I never played a game like this, plus it looks fantastic; Day One.

To get to the centre. 

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2016/04/13/how-i-spent-two-hours-in-no-mans-sky-ign-first

Article's writer basically was sat down in front of the game, and allowed to see how far he could get with no 'special perks' outside an intrasystem jump drive and a somewhat upgraded scanner. That meant his objective, obviously, was to find the materials he needed in order to construct the hyperdrive that would allow him to leave the solar system. I won't spoil specific details just in case people want to experience the first few hours completely fresh, but I will note;

-The game looks like it has the potential to be a lot more challenging than expected, even early on, and everything from weapons ammo to even your shield will require resources to replenish. No magically regenerating shield or health, in other words.
-I think this was already known, but I was nonetheless a bit surprised to be reminded that you can actually destroy trees in order to get carbon. Little detail that stuck out.
-Travel times in the early portion of the game could weigh on some players; even within a single solar system, planets can be many minutes apart at conventional speed. While there does exist the aforementioned jump drive that allows you to (if possessing the fuel) instantly cross the distance, it is something new players will need to build just as they would a hyperdrive. Just thought I'd mention it to those who were particularly averse to any form of wait times.

Some new info here:


View on YouTube

Looks good, ill see what the reviews say about it first before picking it up.

biggest concern for me, as others have mentioned, is that the sheer size of the generated game will be so large that it will be difficult to find other players to interact with.

The fun for me with a game like this would be picking races/aliens to ally with and/or meeting up with friends to get involved with space battles or whatever (like the traders / space pirates sort of stuff).

A game like this NEEDS some sort of trading hubs or planets which are easily accessible (teleport?) for the human players to meet up in. LIke maybe certain solar systems that everyone can easily find.

if It literally is the scale of like millions of star systems then no one will ever be able to find other humans to play with :/ makes a huge difference

It's a singleplayer game. Delete any notion of it being multiplayer.

that's easy for you to assume and to say, but what exactly is the 'making your own story'? if potentially it takes 10s of hours to find other players and likely will take an infinite amount of time to get to the 'center' of the universe, then what possible story or goal is there?

Everyone can appreciate the 'journey' but a journey is generally something leading SOMEWHERE. 

the concern with this game is its lack of focus. It may really be just a space adventure simulator where you pick up resources and do light exploration of fairly generic automatically generated planets.

What people really want is a space exploration game that is large but can still maintain a community and interaction with both computers and other HUMAN players.

No Man's Sky biggest issue I think possibly could be the difficulty in finding other humans to interact with. Let's be honest- probably over half of the people picking up this game are going to be most excited about the potential of big space battles. If those people find out that its insanely difficult to find other players to get involved with with battles (based on the size of the universe) then its going to be a major disappointment.

I think exploration is awesome and I like the concepts of this game but there is an issue with exploration when the majority of what you are 'exploring' has been computer generated. It means that while many planets may APPEAR different aesthetically, they will behave similarly in terms of the NPC's, nature, artifact searching.

I mean's cool that one planet might be tropical and another freezing cold, but if you're simply landing on planet to planet to name some things and shoot/collect resources then that could get tiring very quickly.

Again the human player interaction component I think is key for this sort of large scope game. They need some sort of solar systems that everyone can access to meet and interact with other players. Even maybe just based on where you are in the galaxy, like regions have their own hubs for people to go to (I don't obviously expect someone on one end of the galaxy to be able to meet up with someone on the other). Just SOMETHING

Again, this is a singleplayer game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ORFgfhj_hM&feature=youtu.be&t=2m40s

So, after poking around Reddit, some Youtube comment sections (I know, I KNOW,) something that kind of occurred to me was there was a lot more 'active disinterest' than I'm used to seeing in game discussions. By which i don't simply mean there were people who aren't interested in the game- there are people not interested in literally every game ever made, it goes without saying- but rather those who were actively participating in discussions, asking questions, etc, all while insisting that they still weren't really that interested in the title due to a lack of multiplayer, or building things, etc. I found this kind of curious, as- outside some trolling comments like 'Lulz Halo Sux!' or concerns about whether a game will live up to what its developers have ACTUALLY promised- typically people who aren't interested in soccer games won't wander into every FIFA discussion going 'Why do you people want this?? Jesus, kicking a stupid ball around? You know what it needs? CARS WITH ROCKETS. Rocket League has cars with rockets and it's like a million times better!'

But I have a theory! A really long-winded one. Because I love to talk.

--------

Okay. From a marketing perspective, being able to secure stage time on E3 was brilliant to an extent, as it would would certainly do plenty to push NMS in front of just as many eyeballs, if not more, than they had during the initial Games Awards reveal. IGN First also serves as a nice, strong signal boost for the title. But this also means that, along with the demographic who was always going to be VERY much into a game that delivered exactly what Hello Games is offering- a massive, sci-fi universe to explore, pirate, trade, etc, with some alien languages and lore mixed in to add to the flavor- the game has been pushed very prominently in the eyes of gamers who just aren't interested in this style of gameplay, in the same way I find the vast majority of sports and racing titles to be boring as all hell and turn my nose up at most military shooters. Quite simply, different strokes, different folks.

But why such an unusual amount of active disinterest? Well, thinking about NMS in particular, I'm not sure an open-ended space exploration/piracy/trading game has been so prominently shown on the console market before. Elite: Dangerous is on Xbox One, of course, but it wasn't touted with nearly the same prominence or enthusiasm, and was in the end mostly going to draw the attention of people already interested in seeing that kind of game come to console. Aside from it and NMS, not sure there ARE any other open-ended space exploration titles on consoles this generation, let alone if they've been a thing last generation. (Please, someone correct me if this isn't the case,  though I'd like to think that if there WAS some space exploration game with a huge galaxy and no 'ending' on consoles, I would have played the crap outta it..)

In any case, because this style of game is relatively unfamiliar to anyone not on PC, it isn't waved off as 'not for me' like one instinctively does for a title in a genre we know we won't like. Instead, curious and looking to try and learn more about it to see if it meets their interest, many take a closer look at it. But, in the case of those who simply don't mesh with this style of game, some might instead use games they're more familiar with as a frame of reference, like Mass Effect or Destiny, both of which ALSO have sci fi guns and spaceships. But since those games have a central story and 'goal' for the player, the first question becomes 'What's the story? Why am I doing all this?' Mass Effect and Destiny have distinct endings, (though Destiny does afterward focus far more heavily on running raids to get better loot,) and the next question is 'How is this game going to end?' And since, for many narrative games, the underlying 'goal' is to progress through the story to that ending, the final question is 'What is the point of No Man's Sky?'

And when it's revealed that, theoretically, there IS no ending- that there may never be a 'Congratulations! You Beat No Man's Sky!' banner, or perhaps any form of closure depending on what is at the galaxy's center- the conclusion many draw is; 'Well, this game has no end, so this game has no point, because what am I striving towards?'

And, technically speaking, they're right, but only in the same way one might argue Minecraft doesn't have much point.

-----

Now, some people dismiss comparisons to Minecraft because 'Well, you can build things in Minecraft, and you can't build things here,' but it fails to address the underlying principle. What gives Minecraft the ability to draw in players for hours, days, weeks and months at a time isn't simply being able to build stuff... but, on a far more basic level, the fact that the player can set goals for themselves. Whether it's defeat the Ender Dragon, or try to make a scale model of the U.S.S. Enterprise, the mechanics of Minecraft allow the player to set, essentially, their own 'ends,' and therefore give the title as much or as little point as they can conceive. Someone not really interested in Minecraft or its style of gameplay will punch a couple of trees, maybe make a little hut out of mud and stone, possibly die when night falls, then shrug and move on to something else because, well, what's the point of this?

No Man's Sky has that same potential to a certain subset of players; not because the player can alter the universe they occupy to the same extent as Minecraft, but rather because there exists in many an inherent desire to push boundaries. The next horizon, the next star, the next word in an alien language learned or the next trade convoy successfully ambushed, players who are engaged with the title shall create numerous goals for themselves, and make their own 'points' long after any developer-imposed goals have been fulfilled. Meanwhile, those who just aren't interested in setting their own goals will shoot a couple of trees, maybe blast a little cave in the mud and stone, possibly die when night falls, then move on to something else because, well, what's the point of this?

This also explains much of the outcry for multiplayer, because let's face it, multiplayer is the go-to solution to give actions one would otherwise find dull or repetitive a 'point.' Playing Call of Duty on the same maps over, and over, and over, and OVER, wouldn't be so engaging if you didn't know they were shooting a real person in the face... er, figuratively speaking. Running the same raids in Destiny over, and OVER, AND OVER, would drive most people batshit crazy if they didn't run them with teammates for company, chatting, and what small variations come from having a different team than the last time. A dull drive across the map in GTA V turns into chaos when two of your friends grab a cement truck and try to run you off the road with it, etc, etc. Basically, things that players perceive as unengaging are thought to be immediately made 'better' if there's someone else there to partake or distract them. So they look at the prospect of quietly searching a barren planet for resources, or whittling away five minutes in the early game waiting for their impulse drive to carry them to a planet, and think 'That sounds boring. If I had a friend it wouldn't be though!'

------

Keep in mind, none of what I say above is meant to be critical or dismissive of those who prefer a greater narrative 'push,' or who feel experiences like this are only worthwhile if other people are there. There is no 'correct' way to play videogames, and honestly there never should be, as the market would grow pretty stale and uninspired if everything marched to the beat of a single drum. The way I prefer to experience my games- alone, or with someone in the same room, as opposed to online- is 'correct' only for me.

But for those who have no prior experience with, say, Elite: Dangerous or other very open-ended, not-so-story-focused exploration games, and aren't really seeing what's engaging about No Man's Sky, it could simply be that you're encountering a style of game that hasn't really made such a big splash on console before. Even by the standards of PC, I think these kinds of games have a very passionate, and very specific fanbase, one outside the more mainstream market. So I absolutely encourage those of you who are seriously on the fence, or even somewhat disinclined, to wait until release, and then not just consult reviews, but also try some Let's Plays. Get a feel for the game, its pacing, its style, and see if something in it resonates. You might find yourself growing intruiged, and you might not. But it's certainly better than risking a sixty dollar purchase sight unseen. :3

...although i say this fully aware that I am pre-ordering the heck out of this game. My time on Elite: Dangerous did wonders to narrow down exactly what I want from this sort of open-ended sci-fi game, and currently No Man's Sky is hitting all the right buttons. =D