Beet Wagon posted:

Stupid, myopic internet poster with bad hair: lol you're a star citizen fanboy

Me, brilliantly, my luscious locks flowing in the wind: Actually I'm not, *50,000 words about how Star Citizen is good*

redchris18 posted:

+Asghaad "except that exactlly IS a start of development, you dont get to work on project and then just say it actually wasnt and delete year from the development time ... they started the project in 2011"- no, this was preliminary work that would usually take place while you were working on the preceding game. GTA 5 did the exact same thing while making GTA 4, which means you either add an arbitrary year to Star Citizen and an equivalent FIVE years to GTA 5, or you accept that choosing an engine is not actually part of developing the game you'll be using it for.That's what that was, by the way: Chris Roberts was simply choosing the engine he was going to use. I'm aware of nothing that was used from that concept, because it was literally purely to see if the engine could handle what he wanted to do with it." GTA 5 was started AFTER they finished GTA 4"- yes, immediately after, which means it started in April of 2008."because port is separate product ... unless game is developed for multiple systems AT THE SAME TIME "- which fits GTA 5 perfectly, because they built the entire game while considering that it was going to be on PC. Done."3.) nope"- why the gently caress are you numbering things? I didn't, which means your numbers have no reference point. You're not quoting the part that you're saying "nope" to, so you have no textual reference point either.No wonder you're struggling to steer clear of logical fallacies and hypocrisy..."the fact is that GTA 5 is a CONSOLE game that was later PORTED to function on PC... PC was NOT its target audience and the time it took to get it ported reflects that ... game was developed, finished and published on given system and AFTER the RELEASE of the game completely separate, small and underfunded team worked on PORTING - ie NOT developing anything - the FINISHED game for PC"- bullshit, according to Rockstar:"We were always going to bring GTA 5 to PC. We planned from day 1 for a PC build and we made technical decisions based off the fact that we would be doing a PC version of the game." - it's unclear, but this comes from either Phil Hooker, Adam Fowler, or Klass Shilstra. Then there's the fact that they were leaking DX11 bug lists well before it was released on Ps3, proving that you are wrong about the PC version being a port that only began after the console versions were released. These pre-date the PS3 release by a year.Kevin Hoare, President of Rockstar Toronto, said" early development [of the PC version] was done in parallel with the console versions". So, in short, the PC version was started alongside the PS3 and X360 versions, so it WAS in development in 2008. He also pointed out that " In fact, some of the early preparations we made for PC, like 64 bit & DX11 support, paid off very handsomely when the PS4 and Xbox One architectures were announced".But, I'm sure a fuckwitted little pussy like you knows more about the development of GTA 5 than the people who worked on it, right...?Owned, bitch."fine, let it be 118 milion, ill take your 137 mil for GTA5 over 260 mil i wrote any day xD didnt hel your cause much"- it didn't have to. I'm not the one making up fictitious data to help support my collapsing assertions. I'm happy to have accurate information, whereas you are only happy if information supports your bullshit.What that has done is highlight me as honest, and highlight you as inherently dishonest." if GTA5 could be RELEASED in 4 years from the development start "- so where was the PC release in 2012? Oh, and why are you now trying to chop off a few extra months? Feeling insecure about Squadron 42 being slated for release in the next six months...?GTA 5 took over six years to develop and release on PC. That's your benchmark, whether you like it or not. Rockstar developers and producers are quoted here as stating that the development of the PC version coincided with the PS3 version, which means it began in 2008. You have no valid response to that, so don't even bother replying with anything other than outright, unconditional acceptance. Rockstar themselves have told you that you are wrong - end of argument."SC so far have released only separate bits of pre-alpha proof of concept"- if that's how you classify the current build then I am perfectly entitled to classify GTA 3 as a "pre-alpha proof of concept"[sic] for GTA 5."to test an alpha stage of the game you have to actuall have a whole package of BASIC features in sayd game
"- says who? Only you, by the looks of things:"An alpha test is a preliminary software field test carried out by a team of users in order to find bugs that were not found previously through other tests. The main purpose of alpha testing is to refine the software product by finding (and fixing) the bugs that were not discovered through previous tests. "- found here:https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5935/alpha-testIn fact, since testing by potential users is usually referred to as beta-testing, the current system is a lot more like a conventional beta than an alpha.It's in alpha, and has been for several years. That is not open for debate just because you want to redefine "alpha" in order to discriminatorily exclude Star Citizen. That's all you're doing: trying to change the meaning of "alpha" so that you can force Star Citizen out of the actual definition. You're pulling another bait-and-switch."if you didnt notice i didnt include any story elements or any part of sq.42 as requirement for the alpha because that woudl be closer to beta material"- progression is a BASIC feature, which means your own rules are internally inconsistent. They are self-contradictory. What a loving retard!"once they merge them and actually include the persistent universe with flight, combat and shooter modules TOGETHER "- the original game was NEVER slated to feature a Persistent Universe, so that one can be omitted entirely. However, the current build does feature flight, combat and shooter modules all rolled into one seamless experience - just as they were supposed to. There was never going to be any distinction between these playstyles, so your tacit demand that Star Marine be included are rejected as fallacious.By your own standards, the current build is an alpha build, you loving moron.You can't win even when you're trying to stack the deck against it. All you've done it drop your cards onto the floor..." there is NO justification for insults in debate, never was, never will ... grow up kid, only irrational juveniles have to resort to raging and insults ..."- you insulted me three times within that one sentence, in which you stated that there was "No justification for insults in debate"[sic]. loving hypocrite.Incidentally, this is not, nor has it ever been, a debate. This is a case of an ignorant, lying little poo poo (you) repeatedly trying to fudge the numbers in order to attack something that he simply doesn't like. This is a case of a pathetic little oval office (you again) hiding behind anonymity to rabidly scream about something that he clearly has no real experience of, consisting entirely of made-up "facts" and fictional "evidence".I'm stating facts, while you soothe yourself with fairy tales."except RSI themselves promissed to release SQ42 THIS YEAR ( well first episode that is...) so theyr alloted time is less than six months "- GTA was slated to release in 2012, so by your logic it never came out at all.It's pencilled in for release this year. That's called a "projected" release date. By your own standards, they have at least as long to finish as Rockstar did, which gives them six years and three months, which began no earlier than October 2012. Their allotted finish date can be no later than April 2019, if we give them the same amount of time. Not that you're willing to give them the same amount of time, for some reason..."by that time the engine they use will be DATED and archaic "- the original CryEngine 3, maybe, but not the so-called StarEngine. Name me another engine that can support persistence and 64-bit precision over a comparable map size. Name me five games that'll release in that time that have a scope that'll come close to matching that of this game. I can think of maybe two, and neither of them can match the CURRENT mechanics and features, like seamless multi-crew gameplay and EVA. As it stands, no extant engine has been used to do anything comparable to what we can do right now in the ALPHA. "Archaic", my arse.You know gently caress all. The fact that so much of your assertion is based on demonstrable falsehoods is all I need to reject your bullshit outright. If you don't address those in-house Rockstar statements then I'm just going to paste this comment all over your profile pages, because they instantly refute everything you have claimed. Refusal to address them will be proof that you are doing nothing more than manipulating the data until it says what you always wanted it to say but that it never did.

Baxta posted:

I got suckered into this thing as well (but got a refund). It's one of those things that sounds really cool as long as you don't think too hard about it.

As time goes on, it gets harder and harder to ignore the fuckery and if you have a normal brain, something clicks.

I can't imagine the amount of effort involved for citizens to keep believing despite all evidence.

Citcon posted:

Once they buy in for more than 100-200 bucks its actually harder to make them disbelieve. Because otherwise they were super bad about money and tricked.

Scruffpuff posted:

I've got really bad news for them: they were super back about money and tricked, whether or not they think they were.

Funny thing about objective reality - it doesn't care what you think about it. The anvil falling down onto your head only misses if you dodge, not if you Tweet that you don't really believe in anvils anyway.

Mirificus posted:

quote:

I can think of maybe two, and neither of them can match the CURRENT mechanics and features, like seamless multi-crew gameplay and EVA.

Beet Wagon posted:

Stupid, myopic internet poster with bad hair: lol you're a star citizen fanboy

Me, brilliantly, my luscious locks flowing in the wind: Actually I'm not, *50,000 words about how Star Citizen is good*

Foo Diddley posted:

What if I have a blue checkmark tho

Mirificus posted:

quote:

redchris18 posted:

+Asghaad "except that exactlly IS a start of development, you dont get to work on project and then just say it actually wasnt and delete year from the development time ... they started the project in 2011"- no, this was preliminary work that would usually take place while you were working on the preceding game. GTA 5 did the exact same thing while making GTA 4, which means you either add an arbitrary year to Star Citizen and an equivalent FIVE years to GTA 5, or you accept that choosing an engine is not actually part of developing the game you'll be using it for.That's what that was, by the way: Chris Roberts was simply choosing the engine he was going to use. I'm aware of nothing that was used from that concept, because it was literally purely to see if the engine could handle what he wanted to do with it." GTA 5 was started AFTER they finished GTA 4"- yes, immediately after, which means it started in April of 2008."because port is separate product ... unless game is developed for multiple systems AT THE SAME TIME "- which fits GTA 5 perfectly, because they built the entire game while considering that it was going to be on PC. Done."3.) nope"- why the gently caress are you numbering things? I didn't, which means your numbers have no reference point. You're not quoting the part that you're saying "nope" to, so you have no textual reference point either.No wonder you're struggling to steer clear of logical fallacies and hypocrisy..."the fact is that GTA 5 is a CONSOLE game that was later PORTED to function on PC... PC was NOT its target audience and the time it took to get it ported reflects that ... game was developed, finished and published on given system and AFTER the RELEASE of the game completely separate, small and underfunded team worked on PORTING - ie NOT developing anything - the FINISHED game for PC"- bullshit, according to Rockstar:"We were always going to bring GTA 5 to PC. We planned from day 1 for a PC build and we made technical decisions based off the fact that we would be doing a PC version of the game." - it's unclear, but this comes from either Phil Hooker, Adam Fowler, or Klass Shilstra. Then there's the fact that they were leaking DX11 bug lists well before it was released on Ps3, proving that you are wrong about the PC version being a port that only began after the console versions were released. These pre-date the PS3 release by a year.Kevin Hoare, President of Rockstar Toronto, said" early development [of the PC version] was done in parallel with the console versions". So, in short, the PC version was started alongside the PS3 and X360 versions, so it WAS in development in 2008. He also pointed out that " In fact, some of the early preparations we made for PC, like 64 bit & DX11 support, paid off very handsomely when the PS4 and Xbox One architectures were announced".But, I'm sure a fuckwitted little pussy like you knows more about the development of GTA 5 than the people who worked on it, right...?Owned, bitch."fine, let it be 118 milion, ill take your 137 mil for GTA5 over 260 mil i wrote any day xD didnt hel your cause much"- it didn't have to. I'm not the one making up fictitious data to help support my collapsing assertions. I'm happy to have accurate information, whereas you are only happy if information supports your bullshit.What that has done is highlight me as honest, and highlight you as inherently dishonest." if GTA5 could be RELEASED in 4 years from the development start "- so where was the PC release in 2012? Oh, and why are you now trying to chop off a few extra months? Feeling insecure about Squadron 42 being slated for release in the next six months...?GTA 5 took over six years to develop and release on PC. That's your benchmark, whether you like it or not. Rockstar developers and producers are quoted here as stating that the development of the PC version coincided with the PS3 version, which means it began in 2008. You have no valid response to that, so don't even bother replying with anything other than outright, unconditional acceptance. Rockstar themselves have told you that you are wrong - end of argument."SC so far have released only separate bits of pre-alpha proof of concept"- if that's how you classify the current build then I am perfectly entitled to classify GTA 3 as a "pre-alpha proof of concept"[sic] for GTA 5."to test an alpha stage of the game you have to actuall have a whole package of BASIC features in sayd game "- says who? Only you, by the looks of things:"An alpha test is a preliminary software field test carried out by a team of users in order to find bugs that were not found previously through other tests. The main purpose of alpha testing is to refine the software product by finding (and fixing) the bugs that were not discovered through previous tests. "- found here:https://www.techopedia.com/definition/5935/alpha-testIn fact, since testing by potential users is usually referred to as beta-testing, the current system is a lot more like a conventional beta than an alpha.It's in alpha, and has been for several years. That is not open for debate just because you want to redefine "alpha" in order to discriminatorily exclude Star Citizen. That's all you're doing: trying to change the meaning of "alpha" so that you can force Star Citizen out of the actual definition. You're pulling another bait-and-switch."if you didnt notice i didnt include any story elements or any part of sq.42 as requirement for the alpha because that woudl be closer to beta material"- progression is a BASIC feature, which means your own rules are internally inconsistent. They are self-contradictory. What a loving retard!"once they merge them and actually include the persistent universe with flight, combat and shooter modules TOGETHER "- the original game was NEVER slated to feature a Persistent Universe, so that one can be omitted entirely. However, the current build does feature flight, combat and shooter modules all rolled into one seamless experience - just as they were supposed to. There was never going to be any distinction between these playstyles, so your tacit demand that Star Marine be included are rejected as fallacious.By your own standards, the current build is an alpha build, you loving moron.You can't win even when you're trying to stack the deck against it. All you've done it drop your cards onto the floor..." there is NO justification for insults in debate, never was, never will ... grow up kid, only irrational juveniles have to resort to raging and insults ..."- you insulted me three times within that one sentence, in which you stated that there was "No justification for insults in debate"[sic]. loving hypocrite.Incidentally, this is not, nor has it ever been, a debate. This is a case of an ignorant, lying little poo poo (you) repeatedly trying to fudge the numbers in order to attack something that he simply doesn't like. This is a case of a pathetic little oval office (you again) hiding behind anonymity to rabidly scream about something that he clearly has no real experience of, consisting entirely of made-up "facts" and fictional "evidence".I'm stating facts, while you soothe yourself with fairy tales."except RSI themselves promissed to release SQ42 THIS YEAR ( well first episode that is...) so theyr alloted time is less than six months "- GTA was slated to release in 2012, so by your logic it never came out at all.It's pencilled in for release this year. That's called a "projected" release date. By your own standards, they have at least as long to finish as Rockstar did, which gives them six years and three months, which began no earlier than October 2012. Their allotted finish date can be no later than April 2019, if we give them the same amount of time. Not that you're willing to give them the same amount of time, for some reason..."by that time the engine they use will be DATED and archaic "- the original CryEngine 3, maybe, but not the so-called StarEngine. Name me another engine that can support persistence and 64-bit precision over a comparable map size. Name me five games that'll release in that time that have a scope that'll come close to matching that of this game. I can think of maybe two, and neither of them can match the CURRENT mechanics and features, like seamless multi-crew gameplay and EVA. As it stands, no extant engine has been used to do anything comparable to what we can do right now in the ALPHA. "Archaic", my arse.You know gently caress all. The fact that so much of your assertion is based on demonstrable falsehoods is all I need to reject your bullshit outright. If you don't address those in-house Rockstar statements then I'm just going to paste this comment all over your profile pages, because they instantly refute everything you have claimed. Refusal to address them will be proof that you are doing nothing more than manipulating the data until it says what you always wanted it to say but that it never did.

Mirificus posted:

doingitwrong posted:

How's the Medic gameplay shaping up? Any updates?

It's one of the aspects of this project that amazes me the most, the ability they have to bring up exciting possibilities, let the theory crafting run rampant, then to change the subject in a way that has every forgetting that there was a conversation at all, and just holding on to the general vague feeling that this is gonna be a great space sim.

Hav posted:

I like how he attempts to frame arguments around age. That's a tell.

Hav posted:

I like how he attempts to frame arguments around age. That's a tell.

RabbitWizard posted:

I'm calling FUD here! It just took them a few years to remove water from the game engine that they bought and had technical support for. Adding it back in, for multiple planets, following the laws of gravity, is totally doable. By now they know how water works so it's just a small thing.

Aqua Seafoam Shame posted:

I'm always amazed at how the people who know the least boast the loudest about whatever their chosen tech - SC, Ouya, block chain, what have you - happens to be, and how hostile they are to reasoned dissenters.

ggangensis posted:

Sitting in some vehicle at 15 ps, listening to some neckbeard via voice chat telling some cringy fantasy stories while occasionally a participant will clip through the floor.

Scruffpuff posted:

It's the reason I've hinted at people to dig deeper into the history of Chris Roberts, "Game Developer," to find out what his actual contributions were to the projects he's still riding the coattails of. You'd be surprised how little he worked on "his" titles. Success came despite him, not because of him.

Breetai posted:

SO I was thumbing through an old computer magazine last night, and lo and behold I found an article about the Stimperor Chris Roberts himself! The whole thing's quite interesting, but there's one thing that I noticed.

Remember how when Chris sat down to play his game a few years ago and it didn't look like he knew what the gently caress he was doing, down to snapping irritably about how he hated the chat interface? And people wondered why if the game was his baby he looked like a grandma trying to check her emails for the first time as he pawed and the controls?








Whole article here. Apologies for quality, the scan needs refactoring:







P.S.: Mark Hamill confirmed for cuck:

Raskolnikov posted:

is star citizen still good?

Raskolnikov posted:

just skipped 7400 posts right after bored gamer had come up with the new narrative, so what did I miss?

Raskolnikov posted:

is star citizen still good?

Raskolnikov posted:

just skipped 7400 posts right after bored gamer had come up with the new narrative, so what did I miss?

AlbieQuirky posted:

I just want to know if Mexico is paying for that wall of text.

Lord Stimperor posted:

If you read it from top to bottom it spells out 'Game never release'

Few more gems:
'debate means development' (new thread title?)
'bullshit alpha'
'proof engine wrong'

Mne nravitsya posted:

My issues mostly crop when these idiots start spouting knowledge they claim to have, but are completely fuckng wrong - except the one person who got massively downvoted but was very near the truth. I worked at Digital Anvil on Chris’s games, an Id game, and a Robert Rodriguez movie while I was there. They don’t know poo poo about Digital Anvil or what went on there. Hey Vertice, keep following your false prophet: He will will lead you into the light lol

Beet Wagon posted:

although this is pretty funny:


Didn't like... Star Wars Galaxies have that?

The_Groove posted:

- As someone that was taking Physics at Manchester University before I dropped out to make games full time, I can assure everyone that the physics model is COMPLETELY accurate and it’s a full rigid body simulation

- I know because I wrote the code

Dementropy posted:

Chris Roberts & Richard Garriott Talk Zero G Physics