Yeah, I've been saying that for years. Minecraft exploration is my favorite part. NMS is like a dream come true.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
No Man's Sky - August 9, 2016
- Thread starter xxracerxx
- Start date
Yeah, I've been saying that for years. Minecraft exploration is my favorite part. NMS is like a dream come true.
.
Gosh that looks so good.
This is very rude.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
Which is why I changed it 5 minutes ago. Is there any point in going into a thread and showing quite clearly all you've got to offer is negativity towards that game? If you was at a football match and the guy next to you kept nudging you in the ribs saying 'I don't like football', I think eventually you'd ask him to leave or at least ask him why the hell he's there.
UncleSporky
Member
This isn't the football match, though. This is a thread on the subject of the delay of a future football match due to the weather forecast, which has evolved into a discussion about whether the game will be worth watching.
And the guy isn't saying he doesn't like football, to the contrary he's seen a ton of different games in the past, and he's saying that he's not sure if this particular game will turn out all that well. You can ask that guy to leave all you like, but he has as much right to be there as you.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
First of all, sorry for being blunt like that. I was just in a good mood, saw a really nice pic of the game and wanted to enjoy the mutual excitement with other No Man's Sky fans.
You start on a planet and will take a couple hours to even take off. The pilot will be a complete enigma to the player.
Produced by Space-Kojima.
Did you completely ignore the part of my previous post where I talked about how the algorithms change as you progress through the game?
The outer edge of the galaxy, algorithms generate:
- relatively normal 'familiar' shaped planets
- relatively normal physics
- relatively normal animals
- safer atmospheres (in terms of radition, toxicity, etc)
As you proceed closer to the center of the galaxy the algorithms generating:
- planet shapes get more insane
- physics and planetary 'laws' start being bent to the point of breaking
- animal shapes, abilities, properties and animations start getting bent to the point of logical breaking - you might find a winged elephant with the animation model of a bat (there are near-infinite permutations which even the dev team haven't seen yet)
- atmospheres get increasingly volatile - with increasingly unsettling combinations like freezing + water + radioactive, in far higher doses/danger thresholds than ever before
Keep exploring to the center of the galaxy and you will see new things.
I even recall reading in one preview that the dev team gathered around the journalist to ogle at his screen because he found a mineral/element none of them had seen before. This suggests even resources are procedurally generated to match their environment.
Nope, wrong. That quote was from an interview where Sean slightly mis-spoke. What he said was that as you leave a planet the game engine destroys it behind you. He didn't mean your progress is wiped. He was talking about how the computer processes or loads the planet into its memory. As you fly away, the game de-loads the planet, it is taken out of rendered existence. But everything you did on that planet still exists. You can turn a mountain into your own giant base if you want and it will stay there forever.
You might as well forget about any multiplayer side. The game's definitely not about that.
We're assured there is a backstory and there are ways to learn about the lore - but the game won't force any of it on you and the devs are being super tight-lipped about it. Understandably. When you start the game you'll get a small amount of exposition (apparently a 2001-style trippy space-flight) then you'll just be on a planet.
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
I only just had a thought, but does anyone reckon a small demo/beta may end up coming along with E3? It may just be wishful thinking but I was thinking it may be a good idea to keep the hype rolling a bit longer since it was originally going to release very shortly after the event.
Hope so. I don't think it's unrealistic either.
ok, THIS is good info. Thanks, I wasn't aware of this.
blacklotus
Member
Worried about this game.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Aug 9? Best Birthday ever!
Thank you, but I don't see what that had to do with my comment.
OuterLimits
Member
I always enjoy comments like this. It's not like the game disappears if you don't buy it day 1. So if you have other games to catch up on, you could always buy the game a few months(or longer) after release. Obviously some multiplayer games are the exception, since the community is often the largest at the beginning.
I'm excited for this, but admittedly somewhat cautiously optimistic.
Omnistalgic
Member
I'm very down the middle with NMS. I get the concern and cautious optimism, I get the people really excited. I think Journey was enhanced by having that other player there as well as Souls gsmes, so I do hope there is a way to play with a small group of people and travel together, that would just be a missed opportunity IMO. The idea that the center of the universe becomes everyone's home and meet up place sounded really incredible.
The other gripe is doing all this exploring and trading and fighting and never having a place to call "home". I don't think you have to have a building mechanic as versatile as Minecraft, but I do think it's also a missed opportunity to not be able to build a small house somewhere on the planet and do nothing more than stamp your name on a world for others to see.
Besides those two issues though, I think they will nail everything else, and playing the game may make them moot points.
The other gripe is doing all this exploring and trading and fighting and never having a place to call "home". I don't think you have to have a building mechanic as versatile as Minecraft, but I do think it's also a missed opportunity to not be able to build a small house somewhere on the planet and do nothing more than stamp your name on a world for others to see.
Besides those two issues though, I think they will nail everything else, and playing the game may make them moot points.
TheJollyCorner
Member
Surely a single-player demo of a planet or two (to show off the exploration aspect & flight mechanism) wouldn't be too hard to produce, right? Right?
I know the delay isn't much in the grand scheme of things, but fuck... playing this during the thick of the summer would have been wonderful.
loganclaws
Plane Escape Torment
Yes the hype for this game is off the charts, it's almost impossible for it to achieve what most people are imagining it to be at this point. This is why I think there will be a big backlash; repetitive gameplay loop with no real depth. Hopefully I'm wrong, keep an eye on steam/metacritic user scores after about 1-2 months and take the press reviews with a grain of salt.
The vast majority of planets will not be discovered ever. Your discoveries will rarely if ever be seen first hand by another player. They don't need to have a house building mechanic in a survival game about exploring just so that maybe someday, if you're extremely lucky, one other player might see it. People aren't really grasping how large this universe is for a few million gamers. You're really not going to ever see anyone else or their discoveries until maybe the very center of the Galaxy. What you call a missed opportunity I call a waste of developer resources when they designed their game to be so vast, you'll likely never see another person's discovery.
18,446,744,073,709,551,616 Is the number of planets in this game. Nobody would ever see your house and you shoudn't waste so much time on one planet.
OuterLimits
Member
I agree on Journey. The game is so much better when you travel with another person or at least encounter others while playing. Recently I played it again on ps4 and unfortunately didn't encounter any other players. Definitely a rather different experience. A very lonely journey.
From my understanding, the galaxy within the game is so huge that seeing other players may be a very rare occurrence. I fully admit though that I haven't been reading a ton about the game. I just know that it's the type of game I will buy at launch unless a bunch of reviews come out before release saying it sucks or has major performance issues.
Honestly, I'm not even sure if this game is getting early reviews?
I'll do the opposite. I expect user reviews to be largely negative because of the lack of conventional multiplayer, base-building and, you know, all the stuff that the game isn't trying to be, instead of actually judging the game for what it is; it could still easily be an amazing game without those things.
At this point, I'm pretty sure that I understand what NMS is and I want the game that it says it will be, but I just want to know if everything runs smoothly. As long as the procedural generation works well enough to create fun and unique experiences and planets at a decent pip and I don't feel like I'm going to go on long stretches with nothing be dead rocky worlds then I'll love NMS.
I figure reviews for this game are going to be largely worthless anyway because everyone's expectations for this are so wildly different. Some people are expecting the gaming messiah so any faults will either be blown out of proportion or glossed over. All I'll focus on will be the technical stuff that shouldn't be too hard to discern from the review noise that's generated.
I figure reviews for this game are going to be largely worthless anyway because everyone's expectations for this are so wildly different. Some people are expecting the gaming messiah so any faults will either be blown out of proportion or glossed over. All I'll focus on will be the technical stuff that shouldn't be too hard to discern from the review noise that's generated.
UncleSporky
Member
But if being able to create structures is a waste of developer resources because nobody will never see it, then isn't the ability to name your discoveries also a waste of developer resources by the same token? Why did they put that whole aspect in the game if it's as pointless as you say?
Is the ability to craft/mod weapons or ships a waste of resources because no one will ever see what you did? If not, then maybe structures wouldn't be a waste either, because sometimes people just like to create things for their own use - shelter in a harsh landscape, a sense of ownership, who cares if anyone else ever sees it.
On top of all that, the constant cry of "the galaxy is so vast that no one will ever see anything" runs at odds with the idea that everyone is also headed to the same center. Clearly the central planets are going to be seen by a ton of people. In that sense structure building would be an awesome collaborative project to see.
More_Badass
Member
It's not a question of player desire, it's a question of pacing and design. The devs have said they've designed the game to encourage movement and exploration, which is one of the reasons why a building mechanic isn't in the game. The game isn't designed around staying on a planet for a long time and building a home. It's to designed around moving from planet to planet
Whether you're a trader, or fighter, or a pirate, or seeking out new languages, or building your rep with a faction, or just being a zoologist and naming species, it alll requires you to be on the move, to be seeking new worlds for resources or info or species
Aside from the response directly below you which nails more accurately why no building shelters (vs. the no one will see it anyways excuse), I'll mention that there is a point to crafting a starship or your items cause you'll need them to get further. YOu'll need to change them to meet the changing environments and challenges you'll come across to be able to travel more.
As for naming planets... well, people will get to see that. Maybe not the animals you name, but the planets will be on the map. And the point is that on rare occurance some one will visit the same planet and they'll see the results of you naming it. They won't see the results of your building (if you could make one) cause other than name any changes you do to the planet are not stored globally so only you'll see those changes (it is stored on your hard drive so you can see the changes on your machine but if some one else goes to that planet they aren't going to see the caves you made and whatnot). now, if you make some really major changes (like attack a trading station enough that it gets downgraded to a smaller one - you can't outright destroy them), other people will see those changes. Or make an entire species extinct ? I put the question mark cause I think he said you won't be able to do that. But really major things like that will be stored globally. But even if they let you make a shelter, that won't be seen globally.
Personally I'd love it if we could craft shelters on the planets and make a more home like enviroment if we chose. But, I'm not the developer and the developer wants to encourage us to keep moving
I guess I'm going to have to bring back my old arguments about the procedural generation from my own experience with other space games.
For starters, it's not completely random. In the specific case of NMS the developers probably aren't hand-placing anything other than what's at the center of the universe, but they still have some authorial control over what's more likely to appear where. Other comments have already explained that different regions of the galaxy and universe will more commonly or less commonly have different kinds of worlds. There's also the sense of rarity. Lush, Earth-like planets are rare as fuck in Elite: Dangerous and Space Engine. In 70 hours of exploring the uncharted territories of Elite I've found exactly two. The NMS demos we've seen seem to indicate life being more common than that but I honestly hope it was just part of how Hello Games admitted it changed the algorithm for demo purposes and it sticks to its 90-10-10 rule where 90 percent of planets are dead-but-mineral-rich rocks and only 1 percent look like Earth. It needs to feel like a really special find when you do encounter a lush, green world.
As for eventually figuring out what's going to be generated where, that is the last issue where the game truly needs to prove itself upon release. Being predictable to an extent is probably needed for people to skillfully play the game, but it shouldn't be so predictable that everyone knows exactly what's on a planet before they even land. In Elite and Space Engine for instance you can infer certain things about what planets you'll find in a system based on what kind of star it is and how far away the planets are. You know if a star is a red dwarf then any "good" planets need to be really close to it, and that the best systems for "good" planets are usually F, G, or K spectrum. NMS probably shouldn't be any more predictable than that with its procedural generation.
Edit: And let me just add that I've found some absolutely weird-as-fuck planets in Space Engine, and that game is supposed to be realistic. Things you just wouldn't expect.
For starters, it's not completely random. In the specific case of NMS the developers probably aren't hand-placing anything other than what's at the center of the universe, but they still have some authorial control over what's more likely to appear where. Other comments have already explained that different regions of the galaxy and universe will more commonly or less commonly have different kinds of worlds. There's also the sense of rarity. Lush, Earth-like planets are rare as fuck in Elite: Dangerous and Space Engine. In 70 hours of exploring the uncharted territories of Elite I've found exactly two. The NMS demos we've seen seem to indicate life being more common than that but I honestly hope it was just part of how Hello Games admitted it changed the algorithm for demo purposes and it sticks to its 90-10-10 rule where 90 percent of planets are dead-but-mineral-rich rocks and only 1 percent look like Earth. It needs to feel like a really special find when you do encounter a lush, green world.
As for eventually figuring out what's going to be generated where, that is the last issue where the game truly needs to prove itself upon release. Being predictable to an extent is probably needed for people to skillfully play the game, but it shouldn't be so predictable that everyone knows exactly what's on a planet before they even land. In Elite and Space Engine for instance you can infer certain things about what planets you'll find in a system based on what kind of star it is and how far away the planets are. You know if a star is a red dwarf then any "good" planets need to be really close to it, and that the best systems for "good" planets are usually F, G, or K spectrum. NMS probably shouldn't be any more predictable than that with its procedural generation.
Edit: And let me just add that I've found some absolutely weird-as-fuck planets in Space Engine, and that game is supposed to be realistic. Things you just wouldn't expect.
King of Custard
Member
When we people learn there is no exact science to determine if a game is going to be boring or not.
Just look at how Doom turned out, yet another game with a space marine shooting at things and it's frigging awesome!
I see a few different outcomes for this game.
.The game turns out not to be that good: All the naysayers declare themselves right until the thread gets either locked or avoided by people who actually find enjoyment out of the game.
.The game turns out great: The naysayers litter the thread with posts about how the reviews bought in to the hype and the game is still boring with environments that repeat themselves over and over because they saw it on that one stream that they watched.
I hope people try and be constructive and posting in every single NMS thread that the game is boring coz reasons, isn't constructive and is getting old.
Just look at how Doom turned out, yet another game with a space marine shooting at things and it's frigging awesome!
I see a few different outcomes for this game.
.The game turns out not to be that good: All the naysayers declare themselves right until the thread gets either locked or avoided by people who actually find enjoyment out of the game.
.The game turns out great: The naysayers litter the thread with posts about how the reviews bought in to the hype and the game is still boring with environments that repeat themselves over and over because they saw it on that one stream that they watched.
I hope people try and be constructive and posting in every single NMS thread that the game is boring coz reasons, isn't constructive and is getting old.
UncleSporky
Member
Why does every outcome revolve around the naysayers?
Like I said before, if the game turns out not to be that good you're going to see a bitter core of loyalists who keep repeating the refrain that anyone who doesn't enjoy the game is because they didn't understand what they were buying into, "all the information was available before release, it's your own fault," insisting that the game was only made for them and every true potential fan is a fan. Refusing to accept any legitimate criticism.
Blackleg-sanji1
Banned
I swear every nms thread turns into a long wall of posts about how it will disappoint. I pray to the gaming gods I can just enjoy the OT when its up without it.
Pewpewlazors99
Member
Can't you encourage that movement and exploration by spreading out the raw materials required to build your home? AKA find a livable planet, decide you want to build your base there. Build it up and realize that the planet has no iron, check your history and notice you have yet to find a planet with iron. In order to continue building your base you need to go find some damn iron!
I like that they aren't focusing this game on building, but I would love to see it added at some point.
UncleSporky
Member
Additionally there's the point to be made that a developer's design vision isn't infallible/beyond reproach either. While many people in this thread seem to be satisfied with the vision that encourages constant motion, there are plenty of other visions out there that deservedly wouldn't get the time of day from most gamers...and it may turn out that their choices in this respect don't resonate well in the current gaming climate.
Simply saying that the argument "well it's what the dev wants to do" isn't a bulletproof shield. Plenty of devs make poor choices in service to their vision - this one may or may not turn out that way.
Simply saying that the argument "well it's what the dev wants to do" isn't a bulletproof shield. Plenty of devs make poor choices in service to their vision - this one may or may not turn out that way.
valkillmore
Member
If you want to avoid negativity you'd probably be better off in one of the inevitable screenshot / locals threads I'm sure will pop up post-Release. The OT will more than likely contain people disappointed by it or 'bored after an hour.' I won't be going anywhere near the OT.
This is idiotic, nobody's saying that the developer's vision is beyond reproach. But it is what it is, you can criticise it for being bad at what it is but criticising it for being something it's not and was never intended to be is a waste of time.
Blackleg-sanji1
Banned
Nah in my experience Ot's have been pretty solid. When I say negativity I mean the likes of
1)comparing it to spore repeatedly (why)
2) coming up with some weird ass number about the amount of people that'll like it compared to who wont(how do you even reach a conclusion like this)
3)at least the game will be out so every few pages you can't get "this game is going to disappoint so many people I can't wait to see the backlash"(yes disappointed people is such a good thing to see)
UncleSporky
Member
Nobody needs to say it's beyond reproach for an observation to be valid. As I said I was making a point, not responding to someone I perceived as making that argument, though I wouldn't be surprised to see it made at some point. It was used as a defense for why the game doesn't incorporate structure building, though.
In general I agree that media should be criticized on its own merits, but show me just about any criticism for any property and I'll find you numerous examples of suggested changes/additions/subtractions. That's the heart of criticism, after all.
It's ludicrous to say for example that NMS should play as a space RTS or similar massive alteration in design, but as another example, criticism on the range of planet types, tree types, creature types? If people find them too repetitive, is it fair to say "well the game was designed to have this exact number of planet types, don't knock it for something it wasn't trying to do?"
What level of changes are fair criticism and not examples of something beyond what the game was trying to be? Everyone will disagree.
More_Badass
Member
There's a difference between criticizing a developer for designing a game poorly or not meshing the systems well or their game being repetitive or whatnot, and criticizing for a developer for not designing the game the way you want it to be.
You might not like that Hello Games didn't include building in their game, but not including it isn't poor design, It's just not the design they wanted
UncleSporky
Member
You can see my post above for my thoughts on that. I think it depends on the elements already present in the game as to whether any given criticism might be valid. For example if there is already gun crafting and vehicle crafting/upgrading, it's not a far leap to starbase crafting or structure crafting. But if there are no crafting elements in the game from the start then it's apparent the devs didn't want players creating or customizing anything.
As I said though, people will disagree. I think at a certain point it's alright to be disappointed that you can make this and not that. Look at Fallout 4 for the opposite of NMS: in the base game you can build towns but not vehicles. I think it's completely fine for people to wish vehicle creation was in the game, and wouldn't snap at them about going too far in their demands of the dev team.
Thor Molecules
Member
Why would people who are going to enjoy the game for what it is be bitter? If anything it would be the naysayers and complainers who feel like they wasted their money who would be bitter.
UncleSporky
Member
Obviously depends on the individual, but you've never known someone to be bitter because they find themselves in the minority liking something, anything? Someone who keeps trying to tell you that you just don't get it, that it's actually great, and seems frustrated that few people agree with them?
Pestilence11
Member
The crafting they do have encourages movement, the other does not. It's simple. They made a vast area for players to play in so nobody would have the same experience, while working towards the "end goal." Why make 18 quintillion planets and then encourage people to sit on a half dozen before dropping the game? That doesn't make much sense to me.
King of Custard
Member
I don't feel you've voiced your concerns well, also you seem to ignore those who give you feedback on your concerns with answers from the devs and all the information is available on the official website but who wants to look there. There is also a ton of different interviews with different media outlets and posts here on gaf about them.
Except that gun crafting doesn't really work for or against the games design (move to the center of the universe) and vehicle crafting actively works towards that design.
Base building would work actively AGAINST that design so yes, it is a stretch. Plenty of games have weapon/vehicle crafting with no base building. Are you going to fault those?
Just one of many indications about how much depth the game will have.
I.e. Not "an inch deep". At least in terms of exploraion. Watch one video and you'll find proof it has progression/development depth too.
Thabass
Member
UncleSporky
Member
It seems foolish to me to imply that Minecraft or Fallout 4 discourage exploration by allowing the player to construct housing, or that any discouragement present has had any noticeable impact on whether players explore in these games. Base building and exploration aren't mutually exclusive.
But this is getting beyond the point I was making, which is simply that people aren't going to agree on what criticism is valid vs. what criticism is suggesting the game become something it is not. Building is just an example among many. Perhaps the trading will be shallow and the community will tell people they aren't allowed to say that because it was designed to be shallow.
You haven't actually read any of my posts, since this reads like a reply to someone actively complaining about specific failings of the game. The game will be whatever it will be, but my concern has always been that the community isn't going to accept any of the valid criticism headed its way. It's not going to be pretty.