Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

Media => Games => Topic started by: Eternally Learning on July 07, 2015, 03:22:40 AM

Title: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 07, 2015, 03:22:40 AM
IGN is doing a month focused on a soon to be released, procedurally generated, sci-fi, open world, space sim called No Man's Sky, so I guess now is as good a time as any to start a thread about it.

Here's the first 5 trailers on it to give you a taste first:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5vwfEaONg

I'm getting more and more excited for this game as the information becomes more and more available.  I'm a little concerned that the aimless nature of the game will cause me to lose interest after a while, but at this point I'm willing to take that risk. 

I'll edit this post to add all the videos they release so it's convenient:

RELEASE 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLcjvIQJns0

RELEASE 2:

7/7/2015 Article. (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/07/07/no-mans-sky-how-to-leave-your-mark-on-the-universe)

Quote from: IGN
...

As an intrepid explorer, you begin No Man's Sky with unremarkable but serviceable entry-level equipment. Your first starship isn't equipped to take down cruisers or take you to the mysterious center of the universe, but it's your first step to making your mark, making money, and visiting new planets unlike any you've seen before.

Each planet is an opportunity and a risk. Ecology is your primary means of earning currency, and as you uncover unknown species, mine minerals, and record your findings, you'll gain access to infantry and aerial upgrades. Trading is core to No Man's Sky as well, although those with enough confidence and coin may opt out of give-and-take in favor of just take.

Violence and other forms of disruption can be extremely lucrative. However, you make yourself a mark for Sentinels -- planetary protectors that remind you, quite aggressively, that this is not your world and you do not belong here. Provoke the guardians continually and they'll increase their effort to annihilate you. A Grand Theft Auto-inspired "wanted" system escalates alongside your destruction. Escape before Sentinels slaughter you, and you'll get out with the goods. Fall to their defenses and your unrecorded earnings on that planet die with you -- so try not to engage or upset anything too far from a Beacon, which uploads your discoveries to the Atlas database.

...

RELEASE 3:

How the economy works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXUrOFVItgs

RELEASE 4:

How the project started:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icw5tg-H3xc

RELEASE 5

Choosing 5 planets at random and briefly describing them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytPJWfrsU0g
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: starnado on July 07, 2015, 05:40:48 AM
ooooh....

nice.

:munch:
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on July 07, 2015, 07:58:54 AM
The game looks interesting but I really hate how slowly they're revealing it. Those 18 minutes of uninterrupted gameplay had maybe like 30 seconds of new stuff, otherwise it was just things we've already seen.

Also, that "everything on the screen is just math" comment really made me cringe. Yes, genius, that's how computers work. Why is that so shocking for you? Don't you know it already? You certainly should, given that you work in the industry. :P
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 07, 2015, 08:37:50 AM
The game looks interesting but I really hate how slowly they're revealing it. Those 18 minutes of uninterrupted gameplay had maybe like 30 seconds of new stuff, otherwise it was just things we've already seen.

Also, that "everything on the screen is just math" comment really made me cringe. Yes, genius, that's how computers work. Why is that so shocking for you? Don't you know it already? You certainly should, given that you work in the industry. :P

The creator has said a few times that he doesn't want to spoil the game for people too much and that he's afraid that people will misunderstand what the game is about by saying too much, too soon.  Not sure if I agree, but hey, it's his game.  I can be patient.

With the "it's all math" comment, I believe they are referring to the fact that almost everything is generated from a very small file as opposed to the world being modelled purposefully and having all that information saved.  I saw something where they stated that to test the algorithm they created, they basically crafted essentially a bunch of probes that went to random planets throughout the galazy and sent back photos of the planets that were generated.  That in and of itself is super cool to me as a side-note.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on July 07, 2015, 09:07:48 AM
The creator has said a few times that he doesn't want to spoil the game for people too much and that he's afraid that people will misunderstand what the game is about by saying too much, too soon.  Not sure if I agree, but hey, it's his game.  I can be patient.

I don't know if I'm being skeptical or cynical, but when devs say "we don't want to show too much", I hear it as "we don't have much to show". Ditto for "people might misunderstand what the game is about", that I hear as "we didn't have a clear vision for the game and ended up making a clunky mishmash of mechanics and ideas that don't really work together too well".

Yeah, alright, they have a very big, very pretty universe. That's great and all, but what's the game? What do you actually do? What have they done to make each planet unique and memorable? That's the biggest problem with these procedurally generated worlds, IMO. They produce huge, homogeneous worlds where every place is technically speaking unique but in practical terms indistinguishable from any other place. So far they haven't addressed that at all.

Quote
With the "it's all math" comment, I believe they are referring to the fact that almost everything is generated from a very small file as opposed to the world being modelled purposefully and having all that information saved.  I saw something where they stated that to test the algorithm they created, they basically crafted essentially a bunch of probes that went to random planets throughout the galazy and sent back photos of the planets that were generated.  That in and of itself is super cool to me as a side-note.

Well yeah, I get that, I just find it really grating how they're going on about it as if it's a new thing. Games have been doing that for decades. Hell, Elite, the game that began the genre back in the '80s, was procedurally generated as well. The way the developer presents this, the way he expects everyone to swoon and aaah over it, seems pretty condescending to me. He sounds like a snake oil salesman peddling the same old bullshit as a brand new miracle cure. And I find it positively insulting that the 'journalists' are buying it hook, line, and sinker instead of calling him out on it. It's all "oooh, procedural generation, what an amazing new technology" rather than "alright, so how have you advanced the technology compared to all the other games that have used it in the past?" But, y'know, it's IGN. They're not journalists and critics, they're promoters. That's what IGN does.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Henning on July 07, 2015, 11:22:07 AM
I agree with everything you say Sordid, but I'm also oohing and ahhing 'cos I want to explore. But yeah... could get pretty samey pretty fast.

What would a game have to do to advance procedural generation? Emergence? You'd have to have a giant simulation that's doing something like a true evolutionary process. Something which given enough computation time, would eventually produce a universe that would surprise the programmers.
I've heard of that being done in university projects in a simple constrained environment, but not in a game with a giant universe.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Redamare on July 07, 2015, 11:50:51 AM
Asteroids are way too close together.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Henning on July 07, 2015, 12:21:36 PM
After watching the "18 minutes" video... I have the same questions as we discussed before. What kind of changes can you make to the universe and are all those changes persistent and universal? We saw him blow a hole in a rock with a plasma gun. Is that hole still gonna be there next visit? How do you store all those changes across all these galaxies AND distribute them back out to all players?

He says it's all math, but everything a player does represents some kind of addendum to the original algorithm that produced the planet's "natural" state. How to keep track of all that?
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 07, 2015, 03:18:20 PM
Yeah, this is definitely more marketing hype that a behind-the-scenes documentary and I definitely agree that the lack of information about all aspects of the game is maddening.  That being said, the way it's all been presented doesn't raise any major red flags for me at the moment as given the company's history it seems like the founder and owner wants to do things differently than other major gaming companies.  Another thing he said about not previewing too much is that he wanted there to be surprises for the players which is something he feels is lacking in this day and age.  As for the diversity, they said that they modeled various artistic "skeletons" for creatures, ships, and so on and the procedural algorithm randomizes the details that make the things up so I guess it all depends on how many "skeletons" they came up with.  Through just the videos I posted though, you can already see a few similar animals so that may be a bad sign.  All in all, like I've said before, I'm fairly certain that even if the experience gets repetitive fairly quickly the initial experience will be worth it for me.  Just what they've shown alone, I'm pretty sure I'd get a ton of hours of enjoyment out of it, so I'm not concerned too much and am very excited.

Regarding IGN, I've been a member on their site since 1998 and their quality has declined significantly in favor of quantity IMO.  Gone are the days of 5 page game reviews that drew me in and in are the days of "articles" being nothing but links to other, better sites and summaries of their reporting.  What few genuine talents they have are pretty heavily overshadowed by everyone else.  Still, they tend to get access when others don't due to their high profile nature and even if they aren't producing tons of quality content, what they aggregate is useful.  As for this video in particular, it's obviously meant to promote rather than go in depth of all the inner workings of the game, but then again it is only the first piece they've released this month so who knows where they will go.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Beleth on July 07, 2015, 03:36:09 PM
I haven't looked forward to a game this much since Lord of the Rings Online came out in, what, 2007?

Any game that relies on surprises for the player is going to have a tough time when there are wikis set up for every popular game.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: teethering on July 07, 2015, 03:41:17 PM
Look guys, please remember Spore.  They have a saying in Texas, something about being fooled once...
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on July 07, 2015, 04:00:24 PM
As for the diversity, they said that they modeled various artistic "skeletons" for creatures, ships, and so on and the procedural algorithm randomizes the details that make the things up so I guess it all depends on how many "skeletons" they came up with.  Through just the videos I posted though, you can already see a few similar animals so that may be a bad sign.

It reminds me of Starbound, actually. That game does pretty much the same thing, albeit in 2D. The problem is that while yes, that does create a ton of different looking enemies, in reality there are only six types. Small biped, large biped, small quadruped, large quadruped, small flier, large flier, and that's it. It's the same thing with environments. A planet may have purple dirt and trees with eyes instead of leaves, but it's just eye candy, functionally they're identical to any other type of dirt and trees. Same again with damage types. It doesn't matter if a monster shoots bubbles, flames, laser beams, or whatever, there's only one damage type, so it's just a different skin applied to the same attack. Needless to say that gets old very quickly, and I'm worried this will be the same kind of thing. Obviously Starbound isn't finished yet, but you get my point.

Quote
it is only the first piece they've released this month so who knows where they will go.

Judging by the previous series they did with Gamespot, it's going to be PR fluff throughout with tiny little nuggets of actual information here and there.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: PANTS! on July 07, 2015, 04:51:39 PM
Look guys, please remember Spore.  They have a saying in Texas, something about being fooled once...

I think it goes like:  Fool me once, unless I voted for Rick Perry, then its open season.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 07, 2015, 10:36:29 PM
Look guys, please remember Spore.  They have a saying in Texas, something about being fooled once...

I never played Spore, but from what I recall the issues stemmed from overly simplistic gameplay which basically boiled down to 4 minigames that you played.  The thing is, as others keep pointing out, there's nothing terribly new in what No Man's Sky is attempting despite the hype, other than the fact that this is the first console title to attempt a full space simulation.  Honestly, it seems a lot like Elite Dangerous made more accessible, adding planets, and with more fictional elements and that's cool with me.  It seriously seems to come down to how much variation of the so-called "skeletons" there will be and how much of a difference the flesh on top of those skins can make as well. 

The difference between this and Spore is that Spore promised an all new style of gameplay with all of these novel concepts which didn't pan out the way people expected and with No Man's Sky, while they use similar language of creating firsts, each element of gameplay is not all that novel.  For me, that translates as less risk of just having a bad experience at the core like what Spore turned out to be.  Again, the only thing I'm worried about is lack of variety leading to the experience getting stale too quickly.  All the gameplay we've seen so far, while not in depth, seems to speak for itself and it seems next to impossible that what they've shown will somehow not be what we get.

One other thing though, is that they mentioned that as you move towards the center of the galaxy the hostility on planets increases along with the value of the resources you can find.  That gives me so hope in that they seem to have designed a system wherein it's not a structured story, but the experience has been minimally structured to keep things fresh.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: teethering on July 07, 2015, 11:13:42 PM
The biggest problem with Spore was that, probably due to unrealistic ambition, all the variety of things in the same that you could do turned out to be almost entirely cosmetic.  This is something that could turn out to be underneath No Man's Sky promise of an entire universe chockfull of different things to discover.  This is a matter of how much of your development resources do you dedicate to what.  I suspect Spore developers had to spread their resources too thin to develop each era, which as you say turned each into a rather shallow minigame.  If the resources on No Man's Sky are going into creating their own table of elements and crap like that I'm extremely skeptical they can create the tight enough gameplay in trading, combat and exploration; things that are challenging in themselves already.  I'm wary of extreme ambition.  I'm also wary of a game that's being hyped at a point where there's no real gameplay yet and just talking about ambition and procedurally generated content, because that's exactly what happened with Spore as well.

Nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong this time.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 08, 2015, 01:32:23 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've seen plenty of actual gameplay.  True we haven't seen the trading system, but we have seen a glimpse of the upgrade system.  What gives me hope about this game is that while they are saying things about how some players may never actually leave a planet and so on (which seems highly dubious), they seem to have crafted the game around one major goal of reaching the center of the galaxy and have structured the game to progress in certain ways as you get closer to that goal.  The creator said something about how many will see reaching the center as the end of the game and feel they've finished it and no longer play.  To me that suggests a linear structure within an open world game, similar to how one can progress through a GTA game and finish it, but one can also waste shitloads of time.  Obviously, it will all come down to how much fun the gameplay itself is and so far that's what has me the most excited.

I don't want to paint myself as buying all this stuff hook, line, and sinker though.  I am indeed skeptical of the claims they make, but so far what they have shown makes me too excited to be cynical.  This may be the game that prompts me to get a PS4 over a XBone, but I'll be waiting for the reviews to come in before I make that leap.

ETA: I'll say this too, I'm way more interested in the game creating a desire to upgrade and progress than how specifically diverse the planets and wildlife are.  I mean, grinding away to level up in RPGs is a tried and true tradition and no one complains about the enemies not being diverse enough when you do that. 
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on July 08, 2015, 08:56:54 AM
One other thing though, is that they mentioned that as you move towards the center of the galaxy the hostility on planets increases along with the value of the resources you can find.  That gives me so hope in that they seem to have designed a system wherein it's not a structured story, but the experience has been minimally structured to keep things fresh.

IIRC in one of their videos they said something about there being many different paths along which you can progress, and they specifically mentioned diving. You dive into the ocean, get resources, use them to craft better diving gear that allows you to dive deeper, get better resources from greater depth, craft better diving gear, etc., until you're able to explore the deepest oceans. So basically a classic Minecraft/Terraria/Starbound system of "punch trees -> make wooden pickaxe -> mine stone -> make stone pickaxe -> mine iron -> make iron pickaxe", etc. Tiers of resources where upgrading your gear allows you to mine the next tier, which allows you to upgrade your gear even further.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've seen plenty of actual gameplay.

We've seen only the most basic gameplay elements. Walking around, shooting a pig, mining a resource. While that's basically all there is to this type of game, it's the context that makes these actions interesting. We've seen none of that yet.

Quote
they are saying things about how some players may never actually leave a planet and so on (which seems highly dubious)

Yeah, that sounds like bullshit. That's like saying "some Minecraft players never progress beyond basic iron equipment". While I'm sure that's true and there are some players who never progressed beyond that, I'm inclined to think that it's not because they were happy with that but rather because they couldn't progress further because they didn't know what to do because the game sucks at explaining itself. That's nothing to brag about for a developer. :P

Quote
This may be the game that prompts me to get a PS4 over a XBone.

Or you could get it for PC and get a much better gaming experience. ;)

Quote
I'll say this too, I'm way more interested in the game creating a desire to upgrade and progress than how specifically diverse the planets and wildlife are.  I mean, grinding away to level up in RPGs is a tried and true tradition and no one complains about the enemies not being diverse enough when you do that. 

Most RPGs have a handcrafted world, though, and the overall experience is much more structured. When the developers know where you're going to go and what you're going to do at every point, they can make sure the game remains interesting. Not so much when they rely on an algorithm to create the game world for them and give you total freedom to go wherever you want.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Henning on July 08, 2015, 10:48:37 AM

Quote
I'll say this too, I'm way more interested in the game creating a desire to upgrade and progress than how specifically diverse the planets and wildlife are.  I mean, grinding away to level up in RPGs is a tried and true tradition and no one complains about the enemies not being diverse enough when you do that. 

Most RPGs have a handcrafted world, though, and the overall experience is much more structured. When the developers know where you're going to go and what you're going to do at every point, they can make sure the game remains interesting. Not so much when they rely on an algorithm to create the game world for them and give you total freedom to go wherever you want.

I'm into some lack of structure... you can play as a "space pirate" or "prospector" or "ecologist" but it's not like you have to choose your character at the beginning of the game.

Anyone play Don't Starve? An unstructured game with a procedural map with enough complexity in crafting and NPCs that interesting strategies and gameplay emerges, rather than a prescription by the designers.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: teethering on July 08, 2015, 11:07:34 AM
Yeah, but in Don't Starve you have a shit ton of actual game mechanics.

Think about how you would start making Don't Starve, would you start with creating a world with a wide variety of objects or would you start out with a bunch of user controlled actions and craft recipes and then add more objects and more recipes later?  In Don't Starve terms the current demos look like just a walking simulator in a really big world.  And that's what doesn't fill me with confidence, the actual gameplay seems like an afterthought to the central idea of a really big open world.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on July 08, 2015, 11:19:13 AM
Exactly. It's very reminiscent of Minecraft in that way. That also started out basically as "let's see if I can make a big world generator", and the actual game was added in almost as an afterthought. Which is fine, because Minecraft is more of a creativity toy than a game, it's all about building things. AFAIK there won't be any building in NMS so... what exactly is the game going to be about again?

I guess it all comes down to how much depth there is in the various activities you can do. Like if you want to play a miner, are you just going to walk around shooting crystals and buying upgrades that let you shoot differently colored crystals, or is there going to be more to it? Same with playing an explorer. They showed off that scanner thingy that tags undiscovered animals and such and gives you cash for discovering them, right? So if I decide to play as an explorer, am I just going to be walking around spamming the scanner? Or will there be more to it than that?
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on July 08, 2015, 11:36:34 AM
Sordid, I don't understand how you get any enjoyment out of video games :S
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 08, 2015, 05:24:07 PM
One other thing though, is that they mentioned that as you move towards the center of the galaxy the hostility on planets increases along with the value of the resources you can find.  That gives me so hope in that they seem to have designed a system wherein it's not a structured story, but the experience has been minimally structured to keep things fresh.

IIRC in one of their videos they said something about there being many different paths along which you can progress, and they specifically mentioned diving. You dive into the ocean, get resources, use them to craft better diving gear that allows you to dive deeper, get better resources from greater depth, craft better diving gear, etc., until you're able to explore the deepest oceans. So basically a classic Minecraft/Terraria/Starbound system of "punch trees -> make wooden pickaxe -> mine stone -> make stone pickaxe -> mine iron -> make iron pickaxe", etc. Tiers of resources where upgrading your gear allows you to mine the next tier, which allows you to upgrade your gear even further.

I was under the impression that by "there being many different paths" they meant that there's no one way to play the game.  You can mine resources peacefully and trade them (and given the diving comment, which I hadn't yet heard, I'd say there are different ways to mine resources too), you can explore and upload scans for units which you can trade for items, you can simply buy low and sell high to get better resources, and you can even just be a pirate and steal what you want.  I agree that it seems very much like a Minecraft system of leveling up and I seem to recall the designer actually making that comparison as well.  In the new video I just posted, he n compares the crafting system (using their sci-fi periodic table) to Minecraft too, even stating that they will not hold players hands by telling us how to craft what.  It seems very much like they are attempting to create an active online community based around this game.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've seen plenty of actual gameplay.

We've seen only the most basic gameplay elements. Walking around, shooting a pig, mining a resource. While that's basically all there is to this type of game, it's the context that makes these actions interesting. We've seen none of that yet.

I'm honestly not all that sure what you mean.  It seems very much like we've seen a ton of context as in there isn't a lot.  There's no story that I'm aware of, multiplayer interactions are not prioritized at all (though they seem to be possible), and there don't even seem to be NPC's to interact with unless you are counting the trading posts which I imagine will simply be text-based interfaces.  The most broader context I've seen was a vague allusion to players cobbling together the history of the galaxy from hints found in ruins and such.

Quote
they are saying things about how some players may never actually leave a planet and so on (which seems highly dubious)

Yeah, that sounds like bullshit. That's like saying "some Minecraft players never progress beyond basic iron equipment". While I'm sure that's true and there are some players who never progressed beyond that, I'm inclined to think that it's not because they were happy with that but rather because they couldn't progress further because they didn't know what to do because the game sucks at explaining itself. That's nothing to brag about for a developer. :P

I took it more as them saying that there's so much content on each planets that a player could plausibly entertain themselves for dozens of hours just there.  Given your statement about diving and slowly increasing tech to access better resources, I imagine that's what they are referring to.  Perhaps each planet has all the resources in the game, but some are excessively difficult to reach.

Quote
This may be the game that prompts me to get a PS4 over a XBone.

Or you could get it for PC and get a much better gaming experience. ;)

I would actually prefer this, but affording a console alone is pushing it for me monetarily at the moment.

Quote
I'll say this too, I'm way more interested in the game creating a desire to upgrade and progress than how specifically diverse the planets and wildlife are.  I mean, grinding away to level up in RPGs is a tried and true tradition and no one complains about the enemies not being diverse enough when you do that. 

Most RPGs have a handcrafted world, though, and the overall experience is much more structured. When the developers know where you're going to go and what you're going to do at every point, they can make sure the game remains interesting. Not so much when they rely on an algorithm to create the game world for them and give you total freedom to go wherever you want.

That's not what I'm talking about though.  I'm referring to grinding away at enemies to level up.  I'm not a huge RPG nut, but on the SNES I played a few of the classics and quite often I'd just find an area with higher level baddies and just get into battle after battle with the same ones to level up higher than I ought to be at that point in the game.  I'm just saying that so long as the game generates an interest in leveling up my ships, gear, and so on then the variation of flora, fauna, etc will not be that big of a deal to me.

To reiterate again, I'm saying that of all the concerns to be raised about this game I'm most worried about running out of things to do that I find fun.  I'm comforted by the loose structure they seem to have placed into the game to not craft a narrative, but to influence a direction for players to head in which it appears new types of planets and animals will present themselves as you progress.  I'm also comforted by the fact that this seems to be a project which the designer is extremely passionate about, with him even going so far to state that he's been dreaming about a game like this since he was a kid.  That's why I'm not too off-put by the unusual marketing decisions he's making; he seems to be making a game he wants to play and is just overly concerned about what the players' experiences will be when they first boot up.

Also, the fact that just what I've seen, even if there's literally nothing else to do, is something I want to play for hours.  Maybe that scenario would relegate this to a game I'd pick up later after the price has dropped, but there it is.  I get you have a different view and opinion though and that's cool too.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 08, 2015, 05:24:42 PM
I should have noted that I added a link to an article from yesterday and a video from today.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on July 08, 2015, 08:15:08 PM
We've seen only the most basic gameplay elements. Walking around, shooting a pig, mining a resource. While that's basically all there is to this type of game, it's the context that makes these actions interesting. We've seen none of that yet.

I'm honestly not all that sure what you mean.  It seems very much like we've seen a ton of context as in there isn't a lot.  There's no story that I'm aware of, multiplayer interactions are not prioritized at all (though they seem to be possible), and there don't even seem to be NPC's to interact with unless you are counting the trading posts which I imagine will simply be text-based interfaces.  The most broader context I've seen was a vague allusion to players cobbling together the history of the galaxy from hints found in ruins and such.

Alright, let me elaborate a bit. Ever play Skyrim? You ask most people, they'll tell you there's a ton of stuff to do in Skyrim, and yeah, there is a staggering number of quests to do and things to discover in that world. But actually if you think about it, you're really only able to do four things: Run around, kill things, pick up items, and talk to NPCs. Those are the only actions you're able to perform. So any and all quests are some combination of these four activities, and it's the story of the quest that gives them context and meaning, thereby making them interesting.

Even the design of the world itself tells stories. You go into a cave, you discover that there are bandits that are using the area close to the entrance as their base, then you go deeper down and you come across some dead bodies, and at the back of the cave is a bunch of monsters lurking in darkness. Not a single word of dialog needs to be spoken to tell you a story about how some bandits set up camp in a cave they didn't know was inhabited by monsters, and some of them ventured too deep inside and got eaten. And again this kind of thing gives context to your exploration and makes it interesting. You're not just exploring some random hole in the ground, you're exploring a den of dangerous, man-eating beasts and the site of tragedy and drama. And it all works because it's hand-crafted by the developers.

Now there's been a lot of work done in recent years in generating vast and beautiful worlds, but there's been basically no work done in generating interesting worlds. I know of no game with a quest generator more sophisticated than "fetch item X from dungeon Y" and "kill monster X in dungeon Y". Skyrim has repeatable generated quests like that, and they're no better than the ones found in Daggerfall, released almost twenty years ago. There's no game that can generate a compelling quest, to say nothing of generating an entire storyline or using environmental storytelling. No Man's Sky won't have a good story generator either, otherwise they'd be talking about it like they're talking about their world generator.

Quote
I took it more as them saying that there's so much content on each planets that a player could plausibly entertain themselves for dozens of hours just there.  Given your statement about diving and slowly increasing tech to access better resources, I imagine that's what they are referring to.  Perhaps each planet has all the resources in the game, but some are excessively difficult to reach.

Possibly. On the other hand, the guy says in the latest video that the star map is a great tool for locating specific resources, so I'm guessing not everything will be found everywhere.

Quote
Quote
This may be the game that prompts me to get a PS4 over a XBone.

Or you could get it for PC and get a much better gaming experience. ;)

I would actually prefer this, but affording a console alone is pushing it for me monetarily at the moment.

If you want to save money, get a PC. If you ferret around a bit, you can build a computer for $350 that will match or exceed the consoles in terms of performance and will save you money in the long run due to games generally being cheaper on PC. Plus it's, y'know, an actual computer that you can use for work and such.

(click to show/hide)

Edit: Had to put video into spoiler. I fucking love it when the preview lies to me that the forum isn't going to embed the damn video, and the noembed tag does nothing.

Quote
That's not what I'm talking about though.  I'm referring to grinding away at enemies to level up.  I'm not a huge RPG nut, but on the SNES I played a few of the classics and quite often I'd just find an area with higher level baddies and just get into battle after battle with the same ones to level up higher than I ought to be at that point in the game.  I'm just saying that so long as the game generates an interest in leveling up my ships, gear, and so on then the variation of flora, fauna, etc will not be that big of a deal to me.

To reiterate again, I'm saying that of all the concerns to be raised about this game I'm most worried about running out of things to do that I find fun.  I'm comforted by the loose structure they seem to have placed into the game to not craft a narrative, but to influence a direction for players to head in which it appears new types of planets and animals will present themselves as you progress.  I'm also comforted by the fact that this seems to be a project which the designer is extremely passionate about, with him even going so far to state that he's been dreaming about a game like this since he was a kid.  That's why I'm not too off-put by the unusual marketing decisions he's making; he seems to be making a game he wants to play and is just overly concerned about what the players' experiences will be when they first boot up.

Also, the fact that just what I've seen, even if there's literally nothing else to do, is something I want to play for hours.  Maybe that scenario would relegate this to a game I'd pick up later after the price has dropped, but there it is.  I get you have a different view and opinion though and that's cool too.

Sure, I get that. Again I'm reminded of Starbound, which is basically exactly as you described. The thing is, though... will it generate an interest in leveling up your ships, gear, and so on? I have my doubts about that. For me there are basically two reasons to play a game: Story and gameplay. Skyrim I play for the story; the combat system sucks and it's just something I put up with while exploring the interesting world and its stories. Dark Souls I play for the gameplay; fighting enemies is where the fun is. But NMS is not going to be heavy on story, as far as we know, and it's a first-person shooter on console, so the combat is going to suck. I'm really curious how exactly they intend to generate interest and drive players to progress in the game.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 09, 2015, 02:10:50 AM
I hear you, but I think comparing this to Skyrim is not the right way to go.  Skyrim is, as you say, quite story based where without the narrative it's nothing and NMS seems to be precisely the opposite; being gameplay-based where if that fails to be entertaining and fun it's nothing.  Both seem to have RPG elements, but what end the upgrades serve seems to be completely different.  Just based on what they've said so far, I feel pretty confident that they've established the galactic core as the central element to keep you upgrading and advancing. 

At this point, based on some hints they've dropped, I'm wondering if maybe they haven't created some sort of narrative or mythological skeleton in the game as well.  Perhaps some of the story elements are generated randomly (in which case, I'd agree with you that it'll probably be dumb), but I'm speculating that they instead crafted bits and pieces of narrative/mythological hints and clues that have been scattered randomly throughout the galaxy, but as you progress closer to the core the clues and hints progress your understanding in a generally linear fashion.

I think that this game, as it's been presented so far, can really only evoke an interest in leveling up and progressing through the game in a couple of ways.  Either the universe truly provides a simulated reality so complex and diverse that we care about finding new creatures, planets, and resources and that becomes simpler with more easily available resources the closer to the core you get, or the gameplay offers enough diversity of experience that you want to advance your abilities via better resources and so on.

Again though, I just want to stress that I'm not buying all the hype that they are spinning without reserve.  I see many of the same issues you're pointing out and am wondering how the game makers are going to pull off meeting the expectations they've set up.  The difference between you and I suspect is simply that based solely on the gameplay videos I've seen so far, I'm next to certain that this game will be amazing to me for a small amount of time, at least a dozen or so hours.  That experience is extremely alluring to me, even if it does get stale and I wouldn't regret owning the game in that case.  Since, I'm already at that point, I'm perhaps a bit more optimistic (or maybe more apathetic) about the lofty ideas they are spouting.



Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on July 09, 2015, 07:48:12 AM
The difference between you and I suspect is simply that based solely on the gameplay videos I've seen so far, I'm next to certain that this game will be amazing to me for a small amount of time, at least a dozen or so hours.  That experience is extremely alluring to me, even if it does get stale and I wouldn't regret owning the game in that case.

Oh I'm with you 100% on that. I'm probably not going to buy it at full price if that's the case, mind you. I've been spoiled by the likes of Skyrim and Terraria, which offer hundreds and hundreds of hours of entertainment for a few bucks, so it's difficult for me to justify dropping €60 on something that last twelve hours. But I'm definitely going to pick it up at some point if it turns out at least decent.

Quote
Since, I'm already at that point, I'm perhaps a bit more optimistic (or maybe more apathetic) about the lofty ideas they are spouting.

That's where I'm the opposite of you. Since this is a game I'm interested in, I'm hypercritical of everything they say and show. I want this game to be good, and it worries me a lot that what they're showing so far doesn't really seem all that great.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 09, 2015, 07:59:03 AM
Well, we definitely agree that there's cause for skepticism of their claims and cause for applying caution and patience before throwing money at the computer screen.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 14, 2015, 05:36:20 AM
Added another video to the original post.  Not much in the way of content, just some basic history behind the development.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 18, 2015, 12:28:20 AM
Updated with another video.  This one shows 5 planets they say they chose at random and briefly describe them.  Probably far too briefly to really get a good idea about what they are like in any detail unfortunately.  Getting tired of nothing being very in-depth...
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Beleth on July 24, 2015, 02:04:13 PM
Anyone else notice the odd color palette NMS uses?

It looks unnatural (IMO) for space scene yet at the same time strangely familiar. And then it struck me: it's the color palette old pulp sci-fi paperbacks used for their covers.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/3021581693_512d3f3bdd_o.jpg) (https://www.blackgate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Space-Viking.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4Ysc6KqqAlA/TrOzwIKtvDI/AAAAAAAAK_0/jZAFh8l1e64/s1600/scifi-paperback128916162244353.jpeg) (http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma49elgK0i1qagrc1o1_400.jpg)
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Redamare on July 24, 2015, 02:41:06 PM
That's one thing that struck me right away, but then again I am a lit nerd. It's actually still a popular color palette for science fiction art.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 04, 2016, 05:34:33 AM
They just announced the release date as June 21st of this year! (http://blog.us.playstation.com/2016/03/03/no-mans-sky-launching-june-21st-on-ps4/)

Also, they gave a bunch of gaming sites a 30 minutes, hands-on demo where they could more or less do what they wanted.  It was enhanced a bit so that they could experience "5 hours of content in 30 minutes," so it's not 100% indicative of the game experience, but since each demo was randomly generated, each demo provided a bunch of unique experiences with plenty of unique tidbits filtering in to give a better overall picture of the game in general.  I found a great reddit post consolidating a bunch of comments from different sites and news outlets which I highly recommend checking out here (https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/48w5f4/put_together_a_bunch_of_quotes_from_the_new/).  Some highlights to mention:

Quote
  • An unknown number of races and factions exist in this universe, and members of each will speak to you in their own language. The text is gobbledegook at first, which means that decision-tree conversations can only commence if you make wild guesses.
  • However, dotted across each planet are monoliths. These giant tablets with alien calligraphy function like the Rosetta Stone. Discovering them will further increase your language skills, meaning that more of each race's speech text will be translated into English. At some point you will be able to make calculated guesses about what each faction representative is saying to you ("Can XXX XX offering XX XXX technology?"), and later your conversations will be fluent.
  • Monoliths also teach you some lore about each race. Additionally, sleeping in front of them will restore your health.
  • Each race has its own technologies, such as different types of ships and suits. The only creature I encountered appeared to be an android, and my guess is that it was in awe of my presence.
  • When conversing, choosing the right option can make races happy. Frequent interactions can raise your reputation within each faction. Friendly factions can open up trading options, and even offer items such as upgraded weapons. The races who you befriend will help you in their own specialised field--one could be skilled in the sciences, for example, meaning your bond will increase some of your tech skills.
  • Players have a standing with each of the races, who have their own relationships and rivalries with each other, much like in Civilization.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/how-to-play-no-mans-sky-a-detailed-breakdown/1100-6435316/
Quote
Sean goes onto explain that there is real value in developing relationships with these characters. If you make the effort to learn the language of a particular race and interact with them regularly, your standing with them will increase. If you’re tight with a particular race, they’ll duly give you preferential treatment – cheaper prices perhaps, or better equipment. Indeed, if you want to buy a better ship that might allow you to travel to more distant star systems, you’ll need to cosy up with these factions.
“If you’re playing the game for exploration’s sake, you might want to focus on that race. But if you’re playing the game and all you want to do is kill things, there are more military-based races, so you might want to try and become friends with them.”

...

“Having said that, being No Man’s Sky, there is a procedural element to your interactions. The AI you talk to will know the name of the planet you’re on and will reference it. They’ll reference wanting certain things based on the environment they’re in. They’ll know if it’s cold, or hot, or whatever. You’ll see a reasonable amount of variety – it’s not just pre-baked dialogue.”
Before all of you who failed French class at school start getting a little nervous, No Man’s Sky is not expecting you to learn complex grammar, syntax, verb forms, pronunciation and so forth. To take a simplistic view of it, the languages are more like codes to decipher – generally speaking, you’re simply replacing a word for a word. That was a deliberate decision, made in order to foster a sense of collaboration and coordination amongst the game’s community of players. If you figure out what a particular word means, you can paste it up online and share the knowledge.
“Some of the languages – well, one in particular – is much harder to learn than the others,” Sean adds. “I think it will probably only be possible for people to decipher some of the dialogue by working together online.

https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2016/03/03/how-no-mans-sky-fills-its-universe-with-lore-language-and-intelligent-life/

Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: EvilNick on March 04, 2016, 11:20:10 AM
I hope this game works with Playstation VR.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 04, 2016, 04:30:14 PM
I hope this game works with Playstation VR.

That's the rumor, though unless I missed something it hasn't been mentioned by the developer.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: arthwollipot on March 04, 2016, 06:46:53 PM
There is no way I will have a system capable of playing this game :(
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on March 04, 2016, 08:43:24 PM
If it runs on a Playstation, it'll run on a toaster. :P
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: arthwollipot on March 04, 2016, 08:59:25 PM
Seriously now - is there any chance that this game will run on a PS3?

No. There is no chance that this game will run on a PS3.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on March 05, 2016, 07:03:13 AM
Did I say anything about it running on a PS3? No. I did not say anything about it running on a PS3.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: arthwollipot on March 05, 2016, 07:34:15 PM
Evidently it's easier to get a game to run on a toaster than it is to get it to run on a PS3.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on March 05, 2016, 08:42:29 PM
Are you familiar with the concept of hyperbole?
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: arthwollipot on March 05, 2016, 08:59:05 PM
Oh yeah, I've only been told about it like a hundred times.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on April 11, 2016, 06:20:18 PM
New video, 20 minutes of uninterrupted gameplay: http://www.ign.com/videos/2016/04/11/no-mans-sky-21-minutes-of-new-gameplay-ign-first

I feel a strange sense of deja vu...

The game looks interesting but I really hate how slowly they're revealing it. Those 18 minutes of uninterrupted gameplay had maybe like 30 seconds of new stuff, otherwise it was just things we've already seen.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on April 11, 2016, 08:20:28 PM
I'll check it out later for sure, but they've said a few times that it takes 3-4 hours to really get started. 
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: arthwollipot on April 11, 2016, 08:48:05 PM
They've started advertising it for preorder in the games shops locally. If only I had a machine that was capable of running it.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on April 20, 2016, 10:45:06 PM
Well, IGN is doing a second month of deeper coverage of this game (A first for them I believe) and has finally gone more in depth with what exactly the experience will be like.  First, here are the videos they've released so far this month:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-uMFHoF8VA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it_9pUYO2AY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnKJyoyIIk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTRi2aEJrgQ
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on April 20, 2016, 11:00:56 PM
I won't say that I'm super duper impressed, but it's definitely left me with a slightly better feeling about the game than I had before.  I at least feel a bit more confident that I'll be hooked whenever I play it, if nothing else.  I'd say that I'm definitely getting the feeling that surviving is going to be more of a challenge than they've really made clear before as it seems like just about everything is going to kill you and as it seems like a lot of the necessary gear is not simple to come by.  The one thing that has really made me question this game though is the idea that simply mining for resources gives you a wanted level and that you can get some pretty tough baddies coming after you for doing so.  Maybe that will make it more interesting in the long run since you then get to weigh mining against raiding and trading in terms of risk and reward, but it makes me feel like doing anything might be a bit of a drag.  I have heard a couple of mentions though that perhaps Sentinel presence will vary from planet to planet, perhaps giving you incentive to visit harsher planets more often with cushier planets being more about trading and/or smashing and dashing.

The other thing that I'm curious about is the penalties for dying.  If survival is the focus, I really want to know that there will actually be good incentive to survive rather than just risking everything with no consequences.  Now obviously, they cannot make this a rougelike by starting you over every time you die (though that would make an interesting way to play the game), but I'm really hoping that you do more than just losing what you collected before saving.

One thing I will say excites me more and more now, is the fact that everything stems from collecting resources and crafting or trading with them.  I like the idea that ammo, shields, fuel, and so on are not just "drops" but actual items with value that you must earn.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on May 27, 2016, 08:02:29 PM
No Man's Sky delayed to August (http://www.polygon.com/2016/5/27/11800872/no-mans-sky-delayed-new-release-date?utm_campaign=polygon&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter)

Hello Games' ambitious space exploration game No Man's Sky has been delayed beyond its previously announced June 21 release date. The PlayStation 4 and Windows PC game is now expected to arrive Aug. 9.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Enkidu on May 28, 2016, 11:52:29 AM
I can't help but feel NMS is going to be a huge let down. It promises more than I think can be delivered, and the bizarre decision to (effectively) remove player-created content (in the form of, you know, other players) . . . nope.

Nope nope nope.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on May 28, 2016, 12:38:41 PM
the bizarre decision to (effectively) remove player-created content (in the form of, you know, other players)

Wait, what? They did that? Then what's the bloody point of the game, then!? I thought it was about exploring a vast universe together with other players and hoping against hope that you might actually bump into one at some point. My skepticism of this title is now deeper than ever.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Rai on May 28, 2016, 01:32:01 PM
the bizarre decision to (effectively) remove player-created content (in the form of, you know, other players)

Wait, what? They did that? Then what's the bloody point of the game, then!? I thought it was about exploring a vast universe together with other players and hoping against hope that you might actually bump into one at some point. My skepticism of this title is now deeper than ever.

I am happy with not having other players. Nothing breaks immersion like exploring the galaxy and then bumping into a 10 year-old who calls you a faggot in flowery Polish.

That being said, I am not convinced that this won't be the Spore of the current game generation. We shall see.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Enkidu on May 28, 2016, 01:40:38 PM
the bizarre decision to (effectively) remove player-created content (in the form of, you know, other players)

Wait, what? They did that? Then what's the bloody point of the game, then!? I thought it was about exploring a vast universe together with other players and hoping against hope that you might actually bump into one at some point. My skepticism of this title is now deeper than ever.

There is an infinitesimal chance that you might bump into ONE player at some point eventually, but super unlikely that you will ever bump into a second. It is functionally single player. I get what rai is saying about ten year olds and all, but there isn't any reason why they couldn't implement a way for you to control who you interact with (like maybe you can build a stargate that connects you to a system where a friend you already know is located).

And yeah, it smells a lot like Spore to me; it's promising a lot, and I just can't help feeling it's going to get boring very fast.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on May 28, 2016, 01:45:42 PM
Spore is a good comparison, yeah, but I'm thinking more of Daggerfall. Huge pre-release hype, massive procedural open world where every place is technically unique but in practical terms indistinguishable from any other place, the ability to do the same quest over and over and over just in different (indistinguishable) locations, etc. The only thing I'm wondering about is whether it's also going to be riddled with game-breaking bugs like Daggerfall was. I guess we won't know until it actually comes out. There's a reason why Bethesda abandoned the procedural world idea in favor of a hand-crafted experience, and I have a feeling history is about to repeat itself here.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Rai on May 28, 2016, 02:03:00 PM
Spore is a good comparison, yeah, but I'm thinking more of Daggerfall. Huge pre-release hype, massive procedural open world where every place is technically unique but in practical terms indistinguishable from any other place, the ability to do the same quest over and over and over just in different (indistinguishable) locations, etc. The only thing I'm wondering about is whether it's also going to be riddled with game-breaking bugs like Daggerfall was. I guess we won't know until it actually comes out. There's a reason why Bethesda abandoned the procedural world idea in favor of a hand-crafted experience, and I have a feeling history is about to repeat itself here.

Yeah... I am really not a fan of procedurally generated environments, they are always extremely shallow and repetitive, with the exception of Dwarf Fortress, but due to the limitations imposed by stuff like fancy graphics, I don't think No Man's Sky will go that way.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on May 28, 2016, 05:29:16 PM
Yeah, Dwarf Fortress is the only game that really does procedural generation well. I remember I said earlier in the thread that nobody has managed to make a generator of interesting worlds and stories yet. I completely forgot about DF when I said that, DF does exactly that. But then DF is an insane game made by an insane dude, and it's got its own share of problems and design faults, some of them extremely severe. And yeah, I don't see NMS having anywhere near that amount of depth and complexity.

Then again I did enjoy Daggerfall a great deal, even though I never actually finished it, so maybe I'll enjoy NMS too.

I really should go back and finish Daggerfall one of these decades...
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: arthwollipot on May 28, 2016, 08:03:15 PM
To me, World of Warcraft would have been quite a decent quest game if it weren't for all those other players. Having other players in a game is absolutely a negative thing for me, and I avoid all MMORPGs like the Andorrian Plague. I have never had a positive experience in multiplayer games. I don't think it's possible. In NMS, however, the fact that there are other players there, with a tiny but nonzero possibility of encountering them, opens up some possibilities that intrigue me.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Redamare on May 28, 2016, 08:13:04 PM
So is there a story mode in NMS? I'm not huge on multiplayer games either, but I assumed this was supposed to be kind of like EVE Online.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: arthwollipot on May 28, 2016, 08:15:09 PM
Well, as far as I know the basic idea is that you're supposed to locate the centre of the galaxy. If everyone's doing that, it's pretty much inevitable that they're going to encounter each other when they get there.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Redamare on May 28, 2016, 08:19:50 PM
Do we have some idea what your motivation is to find it?
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: SkeptiQueer on May 29, 2016, 02:51:13 AM
Do we have some idea what your motivation is to find it?
Popping one in god's gobber?
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on May 29, 2016, 04:02:05 AM
It will be the size of a literal galaxy.  As I understand it, reaching the "center" will not be possible in several lifetimes.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Guillermo on May 29, 2016, 10:36:03 AM
I like the concept of this game. And am quite interested in it.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 30, 2016, 04:14:32 AM
It will be the size of a literal galaxy.  As I understand it, reaching the "center" will not be possible in several lifetimes.

There are going to be 17+ quintillion planets in this game.  It's a universe, not a galaxy.  That said, they've designed it so that reaching the center of it is the main goal and have said that they believe it will take between 40-100 hours to reach it.  Basically, I believe that upgrading your ships and increasing your standing with various races you trade with will facilitate longer and longer jumps between systems, making the long journey actually feasible.

So with regards to multiplayer, here's a sweet and short summary of how it will work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWWofgYPJPw&index=5&list=PLqeGBos7lVaE1BZPu5eZLsujrIC7_bogp

Long story short, the game is designed for multiplayer interactions, but the odds of randomly finding another actual, real person are incredibly, infinitesimally small and actually trying to find your friends will be a pretty monumental task, though technically doable.

With regards to the new delay, I'm wondering if it doesn't have something to do with their unique development process.  So far as I understand it, since they are not hand designing anything and have left how the game generates places and animals wide open to produce random and unexpected results (like fish-like creatures flying through the air over land and land-like creatures existing under water for instance), there are a lot of unintended glitches and undesirable outcomes that they have to sort out.  I saw an interview somewhere with Sean Murray (the creator), where he said that each programmer is working on their own server and making all sorts of changes which then get grouped into a larger, more final version.  At each step, they basically have to explore large sample sizes of planets and so on to see what is actually generating and to make sure that it is conforming to the experience they are creating.  To my mind, this seems like exactly the kind of thing that would explain their reluctance to give even a launch window at first, and then to delay the game repeatedly once they did.  Part of me is worried about how this may effect the final game, but the other part of me is kinda giddy at the prospect of actually finding rare and bizarre glitches and sharing it online.  Ironically, the things they are working to sort out may end up engendering more zeal to explore than all the animals and planets they intended combined.

That said, the more I watch and read about this game, the more I'm excited about it, and the less I'm worried.  The channel of the above video shares a lot of interesting things about the game that you may have missed, but it seems like there is going to be far more of a story than we'd been led to believe (though still one found by discovering things rather than cut-scenes and narration), and even though they've said that multiplayer is not really a thing I'm getting more and more convinced that it will become a thing the closer to the center we all get since the space between us all will be reduced, regardless of the size of the universe.  Also, I've kinda settled on at least trying to play the game like it has a permadeath, which I feel will add an extra layer of depth to every decision I make and as long as I don't just die right off the bat, could prove to be really cool.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Gerbig on June 01, 2016, 10:17:55 AM
https://youtu.be/7K6t77a9Rw0
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 14, 2016, 05:32:34 PM
Some  updates for the unaware.  The Game went gold recently so August 9th is now solidly the release date.  Also, they just released another (and final?)  trailer which shows off a lot of visual upgrades over the footage we've seen previously.  I've preordered it which is something I never do, but in this case I think the combination of the small size of the team and the gargantuanly ambitious nature of the game deserves it.  I want more projects that take risks like this and less safe bets.  This is one time that I am happy to put my money where my mouth is.

https://youtu.be/7AVmI73va4g
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Dan I on July 15, 2016, 09:23:32 AM
Question. Are most people planning to get this on PS4 or PC? Right now I only have a joystick though I do hope to get a HOTAS system for my PC soon. But I'm wondering if the larger TV would be better (I'm generally not much of a graphics hound and haven't felt the need to update my monitor in many years, so I'm still running a 1600x900 DVI monitor which works perfectly fine).
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Guillermo on July 15, 2016, 10:52:59 AM
If I get this game, which is a high probablility, it will be for the PS4.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on July 15, 2016, 11:50:45 AM
Question. Are most people planning to get this on PS4 or PC? Right now I only have a joystick though I do hope to get a HOTAS system for my PC soon. But I'm wondering if the larger TV would be better (I'm generally not much of a graphics hound and haven't felt the need to update my monitor in many years, so I'm still running a 1600x900 DVI monitor which works perfectly fine).

PC for me
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 15, 2016, 11:20:13 PM
PS4, I don't have a PC that can run this and don't plan on getting one anytime soon. 
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Henning on July 16, 2016, 09:51:03 PM
PC master race for me.
I keep my shit upgraded for work. Be a shame not to use it.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on July 27, 2016, 12:24:17 PM
Definitely PC. The pop-in is going to be legendary on the Playstation, plus joystick for flying and mouse and keyboard for running around on foot is going to be much better than a controller for both.

In other news, a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jpHldhY_V0

I have one question. Why do they have Glados as the AI voice? Seems a bit uncreative, no?

Oh, and there's a sea creature with a horizontal tail like that of a whale, but it moves it side to side like a fish. Given that this is promotional footage that is heavily scrutinized and edited to exclude anything that doesn't look good, this tells me they consider this one of the lifeform generator's better creations. Which in turn tells me that its regular, everyday creations unfiltered by the PR department are going to include some truly bizarre and nonsensical things.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 30, 2016, 01:33:36 AM
Just an FYI, apparently someone paid a bunch of money for a leaked copy of the game and has been uploading footage.  It also keeps getting taken down pretty quick, though I'm sure if you search you can find an active mirror.  I'm actively avoiding it, but a lot of people are saying it's really making them feel a lot more confident about the game.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on July 30, 2016, 02:00:44 AM
I'm solidly past minimum requirements, but not quite to recommended specs.  Hopefully, my PC runs it ok.

My box:
(http://i.imgur.com/Vwxf0Kc.png)
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on August 02, 2016, 12:59:20 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hth6_5kuAU
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on August 07, 2016, 02:55:06 PM
PC Launch pushed to 12 Aug.  This is a good thing IMO.  If it needs a couple extra days to make me not unhappy, take it.  PS4 Launch remains 9 Aug from my understanding.

(http://i.imgur.com/hpxiTtr.png)

Also, Day 1 patch will invalidate previous leaked copy's play through:
http://www.no-mans-sky.com/2016/08/update-1-03/

Quote
Beware these notes contain some spoilers. Here are some things our little team has been up to over the last four or five weeks:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Dan I on August 11, 2016, 12:00:30 PM
So I've spent a few hours with this on PS4 and I have to say it is unique and definitely fun.

Basically it starts with you crash landed on a planet and the "tutorial" is effectively it walking you through collecting the things you need to fix your equipment and ship. It seems to deliberately place some of what you need to get far away to encourage you to move away from your starting area and explore some. So currently I'm a good distance away from where I need to hoof it back to.

Thing is, I'm enjoying wandering around the planet. I'm sort of drifting in the general direction of my ship but every so often I'll press the "scan area" button which then highlights a bunch of resource points or things and I'll go "Huh, that's a different icon, what's that mean?" And go off on some long detour to check it out. Or I'll just see some feature off to the side and decide "Let's check that out."

My one knock, and I've seen this a few places, is that your inventory space is EXTREMELY limited at first. That's definitely annoying because you need to carry a lot of stuff to keep yourself going.

For example:

You need "Isotope" type items to recharge your life support and mining tool. On my starting planet (and I'm guessing this is true for most people) that comes in the form of "Carbon." Basically you use your mining tool to destroy plant life and you collect Carbon from it. You also need Iron, and other elements to repair your gear and your ship (all of which starts "critically damaged" as part of the "fix your stuff" tutorial).

Right now, it's not THAT bad because I really only need carbon to keep myself going (your life support drains steadily but slowly, your mining tool uses energy pretty quickly).

But the game has kept me on the starting planet for several ours largely because there's stuff I WANT to go look at and not because it's forcing me to stay. If I beelined the tutorial I probably could have gotten off planet within the first 1.5-2 hours of the game. As it is I'm about 6 hours in and have chosen not to leave yet.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Captain Video on August 13, 2016, 04:06:32 PM
Not a lot of happiness reported on the PC side of this game. Anyone have anything good to say yet?
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Rai on August 13, 2016, 05:17:22 PM
I haven't heard too much greatness either, but a lot about how shallow and repetitive it is, like any other procedurally generated game.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on August 13, 2016, 06:16:12 PM
I'm enjoying the game.  Did not have the same problems most did I guess.

Gameplay is light, almost a walking sim in space.  The vistas are pretty, and the planets quite varied.  The story mode sets the progression through the galaxy, and is just mysterious enough to keep my interest.

About 7 hours in.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on August 13, 2016, 06:24:57 PM
I'm enjoying the game quite a bit and I'm closer to 15 hours in.  I don't see it holding my attention for the 100 hours that Hello Games said it could take to get to the center of the universe unless major updates come out in the meantime.

Yes, the game is repetitive, but I really am enjoying exploring each planet and upgrading my stuff in spite of some annoying glitches and design choices.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on August 15, 2016, 03:25:21 AM
Played over the weekend, 20 hours in.

Still really enjoying the game, exploration is fun, and planets varied enough that I still get a sense of wonder from exploration.  The outpost types are a bit repetitive, but I am still compelled to seek out monoliths and colony outposts.  I know the most about the robot species.

Annoying bugs: sometimes when launching I shoot up past the atmosphere.  Once I called my ship, and it launched me very far way.  FPS is holding steady, no really bugs.  Been watching Youtube and Netflix while playing, have some stutter on my videos at time, but nothing too bad.

Not regretting my $60 outlay in the least.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Ambious on August 15, 2016, 03:39:34 AM
This game has a very steep learning curve, in the sense that it doesn't tell you shit and you have to figure out most of it all on your own.
Also, it was working fine for me for a long while (~6 hours) before the FPS drops started happening.
Still, it's a very interesting game - despite being, perhaps - a bit... grindy and/or boring?
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on August 15, 2016, 11:29:52 AM
Definitely grindy.  Not boring to me, at least not yet.  Learning about the various races, the progression of my exosuite and mutli-tool, gathering new tech, and finally get 1.7M units to afford a decent ship is keeping me entertained for now.  We'll see how long that lasts.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: teethering on August 15, 2016, 01:29:04 PM
Crendor captures the sense I get from the reviews very aptly by calling it "a decent $25 early access game".  That's exactly where I sense the game is at.

I might pick it up when it's discounted deep enough to be around that price level.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on August 15, 2016, 05:05:28 PM
Yeah, that's what I get from reading people's reactions to it. Remember when I said that I suspect they're not showing much because they don't have much to show? Guess who's feeling vindicated right about now. ;)

Oh, and also:

Oh, and there's a sea creature with a horizontal tail like that of a whale, but it moves it side to side like a fish. Given that this is promotional footage that is heavily scrutinized and edited to exclude anything that doesn't look good, this tells me they consider this one of the lifeform generator's better creations. Which in turn tells me that its regular, everyday creations unfiltered by the PR department are going to include some truly bizarre and nonsensical things.

Well guess what:

https://twitter.com/Britbongreturns/status/765190830894317568
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Ambious on August 15, 2016, 06:25:34 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/CbQFo9X.png)
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: teethering on August 15, 2016, 06:25:53 PM
Yeah, that's definitely very Spore-like.  All cosmetics, none of the functional diversity.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: teethering on August 15, 2016, 06:29:41 PM
The biggest problem with Spore was that, probably due to unrealistic ambition, all the variety of things in the same that you could do turned out to be almost entirely cosmetic.  This is something that could turn out to be underneath No Man's Sky promise of an entire universe chockfull of different things to discover.  This is a matter of how much of your development resources do you dedicate to what.  I suspect Spore developers had to spread their resources too thin to develop each era, which as you say turned each into a rather shallow minigame.  If the resources on No Man's Sky are going into creating their own table of elements and crap like that I'm extremely skeptical they can create the tight enough gameplay in trading, combat and exploration; things that are challenging in themselves already.  I'm wary of extreme ambition.  I'm also wary of a game that's being hyped at a point where there's no real gameplay yet and just talking about ambition and procedurally generated content, because that's exactly what happened with Spore as well.

Nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong this time.

While we're on the self-quoting bandwagon... I won't call this vindication quite yet, not until I personally play the game, but my reading of the reactions seems to be matching my early concerns.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Andrew Clunn on August 15, 2016, 06:33:39 PM
Procedurally generated content!  Open world with infinite possibilities!  User generated content!

Note to developers, "world discovery" will never be the same as "world building."
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: teethering on August 16, 2016, 12:40:07 PM
I'm not as down on procedurally generated content and open world concepts, for example Dwarf Fortress is procedurally generated and it's pretty damn good.  Open world tends to be more problematic and I can't think of a single example where it really works well (maaaaybe the old Freelancer games).

But yeah, it can't be the main focus of a game.  You have to get the gameplay down first and this game seems like the gameplay is just an afterthought to the cool "brazillion planets to explore" tech.

That being said, I've heard a few reviewers remark that the tech works rather well, which makes me hopeful that a real game could be built on top of it some day.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Ambious on August 16, 2016, 01:06:50 PM
I just landed on a planet that's entirely populated by different sizes of sentient hopping pineapples.
This is the funniest thing I've seen yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLo0L8q7DSc
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Redamare on August 16, 2016, 02:12:21 PM
They should have consulted with an evolutionary biologist.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on August 16, 2016, 03:06:30 PM
One of those things is clearly a clump of mushrooms rather than a pineapple. I feel I've had my expectations built up and then betrayed. Again.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on August 16, 2016, 04:01:09 PM
Not sure I have ever seen you have high expectations for this Sordid.  That is revising your previous expression of expecting the gamer to specific NOT meet the hype....you don't get top play the pessimist, then act as though you were expecting great things.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Gerbig on August 16, 2016, 04:06:17 PM
Do people not want weird looking animals? Is that the complaint?
Have they turned on the discovery channel? Animals look weird dude.

Procedurally generated weirdness is not any more weird than what nature has produced in real life.

Do you want realism or to be beaten over the head with creatures (only the good looking ones though).

I dont get that complaint.

Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: SQ the ΣΛ/IGMд on August 16, 2016, 04:47:58 PM
I might pick it up when it's discounted deep enough to be around that price level.
This ^
My interest is peaked but not enough to run out and buy it just yet.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Redamare on August 16, 2016, 07:29:25 PM
It's not that they are weird looking. It's that they aren't plausible. A limbless bouncing creature that is made of mushroom caps and comes almost up to my waist?
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on August 16, 2016, 08:29:33 PM
Here's a post on Reddit cataloging just about everything we were told would be in the game and wasn't.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/4y046e/wheres_the_nms_we_were_sold_on_heres_a_big_list/

For the first time, I am actually starting to get a little angry as I didn't realize how much of my excitement was based on things they didn't even remotely deliver.  I am still enjoying the game, but this just drove home for me how empty the game really is compared to what it could have been.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on August 17, 2016, 12:09:10 AM
Not sure I have ever seen you have high expectations for this Sordid.  That is revising your previous expression of expecting the gamer to specific NOT meet the hype....you don't get top play the pessimist, then act as though you were expecting great things.

It's called a joke. But yeah, it would be more accurate to say that my hopes were betrayed rather than my expectations. Believe it or not I'm not happy that it turned out the way it did. I can't deny feeling a significant level of satisfaction about being right about pretty much everything right from the get go, though. I believe I've already gloated about that.

It's not that they are weird looking. It's that they aren't plausible. A limbless bouncing creature that is made of mushroom caps and comes almost up to my waist?

It's a videogame with interstellar FTL spaceships the size of Volkswagens and plants that bear fruit made of plutonium.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: teethering on August 17, 2016, 12:11:46 AM
I might pick it up when it's discounted deep enough to be around that price level.
This ^
My interest is peaked but not enough to run out and buy it just yet.

sorry...

piqued...
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Rai on August 17, 2016, 10:54:02 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvAwB7ogkik
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: teethering on August 17, 2016, 01:00:37 PM
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Comics/Pa-comics/n-xmQS5/i-WmKP2FR/0/2100x20000/i-WmKP2FR-2100x20000.jpg)
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Henning on August 20, 2016, 03:49:41 PM
I am not that happy with it... but I'm still in 24 hours or so.
On my PC, I have to restart every hour or so when the frame rate arbitrarily drops and things get slow as molasses.

Yes, it's dreadfully samey... caves look pretty much the same on every planet, outposts and alien interactions are exactly the same, planets are getting pretty much the same, but with different colors and ground covering. I saw one planet that looked like gnarly roots were growing over it, but the roots were made of rock, that was kinda neat.
The main samey-ness that's disappointing me is how everything is evenly distributed. Random, procedural generation could be cool, but you have to send the randomness through some sort of evolutionary process, it has to clump up, feed back on itself, otherwise you just have a bland noise pattern. You get peaks and valleys in the terrain, but no giant mountain ranges or plunging canyons. No continents, no landmarks... nothing memorable. You get alien habitations or other points of interest conveniently all about a minute away from each other no matter where you happen to drop out of the sky. You get crystals and other resources evenly strewn about the landscape so you're guaranteed not to run out, but you'll also never make a bonanza... you HAVE to grind.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Dan I on August 21, 2016, 07:44:07 AM
Here's a post on Reddit cataloging just about everything we were told would be in the game and wasn't.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/4y046e/wheres_the_nms_we_were_sold_on_heres_a_big_list/

For the first time, I am actually starting to get a little angry as I didn't realize how much of my excitement was based on things they didn't even remotely deliver.  I am still enjoying the game, but this just drove home for me how empty the game really is compared to what it could have been.

That list has since been deleted because it was WILDLY inaccurate. A lot of the quotes couldn't be sourced and a lot of the "promised features" were actually shown to be wild speculation based on something a dev kind of said they'd LIKE to do at some point or hinted MIGHT be possible at some point which the internet turned into "No Man's Sky Promised to have X"

If you actually go back and pay attention to what they dev's actually SAID the game is basically exactly what was promised.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on August 21, 2016, 06:51:19 PM
Here's a post on Reddit cataloging just about everything we were told would be in the game and wasn't.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/4y046e/wheres_the_nms_we_were_sold_on_heres_a_big_list/

For the first time, I am actually starting to get a little angry as I didn't realize how much of my excitement was based on things they didn't even remotely deliver.  I am still enjoying the game, but this just drove home for me how empty the game really is compared to what it could have been.

That list has since been deleted because it was WILDLY inaccurate. A lot of the quotes couldn't be sourced and a lot of the "promised features" were actually shown to be wild speculation based on something a dev kind of said they'd LIKE to do at some point or hinted MIGHT be possible at some point which the internet turned into "No Man's Sky Promised to have X"

If you actually go back and pay attention to what they dev's actually SAID the game is basically exactly what was promised.

Well, the top comment states that the mods did not delete the post and that in fact OP deleted their account, probably because of the PMs they were getting, but I don't think it's publicly known why. 

That aside, I wasn't really referring to the quotes from Sean and others in terms of not delivering.  In fact, up until that post was made, I was defending the developer on the same points you were making, especially in terms of people bitching about no multiplayer.  What made me upset was reviewing a lot of the videos which show things that didn't show up.  Crashed capital ships, large buildings, complex relationships and alliances with aliens, large scale battles between races that you can engage in, swarms of sentinels posing a real threat, and on and on. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that I am hateful or anything, I'm just a little let down. 
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: teethering on August 22, 2016, 02:15:25 PM
Footage of Star Citizen is looking ... interesting.  I feel like that's another super-ambitious game that may or may not deliver on its promises, but I'm at least more hopeful as they seem to be focused on gameplay.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Rai on August 22, 2016, 02:48:29 PM
Footage of Star Citizen is looking ... interesting.  I feel like that's another super-ambitious game that may or may not deliver on its promises, but I'm at least more hopeful as they seem to be focused on gameplay.

Star Citizen is WAAAAY worse. They have been raking in astronomical amounts of money (over 100 million USD) on kickstarter and selling pre-order ships (some for thousands of dollars per ship) that people can look at in hangars with the promise that they will be able to do all kinds of amazing things with them sometime in the future.

Meanwhile the game has been in pre-alpha stage for about four years (it was supposed to have been completed and shipped in 2016 )and currently it has no gameplay whatsoever. It is promising to have FPS, space sim, trading, single player and multiplayer withh every other kind of genre gameplay with the possible exception of climbing a construction site to save a princess while avoiding barrels thrown by an angry gorilla, but now it is slowly reaching the stage where players can actually do stuff.

At least No Man's Sky wasn't a gigantic scam that some suckers paid up to 15,000 USD not to enjoy (maybe not even play) sometime in the uncertain future.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: teethering on August 22, 2016, 04:42:24 PM
As always, I reserve my judgement until the game ships.  But to me the reason why I'm more hopeful about Star Citizen is because (while it is overly ambitious) at least what they're selling you is a promise of concrete gameplay, rather than a promise of procedurally generated asterisk.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Rai on August 22, 2016, 05:03:31 PM
As always, I reserve my judgement until the game ships.  But to me the reason why I'm more hopeful about Star Citizen is because (while it is overly ambitious) at least what they're selling you is a promise of concrete gameplay, rather than a promise of procedurally generated asterisk.

A promise that can cost up to 15000 dollars and may or may not result in something tangible, maybe even before the heat death of the Universe vs an OK, in rare moments quite impressive, if not at all living up to its hype procedurally generated asterisk that you can actually get for 60 bucks.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Dan I on August 22, 2016, 06:31:52 PM
Star Citizen is rapidly approaching the point where they HAVE to release something soon. Recently the company behind it lost a court judgment requiring them to issue a full refund because the game was so delayed and was also "no longer as advertised." People are starting to think about pulling out. And there have been several instances where the company has sneakily changed their TOS to make it harder and harder to get a refund. Every time they do that it just creates the impression of "No, this game is NOT anywhere close to release."
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: arthwollipot on August 23, 2016, 06:33:01 AM
I know a guy who's working on Star Citizen. It's not a scam. They actually plan to have a product at some time in the future.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Dan I on August 23, 2016, 07:35:32 AM
I know a guy who's working on Star Citizen. It's not a scam. They actually plan to have a product at some time in the future.

I don't think its a scam. But Chris Roberts also has something of a Peter Moleneuyx type reputation for massively over-promising and then figuring out that he really CAN'T do what he wants in any kind of reasonable time frame. I think that's what we're seeing with Star Citizen now. Roberts is determined to only release the game when he's satisfied, the problem is that I'm not sure that will ever happen. He wants to add every possible thing he can to make it the ultimate experience. But technology and things keep advancing while he's developing the game so he's constantly seeing new things he wants to add, new features he wants to take advantage of, heck, new PLATFORMS he's like to see the game released on.

I'm not worried it's a scam. I'm worried it's going to collapse under its own weight and end up bought up by EA or Activison who will rush SOMETHING out the door that is a massively watered down version of what was promised.

If the game comes out I'll be on the first to grab it up, but as soon as I saw "Chris Roberts" there was no way I was sinking pre-release money into this thing.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on August 23, 2016, 05:40:26 PM
I put what, $30 into it? Like four years ago? I'm okay with that. It's early access, you don't put money into that that you wouldn't be willing to flush down the toilet. If there are people who are okay with flushing thousands of bucks down the toilet, good for them. I don't really care how long the development takes, and if the game never comes out at all or gets crippled and rushed out the door? I don't really mind either, it's money down the toilet from the start as far as I'm concerned.

That's the healthy way to approach early access IMO.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: teethering on August 23, 2016, 07:57:11 PM
Well, I don't think that's healthy either.  I think early access model is deeply flawed, specifically if/when the company fails to deliver on its promises, either not delivering in a timely manner (the lesser sin) or not delivering at all (the greater sin).

It's a lot easier to create hype than to create good software and it looks like gaming industry is starting to shift focus on making money off of hype by exploiting early access model.  That's not good for making good games.

My take on NMS vs. Star Citizen is that I'd rather have a good product delayed than a product that was really never going to live up to its promises anyway delivered on time.  I think Star Citizen looks like a real game.  NMS looks like a quintillion reskinned walking simulators, but it promised, quite literally, a universe to explore.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on August 23, 2016, 08:44:26 PM
I am OK with NMS releasing in this state, but I wish it was released as a work in progress for $30 instead of as a complete game for $60.  Everything I've read about it screams to me that they fully intended to do the things they promised (for example: multiplayer aspects were clearly removed very close to release as evidenced by European boxes having stickers changing the rating. (http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zYpL7wEr8jSVJ2CxsYZsQ9-650-80.jpg)) but ran into too many issues with all of their ideas and one-by-one, had to pull them from the final release until they had a mostly functional product that could make a release date they'd set.  I also imagine that Sony was very heavily pressuring them to release something/anything on time given their public backing and support of the game and publisher.  I know lot's of people are raging about Sean Murray "lying" to everyone, but I honestly think he meant every word he said and just maybe overestimated their ability to deliver.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: barocon on August 25, 2016, 09:42:09 AM
I don't think NMS would have worked as early access game because as far as I know it doesn't have much replayability.

But I don't think early access is a broken system. Many great games wouldn't have gone far without early access model. Rimworld, Factorio, KSP, Minecraft to name a few. Early access is like social security. Few people may exploit it but that doesn't mean it's a bad system.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on August 25, 2016, 10:37:25 AM
Plenty of people are still enjoying this game in the state it's in and I think that as they add features back i  that they'd pulled before,  people will start playing it again and new people will be more and more likely to pick it up, especially if there's a price drop for the holiday season. Early access to me looks functionally the same to me as what's happening now,  only packaged and priced differently and with more friendly interactions with the studio.  What we have now is a rough shell of a game that is still fun and engaging and with tons of common sense refinements to make and innumerable features that would make a lot of sense to add.  Most importantly, people still want to like this game,  a lot.  You wouldn't have the outrage we are seeing if people didn't buy into the concepts of this game.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: random poet on August 25, 2016, 01:10:54 PM
I read up on this game a lot, and I watched some gameplay videos on youtube. It looks alright, but with all the problems plaguing the PC launch and the very shallow gameplay, I don't think there is enough game there to justify the hype.

It sounds like, at EL said, they took out a bunch of stuff that was there, but not fully done or working, and just launched an empty shell that mostly worked. Hopefully they will keep releasing content as time goes by. Maybe I'll even play it eventually.

This dude seems like he has Peter Molyneux syndrome.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Dan I on August 25, 2016, 02:36:53 PM
I read up on this game a lot, and I watched some gameplay videos on youtube. It looks alright, but with all the problems plaguing the PC launch and the very shallow gameplay, I don't think there is enough game there to justify the hype.

It sounds like, at EL said, they took out a bunch of stuff that was there, but not fully done or working, and just launched an empty shell that mostly worked. Hopefully they will keep releasing content as time goes by. Maybe I'll even play it eventually.

This dude seems like he has Peter Molyneux syndrome.

One thing that is really unclear is how much influence Sony had. There's some thought that they were really pushing for Hello Games to release SOMETHING. They'd sort of gone all in on pushing NMS and Hello Games so they may have exerted outsized influence over the release.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on August 25, 2016, 05:31:55 PM
I would imagine that is the case, but after pushing the game back several times,  Hello Games is hardly blameless. 
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on August 26, 2016, 11:54:49 PM
Oh hey, so remember how one of the biggest selling points of this game was that you could name shit that you discovered? Turns out you probably shouldn't invest too much time into thinking up witty names, because the game will delete them after two weeks anyway (http://www.geek.com/games/no-mans-sky-wipes-your-discoveries-after-two-weeks-1668222/).

My sides.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on August 27, 2016, 12:08:26 AM
Oh hey, so remember how one of the biggest selling points of this game was that you could name shit that you discovered? Turns out you probably shouldn't invest too much time into thinking up witty names, because the game will delete them after two weeks anyway (http://www.geek.com/games/no-mans-sky-wipes-your-discoveries-after-two-weeks-1668222/).

My sides.

Was just on my way to post this.  This is beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.  There was a lot of stuff people were angry about that was at least debatable whether it was a promised feature or whether it's really a big deal that it's not in the game, but this...  This is beyond ridiculous.  This and reaching the center of the galaxy were the PRIMARY selling points of the game and now BOTH have been shown to be completely misrepresented by Hello Games.  Maybe they lied, maybe they just didn't know how to do what they intended, but I am officially past caring anymore.  This is inexcusable.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on August 27, 2016, 01:47:26 AM
Infuriating, I agree.  But, one thing to note, planet and system names remain, it is flora and fauna names that disappear.  Still REALLY f'ing annoying.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on August 27, 2016, 04:10:58 AM
OK.  Looks like the gun may have been jumped in reporting this as fact.  (https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/4zsyx5/psa_your_discoveries_are_not_getting_wiped_after/)  It appears to be a loading issue.  Still not a good thing, but not as bad as being unable to keep your discoveries.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on November 27, 2016, 04:45:04 PM
First  major update enexpectedly rolled
 (http://www.no-mans-sky.com/foundation-update/) out today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI9PvjJJijY

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on November 27, 2016, 07:01:06 PM
Wow.  That's quite a bit.  There's going to be the inevitable guffawing that all of this should have been included at release, blah blah blah, but I like what I see and am going to check it out.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on November 27, 2016, 09:39:05 PM
What I see is guffawing that this adds a bunch of stuff nobody asked for and none of the stuff that was promised for release and not delivered. Fully justified and valid guffawing, I might add. And yet there's also a whole bunch of people defending this game, this update, and this company. Oh how quickly people forget.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on November 28, 2016, 12:22:04 AM
Thanks for the inevitable curmudgeonly reply.  I don't disagree that the game was not ready to be released in the state that it was in at launch.  But the bitching has been made, the game has been launched.  Any further bitching is just more of the same.

I see this release, the first of many planned, as a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on November 28, 2016, 05:37:19 PM
Thanks for the inevitable curmudgeonly reply.

Shall I remind you that I was 100% right about everything regarding this game right from the start?

Quote
I see this release, the first of many planned, as a step in the right direction.

Well no, it's not. That's my point. It's a step, yes, but in a completely different direction than was promised and that people actually wanted. If you consider that the right direction, I don't know what to tell you.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on November 28, 2016, 09:00:56 PM
I think the survival mode is a definite step in the right (read: promised) direction.  It really is excessively difficult.  Like died from exposure in 15 minutes.  Redistribution of harvestible items, more NPCs than just 1 at a time, new tools for harvesting that make it a little more complicated than just point and shoot, and perhaps more that I haven't seem for myself also seem like steps in the right direction.  Base-building and freighters are neat, but seem like distractions to me.  This update all in all, is not enough to draw me back in, but it is substantial and does at least a few things right.  Doesn't undo any of their mistakes or right their wrongs, but it's perhaps the best we can hope for at this point.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on November 29, 2016, 03:44:28 AM
I don't remember Murray promising complex survival elements and base-building.

You can't improve a bad game by tacking on random things. They basically went, "Oh no, people hate our game! Quick, what's popular these days? Oh right, survival games where you build things out of blocks. Let's throw some of that in!"

How about making combat on foot and in space more interesting? How about allowing you to actually control the damn spaceship properly in atmosphere? Basic things, core gameplay. You want to see a space game that's being developed correctly, look no further than Starsector. That started out by perfecting its core gameplay first, that being ship-to-ship combat, and is now fleshing out its sandbox overworld map. NMS is doing things the other way around, it's adding random crap while the things you actually do, running, flying, shooting, remain appallingly bad. And of course Starsector is honest and open about its early-access nature, NMS was just an outright scam.

It seems obvious to me the guys at Hello Games have no idea what the hell they're doing and have no vision for what the game is ultimately supposed to be. They've added some automated mining gizmos that you attach to ore deposits so that they mine for you. "Our core gameplay mechanics are so good and fun that your reward is not having to do them." Mmm.

Just hopeless.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Rai on November 29, 2016, 06:24:14 AM
I am still not seeing any sign of the content that was promised in the pre-release videos and then unceremoniously cut. Like worlds that seem alive and teeming with wildlife instead of a few horrific rng abominations milling around among the near-barren clumps of rock.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on November 29, 2016, 07:19:20 AM
They have refined their world generation to make it so every planet isn't the same.  In just the hour or so I've mucked about with the update, I've seen very different lifeforms and ships then I've seen before.  Users on reddit have reported that space battles are much more engaging.  Having played it some, I actually do think the bases and freighters do add to the gameplay in a positive way by making it plausible to actually store all the stuff you need to.  The NPC's also now have some race-specific stuff to them in terms of your interaction making them a little more colorful.  They've made reasonable performance and visual improvements. And last but not least, upping the difficulty all around has made the grind itself a more interesting and thoughtful affair then it was before.

I say that these elements build towards what was promised not in that they are specific elements of the pre-launch marketing which was removed, but in that they step towards the game being actually challenging, engaging, and deep.  To be clear, I don't think they are even close to the vision they sold us, even in general concept, but I do think these additions are more than just tacked on BS to placate us.  The fact that some of these things seem to be directly in response to people's complaints (especially the lack of difficulty) is particularly heartening that they may one day get there. 

Is this game now perfect?  Nope.  Is this game now what any of us expected?  Definitely not.  Hell, I'm not even planning on playing the thing in depth until they do more.  All I see here is Hello Games showing us that they are intending to continue working on this game and making it better, and showing some evidence that they do still care and are listening. I will never spend another dollar on them or this game, but I think that you are selling this update far short of what it deserves. 
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on November 29, 2016, 08:40:30 AM
If Hello Games listened and cared, they would refund everybody who bought their scam, close the studio, and pursue careers in flipping burgers. What they're actually doing is trying to pull the same scam twice, and I'm amazed how well it's working. Reddit and other places are suddenly full of people defending the game and its developers and dreaming about what wonders the future updates might bring. I mean, I knew people would eventually forget and fall for it again, but I thought it would happen when the current generation of excitable (and now disappointed) teenage gamers grew up and was replaced by a new, inexperienced generation. That's how it's been in the past. Daggerfall in 1996, Spore in 2008, NMS in 2016, these massively overhyped games come roughly once a decade, give or take a couple of years. The fact that the very same hype train that crashed and burned once already is underway again, and the very same people who were in the first crash are jumping right back on... that's nothing short of amazing to me. As if I didn't have enough disdain for humanity already.

Hello Games right now is like a car mechanic who installs a new stereo and puts the car through a car wash instead of replacing a flat tire. Yeah, sure, he made improvements to the car, but they're not really what the car needed or the owner wanted. Lots of companies do that. Why does Rockstar keep adding more cars to GTA Online instead of fixing the absolutely retarded control scheme, non-functional matchmaking, and a host of other issues the game has? Because fixing issues doesn't make money. More cars to buy = more in-game currency sales in the cash shop. Same thing with NMS. Hello Games wants more money. Can't make more money selling the game as it is, can't make money selling DLC for a game everyone hates. Solution: Release a bunch of free updates to get people excited again, sell horrifically overpriced DLC that still doesn't fix the issues. Wanna bet that's how it's going to go down?
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on November 29, 2016, 09:11:27 AM
This game's launch in its entirety is pretty unprecedented.  Yes, elements parallel with some past events, but the scale of it all is pretty unique, especially for revolving around a company of 10 or so people who've only made 2 other, much smaller games before this. 

Honestly, I think your stance is kind of insane.  First off, if they cared, it wouldn't be a scam by definition.  Second, Hello Games couldn't refund everyone their money, even if they wanted to due to the way people bought it in the first place as Hello Games is not a retail outlet.  Lastly, while closing the studio (or at least restructuring and rebranding) would make a lot of sense, it would make no sense for all of these people to give up their entire careers over this.  Maybe, maybe Sean Murray since he was the leader and figurehead behind all this, but not the rank and file programmers. 

As for the positive reaction on reddit and elsewhere, I am with you that it's astounding how the mood shifted so drastically overnight, but I think it's likely because people are toxic'd out more than gaining a sudden affection for Hello Games.  Besides, literally every thread I've read so far has contained comments of, "I will never trust HG again or spend another cent on their product, but this isn't half bad."  There's no money component to this anymore at this point as the launch was fairly huge (due to the hype) and almost every place selling NMS is doing so for much less than $60. That's why this update shows HG at least still cares about working on this project.  They could easily have cut and run but instead they worked on this for the last 3 months and are claiming it's just the beginning.  They are literally losing money by paying their developers to work on a product which won't bring in enough revenue to cover their cost and if that doesn't show an investment in making this game better (even if it is different) then I don't know what will.

They can never unfuck what they've fucked up, but this update is at least a nice gesture, even if it could have and should have been better both in form and execution.  I for one, will continue to judge each update on its merits as well as the company, and as well as the game as a whole since, why the fuck not?  What do I have to lose by honestly analyzing new content for a game I already own?  What do I have to gain by encouraging the developer to abandon any further updates? 
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: random poet on November 29, 2016, 10:33:19 AM
Why does Rockstar keep adding more cars to GTA Online instead of fixing the absolutely retarded control scheme, non-functional matchmaking, and a host of other issues the game has?
What are you even talking about? You've clearly never played GTA. The matchmaking is fully functional; I know because I've been on it for the past few months and it's been great. The control scheme is not ideal, but it's fine. Sure, they could focus less on microtransactions, but you are being incredibly disingenuous by railing at them that they didn't "fix" GTA Online after the huge amount of content they've been putting out since lauch. Free content, by the way. You need to stop hatesturbating on reddit and start actually playing the games.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on November 29, 2016, 05:38:59 PM
This game's launch in its entirety is pretty unprecedented.  Yes, elements parallel with some past events, but the scale of it all is pretty unique, especially for revolving around a company of 10 or so people who've only made 2 other, much smaller games before this. 

Honestly, I think your stance is kind of insane.  First off, if they cared, it wouldn't be a scam by definition.  Second, Hello Games couldn't refund everyone their money, even if they wanted to due to the way people bought it in the first place as Hello Games is not a retail outlet.  Lastly, while closing the studio (or at least restructuring and rebranding) would make a lot of sense, it would make no sense for all of these people to give up their entire careers over this.  Maybe, maybe Sean Murray since he was the leader and figurehead behind all this, but not the rank and file programmers.

Obviously I was exaggerating for dramatic effect.

Quote
As for the positive reaction on reddit and elsewhere, I am with you that it's astounding how the mood shifted so drastically overnight, but I think it's likely because people are toxic'd out more than gaining a sudden affection for Hello Games.  Besides, literally every thread I've read so far has contained comments of, "I will never trust HG again or spend another cent on their product, but this isn't half bad."  There's no money component to this anymore at this point as the launch was fairly huge (due to the hype) and almost every place selling NMS is doing so for much less than $60. That's why this update shows HG at least still cares about working on this project.  They could easily have cut and run but instead they worked on this for the last 3 months and are claiming it's just the beginning.  They are literally losing money by paying their developers to work on a product which won't bring in enough revenue to cover their cost and if that doesn't show an investment in making this game better (even if it is different) then I don't know what will.

Eh... I don't buy that. They may be a company of a dozen people, but they sure as hell behave like a big AAA publisher. Except with, say, Ubisoft the difference between pre-release promises and the finished product is graphical fidelity and little more than that. With HG and NMS it's every aspect of the game, graphics, gameplay, online functionality, the whole thing. I can't see into their heads, obviously, so I have to guess at their motivations based on their previous actions. Based on their previous actions I estimate their motivations to be very cynical and profit-driven. I could be wrong about them, of course, but so far I haven't been. That DLC is coming, mark my words.

Quote
They can never unfuck what they've fucked up, but this update is at least a nice gesture, even if it could have and should have been better both in form and execution.  I for one, will continue to judge each update on its merits as well as the company, and as well as the game as a whole since, why the fuck not?  What do I have to lose by honestly analyzing new content for a game I already own?  What do I have to gain by encouraging the developer to abandon any further updates? 

Judging each update and the company as a whole based on their merits is what I am doing. The game's a turd. The update's a bit of frosting on top. Frosted turd, still a turd. A company that covers up a turd with frosting and pretends that everything is hunky-dory? Not a very good company, IMO.

As for what would be gained by having the developers abandon any further updates (and preferably their careers), how about an increase in the general level of honesty in the gaming industry? A hard but necessary lesson to the millions of gullible idiots who pre-ordered the game without knowing anything about it? A warning to other developers and publishers who might be considering pulling the same scam? Lots of positives all around, I'd say.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on November 29, 2016, 07:23:26 PM
I guess that's where you and I differ.  The game was a turd at launch because it was no more than a promising framework for a game; early access quality at best.  I see this update as actually filling out the framework and a step towards an actually complete game.  Honestly at this point, even if they turn this game into something wildly different than what was sold, I will be happy so long as it's a cohesive and complete game.  That doesn't change what they did though and make me happy with the company.

As for HG themselves, due to their silence it is just about impossible to sort out their motivations, but if they support this game for a year or more with a dozen or so updates like this to actually, finally have a finished product worthy of the price I paid, I'm not completely against paid DLC depending on what it's for (it'd have to be huge and low-priced though).  They've got a looooong way to go before they can even dream of that though.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on November 29, 2016, 09:09:41 PM
The silence I get. Words weren't going to fix anything, regardless of what they said the responses would have been "lies", "stop hyping again", "less words, more content", "what's taking so long, why isn't it out yet?", and death threats. If you want to be charitable, you can look at the silence as HG adopting an "actions speak louder than words" policy. If you're me, you view it as letting the player base simmer until everyone's so desperate for something that they'll be happy about anything.

As for supporting the game "for a year or more with a dozen or so updates like this", that math doesn't work out. This update took them three and a half months of (presumably) full-time work to put out, so a dozen updates like this would mean supporting the game for three years. No way. They're not going to work on this game for three more years without a paycheck at the end of it. A year of support would mean three more updates like this, not enough to flesh out the game. It's fucked either way.

That's my prediction, at least. We'll see how it plays out. I don't want the game to be bad. I want it to be good, because I like having good games to play. I just don't see it happening.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on November 29, 2016, 10:59:51 PM
I get the inclination towards silence, I just think it was a massive mistake.  Nothing they could have done would have stopped the shit-storm because they very well earned it, but shutting up completely allowed anyone who was supporting them through all this to slowly get jaded and walk away.  Also, my numbers were just random.  It's more the idea that they need to show consistent and concerted effort long-term, leading to a game that actually resembles a finished product.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Dan I on November 30, 2016, 08:12:24 AM
As for supporting the game "for a year or more with a dozen or so updates like this", that math doesn't work out. This update took them three and a half months of (presumably) full-time work to put out, so a dozen updates like this would mean supporting the game for three years.

I'm pretty sure there's a logical fallacy that describes this error in presuming that trends are always constant. That because THIS update took 3.5 months doesn't mean other updates will take as long. Not they necessarily won't or that they wouldn't even take longer. But who knows what stuff is in the background of this update that is actually there as ground work for future content.

Actually...we sort of do:

http://www.polygon.com/2016/11/28/13764204/no-mans-sky-land-vehicles-foundation-update-files (http://www.polygon.com/2016/11/28/13764204/no-mans-sky-land-vehicles-foundation-update-files)

There's apparently some files in the Foundation Update (mostly textures and a model) that right now appear to do nothing but are pretty clearly indicating a plan for buggies


Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Sordid on November 30, 2016, 02:08:08 PM
Well yes, it's just an estimate. Buggies sound kinda cool, though.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Dan I on November 30, 2016, 02:23:22 PM
I'll also say. I bought NMS on release day and definitely enjoyed it. Was it what was promised? Absolutely NOT and I completely understand the criticism and felt like I did NOT get my money's worth.

BUT, if I step back and consider "If it was advertised correctly and priced correctly would I have been happy with this?" And the answer to that was a resounding yes. Now you can say that's a stupid thought process. But I was trying to judge the GAME in a vacuum and I had to at least concede on that point.

I hadn't played it in a few weeks, not out of any real problems with the game but more that I have two young kids and a MASSIVE games backlog.

I went back to it last night, started a new game in Creative Mode and proceeded to spend 2 hours in my home system building a base. It was really fun.

So do I ultimately think I'm going to get my $60 out of this?

Yeah, honestly, I do.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: John Albert on November 24, 2017, 02:38:16 AM
Hello Games' Sean Murray gives a lecture about how their team went about designing the procedural terrain generation system for NMS. Regardless what you think about the game or Mr. Murray himself, this is a fascinating discussion about the challenges of randomly generating realistic terrain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SePDzis8HqY
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on July 30, 2018, 02:14:43 AM
So for those unaware, Hello Games has released their biggest update of this game yet, titled "No Man's Sky NEXT."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sTFlzV9nnE

This is the biggest step they've taken yet towards fixing this game and creating something worth the initial asking price of $60 and they've now officially slashed the price to $30 in conjunction with NEXT's release.  I haven't played it yet, but from what I've seen, there are huge gameplay and visual overhauls that drastically alter the core of the game.  It still seems to be largely the same gameplay loops in terms of upgrading, building, and harvesting, but lots of changes around that core seem to impact how that plays out, especially the addition of full on multiplayer.  Also, they've allowed you to shift to a 3rd person view which a lot of people are praising for really making the environments feel more open.

This release prompted me to read back through this thread and I have to say that it's been a very interesting journey.  At this point, I'd basically forgotten that my initial response to the game at launch was generally positive.  I mean, I remember playing it for 20+ hours before giving up, but reading my comments reminds me just how much the core loop worked even if it petered out quicker than I'd have liked it to.  My take at this point is that in light of new interviews Sean Murray has given, it seems my suspicions were correct and they basically went overboard hyping this game with all the features they were working on implementing before realizing there was no way they could release that game in a reasonable time frame and with the money they had left.  So they decided to scale back to a game that was a complex as they could release in a stable form and decided not to inform the public that they'd removed or not completed mounds of promised features in order to get as much money as possible at launch with which to actually complete the game over time.  So far as I know, creating major updates for a game that was near universally panned for up to 2 years and at no additional cost to the player is pretty well unprecedented and really does speak to the earnestness of their intentions behind this game and IMO squashes the idea that they were lying to consumers to get rich.  That said, I think it's 100% appropriate to call what they did a scam, it just wasn't a get rich scam, it was a scam to fully fund the game they wanted to make.  It's also 100% unacceptable that they did this and lied about it and I would never ever pre-order a game from them or buy anything that hadn't been thoroughly reviewed first.

I've seen some people discussing whether or not gamers buying the game now is akin to rewarding them for the scam, but respectfully I have to disagree.  I think as long as consumers tie the money they shell out to the quality of the product they are buying, the only message that I see from buying the game now is that if you fix your game, we might still buy it and that's not a terrible message to send IMO.  It'd be a different case if the NEXT update was not free DLC for people who already own the game however.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Billzbub on August 01, 2018, 02:55:44 PM
Is it now worth buying for $30?  I know nothing of this game beyond your most recent post, but your post makes it sound kinda cool.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: Eternally Learning on August 01, 2018, 03:11:31 PM
Is it now worth buying for $30?  I know nothing of this game beyond your most recent post, but your post makes it sound kinda cool.

I honestly have no real idea since I haven't played it since the update. I will say that I did get 20 some hours of enjoyment out of it in its initial, much worse state, so chances are it probably is worth it now. There's a ton of videos online if you wanna get a better idea for how it might match your tastes though.
Title: Re: No Man's Sky
Post by: wastrel on August 01, 2018, 03:59:36 PM
I'm about 16 hours into the update and find it extremely playable, with a lot more depth.  The overall mechanics of the game are mostly the same, so if you weren't interested before, probably won't like it now either.