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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Par Score said:
A game should be reviewed in the state it's released in. It's totally unrealistic to expect a game to be re-reviewed after every update it might get, day 1 or not.

The day 1 patch isn't required for the game to run, an internet connection isn't even required to play, so it's totally fair game to review the release version.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's fair to, but I'm not sure it's entirely honest. If a review's job is to inform potential buyers of a product, then wouldn't it make the most sense to review the version that the nearly all users will encounter on release day? Your review risks being entirely irrelevant otherwise.
 
MoonsaultSlayer said:
Part of me can respect and agree with the reviewer's patch comment.

But another part of me perfectly understands the necessity of a patch and how it may or may not affect the game and its potential score. Playing a game with or without patches (essentially with or without an internet connection) in this day and age is akin to playing an album with or without decent speakers/headphones. Would you rush to review an album after listening to it during a car ride home with the windows down for the sake of getting the first review out, or wait until you can give it a full listen in the right environment with proper equipment?

So yes, I view patches and updates as another layer to factor in when reviewing this medium, especially when they have the capability to fix issues between print and launch. Not many things are afforded that luxury. You can shout about how they should delay it and not release a broken game. But sometimes, maybe like in this case, it's released a certain way to hide secrets until official launch.
Click to expand...
Quoted for new page.
 
SomTervo said:
Besides the fact that the two procedural systems are DESIGNED, as in hand crafted, by two totally different developers for different purposes /gameplay:

Minecraft has biomes, NMS doesn't. NMS has day/night based on planetary rotation, minecraft doesn't. NMS has dynamic weather and storms, NMS doesn't. MC has blocks instead of voxels - voxels allowing NMS to have far more interesting and detailed and intricate planet styles and shapes. Minecraft has a handful of preset resources and creatures and places (mostly), NMS's are procedurally created (it's possible for the devs to see resources they never designed). NMS procedurally creates a food chain - it's possible to see one procedurally created creature hunt another then be hunted by an even bigger creature (I saw this happen today), where minecraft creatures never hunt reach other. NMS has procedurally generated NPCs and space ships which fly across systems and land on planets to dynamically buy and sell resources (minecraft has no economy).

Perhaps most importantly, NMS has thousands of pages of actual hand-written story content with narratives and a lore. Exploring the world is compelling because finding aliens -who are each procedurally styled to look unique unlike minecraft's one-note pig men- unlocks story for you which is almost like a choose your own adventure novel.

These outposts and places have an actual pre-set place in the world - so sometimes you'll get a beacon which will point through the ground and say "a settlement is two days walk in this direction". (Two days as in 24 real time hours of your life). Again, minecraft isn't designed to be aware of what is tens of thousands of blocks away.

Along with hundreds of other details I can't be bothered going into.

I adore minecraft and I'm loving NMS but you have no fucking idea what you're talking about here



Yeah. Haven't had the
marriage call yet though...

FWIW the interaction itself IS very simple but the are loads of variations and moments of greater depth are inserted throughout, impacting on other elements of the galactic sandbox.
Click to expand...

So damned good. Thanks for sharing. Probably more info that most reviews will cover.

The 'choose your own adventure' was the vibes I was getting, and hoping for. Just like those 70's/80's SciFi novels. So amped!!!
 
psyfi said:
This game screams "keep your expectations low". This game has been so overhyped it's pretty much doomed to be disappointing, I fear.
Click to expand...

That's my biggest fear for this game.

It does seem on paper and from the limited impressions we've seen/heard so far and also the update/patch notes, that this could be the ultimate Science-Fiction fantasy game.

I really hope it ends up being that very thing, even if it takes a few more months after release.

My other major concern, is that of non-stop bugs and glitches, due to the procedural nature of it's design and also the tremendous scope of the game.

Let's hope that Sean and his team can get it all in hand and under wraps.
 
psyfi said:
This game screams "keep your expectations low". This game has been so overhyped it's pretty much doomed to be disappointing, I fear.
Click to expand...

Hello Games should have hired Peter Molyneux, that way everyone would automatically temper their expectations because theyre so used to getting screwed over by him.
 
psyfi said:
This game screams "keep your expectations low". This game has been so overhyped it's pretty much doomed to be disappointing, I fear.
Click to expand...

How has it been overhyped? I see this in every thread, but not a single person can explain why they feel this way. Can you break the streak?

Yukinari said:
Hello Games should have hired Peter Molyneux, that way everyone would automatically temper their expectations because theyre so used to getting screwed over by him.
Click to expand...

Or they could watch the dozens of videos.
 
SomTervo said:
Landscapes are definitely unique enough - most planets have their own distinct vibe - although actual memorable natural landmarks are tougher. You tend to see maybe two or their really memorable landscapes in s couple of hours on a planet.

However, they have done a phenomenal job of making every planet memorable through the locations and events that happen on-planet. Eg sentient and native aliens you meet, as well as their settlements. Unique choose-your-own adventure events are built into each.

I'll always remember the place where I blundered into
getting engaged
to a female alien
, got chased into a drop pod by a giant tiger, or befriended an alien who gave me exactly the part I needed for my ship.
Click to expand...

I have been avoiding clicking spoilers, but I clicked this. I haven't been this confused by what's in this game before now.

Interesting.
 
Rami Ismail of Vlambeer really helps elucidate how the process of releasing games on consoles almost never ends when gold status is received.

http://ramiismail.com/2016/08/patch-the-process/

Obviously a game should be pressed to disc in its most optimal state but that is a moving target that has to take into account that there will be weeks, sometimes months, where a dev team can keep working to improve the game.

I can understand the stance of reviewing a game in the state it will be delivered to consumers on disc but it's a tiny amount that will be unable to receive the patch if we're to believe Sony's own connected console stats. The audience that would be served by pre-patch reviews is quite small, I would imagine.

Reviewers should do the job that they think will best serve their readership, but it seems strange for online outlets to take umbrage with a game receiving a substantial day one patch when presumably their readers are connected in the first place.
 
Lemondish said:
How has it been overhyped? I see this in every thread, but not a single person can explain why they feel this way. Can you break the streak?



Or they could watch the dozens of videos.
Click to expand...

Honestly I'm kinda worried of being overhyped, not because of hello games or anything, I've seen the videos etc.

It's more because I used to dream about a game like this. So the fact it's been made just seems so surreal lol.

I know what to expect but because I can't begin to fathom the math behind it etc I'm literally in an odd mindset of being super hyped and thinking that non of it could possibly be pulled off because it's literally a dream I had since I was like 8 XD

I know that doesn't make any sense, but I will say that I'm still excited and really hope Hello games knocks it out of the park, because if they do I suspect it'll be the new standard for exploration games.
 
TheFinalCut said:
Rami Ismail of Vlambeer really helps elucidate how the process of releasing games on consoles almost never ends when gold status is received.

http://ramiismail.com/2016/08/patch-the-process/

Obviously a game should be pressed to disc in its most optimal state but that is a moving target that has to take into account that there will be weeks, sometimes months, where a dev team can keep working to improve the game.

I can understand the stance of reviewing a game in the state it will be delivered to consumers on disc but it's a tiny amount that will be unable to receive the patch if we're to believe Sony's own connected console stats. The audience that would be served by pre-patch reviews is quite small, I would imagine.

Reviewers should do the job that they think will best serve their readership, but it seems strange for online outlets to take umbrage with a game receiving a substantial day one patch when presumably their readers are connected in the first place.
Click to expand...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1259505
 
Par Score said:
A game should be reviewed in the state it's released in. It's totally unrealistic to expect a game to be re-reviewed after every update it might get, day 1 or not.

The day 1 patch isn't required for the game to run, an internet connection isn't even required to play, so it's totally fair game to review the release version.
Click to expand...
Guess what, No Man's Sky is released with the day zero patch.
 
I think its absolutely fair that the devs decide when their game is right for review and it sounds from the patch notes, its a huge update that changes a lot about the game.
 
Can't say much more than has already been said. Regardless of timing they did a review and that review stands for them good or bad and despite any arguments many of us have about the smarts of the its timing.

Sadly, for them, that also means that they have to stand by that review and its pretty terrible. That is one of the saddest blog-like reviews I have seen, once again mostly replacing experience and interaction/reaction explanations with nothing more than I went here and did that and some flowery language.

There isn't much, if any, talk about maturity in the game systems, how those gameplay loops progress, nothing about the sound that I can find at all other than to discuss bugs but no baseline to explain its interaction. Surprised they remembered music but don't explain the themes or true interactions there either other than to explain something as 'piercing' synth drums which is oddly off-putting.

As a review its a premature as the game they looked at and a good indication that they are not good and explaining in detail what they experienced or giving enough information to understand if something was worthy of a purchase to them.
 
Par Score said:
A game should be reviewed in the state it's released in. It's totally unrealistic to expect a game to be re-reviewed after every update it might get, day 1 or not.

The day 1 patch isn't required for the game to run, an internet connection isn't even required to play, so it's totally fair game to review the release version.
Click to expand...
The game's not released yet.

The games were shipped, they're not to be on shelves yet. The stores decided to jump the gun and not abide by the developer's designated release date. That's the store's fault.
 
The whole debate around a day one patch is fairly pointless. Reviewers who manage to get the game early and want the clicks will come up with an excuse why reviewing the game without the patch is reasonable but the real reason is that they know getting the review out first is worth clicks.

Reviewers with any sort of value on providing consumers with a fair review based on what their experience will be, will stick a message up saying "review in progress due to massive day one patch"
 
weekev said:
The whole debate around a day one patch is fairly pointless. Reviewers who manage to get the game early and want the clicks will come up with an excuse why reviewing the game without the patch is reasonable but the real reason is that they know getting the review out first is worth clicks.

Reviewers with any sort of value on providing consumers with a fair review based on what their experience will be, will stick a message up saying "review in progress due to massive day one patch"
Click to expand...
Nailed my sentiments as well.
 
weekev said:
The whole debate around a day one patch is fairly pointless. Reviewers who manage to get the game early and want the clicks will come up with an excuse why reviewing the game without the patch is reasonable but the real reason is that they know getting the review out first is worth clicks.

Reviewers with any sort of value on providing consumers with a fair review based on what their experience will be, will stick a message up saying "review in progress due to massive day one patch"
Click to expand...

At this point, reviewing games can be an impossible task. A patch can hit 2 years after launch and it makes any previous review pointless and drops the "value" on providing consumers anything.

All reviews are now "reviews in progress."
 
Kintaro said:
At this point, reviewing games can be an impossible task. A patch can hit 2 years after launch and it makes any previous review pointless and drops the "value" on providing consumers anything.

All reviews are now "reviews in progress."
Click to expand...
I would not equate a day 1 patch with a patch that hits 2 years after release.
 
Wow! 19 pages and only 1 review from an unknown site!
NMS review thread has the potential to be one of the biggest review threads of all time.
 
Kintaro said:
Sony won the PR war by stating online wasn't a requirement for the system. Now we jump several years and we have a defense stating it "basically requires internet."

And sadly, you're right. Fuck those guys. They're the minority. Right?

This isn't an issue for me. I'm happy they will be supporting the game. However, they are basically transforming the game in a day one patch. The game on the disc is not the game they want you to play on day one. There is something fundamentality wrong with that. I live in a rural mountain town where I sell video games for a living. People in this community turned down the Xbox One in DROVES because of the online requirement. Because they don't have reliable online. I have sold hundreds of PS4s over the years just on this alone. Years later, most still don't have reliable internet. A lot of my customers were super exicted for the game and that it didn't requirement internet. Now, I have to tell them that it basically DOES requirement internet if they want the real game.

That sucks. =/
Click to expand...

Kintaro said:
I'm sorry. Where did I say I couldn't get the update? I didn't. I can update perfectly.



That post was after launch where early adopters are usually the ones online? Got the stats now?

Whatever. My general point was that it would be nice if publishers and developers at least got this stuff on the disc at launch and provide a better product out of the box. How many threads have we had over the years lamenting the day one patch? Now, it's okay? Especially when it's a pretty major one adding big features? Alright.

I'll just back away now.





Hope to see the next gen of consoles to be online only for the reactions. =)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have been sitting here scratching my head all day long trying to process the 360 that a lot of GAF seem to be making at the moment. I feel like I've woken up in a different dimension or something where GAF is now reddit... The defense of this is astounding in the face of what happened just a few years back.

I'm not saying that I am against it either. Though I think it's sad that the people you sell to are soon to be shafted by this trend especially if sites with a lot of sway in the paths the industry takes like GAF are accepting of it like this.

However, tech does evolve. But most importantly, these things are luxuries. In order for internet providers to expand coverage at cheaper rates there needs to be more demand. They will find a way to reach those people if they know that the demand is there and it will pay off in the end.

I don't know what happened to make GAF do a 360 on this issue because I don't think affordable internet coverage worldwide has evolved that much since then (Could be wrong on that) but I guess it's because it's 2016 and it's ok to screw the less privileged now... Still trying to wrap my head around that.
 
Kintaro said:
At this point, reviewing games can be an impossible task. A patch can hit 2 years after launch and it makes any previous review pointless and drops the "value" on providing consumers anything.

All reviews are now "reviews in progress."
Click to expand...
No, it is very rare for any site to update a review after a 2 year patch and it is also rare for any game to change massively after said patch. However a lot of credible sites will update their review if a patch makes significant improvements such as the Driveclub weather patch.

It boils down to sites who value their readership based on returning readers who agree with their standpoint and sites who maybe don't have the luxury of an established fanbase so need the clicks to get by.
 
I wonder if developers load up gaf, bust open a beer and all sit around laughing at posts. A day one patch is enough to get 19 pages in a review thread with one review lol
 
do people not understand the difference between a 24 hour online check-in and day 1 patches? with a patch you can download it once, move to a cave and play forever without ever connecting again.

the online checkin would have been a constant requirement. THAT is what everyone was so upset about

not to mention games requiring online is hugely different than an entire console requiring online
 
Blackleg-sanji1 said:
I wonder if developers load up gaf, bust open a beer and all sit around laughing at posts. A day one patch is enough to get 19 pages in a review thread with one review lol
Click to expand...

We do a number of developers interviews and while not laughing. Most have stated clearly that they do look on and sometimes get a bit depressed as many things are out of their hands. And those that are also depressed them as they don't want to disappoint but the entire dev game is a push pull of resources.
The vermintide guys were hilarious telling stories of reading forums and trying to help Twitch streamers whos game kept crashing if they ran fraps.
It was fun to hear it from their side.

icespide said:
THAT is what everyone was so upset about
Click to expand...
Incorrect. There were a number of people, here, elsewhere and otherwise angry about all manner of aspects. From what I understand no one ran a poll to directly identify which issue was "THAT" one.
 
Kintaro said:
Sony won the PR war by stating online wasn't a requirement for the system. Now we jump several years and we have a defense stating it "basically requires internet."
Click to expand...

Shuhei and Adam Boyes didn't make a video about day one patches, they made a video about sharing discs with friends. MS lost the PR war because they couldn't answer a simple question about being able to lend a game to your pal (and by extension selling your game to someone).
 
It'd be a problem if all reviews were done without the patch all legit players are going to play it with. But really we've got the best of both worlds.

An 8/10 is a good score, and the review can provide a little assurance of a pre-order or day-one purchase. And here you can possibly use the patch notes to determine whether it'll be a better than 8 experience on launch day.

I don't think most people would be happy if the standard day-1 patch process led to all reviews hitting days after a game launches.


I'm quite surprised by the scope of the day-one patch fixes. Anyone else wondering if the day one patch is modifying the Super-Formula to avoid that law-suit.
 
VlaudTheImpaler said:
Yeah, I have been sitting here scratching my head all day long trying to process the 360 that a lot of GAF seem to be making at the moment....
Click to expand...

Surely it's a 180?

And it's probably because it's so commonplace now. People get used to things. And there are some benefits for those with internet.

It would perhaps have been fairer to delay the physical release and debut digitally. But then I'm sure that would have drawn complaints too. Even if they delayed the digital release, it's always going to be a patch ahead. They'd have base building while the disk didn't etc.

If the game is going to have ongoing updates then there's no scenario where the physical copy is on par with the digital one.

There's just no way around it. Disks are never going to have the latest version.
 
foolishoptimist said:
. Anyone else wondering if the day one patch is modifying the Super-Formula to avoid that law-suit.
Click to expand...

Sean explained that a good deal before any hint of a day one package and made it clear that wasn't an issue a long time ago. It doesn't appear to have any connection to that.
 
Karak said:
Incorrect. There were a number of people, here, elsewhere and otherwise angry about all manner of aspects. From what I understand no one ran a poll to directly identify which issue was "THAT" one.
Click to expand...
well it certainly wasn't day one patches
 
domlolz said:
maybe this game will be a victim of it's own hype. maybe it'd have been better received as a lower priced indie pc space explore 'em up.
Click to expand...

It seems like that's the game they originally set out to make. A small studio making a space exploration game with a cool procedural generation gimmick.Then they took Sony's marketing deal and it gets mainstaged at E3 and people see it and get carried away dreaming about what the game could be and ignoring what it is.
 
mokeyjoe said:
I don't think this game would have been made by a 'AAA' studio. They're too risk averse.
Click to expand...
O definitely not. Glad it happened the way it did. Otherwise I'd be buying hyperdrives with real money..ugh

icespide said:
well it certainly wasn't day one patches
Click to expand...
What you don't remember seeing an entire thread made dedicated to one game because of a day one patch? All that outrage over Day 1 patches this generation. Come on ice you remember..
 
VlaudTheImpaler said:
Yeah, I have been sitting here scratching my head all day long trying to process the 360 that a lot of GAF.

I don't know what happened to make GAF do a 360 on this issue because I don't think affordable internet coverage worldwide has evolved that much since then (Could be wrong on that) but I guess it's because it's 2016 and it's ok to screw the less privileged now... Still trying to wrap my head around that.
Click to expand...

keep scratching, and please link me to this guy 'GAF' - I'd love to see how this one guy's views have changed, regarding an always, mandatory online console versus a day 1 patch for a game, if that is indeed the head-scratchingly tortuous comparison you are alluding to...
 
We live in 2016, not 2006. While it's fine in principle to take a stand on this issue, Day One patches are becoming an automatic thing and I think it's unfair to deduct points in a review for it. Criticize it, sure - write an open letter to the publisher or whatever else you feel is justified - but as much as I wish scores weren't as important as they are, the truth is many people make buying decisions based on score (sometimes if they buy, sometimes when they buy) and deducting points for a game without a patch available Day One is intellectually dishonest in a time when pretty much everyone accepts patches as inevitable.

Anything after that is up to the discretion of the reviewer and the publication.
 
I'm excited about this game regardless of what comes out. I was never expecting it to be the greatest game ever, so I doubt I'll be disappointed, and if I am, it will only be a minor disappointment if the game isn't anything special. I think it will be an addictive exploration title that will be a bit redundant and repetitive after a certain point, and if that's what it is, I'm fine with that. I love games that encourage exploration.
 
DragoonKain said:
I'm excited about this game regardless of what comes out. I was never expecting it to be the greatest game ever, so I doubt I'll be disappointed, and if I am, it will only be a minor disappointment if the game isn't anything special. I think it will be an addictive exploration title that will be a bit redundant and repetitive after a certain point, and if that's what it is, I'm fine with that. I love games that encourage exploration.
Click to expand...

Same here. I played the hell out of, and still do, Freelancer vanilla and mods. I love me some space games and spent over 100 hours mining fucking asteroids in that game. I am going to disappear for a week in this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

No Man's Sky: Relics (New update)
35
2K
Trogdor1123 replied
No Mans Sky Nintendo Switch 2 Edition Trailer (Free Upgrade)
30
213
Panajev2001a replied
Atomfall - Reviews Thread
2 3
106
9K
Humdinger replied
Elden Ring Nightreign - Reviews Thread
2 3 4
192
965
EviLore replied
No Man's Sky Aquarius Update
38
3K
cyberheater replied
Top Bottom