Yeah this pretty much puts to rest any interest I had in the game. I've just been hearing way too much disappointing stuff about it to care. Glad I didn't invest in it.
No man's sky
- Thread starter Glosni
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Yeah this pretty much puts to rest any interest I had in the game. I've just been hearing way too much disappointing stuff about it to care. Glad I didn't invest in it.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
No mans sky is a fun game on its own, but there is too much negativity around it for me to sanely recommend it for 60$. Its basically a tech demo or an early access alpha game.
The concept and the art direction are really great but the content pool is so ....ing shallow it hurts. Also reading that reddit thread about promised content vs what was provided...yikes, that is almost criminal.
The concept and the art direction are really great but the content pool is so ....ing shallow it hurts. Also reading that reddit thread about promised content vs what was provided...yikes, that is almost criminal.
leftyguitarjoe
Correct-handed
They should have done early access on PC this entire time and taken another 6 months to finish it and dumb everything down for console.
Pav
???
I think the hype for this game has long since become a double-edged sword. It was built up to the point that the 12 people that made it really had no chance of meeting the expectations that people developed over the last two years.
Pav
???
I think they just lied about everything.
Not quite everything - it does take place in space, at least.
TedEH
Cromulent
It always bothers me when people say that a dev "lied" to them because a game didn't match their expectations. The reality of game development is that things change- features, scope, budget, people, ideas, etc.- they all evolve during the process of making a game, much like the process involved in any other creative undertaking. Most of the time, devs just know better than to talk about those things (or have hired people with the experience to tell them what should/shouldn't be communicated yet). I don't have any doubt that everything that was "promised" was well intended at the time, but just couldn't be done with the available resources. This is just a case of not managing those expectations very well. I've seen it happen with smaller/local/indie guys who want to build this theoretically-amazing game, and they go on about it while they're excited, but never really deliver on it. Some people are not good at communicating the difference between "this is definitely going to be a feature" and "wouldn't it be cool if our game did this too?".
Calling it a lie implies an intent- that they knew it wasn't going to be done, but said so anyway to build hype. It implies that the devs acted maliciously, and I don't have any reason to believe that's the case.
IMO, it's not a question of lies vs truth, it's a question of managing expectations. They may have failed in that regard, but at the same time, they were probably very hyped themselves about what they were trying to put together.
Calling it a lie implies an intent- that they knew it wasn't going to be done, but said so anyway to build hype. It implies that the devs acted maliciously, and I don't have any reason to believe that's the case.
IMO, it's not a question of lies vs truth, it's a question of managing expectations. They may have failed in that regard, but at the same time, they were probably very hyped themselves about what they were trying to put together.
stevexc
Well-Known Member
Did you read the thread?
There are full features demonstrated and reported to be in the game as recently as July that were removed from the final release with no warning or indication.
We were literally told you were going to be able to do x, and in the final game x was not possible to do.
Worse yet, we were literally shown through gameplay demos that x was an included feature, only to receive a game that does not include that feature. That fits the definition of a lie exactly.
Had the devs at any point in time said "Feature x is not working the way we want it to, it will not be in the final version of the game" then yes some people would be upset but it would have been entirely fair. But as it stands, they intentionally misrepresented the game as having certain features, and then gave us a game without those features.
synrgy
Ya ya ya I am Lorde
TedEH
Cromulent
I did, and I stand by what I said.
I don't doubt that expectations were managed poorly, I just don't think it was malicious. For all I know, at the point in time that things were said or features were shown, they probably also figured those features would end up in the game- but there's no way to know that for sure I guess.
leftyguitarjoe
Correct-handed
They lied. They told us something as if it were true and it was not true. Its a literal definition of a lie. Our expectations were simply what was promised to us.
They falsely advertised a ton of features to get people to buy their game, and delivered only a fraction of them. They could have come out and told us that they had to cut content, but they didnt. Even the trailers on their steam page still show content that isnt in the game. They either should have told the truth about that their game was or taken the time to make the game they sold us on.
Im sorry, but no, this was done maliciously. He was caught lying literally up until the day of release. Back in 2014/2015 I think he was being honest with the features they wanted to include but they should've know they weren't delivering what was promised 4-5 months ago. He could've been straight with the community but instead wanted to make triple AAA money like a big boy developer. He willingly deceived anyone he could and is laughing all the way to the bank. I dont think its necessarily a bad game on its own currently but what was promised is extremely different from what was delivered, not just a few missing features MANY missing features. The gaming industry is in shambles because companies keep getting away with horse.... like this *cough*Ubisoft*Cough*. If they wanted to release an early access game they should've just done it like every other developer, 60$ for this tech demo is insane.
In the words of Gaben: "One of the things we learned pretty early on is 'Don't ever, ever try to lie to the internet - because they will catch you. They will de-construct your spin. They will remember everything you ever say for eternity.'
MoshJosh
Well-Known Member
So I picked this up on a whim, there was a used copy at gamestop, and I had 25 dollar of used games coupon so I figured I'd try it. And for my 27 dollars if say I'm pretty happy, now if I'd payed 60 well that I can't say. It's definitely cool seeing a planet and being like "wonder what's going on over there. . . Think I'll just fly over". I would say I've been disappointed with a number of my planets, no cool forest or water worlds like seen in some previews/concept art. And the only time I was in space combat I got totally wrecked maybe it was cause I died, or bad luck, but the space combat just didn't seem enjoyable. Anyway
TedEH
Cromulent
I suppose my opinion comes from having seen some of the other side of things. A huge amount of stuff gets cut from games all the time, including sometimes stuff that ends up in marketing materials, or interviews or things like that. Most of the time you just don't hear about it, cause yeah, talking about features that never actually make it into the game is just going to cause the kind of backlash we're seeing here. I don't see it as a deliberate attempt to sell something they never intended to make, I would assume they intended to make what they were saying but just failed to deliver on it for whatever reason. It's still a failure on their part, I just don't think it was deliberate.
Just an opinion though. Maybe I'm wrong and they did do it on purpose- but I haven't looked as far into is as some have, and if I'm going to make any assumptions, I'll usually err towards people being decent if I can.
I think we agree that one way or another it's a failure in communication - which seems to be somewhat of a theme lately.
Just an opinion though. Maybe I'm wrong and they did do it on purpose- but I haven't looked as far into is as some have, and if I'm going to make any assumptions, I'll usually err towards people being decent if I can.
I think we agree that one way or another it's a failure in communication - which seems to be somewhat of a theme lately.
TedEH
Cromulent
I can appreciate the sentiment of your whole comment, but the game industry is not "in shambles".
Absolutely.
When I say its 'malicious' I dont think he started hello games with the intention of ripping people off. What bothers me is that so many features that were actively advertised up until release (heck even the april 2016 gameplay demo) were not accurate representations of what you were buying and they didnt even try to inform the community. That is lying in my books, although I can see why you'd see it moreso as a communication failure. Everyone always has a different opinion on omission.
Seriously though, go on the steam store page and watch the first gameplay trailer that is included in their little media showcase, it is literally a different game. Half of what is shown is not possible in the real game, or takes place on a pre-generated planet for demonstration purposes (which sean murrey was caught lying about). Its the Watch Dogs E3 demonstration all over again
Except it is, look at how divided almost every gaming community is. Look at how developers walk all over consumers with DLC, early access, and pre-orders. Look at how frequently developers showcase very different games than what are delivered. If you like the state of the gaming industry than I feel really bad for you. As is right now the community has never been more worse off in my opinion, its clear that most developers are more concerned with making money than producing a good game. I can think of so many examples of developers screwing the pooch in the last 5 years its not even funny.
TedEH
Cromulent
I think parts of the visible community might arguably be in shambles, but gaming is not one community. Even the sort of larger subsections of gaming are not really one big community. There are pockets of devs, indies, gamers, etc. all over the place who have differing opinions of the state of the industry and have nothing else really in common. Pretty much everyone and their cousin plays games in some respect at this point, and the barrier to entry for development is as low as it's ever been. As far as money goes, the industry has never done better. If anything, the size of and visibility of the very vocal/dramatic/etc. elements of the community are a sort of growing pain- a sign that the industry is expanding, possibly quicker than it can account for. Faster than they can acquire the PR/Communications skills for, as least.
The idea that devs are more concerned with money is only really half true- lots of devs love games as an art, but at the end of the day, there's real business and real money behind everything. The purpose of a company is to make money. If they don't make money, they stop existing and stop making games. Even small "art" games, at their core, are developed with the hope of making some money off of them. People need to make a living. If there was no money in it, much fewer people would do it for a living.
To put some context to my comments, I work in games. Rarely on anything big or that many people have played, but day-to-day I'm part of that industry.
leftyguitarjoe
Correct-handed
All indie developers should follow the Kerbal Space Program method of development.
Early access at a discounted price. Put up a fun, fully working version of the game that gets upgraded regularly. I got KSP when it was in 0.17 in 2012 and the game didn't "release" as a 1.0 build until 2015. The game was fun even massively unfinished because they nailed the core gameplay mechanics and built up from that with constant player feedback. They even officially implemented really good mods into the base game.
NMS should have hit early access just now. Thats how incomplete this game is with respect to their original vision; a vision we all would love to experience. Now is when they should be detailing and tweaking all the base stuff that is there, but underdeveloped. They didn't nail any core concepts, but rather did a little bit of a lot of things. The flying is meh, the combat is meh, the alien interactions are meh, the inventory management is meh.
They should have known better than to feed the hype and make a deal with the devil (Sony).
Early access at a discounted price. Put up a fun, fully working version of the game that gets upgraded regularly. I got KSP when it was in 0.17 in 2012 and the game didn't "release" as a 1.0 build until 2015. The game was fun even massively unfinished because they nailed the core gameplay mechanics and built up from that with constant player feedback. They even officially implemented really good mods into the base game.
NMS should have hit early access just now. Thats how incomplete this game is with respect to their original vision; a vision we all would love to experience. Now is when they should be detailing and tweaking all the base stuff that is there, but underdeveloped. They didn't nail any core concepts, but rather did a little bit of a lot of things. The flying is meh, the combat is meh, the alien interactions are meh, the inventory management is meh.
They should have known better than to feed the hype and make a deal with the devil (Sony).
TedEH
Cromulent
Ideally sure. Unfortunately, it takes a ton of money to get a game that far into development.
mongey
Well-Known Member
I think when he got into bed with Sony he got limited by the power the ps4 has under the hood. I just don't think it capable of pulling off what he was talking about.
