No Man's Sky recent success is good sign for Elite and future Space games/sims

Stigbob

Stigbob
wesmacdon said:
Is it a conspiracy theory? I thought his review rework was well known? I never said his reviews didn't tie your opinion. I said if he's known to change reviews because Disney tells him that fact alone means his reviews have no integrity.

He also gave Suicide Squad 8/10. That's enough for me to ignore anything he says ever again.
Click to expand...

"Disney made him do it" is a conspiracy theory.

I don't know or care what Angry Joe thinks about movies as I only use him for games reviews. I care even less what internet randoms think about what he thinks about movies.
 

krylite

krylite
IamMe said:
It may seems to you if you haven't played any real simulator or don't know anything about tech.
But ED DM is super arcadish, you've got few modules and hul with it's health bar.
Real DM would be; engines damaged even slighly they wouldn't make full propultion which will affect ships maneuverability and speed and that goes for each module charachteristics.
And hull is simple health bar, no matter where you hit ship health goes down in percentage not affecting it's flight abbility.
So i stay at my statememt that damage model being 100% arcade, 0% simulator.
Regarding FM yes we can call gta5 a simulator than, or War Thinder a flight simulator........nope they are arcade games.
You don't take away such important flight mehanic and call it a simulator.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say ED ship damage to systems is 100% arcade/0% sim, more like 70% arcade/30%sim where the sim part is still more than most space games. Some ship modules have more effects due to damage than others true, but it's still under the context of ED's current combat gameplay design decisions. Power priorities can be assigned where when damage is taken to modules or power reduced, certain modules can be shut off by the customized priority before designated essential ones which is still a fair level of complexity above '100% arcady'.

wesmacdon said:
Ahem...sound waves travelling in space, travelling faster than light speed by propulsion alone, slowing velocity as you travel TOWARDS a gravitational centre. There's very little realism in ED. It's a little more complicated than most similar games, but that doesn't constitute simulation.
Click to expand...

It's been already mentioned , much of the sounds are generated by the ship itself in the bridge. The sound is still gone when the canopy is broken, or when ship's air turned off. Supercruise follows the sci-fi logic in the game. Some of it is affected by gravity wells, making it harder to accelerate when leaving a planet, and the supercruise governor tied to the targeting also goes into effect automatically slowing the speed when approaching a planet. Try being in interdiction, and you can easily zip past a planet or sun at high sc speed when the sc auto governor is disrupted. Also plenty of newtonian effects are simmed in normal spaceflight. The velocity vectors are additive in superposition when accelerating to a planet (in normal flight after cruise) while falling with fa-off. Still far more simmed in several aspects in ED than most other genre games.

The enormous scope also very well simulates the realism of the vastness of real space. ED is an even better warp speed (& impulse which goes up to .5c) simulator than the Star Trek games themselves where you can actually cruise up to warp 9.9 for the hour or so it takes to Hutton as an example. Supercruise(warping) to a planet certain AU's away from the sun in a system is far more precise by speed vs. distance than again, most space games out there.
 
Last edited:

Stigbob

Stigbob
DefiledDragon said:
Believe what? About Angry Joe? It's not up for debate, it's just a fact. You can't choose to believe or not believe it any more than you can choose to believe or not believe that water is wet. You're starting to sound pretty irrational tbh.

Or are you talking about the general consensus that NMS is the premier space exploration experience? That also seems beyond dispute.
Click to expand...

For you it's a fact for me it's just more irrelevant drama about kids movies.
 

Cmdr Eagleboy

Cmdr Eagleboy
wesmacdon said:
Ahem...sound waves travelling in space, travelling faster than light speed by propulsion alone, slowing velocity as you travel TOWARDS a gravitational centre. There's very little realism in ED. It's a little more complicated than most similar games, but that doesn't constitute simulation.
Click to expand...

1) Sound synth generates sounds, not they are actual sounds in space; There's even early dev diary about that;
2) frame shifting sci-fi engine tears trough space time, it doesn't actually travel faster than light; It actually have interesting roots in theory of science;
3) continuing about gravity wells - they are also actually part of that theory. Space becoming much denser around objects (which invokes gravity effect), which is actually true;

So while it is not whole realism, ED uses lot of science and realism to create gameplay. I already explained what parts of game gets simulated (quite a lot). It is not simulator like Orbiter or KSP, but it certainly borrows a lot.
 

Straha Yeagar

S
Kaocraft said:
It offers a sense of consequence, ownership, and of leaving your mark on the game world. It's also an act of creativity. But yes, as play mechanics go it's still fairly shallow. Thing is, it's exponentially deeper than the equivalent mechanic in Elite.

Elite puts your name on the things you discover first. But you only see them in the system map view and they are otherwise invisible. Even if you re-visit a planet that YOU discovered, you are unlikely to recognize that it's one of yours because none of that info is in Supercruise or the galaxy map. If you could name every planet and moon, and even regions of planets? Explorers would love that. (They *do* love it in NMS) And it would be the first true example of quite literally "blazing your own trail" as in marking a path that you can recognize and follow.

So yeah, naming things ain't deep, but it's inherently rewarding because it's personal, it's social, and it's creative. And it's sooooo much better than what Elite provides, which is as close as you can possibly get to "nothing" without it actually literally *being* nothing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd have run out of names long ago if I was naming all the planets I have landed on, let alone the ones I have only scanned. First discovered tag is more than enough for me.
 

obliterator

O
CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost said:
More than in NMS ;)

In ED you scan a system, then scan the planets.
In NMS you scan planets.
Click to expand...
You scan planets, then you land on those planets and scan animals, plants and minerals, while looking around for resources, alien artifacts, drop pods and buried technology at the same time. So yeah elite could learn from nms in term of exploration.
 

Ulfar

U
Only one thing to say, Elite dangerous has a better flight model. But in no way is it realistic, it is ww2 aerial combat in space.

Neither Elite dangerous or NMS can be described as a simulator.
 

Stigbob

Stigbob
wesmacdon said:
Well evidently you do as you've commited a fair amount of your time debating it. This conversation is going nowhere. I'll leave with a reiteration of a prior statement that i feel deserves further consideration - he believes Suicide Squad to be a good film.
Click to expand...

I quite enjoyed it as well to be honest, maybe I should start watching his film reviews.
 

MrFailfactory

MrFailfactory
I'm having trouble processing why both games can't be considered good, enjoyable experiences, and why an individual must seemingly choose one trench or the other to get behind.

Riôt
 

Ziggy Stardust

Ziggy Stardust
DefiledDragon said:
When I say general consensus I'm referring to people who go out of their way to express opinions on such matters in various media. I can't be bothered trawling for them, but I will just leave this here for anyone that's interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALvRIoHrVDI&t=1s
Click to expand...

So when you say general consensus, you don't actually mean general consensus.

Well, that's one way to communicate I guess. Thanks for clarifying :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom