Print

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

[Retropunch]

My main issue is that they seem to be stuffing the planets with everything all at once. There were several different types/sizes of dinosaurs that I've seen a number of times before, and it doesn't seem as though they'll go truly weird with it, which is kinda what you need for this kind of game to keep it interesting.

Maybe it was just the planet picked, but I would much prefer planets - as they are basically one big biome each - to sort of stay as separate as possible, even if it meant a smaller variety of types of creatures on each planet. An ice planet might only have slow moving mammoth type creatures on it, a hot planet might be mostly lizards and a few large predators (or whatever). Instead I fear that everything is probably going to be a sort of mish mash of whatever.

Overall though, they've definitely assuaged my fears that it'll be a walking simulator which I'm very happy about.

[Putnam]

They've explicitly said they're doing the opposite, not having every planet have everything because that would ruin exploration.

[Retropunch]

They've explicitly said they're doing the opposite, not having every planet have everything because that would ruin exploration.

Whilst they've said that, I haven't seen them do that. Pretty much every planet they've demoed has been a mash of everything (in terms of creatures mostly). I'm hoping this is a conscious choice for demos, but I can't help think that we might get different sized dinosaurs + crab things on every planet.

Mostly it's that they haven't showed off anything weird which has been the biggest give away for me, as I believe they would if they had it. There's no silt walker type creatures, dune style worms, or giant praying mantis-style mega-fauna. It's all just different sized dinosaurs.

Again, I'm hoping that they're being coy - they've said that it gets stranger the closer you get to the middle of the galaxy, but I'm surprised they haven't gone weirder.

[Greenbane]

Otherwise you are merely disagreeing over personal preference.

Aren't we all judging the game based on our personal preferences at this point? It'd be foolhardy to proclaim any kind of decisive, objective, overwhelming ruling as to the quality of the final game when it hasn't even been released.

To delve too deeply on any one subject, like trade, would involve too much speculation. I gave my opinion strictly in regard to what was shown on the video. And what was shown was simple, very basic gameplay. That might be great for people who like basic games, but I don't. There might be people who wouldn't mind the local nature of trade, but like you, I'd also have an issue with it. In the end you're also complaining that the implementation of a given feature is too basic.

But do I really need to bring up examples to justify why the showcased gameplay is too basic? I could say Elite Dangerous has way better space combat, that Space Engineers deals with persistence a lot better given how it enables building anything, that EVE Online has better trade, that Starbound has more personality, that Fallout 4 has better survival mechanics (with the new mode), etc. But is that all meaningful and relevant to this game, and to the substance of my critique? Not really. One can't realistically expect a game to be the best across every single gameplay system, but I do expect engaging mechanics and reasonable depth. But hey, that's just my preference: others might be fine with an ocean-wide, puddle-deep game.

As an aside, I'll say that if changes revert as soon as you leave the local area across the board, then that's not basic: that's a terrible, terrible design decision. As if disallowing building on the planets wasn't enough, that truly destroys any chance of the player leaving the slightest footprint in the universe, and eliminates persistence as a whole beyond the character's stats and gear. Furthermore, it kills any and all interest in having a galaxy (very) theoretically shared by players: you can't possibly come across evidence of other people's activity. Only through named creatures. Big bloody whoop. Might as well play any game with seeded map generation ever and pretend you're sharing the same universe with every other player.

Whilst they've said that, I haven't seen them do that. Pretty much every planet they've demoed has been a mash of everything (in terms of creatures mostly). I'm hoping this is a conscious choice for demos, but I can't help think that we might get different sized dinosaurs + crab things on every planet.

Mostly it's that they haven't showed off anything weird which has been the biggest give away for me, as I believe they would if they had it. There's no silt walker type creatures, dune style worms, or giant praying mantis-style mega-fauna. It's all just different sized dinosaurs.

Again, I'm hoping that they're being coy - they've said that it gets stranger the closer you get to the middle of the galaxy, but I'm surprised they haven't gone weirder.

The combination of lack of promotional material and bog-standard footage when they do show something makes me suspect they aren't showing more interesting things because there simply isn't anything more interesting to be shown.

[Vendayn]

This will have less dlc, and content locking that's already in the game, than total war warhammer

[Chiefwaffles]

Okay?
Not really trying to pick a side in this particular thing, but Y is not magically better just because X is worse than Y.

[penguinofhonor]

As someone who's had doubts about the game, that video didn't assuage all of my concerns but it definitely got my hopes up. There was one line specifically that my ears perked up on - the dev mentioned that the day/night cycle works differently on different planets. Predators will have different schedules, and planets will have different balances of predators, so you'll have to pay attention to how the ecosystem works when you get to a new planet.

That's the sort of thing I want to hear about. I've seen that No Man's Sky can generate planets that look different, but I want planets that play different. When I get to a new planet, I want to have to spend time to figure out how that planet ticks and what I have to specifically do here to survive. I don't want "Eh, cold planet, I know how to deal with that. It's nightfall, I know predators are about to come out. Now here's where resources tend to spawn on planets..." It doesn't have to have more depth than every FPS/trading/survival game out there, but I feel like there's a certain depth necessary to get that "venturing into the unknown" feeling.

If every system has the potential for varied gameplay worked into it like the day/night cycle does, then this game might have enough variety to be really impressive. I'd like to see that in other systems, but I'm starting to appreciate how difficult it is to show that sort of thing off. Because a 20-minute play session isn't really going to satisfy me, I want a bunch of different play sessions so I can see similar gameplay at different points. But the IGN guy said they're going to have a lot more coverage, so I'm hoping we'll see a good amount of variety soon.

On creature design: they've specifically said that things will start out looking more mundane and get weirder as you get closer to the center of the galaxy. Personally I really like that decision - it creates progression within the exploration aspect of the game, which is difficult to do. But it does mean less diversity on the outer edge of planets, and I think that's where most of the demo videos have been set.

Also - did you really think that was too much diversity on one planet? I thought it was about an appropriate amount given how little exploration he did there, but I'd hope the planet as a whole has more variety than that. Single biome planets are stretching my suspension of disbelief enough, I don't need single biome planets with one kind of animal.

[Teneb]

This will have less dlc, and content locking that's already in the game, than total war warhammer

Why are you comparing a strategy game to a simulator/survival game?

[chesse20]

isnt it just shores of hazeron with better graphics

[Chiefwaffles]

...no. In so many ways, no.

• No city building
• No designing-your-ship
• No player race creation
• No empires

And a lot more.

[Vendayn]

This will have less dlc, and content locking that's already in the game, than total war warhammer

Why are you comparing a strategy game to a simulator/survival game?

what does that have to do with DLC and content locking content that is already in the game? That has nothing to do with genre.

Also, that doesn't make No Man's Sky potentially better. No Man's Sky isn't really even my type of game, I can see myself getting bored fast cause unlike Shores of Hazeron (that I really loved) and features listed in the post above. But in Shores of hazeron (before universe became tiny, and I think it went pay to play...and oh boy do I remember the lag was so terrible rofl)...you could build awesome cities and do all kinds of awesome stuff. I went to the furthest reaches of the sky and had an awesome hermit empire, it was great. Hazeron reminded me of what I wanted Spore space stage to be lol. No Man's Sky reminds me of...Spore space stage that I didn't even like, without the building...which to me I don't see myself getting 60 dollars worth cause of that.

However, my post is still fact that it isn't LIKELY (or maybe it will) to get DLC whoring and content locking like warhammer will, and everyone is hyping that up on these forums like the next great game...rome 2 and attila both had content locking and dlc whoring, and oh boy will warhammer be so much worse. Doesn't make no man's sky better or worse, and that has NOTHING to do with genre. And it is fact But no one is hating on warhammer total war on these forums cause of...warhammer...

[Teneb]

This will have less dlc, and content locking that's already in the game, than total war warhammer

Why are you comparing a strategy game to a simulator/survival game?

what does that have to do with DLC and content locking content that is already in the game? That has nothing to do with genre.

Then why did you do that post? There has been no talk of DLC in this thread.

But maybe people are "hating" on this game because we've been shown awful little and what has been shown paints a not-too-pretty picture.

[Putnam]

Yeah, that post was off-topic in the first place.

[Vendayn]

This will have less dlc, and content locking that's already in the game, than total war warhammer

Why are you comparing a strategy game to a simulator/survival game?

what does that have to do with DLC and content locking content that is already in the game? That has nothing to do with genre.

Then why did you do that post? There has been no talk of DLC in this thread.

But maybe people are "hating" on this game because we've been shown awful little and what has been shown paints a not-too-pretty picture.

I posted cause its funny Total War Warhammer is getting so much praise pre-release with its already very shitty DLC practices, and this game is getting so much hate and there isn't really anything about it to hate, except it hasn't shown much.

it isn't even off topic, it was to prove a point lol. Its as on topic as all the hate No man's sky is getting without even knowing barely any facts about the game. Yet warhammer has way more reasons to hate on it with its terrible DLC practices and everyone is praising it. Too many warhammer fanboys

At least this game doesn't have a reason to hate on it, except it hasn't really shown anything. And the devs don't even seem to be trying to overhype it, that is all looking to be the fans of the game hyping it up, not the devs which seem to actually be trying to downplay it.

[Putnam]

I'm honestly pretty sure that the devs simply have great technical knowledge (obviously) but don't quite, like, get the kind of effect certain matter-of-fact things might have? "We have 2⁶⁴ planets" is a very reasonable thing to say, it's totally true, it's to be expected, it's something a technical-minded person will hear and say "yeah", but someone who isn't technically minded will be like "HOLY SHIT THAT'S AMAZING". A lot of the hype is a collection of such matter-of-fact things. Dwarf Fortress can be the same way, often.