'Elite: Dangerous Horizons' Beta Date Announced, Non-Thargoid Species Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.

dstarr3

Honorable
Mar 18, 2014
1,527
0
11,960
52
They should have named it with a third adjective. Something like "Elite: Dangerous: Horizontal." Because titles have officially stopped meaning anything and are just a collection of words. I'm looking at you, "Horizon Zero Dawn!"
 

Alec Mowat

Honorable
Jan 8, 2014
3,244
0
13,460
346
Almost sounds like something I probably should have had included with the original Elite Dangerous.
Sounds interesting, but still going to pass. I know the whole core of this game is just broken and boring. "New ways to grind!"
 

mapesdhs

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2007
2,507
0
21,160
111
I'll never understand why every article about this game attracts people who just want to criticise it. What the heck for? large numbers of people play ED and love it for all sorts of reasons. What it is not, and I hope never will be, is just deathmatch in space, even though FD have tried to pander to such a crowd somewhat with CQC (personally I wish they'd put their efforts into other aspects of the game, but with a console audience jumping into the fray it was perhaps inevitable). ED us a game with enormous potential for the future; I'm just glad FD are trying to evolve it in a manner that's a world away from the generic games which just offer 40 hours of gameplay killing before one is expected to stop playing and buy something else. The exploration side alone of ED can be expanded as new discoveries in reality are made, and surely someone in education has realised it offers huge scope for teaching.

Ian.

 

uglyduckling81

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2011
719
0
19,060
30
They aren't sure if they are going to do multicrew cockpits because they haven't read that far into the Star Citizen stretch goals. Until they read SC is doing it they won't of thought of it.
They really should of called the expansion ED: Startled Citizen just to confuse things a little.
 

RobFisher11

Reputable
Nov 5, 2015
1
0
4,510
0
Other comments are odd. Not really sure what ED:H has got to do with Star Citizen, and planetary landings was billed as a future paid expansion back in Kickstarter days.

The killer feature for me is the realistic galaxy. And now they are adding realistic planets with real geology. I'm glad there are games that satisfy my weird, geeky, niche interests!
 

mapesdhs

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2007
2,507
0
21,160
111


That's a contradiction. By definition, you're referring to content not present during initial release. However many months or years later it may be, salaries have to paid, lights kept on, hardware maintained, etc. The only other possible funding model for this would be subscription, and that would never have worked as loud voices made quite clear. Nobody has to buy the expansions, but at least the game is expanding, just like the universe.:)

RobFisher11 is right, ED and SC are different types of game. I hope they both succeed, because we need variety. Way too many people keep referring to them as if the whole thing were an either/or experiment, that somehow the lesser game should fail, which is dumb as it implies they're trying to be the same thing. RF, you're spot on wrt realism, it's the exploration angle that most appeals to me aswell, and that's something which most people who say the game is boring just don't understand at all. At times, the game feels more like art, as the YT vids by ErimusOne clearly show:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlxQlUpqv8OB5F1PvH-ssC9ijBGU7_do3
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlxQlUpqv8OAmzA41B5A2u2_SqVXf2s2Q

Ian.

 

mapesdhs

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2007
2,507
0
21,160
111


I suppose one could say maybe such inferences are possible because the project has had unwelcome limelight due to financial issues, ie. the enormous amount of money that's been poured into it for something which does not yet exist (and how some of it has been spent), so SC fans may feel the need to defend the project against that background. Personally I couldn't care less, since the only people who have cause to worry are those who've paid into it, which doesn't include me. But nevertheless I hope the game does eventually come out in some decently finished form which exhibits a level of quality befitting the amount of money donated. I certainly do not wish for SC to fail, because apart from anything else it would put a terrible stain on the whole notion of crowdsourced game projects (I shudder to think of the legal ramifications if it did collapse, some have paid many thousands for what is effectively nothing more than a bunch of 1s and 0s).

Meanwhile, there are all sorts of other space-based games coming along, showing an impressive variety of style & content. So far, none appeal to me as much as ED does, but the fact that we have variety is what matters. I just don't understand why a player of one game feels such a need to belittle a player of another or the game they play, often in the most vile terms (check YT comments for any ED or SC clip).

Wishing to maintain an awareness of other games in development is why I watch bluedrake42's uploads as he covers all sorts of other space games (Angels Fall First, Infinity: Battlescape, Space Engineers, Dreadnaught, etc.), though his main focus is tactical FPS.

Personally, I'm not keen on SC for certain aesthetic reasons, such as the ease of obtaining a 3rd-person view, the rather clunky motion dynamics, and other issues, but this is a personal bias, ie. I don't like stuff that breaks the 4th wall (to my eyes, popping to an outside view which rotates about one's ship in SC makes the whole thing look suddenly like a CAD model collection, the sense of scale is removed). However, clearly for others this isn't an issue at all, and I'm sure there are those who find it bizarre that ED doesn't have an easy way of instantly doing the same thing (the external camera view is available, but while in use one is vulernable, and I like it that way; most ED players just use it for doing screen captures rather than aiding with gameplay). Don't get me wrong, SC looks impressive, but looks are not enough.

Each to their own! That's the point. Just seems like every single time there's an article about ED, within just a handful of posts someone feels the need to criticise it without any prompting. Weird.

Ian.

 

Alec Mowat

Honorable
Jan 8, 2014
3,244
0
13,460
346
"RobFisher11 is right, ED and SC are different types of game."

Never mentioned SC. Didn't waste a penny on that. That will never be released, doomed to fail from hardware limitations preventing it from reaching it's expected results.

The problem is the initial release content (ie, what I paid for), isn't really much of a game. It's just an grinding, exploring beta. It's soulless, and rather dry.

Grind grind, buy an expensive ship, grind grind, buy a more expensive ship, grind grind....
I am tired of games being sold, incomplete and buggy with the expectation that it can be patched or expansion sets added that will bring the game to an acceptable level. I don't buy a game to invest in the may or may not be developed future.
I can't expect it to be a game that will eventually be developed into a complete game, depending on how well the company does.

What does this come down to? I'm not buying Horizons, there's nothing to do.

I'll wait until they add a soul and give me an objective, and finish releasing all the expansions, than I'll buy them together for $60.
 

mapesdhs

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2007
2,507
0
21,160
111
Your opinion, but plenty of others don't share it. And there's the rub, for many it's the exploration angle which is most appealing. So what do you want? Missions? A struggle for power? They're all present already.

Ian.

 

Alec Mowat

Honorable
Jan 8, 2014
3,244
0
13,460
346


I wanted something original. I didn't get it.
I wanted something fun. I didn't get it.
I wanted a more meaningful, fleshed out mission system, that actually deals with life like characters. Instead, I'm pleasing the Gods of SQL Database servers.
I'm just playing "Capitalism: The Quest for Money in Space", with no goal or objective other than accumulating as much wealth as possible. The QCQ component is completely detached from my in-game progress. Mechwarrior 4: Mercenaries has a more in-depth single player experience.

Sure, plenty of people play it. Plenty of people play it because they spent money and feel obliged to play it. Plenty of people don't play it anymore. Plenty more people will not buy Horizons.

What you should really compare is the sales of Elite Dangerous, vs the Sales of Horizons.
 

mapesdhs

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2007
2,507
0
21,160
111
That's your opinion and inference on how it works, but that's not what I take from it at all. Personally I have no interest in CQC. To suggest people play it because they've paid money & hence feel obliged is just stupid. If you have to stoop to that level of dumb comment about the game then there's no point in talking about it. I had hoped for a more interesting depth of opinion, but this hate fest is just pointless. If you don't like the game then don't play it, but trying to say that it's objectively this or that when plenty of others don't agree is utterly silly.

If you didn't find it fun, fine. I did. If you didn't find it original, so what? I do. I certainly don't see the game's main objective as being wealth accumulation, and I don't play that way. Neither do the others I know who play the game.

Go play something else if you don't like ED, but this constant need to bash a game as if somehow you feel duty bound to prevent others from playing it is just bizarre.

Ian.

 

Alec Mowat

Honorable
Jan 8, 2014
3,244
0
13,460
346


My opinion is worth as much as anyone's opinion. I didn't get what I paid for, a complete game.

Go play something else? Sure, refund me and I'll gladly spend the money elsewhere. In the meantime, I'm stuck with "optimism" that something will carve out of this, while finished games are hitting the market.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS