Elite: Dangerous Review - PC Invasion
  • Sign In
Elite: Dangerous
7 / 10
PC Review

Elite: Dangerous Review

Elite: Dangerous Review
Game Details
Developer: Frontier Developments
Publisher: Frontier Developments
More Info:

Before we get to the imploding heat-fusion core of this review, here’s something important to remember about Elite: Dangerous: it’s an always-online game where even the single player component requires a semi-constant connection. On launch day (ie; when this review goes up,) Frontier’s servers may have problems.

The recent history for always-online PC titles suggests this will be the case, though at the time of writing launch day seems to actually be going pretty smoothly. That’s good news for all concerned.

elite: dangerous (2)

It’s not every always-online game that works well enough for you to take screencaps on launch day.

Some Text / Image promotion links here.

During the Gamma process (the period on which this review is based, and one which was near-identical to the launch build) Elite: Dangerous had significant server hiccups around major updates but generally stayed functional outside of those periods. Once any launch day rush passes, I’d expect this to be the norm for the game. Just don’t be surprised if the servers get a little sketchy now and then.

Gaming historians or those with suitably long memories will know that the original 1984 Elite somewhat inadvertently created the notion of ‘sandbox’ gaming. Designed in part as a reaction against the prescriptive nature of linear games, its revolutionary (for home computers) 3D graphics and complex gameplay stood out in an era where major publishers were unable to see beyond arcade-styled releases.

In the interim 30 years, games have caught up with Elite’s hyperspace leap in design. Revolutionary ideas from 1984 are now commonplace, and Elite: Dangerous finds itself adopting established concepts like persistent online marketplaces and drop-in-drop-out multiplayer, rather than pursuing radical innovations.

elite: dangerous (3)

Perhaps the most harrowing view of any young pilot’s life.

Though it may not be the vanguard of a new revolution, Elite: Dangerous does find itself part of a space game renaissance; and with such a dearth of top tier space sandbox titles in recent times, the design philosophy of “what if Elite had been made in 2014?” is still suitably bold. The game’s traditional learning curve, which means even straightforward actions like docking require some semblance of skill and mastery, also feels refreshing.

To a whole generation of players who may, at best, have played Elite-inspired titles, they’re now getting a new take on the real thing.

Elite: Dangerous retains the series’ unusual mix of egalitarianism and laissez-faire capitalism, putting every player in a low-level ship (this time, a Sidewinder,) giving them a handful of credits and pushing them out of the space port to make their fortune in the big wide galaxy. “Big wide galaxy” feels a little inadequate as a description, really, given that the game has (quite literally) billions of stars to visit.

You can certainly argue about the actual merits of including so very many individual systems, but it does contribute to something Elite: Dangerous handles extremely well: scale. The first time you zoom out on the galaxy map and see your local systems get swallowed up by layer after layer of star clusters, until all you can see is the game’s approximation of the Milky Way, it’s a daunting moment. Early trips out into deep space feel like pioneering jumps into the unknown.

elite: dangerous (8)

This is the galaxy zoomed RIGHT in.

You get used to that feeling, of course. But Elite: Dangerous caters directly to those fascinated by the formation of unique astronomical bodies, offering rare systems with binary stars and black holes to gawp at. The game’s visual presentation is such that this can be its own reward, but there’s also a practical monetary reason for pushing right into the deepest depths of space. Exploration data, while not the most efficient generator of cash, can be sold for decent returns to interested parties.

The way to make serious bank in the Elite universe, though, is through trading. Almost every system has a marketplace, and through diligent observation of the supply and demand in the local area (Elite: Dangerous is a game where you might even find yourself taking notes) it’s possible to make a pretty penny. Your starting ship only has a small cargo hold, but with a bit of dedication (and some luck with high-reward missions,) it’s easy to be sucked right in to the open-ended cycle of “perform task, earn money, buy better ship capable of doing more of said task, earn money, buy better ship …”

Euro Truck Simulator In Space may not sound immediately attractive, but the combination of Elite: Dangerous’ wonderful flight model and intergalactic ambience just about prevents the act of space travel from getting stale. It’s clear how this game has found such favour with Oculus Rift users, including our own Paul Younger.

Ship upgrades feel like meaningful progression, because each one performs with a unique sense of character; from the ultra-maneuverable Viper fighter, the strangled churn of the clunky Hauler’s engines as it drops out of hyperspace, to the familiar silhouette and roomy cockpit of the Cobra Mk III. The playable ships may only be nudging 15 or so at present, but each one has a distinct feel.

elite: dangerous (4)

I have this completely under control.

Elite: Dangerous has been through various Beta/Gamma stages over the past six months and development has progressed at consistent and encouraging rate. Career paths like asteroid mining and features like a reputation system (boosted or hit by your actions towards a particular faction, albeit painfully slowly in the case of the former) have all been added. A recent patch made bounty hunting more of a viable option for making money during the early game. Given their track record to date, I’m willing to believe Frontier’s timeline promises for introducing aspects like proper, co-operative player ‘wings.’

But there’s no denying that Elite: Dangerous is taking the thoroughly contemporary path of “launching” before it’s strictly ready.

Take combat, for example, which works marvellously well in the abstract sense of a one-on-one training mission or the periodic hyperspace interdictions which can drag your humble trading vessel into a fight-or-flight scenario. Space duels in Elite are a matter of deft energy management (juggling between weapons, engines and shields) and clever manoeuvres. Some of the game’s most satisfying moments come from pulling off the old “thrust into reverse to pop out behind a foe and blast them” trick, or holding off a superior foe just long enough to fire up a smouldering Frame-Shift Drive and limp back to port with a cracked canopy before the cabin oxygen runs out.

The flight and combat models work in glorious harmony; so it’s rather a shame that the combat missions (such as they are) can be so lacking. Popping in and out of the same three or four random encounters searching for a specific NPC or wandering pirates won’t be enough to sustain a combat-thirsty player base. Especially when some of the combat missions are bugged to the point of preventing you from turning them in.

elite: dangerous (6)

Doing good in the galaxy, one six grand coffee run at a time.

There are hints at slightly more structured missions, such as the task of retrieving a black box from deep space (which also requires you to learn the art of gliding past space-police scans in “silent running” mode to evade detection of your illegal cargo,) but this is another example of things to be expanded on in the future.

No matter whether you’re playing Elite: Dangerous in Solo mode (AI encounters only,) Open (possible player encounters and fights) or Private Group (basically Solo plus being able to see friends,) your actions are influencing the overall dynamics of the shared galaxy. The lone save slot can even move freely between those three game mode types.

Marketplace supply and demand will fluctuate according to trade density, something which I’ve seen happen myself as a particularly lucrative route slowly degrades. Until just a few hours ago I’d have said this aspect was working smoothly, but over the weekend the market effectively broke and Frontier are (presumably) now all-hands-on-deck to return profit margins to relatively normal levels before someone presses the “launch game” button. They’ll hopefully dedicate some attention to the galaxy map trade line indicators too, which are currently borderline useless as an accurate guide to resource movements.

elite: dangerous (5)

Elite does “the majesty of space” pretty damn well.

Other dynamic aspects like influencing minor system factions through missions show promise, but are still in their infancy in terms of what meaningful impact they’ll have on the game. Could turning a system to anarchy increase the likelihood of a black market for illegal goods showing up there? Perhaps, but for now this is all just speculation. Frontier clearly have important plans for the faction system (based on the proposed launch day story-line of an Imperial succession war.) It’s just not yet clear how that’ll all work. Or if it will work.

My most immediate and selfish hope for the future of this game, though, is an update system which doesn’t wipe all my keybinds. Every. Single. Time. I’m used to keeping a back-up of the file now, but that shouldn’t really be necessary.

Speaking of control schemes, I’ve been playing Elite: Dangerous with a sort of hybrid 360 pad and keyboard set-up. Most of the crucial commands fit on the pad, with a few more hotkeys dotted around the keyboard for when the act of pulling up the in-cockpit comms panel for retracting landing key seems too much like hard work. Mouse and keyboard works too, although I found keeping track of targets a little harder with the mouse than a pad. That could be down to personal preference. If you’re taking your space sim seriously, of course, you probably own some sort of HOTAS gizmo. And possibly a triple monitor set-up to go with it.

elite: dangerous (17)

The ever-lovely Cobra Mk III.

Elite: Dangerous has delivered on the foundational basics, creating an outstanding flight model and a relatively clear early-game progression from Sidewinder to Cobra. But after trading, exploring and blasting themselves to a kitted out Cobra, players will begin to bump into the edges of the title’s incomplete design features. It’s quite possible to grind for ever-larger reserves of cash (and spare ships,) or knock around in pirate haunts for endlessly re-spawning sources of bounty money, but anybody wanting to get started on serious factional reputation gains, meaningful influence over controlling parties in systems, or engaging in fleshed out, stable, co-op activities with friends will find their sandbox ambitions limited.

There’s a great deal to enjoy about Elite: Dangerous, from the tone-perfect space immersion and sense of sheer scale, to ship handling and the relative freedom of choice in player activities. It really does feel like a “what if?” 2014 version of the 1984 classic, right down to how the game’s more enigmatic elements fit right in with today’s conventions of sharing information online. You don’t have to go far to find trade tools, threads on locating black markets, bounty hunting tips and all manner of other social interactions.

elite dangerous (5)

Destroying a shield-less Sidewinder almost seems unfair, but he DID attack me first.

I’ve no idea whether the decision to launch in December has to do with financial book-keeping or the simple desire to have it out in the year of Elite’s 30th anniversary, but by forcing the issue Frontier Developments are inviting criticism for a game with several loose ends. In three to six months time Elite: Dangerous could be a phenomenal title. As things stand, it’s (servers-permitting) a pretty damn good one with a whole lot of potential.

A "launch" build with some features still in infancy, Elite: Dangerous nonetheless offers terrific space flight ambiance and trading progression befitting of the once-revolutionary series. In a few months time, this title could be outstanding.

Related to this article


  1. avatar MrBlueman001 | December 16, 2014 at 8:54 pm |

    You are writing a review of the game after it’s been officially live for only 8 hours?

    *slow clap*

    That’s some great journalism right there.

    It is a pretty fair review on the whole, but in regards to influence over factions and the galaxy evolution I would at least give it a couple of days to see how the dynamic story elements start to play out. 8 hours is not enough…

    • avatar Paul Younger | December 16, 2014 at 9:18 pm |

      Like many of us, Peter has been playing for months. So yeh, it’s great journalism as you say.

      • Confession: In since Alpha here. The ‘dynamic story elements’ are figments of your imagination Blueman. ED is essentially a role-playing game, there’s no real story it’s all in your head. And the second ‘M’ in ‘MMO’ is non existant!
        Nice attack on one of the more honest and less gushing reviews though. Classy!

    • avatar Peter Parrish | December 16, 2014 at 9:21 pm |

      The Gamma build that has been running for about the past two weeks has been incrementally updated along the way (which I’ve been taking into account – with bounty increases, etc), but is otherwise functionally identical to version 1.0.

      Reputation gains/losses are still in need of balancing. The influence of … well, influence does remain to be seen – that is fair, and I didn’t let that aspect weigh too heavily on the review. Dynamic galaxy marketplace stuff was running during Gamma too, and seemed to be alright (until the AI trading broke it for a bit.)

      I hope that explains the early appearance of this review.

      As I’ve said, this is a good game. In time it might be outstanding. I hope so.

      • Influence has been in the game for about a week, too, if I recall, not 8 hours, so his mention about the galaxy evolution being too fresh is a bit off.

      • As I said, it is a pretty fair review on the whole and I can agree that my original comment sounded a bit harsh…it’s just that the story-elements with FD being “game masters” will probably be a more important aspect of the game that many people realize. So far most players have been pretty spread out. Stories like these will help concentrate them around hot spots thus help drive the factions and other aspects of the dynamic galaxy to a much higher degree around these areas. This is something we can’t really judge fully until some time have passed.

        See you in the void! 🙂

        • avatar Peter Parrish | December 16, 2014 at 10:51 pm |

          It’s cool man – I’m used to a lot worse! Thanks for being civil, it makes these comment discussions a lot nicer 🙂

          I do agree with what you say about story elements – once they develop, they could be game-changers.

        • How are a few developers going to hand-craft storylines for thousands of players spread over billions of systems?
          Exactly. Not happening.

    • Unlike disgusting cesspits such as Gamespot, IGN, RPS, Kotaku, etc, this is a pretty good PC-oriented website and I haven’t found yet any indicators showing an obvious lack of integrity, unlike in the aforementioned sites.

      It seems you were aware that the game’s been playable for months now in a constant-updated beta phase, so what’s exactly the problem with a release day review?

    • In this instance it’s a pretty fair review, since the release and gamma builds are for all intents and purposes identical, which was stated to be the case by the developers well in advance. I pretty much agree with what the fellow said – it’s a good game but needs that final lick of paint to finish off the rough edges. For me personally, that means adding proper group management including synchronised jumps and the sharing of missions.

      • Sadly, it sounds like they have no intention of adding synchronized jumps.. however, sharing of missions or bounties is apparently on the plan.

        • From my understanding this was an issue with the way they handle connections – players in the same system are connected to one another using P2P, which means that if a group of players try to synchronise their jumps and join an instance en-masse with one of their members behind a hefty firewall, the matchmaker will have a heck of a time finding any instance that would accept all the players in the group. I don’t mind the lack of synchronised jumping, so long as it’s easy enough to plot a course to and end up in the same system as one of your friends.

        • Unfortunately, there’s a LOT of stuff that’s not going to be added. Very big $backers could get to be members of the “Design DECISION forum”. Just before launch, it was renamed design DISCUSSION forum. 90% of the contents of that were supposed to be in the release. Guess what……?
          Go on the forums and check it out.

    • Nonsense the game its being sold and Peter gave a review of whats is being SOLD of course it will improve but that’s not the point, maybe it it won’t who knows? im going wait and see what what happens before I spend money thanks for the heads up Peter. I would appreciative a another update in a month

    • It’s almost like he wants to inform his readership whether the game is worth picking up now, or whether they should wait.

      It’s not like he’s spent weeks playing the game before release… oh wait.

    • getting all apologetic with this one, huh? Drinking Braben´s kool aid about magical expansions of the future? I know, I know, you spent a lot of money on it, 300GBP or more, probably even bought Frontier shares as the good fan that you are. Too bad you can flush both the game and the shares down the toilet.

  2. I’ve been playing this game for months as well and have to say you’re right on the money with this review in my opinion. The game is gorgeous, so much potential to be even more but currently lacking in content and depth. Some very frustrating bugs are still present, for example in the reputation system, which will keep you from rising in the ranks while bounty hunting.

    I hope FD will keep their promise and keep releasing updates and fixes on a regular basis now the big influx of cash will stop. I say this because most of their players are beta players who have bought life time upgrade passes which effectively means FD will not get any more money from them from add-ons or upgrades.

    Having said all that, ED is a very very beautiful game and still a pleasure to play even after hundreds of hours I’ve put in. If you have the chance, go check it out on an Oculus Rift DK2. You’ll be awestruck 🙂

    • Agreed, it is impressive on the Rift, really nice.

    • B-b-b-but they’re only doing it for page views!!1

      B-b-b-but he said the game was good and then only gave it a 7!!1

      Anyway, the game looks awesome and I’ll definitely be picking it up in a few months when they’ve completed it. From your description and the review, it sounds quite a bit like the legendary Freelancer which I used to spend many, many hours in. One more trade run…

  3. it is monumentally douchey to call a game “pretty damn good” then give 7/10

    • Not if you read their review policy linked under the score… http://www.incgamers.com/review-policy/

      • I read it and you are wrong

        7/10 = “good”. “Good” does not = “pretty damn good”.

        They also claim “Our commitment to you is that we play all of our reviewed games to completion before writing or publishing reviews” which they did not do either.

        better luck next time pal

      • 1/10 – The War Z


    • It’s monumentally douchey to pick out one single line from a review and then claim that the final score is unsupported by that one line, when, if you look at the rest of the review, it’s perfectly supported.

      The overall flavour of the review is that the game has potential and has some good systems in place but needs work in several areas. Frankly, 7/10 seems generous for a half-finished game.

      In my opinion, it’s a breath of fresh air to find a site that doesn’t pull their punches and actually tells the truth in their reviews.

      • not just any line. the concluding, summarising, final sentence. 7/10 = “good”. “pretty damned good” does not = “good”.

        even if it wasn’t this key line, that does not necessarily make my analysis wrong, let alone “monumentally douchey”. to absurdly characterise my perfectly valid argument which you have not even addressed properly in this way is itself monumentally douchey.

        baldly declaring that “if you look at the rest of the review, it’s perfectly supported” without evidence and reasoning does not make it true.

        there is no such thing as “truth” in this context.

        • 1) The last line isn’t the most important part of the review. What you’re doing is called ‘cherry picking’.

          2) For your ‘analysis’ to be called such, you’d have to take into consideration the rest of the review, which you didn’t.

          3) Your argument isn’t ‘valid’. A score is representative of the entire review, not just one line.

          4) Anyone with an ounce of sense can read this review and come to the conclusion that the game isn’t better than a 7. If you want to do it scientifically, analyse the bad-to-good ratio of the words/paragraphs and come up with a numerical analysis. Regardless, your point is irrelevant since you specifically stated in your comment that you only considered the final sentence when you determined that the reviewer was being ‘monumentally douchey’.

          5) Everything is subjective to a small extent, even things like gravity are only knowable to a certain degree. ‘No such thing as truth’ is just a lazy cop-out – things are knowable within reason.

          • (1) it is the reviewer’s conclusion thus it is the most important part of the review.
            (2) see (1)
            (3) see (1) and my earlier explanation of how it doesn’t fit with incgamer’s policy.

            (4) see (3)
            (5) “no such thing as truth” is not a lazy cop-out. it is a simple statement of fact which destroys your argument. everything is subjective *to a greater or lesser extent*. reviews, being mere opinion, are at one end of the scale – entirely subjective. the laws of physics, like gravity, which are scientifically measurable, are at the other – but they are still subjective. existence could be an illusion. you could be a brain in a vat being fed electrical impulses. There is no “truth”.

            “even” in the context of gravity is entirely absurd. the cause of gravity is a total mystery. there is nothing “even” about it. utterly absurd example.

          • The conclusion is not the most important part of the review.

            FYI if you have to tell someone you’re winning a debate… You’re probably losing =p

            If your statement about truth is valid then you have no point. Nothing is objective? Then the theres no point in reviewing at all, and your statement is irrelevant.

            Is it an ‘opinion’ if a game has AI which does not work, for example. Or if a game crashes? ‘Thats just your opinion, man!’ These are things I look for in a review, and they are entirely objective.

            I can objectively state that gravity causes me to stay stuck on the earth. ‘no truth’ indeed.

            Lets get back to the point – you dismissing a perfectly good review by cherry picking one line and stating that you interpret it as incorrect and a ‘douchebag’ move. Socrates would be embarassed to hear you namechecking him, lol.

          • the conclusion is the most important part of the review.

            I don’t have to, I chose to. It has no bearing on whether my argument is winning or losing. it is the actual contents of my actual arguments which determine that.

            just because nothing is objective does not prove there is no point to reviewing. that is an absurd non-sequitur.

            define “does not work”. how often does it crash, and on which OSes? which GPUs? how many PCs did you try it on? what if it is easy to patch? all of these things can be addressed by the reviewer in a number of ways. How they are compared to other games, and how they affect the conclusion of the review, is a mixture of objective testing and subjective judgement. thus not “entirely” objective, because, like I said, nothing is objective.

            What if you are a brain in a vat and the earth is an imaginary construct? what is “gravity” then? remember consciousness is just electrical impulses

            What causes gravity?

            Let’s get back to the point. I drew a reasonable conclusion from the concluding summarising sentence of a review which contradicts incgamers’ stated review policy in the ways I previously stated. You simply repeating an argument I have already defeated as if I had not even responded and without addressing my response, will not help you.

            Socrates would not be embarrassed because I correctly used his philosophical point to make a valid point and defeat your entire argument.

          • the conclusion is the most important part of the review because it is reflected by what the word “conclusion” means.

            We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one. In my opinion the conclusion is not the most important part of a review, it’s simply the shortest and most succinct part, and if the reviewer used one single word in the conclusion which did not reflect the score, that still would not be ‘monumentally douchey’, it would be a very small error at most.

            How they are compared to other games, and how they affect the conclusion of the review, is a mixture of objective testing and subjective judgement. thus not “entirely” objective, because, like I said, nothing is objective.

            Nothing is 100% objective, I agree with that. Perhaps I used the wrong word when I said ‘truth’. What I meant was ‘as near to the truth as it is possible to be’ or ‘as near to 100% objective as it is possible to be’. Using the word truth was just a shorthand way of saying that, and an inaccurate one.

            I drew a reasonable conclusion from the concluding summarising sentence of a review which contradicts incgamers’ stated review policy in the ways I previously stated.

            I think it’s an unreasonable conclusion. No point us arguing any further, it’s getting us nowhere.

          • your personal opinion is trumped by meaning of the word “conclusion” which makes it the most important part of the review.

            you didn’t mean truth and you didn’t mean as “near as possible” either. you just meant “honest”, which I agree with. it is an honest review, but the words of the conclusion, the most important part of the review, does not reflect the score, the score does not reflect the conclusion, and they failed to play the game “to completion” (i.e. Elite status). In fact, they have not even played the launch version! Tell me that isn’t monumentally douchey? Thus it breaks the magazine’s policy in several ways and is therefore fatally flawed and monumentally douchey.

            It doesn’t matter what you baldly declare to be unreasonable. what can you demonstrate using reasoning and evidence?

    • 7/10 is an excellent score, the problem is that a game is considered a failure if it doesn’t score 8 or above, which is absolute rubbish! Most review sites may as well drop the scoring system altogether since punters don’t consider a game ranking below 80% as worth their time, and reviewers won’t review a game below 80% unless they hate it. However logically, one would reasonably expect a game scoring 6/10 to be quite good, as it clearly has more good points than bad. Back in the hey-day of PCGamer et al, I bought games that frequently scored around the 60% – 65% mark and found them to be perfectly entertaining. These days though, we get BS like “gold, platinum, platinum PLUS!!” packages and what not, as if to say, “There is no wrong choice!”, and stupid review scores *unlike* the one above that are afraid to use the full spectrum of grading available to them.

      • according to official PCGamer policy, 7/10 = “good”.

        “good” does not = “pretty damn good”

        end of discussion.

        • Well, if you say so, however you do appear to have “ended” the discussion on a bit of an intellectual downer for yourself. This review was not by PCGamer, and I only used PCGamer as an example of having once had a broader range of review scores and my having appreciated that style of scoring.

    • so you think he should have reviewed the future promises and include them in the score, like the douches on metacritic who vote this empty shell a “10” ?
      Idiocy and desperation are a bad combo.

  4. A fair review.

    I personally don’t this it was financial pressures that led to this release, I think it because many of it components needs lots of people to truly test the game play.

    But I think it has the foundations to be a very interesting and possibly one of the best MMOs out there right nit.

  5. I mostly agree with review, though as an explorer I disagree that we
    have yet “no influence to be seen” on how game and factions develope.

    Also as an explorer I am NOT seeing whole picture of others issues than through forums.

    I have seen systems to change and eventually be part of that
    faction/economy (industrial, extraction, terraforming, etc, too) I sold
    it to.

    In Gamma I sold data to communist when I were expecting for a wipe, and
    saw their expansion until some kind of “exploration wipe” (think same
    day we were told later there wont be wipe at launch), after that Fed´s
    have expanded to systems/area I sold them data from borderlands of

    I were expecting buggy start MMO, just as EvE had even more serious
    bugs/issues even 6 years from it´s launch, so I started a planned
    exploration career to avoid possibly bugged missions/trade/mining,
    reputations/bounties, AND ESPECIALLY waiting those
    frustrated/not knowing learning curve/proggression fitting to earlier
    Elite´s (“this is not EvE/SC i wanted, so i just kill everybody on sight
    until i am so fugitive cant play anymore!”-types) to just “be in
    smaller numbers” (=less likely to have my ship rammed at full speed when

    Elite already deserves, from MY explorer view anyway,
    already (not counting “Connection Error” in jumps as i´m sure it´s
    worked on/fixed already) 8/10, with promised extra content like
    planetary landings/fly, that will go to 9-10/10 (judging from
    perspective of proggression I have seen during last 12 month testing, I
    expect those will be very succesfull, as long as they are not rushed on).

    My real “point”…

    What I wanted (already back at 90´s when playing it), FFE, online, I got it.

    I have same feeling of “can not wait to play”, as I had after school rushing to play.

    Also, I understand how people new (or very OLD “1984 only!”) to Elite
    get frustrated, as people need to realise this is pretty much updated
    FFE (cant compare to first Elite as only ever played 2 and 3, were too
    young at 1984). At first churning any (that little visible) proggress in
    it first felt like a pain in the “behind”, but love for
    space/science/possible future of mankind kept me on it. After that I
    soon learned to just love it all, unconditionally. In better or worse.

  6. yeah, the game is total garbage. Incredible how a handful of their still alive 1984 fans hyped this like the second coming

    • You seem to be busy commenting… Another “no offline?? buaaaa!!” or just one who wants to be able to get immediately into best rank/reputation (you have any idea about those btw?), to get best missions and ships? Not obviously in a long run as game has barely been out 36 hours. But you liked your own writing, think that is most important thing, if you did not like ED…

  7. Oh boy… First, the review is nearly there, but if anything, it’s pulling punches. The insane-o types who’ve thrown big bucks at this will hate anything less than 99%, so discount them straight off.

    Been in this since “beta”, and tested the buggy ass out of it. Spent a load on a Hotas and a new GPU too, so I WANTED to like this, OK?

    Here’s the skinny – after the first few hours of “wow, dat looks nice!”, a little bit of lazor action and some parcel delivery (that’s the mission system and all trading in a nutshell), you’ve done the lot. Seriously, really.

    The whole thing just doesn’t hang together, and to be honest, there’s not much variety of stuff to do (there’s a lot of stuff to do, but it’s 5 things multiplied by several billion). I’m not saying boring, but I’m definitely thinking it very loudly (Futurama ref there for ya!)

    The insane-o types say I don’t have any imagination or I’m doing it wrong. Well I’m just a science major, so they might be right.

    Multiplayer is the pits. Netcode is laggy. Everything is instanced. Dynamic story elements? Lol. Delusional.

    Don’t make my mistake. Wait until it’s $5 on Steam.

  8. 1) They turned the game into MMO trash (Always online connection even for Solo play are they stupid morons or what even latest Simcity tried this model and failed miserably)

    2) The game is insanely boring and the combat is far worse from many other older space sims that i have played. Becomes repetitive very fast it feels like a soulless title

    3) Freespace 2 how i miss you 🙁

  9. On DK2 the game is increddible, well the system map and galaxy map not so much and still a hoard of bugs.
    But flying the ship and fighting in VR feels so fucking intense.

    That’s a pure reason for DK2 owners to buy elite and for Elite fans to buy DK2 🙂

  10. So, this is basically the original 8-bit game but with better gfx??
    Times have moved on, surely….

  11. Where is manzes? Let me tell you before he comes over and tells you:

    If you like Elite Dangerous, that means Star Citizen is dead. And I you don’t like Elite Dangerous, then you are just a Star Citizen fan boy.

Comments are closed.