Is Elite ambitious enough? CR believes we are not even close
- Thread starter MxM
- Start date
yea man i get that all the time, i go out in the real world and you know its just too big to be interesting.
I bet NASA have this problem as well.
NASA Controller:
shall we go to Mars?
Astronaut:
na man its too far - it'll be REALLY DULL!
I think that really depends on the rest of the game mechanics anyway. The suspicious part of me wonders if that comment derives from the fact that SC won't, and couldn't be 1:1.....
G
a) It has nothing to do with Patriotism. It has to do with marketing and scope of the project.
Edit:
What I forgot to mention is flight controls. The no yaw decision / turrets in space had literally cut the player base in half. You can't sell around that issue. The most successful space sim mod diaspora (freespace 2) has true Newtonian controls and no, turrets in space is not a valid argument. It's a shot in the foot is what it is. It makes no sense lore wise or play style wise. It's a personal preference gone bad. You can't be successful and grow the game if you cut off half your potential player base (true space sim fans) by introducing game mechanics so clunky Mech warrior online might as well adopt it.
b) Unless you can tell the future, no SC is not years behind. The initial heads up ED has is because it's an existing studios with majority of the lore elements of the game design done years ago. ED did not have to come up with a new universe from scratch. SC actually got there quick.
c) Most of the comparisons I've seen so far are between things ED has now, but completely ignores the one's that SC does but ED does not. Like damage models and ship interiors. Anyone know knows anything about modeling knows that these take longer to block out than a single space station duplicated 30 times over.
d) SC has multiple studios working on game components, everyone will be in a for a bit of a shock when those studios start pumping out content at a rate which ED can't match. It's modular approach and it's not just 10-15 programmers. Anyone who knows anything about project management / programming understands how quickly things will roll out. It's like designing a car. 10 guys can't do it in a year. Multiple teams starting at different points in the project while synced by project managers create entire product lines in months.
CIG has 200+ programmers with multiple studios working independently on multiple game components at once. UK studio is working on the single player component. Montreal is working on FPS. LA is working on dog fighting ... you get the point. Most people don't understand how a project of that scope works. It's no
I am sick and tired of both communities just crapping all over the other game, and frankly the ED crowd is turning worse by the minute. Taking quotes out of content and just running away with it.
I dread the day when SC pulls ahead because I honestly think this community will turn on E
.
Last edited:
I've backed it since the beginning with two small ships and I was a subscriber up until quite recently, however the Star Citizen saga is increasingly looking to me like the Freelancer saga.
I have no axe to grind regarding Chris Roberts and his games, in fact Freelancer was always one of my favourite games and remains so to this day. However I have the impression that he is a "grand gestures" type of designer who can allow the practicality of actually making the game to be overtaken by his genuine enthusiasm and desire to make an "epic".
The Erich von Stroheim of game design?
I have no axe to grind regarding Chris Roberts and his games, in fact Freelancer was always one of my favourite games and remains so to this day. However I have the impression that he is a "grand gestures" type of designer who can allow the practicality of actually making the game to be overtaken by his genuine enthusiasm and desire to make an "epic".
The Erich von Stroheim of game design?
Squicker
S
I imagine CR says that because his vision is to have less, but more densely packed, micro-designed systems, specifically to encourage human player interaction. DB favours the more awesome, large-scale, progressive universe and its component systems, the reality of course being you'll seldom run into another human once you are away from hub areas.
It has not escaped our attention that if ED has 4 billion 1:1 systems, the statistical chance of meeting another player is near zero, unless ED also somehow encourages players to visit the same areas in the same systems, which makes the 1:1, 4bn systems model semi-redundant if players end up encouraged to use only a small part of it.
From a feeling of immersion perspective, I prefer the idea of the massive 1:1 universe. How it will play out, I can't say. If ED ends up with only say 500,000 ongoing players, it is going to feel pretty empty, and I think it this sort of thing CR is alluding to.
So from each game architect's own perspective they are right in thinking their architecture is better suited to achieve their game vision. We players will simply have to wait to see which we prefer.
Last edited:
I've always appreciated a sack lunch in my hand more than a promised eight course meal
I hope they both succeed honestly. Thing is, for me personally, I'm still sipping the tea, and quite enjoying it, I don't fancy rock-pops and Mountain-Dew.
Nigel, be a dear and pass the biscuits would you?
I hope they both succeed honestly. Thing is, for me personally, I'm still sipping the tea, and quite enjoying it, I don't fancy rock-pops and Mountain-Dew.
Nigel, be a dear and pass the biscuits would you?
I would never, ever, ever try to kill you - unless you were being a very naughty lobster.
Anyway, I know you've got one of those invincible escape pod things, so you'd be perfectly safe even if I did send ordnance your way!
I dread the day when SC pulls ahead because I honestly think this community will turn on E
SC will never 'pull ahead' because it is not even trying to be what Elite is trying to be. Most people here who have backed both would obviously like for both to succeed, but can also see that they have different goals.
When I launch from a Bengal carrier on a mission taking part in some grand campaign, I might well just have landed on a lonely planet thousands of light years from home in E : D. I simply won't get the one thing in the other game, and that's ok.
A lot of what irks people with SC is not what it might or what we hope it will be. It's the pretence that it will be all things to all men - and that it will therefore inevitably as you put it "pull ahead" of whatever else is out there.
yea man i get that all the time, i go out in the real world and you know its just too big to be interesting.
I bet nasa have this problem as well.
Nasa controller:
Shall we go to mars?
Astronaut:
Na man its too far - it'll be really dull!
LOL
But actually that is considered a problem by NASA.
People need stuff to entertain themselves.
It is considered a problem by FD too. That is why for example they have introduced supercruise and are carefully balancing it to be able to convey the incomprehensible vastness of space and align that with the need for humans to keep entertained. It is a game after all.
Last edited:
I'm not particularly interested in playing SC, but I think CR is correct. SC has more ambition/more of a vision (i.e. a plan for more features on launch day) than ED. It also has higher funding and a larger player base (if we go by backer numbers), so that's entirely appropriate.
It has no bearing on which is the better game, assuming there's even a meaningful comparison to be made.
It has no bearing on which is the better game, assuming there's even a meaningful comparison to be made.
What I mean is what the "perceived" state of development might be.
It's still that we have these arguments, look E
has this many systems where we can fly between them and SC doesn't it. It's years behind.What happens when SC has fps module out, will the crowd swing the other way saying ED doesn't have that, even though ED really wont have that at all ever? That's what I mean. People are comparing apples to oranges.
We can compare flight controls and space combat which both games are doing in a similar way. But comparing custom made and procedural generated content? I mean seriously. Or comparing millions of planets and single player missions? Seriously. You wouldn't "compare" jeep wrangler to an ford mustang would you? I mean one is faster but can't offroad nearly as well. One can pull a boat other is a really smooth ride.
It's ok to compare games. It's not ok to dump on the other one because of what we perceive as how far developed they are.
Throwing money at a game won't make a great game.
Well I guess thats the 'friendship' over with then
Nah - just standard handbags/tribal rivalry..
@Luminarium
I would be surprised if it would cut potential player base "literally in half", not everyone likes the controls in SC, so I think it is nice that both are going slightly different way.
Currently I think it would be fair to say that SC is behind elite. If I remember correctly, the dog fighting module should have been released at the same time in December as ED.
No doubt there is more features promised in SC, frankly I wasn't paying attention in some time, so no idea what is the feature list now. Two examples you posted should be in elite (remember the broken anaconda and latest cockpit video).
I don't think I've seen much hate around this forum, I think you are making a bit of a hyperbole with your last sentences. Lot of people here backed both games anyway..
I would be surprised if it would cut potential player base "literally in half", not everyone likes the controls in SC, so I think it is nice that both are going slightly different way.
Currently I think it would be fair to say that SC is behind elite. If I remember correctly, the dog fighting module should have been released at the same time in December as ED.
No doubt there is more features promised in SC, frankly I wasn't paying attention in some time, so no idea what is the feature list now. Two examples you posted should be in elite (remember the broken anaconda and latest cockpit video).
I don't think I've seen much hate around this forum, I think you are making a bit of a hyperbole with your last sentences. Lot of people here backed both games anyway..
Praevarus
P
Elite: Dangerous will eventually have it with the expansion(s) through boarding actions and hunting for big game. It's only a matter of time before big game is considered to be another player. It's a safe bet that another player will be killed on the surface of a planet or on their own ship the same day it's allowed to happen.
Last edited:
'Literally cut the player base in half' - you do know that 99% of sweeping generalisations are wrong right?
a) It has nothing to do with Patriotism. It has to do with marketing and scope of the project.
Edit:
What I forgot to mention is flight controls. The no yaw decision / turrets in space had literally cut the player base in half. You can't sell around that issue. The most successful space sim mod diaspora (freespace 2) has true Newtonian controls and no, turrets in space is not a valid argument. It's a shot in the foot is what it is. It makes no sense lore wise or play style wise. It's a personal preference gone bad. You can't be successful and grow the game if you cut off half your potential player base (true space sim fans) by introducing game mechanics so clunky Mech warrior online might as well adopt it.
b) Unless you can tell the future, no SC is not years behind. The initial heads up ED has is because it's an existing studios with majority of the lore elements of the game design done years ago. ED did not have to come up with a new universe from scratch. SC actually got there quick.
c) Most of the comparisons I've seen so far are between things ED has now, but completely ignores the one's that SC does but ED does not. Like damage models and ship interiors. Anyone know knows anything about modeling knows that these take longer to block out than a single space station duplicated 30 times over.
d) SC has multiple studios working on game components, everyone will be in a for a bit of a shock when those studios start pumping out content at a rate which ED can't match. It's modular approach and it's not just 10-15 programmers. Anyone who knows anything about project management / programming understands how quickly things will roll out. It's like designing a car. 10 guys can't do it in a year. Multiple teams starting at different points in the project while synced by project managers create entire product lines in months.
CIG has 200+ programmers with multiple studios working independently on multiple game components at once. UK studio is working on the single player component. Montreal is working on FPS. LA is working on dog fighting ... you get the point. Most people don't understand how a project of that scope works. It's no
I am sick and tired of both communities just crapping all over the other game, and frankly the ED crowd is turning worse by the minute. Taking quotes out of content and just running away with it.
I dread the day when SC pulls ahead because I honestly think this community will turn on E
Oh the wise one has spoken...you know you sound like those guys in the desert yelling at air planes. Good luck maybe they will hear you one day.
Cheers,