cqc should be sold seperately. IMO.
- Thread starter sibullski
- Start date
To be honest, the only game I can compare the combat side... or the game in general with is 'Jumpgate' on the PC, long since gone but sadly missed.
It had everything right for a space MMP game, combat was stunning
Only using the examples provided before this, our community seems to keep lumping ourselves in with AAA cesspools to express their bias, so I thought I would add to it.
State of Decay was brought up as it is the "other" game with a lot of potential on pen and paper and also has a community constantly wishing for other stuff, instead of owning the content that is provided
I played State of decay a lot on the 360... I certainly wasn't going to fork out for the same game again on the Xbone...as much as I enjoyed it
Same, love my subpar simulators, but couldn't justify buying it again....if they added co-op it would of been enough to draw me in again, but nah a few extra random events wasn't enough for me
What do you think is subpar about it and what is the best? I've not played any proper space games in a long while before this and the only thing to compare it to on the Xbox is strike suit zero which is, frankly, crap.
On a more CQC note though, have they said how many more maps they will be adding on release? If any?
I would rather not compare, very few games like this currently.
Last edited:
Agreed, but I'm still intrested why you consider this subpar, are you talking in general or just CQC? And what is better? I'm not trying to start an argument I'm genuinely interested.
For the most part, that was me being facetious, it was in response to delusions that CQC and PvP in general does not appeal to the core audience of this game.
It is not uncommon to see the same names and faces blame things on CQC/PvP, draw lines in the sand, try to push out and belittle opinions that don't match up, and then claim it is the mechanics ruining the game, and not the community itself.
Instead of going against the grain here, I decided to join in on bashing mechanics of the game rathan defend them. An overall tactic to disarm the conversation, and community, by taking combat in general down a peg to take away any and all feelings of satisfaction that one would normally feel after successfully dropping things with weapons.
I'm tired of biased opinions tearing down one part of a community, so I am going to attack the game in general at this point just to mess with opinions further.
Love this games combat, and trading, and everything else. But yeah, the combat is garbage, as is the trading. I mean, why is it even in a game about space exploration?
The only real "Elite" players are the explorers, everyone else, should of asked for them to split the game and package it with another title
But to compare as asked, Magic: The Gathering Origins, beats this game hands down on tactics, combat, and community.
And strangely the community is always up for a rematch, because like Elite, they also offer single player components, but the community already knows the truth in the matter, the real reason to stick around, the reason to hone your craft, the only final boss worth mentioning, is you, the other members of the community.
And all they need is the A button to make it all happen. Sometimes the B button to cancel a mistake, but we all know the B button is for filthy casuals.
What other game legitimately has combat even closely related to what in this game? I mean first off, this isn't a FPS. Second, it's vehicular combat in space. So what games can you accurately compare this to.
See my previous comments.
Game Comparison: Forsaken.
And this is a FPS with 6 directional combat o.o;; amongst other things.
Isn't that a card game? Because that's just silly.
Doubting a genre, doesn't strengthen an argument?
They've both been around for 20 years, both are hallmarks to specific brands of nerds, and both have a ton of imitators.
Elite started out single player due to technology at the time.
Magic started out multiplayer as it was a spin off of Dungeons and dragons, and you can't play D&D alone. Also technology didn't support it at the time.
As the technology expanded, magic decided to incorporate a single player mode, and Elite decided to go for a more complete space feel with an MMO style sandbox.
Funny how both games found great success by incorporating what they lacked at the start.
To compare lore: Magic the Gather has novels, movies, and a ton of various iterations through the gaming industry.
Elite has a few people slowing plodding through a typical three Kingdoms war storyline that no one is allowed to win.
I would say Magic brings slightly more to the table in lore(Slight pun intended).
Combat:
Magic has thousands of cards, and various rule sets, and game modes to mix it up.
Even with those various cards, depending on the rule set, only a few cards become relevant pending on the rulesrules, the meta changes pending on rules.
Elite has a bunch of ships, and weapons. But only 5 ships, and 4 weapons, are actually relevant to the meta, as most are just subpar compared to the meta. Regardless of rule sets.
Gonna have to say Magic is the superior game for combat also, as it is as creative as the players involved.
Tactics:
Magic......where to begin. Burn, Mill, Stomp, Rush, Counters(Reversals), Bounce, Exiles, Planes walking, Counters(Tokens signifying +1/+1), Artifacts, Auras....the list goes on and on, and mixing any tactic with another, really keeps things from getting stale.
Elite Dangerous....mention them and everyone gets quiet real quick.
Gonna have to say yet again Magic comes out superior on tactics. A shame considering it is a card game that requires two buttons to play.
Community:
You almost always get a good game message after a duel in Magic. Or a smile and handshake in RL. Then a rematch.
This game: Read the forums. In game: Win a two on 1 in game and see the hate mail pour in.
Still being facetious. I do believe I said I rather not compare, and then offered another space game: Forsaken for comparison.
As my Arch enemy, Explain how this game beats Magic the Gathering, in combat, tactics, lore, and community.
Also Magic is free to play.
Last edited:
Having never played magic, I cannot. I get what you're saying but you might as well compare it to a game of cricket. I assumed you were saying it's subpar compared to other current space games. All of which are on pc and I've not played so have no idea how they handle space combat.
My Buddy plays MD:O on PC and can't even get a player match.
But comparing the two is utterly redonk. Magic *IS* strategy and combat...there is literally nothing else there. Thats it, just strategy and combat...and an endless grind for coins to buy more cards.
Like comparing Apples and Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice.
And if you think the larger MTG community isn't full of hate and toxicity, my friend, you don't know Jack about Magic. I could go on and on about some of the crap those kids get up to.
Not to mention the number of times MTG has broken their own game, or utterly burned all of its loyal fans/consumers. Kamigawa Block?
And Lore? Elite was doing Lore at like a decade before Magic ever even thought of doing so...a novella that accompanies a video game? Who did that in the Eighties? I'd also rate the quality of Magic's lore as workmanlike at best.
But comparing the two is utterly redonk. Magic *IS* strategy and combat...there is literally nothing else there. Thats it, just strategy and combat...and an endless grind for coins to buy more cards.
Like comparing Apples and Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice.
And if you think the larger MTG community isn't full of hate and toxicity, my friend, you don't know Jack about Magic. I could go on and on about some of the crap those kids get up to.
Not to mention the number of times MTG has broken their own game, or utterly burned all of its loyal fans/consumers. Kamigawa Block?
And Lore? Elite was doing Lore at like a decade before Magic ever even thought of doing so...a novella that accompanies a video game? Who did that in the Eighties? I'd also rate the quality of Magic's lore as workmanlike at best.
Last edited:
I would argue there's not even combat in magic. Sure it's all about duels but as I understand it it's all about card selection and availabilty etc so the combat is part and parcel of the strategy aspect.
Looking at it from that aspect.
Anyone flying a real combat plane would say, we aren't partaking in real combat either.
Your boiling it down to turn based versus real time, but under the hood, they both run on pen and paper stats. DPS/Alpha/Beta armor in this, Attack/Defense/Life in Magic.
Real time combat only adds strategy in form of positioning being the key outcome of the battle, in this and most forms of real time FPS combat.
Elite Dangerous is no exception to this, meaning all the tactics are wrapped up into one factor, positioning. That is the only thing that differs in combat between the two mediums of turn based and real time.
Considering again, Magic has thousands of tactics, it has the upper hand on the concept of combat in games, versus the only additional tactic this medium provides.
Can't argue that the lore of magic isn't the greatest. That is the real shame of having to give it the tip of the hat and wag of the finger.
Kinda shocked a game I picked out of a hat is a real contender when you compare.
Still being facetious.
Now let's compare it to....Dying Light.
I think we can all agree the shooting aspect of Elite tears dying light a new one, but Elite could learn a thing or two about melee from Dying Light.
On another note: Anyone ever play the Infinite Black ? The other space MMO?
Being able to put grappling arms on your ships is awesome, great for support style ships that focus on anchoring other ships. Wonder if Elite could pull that off...
Actually this is more closely related to a space sim than a FPS. And for further clarification, what other game in console history compares to this? And what is it you find lacking about the combat in this game?