13
Gremlich Johns, on 15 December 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:
How adorable and naive you cretins are to equate anything with the scope and current capabilities of the Star Citizen project.
EVE? You: are the ship that flies in straight lines and you cannot walk around as an avatar in a game that permits unlimited griefing - Oh, and it requires time dilation. Elite: Dangerous? You are again the ship/rover and cannot get out of your selected vehicle - gameplay that hasn't changed since the early 1990's. (Still, it's a great game) Other games of this size have taken minimum 5 years to be completed. And money -- GTA 5 cost something like 190mil (without marketing!) and it's the same gameplay as the first. The 3000AD game Line of Defense has, for all intents and purposes, been in development for about 26 years - Derek Smart is calling all the patches he's made new games. Delusion at its finest.
The development of Squadron 42 and Star Citizen are proceeding in parallel and have taken less time to this point in development than all of the major games and MMOs out that that have fewer innovations and unique proprietary features - like ships with separate physics grids (which your minds obviously cannot grasp) -- grids which allow the manning of multi-crew ships (this would be a 32-bit FPU feature INSIDE of the ships) whilst the ships are operating in a 64-bit FPU environment. There is no other game featuring this. You can get out of your ship and EVA to another object, you can land on an asteroid and walk on its surface. No other game permits this and the game is, as Marok Dreck points out, an Alpha. Also, the flight model is "wooden" - how dense do you have to be to associate this 6DoF model with anything else - anything else is an arcade. Obviously pretty dense. But haters gonna hate and you tools are actually pretty good at it. PGI has kept MWO in Beta for how long whilst homogenizing all of the mechs so that the only thing distinguishing them is what they look like and what color their lasers are.
The argument that the 2.0 has no gameplay means that you actually do not have a basic understanding of what gameplay is - your definition is incorrect and uninformed on so many levels, probably like your definition of Pay to Win.
Can we move around freely within the confines of the 2.0 game environment? Yes, that's part of gameplay. Can you interact with the objects in the game environment? Yes, that's part of gameplay. Can I select a vessel then walk out to a landing pad and climb into it then fly away to another point in "space"? Yes, that's part of gameplay. Can I shoot other objects and have them blow up? Yes. Another ship with someone in it? Surprise!!! Gameplay!.
Yes, cretins, that's because this and the other examples are ALL tidied up under the actual definitions of gameplay. Pick a definition online from a game development company and NOT from you or any of your friends (because you obviously don't really know what it constitutes) A valid definition will include probably all that I've simply outlined above for you. Your own definitions don't matter because they are ill-informed or made-up to suit your whim at the moment - but are ultimately probably based on something someone else who is probably also wrong about it because I don't believe that you have the capacity for cogent argument (which requires you to actually research your thesis which, obviously, you have no time for).
I don't insist that anybody has sources, mates, but if you want to have any veracity (and you don't except for others who think like you do), you might need to get some instead of talking out of your third point of contact.
Cheers and see you in the verse - make sure you identify yourselves so we don't inappropriately greet you (meaning so we don't shoot your ship) as returned Citizens. Cuz we'll play nice even though you don't get it yet.
and here ya go, just in case you need help (I know you do, but I'm being nice cuz you like nice)
EVE? You: are the ship that flies in straight lines and you cannot walk around as an avatar in a game that permits unlimited griefing - Oh, and it requires time dilation. Elite: Dangerous? You are again the ship/rover and cannot get out of your selected vehicle - gameplay that hasn't changed since the early 1990's. (Still, it's a great game) Other games of this size have taken minimum 5 years to be completed. And money -- GTA 5 cost something like 190mil (without marketing!) and it's the same gameplay as the first. The 3000AD game Line of Defense has, for all intents and purposes, been in development for about 26 years - Derek Smart is calling all the patches he's made new games. Delusion at its finest.
The development of Squadron 42 and Star Citizen are proceeding in parallel and have taken less time to this point in development than all of the major games and MMOs out that that have fewer innovations and unique proprietary features - like ships with separate physics grids (which your minds obviously cannot grasp) -- grids which allow the manning of multi-crew ships (this would be a 32-bit FPU feature INSIDE of the ships) whilst the ships are operating in a 64-bit FPU environment. There is no other game featuring this. You can get out of your ship and EVA to another object, you can land on an asteroid and walk on its surface. No other game permits this and the game is, as Marok Dreck points out, an Alpha. Also, the flight model is "wooden" - how dense do you have to be to associate this 6DoF model with anything else - anything else is an arcade. Obviously pretty dense. But haters gonna hate and you tools are actually pretty good at it. PGI has kept MWO in Beta for how long whilst homogenizing all of the mechs so that the only thing distinguishing them is what they look like and what color their lasers are.
The argument that the 2.0 has no gameplay means that you actually do not have a basic understanding of what gameplay is - your definition is incorrect and uninformed on so many levels, probably like your definition of Pay to Win.
Can we move around freely within the confines of the 2.0 game environment? Yes, that's part of gameplay. Can you interact with the objects in the game environment? Yes, that's part of gameplay. Can I select a vessel then walk out to a landing pad and climb into it then fly away to another point in "space"? Yes, that's part of gameplay. Can I shoot other objects and have them blow up? Yes. Another ship with someone in it? Surprise!!! Gameplay!.
Yes, cretins, that's because this and the other examples are ALL tidied up under the actual definitions of gameplay. Pick a definition online from a game development company and NOT from you or any of your friends (because you obviously don't really know what it constitutes) A valid definition will include probably all that I've simply outlined above for you. Your own definitions don't matter because they are ill-informed or made-up to suit your whim at the moment - but are ultimately probably based on something someone else who is probably also wrong about it because I don't believe that you have the capacity for cogent argument (which requires you to actually research your thesis which, obviously, you have no time for).
I don't insist that anybody has sources, mates, but if you want to have any veracity (and you don't except for others who think like you do), you might need to get some instead of talking out of your third point of contact.
Cheers and see you in the verse - make sure you identify yourselves so we don't inappropriately greet you (meaning so we don't shoot your ship) as returned Citizens. Cuz we'll play nice even though you don't get it yet.
and here ya go, just in case you need help (I know you do, but I'm being nice cuz you like nice)
All they deliver atm is shiny graphics, if you look at your nice development time chart (which isn't even accurate and correct), GG if SC needs 5 more years all the now done graphcis are outdated until then. They focus too much on shiny graphics at a poitn where they should present a LOT more about mechanics of the game probably slapped over with lower grade graphics as placeholders. Thats is what a game after 3years should be able to present. But SC can't.
Reminds of titanfall, Big awesome showcase, huge hype, no substance and mechanics behind it. How many people still talk about and play Titanfail?
Or All Points Bulletin. $100million Huge ideas huge visions, but failed on the way because they did many things wrong. In the end it was sold for 1million$ to a studio containing some of the former devs making it into still a solig game. Yet it never reached what initially was in the vision.
And SC is at a similar point, it still has the potential to become awesome, yet also to horribly fail. And thats because they do nto rpesent anything of what this game promises. Just shiny graphics and some 90's walkaround and shooter feature.
Edited by Lily from animove, 16 December 2015 - 02:33 AM.
.
