No, there’s really no excusing this game’s development. If anything, Robert’s should have learned from Freelancer to have a tight core product that’s actually shippable.

At this point Internet nerds are locked into throwing money at Star Citizen’s development, making it the closest thing humanity has achieved to a perpetual motion machine.

[–] Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Freelancer was fantastic. It’s what convinced me to back Star Citizen back in 2012.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I suppose I should have elaborated.

Chris Roberts begin developing Freelancer with a similar aspiration of total simulation that Star Citizen now promises.

Freelancer repeatedly overshot development timelines and Roberts was running out of money. He had to go to Microsoft for cash. Microsoft gave money to develop Freelancer in exchange for Roberts being essentially demoted to a consultant, and Microsoft taking charge. Microsoft immediately began cutting features and mechanics to turn Freelancer from an amorphous project into a shippable game.

If you know that, then seeing Roberts in charge of a new game, with no oversight and essentially infinite development time, the resulting quantum superposition state of Star Citizen’s release should not be surprising.

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

ya, now it's the people who play the game funding it instead of corporate executives, and honestly I think that's a good thing, look at Elite Dangerous, No man's sky (even after the patches) or Starfield, sure they might be "completed games" but can't hold a candle to SC in it's pre-alpha in terms of gameplay

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What? Specifics please.

[–] okmko@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

It's as if the person read a parable about the Hindenburg disaster and took from it the idea that hydrogen should be the only gas used for balloons.