Not bad for a (rant), and I don't say that lite'ly. +1
- - - Updated - - -
Ok Kiblams; what does 'emergent' mean to you?
PSA: you probably don't know what makes a good game
- Thread starter KaizoMK
- Start date
Not bad for a (rant), and I don't say that lite'ly. +1
- - - Updated - - -
Ok Kiblams; what does 'emergent' mean to you?
Wow... So the problem isn't that it's not fun, the problem is that we don't recognise fun when we're having it and you know better than the rest of us what is and isn't fun?
Nope, not buying it. I've been having fun for fifty years now, I'm pretty sure I know what fun is when I see it by now, and it aint powerplay.
Nope, not buying it. I've been having fun for fifty years now, I'm pretty sure I know what fun is when I see it by now, and it aint powerplay.
Last edited:
I do know, its rather easy: Good Devs make good Games. Most of the Time (we all make mistakes ^^ )
But of course there will never be any game everybody thinks is good. Is ED a good Game? Sure! Is it valid to not like it? Sure!
But of course there will never be any game everybody thinks is good. Is ED a good Game? Sure! Is it valid to not like it? Sure!
The movie is still being filmed and we were supposed to have a part in it. So, yeah.
Do share - would love to know what should be fun in a game so I can check myself against your standards
And the audience also funded it, and are still doing so.
Good grief this post is terrible. I suspect the author actually knows it's terrible and just wants to cause more forum conflict. But let's treat it as if it's seriously meant, even if not seriously any good for a moment;
* If there were "constants" in game design, there wouldn't be either new technology required for gaming, or changes when new tech was released; the author is also apparently ignorant of the entire history of gaming and how, just to point out one example relevant to E : D, "Nintendo Hard" has long since been replaced by "Nintendo Party" where everyone's randomly a winner... E : D belongs to an older, somewhat obsolete model; you'd think someone with a Link avatar would at least know his own mascot's history.
* Nor would there be a wide range of genres or innovation aimed at attempting to create new genres. Of course, the author is too cowardly to actually state what those "constants" were, because that would allow people to either point out they aren't absolutes like claimed, or that E : D doesn't actually have those qualities...
* No human being is Infallible, therefore any claims that the game must through historical destiny be certain to be "good"; it's entirely possible the Devs may be well meaning but incompetent, or even just unlucky; a flash fire through the server cluster's building, for instance would be the end of the game long before it could ever approach the claimed inevitable greatness. This also is ignoring that little problem of "good" being entirely subjective still... and that if a game is going to be better later, it must by definition be somewhat lesser now.
* It's entirely possibly for a game to be good, but for the surrounding media to be so toxic as to prevent the community ever gelling and the game ever being fondly remembered; ridiculous threads that declare people not only know what they don't like, but that this claim can be made based upon ignoring basic cause and effect (see last point) is one good way to achieve this...
* The author can't even keep his argument coherent; For someone who doesn't understand that people complaining about two different sides of an argument are obviously two different people, this is unsurprising. Still, we get gems like
"the majority of FD's design decisions and choices thus far have been pretty spot on, although far from perfect."
"and that's because despite being incomplete, the gameplay is fun and engaging if you let it be."
"Their vision of "blaze your own trail" holds true, although again it's far from complete."
And of course, the all time classic
"I feel I have a pretty firm grasp of what is actually fun in games... Frankly, I don't understand all of the balanced and fine lines involved here...
This has to be a troll, right? Right?
* "Just know that the end result is going to be a good game whether you think so or not."
Let's just end on something that should be obvious to anyone who doesn't struggle with basic empathy; if someone thinks something is bad to them, it is bad, there is no objective "goodness" about an entertainment product; even if you believe in the long discredited Aristotelian Teleology, if someone isn't entertained, it has failed in it's Purpose and is actually objectively bad. And pretending to a greater intelligence when the alternative suggested, that E : D is the best of all possible worlds, was also discredited centuries ago is just laughable.
You like the game. Good for you. How does insulting the intelligence of the people who don't going to help the game, exactly?
IMO Elite needs more tools in the sandbox instead of the rehash of existing tools.
That's what I feel PP is, it's not anything new. It's a system of portraits telling you to do the same pre 1.3 activities but in specific systems. It doesn't introduce anything new other than telling you where to do activities if you've been doing. I don't think these are new tools, content or gameplay features, just the use of existing gameplay that has been unchanged since the days of alpha/beta. The game desperately needs new gameplay features that are interesting and hold on their own. In other words, general activities such as bounty hunting, piracy, trading, mining need to be expanded upon a lot, new "toys" introduced int hese elements as well as entirely new gameplay approaches. Elite is supposed to be a sandbox game in essence but lacks a lot of ability to explore what a sandbox environment is like.
I also think that PP should've been essentially what EVE's Faction Warfare system is, but unfortunately it isn't. I think EVE's FW system would fit perfectly in ED honestly.
That's what I feel PP is, it's not anything new. It's a system of portraits telling you to do the same pre 1.3 activities but in specific systems. It doesn't introduce anything new other than telling you where to do activities if you've been doing. I don't think these are new tools, content or gameplay features, just the use of existing gameplay that has been unchanged since the days of alpha/beta. The game desperately needs new gameplay features that are interesting and hold on their own. In other words, general activities such as bounty hunting, piracy, trading, mining need to be expanded upon a lot, new "toys" introduced int hese elements as well as entirely new gameplay approaches. Elite is supposed to be a sandbox game in essence but lacks a lot of ability to explore what a sandbox environment is like.
I also think that PP should've been essentially what EVE's Faction Warfare system is, but unfortunately it isn't. I think EVE's FW system would fit perfectly in ED honestly.
Just in: People on internet forums complain, alot. People enjoying themselves play the game.
what es me off most is how people can see the bad of this game so damn well yet cant notice how the game has been drastically improving over the past 8 months.
and this is what make me comfortable in saying that this game is only going to get better, this is only due to the performance they have been outputting in the past 8 months.
and remember people this game has a 10 year development plan!!!
and this is what make me comfortable in saying that this game is only going to get better, this is only due to the performance they have been outputting in the past 8 months.
and remember people this game has a 10 year development plan!!!
People keep saying "10 year development plan". Where does it say that? I must have missed that one.
- - - Updated - - -
You're not enjoying the game?
Early access game?? What do you mean? This game was released as a full complete game almost half a year ago with a matching AAA-title pricetag. Did I misunderstood what you meantor do you really think ED is an early access title now?
Whether I know what makes a good game for someone else is irrelevant to the fact, people such as myself funded this project and it is nothing like what was advertised to gain my money.
Lol. The only person, other than the guy you quoted, that has thought ED is a complete finished game, is David Braben. According to David, ED was complete at the time of release without 1.2 or 1.3. Everytime I hear him say that (I read it on occasion for laughs) I instantly see a 50's era short order dinner cook, with a cigarette in his mouth, looking at a bun and pickle in a basket, yelling at the waitress that returned it loudly "Tell them it is a complete hamburger!"
Ok, I don't really see that every time I think of it but, I may now.
I consider it fundamental, yes. The game, by design, is rarely truly multiplayer for a large part of the populace. Hell, when I play in open I rarely even see another player. I think a reliable way to meet players and socialization tools are necessary for something to be considered massively multiplayer. Currently even if I specify a system and station with a friend I can't guarantee meeting them, even in friends only mode.
And to answer your question: Yes, many MMOs have instanced dungeons. However they also have areas where everyone can congregate. Dungeons and Dragons Online is this way. Original Guild Wars was this way as well, instanced areas attached to social hubs.
Diablo, on the other hand, is not an MMO. Sure there are thousands of players online but they're all off in their own instances solo or with small groups and the game doesn't at all rely on the interaction of those people or groups.
The background simulations in Elite are more akin to asynchronous play among a Fantasy Football league on a massive scale done constantly. Everyone performs their own interactions which are relayed back to a central control system which then updates the overall simulation points for all of the individual players/groups. While that means everyone can affect the background simulation it does not actually provide a structure for massive real time multiplayer in any fashion.
Now all that said, please note that I like the game as it is. I'm not a fan of the P2P structure and would have preferred instanced shards on a centralized server cluster, thus avoiding many of the lag and connection issues we currently have, but that wouldn't have necessitated this actual gameplay structure changing and making it an MMO would have fundamentally changed the nature of the game, not necessarily for the better. I like that other players are rare (and in my case any other ships a lot of the time) but I wouldn't consider this an MMO in any way
Heck, given my choices I'd prefer a completely solo mode as an option that could be played locally and offline that ran the background simulations and even the PP stuff knowing that as a single player I'd have minimal impact on that simulation itself. Sorry for the derail guys.
Last edited:
Fair enough. I am sure people can debate this. But I see your point.