gaming No Man's Sky Disappoints

[Guest]

Talked about for years now, the wait is over and No Man's Sky has been on the market for a little while now. A PC and PS4 console exclusive people thought this would be the game to make owning a PS4 worth it and would usher in a new age of gaming. Many also believed that this would show that indie devs can deliver just like AAA devs once and for all. Well the game's been out for a little while now and it's sitting at 6-7. While there is more positivity than negativity, ultimately No Man's Sky failed to deliver more than "satisfactory" ratings across the board. While it definitely was not a total failure, No Man's Sky will probably be remembered mostly as a disappointment.

 

Honestly I saw this coming, unproven developer takes on big project with full $60 price tag? It was unlikely to succeed, the odds were stacked against them. Not to mention let's just say the truth here: the technology just isn't advanced enough to create the kind of game they envisioned. They had to make compromises that more or less made their vision not a reality. Some of most commonly criticized elements:

 

• Shallow survival elements.
• Poor multi-player.
• PC version riddled with bugs that has rendered it unplayable to many for the first few days.
• A lot of the worlds look the same.
• Most planets are empty with little to do.

 

While the game broke most concurrent players on Steam's records, I think this was more for curiosity rather than genuine concern. Many players refunded the game already.

 

Honestly I've said it before and I'll say it again: Indie devs are not the future. In order for them to become the future they have to prove themselves enough through making multiple games and by the time they are proven they aren't indie devs anymore. The truth is a lot of people think they can make it big in this industry remaining indie and the reality is that it's unlikely.

[Megas 27,180]

 

 

A lot of the worlds look the same. Most planets are empty with little to do.

These two were what made me worried about the game.They kept touting "there are billions upon billions of randomly generated planets" and "none of them are the same" but I kept thinking "different how?" I had a feeling that when they said "none are the same" they really meant "they have different placement", they'll have different colors" and etc.

[CaptainDoubloon 856]

I have a few nitpicks since buying the game. I really hate to say anything bad about this game since I was really excited to play it but a few things did bother me.

 

1. The constant micromanaging of refueling the hyperdrive to get to the next galaxy.

2. That every planet is empty. I would have liked to have seen one planet with either small villages or a large city with the galaxy's particular race living there.

3. This is a small thing but I became attached to the first planet I started on but didn't fully explore it because I was eager to start making my way to the galaxy core. I'm currently about 12-15 galaxies away from where I started and I wish there was a way to quick travel to the first planet.

4. I wish I could rename the first planet. I accidently uploaded the default planet name because I had pressed the wrong button.

5. I'd like to have a home base on a planet but it seems like the game wants players to constantly be on the move.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Coco Crusoe

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 40,506]

It seems the overall scope and vision for this game was just a tad too much for the developer to handle. Whereas Elite Dangerous started with a smaller focus and is expanding over time, it feels like NMS was trying to be this vastly huge and immense experience right form the get-go. It is a shame that it didn't pan out. With rumors of an Xbox One version floating around, I hope that this game can be improved through updates, though I am not sure if the already done damage will hugely affect this. This honestly feels like a case where the game should have been in Early Access. Elite Dangerous was in the Xbox Game Preview program and apparently the devs were really happy about the program itself and the results it had for them. NMS could have used this same in-development feedback.

[PopBox 20]

The way Sean Murray was pitching it and talking about NMS in interviews made it (even for a small indie team) seem possible to create an expansive world for everyone to enjoy in their own way. 

 

1. Landing on asteroids.

 

2. Large faction battles.

 

3. Docking on freighters.

 

4. Hacking Doors and machines.

 

5. Planet rotation and orbit.

 

6. Not having to ever gather resources or land on planets.

 

7. Importance of factions and standing.

 

8. Multiplayer coop/competitive.

 

These are not in the game but here's hoping they will be soon. Maybe it'll get better overtime with a few updates.

Edited August 17, 2016 by PopBox

[Twilight Dirac 720]

I am honestly not surprised, given the level of ambition of the project.  Then again, I have never been a fan of these sorts of procedurally generated games, save those that lie within the 4X genre (Civilization V, etc.) or builder focused games like Dwarf Fortress and Minecraft.  Games generally need focus and structure to succeed.  Throwing a player in a massive world of randomly generated stuff gets dull surprisingly fast.  

[Jon the VGNerd 842]

The way they failed to properly optimize No Man's Sky for PC is appalling. I don't want to build myself a supercomputer-grade PC in order to run it, but even then, its poorly optimized. Its like they've never heard a thing called PC gaming before.

[idunnomaybe 344]

The way they failed to properly optimize No Man's Sky for PC is appalling. I don't want to build myself a supercomputer-grade PC in order to run it, but even then, its poorly optimized. Its like they've never heard a thing called PC gaming before.

i refunded the game cause i saw where it was going quite early on (subnaughtica in space) however you don't need a super computer 

 

ive got a first gen i7 GTX 660 and 12 gig ram and i ran it maxed out with about 50-60 fps it only ever dropped down to 45 once 

 

what i found was actually maxing it out made it run better have no idea why 

[\/ 650]

I've been waiting for someone to make a topic about this. The really big thing that bothers me about No Man's Sky is the fact that they used edited GUI and graphics in their trailers, falsely advertising them as gameplay trailers. Everyone was expecting something cooler. It's really just a combination of Space Engineers, Subnautica, (and maybe Spore's space stage?). It's also pretty hard to run. That game is not optimized for any computer. I've heard the console version runs a bit better, though.

 

The gameplay is quite dull. "Ooh, what's this?" loses its charm after a while. That, and all of your discoveries are basically irrelevant. You can sell them for units, but that's it. You never have any need to interact with the animals or plant life of a planet unless you're using them for resources. And even then, resources are basically just 10-15 different things that are re-skinned on each planet you go to. It's just flashy and fun for the first hour or so. 

[Noandnoandno 100]

Well, I tried it out, man, this game was such a waste of time and it brings barely anything new to the table, all the promises the developers have made throughout the years have bee false, I refuse to give these developers money, developerse who lie to you do not deserve any kind of support, especially if they keep on going even after being exposed, Hello Games still intends on letting the player base believe that the multiplayer is somehow a part of the game.

 

 

 

The hole of this game goes deeper though, it's bare bones there is barely anything in it, those billions (or whatever) of planets have barely anything to offer to you. And when you will find something unusual it will not even touch of what you were sold on when you saw the E3 trailer of this game.

 

 

Everything you see here quite literally isn't in the game, the consistant structure of the planet, how many and how big the animals are, you will NEVER EVER find anything like this in the current No Man's Sky.

 

 

 

No Man's Sky isn't just a disappointment, it's a game which is genuinelly just bad and my contendeer for the worst game of 2016. This game has a price of an AAA game, yet even 30 euro--no even 20 euro would be too much for what is on offer here. The survival mechanics are a joke you need very few resources to survive and those resources are very easy to find, your ship is easy to repair too, there isn't any punishment for death, you can just retrieve everything.

 

Therefore this isn't a survival game..is it a game based around exploration?

 

Not really, the game does not encourage you to do so, and what is there to explore? The planets are bornig and there is barely any life in them, the game looks awful any sense of wonder is gone. 

 

This is how yours typical planet of No Man's Sky looks like.

 

 

 

Befriending animals seems to be worthless and does not give you anything, improving your ship isn't worth the effort.

 

 

Minecraft's survival and exploration is much better, Saubnatica is much better in every way, No Man's Sky has NOTHING to offer, it is an over-priced overhyped mess which is a spit upon other great indie titles (can you consider this an AAA title? Sony gave them a lot of money, greatly hyped and priced like an AAA game)

 

It is one of the biggest launches on Steam, and it's a disaster, This must be one of the most disappointing games of all time. Of all time.

 

 

 

 

Before I will end my rant, I will end this with a spoiler.

 

Center of the galaxy.

 

This a thing majorit yof you have been waiting for when you heard about this game, your ultimate goal. I will spoil it for you, because it's an ultimate slap in the face.

 

 

 

NOTHING

THERE IS NOTHING AT THE CENTER OF THE GALAXY, THE GAME JUST RESTARTS.

 

 

 

So yeah, blunder of the century, all centuries.

Edited August 18, 2016 by HeavyWeaponsBaby