No. You can't have the whole game's world purely based on a procedural generation of millions planets and at the same time include specific, 100% hand-crafted quests and puzzle or whatever. It's either or.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
No Man's Sky could end up being the "Spore" of this generation
- Thread starter Majestad
- Start date
No. You can't have the whole game's world purely based on a procedural generation of millions planets and at the same time include specific, 100% hand-crafted quests and puzzle or whatever. It's either or.
Thanks for that. I was thinking that you could randomly generate millions and then have it pull unique ones from a different pool every once in a while. I guess it is impossible?
Your questions are so weird.
Yes, it would be technically possible to have a random number generator on top of the current game and sometimes "pull unique ones from a different pool", with a completely different approach to how the galaxy is actually constructed, by somehow having players "warp" with a certain probability to a pre-constructed planet that they HAVE to "solve" before moving on.
But it makes zero sense within the goals and context of the game they are actually making -- so as Raist said, it's impossible to have what you want AND have the game's world be purely procedural. For the third time (which you seem to be ignoring repeatedly): There is ZERO chance that this game will deliver what you want.
The game's philosophy is "EVERYTHING is procedural". You are saying "I don't like procedural, add something else plz thx".
Actually, scratch that: Your one and only hope is that the supposed center of the galaxy is actually a pre-determined "puzzle" planet, level, or something of the sort. But I would say that's supremely unlikely, and would nevertheless only involve a small chunk of the game.
IAmRandom31
Banned
EA is not involved with No Mans Sky
so no it wont end up like Spore
so no it wont end up like Spore
No Man's Sky problem is that its sparks people's imagination WAY TOO MUCH by its concept.
I sadly think there's NO WAY this game will fulfill the ridiculously unrealistic hype people are probably having for this game. So yeah, it could fall flat for the same reason as Spore (expectations built vs reality at release)
I sadly think there's NO WAY this game will fulfill the ridiculously unrealistic hype people are probably having for this game. So yeah, it could fall flat for the same reason as Spore (expectations built vs reality at release)
It's probably possible to do as an end-goal, but nobody has done it yet or is attempting it on this kind of scale as far as I know.
Oh, and it's still way more planets than millions. 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 is the actual number, I didn't just mash my keyboard.
That's eighteen quintillion, four hundred forty-six quadrillion, seven hundred forty-four trillion, seventy-three billion, seven hundred nine million, five hundred fifty one thousand, six hundred and sixteen.
No and until I see gameplay of these 'platformers' then they simply wont live up to their promises and they will just be more spores. The devs have built up lots of hype but what do you DO? Just jump up and down? Will be boring after just a few hours.
What ridiculously unrealistic hype?
Have you read this thread, or any other NMS thread? There is a point where having so many posts claiming there is unrealistic hype (to the point where it dominates the discussion) is self-evidently ridiculous. We are way, way past that point.
OuterLimits
Member
I remember playing Starflight on Genesis as a kid. Had fun exploring planets in that game. Looking forward to trying NMS. Perhaps it will remind me of the fun I had with Starflight.
The concept and aesthetics on No Man's Sky is what is interesting. However, I firmly believe that the game will be shit after the first couple of days, why? Because there'll be fuck all to do.
I get the same feeling as i do for a lot of games, like Prototype etc. They try to make big huge open worlds, and spend so much time on building a playground, all it is is a big old nothing, a lot of areas to go, with nothing to do in them - and that's what No Man's Sky will be.
I get the same feeling as i do for a lot of games, like Prototype etc. They try to make big huge open worlds, and spend so much time on building a playground, all it is is a big old nothing, a lot of areas to go, with nothing to do in them - and that's what No Man's Sky will be.
I'm quite skeptical of No Man's Sky. I've been waiting to see what the core game loop is and so far nothing has been revealed. In games like Privateer and Freelancer, there was commodity trading and intrigue in the form of a strong narrative. Even in Spore, there were 3 or 4 gameplay experiences in there, even if they were paper thin.
The only thing we've seen so far from NMS is exploration, but it's exploration of procedurally generated content, which is honestly not much different from tile-based randomly generated levels in a game like Diablo. The creatures in NMS are still based on archetypes, so even if the meshes and textures are slightly different on each world, you still end up with "flying creature, galloping creature, etc."
Comparisons to Minecraft are flawed, in my opinion, because that game is all about player creativity as opposed to mere exploration of randomly generated content. Perhaps if there was a strong synchronous multiplayer component with a contiguous open universe, and enough emergent gameplay, it could be something like EVE. But I don't get that sense.
The only thing we've seen so far from NMS is exploration, but it's exploration of procedurally generated content, which is honestly not much different from tile-based randomly generated levels in a game like Diablo. The creatures in NMS are still based on archetypes, so even if the meshes and textures are slightly different on each world, you still end up with "flying creature, galloping creature, etc."
Comparisons to Minecraft are flawed, in my opinion, because that game is all about player creativity as opposed to mere exploration of randomly generated content. Perhaps if there was a strong synchronous multiplayer component with a contiguous open universe, and enough emergent gameplay, it could be something like EVE. But I don't get that sense.
I want to see the actual jumping mechanics. Like WHY are you jumping? Is there some sort of elevated area you are trying to reach, or some ground-based obstacle you are trying to get over? I mean, without explicitly showing any of this, how do we know it's not boring?
NMS Doubt Type 1: Why are people excited? This looks like a walking simulator, but, like, walking in space. Moonwalking simulator. (Think they know)
Response: Watch the trailers. Read the multiple threads addressing what you do.
NMS Doubt Type 2: I don't even know what this game is about. (Don't know)
Response: Watch the trailers. Read the multiple threads addressing this.
NMS Doubt Type 3: They are overpromising. The game looks like it is only going to be about flying around in a procedural universe, gathering resources, trading, exploring, shooting occasionally, developing faction status, and avoiding an omnipresent threat. (Thinks they promised more than they did)
Response: That's what you do in the game. Did they promise more?
NMS Doubt Type 4: I know what they are promising and I don't think this is something I will like.
Response: Okay.
NMS Doubt Type 5: They won't be able to do what they say they're going to do. (OP)
Response: We'll see.
NMS Doubt Type 6: Procedural games are always bad.
Response: A discussion!
1, 2, and 3 are infuriating because they're asking others to do their work for them. It's all there in the trailers. 4 is nice to know, but not super interesting. 5 is possible, but there is no way for us to know now. 6 is interesting.
A more interesting question is why this game gets so much doubt. I think it is a misinterpretation of the hype. It's getting attention because it is relatively novel, not because it will have universal appeal. The trailers recognize that. I think the focus on setting over gameplay does consumers right - you know what the focus is.
For example, the trailers for Red Dead showed mechanics of walking, riding, shooting, and resource gathering with cut scenes. It was set in the Old West. People who like those things in a game would like the game if well-executed.
Similarly, the trailers for NMS show resource gathering, exploring, walking, flying, and shooting. It is set in space and a particular brand of sci fi. If you don't like those things, you probably won't like the game even if well-executed.
So why do NMS trailers get the doubt? The former is largely GTA by horse and something we're used to doing and is pretty popular. The latter hasn't been done much lately (especially on console) and requires a different way of approaching the setting because of its vastness. The hype for NMS is, in my view, exaggerated largely because of that novelty, not because the game will be universally appealing.
Response: Watch the trailers. Read the multiple threads addressing what you do.
NMS Doubt Type 2: I don't even know what this game is about. (Don't know)
Response: Watch the trailers. Read the multiple threads addressing this.
NMS Doubt Type 3: They are overpromising. The game looks like it is only going to be about flying around in a procedural universe, gathering resources, trading, exploring, shooting occasionally, developing faction status, and avoiding an omnipresent threat. (Thinks they promised more than they did)
Response: That's what you do in the game. Did they promise more?
NMS Doubt Type 4: I know what they are promising and I don't think this is something I will like.
Response: Okay.
NMS Doubt Type 5: They won't be able to do what they say they're going to do. (OP)
Response: We'll see.
NMS Doubt Type 6: Procedural games are always bad.
Response: A discussion!
1, 2, and 3 are infuriating because they're asking others to do their work for them. It's all there in the trailers. 4 is nice to know, but not super interesting. 5 is possible, but there is no way for us to know now. 6 is interesting.
A more interesting question is why this game gets so much doubt. I think it is a misinterpretation of the hype. It's getting attention because it is relatively novel, not because it will have universal appeal. The trailers recognize that. I think the focus on setting over gameplay does consumers right - you know what the focus is.
For example, the trailers for Red Dead showed mechanics of walking, riding, shooting, and resource gathering with cut scenes. It was set in the Old West. People who like those things in a game would like the game if well-executed.
Similarly, the trailers for NMS show resource gathering, exploring, walking, flying, and shooting. It is set in space and a particular brand of sci fi. If you don't like those things, you probably won't like the game even if well-executed.
So why do NMS trailers get the doubt? The former is largely GTA by horse and something we're used to doing and is pretty popular. The latter hasn't been done much lately (especially on console) and requires a different way of approaching the setting because of its vastness. The hype for NMS is, in my view, exaggerated largely because of that novelty, not because the game will be universally appealing.
The comparisons to minecraft are clearly not about what you DO.
Judging by all the NMS threads, I think most of the people who are ridiculously hyped for it are very aware of what the game is and thus don't have insane expectations.
They're just very excited to explore an entire galaxy with very "basic" gameplay principles.
Yes.
thelurkinghorror
Member
If I was not bored of Elite Dangerous after 30 hours I think I can handle and love this game too
Icyflamez96
Member
Yeah precisely, i think we're on the same page potentially.
To reach that point though a developer has to themselves be confident that the game is sufficiently playable in order to convey the aspirations of their game properly.
So I personally don't know what arbitrary timeline would make the demo appropriate enough to have a positive influence on the way people interpret the concept though. I imagine it's quite like how you just know it works right or not, They've solidified the concept into an actual game where you can work through a 30 minute demo without eighteen bugs challenging your every step or whatever whilst demonstrating that they can actually achieve what they've set out to do in some fundamental way.
So far it seems route 3 is the closest to what they're doing.
COVER STORY:
Gamespot
Game Informer Cover Story
Edge Cover Story
And then at nearly every trade show since their unveiling of the game, we've had a new trialer.
TRADE SHOW TRAILERS:
VGX 2013 Trailer
VGX 2013 Interview with Sean Murray/Overview
E3 2014 Trailer
IGN's Gamescom 2014 No Man's Sky Trailers/Overview
VGA 2014 No Man's Sky Trailer
And whenever they didn't have a show specific trailer like at TGS, they instead had a cover story for the month of September (Edge). They have been on the ball with explaining this game so it remains weird to me people are still confused as to what this game is or does
seems like there's been more 'no context' posts lately. people posting things with no quote and there's maybe 3 posts above them they could be referencing.
Imagine Planetside 2 but with this kind of world generation.....that would be insane. I guess they would have to severely limit the planets to accomodate the players but imagine if everyone in the world was playing and you had this giant solar system. Throw in Star Citizen while you're at it and create one of the coolest galaxies.
I think one thing missing from a lot of games is the animal life. Mass Effect had a few creatures here and there but generally they don't exist. I'd love for shooters and other games to incorporate more animals, even if you don't interact with them. It makes thew orld feel more alive.
Bitch Pudding
Member
You may be right. Like me back then when I suggested the same thing is likely to happen to Sunset Overdrive.
(Obvious) fun aside, I am not interested in NMS. Its principle of spending hours and hours of exploring, the idea of "the journey being the destination", just doesn`t get to me. Although it could be a real Morpheus system seller...
Dr. Zoidberg
Member
I think they should have kept their mouths shut about the game and not shown anything until they had a firm release date in mind, and when they did show the game they should have made the demo in such a way as to answer the "what do you do?" brigade.
I think the way they've handled publicizing the game so far has been terrible, and will backfire on them unless the game is phenomenal. It's very (Joe) dangerous.
I think the way they've handled publicizing the game so far has been terrible, and will backfire on them unless the game is phenomenal. It's very (Joe) dangerous.
Didn't one of the early trailers actually spell it out? Flashing trade, explore, etc. Showing dogfighting?
I don't know of any other game where publicity is sufficient only if they show someone actually walking the audience through the mechanics "and now I am shooting at the enemies... these are animals I have discovered... these are resources that I can gather to sell... here I am selling them... and now I am entering hyperdrive for a new system".
Dictator93
Member
I am surprised it is being hyped so much when you compare it to other things in the genre or games that have come before it.
I like the visual style though.
I like the visual style though.
Welcome to being me in every NMS thread.
I'm almost 100% positive that this is a flavor of concern trolling. Like people who don't actually give two shits about NMS pretending to maybe be interested in it if only there was a Let's Play that detailed explicitly how deep the mining simulation in the game is.
Veritigo_X
Member
Trust in developers is at an all time low. People won't believe they can pull off shooting a gun or gathering resources until they see it with their own eyes. I'm honestly surprised no one has proposed that the planet generation is bullshit and the trailers were pre-built set pieces.
I know, the PS4 is so flooded with retro-style sci-fi exploration games I'm surprised it has even made it to being mentioned in a thread.
EatinOlives
Member
That's not why Spore failed. Maxis retooled Spore to be a much more casual, cartoony, and much more simplistic game than what was initially shown, presumably because EA thought the original concept was too "sophisticated" for whatever target audience they wanted (probably kids given the final product).
Unless NMS is retooled to be much more simplistic for that reason, there's no real parallel between it and Spore.
It's truly bizarre. At any given E3 there's tons of CG teaser trailers for AAA games and everyone shouts "HNNNG DAY 1!!!!" from the rooftops. But this game? Not only does it need multiple gameplay trailers, it needs encyclopedias of detailed information about every possible aspect of the gameplay, and even after the countless trailers, previews, and interviews people to this day are still going "buh?? what this game is about??? i confused!!!!"
It's one thing to not be interested in a game. It's another for them to be bizarrely proud of their ignorance and inability to make even the most cursory research at an upcoming game, instead happily proclaiming how little research they've done on the game as a reason to dismiss it entirely, as if that's somehow the fault of the developer.
Jawbreaker
Member
I enjoyed Proteus, so this will be an instant purchase for me since it's so much more and features an incredible band for the soundtrack.
Neuromancer
Member
Going into a game expecting disappointment is a pretty good way to end up being disappointed by it. That said I hope it pleasantly surprises you instead.
Dr. Zoidberg
Member
The one I saw was on the PS4 during that E3 and it looked cool but did not really explain much or show much depth. This is probably a lot of people's first impression of the game and that's hard to overcome.
Considering how many threads there are about this, there certainly appears to be a real problem with how they've handled the PR/Marketing. It's not just fanboys/haters out to torpedo it for some reason.
Come on guys! While NMS might disappoint (and the more hype it gets the greater the risk of disappointment becomes), none of us has played it yet. It looks great and the gameplay looks intriguing. I will continue to look for previews as more and more of the game is announced. So far, there's nothing announced about this game that has turned me off.
Nameless
Member
Over-inflated and unrealistic expectations might be the things that ultimately paint NMS as a disappointment. It's already the source of much of the cynicism surrounding game, which is odd since the devs have been quite candid about what it entails.
Unlike Will Wright, and Molyneux before him, Hello Games has given me no reason to build grandiose illusions about this game. All they've promised is a huge, pretty, unscripted galaxy to explore with phenomenal music playing in the background. That's what they've shown, and that's what I'm excited for.
Unlike Will Wright, and Molyneux before him, Hello Games has given me no reason to build grandiose illusions about this game. All they've promised is a huge, pretty, unscripted galaxy to explore with phenomenal music playing in the background. That's what they've shown, and that's what I'm excited for.
EatinOlives
Member
I wouldn't be so quick to compare Will Wright with Molyneux. Wright up until Spore's release had essentially an unbeaten track record. None of the games he released prior to Spore were severely downgraded in scope and illusion, like practically every Molyneux game since Fable 1.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
If that's what you mean by Route 3, yeah, I agree. They will show a lot when it's closer to launch.
That's generally what I'm hoping it will be, with the same amount of things to do.
Nameless
Member
I just meant that they both pitched their games(Wright with Spore, Molyneux with Project Ego) in a way that led people believe they'd break the very ground on which video games were built. I've yet to get anything close to those types of vibes from Hello Games in reference to NMS.
Bolded for emphasis.
How did it show any less depth than any other trailer for any other game? That's what I'm curious about. They have been crystal clear in trailers and interviews about the game. It's easy to find here and elsewhere.
The only difference is that it is not an FPS, TPS with cover, a fighter, WRPG, or JRPG. If this sort of unrealistic bar of handholding in trailers is set for any complex new form of game (and it's not like it's new - space games just went into hibernation for 7 years or so), there's a good reason why all games are starting to look similar.
Nameless
Member
Sure they can. Spore comparisons wouldn't exist otherwise.
I never really understood why people are saying that no mans sky is so ambitious and that the developers might be in over their head.......I'm excited for the game, don't get me wrong.....but honestly, what have they confirmed that's so mind blowing? The thing I'm most looking forward to in the game is probably the soundtrack. Other then that it has procedural planets and creatures and music that sort of changes to fit your situation (all of which are not new things)......That's really it. The transition from planet to space in your ship makes perfect sense when you look at the sky and stars flying by you as a brief loading screen and then.....that's the whole game. The only thing missing is some gun combat which we have barely seen and I'm sure it's going to be beyond basic.
At launch I expect it to be an enjoyable game for 10 or so hours and then get extremely boring. I think it's safe to assume at this point that the only people who are going to enjoy it should best be a fan of extreme exploration.
Not trying to pan the game in any way, just being realistic based on what we've seen. The game is also far off from complete so who knows, maybe we will see a butt load more features in the future but I highly doubt it.
At launch I expect it to be an enjoyable game for 10 or so hours and then get extremely boring. I think it's safe to assume at this point that the only people who are going to enjoy it should best be a fan of extreme exploration.
Not trying to pan the game in any way, just being realistic based on what we've seen. The game is also far off from complete so who knows, maybe we will see a butt load more features in the future but I highly doubt it.