This game is not for you.

[Continium]

I often see the above being stated quite frequantly on these boards; usually in response to a critisim and/or a suggestion. There appears to be a 'terrible fear' from some parts of the community that the game is going to be 'dumbed down' if people express concerns or disatisfaction with the game - which seems to be resulting in certain people acting in a passive aggresive manner and taking it upon themselves to 'police' the boards and tell others 'where to get off'.

Many reviews of the game have acknowledged that the game does not feel 'completely finished' and this is the case for almost ALL MMO's at launch, FD have stated there are many new features to come and that they will actively listen to the community and enventually sculpt 'living breathing universe'.

Yes the game has its flaws (as do ALL things in life) and yes people are going to complain about these flaws, not because they hate the game, but because they love it and wish to see it improve.

So in future if somebody does not like a feature or wants something improving; rather than telling them "this game is not for you" (which is a silly statement anyway - people can decide for themselves) perhaps a more positive attitude would be:

"This is the state of the game at the moment, FD have said it will continue to evolve - most MMO's at launch are a bit sparse - stick around and see what happens"

 

[InMemoriamSirocco]

+1 and a resounding Amen, brother!

 

[noodle]

The problem isn't people wanting a feature or expressing a preference - which is perfectly reasonable. The problem is when they DEMAND it, or say Frontier MUST implement it, or exclaim that the game is BROKEN without it. Or also when they DEMAND something that's fundamentally opposed to the design ethos of the game. Doesn't make their preference unreasonable, but it does mean they're playing the wrong game if that particular feature is so critical to them.

 

[noxs]

This forum is not for you. Is just for carebear fanboys!


Just kidding, I'm with you..

 

[TUXER]

so lets break this out a bit.

Two players play the game exactly the same.
One says its fun and the other says its boring and needs to be fixed?

who is more correct? the person who is saying the game is broken or the person who is saying that the game is not for them?

one player wants the game play changed to match what they want regardless if other people are having fun.
The other player notices that different people like different things

 

[OnePercent]

About time, I hate those self entitled people thinking they own the decision of how the game is made.

 

[Hootmon]

The problem isn't people wanting a feature or expressing a preference - which is perfectly reasonable. The problem is when they DEMAND it, or say Frontier MUST implement it, or exclaim that the game is BROKEN without it. Or also when they DEMAND something that's fundamentally opposed to the design ethos of the game. Doesn't make their preference unreasonable, but it does mean they're playing the wrong game if that particular feature is so critical to them.

^^This^^

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

About time, I hate those self entitled people thinking they own the decision of how the game is made.

Frontier owns it.

The 'fan boys' agree with Frontier for the most part. The ones for whom 'this game is not for' are the ones who disagree with Frontier for the most part.

I suspect that the former outnumber the latter 6 or 7 to 1

 

[damientgerard]

As I have just written in another thread, there are two types of complaint.

1) Constructive criticism - This helps pinpoint issues. Good constructive criticism even offers (potential) solutions.
2) Destructive criticism - This is just complaining and moaning and serves no useful purpose other than to let the person vent steam.

I applaud those who come on here and offer constructive criticism (like you have, OP) as this is what allows a free debate of ideas and hopefully offers solutions, workaround and ideas to move the game forwards.

I have zero time for those that come on here to and moan. To those people I say "this game is not for you, move along."

 

[Ydiss]

As with most generalisations, this thread included, it doesn't actually refer to anything in context when broad-siding a nameless group of people who may have said "This game is not for you".

Context is everything. Not everyone saying "This game isn't for you" are saying it out of "fear" the game will be changed. Some say it because the manner and reasoning, or lack of, of an individual warrants the observation that this game perhaps isn't for them.

Context is important. Sometimes, a dismissive post will be needless and non-constructive. But often enough, a little context justifies most comments made here.

So, you're right... In a safe, lots of people won't find cause to disagree with my relatively obvious statements, sort of way.Positive feedback is very important for the game, as is constructive or negative feedback.

They're all really important. But so is the need to correct severely misguided observations, stipulations and remonstrations posted by some individuals who, for lack of demonstrating the ownership of "a clue", might mislead others into not playing this brilliant game.

 

[FaolGlas]

And the fact that there are millions of other games that do the kind of thing that the player wants - and there is only one Elite. If it gets changed to be "just like all the rest", we'll have lost our one game, and they will have a million and one games to play.

Feature suggestions are great - multiplayer really needs to work, so that people can join up and play together; communication between players really needs to be handled better; tweaks and improvements would be awesome (selecting a destination within system, from the system map, anyone? Landing pad lights NOT flickering out. More storyline events. Clearer impact of player actions on system status, such as actually seeing a system change ownership.) I'm not adverse to change for the better, and there is room for change without losing the soul of Elite.

The replies of "this game is not for you" are usually not in response to sensible suggestions like those, but to things that would turn Elite away from what it is, what it is meant to be, and what makes it so appealing for those of us the game IS for. And I think it is a fair reply at times - there are some people the game is not for. My son would hate it, for example. The game is not for him. I would tell him that before he bought it, if he asked, which is when those people really should have asked. I would tell him afterward too, and tell him he should have asked beforehand if he bought it first.

So no, it is not just because people are "fanboys". It is a legitimate point at times, raised when relevant (I would hope.)

 

[Dabba]

About time, I hate those self entitled people thinking they own the decision of how the game is made.

That seems harsh, I like Braben, seems like a pretty cool guy.

 

[Hootmon]

The replies of "this game is not for you" are usually not in response to sensible suggestions like those, but to things that would turn Elite away from what it is, what it is meant to be, and what makes it so appealing for those of us the game IS for. And I think it is a fair reply at times - there are some people the game is not for.

Spot on.

 

[Jockey79]

So in future if somebody does not like a feature or wants something improving; rather than telling them "this game is not for you" (which is a silly statement anyway - people can decide for themselves)

See, you'd think people could decide for themselves, but after 15 years working with the public - in various ways and capacities, once you get more than 5 people in to 1 thing, they lose the ability to think clearly and act with some weird mob mentality.

Anyway...

Why come to Elite and demand the game be made more like EVE ?
Why come to Elite and demand the game be made more like Star Citizen ?
Why come to Elite and demand the game be made more like [Insert whatever game title you wish] ?

Here is a hint, those games all ready exist - go and play them.

A lot of people gave up money to a Kickstarter project for a remake of Elite - not a remake of EVE or SC or any other game. They paid for Elite, this is Elite.... see where this going yet ?
(Side note, Thank you KS backers - I only found out about this game in November, so all KS backers, I salute you - my wife, not so happy )

Now, if people can suggest new features or ideas without demanding the game be more like [who ever] .. then we can get somewhere and help improve / evolve the game. Just don't keep going on about how [who ever] does [what ever] better - if they do it so well, then why be here !?!?!?!?

TL : DR;

Don't like the game, go to one you do like - simple.

 

[Continium]

so lets break this out a bit.

Two players play the game exactly the same.
One says its fun and the other says its boring and needs to be fixed?

who is more correct? the person who is saying the game is broken or the person who is saying that the game is not for them?

one player wants the game play changed to match what they want regardless if other people are having fun.
The other player notices that different people like different things

I would say that there is room for both sides of the argument, and that a 'growth mindset' (http://mindsetonline.com/changeyourmindset/firststeps/) as opposed to the 'I'm right, your wrong' mindset would be more conductive to the future success of the game.

Currently I am having fun in the game, but there are a number of things that are causing me frustration (Poor Ai ect) and I imagine there are quite a few people who are in the same boat - having fun but wishing for improvement.

Yes there are those people who do not offer constructive critisim - but rather than fight fire with fire (negativity with negativity) perhaps it would be more conductive to debate (without attacking) why you feel something should or should not be changed, and the reasoning behind your opinion.

A blanket statement of 'this game is not for you' does not engender debate (which if done correctly could result in positive changes for all involved).

 

[Mikey2305]

Went to see the hobbit last night and all the other whizzy bangy films that are designed for the yoof of today and seen all the stuff that my 18 yr old plays on his x box one. I think its fair to say that elite dangerous is not like any of that ...

A good thing or a bad thing only time will tell...

 

[terminatahx]

I often see the above being stated quite frequantly on these boards; usually in response to a critisim and/or a suggestion. There appears to be a 'terrible fear' from some parts of the community that the game is going to be 'dumbed down' if people express concerns or disatisfaction with the game - which seems to be resulting in certain people acting in a passive aggresive manner and taking it upon themselves to 'police' the boards and tell others 'where to get off'.

Many reviews of the game have acknowledged that the game does not feel 'completely finished' and this is the case for almost ALL MMO's at launch, FD have stated there are many new features to come and that they will actively listen to the community and enventually sculpt 'living breathing universe'.

Yes the game has its flaws (as do ALL things in life) and yes people are going to complain about these flaws, not because they hate the game, but because they love it and wish to see it improve.

So in future if somebody does not like a feature or wants something improving; rather than telling them "this game is not for you" (which is a silly statement anyway - people can decide for themselves) perhaps a more positive attitude would be:

"This is the state of the game at the moment, FD have said it will continue to evolve - most MMO's at launch are a bit sparse - stick around and see what happens"

Good points, but there are times that, based on a gamers expressed views on feature X, this game is not for them. But I do agree that this doesn't apply for everyone.

for example, if you are playing online and keep whining about getting killed or pirated as being unfair or dishonerable, this game is "not for you".

 

[Telnets]

There is a difference between a complaint and a suggestion..

Coming onto the forums and complaining that "This game is terrible, there's nothing to do" or "XYZ feature is broken - fact!" and leaving it at that is not helping make the game better in any way.. all it does is spark debate between those who think the same way, and those who think its fine as it is..

Coming onto the forums and saying "With the limited types of missions right now, it would be cool to see XYZ type of missions" or "Ive noticed XYZ doesn't seem to work very well, I have an idea that might work"..

Very few posts actually have any sort of suggestion on how to make something better... thats the only thing that bugs me personally.. while i may not agree with everyone view, i at least have some respect for the people who offer those suggestions because they took the time to think about coming up with a solution.

 

[Zekerbox]

As with most generalisations, this thread included, it doesn't actually refer to anything in context when broad-siding a nameless group of people who may have said "This game is not for you".

Context is everything. Not everyone saying "This game isn't for you" are saying it out of "fear" the game will be changed. Some say it because the manner and reasoning, or lack of, of an individual warrants the observation that this game perhaps isn't for them.

Context is important. Sometimes, a dismissive post will be needless and non-constructive. But often enough, a little context justifies most comments made here.

So, you're right... In a safe, lots of people won't find cause to disagree with my relatively obvious statements, sort of way.Positive feedback is very important for the game, as is constructive or negative feedback.

They're all really important. But so is the need to correct severely misguided observations, stipulations and remonstrations posted by some individuals who, for lack of demonstrating the ownership of "a clue", might mislead others into not playing this brilliant game.

Well said.

"this game is not for you," is far from constructive and is an easy way to respond to someone without having to put any thought into it.

 

[azdour]

The problem isn't people wanting a feature or expressing a preference - which is perfectly reasonable. The problem is when they DEMAND it, or say Frontier MUST implement it, or exclaim that the game is BROKEN without it. Or also when they DEMAND something that's fundamentally opposed to the design ethos of the game. Doesn't make their preference unreasonable, but it does mean they're playing the wrong game if that particular feature is so critical to them.

I would also like to suggest that this is not the only problem. It's also the way people respond with 'this is not the game with you' and the words they use that come across as rude and aggressive. Unfortunately with the forum increasing in numbers everyday there is very little anyone can do about it.

 

[noodle]

could have swear i saw such post of you when tey dropped offline mode....

What, you mean complaining about not getting the game that was promised when I backed it with a large amount of money? Bit different, eh? You'll also have noticed me expressing my thoughts, moving on, and not demanding anything.