FTFY, HTH
Interesting read on ED, SC & difficulties of the space sim genre
- Thread starter sonichi813
- Start date
FTFY, HTH
Exactly what I took from the article. Didn't really take into consideration the level of hatred the industry seems to have for the guy. Provocative, yes, but informative all the same.
You are Derek Smart and I claim my £5
I asked him about NMS and why he thought Planetary Landings wasn't do-able in ED. His reply, read from bottom up:
- Derek Smart @dsmart 4m4 minutes ago
@Barking_Madness unlike Elite Dangerous, NMS is procedural. I am going to be writing an article about that soon cuz ppl keep asking me this
Derek Smart @dsmart 6m6 minutes ago
@Barking_Madness they wrote their own engine, so they have more control. but it would still be monumental; even if they went procedural
- Derek Smart @dsmart 7m7 minutes ago
@Barking_Madness for the simple reason being that the game world is just too massive already. adding planetside is not an option
- Derek Smart @dsmart 51m51 minutes ago
@Barking_Madness I didn't mention it because it wasn't part of my all-encompassing genre, didn't have the same scope etc
- Derek Smart @dsmart 51m51 minutes ago
@Barking_Madness No Man's Sky is an amazing game. They bit off precisely what they could chew; and I am 100% certain they will pull it off
Last edited:
Didn't even know who the guy was until I read the article and did some research. No need for conspiracy theories. I was just interested in reading others opinions on the article, but I get it, you don't like the guy and couldn't be bothered to read the article. cool.
Uhh... what? Then why, pray tell, has David been talking about procedural generation from day one? EXCATLY as he and Ian did it back in the days of the original Elite.
This guy seems like a pompous ass who has some love affair with NMS. Not to say that NMS will be bad at all, I'm actually quite looking forward to it, but it's still quite the ambitious project. And just because some guy I'd never heard of until today couldn't do it, doesn't mean nobody else can.
I did point out after that post (I wastrying to be as nice as possible
) that I *ahem* thought ED was procedural, but he's not replied.
Last edited:
The article was pretty poor, but that doesn't change the fact that he's right; RSI have promised a game that's considerably more complex than any AAA game ever made.
It's never going to happen, and I say that not as a gleeful naysayer but as a bitterly disappointed backer. What's worse is that when the proverbial does hit the fan it's going to devastate the crowd funding and space game markets too.
It's never going to happen, and I say that not as a gleeful naysayer but as a bitterly disappointed backer. What's worse is that when the proverbial does hit the fan it's going to devastate the crowd funding and space game markets too.
IMO any game with Planetary Landings needs preferably two things:
1) Variation in scenery.
2) Things to do.
If the variation in planets is great it might not matter if there's not much to do because we all like beautiful things and exploring loads of different landscapes will keep people entertained for a long time. If however there's a lack of variation in what you can see then you're going to need things to do. Details are sketchy, so I'll reserve judgement. Needless to say I hope they pull it off.
Edit: Although I did go "Eh?" when I saw that you need to upload your data on 'undiscovered planets' to already present metal beacons and that you'd be attacked by 'large metal guardians' that patrol each planet. But im probably being picky
Last edited:
This is precisely why I think DB and FDev in general aren't rushing to get it out the door DESPITE the stuff competition from NMS and SC going forward.
I mean, from what I hear, SC is running into a lot of problems, especialyl with their FPS module, and NMS... well... the vistas look GORGEOUS and I'll admit that exploring them would porobably hold my interest for a long time, but the content once your down on a planet seems as though it might be lacking to some people. Mining, shooting and scanning local wildlife. That's going to get pretty samey after a while. Looks perfectly fine to me though, no less content than Minecraft save perhaps the ability to build your own structures and that game keeps people entertained for lord knows how long.
How ED is going to do it I couldn't say. But, at the end of the day, it comes down to how much variety they want to add, and how much variety one can truly get out of a 'hard science' universe like Elite. Yes, there are plenty of really crazy exoplanets out there, like the one amde entirely out of diamond, but one airless ball of rock is similar to the enxt airless ball of rock save for different topography, atmospheric conditions and colour. Or maybe that's my 'not an astrophysicist' self hightly simplifying it all. Who knows?
Pretty sure David Braben has said exactly that in relation to planetary landings before. I don't think the barrier to them has ever been working out how to do them technically, it's been stuff to do when you get down there. I'd quite enjoy the old recon and bombing runs from Frontier/FFE coming back for example.
Procedural generation should make #1 relatively simple, it's #2 that's the important one.
IMO, there's not enough to do in the current game. So until frontier figures out how to add more meaningful engaging content, the planetary landings should stay on the back-burner.
Last thing ED needs is more "space" and nothing to do in it.
Don't forget the gas giants - there can be interesting things to do there too. Like....
https://vimeo.com/122368314
Yeah, those were fun. Really hope they get implemented.
I don't get that either. Either Derek is misinformed or there's procedural and there's PROCEDURAL.
It could be as simple as people thinking that the ED universe is based on reality when it's only a handful of the stars that are hand crafted, the rest are procedural. (AFAIK Sol and surrounding systems, combined with some well known locations are real and overlain on top of the procedural soup that is the Milky Way galaxy)
The article has a lot of real and valid points.
As far as SC goes it is so ambitious with 3rd party software and fragmented teams that it will be a massive challange, not really agree that it is impossible.
ED need to do planetary landings completely procedurally or they are also in trouble, but that is obvious. Their challange will be to marry the current planet looks from space with the actual procedural landscape and transition between space and land. It can be done, and I hope for the best.
As far as SC goes it is so ambitious with 3rd party software and fragmented teams that it will be a massive challange, not really agree that it is impossible.
ED need to do planetary landings completely procedurally or they are also in trouble, but that is obvious. Their challange will be to marry the current planet looks from space with the actual procedural landscape and transition between space and land. It can be done, and I hope for the best.
Once you get past all the smug self congratulating rubbish, he does make a few good points. SC has had a severe case of mission creep as Roberts has been selling the paying public anything and everything to get money. He's added far too many things to get your cash that the elephant has become a whale and it really really needs to diet to become the elephant again. The trouble is, he's sold the whale and there will be a lot of folks who'll be unhappy when they get elephant. FD have actually done it the sensible way, make the base game and then add to it, this is what SC should have done, but it seems they want to promise everything at once and only then realise that they'd be better off getting it out in working chunks.
hes actually saying that these games wont happen, i doubt him.
+1 rep to this appraisal as I agree this is the state of things.
- - - Updated - - -
Well ED is actually released and parts of SC are being played, so he is more meaning they will not happen in all their fullness, ever, and perhaps he is right, but ED is getting there bit by bit