What im missing from this are procedural generated societys.
Imagine a alien-caste system that goes full circle or something alike.
Of course you cant (in reasonable time) procedural generate history, but you could use analoga to a bacteria-growth formula too at least "simulate" different civilisational stages and the clashing of those curves with other civilizations.
You could even have the player interact with the "bacteria" and alter the curves forever.Remember the savages you helped out at the great hunt with your blaster- well they conquered the planet and went to the stars "conquering" to honor you.
Disclaimer: As with all generated content, the main problem is to have the players attention "the hot potato" wander on as fast as possible.
Even a pale imitation of what Dwarf Fortress does would greatly enrich the game.
I think the problem is graphics. It's both easier and more time-consuming to fill a game with pretty graphics than to come up with procedurally generated history, economics, etc. That's why there are so many simple-graphics roguelikes and so many simple-graphics RPG's that provide incredible procedurally-generated content and incredible stories, respectively.
Honestly, after minecraft - no
Sir, its not graphics. If somebody buys into your world at turtle graphics, he will buy in and add to it.
We all defended carbordfort in the war of the stickguns against those pesky neighborhood guerilla.
Absolutely, although I do sometimes like to marvel at the state of graphics/physics of the latest games!
Another example where I think lack of graphics actually contributes to making a great game: Avernum (RPG). Way back when I spent hours of my life playing Exile 1-3, of which the Avernum series is part remake (1-3) and part completely new (4-6). I recently bought the last three installments and I've been having a lot of fun playing it.
The thing is, even until this day few games I've played came even close to the experience Exile/Avernum provides, both in the tactical RPG sense and world-building and storytelling, even though the graphics are quite atrocious. Most Triple-A RPG's I've played were nice in many other ways, but fell short in the crucial elements that I care most about.
Imagine a game that had a procedural story arc generator, following the heroes journey. It really could be more then just a bunch of reused puppets and set-pieces.
The problem with no mans sky is that there's nothing interesting to discover after the first hour. It's just the same few grind-like gameplay elements over and over and over. Battles are dull. Exploration is pointless, because every inch of the planet is just more of the same. Every space station has the exact same layout. The only thing that varies between ships is the number of cargo slots. There's simply no depth.
I disagree with that. I have put more than one hour in and have found many interesting planets, creatures and geological formations. I'm also captivated by the small stories. What are the Sentinels? What and who am I? What's at the center?
Off course, it takes time and patience. Many worlds are barren, many creatures as very bizarre. But if you explore enough, you finds gems. And that feeling of discovery is something no other game I can remember gave me.
This game in fact is a different experience. I get it if it's not everyone's cup of tea (in fact, apparently the game was built to be 'divisive' [1]).
What I recommend for people beginning is to take their time. Leave their ships behind somewhere and walk around the planet. After you distance yourself from your ship (enough that the return trip on foot is not an option, the only option is finding a beacon to call it), you'll start seeing changes on the terrain. An unexpected lake, sand dunes, cave networks, forests where there were none, etc. The variety on the game is quite impressive, actually... of course, some patterns do repeat. But isn't that true for the universe as well?
This game was so over-hyped. Maybe moreso than any game I can remember. As others have stated, the novelty quickly wears off. The procedural generation is a nice tech demo, but it doesn't actually generate anything... interesting. Occasionally diverting environments, but little in the way of substance, unfortunately. It's also unforgivably buggy even after a couple of huge, game-changing patches.
I hope Sony learns from this, and that building what was essentially an indie game up into a triple-A game without all the support and trappings of a triple-A studio was always going to be tricky.
People had a lot more to work with in those games. NMS is little more than a tech demo. No physics, and superfluous variety. No real goal. The game is a fuel mining simulator, and the fuel is abundant with little effort to achieve. The only challenge is in overlaying your imagination on top of the cardboard box that is in front of you.
That you can make boatloads of money by hyping up a cool looking tech demo? Yeah, I think they've learned that.
I don't think any sales figures have been released, but just going by Steam stats, the game did extremely well. Consider that it was developed by a team of just 15 people (at release I think?), you're looking at ludicrous profitability.
Title is disingenuous. If any gamers want probably the best retrospective of this game I'd check out The Cynical Brit's review on youtube [1]. Personally I'll never buy this game because the second they lied and said their procedurally generated universe had major multiplayer elements I knew it was complete bull shit. No way a cross platform game from an indie studio supports multiplayer in that kind of a game.
Yeah, there is some damning evidence of outright lies at this point. I hope Steam is allowing refunds. If they aren't, does Steam hold your account hostage and threaten to boot you if you were to do a charge back?
The big shame is that this, Star Citizen and Elite:Dangerous all had such potential and DO have gorgeous graphics and cool gameplay mechanics. The unfortunate part is that most people like the idea of a gigantic space simulator, but the reality ends up being incredibly boring for gamers that have come to expect lots of social interaction in any game billed as multiplayer.
24 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 59.6 ms ] threadHaving said that, failing the expectations can be blamed to the marketing of No Man's Sky.
You could even have the player interact with the "bacteria" and alter the curves forever.Remember the savages you helped out at the great hunt with your blaster- well they conquered the planet and went to the stars "conquering" to honor you. Disclaimer: As with all generated content, the main problem is to have the players attention "the hot potato" wander on as fast as possible.
Dwarf Fortress does it, and it's awesome. I'm not sure how you would adapt it to a setting like No Man's Sky, though.
I think the problem is graphics. It's both easier and more time-consuming to fill a game with pretty graphics than to come up with procedurally generated history, economics, etc. That's why there are so many simple-graphics roguelikes and so many simple-graphics RPG's that provide incredible procedurally-generated content and incredible stories, respectively.
Another example where I think lack of graphics actually contributes to making a great game: Avernum (RPG). Way back when I spent hours of my life playing Exile 1-3, of which the Avernum series is part remake (1-3) and part completely new (4-6). I recently bought the last three installments and I've been having a lot of fun playing it.
The thing is, even until this day few games I've played came even close to the experience Exile/Avernum provides, both in the tactical RPG sense and world-building and storytelling, even though the graphics are quite atrocious. Most Triple-A RPG's I've played were nice in many other ways, but fell short in the crucial elements that I care most about.
Scroll down to the Donate section.
Off course, it takes time and patience. Many worlds are barren, many creatures as very bizarre. But if you explore enough, you finds gems. And that feeling of discovery is something no other game I can remember gave me.
This game in fact is a different experience. I get it if it's not everyone's cup of tea (in fact, apparently the game was built to be 'divisive' [1]).
What I recommend for people beginning is to take their time. Leave their ships behind somewhere and walk around the planet. After you distance yourself from your ship (enough that the return trip on foot is not an option, the only option is finding a beacon to call it), you'll start seeing changes on the terrain. An unexpected lake, sand dunes, cave networks, forests where there were none, etc. The variety on the game is quite impressive, actually... of course, some patterns do repeat. But isn't that true for the universe as well?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Tcqzg976hQ&feature=youtu.be...
I hope Sony learns from this, and that building what was essentially an indie game up into a triple-A game without all the support and trappings of a triple-A studio was always going to be tricky.
Isn't this what people said about Sims, Sims 2, Sims 2 Expansion packs, and Sims 3.
That you can make boatloads of money by hyping up a cool looking tech demo? Yeah, I think they've learned that.
I don't think any sales figures have been released, but just going by Steam stats, the game did extremely well. Consider that it was developed by a team of just 15 people (at release I think?), you're looking at ludicrous profitability.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRkHPsZak08
The big shame is that this, Star Citizen and Elite:Dangerous all had such potential and DO have gorgeous graphics and cool gameplay mechanics. The unfortunate part is that most people like the idea of a gigantic space simulator, but the reality ends up being incredibly boring for gamers that have come to expect lots of social interaction in any game billed as multiplayer.