Why can we only Land on Barren Planets after almost 5 years?
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
Game X is a sim. Can fast forward time. Fail.
90% of the arguments on this forum are completely arbitrary.
Unless you aren't just looking for good graphics but also a mostly realistic representation of the galaxy.
The airless planets in Elite are already more complex than the colourful little balls in NMS.
That's why development effort can't be easily compared between the two games.
Horizons DLC was released on 15th December 2015 (allowing access to some planets), so it was less than 4 years ago that we could land.
Elite a sim? Well maybe when it was first released, but how the hell can anyone call Engineers a sim. So many of my friends left once that princess fetch quest of a component was released. Don't even get me started on multicrew either.
Last edited:
I’d suggest that if ED’s planets are more complex, it doesn’t really show, and is useless (at present) if you can’t land on them.
NMS planets can be shaped, ED planets can be, err driven on. Which game’s planets have caverns and liquids?
Stellar Forge may be genius, but it takes Dav explaining it to make that apparent.
Last edited:
Useless to you, because you aren't interested in scientific accuracy.
NMS planets aren't planets. They are not inside a star system. They are little colourful balls.
Elite planets have gravity. They are actually moving through space on the correct orbit. Their colour is based on the material composition which is based on the star type. They have a correct day and night cycle. They have the size of real planets. The terrain is based on tectonic plates. Craters are placed at positions which would be exposed to asteroid impacts. I could go on.
NMS has little colourful balls.
You just can't compare them.
Last edited:
Some games just aren't for stupid people. Maybe that makes me an...
Elitist.
edit: Cheap jokes aside, back when I was just a few months in and just got a DBX for the first time, I went out on an exploration run and landed on the dark side of one of those useless airless balls you deride and logged out for the night. When I woke up the next morning and logged back in, a distant star was rising on an airless moon in real time because of the orrery modeling built into Elite... Sorry, NMS can't do that. That's okay, because it is still a fun game, but it is not in the same league. Also, if you took some time to really "shape" the planets in NMS, you'd realize that there are some significant llimits to the amount you can really do. And the "oceans" aren't really all that deep (because the planets are all tiny little pseudoplanets) Stellar Forge is genius, and if you can't see that, that's your problem, buddy.
Last edited:
By the way, regarding the dreadful sim or no sim discussion, this should clarify some things:
Simulator:
For example, MS Flight Simulator. The main purpose is to realistically represent controlling a vehicle or specific activities. These games often allow you to teleport or skip time, since their focus is not the narrative of a single character but operating vehicles.
(Space) Simulation:
A game like Space Engine where the focus lies on realistically representing the galaxy without trying to actually simulate travel / operating vehicles. It's like a planetarium.
Space- Sim:
This genre was basically invented by David Braben. The main purpose is to create a believable game world and activities which don't necessarily need to be realistic. If you want to understand why the term sim was used, you also need to take a look at the state of gaming when Elite was released. During that time movies like Star Wars and Star Trek were quite popular. But space games (or games in general) were mostly arcade. Elite was among the first games to simulate an open world, with trading, combat and non linear gameplay. That's where the term sim in relation to Elite comes from.
Of course there are no definitive genres, sometimes a simulator has a narrative and a FPS game tries to be as realistic as possible.
Arguing if Elite is a sim because the flight model (or something else) isn't 100% realistic is nonsense. First because it's not what is meant with the term anyway and second because every other sim has similar limitations. Space Engine is not a sim because it doesn't have space flight and Flight Simulator is not a sim because it allows you to skip time. Depending on an arbitrary argument nothing is a sim.
Simulator:
For example, MS Flight Simulator. The main purpose is to realistically represent controlling a vehicle or specific activities. These games often allow you to teleport or skip time, since their focus is not the narrative of a single character but operating vehicles.
(Space) Simulation:
A game like Space Engine where the focus lies on realistically representing the galaxy without trying to actually simulate travel / operating vehicles. It's like a planetarium.
Space- Sim:
This genre was basically invented by David Braben. The main purpose is to create a believable game world and activities which don't necessarily need to be realistic. If you want to understand why the term sim was used, you also need to take a look at the state of gaming when Elite was released. During that time movies like Star Wars and Star Trek were quite popular. But space games (or games in general) were mostly arcade. Elite was among the first games to simulate an open world, with trading, combat and non linear gameplay. That's where the term sim in relation to Elite comes from.
Of course there are no definitive genres, sometimes a simulator has a narrative and a FPS game tries to be as realistic as possible.
Arguing if Elite is a sim because the flight model (or something else) isn't 100% realistic is nonsense. First because it's not what is meant with the term anyway and second because every other sim has similar limitations. Space Engine is not a sim because it doesn't have space flight and Flight Simulator is not a sim because it allows you to skip time. Depending on an arbitrary argument nothing is a sim.
I'm interested in an engaging game with scientific accuracy, but scientific accuracy as a substitute for game play, not really.
If the game is going to be limited to only what Apollo crews could do, it's going to be quite dull, especially as there's no landing on the Moon.
Deleted.
And yet I find Elite more enjoyable than NMS.
Colourful and nonsensical plants and animals aren't a substitute for gameplay either.
That's a matter of opinion. I can (and have) walk through a cave IRL pretty easily. I cannot fly a spaceship or drive an SRV on a realistic moon IRL. I have a countless games that allow me to explore caves (Skyrim, NMS, Subnautica, RDR2, TR, etc), so I don't need it in ED and actually prefer the "dull" realism over yet another fantasy world.
Thankfully I think Frontier has the good sense not to turn the realistic stellar forge into a NMS Romper Room for children (skybox tinting notwithstanding).
Indeed, but as you well know, NMS has more to offer than just colourful and nonsensical plants.
Let's hope the leak about base building isn't factual then, eh?
Of course, NMS can't match the accuracy of real elephant butt leather I suppose.
Then go play NMS. Problem solved!
It's a good thing that you like dull realism, as there's plenty of it in ED. While I don't object to dull realism, I'd like some of the increasing richness that DBOBE spoke about some six and a half years ago.
Not for me.