Is Elite ambitious enough? CR believes we are not even close

[CaptainKremmen]

Yeah, in all seriousness, don't worry about such things.

That guy has a very difficult job, probably gets a lot less than his minimum number of hours sleep each night, and is constantly bombarded with competing demands/requirements/expectations.

I wouldn't hang too much meaning on any one thing he says. It's likely to just be an off-the-cuff remark, in the middle of juggling fifty impossible things, while tired as all get-out.

 

[Alric]

Star Citizen is a great project that I have backed and want to see succeed.
But it's also like a lot of other big budget games in pushing hard on the slick style and marketing. There is a fine line between 'vision' (where we're going that others haven't) and 'spin' (a picture we're painting to get you to buy in).

One of the things I like about David Braben and Elite is that the conversation tends to be on an unusually practical level. In interviews he has no problem with saying no, that's not what we're going for. If you look at the DDF, the initial posts are clearly laid out, broken down piece by piece in to things that are well defined and achievable. If you even take the E3 footage - it's pretty much just in-game footage. It's not even what the game will be at launch, it's just what it is right now. The gap between what they're saying and what they're doing is small.

On the other hand Star Citizen, well in to the games development are still selling a vision. They are still clinging to the kickstarted idea that it will be everything you want it to be - and if you don't see that, it's just because you don't get it. It will just be flat out better than it's competition. Yet they are more interested in ship commercials and wait and see (but it's obviously going to be incredible!), than detailed breakdowns and discussions of how specific parts of the game will work.

We are an imaginative bunch, space sim fans, and every one of us is full of ideas of what a game could be. But in the end, you have to reach a point of what a game will be. Elite has been there for a long time - certainly with room for adjustment, but with a clear framework. Star Citizen is not there, and doesn't seem to want to be there. While they say they're making the game they want to play, they leave what that is just ambiguous enough so that what you really hear it we're making the game you want to play. You know all those amazing ideas you've had for this attention starved genre? Mentally pin them to Star Citizen. And then check out our latest special!

It's like listening to Miguel Cepero and listening to Dave Georgeson

Both are working on ambitious groundbreaking stuff. In fact, to a large extent the same product. But one will show you real examples of what he's working on, exactly what exists and how it works. And talk about the real challenges and where things are actually going. The other gets on stage and starts talking about holy grails, and tells you what they're doing is basically everything you ever wanted in a game.

Elite and Star Citizen make me feel like that. One inspires a high level of confidence that they can deliver exactly what they describe. The other, I want it to, but the way they present it makes me decidedly uneasy. They're still selling a dream not a product. And no matter how big your budget, you can't put a dream into code. They want you to look at the shines and not think too hard about what's not there, what's not going to be the way you like it. Which just as with every other project, there will be plenty of.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Sorry, but I just don't buy this "he didn't mean that and it is out of context" line. He gave his opinion about reasons why SC gets more money - fine, that's actually good question to tackle, but then he said basically "we are getting it because we are cool man, we are more ambitious!". Which at this point is open ignorance and arrogance from his part.

Has he said "people might think we are more ambitious", which is true, I would have less of the problem.

ED is ambitious as SC subjectively, David just don't throw this into our and public faces. Practically CIG just invents new ways to squeeze money out of people using PR and impulse buying, while FD invents new game actually. I just know what kind of game I want support.

 

[Crudzilla]

It seems to me that Chris is talking about the 'level' of funding.

Let's not forget that journalists can't be trusted, and this one seems to have a need to compare things, and get's more than one thing wrong about Elite's campaign as it is.

Yeah this...he was talking about money (his favorite thing it seems). He could have phrased it better though.




While I'm here, here are my opinions on the interview that I posted on the SC forums:

As usual Chris does talk pretty good game when it comes to SC.
I thought his responses were a little weaker than usual, maybe because he couldn't cherry pick the questions like on 10ftC.
But once again this is all just talk, he can talk about how his game is going to destroy games like Elite and No Mans Sky, which have both shown their key features running in engine (making them easy targets?) Until CR shows what he has achieved in terms of a seamless, massive, persistent universe, he would be well advised to stop talking dirt about games that have.

Actually I thought his constant comparisons to other games games and Dev's was quite bizarre:

"Think of it sort of like DayZ, the alpha, where it's out there and it doesn't have all of the features, but you're bringing money in, and you're using that money to make the game better, right?"

Haven't been back to DayZ in a while but It seemed like it had kind of become stuck in development hell. People were not happy at the rate of progress being made. Especially with the enormous amounts of cash brought in from early access The game was riddled with pretty terrible bugs. A lot of people attribute this to a poor choice of engine and the difficulties of wrangling their ambitious project into it. So his comparison was actually quite apt, though why he would feel that was a good thing, I have no idea.

"You know, Elite Dangerous looks great, right, and they're out there, but they're not even close to the level that we are, partly because we've put this vision out there, and everyone says "That's f****** crazy, but you know, I would love to see it happen."

I actually think that his "they're not even close to the level that we are" quote is referring to funding level, rather than any judgement of quality. He could have worded it more clearly though as if you just read that quote in isolation it sounds like he's trash talking. And he is right, Elite: Dangerous is great and is out there. It has a game out there. While Star Citizen "has put this vision out there"

"I think Peter Molyneux gets a bit of a bad rap sometimes because he definitely has his big-picture stuff. Definitely what was happening, especially in the Microsoft days, he's out there saying "Let's all do this," and then at the end of the day, it was Microsoft going "We need to ship something for this Christmas."

Peter Molyneux completely deserves that rap. He had a great past, made some great games. Recently he can dream big dreams but has consistently failed to deliver on them. And Chris' suggestion that his was because he was held back by the 'evil publishers at Microsoft' doesn't ring true when you consider the fact that Molyneux has gone full on indie of late. Kickstarter and all. Unfortunately his game (Godus) was talked up as usual before it's release, and has had the worst critical reception of any game he has ever made. By all accounts the game is hot garbage...

Again, perhaps the future will prove this comparison apt, but I'm supprised that Roberts would want to associate himself with such a figure.

Overall I thought the interview was quite good. There was nothing new particularly new, but I'm looking forward to the second part. Chris is a pleasure to 'listen' to (though I could happily see the cheap shots stop) and he does create a compelling vision. At the end of the day though, talk is cheap. He needs to show what progress (if any) has been made on his amazing PU.

 

[Jason S]

As I read again the quote from CR, it could well be he is talking about funding, but it is a little unclear.

Anyway about the funding level, it is largely due to being American based and due to a much flashier and in many ways better done PR campaign. The SC KS was more flash.

To me at this moment ED is way superior and if the flight model of SC does not completely reinvent itself I think ED will stay superior, at least in the space combat mode.

SC could be interesting planetside maybe.

About the funding vs achievements: I have been a software developer for over 20 years and I have often seen workers work 10 times or more efficiently than others which is due to the following reasons:
1) Better knowledge of the technologies
2) Better knowledge of the business the technology is aimed at
3) Better motivated (not just the level of wage, real motivation, the love of it)
4) Clearer and more achievable goals
5) Better tools
6) Better team co-operation

If the above is much better with the ED team than the SC team then it is possible the ED team can achieve more with a fraction of the funding.
We will wait and see...

 

[Snakebite]

CR must be referring to the level of crowd funding!

As an aside although FD have raised some 5M or so in crowd funding, haven't they also raised some investor cash?

Wouldn't the fact that SC is raising millions a month help the pitch to investors?

So SC might be helping ED indirectly.

[EDIT] I'm guessing that FD is burning at least 300k a month, probably closer to the 500k mark. So 5M would last between 10 to 15 months, so it's likely the have a good chunk either reserves or external investment.

FD can't be burning cash too fast, otherwise they would not be recruiting.....

 

[Snakebite]

Elite Dangerous needs more levels!

David Braben, add some extra levels! Quick, man!

WE NEED MORE LEVELS OVER HERE!

And three lives... We need three lives or it wont be worth playing.....

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I am still waiting for the FD engineer to come round to my house and install the coin slot ..

Jokes aside - I rarely believe things I read in magazines / newspapers as frankly journalists lie, like politicians, to sell a story .. that's all they care about. The snippet given by CR in question could easily have been taken out of context, or even condensed to make a (journalistic) point ... Either way Chris Roberts' ambition is no doubt huge, as was the sums reaped from the US (mainly), so once he delivers I expect us all to be able to enjoy, compare and contrast the 3 great games we're getting. (Though I add I deliberately didn't back SC and wish I had given some funds to Josh - Limit Theory)

 

[MxM]

Sorry, but I just don't buy this "he didn't mean that and it is out of context" line. He gave his opinion about reasons why SC gets more money - fine, that's actually good question to tackle, but then he said basically "we are getting it because we are cool man, we are more ambitious!". Which at this point is open ignorance and arrogance from his part.

Has he said "people might think we are more ambitious", which is true, I would have less of the problem.

ED is ambitious as SC subjectively, David just don't throw this into our and public faces. Practically CIG just invents new ways to squeeze money out of people using PR and impulse buying, while FD invents new game actually. I just know what kind of game I want support.

I have to agree somewhat. His choice of words are odd. Maybe he's feeling frustrated that Elite's development is moving at a much faster pace towards release and is already a big hit among the space sim community. He knows he has a long way to go and this could be his frustration or denial coming out, thinking that his vision still remains larger than Elite and that's why its ok to take many years to develop the game.

He may also be feeling pressure, since Elite is launching soon, and that Star Citizen backers may get frustrated waiting and try out Elite instead. They may even get addicted to Elite and potentially see SC as an inferior product if it does not deliver the grand vision. Either way, I'm so glad Elite is here to at least set the bar high for us space sim fans and therefore Chris knows how far he has to reach to beat it. Personally I doubt he will outdo Frontier, solely based on what I see from AC thus far.

Saying that, Frontier needs to push harder and set the bar even higher than SC. Why not? This game has the potential to be the greatest space sim ever made and the development team is strong and moving fast. They can take the entire SC market if they are smart.

 

[TimYersidies]

I have backed both and will play both, provided SC actually deliver something worthy of being played.

Their development so far reminds me of "Achilles and the tortoise"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

SC has so much cash and such a great vision that it feels like they have spun their metaphorical wheels for the first year of the 'race'. On the other hand ED received enough cash to start and so they applied the resources they had to making a space ship flying game.

One of the interesting things that happened at the start of the SC road show is they asked backers what they wanted to do and most people answered 'explore'.

https://forums.robertsspaceindustri...le-are-you-looking-forward-to-in-star-citizen

So with that feedback in mind they built a hanger module and 1k square in hanger space simulator. For me this amply describes my issues with SC and why I find myself here on the ED forums.

 

[Gwyvern]

I think in the long run, Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous are promising much of the same stuff, just with different flavor and on a different timescale. (SC releasing features as a core game mechanic, ED releasing them later on as expansions)

Though ED promises planetary flight (i think?) SC does not. and SC will likely be doing procecural generation later on as an expansion, while that is a core mechanic of ED.

Either way, ive backed both (only minimally, enough for beta access to both) and while SC's business model certainly draws a lot of controversy, making assumptions about its future then toting them around as fact just makes people look pretentious

I am hoping No Man's Sky continues to be the odd one out and decides to keep their development as internalized as possible, because i want the biggest combination of different space games we can get. (i also backed the Mandate, and Flagship looks interesting to me, though i have not tossed any money that way)

After almost a decade we are finally getting our space sims back, and let me tell you, i am positively ravenous

 

[ste]

Its sounds exactly like what any good salesman would say.

Yeah, its ok, but its obviously not going to be as good as what I have to sell you.'

Hes obviously a bit worried about the competition.

 

[Iskariot]

"Elite Dangerous looks great, right, and they're out there, but they're not even close to the level we are"

I just had to laugh.
It is as if CR does not realize at all the level of ambition FD has. This is hard to believe.
How then does he measure 'the level' they are on?
Either he should have explained or he should have held his tongue.
Perhaps he feels it is very important to have toilets on board of spaceships and that a spacesim without toilets is not at the level they are?


His space sim is a very limited, confined, sector based sim while FD is simulating the entire GALAXY as realistically as possible.

But CR is right. Elite must have working toilets to get at their level.

 

[huwthomas]

In fairness he almost certainly was talking about funding, but he stated it in a way which meant his meaning would be open to interpretation by the reader, even if it made sense to him in the context of the ongoing interview.

I think he was talking about the level of ambition, since that's the "level" referred to in the question he was answering: The level of ambition that I think you're speaking about is, essentially, "the sky's the limit."

Of course, the ambition could be to get to a certain number of backers or funding amount but I suspect he meant things like handcrafted detail and pre-created story/lore.

 

[Cmdr Andy B]

SC is looking to me to be more like a Christmas tree every day, they are hanging so much extra content on with all these stretch goals that are nothing more than pretty tinsel and lights to make people go 'oooo' and empty their wallets.


it may take a while but CR is soon going learn that if you hang too much tinsel on that old tree one of these days its going to topple over and crush you.

 

[Lobstris]

Elite Dangerous needs more levels!

David Braben, add some extra levels! Quick, man!

WE NEED MORE LEVELS OVER HERE!

Gawd, almost choked on a cookie reading that, but...

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaptainKremmen again".

(Attempted Rep for the joke. Not for trying to kill me).

 

[tough boy]

Hes obviously a bit worried about the competition.

I really don't think that's the case. I believe Chris Roberts knows perfectly well, as David Braben does, and as pretty much any real professional in any industry does, that someone's success doesn't come at the price of someone else's failure. But that's what common people tend to think.

 

[Wind195]

I think in the long run, Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous are promising much of the same stuff, just with different flavor and on a different timescale. (SC releasing features as a core game mechanic, ED releasing them later on as expansions)

Though ED promises planetary flight (i think?) SC does not. and SC will likely be doing procecural generation later on as an expansion, while that is a core mechanic of ED.

Either way, ive backed both (only minimally, enough for beta access to both) and while SC's business model certainly draws a lot of controversy, making assumptions about its future then toting them around as fact just makes people look pretentious

I am hoping No Man's Sky continues to be the odd one out and decides to keep their development as internalized as possible, because i want the biggest combination of different space games we can get. (i also backed the Mandate, and Flagship looks interesting to me, though i have not tossed any money that way)

After almost a decade we are finally getting our space sims back, and let me tell you, i am positively ravenous

200% agree sadly people are into the SC vs E: D and right now

 

[Squicker]

Quote from the recent interview from Gamespot with Chris Roberts

"Elite Dangerous looks great, right, and they're out there, but they're not even close to the level we are"

Full interview here

If you read the paragraph in question in context he is clearly talking about backer numbers signing up, he even says as much in the following sentence.

They both could be great games, I've backed them both, CR himself was hugely influenced by the original Elite anyway. I really don't understand this whole 'them and us' thing that a small section of the players are inventing, it's a bit silly.

 

[Praevarus]

The only thing I've heard Chris say that could be considered as a shot against Elite: Dangerous is that he thinks 1:1 scale systems would be boring. He doesn't mention the game, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5M5DXzcMmg#t=976