5 ms·

No Man's Sky is the poster child for turning a shitty launch into a success. You can really feel the passion of the staff at Hello Games in the current version

No Man's Sky is the poster child for turning a shitty launch into a success. You can really feel the passion of the staff at Hello Games in the current version of the game. It reminds me of the quote, which I'm about to butcher, that is along the lines of "People don't remember the problem, they remember how you dealt with the problem". If you haven't seen it, "The Engoodening of No Man's Sky" is a good review of the story. It's 5 years old now, and the engoodening hasn't stopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5BJVO3PDeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5BJVO3PDeQ

jrootabega 2y ago
This is more a reflection of the state of online gaming discourse and youtube rambling clickbait these days. People believe what the culture tells them cool people believe, and perpetuate it to others. No Man's Sky didn't have multiplayer at launch. Now it does. That's pretty much the only indisputable improvement to the game. They've certainly managed to improve the NARRATIVE about the game, though. EDIT: I also want to call out one particularly user-hostile thing they have done: pump up the visual quality and complexity so high that the game performs very poorly on the console generation on which it was released: the PS4/Xbox One generation. This is true even on performance mode. So if you bought the game at release, you will now suffer degraded performance if you are still using your original hardware. You don't hear too much about this because when it's mentioned the person usually gets console-shamed, e.g. "get with the times, time to upgrade you cheapskate!" It's not only low framerates and ambient pop-in; it's also extremely bad pop-in of hazardous plants and structures. And you often can't land your ship on the ground until the terrain has fully generated. This can take a minute or two sometimes. Or you could try to go harvest from one of your resource collectors and have to wait something like 10 seconds for it to finally appear in front of you. And once it did, the chances of it bugging out and having no resources inside of it are way too high.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >That's pretty much the only indisputable improvement to the game. I'm not sure how you can possibly say that with a straight face.
  - jrootabega 2y ago
    Almost everything else is just a half-baked shallow mechanic tacked on to the existing ones. Quantity and popularity != quality.
    - dingnuts 2y ago
      just because you found those mechanics to be not to your liking doesn't make them invalid. A whole lot of shallow gameplay can easily add up to a game that is fun, because it is full of small activities that are each fun for a little while. If that wasn't true, Mario Party would be no fun "shallow" is also /definitely/ your opinion here. it's okay to not like things, but that doesn't make them objectively bad. it's just not to your taste. I've played NMS on and off since launch and it's a totally different game now in MY humble opinion
      - jrootabega 2y ago
        Shallow is the observation of many, many people who usually just get ignored, or worse in today's vote-centered social media platforms, suppressed, for going against the popular narrative. If it's true that not liking something doesn't make it bad, then liking something also doesn't make it good.
        entropicdrifter 2y ago
        >If it's true that not liking something doesn't make it bad, then liking something also doesn't make it good. They didn't say it was good or that they liked it, they said it's a totally different game now from launch.
- drakythe 2y ago
  -- Removed leading/condescending question. My apologies to the poster. -- If the game isn't for you that's fine. Not every game is for every person. But the game has absolutely been improved, in numerous ways, since launch.
  - jrootabega 2y ago
    Yes, I have played a lot of it. And have since 2016.
    - ygjb 2y ago
      The poster asked if you played the game, and acknowledged that you don't have to like it - that's not a fallacy, it's a clarifying question. The game has had clearly observable and measurable improvements, in terms of features, like multi-player, but also in terms of overall content, game and storyline components, and substantial new and revised game mechanics. It is abundantly clear from player feedback that your opinion is in the minority. Steam reviews - Recent Reviews: Very Positive (1,837) All Reviews: Very Positive (256,838)
      - teddyh 2y ago
        The game certainly has had changes and additions. Whether those constitute improvements is a matter of opinion.
      - remram 2y ago
        The implication is clear even if formulated as a question. Let's not pretend here. Asking people if they've played the game (or "read the article") is also directly against the HN guidelines.
      - jrootabega 2y ago
        It's fine to be in the minority; doesn't make you wrong. Steam reviews are far from a good indicator of actual quality.
    - mrmuagi 2y ago
- mr_toad 2y ago
  > That's pretty much the only indisputable improvement to the game. On launch it would crash every ten minutes. Last time I played you could go weeks without a glitch. Some people think that they warrant forgiveness. https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2024/07/19/succor https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2024/07/19/succor
  - jrootabega 2y ago
    If that's really true in a wide scope, yeah, I guess that would have to be an improvement. But I've observed the opposite - didn't used to get too many crashes or glitches back in the launch days, but my recent experiences are full of a few crashes and many, many glitches.
    - 1123581321 2y ago
      Would treat your experience as unusual. I understand distrusting reported experiences in favor of your own, but the number of patches that list fixed bugs and stability issues, plus rising satisfaction scores, should guide here.
      - jrootabega 2y ago
        Counterpoint - listing a lot of fixed bugs and stability issues just proves you had a lot of bugs and stability issues. It does not mean you fixed most of them, or that you did not introduce even more. And there are a lot of very old problems in the game to this day. They prioritize adding new stuff like every other game developer. And really, publicly available satisfaction scores are a terrible way to measure actual quality. They're easily manipulated social fora subject to peer pressure and trends, dominated by kids with loud voices, favoring quick overly-simplified impressions, not well-designed measurement and analysis tools.
        1123581321 2y ago
        Okay. I saw in another comment you’ve at least committed to stop playing the game. Seems like a healthy move. Your descriptions of your experience with the game are unreliable.
- 1659447091 2y ago
  > complexity so high that the game performs very poorly on the console generation on which it was released: the PS4/Xbox One generation. This is true even on performance mode. The game runs surprisingly well on a Nintendo Switch, I mean each time there is a major update I figure that's the one to do the Switch in (...and this one just may be it!). Then to my utter surprise, the Switch does not spontaneously combust and I can play without crashing (well, except for when they introduce bug that crash it, even then they get it patched pretty quick). Watching the update video, I'm really not sure what's been added other than new graphic things, and the Switch is not a system for graphic things. At this point though, No Man's Sky seems to be a quasi-staging server for their upcoming game. The update was all about the new graphics and how they made it for the other game and added it to NMS. Some of the updates last year were pretty fun though.
  - jrootabega 2y ago
    My understanding is that the Switch build had custom attention paid to the quality/performance tradeoff, and I'm guessing that's because they knew they had less margin for error. Does it look good on a TV screen? Keep in mind that even if it looks good and performs well on the Switch, that doesn't excuse degrading the performance for the original customer base on the original release platform. The "Gen 8" console settings give you the illusion of choice, but both modes result in too much focus on quality and not enough on performance. Performance mode = bad performance, and Quality mode = I just want to take a cool screenshot and then will immediately reactivate Performance mode.
    - 1659447091 2y ago
      > Keep in mind that even if it looks good and performs well on the Switch, that doesn't excuse degrading the performance for the original customer base on the original release platform Agreed. I think I was more wondering aloud about how they could make the Switch, of all platforms, run well and then also have the older ones degrade. Only that last part forgot to leave my inside voice. As far as graphics, its one of the better looking Switch games imo--but it's still Switch. I did briefly open the game up on an old Xbox one after hours of updating and the game there looked much better than Switch, but since the save was from 2018 or something, my Freighter had new random walls blocking passage ways and rooms. It was mostly useless. I didn't want to start over so that was the end of that experiment.
mattmanser 2y ago
I think that's an oft repeated over statement of reality. I've enjoyed a good 60+ hours in it, it's good. But not great. I didn't pay for it, not sure I'd have been as happy would I have paid for it. It's still very shallow. As a programmer you can see all the really basic algos underlying all the generation. There are like 10 planet types, with a couple of extra wacky ones. All the stations are virtually identical inside. There are like 8 points of identical interest. And bizarrely they're everywhere. There are 3 alien races. You land on a planet and within seconds spaceships are over flying you. You enter a new system and 10 seconds later a fleet of "random" carriers will turn up within your sightline. You arrived at a new planet and the creatures are all exactly the same as you've seen before, just more legs, or 4 wings instead of two. The thing the really bugs me are the sentinels. I get the in game explanation, but it's boring that every planet has them. And the few that don't are weird ones. Everything is different and yet, apart from a very few minor things, it's all the same. And the randomness gets grating. Want a cool ship? Have fun trying to grind that out. Want a cool gun? Ditto. You have to resort to going to particular coords supplied by the internet, not in game play. For me, never before has space felt so small. Elite dangerous suffers from similar shallowness problems, but at least it felt epic.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >over statement of reality. You don't have to enjoy the game, that's totally fine. But my comment is pretty reality-based. The game completely bombed on launch and was dragged through the mud (mostly deservedly) in every review. Now has very positive reviews on Steam, people still talk about it, and people still buy it a decade later. It's sold enough copies to support the staff at Hello Games for that time. If that isn't turning a shitty launch into a success, I have no idea what is.
  - parineum 2y ago
    I've played the game on and off since launch. I think the biggest difference in the game is expectations going in. A ton has been added to the game but I still play it for the same reason, it's a good ambient exploration game where you get to fly around space but I also still stop for the same reason, it's shallow and repetitive. That was my experience at launch and that was my experience last time I played. Based on hours played (and I enjoyed them) it was well worth the money but I don't think it's really improved that much over time. There's definitely more to do but it's not much deeper.
remram 2y ago
People keep saying that. I ended up biting the bullet after the latest "game changing" update. It's barely a game at all. It's still a walking simulator. The environment is great, and there is some variety. But there is no objective or opposition, not even a story (a little robot tells you to do stuff). It's a sandbox, an engine one could build a game in (and they might someday?) They added some construction stuff, so the game will say "go and build a house" and you do that. Or "go build a blueprint machine" and now you have more blueprints. But what is any of it for? You can just sit in your cockpit. It all seems so pointless. Like they have seen other survival games and copied some mechanics over without understanding what makes a survival game. It is a really puzzling experience, I can't understand what they were thinking.
- talldayo 2y ago
  If you think it's bad now, imagine how bad it was for those of us that pre-ordered it. It was a dadgum mess back then. Most people are warming up to this game because they're delivering on the original game concept and still going the extra mile. No Man's Sky was criticized at launch because the gameplay was nothing like the trailer had suggested, and the updates since launch have really and truly fixed that complaint. No, there isn't EVA in space or serious FPS combat or even well tuned space dogfights. But none of that was really part of the original promise, and looking at the utterly derelict state of games that try to thread all those needles (cough cough, Star Citizen), I'm glad No Man's Sky went it's own way.
  - Kye 2y ago
    You can walk out on to the outside of freighters if you install the right module. I forget which one, but I got a nice picture from the outside. https://bsky.app/profile/kyefox.com/post/3lgvtgt7zas2q https://bsky.app/profile/kyefox.com/post/3lgvtgt7zas2q
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >It's still a walking simulator. I don't know how many different ways to say it. We all enjoy different types of games! You obviously aren't a fan of sandbox games, lots of people aren't either. Or maybe it's just this sandbox game. That's fine too. But it is pretty objectively a great example of taking an absolutely abysmal launch and turning it into something that a decent amount of people (doesn't mean everyone!) still enjoy and talk favorably about. It still sells copies. It still keeps the lights on at Hello Games. I cannot think of a single other game that had such an awful launch that has, 10 years later, enjoyed mostly positive reviews. Cyberpunk might be the closest.

jrootabega 2y ago

This is more a reflection of the state of online gaming discourse and youtube rambling clickbait these days. People believe what the culture tells them cool people believe, and perpetuate it to others. No Man's Sky didn't have multiplayer at launch. Now it does. That's pretty much the only indisputable improvement to the game. They've certainly managed to improve the NARRATIVE about the game, though. EDIT: I also want to call out one particularly user-hostile thing they have done: pump up the visual quality and complexity so high that the game performs very poorly on the console generation on which it was released: the PS4/Xbox One generation. This is true even on performance mode. So if you bought the game at release, you will now suffer degraded performance if you are still using your original hardware. You don't hear too much about this because when it's mentioned the person usually gets console-shamed, e.g. "get with the times, time to upgrade you cheapskate!" It's not only low framerates and ambient pop-in; it's also extremely bad pop-in of hazardous plants and structures. And you often can't land your ship on the ground until the terrain has fully generated. This can take a minute or two sometimes. Or you could try to go harvest from one of your resource collectors and have to wait something like 10 seconds for it to finally appear in front of you. And once it did, the chances of it bugging out and having no resources inside of it are way too high.

ziddoap 2y ago
>That's pretty much the only indisputable improvement to the game. I'm not sure how you can possibly say that with a straight face.
- jrootabega 2y ago
  Almost everything else is just a half-baked shallow mechanic tacked on to the existing ones. Quantity and popularity != quality.
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    just because you found those mechanics to be not to your liking doesn't make them invalid. A whole lot of shallow gameplay can easily add up to a game that is fun, because it is full of small activities that are each fun for a little while. If that wasn't true, Mario Party would be no fun "shallow" is also /definitely/ your opinion here. it's okay to not like things, but that doesn't make them objectively bad. it's just not to your taste. I've played NMS on and off since launch and it's a totally different game now in MY humble opinion
    - jrootabega 2y ago
      Shallow is the observation of many, many people who usually just get ignored, or worse in today's vote-centered social media platforms, suppressed, for going against the popular narrative. If it's true that not liking something doesn't make it bad, then liking something also doesn't make it good.
      - entropicdrifter 2y ago
        >If it's true that not liking something doesn't make it bad, then liking something also doesn't make it good. They didn't say it was good or that they liked it, they said it's a totally different game now from launch.
drakythe 2y ago
-- Removed leading/condescending question. My apologies to the poster. -- If the game isn't for you that's fine. Not every game is for every person. But the game has absolutely been improved, in numerous ways, since launch.
- jrootabega 2y ago
  Yes, I have played a lot of it. And have since 2016.
  - ygjb 2y ago
    The poster asked if you played the game, and acknowledged that you don't have to like it - that's not a fallacy, it's a clarifying question. The game has had clearly observable and measurable improvements, in terms of features, like multi-player, but also in terms of overall content, game and storyline components, and substantial new and revised game mechanics. It is abundantly clear from player feedback that your opinion is in the minority. Steam reviews - Recent Reviews: Very Positive (1,837) All Reviews: Very Positive (256,838)
    - teddyh 2y ago
      The game certainly has had changes and additions. Whether those constitute improvements is a matter of opinion.
    - remram 2y ago
      The implication is clear even if formulated as a question. Let's not pretend here. Asking people if they've played the game (or "read the article") is also directly against the HN guidelines.
    - jrootabega 2y ago
      It's fine to be in the minority; doesn't make you wrong. Steam reviews are far from a good indicator of actual quality.
  - mrmuagi 2y ago
mr_toad 2y ago
> That's pretty much the only indisputable improvement to the game. On launch it would crash every ten minutes. Last time I played you could go weeks without a glitch. Some people think that they warrant forgiveness. https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2024/07/19/succor https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2024/07/19/succor
- jrootabega 2y ago
  If that's really true in a wide scope, yeah, I guess that would have to be an improvement. But I've observed the opposite - didn't used to get too many crashes or glitches back in the launch days, but my recent experiences are full of a few crashes and many, many glitches.
  - 1123581321 2y ago
    Would treat your experience as unusual. I understand distrusting reported experiences in favor of your own, but the number of patches that list fixed bugs and stability issues, plus rising satisfaction scores, should guide here.
    - jrootabega 2y ago
      Counterpoint - listing a lot of fixed bugs and stability issues just proves you had a lot of bugs and stability issues. It does not mean you fixed most of them, or that you did not introduce even more. And there are a lot of very old problems in the game to this day. They prioritize adding new stuff like every other game developer. And really, publicly available satisfaction scores are a terrible way to measure actual quality. They're easily manipulated social fora subject to peer pressure and trends, dominated by kids with loud voices, favoring quick overly-simplified impressions, not well-designed measurement and analysis tools.
      - 1123581321 2y ago
        Okay. I saw in another comment you’ve at least committed to stop playing the game. Seems like a healthy move. Your descriptions of your experience with the game are unreliable.
1659447091 2y ago
> complexity so high that the game performs very poorly on the console generation on which it was released: the PS4/Xbox One generation. This is true even on performance mode. The game runs surprisingly well on a Nintendo Switch, I mean each time there is a major update I figure that's the one to do the Switch in (...and this one just may be it!). Then to my utter surprise, the Switch does not spontaneously combust and I can play without crashing (well, except for when they introduce bug that crash it, even then they get it patched pretty quick). Watching the update video, I'm really not sure what's been added other than new graphic things, and the Switch is not a system for graphic things. At this point though, No Man's Sky seems to be a quasi-staging server for their upcoming game. The update was all about the new graphics and how they made it for the other game and added it to NMS. Some of the updates last year were pretty fun though.
- jrootabega 2y ago
  My understanding is that the Switch build had custom attention paid to the quality/performance tradeoff, and I'm guessing that's because they knew they had less margin for error. Does it look good on a TV screen? Keep in mind that even if it looks good and performs well on the Switch, that doesn't excuse degrading the performance for the original customer base on the original release platform. The "Gen 8" console settings give you the illusion of choice, but both modes result in too much focus on quality and not enough on performance. Performance mode = bad performance, and Quality mode = I just want to take a cool screenshot and then will immediately reactivate Performance mode.
  - 1659447091 2y ago
    > Keep in mind that even if it looks good and performs well on the Switch, that doesn't excuse degrading the performance for the original customer base on the original release platform Agreed. I think I was more wondering aloud about how they could make the Switch, of all platforms, run well and then also have the older ones degrade. Only that last part forgot to leave my inside voice. As far as graphics, its one of the better looking Switch games imo--but it's still Switch. I did briefly open the game up on an old Xbox one after hours of updating and the game there looked much better than Switch, but since the save was from 2018 or something, my Freighter had new random walls blocking passage ways and rooms. It was mostly useless. I didn't want to start over so that was the end of that experiment.

mattmanser 2y ago

I think that's an oft repeated over statement of reality. I've enjoyed a good 60+ hours in it, it's good. But not great. I didn't pay for it, not sure I'd have been as happy would I have paid for it. It's still very shallow. As a programmer you can see all the really basic algos underlying all the generation. There are like 10 planet types, with a couple of extra wacky ones. All the stations are virtually identical inside. There are like 8 points of identical interest. And bizarrely they're everywhere. There are 3 alien races. You land on a planet and within seconds spaceships are over flying you. You enter a new system and 10 seconds later a fleet of "random" carriers will turn up within your sightline. You arrived at a new planet and the creatures are all exactly the same as you've seen before, just more legs, or 4 wings instead of two. The thing the really bugs me are the sentinels. I get the in game explanation, but it's boring that every planet has them. And the few that don't are weird ones. Everything is different and yet, apart from a very few minor things, it's all the same. And the randomness gets grating. Want a cool ship? Have fun trying to grind that out. Want a cool gun? Ditto. You have to resort to going to particular coords supplied by the internet, not in game play. For me, never before has space felt so small. Elite dangerous suffers from similar shallowness problems, but at least it felt epic.

ziddoap 2y ago
>over statement of reality. You don't have to enjoy the game, that's totally fine. But my comment is pretty reality-based. The game completely bombed on launch and was dragged through the mud (mostly deservedly) in every review. Now has very positive reviews on Steam, people still talk about it, and people still buy it a decade later. It's sold enough copies to support the staff at Hello Games for that time. If that isn't turning a shitty launch into a success, I have no idea what is.
- parineum 2y ago
  I've played the game on and off since launch. I think the biggest difference in the game is expectations going in. A ton has been added to the game but I still play it for the same reason, it's a good ambient exploration game where you get to fly around space but I also still stop for the same reason, it's shallow and repetitive. That was my experience at launch and that was my experience last time I played. Based on hours played (and I enjoyed them) it was well worth the money but I don't think it's really improved that much over time. There's definitely more to do but it's not much deeper.

remram 2y ago

People keep saying that. I ended up biting the bullet after the latest "game changing" update. It's barely a game at all. It's still a walking simulator. The environment is great, and there is some variety. But there is no objective or opposition, not even a story (a little robot tells you to do stuff). It's a sandbox, an engine one could build a game in (and they might someday?) They added some construction stuff, so the game will say "go and build a house" and you do that. Or "go build a blueprint machine" and now you have more blueprints. But what is any of it for? You can just sit in your cockpit. It all seems so pointless. Like they have seen other survival games and copied some mechanics over without understanding what makes a survival game. It is a really puzzling experience, I can't understand what they were thinking.

talldayo 2y ago
If you think it's bad now, imagine how bad it was for those of us that pre-ordered it. It was a dadgum mess back then. Most people are warming up to this game because they're delivering on the original game concept and still going the extra mile. No Man's Sky was criticized at launch because the gameplay was nothing like the trailer had suggested, and the updates since launch have really and truly fixed that complaint. No, there isn't EVA in space or serious FPS combat or even well tuned space dogfights. But none of that was really part of the original promise, and looking at the utterly derelict state of games that try to thread all those needles (cough cough, Star Citizen), I'm glad No Man's Sky went it's own way.
- Kye 2y ago
  You can walk out on to the outside of freighters if you install the right module. I forget which one, but I got a nice picture from the outside. https://bsky.app/profile/kyefox.com/post/3lgvtgt7zas2q https://bsky.app/profile/kyefox.com/post/3lgvtgt7zas2q
ziddoap 2y ago
>It's still a walking simulator. I don't know how many different ways to say it. We all enjoy different types of games! You obviously aren't a fan of sandbox games, lots of people aren't either. Or maybe it's just this sandbox game. That's fine too. But it is pretty objectively a great example of taking an absolutely abysmal launch and turning it into something that a decent amount of people (doesn't mean everyone!) still enjoy and talk favorably about. It still sells copies. It still keeps the lights on at Hello Games. I cannot think of a single other game that had such an awful launch that has, 10 years later, enjoyed mostly positive reviews. Cyberpunk might be the closest.