valkillmore
Member
I plan on upgrading my jetpack and the blasting around at a low height right above the ground to get around on 'foot.' will probably be faster than sprinting.
-
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 previews (03-03-2016)
- Thread starter bombshell
- Start date
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
The difference is, those games are priced right, with a low entry point.
More_Badass
Member
What makes you say this is priced "wrong"? Considering how the preorders are topping charts on Amazon and it's in the Top Sellers list on Steam...
Elite: Dangerous set my wallet back as much as NMS will.
SirMossyBloke
Member
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
In comparison to the other games you mentioned though, it'll likely not come close for even people on the fence, at that price.
This implies you are somehow the judge of what games should or shouldn't be priced at $60.
How about we wait until reviews to see how much is in NMS until making those kind of sweeping statements.
irrotational
Member
With regards to VR, this game is funded by Sony...I just can't see a PC only VR release....I'm worried it will go the other way and get locked in as a sclusie...
In what ways does it not come close? Please explain.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
I may not be a judge, but I have an opinion that's no more or less important than the rest.
More_Badass
Member
To be fair, that comparison was in regards to the comment that most people would find this game boring, not price related
iamBlkpleAsedoNt
Banned
So hyped for this game especially in VR!
Elite also has full multiplayer modes like the CQC stuff or being able to fly around with friends and people you just meet at stations.
Sleeping Lesson
Member
To be clear, the game is not published by Sony. I can't say how much Sony money went into the development, but Hello Games self-published the game just like they did Joe Danger.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
I doubt at $60, NMS will come close to the overall sales and active users than a Minecraft or Terraria. Price plays a huge part in that.
You straight up just stated that it's priced wrong. Just comes off trying to prove a fact rather than presenting an opinion.
Ok sorry wasn't clear on what you were saying. And you could very well be right in that sense.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
Should I post at the end of every post "in my opinion" then?
I guess personally I'm a little tired of hearing people suggesting this game's base worth before anyone has laid hands on the final product.
Elite also lacked planetary exploration which they only added later for additional cost.
The fact of the matter is, Elite: Dangerous was also priced at the high end of the spectrum and that was fine too. I did not regret my purchase and I don't see myself regretting purchasing NMS.
Fun fact, the amount of material in our asteroid belt is equivalent to 1 trillion US dollars for every person on Earth.
I believe that is just the pure value of the metals too, the value only skyrockets if you consider governments buying water mined from the Asteroids in the future.
This has hyped me up to extreme levels!
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
i'm so glad we dont have to build anything.
You can see the pilot roll in the E3 announcement trailer IIRC.
Considering how much you're moving around it wouldn't make a lot of sense either way.
Unless they removed it there is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de4Ehpy7VH0#t=2m29s
That's why I've never understood the people clammoring for base building.
AdventureRacing
Member
Minecraft is basically the best selling game of all time, I think they would be ok with missing that target. Terraria is a more reasonable goal and depending on WoM I think this could do just as well or better.
Is there a particular reason why it has to? If they do even half what Minecraft has done in sales, I'm sure they'll be swimming in profit just fine, and it would still be a significant sales success the kind that plenty of other games just dream of.
It certainly is a weird statement that NMS won't sell as much as minecraft due to pricing. Like, most games won't come close to Minecraft's 70 million copies sold at any price. And you're right No Mans Sky can do far less than Minecraft level of sells and still be rolling in money.
fuck yes, thanks OP. been digging into this shits non-stop since yesterday.
Danlord
Member
I can't remember the source, but it was said that there's only one save. Things could have changed, especially since some people would like multiple profiles depending on their play through preference.
eyeball_kid
Member
Something I thought was weird about the RPS preview. At first Murray says:
But then he says:
I find it kind of odd that they'd create these planet-sized planets with endless wonders to take in, but then shape the game mechanics so that you're encouraged to keep moving to other planets. And why did Murray say that he wants some people to just stay at one, and then turn around and say that he wants people to keep exploring the universe? It seems inconsistent, and I wonder if they left seasons and more complex biomes out more due to time constaints or difficulty rather than to push players from behind by making a planet a little bit boring eventually.
Regardless of the specific financial details, let's be real... Sony is effectively publishing the game. Giving development money to Hello (enough to lock it in as a console exclusive), huge advertising pushes (there's no way an indie studio would get on Colbert's show without the Sony marketing machine) and E3 spotlights Sony has given this game a massive PR boost, and without that I doubt NMS would be on the radar of a general gaming audience. That's what good publishers do. And that's why if NMS comes to any VR platform, you can bet that it will go to PSVR first.
But then he says:
I find it kind of odd that they'd create these planet-sized planets with endless wonders to take in, but then shape the game mechanics so that you're encouraged to keep moving to other planets. And why did Murray say that he wants some people to just stay at one, and then turn around and say that he wants people to keep exploring the universe? It seems inconsistent, and I wonder if they left seasons and more complex biomes out more due to time constaints or difficulty rather than to push players from behind by making a planet a little bit boring eventually.
Regardless of the specific financial details, let's be real... Sony is effectively publishing the game. Giving development money to Hello (enough to lock it in as a console exclusive), huge advertising pushes (there's no way an indie studio would get on Colbert's show without the Sony marketing machine) and E3 spotlights Sony has given this game a massive PR boost, and without that I doubt NMS would be on the radar of a general gaming audience. That's what good publishers do. And that's why if NMS comes to any VR platform, you can bet that it will go to PSVR first.
SirMossyBloke
Member
NMS also has fully destructable environments and wildlife (creatures), as well as language learning.
We could go on all night.
I think it's just a bit badly worded. I think he knows that because of the procedural nature there will be a lot of 'not so interesting' planets. Sounds to me that he really hopes that everyone finds a planet (or a few of them) that they somehow really adore/like and explore; but staying put on the planet(s) is not the goal of the game. I also think that the planets themselves (who aren't 'planet sized' in my eyes, they seem pretty smallish, but still big enough to get lost!)
I do hope that they keep supporting the game with all kinds of new features. I'm sure that because of the procedural nature some things might / will not be possible, but if they can keep coming up with new features I would really like that.
eyeball_kid
Member
Yeah, it could be that Sean just doesn't want people to have a mediocre experience because they are completionists and stayed on a mediocre planet for a month.
Regarding the planet size, in one of the previews the player landed on a space station after exploring around on the surface, and when they looked out a porthole onto the planet Sean said something to the effect of, "Your targeting reticule is the same size as the area we just explored." So if you can imagine a planet filling your screen with a few pixels taking up an hour of exploration time, I'd say that's a fairly planet-sized planet. Maybe smaller than Earth, but pretty damn big.
Sleeping Lesson
Member
I just don't know enough to make that assumption. There's clearly a financial tie, but I don't think Sony could literally stop them from supporting PC VR if they can't/won't bring the game to PSVR.
SolidSnakex
Member
A new interview with Sean
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2016-03/04/no-mans-sky-sean-murray-interview
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2016-03/04/no-mans-sky-sean-murray-interview
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
the last save point, i believe. i think you lose the progress you made since then?
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
You either respawn back at your spacecraft (if you die) or respawn back at a space station (if you die and your spacecraft is destroyed) but Access said there are save points too and they respawned back at that after they saved.
Gunslinger
Member
Man seems to me this game either going to be groundbreaking in the gaming industry. One of the greatest or great or a complete failure. I hope the former is true as it does look very interesting.
ichtyander
Member
I think people should maybe temper their expectations regarding the size of planets, and more importantly, the time needed to explore them fully, whatever that might mean. In any case, I highly doubt you would need a month, let alone a year to explore a single planet. I'd even go as far to say it'll probably be in the ballpark of a few hours, a day at most.
By fully exploring, I mean discovering and visiting every relevant point of interest and fully stripping the planet of resources. You might want to visit every nook and cranny and (arguably) needlessly waste time if that's fun to you, but even in that case you'll probably spend a couple of days at most.
Also, having even an Earth-sized planet doesn't mean much when you have a super-fast spaceship able to land and take off anywhere and very quickly. You would basically go around the Earth extremely fast as well, go over all the most popular landmarks etc, it's just that Earth has an insane amount of diversity of biomes, flora, fauna, is heavily populated by various human cultures, so that almost unfathomable complexity makes exploring Earth take a bit longer. Nobody can possibly expect even a fraction of such complexity on the planets of No Man's Sky. It's actually going to be so much simpler that there'll be a single biome per planet, and I don't really expect more than a dozen species per planet, and that's being generous, and also that's on planets that actually have any form of life at all. To be clear, having life on a planet doesn't mean it's automatically interesting, just different, meaning I'm sure there'll be a lot of lifeless planets that are extremely interesting as well, but that's besides the point.
So I'm imagining that the usual playthrough of a single planet will look like this:
- Approach planetary orbit, ping the scanner to reveal a few nearby points of interest
- Land at one POI, discover what it is and exploit it if possible (learn language, get blueprint, mine mineral etc.)
- Walk around a bit, maybe notice a weird lake, mountain formation or a cave, explore, spend maybe even an hour mucking about, then walk all the way back to your ship
- Find an Atlas beacon, upload data so you don't loose the last hour's progress
- Get back on the ship, maybe even fly into orbit again, go to another larger area and ping the scanner
- Rinse and repeat
This is all very simplified of course, the point is you'll have a few different activities you'll be doing, mostly surviving in harsh environments just to get that extra ore, blueprint, alien word or better your relations with a faction, going up and down from planet to station, do a lot of spelunking and mining etc.
The point is, every planet is a dungeon floor in a procedural survival/rogue-lite of sorts, and, if the gameplay mechanics are captivating enough, you will feel the need to plunder its riches, discover its secrets and move on to the next floor of the dungeon to see what new similarly fashioned wonders you'll find. The variety of activities and cosmetic differences help greatly, but in the end the important thing is whether landing on a planet, seeing a creature and scanning it is fun/exciting/fulfilling enough for the player.
Because a tree is a tree, a fish is a fish, a monolith is a monolith, but that doesn't mean that searching for lots of different kinds of fish needs to be boring, it just means that the act of searching for the fish needs to be engaging enough for the player, and then even forever searching for and finding a single type of fish can be almost as fun.
Remember that this game is an homage not just to the classic sci-fi books and their cover art, but also to an age of the UK and EU boom of home computer games, they were played on a TV or a small monitor, and then the action would be shown on an even smaller screen, with a large HUD covering most of the screen, lots of stats, management and a mish-mash of genres, all there to create a feeling of actually controlling this awesome futuristic spaceship system, mining for resources, talking to aliens, saving the galaxy.
These games, like most games really, had a lot of repeating gameplay loops, lots of jumping from planet to planet, sending probes down the surface, seeing if there's something there, getting resources, fuel, trading, talk with aliens, it was very repetitive but (arguably) not as boring as you'd think. And that's the whole point, it's the challenge of discovery and survival that should be enough for a genre like this.
EDIT:
As perhaps a simple example, FTL is an extremely repetitive game, also relatively simple in its design, but you can potentially play it forever, and it does in fact have a very captivating gameplay loop, especially because it's pretty hard to survive the whole thing. Spelunky as well. You get to the second world (jungle temple) and you marginally know what to expect, frogs, a possible snake pit, ghosts, but you have no idea what combination you'll be thrown into, and it's (almost) as exciting and challenging each and every time like it's your first. Not saying No Man's Sky will succeed in doing these gameplay loops well, but then there's really no reason to think it won't.
By fully exploring, I mean discovering and visiting every relevant point of interest and fully stripping the planet of resources. You might want to visit every nook and cranny and (arguably) needlessly waste time if that's fun to you, but even in that case you'll probably spend a couple of days at most.
Also, having even an Earth-sized planet doesn't mean much when you have a super-fast spaceship able to land and take off anywhere and very quickly. You would basically go around the Earth extremely fast as well, go over all the most popular landmarks etc, it's just that Earth has an insane amount of diversity of biomes, flora, fauna, is heavily populated by various human cultures, so that almost unfathomable complexity makes exploring Earth take a bit longer. Nobody can possibly expect even a fraction of such complexity on the planets of No Man's Sky. It's actually going to be so much simpler that there'll be a single biome per planet, and I don't really expect more than a dozen species per planet, and that's being generous, and also that's on planets that actually have any form of life at all. To be clear, having life on a planet doesn't mean it's automatically interesting, just different, meaning I'm sure there'll be a lot of lifeless planets that are extremely interesting as well, but that's besides the point.
So I'm imagining that the usual playthrough of a single planet will look like this:
- Approach planetary orbit, ping the scanner to reveal a few nearby points of interest
- Land at one POI, discover what it is and exploit it if possible (learn language, get blueprint, mine mineral etc.)
- Walk around a bit, maybe notice a weird lake, mountain formation or a cave, explore, spend maybe even an hour mucking about, then walk all the way back to your ship
- Find an Atlas beacon, upload data so you don't loose the last hour's progress
- Get back on the ship, maybe even fly into orbit again, go to another larger area and ping the scanner
- Rinse and repeat
This is all very simplified of course, the point is you'll have a few different activities you'll be doing, mostly surviving in harsh environments just to get that extra ore, blueprint, alien word or better your relations with a faction, going up and down from planet to station, do a lot of spelunking and mining etc.
The point is, every planet is a dungeon floor in a procedural survival/rogue-lite of sorts, and, if the gameplay mechanics are captivating enough, you will feel the need to plunder its riches, discover its secrets and move on to the next floor of the dungeon to see what new similarly fashioned wonders you'll find. The variety of activities and cosmetic differences help greatly, but in the end the important thing is whether landing on a planet, seeing a creature and scanning it is fun/exciting/fulfilling enough for the player.
Because a tree is a tree, a fish is a fish, a monolith is a monolith, but that doesn't mean that searching for lots of different kinds of fish needs to be boring, it just means that the act of searching for the fish needs to be engaging enough for the player, and then even forever searching for and finding a single type of fish can be almost as fun.
Remember that this game is an homage not just to the classic sci-fi books and their cover art, but also to an age of the UK and EU boom of home computer games, they were played on a TV or a small monitor, and then the action would be shown on an even smaller screen, with a large HUD covering most of the screen, lots of stats, management and a mish-mash of genres, all there to create a feeling of actually controlling this awesome futuristic spaceship system, mining for resources, talking to aliens, saving the galaxy.
These games, like most games really, had a lot of repeating gameplay loops, lots of jumping from planet to planet, sending probes down the surface, seeing if there's something there, getting resources, fuel, trading, talk with aliens, it was very repetitive but (arguably) not as boring as you'd think. And that's the whole point, it's the challenge of discovery and survival that should be enough for a genre like this.
EDIT:
As perhaps a simple example, FTL is an extremely repetitive game, also relatively simple in its design, but you can potentially play it forever, and it does in fact have a very captivating gameplay loop, especially because it's pretty hard to survive the whole thing. Spelunky as well. You get to the second world (jungle temple) and you marginally know what to expect, frogs, a possible snake pit, ghosts, but you have no idea what combination you'll be thrown into, and it's (almost) as exciting and challenging each and every time like it's your first. Not saying No Man's Sky will succeed in doing these gameplay loops well, but then there's really no reason to think it won't.
Icyflamez96
Member
Ok this whole article solidifies my view that No Man's Sky is an indie title.