Star Citizen and No Man's Sky

mdzapeer

Member
Me and friend were discussing these 2 games.

My opinon on the matter was that Star Citizen would be the game with more gamplay depth. While No Man's Sky would be limited in the gameplay and be more about exploration.

His was that Star Citizen is too expensive to get into and looks less fun.

I have not played either game, which game would end up being better?
 
They're incredibly different games. The comparison doesn't really have a reason to be.

It's like asking which is better between Dark Souls and Black Desert Online.
 
Star Citizen seems to have a lot more about it, but whether or not that results in a better game is yet to be seen. I do think it'll be met with higher acclaim than NMS, though.
 
personally i'm more interested in no man's sky right now simply because it will be more accessible. it's coming out in a couple months and is available on both PS4/PC. with star citizen you will need a beast of a PC and who knows when it will be fully finished.

there is no doubt star citizen will be the bigger/better game if it releases with everything they promise. no man's sky could be pretty fun too but even that has a lot of expectations/hype to live up to. i'm not entirely sure it will do so and despite being more interested in it i think i will hold off and wait for reviews and such before buying it.
 
Star Citizen looks too realistic for my taste. The artstyle of NMS reminds me in some kind of old Perry Rhodan books i remember reading as a kid. This nostalgic factor, together with the whole exploring aspect, is what makes NMS a must buy for me.
 
Me and friend were discussing these 2 games.

My opinon on the matter was that Star Citizen would be the game with more gamplay depth. While No Man's Sky would be limited in the gameplay and be more about exploration.

His was that Star Citizen is too expensive to get into and looks less fun.

I have not played either game, which game would end up being better?

There's no way to know which will be better but I can tell you that they'll cost the same at launch. SC's overpriced ships are being sold only in the pre-release phase to increase the budget. They wouldn't be anywhere near $110M without it.
 
In what way is SC more expensive to get in to? It costs $54, that's cheaper than the RRP of No Man's sky at $60.

Star Citizen will also offer much more than NMS does in terms of content, as well as being more in-depth.
 
Is exploration not gameplay anymore?

Exactly. I'm so tired of hearing "walking simulators" when the truth is that in games like Gone Home, the gameplay is exploration. Exploration IS a mechanic and can be quite intense.

People who demolish those games saying that is nothing more than walking are hoping for some gun to shoot or spell to cast. I'm really happy to see games that have a vision and stick with it, adapting those to some "greater explosive gameplay" is lose focus.
 
SC seems to be doing so much, it even has a full-on campaign mode. I've played the alpha, although not recently, and it really is quite mind blowing. Just check out the new EVA animations.

No Man's Sky looks awesome but I haven't seen much to comment on it.
 
Exactly. I'm so tired of hearing "walking simulators" when the truth is that in games like Gone Home, the gameplay is exploration. Exploration IS a mechanic and can be quite intense.

People who demolish those games saying that is nothing more than walking are hoping for some gun to shoot or spell to cast. I'm really happy to see games that have a vision and stick with it, adapting those to some "greater explosive gameplay" is lose focus.

Exploration is fine, but when it's focused entirely on walking around randomly just to look at pretty things for no real reason and that's the entire aspect the game is based around, there's a lack of depth. There needs to be some sort of purpose and more engaging gameplay than that.
 
I am all for exploration, but there needs to be something interesting. Not in gameplay but a cool sight to see or something unique.
 
do neither of these games have objectives?
what's this talk of just existing in a virtual world with no purpose?
seriously, i'm pretty oblivious about both of these
 
They're incredibly different games. The comparison doesn't really have a reason to be.

It's like asking which is better between Dark Souls and Black Desert Online.

.

They have pretty different aims and I think you could play both at the same time and get quite a different feeling from both.

Aside from being set in space, the two have very little in common.

But isn't that the reason for the OP? If you're interested in a big, open game set in space, one of these might fit the bill, so why not ask others their opinion on the differences?

It irks me when the first answers are empty "they're completely different" posts, as if the OP should somehow know better than to ask.
 
Of course both games aren't fully released yet so no one can tell how the real experiences will be but they both look different.

For me SC looks amazing but looks like it would not be casual friendly for pick up and play gameplay. And that is perfectly alright because games are never made for everyone to enjoy.

Also I do think price will play a factor, I would assume a lower spec PC will be able to enjoy NMS but not SC, but I have not seen recommended specs to be fair. SC just looks like a meaty game and that's great since it seems like the SC community really wants a game that pushes the limits of tech: so if this is true then yes it will be more expensive (comparing PC to PC).
 
Exploration is fine, but when it's focused entirely on walking around randomly just to look at pretty things for no real reason and that's the entire aspect the game is based around, there's a lack of depth. There needs to be some sort of purpose and more engaging gameplay than that.

It doens't need depth when it doesn't fit or it isn't needed. Everything is about purpose. Gone Home for example is about uncovering a story, looking at stuff up close and really understanding what is going on, and it's pretty damn good at it.

Forcing depth in a game mechanic that already serve it purpose is making something pretty by putting an hawaian collar onto it. It doesn't expand the concept, but some pople might like more.

If a game wants you just walking around, he can and we should embrace it. If the game is amazing at doing it, we will love it. If he sucks in doing it, we will crtique. Don't hold the style under less consideration just because it's simple, this is pretty messed up.
 
Exploration is fine, but when it's focused entirely on walking around randomly just to look at pretty things for no real reason and that's the entire aspect the game is based around, there's a lack of depth. There needs to be some sort of purpose and more engaging gameplay than that.

The entire premise of the post you're quoting is pointing out the idea of objective based gameplay being mandatory to gameplay itself as a completely arbitrary construct, especially if you're inherently attaching that to the idea of depth. God forbid games that fill out all the check boxes of modern AAA games automatically qualify as having 'depth'. Is there any more depth in a Far Cry when you climb towers to fill out a map versus climbing those towers absent being told to do so? If you're not enjoying the act of doing it regardless, is the distinction even important anymore?
 
The discussion started from him hankering for a open space sim like freespace.

For No Mans Sky, gameplay depth can be added with exploration by scouting new mining sites, maybe finding ancient relics or salvaging tech and weapons.

Which in-turn could be used to better player ships, power or economy. Heck maybe even build colonies on a newly discovered world.
 
I was reading a preview on NMS in Edge this morning (NeoGAF got a mention), and from what I can gather, it seems like Elite - Lite.

By that I mean is doesn't have the fidelity of space simulation, but has a lot more meat to the exploration, crafting, resource finding, they almost made out like it was a survival sim on some planets.
 
The discussion started from him hankering for a open space sim like freespace.

For No Mans Sky, gameplay depth can be added with exploration by scouting new mining sites, maybe finding ancient relics or salvaging tech and weapons.

Which in-turn could be used to better player ships, power or economy. Heck maybe even build colonies on a newly discovered world
.

Yes, exactly these things are in No Man's Sky.

There are also some sentient alien races across the universe. Many are at war with each other and have battles/frontiers for territory.

You can trade with them with for information or new technology. But you have to learn their language first: read their writing on planets or space stations, try random words with them (though you might aggro them in the process).

You have faction affiliations with each race. Killing members of one race might improve your standing with another, etc.

I was reading a preview on NMS in Edge this morning (NeoGAF got a mention), and from what I can gather, it seems like Elite - Lite.

By that I mean is doesn't have the fidelity of space simulation, but has a lot more meat to the exploration, crafting, resource finding, they almost made out like it was a survival sim on some planets.

Yeah, the space stuff is 'lite' in comparison with Elite - but there's infinitely more on-planet depth in NMS, as you mention. Weather systems, dangerous atmospheres, dangerous and dynamic ecologies. There are even procedural buildings and towns (possibly cities, but we haven't seen them yet).

One GAFfer who has played the game (at the press event last month) said that they found a planet which was all one massive storm. It was perpetually pitch black, with lighting and heavy rain. He could only see a few feet in front of him. It was so cold and dangerous he had to find a cave for shelter. Then mine for resources so he could upgrade his suit/ship to escape.

Elite never had shit like that. (As much as I love Elite.)
 
It doens't need depth when it doesn't fit or it isn't needed. Everything is about purpose. Gone Home for example is about uncovering a story, looking at stuff up close and really understanding what is going on, and it's pretty damn good at it.

Forcing depth in a game mechanic that already serve it purpose is making something pretty by putting an hawaian collar onto it. It doesn't expand the concept, but some pople might like more.

If a game wants you just walking around, he can and we should embrace it. If the game is amazing at doing it, we will love it. If he sucks in doing it, we will crtique. Don't hold the style under less consideration just because it's simple, this is pretty messed up.


Something like Gone Home is an alright example - there's a purpose for exploring. Something like Elite: Dangerous however, i'd consider to be a bad example. Exploration for the sake of it isn't a problem at all, but without anything interesting to find or any sort of purpose (e.g. collecting resources or uncovering a story), that's something that isn't really going to be too enjoyable after you've done it a few times. Elite: Dangerous had a focus on procedural generation and because of that, it's content lacked any sort of depth and ended up being extremely repetitive with no real point to doing anything at all after the first few times.

Exploration is fine, but if it's just something along the lines of "You've found this pretty thing, stare at it for a while!" (as in something that isn't entirely unique, like slightly different coloured creatures or different terrain layouts) before moving onto the next over and over again, that's not very engaging gameplay.

NMS does have things like space ship wrecks, upgrades, relics etc to find so that's good, but it seems most of what you'll find will be similar looking plants, planets and animals with no real interactivity from what I've seen so far.
 
The discussion started from him hankering for a open space sim like freespace.

For No Mans Sky, gameplay depth can be added with exploration by scouting new mining sites, maybe finding ancient relics or salvaging tech and weapons.

Which in-turn could be used to better player ships, power or economy. Heck maybe even build colonies on a newly discovered world.

Bolded makes no sense. Maybe you meant Freelancer, as both Freespace games have a rigid, lineal campaign structure, not counting the optional missions on Freespace 2. They have no exploration, no economy, no customization.
 
Something like Gone Home is an alright example - there's a purpose for exploring. Something like Elite: Dangerous however, i'd consider to be a bad example. Exploration for the sake of it isn't a problem at all, but without anything interesting to find or any sort of purpose (e.g. collecting resources or uncovering a story), that's something that isn't really going to be too enjoyable after you've done it a few times. Elite: Dangerous had a focus on procedural generation and because of that, it's content lacked any sort of depth and ended up being extremely repetitive with no real point to doing anything at all after the first few times.

Exploration is fine, but if it's just something along the lines of "You've found this pretty thing, stare at it for a while!" (as in something that isn't entirely unique, like slightly different coloured creatures or different terrain layouts) before moving onto the next over and over again, that's not very engaging gameplay.

NMS does have things like space ship wrecks, upgrades, relics etc to find so that's good, but it seems most of what you'll find will be similar looking plants, planets and animals with no real interactivity from what I've seen so far.

For sure, you're totaly right in this aspect!
 
Yes, exactly these things are in No Man's Sky.

There are also some sentient alien races across the universe. Many are at war with each other and have battles/frontiers for territory.

You can trade with them with for information or new technology. But you have to learn their language first: read their writing on planets or space stations, try random words with them (though you might aggro them in the process).

You have faction affiliations with each race. Killing members of one race might improve your standing with another, etc.



Yeah, the space stuff is 'lite' in comparison with Elite - but there's infinitely more on-planet depth in NMS, as you mention. Weather systems, dangerous atmospheres, dangerous and dynamic ecologies. There are even procedural buildings and towns (possibly cities, but we haven't seen them yet).

One GAFfer who has played the game (at the press event last month) said that they found a planet which was all one massive storm. It was perpetually pitch black, with lighting and heavy rain. He could only see a few feet in front of him. It was so cold and dangerous he had to find a cave for shelter. Then mine for resources so he could upgrade his suit/ship to escape.

Elite never had shit like that. (As much as I love Elite.)

Didnt know about all this, guess having a total blackout is not always a good thing...

Game sounds amazing then!
 
Star Citizen will get a 91,56 on Gamerankings and thus will barely edge out No Man's Sky which will get a 91,04
So Star Citizen will be better.
 
The discussion started from him hankering for a open space sim like freespace.

For No Mans Sky, gameplay depth can be added with exploration by scouting new mining sites, maybe finding ancient relics or salvaging tech and weapons.

Which in-turn could be used to better player ships, power or economy. Heck maybe even build colonies on a newly discovered world.

Elite Dangerous is out on Xbox One and the Horizons update with (non atmospheric) planetary landings and VR support on PC.

That hankering can be sated right now while you debate your future vehicle for galactic adventure.

http://www.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1157327

Enjoy!
 
Exploration is fine, but if it's just something along the lines of "You've found this pretty thing, stare at it for a while!" (as in something that isn't entirely unique, like slightly different coloured creatures or different terrain layouts) before moving onto the next over and over again, that's not very engaging gameplay.

NMS does have things like space ship wrecks, upgrades, relics etc to find so that's good, but it seems most of what you'll find will be similar looking plants, planets and animals with no real interactivity from what I've seen so far.

All they've shown of NMS is stuff from near the outer rim of the galaxy; where the player starts the game.

The closer you get to the centre of the galaxy (which they're highly secretive about and haven't shown any screens/footage of) the more the procedural algorithms start breaking/twisting. Their examples are planets where gravity is broken, where landmasses go into increasingly bizarre shapes, where the procedural flora and fauna starts getting mixed into things which physically don't make sense. The formula start breaking its own rules and tweaking, increasingly so towards the center of the galaxy.

Indeed, this even applies to animal life:
- at the outer rim of the galaxy: the algorithm generates a dog-like animal, and then maps a dog-like animation onto it.
- nearer the center of the galaxy: the algorithm generates a dog-like animal, but procedurally maps the animation skeleton of a worm onto it (tweaking each animation skeleton bit by bit until it has a match). Or the animation of a pterodactyl, or a fish, or whatever. Each planet will be surreal (and apparently it gets pretty unsettling/creepy). So you'll get these truly alien, surreal things happening.

Until this morning I was pretty worried about the variety of skeletons and models, too - but there are two videos that show really weird alien shapes (one is giant sandworms which are literally 100 feet long and the other is these flying wraith-like aliens. There must be countless more types. You can find these if you look at their last couple of YouTube videos.)

All of this stuff is confirmed in written previews by journalists and with quotes from Hello's staff.

Do some reading and your concerns will be alleviated, if only slightly. (It would still be good to see this stuff!)

Edit: in terms of interactivity, there are alien buildings which are also procedurally generated. They contain either high end/special technology or blueprints or stockpiles of resources (which could leap your tech in one go) or language information about the race.

You can shoot into these bases, hack into them, or talk your way into them (trade or persuasion or faction standing). Sean Murray also hinted you can sneak into them.

There are other things on planets, like portals which will leap you (without your ship) to a planet far nearer the galactic center. So you can rummage around, get some high-end resources, then escape.

Apparently they're trying to make the actual act of just surviving really dynamic and fun by itself - that's the core of the game.

Didnt know about all this, guess having a total blackout is not always a good thing...

Game sounds amazing then!

Read the recent press previews - there's some amazing shit in there. My hype for the game didn't really take off until last month when I read them :)
 
Exploration is fine, but when it's focused entirely on walking around randomly just to look at pretty things for no real reason and that's the entire aspect the game is based around, there's a lack of depth. There needs to be some sort of purpose and more engaging gameplay than that.
Is story not a purpose or reason?

And since when is deep gameplay needed for something to be enjoyable or fun?
 
do neither of these games have objectives?
what's this talk of just existing in a virtual world with no purpose?
seriously, i'm pretty oblivious about both of these

In No Man's Sky the goal is to reach the center of the universe (at which point there is probably story stuff, but nobody knows yet).

You are free to do what you will aside from that. It may take hundreds of hours to reach the center of the universe - it's realistically far away, even with your hyper engines.
 
Something like Gone Home is an alright example - there's a purpose for exploring. Something like Elite: Dangerous however, i'd consider to be a bad example. Exploration for the sake of it isn't a problem at all, but without anything interesting to find or any sort of purpose (e.g. collecting resources or uncovering a story), that's something that isn't really going to be too enjoyable after you've done it a few times. Elite: Dangerous had a focus on procedural generation and because of that, it's content lacked any sort of depth and ended up being extremely repetitive with no real point to doing anything at all after the first few times.
There is a ton of depth in Elite Dangerous. Exploration isn't just for the sake of exploration unless your career is specifically a explorer and charting unknown systems, and you better make sure you have a ship and equipment suited for that purpose

If you're a pirate or a bounty hunter or a trader or a miner or a smuggler or a fighter, that's your purpose. Everything you do revolves around that career and becoming better at that. And trust me, fighting amid capital ships in a large scale battle requires completely different ships, equipment, planning, etc. than if you're ambushing freighters and stealthily avoiding authorities or if you want to reach the distant uncharted areas of space
 
Me and friend were discussing these 2 games.

My opinon on the matter was that Star Citizen would be the game with more gamplay depth. While No Man's Sky would be limited in the gameplay and be more about exploration.

His was that Star Citizen is too expensive to get into and looks less fun.

I have not played either game, which game would end up being better?

This is in regards to the hardware, right? Otherwise he's sorely mistaken as just the opposite has been true.

As for "fun," it's somewhat subjective, but Star Citizen offers much more variety. Unless your friend is dead-set on procedurally-generated exploration, he'll likely find more enjoyment elsewhere.
 
Is story not a purpose or reason?

And since when is deep gameplay needed for something to be enjoyable or fun?

As i said in a post further down, story is a purpose and it's fine when that's the point of exploration. I thought depth was to do with how engaging and how well embedded/intricate something feels in a game (i.e. not just something tacked on with little to do), am i wrong with that?
 
I wouldn't really consider crashing to the desktop, or being unable to join a stable instance of 16 players "fun". And even then when you do get into a match, you are instantly shot out of the sky thanks to some poor sucker that spend half his retirement on a $5,000 ship. Furthermore I wouldn't consider being able to buy $80 dollar jpegs as "depth", they're called gimmicks. With the exception of visual fidelity and the multiplayer "capabilities" both games really are pretty similar. And yet only one has a release date.
 
NMS will hopefully be good, but Star Citizen is being developed by a huge team with an enormous budget. It's going to have several trades, like 50 or 60 ships, single player, multiplayer, racing, trading, mining, first person shooter mode, etc.

In terms of features, it's like comparing Hotline Miami to Grand Theft Auto 5. Yea you can shoot people in both and they both have brilliant soundtracks...and yea there are some things that Hotline Miami does deeper than GTA...but yea. Hotline Miami is fuckin awesome but you can't compare it to the seminal work that is a GTA release.

In fact, NMS is better looked at as an extremely limited version of Elite Dangerous, tailor made for those looking to Explore first and foremost. With great respect to the combat it will offer, that doesn't appear to be the draw or a critical component. NMS exploration is what Elite Dangerous exploration should look like but isn't at yet at its current phase of development. Several elements are there (landing on planets and moons, collecting resources that can help you go deeper towards the core of the galaxy), but it's nowhere near as stylish or refined as NMS is right now. When ED reaches that state, I'll be interested in exploration in that game. until then, hopefully fdev takes some notes from nms.

I wouldn't really consider crashing to the desktop, or being unable to join a stable instance of 16 players "fun". And even then when you do get into a match, you are instantly shot out of the sky thanks to some poor sucker that spend half his retirement on a $5,000 ship. Furthermore I wouldn't consider being able to buy $80 dollar jpegs as "depth", they're called gimmicks. With the exception of visual fidelity and the multiplayer "capabilities" both games really are pretty similar. And yet only one has a release date.

herewego.gif
 
I wouldn't really consider crashing to the desktop, or being unable to join a stable instance of 16 players "fun". And even then when you do get into a match, you are instantly shot out of the sky thanks to some poor sucker that spend half his retirement on a $5,000 ship. Furthermore I wouldn't consider being able to buy $80 dollar jpegs as "depth", they're called gimmicks. With the exception of visual fidelity and the multiplayer "capabilities" both games really are pretty similar. And yet only one has a release date.

Why are you so salty
 
Hmm to me it's always like:

Star Citizen = ARMA 3 in Space
No Man' Sky = hmm don't know ... Rust or something like that with a higher budget
 
Top Bottom