Page 34 of 43 FirstFirst ... 24303132333435363738 ... LastLast
Results 496 to 510 of 639

Thread: The epic fail of Beyond

  1. #496
    Originally Posted by Kubicide View Post (Source)
    And the devs need to hear honest feedback and not just the butt kissing part.
    As happens in the Focused Feedback section of the forums, you mean?

  2. #497
    Originally Posted by babelfisch View Post (Source)
    Finally something I can agree with. I would prefer a dedicated thread with some solid suggestions rather than a post on page 36 of a random thread though...
    The need for such a thread per se shows the state of this game. It shouldnīt be pointed out to anyone, who calls himself "game developer", that the current RESs and CZs game mechanics are place holders or 1980s style game mechanics. It is like needing to point out to your car mechanic, that one of your tires are flat -it should be obvious to him.

    Btw. I wonder how it is reviewed at FDev taking a technically modernized version of an 80s game as a basis for expansion in an online environment. It seems like taking a car from the 1940s, create it with recent technology and then running it at a 24h race against most recent racing cars, while trying improve and develop basic things at the same time. What I want to say is, it is at least a very uncomfortable starting point. This is backed by the delays we have seen, the quality and execution of each major update and the statements of Sandro Sammarco.

  3. #498
    Originally Posted by B1rdy View Post (Source)
    Btw. I wonder how it is reviewed at FDev taking a technically modernized version of an 80s game as a basis for expansion in an online environment.
    This is curiously worded. ED certainly uses the game style of the original Elite as its foundation. But in what way is that game style or genre restricted to the 1980s?

    I mean, I could understand this comment if ED was still using wireframe graphics or something, but otherwise how is it conceptually incompatible with modern gaming? I mean, you might equally argue that Call of Duty is basically just Operation Wolf, but millions of people still enjoy playing it today; and as far as I can tell every game Nintendo releases is just a tweaked Super Mario, but people still lap them up.

    How does a game concept become restricted to a particular time period?

  4. #499
    Originally Posted by Stinja View Post (Source)
    I'll just add, that a bunch of people do buy games (especially in the Steam sales) and never play them, or fire it up like once.
    I've got mates who bought Elite and never played it, or myself I bought Total War: Warhammer, and only played like one tutorial (must get back to that...)

    Want some interesting stats from the PS4 side? While it may not relate to PCmasterRacers, looking at trophies earned:
    - 49.2% bought a new ship
    - 46.0% landed on a planet
    - 36.1% cashed in a bounty
    - 36.0% sold data on a celestial body
    - 18.2% signed up to a PP faction (and personally I signed up, got the trophy, and quit immediately )
    - 14.9% sold 250T of cargo
    - 11.3% participated in a CG
    - 5.3% cashed in 100K of combat bonds
    - 4.7% formed a wing of 4

    These are pretty basic actions in-game.

    So it says to me half the players never even leave the sidewinder, and as for what they do... not CZs or trading, and roughly 1/3rd ever killed a NPC pirate or went exploring. As a guess most are not doing more than fire it up a couple of times, and move onto the next game.
    Anyway interesting
    So from this we can conclude that about half bought a new ship and most of them managed to land on a planet. However, only 36% have cashed in a bounty or sold data on a celestial body, so presumably 13% are still stuck on that planet !

    I wonder which one? Could be some customers there for Fuel Rats.

    But seriously, +1 OP for pulling out that data, interesting indeed

  5. #500
    Originally Posted by Ceitidh View Post (Source)
    This is curiously worded. ED certainly uses the game style of the original Elite as its foundation. But in what way is that game style or genre restricted to the 1980s?

    I mean, I could understand this comment if ED was still using wireframe graphics or something, but otherwise how is it conceptually incompatible with modern gaming? I mean, you might equally argue that Call of Duty is basically just Operation Wolf, but millions of people still enjoy playing it today; and as far as I can tell every game Nintendo releases is just a tweaked Super Mario, but people still lap them up.

    How does a game concept become restricted to a particular time period?
    ED is conceptually incompatible with modern games in so many layers that it will be wall of text to enumerate them.
    If I have to describe it in one sentence it will be: ED is a multiplayer game, initially designed as a singleplayer one, created by very professional engineers under authority of totally incompetent in terms of multiplayer designers.

  6. #501
    Originally Posted by Kubicide View Post (Source)
    Well, to be fair, the math does say that at any given time on average only 7% of the owners are playing. That's all it says. Now, is it the same 7% or an ever changing 7% rotating through? We don't know. BUT given the niche-y-ness of this game I'd bet the 7% is likely made up of at least 60-70% of the same players if not more.

    So perhaps it's simply better to say that it doesn't appear to be a good number of owners play Elite when one looks at other titles when looking at the ratios on SteamSpy: http://steamspy.com/

    Note a title like "They Are Billions" where about 400k own the game and 300k play the game. Impressive. And Elite certainly isn't anywhere near the top of any of the most played, most popular charts because it really isn't that popular. It's nichey, very nichey.

    If the goal of Beyond is to improve this then they have a high bar to jump over.
    Well said.

    People on this forum love to disregard steam and the steam spy stats but the truth will always be that Steam is the single largest game distribution platform on PC, to think that Frontier developments, a relatively small company can sell more copies of this game from its own site than from steam is ludicrous.

    It's clear that the majority of sales for this game went through Steam, so to try and disregard the numbers makes no sense unless your in denial.

  7. #502
    Originally Posted by Marcus Tullius View Post (Source)
    ED is conceptually incompatible with modern games in so many layers that it will be wall of text to enumerate them.
    If I have to describe it in one sentence it will be: ED is a multiplayer game, initially designed as a singleplayer one, created by very professional engineers under authority of totally incompetent in terms of multiplayer designers.
    Whether or not any of that is true, none of it supports the comment you made about Elite Dangerous being incompatible with the 1980s game it's based on. A sudden change in focus from single-player to multiplayer would damage any game's development - but that's not what we have here. ED was, for better or worse (I'd say worse), designed from the ground up to be primarily a multiplayer game, with the single-player mode mooted as a concession (to people like me) and later dropped. And nothing about the original Elite's concept or realisation would preclude ED's multiplayer focus. The only effects it has are in lore (no more Stardreamer to make time pass subjectively more quickly), and in exposing the player to others who may not share their approach to the game.

    But even those effects don't make the modern, multiplayer concept of the game incompatible with the earlier game it's based on.

    As for the professionalism of the developers and designers, that's beyond my ability to judge. I know the game has much I like and quite a bit I don't. But again, I see nothing that suggests any of ED's problems are to do with it being based on an older game.

  8. #503
    Originally Posted by Marcus Tullius View Post (Source)
    ED is conceptually incompatible with modern games in so many layers that it will be wall of text to enumerate them.
    If I have to describe it in one sentence it will be: ED is a multiplayer game, initially designed as a singleplayer one, created by very professional engineers under authority of totally incompetent in terms of multiplayer designers.
    You don't like it. That's long and short of it.

    Multiplayer is just a mechanic. It doesn't imply there are features you expect to appear. No need to declare it is somehow weird not to follow your lead and design game you like. People like different things and it is ok to accept that and move on.

  9. #504
    Originally Posted by babelfisch View Post (Source)
    Nobody ever said that the game is perfect. People are just saying that it isn't utterly broken and an epic fail and that it probably won't be dead soon either. Did it come to your mind that this thread has so many pages because so many people disagree with OP? And they are not just fanboys but also people who just don't want to paint fences.
    no ppl have sayd the game was perfect even before the beyond announcement. no game is perfect, theres allways room for improvement, and although i dont agree with the op saying it will be a big fail he does have a point.

    ppl in this thread sayng its a troll thread, that because others think the game is dull but they dont then the problem is the other ppls fault. dudes wake up, they are bringing us beyond because the game is in fact dull. it lacks basic game mechanics. ppl who think its fun to be on a 2 hour journey in supercruise are ruining the game, devs take feedback and think all is fine due to some mindless dudes who think playing with a joystick is enough.

  10. #505
    Originally Posted by NecoMachina View Post (Source)
    Oh, absolutely agree that "back to basics" and fixing the core game is the right move. The question I have is are they gonna do it right, or half-baked yet again.
    Given the vast range of ways people want the game to be fixed, I'm pretty sure the answer will be 'both' (and also 'epic fail'), depending on what people are hoping will be implemented.

  11. #506
    Originally Posted by DrewCarnegie View Post (Source)
    Given the vast range of ways people want the game to be fixed, I'm pretty sure the answer will be 'both' (and also 'epic fail'), depending on what people are hoping will be implemented.
    Completely agree here. And with all the hype and speculation of upcoming changes, I know quite a few people are about to be in for a rude awakening and already anticipate seeing their flamethreads trying to burn down the forums.

    Torches and pitchforks!

  12. #507
    Originally Posted by Soon(TM) View Post (Source)
    Well said.

    People on this forum love to disregard steam and the steam spy stats but the truth will always be that Steam is the single largest game distribution platform on PC, to think that Frontier developments, a relatively small company can sell more copies of this game from its own site than from steam is ludicrous.

    It's clear that the majority of sales for this game went through Steam, so to try and disregard the numbers makes no sense unless your in denial.
    I am a single player with two accounts and neither are through Steam now seeing I am a single player how many other players are there like me?

  13. #508
    Originally Posted by Kubicide View Post (Source)
    Well, to be fair, the math does say that at any given time on average only 7% of the owners are playing. That's all it says. Now, is it the same 7% or an ever changing 7% rotating through? We don't know. BUT given the niche-y-ness of this game I'd bet the 7% is likely made up of at least 60-70% of the same players if not more.
    OK, my turn. No, no, no.

    Steamspy statistics DO NOT represent the entire pool of ED owners/players. Not even close.



    PS bring back GameSpy! Sream sucks!

  14. #509
    Originally Posted by Osbo89 View Post (Source)
    I am a single player with two accounts and neither are through Steam now seeing I am a single player how many other players are there like me?
    Better yet... how many players bought the game before it was even released on Steam, and aren't vocal in the forums because they're happily playing the game and don't participate in "forum-fu"? This is where the answer always fall short. Steam in no way accounts for a majority of players- therefore the stats don't either.

    FD knows for sure. And FD isn't worried, as you can tell. If they were in "trouble" financially, they sure as hell wouldn't plan a year's worth of updates to the game for "free".

    But of course, dooooooooommmmm! all you like.

  15. #510
    Originally Posted by Ceitidh View Post (Source)
    This is curiously worded.
    Probably since English is not my native language. What exactly is curious?

    Originally Posted by Ceitidh View Post (Source)
    ED certainly uses the game style of the original Elite as its foundation. But in what way is that game style or genre restricted to the 1980s?
    According to Kickstarter, FDev could only do a remaster of Elite in the given period of time.

    Originally Posted by Ceitidh View Post (Source)
    I mean, I could understand this comment if ED was still using wireframe graphics or something, but otherwise how is it conceptually incompatible with modern gaming? I mean, you might equally argue that Call of Duty is basically just Operation Wolf, but millions of people still enjoy playing it today; and as far as I can tell every game Nintendo releases is just a tweaked Super Mario, but people still lap them up.

    How does a game concept become restricted to a particular time period?
    I would not ask that question, I think it is more down to to game design and mechanics. Both have been evolved since 1984. While not everything is fine, which was developed till now, the industry surely learned at lot since then. And then ED comes along, it lacks a lot of basic things other game devs are very aware of. Threads demanding those basic things are prove of that. Like the question why important lore videos are not presented in the game or limited player communication and interaction. Regarding the MP aspect it is still mind-boggling to me, how they created a PvE game without any specific coop mechanics, beside the most basic ones like money sharing. I think people where fine with the first iteration having CZs and RESs or A to B trading during that period in time, by today`s standards it is lacking. Especially with multiple CMDRs in an instance.
    Making the player wait to archive his goals regularly, even so long he starts to question himself, in different game loops without any indication how long he should wait, is a big no-go in game development, because it is not fun. FDev is obviously working on that, but I can't understand the motivation releasing such game loops in such a basic state, like mission target in SC, SS for Engi mats, outpost POIs. In general most tasks in ED do not reward skill. Those are just a few examples. I mean look at the threads and filter the demand for nonsense (at this point in time) like "space legs" out.

    Regarding COD: Sales figures arenīt the best indicator for product quality. Especially COD is actually stalling regarding game mechanics since part 2 and 4.
    Nintendo on the other hand carefully perfects Super Mario game mechanics and also carefully designs transitions like from 2D to 3D.