Hello Games Exploring worlds Vs Elite Dangerous.

Darkfyre99

Darkfyre99
Having logged 27 hours in NMS before (reluctantly) deciding it isn't going to replace Subnautica or Minecraft (Harcore mode with natural regeneration turned off) for all my Exploration and Survival needs, I'm going to go over what I'm looking for in an exploration game in general, and space games in particular:

Elite DangerousNo Man's SkySubnauticaMinecraft
Procedural Generation - The ability to explore locations that nobody else has seen before, and never will.Yes - In spades. An entire galaxy procedurally generated from first principles, right down to how planets orbit their stars.Yes - An entire galaxy with procedurally generated planets. No. This game is set on a hand made map that is roughly 4km x 4km x 2 km deep.Yes - An entire flat fantasy world.
Orbital Mechanics - Planets and moons orbit their primary in a realistic and interesting manner.Yes - In spades. There's been a couple of times where I've noticed a potential eclipse, settled down on a planet or moon, and watched the sight. Next best thing to watching a real eclipse on Earth.No. Planets within a system are motionless, and the sky box faked.No. The sky box is faked. This is forgivable, since all the action takes place under water.Not Applicable
Are the planets realistic?Yes - in spades. My last exploration was focused on finding earthlike and terraformable worlds by searching planets and moons within the goldilocks zones of stars. It worked wonders.No. Planets resemble C-reel 50's era science fiction serials... which certainly fits the aesthetic of the entire game.Unknown. We know next to nothing about the system the game is in, besides the fact that the water world seems to be a binary planet.Not Applicable.
Can we visit atmospheric planets?Not at this timeYesIt's set on one that is almost entirely covered by waterNot applicable
Can we visit life bearing planets.Not at this timeYesIt's set on one.Not applicable
Is life varied on a life bearing planet?Unknown - we can't visit them to find out. ;)

From what I've seen from space, varied biomes may exist on each planet.		No. There seems to be about a dozen species of flora and fauna on any particular planet. Each planet is a single biome planet.Yes. Given that this game isn't procedurally generated, it's to be expected.Yes. Multiple biomes exist, and with the underwater update, there's now life under the sea.
Do we have a wide variety of tools to explore these worlds?Not at this time. Quarter 4 promises to add more, I just hope they take after the SRV's wave scanner [up], and not the ADS and DSS [down].No.Yes - in spades. The sheer number of exploration tools available to our shipwrecked survivor is staggering. [up][up][up]Yes.

What No Man's Sky has going for it is, quite frankly, we can set foot on life bearing worlds, and we can't on Elite. We can't even land on them. For that feeling of discovery, though, Minecraft does a much better job than NMS in my opinion. It didn't take too many planets for me to start feeling like NMS's planets were generated from a "random planet generator" table from an 80's table-top game like Star Frontiers, as opposed to a planet we could hypothetically visit in real life. Add in the sheer amount of grind it takes to do anything in NMS, and it simply isn't a good fit for me.

If Elite: Dangerous is to take a page from any exploration game, it should be Subnautica. That game is just fantastic. I can't expect procedurally generated life to compete with hand created life, but the tools available in the game are first rate.
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Daish said:
And yet with Elite we are still waiting and still don't have a full seamless experience? while making your way planet side.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can.

It just will take you a very long time to get down at the speeds you can fly at when not using SC/Glide.
 

Taimaru

Taimaru
Back in 2014, when I heard that Frontier were later going to add landing on atmospheric planets I thought to myself that's at least 5 years work, if not more, before that will happen.

If part of the circa. 100 person team started development on atmospheric planets in 2014 then that means next year (2019) for atmospheric planets DLC, however, if they didn't start till after 2014 then it will be later going by my 5 year estimate.

So why the difference and longer development time between ED and NMS?

First of all, I want to say I really like NMS and I love the way it looks. However, if I were to be honest, unless I haven't discovered the right planets yet, it doesn't look completely realistic. Where are the lush forests, streams, and waterfalls that we all love exploring on our own planet (either in person or in photos)? Just go into Google Images and search for "waterfalls in forests" and you'll understand what I mean.

Now, I am in no way bashing NMS. As I said I do love the game and the way it looks. What Hello Games has done is impressive and suits the art style of the game.

However, it wouldn't surprise me if Frontier wanted a more realistic look compared to NMS, especially with all the scientific effort they put into generating the star systems and planets. Unfortunately to achieve that it is a more complex task and will take much longer to develop and that's just for the flora, never mind the work required for the fauna.

Also, what about large sprawling cities like New York? Maybe they are there in NMS and I haven't seen them yet but they would add to the development time. Whilst you wouldn't expect to see them outside the bubble, I am sure Frontier would like to include them within the bubble and if so that is more development work compared to NMS. Just imagine all the assets that would need to be created.

So to summarise a lot of work which takes a lot of time is needed to bring landing on atmospheric planets to ED.

I do believe landing on atmospheric planets will come in ED, but we just need to be patient. If we want the best experience then we mustn't rush Frontier.

TLDR; Frontier may be wanting to have a more realistic look and scientifically correct environments, compared to NMS, which is more complex to develop and therefore takes a much longer development time to add landing on atmospheric planets.
 
Last edited:

cpbtrading

cpbtrading
Taimaru said:
Back in 2014, when I heard that Frontier were later going to add landing on atmospheric planets I thought to myself that's at least 5 years work, if not more, before that will happen.

If part of the circa. 100 person team started development on atmospheric planets in 2014 then that means next year (2019) for atmospheric planets DLC, however, if they didn't start till after 2014 then it will be later going by my 5 year estimate.

So why the difference and longer development time between ED and NMS?

First of all, I want to say I really like NMS and I love the way it looks. However, if I were to be honest, unless I haven't discovered the right planets yet, it doesn't look completely realistic. Where are the lush forests, streams, and waterfalls that we all love exploring on our own planet (either in person or in photos)? Just go into Google Images and search for "waterfalls in forests" and you'll understand what I mean.

Now, I am in no way bashing NMS. As I said I do love the game and the way it looks. What Hello Games has done is impressive and suits the art style of the game.

However, it wouldn't surprise me if Frontier wanted a more realistic look compared to NMS, especially with all the scientific effort they put into generating the star systems and planets. Unfortunately to achieve that it is a more complex task and will take much longer to develop and that's just for the flora, never mind the work required for the fauna.

Also, what about large sprawling cities like New York? Maybe they are there in NMS and I haven't seen them yet but they would add to the development time. Whilst you wouldn't expect to see them outside the bubble, I am sure Frontier would like to include them within the bubble and if so that is more development work compared to NMS. Just imagine all the assets that would need to be created.

So to summarise a lot of work which takes a lot of time is needed to bring landing on atmospheric planets to ED.

I do believe landing on atmospheric planets will come in ED, but we just need to be patient. If we want the best experience then we mustn't rush Frontier.

TLDR; Frontier may be wanting to have a more realistic look and scientifically correct environments, compared to NMS, which is more complex to develop and therefore takes a much longer development time to add landing on atmospheric planets.
Click to expand...

I wish and hope what you want comes in ED..:)

But for me, I just can't see it. I think perhaps at best, we may get ship interiors and legs to walk around those. But even that, probably won't happen. They have moved on a little and I can't see them devoting a great deal of time to ED for much longer.
Its sad, but its the way I see it. :(

That said.... I want to be wrong.. ;)
 

-VR- Max Factor

-VR- Max Factor
cpbtrading said:
I wish and hope what you want comes in ED..:)

But for me, I just can't see it. I think perhaps at best, we may get ship interiors and legs to walk around those. But even that, probably won't happen. They have moved on a little and I can't see them devoting a great deal of time to ED for much longer.
Its sad, but its the way I see it. :(

That said.... I want to be wrong.. ;)
Click to expand...

According to FDev you are wrong. They could be lying of course, but they have said the team is bigger then ever and there have been enough hints that atmospheric planets could very well be the next paid for DLC and that according to fdev there are more people playing the game then ever before.

I prefer to wait and see instead of speculating without any evidence to back it up.
 

cpbtrading

cpbtrading
Max Factor said:
According to FDev you are wrong. They could be lying of course, but they have said the team is bigger then ever and there have been enough hints that atmospheric planets could very well be the next paid for DLC and that according to fdev there are more people playing the game then ever before.

I prefer to wait and see instead of speculating without any evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

I got in early, so it should be free for me then. ;)

Oh, and there is nothing to back any of us up.. We're all p**ing in the wind.
 

cpbtrading

cpbtrading
Taimaru said:
So to summarise a lot of work which takes a lot of time is needed to bring landing on atmospheric planets to ED.

.
Click to expand...

In Space Engineers when planets were being decided, they were looking at large (Mars size & beyond) planets. Now these worked, however with the amount of things you can do in SE, they had to think hard on performance. In SE everything is in the same space, unlike ED, whereas you jump from place to place. In SE you flew from place to place with no jump.
So obviously performance issues were a big concern.
However as I said, they did start off by looking at huge realistic size planets, Mars Size and Earth size have been done in SE. But for most players to be able to play the game without it turning into a slide show, they didn't go that route.

But here is a huge Mars size planet in SE, was back when all this testing was going on. This is a player made planet (IIRC). Anyway it worked fine and didn't take long to put in game. Fleshing it out would take time.
In ED, I think planets would suit that are not fully fleshed out ie. similar to this one in the video. Mostly empty land, with perhaps small settlements, which I put on this planet (built) that also worked fine.

KSH at the time only had a small team and took them just months to get these in game and working, although they didn't use them eventually.

Obviously this is a WIP planet so things are place marked etc. Oh and just to say, this particular planet was an empty sphere, can't mine on this.

Sorry video is not great quality.

[video=youtube;x5nqStgb-1I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5nqStgb-1I[/video]


Here's one I put in game, messing around with config etc. Can't do that now KSH changed it, I think to stop this type of thing.
Towards the end of the video is a comparison showing the size they eventually went with 120km dia...

Plus you can mine this planet, right the way to the core if you wanted..

[video=youtube;qw0CRvPPkTc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw0CRvPPkTc&t=212s[/video]
 
Last edited:

Fishy

Fishy
Personally, I'd probably enjoy atmospheric surfaces (make it all planetary surfaces actually) even with nothing specific to do apart from taking the sights. Even if those sights are on the "samey" NMS style. A placeholder is better than nothing imho. Never have I ever thought "man, ED would be so much better if there was no mining, no exploring and no planetary surfaces instead of the current not-fully-fleshed-out placeholders". Considering the amount of obstacles to fully generating realistic surfaces on atmospheric worlds including flora and civilisation, I can't sympathise much with the idea that it should only ever be developed/released if it's perfect. Anything on the level of NMS surfaces or X-Plane/FSX autogen would be a thrill already. And even with nothing to do, well, it's not like current surfaces are full of gameplay anyhow, yet I'm certainly happy to have them around.
 

cpbtrading

cpbtrading
Fishy said:
Anything on the level of NMS surfaces or X-Plane/FSX autogen would be a thrill already. And even with nothing to do, well, it's not like current surfaces are full of gameplay anyhow, yet I'm certainly happy to have them around.
Click to expand...

I agree, in the top video, that is exactly what that is, an empty sphere with very little surface content. Its the flying to the planet and within the atmosphere that is the enjoyable part. Lets be honest we only see where we land anyway. So small settlements could be put here and there.

The only thing I don't get from ED though, compared to most other space games I play, with space legs. Is scale.

I emailed a long time back regards scale of the planets they first had in ED (those you couldn't land on or go near). It was said they were full size, but they didn't look right to me. So I emailed in a query regards the scale, the return said planets were not to scale at that time. Now I'm going back a few years now and these planets are different in game now. But I still struggle with scale in ED.

(I would add I was lambasted on the forum here when I expressed my opinion on scale. All the usual fanbois came out and said, no way! these are full size planets!. I got my answer going straight to FDEV, my concerns were correct. At that time..) ;)
 
Last edited:

Fishy

Fishy
Yeah, being on the ground helps a lot with the scale. I feel the SRV does a decent job so far though. Those icy planets (my big favourites) look ok when flying but it's when you land and deploy the SRV that suddenly the scale hits with the size of the ship, the rocks on the ground, and how suddenly immense those ground patterns you flew over are. For the breathable surfaces, more identifiable objects such as trees or man-made structures would probably help a lot too.

I don't think there'd be a massive change between walking and using the SRV since it's pretty much pilot-sized already. But it'd make a big difference to the appreciation of scale aboard stations (or ship interiors) where a vehicle isn't an option.
 

cpbtrading

cpbtrading
Fishy said:
I don't think there'd be a massive change between walking and using the SRV since it's pretty much pilot-sized already. But it'd make a big difference to the appreciation of scale aboard stations (or ship interiors) where a vehicle isn't an option.
Click to expand...

I think you'd be surprised about scale. Legs would make the game look soo much more 'life size'. For me anyway.

[video=youtube;jA_qK23__jk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA_qK23__jk[/video]
 

VR StarLightPL

VR StarLightPL
Fishy said:
Personally, I'd probably enjoy atmospheric surfaces (make it all planetary surfaces actually) even with nothing specific to do apart from taking the sights.
(...)
And even with nothing to do, well, it's not like current surfaces are full of gameplay anyhow, yet I'm certainly happy to have them around.
Click to expand...

Yup. For the sake of completenesses of the game it would be cool to be able to enter all atmospheres/land on all planets. See a planet? You *can* get there. Maybe not land but do a flyover. All those nice volcanic worlds... For sure it would bring me back if only to fly around these in VR. I am of the meaning that Horizons 2.0 update is an essential one to have, as it puts the scale of things in even better perspective, if you look at that gas giant from the surface of an airless world. Like said I will happily pay for both of these "paid dlcs" (space legs and all landable planets), just to have a "complete" experience.
 

cpbtrading

cpbtrading
StarLightPL said:
Yup. For the sake of completenesses of the game it would be cool to be able to enter all atmospheres/land on all planets. See a planet? You *can* get there. Maybe not land but do a flyover. All those nice volcanic worlds... For sure it would bring me back if only to fly around these in VR. I am of the meaning that Horizons 2.0 update is an essential one to have, as it puts the scale of things in even better perspective, if you look at that gas giant from the surface of an airless world. Like said I will happily pay for both of these "paid dlcs" (space legs and all landable planets), just to have a "complete" experience.
Click to expand...

Now in VR. When you stand behind your character, does he/she look life size ie. your size ?
 

shreddog

shreddog
cpbtrading said:
Now in VR. When you stand behind your character, does he/she look life size ie. your size ?
Click to expand...

Yes same height. Actually Elite's commanders look rather tall to me, as I am 2 meters tall it's not often I see people my height, especially females. hehe
 

cpbtrading

cpbtrading
shreddog said:
Yes same height. Actually Elite's commanders look rather tall to me, as I am 2 meters tall it's not often I see people my height, especially females. hehe
Click to expand...

Now that, walking out of the ship and around a station or settlement on a planet. Would give me reason to buy one perhaps..:D

Edit: but the vehicles going around and around in the space stations. They look like toys really. :O
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom