Yes, you have every right to stomp your feet around like an entitled child. Also, please don't act like you post things that are pro-SC. Every time that ED releases something, you're gushing over it likes it's the best fucking thing since sliced bread, but every SC thread you post into is, generally, negative.
Listen, Offline mode isn't the only feature that ED failed to deliver. There is a veritable laundry list of things that have yet to be delivered that were promised to backers. HOWEVER!! If someone at CIG happens to piss on the toilet seat, we should probably blow it up like the sky is falling.
You post ZERO negative or critical posts regarding ED and nearly 100% of your posts with regards to SC are bitching about something. It's fucking hilarious because you sit there and talk about how Offline mode was an ED fuck up, but then scold someone for bringing it up 3 years later, lol. Meanwhile, just before that you're talking about the cumulative mistakes made by CIG over the project.
Yes! We get it! You LOVE ED! Also, yes, we get it, you are an SC "backer". Honestly, it's like the whole argument "I can't be racist! I have a friend who's black!" Like why don't we just be honest here?
So being critical of certain aspects of the game or its crowdfunding
method now equates "stomping my feet like an entitled child".... you
must to be very thin skinned to let such comments result in such a
hyperbolic reaction.
Every time... really? Just LOL, just stop with the hyperbolic bullshit already. There are a few videos, screenshots and threads that I post when they have something newsworthy going on. That's it.
I make posts about the not so good things in Elite, especially when someone is asking should they get the base game or the expansion, I don't just gush with praise over it. I make threads on here about good stuff SC does as well as negative things, my posts however are largely critical and I get argumentative with those that want to paint the whole project as though they can do no wrong and any excuse is acceptable for CIG/SC. So again, yet more hyperbolic bullshit.
Dude I'm not even playing Elite at the moment, haven't played properly for 3 months or more now bar a small bit of beta testing. I'll jump back in when 2.3 hits. It's just a game to me not some surrogate religion.
What's funny here is that rather than discussing Star Citizen, you and Babuinix want to make it an Elite vs Star Citizen thing, and you in particular want to make it about me, rather than what I write (a recurring subject with you). It seems you get very personal about this rather than keeping it about the posts themselves. Very amusing.
If my posts upset you so much then do yourself a favour and put me on ignore, it will save you from being upset all the time because I have no intention of stopping my criticism.
First off, stomping your feet wasn't in response to your critique of things, but your "RIGHT TO DO STUFF!!" Lol. I find it's always a funny fallback for people with weak arguments that aren't supported by factual evidence.
That brings us to the constant ED and SC comparison. Let's face facts, the space simulation genre has been severely under-served for the past decade. So the fact that there are two big-budget space sim games in development at almost exactly the same time, is a fucking freak of nature. HOWEVER, what it does do is provide ample opportunity for comparison between apples, or a gala apple vs a red delicious apple. Point is, it's about as close as you'll ever get to a lab test of two teams developing two games using different models and comparing them. However, despite having this wealth of information, there is little interest in actually making use of that to provide any sort of logical argument.
So, no, it's very much not personal, but I think it is important that I continue to frame these nebulous arguments with some sort of context to remind people, who may not be informed, that there is more to it than shallow, surface-level opinions.
So if you care about actually making an intelligent article, then at least you know what I'm looking for and if you post opinion pieces that are just completely inaccurate, you can expect that I'll jump all over it. Don't worry, though, that's not exclusive to you, I do it in other posts as well.
Honestly, the only reason I post into SC threads anymore is to get LOLs from @LoveRemovalMachine anyway, so I can put that song in my head for the rest of the day.
So literally I was correct but that's now irrelevant? There was a reason I used the words 'threads' and then went on to clarify that I am indeed critical and argumentative in my posts with others that take the "CIG can do no wrong" stance. I wholly believe that whiteknights / fanboys are detrimental to game communities, criticism is a necessary part of the process.
You're just moving the goalposts if the "posts are not the point but the assumptions made." I see you don't even specify any assumptions, instead just taking a wide broad brush and slapping it around randomly. Nor do I give Frontier a free pass, as I already stated I post positive stuff about SC and I post positive stuff about Elite. I am more critical about SC because your pro-SC crowd tends to try to whitewash complaints and I disagree with that. You don't get any of that in the Elite forum do you... Some of the complaints are pointless, some are funny, some are on point but labelling all criticism as "foot stamping entitled children" is more peurile than the metaphor you're trying to use.
Honestly, the only reason I post into SC threads anymore is to get LOLs from @LoveRemovalMachine anyway, so I can put that song in my head for the rest of the day.
People do not want to be lied to, or scamed - so till the very last second they will not believe what they really see. Its like on stock exchange: I bought loosing stock, but just in a minute it will rise... just in a second....it fell but soon soon it will raise.... it fell again but now it must rise.
rpmcmurphy said: I wholly believe that whiteknights / fanboys are detrimental to game communities, criticism is a necessary part of the process.
Yet we have more trolling and hate than we do have criticism. Like, every time you make posts like this is always villanizing white knights/fanboys, I never, ever, saw you pointing fingers at trolling or plain hate. It's like you purposely avoid making a neutral approach on your post to lock your target to one side of the spectrum.
So literally I was correct but that's now irrelevant? There was a reason I used the words 'threads' and then went on to clarify that I am indeed critical and argumentative in my posts with others that take the "CIG can do no wrong" stance. I wholly believe that whiteknights / fanboys are detrimental to game communities, criticism is a necessary part of the process.
You're just moving the goalposts if the "posts are not the point but the assumptions made." I see you don't even specify any assumptions, instead just taking a wide broad brush and slapping it around randomly. Nor do I give Frontier a free pass, as I already stated I post positive stuff about SC and I post positive stuff about Elite. I am more critical about SC because your pro-SC crowd tends to try to whitewash complaints and I disagree with that. You don't get any of that in the Elite forum do you... Some of the complaints are pointless, some are funny, some are on point but labelling all criticism as "foot stamping entitled children" is more peurile than the metaphor you're trying to use.
While there are some who are more on the side of "CIG can do no wrong", if we're dealing in literals then I don't think there is a single poster on here who hasn't made multiple critical posts about CIG or SC. However, their relevance is based on their affinity more so than their actual comments. So even if someone is being critical, there will be little focus given to that. Similarly, there are those in the anti-camp who make positive comments, but they are also dismissed. I'm sure that many times either/or is view as simply baiting. I'll openly admit that I feel like your topics are bait topics, and I'll admit that's based solely on how I view your previous posts, in general. I mean we all know where an SC post goes by now, so I don't know why we're surprised. We're the real fucking idiots because we still post into them.
As far as making assumptions go, it seems you're taking offense to the fact that I don't provide you any reference. So you're saying that I would be more relevant if I provided some context. Interesting......
I don't really think that there are compelling, fact-based arguments. What you view as whitewashing complaints, I view as an inability by the anti-SC crowd to actually make intelligent arguments. Let's not forget that what actually made SC a very polarizing in the first place was an anti-SC/anti-CIG blog post. Essentially that was the line in the sand. The problem with that is that, now we have two camps. Nobody can be a neutral party. You're either with us or against us (either side).
The problem could be your perspective. You obviously believe that the problem is with people with opposing views to your own. Does that make you unwilling to find reason in what someone who might be labeled as a pro-SC camper might have to say? I have made plenty of intelligent arguments based on what is know and, also, what experience I might have myself in the game or software industry and, yet, people in the anti-camp remain dismissive because it doesn't align with their own ideals.
Again, the comment with regards to the stomping your feet was simply aimed at your stance that you've got a right to your opinion, which isn't untrue, but it also doesn't make your right. It also only serves to illustrate what I was eluding to above where the anti-camp tends to take be unwilling to listen to reason.
Oh! And just for the record, I don't think that ED conversations are any less hostile. I've seen the ED reddit and it can be just as bad. Just because the sample size is much smaller here doesn't mean that the community is any more civil.
rpmcmurphy said: I wholly believe that whiteknights / fanboys are detrimental to game communities, criticism is a necessary part of the process.
Yet we have more trolling and hate than we do have criticism. I always notice this little intent of how every time you make posts like this is always villanizing white knights/fanboys, I never, ever, saw you pointing fingers at trolling and pure hate, that must be how you define one healthy community then.
You get trolling and "hate" with every game, it's not something that can be magically avoided. And SC has made itself a large target because of how they make money as well as their grandiose claims plus you have a lot of people who defend the game very strongly partly because they have sunk a fair bit of money into it.
There's plenty of criticism, it's just that some people choose to see that criticism as hate.As I've said many times it will be nice when there is more game that can be discussed rather than what we currently have.
You can point the finger at me if you want but just because I don't call criticism out doesn't mean I condone their comments. In fact in my post above I explicitly stated "Some of the complaints are pointless...", I'm not claiming to be impartial so I'm not sure what you're going for here?
You get trolling and "hate" with every game, it's not something that can be magically avoided. And SC has made itself a large target because of how they make money as well as their grandiose claims plus you have a lot of people who defend the game very strongly partly because they have sunk a fair bit of money into it.
You get both on any game, but don't excuse the amount of it surronding SC because of what they said and the money they earned. We all know the events that led to the huge amount of drama and trolling, how SC became a mainstream target for the Goonland, over something that was already there, there was no lack of fuel put on the fire.
It became "it's cool to troll and hate on SC!", the same way those who try to humiliate and destroy Mass Effect Andromeda while the game is doing just fine on its ratings, reviews and player feedback; like SC a lot of that trolling and hate is also external to its actual playerbase.
While there are some who are more on the side of "CIG can do no wrong", if we're dealing in literals then I don't think there is a single poster on here who hasn't made multiple critical posts about CIG or SC. However, their relevance is based on their affinity more so than their actual comments. So even if someone is being critical, there will be little focus given to that.
As far as making assumptions go, it seems you're taking offense to the fact that I don't provide you any reference. So you're saying that I would be more relevant if I provided some context. Interesting......
I don't really think that there are compelling, fact-based arguments. What you view as whitewashing complaints, I view as an inability by the anti-SC crowd to actually make intelligent arguments. Let's not forget that what actually made SC a very polarizing in the first place was an anti-SC/anti-CIG blog post. Essentially that was the line in the sand. The problem with that is that, now we have two camps. Nobody can be a neutral party. You're either with us or against us (either side).
The problem could be your perspective. You obviously believe that the problem is with people with opposing views to your own. Does that make you unwilling to find reason in what someone who might be labeled as a pro-SC camper might have to say? I have made plenty of intelligent arguments based on what is know and, also, what experience I might have myself in the game or software industry and, yet, people in the anti-camp remain dismissive because it doesn't align with their own ideals.
Again, the comment with regards to the stomping your feet was simply aimed at your stance that you've got a right to your opinion, which isn't untrue, but it also doesn't make your right. It also only serves to illustrate what I was eluding to above where the anti-camp tends to take be unwilling to listen to reason.
Oh! And just for the record, I don't think that ED conversations are any less hostile. I've seen the ED reddit and it can be just as bad. Just because the sample size is much smaller here doesn't mean that the community is any more civil.
We're only dealing with literals because I said I make threads that are positive towards SC and you claimed I didn't.
I'm not taking offense but of course context would be relevant, if you want to claim I'm making assumptions then the least you could do is back that up instead of throwing it off the cuff.
Just because you feel there aren't any compelling fact-based arguments doesn't make it so, that could simply be the level of bias or contempt that you hold against the people posting this stuff or what one person sees as relevant might not be what another views as relevant, who gets to decide?
That you want to push my dislike towards whitewashing of complaints back on me by claims of perspective says more about your stance than it does mine. If people are posting stuff and getting the "hurr durr hater" treatment then how is that beneficial to anyone? It's just a cheap parlour trick to silence people. All it does is antagonise the situation and encourage the us vs them tribalism.
To voice my opinion is my right providing it stays within the rules of the forum. The only context you gave to that was "Yes, you have every right to stomp your feet around like an entitled
child. Also, please don't act like you post things that are pro-SC.
Every time that ED releases something, you're gushing over it likes it's
the best fucking thing since sliced bread, but every SC thread you post
into is, generally, negative."
All of which was wholly untrue and just shows how your personal feelings are affecting your perspective towards my posts.
Yes some posters in the Elite subreddit can get like that on occassion but so do some posters on the SC subreddit. The point was you don't see people in the Elite subforum whitewashing complaints.
What I don't get and what I (and I'm sure everyone else) finds really boring is why you want to make
this about me. It's the content of my posts that should matter,
can we not argue that instead of my psychological profile. You always seem to come back to this, I
don't know whether I should be flattered or concerned?
You get both on any game, but don't excuse the amount of it surronding SC because of what they said and the money they earned. We all know the events that led to the huge amount of drama and trolling, how SC became a mainstream target for the Goonland, over something that was already there, there was no lack of fuel put on the fire.
It became "it's cool to troll and hate on SC!", the same way those who try to humiliate and destroy Mass Effect Andromeda while the game is doing just fine on its ratings, reviews and player feedback; like SC a lot of that trolling and hate is also external to its actual playerbase.
There was plenty of concern and criticism before these supposed "events". Even going back to late 2013 / early 2014 there was plenty of concern. I think it's a bit hyperbolic to lay the blame at any one person's door and claim that it then got cheerleaded by the goons.
I can't say that "it's cool to troll and hate on SC", sure there are people that follow others but you can't use that to account for everybody.
While there are some who are more on the side of "CIG can do no wrong", if we're dealing in literals then I don't think there is a single poster on here who hasn't made multiple critical posts about CIG or SC. However, their relevance is based on their affinity more so than their actual comments. So even if someone is being critical, there will be little focus given to that.
As far as making assumptions go, it seems you're taking offense to the fact that I don't provide you any reference. So you're saying that I would be more relevant if I provided some context. Interesting......
I don't really think that there are compelling, fact-based arguments. What you view as whitewashing complaints, I view as an inability by the anti-SC crowd to actually make intelligent arguments. Let's not forget that what actually made SC a very polarizing in the first place was an anti-SC/anti-CIG blog post. Essentially that was the line in the sand. The problem with that is that, now we have two camps. Nobody can be a neutral party. You're either with us or against us (either side).
The problem could be your perspective. You obviously believe that the problem is with people with opposing views to your own. Does that make you unwilling to find reason in what someone who might be labeled as a pro-SC camper might have to say? I have made plenty of intelligent arguments based on what is know and, also, what experience I might have myself in the game or software industry and, yet, people in the anti-camp remain dismissive because it doesn't align with their own ideals.
Again, the comment with regards to the stomping your feet was simply aimed at your stance that you've got a right to your opinion, which isn't untrue, but it also doesn't make your right. It also only serves to illustrate what I was eluding to above where the anti-camp tends to take be unwilling to listen to reason.
Oh! And just for the record, I don't think that ED conversations are any less hostile. I've seen the ED reddit and it can be just as bad. Just because the sample size is much smaller here doesn't mean that the community is any more civil.
It's the content of my posts that should matter,
can we not argue that instead of my psychological profile. You always seem to come back to this, I
don't know whether I should be flattered or concerned?
Oh god!! If this was only the case then I would be truly happy. However, it doesn't happen, like it or lump it.
What I will say is that it is categorically not about you. It is about the context of the arguments made. So I guess we'll just have to be happy with it being a Mexican Standoff where we have two perspectives with unverifiable, anecdotal evidence. I mean, let's face it, if there was actual, verifiable, information with regards to this whole situation then we wouldn't be discussing any of this here. However, the reality is that there is always a counter argument that is, more or less, within the realm of possibility as much as the other. Granted, there are laughable arguments like "The 6-million dollar game" or "They said it would be out in 2014" or "It's all an elaborate money laundering scheme", but there are also very valid, plausible arguments which simply end up lending themselves to opinion. However, regardless of how loud you scream, opinions are just like assholes, everybody has one. What's more, since there is no verifiable proof, anyone who disagrees with anyone else is just an idiot.
Oh god!! If this was only the case then I would be truly happy. However, it doesn't happen, like it or lump it.
What I will say is that it is categorically not about you. It is about the context of the arguments made. So I guess we'll just have to be happy with it being a Mexican Standoff where we have two perspectives with unverifiable, anecdotal evidence. I mean, let's face it, if there was actual, verifiable, information with regards to this whole situation then we wouldn't be discussing any of this here. However, the reality is that there is always a counter argument that is, more or less, within the realm of possibility as much as the other. Granted, there are laughable arguments like "The 6-million dollar game" or "They said it would be out in 2014" or "It's all an elaborate money laundering scheme", but there are also very valid, plausible arguments which simply end up lending themselves to opinion. However, regardless of how loud you scream, opinions are just like assholes, everybody has one. What's more, since there is no verifiable proof, anyone who disagrees with anyone else is just an idiot.
See the issue is that you say context of arguments but you're not providing any, all you're doing is saying that I stomp my feet like an entitled child but provide no examples of where I do that, you say that I make assumptions but again provide no examples of where I do that, whereas the criticism I make is virtually always based on something and that is stuff that can be linked, ie ship prices, missed dates, non-useful communication etc.
This is not a Mexican standoff by any measure, it's just you dressing up hyperbole as though it's a reasonable, logical stance for a discussion or an argument.
Calling any one that disagrees an idiot because in your eyes there is no verifiable proof is unnecessary, and what exactly are we referring to here. There are many examples of things where there is verifiable proof, why even bother entertaining the stuff that isn't verifiable? If it's so pointless why even give it the time of day?
It looks like this thread had devolved into an argument about what is worse: Fanboys denying anything is wrong versus Trolls denying anything is right with SC. A lot of black and white with no shades of grey seen IRT opinions.
I have seen @rpmcmurphy saying positive things a little more than I have seen @MaxBacon say negative things. I have only seen rainbows and puppy kisses from @Erillion and nothing but storm-clouds and spider bites from @Kefo for instance. Most of the real doom and gloomers like Brenics and jrpgwhatever are long gone. We have seen more It's All Good folks monthly to take their place. The balance here is tilting more toward the good? side it seems.
I'm bored, killing time before bed. Just thinking out loud.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
Oh god!! If this was only the case then I would be truly happy. However, it doesn't happen, like it or lump it.
What I will say is that it is categorically not about you. It is about the context of the arguments made. So I guess we'll just have to be happy with it being a Mexican Standoff where we have two perspectives with unverifiable, anecdotal evidence. I mean, let's face it, if there was actual, verifiable, information with regards to this whole situation then we wouldn't be discussing any of this here. However, the reality is that there is always a counter argument that is, more or less, within the realm of possibility as much as the other. Granted, there are laughable arguments like "The 6-million dollar game" or "They said it would be out in 2014" or "It's all an elaborate money laundering scheme", but there are also very valid, plausible arguments which simply end up lending themselves to opinion. However, regardless of how loud you scream, opinions are just like assholes, everybody has one. What's more, since there is no verifiable proof, anyone who disagrees with anyone else is just an idiot.
See the issue is that you say context of arguments but you're not providing any, all you're doing is saying that I stomp my feet like an entitled child but provide no examples of where I do that, you say that I make assumptions but again provide no examples of where I do that, whereas the criticism I make is virtually always based on something and that is stuff that can be linked, ie ship prices, missed dates, non-useful communication etc.
This is not a Mexican standoff by any measure, it's just you dressing up hyperbole as though it's a reasonable, logical stance for a discussion or an argument.
Calling any one that disagrees an idiot because in your eyes there is no verifiable proof is unnecessary, and what exactly are we referring to here. There are many examples of things where there is verifiable proof, why even bother entertaining the stuff that isn't verifiable? If it's so pointless why even give it the time of day?
Ok, so the entitlement comment is a generalization about how people believe that they are entitled to their opinion, which is correct, but where the vast majority believe that because they have this opinion that cannot be proven wrong, it must mean they're right.
As far as context for you making assumptions, I already pointed to the fact that you are making assumptions that CIG is making more mistakes than most companies, but you really don't have any industry data show that they are. The primary reason that we even know that they have had any issues is that they are relatively open with this information. I haven't seen this level of transparency from AAA studios like EA or AB. Similarly, they have had some well publicized issues, such as Illfonic. However, if you don't know how this was handled or mitigated or what the root causes were for the issue, you really can't comment on whether it's a demonstration of ineptitude on CIGs part or a product of the development process. For context, CR gets shredded for micro-managing people and then with the whole Illfonic thing people are like, "They should have managed that better" lol. It's almost never as simple as the Internet makes it out to be.
If I'm being truthful, I would have no problem with you taking issue with mistakes they've made, if you had first-party knowledge of those issues. Like I don't know what's acceptable to you and what isn't, but I'd be willing to guarantee that you almost never have the full story. So why you take offence to someone having an opposing view, providing perspective that could be valid, I don't know. That's cool though. I get it, you've got an opinion. You're welcome to it, but I'm here to defend the Internet so I'll be waiting for your response.
bartoni33 said: We have seen more It's All Good folks monthly to take their place. The balance here is tilting more toward the good? side it seems.
Well the doomsayers preached the doom, the doomsday didn't happen, so the discussion is for long-stalled on beating dead horses. While we do that the game continues development so it's one hobby to burn time until 3.0 is released
Ok, so the entitlement comment is a generalization about how people believe that they are entitled to their opinion, which is correct, but where the vast majority believe that because they have this opinion that cannot be proven wrong, it must mean they're right.
As far as context for you making assumptions, I already pointed to the fact that you are making assumptions that CIG is making more mistakes than most companies, but you really don't have any industry data show that they are. The primary reason that we even know that they have had any issues is that they are relatively open with this information. I haven't seen this level of transparency from AAA studios like EA or AB. Similarly, they have had some well publicized issues, such as Illfonic. However, if you don't know how this was handled or mitigated or what the root causes were for the issue, you really can't comment on whether it's a demonstration of ineptitude on CIGs part or a product of the development process. For context, CR gets shredded for micro-managing people and then with the whole Illfonic thing people are like, "They should have managed that better" lol. It's almost never as simple as the Internet makes it out to be.
If I'm being truthful, I would have no problem with you taking issue with mistakes they've made, if you had first-party knowledge of those issues. Like I don't know what's acceptable to you and what isn't, but I'd be willing to guarantee that you almost never have the full story. So why you take offence to someone having an opposing view, providing perspective that could be valid, I don't know. That's cool though. I get it, you've got an opinion. You're welcome to it, but I'm here to defend the Internet so I'll be waiting for your response.
A generalisation directed at me of which I don't even fit is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike, so either you were trying to reduce my comments to 'hate poster/doomsayer' level or you were operating on assumptions while calling out people for supposedly making assumptions... /boggle
I don't need industry data, one only has to look at the evidence itself. Repeatedly giving bullshit dates, repeatedly missing said dates, wild claims that are bullshit, repeatedly using other studio's art in their marketing pieces and on and on. How many other companies do you see doing this stuff on this level publicly?
The point about Illfonic was that Roberts said "I thought we were all on the same page", which is a fucking dunces answer. He's paid to confirm that sort of thing. If it was such an important stipulation because the assets had to tie into their own work, why would they not even check it? It's just bonkers.
I don't really buy into the transparency stuff because a lot of it is fluff, it's not useful, meaningful material. That's not to say all of it is like that certainly a good margin and it opens them up for additonal scrutiny and criticism, ie originally there was complex cargo, recently that changed to a simple 'appear/disappear' system and now even more recently there's a complex cargo design document being laid out again. When they announced the simple cargo system they got roasted on the forums and subreddit because it's not what people thought they were getting.
By saying that my criticism would be ok if I had first-party knowledge is insane, you're setting the burden of proof so high that you know it's not reachable and therefore, in your eyes it's not valid.
It looks like this thread had devolved into an argument about what is worse: Fanboys denying anything is wrong versus Trolls denying anything is right with SC. A lot of black and white with no shades of grey seen IRT opinions.
I have seen @rpmcmurphy saying positive things a little more than I have seen @MaxBacon say negative things. I have only seen rainbows and puppy kisses from @Erillion and nothing but storm-clouds and spider bites from @Kefo for instance. Most of the real doom and gloomers like Brenics and jrpgwhatever are long gone. We have seen more It's All Good folks monthly to take their place. The balance here is tilting more toward the good? side it seems.
I'm bored, killing time before bed. Just thinking out loud.
Ugh spiders! The thing of nightmares lol
Hey if CR wasn't repeating the same mistakes when he owned his last game company I would probably be a little more forgiving but that's not the case.
Ok, so the entitlement comment is a generalization about how people believe that they are entitled to their opinion, which is correct, but where the vast majority believe that because they have this opinion that cannot be proven wrong, it must mean they're right.
As far as context for you making assumptions, I already pointed to the fact that you are making assumptions that CIG is making more mistakes than most companies, but you really don't have any industry data show that they are. The primary reason that we even know that they have had any issues is that they are relatively open with this information. I haven't seen this level of transparency from AAA studios like EA or AB. Similarly, they have had some well publicized issues, such as Illfonic. However, if you don't know how this was handled or mitigated or what the root causes were for the issue, you really can't comment on whether it's a demonstration of ineptitude on CIGs part or a product of the development process. For context, CR gets shredded for micro-managing people and then with the whole Illfonic thing people are like, "They should have managed that better" lol. It's almost never as simple as the Internet makes it out to be.
If I'm being truthful, I would have no problem with you taking issue with mistakes they've made, if you had first-party knowledge of those issues. Like I don't know what's acceptable to you and what isn't, but I'd be willing to guarantee that you almost never have the full story. So why you take offence to someone having an opposing view, providing perspective that could be valid, I don't know. That's cool though. I get it, you've got an opinion. You're welcome to it, but I'm here to defend the Internet so I'll be waiting for your response.
A generalisation directed at me of which I don't even fit is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike, so either you were trying to reduce my comments to 'hate poster/doomsayer' level or you were operating on assumptions while calling out people for supposedly making assumptions... /boggle
I don't need industry data, one only has to look at the evidence itself. Repeatedly giving bullshit dates, repeatedly missing said dates, wild claims that are bullshit, repeatedly using other studio's art in their marketing pieces and on and on. How many other companies do you see doing this stuff on this level publicly?
The point about Illfonic was that Roberts said "I thought we were all on the same page", which is a fucking dunces answer. He's paid to confirm that sort of thing. If it was such an important stipulation because the assets had to tie into their own work, why would they not even check it? It's just bonkers.
I don't really buy into the transparency stuff because a lot of it is fluff, it's not useful, meaningful material. That's not to say all of it is like that certainly a good margin and it opens them up for additonal scrutiny and criticism, ie originally there was complex cargo, recently that changed to a simple 'appear/disappear' system and now even more recently there's a complex cargo design document being laid out again. When they announced the simple cargo system they got roasted on the forums and subreddit because it's not what people thought they were getting.
By saying that my criticism would be ok if I had first-party knowledge is insane, you're setting the burden of proof so high that you know it's not reachable and therefore, in your eyes it's not valid.
I just gave you an example of how you were making assumptions without any knowledge. You actually go on to make further assumptions using them as evidence below "I don't need industry data...." Wellllllll, you need a clue! What is the context of your assumption? You also assume that you know what the scope of the project was, as originally stated, versus what it is now. There are plenty of games which slip dates and these are games that are already years in development. The whole reason that game companies don't give dates when they start a project is because this is a common thing. So there are three things you're completely ignorant about here (estimation, scope, and the rate this occurs in software), but you just make the assumption using data you have, regardless of the fact that CR just recently did an interview which shed light on a lot of this.
It is categorically NOT the job of the CEO to go and make sure everyone is on the same page. Fuck, it's probably not even his job to manage expectations. HOWEVER!!!! He OBVIOUSLY set expectations. So if there was a question as to how to execute on those expectations, why did Illfonic not come forward? This is an issue with project management, not CR.
So you're saying that we should just lynch people without knowing all the facts? Interesting, I'd really like to see how the American Justice System would work like that, lol. The big problem is that people simply don't want to take 5 minutes to read a fucking article these days, let alone educate themselves on what they're talking about. So what we get ourselves into is a situation where even someone with experience in the industry can't say anything without people saying it's bullshit, lol. MEA was a perfect example with the animation guy from Naughty Dog chiming in on the animations issue. Fucking people started responding like, "What does he even know, he works on scripted games!" Lol. Anyway, I'm not accusing you of doing that, that wasn't you. I'm just saying that people tend not to listen to reason. C'est la vie! Anyway, I'm fine with that. I don't think there's much else to say on the subject.
Ok, so the entitlement comment is a generalization about how people believe that they are entitled to their opinion, which is correct, but where the vast majority believe that because they have this opinion that cannot be proven wrong, it must mean they're right.
As far as context for you making assumptions, I already pointed to the fact that you are making assumptions that CIG is making more mistakes than most companies, but you really don't have any industry data show that they are. The primary reason that we even know that they have had any issues is that they are relatively open with this information. I haven't seen this level of transparency from AAA studios like EA or AB. Similarly, they have had some well publicized issues, such as Illfonic. However, if you don't know how this was handled or mitigated or what the root causes were for the issue, you really can't comment on whether it's a demonstration of ineptitude on CIGs part or a product of the development process. For context, CR gets shredded for micro-managing people and then with the whole Illfonic thing people are like, "They should have managed that better" lol. It's almost never as simple as the Internet makes it out to be.
If I'm being truthful, I would have no problem with you taking issue with mistakes they've made, if you had first-party knowledge of those issues. Like I don't know what's acceptable to you and what isn't, but I'd be willing to guarantee that you almost never have the full story. So why you take offence to someone having an opposing view, providing perspective that could be valid, I don't know. That's cool though. I get it, you've got an opinion. You're welcome to it, but I'm here to defend the Internet so I'll be waiting for your response.
A generalisation directed at me of which I don't even fit is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike, so either you were trying to reduce my comments to 'hate poster/doomsayer' level or you were operating on assumptions while calling out people for supposedly making assumptions... /boggle
I don't need industry data, one only has to look at the evidence itself. Repeatedly giving bullshit dates, repeatedly missing said dates, wild claims that are bullshit, repeatedly using other studio's art in their marketing pieces and on and on. How many other companies do you see doing this stuff on this level publicly?
The point about Illfonic was that Roberts said "I thought we were all on the same page", which is a fucking dunces answer. He's paid to confirm that sort of thing. If it was such an important stipulation because the assets had to tie into their own work, why would they not even check it? It's just bonkers.
I don't really buy into the transparency stuff because a lot of it is fluff, it's not useful, meaningful material. That's not to say all of it is like that certainly a good margin and it opens them up for additonal scrutiny and criticism, ie originally there was complex cargo, recently that changed to a simple 'appear/disappear' system and now even more recently there's a complex cargo design document being laid out again. When they announced the simple cargo system they got roasted on the forums and subreddit because it's not what people thought they were getting.
By saying that my criticism would be ok if I had first-party knowledge is insane, you're setting the burden of proof so high that you know it's not reachable and therefore, in your eyes it's not valid.
I just gave you an example of how you were making assumptions without any knowledge. You actually go on to make further assumptions using them as evidence below "I don't need industry data...." Wellllllll, you need a clue! What is the context of your assumption? You also assume that you know what the scope of the project was, as originally stated, versus what it is now. There are plenty of games which slip dates and these are games that are already years in development. The whole reason that game companies don't give dates when they start a project is because this is a common thing. So there are three things you're completely ignorant about here (estimation, scope, and the rate this occurs in software), but you just make the assumption using data you have, regardless of the fact that CR just recently did an interview which shed light on a lot of this.
It is categorically NOT the job of the CEO to go and make sure everyone is on the same page. Fuck, it's probably not even his job to manage expectations. HOWEVER!!!! He OBVIOUSLY set expectations. So if there was a question as to how to execute on those expectations, why did Illfonic not come forward? This is an issue with project management, not CR.
So you're saying that we should just lynch people without knowing all the facts? Interesting, I'd really like to see how the American Justice System would work like that, lol. The big problem is that people simply don't want to take 5 minutes to read a fucking article these days, let alone educate themselves on what they're talking about. So what we get ourselves into is a situation where even someone with experience in the industry can't say anything without people saying it's bullshit, lol. MEA was a perfect example with the animation guy from Naughty Dog chiming in on the animations issue. Fucking people started responding like, "What does he even know, he works on scripted games!" Lol. Anyway, I'm not accusing you of doing that, that wasn't you. I'm just saying that people tend not to listen to reason. C'est la vie! Anyway, I'm fine with that. I don't think there's much else to say on the subject.
Dude, you have not given an example of where I apparently made assumptions. If you're going to claim that then link a damn example instead of just implying that I've done something. Only a post or so ago it was generalisations, now it's examples, make your mind up already...
The problem is that you want to remove context and then claim something does not fit. Yes there are plenty of games that slip dates but not time after time after time after time. Typically they announce a beta or release date, before that date comes around they announce a delay of 3 or 4 months and then the new date typically gets met.
You claim I am ignorant while choosing to ignore the facts of the situation. The projection here is ridiculous.
Sod this, I am wasting any more time responding to your asinine posts.
I just gave you an example of how you were making assumptions without any knowledge. You actually go on to make further assumptions using them as evidence below "I don't need industry data...." Wellllllll, you need a clue! What is the context of your assumption? You also assume that you know what the scope of the project was, as originally stated, versus what it is now. There are plenty of games which slip dates and these are games that are already years in development. The whole reason that game companies don't give dates when they start a project is because this is a common thing. So there are three things you're completely ignorant about here (estimation, scope, and the rate this occurs in software), but you just make the assumption using data you have, regardless of the fact that CR just recently did an interview which shed light on a lot of this.
It is categorically NOT the job of the CEO to go and make sure everyone is on the same page. Fuck, it's probably not even his job to manage expectations. HOWEVER!!!! He OBVIOUSLY set expectations. So if there was a question as to how to execute on those expectations, why did Illfonic not come forward? This is an issue with project management, not CR.
So you're saying that we should just lynch people without knowing all the facts? Interesting, I'd really like to see how the American Justice System would work like that, lol. The big problem is that people simply don't want to take 5 minutes to read a fucking article these days, let alone educate themselves on what they're talking about. So what we get ourselves into is a situation where even someone with experience in the industry can't say anything without people saying it's bullshit, lol. MEA was a perfect example with the animation guy from Naughty Dog chiming in on the animations issue. Fucking people started responding like, "What does he even know, he works on scripted games!" Lol. Anyway, I'm not accusing you of doing that, that wasn't you. I'm just saying that people tend not to listen to reason. C'est la vie! Anyway, I'm fine with that. I don't think there's much else to say on the subject.
Dude, you have not given an example of where I apparently made assumptions. If you're going to claim that then link a damn example instead of just implying that I've done something. Only a post or so ago it was generalisations, now it's examples, make your mind up already...
The problem is that you want to remove context and then claim something does not fit. Yes there are plenty of games that slip dates but not time after time after time after time. Typically they announce a beta or release date, before that date comes around they announce a delay of 3 or 4 months and then the new date typically gets met.
You claim I am ignorant while choosing to ignore the facts of the situation. The projection here is ridiculous.
Sod this, I am wasting any more time responding to your asinine posts.
I just gave you explicit examples of how you're making assumptions right in this conversation. I can't get more clear, sorry.
I don't want to remove context at all. However, to take one particular situation, such as Illfonic, and assume that you know what happened is hilariously misguided. Not only that, but you place the blame on CIG, the customer of Illfonic. The fact of the matter is that CIG contracted Illfonic to do work for them, placing the onus on Illfonic to meet the needs of the customer. If I ordered someone to build me a tower out of LEGO and I gave them specifications on doing so, and not only did they not build it to my specification, but they built it with Duplo, who's fault is that? What we know is that when Illfonic delivered, it would not integrate with the SC framework, so CIG had to go back and rebuild shit.
Typically, products don't announce release dates until they are very confident in their dates. It's the whole reason that crowdfunded games get a bad reputation for being late. It's not because they are poorly managed or that the people don't know what they're doing, it's that they are making an estimate based on what they know at that time and what their vision is at that time. Again, this is a matter of not understanding, or ignoring, the context. Camelot Unchained is another example of a game that is way behind schedule. I could make the argument that ED is another, since they haven't met all of their KS commitments to features, City of Titans is another that was supposed to have delivered 3 years ago now. That's only because Kickstarter requires them to publish a date up-front. Again, context is everything. This about this, we had a teaser for Cyberpunk 2077 back in 2013, but they still haven't given even a ballpark date for release 4 years later. Why do you think that is? Again, context is important.
I'm not ignoring any facts. Please! Give me some facts! I'm not ignoring that they've made multiple announcements of release dates. What I am saying is that you don't know the reasons surrounding those missed dates. Matter of fact, even when CR just did his Gamestar interview recently, he addressed those dates, but you don't seem to accept that as fact. So who's ignoring facts here? Please, feel free to enlighten me. Oh! Nevermind! Looks like my posts are asinine because I started making sense to you. Sorry bout that.
EDIT: Also, I am a little bit insulted that I am some how less relevant than someone who has spent the better part of a decade making a game that has no release date, continues to steal money from people via their own crowdfunding on-site, despite me suggesting maybe he should take that down, and is famous not for making great games, but for being a troll who makes horrible games.
Why would you use someone like this as a relevant resource? Not trying to prolong this thread, but I'm just saying. Fuck, you would have been better off to leave it as a personal opinion and simply say that obviously if neither is filing a lawsuit then it must not be worth their time.
EDIT2: @LoveRemovalMachine must be lurking because your song just came on by itself. Just give me my LOL already!
EDIT3: Last edit, just going to notify all of MMORPG.com individually, lol. As a side note that I completely forgot about. If you have a question about my ability to remain objective, @Kefo can attest to it since I actually took the time to respond to him after a topic was closed, a while back, because I DID see his point and he made a valid argument. His initial response was "Is this a trap?..." So I get that maybe you think I'm the chaotic opposite to you, but really I'm just asking people to be reasonable. In the case of Star Citizen, that generally means asking someone who's on the negative side to be reasonable. There are two sides to every story and the truth is usually somewhere in-between.
Been reading this thread over the last two days and I must admit I am as flummoxed as @rpmcmurphy I see lots of vagueness and insinuations but no specifics. I cannot figure out what you are even accusing him of and why it is so important in the first place.
Where does he say he knows what happened at Illfonic? That sounds like he is paraphrasing a reply from the kotaku article and to be honest his assumption that CR should be on top of the situation because it needed to tie into their own work is valid, certainly no less valid than your assumption that the onus rests with Illfonic. It's all a matter of opinions anyway so why the big song and dance?
In all fairness the reasons for dates being missed are largely irrelevant, the actuality and number of occurances are what concerns the backers. I don't see @rpmcmurphy saying they missed dates due to specific reasons, he is saying that they have missed more dates than is commonly seen and that is quite a fair observation. It's a running joke so why insist that he needs to know the "why" before he can say that it is has occurred?
I assume the 'relevant resource' is pointing at the bullet list post on that page? What is wrong with him posting that? I don't see any opinion attached to the post, he did not state it was correct or true or anything else. Strange issue to get irate over but this is a very strange thread tbh.
It does sound like you have a personal issue with @rpmcmurphy perhaps the best thing is for you both to just ignore each other. None of this has been beneficial to the thread and would probably be better served via PMs. No offence intended.
Been reading this thread over the last two days and I must admit I am as flummoxed as @rpmcmurphy I see lots of vagueness and insinuations but no specifics. I cannot figure out what you are even accusing him of and why it is so important in the first place.
Where does he say he knows what happened at Illfonic? That sounds like he is paraphrasing a reply from the kotaku article and to be honest his assumption that CR should be on top of the situation because it needed to tie into their own work is valid, certainly no less valid than your assumption that the onus rests with Illfonic. It's all a matter of opinions anyway so why the big song and dance?
In all fairness the reasons for dates being missed are largely irrelevant, the actuality and number of occurances are what concerns the backers. I don't see @rpmcmurphy saying they missed dates due to specific reasons, he is saying that they have missed more dates than is commonly seen and that is quite a fair observation. It's a running joke so why insist that he needs to know the "why" before he can say that it is has occurred?
I assume the 'relevant resource' is pointing at the bullet list post on that page? What is wrong with him posting that? I don't see any opinion attached to the post, he did not state it was correct or true or anything else. Strange issue to get irate over but this is a very strange thread tbh.
It does sound like you have a personal issue with @rpmcmurphy perhaps the best thing is for you both to just ignore each other. None of this has been beneficial to the thread and would probably be better served via PMs. No offence intended.
To be honest, a lot of it is just the same song and dance. It's not a matter of him saying he knows what happened at Illfonic, it's a matter of him assuming that it's something that is uncommon or that CIGs responsibility was more than that of Illfonic. I've worked in the software industry for over 2 decades now and when you're outsourcing a project to a third party, you give them a list of specifications and the expectation is that they build the software to that specification. What I mean is illustrated here:
One instance involving Denver-based studio Illfonic vividly illustrates both the trouble Cloud Imperium had with outside studios, and the confusion and lack of leadership that permeated development in the early years. In 2013, Illfonic was contracted to build the Star Marine module and the first-person systems that would eventually be used in Star Citizen; the plan was to use art assets created by Illfonic as an “environment kit” that Cloud Imperium could insert into other ship and station interiors. But after more than a year of work, it was discovered that they literally didn't fit into the new levels, because Illfonic had built them to the wrong scale.
“I thought we were all on the same page but I guess at some point we weren't because I started to hear back from the environment guys that, 'This thing doesn't fit with what we're doing',” Roberts said. “The communication wasn't good, but it was also a problem because there wasn't one person in charge of all of that.”
So I'm not saying that CIG doesn't have some amount of responsibility, in this, but they admit that it was poor communication. Again, this isn't something uncommon and it exists in many projects which are distributed like CIG is. It's also problematic when it's a modular design and the pieces aren't ready for integration testing.
As far as the dates go, the reason for missed dates is totally relevant. Why would it not be? If the reason for missed dates is an increase in the scope of the project, how is that not relevant? We're talking about an original date given of 2014 for a 6 million dollar project. In all honesty, I think that you could probably talk to just about anyone who is running a game project through Kickstarter and they'd tell you that the fact Kickstarter makes you estimate a delivery date on creation of the project is meaningless and sets you up for failure.
That being said, you're right! SC has missed more dates that what is commonly seen. Is that a product of their transparency or an actual problem? I've stated before, generally, and this simply supports that idea, transparency doesn't work! Well, it does in some cases. I mean Camelot Unchained originally estimated December 2015, then it was June 2016, and now it's TBD. Also, it should be noted that they've been relatively forthcoming with information. It's a double-edged sword, though, and in the case of SC people seem to view this as evidence of impending doom. ***That being said, I will admit that SC was not forthcoming with information regarding delays which probably sent them into this spiral, but it's probably what also made it a polarizing subject.
WRT the bullet list, it was because of the origin. I wasn't irate over it, either, it was a tongue-in-cheek joke.
No, I really don't have anything person against him at all. I also fully realize that he probably firmly believes that he has all the information he needs to make a decision. He could be right! Fuck, I was wrong about EQN (How could they buy SOE and not finish EQN?). That being said, I'm just interjecting with completely plausible possibilities surrounding general game development.
In closing, maybe MMORPG should interview that Ascent dev again. Why not do a follow-up article? Might be interesting to see where they feel they are in comparison to the original interview.
EDIT: OH! Thanks for the link! That's cool! Very interesting sleuthing!
Comments
First off, stomping your feet wasn't in response to your critique of things, but your "RIGHT TO DO STUFF!!" Lol. I find it's always a funny fallback for people with weak arguments that aren't supported by factual evidence.
That brings us to the constant ED and SC comparison. Let's face facts, the space simulation genre has been severely under-served for the past decade. So the fact that there are two big-budget space sim games in development at almost exactly the same time, is a fucking freak of nature. HOWEVER, what it does do is provide ample opportunity for comparison between apples, or a gala apple vs a red delicious apple. Point is, it's about as close as you'll ever get to a lab test of two teams developing two games using different models and comparing them. However, despite having this wealth of information, there is little interest in actually making use of that to provide any sort of logical argument.
So, no, it's very much not personal, but I think it is important that I continue to frame these nebulous arguments with some sort of context to remind people, who may not be informed, that there is more to it than shallow, surface-level opinions.
So if you care about actually making an intelligent article, then at least you know what I'm looking for and if you post opinion pieces that are just completely inaccurate, you can expect that I'll jump all over it. Don't worry, though, that's not exclusive to you, I do it in other posts as well.
Honestly, the only reason I post into SC threads anymore is to get LOLs from @LoveRemovalMachine anyway, so I can put that song in my head for the rest of the day.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
You're just moving the goalposts if the "posts are not the point but the assumptions made." I see you don't even specify any assumptions, instead just taking a wide broad brush and slapping it around randomly.
Nor do I give Frontier a free pass, as I already stated I post positive stuff about SC and I post positive stuff about Elite.
I am more critical about SC because your pro-SC crowd tends to try to whitewash complaints and I disagree with that. You don't get any of that in the Elite forum do you...
Some of the complaints are pointless, some are funny, some are on point but labelling all criticism as "foot stamping entitled children" is more peurile than the metaphor you're trying to use.
MAGA
SC will be much less then you paid for IMO.
While there are some who are more on the side of "CIG can do no wrong", if we're dealing in literals then I don't think there is a single poster on here who hasn't made multiple critical posts about CIG or SC. However, their relevance is based on their affinity more so than their actual comments. So even if someone is being critical, there will be little focus given to that. Similarly, there are those in the anti-camp who make positive comments, but they are also dismissed. I'm sure that many times either/or is view as simply baiting. I'll openly admit that I feel like your topics are bait topics, and I'll admit that's based solely on how I view your previous posts, in general. I mean we all know where an SC post goes by now, so I don't know why we're surprised. We're the real fucking idiots because we still post into them.
As far as making assumptions go, it seems you're taking offense to the fact that I don't provide you any reference. So you're saying that I would be more relevant if I provided some context. Interesting......
I don't really think that there are compelling, fact-based arguments. What you view as whitewashing complaints, I view as an inability by the anti-SC crowd to actually make intelligent arguments. Let's not forget that what actually made SC a very polarizing in the first place was an anti-SC/anti-CIG blog post. Essentially that was the line in the sand. The problem with that is that, now we have two camps. Nobody can be a neutral party. You're either with us or against us (either side).
The problem could be your perspective. You obviously believe that the problem is with people with opposing views to your own. Does that make you unwilling to find reason in what someone who might be labeled as a pro-SC camper might have to say? I have made plenty of intelligent arguments based on what is know and, also, what experience I might have myself in the game or software industry and, yet, people in the anti-camp remain dismissive because it doesn't align with their own ideals.
Again, the comment with regards to the stomping your feet was simply aimed at your stance that you've got a right to your opinion, which isn't untrue, but it also doesn't make your right. It also only serves to illustrate what I was eluding to above where the anti-camp tends to take be unwilling to listen to reason.
Oh! And just for the record, I don't think that ED conversations are any less hostile. I've seen the ED reddit and it can be just as bad. Just because the sample size is much smaller here doesn't mean that the community is any more civil.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
You get trolling and "hate" with every game, it's not something that can be magically avoided. And SC has made itself a large target because of how they make money as well as their grandiose claims plus you have a lot of people who defend the game very strongly partly because they have sunk a fair bit of money into it.
There's plenty of criticism, it's just that some people choose to see that criticism as hate.As I've said many times it will be nice when there is more game that can be discussed rather than what we currently have.
You can point the finger at me if you want but just because I don't call criticism out doesn't mean I condone their comments. In fact in my post above I explicitly stated "Some of the complaints are pointless...", I'm not claiming to be impartial so I'm not sure what you're going for here?
It became "it's cool to troll and hate on SC!", the same way those who try to humiliate and destroy Mass Effect Andromeda while the game is doing just fine on its ratings, reviews and player feedback; like SC a lot of that trolling and hate is also external to its actual playerbase.
We're only dealing with literals because I said I make threads that are positive towards SC and you claimed I didn't.
I'm not taking offense but of course context would be relevant, if you want to claim I'm making assumptions then the least you could do is back that up instead of throwing it off the cuff.
Just because you feel there aren't any compelling fact-based arguments doesn't make it so, that could simply be the level of bias or contempt that you hold against the people posting this stuff or what one person sees as relevant might not be what another views as relevant, who gets to decide?
That you want to push my dislike towards whitewashing of complaints back on me by claims of perspective says more about your stance than it does mine. If people are posting stuff and getting the "hurr durr hater" treatment then how is that beneficial to anyone? It's just a cheap parlour trick to silence people. All it does is antagonise the situation and encourage the us vs them tribalism.
To voice my opinion is my right providing it stays within the rules of the forum. The only context you gave to that was "Yes, you have every right to stomp your feet around like an entitled child. Also, please don't act like you post things that are pro-SC. Every time that ED releases something, you're gushing over it likes it's the best fucking thing since sliced bread, but every SC thread you post into is, generally, negative."
All of which was wholly untrue and just shows how your personal feelings are affecting your perspective towards my posts.
Yes some posters in the Elite subreddit can get like that on occassion but so do some posters on the SC subreddit. The point was you don't see people in the Elite subforum whitewashing complaints.
What I don't get and what I (and I'm sure everyone else) finds really boring is why you want to make this about me. It's the content of my posts that should matter, can we not argue that instead of my psychological profile. You always seem to come back to this, I don't know whether I should be flattered or concerned?
There was plenty of concern and criticism before these supposed "events". Even going back to late 2013 / early 2014 there was plenty of concern. I think it's a bit hyperbolic to lay the blame at any one person's door and claim that it then got cheerleaded by the goons.
I can't say that "it's cool to troll and hate on SC", sure there are people that follow others but you can't use that to account for everybody.
Oh god!! If this was only the case then I would be truly happy. However, it doesn't happen, like it or lump it.
What I will say is that it is categorically not about you. It is about the context of the arguments made. So I guess we'll just have to be happy with it being a Mexican Standoff where we have two perspectives with unverifiable, anecdotal evidence. I mean, let's face it, if there was actual, verifiable, information with regards to this whole situation then we wouldn't be discussing any of this here. However, the reality is that there is always a counter argument that is, more or less, within the realm of possibility as much as the other. Granted, there are laughable arguments like "The 6-million dollar game" or "They said it would be out in 2014" or "It's all an elaborate money laundering scheme", but there are also very valid, plausible arguments which simply end up lending themselves to opinion. However, regardless of how loud you scream, opinions are just like assholes, everybody has one. What's more, since there is no verifiable proof, anyone who disagrees with anyone else is just an idiot.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
See the issue is that you say context of arguments but you're not providing any, all you're doing is saying that I stomp my feet like an entitled child but provide no examples of where I do that, you say that I make assumptions but again provide no examples of where I do that, whereas the criticism I make is virtually always based on something and that is stuff that can be linked, ie ship prices, missed dates, non-useful communication etc.
This is not a Mexican standoff by any measure, it's just you dressing up hyperbole as though it's a reasonable, logical stance for a discussion or an argument.
Calling any one that disagrees an idiot because in your eyes there is no verifiable proof is unnecessary, and what exactly are we referring to here. There are many examples of things where there is verifiable proof, why even bother entertaining the stuff that isn't verifiable? If it's so pointless why even give it the time of day?
I have seen @rpmcmurphy saying positive things a little more than I have seen @MaxBacon say negative things. I have only seen rainbows and puppy kisses from @Erillion and nothing but storm-clouds and spider bites from @Kefo for instance. Most of the real doom and gloomers like Brenics and jrpgwhatever are long gone. We have seen more It's All Good folks monthly to take their place. The balance here is tilting more toward the good? side it seems.
I'm bored, killing time before bed. Just thinking out loud.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
Ok, so the entitlement comment is a generalization about how people believe that they are entitled to their opinion, which is correct, but where the vast majority believe that because they have this opinion that cannot be proven wrong, it must mean they're right.
As far as context for you making assumptions, I already pointed to the fact that you are making assumptions that CIG is making more mistakes than most companies, but you really don't have any industry data show that they are. The primary reason that we even know that they have had any issues is that they are relatively open with this information. I haven't seen this level of transparency from AAA studios like EA or AB. Similarly, they have had some well publicized issues, such as Illfonic. However, if you don't know how this was handled or mitigated or what the root causes were for the issue, you really can't comment on whether it's a demonstration of ineptitude on CIGs part or a product of the development process. For context, CR gets shredded for micro-managing people and then with the whole Illfonic thing people are like, "They should have managed that better" lol. It's almost never as simple as the Internet makes it out to be.
If I'm being truthful, I would have no problem with you taking issue with mistakes they've made, if you had first-party knowledge of those issues. Like I don't know what's acceptable to you and what isn't, but I'd be willing to guarantee that you almost never have the full story. So why you take offence to someone having an opposing view, providing perspective that could be valid, I don't know. That's cool though. I get it, you've got an opinion. You're welcome to it, but I'm here to defend the Internet so I'll be waiting for your response.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
And a puppy to match the rabbit
Beware .... The Force ... unleashed !
Have fun
hah! 50 shades of alt accounts xD
A generalisation directed at me of which I don't even fit is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike, so either you were trying to reduce my comments to 'hate poster/doomsayer' level or you were operating on assumptions while calling out people for supposedly making assumptions... /boggle
I don't need industry data, one only has to look at the evidence itself. Repeatedly giving bullshit dates, repeatedly missing said dates, wild claims that are bullshit, repeatedly using other studio's art in their marketing pieces and on and on. How many other companies do you see doing this stuff on this level publicly?
The point about Illfonic was that Roberts said "I thought we were all on the same page", which is a fucking dunces answer. He's paid to confirm that sort of thing. If it was such an important stipulation because the assets had to tie into their own work, why would they not even check it? It's just bonkers.
I don't really buy into the transparency stuff because a lot of it is fluff, it's not useful, meaningful material. That's not to say all of it is like that certainly a good margin and it opens them up for additonal scrutiny and criticism, ie originally there was complex cargo, recently that changed to a simple 'appear/disappear' system and now even more recently there's a complex cargo design document being laid out again. When they announced the simple cargo system they got roasted on the forums and subreddit because it's not what people thought they were getting.
By saying that my criticism would be ok if I had first-party knowledge is insane, you're setting the burden of proof so high that you know it's not reachable and therefore, in your eyes it's not valid.
Hey if CR wasn't repeating the same mistakes when he owned his last game company I would probably be a little more forgiving but that's not the case.
I just gave you an example of how you were making assumptions without any knowledge. You actually go on to make further assumptions using them as evidence below "I don't need industry data...." Wellllllll, you need a clue! What is the context of your assumption? You also assume that you know what the scope of the project was, as originally stated, versus what it is now. There are plenty of games which slip dates and these are games that are already years in development. The whole reason that game companies don't give dates when they start a project is because this is a common thing. So there are three things you're completely ignorant about here (estimation, scope, and the rate this occurs in software), but you just make the assumption using data you have, regardless of the fact that CR just recently did an interview which shed light on a lot of this.
It is categorically NOT the job of the CEO to go and make sure everyone is on the same page. Fuck, it's probably not even his job to manage expectations. HOWEVER!!!! He OBVIOUSLY set expectations. So if there was a question as to how to execute on those expectations, why did Illfonic not come forward? This is an issue with project management, not CR.
So you're saying that we should just lynch people without knowing all the facts? Interesting, I'd really like to see how the American Justice System would work like that, lol. The big problem is that people simply don't want to take 5 minutes to read a fucking article these days, let alone educate themselves on what they're talking about. So what we get ourselves into is a situation where even someone with experience in the industry can't say anything without people saying it's bullshit, lol. MEA was a perfect example with the animation guy from Naughty Dog chiming in on the animations issue. Fucking people started responding like, "What does he even know, he works on scripted games!" Lol. Anyway, I'm not accusing you of doing that, that wasn't you. I'm just saying that people tend not to listen to reason. C'est la vie! Anyway, I'm fine with that. I don't think there's much else to say on the subject.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Dude, you have not given an example of where I apparently made assumptions. If you're going to claim that then link a damn example instead of just implying that I've done something. Only a post or so ago it was generalisations, now it's examples, make your mind up already...
The problem is that you want to remove context and then claim something does not fit.
Yes there are plenty of games that slip dates but not time after time after time after time. Typically they announce a beta or release date, before that date comes around they announce a delay of 3 or 4 months and then the new date typically gets met.
You claim I am ignorant while choosing to ignore the facts of the situation. The projection here is ridiculous.
Sod this, I am wasting any more time responding to your asinine posts.
I just gave you explicit examples of how you're making assumptions right in this conversation. I can't get more clear, sorry.
I don't want to remove context at all. However, to take one particular situation, such as Illfonic, and assume that you know what happened is hilariously misguided. Not only that, but you place the blame on CIG, the customer of Illfonic. The fact of the matter is that CIG contracted Illfonic to do work for them, placing the onus on Illfonic to meet the needs of the customer. If I ordered someone to build me a tower out of LEGO and I gave them specifications on doing so, and not only did they not build it to my specification, but they built it with Duplo, who's fault is that? What we know is that when Illfonic delivered, it would not integrate with the SC framework, so CIG had to go back and rebuild shit.
Typically, products don't announce release dates until they are very confident in their dates. It's the whole reason that crowdfunded games get a bad reputation for being late. It's not because they are poorly managed or that the people don't know what they're doing, it's that they are making an estimate based on what they know at that time and what their vision is at that time. Again, this is a matter of not understanding, or ignoring, the context. Camelot Unchained is another example of a game that is way behind schedule. I could make the argument that ED is another, since they haven't met all of their KS commitments to features, City of Titans is another that was supposed to have delivered 3 years ago now. That's only because Kickstarter requires them to publish a date up-front. Again, context is everything. This about this, we had a teaser for Cyberpunk 2077 back in 2013, but they still haven't given even a ballpark date for release 4 years later. Why do you think that is? Again, context is important.
I'm not ignoring any facts. Please! Give me some facts! I'm not ignoring that they've made multiple announcements of release dates. What I am saying is that you don't know the reasons surrounding those missed dates. Matter of fact, even when CR just did his Gamestar interview recently, he addressed those dates, but you don't seem to accept that as fact. So who's ignoring facts here? Please, feel free to enlighten me. Oh! Nevermind! Looks like my posts are asinine because I started making sense to you. Sorry bout that.
EDIT: Also, I am a little bit insulted that I am some how less relevant than someone who has spent the better part of a decade making a game that has no release date, continues to steal money from people via their own crowdfunding on-site, despite me suggesting maybe he should take that down, and is famous not for making great games, but for being a troll who makes horrible games.
Why would you use someone like this as a relevant resource? Not trying to prolong this thread, but I'm just saying. Fuck, you would have been better off to leave it as a personal opinion and simply say that obviously if neither is filing a lawsuit then it must not be worth their time.
EDIT2: @LoveRemovalMachine must be lurking because your song just came on by itself. Just give me my LOL already!
EDIT3: Last edit, just going to notify all of MMORPG.com individually, lol. As a side note that I completely forgot about. If you have a question about my ability to remain objective, @Kefo can attest to it since I actually took the time to respond to him after a topic was closed, a while back, because I DID see his point and he made a valid argument. His initial response was "Is this a trap?..." So I get that maybe you think I'm the chaotic opposite to you, but really I'm just asking people to be reasonable. In the case of Star Citizen, that generally means asking someone who's on the negative side to be reasonable. There are two sides to every story and the truth is usually somewhere in-between.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I see lots of vagueness and insinuations but no specifics. I cannot figure out what you are even accusing him of and why it is so important in the first place.
Where does he say he knows what happened at Illfonic? That sounds like he is paraphrasing a reply from the kotaku article and to be honest his assumption that CR should be on top of the situation because it needed to tie into their own work is valid, certainly no less valid than your assumption that the onus rests with Illfonic. It's all a matter of opinions anyway so why the big song and dance?
In all fairness the reasons for dates being missed are largely irrelevant, the actuality and number of occurances are what concerns the backers. I don't see @rpmcmurphy saying they missed dates due to specific reasons, he is saying that they have missed more dates than is commonly seen and that is quite a fair observation. It's a running joke so why insist that he needs to know the "why" before he can say that it is has occurred?
I assume the 'relevant resource' is pointing at the bullet list post on that page? What is wrong with him posting that? I don't see any opinion attached to the post, he did not state it was correct or true or anything else.
Strange issue to get irate over but this is a very strange thread tbh.
It does sound like you have a personal issue with @rpmcmurphy perhaps the best thing is for you both to just ignore each other. None of this has been beneficial to the thread and would probably be better served via PMs. No offence intended.
P.S. Cyberpunk 2077 is aimed for 2019 https://wccftech.com/cdpr-government-cyberpunk-2077-2019/
To be honest, a lot of it is just the same song and dance. It's not a matter of him saying he knows what happened at Illfonic, it's a matter of him assuming that it's something that is uncommon or that CIGs responsibility was more than that of Illfonic. I've worked in the software industry for over 2 decades now and when you're outsourcing a project to a third party, you give them a list of specifications and the expectation is that they build the software to that specification. What I mean is illustrated here:
So I'm not saying that CIG doesn't have some amount of responsibility, in this, but they admit that it was poor communication. Again, this isn't something uncommon and it exists in many projects which are distributed like CIG is. It's also problematic when it's a modular design and the pieces aren't ready for integration testing.
As far as the dates go, the reason for missed dates is totally relevant. Why would it not be? If the reason for missed dates is an increase in the scope of the project, how is that not relevant? We're talking about an original date given of 2014 for a 6 million dollar project. In all honesty, I think that you could probably talk to just about anyone who is running a game project through Kickstarter and they'd tell you that the fact Kickstarter makes you estimate a delivery date on creation of the project is meaningless and sets you up for failure.
That being said, you're right! SC has missed more dates that what is commonly seen. Is that a product of their transparency or an actual problem? I've stated before, generally, and this simply supports that idea, transparency doesn't work! Well, it does in some cases. I mean Camelot Unchained originally estimated December 2015, then it was June 2016, and now it's TBD. Also, it should be noted that they've been relatively forthcoming with information. It's a double-edged sword, though, and in the case of SC people seem to view this as evidence of impending doom. ***That being said, I will admit that SC was not forthcoming with information regarding delays which probably sent them into this spiral, but it's probably what also made it a polarizing subject.
WRT the bullet list, it was because of the origin. I wasn't irate over it, either, it was a tongue-in-cheek joke.
No, I really don't have anything person against him at all. I also fully realize that he probably firmly believes that he has all the information he needs to make a decision. He could be right! Fuck, I was wrong about EQN (How could they buy SOE and not finish EQN?). That being said, I'm just interjecting with completely plausible possibilities surrounding general game development.
In closing, maybe MMORPG should interview that Ascent dev again. Why not do a follow-up article? Might be interesting to see where they feel they are in comparison to the original interview.
EDIT: OH! Thanks for the link! That's cool! Very interesting sleuthing!
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------