Star Citizen and No Man's Sky
- Thread starter mdzapeer
- Start date
Turns out you don't get the same sort of feedback from people who are so hyped to play a game they pay to buy ships or people who are professionally paid to test things and give feedback.
Can You expand on that? I personally dont understand what You mean. I hope You dont imply that RSI do not employ professional Q&A team too.
Dictator93
Member
uh... OK
Ignore the fact that they have professional QA and ignore the fact that the most dedicated community members are capable of producing great criticism of design and even technological bug reports. It is not like communities have ever created great, balanced, or successful games before. Cough Cough Natural Selection 2. Cough cough the entire modding scene since the beginning of time. Cough cough logic.
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
Every time. Every damn time we mention SC on this board. On topic, the games are way too different to actually compare and I'm fairly certain they'll scratch individual itches. I'm looking forward to both personally.
To be honest, the comparison between Star Citizen and no Man's Sky is an odd one to me. They're barely even the same genre, and serve very different entertainment purposes.
No Man's Sky is an arcadey open world survival and exploration game. On a massive scale. It's a very, very wide game, though its depth is yet to be seen. Star Citizen is a super-detailed spaceship simulator. To the point where the cruise liners have drinks machines that you can buy drinks from. This is a very, very deep game. You can go into extreme detail with any number of little things, if that's what you want. They both feature spaceships and walking in first person. But one has the focus on going where no man has one before, while the other is focused on flying spaceships.
It's like comparing Burnout to Truck Simulator or Portal to Call of Duty. You do similar things, but for very different entertainment reasons. No Man's Sky and Star Citizen can easily coexist. They don't serve the same needs, or the same customers.
Personally, I'm hyped for No Man's Sky, while Star Citizen doesn't appeal too much to me. But I can see the argument for the reverse, too. It all boils down to what you want from your Sci-fi spaceship game. There's also Elite somewhere in that spectrum.
No Man's Sky is an arcadey open world survival and exploration game. On a massive scale. It's a very, very wide game, though its depth is yet to be seen. Star Citizen is a super-detailed spaceship simulator. To the point where the cruise liners have drinks machines that you can buy drinks from. This is a very, very deep game. You can go into extreme detail with any number of little things, if that's what you want. They both feature spaceships and walking in first person. But one has the focus on going where no man has one before, while the other is focused on flying spaceships.
It's like comparing Burnout to Truck Simulator or Portal to Call of Duty. You do similar things, but for very different entertainment reasons. No Man's Sky and Star Citizen can easily coexist. They don't serve the same needs, or the same customers.
Personally, I'm hyped for No Man's Sky, while Star Citizen doesn't appeal too much to me. But I can see the argument for the reverse, too. It all boils down to what you want from your Sci-fi spaceship game. There's also Elite somewhere in that spectrum.
How do you determine which game is better or cheaper at this point? For starters, both games' claims should make it clear that concluding which eventually ends up "better", is hardly even possible:
SC - A wannabe simulation heavy PC exclusive MMO-like space game build on a largely hand crafted galaxy, supposedly largely driven by player agency. Adopts a very detailed, mostly realistic visual style. Unlikely to be released before the end of 2017, if they even manage that. Comes in tandem with a story driven campaign.
NMS - A mostly single player focused PC/PS4 exploration and crafting space game, sporting accessible game mechanics in a practically wholly procedurally generated and nearly limitless galaxy. Goes for heavily stylized visuals. Has a set release date this summer.
As for expensive: What Star Citizen will eventually cost at release if you're not a backer remains to be seen, while NMS is a full priced release. Getting into what's available of SC at the moment (think of preordering by means of backing the project) is available for a bit less than a full priced game. If you have the self restraint to avoid buying further pledges and the attached ships - which are supposed to be all available by ingame means eventually. There's a good chance both will introduce means of additional monetization though, whether that's ingame purchases, addons, subscritpions etc..
Possumowner
Member
Real playtesting is when players go into your complete game with all the subsystem working and kick the shit out of them, because they are purchasing a product and expect a solid and quick return of investment: the minimal error will trigger them to come here and complain how the thing was fun only for the first 30 hours and now it's only tedium, the ingame economy is broken beyond belief, it's buggy and derivative, and it all felt hollow and sad.
NMS is going to be trashed like that, and pretty violently too considering its scope and promise, there is no "alpha release" bullshit to save its ass, or justification that it's just the tip of an iceberg, or people who invested hundreds of dollars in p2w macrotransactions that need to rationalize they aren't just whales, or are too invested into living their Star Wars fantasy to notice they are clipping through the floor.
Hello Games will write down what worked and didn't of their product as a full working system, so they can build their next iteration on top of it. (That is, if sales are good, which is something i expect, but nothing more than an assumption). This way of doing things has a proven track record to converge into great software over time, so my prediction is bare rationalism and nothing more.
NMS is going to be trashed like that, and pretty violently too considering its scope and promise, there is no "alpha release" bullshit to save its ass, or justification that it's just the tip of an iceberg, or people who invested hundreds of dollars in p2w macrotransactions that need to rationalize they aren't just whales, or are too invested into living their Star Wars fantasy to notice they are clipping through the floor.
Hello Games will write down what worked and didn't of their product as a full working system, so they can build their next iteration on top of it. (That is, if sales are good, which is something i expect, but nothing more than an assumption). This way of doing things has a proven track record to converge into great software over time, so my prediction is bare rationalism and nothing more.
This is your assumption, and it is really really wrong.
You can throw hypotheticals at me all day, but the fact is that if u pay to upgrade a vessel to the fanciest equipment there is going to be an unfair advantage. In some cases skill can definitely mitigate the issue, but no all cases, please stop spreading misinformation and acting like the exception is the baseline. And even then not all vessels are combat centered, again if someone wants to be a merchant or miner the individual who pays for the base vessel with more stats and storage space is going to have that astronomical advantage.
I'm sorry but, the notion that we are comparing apples and oranges is just absurd. Does it have to be a near perfect clone before we have permission to draw comparisons? Some of these snarky replies don't help the OP have his/her question answered. Please stop the misinformation.
No Man's Sky hype is pretty unreal, even non-gamer people at work are interested in it. It really threw me off balance when one of em came up to ask me about NMS, never expected THAT person to ask about a game.
Its anecdotal but the game could be huge in terms of sales. And hoping if its other system have enough depth to keep that momentum going.
Its anecdotal but the game could be huge in terms of sales. And hoping if its other system have enough depth to keep that momentum going.
Have You played EVE Online? Seems like not.
And what do You mean by more stats? Why exactly more storage is better?
You are the one who is spreading misinformation with p2w mechanics when You dont even know what You are comparing SC with and You definitely one with hypotheticals.
I have 4 years of EVE Online experience behind me and i exactly know how irrelevant wealth is in many aspects of the game, especially in interactions between players.
Also explain me what is different between a player that got wealthy playing ingame to the one that got wealthy buying stuff in the long run? Do You think it wont be worth to play Star Citizen 2-3 months down the line for new players, because they will be behind in wealth? Do You even understand how ridiculous this concept is?
Saucycarpdog
Member
Star Citizen is likely to provide a far more complex physics driven flight model, but as of now its not much more to it than just one station, a few outposts you can visit and an arena mode.
In short, its not done yet, so hold off for now. If its a choice between Star Citizen and No Man's Sky, id pick No Man's Sky mostly because it'll be in a far more complete state when it launches in June.
In short, its not done yet, so hold off for now. If its a choice between Star Citizen and No Man's Sky, id pick No Man's Sky mostly because it'll be in a far more complete state when it launches in June.
If you have played EVE Online I wouldn't have to explain that to you. I'm not really sure of any other way to explain this, but if dogfights are you're thing your'e going to have a tougher time going up against someone who has bought equipment for their vessel via real currency. Even if you're going up against a vanilla Avenger in terms of "stats", said Avenger is going to have better maneuverability then most. That is what i mean by "stats". Not all baseline vessels are the same, some have more storage, others have better turning and acceleration, etc. Like with storage space, if you are a trader or merchant you are going to want that extra storage space so you can move more goods.
Like I said each vessel is different and has different uses, but you can't ignore that for those who have spent real money on vessels or upgrades have an unfair head start compared to most who might have spend only twenty or fifty dollars on upgrades or what have you after their initial purchase.
Might as well be posting this then, because it doesn't help the OP. At least with mine and KKRT00's exchange he can decide which one of us has the better argument.
And countless fail too, so what is your point?
My point is that if we're going to compare finished Star Citizen with something, that something can't be NMS or Elite
angerous or any current space sim game, but with future iterations.And because the competition will be refined by actual players actually playing as customers, not deluded investors, one can predict that the comparison, when the time comes, isn't going to be flattering: that's what production and design principles say: fail faster, iterate, don't allow feature creep.
And that's all: it may end up that SC is a complete masterpiece that defy logical expectations, or a homer-car that confirms them: i'm not a fortune teller.
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
I'm not falling for the hype both titles have generated so far.
I've yet to see any "real deep gameplay" in either title.
I'm sure NMS are keeping details at bay until release and SC has no single player campaign to judge.
I've yet to see any "real deep gameplay" in either title.
I'm sure NMS are keeping details at bay until release and SC has no single player campaign to judge.
I played EVE after it was on the market for the 5 years, so there were ton of people who were much wealthier than me, with much more skilled characters. It didnt matter at all. The good fleet of lower tier ships will be always better from even the most expensive officer tier ships You could imagine. The compositions and synergy will be always more useful than any item with highest tank/dps output.
https://zkillboard.com/character/1690845043/ -- this doesnt even show all my kills
What You will do with better than stats on Avenger when the two Auroras will dampen Your modules and then will blow You up with rockets?
Games like EVE and SC reward smart and cooperative play and the disparity between modules and ships is not in veins to theme park MMOs, so having something much more expensive wont yield You few times better results.
Not all expensive or profitable cargo require tons storage space. More cargo isnt always better, You can always find Your niche in those games. In EVE You could have billions of ISK transported in a shuttle if You wanted.
You suggested that it will fail solely, directly because it is having no playtesting. (Obviously a ridiculous idea, but anyway.) My point was that, naturally course, countless games have done fantastically well only with internal playtesting. Which immediately invalidates your point.
Where the fuck are these 'deluded investors'?
Who are you talking about? You know this is an independent game? Sony aren't event publishing it.
Every high-end game goes through thousands, probably tens of thousands, of hours of alpha and beta and playtesting.
For the record: I'm really looking forward to both games. Yes, we can't predict the future, but we also can't cast doubt and aspersions about No Man's Sky's development/testing process when we know literally nothing about it and are talking out our ass.
Good ol MikeDown. Always good for a laugh when Star Citizen comes up.