I have no doubt that the games I am playing are a lot better. So although you are thinking you are getting an amazing experience in your cartoon universe you actually are missing out.
You nor anyone else here has any idea as to whether the other games out are better. No one here has actually played No Man's Sky. I understand you have a near fanatical need to discount the game because it has "gasp!" hype but be honest. You have no idea if you will like the game or not. Perhaps it is a game that turns out just 'eh' or perhaps it turns out amazing and you end up being the one missing out. No one knows. It is not out yet. It is strange to hear you page after page after page slam a game not even released and being a champion for Indie games so much you bash one of the most anticipated Indie games to come along in quite some time. Strange indeed.
lol..
perfect.
the hype is real and its off the scale but thankfully if anyone rebuts we can just say we dont know jack about the gameplay...lol pretty much a complete contradiction in terms
this game is going to be terrible is my prediction
Knowing about gameplay and actually playing the game are two very different things. I respect your prediction because we all have our own opinions. Yet you do not seem capable of respecting others for theirs. So what if some people are hyped for the game? So what? You have no interest in the game so going on and on and on about it is petty and small. Can we not ask you take the high road?
looking at known feature to known feature there are games that have a better feature layout.
now you will say the hype is off the charts because we dont know much about the game and the circle will continue
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If you have gaming experience you can look at the known features and game play of one game and compare it to the known features and game play of another game and determine which is likely to be better.
Its a falacy of desperate marketing that suggests to people one knows nothing about a game until they actually play it
I know that its likely I dont want to stick a fork in my eye without even trying it! amazing how that works
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If you have gaming experience you can look at the known features and game play of one game and compare it to the known features and game play of another game and determine which is likely to be better.
Its a falacy of desperate marketing that suggests to people one knows nothing about a game until they actually play it
I know that its likely I dont want to stick a fork in my eye without even trying it! amazing how that works
One can look at feature lists all they want. Execution is a totally other thing and execution is a thing that one can't judge until ones actually tries a game.
I've seen many a game with an awesome feature list only to be ruined with craptastic execution.
If you have gaming experience you can look at the known features and game play of one game and compare it to the known features and game play of another game and determine which is likely to be better.
Its a falacy of desperate marketing that suggests to people one knows nothing about a game until they actually play it
I know that its likely I dont want to stick a fork in my eye without even trying it! amazing how that works
One can look at feature lists all they want. Execution is a totally other thing and execution is a thing that one can't judge until ones actually tries a game.
I've seen many a game with an awesome feature list only to be ruined with craptastic execution.
I know that its likely I dont want to stick a fork in my eye without even trying it! amazing how that works
that is not a statement of sarcasm its a statement of observation of this 'you dont know until you try' horseshit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Since it is just a single player game, it is one of those play it for a bit and move on to the next one. There really is not a lot of substance to this game beyond it's variety.
I never really liked Assassin's Creed games until Black Flag. I knew the feature set on paper and the features appealed to me but I never liked the games too much. Black Flag just really brought them all together in a way that was enjoyable to me and I really liked the game. I did not enjoy Unity or Rogue. Then AC:Syndicate came out and I rented it (gamefly) and then bought it. I love it. They all have the same basic feature set. Yet they are all different experiences. Point is, knowing a feature set on paper and experiencing how the developers bring those features all together into a package that is a finished game is two very different things. No Man's Sky could turn out to be garbage. Or it could turn out to be great. Or merely 'ok' We will not know until release.
what you and others are basically saying is that nobody should get excited about NMS OR they should get excited equally about every single game that is coming out because they havent played it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I never really liked Assassin's Creed games until Black Flag. I knew the feature set on paper and the features appealed to me but I never liked the games too much. Black Flag just really brought them all together in a way that was enjoyable to me and I really liked the game. I did not enjoy Unity or Rogue. Then AC:Syndicate came out and I rented it (gamefly) and then bought it. I love it. They all have the same basic feature set. Yet they are all different experiences. Point is, knowing a feature set on paper and experiencing how the developers bring those features all together into a package that is a finished game is two very different things. No Man's Sky could turn out to be garbage. Or it could turn out to be great. Or merely 'ok' We will not know until release.
what you and others are basically saying is that nobody should get excited about NMS OR they should get excited equally about every single game that is coming out because they havent played it
I never really liked Assassin's Creed games until Black Flag. I knew the feature set on paper and the features appealed to me but I never liked the games too much. Black Flag just really brought them all together in a way that was enjoyable to me and I really liked the game. I did not enjoy Unity or Rogue. Then AC:Syndicate came out and I rented it (gamefly) and then bought it. I love it. They all have the same basic feature set. Yet they are all different experiences. Point is, knowing a feature set on paper and experiencing how the developers bring those features all together into a package that is a finished game is two very different things. No Man's Sky could turn out to be garbage. Or it could turn out to be great. Or merely 'ok' We will not know until release.
what you and others are basically saying is that nobody should get excited about NMS OR they should get excited equally about every single game that is coming out because they havent played it
Heh Sean
You wouldn't be single by chance?
just like Jesus
shall we get more off topic?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Btw, why do you feel that hyping NMS's size is "unfair" to Elite:Dangerous ?
NMS's universe dwarfs that of E:D, they are not even in the same league. NMS has multiple galaxies, E:D only has one.
An interesting thing to brag about, given that of Elite's many problems, the extremely huge size of its play area is perhaps its biggest -- to the point where I'd be tempted to call it a terminal flaw.
So personally I wouldn't say NMS having an even larger play area, assuming that actually turns out to be true in the end, is unfair to Elite. On the contrary, I'd call it failing to learn from a prior, similar game's obvious mistake.
A depressingly common fault in game design today.
I've played Elite off-and-on from early Beta. My personal feeling, and I'll grant that it's one that some would strongly disagree with, is that Elite's biggest, probably unsolvable problem is that the devs are far more interested in making a universe simulator -- you can't read anything about Elite without running into the somewhat laughable claim that it's a 1-to-1 reproduction of the Milky Way -- and can't really be bothered with putting any gameplay in it -- especially not if there's any chance of players messing with their nice and neat simulation.
Trying to read the tea leaves of what microscopic bits of actual information are out there on NMS, it seems vaguely like the NMS are trying to make the same mistake on a larger scale with even less player interactivity (it's at least possible to play with others in Elite, if not likely or easy to do so), cartoony graphics (I thought people around here hated those? Or is it only when Blizz does it that it's bad?), and a Fischer Price flight model.
Eh, might work out for them, I dunno, but personally I suspect that once the hype train hits Releaseville there's gonna be one hell of a crater where people's expectations used to be.
Btw, why do you feel that hyping NMS's size is "unfair" to Elite:Dangerous ?
NMS's universe dwarfs that of E:D, they are not even in the same league. NMS has multiple galaxies, E:D only has one.
An interesting thing to brag about, given that of Elite's many problems, the extremely huge size of its play area is perhaps its biggest -- to the point where I'd be tempted to call it a terminal flaw.
So personally I wouldn't say NMS having an even larger play area, assuming that actually turns out to be true in the end, is unfair to Elite. On the contrary, I'd call it failing to learn from a prior, similar game's obvious mistake.
A depressingly common fault in game design today.
I've played Elite off-and-on from early Beta. My personal feeling, and I'll grant that it's one that some would strongly disagree with, is that Elite's biggest, probably unsolvable problem is that the devs are far more interested in making a universe simulator -- you can't read anything about Elite without running into the somewhat laughable claim that it's a 1-to-1 reproduction of the Milky Way -- and can't really be bothered with putting any gameplay in it -- especially not if there's any chance of players messing with their nice and neat simulation.
Trying to read the tea leaves of what microscopic bits of actual information are out there on NMS, it seems vaguely like the NMS are trying to make the same mistake on a larger scale with even less player interactivity (it's at least possible to play with others in Elite, if not likely or easy to do so), cartoony graphics (I thought people around here hated those? Or is it only when Blizz does it that it's bad?), and a Fischer Price flight model.
Eh, might work out for them, I dunno, but personally I suspect that once the hype train hits Releaseville there's gonna be one hell of a crater where people's expectations used to be.
let me try this again will illustration
'...no game has ever done this!..'
'..um that is incorrect statement actual elite dangerous has'
'why are you being so negative and such a fan boy of ED!!!!'
THINK
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Btw, why do you feel that hyping NMS's size is "unfair" to Elite:Dangerous ?
NMS's universe dwarfs that of E:D, they are not even in the same league. NMS has multiple galaxies, E:D only has one.
An interesting thing to brag about, given that of Elite's many problems, the extremely huge size of its play area is perhaps its biggest -- to the point where I'd be tempted to call it a terminal flaw.
So personally I wouldn't say NMS having an even larger play area, assuming that actually turns out to be true in the end, is unfair to Elite. On the contrary, I'd call it failing to learn from a prior, similar game's obvious mistake.
A depressingly common fault in game design today.
I've played Elite off-and-on from early Beta. My personal feeling, and I'll grant that it's one that some would strongly disagree with, is that Elite's biggest, probably unsolvable problem is that the devs are far more interested in making a universe simulator -- you can't read anything about Elite without running into the somewhat laughable claim that it's a 1-to-1 reproduction of the Milky Way -- and can't really be bothered with putting any gameplay in it -- especially not if there's any chance of players messing with their nice and neat simulation.
Trying to read the tea leaves of what microscopic bits of actual information are out there on NMS, it seems vaguely like the NMS are trying to make the same mistake on a larger scale with even less player interactivity (it's at least possible to play with others in Elite, if not likely or easy to do so), cartoony graphics (I thought people around here hated those? Or is it only when Blizz does it that it's bad?), and a Fischer Price flight model.
Eh, might work out for them, I dunno, but personally I suspect that once the hype train hits Releaseville there's gonna be one hell of a crater where people's expectations used to be.
I own Elite:Dangerous, and it seems we feel the same way about it. I stopped playing E:D a month after launch and still haven't returned. "Mile wide and inch deep" was a common description.
E:D has 400 billion sets of procedurally generated balls, all in different colours.
Until very recently, all you could do was look at them. Now you can land on some, but they are completely barren 99.99% of the time.
NMS has 18 quintillion procedurally generated coloured balls, but you can land on every single one, and they are mostly filled with a wide variety of creatures.
So the balls in NMS are faaar more interesting than the ones in E:D !
I own Elite:Dangerous, and it seems we feel the same way about it. I stopped playing E:D a month after launch and still haven't returned. "Mile wide and inch deep" was a common description.
E:D has 400 billion sets of procedurally generated balls, all in different colours.
Until very recently, all you could do was look at them. Now you can land on some, but they are completely barren 99.99% of the time.
NMS has 18 quintillion procedurally generated coloured balls, but you can land on every single one, and they are mostly filled with a wide variety of creatures.
So the balls in NMS are faaar more interesting than the ones in E:D !
what frustrates me is the complete and total avoidance of the phrase
'and its never been done before'
and instead just try to divert away from that as much as possible by talking about how hard the 'other' game is.
the KEY the base, the pillar of my frustration here is 'and never been done before' which is a flat out fucking lie
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This could possibly be the game of the century. I just do not understand why it has had almost no discussion here. Game comes out in less than a month and its like no hype at all.
I think there should be more hype for Starbound vs this game. The only differences main is the graphics, which prolly is the reason, and you can't directly fly your ship. Starbound though, you can play with as many people as you want, totally rebuild any planet, fight tons of random monsters every where, do quests, and hundreds of other things.
This game, I think is worth like 10 bucks. It will be fun for about 2 to 10 hours.
This could possibly be the game of the century. I just do not understand why it has had almost no discussion here. Game comes out in less than a month and its like no hype at all.
I think there should be more hype for Starbound vs this game. The only differences main is the graphics, which prolly is the reason, and you can't directly fly your ship. Starbound though, you can play with as many people as you want, totally rebuild any planet, fight tons of random monsters every where, do quests, and hundreds of other things.
This game, I think is worth like 10 bucks. It will be fun for about 2 to 10 hours.
If Starbound had been launched in 1995, it would probably have been a worldwide mega-hit. But pixellated side-scrollers no longer set the world on fire as they once did.
I'd probably play Starbound, but only if it was the only game on my PC.
I think that while this game sounds idyllic it will become boring very quickly. It has one basic game loop of earn money from discovery to upgrade yourself and your ship. There are no missions, there's no quests, there's no story, there's no mining, no salvaging, there's no real combat, there's no factions or anything like that. It's very basic gameplay, land here, discover, take-off, land here, discover, take-off, land here, zzzzzz
I hope I'm wrong and it's a great game but I think it's one of those things that looks a lot better than it actually will be.
I think that while this game sounds idyllic it will become boring very quickly. It has one basic game loop of earn money from discovery to upgrade yourself and your ship. There are no missions, there's no quests, there's no story, there's no mining, no salvaging, there's no real combat, there's no factions or anything like that. It's very basic gameplay, land here, discover, take-off, land here, discover, take-off, land here, zzzzzz
I hope I'm wrong and it's a great game but I think it's one of those things that looks a lot better than it actually will be.
It's definitely not just flying around taking colourful screenies of weird animals in weird landscapes.
There is a backgound lore that gives things coherence. There are NPC factions. Being on their good sides has benefits. Kill pirates and impress the locals. There's at least one alien language to decipher and learn. There's boxes with loot in random places you have to hunt for. Your ship needs fuel, which has to be bought, stolen or crafted.
The main motivation for playing is to upgrade your ship/weapon/suit, so that you can go into more dangerous areas... to find stuff to further upgrade your ship/weapon/suit, so that you can go...
Certain types of game play appeals to certain types of people. I've played more than 800 hours of Skyrim, so I've no doubt that NMS will keep me entertained for a while, given that I enjoy sci-fi settings even more than fantasy...
I hope you have lots of fun with it. Personally I will be waiting and watching before making a purchase because the game is not selling itself to me. I feel like everything about it is very vague and there's usually only one reason for that.
I think that while this game sounds idyllic it will become boring very quickly. It has one basic game loop of earn money from discovery to upgrade yourself and your ship. There are no missions, there's no quests, there's no story, there's no mining, no salvaging, there's no real combat, there's no factions or anything like that. It's very basic gameplay, land here, discover, take-off, land here, discover, take-off, land here, zzzzzz
I hope I'm wrong and it's a great game but I think it's one of those things that looks a lot better than it actually will be.
It's definitely not just flying around taking colourful screenies of weird animals in weird landscapes.
There is a backgound lore that gives things coherence. There are NPC factions. Being on their good sides has benefits. Kill pirates and impress the locals. There's at least one alien language to decipher and learn. There's boxes with loot in random places you have to hunt for. Your ship needs fuel, which has to be bought, stolen or crafted.
The main motivation for playing is to upgrade your ship/weapon/suit, so that you can go into more dangerous areas... to find stuff to further upgrade your ship/weapon/suit, so that you can go...
Certain types of game play appeals to certain types of people. I've played more than 800 hours of Skyrim, so I've no doubt that NMS will keep me entertained for a while, given that I enjoy sci-fi settings even more than fantasy...
I am sorry but literally nothing on that sounds that interesting, innovative or new.
Not suggesting that it makes it a bad game, just saying it doesn't sound like hype of the decade to me.
I should take the time to post the features of ED, Space Engineers and for thrills 7DTD because I get the feeling many people here have a very narrow experience on what is already in the market place
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This could possibly be the game of the century. I just do not understand why it has had almost no discussion here. Game comes out in less than a month and its like no hype at all.
I think there should be more hype for Starbound vs this game. The only differences main is the graphics, which prolly is the reason, and you can't directly fly your ship. Starbound though, you can play with as many people as you want, totally rebuild any planet, fight tons of random monsters every where, do quests, and hundreds of other things.
This game, I think is worth like 10 bucks. It will be fun for about 2 to 10 hours.
If Starbound had been launched in 1995, it would probably have been a worldwide mega-hit. But pixellated side-scrollers no longer set the world on fire as they once did.
I'd probably play Starbound, but only if it was the only game on my PC.
Yeah I figured a lot of people would be turned off by the 2d graphics. Ahh well, I would rather have 300+ hours worth of features, and more game play, than pretty graphics.
I should take the time to post the features of ED, Space Engineers and for thrills 7DTD because I get the feeling many people here have a very narrow experience on what is already in the market place
Feel free to do so, but I can assure you that it will not make the slightest difference.
People that love E:D will very likely hate NMS, and vice versa. They cater to completely different audiences, and do so in significantly different ways.
I am not going to play 1 hour of E:D, followed by 1 hour of Space Engineers and then an hour of 7DTD so that I can enjoy each game's "better" implementation of a specific NMS feature.
I will play 3 hours of NMS instead, and happily sacrifice building space stations.
Just as everyone plays E:D and quietly wishes they could build space stations there too...
I should take the time to post the features of ED, Space Engineers and for thrills 7DTD because I get the feeling many people here have a very narrow experience on what is already in the market place
Feel free to do so, but I can assure you that it will not make the slightest difference.
People that love E:D will very likely hate NMS, and vice versa. They cater to completely different audiences, and do so in significantly different ways.
I am not going to play 1 hour of E:D, followed by 1 hour of Space Engineers and then an hour of 7DTD so that I can enjoy each game's "better" implementation of a specific NMS feature.
I will play 3 hours of NMS instead, and happily sacrifice building space stations.
Just as everyone plays E:D and quietly wishes they could build space stations there too...
the reason I want to do this is because more often then not people have asked basically this
'what other game can do XYZ' and the thing is there is an answer to that question. In their mind these features do not exist anywhere thus the question 'what other game..' and when presented with the answer to the question they just change the subject as if the question was never asked.
It leads me to believe two things.
1. the audience is not aware of what exists in the market place at the moment. 2. the audience is religious about this game
its as if they want to ask the question but they will only except the answer of 'your right no other game does' when it fact that is inaccurate
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
... its as if they want to ask the question but they will only except the answer of 'your right no other game does' when it fact that is inaccurate
I think the trees are blocking your view of the forest...
Yes, there are other games that have some of the features that NMS has. Some of them may even have "better" versions of specific features. None of them have ALL the features that NMS has.
The combination of features is vitally important, right along with HOW they are implemented !
That's why some people prefer EQ over Wow, or CoD over Battlefield...
Comments
now you will say the hype is off the charts because we dont know much about the game and the circle will continue
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Its a falacy of desperate marketing that suggests to people one knows nothing about a game until they actually play it
I know that its likely I dont want to stick a fork in my eye without even trying it! amazing how that works
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I've seen many a game with an awesome feature list only to be ruined with craptastic execution.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
that is not a statement of sarcasm its a statement of observation of this 'you dont know until you try' horseshit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
what you and others are basically saying is that nobody should get excited about NMS OR they should get excited equally about every single game that is coming out because they havent played it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You wouldn't be single by chance?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
shall we get more off topic?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So personally I wouldn't say NMS having an even larger play area, assuming that actually turns out to be true in the end, is unfair to Elite. On the contrary, I'd call it failing to learn from a prior, similar game's obvious mistake.
A depressingly common fault in game design today.
I've played Elite off-and-on from early Beta. My personal feeling, and I'll grant that it's one that some would strongly disagree with, is that Elite's biggest, probably unsolvable problem is that the devs are far more interested in making a universe simulator -- you can't read anything about Elite without running into the somewhat laughable claim that it's a 1-to-1 reproduction of the Milky Way -- and can't really be bothered with putting any gameplay in it -- especially not if there's any chance of players messing with their nice and neat simulation.
Trying to read the tea leaves of what microscopic bits of actual information are out there on NMS, it seems vaguely like the NMS are trying to make the same mistake on a larger scale with even less player interactivity (it's at least possible to play with others in Elite, if not likely or easy to do so), cartoony graphics (I thought people around here hated those? Or is it only when Blizz does it that it's bad?), and a Fischer Price flight model.
Eh, might work out for them, I dunno, but personally I suspect that once the hype train hits Releaseville there's gonna be one hell of a crater where people's expectations used to be.
'...no game has ever done this!..'
'..um that is incorrect statement actual elite dangerous has'
'why are you being so negative and such a fan boy of ED!!!!'
THINK
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
E:D has 400 billion sets of procedurally generated balls, all in different colours.
Until very recently, all you could do was look at them. Now you can land on some, but they are completely barren 99.99% of the time.
NMS has 18 quintillion procedurally generated coloured balls, but you can land on every single one, and they are mostly filled with a wide variety of creatures.
So the balls in NMS are faaar more interesting than the ones in E:D !
'and its never been done before'
and instead just try to divert away from that as much as possible by talking about how hard the 'other' game is. the KEY the base, the pillar of my frustration here is 'and never been done before' which is a flat out fucking lie
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This game, I think is worth like 10 bucks. It will be fun for about 2 to 10 hours.
But pixellated side-scrollers no longer set the world on fire as they once did.
I'd probably play Starbound, but only if it was the only game on my PC.
I hope I'm wrong and it's a great game but I think it's one of those things that looks a lot better than it actually will be.
There is a backgound lore that gives things coherence.
There are NPC factions. Being on their good sides has benefits. Kill pirates and impress the locals.
There's at least one alien language to decipher and learn.
There's boxes with loot in random places you have to hunt for.
Your ship needs fuel, which has to be bought, stolen or crafted.
The main motivation for playing is to upgrade your ship/weapon/suit, so that you can go into more dangerous areas... to find stuff to further upgrade your ship/weapon/suit, so that you can go...
Certain types of game play appeals to certain types of people. I've played more than 800 hours of Skyrim, so I've no doubt that NMS will keep me entertained for a while, given that I enjoy sci-fi settings even more than fantasy...
Not suggesting that it makes it a bad game, just saying it doesn't sound like hype of the decade to me.
I should take the time to post the features of ED, Space Engineers and for thrills 7DTD because I get the feeling many people here have a very narrow experience on what is already in the market place
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
People that love E:D will very likely hate NMS, and vice versa. They cater to completely different audiences, and do so in significantly different ways.
I am not going to play 1 hour of E:D, followed by 1 hour of Space Engineers and then an hour of 7DTD so that I can enjoy each game's "better" implementation of a specific NMS feature.
I will play 3 hours of NMS instead, and happily sacrifice building space stations.
Just as everyone plays E:D and quietly wishes they could build space stations there too...
'what other game can do XYZ'
and the thing is there is an answer to that question.
In their mind these features do not exist anywhere thus the question 'what other game..' and when presented with the answer to the question they just change the subject as if the question was never asked.
It leads me to believe two things.
1. the audience is not aware of what exists in the market place at the moment.
2. the audience is religious about this game
its as if they want to ask the question but they will only except the answer of 'your right no other game does' when it fact that is inaccurate
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yes, there are other games that have some of the features that NMS has.
Some of them may even have "better" versions of specific features.
None of them have ALL the features that NMS has.
The combination of features is vitally important, right along with HOW they are implemented !
That's why some people prefer EQ over Wow, or CoD over Battlefield...