Please define "content" and "gameplay"
- Thread starter Junky Juke
- Start date
Gameplay is what I see when I watch YouTube videos.
Content: 400 billion realistic star systems, any one of which you can visit.
Gameplay: Jump, scan, scoop. Jump, scan, scoop. Jump, scan, scoop.
Alternbativly you can categorise 90% of the gameplay into either 1) Moving things from A-B or 2) Shooting things.
Gameplay: Jump, scan, scoop. Jump, scan, scoop. Jump, scan, scoop.
Alternbativly you can categorise 90% of the gameplay into either 1) Moving things from A-B or 2) Shooting things.
Last edited:
Content is things you can do. Gameplay is how you do them.
ED's greatest asset is it's massive universe (the content). No other game offers a sandbox (lel) as big as this one. How you interact with the massive sandbox (the gameplay) is boring and massively repetitive. At best, exploring in this game generates a few pretty screenshots; at worst, it's honk jump honk jump honk jump honk jump, stopping occasionally to refuel, or go look at an object that's worth slightly more than the other objects.
Other games offer the same gameplay that Elite does in it's shooting and trade mechanics (or at least very similar), nobody else has the universe elite does. Their universe is squandered and wasted. A certain other game already offers more compelling shooting mechanics, with faster and more responsive ships, and realistic (sorta) damage states where pieces break off. It's nice that you could maneuver behind someone and remove one of their engines to give yourself an edge, whereas in Elite it's best just to target the powerplant subsystem and shoot it until it's zeroed. Another well-known space game offers realistic trade empire building a thousand times more complex and rewarding that Elite's. Why does Elite ignore it's greatest asset?
I'm not saying Elite is a bad game. It's quite a good game. But compared to others, it's very lackluster in it's execution, and it's downright infuriating that we've been given a massive (MASSIVE) universe to explore, but there's precisely crap-all to do in it.
ED's greatest asset is it's massive universe (the content). No other game offers a sandbox (lel) as big as this one. How you interact with the massive sandbox (the gameplay) is boring and massively repetitive. At best, exploring in this game generates a few pretty screenshots; at worst, it's honk jump honk jump honk jump honk jump, stopping occasionally to refuel, or go look at an object that's worth slightly more than the other objects.
Other games offer the same gameplay that Elite does in it's shooting and trade mechanics (or at least very similar), nobody else has the universe elite does. Their universe is squandered and wasted. A certain other game already offers more compelling shooting mechanics, with faster and more responsive ships, and realistic (sorta) damage states where pieces break off. It's nice that you could maneuver behind someone and remove one of their engines to give yourself an edge, whereas in Elite it's best just to target the powerplant subsystem and shoot it until it's zeroed. Another well-known space game offers realistic trade empire building a thousand times more complex and rewarding that Elite's. Why does Elite ignore it's greatest asset?
I'm not saying Elite is a bad game. It's quite a good game. But compared to others, it's very lackluster in it's execution, and it's downright infuriating that we've been given a massive (MASSIVE) universe to explore, but there's precisely crap-all to do in it.
You're wrong.
2 years of development with the same barebones mechanics has nothing to do with instant gratification.
Spot on OP. Rep for you!
Content are the resources and new items added to the game. Gameplay is just how the game is played. You have to add the resources in order to add the gameplay.
At Elites launch there were Planets with no atmospheres. They added the content of Horizons and the Gameplay that spawned was planetary exploration, resource gathering/synthesis via the provided SRV content.
You cant have one without the other. You cant build anything without the tools and content in video games are the tools. You add content, then you utilize said content. For this patch they are adding the avatar creator so when they launch space legs, the content is there to support it. Plus its cosmetic at the moment and will not harm balance anything in the game currently.
Casually what I think of when hearing or using "gameplay" and "content" in the usual gaming context:
gameplay: how controls (intuitive UI, PC-friedly or console controls, sensitivity and precession of controls) and game-mechanics (like story, enviroment, AI, economy, combat, flightmodels, communication, ...) blend together.
content: how long can I enjoy the game (20 hours of story, different things to try out like professions, multiplayer, singelplayer campaign, empire building, economy simulation, exploring, ...)
It's a bit more difficult to measure neverending "sandbox-games" or "open-world games" then classical story-driven RPGs or action games or campaign drive strategie or build-up games that come with a clear goal and end of the game. So this is my two cents. Elite Dangerous is a... very strange horse in my eyes...
gameplay: how controls (intuitive UI, PC-friedly or console controls, sensitivity and precession of controls) and game-mechanics (like story, enviroment, AI, economy, combat, flightmodels, communication, ...) blend together.
content: how long can I enjoy the game (20 hours of story, different things to try out like professions, multiplayer, singelplayer campaign, empire building, economy simulation, exploring, ...)
It's a bit more difficult to measure neverending "sandbox-games" or "open-world games" then classical story-driven RPGs or action games or campaign drive strategie or build-up games that come with a clear goal and end of the game. So this is my two cents. Elite Dangerous is a... very strange horse in my eyes...
Last edited:
Go play Eve long enough to understand its incredibly deep and complex outfitting mechanics, then come back here and apologise to Ignition. "most complex of any game, especially in the genre" LMFAO. You have no idea what you're talking about mate, none at all. Outfitting in ED couldn't be much simpler.
This is a great quote.
Content = stuff, Gameplay = doing stuff, for sure.
But I disagree with 'mile wide inch deep' arguments fundamentally because, if you were to go through each possible activity in turn before going back to repeat any at all, it would take you quite a long while. Try it .. pirate someone, then bounty hunt someone, then do a CG, then see a ruin, then mine something, then trade something, then do 1,2,3 (all) different missions, then 1,2,3 (all) different passenger mission types, then flip a system, then climb a Powerplay grade, then BASE jump an SRV, then Fual Rat, then do a RES, then a CZ, then find some geysers, then launch a fighter, then scavenge some crash sites, then drop in on some USS .. (really? I could go on).
I see ED heading towards a critical mass of individually simple but collectively complex content features, though I do think it's possible to miss them as currently you have to engage 'with them' for the most part. I've started to get in-flight mission messages now though, which imo is the galaxy starting to mess with me, rather than the other way around. People as a general rule of humanity often tend take path of least resistance too and if they make money doing one thing they do that, again again and can burn out, forgetting the other options, maybe not quite as lucrative but engaging in different ways. Honk scoop jump is a good example .. why not study the orbit patterns of unusually dense or other planet types, photograph them, log them .. because really, THAT is exploring. "Been there" is touristic?
My two credits.
Context is everything.
Elite has far more activities to do than many games which just involve moving and shooting, and nothing else. However those repetitive activities are (sometimes) wrapped up in an invovling story or setting that fires the imagination or makes it seem less repetitive than it actually is.
For me the game needs more character, commander creator is a good start, but the NPCs need more character as well.
Still my favourtite space game though...
Elite has far more activities to do than many games which just involve moving and shooting, and nothing else. However those repetitive activities are (sometimes) wrapped up in an invovling story or setting that fires the imagination or makes it seem less repetitive than it actually is.
For me the game needs more character, commander creator is a good start, but the NPCs need more character as well.
Still my favourtite space game though...
A lot of what goes into good content, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily lie in the content itself but instead hides in-between pieces of content in three Cs: Consistency, Connection, and Consequence.
Consistency: A is A, B is B. Consistency is the laws that bind the game together. Physics is a strong example of consistency: every action has an equal and opposite reaction, no exceptions. Breaking physics can be consistent too, as long as the game always breaks it the same way, for the same reason, every time. Consistency allows you to create expectations and follow through on them knowing that, if you read the rules right, they WILL be met.
Connection: No mechanic is an island. Connection is how mechanic A interacts with mechanic B. Does bounty hunting in a system raise the security level of the system because there are fewer pirates, and rumors of a ruthless bounty hunter in the area is driving the surviving pirates away? Does that raised security level attract traders and passengers to do business in the safe system? Those are connections. Connections create complexity and depth, as actions ripple throughout the game instead of being isolated in their own little container.
Consequences: A leads to B, B leads to C. Consequences are related to both Consistency and Connection. When you combine them, you get Consequences. Well implemented consequences lead to those moments in games where you go, "Wow, the devs actually thought of that!" Dwarf Fortress, for all its faults, is a game that is almost entirely driven by its Consequences, most of which end in !!FUN!!.
When Consistency, Connection, and Consequences all come together, they can produce an endless supply of hilarious and amusing stories.
Consistency: A is A, B is B. Consistency is the laws that bind the game together. Physics is a strong example of consistency: every action has an equal and opposite reaction, no exceptions. Breaking physics can be consistent too, as long as the game always breaks it the same way, for the same reason, every time. Consistency allows you to create expectations and follow through on them knowing that, if you read the rules right, they WILL be met.
Connection: No mechanic is an island. Connection is how mechanic A interacts with mechanic B. Does bounty hunting in a system raise the security level of the system because there are fewer pirates, and rumors of a ruthless bounty hunter in the area is driving the surviving pirates away? Does that raised security level attract traders and passengers to do business in the safe system? Those are connections. Connections create complexity and depth, as actions ripple throughout the game instead of being isolated in their own little container.
Consequences: A leads to B, B leads to C. Consequences are related to both Consistency and Connection. When you combine them, you get Consequences. Well implemented consequences lead to those moments in games where you go, "Wow, the devs actually thought of that!" Dwarf Fortress, for all its faults, is a game that is almost entirely driven by its Consequences, most of which end in !!FUN!!.
When Consistency, Connection, and Consequences all come together, they can produce an endless supply of hilarious and amusing stories.
Sole Hunter
Banned
Playing with a bunch of basic sliders to make a character look like shrek for an hour is what I call shallow content.
Like you said Elite is ''potential'' but that's really all it is because frontier failed to create high quality emergent content since horizon was released.
It's obviously easier for them to make a 15 sec scripted ship that looks like a giant pancake to boost short spur excitement.
Last edited:
I doubt it will add more complexitivity, i just realised it's ported to x-box and PS. And no console ported game can be sim. Slowly it is becoming arcade console game.
I doubt consoles could handle all that promises from kickstarter video.
Sole Hunter
Banned
I didn't notice or knew it was coming at the same time to consoles, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if it was adapted for the cheap knock-off console version.
I bet you a piece of bacon that they made it for console first and ported it back to PC.
Think about it, they can't really make anything worth while for PC anymore because they have to send it back to flip-phone 2003 land of the consoles.
Last edited:
verminstar
Banned
No console ported game can be sim? Really? Haha
I doubt ye have any idea what modern consoles are capable off...not after that statement ^
Sole Hunter
Banned
I use my xbox to collect the dust in my house, it's quite an achievement for a box made of plastic.
I guess you don't Know what is real sim, not some 2% sim like ED.
We make our own content by trading, bounty hunting or playing with the background simulation to get the factions into power that we support.
If landing is super easy for you may I suggest looking in the right hand panel and the far right tab in that panel and switch off Station rotation. ( I think this is what it is called) This will make landing a challenge, if that doesn't help switch off Flight Assist as well.
I prefer the mechanics in Elite over the ones found in Star Citizen for me Elite is fun to play and I find my own content to do which is what a sandbox is about. People say games like GTA5 and Skyrim are sandbox but in truth they are not as there is no real freedom to pick and choose. There is a ultimate end to the games after the main quest is finished and all the side quests are done what else is there? You are now leader of all the guilds done all the dungeons, built all the houses. That is a themepark with the illusion of a sandbox.
A true sandbox has no main quest line or story line, it has things going on in the game world that do not directly effect the player unless they wish to get involved. This is what Elite Dangerous is.
I roleplay a Imperial commander and do things in the game that helps the Empire. I have interacted with the game of Elite and managed to get my commanders name attached to some star systems, that is some fairly good interaction if you ask me.
People complain that the game lacks depth and complexity and yet they offer no way to add this to the game, when asked they shrug their shoulders and slouch off without an explanation to what they mean. I usually find it to be the younger crowd who have grown up with CoD and BF to be those who demand depth. Those of us who are older and have played the old Elites know what to expect and love those games from our past. we make our stories in the galaxy and our own way. I do not belong to a corporation or minor faction, I support the Empire and this can easily change the next day as I fly to independent worlds or those held by the alliance.
I remember games like Eve online where all you have was mining, ratting and pvp. The biggest ships were battleships and there were no Player Owned Structures or POS. Over the 14 years its been live the game has changed drastically with more depth and scope. I think this is how Elite will evolve as more content is added by the devs each year.
There were many things in the design forums that have yet to be seen in the game and these will take work and time from the devs to achieve. I for one will be here when they are added as I honestly love Elite Dangerous, now I know that what ever I say will never change your mind but even though you don't like the game there are many more who do. It is your opinion and I respect that, just like I hope you can accept and respect those who like me love the game.
- - - Updated - - -
^^ added rep this is what I do in the game to keep it fresh. Why grind? Its not a race to the finish.
If you only have stopped at this point I possibly could have agreed...
Pardon?
You can't have read or at least understood the further above mentioned article http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/
Otherwise I don't get how someone can seriously come up with such 'meta-nonsense'. Not only does your post look like an 'official' (as in 'broadly accepted' at least) definition of this artificial term gameplay. To prove your point you even break 'gameplay' down into 2 elements (sounds somehow scientific, I give you that, but in the end it's completely arbitrary as in 'your personal' definition). The worst nonsense comes when you start to explain the term with itself (in systems). It's quite similar to those zealots who try to explain the truth of the bible with paragraphs from in the bible itself. Also, constructs like "in its broadest sense" are in fact zero-statements, albeit looking quite intellectual.
I don't really care for the incoherent rant in that article. Regardless of what that dude says, gameplay is in fact a pretty well understood concept in the games industry. It's a catch-all term to describe player interactivity with a game. Games are diverse, and so are the diverse sets of mechanics that afford the player agency within the differing gameworlds. Thus, "gameplay" is a term invented to descirbe the generalised way that all games allow for for player interactivity.
My description tries to categorise gameplay in a fairly loose sense. Is it subjective, of course it is. Nowhere in my definition did I claim my explaination was anymore than my own understanding of the terms used.
The realities, however, of gameplay and content as they pertain to videogames are pretty straightforward. I don't think the terms are any less useless than other generalised terms we use in the english lexicon.
I.e. When a gamer wants to refer to a particular gameplay mechanic ----> he uses language to specifically highlight that particular mechanic
When a gamer wants to refer to a collection of mechanics and the systems built around them to facilitate the game loop -----> he uses a general term like "gameplay"
It's a fairly easily umderstood descriptor and I honestly don't see the problem with it.
I see more of a problem with these seemingly rapid groups of people who seem to want to project their own misgivings regarding differences of opinion on the internet on others by wrapping up their angsty ire in a thin veneer of indignation over simple verbiage.
I mean... there are far more important things in life to get your knickers in a twist over.... Donald Trump for one... *shrug*
Edit:
----------------------------------------
To put it another way:
I describe gameplay in two parts:
- mechanics
- systems
E.g. in a game like mario the mechanics are very limited. A player can:
- jump
- duck
- grab
Alone these three actions comprise the three physical methods by which the player is able to interact with the gameworld. Taken at face value they seem pretty limted and pretty trite, however, the genius of Nintendo's game designers begin to become apparent when you start looking at the systems layered on top of those mechanics to facilitate "gameplay":
In mario, the systems include:
- the health system (i.e. limited number of lives)
- the death system (i.e. fall down a hole or touch an enemy and the player loses a life. Run out of lives and its game over)
- the obstacle systems (i.e. enemies and creatively designed platforming)
The systems conbine with the mechanics to create "gameplay". And the content is all the sprites and background artwork rendered in the game, together with the systems created by the developer to contain everything in a self-contained cohesive package (e.g. menus, game over screen, UI, settings menu, save system, etc).
It really isn't as vague or difficult to comprehend as you or the article tries to suggest.
In the end you have (inadvertently) proven the point of http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/ in a most impressive way!
Which is: Be more specific about what exactly you don't like and what and how you would like to improve.
All those nebulous and generalizing terms like "content", "gameplay" or the popular "miles wide inch deep" don't get us anywhere.
Errr... people are already fairly capable of speaking specifically about gameplay mechanics or systems they dislike and why. I feel like you're targetting this criticism at entirely the wrong community here.
Every single other thread on here is a rant about some specific game mechanics or system and why the OP dislikes it or wants it to be nerfed. Sure the reasoning can often be tantamount to a whole load of irrational mental gymnastics, but the point still stands that people address their grievances about specific issues with specific parts of the game rather adequately.
So I really do wonder what you are talking about here and/or who in particular you are talking to?!
Last edited: