Support NeoGAF

[Sotha_Sil]

Sterling's impressions echo what I've thought from all the video footage. Procedural generation, not sure if I'll ever get on board with it.

It failed generating Oblivion's game world, Skyrim's radiant quests, Bloodborne's Chalice dungeons, etc.... no reason to think it would work here.

 

[Wind's Howling]

Rivyn
"There is absolutely no way this should be reviewed that low despite it just being an opinion."

Really? You take one post literally said 2 years ago which, fair enough, earned me that tag and still believe I have the same controversial opinion?

You really are that person who judges a human being over one mistake huh? Good for you.

Someone else care to actually comment on an adult level?

 

[Toparaman]

I think this is going to get butchered in reviews. Shame they felt the need to hide behind an embargo.

Uh, what. They had an embargo because the game is much better with the day 1 patch, which they were still working on just a few days ago.

One more thing about Jim's review: I see his perspective and agree with most of his observations. That said, he's clearly unforgiving of things like pop-in, which I willingly suspended my disbelief and made up that it's a malfunction in my visor. Or things like aliens not getting out and walking around their ship.

Honestly I think this all comes down to the billing and the billing. The hype on this thing was huge but specifically because the promises were huge -- no two worlds the same and over a quintillion to explore. But let's be real: this is a really neat, kinda buggy and somewhat broken indie game with a lot of promise. For $59.99.

They need to go to a freemium route more or less immediately. Here's what I'd do, or what I would've done:

1. Lower expectations from the outset by pricing this as an indie game with optional, microtransactional upgrades. This literally solves every problem.

2. Sell it for $20 or $25 and then make necessary inventory upgrades for something like $1-$2 each. Cap it however you deem fair. Immediately they're right back around the $60 per buyer mark while also getting more generous reviews.

3. This desperately needs to be a cooperative MMO with alliances and guilds and different base ships -- science vessels, traders, hunters, battleships. The ability to stake out, claim, protect, and fight for additional territory. Building your own space stations. In-game community building.

4. With a lower price point, you get more generous reviews while also lowering expectations. With microtransactions, you solve the game's biggest broken mechanic with limited inventory. And then building an MMO on top of this with 4 different play styles -- zoological discovery, money making, combat (say hunting traders and popping them for their spoils, protecting your traders, and hunting other hunters), and alliance conquests -- you make this game infinitely more enjoyable with a lot of ways to approach your own personal style.

5. A quintillion is too many to make all of the above fun. Lower it down to say, 1 million planets. 1 galaxy. Resets every 3 months. Go.

Ew, no. All of this sounds awful.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

As I expected, people are better of by buying Subnautica. And for a more hardcore experience even The Long Dark. I think the "infinite procedural planets" hurt NMS a lot. I´d easily take 100 or so hand made planets filled with interesting stuff over what we got.

I should reinstall subnautica, out of all the survival games that one seems to make the most progress. Well 7days2die also (PC version).

 

[Grief.exe]

So does elite dangerous do what people hoped no mans sky would?

Star citizen too I guess, if it's ever finished.

Elite Dangerous is similar to No Man's Sky in many ways, but it's wrapped up in a complex simulator. There are many niche gameplay mechanics for a player to get caught up in for dozens of hours.
The flight systems are very interesting in that they are all based on Newtonian mechanics, where as the flight mechanics in No Man's Sky are exceedingly basic.
Getting to the far side of the galaxy also requires extreme planning and specific outfitting as human-inhabited regions are negligible on the galactic scale.

Star Citizen seems to be making good progress even with all of the systems and release strategies they weighed themselves down with. I believe the larger universe should see a beta release this year, with single player soon after that.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

It is never good for a bunch of you, right?

Watch Dogs - Too much filler quests!
Assassin's Creed Unity - Too many collectables!
Witcher 3 - Too many meaningless monster contracts!
GTAV - Too many; 'go here, kill that, drive back' missions!
Metal Gear Solid V - Barren open world!
No Man's Sky - Too many planets!

I'm not sure I understand the point of this exercise. Yes, there's generally a common thread to complaints about open world sandbox design. I don't think there's any one right answer in terms of "getting it right." To put it as simply as possible, it's always going to be difficult to strike the right balance between overly scripted experiences where there's a "Press A for Awesome!!!!" moment around every corner and the type of design that seeks to give you a big world to play in and let your imagination run wild. Collectables and other points of interest are often the obvious solution to trying to alleviate concerns about lack of anything interesting to do in an open world, but don't come without their own criticism. It's all rooted in the same concern.

I'm just confused reading your post. Typically when you try to make up fake quotes attributed to the hive mind the idea is to point out some apparent hypocrisy. Like I might say:

"Game A is too linear and overly reliant on a poor narrative to hand hold you down what is essentially one big corridor!!!"

"Game B is a giant sandbox with nothing fun to do and there seems to be no point!!!"

And in highlighting such mindsets, the idea that you can't please everyone becomes more clear.

 

[george_us]

I can, MGSV

At least MGSV had incredibly complex and refined game mechanics. No Man's Sky makes even Assassin's Creed look like a masterpiece. People wouldn't hesitate to shit on this game if it was created by Ubisoft, Activision, EA, Bethesda, or 2K.

 

[breakfuss]

It is never good for a bunch of you, right?

Watch Dogs - Too much filler quests!
Assassin's Creed Unity - Too many collectables!
Witcher 3 - Too many meaningless monster contracts!
GTAV - Too many; 'go here, kill that, drive back' missions!
Metal Gear Solid V - Barren open world!
No Man's Sky - Too many planets!

You can never, ever please the entire audience. This thread alone is the pure acknowledgement that GAF is filled with countless of gamers that have different tastes, different standards and different hopes and dreams.

Why not just agree that the game isn't for you? State your opinion. Fine by me. Just don't go force your opinion into someone's throat until they are forced to choke on it just because they can see past the flaws and actually enjoy the game for what it is.

There's a difference between a game that "just isn't for me" and a game that fails at what it attempts to do. Hopefully most can discern beteeen the two.

 

[finalflame]

It is never good for a bunch of you, right?

Watch Dogs - Too much filler quests!
Assassin's Creed Unity - Too many collectables!
Witcher 3 - Too many meaningless monster contracts!
GTAV - Too many; 'go here, kill that, drive back' missions!
Metal Gear Solid V - Barren open world!
No Man's Sky - Too many planets!

You can never, ever please the entire audience. This thread alone is the pure acknowledgement that GAF is filled with countless of gamers that have different tastes, different standards and different hopes and dreams.

Why not just agree that the game isn't for you? State your opinion. Fine by me. Just don't go force your opinion into someone's throat until they are forced to choke on it just because they can see past the flaws and actually enjoy the game for what it is.

This thread is for discussing the game's critical reception. The people in each group outlined above are different constituencies (GAF is not a homogenous body of people) and entitled to their opinions.

The harsh reality is this game has shallow mechanics and a lack of gameplay depth which is already starting to, and will, get torn up by critics and those who's profession it is to review games. If you like the game despite its shortcomings, then dip out and go play it. You have no reason to care what anyone has to say. But some of us would like to continue discussing the game for what it is, good or bad, or need further consideration to decide if/when we want to get it.

Negative opinions/reviews are not an attack on you just because you like the game. You're more than entitled to like it, but I don't see why that has to come with attacking/discrediting/doing mental gymnastics to invalidate those who don't

 

[breakfuss]

Uh, what. They had an embargo because the game is much better with the day 1 patch, which they were still working on just a few days ago.

If you want to believe that go right ahead.

 

[MMaRsu]

At least MGSV had incredibly complex and refined game mechanics. No Man's Sky makes even Assassin's Creed look like a masterpiece. People wouldn't hesitate to shit on this game if it was created by Ubisoft, Activision, EA, Bethesda, or 2K.

uhuh sure bud

 

[False Witness]

People wouldn't hesitate to shit on this game if it was created by Ubisoft..

People, you included with that AC stuff, don't seem to hesitate to shit on anything Ubisoft does, no matter what it is.

 

[Dubz]

Elite Dangerous is similar to No Man's Sky in many ways, but it's wrapped up in a complex simulator. There are many niche gameplay mechanics for a player to get caught up in for dozens of hours.
The flight systems are very interesting in that they are all based on Newtonian mechanics, where as the flight mechanics in No Man's Sky are exceedingly basic.
Getting to the far side of the galaxy also requires extreme planning and specific outfitting as human-inhabited regions are negligible on the galactic scale.

Star Citizen seems to be making good progress even with all of the systems and release strategies they weighed themselves down with. I believe the larger universe should see a beta release this year, with single player soon after that.

How is Elite's planet exploration. I have the vanilla version, and I'm thinking of upgrading.

Back on topic. I have the game, and while I was very happy initially, the honeymoon phase is wearing off, and I wish there was more to do. The fact that all of the buildings are exactly the same on every planet is a bummer. All of the space stations interiors are 95% identical as well. The procedural stuff seems to be solely for the planets. I also wish there were humanoid aliens roaming the planets, instead of just weird animals.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Really? You take one post literally said 2 years ago which, fair enough, earned me that tag and still believe I have the same controversial opinion?

You really are that person who judges a human being over one mistake huh? Good for you.

Someone else care to actually comment on an adult level?

Yep. I'm glad you were perceptive enough to realise I didn't use your tag as a throwaway joke. I did in fact use it, as God intended, as a means to judge your entire worth as a human being.

Well spotted.

 

[CecilRousso]

This thread is moving so fast that I feel I need to ask if there’s the positive initial posts in OP from reviews in progress and one negative final review, or are there now several negative reviews?

 

[Gurrry]

Damn, when are these reviewers gonna finish their reviews?

 

[Sendou]

Gives me an access error 403!

Jim's site is being DDOS's but you can read the review here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.thejimquisition.com/no-mans-sky-review/

 

[AHA-Lambda]

It is never good for a bunch of you, right?

Watch Dogs - Too much filler quests!
Assassin's Creed Unity - Too many collectables!
Witcher 3 - Too many meaningless monster contracts!
GTAV - Too many; 'go here, kill that, drive back' missions!
Metal Gear Solid V - Barren open world!
No Man's Sky - Too many planets!

You can never, ever please the entire audience. This thread alone is the pure acknowledgement that GAF is filled with countless of gamers that have different tastes, different standards and different hopes and dreams.

Why not just agree that the game isn't for you? State your opinion. Fine by me. Just don't go force your opinion into someone's throat until they are forced to choke on it just because they can see past the flaws and actually enjoy the game for what it is.

So everyone has an opinion in other words but they're not allowed to post bad ones?

Didn't read the review, huh?

No, I saw it thinking it was a review and posted in the review thread.

What a novel concept.

 

[rbenchley]

One more thing about Jim's review: I see his perspective and agree with most of his observations. That said, he's clearly unforgiving of things like pop-in, which I willingly suspended my disbelief and made up that it's a malfunction in my visor. Or things like aliens not getting out and walking around their ship.

Honestly I think this all comes down to the billing and the billing. The hype on this thing was huge but specifically because the promises were huge -- no two worlds the same and over a quintillion to explore. But let's be real: this is a really neat, kinda buggy and somewhat broken indie game with a lot of promise. For $59.99.

They need to go to a freemium route more or less immediately. Here's what I'd do, or what I would've done:

1. Lower expectations from the outset by pricing this as an indie game with optional, microtransactional upgrades. This literally solves every problem.

2. Sell it for $20 or $25 and then make necessary inventory upgrades for something like $1-$2 each. Cap it however you deem fair. Immediately they're right back around the $60 per buyer mark while also getting more generous reviews.

3. This desperately needs to be a cooperative MMO with alliances and guilds and different base ships -- science vessels, traders, hunters, battleships. The ability to stake out, claim, protect, and fight for additional territory. Building your own space stations. In-game community building.

4. With a lower price point, you get more generous reviews while also lowering expectations. With microtransactions, you solve the game's biggest broken mechanic with limited inventory. And then building an MMO on top of this with 4 different play styles -- zoological discovery, money making, combat (say hunting traders and popping them for their spoils, protecting your traders, and hunting other hunters), and alliance conquests -- you make this game infinitely more enjoyable with a lot of ways to approach your own personal style.

5. A quintillion is too many to make all of the above fun. Lower it down to say, 1 million planets. 1 galaxy. Resets every 3 months. Go.

 

[VeryGooster]

For as much as I am finding the game not bad, I'd probably enjoy it move if movement didn't feel like when you're overencumbered in a Bethesda game.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

Yikes at this thread.

Damn, when are these reviewers gonna finish their reviews?

Wondering the same. I imagine it would take a while considering the scale of this game. Looks like there are those rushing to the finish line to get dem clicks. Well i'm just gonna wait for the dust to settle here. lol

All I'm hoping for is a Starbound-esque experience.

 

[Dr_LucienSanchez]

For all of those basking in some weird smug glory about how the game is utterly worthless shit with horrible gameplay after one Jim Sterling review was released, you are aware that there are still plenty of positive impressions out there from professional outlets, as well as normal people playing the game, right? Right?

 

[timetokill]

Right there. You gave in.

Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

That you shouldn't be in this thread if you can't handle negative impressions? Because you didn't seem to know that before.

Heh people discussion a game in OT both good and bad is a circle jerk now?

I haven't been in the OP really but usually that's where the echo chamber resides until the honeymoon period is over



Personally I know very, very little about this game, and my hope is that it's good, but I'm not going to blast critics if they don't think it is.

 

[Exploratory]

Yeah, that's what intrigued me about this game. I really liked just exploring the planets in ME1, and mining for minerals in ME2, so ... it's sort of my kind of game.

Those are my least favorite part of both of those games. And those are like my favorite games so I'm guessing it's not for me.

 

[Wind's Howling]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this exercise. Yes, there's generally a common thread to complaints about open world sandbox design. I don't think there's any one right answer in terms of "getting it right." To put it as simply as possible, it's always going to be difficult to strike the right balance between overly scripted experiences where there's a "Press A for Awesome!!!!" moment around every corner and the type of design that seeks to give you a big world to play in and let your imagination run wild. Collectables and other points of interest are often the obvious solution to trying to alleviate concerns about lack of anything interesting to do in an open world, but don't come without their own criticism. It's all rooted in the same concern.

I'm just confused reading your post. Typically when you try to make up fake quotes attributed to the hive mind the idea is to point out some apparent hypocrisy. Like I might say:

"Game A is too linear and overly reliant on a poor narrative to hand hold you down what is essentially one big corridor!!!"

"Game B is a giant sandbox with nothing fun to do and there seems to be no point!!!"

And in highlighting such mindsets, the idea that you can't please everyone becomes more clear.

Truth be told. I replied on some of the posts saying that No Man's Sky has too many planets in order to stay interesting. My point still stands because of that. Open world games tend to have filler content, especially if you are working with a team of 13.

Expecting anything else is, in my opinion, absolutely insane.

So everyone has an opinion in other words but they're not allowed to post bad ones?

They are? Just that there are a bunch of people who forcefully keep replying on one's who like the game and keep stating that they dislike 'this or that'.

What exactly is the point in that? Why keep replying in a thread for a game which you so clearly dislike?

 

[ghibli99]

Folks at the office who have played it range from it being meh to pretty good. It's about what I expected... I think it could be a better game a few months from now, but from everything I'm reading/hearing, it's full of great ideas that in execution feel half-baked.

 

[Aaron D.]

Why not just agree that the game isn't for you? State your opinion. Fine by me. Just don't go force your opinion into someone's throat until they are forced to choke on it just because they can see past the flaws and actually enjoy the game for what it is.

For all of those basking in some weird smug glory about how the game is utterly worthless shit with horrible gameplay after one Jim Sterling review was released, you are aware that there are still plenty of positive impressions out there from professional outlets, as well as normal people playing the game, right? Right?

Are we reading the same thread?

Seems pretty civil in here between the balance of pros & cons people are reporting.

 

[Grief.exe]

How is Elite's planet exploration. I have the vanilla version, and I'm thinking of upgrading.

I actually don't know about the planet exploration as I haven't upgraded either, but the last couple of expansions look pretty cool, though need a bit more time in the oven.

 

[gamechanger87]

Jim's site is being DDOS's but you can read the review here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.thejimquisition.com/no-mans-sky-review/

Wow. The NMS community is in general pretty toxic. This combined with the subreddit antics over the past 90 days is absurd.

 

[Bubba_Sparks]

Jim's review doesn't surprise me at all. I played No Man's Sky last night for about three hours at my friends house, and came to many of the same conclusions. If I could break down the experience of exploring a planet into several words it would be,"Suprise! It's fucking nothing!" The procedural generation algorithm does a good job of creating interesting terrain features, it just doesn't do a good job of populating them with interesting things to explore. You continually run into what seems like the same outposts populated with random upgrades and a collection of material and items. Sometimes you run into monolith's which allow you to learn one word of an alien language, though why you could only fit one word on such a giant structure remains a mystery to me? The core gameplay loop breaks down into breaking rocks to collect material to craft supplies so that you can go about exploring other planets and eventually other solar systems. Outside of that, you can engage in combat on both the land and the ground. In both cases, the combat mechanic is simplistic and unsatisfying.

Anyway, I am just going to cancel my Steam pre-order and wait for Deus Ex to come out at the end of the month.

 

[QaaQer]

For all of those basking in some weird smug glory about how the game is utterly worthless shit with horrible gameplay after one Jim Sterling review was released, you are aware that there are still plenty of positive impressions out there from professional outlets, as well as normal people playing the game, right? Right?

Hate: The Thread

 

[Weltall Zero]

Have you watched the talk? It's pretty insightful amd offers a good understanding of the systems and human touch behind the game's art. If you can appreciate how Spelunky can consistently create excellent elegant levels, NMS is a larger form of that, in how Yu used careful rules to dictate how levels can form, rather than just creating random messes of platforming detritus

I skimmed the talk, which matters little considering:
1) I found little on value since it's so consistently layman-tems. As a software engineer with experience in machine learning and knowledge on procedural generation, etc. I would have preferred a bit more meat or look at the nitty-gritty. Understandable since he is an artist and is giving the artist's view on it, but then again it makes little sense for an artist to explain something whose underlying principles seem to be rather alien to him.
2) Even if that wasn't the case, to me the value of the talk is almost nullified by the fact that the end result is as plastic, extruded and obviously generated as Spore. One particularly hilarious failure is how he mentions that color palettes were hand-picked, yet 70% of NMS' footage show absolutely horrid colors that no sane human artist, would pick.

Most relevantly, perhaps a reformulation of 2), expecting me to change my perception of the end result by gaining insight of its underlying technique seems like an odd expectation indeed (unless one would work under the highly illogical consideration that more work = necessarily better results, and were to somehow convince themselves to change their aesthetic sense). I can intellectually appreciate the complex techniques behind a work of art, but it won't make me like the work itself any more than I did.

Conversely, I already loved Spelunky, and appreciated the blog post on its own procedural generation because the end result is so good. It didn't make me love Spelunky (even) more, and I didn't need to read that post to love Spelunky. It's the opposite: I probably wouldn't have cared about all the ingenuity that went into its generator if the end results were obviously generated, insipid levels.

What does this even mean anymore?

What part of it is confusing to you?

 

[Cerato]

I feel like games with really rich play experiences and high skill caps are disproportionately popular on gaf - games like Vanquish. Not that gaf is wrong! I just think gaf is disproportionately hardcore. If video games were chocolate, this site would be concerned with whatever was 85% cacao or higher.

I think NMS is going to be the diametric opposite of that kind of game, and I suspect that several months from now, NMS will be generally looked back on by most of the community as terrible.

 

[Grief.exe]

Wow. The NMS community is in general pretty toxic. This combined with the subreddit antics over the past 90 days is absurd.

I doubt it's a literal DDOS, but I could be wrong. Many people visiting the site at the same time results in the same effect as a DDOS attack.

 

[Wind's Howling]

Are we reading the same thread?

Seems pretty civil in here between the balance of pros & cons people are reporting.

We are and it's not stated towards everyone but to a few.

Everyone gets into a slight hizzy fit here. I just do not agree with the fact there are some who continuously reply on one's who like it, and can't seem to agree with their opinion.

You don't see me replying on someone who hates it and trying to sway them over.

 

[Kermy]

Folks at the office who have played it range from it being meh to pretty good. It's about what I expected... I think it could be a better game a few months from now, but from everything I'm reading/hearing, it's full of great ideas that in execution feel half-baked.

Yea some of the guys in my team are pretty meh about it also. Glad I didn't preorder.

 

[QaaQer]

Are we reading the same thread?

Seems pretty civil in here between the balance of pros & cons people are reporting.

Given the preponderance of positive to enthusiastic critical impressions in the op, i find the thread unbalanced.

 

[gamechanger87]

I doubt it's a literal DDOS, but I could be wrong. Many people visiting the site at the same time results in the same effect as a DDOS attack.

On Jim's twitter he thought it was just traffic, but is now reporting it is actually an attack.

https://twitter.com/JimSterling/with_replies

 

[Emperor_Uriel]

Open world games tend to have filler content, especially if you are working with a team of 13.

I think it's the double-dose of filler that's getting people riled up here.

The fact that some planets are boring is okay on it's own, the rare awesome space paradises make up for that, but the constant need to manage survival meters and inventory in the first 10-20 hours of the game adds an overload of bloat to an already bloated game.

Imagine a version of Skyrim where, in addition to all of it's niggling little flaws, you also have to eat, drink, sleep and keep warm, as well as manually recharge your mana and feed your horse 3 different types of food depending on how fast you want it to go. You're already spending hours walking around aimlessly looking for cool stuff to do, but now you need resources to fuel your ability to walk around aimlessly.

It's just dumb. Especially when the general concession so far seems to be "The game is at it's best 20+ hours in when exploration opens up and the constant nagging of survival meters starts to ease up a bit."

 

[Pattycakes]

Why does everyone (as a collective) have to either hate or love this game? I totally understand people who aren't into No Man's Sky. There's a lot of issues that the game has, and if those issues are important to you then yeah, the game is probably not worth the purchase. And I get why people love or enjoy the game. There can be some really awesome or amazing moments in the game, and the sense of mystery and discovery waiting beyond the next horizon is an addicting call to keep playing. Both sides (hate/dislike or love/like) are, I think, justified in feeling the way they do. Why do we have to convince each other otherwise? Can we not just agree to disagree?

 

[March of the Crabs]

To me, about 10 hours in, this game is perfect for me. I'm in school 12 months a year and work full time. There really isn't much time for gaming (not counting the fact that I skipped work and school today to play). This game satisfies my itch to explore and mess around and just chill out in the little free time I have. There is never nothing to do and there's always an artifact or base or cool resource in the distance.
However, my situation is pretty rare. A lot of people, like most reviewers obviously, play games with an end goal in sight. They want to experience the story, be done and move on. I can see how to people with that mindset, like Jim Sterling, this game can be tedious, trivial and boring.
Neither of us are wrong.

 

[Aaron D.]

Guess I'm just not seeing it.

No one is being hyperbolic. No one is dancing on the game's grave.

Criticisms seem generally well-articulated along with the positives as well.

As someone who is on the fence personally, I find every opinion valuable. Both good and bad.

It's really hard for me to justify $60 Day One purchases anymore, except for RARE occasions (like maybe 1, 2 or 3 times a year). So I'd rather read the straight dope on this game rather than empty accolades or merciless drubbings. Not seeing either of those in here, thankfully.

Opinions seem pretty balanced from where I'm standing.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

From what I've seen, it kinda looks as I'd expect. Just an indie sandbox survival game with it's particulars to be noted. I doubt it'll live up to the "hype" and when I say "hype" I just mean to many people's expectations. But it does look like something I might enjoy.

 

[Ducktail]

To me, about 10 hours in, this game is perfect for me. I'm in school 12 months a year and work full time. There really isn't much time for gaming (not counting the fact that I skipped work and school today to play). This game satisfies my itch to explore and mess around and just chill out in the little free time I have. There is never nothing to do and there's always an artifact or base or cool resource in the distance.
However, my situation is pretty rare. A lot of people, like most reviewers obviously, play games with an end goal in sight. They want to experience the story, be done and move on. I can see how to people with that mindset, like Jim Sterling, this game can be tedious, trivial and boring.
Neither of us are wrong.

Yes, it's all subjective after all. I find the qualities of this game in particular far, far greater than any of its shortcomings. I can't wait to get home and resume my journey.

People are entitled to not liking the game and finding it boring, or even too expensive. They definitely aren't wrong, and I don't think it's okay to discredit their opinion either. Some, however, have reached this conclusion without actually playing it, and that's the real shame in my opinion.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

They are? Just that there are a bunch of people who forcefully keep replying on one's who like the game and keep stating that they dislike 'this or that'.

What exactly is the point in that? Why keep replying in a thread for a game which you so clearly dislike?

What is this childish obsession people have with posters only saying nice things about games?

We stay in threads to talk about games we don't like because the conversation is interesting. I don't like MGSV, but I'll go into any thread about it because I think talking/debating mechanics and story is absolutely fascinating.

Pretty damn simple.

 

[mike6467]

Really, really hoping the PC version doesn't suck. The more I see, this seems like a fun game to play while listening to podcasts or killing time. Seems a bit too sterile to binge on though.

Is OP going to add Sterling's review, or at least the cached version?

 

[AcademicSaucer]

lol what

http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/

 

[letmetrythisname]

lol what

http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/

Could someone kindly explain how this game is like Dark Souls or fun?

 

[Hupsel]

Good job. Using Dark Souls on the title is a good way to attract... hmm... discussion.

Spoiler

views

 

[AcademicSaucer]

http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/

No Man's Sky |OT2| Like Dark Souls but Fun