No Man's Sky

[rhorle]

You tell a computer to make x number of animal designs, it'll give it to you in minutes, but there's no control for how different or similar those things are. You're going to wind up with a lot of the same looking thing.

Then you don't understand computer code. You can easily but in code to only produce X similar things. The reason why you see 200 fish dogs in NMS is because they wanted that to happen. Which by the way there isn't 200 different fish dogs. Well there could be. Its funny how some things you accept 200 and other things you don't. A human artist can just as easily create 200 slightly different fish dogs if they wanted. Of course it would take them far longer which is why NMS used code to generate the animals. Because it would take them years just to create all the different possible creatures code can do in shorter period of time.

Yeah, but if Arthas looked like Illidan with his horns pointing backwards instead of forwards and with red hair instead of black, people would probably feel that was a pretty lame-ass attempted distinction, despite the fact that they are technically different.

http://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Arthas.jpg he looks like another human there just slightly different.
http://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Arthaspaladin1.JPG vs http://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Arthasdeathknight1.JPG
http://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Lich_King_Arthas.jpg

He still looks human. You are comparing two vastly different models when you try to compare Illidan and Arthas. Which doesn't work for the type of argument you are trying to make. Because that is like comparing Fish Dog to Unicorn Dog (http://1u88jj3r4db2x4txp44yqfj1.wpen...-2-800x450.jpg from http://venturebeat.com/2016/08/09/no...d-space-dinos/)

That is the difference between Illidan and Arthas. Two different types of Models. Try comparing two Humans from Warcraft together and see how similar they are. But again why does it matter that a human created them versus a computer? Why is Human created work automatically better just because it was created by a Human?

[Deleted]

Then you don't understand computer code. You can easily but in code to only produce X similar things. The reason why you see 200 fish dogs in NMS is because they wanted that to happen. Which by the way there isn't 200 different fish dogs. Well there could be. Its funny how some things you accept 200 and other things you don't. A human artist can just as easily create 200 slightly different fish dogs if they wanted. Of course it would take them far longer which is why NMS used code to generate the animals. Because it would take them years just to create all the different possible creatures code can do in shorter period of time.



http://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Arthas.jpg he looks like another human there just slightly different.
http://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Arthaspaladin1.JPG vs http://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Arthasdeathknight1.JPG
http://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Lich_King_Arthas.jpg

He still looks human. You are comparing two vastly different models when you try to compare Illidan and Arthas. Which doesn't work for the type of argument you are trying to make. Because that is like comparing Fish Dog to Unicorn Dog (http://1u88jj3r4db2x4txp44yqfj1.wpen...-2-800x450.jpg from http://venturebeat.com/2016/08/09/no...d-space-dinos/)

That is the difference between Illidan and Arthas. Two different types of Models. Try comparing two Humans from Warcraft together and see how similar they are. But again why does it matter that a human created them versus a computer? Why is Human created work automatically better just because it was created by a Human?

I get it though. it's strange to see the same type of animal on different planets. Supposedly these creatures have originated and developed on their own respective planets, but when they all look alike it's hard to immerse yourself into that mindset.

the sword analogy doesn't really fit into this discussion. Sure, all swords look alike. That's because they're all swords, they all share the same function. But why would the creatures from planet A look so much like the creatures from planet B? You'd think they wouldn't be related at all.

it's not really a matter of 'manmade' vs 'computer generated', it's a matter of realism.

[Deleted]

I am glad that i did not pre order. Overprized and missing features? Not cool.

[Ifeanychukwu]

Instead of going into outer space, how about going under water?

That looks awesome! Like what a lot of people probably wanted Subnautica to be. It's its own thing though and still pretty fun. I'll have to check this out for sure.

- - - Updated - - -

Hopefully they will address some of the shortcomings in the near future, there's quite a few things that aren't doing it for me from the streams I've watched so I'm waiting to see what the PC release is like before ponying up.
It looks a fun game although I feel there's a bit too much focus on survival for my liking, I would prefer for survival to be a secondary system than a primary. The collect this to do that to collect this to do that is going to get tiring quite quickly unless you're able to get past it.

---

Elite's a great game on the whole, clearly a long way from what they want it to be but it's slowly getting there.
If you're into exploration can I recommend the Small Worlds project https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...lds-Expedition
If you're into mystery then perhaps the canonn will also be of interest https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...d-4-The-Canonn
A wiki write up of what the Unknown Artefacts are and what they portend http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Unknown_Artefact

Yeah I always have hope for these types of games. Even when games have rocky launches or the devs do some weird shit I still like to see games with cool concepts succeed. No Man's Sky is one I'd love to see become an awesome game so I'll be following any updates it gets for sure. I think if they ever add base building though it should be done in a massive ship, a sort of home base you could dock smaller ships inside so you can have a place to return to and see continual progress.

I downloaded it and ran it and WOW! It's pretty incredible but I realized that this is a game that should definitely be played with a flight stick. So as it happens I'm in the market for a real quality flight stick. I've been looking around and I'm thinking about this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16826280021 the Thrustmaster Warthog. My birthday's this Sunday so I'm thinking it'd make a nice gift for myself

[grandpab]

For me at least, the creatures are a pretty minor part of the game. It's cool when you come across something different though, but I'm not going around planet to planet just looking for creatures. I'm doing other shit and honestly some of the best planets I've found have been completely devoid of fauna or wildlife.

[Kaleredar]

Then you don't understand computer code. You can easily but in code to only produce X similar things. The reason why you see 200 fish dogs in NMS is because they wanted that to happen.

Wanting it to happen =/= not making sure it doesn't happen. Perhaps there are controls for features that could ensure that animals were fundamentally coded to aproximate biomes the procedural generator kicked out. But I've seen nothing that implies that such a feature exists.

Which by the way there isn't 200 different fish dogs. Well there could be. Its funny how some things you accept 200 and other things you don't. A human artist can just as easily create 200 slightly different fish dogs if they wanted.

They could. But if you told a human artist to make 200 different animals, they'd likely explicate on it far more than 200 different fishdogs.

The reason NMS is churning out fishdogs is because the underlying pieces that make up the animals, which were designed by artists, are being recombined thoughtlessly.

It's like the old sandwich shop math problem. Sure, a sandwich shop can claim they have "thousands of different sandwiches," but you realize all they're doing is saying "if you combine every piddling ingredient in every way possible, you have thousands of different combinations." I suppose it's the concept of different versus novel. Novel is what you're searching for, different is what's being settled for.

Of course it would take them far longer which is why NMS used code to generate the animals. Because it would take them years just to create all the different possible creatures code can do in shorter period of time.

Which is why you wind up with a bunch of them that look the same.

http://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Arthas.jpg he looks like another human there just slightly different.
http://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Arthaspaladin1.JPG vs http://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Arthasdeathknight1.JPG
http://wow.gamepedia.com/File:Lich_King_Arthas.jpg

He still looks human. You are comparing two vastly different models when you try to compare Illidan and Arthas. Which doesn't work for the type of argument you are trying to make.

You were the one making that argument... kind of...

Because that is like comparing Fish Dog to Unicorn Dog (http://1u88jj3r4db2x4txp44yqfj1.wpen...-2-800x450.jpg from http://venturebeat.com/2016/08/09/no...d-space-dinos/)

I'm not saying everything in NMS is a fishdog. But you'll start to see things repeated. You'll recognize the fishdog body. You'll recognize the elephant boar head. You'll recognize all the little parts of the animals that the artists DID make and how the code has just slopped them together in a different way.

"Gee another head from the animal I saw on planet 73 glued onto the body of an animal I saw on planet 113, with that weird curved tail that I saw on those animals on planets 12, 84, and 214."

That is the difference between Illidan and Arthas. Two different types of Models. Try comparing two Humans from Warcraft together and see how similar they are. But again why does it matter that a human created them versus a computer? Why is Human created work automatically better just because it was created by a Human?

And I'd point out that again, the point of world of warcraft isn't to go around exploring what humans look like.

Games that feature "exploration" as a selling point along with procedural generation all end up with the "who gives a fuck" factor after a while.

Spore had it. The planets (populated by person-made creatures of varying qualities) and randomly seeded with colors, atmospheres, terrain colors and features, plants, and potentially cities with their own procedurally-selected person-made buildings are what you "explore" in the final stage of the game. But eventually you stop caring about exploration. Are the differently shaped mountains with different colors and random foliage worth the time investment? You start to see the same types of underlying coding deciding what goes where, and when you pull back that vale... well, things just aren't interesting anymore. You start to see the similarities between everything, rather than the differences.

Same goes for minecraft. Sure, you can go around and find giant canyons and mesas and frozen plains and tropical forests, but... once you've seen one iteration of those things, the next one you see looks pretty similar. They might toss in a few examples of extreme geography here and there, but again... after a bit you go "oh yeah it's those giant mountains that look like they're floating... I saw those in the taiga a bit ago... now it's in the jungle. That's... cool I guess?"

But the profound difference between Spore and Minecraft, and NMS is that Spore and Minecraft were both focused around making things. The procedural generation bit was a convenience to facilitate that main aspect. Spore had a fantastic idea and good run but burned out, probably because of its ultimate limitations (And EA deciding to cut and run like they always do.) Minecraft is still going likely because of the fundamental simplicity and modability.

But No Man's Sky doesn't have that creative aspect. It just has the exploration. Which is fine... but the ability for a computer to be creative and show you something genuinely novel is severely limited. And when you're exploring, you're trying to find something novel.

[MasterHamster]

I'll be honest, most of the "short and negative" feedback I've seen is either fully excusable with "Well that's reality of game development" or it being obvious that the speaker isn't really interested in what NMS is trying to be. NMS was so hyped that it's in the gaming spotlight, but it's such a niche game that inevitably there's going to be hell of a lot of people that are simply not the target audience that has to spew all over it as they for whatever reason choose to watch NMS streams for 3 hours simply to repeat "this looks boring" every 5 minutes.

You don't care for the opinions of sport-game fans, or CoD players, or MOBA players, when you have a game that is aimed toward the niche group of gamers that love the space theme in games, find excitement in seeing a planet that reads on the scanner that it might have the type of material you need next, doesn't mind periods of "downtime", and love the idea of a truly vast game world (no matter how quickly large chunks are made 'obsolete' as you progress). Look at Elite Dangerous where basic trading is 80% FTL flight between trade stations, 14% docking maneuvering, 5% selling/buying and 1% combat time. You might be doing that for hours just to get an engine upgrade to travel a bit faster just to be every so slightly more efficient. Some people LOVE that. A large part of the gaming community would fall asleep.

Of course you'll run into similar looking animal life after a while, you'll quickly start to remember and instantly recognize when an animal uses "that 6-legged base" or "upright sauropod base". Humans are a bit too good at learning and recognizing patterns. Also I don't really know why NMS was expected to have base building? Has "procedurally generated" become so synonymous with Minecraft that is has to have it? And what would be the point of base building, when you'll eventually, probably, spend maybe 20-30 minutes on a planet then move to another? Then people would just complain that they have to go back to a dull starting planet every once in a while.

I'm excited to try the game tomorrow. I'm also excited for future additions to the game, because I think there's little doubt they'll spend a lot of time adding to the base game. But my expectations was: A mix of Elite and Subnautica, Minecraft for the procedural stuff. A vast, vast world to run/fly around in. Exploration, basic combat, trading. That's it. That is the niche they were going for and from what I've seen they've hit the mark pretty well IF YOU'RE LIKE ME AND IS THE TARGET AUDIENCE. But maybe I had a big advantage due to me never getting unrealistic expectations.

And frankly I think we need to realize that, other than pure Singleplayer games, we can't just base our entire opinion on a game by the release alone anymore. The industry has changed too much. More and more games move towards a "release a base we're satisfied with, with the features we feel make a great start, add more over time". And of course we can have a lengthy discussion about if that is "right" or "wrong", but that is how many game releases work nowadays.

[Elim Garak]

They could. But if you told a human artist to make 200 different animals, they'd likely explicate on it far more than 200 different fishdogs.

Which would take one artist almost 10 years to complete going at 2 animals per month (work-time month not calendar month).
Not a single professional artist would go: "OK, 200 different animals are coming up in 10 years", they go "that would take 10 years we need to optimize or hire more artists" and then you get 200 not so different animals, who use a limited number of animation skeletons (like 10) making these skeletons the defining visual base for animals each skeleton will have 20 variations (not completely different mind you, because skeleton limits the freedom) of skin mesh or texture or both. And you will have 20 variations of fishdog on two legs, 20 variations of dogfish on 4 legs, 20 variations of dogs, 20 variations of fish, etc up to 20x10. All done by one artist in a year or so.

Something they could've created using procedural generation if they had the technology.

[Vespian]

Which would take one artist almost 10 years to complete going at 2 animals per month (work-time month not calendar month).
Not a single professional artist would go: "OK, 200 different animals are coming up in 10 years", they go "that would take 10 years we need to optimize or hire more artists" and then you get 200 not so different animals, who use a limited number of animation skeletons (like 10) making these skeletons the defining visual base for animals each skeleton will have 20 variations (not completely different mind you, because skeleton limits the freedom) of skin mesh or texture or both. And you will have 20 variations of fishdog on two legs, 20 variations of dogfish on 4 legs, 20 variations of dogs, 20 variations of fish, etc up to 20x10. All done by one artist in a year or so.

Something they could've created using procedural generation if they had the technology.

I think you missed the point of the post.

[Kaleredar]

Which would take one artist almost 10 years to complete going at 2 animals per month (work-time month not calendar month).
Not a single professional artist would go: "OK, 200 different animals are coming up in 10 years", they go "that would take 10 years we need to optimize or hire more artists" and then you get 200 not so different animals, who use a limited number of animation skeletons (like 10) making these skeletons the defining visual base for animals each skeleton will have 20 variations (not completely different mind you, because skeleton limits the freedom) of skin mesh or texture or both. And you will have 20 variations of fishdog on two legs, 20 variations of dogfish on 4 legs, 20 variations of dogs, 20 variations of fish, etc up to 20x10. All done by one artist in a year or so.

Something they could've created using procedural generation if they had the technology.

Yes, but then you don't get 200 different unique animals. You get "200 animals."

And I'm well aware of the time restrictions on artists and modelers, being one myself.

[Selastan]

I'll be honest, most of the "short and negative" feedback I've seen is either fully excusable with "Well that's reality of game development" or it being obvious that the speaker isn't really interested in what NMS is trying to be. NMS was so hyped that it's in the gaming spotlight, but it's such a niche game that inevitably there's going to be hell of a lot of people that are simply not the target audience that has to spew all over it as they for whatever reason choose to watch NMS streams for 3 hours simply to repeat "this looks boring" every 5 minutes.

You don't care for the opinions of sport-game fans, or CoD players, or MOBA players, when you have a game that is aimed toward the niche group of gamers that love the space theme in games, find excitement in seeing a planet that reads on the scanner that it might have the type of material you need next, doesn't mind periods of "downtime", and love the idea of a truly vast game world (no matter how quickly large chunks are made 'obsolete' as you progress). Look at Elite Dangerous where basic trading is 80% FTL flight between trade stations, 14% docking maneuvering, 5% selling/buying and 1% combat time. You might be doing that for hours just to get an engine upgrade to travel a bit faster just to be every so slightly more efficient. Some people LOVE that. A large part of the gaming community would fall asleep.

Of course you'll run into similar looking animal life after a while, you'll quickly start to remember and instantly recognize when an animal uses "that 6-legged base" or "upright sauropod base". Humans are a bit too good at learning and recognizing patterns. Also I don't really know why NMS was expected to have base building? Has "procedurally generated" become so synonymous with Minecraft that is has to have it? And what would be the point of base building, when you'll eventually, probably, spend maybe 20-30 minutes on a planet then move to another? Then people would just complain that they have to go back to a dull starting planet every once in a while.

I'm excited to try the game tomorrow. I'm also excited for future additions to the game, because I think there's little doubt they'll spend a lot of time adding to the base game. But my expectations was: A mix of Elite and Subnautica, Minecraft for the procedural stuff. A vast, vast world to run/fly around in. Exploration, basic combat, trading. That's it. That is the niche they were going for and from what I've seen they've hit the mark pretty well IF YOU'RE LIKE ME AND IS THE TARGET AUDIENCE. But maybe I had a big advantage due to me never getting unrealistic expectations.

And frankly I think we need to realize that, other than pure Singleplayer games, we can't just base our entire opinion on a game by the release alone anymore. The industry has changed too much. More and more games move towards a "release a base we're satisfied with, with the features we feel make a great start, add more over time". And of course we can have a lengthy discussion about if that is "right" or "wrong", but that is how many game releases work nowadays.

Nice summary there, and you will be pleasantly surprised. I can't put my finger on it, but it has a similar feel to Subnautica.

[thilicen]

Main issue for me is the complete lack of variety in what you do. The game needs more features like base building, more interesting combat both on the ground and in the air. As of right now I've explored around 20 planets and it's getting pretty tedious already since I'm just doing the same thing over and over again.

Even the hazards are literally the same with a different name, they are all countered the exact same way.

At least patches are supposed to bring some more content, it's really needed at this point.

[Selastan]

Main issue for me is the complete lack of variety in what you do. The game needs more features like base building, more interesting combat both on the ground and in the air. As of right now I've explored around 20 planets and it's getting pretty tedious already since I'm just doing the same thing over and over again.

Even the hazards are literally the same with a different name, they are all countered the exact same way.

At least patches are supposed to bring some more content, it's really needed at this point.

There are some differences in hazards. For example, you can counter extreme heat by hiding in a cave, or acid rain gets much deadlier during a storm, etc.

[rhorle]

It does suck that the PC version isn't releasing at midnight and doesn't have a pre-load available. From steam discussion board:
"THERE WILL BE NO PRE-LOAD AVAILABLE! Game due to release Friday: 6pm UK, 1pm Eastern US, 10am Pacific US and 7pm CEST. Follow @HelloGames on twitter for any updates!" http://steamcommunity.com/app/275850...2047212712737/

[Aoewy]

Yeah I wanted to pre-load it but at least its a small download, guess ill have to play after work.. cant wait!

[Tharkkun]

Its sounds like minecraft. We all know how boring minecraft is.

I hate Minecraft. But I've been watching my daughter play this and it's very cool.

[Dhrizzle]

I get it though. it's strange to see the same type of animal on different planets. Supposedly these creatures have originated and developed on their own respective planets, but when they all look alike it's hard to immerse yourself into that mindset.

the sword analogy doesn't really fit into this discussion. Sure, all swords look alike. That's because they're all swords, they all share the same function. But why would the creatures from planet A look so much like the creatures from planet B? You'd think they wouldn't be related at all.

it's not really a matter of 'manmade' vs 'computer generated', it's a matter of realism.

Did you ever see sci-fi films/shows like Star Trek, Star Wars, Farscape of Babylon 5 (plus lots of others?) Most of them featured very earth-like organisms, often humanoids with outlandish skin colour, bumpy faces or pointy ears. The harder end of science fiction likes to explain it using convergent evolution, the idea that certain "designs" can come around from separate sources because they're favoured by natural selection. Star Trek I seem to remember explained it by an ancient race seeding the stars with their genetic material so humanoids were an inevitability. Whatever the in-universe reasons, in reality the producers were restricted by special effect budgets/capabilities and the desire for the organisms to be recognised and relatable to the viewers, however fans of science-fiction and space in general were willing to overlook the "improbability" and lack of "realism" to suspend their disbelief and enjoy the experience for what it was.

[Deleted]

I was honestly going to pirate it but having watched some streams is enough for me. It really looks boring and repetitive, I'd rather buy wow legion...and I hate current wow.

[Deleted]

Did you ever see sci-fi films/shows like Star Trek, Star Wars, Farscape of Babylon 5 (plus lots of others?) Most of them featured very earth-like organisms, often humanoids with outlandish skin colour, bumpy faces or pointy ears. The harder end of science fiction likes to explain it using convergent evolution, the idea that certain "designs" can come around from separate sources because they're favoured by natural selection. Star Trek I seem to remember explained it by an ancient race seeding the stars with their genetic material so humanoids were an inevitability. Whatever the in-universe reasons, in reality the producers were restricted by special effect budgets/capabilities and the desire for the organisms to be recognised and relatable to the viewers, however fans of science-fiction and space in general were willing to overlook the "improbability" and lack of "realism" to suspend their disbelief and enjoy the experience for what it was.

yes I am aware of the shows, though never watched them as I wasn't interested in them.

I understand the fact that they can't possibly make millions of fundamentally different beings and I'm not saying that they should, but I'm acknowledging why seeing so many creatures that seems similar in design could add to the repetitive feeling many people seem to have with the game. Nothing really stands out once you've seen the first few.

[Crusch]

I was very interested in the game when I first saw the trailer and heard about it but after watching multiple reviews and streams I'm just disappointed.

I was under the assumption that there would be great variety in the planets. For example, planets with lava or ice planets etc. but it seems neither of those is in. I have also yet to see a planet that's basically a giant forest with huge trees, it all seems to be so small.