Feedback after 2 weeks of intensive Elite Dangerous

[VR SenseiMatty]

I'll get on board with your sentiment that the game could use more fiction. But I'm not going to say it 'needs' it, that's an opinion. While I definitely lean toward agreeing with you, I'm not sure pure fantasy is what attracts people to this game. Look at black mirror, the horror lies in how few degrees of separation lie between the episode and real life. I feel this game is pushing to utilize the same draw, albeit not for horror. This could very well be an extremely realistic representation of 1200 years from now, where theoretical or fantasy physics aren't entertained and it's just an actual possible future. For instance; the frame shift drive is based on technology that NASA has already expressed interest in developing and thinks is viable with exotic material (Alcubierre drive). And while scientists hypothesize these diamond planets may exist, Starforge has only ever been shown to produce procedural generation that resembles real discoveries supported by existing data (though I suppose you could throw green gas giants in my face by that argument). In summation, I believe the draw for most people is that this is the closest to exploring the actual milky way galaxy that we'll will ever actually get in our lifetimes.

Yes I agree, the game doesn't need pure fantasy stuff. No Man's Sky is already out there for this, and on the 14th of August it will also receive VR support.
I believe ED needs more realistic features for planetary gameplay like Vulcanoes, Magma rivers with valuable and rare materials difficult to be gathered (with a brand new SRV dedicated for this type of mining), Earthquakes, falling asteroids, caves, more type of exotic life that can live without atmosphere and so on...
The planetary scanning gameplay could also be improved furthermore by adding new scanners to the SRV to scan particular surface fissure on the planet surface. There's a lot that can be added in this respect.

 

[Glacieredapollo]

Yes I agree, the game doesn't need pure fantasy stuff. No Man's Sky is already out there for this, and on the 14th of August it will also receive VR support.
I believe ED needs more realistic features for planetary gameplay like Vulcanoes, Magma rivers with valuable and rare materials difficult to be gathered (with a brand new SRV dedicated for this type of mining), Earthquakes, asteroids storms, caves, more type of exotic life form that can live without atmosphere and so on...
The planetary scanning gameplay could also be improved furthermore by adding new scanners to the SRV to scan particular surface fissure on the planet surface. There's a lot that can be added in this respect.

Absolutely! I agree with all of this resoundingly

 

[Dr EviI]

Seems to me you understand the mechanics & depth of Elite far too well for only 2 weeks play!

Good read, but noob?...no! However, good points? (where I have a frame of reference)...yes!

I must admit that I played Elite more than just two weeks. But finally I got the time and the motivation to play it for two weeks each day with several hours a day. In the past I gave Elite at least 5-8 chances where I was trying things out, but I always came to the same conclusion. This time I wanted to give it a more fair chance but sadly, the point stays valid. Nearly all aspects of the game are shallow and not deep enough. [Edited because of misunderstanding]

 

[Highhead]

Even when you are right about the roleplaying aspect, this is also valid for a pen and paper game where everything happens in your mind.
In a computer game, things should be visualized and happen in the game instead of your mind. Else this arguement excuses everything.
Btw, I played Ultima Online on a roleplay shard and even there, the dungeons were 10 times more complex and diverse than in Elite (sure you can not compare the games, but I want to say that a nice representation in game has no negative effect on role play)

When I find a base on a lost planet, I expect more than just some random blocks representing some buildings with some static turrets. It does not need to be as living as a village in Skyrim, but hell FD did not even try. Its the minium of the minimum they show the players with absolutely no interaction. What about some robots, carrieing wares to some trucks, some robotic arms manufacturing stuff, some flash spots searching the area, walking humans, maybe some guards talking to the player, some landing or starting ships and so on. There is so much this SciFi settings has to offer and FD just put an empty set of some random buildings together with a hand full of turrets.

Hi!

I really have to chime in here! Remebering the old 80ie and 90ie gaming, most of everything had to be imagined! I can recall how I dreamt of flying LHX Attack Chopper through a whole city while only seeing some cubes within the game itself. Actually every game you had to „live“ in rather to „play“ it! It never was about the graphics, even if we always wanted to finally see the „round edges“ instead of a brick…

 

[Glacieredapollo]

I have not said that I played Elite for only two weeks. I said I finally took the time to play Elite two weeks intense. I played several more weeks in the past years, but I always stopped playing after a short time. I gave Elite at least 5-8 chances and I always played about 10-20 hours. And now I played much longer without a break. Also calling someone a noob after two weeks of intense gameplay is a mistake. You can play more than 100 hours in two weeks. Many games are over after that time.

The point was that he didn't think you were a noob

 

[Dr EviI]

The point was that he didn't think you were a noob

Oh you are right. I read his post too fast and thought he thinks I am a Noob. Will correct that a bit.

 

[Viajero]

The cult will insist that you have to love EVERYTHING about the game, which is hogwash.

Just curious, any direct link example you can show with such kind of comment? If you are unconfortable posting here, pm will do.

I somehow really doubt that anyone here thinks the game is perfect in all respects.

 

[Dr EviI]

Hi!

I really have to chime in here! Remebering the old 80ie and 90ie gaming, most of everything had to be imagined! I can recall how I dreamt of flying LHX Attack Chopper through a whole city while only seeing some cubes within the game itself. Actually every game you had to „live“ in rather to „play“ it! It never was about the graphics, even if we always wanted to finally see the „round edges“ instead of a brick…

Hi,

the graphics are not my problem. I play games like Rimworld. But my points are about the complexity of the game aspects. Take for example the missions. From the programmer point of view (I am one btw) they are very very simple designed. No submissions, different mission objectives, boss fights, special environments and so on. They could be made so much more interesting with a bit of love. Sure its more work, but I think its more than worth it.
Just spawning random ships and giving you a counter to kill X ships is not up to date anymore.
The same with the bases on the ground. As I have mentioned, its not about the graphics but about the things happening there. They are static, dead and empty. Like a ruin in the desert. They should be oases instead.

 

[MrFailfactory]

Hi,

the graphics are not my problem. I play games like Rimworld. But my points are about the complexity of the game aspects. Take for example the missions. From the programmer point of view (I am one btw) they are very very simple designed. No submissions, different mission objectives, boss fights, special environments and so on. They could be made so much more interesting with a bit of love. Sure its more work, but I think its more than worth it.
Just spawning random ships and giving you a counter to kill X ships is not up to date anymore.
The same with the bases on the ground. As I have mentioned, its not about the graphics but about the things happening there. They are static, dead and empty. Like a ruin in the desert. They should be oases instead.

This doesn't work in other games that have a similar mechanic, so I'm not sure why you think it would work in this game. The type of Missions (quests in other games) you describe work when they are special one-offs, that usually support the overarching narrative of what's going on. The bulk of the Missions (quests) are no different or less basic than what's on the Mission Board. Kill, Fetch, and Transport activities that only have a thin veil of purpose, and involve a scenery change, at most, otherwise you are doing these same things over and over again. No different, my friend.

Now, if you want to talk about an epic, fleshed-out Mission narrative that supports the various overarching story lines in Elite? Yes, my friend, this is definitely missing, and in my opinion, sorely so. The difficulty would be integrating such a thing into a game like this, without it feeling tacked-on, or even just a disconnected extra thing to do. I mean, what happens if you destroyed the Thargoid attackers, and I helped them? How does the story progress in such a way that neither of us feel cheated? It works when it's on-rails, like World of Warcraft, FFXIV, etc, but it doesn't work as well in a game like Elite. It could, however, be used to great effect as Pilots' Federation Missions, and/or Superpower Missions. Yes, it could work very well in those areas, indeed.

Riôt

 

[Glacieredapollo]

Hi,

the graphics are not my problem. I play games like Rimworld. But my points are about the complexity of the game aspects. Take for example the missions. From the programmer point of view (I am one btw) they are very very simple designed. No submissions, different mission objectives, boss fights, special environments and so on. They could be made so much more interesting with a bit of love. Sure its more work, but I think its more than worth it.
Just spawning random ships and giving you a counter to kill X ships is not up to date anymore.
The same with the bases on the ground. As I have mentioned, its not about the graphics but about the things happening there. They are static, dead and empty. Like a ruin in the desert. They should be oases instead.

They wouldn't necessarily be oases, like humanity hasn't even figured out anti-grav in this game

 

[Schmack]

The game is first and foremost a space ship flying game. Things happening on the planet are secondary, and any time spent developing that further is time that is removed from developing the core game of ships and flying and the galaxy itself. You can focus on the planetary aspects of the game, or you can accept they are just the a la carte of the ED experience. No matter what you do on the planet, you'll want to get back into your ship and leave that world. If you want more cool things to do while not in space, you are not really looking for a space game. You are looking for a game that includes space flight to get between points of interest where non spacey things can happen.

This game though doesn't concern itself with space even. It's about ships and stations. It could be called Elite Ships and Stations. Planetary bases are often too much of a time sink to deal with. I often avoid mission that include them. If you could avoid the slow burn of "re-entry" into a non-atmospheric environment, that would be cool, but the developers obviously couldn't find a feasible method to more smoothly transition from space to the planet surface. Maybe that's because the Horizons aspect of the game was shoehorned into the existing game, and the dovetail isn't that great or interesting after a couple times.

Yes planets we can actually land look a lot alike. SRVs are all the same. There are no hovercraft we can use. You'll not encounter someone in a tricked out SRV, it will be just like yours except maybe with a paint job or glowing rims or something. You cannot engineer your SRV. In fact, the things you can do on the surface are very limited. Again, that's because it's a space game. It's like people who play "The Hunter" wanting a fishing experience since there are so many lakes and rivers. That could be introduced, maybe it has, but it's not the core game and shouldn't be the focus.

I always thought a game like 7 Days to Die should have a space component. You actually land on a world with that type of scenario, and you can recover a section and secure it, then you can leave that planet and bring in materials if you need to continue developing that world. That's not this game though.

I agree that the missions are uninspiring and repetitive. The fact that all factions want basically the same things in all systems, and there's always that one pirate faction that wants you to kill civilians. It feels like just cookie cutter systems stamped out for the sake of "size". Like a tile floor I suppose, where every tile is exactly the same.

Eventually you either find a reason to play or you do something else. The game isn't going to be transformed into a deeper experience. Years of seeing changes that cheapen instead of enhance the experience have taught me that. I still play it though, because I have a ship and like to fly it.... in space.

 

[Glacieredapollo]

I always kind of got over the repetitiveness of the missions by not doing them. I mean, let's be real, there's little incentive to, even the very highly ranked ones don't pay nearly as well as core mining and I can sit in a place and kill things for the fun of it. That being said, I always chalked the missions up to that the lore is full of brutality and the frequency of similar missions just support that the factions, no matter where you are, will always pay you to carry out unspeakable atrocities and there will be as little notice as is given to a pilot stuck in the mail slot.

 

[Ian Skippy]

In a way, I think FDev has the same problem as Kunos Simulazioni (studio behind Assetto Corsa and Assetto Corsa Competizione racing sims). Like, they know how to built these technical marvels, but don't know how to create a compelling game around them. [...]
Elite feels the same. Almost as if FDev got so into creating Stellar Forge, they forgot there should be some gameplay mechanics/content as well.

This is the criticism that I cannot agree with on a fundamental level, and I feel it is the result of flawed reasoning. Assetto Corsa is one of the greatest racing games around (I rank it above PC2 myself), with stunning physics, great peripheral support and piles of diverse cars and tracks. They didn't 'forget' to add a game, they simply decided to spend their time on this. Saying they, or FD, forgot to add what you want is like saying Rockstar 'forgot' to add halfway decent car physics. No, rockstar didn't forget that, they decided to focus their energy on other aspects and create another kind of game.

You see different versions of this mentality very often. "ED/PES/Assetto Corso has the foundation down, but if only they listened to me/fired the lead designer/remembered something/whatever they could make a proper game!'. The simple truth however is that doing anything else takes time, as did creating 'the foundation'. So yes, Kunos, Frontier, Konami etc could have added different things and focussed on different things, but that would have gone at the expense of other things.

You want tons of gameplay thingies? Try NMS, or X4. Their 'stellar forge' and flight model is pants, but they spend that energy on other things. Want a football game with more modes and fluff than PES? Try Fifa, it beats PES in most aspects. Except the 'playing football' bit, where EA always drops the ball and which is the bit Konami focuses exclusively on. You want a racing game with more modes and stuff than AC? Plenty of those around. The physics will suck balls and most dont support VR properly or model the FFB appropriately, but that is the trade-off.

You know the age-old tradesman joke: "fast, cheap or quality. You can pick two, but cant have them all." Same applies to different aspects in games. We all have preferences, so if people like game X over Y because of Z that is cool. But this 'they forgot to do Z' mentality is simply wrong.

/soapbox

 

[sewerratuk]

Just curious, any direct link example you can show with such kind of comment? If you are unconfortable posting here, pm will do.

I somehow really doubt that anyone here thinks the game is perfect in all respects.

I wouldn’t name and shame even in PM but I can definitely think of a couple of names without any effort that will jump into any ‘negative’ thread to defend ED

 

[MrFailfactory]

This is the criticism that I cannot agree with on a fundamental level, and I feel it is the result of flawed reasoning. Assetto Corsa is one of the greatest racing games around (I rank it above PC2 myself), with stunning physics, great peripheral support and piles of diverse cars and tracks. They didn't 'forget' to add a game, they simply decided to spend their time on this. Saying they, or FD, forgot to add what you want is like saying Rockstar 'forgot' to add halfway decent car physics. No, rockstar didn't forget that, they decided to focus their energy on other aspects and create another kind of game.

You see different versions of this mentality very often. "ED/PES/Assetto Corso has the foundation down, but if only they listened to me/fired the lead designer/remembered something/whatever they could make a proper game!'. The simple truth however is that doing anything else takes time, as did creating 'the foundation'. So yes, Kunos, Frontier, Konami etc could have added different things and focussed on different things, but that would have gone at the expense of other things.

You want tons of gameplay thingies? Try NMS, or X4. Their 'stellar forge' and flight model is pants, but they spend that energy on other things. Want a football game with more modes and fluff than PES? Try Fifa, it beats PES in most aspects. Except the 'playing football' bit, where EA always drops the ball and which is the bit Konami focuses exclusively on. You want a racing game with more modes and stuff than AC? Plenty of those around. The physics will suck balls and most dont support VR properly or model the FFB appropriately, but that is the trade-off.

You know the age-old tradesman joke: "fast, cheap or quality. You can pick two, but cant have them all." Same applies to different aspects in games. We all have preferences, so if people like game X over Y because of Z that is cool. But this 'they forgot to do Z' mentality is simply wrong.

/soapbox

Every now and then, you get someone on this forum who seems to know how things actually work, instead of insisting on living on Willful Ignorance Street.

Excellent post, Commander.

Riôt

 

[Viajero]

I wouldn’t name and shame even in PM

Point is that making a statement that can not be backed by a source, be it because of a technical reason or, more likely in this case, because the source does not exist, is gratuitous and has little merit. Sweeping generalizations and generic ad hominems like the ones in the post I quoted rarely constitute good arguments.

I can definitely think of a couple of names without any effort that will jump into any ‘negative’ thread to defend ED

That is not what he said though.

Also I hope you ok with patrons having different opinions, be it in defense of Elite or not. If you post a critique you should be ready to accept a challenge. And viceversa.

 

[sewerratuk]

Point is that making a statement that can not be backed by a source, be it because of a technical reason or, more likely in this case, because the source does not exist, is gratuitous and has little merit. Sweeping generalizations and generic ad hominems like the ones in the post I quoted rarely constitute good arguments.



That is not what he said though.

Also I hope you ok with patrons having different opinions, be it in defense of Elite or not. If you post a critique you should be ready to accept a challenge. And viceversa.

Since when have comments on this forum needed to be backed by a source? That’s a cheap way of trying to win an argument, like people are really that bothered that they are going to document comments by others (or that creepy). Just by being around the forum for some time you can generally identify a few usual white knight suspects.

I have no problem with people having differing opinions, I can even appreciate that some may even really believe that ED is everything they want it to be, all they need to do is appreciate that others think it could be even better for them and by commenting as such doesn’t warrant instant ‘can I haz ur stuff’, ‘play something else’ bovine excrement. Or maybe they just like to troll

 

[Viajero]

Since when have comments on this forum needed to be backed by a source?

They don´t, but if you do not have one handy when someone challenges your statement then your statement becomes gratuitous and loses most, if not all, its value.

I have no problem with people having differing opinions

Great! Just remember that when someone resorts to ad hominems like "white knight" or "cult" is usually a clear sign that his/her arguments are not good enough and that he/she may actually have a problem with other opinions differing from his/hers.

 

[Schmack]

They don´t, but if you do not have one handy when someone challenges your statement then your statement becomes gratuitous and loses most, if not all, its value.



Great! Just remember that when someone resorts to ad hominems like "white knight" or "cult" is usually a clear sign that his/her arguments are not good enough and that he/she may actually have a problem with other opinions differing from his/hers.

Maybe.

There's often a "like it or leave" attitude received especially in the suggestions forum, where if you make a suggestion, it gets treated like a complaint and a few folks pile on to tell you that it's fine how it is, and that you just don't know how to play the game, that you want it too easy, that the game is being ruined already by people like you. Yes I can find examples. I have many of these folks on my ignore list.

 

[sewerratuk]

Great! Just remember that when someone resorts to ad hominems like "white knight" or "cult" is usually a clear sign that his/her arguments are not good enough and that he/she may actually have a problem with other opinions differing from his/hers.

Agreed, just remember that when someone resorts to asking for the source to prove a white knight that they probably won’t dredge up every comment said white knight posted because only sighting one or two will not be evidence enough so as I stated previously, it’s an easy win for the demander.

And while you mention it ad hominem like ‘can I haz ur stuff’ and ‘play something else’ is also usually a clear sign that his/her arguments are not good enough and that he/she may actually have a problem with other opinions differing from his/hers.