# No man's sky



## Glosni (Jun 11, 2014)

Probably the most talked about game this year at E3 (so far, Fallout4 annoucement coming up?), and if you don't know what I am talking about, dat trailer: 

This freaking huge game is being done by a four men studio and one of the devs said in a gamespot interview: we want to get away from levels, quests (aka "I lost my three chickens, find them!"), handholding etc. Really Really like hearing that!

I mean it looks and sounds amazing, I have been waiting for years for somebody to REALLY just do this game. Freespace I+II and Freelancer are two of my favourite games!

Problems that I see:
1.) We don't really know anything at this point, no gameplay and stuff, just a couple of trailers. What if its just a messy gumbo out of Minecraft, DayZ, maybe a bit of WoW and Spore?

2.) It kinda like sounds to good to be true. Anyone remember the Peter Monyleux and Black&White debacle? It was hailed as this huge shift in gaming and turned out to be... just another game. Hopefully this doesn't happen here.

Opinions, thoughts? Anybody?


----------



## Xaios (Jun 11, 2014)

It certainly looks intriguing, although the sense of scale moving from planetary to space environments and back seemed pretty off.


----------



## MFB (Jun 11, 2014)

Xaios said:


> It certainly looks intriguing, although the sense of scale moving from planetary to space environments and back seemed pretty off.



This.

When they went to that last planet, it was basically like 3 seconds between space and surface, which isn't really how it works at all. When they left the original planet it seemed to do a decent job, but not the opposite.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 11, 2014)

Indeed. It made the distance between planets seem like a short afternoon drive.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 11, 2014)

MFB said:


> When they went to that last planet, it was basically like 3 seconds between space and surface, which isn't really how it works at all. When they left the original planet it seemed to do a decent job, but not the opposite.


 
See: *Video Game*

Let's all focus on the "realism" factor when it comes to distance but completely ignore realism when it comes to Dinosaur-like creatures and space combat. Not to mention the fact that realistic distance between planets or ground-to-space would make for a monotonously boring trip/game. I doubt anyone wants to spend 3 minutes travelling from the surface of a planet to outer space or spend 5-10 years travelling from one planet to another. Come on, now; let's think *realistic*.

And I know someone will recommend a "fast travel" system to make up for "realistic distance", but then where's the fun in the space exploration aspect of the game?


----------



## RickSchneider (Jun 11, 2014)

I think this looks incredible, and I cannot wait to pick it up. I really hope the activities present pose enough interest to keep you playing beyond trophy/achievement hunting and the like. I'm so unsure how they're going to do this, but as they said it's really up to you what you do: "Explore, fight, trade, whatever". At this point it sounds too good to be true, let's hope it just delivers some or most of what they say - that will still make it incredible!

Also, I've got to ask - where do the loading screens come in?


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

RickSchneider said:


> Also, I've got to ask - where do the loading screens come in?



I seems there won't be any, really. Maybe an initial one at the beginning, to load the game in general. But everything is randomly, procedurally generated, sort of like "loading area" message you get at the bottom of the screen in Morrowind or Oblivion, but it's loading randomly generated planets/space/etc. instead of a predetermined map area, and with next gen technology the "loading area"-type message doesn't have to show up, the screen won't freeze at all, and everything seems "seamless" like there are no loading screens. Basically it just streams and loads the "random" portions of the game while you're exploring what's in front of you, like a Youtube video.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

Also, when it comes to the "too good to be true" aspect of it, it does seem that way when you think a studio of 4 programmers and 3 artists are creating the game. But I saw the very (very very very) early stages of this game YEARS ago. They've been secretly working on it for a very, very long time, and I'm sure it won't be released until mid-late 2015, which means they're still probably working very hard on it. 

It seems to me that it's not like some huge developer popping out another AAA unoriginal title, and that this tiny indie studio is taking this game very seriously.


----------



## RickSchneider (Jun 12, 2014)

When it comes to randomly generated landscapes though - they said planets will form when a player joins, so essentially a player has a "home planet" which they can first explore and kind of call their own. Presumably this means these first planets will remain constant for players and that the game will need to load ALL of these planets to have a consistent universe. Am I not wrong or does this seem like much more of a task than to have a procedurally generated universe which can change?


----------



## MFB (Jun 12, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> See: *Video Game*
> 
> Let's all focus on the "realism" factor when it comes to distance but completely ignore realism when it comes to Dinosaur-like creatures and space combat. Not to mention the fact that realistic distance between planets or ground-to-space would make for a monotonously boring trip/game. I doubt anyone wants to spend 3 minutes travelling from the surface of a planet to outer space or spend 5-10 years travelling from one planet to another. Come on, now; let's think *realistic*.
> 
> And I know someone will recommend a "fast travel" system to make up for "realistic distance", but then where's the fun in the space exploration aspect of the game?



See also: suspension of disbelief 



Edit: I was going to leave it at that, but no, this does require more. See, in SPACE, the dinosaur thing does become suspendable because hey - it's SPACE. Who knows what other planets have for inhabitants, and this is clearly the case they've thought of because grass and terrain is different colored, the sky isn't blue because that's specific to our world, and you've got dinosaurs and hybrid creatures roaming the land like the GIANT RHINO that crashes through a forest. I get that, because it makes sense. But what we as HUMANS also know, is that space is ....ing _huge_. Like, there are places we can't go to within our lifespan huge. Combine that knowledge with the idea of gravitational pull between planets and think of how crippling that distance between the two planets would be, and now just chalk up that 3 second inter-planetary travel to "vidya gamz hurr durr" and see how well it holds up.

Probably like the Dark Knight Rises script under more than one viewing...


----------



## RickSchneider (Jun 12, 2014)

See also: Realism vs. fun


----------



## MFB (Jun 12, 2014)

RickSchneider said:


> See also: Realism vs. fun



Don't get me wrong, I'm genuinely interested in this at the moment, but there are some parts that we've just mentioned that are a bit wonky and I'll just kind of have to gloss over. I'm not being a stickler because I'm against the game. Hell, they put space dogfighting in the game between planets, let's have more of that shit so that the distance seems spaced out (no pun intended).


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

MFB said:


> See also: suspension of disbelief
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So what you're telling me is that, throughout the universe (because we could never know), there could possibly be dinosaur-like creatures on small-ish, life-supporting planets with unexplained light sources, no effect on "earthlike" gravity or atmosphere, but there's no way there could possibly be planets extremely close to each other, nor can there be a form of travel (space ship, ooooooooo) that could get you back and forth between said planets in a timely manner?

Your argument was that there can be dinosaurs on unexplained earth-like planets because anything could exist in the universe, but fail to realize that, by your own argument, *small* distances between neighboring planets and forms of transportation to travel those small distances quickly could also exist, just like the dinosaurs on said planets.

tl;dr - Basically you're saying "anything can be possible in the universe, because we can't disprove it. But, small distances between planets and fast transportation between those planets SPECIFICALLY cannot exist, or are less likely to exist than dinosaur-like lifeforms on earth-like planets."? Because that makes no sense. You can't say "Everything is possible in the universe" and then say "But that's not possible in the universe."


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

Or are you just saying that distance (what we know of distance as Humans) is a nonchanging thing in the universe, but that life, matter, etc. CAN change in the universe? Which also makes no sense, because we don't actually KNOW everything about the universe. For all we know, we could be a small atom that makes up a pimple on an adolescent, teenage being's ass cheek. Anything COULD be possible, we just don't know. Saying "That travel time/distance ratio is unrealistic" is just like me saying "Those dinosaur aliens are unrealistic".

EDIT: And to end my side of the debate, and to answer your response to my "See: Video Game" comment: It's a video game. Arguing "realistic" aspects of an obviously non-realistic (with human knowledge of the universe) game is absolutely pointless. Oh, and I like how you took me saying "See: Video Games" and translated it to "Vidya Gamz Hurr Durr".


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

RickSchneider said:


> When it comes to randomly generated landscapes though - they said planets will form when a player joins, so essentially a player has a "home planet" which they can first explore and kind of call their own. Presumably this means these first planets will remain constant for players and that the game will need to load ALL of these planets to have a consistent universe. Am I not wrong or does this seem like much more of a task than to have a procedurally generated universe which can change?



Well not much has been revealed. So far all that's being revealed is that it's a "exploration/survival" game. They haven't explained whether or not there will be "home planets", but only that you will most likely SPAWN on a planet. What I'm willing to bet is that there won't be much "objective" to the game other than exploration/survival, and that once you leave a "major" area of planets/space that has already been generated that it will most likely disappear, and if you try to go back to them, something completely different will be generated. And I realize that idea's not exactly ideal, but who knows. 

From the gameplay they showed/information they released, it doesn't seem like it's going to be an objective based game, and it's basically going to be a game just to explore anything that you can find and try not to die doing it. I won't exactly mind it, because I love exploring games like TES, Fallout, etc. in place of doing actual quests/missions. But I don't presume the game will be tasteful for people who would rather do actual quests/missions. I'm under the impression that the game will just be completely random exploration/survival at all points of gameplay, which I find very gratifying as someone who absolutely ADORES exploration games. They're basically serving a plate to people who want to explore vast landscapes infinitely and randomly.

I'm also assuming that, since the "infinite" random content is so constricting towards other gameplay aspects (objectives, missions, quests, etc.), which is ironic, and since it's also an indie title not made by a AAA developer, that it won't really cost much. Maybe $30-45. And by what I've seen so far, I couldn't care less. I'd pay $60 for this game.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it seems like the small development team isn't trying to make this a game that has a major objective or main storyline to complete, and that they just want to create a game for people to enjoy the beauty of exploring everything that is unknown and completely random to you. I guess they're marketing to a small niche of gamers, but even all my gamer friends who range from diehard FPS fans to shut-in RPG players were all off their seats screaming about this game.

It looks absolutely fabulous, and I think the idea behind it is genius. Not to mention a studio of 4-7 people pulled this off. Amazing.


----------



## goherpsNderp (Jun 12, 2014)

there was an interview with the creator on the PS youtube channel's live coverage and he talked a bit about how gameplay is supposed to work, although he did ramble on a bit.

basically it sounds like you can gather resources, discover and catalog plants and wild life, shoot/kill things if you want, get in your ship and go attack or defend cargo ships, upgrade/craft new equipment and upgrades to your tools, weapons, and ship.

and that's about as specific as he got. i really feel like at this point they are nailing down the planet generation system, and THEN they'll work more on the core gameplay stuff. these guys made Joe Danger, so i have confidence in them.


----------



## Repner (Jun 12, 2014)

Xaios said:


> Indeed. It made the distance between planets seem like a short afternoon drive.



Considering the amount of time they'd have to show their stuff at E3, perhaps it was cut down to fit their time slot?

Either way, this was the part of the conference that really made me sit up. It really looks amazing.


----------



## Glosni (Jun 12, 2014)

Jesus, is this guy serious? I think it was this interview where one of the devs said about multiplayer / interaction with other human players basically this: There will be planet-sized planets in the game, so even with a million players on one planet, you will hardly ever run into someone. Now imagne that with an entire universe! 

Also interessesting: When other players explore the universe, your map gets updated. Well from the look on things on your map you can sort of guess where there are for instance trade routes, in case you want to blow up a freighter. But then the dev said that he thinks some player will take the sort of lone wolf approach and stay away from those areas, maybe because they feel like other human players are nothing but trouble.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 12, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> See: *Video Game*
> 
> Let's all focus on the "realism" factor when it comes to distance but completely ignore realism when it comes to Dinosaur-like creatures and space combat. Not to mention the fact that realistic distance between planets or ground-to-space would make for a monotonously boring trip/game. I doubt anyone wants to spend 3 minutes travelling from the surface of a planet to outer space or spend 5-10 years travelling from one planet to another. Come on, now; let's think *realistic*.
> 
> And I know someone will recommend a "fast travel" system to make up for "realistic distance", but then where's the fun in the space exploration aspect of the game?



The thing about "space exploration" is that the space itself is never the exciting part, it's what you find _in space_ that makes the trip worthwhile. Besides, you can't treat space like Skyrim. You can't treat it like there's a surprise around every corner, because in space, there are no corners.

Also, I play Kerbal Space Program. 3 minues travelling from a planet's surface to outer space is easy-mode by comparison. 

In fact, adding the danger of improper planetary insertions would add an another dimension to the gameplay. Imagine if you crashed your ship and you had to either gather resources to fix it or wait for another player to come and help you, perhaps a player who' going to steal all your stuff and kill you for your trouble?



Glosni said:


> Jesus, is this guy serious? I think it was this interview where one of the devs said about multiplayer / interaction with other human players basically this: There will be planet-sized planets in the game, so even with a million players on one planet, you will hardly ever run into someone. Now imagne that with an entire universe!



That's good, because the planets in their demo video were about the size of a city, not a planet.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

Xaios said:


> The thing about "space exploration" is that the space itself is never the exciting part, it's what you find _in space_ that makes the trip worthwhile. Besides, you can't treat space like Skyrim. You can't treat it like there's a surprise around every corner, because in space, there are no corners.
> 
> Also, I play Kerbal Space Program. 3 minues travelling from a planet's surface to outer space is easy-mode by comparison.



For one, you *could* treat this game like Skyrim, in the aspect of there being undiscovered planets 1-5 minutes away from each other as well as things to discover other than planets around in space. One could easily compare discovering planets, asteroid belts, space battles, trade routes, etc. in this game to finding locations, villages, caves, etc. in Skyrim. Both games are secondarily about exploration in general.

And what you must remember, before comparing this game to Kerbal Space Program, is that KSP is a simulator, and this game is not. This game is purely meant to have fun, not to simulate space travel/life. Comparing No Man's Sky to a Space Exploration Simulator is the same as comparing Call of Duty to a Military Simulator.

The developers specifically said they didn't want their game being compared to "simulator" games like Minecraft, ARMA, Day Z, or KSP.

The bottom line is: Realistic distance compared to what we know about distance in the universe would make for an outrageously boring game, specifically when it comes to this game, as some planets couldn't even be traveled to in a lifetime. This game is perfect for what it is: An interplanetary/universe survival exploration game.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 12, 2014)

That's sad then, and lessens my enthusiasm for this game, because it renders the notion of "space" meaningless.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

Well, nowhere was it ever stated that the game was trying to realistically represent interplanetary travel. In some ways the exact opposite was suggested by the developers themselves.

I mean, come on, there has to be SOME aspect of unrealistic, entertainment-based, video game style fun when it comes to this type of game. Realistic distance just COULDN'T work in a "Interplanetary Exploration/Survival" title. I mean, just think: It took 8 months for the rover to reach Mars, the closest planet to us. Nobody wants to travel to a new planet for 8 months (in a video game).


----------



## Xaios (Jun 12, 2014)

I'm not saying that the distance would have to be strictly realistic, but there are varying degrees from reality to which they could have separated it while maintaining the _illusion_ of reality. Unfortunately, they opted to make it as far from reality as conceivably possible which, to me, is a negative. Literally, the distance between _planets_ in this game is a few miles. This takes suspension of disbelief and smashes it with a cartoon hammer.


----------



## MFB (Jun 12, 2014)

Xaios said:


> I'm not saying that the distance would have to be strictly realistic, but there are varying degrees from reality to which they could have separated it while maintaining the _illusion_ of reality. Unfortunately, they opted to make it as far from reality as conceivably possible which, to me, is a negative. Literally, the distance between _planets_ in this game is a few miles. This takes suspension of disbelief and smashes it with a cartoon hammer.



Thank you for articulating what I couldn't earlier.


----------



## asher (Jun 12, 2014)

I think good analogues for a correct sense of scale but workable travel times would be _EVE Online_ with less gate silliness, or maybe better, the space stuff they added for _Star Wars Galaxies_.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

I'd just like to point out that absolutely nothing about this game is realistic, nor does it look like the developers are going for a "realistic feel" at all. So I'd like to know why so many people are bummed about it's non-realistic distance between planets. Like, it's a video game, meant to be fun, creative, original (sometimes). I don't understand the mindset of gamers today that concludes with "Everything has to gradually look or feel more realistic". I just don't understand how nobody complains that the next cliche Battlefield or Call of Duty title isn't as "realistic" as real war, but when an indie developer showcases an Interplanetary Exploration/Survival title that's just so freshly original, gamers find the need to argue that it's travel time/distance isn't as realistic as actual space travel.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

Personally, as a gamer who loves exploration games more than just about anything, I'd hate to have to spend 15 minutes constantly traveling through empty, boring space to get to the next planet I want to explore. Is it too hard to look at it not from a "realistic space travel and exploration" standpoint, but at a "It's a ....ing video game about exploring planets" standpoint?


----------



## MFB (Jun 12, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> I'd just like to point out that absolutely nothing about this game is realistic, nor does it look like the developers are going for a "realistic feel" at all. So I'd like to know why so many people are bummed about it's non-realistic distance between planets. Like, it's a video game, meant to be fun, creative, original (sometimes). I don't understand the mindset of gamers today that concludes with "Everything has to gradually look or feel more realistic". I just don't understand how nobody complains that the next cliche Battlefield or Call of Duty title isn't as "realistic" as real war, but when an indie developer showcases an Interplanetary Exploration/Survival title that's just so freshly original, gamers find the need to argue that it's travel time/distance isn't as realistic as actual space travel.



I think the biggest hang-up for the realism is that the rest of it _is fairly realistic_; in terms of art design if nothing else. As we've both said, it's space and not everything is going to be human, or humanoid, and that's clearly shown on the first planet where there's multicolored tall grass, funky colored skies, "alien" creatures that are based off those in our own world so it's something that could still be in the Milky Way galaxy, but then you go into the dogfight and it's still believable because we've got planes that can shoot at each other and pilots - but then you see how quickly they breach the atmosphere of the next planet; atmospheres which are comprised of several layers and create burn-up usually given the speed at which you're going through them and then voila, suddenly he's on the surface without any of that and you go, "Huh?" Because again, when we as humans see NASA doing stuff like space-launches and we have our re-entry there's always those fears that something goes wrong but in this case that element is entirely removed and we wonder how you can have one without the other.

I'll say it again,



> Don't get me wrong, I'm genuinely interested in this at the moment, but there are some parts that we've just mentioned that are a bit wonky and I'll just kind of have to gloss over. I'm not being a stickler because I'm against the game.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 12, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> Personally, as a gamer who loves exploration games more than just about anything, I'd hate to have to spend 15 minutes constantly traveling through empty, boring space to get to the next planet I want to explore.



No one is saying that there can't be anything between planets. The game could quite easily have you set off on your 2 minute warp speed journey between planets to say "hey, sensors indicate that there's something awesome just off your course, wanna check it out?" In fact, what they've done here is actually a lost opportunity for exactly that kind of exploration.



loqtrall said:


> Is it too hard to look at it not from a "realistic space travel and exploration" standpoint, but at a "It's a ....ing video game about exploring planets" standpoint?



Like it has been stated _multiple times_ it doesn't have to be strictly realistic, but to give a game any sort of leeway like that just because "it's a ....ing game" is an open invitation for poor design decisions. If you want to explore multiple planets, you cannot get away from the concept of space, but what's presented here completely ignores the consequences of the existence of any kind of space to begin with, be it real space, or a fictionalized concept of space. It might as well have been a highway connecting those planets.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

I understand your argument, but you're still rambling that "Anything is possible in the universe" claiming that space-warfare dogfights with laser cannons and ships that travel at light speed could be considered "quasi-realistic" but that traveling from atmosphere to surface in seconds with no burn-up couldn't be possible at all and is as "unrealistic" as possible. That doesn't make sense. It's like me saying "Yeah, I believe fusing an orange and an apple could be realistic, but not a lemon and an apple, that's just asinine."

It may be the way you're wording things and not necessarily what you mean, but it looks like you're saying "This one unrealistic thing is more realistic than this other unrealistic things", when it doesn't matter because they're both totally unrealistic from a human standpoint.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

Xaios said:


> It might as well have been a highway connecting those planets.



And how do you know that this isn't what they were trying to suggest? The point is, long distances between planets have a strong potential to be extremely boring in this specific game. It would basically be like "Hey, I see that planet! I want to go to it" and then spend 7 minutes flying straight to the planet with basically the excitement of a loading screen just for the sake of more "realistic" distancing.

IMO, I'd rather have a FUN game than a "More realistic than it is" game. Cause I can honestly say, if I have to spend 10-15 minutes physically flying towards a planet, I'd rather just have ....ing loading screens that take me from atmosphere to atmosphere. Because between planets is space, and space (by itself) is generally boring, empty, black, nothingness. I'd like to experience as LITTLE boring, empty, black nothingness as possible when it comes to my video games that I purchased to be entertained and have fun.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

Just imagine how boring it would be sitting in cockpit in first person, seeing a small, blue planet off in the distance, nothing in-between you and it, and then having to sit there for several minutes flying in a straight line through absolutely nothing just to get to that planet that you specifically want to explore. I'd probably end up turning my console off before reaching a planet because I'd be so dreadfully bored.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 12, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> I understand your argument, but you're still rambling that "Anything is possible in the universe" claiming that space-warfare dogfights with laser cannons and ships that travel at light speed could be considered "quasi-realistic" but that traveling from atmosphere to surface in seconds with no burn-up couldn't be possible at all and is as "unrealistic" as possible. That doesn't make sense. It's like me saying "Yeah, I believe fusing an orange and an apple could be realistic, but not a lemon and an apple, that's just asinine."
> 
> It may be the way you're wording things and not necessarily what you mean, but it looks like you're saying "This one unrealistic thing is more realistic than this other unrealistic things", when it doesn't matter because they're both totally unrealistic from a human standpoint.



Your argument is fallacious, based on the notion that everything in that video is considered to be unrealistic, which isn't the case. "Laser cannons and ships that travel at light speed" can be easily explained by a simple timeline of technological advancement. What seemed impossible 1000 years ago is now commonplace today, so it's entirely conceivable that, a thousand years from now, interstellar flight will also be commonplace. Similarly, this planet once hosted life that is quite different from life as we know it know, so it's easy to believe that different forms of life exist elsewhere in the universe.

The physical laws that govern the formation of planets, on the other hand, are as old as the universe itself and cannot be changed. It is _physically impossible_ for a planet that size to retain an atmosphere, which it clearly has in that video.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 12, 2014)

Man, you keep parroting the "wait 15 minutes, might as well be a loading screen, space is boring" thing, despite ample evidence that there are PLENTY of ways around that which still maintain the integrity of even a semi-realistic model of space.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

Xaios said:


> Your argument is fallacious, based on the notion that everything in that video is considered to be unrealistic, which isn't the case. "Laser cannons and ships that travel at light speed" can be easily explained by a simple timeline of technological advancement. What seemed impossible 1000 years ago is now commonplace today, so it's entirely conceivable that, a thousand years from now, interstellar flight will also be commonplace. Similarly, this planet once hosted life that is quite different from life as we know it know, so it's easy to believe that different forms of life exist elsewhere in the universe.
> 
> The physical laws that govern the formation of planets, on the other hand, are as old as the universe itself and cannot be changed. It is _physically impossible_ for a planet that size to retain an atmosphere, which it clearly has in that video.



But your argument just collapsed on itself. You're going on that technological advancement that spans well beyond what humanity is capable of at the moment (alien technology) is absolutely within the realm of possibility and that alien (non-human) lifeforms/technology almost certainly exist throughout the universe, but you constrict laws and understanding of the universe solely to those only adopted by human beings. Who knows, we could be wrong. For all we know ANYTHING could be possible in the universe. Also, how is it completely probable that we could advance to technology that could allow us to dogfight with laser cannons in outer space, but not advance to technology to allow us to enter a planet's atmosphere without burn-up a very quick speeds?

But when it comes to the "realistic distance" debate instead of just the "overall realism" debate. I stick to my guns. There's no way you can have even remotely "realistic" distance in an interplanetary exploration game and still have the game be fun (you know, games, things that are supposed to be fun). Maybe they could put a bit more distance between planets than shown in the video, but I'm sure not ALL planets in the game will be THAT close together, and that they probably primarily used those two planets to showcase the "no loading screens between planets" aspect of the game. But there is NO way there could long spans of distance between planets without a fast travel system and still have the "space exploration" aspect of the game be fun. The absolute bottom line is: For gamers in general (target audience, non-simulator playing gamers), long "more realistic" distances between planets is a nondebate. If you're getting the game just to try it and not because you LOVE exploring expanses of space, you're going to hate it if it takes you minutes to reach the next planet. No "average" gamer wants to spend the length of a very long loading screen traveling through emptiness, I'm sure they'd rather have an actual loading screen.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

Xaios said:


> Man, you keep parroting the "wait 15 minutes, might as well be a loading screen, space is boring" thing, despite ample evidence that there are PLENTY of ways around that which still maintain the integrity of even a semi-realistic model of space.



And I get what you're saying. But you're under the impression that I'm talking about planets that are VERY far away, like VERY VERY far away. Like planets that require "warp speed" to get to. But that's not the case. I'm talking about, take the two planets in the video, very non-realistic distancing between planets. Now, take that planet and add a "more realistic" distance to it, putting it somewhat back on the horizon, barely but somewhat visible. Now, instead of taking 20 seconds to get from one planet to another by normally just flying a ship from one to the other (a normal loading screen time), you'll have to manually fly your ship from the surface of one planet to another planet that, instead of just 20 seconds away, is now 5 minutes away. It's a LOT more convenient when the other planet is RIGHT there for you to fly to.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

And yes, sacrificing realism for convenience is commonly practiced in video games, it's not a new concept.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 12, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> But your argument just collapsed on itself. You're going on that technological advancement that spans well beyond what humanity is capable of at the moment (alien technology) is absolutely within the realm of possibility and that alien (non-human) lifeforms/technology almost certainly exist throughout the universe, but you constrict laws and understanding of the universe solely to those only adopted by human beings. Who knows, we could be wrong. For all we know ANYTHING could be possible in the universe.



While I agree that there's more to the universe than we currently understand, I'm going to go out on a limb and say our theoretical understanding of the forces that cause planets to form is pretty solid.



loqtrall said:


> Also, how is it completely probable that we could advance to technology that could allow us to dogfight with laser cannons in outer space, but not advance to technology to allow us to enter a planet's atmosphere without burn-up a very quick speeds?



You might want to re-read what I said. I said it'd be physically impossible for that planet to have an atmosphere, not that it would be impossible for us to have technology that negates atmospheric burnup.



loqtrall said:


> But when it comes to the "realistic distance" debate instead of just the "overall realism" debate. I stick to my guns. There's no way you can have even remotely "realistic" distance in an interplanetary exploration game and still have the game be fun (you know, games, things that are supposed to be fun). Maybe they could put a bit more distance between planets than shown in the video, but I'm sure not ALL planets in the game will be THAT close together, and that they probably primarily used those two planets to showcase the "no loading screens between planets" aspect of the game. But there is NO way there could long spans of distance between planets without a fast travel system and still have the "space exploration" aspect of the game be fun. The absolute bottom line is: For gamers in general (target audience, non-simulator playing gamers), long "more realistic" distances between planets is a nondebate. If you're getting the game just to try it and not because you LOVE exploring expanses of space, you're going to hate it if it takes you minutes to reach the next planet. No "average" gamer wants to spend the length of a very long loading screen traveling through emptiness, I'm sure they'd rather have an actual loading screen.



To this, I'll respond with two points:

1) The "average" gamer is the kind of person that buys Call of Duty or Madden every year. If that's who they're designing this game for, count me out.
2) Truly great games don't go out of their way to dumb down the experience simply to make it more expedient, but rather they make the time between "major points" more interesting. Look at Red Dead Redemption. Based on your arguments so far, any space between towns or major plot points for you is wasted travel time, time you have to spend inconveniently galloping on your horse. However, it was the small details way out in the wilderness, the stuff that you could find "in space" that really made that game great. I could spend hours in that game "doing nothing" because that game managed to make "doing nothing" an actually enjoyable experience.



loqtrall said:


> And I get what you're saying. But you're under the impression that I'm talking about planets that are VERY far away, like VERY VERY far away. Like planets that require "warp speed" to get to. But that's not the case. I'm talking about, take the two planets in the video, very non-realistic distancing between planets. Now, take that planet and add a "more realistic" distance to it, putting it somewhat back on the horizon, barely but somewhat visible. Now, instead of taking 20 seconds to get from one planet to another by normally just flying a ship from one to the other (a normal loading screen time), you'll have to manually fly your ship from the surface of one planet to another planet that, instead of just 20 seconds away, is now 5 minutes away. It's a LOT more convenient when the other planet is RIGHT there for you to fly to.



Even in that example though, all you have to do is _make the ship faster_ while between planets. I'm not just talking about interstellar journeys here. Watch the 2nd ever episode of Futurama for an example of what I'm talking about: the moon is the same distance as it's been for the past million years from Earth, but they traverse that distance in a matter of seconds. It allows for quick, expedient travel without sacrificing the sense of scale that makes the universe as grand a place as it is.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

So you're arguing that the distance between planets should be far greater, but you then argue to just make transportation significantly faster, rendering the increase in distance pointless beside the fact that the planets are further apart. In all, you're arguing increased distance for a trivial visual effect, because you'll get to a planet 1,000's of miles away in the same time as you would a planet 100's of miles away at the current speed of travel in the game? Is there a point? Or are you just upset with this already enormous game because it's not bigger? Cause it almost sounds like you just want a cheap illusion of realistic distance just to make space in the game look more "spacious"? Because, if you haven't watched all of the gameplay released thus far, there are scenes that show off how already BIG this game is. I recall one scene where the player was in an asteroid field looking off in the distance, and there wasn't a single thing in sight, only stars. But you're still free too explore the nothingness ahead of you.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

My main peeve with outrageous distancing between planets is that the devs said there will be no tutorial. You spawn on a planet with your ship and you figure it out on your own. The problem with realistic-ish distances in that aspect is: what if you take off and leave your initial planet, you get to space, you look around, and procedural generation put you on a secluded planet, and you can't see anything in any direction. Then what do you do? Travel in a random direction? What about fuel?

Cause think about it, you don't even know where anything is on the planet you spawned on, let alone what's off in space.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 12, 2014)

Ultimately a symptom of "space being tiny" is that planets also end up being tiny as a result. Look at that planet they approach in the video. If you look closely, you can actually see features from orbit that aren't even particularly prominent from a surface view. That is one tiny freaking planet, which means there isn't exactly much to explore on it. Kinda puts a damper on the whole "exploration" thing.

It also makes planets incredibly one dimensional. That planet is literally "the rock planet," there's nothing else to it. While there are indeed plenty of space bodies like that in our own universe, they're not particularly exciting to explore. I'd rather explore planets that have mixtures of forest, desert, tundra, mountains, ice fields, oceans... planets with diversity. But the model they've used is too small to allow for that.



loqtrall said:


> My main peeve with outrageous distancing between planets is that the devs said there will be no tutorial. You spawn on a planet with your ship and you figure it out on your own. The problem with realistic-ish distances in that aspect is: what if you take off and leave your initial planet, you get to space, you look around, and procedural generation put you on a secluded planet, and you can't see anything in any direction. Then what do you do? Travel in a random direction? What about fuel?
> 
> Cause think about it, you don't even know where anything is on the planet you spawned on, let alone what's off in space.



Ever play Minecraft? For a very long time, that game had no instructions in game to speak of, and yet it was already *massively* popular by the time they added any sort of in-game prompts. People figured it out because it was _worth it_, and people will indeed do the same thing here. Gamers don't always need to be spoon fed.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Jun 12, 2014)

I kind of skimmed through this thread (so forgive me if I say something that's already been said), what if the footage of the planet to planet exploration we saw in the demo was actually planet to moon, that could explain the short distance between planets. When the ship enters space we only see one planetary body. (the red planet or moon they enter)


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

Xaios said:


> Ultimately a symptom of "space being tiny" is that planets also end up being tiny as a result. Look at that planet they approach in the video. If you look closely, you can actually see features from orbit that aren't even particularly prominent from a surface view. That is one tiny freaking planet, which means there isn't exactly much to explore on it. Kinda puts a damper on the whole "exploration" thing.
> 
> It also makes planets incredibly one dimensional. That planet is literally "the rock planet," there's nothing else to it. While there are indeed plenty of space bodies like that in our own universe, they're not particularly exciting to explore. I'd rather explore planets that have mixtures of forest, desert, tundra, mountains, ice fields, oceans... planets with diversity. But the model they've used is too small to allow for that.


 
But you never know! Those were just two planets out of (what devs claimed to be) dozens of thousands of planets! All of them will be different and, who knows, that little rock planet could have an underground civilization or a mass twining of cave systems with essential minerals. The possibilities are virtually limitless!


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I kind of skimmed through this thread (so forgive me if I say something that's already been said), what if the footage of the planet to planet exploration we saw in the demo was actually planet to moon, that could explain the short distance between planets. When the ship enters space we only see one planetary body. (the red planet or moon they enter)


 
^ Or this!

And: ha, this game is a wee bit bigger than minecraft. Minecraft was barely "big", not even close to an entire planet, nor thousands of them.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 12, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I kind of skimmed through this thread (so forgive me if I say something that's already been said), what if the footage of the planet to planet exploration we saw in the demo was actually planet to moon, that could explain the short distance between planets. When the ship enters space we only see one planetary body. (the red planet or moon they enter)



Actually, you see a different planetary body at first. Based on the way it moves on screen with the speed of the craft, it appears to be about the same size as the planet they land on afterwords.

Also, I don't think it's a moon because, near the end of the video, they fly back upwards, and you can see the planet they came from in the sky, and it's also about the same size in that sky as the other one was when they first came out of the atmosphere.



loqtrall said:


> And: ha, this game is a wee bit bigger than minecraft. Minecraft was barely "big", not even close to an entire planet, nor thousands of them.



My point was that Minecraft didn't spoonfeed players instructions, and yet it was incredibly popular. But with regards to this comment, a) it's a matter of scale, and b) the fact is, you could walk for weeks in any one direction in Minecraft and it would keep on generating content, so it had equal possibilities for "infinite universe" as this game. Minecraft also has a *lot* of crafting, so it's not like it's a simple game to figure everything out in. Hell, people have built functioning computers in Minecraft. Nothing in any video published thus far suggests this game will be any more (or less, in fairness) complex than Minecraft.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

That wasn't the planet they came from. They flew in a linear straight line from the original planet, to the "rock" planet, and then there was a big blue planet beside the rock planet, and a whole other planet BEHIND the rock planet. You never saw where the character flew away from, and who knows, it could be HUGE and all three of those "planets" we saw could be 3 moons.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Jun 12, 2014)

Xaios said:


> Actually, you see a different planetary body at first. Based on the way it moves on screen with the speed of the craft, it appears to be about the same size as the planet they land on afterwords.
> 
> Also, I don't think it's a moon because, near the end of the video, they fly back upwards, and you can see the planet they came from in the sky, and it's also about the same size in that sky as the other one was when they first came out of the atmosphere.


Ah, never mind what I said then, you guys carry on.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

In order to see the "original planet" the player took off from, they would have had to turn around 180 degrees, but they didn't, they flew straight to the "rock planet", kept flying away from the original planet, and then flew upwards to get into space/off the surface, then continued in the same direction.

Also, if you look closely on the "rock planet", there are animal bones sticking out of the ground, trees, desert plant life, huge floating "mountains" Plenty to look around at and explore!


----------



## Xaios (Jun 12, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> That wasn't the planet they came from. They flew in a linear straight line from the original planet, to the "rock" planet, and then there was a big blue planet beside the rock planet, and a whole other planet BEHIND the rock planet. You never saw where the character flew away from, and who knows, it could be HUGE and all three of those "planets" we saw could be 3 moons.



When they first take off, the blue planet is the only one visible in the frame. The player then turns about 30 degrees right, and that's when you first see the rock planet. There is no other planet behind the rock planet, I watched the video again to check. On the path to the rock planet, he passes by this big triangle-ish metal object in space. That same object appears in the sky again as he's taking off again at the end, with the blue planet on the left. Based on that orientation, the original planet is the first one visible (the sort of white/orange one) as he takes off again.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

You're right, my mistake. I missed some of the small right turns the player made while flying over the rocky planet. But still, those are decent sized planets for "exploration". They may have seemed small because they were flying over it so fast, but could you imagine exploring that entire planet on foot (as you're intended to)? Then imagine doing that thousands of times on thousands of vastly different planets.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

I mean, it's not like the planet is like "walkable" small. You were in a tiny fighter and those HUGE warships warped in front of the planet and the planet still dwarfed them, and the planet the player started on and the "blue planet" looked even a little bigger than the rock planet. I'm sure there will probably be planets vastly differing in size. I'm sure the devs are so foolish as to make every planet in the game the same size. There are probably planets smaller than that rock planet, and planets ten times it's size.

EDIT: Plus, the actual name of the "rock planet", Soleth Prime, even sounds like the name of a moon or small planet. I mean, in Star Trek very few full-sized planets had the designation "Prime". Most of them were moons or small planetoids.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 12, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> I mean, it's not like the planet is like "walkable" small. You were in a tiny fighter and those HUGE warships warped in front of the planet and the planet still dwarfed them, and the planet the player started on and the "blue planet" looked even a little bigger than the rock planet. I'm sure there will probably be planets vastly differing in size. I'm sure the devs are so foolish as to make every planet in the game the same size. There are probably planets smaller than that rock planet, and planets ten times it's size.



Not saying that they're tiny, it's just that nothing shown off is truly planet sized, and they appear pretty one dimensional thus far, in the sense one part of a given planet is a representation of the entire planet. I sincerely hope that you're correct in that other bodies will be much larger.



loqtrall said:


> EDIT: Plus, the actual name of the "rock planet", Soleth Prime, even sounds like the name of a moon or small planet. I mean, in Star Trek very few full-sized planets had the designation "Prime". Most of them were moons or small planetoids.



Uh, speaking as someone who knows Trek, it's actually the exact opposite. Whenever the "Prime" designation is used, it's used to describe the most important planet of a system where the individual planets aren't named themselves. Andoria Prime, Cardassia Prime (yes, that is the true name even though it's colloquially refered to as simply Cardassia), Malon Prime for example. The Andorians and Cardassians are even major players in the Trek universe.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

And I hope you're *not* right when it comes to all planets being one-dimensional and having the same ecosystem throughout the entire planet (as was the case *it looked like* with both explored planets in the video). I'd be cool with exploring Tiny Alien Earth clones, or any planet for that matter. But it would be a bit bland if your initial view of any planet pretty much described the planet as a whole.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

Right now, as I watch more gameplay of it, I'm more or less more interested in dog fighting over planets and shooting the .... out of asteroid fields more than exploration, which is redundant because exploration is what I've been arguing about this entire time.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

Also, I was under the impression "Prime" in Star Trek didn't have any particular meaning when it came to planet names, and most of the "Prime" planets weren't very large planets. Maestro4k, who has helped run the Star Trek wiki since 2005 said that he wasn't aware of any significant meaning of "Prime" when it came to naming planets in ST, and that so far (as far as he could tell), "Prime" has only been used in planet names that are the most significant of a system, or that was first discovered in a system, but that he didn't assume Prime had a significant meaning because "XXX Prime" planet names didn't even exist in TOS or TAS, and there were only two "Prime" planets in TNG. That's why I assumed "Prime" didn't have much significance, at least in the Star Trek universe. I assumed they called them "Prime" because it sounded cool.

EDIT: And now that you mentioned it, It'd be awesome to have a random planet in the "technologically advanced civilization" stages of life like Cardassia to explore, and potentially get into all kind of trouble on. Man, the possibilities for this game.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 12, 2014)

Indeed, "Importance" is always going to be contextual to those doing the naming.


----------



## MFB (Jun 12, 2014)

Not gonna lie, this is my favorite thread of 2014


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 12, 2014)

I've enjoyed it. It's not every day you find musicians who are up for debating about Space mumbo jumbo, let alone Star Trek mumbo jumbo.


----------



## liamh (Jun 12, 2014)

I don't understand how you guys can see this trailer and react with anything but "HNNNNNNNGGGGG"
This game looks ridiculously good. I'm without a doubt going to forcefully cram money down a shopkeeper's throat when this comes out


----------



## HUGH JAYNUS (Jun 12, 2014)

looks amazing and sounds great. but i hope there is plenty of dogfighting. i miss me some colony wars and star fox like flight action in space


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jun 12, 2014)

In. Don't care about realism or none at all. This looks like an explorer lovers dream. I, for one, am not a guy who is going to worry about the technicalities of the thing. I play video games for fun, not hyper realism, and games where walking to your next mission for two actual days bore the piss out of me. 

I can see where they might make an exception here and make space travel something along the lines of Skyrim (massive quests everywhere along the line) but that distracts from the actual fun for me. I like giant quest games and I like simple exploration games, and sometimes it's nice to have one or the other. 

At far as the size of the planets or planetary systems, you guys have made some good points on both sides. Hopefully they find a crowd pleasing compromise. 

In my defense, I just want to say that between running a business, having a wife and a busy kid and playing guitar, my video game time is mostly limited and if I had to spend several minutes of it looking at a small planet growing slowly in size relative to my distance to it, I'd sell this game immediately. Screw that.


----------



## asher (Jun 12, 2014)

But there are so many ways to handle getting planets to feel sufficiently massive while still cutting out pointless travel time. It's not hard. This is why I don't understand why this is such a big deal in this thread


----------



## RickSchneider (Jun 13, 2014)

Y'all are nerds, I just want to play some games


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 13, 2014)

asher said:


> But there are so many ways to handle getting planets to feel sufficiently massive while still cutting out pointless travel time. It's not hard. This is why I don't understand why this is such a big deal in this thread



But the thing is, the whole argument wasn't about the planet size at all, or travel time until near the end of the argument. The entire argument (for Xaios) was that the planets weren't "realistically distanced" at all (making space seem tiny, which I agree with), and my rebuttal was "You guys are arguing realistic aspects in a game that's not based on anything that's realistic at all, at least realistic to human beings right now". The problem was, in this argument, Xaios was arguing realistic "within the realm of possibility" and I was arguing realistic "within the realm of human reality". That's where we butted heads, and Star Trek and the dislike of monotonously bland planet ecosystems made us both happy.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 13, 2014)

And that comic made me laugh more than a normal person...


----------



## rectifryer (Jun 13, 2014)

asher said:


> But there are so many ways to handle getting planets to feel sufficiently massive while still cutting out pointless travel time. It's not hard. This is why I don't understand why this is such a big deal in this thread


This. For a game about exploring it seems they have to figure out the traveling part, which is what your also doing while exploring, so I would expect that to have some sort of realistic feel if I am going to really get into the game. 

There should be a warp drive and some sort of radar to detect planets, etc. If tech is advanced enough for space travel then it is advanced enough for these features. 

It's been done so many times in scifi that it's honestly an unforgivable oversight IMO. I would have a hard time getting into this game as it stands, since I care about gameplay lol.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 13, 2014)

For the record, Starslip was a legitimately brilliant webcomic. I was well and truly sad when it ended. Y'all should read it. The entire damn thing. It was constantly hilarious and occasionally extremely heartfelt.


----------



## loqtrall (Jun 13, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> This. For a game about exploring it seems they have to figure out the traveling part, which is what your also doing while exploring, so I would expect that to have some sort of realistic feel if I am going to really get into the game.
> 
> There should be a warp drive and some sort of radar to detect planets, etc. If tech is advanced enough for space travel then it is advanced enough for these features.
> 
> It's been done so many times in scifi that it's honestly an unforgivable oversight IMO. I would have a hard time getting into this game as it stands, since I care about gameplay lol.



lol, it seems from your initial post that you care more about realism and less about gameplay, a la "so I would expect that to have some sort of realistic feel if I'm going to really get into the game". Cause the gameplay so far is what got this game to be one of the most talked about games at E3 already, and we don't even know 5% of what the game is going to be.

But, for one, I think they got their style of exploration down pretty well. I believe sacrificing distance with a hyper-drive type mechanic would still be absolutely pointless. If you add expanses of space between things to discover but you can just hyper-drive to them, what's the point of putting the distance there in the first place? Like I explained to Xaios, taking the planet that's 100 miles away and shooting it back 2000 miles away, but then hyper driving to it is just an ILLUSION of distance just to make the game "look" bigger. I think the "distancing" is PERFECT for the exploration aspect of this game, because think of games like Skyrim: When you're exploring/heading to a point of interest, there are things to SEE. Like, if you're walking to discover a cave, there will be plenty to see and explore on the way in Skyrim. But in this game, if you're flying to a planet 10,000 miles away, you're in space, there's nothing there to see besides the planet and maybe a few asteroids or comets.

But, when it comes to the distance debate, one will never know until the game is released. Because one thing nobody in the debate realized or brought up: In the video, the 3 visible planets were very close together, unrealistically close, but you get A LOT of time to view "space" while the player is flying between planets, and behind/around the two planets you see when the player takes off into space, there's NOTHING there, NOTHING behind them at all. And when the player shoots up into space after exiting the atmosphere of the "rocky planet" and you briefly see the planet the video started on, there's NOTHING behind that one either. So maybe this was just an "unrealistic" cluster of planets, and other planets are much, much, MUCH further away.

I do agree that there should be some "planet radar" mechanic, though, cause it'd be horrible to be stuck in space where there's NOTHING around you and not be able to find anything for thousands of miles.


----------



## Glosni (Jun 13, 2014)




----------



## loqtrall (Jun 13, 2014)

^ ??? What do you mean? Everything said so far in the thread has partained to No Man's Sky or games like it. MAYBE the Star Trek derailed it a bit, but even that was about the name of a planet in the game.


----------



## redstone (Aug 25, 2014)

[YOUTUBEVID]ZVl1Hmth3HE[/YOUTUBEVID]

[YOUTUBEVID]DbFebgl_Vq8[/YOUTUBEVID]


----------



## loqtrall (Jan 14, 2015)

Anybody else see this?

Can't wait for this game. My desire to explore every corner of this game is going off the charts.

*waiting for obligatory Xaios "those planets are too close/small" reply*


----------



## Xaios (Jan 14, 2015)

*obligatory Xaios "those planets are too close/small" reply*


----------



## loqtrall (Jan 14, 2015)

Xaios said:


> *obligatory Xaios "those planets are too close/small" reply*



The future has been told!


----------



## thedonal (Jan 14, 2015)

I have a friend who worked at this developer for a while and we had a bit of a discussion about the game.

At the moment, it looks like there is little real point to the game apart from exploration.

I hope that this is dealt with in some way.

Don't get me wrong- it looks absolutely gorgeous and I'd love to explore the worlds and universe in this game, but it is nice to feel like you are actually achieving something too somehow. Or progressing in some fashion.


----------



## monkeybike (Jan 14, 2015)

Maybe they can drop in some slapped together, half-baked, bullshit endgame, ala Minecraft.


----------



## loqtrall (Jan 14, 2015)

thedonal said:


> I have a friend who worked at this developer for a while and we had a bit of a discussion about the game.
> 
> At the moment, it looks like there is little real point to the game apart from exploration.
> 
> ...


 
If I'm not mistaken, the developers themselves said that there would be missions with objectives and the primary objective of the game is to upgrade your character and your ship to reach the center of the galaxy. They claim reaching the center of the galaxy will take anywhere between 40 to 100 hours, depending on whether you just focus on getting there or decide to explore a bit.

They say there will be hundreds of hours worth of exploration and non-objective gameplay, though.


----------



## thedonal (Jan 14, 2015)

loqtrall said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the developers themselves said that there would be missions with objectives and the primary objective of the game is to upgrade your character and your ship to reach the center of the galaxy. They claim reaching the center of the galaxy will take anywhere between 40 to 100 hours, depending on whether you just focus on getting there or decide to explore a bit.
> 
> They say there will be hundreds of hours worth of exploration and non-objective gameplay, though.



Aha. Fair enough. That sounds better already.


----------



## Cloudy (Jan 18, 2015)

Ive been getting more and more excited for this title. I've always enjoyed kind of aimless games, I know that this game technically does have a semi-quazy primary objective but developing your own goals is always a blast in video games. Also playing with friends is going to be amazeballs.

Any new info on a possible release? last I heard was May but I kind of doubt that.


----------



## loqtrall (Jan 18, 2015)

Aside from rumors, all I've seen the devs say is that the initial release date is in 2015, so it *should* come out this year, at least. I know it's a timed Playstation 4 Exclusive, then it'll later be released for PC.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Feb 1, 2015)

loqtrall said:


> Anybody else see this?
> 
> Can't wait for this game. My desire to explore every corner of this game is going off the charts.
> 
> *waiting for obligatory Xaios "those planets are too close/small" reply*




Ok damn.....the idea that it's as limitless as they can make it really intrigues me. When the camera drew back and back and back I figured that was the end of the trailer....when he picked a different star system and chose a previously completely unexplored area and landed on it my eyebrows just kept going up and up.

Any word on species aggressiveness? Land on a planet full of gigantic hunter species? What about viruses or infections? What about creatures that breathe complete methane and you'd have to glide into the planet and then get tractor beamed out or something...incredible creature chameleonic ability....land on a planet that looks full of rocks and 2/3rds of them are all actually something predatory or whatever.

Really interested to see what happens with this. Except for that one video that showed the sort of inside of a cave, this all looks like surface exploration...I'd be hyped if there was some spelunking type exploration as well. The idea of traveling from location to location just visually categorizing benevolent life forms doesn't really hold a whole lot of longer term play attraction for me...yes, I want it all. I want space exploration and dog fights, I want multi-level planetary exploration, I was danger via hostile planetary life forms, etc...

Digging the updates though. Can't wait to see it done and hear some reviews.


----------



## goherpsNderp (Feb 12, 2015)

the PlayStation Blog posted a list of confirmed 2015 games today, and i'm glad to see No Man's Sky is on the list- albeit without a concrete date.


----------



## jonajon91 (Feb 14, 2015)

You guys know that all the music in this game is being done by 65 days of static? Awesome.


----------



## thatguyupthere (Mar 5, 2015)

Maybe only the developers know, but could anyone guesstimate how good a computer would need to be to run this game? 

I have money saved up for the release, but I'm worried that if I buy it for my computer it would be too slow and laggy and I'm not sure buying a PS4 just for this game is worth it.


----------



## MFB (Mar 6, 2015)

I thought it was a PS4 exclusive?


----------



## gunshow86de (Mar 6, 2015)

MFB said:


> I thought it was a PS4 exclusive?



I think they're developing it for/on the PS4, and it will be ported to PC later.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Mar 6, 2015)

gunshow86de said:


> I think they're developing it for/on the PS4, and it will be ported to PC later.



yup


----------



## Sofos (Oct 31, 2015)

Necro-bump as hell, my apologies, but it was announced this past week as being released in June 2016! Gonna be awesome, cannot wait!


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Oct 31, 2015)

Good thing I have Fallout 4 and Dark Souls 3 to tide me over till then.


----------



## BlueGrot (Nov 1, 2015)

Nice to get a release date for this! I'm not expecting much content, but just some vivid imagery to explore.


----------



## Ralyks (Nov 4, 2015)

I'm still trying to understand what's going on with this game. Its looking like Destiny + Minecraft + ... I dunno, Journey? I'm definitely intrigued, but hoping it doesn't leave me disappointed like aforementioned Destiny (no, I have not played it since Taken King came out)


----------



## Masoo2 (Nov 4, 2015)

tbh I was really hyped for this game a few months ago, but I've lowered my expectations considerably.

I have a strong feeling that I'm going to get bored of this game real quick due to the supposed lack of contact between other players.

Many people want that and I do understand, it's just not the type of playstyle I would personally enjoy.


----------



## mongey (Aug 1, 2016)

pre release necro bump

I'm really on the fence with this game a week out. I feel like the first 5 hours will be amazing then it may just get too repetitive .its gonna take some good reviews for me to grab it I think 

you guys getting it ?


----------



## Pav (Aug 1, 2016)

I'll definitely be getting it on PS4. I've been in the mood for something huge and open-ended and I'm hoping this game world offers plenty of entertainment just by exploring and screwing around with no definite ending.


----------



## Masoo2 (Aug 9, 2016)

mongey said:


> pre release necro bump
> 
> I'm really on the fence with this game a week out. I feel like the first 5 hours will be amazing then it may just get too repetitive .its gonna take some good reviews for me to grab it I think
> 
> you guys getting it ?



After everything I've seen on the PS4 I probably won't get it.

Maybe the PC gameplay will change my opinion, but I doubt it.

1. Repetition: I'm feeling the same way, first few hours fine and then it's just boring from there. One of the early copy guys beat it (slightly rushed, not full rush) in 30 hours.

2. Lack of interaction: It's a huge open world space game. Why they want to emphasize single player over multiplayer is something I'll never understand. Being able to explore the vast world with friends would add so much enjoyment and replayability to the game.

3. The PS4 version's graphics: Look, I know not to expect much because it isn't supposed to be that graphically intensive and all of the footage we have seen is on console, but how is this acceptable? 

https://youtu.be/RmSV1Hc9jvw?t=7m2s


Just pause it at 7:02 or 7:03 and look at those textures. I'd be even willing to argue that COD 4 looks better than this, and I don't mean the remastered version.

It's 2016, games shouldn't look like they were developed exclusively for the PS2 or Xbox 360 (Fallout 4 *cough*). I guess that's just because of the power of the PS4, I hope it looks better on PC maxed.

Oh well, my hype started to die a long time ago. The constant defending of the game on /r/NoMansSky doesn't help either.


----------



## Pav (Aug 9, 2016)

I'm on my way to pick up a copy right now so we'll see how it goes!


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Aug 9, 2016)

Masoo2 said:


> After everything I've seen on the PS4 I probably won't get it.
> 
> Maybe the PC gameplay will change my opinion, but I doubt it.
> 
> ...



Just addressing your points.

1. He owns a very early build with several game breaking glitches including the ability to never run out of fuel. It isn't exactly possible to complete the game going on a direct path to the center of the galaxy on your own copy as you will have to more than likely refuel very often (ala, planet to planet travel). As far as repetition, this is no more repetitious than a game like Minecraft or any other sandbox game, you'll find things to experience and enjoy more than likely after a few hours.

2. It's a single player game and that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. I tend to goof off when I'm playing anything with my friends and I'd rather soak in all the sounds and sights I'll experience on my own time with myself in silence.

3. You have to realize the scale of the game and what it's doing, the PS4 in and of itself or any other consoles in this generation are already showing their age. And comparing console graphics to PC graphics is a losing battle, you will never achieve what a PC can so long as the specs are up to date and further ahead than consoles are. The video you linked looks fine and I see nothing wrong with it, there are cut corners in just about any modern console game in order to maintain solid performance.

Of course the PC version will look marginally better, the only concern I even remotely have is wether or not the game is frame capped.

Both sides of the fanbase defending/attacking the game are making very bad premature moves. And should probably wait to dissect the game and experience it before making a call based on one person's completely irrelevant experience considering he wasn't playing the final copy.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 9, 2016)

Jonathan20022 said:


> dissect the game



I remember a simpler time when a game just had to be fun. You used to have to use a bit of imagination, a bit of suspension of disbelief. Now we tear games to shreds on every possible level. 

Also, for the sake of saying it, games are not easy/simple to make. Optimizing a game or making it scalable to less-than-ideal hardware (consoles, older PCs, etc) pretty much always means taking something away. Sometimes you can cut away little bits of something that's easy to hide, other times there's no choice but to compromise on something visible. It's not a failure on the part of the devs, nor does it make a game not worth someone's time. It's just the nature of game dev- and every game does it.


----------



## mongey (Aug 9, 2016)

early reviews seem to confirm what I thought. first few hours are great then its more of the same for ever. shooting rocks seems to be the major mechanic 

don't get me wrong, if that's your kind of game I say power to you .enjoy it 

I'll leave it for now and maybe grab it as a curiosity when in sale down the line


----------



## Pav (Aug 9, 2016)

mongey said:


> early reviews seem to confirm what I thought. first few hours are great then its more of the same for ever. shooting rocks seems to be the major mechanic
> 
> don't get me wrong, if that's your kind of game I say power to you .enjoy it
> 
> I'll leave it for now and maybe grab it as a curiosity when in sale down the line


I've been hearing conflicting reports on the game's first several hours. The guy ringing me up for my copy earlier told me the complete opposite, that for him the game was a dry, monotonous grind early on to gather resources, but once he had them and a few upgrades the game really took off. Apparently the beginning experience is also highly dependent on what type of planet you start on.


----------



## mongey (Aug 9, 2016)

Pav said:


> I've been hearing conflicting reports on the game's first several hours. The guy ringing me up for my copy earlier told me the complete opposite, that for him the game was a dry, monotonous grind early on to gather resources, but once he had them and a few upgrades the game really took off. Apparently the beginning experience is also highly dependent on what type of planet you start on.



Interesting. there's allot about this game that really pushes boundaries. I think its good people are doing that, but its def a risk. you need to give a consistent experience to everyone starting out and let them shape their journey


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Aug 9, 2016)

I'm late to the hype train, but I just heard about the game today and think it looks like some good fun. I'll wait for it to be out for a bit before giving it a chance myself, but I'm willing to bet I could get $60 worth of fun out of it easily.


----------



## Pav (Aug 10, 2016)

This .... is seriously addictive. It reminds of Destiny if Destiny had actually succeeded in creating the universe they were touting. Anything you see, you can explore.


----------



## mongey (Aug 10, 2016)

Pav said:


> This .... is seriously addictive. It reminds of Destiny if Destiny had actually succeeded in creating the universe they were touting. Anything you see, you can explore.



cool

keen to hear how it fares over the coming weeks


----------



## BlackMastodon (Aug 11, 2016)

mongey said:


> cool
> 
> keen to hear how it fares over the coming weeks



Same here. I would love an incredible in-depth space exploring game but I'm also afraid that it would eat up all my free time and that I would become single shortly after.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 11, 2016)

This thing looks super cool, but I'm letting the dust settle for a while before I consider buying in.

I've already invested so much time in Elite Dangerous, which also has an impossibly large galaxy to explore. I don't think I have room for another unapologetic time-suck in my gaming life.


----------



## Xcaliber (Aug 11, 2016)

I just bought this game for the PS4. I'm hoping the auto-download/queue works so it's downloaded when I get home and I can play.


----------



## Masoo2 (Aug 11, 2016)

So they announced that there will be no preloading for PC, so if any of you were hoping for that it's no longer a possibility.

I just want to see Sean Murray come out and clear some stuff on Twitter. There is still quite a bit that hasn't been clarified yet, which is why many players are reluctant to buy the game.



synrgy said:


> This thing looks super cool, but I'm letting the dust settle for a while before I consider buying in.
> 
> I've already invested so much time in Elite Dangerous, which also has an impossibly large galaxy to explore. I don't think I have room for another unapologetic time-suck in my gaming life.



Does Elite still have a large community?

Elite seems interesting, but the average steam review is mixed which has me a bit worried about the game. I've heard one of the developers even banned a player because he wrote a negative review of the game.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 11, 2016)

It seems to, but hard for me to say - I just play 'solo' mode. With few exceptions, I'm not much of a multiplayer fellow.

ED's problem (or up-shot, depending on one's perspective) is time/effort versus reward. I've literally put weeks into it, and have yet to reach the top echelon of ships/ranks/income/whatever. It's just _endlessly_ grind-ey. The hours required to accomplish anything significant are pretty much in part-time-job territory.

Most of the time, I'm okay with that. Sometimes, it makes me angry enough that I walk away for weeks at a time. It does occasionally feel like the developers are only interested in 'realism' when it translates to something that makes the game harder. All that said, some of the higher points of the game (dogfighting in conflict zones, endless exploration, hidden lore, etc) can make it all worthwhile.

Though, I'm not sure who I'm trying to convince -- myself, or anyone else.. 

From what I understand, both games are bogged down in minutia; it's just a question of which part(s) of each game. In ED, the minutia is in travel, and economics; in NMS it's survival (or so I've read, anyway).

Not trying to derail the thread - just wanted to answer the question.


----------



## BlackMastodon (Aug 11, 2016)

synrgy said:


> It seems to, but hard for me to say - I just play 'solo' mode. With few exceptions, I'm not much of a multiplayer fellow.
> 
> ED's problem (or up-shot, depending on one's perspective) is time/effort versus reward. I've literally put weeks into it, and have yet to reach the top echelon of ships/ranks/income/whatever. It's just _endlessly_ grind-ey. The hours required to accomplish anything significant are pretty much in part-time-job territory.
> 
> ...


Well you just sold me on which side of the Elite Dangerous vs No Man's Sky debate I was having in my head when I heard about this game. I really can't get into a game that's way too heavy on the grinding so I'll probably pick this one up when the dust settles/when it's on sale.


----------



## thraxil (Aug 11, 2016)

Pav said:


> I've been hearing conflicting reports on the game's first several hours. The guy ringing me up for my copy earlier told me the complete opposite, that for him the game was a dry, monotonous grind early on to gather resources, but once he had them and a few upgrades the game really took off. Apparently the beginning experience is also highly dependent on what type of planet you start on.



Played for a couple hours tonight and that sounds about right. I started out on a really cold planet with next to no zinc around (what you need to charge up your suit to protect you from the cold). Took a long time making runs looking for resources and quickly dashing back to the ship, waiting in the cockpit overnight until it warms up, and repeating before I had enough resources to fix things and take off and find somewhere more resource rich. Then everything moved a lot faster.


----------



## bhakan (Aug 11, 2016)

I really want to be excited about this game as I love the concept and I'm super into the idea of exploring space while listening to 65daysofstatic, but I haven't seen anything to convince me that it's not just gonna be the same things over and over again after a couple hours though. Really hoping as people spend more time with it something will pop up that will change my mind.


----------



## stevexc (Aug 12, 2016)

Took a chance on it. Refunded after 59 minutes. Runs like crap.


----------



## Pav (Aug 13, 2016)

^ Were you playing on PC? Somehow that doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Cloudy (Aug 13, 2016)

thraxil said:


> Played for a couple hours tonight and that sounds about right. I started out on a really cold planet with next to no zinc around (what you need to charge up your suit to protect you from the cold). Took a long time making runs looking for resources and quickly dashing back to the ship, waiting in the cockpit overnight until it warms up, and repeating before I had enough resources to fix things and take off and find somewhere more resource rich. Then everything moved a lot faster.



I think you can use titanium to repair your suit as well, just destroy the sentinel droids flying around for it


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Aug 15, 2016)

Pav said:


> ^ Were you playing on PC? Somehow that doesn't surprise me.



Runs fine on PC for me 

Anywho, here are my two cents: Definitely not worth $60, but still fun. I havent been able to put it down since release on the 12th. I "found" a copy for free and will probably buy it later on after they update the game a bunch and reduce the price to something more reasonable.


----------



## Stealth7 (Aug 17, 2016)




----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Aug 17, 2016)

Here is the giant list of lies we were told by the devs.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/4y4i3a/wheres_the_nms_we_were_sold_on_front_page/


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 17, 2016)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> Here is the giant list of lies we were told by the devs.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/4y4i3a/wheres_the_nms_we_were_sold_on_front_page/



After reading A LOT of this I'm extremely disappointed 


I waited for the game to come out since I initially heard about it...I didn't buy on release day due to funds....I'm actually glad I didn't buy it. I have a feeling I would be beyond disappointed if I purchased it. 


EDIT: I read all of it. NOT getting any of my money. F that game.


----------



## BlackMastodon (Aug 17, 2016)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> Here is the giant list of lies we were told by the devs.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/4y4i3a/wheres_the_nms_we_were_sold_on_front_page/



Yeah this pretty much puts to rest any interest I had in the game. I've just been hearing way too much disappointing stuff about it to care. Glad I didn't invest in it.


----------



## Cloudy (Aug 19, 2016)

No mans sky is a fun game on its own, but there is too much negativity around it for me to sanely recommend it for 60$. Its basically a tech demo or an early access alpha game.

The concept and the art direction are really great but the content pool is so ....ing shallow it hurts. Also reading that reddit thread about promised content vs what was provided...yikes, that is almost criminal.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Aug 19, 2016)

They should have done early access on PC this entire time and taken another 6 months to finish it and dumb everything down for console.


----------



## Pav (Aug 19, 2016)

I think the hype for this game has long since become a double-edged sword. It was built up to the point that the 12 people that made it really had no chance of meeting the expectations that people developed over the last two years.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 19, 2016)

Pav said:


> I think the hype for this game has long since become a double-edged sword. It was built up to the point that the 12 people that made it really had no chance of meeting the expectations that people developed over the last two years.



I think they just lied about everything.


----------



## Pav (Aug 20, 2016)

cwhitey2 said:


> I think they just lied about everything.



Not quite everything - it does take place in space, at least.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 22, 2016)

It always bothers me when people say that a dev "lied" to them because a game didn't match their expectations. The reality of game development is that things change- features, scope, budget, people, ideas, etc.- they all evolve during the process of making a game, much like the process involved in any other creative undertaking. Most of the time, devs just know better than to talk about those things (or have hired people with the experience to tell them what should/shouldn't be communicated yet). I don't have any doubt that everything that was "promised" was well intended at the time, but just couldn't be done with the available resources. This is just a case of not managing those expectations very well. I've seen it happen with smaller/local/indie guys who want to build this theoretically-amazing game, and they go on about it while they're excited, but never really deliver on it. Some people are not good at communicating the difference between "this is definitely going to be a feature" and "wouldn't it be cool if our game did this too?". 

Calling it a lie implies an intent- that they knew it wasn't going to be done, but said so anyway to build hype. It implies that the devs acted maliciously, and I don't have any reason to believe that's the case.

IMO, it's not a question of lies vs truth, it's a question of managing expectations. They may have failed in that regard, but at the same time, they were probably very hyped themselves about what they were trying to put together.


----------



## stevexc (Aug 22, 2016)

TedEH said:


> It always bothers me when people say that a dev "lied" to them because a game didn't match their expectations. The reality of game development is that things change- features, scope, budget, people, ideas, etc.- they all evolve during the process of making a game, much like the process involved in any other creative undertaking. Most of the time, devs just know better than to talk about those things (or have hired people with the experience to tell them what should/shouldn't be communicated yet). I don't have any doubt that everything that was "promised" was well intended at the time, but just couldn't be done with the available resources. This is just a case of not managing those expectations very well. I've seen it happen with smaller/local/indie guys who want to build this theoretically-amazing game, and they go on about it while they're excited, but never really deliver on it. Some people are not good at communicating the difference between "this is definitely going to be a feature" and "wouldn't it be cool if our game did this too?".
> 
> Calling it a lie implies an intent- that they knew it wasn't going to be done, but said so anyway to build hype. It implies that the devs acted maliciously, and I don't have any reason to believe that's the case.
> 
> IMO, it's not a question of lies vs truth, it's a question of managing expectations. They may have failed in that regard, but at the same time, they were probably very hyped themselves about what they were trying to put together.



Did you read the thread?

There are full features demonstrated and reported to be in the game as recently as July that were removed from the final release with no warning or indication. 

We were literally told you were going to be able to do x, and in the final game x was not possible to do.

Worse yet, we were literally shown through gameplay demos that x was an included feature, only to receive a game that does not include that feature. That fits the definition of a lie exactly.

Had the devs at any point in time said "Feature x is not working the way we want it to, it will not be in the final version of the game" then yes some people would be upset but it would have been entirely fair. But as it stands, they intentionally misrepresented the game as having certain features, and then gave us a game without those features.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 22, 2016)




----------



## TedEH (Aug 22, 2016)

stevexc said:


> Did you read the thread?



I did, and I stand by what I said.

I don't doubt that expectations were managed poorly, I just don't think it was malicious. For all I know, at the point in time that things were said or features were shown, they probably also figured those features would end up in the game- but there's no way to know that for sure I guess.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Aug 22, 2016)

TedEH said:


> It always bothers me when people say that a dev "lied" to them because a game didn't match their expectations.



They lied. They told us something as if it were true and it was not true. Its a literal definition of a lie. Our expectations were simply what was promised to us.




TedEH said:


> Calling it a lie implies an intent- that they knew it wasn't going to be done, but said so anyway to build hype. It implies that the devs acted maliciously, and I don't have any reason to believe that's the case.



They falsely advertised a ton of features to get people to buy their game, and delivered only a fraction of them. They could have come out and told us that they had to cut content, but they didnt. Even the trailers on their steam page still show content that isnt in the game. They either should have told the truth about that their game was or taken the time to make the game they sold us on.


----------



## Cloudy (Aug 22, 2016)

TedEH said:


> I did, and I stand by what I said.
> 
> I don't doubt that expectations were managed poorly, I just don't think it was malicious. For all I know, at the point in time that things were said or features were shown, they probably also figured those features would end up in the game- but there's no way to know that for sure I guess.



Im sorry, but no, this was done maliciously. He was caught lying literally up until the day of release. Back in 2014/2015 I think he was being honest with the features they wanted to include but they should've know they weren't delivering what was promised 4-5 months ago. He could've been straight with the community but instead wanted to make triple AAA money like a big boy developer. He willingly deceived anyone he could and is laughing all the way to the bank. I dont think its necessarily a bad game on its own currently but what was promised is extremely different from what was delivered, not just a few missing features MANY missing features. The gaming industry is in shambles because companies keep getting away with horse.... like this *cough*Ubisoft*Cough*. If they wanted to release an early access game they should've just done it like every other developer, 60$ for this tech demo is insane.

In the words of Gaben: "One of the things we learned pretty early on is 'Don't ever, ever try to lie to the internet - because they will catch you. They will de-construct your spin. They will remember everything you ever say for eternity.'


----------



## MoshJosh (Aug 22, 2016)

So I picked this up on a whim, there was a used copy at gamestop, and I had 25 dollar of used games coupon so I figured I'd try it. And for my 27 dollars if say I'm pretty happy, now if I'd payed 60 well that I can't say. It's definitely cool seeing a planet and being like "wonder what's going on over there. . . Think I'll just fly over". I would say I've been disappointed with a number of my planets, no cool forest or water worlds like seen in some previews/concept art. And the only time I was in space combat I got totally wrecked maybe it was cause I died, or bad luck, but the space combat just didn't seem enjoyable. Anyway


----------



## TedEH (Aug 22, 2016)

I suppose my opinion comes from having seen some of the other side of things. A huge amount of stuff gets cut from games all the time, including sometimes stuff that ends up in marketing materials, or interviews or things like that. Most of the time you just don't hear about it, cause yeah, talking about features that never actually make it into the game is just going to cause the kind of backlash we're seeing here. I don't see it as a deliberate attempt to sell something they never intended to make, I would assume they intended to make what they were saying but just failed to deliver on it for whatever reason. It's still a failure on their part, I just don't think it was deliberate. 

Just an opinion though. Maybe I'm wrong and they did do it on purpose- but I haven't looked as far into is as some have, and if I'm going to make any assumptions, I'll usually err towards people being decent if I can. 

I think we agree that one way or another it's a failure in communication - which seems to be somewhat of a theme lately.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 22, 2016)

Cloudy said:


> The gaming industry is in shambles



I can appreciate the sentiment of your whole comment, but the game industry is not "in shambles".


----------



## Cloudy (Aug 22, 2016)

TedEH said:


> I think we agree that one way or another it's a failure in communication - which seems to be somewhat of a theme lately.



Absolutely. 

When I say its 'malicious' I dont think he started hello games with the intention of ripping people off. What bothers me is that so many features that were actively advertised up until release (heck even the april 2016 gameplay demo) were not accurate representations of what you were buying and they didnt even try to inform the community. That is lying in my books, although I can see why you'd see it moreso as a communication failure. Everyone always has a different opinion on omission.

Seriously though, go on the steam store page and watch the first gameplay trailer that is included in their little media showcase, it is literally a different game. Half of what is shown is not possible in the real game, or takes place on a pre-generated planet for demonstration purposes (which sean murrey was caught lying about). Its the Watch Dogs E3 demonstration all over again 



TedEH said:


> I can appreciate the sentiment of your whole comment, but the game industry is not "in shambles".



Except it is, look at how divided almost every gaming community is. Look at how developers walk all over consumers with DLC, early access, and pre-orders. Look at how frequently developers showcase very different games than what are delivered. If you like the state of the gaming industry than I feel really bad for you. As is right now the community has never been more worse off in my opinion, its clear that most developers are more concerned with making money than producing a good game. I can think of so many examples of developers screwing the pooch in the last 5 years its not even funny.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 22, 2016)

Cloudy said:


> Except it is, look at how divided almost every gaming community is. Look at how developers walk all over consumers with DLC, early access, and pre-orders. Look at how frequently developers showcase very different games than what are delivered. If you like the state of the gaming industry than I feel really bad for you. As is right now the community has never been more worse off in my opinion, its clear that most developers are more concerned with making money than producing a good game. I can think of so many examples of developers screwing the pooch in the last 5 years its not even funny.



I think parts of the visible community might arguably be in shambles, but gaming is not one community. Even the sort of larger subsections of gaming are not really one big community. There are pockets of devs, indies, gamers, etc. all over the place who have differing opinions of the state of the industry and have nothing else really in common. Pretty much everyone and their cousin plays games in some respect at this point, and the barrier to entry for development is as low as it's ever been. As far as money goes, the industry has never done better. If anything, the size of and visibility of the very vocal/dramatic/etc. elements of the community are a sort of growing pain- a sign that the industry is expanding, possibly quicker than it can account for. Faster than they can acquire the PR/Communications skills for, as least.

The idea that devs are more concerned with money is only really half true- lots of devs love games as an art, but at the end of the day, there's real business and real money behind everything. The purpose of a company is to make money. If they don't make money, they stop existing and stop making games. Even small "art" games, at their core, are developed with the hope of making some money off of them. People need to make a living. If there was no money in it, much fewer people would do it for a living.

To put some context to my comments, I work in games. Rarely on anything big or that many people have played, but day-to-day I'm part of that industry.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Aug 22, 2016)

All indie developers should follow the Kerbal Space Program method of development.

Early access at a discounted price. Put up a fun, fully working version of the game that gets upgraded regularly. I got KSP when it was in 0.17 in 2012 and the game didn't "release" as a 1.0 build until 2015. The game was fun even massively unfinished because they nailed the core gameplay mechanics and built up from that with constant player feedback. They even officially implemented really good mods into the base game.

NMS should have hit early access just now. Thats how incomplete this game is with respect to their original vision; a vision we all would love to experience. Now is when they should be detailing and tweaking all the base stuff that is there, but underdeveloped. They didn't nail any core concepts, but rather did a little bit of a lot of things. The flying is meh, the combat is meh, the alien interactions are meh, the inventory management is meh.

They should have known better than to feed the hype and make a deal with the devil (Sony).


----------



## TedEH (Aug 22, 2016)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> All indie developers should [...]



Ideally sure. Unfortunately, it takes a ton of money to get a game that far into development.


----------



## mongey (Aug 22, 2016)

I think when he got into bed with Sony he got limited by the power the ps4 has under the hood. I just don't think it capable of pulling off what he was talking about.


----------



## Pav (Aug 22, 2016)

I would also like to argue.


----------



## Ralyks (Aug 23, 2016)

I feel like I'll love this when there's a really good sale on it. It sounds really interesting, but not 60 dollar interesting.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 24, 2016)

synrgy said:


>




This is awesome.


----------



## BlackMastodon (Aug 24, 2016)

F*cking lol.  That was pretty great.

I can't help but feel bad for the guy, but at the same time he released an unfinished product that costs way too much and was way too ambitious.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 24, 2016)

BlackMastodon said:


> F*cking lol.  That was pretty great.
> 
> I can't help but feel bad for the guy, but at the same time he released an unfinished product that costs way too much and was way too ambitious.



I have zero sympathy for lying game designers.

I knew something was up when the original release date was pushed back...I didn't realize it was because the game was only in the Alpha phase


----------



## Repner (Aug 25, 2016)

[Youtubevid]3Mz5YPkThOU[/Youtubevid]


----------



## Ralyks (Aug 26, 2016)

After watching a friend play this game... Yeah, I think I'll stick with watching my friends play this game. Again, may consider it if it goes on sale...


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Aug 27, 2016)

Fairly glad I didn't buy into the hype on this game. I _might_ pick it up when it goes on sale for $20 or so. It should've been that price from the beginning from what I'm seeing, hearing, and reading.


----------



## Repner (Aug 29, 2016)

Seems Sony, Steam and Amazon have started offering full refunds to people, regardless of play time.


----------



## beneharris (Aug 29, 2016)

Repner said:


> Seems Sony, Steam and Amazon have started offering full refunds to people, regardless of play time.



You know its bad when that happens. 

I had a bad taste in my mouth from all the videos they did of this, and how ambitious it was. It was either going to be possible, and totally broken, or playable, and stripped down. This feels like Kingdoms of Amalur all over again.


----------



## Repner (Aug 29, 2016)

The thing is I hadn't even kept up to date with a lot of the news leading up to this, so I didn't remember the claims he made. So I wasn't expecting much, other than having something to do. Missions. Battles between different sides. Bounty hunting etc. Stuff you generally seem to get in games like this. 

The Spanish interview parody I posted sums the real game up quite well. "What do you do?" "Collect sh*t with your sh*t-collecting gun, then f*** off to the next planet."


----------



## Ralyks (Dec 19, 2016)

Apologize about the necrobump, but I must ask...
So I've noticed this game is $20 on Amazon Prime. And apparently there's been quite the updates recently. Think this game is worth $20 brand new? I usually game into the wee hours of the morning after the wife and baby have gone to sleep. Seems like it would be a good wind down game.


----------



## thraxil (Dec 19, 2016)

Ralyks said:


> Apologize about the necrobump, but I must ask...
> So I've noticed this game is $20 on Amazon Prime. And apparently there's been quite the updates recently. Think this game is worth $20 brand new? I usually game into the wee hours of the morning after the wife and baby have gone to sleep. Seems like it would be a good wind down game.



For $20? Probably.

I played it quite a bit when it came out. I actually feel like I got plenty of value for the price, even then. I eventually got bored and stopped playing. And I totally understand why a lot of people were seriously pissed off about the game and felt ripped off. But l seriously got a few hundred hours of mostly enjoyable play time out of it before I got bored. I haven't checked out the update yet, but probably will when I have some more free time over the holidays. I'm not a hardcore gamer though. I was happy to have something that wasn't terribly fast-paced or difficult that I could drink a beer and play to relax after work. It gets kind of grindy, which I don't mind terribly, but especially with the original version, you hit a point where you've got all the upgrades and you don't feel like there's much point to it anymore.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 19, 2016)

My kids played it and loved it at first, maybe for a week or so, then suddenly hated it. When a game costs $2/day to rent, $20 for a game that you will play a week is maybe a little much, but not ridiculous.


----------



## TedEH (Dec 19, 2016)

I've always found it strange to equate the time spent on a game with it's cost - by that same scale, if you look at going out to a movie as a comparison, where you might spend $30-$50 after tickets and some snacks and junk, for what ultimately ends up being maybe 2 hours of entertainment- $20 for something you'll spend a week or two or more with is easily worth it IMO. Lots of games have been described as "not being worth x amount of money for the time", but I got tons of entertainment out of, regardless of the price. It was worth it to me. Just a thought.


----------



## Pav (Dec 19, 2016)

Unlike most, I actually enjoyed it quite a bit when it first came out. I found something very relaxing and satisfying about exploring with no defined goal. I haven't tried the big new update either but for $20 I'd say go for it.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 19, 2016)

TedEH said:


> I've always found it strange to equate the time spent on a game with it's cost - by that same scale, if you look at going out to a movie as a comparison, where you might spend $30-$50 after tickets and some snacks and junk, for what ultimately ends up being maybe 2 hours of entertainment- $20 for something you'll spend a week or two or more with is easily worth it IMO. Lots of games have been described as "not being worth x amount of money for the time", but I got tons of entertainment out of, regardless of the price. It was worth it to me. Just a thought.



I think it's a pretty good comparison if it's something old, and widely panned.

It's not like you are buying _No Man's Sky_ to play it on a big screen, or some other WOW-factor.

I'm comparing days of playing a game with days of playing a game. Apples to apples. Not going to see a movie in the cinema when it's new versus renting it from Netflix months later. Apples to older smaller apples.


----------



## Kanye (Dec 19, 2016)

god... if only I could keep my kids entertained for a week for $20.


----------



## Ralyks (Dec 22, 2016)

Kanye said:


> god... if only I could keep my kids entertained for a week for $20.



Ditto


----------

