Apology to FD

[PhanttoM]

Why is ED an in cockpit space (ship) sim ?

Edit: that should be 'how' is it...

It's possible to call it more than that, but having 10 word long genre definition would drag on — but it's of the main things it does in a believable/realistic/authentic/whatever manner.

• Using the left and right panels like you would use instruments in an aircraft
• No third person view
• It has a canopy that crack, oxygen levels.
etc.

It's very basic yes, but my point is that black or white, blanket statement genre names just aren't useful.
Otherwise if I had to judge, for example a flight sim — based purely on raw amount of systems they simulate + level of complexity, then I would have to dismiss every single flight sim that is not DCS A-10c level of "everything in cockpit is clickable and does the what the real life version does".

Some flight sims focus only the flight model and handling of an aircraft, without the full cockpit interaction — that doesn't mean it isn't a flight sim, and it sure as hell doesn't throw it all the way down to arcade level.

 

[cpbtrading]

It's possible to call it more than that, but having 10 word long genre definition would drag on — but it's of the main things it does in a believable/realistic/authentic/whatever manner.

• Using the left and right panels like you would use instruments in an aircraft
• No third person view
• It has a canopy that crack, oxygen levels.
etc.

It's very basic yes, but my point is that black or white, blanket statement genre names just aren't useful.
Otherwise if I had to judge, for example a flight sim — based purely on raw amount of systems they simulate + level of complexity, then I would have to dismiss every single flight sim that is not DCS A-10c level of "everything in cockpit is clickable and does the what the real life version does".

Some flight sims focus only the flight model and handling of an aircraft, without the full cockpit interaction — that doesn't mean it isn't a flight sim, and it sure as hell doesn't throw it all the way down to arcade level.

For me those games you mention, that would 'want' to be like DCS, will have similar controls, setup etc. If not, it would be like me saying flying in Arma is a flight sim (its not).
Plus I don't think anybody in the thread, so far, has mentioned FD being arcady.

 

[CMDR Cillian Raynor]

been having a good week of throwing righteous "told you so" left and right.

 

[PhanttoM]

For me those games you mention, that would 'want' to be like DCS, will have similar controls, setup etc. If not, it would be like me saying flying in Arma is a flight sim (its not).
Plus I don't think anybody in the thread, so far, has mentioned FD being arcady.

DCS and are Arma are two different genres. (dedicated flight sims vs. combined arms) — I'm talking about the need for subgenres within both flight sim, space sim and combined arms games.

I'm also not talking about games that want to be like DCS, quite the contrary — they know they are not.
For two examples I have the older Microsoft Flight Simulator X and I have DCS A-10c — but they both are flight sims, just different levels of complexity.

Again, I'd simply like to see more descriptive subgenres, so that it's easier to find a game when going through a giant catch-all list called "simulation".

 

[Zeeman]

Personally, I think the core game is fantastic - well over 1200 hours invested. No one plays something that long if it sucks. I just think more time needs to be spent refining the expansions, they are often great ideas, but not so well executed, and I think it's due to the schedule, as the devs seem to work extremely hard.

Anyway, I hope future expansions start to bring the game together into more of a single entity, rather than fragmented parts, though even if they don't, I'll still be enjoying the base game, it's what I've wanted from Elite since I first played on my Atari ST.

Z...

 

[Frank]

Maybe No Man's Sky turns out to be the best that has happened to Elite: Dangerous?

It's a shame that the reviews of NMS are none too good. I quite liked the retina-burning visual style. It reminded me of Chris Foss and Roger Dean. I might still pick up a copy of the game, but my enthusiasm has been dampened somewhat by the information that landing on planets is a push-button affair.

I do hope that Frontier Developments benefit from NMS's misfortune. I hope they look over and see what it is that the critics of the game are complaining most about so that they can avoid making the same mistakes. It is true that you can see further by standing on the shoulders of giants, but really any pair of shoulders will do.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Maybe No Man's Sky turns out to be the best that has happened to Elite: Dangerous?

Yup - should be a wake up call for Frontier. Time to step up their game and stop releasing such dross add-ons like Engineers / Powerplay and concentrate on what they used to do best.

 

[Toumal]

Yup - should be a wake up call for Frontier. Time to step up their game and stop releasing such dross add-ons like Engineers / Powerplay and concentrate on what they used to do best.

Or better yet: FD steps up their game, and NMS follows suit with substantial updates of their own. And we all win in the end.

 

[PhanttoM]

Yup - should be a wake up call for Frontier. Time to step up their game and stop releasing such dross add-ons like Engineers / Powerplay and concentrate on what they used to do best.

Yeah, like the CQC update!

On a more serious note - when looking back at the updates, I think the outcry is a bit exaggerated as we've only gotten two "unwanted/bad updates" right next to each other. (1.3 + 1.4)

1.1 Community goals
1.2 Wings
1.3 Powerplay
1.4 CQC
1.5 Ships
2.0 Horizons
2.1 Engineers

 

[cpbtrading]

DCS and are Arma are two different genres. (dedicated flight sims vs. combined arms) — I'm talking about the need for subgenres within both flight sim, space sim and combined arms games.

I'm also not talking about games that want to be like DCS, quite the contrary — they know they are not.
For two examples I have the older Microsoft Flight Simulator X and I have DCS A-10c — but they both are flight sims, just different levels of complexity.

Again, I'd simply like to see more descriptive subgenres, so that it's easier to find a game when going through a giant catch-all list called "simulation".

Yep, we all look at things differently.

 

[Infidel Deity]

I believe your words might be prophetic.
The visuals of NMS can only be endured for a limited time.
It does not feel like being in a space environment, but more like swimming in a pool of incredibly sweet, bright colored soda.
It is a bright disney cartoon world. It is fun, but it becomes oppressive and suffocating after a while.

And then when you return to ED it is like diving into a cool, refreshing lake.
NMS is no competition. I could not spend the many hours in that game I already spent in ED.

I was planning to buy it when some sort of sale came about; just to check it out.
But the more I learn about it, the less I really want to even try.

And in a way it seems like the game is all about doing the kind of stuff I started to "hate" about The Engineers, prior to 2.1.05.
Which for me is like looking into some abstract horror.

 

[SirDavros]

Good that you can admit to a harsh initial judgement and come back on board.

 

[Infidel Deity]

It's a shame that the reviews of NMS are none too good. I quite liked the retina-burning visual style. It reminded me of Chris Foss and Roger Dean. I might still pick up a copy of the game, but my enthusiasm has been dampened somewhat by the information that landing on planets is a push-button affair.

I do hope that Frontier Developments benefit from NMS's misfortune. I hope they look over and see what it is that the critics of the game are complaining most about so that they can avoid making the same mistakes. It is true that you can see further by standing on the shoulders of giants, but really any pair of shoulders will do.

I certainly would prefer it to be great.
But it certainly is not - from the little I have seen.

Yes, I agree.
No matter how much I have disliked a few, but specific parts of ED, and spoken out about it; I really want Frontier to succeed.
So, hopefully, now that the NMS-cat is out of the bag, many will turn to or return back to ED.

I am MORE THAN confident that Frontier has glanced over to NMS and Hello Games, and noticed what they have been criticised for.
And also to what, if there is any, that is good there.

Also, I do not doubt that all the rumble after 2.1 went live - prior to 2.1.05; has been quite educating to Frontier.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Yup - should be a wake up call for Frontier. Time to step up their game and stop releasing such dross add-ons like Engineers / Powerplay and concentrate on what they used to do best.

Personally I have been very enthusiastic about The Engineers, ever since I heard about them the first time.
But it has bothered me much, the road we were given to get stuff to use with them.
Thankfully 2.1.05 made things a little better. [yesnod]

 

[Susimetsa]

The word 'sim' is used often for things it shouldn't be used. Orbiter is a space flight sim.

I visited a pilot school a couple of years back and they had a pretty strict definition of a simulator. Basically, if the cockpit didn't simulate movement (i.e. move around as you moved the flight stick), it was called only a "trainer", never a "simulator".

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I partially agree, although I simply think that the "sim" area needs more sub-categories that are descriptive. For example:
Rogue system — Realistic study sim
Elite Dangerous — In cockpit space sim

Sub-categories are definitely needed, but, in case of Elite4, such a category would soon(tm) be out-of-date (when we get the first person add-on and can move around in the ships and stations/planets).

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I think the outcry is a bit exaggerated

FD went on record and apologised for the "grindy" nature of engineers so add that to your bad updates

Wings is inconsistent ... I still read of people having problems seeing each other despite it being one of the early updates so add 1.2 to your list.

1.2 + 1.3 + 1.4 + 2.1

Noticing a pattern here ...

When they stick to what made the original games great (Look at Elite / Elite 2) the game is spot on ... It's as if the leaders who are driving this know what they are doing and can articulate it to the devs. Deviate from this formula though into new territory and they struggle .. perhaps as other games have done it so much better that FD try to be "original" but in fact just mess it up ?! Crafting - They should have known that RNG on top of RNG never ends well. PP was a great idea but implemented badly as it wasn't tightly integrated into the game but instead an overlay - you feel disconnected from the game when playing it .. etc.

Despite my complaints and negative posts; despite not playing ED for months on end; I still have high hopes for ED ... I want it to do well as Elite (84) was so dear to me.

Eternal optimist or a fool ?! Time will tell.


(Linking back to the OP perhaps I should apologise for being so negative-nancy )

 

[cpbtrading]

I visited a pilot school a couple of years back and they had a pretty strict definition of a simulator. Basically, if the cockpit didn't simulate movement (i.e. move around as you moved the flight stick), it was called only a "trainer", never a "simulator".

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -


Sub-categories are definitely needed, but, in case of Elite4, such a category would soon(tm) be out-of-date (when we get the first person add-on and can move around in the ships and stations/planets).

'Fixed base' and 'non-fixed base' simulators were used for the space program, if I remember rightly. But that is going back some years. I would prefer really no 'games' being called 'sim', but because we're talking about games here, the nearest we have is Orbiter. Perhaps a better term would be, 'sim style'.

But yes, no games should be called sim, unless they're actually used in training.

I play a lot of Arma and many players want to call Arma a mil/sim, it isn't, its a 'mil/sim style' game. VBS is a military training tool, also known to the MOD as a military simulator. I used that alot too, not great as a game though.

Its a word that always gets mis-used and ED players love to use it, but in my opinion ED is far from being a sim .
But each to their own, as said we all view things differently.