elite dangerous is a true success

WR3ND

WR3ND
I pretty much only still have Ark installed out of morbid curiosity. That beast is like 300GB. Most games I have aren't in active development, or I've checked out of their development and play earlier or modded versions, like with Minecraft or Skyrim.

I've likely put more time into Minecraft than this game, but they're both up there, much more than most games I enjoy, though I'd argue that other games are probably technically better as games for other, varied reasons. I like exploration and adventure in Minecraft a bit more for what it is (at least with the largest biome size), but I'm a sucker for space and sci-fi spaceships with good first person "flight" mechanics. I'd like a bit more of that sense of exploration and adventure in this game. Valheim is a bit like that, but no galactic sim and spaceships, which is an easy win for this game from me. 🤷‍♂️

I like building and crafting in some of those other games as well, but I'm not missing it in this game, just exploration and adventure – game-play can be a misleading term (seeing FSS as "exploration" game-play), so maybe something like game-endeavoring. This game definitely can have that even just accounting for its scale, but it seems largely inconsequential and arbitrary.
 
Last edited:

Fizzatron

Fizzatron
GunnerBill said:
TL;DR - Yes.

But because I'm a VR only type and my machine isn't quite up to it I can't play Odyssey... and even if I could the GUI is still garbage.

So maybe the shine has worn off a little.
Click to expand...
The UI is different, after being open enough to give it a chance and getting used to it I think for the most part it's better than Horizons, I can't think of a Horizons era UI feature that I miss honestly. It's not like Horizons was the pinnacle of UI technology that couldn't be improved upon, though it's fair to say there's still room for tweaks and improvements still.
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Darrett said:
I’ve played a lot of games, but I generally don’t stick with one long term. Several MMOs, RPGs and Simulations where I’ve spent in the hundreds, but most of my game library hits in the 40-60 hour range.

According to the Codex, I’ve put in 2 weeks and 4 days into Elite, which puts it pretty high up there for me. That’s accumulated since 2014.

I’d expect that the vast majority of people never see anywhere close to thousands of hours into any particular game.
Click to expand...
I dont think any my games makes 2k hours. 1k is ultra rare and anything over 500 h is exceptional. Good games go up about 150 h.
At some point I've seen all I want.
 

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
anumist said:
Despite everything bad around; I started playing elite around 2012 when i discovered elite 2 frontier on the pc which is a very great game despite the age.

Compared to that game, we must admit that elite dangerous is a really awesome game; really up to today's standards.

I havent tried odyssey yet; honestly i think it look like a whole new game in its own; and i know odyssey isnt finished in some ways.

but if there's a feature i'd like to see to be made ingame; i would want the possibility to visit most planets; even terraformed/earth-like worlds; we could see forests , buildings , etc but this is a really challenging feature.

i'd also want to get more ships.
Click to expand...
Glad you are enjoying it. I have had many a great hr playing ED and ED:H . ED:O for me is not all bad either, but considering how many years I was waiting for it (again me only) it was a disappointment. The new features I personally do not find especially stand out, its all by the numbers and feels like something which could have come out over a decade ago on the xbox 360. the ground combat is all rather wooden.
Also the planet surfaces, in places looks great but in other places looks worse than Horizons imo. I cant grumble too much about performance now, but i sledgehammer it with a 3090. not everyone can do that.

Is it over all an improvement over ED:H......? debatable but for me, probably but is it worth an extra £30-£40 premium over ED:H? absolutely not (again imo)

most of my frustration comes because of just how good ED could be. the stuff they have cut from the game which were in the initial design plan are exactly what i think this game needs, and i am not talking about terraformed worlds or submarines on water worlds remember the early dev art of the dolphin/beluga and would love to have the moray star boat ( dont get me wrong this would be cool)...... but I am thinking much simpler stuff like managing and training / ugrading / replacing a ships crew to fly the larger ships, hiring wingmen to carry out missions and generally just injecting a bit of life to systems so that a busy hub feels different to a back water......................... but i question now if we will ever get it . For the longest of times the ai have been so primative they had to drop ai driven srvs from the game for goodness sake.
 
Last edited:

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
Fizzatron said:
The UI is different, after being open enough to give it a chance and getting used to it I think for the most part it's better than Horizons, I can't think of a Horizons era UI feature that I miss honestly. It's not like Horizons was the pinnacle of UI technology that couldn't be improved upon, though it's fair to say there's still room for tweaks and improvements still.
Click to expand...
i think the new ui looks cleaner........ but it does seem to take more clicks sometimes to accomplish the same thing, which is generally a bad thing.
now consoles are out of the picture i would like to think FD could drop some of the limitations and have more short cuts, if only so i can tie it into voice attack.

"computer access fuel scoop store inventory" for instance.
 

Old Duck

Old Duck
Agony_Aunt said:
I'm enjoying ED and i know many others who are.
Click to expand...
iu
 

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
Fizzatron said:
No, I think that makes them a vocal minority of the silent majority.
Click to expand...
actually i would say the people who post on forums about a game are in the minority regardless of whether positive or negative. esp a niche game like Elite which tends to have an older demographic of players (age dempgraphic may not be true with ED:O but was the case with the vanilla game and those who supported it early doors - I actually suspect that ED:O with its ground combat was made precisely to aim at a younger audience and to nab some of that arena shooter market - just my 2p of course but I believe The problem is the arena shooter bar is really high with a lot of fantastic games to compete with, and personally i do not think ED compares well at all on that section of the game.)

The ground combat part of Elite feels much more like CQC to me than elite.... and (whilst i like CQC personally because it is separate to the main game) bringing a CQC like attitude of meaningless death and quick respawns into the game is a shockingly bad fit imo.

either way my point is Most players if they like it will just play it, or if they dont like it just add it to their pile of shame never to play again (or refund if they can), we wont hear from them either way, only sales and the how much the player numbers on steam or other platforms boosted after ED:O launched really give an idea how well it is doing,
 
Last edited:

avow555

avow555
Difficult to make a really objective point regarding ED these days.
I have certainly got my moneys worth out of the original purchase so quite happy there.
Odyysey however has left a bitter taste and not to mention over two years dev time on FPS nonsenes.

Can only hope for a few more years playing.
 

Frankymole

Frankymole
I like how so many people moan about a "FPS shooter" not belonging in their space game, then lots of people complain about the foot/ground stuff being separate from the space-trader/combat stuff. Seems that if they're truly separate then the first group have nothing to complain about, they can ignore the space legs as it doesn't actually impinge on how they play the game.
 

WR3ND

WR3ND
Shinji Ikari said:
On the other hand:

Flynn effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
People certainly know more about varied things, and how to problem solve within those elements, but I'm not convinced they're fundamentally more intelligent at being a competent and viable species or as more independent individuals. The video I referenced shows the dramatic decrees in average brain size over the past three thousand years, definitely modern in human evolution standards, but comparing IQ test results over the past 100 years is much more narrowly focused. If we're on average smarter than 100 years ago, it likely isn't due to our fundamental, innate aptitudes, but environmental changes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom