Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Geltor]

One game immediately comes to mind.
Shores of Hazeron.

A game where creatures, planets, and solar systems are randomly generated. I know, people can argue that it's not the best implementation or whatever, but at its core, its the same. Except Hazeron's randomly generated content just serves as a setting for the game. Not the point of the game. Sure, No Man Sky's generation may be better than Hazeron (I haven't paid enough attention to the specifics to be sure), but as I said, they're the same in their core.

Well-done procedural generation can serve as a nice setting, but when the entire point of the game is to explore this procedurally generated content, it'll get tiring quick. As I said, it'll just end up like "Oh wow, that's a new pattern of trees that I've already individually seen!"

But I'm missing my own point here. Regardless of how well done the procedural generation is, or even if it's done perfectly and every planet is completely new, people are still overhyping it as THE NEXT BIG GAME. And it's just a bit of space combat with procedurally generated exploration? There's only a certain amount of things you can explore and discover before you get tired of doing the exact same action over and over again, no matter how different each planet is.
Better yet, see what Neonivek just said in the time it took me to type this out.

This is frighteningly accurate now that I think about it. There have been 0.0 games who succeeded because their main stand out was "randomly-generated!!"

[Cthulhu]

In the past hour there have been multiple negative posts in a row. That's a sudden increase of sodium levels in my book.

'sides, game doesn't come out for a few months and there's sure to be more coverage of it. How's about we wait and see how it looks in, say, May?

Negative opinion = salt

[GrayFox]

I think people are just weary because of how many failed kickstarter and early access games there have been. I can understand that. I'm kinda cautious of early access stuff now. However, it doesn't  really mean every game will turn out like that! This game seems like it will have almost everything I wished I could do in Noctis, plus some things I hadn't considered. (though still hoping for Noctis V.... someday. Hopefully.) It really leaves me wondering if, or how much, Sean Murray played Noctis.

[miauw62]

Procedural generation has never not been disappointing. Big-budget titles have never been known for being innovative. In my eyes, it's good when used responsibly and backed up by other game mechanics. Graphics alone can't carry a game, and neither can procedural generation.

This game is focusing so much on the "MILLION MILLION MILLION TOTALLY UNIQUE WORLDS" part that it's hard to imagine the game won't be completely in service of that and people will be paying 60 dollars for a walking simulator and the ability to name worlds "deez nuts" or "alderaan".

Either that or the worlds will all feel extremely samey.

[Gabeux]

Still, I don't get this criticism. People seem to be criticising the marketing here more than the game. The marketing is stupid, yes, as most games that reaches mainstream attention are. NMS was going to be a indie gem thing until mainstream media got all crazy about it for some reason.

Watching Sean Murray on and off since the game has been announced, he always tried to contain hype and to tell what the game's about and what's not.
He's aware of how exploration can end up becoming boring - that's why travel times are almost instant. Then you get people complaining about instant travel times, that's why there are destinations that might take more than a few minutes to fly to (I heard he saying he took 7 minutes to reach a certain far away planet)..then you get people like me who get pissed off at games like Elite where you can jump between stars, but certain stations are inexplicably 10+ minutes away from the jump drop point for no effing reason.
He's also aware how things might get repetitive, that's why they didn't give much of the game away to the press until they felt happy with the diversity and uniqueness of the content. Given the seemingly perfectionism and nerdiness of Sean, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt before claiming the game's main selling point is gonna suck. But that's just me.

This feels different from Spore because not only EA was marketing it as the One Game To Rule Them All, Will Wright was hyping it up to no end too. Here I see a team worried about letting people know what the game's about.. but of course, their partnership (or whatever) with Sony would most definitely make their marketing be the most over-the-top thing ever. Gotta get that unsuspecting casual money$$$$$$$$!

I'd be much more worried by certain statements from them, like "We didn't add gas giants because there's no gameplay or features to be had in those", which - at least in my head - sounds insane when you're doing a game about the exploration of space. I'm hoping that was a joke, and I'm hoping the unrealistic proximity and orbits between objects on trailers and demos are just for the demos - which Sean assured it was, but I'm skeptic.
I also have a feeling since the beggining that they wanted to go all out to make this big game as a complete package - no matter how big or small the package is - so for some reason I don't think the game will have many content updates and whatnot. I could be completely wrong, of course.

And I don't think you'll be able to name worlds. I remember reading something about automatic latin names being assigned but your name will appear on the screen next to your discoveries.

[Tilla]

Procedural generation has never not been disappointing. Big-budget titles have never been known for being innovative.

The first sentence here is the most ironic thing said on the dwarf fortress forums ever.

The second is wrongheaded in every way, this game is made by like 10 people, thats lightyears from 'big-budget'

[Chiefwaffles]

Try reading the sentence after your quote?

In my eyes, it's good when used responsibly and backed up by other game mechanics.

[LoSboccacc]

so this game is mostly about exploring and naming things and being first?

that'd explain why they needed to up the planet numbers, so that later joiners have something to do... except if someone could write a bot to explore random places at computer time

but anyway, being that many also means finding the planet of someone else has a very little chance, say you managed to name a couple thousand planets in a run, the chance of your planet being discovered by another player are almost lottery like, unless they have a frontier structure of sort.

I really can't get what this game is all about. procedural generation is usually the backdrop, not the main point.

also, I want to see that planet number claim tested. if each planet is generated from that number to seed a prng, there are going to be a huge amount of collisions and repeating sequences around.

[Beggars` Sect]

I really can't get what this game is all about.

I`m watching this whole brouhaha about NMS with certain amazement and fascination. It`s one of these things in gaming world that some neuro or socio -logist could base a paper on.

I mean, okay, up till about a week ago it was uncertain what this project will entail regarding gameplay, which is why I didn`t pay that much attention to it...sure, there were enough red flags pointing to another hipster "exploration" junk devoid of gameplay. Still, even so I`d say that amount of nonsense and flammability written about it was quite disproportionate - probably down to the fact it was a big Sony exclusive, which for some is a red cape, not a flag.

However now we had the news blowout... read this for example: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/how-to-play-no-mans-sky-a-detailed-breakdown/1100-6435316/ Long story short, there`s tons of things to do and mechanics governing gameplay: survival, exploration, combat, discovery, destructible environments, police wanted levels, trade, alien linguistics, factions.... NMS is genuinely extremely exciting now. Sure, it can still turn out to be a turd, but not because it`s another walking sim.

But that won`t stop folks banging on about same tired points that before. The game is random, it sucks (said even here on DF forums - rotfl). Okay, so was Elite. Plus it`s 2016, isn`t being a roguelike a trendiest trend in town? The game costs too much, it`s an indie game, TOO MUCH! Well, no comment. The game is not online, I want online! Weird, when E:D and SC got rid of single player there was massive uproar (rightly so) plus people always bitch on how there`s not enough SP campaigns anymore (rightly so). The game is confusing, has no point, I don`t know what to do, why there is no quests or bosses (that`s from a genuine comment). Well, I rest my case, honestly...if a massive galaxy full of gameplay is too confusing for a modern player then perhaps the general decline in AAA gaming is well deserved and we need more linear garbage like Mass Effect 2/3.

[gimli]

I still don't know what sort of point you're trying to make about "omg so much hype", because this thread's been mostly anti-hype if anything. Plenty of other things have seen far more excitement than this.

Is it because it's been in development for a while? Because pre-orders have started? So friggin what?  I genuinely do not see this game as overly-hyped compared to most other recent and upcoming releases.

This will be a typical "love or hate" type of game. [It looks like a boring, repetitive game to me, but the game is targeted at a specific player base anyway, and it's all cool.]

[Playergamer]

Meh, I'm never going to play this game, and honestly, I don't quite understand the hype. I mean, it's a cool simulation, I guess, but I'm not gonna pay 60 bucks for Star Trek: GTA 5.

[Retropunch]

Meh, I'm never going to play this game, and honestly, I don't quite understand the hype. I mean, it's a cool simulation, I guess, but I'm not gonna pay 60 bucks for Star Trek: GTA 5.

I mean each to their own but Star Trek: GTA 5 sounds absolutely AWESOME.


Seriously though, I was worried before I read that gamespot article that Beggars Sect posted - it sounded as though it'd just be walking and pretty trees with a few collectable things tacked on - instead it sounds like a really fleshed out survival and exploration game. It still sounds like it's a very much 'you make the fun' style, but that should be fine for us lot.

[LoSboccacc]

However now we had the news blowout... read this for example: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/how-to-play-no-mans-sky-a-detailed-breakdown/1100-6435316/ Long story short, there`s tons of things to do and mechanics governing gameplay: survival, exploration, combat, discovery, destructible environments, police wanted levels, trade, alien linguistics, factions.... NMS is genuinely extremely exciting now. Sure, it can still turn out to be a turd, but not because it`s another walking sim.

Ah that'd be the first time I see some meat on it. It could be interesting then if they manage to pull it off in a meaningful way

[Cthulhu]

The full description does sound pretty sweet, I'll admit.  It really depends on how unique and interesting these planets are.  The scavenging and upgrades gives it some longevity that pure exploration doesn't have.  My main concern there is what survival actually constitutes.  Survival as in gathering food and water is a fucking chore and drowns the rest of the game in drudgery.

As for the randomness, I think that's still a concern even with dorf forts.  maybe especially with dorfs.  I mean everything's procedurally generated but there's not actually a ton of variation.  All the towns look the same, the geography is generally similar, everyone has a detailed history but none of it matters, etc.

[Catmeat]

I know quite a lot about this game.
Ive been reading alot of the communitys ideas and input. Its nice to see excited people but some of the hype is misleading.