What Elite can and cannot do

[Stavro Mueller]

So they implemented Horizons, which is landing on airless worlds. There was a video about gas giants, that maybe they could do too, but a criticism that you find often in comments in the media is that they haven't implemented landing on Earthlike worlds yet - even young ones, kind of like NMS. I'm pretty sure that everyone who feels the same way about this as I do can see that they basically never will - everything they've done so far they have been able to do as faithfully as science suggests (with the exception of tectonics) - and life-bearing planets just will put the lie to that. There's just no way they can do life-bearing planets without the pathetic creatures of NMS. And the effort they clearly put into doing what they _can_ do convincingly, convincingly, just shows that they can't do this. It can only be a massive disappointment to try and do a procedurally generated inhabited system - I mean a massive fail. And if they try to hand-build such a system, it will _still_ be massively disappointing. I just can't see how they can ever implement this.

That said, I don't think it's a problem. I don't want them to implement it. This game was best when it made you invent everything (1984). The more it puts in, the less work you have to do, the more impossible it gets to present you with a believable world.

I dunno what the solution is, but to be honest, I'd be happier with some weird "you're an explorer and you can't come home" story than some bad effort at making inhabitable planets realistic.

The original point of this was that several kinds of reviewers seem to penalize the game for not including life on a planet, but seriously, what could they do? Space engine and Outerra are clearly simulations - there's no way you can be in them without knowing it isn't and never could be real. NMS is, in this context, a joke. Elite is actually trying to not be a simulation - rather, to be real - in that, if you're landed on a planet, it might actually be what that planet's actually like. It does OK at this, 2.5d notwithstanding.

Ramblerambleramble. Enjoy the Bank Holiday.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

So they implemented Horizons, which is landing on airless worlds. There was a video about gas giants, that maybe they could do too, but a criticism that you find often in comments in the media is that they haven't implemented landing on Earthlike worlds yet - even young ones, kind of like NMS. I'm pretty sure that everyone who feels the same way about this as I do can see that they basically never will - everything they've done so far they have been able to do as faithfully as science suggests (with the exception of tectonics) - and life-bearing planets just will put the lie to that. There's just no way they can do life-bearing planets without the pathetic creatures of NMS.

Of course they can. And NMS has some pretty fantastic creatures as well. I've seen quite a few in my few thousand hours of NMS. Yes, I've seen more than a few that a blazing mining beam death would be a merciful fate for as well. But it really just comes down to the art assets. Autodesk 3d Studio Max has featured some very impressive plugins - Character Studio is one such plugin, and another, the name of which eludes me at the moment, but could be used to rapidly generate all manner of animals - both have a number of preset configurations - different types of heads, legs, arms, even wings could be generated - and now 123D Creature brings this sort of functionality to iPads. Using the presets alone you can create hundreds of different things.

Procedural generation of creatures is little different - and with a good selection of "parts", you can get some pretty amazing looking things.

Now I realize this sort of approach doesn't "work" for the "Elite: Is Real" crowd - those who insist everything must be perfectly scientifically accurate, down to the distribution of dark matter throughout the universe. You're just going to have to accept some disappointment here.

Now, that said... Yes, NMS and countless Sci-Fi shows, books, magazines and the like have given us a taste for really bizarre aliens - fantastic forms, from Star Trek's Horta to the xenomorphs of Alien to John Carpenter's Thing. But honestly, how likely is alien life really going to be from what we have here? Would a "cow" from from a planet deep in the Dark Magellanic Cluster actually be any different than a "cow" here on Earth?

Think about this really long and hard.

The processes that set life into motion and the evolutionary process adhere to some basic fundamental rules. Those rules have to have uniformity to work. So Three-Headed Fire-breathing DMC "cow"? No. Might make for good Sci-Fi, but biologically, probably not viable.

DMC "cow" that looks like an Earth "cow", gives milk like an Earth "cow", and is genetically identical to an Earth "cow"? Yep, that's biologically viable.

Now this isn't to say there might not be differences - a DMC Holstien might not be black-and-white, it could be purple-and-orange.
And if gravity were a little higher, it might be shorter and more muscular.
If gravity were a little lower, it might be taller and leaner.

Or that environment might not be suitable to sustaining life at all. This is where the evolutionary and biological rules come in to play - and we don't really know all that much about them right now to really say "This is what is required for life to begin." We're still killing each other over concepts like "Did life just happen?" or "Did some Other Being bring life about?" Yes, killing each other. Because we're not smart enough to admit to ourselves "We just don't

And the effort they clearly put into doing what they _can_ do convincingly, convincingly, just shows that they can't do this. It can only be a massive disappointment to try and do a procedurally generated inhabited system - I mean a massive fail. And if they try to hand-build such a system, it will _still_ be massively disappointing. I just can't see how they can ever implement this.

That said, I don't think it's a problem. I don't want them to implement it. This game was best when it made you invent everything (1984). The more it puts in, the less work you have to do, the more impossible it gets to present you with a believable world.

I dunno what the solution is, but to be honest, I'd be happier with some weird "you're an explorer and you can't come home" story than some bad effort at making inhabitable planets realistic.

The original point of this was that several kinds of reviewers seem to penalize the game for not including life on a planet, but seriously, what could they do? Space engine and Outerra are clearly simulations - there's no way you can be in them without knowing it isn't and never could be real. NMS is, in this context, a joke. Elite is actually trying to not be a simulation - rather, to be real - in that, if you're landed on a planet, it might actually be what that planet's actually like. It does OK at this, 2.5d notwithstanding.

Ramblerambleramble. Enjoy the Bank Holiday.

I can't say I know the solution either, I don't even think there is a solution - you really can't please every one, all the time. Whatever happens will happen. Some people will love it. Some people will hate it. Some people will fill the forums with everything they think is wrong about it, claim they're quitting, burning their homes down and running away to live with Ubangi tribe in Africa - and they won't actually do any of those things anyways.. they never do, they just lurk and complain.

All I know for sure, is that I will appreciate the fruits of whatever efforts are made, weather I like them or not. It's better than nothing happening at all.