No Man's Sky (PC/PS4/XBO)

  • Guys, check out this awesome video of Brandon being right. #Told

    Youtube Video

  • @Paper-Lion Uh Brandon really loves the game, so don't get your point.

  • @Whoaness coool.. did you save units and buy a big ship? or repaired abandoned ones?

  • @Whoaness said in No Man's Sky - 18,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planets:

    @Paper-Lion Uh Brandon really loves the game, so don't get your point.

    The point is to question things and not board the hype train making up your own fantasies about what the game is going to be. If more people had done that, they wouldn't have been so disappointed with the end result.

  • @runner609 I saved up for a 30 slot ship, from there, I found wrecked ships. Each wrecked ship has a chance of giving you 1 more slot based on your current ship, so I just keep finding them until it was 48.

    @Paper-Lion People would hate it regardless if they made up fantasies about it.

  • @runner609

    Saving up offers the best results cuz aliens looking to sell their ships are common. Salvaging is random based on the average ship size of the system. You need to be in a high level system to salvage large ships.

  • I have an issue with reviewing a video game on price, solely because video games are luxury products, and thus wholly aesthetic. You don't need video games. Whether you're getting "value" for money is an important concern in every day utilities and conveniences, like, say, a dishwasher, or a car.

    But one doesn't say a Monet is overpriced solely because you don't need to buy a Monet. Likewise, I don't need to buy a video game every month. I could never buy another video game again, and I wouldn't be being denied something fundamental - I'd merely be denied a greater appreciation of an art form I admire.

    I have a problem, in general, with the whole idea of price delineating a "triple A" game, and thus pushing some sort of expectation of quality on a game. What this results in is indie games which either have a decade-long development cycle, or are inherently shallow gameplay loops (think Nidhogg), or are small, compact, very focused experiences. Meanwhile, the "triple A" games rack up massive budgets to get the graphics and sound design and voice actors and story writing and depth that will earn that stamp of triple-A status, and then they'll neuter all these things in hopes of hitting the widest audience to recoup the budget. Hence, the new Tomb Raider being a "flop" despite selling insanely well. Of course, these are generalizations, but not many games stray far from this dichotomy. Even Undertale took forever and a day for its 1-man team to put it together, but because we weren't aware of it til it happened, it seems like this wonderful, organic experience and an indie darling which we want all indie games to be.

    So then, a game like NMS, which is simultaneously really ambitious but also really niche, is left out in the cold. Either it limits its scope entirely to be a true indie game they publish on their own, or they do what they did, get backing from Sony to push the limits of what they could do.........and then be limited by release schedule and quarterly expectations and marketing costs.

    An indie game should be able to be 60 dollars, and be experimental, and push limits (and thus probably have the flaws we don't see in most triple A games). And it should be judged based on what it did, what it's trying to do, and where it's trying to go. Price should have no impact on reviews at all.

  • Guys, check out this video (some of Allies are also in it :D)

    Youtube Video

  • one thing is very clear to me, they were extremely disingenuous with the way the marketed this game, and that is something that I can't ignore.

  • While I generally agree with the idea of criticizing a game for what it is and not what it's not, I think there's a certain level of exception to that, call it the Peter Molyneux law or something but I think there's some level of validity to complaining about it not being what you were lead to believe it would be.

    @Paper-Lion Uh Brandon really loves the game, so don't get your point.

    Maybe one of the reasons Brandon likes it so much is because he didnt buy into that stuff?

  • @Sieghardt What is there to buy into? Other that, arguably, the multiplayer where it was stated that no one would see each other, Sean Murray literally didn't tell us any details.

    Brandon was mad at NMS that E3 because they weren't telling us anything or they were just telling us the same thing from the previous E3, which was just a high level concept tease. I disagree with people who say they want the details. I went in knowing as little as possible and it added to the experience.

  • Hopefully that patch today will make it so I don't crash on my ps4 anymore...hopefully...You can't make money for a new ship when your game is crashing every 15 minutes.

  • Patch note: Things were going nicely. They almost had me thinking they'd fixed the crashing problems. Then I go to save and quit, crashes...oh well.

  • @Whoaness It was stated numerous times that it was definitely possible to encounter other players. He kept saying it was highly unlikely, but he always maintained it was possible. That's not ok.

    Should people have expected a massively multiplayer experience? Probably not. But Sean definitely should have been clear that there was no multiplayer in the game beyond sharing your discoveries.

  • @Light Uh yeah that's what I said. I added 'arguably' because it's still possible it's in the game, but not currently functioning or planned for a future update.

    Personally, I didn't expect any multiplayer because Sean Murray said that there's no way that two people will even meet because of the amount of planets. I just never even thought of the game having any multiplayer experience. I didn't turn that statement into a "Journey-like multiplayer". I went into the game not expecting to see anyone ever.

    Do those two dudes that managed to find each other affect my experience? No.
    And it sure doesn't affect probably 99.99% of people who complain about something they will never experience even if you were able to see other people online.

  • Im not surprised that a game failed. this is what happened when group of 5 people with no track record, no resource make a game and they media hype it as innovative, revolutionary, best indie game of all time, giving E3 awards end up failed.

    the day they show first gameplay i already know it wont turn out good.

  • @Black-Cell Dude, to be condescending with no facts. Disrespectful.

    Sean Murray was a programmer on Burnout 3, and he was a lead programmer on Black.
    In addition, Hello Games has made two excellent Joe Danger games for consoles.

    They have tons of experience to make great games.

  • @Black-Cell That sort of comment has no place here, and is extremely ignorant.

    The fact that such a small team managed to make such a game, no matter what its shortcomings ended up being, is actually testament to their "talent". The art direction is unique and clearly appealing to a majority of people, the design and concept was extremely ambitious, and the technology behind it is very impressive.

    And I'm saying this as someone who never had any interest in the game either, just because that genre isn't my cup of tea. You can disagree with the way the game was hyped and be disappointed by the end result, but in no way can this game be called a failure or its developers talentless. That's really knowing nothing about game development.

  • @Whoaness You're missing my point.

    You're speaking from your own preferences and desires alone.

    What you're ok with and what you expected does not change what Sean Murray has said. He never denied a multiplayer aspect to the game. He only downplayed its importance and said it was highly unlikely you would ever find another player. At the same time he answered "yes" when asked if you could play with friends. He repeatedly called it a "Journey or Dark Souls like experience". That clearly implies that it IS possible to encounter another player. The entire "goal" of the game is to get to the center of the universe. If Sean states that it IS possible to find other players and that it would be reminiscent of Journey... it only makes sense that the closer you get to the center of the universe the more players you would start to see because it would become more and more likely.

    There's no other interpretation here. He lied. Maybe the feature got cut or maybe it's not implemented yet. I haven't played the game and I'm not speaking to the quality of the experience at all. I hope you're having fun with it. But just because you're ok with being lied to doesn't mean everyone else should be. You might not care about encountering other players. But the idea that you COULD definitely sold a lot of people on this game and Sean should not have continually (up to the release of the game) perpetuated that it was possible when it clearly was not. If it's not working properly or it should be in the game, why hasn't Sean just said "Yeah it's there, but it's not working". He's just given vague statements like "Wow, I can't believe two people found each other!" and "I can't believe so many people are playing the game right now!".

    I think you're dead wrong about the amount of people that care about the ability to come across other people. That would be an incredibly exciting experience simply BECAUSE it should be so rare. Sean VERY clearly implied that you would need to upgrade your ship and equipment because you might encounter another player that is hostile. You can't sell your game with completely false information. I mean... everyone does these days. But that doesn't mean we should be ok with it just because we personally never needed those features. I'm sure you've played plenty of games where you found out it wasn't what the trailers or developers made it out to be and you WEREN'T ok with it. You being ok with this one instance because you're still enjoying the game doesn't excuse it.


    A 71 on metacritic doesn't constitute a bad game by any means. It's clearly a dividing game but it being bad or "not good" is very subjective. Even with all the missing features and technical issues a lot of people are enjoying it. There was never any hope for it to meet the unrealistic hype it had generated. No game could though.

  • @Light Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the extent of Dark Souls multiplayer that you can see the shades of other people's mark on the world around you? Like echoes?

    I've never played Journey, so no clue what a Journey-esque experience is, but my understanding of NMS was that if I ever even set foot on a place where another human being had been, all I'd ever see was what that person named the shit on the planet because the chance of not only running into them on a planet, but at the same time was near astronomically impossible.