Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Combatus, 22 Dec 2014.
I'm such a graphic whore then.
And SPACE SIM graphis?
Just slap me now and call me a b*tch.
This is a game about romping around space in a spaceship. The Space Core in Portal going: "SPAAAAAAAAACE!!!"? That's you in Elite Dangerous.
Does exactly what it says on the tin.
Not really sure it's lack of content is defendable. The devs have even said the game lacks content that will come.
so you actually like , well , anything at all?
It's got spaceships and a galaxy to roam in. Job done.
It's a beautiful game but it's not whor'ish with its graphics.
The problem for me is (thinking of Eurogamers review) it gets repetitive doing the same fedex missions to the same music and the same computer voice and the same looking stations. So it's a grind in other words, and that's after the initial big grind of gearing up after starting at the bottom. I could put up with all that if it had some kind of super fun long term goal, but if all you really do is those missions or shooting stuff, it seems like it will get boring fast.
And the promise of more in the future is no good to me because I don't trust them to deliver. I'm sure they will add some stuff like visiting planets but I doubt it will ever develop any real depth or hooks to keep me playing, and that's all I really wanted. Currently it just sounds like Frontier Elite all over again but with slick graphics. Fine for some but for me it's a let down. Space Rangers 2 might only be a tiny indie 2d game but for me that was far more interesting because it motivated me to go through the grind to take on the huge battles in the end game. I hope Star Citizen is bigger and deeper.
I didn't mean it looked slutty lol, I meant it was made to appeal to people who like pretty graphics so much, it makes them overlook shallow gameplay.
define shallow gameplay? fed on a spoon and on rails mission? well no - as nexxo said - you have spaceships and a galaxy to play in and make your own path
Look at Galnet News on the left in the station screen, you will see news of the systems undergoing civil war. You have to travel to things in this game, not have them generated for you and hand fed. Think of this as a simulation of real space, with the trading and politics affected and led by the players interactions. That is ALL the players interactions not just yours, so if you choose say Federation support in a system but the Empire ends up with a stronger force of players then you lose (even in solo as the factors are still feeding on the open world play and you are still feeding back to it as well).
This is not an 'MMO' type of game with levels/pay to win/free chances or 'insta-grats' events and messages. It's you, a ship, some credits and a whole galaxy to play in without too much compromise. If you want things generated in front of you without the need to actually think about what you are affecting by your choices, with ADD soothing win events every thirty seconds, then I would suggest COD or one of the many FTP MMOs like Firefall.
It's official now.. I'm a graphics whore
fodder, I've been playing ED for the best part of a year, and am more than aware of how the game works and the intent behind it.
The 'civil war' is there in lore, but is currently making zero difference to players. I've spent hours in contested space, and it was exactly the same as uncontested space. I've seen a single capital ship, and it was simply parked near a station doing absolutely nothing. It was still there a week later. Yet we have a trailer showing multiple AI ships slugging it out with human piloted ships zipping around.
Frontier say that player interactions make a difference, but I've seen zero evidence of this - not helped by the simple fact that finding another human player can be a challenge once you've left the starter systems.
Finally, there's no need to be insulting by suggesting I need "ADD win events". I've put in excess of 300 hours in to ED since Alpha, and am merely commenting that the game lacks hooks to keep people playing - I've only managed so long because of the nature of the testing phases that had constant wipes and feature changes.
As said above, I'm hopeful that Frontier will be adding features down the line that provide more 'gameplay' outside of a sterile simulation, but we'll have to see.
I think that the same argument can be levelled at other games: same levels, same play-through every time. And the end of all your decision making and actions comes down to a boss level where you get to make a simple choice between four alternative outcomes (I'm looking at you, Deus Ex and Mass Effect). Story ends, and then what? Play the whole thing again but slightly differently?
Star Citizen will have the same problem. There is only so much you can do to set the stage, because all stories end, and then what? Thus the gamers have to keep creating and playing out their own dramas. Eve Online goes to great depths of world building, but in the end it is the players that create the epic battles, the political coups, the hostile company take-overs etc. Grinding? You haven't ground until you've Eve Onlined. And those guys spend years in that game, running it as if it's their careers and even lives.
I can't help but feel that's a bit unhealthy, somehow. In Tea from an Empty Cup, a novel by Pat Cadigan about a murder committed through VR, the observation is made that the VR scene is full of people with empty lives trying to find a sense of status and meaning in the pursuit of on-line quests and amassing of virtual rare objects. They treat their online lives and attainments as more important than their real ones, because their real ones are, in fact, so devoid of value and meaning.
When I hear people complain about a game not having enough realism or depth, and about the demand for games that are ever more involving, I can't help but think of addicts pursuing their next, bigger, greater high as their senses are dulled by the constant hammering of drugs on the anvil of their limbic system.
Me? I remember Pong. I remember playing games on the Atari 2600. I was already a teenager when I laid hands on the keyboard of a VIC20 for the first time, and came home at last. I remember games when they were minimal graphics and sound, but all gameplay and fun. When graphics and sound were so simple that you had to project your own imagination on it. When it was still the norm that you did some programming yourself, and the first home computer games came as reams of text in a magazine which you had to painstakingly type into your machine (and then invariably debug for typos, which taught you a lot about how coding works too). So perhaps I just look at games differently: not at what they can do for me, but what I can do with them. I already have a job and a life, thanks. I just want to occasionally romp in space. For fun. And Elite Dangerous allows me to do that.
Considering that Star Citizen has got its funding on nothing more than pretty graphics at the moment, don't hold out hope that it is going to be deeper.
C'mon Nexxo, be fair. Star Citizen has had Arena Commander out for a long time now, which lets you fly the ships against AI and humans and see what they're building. Yes, the graphics are very pretty, but the latest (v1) release of AC has really shown promise - solid, fun, flight model and an expansion of elements such as signature (heat etc) and missiles.
Now, I know you haven't played it, or probably even been following its development, but you can't just fire off cheap shots like that without doing some research.
Also, there's plenty of room for two space sim games, and they can be different to each other. Why the hate?
No hate here: I really like the look of Star Citizen. I think its ship and set design is superior to that of Elite Dangerous, and I hope that the whole thing comes off. I am just saying that I sincerely doubt that it will have the "depth of gameplay" that Elite Dangerous doesn't, because neither are that kind of game.
I've seen Arena Commander, and there are visible improvements. But the flight model still lacks fluidity and the HUD ergonomics still need much work. And that is just one aspect of the whole game. Star Citizen, IMHO, still has a long way to go. No doubt it will get there, but I'm concerned that with every million funding that Chris Roberts acquires, he is also acquiring a debt of expectation that risks either moving the goal posts and deadlines further and further away, or increasing disappointment when the game is finally released, and simply does not match what code-naïve gamers imagine should be possible to create with a $60+ million bankroll. Frontier promised relatively little in comparison, and look how it struggled to meet frankly somewhat unrealistic expectations and deliver even half of its objectives by the deadline.
It's time for Chris Roberts to stop selling ship models and start focusing on showing a solid foundation of a game.
You've seen Arena Commander, but you haven't played it. Watching a YouTube video isn't the same. When you get your new rig sorted, please, back Star Citizen, even if it is at one of the lowest levels and actually play the game. Personally, the flight mechanics are basically there, bar a few tweaks to targeting, and as you say, the HUD is a work in progress.
Yes, SC has a long way to go - I don't think we'll be hitting the beta of the persistent universe until 2016 (but along the way in 2015 we'll be getting multi-crewed ships, FPS boarding/stations and the ability to land ships on a small number of worlds and go see planetside). However, these are things that are already happening and will definitely be in the game, whereas ED's future features are all up in the air.
Equally, it's unfair to say that RSI just sell ship models and don't actually make the game - again, that's you not keeping up with the ridiculous volume of information coming out from the studios (not that I can blame you). The core foundation is the Arena Commander module, which keeps getting changes made (eg: the recent ship signature and missile system) that will underpin the game, and they're nearing release of the FPS element, which obviously also contains aspects of planetside.
As for the funding? You're right, they do have an expectation due to the $60m+, which has been somewhat negated by the removal of focus from funding on the RSI website. It's pretty hard to actually find the total amount these days, and Roberts has expressly said it's because the total is irrelevant. CIG also seem far more willing to push back deadlines if they can't meet them, whereas Frontier stick to them despite not being where they want to be - a throw over from their console development?
What I do find interesting is how SC is 'rolling' in money, yet ED didn't pull in nearly the same amount, even if we restrict solely to the initial crowd funding periods. I would have though there'd be a big overlapping fanbase.
Different approach to funding. ED's money comes mainly from selling early alpha/beta access, and now from selling the game, and some ship skins. SC gets its money from selling ships --expensive ships-- that in ED you have to earn in-game. I suspect that if Frontier put lavishly detailed Anaconda's on the market for £50,-- a pop, there would be takers. Ironically it would also be accused of 'pay-to-win' practices (I don't agree with that, BTW; I don't think that owning a bigger ship necessarily gives you a game advantage and besides, who are you racing? But the accusations will nonetheless fly).
Frontier respects the cardinal rule in business: Just Ship It. No product is ever going to be perfect or please everybody. Customers are always going to have their criticisms. At some point you just have to draw a line at 'good enough' and ship it, lest your product languishes in development limbo subject to the eternal tweak and feature creep. And gets overtaken by a competitor's product which may not be as good, but is available.
This means that you have to set a deadline somewhere. This is often arbitrary, because you can't foresee the complications that may raise their ugly heads along the way, but you have to have a deadline to aim for and stick to. Else: development limbo.
What Frontier needs to do now is clearly and publicly set the next deadline for the first expansion pack, containing a list of clear goals. But unfortunately Frontier's communication has always been rather poor. And people seem to impose whatever crazy-ass fantasies they wish on those goals and then complain when they are not fulfilled.
Chris Roberts too, needs to set a deadline and stick to it.
The ship sales for SC are not my cup of tea as people are being asked to pay, in some cases hundreds of pounds, for ships where no gameplay or even gameplay outline exists. I mean, $600 or whatever it was for a space bus? You'd need to have either more money than sense or have really bought into the hype in order to have put your hand in your pocket for that, yet they sold out immediately.
It wouldn't bother me so much if the extra funding was obviously required - but to keep adding stretch goals to a development process that's still a long way from release isn't what I'm looking for, and it also has a slight whiff of gouging on the part of CIG, imo. If extra money is to be raised, I'd rather see it being used to accelerate the development process, personally. Each to their own, however.
What's exciting is that after years of not having any games like this, we've got two different and potentially awesome games coming along almost simultaneously.
I'd love not to have to feel like ED and Star Citizen were comparable, but unfortunately, the flight model decisions in Elite mean that they're harder to differentiate, especially while the richest portion of both is the combat. Yes, of course, all of this is subject to caveats about SC being unreleased and ED being, in many people's view, unfinished, but it's a worthwhile discussion nonetheless.
Still, in terms of ED, my concerns are basically reflected in this thread. It chronically lacks content and absent a lot of money I fear it's unlikely to get any (I fear, I don't know). A lot of this comes down to dichotomies. You can complain that games with stories instantly run out of value the moment the storyline concludes, and you can just as well complain that story-free MMOs are nothing but a grind, devoid of entertainment or atmosphere. I feel that ED currently leans very heavily toward the latter, inasmuch as it's an MMO at all, which it currently really isn't. People who complain that it's a reimplementation of Frontier have a point, and not a flattering one.
The criticism really is that if you just wanted a reimplementation of Frontier, it might as well have been singleplayer, for all the difference it currently makes. All it means now is that you can't time-skip through the tedious parts, and that lightspeed transitions aren't very smooth as it messes about talking to the server - before dumping you into a shared environment with, very often, no other players in it, and very little to do with them if there are. The downsides outweigh the upsides. It does not make sense.
I have said lots of nice things in the past about online games inasmuch as they give you what no other genre can: interaction with realistically-behaving entities. We might be able to procedurally generate the environment - that's been a key idea ever since they said, of Crysis, that the time taken to build the environments at a given level of detail was prohibitive. What we can't do, very well, is procedurally generate other characters. To me the entire purpose of online gaming is to circumvent that issue. To fail to take advantage of that is to fundamentally miss the point.
Head over to the system with the battles in just now, Durius, there are battles. over 30 ships on my radar at one point. (empire were winning) - and a capital ship involved. Can post my shadowplay on youtube if you like?
(edit) I should add, when I checked earlier today, there were only 2 other real players in the area at the same time as me. One of the sods nearly wiped me out too, I was only taking a look!
Please do post the video - but it's a bit bad there's like, one, system where this is happening, and even then it's a single capital shi!
Separate names with a comma.