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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The logic used to justify day one patches seems to boil down to lead time. It airs a month to get through Cert and get your discs to store, so having a day one patch lets you work on things until the last minute. It's efficient.

Well - couldn't you just have planned to release a month later? Maybe if you built enough time for decent QA and Cert we'd have less bugs and games wouldn't need so many patches.

Also in not sure how I feel about a day one patch almost being DLC for the game and fundamentally changing it, not just fixing bugs or tweaking performance. That feels like a 'well we couldn't delay it again..'
 
mrklaw said:
The logic used to justify day one patches seems to boil down to lead time. It airs a month to get through Cert and get your discs to store, so having a day one patch lets you work on things until the last minute. It's efficient.

Well - couldn't you just have planned to release a month later? Maybe if you built enough time for decent QA and Cert we'd have less bugs and games wouldn't need so many patches.

Also in not sure how I feel about a day one patch almost being DLC for the game and fundamentally changing it, not just fixing bugs or tweaking performance. That feels like a 'well we couldn't delay it again..'
Click to expand...
if a day one patch means I get to play the game a month earlier than that's cool
 
Mahonay said:
Content wise? Yes.

EDIT: I'd use the word meaningful instead of radical
Click to expand...


Thank you for actually asnwering my question, now ill be sure to wire up the ps4 prior to launching since the patch adds significantly to the game (believe it or not this can actually be challenging and painful for some of us with disabilities and no wireless option. As result in some circumstances its best to just opt out of updates if they are insignificant. No hostility directed at you, just wanna clear things up for those who would rather question why a ps4 would be offline rather than answer the initial question).
 
On one hand, yes I would like if games were less bugged on the disk. I can't play most of my collection when I travel because all of them need patches to work better. Quick examples: Borderlands Handsome Collection and Nathan Drake Collection, both with patches that increase FPS. When I popped Valkyria Chronicles Remaster and it didn't need a patch I was stunned.

On the other hand, docking points for something that isn't even out yet is kinda asinine. If the game stayed broken for a week after launch before Hello Games fixed it I would totally agree with taking points from them for shipping something broken. However, the game isn't even out yet.

I will be the first one to get the pitchforks if the PC release is broken, but if it is right now and they fix it with a day one patch how could I dock points for something I won't even see.

People comparing this to the always online DRM are either ignorant or trying to change the narrative to have a "gotcha!" moment. Compare it to Master Chief Collection instead, that had a 20GB day one patch.
 
mrklaw said:
The logic used to justify day one patches seems to boil down to lead time. It airs a month to get through Cert and get your discs to store, so having a day one patch lets you work on things until the last minute. It's efficient.

Well - couldn't you just have planned to release a month later? Maybe if you built enough time for decent QA and Cert we'd have less bugs and games wouldn't need so many patches.

Also in not sure how I feel about a day one patch almost being DLC for the game and fundamentally changing it, not just fixing bugs or tweaking performance. That feels like a 'well we couldn't delay it again..'
Click to expand...
You might find this an insightful read
_machine said:
Because, ultimately that's how game development ends up working like. Rami Ismail wrote a really on-point blog post about the matter: http://ramiismail.com/2016/08/patch-the-process/
Click to expand...
 
Deckard Chapel said:
As I said previously, the stress and pressure leveled on this small team of geniuses must be immense. Let's cut them all some slack and wait until the day-one update/patch, start the game and spend a few hours with it before we start casting aspersions.

Form what I've been privy to see and hear of this game so far, it's already incredible. Also, judging by the update/patch notes, it makes the game seem ideal - give or take a few of the ideas I've had; like the larger ships having a moon rover type vehicle for surface escapades, escape pods, or even space stations you could take with you on warps, due to docking with them, etc. All things that could be remedied with a simple update.

Look at all the other infinite-universe games on the Event Horizon - they're all still in the planning/Kickstarter phase - this game releases in about 24 hours. Through updates in the near future, we/they will get everything in that we all want in a game like this.

So what's the problem?

This game is shaping up to be our ideal Space/Science-Fiction escape. I can't wait to see where it goes!

Kudos Sean Murray and Hello Games!
Click to expand...
Totally agree! NMS is the experience I always loved to play as a space lover, and it can be the ultimate space experience!
I'll buy the game day one and reviews won't be important for me. Although I hope it gets good reviews and sells amazing, because I love Sean and his team and want to see their success.
 
There sure is a lot of false equivalency going on in here. Always online check in DRM is in no way the equivalent to a day 1 patch especially when said game is perfectly playable without the day 1 patch to begin with.

Is it unfortunate that some people will not have access to the updates included with the patch? Sure. But unfortunately its just a reality of contemporary game development.Now an argument can be made that this is a particularly impactful patch and that would certainly be true but that doesn't change the fact that you can play the game without it nor does it make a single one time download patch the same as a constant forced online drm check in and saying or implying otherwise is downright asinine.
 
Karak said:
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.
Click to expand...

Any chance someone has a link to this? I've been curious to read more about it since that thread popped up on GAF and would love to hear Sean explain things.
 
GankzyMcfly said:
Thank you for actually asnwering my question, now ill be sure to wire up the ps4 prior to launching since the patch adds significantly to the game (believe it or not this can actually be challenging and painful for some of us with disabilities and no wireless option. As result in some circumstances its best to just opt out of updates if they are insignificant. No hostility directed at you, just wanna clear things up for those who would rather question why a ps4 would be offline rather than answer the initial question).
Click to expand...
Glad I could give you a straight answer.

I think in cases like this where the day 1 patch significantly impacts the shape of a game, there should be some kind of disclaimer on retail copies. Not sure when along the line they'd be able to do this but yeah.
 
Y2Kev said:
What's in the day 1 patch?
Click to expand...

Magical chocolate from Kellogg's apparently

Reviewer does have a point that it sucks there seems to be a drastic day one patch, but it realistically is dishonest to review it knowing full well a patch is on its way. Kinda up to gamers to decide what practices they want to keep.

Splatoon turned out to be a fun game regardless of the ire it drew at launch. If no man sky can stay fresh with updates, then that is cool too.
 
RexNovis said:
Any chance someone has a link to this? I've been curious to read more about it since that thread popped up on GAF and would love to hear Sean explain things.
Click to expand...

Check his twitter. Thats where I saw the explanation and it can't be that many days ago.
 
More_Badass said:
You might find this an insightful read
Click to expand...

I've read it, it is interesting. I used to do TRC for PSOne back in the day and things are more complicated now, but they still used to fail you for the tiniest things. Doesn't change things though. Back then we couldn't do day one patches so we built in time at the end of development to allow for certification. If it was a game that really had pressure on it we might risk only enough time for one failure and resubmission. Once we had to negotiate a waiver because we couldn't afford a rejection. But ultimately you deal with it.

These days the Internet makes it easy to fix it later. And most people have Internet access and it isn't a major thing. But some games have huge patches which can really affect people on average capped Internet subscriptions and delay their gaming if their Internet is slow.

Are we getting to the point where physical copies might as well just be PSN codes in a box?
 
mrklaw said:
Are we getting to the point where physical copies might as well just be PSN codes in a box?
Click to expand...

We're already there since this generation started, some might argue it happened even earlier. I can count the games that I can plug and play on the fingers of one hand.
 
I figured more reviews had dropped since the post count was over 1000 but it seems to still be only one review? Lol.

Good discussion in thread though.
 
Collingwood said:
20 pages off one early pre-patch review? Yikes.
Click to expand...

Frankly I find the discussion that has resulted very stimulating (not being sarcastic, it's a fun debate) but "review thread" is a bit of a misnomer at this point. Its mostly a thread discussing day 1 patches as a general concept.
 
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...

For me it seems like every video I see gives me Spore vibes. The worlds look just like a beefed up version of the crazy worlds Spore had generated. They were neat to look at the first few times but it didn't take long for the "Wow unique alien lands!" thing to lose its novelty.

That combined with the fact that all the gameplay I've seen for it hasn't looked much better than what I saw for Elite Dangerous, another space game that was hyped to hell on here. Elite is another case of a space game with "So much content you'll never be able to see it all!!!!!" Except that the gameplay is like an olympic sized kiddy pool, and exploration in a lonely universe is only entertaining for so long.

And this idea that everyone is going to keep themselves busy roleplaying their Sci-Fi fantasies is most likely infeasible for most, I don't think many people are actually entertained for significant periods of time with that kind of narrative discourse. Don't get me wrong, emergent narratives are probably one of the greatest strengths videogames have as a medium, but there needs to be an actual narrative there, not just "hey get to the center of the universe and see whats up, and play pretend as your favorite sci-fi character along the way!". The best example of a good emergent narrative that I've seen was Sunless Sea. It has a good mix of very well written descriptions and events with just enough randomization to keep things unique. It encourages you to fill in the details on your own to really connect a story together, but it doesn't require your participation to have an engaging narrative.

I think the most glaring indicator that this could be disappointing is the way people are talking about the game before they've even had a chance to really play it. Their expectations are completely unrealistic, something I haven't really seen since the likes of Spore and basically every one of Peter Molyneux's games ever. People let their imaginations run rampant and they're bound to be disappointed. The fact that people are blowing off initial impressions because of some magical day one patch that's going to fix every criticism people have leveraged against the game also indicates to me that some have noticed the potential flaws in the game and are worried that all the time they've invested into the hype has been for naught.

But maybe I'm just jaded because of how disappointed I was with Spore, a procedural game I also personally hyped as the last game I'd ever need for years before it was released. I think we won't have a good idea of how well the game will hold up until a week or two from now, when hype has died down a bit.
 
icespide said:
we're already there friend
Click to expand...


Until I can sell or trade my code AND get discounts on codes like I can disks, we aren't there yet.


I'm not sure about NMS. I bought it for $48 on Amazon and if I don't like it, I can likely sell or trade it for $35 or $40 a week later.

The PSN version is $60 and is stuck bound to my account.
 
DJKhaled said:
They'll be hypocrites, if this were an ubisoft, activision or EA game everyone in this thread would be all saying how shitty Hello Games are handling this, but nah, the bias is too strong.
Click to expand...
Those are giant studios. Not really an equal comparison.

But I'm ok with significant day 1 patches from any team at this point. It used to bother me, but its 2016 now. Things have changed.
 
Purest 78 said:
I can't really think of a game I bought this gen That didn't have a day 1 update.
Click to expand...

I agree most seem to have a day 1 patch. However, I'm not recalling a huge amount that seem to change and enhance so many aspects as listed on the 1.03 patch. I'm assuming that is the patch coming at release, or is that later on? I'm sure those like this exist, but most seem to be fairly minor release day patches. It definitely seems like the game will be much more challenging as a result of the Day 1 patch. Plus it seems at least some worlds will actually be barren which didn't seem to be the case in the unpatched version. Remember Sean said 90% would be barren planets in interviews, but that certainly didn't seem to be the case based on early copies.

Granted, I'm excited by the patch notes, although obviously it may sound more exciting than it truly is I suppose. Look forward to playing the game.

There is a small, but not yet completely insignificant number of people who don't have their console hooked up to the internet. So I do feel a bit bad for those who spend $60 on this and don't think it's a big deal since its largely a single player game and can be completely played offline. The disc version is still completely playable, but it's likely quite inferior to the game with the patch(assuming the notes are accurate and don't present their own bugs or issues)

I wonder what the day 1 patch would have looked like had the game not been delayed until August even.
 
Crash331 said:
Until I can sell or trade my code AND get discounts on codes like I can disks, we aren't there yet.


I'm not sure about NMS. I bought it for $48 on Amazon and if I don't like it, I can likely sell or trade it for $35 or $40 a week later.

The PSN version is $60 and is stuck bound to my account.
Click to expand...
that's really a different issue. the idea with significant patches is that the actual bits stored on your disc are meaningless. you're still practically downloading most of the game
 
WrenchNinja said:
If they thought it was okay to ship it like this, then it's okay to review
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

Would Michelangelo or Leonardo DaVinci have asked an art critic into their studio for a final review to scrutinize a work of art that they were merely in the midst of creating that was only 80% complete? What if they were also given the stipulation that they were allowed to chip away at it, or add things to it until it was truly perfect and only then; would it be critiqued and reviewed as a whole?

Everyone should just wait, download the update, load up the game and then sit back for a few hours to decide for themselves what this game is to them.

It's usually easy as a sentient being to dismiss something that you don't know everything about; but it's far harder to take in everything as a whole when regarding that single thing and pass an accurate judgment on it.

Such is the failure of humanity - when asked to give an honest opinion on a given subject versus what the opposition is declaring vehemently against all odds; the majority will bow down to what the masses deem the status quo.

This is made all the more difficult by the fact that this game will be amazing at launch - yet, it will be incrementally better as the months and years go on. If anything, it sets a new precedent as to how games of this type can and will be reviewed.

Sean Murray had said since the inception of this project, that it will be something that he and his team will continually update and improve upon - so I don't understand the dismissal of the practices taking place here.

Anyone that is hyped about this game can't be anything but excited beyond belief based on what's known about the game so far, as well as the update/patch notes - so what's the problem?!?

John Lydgate said it best: "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time".

Just maybe, Hello Games can re-write that parable for the modern age.
 
mrklaw said:
The logic used to justify day one patches seems to boil down to lead time. It airs a month to get through Cert and get your discs to store, so having a day one patch lets you work on things until the last minute. It's efficient.

Well - couldn't you just have planned to release a month later? Maybe if you built enough time for decent QA and Cert we'd have less bugs and games wouldn't need so many patches.

Also in not sure how I feel about a day one patch almost being DLC for the game and fundamentally changing it, not just fixing bugs or tweaking performance. That feels like a 'well we couldn't delay it again..'
Click to expand...
This is such stupid, roundabout thinking.

Whatever happens, there's always going to be down time when the game is going through cert and disc printing. Something productive needs to be done during that time. Why not further polishing of the game? Why would we want a game month later?

Come on.
 
I don't really get the day one patch complaints, because isn't this game online only anyway? Meaning, at launch, there won't be single person who will be playing this game without the patch - seeing as you can't play offline
 
Alienfan said:
I don't really get the day one patch complaints, because isn't this game online only anyway? Meaning, at launch, there won't be single person who will be playing this game without the patch - seeing as you can't play offline
Click to expand...

Um... no. It's not online only. In fact, they made it a big point to say it isn't. In double fact, it was made a big point to retailers to tell their customers that the game is not online only nor does it require playstation plus. Many conference calls were had over this point. =/

But that was before Super Saiyan Patch. (I kid).
 
Deckard Chapel said:
No, it's not.

Would Michelangelo or Leonardo DaVinci have asked an art critic into their studio for a final review to scrutinize a work of art that they were merely in the midst of creating that was only 80% complete? What if they were also given the stipulation that they were allowed to chip away at it, or add things to it until it was truly perfect and only then; would it be critiqued and reviewed as a whole?

Everyone should just wait, download the update, load up the game and then sit back for a few hours to decide for themselves what this game is to them.

It's usually easy as a sentient being to dismiss something that you don't know everything about; but it's far harder to take in everything as a whole when regarding that single thing and pass an accurate judgment on it.

Such is the failure of humanity - when asked to give an honest opinion on a given subject versus what the opposition is declaring vehemently against all odds; the majority will bow down to what the masses deem the status quo.

This is made all the more difficult by the fact that this game will be amazing at launch - yet, it will be incrementally better as the months and years go on. If anything, it sets a new precedent as to how games of this type can and will be reviewed.

Sean Murray had said since the inception of this project, that it will be something that he and his team will continually update and improve upon - so I don't understand the dismissal of the practices taking place here.

Anyone that is hyped about this game can't be anything but excited beyond belief based on what's known about the game so far, as well as the update/patch notes - so what's the problem?!?

John Lydgate said it best: "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time".

Just maybe, Hello Games can re-write that parable for the modern age.
Click to expand...
You almost got me.
 
Kintaro said:
Um... no. It's not online only. In fact, they made it a big point to say it isn't. In double fact, it was made a big point to retailers to tell their customers that the game is not online only nor does it require playstation plus. Many conference calls were had over this point. =/

But that was before Super Saiyan Patch. (I kid).
Click to expand...

It's not online-only nor does it require PS+.
 
Kallor said:
A review that gave a good score too.
Click to expand...

foolishoptimist said:
Lol
Click to expand...

That's not at all relevant to the discussion that got this thread to 20 pages but ok.

This comment says it well.

CHC said:
Frankly I find the discussion that has resulted very stimulating (not being sarcastic, it's a fun debate) but "review thread" is a bit of a misnomer at this point. It's mostly a thread discussing day 1 patches as a general concept.
Click to expand...

And this game is in a pretty unique situation when it comes to that, considering the content of these links https://twitter.com/NoMansSky/status/761720423256121344 https://twitter.com/JoeyDavidson/status/761755291037884416

All this thread shitting as if people are just having trite arguments over review scores or whatever normally goes on in review threads is unwarranted.
 
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
191
Panajev2001a replied
Atomfall - Reviews Thread
2 3
106
8K
Humdinger replied
Elden Ring Nightreign - Reviews Thread
2 3 4
192
927
EviLore replied
No Man's Sky Aquarius Update
38
3K
cyberheater replied
Top Bottom