akachan ningen
Member
So, having looked at all the new gameplay videos, it all still looks too simple. None of it seems to be all that challenging or sophisticated.
The descents into the planets look underwhelming..you cross the entire stratosphere in a second or two. Otherwise the game looks stunning. Amazing soundtracks used in the trailer too.
The descents into the planets look underwhelming..you cross the entire stratosphere in a second or two. Otherwise the game looks stunning. Amazing soundtracks used in the trailer too.
The descents into the planets look underwhelming..you cross the entire stratosphere in a second or two. Otherwise the game looks stunning. Amazing soundtracks used in the trailer too.
Here is a feature that you can see from a significant hight. On a planet-sized planet, this feature (the dark blob highlighted with an arrow) would be seriously massive. At the very least, it would be several tens, if not hundreds, of miles across.
http://i.imgur.com/KCiax3e.png
Here is that same feature, after flying towards it and landing. The dark blob turns out to be that pretty small hill to the right.
http://i.imgur.com/1e5vG20.png
You can watch for yourself... the approach starts around 3:15 in this trailer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmwG6Sj1Yfg&t=3m16s
Based on this, I can't believe that we are really seeing a 'planet-sized planet'. If that small hill is (say) 150 metres across, then the planet can't be more than a few tens of miles around.
Here's a rough distance scale showing how far a mile is on the planet's surface, working from the assumption that the hill is 150m across (which seems like a reasonable estimate, at least to within a factor of 2).
What we've seen so far kinda kills the sense of scale. I don't want it to be realistic, but the way it is now is a bit extreme to me.
Here's a reddit post that shows the issue well.
But yeah they could have just intentionally picked those types of planets for demonstration reasons. I hope it will vary.
Yup, that's exactly what it is and Sean's already said it will.But yeah they could have just intentionally picked those types of planets for demonstration reasons. I hope it will vary.
Yup, that's exactly what it is and Sean's already said it will.
I don't see how that hill can only be 150m across, considering the giant dinos look like ants compared to it.
Oh yeah idk about his measurements, but overall it's a good demonstration on why have an issue on it at least.
There's supposed to be some kind of Game Informer update for NMS on the 8th (so very soon)
http://www.gameinformer.com/p/nomanssky.aspx
I absolutely LOVE that pages background. Is there any way somebody can grab it and post it for me? Im on mobile.reposting for new page
I absolutely LOVE that pages background. Is there any way somebody can grab it and post it for me? Im on mobile.
The story is YOUR story, the things that happen during your journey to the center of the galaxy. Don't expect it to be like other story-driven games where you are spoon-fed lore and things like that, most if it will likely be you putting the things you see together to figure out what is going on. The center is of course the main goal, but they have also said that is not the end of the game. The closest thing to compare the progression of the game I think would be Minecraft, but with more to it if that makes sense.I can see some legitimate concerns about this. Some due to the story and some due to gameplay. I hope I can express what I am trying to say in a way that we can achieve an interesting discussion.
I am a player interested in story-driven games. Now, what I mean is not a guided experience in a way that, for example, military shooters do these days (corridor level design, invisible walls, scripted events everywhere, etc.) but instead what, for example, Half-Life does for a FPS, Mass Effect (especially the first one ) and The Witcher I and II do for RPGs and Gone Home does for "Walking Simulators" (I don't like this name and I hope we can come up with a better one for it). Now, none of the games I've mentioned are, in any way, related to how No Man's Sky plays. Which is not a bad thing. After all, it can also be a story-driven game based on what it tries to be.
My concern with NMS is if I can still have a story-driven experience. Another game that is not comparable to it is Skyrim, but is an example of a game I couldn't enjoy because I was easily detached of the main story after a few minutes. It is such a huge world with a lot of side activities and you can also focus completely on the main story, but the way it was built makes it hard to think about the story at all times. Another Bethesda game, Fallout 3, gives you an objective a few minutes after it starts and it carries that throughout the whole game. You need to find what your dad is up to and why. As you wonder through new cities, you wonder if you can find something about him.
So, to me, I wonder what kind of game NMS will be. I know they already said you have to reach the centre of the galaxy. They didn't tell why and I understand. They also said you can play without focusing on the story. That's OK, there are games that use the same kind of approach and still can be played as story-driven experiences. But it is all about how you will go forward in the story as you play. Will you find new information/lore as you discover some planets? Maybe the robots will provide clues about what are you really facing? I know this will probably not be answered until the game is released, which is something I am OK with because, if I buy it, it will be on PC. Since it is a timed-exclusive PS4 game, I can gather more information to decide.
I hope you guys don't see this as me bashing the game or saying it would be different with other games. No Man's Sky has a very interesting idea, but I don't want to go play it expecting something it isn't. And some of the answers I want may not be available until it is released. It is their strategy and I am not saying it is a bad one. I get it. I am in no rush to get the information I want either. So many amazing games coming up.
The story is YOUR story, the things that happen during your journey to the center of the galaxy. Don't expect it to be like other story-driven games where you are spoon-fed lore and things like that, most if it will likely be you putting the things you see together to figure out what is going on. The center is of course the main goal, but they have also said that is not the end of the game. The closest thing to compare the progression of the game I think would be Minecraft, but with more to it if that makes sense.
The story is YOUR story, the things that happen during your journey to the center of the galaxy. Don't expect it to be like other story-driven games where you are spoon-fed lore and things like that, most if it will likely be you putting the things you see together to figure out what is going on. The center is of course the main goal, but they have also said that is not the end of the game. The closest thing to compare the progression of the game I think would be Minecraft, but with more to it if that makes sense.
Wait.. There will be multiplayer in no man's sky? I thought it was single player only?
Sean stated that there will be "a traditional multiplayer that we're not talking about right now."Wait.. There will be multiplayer in no man's sky? I thought it was single player only?
I don't think comparing NMS to minecraft is correct. Sure there are similar things like procedural world generation and "infinite" worlds but the gameplay is very different. NMS feels like anti-minecraft to me because it's about exploration and searching in solitude. Minecraft is about creating, building and destroying with heavy emphasis on multiplayer and social interaction.
I hope you can plant seeds and grow a garden, I like gardens.
I wasnt talking about the minute to minute gameplay, I was talking in terms of story and progressing to the "end goal". In minecraft there isn't a spoon-fed story or missions to take you to the end. The story is YOUR story of everything that happened during your journey to the goal.I don't think comparing NMS to minecraft is correct. Sure there are similar things like procedural world generation and "infinite" worlds but the gameplay is very different. NMS feels like anti-minecraft to me because it's about exploration and searching in solitude. Minecraft is about creating, building and destroying with heavy emphasis on multiplayer and social interaction.
Everyone's playing in the same galaxy.
The odds of meeting other people randomly are fairly small however. Unless this game sells 1 billion copies.
Cool I will buy the game with the sole purpose of hunting other players down.
you chances meeting another player are pretty slim considering the scale of the galaxy.
and you might not even recognize them as another player.
I wasnt talking about the minute to minute gameplay, I was talking in terms of story and progressing to the "end goal". In minecraft there isn't a spoon-fed story or missions to take you to the end. The story is YOUR story of everything that happened during your journey to the goal.
I can see some legitimate concerns about this. Some due to the story and some due to gameplay. I hope I can express what I am trying to say in a way that we can achieve an interesting discussion.
I am a player interested in story-driven games. Now, what I mean is not a guided experience in a way that, for example, military shooters do these days (corridor level design, invisible walls, scripted events everywhere, etc.) but instead what, for example, Half-Life does for a FPS, Mass Effect (especially the first one ) and The Witcher I and II do for RPGs and Gone Home does for "Walking Simulators" (I don't like this name and I hope we can come up with a better one for it). Now, none of the games I've mentioned are, in any way, related to how No Man's Sky plays. Which is not a bad thing. After all, it can also be a story-driven game based on what it tries to be.
My concern with NMS is if I can still have a story-driven experience. Another game that is not comparable to it is Skyrim, but is an example of a game I couldn't enjoy because I was easily detached of the main story after a few minutes. It is such a huge world with a lot of side activities and you can also focus completely on the main story, but the way it was built makes it hard to think about the story at all times. Another Bethesda game, Fallout 3, gives you an objective a few minutes after it starts and it carries that throughout the whole game. You need to find what your dad is up to and why. As you wonder through new cities, you wonder if you can find something about him.
So, to me, I wonder what kind of game NMS will be. I know they already said you have to reach the centre of the galaxy. They didn't tell why and I understand. They also said you can play without focusing on the story. That's OK, there are games that use the same kind of approach and still can be played as story-driven experiences. But it is all about how you will go forward in the story as you play. Will you find new information/lore as you discover some planets? Maybe the robots will provide clues about what are you really facing? I know this will probably not be answered until the game is released, which is something I am OK with because, if I buy it, it will be on PC. Since it is a timed-exclusive PS4 game, I can gather more information to decide.
I hope you guys don't see this as me bashing the game or saying it would be different with other games. No Man's Sky has a very interesting idea, but I don't want to go play it expecting something it isn't. And some of the answers I want may not be available until it is released. It is their strategy and I am not saying it is a bad one. I get it. I am in no rush to get the information I want either. So many amazing games coming up.
I can see some legitimate concerns about this. Some due to the story and some due to gameplay. I hope I can express what I am trying to say in a way that we can achieve an interesting discussion.
I am a player interested in story-driven games. .
I can see some legitimate concerns about this. Some due to the story and some due to gameplay. I hope I can express what I am trying to say in a way that we can achieve an interesting discussion.
I am a player interested in story-driven games. Now, what I mean is not a guided experience in a way that, for example, military shooters do these days (corridor level design, invisible walls, scripted events everywhere, etc.) but instead what, for example, Half-Life does for a FPS, Mass Effect (especially the first one ) and The Witcher I and II do for RPGs and Gone Home does for "Walking Simulators" (I don't like this name and I hope we can come up with a better one for it). Now, none of the games I've mentioned are, in any way, related to how No Man's Sky plays. Which is not a bad thing. After all, it can also be a story-driven game based on what it tries to be.
My concern with NMS is if I can still have a story-driven experience. Another game that is not comparable to it is Skyrim, but is an example of a game I couldn't enjoy because I was easily detached of the main story after a few minutes. It is such a huge world with a lot of side activities and you can also focus completely on the main story, but the way it was built makes it hard to think about the story at all times. Another Bethesda game, Fallout 3, gives you an objective a few minutes after it starts and it carries that throughout the whole game. You need to find what your dad is up to and why. As you wonder through new cities, you wonder if you can find something about him.
So, to me, I wonder what kind of game NMS will be. I know they already said you have to reach the centre of the galaxy. They didn't tell why and I understand. They also said you can play without focusing on the story. That's OK, there are games that use the same kind of approach and still can be played as story-driven experiences. But it is all about how you will go forward in the story as you play. Will you find new information/lore as you discover some planets? Maybe the robots will provide clues about what are you really facing? I know this will probably not be answered until the game is released, which is something I am OK with because, if I buy it, it will be on PC. Since it is a timed-exclusive PS4 game, I can gather more information to decide.
I hope you guys don't see this as me bashing the game or saying it would be different with other games. No Man's Sky has a very interesting idea, but I don't want to go play it expecting something it isn't. And some of the answers I want may not be available until it is released. It is their strategy and I am not saying it is a bad one. I get it. I am in no rush to get the information I want either. So many amazing games coming up.
Yeah I understand that and I figured that's how the game would work (thanks anyway for the explanation).
What I meant was that the comment stated that the data for the world wouldn't be saved at all. The seed for the world would be gone in every sense once you left. If you or someone else went back to that location the planet wouldn't be the same planet you discovered aside from its name and location. Everything else would be newly generated. That didn't make any sense though which was why I was confused.
Well said. That's my take on it as well in terms of whether I'll like it or not. I'm not big on exploring just for the sake of exploring games. I need some semblance of story and objectives to keep me going.
If it's lacking those, that doesn't by any means mean that it's a bad game. Just that it's probably not my cup of tea. Which is fine as I have pretty narrow tastes and still have more games than time to play them as is!
Well I'm sorry to say that NMS may just not satisfy you, it has a story but is not story driven so far it seems to be about chilling around a universe with a variety of retro ships and bizarre worlds and aliens to discover.
Even though I love the idea and setting, it's something I've dream about for years, I share the concerns some people have. Even though NMS doesn't have to have goals, it can very easily become uninteresting to the majority of people if it doesn't have any incentives.
In the best procedurally generated games and the ones that rely on emergent gameplay, you are usually driven by a clear and present danger:
- Zombies and monsters come out at night - must build a fortification and defenses
- Hunger or other parameters are constantly dropping - you need to fill them up to evade death
- Staying too long in one place spawns one-touch-death enemies - always keep moving, never stay in one place too long
- And of course in multiplayer - adapt to the usual unpredictable nature of players and do whatever it takes to survive
On top of that, the games that have crafting mechanics also rely on the player actively searching for resources, since crafting directly increases your chances of survival and character progression.
These are naturally "survival" elements. I'm just saying that a lot of games lately, and probably NMS, rely on these elements. Survive these dangers we're constantly throwing at you, good luck. I guess Pac-Man can be described the same way, but these survival games consist of multiple, more "complex" mechanics that interact with each other to create unscripted, emergent situations, to create a story just by setting the stage without a script. I think NMS is trying to do the same thing. I keep comparing it to Far Cry 4, I guess simply because it's what I'm playing at the moment, but as a stupid example it's comparable to the constant eagle attacks. You run into random groups of freedom fighters, enemies patrol the wilds and run into one another causing conflicts, then an eagle appears and everybody goes batshit crazy and shoots the damn eagle that keeps attacking them and stealing pigs. There's an example of emergent gameplay (although it might be a tiny bit more scripted in FC4) that shows the story of the prevailing problem of eagles stealing pigs in Kyrat.
However, and this is probably what most people have a problem with, even with all the info we have so far, we don't really know what the main dangers and incentives are in this game, how they influence the minute-by-minute gameplay. We don't know if there's hunger, zombies at night etc. All we really do here is speculate, and we might have some educated guesses but we also probably don't have all of the info.
With what we do have, we might draw some conclusions and here's my take on it:
- In the beginning, the player is weak, has basic mining, scanning and combat possibilities. Has a ship (or not) that doesn't even have a hyperdrive, so he's only able to travel withing the solar system. You have a hint that you should probably, possibly go to the center of the galaxy, but you really probably don't ever have to do that. For some people, this is enough of an incentive. It says - don't stand still, you can be better and stronger, travel further, so work on that, it can be fun and rewarding for a while. Even in things like Proteus, you don't stand still, not because you're being chased by monsters, just because you can. What drives you is to discover what you can do, not what you're told to do. Sure, when people discover you don't do a whole lot more than walk, they are disappointed and drop Proteus, but that's Proteus' problem.
- This can quickly become boring and not enough though. So the player needs a push. We've established that the player starts exploring. He runs into creatures, different environments and things that earn him cash. Looking around and basic interaction (scan, arrive, shoot, mine) gives cash, and cash gives you those improvements, making you better and stronger. This is a hook that they need to pull off at least relatively well.
- Now that you earn cash by doing basic actions in order to progress, they introduce the dangers. Wild aggressive animals, toxic and radioactive environments, oxygen levels, robots actually punishing you for wanting to earn cash, space ships attacking you in space, all of them are obstacles to your established need to improve yourself. In fact, some of these obstacles are so dangerous that they require special gear and abilities that you don't have but can purchase with loads of cash and by finding the right dealer who's god knows where, on what planet.
- So you improve your gear, get new abilities, which open new doors and let you into areas and activities you haven't had access before. Maybe the ancient alien temples with artifacts holding information about the nature of the galaxy (they've mentioned those) are behind a perimeter of intense radiation, so you're able to get those much later as you upgrade your suit and ship. On top of that, you participate in little emergent situations like guarding a trading ship on its route (again, think of FC4's karma events but without the markers and info), making trading runs yourself, attacking a space station, enraging the local police and killing them (for loads of cash, and because you're an asshole), follow random ships to their docking station because you want to buy them etc. All of these little situations also earn you cash and some of them may even be crucial to improving your gear, like randomly bumping into an NPC ship that looks cool and very powerful, then following it dock to a station and buying it.
This gear improvement seems, to me at least, a key aspect of the game, one of the things that push you forward and something they're clearly implementing with a purpose in mind. If the dangers and challenges are difficult enough, this can be enough of an incentive in and of itself. It's what I dislike most in Ubisoft's open world games like AC or FC - you have tons of fun activities you can do, but the rewards are so insignificant because the dangers, money, equipment - they don't mean a thing. You can very easily breeze through the game without ever really worrying about survival and overcoming obstacles. Unlike, say, the Stalker series, where you have a lot of the similar mechanics in place, but you're constantly worried if you'll have enough food, health, ammo, whether you'll clumsily step into an anomaly that crushes you into a pulp or get killed by bandits etc.
And to finally get to your point about story, I think these simulated systems can tell the story of the common occurrences in No Man Sky's galaxy, which in turn give you better understanding of the nature of it all. I don't think we'll see a lot of text, if at all, no logs or journals, no alien bases with giant bosses to kill or anything like that. Although, those artifacts related to the nature of the galaxy are something more concise, maybe hints you can speculate on etc. Like having Dark Souls but without the item descriptions.
It's funny that we keep fielding questions about what the game is about. I do believe the developers are partly to blame in this. They have been purposefully vague which is frustrating to people. However, we have had multiple threads about this issue. In fact, I made one back in September (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=886607).
What people don't seem to get is that No Man's Sky belongs to the (Space Flight, Trading and Combat) genre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_flight_simulator_game#Space_trading_and_combat_simulator. However, the game is heavily marketed to be focused primarily on exploration and discovery.
This genre is very familiar with PC gamers. In fact Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen, and X Rebirth belong to this genre. Elite II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier:_Elite_II) had planetary landing all the way back in 1993. The technology in No Man's Sky isn't new. It has been done before. It has just been brought to console for the first time. No Man's Sky seems to be an arcade experience. If you want a "Hardcore" experience, get Elite Dangerous (which will get Planetary lading and explorations in an expansion) or Star Citizen. Also, the thing less frustrating about those games is that they were very open about what the game was from the beginning.
It depends on how they will do the narrative. If it is basically "go reach the galaxy" and you only get some story bits when you get there, then no, probably it is not my kind of game. If it is like I said above, maybe it is.
.
This is worth bringing up because some of those space sandbox games don't have main stories at all. The designers literally just ask you to "live" in their universes without pushing you towards one particular goal. They're totally built on you creating your own story. Outside getting to the center of the galaxy, this is what No Man's Sky is. We've already made comparisons to Minecraft and other open-world survival games. In these space-type games the main incentive is just getting more resources to get better equipment. In No Man's Sky it'll be that along with exploring more planets. Hopefully the procedurally generated planets don't get too repetitive after a while.
Also, if we're going to make comparisons to hand-crafted open-world games like Skyrim, a lot of people would agree that in some of these games the main quest is actually the least interesting part of the experience. A lot of people believe this is the case with Skyrim, Mass Effect 2, Far Cry 3, and Far Cry 4. A game like Far Cry 3 or Far Cry 4 would probably be just as good to a lot of people if it just dropped you in the world with all the side objectives to do and no linear main story.
I understand some people have to have a pre-written main story in their games. Pure sandbox games like space sims probably aren't for them.
From what has been said so far there is no real narrative, there are no 'quests' as such no real dialogue or communication to the player, it's up to you to discover any theme and overall basis to the galaxy as you go. Every player will get to the centre in their own time with their own experiences and own interpretation of what is/has happened.
You don't start with a 'oh it's you the one from the prophecy!' or any of that, you just start with a ship, on a planet and a galaxy to discover.
This is all from what we have heard so far, the game could still be a year away and HG are definitely holding story points back so I may be wrong in hindsight.
Game Informer said:Each one of those planets, which has been generated using a complex algorithm, is the size of a planet that you might find in our own solar system; dont expect Mario Galaxy-scaled spheroids.
Game Informer update on the galactic map: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2014/12/08/galactic-map-puts-scale-of-no-man-s-sky-in-perspective.aspx
During our demo of the map, Murray acknowledged a potential problem with its scale that we didnt anticipate. It turns out, they didnt think about it at first, either. There will actually be a thing that I never thought we would need, but then as soon as we put in the galactic map and started using it, it was like, Oh we need this. We're going to have a minimap for the galactic map down in the bottom left. Because right now I can't tell my orientation. And I can get lost; I can just kind of go down here, and now it's quite difficult for me to find the planet that I was just on. There will obviously be a button to send you back to where you are and a marker for that.
Game Informer update on the galactic map: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2014/12/08/galactic-map-puts-scale-of-no-man-s-sky-in-perspective.aspx
This doesn't seem to be the case given the planets we've seen.
Wow that gif of the galactic map...when I saw it in the trailer I thought it was just some random star graphics just for the purpose of the trailer. I had no idea that was the actual map.
One quote from this article stood out to me:
Glad to see they will make it easy to navigate the map. As it is now I can see how it would be easy to get lost.
Wow that gif of the galactic map...when I saw it in the trailer I thought it was just some random star graphics just for the purpose of the trailer. I had no idea that was the actual map.
One quote from this article stood out to me:
Glad to see they will make it easy to navigate the map. As it is now I can see how it would be easy to get lost.