Nestled_Grizzly
Member
Welcome to every Neogaf review thread.
No Man's Sky - Early Impressions/Reviews-in-progress Thread
- Thread starter PodcastFips
- Start date
- Status
And fucking Binding of Isaac. It was everywhere.
Blackleg-sanji1
Banned
Confirmation bias/selective picking, whatever else you wanna Call it. Notice how the 8/10 review was hardly discussed at all, in comes Jim sterling and "ha! I knew it told y'all it was a bad game"
This kind of game lives or dies on really good, crunchy, visceral controls.
If you are flying a spaceship around for hundreds of hours exploring planets, then the spaceship MUST control amazingly. It has to be easy to learn but hard to master. The spaceship needs to have enough depth control wise so that a master pilot can do amazing things in it, like roll and twist expertly through canyons. With a real sense of inertia and speed. You need to be able to skim across rock or ocean and feel like you close to death, but your mastery of the controls are keeping you alive, whereas a learner would not even atempt that kind of manoeuvre.
The environments you explore should also affect the way your ship handles. Things like atmospheric density, wind, strength of gravity should force you to adapt to the new place you are exploring by changing the way your ship handles.
What I have seen of the ship controls in this, it seems to be the most basic, barely there, floaty controls that you could expect. Like you are moving thru a 3D space in debug mode.
If you are flying a spaceship around for hundreds of hours exploring planets, then the spaceship MUST control amazingly. It has to be easy to learn but hard to master. The spaceship needs to have enough depth control wise so that a master pilot can do amazing things in it, like roll and twist expertly through canyons. With a real sense of inertia and speed. You need to be able to skim across rock or ocean and feel like you close to death, but your mastery of the controls are keeping you alive, whereas a learner would not even atempt that kind of manoeuvre.
The environments you explore should also affect the way your ship handles. Things like atmospheric density, wind, strength of gravity should force you to adapt to the new place you are exploring by changing the way your ship handles.
What I have seen of the ship controls in this, it seems to be the most basic, barely there, floaty controls that you could expect. Like you are moving thru a 3D space in debug mode.
hobblygobbly
Member
What? I just said that in layman's terms they're the same thing, the differentiation only comes in at a technical level. The output is always seeded with randomised weights, algorithms use the values in a coherent manner and can be reproduced assuming the initial values (usually just one, a seed) is produced and the algorithms stay the same. I don't know what I must reply to, it's just an explanation (from my own knowledge when I had these sort of projects in university for procgen) since it's been brought up for weeks now. Procedural generation is still "random generation", if a planet starts off with a perlin noise turned into a heightmap as a base, that's completely random (well pseudo random since computers don't operate on pure randomness). It's what is done from that when "procedural" kicks in (I'm just using perlin as an example, there are many other random methods for doing this). As I said, creating believable terrain from noise requires more intricacy, you won't get overhangs for example just purely out of noise.
In the end, it's both "randomly generated" AND "procedurally generated". You can't have procedural generatation without randomisation in the mix as well.
More_Badass
Member
You're expecting way too much here. This isnt Elite. It's meant to be arcadey and easy to grasp
Gormenghast
Member
Given the context, the distinction between "random generation" and "procedural generation" doesn't exist.
It's given that there are rules. That's what "procedural" means. Random generation without rules only produces noise, and it's obvious that NMS isn't made of pure noise.
So, used in this context, random and procedural generation mean exactly the same thing.
And people using Spelunky to make an example of random generation: that's the point. Spelunky doesn't use random generation cosmetically. It generates the environment because those variations are what produce variations in how you play.
Yep this still cracks me up.
Necro900
Member
He's just a honest guy. Though ultimately I find more and more differences between his tastes and mine, as it looks like he's basically growing bored of videogames altogether.
He's a good critic of the underlying mechanisms of videogames as an industry, though.
Some expected the Second Coming of Christ and are disappointed its only Second Coming by The Stone Roses
I liked that album but it pissed many off due to the weight of expectation
I'm fine with arcadey. Something like ace combat expert controls would be great.
The reason that people may be feeling that things are too samey already probably has a lot to do with the fact that you move through the environments like a ghost. There's no feedback from the environments in gameplay, it just seems to be cosmetic.
As long as they didn't expect Appetite for Destruction 2 and got Chinese Democracy!
I agree with this, though would have worded it slightly differently. Procedural generation has merit if the main thing about your game is mastering the mechanics, then unpredictable variations of a theme means you constantly have to update your mental model as you get ever closer to building a correct mental representation of the game. If it is about exploring worlds then it is undoubtedly better to have an author, because that adds additional meaning to the thing you are discovering, as you try to interpret the designed space. Of course that would mean the game would be much smaller in scale. I guess there is some merit to discovering things that no one else has, but then what's the point if the game is so big there effectively is no one else in the first place?
That may be why they never clearly told you what you do in the game.
Contrary to what people think, this game has shown what it was so long ago. They never overpromised or shown what wasn't possible. If people ever got overhyped, expected too much, or still ask what the fuck you're supposed to do, it's their own damn fault. How bout you smarten the fuck up and learn some critical thinking skills.
Anyway, reading these impressions/watching these videos over the past week has already confirmed what I was expecting going in, and I can't fucking wait to get my hands on it later today.
Anyway, reading these impressions/watching these videos over the past week has already confirmed what I was expecting going in, and I can't fucking wait to get my hands on it later today.
JustSomeone
Member
Bullshit. This stuff rarely happens on PC games, while the frame rate problems on the ps4 are frequent.
I disagree. :Shrug:
I haven't followed the games development too closely but I was pretty surprised when hearing multiplayer was going to be a complete none factor. Was that always the case?
The thing is they did, but I think a lot of people expected to have something more to it.
Backfoggen
Banned
Good way to react to some joke images.
Your counter arguments are incredible. I'm really surprised people aren't bowing over in agreement by your skilled use of 'so what?' and 'I don't think so'
depths20XX
Member
It's not really a thing to disagree about. He's correct.
Yes, they were explicit about that a long time ago. It's like journey in a way. You have a very minute chance of unknowingly bumping into another human player, but that wasn't what the game was designed around. And I think that's totally fine.
That's what I mean. People might get upset about that part, but they were totally clear about it from the jump. They weren't trying to fool people about what this game is.
And maybe it's not as deep or sim-like as people expected, but I don't know what people expected then? The basic functions and gameplay loops were pretty obvious from every preview that came out. The focus and joy of this game is the exploration. Finding and discovering different planets/species/aliens/ships and sharing that with the world. If that's enough for you? Well, luckily there are many options for much more in-depth space sims out there now.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Yes since the beginning.
Gormenghast
Member
Summarizing:
1- Who's responsible of the "overhype"?
Answer: no one. The overhype of this game is due to the fact it is based on procedural generation. It has embedded the myth: "with just a few rules (or a small team) I can create an almost infinite UNIVERSE that you can have fun to explore endlessly".
That's what generates the hype. SPORE before this game followed the same pattern. The hype is the result of the use of that tech. Of the myth you can produce something big with a small effort.
2- Why I defined this use of procedural generation as "stupid"?
Because it looks like it's cosmetic for the most part. Interesting exploration and gameplay depend on the fact that the environment dictates gameplay. A different environment would force the player to observe, learn and develop a different strategy. Whereas here it looks like the activities on the planet are repetitive. You shoot at a rock or a plant to produce some resources, the shape and color of the plant or rock is different, but their function is pretty much the same. The environment is a backdrop instead of being the protagonist.
This use of procedural generation LEADS to hype, false myths and deluded expectations. It's a stupid way to use it because it's used wrongly and produces negative results.
Where's the challenge? That's why people say it's "boring", because it looks like just a time-based grind made of repetitive actions. You move to a different planet, but you repeat the same actions you made on the planet before.
1- Who's responsible of the "overhype"?
Answer: no one. The overhype of this game is due to the fact it is based on procedural generation. It has embedded the myth: "with just a few rules (or a small team) I can create an almost infinite UNIVERSE that you can have fun to explore endlessly".
That's what generates the hype. SPORE before this game followed the same pattern. The hype is the result of the use of that tech. Of the myth you can produce something big with a small effort.
2- Why I defined this use of procedural generation as "stupid"?
Because it looks like it's cosmetic for the most part. Interesting exploration and gameplay depend on the fact that the environment dictates gameplay. A different environment would force the player to observe, learn and develop a different strategy. Whereas here it looks like the activities on the planet are repetitive. You shoot at a rock or a plant to produce some resources, the shape and color of the plant or rock is different, but their function is pretty much the same. The environment is a backdrop instead of being the protagonist.
This use of procedural generation LEADS to hype, false myths and deluded expectations. It's a stupid way to use it because it's used wrongly and produces negative results.
Where's the challenge? That's why people say it's "boring", because it looks like just a time-based grind made of repetitive actions. You move to a different planet, but you repeat the same actions you made on the planet before.
They showed you many things, traversal, discovering and logging discoveries, trading, space combat, etc. I don't feel like it was clear how much resource gathering you were going to be doing. I haven't seen every video or read every article but I've seen the majority of info on the game before the release.
What is the argument here? Whether procedural generation means the same as random generation to laymen? I'm guessing laymen don't give two fucks about the distinction, lol. So yeah, I guess they are.
Necromanti
Member
I think my only complaint of the game so far based on what I've seen is that the PS4 footage is just not very flattering in parts. I hope it looks better on PC. It probably looks better in person, too.
And Jim is pretty positive about games that he's in to. (He's also very generous towards a lot of games that show any semblance of promise considering the volumes of garbage he goes through.)
Not sure what you mean. He seems to have a very tempered and realistic take on it. I didn't find it particularly negative, though not hyperbolically glowing either.
And Jim is pretty positive about games that he's in to. (He's also very generous towards a lot of games that show any semblance of promise considering the volumes of garbage he goes through.)
People seemed to indicate there was a lot more to do (including hidden systems), so I'm assuming it opens up a bit more the deeper into the game you get. As someone who's not a fan of survival games, though, I hope it doesn't get too repetitive too fast.
Did they actually show the trading and stuff like that? I feel like 90% of what I saw was exploration and resource gathering. A lot of it I only knew of due to what was hinted and never explicitly shown.
Yeah I know what you mean now.
Probably not trying to show the "boring" parts of the game, but I can see how this could give a different impression of the actual gameplay loop.
Games by their nature are repetitive. People find enjoyment in games like darts, billiards, poker, Tetris, Pokemon, etc. I think you are over analysing this and making crazy generalisations.
Appreciate the clarification. This has me leaning toward picking it up. Don't really do much multiplayer anyway and the lone wolf scenario is very appealing. I'm more just trying to find out how transparent the developer has been about the design of the game throughout development.
sammyCYBORG
Member
Sounds like a game where I could get sucked in or just wander aimlessly for a few hours bored.
In other words, a Steam sale game.
In other words, a Steam sale game.
SolidChamp
Banned
Sorry...had to fix that...just had to.
somecrazymember
Banned
not sure if serious.gif
travisbickle
Member
I'm quite surprised by Jim's first thoughts. The animals are a bit sucky, but I'm captivated by the terrain/planets and how you progress.
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
Why for not jumping onto the bandwagon hype train?
If you experience cognitive dissonance there's probably more truth to it than you let on.
Spacecowboy77
Member
Considering his recent lambaste on survival games, I'm not.
Aztechnology
Member
This is why I'm glad the PC version is coming out slightly behind and even then I'll wait for at least 20% off. This is a bit like Elite Dangerous. A mile wild and an inch deep. As I've gotten older I like procedural and large open world games less (outside of some noteworthy lore filled games) and enjoy crafted world's much more. It helps there's an objective in the end getting to the center. However, I have a very strong feeling, having played many games like this, that without a serious modding scene the enjoyment for the content will dry up very quickly. I know it did with Elite for me. After a week or so I was kind of done with it in its state. Waiting for some much wanted features now to really spice it up.
Pop
Member
How? Just how in hell is this not worth $60. People spend $60+ on the same rehashed games over and over every single year. You know the ones.
Might as well give Jim his own review threads. Shits out of control.
Ars Technica offers two cents on twelve hours: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/...s-of-no-mans-sky-soaring-past-disappointment/
Aztechnology
Member
Pop
Member
Ok...so like every other game
- Status