Pubs seem to think its alright to release unpolished games.

With as much hype as people put on it, it's like people forget that it's still very much an indie game. It's not a AAA release by any stretch of the imagination. They have like a dozen guys working on it from what I understand. As far as the indie scene goes, it's in a league of its own. It's amazing. When you try to compare it to big-name studio titles like something from Bethesda, though, you're going into it with the wrong idea.

People are reviewing the game like it's some massive release and yes, while it was hyped pretty hard, that's the fault of the marketing more than anything else. If No Man's Sky was developed by a professional team of 100+ individuals and a budget in the hundreds of millions, sure, it would be fair to label it as a failure due to the lack of content. But that fact that something like this came from a studio as small as they are, it was a very ambitious task and I still think it holds up.

Ter13 wrote:

"I personally enjoyed my sprayturd."

Time to clean my monitor.

but that comes down to the unsavvy nature of consumers who take this kind of information head-on without looking at the logistics of it.

So I'm unsavvy for expecting multiplayer when the developers have literally talked about PVP and seeing other players and trading with other players in interviews? I didn't follow development because I didn't want to overhype myself like I did with spore. All I knew about the game was:

1) It's a multiplayer procedural space exploration and survival game with planets.

2) It has randomly generated species that you can name.

That's literally all I knew about the game until launch day. And somehow, I'm still disappointed, and too "hyped by the marketing."

What parallel reality are we living in where someone who knows next to nothing about the game and didn't read any articles about it, and honestly expected it to be a bit too big for its own britches is the guy that's overhyped?



The issue cut and dry is simply this: The development of this game was a con-job. The developers bit off more than they could chew and decided it would be better to show footage of the experimental builds that they had knowingly already cut features from the release candidates up to a month before release.

It's been proven outright that the developers lied and have been knowingly deceiving consumers not just with vague promises and hype, but also with footage they knew contained features that had already been cut from the game, knowing full well that this footage showcased features explicitly marked as "core" to the game's four pillar design.

Ter13, this is one of the few instances where i disagree with you. I understand where you're coming from but I think you, like hundreds of others, had the wrong image in your head of what the multiplayer aspect was supposed to be like with this game.

They mentioned trading with players and being able to see other players, sure, but the depth involved there wouldn't be much more than the depth with NPC traders at space stations. The game was not developed to be a huge multiplayer project - having other players share the same game space was supposed to just be novelty and it was intended that you could play the game your whole life and never encounter another player.

I'm not defending the lie, but multiplayer is supposed to be on it's way with one of the upcoming updates (along with settlement building! Fallout4 in space! whoo!)

I do think that the games launch ended up being much larger than they anticipated. Indie devs don't usually handle mainstream pressure very well. lol

Also, Ter13, why were you excited by Spore? Literally nothing about Spore looked remotely "fun". I never understood why people got so hyped for it. It was just a fancy tech demo.

I for one have spent several days engrossed in NMS with no sign of slowing anytime soon. Have you tried playing it with drugs? That might help. (^8

They were indie devs, but they had Sony money and advertisement behind them. That's way more than your average indie has to work with. They made promises and didn't keep them.


also the fact that literally no planet has any semblance of uniqueness

Vrocaan wrote:

They were indie devs, but they had Sony money and advertisement behind them. That's way more than your average indie has to work with. They made promises and didn't keep them.

Sony published the title. Sony covered server costs, production costs, and various advertisement/PR costs; Sony and Sony money had little to no hand in the development costs.

also the fact that literally no planet has any semblance of uniqueness

I beg to differ. I've warped several times(I'm on my sixth system) and I've gotten unique planets each time. The only duplicated biomes I've found were shared between a planet and it's moon.

I think more variety in surface structures would be cool, though. The same dozen or so monoliths/ruins/tech labs do get repetitive(although just adding variants of the structures would resolve this for me).

For me, it comes down to the fact that I would be paying $60 for a game with less unique content than the average early access title. I don't doubt that people enjoy it, but people definitely did not get what they were promised.

Literally nothing about Spore looked remotely "fun". I never understood why people got so hyped for it.

Designing a culture from the bottom up and helping them spread to the stars as a sort of pocket galaxy simulation? What wasn't to love? I like community generated content. The real problem with Spore that I found was that I spent a lot of time curating my integrated content so that my enemy civs wouldn't be entirely made of kindergarten kronenberg penises. That and my "Terraform the Galaxy" project became impossible because of bad design.

I understand where you're coming from but I think you, like hundreds of others, had the wrong image in your head of what the multiplayer aspect was supposed to be like with this game.

I'd totally agree with that if it weren't for the developers answering the question: "Will multiple players be able to collaborate and cooperate together?" with "Yes". If I had the wrong idea in my head, sorry it's not my fault. I remember you asking me if I was hyped for NMS and I said: "Well, no. I'm actively trying to not read anything about it because I don't want to be let down." Despite the fact that I didn't read really anything about it, I still managed to be disappointed about how the multiplayer aspect was silently ignored. I was even more annoyed to find that the vast majority of the playerbase was insisting that multiplayer was in the game, but nobody had managed to sync up yet. The developers really should have clarified. This is a bigger issue than people overhyping themselves. This is an issue of developers knowingly deceiving people, realizing the hype train was too big and being afraid to come clean about what happened.

They overpromised and underdelivered. I didn't even read they hype articles and videos the industry was shoveling out at the time and I still feel lied to --You have to admit, that's a massive problem.

Also, if you look at that reddit post I linked to, that user actually discovered footage they had been using to advertise the game that showcases gameplay that isn't included in the release as late as a month ago. That's a really big problem. Especially when you discover that some of that footage includes features that were removed from the game almost a year ago.

Outpost let me down too, buddy, but I still loved it. Sierra was good at doing that.