Frontier needs to decide: Game or Simulation
- Thread starter Anopheles
- Start date
This is such a fallacy. Frontier is not torn between two opposing philosophical frameworks for building their Software Entertainment Product. Yes the game has consistency problems and none of them have to do with which part of the Venn diagram their Design Philosophy lands on. All of them stem from either an inability to fully follow through on a vision, or a lack of sensitivity and attention to the type of experience they are crafting.
There's nothing inherently gamey OR simulationey about letting players "build their own stations outside the bubble," for instance, and picking a "side" won't suddenly make the decision to include it, or how to implement it, any clearer or easier.
Rep'd.
That people don't necessarily understand what the game is, has far more to do with frontier telegraphing that vision through through in-game mechanics, than any particular identity issue. The entire question of "game or simulation" ignores that that was decided over 3 years ago.
It's both. It's always been both. It's never not been both. That frontier haven't been overly proficient in making that abundantly clear, is very easy to point out in hindsight. What they are trying to do, isn't easy. I'll not give them a free pass here, but they were never going to have an easy time of it.
This should not even be a discussion 3 years after the fact. Either people are in simple denial, three years on, or fundamentally do not accept the ToS, but play anyway. Either way.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears to me as if your are quite willing to accept game like aspects of ED (building stations outside the bubble that you can presumably get to in less than a few hundred years) but reject others (instantly arriving security). I smell a pirate.
I think people are trying to come to grips with the inconsistencies, bugs, broken mechanics, and other aspects of the game that seem to be at odds. They want to believe that there is some kind of internal design struggle which would explain all of this. The real answer is simpler but maybe more frustrating: things are inconsistent, broken, confusing, counterintuitive, etc; because Frontier is all over the place and sometimes they do a good job at something and sometimes they do a bad job; sometimes they intentionally do a bad job with the intention of making it good later and then never get around to it; sometimes they are trying to do a really really good job and they just plain screw it up and that ends up causing problems later; sometimes they just don't know or don't care about certain aspects of the game experience and can't be bothered to address it. And then sometimes they do an absolutely amazing job, which makes all the other stuff seem not just bad, but an affront to the fabric of reality itself; and we need to believe that the world makes sense somehow, so we come up with explanations about "gameists vs simulationists," or whatever.
FD are making the game they wanted to make.
Like everyone else, there are things in the game that I think are ill-advised or badly implemented (from a design POV), but the game is what it is.
They don't need to decide anything of that ilk - you (all of us, individually) need to decide whether the game is for you or not.
Frankly, nobody really cares either way.
It's also a case I think that over the course of the past 5 years or so, the underlying code for E: D has become spaghettified, hard to maintain, and even harder to add to without breaking something else unrelated. This happens naturally in large projects that have had many hands on them, with constant fire-fighting to patch over issues.
'Beyond' is one giant refactoring exercise IMO.
It is both. Was always both. Will always be both; you are asking the developer to re-make a decision made 3 years ago, that they've stuck to through thick and thin. It's not changing. Whether or not that works for you, is your decision to make.
But it's always been both. That is the single consistency the developer has managed to achieve, and about the only one, in fact.
I like the idea of creating a simulation of an unknown distant future
The developer is human, and learning. People want to believe the game is in crises, because the alternative is to accept the reality; that it's always been a combination of factors. Folks simply can't accept the reality; that the developer has also struggled to hold a clear message, and has had variable success with a shotgun approach, is plainly evident.
But the key design principles, have been stuck to since the very beginning. They simply did what every developer in the history of ever has done at some point; tried to do too much, too soon, and ended up with an inconsistent nightmare. Beyond is Frontier essentially realising that state of affairs can't continue, and refactoring a lot of mechanics.
The game does need that fundamental reset, though, given what it's trying to deliver. I remain hopeful that they will actually manage to get to grips with it. I tend to think people are still going to fundamentally disagree with the intent, but play it anyway, though. So these debates will rage on well beyond the time the entire universe has gone.
Last edited:
Warp tunnels and travelling faster than the speed of light are arguably non-simulation elements. As is the flight model. As is cargo, fuel, passengers, modules, etc being instantly transferred to your ship. As are instant repairs. And so on. This game is full of invisible "gameplay" elements that people take for granted and I imagine that even "hardcore" players would cry about it if you took them away.
As the above poster states: game and simulation aren't mutually exclusive things. And if you look at some of the "games" considered to be "simulations", even they contain some of what you would call "gameplay" elements.
Last edited:
Deleted member 38366
D
Although it takes a bit of effort, often both can be implemented (Alternative approaches to the same task, commonly differing in difficulty, time required & rewards).
The upcoming Beyond will have a chance to work this field where deemed beneficial.
(IMHO Exploration would be the biggest field, followed possibly by Mining which could (rather : should) also include Planetary Mining)
Random simple Examples :
The Hyperjump
- the current and vastly automated Hyperjump can be seen as a little "Gamey"
- possible Simulatory Alternative : a manual FTL jump requiring manual work and skill-building, with the benefit of being able to roughly approximate a Player-selected jump-in point for high-skilled Players
Orbital Mining
- current Mining mechanics could represent the old, classic (repetitive/Gamey) means to perform Mining
- possible Simulatory Alternative : Sensor-based Prospecting (similar to SRV Wave scanner picking up things) and maybe application of Bioreducing Lichen to optimize yield. Skill-building, takes longer but provides better Results
SuperCruise
- current SC mechanics could represent the old, classic means of in-System Travel
- a possible "Gamey" addition : SC Autopilot, slower than manual 6sec ETA flying and dumber than CMDRs keeping a higher distance from Gravity wells slowing the Travel. Almost like NPCs (minus the crashing into Planets xD).
- possible more Simulatory Alternative : FA OFF SuperCruise. Allows faster acceleration/deceleration and limited "drifting" while in SC - at the price of being more difficult. If Ship exceeds a certain drift Angle, it drops out of SC.
-----------------
IMHO stuff like that would work like a charm, providing both approaches to things (or any combination if feasible) to allow Players to choose how complex they want to operate their world and optimize their Experience.
Mostly smaller Details that require Skill and Work, while providing a deeper way to operate ELITE and offer tangible benefits for Players choosing to explore these Options.
The upcoming Beyond will have a chance to work this field where deemed beneficial.
(IMHO Exploration would be the biggest field, followed possibly by Mining which could (rather : should) also include Planetary Mining)
Random simple Examples :
The Hyperjump
- the current and vastly automated Hyperjump can be seen as a little "Gamey"
- possible Simulatory Alternative : a manual FTL jump requiring manual work and skill-building, with the benefit of being able to roughly approximate a Player-selected jump-in point for high-skilled Players
Orbital Mining
- current Mining mechanics could represent the old, classic (repetitive/Gamey) means to perform Mining
- possible Simulatory Alternative : Sensor-based Prospecting (similar to SRV Wave scanner picking up things) and maybe application of Bioreducing Lichen to optimize yield. Skill-building, takes longer but provides better Results
SuperCruise
- current SC mechanics could represent the old, classic means of in-System Travel
- a possible "Gamey" addition : SC Autopilot, slower than manual 6sec ETA flying and dumber than CMDRs keeping a higher distance from Gravity wells slowing the Travel. Almost like NPCs (minus the crashing into Planets xD).
- possible more Simulatory Alternative : FA OFF SuperCruise. Allows faster acceleration/deceleration and limited "drifting" while in SC - at the price of being more difficult. If Ship exceeds a certain drift Angle, it drops out of SC.
-----------------
IMHO stuff like that would work like a charm, providing both approaches to things (or any combination if feasible) to allow Players to choose how complex they want to operate their world and optimize their Experience.
Mostly smaller Details that require Skill and Work, while providing a deeper way to operate ELITE and offer tangible benefits for Players choosing to explore these Options.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is the additional option of "Some people have an outright agenda to turn ED into something more closely resembling another Space Game, and so try to play the forum meta-game thinking they're being really devious and clever, but unfortunately for them their tactic is very transparent".
It's adorable.
I hope you're right.
There's no way ED is a simulation. To mention just a few points:
Faster-than-light travel.
"Hyperspace".
No relativistic effects.
Frame shift drive, apparently compressing the space in a whole system, while being unnoticed by all the inhabitants.
A few tons of fuel getting from one system to another.
A top speed in normal space.
Gatling guns on spaceships (yay, steampunk!)
Instant refuelling.
Non-material shields stopping solid objects.
Spaceships carrying armour.
Random elements having unexpected uses for randomly improving the performance of ship components.
... etc.
So it's a game, one among many. The only reason to play it is if it's a good game; I happen to think it is.
Faster-than-light travel.
"Hyperspace".
No relativistic effects.
Frame shift drive, apparently compressing the space in a whole system, while being unnoticed by all the inhabitants.
A few tons of fuel getting from one system to another.
A top speed in normal space.
Gatling guns on spaceships (yay, steampunk!)
Instant refuelling.
Non-material shields stopping solid objects.
Spaceships carrying armour.
Random elements having unexpected uses for randomly improving the performance of ship components.
... etc.
So it's a game, one among many. The only reason to play it is if it's a good game; I happen to think it is.
Well said. Have some rep!
Oh, there is - but it's not between "game" and "simulation" but between "multiplayer" and "Elite". Any sensible game developer would have taken one look at that combination and run away screaming.
Fortunately Frontier decided to give it a go anyway.