No Man's Sky Metacritic - Critic 72, User 5.0

[Johnw1104]

crissindahouse said:

Johnw1104 said:

It couldn't possibly be that a small dev team that only had experience making four "Joe Danger" sidescrolling games perhaps bit off a tad more than they could chew in attempting to create a realistically sized, actual universe that's somehow still interesting enough to warrant exploring?

Now that I say it out loud it does sound pretty darn silly. lol

My question is why this obsession with scale? People understand they'll die sometime in the coming decades, right? Every person on earth could spend their lives playing this game and we'd only visit a tiny portion of it.

The whole scale argument is the reason why this game will sell 50x more as it would otherwise. Because everything else the game has to offer is also in games which sold maybe 100k units lifetime 

Sure, nobody has something from that but it was a nice buzzword millions of people "fell in love with".

I think the exact same game with "only" 10000 planets would be much better since you would at least meet someone from time to time. 

Or no shared world and only 100 planets but therefore planets which aren't totally random and where the devs could form the worlds a little bit to be more interesting. 

I'll admit I was initially seduced by the "scale" approach with Spore and many times prior... They've been pulling that trick for ages, dating back to games like Daggerfall that bragged about being the size of the U.K. when little of it was actually worth visiting.

That's my biggest issue though, I look at this game and see below average gameplay and little incentive to do anything. I was sort of hoping for something like ARK in space, but that's not at all what we got. Multiplayer could have provided some personality for this experience to make it a blend of EVE Online and ARK, but without that there's not much to it.