Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Man's Sky Cosmos

nomanssky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 277 posts

Re: No Man's Sky Cosmos

#141

Post by rc5150 »

BrokenCogs wrote: post #116
goatking wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone disagrees and I don't really see negative comments about the devs or the studio. The problem is the game itself, gameplay wise. It's just boring for many (including me)

Somewhat of an aside but, personally, I also found GTA V and Red dead redemption 2 to be boring because these games didn't respect my time. I could play for two hours and still feel like I accomplished nothing except for "interacting with the world".

'I could play for two hours and still feel like I accomplished nothing except for "interacting with the world"'

Funny how this is exactly the same sentiment I feel about NMS. Go figure, different strokes, ya know?

Re: No Man's Sky Cosmos

#142

Post by nemomarx »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #85
nemomarx wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to look at dwarf fortress talks for that, I think?

IMO, Dwarf Fortress benefits greatly from the player seeing relatively few samples of the world gen, and the geography actually mattering to gameplay. The actual geography doesn't vary that wildly most of the time ( if you've seen one lightly forested river valley, you've seen them all), but players generate a relatively low number of worlds, and in each world probably only see a handful of sites, where dwarf-scale w…

I'm thinking of the generated history and legends too - NMS only seems to gesture at this with wrecks of ships but I don't think it actually gives each planet a history.

Re: No Man's Sky Cosmos

#143

Post by lconnell962 »

big-chungus4 wrote: post #29

What are people on about, there is tons to do in NMS, tons of missions, expeditions, build bases, build a corvet, hunt rate parts, ships, rifles, creatures, manage a settlement, automate crafting chains, find a lucrative trading route, and this new update apps even more things. I'd never consider NMS anything close to empty, there is so much variety in the content

I think some people don't understand what a procgen survival-craft game is. They're not wrong about it being an open sandbox, that's kinda the point. People talking about taking too long getting to space might not know about the limited time expeditions you can just start in for a different take, or turning the game to creative mode so they don't need to spend time resource farming to get their ship working so they can go fly around if that's all they want from the game.

The story and those quests will be rooted in building something. The space exploration will be rooted in finding a cool place loosely intended for your next base. The space battles and encounters will be part of the same core procgen survival craft cycle.

I won't deny there's probably only 20-40 hours of "real content" in the game. Most of what is there is shallower, or easilly missable, without the expedition(limited-time event) that launched it. A lot of things do seem like "grind X yourself, order team to do Y every few hours, fly to Z and talk to someone" which will get repetitive if/when you keep getting the same ones.

Re: No Man's Sky Cosmos

#144

Post by EagnaIonat »

spandrew wrote: post #69
john_strinlai wrote: post #31

at the time of posting, i think every top-level comment except one is negative. so, i'd like to balance it by saying that i have never seen a better executed turnaround than what the no man's sky team did. they cratered their reputation on launch, worked hard and long to restore it, and then continued to offer free updates long after they needed to. lots of respect there. (i will reward the effort by purchasing their…

I disagree with this logic. They launched an empty, hollow game. And the features they've bolted on "for free" haven't addressed any of the core gameplay or emptiness issues people have with it. Most of their new systems are half baked—confusing and only adding to the game design mess the game came out with. I'm convinced the reputation that they executed a "turnaround" is based on them staggering a few nonsense rele…

Bolted on? A lot of the core mechanics were rebuilt or added over the 10 years.

> based on them staggering a few nonsense releases

This has to be a troll. Or you haven’t touched the game in years.

What other game has had 10 years of free updates that has dramatically changed the game?

Re: No Man's Sky Cosmos

#145

Post by JohnMakin »

rc5150 wrote: post #137
JohnMakin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people are regurgitating takes from early in the game's development - the game of the last few years is absolutely nothing like the early one and I agree, there is a surprising amount of stuff to do.

I think maybe you're discounting that people have agency and can decide that a game they are playing actively doesn't tick their boxes. I reinstalled it last week and put in about two hours before uninstalling again. Mile wide and inch deep is exactly the way to describe it.

> I think maybe you're discounting that people have agency and can decide that a game they are playing actively doesn't tick their boxes.

> Mile wide and inch deep is exactly the way to describe it.

Aren't you doing the same thing you're saying? Plenty of comments in this thread disagree with your assessment. If the game isn't for you, that's one thing, but it's a factually untrue thing to say "there's nothing to do, game is sparse after a few hours and novelty wears off" like many comments say. This suggests the person did not actually see a lot of the game, which is fine, but it's still not a trustworthy evaluation to me.

Re: No Man's Sky Cosmos

#146

Post by fullstop »

selfawareMammal wrote: post #13

A huge vastness of nothing. The game has no soul at all. Worlds are ugly, animals are ugly, plants are ugly. With the first trailer I thought it could've been the game of my life, but it's just horrible, besides the feeling of moving around in the vastness of the universe, but once you get to a planet, it's just a turn off

I have at least 100 hours in the game, and I have to disagree with you. There's a surprising amount of variety in the creatures and the world generation.

I spend a lot of time building / designing my base. In that aspect, the enjoyment of the game is limited only by my creativity. I've definitely got $25 worth of entertainment from it. I will say, though, it is more fun if you have others to join your squad.

It's vastly better, imo, than Starfield. That was a game which really let me down -- I wanted Skyrim in Space, but I got 1,000 planets with the same cookie cutter quests on each. Or a team member saying something like "I can't believe we're the first ones to set foot on this temple" when there is a randomly generated outpost plopped down right next door.

Re: No Man's Sky Cosmos

#147

Post by ByThyGrace »

raincole wrote: post #39
helle253 wrote: post #5

It's amazing how, every time i come back to NMS, the whole thing feels like... nothing. It's a very cool and ambitious project, but there's fundamentally nothing substantial to it in terms of gameplay. It still feels to me, a decade later, more like a very very impressive tech demo than a video game

It more or less reminds me of that Rick and Morty episode. They were playing an asteroid shooting. > Morty: it's boring. crank up the realism slider to max > Rick: why does it get even more empty? Wait, I got it... because the universe is empty. At the end, I think there is little point in simulating the vastness of the universe in a video game (even just a fraction of it).

There are levels to this. The NMS day/night cycle is geocentric.

It's a sandbox game yet when it comes to its "space" premise everything is thrown out the window. Dogfights carry no difficulty or skill. Flying around a system is pretty much pointless other than to stumble upon quests (100% RNG). Most of the fun you'll get at planet surface.

Re: No Man's Sky Cosmos

#148

Post by flavionm »

john_strinlai wrote: post #80
spandrew wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this logic. They launched an empty, hollow game. And the features they've bolted on "for free" haven't addressed any of the core gameplay or emptiness issues people have with it. Most of their new systems are half baked—confusing and only adding to the game design mess the game came out with. I'm convinced the reputation that they executed a "turnaround" is based on them staggering a few nonsense rele…

> And the features they've bolted on "for free" haven't why scare quotes around for free? they were free. > haven't addressed any of the core gameplay or emptiness issues people have with it. i went from hating it to really enjoying it. i am not the only one. > based on them staggering a few nonsense releases and being good on social media ad spends. The game is still bad and not worth the money. my comment comes fro…

Content updates for a paid game aren't free. They're adding to a package that, more often than not, was incomplete to begin with. And they'll often result in more sales, which is how they pay for themselves.

Not that they're bad, but wording them like they're some huge act of generosity from the studio instead of a reasonable expectation pushes the baseline away from where it should be.

Re: No Man's Sky Cosmos

#149

Post by simoncion »

JohnMakin wrote: post #34
big-chungus4 wrote: post #29

What are people on about, there is tons to do in NMS, tons of missions, expeditions, build bases, build a corvet, hunt rate parts, ships, rifles, creatures, manage a settlement, automate crafting chains, find a lucrative trading route, and this new update apps even more things. I'd never consider NMS anything close to empty, there is so much variety in the content

I think people are regurgitating takes from early in the game's development - the game of the last few years is absolutely nothing like the early one and I agree, there is a surprising amount of stuff to do.

> I think people are regurgitating takes from early in the game's development...

Some are, sure. But -I say as someone who enjoys the game for what it is and still pops in every now and again to mess around with it- there's not much game in the game. Like BoBaitlyn said, it's a sandbox game. It has always been a sandbox game, and there are some folks who spend a few minutes fucking around with the sand in the box, go "WTF, this is boring as shit. I'm out!" and are boggled at the folks who enjoy playing with all the sand.

There's nothing wrong with being boggled or talking about how much you hated the sandbox. Specific sandboxes tend to appeal to specific sorts of people... each one often has its own gimmick that will pull in different sorts of folks. Suggesting that most complainers are complaining from a position of ignorance when they're complaining about a lack of things to do in a game that doesn't have much game in it kinda sucks. I've been playing off and on since v1, and have played for about half of the major patches. Hello Games has added a lot of stuff, but they haven't really added in much game to the game, if you see what I'm saying?

Re: No Man's Sky Cosmos

#150

Post by john_strinlai »

flavionm wrote: post #148
john_strinlai wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the features they've bolted on "for free" haven't why scare quotes around for free? they were free. > haven't addressed any of the core gameplay or emptiness issues people have with it. i went from hating it to really enjoying it. i am not the only one. > based on them staggering a few nonsense releases and being good on social media ad spends. The game is still bad and not worth the money. my comment comes fro…

Content updates for a paid game aren't free. They're adding to a package that, more often than not, was incomplete to begin with. And they'll often result in more sales, which is how they pay for themselves. Not that they're bad, but wording them like they're some huge act of generosity from the studio instead of a reasonable expectation pushes the baseline away from where it should be.

i bought a game that contained X with no expectations of more content.

the game now has Y and Z. i did not purchase the game expecting those updates. i did not pay for those updates. so it seems completely reasonable to consider those updates to be free.

wording it as something i paid for when i didn't pushes the baseline towards dishonesty.

Post reply on HN