What is depth?

Rad Bard

Rad Bard
I'd like to add, if I may...

(I'm not sure "who" would would define this as "what")

But, the "End Game" for me when I bought ED (2 months ago) was to get an A rated Cobra Mk III parked at Lave station (I'm an old 80s player)
When I did that I was well chuffed. Objective accomplished.

Now my End Game is to earn all the permits I can do I am free to travel anywhere.

My next End Game is to get a "discovered by:" tag on a planet.

Thats three End Games from one game- Elite Dangerous.

..and there's more.

I think the problem is (and it's a very personal oppinion) that many people don't understand the concept of a truly open ended game. The is no "winning" you just play.

The depth/reason/point is whatever you put into it.

(I also know there are lots of bugs, but I'm here for the ten year plan and understand that in the real world, thinks don't always work first time)

Let just have fun in space....please.
 

bfgm

B
ErikMaintainer said:
I would love to know how you intend to go about proving this.
Click to expand...

In 1972 "Pong" was cutting edge and sold millions of copies around the world. If pong was just released in 2016 and hadn't been seen before.. do you think it would sell the same amount of copies as in 1972?

Kristov said:
I should rep you for the laughs you are giving me today! Thank you! It's been a stressful day here at work, you've really made it a bit easier.

First off, all of those games do NOT have end game content, like, oh, CS:GO, LoL, Minecraft, DOTA 2, TF2, Hearthstone and Heros of the Storm, guess you missed that, didn't bother to actually check out what those games are huh? See, before you post FACTS, you should always check them out first, otherwise you end up looking like you do right now...

You are amusing though, I'll give you that, and since you aren't trying to be amusing, that makes it even better! Hell, I'm giving you rep for that, you deserve, even though you don't know what you did to get it!
Click to expand...

Sir I think you should google all of those titles along with "end game" attached.

For example CS:GO has competitive mode so that you can climb a ladder. If you make it to the top then you have a strong chance of going pro. Thus an "end game" goal.
 
Last edited:

Kristov

K
bfgm said:
In 1972 "Pong" was cutting edge and sold millions of copies around the world. If pong was just released in 2016 and hadn't been seen before.. do you think it would sell the same amount of copies as in 1972?
Click to expand...

You mistake supply with demand, the two aren't the same at all. Pong was a proof of concept, it was ALL there was, so naturally it sold a lot. There were a number of games released in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and even recently that are simplistic, basic and even total crap but sell a lot, that has no bearing on what the demand is. Ever play Zork or Bard's Tale? Games from the 70s, very rich and complicated games, even though one was literally just a text game and the other had graphics that wouldn't tax a cellphone from 10 years ago(that's before smartphones btw). Those were a hell of a lot harder to play and beat than Pong, and they didn't sell as well by any means, but then again, there were also a LOT of other games out at the time, so they actually had competition, unlike Pong.

CoD, the original version, vs CoD:BO III, very different games at their heart, the original was hard to be good at, very hard to master, while the current release is pretty much a cake walk, any idiot can play well and mastery is, well, can you really master something a blind, fingerless monkey can do well at? And I do speak from some experience here, not that I've been a blind, fingerless monkey(that acid trip doesn't count I believe), but I have played every single release of CoD, owned them all. Love the zombies in BO III, they brought back the classics and paired them with the graphics capability of the XBOne, which is just awesome. But the actual BO III game itself, yeah, easy, simple, took a few hours to get through that, not exactly a demanding game. Much like the previous CoD:AW, a few hours to get through the single player game, it was so easy, and that was on the hardest difficulty setting first time through, I mean, seriously, what the hell? It took longer to get through the original DOOM! And Quake or Quake II, those took a LOT longer than the most recent CoD or BF games. Hell, even Deadpool only took me a few hours to get through, and most of my deaths were due to laughing from the comments being made by Deadpool(awesome game for the comments, and that's about it).

What are you, under 20? You have no clue what games used to be like, and you don't even know what current games are, so I'm not thinking your opinions on this subject have any weight at all, much like a blind man telling someone what color the sky is right now...
 

Surly_Badger

Surly_Badger
Why restrict 'most played' to PC games? Even ED runs on Xbox.

I often refer to this survey by ESA when trying to inject information into the inevitable "what is gaming?" debates.

For example, gaming is divided pretty evenly across the categories they demarcate as Social, Action, and Puzzle/Card. Gaming has significantly replaced movie-going for many people (~40%!) On video games, action and shooters dominate sales, but on computer games it's casual and strategy.

I take those kind of breakdowns with a grain of salt because it's all about how you bucket your data before you analyze it. It's still interesting. In computer games, The Sims rank #1 and #2. So "hard core" gamers play The Sims.
 

ErikMaintainer

ErikMaintainer
bfgm said:
In 1972 "Pong" was cutting edge and sold millions of copies around the world. If pong was just released in 2016 and hadn't been seen before.. do you think it would sell the same amount of copies as in 1972?
Click to expand...

Well Pong was an arcade game first (in 1972) and a home console version wasn't produced until 1975. And precisely how much competition did Pong have within what was an almost non-existent fledgling videogames market? Virtually none. The only pre-existing home console at that time was the Magnavox Odyssey, which was released in 1972. So you need to understand a little context before replying.

Pong would only be released today if today were equivalent to the 1970s in some way - i.e. today were an environment in which nobody had played anything like Pong before. Clearly we are not in such an environment, and so using that kind of argument in order to argue that gamers 'these days' are more demanding is a complete fallacy.
 

terrycloth

T
mistohise said:
Hmm. Having "End Game Content" would essentially imply that the game ends. I'm not sure that I'm much for that at all.
Click to expand...

That's the opposite of what it means -- it means there should be something to do once you've completed the progression (or at least the main part of the progression). Your giant 500 million credit ship should have content that needs a giant 500 million credit ship to play with. If you can do everything with a Cobra, then there's no end-game content because all the content is mid-game content.

Like, if you could build your own surface station but needed to transport components that took up 400 tons of cargo space and couldn't be subdivided (or that you got as mission cargo of 400 tons) that could be end-game content because you couldn't do it except in one of the largest ships. Or if there was a combat instance so difficult that only Anacondas could survive (which might not even be possible; the 'condas would have to actually be the best at combat for that to make sense). Maybe a special super-profitable mining zone where your ship takes constant damage based on its size (smaller = more damage) but the very largest and toughest ships could mine effectively?

...it's a lot easier to conceive of end-game content in straightforward RPGs.
 

bfgm

B
terrycloth said:
That's the opposite of what it means -- it means there should be something to do once you've completed the progression (or at least the main part of the progression). Your giant 500 million credit ship should have content that needs a giant 500 million credit ship to play with. If you can do everything with a Cobra, then there's no end-game content because all the content is mid-game content.

Like, if you could build your own surface station but needed to transport components that took up 400 tons of cargo space and couldn't be subdivided (or that you got as mission cargo of 400 tons) that could be end-game content because you couldn't do it except in one of the largest ships. Or if there was a combat instance so difficult that only Anacondas could survive (which might not even be possible; the 'condas would have to actually be the best at combat for that to make sense). Maybe a special super-profitable mining zone where your ship takes constant damage based on its size (smaller = more damage) but the very largest and toughest ships could mine effectively?

...it's a lot easier to conceive of end-game content in straightforward RPGs.
Click to expand...

Holy     ! somebody gets it! +++1
 

FliesWithEyesClosed

F
bfgm said:
So obviously we want the next step in gaming...Almost *demanding* it..
Click to expand...

If we are not moving forward we are standing still...

Or should we just settle for ED 1, ED 2, ED3, ED....16, pretty much the same thing thats happening to FIFA, Madden or COD series? I see some of the      they do here in ED and i think to myself that maybe I *will* go back to EVE, or check out Star Citizen or EVE Valkryie.
 

Don Alvarez

Don Alvarez
Zorronov said:
Then maybe the mods should consider making a megathread for it, like the one for Open vs Solo vs Group. Talk about some tedious drivel! LOL!
Click to expand...
Lol, this whole forum, is the megathread for it. Whatever topic you begin in Dangerous Discussion, if the thread survives long enough, eventually devolves into one of two discussions: Open vs Solo, and Mile Wide Inch Deep.
 

Enderby

E
Zorronov said:
Then maybe the mods should consider making a megathread for it, like the one for Open vs Solo vs Group. Talk about some tedious drivel! LOL!
Click to expand...

Well tedious to you, clearly, as you, one assumes, do not recognise the perceived lack of depth that others do. It's subjective, of course.

But one gets the impression that anyone that comments that the game does lack depth or is boring is derided by those who think that it is not - and their retorts often seem to come down to deriding the commenter as being somehow sub-human or lacking generally.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom