Why can we only Land on Barren Planets after almost 5 years?

[Han Zulu]

Imho it's realy a pointless discussion since the two games are so different and it comes down to personal preference.
ED is much more realistic, NMS is more fantasy and it shows.
What does matter to me is how much gameplay a game delivers, what the devs bring into the game for me to interact with and not just to look at.
In that respect NMS gives me a lot more versatility then ED does, there's much more to do.
ED looks way better, but is pretty shy of things to do, empty planets may look nice but they're still empty.
In NMS planets might be not so different from eachother when it comes to finding resources but I can land on all of them, visit caves, go out diving.etc.
In ED the planets you can land on aren't so different from eachother either, it's either rock or ice and the resources you can find aren't so versatile either and the only way to get them is to shoot at rocks.

The things that realy shine for me in ED compared to NMS is the graphics, the science involved regarding the galaxy as our playground, the sound and space flight/combat.
Further interaction in ED is way to minimal imho, that's where NMS shines for me.

In the end I like both games and am glad I have them both.

Agree.

And in a way the empty planets and the beautiful star filled sky in Elite is kind'a indicative of the game as a whole. It's empty of things to do, sure there's some things but not a lot, and many features are half-baked, but it's all very pretty and realistic, just like the desolate, atmosphere empty planets.

While NMS is colorful and filled with things to look at, almost to the point of being too busy. And now with the new version, there's so much you can do, to the point it's hard to even remember all different categories of activities, it's like a rainbow of Skittles both in how it looks and feels and how much stuff there's in there to see and do.

 

[sollisb]

And ED has more to offer then mostly lifeless planets too. What you find dull others may not. That is purely subjective. Personally I find NMS utterly boring, the exploration is devoid of any wonder as it all can be found on the next planet.

I find ED loads of fun, even driving around mostly lifeless planets and shooting the odd rock/geological feature from time to time.

Comparing the two is very difficult because they have so very little in common. Deciding who has developed he most is also difficult to work out.

To me, while NMS updates look big, I find when you get down to it, they are not as big as they look.

People keep saying it's been developed by a small group, to me it seriously shows. I don't get that feeling when playing ED.

Well having been playing computer games since '79, I feel the current Elite is a travesty of poor development for what can be done with the computational power and abilities of the day. Personally, as a developer of nearly 40 years, Elite shows how out of their depth Frontier actually are. Leaving aside bugs, poor testing and almost 0 quality control, their disjointed development process has led them to a 'thing' which is not a game and not a sim, and falls apart as soon you put any inspection to it.

NMS does not try to be a sim, it ties to be an easy game you can engross yourself in. If you like the graphics, then you'll have fun and go to bed, happy you wasted your hours in NMS.

Elite tries to be a game and a sim, it fails at both. It has exemplary graphics and thrusts (excuse the pun) you forth to 'blaze your own trail'. However, at every corner, the developers want you to do it their way. They make it as difficult and time wasting as possible to achieve anything. If you like that sort of things, you'll love it and hate NMS because it doesn't force you do anything that going to take weeks to achieve.

Elite is developed by a team of 100+ we're told. It certainly does not show..

 

[sollisb]

Now that is the biggest load of garbage I've read here in awhile, sorry, but it is.

That's the difference between you and me.. I explained why you are wrong, you simply resort to flippancy when you have nothing left to back up your fantasy.

 

[Han Zulu]

I used to dream for a new Elite.

Now I dream for a game that has all the variety, gameplay, technical brilliance & fun of NMS, but with a realistic galaxy like Elite.

Yup.

Our dreams increase in size while we realize them. Basically, the higher up you climb the mountain, the more you see and the farther you want to go.

When ED came out, it fulfilled a lifelong dream, then it started to get a little stale, and a new version came out, and it was fun again. Then NMS came out and fulfilled some of the new dreams that had been awoken, then that game got a bit stale, and a new version came out...

Now, we're here and our dream is to have the best of both worlds. We never stop imagining something bigger and better.

 

[babelfisch]

That's a fair summation I believe.

All the extra fluff Elite added created no benefit tho did it? It's still a game wanting to be a sim and failing.

It's trying to be a space-sim and it's pretty good at it.

 

[Han Zulu]

NMS isn't sci-fi based at all, it's 100% fantasy based. Which doesn't need to be a bad thing.

Their goals was to make a look-n-feel akin to the golden ear of sci-fi illustrations, i.e. around 60's. The style of poster-paint book covers and such. So the inspiration to the game was originally sci-fi.

 

[babelfisch]

That's the difference between you and me.. I explained why you are wrong, you simply resort to flippancy when you have nothing left to back up your fantasy.

No, you didn't explain anything. You just posted a bunch of nonsense and I am not going to argue about it. Your post is wrong on so many levels, it seems like you haven't played Elite at all.

 

[sollisb]

It's trying to be a space-sim and it's pretty good at it.

I'm happy you believe that.

o7

 

[babelfisch]

Their goals was to make a look-n-feel akin to the golden ear of sci-fi illustrations, i.e. around 60's. The style of poster-paint book covers and such. So the inspiration to the game was originally sci-fi.

That's true for the graphics but not the game.

 

[sollisb]

No, you didn't explain anything. You just posted a bunch of nonsense and I am not going to argue about it. Your post is wrong on so many levels, it seems like you haven't played Elite at all.

Ignorance is bliss. I'm blocking you now. I find your posts, trolling and devoid of intellectual merit.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Well having been playing computer games since '79, I feel the current Elite is a travesty of poor development for what can be done with the computational power and abilities of the day. Personally, as a developer of nearly 40 years, Elite shows how out of their depth Frontier actually are. Leaving aside bugs, poor testing and almost 0 quality control, their disjointed development process has led them to a 'thing' which is not a game and not a sim, and falls apart as soon you put any inspection to it.

Been playing games for a similar amount of times. Some things are not great, others are really good, like most games. Overall I think that have done a great job. But that's just my opinion of the game. Yours is different.

NMS does not try to be a sim, it ties to be an easy game you can engross yourself in. If you like the graphics, then you'll have fun and go to bed, happy you wasted your hours in NMS.

Never said it was a sim. I call it a crappy computer game.

Elite tries to be a game and a sim, it fails at both. It has exemplary graphics and thrusts (excuse the pun) you forth to 'blaze your own trail'. However, at every corner, the developers want you to do it their way. They make it as difficult and time wasting as possible to achieve anything. If you like that sort of things, you'll love it and hate NMS because it doesn't force you do anything that going to take weeks to achieve.

In your opinion. My opinion differs.

Elite is developed by a team of 100+ we're told. It certainly does not show..

I disagree. I don't get that feeling.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Ignorance is bliss. I'm blocking you now. I find your posts, trolling and devoid of intellectual merit.

He likely feels likewise.

 

[Dutchman141]

It's trying to be a space-sim and it's pretty good at it.

I don't care what ED is trying to be or any other game for that matter.
What matters to me is what a game actually is and how much fun I have playing it.
The lack of things to do and how to do it is quite shallow in ED.
Many features are half developed and/or filled up with a standard grind, that gets bland after so many hours.
Also the results and accomplishments are very thin spread, more credits or more ships/weapons, that's it.
For such a great universe to play in the results are meager at best.

And I agree, with hundred or more people working on ED it definitely doesn't show in comparison to what HG accomplishes with only a handfull of people.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Btw, not specifically directed to you but I have seen this strange arbitrary barrier at 10 years already in a few post, where does it say it has to be limited 10 years? I mean assuming Elite was still a reasonably profitable product by then etc then why would the developer stop supporting it exactly at 10 years?

What was said was they had long term plans, and would continue the game for ten years if they could. People turned that into a ten year plan. As long as there is a reasonably reliable profit in it ED will be supported.

 

[babelfisch]

Gravity. Its a kind of gravity which doesn't work correctly. It is estimated by some math. It adds absolutely nothing to a 'sim' or indeed the game. A simple truth is, if the 'gravity' actually worked, I'd need to use delta-v and a whole lot of other calculations to get me off the planet. In Elite I point upwards and press go.

Gravity works just like it should and is simulated correctly. When we leave the surface we get some artificial help to make it more accessible. That doesn't stop gravity from being simulated correctly.

The colour is based on the start type. Well yippee do. If star == neutron set colour = blue. Yay it's a sim !

That's not how it works. The material composition is based on the elements that would be common in the system.

They have a correct day and night cycle. Eh, no they don't. How come one side is always darK and when you get closer it brighten up? Is by ship a sun ?

That was the implementation before night vision. Brighten up was there because we had no night vision, not because the day and night cycle didn't work. That's a strange claim anyway considering all planets are on the correct orbit and rotating.

They have size of real planets. Says who? What you mean is they look big.

No, that's not what I mean. They have the correct size. You can actually go and measure it.

The Terrain is based on tectonic plates. Nope. How could they possible know the makeup of all these planets and their internal structures, plate density, plate mass etc? If you believe that you are just gullible.

As almost everything in the game it's based on simulation.

Craters are placed at positions... blah blah. Were you drinking heavily or something when you posted this? Any place on a planet has an equal chance of being hit by an asteroid, unless, you want to get into quantum math and we'll start mapping every asteroid, it's lunar cycles, velocity, delta-v, density and it's chance of hitting every single planet in the known universe.

They actually do take into account which side of the planet would be exposed to asteroids the most and that's where craters get generated the most.

Elite Universe, while based on simple science is nothing more than guess work programmed into a generator. For sure NMS doesn't do any of that. But tell me this; When you sit down with your mates, do you tell them all about the gravitational science in Elite or do you just say you were 'playing' Elite.

I actually do talk a lot about the technology in Elite.

How is it, if I leave my ship at 0 speed above a planet it does not get sucked down to the surface? I mean, with all your Gravity, surely... That would happen? How can I fly to the surface, but only land by using my down thrusters? Why doesn't my ship just fall to the surface?

It does. Try to disable flight assist.

How is it, with all these scientifically places craters, we cannot gather materials close to them other than the randomly generated materials placed at random distance apart?

It's actually possible that you'll find more materials close to craters, I never checked.

 

[babelfisch]

Ignorance is bliss. I'm blocking you now. I find your posts, trolling and devoid of intellectual merit.

So I just wasted my time posting a detailed response? Well thanks a lot!

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Gravity works just like it should and is simulated correctly. When we leave the surface we get some artificial help to make it more accessible. That doesn't stop gravity from being simulated correctly.


That's not how it works. The material composition is based on the elements that would be common in the system.


That was the implementation before night vision. Brighten up was there because we had no night vision, not because the day and night cycle didn't work. That's a strange claim anyway considering all planets are on the correct orbit and rotating.


No, that's not what I mean. They have the correct size. You can actually go and measure it.


As almost everything in the game it's based on simulation.


They actually do take into account which side of the planet would be exposed to asteroids the most and that's where craters get generated the most.


I actually do talk a lot about the technology in Elite.



It does. Try to disable flight assist.


It's actually possible that you'll find more materials close to craters, I never checked.

I have to wonder if some of these people have actually played the game.

 

[sewerratuk]

It's trying to be a space-sim and it's pretty good at it.

So from a previous post you tell us that ‘space-sim’ was basically invented by DB

So what your saying now is that DB’s game is pretty good at trying to be a game genre invented by DB. Hell I would expect it to be an excellent example

 

[Old Duck]

So I just wasted my time posting a detailed response? Well thanks a lot!

Don't worry, I'll never block you!

 

[sollisb]

Been playing games for a similar amount of times. Some things are not great, others are really good, like most games. Overall I think that have done a great job. But that's just my opinion of the game. Yours is different.


Never said it was a sim. I call it a crappy computer game.


In your opinion. My opinion differs.


I disagree. I don't get that feeling.

Thanks for the coherent reply.