No Man's Sky

[Deleted]

why is nearly every screen shot i see of this game so red? it seems nearly every planet has a red ground and an orange/purple sky.


everything looks so over saturated colour wise, i think saturated is the right word, the colours just all look really weird, and watching streams of it just makes my eyes hurt, anyone else not like the colour scheme on this game?

Exactly, I thought it may be some kind of a problem with my screen but it is just the game

[Cthulhu 2020]

I don't usually care much for Angry Joe's rant filled reviews, but he is pretty spot on with this one:

It sure is a good thing I didn't watch every single interview or obsess over everything the devs ever said about the game. I know better than to do that. Being disappointed by a game release is a guarantee if you hype yourself up and do these things to give yourself monumental expectations.

Because I don't hype myself about games, I enjoy them, and am enjoying no man's sky immensely for what it is, not what I was dreaming it would be.

I sure would hate to be a bitter hater, constantly posting in threads and trying to convince everyone else to hate the game just as much as I do. That would be a miserable existence.

- - - Updated - - -

So PSA: What your ship looks like affects how many "lives"/health it has.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTh...vivability_in/

[JoshuaNLG]

The problem with NMS is that a lot of the content they promised would be there, isn't. It's a far cry from the game they actually advertised to us and promised we would get.
Couple that with the fact that sean said there would be NO paid DLC and they're now doing it, combined with the absolutely atrocious stability on every single platform, this is a game that you should just avoid. It's an Alpha being sold at £40 missing many of the core features that were shown at E3, gamescom, etc. It's bad, don't waste your money on it. Just watch angry joes review on it, he uses a lot of clips of Sean at interviews stating what can and can't be done, a lot of what he's saying "oh yeah you can do this! You can hack that door!" you can't do.

A lot of the positive reviews for NMS on steam are people saying "oh well it runs for me! maybe you're just doing something wrong! update your drivers!" so they're not positive reviews, just fanboys blagging about how the game runs fine for them so it must be good! Right?

[Jtbrig7390]

I enjoy them, and am enjoying no man's sky immensely for what it is, not what I was dreaming it would be.
]

That is great but that isn't the problem people are having.

The devs outright said (even as far back as last month) that X features was in the game when they wasn't. This isn't hype built up and let down, its devs outright lying to people.

There is a massive difference in the two.

[Endus]

That is great but that isn't the problem people are having.

The devs outright said (even as far back as last month) that X features was in the game when they wasn't. This isn't hype built up and let down, its devs outright lying to people.

There is a massive difference in the two.

Depends on the precise context.

If it was a feature they were planning to have in, but had to cut for some reason (pressure to release by a specific date, bugs that made it unworkable and unfixable on schedule, etc), then they didn't "lie". They failed to follow through on their honest goals.

It's a silly thing to be claiming is a "lie", it's like ranting about how much your friends "lied to you" because they were 10 minutes late showing up for the party, because a tire blew out on their way there.

- - - Updated - - -

Couple that with the fact that sean said there would be NO paid DLC and they're now doing it

Err, what? The ONLY statement they've made regarding paid DLC was an interview question where they said there were no current plans but if there were some feature they wanted to add and which they didn't have the funding to develop because of its complexity on top of the base game, they might have to consider paid DLC as an option.

Which is about the only honest way to answer that question.

[Coombs]

Depends on the precise context.

If it was a feature they were planning to have in, but had to cut for some reason (pressure to release by a specific date, bugs that made it unworkable and unfixable on schedule, etc), then they didn't "lie". They failed to follow through on their honest goals.

It's a silly thing to be claiming is a "lie", it's like ranting about how much your friends "lied to you" because they were 10 minutes late showing up for the party, because a tire blew out on their way there.

- - - Updated - - -


Err, what? The ONLY statement they've made regarding paid DLC was an interview question where they said there were no current plans but if there were some feature they wanted to add and which they didn't have the funding to develop because of its complexity on top of the base game, they might have to consider paid DLC as an option.

Which is about the only honest way to answer that question.

The language used in the interviews is definitive. They don't go around saying "it will be like", or "we are going to add", as they are discussing features they are stating they this is in the game and this is how it will work. There are countless examples of this occurring. The trailers themselves are inaccurate. It is objective fact that the game available now is not what was advertised. Any other interpretation is pure delusion.

[JoshuaNLG]

Depends on the precise context.

If it was a feature they were planning to have in, but had to cut for some reason (pressure to release by a specific date, bugs that made it unworkable and unfixable on schedule, etc), then they didn't "lie". They failed to follow through on their honest goals.

It's a silly thing to be claiming is a "lie", it's like ranting about how much your friends "lied to you" because they were 10 minutes late showing up for the party, because a tire blew out on their way there.

- - - Updated - - -


Err, what? The ONLY statement they've made regarding paid DLC was an interview question where they said there were no current plans but if there were some feature they wanted to add and which they didn't have the funding to develop because of its complexity on top of the base game, they might have to consider paid DLC as an option.

Which is about the only honest way to answer that question.

Those features they want to add now are most likely the same features that the game was advertised to have from the get go. It certainly seems like they've cut content to later re-sell it as DLC. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they realised how many people had pre-ordered NMS and thought "Hey guys, we can get even more money with little effort if we just cut out content we've already created now and re-sell it later on!" because Sean is shady as shit like that, watch his interviews in the past advertising NMS, the vast majority of what he says is in the game and what you can do, does not exist. He's full of shit.

[Jtbrig7390]

Depends on the precise context.

Watch like the last 10mins of Angryjoe's video. The guy was asked is X there and he said yes X is there. There is no hidden context and this go's as far back as like june.

Many videos showing what is missing and they showed off stuff that is not even close to being in the game.

This is more then a E3 video that showed cool graphics but now its downgraded. There was features he outright said WAS IN the game and isn't.

Its ACM levels are lying.

[Berethos08]

It certainly seems like they've cut content to later re-sell it as DLC.

You sound like a sorta friend of mine, claiming that DLC is content that is only cut to make a buck later.

It's just as annoying when he does it, and shows just as much a lack of understanding the process of developing a product.

[Jtbrig7390]

You sound like a sorta friend of mine, claiming that DLC is content that is only cut to make a buck later.

It's just as annoying when he does it, and shows just as much a lack of understanding the process of developing a product.

Do you know what it means when 2-4 months before a game releases, The devs says X is in it but come release it isn't?

[Coombs]

You sound like a sorta friend of mine, claiming that DLC is content that is only cut to make a buck later.

It's just as annoying when he does it, and shows just as much a lack of understanding the process of developing a product.

You seem to a have a lack of understanding the monetizing of a product.

[Berethos08]

If it was a feature they were planning to have in, but had to cut for some reason (pressure to release by a specific date, bugs that made it unworkable and unfixable on schedule, etc), then they didn't "lie". They failed to follow through on their honest goals.

Failure to follow on honest goals doesn't benefit from silence, and that's what we're largely getting outside of the (needed) bug fix information and talk about no multiplayer.

Lot of neat features specifically mentioned or shown that are just gone (the portals in one video that send a player to another planet - found the structure that is supposed to have it earlier tonight completely by chance, 85 planets before seeing one - but it doesn't actually do anything) and so far not a peep.

A "We tried to get this to work and couldn't" or "This feature ended up causing x issues and had to be shelved for now" and such would be nice at this point to at least get a sense of what happened for us to get what we have.

We do at least know they are working getting things in, like freighters and base building, but I think we need to hear about which of their honest goals that weren't met for release are still honest goals to be added in at a later date.

[Ahovv]

I'm quite glad I didn't waste $60 on this. Sean Murray is a liar of the highest caliber.

[quras]

I don't usually care much for Angry Joe's rant filled reviews, but he is pretty spot on with this one:

Wow, that points out a couple problems doesn't it.

[Jtbrig7390]

Failure to follow on honest goals doesn't benefit from silence, and that's what we're largely getting outside of the (needed) bug fix information and talk about no multiplayer.

Once again you do realize just a couple of months before its release they said Multiplayer was in the game right?

These isn't goals they set out to do, its things they outright said was in the game. If you took a few mins to google it you could see that. If you took 10mins to watch AJ's video you would see that.

This is a case of devs lying to consumers, Nothing more and nothing less.

[Berethos08]

You seem to a have a lack of understanding the monetizing of a product.

I understand how budgets work, I understand how projects change over time, and how that leads to parts of projects getting delayed, shelved, or cut. I also understand how some features can be something the developers want to do, but it wasn't in the original plan and thus wasn't in the original budget and moving money around to budget it in isn't always feasible. Then, of course, there's the stuff made after launch, unless you really think that was made before launch and held on to every time.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

I'm not some cynical fucknut who thinks every single DLC is the "ebil corpurashuns" pulling content that was already complete and ready to go out of the game to be sold later. Has that happened? Yes. Is it what DLC is every single time? Clearly not for anyone with two functioning brain cells.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again you do realize just a couple of months before its release they said Multiplayer was in the game right?

Context dude - multiplayer was mentioned in the context of them being silent (since it's one of the few things they haven't been mum about), not that it was an honest goal that they failed on.

The multiplayer screw up deserves every bit of criticism they get for it.

If you took 5 seconds to carefully read the context of my post instead of leaping to conclusions, you'd have seen that.

[Zephyr Storm]

I don't hype myself about games, I enjoy them, and am enjoying no man's sky immensely for what it is, not what I was dreaming it would be.

That's fine and all for you personally, but that doesn't change the fact that a multitude of things were left out of the game and the dev lied on several occasions. That's an objective fact and one that really degrades the game, considering that it's a full $60 game with over half of the promised content cut out of it for release. You can be fine with it all you want, you're just supporting shady, greedy, and downright awful practices in the gaming industry. Hope there aren't too many more people like you, otherwise future games are really going to start going down the shitter (we're already getting there unfortunately).

I'm fine with people enjoying games for what content is present in them. But I'm not fine with people acting like it's okay for devs to do shit like this, charge you full price in the process, and then just bend over and let them have their way with you. That's a very bad road to start heading down. Why people can't see this is beyond me.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on the precise context.

If it was a feature they were planning to have in, but had to cut for some reason (pressure to release by a specific date, bugs that made it unworkable and unfixable on schedule, etc), then they didn't "lie". They failed to follow through on their honest goals.

It's a silly thing to be claiming is a "lie", it's like ranting about how much your friends "lied to you" because they were 10 minutes late showing up for the party, because a tire blew out on their way there.

It amazes me how hard some people try to defend shitty, greedy, shady, and/or lazy practices in the gaming industry. You really need to stop trying so hard. This is objective stuff we're talking about here and you're trying to spin it as something subjective. And failing by the way.

- - - Updated - - -

The language used in the interviews is definitive. They don't go around saying "it will be like", or "we are going to add", as they are discussing features they are stating they this is in the game and this is how it will work. There are countless examples of this occurring. The trailers themselves are inaccurate. It is objective fact that the game available now is not what was advertised. Any other interpretation is pure delusion.

Exactly this. Fanboys are really grasping at straws at this point to defend the developer and this game.

- - - Updated - - -

You sound like a sorta friend of mine, claiming that DLC is content that is only cut to make a buck later.

It's just as annoying when he does it, and shows just as much a lack of understanding the process of developing a product.

To think that this never happens is pretty ignorant honestly.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It amazes me how hard some people try to defend shitty, greedy, shady, and/or lazy practices in the gaming industry. You really need to stop trying so hard. This is objective stuff we're talking about here and you're trying to spin it as something subjective. And failing by the way.

I know many devs in the gaming industry across several of the genres. A lot of freatures often do get cut because they're buggy and cannot be fixed, or they never manage to get them working at all in the first place, or there are time constraints, etc.

Everyone talks about how if they made a game, they could make it amazing, make it in 2 years, make all the features anyone could want, etc. and they're 100% bullshitting.

Hello Games has done a pretty bad job about communicating, but there are undoubtedly some good reasons why many features didn't make it in, while others don't have good reasons. The game was obviously pressured to be pushed out the door by Sony (something that happens when you sell yourself to big companies for funding, you get hard release dates, and if you can't make it, you never work in the industry ever again) and time constraints are probably why a good many features didn't make it in.

Blizzard has dropped more features than I can recall over the years that they've talked about. People whine about Blizzard "lying" but in nearly every case they tell us why the feature didn't make it in, either buggy, time constraints, couldn't get it working like they wanted, etc. and that's just the reality of game design. But people still play Blizzard games

All in all, it's just a bad idea to jump on the hype train for any game, because you will only ever be let down. I've almost always said that devs should just not ever talk about features unless they know for 100% sure that they have it implemented and working just from what I've heard talked about by my friends in the industry. Because players are vicious, they will rip you apart if even a single feature is missing, and they will call anyone who has an objective perspective/insight and doesn't agree with their hatred "white knights" and "fanboys".

Everyone I know, and every time I see it posted on here, of people who don't buy into hype trains, who don't really follow every single dev interview, who know not to put stock in the words of what devs say might be in the game, they all have funs with just about every game they play. The game is never made into this crazy, unrealistic expectation within their mind, and thus when they do play, they are not let down. This is the kind of preferable state of mind to be in, because I would certainly hate to be a person that spends all day on forums trying to convince others to hate a game just as much as I do. I'd hate to sit around and try to find others who think like me so we can circle jerk about how everyone else is just blind fanboys.

[Vespian]

I know many devs in the gaming industry across several of the genres. A lot of freatures often do get cut because they're buggy and cannot be fixed, or they never manage to get them working at all in the first place, or there are time constraints, etc.

Everyone talks about how if they made a game, they could make it amazing, make it in 2 years, make all the features anyone could want, etc. and they're 100% bullshitting.

Hello Games has done a pretty bad job about communicating, but there are undoubtedly some good reasons why many features didn't make it in, while others don't have good reasons. The game was obviously pressured to be pushed out the door by Sony (something that happens when you sell yourself to big companies for funding, you get hard release dates, and if you can't make it, you never work in the industry ever again) and time constraints are probably why a good many features didn't make it in.

Blizzard has dropped more features than I can recall over the years that they've talked about. People whine about Blizzard "lying" but in nearly every case they tell us why the feature didn't make it in, either buggy, time constraints, couldn't get it working like they wanted, etc. and that's just the reality of game design. But people still play Blizzard games

All in all, it's just a bad idea to jump on the hype train for any game, because you will only ever be let down. I've almost always said that devs should just not ever talk about features unless they know for 100% sure that they have it implemented and working just from what I've heard talked about by my friends in the industry. Because players are vicious, they will rip you apart if even a single feature is missing, and they will call anyone who has an objective perspective/insight and doesn't agree with their hatred "white knights" and "fanboys".

Everyone I know, and every time I see it posted on here, of people who don't buy into hype trains, who don't really follow every single dev interview, who know not to put stock in the words of what devs say might be in the game, they all have funs with just about every game they play. The game is never made into this crazy, unrealistic expectation within their mind, and thus when they do play, they are not let down. This is the kind of preferable state of mind to be in, because I would certainly hate to be a person that spends all day on forums trying to convince others to hate a game just as much as I do. I'd hate to sit around and try to find others who think like me so we can circle jerk about how everyone else is just blind fanboys.

I've never gotten on this train and everyone in their right objective mind can see that promotional material from only several months ago (and let me get it out here, a few months means that they were in post-production) promised many things that are not in the game. Actually, Angry Joe does the right thing here and calls all the bullshit. And it would be forgiven if he hadn't lied like a stone-cold serial killer, but he did. He lied like a pro. You can see the lines on his face, but he covers them up real good. He was lying and he was knowingly doing so.

Everyone who defends this title based on its promise, is definitely out o their fucking mind and what else besides fanboy is there to call that category? Everyone that defends the title based on its current content; That's fine. If it's what you enjoy and you don't mind that you overpaid about €30 for thin air, that's up to you.

No one can contest that the remaining €30 is the biggest scam in existence.

[Magicpot]

The problem with NMS is that a lot of the content they promised would be there, isn't. It's a far cry from the game they actually advertised to us and promised we would get.
Couple that with the fact that sean said there would be NO paid DLC and they're now doing it, combined with the absolutely atrocious stability on every single platform, this is a game that you should just avoid. It's an Alpha being sold at £40 missing many of the core features that were shown at E3, gamescom, etc. It's bad, don't waste your money on it. Just watch angry joes review on it, he uses a lot of clips of Sean at interviews stating what can and can't be done, a lot of what he's saying "oh yeah you can do this! You can hack that door!" you can't do.

A lot of the positive reviews for NMS on steam are people saying "oh well it runs for me! maybe you're just doing something wrong! update your drivers!" so they're not positive reviews, just fanboys blagging about how the game runs fine for them so it must be good! Right?

And in today's episode of why you never preorder or buy at full price.