Watching a few more streams and it's starting to remind me of Fallout. Might be because the dead and lifeless planets are more common.
Gaming No Man's Sky | 25th May New FREE Update: Leviathan
- Thread starter PlayerOne
- Start date
On the subject of dead planets - I haven't been watching streams, but in terms of the makeup of star systems, do they tend to be like ours with 7 or 8 planets and 1 or 2 potentially habitable? Almost looking forward to the lifeless ones as much as the lively ones.
SameI saw a video where he explained how they do it, and that it's basically based off noise. So he showed like a planet made from a simple sine wave, and then went on to more complicated patterns. It's incredible stuff. And yeah, I watched so many hours of streams, and it's still common for me to go "wooow, that's different!" at some kind of feature in the landscape, or a creature. Watched Sean Murray stream on twitch yesterday, and he seems to marvel at what his algorithms are producing as well, which is really encouraging
Gone dark mostly since the patch, though, aside from the odd glimpses just to see what draw distance and whatnot looks like after the patch. That and Murray's 1 hr stream.
Rushed to my mailbox this morning just to see if I had been lucky enough for it to arrive a day early. It did notI'm a fecking idiot for wanting a physical copy.
Current user score of 4.8/10 on Metacritic unfortunately. Based on 432 ratings. Still very early days of course so who knows how accurate that will prove to be. I'm going to hold off for a little while though until more reports come back.
Man, never look at user scores on Metacritic. Full of 12 year olds who probably own and Xbox or were expecting this to be COD in space.
To be honest in my experience that sounds like the opposite of the Metacritic user reviews. Cod always gets terrible ratings on there, like 1.9 out of 10 level bad. Games like Witcher 3 and Dark Souls get top ratings as well as lots of small indie titles (which sometimes I have no interest in). Metacritic user reviews are good at ignoring hype and judging a game on its merits for the most part.
Just read the GameSpot review in progress, the reviewer didn't sound particularly impressed either.
Think I'm going to wait too and see what the post-release consensus is.
Think I'm going to wait too and see what the post-release consensus is.
I've seen enough of this game to know what I'm getting, not worried at all.
I think it's probably quite niche, though. To some people it'll become repetitive and boring quickly. To others, who are engrossed in the themes that this game plays on, this will probably last ages.
I think it's probably quite niche, though. To some people it'll become repetitive and boring quickly. To others, who are engrossed in the themes that this game plays on, this will probably last ages.
That's fair enough. I'm sure the exploration alone will appeal to some people. Do you play Elite Dangerous at all Eriku? That sounds like it would be similarly up your alley. Probably the closest game to NMS out there right now.
I don't see how users would be able to review a game this big this early. Seems absolutely mad to be giving a score 4 hours after release.
Nothing other than what I expected the reviews to be - a lot of people complaining about this being exactly what it was supposed to be and a lot of people hyping simple stuff beyond belief. This is not the sort of game I want to rely on reviews for.
Overwatch has a metacritic score of 6.1 and it's probably the best game I've played this year.
A lot of the criticism seems to say the game is very repetitive, which would definitely factor into making this conclusion so early.
I think I'll pass on it.
Of course it's repetitive, it's about exploring the universe, flying from one planet to another. It's like people complaining every year that FIFA and NBA are similar to the previous year's installment - what exactly would they expect it to be, a hockey game?
I wouldn't rely on anyone's review for this. This has as many 1s as it has 10s on No Man's Sky, people cannot be objective about a game like this. I'm expecting this to be a fun, 8/10, pick up and play game for me. I'm almost convinced it will deliver.
The fact that they are adding stuff to the game is another factor which has not been taken into consideration. DriveClub got terrible reviews at first, if it was reviewed a year after release it would have got at least +10 in its metacritic score.
Are you really comparing what is being dubbed as an open world RPG to sports games? I think that's a bit of a reach.
You can use your next points logic for near enough everything. If you believe these things - why bother with reviews and critiques in the first place?
Yep I'm gonna pass on it too. Looks incredibly boring.
I absolutely agree that it shouldn't be taken as gospel by any means. At the end of the day people have different interests and things they look for in a game. Sometimes there is a particular itch you just want to scratch and regardless of a low metacritic aggregate score, a game can scratch it for you. I've definitely enjoyed games with similarly low scores before. However it is nice to have as an indicator when you want to separate the wheat from the chaff regarding the content of the game itself vs the marketing and hype. This was a game made by a small studio that received triple AAA hype (and a triple AAA pricetag) so I've always said it might be set up to disappoint for many people.
I don't bother. I'll look for the content of these reviews but not look at the score people gave because it's often misleading. If I find that a lot of people are raving about the fact the worlds presented are very diverse, the gameplay is quite fun and the space to explore is massive, but complain at the fact that there's no story (which there was never going to be), your tasks are mainly repetitive (which they had to be given the nature of the game) and that there's in general not that much to do in the game, then it reaffirms me in my desire to get the game on launch day tomorrow, simply because I was looking for exactly those positives and don't mind the perceived flaws. There will be people who think otherwise and cannot live with its flaws and don't enjoy the positives of it, which I absolutely understand as this is one of the most original games of the last few years and will not suit everyone's taste.
That's what was the final push into making the purchase myself. I can remember buying my PS4 at launch for example because it was an investment. I'm hoping to enjoy NMS from the off but even more exited about what they'll add later on to the game. Still though, I'm not really sure what the people that are opting out now were expecting, Hello Games never showed or said anything about the game, other then what we're seeing and hearing for ourselves. Seemed like a game you can just jump into and relax from the beginning, with a hint of survival sprinkled on top.
Don't have a gaming PC or an Xbone. If/when it comes out for PS4 I might give it a go, but it seems like it might be too close to being a simulator.
It's certainly not as vibrant or colourful as NMS. In return it has a fleshed out background setting with political struggles, wars, missions etc. It's quite fun in bursts, I'll play it for a few days and then leave it untouched for a month or two and play it again. I could see NMS being similar in that regard. The main reason I might hold off on NMS at full price is because Elite which I already own can scratch that exploratory itch for now.
The field of view and framerate are atrocious, it'd be unplayable for me.
why is this so expensive?
From what I understand the distances you have to travel, the mechanics of spaceflight, all these things are so close to realism that it can become tedious and lengthy? Not to mention the MMO component, which is a turn-off for me. From what I understood there's no true single player? I've not looked that deeply into it, seeing as there's not even a release date for PS4. Will definitely be looking into it when the time comes, though.
Watched a gameplay video and have to say, it looks very bland. Resource management seems to be sole focus of the game and that doesn't really appeal to me.
Also, for a PS4 game, it looks quite ugly.
Also, for a PS4 game, it looks quite ugly.
Am really torn as to whether to get this. I love the concept and the tech at play in creating the game, but I still feel as though the game has been added to the technology - they figured out a way to procedurally generate planets and then thought of a game. Not thinking of a game and then figuring how to make it.
I love the studios vision and it is a fantastic achievement that I think should be supported.
I do like the look of the game - but agree regarding the field of view - this game needs wide open vistas to really immerse you in my opinion.
I think I will get it - think my daughter would love discovering and naming the animals in the game!
I love the studios vision and it is a fantastic achievement that I think should be supported.
I do like the look of the game - but agree regarding the field of view - this game needs wide open vistas to really immerse you in my opinion.
I think I will get it - think my daughter would love discovering and naming the animals in the game!
The person reviewing it on the Guardian seems to be enjoying it plenty, at any rate.
Yep, the studio's work is another thing. I'll gladly give them my money for thinking of something like this and developing the idea into an actual game.
Jim Sterling seems to feel the same way.
Also no dinosaur riding
Yeah, that's the one I watched. It's an incredibly ambitious game but it just doesn't seem like there's a whole lot to it other than breaking rocks down with a mining gun and trading.
I'm going to try to kamikaze the first spaceship I see. I'll be the worst (as in, bad at it) space terrorist of all time.
Is it really just a 3.4GB download on PS4? Probs get it on there if it is.
The fov is laughably bad.
I admire them for trying but the worries of it being complete empty(Well void of any really content,) seem somewhat true, although looking at our solar system its pretty empty and life less. Maybe that's what they where going for. wink
But even the stuff I've seen from the game so far hasn't really peaked my interest, the amount of menu screen scrolling and crafting(All the shite that stops you from playing the game)is concerning as there seems to be a lot of it. And Jim's criticism of the life on the planets ssential looking like lego blocks being mashed together is a hard one to get past, not to mention the lack of interaction with them as well.
Might give it a miss or wait for a price drop.
Yeah
First two in an ongoing series of opinion articles on Vice by different people each time. Haven't read myself yet so not sure if they contain the gameplay descriptions previously asked for in this thread.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/no-mans-sky-gameplay-dispatch-part-1
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/my-f...ns-sky-have-been-dark-and-full-of-terrors-550
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/no-mans-sky-gameplay-dispatch-part-1
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/my-f...ns-sky-have-been-dark-and-full-of-terrors-550
Both sound very positive.
Finding stuff like the planet in that first article is exactly what I want the game to be like.
Just left my first planet after around an hour. Barely scratched the surface but I like what I see till now.
I'm probably going to check the mail box the moment I get up, and then obsessively pace back and forth by my window, waiting for the post van.
Thankfully my wife has a couple of psychology degrees, and can confirm that it's just excitement, and not deranged behaviour that could get me classified accord to the DSM.
Thankfully my wife has a couple of psychology degrees, and can confirm that it's just excitement, and not deranged behaviour that could get me classified accord to the DSM.
You say she's your wife but it sounds to me like you're an oblivious patient in a Shutter Island-esque facility for the criminally insane.