They eat the resources, usually 20 at a time.
-
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 - What changed over the course of development?
- Thread starter border
- Start date
- Status
They eat the resources, usually 20 at a time.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
A guy got to 3 more galaxies on Reddit, so hopefully he can confirm if they get crazier or not.
Nostremitus
Member
Disclaimer: Maybe some of this stuff is in there just very rare and undiscovered to my knowledge.
No big crashed freighter/starships on planets.
No giant sandsnakes/dune worms. No the eels and things don't count.
Working Portals. People have found the structures but no way to activate them as far as I know. Cut feature really late on?
AI Wingmen. 'Command RAGAR II' may have some other meaning, but several trailers showed starfighters joining you on your journey.
These Mega Structure planets?
The level of creature interaction where big creatures would impact the flora as well as scare off big herds of smaller beasties.
It feels like that not only was the engine and game misrepresented by the staged demos, but it seems like they were bordering on CGI at times due to how much better they looked and operated. When you include the fact the game only has "its fucking nothing" troll endings and the ability to meet other players is not in there, it feels like half the game is missing.
I've found several crashed stsrships, you can even take them over as your ship... you just have to repair everything again just like the start of the game before you can leave again. I haven't seen any freighters crash landed, though.... but I'm only 4 galaxies in...
Giant Flying sand snakes were found in the data mining for the game, they exist.
Not sure about the portals, but there's a theory about pushing the giant metal spheres located at some of the relic to them to see if something happens...
No idead about the AI wingmen or superstructure planets... like I said, I'm still out in the outer rim.
Other than that, I don't know... I think it's representative of the game I'm playing...
How many hours do you have to endure to actually see some cool shit? The tedious gameplay isn't worth putting up with in my opinion.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
My first planet on a 're roll' was actually quite cool, but I didn't see anything there I haven't seen in countless screenshots. I've had one nice 'lush' one since then, then the rest are variations o the same theme - barren rock, lots of caves, a few resources.
People keep talking about crazier stuff as you near the 'centre' of your galaxy but again, noone's actually shown anything that suggests that. As far as I'm concerned it's totally random.
xenorevlis
Member
Tedious gameplay? Are you just spending hours mining stuff really slowly? I don't get some people. Most I've ever spent mining as a grind was an hour, while wearing a Spider-Man mask, to see how much Emeril could make me (3 million). It was boring. I've made 3 million in less than half that time by stealing things that cause the sentinels to chase and shoot me. Much more fun! The cool stuff is all over the place, but if it was happening non-stop it wouldn't have any impact. Having slower more relaxed moments exploring a new planet that is way different to what you had seen up to that point becomes extremely rewarding when you leave with a bunch of goodies and suddenly space pirates attack you on the way to space station, and you can engage or just warp to another star
What? Reduced? They do not move at all and 'sun' is changing its place, which means that by design they wont move.
I personally love that aspect. It seems small, but it's really neat to have a permanent (insofar as long as the servers are up) effect on the game for each player.
But I also like the core gameplay loop. It's the exploration part of Minecraft. That's what it always seemed like from the beginning, and the game I'm playing seems mostly like what they advertised, aside from the multiplayer stuff.
Don't think that's an upgrade, I'm sure that's one of the first things the game tells you.
My biggest disappointments:
- All planets rotate on their axis at the same (ridiculously fast) rate, which means all planets are the same in that respect. It would've been nice to be on a planet where a day actually does last 10 minutes, while on others it would last 40 hours.
- The planets don't revolve around their star and the moons don't revolve around their planets.
- There are no life-sized mountains (or I haven't seen them yet). They've all been tall hills at most so far, nothing as awe-inspiring as the Alps for example.
- On that note: no hints of plate tectonics resulting in realistic mountain chains, although I guess that would be a bit much on the programming side.
- All animals I have seen so far seem to be evolutions of previous animals I've seen, even though the planets they're on are many, many lightyears apart.
- When you do a planetary search (L3) and you find something, that icon is displayed in the centre of your screen until you reach that destination. Even if you're on another planet.
- The option to place route markers or site markers is missing (right?).
Really enjoying the games other than that though.
- All planets rotate on their axis at the same (ridiculously fast) rate, which means all planets are the same in that respect. It would've been nice to be on a planet where a day actually does last 10 minutes, while on others it would last 40 hours.
- The planets don't revolve around their star and the moons don't revolve around their planets.
- There are no life-sized mountains (or I haven't seen them yet). They've all been tall hills at most so far, nothing as awe-inspiring as the Alps for example.
- On that note: no hints of plate tectonics resulting in realistic mountain chains, although I guess that would be a bit much on the programming side.
- All animals I have seen so far seem to be evolutions of previous animals I've seen, even though the planets they're on are many, many lightyears apart.
- When you do a planetary search (L3) and you find something, that icon is displayed in the centre of your screen until you reach that destination. Even if you're on another planet.
- The option to place route markers or site markers is missing (right?).
Really enjoying the games other than that though.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Actually they do not rotate at all. The 'sun' is moved through the sky when you are on the planet, but sun affects shadows on the planet only for like 1/3 of the daytime. Its also not simulated properly, but just faked, for example shadows do not change its length, just rotate.
I watched the IGN video again and it looks just like the game i'm playing right now tbh. (after 10hours in)
I've found planets looking better than that, multiple trading post with lots of ships coming and leaving, cool creatures. It was a pre-release version so of course some gameplay elements have changed since then, but nothing major, it's just balancing.
Some trailers are questionable but not this imo.
I've found planets looking better than that, multiple trading post with lots of ships coming and leaving, cool creatures. It was a pre-release version so of course some gameplay elements have changed since then, but nothing major, it's just balancing.
Some trailers are questionable but not this imo.
Do you have a source for that? You can see the stars 'move' just by looking at them when you're on a planet though, which leads me to believe the planets do rotate. Unless the whole universe revolves around the planet you're on at that moment (which would be quite medieval!).
Nostremitus
Member
Iv played about 20 hours... Most of that was in the first 10 though...
Oh... And I just had the AI Wingmen!!!
I answered a distress call in space. A frigate was being attacked. I joined in a got some loot before the dentinal ships showed up the spoil the fun...
Alcotholic
Banned
This, sadly, is gaming nowadays. When a game is made, it often doesn't deliver on its promises.
Ugh that stationary moon
You can see the stars 'move' though.
Source is me
I did quite extensive testing of it.Stars move, because it is just a shader that generate skybox covered in stars.
autoduelist
Member
It sounds like some people don't see what they want to see in the first 10 hours and then decide the game doesn't have it as a feature. AI wingmen, creatures hunting other creatures, etc...
Meanwhile, they might see things that are completely new and unique, but not credit the game for them since they aren't on some checklist of 'things to look for'.
SiegfriedFM
Member
AKA every software project ever...
Well then! Consider me even more disappointed haha!
Maybe I should look into buying that Elite planetary landings DLC to see how it compares.
Alcotholic
Banned
I mean, that's true to some degree, but were you let down by for example Mario 3D world for something it wasn't or didn't offer? How about Jak and Daxter? Or Halo 3? It feels like a lot of games recently have promised to be something they aren't. Sometimes it's just rabid fan expectations.
The first thing I noticed as well in that IGN video, graphics are on a vastly different level. The world is so lush and dynamic, no pop-in from what I could tell and compared to what we have now a vastly superior look.
Don't get me wrong, I'm really enjoying the game but that non-piss filter, luscious and vibrant look is definitely something I would prefer in the game. Also like the alternative scanning mechanics, send out your scan pulse and it catalogues your findings automatically. Much easier than what we got in the final game.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I commented on this in another thread as well, and I've dwelt on it more and become even more convinced about this being an issue. I think you're right, there's very little that matches actual planetary landforms. In my time with the game, I don't think I saw any:
- Realistic mountains/mountain chains
- Massive canyons like a Valles Marineris
- Plateaus
- Buttes or tables
- Volcanoes and therefore obviously none of the landforms that spring from volcanoes
- Sensible water formations like rivers or waterfalls
- Great plains likes a Sedna Planitia
- Glacial landforms on cold planets like a fjord or glacier
- Plate tectonics and subsequently no continents.
I don't know if there's a better solution in terms of getting varied and realistic landforms via procedural generation, but I hope there is.
Ok, warning, this is a bit "tinfoil hat", but I am just bringing up a discussion point here.
It does appear that something has changed in the algorithm for creating the world(s) from some pre-release versions, compared to what we actually got.
Could this have something to do with the copyright claim against the team for using the Superformula?, did they have to quickly do some (sweeping) changes to the proc-gen engine to avoid any potential legal wranglings?
I know that Sean said the game contains no superformula prior to release, but is it beyond doubt that something may have had to change because of this?
You know what is going to be interesting
The files for the few demos we saw are actually in the game files
If somebody can somehow run these demos then maybe we'll start to see what they changed before the game released compared to these demo's they showed
I agree with what everybody is saying in this thread tbh, why do the animals seem a lot more dynamic in the demo's? why is their movement actually life like instead of clunky like we've seen in the actual game? Why does everything seem more vibrant and alive?
If somebody could run these demos and prove the finished game is nothing like the demo's the conversation with hello games could get a whole lot more interesting
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Thanks.
So I just watched that video? Not seeing many changes from the final build? Everything seems about the same to me, aside from scanning now requiring more than a simple button press, which I am a fan of.
Everything else seems pretty damn similar to what we got considering it was over a year old build.
What is so amazing about this video that didn't make it into what we have in our hands?
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I'm honestly too much of a mathematic schlub to really get what the superformula would have done for procedural terrain generation, and I honestly don't remember if the terrain looked better (more varied) in the pre-release footage.
Whatever Sean says about the game not having the superformula now, we do know that at one point, they did mess around with it and stuck it into their systems.
I suppose two possibilities come to mind from reading that.
One, at some point they were indeed using the superformula in their code and they showed off the game in public using the formula, but later took it out after they learned of the patent (or came up with an inhouse solution). Or two, they never used the superformula directly outside of testing and came up with their own math for the procedural generation based on Gielis' superformula. Which I guess would mean the E3 demos and such were just bull? Dunno.
As a note, rereading that old thread on the superformula is kind of an bizarre as it seems that people don't really understand what the issue was. Gielis' patent isn't quite on the formula itself. Patenting mathematical formulas is ridiculously hard, if not impossible in most cases. What you claim in the patent is not the formula but using the formula to create specific things, e.g., procedurally generated terrain and animals. Of course you could debate whether that patent applied to this game, but I digress.
Whatever the case, go mess around with the formula. It's neat: http://mysterydate.github.io/superFormulaGenerator/
Yeah, looks like an early version of the same game. Didn't see anything I haven't seen in my game, and there are clearly things missing from the final release.
The game looked more organic in previews, flora looked more vibrant and seemed to have (more) logic to how it was placed, fauna was also more organic, look at how the birds flew in previews, they had a more natural flight pattern, in the release version they just flit around, also the ground creatures just seem to have random pathing, they don't flock.
I get that it's a huge game, and they your experience may vary depending on how lucky you get with the planets you land on and the generation engine, but in the 20 or so planets I landed on before ditching the game, it never looked like that IGN video.
travisbickle
Member
Come one. Do you really think if procedural generation could build you a replica of earth there would be so few developers using it?
The NMS universe is a fine attempt at procedural generation that definitely puts the game above the majority that try to design large-scale terrain.
But we know the only way we can come close to replicating Earth is through procedural generation, but it's going to take a fair few more generations yet.
Does everyone have to go nutty when talking about this game?
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
travisbickle
Member
Watch the Gameinformer interview where they show the terrain generation. Or the Newyorker one, it looks the same then as now.
I think you really had too high expectations of what it could do when we've literally seen videos of the worlds being built.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Eh. I've only been to a couple systems and already the planets I've landed on have looked better than the IGN video, and the creatures look just as great.
Also, 20 planets is nothing. Just on the math alone you could play this game for the rest of your life and never see anything but lifeless planets, or every planet you visit could be filled to the brim with plants and wildlife.
Or more than likely cause you could land somewhere in between. Either way, experiences will vary. Vastly.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I'm not suggesting that it does exist in the gaming world. That said, there is some pretty impressive procedural tech in other industries, and there's some pretty promising recent research that has been done into procedural terrain generation based on things like plate tectonic simulations.
I think it's interesting that Sean talked about this being next-gen tech when it really seems to working at the same basic Perlin noise filter level that other sandbox games do. I guess I'm mostly disappointed that for all the big "maths" talk that Hello Games talked, there's nothing super revolutionary in terms of terrain generation. I don't really totally buy that the tech "definitely puts the game above the majority that try to design large-scale terrain" either. The impressive thing about the procedural tech on show is the fact that there's 18 quintillion of these planets. Whether or not you think it's worth it to explore 18 quintillion of the same bumpy-ish planets is a matter of taste of course.
Really disappointing. Just imagine a planet slowly rising over the horizon....
the animal scanning is different, but i think it makes more sense that what are essentially binoculars are what discovered animal and plant life. also, they work at ridiculous distances. click your right analogue stick to zoom. it helps.
towers of light still exist but they're specific to the beacons now. again, i think it's a context thing, the sense of discovery is less if all you're doing is walking from beam of light to beam of light. the scanning for location thing isn't much deeper of an experience, but it helps a little.
mining is much more impressive technically now. it's a longer process, but you can upgrade your multitool to have that "point and shoot" blow it to hell features you see here. not to mention the absorption of the minerals looks WAY better now.
trading posts are still in. i find they're the best place to buy new ships
i guess for thruster fuel to have a purpose it needs to be something that depletes. maybe they originally had no fuel management at all. again, it's an extra layer of depth that i like though. plus take offs don't deplete fuel if they're at a landing beacon or on a landing platform.
no MP is probably the biggest difference. but given the slim odds of ever seeing anyone i don't think it matters that's it's not there and wouldn't have changed the core experience anyway. it's not like they said you could team up and mine resources together or anything.
my biggest difference/loss is the larger creatures. the massive sand worm for instance. that sort of thing would have provided an awesome set piece.
eot
Banned
LOL!
This is classic
edit: youtube version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvAwB7ogkik
They're still using that E3 footage in their marketing apparently, it's the first trailer on the Steam store page.
S
Steve.1981
Unconfirmed Member
In my experience so far, the planets are plenty varied.
I've only been to 2 systems and already I've had a planet with massive (and I do mean massive) mountains and multiple huge, deep Grand Canyons with lush forests when you get to the very bottom of them.
I've also had The Arctic Planet. It was like 75% water, only broken up by rocky, snowy islands.
I guess what you find is just your luck on a given night's play.
I wonder if there really are 18 quintillion planets. The number, IIRC, just stems from it being roughly 2^64, so using 64-bit numbers, that's the maximum number of combinations you get.
Although I also think it doesn't matter that much whether it's really 18 quintillion planets, due to the fact you already mentioned.
It's impossible to prove, or disprove.
i've seen worlds made up of intersecting "worms" of land that is far beyond what most, if not all games have done so far in regards to terrain generation. and it's on a planet wide scale no less. there is definitely more to it then a "noise" displacement.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I'd like to see pictures of anything that actually match the appropriate scale of a mountain or canyon. Because all I found are what could be called big hills and deep valleys.
That really sucks. Is this something that could be toggled on/off in a future update?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked