[QUOTE=Tamschi;50407638]As a developer, those are actually positive signs to me. A few of those glitches can only happen if the code is reasonably modular and subsystem reuse is (very) high.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention, the game is in the middle of development. Of course they are going to run into alot of bugs.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;50407612]I have a feeling it's going to be the new Spore. In fact, I went back and read through some threads from 2005 on [URL=http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=721.0]gamingsteve's forum[/URL]. I find NMS' current situation to be ever so slightly reminiscent of how the atmosphere for Spore was. The speculations, expectations and hype were astronomical. People who hardly knew anything made FAQ's about the game's features. If you read through, you'll see both features that ended up not being in the game, and a whole shit ton of features that were technically in, but that ended up being much less interesting than they sounded in theory.
That's just the feeling I got when I read the [URL=https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/4didkh/what_do_you_do_in_no_mans_sky_and_other_questions/]NMS FAQ on reddit[/URL] and realized that it, too, was written by some random bro who has memorized the NMS information repository and decided to push the hype train.
I expect this game to be a huge disappointment, and the vastness of the universe to become completely irrelevant very quickly. But I really hope that isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
Spores failure came from the removal of whole selling-points of the game and the changes that were made to casualize the experience. They removed the water-phase, the creature phase was dumbed down and made kid friendly, and the space stage was pretty much featureless compared to what people were expecting. Those three factors were the main killers of Spore. Also, this is a completely different game than Spore. Spore is all about creation and expression where as NMS is about exploration and survival.
Seeing these two games compared is getting tiring. The only similarity between Spore and NMS is the fact that you travel through space.
[QUOTE=The Duke;50408035]I imagine besides resources, that they are aware that trolls would just locate planets that people have put tons of work into (but are just not in game at that moment) and unleash hell and go raise a different planet right after.[/QUOTE]
That...actually sounds kind of awesome to me
I'd love to see how that would play out ..a huge army of raiders fucking shit up like the smokers from Waterworld or the Reavers from serenity. Until they were either beaten back or grew so much maybe the developers updated with new weapons and armaments designed specifically to fuck up the space-trolls
I kind of think loss should be a part of these games to be honest ...people bitch and whine about some guy burning down your newly built home "ban him pls he trollin" whereas to me its a challenge and the whole reason to defend your piece of fucking space rock in the first place
People only like these games until someone takes them by suprise then its all ragequits and ban requests
[QUOTE=mini me;50408896]That...actually sounds kind of awesome to me
I'd love to see how that would play out ..a huge army of raiders fucking shit up like the smokers from Waterworld or the Reavers from serenity. Until they were either beaten back or grew so much maybe the developers updated with new weapons and armaments designed specifically to fuck up the space-trolls
I kind of think loss should be a part of these games to be honest ...people bitch and whine about some guy burning down your newly built home "ban him pls he trollin" whereas to me its a challenge and the whole reason to defend your piece of fucking space rock in the first place
People only like these games until someone takes them by suprise then its all ragequits and ban requests[/QUOTE]
Well there is no buidling (that we know of). Also, given the size of the NMS universe, you're basically winning a lottery just running into another player, let alone organizing a grief party.
Loss is part of the game though, you can lose your ship. And it's lost for good. It can be especially depressing when you consider every ship is basically one of a kind.
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;50407211]A released game can be forever bad, but a delayed game can be good.
Right?
[I][B]Right?[/B][/I][/QUOTE]
My mindset for this is that I've yet to play a game and see a feature or part that makes me go "Ah! [I]That's[/I] why they delayed it! Well worth it," rather, they need more time just to make the game work as it'd need to. Delayed games don't too often have a big impact that makes me think "wow, they really used that time well," rather, the game is just par for the course, and it feels like they needed that time to prevent the game from being [I]bad.[/I]
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;50407612]I have a feeling it's going to be the new Spore. In fact, I went back and read through some threads from 2005 on [URL=http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=721.0]gamingsteve's forum[/URL]. I find NMS' current situation to be ever so slightly reminiscent of how the atmosphere for Spore was. The speculations, expectations and hype were astronomical. People who hardly knew anything made FAQ's about the game's features. If you read through, you'll see both features that ended up not being in the game, and a whole shit ton of features that were technically in, but that ended up being much less interesting than they sounded in theory.
That's just the feeling I got when I read the [URL=https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/4didkh/what_do_you_do_in_no_mans_sky_and_other_questions/]NMS FAQ on reddit[/URL] and realized that it, too, was written by some random bro who has memorized the NMS information repository and decided to push the hype train.
I expect this game to be a huge disappointment, and the vastness of the universe to become completely irrelevant very quickly. But I really hope that isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50408814]Spores failure came from the removal of whole selling-points of the game and the changes that were made to casualize the experience. They removed the water-phase, the creature phase was dumbed down and made kid friendly, and the space stage was pretty much featureless compared to what people were expecting. Those three factors were the main killers of Spore. Also, this is a completely different game than Spore. Spore is all about creation and expression where as NMS is about exploration and survival.
Seeing these two games compared is getting tiring. The only similarity between Spore and NMS is the fact that you travel through space.[/QUOTE]
I'm more reminded of Starbound...Man the hype for that game was insane...Like Terraria but space exploration, very diverse randomly generated planets/creatures/dungeons and tons to 'explore'.
Problem is Starbound is/was kinda boring and suffers from the classic "grey goo" problem that heavily procgen focused games face, in that it's incredibly hard to make a game almost entirely reliant on procedural generation and the idea of 'infinite content' that doesn't get boring after a few hours.
I haven't completely written off NMS, but people really need to take a reality check before they get disappointed. I'd really love for this game to prove me wrong but the more I read about how it works and the technical aspects behind it, the more I get the feeling that the rabid hype train has become self perpetuating and expectations are getting far too high.
[QUOTE=Sobek-;50407943]I didn't realise that anything you do on the planets surface is wiped the moment you leave... I get that you're meant to move on and keep exploring, but that really kind of kills the immersion in a way. If you ever find yourself revisiting an area, all those cool memories you had of your experience there and the base you built and things that happened to you are just... gone. It's like playing Minecraft for the first time, remember that? All that exploring and learning and discovery, but then imagine that if you quit and reloaded your save, it was all gone. Wouldn't be very fun at all.
Anyway, maybe that's a nitpick, but it's the sort of thing that would annoy me. I'm very grounded in my experiences in a game's world, and revisiting those experiences is a huge thing for me. Guess I have to wait and see just how the game plays - it may be that moving on is such a big part of the experience that you will NEVER feel any reason or need to ever go back somewhere.
I guess it's also a big resource thing. But how cool would it be to land on a planet and find someone's already been there, dug some caves and built a half arsed base... you'd continue on it a bit and leave, and some time down the track another player would end up there and get that same surprise. That'd be awesome.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Duke;50408035]I imagine besides resources, that they are aware that trolls would just locate planets that people have put tons of work into (but are just not in game at that moment) and unleash hell and go raise a different planet right after.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50408036]It would just be too much of a strain on the system probably. The game is already doing a ridiculous amount of processing to have this universe generated.[/QUOTE]
Couple of points:
1. Nothing gameplay wise is really being done on their servers AFAIK. The reason this game is even possible is that the entirety of the work is done by the client when it visits a world, and a procgen+seed system lets everyone have the same planets.
2. My assumption is that you are thrown into P2P lobbies if you are matched with other players near you on the same planet, probably with a system for seamlessly transitioning you.
3. [B]Changes to worlds are just saved locally and re-loaded when you visit the same planet again.[/B] The drawback of their system is that they cannot have any kind of online persistence because they are not storing your changes anywhere.
4. One major issue this game will likely face is cheating, considering everything is simulated client side. After all from what I remember your offline discoveries are uploaded when you go online...Can't wait until 2 hours after the game is out and you are reading about people already naming stuff right in the middle of the galaxy.
[QUOTE=Cushie;50409141]I'm more reminded of Starbound...Man the hype for that game was insane...Like Terraria but space exploration, very diverse randomly generated planets/creatures/dungeons and tons to 'explore'.
Problem is Starbound is/was kinda boring and suffers from the classic "grey goo" problem that heavily procgen focused games face, in that it's incredibly hard to make a game almost entirely reliant on procedural generation and the idea of 'infinite content' that doesn't get boring after a few hours.
I haven't completely written off NMS, but people really need to take a reality check before they get disappointed. I'd really love for this game to prove me wrong but the more I read about how it works and the technical aspects behind it, the more I get the feeling that the rabid hype train has become self perpetuating and expectations are getting far too high.
Couple of points:
1. Nothing gameplay wise is really being done on their servers AFAIK. The reason this game is even possible is that the entirety of the work is done by the client when it visits a world, and a procgen+seed system lets everyone have the same planets.
2. My assumption is that you are thrown into P2P lobbies if you are matched with other players near you on the same planet, probably with a system for seamlessly transitioning you.
3. [B]Changes to worlds are just saved locally and re-loaded when you visit the same planet again.[/B] The drawback of their system is that they cannot have any kind of online persistence because they are not storing your changes anywhere.
4. One major issue this game will likely face is cheating, considering everything is simulated client side. After all from what I remember your offline discoveries are uploaded when you go online...Can't wait until 2 hours after the game is out and you are reading about people already naming stuff right in the middle of the galaxy.[/QUOTE]
Referring to fauna alone, Starbound had pre-made set pieces that were used in the generation, NMS has procedural deformation of set pieces. Not just size either, the variations include color, extra appendages, material (fur, scales, skin, etc), and straight up per-bone morphing. I agree with everything else you said though. Although, I'd like to add that changes such as destroying space stations or fleets or winning battles/wars is displayed current-side.
So I'm just a bit late on this, but to go into detail off of what Cushie said,
[QUOTE=Sobek-;50407943]I didn't realise that anything you do on the planets surface is wiped the moment you leave... I get that you're meant to move on and keep exploring, but that really kind of kills the immersion in a way. If you ever find yourself revisiting an area, all those cool memories you had of your experience there and the base you built and things that happened to you are just... gone. It's like playing Minecraft for the first time, remember that? All that exploring and learning and discovery, but then imagine that if you quit and reloaded your save, it was all gone. Wouldn't be very fun at all.
Anyway, maybe that's a nitpick, but it's the sort of thing that would annoy me. I'm very grounded in my experiences in a game's world, and revisiting those experiences is a huge thing for me. Guess I have to wait and see just how the game plays - it may be that moving on is such a big part of the experience that you will NEVER feel any reason or need to ever go back somewhere.
I guess it's also a big resource thing. But how cool would it be to land on a planet and find someone's already been there, dug some caves and built a half arsed base... you'd continue on it a bit and leave, and some time down the track another player would end up there and get that same surprise. That'd be awesome.[/QUOTE]
It's been stated in the recent IGN videos that the planetary surface changes [I]are[/I] persistant... on your local client only. If you blow a cave hole into the side of a cliff face for environmental shelter, and then you get into your ship, leave, go explore another planet for a bit, save and shut down, and then come back the next day and fly back to the same location on the first planet, the cave will still be there.
However, if I trip over your planet at random, the surface will be pure and unspoiled.
There will be some persistent events that apply to all players, apparently, such as the destruction of a space station (every system is supposed to have a station in it).
When you think about it, it would be [I]incredibly[/I] technically infeasible to store the changes everyone makes to their surroundings every session on the cloud, simply on the basis that it's likely that >99.9% of every player's cloud-stored persistence changes will never be requested by anyone ever again, simply because even if a player were to visit the same planet, they may not approach the same site and never need to load in the local LoDs.
It'd be cool, but considering the size of the galaxy, and the many different parallel galaxies that people will be sorted onto, it's not worth remembering the things you do because the universe is too large for anyone else to find almost any of it.
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;50407211]A released game can be forever bad, but a delayed game can be good.
Right?
[I][B]Right?[/B][/I][/QUOTE]
its true though
I'll support delays so long as there are good reasons for it
but some games still look bad even with delays
[QUOTE=Cushie;50409141]I'm more reminded of Starbound...Man the hype for that game was insane...Like Terraria but space exploration, very diverse randomly generated planets/creatures/dungeons and tons to 'explore'.
Problem is Starbound is/was kinda boring and suffers from the classic "grey goo" problem that heavily procgen focused games face, in that it's incredibly hard to make a game almost entirely reliant on procedural generation and the idea of 'infinite content' that doesn't get boring after a few hours.
I haven't completely written off NMS, but people really need to take a reality check before they get disappointed. I'd really love for this game to prove me wrong but the more I read about how it works and the technical aspects behind it, the more I get the feeling that the rabid hype train has become self perpetuating and expectations are getting far too high.
Couple of points:
1. Nothing gameplay wise is really being done on their servers AFAIK. The reason this game is even possible is that the entirety of the work is done by the client when it visits a world, and a procgen+seed system lets everyone have the same planets.
2. My assumption is that you are thrown into P2P lobbies if you are matched with other players near you on the same planet, probably with a system for seamlessly transitioning you.
3. [B]Changes to worlds are just saved locally and re-loaded when you visit the same planet again.[/B] The drawback of their system is that they cannot have any kind of online persistence because they are not storing your changes anywhere.
4. One major issue this game will likely face is cheating, considering everything is simulated client side. After all from what I remember your offline discoveries are uploaded when you go online...Can't wait until 2 hours after the game is out and you are reading about people already naming stuff right in the middle of the galaxy.[/QUOTE]
I think you misunderstand why I said that. It's stored locally. Enough stuff stored locally could bog down PS4s, especially when it likely takes a bit of power to run the system to begin with. There is a reason we see asteroids loading in the distance in the space stuff we've watched so far. The system can only take so much.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50407653]Not really fair to compare it to Spore. Can't hang NMS for a game that came out almost a decade ago and has almost nothing in common. Procgen space games are certainly feasible. Niche af but feasible.[/QUOTE]
I'm not comparing the games, I'm comparing the hype and the level of expectations for the games. One thing they have in common is that sheer scale and amount of content are large sources of hype. In Spore's case, it turned out that the infinite number of species didn't provide what it was expected to, and neither did the size of the galaxy. The age difference and genre difference between the two doesn't make that particular comparison unfair.
The problem isn't that procgen is niche, it's that it's easy to fuck up if the variation the progcen produces isn't [I]interesting[/I]. See Starbound. The bazillion planets in No Man's Sky will have to be incredibly varied and not just visually or categorically [i](as in "I'm here because this planet has unobtanium. the last planet didn't have that.")[/i] but in a way that makes the entire experience of each planet different. I hope it succeeds in doing that, but I am skeptical.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50408814]Spores failure came from the removal of whole selling-points of the game and the changes that were made to casualize the experience. They removed the water-phase, the creature phase was dumbed down and made kid friendly, and the space stage was pretty much featureless compared to what people were expecting.[/QUOTE]
But that's exactly the kinds of things that I fear will be the case for NMS...
[QUOTE=pramadito;50407572]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/BmRnCeU.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I have no clue why this is being framed as bugs. This is exactly the kind of variation a game like this needs. None of these should be considered bugs. Sure hope they didn't fix them. Except the space station docking one.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;50410167]
I have no clue why this is being framed as bugs. This is exactly the kind of variation a game like this needs. None of these should be considered bugs. Sure hope they didn't fix them. Except the space station docking one.[/QUOTE]
This mean the dev are really perfectionist, which can be good and bad at the same time
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;50410167]
I have no clue why this is being framed as bugs. This is exactly the kind of variation a game like this needs. None of these should be considered bugs. Sure hope they didn't fix them. Except the space station docking one.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure that fucking houses walking around and respawning as the wrong thing would look just fine in a "finished" game
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;50407211]A released game can be forever bad, but a delayed game can be good.
Right?
[I][B]Right?[/B][/I][/QUOTE]
Ocarina of Time turned out good.
people love to shit on this game
fallout 4 was incredibly conservative in what it showed prior to release but was cherished all the same. i think people are just jaded on the concept of procedural generation.
I'm jaded on the concept because for certain things it works out extremely well, for other things not much good can be said. I actually have worked with procedural generation before so.. idk it's going to take a lot for this to work.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;50420769]people love to shit on this game
fallout 4 was incredibly conservative in what it showed prior to release but was cherished all the same. i think people are just jaded on the concept of procedural generation.[/QUOTE]
Call me stupid but Fallout 4 wasn't all that great, especially compared to FO3/NV
[editline]30th May 2016[/editline]
You can say I'm shitting on the game just to shit on it, so here's my best attempt to be constructive. I want to like this game and what I just watched in that gameplay video, badly, but I can't help feeling bored of the game already after a 22 minute video. That's not a good sign to me. I don't feel exactly excited.
How they keep reiterating the fact that 99.9% of the universe will "never be discovered" and how different each and every planet will be, yet they still won't show multiple planets because they "don't want to spoil too much" is still [I]really[/I] sketchy to me. Between the gameplay video and the previews, the worlds all still strangely look very similar, somehow.
Again, I want to be into this game, and when it's a bit cheaper than the $60 price-tag I'll probably still end up picking it up (unless it turns out to be a MASSIVE disappointment), but something - everything - about what we've seen kind of turns me off right now.
It's just going to take some strong convincing to get me to feel differently until the game is released and we can see otherwise ourselves.
As interested as I am in this game, I'm perfectly fine with the game being delayed. I would much rather wait almost 3 months for a more polished game than to have a buggy mess that needs multiple day one patches.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.