No Man's Sky (PS4 and PC)

On August 04 2016 02:55 KeksX wrote:
My view? Probably gonna be a modern spore.

On August 04 2016 02:55 KeksX wrote:
My view? Probably gonna be a modern spore.

On August 04 2016 04:32 Duka08 wrote:

I know this reads like a negative -- underwhelming, cartoony, misleading promises and an incredibly ambitious scope, really goofy implementation of how certain creatures behave -- but if done correctly that's kind of what I'm looking forward to. Spore turned out to be disappointingly shallow and silly, but a more serious implementation of the procedural worlds/creatures/etc is a fascinating idea. That's what everyone said right before that game came out though, so we'll see how NMS truly turns out to be.

I've had my eyes and hopes on this game for a while now. I'm still waiting to see some preliminary reviews before I sink my teeth in but I'm very excited for next week. All it really needs to pull the whole thing together for me and keep me invested is the slightest aspect of progression and something to work toward. I really don't mind the aimless exploration aspect; I did it in Elite Dangerous for a while when I didn't feel like hauling cargo or dogfighting just because I love space and unique discoveries and the amazing visuals. And the "progression" for exploration in that game was almost non-existent, I just had to be in the right mood. If there's any feeling of parts or upgrades or ships to work toward where you can actually feel the difference every 10 or so in-game hours that's all I really want out of it. Combat and multiplayer and things like that are much lower priority for me in NMS than a lot of other people it seems. Purely a bonus if done well.

On August 04 2016 05:05 plated.rawr wrote:
I remember seeing the preview on the E3 2015-stream, and thinking hey, this is pretty cool! However, after some guy bought an early copy and subsequently let out info that the game was rather shallow and the mechanics easilly exploitable, I've gotta say my expecations have dropped a lot. I'll probably wait for a while to buy it, in case there happens some drastic patching that improves upon what seems to be weaknesses.

Spore as a comparison is what I fear, too.

On August 04 2016 05:03 Plansix wrote:
I find the entire discussion about the developers hiding things to be comical. I’ve been following this game since it was announced with reserved excitement and this is exactly what I knew was coming. They have been very up front with the scope of the game and what you are going to be doing.

My impression of the hype was that people saw the first pitch for the game and then just lets their imagination fill in all the things they wished would be in the game. I’ve seen it so many times with games before. But this isn’t a case of the developer actively deceiving people, since they have said over and over what they were trying to make without spoiling the whole things for people.

On August 04 2016 07:01 Gorsameth wrote:

What I mean is that a giant sandbox needs something to do in it.
Crafting bases, ships, stations. Fighting things, trading with people. Just stuff to do.

And they have been very stringent in what they show. Ofcourse they want to not spoil people on story but I am off the belief that if you make a good game you want to show it off to people, you want to show the building, the fighting, the economies you interact with. Hiding it all ,akes people wonder just how much there is to do in this big sandbox.

Just being a sandbox is not interesting to most people.

On August 04 2016 05:10 Plansix wrote:

From reports that guy found an exploit to earn money fast and just did that for 30 minutes at a time for the sole purpose of being the first one to make it to the center of the galaxy. Although it’s possible, its sounds like the worst way to play this game. And they could patch it out day one too.

So he got to the center without doing anything that would make the game enjoyable.

On August 04 2016 07:07 Plansix wrote:

It has stuff like that. There are space police, other ships. You can fight other ships. There is a whole alien language you can translate and who knows where that goes. There are warp gates, teleporters and other things. But yes, a game about exportation and discovery has to keep its cards close to its chest.

As someone who played the first Elite back in the day, this game is just the super pretty version of that game where you can finally get out of your ship. Not knowing what is out there is part of what I want from the game. There are people on the internet that like similar games to me, so I only need to hear if they like this game and I'll be ready to go.

On August 06 2016 08:43 rebuffering wrote:
Sean Murray just confirmed Aug 12th as the release date for PC, not the 9th. https://twitter.com/NoMansSky/status/761694858562207744

I assume Sony paid a lil extra for the game to release a few days earlier on the PS4. Im happy and sad, i had the 9th and 10th off work so i was happy for the timing, but i guess this way we can read reviews before we buy it on Friday.

On August 08 2016 10:57 NrG.NeverExpo wrote:
just pre-ordered and began my download on PS4, file is only like 4 gb so im expecting to have to dl more upon release.

On August 09 2016 00:32 Capped wrote:
Its being marketed as "Single player in a multiplayer world, meeting players is possible, but extremely unlikely" so youre basically in a gigantic fucking universe with little to no chance / way of finding other players. Although in that announced day 1 patch theres now apparently a way of finding out if there were players in your recent vicinity (solar system, galaxy, idk.) but even then you'd have to locate a tiny ship in the void of space or land on a planet and find them there. AFAIK they strive for "real" sizes so a planet is pretty fuqqing big along with the rest

Developers care about the games they make, and we’re trying to make the best game we can for our players. We’ll take every opportunity we can get for that. If consoles operated like Steam did, No Man’s Sky wouldn’t have a Day 1 Patch, because the build you’d download and play when it comes out would’ve been submitted comfortably a few days before launch. Day 1 Patches aren’t necessarily a failure on the developers or the platforms side, they the result of people that care about what they make, trying to deliver the game the audience expects by the date they expect it, while everybody involved is struggling with outdated systems on cutting-edge technology. Everyone is trying their hardest. Nobody is doing anything wrong. The developer isn’t lazy. The platforms aren’t malicious. Day 1 patches are simply a patch to a submission system that’s old and convoluted.

On August 09 2016 01:43 Makro wrote:
i feel this is gonna be hit or miss, a part of me want to buy it one week after the release but i fear that it might get boring too fast

reviews are gonna be crucial this time

On August 10 2016 15:26 bertolo wrote:


I like what you have to say and am interested in playing the game on pc.

I have to ask though do you see anything that you feel will keep you playing the game after you reach that goal, some sort of progression other than the same farming? I actually think I would like the farming and exploring. Anyone who has been playing can answer. I'm guessing if everyone is reaching the center eventually that is where everyone will meet up and then there could be additions to the game and some sort of multiplayer? otherwise whats the draw. I want to play this game, but I'm just not convinced yet.

On August 10 2016 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:
Exploring soulless generated planets is only entertaining for so long.

On August 10 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:
I noticed that there have been a section of people on the internet that are super excited to dump on this game because it isn’t both NMS and Mass effect. I don’t know what is behind it, but some people just like to shit on stuff other people like.

On August 10 2016 23:19 Plansix wrote:
I feel like this game got the hate because it is more like a mine craft, but the initial promise of the game made a lot of people hope it would more like a AAA game. Like a Destiny or some other shooter. The game was made by 15 people, but some folks felt it was going to be equal to a game made by 600 like Farcry.

And I really found it refreshing that we didn’t know every little thing about the game. I sort of feel I know way to much about games before they come out.

On August 10 2016 23:23 Gorsameth wrote:

When you ask a AAA price people expect a AAA game.
This game should have been 20 euro's max. Not 60.

(I haven't bought it and won't after seeing people play it)

On August 10 2016 23:53 KeksX wrote:


The point about a small team is moot. They have Sony behind their back, plenty of experience, a huge marketing campaign involving visits to major US TV shows, as well as a viral hype campaign that pretty much topped everything else from before. They themselves positioned themselves amongst all the big games out there, even if they insist on being indie.

Additionally, what you can achieve with a small team and the right budget these days is phenomenal. And with an industry as fought-over as the game industry, the question of "Why does this cost 60 bucks?" is valid.

Of course that does not mean "If game costs X, it should have Y" is true. But in the very least you should expect to

a) Know what you're getting: Hello Games have been very secretive about certain parts of development, making it hard to decide on whether or not you should get it. Reviews haven't been that helpful yet.

b) Getting what was promised: The "multiplayer" part of the game is a joke. And it looks like there have been some changes very close to release that barely got the game to where it is now.

Me personally, I'm still positively impressed and will get the game once the price drops. I can buy a full-price game once in a while, but then I need to know that I will spend a lot of time in there to "justify" that for my budget.
Currently, I don't think thats the case with NMS.

But referring to my first post in here. I don't think this is a modern spore anymore, I just think this is a somewhat dishonest developer that doesn't need to be. The game is still great and if advertised more accurately, this whole "shitstorm"(if you can even call it that) could've been avoided.

On August 10 2016 23:53 KeksX wrote:
b) Getting what was promised: The "multiplayer" part of the game is a joke. And it looks like there have been some changes very close to release that barely got the game to where it is now.

But referring to my first post in here. I don't think this is a modern spore anymore, I just think this is a somewhat dishonest developer that doesn't need to be. The game is still great and if advertised more accurately, this whole "shitstorm"(if you can even call it that) could've been avoided.

On August 11 2016 01:54 Latham wrote:
Judging from what I've seen so far... this game is not for me. It's a little bit of minecraft with spore-like feeling. You're largely to entertain yourself. Sometimes you'll find a Cockosaurus or squirrels the size of buses to make you laugh, but then you're back to gathering.

I agree that people winded themselves up for disappointment from the start. True, a lot of us were expecting a smaller Star Citizen with planet exploration for 60$ a piece, and as developers they did nothing to dissuade us from that notion. We generated all that hype which was good for them, and they just didn't say anything to the contrary and became tight-lipped.

Ugh fuck me, I really need toscratch the itch for some space RPG like Mass Effect >_>; or even any RPG at all for that matter.

On August 11 2016 02:30 ref4 wrote:


in terms of creature creation Spore actually has NMS beat

not unexpected from such a small development team

On August 11 2016 02:34 Duka08 wrote:

Except that was literally never part of the bargain, or relevant in any way?

And how is that specific aspect even related to the team size? Are we taking jabs at smaller studios?

Shit like this is what's so baffling to me

On August 11 2016 02:59 ref4 wrote:


I am just responding to the guy who said NMS is minecraft + spore by saying spore's creature editor is more powerful than NMS' algorithim in making interesting creatures because human creativity beats AI everytime when it comes to original designs

On August 12 2016 08:21 bumatlarge wrote:
I think minecraft in space is a pretty apt description, I'm sure at somepoint they will make a player/player interaction a thing.

On August 12 2016 12:19 Capped wrote:
Thing is ive read alot about there being no DLC and lots of big, free updates to the game. The first announced being base-building & freighter ships.

Thats got me pretty excited because large updates like that with so much to expand on just reeks of potential to me, and the people behind this game are promising.

Its just a shame they couldnt flesh out more of their systems before launch. The whole thing seems a little empty, with alot of their mechanics being shallow.

On August 12 2016 22:15 SolaR- wrote:
So I'm thinking about getting this game. However, I'm getting a negative vibe from a lot of people about. I feel like people are unfairly judging the game though, and I want to take a chance on it. I really liked elite dangerous, should I get it???

On August 12 2016 22:46 Plansix wrote:

I own it and have been playing it:

• The combat is pretty meh. Space combat is fun.

• Traveling is enjoyable and buying a new ship is fun and exciting.

• Building and mining is fun. It is exciting to find a planet that is filled with gold of some valuable resource and mining it out.

• Learning alien languages is weirdly fun as you try to figure out what they want or how to work their computers from your growing understanding of their language.

The thing that streams and the mechanics can’t tell you about is the scope of the game. Everything is huge. The planets are huge. You stand in a field of waist high purple grass with weird flying dragon creatures over head and you feel small. It is overwhelming at first. I took off from the first planet and wanted to set back down again because there was just to much. You have to come to grips that you will never see everything the game has to offer. There is this sense that you will be the only person to see some of these planets and interact with the weird creatures on them. Of course it is all an big spread sheet, but it doesn’t feel like that moment to moment.

If you are looking for an action game or something that is going to tell you how play, its not your game. If you want to see weird shit and explore. If you like the idea of landing on 10+ planets to finally find one water planet with giant space jello monsters hopping around that you feed carbon to make friends with them, get the game. But like mine craft, it isn't for everyone.

On August 12 2016 22:15 SolaR- wrote:
So I'm thinking about getting this game. However, I'm getting a negative vibe from a lot of people about. I feel like people are unfairly judging the game though, and I want to take a chance on it. I really liked elite dangerous, should I get it???

Player: How do I know if the game is over? I think I figured out the mystery.

Developer: Like a real mystery, there is no true end state. The game is over once you are satisfied you know the full story.

Player: How do I know if I am satisfied?

On August 12 2016 23:25 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Argh i was so excited for this game. I was talking about what i had heard about it to my fiance and kids. Got them all excited. But when i hear "minecraft" or "terraria", im instantly turned off. Sorry to be rude, but in my eyes, those are little kid games. My kids wont stfu about minecraft and terraria and some shit called undertale to the point that hearing comparisons causes me to feel repulsed lol. Oh well. Cant win em all

On August 13 2016 03:38 ref4 wrote:
so the consensus on the PC port is even worst than Arkham knight? damn that is one hard achievement to beat

On August 13 2016 04:12 Duka08 wrote:
Yeah I'm rooting for this game, and have been pretty entertained for the first few hours, but there are some serious issues with the PC version so far. Feels very unoptimized. Pop in issues, not a lot of flexible gfx options, and FPS choke at really weird locations and times. Not sure how long it'll take until they look into it.

On August 13 2016 04:14 ref4 wrote:


the pop in is unfixable since the engine generates everything on the fly

it's a fundamental flaw in having everything procedural generated

On August 13 2016 03:50 Plansix wrote:

Knight will still take the cake because there were a huge number of people working on that game. NMS has 15 people total. But they fucked up bad if the game was this hot coming in and they released. They should have delayed the PC version for a couple weeks if it needed more QA.

On August 13 2016 03:33 showstealer1829 wrote:
Ho....ly.......Fuck. Is the PC version terrible. Constant hitching, terrible pop-in. game breaking bugs.....I think we found this years Arkham Knight

On August 13 2016 05:15 Duka08 wrote:
Most people are not crashing. I've been able to play (GTX 970 with latest drivers). Hopefully those who are get it resolved (HG is aware and already patched at least once).

Also a tip to PC players, regardless of what FPS cap you desire, try setting it to Max. People are finding that when capped to 60, you'll get the 20-30 fps and stuttering, capped to 90 gets you slightly more but still not 90, etc etc. I set it to Max (had it at 60 before) and while I don't have an actual FPS display, it feels like a solid 60+ and is synced with my display. Helped a lot, that was one of the most frustrating things off the bat. Obviously the implementation of the FPS cap is busted but it looks quite a bit better and more playable when you set it to Max and don't get the choke.

On August 13 2016 04:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Sadly most PC port teams for AAA studios are less than a handful of people as well.

On August 13 2016 05:23 Plansix wrote:
I really wish we could get away from it and just launch later on different systems.

On August 13 2016 05:15 Duka08 wrote:
Most people are not crashing. I've been able to play (GTX 970 with latest drivers). Hopefully those who are get it resolved (HG is aware and already patched at least once).

Also a tip to PC players, regardless of what FPS cap you desire, try setting it to Max. People are finding that when capped to 60, you'll get the 20-30 fps and stuttering, capped to 90 gets you slightly more but still not 90, etc etc. I set it to Max (had it at 60 before) and while I don't have an actual FPS display, it feels like a solid 60+ and is synced with my display. Helped a lot, that was one of the most frustrating things off the bat. Obviously the implementation of the FPS cap is busted but it looks quite a bit better and more playable when you set it to Max and don't get the choke.

Maybe I'm lucky, but I guess many players play the game with the godawful default settings (30 fps cap...) so it doesnt' run very well for them and they complain.

On August 13 2016 06:14 shin ken wrote:
The game runs perfectly fine with high FPS on my GTX 680, i5 2500 machine once I uncapped FPS and deactivated vsync. Even FPS drops are minimal for me (but I got pretty fast RAM, maybe that helps).

Maybe I'm lucky, but I guess many players play the game with the godawful default settings (30 fps cap...) so it doesnt' run very well for them and they complain.

On August 13 2016 19:13 Animzor wrote:
It's sad that so many people blindly buy games because of hype. Essentially, all you need to do is create some hype around your game even if it is a pile of shit and you'll be rich.

On August 13 2016 19:49 Latham wrote:


That's just the thing. The producers didn't create all this hype. It was the community that made up all the hype based on what has not been said. They just let their imagination run wild and the guys at Hello Games just didn't dissuade them at all from their ridiculous notions.

Anyway, 250PLN for this in a store LOL. And Diablo 3 was like 200 on launch day, and Blizz games are like the pinnacle of AAA standard for price range.
By now I've watched a lot of footage, ranging from youtubers playing Let's Plays, reviews from Jim Sterling and others and ending on 8 hour streams from AngryJoe on twitch nights. I've done my research and I came to my own conclusion that this isn't worth a buy at all. Repetitive and tedious. "You mine and craft to craft and mine better, faster and more efficiently" as Joe put it on his stream.

On August 13 2016 23:01 gingerfluffmuff wrote:
As long people blindly buy untested/unreviewed games for full price (or even preorder lol), there will be no reason to deliver better products.

On August 13 2016 19:13 Animzor wrote:
It's sad that so many people blindly buy games because of hype. Essentially, all you need to do is create some hype around your game even if it is a pile of shit and you'll be rich.

On August 14 2016 02:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Hilarious thing is this game looks exactly like I expected it to be. Tons of procedural generated content with very little meaningful variance, and a game that plays much more like a tech demo than a fully fleshed out game.

On August 14 2016 02:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Hilarious thing is this game looks exactly like I expected it to be. Tons of procedural generated content with very little meaningful variance, and a game that plays much more like a tech demo than a fully fleshed out game.

It's like people have absolutely no idea what reasonable game development actually looks like.

The only major thing would be if there continues to be major development on this post-release. Most games like this start out as a basic framework and grow from there.

On August 14 2016 07:08 Duka08 wrote:
Thinking about mods is pretty interesting. I do hope the community can come up with some cool stuff. The first thing that came to mind for me was multiple biomes on planets which seems like it wouldn't be terrible to implement, but I'm curious about what information is kept server-side and which will be flexible for clients. There seems to be a lot of discussion about mods so I mean, I would guess that there will be cool stuff to do even though it's always communicating with the home server.

On August 14 2016 06:49 Fleetfeet wrote:


I think it'd be wise for everyone here to take a giant step back and let the game be what it is. Especially in this community, we're more driven towards more tryhard gameplay-driven competitive challenging stuff. Almost unanimously my speedrunning / competitive gaming circles are saying either "Trash" or "Meh"... but several of my super casual console pleb friends are playing this, have been playing this since it came out on ps4, and genuinely enjoy it.

No game is made for every person, and yes while an "actually good" minecraft would be fantastic, that wasn't listed as this game's intentions. Implying that it isn't "Reasonable game design" is actually just stupid. The game just isn't made for you; it's perfectly fine and functional (on console) as a casual space explorer.

Honestly this game sets a lot of benchmarks for games logistically, in terms of procedural generation and scale. I'm looking forward to what this game will pave the way for, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna waste my time pretending that it's terrible at what it's doing.

On August 14 2016 04:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:


i think the problem is that the procedurally generated content has no impact on game play. Contrast this with Borderlands which has procedurally generated elements like creatures, guns and grenades on an identical map.

On August 14 2016 11:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:

I know you like using terms in the completely wrong way...but Borderlands has no procedurally generated content, at all. All of Borderlands' variance is pure percentage RNG.

On August 14 2016 15:42 B.I.G. wrote:
Do you guys think this technique could be used to make a game map the size of a country or even earth, and then place scripted events in it?

As in they would create the entire terrain with the NMS formulas and then 'manually' place roads, bridges, towns, and NPCs?

On August 14 2016 06:49 Fleetfeet wrote:


I think it'd be wise for everyone here to take a giant step back and let the game be what it is. Especially in this community, we're more driven towards more tryhard gameplay-driven competitive challenging stuff. Almost unanimously my speedrunning / competitive gaming circles are saying either "Trash" or "Meh"... but several of my super casual console pleb friends are playing this, have been playing this since it came out on ps4, and genuinely enjoy it.

No game is made for every person, and yes while an "actually good" minecraft would be fantastic, that wasn't listed as this game's intentions. Implying that it isn't "Reasonable game design" is actually just stupid. The game just isn't made for you; it's perfectly fine and functional (on console) as a casual space explorer.

Honestly this game sets a lot of benchmarks for games logistically, in terms of procedural generation and scale. I'm looking forward to what this game will pave the way for, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna waste my time pretending that it's terrible at what it's doing.

On August 14 2016 11:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I know you like using terms in the completely wrong way...but Borderlands has no procedurally generated content, at all. All of Borderlands' variance is pure percentage RNG.

On August 14 2016 16:05 Endymion wrote:
as it stands the devs lied about multiplayer, and they lied about the quality of the mechanics that barely got included... read the back of the NMS box and tell me that the devs aren't lying through their teeth:

On August 14 2016 16:05 Endymion wrote:



i disagree wholeheartedly.. i think that it would be wise for you to step back and look at the game for what it is, and judge it by games that are actually good.. personally, i would be saying that NMS is a horrible game even if it released perfectly with 300 fps on pc and ps4, because it would still be a barren wasteland of mechanics. i still stand by my argument that there's nothing at all to do in the game, and that other games both with procedural exploration (minecraft, terraria) and without procedural generation (subnautica) shit on this game to an unprecedented degree. and that's if the release was smooth and everything on the box was delivered..

as it stands the devs lied about multiplayer, and they lied about the quality of the mechanics that barely got included... read the back of the NMS box and tell me that the devs aren't lying through their teeth:

Share your journey
The galaxy is a living, breathing place. Trade convoys travel between stars, factions vie for territory, pirates hunt the unwary, and the police are ever watching. Every other player lives in the same galaxy, and you can choose to share your discoveries with them on a map that spans known space. Perhaps you will see the results of their actions as well as your own...

trade convoys? you mean those automated ships that do NOTHING if you kill them? prices don't increase or decrease.... factions? LMFAO!!!!!! pirates??? you mean random automated spacecraft that do NOTHING if you kill them? police?!?!?!!? not that i have seen other than automated responses................ every player lives in the same galaxy? uhhh nope! let's move onto the next blurb!

Find your own destiny
Your voyage through No Man's Sky is up to you. Will you be a fighter, preying on the weak and taking their riches, or taking out pirates for their bounties? Power is yours if you upgrade your ship for speed and weaponry.
Or a trader? Find rich resources on forgotten worlds and exploit them for the highest prices. Invest in more cargo space and you'll reap huge rewards.

Or perhaps an explorer? Go beyond the known frontier and discover places and things that no one has ever seen before. Upgrade your engines to jump ever farther, and strengthen your suit for survival in toxic environments that would kill the unwary.

will i be a fighter??? maybe if i wanted to play a tacked on shooting mechanic that is outdone by doom 1/quake 1 from over 20 years ago!! same with the space combat, it's utter shit compared to shit from 20 years ago... tie fighter? freespace? "upgrade your ship for speed and weaponry" where are the meaningful decisions between the two when all combat is the exact fucking same regardless of your kit, because all pirates are also the exact same... look at games like mechwarrior where your loadout drastically changed combat, from being slow and lumbering with lots of missiles to being a lightly armed with jump-jets, trying to out maneuver your opponent... this game has literally none of that, despite it having even more potential being a space game.

a trader? HAHAHA.. what a great UI for trading, so what, buying low and selling high between identical vendors in identical space stations in near identical systems makes for compelling trading now? give me a break, i might be spoiled by the memory of eve trading but this is just silly... they did the BARE MINIMUM yet people are trying to say you can "trade" lmfao.. also, all planets have basically the same resources because of how short sighted the game mechanics are... you can't get stuck on a planet without fuel to escape orbit, or get stuck without fuel to fly on the planet itself, leading to actually memorable experiences..nope, that would be too hard on our players!!

just come on... this game deserves a class action lawsuit for the ways the devs have lied through their teeth, without even delving into the HUGE performance issues and lack of good faith evident in some of the problems...

On August 14 2016 17:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Procedural generation does not mean everything has to be different every time,

On August 14 2016 11:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I know you like using terms in the completely wrong way...but Borderlands has no procedurally generated content, at all. All of Borderlands' variance is pure percentage RNG.

On August 14 2016 18:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote:

as i said in my previous post River Raid is the same every time and its procedurally generated. games with fractals are procedurally generated. Rescue on Fractulus is the same planet every game and its procedurally generated.


pretty hilarious how you yap like this and then you are dead wrong. Raid on Digistruct Peak has enemies, enemy weapons, enemy grenades and loot all procedurally generated. Have you played Raid on Digistruct Peak? Raid on Digistruct Peak is Borderlands2 DLC.

"In computing, procedural generation is a method of creating data algorithmically as opposed to manually."
The guns in all 3 Borderlands games are procedurally generated via an algorithm. The weapons many of the bosses carry are also procedurally generated as are the Skags.

On August 14 2016 18:12 Krieg1 wrote:


On point, the developer are criminals.

On August 15 2016 07:26 Zooper31 wrote:


How so? I know a set of people met in the game in real time and couldn't see each other. But that has been alluded to being a server issue, though we don't know for sure quite yet without an official response.

They said the game was multiplayer as in, you could meet other players. They said there wasn't any PvP action and you should never really even expect to meet another player. So basically it's a singleplayer game, how was that wrong?

On August 15 2016 10:44 Zooper31 wrote:


Multiplayer is possible, you can meet other players. If you wanted multiplayer as in PvP they said that wasn't going to be in the game. They've always said meeting other players was going to be an almost impossible task seeing as there are 18 quintillion planets and starting points are random, do the math.

On August 15 2016 11:56 Zooper31 wrote:


As I said before, it's been alluded to it being a server issue as to why they couldn't see each other. But we don't know for sure. There's no official comment on it really.

On August 15 2016 21:52 brian wrote:


this isn't meant to be anything but inquisitive because I don't think I know what you're talking about.

is it correct that you're saying multiplayer exists in the capacity that I could run into another player because the dev team says so, but that so far where this has been tested we're just assuming it's a bug?

that seems pretty flimsy.

On August 15 2016 22:01 Gorsameth wrote:

Last I heard people digging around in the games files have found a seemingly unfinished player model. It looks like multiplayer not existing isn't just a server issue.

On August 15 2016 22:20 Plansix wrote:

It is so unlikely to ever happen I can’t see it being a priority. I bet it was some idea they hoped to have in the game early on, but was not practicable once they got to launch.

On August 15 2016 22:21 Gorsameth wrote:

Yes, so unlikely that people managed to do it within hours of the game going live.

It’s a neat idea, but NMS is a lonely solo experience where you come across the writings of players who came before you. There are so many other things I want in this game. Like leaving journals behind for other players who might find them. Or decorating my cockpit with cool photos of planets I landed on.

On August 16 2016 01:07 B.I.G. wrote:

That would be so awesome. Or have a slightly larger ship where you can actually walk around in a bit where you put trophies etc...

On August 15 2016 10:44 Zooper31 wrote:


Multiplayer is possible, you can meet other players. If you wanted multiplayer as in PvP they said that wasn't going to be in the game. They've always said meeting other players was going to be an almost impossible task seeing as there are 18 quintillion planets and starting points are random, do the math.

On August 16 2016 03:11 dae wrote:


Until I see a video of two players interacting with each other in realtime I will assume that Multiplayer is not part of this game.

Any other stance on this is ridiculous.

On August 16 2016 03:37 ROOTFayth wrote:
have people who've seen the review still spent money on this game?

On August 16 2016 06:30 Zooper31 wrote:


There isn't meant to be any interaction though, even if they saw each other and there wasn't server issues and/or unfinished player models not yet in the game.

Maybe that's why people were mad there was no "multiplayer" even though they were told exactly what it was gonna be and to expect a single player experience.

On August 15 2016 07:26 Zooper31 wrote:


How so? I know a set of people met in the game in real time and couldn't see each other. But that has been alluded to being a server issue, though we don't know for sure quite yet without an official response.

They said the game was multiplayer as in, you could meet other players. They said there wasn't any PvP action and you should never really even expect to meet another player. So basically it's a singleplayer game, how was that wrong?

On August 16 2016 08:06 Plansix wrote:
Its fine because the internet will never forget. Ever. 15 years from now we will have some discussion about having fun playing no mans sky in those first few months. Then someone will in, still bitter and say "Yeah, but alone with no multiplayer. That is why I never bought the game." Sean Murray will die and someone will vandalize his grave with "No multiplayer at launch, lazy dev."

On August 14 2016 16:05 Endymion wrote:



i disagree wholeheartedly.. i think that it would be wise for you to step back and look at the game for what it is, and judge it by games that are actually good.. personally, i would be saying that NMS is a horrible game even if it released perfectly with 300 fps on pc and ps4, because it would still be a barren wasteland of mechanics. i still stand by my argument that there's nothing at all to do in the game, and that other games both with procedural exploration (minecraft, terraria) and without procedural generation (subnautica) shit on this game to an unprecedented degree. and that's if the release was smooth and everything on the box was delivered..

as it stands the devs lied about multiplayer, and they lied about the quality of the mechanics that barely got included... read the back of the NMS box and tell me that the devs aren't lying through their teeth:

Share your journey
The galaxy is a living, breathing place. Trade convoys travel between stars, factions vie for territory, pirates hunt the unwary, and the police are ever watching. Every other player lives in the same galaxy, and you can choose to share your discoveries with them on a map that spans known space. Perhaps you will see the results of their actions as well as your own...

trade convoys? you mean those automated ships that do NOTHING if you kill them? prices don't increase or decrease.... factions? LMFAO!!!!!! pirates??? you mean random automated spacecraft that do NOTHING if you kill them? police?!?!?!!? not that i have seen other than automated responses................ every player lives in the same galaxy? uhhh nope! let's move onto the next blurb!

Find your own destiny
Your voyage through No Man's Sky is up to you. Will you be a fighter, preying on the weak and taking their riches, or taking out pirates for their bounties? Power is yours if you upgrade your ship for speed and weaponry.
Or a trader? Find rich resources on forgotten worlds and exploit them for the highest prices. Invest in more cargo space and you'll reap huge rewards.

Or perhaps an explorer? Go beyond the known frontier and discover places and things that no one has ever seen before. Upgrade your engines to jump ever farther, and strengthen your suit for survival in toxic environments that would kill the unwary.

will i be a fighter??? maybe if i wanted to play a tacked on shooting mechanic that is outdone by doom 1/quake 1 from over 20 years ago!! same with the space combat, it's utter shit compared to shit from 20 years ago... tie fighter? freespace? "upgrade your ship for speed and weaponry" where are the meaningful decisions between the two when all combat is the exact fucking same regardless of your kit, because all pirates are also the exact same... look at games like mechwarrior where your loadout drastically changed combat, from being slow and lumbering with lots of missiles to being a lightly armed with jump-jets, trying to out maneuver your opponent... this game has literally none of that, despite it having even more potential being a space game.

a trader? HAHAHA.. what a great UI for trading, so what, buying low and selling high between identical vendors in identical space stations in near identical systems makes for compelling trading now? give me a break, i might be spoiled by the memory of eve trading but this is just silly... they did the BARE MINIMUM yet people are trying to say you can "trade" lmfao.. also, all planets have basically the same resources because of how short sighted the game mechanics are... you can't get stuck on a planet without fuel to escape orbit, or get stuck without fuel to fly on the planet itself, leading to actually memorable experiences..nope, that would be too hard on our players!!

just come on... this game deserves a class action lawsuit for the ways the devs have lied through their teeth, without even delving into the HUGE performance issues and lack of good faith evident in some of the problems...

On August 16 2016 06:30 Zooper31 wrote:


There isn't meant to be any interaction though, even if they saw each other and there wasn't server issues and/or unfinished player models not yet in the game.

Maybe that's why people were mad there was no "multiplayer" even though they were told exactly what it was gonna be and to expect a single player experience.

So many people were uninformed about this game and then berate it for being exactly what it set out to be. It seriously is a very provocative game so far apparently. It's by far from getting any GotY award, but it's far from the pile of trash lots of people say it to be. Future updates are only going to make this game truly shine but it's a wonderful experience as it stands for people who enjoy exploring new worlds.

On August 16 2016 13:22 Fleetfeet wrote:


You're literally arguing that the things they delivered don't live up to your expectations of what they should be. I believe this is why I'm recommending people take a step back and let the game be what it is. If you feel robbed... too bad for you. I for one had the foresight to not preorder a game that the media offered to me beforehand was suggesting would not be the experience I was looking for.

I watched a friend of mine play this for some portion of the 50 hours he's spent on it already - he enjoys it for the relaxing voyages through space it offers. I can respect that and let it be what it is, instead of trying to crucify a team of like 15 people for not delivering the single-player space MMO orgasmfest I've always dreamed of.

On August 16 2016 06:30 Zooper31 wrote:


There isn't meant to be any interaction though, even if they saw each other and there wasn't server issues and/or unfinished player models not yet in the game.

Maybe that's why people were mad there was no "multiplayer" even though they were told exactly what it was gonna be and to expect a single player experience.

So many people were uninformed about this game and then berate it for being exactly what it set out to be. It seriously is a very provocative game so far apparently. It's by far from getting any GotY award, but it's far from the pile of trash lots of people say it to be. Future updates are only going to make this game truly shine but it's a wonderful experience as it stands for people who enjoy exploring new worlds.

On August 16 2016 08:06 Plansix wrote:
Its fine because the internet will never forget. Ever. 15 years from now we will have some discussion about having fun playing no mans sky in those first few months. Then someone will in, still bitter and say "Yeah, but alone with no multiplayer. That is why I never bought the game." Sean Murray will die and someone will vandalize his grave with "No multiplayer at launch, lazy dev."

On August 16 2016 21:11 ZenithM wrote:

I know you enjoy the game and you want the others to know :D.
But not being truthful still hurts their credibility if they want to make another game in the next few years.

On August 16 2016 23:59 Darpa wrote:



Agreed, I said that same thing several pages ago. NMS has the basis for a great game, but the reality is it just has nothing interesting to do.

On August 17 2016 00:32 gingerfluffmuff wrote:

I dont think such a game would be ever made. EVE is already MASSIVE. No reason to invest 100+ mil in such a game when you can cash in with the garbage that is already sold

On August 17 2016 00:42 Ramiel wrote:


All these flavors and you choose to be salty

On August 17 2016 00:42 Ramiel wrote:


All these flavors and you choose to be salty

On August 17 2016 00:51 gingerfluffmuff wrote:

I feed on game launches like that. I am torn, cause i like the buyers suffering but i also hate that companies get away with stuff like that.

Every night i pray for our new hope

Star Citizen

On August 17 2016 01:12 Plansix wrote:
Star Citizen's final form will be a lawsuit.

On August 16 2016 22:29 Ota Solgryn wrote:
I feel like the EVE model of MMO, PVE, PVP, mining, construction etc., combined with the planet/solarsystem/galaxy generation of NMS would make a pretty mindboggling game.

Anyone want to comment?

On August 17 2016 02:41 Darpa wrote:


Nobody compared it to Eve. People said that NMS could benefit from some of the gameplay options in Eve in addition to what is already there....

On August 16 2016 22:09 Plansix wrote:

I’m sure they will be fine and learn from the experience. Thankfully demographic of reddit/forum users willing to complain about games they didn’t buy is a loud, but small group.

On August 17 2016 07:39 pyrocumulus wrote:
Quick question: where do any of you predict the longevity of this game? Basically, how long do you believe that one can play this game before getting bored? Also, do you think this is a game you can set down for a while but come back to every month or so?

I'm trying to see if it's worth buying. I like the concept plenty, but I'm not sure that I'll just play it for a couple of days then put it down forever.

On August 17 2016 07:39 pyrocumulus wrote:
Quick question: where do any of you predict the longevity of this game? Basically, how long do you believe that one can play this game before getting bored? Also, do you think this is a game you can set down for a while but come back to every month or so?

I'm trying to see if it's worth buying. I like the concept plenty, but I'm not sure that I'll just play it for a couple of days then put it down forever.

On August 17 2016 01:44 Plansix wrote:
NMS is a light survival game that is mostly about taking photos of weird animals in beautiful landscapes and posting them on twitter. And feeling really small. It is the space version of Pokemon Snap I never knew I wanted.

"That's the answer that I want to give... But then there's the answer I have to give, just because you have to talk about the game and write about it and convey it. So there is a core game mode there. There's the player's journey which, if they play it linearly and go from the outer edge of the galaxy to the centre of the galaxy, that's their start and end of the game kind of thing.

"And as they go, they're upgrading their ship, they're upgrading their weapons, they're upgrading their suit. And they need to do that because they're very vulnerable, they will be attacked by AI, potentially - very rarely - other players, things like that, if they cross paths with them. There's space combat, there's combat on the ground, there's trading if you want to do that, mining resources and stuff, there's exploring if you want to do that.

On August 17 2016 01:24 Djzapz wrote:

That game is building up to be a disaster of proportions even more epic than the promises it made.

On August 17 2016 12:47 Assault_1 wrote:

I haven't really been following, what's going on with star citizen lately?

jivebeaver 1141 points 10 hours ago

i think if you dissect all the articles or interviews about this game up to release you will find a lot of just pure malarkey. like this one talking about potential features

"The team programmed some of the physics for aesthetic reasons. For instance, Duncan insisted on permitting moons to orbit closer to their planets than Newtonian physics would allow. When he desired the possibility of green skies, the team had to redesign the periodic table to create atmospheric particles that would diffract light at just the right wavelength."

even if you gave them the benefit of the doubt that they could simulate ray based light refraction at the molecular level (which may require a NASA super computer and cause the game to run slightly worse than it does now on PC), wheres the evidence of any sort of interactions between the periodic table? theres no presence of gaseous elements anywhere, theres no atomic weights, just plutonium-lined planets.

...

TWITCH_MIA 849 points 8 hours ago

This shit made me spit my coffee...

"When he desired the possibility of green skies, the team had to redesign the periodic table to create atmospheric particles that would diffract light at just the right wavelength."

WTF AM I READING?

On August 16 2016 11:05 QuanticHawk wrote:

as you noted, most of the commentary from the dev team regards to multiplayer and lots of gameplay was very cryptic

On August 17 2016 17:42 Endymion wrote:
wtf why was it deleted??? that thread had a great op! i dont use reddit, did the mods delete it or something?

On August 17 2016 13:18 Djzapz wrote:

I have no specifics tbh and I have no business talking about it because I haven't touched the game in recent months, only fiddled about with it probably over a year ago and since then I've just read up a little bit and looked at footage. It just seems to me like it'll be a jack of all trade and a master of none, the devs promised so much and yet everything they've released seems to be half baked. It may have gotten better since but footage I've seen seems underwhelming, even if we ignore the bugs which are to be expected. Add to that a batshit crazy fanbase that's deeply invested (both emotionally and financially) in this absolute marvel of a game that's being promised to them... I think there's a lot of grounds for people to be disappointed.

It is really, really beautiful though. But I think it will be shallow, and I think that a lot of the features that were promised will be either missing or poorly integrated.

It's just how I am tho, I like maintaining low expectations for everything so when something good comes up it's that much more exciting. I'll buy Star Citizen if it turns out to be good but some people are already down literally tens of thousands of dollars buying virtual ships for a game that's not released -_-

On August 18 2016 00:40 FFGenerations wrote:


what are you talking about, star citizen posts youtube updates like every freakin day, from what i see they are doing fantastically