No Man's Sky

[Darkrulerxxx]

It's over, even more hilarious is that it seems to be the 2nd highest upvoted voted AMA on that subreddit behind President Obama's a couple years ago.

- - - Updated - - -

I completely disagree, there is great beauty in simplicity as well as the ability to focus to make something work really well rather than be a jack of all trades. There is a reason why the K.I.S.S. philosophy exists and works. Take a look at the recent DOOM game as well as it's ancestors, particularly the first and second. It's simple as hell, apply guns to hordes of demons then ... mix ... with bare hands, yet it gets so much praise and the original games don't feel aged gameplay wise even today. They just do that one thing really well; no reloading, not much story, just run and gun.

Rather I think that if NMS fails it would be due to trying to be a jack-of-all-trades, particularly with the inclusion of the annoying looking survival mechanics.

ill give you some credit i believe there is a market for both sides between simple and complexity....but no man's sky seems to go to the complexity side mixed with simple with no advantageous benefit of having included multiplayer aspect.

meh maybe i just dont like single players anymore without a driven story...i like playing with others.

[rhorle]

ill give you some credit i believe there is a market for both sides between simple and complexity....but no man's sky seems to go to the complexity side mixed with simple with no advantageous benefit of having included multiplayer aspect.

Because it isn't a multiplayer game. It is there to allow it and likely expand upon it. Also why can't you put your chips into both NMS and Star Citizen? They aren't competing games and have never ever been close to being competing games.

[deadman1]

Using exploits to acquire in-game stuff in more quantities than intended is cheating, no different from pulling down a console and typing "give warp cells 100500".

I'd argue that it's the devs fault.

[Deleted]

I just had a thought. Has anyone considered this game is really more about the journey the exploration the being the first to the center or combat?

To me at least I feel this game isn't meant to be rushed or forced but to explore and see to wander.

To quote star trek "To boldly go where no man has before"

That is what I seek from the game. And I suspect many of it's supporters as well.

While I feel many of it's detractors/haters want to like it but it may not be uo their alley so they turn around and hate on it

Even if it is only about exploration, you have to keep it fresh and even the exploration needs a depth to keep people engaged and immersed.

[Kaleredar]

Even if it is only about exploration, you have to keep it fresh and even the exploration needs a depth to keep people engaged and immersed.

...A depth that procedural generation is almost always bereft of.

[DarkAmbient]

...A depth that procedural generation is almost always bereft of.

I'm already seeing grumblings about the sameness of planets, where basically the only difference is climate and the colour of flora. From an exploration standpoint that's not particularly interesting. They really need a way of generating explorable structures with loot etc.

[Kaleredar]

I'm already seeing grumblings about the sameness of planets, where basically the only difference is climate and the colour of flora. From an exploration standpoint that's not particularly interesting. They really need a way of generating explorable structures with loot etc.

Even those can get boring. Like nether fortresses in Minecraft. They look huge and impressive, but once you get the fact that they're just things bits of code spat out with no real purpose or thought, it starts to get that procedural soullessness to it.

I suppose the loot would make it worth while, but eventually it becomes a slog.

[EternalBany]

Nice joke thread.
Game is gonna be boring and hollow, if you played wow and remember tanaris and silithus, that is no mans sky, with a slight makeover.

Trashed.

[Blacksen]

Early reviews/impressions are up on OpenCritic: http://opencritic.com/game/2393/no-mans-sky

[Deleted]

I'm already seeing grumblings about the sameness of planets, where basically the only difference is climate and the colour of flora. From an exploration standpoint that's not particularly interesting. They really need a way of generating explorable structures with loot etc.

It's a difficult thing since these type of open exploration games never really cracked the code so far, except with a deep and rewarding crafting/building system. However, even that is a distraction of sorts.

You need to give people a reason to keep on playing through gazillions of procedurally generated planets, more than "it's very very chill, relax and explore the unknown", when said unknown all starts to look the same unknown-sy, it's not exciting to go the next planet anymore.

I'm definitely buying this game because it fascinates me, but I'm keeping my own expectations in check, largely because these kind of games never delivered for me and are too ambitious (which is not something I dislike at all, it's merely impossible to craft the experience people are looking for in these games without breaking the bank).

Let's think about it, what would a game like No Man's Sky need to have lasting appeal?
-A large diversity of fauna, flora, biomes, weather systems.
-An overarching story linking it all together, make it seem more than planet after planet after planet.
-Something to drive people forward: a progressive building/crafting system of incredible depth.
-A challenge: dungeons? And how do you keep procedurally generated dungeons interesting? Multi-tiered loot system? Even that eventually turns into an aimless grind.

I honestly don't know. It's extremely interesting, but the time and resources one would need to invest to make a game of this scale would be enormous. Who is going to invest in a financial gamble like this when you know the demand for these type of games is fairly limited (they are not your standard mainstream linear cutscene experience).

[Toccs]

Nice joke thread.
Game is gonna be boring and hollow, if you played wow and remember tanaris and silithus, that is no mans sky, with a slight makeover.

Trashed.

I’m hoping for a 3D Star Bound but without the base building aspect. I enjoy laying back exploring things even if such things only have small differences. Each to their own though if you don’t think you will enjoy it then don’t buy it.

[zealo]

Having played Star Citizen (at least what is currently available to play), I have to say I find it extremely boring. It's really more of a technical exercise than a game. Flying your ship isn't fun, it's a chore.

No Man's Sky would seem's like the complete opposite of Star Citizen.

That's because it's designed to have real physics in its flight system and be geared towards control devices like dual flight sticks or a hotas with pedals, rather than the arcade stuff NMS is.

Neither is a wrong implementation, it's just a matter of personal tastes. Some people enjoy that complexity approach more, and others do not. It's why games like DCS are popular among simulation crowds despite certainly not being for everyone.

[Demoncrash]

[Ravenblade]

Game looks a bit of an entry-level Elite to me.

The biggest plus it could have - planetary exploration - seems to be cut short by their own intentions and the systems used. Where to begin? Planets are not balls with the same biome spread all over the place. If it's all the same then exploration is going to be as exciting as travelling with the Mako over endless planes was in ME1, however as a game it's not enough. There's no pole caps, tropical zones, or anything else that would suggest that planets harbouring life possess some latitudinal diversity gradients like you would expect. Instead they look like some re-seeded version of the same algorithm. This in my opinion puts a lot of pressure on the fun and replay factor of the game.

I couldn't play it anyway with the computer being a bit too old. If I could then I'd wait for a hefty price cut at least.

[Dhrizzle]

I'm already seeing grumblings about the sameness of planets, where basically the only difference is climate and the colour of flora. From an exploration standpoint that's not particularly interesting. They really need a way of generating explorable structures with loot etc.

People have been happy exploring in Elite: Dangerous and there isn't even any life on the planets.

[Ravenblade]

People have been happy exploring in Elite: Dangerous and there isn't even any life on the planets.

I think that has something to do with the emphasis on exploration and the bigger scope of the game. NMS was supposed to be very planet-focused, Elite is very space-focused. It's a pretty daunting task to realistically generate and populate structures of the scale of planets and we may still have a few years to go until we can actually do that in a way that suspension of belief and immersion remains strong enough to reach that kind of replayability and longevity which the NMS developers possibly have envisioned at some point. Otherwise it may eventually feel more like an impressive tech demo with simple mechanics to the one who expected a lot more. It is already impressive how we have gone from what Bryce3D could only do 20+ years ago to what we can do now. Whether that's already sufficient to get a game going that's worth its high price tag remains to be seen. I'm honestly sceptical. Not in a malicious sense though.

[DarkAmbient]

Jim Sterling's early impressions:

[Shaede]

i like the game but two glaring problems I have: The limited storage space, that needs to serve as upgrade space and storage space, is frustrating as hell. I'm spending half the game deciding what to discard so I can pick up more stuff I'll eventually discard for more stuff...

And all of these locked doors requiring an atlas pass, which I have no idea how to obtain, seem over the top and hinders exploring at this point. With a galaxy so big, the chances of me returning to these locked doors once I find whatever correct version of an atlas pass they need is slim to none. Which brings the question, whats the point of locking so many doors?

I'm enjoying the seamless planet to planet travel, and walking around discovering stuff is pretty fun. That inventory space is a real killer tho for enjoyment. That's just something I shouldn't need to worry about so often in a game like this, serving as a punisher for going on big exploration treks.

[Collected]

Jim Sterling's early impressions:

Fascinating when he speaks of leaving a planet and not feeling part of a huge universe. I've wondered for a while if the act of flying between planets/systems is actually an illusion of sorts and when you leave a planet you enter a small "lobby" area full of some asteroids, ships.. a space station or two.. and when you pick your next destination you sort of "load into" the next planet. I described it as almost like stepping into a portal in Minecraft and exploring the nether before using another portal to get back to the over world.. but miles away from where you originated. I mean it makes sense right? No video game could simulate a huge universe without some cleverness going on.. especially not on a limited hardware console system. So it's like [Planet A] -> [Space Lobby] -> [Planet B]

For example at 7:15 in that video.. it just feels staged to me.. an illusion. It always seems convenient that there is another planet right there. You're never alone in space from what I've seen in gameplay footage.

[rhorle]

And all of these locked doors requiring an atlas pass, which I have no idea how to obtain, seem over the top and hinders exploring at this point. With a galaxy so big, the chances of me returning to these locked doors once I find whatever correct version of an atlas pass they need is slim to none. Which brings the question, whats the point of locking so many doors?

http://www.powerpyx.com/no-mans-sky-...et-atlas-pass/ indicates you should have sort of been guided to getting an atlas pass.