219 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

Heffay, on 18 October 2013 - 03:21 AM, said:

[/size]

They were supposed to know about all the cryengine bugs that were going to affect their game when they decided to use that technology?

I wonder why Chris Roberts chose Cryengine then, knowing about all the bugs that are going to affect his UI and the difficulty of implementing HSR. Shame he didn't do his due diligence either.

The Sony 4 game makers are using Crytek engine as well, so it cannot be that bad. The Crytek engine, from what I understand does not have 1.0, 2.0 etc it gets updated constantly or something.

http://www.youtube.c...e&v=aseq4T81P7g

[Heffay]

Johnny Z, on 18 October 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

The Sony 4 game makers are using Crytek engine as well, so it cannot be that bad. The Crytek engine, from what I understand does not have 1.0, 2.0 etc it gets updated constantly or something.

Err... you just linked a video to Cryengine 4. SC and MWO use Cryengine 3. They get updated all the time, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have specific versions.

The engine isn't bad, but it definitely has areas that aren't as robust as others. When you try to scale something up from the lab to tens of thousands of simultaneous users, you're going to find a LOT of things in the engine that don't work right.

[Tombstoner]

Heffay, on 18 October 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

You're right. Star Citizen is doomed.

And the {Noble MechWarrior} parries.

[Deathz Jester]

Wieland, on 18 October 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

Its a known fact that they had a visit from Cryptic guys before the release of the Hangar Module. There is a video somewhere.

Heffay, on 18 October 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

Smoking gun right there...

I'm sure PGI bought the "no support provided" licensing agreement when they decided to use Cryengine.

from
Star Citizen Has Reached $10 Million In Funding

Tombstoner, on 18 October 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

And the {Noble MechWarrior} parries.

You mean the brown helmet knight? cause the nose wasn't enough. you can almost smell the astroglide oozing from his helmet too.

Edited by Iron Harlequin, 18 October 2013 - 10:11 PM.

[TOGSolid]

Sug, on 02 October 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

If I was sure I could post the pcgamer article from last year I would. It states that we would have CW in Winter/Spring of 2012, which was six months from the articles date, with Clans invading in the Summer.

To me that translates into: We plan to deliver CW in six months.

Which is exactly what they are saying now. So can you see why some of us are slightly perturbed that after a year of development, and six months after their projected release date, we have nothing new about CW? A year of development gave us nothing but a power point presentation.

If it was running on their test servers and they were having issues with it, fine. Delay the release and get it working. But CW is still on paper.

I got told IN PERSON by Bryan that UI2.0 and CW would be on the test server within 30 days when I met him at PAX.

I think we can see how that went.

[ClumsyKlutz]

Astounding...some really good examples of people here who suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

Saw a few hard cases in the Colonial Marine-preorder debate, but there are 2 or 3 people here, who would even kick these guys from the throne.

[MustrumRidcully]

Wieland, on 18 October 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

Its a known fact that they had a visit from Cryptic guys before the release of the Hangar Module. There is a video somewhere.

You mean Crytek, right?
I mean, Cryptic is doing Startrek Online, but I don't think they know much to help build Star Citizen. Very different games, very different engines. I mean, maybe they have something about best practices in general, or how to make a powerful chat system and a good account system.. but that's it.

[Ihasa]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 October 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

You mean Crytek, right?
I mean, Cryptic is doing Startrek Online, but I don't think they know much to help build Star Citizen. Very different games, very different engines. I mean, maybe they have something about best practices in general, or how to make a powerful chat system and a good account system.. but that's it.

Cryptic? Best Practices? hahahahaaha. You're right they do have a great chat system though. Cryptic and Piranha have more in common than either would ever probably admit, especially at similar stages of the games life.

[Riptor]

Ihasa, on 19 October 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Cryptic? Best Practices? hahahahaaha. You're right they do have a great chat system though. Cryptic and Piranha have more in common than either would ever probably admit, especially at similar stages of the games life.

Isnt cryptic just a name anymore? I thought they got bought up by perfect world entertainment. For all we know their entire crew could have been replaced behind the scene... that is the decision making crew.

Thats just the same with Bioware... people still think that the Bioware we have today still has something to do with the Bioware that created Baldurs gate or Knights of the old republic.. when in fact the entire crew and founding members arent even part of the studio anymore. So really Dev studio names dont mean jack squat anymore in todays enviroment. Atleast not if they are just a husk used by publishers to induce nostalgia... right blizzard?

Anyways, they took the cry engine because it was cheaper then the unreal engine. Aparantly the lower cost point outweighted the risks at the time, atleast that is my theory.

SC brought several people that actually worked for cry tek onboard to help them out, for example a certain person that had something to do with another mechwarrior game/mod

As we know by now PGI seems to need to run almost everything past some mysterious stakeholders who decide over the fate of every single idea that is suposed to make it into the game. We also know that the word "stakeholder" is equal to "not gamer" and that these people are in it for the short term numbers not the long time success of a franchise.

And if thats the case then i dont see MWO going anywhere in the next 6 months. PGI might be less to blame for what makes it into the game or not then everyone thinks but they are to blame for constantly enticing people with hollow promises.

[Heffay]

Riptor, on 20 October 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

As we know by now PGI seems to need to run almost everything past some mysterious stakeholders who decide over the fate of every single idea that is suposed to make it into the game. We also know that the word "stakeholder" is equal to "not gamer" and that these people are in it for the short term numbers not the long time success of a franchise.

A stakeholder is a group of people that can be affected by a change in the system. They are most likely other internal teams (balance, art, CW, finance, etc) that get to review proposed changes to comment on how it will affect their area. They are most likely gamers as well, and the majority of them will be PGI employees who also play the game.

This is a commonly used business term, and not at all the way you describe it.

[Deathz Jester]

Heffay, on 20 October 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

[/size]

A stakeholder is a group of people that can be affected by a change in the system. They are most likely other internal teams (balance, art, CW, finance, etc) that get to review proposed changes to comment on how it will affect their area. They are most likely gamers as well, and the majority of them will be PGI employees who also play the game.

This is a commonly used business term, and not at all the way you describe it.

And why exactly is it the way you say it?

[Deathlike]

TOGSolid, on 19 October 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

I got told IN PERSON by Bryan that UI2.0 and CW would be on the test server within 30 days when I met him at PAX.

I think we can see how that went.

Despite using Valve Time™ and Soon™, PGI doesn't have Valve's credentials though.

To build your own credentials, you have to like actually do a good job. We're more likely to get UI 2.0 in the next 30 days than CW...

[Heffay]

Iron Harlequin, on 20 October 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

And why exactly is it the way you say it?

Because when 99% of the business world uses stakeholders like that, if you're going to say that it's any other way you're going to have to provide some rather compelling evidence.

[Silent]

Pretty sure 99% of the business world uses stakeholders as a way to describe people that aren't directly involved in a project but are involved financially or in another way and thus have some sort of say in the way the project develops so it meets their needs and wants.

The only time I've ever heard stakeholders described any other way is here, from PGI apologists, trying to grasp at straws and convince themselves that this game isn't partially controlled by suits in a room somewhere that barely have a pulse on this game or the community.

Edited by Silent, 21 October 2013 - 02:45 PM.

[DragonsFire]

Silent, on 21 October 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

<snip>

This is what stakeholders refers to, as it was mentioned by PGI that they employed Agile methodology for their development process:

http://www.agilemode...rticipation.htm

I understand that people are frustrated/upset/whathaveyou, but let's not go making up boogeymen and false arguments as a result.

Edited by DragonsFire, 21 October 2013 - 03:16 PM.

[CrashieJ]

Jakob Knight, on 11 October 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

more drivel

you want me to redo it? is that it, fine, I'll redo it.

because I can do it, and right now it seems you can't

[Heffay]

Silent, on 21 October 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Pretty sure 99% of the business world uses stakeholders as a way to describe people that aren't directly involved in a project but are involved financially or in another way and thus have some sort of say in the way the project develops so it meets their needs and wants.

So, exactly the way I said it? You're agreeing with me completely, but are still saying I'm wrong?

[Silent]

Heffay, on 20 October 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

A stakeholder is a group of people that can be affected by a change in the system. They are most likely other internal teams (balance, art, CW, finance, etc) that get to review proposed changes to comment on how it will affect their area. They are most likely gamers as well, and the majority of them will be PGI employees who also play the game.

This is a commonly used business term, and not at all the way you describe it.

Silent, on 21 October 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Pretty sure 99% of the business world uses stakeholders as a way to describe people that aren't directly involved in a project but are involved financially or in another way and thus have some sort of say in the way the project develops so it meets their needs and wants.

The only time I've ever heard stakeholders described any other way is here, from PGI apologists, trying to grasp at straws and convince themselves that this game isn't partially controlled by suits in a room somewhere that barely have a pulse on this game or the community.

Yeah, exactly what you said.

[Heffay]

Silent, on 22 October 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

Yeah, exactly what you said.

Ok, so we agree that stakeholders are internal teams who are impacted by a change and finance people (internal and possibly external). Good to hear. Glad you agree with me.

[AdamBaines]

Man....how this thread has digressed! :-) Now we are talking about the definitions of what a Steak holder is? Good stuff. LOL.

In my experience, the definition of who is a steak holder greatly varies in a company. I have seen steak holder meeting where they include QAs, BAs, PMs (both Project and Product) Dev, and the business, and I have been in Steak holder meetings where its just the business and PMs.

Wrangle with the definitions all you want, there wont really be a right answer. Just like there is not a right answer for what is the best SDLC.

Have at it guys! :-) Where will this thread take us next? Maybe CMMI levels? Or what constitutes a cycle and its effects on PGIs delivery schedule? :-)


(gets pop corn ready).