My main issue with Space Combat Games

[Serenity]

Hello, i was looking at some space combat games(Elite Dangerous, Everspace 2, Star Citizen><)

and i realized in all of these games when you fight an enemy ship you can't see it.

You only see the Hud but you can't actually see the enemy.

You basically fighting a ghost only by what the Hud tells you.

In older games, especially the -----lancer ones, you could clearly see what you were fighting and even see parts of them blow up.

And that was like ages ago.

For me that's a deal breaker, i do not want to fight an invisible enemy, i understand its not realistic but its not fun, at least for me.

No Man's Sky for me its the only game that  captures the correct size and the speed just at the point you can actually see something.

But of course it lacks in almost every other department in space combat....

I even heard Star Citizen is trying to make ships slower so you can actually see the enemy when crossing paths

What do you think?

Edited November 18, 2020 by Boyster

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Boyster said:

and i realized in all of these games when you fight an enemy ship you can't see it.

You only see the Hud but you can't actually see the enemy.

You basically fighting a ghost only by what the Hud tells you.

Pretty much sums up the premise of beyond-visual-range combat

[Serenity]

40 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

Pretty much sums up the premise of beyond-visual-range combat

Yeah but i am not looking to play combat sim games.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Boyster

[Guest]

[Spacescifi]

7 hours ago, Boyster said:

Hello, i was looking at some space combat games(Elite Dangerous, Everspace 2, Star Citizen><)

and i realized in all of these games when you fight an enemy ship you can't see it.

You only see the Hud but you can't actually see the enemy.

You basically fighting a ghost only by what the Hud tells you.

In older games, especially the -----lancer ones, you could clearly see what you were fighting and even see parts of them blow up.

And that was like ages ago.

For me that's a deal breaker, i do not want to fight an invisible enemy, i understand its not realistic but its not fun, at least for me.

No Man's Sky for me its the only game that  captures the correct size and the speed just at the point you can actually see something.

But of course it lacks in almost every other department in space combat....

I even heard Star Citizen is trying to make ships slower so you can actually see the enemy when crossing paths

What do you think?

 

What I want is a 3-D version of Asteroids with real 'invisible' laser beams, newtonian motion, and newtonian flying missiles.

Is that too much to ask?

I think not! Yet NO ONE I know of has done it. The best I have ever seen is always 2-D!

Edited November 18, 2020 by Spacescifi

[Serenity]

1 hour ago, Spacescifi said:

Is that too much to ask?

Yes

[KSK]

It’s been a while since I last played it but that doesn’t match my experience with Elite Dangerous at all. For me combat had plenty of close-in dogfighting, although I was usually too busy trying to land hits to admire the texturing on my opponent’s ship!

I imagine it’s very loadout and player skill dependent though. If you’re good enough to snipe with a plasma accelerator at beyond visual range, then yeah, you’re not going to be seeing much of the enemy.

I tended to go with a bog standard pulse lasers and multi-cannons loadout. I suspect my meta is several years out of date but on the other hand I did get to see what I was shooting at.

Edited November 20, 2020 by KSK

[Serenity]

7 hours ago, KSK said:

It’s been a while since I last played it but that doesn’t match my experience with Elite Dangerous at all. For me combat had plenty of close-in dogfighting, although I was usually too busy trying to land hits to admire the texturing on my opponent’s ship!

I wasted many hours watching streams and videos of Elite Dangerous and i can sincerely say i see no appeal at all,

sounds a bit harsh, i am sure its a good game but me coming from all the -----lancer games this one just doesn't hit any sweet spots.

[KSK]

2 hours ago, Boyster said:

I wasted many hours watching streams and videos of Elite Dangerous and i can sincerely say i see no appeal at all,

sounds a bit harsh, i am sure its a good game but me coming from all the -----lancer games this one just doesn't hit any sweet spots.

That’s fair and (seriously) good on you for doing the research and deciding it’s not for you. If more folks did that, gaming forums would be a nicer place to be.

And, as I said, my ED combat experience is way out of date so probably doesn’t match up that well to the latest videos.

Just as an aside - and I respect your opinion on the game so I’m not trying to talk you out of it - I think Lee Hutchinson over at Ars Technica has it about right. ED really nails the sense of flying your futuristic sci-fi personal starship and the sheer sense of scale involved in flying around the galaxy.  

But you find the fun in just existing within that universe and doing your thing. There are gameplay loops in there but when it comes right down to it, there’s not much you can’t do in your little starter ship. You can buy bigger ships to make things easier but, as Lee put it, it’s a pie eating contest where the reward for winning  is getting to eat more pie. If you don’t enjoy the activity of trading (for example), then buying a bigger trading ship isn’t going to help much. At best it’s a necessary slog to further some other goal, at worst it’s just a grind.
 

That’s not for everyone so yeah, I respect your ‘doesn’t hit any sweet spots’ opinion.

Edited November 20, 2020 by KSK

[Serenity]

50 minutes ago, KSK said:

That’s not for everyone so yeah, I respect your ‘doesn’t hit any sweet spots’ opinion.

My problem is the art style and the overall presentation, i am 100% sure the exploring, the game mechanics are excellent.

I would love to explore Elite Dangerous universe but its like a beautiful world presented in the wrong way, at least for me.

I can't take that step and really delve into it, the universe feels so lonely and dark(I mean how it feels not how its supposed to be).

The beauty is there but the way to it is so dull.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Boyster

[steve_v]

39 minutes ago, KSK said:

when it comes right down to it, there’s not much you can’t do in your little starter ship. You can buy bigger ships to make things easier but, as Lee put it, it’s a pie eating contest where the reward for winning  is getting to eat more pie.

I really tried to love E:D, and I'll probably try again, but for me the gameplay just isn't as engaging as it should be. The mechanics are mostly there but balance and difficulty are all over the place, and what should be fun loops turn out to be far shallower than they first seem.
As far as I can tell there's really very little to do in that huge universe besides grind for bigger ships, which don't really gate any gameplay or open any possibilities, explore a universe that rapidly reveals itself to be all procedurally generated sameness, or grind engineering and meta for PvP, which is mostly full of adolescent griefers and scrubs anyway.

[Nuke]

thats the problem with space sims. if you want realistic combat, you are going to need to fight bvr. if you want to see your target, you usually need a wwii in space type game. modernish combat flight sims also have this problem. you end up chasing dots in the sky, if you even can see a dot. 

[evileye.x]

@Boyster, you should try Freespace Open.

It's whole new world if you like mission based "old school" space combat sims.

It has dozens (even hundreds) campaigns, lots of voiced over ones (and of course , Freespace 1, Freespace 2)

Also, true masterpieces like Blue Planet. And total conversions like Battlestar Galactica and Wing Commander.

Graphics are modernized with PBR, soft shadow, etc.

https://www.hard-light.net/

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by evileye.x

[Nuke]

freespace has some of the best mission-oriented gameplay out there. even compared to some modern games.