing, but not planned for and budgeted for. The problem is you're looking at the [I]current[/I] stretch goals. Those, and all the descriptions you see on the Star Citizen site, have been subtly changing over time. Star Citizen has a very revisionist view of history. Here's the stretch goals as they were back in October, shortly after funding began: [img]http://i.imgur.com/6XTm7d4.png[/img] Note that the persistent universe is listed as THE goal for 4 million. What this signified was the moving of the big multiplayer Star Citizen persistent universe from a "we'll do it when we get to it" to a "it'll be available on launch and a priority." After 4 million, and continually more so as the funding went on, Star Citizen increasingly became CIG's focus, with Squadron 42 now being the side project. Here's the list as it was in November. You can already see the planned features creeping in. Notice that "boarding" is now added to the 4 million Star Citizen goal. This is where all the first person combat came from, and it wasn't there before. [img]http://i.imgur.com/1dcJSWS.png[/img] [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20121130070908/http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/comprehensive-stretch-goals/]I highly recommend you explore the historical site[/url]. You can see how the game's goals have changed over time for yourself.

[video=youtube;VhsgiliheP0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhsgiliheP0[/video] Why485, I advise you to watch the pitch video over again, starting at the 3-minute mark. Star Citizen was always "Star Citizen and Squadron 42" -- how much focus was given to S42 has changed, however, that is fair to say, but it's also now to be a trilogy and early backers are getting the second title for free so can it actually be fairly said? Also, on the topic of the game mutating from its original form, that's a fair argument, but there are two sides to it. I posted this to Reddit about it: [QUOTE][QUOTE]My "unrealistic expectations" include taking them at their word when they say "PU in 2014", and not expecting it to be released in 2016.[/QUOTE] This is a fair piece of criticism, but there's a counter-point to be made. As of the original timeline in the Kickstarter, Squadron 42 should be finished and the PU should be tracking into beta by now, if not finished. Not going to argue with you that they did not meet these expectations. However, let's also acknowledge a few things. First, Chris and Sandi expected to rake in $2-$6mil and use that as credit to get private investors to round up the development budget to about $20mil, and they scaled the design of the game to fit such a budget. The PU was going to be fairly basic, with very few ships, and it was to be tacked onto Squadron 42 and hopefully they'd make enough money off of game sales to keep development of the PU going long enough to add some of Chris's dreams that had to be cut to fit the budget. The development timeline was then projected accordingly. And then they broke the crowdfunding record and the money didn't slow down. Stretch goals were updated, because more money to develop the game means less limits on the design and a better experience for everyone. And the money kept coming in. And it just didn't stop. Since the Kickstarter campaign, Star Citizen's scope has been scaled upwards several times. The funding has justified fewer limits on the design, which naturally means more work to do. Predictably, the consequence of this is that the timeline has slipped with the scale changes. CIG has been open with us about this fact as things have changed. They've learned to stop giving firm deadlines, however, because backers throw massive fits when the realities of game development (and the expansion of the project's scope in pursuing CR's stated vision) mean that deadlines slip, and it wasn't helping them any. You may disagree with the decisions to roll out more stretch goals and add so many more things to the game, and I will not argue with you -- it is a reasonable opinion to hold and comes from an entirely understandable place. But the end result is that, in return for your patience, you're getting so much more game for your pledge.[/QUOTE]

are you high? PU was always part of the agenda. I'm pretty sure he says the exact phrase 'persistent universe' in the GDC presentation from 2012 personally, it took me a while to pledge, but I did so because I actually want to see them push the envelope in PC gaming. I WANT them to grapple with challenging stuff like the unified animations, grabby hands insanity, and enormous 64 bit environments maybe you or others who backed earlier were sold on something else, a more straightforward, achievable vision, but for me it's always been exactly as you said, this holy grail of a game I mean, isn't that the entire point of pouring stupid amounts of money into virtual spaceships? - to give them [I]the chance[/I] to try and realise this insane goal that no traditional funding model could sustain that's why I always defend CIG when it comes to delays and perceived 'feature creep' - by stifling their creativity and moaning about deadlines you are acting like those ~evil publishers~ that the whole thing is trying to avoid

Derek Smart is like a less insane, well known version of Haxus. Take that as you will. He's probably right though, we're kinda just waiting and seeing exactly how much of star citizen's potential actually gets realized.

[QUOTE=Why485;48133568]It wasn't. It was just a sort of in the distance, yeah it'd be awesome kind of thing, but not planned for and budgeted for. The problem is you're looking at the [I]current[/I] stretch goals. Those, and all the descriptions you see on the Star Citizen site, have been subtly changing over time. Star Citizen has a very revisionist view of history. Here's the stretch goals as they were back in October, shortly after funding began: [img]http://i.imgur.com/6XTm7d4.png[/img] Note that the persistent universe is listed as THE goal for 4 million. Here's the list as it was in November. You can already see the planned features creeping in. Notice that "boarding" is now mysteriously added to the 4 million Star Citizen goal. This is where all the first person combat came from. [img]http://i.imgur.com/1dcJSWS.png[/img] [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20121130070908/http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/comprehensive-stretch-goals/]I highly recommend you explore the historical site[/url]. You can see how the game's goals have changed over time for yourself.[/QUOTE] Those goals do not show the addition of the persistent universe. The words "persistent universe" in the 4mil goal show what the two things under that heading are for, similarly to the header of "Squadron 42" right above that being for the addition of more missions. The persistent universe is even mentioned in the 3mil goal, with the purpose of that one being to get that part done within 30 months. It was not added as a stretch goal. The FAQ in the archive even mentions it: [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20121121030835/http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/star-citizen-faq[/url] [quote] We wanted to put a lot of social ideas in the universe. Since the universe is dynamic, it will create some divisions and factions. For example, there’s a perfectly valid choice not to be a Citizen but we wanted to include all these social divisions so players will gravitate to one or the other and operate like the real world operates.[/quote] [quote] Will there be story updates or expansions? We’re going to be constantly updating the universe from our end. I’m not interested in having yearly updates. We will have a team of people adding content on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. So we’ll be always adding data, stories, and campaigns as well as reacting to what the players are doing. So the universe will change based on what the players do. They can also become a part of the history of the universe. Say there’s a player who’s an explorer, if they find a space anomaly and successfully navigate it, which is not easy to do. If they’ve recorded the Nav-Data of their jump, they’ll be able to sell it for a great profit to a space company and they’ll have the system and jump-point named after them. The goal of Star Citizen is build a living, breathing universe that is its own entity. It will be a constantly shifting and evolving place for people to go and escape to. [/quote] [quote] Is Star Citizen an MMO? No! Star Citizen will take the best of all possible worlds, ranging from a permanent, persistent world similar to those found in MMOs to an offline, single player campaign like those found in the Wing Commander series. The game will include the option for private servers, like Freelancer, and will offer plenty of opportunities for players who are interested in modding the content. Unlike many games, none of these aspects is an afterthought: they all combine to form the core of the Star Citizen experience. [/quote] Looking at some other sites from the time of that, people were mentioning that a persistent universe was part of the initial pitch, with the goal for it just helping to get it done quicker: [url]http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=23475781#p23475781[/url] A first-person persistent universe was part of what was initially pitched, nothing has changed at all.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48133593][video=youtube;VhsgiliheP0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhsgiliheP0[/video] Why485, I advise you to watch the pitch video over again, starting at the 3-minute mark. Star Citizen was always "Star Citizen and Squadron 42" -- how much focus was given to S42 has changed, however, that is fair to say, but it's also now to be a trilogy and early backers are getting the second title for free so can it actually be fairly said?[/QUOTE] Even in the video, he doesn't talk about it as if it was an MMO. In the early days there was a very specific denial that the game was an MMO. The original plans were much more localized and instanced. If you remember the early plans on how moving through the universe was, it was actually designed with a lot of CryEngine's limitations in mind. The original network and travel idea was basically autopilot warping on an overworld map, then dropping into battle or other kinds of encounters. In that video, he talks about the game more as if it was a Freelancer style game without a lot of the craziness that's in there now. He doesn't even really mention multiplayer, especially not in the way they talk about it now. The problem with them adding all the stretch goals is that they turned what were the pie in the sky "yeah, that would be cool" dreams into written promises that now need to be fulfilled. Stuff that would've been a great luxury, but not really core to the experience, especially considering how involved and complex many of the stretch goals were. [QUOTE=krail9;48133594]are you high? PU was always part of the agenda. I'm pretty sure he says the exact phrase 'persistent universe' in the GDC presentation from 2012 personally, it took me a while to pledge, but I did so because I actually want to see them push the envelope in PC gaming. I WANT them to grapple with challenging stuff like the unified animations, grabby hands insanity, and enormous 64 bit environments maybe you or others who backed earlier were sold on something else, a more straightforward, achievable vision, but for me it's always been exactly as you said, this holy grail of a game I mean, isn't that the entire point of pouring stupid amounts of money into virtual spaceships? - to give them [I]the chance[/I] to try and realise this insane goal that no traditional funding model could sustain that's why I always defend CIG when it comes to delays and perceived 'feature creep' - by stifling their creativity and moaning about deadlines you are acting like those ~evil publishers~ that the whole thing is trying to avoid[/QUOTE] I backed Star Citizen because this was the best chance of reigniting the space sim genre. The fact that the genre is already seeing a renaissance of sorts is enough that I feel like I've gotten my money's worth. I backed Star Citizen knowing full well how Chris Roberts operates, i.e. the Chris Roberts mantra of "Half the game Chris Roberts says it will be, a quarter of the game you expect." This game is important for a hell of a lot of reasons, and I'd rather see them try and fail than not try at all. I want to see them succeed and do the impossible. Nobody has ever tried what they're doing, for good reason, and I want them to be the first to get it right. What I really find interesting though, is your publisher comment. Freelancer is one of my favorite games of all time. Freelancer was promised to basically be the singleplayer Star Citizen of its day. However, the budget and timetables got completely out of control. The game was 3 years late, Chris Roberts ragequit from the industry, and Microsoft had to come in and finish the game themselves. You know what though? They ended up releasing a pretty great game. Even the scraps of Chris Roberts' dreams was a hell of a game. It's where my Chris Roberts mantra comes from, and it's what I fully expect to happen to Star Citizen. He'll promise and try for something completely absurd, have to cut a lot of it back, and then release a game that ends up being pretty fucking cool. Star Citizen is a perfect example of what happens when you don't have publishers and stockholders that care about deadlines and dictate budget. Yes, you can argue that the community gets mad and that websites will run articles about how the sky is falling, but that's not the same as the legal and financial bindings that come with legit publishers. This game is practically a science experiment. I don't think anything of this scale, with this much money, has ever been attempted without publisher oversight. They're entirely self-governed for better [I]and[/I] worse. It's one of the biggest reasons the whole project is so fascinating to watch.

[QUOTE=Why485;48133730]I backed Star Citizen because this was the best chance of reigniting the space sim genre. The fact that the genre is already seeing a renaissance of sorts is enough that I feel like I've gotten my money's worth. I backed Star Citizen knowing full well how Chris Roberts operates, i.e. the Chris Roberts mantra of "Half the game Chris Roberts says it will be, a quarter of the game you expect." This game is important for a hell of a lot of reasons, and I'd rather see them try and fail than not try at all. I want to see them succeed and do the impossible. Nobody has ever tried what they're doing, for good reason, and I want them to be the first to get it right. What I really find interesting though, is your publisher comment. Freelancer is one of my favorite games of all time. Freelancer was promised to basically be a singleplayer Star Citizen of its day. However the budget and timetables got completely out of control. The game was 3 years late, Chris Roberts ragequit from the industry, and Microsoft had to come in and finish the game themselves. You know what though? They ended up releasing a pretty great game. Even the scraps of Chris Roberts' dreams was a hell of a game. It's where my Chris Roberts mantra comes from, and it's what I fully expect to happen to Star Citizen. He'll promise and try for something completely absurd, have to cut a lot of it back, and then release a game that ends up pretty fucking cool. Star Citizen is a perfect example of what happens when you don't have publishers and stockholders that care about deadlines and dictates budget. Yes, you can argue that the community gets mad and that websites will run articles about how the sky is falling, but that's not the same as the legal and financial bindings that come with legit publishers. This game is practically a science experiment. I don't think anything of this scale, with this much money, has ever been attempted without publisher oversight. They're entirely self-governed for better [I]and[/I] worse. It's one of the biggest reasons the whole project is so fascinating to watch.[/QUOTE] maybe I didn't communicate properly because I agree with you on everything. I have no doubt that parts of the vision will fall through and that some promises will be compromised, but I'm optimistic about their chances in pulling off something awesome on the whole freelancer is an interesting comparison, since CR's original vision for it is eerily similar to star citizen's, and then it completely blew out it's timeline and budget just like SC :v: but would have happened if he had had another 2 or even 3 years? would we have the mind blowing persistent universe he originally pitched, or would it have faded into vapourwear? detractors would say it's a case of history repeating, but who knows... maybe this time all the pieces will fall into place

[QUOTE=Why485;48133730]Even in the video, he doesn't talk about it as if it was an MMO. In the early days there was a very specific denial that the game was an MMO. The original plans were much more localized and instanced. If you remember the early plans on how moving through the universe was, it was actually designed with a lot of CryEngine's limitations in mind. The original network and travel idea was basically autopilot warping on an overworld map, then dropping into battle or other kinds of encounters. In that video, he talks about the game more as if it was a Freelancer style game without a lot of the craziness that's in there now. He doesn't even really mention multiplayer, especially not in the way they talk about it now. The problem with them adding all the stretch goals is that they turned what were the pie in the sky "yeah, that would be cool" dreams into written promises that now need to be fulfilled. Stuff that would've been a great luxury, but not really core to the experience, especially considering how involved and complex many of the stretch goals were. [/QUOTE] The game still isn't an MMO, though. It's still the same multiplayer persistent universe it has always been. What do you think they've added that's changed it from a freelancer-style game? There haven't been any large features added that weren't already planned.