No Man's Sky

[Xannari Ferrows]

No Man's Sky finally got an official release date! This game is absolutely enormous, to understate. A completely open world-nay, open universe-to do whatever you desire in. Such a scale of a virtual world is possible thanks to procedural generation - A method of generating data algorithmically. As stated before, this game is going to be bigger than anything yet, and will take an uncountable amount of time to explore everything in the reality you exist in, which never takes into account every possibility that can exist [because let's face it, such a number would be incomprehensible in every respect of the word].

This could be pioneering a completely new method of gaming, being kind of like a simulation with elements of science fiction. It will also be a validity check for if the various interactions of various algorithms will be utile in the real world. What this game is at it's core, is lots and lots of math.

Is the hype train ready to roll, or am I just late?

[Rus-Evo]

Well I don't know about hype.  I am very interested in the game but I am aware the expectations are so big that the game play may not meet them!

I think I will buy it without expecting the world!

It seems it is essentially single player with myself not likely to meet with anyone.

I'm not even really very sure what the basic gameplay will be like.  How much time spent on planets vs space? How many NPCs to interact with?  Do you go inside buildings?  Does someone give you a mission to do for money?  Can I play the game in a non-violent way if I so choose?  Will there be space stations?  Will there be cities?  Will the world seem real enough that you could imagine it going on without you?  Can I find signs of other human players and track them??

Time will tell.

 

 

 

 

[Tex_NL]

From the first time I saw this game it got my interest. And as long as it is not pay2play or pay2win I am definitely willing to give it a try. If I'm actually willing to spend any money on it totally depends on the game itself.

[Spaceception]

No Man's Sky is basically a more colorful version of Space Engine, but it's still really cool

[Xannari Ferrows]

8 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

From the first time I saw this game it got my interest. And as long as it is not pay2play or pay2win I am definitely willing to give it a try. If I'm actually willing to spend any money on it totally depends on the game itself.

I personally don't think it will be because there's technically no end to the game, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was premium content in later installations depending on the success of it's initial form, which appears to already be very popular. Anything can happen though.

[GluttonyReaper]

For me, it totally depends on how good the procedural generation actually is. If they can finally "hide the grid", then I'm sold.  

[pxi]

I think it will do reasonably well.

I don't think it'll be the game-to-end-all-games though.  I've seen far too many games sold on that premise over the decades to ever buy into that again.

[Tex_NL]

10 minutes ago, pxi said:

I think it will do reasonably well.

I don't think it'll be the game-to-end-all-games though.  I've seen far too many games sold on that premise over the decades to ever buy into that again.

*cough cough* Spore *cough*

[Alphasus]

On 3/5/2016 at 0:55 AM, Xannari Ferrows said:

No Man's Sky finally got an official release date! This game is absolutely enormous, to understate. A completely open world-nay, open universe-to do whatever you desire in. Such a scale of a virtual world is possible thanks to procedural generation - A method of generating data algorithmically. As stated before, this game is going to be bigger than anything yet, and will take an uncountable amount of time to explore everything in the reality you exist in, which never takes into account every possibility that can exist [because let's face it, such a number would be incomprehensible in every respect of the word].

This could be pioneering a completely new method of gaming, being kind of like a simulation with elements of science fiction. It will also be a validity check for if the various interactions of various algorithms will be utile in the real world. What this game is at it's core, is lots and lots of math.

Is the hype train ready to roll, or am I just late?

ELITE:DANGEROUS

The entire Milky Way!!!!!

[NovaSilisko]

I worry that the procedural generation will suffer from sameishness, which is a real term that I didn't make up just now, like a lot of games with procedural environments - minecraft (more recently, after revisions to the terrain generator), space engine (really, there isn't very much variety in planet surfaces at all), etc.

[WinkAllKerb'']

following that one too here. might try it sooner or later depending the review and time invest ... as always ...

Edited March 7, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''

[rtxoff]

On 6.3.2016 at 8:46 PM, NovaSilisko said:

I worry that the procedural generation will suffer from sameishness, which is a real term that I didn't make up just now, like a lot of games with procedural environments - minecraft (more recently, after revisions to the terrain generator), space engine (really, there isn't very much variety in planet surfaces at all), etc.

Yeah, sadly i have to agree with this. Most games released with procedural generated environments lack diversity.

It's however a problem with the complexity of the algorithms not the method itself. I'm sure if game designers would put more work into them it would be different but this again goes against the current spirit of game designing to make them as fast as possible and to cash as much as possible in that short time.

[Buster Charlie]

The main reason I'm not interested is after KSP I don't think I can play a "space"game in which you fly a infinite delta-v WWII dogfighter.

I'm sorry ,I just can't enjoy "aim at the sky to go into space, aim at a ship to go to that ship, aim at a planet to go to that planet.

 

I don't really expect the same level of detail as KSP, but being aware how orbital mechanics works to any degree has destroyed any enjoyment I get out of  WWII  flying in space

[Robotengineer]

On March 6, 2016 at 1:46 PM, NovaSilisko said:

I worry that the procedural generation will suffer from sameishness, which is a real term that I didn't make up just now, like a lot of games with procedural environments - minecraft (more recently, after revisions to the terrain generator), space engine (really, there isn't very much variety in planet surfaces at all), etc.

Seconded. I have found that games that take use a lot of procedural generation (PG) seem to suffer from sameishness. The best way to combat sameishness is to allow many different ways of 'solving' the game. Dwarf Fortress handles this well IMO. 

And if No Man's Sky doesn't appeal to you, there is always Astroneer. Two space exploration pseudo-sims in one year. 

[Xannari Ferrows]

27 minutes ago, Buster Charlie said:

The main reason I'm not interested is after KSP I don't think I can play a "space"game in which you fly a infinite delta-v WWII dogfighter.

I'm sorry ,I just can't enjoy "aim at the sky to go into space, aim at a ship to go to that ship, aim at a planet to go to that planet.

 

I don't really expect the same level of detail as KSP, but being aware how orbital mechanics works to any degree has destroyed any enjoyment I get out of  WWII  flying in space

I can kinda see that, but I guess one thing to point out is that conventional methods of propulsion aren't used. It's more of a kind of warp drive thing that's very efficient.

[Buster Charlie]

1 minute ago, Xannari Ferrows said:

I can kinda see that, but I guess one thing to point out is that conventional methods of propulsion aren't used. It's more of a kind of warp drive thing that's very efficient.

Okay let's say you grant that concept,  what kind of acceleration and speed are we talking about to do straight line intercepts that evenight lunar orbits? 

 

In the video I saw, the ship the size of a truck took off, aimed upwards, was in space in a few seconds, and then aimed at a space station, and flew straight at it.

 

No deacceleration burn, no indication that you can even orbit it just looked like once in space you just possibly float.

So let's grant a infinite delta v non reaction base mass less propulsuon, why not just use teleportation, Ifor you can travel faster than light, which is essentially  time travel, why not just cut to the chase and use a tardis..

[Xannari Ferrows]

17 minutes ago, Buster Charlie said:

Okay let's say you grant that concept,  what kind of acceleration and speed are we talking about to do straight line intercepts that evenight lunar orbits? 

 

In the video I saw, the ship the size of a truck took off, aimed upwards, was in space in a few seconds, and then aimed at a space station, and flew straight at it.

 

No deacceleration burn, no indication that you can even orbit it just looked like once in space you just possibly float.

So let's grant a infinite delta v non reaction base mass less propulsuon, why not just use teleportation, Ifor you can travel faster than light, which is essentially  time travel, why not just cut to the chase and use a tardis..

Teleportation, even in a sci-fi sense, isn't possible. Warp is, granted they are taking a few liberties.

[Buster Charlie]

5 minutes ago, Xannari Ferrows said:

Teleportation, even in a sci-fi sense, isn't possible. Warp is, granted they are taking a few liberties.

I'm guess what I'm saying is its essentially magic, science fantasy, star wars. It doesn't appeal to me, you don't need to defend it, I'm not degrading or insulting anyone who is looking forward or thinks its super cool.

It looks gorgeous, and I love you concept, but ksp has really set the bar too high for me.

[regex]

I was kind of excited about this but no plans for a Linux client have been announced, so ...

[Octa]

On 8.3.2016 at 9:53 PM, Buster Charlie said:

The main reason I'm not interested is after KSP I don't think I can play a "space"game in which you fly a infinite delta-v WWII dogfighter.

I'm sorry ,I just can't enjoy "aim at the sky to go into space, aim at a ship to go to that ship, aim at a planet to go to that planet.

 

I don't really expect the same level of detail as KSP, but being aware how orbital mechanics works to any degree has destroyed any enjoyment I get out of  WWII  flying in space

If KSP is a space game, No Man's Sky would be a SciFi game in a space setting.

I see your point, but well...spaceships behaving like aircraft or maritime ships is a common trope, see star trek or star wars. I can enjoy both, i just imagine that there are futuristic technologies built into the ships that can counter-act kepler mechanics by "brute-force". Works for me.

Regarding NMS, i hope they can fill the universe with content to make it worth playing. I just hate how reports on that game always mentions the crazy amount of hundreds of thousands of many quadrizillion worlds i could explore if i could outlive the universe and play 24/7. Remove the ones where world parameters differ by...lets say 1% and this number gets smaller pretty fast.

Then the ships. if i play a space/scifi game, i want the feeling of actually controlling a large ship, not a FPS with 6 degrees of freedom and a HUD that coincidentally looks like a cockpit. I dont know about the look and feel of the Ships in NMS yet. Huge questionmarks that will be answered when it's released.

[kookoo_gr]

 

 

extra info for the game

 

[Ehco Corrallo]

On 3/4/2016 at 3:16 PM, GluttonyReaper said:

For me, it totally depends on how good the procedural generation actually is. If they can finally "hide the grid", then I'm sold.  

Frankly, that's why everyone's excited about No Man's Sky; Procedural generation isn't a new idea, but its implementation in No Man's Sky is unprecedented on a number of levels. Both the scale of the game, and the detail, have not been matched in another procedurally generated game (to my knowledge). The plants, animals, ships, factions, planets, stars, galaxies, and even the music is generated procedurally. 

We'll see how it turns out on launch, but I'm reasonably confident that Hello Games has managed, at the very least, to improve significantly on the way procedural generation is used. 

On 3/5/2016 at 11:46 AM, NovaSilisko said:

I worry that the procedural generation will suffer from sameishness, which is a real term that I didn't make up just now, like a lot of games with procedural environments - minecraft (more recently, after revisions to the terrain generator), space engine (really, there isn't very much variety in planet surfaces at all), etc.

 I recommend taking a look at this video, which explains the majority of the process behind the generation. It's a little long, but worth watching. 

The planets have only one biome, so that if you land in any one place you've seen, to a certain degree, what the planet has to offer (this was a design decision on the part of Hello Games, not a limitation in the engine; most planets in traditional sci-fi [the main inspiration for No Man's Sky] are only a single biome). If there's one kind of tree on one side of the planet, it's also on the other side of the planet. The terrain is considerably more diverse, though, and geological formations vary fairly considerably across a planet's surface. There isn't a supreme amount of variation on each planet, but there are large variances between planets, (if not in the terrain, then in the flora, fauna, and resources). 

If you look at screenshots of different planets, you'll see some similarities, but the differences are unsubtle enough to distinguish one desert-and-red-crystal planet from another desert-and-red-crystal planet. It also seems like Hello Games is taking care to make sure that each planet offers a slightly different gameplay experience. 

Another note on variety: The planets that have been shown so far are from the outer edge of the universe; they get considerably weirder and considerably more varied the closer you get to the center of the universe. Hello Games, despite having announced the game really early, is keeping the awesomer (a word I do not use lightly) stuff under wraps so it's a surprise (and a genuine discovery) when players encounter something really cool that they didn't know was possible.

I'd like to point out, after this text-brick hype-rant, that I'm a total skeptic where video games are concerned. I've done my research on No Man's Sky, and while it might not be for everyone (that's another text-brick hype-rant) if you're interested in a procedurally-generated classic-sci-fi exploration (or not) game, then No Man's Sky is about as close to a sure-thing as you can get in a video game. 

I'd also like to point out that, yes, No Man's Sky has pop-in. It's something that will likely be mitigated at launch, but it's not something that's going to go away; No Man's Sky has way too many LoDs. Just an FYI, if it changes anything for anyone, there you go. 

And it's gorgeous. I don't know of many games with an aesthetic this nice. 

Edited March 13, 2016 by Ehco Corrallo

[Ehco Corrallo]

On 3/10/2016 at 2:59 AM, Octa said:

Regarding NMS, i hope they can fill the universe with content to make it worth playing. I just hate how reports on that game always mentions the crazy amount of hundreds of thousands of many quadrizillion worlds i could explore if i could outlive the universe and play 24/7. Remove the ones where world parameters differ by...lets say 1% and this number gets smaller pretty fast.

In practical terms, No Man's Sky is infinite. Adding more planets in a procedurally generated universe is easy; I'm pretty sure the devs said: "Let's make the universe bigger," then made it bigger. There's a good chance that there'll be two or three planets that look almost identical, but there's a very small chance that you'll encounter both of them. There are eighteen quintillion [18,446,744,073,709,551,616, actually] planets in No Man's Sky. It's a pointless number, but it has a purpose; no matter how much people play, there'll always be something new for you to discover.

As I've mentioned before, there are a ton of variables that go into planet generation. While there might be two planets that differ by only one percent, you aren't going to find them both. Also as mentioned before, planets are generated to be more surreal (and more awesome, and more dangerous) the closer you get to the center of the universe, which throws another layer of variation into the mix. If things start looking similar (and I'm not even sure that they will) then it's time to move on towards the center. (Reaching the center of the universe takes, somewhere around 100 hours, and that's if you don't get distracted.)

Even if No Man's Sky doesn't end up being totally awesome, it'll still have an interstellar pokédex and a color palette completely different from Call of Duty. 

[Ehco Corrallo]

On 3/4/2016 at 9:55 PM, Xannari Ferrows said:

Is the hype train ready to roll, or am I just late?

It's never too late for hype. Speaking of which...

Here's a handy-dandy hype-clock!

Edited March 13, 2016 by Ehco Corrallo

[Rade Krman]

Yes, procedural generation fairs terribly for exploration games. It's great for building games like Rimworld, Minecraft, Dorf Fortress etc. But I'm still interested in NMS

Spore wasn't terrible. If there was no hype (and that terrible rootkit-like drm that limits the number of installs), it might even have been bearable. I'm surprised nobody ever made some  "actually fun terraforming space game" mod for Spore.