Flying other ships?

[caleb]

The way they are designing the game, with detailed cockpits, and walking in your ship, etc, I do not think we'll get to fly every single ship in the game. Programming every single one would be too much work...

However, I do think we'll get to fly more ships in the future. They'll probably slowly add more ships to the game, giving us a greater variety. I do not think we'll be flying cap ships anytime soon, or flying every single ship out there...

Is this good, or bad? No idea... I have not played the current iteration of the game, so I do not know at this time if adding more ships will make the game a lot better, or just make all ships more generic...

[Graaf]

Don't buy it.

Don't worry, I won't.

As for the poll question: No, I will not. But I may consider trying a demo once the feature becomes available in a (usually) free update/upgrade/expansion.

But please tell me why a sandbox game has a plot in the first place? And why am I forced to play through it? Or is there an option to play a plot-less game?

3) The game isn't based around you. But what the community at a mass have asked for, for a very long time.

Detailed cockpits, walking around ships and stations etc have been a highly requested feature since i can remember.

Many people have been asking for a multiplayer/co-op function as long as I remember, yet it has always been said by Egosoft that was not an option once the request was made. And I think that is a good thing. But I cannot remember any requests about a single-ship experience.

And yes, we loved to have the cockpits back into the game. Problem with X3 was that they removed the cockpits from X2 and never placed them back in, despite us asking for them for the last 7 years.

"since I can remember" is less then 4 years according to your joining date. Rebirth has been in production for a bit longer so chances are your requests are never considered.

As for the copy/pasting of ships and modules. Can I please ask all of you to play X2 and have a look at all the different fighters and transports. They may all have the same cockpits but the overall design were unique enough. Even the pirates had unique designs back then. Some more things we lost with Reunion.

Finally, the comments about the ships name. Even without spending much time here I know the true name is "Pride of Albion", not Skunk. I don't know why its called like that but I bet it is plot-related.

[the-danzorz]

SNIPPED

You're just pulling in a blanket "all opinions I don't like are invalid" clause.

Having an opinion is fine. Complaining about things that haven't even been confirmed and making speculations isn't the same thing.

It's just as much an uninformed assumption that modding will be capable of fixing everything just based upon what little we have heard about what modding will be able to do as it is to assume anything on the plot based upon what we have read. Both inferences come from reading the same sources, so if we can't trust the part about multiple ships being thrown out because they thought it's "boring" to fly a cap ship, we can't trust the modding parts, either.

I never made an assumption, i said "nothing is stopping" them. Which is the case, we haven't heard anything that states that the modding isn't able to adjust the plot. >_>

Then, clearly, the problem is that not enough of us (and I am far from alone) were yelling down the people requesting interiors loud enough and long enough, since it seems only those people were heard. Better make up for lost time, now. Thanks for convincing me to be more vehement.

Games tend to get designed around what the large % of the fan-base want. If the new game approach isn't what you want, don't buy the game. Until such a time things change to something you desire. If there is enough of you (as you say) then changes will be made overtime.

Except for those of us who lose multiple ships. Apparently, we don't count. (The game isn't all about you, just because you wanted the interiors.)

Egosoft have said they will add more ships as long as players keep requesting them. I assume you didn't read that yet?

I never said i wanted those, i am just not against it and look forward to seeing it before forming an opinion. >_>

Except that if we are restricted in what ships we can fly, where we can build stations, etc. because of plot, then it IS overturning the sandbox for the plot. We don't get our multiple ships back when the plot is over, just whatever is left of the sandbox that wasn't thrown overboard for the plot.

Besides, that still ignores my point that, no, you DIDN'T have to alienate a huge chunk of the playerbase to accomplish much of the same things, just by making the game more flexible in its plot, and making procedural content more prominent.

Stations have be stated that can be build in the middle of nowhere or in an active location. The restrictions are most likely going to be linked too (too close to highways or other important locations) that could cause buggy gameplay when upgrading etc. Yes this is an assumption but makes logical sense from a game design perspective. But we'll have to wait and see, then you can freely complain and ask for changes

As for ships, again that makes sense with the design approach and level of detail. This has nothing to do with being alienated. You're simply feeling that you are entitled to more or that this is an X4.

New Game, New Design Approach, Same Universe, Same Developers.

The game is trying to approach the X-Series universe in a new way, taking in feedback made in the old series. This isn't X4, Rebirth was meant to be an entirely new game and new universe. But by the end it felt to much like X and they brough the universe back in.

But they want the ship you fly, to be very personal to you. Your crew etc. As said before, they will be adding in more ships as they get requested. But you'll have now a lot more options and way to use the ship(s).

But just a small suggestion. If you word your threads in a more constructive manner then it is more likely to be taken better by the community.

[Night Nord]

I somehow doubt that will be the case - given how much "outside" of the ship the game will be rendering, I somehow expect none of the interior of the ship will be rendered but the cockpit when you're actually in the captain's chair.

Maybe, I dunno. Both variants has some advantages and disadvantages.

I remember reading about how landing inside a station means a loading screen, which, likewise, means it's interior is loaded at entirely different times from when the wide world of space is loaded. (Which, again, is necessary if you're modeling people walking around inside detailed environments, the computer doesn't have the strength to model all the ships flying around outside the viewports with full physics and pathfinding going and full graphic detail.)

It was also said that time do not stop while you are docked and you may even see stuff outside the factory via viewports (haven't seen viewports in demo, though, so dunno if last part still true). In any case, you'll still have to keep all the stuff in memory and calculate AI actions. I also think that you'll have to make it as in IS, because otherwise ships will suddenly jump around as soon as you undock - pretty much as they did in X3 if you enter the sector.

If you look at Skyrim, and how it puts its interiors together, it's the same thing. Copy-pasted corridors and large rooms, a few copy-pasted features placed in slightly different spots.

I think that Skyrim makes it by an algorithm, i.e. it's not manually designed. So - either you spend effort on programming the required tool, or you do it manually. It still time.

I know plenty of people who play plotless games. Minecraft was doing OK, last time I checked. Then there's Sim City, Mount and Blade, Dwarf Fortress, Terrarria, etc. Even games like Patriarch, Tropico, or Pharaoh have only goals at most.

Some people do, some people don't. If you want to have bigger audience, you'll have to make plot or some kind of motivation. Civilization is a perfect example of plotless game with good motivation. Minecraft also have motivation, as you may actually create something and for that you'll need resources. X3 didn't had the feature for creating something, it was like very bad Tycoon game. And as it was actually "very bad" - it hadn't Tyccon kind of motivation for most of people.

And like I said in another thread, if you're going as far as building a universal resource market inside the game, JUST to have emergent gameplay interactions, why not actually base your plot off of those emergent gameplay interactions?

Well, you are sugessting some kind of Civilization way. Yes, it would be enough. But it will also require a bit different game direction. Less simulation, more strategy.

Why have plot-point battles with a specific designated enemy? Mount and Blade creates a land with several different kingdoms that occasionally declare war upon one another, based upon its own internal diplomacy and the power of the warmongering nobles. X3 already had Kha'ak that grew more powerful with time until defeated.

You have to create way to make them defeated, for instance. Also, you have to make AI taking strategic decisions and declaring war on each other (you can't just make it random, you know). Also, you have to make game acknowledge player successes somehow - "victory conditions", which are not so trivial as you may think. It's a way harder then create a static plot.

Make the bad guy bug race have an internal economy that builds up from weak to threatening with gameplay, and leave it up to the player to figure out where they (randomly) are located and try to use diplomacy features with the existing races (or not, if they want to go alone,) to have enough resources to stand up to the aliens and run them down.

]And now you are suggesting to create diplomacy. So, tycoon + civilization + total war? Yes, that sounds much easier then a couple of cutscenes with a predefined plot. /sarcasm

(Which is, incidentally, the same "plot" that Total War, Europa Universalis, or Civilization have... which are, again, not exactly obscure titles.)

Oh, right. You even understand what you are proposing. Fine... Why you just didn't try to understand the effort required to create all this together?

Speak for yourself. Again, all it takes to disprove that is for me to keep raising this argument even past day one... and these sorts of arguments only further encourage me to do so. The arguments that "your side isn't as loud as mine!" or "your opinions are just your own, but everyone else agrees with me, just because I said it!" just boil down to trying to win by shouting more stubbornly than I do... and if you want to get into a stubborn match...

No, it's just matter of my opinion about your opinion in general. Of course, you could be on religious war path, but honestly - X:R may have much bigger problems. For instance, what would you say if X:R will end up with 3 station types to build? Or you'll find out that you may build only 4 stations because there are no more managers? Or something like that. Now we are arguing about some design decisions. After release we will have all the design decisions AND their implementation. For some reason I do belive that we will have much more urgent topics to disscuss after release. Like constant crashes or unpassable plot

Besides, they aren't really adding any new features with this. All you can do is talk to people, the same as you had with coms, but now we have to park to talk to people, because we have to stop playing our game to admire the pretty interiors we'll already be sick of. There's (thankfully) no FPS, here. There's almost certainly no RTS movement of troops inside a station, since they'd have actually used that as a selling point. You, yourself, are talking about how limited a lot of the interactions will be to specific contexts, like only being able to sit in chairs in specific areas.

There are fundamental features:
1. Walking on stations - in future it may lead to FPS, personal boarding, landing on planets and other stuff. It may also lead to capital-ship controls like in Battlecruier Commander (or whatever it's called). You may say that you don't need this, but some other people will enjoy this (including me).
2. Tactical control of your fleet - in future it may lead to full RTS interface for both battles and your empire management.
3. Fully simulated economics - that's not small change, you know. And it may actually lead to all this stuff you want - meaningful wars and other stuff.
4. Highways - while I'm not exited about this rails-in-space hack, it sure will have a lot of consequences and possibilities. For instance - now they can actually hide stuff without ugly hacks like undetectable boxes, which are detected only by player and only when he is in right place.
5. Sure there are more fundamental changes - drones, capital ships, turrets, stations... List just too long.

So, they spent a ton of time and money making pretty interiors, so now we have to spend a lot of time JUST looking at pretty interiors.

Sure, sounds weird. But look - it's just a change of mechanic. Now you'll have to fly around station to find out what missions it gives. Some people was happy about X3:TC mission system, but some people were disappointed - they liked BBS more.

Now you'll have to dock and run around for a while to buy some upgrades on your ship of find right man. How much different it is from "fly around the sector and comm each station and talk to each guy on station"? It's just different mechanic and only point why you upset about it is just because it's not what you used to. Sorry, but X:R is not X3 and it shouldn't be. There would be much more stuff that works in slightly different way.

You seem to have it completely backwards.

It's not about a single stated goal. I certainly don't play games just to see the "Yay! You win!" screen. I've played through Elder Scrolls games for thousands of hours happily without ever having to finish any of their main plots.

It's about what you can do on the way. And a huge part of that is the freedom you have in a sandbox, and enacting your will upon the gameworld.

Yes, and it was impossible in X3. In X3 you can't even destroy the station - it will be rebuild by AI no matter what. You can't destroy all the shipyards - they will just pop-up out of nowhere. And now it's possible to wipe out everything and it won't come back. How that's not the huge improvement worth spending a lot of effort on it?

People wouldn't play Minecraft if it didn't have rearranging the environment, and was just a FPS. They went and added a "boss", anyway, for people who obsessively can't comprehend a sandbox on its own merits, but the main draw of the game is still its capacity to build and rearrange the landscape, while still also having some immediate goals, such as not being killed in a walking shrub explosion.

Right, and that's the right game decision - you have a goal for people who nead goals, but you do not force it for people who just don't care. I may say you more - for a NA (North America) market stuff like "achievements" is also very important. You and me may not care about them at all, but console crowd is used to it and what to see game aknowledge any of their accomplishments in game.

Besides which, the actual X:R game, whatever sandbox is left, doesn't have a plot. The plot is what you have to put up with until you get to the sandbox, so the goal of the plot is just to reach the sandbox. The game still doesn't have any more of a goal past that point than it ever did.

Yes, and at least for me, once all the plots came to it's end, there is no much sense for me. I need a challenge and this challenge should be tough. Destroying everything is X3 was simple - just mine nividium, build a rocket production complex and one M7M and kill everything. Sure, you may say "do not use M7M, don't mine nividium" and other stuff - but what the sense? If I know that could be done in easy way, making the same stuff in hard way feels like just waste of time. Sure I may kill Argon One using the Buster (maybe), or fly around the planet - but there is no sense in such action.

X:R should be better at that - you may actually kill/capture everything, but it seems to be much harder from Bernd's AMA comments. I really hope so. Now building the empire which is better then AI empires may have sense. Especially if AI empires are not broken by design, like in X3.

(Unless, of course, you just want to play through the plot and then quit the game... in which case, why would you be playing X in the first place?)

Because I like space-sims and there is no much other space-sims. I do respect EgoSoft for what they are doing and their passion, but honestly X-games never were my favorite games. I'd like to build a big space empire that may crush the world, sure, but X-games were never about that. X-games were always about tidy micromanagement, of doing a lot of boring stuff that could be/should be automated (it's especially painful for a programmer to do repetitive stuff himself - you know, I'd better spend 3 hours writing a script which will make in 1 second some work I could've done manually in one hour). Now we have a change of course and I'm happy about that.

Here, you're apparently going into just plain denial.

Clearly, Minecraft would have been better if it was just Gears of War with a cooler name, right? It's not like people could like any type of game other than an FPS, right? It's all about being an FPS with bigger spikes on the power armor and maybe DOUBLE chainsaws on the guns, because making everything sound and look "awesome" (as per a 12-year-old Spawn-comicbook-obsessed boy's definition) is what makes a game great, right?

Eh what? Minecraft is a good name, why you should call it Gears of War. It's short, nice, easy to remember and describes what game is about well enough.

I don't care if the Skunk is ugly or not, I care that I don't get to pick what ship I fly. I rather enjoy changing ships every few minutes. I like switching from M5 to M7 to doing a TP mission. So do a FREAK TON of other people who have been raising this specific issue with X:R ever since there only being a single ship was announced.

If your response to something a vast swath of the playing population has been saying for years is to respond that people are either lying about what they want, or else are too stupid to understand what they want, then you haven't even tried to understand the argument. (Which is exactly what leads this back to the stubborn-off. This argument is hardly any better than sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALALA.)

Well, yes. I think that's the problem, honestly - I just don't believe that you or other folk who cry about one-ship issue do really feel it that way.

But let's assume that you do really feel it that way. Ok, so you would be happy with a game with 3 solar systems (it's a few!), 6 stations and ability to build 4 different stations types in a bunch of predefined places, BUT with ability to fly any of 10 ships you have in game? You honestly think that "ability to fly many ships" is a feature that break or make the game? So if you have only one ship - game is broken and if you have many ships - game is fine? I don't think so.

Sure you have some more prioritized stuff. You just believe for some reason, that this stuff would be fine. And you know that ship would not be fine. So you are crying about one-ship-issue just because you don't know if something more important is broken or removed. Isn't it like that?

So, what you are doing now is actually constantly ranting about "why egosoft spend effort on feature X instead of making other ships flyable?" while you don't actually know what features are broken and maybe you should be ranting about "why egosoft spend effort on feature X instead of making more solar systems?" or "more races?" or "more capital ships"? or "more ships at all?" or "more weapons?" or "more goods?" or "strategic controls?".

That's what Bernd told in AMA - they will listen to all this "one-ship-issue" rant only AFTER the 'release. Because many people will obviously switch their priorities when they'll see complete picture. For instance - imagine that you'll see tactical interface being almost RTS controls and you'll see how much RTS control will help in a new game. And EgoSoft will ask what they should do next (they actually said that they'll make some kind of poll of whatever after the release) - many ships to fly or full RTS controls. Some people will choose many ships to fly, but some people will choose full RTS controls, because full RTS opens up the road to "emergent gameplay" stuff you've talking about just above. And may ships to fly is just "more of the same".

All this stuff is not about how much you want all-ships-to-fly, it's about what other features you want to sacrifice to get it.

You say - walking on stations, but I will say - no, it's insane to sacrifice such a fundamental feature for "more of the same" feature. Sure, it could be quite rudimentary right now, but new possibilities are endless. You may not like it, but if you'll ask how much people like it more then "many ships to fly" - you'll have a bit different results.

And all shortcuts you do suggest - copy/pasting and such stuff actually hurt quality of the game and only reason why you do suggesting it is because you don't care about this feature at all. And if you'll look a bit outside of your own shell, you'll see the reason for all that.

[Aragosnat]

I still think this walking around is going to be very dull once the "cool" factor has worn off (after an hour I think). And this is the aspect that worries me greatly, but we'll see, and I'll come back after trying it to continue this debate then.

Depends on the person. In the thread "New Gamescom demo video by OperationDx1" we do get a nice view of it. To bad I'm already bored of it. Unless there is more to do then talk with people, buy/sell wares and hire people. Do realizeit is a start for other FSP type of gameply. Would have been nice if they had a monorail or elevator system like in Star Trek to take you around to each point on the station. Have yet to see if such exists.

Anyways. Back on topic. Voted no. For the simple reason if Egosoft does not add it in. Some modders will eventually find a way to make it possable. Wether or notmodders can make it look good is something else.

[Graaf]

I think that Skyrim makes it by an algorithm, i.e. it's not manually designed. So - either you spend effort on programming the required tool, or you do it manually. It still time.

Bethesda actually has a dedicated dungeon builder. Why do you think 99% of the dungeons have a shortcut at the end to get to the front door?

stuff like "achievements" is also very important. You and me may not care about them at all, but console crowd is used to it and what to see game aknowledge any of their accomplishments in game.

I underlined the flaw in your statement. And although Steam also has an achievement system, the only reason I actually achieve stuff is because I am playing the game. But why would I want to destroy a SPP?

Yes, and at least for me, once all the plots came to it's end, there is no much sense for me.

There is a distinct lack of creativity in that statement.

you know, I'd better spend 3 hours writing a script which will make in 1 second some work I could've done manually in one hour

So you are willing to waste 3 hours, just to avoid working for an hour with the result to not learn anything from the experience?

many ships to fly or full RTS controls. Some people will choose many ships to fly, but some people will choose full RTS controls, because full RTS opens up the road to "emergent gameplay" stuff you've talking about just above.

Not sure why I would need RTS-controls in a spaceflight simulator... or walking in stations/ships for that matter.

walking on stations, but I will say - no, it's insane to sacrifice such a fundamental feature

Why is this a fundamental feature?
Okay, I know it is needed for the plot, but what other function does WIS have? How I know? Give me a good reason why I should be crawling through the ventilation system? Why do I even have access to the station controls?

And all shortcuts you do suggest - copy/pasting and such stuff actually hurt quality of the game and only reason why you do suggesting it is because you don't care about this feature at all. And if you'll look a bit outside of your own shell, you'll see the reason for all that.

Its good to know we are not the only ones living in our own reality.

[Night Nord]

I think that Skyrim makes it by an algorithm, i.e. it's not manually designed. So - either you spend effort on programming the required tool, or you do it manually. It still time.

Bethesda actually has a dedicated dungeon builder. Why do you think 99% of the dungeons have a shortcut at the end to get to the front door?

Thank you for proving my point.

stuff like "achievements" is also very important. You and me may not care about them at all, but console crowd is used to it and what to see game aknowledge any of their accomplishments in game.

I underlined the flaw in your statement. And although Steam also has an achievement system, the only reason I actually achieve stuff is because I am playing the game. But why would I want to destroy a SPP?

"Console crowd" is an alias for "north america market" =)

Yes, and at least for me, once all the plots came to it's end, there is no much sense for me.

There is a distinct lack of creativity in that statement.

Nope, otherwise. I had enough creativity to build an unique world in my head, so I don't need clumsy tools like a game to make it happen. And no game will ever allow me to build all the stuff I want.

What is more correct - I do lack motivation. I see no reason in changing that world, because I know it's limits and I don't like them.

you know, I'd better spend 3 hours writing a script which will make in 1 second some work I could've done manually in one hour

So you are willing to waste 3 hours, just to avoid working for an hour with the result to not learn anything from the experience?

I'm a programming, so I don't understand how experience from removing one thousand comments in a bunch of text files could be better then experience from writing a script that will remove one thousand comments for me. Sure, I will remove 5-10 comments myself, just to see how it's done - essential part of writing scripts, you know. Automation is a key part of programmer's work. That's why a program that writes programs (AI) is a dream of each and every programmer.

many ships to fly or full RTS controls. Some people will choose many ships to fly, but some people will choose full RTS controls, because full RTS opens up the road to "emergent gameplay" stuff you've talking about just above.

Not sure why I would need RTS-controls in a spaceflight simulator... or walking in stations/ships for that matter.

Because X:R is not (just) space-flight simulator, that's easy. It's a much-much more. If you want a space-flight simulator, I may suggest Orbiter. It's much better in bringing authentic flying experience.

Why is this a fundamental feature?
Okay, I know it is needed for the plot, but what other function does WIS have? How I know? Give me a good reason why I should be crawling through the ventilation system? Why do I even have access to the station controls?

It's fundamental, because it could serve as a base for other features. Like FPS. Why you should be crawling through the ventilation system? A tons of reasons!
1. To steal something - money, item or info.
2. To shoot someone - a rival's manager.
3. To plant a bomb/sabotage a station part.
4. To avoid someone hunting you.
5. To gather information about station and use it for your marginal advantage.
6. Probably more...

Currently we have only first point - stealing stuff, but it's already a huge leap forward. See - in X3 there was only one way to sabotage your rival's production line - destroy the goddamn station (well, honestly, there were no rivals...). Now you have the possibility that in future versions you'll have much more options - either to steel essential data, such as future convoys plans (and capture/destroy this convoys), or sabotage an essential part of the production, etc... So even if you can't take down station personally due to high security, you still can make some harm and it require a bit of additional work.

Isn't that an actual improvement for a sandbox?

[Wraith_Magus]

OK, there's too much crap here to respond in detail to all of it without positively deluging the thread in five-page long rebuttals, so going with just the choice cuts...

You're just pulling in a blanket "all opinions I don't like are invalid" clause.

Having an opinion is fine. Complaining about things that haven't even been confirmed and making speculations isn't the same thing.

My point there was, the only time things are ever dismissed as mere speculation is when it's the people who are pointing out that things may not be as rosy as the wild, unchecked optimistic speculation tries to paint it to be.

Everything in this entire forum, besides the handful of "here's a new scrap of information" threads will be speculation. (And those threads turn into speculation starting with post 2.)

When people see the changes being promised, and say that they won't like something, it's just as valid as someone thinking they will like something.

For all that I've said, I'm not absolute doom-and-gloom. I just naturally react to unchecked optimism by checking it with the possible negatives, since it's only healthy to keep one's optimism in check. Maybe a few months down the road, we get full ship-flying compatibility in a free update, and a multiple-start non-railroaded plot, and all my worries turn out unfounded. But I point to the Yahtzee chart of pre-release expectations - it's better to keep your sights realistically low, and be pleasantly surprised.

If, however, it's some whole-new-game stand-alone-expansion-pack thing we have to buy before we get all the features I enjoy about the game back... again, why SHOULD I buy this game, instead of just skipping it until the game that I actually wanted to play comes out?

Games tend to get designed around what the large % of the fan-base want. If the new game approach isn't what you want, don't buy the game. Until such a time things change to something you desire. If there is enough of you (as you say) then changes will be made overtime.

Do they really?

Again, multiplayer is constantly requested, but is severely unlikely to be done. SOME form of editorial control is necessary. Camel is a horse made in too many cooks spoiling the broth and all that noise.

Besides, the majority of players IS on the side of wanting multiple ships, and you STILL see threads popping up with people joining the forums being upset that we won't get multiple ships, or even customizable ships.

I'd dare say that the percentage of players who wanted to keep multiple ships VASTLY outweighed the number of players who were asking for

And again, the point of my argument is that if all you have for your argument is, "more people complained more loudly for this thing," rather than being able to back up why any given idea is a good thing with any kind of concrete reasons, then it means that the side that simply shouts the loudest for what they want must be right.

That seems to be the way these threads always go, but is that really the ideal solution you seem to want to go for?



As for saying that I shouldn't buy it if this is a deal-breaker... well, as several other people in this thread have stated, there ARE a lot of people who aren't buying the game, including one person who's a moderator.

Isn't it kind of a bad sign when your loyal fanbase looks at just the press releases and says that this game is going in the wrong direction, and that they aren't even interested in trying it because of the design decisions that you've made? You know, the kind that might kill a small company, if too many people actually decide to take you up on that bluff?

For what it's worth, I'm certainly adopting a wait-and-see policy, myself.

Stations have be stated that can be build in the middle of nowhere or in an active location. The restrictions are most likely going to be linked too (too close to highways or other important locations) that could cause buggy gameplay when upgrading etc. Yes this is an assumption but makes logical sense from a game design perspective.

I just posted something relatively lengthy on this exact topic in another thread, so I'll just link to it here.

But just a small suggestion. If you word your threads in a more constructive manner then it is more likely to be taken better by the community.

If I'm getting cross, it's because of how blindly dismissive the people defending this single-ship decision get. They react as if anyone who flies anything but an over-tuned Hyperion aren't playing the game correctly. Nord, here, is suggesting that anyone who wants to play the game as a sandbox, instead of just following a linear plot is not "playing the game right".

Then you base all this argument purely upon an "our side is the one more people requested than yours" argument, which is frankly rather bunk, since there's a pretty huge outcry against this that goes far beyond just me.

(Or worse, the assumption that this crap I am arguing against is actually something that, deep down, I actually will love. Then the basis of your argument is that I am too stupid to realize what I want.)

If what I'm saying to you seems rude, it's because I'm just breaking down and responding with the same rudeness you've been showing me.

Obviously, just being tactful wasn't getting through, so more direct methods might just work.

---

And holy crap is this getting long, anyway. I'm going to post another response just for Night Nord.

[Wraith_Magus]

---

I think that Skyrim makes it by an algorithm, i.e. it's not manually designed. So - either you spend effort on programming the required tool, or you do it manually. It still time.

That was more the case in Oblivion. As stated by Graaf, they tried to make it more pre-planned than that in Skyrim.

However, that's still conflating the idea that every single ship will take as long as the first ship if you were to make interiors for every ship by simply stapling together individual modules.

If that were the case, there'd be NO reason for art re-use.

Yes, it takes time, but not NEARLY the amount of time you're claiming it would take. You're comparing a job of maybe a half-hour a ship painting modules of already-produced resources together to a year-long design that required hand-making every single art resource from scratch.

If Skyrim developed a whole set of unique art assets, and then shipped with only one dungeon in it, because "it was too expensive and time-consuming to produce more than one", then you could BET there would be complaints... and nobody buying the game.

Yes, the dungeons can start looking same-y, and yes, people complained about that, but it was a far better solution than only shipping with one dungeon.

A clever team, however, learns to use procedural techniques to both save time by re-using the same assets, but also making them seem subtly different enough that they don't just look like blatant copy-paste jobs.

Isn't that the standard we should demand?

Some people do, some people don't. If you want to have bigger audience, you'll have to make plot or some kind of motivation. Civilization is a perfect example of plotless game with good motivation. Minecraft also have motivation, as you may actually create something and for that you'll need resources. X3 didn't had the feature for creating something, it was like very bad Tycoon game. And as it was actually "very bad" - it hadn't Tyccon kind of motivation for most of people.

I'm sorry I have to ask, but... did you even LIKE X3?

You seem to be severely selling short the reasons why people play different types of games. You do realize there are significantly different "flavors of fun" to be found in games, and that the same game can even cater to wildly different types of players? Minecraft can be completely different games for people playing survival mode, as opposed to creative mode. This whole argument seems to stem from an inability to understand anything beyond what you enjoy, yourself.

If you don't want to play a sandbox, and want to play a linear-plot game, instead, there are plenty of other games, like the afore-mentioned Dark Star One you could be playing. The X series is special, and played by the people who play it, SPECIFICALLY because it's a sandbox.

The X-series caters to a niche audience, and thrives because it satisfies something very few games can deliver upon. Maybe it's not the largest audience, but it faces much less competition here.

Why should the people who like playing a sandbox have to go away so that the people who want the same linear multiplayer story-driven Modern Warfare nonsense that EVERY AAA studio already delivers can get more of the same... in a genre where EgoSoft really wouldn't even be able to compete? The people it would "satisfy" wouldn't even be satisfied with the game, anyway.

Well, you are sugessting some kind of Civilization way. Yes, it would be enough. But it will also require a bit different game direction. Less simulation, more strategy.

Not if handled correctly.

The simulation portion of the game is just the ground-level view of the strategic game. The emergent gameplay I'm talking about is specifically the sort of thing that would make the simulation much more engaging.

You simply need to tie ground-level actions to the grand strategic objectives of the major players. Make the "random" missions offered to the player (or the "plot" missions, since you could basically just merge the two if you go all the way with the idea) become companies hiring people to achieve some sort of end-goal, rather than just meaningless shuffling around.

A company wants to invade a nearby zone - they start by having trade missions to build up their military forces, or at least out-bid their opponents to tip the scales in their favor. Then, they'll hire some extra guns for the actual invasion. Then, once they've actually blown through a bunch of enemy stations and claimed some space, they'll need to rebuild, and hire people to build new stations. Then those new stations need new crews taxied over to staff them.

You've just turned what would be a few turns in a game of civilization into hours of ground-level work the player can do to be tangentially involved in something where the universe may move whether they are there or not.

Again, once you have this "everything is built from actual resources, rather than just appearing ex nihilo" thing put into the game, all this can pretty easily fall out of it.

The thing is, you have to build the plot to be flexible enough to fit into this - consider the Corporation Troubles plot of X3:AP: You have to do the same basic stuff to complete the plot, no matter what, but whose corporation you're helping, and where they are situated, change on any given playthrough, based on what pilot you chose to start the game with.

Just start with that premise, and make a way for those types of plots to arise organically through the events of the game. Mount and Blade has a system where wars are declared based upon a diplomacy mechanism, and nobles can get captured in war. When that happens, relatives or allies of those nobles will start contracting out anyone to help rescue their relatives. Helping that noble will gain you significant respect with those relatives and that noble, as well as a decent chunk of cash if you go the direct jailbreak route. (And succeed... which is a gamble, because it means fighting your way through several highly-trained and well-equipped soldiers essentially alone.)

And Mount and Blade doesn't have a single "win" condition - you CAN conquer the continent as a king/queen... or you can be a loyal vassal that helps your king conquer the kingdom... or help a claimant recover their bid to the throne against the usurper... or stay utterly neutral, and just "win" by setting up a massive trade empire and retiring fantastically rich.

]And now you are suggesting to create diplomacy. So, tycoon + civilization + total war? Yes, that sounds much easier then a couple of cutscenes with a predefined plot. /sarcasm

You don't seem to understand how much of the groundwork was already laid in the way that they spent the effort to make a universe with resources being dynamically used to support the simulation of the economy. Just plain adding the sort of procedural scripting that smaller-scale companies than even EgoSoft can achieve would be easier than making a linear plot with scripted cutscenes, yes. Dwarf Fortress is the work of one person, and it has fantastic amounts of emergent gameplay, to the point where the game is practically a byword for it.

To use a trite cliche: It's working smarter, not harder.

The more non-scripted things you can put into the same "space", interacting with one-another, the more you can create an emergent gameplay experience. That's why physics puzzles are so often far more deep and capable of surprising player and creator alike than strict, rule-based puzzles. (Think of Minecraft or Portal or even just Trine as compared to the likes of Tetris or Bejewelled. There aren't many ways to play Tetris or Bejewelled, but you can do absurd things the creators never foresaw with Minecraft, simply because they created a few objects that could interact with other objects in a player-controllable fashion.)

Again, all you have to do to recreate the Kha'ak invasion at the point where you have this kind of all-ships-come-from-resources-somewhere engine is to just make one faction aggressive expanders, and you're done.

Before you say I'm "suggesting to create diplomacy" again, I'll point out that diplomacy is basically already in X3 - it's called Reputation, there. It's just not all that functional, and easily abusable. Just spend the time you would have spent on plot making a better reputation system, and you've created a far more dynamic and engaging world than a linear plot would have delivered.

There are fundamental features:
1. Walking on stations - in future it may lead to FPS, personal boarding, landing on planets and other stuff. It may also lead to capital-ship controls like in Battlecruier Commander (or whatever it's called). You may say that you don't need this, but some other people will enjoy this (including me).

OK.

Stop.

No.

Wrong.

This was NEVER a core, fundamental feature of a SPACE SIMULATION.

And I'll bring this in, too:

It's fundamental, because it could serve as a base for other features. Like FPS. Why you should be crawling through the ventilation system? A tons of reasons!
1. To steal something - money, item or info.
2. To shoot someone - a rival's manager.
3. To plant a bomb/sabotage a station part.
4. To avoid someone hunting you.
5. To gather information about station and use it for your marginal advantage.
6. Probably more...

WTF does ANY of this have to do with making my SPACESHIP FLYING GAME any better?

This whole argument reeks of the same problems that are chronicled about Assassin's Creed 3 in Zero Punctuation. It's a game that's supposed to be about a supposed assassin, but everything that gets added to the game has nothing to do with the reason you're supposedly playing the game. Why is the game that has "Assassin" in the title less about assassinations, and more about being a global sofa cartel?

The station MANAGEMENT game has a point to do with the spaceship flying - the stations make more guns to shoot and ships for you to fly.

(But now WE can't fly them... because pretty interiors took up all the time.)

The giant RTS-like fleets in the game have a point, because they let you have bigger, grander battles to go PEW! PEW! PEW! in your spaceship flying combat fun.

(But now we can't have direct control over them, and are limited in what we're allowed to enjoy... because pretty interiors took up all the time.)

What's with you and NOT wanting to stab people/cackle maniacally as you rampage single-handedly through a Xenon core sector, destroying all comers in a M7M or M2+?!

The most people ever asked for was the ability to see the inside of a space station, just because it was kind of silly that you never actually left your cockpit, except to get in the cockpit of another ship. (And now, we can't do that.)

If you honestly believe that walking on stations is a core gameplay feature, you've COMPLETELY lost sight of what this game is actually supposed to be about...

... And that was kind of my entire point.

This is exactly why I'm arguing against having walking in stations in the game at all - it's moving the game in entirely the wrong direction. One that involves less actually doing things in a space sandbox, which WAS the core feature of the series, and more just trying to be Mass Effect. Which is the end of the series, as far as I'm concerned.

2. Tactical control of your fleet - in future it may lead to full RTS interface for both battles and your empire management.
3. Fully simulated economics - that's not small change, you know. And it may actually lead to all this stuff you want - meaningful wars and other stuff.

THIS set of things on the other hand, are actual core elements of the sandbox game that EgoSoft is supposed to be focusing upon... so why are the subordinate to the "walking around" nonsense?

I could easily fill another fifty freakin' pages of text on why these two things, combined with some ways to make slowly-enacted high-level strategic decisions by major corporations trickle down into subtle changes on the ground-level simulation.

Why, again, couldn't we have had the game where we simply had some single set-piece station bar we couldn't walk around, and maybe a desk near a window to represent our stations, rather than fully built walk-around interiors, and then spend all the time freed up by not making ship and station interiors building better economies and diplomacy and procedural, rather than scripted plots? Maybe people wanted to see something besides the docking arm of a station, I wouldn't have minded that, but I don't think that meant they wanted to give up on their space sim to achieve it.

Sure, sounds weird. But look - it's just a change of mechanic. Now you'll have to fly around station to find out what missions it gives. Some people was happy about X3:TC mission system, but some people were disappointed - they liked BBS more.

Now you'll have to dock and run around for a while to buy some upgrades on your ship of find right man. How much different it is from "fly around the sector and comm each station and talk to each guy on station"? It's just different mechanic and only point why you upset about it is just because it's not what you used to. Sorry, but X:R is not X3 and it shouldn't be. There would be much more stuff that works in slightly different way.

It's hugely different.

Whether it's a BBS or comming a station, you're capable of looking at your missions, deciding if you want to do them, and then going off to do them with the least amount of time spent fiddling around possible.

I can mash through the boring, repetitive parts of the text in TC, get to just the title of the mission, and what it's paying in a fraction of a second, and decide whether it's worth my time or not in another fraction of a second.

If I have to land my ship, wait through a loading screen, walk all the way down a bunch of corridors in a station, find someone to talk to, talk to them, and only THEN find out, after 15 minutes of searching, that there WASN'T a job I felt was worth my time... well, I won't ever want to dock on stations or do missions again.

It's a matter of how much of a hassle doing a mission is. I already skip many of the TC/AP missions not because I can't do them, but just because I have better things to do with my time than spend fifteen minutes (or two game hours) doing a "covert" mission following some TS that moves at 40 m/s travel 4 sectors without a jumpdrive.

I don't care if you're paying me 8 million to do it, it's not worth my time. It's more hassle than it's worth.

The problem with station interiors is that they're all more hassle than they're worth. I don't play the X series to look at station interiors, I play it to build space empires. If you want me to land on a station, it had better be the quickest way to achieve my goal, or all you've done is created a giant irritant.

And station interiors are nothing but a giant obstacle to any enjoyment players might get out of the game. The more we're forced to stare at station interiors or go Easter Egg hunting or other nonsense that has nothing to do with why we want to play the game, the less the game is going to be worth playing.

Yes, and it was impossible in X3. In X3 you can't even destroy the station - it will be rebuild by AI no matter what. You can't destroy all the shipyards - they will just pop-up out of nowhere. And now it's possible to wipe out everything and it won't come back. How that's not the huge improvement worth spending a lot of effort on it?

I never said I disliked THAT change.

That's the sort of change that pushes the game more towards being an interactive, non-linear sandbox. That's exactly what I'm arguing FOR in this whole thing.

Right, and that's the right game decision - you have a goal for people who nead goals, but you do not force it for people who just don't care. I may say you more - for a NA (North America) market stuff like "achievements" is also very important. You and me may not care about them at all, but console crowd is used to it and what to see game aknowledge any of their accomplishments in game.

Needless patronization aside...

(Actually, no, wait. Didn't YOU say that what you needed was more of a goal and acknowledgement of your accomplishments? Aren't you insulting the North American market / "console crowd" for wanting the exact same thing you want?)

Complete the equation you've just laid out here.

Don't you understand that it applies just as much the other way around, if not more so?

This series SHOULD be built for the sandbox first, and maybe the plot second.

What you're saying is that the people who enjoy this series as a sandbox are wrong to want to keep their sandbox, so that the people who never wanted to play X can get a linear plot... because it's wrong to not let both sides have what they want?

Shouldn't you carry that logic to its natural conclusion, and see that you should be trying to create a game where there's a goal available, maybe some of those achievements if you think those sell, but still have the sandbox?

I mean, you, yourself, just said that simply having a permanently destroyable faction would be an end-goal worth having. Why not use that, and make a sandbox that has a goal? Just add in the flexible plot and goals and the diplomacy mechanic instead of the linear plot.

Then everyone can have the game they enjoy.

Isn't that the final conclusion of the logic that you were pushing?

Well, yes. I think that's the problem, honestly - I just don't believe that you or other folk who cry about one-ship issue do really feel it that way.

But let's assume that you do really feel it that way. Ok, so you would be happy with a game with 3 solar systems (it's a few!), 6 stations and ability to build 4 different stations types in a bunch of predefined places, BUT with ability to fly any of 10 ships you have in game? You honestly think that "ability to fly many ships" is a feature that break or make the game? So if you have only one ship - game is broken and if you have many ships - game is fine? I don't think so.

Sure you have some more prioritized stuff. You just believe for some reason, that this stuff would be fine. And you know that ship would not be fine. So you are crying about one-ship-issue just because you don't know if something more important is broken or removed. Isn't it like that?

So, what you are doing now is actually constantly ranting about "why egosoft spend effort on feature X instead of making other ships flyable?" while you don't actually know what features are broken and maybe you should be ranting about "why egosoft spend effort on feature X instead of making more solar systems?" or "more races?" or "more capital ships"? or "more ships at all?" or "more weapons?" or "more goods?" or "strategic controls?".

That's what Bernd told in AMA - they will listen to all this "one-ship-issue" rant only AFTER the 'release. Because many people will obviously switch their priorities when they'll see complete picture. For instance - imagine that you'll see tactical interface being almost RTS controls and you'll see how much RTS control will help in a new game. And EgoSoft will ask what they should do next (they actually said that they'll make some kind of poll of whatever after the release) - many ships to fly or full RTS controls. Some people will choose many ships to fly, but some people will choose full RTS controls, because full RTS opens up the road to "emergent gameplay" stuff you've talking about just above. And may ships to fly is just "more of the same".

All this stuff is not about how much you want all-ships-to-fly, it's about what other features you want to sacrifice to get it.

You say - walking on stations, but I will say - no, it's insane to sacrifice such a fundamental feature for "more of the same" feature. Sure, it could be quite rudimentary right now, but new possibilities are endless. You may not like it, but if you'll ask how much people like it more then "many ships to fly" - you'll have a bit different results.

And all shortcuts you do suggest - copy/pasting and such stuff actually hurt quality of the game and only reason why you do suggesting it is because you don't care about this feature at all. And if you'll look a bit outside of your own shell, you'll see the reason for all that.

And here's where you're proving your own inability to see past your own viewpoint.

(And yes, you're basically just trying to say you think I'm too stupid to know what I want. And so is Bernd, banking on people being too stupid to know what they liked about the previous games. It's like George Lucas coming back to remake the Star Wars films because people weren't liking his younger self's legacy the right way. Fantastic.)

Isn't it YOU that's misidentifying what's actually important, here?

I mean, let's just move on to where the rubber actually hits the road:

Because I like space-sims and there is no much other space-sims. I do respect EgoSoft for what they are doing and their passion, but honestly X-games never were my favorite games. I'd like to build a big space empire that may crush the world, sure, but X-games were never about that. X-games were always about tidy micromanagement, of doing a lot of boring stuff that could be/should be automated (it's especially painful for a programmer to do repetitive stuff himself - you know, I'd better spend 3 hours writing a script which will make in 1 second some work I could've done manually in one hour). Now we have a change of course and I'm happy about that.

AAAAAAAND here we finally are.

You see, you're THIS CLOSE to agreeing with me, but you just don't see it, yet.

I don't see in this argument about what you didn't like in X3 any mention of how much the game would have been blissfully fantastic if only there had been more time spent manually micromanaging a character WASDing around a station, I see a complaint that most of the people who liked the series, and want to keep the sandbox had.

The WHOLE argument I've been making is that walking around in interiors is a GIANT waste of resources that could have been spent fixing this exact problem you're identifying as the REAL reason you weren't happy with the previous games.

That is, nobody walked away from X3 because they couldn't see a station interior. Requests for station interiors were just idle requests to see something they couldn't see. It wasn't a make-or-break the game kind of thing.

The INTERFACE? The horrible AI decisions? The fact that you're forced to sit there and manually go shopping for a bajillion different fight command software Mk1s for all your fighters because you can't just say "build me a new carrier with 50 solanos just like this one"? Those are the real problems that need solving.

That's why I'm saying that the ship interiors was a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

Sure, I might want to occasionally just go to a core sector, and stare at the big ships flying by in my tiny Kestrel... but that's not the reason I play the game. Give me the reason to play the game, not the eye candy.

You, yourself, don't want WASD station interiors all that much, you want what I and all the others who want to keep our multiple ships want, too. You're just getting distracted by the shiny. Just like Bernd got distracted by the shiny.

Skip the shiny.

Provide the substance.

Nobody remembers the shiny. There's a freak-ton of disposable shiny in AAA "console" (as you put it) gaming, and that trash is all in bargain bins collecting dust within a month. Egosoft can't possibly compete with EA or Activision on shiny, anyway.

I remember the game I played for 2000 hours because it was a deep sandbox experience that let me build as I saw fit. EA can't find it's rear end with both hands when it comes to providing that kind of substance. Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, Mount and Blade, or Terraria rip things like Uncharted to shreds when it comes to replayablity and the ability to linger and inspire players.

Take all this pointless WASD station interior time, and make the GAME better. Make a non-linear campaign where you can play a racist Paranid who wants to EXTERMINATE the unbelievers in the same game as some other player who wants to "peacefully", but deviously, perform a leveraged buyout of all their corporate rivals to declare victory.

[Earth Ultimatum IV.]

You used to fly Hyperion/Cobra/Springblossom all time.
Now when they removed all other ships, you people cry.

What´s the point of designing hundreds of different ships, when players & community ignore them?
Egosoft is just a bunch of 20 guys.
That´s really small number.
Don´t you think that they should invest their powers and time in better features than just hundreds of ships, that will be ignored anyway?

What´s the actual point of whining, when modders will do more ships?



They take away something that you don´t need, you don´t use, and you start whining?

Not just that, as compensation you get amazing and deep single-ship experience, upgrades, cockpit, crew hiring...


I always tought that Egosoft forum is the oasis of inteligence and wisdom.
But since Rebirth has been released... I found out that I was terribly wrong.

[plynak]

You used to fly Hyperion/Cobra/Springblossom all time.
Now when they removed all other ships, you people cry.

What´s the point of designing hundreds of different ships, when players & community ignore them?
Egosoft is just a bunch of 20 guys.
That´s really small number.
Don´t you think that they should invest their powers and time in better features than just hundreds of ships, that will be ignored anyway?

What´s the actual point of whining, when modders will do more ships?



They take away something that you don´t need, you don´t use, and you start whining?

Not just that, as compensation you get amazing and deep single-ship experience.


I always tought that Egosoft forum is the oasis of inteligence and wisdom.
But since Rebirth has been released... I found out that I was terribly wrong.

Really? And how do you know what I and others used to fly? And who are you to tell us what we do or do not need? I for once have never flown a Springblossom or Hyperion. Why? Because I did not like them. But I know it may come as a surprise to you, but there were many other ships I could chose from.
Not to mention you contradict yourself. There can not be an amazing experience flying just one ship. At least for me. And according to reactions, for many others as well.
And to be honest, a game that needs modders to fix it is anything but good.

[CutterJohn1]

You used to fly Hyperion/Cobra/Springblossom all time.
Now when they removed all other ships, you people cry.

What´s the point of designing hundreds of different ships, when players & community ignore them?
Egosoft is just a bunch of 20 guys.
That´s really small number.
Don´t you think that they should invest their powers and time in better features than just hundreds of ships, that will be ignored anyway?

Ignoring the fact that not everyone flew the same ships, I'd have been, if not 100% satisfied, at least mostly happy with just a few ships covering the major archetypes, so at least we had a choice in what to fly around.

You're absolutely right that people gravitated, mostly, to one of a handful of ships. I'll tell you what they didn't do, though: Fly one ship, specifically, for 100% of the game. The ships had different uses, different functions. And it was a sweet, sweet day when you finally had marines trained so that you could cap that Hyperion. We'll never get to look forward to situations like that in XR.

As for the suggestion that modders will fix things: Modders can implement stuff, but rarely as well as the developers can. I'm quite sure they will implement new ships, but without the framework of being able to switch ships already existing in the game, it is almost certainly going to feel like a hack job. I'm certain that the initial player ship replacements will be just that, replacements, completely swapping out the parts, since the game will ship with no capacity at all to move off your ship and into another.

[Earth Ultimatum IV.]

I'll tell you what they didn't do, though: Fly one ship, specifically, for 100% of the game. The ships had different uses, different functions.

And that is why Skunk is a multi-purpose vessel. It can fight, mine, scout and use drones for those "damned" tasks. You used to switch to a M5 when you needed to check something, for example. Now that "M5" is "docked" in your Skunk all time and you can switch to it anytime.
Additionally if you accidentally die in that "M5", nothing happens, you just buy or manufacture another cheap drone.

Drones are tools.
Just as M5s used to be.

For M3s, why did people fly M3s?
A) Because they had no other craft, at the beginning of game
B) Because they did not trust the autopilot in combat, so they used one of their fighters themself.
C) To get somewhere faster

Now, AI has been improved (that kills the B point), you already have Skunk at beginning (that kills A point) and you have scout drones on board (that kills point C).

...

Dude how can you even be a admin here when you hate the game so much. I´ve seen your rage comments everywhere around forum.




And more ships will be added later, if demand is high enough (which is already) so no real worries. That will most probably happen before you get bored by your Skunk.

[Shootist]

Someone said it yesterday. I think it bears repeating.

This is X: Rebirth. Rebirth. Begin again. The first game in the X series always has one ship.

More ships later.

[CutterJohn1]

And that is why Skunk is a multi-purpose vessel. It can fight, mine, scout and use drones for those "damned" tasks. You used to switch to a M5 when you needed to check something, for example. Now that "M5" is "docked" in your Skunk all time and you can switch to it anytime.

Additionally if you accidentally die in that "M5", nothing happens, you just buy or manufacture another cheap drone.

Drones are tools.
Just as M5s used to be.

And if I want a ship that is more focused for mining? Can't switch. If I want a ship more focused for hauling? Can't switch. If I want a ship more focused for scouting? Can't switch. If I want a ship more focused as a drone carrier? Can't switch.

You may as well design an RPG with one class, but say its ok because that one class can do everything. Doesn't work like that.

And a drone is certainly a cheap M5. Without the risk. And so, without the thrill of its use. Not to mention its just completely different. To use the RPG analogy again.. "Oh, our RPG has only one class, but don't worry, you can have all sorts of different companions!". Again, just doesn't work.

Without choice, and tradeoffs associated with those choices, a game loses a sense of consequence. Part of the magic of making a choice is that you won't always have the tools at your disposal to deal with circumstance. And the magic happens when you pull it off anyway.

I'm quite fine with the skunk existing as a generalist ship, but it should not be the only choice available.

Someone said it yesterday. I think it bears repeating.

This is X: Rebirth. Rebirth. Begin again. The first game in the X series always has one ship.

More ships later.

Using that logic, X:R 3 will have no cockpits or ship internals, since the third game in the X series always has no cockpits.

Also, if this, and this bears repeating, is X:Rebirth, begin again and all that, then of course comparing it to X:BTF would be inadvisable.

If you just judge it as a space game, though, I can only think of one open ended space game that didn't have a choice of player ships, X:BTF. Literally every other space game I've played has had between a few and all of the ships in the game available for use by the player, both singleplayer and free roaming alike. Oh wait, 2. Darkstar 1 also had a single ship, but it was so highly customizable that depending on the upgrade path you took you'd end up with completely different ships.

[pjknibbs]

Oh wait, 2. Darkstar 1 also had a single ship, but it was so highly customizable that depending on the upgrade path you took you'd end up with completely different ships.

So having a single really customisable ship is OK in your book? How do you know that isn't what we're getting in Rebirth?