No Man's Sky

[Deleted]

I doubt the outcry would have been much better. Blizzard made it explicitly clear that many WoD features they were revealing were not final and subject to change, and people still whined loudly about several features being but "WHERE'S FARAHLON? WHERE'S MY FLYING? BLIZZARD LIED!"

Players are whiny.

right, but in the end when the game launches, there won't be any surprises and the delivery will be much calmer. It's better to get all the whining done early instead of at your game's launch as it can scare away potential buyers.

I for one was interested in NMS, but ended up not buying it because there were apparently a lot of features not in the end product that were never stated as cut. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[Cthulhu 2020]

right, but in the end when the game launches, there won't be any surprises and the delivery will be much calmer. It's better to get all the whining done early instead of at your game's launch as it can scare away potential buyers.

I for one was interested in NMS, but ended up not buying it because there were apparently a lot of features not in the end product that were never stated as cut. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

There's some features that didn't make it into Legion, that were kind of showcased at Blizzcon, but on a back burner sort of way so that they didn't get a lot of attention. Fans have this weird way of digging up even the most obscure of interviews, so we'll see if anyone actually picks up on it.

That's another thing. There are a lot of times when people would have gotten games and enjoyed them, but instead they choose not to because of the internet overreacting to something and pulling up some of the most obscure sources. A lot of the hate from NMS came from people who got really angry that they couldn't actually figure out the "purpose" of the game. I almost had a couple of friends give up on the game after an hour or two of play because they didn't know what the "point" of a wide open sandbox was or what they were even supposed to do. I in turn gave them a little nudge in the right direction and they had 50+ hours of fun with it when they were just about to shelf it out of frustration.

Then there are people who didn't get this opportunity, and who got really really mad, and came online to look for anything to justify their anger. They found this stuff about lying devs, and it snowballed from there. A lot of these people didn't actually watch dev interviews, they just needed a reason to be upset at the game, and they found a rather convenient one. It's a common theme I've found among talking among the NMS reddit. Many of the people who were really pissed off ended up ultimately admitting to me, either directly or indirectly, that they never in fact kept u p with the game all that much, they just got pissed off at the game and then came online to look for a reason to justify their anger.

So I ask, how can you have been "lied to" if you were never really keeping up with the devs in the first place?

[Deleted]

There's some features that didn't make it into Legion, that were kind of showcased at Blizzcon, but on a back burner sort of way so that they didn't get a lot of attention. Fans have this weird way of digging up even the most obscure of interviews, so we'll see if anyone actually picks up on it.

That's another thing. There are a lot of times when people would have gotten games and enjoyed them, but instead they choose not to because of the internet overreacting to something and pulling up some of the most obscure sources. A lot of the hate from NMS came from people who got really angry that they couldn't actually figure out the "purpose" of the game. I almost had a couple of friends give up on the game after an hour or two of play because they didn't know what the "point" of a wide open sandbox was or what they were even supposed to do. I in turn gave them a little nudge in the right direction and they had 50+ hours of fun with it when they were just about to shelf it out of frustration.

Then there are people who didn't get this opportunity, and who got really really mad, and came online to look for anything to justify their anger. They found this stuff about lying devs, and it snowballed from there. A lot of these people didn't actually watch dev interviews, they just needed a reason to be upset at the game, and they found a rather convenient one. It's a common theme I've found among talking among the NMS reddit. Many of the people who were really pissed off ended up ultimately admitting to me, either directly or indirectly, that they never in fact kept u p with the game all that much, they just got pissed off at the game and then came online to look for a reason to justify their anger.

So I ask, how can you have been "lied to" if you were never really keeping up with the devs in the first place?

if an outside person has to explain to people how to properly play your game in order to have fun, there is something wrong with how you deliver your game.

This is going beyond the point that we're discussing. My original point being that it's fine for people to be upset when there are features missing from a game that were never stated as being cut from the game.

The crowd of people that are looking for excuses to hate on the game are people that were dragged into the massive hype this game had to whom the game couldn't deliver. They'll be a part of every hyped-up game that ever gets released and are generally not that much of a bother. However in the case of NMS they got their hands on some filthy play from the devs. Which they couldn't have if Hello Games were truthfull about their game and what it holds instead of playing around with clever wording and straight up lies.

Hopefully Hello Games learned from their mistakes and now know that you can't lie to the internet. Though all of this can't have been good for their name.

[Zephyr Storm]

Why did you buy the game? You seem more butt hurt than some of the youtubers who thought this game was going to be the prince that was promised.

- - - Updated - - -



The only thing pathetic in this thread is the bucket of tears youre filling over a game you dont play.

I refunded it after I saw how bad, shallow, repetitive, and overpriced it really was. I dont support shitty, lying devs who overcharge for half of a game they promised us.

[Cthulhu 2020]

if an outside person has to explain to people how to properly play your game in order to have fun, there is something wrong with how you deliver your game.

This is going beyond the point that we're discussing. My original point being that it's fine for people to be upset when there are features missing from a game that were never stated as being cut from the game.

The crowd of people that are looking for excuses to hate on the game are people that were dragged into the massive hype this game had to whom the game couldn't deliver. They'll be a part of every hyped-up game that ever gets released and are generally not that much of a bother. However in the case of NMS they got their hands on some filthy play from the devs. Which they couldn't have if Hello Games were truthfull about their game and what it holds instead of playing around with clever wording and straight up lies.

Hopefully Hello Games learned from their mistakes and now know that you can't lie to the internet. Though all of this can't have been good for their name.

A lot of sandbox games have the problem of people not knowing the point of them. It's why a lot of people don't get minecraft or the tens of steam sandboxers out there.

A lot of people thought NMS was going to have a lot more elements than just being an exploration sandbox, since that's what it is at its core. They did say there would be other features and many of those features didn't make it, but some did. In a sandboxer you make your own "point" for playing, rather than following bread crumbs that quests/missions/other preset tasks leave for you.

For many people, sandboxing just isn't their thing. Others really love it once they understand it, but have to get their mind taken out of the "The game will tell you what you have to do" mindset.

Anyway, as I said, this SNAFU will be forgotten as soon as Legion launches, and I fully expect many of the same people who are whining about being lied to by devs to be right back on the front lines, whining about Legion being a huge disappointment/lie. They never learn, and they don't seem to want to.

[Zephyr Storm]

All taken out of context. I watched all interviews - the only feature that is missing is the ability to name ship classes. Which I believe to have been cut for obvious reasons and probably after Sony's insistence.


You didn't buy the game. You claim the game is not as advertised. Then you say with a straight face that you are not inferring anything? LMAO.

Why are you even here complaining about false advertising if you didn't even buy the game? That's a rhetorical question.

The amount of ignorance and arrogance in every one of your posts is astounding to say the least. We get it that you have a raging hard on for this game, but that is most definitely getting in the way of your objective reasoning. You've fanboyed so hard at this point, it's hard to take anything you say seriously.

The thing is, your posts are pretty much identical to most overhyped games ever released.

Every single WoW expansion release is "The worst release ever" with servers going down non stop and endless bugs that make the game "unplayable". The devs lie, remove features, give you too much to do or too little to do. That is, until the next expansion releases, then that expansion's release is THE WORST ONE EVER (even if it was objectively better with less server down time and less bugs).

It was the same with Age of Conan. Tons of features left out, no content past level 60, endless crying about that.

Same with Wildstar, same with Lord of the Rings Online, same with Everscrolls Online...

Same with every single game that's been overhyped in the last 15+ years.

There's features missing, or the devs lied about something, or there's nothing to do, or there's too much to do, and the people who feel cheated, scammed, etc. spend weeks if not months on the forums bitching and moaning about it. Such a miserable existence to be trapped in a state of mind where you have to convince others to hate a game as much as you do.

A lot of us have learned that this is just how the dev cycle works, and you have two options if you "don't like to take it", you can either just take dev comments with two grains of salt, and put their comments in the back of your mind and not take them as "promises", or you can not play games. Your choice. That or you can go be a dev and then find out just how hard promises are to keep, then get jaded and bitter towards whiny and entitled gamers.

And here's the thing, you're still under the mindset that they do this to be malicious and hurt you, to scam you and take your money and run and yet... refunds are so easy in this day and age. No, they don't do it maliciously. Devs have two options, they either share features with their raving, drooling fans, or they remain tight lipped. If they do the former and can't deliver on that feature, then fans get upset and cry about how they lied, get bitter, get angry, etc. If they do the latter, their fans get angry and bitter that their game is such a secret, and start making up all kinds of conspiracies about how the game is so terrible that they have to hide it behind closed doors. And yes, this does happen. They have to find a balance.

I fully expect the first few weeks/months of Legion to be filled with whines and cries about something the devs hurt people's feelings with. People are already predicting it's going to be "There's too much to do and I feel overwhelmed" like in MoP, where people felt compelled to do so many dailies just to keep up, and the devs said that this expansion would allow for casual play, BUT THEY LIED TO US QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ.



I have said that them saying certain features were going to be a part of the game was a big mistake on their part. It's you who seems to think I'm defending them, so the only thing I can think of is me declaring your declaration that they maliciously lied to you as being bullshit. Which it is. Devs have no reason to maliciously lie to their players in this kind of gaming climate. Neglectful fibs where they don't know that a feature is going to make it into the final version for sure or not? Sure, and that's a bad thing for devs to do. They often get too excited and share features before they are fully ready. Then they're in deep shit when they can't get it to working and they've already said it would be coming.

The only defending I'm doing here is trying to give you some insight into why these interviews happen, and how the development process works. I've openly said they made mistakes with talking about certain features in certain ways. It's you who can't admit when you're wrong.

If you watch developer interviews before a game's release, you will continue to get your hopes up only for them to be let down. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. Take dev interviews and comments with two grains of salt, and you'll be much less of a bitter person. It's not that they're deliberately lying to you, but they make the mistake of sharing stuff that is not fully working yet, and may not ever make it into the final version.

And again, you're still talking as if you're "taking it" as if they developers are intentionally lying maliciously to hurt you, when they're not. You insist you don't have to take it, as if you can somehow change the game development process. These features aren't left out because the devs go "man let's remove these features so that we can piss everyone off!" They just fail to implement them for some reason or another, but are forced to release the game by their producers anyway. They do the interviews with the full intent of implementing those features. And just can't make it in time. That's how it works. You're not going to change it by convincing people to stop buying the games. And you're not. Your bitter forum crusade is only going to make people dig in deeper into their position. If you were a more reasonable person, they might actually listen to you. But instead you act like an asshole then expect people to come to your side.

So again, please gain some perspective, and stop believing that the devs are sitting there trying to think of how to pee in your cheerios. They're not.

- - - Updated - - -



And yet the people who like the game have proven a lot of that "factual evidence" to be wrong through exploration.

Seriously, you're starting to sound pretty desperate by saying your position is objective and that everyone else is subjective. It's the mark of someone who has no clue what they're talking about.

Both sides have points, and you're refusing to acknowledge any makes you look really bad.

It's kind of pathetic.

And again, with the same pointless shit you've been posting over and over. Idiotic comparisons to unrelated games. Defending this game and dev with nothing but subjective reasoning. Acting like you know better than the people you're disagreeing with because you supposedly have friends in the games industry. Blah, blah, blah, fucking blah.

They only pathetic thing going on in the thread at this point is the grasping at straws and subjective reasoning you and other fanboys are doing in order to justify your $60 purchase. End of story.

- - - Updated - - -

It does. They didn't promise coop and said several times it's not a multiplayer game. In the same INTERVIEWS in which they "lied" about it being the next call of duty.


I know very well all the shades of playing with friends. Just because you inferred the maximum version doesn't mean they lied. Especially considering the fact that they WARNED that it's not a multiplayer game.

My god. Your responses are becoming comedy gold at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, taken out of context. What was the question? Is it in the same line as "Q: Can you land on a comet? A: Well, yeah, at the moment, you can land on an asteroid"
Note the tense of the question and the tense of the answer and remember that he is not a PR guy. He's a software engineer. You have to ask the right questions.

So what was the question? "What are your plans for multiplayer?" or "Will there be coop in final version of the game?"

- - - Updated - - -



<<<<<< is that straight enough for you

Grasps those straws harder! Harder! You're losing your grip! HARDER!

[Zephyr Storm]

Can you be in the same system on the same planet in the same spot on the planet as another player at the same time? yes.
You just can't see them. But you can see how they named the planet you are on, or they can see how you named it - or that either of you discovered it. Basically if you can encounter a planet discovered by someone else - you ran into another player. But it's very unlikely due the yugeness of the universe.

Wanna argue that's not what he meant? Please do!



It's the correct answer for a First Person game. The only way to see how you look like in the absence of mirrors or true water reflections (which are absent, did they promise them though?) - is for other players to see you. You cannot see your own character. Duh. Did he say that others will be able to see you in the 1.0 game? no. Did people infer that they will? Yes. Did Sean lie? no.



Correct. That's explanation. Did he lie though? no.

Ok

Im pretty sure youre just trolling at this point. Because if youre actually being serious, then your cognitive abilities are in the shitter to say the least.

[FelPlague]

Can you be in the same system on the same planet in the same spot on the planet as another player at the same time? yes.
You just can't see them. But you can see how they named the planet you are on, or they can see how you named it - or that either of you discovered it. Basically if you can encounter a planet discovered by someone else - you ran into another player. But it's very unlikely due the yugeness of the universe.

Wanna argue that's not what he meant? Please do!



It's the correct answer for a First Person game. The only way to see how you look like in the absence of mirrors or true water reflections (which are absent, did they promise them though?) - is for other players to see you. You cannot see your own character. Duh. Did he say that others will be able to see you in the 1.0 game? no. Did people infer that they will? Yes. Did Sean lie? no.



Correct. That's explanation. Did he lie though? no.

Ok

he said you could see other players, and the only way to know how you look is if someone else saw you and told you how you looked, but the chances of that are insanely low

i cant beleive you are sitting here saying to direct facts "no he never said that, no it was never that"

even when he said millions of times you could encounter other players, they could see you, the game box even has multiplayer on it in some areas, also the million of other lies

sentinal walkers just walking around, when really they only appear if you have high wanted level
the whole, goldielock zone thing... colder planets further from stars, warmer closer, and life very few, as the goldielock zones are very rare... when really 90% of planets have lush life...
no giant sand worms....

no massive space battles
no customization based on what faction you choose...
the game has lied about so much, and you choose to lie saying none of that was said...

[Zephyr Storm]

So if they tell you, you will know? Can your friend tell you if they are there? They can. Right? bam. You "ran into" them.



Didn't see the quote.



Irrelevant. You seem to be very specific in how you think you should be meeting other players in a non-multiplayer focused game You run into a planet discovered by someone else - you ran into another player.

Like Sean said, right?


You've got to be kidding. First people accuse him for vague statements, now you claim he was explicit.




If he just said that on his own as a pitch, no. If he were answering a vague present tense question of a rookie interviewer - yes.

Nope. All his responses were in the tense of the question, which most of the times were present tense. That is vague. You keep forgetting that we are talking about interviews here. that's why I keep mentioning the "out of context" thing.

I'm not the one inferring stuff and then refuse to face reality.

Actually, you and a few other fanboys in here are the ONLY ones refusing to face reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't worry, all of the people who are super bitter about NMS will have forgotten about it in 7 days when they'll be super bitter about all of the features that Legion didn't get and how the devs lied to them.

STFU with your insistent and asinine comparisons that have zero bearing on the conversation at hand. Trying to divert attention away from MMS isn't going to suddenly make it a better game. Enough already.

- - - Updated - - -

Darn facts, always ruining the hate filled narrative. And they would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!

- - - Updated - - -



So you advocate people whining for every single game ever made?

Features are cut from every. Single. Game.

Lots of them.

The question is how open mouthed developers are about the process and what features they plan to include.

If the devs talk too little, players get mad and start coming up with wild conspiracy theories about the game sucking so developers aren't talking about it much, or some other kind of discontentment from the people who are hyping themselves up over. Yeah, that kinda thing happens. If they tell too much and inevitably (as in, it's going to happen no matter what) don't deliver on features, they're liars.

Blizzard used to let players in on a lot more of their plans and ideas, but then players took "we're planning on implementing this" and then later "We couldn't get it to work" even before the expansion released as "OMG THE DEVS LIED TO US AND PEED IN OUR CHEERIOS, BASTARDS."

So for Legion they decided to be very tight lipped. But they still talked about some features that yeah, did get cut.

Things getting cut isn't some kind of thing that devs do maliciously to hurt people deliberately, despite popular belief. It happens in every single game that the majority of features that are on the drawing board don't make it into the final product.

Same bullshit, different post. It's a fucking broken record with you.

Please post constructively and respectfully. Infracted. -Edge

[Deleted]

Sauce for this, or at least qualify this statement. On its own, given the game as it exists, it's completely false.



The "full game" already exists, and can be purchased. Additional content or features/systems sold after launch are just that, post-launch content and features. It's not like the team was working on all that content ahead of launch, between the time that they mastered and the game launched on PS4 they were working on the day 1 PS4 patch (minus some time to put that through certification), and since the PC launch they've been working on optimization for both platforms.



Seriously, did this game like, murder your litter of puppies or something? You have a serious dislike of it.



To do...? Performance on PS4 is apparently pretty good, PC launch seems pretty usual for a PC launch of a large scale game (even with a small file size), there are no major features or systems missing to my knowledge (other than being able to actually see other players). Sure, they could always add more content, but they didn't sell the game on content and features that aren't currently in it, and plenty of folks were just fine with that.



The fact that you have "the nerve" to want to tell developers who have poured years of their lives what they should be able to charge for their game is pretty absurd, to be honest.

1: I dissagree. I think it can be borderlined stated as a fact that People got a Demo, So many features was promised and told "in the game" as little as 3 months ago. It can be nothing but that. what else can it be called?

2:Yes content that comes out after released is normally fair game for paid DLC. But i will refer to the my previues statement of, they promised and told X features are in the game(Already) And so selling them later would be Kind of if not lying then unfair advistidement

3:I mean he may he to angry at the developers, but he does raise a fair question. With DLC on the way, the that is where Maybe, they will sell the features they said where in the game in interviews rangeing from 2 years ago til 3 months ago. it wont be 60 Dollars for what they promised.

4:Here he is also right though. There is a long list of Promised features. Some said in mer whispers, some statements being wage but others where said strait out. There is a list of Lied about features so in order to deliver even 40% of what they promised they would need more time to add them.

5:The game is pretty muhc a demo for what they told they game would be. They have the right to charge for it. it is a solid Demo, but barely more then that. Hopefully it will grow into the game they promised. but people are to angry.. but also some Defend them to blindly

[Cthulhu 2020]

Same bullshit, different post. It's a fucking broken record with you.

You're the one who's been claiming to have the only objective opinion in this entire thread, even when you've been proven objectively wrong before. I offered to have a discussion with you, and even encouraged you to point out where I defended the devs, when I very blatantly said they made the wrong decision in over sharing features they weren't sure were going to be in the release.

There are plenty of negatives, but also positives. You just seemed to fail to even want to acknowledge the positives existed, which is 100% toxic posting, nonconstructive. If once you get unbanned you feel like talking about negatives and positives, feel free. Otherwise, please don't bother to post again. It's a waste of space to keep claiming you're being objective then post very blatantly biased.

Actually, you and a few other fanboys in here are the ONLY ones refusing to face reality.

You are not the be all, end all of objectivity. Sorry to shatter your bubble. The devs talked about features that did not end up being in the game. That's the one objective thing you've talked about. Beyond that it all turns into your opinion.

[Torgent]

http://www.pcgamer.com/concurrent-players-no-mans-sky/

In that article they are comparing 1 month drops to 11 day drops. Soooo....shit reporter is shit?

[Elim Garak]

he said you could see other players, and the only way to know how you look is if someone else saw you and told you how you looked, but the chances of that are insanely low

Nope. The question was: "Can you see yourself?" The answer was "No".

i cant beleive you are sitting here saying to direct facts "no he never said that, no it was never that"

even when he said millions of times you could encounter other players, they could see you, the game box even has multiplayer on it in some areas, also the million of other lies

You are very casual with the use of the word lie.

sentinal walkers just walking around, when really they only appear if you have high wanted level

And then they are walking around if they can't see you. Also I'm pretty sure there are high security planets where they are walking around. Have you visited all the planets yet? There are walkers in the game after all. How hard it could be to make them walk around? What reason do you have to believe that it's not happening?

the whole, goldielock zone thing... colder planets further from stars, warmer closer, and life very few, as the goldielock zones are very rare... when really 90% of planets have lush life...

Wait what? 90% of planets have LUSH life? They are extremely rare.

no giant sand worms....

Found yet.

no massive space battles

There are massive space battles. I've seen them and participated in them

no customization based on what faction you choose...

What the hell does that even mean?

the game has lied about so much, and you choose to lie saying none of that was said...

Not a single lie.

[Post]

Irrelevant. You seem to be very specific in how you think you should be meeting other players in a non-multiplayer focused game You run into a planet discovered by someone else - you ran into another player.

No, you ran into a planet discovered by someone else. You have to run into a player to run into a player. You're trying way too hard here.

It's the correct answer for a First Person game. The only way to see how you look like in the absence of mirrors or true water reflections (which are absent, did they promise them though?) - is for other players to see you. You cannot see your own character. Duh. Did he say that others will be able to see you in the 1.0 game? no. Did people infer that they will? Yes. Did Sean lie? no.

By this ridiculous logic he could claim literally anything would be in the game and you'd defend it because it might happen in the future.

[Elim Garak]

No, you ran into a planet discovered by someone else. You have to run into a player to run into a player. You're trying way too hard here.

In fully multiplayer game, sure. But in NMS you run into a planet discovered by someone else - you run into them. Context. It matters.
And it is possible to be on the same planet with another player. The only thing is - you can't see each other IN the game. But hey at least you don't need PSPlus to play the game on PS4, hmm, wait a minute, maybe, just maybe - that's why?

[Idoru]

even when he said millions of times you could encounter other players, they could see you, the game box even has multiplayer on it in some areas, also the million of other lies

No, the box had an "Online Play" sticker.

[Post]

In fully multiplayer game, sure. But in NMS you run into a planet discovered by someone else - you run into them. Context. It matters.

False, you still just ran into an object named by someone, not a player. You still have to run into a player to run into a player.

And it is possible to be on the same planet with another player. The only thing is - you can't see each other IN the game. But hey at least you don't need PSPlus to play the game on PS4, hmm, wait a minute, maybe, just maybe - that's why?

No PSPlus requirement is why they lied about it now?

[Elim Garak]

By this ridiculous logic he could claim literally anything would be in the game and you'd defend it because it might happen in the future.

As I already explained before - it depends on the context. If it's an interview where they are asked about the game in general questions - they might be talking about their plans - NOT THE ACTUAL FEATURE LIST FOR RELEASE. Weird I know. But that seems to be the case with all dev interviews. Some just prefer to say "no comment". Because of Peter Molyneux curse. Even Blizzard is going with that now, being burnt so many times by player imagination.

[Post]

As I already explained before - it depends on the context. If it's an interview where they are asked about the game in general questions - they might be talking about their plans - NOT THE ACTUAL FEATURE LIST FOR RELEASE. Weird I know. But that seems to be the case with all dev interviews. Some just prefer to say "no comment". Because of Peter Molyneux curse. Even Blizzard is going with that now, being burnt so many times by player imagination.

If they didn't mean at release they say "not at release, but in the future." If this question is "can you ______?" and the answer is "yes", it means that you CAN do it, not that you WILL be able to maybe in some magical future patch.

[Elim Garak]

False, you still just ran into an object named by someone, not a player. You still have to run into a player to run into a player.

You still missing the context.

No PSPlus requirement is why they lied about it now?

They never lied about it. PSPlus might be the reason why they didn't make it possible to see other players in the game. Which they never promised and never showed in the trailers.