It has been incredibly enjoyable reading these comments as though they apply to real life in the real universe instead of to a video game. How do we create meaning, happiness, and satisfaction for ourselves? By exploring and learning about the world we’re in? By changing it to create monuments to ourselves? By meeting others and sharing it? By figuring out how to “win” it? This is awesome. I’m sure commenters here are the exception, but I’m guessing many people trying to figure out this game will spend more time on it than they have spent trying to figure out their own real lives.
7 Likes
I’m enjoying the game just fine but it doesn’t eclipse Overwatch, my one true love right now.
1 Like
[quote=“Shuck, post:18, topic:83494, full:true”]
A problem was that a lot of people seemed to think this was that AAA game - even though it’s a small indie team as well. In fact, the team for Starbound is almost exactly the same size as No Man’s Sky’s. Which shows how ambitious and impressive No Man’s Sky really is.[/quote]
That is exactly why I think Starbound makes a great point of comparison. I can’t speak to the individual skillsets of the devs involved, but you’re spot on when you mention the team sizes being the same (excluding Sony’s PS4 marketing and platform specific developers lent to Hello Games). The core features and basic gameplay are quite similar. You move world to world in a customizable ship, collect resources, investigate alien races, and upgrade your equipment. No Man’s Sky put manpower into amazing 3D visuals, which goes well beyond just artist effort considering the engine tricks required to render a world all the way from space to ground seamlessly. Starbound settled for 2D, which greatly simplified the engine and art requirements, allowing them to focus on a myriad of other features… multiplayer and construction being the big ticket items there that No Man’s Sky had to do without. If the same concept was approached with AAA team, they could have covered it all and maybe dropped in some better Freelancer style space combat as well. Of course, in both cases, I’m impressed by what the indie teams have accomplished.
3 Likes
No, I definitely said that it doesn’t have “the enjoyment that is found in Minecraft: that of making and changing.” I didn’t say that there aren’t other kinds of enjoyments. Obviously I’m not saying that Call of Duty would be better off if you could build in it.
But there’s a reason I focussed on that: because the game that was in everyone’s heads, with the encouragement of the developer’s description, was that of an open world where you can do so much. And I’m saying that a world where you can’t change the universe in any material way, besides adding names to a database, isn’t open at all.
It’s the lack of change and agency that I’m describing when I’m comparing it to Minecraft.
It doesn’t even have to be physical changes to the world. Besides owning new tech and being on a new planet, is the universe for a player any different on day 120 than it was on day 1? Imagine a more abstract form of “building”: creating supply routes to have your ore from a planet you’ve visited get sent to you far away. Then you’ve created a network of planets: the universe has been changed (even if it’s just for yourself, in this single-person game).
3 Likes
Oh no I got that. That “you” was a more general sort of you. As I hear that argument a lot. But I don’t necessarily think that “change” and impact or whatever is inherent to an open world game. Or as necessary as many people seem to push these days. Its sort of standard clarion call from the “hardcore” (read:douche bag) base. They swallowed marketing whole and scream and yell and pulsate when it turns out to be marketing. Which I think is a factor here. A lot of the hype (from what little I’ve poked at largely after the fact) seems to be people sort of transferring all their frustrated hopes for magical, maybe impossible features and what have from past AAA releases onto an Indy that really never even mentioned most of it.
You can absolutely make a compelling, interesting game that simply follows and delivers a compelling narrative. Without all the current buzzy choice, have real effects!, see the change, non-sense that currently drives a surprising amount of discussion around (especially) open world games. And a good lot of that stuff is actually anathema to good, dense narrative.
But as you said the player still needs to have agency. There need to be stakes. There needs to be a point. And there needs to be an actual narrative. No Man’s Sky doesn’t seem to have that. You could very much build an open world game, focused almost exclusively on exploration. Without having that change stuff, build stuff, moral choice, change the fate of x framing. But there needs to be something more to that “explore” than just going to places in sequence and checking off boxes to gather resources. You need to have variable places to explore. There needs to be something worth finding aside from junky craft materials. Hidden little story lines, back story, interesting characters, bits and pieces feeding a larger narrative. All of which is better if it ties into some larger themes, or the over arching plots.
And curiously on a mechanical basis the game sounds similarly vapid. You have something akin to character progression. But it seems hopelessly tied to, basically, increasing the volume of inventory and the duration of various timers. You collect resources for a bigger ship. But what can you do with that bigger ship? Hold more resources so you can get a still bigger ship? You collect resources to increase the quality of your “stuff”. But what does that get you? You have more time to collect resources to increase the quality of your stuff?
As much as the base concept sounds quite compelling. It seems to be assembled from a laundry list of indy and FTP gaming’s most prominent trends. Space! Dinosaurs! (seriously every creature I’ve seen looks like “weird dinosaur”). Survival mechanics! Countdown timers tied to character advancement! Multiple resources and currencies! Procedural generation! Seemingly to the detriment of that base concept that seems so compelling. It sounds like a fun way to waste some time. But it also sounds like it’d bore and piss me off after too long.
I stopped playing Fallout 4 for reasons similar to this. Incredibly hollow, junk amassing, “exploration” for little purpose beyond feeding pointless mechanics (in that case crafting). It was fun for a bit, but it lacked any sort of compelling frame to give it structure, stakes, or me agency.
1 Like
If you want some space exploration with planetary landing, Outer Wilds nailed that pretty well with just one solar system. (still waiting for a full release, though)
On procedural generation, until you have some deep dream style ai on the job, it’s going to be hard to get truly cool results. Less than that and the parameters of the generation become apparent pretty quickly. (Though the curated generation of Spelunky does a great job of smartly picking the parameters for a nice outcome.)
1 Like
I started playing the game this Sunday and honestly there’s a lot that i enjoy about the game. And despite the hype (which i never bought into) i think the game lives up to the expectations i had of the game. I suppose what i had in my head was more realistic than what others thought it’d be, but then again i’ve been burned by the procedurally generated promise before so i know what can be actually accomplished.
I do wish the game gave players the ability to build or at least maintain some outposts. I’d also like some minor help as far as gathering resources from large ore veins, thus far it’s kind of a pain in the ass mining when there’s a ton of ore in a spot as it’s less tidy than minecraft and you get weird floating polygons.
I’d also really love co-op but that might necessitate too much adjustment of the core game, so maybe something to save for a sequel or future title.
Another thing on my wishlist is being able to set custom markers on outposts so you know to go back to an interesting spot or building, or if you need to trade. And i’d like to see more alien interactions, so far the only things you get are trading or the same 6 default dialogue options.
Annnd i definitely would love to be able to customize my ship aesthetically, or provide options to modify the ship. Right now you can make components for a ship but it doesn’t actually affect the look of it.
3 Likes
If you have waited this long to buy a PS4, you may want to wait a bit longer, as Sony will soon be giving details on its new console version of the PS4, code named Neo.
It is expected to be considerable more powerful than the current PS4, and be able to support 4K content natively.
Microsoft is also planning a hardware refresh of its Xbox One next year, and Nintendo is planning on the NX to take over for the Wii U, so any console buyers should probably wait and see at this time.
Yeah, I only caught the first trailers and thought “Cool will get that one” and proceeded to ignore the internet on this topic. I got the game on the PC and was lucky to have a machine that runs it with no real problems and I’m having a blast.
But I had no illusions past a chill exploration game with some survival elements and not adverse to spending $60 on something I would play for 50 hours. (Cheaper per hour than I spent seeing Batman V Superman… Ugh)
2 Likes
I can live without the promise of 4K and VR so the new PS4 is whatever for me, unless if offers better performance. But even then i don’t know if i’d want to go through the trouble of unloading my PS4 for a new one.
Wow, someone who has actually played it - I’m bowled over.
Question for you: does it require A) an Internet connection and/or B) console subscription service membership (live or play)?
Literature hasn’t been super clear & even the local GameStart doesn’t know.
2 Likes
And that would work for games, too - if you had several billion years to procedurally generate a world/galaxy that included some people to then curate some of that content for you to look at. Because that’s the problem - weeding through the plentiful not-interesting bits to get at what you actually want. People are good at it, procedural systems, not so much.
Yeah, it is, and the different focus of the two games is significant. I think if people realized this, going in, there wouldn’t have been the hype that there was - people would have recognized that it wasn’t this AAA extravaganza that would have every possible feature of their dreams, but be full of trade-offs and compromises.
It would be exceedingly unlikely that anyone would make a AAA version of this. Too experimental (where AAA games need to use tried and tested mechanics), and procedural content generation produces inconsistent results, which AAA games can’t even contemplate - they’d go for a lot of (expensive to produce) hand-crafted content, instead. Which means that the AAA game that people want isn’t going to get produced any time soon.
(Coincidentally, your comment does work as a response!) 
This is very true of Roguelikes - the simplicity of the game works in their favor, in terms of expectations (for a AAA game, you’d expect environments to be carefully crafted to have a specific kind of flow, for example), mechanics that would otherwise be too boringly predictable, and simple graphics that allow you to project more on what’s happening on screen. When you start getting into more complex Roguelike-likes, it becomes more problematic, I find. The game I worked on that used Roguelike procedural generation for levels fell apart because it had FPS elements, and going through repeating arrangements of algorithmically laid out sections of corridors wasn’t nearly as satisfying as levels that were designed to have enemies surprise you, a narrative and emotional flow, etc. (yet it took more resources to develop, because whatever manpower was saved on level creation was lost in programmers creating the system and making sure the 3D level components locked together properly and didn’t create frustrating dead ends or impossible-to-navigate spaces).
1 Like
I do! These iterations happen in nanoseconds of computer time. Several billion relative years would not take long in human frames of reference.
Quite the opposite, I find. What is interesting about the real world, science, exploration, etc is precisely that it does not depend upon fickle human wants. Rather than being like something out of my imagination - and hence both predictable and relatable - I encounter that which is completely other.
I don’t believe in “AAA”. I like many different media and tend to be interested in what people make and how they make it. The concept of AAA seems to play into the idea that it matters who makes it, it seems classist and contrived. I think it is a result of artistic capitulation to markets - but markets are only ever really about themselves. It’s why the video game industry tends to be less relevant to video games than developments in art and technology are.
Not unlike movies, music, text - I see all participants as equally being creators. The difference is not command of resources but rather whether or not they have anything to say, or bring anything new and challenging to the medium.
2 Likes
While I get what you’re saying. AAA effectively means big budget, large team, mass market. IE the resources to actually get all that work done in a given time scale. That’s a pretty practical, real world, bottle neck in terms of collaborative media production. People need to be paid. Materials need to be bought. Office space needs to be rented. Its not a difference of ideology, media theory or approach. Or a value judgement on the products in question.
Though I think some of the elements propping up the usual large scale, professional developers and publishers might be collapsing. Big “AAA” releases have been routinely sloppy and disappointing the last few years. And those CD_Project guys used a small team, small budget, and self release model to pretty much embarrass the hell out of their better funded peers. They do however own/run GOG. So they have an in built level of self funding that would be difficult for the typical indy team or new start up to establish for themselves.
2 Likes
Actually, that came into play because my friend would upgrade his and I’d get his old one cheap.
2 Likes
Agreed. I think that procedural generation has great moments. Minecraft is certainly a triumph, and many roguelikes and other games similarly have great settings built procedurally, but the question is how much you rely on it or how much you build on top of it. Dwarf Fortress, for example, is a game that has shown how well it can work for a long time now.
I think there is also a issue of complexity. Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, many Rogue-likes are really simple visually, and mechanically (not as in game play mechanics as in the nuts and bolts of how the physical bits fit together). Something along the lines of creating millions of billions of planets with multiple different sorts of buildings and natural structures. As well as mixing together various generated arms, legs, torsos, behaviors, colors, etc to create believable life forms. Is a bit of a jump.
It strikes me that keeping procedural elements to simpler things. And away from complex visual design. Is probably the best way to make a case for it as useful.
It’d have to be a really low level simulation though (otherwise you spend enormous resources laying out all the rules), which means it would take longer than real time, if anything. Sure, you could skip a lot of steps, but you’d still need to simulate up some human-equivalent AIs to make it work…
Sure, that’s what you want - but without some level of curation, you risk spending 20 hours of play in a completely featureless desert before seeing that one, odd shrub. Conceptually interesting, but it’s not going to sell any copies.
Sadly, it exists regardless of belief. But it’s about budget - and the large budget means that it may be highly polished and feature-rich, but also unwilling to take risks and therefore likely to end up with relatively stale, uninteresting gameplay and more often than not, a creative direction muddled by design-by-committee.
Although the procedural generation isn’t ultimately that important - the changes you make to the terrain are more important than what was there to begin with, really. And Dwarf Fortress - well, it’s really in a class of it’s own, it’s so far beyond what almost anyone else is doing. There’s also really interesting stuff being done wth procedural generation being done during game production rather than run-time.
3 Likes
It very much has a ‘Spore’ feel about it while you’re playing - it’s some je nais se quoi where the animals feel very familiar in the way they are generated and move. The nice thing is that exploring its machine-driven universe isn’t as heavily gamified as Spore was - there’s gameplay mechanics, and yes they’re shallow, but it’s not as heavily stratified as the cell->animal->sentient->space stages, and I feel this works very much in its favour.
I have the PC version, and you need an internet connection to name and upload your discoveries, but it will happily lose connection while you’re playing with no interruption to you. Actually a lot of the time I go into the ‘encyclopedia’ view to name something the connection seems to be offline and come on shortly after, so either it’s getting hammered or it doesn’t even talk to the servers until necessary.
3 Likes
From all that I’ve heard, that seems to be it - the InterWebs seems to just be used to pass stellar naming data back/forth. One of it’s “features” is you get naming rights if you’re the first to find something… which I’m sure will in no way come back to haunt the developers.
1 Like
