"Technically impressive, stunning to look at, but whisper it its a bit dull."
----
"During the hands-on I found myself frequently bored, even while those around me seemed rapturous with delight. The shooting felt floaty, and, while theres some cool tech that lets you blow holes in the ground with grenades, there doesnt appear to be anything on the ground to actually fight beyond the droids you anger by destroying the worlds you visit.
A big argument against No Mans Sky is going to hinge on the $60 price point and I think in terms of the work thats gone into it, its absolutely worth that price. Aesthetically and technically its a massive achievement, and if you like the idea of exploring an infinite galaxy at your own pace then I couldnt recommend it enough. If you were expecting an actual game under all of that framework though, you might, like me, be entirely disappointed."
If i on a planet and I make changes to it, no one else can see it. thats a bummer.
Will you be bale to see other games too?
Looks like the next 90+ game on Metacritic.
Sean has said that small and insignificant things won't show up for everyone. He gave an example of writing your name on a planet. That'll always be there for you, but it's not going to show up for everyone else. But there are signficant events that you can impact. If you destroy a space station, that station is going to be destroyed for everyone. But he notes that doing that is very difficult.
I am really eager to try this. My version of most open world games is just roaming around, still I want things to do. as I see it, No Man's sky might fit the bill.
"and if you like the idea of exploring an infinite galaxy at your own pace then I couldnt recommend it enough."
"If you were expecting an actual game under all of that framework though, you might, like me, be entirely disappointed.""
Wait..what?
Exploring isn't a game, apparently. Lol.
So is this the next Minecraft?
Any word if the game is running at 60fps on PS4?
Any word if the game is running at 60fps on PS4?
Anything that has no clear set of rules, to win or lose by, is not a game. If we're going to talk semantics, its going to be really difficult to define Minecraft as a 'game', for instance.
Anything that has no clear set of rules, to win or lose by, is not a game. If we're going to talk semantics, its going to be really difficult to define Minecraft as a 'game', for instance.
Anything that has no clear set of rules, to win or lose by, is not a game. If we're going to talk semantics, its going to be really difficult to define Minecraft as a 'game', for instance.
I think you'll find that a lot of people disagree with your definition of a "game". But regardless, that discussion is getting really, really old.
Computer game designer Chris Crawford tried to define the word game[3] using a series of comparisons, or dichotomies:
Something creative is art if it was made because it is beautiful, and entertainment if it was made for money. (This is the least rigid of his definitions. Crawford acknowledges that he often chooses a creative path over conventional business wisdom, which is why only one of his 13 games is a sequel.)
Something that is entertainment is a plaything if it is interactive. Movies and books are entertainment, but not interactive.
If a plaything does not have any goals to complete, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If a plaything has goals, it is a challenge.
If a challenge does not have an enemy, it is a puzzle. If it has an enemy or enemies, it is a conflict. (Crawford admits that this is a subjective test. Video games with noticeably algorithmic artificial intelligence can be played as puzzles; these include the patterns used to evade ghosts in Pac-Man.)
If the player can only do better at something than an enemy, and cannot hurt the enemy or slow him down, the conflict is a competition. (Racing and figure skating are competitions.) However, if attacks are allowed, then the conflict qualifies as a game.
So is this the next Minecraft?
Was anything mentioned about a physical release?
Edit - There's a physical SKU on Amazon complete with box art, so I'm assuming it is getting a retail release.
Looks a bit boring. I'll keep an eye on this after its release.
Looks like the next 90+ game on Metacritic.
Yes, you can get full release info in the other thread.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1193344
It's a discussion that's often held with game designers. We just need different terminology for games like Minecraft, NMS, Terraria, etc. According to game designer guru Chris Crawford, if an activity does not have specific goals,nit's not a game, but a toy.
Building shit for the kick of it is a toy. Exploring shit for the kick of it is a toy.
I really don't mean this degrading. But that's why we need different terminology. And yeah I suppose the discussion is a beaten horse.
this is what im afraid of.
fetch. upgrade. improve a little. see a slight variation. on grind repeat.
i really want to want this game, but i just dont it's for me. gosh darn beautiful though
Apparently in an actual game you have to kill stuff... Or else it's not an actual game..
Nice to get a bit more detail on systems that have successfully made it into the game and the fact that there is a uniting thread through the in-game universe.
My biggest concern is actually more of the MMO type, where this will be interesting and immersive for a short while and then the luster wears off as you become more focused on a goal, at which point the game starts to feel wanting and you eventually get bored and feel like you're going nowhere even though there's tons you technically could be doing that you never bothered to do.
Interesting.