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

Yeah you can blame fanboys or you can accept that this game is going to leave some people horribly dissapointed. Quite simply the game is going to bore the tears out of a lot of buyers, while some are going to love it.
At this point I'm on the former side of the scale, but I'll come back to it in a week and put a few more hours In to see if I change my mind.



Around the Network

the reviews match exactly what I expected from the very beginning: this is a large scale game in terms of scope and universe- but its mostly auto generated with limited soul.

Obviously its pretty and its really cool to fly a spaceship freely around exploring space- BUT if there is no impact of story and you essentially have no actions to take to effect anything... it feels a bit pointless. They also acted as if to some degree there COULD be some multiplayer interaction if you played a while and finally found other players, but it seems as if that is practically non existent (what is a space game with combat ships this large without the ability to conflict with other players?)

I've also heard that the NPC's do largely nothing except sit around on the planets and ships (the 'traders' or 'pirates' or whatever).

I think the reality is that its an issue of quantity over quality. You can only collect resources over and over until it gets boring and mundane. 

Cool premise but a game needs some level of story or point to keep someone attached. I mean even a simple goal, like in a Mario game how you are trying to save the princess, or in a Fallout game where you can either follow a story or go and create your own goals and screw around. the problem with No Man's Sky seems to be it literally IS just a big sandbox without much else going on so its difficult for players to even creatively try and make up things to do or their own 'stories'

I actually find it a bit annoying, the concept that the developers seem more obsessed with making things as 'big' as possible rather than a game that's a complete package. Like an auto generator seemed to be the main focus



I think its like Pokemon Go, where you collect resources but the difference is this game has better environments, crafting and exploration. However Pokemon Go doesn't cost $60 and people weren't hyped for that game. Also its a mobile game not a console game which people have higher expectations.

This game shows why developers don't use procedurally generated worlds, they lack the soul of a world made by the them to be as immersive as they can.



Chazore said:
JWeinCom said:
The reviews so far pretty much confirm my initial thoughts of the game. Algorithms are generally very poor game designers.

That and some of the reviewers I;ve watched over the years are feeling the same. 

 

Jim Sterling feels that it doesn't really grab him that much. Karak from ACG says to wait for a deep discount:

Some reviews I've seen point out the inventory system, Dtoid specifically points out the two fuel need and watching Angry Joe having to muck around with the inventory while having to hold down to drag items from one to another and the controls not doing so well give some issues that need sorting.

I'll be waiting for a discount anyway along with improvement patches.

It's like the difference between something like Skyrim and something like Resident Evil 4.  The bigger you try to make the world, and the more control you give the player, the less ability you have to create awesome and memorable set pieces.  And there definitely is something to be said for freedom, but No Man's Sky is taking it to an almost absurd extreme.  There is no possible way this could have been anything but repetitive and grindy.  Unless the core mechanics are absolutely superb (which doesn't seem to be the case going by reviews) then this isn't a game that will appeal to most people.  

What should have been a niche game got an unwarranted amount of hype.  So, a lot of people were disappointed, and around 5.0 seems pretty reasonable.



GOWTLOZ said:
I think its like Pokemon Go, where you collect resources but the difference is this game has better environments, crafting and exploration. However Pokemon Go doesn't cost $60 and people weren't hyped for that game. Also its a mobile game not a console game which people have higher expectations.

This game shows why developers don't use procedurally generated worlds, they lack the soul of a world made by the them to be as immersive as they can.

Pokemon Go also has a popular license behind it, and makes the best us of AR to date.  If Pokemon Go was a game I played sitting on a couch, I'd get bored in about two seconds.



Around the Network
mountaindewslave said:

the reviews match exactly what I expected from the very beginning: this is a large scale game in terms of scope and universe- but its mostly auto generated with limited soul.

Obviously its pretty and its really cool to fly a spaceship freely around exploring space- BUT if there is no impact of story and you essentially have no actions to take to effect anything... it feels a bit pointless. They also acted as if to some degree there COULD be some multiplayer interaction if you played a while and finally found other players, but it seems as if that is practically non existent (what is a space game with combat ships this large without the ability to conflict with other players?)

I've also heard that the NPC's do largely nothing except sit around on the planets and ships (the 'traders' or 'pirates' or whatever).

I think the reality is that its an issue of quantity over quality. You can only collect resources over and over until it gets boring and mundane. 

Cool premise but a game needs some level of story or point to keep someone attached. I mean even a simple goal, like in a Mario game how you are trying to save the princess, or in a Fallout game where you can either follow a story or go and create your own goals and screw around. the problem with No Man's Sky seems to be it literally IS just a big sandbox without much else going on so its difficult for players to even creatively try and make up things to do or their own 'stories'

I actually find it a bit annoying, the concept that the developers seem more obsessed with making things as 'big' as possible rather than a game that's a complete package. Like an auto generator seemed to be the main focus

But I'm playing it and the game HAS direction, it HAS story, in fact it has more direction than I was expecting.  So when people say there's no goal or point or direction and it's just a sandbox, I can confidently say they have played at most one hour, maybe two.  

Any other complaint, fine, but that complaint is bull.



Played it today, learned alot of alien words :D



Predicted 15+ million lifetime-sales for God of War:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=234612&page=1

As expected.


Just never saw anything that looked good to me.



I never really expected it to be a good game, so I'm not surprised. But I think the Metascore will get better.



Star Fox Zero has a better metacritic score than this ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). Who saw that coming?

I find it interesting to compare the two. One was nearly entirely reviled from when it was first unveiled. The other was massively overhyped. And both came out with similar critical and gamer reception.

Reminds me of the pullback from when Destiny was released. People keep wanting an endless space exploration MMORPG that's also a perfectly capable single player game. With an awesome story - but that is just not going to happen soon.



I predict NX launches in 2017 - not 2016