No Man's Sky

[rhorle]

I've outlined my argument in this thread, yours would allow anyone to sell you anything in any quality no matter what they told you it would be before you bought it. It's nonsense.

That isn't the argument though. Because places like the Steam store didn't even have the game listed as multiplayer. It is the part of the inherent problem of promoting in development products. Stuff can change. And when it comes to video games stuff can change even up to the very last moment. Should HG have acted differently? Yes. Should the community have bought into as much as they did? No.

Part of the problem is that a lot of people thought a lot of different things about what every statement made about NMS meant. And when stuff went bad or turned out differently they brought every little thing out of the wood work to work through their hate. I mean look at how people raised a lot of stink over no butterflies or no landing on asteroids. It isn't so much that things changed and they handled badly but how people treat it as the most evil thing ever. And take any chance they can to continue to hate on the game.

[Nazrark]

I see the dumb argument has made it's way back to the forefront.

[Jastall]

That isn't the argument though. Because places like the Steam store didn't even have the game listed as multiplayer. It is the part of the inherent problem of promoting in development products. Stuff can change. And when it comes to video games stuff can change even up to the very last moment. Should HG have acted differently? Yes. Should the community have bought into as much as they did? No.

Part of the problem is that a lot of people thought a lot of different things about what every statement made about NMS meant. And when stuff went bad or turned out differently they brought every little thing out of the wood work to work through their hate. I mean look at how people raised a lot of stink over no butterflies or no landing on asteroids. It isn't so much that things changed and they handled badly but how people treat it as the most evil thing ever. And take any chance they can to continue to hate on the game.

Butterflies and multiplayer aren't the same issue. Small touches being left out is one thing; multiplayer is a very different beast, its very own gamemode and a selling point for a lot of people. If you say the game has multiplayer (which, if you can meet other players no matter how rarely, it definitely is), and the final product doesn't, you need to communicate that shit and say so, plainly. HG didn't do that, and they fully deserve the backlash over that missing feature.

I have little sympathy for them, truth be told. I get that they were overwhelmed, but no one forced them to almost literally promise the universe if they couldn't deliver. They rode the massive hype wave that their marketing gave them, cashed in on release, then radio silence for literal months after their boring, gutted and broken ass game launched. As much as I agree that some people let themselves be grossly overhyped (which is a problem across the video game industry), the devs are far from innocent here.

[stellvia]

You know what? I don't really care.

I was happy with my purchase. Many clearly weren't.

Perhaps those people should be more careful with their purchases in the future.

Are you kidding me? You raised a huge stink and when proven wrong you try to deflect?..... At least own up properly.

[Nazrark]

Oh c’mon dude! Some people around here have been working really hard on baiting and you just have to be such a party pooper! We should call Gravath here, it usually works well on him =/

@Gravath We require your services.

Please post productively and on-topic. Infracted. -Edge

[Post]

That isn't the argument though. Because places like the Steam store didn't even have the game listed as multiplayer. It is the part of the inherent problem of promoting in development products. Stuff can change. And when it comes to video games stuff can change even up to the very last moment. Should HG have acted differently? Yes. Should the community have bought into as much as they did? No.

Should people be defending their mistakes with ridiculous logic? No.

Part of the problem is that a lot of people thought a lot of different things about what every statement made about NMS meant. And when stuff went bad or turned out differently they brought every little thing out of the wood work to work through their hate. I mean look at how people raised a lot of stink over no butterflies or no landing on asteroids. It isn't so much that things changed and they handled badly but how people treat it as the most evil thing ever. And take any chance they can to continue to hate on the game.

This is you blaming the audience of those interviews for taking them on their word. It's nonsense.

Oh c’mon dude! Some people around here have been working really hard on baiting and you just have to be such a party pooper! We should call Gravath here, it usually works well on him =/

I don't know who Gravath is, and that probably tells me all I need to know about how easy it is to bait him into getting banned or infracted lol.

[rhorle]

This is you blaming the audience of those interviews for taking them on their word. It's nonsense.

It is not nonsense though. Why is it wrong to put some blame on people that get over hyped and get wrong notions about the game? There were literally people who thought it was going to be like Elite Dangerous from what little was said about the game. There are also people who harped on them for every tiny little detail because of the not being able to see other players. The hate that this game generated is irrational and nonsense.

Shifting blame to only be on the developer is 100% wrong. At some point people need to take responsibility for how they hype up themselves for a game and for taking certain statements as 100% fact before seeing or investigating a game. The other thing is that what they have said about the game in relation to multiplayer has been varied and can be taken different ways depending on when, where, and what was said. Some are direct "yes you can see others" some are answers that don't really match up to the quest like when Sean was asked about player ships being thought of as AI.

It goes both ways for ridiculous logic. People here like to hate on HG and NMS just because they bungled something and go to ridiculous lengths in order to justify and perpetuate their hate. People who haven't even played or purchased the game but still are compelled to hate on the game even six months later. Isn't that ridiculous?

- - - Updated - - -

Butterflies and multiplayer aren't the same issue. Small touches being left out is one thing; multiplayer is a very different beast, its very own gamemode and a selling point for a lot of people.

Except multiplayer in NMS was never sold to be its very own game mode. It was only ever sold as "seeing other players and maybe small interaction". People took that to mean tons of different things. From having guilds to own aspects of space, to full blown galactic trading corporations, to simply seeing your friend in the same solar system who lives across the world. But that stuff was never sold to be what NMS multiplayer was. There is a reason why non-traditional multiplayer was used several times by the devs. Multiplayer is much more then MMO, co-op, or death match play that most see it as now a days.

As for the little touches being left out not being the same issue, that was my point. Many took it to be just as big of an issue and used as as fuel for their hatred to blow things way out of proportion. Some latched onto anything they could to feed the hate train.

- - - Updated - - -

Luckily the vast majority aren't falling for this, it's only a couple....extremely devoted fans that could be classed as something that would get me infracted...that still try to defend it, even though it makes them look really bad.

Except that despite its flaws and marketing issues it isn't that bad of a game. You don't have to be an extremely devoted fan in order to see that either. And it isn't just the few white knights and any other infractable term you want to use, that believe that.

NMS has a small but healthy community that has moved beyond the hate to what the game is about. HG is even posting things on their facebook to showcase it. Even reddit has more non-hate then hate now.

[Elim Garak]

Correct. However they were questions about the multiplayer aspect of the game and at no point did Sean Murray state that it is not a multiplayer game. He was asked question about how players would interact and he said nothing to suggest they wouldn't be able to.

There's multiplayer interaction in the game. There were more of it planned obviously. The question remains where's the lie? Feature cuts are not lies.

A but doesn't make a yes into a no. Especially when one of those buts gets dispelled on launch day.

A but puts a limit to any answer. Smart people realize this.

It's pretty clear he was lying the whole time and should have known better considering how frequently he was asked about multiplayer.

Prove it.

Oh, so your argument is that you don't know what massively multiplayer means.

Nope. It's not even in my argument. There were two people talking one of them said "building massively multiplayer world" and the other said "right"
YOU then built your argument based on "Sean promised MMO", apparently. It's just silly, really.

Oh, right. This is the part of the argument where you use semantics to make up what it means while you deliberately ignore how the industry and the consumers use it. Right. Haven't we covered this ground before?

You are accusing Sean of lying. That means the meaning of the words he and other people in the interview said. Semantics. You know. They are a large part of it all. Ever heard about inferring much?

Or they could have been lying the whole time.

They could have, they could have also done that interview while on Mars.
Proof, motherfucker, do you have it?

You read it here folks. Saying something is unlikely means it isn't possible in your game.

Your reading comprehension is lacking.

Just ignore the fact that he first confirms that it's in the game.

I didn't? I addressed that fact directly. Multiple times. Feature cut.

I mean, at this point why hasn't anyone come forward to explain the lack of multiplayer? What is the purpose of not saying anything, especially when the internet is aflame with people calling you liars? They have no obligation? So they're cool with their reputation plummeting into the dirt and Sony trying to put some distance between them?

They said MULTIPLE times BEFORE release that NMS is not a multiplayer game and to not expect it to be one.

[Post]

It is not nonsense though. Why is it wrong to put some blame on people that get over hyped and get wrong notions about the game?

They didn't get it wrong, they were told the wrong things.

Except that despite its flaws and marketing issues it isn't that bad of a game. You don't have to be an extremely devoted fan in order to see that either. And it isn't just the few white knights and any other infractable term you want to use, that believe that.

NMS has a small but healthy community that has moved beyond the hate to what the game is about. HG is even posting things on their facebook to showcase it. Even reddit has more non-hate then hate now.

I guess you're right, Steam has "Mixed" reviews out of the 636 recent ones. The other 81,439 are "Mostly Negative."

Unlike us mortals he cares little about infractions, thus every time he wakes from his slumber (often caused by the moderators, obsly due jealously) he thirsts for stupidity, leaping at whatever that dares to cross his path…

Now Nazrark was foolish enough to summon him once again to our realm, may God have mercy on our souls.

Edited: See what we get for naming that whos name should not be mentioned? It’s like a curse, the only bright side on all this is that probably someone just got hard from those infractions

Thank you for your sacrifice, comrade.

[Deleted]

They said MULTIPLE times BEFORE release that NMS is not a multiplayer game and to not expect it to be one.

He said you could meet each other in game, which is blatantly false.

[draykorinee]

God this discussion is boring now, he lied about multiplayer and its obvious. Bye.

[Elim Garak]

He said you could meet each other in game, which is blatantly false.

When he said it it wasn't false, it's only false because it's not in the final game. It doesn't make it a lie.

- - - Updated - - -

God this discussion is boring now, he lied about multiplayer and its obvious. Bye.

It's obvious that he didn't. See ya.

[1001]

When he said it it wasn't false, it's only false because it's not in the final game. It doesn't make it a lie.

Did they show it working? No, thus there was never any proof it existed either.
What's important here is that he didn't correct the matter, he encouraged people carry on thinking that they would be receiving that feature in game when it must have been clear that it wouldn't make the final cut.

That's deceptive behaviour no matter how you want to spin it.

[Elim Garak]

Did they show it working? No, thus there was never any proof it existed either.

They said it existed or that they planned to make it, so it existed or they planned to make it. Unless you can prove otherwise

What's important here is that he didn't correct the matter

He did. When it was clear that they are not going to make it he said that NMS will have no multiplayer.

That's deceptive behaviour no matter how you want to spin it.

I'm not even spinning it and there's no deceptive behavior. Unless you can prove it.

[1001]

They said it existed or that they planned to make it, so it existed or they planned to make it. Unless you can prove otherwise

So the absence of evidence is somehow evidence that it existed. Righto....

He did. When it was clear that they are not going to make it he said that NMS will have no multiplayer.

And when exactly did he say that?

I'm not even spinning it and there's no deceptive behavior. Unless you can prove it.

LOL, this pre-school tactic is so facile.

[Elim Garak]

So the absence of evidence is somehow evidence that it existed. Righto....

You are confused.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. <- This is YOUR fallacy here. You claim that since there's no evidence of multiplayer being there - it wasn't.

More so, this is not about the evidence of existence of certain features it's about them lying about them. Until you prove that they lied - they didn't.

You make the claim - you prove it.

And when exactly did he say that?

Before release.

LOL, this pre-school tactic is so facile.

I agree. Please change it. Read a book on logic too.

[1001]

You are confused.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. <- This is YOUR fallacy here. You claim that since there's no evidence of multiplayer being there - it wasn't.

More so, this is not about the evidence of existence of certain features it's about them lying about them. Until you prove that they lied - they didn't.

You make the claim - you prove it.

Not confused at all. You said that because they said it existed it must therefore have been true despite there being no evidence to back that up. You need to substantiate that claim, the onus is not on me to prove a negative.
If it was true then they would have showed it along with all the other stuff they demoed (but didn't make it into release).

Before release.

Not good enough, you can't have this both ways. If you want to say that I have to prove things then you also have to prove things. Anything else just makes it you look like you're being an obnoxious twerp.
Post release, when two players met up expecting to see each other, Murray alluded that the reason they couldn't was due to server load. Not the sort of comment one would make if he had already cleared up the multiplayer misconception.

I agree. Please change it. Read a book on logic too.

Naught wrong with my logic, it's pretty clear that you're the one being willfully ignorant, or probably just trolling.

[Deleted]

who whiffed this shit up again

Is nms even relevant anymore

[Deleted]

who whiffed this shit up again

Is nms even relevant anymore

Well no, but it has now been assimilated into the BioWare-thread company thuggery empire.

Let's get this party started properly.

When he said it it wasn't false, it's only false because it's not in the final game. It doesn't make it a lie.

Same lie as ME3 Tri-colour ending but in reverse.

[dope_danny]

who whiffed this shit up again

Is nms even relevant anymore

At this point i think its become more of a support group for the folks stuck at the bargaining or denial stage of grief