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

[Zak Gordon]

Decent indepth article on the future of AAA games, in particular for consoles, but that always influences the PC game when from those same AAA publishers:

'Is this the start of the Paymium generation?':

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-11-29-is-this-the-start-of-the-paymium-generation

This relates very much to my initial point on the costs of modern day AAA game dev, and why it is not (probably) the best option, for gamers or game devs, in the long run.

 

[Lorenzo]

I would take Gameplay and better performance Over Graphics all the time. Star Citizen will be an eye candy game no doubt, but when the game release there will be an insane amount of people complaining case the game is way to demanding on the PC.

 

[Riandor]

I would take Gameplay and better performance Over Graphics all the time. Star Citizen will be an eye candy game no doubt, but when the game release there will be an insane amount of people complaining case the game is way to demanding on the PC.

SC are making it very clear that they want to be top of the graphical food chain as well as have good gameplay. Anyone complaining only has themselves to blame.

Crysis was for years THE benchmark, nothing wrong with being at the top, it helps drive the industry forward as those happy enough with their ageing machines suddenly realise what can be done and all rush out to upgrade. it is why the PC should always topple the console in that regard, because you can just keep pushing the boundaries.

 

[strooka]

personally, i think its going like X:R, however he made enough money already. but money only doesnt make good games. think of eve. game engine dont gradually improved since 100 years, they are making just sub games from their money... and on console!

 

[Riandor]

personally, i think its going like X:R, however he made enough money already. but money only doesnt make good games. think of eve. game engine dont gradually improved since 100 years, they are making just sub games from their money... and on console!

Interested in to what gives you that impression so far?
I am not a backer of SC, I like the idea of the Single Player game (was a fan of Wing Commander & Privateer for example), but other than the financing model, what is it about the game you dislike?

 

[Pyros]

personally, i think its going like X:R, however he made enough money already. but money only doesnt make good games. think of eve. game engine dont gradually improved since 100 years, they are making just sub games from their money... and on console!

While money does not make good games, it is hard - not to say impossible - to create a game with good graphical detail without money. Granted that a good game can be done with little money, but not a game with SC characteristics.

Anyway, I do have some qualms about this thread. One because it opposes graphics to gameplay as one or the other - I want both, and while I understand that the question is about focus on, having a great gameplay does not preclude good graphics.

The other motive is the inclusion of SC on this subject. Yes, SC strong point is graphics and... detail. This second point can elude some people that can presuppose SC is only about graphics. No, CR also wants great gameplay, besides great detail.

Don't we all?

 

[strooka]

what? seeing a carrier from inside? (havent followed it for a long while) no real physic input? playing a egoshooter? look at the forums- its awful. maybe its good enough for my kids to play with a console...

real graphics are produced prodecurally- thats the jumping point today a very good game should have today.

i dont see the matter if you have so much details on the ships and can only see them as a point in space most of the time.

 

[Zak Gordon]

Anyway, I do have some qualms about this thread. One because it opposes graphics to gameplay as one or the other - I want both, and while I understand that the question is about focus on, having a great gameplay does not preclude good graphics.

I spoken at length a few times as the 'why' of this set up (Graphics vs Gameplay), and even that thread i linked above, about the coming generation of (mostly console) games being what is being called 'Paymium', makes the point that AAA games these days just cost too much to make (this is the publishers telling us that), so publishers are looking for ways to monetize the entire game experience. At what cost?

I'm 100% not surprised as i've been saying for a good decade that our desire to push to graphical realism is going to harm games in general.

From reducing gameplay depth due to assets needing to go towards the graphics instead, to 'dumbing down' gameplay to pushing people away to other hobbies with all the 'nickel and diming' that is currently going on.

It is obviously not being possible to have your cake and eat it, in relation to photo-realism in computer game graphics AND having the best of all other aspects of what a game can be. Something has to give, trade offs have to be made.

And they are in my experience of games, in particular this gen compared to a few back. We've lost so much depth and variety in most cases, games are often boring 'pretty picture' fragging contests and not much more, the only advances mostly seem to come in terms of graphics realism. What about AI, what about complex systems (other than graphics tech) that build rich game experiences and for the love of god what about writing quality (how many square-jawed cliché filled games can you put up with?).

I could go on, but the point of this thread is ALL about the ramifications of Graphics vs Gameplay, and there is info here going into the details of all that.

Sorry it is not something everyone wants to hear or think about (Lolz down rating a thread!!), but it is a thing, it's real and the issue is getting more pronounced, Star Citizen leading the way in the space-sim genre currently, and X: Rebirth giving us all a look behind that curtain.

Edit: And to help you go over the detail of the subject so far:

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=128791&postcount=32

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=129446&postcount=41

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=129843&postcount=48

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showpost.php?p=130289&postcount=58

 

[Pyros]

I spoken at length a few times as the 'why' of this set up (Graphics vs Gameplay), and even that thread i linked above, about the coming generation of (mostly console) games being what is being called 'Paymium', makes the point that AAA games these days just cost too much (this is the publishers telling us that), so publishers are looking for ways to monetize the entire game experience. At what cost?

I'm 100% not surprised as i've been saying for a good decade that our desire to push to graphical realism is going to harm games in general.

From reducing gameplay depth due to assets needing to go towards the graphics instead, to 'dumbing down' gameplay to pushing people away to other hobbies with all the 'nickel and diming' that is currently going on.

It is obviously not being possible to have your cake and eat it, in relation to photo-realism in computer game graphics AND having the best of all other aspects of what a game can be. Something has to give, trade offs have to be made.

And they are in my experience of games this gen compared to a few back, we've lost so much depth in most cases, games are often boring 'pretty picture' fragging contests and not much more, the only advances mostly seem to come in terms of graphics realism. What about AI, what about complex systems (other than graphics tech) that build rich game experiences and for the love of god what about writing quality (how many square-jawed cliché filled games can you put up with?).

I could go on, but the point of this thread is ALL about the ramifications of Graphics vs Gameplay, and there is info here going into the details of all that. Sorry it is not something everyone wants to hear or think about, but it is a thing, it's real and the issue is getting more pronounced, Star Citizen leading the way in the space-sim genre currently, and X: Rebirth giving us all a look behind that curtain.

Well, I wasn't all that clear in my post - SC should not be referred in the title of the discussion of graphics vs gameplay within ED. Just because it is a "labelization" that may be fair or unfair, as the game is not out yet. XR would have been a far more pertinent example.

Looking deeper (or trying to ) into the issue, in fact there is no specific graphics vs gameplay issue. The issue is resources, and game design and management is also a limited resource (not only money).
In fact, gameplay is harder to define even than great graphics - e.g. it takes but a few seconds to say that minecraft graphics are crap, but you need to play it in order to evaluate gameplay. And, at the end, it is gameplay that gives a game its value: level design, storytelling, "gaming", ambiance,... but graphics interplay with that.

But graphics, not gameplay, have been the most observable evolution area of video games, not surprisingly so. And yes, the amount of resources needed to create a AAA title has been increasing faster than unit sales. Way faster.

While the article you linked about paymium age does a good analysis of the situation (I think), there is a small angle that I'd like to refer... Gaming is a reaaally low cost entertainment medium. Even online games MMO - like WoW - that charge 15usd per month, have average playing times that lead to sub 50 cents cost per hour. Comparing that with cinema or renting movies and, from a vendor perspective, it is a lot of disposable income that can (and should) be captured - costumers have a different POV . But the biggest problem is when the effort to monetize actually cripples the gameplay.


TLDR: ED should be focused on gameplay and certainly can have decent graphics. Do not let monetization get in the way of gameplay.

 

[Echo Seven]

Clearing things up

I love Elite, have also backed SC to the value of about $500. Let me give you a summary of how I see things.

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?").

Few ships yes. Does a selection of 22 ice creams mean you will enjoy your icecream more or less? Science says less. I know every SC ship intimately and love each one.

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? ...

Nonsense. SC is flooded with info every week from Dev's. Go watch all 44 episodes of Wingman's Hangar and read all the transmissions and you will know as much as the dev's. There is a ask a dev section that gets responded to by the dev's weekly.

- countless moving ship parts: Yes, there's way too much emphasis on those...

Enables pilots to target specific areas to damage systems. Makes repair and engineering particularly fun and immersive. I think that is actually particularly cool.

- 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...

SC is not being ported to consoles. No need to dumb graphics down so the little consoles processors can chug along. Play in low res mode and it will still look impressive in 4-8 years if not longer.

- 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.

Meh. I want to live in it. Beds have the function of allowing you to log off and resume course in deep space exploring. Very cool. And have you actually sat on the Connie's toilet? It's cool. Seriously. Try 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.

There is discussion of disabling some animations if they break immersion. More realistic though than seeing something happen without mental telepathy though - right? And have you seen the 1GB stream of the Hornet flying? IN ENGINE? The Hornet is my favourite ship and the HUD is being done by the same guy who did IronMan 3 - so it will be ridiculously cool.

- ...Have they shown how planets will look like from space? / Space Stations / Missions / Events etc..

No. Development is geared for the dogfighting mode next.

Have they written their plan for economies

Yes. In detail.

Have they talked about the NPC traders/fighters?

Yes.

You also forgot the bit about Squadron 42 which is a single player 70 mission game which then puts you in the player universe after that. Each mission is very detailed and not just an ordinary length mission.

Your entitled to your views of course, but I think much of it is misinformation of the same calibre as I see on the SC forums about ED at times. It's best avoided, and I backed both because I think I will love both.

The best thing is for both games to focus on a vision and deliver it. I don't want them the same and hope that ED will give me an entirely different experience that SC does and that I will have an additional love for the genre.

EDIT :

Also re this comment : "...upgrade packs and new chapters will cost you plenty".

No. A $40 investment (Aurora or Mustang with Alpha/Beta) includes all content including so called "expansions". SC doesn't have expansions in the ED sense. Everything is included. Entirely different funding model.

 

[ElectroPulse]

Also re this comment : "...upgrade packs and new chapters will cost you plenty".

No. A $40 investment (Aurora or Mustang with Alpha/Beta) includes all content including so called "expansions". SC doesn't have expansions in the ED sense. Everything is included. Entirely different funding model.

Pretty much nailed it on everything but this last one... Which is mostly correct. For Star Citizen, no, there won't be any sort of additional fees. However, for Squadron 42, I read somewhere that they are planning on releasing mission packs.

 

[Jenner]

@Echo Seven

Sent some rep your way for the defense of SC. Nicely done.

 

[Crystles]

I'm not going to lie. I voted gameplay, but I love great visuals. I'll spend thousands of dollars on a computer just to have the prettiest graphics available, but if the gameplay just sucks, thats it - deal breaker.

Buuuut... I dont think I have to worry on either ground.

 

[Brett C]

(IMO!)

Immersive game-play over pretty graphics any day.

Graphics don't need to be uber-awesome-over-the-top these days. Anything that has a fluid underlaying (game play) with generic graphics will have me hooked.

 

[Echo Seven]

Pretty much nailed it on everything but this last one... Which is mostly correct. For Star Citizen, no, there won't be any sort of additional fees. However, for Squadron 42, I read somewhere that they are planning on releasing mission packs.

Lol! Your right! My Bad. Forgot about that. Those lucky original backers get it for free - we won't. So yes, you will need to buy some extra, entirely optional mission packs - but if Secret Operations for Wing Commander are to go on, they will be incredible. And like ED, we don't have details on the pricing yet either.

 

[atome]

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!

Totally agree.

 

[Variform]

@ Echo Seven

It sounds like you want to be a space ghost. You are focused entirely on what goes on outside your ship.

Curious. Are you a very materialist person perhaps. Well, it is a stupid question to ask because no one would admit to that. Therefore I can safely assume that you would say no.

But in today's society we are all indoctrinated to be materialists. So the answer is largely yes for you, even if you think about yourself as a spiritual person.

The reason I ask is this: if you are so focused on the external world, to the point you do not even want to see your virtual game-hands move about or see moving ship parts, does that mean you are not interested in the - let's say - inner workings of life? You want to be the ship, it seems, it is a discussion that has been around for a while on here.

It seems to me that someone who is preoccupied with the external is visually focused away from himself. Which makes me wonder if this is a form of self-resentment. You do not want to see a toilet. Why not? You use one every day. Does it remind you of being mortal? And so the game becomes a flight from reality, so that in a game you don't want to be confronted with the inner workings of your body?

 

[Echo Seven]

@Variform, I'll be honest - much of your post went right over my head. :S

I'll try and focus on what I know. It's hard to fight when you gotta poo.

But Seriously? SC Cockpits are modeled to such high detail that my CH Flight system will have every one of it's 136 buttons assigned to something. The flight models is extraordinarily complex and will be amazing to use. With that detail going in - A toilet doesn't seem an unreasonable level of detail does it?

 

[Voyager_NL]

@ Echo Seven



It seems to me that someone who is preoccupied with the external is visually focused away from himself. Which makes me wonder if this is a form of self-resentment. You do not want to see a toilet. Why not? You use one every day. Does it remind you of being mortal? And so the game becomes a flight from reality, so that in a game you don't want to be confronted with the inner workings of your body?

In my case I have a dislike for ingame toilets and showers because that would generate gameplay I am severely not interested in. If I would, I would buy something like The Sims and run a virtual household in there. No, I definately wouldn't want to have to do that inside a space game.

 

[Mephane]

Well there is adding a toilet and then there is implementing actual gameplay around it. Simply by being there (even if in the form of a closed-off door with the word "bathroom") it shows how much thought has gone into the design of a spacecraft, and that the ship is a believable place to spend substantial amounts of time inside.