Wind's Howling
Member
As if I am going to check his posts on other forums.
No Man's Sky - Early Impressions/Reviews-in-progress Thread
- Thread starter PodcastFips
- Start date
- Status
As if I am going to check his posts on other forums.
I know right? lol
Practically everyone I know and am seeing posting about it are mostly having a blast (although the game seems to have some crashing issues apparently). I think the game is going to be relatively divisive already, but I think should probably wait at least a few days and see how things shake out either way if they're on the fence or curious how it's going to fare critically.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
I feel like Jim is quite confident his impressions will be widely shared by most gamers and reviewers.
Gormenghast
Member
The only relevant aspect is the divide between a small game built around some tech, and expectations of players about that tech.
What is disappointing for Jim Sterling and for most people is not "No Man's Sky", it's what "random generation" can do for you.
There are no magic tricks, nor amazing, endless gameplay that can be produced by a simple algorithm.
Is it a 15 people team? Okay, then it delivers a world that has a depth that can be made by 15 people. You cannot magically expand it to some juggernaut.
The bottom line: a randomly generated world takes just as long to make as an handcrafted one. It has the exact same work-hours to fun ratio. So if you make a really huge game it's only consequent that the good things in that huge world are spread out very thinly.
What is disappointing for Jim Sterling and for most people is not "No Man's Sky", it's what "random generation" can do for you.
There are no magic tricks, nor amazing, endless gameplay that can be produced by a simple algorithm.
Is it a 15 people team? Okay, then it delivers a world that has a depth that can be made by 15 people. You cannot magically expand it to some juggernaut.
The bottom line: a randomly generated world takes just as long to make as an handcrafted one. It has the exact same work-hours to fun ratio. So if you make a really huge game it's only consequent that the good things in that huge world are spread out very thinly.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Here's the first time I switched planets. Holy hell, the rush!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxh1TUPWaA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxh1TUPWaA
Anyone else feeling very limited in what you can do? The run/walk speed is so slow and you have like 4 seconds of stamina. It makes exploring not very fun. And then each time you take off in your ship it uses 25% of the fuel.
There's just been a LOT of walking around looking for those fucking isotope flowers, especially when I had to make a warp core.
There's just been a LOT of walking around looking for those fucking isotope flowers, especially when I had to make a warp core.
Wind's Howling
Member
This game is not going to be for everyone and even Sean acknowledges this.
We will see mixed scores across the board. People who will love or hate it.
If there's even a tiny fraction of an explorer inside your body you should definitely just try this. No reason to judge it based on reviews. Try and rent it and see if you will like it.
The gameplay videos show exactly what you can expect with a few surprises here and there. If you stay realistic you will probably enjoy it.
We will see mixed scores across the board. People who will love or hate it.
If there's even a tiny fraction of an explorer inside your body you should definitely just try this. No reason to judge it based on reviews. Try and rent it and see if you will like it.
The gameplay videos show exactly what you can expect with a few surprises here and there. If you stay realistic you will probably enjoy it.
Stilton Disco
Member
I'm hardly surprised Jim Stirling isn't particularly taken with it, if only because of how many shitty generic survival sims he's experienced for his Squinty Plays videos.
Still, this was always going to be a marmite game, and just watching his Jimpression video, what he was showing was far more captivating and exciting to me than it clearly was to him.
It's just a shame the next Podquisition episode is going to be a bit of a downer when they talk about it.
Still, this was always going to be a marmite game, and just watching his Jimpression video, what he was showing was far more captivating and exciting to me than it clearly was to him.
It's just a shame the next Podquisition episode is going to be a bit of a downer when they talk about it.
Here's my first hour of gameplay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ6-6vBWR90
And, why not, here's me unboxing our press kit. Because people love dem unboxings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8c1o_yixi0
I'm really impressed with what I've seen so far. Someone else is reviewing it for us, but bloody hell, the scope is just mind-boggling
And, why not, here's me unboxing our press kit. Because people love dem unboxings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8c1o_yixi0
I'm really impressed with what I've seen so far. Someone else is reviewing it for us, but bloody hell, the scope is just mind-boggling
To me it's the lack of proper MP that pushed me from day1 to getting this second hand only.
I know an mmo is not what they wanted to make, so it's probably my fault I wanted this game to be something else.
I read the US Gamer review and the gameplay is kind of what I expected ever since that first showing. That its mostly resource collecting and crafting in the early game and its a little shallow.
That's the problem I had with the game the whole time from all the previews. The core of the technology, the procedural generation of the galaxy is the exciting part, but the gameplay loops seem like barriers to progress. It just feels like the game forces the player to collect 500 of these minerals for crafting before being able to build an upgrade part to jump to the next planet or system.
But I think as long as you're in it for the space tourism, then it seems like a wonderful game from that perspective.
Also Kat Bailey is not exactly the best person to review this type of game, no disrespect to her, I think she emphasizes interesting game mechanics, and i'm not sure this game values that over its galaxy generation aspects.
That's the problem I had with the game the whole time from all the previews. The core of the technology, the procedural generation of the galaxy is the exciting part, but the gameplay loops seem like barriers to progress. It just feels like the game forces the player to collect 500 of these minerals for crafting before being able to build an upgrade part to jump to the next planet or system.
But I think as long as you're in it for the space tourism, then it seems like a wonderful game from that perspective.
Also Kat Bailey is not exactly the best person to review this type of game, no disrespect to her, I think she emphasizes interesting game mechanics, and i'm not sure this game values that over its galaxy generation aspects.
You see, this is the problem I have with the game; Exploring has nothing to do with how many planets you are able to generate with an algorithm.
Spacecowboy77
Member
Yeah, seems to be on par with what I figured the game would be
Concept's cool but overrall it's nothing revolutionary. In it's core it's just another survival game, in space. I already have Starbound for that with way more content.
I'll wait for some heavy discount + PC mods
Concept's cool but overrall it's nothing revolutionary. In it's core it's just another survival game, in space. I already have Starbound for that with way more content.
I'll wait for some heavy discount + PC mods
DukeLongfellow
Member
Oh man, imagine discovering No Man's Sky's equivalent of Star Trek's Risa. Stuff like this is the draw for me personally. It's sort of what I like with Minecraft's exploration and crafting systems but in a much more artistically and conceptually interesting package.
I'm not sure I follow.
It's a hugely impressive feat for a 15 man team to develop a game of this scale. Ubisoft teams reach upwards of 500 people, I bet most of them are working on actual assets. I probably expect only a handful of people are working on the gameplay aspects.
Most gameplay ideas and concepts come from a small group or sometimes even one person. Having different size teams isn't going to change that, and I don't think Sony expected gameplay to come from a procedurally generated algorithm. What Sony and other publishers and devs are excited about is probably using similar tech to make games to reduce cost of games.
Did he finish the game in 2 hours?
Wind's Howling
Member
Each planet is different even though the formula remains the same. There's a ton of variation but after dozens of hours there will be repetition, but name me a game where that doesn't happen.
Dang.
That's what I don't understand, it was pretty obvious from all their previews that walk/run was not fast enough to make the game fun (tolerable?). And it doesn't make sense there isn't some sort of all purpose vehicle you can drive around to make exploring easier. They could just make it so that all spaceships purchased include some sort of ATV in the boot.
They are adding in FOV options. (read that in Sean's AMA over on reddit)
.
I liken it to Everybody's Gone to the Rapture or Journey in terms of it not being for everyone, especially time pressed critics.
Wasn't stated whether that was just for PC or PS4 as well.
Gormenghast
Member
But the game has a very small "scale". That's why people say it's "overhyped". People expect something different.
Nope, it's players who expect that and feel let down.
There's good use of randomly generated content and stupid use. This game appears to use the second kind.
What's the difference between "good" and "stupid" version of this random generation application?
It's pretty easy to explain: good use makes gameplay DEPEND on the environment. It means that a different environment requires a different strategy from the player. You don't go always through the same moves, because every time the environment changes it requires an adapted strategy. You start in a different environment? Then what you do dynamically changes, you have to make new plans.
What's the stupid use? When you just add cosmetic variations. Make this rock of a different shape, of a different color, but you shoot at it to produce the exact same resource. This planet has a bluish palette, the previous one a greenish one, but the means of interacting with them is essentially the same.
The stuff you find in No Man Sky appears to be interchangeable. It looks different, but functionally it plays the same role.
This is the "stupid" use of random generation. Where the blocks look always different, but always retain the same function.
She is awesome, but yeah, this is not her type of game. In fact, it really isn't critic friendly at all.
depths20XX
Member
I wanted to like this game but it never seemed to develop much further than what they told us in the early stages. After watching some streamers playing it I can tell it's not for me. There aren't enough gameplay elements there to make me want to explore these random planets.
and that's the point: it's a player's fault, not HG's one
Freeman76
Member
10/10 I almost bit there
It is not random, it is procedurally generated. But please do continue your diatribe on stupidity.
Same, i was tempted to get it on Friday but i don't see enough stuff to value the asking price atm
I'll probably still get it in the future tho
Freeman76
Member
Sodding_Gamer
Member
I love Jim Sterling but I don't agree on so many of his reviews as of late. He just likes different games to me and wants different things out of them. And that's totally OK.
I don't understand the overhype issue either. What has Sony done to overhype it? Show more trailers? Because that's all they've done and all those trailers represent the game. There is no deception here.
I've spent the last two days playing it and I can't keep my hands off of it. To me, that's a sign of a good game. But to be honest, most people will know whether they were going to enjoy it before hand anyway. If you're really not sure about it, then don't buy it as you're probably not going to enjoy it. Simple as.
And for the record I read the early impressions and they seemed quite good! I thought it was going to get a hammering from journalists who just don't quite "get it". But it seems like most review outlets are enjoying it for the most part.
I don't understand the overhype issue either. What has Sony done to overhype it? Show more trailers? Because that's all they've done and all those trailers represent the game. There is no deception here.
I've spent the last two days playing it and I can't keep my hands off of it. To me, that's a sign of a good game. But to be honest, most people will know whether they were going to enjoy it before hand anyway. If you're really not sure about it, then don't buy it as you're probably not going to enjoy it. Simple as.
And for the record I read the early impressions and they seemed quite good! I thought it was going to get a hammering from journalists who just don't quite "get it". But it seems like most review outlets are enjoying it for the most part.
Run + melee + jet boost zips you around quite fast. You need to discover that though.
I hope he/she wasn't serious..His whole post defines stupidity pretty well on its own
Orniletter
Banned
Jimsterling's video...pretty much confirmed what I expected the game to be.
The price will hurt the overall opinions, but there really doesn't seem to be much to chew on in NMS at all. Animal Lego.
The price will hurt the overall opinions, but there really doesn't seem to be much to chew on in NMS at all. Animal Lego.
Blackleg-sanji1
Banned
The price hasn't hurt it all actually..
Gormenghast
Member
That's the point I'm trying to make, but people are too stubborn to understand it.
The overhype isn't a "fault" of Sony, or the dev team, or the players. The overhype is the result of expectations embedded within the "procedural generation" tech.
Every game that relies heavily on procedural generation ends up with similar overhype. Before this one Spore went exactly through the same pattern.
Looks incredible!! man I've been trying to avoid footage of this. So tough
I played for ~4 hours and experienced 0 crashes. The pop-in is actually kinda cool how they did it. It's like these particles materialize in.
Anyway, I'm really enjoying it so far and all I've really done is learnered a dozen Gek words, collected a bunch of mats, and flown around aimlessly on the planet I started on.
Seeing the random monsters roam around is pretty neat. I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do about the sentinel bot things flying around. Kill them? I was collecting mats once and one started attacking me for it. I was close to a save point and hid inside the capsule thingy and they went away shortly after.
Well, it is a sim that is easy to get into, featuring some fantastic art and atmosphere mixed in. But it is still a space sim and if discovering new worlds, life, alien mysteries, gathering resources to travel and survive, trading and dog fights do not interest you, then you are better off moving on to a game with a blockbuster story or something. This game is exactly what we have always been shown and it is awe inspiring for what it is. Loving it.
Sodding_Gamer
Member
From what I've played I think the procedural generation tech is wonderful. I've seen so many varied things already.
I think the fault is at some gamers who are running wild with imagination with all these things they could possibly do in the game, that have never been confirmed to be in the game in the first place.
hobblygobbly
Member
People are getting hung up about about the difference of "randomly generated" and "procedurally generated".
Procedurally generated is deterministic with algorithm(s), you can seed it and if you put in the same seed (assuming core algorithm remains the same), it'll output the same procedural generation.
However, procedural generation does have randomisation in it - it's a core aspect of it, you have weights that you put into the algorithm, a lot of these weights are randomised values too, or "static" values that feed into something else that uses it to produce a randomised value, etc, if you use things like perlin noise that's random... but when you combine mathematics in certain ways, you can use it for specific results you want. For example, a common way to generate heightmaps for procedural planets is through perlin noise, it's a very old, very easy trick (no idea if NMS does it), but that alone will not help you create something that is enjoyable. It's just a randomised heightmap, now you have algorithms that use the randomised values from that and "join" them together appropriately, creating rivers, creating overhangs, canyons, etc. Some people just say everything below 0.3 or whatever in the noise is "water" but it doesn't look good, you need procecural generation to turn that randomisation into something more coherent (i.e noise won't create you overhangs by itself for example, you need to have algorithms to scalp the landscape from the noise better for that).
My point is, at the end of the day randomisation is a core part of it, you just take the randomised values and do something more intricate with them and connect them in interesting ways.
Procedurally generated is deterministic with algorithm(s), you can seed it and if you put in the same seed (assuming core algorithm remains the same), it'll output the same procedural generation.
However, procedural generation does have randomisation in it - it's a core aspect of it, you have weights that you put into the algorithm, a lot of these weights are randomised values too, or "static" values that feed into something else that uses it to produce a randomised value, etc, if you use things like perlin noise that's random... but when you combine mathematics in certain ways, you can use it for specific results you want. For example, a common way to generate heightmaps for procedural planets is through perlin noise, it's a very old, very easy trick (no idea if NMS does it), but that alone will not help you create something that is enjoyable. It's just a randomised heightmap, now you have algorithms that use the randomised values from that and "join" them together appropriately, creating rivers, creating overhangs, canyons, etc. Some people just say everything below 0.3 or whatever in the noise is "water" but it doesn't look good, you need procecural generation to turn that randomisation into something more coherent (i.e noise won't create you overhangs by itself for example, you need to have algorithms to scalp the landscape from the noise better for that).
My point is, at the end of the day randomisation is a core part of it, you just take the randomised values and do something more intricate with them and connect them in interesting ways.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I still remember all that Spelunky HD overhype.
Yep, but I'm going to be an optimist and assume its for both. Thats what happened with The Witness and it seemed like an easy fix then.
His whole post defines stupidity pretty well on its own
This reads like a defense for the sake of defending. He should not have called cosmetic changes 'stupid', because that term is really quite negative, but still I can understand what he means. From what I've watched of the game, I tend to agree until proven wrongly. If the whole universe, which is procedurally generated, produces the same amount of gameplay, and the purpose is exploring and 'looking' at things, then sure there is a value to the cosmetic changes. Because you're looking at different things. But it's not wrong to say that there is anything but cosmetic changes. Some procedurally generated things change the pace somewhat; you need to get better gear of shoot some poisonous clouds, but you're definitely not changing the way you explore.
That's how it seems, mind you, and that's why I agree with the assessment of 'stupid procedurally generated stuff', even though he should've just called it 'cosmetic' instead of stupid.
And?
I read the first post.. impressed with the quotes.
read the last pages... and everyone is discussing Jim Sterling and his video? he is the only one that is not as impressed as the others (If I go by the quotes in the first post)..
why is his words gospel here..? is his words better or is he just a better reviewer.. ?
read the last pages... and everyone is discussing Jim Sterling and his video? he is the only one that is not as impressed as the others (If I go by the quotes in the first post)..
why is his words gospel here..? is his words better or is he just a better reviewer.. ?
- Status