What, endless circling? If you want fun dogfighting, go play the Star Citizen alpha. Take your fights through space station habitation rings or dodge through asteroids. Even in its extremely early state it's already more fun than Elite.Bombiz said:
No Man's Sky is starting to look a bit rubbish.
- Thread starter Zhukov
- Start date
Budget? Sean Murray sold his house to fund the game in the early days, and since then it's been bank rolled by Sony for the last 2 years. I'd be willing to bet they've had millions of dollars to play with over the course of development.Kibeth41 said:
Manpower? Perhaps you're right, the core game was made by a team of 13, however, they've had endless resources provided by Sony, including Sony 1st-party developers for support.
Time? A little over 4 years isn't long enough?
Don't "walking simulators" get this kind of criticism levied at them constantly? That still doesn't stop people from liking them (provided they're done well, of course). I for one thought The Stanley Parable was a hoot.
I'm scratching my head here. Maybe it's because I've tried my best to temper my own hype, but it seemed pretty clear from the get-go that NMS isn't nearly as complex as titles like Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen. It was never meant to be, but that didn't stop people's imagination and rampant speculation from the runaway hype train get the best of them. That's why Sean Murray and Co. have been continually trying to temper expectations in various interviews. Indeed, this simplicity may very well work to the game's advantage, as it's carved its own niche in the genre.
I'm not expecting NMS to deliver super-complex, super-compelling narrative or gameplay systems. Sometimes I'm just in the mood to kick back, unwind and relax (like, say, after a long day at work) while exploring a vast vista, and the game looks poised to deliver on that.
I'm scratching my head here. Maybe it's because I've tried my best to temper my own hype, but it seemed pretty clear from the get-go that NMS isn't nearly as complex as titles like Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen. It was never meant to be, but that didn't stop people's imagination and rampant speculation from the runaway hype train get the best of them. That's why Sean Murray and Co. have been continually trying to temper expectations in various interviews. Indeed, this simplicity may very well work to the game's advantage, as it's carved its own niche in the genre.
I'm not expecting NMS to deliver super-complex, super-compelling narrative or gameplay systems. Sometimes I'm just in the mood to kick back, unwind and relax (like, say, after a long day at work) while exploring a vast vista, and the game looks poised to deliver on that.
Gee, an overhyped game starts to look a bit worse when the hype winds down. Who'd have thunk it?
Honestly, I kept my mouth shut about NMS prior to this because every time I tried to mention that the game doesn't seem to have much to it and seems quite shallow, a hore of fans would descend upon me like a pack rabid man-eating marmots, screaming that I "have no idea what I'm talking about", that I "shouldn't judge the game (based on the materials the devs put out)" and that I "should use my imagination".
And as time went by, and we continually failed to get any new meaningful details, the obvious conclusion what that nothing was being revealed because there was nothing to reveal. Just a bunch of copy/pasted content with no depth or engagement. Granted, I'm sure someone somewhere will have a to of fun with this game, but I like my games with at least some actual content, so I'll be passing it by in a wiiiiide circle...
And as time went by, and we continually failed to get any new meaningful details, the obvious conclusion what that nothing was being revealed because there was nothing to reveal. Just a bunch of copy/pasted content with no depth or engagement. Granted, I'm sure someone somewhere will have a to of fun with this game, but I like my games with at least some actual content, so I'll be passing it by in a wiiiiide circle...
Welcome to my 2013, care to talk about the launch of the PS4 and Xbox One as well, they just released last month I hear?
This is also something that the developer of the game has been warning people for since the announcement of the game. People kept running away with their expectations of the game, blowing the game up in their minds, even though the developer stated on several occasions that it's a game about exploring a proceedually created universe.
This is also something that the developer of the game has been warning people for since the announcement of the game. People kept running away with their expectations of the game, blowing the game up in their minds, even though the developer stated on several occasions that it's a game about exploring a proceedually created universe.
Yeah, I said something simmilar in a different thread. In no world the game will live up to the hype the media generated for it, the devs said that they just wanted to create a pure exploration game with some online elements. Starbound: The Next Generation, if you can put it that way.Xsjadoblayde said:
It is of course subjective but I'll add my voice against it. Elite IMO dropped the ball, kinda hard, here. The constant slow head-to-head combat and the sponge ships are not what I consider "fun" when it comes to dogfighting. Personally I would have gone with the Star Citizen/War Thunder route, i.e "semi-realistic" - make the ships really fast and the guns really deadly.Bombiz said:
"A small burst has hit your wing and the shields were down? Well you can kiss good bye to it."
But again, it is all subjective
As for No Man's Sky.. Well the reception will be.. complicated..Zhukov said:
Let's take a few things into consideration. Devs have already told that, due to the nature of the game, they are not telling everything that there is to "do" right now (read: find - there's also that whole thing about going to the center of the galaxy and the "story" behind it all). As for what is it and how much there will be it's hard to tell due to what the player might think it is fun and his 'luck' in finding it. Which leads to another point..
It's all procedurally generated. Some players will find amazing things, while others could keep finding Hoth copies in their journey (It's worth remembering here that the Devs said populated planets will be rare, most of the time you will find dead worlds).
In short, and in my opinion, the big thing about the game (i.e what's there to do), lies almost solely one could argue on that feeling of hunting and finding something amazing, that "HOLY BALLS WHAT IS THAT?!", making a discovery and sharing it with the world (read reddit/etc).
It is because of stuff like this that I say the reception will be complicated. It takes a special kind of player to enjoy this exploration aspect to start with, and even some of those players that enjoy this sort of stuff will probably not have the time of their life with the game due to not finding something interesting on their journey to the center - if they choose to do so.
Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to it.
JayRPG said:
Ugghhh. The "Sentinels" sound like they were a direct response to the whole you-don't-"do"-anything crowd. Great way to take an original concept and gamey it up to be just like every other derpin
Because that's all a game can be, right?
Having said that, the rest of the game sounds interesting and well worth checking out if they can pull it off.
I've seen enough of the game to get interested and invest in giving it a shot.
Personally, I'm expecting a decently compelling exploration-survival game set in space. I'm going to expect to see some weird stuff, mysterious objects, crazy animals, and some neat planets, and some dangerous planets. Anything else would be nice, but what I've seen is enough to garner my interest.
For the sake of comparison, Minecraft, my most favorite thing to do there anyway was exploration. Never cared much for building stuff as much as I did wandering the world, making discoveries, gathering supplies for adventures and surviving against all the creatures. No Man's Sky is entirely geared towards exploration and survival, so that makes it incredibly appealing to me.
Personally, I'm expecting a decently compelling exploration-survival game set in space. I'm going to expect to see some weird stuff, mysterious objects, crazy animals, and some neat planets, and some dangerous planets. Anything else would be nice, but what I've seen is enough to garner my interest.
For the sake of comparison, Minecraft, my most favorite thing to do there anyway was exploration. Never cared much for building stuff as much as I did wandering the world, making discoveries, gathering supplies for adventures and surviving against all the creatures. No Man's Sky is entirely geared towards exploration and survival, so that makes it incredibly appealing to me.
I dunno... Think I'll just wait and see first.
It kind of reminds me of all the things I liked about "Freelancer"...flying around, checking out planets, making space bucks, getting into dog fights.
That game was a blast until the story got in the way.
So I'm looking forward to a vast open space exploration game.
It kind of reminds me of all the things I liked about "Freelancer"...flying around, checking out planets, making space bucks, getting into dog fights.
That game was a blast until the story got in the way.
So I'm looking forward to a vast open space exploration game.
My problem with "walking simulators" is that they barely have any gameplay elements. A game could have the best story I've ever seen, but if it's not fun to play, I won't buy it. Besides, if I'm only interested in a game for its story and don't care about the gameplay, I can just watch someone's Let's Play on Youtube.Neverhoodian said:
That's why I loathe "walking simulators" so much. They seem to be actively trying to forget that they're video games. It's almost as if they're embarrassed to be video games.
I've never really been interested in No Man's Sky, and the more I've learned about it, they more vindicated I feel. This game looks like it'll be the next Destiny or Evolve.
Game never looked that fun to me. Interesting sure but an interesting concept doesn't necessarily make a great game. I agree that with randomly generated content you just see the same assets popping up over and over in different constellations. Same with dungeon crawlers of the kind it takes like a few hours before everything starts looking the same. The thing that can save such a game is really strong gameplay mechanics but the flying and the shooting in No Man's don't look all that convincing. Personally I also don't really like the artstyle. Games don't necessarily always need laser sharp focus but sub-par gameplay that literally drowns in millions of samey environments yeah..prolly a bit too much. 
Its 'procedurally' generated, not 'randomly' generated. There's a big difference between the two. With procedurally generated content you can have infinte variations, you can't with random, which means in No Man's Sky its actually very unlikely that you'll see the same assets popping up over and over in different constellations. In fact, in No Man's Sky its unlikely that you'll EVER see the same asset twice. http://iq.intel.co.uk/no-mans-sky-procedural-generation/stroopwafel said: