-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
No Man's Sky Review Thread: The Scores Have Arrived (read OP)
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
They lied regarding the planetary physics though. They do not move, they do not rotate.
Actually sun is totally faked too.
semiconscious
Member
i'm wondering how much this has to do with each person's unique journey. as in, i started off on a shit toxic rain planet, & since then the planets have pretty much continued to get better'n'better, with the latest i've reached actually having trees, & some very cool wildlife running around. i'm thinking how different my overall impressions of the game'd be at this point if, say, this'd happened in reverse
...BassForever
Member
i'm wondering how much this has to do with each person's unique journey. as in, i started off on a shit toxic rain planet, & since then the planets have pretty much continued to get better'n'better, with the latest i've reached actually having trees, & some very cool wildlife running around. i'm thinking how different my overall impressions of the game'd be at this point if, say, this'd happened in reverse
Thats the problem with a game thats entierly procedurally generated some players are just going to get garbage rng that can cause even the most varied and fun PG game to feel extremely repetitive.
Thankfully I was able to recieve a full refund for the LE at Best Buy.
There's tons of potential here, but the game is much too dull at the moment. I'll gladly buy it again once the price drops to $20. I'm hoping, by that time, the team will be able to fix up their systems and add some substantial content.
There's tons of potential here, but the game is much too dull at the moment. I'll gladly buy it again once the price drops to $20. I'm hoping, by that time, the team will be able to fix up their systems and add some substantial content.
semiconscious
Member
exactly. particularly with a game like this one, that doesn't go out of its way to explain a whole lot, i can easily see a bad roll of the dice (as in, starting off with a dozen next-to-lifeless, ugly, barren planets) completely gutting someone's initial impressions...
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Yeah, it's okay maybe. At least with most games that do that, they're "hitting a stride" mechanically and narratively.
NMS really doesn't change after significant hours with it. So it barely applies anyhow. Like with mechanics, nothing really changes. You can just do some shit faster or more efficiently. Whoopdidoo.
Yep, sounds great really.
Wish my laptop wasn't so garbage that it can't run it lol.
foolishoptimist
Member
Usually an average of 7 allows a fairly small standard deviation across reviews.
This game swings wildly between 4-10/10. depending on the outlet.
Langdon Alger
Banned
It is though.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Asked in the OT, but might as well ask here. Anyone have success getting a return to Amazon under the complaint of defective/broken?
Current scores puts it in the bottom 43% on OpenCritic anyways.
Given the actual deviations of individual scores, it's not great.
Current scores puts it in the bottom 43% on OpenCritic anyways.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I was curious on a 100 point scale what the deviation is and by my shoddy math it's somewhere around 11.
I don't know when a 7 out of 10 became a bad score.
Didn't say it was great but in no way is a 7 out 10 a bad score.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
It's not bad, fine. But it's not really a "good" score either.
By the current scoring metrics (whether we like or not), the game is either average or slightly below average.
foolishoptimist
Member
Given the deviation on review scores, the average is meaningless. You need to understand why each reviewer gave the scores they gave to work out which applies more to you.
For my part, I knew I'd love the game from the first reveal. I wasn't looking for more game mechanics, I was gonna play it my own way anyway. But I'm someone who spends ages exploring every inch the levels in Uncharted looking for all the treasures. So I've been playing for a bit over 20 hours so far, but I've only visited 5 planets across 2 star systems so far. So I'm probably playing slower than an objective focused player would.
I spent 1-2 hours on my current planet without encountering any creatures, then I suddenly hit an area with 6 different species roaming around. Playing the game fast, I could easily have missed these.
Fredrik
Member
Yup.
Just hit 20 hours last night, nothing particular happened at 20 hours of course but this game has further solidified itself as my GOTY this year. Haven't spent this much of my free time playing a game since, well, can't even remember. 20 hours and I've had the game for 3 nights. For me this is some kind of record.
Still ticking off the checkboxes at my first 3 planets and space station, a few boxes left and a planned big upgrade on my ship, then I'm off to discover new solar systems. Wooo!
10/10
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Well, without the deviation, the point would be that you can't really trumpet a "7" as a "good" score by the current review scale distribution.
But yeah, I agree that the deviation is so wide as to render the average kind of worthless here. It really is a divisive game even with a kind of "average" Metascore.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I bet people would have been a LOT kinder if they didn't charge 60 bucks for it :/
They're getting way over their head, it seems.
They're getting way over their head, it seems.
I read the 10 point scale like I always have If 10 is the best 1 is the worst. That would make a 5 the middle point between great and terrible. How in the world can a 7 out of 10 be below average?
It also depends on how much time and money you have.
For me a 60$ 7/10 game is a bad deal when I can spend that money on better games.
The score is also lowish when compared to the, albeit unachievable, hype.
Personally, I think this is a great game to pick up during the Christmas break. If it isn't overshadowed by then.
depths20XX
Member
7/10 is about a 2 or 3 out of 5 in this days rating system. We're looking at about a 50 percent'er here.
A game has to be barely functioning or something to get a 5 by most reviewers standards.
A game has to be barely functioning or something to get a 5 by most reviewers standards.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I just explained it.
The current distribution of scores puts a 7/10 in the bottom 43% of all scores. A 7/10 by the current trends of scores is a below average score.
Crashed like six times in an hour for me. So pretty close to barely functioning in my eyes.
depths20XX
Member
Basically any rating below 5/10 doesn't exist anymore. This game has multiple ratings in the 9's and 8's.
That's crazy to me. When I think of a 9 or 8 I think of things like FFVI or Super Mario World. Certainly not a game that has major issues on PC and has severely over promised.
That's crazy to me. When I think of a 9 or 8 I think of things like FFVI or Super Mario World. Certainly not a game that has major issues on PC and has severely over promised.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Correct.
It's a shame that the review scale has standardized around something akin almost to a school grading scale, but it is what it is.
Agreed on the 9s though. Opinions and all of course, but crazy stuff.
I would imagine this post will get tarred with being hyperbole or shitposting, but I am going to post it anyway........
The fact that I keep seeing "GOTY material" and "Triumphs that should be applauded" in reviews, just reinforces the concern about how much of a mess the AAA games industry is in.
Basically we have a one trick pony, the only thing this game does that is even remotely revolutionary, is the space-planet-space transition, everything else has been done, and done much better, in other games.
I suppose that you could argue that the proc-gen engine is revolutionary, but at my mind it doesn't work as it was outlined to work in pre-release media, the engine appears to be just random, there is no overall universally law running through it, it doesn't produce coherent synergies between the planets atmosphere and it associated flora and fauna.
The fact that someone can buy this product for $60 and hold it up as a bastion of games design, in it's current state, I just find truly baffling.
For what the game is, I think a 7/10 is an amazing score.
The fact that I keep seeing "GOTY material" and "Triumphs that should be applauded" in reviews, just reinforces the concern about how much of a mess the AAA games industry is in.
Basically we have a one trick pony, the only thing this game does that is even remotely revolutionary, is the space-planet-space transition, everything else has been done, and done much better, in other games.
I suppose that you could argue that the proc-gen engine is revolutionary, but at my mind it doesn't work as it was outlined to work in pre-release media, the engine appears to be just random, there is no overall universally law running through it, it doesn't produce coherent synergies between the planets atmosphere and it associated flora and fauna.
The fact that someone can buy this product for $60 and hold it up as a bastion of games design, in it's current state, I just find truly baffling.
For what the game is, I think a 7/10 is an amazing score.
GeordieMark
Member
I agree with you. I find the EG 'Recommended' to be a bit of a joke review. I usually find EG reviews are pretty good, but they seem to have reviewed the idea rather than the execution here.
travisbickle
Member
From my experience, I disagree. There's a fair bit of logic to the star systems, a good slice of luck, and it's nice to have interactions with senior ranking officers where you have to choose between doing a little dance, a bow or starting a fight.
Honestly, I don't know if I'm the luckiest guy who's played this but at one point I thought the game was heavily scripted because of an interaction at a monolith.
I went to search for the rare material it wanted (I understood enough of the language) and there was literally one flower in the hole I was in, in the corner, a friggin' 20 metre-deep, 50 meter-wide hole in the ground of a desolate planet with a just a monolith and a carbon flower to give to it ... it was like a designer had hand-placed them. BUT it could be a freak of the random generation, I don't know? it works for me.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I think the engine and the tech are all pretty cool, maybe even revolutionary.
The execution is definitely lackluster though.
SolidChamp
Banned
The people in this thread want it to be a bad score, therefore it is. No use even trying to discuss otherwise.
Tomeru
Member
Only 9 out of 35 metacritic reviews give it below 70. It's a good score.
Thanks thats the one i was waiting for. Will pick it up later in a sale or something.
CecilRousso
Member
I haven't followed NMS preview enough to comment on that particular part. I just picked on the Fable 2 thing as an example of when there's a difference between lies and just not living up to expectations.
As far NMS, their does some to be some discrepancies between what's been said and what's been delivered. But I will wait a while before I attribute malice to it.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I don't want to endlessly debate this, but it's all dependent on what you think a 70 means in the current distribution of review scores.
It's obvious what Metacritic thinks the distribution is since the game is currently labeled with the "Mixed or Average" color and 19 out of 35 reviews are labeled as "mixed or average."
SlickShoes
Member
I don't like game so you shouldn't like game either!
I think the scoring is fairly accurate because it's the kind of experience that certain people enjoy and others find utterly tedious and completely pointless.
I spent ages in MMO's grinding reputation and materials, countless hours in Diablo running the same dungeons over and over. Grindy mechanics work for some people.
For me those mechanics are all fine, they aren't great but they are fine, the space stuff is cool, I wish it could be better, the traversal of the galaxy/universe could be better, the story could be better, there could be more multiplayer functionality.
The underlying tech and how they built the game is staggering, I don't know how anyone could consider it a failure of any kind.
7/10 seems about right as an average.
I'm enjoying every second I spend in the game, it's one of the most enjoyable things I have played this year, yet I can see it's flaws and understand why people won't like it.
I think the scoring is fairly accurate because it's the kind of experience that certain people enjoy and others find utterly tedious and completely pointless.
I spent ages in MMO's grinding reputation and materials, countless hours in Diablo running the same dungeons over and over. Grindy mechanics work for some people.
For me those mechanics are all fine, they aren't great but they are fine, the space stuff is cool, I wish it could be better, the traversal of the galaxy/universe could be better, the story could be better, there could be more multiplayer functionality.
The underlying tech and how they built the game is staggering, I don't know how anyone could consider it a failure of any kind.
7/10 seems about right as an average.
I'm enjoying every second I spend in the game, it's one of the most enjoyable things I have played this year, yet I can see it's flaws and understand why people won't like it.
Tomeru
Member
When gamespot gives the game 70 and calls it good, then as someone who grew up with gs and other big publications, a 70 is good. If JS, who is generaly more critical about big hyped up games, givs the game 50 - than 70 is good.
Multiplayer.it 7/10
http://multiplayer.it/recensioni/17...tempo-fa-in-una-galassia-lontana-lontana.html
God is a Geek 7.5/10
http://www.godisageek.com/reviews/mans-sky-review/
SpazioGames 7.5/10
http://www.spaziogames.it/recensioni_videogiochi/console_playstation_ps4/19713/no-man-s-sky.aspx
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 7.5/10
http://communityvoices.post-gazette...man-s-sky-review-big-bold-occasionally-boring
RocketChainsaw 4.5/5
http://www.rocketchainsaw.com.au/ps4/no-mans-sky-review-15816/
TheSixthAxis 7/10
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2016/08/15/no-mans-sky-review/
http://multiplayer.it/recensioni/17...tempo-fa-in-una-galassia-lontana-lontana.html
God is a Geek 7.5/10
http://www.godisageek.com/reviews/mans-sky-review/
SpazioGames 7.5/10
http://www.spaziogames.it/recensioni_videogiochi/console_playstation_ps4/19713/no-man-s-sky.aspx
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 7.5/10
http://communityvoices.post-gazette...man-s-sky-review-big-bold-occasionally-boring
RocketChainsaw 4.5/5
http://www.rocketchainsaw.com.au/ps4/no-mans-sky-review-15816/
TheSixthAxis 7/10
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2016/08/15/no-mans-sky-review/
Yeah I don't get it either. I think the reviews are far too lenient. The game has crashed 5 or 6 times for me. The gameplay is bare-bones and they are charging full price. I'd personally say 4/10 or 5/10. It isn't even the fact I don't like the game. There are plenty of games I don't but at least there is actual gameplay in those. It's like they just added stuff last minute.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
I'm anticipating another huge patch soon with more content (completely unsubstantiated - I just imagine there's one coming), I think they're stretched to the limit, unsurprisingly. It's insane how this indie game has been blown up into this monster. The game seems unfinished.
It's not crazy to me.
You have to realise for big publishers, they won't release a game which is 1-5(Broken ports aside). If they see it being that bad, they just won't release it.
Then there's the issue of reviewers not having the time to review the piles of trash which are on Steam Greenlight, the main place where there is the legitimately terrible 1-5 games.
Camp Freddie
Member
I think you need to be a very unusual person to like it (and I don't mean that in an insulting way).
For example, you've spent >20 hours on the first solar system. You've somehow upgraded your ship and stuff without even getting a hyperdrive (or maybe just not using it?)
I've seen a lot of gaffers say they've done 20+ hours on one planet, trying to "100%" it.
If you like that sort of thing and get a "good" planet, then you'll like the game, but that's hellishly repetitive and tedious for most people.
By comparison, I'd visited 3 solar systems in 3 hours. Instead of trying to catalogue every animal vegetable and mineral, I just fixed my ship and went exploring space.
Maybe some planets are super interesting, but the ones I've seen all look pretty much alike. One was green, and one had "no flora*", but they've all looked pretty similar.
I see the same plants on every planet, with only minor variations. The same "spiky cactus thing", "mushroom thing", "fan-shaped coral" and "generic alien tree" have appeared on almost every planet.
The animals had a bit more variation, but they seemed to be made from a very limited 'lego set', with a bit of RNG for size and colour.
The worst thing about the game is how repetitive stuff is. You spend loads of time visiting outposts and space stations and they are all 100% identical. There is literally one single "outpost building with an alien in it" design, that you'll see literally thousands of times on your way to the center of the universe. It's the exact same design, right down to the locations and orientations of the material containers and pot plants.
And PC performance is abysmal. The game is generally quite ugly, so it really shouldn't have trouble. You can get some great views, but they require you to use lighting effects (e.g. sunset) to hide the awful textures. And keep still too, because I've never played a game with such atrocious pop-in (and no, that's not hyperbole, I've literally neve seen pop-in that looks this bad).
Getting sidetracked a bit, but it's quite possible that the game gets better after 20 hours or so. But the reason it gets better is that after 20 hours of pointing a laser at a rock, and staring at inventory screens you'll have enough cash to upgrade your laser/ship/suit so that you can sit back, relax, and enjoy the sights instead of constantly being told "WARNING! [thing] is at [x]%" and "inventory full".
I think it's terrible game design when you basically have a 20 hour tutorial to remove the massive hamstrung penalties you start off with.
Despite all it's flaws, I'd really like to see someone give it the AAA treatment. The environments and animals are just too crude and poorly rendered for me to immerse myself in the exploration. It you had a team of 150 people working on improving the engine, making more 'templates' for the procedural generation to work on and making the planets conform to some sensible rules*, then it would be an amazing exploration game.
* I put "No flora" planet in air quotes, since it actually had several types of plants, and several species of herbivore so... *Gallic shrug*
Kill Screen 87/100
https://killscreen.com/articles/no-mans-sky-theater-processes/
https://killscreen.com/articles/no-mans-sky-theater-processes/
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I'm not sure if I'm just not being clear, but the point here isn't about the labels outlets use. Yes, an outlet may call a particular score "good" and if you want to use that metric, go ahead.
That wasn't really the thing we were discussing though. The issue is that their score falls within a statistical distribution of scores across all outlets. In the case of NMS, here's the where it falls in OpenCritic's current distribution.
Isn't it odd that being a 72 still leaves you in the bottom 46% of scores?
The annoying paradigm of modern reviews is that by most reasonable labeling ideas, we would want to call a 70/100 a "good" score (or whatever synonym you like). And most websites do use that kind of label. But the strange (and again annoying) thing is that "good" has become...average. GameSpot's average score is a 68, Push Square's average is a 67, Destructoid's is a 71, and so on.
The thing here is that most reviewers aren't actually reviewing gutter trash from Steam or wherever, so their average scores skew higher, which leads to a perception that a 70 is indeed "average." A 70 for a majorly marketed title would hardly be seen as a success anyways.
The other issue with saying "Oh a 70 is a good score for this game," is that it completely is ignoring the deviation of the scores composing that average. If you have two scores and one is a 10 and another a 4, telling you that the Metascore is 7 accomplishes literally nothing. If we had a 7 and a 7 and had an average of 7, fine. But we don't. What we have is a Metascore that somewhat masks the diversity of scores.
This is a big factor as well.
I'll be honest, I'm shocked that someone like Gareth with his background in writing liked this game.
Where did you see it being held up as a bastion in games design? I think even the people that love it, mostly love it despite itself.
Some reviews are using terms like "revolutionary" and "is a triumph to gaming".