POLL - Importance of Game Realism (everyone has a stake in this!)

[A D]

When I play ED I want it to be as close to real space as it can be. However, from reading the threads in this forum, it is fair to say that there is a considerable difference of opinion in the community so I thought it would be useful to ask the simple question.


=== 2ND EDIT ===

Again, thanks to everyone who has taken time to vote and leave a comment. The poll will close Sunday 12 February 2017, so if your interested in this thread please take a second to cast your vote. Cheers.


=== 1ST EDIT ===

Big thanks to those that have voted. If you haven't voted, please take a second to do so.

Having read the thread, there are a lot of good points. My apology to those who felt that the question is too vague, but I wanted to capture player sentiment about something that underpins ED in many ways. So far the take away seems to be that the game is not and can not be real, but the feeling of realism is important.

Though it may not be real, it sure is pretty. Enjoy, video of me in deep space today on a lonely planet playing some great cockpit music.

https://youtu.be/FDsHDVbRZHM

 

[Riverside]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/326408-Continuity-Vs-Convenience

 

[A D]

Thanks for that Riverside, but I want the question and answer to be very simple, hence little commentary. Can marry the two polls though : - )

 

[Pville_Piper]

Fun is more important. A sense of realism can definitely add to that. But sometimes too much realism can detract from it. This is a game and it needs to (and largely does) balance realism and gameplay to be entertaining.

I'm sorry, but all of these people who are just having a hissy fit over how multi-crew is being implemented need to get a grip and remember that it is just a game. One of the major impediments to wings to me is how far apart everybody is and the fact I really don't want to fly for hours or days just to wing up. I love the game as it is but it won't be ruined if they add tele-presence so that people can fly in the same ships or even in wings.

 

[biohazard15]

After all cries "Destroy feature X for the sake of realism" posts I've seen?

Absolute zero.

This is a GAME, not a NASA simulator. Hell, this isn't even a simulator. This is a multiplayer space arcade game. If realism stands in the way of potentially useful game feature - to hell with realism.

 

[Jimus]

There are at least 3 aspects of the game.
The galaxy sim (space is big, planetary tectonics, stellar forge etc)
The background sim (trade, politics, wars etc)
Gameplay (flight model, hyperspace, lasers that can be seen etc)

Occasionally the 3 intersect (ship transfer times vs telepresence for example) but on the whole they can be looked at as separate things

IMHO
The Galaxy sim should be as realistic as Frontier can make it within the limitations of technology and their own abilities.
The background sim should strive for realism but make compromises for gameplay reasons.
Gameplay, it's a game that much is apparent from the flight model alone. There are some that preferred FE2's flight model which was a lot more realistic than what we have in ED. However IMHO what we have now is a lot more fun. That ignores the fact that FE2's flight model would break multiplayer. If you made space travel realistic then you'd need to remove hyperspace and super-cruise from the game and it would take years to do anything (you cant have something like stardreamer in a multiplayer game). If you made lasers invisible then things wouldn't be as pretty. If you made space silent (I know it's simulated by our ships computer) then you'd remove one of the most well executed parts of the game.

So to answer your poll
Galaxy Sim: 10
Background Sim: 7
Gameplay: 1

Edit: on reflection Gameplay: 3 Super-Cruise is a conceit but it does add to the feel that space is big and that is a good thing IMHO

 

[A D]

Fun is more important. A sense of realism can definitely add to that. But sometimes too much realism can detract from it. This is a game and it needs to (and largely does) balance realism and gameplay to be entertaining.

I'm sorry, but all of these people who are just having a hissy fit over how multi-crew is being implemented need to get a grip and remember that it is just a game. One of the major impediments to wings to me is how far apart everybody is and the fact I really don't want to fly for hours or days just to wing up. I love the game as it is but it won't be ruined if they add tele-presence so that people can fly in the same ships or even in wings.

No problem..a valid viewpoint. The question is aimed at the overall game experience though, not just in response to the proposed multi-crew changes. Thanks for voting.

- - - Updated - - -

After all cries "Destroy feature X for the sake of realism" posts I've seen?

Absolute zero.

This is a GAME, not a NASA simulator. Hell, this isn't even a simulator. This is a multiplayer space arcade game. If realism stands in the way of potentially useful game feature - to hell with realism.

All views respected Biohazard. Thanks for voting [smile]

- - - Updated - - -

There are at least 3 aspects of the game.
IMHO
The Galaxy sim should be as realistic as Frontier can make it within the limitations of technology and their own abilities.
The background sim should strive for realism but make compromises for gameplay reasons.
Gameplay, it's a game that much is apparent from the flight model alone. There are some that preferred FE2's flight model which was a lot more realistic than what we have in ED. However IMHO what we have now is a lot more fun. That ignores the fact that FE2's flight model would break multiplayer. If you made space travel realistic then you'd need to remove hyperspace and super-cruise from the game and it would take years to do anything (you cant have something like stardreamer in a multiplayer game). If you made lasers invisible then things wouldn't be as pretty. If you made space silent (I know it's simulated by our ships computer) then you'd remove one of the most well executed parts of the game.

So to answer your poll
Galaxy Sim: 10
Background Sim: 7
Gameplay: 1

Edit: on reflection Gameplay: 3 Super-Cruise is a conceit but it does add to the feel that space is big and that is a good thing IMHO

Thanks Jimus, good point. I wanted to keep the question simple so couldn't get into specifics. There are definitely some gameplay mechanics that are necessary regardless of realism, I get that. Thanks for voting.

 

[Sterling MH]

So anyone marking over 7 has to actually die when their game character blows up? Or just have to uninstall the game and buy a new one. Or is that a 10?

Does someone also voting over 7 have to wait until we invent an FTL drive before playing the game? Or is that a 10 too?

If someone voting less than 3 asking someone to delete the animation of the pilot's hands and the controls? And are hand movements following user inputs important only if you vote over 8?

If I vote 8 am I supposed to be asking for my HOTAS to be replicated in the game, or am I saying I can't play the game until I have a HOTAS that looks like the one in the game?

What value in the poll is "Unless I'm wearing VR, it's a joke"?

And what value is acceptable that I don't have ANY sort of 5.1 surround system?

If I vote 5, am I allowed to let the sparks have a ballistic trajectory? How about if I vote 9, is that not allowed because I don't mind that there appears to be smoke rising when the ship overheats?

And what scale is it that means that until the ship stops "overheating" until my PC *also* catches fire, so can this mechanic be removed, please?

Oh, and if there's no toilet in the ship, does FD have to make your pilot poop your pants after 5 hours sitting down because I voted 6?

 

[Mole HD]

With games, the balance has to set between realism and 'fun'. Too much emphasis on realism will detract from the experience when countered with gaining some sense of achievement during time spent playing.

I want my time spent gaming to be more fun than realistic...when it comes down to ED, the realism isn't even an issue since it's set in an environment using equipment with over simplified controls that don't yet exist. After all, it's not IL2 Cliffs of Dover [squeeeee]

I voted 4

 

[A D]

So anyone marking over 7 has to actually die when their game character blows up? Or just have to uninstall the game and buy a new one. Or is that a 10?

Does someone also voting over 7 have to wait until we invent an FTL drive before playing the game? Or is that a 10 too?

If someone voting less than 3 asking someone to delete the animation of the pilot's hands and the controls? And are hand movements following user inputs important only if you vote over 8?

If I vote 8 am I supposed to be asking for my HOTAS to be replicated in the game, or am I saying I can't play the game until I have a HOTAS that looks like the one in the game?

What value in the poll is "Unless I'm wearing VR, it's a joke"?

And what value is acceptable that I don't have ANY sort of 5.1 surround system?

If I vote 5, am I allowed to let the sparks have a ballistic trajectory? How about if I vote 9, is that not allowed because I don't mind that there appears to be smoke rising when the ship overheats?

And what scale is it that means that until the ship stops "overheating" until my PC *also* catches fire, so can this mechanic be removed, please?

Oh, and if there's no toilet in the ship, does FD have to make your pilot poop your pants after 5 hours sitting down because I voted 6?

Well can't really say Sterling MH, what does it mean to you? Obviously, its a game, not real life so you will have to use your own loo for the present : - ) For me "realism" means whatever is feasible and practicable within the confines of the game to make me believe or imagine I'm travelling through our galaxy. Thanks for voting.

- - - Updated - - -

With games, the balance has to set between realism and 'fun'. Too much emphasis on realism will detract from the experience when countered with gaining some sense of achievement during time spent playing.

I want my time spent gaming to be more fun than realistic...when it comes down to ED, the realism isn't even an issue since it's set in an environment using equipment with over simplified controls that don't yet exist. After all, it's not IL2 Cliffs of Dover [squeeeee]

I voted 4

Fair enough. Thanks for voting.

 

[Quester91]

9-10 extremely important.

 

[Cupsuki]

It's a BONUS feature tbh, if it's realistic then that's awesome but as Braben said "Sometimes to make a great game you got to drop realism in order to do so"

 

[Sterling MH]

Well can't really say Sterling MH, what does it mean to you? Obviously, its a game, not real life so you will have to use your own loo for the present : - ) For me "realism" means whatever is feasible and practicable within the confines of the game to make me believe or imagine I'm travelling through our galaxy. Thanks for voting.

Well since it's a game, realism doesn't come into it, it's orthogonal. All we can get is some level of believable, but that, like I said, is orthogonal to realistic. The magic of Discworld is believable. As is that in the movie "The Sorcerers' apprentice".

Not to mention the magic, and very EXTREME magic in Doctor Strange (the movie) is realistic but not believable as actually happening here.

And that, really, is the nub of the problem and why I still haven't voted, because I can't see what I'm supposed to vote for. Discworld magic is believable, despite not being realistic, because it's in a fantasy setting, where magic could really exist. It even shows that the rules are part of its universe and not part of ours (See "The Science of Diskworld"), whereas Doctor Strange is not believable, despite being realistic depiction of our world, BECAUSE it's pretending to be in our world.

So, really, is Elite supposed to be set in this world? Because it can't. We don't have space drives. We don't have FTL travel. Space travel has no maximum speed limit. And it's not 34thC.

If you say that X must work a certain way, how do you know? If you say "If X then Y must be true", how do you know? So how can you tell it's realistic? Or believable? Because we don't know what the Elite Science is. So any measure of realism depends on what I also assert "must be" the rules of Elite.

And I appear to be one of the ones who is willing to admit that I don't know the science of the 34thC in the Elite game. So I admit I can't vote since there is no answer, the question is, at its base, meaningless.

EDIT

Look, I could vote 10. And TP for multi-crew could STILL be fine.

I could vote 10 and the hold size of the T9 IS NOT fine.

So it's either impossible to answer the poll or meaningless.

 

[A D]

Well since it's a game, realism doesn't come into it, it's orthogonal. All we can get is some level of believable, but that, like I said, is orthogonal to realistic. The magic of Discworld is believable. As is that in the movie "The Sorcerers' apprentice".

Not to mention the magic, and very EXTREME magic in Doctor Strange (the movie) is realistic but not believable as actually happening here.

And that, really, is the nub of the problem and why I still haven't voted, because I can't see what I'm supposed to vote for. Discworld magic is believable, despite not being realistic, because it's in a fantasy setting, where magic could really exist. It even shows that the rules are part of its universe and not part of ours (See "The Science of Diskworld"), whereas Doctor Strange is not believable, despite being realistic depiction of our world, BECAUSE it's pretending to be in our world.

So, really, is Elite supposed to be set in this world? Because it can't. We don't have space drives. We don't have FTL travel. Space travel has no maximum speed limit. And it's not 34thC.

If you say that X must work a certain way, how do you know? If you say "If X then Y must be true", how do you know? So how can you tell it's realistic? Or believable? Because we don't know what the Elite Science is. So any measure of realism depends on what I also assert "must be" the rules of Elite.

And I appear to be one of the ones who is willing to admit that I don't know the science of the 34thC in the Elite game. So I admit I can't vote since there is no answer, the question is, at its base, meaningless.

EDIT

Look, I could vote 10. And TP for multi-crew could STILL be fine.

I could vote 10 and the hold size of the T9 IS NOT fine.

So it's either impossible to answer the poll or meaningless.

No problem. Thanks for putting your point of view.

 

[Vacendak]

I went with 5 because the real goal for a game like this should be to balance realism with game play.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Remember folks, there is a distinction between REALISM, and IMMERSION.

Think about it.

 

[Sterling MH]

Remember folks, there is a distinction between REALISM, and IMMERSION.

Think about it.

And whether you want realistic death or realistic lighting.

 

[Junky Juke]

Voted 7 because realism is yay!!! but I want to play a game! [up]

 

[Bryan K]

9. This game is built up around scientific realism. It's almost more of a simulator than a normal game, and that's what makes it fun for me.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Though it is true that "Gameplay trumps Realism", I don't believe that we should adopt game mechanics that stomp on realism altogether. Which is why I have this problem with the way they're trying to explain upcoming "Insta-transfer" to Multi-crew ships. Heck, it's not even so much the "realism", as the total inconsistencies with the established rules of the game. We can "telepresence" half-way across the galaxy, to a friend's ship, but an SLF is destroyed if it gets beyond 30km from the Mothership....say WHAT?!?! There are other inconsistencies, but that is the one that comes to mind most strongly. I also worry that this is a means of getting out of having to give us space legs in the future.....though I confess I might just be being a bit paranoid about that .

That is why the solutions that I would like to see-which would maintain consistency whilst still allowing people to band together relatively easily-is to have the joining party needing to be at some kind of fixed facility.....as only they have the power and bandwidth sufficient for that kind of Telepresence....and have it limited to a 600LY range (the size of the original bubble).

The other solution, & one I prefer even more, is the one Ozram suggested. You hire NPC's to fill the seats of your Multi-crew ship (which will please the Solo/Loner crowd). Then, if any human wants to join your crew you either (a) meet up at a station, where they can transfer onto your ship (with their own avatar) & you can dismiss or inactivate the NPC crewmember or (b) if you're too far apart to meet up, you literally take over the avatar of the NPC sitting on board that ship. This should-I believe-satisfy the desires of both the Instant Gratification and the Ultra-realism crowd!

Back to the original point, though, I ranked realism as 7.....very important, but not so important that you can't have a few short-cuts or rules bending that help game-play.