Elite boring after 30-60 hours? Get real.

(Petty rivalries against individual players don't count for me; they're far too small-scale to even matter.)
Having a player faction as an enemy (or friend!) makes games feel more alive to me and keep my interest after I'm through the initial fun phase of discovering the game and learning its core mechanics.


You didn't understand, I'm afraid. The end goal of achieving dominance is just something you choose yourself. The problem is: you can't choose that goal in Elite. "Its to be set by YOU!" Yeah, if it was possible. It isn't. The game lacks the mechanics needed to support setting that goal.

Introduce player factions, or at least allow players to belong to a fake faction (Federation/Empire/Alliance) by introducing quest-lines that would allow you to join them (so that players can't just join a faction immediately at will if they left another one,) and make their faction visible to other players, and that would be a good first step. But what we got instead is "community goals". In other words: more of the same irrelevant grind for the main benefit of NPCs who aren't even real people :-/


From most important to least important of why I will never play that game: Point&click mechanics (ok for an RPG where you control a person, not ok for spaceships imo), unusable interface, micro-transactions, too high of a monthly subscription fee.

I'll try to answer to you position to make you understand mine.
You can belong to a faction if not you wouldn't make it in the emprie up to a Baron to gain the clipper. I don't want to be part of any type of horde that tell me whats right and whats wrong. So I guess I will never own one, even if I love the design.

if your endgoal is to reach dominance about others something might be wrong in your life because if you need power over others to feel good something gonna go a bad way.
There are also goals that can be set by a simple Post-It at the screen if needed. "Draw a circle on the outer rim of the Milky Way without loosing your ship." This is a goal that might keep you busy for some time.

Not playing EVE for given reason is totally ok and was to rude in any way, but was a suggestion to make your life even better if possible. If you like it more to keep sticked to ED: you will have to accept the one or the other thing in its design.

Regards,
Miklos
 
Last edited:
Elite has plenty to do. Too much acually. I have to always check and double check to make sure I am finishing task and turning in missions. Making sure my faction rep is ok for everything I do.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, it´s not really fair to compare Evolve and ED. They are complete different genres.

You pay money for both games. Both games get a score by game magazines. Both games have a certain personal lifespan during which you play them. Both are essentially computer games that have to motivate you to play them, and give you some reason to keep playing them.

I'm very much against the "you can't compare them" shield that's being brought up all too often. They're both computer games and yes I can compare, for example, the average total play time you get out of a game for a certain amount of money.

And I wanna see you play Evolve a year from now (Not Evolve 2 which you will have to purchase at full price again, mind you). I bet you won't be.
 
The point is that most you speak in favor of Elite on here know exactly what you are looking for. And they tell you and others like you that you will not find it in Elite. Elite is a game unlike most games that currently exist. It is an open playground without a single purpose. It was never meant to be something like what Star Citizen will become.

To come on these forums again and again and ask something of this game that it was never meant for is stupid at best.
Well, I didn't know that this was never meant to be. I view this as lack of time to develop the game to that state prior to the Dec 16 deadline and am disappointed by the 1.1 update not addressing any of those issues.

Do you have a citation for what you're saying?
 
I really don't understand comparing two entirely different games - it's like comparing Carpet to Loft Insulation.

On a side note; I've put 190 hours into Titanfall and apparently that suffers from being shallow (like Elite, some might say)....

...oh my, what a mash-up that would be.. imagine having a Titan in your cargo hold, hopping out of your seat into the Titan, then hitting release whilst in planetary orbit. Off to the ground for a bit of FPS action! Smoke me a kipper!
 
Sifting through the moaning posts I have come to the conclusion that most of the issues stem from a desire to own/control a section of space as part of a group and to fight for that control whilst sharing resources. I think it would help if when Wings comes out that when you enter a system your Wing becomes a faction. Missions/Community goals can then be generated to improve the standing of that Wing in the system. You can then choose to defend a system or expand introducing the possibility of blockades/choke points.
 
if your endgoal is to reach dominance about others something might be wrong in your life because if you need power over others to feel good something gonna go a bad way.
What? I don't play GRID, or Counter-Strike, or chess because my life is f'ed up! I like playing games and trying hard to win. It's fun.

I find your accusation borderline offensive, even. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just phrased that very poorly.
 
Last edited:
You pay money for both games. Both games get a score by game magazines. Both games have a certain personal lifespan during which you play them. Both are essentially computer games that have to motivate you to play them, and give you some reason to keep playing them.

I'm very much against the "you can't compare them" shield that's being brought up all too often. They're both computer games and yes I can compare, for example, the average total play time you get out of a game for a certain amount of money.

And I wanna see you play Evolve a year from now (Not Evolve 2 which you will have to purchase at full price again, mind you). I bet you won't be.

It's not a 'shield'; it's common-sense. You wouldn't compare Anchorman to Citizen Kane would you?.... or would you?
 
Well, I didn't know that this was never meant to be. I view this as lack of time to develop the game to that state prior to the Dec 16 deadline and am disappointed by the 1.1 update not addressing any of those issues.

Do you have a citation for what you're saying?
Actually it is pretty seldom that a game anounces what it is not. So you should provide citation for your argument.

Elite Dangerous is EXACTLY what I expected from a new Elite. Not less and not more. It is a worthy successor to the other Elite games. It is not the "Elite engine" filled with a purpose giving content, that was never the intent and that was never stated anywhere.
 
What? I don't play GRID, or Counter-Strike, or chess because my life is f'ed up! I like playing games and trying hard to win. It's fun.

I find your accusation borderline offensive, even. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just phrased that very poorly.

If I accused you in some way I am sorry for that, maybe english isn't my favorite language so aplogize for that bad wording.
Yoru are trying hard to win that's ok in general but might lead to frustration in Elite, because by design, there is nothing to win.

its like life. In the end you will pass away one day and you will take the same asset with you as you have arrived with.
Have fun and enjoy what you can achieve but there are some borderlines you cannot cross.

Regards,
Miklos
 
It's not a 'shield'; it's common-sense. You wouldn't compare Anchorman to Citizen Kane would you?.... or would you?

Just playing Devil's Advocate, but you could compare them in terms of both of them being worth the entry fee.

And if you went to the cinema and they were both playing, you would have to compare them in terms of which one you wanted to go and watch at that given moment.
 
Actually it is pretty seldom that a game anounces what it is not. So you should provide citation for your argument.

Elite Dangerous is EXACTLY what I expected from a new Elite. Not less and not more. It is a worthy successor to the other Elite games. It is not the "Elite engine" filled with a purpose giving content, that was never the intent and that was never stated anywhere.
Well, the decision to make it multiplayer and to cancel the single-player mode, and also the term "MMO" being thrown around (it has since been removed from the game's official pages, it seems) did sound like they would provide the matching gameplay.

Take that as a "citation" of sorts.
 
Here's what I don't get, people complain saying Elite's gameplay is repetitive, that it's a grind, that it's all the same stuff over and over to get a bigger ship to save more money to get a bigger ship. However, isn't that what Battlefield, Titanfall, and Evolve are as well? Shoot stuff to get points to unlock a better gun to shoot stuff. Call of Duty falls into this as well. Other on-rails games like Assassin's Creed or Dishonored can't really be compared, as it's a different gaming experience. So why does Elite get so much hate? It's new. It's new, and we've attached all these special aspirations and dreams to it, while forgetting one thing. It's still a video game. At their core, video games are nothing but a repetitive task attached to virtual numbers by which some of us apparently attach a strong sense of self worth. Everything can be boiled down like that. Mario, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Final Fantasy, Legend of Dragoon, etc. etc..

And to those that say what you do in the Universe doesn't matter and that's why the game is so terrible, answer me this. When you kill that monster in Evolve, what difference does it make? You earn points to buy a bigger gun. That's it. So WHY is Evolve somehow better? It's even more repetitive than Elite! I can't stop being a monster hunter to go mine, I'd have to boot up a different game for that. I get tired of Bounty Hunting in Elite, I can go mine, or Explore, like I'm doing now. I can find something, create a goal for myself to accomplish, and go accomplish that freaking goal! Someone please explain why the same arguments being applied to Elite, making it out to be a bad game, can be applied to Evolve or Titanfall even more so, and yet, Elite is the bad game?

Elite's something new, so it stands out. We expect the world of it without giving it a chance to grow and evolve. Instead, the second that it releases, we hit it with a hammer saying it wasn't good enough. This is the first major Space Sim in decades, CAN WE GIVE THEM A CHANCE PLEASE?! Give them a chance to hit their stride, please! Don't run them off the project by whinging about every little change, the game NEEDS to change to grow and evolve, so let them collect the data and the mature feedback from their user-base, and act upon it without fear of a backlash every time they do anything at all. That's how you end up with a stagnant game that never takes a chance with a new idea.

... That turned into a rant fast. Soz.
 
I really don't understand comparing two entirely different games - it's like comparing Carpet to Loft Insulation.

On a side note; I've put 190 hours into Titanfall and apparently that suffers from being shallow (like Elite, some might say)....

...oh my, what a mash-up that would be.. imagine having a Titan in your cargo hold, hopping out of your seat into the Titan, then hitting release whilst in planetary orbit. Off to the ground for a bit of FPS action! Smoke me a kipper!

Halo jumping would be bloody cool, hell I give Frontier a tenner for an expansion that allow me to do that.
 
If I accused you in some way I am sorry for that, maybe english isn't my favorite language so aplogize for that bad wording.
Yoru are trying hard to win that's ok in general but might lead to frustration in Elite, because by design, there is nothing to win.

its like life. In the end you will pass away one day and you will take the same asset with you as you have arrived with.
Have fun and enjoy what you can achieve but there are some borderlines you cannot cross.

Regards,
Miklos
Note though that if video games were like real life, nobody would play them. Playing video games allows you to achieve goals that can't even exist in real life, or are not a choice you would even consider making. Are you a bounty hunter in real life? Thought so.

Equating a video game to real life does not sound like a good argument to me.
 
Last edited:
Here's why the mile wide and inch deep sounds about right to me:

1. The "infinite" procedurally generated galaxy and exploration

It is undoubtedly big and looks good. But it's empty, repetitive, shallow and you have no way to interact with it. Columbus didn't go to America to watch the view, he wanted to discover and put that discovery to use, and he wanted to put his stamp on it. You have no way to leave your mark, you don't know if you're the first, second or the thousandth one to find the planet you're orbiting, and it doesn't even matter either when "you sell the data", the one thing that let's your exploration interact with the game. It doesn't matter who or where you sell the data, and if a system is scanned or not has no bearing on the galaxy whatsoever. Exploring has no purpose in the game, which is mind-boggling. You argue that taking screenshots and personal awe as purposeful, personally maybe, but not in the game. There's no gaming aspects to it at all, and in the end the most anticipated side of the game, the side devs have probably put most time into, is sadly a mile wide and inch deep tech demo.

2. Galactic superpowers and Factions

Three diverse superpowers and countless unique factions, sounds awesome. But sadly, interacting with any of them is shallow and boring and again, has no real effect on neither you or the faction. But what about friendly or allied status? Economic boom! My god, I almost forgot about those, because, they don't do anything! Dots on map turn green instead of yellow, arrows go up instead of down. Holy moly, the immersion is complete. In the end, apart from the few carrots, Dropship (haha) and Clipper plus some system permits, there's nothing in gameplay terms to be found here. There's one thing I do love, the GalNet. Player actions making a dent in the game lore, yes please. But, again sadly, the only way to accomplish this is to organize huge parties outside the game (because built in stuff like grouping, guilds or corps are too EVE, god forbid how horrid that would be, and completely different thing than doing it off the game), and for those we can only thank the community, not the game. In the end, factions are hugely generic, "crimson" this, "crimson" that, no one knows what they do or are trying to accomplish, and nothing they ever do or accomplish is going to have an effect on the player, or vice versa, hence that too is a mile wide and inch deep.

3. Professions

Play your way, trade, mine, bountyhunt or pirate, this one got something for everybody. Erm, no.. Starving high population high tech world? Im bringing in Palladium, because that gives me the highest profit! What you trade or where you do it, again, has no effect on anything. All you need to do, is open your browser, go to a ED trading site, press search, buy Palladium, sell Palladium, buy Progenitor Cells, sell Progenitor Cells, buy a bigger ship, rinse and repeat. Mining is practically the same, just slower. And effects nothing even less. Finally, the crown jewels, combat oriented professions! Although restricted to 1v1, combat in ED is fine, but if you take it out these professions are even worse than mining. No profits, no pirate or bounty hunter factions, nothing means nothing, do something, nobody cares. What about pvp? Well, to be perfectly honest, pvp is always fun, because it's interaction, no matter how simple or shallow the game is, but this game has the most broad and effective pvp-avoiding system in the history of gaming, and in addition "it doesn't fit ED philosophy". PvP is there in theory, yes, but the game makes every effort to make it as difficult and infuriating as possible, so I'm not going to give it points for having something obligatory. A mile wide and hardly an inch deep.

4. Missions

MMORPG's are getting stick for their go to x, do b, return type of missions. Well, ED takes that to another level in the nothingless void. An inch wide and no depth.

5. Multiplayer

Must... resist...

6. Use your imagination! It's a space sim!

Well why do we play games? Because we've lost the childlike imagination we once had. This way we get to experience something new, get somewhere we otherwise couldn't get. In the best case scenario we get to share those experiences with friends and strangers alike! If you have the imagination to make ED an awesome game, I can't imagine (pun intended) what you could do with just shutting your eyes. And about the space sim, if you're talking about space, as in terms of a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction, I couldn't agree more! But as a simulation of a space age utopia, it hardly does the job.

To be perfectly honest, I'd say it's a thousand times copied yard wide, with next to no depth, we're practically talking about a plane.
 
Just playing Devil's Advocate, but you could compare them in terms of both of them being worth the entry fee.

And if you went to the cinema and they were both playing, you would have to compare them in terms of which one you wanted to go and watch at that given moment.

You're not comparing the films themselves though, are you? You're contrasting your frame of mind against them. You might have had a hard day posting on the forums and need some light relief, so "Anchorman" it is. Or you might be in the mood for a classic, so you choose "Citizen Kane". In essence, the films are a reflection on you - at that given moment. You're not comparing them subjectively. And that's my point - they serve two different purposes, and that's why they can't really be compared other than 'fee' or 'price'.
 
You pay money for both games. Both games get a score by game magazines. Both games have a certain personal lifespan during which you play them. Both are essentially computer games that have to motivate you to play them, and give you some reason to keep playing them.

I'm very much against the "you can't compare them" shield that's being brought up all too often. They're both computer games and yes I can compare, for example, the average total play time you get out of a game for a certain amount of money.

And I wanna see you play Evolve a year from now (Not Evolve 2 which you will have to purchase at full price again, mind you). I bet you won't be.

I actually dont even play Evolve because I agree with you, its price is too high for what it really gives. But I do play Dota, what is basically the same (with a little bit more variance due to a lot more different hero combinations to play, on the other hand dota only has 1 map). And i´ve played Dota 2 for 3, almost 4 years now. Started playing Dota 1 like 7 years ago. And I´m pretty sure I will play it for a couple years from now on.

Your reasons why you can compare those games are really odd. With that argumentation you could potentially compare everything.

You have to pay money for it. - Almost everything in this world costs money
It gets a score by some organization - A lot of things get rated, movies, books, games...

Sure on some metalevel you can obviously compare them, but everyone has a different taste. If I would compare a sports game and a RPG game, I would always rate the RPG game much much higher because I think sport games are boring and I love RPG games.

It seems like you dont like Arena/Moba kind of games that much, therefor you think ED should have a higher rating than Evolve.

But these magazines dont make there rating based on whats your favourite genre. And thats why you can´t (shouldn´t) compare games from different genres.
 
Back
Top Bottom