No Man's Sky - Early Impressions/Reviews-in-progress Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tagyhag said:
Tell me with a straight face that the game someone will be buying to play offline will be exactly the same quality wise than one with the day one patch.
Click to expand...

needing to download patches does not mean online is required?

you could, hop online day 1 to download the patch, move to a cave with no internet and play the game forever.

with the "always online check-in" that was going to happen with the xbox one, this is not possible. you really don't understand the difference?
 
It's 2016, games aren't necessarily done and feature complete when they go gold. I'd be shocked if this patch wasn't part of the team's road map when they announced they delay back in May. Not their fault the game leaked as much as it did.
 
Yes, I know there’s a day-one patch on the way. What I care about is reviewing what people will have straight out of the box on the day they get their copy, the game that was handed over the counter to them when they parted with their cash in good faith. If the update drastically changes the experience of the game, so much so that’s it’s unrecognisable from what’s originally on the disc, then there’s something fundamentally wrong with the way games are being made; I wouldn’t pay for Chocolate Rice Crispies, receive plain Rice Crispies and then be told to wait while Kelloggs gets the chocolate flavouring together. Silly analogy, but it’s the same principle.
Click to expand...

That sounds pretty ignorant in today's landscape. I don't think there's anything wrong with day 1 patches. I don't think the game will be "unrecognizable" but if there's significant updates you have to take that into account.
 
Ethics in day 0 reviews aside, that review is concerning just because of the "drags" comment. I hope that there's an abundance of fun "stuff" to do, for lack of a better way to explain it.
 
For me, it's nothing to do with the score, but the steadfast stubbornness masked as championing for the consumer.

Yes, Day 1 patches aren't something that should be encouraged. As others have said though, if a Day 1 patch made a good game bad would it be #4TheConsumers to not change your review score accordingly?

Had he not included the whine about Sony/HG not returning his email, I'd be fine with it. As others have said, it's a good score and the review is on point. It's just the surrounding commentary that ruins the whole thing for me.
 
icespide said:
needing to download patches does not mean online is required?

you could, hop online day 1 to download the patch, move to a cave with no internet and play the game forever.

with the "always online check-in" that was going to happen with the xbox one, this is not possible. you really don't understand the difference?
Click to expand...

Don't you remember this place during the whole fiasco? It was mostly about sticking up to the people that have zero internet all the time.

Those people seemed to have been forgotten.
 
ghst said:
GAF unironically shitting on reviewers for a reviewing a game in time for its release.

if the version they've been sent is unfinished, that's on the developer.
Click to expand...

they weren't sent a copy, they bought it from a store that broke street date
 
Seik said:
That's not exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Yes the developers should continue to improve their games, of course.

But if the game changes/upgrades dramatically over a day 1 patch, there is a problem.

I'll be more precise in order to be understood better. When The Evil Within came out I bought it and bought it on my way to a vacation spot where there is no Wi-Fi. Thing is, game is an atrocity, performance-wise, without the Day 1 patch.

I do think that a game that needs a Day 1 patch to be 'the game' it's supposed to be basically makes your package (when bought physically) worthless in the long run.

In many years, when I'll want to revisit The Evil Within on a PS4 on which I won't be able to download a patch because the service will be gone, my disc will be worth jack because it'll be a total mess of framerate to play, cool huh? I was expecting a GOTY edition to come out but it never did, so yeah, to preservation version of TEW is on PC only it seems because all discs available in the entire market represents the game in an unfinished state.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong but this situation is completely different. I have NMS in my PS4 right now. It works practically perfectly. It's still an awesome game.

For the next few years the developers will be updating the game frequently, adding new systems and content and adding improvements. That's mainly what this "patch" is.
 
Wereroku said:
Yes then the game would come out in september and they would still keep working on it and come september there would be another giant patch list. Every company has to decide on a point that they make the game gold for pressing. NMS is worse then others but better then some.
Click to expand...

I get that I do, but those patch notes are damning in my eyes. They say to restart the game basically because the changes are that intense. That's really messed up. I'm all for QoL improvements and bug fixes and new features, and those are in there too, but the restart the game and the game we want to be statements scream delay to me. As a dev they have to know someone is going to experience the game with no patches and are you really okay with what is on the disc? I wouldn't be. Not to that point at least.
 
Tagyhag said:
Don't you remember this place during the whole fiasco? It was mostly about sticking up to the people that have zero internet all the time.

Those people seemed to have been forgotten.
Click to expand...

do you really not understand the difference between an entire console requiring online vs individual games and why one is a lot worse than the other?
 
I have no problems with reviews of "what you get in the box", what i found silly is that in this times, reviewers refuse to update their reviews of games when big patches (like no mans sky or Driveclub) appears and solve much of the flaws that impact in the score of the review in the first place.

Laziness?
 
You should be able to review a game based on what is on the disc.

There is also no obligation to not review/hold-off if you purchase your own copy of the game.
 
Shin-chan said:
I think the review is a little silly if the changes are drastic but it highlights a bigger issue really.

Why even bother sending the disc to print if there was so much shit that was going to be changed? Your gold master disc is a joke, you can barely call it version 1.00.

It's not an issue if you have constant internet access or whatever but what if, say, you're moving house and it isn't going to be set up for weeks? You've bought a beta.

If something is so significant that it changes the game to the degree that it will impact reviews it should be on the disc that is printed and put on store shelves.
Click to expand...

Okay, this genuinely made me laugh.

Almost everyone who's gotten their hands on this early have posted positive impressions. The game as it is right now is fine and certainly not broken.
 
Are there no other examples of games with big day 1 patches that are as significant as this for this to be garnering that much attention? Someone said UC4 but that game was still playable unpatched you just couldn't use the multiplayer or something like that.
 
Tagyhag said:
Don't you remember this place during the whole fiasco? It was mostly about sticking up to the people that have zero internet all the time.

Those people seemed to have been forgotten.
Click to expand...

Is it unreasonable to think future printings of the NMS disc will include the patch already? Outside of GOTY editions, I honestly don't know if this happens.
 
8/10's still a pretty good score, especially for pre-patch. I played this game for 6-8 hours yesterday and have read the patch notes thoroughly - I'm predicting 9's and 10's for this one, honestly, and a few 8's for reviewers like this who either jumped in too quick or didn't vibe as much with the game.
 
Patch or not. I think 8/10 is a fair review. You can always add or subtract points with any game depending on your preferences.

I did think the game would get 8s, maybe a few 9s and 7s.
 
It really is a shame that 95% in here only argue about why he didn't wait for the update even though the review he put out gives a better impression about the game than anything else did in the past. It's a great early review which will make up many people's minds (including mine) on whether to go in day 1 or stay away.
 
Valentus said:
I have no problems with reviews of "what you get in the box", what i found silly is that in this times, reviewers refuse to update their reviews of games when big patches (like no mans sky or Driveclub) appears and solve much of the flaws that impact in the score of the review in the first place.

Laziness?
Click to expand...
It's almost as if consumer reviews are reviewing the shipping product.
Tagyhag said:
Don't you remember this place during the whole fiasco? It was mostly about sticking up to the people that have zero internet all the time.

Those people seemed to have been forgotten.
Click to expand...
Word. People are reviewing the game that comes on the disc. If that game is incomplete then don't say that you went gold.
 
I don't really think reviewing a game that isn't actually what the vast majority of people will actually be playing is consumer-friendly, though not everyone uses the internet with their consoles (though that's partly because internet companies are stubborn, stubborn beasts that have implemented data caps purely as a means of extorting cash from people and will try to avoid connecting people in certain areas where possible as well as maintain an effective duopoly to avoid competition).

But day 1 patches are something of a reality in this industry now, and very much due to the way actually producing and selling retail copies is handled, and a thing that will likely go away once digital-only is viable for console, since you basically need the internet to acquire PC games these days even with retail copies. It's far more complicated than "don't release an unfinished game".
 
There are more people in this thread who think people have issues with the 8/10 score itself than the people who actually have an issue with the score. The discussion relating to day 1 patches and reviews as taken place ITT largely has nothing to do with that.
 
PBY said:
Ethics in day 0 reviews aside, that review is concerning just because of the "drags" comment. I hope that there's an abundance of fun "stuff" to do, for lack of a better way to explain it.
Click to expand...

"Fun stuff" is pretty subjective, though, as seen by the differences in play styles on various streams. For a player like me hiking to a peak to watch an alien sunset, or observing how animals interact with each other are the types of experiences I'm after, which contrasts players who will hastily mine just enough resources to get them to the next planet, rinse and repeat.
 
icespide said:
do you really not understand the difference between an entire console requiring online vs individual games and why one is a lot worse than the other?
Click to expand...

Of course I do (even if I disagree) but it's still funny to me how people will change their tune throughout the generation.

At the beginning it was a big "NO" to everything that requires online. Now, it's "some things are OK".
 
JayBabay said:
Are there no other examples of games with big day 1 patches that are as significant as this for this to be garnering that much attention? Someone said UC4 but that game was still playable unpatched you just couldn't use the multiplayer or something like that.
Click to expand...

And so is NMS, so what is your point?
 
Heroman said:
Im ready
oG6mD.gif
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Defensiveness is gonna be so high here. I wonder if anyone will have strong opinions about the "failures" of Metacritic.

Icyflamez96 said:
There are more people in this thread who think people have issues with the 8/10 score itself than the people who actually have an issue with the score. The discussion relating to day 1 patches and reviews as taken place ITT largely has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. That's kind of the point of Gaf review threads. People war over the predetermined scores the game should get based on their perception of the product without having played it and the rest of us show up to point and laugh.
 
Anyone who gives a score before the day one patch is a suspect outlet or reviewer. Totally transparent move for clicks.

I'm interested in some kind of impressions or perhaps updated "journals" as they prepare their reviews though.
Shin-chan said:
I think the review is a little silly if the changes are drastic but it highlights a bigger issue really.

Why even bother sending the disc to print if there was so much shit that was going to be changed? Your gold master disc is a joke, you can barely call it version 1.00.

It's not an issue if you have constant internet access or whatever but what if, say, you're moving house and it isn't going to be set up for weeks? You've bought a beta.

If something is so significant that it changes the game to the degree that it will impact reviews it should be on the disc that is printed and put on store shelves.
Click to expand...
This doesn't highlight anything.

The reality that most people seem happy to ignore is that disc printing and assembling retail copies takes time and time is money. You send the gold master to print and then in the two or three months it takes to get to shelves, you can keep working on the game and polishing it even further. What would you rather have them do while they wait for the discs to hit retail? Twiddle their damn thumbs?
 
SomTervo said:
You're not wrong but this situation is completely different. I have NMS in my PS4 right now. It works practically perfectly. It's still an awesome game.

For the next few years the developers will be updating the game frequently, adding new systems and content and adding improvements. That's mainly what this "patch" is.
Click to expand...

Then in this case, I'm cool with that.

But still, people should be wary of day 1 patches, in the case of NMS, it's all right if the base game is still ok. But it's not something to be taken so lightly like some here seems to take it.

Another point I forgot to bring to the table is when people will start emulating PS4, many games they'll want to rip will be worthless, because TEW is not the only example like that. This will bring many complications on the table for the games preservation purposes.
 
PBY said:
Ethics in day 0 reviews aside, that review is concerning just because of the "drags" comment. I hope that there's an abundance of fun "stuff" to do, for lack of a better way to explain it.
Click to expand...

He only says it drags when you're trying to get somewhere, which is true in my experience too. It's a passing sensation though - within a couple of minutes you reach your destination and stuff ALWAYS gets interesting again.
 
PodcastFips said:
It really is a shame that 95% in here only argue about why he didn't wait for the update even though the review he put out gives a better impression about the game than anything else did in the past. It's a great early review which will make up many people's minds (including mine) on whether to go in day 1 or stay away.
Click to expand...

The problem is the review could be a 10/10 from anyone but the patch changes so much to the game that the 10/10 doesn't matter.
 
Gator86 said:
Absolutely. Defensiveness is gonna be so high here. I wonder if anyone will have strong opinions about the "failures" of Metacritic.
Click to expand...

Oh please... them having a 'weighted system' is a logical failure long before this game ever was a thing.

That is not how math works.
 
Seik said:
I do think that a game that needs a Day 1 patch to be 'the game' it's supposed to be basically makes your package (when bought physically) worthless in the long run.
Click to expand...

That was always going to happen with No Man's sky no matter what, since they plan to continue to release content for this game at regular intervals.

Even without the day 1 patch, the disc version will pretty soon be something very different from the updated game.

Physical copies just aren't a good fit for games like this.
 
paulogy said:
Is it Tuesday? Is the patch live?

No? Then I consider any of these an in-depth preview, at most.
Click to expand...

The patch is damage control based on initial feedback, they've cranked a bunch of the constants up to try to make the galaxy more interesting. The "Fix" to many of the games problems will likely be delivered as DLC somewhere down the road, as they are a very small team and creating enough content to fill that vast universe isn't quick.

Programmatically generated universes are almost always a bit dull after the initial wanderlust has worn off, the trick is to get the micro-mechanics to be fun. Docking the ship, upgrading your suit etc. From what I've heard they haven't pulled that off. People are setting their expectations far too high, and a lot of the early reviews will be dismissed unfairly due to this magical 'patch'.

The pre-order bonus is also a joke, it's pretty much giving you an easy mode for the first couple of hours.
 
JABEE said:
You should be able to review a game based on what is on the disc.

There is also no obligation to not review/hold-off if you purchase your own copy of the game.
Click to expand...

Sure, and if a reviewer's just trying to prove their competency at reviewing, that's one thing, but a good review's purpose should be to inform its audience.

Should you install The Witcher 3's day one patch?

After a weekend of testing The Witcher 3 on Xbox One, it's fair to say installing its day one patch (version 1.01) is something of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the 588MB file improves frame-rates slightly during play, while fixing minor bugs scattered across the game. In many ways it's a more polished experience with the patch - notably we have less geometry pop-in during cut-scenes, fewer instances of flickering shadows, and a great many more tweaks elsewhere.

But the downsides pack a punch too. It's apparent after switching between the game's default and patched states that these improvements come at a cost. Chief among these is the aggressive stuttering during pre-rendered cut-scenes. Essentially, encoded video files are used to portray the game's bigger plot points - such as the opening scene, re-caps after loading a save, and the dramatic end to the tutorial - while the game's engine is used for smaller beats in the story.
Click to expand...

Stuff like this is important information for the vast majority of readers. It isn't just about holding off to let the game's score inflate as much as possible, it's about ensuring that you're being true to what your audience will experience.
 
JayBabay said:
Are there no other examples of games with big day 1 patches that are as significant as this for this to be garnering that much attention? Someone said UC4 but that game was still playable unpatched you just couldn't use the multiplayer or something like that.
Click to expand...

NMS is 100% playable without its day 1 patch.
 
Gator86 said:
Absolutely. Defensiveness is gonna be so high here. I wonder if anyone will have strong opinions about the "failures" of Metacritic.
Click to expand...
What's to be defensive about? I see more people arguing about a patch than the score. Why is that? Because it's actually a good score without the patch they move on to the next thing to nitpick about
 
RoyalFool said:
The patch is damage control based on initial feedback, they've cranked a bunch of the constants up to try to make the galaxy more interesting. The "Fix" to many of the games problems will likely be delivered as DLC somewhere down the road, as they are a very small team and creating enough content to fill that vast universe isn't quick.

Programmatically generated universes are almost always a bit dull after the initial wanderlust has worn off, so the trick is to get the micro mechanics to be the enjoyable park (i.e. Look at how the original Elite made the process of navigating around fun by itself) -

people are setting their expectations far too high, and a lot of the early reviews will be dismissed unfairly due to this magical 'patch'
Click to expand...

Please tell me this is a joke post.

Blackleg-sanji1 said:
What's to be defensive about? I see more people arguing about a patch than the score. Why is that? Because it's actually a good score without the patch they move on to the next thing to nitpick about
Click to expand...

.
 
JABEE said:
You should be able to review a game based on what is on the disc.

There is also no obligation to not review/hold-off if you purchase your own copy of the game.
Click to expand...
Sure. But isnt the point of a review to inform the player about what their experience will be like when they play the game based on their playing the same version of a game as you? I get that this is unfortunate for reviewer and those who rely on them for purchasing. But if you are someone who relies on reviews to purchase a game, then would it not make sense to wait until you get a review of a game thats in a state that will match your own experience? Especially if any changes are significant?
 
SomTervo said:
He only says it drags when you're trying to get somewhere, which is true in my experience too. It's a passing sensation though - within a couple of minutes you reach your destination and stuff ALWAYS gets interesting again.
Click to expand...

good to hear; getting it tuesday regardless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

No Man's Sky: Relics (New update)
35
2K
Trogdor1123 replied
Atomfall - Reviews Thread
2 3
106
8K
Humdinger replied
No Man's Sky Aquarius Update
38
3K
cyberheater replied
No Mans Sky hits new milestone on steam (ALL reviews: Very Positive)
29
1K
Loomy replied
South of Midnight - Reviews Thread
11 12 13 14 15
707
32K
nkarafo replied
Top Bottom