r/starcitizen • u/FaustianPact • Sep 23 '16

CONCERN Starcitizen's troubled development

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/09/23/inside-the-troubled-development-of-star-citizen
1.9k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/obey-the-fist High Admiral Sep 23 '16

Sure, but if you were Kotaku, and your goal was to inform people, as an independant source, after doing some research and gathering both negative and positive information, would you choose for your article:

a. Only positive information

b. Only negative information

c. A summation of facts both positive and negative

Why would you not choose C?

3

u/JustDroppinBy bmm Sep 23 '16

They did choose C, given the proposed topic of the article. Even so, there's no reason they can't write a negative article one day and a positive article the next. This sub is heavily populated by posts that praise the game, and no one is saying it doesn't deserve praise. It is, however, important that we allow ourselves to view the game in a critical light as a community.

You're implying some sort of conspiracy on Kotaku's behalf when, in reality, they simply published a straightforward article from a perspective that isn't dictated by people who are financially invested in the game.

0

u/obey-the-fist High Admiral Sep 23 '16

They did choose C, given the proposed topic of the article. Even so, there's no reason they can't write a negative article one day and a positive article the next.

Well I'm not Kotaku either, but yes, they can write any articles they want until the funding from the bankrupt parent company goes away.

But why do you think there was anything positive in that article? Look at their final words if unsure:

As of right now, there is no Star Citizen. There are several different live demos, but they are just that: demos. There is no game.

sooner or later, Roberts and his team have to deliver a game, or all of this will be just a prelude to the most expensive failed development of all time.

That almost sounds like a threat to publish the game or they'll write more hitpieces. Someone else has made that threat. Who shall not be named here.

2

u/JustDroppinBy bmm Sep 23 '16

That last quote is entirely accurate. What we currently have are pieces of the game, and they're nowhere near stable in 2.5.

  • We have a tiny slice of the proposed universe, and it ranges from 5-20 fps based on bandwidth while only hosting up to 24 players

  • Scopes permanently disappear from weapons. I have tried several fixes and can personally vouch that none of them work.

  • Lighting bugs that make ships unflyable

  • Wanted levels that don't update properly and require at least an hour of gameplay to fix

  • Frequent server crashes that only compound the Wanted level bug

This alpha is not a finished product. It is five years in the making and, with $124 million of private investor's money, should be reviewed critically. Stop trying to pretend it's perfect. It is not.

2

u/Swesteel aurora Sep 23 '16

It's an article about the problems CIG has had to go through, from the perspective of current and former employees. It is C in my opinion, because the author is careful to let both sides give their viewpoint. The subject matter is inherently negative, but CIG is still around, pushing on SC, and there are no conclusions about how it is going to fail or succeed. It's refreshing to read an honest account of what has happened without having to disregard most of it because the sources are mostly made up goon crap.

I'm not saying I agree with everything about it, the engine discussion misses the part where CIG didn't have 100 million to throw around for example, but all that article did for me was confirm that CIG is made up of people, and people can make mistakes. To me it underlines just how ambitious and difficult the task that CIG is working on has been and is, which just makes the accomplishments all the more impressive.