edmozley wrote:Any comparisons people are making with Star Citizen to me seem completely misguided - they have been given a war chest of $43m and have a team of over 200 developers!!!
And yet this indie project, for the past 6 months, has shown more complete gameplay and polish in the graphics engine than that 44 million dollar 200 man team has shown.
So, why are the comparisons misguided? If they are in LT's favor
People need to understand that everything can be compared to everything. Because in the end we pay for games with the one and only same thing, real life money.
If a 4x strategy game costs 40 dollars and a first person shooter costs 40 dollars, they can and should be compared.
Which is better value for money? Which has more "fun factor"? Which has more replayability? Which is more polished?
As an end product i don't care if a game was made by 1 guy in a shed or 200 guys in a multi-million dollar studio.
I still pay for both games with my real life money. As such if i find that the 1-man game is showing more progress than the 200-man game, i'll stick by that comparison.
It's the same thing with real life.
If you buy a moldy loaf of bread for 3 dollars with maggots in it, then you see a package of fresh baguettes for the same price, wouldn't you say that the moldy loaf of bread with maggots is objectively a worse product than the fresh baguettes? But they are not the exact same "genre" of bread! Doesn't matter. It's your money at stake and your enjoyment.
In real life we constantly compare a bottle of orange juice to a package of coffee beans, in our decisions of what to purchase for our enjoyment. Despite them being different.
Why is it such a "taboo" to compare different games?