Conceptually, how would you approach designing your dream space-themed game?

I'd start with the Revised Proposals from the DDF and work from there. And I'm being serious, not snarky. Those Proposals represented some of the best ideas FD's design team could come up with, filtered through the feedback of many of the franchise's most dedicated and enthusiastic players and fans. Many great ideas were dismissed as impractical, and pretty much every member of the DDF can probably point to a personal sacred cow that didn't survive contact with everyone else's POV, but overall those outlines were a great place from which to build the basics.

Alas FD proved that even the best designs don't necessarily carry through to the final product. And to be fair to them, it's impossible to know whether any other individual or team could have done better under similar circumstances. But if you want to know what my theoretical dream space-themed game design might look like, it wouldn't be a million miles away from what was kicking around on these forums in 2013.
 
Oh, and most importantly - I would never have a DDF before starting into a project like this - design by committee is a design for disaster. It just is. Sorry people, but while your ideas, suggestions and input are valuable, especially to you, we're making the game we want to to make first, because if we don't deliver a good, solid, stable, feature-rich product, we're not going to make the money we need to reach a point where we can go: "Ok, people out there, here's what we've got, now tell us what you think we should change/add/bend/spindle/mutilate."

I've a few game ideas in my head I've been kicking around for quite some time, but I'm no programmer, nor asset designer, and don't have time to play Kickstart a Design Studio. There may yet come a time where I do have time to actually put in the time required to cull together the talents required to coalesce one or more of these ideas into something worth putting into the hands of the general public, and I suspect there will be a lot of "holy ^*&$! where was this X-number of years ago? And a whole new category of game titles will have to be created - the AAAA title.

I agree to a large extent. In fact, it’s one of the problematic things about modern game development as a creative field in my view. The skill-set required is so broad and time intensive that a premium title is virtually inconceivable without a significant team of diversely skilled people, all of whom need to be paid – perhaps all pulling in slightly different directions etc. I imagine that it’s very easy for a project to lose focus and compromise its original ambitions, and it results in a tendency toward risk aversion and against originality. In other fields, the very best work tends to be a result of a singular, determined vision, so in lieu of a polymath of genius with an inexplicable amount of time on his or her hands...
 
Make it SP, have mod support so people can choose what they want for challenge and grind levels. Have a dynamic economy, build ships and stations and a decent newtonian flight model. There we are: A cross between I-War and X.
 
I agree to a large extent. In fact, it’s one of the problematic things about modern game development as a creative field in my view. The skill-set required is so broad and time intensive that a premium title is virtually inconceivable without a significant team of diversely skilled people, all of whom need to be paid – perhaps all pulling in slightly different directions etc. I imagine that it’s very easy for a project to lose focus and compromise its original ambitions, and it results in a tendency toward risk aversion and against originality. In other fields, the very best work tends to be a result of a singular, determined vision, so in lieu of a polymath of genius with an inexplicable amount of time on his or her hands...

I actually disagree, at least as far as the requirement of a broad skill set - this is more a by-product of the "lean-manufacturing" mentality. Granted, from a pure cost-analysis perspective, it is far less expensive for one person to do 3 or 4 or 5 different jobs. However, that old saying "Jack of all trades, master of none" holds even more true here. Let's take something fairly basic - the design, animation and skinning of a model. A good model designer is going to make an exceptionally good model. A good animator is going to be able to take that model and animate it, and a good skin designer is going to apply the textures in such a manner as to make the final asset look its best.

Not every modeler is an animator. Not every animator is a skin artist, and not every skin artist can manage to model a believable cube. But far too many studios have modelers animating and skinning models regularly, all in the name of saving money. Meanwhile, there is another part of that equation that is being missed - that of time.

If a single modeler is also animating and skinning, the total time to produce a finished asset is greatly increased. This also costs money, which in turn also slows production, which in turn can also cost money. In the very end, if you're extremely lucky, you wind up breaking even on the cost savings, and are only a few weeks behind schedule. Whereas a more proper team allows each person to focus on the area where they are most skilled - modelers making models, animators animating and skinner skinning. Production deadlines are met, and the final, finished product is that much better.

Now this isn't to say that there aren't modelers who can't also animate their models - there are. There are also modeler-animators who can skin their models as well, and can do all these tasks equally as well as any specialist - I know a few. But doing all this still takes time, many times far more time than having a proper team collaborate.

The same holds true on the programming side of things, database management, infrastructure - you name it. Allowing people the opportunity to focus their skills gets more done in less time and with better results - nearly always. Of course, too many people can be an issue as well, and I've watched this first hand when it comes to programmers - one programmer does things one way, another does them a little differently, the third does something completely different, and the three spend more time arguing over which is the "right" way to do things, or they end up changing what the other has done, and in the end, nothing gets done.

Finding that perfect balance, tuning a team like a fine instrument, and keeping everyone on track.. now that's the occupation of a project manager, and like the art teams and programming teams, project managers also need to be able to focus on what they're doing - not coordinating events, making live-streams, or meddling in other areas of production - again, a very common practice stemming from that "lean manufacturing" mindset.

It's a real mess of things we've made for ourselves - and it's also one of the things that often make small indi projects so spectacular. Small teams, less pressure, people able to do what they do best and collaborate on the things they're not as strong at doing, without someone calculating the pennies-per-second every bit of minutiae is costing.
 
I like almost everything about the spaceship gameplay in Elite.
Atmospheric planets and space legs would be critical.
More vehicle content with different specializations.

I would marry Frontier's Cobra engine for Elite to Bethesda's ability to build branching stories in the world.
I'd have branching storylines to work through for Empire and Fed militaries. I'd have similar storylines for certain factions like Sirius Corp., Dark Wheel and others. (essentially making the equivalent of Elder Scrolls guild storylines).

I'd have sims / Fallout 4 style base building content.
The ability to buy apartments in space stations and then decorate space stations.
The ability to base build from scratch using a ton of modular components.
I don't even do much of that sort of stuff myself but other people love it and I'd like to visit and see what they create. (as well as watch the vids online of their glorious or hideous constructions)
Tying into the base building and vehicle specialisations, planetary mining platforms should be a thing.
 
The perfect space game is easy to define.

Take Star Citizen. Take Elite. Combine them into one game. Paint it with Star Wars. Give it the Development speed and reliability of Blizzard. Sprinkle the Community loyalty of E:D.

But that's way easier said than done LOL

EDIT: Throw in the weapon customization and settlement building from Fallout 4, the vehicle customization depth of Forza Motorsport, and the voice overs from Star Wars The Old Republic.
 
Last edited:
^, I'm fine with the way Frontier has done it for ED and have hope for its future. For a smaller scoped game, I'd just play a different game such as the X-series, or others out there. (which I don't. ED works well enough for me. NMS is basically a survival game set in an illusive cartoony fantasy space of limited ether; might as well be dimensional like "sliders". )
 
Last edited:
I'd have a free camera that works in all modes, cockpit, exterior, etc...

The whole inside of ships would be modeled in HD.

Material traders would also be credit friendly, there is enough grind in the game, and we grind for our credits, so you could buy mATS WITH CREDITS.

There would be user created content like in FSX/P3D, and tons of liveries.

And all jobs would pay well, there would be no need for shenanigans.

And Griefers of innocent ships would be relegated to a permanent full demo mode of the game, no mutliplayer, no special content, nothing but basic play, in the smallest entry level ship.
 
1. Offline
2. More immersion: NPCs walking around stations; large freighters outside with smaller ships to'ing and fro'ing; etc.
3. Seamless transitions
4. For the hardcore: a more realistic flight engine.

Basically 'Elite II: Frontier'. :D
 
Conceptually...

Where: Full milky way: One spiral arm: A bubble of a few hundred LY diameter: One single star system

What: Core activities: Empire building: Conquest: Diplomacy: Building space bases: Search for a mystery.

How: Take for example Building space bases.
Purpose of the base... Mining, ship building, trading etc. Mining activities for materials. Contracts for builders to actually build the thing.
 
I would model it more like Escape Velocity: Override. Mankind's first journey into the stars was immediately met with conflict, and it was only by the skin of our teeth that we developed the technology required to defend ourselves and are now a very militarized species. The conflict has turned into a cold war, and for the first time we can actually explore the outer reaches of space. There, we find a sprawling and complex culture comprised of many species of aliens.

This is a great model. You start in what's familiar, there is a clear and present danger to fight against if you want to, and if you have the fuel for it, you can leave the bubble and end up somewhere truly exotic.
There are also sections of the map too hostile to explore until the technology was developed to navigate it (nebulas) and one mysterious ancient structure that deliberately locks out some other systems. Those areas are mainly there to accommodate mods, but the mystery of it all was really well done.
Escape Velocity and Elite Dangerous are very similar. But escape velocity did storylines and lore way better for a video game.
 

Jex =TE=

Banned
First off there would be several weeks to a few months worth of conceptual meetings on what could be done and what couldn't be. What could be stretch goals and further development of the game. This would all be structured and planned out with the key focus being on gameplay.

Not sure the universe would be as big though could use some PG around set pieces - for e.g. design 100 worlds with stuff on them but then PG the solar system around it and place those amongst however many systems, say.

Would certainly base the game play more on discovery with a trend for more science based stuff so there would be working scanners and analysers and things out there to find.

The galaxy would be far more dangerous too with far harsher consequences for dying.

The flight model would be based on Evochron Legacy where it flies like ED but you can keep on accelerating.

There would be no health potions, no OP weapons and shields and combat would last a few minutes for small fighters.

Persistant NPC's.

Back ground stories developed that players can stumble across if they find it and will be injected into the universe as the game goes on. These stories would be one time only in that once a player starts a story off it plays itself out - the player/s that found it can become involved but if they decide to leave it, it'll continue playing out (maybe another player stumbles in mid way and decides to become invloved).

Not be required to listen to the forums because of what was done in the first paragraph and making actual gameplay.
 
For all of the divisiveness of the forums, I often read fair and insightful comments among the criticisms and praise of the game.

I was just wondering, given the successes, challenges and shortcomings of Fdev’s approach so far, how players would conceive of an alternative. It’s not an invitation to criticise Elite per-se, but rather to use it for the sake of comparison, so please try to keep it constructive. :)

i would make it kind of single player, so my universe is my own... but allow friends to come and play with me in a PG, and then any money / etc that they gain, or any rep made with factions npcs they can take back into their game when they leave (Payday 2/ tortchlight / even dead island or dying light does this kind of and it workds well).

persistance would be a core part of "my" game....... if i do a mission well for an npc this is saved on my HDD and there is a chance that same npc will then offer me more stuff based on what i did previously.

stations etc would be armoured and armed to the hind teeth but would be damagable. if i ram the station i blow up.... but i also get fined for the damage i caused etc...... same for bases and mega ships.

I would also have a fairly robust narrative running in the game along with the sandbox. (think privateer / privateer 2 or even dark star one)

i would spend zero time concerning myself with PvP it would be pure co-op... but at the same time if 2 friends want to duke it out in their game then more power to them.

flight model i feel FD have nailed as well as aesthetics so i would copy them for that (in this fictional world where i would not get sued)

and because it is not all server in direct base base building would be a thing (supply npcs with stuff and the better you look after them the better they expand), ship gets blown up, it would be a persistant wreck , at least for a time, and we can go and salvage our gear (as well as npcs gear) from them.
 
Last edited:
If I had full design control over a large-budget space game?

1) Commit to either singleplayer-only or multiplayer-only right from the start. I'm not sure which would be better... can I make two large-budget space games? ;)

2) Start with just a single star-system. If travel is kept relatively slow, then even a single gas giant and its moons and rings can make for a very big game world. Have inter-system travel - when it's finally introduced - be slow, scary, and a distinct voyage into the unknown, opening up a new system at a time. Exploration is largely about surveying for the establishment of new settlements.

3) Have a much more substantial distinction between "small ships" and "big ships" - something like small ships handling like they do in Elite Dangerous, and medium/big ships being much more in the Freespace 2 style. Generally the player ships would be mediums with fighter launch capacity.

4) Don't have credits. Credits are way overdone in the genre. Base the player's interaction with the economy around patronage, reputation, barter (of goods and/or services) and so on ... and therefore make going to a new area where no-one knows you a sort of soft reset in terms of access, though with some carry over of reputation via "letters of recommendation" and similar.

5) Make the politics basically sympathetic characters and ideologies with fundamental disagreements on approach, and more based around economic conflict than combat - with armed conflict being the result of economic conflict spilling over and relatively rare on larger scales. Criminal groups will often also be aligned (if formally disavowed) with these ideologies to provide the smaller scale combat and conflict.

(A lot of this is intentionally not how Elite Dangerous does it even if I don't really have any objection to how ED does it, because there's already an Elite Dangerous and new games should experiment and try different things!)
 
I respect everyone's opinion but I got to cackle when I read "I'd make economy/flight model/whatever better".
Like, better?... Better how? More? More what?

It's all nice and dandy when it's that cloudy idea in the brain- all foggy and comfortably undefined.
It's much much less so when you try to nail it down and make a game mechanic out of it.

There's the development of anothe SpaceComputer gamethat suffers exactly of that ailment.
 
Actually add in mechanics and combat scenarios with some depth and layers?


As an example, a post from another thread:-


"Why can't I jump (holo-me) into a fighter, stationed at a capital ship, either with a Wing of friends or a Wing of NPCs (giving simple attack this/defend that commands), and undertake a mission to escort a convoy of civilian ships through an asteroid field to an asteroid base far in the distance. During the jouney I'll come under attack from Thargoid scouts and we (my Wing) need to scout and defend to try and get as many of those ships in the convoy through.


Why in 2018 can't I even undertake that level of simplistic combat scenario in Elite Dangerous?"


We need more involved mechanics, which can be leveraged in layers...


That's not simplistic. There's a whole bunch of dependencies involved with your example for it to work - or at least work to a level that's not going to incite more rounds of, "Why can't I do x,y,z in this escort mission? Frontier have just given us bare bones again".


And that's ironically ignoring the fact that Frontier have already spent time putting in.....Wings, Thargoids, NPC pilots (AI, voice commands, launching of SLF's etc.), asteroid bases, asteroid fields and holo-me so that at some point maybe they can then do what you want - "a simplistic combat scenario."
 
Back
Top Bottom