No Man's Sky is starting to look a bit rubbish.

Recommended Videos

ZeD [taken 0]

New member
Apr 21, 2012
72
0
0
chrissx2 said:
ZeDilton said:
chrissx2 said:
That was my problem with the game from the start .. well this and the snobbish attitude of the developer.

But this 'tech demo' looks like a good base for something great. I hope they will know how to push this concept forward.
Snobbish attitude?
Guy's the most humble dev dude I've seen in a long time.
In every interview it's "eh, I think it'll be nice".
I have nothing against the team, just that one guy, Sean Murray. There's something sinister about him. He looks like some villain that is trying to sell oxygen to people on earth :p. Maybe it's just his constant laught that creeps me out and creates that negative image for me :p.
I know who you mean.
I just have the complete opposite opinion about the guy. He just seems so damn chill.
 

Hyena200

New member
Jun 1, 2016
16
0
0
Kibeth41 said:
Hyena200 said:
Also what does the size of it have to do with anything? In km squared yeah its bigger than you or I can imagine but thats possible because its all procedurally generated and conceived by some clever bastard who also happens to be a maths genius who devised a method of generating procedural terrain based on noise patterns and found a way to apply that to an entire game, and then found because of that he didn't need 600 people to make a universe sized game. Indie studios have produced some (arguably all) of the most innovative, ground breaking and interesting games of the past ten years precisely because they ARE independent. A concept like this is far better off in the hands of a small indie dev in Guildford than it is in the hands of ubisoft or rockstar who would fill the galaxy map with busywork quest markers because thats all they know how to do, and because their moneymen told them is what sells. Thinking beyond that is what I mean by needing a broad mind.
Literal size doesn't equate to a 'big game'. A big game requires actual content. Of which, this game has little. If we follow your logic, then Minecraft is the 'biggest game on the planet'.

And once again. Procedural generation isn't a new thing. And it isn't applied to nearly as much as you seem to think it is.

Again, this is an indie studio promising more than what they can hand out. I could easily create a vast open world game, but the issue is actually having something to do, and being able to fill it.

This game is essentially an improved Spore.
Its your logic actually. You're the one going on about size. And for the...what is it.. 3rd... 4th time now? Sigh.. I didn't say procedural content was new, I said no game has used it for every single part of it, which NMS will be doing. So yes, it absolutely is as procedural as I think it is because its ENTIRELY procedural. The whole thing. Even the audio. And these claims you keep making about the devs making more promises than they can hand out. What promises? (There are a hell of a lot of things they haven't delivered that the over hyped public promised though) The game isn't out yet. You don't know what they have or haven't done. You also don't know how much there will or won't be to 'do' in it. But the fact that you keep categorically claimng that you do is proof positive that you are indeed typical of a narrow minded gamer. And an overly judgemental one based on ... Well... Nothing yet.

Right, its late here. I'm going to get some sleep now. Night all!
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
3asytarg3t said:
You guys should feel proud, you said so many stupid things in a mere 2 pages Reddit picked it up to make fun of you.
Oh no! Not Reddit! Not the hive mind! Lord have mercy on us all! Do you think that the subreddit of the actual game might have a tad bit of bias? Na, of course not. Someone in this thread felt bad that people didn't like the game they preordered, so they brought it to the comfort of the subreddit so that people of like-minded opinions would reassure them that they're "right" again.

Why are people so insecure about what games they're excited for? If you're excited for the game, good for you. Tell people why instead of trying to shit on them for not having the same views.

It's a really weird trend I've noticed on this site lately. Someone will make a thread that allows for multiple opinions and then someone else feels that their character is somehow being attacked, so they make a Reddit thread on a sub where the hive mind will be on their side and then use it as some kind of validation.

It's kind of funny to be honest.
 

ErrrorWayz

New member
Jun 25, 2016
95
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
ErrrorWayz said:
Samtemdo8 said:
I'm expecting this game to be the next Evolve.
In what sense? It's gonna go free to play after an initial cash grab and then subsequent rapid bombing?
Along with the game leading to increadible dissipointment due to the hype it made.

I mean all the features they promised, everything about this game just spells, over-selling and under-delivering.
Yeah, I get that sense too. A shame huh? The idea is brilliant - still maybe it'll be a Doom and turn out to be great fun unexpectedly (he says fooling no one)!

Kibeth41 said:
This game is essentially an improved Spore.
I had Spore in my mind too for some reason.. I was so upset by that game, what a let down.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
It's look a bit rubbish? Wow, after all it's only a poor man's star. Another overhyped game with it's multiplayer aspect keeping it afloat.
 

SeventhSigil

New member
Jun 24, 2013
273
0
0
I think a paraphrased quote from Yahtzee Croshaw's Elite: Dangerous review sums up my thoughts; basically, that I'm actually tremendously looking forward to the game, but that comes with the qualifier that I am a bit weird.

'We're going to give you a great big universe full of various lifeforms, planets, etc, along with ships, NPC races, upgrades, what have you. However, it doesn't have a main story- you're not Important McPlotDevice- and in fact while it will have an underlying lore, you aren't going to have fetch quests of Kill Dudes quests, you can progress at your own pace towards the galaxy's center, or became a space explorer or pirate or whatever, go nuts. Oh, and this is not designed to be a game you play with your mates.'

Many people, upon hearing this, will lose interest.

When I hear this, my reaction is 'OUT OF THE WAY, LEMME AT IT MINEMINEMINEMINE!'

This is actually EXACTLY what I want, after a string of games I had to kind of settle for in order to sorta, kinda, but not really scratch one of my strongest instincts when gaming; the desire to wander, to explore, etc, absent the fetters or restraints of a story.

As for the fanbase, there's inevitably going to be extremes on both ends of the spectrum. Those who decide that the game is perfect, can do no wrong, and that everyone who doesn't like what it offers just 'doesn't get it, man,' are on one end. Whereas on the other we seem to have a rising tide of people who have unilaterally decided that the game is just objectively garbage, and no sane or reasonable person could POSSIBLY be interested, let alone excited, for its release. (And, by extension, anyone who is must be 'wrong' for some reason.) Both viewpoints tend to stem from a level of arrogance, the idea that 'My way to play is the only way to play, anyone who disagrees is either misinformed or stupid.' In between are going to be the far more reasonable group of people who decide the game either is or isn't for THEM, personally. =P

Me, I'm interested, I'm even excited, and that's with every available scrap of information on hand, both of the game itself and behind the scenes in terms of its development. The time I spent on Elite: Dangerous made it clear what aspects of a spaceship-y game I crave, and which I don't care about, and right now No Man's Sky is simply hitting all the right buttons. But I totally get why people, even a majority of people, just don't want a game like this. =P The beauty of it though is that there are pleeeenty of games out there that will cater quite specifically to their tastes. Heck, Mass Effect: Andromeda will likely strike a much larger balance between exploration and structured, guided content, giving it broader appeal. Whether it appeals to ME remains to be seen, (series has been kind of hit-and-miss for me,) but that's just different strokes for different folks.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
Ok, on the topic of NMS doing something new; No, it doesn't. In a technical sense it may. The systems underlying it may be different to the systems we've seen before. In a gameplay or experience sense? Hah.

As others have pointed out, look at Spore;
Procedurally generated planets? Check
Procedurally generated wildlife? Check [Connect to internet if you don't like the initial set of assembled assets, and it acts exactly the same way].
Procedurally generated galaxy? Check
Procedurally generated empires? Check
Goal is to get to the center of the galaxy? Check
Basically shit all to do outside that? Check

Also have to laugh when "Procedurally generated grass" is considered something awesome. Literally every game that has grass [outside pokemon and other 2D titles], has that grass procedurally generated. What, you think the devs have a guy whose job it is to hand place 20,000,000,000 blades of grass? Hah, no. Its proc-genned so they don't have to bother. Same with most landscapes in modern games TBH.

And no, saying it has shit all to do isn't at all to do with quests and objectives and story and such. That's bullshit and the people saying it know it. I could write up a 'game' right now that was just random coloured blocks in a black void for infinity, and you had the ability to move, and I reckon these same guys defending NMS wouldn't defend it as having plenty to do, just not in the normal sense because there's not objectives and such, you're just closed minded. Nope, they'd complain there's nothing to do because there are no mechanics there to support anything. Oh but I could procedurally generate an infinite variety of blocks and colours and sounds coming out of the blocks and it'd be like something you'd never seen or experienced before! Except it wouldn't. It'd be something you've seen countless times, and isn't that creative.

The same applies to NMS though. Sure, its blocks are a little prettier, but as far as I've seen, Spore had more mechanics behind it that you could play around with and do things with than NMS does. Terraforming, Biosphere shaping and altering, space fights, land exploration [Even Vanilla there was a hologram module for you to do this], crop circles you could terrorise beings with. Planet busters, cities to capture, trade to perform, colonies to establish, empires to build, species to modify... Ect.

"There's nothing to do" isn't a complaint about no objectives. I'd wager most people have more fun NOT doing the objectives and doing the hundred other things that can be done with a game's mechanics than just mindlessly following objectives. Its a complaint about the low level variety and polish of the mechanics that allow you to interact with the world. Minecraft had TONS to do, and that was ignoring its achievement system. It had no objectives, no story, none of that shit. People didn't complain there was nothing to do though, because there were a lot of in depth mechanics to master. Monster hunting evolved into monster farming. Gathering various resources took a lot of know how eventually. Crafting rare items was a lot of work. Building great structures took huge amounts of coordination and preparation. Brewing food, learning Redstone, role playing with friends... There was a ton of stuff to do.


The big complaint with NMS that many people have is that it is a game about Procedural Generation, and we've seen that before. Its not a game USING procedural generation, its a game based almost entirely around procedural generation, and AI ain't at the level where it'll just create a compelling game yet.

You could create a sandbox game world based on procedural generation and exploration - but then you'd have Minecraft, or Starbound, or Terraria or... You could use procedural generation to do the bulky but mundane work of creating terrain for your awesome story - like Witcher, Skyrim, and most other large games these days. You can use procedural generation to alter the stats and look of loot to add more excitement to your dungeon crawl - like Diablo or Borderlands. You can't just put procedural generation there, and program in a camera, and call it this amazing new game that has so much to do you guys are all just close minded and don't get it. Yeah, No Man's Sky goes a bit further than that - that just proves the point that you can't though. NMS is too close to that for many people. There aren't enough mechanics we've been introduced to for people to be able to actually do anything in the game. And I mean hell, if you like just looking at paintings all day, more power to you, but a lot of people actually like the part of games where you interact with the media, rather than sit back and watch something someone else has done for you. In NMS, the features related to that seem barebones at present, more like an afterthought than the focus of the game like they should be.

Want there to be more to do? Create complex systems. Systems the player can manipulate to have an impact in the game world, and have the impact they can have be near infinite in variety thanks to the complexity in the system. For Minecraft, this was the building blocks and being able to create things, as well as redstone. You had a near infinite number of things you could do with those two systems, and amazing things you could achieve. You weren't given a goal, yet people recreated the entire starship Enterprise at almost life scale, or created a computer that played a primitive version of Minecraft, in Minecraft. And that engaged people and kept them playing. It doesn't have to be creation based either In BF3 one of the fun things a lot of people used to do was jump on MAVs to try and get into impossible places, or use C4 for evasive manoeuvres on things like tanks, or to land vehicles falling down a cliff safely. Sure, sometimes these things had a practical benefit. Others, they were just fun things to mess around with and do for laughs, yet the variety of circumstances you could use these two tools in, and the unpredictable and varied results they could have, resulted in fun for some people outside the objectives.

Without creating content like stories and that though, or having player interaction, you need to have systems for the player to discover and master, that have effects in the game. FPS in NMS could do that, as could trade, or platforming, or dogfighting, or any other mechanic. But they're not developed enough to really engage people. That's what people talk about when they say there's nothing to do, and why for many NMS seems quite disappointing. ANYONE can make a procedurally genrated world. People have proc genned entire interactive cities before and had a camera they can fly through and look at stuff with. That doesn't make it a fun game. Its what you can do that determines that for most people, and not even talking about goals or objectives, there isn't a lot of depth or complexity to what little you can do. And that's just unappealing to many.

NMS isn't some amazingly revolutionary never before seen type of game. That's the hype train talking. Its your classic proc genned sandbox, with potentially some more impressive proc gen under the hood, but lacking in interactivity seemingly moreso than even other titles in the genre, which is offputting to many because of the lack of real interactivity with the world.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
3asytarg3t said:
You guys should feel proud, you said so many stupid things in a mere 2 pages Reddit picked it up to make fun of you.
You mean that a subreddit filled almost entirely of people frantically convincing one another that NMS will be the second coming are inclined to pitch a fit when shown the opinion of someone who does not think that NMS will be the second coming?

I'm shocked. Shocked to my very core.
 

SeventhSigil

New member
Jun 24, 2013
273
0
0
Joccaren said:
Ok, on the topic of NMS doing something new; No, it doesn't. In a technical sense it may. The systems underlying it may be different to the systems we've seen before. In a gameplay or experience sense? Hah.

As others have pointed out, look at Spore;
Procedurally generated planets? Check
Procedurally generated wildlife? Check [Connect to internet if you don't like the initial set of assembled assets, and it acts exactly the same way].
Procedurally generated galaxy? Check
Procedurally generated empires? Check
Goal is to get to the center of the galaxy? Check
Basically shit all to do outside that? Check

Also have to laugh when "Procedurally generated grass" is considered something awesome. Literally every game that has grass [outside pokemon and other 2D titles], has that grass procedurally generated. What, you think the devs have a guy whose job it is to hand place 20,000,000,000 blades of grass? Hah, no. Its proc-genned so they don't have to bother. Same with most landscapes in modern games TBH.

And no, saying it has shit all to do isn't at all to do with quests and objectives and story and such. That's bullshit and the people saying it know it. I could write up a 'game' right now that was just random coloured blocks in a black void for infinity, and you had the ability to move, and I reckon these same guys defending NMS wouldn't defend it as having plenty to do, just not in the normal sense because there's not objectives and such, you're just closed minded. Nope, they'd complain there's nothing to do because there are no mechanics there to support anything. Oh but I could procedurally generate an infinite variety of blocks and colours and sounds coming out of the blocks and it'd be like something you'd never seen or experienced before! Except it wouldn't. It'd be something you've seen countless times, and isn't that creative.

The same applies to NMS though. Sure, its blocks are a little prettier, but as far as I've seen, Spore had more mechanics behind it that you could play around with and do things with than NMS does. Terraforming, Biosphere shaping and altering, space fights, land exploration [Even Vanilla there was a hologram module for you to do this], crop circles you could terrorise beings with. Planet busters, cities to capture, trade to perform, colonies to establish, empires to build, species to modify... Ect.

"There's nothing to do" isn't a complaint about no objectives. I'd wager most people have more fun NOT doing the objectives and doing the hundred other things that can be done with a game's mechanics than just mindlessly following objectives. Its a complaint about the low level variety and polish of the mechanics that allow you to interact with the world. Minecraft had TONS to do, and that was ignoring its achievement system. It had no objectives, no story, none of that shit. People didn't complain there was nothing to do though, because there were a lot of in depth mechanics to master. Monster hunting evolved into monster farming. Gathering various resources took a lot of know how eventually. Crafting rare items was a lot of work. Building great structures took huge amounts of coordination and preparation. Brewing food, learning Redstone, role playing with friends... There was a ton of stuff to do.


The big complaint with NMS that many people have is that it is a game about Procedural Generation, and we've seen that before. Its not a game USING procedural generation, its a game based almost entirely around procedural generation, and AI ain't at the level where it'll just create a compelling game yet.

You could create a sandbox game world based on procedural generation and exploration - but then you'd have Minecraft, or Starbound, or Terraria or... You could use procedural generation to do the bulky but mundane work of creating terrain for your awesome story - like Witcher, Skyrim, and most other large games these days. You can use procedural generation to alter the stats and look of loot to add more excitement to your dungeon crawl - like Diablo or Borderlands. You can't just put procedural generation there, and program in a camera, and call it this amazing new game that has so much to do you guys are all just close minded and don't get it. Yeah, No Man's Sky goes a bit further than that - that just proves the point that you can't though. NMS is too close to that for many people. There aren't enough mechanics we've been introduced to for people to be able to actually do anything in the game. And I mean hell, if you like just looking at paintings all day, more power to you, but a lot of people actually like the part of games where you interact with the media, rather than sit back and watch something someone else has done for you. In NMS, the features related to that seem barebones at present, more like an afterthought than the focus of the game like they should be.

Want there to be more to do? Create complex systems. Systems the player can manipulate to have an impact in the game world, and have the impact they can have be near infinite in variety thanks to the complexity in the system. For Minecraft, this was the building blocks and being able to create things, as well as redstone. You had a near infinite number of things you could do with those two systems, and amazing things you could achieve. You weren't given a goal, yet people recreated the entire starship Enterprise at almost life scale, or created a computer that played a primitive version of Minecraft, in Minecraft. And that engaged people and kept them playing. It doesn't have to be creation based either In BF3 one of the fun things a lot of people used to do was jump on MAVs to try and get into impossible places, or use C4 for evasive manoeuvres on things like tanks, or to land vehicles falling down a cliff safely. Sure, sometimes these things had a practical benefit. Others, they were just fun things to mess around with and do for laughs, yet the variety of circumstances you could use these two tools in, and the unpredictable and varied results they could have, resulted in fun for some people outside the objectives.

Without creating content like stories and that though, or having player interaction, you need to have systems for the player to discover and master, that have effects in the game. FPS in NMS could do that, as could trade, or platforming, or dogfighting, or any other mechanic. But they're not developed enough to really engage people. That's what people talk about when they say there's nothing to do, and why for many NMS seems quite disappointing. ANYONE can make a procedurally genrated world. People have proc genned entire interactive cities before and had a camera they can fly through and look at stuff with. That doesn't make it a fun game. Its what you can do that determines that for most people, and not even talking about goals or objectives, there isn't a lot of depth or complexity to what little you can do. And that's just unappealing to many.

NMS isn't some amazingly revolutionary never before seen type of game. That's the hype train talking. Its your classic proc genned sandbox, with potentially some more impressive proc gen under the hood, but lacking in interactivity seemingly moreso than even other titles in the genre, which is offputting to many because of the lack of real interactivity with the world.
This is a bit off-topic, but if you don't already play it, you'd probably greatly enjoy Eve Online; as far as large-scale player interaction, complexity in mechanics, and especially the impact that the player can have on the game's world, it really can't be beat. The flip side is that, from what I understand, this same mechanical complexity can be a bit of a brick wall in terms of settling into it, and if you don't join a Corps, especially one of the bigger ones, you're probably not going to get nearly as much out of the game, as higher-level play really only happens in large groups.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Hyena200 said:
His Divine Shadow said:
Hyena200 said:
stroopwafel said:
I agree that with randomly generated content you just see the same assets popping up over and over in different constellations.
Its 'procedurally' generated, not 'randomly' generated. There's a big difference between the two. With procedurally generated content you can have infinte variations, you can't with random, which means in No Man's Sky its actually very unlikely that you'll see the same assets popping up over and over in different constellations. In fact, in No Man's Sky its unlikely that you'll EVER see the same asset twice. http://iq.intel.co.uk/no-mans-sky-procedural-generation/
Of course, you might not be able to tell the difference between "Seeing the same asset twice" and "Seeing the same damned things, but oh look, this time it's blue, or taller, or fatter, or has an extra leg."

If everything is still running on the same basic behavioral scripts, people are going to see individual assets for the pseudorandom strokes of pain they are. The issue then will be what's created with those brush strokes?

Not fucking much seems to be the answer so far.
Its certainly being judged currently by all the known gaming conventions we can think of. I seem to remember an early interview with Sean Murray in which he said you need to think beyond what you currently think games should be doing to get what NMS is about. But thats easier said than done for a generation of gamers who can't think beyond quests, objectives, multiplayer and pvp. Here's a true story, when the TV was first revealed everyone thought it would be rubbish and never catch on, because it wasn't a radio.

It's always a riot when people start trashing anything new, and their crystal balls are shining so brightly. Remember when so many idiotically claimed that nothing this generation will look as good as that UE4 render with the ice and fire.

Same thing here. A good number of folks will continue to dog NMS; some purely out of spite if nothing more, but everyone else will probably be having a damn good time with it.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Kibeth41 said:
Hyena200 said:
But to appreciate it takes a far broader mind than the one you've shown so far.
No... It doesn't.

If I appear cynical it's because I already know how the game works, what it generates, and what it's capable of.

It's a directionless sandbox game. Some people might enjoy the exploration, but it's not going leaps and bounds to redefining gaming.

Again, this is an indie studio promising a game bigger than what AAA titles tend to be.

There are links earlier in this thread that run contrary to that claim, as well as most of the armchair predictions made so far. Also, "bigger than what AAA titles tend to be" doesn't mean more cutscenes, more famous voice actors, more animation, larger, higher res textures, etc.

What I don't get is how everyone was hyped to hell and back when there was only a crappy trailer, yet now after a plethora of finer details on how the game works have come out, people think it'll be an overhyped letdown.

If anything the trailers are the real letdown, because they haven't really showed much of what's supposed to be in the game. Why? Well, that's really the whole point of procedural generation.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
hanselthecaretaker said:
What I don't get is how everyone was hyped to hell and back when there was only a crappy trailer, yet now after a plethora of finer details on how the game works have come out, people think it'll be an overhyped letdown.
Come now, that's easy to explain.

The initial trailers hinted at potential. They showed that the game's universe was massive, then showed a little snippet of what could be found in that universe. Meaning there could be anything in the rest of that massive universe. You could get up to all kinds of stuff! How exciting.

Then they showed more and gave more details and it quickly became clear that the rest of the universe will have a whole lot of the same sort of thing and you'll be getting up to a whole lot of simplistic shooting and resource gathering.

It's no great revelation that a mystery becomes less interesting when you solve it. The initial trailer was the mystery. The details that eventually followed it was the solution.
 

Lacedaemonius

New member
Mar 10, 2016
70
0
0
hanselthecaretaker said:
Kibeth41 said:
Hyena200 said:
But to appreciate it takes a far broader mind than the one you've shown so far.
No... It doesn't.

If I appear cynical it's because I already know how the game works, what it generates, and what it's capable of.

It's a directionless sandbox game. Some people might enjoy the exploration, but it's not going leaps and bounds to redefining gaming.

Again, this is an indie studio promising a game bigger than what AAA titles tend to be.

There are links earlier in this thread that run contrary to that claim, as well as most of the armchair predictions made so far. Also, "bigger than what AAA titles tend to be" doesn't mean more cutscenes, more famous voice actors, more animation, larger, higher res textures, etc.

What I don't get is how everyone was hyped to hell and back when there was only a crappy trailer, yet now after a plethora of finer details on how the game works have come out, people think it'll be an overhyped letdown.

If anything the trailers are the real letdown, because they haven't really showed much of what's supposed to be in the game. Why? Well, that's really the whole point of procedural generation.
The issue is that the people who were hyped were painfully loud and persistent, and by definition they are the ones who care the most anyway. In a situation with only hints of what's to come, they can just say "It's a trailer, it will be amazing." Now, that's much harder to do, since we can see how not-amazing it is. The same people are still foaming at the mouth, but now the rest of us have something concrete to point to and say, "See?!"

Presumably that's why the shills have come out of the wordwork too.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
hanselthecaretaker said:
It's always a riot when people start trashing anything new, and their crystal balls are shining so brightly. Remember when so many idiotically claimed that nothing this generation will look as good as that UE4 render with the ice and fire.

Same thing here. A good number of folks will continue to dog NMS; some purely out of spite if nothing more, but everyone else will probably be having a damn good time with it.
Whose the one with the crystal ball now? "Everyone else will probably be enjoying it" is a bold prediction if I've ever heard one. People being idiots and hating on your beloved game because it's new is ridiculous, but if that's how you want to rationalize people having differing opinions from you, then okay. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously since it'd be as silly as me telling someone they're an idiot for not being excited for a steak I ordered for them when they don't normally eat red meat.

To me, NMS appears to be what Minecraft would be like if you removed the ability to place blocks and told them that the goal was simply to get to the end of the world. Place some basic trade routes between NPC villages, add a couple factions that fight over them besides the monsters and you essentially have a walking version of NMS. Sure, NMS is much prettier and will probably have greater variety in the kinds of environments it generates (though so far, I'm skeptical of even this), but for me and many others, this isn't enough to get a purchase. That's fine if it appeals to you, you obviously value the exploration aspect of the game a lot more highly than me.
 

Silence

Living undeath to the fullest
Legacy
Sep 21, 2014
4,326
14
3
Country
Germany
Zhukov said:
hanselthecaretaker said:
What I don't get is how everyone was hyped to hell and back when there was only a crappy trailer, yet now after a plethora of finer details on how the game works have come out, people think it'll be an overhyped letdown.
Come now, that's easy to explain.

The initial trailers hinted at potential. They showed that the game's universe was massive, then showed a little snippet of what could be found in that universe. Meaning there could be anything in the rest of that massive universe. You could get up to all kinds of stuff! How exciting.

Then they showed more and gave more details and it quickly became clear that the rest of the universe will have a whole lot of the same sort of thing and you'll be getting up to a whole lot of simplistic shooting and resource gathering.

It's no great revelation that a mystery becomes less interesting when you solve it. The initial trailer was the mystery. The details that eventually followed it was the solution.
I think the basic question is: Why now? Why not earlier?

For me, it was being intrigued after the first trailer.

Then hearing the word 'procedural generation' and being like 'eeeeeeeehhhhh'. For me, it would have to add some amazing things right now, it's not starting to 'look a bit rubbish', it basically first has to get out of the 'looking rubbish because it's procedural generation' state to change anything of my feeling about the game.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Zhukov said:
hanselthecaretaker said:
What I don't get is how everyone was hyped to hell and back when there was only a crappy trailer, yet now after a plethora of finer details on how the game works have come out, people think it'll be an overhyped letdown.
Come now, that's easy to explain.

The initial trailers hinted at potential. They showed that the game's universe was massive, then showed a little snippet of what could be found in that universe. Meaning there could be anything in the rest of that massive universe. You could get up to all kinds of stuff! How exciting.

Then they showed more and gave more details and it quickly became clear that the rest of the universe will have a whole lot of the same sort of thing and you'll be getting up to a whole lot of simplistic shooting and resource gathering.

It's no great revelation that a mystery becomes less interesting when you solve it. The initial trailer was the mystery. The details that eventually followed it was the solution.
It's not the game's fault that people jumped to a conclusion of being able to find God in it. What exactly were people expecting beyond what they've already explained, also considering the game isn't even out yet? Sure it doesn't have typical Co-Op or MP, but if that was the case it'd ultimately turn into every other derivative MP game out there: rinse and repeat ad nauseum. Nobody complained about how limited Journey's "MP" was, and the game was all the better for that limited aspect of its design.

With NMS, it's still just a game, but one in which outside of general rules, it's always going to throw something different at you; at least compared to most others.