No Man's Sky Review Thread

rpmcmurphy

Edit: Renamed thread to cover more impressions / reviews rather than just Jim Sterling's.

Solar_Prophet

Was just about to post this. Honestly, it looks really, really boring. The animals look like something out of SPORE. 

Not worth the wait at all, at least not according to the videos I've seen so far. Definitely not a day one purchase for me, unless of course some more info pops up somewhere which changes my mind. 

Rich84

does look fairly boring

Fdzzaigl

Honestly, I don't get why people keep expecting so much from procedural generation. A lot of the negativity here is due to mismanaged expectations that you can't really blame the devs for. Obviously they're going to work with a bunch of elements that are then combined in a lot of variations by the algorithms. You can't just create a bunch of stuff from nothing.

I did buy the game simply because I do occasionally like to play this kind of light surival game and because I expect to get my money's worth from it anyhow.

That said, everything does point toward the game lacking customization features that are now commonplace in most other sandbox type experiences. They should have gone for:
1) Third person with optional first person
2) Base building (which is far more interesting in a third person game imo).

 

rpmcmurphy

Ars Technica have their opinion up http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/08/the-first-dozen-hours-of-no-mans-sky-soaring-past-disappointment/

Xarko

Thats what I thought. Exploration game with nothing to explore.

Shodanas

rpmcmurphy said:

Ars Technica have their opinion up http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/08/the-first-dozen-hours-of-no-mans-sky-soaring-past-disappointment/

Said reviewer comes forth as butthurt because the game isn't hand holding him, telling him with big flashy arrows where to go and what to do.

JeroKane

Shodanas said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Ars Technica have their opinion up http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/08/the-first-dozen-hours-of-no-mans-sky-soaring-past-disappointment/

Said reviewer comes forth as butthurt because the game isn't hand holding him, telling him with big flashy arrows where to go and what to do.

How so? Did you even read it?

The review is pretty much spot on and what we feared!  There is just ZERO substance to this game.

The devs have been too focussed on the whole procedural generation and completely forgot to make the game actually fun to play, to add any meaningful gameplay. /shrug

What is the point of having endless planets, if there is no purpose other than shoot things to loot and gather Resources.
Most of totally pointless, as crafting is extremely limited and the only resource important is to fuel your ship, so you can reach the next planet and eventually reach the center of the Galaxy!

Boring!

immodium

Looks way overpriced. £40 for a lacklustre crafting/exploration game. O.o

Aethaeryn

They managed to create good buzz and marketing.  I will wait for a month and see if people still like it. . or start to like it.

GladDog

I'm not "afraid " of anything. I look at this game as two hours a day three days a week, not my main game. I won't buy it until it is cheaper, but I never thought of this a main game.

Phry

immodium said:

Looks way overpriced. £40 for a lacklustre crafting/exploration game. O.o

i'll wait a few months and pick it up for £20 or less, it just doesn't have the look or feel of a AAA game tbh. But at £15-£20 i can see that being okay'ish.

ianicus

one review from a youtube hack and the haters come out in force. Im no fanboy of this game, but ill reserve my judgement until:

1. I see FAR more reviews

AND

2. Its been played by the most important reviewer to me.....ME lol

People get way to bent out of shape these days over $$ for perceived value, if it falls short by .10 cents its a fail, ah well, I feel sorry for those short sighted folks.

SEANMCAD

Fdzzaigl said:

Honestly, I don't get why people keep expecting so much from procedural generation. A lot of the negativity here is due to mismanaged expectations that you can't really blame the devs for. Obviously they're going to work with a bunch of elements that are then combined in a lot of variations by the algorithms. You can't just create a bunch of stuff from nothing.

I did buy the game simply because I do occasionally like to play this kind of light surival game and because I expect to get my money's worth from it anyhow.

That said, everything does point toward the game lacking customization features that are now commonplace in most other sandbox type experiences. They should have gone for:
1) Third person with optional first person
2) Base building (which is far more interesting in a third person game imo).

 

I dont think we are 'expecting a lot from procedural generation' we are confused as to why people are getting their hype panties wet over it. That is the point I drive home. procedurally generated worlds is nothing new

JeroKane

ianicus said:

one review from a youtube hack and the haters come out in force. Im no fanboy of this game, but ill reserve my judgement until:

1. I see FAR more reviews

AND

2. Its been played by the most important reviewer to me.....ME lol

People get way to bent out of shape these days over $$ for perceived value, if it falls short by .10 cents its a fail, ah well, I feel sorry for those short sighted folks.

I could care less if this game is 40 bucks or 60 bucks.

If it's a good game, I happily pay 60 bucks.

I paid 60 bucks for The Division and got my money's worth with the Level 1 to 30 experience.
I did not get my money's worth with the Season Pass I bought, just before patch 1.1 dropped and wrecked the game ever since.

I learned my lesson.

No Mans Sky seems like a great Tech Demo. That's it. I will wait til I see more reviews and actual player impressions, before I even consider touching this game.

Fdzzaigl

SEANMCAD said:

Fdzzaigl said:

 

I dont think we are 'expecting a lot from procedural generation' we are confused as to why people are getting their hype panties wet over it. That is the point I drive home. procedurally generated worlds is nothing new

That's what I don't understand either. Look at the steam forums though and you'll see a lot of people were expecting it to do something completely groundbreaking.

Personally I never did, but I bought because I do enjoy those games once in a while.

Mardukk

Woah, he says almost nothing about combat.  I'm guessing that isn't a big focus of the game?

pantaro

Fdzzaigl said:

Honestly, I don't get why people keep expecting so much from procedural generation. A lot of the negativity here is due to mismanaged expectations that you can't really blame the devs for. Obviously they're going to work with a bunch of elements that are then combined in a lot of variations by the algorithms. You can't just create a bunch of stuff from nothing.

I did buy the game simply because I do occasionally like to play this kind of light surival game and because I expect to get my money's worth from it anyhow.

That said, everything does point toward the game lacking customization features that are now commonplace in most other sandbox type experiences. They should have gone for:
1) Third person with optional first person
2) Base building (which is far more interesting in a third person game imo).

 

Base building is coming actually,which for me does wonders for my original lack of interest in this game,if done right that is. http://www.no-mans-sky.com/2016/08/update-1-03/ (Bottom of page) i think this game will be great for ppl who love space but are intimidated by space sims and their learning curve. I never had the crazy hype expectations so for me it's exactly what i expected,large but shallow. hopefully over time that changes.

Sovrath

Mardukk said:

Woah, he says almost nothing about combat.  I'm guessing that isn't a big focus of the game?

The focus of the game seems to be exploration for the sake of exploration. I think, once again, players have "borked" themselves and supplied their own narrative for what the game was about.

A poster above mentions "reward". The idea of exploring is the reward.

It seems to me that this game is made for a very specific crowd, maybe players who would like the game "Journey" over video game offerings that were "about combat and rewards".

I have a girlfriend who doesn't like video games at all but the one game she did try and like was "Journey". I think that says something about how different people respond to these games. 

Perhaps this game is about the journey and not any combat or rewards or intricate economy. It's just about being out there and seeing something new.

SEANMCAD

Sovrath said:

Mardukk said:

Woah, he says almost nothing about combat.  I'm guessing that isn't a big focus of the game?

The focus of the game seems to be exploration for the sake of exploration. I think, once again, players have "borked" themselves and supplied their own narrative for what the game was about.

A poster above mentions "reward". The idea of exploring is the reward.

It seems to me that this game is made for a very specific crowd, maybe players who would like the game "Journey" over video game offerings that were "about combat and rewards".

I have a girlfriend who doesn't like video games at all but the one game she did try and like was "Journey". I think that says something about how different people respond to these games. 

Perhaps this game is about the journey and not any combat or rewards or intricate economy. It's just about being out there and seeing something new.

trust me as an explorer you need context to the exploration even if its getting paid for findings like in Elite Dangerous. 
I am thinking of Rising World as an example (but in the context of building) its a beautiful game, infinite to explore, tons to build, great buillding tools but no need to build anything. that lack of context in doing something is what makes the replay very short.

People who are suggesting that exploration is all that is needed and basically a 'less is more' attitude that I might add is a view that appears to NOT be shared by the developer, basically do not have a lot of experience playing in the role of an explorer in video games

Sovrath

SEANMCAD said:

Sovrath said:

Mardukk said:

Woah, he says almost nothing about combat.  I'm guessing that isn't a big focus of the game?

The focus of the game seems to be exploration for the sake of exploration. I think, once again, players have "borked" themselves and supplied their own narrative for what the game was about.

A poster above mentions "reward". The idea of exploring is the reward.

It seems to me that this game is made for a very specific crowd, maybe players who would like the game "Journey" over video game offerings that were "about combat and rewards".

I have a girlfriend who doesn't like video games at all but the one game she did try and like was "Journey". I think that says something about how different people respond to these games. 

Perhaps this game is about the journey and not any combat or rewards or intricate economy. It's just about being out there and seeing something new.

trust me as an explorer you need context to the exploration even if its getting paid for findings like in Elite Dangerous. 
I am thinking of Rising World as an example (but in the context of building) its a beautiful game, infinite to explore, tons to build, great buillding tools but no need to build anything. that lack of context in doing something is what makes the replay very short.

People who are suggesting that exploration is all that is needed and basically a 'less is more' attitude that I might add is a view that appears to NOT be shared by the developer, basically do not have a lot of experience playing in the role of an explorer in video games

There is a reason I used the game "Journey" as an example. What was your take on that game?

Sovrath

Nyctelios said:

With rewards I meant goal. Even if it is a made up goal you made up.
It's about the journey. Yeah, about a journey with no sense, no goal and not great.

If you'll do a game based on only one thing you sure need to nail that thing so badly that you'll be the paragon of the genre. 

And I'm saying that not every "game" needs to have a goal. At least not one that traditional players think of as a goal.

I'm starting to think that this game is more of a "toy". Something to experience for the sake of it. This might not be what a majority of players are looking for but it's apparent it's what "some" enjoy.

SEANMCAD

Sovrath said:

SEANMCAD said:

Sovrath said:

Mardukk said:

Woah, he says almost nothing about combat.  I'm guessing that isn't a big focus of the game?

The focus of the game seems to be exploration for the sake of exploration. I think, once again, players have "borked" themselves and supplied their own narrative for what the game was about.

A poster above mentions "reward". The idea of exploring is the reward.

It seems to me that this game is made for a very specific crowd, maybe players who would like the game "Journey" over video game offerings that were "about combat and rewards".

I have a girlfriend who doesn't like video games at all but the one game she did try and like was "Journey". I think that says something about how different people respond to these games. 

Perhaps this game is about the journey and not any combat or rewards or intricate economy. It's just about being out there and seeing something new.

trust me as an explorer you need context to the exploration even if its getting paid for findings like in Elite Dangerous. 
I am thinking of Rising World as an example (but in the context of building) its a beautiful game, infinite to explore, tons to build, great buillding tools but no need to build anything. that lack of context in doing something is what makes the replay very short.

People who are suggesting that exploration is all that is needed and basically a 'less is more' attitude that I might add is a view that appears to NOT be shared by the developer, basically do not have a lot of experience playing in the role of an explorer in video games

There is a reason I used the game "Journey" as an example. What was your take on that game?

I havent played that but I want to be clear I am using the word 'context' instead of 'goal' etc. Namely because 'goal' quickly gets confused with the greater goal and then starts getting into silly phiolophical debates over the meaning of life. No I mean context at that moment.

So a puzzle to get to over the bridge for example is context. The problem that Rising World has is that there is very little context to ANYTHING. meaning its literally just an infinite open world where you have all the tool but you dont need to mine anything, you dont need to bake anything, you dont need to gather anything so no context. Now to be fair that has been changing and they have been adding some context but they have a long way to go still. So context, not goal

Nephaerius

SEANMCAD said:

Sovrath said:

SEANMCAD said:

Sovrath said:

Mardukk said:

Woah, he says almost nothing about combat.  I'm guessing that isn't a big focus of the game?

The focus of the game seems to be exploration for the sake of exploration. I think, once again, players have "borked" themselves and supplied their own narrative for what the game was about.

A poster above mentions "reward". The idea of exploring is the reward.

It seems to me that this game is made for a very specific crowd, maybe players who would like the game "Journey" over video game offerings that were "about combat and rewards".

I have a girlfriend who doesn't like video games at all but the one game she did try and like was "Journey". I think that says something about how different people respond to these games. 

Perhaps this game is about the journey and not any combat or rewards or intricate economy. It's just about being out there and seeing something new.

trust me as an explorer you need context to the exploration even if its getting paid for findings like in Elite Dangerous. 
I am thinking of Rising World as an example (but in the context of building) its a beautiful game, infinite to explore, tons to build, great buillding tools but no need to build anything. that lack of context in doing something is what makes the replay very short.

People who are suggesting that exploration is all that is needed and basically a 'less is more' attitude that I might add is a view that appears to NOT be shared by the developer, basically do not have a lot of experience playing in the role of an explorer in video games

There is a reason I used the game "Journey" as an example. What was your take on that game?

I havent played that but I want to be clear I am using the word 'context' instead of 'goal' etc. Namely because 'goal' quickly gets confused with the greater goal and then starts getting into silly phiolophical debates over the meaning of life. No I mean context at that moment.

So a puzzle to get to over the bridge for example is context. The problem that Rising World has is that there is very little context to ANYTHING. meaning its literally just an infinite open world where you have all the tool but you dont need to mine anything, you dont need to bake anything, you dont need to gather anything so no context. Now to be fair that has been changing and they have been adding some context but they have a long way to go still. So context, not goal

Part of the problem is you haven't played Journey because it has very little context but is amazing. The only information you are provided in Journey is that you're a robed figure in a vast desert, traveling towards a mountain in the distance. That's all gleaned through the visuals. 

Theocritus

Aethaeryn said:

They managed to create good buzz and marketing.  I will wait for a month and see if people still like it. . or start to like it.

Wait two and you can probably get it for half the price....

immodium

Journey was priced reasonably for what it was, £10. NMS should be asking around the same.