On one hand, people say "Realistically" in order to prove a point when explaining a choice for how the game plays and rewards you while on the other hand people say, "For Convience" when explaining when the game goes more in a fictional direction for gameplay and rewards.
The Galaxy, the controls, the combat mechanics, the mining mechanics, the trade mechanics, the economy, the idea of missions boards text the minor factions spout at you, the facial expressions the minor factions give based on your Rep, the ship management, the ship design and the orgasmic sound design, are based within the notion of realism and are all damn near perfect. But that doesn't mean that the player feels the same way about the rest of the game.
A great example is on one end, "Instant Ship Transfer is great on saving on time so I can spend it playing in the ship I want."
And on the other, "Timed Ship Transfer makes more sense because without it, why can't we just instantly go from station to station?"
And to be honest, I'm with the Gameplay Centric (GC) side of the argument than the Realism Centric (RC) side on this one.
There has to be Logic to a game because without it, it wouldn't be understandable. But there's a difference between Fantasy Logic and Real-Life Logic. And when you try to apply real-life logic to a game like Elite: Dangerous that's based 1000 years into the future, there's going to be a break of Immersion and is going to raise more questions than answers.
Ex: Why don't we have EDDB.IO or INARA.CZ built within our ships so we know what station has what modules and what every unlocked Engineer wants so they can upgrade our ships? (I mean, hell, a piece of paper with everything that engineers need would be good enough)
Ex: Why don't pilots have to eat or drink? There's food and water in the game so it's possible.
Ex: Why does your ship explode when you run out of oxygen?
I honestly feel if you're going to use Realism/Immersion as an argument to the reason why credit earning is so low, then you have A LOT MORE things in Elite Dangerous to argue with in terms of Realism/Immersion.
Just saying, people were able to be immersed in a reality of Superhero Comics/Movies and those things have barely and inch of Real-Life Logic to them as a whole. But it was the Fantasy Logic that keeps them so interesting and intriguing.
Hell, the need to find occupied space pods have damn near died out on the release of 2.4 because not many people feel they are properly being rewarded for the time they spent in the RNG Signal Sources, finding them. "Search and Rescue" could have been a new and lucritve profession in Elite Dangerous all together. Traveling to distant planets and USS's, searching for crashed ships to help people and earn a lot of money doing it.
But instead a portion of players have resulted to doing other tasks they find boring or tedious just to get the module or ship that they want just to see that task get a nerfed in a patch. The game should revolve around the player not the player revolvling around the game, especially in an Open-World, Playground-Style type game.
The Galaxy, the controls, the combat mechanics, the mining mechanics, the trade mechanics, the economy, the idea of missions boards text the minor factions spout at you, the facial expressions the minor factions give based on your Rep, the ship management, the ship design and the orgasmic sound design, are based within the notion of realism and are all damn near perfect. But that doesn't mean that the player feels the same way about the rest of the game.
A great example is on one end, "Instant Ship Transfer is great on saving on time so I can spend it playing in the ship I want."
And on the other, "Timed Ship Transfer makes more sense because without it, why can't we just instantly go from station to station?"
And to be honest, I'm with the Gameplay Centric (GC) side of the argument than the Realism Centric (RC) side on this one.
There has to be Logic to a game because without it, it wouldn't be understandable. But there's a difference between Fantasy Logic and Real-Life Logic. And when you try to apply real-life logic to a game like Elite: Dangerous that's based 1000 years into the future, there's going to be a break of Immersion and is going to raise more questions than answers.
Ex: Why don't we have EDDB.IO or INARA.CZ built within our ships so we know what station has what modules and what every unlocked Engineer wants so they can upgrade our ships? (I mean, hell, a piece of paper with everything that engineers need would be good enough)
Ex: Why don't pilots have to eat or drink? There's food and water in the game so it's possible.
Ex: Why does your ship explode when you run out of oxygen?
I honestly feel if you're going to use Realism/Immersion as an argument to the reason why credit earning is so low, then you have A LOT MORE things in Elite Dangerous to argue with in terms of Realism/Immersion.
Just saying, people were able to be immersed in a reality of Superhero Comics/Movies and those things have barely and inch of Real-Life Logic to them as a whole. But it was the Fantasy Logic that keeps them so interesting and intriguing.
Hell, the need to find occupied space pods have damn near died out on the release of 2.4 because not many people feel they are properly being rewarded for the time they spent in the RNG Signal Sources, finding them. "Search and Rescue" could have been a new and lucritve profession in Elite Dangerous all together. Traveling to distant planets and USS's, searching for crashed ships to help people and earn a lot of money doing it.
But instead a portion of players have resulted to doing other tasks they find boring or tedious just to get the module or ship that they want just to see that task get a nerfed in a patch. The game should revolve around the player not the player revolvling around the game, especially in an Open-World, Playground-Style type game.
