5 ms·

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 peo

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.

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.