Despite what my point may have led you to believe, I agree with what you are saying to a point. I agree that there is something fundamental lacking that will at some point drive this game into the dust for most players unless it's fixed.
However, I'm a middle aged man who grew up poor. I literally made space ships out of bic pen lids and HAD to use my imagination to play games. I didn't feel deprived at the time, and I still don't now.
To me, this game allows a retreat from my daily grind, it distracts me in a way that really doesn't have any consequences.
So to say that my aimless wandering around shooting ships or trading bits and pieces or scanning systems, with no goals or real considerations of the wider galactic politics (such as they are) is not the correct way to play, seems somewhat judgmental to me.
Whether or not it's more judgmental that me offering my perspective on how to play the game is debatable, but I wasn't asking for the judgement, whereas the OP was.
With all that said, if there was a better background system, I might play some of that.... so what do I know?
I think this is hitting the core of the community disparity we're experiencing. Right now, ED sells its self as an online, persistent MMO; but it's built very much as a casual game. If your aim with ED is escapism, a few hours here and there of casual space flight and imaginative fun, then of course, ED shines amazingly.
The problem begins where ED begins to try and present its self as something more than a casual game, which it is attempting to do. So far that attempt hasn't worked out. It is arguably in the middle of a bit of an identity crisis. It supports the framework, and presents its self for, lots of long term investment motivators. But through various aesthetic/philosophical choices, it chooses to restrict its self to a depth sufficient only for a casual "every now and again" type of game where you can dip in and out at your whim and not worry too much about "the bigger picture". The problem is that there isn't really any satisfying
bigger picture for the part of the community that
want a more solid, ongoing, substanced experience that they can dedicate their minds to in a more than casual way. The complaints and requests for new implementations regarding ED really do fundamentally only ever stem from this one thing. This is where it all comes from.
You really can't have both worlds, because what you end up with is what we currently have. If you are going to have a persistent multiplayer world, you need to also provide persistent, arcing, progressive content; and you need to implement it well. It seems the current perspective at FDEV is to add to this persistent framework, a series of very casually themed mini game mechanics (USSs, Bulletin board missions, Exploration mechanics, Mining, Interdictions, Warzone instances e.t.c.). Taking on to the end of that these ad-hoc narratives that feel as disparate as they are shoe-horned. It simply is not engaging enough to bridge the gap between these islands of casual mini games, bringing them together in a way that satisfies a player with ideas for long term investment in something substanced. An expectation born from other games of the same format, and the quality of content that they present the player in terms of this aspect of game theory.
As the game stands, it is substantially no more than a collection of minigames grouped under a common brand within a persistent framework. But the different mechanics are so disparate, little islands of their own, or outright lacking, that no true persistence and progression can take place in terms of the communities that will inevitably develop inside the persistent online world. All we are currently able to do now is to "team up" our persistent avatars to perform these isolated, cyclic mini games ad-infinitum. This is frustrating, especially when the
community is already there, desperate to have enough substance implemented to allow development of meaningful long term motivators. Frustrating that we can
see the potential that ED can provide in terms of longevity and substanced content, tantalizingly close to our fingertips yet never attainable, often through mind boggling and mysterious self imposed limitations on part of the game design. To put it another way, Elite Dangerous makes very clear claims about the kind of game it
isn't, yet I am still to come across a clear description of what the game
is, without the inevitably self defeatingly circular and side stepping descriptions as "use your imagination" or "you're just a pilot". what is the
purpose of ED? what is the prescribed
reason for playing? What is the USP on its design brief? ... I can't find a meaningful answer to that which satisfies the requirements of the type of game it brands its self as. Hence: Identity crisis. It is trying to be too many things and
not be too many things, without having a clear sense of anything that it's supposed to be. It is suffering immensely because of this.
It seems to indeed simply default then, to a theme park, as much as people seem to disagree with this. You travel around this persistent arena on your own or with friends and take part in a series of "fun" gameplay themes. The problem though is that it presents its self as a persistent online multiplayer, which unavoidably comes with it's own expectations, a prescribed identity, and attracts certain types of gaming communities that naturally hold these. Expectations that by nature include gameplay more
serious than the shallow casual options we are currently limited to. Things that are in themselves fine for that part of the community that is only looking for a casual, all be it immersive, experience; but this simply is not enough for what is quickly becoming the majority player base. And this is why, aside from dilly dally debates and differing opinions, this disparity exists within the community as it stands and ramparts are slowly being drawn. This is also not healthy for the game.
Games have become much more 'serious' since 1984, back when such mechanics may have indeed seemed 'serious' in their own way, compared to the cannon of choice back then. But things are quite factually and inescapably very different in todays world. As much as Elite is sticking to it's roots, it really needs to contemporise its self in some very important places, massively ramp up its quality in said areas, get realistic about the kind of community within its game world and the type of demographic it is willfully marketing its self at as a product. Especially when it presents its self as a persistent multiplayer experience.
