So I bought Elite: Dangerous

[Général Grievous]

My two cents but I thing I am giving the voice for many peeps around here.

It sounds like it's my voice too!

[Techedge]

I reiterate, big ships should carry smaller ones and small ships should have a limited radius from a home base / ship. But I can only dream of it hehe.

Sounds more or less like my old proposal, made before 1.5. Still, here we are...

[Kadatherion]

False assertion logic - and the main races have not completely changed their ship culture styles really. The Kha'ak, and Paranid are on the most part unchanged. The Xenon and Teladi ship designs are consistent with the precedent set by X-Rebirth. Human ship designs have rarely followed a single consistent design pattern over the X-series, nor has the Teladi really. Even disregarding that, it is one thing to change aesthetics of a ship design and another thing entirely to do what you are suggesting.

You actually are reinforcing my point: yes, inbetween games, even before X4, ship styles have been retconned time and time again, with little to no in-universe explanation. Because, and that's my point: it's a videogame (and not even a narrative driven one like some RPGs can be), realism comes second as narrative is just one of the elements of the product, not the main driving point as it would be for a book or a movie. As such, no, the logic you mention is hardly ever taken into much consideration when you have to make a game. The problem comes when changes arrive after having set standards that have been particularly successful, had many years to sediment in the collective imagination, and such changes are - arguably, but still - for the worse, in overall quality and variety. To this, the fact such changes aren't often presented with any in-game explanation - in X4's case especially, since it opted to forego even what little narrative presentation and threads X games previously had - is the cherry on top.

In X3:TC, the Argon/Teladi/Boron/Paranid/Split were exposed to the Terran Accelerator technology. In X3:AP, there were the beginnings of the high-way technology being established by the X-Universe races - this was formalised in X-Rebirth, and revised in X4 (probably primarily in response to X-Rebirth critique). There is an element of gameplay consideration over their specific implementation in X4, but do not make the mistake of assuming that gameplay is the ONLY reason for their existence and that there is not a basis in X-Universe lore.

Never did say it's the ONLY reason for the existence of a certain thing, but gameplay is the first and main reason why a gameplay functional element is added into a game. Again, a videogame isn't a book or a movie, the gameplay element comes absolutely first, then later comes - when it does, and in X4 it pretty much doesn't - the narrative to justify, explain the existence of such element to offer a more seamless, immersive, cohesive fictional scenario that *supports* the actual gameplay.

Long story short: unless you are a total incompetent in game developing who doesn't know games are tactile experiences, you decide that the story will go with the gate shutdown for "mysterious reasons™" *because* you thought it would be fun to have highways and/or let go of the jumpdrive mechanic (and *then* your next hurdle will be to present that plot development in the most seamless and plausible way possible). Not the other way around. Then that specific mechanic could turn out to be less fun and well received than you expected, but that's part of the process and its risks. If you go the other way around, AKA forcing yourself to implement something like the highways *because* you wanted the actual narrative to go a certain direction (let alone the fact you then don't really present any narrative to the players, as it happens in X4), before even taking into consideration if they would be a good gameplay mechanic or not (and, as said, to many it isn't), or worse conciously knowing they'd be inferior solutions for smooth gameplay, then you'd be at a whole new level of stupidity. Egosoft can be blamed of many missteps and yes, even some stupid decisions, but really, this level is way beyond them.

P.S. Let's not bring the "book" into this. First because I wouldn't want, and it would be OT anyway, to judge the work of a colleague, but even more because it's the oldest logical fallacy in the field: when to "understand the movie" you are told to go and read the book it was based on, then the movie is by definition bad (at the very least at exposition). And, of course, the same works the other way around with novelizations. Because they are separate products, each one has to be evaluated by its own merits.

[mr.WHO]

X4 (and rest of X-Series) is the only game that let me own, fly and walk on everething from small fighter, through capships to space stations. Planet landing would be the final cherry on top, but I can live without it.
X4 with all it's faults and bugs is the only single player space game with proper depth (EVE online is the same for Multi-player, but I don't like MP games).

Elite Dangerous is wide like an ocean, bu shallow like a puddle. Even No Mans Sky after updated is better/deeper than ED.
X4 own both of these games with ease and X4 is half-broken and half-done !!!!

[Techedge]

X4 (and rest of X-Series) is the only game that let me own, fly and walk on everething from small fighter, through capships to space stations. Planet landing would be the final cherry on top, but I can live without it.
X4 with all it's faults and bugs is the only single player space game with proper depth (EVE online is the same for Multi-player, but I don't like MP games).

Elite Dangerous is wide like an ocean, bu shallow like a puddle. Even No Mans Sky after updated is better/deeper than ED.
X4 own both of these games with ease and X4 is half-broken and half-done !!!!

The potentials of this game are huge and they are there for all to see.
Egosoft nailed with the title, let's hope that these foundations will become more and more solid with the next updates.
If so, I predict many years of wonderful gameplaying (as in the X3+TC+AP trilogy which I really enjoyed much).

[MakerLinux]

X4 (and rest of X-Series) is the only game that let me own, fly and walk on everething from small fighter, through capships to space stations. Planet landing would be the final cherry on top, but I can live without it.
X4 with all it's faults and bugs is the only single player space game with proper depth (EVE online is the same for Multi-player, but I don't like MP games).

Elite Dangerous is wide like an ocean, bu shallow like a puddle. Even No Mans Sky after updated is better/deeper than ED.
X4 own both of these games with ease and X4 is half-broken and half-done !!!!

I'd like to contribute and suggest a small one-man indie game that has all of these elements -- in fact, it looks a lot like the earlier X games, but with much better mechanics and creative and quite competent fleet commanding: Void Destroyer 2.
Bought it on Steam, the main differences from X4 are:

- You don't have space legs, although you have a few sections in first person (when docked on stations, etc.);
- UI is very competent and intuitive. Really!!! Commands resemble X3, but in an iconic and organized interface.
- Soundtrack is nonexistent, which makes you admire the epic soundtrack of X4 even more.
- Graphics are untextured cell-shaded. Yeah, not sure why it's untextured (first Void Destroyer is textured), maybe for a distinct look or something; also, this makes the game run well on a potato, even with its simulation aspects on full drive.
- The long trip mechanics is something different called "the overworld", basically the map in an RTS-like controlling scheme where you can fly with accelerated time.
- You have upkeep costs for fleet and stations.
- You don't have highways and for some portals you have to pay to use them.
- Besides owning ships besides the one you fly, you can also rent ships for a mission or a particular length of time.
- AFAIK you can't spacewalk
- No ship interiors
- No hacking mechanics
- Doesn't seem to have different mechanics as "Out of Sector" and "In Sector". AFAIK economy seems X3-like, not X4-like.
- The AI for your ships doesn't usually do things which would make you swear at them, like the depleting shield boost fighters in X4.

But it has most of the stuff of X games, even the "vibe":
- Comm mechanics have other options besides asking for docking permissions or asking directions, although most of them seem pointless (insult, compliment and the likes)
- You start with a small ship and go on buying lots of different ships, and assemble them in fleets if you want; particularly, fleet management is much better than in X4;
- You can have fighters, bombers, carriers, transport ships of various sizes, miners and even repair ships, and of course give orders to them.
- You have mechanics equivalent to boosting/jump drive/travel drive which is called "gravity drive", but I don't know how to properly explain it.
- You have newtonian/non-newtonian switch shortcut which you can (and should) turn on and off to do things like flying sideways facing an enemy to shoot it.
- You can build ships and stations, sell them too if you want;
- You have missions like X4, to be frank of a greater variety, more creative and they scale with your skill/ship/money;
- You have a story, but you can ignore it completely and treat it like a sandbox. However, the story is engaging enough that you'd be missing out, at least in the first playthrough;
- factions have their particular traits and you have reputation with them that can be improved or harmed; as in the X games, they can become friends or enemies.
- you can repair your ships in some stations, change weapons, add/remove mods and customize it in a number of ways.
- You can add turrets to your ships and decide how to use them
- HOTAS support
- Modding support. In particular it seems very easy to add ships (no surprise, since they don't need textures and do not have interiors), even with moving parts.
- Asteroid mining, in person or via NPCs, manual or automated
- Trading, in person or via NPCs, manual or automated
- mines, proximity mines, armed debris;
- space mysteries and anomalies and the likes;
- ... and there's much more, but I still don't know the game completely.

I don't know all its elements, but its presentation might deceive, it is a VERY complex game and it is developed by one man only, and he is very active and responsive on the steam forums and gives great feedback about the game mechanics. Hence the consistency of the whole game is great too.

Now why I am spending my time advertising such a game that might rival X4? It's not that I don't like X4. But I think it can benefit from the comparison with a game that's very much like it. Also, although Void Destroyer 2 has a lot of stuff better, X4 is a vast game with sightseeing and depth and even with its bugs, I don't think it is superated by any other game. Besides that, X4 is frightfully complex and I bet it scares a lot of players due to that complexity. Void Destroyer 2 is almost as complex as X4, but with its cartoonish toy-like appearance might work as a "gentle introductory game" towards X4 (or the X series in general). Having more titles of this genre helps X4 earn public, not lose it. I like playing both VD2 and X4, and I think most people would prefer to have both than to ditch one for the other.

And BTW, I use Linux, for Linux players although there is no native version of Void Destroyer 2, both VD2 and VD1 run as platinum on steam play, that is, it runs as well as in windows, if not better.

[EmperorDragon]

I'd like to contribute and suggest a small one-man indie game that has all of these elements -- in fact, it looks a lot like the earlier X games, but with much better mechanics and creative and quite competent fleet commanding: Void Destroyer 2.
Bought it on Steam, the main differences from X4 are:

- You don't have space legs, although you have a few sections in first person (when docked on stations, etc.);
- UI is very competent and intuitive. Really!!! Commands resemble X3, but in an iconic and organized interface.
- Soundtrack is nonexistent, which makes you admire the epic soundtrack of X4 even more.
- Graphics are untextured cell-shaded. Yeah, not sure why it's untextured (first Void Destroyer is textured), maybe for a distinct look or something; also, this makes the game run well on a potato, even with its simulation aspects on full drive.
- The long trip mechanics is something different called "the overworld", basically the map in an RTS-like controlling scheme where you can fly with accelerated time.
- You have upkeep costs for fleet and stations.
- You don't have highways and for some portals you have to pay to use them.
- Besides owning ships besides the one you fly, you can also rent ships for a mission or a particular length of time.
- AFAIK you can't spacewalk
- No ship interiors
- No hacking mechanics
- Doesn't seem to have different mechanics as "Out of Sector" and "In Sector". AFAIK economy seems X3-like, not X4-like.
- The AI for your ships doesn't usually do things which would make you swear at them, like the depleting shield boost fighters in X4.

But it has most of the stuff of X games, even the "vibe":
- Comm mechanics have other options besides asking for docking permissions or asking directions, although most of them seem pointless (insult, compliment and the likes)
- You start with a small ship and go on buying lots of different ships, and assemble them in fleets if you want; particularly, fleet management is much better than in X4;
- You can have fighters, bombers, carriers, transport ships of various sizes, miners and even repair ships, and of course give orders to them.
- You have mechanics equivalent to boosting/jump drive/travel drive which is called "gravity drive", but I don't know how to properly explain it.
- You have newtonian/non-newtonian switch shortcut which you can (and should) turn on and off to do things like flying sideways facing an enemy to shoot it.
- You can build ships and stations, sell them too if you want;
- You have missions like X4, to be frank of a greater variety, more creative and they scale with your skill/ship/money;
- You have a story, but you can ignore it completely and treat it like a sandbox. However, the story is engaging enough that you'd be missing out, at least in the first playthrough;
- factions have their particular traits and you have reputation with them that can be improved or harmed; as in the X games, they can become friends or enemies.
- you can repair your ships in some stations, change weapons, add/remove mods and customize it in a number of ways.
- You can add turrets to your ships and decide how to use them
- HOTAS support
- Modding support. In particular it seems very easy to add ships (no surprise, since they don't need textures and do not have interiors), even with moving parts.
- Asteroid mining, in person or via NPCs, manual or automated
- Trading, in person or via NPCs, manual or automated
- mines, proximity mines, armed debris;
- space mysteries and anomalies and the likes;
- ... and there's much more, but I still don't know the game completely.

I don't know all its elements, but its presentation might deceive, it is a VERY complex game and it is developed by one man only, and he is very active and responsive on the steam forums and gives great feedback about the game mechanics. Hence the consistency of the whole game is great too.

Now why I am spending my time advertising such a game that might rival X4? It's not that I don't like X4. But I think it can benefit from the comparison with a game that's very much like it. Also, although Void Destroyer 2 has a lot of stuff better, X4 is a vast game with sightseeing and depth and even with its bugs, I don't think it is superated by any other game. Besides that, X4 is frightfully complex and I bet it scares a lot of players due to that complexity. Void Destroyer 2 is almost as complex as X4, but with its cartoonish toy-like appearance might work as a "gentle introductory game" towards X4 (or the X series in general). Having more titles of this genre helps X4 earn public, not lose it. I like playing both VD2 and X4, and I think most people would prefer to have both than to ditch one for the other.

And BTW, I use Linux, for Linux players although there is no native version of Void Destroyer 2, both VD2 and VD1 run as platinum on steam play, that is, it runs as well as in windows, if not better.

Thanks for that heads-up. I have VD1 as well and I loved it, the direct ship control was extremely fun and the whole game had a nice "feel" to it. I'm keeping a keen eye on VD2, is the MU and their boulder-ships still around? Those were... interesting ship designs.

As for Elite Dangerous, I was looking forward to it but the always-online thing was a real spit-in-the-face. If you make a hefty budget game for a small genre like space sims, then it's only logical and respectful to make it accessible to the broad gaming community, many of whom waited for a new Elite since 1984, instead of giving half the gaming community the finger. I actually had my security administrator develop a server emulator to play it offline but, according to him, the game is not worth the effort.

Because of the online restrictions, I consider ED an online game and, as such, in no way comparable with X4. Same with Star Citizen, online games are in a different category of their own.

[Olfrygt]

Highway doesn’t make any good for game play. It creates a paradox in this game ... small ships can be quicker then bigger ship on the other side of the galaxy. This is going against any logic. Where a big ship should carry many smaller one. They have just made the big ships completely useless for trading / mining. It’s a disaster.

To come back to the ship design, I do not understand ... why those developers who had the best ships design ever in X2 / X3 / XR had to throw away everything and give us those poor miserable copy pasted stats ships across the factions ... they are first must of them ultra ugly and with no soul.

For god sake just give us back all the previous ships.
We want racial Specific ships and also equipment specific ships. Why can an ARG ship can use all PAR technology ?
Give us something more racial and logical.

Maybe ask a modding / creative challenge for people to design ships mod that you can add to the game after being validated by egosoft ?
All factions get too similar ships technically speaking. We want some differences and MORE VARIETY.

My two cents but I thing I am giving the voice for many peeps around here.

And for me , I am not going to E.D.... too boring , Emory and complicated. I will just log back in what I play for 16 years. EVE ONLINE.

Well wrote. That's my opinion too. Nothing to add...

[mr.WHO]

I'd like to contribute and suggest a small one-man indie game that has all of these elements -- in fact, it looks a lot like the earlier X games, but with much better mechanics and creative and quite competent fleet commanding: Void Destroyer 2.

Yes, VD2 is nice, but it's still Early Access (it's getting close to release state). - also it's more like Mount & Blade in Space than X-series.

I'd also recommend Helium Rain (closest thing to X-series, that is not X-Series):
https://store.steampowered.com/app/681330/Helium_Rain/

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

False assertion logic - and the main races have not completely changed their ship culture styles really. The Kha'ak, and Paranid are on the most part unchanged. The Xenon and Teladi ship designs are consistent with the precedent set by X-Rebirth. Human ship designs have rarely followed a single consistent design pattern over the X-series, nor has the Teladi really. Even disregarding that, it is one thing to change aesthetics of a ship design and another thing entirely to do what you are suggesting.

You actually are reinforcing my point: yes, inbetween games, even before X4, ship styles have been retconned time and time again, with little to no in-universe explanation. Because, and that's my point: it's a videogame (and not even a narrative driven one like some RPGs can be), realism comes second as narrative is just one of the elements of the product, not the main driving point as it would be for a book or a movie.

Nope - false in the case of X4. Some of the model changes between games on the most part can be explained by evolution of graphics on one-hand and logical changes in space ship fashions/designs on the other.

The X-series, including X4, has a solid narrative behind them - it has nothing to do with realism, but there is a solid case for lore. The changes in ship designs between X-BTF/X2/X3 were more evolutionary with really only the larger ships significantly changing in X3:R (X3:TC/X3:AP involved a mix of community developed models and Egosoft originals). X-Rebirth reset the whole approach to models in the main and lore wise it could be justified by the fragmentation of society and the break-down of the gate network after AP. X4 continued on from X-Rebirth and recycled some of the models from X3 where Egosoft felt was appropriate, and as with X-Rebirth capitalised on lore as an opportunity to redesign some of the models from the ground up.

ED has similar reasoning behind the model evolution - Elite 1984 was pretty much basic wireframe graphics, Elite: Frontier and Frontier 2 moved to Solid graphics but the designs were essentially the same as the original Elite. ED brought the graphics forward but retained much of the original lore-founded designs. Some of the legacy models from the later games have not been revived, and AFAIK some of the designs are actually completely new to ED.

Overall, the point being lore in both games has driven at least some of the design decisions - in the case of Highways and models in X4, there is a strong degree of truth to this. Very little has truely been retconned although some of the ship names have been allocated different roles to older name sakes (mainly in respect to X3:TC/X3:AP though).

[MakerLinux]

The X-series, including X4, has a solid narrative behind them - it has nothing to do with realism, but there is a solid case for lore. The changes in ship designs between X-BTF/X2/X3 were more evolutionary with really only the larger ships significantly changing in X3:R (X3:TC/X3:AP involved a mix of community developed models and Egosoft originals). X-Rebirth reset the whole approach to models in the main and lore wise it could be justified by the fragmentation of society and the break-down of the gate network after AP. X4 continued on from X-Rebirth and recycled some of the models from X3 where Egosoft felt was appropriate, and as with X-Rebirth capitalised on lore as an opportunity to redesign some of the models from the ground up.

You seem to know a lot about X lore. Do you know why the Xenon ships have changed so much between X3 and X4/X: Rebirth? I was always curious about that, specially about Xenon K and I.

[MaGicBush]

I have Ed and bought a hotas for it. It was alot of fun for the 60 or so hours I played it, as the universe and atmosphere and what I'd say will be a more realistic form of space travel all adds up to the immersion. I felt like a space explorer doing mostly exploration and a bit of missions. However, it grew boring once I realized that's all there is to it. You save up for bigger and better ships, and then.. Thats it. I got about halfway to the "Best exploration ship" and realized what's the point? Once I get that my grind is done, and eh. So I stopped. About that time x4 came out, and I have not looked back, except when my friend plays I'll hop on a bit and wing with him which can be some fun still.

[Arvel]

Elite Dangerous is, in my opinion, EuroTruck Simulator in space. Its combat is worse than the X series', which I consider only mediocre (without mods).

VR is what I feel makes Elite Dangerous worth playing: Its complex monotony becomes sort of beautiful and cathartic in VR. Plus I can throw up a holographic screen of Netflix in my cockpit to watch in-flight movies or documentaries during long hauls. E:D isn't what I'd call a "fun" game, but it's great if you want to escape reality and relax for a while.

X, on the other hand, is all about empire building (and destruction) for me. Amass a mostly autonomous economic and military force to be reckoned with, then suffer not the Paranid to live.

Yes, VD2 is nice, but it's still Early Access (it's getting close to release state). - also it's more like Mount & Blade in Space than X-series.

I'd also recommend Helium Rain (closest thing to X-series, that is not X-Series):
https://store.steampowered.com/app/681330/Helium_Rain/

Hmm, yes VD2 really does have a M&B feel, now that you mention it. My main complaint with the game are the aesthetics (space shouldn't look like I'm swimming through blue Powerade), though you can customize how everything appears to a degree in game.

I'd never heard of Helium Rain before but it looks rather interesting. Thanks!

[Kadatherion]

Yeah, lore is so solid and a priority in X games, that they don't even have a plot to narrate it anymore (which is totally fine in my book, btw, their "plots" always where childishly written and performed as glorified tutorials, and they always were sandbox games at heart anyway).

Roger, really, when we like a franchise enough we can make perfectly sensible excuses or explanations for anything, even for the hot mess the new Star Wars movies or the last GoT episodes are (there sure is people trying ), but as someone who writes for a living, let me reiterate: if I burden the reader with the task of imagining explanations for what I present him, instead of actually giving them to him (or at the very least suggesting them), I'm doing my job all wrong.
You could justify the changes in Rebirth (or any other X game) in many ways to try and make sense of the inconsistencies, point is, you could but *they did not*. Why? Because it wasn't important enough for them in the context of a videogame, a mainly sandbox one at that. Which, again, testifies how narrative necessities come definitely second (to say the least) in the decision making process for gameplay elements (which, as said, I can stand behind: sure, better narrative is always welcomed, but there have to be contextual priorities; in this context, the quality of the changes is more relevant than their actual consistency).
While this might not hold true - or not as much - for certain other games that are by their nature much more narrative driven, it clearly, objectively is - and couldn't be otherwise - for X games. Thinking otherwise is projecting yourself.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

The X-series, including X4, has a solid narrative behind them - it has nothing to do with realism, but there is a solid case for lore. The changes in ship designs between X-BTF/X2/X3 were more evolutionary with really only the larger ships significantly changing in X3:R (X3:TC/X3:AP involved a mix of community developed models and Egosoft originals). X-Rebirth reset the whole approach to models in the main and lore wise it could be justified by the fragmentation of society and the break-down of the gate network after AP. X4 continued on from X-Rebirth and recycled some of the models from X3 where Egosoft felt was appropriate, and as with X-Rebirth capitalised on lore as an opportunity to redesign some of the models from the ground up.

You seem to know a lot about X lore. Do you know why the Xenon ships have changed so much between X3 and X4/X: Rebirth? I was always curious about that, specially about Xenon K and I.

If you recall from X3 (can't remember which one) there was not just one Xenon faction but at least two (c/f the peaceful Xenon CPU ship which featured as part of a plot-line). The Branch 9 Xenon capitals we see in X4 were carried over from X-Rebirth and pitched as a separate (but still hostile) evolution of the Xenon (not entirely unexpected).

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

if I burden the reader with the task of imagining explanations for what I present him, instead of actually giving them to him (or at the very least suggesting them), I'm doing my job all wrong.

Perhaps, but you would not be the first author/writer to do that - making the audience think about what is being presented to them is actually sometimes intentional. It is not always a good thing to lay everything out on a platter for the audience.

In the specific context of X4, Egosoft cut ALOT of corners with the X4 material - the incomplete in-game encyclopaedia is one of those areas that still needs to be fleshed out and there are even discrepancies between the Data Vault Timeline recorded material and the on screen text/timeline. No-one is saying Egosoft nor X4 are perfect but their overall approach to X4 is actually consistent with the X-lore that has been developing over the series: X-BTF, X-Tension, X2, X3:R, X3:TC, X3:AP, X-Rebirth, and X4.

[Kadatherion]

if I burden the reader with the task of imagining explanations for what I present him, instead of actually giving them to him (or at the very least suggesting them), I'm doing my job all wrong.

Perhaps, but you would not be the first author/writer to do that - making the audience think about what is being presented to them is actually sometimes intentional. It is not always a good thing to lay everything out on a platter for the audience.

Now I'm totally digressing, but just for the sake of the discussion - which, of course, finds me very interested and, spoiler alert, will make me go full on verbal diarrhea - indeed, but there's a fundamental difference between "laying out things on a platter" and "offering plausible explanations".

I'll take these last few episodes of GoT that have split the audience in two and have been given the lowest ratings ever for the series, to make a very simplistic example (no too current spoilers! ): let's mention for instance the oh so controverse battle of Winterfell, that Long Night that lasted... well, just a normal night .
Many pointed out how totally unsensical the battle plans were: light cavalry charging headfront spearheading a vastly superior enemy, the artillery *in front* of the barricades, no use of basic so called "annihilation zones" against an enemy that has no "heavies" or artillery pieces but is by definition cannon fodder and so on, the list would be very long and is very obvious. Fundamental errors that are mindbogglingly naive not just to Vatutin fans, but to everyone with the least bit of common sense. Heck, as gamers, many of us couldn't help but shout "come on, even Total War's AI on easy isn't THAT dumb and tries to use cavalry for flanking!". All this inside even more - if possible - stupid choices made by the characters ("Hey, we are going to be attacked by a zombie wizard who resurrects the dead to fight for him, let's protect women and children by sending them in the crypts... with, you know... the dead" ).

Now, a segment of the audience still tried to find some explanations for such a collection of silliness, plot holes, characterization retconning et cetera. About the inconsistencies in the battle plan, many pointed out that hey, even IRL it happened that generals - even pretty renowned ones at least up to that point - made a series of, in hindsight, incredibly idiotic decisions. Why couldn't the same happen to Jon and Dany in GoT? This is absolutely true. The reason why they are wrong and are actually projecting even if what they state is objectively true, though, is another: that the writing in GoT did not aknowledge such decisions and plot points as mistakes (or necessary compromises) in any way.
You, the viewer, could imagine, in your quest to salvage what once was a series with great writing, that, for instance, several rather simple defense strategies couldn't be arranged in time as all the manpower was scrambling to make the obsidian weapons, or again that the Dothraki suicide was somehow specifically meant to lure the Night King out (still kind of silly, but let's leave it at that), and so on. Problem is, the actual writing never even hints at such possibilities: testifying how the writers found nothing "wrong" with those stupid battle plans.

They didn't need to "serve on a platter", with some clichéd voice over or overly long exposition, the statement "what they are doing is stupid". The only thing they needed would have been to aknowledge what apparently made no sense, from that very acknowledgment would come the "offering" of an explanation: you don't necessarily need to go into details, it can be enough to put in the mouth of a character the exposition of doubt. Dunno, maybe a surviving Dothraki that spits at Dany's feet lamenting the useless sacrifice of his brothers. Davos who doubts the battle plans and Jon who answers a generic "we don't have any other choice", whatever. It would still not be - in this specific case - good storytelling, as the holes were way too big, but that's the concept: I can make the viewer/reader come to his own conclusion, his own interpretation, of the details of how and why a certain event comes to pass in a specific way without spelling every detail to him, keeping the evocative appeal of some vagueness and mystery, but I have to, at the very least, *offer* him the chance, a cue, a hint, a train of thoughts to follow - however he then pleases - to come to such conclusions. This is something that always happens, naturally, when a plot hole isn't a plot hole, because the writer is aware of it. When no clue, no acknowledgment is there in the text, then the writer either was truly clueless (like GoT's writer have lately proven to be) or didn't care.

In the specific context of X4, Egosoft cut ALOT of corners with the X4 material - the incomplete in-game encyclopaedia is one of those areas that still needs to be fleshed out and there are even discrepancies between the Data Vault Timeline recorded material and the on screen text/timeline. No-one is saying Egosoft nor X4 are perfect but their overall approach to X4 is actually consistent with the X-lore that has been developing over the series: X-BTF, X-Tension, X2, X3:R, X3:TC, X3:AP, X-Rebirth, and X4.

Yes (to a point), but you see, you are mistaking my statement as disapproval by definition. It isn't: that "or didn't care" I closed my previous digression with isn't necessarily a symptom of something inherently wrong. Just as I previously explained why shaping gameplay to narrative instead of the opposite usually is, in game development, the actual wrong course.

Imagine this scenario (again, overly simplified, for obvious reasons): we are switching to a new engine that, given the new graphics, cool mechanics and kind of assets we have to make - many of which from scratch - only allows us so much room. Because of that, we can't have more than let's say 50 sectors in game and a certain number or variety of ships around without facing either too much work to realistically get to release in time and/or too high minimum sys specs to guarantee a fluid enough experience.

- "Hey boss, I see, but the lore says we should have like 300 sectors, all these ship classes and type, and these techs, and then this, and that".
- "I know, but this are the limits we have right now, so there's no other way. Find me a narrative explanation for that, Dave".
- "Uhm... ok... let's say that the gate system shut down because... reasons™, shit™ happened, and let's leave it at that".
- "Heh, a bit weak but that's all right, we are making a space sandbox, not the next Witcher game, it's enough Dave. After all, as usual the real shit will be thrown at Bill the UI guy anyway".

This is a perfectly legit and arguably the best way to go, in the correct order. The actual stupidity would have been, because the lore previously implied it, to try at all costs to have those 300 sectors. Making the game in the new engine unplayable, or, worse, forsaking the potential of the new engine to keep the chance to have that many sectors. Even more absurd would be to think, since we did get the 50 sectors galaxy, that they COULD have made a 300 sectors one even in the new engine, but they opted not to do it because someone had previously written a narrative that talked about only 50 sectors (or only the Albion sector if we talk about Rebirth) and, you know... lol lore . That'd be completely silly.
Sure, more narrative and involved explanations couldn't be but welcomed, everything that adds to the experience and immersion, no matter how marginally, is, but these are not by definition essential in this context.

Of course we know then an issue came up: many players aren't very happy that we now have 50 (ish) sectors only. Nor are they too happy with how the highways have been implemented, as many feel they contribute at making the universe feel even smaller than it actually is, an universe where you often *drive* instead of *fly* around. But this is an issue that does not come from, in any way, and such neither is "explained by", the lore and its necessities. Lore came after, it tries (very little, but, again, it's just a sandbox game) to roughly and briefly justify the BIG changes, not going into details, but doesn't justify - nor it tries to, nor it could be its responsibility - the negative side effects of such gameplay choices. Highways themselves have been a gameplay mechanic chosen - as stated - as an alternative to jumpdrive to offer what was thought to be a good evolution of the formula, in an environment that changed fundamentally with the engine switch.

The same goes for ships or (virtually non-existent) weapons variety: the lore doesn't even try to explain why suddenly, yet again ship building and styles changed a lot in a relatively short timespan, or weapons technology shrinked to 1/8th of its previous breadth. We can come up with any explanation we find more plausible (the limit is really just our imagination), and then debate among us which one would be the most plausible, but it doesn't really matter as the game itself doesn't even try, doesn't - as stated - care. This is all I stated at the beginning of the discussion: they don't even care enough to justify it with such things done and done, it makes no sense to believe such lore justifications and "reasons" could have had any relevant, primeval role in actually sparking the decision itself to make them.

Of course, the argument itself wouldn't surface at all if those changes were all clearly for the better, well received by the community. Some, if not many, of these changes are controversial to say the least. Only at this point the lore starts getting called up to the witness stand as well, as people complain and, inevitably, the complaint tends to go "I don't like this thing here, and we are not even given any real narrative explanations, nor it makes much sense given that in year XXXX the lore stated that blahblahblah I'm a nerd and Rei shouldn't be able to backflip a Tie Fighter because blahblahblah" ( ). Which is often true, and an understandable approach to reinforce the argument you're trying to make, but shifts the point further away from what is the real issue at hand, whether lore is called to further attack or justify a mechanic.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Perhaps, but you would not be the first author/writer to do that - making the audience think about what is being presented to them is actually sometimes intentional. It is not always a good thing to lay everything out on a platter for the audience.

There's a fundamental difference between "laying out things on a platter" and "offering plausible explanations".

In the case of X4, the explanations are there - it is just it is not clearly laid out.

Just as I previously explained why shaping gameplay to narrative instead of the opposite usually is, in game development, the actual wrong course.

I disagree with your assertion - what you are saying is true to a point but IMO the argument lacks ANY validity in the case of X4.

Of course we know then an issue came up: many players aren't very happy that we now have 50 (ish) sectors only. Nor are they too happy with how the highways have been implemented, as many feel they contribute at making the universe feel even smaller than it actually is, an universe where you often *drive* instead of *fly* around. But this is an issue that does not come from, in any way, and such neither is "explained by", the lore and its necessities. Lore came after, it tries (very little, but, again, it's just a sandbox game) to roughly and briefly justify the BIG changes, not going into details, but doesn't justify - nor it tries to, nor it could be its responsibility - the negative side effects of such gameplay choices. Highways themselves have been a gameplay mechanic chosen - as stated - as an alternative to jumpdrive to offer what was thought to be a good evolution of the formula, in an environment that changed fundamentally with the engine switch.

Your argument is largely a pot-ae-toe/pot-ah-toe subjective point of view - to me (and seemingly others including ES) the highways do not make the universe feel smaller at all. The justification for their introduction is covered by the lore events in X3:AP and X-Rebirth and explained to at least some degree via the Data Vault Timeline. The lack of jump drives is explainable through the lore too since the gate network shutdown and other than for community developed mods generally required the jump gates to work.

The same goes for ships or (virtually non-existent) weapons variety: the lore doesn't even try to explain why suddenly, yet again ship building and styles changed a lot in a relatively short timespan, or weapons technology shrinked to 1/8th of its previous breadth. We can come up with any explanation we find more plausible (the limit is really just our imagination), and then debate among us which one would be the most plausible, but it doesn't really matter as the game itself doesn't even try, doesn't - as stated - care. This is all I stated at the beginning of the discussion: they don't even care enough to justify it with such things done and done, it makes no sense to believe such lore justifications and "reasons" could have had any relevant, primeval role in actually sparking the decision itself to make them.

If you compare the weapon availability in X4 versus that in X-Rebirth then they are roughly on par and similar in variety/types - X4 is slightly more varied perhaps. The variety of weapons is roughly comparable to X2 on balance, and weapon variety in itself is actually moot and should not need to justified one way or the other.

Of course, the argument itself wouldn't surface at all if those changes were all clearly for the better, well received by the community. Some, if not many, of these changes are controversial to say the least.

Let's see - universe size in terms of number of sectors and the variety of weapons/ships are both moot in essence, the lore explains the generalities of the situation but there are also other more practical developmental cost v. product cost considerations. The level of content provided at release is fair and reasonable for the price we paid for it. There are always going to be some that will find an excuse to complain about feature X or Y in a new game (be it part of a series or not) and the vast majority of those complaints is generally speaking unjustified and unjustifiable IME/IMO. Sure, the relevant complainers will try to justify their complaints but invariably there are holes in their arguments that they fail to acknowledge even when pointed out to them.

Ultimately, what happened was X-Rebirth effectively rebooted the series with lore placing the situation some time after the events of X3:AP. X-Rebirth in itself was subjected to (IMO) an undue level of criticism but it was still in essence going to be the basis of any future X-series game developed by Egosoft. X4 attempted to address some of the complaints regarding implementation decisions made for X-Rebirth and also to re-introduce mechanics that were part of the X-Series essentially from X-Tension to X3:AP. Unfortunately for us, Egosoft rushed out X4 before it was truely ready for one reason or another and the resulting mess is still undergoing the process of being addressed - it has been a slow and painful process and will probably continue to be for the foreseeable future based on progress to date. IMO The level of content is not at fault, but rather the issue is with the quality of the content that is there - more in terms of bugs and incomplete work (not variety/diversity/quantity considerations).

Whetheer we are talking about ED, X4, or any other game there are always going to be those that are not happy with aspects of the given product (despite how things may have been explained prior to release - X-Rebirth is a prime example of this) - sometimes the complaints are justified, but most of the time they are not. However, unlike alot of (if not most) games, the X-series games by Egosoft have one major advantage - official support for community modding. That means that we have the ability to address some of the aspects such as gameplay/content variety, via developing our own mods or tweaking what is already there.

[Kadatherion]

In the case of X4, the explanations are there - it is just it is not clearly laid out.

No, they aren't. The very example this discussion came out from, "why aren't highways set up in a more useful, sensible way?" isn't touched in any form in the lore the game offers you. You came to an explanation for that that would make sense and which I mostly agree with - it could be debated, but since we are effectively talking about air anything is valid - but the game does not care (nor it should).

Just as I previously explained why shaping gameplay to narrative instead of the opposite usually is, in game development, the actual wrong course.

I disagree with your assertion - what you are saying is true to a point but IMO the argument lacks ANY validity in the case of X4.

Are you joking? Seriously, now you are just stating the absurd just to not admit a point *you yourself* came up with and which I just countered. You are basically saying the equivalent of thinking in the case of X4, the reason why there's wars between spacefaring races could be because of lore, and not because, you know... it's a space *game*, that without spaceships to shoot down and watch shoot down each other wouldn't be much fun.

Come on, mate, really, next thing would be saying the Split expansion will come because of the lore, not because the game could take advantage of... an expansion to make it bigger, better and more fun (and make another influx of money for the devs, obviously). The only effect lore has in this is that it's going to be the Split and not some other new random alien race, just because screw everything.

Your argument is largely a pot-ae-toe/pot-ah-toe subjective point of view - to me (and seemingly others including ES) the highways do not make the universe feel smaller at all. The justification for their introduction is covered by the lore events in X3:AP and X-Rebirth and explained to at least some degree via the Data Vault Timeline.

It. Doesn't. Matter.
That for many people they feel that way is *a fact*, whether you or me like it or not. The very existence of these people, in pretty undeniable relatively large numbers, complaining about them is the fact itself. What the hell are you trying to deny? You are grasping at straws now, going in circles and completely avoiding the point of the discussion.

The in-universe justification for their introduction is in game and is this: "the gate system shut down. Because yes. So now we have highways, ktnxbai". The end. But there is hardly any justification offered for why *they are set up in a certain specific way*, that very specific set up you went out of your way to try and justify with what you think could be plausible (again, as aforementioned) in such a situation. And even if it were, justifying a controversial gameplay choice "because lore" is just silly. A mechanic either works for you or it doesn't. When it works for most all is good, when it doesn't, the more people find it not working for them, the bigger the issue is.

You can defend as much as you please the fact you find it fun and absolutely ok (great!), but switching the point to lore when people complain such mechanic is not fun nor feels "right", you are not dismissing anything, you don't have a valid point by definition. Because, as said multiple times, videogames, as opposed to books or movies, are tactile experiences first and foremost. And X4, yes, this X4, more than pretty much any other game imaginable: we are not talking a Telltale game here (that would even be fairly hard to consider 100% a "game"), we are talking a sandbox without even any main narrative plot, it's the epitome of something that's based on and made for gameplay over anything else.

If you compare the weapon availability in X4 versus that in X-Rebirth then they are roughly on par and similar in variety/types - X4 is slightly more varied perhaps. The variety of weapons is roughly comparable to X2 on balance, and weapon variety in itself is actually moot and should not need to justified one way or the other.

You keep trying to approach the discussion as a complaint against ES that you have somehow to defend. There are 6 different weapon types in X4. They can come in bigger/smaller variations, but that's it, SIX weapon types. In X3 there were 30+. 30 *different technologies* for weapons, mind me, not just "weapon XY a bit bigger", some of them had similar roles and uses of course, as they were ratially defined, but many also did not only look but also worked in fundamentally different ways, both conceptually and from gameplay perspective.

Inbetween the engine switch we lost 80% of weapon variety, technologies. How could that need "less justification" than any other major evolution (or, in this case, involution) in the universe? Granted, that's totally fine by me, I'm the one who's saying a videogame like X4 doesn't necessarily *have to* justify everything with lore, the one saying these justifications are in and even somehow are the reason itself for the changes is you. That wouldn't sound so great here though: "We've given you 80% less weapons, but that's because you know, the gate shutdown, the isolation, technology was forced to make some steps back, this is plausible which means this was a good development decision, right? Right?".

To me it sounds you bring lore (or supposed interpretations of it) on the table only when you think it serves reinforcing your defense of a mechanic you like, but when that mechanic is impossible to defend even for you, as numbers can't lie and aren't subjective as "the highways been fun or not" can be, then suddenly that very lore plausibility "is actually moot and there should be no need to justify it one way or the other". Way too convenient, mate!

Of course, the argument itself wouldn't surface at all if those changes were all clearly for the better, well received by the community. Some, if not many, of these changes are controversial to say the least.

Let's see - universe size in terms of number of sectors and the variety of weapons/ships are both moot in essence, the lore explains the generalities of the situation but there are also other more practical developmental cost v. product cost considerations. The level of content provided at release is fair and reasonable for the price we paid for it. There are always going to be some that will find an excuse to complain about feature X or Y in a new game (be it part of a series or not) and the vast majority of those complaints is generally speaking unjustified and unjustifiable IME/IMO. Sure, the relevant complainers will try to justify their complaints but invariably there are holes in their arguments that they fail to acknowledge even when pointed out to them.

Roger, I get it, you like the game even though you don't deny at least some of its faults (didn't I see even you lose your patience and say it was unacceptable in very harsh words just a few weeks ago though? Might be confusing you with someone else), but whether you find it's a fair game or I find it's not, that's what moot, our opinions. You know what isn't? That mixed score on Steam. That mixed score that keeps going down, and is at 43% favourable at the current trend (fun fact: I'm counted in that score, but as a favourable vote, guess that!). There's nothing else to discuss here, the game isn't being that well received, and what we mentioned here is among the many recurring things a lot of players complain about. That's, once again, an undeniable, albeit unfortunate, fact.

Whetheer we are talking about ED, X4, or any other game there are always going to be those that are not happy with aspects of the given product (despite how things may have been explained prior to release - X-Rebirth is a prime example of this) - sometimes the complaints are justified, but most of the time they are not. However, unlike alot of (if not most) games, the X-series games by Egosoft have one major advantage - official support for community modding. That means that we have the ability to address some of the aspects such as gameplay/content variety, via developing our own mods or tweaking what is already there.

That's for sure. Let's be honest: X games lately are still alive for us only because we hope for mods to make them more acceptable. But that "most of the time complaints are not justified" is a pretty arrogant assertion. Let's say that "most of the time complaints made don't find you in agreement with them". Because, you see, whether a game is good or not, and as such successful or not, is made by the amount and relevance of those complaints, that translate into score aggregates, and then into sales. In the end, if a game isn't fun enough for too many of its target customers, then it's going to fail or be remade in a formula closer to what the majority finds more fun. No matter if we are in the minority and find a certain thing still fun (I for one sure am in the minority most of the time, given the AAA live service MP games that are all the rage lately and which I find totally unfun ). Coming to such an absolute dismissal about a mechanic you evidently find nothing wrong with, when it's clearly one of the most controverse (dunno if it's the *majority* of players not liking the highways much or not, we don't have numbers for that specific thing, but it sure looks like it's at the very least not well received by a LARGE chunk of the playerbase ever since Rebirth) is quite petty. You are still entitled to your opinion and tastes even if they happened to not be majoritarian, or "popular".

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

In the case of X4, the explanations are there - it is just it is not clearly laid out.

No, they aren't. The very example this discussion came out from, "why aren't highways set up in a more useful, sensible way?"

They are setup in a way that makes perfect sense for the overall environment - at least on the most part. The ring for example allows for fast and efficient travel for all the factions - essentially the M25 of X4, but without the traffic jams.

Fundamentally, the background lore does cover why things are as they are - some things are perhaps not spelled out in explicit terms (e.g. why the gate network has been reorganised as it has been) but there is no good reason why they should be. Ultimately, the general approach ES have taken with X4 is quite logical and consistent with their game lore.

While gameplay does play a part in the X-series it never really sits in total isolation, the underlying game lore in general does take precedent and the game content is defined around the background story that ES want to portray. Like it or not, while there is not much of an active story in X4 there is a consistent thread of lore and that has on the most part been true for all X-games.

ES develop the X-series games to suit their narrative and allow the community to modify the end-product to suit personal tastes - they can not be fairer than that. The complaints about "lack of content in X4" is a clear demonstration of arrogance and entitlement with little or no realistic consideration for what things cost to develop. I have seen similar complaints about ED and they are equally invalid in that case too. Such arguments in general fail to give due credit to what has been delivered - this is an increasingly common attitude I have seen expressed by the gaming community in general and is not a good thing.

Yes - I have openly complained about X4, but only wrt the on-going issues Egosoft have wrt not testing their product to a sufficient level and releasing updates in an unacceptable state. They should be concentrating more on the bugs and less on the content - introducing more content before the rest is working properly is generally a recipe for disaster since it leads to a situation where either nothing is properly tested or the whole thing becomes more expensive to test because of retesting that should happen when certain goal posts move. We do not know how Egosoft work internally, but we can judge the end-results of what they do. They have a duty of care to deliver a product that is of an acceptable level of quality - historically, they have done better with their other games than they have with X4 thus far IMO.

In brief - the overall game design of X4 is consistent with the game lore, the mechanics are in support of the game lore but do not dominate it - the lore is in accordance with the story Egosoft want to tell. As for level of content, it is consistent with most current products of the same level. The X-series consists of hand crafted system designs consistent with the vision ES have at the time, while ED is a procedurally generated model of our galaxy with some hand crafted tweaks added as FD see fit. The former is bound to be more expensive to develop on a per system basis. In additon, the two games are substantially different in focus but despite this BOTH games have had complaints about lack of content made against them - such complaints are just the usual unjustifiable screams from entitled gamers who have little or no grasp of what it costs to develop a product. More content, means more testing, which in turn means more cost - at least in the context of professional game developers. This is fundamentally why alot of games these days are delivered with the level of content they are and why additional content of substance requires a premium to be paid for it. My only complaints regarding X4 are regarding the quality of the delivered product - not the content.