• 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)

It's settling in at around 70%, which is pretty good.

It's better than a lot of other $60 games I've played and I can't stop playing it.

As long as Hello Games keeps adding new features every once in a while, I will continue to be very pleased with my purchase.
 

SomTervo

Member
I don't have the game so I don't know but can you not take off in atmos without it costing fuel? I understand interplanetary jumps costing fuel, but going around planet should be minimal at best if any.

Yes you can, contrary to what the other poster said. If you land near a 'buoy beacon' or land on a ship platform on a planet, you can take off without fuel.

Otherwise fuel for your launch thrusters required.

But when it all feels the same...

It feels the same like 80% of the time but you do get really amazing moments where you see new lore or a new kind of place or something crazy and new happens. Those moments make it worth it IMO.

Plus the sense of scale and place is unparalleled. It's uncanny.
 

heringer

Member
Metascore is 71 now with 37 reviews.

Hey, already better than a favorite of mine, Mad Max, which was criticized for similar reasons.
 
Wow, fascinatingly polarising. Really interesting to see who it landed for and who found it too shallow.

I think this is the key to all the reviews, and people still on the fence about the game. To some, it's exactly what they wanted and expected as Sean Murray stated, and that's perfect to them. For others, it's left them wanting more, bare, and bored after doing the "same thing" everytime.

I for one have been hooked. I'm not expecting some grand spin or story to grip me by my ears to keep playing; no, I've been hooked because the exploring, the mining, the wandering around aimlessless, the upgrading, etc has been a fun and easy thing to just jump right into whenver I'm bored.
 

T.O.P

Banned
I've gone through like 6 Steam tickets, no refund. I can only hope the game un-fucks itself.
Sucks, had a friend get a refound yesterday with 4 hours of playtime

Guess they got way more request then expected and started being more strict
 

Arozay

Member
Sucks, had a friend get a refound yesterday with 4 hours of playtime

Guess they got way more request then expected and started being more strict

Do you know which reason he used? I've tried most of them so far.

I tried to enjoy the game, but it just wasn't running well. Plus I realised I was just hopping between copy-paste outposts where I knew where the loot/npcs would be every time.
 

Cth

Member
Sucks, had a friend get a refound yesterday with 4 hours of playtime

Guess they got way more request then expected and started being more strict

There were a lot of people on 4chan planning on getting the game, giving it a negative review and then getting a refund.

Sucks that it's affected people who wanted legit refunds.
 

Aaron D.

Member
I think his review best described it, once I got to the 20 hour mark it got better.

Can you articulate why exactly? As in: Before 20 hrs. < After 20 hrs.

Honest question.

I want to believe.

Feel free to Spoiler it if you want. I'm not even worried about spoilers at this point.

( *Reposting for a second time in hopes that someone will bite. Thanks!)
 

danowat

Banned
Can you articulate why exactly? As in: Before 20 hrs. < After 20 hrs.

Honest question.

I want to believe.

Feel free to Spoiler it if you want. I'm not even worried about spoilers at this point.

( *Reposting for a second time in hopes that someone will bite. Thanks!)

I believe it's the point where inventory space becomes less restrictive.
 

Kacho

Member
Can you articulate why exactly? As in: Before 20 hrs. < After 20 hrs.

Honest question.

I want to believe.

Feel free to Spoiler it if you want. I'm not even worried about spoilers at this point.

( *Reposting for a second time in hopes that someone will bite. Thanks!)

I can only assume it's because inventory becomes less of an annoyance and tools upgrades make gathering stuff more efficient so you're able to hop from place to place at a much quicker rate, which would make sense in a game that is heavily exploration based.
 

T.O.P

Banned
Do you know which reason he used? I've tried most of them so far.

I tried to enjoy the game, but it just wasn't running well. Plus I realised I was just hopping between copy-paste outposts where I knew where the loot/npcs would be every time.
He specified technical issues afaik

I'll ask if he added anything else
 

Nameless

Member
Can you articulate why exactly? As in: Before 20 hrs. < After 20 hrs.

Honest question.

I want to believe.

Feel free to Spoiler it if you want. I'm not even worried about spoilers at this point.

( *Reposting for a second time in hopes that someone will bite. Thanks!)

Inventory space becomes a non issue, and you have the technology to reach star systems with increased resources and more complex planets. Surviving various hazarsds is also easier thanks to suit upgrades.
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Metacritic is at a 70 now 7 out 10 isn't a bad score at all.

No, no it's not. It's also not a particularly good score either.

In the end we got a pretty ambitious but flawed game. I think we all thought we'd get a flawed game, my personal feelings are that I wish it was less of a tediously flawed game.
 

heringer

Member
The inventory issues was a bit overblown. Granted, you have to know what to look for, but if you keep looking for drop pods (by activating that light beam) you find a bunch of exosuit upgrades that expand your inventory even in the first planet.

I thought inventory is a LOT more restritive in Subnautica, where I can't even sell my shit.
 

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!

Funny enough, I think this is the first game I have ever played that I both love and hate equally at the same time.

You can't help but love the sheer scale of the game. You see this massive planet in the distance and if you really want to, you can go ahead and land there. Now that you've landed, do you see the planet's moon? Well you can just go ahead and take off towards it and land there as well. It's really impressive.

What you do when you land, that's a different story, because it's the exact same thing on every planet, you mine for shit, maybe learn some of the alien languages and... Ya

Also don't like or see the point of the space battles either. It seems almost impossible to win when you're outnumbered(and it's almost impossible to run away when you're engaged), and even if you die there's no punishment, it just seems like they're there to massively waste your time and artifically increase the length of the game.
 

Zafir

Member
The inventory issues was a bit overblown. Granted, you have to know what to look for, but if you keep looking for drop pods (by activating that light beam) you find a bunch of exosuit upgrades that expand your inventory even in the first planet.

I thought inventory is a LOT more restritive in Subnautica, where I can't even sell my shit.

As you say the problem is knowing what to look for, and on some planets exploring is a pain.

I started on a radioactive planet, and the start wasn't fun at all because of it. I was constantly having to run towards caves every now and then to recharge my shield. Mean while my inventory was filling up.

I didn't even realise you could get suit upgrades from drop pods until 2 or 3 hours into it and I was talking to a friend about it. Just hadn't found a drop pod up until that point.
 

Aaron D.

Member
Thanks for the replies, gang.

Sounds like the fiddly bits are alleviated farther in. Like the crafting/inventory management gets out of its own way after x amount of hours.

Wonder if HG will drop a patch to make the early-game less tedious?
 

Kacho

Member
Man, No Man's Sky is massive on Steam. Review numbers comparison for recent big games this gen:

Fallout 4 70k reviews
Witcher 3 47k reviews
No Man's Sky 36k reviews (after 3 days!!!)

Other popular survival games:

Ark 85k
Rust 142k
Subnautica 18k

If HG supports provides meaningful content updates on the regular, NMS will continue to sell like crazy.
 

SomTervo

Member

It reads like he considers the landscapes as the narrative.
Yeah it's a really interesting perspective and not what I expected from him.

Really good piece - and his perspective is very interesting.

On the wall of my living room I have, tacked up among other images of real space exploration, a picture of a sunset on Mars. Out of almost every photograph of space and the planetary bodies of our solar system I find this one the most magnetic. It&#8217;s not unlike a sunset on Earth, albeit one that&#8217;s muted and faded, its sun perhaps subtly smaller, more distant. The saw-toothed edge of the dusty desert it shines on is inseparable from our own landscapes, the shapes so familiar as to give a sense of place; perhaps the Mojave or Sahara. The only thing that is undeniably alien is the color of its sky. Almost all of it is a dusty ochre, apart from above the white disk of the sun where it is bursting into a blotch of purest cyan blue. No matter how many times I look at that image I can&#8217;t resolve the presence of that blue. It&#8217;s a reversal of how I know a sunset to be, the blue of a summer&#8217;s sky somehow glowing inside a horizon of brown. This is the contradiction at the heart of this image: it is intimately familiar (how many sunsets have we seen in our lives? Are they not the most everyday form of wonder?) and yet powerfully strange. And by looking at it I feel both closer to that red planet and more distant from its unremarkable surface than I have ever felt.

That feeling of distance and closeness, of familiarity and strangeness, is at the core of the landscapes of No Man&#8217;s Sky. Perhaps unexpectedly, my impression after 40 odd hours in its universe is of a game preoccupied by landscape.

That really nails it. Sure, each planet's shapes and types are usually familiar, but the individual configurations and positions and styles within each are surprising in small, quirky ways. You have to look at the landscape closely to see how unique each individual little part - each cove and gorge and pleateau - is it's own place in the entire universe. The familiarity:strangeness dichotomy is really important to the game's experience.

Also a good description of the bizarre principle behind the mechanics:

We aren&#8217;t given this universe as our plaything, to glide through as we please, instead, we are shackled to this dysfunctional being and their fragile frame. No Man&#8217;s Sky might have been discussed as a &#8220;survival&#8221; game, but perhaps &#8220;maintenance&#8221; would be a better word for its constant onset of depleting bars. Like an astronaut on the ISS, whose daily routine is precisely configured to prevent muscle wastage, boredom, and the decay of their equipment, No Man&#8217;s Sky keeps you busy, nudging you to refill your life support, power your protective shields, refuel your mining laser, and manage your inventory. Like Murray&#8217;s window, this set of constrictions feels reassuring rather than annoying, routine rather than threatening. It, too, staves off the vertigo of the game&#8217;s apparent scale.

They absolutely feel constricting and they feel at odds with how physically easy it is to move around, but somehow that provides contrast to the experience. You spend hours focused, head down on finding a specific mineral you need, then when you take a breath and raise your head you see this amazing place around you. And you spend just a little while feeling around it with your mind before delving back into practicalities and logistics.

Edit: Wow, yeah, this really gets it:

We often forget that games are imaginative acts. Perhaps most of us have been playing too long to notice how we unsee pure function, and elevate fiction, coloring the gaps left between the idea and its technical implementation. As in theater, games require a certain &#8220;suspension of disbelief,&#8221; a desire to &#8220;go-along&#8221; with the rules of their worlds even if they seem unreal to us. But above and beyond this they also require imaginative investment, for us to take their often stilted worlds and invest them with the richness of life. For No Man&#8217;s Sky, this investment of imagination is the difference between life and death

That's core to the love/hate thing I think. If it captures your imagination, even in a transient way, it's great. If it doesn't, it's not.
 

Loudninja

Member
IBTimes UK 8/10
No Man's Sky is about cutting your own path through a galaxy teeming with possibilities. It is a playground in which to let loose the human urge to explore and discover, supported by a deep crafting system that keeps players engaged in their journey. Improvements could be made, new features could add greater depth, but Hello Games' achievement here is nothing short of incredible.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk//no-mans-s...entire-stunning-galaxy-explore-ps4-pc-1576146

The Daily Dot 6/10
http://www.dailydot.com/parsec/no-mans-sky-review/

The Telegraph 4/5
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gaming/what-to-play/no-mans-sky-review/

M3 8/10
http://m3.idg.se/2.1022/1.663456/no-mans-sky
 
I like the aesthetic but man sometimes this game is so fugly. Especially when flying around. When you can see everything being generated in real time it ruins the illusion. No interesting landmarks. No distinct biomes. When you have something like mine craft this game is simply just not impressive. The number of planets doesn't matter. It's utterly pointless. Also the creature generation is super unimpressive. Beaver lizards and bird squirrels. It got old after the second creature I discovered. This game doesn't even do a whole lot or have many intertwining systems so the fact that none of them are even really well done is sad. Just my impressions of course. I've seen some redditors stumble upon some interesting procedurally generated stuff but for the most part it's all just a poorly constructed illusion. When you consider that an illusion is all most games try to be then that makes this a failure in my mind. Still playing though! Game isn't terrible by any means. Just disappointing even with my super low expectations.
 
I like the aesthetic but man sometimes this game is so fugly. Especially when flying around. When you can see everything being generated in real time it ruins the illusion. No interesting landmarks. No distinct biomes. When you have something like mine craft this game is simply just not impressive. The number of planets doesn't matter. It's utterly pointless. Also the creature generation is super unimpressive. Beaver lizards and bird squirrels. It got old after the second creature I discovered. This game doesn't even do a whole lot or have many intertwining systems so the fact that none of them are even really well done is sad. Just my impressions of course. I've seen some redditors stumble upon some interesting procedurally generated stuff but for the most part it's all just a poorly constructed illusion. When you consider that an illusion is all most games try to be then that makes this a failure in my mind. Still playing though! Game isn't terrible by any means. Just disappointing even with my super low expectations.

It's funny that I agree with all of this, and yet I'm still having a good time with the game. I worried that all the planets and their features and lifeforms would be "samey" and uninteresting, and they are. I've hit maybe 25 planets now, and exploring 1 square mile of each planet is just like exploring the whole thing. Every organism is ubiquitous across the entire globe. All the absurd cookie-cutter animals are wandering back and forth, doing nothing. Cold planets only say they're cold, they don't look it. When the game says there's a storm, it doesn't mean loss of visibility or mobility due to rain, snow, or wind, it just means a meter on the screen is going to deplete faster. There are no mountain ranges, no continents, no oceans. The total variance in elevation on any planet is probably 1,000 meters, if that. Every planet has life in varying degrees, even if it's just the exact same zinc and platinum plants. Every planet is covered in plutonium crystals, and a smattering of other random mineral deposits.

And worst of all: every planet is already discovered, already populated with intelligent lifeforms, with spaceships coming and going. The game says they are not, but flying down to a planet covered in buildings, with beings ready to trade with you and robots watching your every move puts the lie to that notion. The idea that "exploring" the planet consists of activating machinery already in place makes the game like a galaxy-wide Easter egg hunt: the other alien races have seeded every single planetary body in existence with identical buildings: trading posts each manned by exactly one individual willing to have one short exchange, monoliths holding exactly one word to be learned, pods which magically allow you to hold one more piece of jewelry (or a couple hundred pounds of plutonium). You're not even "exploring" in the Christopher Columbus sense of the word, dismissing the natives as beneath you. No, the aliens who arrived before you are generously allowing you to look around, helping or disciplining you as necessary, like parents watching their children look for Easter eggs.

The game utterly fails to deliver an interesting universe, or a convincing one. It fails to deliver the variety - of anything - that even a tiny sample of our own small planet has, much less our entire planet or solar system. There is no lifeless Mars with Olympus Mons dominating its landscape in this game, no gaseous Jupiter, nor its collection of unique worlds in its orbit. There's no New York City, no Eiffel Tower, no Grand Canyon or Red Sea or Amazon River.

And yet, despite all that, I can't say I didn't enjoy myself. It may just have been an illusion, as I slowly realized everything above, combined with the enjoyment derived from progressing through an upgrade loop, finding stuff that makes finding more stuff more efficient and watching numbers go upwards. But I did have some fun. And I hope future games can build on the technology and deliver some actual variety rather than just a shallow illusion of it.
 

Figboy79

Aftershock LA
Metascore is 71 now with 37 reviews.

Hey, already better than a favorite of mine, Mad Max, which was criticized for similar reasons.


I bought Mad Max during that sale when it was like, $16 or something, and I only got to play for maybe three or so hours, but it's pretty cool! I had my eye on it back before release, but wasn't sure how good it would be. Reviews literally mean nothing to me when it comes to influencing buying decisions, but I held off on MM because of budget (I try not to spend too much on games a year, and I've also been trying to cut back on adding to my backlog). With that said, that sale was too hard to pass up.

I really dig the tone and feel of the game, despite some weird as fucking controller choices. I also really like the car combat. I think a 7/10 is a pretty good score, actually. For me, that always seems to indicate a game that has some jank in some ways, but if you're a fan of the genre/license, you'll probably get a kick out of it.

I actually think that applies to No Man's Sky as well. Enjoyable game, especially if you're a fan of the genre, but it's also rough around the edges, with some jank and odd design choices here and there. I don't give scores in my reviews, but I think a 7/10 is fair, personally.
 

Fredrik

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.
I definitely got a nice starter planet, lots of trading and lots of animals, couldn't ask for a better start to be honest, I was hooked right away. I don't see what's the big deal with upgrading the spaceship without the hyperdrive, there are tons of stuff scattered around all the planets I've seen so far, blueprints for upgrades, new exosuits and crashed spaceships for "upgrading" without the need for a ton of money, etc.

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.
You can do that in any game but I'd say that you're always missing lots of stuff doing it that way unless the game is extremely linear. 100-percenting NMS isn't something even worth considering though but 1 hour for each solar system? You're barely seeing even a fragment of the planets.

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.
I've only visited 3 planets so far but I've seen a few different type of buildings and interiors, I think there are maybe 3 or 5 variations for buildings with aliens inside on my planets. And there are tiny shelters,signal towers, smaller trading outposts, bigger trading spots, "huge" bases with waiting halls connected with 5 or so landing pads, monoliths, ruins, crashed ships, dropships, etc so I don't think your summary of the variations are quite fair even though I kind of agree on some of your points. It definitely lacks variations in that area, no doubt, but personally I don't think it's game breaking. And maybe it's something that could be corrected in an update?

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.
I found it rewarding to not be able to hoard stuff like many other games but having to plan ahead and focus on one upgrade at a time, search for dropships with new exosuit upgrades and crashed spaceships for bigger ships. But I understand if you don't share my view with only 1 hour per solar system, you're basically rushing the game like you're doing a speed run from my point of view. :/
 
Ouch. Some of those reviews are harsh but justifiably so. I really like No Man's Sky but there is a fundamental problem of a lack of content. I can't even consider it a sandbox as there's really no 'sand'. There's nothing to sculpt and call your own like in minecraft. Nothing to "do" like in an open world sandbox game other than scavenge-hunt.
 
After maybe 24 in game hours, ~40/50 systems explored i've grown a little "tired" of NMS.

I love the idea of the game but i think it's a little flawed at it's core. There isnt much to explore after you've been to a few dozen planets in different systems. Lots of repeating and things are far too similar to remain truly interesting IMHO. The navigation system is supremely disappointing as well after now experiencing it.

It seems that every star or system on the galactic map is just a visual representation of a number value of 1 through 18XXXXXXXXX (however many zeros it is lol) where upon our little local system is re-arranged to the "content" as determined by their algorithms when we "warp".

I cannot freely travel from one end to the other via any type of propulsion so in this sense it's really just taking the "local playspace" and changing the variables every time we click on a new star/system to warp. Thats really a bummer.
 

Dargor

Member
That this game even gets to be 70+ in MC after the bashing it received is more impressive to me than anything you can or can't do in it.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
No, no it's not. It's also not a particularly good score either.

In the end we got a pretty ambitious but flawed game. I think we all thought we'd get a flawed game, my personal feelings are that I wish it was less of a tediously flawed game.

It's now at a 72. It's basically an average game with some redeeming qualities and some flaws.

At this point they just have to work on making the game better and expanding what you can do. They'll be fine.
 

rog3r

Neo Member
After maybe 24 in game hours, ~40/50 systems explored i've grown a little "tired" of NMS.

I love the idea of the game but i think it's a little flawed at it's core. There isnt much to explore after you've been to a few dozen planets in different systems. Lots of repeating and things are far too similar to remain truly interesting IMHO. The navigation system is supremely disappointing as well after now experiencing it.

It seems that every star or system on the galactic map is just a visual representation of a number value of 1 through 18XXXXXXXXX (however many zeros it is lol) where upon our little local system is re-arranged to the "content" as determined by their algorithms when we "warp".

I cannot freely travel from one end to the other via any type of propulsion so in this sense it's really just taking the "local playspace" and changing the variables every time we click on a new star/system to warp. Thats really a bummer.

This is exactly the way I feel. I sold my copy this weekend after playing for about 25 hours since Tuesday. The crashes are what sealed the deal for me
 

Figboy79

Aftershock LA
Ouch. Some of those reviews are harsh but justifiably so. I really like No Man's Sky but there is a fundamental problem of a lack of content. I can't even consider it a sandbox as there's really no 'sand'. There's nothing to sculpt and call your own like in minecraft. Nothing to "do" like in an open world sandbox game other than scavenge-hunt.


I hate sand, though. It's course, and rough, and gets everywhere.
 
Ouch. Some of those reviews are harsh but justifiably so. I really like No Man's Sky but there is a fundamental problem of a lack of content. I can't even consider it a sandbox as there's really no 'sand'. There's nothing to sculpt and call your own like in minecraft. Nothing to "do" like in an open world sandbox game other than scavenge-hunt.
We've talked about this earlier, and I really agree the more I play the game. Considering how open the game is, I feel very little ownership of my experience. Adding ship building/customization or such would have gone a long ways to alleviating the lack of creative outlets in the game.
 
It's now at a 72. It's basically an average game with some redeeming qualities and some flaws.

At this point they just have to work on making the game better and expanding what you can do. They'll be fine.

If they add content over time then absolutely. I don't intend to sell the game but I don't see myself playing in another two weeks.

They can turn this problem around by hammering out some good quality core content. Considering what they changed and added after the "leak" I hope they can release a few more updates that fundamentally change the game compared to what I'm experiencing now.
 

Figboy79

Aftershock LA
If they add content over time then absolutely. I don't intend to sell the game but I don't see myself playing in another two weeks.

They can turn this problem around by hammering out some good quality core content. Considering what they changed and added after the "leak" I hope they can release a few more updates that fundamentally change the game compared to what I'm experiencing now.

That's kind of a brainer given not only the success of the game financially, but many, many interviews from Sean Murray where he says he'd love to continue working on NMS and adding things to it.

Those changes in the day 1 patch weren't in response to the leak, either. They had been working on that update since the game went gold (I think Sean said on twitter they had worked on that update for a month). I imagine that those day 1 updates were always in the cards, and they worked really hard to have it ready day 1. I'm very optimistic for the future of this game when it comes to content updates. They're a 12 person team, and they've been working on this game for 4+ years. I'm sure they'd have loved to put in a ton of content and features, but realistically, this is what they could get done by launch. I imagine Sony wasn't too keen on giving them another year to work on it. It seems like there was intense pressure to get the game out in 2016.

I've worked in the gaming industry for a little over a decade, and to be honest, we'd work on games forever if we could. There's always something that can be polished, refined, bug squashed, etc, etc. I have a feeling if Sean Murray and Hello Games weren't partnered with Sony, No Man's Sky would still be unreleased, and they'd still be working on polishing it and adding content. Like a baby, it has to be born sometime. I'm glad that the game was able to release this year, and I'm glad they were able to update it day 1 with content that significantly improves the game (I can't even imagine playing it with a 100 capacity limit. 250 suit, and 500 ship is great). I think the game is rough, despite loving it to death, but I know that more improvements are coming. HG doesn't seem to be tired of the game yet, even if they need to take a fucking vacation and recover. 12 people created a universe using math. Regardless of how may gameplay bells and whistles No Man's Sky has or doesn't have currently, that's pretty cool.

I remember thinking they'd never pull it off when I heard about the team size and ambitions for the game. I'm pleasantly surprised.
 

flkraven

Member
Based on all these reviews, it's really feeling like 7/10 is just the safe score. Especially when you see the actual write ups and wonder how that translates to a 7/10.
 
That's kind of a brainer given not only the success of the game financially, but many, many interviews from Sean Murray where he says he'd love to continue working on NMS and adding things to it.

Those changes in the day 1 patch weren't in response to the leak, either. They had been working on that update since the game went gold (I think Sean said on twitter they had worked on that update for a month). I imagine that those day 1 updates were always in the cards, and they worked really hard to have it ready day 1. I'm very optimistic for the future of this game when it comes to content updates. They're a 12 person team, and they've been working on this game for 4+ years. I'm sure they'd have loved to put in a ton of content and features, but realistically, this is what they could get done by launch. I imagine Sony wasn't too keen on giving them another year to work on it. It seems like there was intense pressure to get the game out in 2016.

I've worked in the gaming industry for a little over a decade, and to be honest, we'd work on games forever if we could. There's always something that can be polished, refined, bug squashed, etc, etc. I have a feeling if Sean Murray and Hello Games weren't partnered with Sony, No Man's Sky would still be unreleased, and they'd still be working on polishing it and adding content. Like a baby, it has to be born sometime. I'm glad that the game was able to release this year, and I'm glad they were able to update it day 1 with content that significantly improves the game (I can't even imagine playing it with a 100 capacity limit. 250 suit, and 500 ship is great). I think the game is rough, despite loving it to death, but I know that more improvements are coming. HG doesn't seem to be tired of the game yet, even if they need to take a fucking vacation and recover. 12 people created a universe using math. Regardless of how may gameplay bells and whistles No Man's Sky has or doesn't have currently, that's pretty cool.

I remember thinking they'd never pull it off when I heard about the team size and ambitions for the game. I'm pleasantly surprised.

I hope their lean team size doesn't prevent them from pumping out content in a timely manner.
 

Griss

Member
Can you articulate why exactly? As in: Before 20 hrs. < After 20 hrs.

Honest question.

I want to believe.

Feel free to Spoiler it if you want. I'm not even worried about spoilers at this point.

( *Reposting for a second time in hopes that someone will bite. Thanks!)

I see that a lot of people have given you the obvious inventory answer but for me that's not exactly it.

Instead, it's your relationship with the algorithm that determines your enjoyment with the game. The game is the algorithm, the algorithm is the game.

When you start, you are astonished at this procedurally generated world you find yourself on. Every cave, ravine, lake, animal is some kind of miracle. An hour or two of wonderment later you take off and fly around your starter planet. You realise that it's really all just one biome repeated endlessly. Well, whatever, it's still incredible. You go to a second planet. The colours are different, the flora are different, you see a different building, a different monolith. Wow! It's so new and exciting! Maybe it's barren. Maybe it's lush. It's new.

You build a warp drive and travel to a new system. New aliens! Space battles! New planets! Meeting atlas and starting the main quest! The thrill of the new is still there, 5 hours in. But already you're realising that the pool of buildings you visit on the surface is quite shallow and you may have seen them all, that each planet has plutonium, iron and carbon, that each planet with flora has a 'rock', 'small rock', 'tree' etc. Patterns emerge.

Then the grind begins. Right when you start to see the seams in the algorithm is when you'll have gathered enough stuff that the inventory becomes a problem. The game becomes a drag. You visit planet after planet and see little that surprises you. You learn what the game can and can't generate.

You hit 20 hours. Or 25. Or whenever.

And THEN - here's the thing. You've learned what the game can and can't generate, but only from a limited selection of 20 or so planets. So you convince yourself that you've seen it all - you really believe that - but you've only seen 90-95%. That's most of it. But not all. So now, you go down to a planet, knowing exactly what you'll find... but on that rare occasion that the algorithm throws out an outlier you are now surprised again, just like you were at the start.

At the start you were surprised because you had no idea what was possible. Now you're surprised because you thought you knew what was possible. Massive megafauna, floating jellyfish made of special elements, frozen ice wastes that kill you in seconds - there's a ton of outliers that you have yet to see - and seeing them becomes the point of the game. Seeing rare, beautiful or unusual stuff becomes like getting rare loot in an RPG. And at this point you're not quite as bothered about the lame main quest or inventory worries.

Many people don't make it through that mid point, or decide that whatever outliers and weird stuff the game has left to show them isn't worth it. That's an entirely fair conclusion. For me, it absolutely has been worth it. At some point that will end. But not yet.
 

LifEndz

Member
Sean Murray and his team should be proud. For something so ambitious and with such a small team to receive 7's is really cool. Curious to see how they improve upon it going forward.
 
Top Bottom