Space RPG
Cartoonesque Space Survival Game
Civilisation type 4X MMO
So barring Star Citizen which might well never progress beyond Alpha-stage there's nothing there that's even VAGUELY similar to Elite...
How long will Elite Dangerous rule the world of space games?
- Thread starter PWAKAY
- Start date
Space RPG
Cartoonesque Space Survival Game
So barring Star Citizen which might well never progress beyond Alpha-stage there's nothing there that's even VAGUELY similar to Elite...
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Contrary to what some players of Elite Dangerous believe, these forums are Frontier Development forums and encompass the history of games that FD have created over the last few decades.
The idea that these forums are solely for Elite Dangerous is misinformed.
I for one welcome our Dinosaur Overlords.
It's already dying mate...and will continue to die until they get a proper game designer instead of a grind merchant.
since that's a completely subjective and personal opinion of yours, impossible to either confirm or deny ... as long as you want, i guess.
personally i don't agree nor disagree with any of your statements, they say more about you than about any game. so, good for you!
or were you trying to convey something different?
I've been bashing around on this during early access....a bit crude as such but pretty fun gameplay as it is [yesnod]
Angels fall first
Sweary word warning for the sensitive or easily offended...
Angels fall first
Sweary word warning for the sensitive or easily offended...
[video=youtube_share;JtM5CUt-Qck]https://youtu.be/JtM5CUt-Qck[/video]
Last edited:
"rumours" and they are only rumours is that it much more than this and development started much longer ago than anyone originally thought. Its directly being targeted as the definitive space game. Join the hype train choo choo (that worked out well for NMS!)
We will need to wait until E3 but it could kill SC before it gets off the ground.
This is the reason why perhaps our two biggest beloved SF IPs have still haven't been properly represented in game.
Bow Down to The King: In VR even.
Love Homeworld
This, but it will probably take several patches and a period of months to iron out the bugs and get it settled down.
LOL... like ED already had to watch out for NMS and predictions that SC would beat it hands down years ago.
Dual Universe looks interesting though.
Even though nearly everyone has written it off, No Man's Sky has been quitely shaping itself into quite a good game.
In fact I'm fairly confident is saying that there NMS is being more actively developed than Elite Dangerous at the moment.
Also, it has bigger space and more lore than Elite Dangerous.
Voldemort, Voldemort, Voldemort!
In fact I'm fairly confident is saying that there NMS is being more actively developed than Elite Dangerous at the moment.
Also, it has bigger space and more lore than Elite Dangerous.
Voldemort, Voldemort, Voldemort!
Last edited:
The big problem with space games is that they're set in space. Space, by definition, is almost entirely empty and extremely large, so there's very big gaps between the interesting things.
Most game designers conclude that designing a fun playable game is tough enough without deliberately picking a setting that is hard to make fun.
Those that do deal with it in different ways:
1) Restrict the scope. You could fit the entire Elite Dangerous player base, all 2 million of them, into Saturn's rings at the same time without anyone being within 100km of anyone else. If you kept travel speeds relatively conventional, no magical fast travel, then it would take longer to get to the other side of the rings than it does to reach Beagle Point from Sol in Elite Dangerous. The game world would not be "small" in any conventional sense.
And yet, "one planet" seems ridiculously small for a space game.
2) Cartoon scale. Make the stars and planets much smaller than they really are, and much closer together. It's not realistic, and it makes planetary landings much harder to implement, but it lets you pack all the action together. The original Elite did this, and so do lots of other games.
But, again, why set a game in space at all if you don't want to deal with the actual "space" bit?
3) Extreme templating. Have the full scale, or at least tens of thousands of systems, but rely on random generation building up from templates for basically all of it. Also done in the original Elite, but more so in Frontier Elite II and Elite Dangerous. Obviously has the problem that 99.99% of situations generated will be very recognisable variations on the first few hundred things you saw.
So you get the problem Elite Dangerous has - how to make seeing the same thing for the 100th time interesting? If there are millions of systems, why care about any individual one?
Given that, it's never possible to keep everyone happy - if you make the game big enough to be worth setting in space, it's too empty and repetitive, it takes too long to get from one side to another, etc. If you make it smaller so you can fill it with interesting things, people will complain that it's too small and they can't go where they want to, and you may as well have just set it on one planet (planets are still pretty big!) and not raised people's expectations unreasonably.
Given the choice between that and making a more traditional FPS (explosions! action!) or management sim (numbers go up!) with well-defined and well-understood gameplay, it's hardly a surprise that there's been no big rush to the genre.
I think it's very unlikely that any game will come along that beats Elite Dangerous *on its own terms* - massive galaxy, first person, multiplayer - in the lifetime of Elite Dangerous. It wouldn't be impossible to do - but there's no sign that anyone is trying, and the longer that goes on the more of a head start ED gets.
There are plenty of other niches for a space game to fill, though - and more signs that people might be trying to. Whether they're "better" than Elite Dangerous might well depend on what exactly someone is looking for in a space game considerably more than on the details of implementation quality (was Frontier Elite 2 better or worse than Freespace 2?)
Most game designers conclude that designing a fun playable game is tough enough without deliberately picking a setting that is hard to make fun.
Those that do deal with it in different ways:
1) Restrict the scope. You could fit the entire Elite Dangerous player base, all 2 million of them, into Saturn's rings at the same time without anyone being within 100km of anyone else. If you kept travel speeds relatively conventional, no magical fast travel, then it would take longer to get to the other side of the rings than it does to reach Beagle Point from Sol in Elite Dangerous. The game world would not be "small" in any conventional sense.
And yet, "one planet" seems ridiculously small for a space game.
2) Cartoon scale. Make the stars and planets much smaller than they really are, and much closer together. It's not realistic, and it makes planetary landings much harder to implement, but it lets you pack all the action together. The original Elite did this, and so do lots of other games.
But, again, why set a game in space at all if you don't want to deal with the actual "space" bit?
3) Extreme templating. Have the full scale, or at least tens of thousands of systems, but rely on random generation building up from templates for basically all of it. Also done in the original Elite, but more so in Frontier Elite II and Elite Dangerous. Obviously has the problem that 99.99% of situations generated will be very recognisable variations on the first few hundred things you saw.
So you get the problem Elite Dangerous has - how to make seeing the same thing for the 100th time interesting? If there are millions of systems, why care about any individual one?
Given that, it's never possible to keep everyone happy - if you make the game big enough to be worth setting in space, it's too empty and repetitive, it takes too long to get from one side to another, etc. If you make it smaller so you can fill it with interesting things, people will complain that it's too small and they can't go where they want to, and you may as well have just set it on one planet (planets are still pretty big!) and not raised people's expectations unreasonably.
Given the choice between that and making a more traditional FPS (explosions! action!) or management sim (numbers go up!) with well-defined and well-understood gameplay, it's hardly a surprise that there's been no big rush to the genre.
I think it's very unlikely that any game will come along that beats Elite Dangerous *on its own terms* - massive galaxy, first person, multiplayer - in the lifetime of Elite Dangerous. It wouldn't be impossible to do - but there's no sign that anyone is trying, and the longer that goes on the more of a head start ED gets.
There are plenty of other niches for a space game to fill, though - and more signs that people might be trying to. Whether they're "better" than Elite Dangerous might well depend on what exactly someone is looking for in a space game considerably more than on the details of implementation quality (was Frontier Elite 2 better or worse than Freespace 2?)
In your imagination. I've heard that the game is dying since release (or even before that) and yet all that is happening is a growing player base, continuous development and improvements of the game. Yes, these improvements could be better, yes, there are often more bugs than necessary, yes, lots of mechanics seem to be lazy implemented, yes, they still need to add a lot to turn it from a good game to an awesome game. No, the game is not dying just because you can't allow reality to coexist with your vision of doom and gloom.
Eve has so many complicated systems. It's more about the space society and not how space truly feels. ED has the society and the feel.
I hate the amoebic shape of Eve ships too but I Luke SC ships more than ED ships. Eve admitted to have been inspired from Elite. Because of Elite Dangerous, I don't see any upcoming space game, MMO or not that won't have sensible motion or effects. In fact Eve will be demoted to classic space games.
I hate the amoebic shape of Eve ships too but I Luke SC ships more than ED ships. Eve admitted to have been inspired from Elite. Because of Elite Dangerous, I don't see any upcoming space game, MMO or not that won't have sensible motion or effects. In fact Eve will be demoted to classic space games.
Eve is a good game in space but it's not a space game. I know that many people would disagree with me but that's how I see it. Comparing Eve to Elite is like comparing Medieval Total War to Mount and Blade. Both have a medieval setting but they are fundamentally different games and don't really compete with each other.
Totally disagree.
First, we don't know Starfiled will be a Fallout 4 like RPG - the rumors are that it is being designed to leapfrog SC and ED - time will tell
Second, while NMS has a simplistic flight model, it does many things better than ED, and NMS and SC planets blow away anything in ED (hence the reason for the q4 planetary update?)
I picked it up but can't get into it
Well said
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you never actually sit in the pilots chair and fly your ships right? That's why I've never tried it myself.
I'd love to see Elite get the space legs, vehicles, and planents with life that are shown in SC.
Or for SC to get the stable frame rate, excellent controls, and galaxy scale of Elite.
Or for NMS to get true mp / co-op, and a much better / more simulation like flight model that Elite has.
Last edited: