If this game doesnt have the Elite/Frontier magic why not - what does it need?

[nats]

I see a lot of posts complaining about this game saying is dull, basic etc. So what happened? Why isnt this game as good as the old Frontier game of old that we all loved? What is the magic ingredient that is missing here that was present elsewhere? Was the original Frontier all that deep really? Was it all that immersive? Did you really play Elite for months or just for a few hours?

Because if I am honest with myself I cant remember playing Frontier a great deal - I think I played FFE more actually. And even then I didnt play it as much as I played EF2000 or Falcon 4. I remember some wonderful moments jousting with other ships and sitting on spaceports watching the sky change in speeded up time. But did I actually play it THAT much? Maybe this whole thing is just a load of nostagia tinting our expectations for something that really had no chance of ever being made a reality?

What do you think? Too pessimistic? Are are we kidding ourselves here? Are we ever going to get the game we really want to see?

 

[Lanatir]

To be honest, this game is a LOT closer to the original Elite than it is to Frontier. To me Frontier and First Encounters never were a real Elite. Dangerous is much much closer to it. And i am very happy with it. Frontier and First encounters had too much mumbo jumbo going on.

 

[kurush]

No, I think the original game reimplementation actually went pretty well. Problem is that concept is from 1984 and now it is 2014... From old games I like FFE the most, especially its "enhanced" version where people managed to run it with slightly better graphics. ED is pretty close but I miss the features they've lost greatly (auto pilot and planet landing) and abhor most of the features they added (pointless in-station mechanics and multiplayer).

 

[nats]

To be honest, this game is a LOT closer to the original Elite than it is to Frontier. To me Frontier and First Encounters never were a real Elite. Dangerous is much much closer to it. And i am very happy with it. Frontier and First encounters had too much mumbo jumbo going on.

Yeah but nobody could play the original Elite now, expectations of what makes a good game have moved on a lot since then. So my question still stands. You cant make a game that simply updates Elite from '84 and expect it to be a game now. I dont see how you can see this as a seqeul to Elite when Elite was a pretty basic combat and trading game. Most of EDs features come from Frontier and FFE. In my mind ED is definitely a update of FFE.

 

[Leermeister]

that's the whole problem with ED, its a nicer looking clone of the originals. There really is not much more depth to it then those. Those are great games because they have an excuse they are run on computers from the 80- early 90s. In the 80s and early 90s Elite was awsome, of course Commodore games were still sold in the software section of stores, we didn't have much better.

Here in 2015 there could be so much more depth to the world, i really cant see any reason to play this over the original other then graphics. Game really needs some depth , and immersion for it to be fun.

 

[nats]

Game really needs some depth , and immersion for it to be fun.

And that is my question. How would that be achieved?

 

[nexxo]

I wonder if it is an "uncanny valley" problem. The Uncanny Valley occurs when a simulation of humans is too realistic to be a cartoon, but just not realistic enough to be believably human. At that point, the character feels uncanny, creepy; as if you're looking at a animated corpse.
.
The evolutionary explanation is that we are really good at spotting when something looks off about someone --whether they are ill, or dead (in which case you wish to avoid contact with them as their condition may be catching). So we recognise cartoons as cartoons, and can relate to them as living characters because we anthropomorphise (another evolutionary trait). We recognise real people as real people. But almost real people look... off, somehow. Creepy.
.
I wonder whether in the same way we can relate to blocky, primitive 8-bit graphics because they are non-specific and 'blank' enough for us to project our own imagination on them. With real-life imagery we don't have to do that --it looks real and we accept it as real. But very realistic graphics are in the uncanny valley: too detailed for us to impose our own fantasy, but nor realistic enough to fill the gaps otherwise filled by our own imagination. The gaps therefore become jarringly apparent.
.
The challenge of current computer games is that they are now just on the other side of the uncanny valley and are now forced to leap the gap. But they can't do that yet. So they are paradoxically experienced as more wanting and less immersive than the primitive graphics of yore.

 

[Leermeister]

And that is my question. How would that be achieved?

Id say for one they have to let you walk around stations and planets, also for the size of the universe to really matter they should let people own factories build stations colonize planets and so on. Game really needs allot more then staring at a lifeless bulletin board like im in 1992. Also never underestimate the immersion factor of npcs walking around stations or some bars to go to. Sure you only had menus in the original and never left your cockpit but then again this is not the 80s, im sure they can implement more then a couple bland menus to look at in a cockpit. Heck even old freelancer and privateer had a few screens like bars and such on a base.

i hate to get too crazy about things and dare i say a small picture of commodities on the list of commodities.

they don't do something major like turn this into a true sandbox universe Star citizen will blow it out of the water in the next year or two. Im sure people will yell at that statement here but its true. Allot more to do and allot more depth in that planned world, and its looking to be more vibrant.

 

[Mikey2305]

It needs some sparkly tinsel ...

 

[Rockett]

I wonder if it is an "uncanny valley" problem. The Uncanny Valley occurs when a simulation of humans is too realistic to be a cartoon, but just not realistic enough to be believably human. At that point, the character feels uncanny, creepy; as if you're looking at a animated corpse.
.
The evolutionary explanation is that we are really good at spotting when something looks off about someone --whether they are ill, or dead (in which case you wish to avoid contact with them as their condition may be catching). So we recognise cartoons as cartoons, and can relate to them as living characters because we anthropomorphise (another evolutionary trait). We recognise real people as real people. But almost real people look... off, somehow. Creepy.
.
I wonder whether in the same way we can relate to blocky, primitive 8-bit graphics because they are non-specific and 'blank' enough for us to project our own imagination on them. With real-life imagery we don't have to do that --it looks real and we accept it as real. But very realistic graphics are in the uncanny valley: too detailed for us to impose our own fantasy, but nor realistic enough to fill the gaps otherwise filled by our own imagination. The gaps therefore become jarringly apparent.
.
The challenge of current computer games is that they are now just on the other side of the uncanny valley and are now forced to leap the gap. But they can't do that yet. So they are paradoxically experienced as more wanting and less immersive than the primitive graphics of yore.

It's a nice theory - but I think you are slightly wide of the mark.

I think what you're aiming at here is the concept of "suspension of disbelief". Its a state where the inherent unrealisticness (is that a word?) of the game is in effect ignored in favour of the fantasy.

I think its best explained by example. I've was a long time player of planetside 1 and planetside 2 . In both games my immersion was total - despite the fact that graphically they are miles apart. Thats because the graphics were entirely secondary to the fantasy - which was "the enemy are trying to take my base - me an my comrades have to stop them!" .

To answer the OP. I think the same thing can be achieved in Elite by refining the multiplayer side of the game and expanding on the system control dynamics. Once teams of players start going against each other, vying for system control, and wars between the Federation/Empire/Alliance breaks out I think things will get very interesting indeed.

 

[Alric]

There's a few things.
One is that Frontier was genuinely incredible for its era. Even from the demo, seeing that courier flying down from space, to a spaceport, past stations and cruisers.. the galaxy with millions of stars, being able to watch moon rise or a gas giant set from one of its moons.. unbelievable in the early 90s.

E : D is fantastic in many regards, but it is not so far removed from its peers to have that same wow factor today (in Oculus Rift it gets the closest).

Then there's the lack of mystery. In many ways that can be attributed to the internet, and to the open development from Kickstarter model - so that everyone knows what's out there without having to go and see it. In Frontier I always had that feeling that there could be things out there that I just hadn't found. It even did - I thought I'd seen it all then I found there were missions to spy on planetary bases. Thought I'd seen it all again then found I could nuke them.. etc. But it's not only the mystery factor - there really is lack of sufficient diversity and genuinely rare or unique stuff. While the detail of things has increased dramatically (but only on par with other games), the diversity hasn't, and that's important in a procedural game.

There are some small details which better helped suspension of disbelief in Frontier. For example, assassination missions gave you a target, a time and a place. They would be there.. you could even go there early and watch them arrive in open planet surface ports. You could follow them when they left, etc. It gave the impression of a living universe with real people who moved around. Now, you get a mission and you randomly stop at points of interest, seeing a handful of people until miraculously you happen across the exact person you needed. It makes it feel much more like an MMO instance than a living universe.

Some of the important things that will help a lot are not finished or fleshed out yet - like the dynamic galaxy and the news feed. They are quite flat and do not pull in enough interesting information to make it seem like life is really going on around you. I fully expect this to improve.

 

[Dissentient]

And that is my question. How would that be achieved?

Stop the pointless arbitrary NPC number-juggling and give power to the players. Add player-driven manufacturing and trading. Allow players to build stations and claim systems, form corporations and alliances, issue missions and bounties. That's the "EVE" way of doing it, and honestly, I don't really see any other way. I can't imagine how this game could become an interesting single-player experience, there's only so much you can do interacting with only NPCs. I personally wouldn't mind ED being singleplayer-oriented, but I really can't see how this game can become good without player interaction.

 

[nats]

It needs some sparkly tinsel ...

I agree. External views would definitely help with the sparkle.

But also I definitely think some sort of structure would help with sparkle - some reason to go into the game every night would be good: Better definition of empires and changing boundaries being more evident on the map, more dodgy worlds and blockades to get past, more numerous dynamic missions where you can link up with others or fight against others over campaigns lasting several weeks, lots more news and effects of news events being actually made actually visible in the galaxy and on the map. I think the map though is being vastly underused - it can help protray what the universe is like and how it is changing with events, they just arent using it the right way.

 

[Toumal]

Frontier and FFE were great technical achievements, and they looked so incredibly cool back then - but they were utterly painful for me to play. Dogfights were a bore, traveling to any place was just a constant alarm blare everytime some random ship stopped your stardreamer and you had to do some kind of pencil fight in space thing. Docking was terrible, landing on planets was completely impractical manually, so I ended up using the autopilot for everything. There wasn't much left after that, except for a few canned story missions, and a lot of procedurally generated ones.

Fast forward to ED: It's still a bit barebones, yes, but oh my god the foundation is so much better. The shooting, the flying, the docking, the ship operation, the travel... yes I love supercruise! It's a great mix between the old stardreamer and something that lets you actually play the game. And you can even AVOID pirates altogether if you want. Is there a big reason to play currently beyond that next ship or equipment, or some rank progression? Not really to be honest. My hope is they'll add more substance and metagame post release.

That, and general coop improvements. Multicrewing mixed with FPS in particular sound absolutely epic and I want to see that happen. Planetary landings the same.


To me, Frontier and FFE don't even play in the same league as this game, despite ED's current shortcomings.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

If this game doesnt have the Elite/Frontier magic why not - what does it need?

It does have that magic and so much more.

Next thread...

 

[Rockett]

For example, assassination missions gave you a target, a time and a place. They would be there.. you could even go there early and watch them arrive in open planet surface ports. You could follow them when they left, etc. It gave the impression of a living universe with real people who moved around. Now, you get a mission and you randomly stop at points of interest, seeing a handful of people until miraculously you happen across the exact person you needed. It makes it feel much more like an MMO instance than a living universe.

Fully agree with that. Also the "kill 10 rats" style missions are just plain bad. I don't think theres an excuse for that kind of mission... in any game... ever!

 

[The Space Pirate]

To be honest, I didn't play the original Elite at all but I did plough endless hours of my childhood into Frontier. I played Frontier again fairly recently and to be honest, Frontier wasn't that much deeper than this game appears to be, and certainly involved a great deal of repetition and grinding. I think some of us looking back with fondness at Frontier are looking through rose tinted spectacles.

Dogfighting in Frontier was boring - every time I heard 'Under Attack', I rolled my eyes. In ED, although the AI doesn't seem to be up to much, combat is a lot of fun - Spitfires in space if you like, as opposed to the 'jousting' style from Frontier that may be more 'realistic', but is definitely not as much fun.

I'm a little disappointed that Frontier didn't provide us with a cool opening sequence the way they did back in Frontier Elite 2, but it's no biggie. I'd love to see that sequence remade in the game's new engine.

 

[Alric]

I think some of us looking back with fondness at Frontier are looking through rose tinted spectacles.

Trouble is, E : D has to compete with 2014 games not 1992 games. It's not looking with rose tinted spectacles, it's that the bar has been raised. If the depth of Frontier was sufficient in 2014 we would not need a sequel.

 

[kurush]

Stop the pointless arbitrary NPC number-juggling and give power to the players. Add player-driven manufacturing and trading. Allow players to build stations and claim systems, form corporations and alliances, issue missions and bounties. That's the "EVE" way of doing it, and honestly, I don't really see any other way. I can't imagine how this game could become an interesting single-player experience, there's only so much you can do interacting with only NPCs. I personally wouldn't mind ED being singleplayer-oriented, but I really can't see how this game can become good without player interaction.

I would hate if it goes all the way to the Eve level and Frontier likely won't have resources to do it anyway unless they start a subscription model. Actually, it might work well if you need to subscribe to be able to own a star system and they won't run out of stock cause they have several billion of those Also, screw player interaction, I am as happy with solo mode as it gets. Just add some story line and some more things to do and I'll be happy.

 

[obliterator]

And that is my question. How would that be achieved?

Allow the players to BUILD stuff. Factories, colonies, stations, capital ships. Allow the players to impact the world more. I know some people are against it because they want to feel small and insignificant in the universe, but it would bring long term goals to everyone else.


Also, missions of epic proportions that involve coop or pvp.
Ex: assassinating an important senator that is involved in the storyline. It would be near impossible, you couldn't do it alone, and it would change the future of the game. There could also be a mission to protect him so that the players could literally decide the fate of the empire.