The guy that co-created Elite all those yours back (and also created the raspberry-pi) has started a kickstart project to create another game.
Elite: Dangerous by Frontier Developments — Kickstarter
Not a bad idea to get stuff like this off the ground.
I put down for a digital copy (£20).
Putting aside the fact Elite is perhaps my top cult classic game of the bunch, I have a few problems with this:
(1) I can't count anymore the times Frontier and Braben have promised and didn't deliver an Elite game.
(2) With a goal of 1,250,000 British Pounds, close to 2 million dollars(!), this sure seems like yet another false start.
(3) No mention of single-player at all. This isn't Elite. Or, is Elite multiplayer.
(2) I wonder why Frontier thinks gamers should backup the entire game development costs (I'm assuming production costs will be higher). Without any own investment into it, and because of (1), I am very skeptical of the real interest in having this done. It seems more like they wanted to do it, but only if they don't have to spend money doing it.
(3) I don't mind multiplayer. It's none of my business. What I do mind is the apparent rejection of a single-player mode.
I have some thought about your points:
(1) It has for sure taken alot of time, but I can only recall Mr Braben repeatedly claiming to be working on the game, not giving any specific release dates other than that they will do it after Outsider is done.
If Kickstarter would succeed, I think they are obliged to do it. Anything else would be fraud, as they would not deliver what is payed for.
(2) It remains to be seen, but so far almost half of the time has passed and almost half of the goal has been reached. So it does not seem like an impossible feat.
If it would fail, there is no economic risk for those who have pledged, as no money will be transfered in that case. It would be a pity though!
(3) In one of Mr Brabens comments (Nov 13) he states " Yes - you will be able to play as single player without ever meeting another real player. Though I think it would be a shame!". Well hidden information, but still there.
(2) When pledging high enough (£20) you will get an electronic copy of the game as a reward. So it's more a question of paying for the development after the game is made or in advance. Yes, it's a higher risk for the gamer to pay for it in advance, as you don't know the quality of the product when buying it (Although given their previous Elite games I wouldn't worry too much about that). On the other hand £20 is a very reasonable price for a brand new game, so you get a nice risk discount for the "pay in advance" risk.
Why they have choosen to use Kickstarter for the project is anyones guess. Maybe to try to generate a hype, or maybe your assumptions are correct, who knows.
(3) Please see the other (3) above.
That being said, here is what I think makes this game different from the rest:
I can only tell you about Frontier Elite since, well I haven't played Elite Dangerous yet. The game's main strenth is it's realism. It tries to model the whole universe according to scientific theories. And it seems they succeeded since when planets where later discovered around other stars, it kind of confirmed the models in Frontier Elite (according to Mr Braben). This, I think adds much to the game's atmosphere, as you get the feeling that it's as close as you will get to actually travel in space for real. As I'm fascinated by space, I could easily spend hours gliding through the vast universe even if this would just be a simulator. But on top of the simulator they added a nice game with trade, missions and space fights etc, to also still my Sci Fi appetite.
This I hope will be even more refined in Elite Dangerous, and from the sparse information released so far, I'm getting good vibes.
Originally Posted by Airstrip1
Could you please provide a link to that?
This worries me greatly. What does exactly means "it will be a shame"? That he thinks we all should like multiplayer games, or that he will not put in place a feature-rich single-player experience?
It's this type of stuff that gets under my skin. Blizzard statements about the single-player experience in Diablo III were strong 2 years before the game release. They got weaker, 1 year later... and we know what happened to that. Braben isn't Blizzard. But I've seen this happen to many times already to put my faith on anyone. Truth the matter is that Elite has no stated mission to provide a rich single-player experience. Unless that happens, I'll distrust any passing comment Braben himself can make (more so when it is well hidden).
I otherwise agree entirely on your assertion of the game strengths. Very few things made me as excited (Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition did too) as Elite. But matter of the fact is that this clearly seems not a game for me. Despite all that it can achieve, it will achieve so in a game setting I have no wish to be a part of. Ever.
My loss, probably. But that's the way things are.
Sure, here it is:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Frontier Developments — Kickstarter
It lists all of Mr Braben's 83 comments, as I haven't found a way to link to a single comment (Kickstarter's comment system is... very basic).
For the comment in context, search (manually)
Elite: Dangerous by Frontier Developments » Comments — Kickstarter
Again the Kickstarter comment system shows it brilliance by naming the most recent comments page 1, making all the page number move as more comments are added and thus making it useless to link to a specific page.
Hi again Mario,
If you are still interested, Mr Braben mentions single player briefly in the second development diary (4:10). The only thing he mentions missing from the single player experience, is that you would lose out on the social aspects (obviously).
The video is linked from update #7,
Elite: Dangerous by Frontier Developments » Update #7 - New Development Diary Video: Galactic Evolution and Missions — Kickstarter
Thanks Airstrip. But as I mentioned before, "I've been there seen that".
Braben isn't the first to mention first-player support without a clear stated mission on its main page. Others have done as such. The results are there to be seen. Blizzard launch of Diablo III, for instance, was an absolute disaster to any offline single-player. What's more, we can expect game patches to concentrate on additions to a battle.net multiplayer world that won't work on single-player (much like they did with Diablo II).
Elite: Dangerous is being clearly developed as a multiplayer experience. If there will be any single-player one, that will probably be not offline or as an afterthought. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not my business to meddle with his own design choices. But it defines my interest in the game; which, as you know, is at this point None.
My own opinion exactly.
Originally Posted by Mario F.
I don't like multiplayer games. I like to explore and advance at my own pace. For social stuff, I prefer real life. (I don't like phones or instant messaging, either. Voice and face does not convey all the information I seem to subconsciously expect; I start second-guessing. E-mail is OK, because I can read and respond at leisure, after pondering on it.)
I hope this emphasis on multiplayer and social gaming is just a fad. Not just because RL is much better for the social stuff, but also because a lot is lost without long and complex, even open-ended, single-player games.
There are some people still making this. Fish patiently in the indie waters of Steam and you can be rewarded (e.g. Inside a Star-Filled Sky).
Originally Posted by Nominal Animal
Funnily some people regard this as a really cool new development, yet there were plenty of games that came out on cassette in the 80s that were non-linear. :rolleyes: