Proposal Discussion Why Elite: Dangerous should not try to be like Star Citizen!

[Zak Gordon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76UF2gnLKho

I've talked in a number of threads why it would not be a good idea for David and FD to try to focus too much on making the graphics of Elite: Dangerous too costly to make(dev side) and run(customer side in terms of hardware requirements).

I think this recent video on the detail Star Citizen is aiming for is a perfect example to show what to avoid in E: D!

I wonder what the base recommended system requirements are now going to be for Star Citizen! Just because you can do it, does not always mean you should!

Since the first Elite: Dangerous video's i've been more than happy with the graphical fidelity, knowing these would have just been rough versions based on early render code etc, but also that they do not need massive improvement to make an engaging and believable game world.

So i'm hear to argue for not over egging the graphics as Star Citizen is doing, to keep the game as hardware efficient as possible, and to focus more on the gameplay content.

So i'll run a poll for just that. Do we want more graphics or more gameplay in Elite: Dangerous (as the two are mutely exclusive unless you have a bottomless fund pool and at least 5 years to develop the game).

Edit: Update. X: Rebirth would be the perfect example in this thread if it had been around when the thread was first posted. But SC is still good value as a benchmark in relation to the graphics issue.

 

[X2Eliah]

Ahahahaha.

Okay, actually I wholeheartedly agree. Star Citizen is, imo, it's in a very weird state. It is funded to chuffmarks, they are showing all these epic superdetailed ships, and..

I don't think it will be any good to play.
To explain:
1) The devotion to hyperdetail means that star citizen has very few ships overall. Very little variety. Heck, very BORING and STALE designs, even ("Oh hello airplane in space! Have you seen your sister airplane in space over there?").
2) So far it's been, what, half a year or more? By now, DB/Frontier have given us a lot of concepts and a TON of info on how the universe would function (granted, in a not easily accessible form - forumposts etc.), how the gameplay would be like. What do we get from CGI/CR? Ships ships ships buy this buy that gimme more money new ship video! I don't hold much hope for Star Citizen's non-combat-arena aspects, frankly.
3) I am not sure my computer will run Star Citizen anyway. I'd sure like it to, but I don't know. Moreover, I don't have any joysticks or oculuses or whatnot. I want the game to work perfectly fine on a standard 1080p LCD with a mouse and keyboard. Elite does that... star citizen doesn't.

So, um, yeah. I'm backing both projects - I'd love to play both projects - I suspect that, so far, Elite is actually the more promising one for actual *play* past the three-day mark.

And, yes, Frontier should NOT chase after Star citizen's gfx-madness - because then they will only ever be the runner-up game. Elite needs something where it is the *primary* choice - and I feel that gameplay, exploration, discovery, galaxy - those might be the things we see better implemented in E: D. That is not to say that 2005-level graphics are enough - it needs to be at a modern, hi fidelity baseline, and E: D. is already going for it.

 

[Darren Grey]

As long as it looks at least as good as Frontier....

I think it's been clear from everything so far that FD haven't been harping on about visuals or trying to bling up the game. Every update has been about the gameplay, about how things will work in the game. There's an immense level of practicality to all of the design detail.

In short, we have nothing to worry about here. Elite is in good hands

 

[jabokai]

I think it's disingenuous to say the two are "mutually exclusive"... makes it sound as though developers sit down and say "shall we make a pretty game OR a fun game"! I for one was not happy with the Kickstarter videos (graphics wise) - they were fine as a prototype sort of thing but a significant way off what I'd expect of a game in 2013/2014!

 

[X2Eliah]

I think it's disingenuous to say the two are "mutually exclusive"...

They sort of are, though.
I mean, take it down to a personal level:
You have your work, and then you have your 6-8 hours at home when you aren't working and aren't sleeping. Thus, you have a time budget of 6 hours... Will you spend 6 hours on Elite? Or 6 hours on Star Citizen? Or 3 hrs there and 3 hrs there? What you can't do, is play Elite for 6 hours AND play SC for 6 hours - the two ARE mutually exclusive, in that you can't multitask them both simultaneously..

Now, take that comparison off the games, and onto game mechanics and developer time. Do you spend 6 weeks implementing planetary orbits, or 6 weeks implementing a shiny hull shader? Do you spend 6 weeks on an economy agent AI, or 6 weeks on animating the kitchen tables in your 14 spaceships?

 

[Darren Grey]

You have a graphics artist and an AI designer. Don't ask the graphics guy to code AI - that won't end well!

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Now, take that comparison off the games, and onto game mechanics and developer time. Do you spend 6 weeks implementing planetary orbits, or 6 weeks implementing a shiny hull shader? Do you spend 6 weeks on an economy agent AI, or 6 weeks on animating the kitchen tables in your 14 spaceships?

Given the size of FD (200+ staff) of which a good proportion is working on ED, and that more and more are being added to the team I would say all of the above thanks.

I've talked in a number of threads why it would not be a good idea for David and FD to try to focus too much on making the graphics of Elite: Dangerous too costly to make(dev side) and run(customer side in terms of hardware requirements)

I don't agree with you - ED should be made to be THE space game to benchmark all future titles against .. that means great graphics; sound; & game play. Also, to be blunt, if your machine at home doesn't run ED with all settings on max hard luck - update your machine over time so that from your perspective ED gets better and better. It should be made with 2014 technology in mind so that in 10 years time as the power and technology improves you can up the settings and get more from it.

Don't limit the scope of ED .. that's not your job, that's DB's.

For now make your request as to what you want and let them work it out - Devs own words.

That said - I am expecting great graphics and superb game play .. FD have given every indication that's what we're going to get.

 

[Fromhell]

I can´t even tell how much I hate generalizations like "Elite should not be like Game X"

I don´t get it. Try to be specific maybe?

What´s "too much" level of fidelity?
Moving cockpit parts?
Countless moving ship parts?
Too high resolution of textures?
Too many polygons?
Seeing your Avatar actually pushing buttons and holding the flightstick?

What?

SC has six times the budget of ED, they have to skip some eyecandy anyway out of budget reasons.

I just hope they get the procedural generation of planet surfaces right, soon after release.

 

[jabokai]

You have a graphics artist and an AI designer. Don't ask the graphics guy to code AI - that won't end well!

What he said ^

The suggestion of the OP and the poll itself is misleading in one sense and leading in another. There is no direct inverse relationship between the two, they're both fundamental components of the game. Shall we have a poll about trading sound for gameplay too? Trading peripheral support (multi monitor, joysticks/gamepads) for gameplay? Misleading. To create a game that feels great to play will take great graphics and sound and allow people to use various controllers, etc... as well as gameplay.

 

[metatheurgist]

Elite was bleeding edge graphics (3D!) and gameplay (Open world, no 3 lives). I'd rather have gameplay than graphics.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Indeed .. the poll also misses 1 vital choice: "Fourth Choice: Both graphics and gameplay"

 

[withnail]

SC has six times the budget of ED, they have to skip some eyecandy anyway out of budget reasons.

They have additional funding from extremal investors. We don't know the budget.

 

[dannysquid]

Personally, I don't see why Elite: Dangerous shouldn't look at least as impressive as Star Citizen. And have better gameplay too.

When ELITE came out it was a graphically way ahead of anything else out there.

 

[X2Eliah]

Personally, I don't see why Elite: Dangerous shouldn't look at least as impressive as Star Citizen.

Because (i could have sworn I already said this, somewhere...) here are the results of Star Citizen's ludicrous obsession with lolgraphics:

1) The devotion to hyperdetail means that star citizen has very few ships overall. Very little variety. Heck, very BORING and STALE designs, even ("Oh hello airplane in space! Have you seen your sister airplane in space over there?").
2) So far it's been, what, half a year or more? By now, DB/Frontier have given us a lot of concepts and a TON of info on how the universe would function (granted, in a not easily accessible form - forumposts etc.), how the gameplay would be like. What do we get from CGI/CR? Ships ships ships buy this buy that gimme more money new ship video! I don't hold much hope for Star Citizen's non-combat-arena aspects, frankly. (As all dev time and attention goes to animating stupid needless minutia on ships)
3) I am not sure my computer will run Star Citizen anyway. I'd sure like it to, but I don't know. Moreover, I don't have any joysticks or oculuses or whatnot. I want the game to work perfectly fine on a standard 1080p LCD with a mouse and keyboard. Elite does that... star citizen doesn't.

I don´t get it. Try to be specific maybe?

What´s "too much" level of fidelity?
Moving cockpit parts?
Countless moving ship parts?
Too high resolution of textures?
Too many polygons?
Seeing your Avatar actually pushing buttons and holding the flightstick?
What?

Talking about star citizen..

- countless moving ship parts: Yes, there's way too much emphasis on those. Have you seen how cockpits in Star Citizen look like? less than 45% of what you see is the outside - so you probably won't even see all those fancy moving thrusters in the tiny view you have unobstructed by cockpit fluff. Also, you are in your cockpit. Sitting at the front of the ship. Looking ahead. You won't see your engines rotate and missile banks deploy. You will maybe see a 10x10 pixel area shimmer as your enemy flies into range and changes something. Big whoop.

- too many polygons: Umm, YES. Star Citizen's ships have lousy optimization - The Hornet (white/green fighter jet with a fan in the middle) is 300 thousand polygons. If you're familiar with 3d modelling, you will know that 300k polys for the Hornet model is an incredible waste.. That model would, imo, be 100k or 80k tris and look exactly the same. So.. did they just go stupid with the topology subdivisions? Or did they spend 200k+ polies on the cockpit? (In which case - oh come on, I don't need a bloody obstruction that shows a static barrier in front of me all the time to take up 200k polies). Moreover, they are touting the bengal Carrier's 7-8 million polycount as if it was good, when the test scenes with just that carrier alone are already struggling to run on DEV systems. They are now saying that they will need to load reduced-LOD models of *parts* of that one single ship - soo yeah, that sure won't look like butt, seeing the demarcation line as parts of the model pop in / out... /heavysarcasm

- Moving cockpit parts: Sort of, yes. Maybe not cockpit, but moving interior parts are certainly forced over the top. I don't want a coffee table deploying from the ceiling. I don't want a shower cabin. I don't give a toss about dining chairs that lift up a bit. This is a spaceship, I want to fly it and see the space stuff outside it.

- Seeing avatar pushing buttons etc:
See, problem is, I'm meant to be flying. I want to gaze OUTSIDE of the canopy, not at the controls and buttons. Again - have you seen the cockpit designs of, say, the Hornet? 60% of your screen is cockpit stuff. Hope you enjoy gazing at the same thing all the time and try to guess where you are at and how the outside looks like. I guess if you want to look more at the inside of your cockpit than the thousands of star systems Elite's galaxy will have, then sure, seeing your arms move and push buttons would matter. I frankly would much prefer all such "control panels" to be moved offscreen so I can see where I'm flying instead.

- What?
All of that. Also - okay, Star Citizen has 'gorgeous' ships (artistically, I hate the design blandness, but that's a personal point).. Have they shown how planets will look like from space? Have they shown a single space station? Have they shown the UI? Have they written their plan for economies, missions, events? Have they talked about the NPC traders/fighters? Not really, no - every bit of information is OMGGRAPHICS. Spaceship graphics. Landing pad graphics. Alien race concept-model face graphics. Mocap studio for cutscene graphics... Sorry, I just see it all as stupid.

 

[Voyager_NL]

Because (i could have sworn I already said this, somewhere...) here are the results of Star Citizen's ludicrous obsession with lolgraphics:

1) The devotion to hyperdetail means that star citizen has very few ships overall. Very little variety. Heck, very BORING and STALE designs, even ("Oh hello airplane in space! Have you seen your sister airplane in space over there?").
2) So far it's been, what, half a year or more? By now, DB/Frontier have given us a lot of concepts and a TON of info on how the universe would function (granted, in a not easily accessible form - forumposts etc.), how the gameplay would be like. What do we get from CGI/CR? Ships ships ships buy this buy that gimme more money new ship video! I don't hold much hope for Star Citizen's non-combat-arena aspects, frankly. (As all dev time and attention goes to animating stupid needless minutia on ships)
3) I am not sure my computer will run Star Citizen anyway. I'd sure like it to, but I don't know. Moreover, I don't have any joysticks or oculuses or whatnot. I want the game to work perfectly fine on a standard 1080p LCD with a mouse and keyboard. Elite does that... star citizen doesn't.

Hmmm you seem to forget that SC is both on a bigger budget AND ond a very different release schedule. Chris Roberts is very clear on that, explaining that they want to show the Hangar module in coming August, they want to have the Dog Fight module this December. You're going to need ships for that!

Currently they are talking about 15 ships that can be owned and flown. That is just as much as the same basic amount of ships that E: D was aiming for. (But ELITE has the stretch goal for 25 that was met, I know!)

Still, after December SC can start building their Squadron 42 and Persistant Universe modules (the 2 seperate games) while the Dogfighting module is live. These are scheduled for release end 2014. Chris Roberts also discusses budget very openly: he needs 20M$ to make this game. Every $ below the 20M that is not crowdfunded will come from external investors.

Compare this to budget and release schedule of ELITE (Including the recent news of investors and a releasedate round about March 2014). It is so very different! They really need to finish it by the end of this year or Jan.2014 and start Alpha and Beta testing to reach that goal.

It will be difficult for FD to build something as detailed as SC but due to the different approach they will be able to focus on different matters. SC HAS to build every piece that exists in their universe as it isn't precedurally generated. FD will not need to do that but they will need to focus on algorithms for Universe creation. (And maybe some core universe aspects that need to be in place.)

So all there is left will be gameplay: SC can focus on 80 percent (my guestimation) of that after they release the gameplay module in December so they have about a year to build upon that.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not a sole proponent for SC or E: D, I put money in both projects (SC only recently) and I've invested most in E: D. But the recent developments and news coming from SC have really drawn me into "The Verse" just as compellingly as David Braben did during the end of 2012.

I'm hoping to have fun in both universes because I think the experiences of both games will be so different that it will be worthwhile to experience them both! So I believe in a world where both games can co-exist and where you can have different kinds of fun.

 

[Beachlight7]

Coming from console gaming I actually wondered what the deal was with the so called detail of SC, the polygon counts are actually really low, compared to GT5 on the PS3, which has 500,000 polys for a small car, SC only has 100,000 for a much larger ship. This is because they only have a budget of $21m rather than $60m+ for a full detail graphical game.
So really both SC and Elite need to focus on gameplay!

 

[X2Eliah]

Coming from console gaming I actually wondered what the deal was with the so called detail of SC, the polygon counts are actually really low, compared to GT5 on the PS3, which has 500,000 polys for a small car, SC only has 100,000 for a much larger ship. This is because they only have a budget of $21m rather than $60m+ for a full detail graphical game.
So really both SC and Elite need to focus on gameplay!

You are probably off by a zero there. 100k polies is the player's pilot model resolution. The smallest ship in SC starts at 300k.

 

[Beachlight7]

You are probably off by a zero there. 100k polies is the player's pilot model resolution. The smallest ship in SC starts at 300k.

I thought at the pledge point the stats were 100K for a small ship and 7million for the big one.
But even if 300k poly thats still very few compared to a well funded game from Polyphony Digital/Sony. And 7million is sparse for a ship of the size. Its a simple reason of lack of staff. You need hundreds of staff to do multiple detailed models.

I can support the view that time is better spent on other content rather than spending a long time creating polys a player might not see in normal gameplay.

 

[twincast]

Ahahahaha.

Okay, actually I wholeheartedly agree. Star Citizen is, imo, it's in a very weird state. It is funded to chuffmarks, they are showing all these epic superdetailed ships, and..

I don't think it will be any good to play.
To explain:
1) The devotion to hyperdetail means that star citizen has very few ships overall. Very little variety. Heck, very BORING and STALE designs, even ("Oh hello airplane in space! Have you seen your sister airplane in space over there?").
2) So far it's been, what, half a year or more? By now, DB/Frontier have given us a lot of concepts and a TON of info on how the universe would function (granted, in a not easily accessible form - forumposts etc.), how the gameplay would be like. What do we get from CGI/CR? Ships ships ships buy this buy that gimme more money new ship video! I don't hold much hope for Star Citizen's non-combat-arena aspects, frankly.
3) I am not sure my computer will run Star Citizen anyway. I'd sure like it to, but I don't know. Moreover, I don't have any joysticks or oculuses or whatnot. I want the game to work perfectly fine on a standard 1080p LCD with a mouse and keyboard. Elite does that... star citizen doesn't.

So, um, yeah. I'm backing both projects - I'd love to play both projects - I suspect that, so far, Elite is actually the more promising one for actual *play* past the three-day mark.

And, yes, Frontier should NOT chase after Star citizen's gfx-madness - because then they will only ever be the runner-up game. Elite needs something where it is the *primary* choice - and I feel that gameplay, exploration, discovery, galaxy - those might be the things we see better implemented in E: D. That is not to say that 2005-level graphics are enough - it needs to be at a modern, hi fidelity baseline, and E: D. is already going for it.

1)
A) I'd rather have something that can at least *somewhat* fly in an atmosphere without massive help by computer systems.
B) So far there are three "airplanes in space" out of the 14+ player-flyable current day human ships we know so far (12 of which - all but the two bombers - we know the look of, 10 of which aren't capital ships).
C) As if Elite/Frontier were the epitome of variety. Most ships are giant arrowheads, some are "airplanes in space" and only a few are neither.
2)
A) Admittedly there's been less specific details on every crook and cranny of the gameplay systems, but the broad strokes information has been out there since the campaign and during the recent 24 h live stream Roberts/CIG restated and explained in greater detail pretty much everything.
B) Different release schedules.
3)
A) It will. Not in all its graphical glory, but it will.
B) Shame on you for not owning a joystick.

I don't need ultra high-end graphics, but I do plan on upgrading till SC's full release anyway as the high fidelity does have me stoked. (I'm also looking forward to getting to walk around my Viper Mk. II sometime down the line.) Also want to get an Oculus Rift specifically for that game (and potentially for the new Mirror's Edge).

@OP: While players in Star Citizen's persistent universe will also be able to affect it, by the sounds of it, Elite: Dangerous players will have much more of an effect, so I think that's what they should focus on. Annexing systems FTW!

 

[Fromhell]

Because (i could have sworn I already said this, somewhere...) here are the results of Star Citizen's ludicrous obsession with lolgraphics:

1) The devotion to hyperdetail means that star citizen has very few ships overall. Very little variety. Heck, very BORING and STALE designs, even ("Oh hello airplane in space! Have you seen your sister airplane in space over there?").
2) So far it's been, what, half a year or more? By now, DB/Frontier have given us a lot of concepts and a TON of info on how the universe would function (granted, in a not easily accessible form - forumposts etc.), how the gameplay would be like. What do we get from CGI/CR? Ships ships ships buy this buy that gimme more money new ship video! I don't hold much hope for Star Citizen's non-combat-arena aspects, frankly. (As all dev time and attention goes to animating stupid needless minutia on ships)
3) I am not sure my computer will run Star Citizen anyway. I'd sure like it to, but I don't know. Moreover, I don't have any joysticks or oculuses or whatnot. I want the game to work perfectly fine on a standard 1080p LCD with a mouse and keyboard. Elite does that... star citizen doesn't.


Talking about star citizen..

- countless moving ship parts: Yes, there's way too much emphasis on those. Have you seen how cockpits in Star Citizen look like? less than 45% of what you see is the outside - so you probably won't even see all those fancy moving thrusters in the tiny view you have unobstructed by cockpit fluff. Also, you are in your cockpit. Sitting at the front of the ship. Looking ahead. You won't see your engines rotate and missile banks deploy. You will maybe see a 10x10 pixel area shimmer as your enemy flies into range and changes something. Big whoop.

- too many polygons: Umm, YES. Star Citizen's ships have lousy optimization - The Hornet (white/green fighter jet with a fan in the middle) is 300 thousand polygons. If you're familiar with 3d modelling, you will know that 300k polys for the Hornet model is an incredible waste.. That model would, imo, be 100k or 80k tris and look exactly the same. So.. did they just go stupid with the topology subdivisions? Or did they spend 200k+ polies on the cockpit? (In which case - oh come on, I don't need a bloody obstruction that shows a static barrier in front of me all the time to take up 200k polies). Moreover, they are touting the bengal Carrier's 7-8 million polycount as if it was good, when the test scenes with just that carrier alone are already struggling to run on DEV systems. They are now saying that they will need to load reduced-LOD models of *parts* of that one single ship - soo yeah, that sure won't look like butt, seeing the demarcation line as parts of the model pop in / out... /heavysarcasm

- Moving cockpit parts: Sort of, yes. Maybe not cockpit, but moving interior parts are certainly forced over the top. I don't want a coffee table deploying from the ceiling. I don't want a shower cabin. I don't give a toss about dining chairs that lift up a bit. This is a spaceship, I want to fly it and see the space stuff outside it.

- Seeing avatar pushing buttons etc:
See, problem is, I'm meant to be flying. I want to gaze OUTSIDE of the canopy, not at the controls and buttons. Again - have you seen the cockpit designs of, say, the Hornet? 60% of your screen is cockpit stuff. Hope you enjoy gazing at the same thing all the time and try to guess where you are at and how the outside looks like. I guess if you want to look more at the inside of your cockpit than the thousands of star systems Elite's galaxy will have, then sure, seeing your arms move and push buttons would matter. I frankly would much prefer all such "control panels" to be moved offscreen so I can see where I'm flying instead.

- What?
All of that. Also - okay, Star Citizen has 'gorgeous' ships (artistically, I hate the design blandness, but that's a personal point).. Have they shown how planets will look like from space? Have they shown a single space station? Have they shown the UI? Have they written their plan for economies, missions, events? Have they talked about the NPC traders/fighters? Not really, no - every bit of information is OMGGRAPHICS. Spaceship graphics. Landing pad graphics. Alien race concept-model face graphics. Mocap studio for cutscene graphics... Sorry, I just see it all as stupid.

well you don't like concept of immersion and being the pilot instead of the ship then.
I do.
In that regard ED is very much EvE2, you're a ship there too, not a pilot, at least until they add avatar gameplay "down the road"


ED and SC will be somewhat different (although both having some very similiar concepts and similiar target audience).