is the argument being made here that games were primitive or so simplistic 30 years ago that elite is comparatively awesome and so anyone who negatively reviews it or complains is just doing so from an inferior point of view or a point of view that is entirely unfair and so not really relevant?
so we're dismissing anything that's not a strict game error as a broken record. Also, it's weird that we're just glossing over statements (made by players who are dismissing those negative feedbacks) where they said 99% of the forum is making such negative feedback statements. If 99% is saying one thing ...and you're part of the 1 % who isn't, how is that not a red flag that perhaps your point of view is what is in error? The forum is not comprised of only players who view the game negatively. At least not a singular thing that they all feel is negative. That's a new phenomena that started with Odyssey's launch. Which I'd take as a sign that opinions on odyssey is not the same old subjective "i dont like that" reasoning behind why so many different posters agree on this one thing negatively.
Forgetting opinions about odyssey though... and just considering the comparison from older elite games to E
, which i assume is the point of considering older reviewers opinions... It's obvious you can do so much more with tech today than what was available to do in those older games. But elite dangerous fails to take advantage of that in the same spirit as what was in those older games.
Thousands of redundant stations make it irrelevant to really care about what's available at any one for trading. So trading loses what made it more than just shifting a spreadsheet and trucking between points a and b. There's no personal accomplishment involved in E in this role. (this same situation exists for mining)
Exploration could expose much needed navigation routes or assets or progress the game forward, etc in the older games. But in elite dangerous, there are 400 billion systems and nothing is really unique in them except hand placed narrative items, of which there are exceedingly few and can't be replayed and dont progress the game forward until fdev sends off their next update usually. Exploration serves no in-game purpose that gives a good explorer any advantages and the game's npcs dont respond to that activity either.
Those three things, trade, mining and exploration are roles that have less meaning and impact in Elite dangerous than the older games despite them having so much more potential in elite dangerous. And that goes a long way towards the complaints players have against elite dangerous even without the background in the older games to compare to. Because the potential is something all players are aware of, and the lack of successfully exploiting that potential is something easily observed. There's a very real problem when 30 years of advancement still ends up giving you effectively the same gameplay that existed in the older games but so diluted by choice and options that the gameplay reward that was so effective back then has been cheapened by inflation to the point that it feels like a pointless grind now.
Just seems like either the nostalgia is coloring those past gameplay experiences super rosey or the shiny graphics and communal gameplay has overshadowed the missing sense of accomplishment in most roles that E suffers from.
edit: Basically the older elite games topped charts relating to their influence ...not gamer reviews of them. They were outsold by those games that they influenced. So what elite's original games are best at doing is driving developers to make better versions of elite that players actually enjoy playing. What's frustrating is that this didn't seem to have much effect in influencing elite dangerous to be a better elite game ...opting instead to recreate much of the gameplay in the roles with little to no innovation of them.
so we're dismissing anything that's not a strict game error as a broken record. Also, it's weird that we're just glossing over statements (made by players who are dismissing those negative feedbacks) where they said 99% of the forum is making such negative feedback statements. If 99% is saying one thing ...and you're part of the 1 % who isn't, how is that not a red flag that perhaps your point of view is what is in error? The forum is not comprised of only players who view the game negatively. At least not a singular thing that they all feel is negative. That's a new phenomena that started with Odyssey's launch. Which I'd take as a sign that opinions on odyssey is not the same old subjective "i dont like that" reasoning behind why so many different posters agree on this one thing negatively.
Forgetting opinions about odyssey though... and just considering the comparison from older elite games to E
, which i assume is the point of considering older reviewers opinions... It's obvious you can do so much more with tech today than what was available to do in those older games. But elite dangerous fails to take advantage of that in the same spirit as what was in those older games.Thousands of redundant stations make it irrelevant to really care about what's available at any one for trading. So trading loses what made it more than just shifting a spreadsheet and trucking between points a and b. There's no personal accomplishment involved in E
in this role. (this same situation exists for mining)Exploration could expose much needed navigation routes or assets or progress the game forward, etc in the older games. But in elite dangerous, there are 400 billion systems and nothing is really unique in them except hand placed narrative items, of which there are exceedingly few and can't be replayed and dont progress the game forward until fdev sends off their next update usually. Exploration serves no in-game purpose that gives a good explorer any advantages and the game's npcs dont respond to that activity either.
Those three things, trade, mining and exploration are roles that have less meaning and impact in Elite dangerous than the older games despite them having so much more potential in elite dangerous. And that goes a long way towards the complaints players have against elite dangerous even without the background in the older games to compare to. Because the potential is something all players are aware of, and the lack of successfully exploiting that potential is something easily observed. There's a very real problem when 30 years of advancement still ends up giving you effectively the same gameplay that existed in the older games but so diluted by choice and options that the gameplay reward that was so effective back then has been cheapened by inflation to the point that it feels like a pointless grind now.
Just seems like either the nostalgia is coloring those past gameplay experiences super rosey or the shiny graphics and communal gameplay has overshadowed the missing sense of accomplishment in most roles that E
suffers from.edit: Basically the older elite games topped charts relating to their influence ...not gamer reviews of them. They were outsold by those games that they influenced. So what elite's original games are best at doing is driving developers to make better versions of elite that players actually enjoy playing. What's frustrating is that this didn't seem to have much effect in influencing elite dangerous to be a better elite game ...opting instead to recreate much of the gameplay in the roles with little to no innovation of them.
Last edited:
Forum bingo jackpot! 
