Disclaimer: I wanted to avoid to do this post. I started it and closed tab with new post during this week a lot more than usual. I am already touted as fanboy by everyone and I frankly could care less than just add to the noise. So if you have nothing else to say except than usual something about my blindness, don't bother. If you want and can counter argue to my points - fire away. You and I don't have to agree, but I certainly enjoy reading well written arguments.Yes, it's a bit of rant, and heavily subjective of that one, this is my opinion and mine only. Said that, there's some facts you can look up if you care, especially about general direction of ED gameplay design.
I think we have reached the point where not only I have to, but I feel forced to talk about ED. Not only about current perception of ED, but also about ED as game with defined game design. Despite developers being open about fundamental design ideas behind the game for more than year now, there's lot of misunderstanding floating around, which has caused lot of toxicity in not very big, but very vocal part of community.
Why it is important to discuss it now? ED update 1.3 is massive. No doubts about that. You can clearly see FD has been working for some quite time on feature sets, improvements, etc. etc. However one thing 1.3 clearly tries to do finally is introduce consequences in ED - for long time project supporter like me fixing of ramming, bounty changes, etc. are way more important than Powerplay mechanism itself. I am mostly interested in these few small and medium tweaks and additions which has caused a bit of fraction with few members of society. These changes like bounty changes and legacy fine introduction, decrease cost of modules when re-selling them after traveling to other market - all of them aim at introducing much more refained and more substantial consequences. Yes, I am skipping CG and PPs as topics regarding this discussion, as for me they are bit of meta game addition (not my thing, although I like inception which both concepts offer) and it will take some time for them to feel fitting in for me. In fact, I think PP and CG discussions in overall have been more fruitful and there's lot of improvements to be had, as usual. Just Friday FD already changed new bounty system quite considerably, allowing it to scale, which felt very natural extension to overall design (7 days for bad aim felt too much for me too). I think that's what lacking in many these conversations - there's lot of assumptions thrown around FD don't care or don't know how to design game, they don't listen, etc. I think it is very important to point out that FD listens a lot and if they feel convinced and find a way how to merge ideas from community in their design - they certainly will do that sooner or later. However, there's one very important point to make - it's still their game and their design. They won't yield if your goal is change their design considerably.
And here comes the controversy I think is not discussed or touched upon for various reasons here on forums - mostly because it at this point it represents certain demographic which causes one part of argument to be echoed despite it's not representing full picture. About 1 year ago, to be precise, just before first Premium Beta 1 release, I wrote quite lengthy thread about how ED will be grindy for many people and in the perception of players in overall. Elite and it's games has always had strong basis in simulator category, while still not being fully pledged one (as Orbiter or Kerbal Space Program) All Elite games have merged pseudo and semi randomness of PG with authored and handcrafted content to create galaxy. However, gameplay mechanics have stayed more on 'sim' part of this hybrid. ED continues and expands on this tradition. Many players are aware of that and also expect ED to follow suit. Many players, however, come from different background and they expect something else.
"Elite: Dangerous" in many aspects is basically space sci-fi simulator (also dubbed 'Hans Solo simulator' by few). It takes a fantasy setting and "simulates" according to gameplay design and ideas of FD and early backer community. It isn't so control heavy as Orbiter or follow real life orbital physics, but it stands somewhere between space sim and space games. It mixes AI and player elements to create dynamic world. It's certainly not nowhere close to perfect - lot of things still happening just in background but not visible to players, not enough of data which changes are visible in game - but it's clearly getting there and moving in certain direction.
This boils down that ED as a game tries to "simulate" many aspects of imagined space flight, in the galaxy around the ship and human society around you as pilot. How successful and how complete this "simulation" is open to discussion - and might be source of regular "shallow/inch deep" debate people engange regularly on these forums. It is also clear that FD haven't implemented everything they would like to so there's lot of stuff waits to be implemented, which will change perception of any of these "sim" levels considerably. Still, intention according to developers has always been "space sim game". And there comes a problem.
Most modern games, open world or not, are built towards very directed experience, and have very strong defined borders of achievements and success. Games are measured in hours of 'accessing content' or 'beating the game'. Games without defined ending also usually have gameplay tailored to "min expenses/max income", allowing to 'game' system in certain ways and thus reward player who does so. When people argue ED lacking depth it's worth to remember what's their perspective are - they are looking for very detailed personalized experience they recognize. They are not interested how this experience is built, they are interested on cathartic deliverance, be it 'fake' or 'simulated'.
There's nothing wrong with that. There's billions industry build around these concepts and they have proven to be safe investment and working. However, ED tries to do something very different (you can call it old school if you like). And therefore comes the clash of concepts and understanding - people trying to "complete" or to "beat" ED find it super grindy and lack of any substance they could resonate against. And I can't avoid fact that ED is still growing as a game - for some it's good enough reason, for some it's justification never should have released this soon. In nutshell, this concentration on 'beating' the game has also caused biggest friction about 1.3 update, because people suddenly realize they can't really complete game.
TLDR ED is very simulatory at it's core, and it's fundamental systems still expand to deliver satisfactory gameplay. However, it's not built to be beatable at any costs, and forcing you to play it at any costs will leave you disappointed at best. If you don't find enjoyment in journey ED offers, I am not sure it will ever improve for you. If you however let it flow trough you and don't benchplay ED, it's amazing experience, in my opinion.
I think we have reached the point where not only I have to, but I feel forced to talk about ED. Not only about current perception of ED, but also about ED as game with defined game design. Despite developers being open about fundamental design ideas behind the game for more than year now, there's lot of misunderstanding floating around, which has caused lot of toxicity in not very big, but very vocal part of community.
Why it is important to discuss it now? ED update 1.3 is massive. No doubts about that. You can clearly see FD has been working for some quite time on feature sets, improvements, etc. etc. However one thing 1.3 clearly tries to do finally is introduce consequences in ED - for long time project supporter like me fixing of ramming, bounty changes, etc. are way more important than Powerplay mechanism itself. I am mostly interested in these few small and medium tweaks and additions which has caused a bit of fraction with few members of society. These changes like bounty changes and legacy fine introduction, decrease cost of modules when re-selling them after traveling to other market - all of them aim at introducing much more refained and more substantial consequences. Yes, I am skipping CG and PPs as topics regarding this discussion, as for me they are bit of meta game addition (not my thing, although I like inception which both concepts offer) and it will take some time for them to feel fitting in for me. In fact, I think PP and CG discussions in overall have been more fruitful and there's lot of improvements to be had, as usual. Just Friday FD already changed new bounty system quite considerably, allowing it to scale, which felt very natural extension to overall design (7 days for bad aim felt too much for me too). I think that's what lacking in many these conversations - there's lot of assumptions thrown around FD don't care or don't know how to design game, they don't listen, etc. I think it is very important to point out that FD listens a lot and if they feel convinced and find a way how to merge ideas from community in their design - they certainly will do that sooner or later. However, there's one very important point to make - it's still their game and their design. They won't yield if your goal is change their design considerably.
And here comes the controversy I think is not discussed or touched upon for various reasons here on forums - mostly because it at this point it represents certain demographic which causes one part of argument to be echoed despite it's not representing full picture. About 1 year ago, to be precise, just before first Premium Beta 1 release, I wrote quite lengthy thread about how ED will be grindy for many people and in the perception of players in overall. Elite and it's games has always had strong basis in simulator category, while still not being fully pledged one (as Orbiter or Kerbal Space Program) All Elite games have merged pseudo and semi randomness of PG with authored and handcrafted content to create galaxy. However, gameplay mechanics have stayed more on 'sim' part of this hybrid. ED continues and expands on this tradition. Many players are aware of that and also expect ED to follow suit. Many players, however, come from different background and they expect something else.
"Elite: Dangerous" in many aspects is basically space sci-fi simulator (also dubbed 'Hans Solo simulator' by few). It takes a fantasy setting and "simulates" according to gameplay design and ideas of FD and early backer community. It isn't so control heavy as Orbiter or follow real life orbital physics, but it stands somewhere between space sim and space games. It mixes AI and player elements to create dynamic world. It's certainly not nowhere close to perfect - lot of things still happening just in background but not visible to players, not enough of data which changes are visible in game - but it's clearly getting there and moving in certain direction.
This boils down that ED as a game tries to "simulate" many aspects of imagined space flight, in the galaxy around the ship and human society around you as pilot. How successful and how complete this "simulation" is open to discussion - and might be source of regular "shallow/inch deep" debate people engange regularly on these forums. It is also clear that FD haven't implemented everything they would like to so there's lot of stuff waits to be implemented, which will change perception of any of these "sim" levels considerably. Still, intention according to developers has always been "space sim game". And there comes a problem.
Most modern games, open world or not, are built towards very directed experience, and have very strong defined borders of achievements and success. Games are measured in hours of 'accessing content' or 'beating the game'. Games without defined ending also usually have gameplay tailored to "min expenses/max income", allowing to 'game' system in certain ways and thus reward player who does so. When people argue ED lacking depth it's worth to remember what's their perspective are - they are looking for very detailed personalized experience they recognize. They are not interested how this experience is built, they are interested on cathartic deliverance, be it 'fake' or 'simulated'.
There's nothing wrong with that. There's billions industry build around these concepts and they have proven to be safe investment and working. However, ED tries to do something very different (you can call it old school if you like). And therefore comes the clash of concepts and understanding - people trying to "complete" or to "beat" ED find it super grindy and lack of any substance they could resonate against. And I can't avoid fact that ED is still growing as a game - for some it's good enough reason, for some it's justification never should have released this soon. In nutshell, this concentration on 'beating' the game has also caused biggest friction about 1.3 update, because people suddenly realize they can't really complete game.
TLDR ED is very simulatory at it's core, and it's fundamental systems still expand to deliver satisfactory gameplay. However, it's not built to be beatable at any costs, and forcing you to play it at any costs will leave you disappointed at best. If you don't find enjoyment in journey ED offers, I am not sure it will ever improve for you. If you however let it flow trough you and don't benchplay ED, it's amazing experience, in my opinion.
