Good point about how No Man's Sky's instant-gratification design nullifies the gratification, but it doesn't really go into [I]how[/I] you could fix it by making it more like Kerbal Space Program. Should NMS have realistic spaceflight physics or something?
[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;50863932]Good point about how No Man's Sky's instant-gratification design nullifies the gratification, but it doesn't really go into [I]how[/I] you could fix it by making it more like Kerbal Space Program. Should NMS have realistic spaceflight physics or something?[/QUOTE]
i dont know either. KSP's planets are all barren and lifeless, so it's not that
and NMS already copied KSP's crashing gameplay too:
[URL="https://clips.twitch.tv/lirik/MotionlessGerbilRitzMitz"]https://clips.twitch.tv/lirik/MotionlessGerbilRitzMitz[/URL]
if you want more realistic flight then that's more of an Elite: Dangerous thing.
[QUOTE=bloboo;50863985]Flying from planet to planet requires you to spend millions of actual dollars, and even then theres no guaranteed chance of success[/QUOTE]
You have to get from star to star at slower than light speeds. Put on a podcast and hop into that cryo chamber because it's going to be a long trip.
KSP itself suffers from barren planets much like ED currently, yeah you can land on planets but there's not really much to do on them, there's not much exploration to do on KSP planets because they're all equally barren, besides the different colors and gravity they're pretty much the same with maybe one or two interesting features placed by the devs.
Now a game that got planet exploration right in my opinion, is Outer Wilds, each planet on that game is completely unique and there's so much to see on each of them.
And unlike NMS, KSP or ED, Outer Wilds crafted all of it's planets by hand instead of random generation.
Outer Wilds shows how carefully crafted levels(planets in this case) are better than relying on random generation and only stepping in to place some landmarks here and there or fix up some weird glitch.
[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;50863932]Good point about how No Man's Sky's instant-gratification design nullifies the gratification, but it doesn't really go into [I]how[/I] you could fix it by making it more like Kerbal Space Program. Should NMS have realistic spaceflight physics or something?[/QUOTE]
But it does? It says that the journey actually needs to feel like some epic struggle, so that getting somewhere actually feels like you accomplished something. And that it needs a better sense of progression, in part due to being able to look back the way you came and remember how hard it was to get where you are now.
I feel like NMS just needs more risk. The fact that you literally can't crash your ship is the main reason I'm not getting the game after all. A lot of people discussing this issue seems to be coming at it with a [I]"complexity of Elite: Dangerous versus the simplicity of NMS"[/I] mindset. The problem is just not that the gameplay is simple, it's that it is [I]shallow[/I]. Allowing players to fuck up makes it so much more gratifying to land and fly around planets. It looks like you can't even [I]attempt[/I] to fly under arches or through caves or perform various risky stunts, and most risks seen in the game seem to be just various meters that deplete until you go into your inventory and recharge a shield. Even combat seems to be like this since the game doesn't have any maneuvering mechanics that would allow you to, for example, dodge attacks or get behind enemies, it's just stand there and trade attacks.
I feel like the main flaw from what I've seen is a lack of functional danger that you have to deal with using actual in-game mechanics. I mean, if hot planets had fire geysers that you had to avoid, and toxic planets had toxic mists that would kill you, etc, then planets would be [I]functionally[/I] different and automatically interesting because you have to approach it differently and you don't know exactly [I]how[/I] dangerous the planet is because there wouldn't be a meter on screen telling you how soon you need to refill your protection shields.
My point is just that people seem to fall into the trap and think that the way to make the game more interesting is to bloat it with complicated physics, but in reality you can totally make it work with simple and arcadey gameplay, it just also needs to be risky and fun.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;50865612]I feel like the main flaw from what I've seen is a lack of functional danger that you have to deal with using actual in-game mechanics. I mean, if hot planets had fire geysers that you had to avoid, and toxic planets had toxic mists that would kill you, etc, then planets would be [I]functionally[/I] different and automatically interesting because you have to approach it differently and you don't know exactly [I]how[/I] dangerous the planet is because there wouldn't be a meter on screen telling you how soon you need to refill your protection shields.[/QUOTE]
Wait, really? There are no environmental dangers? That seems the type of shit a space game should always have while on a planet.
[QUOTE=RaTcHeT302;50865835]Wait, really? There are no environmental dangers? That seems the type of shit a space game should always have while on a planet.[/QUOTE]
There are, but from what I've seen the effect of them all is just that it depletes a protection shield and when it gets to 0% you start taking damage. What varies is how quickly the shields deplete, but the ways to get out of danger is always the same: Leave, find cover or keep up shields with resources. Finding cover is the only thing that looks like a real gameplay mechanic to me. That actually gives a certain feeling of [I]doing something[/I] to [I]avoid danger[/I] and you get to sit in a cave looking out and being like "Wow, it's deadly out there", but then the only actual deadliness is that it drains your toxic/heat/cold/radiation shield meter. There are storms that can happen too, but I'm not sure if you can actually see them coming, and again I don't think they add anything other than faster depletion of shields.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.