The Single Player/Offline Discussion Thread

[Ende]

Hello im looking to get the beta soon and i wondered if singleplayer is a good experience. I heard scenarios for singleplayer like tutorials. But is that just a tutorial? Then i can go into a "main" singeplayer? Or is it just a tutorial for singleplayer?

Well if you dont understand i just want an open world experience in singleplayer. So i can do things like trade/mine/fly around all that stuff. Is that possible in singleplayer?

Elite Dangerous is basically a singleplayer game which can be played multiplayer.

Alot of people (myself included) would like to see it more of a multiplayer game which can be played solo but it appears that FD didnt go for that.

 

[r4gegaming]

Elite Dangerous is basically a singleplayer game which can be played multiplayer.

Alot of people (myself included) would like to see it more of a multiplayer game which can be played solo but it appears that FD didnt go for that.

Hmm all i wanted is to play the game and sell/trade supplies and roam the universe.

So the solo files are located in the documents can i back them up? (i get paranoid about losing saves)

In beta 1 will it be like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iJJrk9wGj8

Also is that singleplayer or multi he is playing?

 

[TheNameIsJambo]

Hey all,

A lot of people will want to be involved in the MMO and have dynamic stories created on-the-fly, where the players will have their own tales to tell based on a constantly changing market and the back-end sculpting. But then you have the flip-side of the coin. Some people will want to play through the game on their own, and enjoy a solo experience and battle through the story, without the chance of 'griefers' ruining their fun.

In this modern day-and-age will we see the single player experience updating dynamically, to reflect the changes of the multi-player component? Think FIFA/PES, where you can download the latest team rosters and player stats. This can be the inclusion of new story-lines, and space stations, alien species, story arcs, etc. etc. Or will it be a static experience?

I am not as huge on competitive multi-player experiences as I used to be [primarily, FPSs]- This is due to my lack of time to dedicate to most on-line titles these days; work, the kid and the wife get in the way! Although, this type of MMO seems to be right up my alley. So I will play this on-line. I enjoy MMOs, and the PvP risk that comes with it. Plus, you get much greater satisfaction of annihilating another player vs an NPC

My only worry is having players at 'Dangerous' or 'Elite' level, who will scrub me out of existence, if they feel like it, because they will be pumping in hundreds of hours per month! And I'll probably only be able to squeeze in (potentially) hundreds of hours bi-annually! Meaning that my grind up to an Anaconda (or bigger?) will take substantially longer than most. I know that Braben mentioned there would be several instances of the universe, to try and group like-for-like players, to try and keep a level playing field. Although, the good side to having players higher up the food chain means that we can assist them in high-risk cargo missions. That sort of thing will be great fun

Although, for all of the other players like me, who can't put in a lot of time, might want to play off-line [or every now and again]. The game will always pick up where it left off, persistence is key to some people. Although, as above, what if the multi-player component has expanded, and new stations, etc, etc are implemented. Will that reflect into the single-player experience, for us to stumble across some day?

It's a good point, I think.

Either way, I'm looking forward to giving both modes a bash - Online moreso!

 

[mid_gen]

I'm really not a fan of the way that the games industry has basically moved to a mandatory multiplayer paradigm. It seems that every game must now have multiplayer (whether it's tacked on or an integral part of the design). Looking back; my favorite gaming experiences have almost all been single player. Never much liked online multiplayer (though I do have fond memories of console multiplayer games with a bunch of friends sitting on the couch having fun in split-screen or whatever).

This is the most disappointing aspect of this new space-sim revival. All of them seem focused on multiplayer. I really would have preferred a rich single player game. I think single player offers more depth and superior options in terms of story-telling and immersion.

There's nothing that breaks immersion more than seeing human players in the game world. I tried the Destiny beta on my brother's PS4 for example and was completely immersed in the game until I went to the hub location and saw scores of human players sprinting around between the shops and breakdancing. It just takes you out of the game world. You're no longer an elite warrior of the distant future. You're you and you're on the couch playing a game and some dude in Michigan or Tokyo or wherever is also on his couch playing and doing silly things with his avatar. I hate that!

So yeah, I'm hoping that there is some serious thought put into single player. I do, however, plan to play this game in multiplayer mode primarily unless I find the experience unbearable. The game was designed as a multiplayer game so I want to give it a shot in the way that the developers intended it to be played.

I just think that story-telling has largely been the one element of games that has not seen much progress of late. All of the focus has been towards sandbox and multiplayer.

You haven't played The Last Of Us or Bioshock Infinite have you? Storytelling in games has never been better, if that's the type of game you want.

 

[mid_gen]

Also, the space sim genre lends itself to multiplayer so well you'd be foolish to not build on it. Until now no one has really taken advantage of the progression in internet connectivity to move the genre on into multiplayer the way RPGs and FPSes have.

Besides, Elite and SC aren't about being told a story, they're about making one.

 

[themetalcrow]

i was thinking for solo offline frontier could give setting options of galaxy size.

i play by myself and only want 100-200 systems generated for the start.
would options like that be very hard to implement?

i know it would lose the whole size and scale of the galaxy, but if it's offline then it would give the 1 user more options. that's never a bad thing right?

my thinking is that it's perfectly understandable even with the background sim in offline that with just the 1 human players influence on the galaxy as a whole wouldn't evolve noticeably or quickly by itself, compared to online where thousands of players are influencing it all the time. in offline the player should still be able to influence greatly systems that the players frequents, but maybe not the entire galaxy.

so if there was the option for galaxy size in offline then a singleplayer could try a much smaller galaxy for the seed and could make a greater impact on the galaxy as a whole then.

what are your guys thoughts on options like that?

 

[Zak Gordon]

.............
so if there was the option for galaxy size in offline then a singleplayer could try a much smaller galaxy for the seed and could make a greater impact on the galaxy as a whole then.

what are your guys thoughts on options like that?

I don't think it will make that much difference if it is for 1000 planets or 100,000. That's still a lot of geography for a single player to have an effect in. Maybe if you made the 'game world' really small, like a 100 planets max, then over time you might see effects, but then again what effects are we talking about here?

I suspect the SP offline game to be more like the older Elite games, so much more static in feeling, but with the amazing new engine to really do credit to the galaxy around you. And that is pretty much the Elite game i've been waiting 15 years to play. MMO's/online MP games are just not my cup of tea.

 

[Bird Man]

Also, the space sim genre lends itself to multiplayer so well you'd be foolish to not build on it. Until now no one has really taken advantage of the progression in internet connectivity to move the genre on into multiplayer the way RPGs and FPSes have.

Besides, Elite and SC aren't about being told a story, they're about making one.

I've played Bioshock and Last of Us. They're great but, to be honest, storytelling in video games piqued in the 90s. Some games that come out nowadays can still reach those heights but it would be nice to see the boundaries pushed. A handful of modern games try to do this such as the Witcher and Mass Effect series but, for the most part, the mainstream is focused on open world, sandbox and multiplayer at the moment.

To discuss your quote, "Elite and SC aren't about being told a story, they're about making one", that is the line that we are constantly sold with regards to MMOs but the reality is that there simply tends to be no story or rather a generic and uninspired story. There can be exciting and memorable moments of gameplay but when it comes to plot and characters, you basically have to make a sacrifice in a multiplayer focused game. It's a trade-off.

So to look at your idea of moving space sims into multiplayer "the way RPGs and FPSes have"; this isn't simply adding a feature. It's making a compromise. It entails trade-offs. Trade-offs that are popular with many gamers (probably most gamers) but trade-offs none the less. Would you say that World of Warcraft has a comparable story or characters to Skyrim? Does Call of Duty have a comparable story or characters to Half-Life? The old Repuplic to Knights of the old Republic?

 

[mid_gen]

So to look at your idea of moving space sims into multiplayer "the way RPGs and FPSes have"; this isn't simply adding a feature. It's making a compromise. It entails trade-offs. Trade-offs that are popular with many gamers (probably most gamers) but trade-offs none the less. Would you say that World of Warcraft has a comparable story or characters to Skyrim? Does Call of Duty have a comparable story or characters to Half-Life? The old Repuplic to Knights of the old Republic?

No, of course the story in MMOs doesn't compare to single player experience, it can't. There's no trade-off though. There would had to have been a starting point where the game was story driven for anything to have been traded off.

I believe SC is having a fairly comprehensive campaign mode if you want a decent story-driven space sim a la the WC games.

 

[themetalcrow]

I don't think it will make that much difference if it is for 1000 planets or 100,000. That's still a lot of geography for a single player to have an effect in. Maybe if you made the 'game world' really small, like a 100 planets max, then over time you might see effects, but then again what effects are we talking about here?

I suspect the SP offline game to be more like the older Elite games, so much more static in feeling, but with the amazing new engine to really do credit to the galaxy around you. And that is pretty much the Elite game i've been waiting 15 years to play. MMO's/online MP games are just not my cup of tea.

evolution or not as long as it proves immersive and living ill be entertained plenty.

living as in there is dynamic procedural npc traffic, mission generation, rep, and overall a feeling that i am a living part of the game world. as in my treatment by the living galaxy evolves based on my actions and everything that ill be good. i do alot of successful trading than im viewed that way. or i trade poorly im treated accordingly. the crime and punishment system is a positive sign of what im talking about with living evolving world

maybe not evolving like the major situations of any of the 3 major factions but even on a small scale with how the galaxy and those in it view and treat me based on my actions.

having never played the original elite games is that last paragraph something i can at least count on?

 

[scrabbular]

So apparently there's no single player offline, despite assurances to the contrary.
Not for me then. Bye.

 

[Polared]

let's all be nice now!

 

[Yaffle]

Closing as this was a bit of a necro!