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

[Lacedaemonius]

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.

Who cares if something new is always thrown at you, if its devoid of meaning, context, or the ability to alter a thing? Novelty for novelty's sake is scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel.

 

[Zhukov]

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.

I basically meant it's looking to be a polarizing "hate it or love it" type of game. Practically everyone's already made their mind up on it one way or another, which is amazing since nobody's played it, and only bits and pieces have even been shown.

I personally am intrigued if nothing else than to play something outside the norm. It's tough to think the game is merely a walking simulator after reading all the details. I guess we'll see how far and to what degree of significance all the variety stretches to.

 

[Zhukov]

Who cares if something new is always thrown at you, if its devoid of meaning, context, or the ability to alter a thing? Novelty for novelty's sake is scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel.

Again, where did they say everything you discover is meaningless? People automatically think procedural means durpville just because nothing is hand drawn or deliberately designed 1:1. It reminds me of back when polygons were showing up, and looked like crap next to sprites and pre-rendered models. People thought they would ruin games as they know them. Well, maybe they did!

 

[Zhukov]

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.

You're, uhh... kinda tilting at windmills there mate.

I didn't say it was the game's fault. (Or the developer's fault.) It's just what happened, at least to me.
I didn't say that people had specific expectations about what they may find. Maybe they did, but I can't speak for them. Nor can I tell you "exactly" what other people were expecting due to my inability to read minds. I did not have specific expectation of what there might be to be found in the game, or if I did I do not remember them. I was just excited by the general prospect.
I have not mentioned multiplayer or co-op at all. Other people have, but you'll have to take that up with them. (This also applies to your previously made point about quests. I don't think anybody here has said they wanted quests. I certainly haven't.)

Also, like I said, there were people, including myself, saying, "Yeah, but what do you do in NMS?" right from the start.

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.

I am thus far unconvinced on this point.

Yes, it will throw something technically unique at me. But it's unique in the eyes of a computer and as far as a computer is concerned a planet that is identical to the previous planet except with grass of a different colour is still unique. And technically that's true, but from a human standpoint those two planets, while technically unique, would be boring and samey. I refer you to my comparison in the OP with Minecraft maps.

Borderlands offers you millions of "unique" guns. But when it gets right down to it, one SMG that has XYZ attributes isn't all that distinct from another SMG that has XYZ attributes but holds 3 extra rounds in the magazine. Technically unique, but so fucking what?

Hell, technically every match of Call of Duty is unique. Because last time when that sniper camped the hallway he was sitting three inches to the left of where he was this time. Unique! But you won't see people praising CoD for the way it "throws something different at you".

From what I've seen in gameplay footage of NMS, there's an awful lot of yet-another-fucking-planet but this one has blue grass!

 

[Cold Shiny]

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

Uh, no duh.

How could a game that was hyped to unfathomable levels look anything but a bit rubbish.
People. need. to. stop. hyping. things. up.

Unless its a Nintendo game, 90% of which live up to the hype.

No Man's Sky will be a letdown, and Star Citizen will follow it.

 

[Amaror]

I was never really hyped for it anyway. So not too much of a loss there.
Generally my personal typ to not get hyped:
If the developers make statements like:
"And see what you will find." "The players can see what they can discover in our game" or "We want players to find out about it for themselves"
Just assume that there is nothing there. It will save you a ton of frustration because usually: There is nothing there.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Also, like I said, there were people, including myself, saying, "Yeah, but what do you do in NMS?" right from the start.

Exploring genuinely is enough for certain people. I'm probably one of them. I'm actually a bit tired of having to look at a list of quest markers or objectives or whatever all the freakin' time. So I'm very excited for a game in where I can just go. A nice, chill experience. I know you can do that in Elite: Dangerous too, but mechanically that scared me off big time after I tried it out. By the looks of it I don't have to worry about that in NMS. Just looking at new pretty shit has been enough motivation for a lot of folks.

So yeah, what do you do? You go. You go as far as you want to. I actually liked doing that in Minecraft, because you made that comparison, way back when; just set out in a certain direction and go. But Minecraft had fairly little variation to offer so that didn't last long.

So that's why I'm hoping that the procedural (not random) generation made a universe beautiful and varied enough to keep me going. But if it is, all I need to be doing is going. And yeah you can be reducionist about it and go "5578HD6JJ43FTR4R5T instead of UQ4E33F4454GMB7BB" even if it's gorgeous, but well you can boil down every game to something banal. Hell, even reality. Why go to a different planet? All I've seen are planets where natural forces came up with a different configuration of natural elements.

 

[TitanAtlas]

I didn't logged in for this site, for over a year, and the sheer amout of headaches this comment gave me, made me log in again.

So first of all you're complaining with a game that hasan't been released.

Second, you get to do, whatever floats your boat, and you're angry because they didn't gave you something mandatory to do. That is your extent of freewill. Ok....

Ok, i'm not to worried, minecraft looked worst and it still profited...

 

[Dango]

Wow, a game with a stupid amount of ambition with a team way to small to actually accomplish it might turn out bad? Who would have guessed?

 

[Zhukov]

So yeah, what do you do? You go. You go as far as you want to. I actually liked doing that in Minecraft, because you made that comparison, way back when; just set out in a certain direction and go. But Minecraft had fairly little variation to offer so that didn't last long.

That's part of my concern. From what I've seen NMS doesn't have all that much variation. More than a Minecraft map, sure, but nowhere near as much as I'd want too see in a full price game where going and seeing is the main attraction.

I've heard people say, "Ohh, I'm sure that there's a ton of stuff they just haven't shown us because they don't want to spoil the surprise", and, "Oh, I hear things get really trippy and alien the closer you get to the middle of the universe." However, if their universe is so big that any individual player will never see anywhere near all of it and it's so full to bursting of wonderful things then there would be no reason not to show us all they can.

If I had such a fount of virtually endless wonder on my hands and I was trying to sell it I would splash those wondrous and "unique" sights around like confetti, not show off some rather samey tidbits and say, "Ohh, but there's so much better that I haven't shown you."

 

[Cowabungaa]

So yeah, what do you do? You go. You go as far as you want to. I actually liked doing that in Minecraft, because you made that comparison, way back when; just set out in a certain direction and go. But Minecraft had fairly little variation to offer so that didn't last long.

That's part of my concern. From what I've seen NMS doesn't have all that much variation. More than a Minecraft map, sure, but nowhere near as much as I'd want too see in a full price game where going and seeing is the main attraction.

I've heard people say, "Ohh, I'm sure that there's a ton of stuff they just haven't shown us because they don't want to spoil the surprise", and, "Oh, I hear things get really trippy and alien the closer you get to the middle of the universe." However, if their universe is so big that any individual player will never see anywhere near all of it and it's so full to bursting of wonderful things then there would be no reason not to show us all they can.

If I had such a fount of virtually endless wonder on my hands and I was trying to sell it I would splash those wondrous and "unique" sights around like confetti, not show off some rather samey tidbits and say, "Ohh, but there's so much better that I haven't shown you."

Possibly, but that's not really relevant for the answer of the question "But what do you do?" It is however relevant for whether what we're going to do is worth doing.

But I understand that worry at least, of the variation maybe not being interesting enough. Personally I liked what kind of natural variation I've already seen. I hope it also includes variation on animal behavior and all that, it'd be kinda meh if animals just kind of...stood there for the most part. Naturally I like to see all kinds of weird alien shit, but I think and hope it'll be enough.

But funnily enough you can ask the same question to, say, an entomologist. What drives him to catalogue bug after that bug that often, to a layman, looks almost the same as the next bug? One can wonder how much variation we need for it to be compelling. It's not something we can really measure.

 

[Zhukov]

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2015/08/03/35-amazing-things-about-no-mans-sky/

This info is almost a year old, and it pretty much sums up this whole argument. They even explain right away that the video leaves people wondering what there is to the game. It's probably next to impossible to accurately demo something that's not hard-coded with scripts and predetermined results.

Having said that, in addition to the variety of environments shown, if half of the features written in that link come to fruition I don't understand how people can still say the game is empty and pointless. If that's the case then so is for example practically every multiplayer shooter out there as well. IE "I shot you from this corner of the map with a handgun...but then I shot you from this other corner with a rifle!. And I get 2x points!"

The self-authorship is the icing on the cake. Or perhaps rather the cake itself with everything else being the icing.

 

[Windcaler]

From the beginning I always thought no mans sky had a very interesting premise. "Here's a giant universe do with it what you will!" By itself thats a nice premise but at first I also was in the camp of "What does the player do in the game?" A month or two ago I was having a discussion with my boss about it and he ultimately changed how I started looking at the game. Now I look at it in the same way I look at minecraft, its a sandbox for you to make your own fun instead of expecting the game to provide said fun to you.

Whether that viewpoint works when the game comes out is yet to be seen

There is one other subject I saw mentioned a couple times in the thread and that boils down to the price of the game. I feel like I have to ask, why is it not ok to charge $60 for a game just because its made by an indie company and/or small team? I whole heartedly believe that content creators should be compensated for their work but I fail to see how its ok for a AAA game to charge full price, and not for an indie game. If a person doesnt think something is worth the price tag they have a choice not to buy it till the price comes down. If enough people decide to not buy it the market will drive the cost down by itself.

 

[Lacedaemonius]

Who cares if something new is always thrown at you, if its devoid of meaning, context, or the ability to alter a thing? Novelty for novelty's sake is scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel.

Again, where did they say everything you discover is meaningless? People automatically think procedural means durpville just because nothing is hand drawn or deliberately designed 1:1. It reminds me of back when polygons were showing up, and looked like crap next to sprites and pre-rendered models. People thought they would ruin games as they know them. Well, maybe they did!

Put down the strawman and leave it alone! I haven't said a thing about procedural, my issue is that I don't enjoy virtual sightseeing; in a game I want to do something, not just watch it.

From the beginning I always thought no mans sky had a very interesting premise. "Here's a giant universe do with it what you will!" By itself thats a nice premise but at first I also was in the camp of "What does the player do in the game?" A month or two ago I was having a discussion with my boss about it and he ultimately changed how I started looking at the game. Now I look at it in the same way I look at minecraft, its a sandbox for you to make your own fun instead of expecting the game to provide said fun to you.

What you do in Minecraft is up to you, but you DO things, change your environment, build things. In NMS you don't appear to have anything like that degree of control over your environment.

 

[Vigormortis]

they don't have the budget, manpower or time to actually put in very fleshed out game mechanics.

Budget? Sean Murray sold his house to fund the game in the early days, and since then it's been bank rolled by Sony for the last 2 years. I'd be willing to bet they've had millions of dollars to play with over the course of development.

Manpower? Perhaps you're right, the core game was made by a team of 13, however, they've had endless resources provided by Sony, including Sony 1st-party developers for support.

Time? A little over 4 years isn't long enough?

And let's not forget that games like Portal 2 were made by a team of roughly 20 people, and that had triple-A quality polish all over it.

Team size =/= level of quality. After all, is this not the same forum that will lament the utter "shittiness" of the latest Call of Duty (with its team of hundreds), yet will shower games like Undertale (and its miniscule dev team) with adoration?

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

No, other games haven't done this before, like I said, this is the first time a game has used procedural generation for EVERYTHING. Your examples are of games which used it for 'certain' things. Not 'everything'. There will be a difference in what happens when people play it. But to appreciate it takes a far broader mind than the one you've shown so far. One thing I will agree with you on though is that it won't live up to the hype. Its a victim of peoples misinterpretation of its own premise in that respect. But that also doesn't necessarily mean it won't carve its own path in gaming, for those who are interested in a game thats a bit different to everything we've been spoon fed over and over and over again for the past 20 years.

Spore.
It wasn't very good. Had nice aspects but overall fell flat, because there wasn't enough depth.

Starbound/Terraria
Decent, but basically 2d Minecraft.. which brings us to.. Minecraft. Yay!

Also i don't seem to see how throwing around the word procedural somehow makes it magically better. Shitty procedural assets are still shitty. So it first has to prove that their RNG doesn't suck and doesn't churn out dozens of same-ish things.
Like most procedural games do.
And for god's sake, can you please step down from your high horse, with that "you don't have the vision to grasp this"-nonsense. It's disgustingly arrogant.

See, you're trying to sell us the new holy grail in gaming. With the same sentences Black&White, Spore, StarCitzien, Watchdogs and others tried to make people dream of the land of milk 'n honey. They were all pretty meh in the end - with SC still havin' to prove itself once it's done. And only after a few posts you already start to backpeddle on "It will reinvent gaming" to "Maybe won't live up to the hype".

And no, it's nothing new compared to the past 20 years. Because it uses the same "But i'm diffrent than mainstream"-shtick that so many before did. It's a stereotype of it's own.

 

[Zhukov]

What you do in Minecraft is up to you, but you DO things, change your environment, build things. In NMS you don't appear to have anything like that degree of control over your environment.

While you do build structures in Minecraft, they're pretty (very) derivative of each other. Everything I've seen from Minecraft looks the same, only in various arrangements. It's also not procedural since it's player-driven, so not really sure why it's used in comparison to NMS. Building settlements would literally kill the exploration factor in the game because you'd be tied down to what you've built, kinda like Fallout. The point of No Man's Sky seems to be using whatever you can, however you can from the environment around you to reach the center of each Galaxy, and uncover whatever mystery might be at its center.

In how many other games can you lay claim to discovering anything, and having it being recognized by everyone that's playing? I could see how that could be an invitation to some other players possibly getting jealous if say, a planet you've discovered has rare and incredibly valuable resources that they decide to challenge you for. Or if you didn't want to deal with that headache you could mine only whatever you need, sell the resources and move on. No need for greed.

To me, something like what's described below has more value and incentive for continued playing than building a shack, settlement or whatever and sitting on it for however long. That sounds less like a game and more like an obligation.


So tell me about trading resources then, what are the motions?

As someone in the business of trading resources, you?ll be looking to scan your environment on planets for resources using your multitool and seeking out rare resources. Everything around you is a resource, rocks, trees, etc. though you?re only likely to pick up basic resources from the plants you harvest, or rocks you dig into. You?ll be exploring, perhaps up mountains or in caves, on the lookout for the rarest resources the planet can offer.

It?s worth noting that all planets do not have the same resources, and the resources you can find on a planet will be determined by a number of factors. It could be based on the type of star the system has, how close or how far to the star the planet it, the environment on that planet, etc. and so some rare resources you may only find once in a blue moon ? luckily, there?s lots of blue moons to be found out there.

Resources could potentially show up as points of interest which your scanner picks up, or they can be marked as grid-boxes upon rocky outcroppings for instance. Once you?ve come across a resource, you can mine it with your multitool, using a mining laser, or you could blast through the rock with explosive weapons.

Some resources will require a more powerful tool to be mined though, and some resources might require a more powerful tool to be able to detect them. Just like a Fighter would seek to upgrade their weapons stopping power to take out more powerful animals, or Sentinels, a Trader will have to upgrade their multitool to mine tougher rock.

Keep in mind though that rocks aren?t the only thing you?ll be mining, crystals and other natural growths could be resource-spots too.

Once you?ve grabbed your resources, it?s time to pack up and go, once you?ve fought off or evaded any encroaching Sentinels, and it?s off to the space station to sell your hard earned cache. Now it?s time to learn about the economy, the joy.

Pretty sure I?ve got this down-pat, you sell your items, you get money, you move on. Right?

Not quite, you trade your resources for money, that?s true, but there?s more to it than that. A resource that?s common in one system might be rare in another, a resource that?s rare in one system might be non-existent in another, and prices change to reflect that. That truckload of rare metal you?re hauling might be worth a few hundred units in the nearby space station, but it could be worth so much more in another system.

To make the most of your money and time, you?ll be planning trade routes, picking up resources in one system and selling them in another ? this makes you more of a target for pirates, certainly, but you?ll have to weight risk against reward.

You?ll find that NPC ships also travel along trade routes, you could potentially be finding great mining spots and selling points by following alien traders.

There?s some ways you can tell whether an area is rich in a certain resource though, the star in the system you?re in could give you some hints as to the kind of resources you could find, or maybe a resource is more prevalent in a certain area of space, which you?ll notice is a more prominent colour than another area of space. This association of star-types, and areas of space will make it easier for you to guess where you?ll find the resources you?re looking for.

https://m.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyThe...do_you_do_in_no_mans_sky_and_other_questions/

 

[Joccaren]

Ok, to everyone saying its amazing and awesome and everyone will love it... I'm going to call in Bartle. Everyone knows Bartle's typology, and if you don't, learn it. Using the two axis of players/environment and interacting/acting that Bartle used, lets look at NMS, and how it appeals to the 4 types.

NMS is essentially single player, and has some level of 'interaction' with the environment.
Killers: Like Acting on Players. Won't like NMS.
Socialisers: Like Interacting with Players. Won't like NMS.
Achievers: Like Acting on the Environment. Very limited appeal in NMS from what we've seen.
Explorers: Like Interacting with the Environment. Most appeal for the game.

That noted, Bartle also said of explorers; "Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal machinations to them. They try progressively esoteric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places, looking for interesting features (ie. bugs) and figuring out how things work. Scoring points may be necessary to enter some next phase of exploration, but it's tedious, and anyone with half a brain can do it. Killing is quicker, and might be a constructive exercise in its own right, but it causes too much hassle in the long run if the deceased return to seek retribution. Socialising can be informative as a source of new ideas to try out, but most of what people say is irrelevant or old hat. The real fun comes only from discovery, and making the most complete set of maps in existence."

Throughout the paper he also references depth, and mechanical discovery, with topology mapping only being a small part of the overall explorer type. From what has been shown, there is little depth to most of NMSs mechanics, so we can't even point to this as a truly heavy appeal in the game.

The game, as a whole, appeals primarily to small subsections of achievers and explorers, achievers being one of the most numerous player types, explorers one of the rarest. It isn't that nobody else is genius enough to think about what to do in this game, its that it simply isn't designed to appeal to probably 99% of the gaming population. Even explorers, according to Bartle, are likely to tire of it after a reasonably short time when the PG engine stops providing them with things that are truly wondrously new, and more 'new' experiences can instead be found in other games.

There ARE some who will like this kind of game, and that's cool, but stop acting like it'll revolutionise gaming and everyone is too stupid to see it. Its aimed at a small section of the market, the smallest of the four groups, and is aimed at only a small section of that small section. After initial excitement over the game is done, its going to be a niche title. They need more mechanical depth to have it be anything else.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2015/08/03/35-amazing-things-about-no-mans-sky/

This info is almost a year old, and it pretty much sums up this whole argument. They even explain right away that the video leaves people wondering what there is to the game. It's probably next to impossible to accurately demo something that's not hard-coded with scripts and predetermined results.

Having said that, in addition to the variety of environments shown, if half of the features written in that link come to fruition I don't understand how people can still say the game is empty and pointless. If that's the case then so is for example practically every multiplayer shooter out there as well. IE "I shot you from this corner of the map with a handgun...but then I shot you from this other corner with a rifle!. And I get 2x points!"

The self-authorship is the icing on the cake. Or perhaps rather the cake itself with everything else being the icing.

Lets go through that list shall we?
1. Doesn't give us anything to do, is just basic computer science.
2. Basically "PG will be more samey than you think!". Great, that's a negative against the variety of things likely to be generated, but at least its a + to the likely quality. Still nothing about mechanical interaction with the game.
3. "This is how PG works". Great. Still nothing to do.
4. "Not for Killers/Socialisers". Ok. Still nothing about "What to do in the game", aka mechanical interaction.
5. "We test out game!" Great, so does everyone else. No info on what to do.
6. Ok, we're taking things off the list of potential things to do, but nothing has been added yet.
7. You can make "True discoveries" like that in ED as well. Its really boring. I guess "Scan creatures" is 'something to do', though bare minimum depth.
8. Still nothing to do. And not a new feature, welcome to the Sporepedia from a near decade ago.
9. "Loot boxes". Cool, like every other game. No detail on interaction with them though, but I'll put down "Looting" in list of things to do, which again has bare minimum depth.
10. Great! Now make the PG engine create some cool platforming segments with it, and add some smart limitations that make it take skill to use, and we've got ourselves a deep mechanic. Unfortunately, from what we've heard, this is just a standard movement thing with little depth. Guess I'll add "Move" and "Jump real high" to the list of things you can do.
11. Consistency, yay! Nothing to do here though.
12. Less variety, not yay! Again, no mechanics.
13. Guess I'll add "Die" and "Upgrade equipment" to the list, though again, bare minimum depth.
14. Welcome to 1999! No mechanics though.
15. Yay, we've had games do this for decades. No mechanics again.
16. Standard equipment progression, yay! Nothing new, already have "Upgrade equipment" on list.
17. Guess we add "Trading" and "Fighting" to the game, but again from what we've been shown, minimal depth.
18. Basic economics, woo. No new mechanics though.
19. Basic game design 101. No new mechanics.
20. Basic resource management. Guess I'll add "Mine", seemingly without depth, to the list of things to do.
21. GTA in space! Not really any new mechanics, but a tiny bit of extra depth to some of them.
22. Kids playground, with reduced depth to your actions. No new mechanics though.
23. Yay for a small amount of extra depth to the game, no new actions though. I guess maybe "Interact with NPCs"?
24. Basic war. No new mechanics.
25. FPS woo, but no new mechanics. Guess split fight into space fight and ground fight though if you want.
26. Death is a thing again. Not a new mechanic though.
27. Welcome to Spore. Again, no new mechanics.
28. No new mechanics, basic voice filter functionality from the sound of it, though that's generally more the realm of apps than games these days for some reason.
29. Tiny bit of extra depth to a couple of mechanics, nothing new.
30. No new mechanics, basic behavioural AI that's existed for decades.
31. Welcome to Spore! Again, no new mechanics.
32. "We have money". Ok then. No new mechanics.
33. This is just basic economy design, and barely adds any depth to the system.
34. Not really any new mechanics, a little bit of extra depth though.
35. Crafting from resources? Really? I guess chalk it up as another low depth mechanic.
36. Clarification that mining is seemingly "Shoot a rock and get loot". I'm tempted to not even count it as a unique mechanic at this point.
37. Fanboying over music, great. No new mechanics.
38. Advertising for Sony, and the band. No new mechanics, and it doesn't even have anything to do with the damn game.
39. You know, most games have soundtrack blending, and you only rarely hear a full song except in special occasions. Not really anything new, and definitely no new mechanics.
40. Uhh, cool, "I watched Star Trek". No new mechanics.
41. "We're Indie Yo!". Cool. No new mechanics.

That list was hardly amazing, and has a feature list identical to that of every other game in the world at this point, but with vastly reduced depth such that what should be expected as just a core part of a given mechanic was a "Hey this is awesome!".
Not really seeing anything that defeats the arguments in this thread. More power to those who are excited about the game, but that's not going to convince anyone of there being lots to do. There still seems very little to do, with only very basic actions possible in a variety of low-depth mechanics. Hell, the article almost talked more about what you can't do than what you can. Presently it really does look like another Spore, with less depth, and prettier graphics. Yay. Great for those who like to look at things, not as good for those who like to do things.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

I'm not exactly sure what to make of this game, since I have no idea what I'll be allowed to do in it. I do know that I'll get to discover planets, kill animals/people/sentinels and engage in dog fights. I can be a trader or a space pirate. That's about all I know. I can't tell whether the game will be good or not until I get a review, or get my hands on the game.

Anyway, since my expectations aren't particularly high, especially for a team of 13(?), I doubt it's as bad as anyone's making it seem. Then again, for $60, I hope it has a lot going on. I'm not worried, though.