Thoughts to consider before complainig or demanding more features in ED

[medwyn]

I'm not sure if this helps (or if what I say is accurate) but maybe we could set up a baseline to avoid the repetitive turnups of "this game is empty" or "when will this or that happen".
I don't want to question the legitimity of anyone's opinion but I believe if we understand some basic facts about how a game is developed and not rely only on consumer's instinct, we could make a step towards more understanding and less distrust. (The text below is a copied comment I've made earlier under another topic.)

I hope once players will put some more time to rethink and redefine some terms they have about games and about how they are created.
What ED has on the plate is a really widespreading concept. So wide that it is just well over the general boundaries of a game or what a game can achieve. And that can be misleading when it comes to expectiations.

A 'game' as a concept is always based on someting particular: a definitive part of the world or imagination which can be narrowed down into the well constructed boundaries of a box. Within that box there's the very simplified version of that particular reality we call 'game' with all the symbolic acts the players are offered to to according to the rules. Achievements and goals can only be met there too.
I know that as our hardware capabilities are now much more sophisticated it's an easy and automatic jump to the human mind to adjust one's expectations to grow exponentially in listing what features there should be in that box until the boundaries are broken and nobody knows any more what's valid and what not.
This is a very basic emotional reaction (a kind of 'ego-rush') towards the subject and it doesn't help to make the game better for the user who let this expectation booster affected him/her at all.

The game code is the same for all of us - as the experience is different I allow myself to say: it's not about the game we are talking about but how we experience it. And that's based on how we think about it, the "shoulds and shouldn'ts" we raise towards it and so on. So as a review can not be good or bad but something closer or further from what one gets as an experience.

ED in its aims is well out of the general boundaries of a 'game'. It's valid to expect wideness and deepness from a 'game' which has its boundaries defined and the rules regulated. ED is not like that and in the last couple of years I saw this title rising up and reaching an unbelievable level of immersion already with carefully picked contents to back it up.
It's easy for our minds to get sparkled by what we have already and say why don't we have this and that and most importantly 'right now' otherwise we stick some labels on ED quickly like 'unfinished', 'shallow', 'boring', etc.
That's where one may need to revisit the terms and redefine what it does mean to be finished or entertaining or deep. One thing may help in this: to understand that programming and successfully implementing something into a code framework like ED is a slow process - much slower than the arising creativity of the mind can speed on with new ideas poured over in every hour.

Building up all expected and announced aspects of a big universe in a good working order is an endless and epic work. ED is an integrative title so it multiplies the challenge (unlike a truck sim for example which is just about driving or an FPS shooter which is just about shooting, etc.). You can get a finished product in some particular titles because they never intended to break their boundaries to be integrative or if they are, they got only a very limited map to work on together (like tanks and airplanes lately in other games).
What FD did so far is to build a solid fundament on which a great number of other aspects can be built later. That's ED 1.0 after launch and I see it as a great achievement in desing and programming. And that's what we players can rely on when we look at ED now and in the possible future.

Or we can list the complaints without showing some essential understanding about the concept here. I know patience (as time as well) is a rare commodity but being impatient or jumping into quick judgements without deeper understanding will not help for anyone's game experience.
But please share your thoughts so we can bring our problems out and discuss them (without emotions hopefully).

Thanks,
M

 

[Trueno33]

I like to think that this game is not finished, so I can expect more wonders from it

 

[Wellington]

Have you ever thought that the feature-light launch is by design? it then gives them the option to charge whatever they want for the "expansions" which really SHOULD have been in at lauch.....Seems someone has been peeking at the EA play book Prepare to be gouged LOL

 

[Billy Chase]

Well said medwyn! The way I see it Elite provides a universe, not a goal. So naturally the gaming experience will be very different for different people. If a player is looking for a defined path to take in this game he will probably sooner or later find the game shallow as there isn't much of a framework to go by. There's only so long one can keep oneself busy trading or fighting if one sees this only as a means to an end, and not an end in itself. On the other hand if a player uses his imagination and immerses himself into the universe that is Elite Dangerous, he can busy himself for years on end without requiring additional "content".

There's one other thing us "oldtimers" might have some difficulty with: The times of boxed, finished games are over, whether we realize it or not. There is no distinct line where the game stops being unfinished and starts being finished. The line between gamma and release was an arbitrary one. FD is still working on improving the game, adding more things to do, creating more depth. With time the Elite universe will become more and more refined, and hopefully even more fun. Crying havoc just because the game doesn't yet have all the features one had hoped for is premature and doesn't help. Instead, present your ideas in the forums, have them discussed and distilled, and if the ideas are good hopefully FD will take them up at some point down the road. Thus far they have done a terrific job at implementing players' ideas and I don't see any reason why that should change.

So just hop in, enjoy the Elite universe for what it is, and make your own fun experience out of it!

 

[bassman]

ED in its aims is well out of the general boundaries of a 'game'. It's valid to expect wideness and deepness from a 'game' which has its boundaries defined and the rules regulated. ED is not like that and in the last couple of years I saw this title rising up and reaching an unbelievable level of immersion already with carefully picked contents to back it up.
It's easy for our minds to get sparkled by what we have already and say why don't we have this and that and most importantly 'right now' otherwise we stick some labels on ED quickly like 'unfinished', 'shallow', 'boring', etc.
That's where one may need to revisit the terms and redefine what it does mean to be finished or entertaining or deep.

What I measure ED against is a combination of what DB has been eulogizing in his various speaches, FD's marketing material, and the DDF contents. Against any of those measure ED is (arguably grossly) incomplete. All of these sources constitute different levels of "promise" with the marketing being the strongest and the DDF being the weakest but they all contribute to a general expectation that people comming into the game have which is well beyond an update of the old Elite. Most of the things that people are complaining about the lack of fall into one of those categories rather than being a baseless flight of fancy.

One thing may help in this: to understand that programming and successfully implementing something into a code framework like ED is a slow process - much slower than the arising creativity of the mind can speed on with new ideas poured over in every hour.

Given the implied scope of the game from the various sources I mentioned above I expected ED to be released no earlier than mid 2015 and was frankly stunned when they went all out for a 2014 release. Obviously (for anyone following the progress since inception) this release was going to be vary bare bones compared to the "vision", but FD have continued to fan the flames of, rather than manage, expectations. FD's marketing in particular continues come out with statements like "every action you take affects the game" which is frankly outright deception and all the more heinous because that statement was in a post release news letter, the bare face cheek of such statements beggars belief.

 

[Valsora]

I think there's a line, too, where you have the immediate impact of the game on release - the reviews are done, the articles are out there, and that is the judgement: the sum experience of a game that has been let out into the world. Now that those reviews are out and people have read about this game that has come to fruition, it takes word of mouth to spread the good word on further developments and content releases.

It's essentially a gamble, and perhaps a sign of trust from Frontier. They are trusting the consumer to give them feedback and not give up on their product before they further develop this product. As consumers we read what they say and question their aims. Some don't return the trust of the developer and are angry. Others have faith, and have looked at what has been said in the past about the future of the product.

Ultimately I hope people look at the game, have fun with it, and put it aside until more content is released and keep giving it a go. The Wings content will add a lot, I think, to the way the game is played. Not just that you're doing stuff with a friend or someone you've met in the game, but the fundamental shifts in economy and faction territory can be bolstered hugely by small or large group efforts and the impact will be more visible.

Some fear that gank squads will run around ambushing traders, but who's to say that we won't start seeing escorts and more defensive group play as well - the expansion of existing player groups to get communities more involved in making partnerships to earn cash. Wings is a small but important addition, and only one of the realised ideas that have been committed to by Frontier.

The game has a future, but people need to look past their initial frustration to see what is coming and appreciate the effect those changes and additions will have on the playerbase as a whole. It won't just be about your personal story. For those who have played Eve (I know this comparison is old/dry), some of the biggest stories have emerged from the players themselves. Battles, corporations, pushes on territory. This game has that potential, both personally and for groups/factions.

The game is just beginning; be patient!

 

[darkcyd]

I am going to just have you take a step back there buddy. You act like people are asking the world of this game. This game completely threw away 20 years of gaming evolution. It threw away multiplayer, it threw away pretty much the internet as a social tool and interactive environment, as well as PvP(even in the most chivalrous of circumstances if you didn't want it in the world at large).

People are damn right to be mad when you can't group in a multiplayer game when that has been in every multiplayer game since DOOM. And to make matters worse is when you come to these forums to gripe...to be heard....to be the squeeky wheel that needs some grease about...I don't know....lets take CHAT.

Chat is great...you come here to gripe about chat and there is an army who says things like "it will break my immersion." If you've said that and could do it with a straight face, the only thing you need immersed in is boiling water.

Stop complaining indeed. Go fly a kite.

 

[Valsora]

Keeping in mind they slated the Wings content before the game was released, which is in essence the multiplayer grouping component the game struts the line somewhere between MMO and single player, and there are a lot of complaints in that vein.

So if we treat it like a single player game, we can be grateful it's not Assassin's Creed Unity but it's also not the fully polished and developed game you would expect.

If we treat it as an MMO then we lack chat, but the content is being released in stages. It encourages people to find player groups to play in Online mode or as a Private group.

In either case I think the aim is to play solo or in a gaming group. So you have voice chat, as you would as a pilot in space, or you don't really need to talk - the communication is limited to proximity for those chance encounters.

It would be 'nice' to have a global chat. Perhaps make it a choice for those who want it, or turn it off if you don't. It doesn't seem like a game-breaker but if enough people complain they might add it later.

 

[medwyn]

I am going to just have you take a step back there buddy. You act like people are asking the world of this game. This game completely threw away 20 years of gaming evolution. It threw away multiplayer, it threw away pretty much the internet as a social tool and interactive environment, as well as PvP(even in the most chivalrous of circumstances if you didn't want it in the world at large).

People are damn right to be mad when you can't group in a multiplayer game when that has been in every multiplayer game since DOOM. And to make matters worse is when you come to these forums to gripe...to be heard....to be the squeeky wheel that needs some grease about...I don't know....lets take CHAT.

Chat is great...you come here to gripe about chat and there is an army who says things like "it will break my immersion." If you've said that and could do it with a straight face, the only thing you need immersed in is boiling water.

Stop complaining indeed. Go fly a kite.

I haven't seen anything "threw away" just because something is not there yet. What I was trying to say is the experience you have about a game (and about pretty much everything in real life) is based on your expectations and how you think about it. You described quite uncontrolled emotional reactions here like "being mad" and all your nice wishes with the boiling water which I can hardly find constructive but reactive. It poisons your game experience with the assumption that that you know what's the "right way" to release a game like this and that will not accept any other ways as legit.

Now I'm thinking about that we could all put a list together of what assumptions are lurking around here which makes it hard for some of us to accept what we have and put some trust in it's evolution rather than compare it to something it is definitely not:
- ED is an MMO and MMOs should have x and y and z features
- from what we see in a marketing process we can derive an exact result (so marketing has more power over the product than the code itself)
- implementing a feature is a quickly doable job so when I throw up an idea and next time I come and check the forums it'll be there in the game
- the only acceptable form of chat is the ingame one
- "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" coming from standardized expectations of earlier experience has any effect on a developer when working on a project (a.k.a. the only right way in development is following previous patterns without any major change)

...and so on. Please put some more on this list if you have anything in mind so we could all be aware of what assumptions we have in our minds in unquestionable state which lead to misunderstadings and emotional recations.