here is something you might not like ....

[Fafnir]

Looking good

Been following development for a while & looking forward to the game. Just signed up for forum & pleased to see a healthy amount of debate.
As long as physics don't overload my system then 'bring them on' but, in reality, I want the fun Elite gave me years ago. This is my downtime & I prefer to enjoy it
Regards

 

[neilisdead]

I'll stand by that, happy to read and discuss but do I care as long as the game is great....err nope! Now are we sure those G calculations for the Cobra are correct, I used math cad to calculate the position relative to the view of the Milky Way and I can see a few problems

 

[Iskariot]

I have absolutely no problem with the way FD are handling the game, just a little bored of the Realism, Immersion debates ..that's all ..

Don't take these debates too seriously. People just like to think and talk about that stuff while waiting for this masterpiece to get released in all its glory.

Personally I like a certain amount of realism. And when things are not realistic like for example sound in space, there should be a reasonably acceptable explanation. I believe FD is doing just fine for that matter. I want sound in space because, as we have all experienced by now (in game or via video), the soundscape of Elite is brilliant and it ads so much to the experience. The rumbling menacing sound of Zelada gives me goosebumps for example.

I don't care at all whether the Rotation speed of Zelada is enough to generate 1 G at the outside and 0.1 at the core. The fact that it rotates to create gravity and does so at a ponderous speed that is visually convincing is more than enough for me.

But I do like to read the discussions once in a while. There are some very knowledgeable Elite fans and it is great to see the enthusiasm for this game.

 

[PacalB]

So in summery, forget what is possible, what is real and what scientists have discovered ... just go with it ... we will be fine ... ED is going to be fantastic even if it is fantastical.

Errr? Nope!

I'll have that galaxy with all those Kepler found stellar systems plus all the bells, whistles and data found by other scopes out there! I'll also have that procedural based galaxy simulating the rest of the unknown parts of the galaxy for that added extra bit of immersion! You know, cause we all luuuv a bit of extra immersion sprinkled on top to help the imagination along, don't we?

Oh yes ... and I'll have that extra bit of immersion with the science based atmospheric re-entry into planetary atmospheres when that comes along as well. Oh and I'll do that with my lovely immersive OR headset on whilst looking out of the ships window to add to that extra extra extra bit of immersion.

Yes, it'll be fantastical ... even with the extra sprinkles of science thrown in ??? A game with actual science bits? Who'da thunk it eh?

 

[Ayo]

You are sick of the debates but by posting this you are participating in the debates

If you want to debate that's fine, but try to understand other peoples positions, otherwise the debates are pointless.

I understand your position on putting fun first and I don't think anyone actually disagrees with that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Where people disagree is on how much of reality can be fun (which is highly subjective) and what aids/detracts from your immersion (which is highly subjective) also some people seem to argue that more immersion is not necessarily better (which it is, don't even bother arguing that it's not)

Edit: If you're not immersed it means the experience is shallow. I don't think any of us want a shallow experience, or maybe some people do?

 

[Squicker]

I don't care at all whether the Rotation speed of Zelada is enough to generate 1 G at the outside and 0.1 at the core. The fact that it rotates to create gravity and does so at a ponderous speed that is visually convincing is more than enough for me.

That's the crux of it. If there's a framework of design underpinning the game - logical thinking of what can happen and how - that can really improve the game and the immersion. But, sometimes, allowing too much of the framework to be visibile can get in the way of the game.

It's a little like making a film. When they made ALIEN, they had massive conversations about how large the nuts and bolts would be on certain parts of the Nostromo, even how much coffee the team would leave in a cup before hypersleep! None of this logic was actually exposed in the film but the fact they put this real framework of logical thinking together behind the film, meant they delivered the best and most real SF experience at the time, which in fact has stood the test of time remarkably well.

But, where something mattered for the film to flow well, they didn't get hung up on detail. Scott used some sound effects in space to increase immersion and tension in the film, but he of course was aware that in space there is no sound. Whilst he used a proper design framework for his film, he put the audience experience first. And thus it should be in a game.

 

[Iskariot]

That's the crux of it. [...] And thus it should be in a game.

I can only agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Patrick_68000]

Not too realistic please. If I play a game, it is precisely, for a little, escape me from the reality

 

[Gibbonici]

Don't take these debates too seriously. People just like to think and talk about that stuff while waiting for this masterpiece to get released in all its glory.

That's exactly it. We do like to pore over every little detail and over think the hell out of them until they become surreal yet impassioned points of disagreement.

When you take a step back you just know that the final game is going to feel a lot different to the fragmented details we know about, but that changes nothing

 

[Fafnir]

That's the crux of it. If there's a framework of design underpinning the game - logical thinking of what can happen and how - that can really improve the game and the immersion. But, sometimes, allowing too much of the framework to be visibile can get in the way of the game.

It's a little like making a film. When they made ALIEN, they had massive conversations about how large the nuts and bolts would be on certain parts of the Nostromo, even how much coffee the team would leave in a cup before hypersleep! None of this logic was actually exposed in the film but the fact they put this real framework of logical thinking together behind the film, meant they delivered the best and most real SF experience at the time, which in fact has stood the test of time remarkably well.

But, where something mattered for the film to flow well, they didn't get hung up on detail. Scott used some sound effects in space to increase immersion and tension in the film, but he of course was aware that in space there is no sound. Whilst he used a proper design framework for his film, he put the audience experience first. And thus it should be in a game.

well put. I think that sums it up as far as I'm concerned

 

[Jason S]

DB seems to want ED to be both gamey in parts and realistic in parts. I think the design choices are being done well.

I want that gamey in parts where gamey makes sense and realistic in parts where realism makes sense, and I am talking in terms of enjoyability although of course that is subjective.

 

[Barns]

Immersion is different from realism, in my books. It's about focused gameplay, no distractions, no fiddly interface, etc. I find Geometry Wars to be incredibly immersive for instance.

(highlight mine) - you must hate the Alpha menu UI then! Me too. FD have apparently put it in that way because they think it increases immersion, but I'd agree with you, fiddly UI decreases it.