• No Man's Sky: Foundation Update (version 1.1)
    48 replies, posted
Again, I really doubt we're going to have multiplayer anytime soon, if at all. Yes, it was a sort of promised feature, but trying to get a half decent multiplayer system going in this game seems like a monumental task at best, not to mention you'd have to divide up multiplayer now based on the difficulty chosen. And they definitely wouldn't be able to implement Steam community support, seeing as that would majorly gimp the GOG release. I see this game being more akin to Subnautica in the long run. A mostly solo experience with some discoveries here and there fielded by what remains of the community. [QUOTE=InfectedPotato;51437829]One of the biggest issues I had was the FOV. They didnt fix it did they?[/QUOTE] If you're on PC, it's as easy as editing a config file.
The PC client has adjustable FOV options for both first-person and flight. I'm pretty sure they cap out around 90 but the config file can be easily edited.
what's the point of base building if planets offer little more than stops for refueling your ship to get to the center? they should've from the start used the engine to produce a limited amount of planets and stars then populated those with interesting content, instead of producing an infinite ammount that offer fuckall.
[QUOTE=mchapra;51438889]what's the point of base building if planets offer little more than stops for refueling your ship to get to the center?[/QUOTE] because the new gameplay option isn't played like that. You have an entire save file dedicated to the classic gameplay mode, and new slots for new modes of play
[QUOTE=mchapra;51438889]what's the point of base building if planets offer little more than stops for refueling your ship to get to the center?[/QUOTE] You can set a home planet and teleport there from any space station.
[QUOTE=mchapra;51438889]what's the point of base building if planets offer little more than stops for refueling your ship to get to the center? they should've from the start used the engine to produce a limited amount of planets and stars then populated those with interesting content, instead of producing an infinite ammount that offer fuckall.[/QUOTE] I still have faith in procedural generation, but so many devs think you can write a terrain generator and make a few sets of body parts for monsters, and it'll be the ultimate video game.
You can't do CPR on something that's already dead.
Does the game have multiplayer yet?
[QUOTE=Seth2492;51436060]Well I mean they did pretty much lie about some of the content in early previews. Hell, even the release trailer shows things not in the full game. Regardless, this trailer does a great job at reminding me that Subnautica exists and wow let's go play that game it's fucking rad[/QUOTE] Either way people shouldn't have paid money based on a bunch of loose statements compiled from interviews spanning years, from a guy who was blatantly a bit rubbish at understanding how to do PR and that everything you say in interviews will be held against you. Yeah some stuff was lied about/misleading, but thats why you wait until you can see actual footage. The game is ass but plenty of warning signs were there, which is why so many people [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1512921&p=50070936&viewfull=1#post50070936]were trying to warn others[/url] against at least preordering but people were so sucked into the marketing BS they were adamant this was going to be the only game they would need for years and it turns out it was basically Spore 2.0 just like people were saying it would be, and the random generation probably wouldnt be like playing a new game each planet. They messed up bad but they haven't been punished at all for it, HG took the brunt of the blame and they still made their hundreds of millions and just need to do some minor damage control until everyone forgets about the game.
This is the foundation update so obviously this puts in n place the next updates to come.
[QUOTE=Cushie;51439898]Either way people shouldn't have paid money based on a bunch of loose statements compiled from interviews spanning years, from a guy who was blatantly a bit rubbish at understanding how to do PR and that everything you say in interviews will be held against you. Yeah some stuff was lied about/misleading, but thats why you wait until you can see actual footage. The game is ass but plenty of warning signs were there, which is why so many people [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1512921&p=50070936&viewfull=1#post50070936"]were trying to warn others[/URL] against at least preordering but people were so sucked into the marketing BS they were adamant this was going to be the only game they would need for years and it turns out it was basically Spore 2.0 just like people were saying it would be, and the random generation probably wouldnt be like playing a new game each planet. They messed up bad but they haven't been punished at all for it, HG took the brunt of the blame and they still made their hundreds of millions and just need to do some minor damage control until everyone forgets about the game.[/QUOTE] The 'actual footage' was also full of blatant lies however, people didn't get a proper look at the game until it actually released. I'm fairly certain a lot of people pre-ordered on the assumption that it would be a beautiful exploration simulator like the E3 planets ended up showing, not just because it was procedurally generated. If anything it's another argument against pre-ordering, as if you need any more. Also no disrespect but linking yourself makes you seem kind of desperate for attention, especially when a portion of your argument was on a number (90% being lifeless) that didn't even come true, and a pre-release assumption on how creature generation worked. I'd link another source (as you are right, there were many voicing their concerns on the game)
Okay but how about we make the planets not look like vomit in your game where the main thing to do is explore planets
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51444310]Okay but how about we make the planets not look like vomit in your game where the main thing to do is explore planets[/QUOTE] They usually don't look like vomit, and this update improved planet generation to make it more interesting (which required regenerating the universe) with more height variations and also appears to have improved the draw distance of vegetation, both of which go a long way in making the planets look better. Either way, people that didn't like this game still aren't going to like it, but at this point I feel that there's absolutely nothing they could do to the game that would satisfy those people. I'm enjoying the game, and really enjoying the new additions. I can't wait to see what they add in the next update, whenever it comes out.
[QUOTE=ntzu;51442697]The 'actual footage' was also full of blatant lies however, people didn't get a proper look at the game until it actually released. I'm fairly certain a lot of people pre-ordered on the assumption that it would be a beautiful exploration simulator like the E3 planets ended up showing, not just because it was procedurally generated. If anything it's another argument against pre-ordering, as if you need any more. Also no disrespect but linking yourself makes you seem kind of desperate for attention, especially when a portion of your argument was on a number (90% being lifeless) that didn't even come true, and a pre-release assumption on how creature generation worked. I'd link another source (as you are right, there were many voicing their concerns on the game)[/QUOTE] I just linked my own post because I didn't want to have to dig around months old threads looking for them, if I was desperate for attention I would have been making 'told you so' posts in the days after the games release linking back to some of the things I tried to explain. I tried to be relatively fair/objective in my posts about the game because there was so much misinformation and completely wrong assumptions about how things worked being made (Which is a testimony to how badly the communication was, and some of it was so vague I got stuff wrong too) The animal generation assumption was based on the videos they released and was pretty much correct bar their own statistic of most planets being lifeless, as well as the point of huge worlds just being generic templates that you can mine some resources, get bored and fly away on, and the generic statements about procgen games which I hold to be true. Anyway a lot of people did make good points (I'm not trying to say I'm the only person) and good criticisms of what had been revealed so far all over the net without just jumping on the 'nms will be shit' hatetrain, but a lot of responses from people caught up in the hype were 'you cant prove it / it wont be the same'. I don't really know where this post is going, but yeah it is just another strong example of why preorder culture is a cancer on the games industry as well as how to not market your game 101. I saw an interesting article on this the other day, which talked about the fact that everything about this game probably would have been OK if it was a $20 indie game with not a lot of exposure, but when you are in the limelight like a AAA game every statement you make will be picked apart under a microscope. Basically the same situation as Peter Molyneux, his legacy means he gets a lot of exposure automatically but the guy just doesn't know how to be clear on goals/mechanics and set expectations of the audience which leads to the fiascos we see every few years.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.