Quantcast
No Man's Sky, the comeback of the generation? NMS v2.0 reviews

Forums - Gaming Discussion - No Man's Sky, the comeback of the generation? NMS v2.0 reviews

Chazore said:
SvennoJ said:

I was merely responding to the posts after, I suck at multi quoting :)

So far it's deserved for Star Citizen since there's still not really anything coherent to play after, well I backed it before Elite Dangerous and it still says estimated delivery November 2014...

At least DC, NMS and Elite Dangerous delivered something to expand on. SC keeps expanding without delivering any core game play loop.

My bad, I didn't notice you tried.

Well, you are able to play the game, albeit in an ea format. I remember I had to play Starbound in ea form for 3 and a half years until it reached 1.0, which felt like forever to me, and by then my excitement during it's start to it's 1.0 release had dwindled, this I decided after that and Conan Exiles, to not really bother supporting ea games, and instead opting to wait for other games to reach 1.0 status. 

I just feel like SC could deliver us saturn, mars and Venus, and it still will not be enough for those not interested or involved with backing the game, much like a HL3 scenario, where that too would be made to not live up to expectations. 

I'm happy to just sit and wait for it, while playing other games though. I know what it's trying to aim for, and it's something I've been wanting other AAA pubs to go for, but won't due to wanting to make more and more profit. That being said, Roberts is so very bad at managing his projects and reaching deadlines on time. You should see his movie career and how that flopped, primarily due to his poor budgeting/directing skills. 

The man has vision, but he should really just show us said vision, and let more experienced, more dedicated folk take the wheel, while he oversees the entire project from afar. 

To me, NMS just feels the same as it was during 1.0, some QoL fixes, tiny bit of optimization, but it still feels like it's go here, collect this, research that, only like SB and MC now, where you can build stuff, which is designed to keep you busy/occupied and serves no ultimate purpose outside of giving you a little entertainment. SC is what I want from those games, way more depth, way more complex AI./ I want those worlds to feel very much alive, not static pathed AI and barebones basic depth. I hope next gen ramps up AI tenfold, because if not, I'm going to be that old man going "where's my complex AI at?".

People aren't really interested in complex AI. A couple games have tried and it either inconveniences the player (radiant AI from Oblivion, where has my quest NPC gone off to now) or makes encounters too hard for most players. Complex AI mostly goes unnoticed. The human mind is very good at detecting patterns, but sucks at noticing complex interacting systems. A lot of work for developers with little pay off.

It's the same reason climbable ledges are subtly or less subtly marked, resources always look the same and environments stay predictable. (got to have those chest high walls :/)

What games need is an AI director to notice what keeps you interested and dynamically adjusts the game based on that. Procedural games that read your mind and provide the right variation and challenge for each player. We are still far away from that though.

I'm all for living enduring worlds though. If you settle on a planet it should at least have seasons and react to the effect of multiple suns. Rivers swelling after rain, tides coming in, tidal bore, snow, ice jams and trees actually growing. There's still so much to do to make worlds fully interactive. Yet it mostly comes down to data storage and speed of storage. From dust is what I want for entire worlds, yet our current slow and limited data storage makes that impossible. Static procedural worlds is where we are at. SC's city planet looks very cool but is ultimately the same. I want the landscape to change when I fly over a planet, not be the same wherever you land. Exploring an alien planet should involve more than checking out a square kilometer before moving on to the next planet.

I'll keep dreaming for now. SC is not going to revolutionize living worlds either. For now I'm happily playing NMS again. I'll get bored of it again, fire up ED again for a while, get bored, go back to GTS sport mode.



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:

People aren't really interested in complex AI. A couple games have tried and it either inconveniences the player (radiant AI from Oblivion, where has my quest NPC gone off to now) or makes encounters too hard for most players. Complex AI mostly goes unnoticed. The human mind is very good at detecting patterns, but sucks at noticing complex interacting systems. A lot of work for developers with little pay off.

It's the same reason climbable ledges are subtly or less subtly marked, resources always look the same and environments stay predictable. (got to have those chest high walls :/)

What games need is an AI director to notice what keeps you interested and dynamically adjusts the game based on that. Procedural games that read your mind and provide the right variation and challenge for each player. We are still far away from that though.

I'm all for living enduring worlds though. If you settle on a planet it should at least have seasons and react to the effect of multiple suns. Rivers swelling after rain, tides coming in, tidal bore, snow, ice jams and trees actually growing. There's still so much to do to make worlds fully interactive. Yet it mostly comes down to data storage and speed of storage. From dust is what I want for entire worlds, yet our current slow and limited data storage makes that impossible. Static procedural worlds is where we are at. SC's city planet looks very cool but is ultimately the same. I want the landscape to change when I fly over a planet, not be the same wherever you land. Exploring an alien planet should involve more than checking out a square kilometer before moving on to the next planet.

I'll keep dreaming for now. SC is not going to revolutionize living worlds either. For now I'm happily playing NMS again. I'll get bored of it again, fire up ED again for a while, get bored, go back to GTS sport mode.

People are interested, otherwise we wouldn't be making strides to create different AI that serve different purposes at this time.

The only people not interested are those who either do not care for interacting with AI, or seeking new technological advancements. 

The AI in Oblivion was more or less devised to appear as if it was something complex, when really it was pre-coded random paths for which the game chose to present you. I don't really see Bethesda, the most incapable of devs, having creating some "living" AI, since the radiant didn't even display much complexity, outside of appearing random, but when you look at it, it was the game jumbling different choices/paths, to then have said choices/paths find the player and interact, but only you, since you were the agent that could control what was going on within the game.

AN AI director also serves a similar function, in that it observes your progression, and is then instructed to interact with you, via making your life difficult or easier, never really reaching out to you personally, in a more meaningful way, that isn't "X enemies are stronger/more in number". Take L4D's Director, it simply chose to make things more hectic or sparse for you, that was literally all it could do, and nothing more.

Have you ever thought as something so complex, as an AI that becomes self aware?. We dream of it via films like Terminator, and that's the sort of AI I want, not some director that's told to do only two things, or one that is jumbled like some rubix cube, in order to appear different on the outside, but static in nature on the inside.

Personally, I find what SC is doing as a small step, but a bigger step than what other AAA games are offering, especially in terms of interaction types and massive worlds. At least leaving an entering a planet in that game looks and feels more immersive, while NMS's one is simply a transition moment, but one that is very brief.



                                       

Chazore said:

People are interested, otherwise we wouldn't be making strides to create different AI that serve different purposes at this time.

The only people not interested are those who either do not care for interacting with AI, or seeking new technological advancements. 

The AI in Oblivion was more or less devised to appear as if it was something complex, when really it was pre-coded random paths for which the game chose to present you. I don't really see Bethesda, the most incapable of devs, having creating some "living" AI, since the radiant didn't even display much complexity, outside of appearing random, but when you look at it, it was the game jumbling different choices/paths, to then have said choices/paths find the player and interact, but only you, since you were the agent that could control what was going on within the game.

AN AI director also serves a similar function, in that it observes your progression, and is then instructed to interact with you, via making your life difficult or easier, never really reaching out to you personally, in a more meaningful way, that isn't "X enemies are stronger/more in number". Take L4D's Director, it simply chose to make things more hectic or sparse for you, that was literally all it could do, and nothing more.

Have you ever thought as something so complex, as an AI that becomes self aware?. We dream of it via films like Terminator, and that's the sort of AI I want, not some director that's told to do only two things, or one that is jumbled like some rubix cube, in order to appear different on the outside, but static in nature on the inside.

Personally, I find what SC is doing as a small step, but a bigger step than what other AAA games are offering, especially in terms of interaction types and massive worlds. At least leaving an entering a planet in that game looks and feels more immersive, while NMS's one is simply a transition moment, but one that is very brief.

Most of my interests are towards AI, I have studied the then emerging subject in university and read sci fi about it all the time. However why would a self aware AI be interested in keeping you entertained. What you want to make is an AI to replace the good old dungeon master with the ability to put new adventures and environments together to make you part of a story that interests you. Self awareness only gets in the way of that imo, plus what being self aware actually means or if it means anything is still a mystery. Actually conscious thoughts usually get in the way of performing well in certain games. Thinking about taking the next corner in a racing game usually screws me up. Got to get in the 'zone', let your subconscious do the work and enjoy the results.

Games are designed to interact with the player. In a mmorpg you don't really bother to find out what the other 1000 people on the server are doing, you just go on by yourself or a small group and now and then see others running by. Why make complex AI to simulate the lives of all the people in the game if they just get ignored 99% of the time. It's cool for simcity to say that every citizen has it's own objectives, own paths and you can follow them on their way. That quickly gets boring. I'm glad I can summon my freighter at any time in nms instead of having to track it down, find a way to meet up with it etc.

Anyway different pace. Elite Dangerous does approaching planets very well. Which also makes it a lot of work to meet up with people on a planet. It's hard to strike the right balance between simulation and game play. KSP is even better for simulation, yet without time acceleration it would be unplayable.

For now Elite dangerous for realism





And truly feeling alone in the Galaxy. However finding a world with scraps of life or geological activity can take days of playing, flying from system to system, scanning everything until you detect traces of something interesting. And as you see, I stopped bothering to find a landing spot and hop in the rover since you can scan from the ship just as easily. After a while it becomes a game of finding screenshot opportunities in a sea of uninteresting barren planets.


NMS goes the opposite, every planet is interesting. Which kinda makes traveling somewhere pointless. There's no flying somewhere to get a good shot of a nebula and a ringed gas giant in the sky at night. It happens so often it takes the wonder away.





Running around in NMS does feel more fun than driving around in the rover in Elite dangerous.

Would NMS still be fun if you spend days finding an earth like planet, take half an hour to land carefully to then do what exactly? Movies can't even do exploration very well, it never takes long until the guns come out :/




I wish I had the time to go into detail, but I've really been enjoying it. Started 10 days ago and have a lot of time logged already. Find I can play it for longer stretches than I can with most other games. TBH, I find it almost disturbingly addictive. Totally wrecked myself, twice, playing till' around 3-4 AM when I needed to get to bed. That kind of occurrence is not common.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

I already passed my previous play time of 80 hours in my new save and still have so many things I want to try and find out.

The only negatives I have is that the controls are pretty bad in VR. Immersion is amazing, graphics are good enough, yet for some reason the range of the mining beam is much shorter in VR and you can't use R1 (slam) plus X, to jump forward and glide along at high speed with the jet pack. Pressing X twice for the normal jump forward works but is not as fast, nor effective due to using more fuel and sending you back to the ground. Scanning is bloody difficult in VR due to controller drift and pressing R2 usually makes you lose the target since it's so sensitive. The DS4 continually drifts and needs to be shaken frequently to get the mining beam to point back forward.

Perhaps it works better with move but I would really like to have the exact same controls as without VR, with only the option to aim where you look. Don't fix what aint broken, why do devs always have to change control schemes for VR! Walking around with move still has me traumatized from other games, no thanks. It's also a shame you can't switch from VR to screen and back quickly, that requires the game to restart afaik and thus sit through the long loading screen again. So despite it being amazing in VR, I mostly play it on the tv :/ Control > immersion sadly.

VR first tonight. I'm currently on my freighter and have to figure out which frigate is damaged and fix it then find a Vy'keen weapons expert. Yet back to tv when I have to scan or mine again. It's too painful trying to aim with a DS4, let me aim with my head!



Around the Network

I must say, this game is absolutely terrible on PSVR. IMO, it is unplayable. It's waaayyy too blurry. They should not have launched a VR mode for PS if that's the best it can be.



VAMatt said:
I must say, this game is absolutely terrible on PSVR. IMO, it is unplayable. It's waaayyy too blurry. They should not have launched a VR mode for PS if that's the best it can be.

Did you try it on a base ps4? It's do-able for me on the pro, just the controls are so unstable. My glasses are an issue though. Some hud elements are positioned right at the top rim of my glasses, so I have to look over the top of my glasses while having my glasses sit a bit lower on my face or get a fuzzy half split double image. It's one of those things devs never thought off!



I found it alright graphically on PSVR. I also found it completely boring. Lost interest after about 5 hours.



SvennoJ said:
VAMatt said:
I must say, this game is absolutely terrible on PSVR. IMO, it is unplayable. It's waaayyy too blurry. They should not have launched a VR mode for PS if that's the best it can be.

Did you try it on a base ps4? It's do-able for me on the pro, just the controls are so unstable. My glasses are an issue though. Some hud elements are positioned right at the top rim of my glasses, so I have to look over the top of my glasses while having my glasses sit a bit lower on my face or get a fuzzy half split double image. It's one of those things devs never thought off!

DreadPirateRoberts said:
I found it alright graphically on PSVR. I also found it completely boring. Lost interest after about 5 hours.

I played on PS4 Pro.  It was the blurriest thing I think I've played in VR, and that includes phone VR and going all the way back to Rift Dev Kit 2 several years ago. I looked around online and found many similar opinions, though most seemed to feel like they could tolerate the blurriness.  

Anyway, I was really looking forward to playing it in VR after hearing so many reviewers say it was awesome.  In hindsight, I'm sure they were all playing it on PC.  I guess it's a good reminder for me that PSVR just isn't comparable to PC VR.  

I lost interest in about 30 minutes.  



VAMatt said:
SvennoJ said:

Did you try it on a base ps4? It's do-able for me on the pro, just the controls are so unstable. My glasses are an issue though. Some hud elements are positioned right at the top rim of my glasses, so I have to look over the top of my glasses while having my glasses sit a bit lower on my face or get a fuzzy half split double image. It's one of those things devs never thought off!

DreadPirateRoberts said:
I found it alright graphically on PSVR. I also found it completely boring. Lost interest after about 5 hours.

I played on PS4 Pro.  It was the blurriest thing I think I've played in VR, and that includes phone VR and going all the way back to Rift Dev Kit 2 several years ago. I looked around online and found many similar opinions, though most seemed to feel like they could tolerate the blurriness.  

Anyway, I was really looking forward to playing it in VR after hearing so many reviewers say it was awesome.  In hindsight, I'm sure they were all playing it on PC.  I guess it's a good reminder for me that PSVR just isn't comparable to PC VR.  

I lost interest in about 30 minutes.  

It's not all that different from DriveClub and Skyrim on PSVR, but indeed a long way off from how Astrobot and Moss look. That's more of a problem with porting games that weren't made for VR than PSVR itself. On PC you can throw the needed CPU and GPU power at it. Eurogamer played it on PSVR and already warned that it was very blurry so I was prepared for that. Making it run on the base ps4 also hinders the resolution as VR can't afford dips to 10 fps like with Control on base consoles. The install base with PSVR and pro is simply too small to optimize for.

Anyway, you get used to it after 30 minutes ;) I played Skyrim VR for about 130 hours on PSVR. NMS however does have more issues in VR not to make it the best way to play. It's one of the first games in VR that control worse than the screen version :/ PSVR is indeed not comparable to PC VR when it comes to good controllers for VR.