Why Is No Man's Sky Getting SO MUCH HATE?

You could randomize your weapons (with like parameters and go hog wild) now theres 10k weapons, you randomize your enemy behavior from really passive to aggressive (throw in some random parts to build the monsters with) and now theres hundred of enemy types.

 

Except there is not. There are 10K variations of one weapon. That's the inherent problem of most procedural generation systems.

 

I already jumped on the procedural bandwagon of marketing a tiny bit for my last game. The position of the plants that appear at the bottom of each level are placed in a controlled random manner. So I figured I could say oh procedural generation and mentioned it somewhere Twitter or otherwise I am not sure now.

Current game has dozens of configurations for treasure placement and enemy spawner placement. I'm just doing it because I like variety and replay value. But it will lend itself well to "thousands of different treasure configurations and hundreds of different enemy spawner locations help to keep the game fresh and challenging"

Of course, each level in this game takes place on a single screen so I just did that without even thinking about it. Just seems like a necessity.

 

TL;DR,

"No Man's Sky is as vast as an Ocean, but has the depth of a puddle." ~AngryJoe

 

I think many of us have. Many of the terrain tools on the asset store use procedural generation as does World Machine and other height map tools. There are several dungeon assets out there that do the same. Nothing wrong with that. It saves time and since we are usually small teams, it allows us to produce more faster.

It probably only becomes a problem if you depend on it to carry your game. As one said, one gun multiplied ten times and placed in the world is boring.

 

Yeah, AngryJoe said it best. His video on NMS was fantastic.

 

My first introduction to Angry Joe. The kids love him. I do worry about his health though. No one should be that stressed over games. lol

 

That reminded me of Spore for some reason. The game was very shallow, but I still enjoyed playing it.

 

No man's sky seems to share a lot of characteristics with spore. It doesn't surprise me you jump to comparisons. My mind has gone there a lot too.

 

Sure, but there are plenty of cases where the opposite has been said or implied. You can't expect every consumer to have seen every single piece of your marketing material. So I think it's fair enough for people who did see the material where multiplayer was discussed to be disappointed that it didn't make the final game.

 

There has to be some multiplayer element present in order to support people running into each other regardless of the probability of it happening. He should have simply said there was no multiplayer and left it at that. With the way people latch onto statements you've made you're better off saying as little as possible and making statements that are very difficult to misinterpret.

 

I'm curious as to whether it's going to have any legal backlash. If you look at Colonial Marines they successfully claimed against the devs because the pre-release footage and descriptions wasn't born out by the release of the game. Given the NMS pre-release footage shows all kinds of gameplay that just isn't there, there are high profile announcements of things which couldn't have been (even if there were low profile backpedals and denials later) and they charged full price despite that for what amounts to a (impressive from a developer pov) tech demo with some shallow "survival" gameplay on top; I do wonder if there isn't some lawyers somewhere looking at the prospect of a big pot of money from them (well, Sony )

*gets more popcorn on order... *

 

Have you ever noticed that you might watch a movie for $20 and watch it for 2 hours, it might be terrible but you would never ask for a refund. But if you buy a game for $5 and play it for 20 hours and don't like it people want a refund? Wattupwidthat?

 

people care more about or are more invested in interactive media than voyeuristic media?

 

Honestly, though, the only thing I learned from that thread is that I probably should get no man's sky once it is on sale and once I have some spare time to play it.

Thewhole thing about "promises" "multiplayer/no multiplayer" occasionally starts sounding like dictionary/semantic argument.

Kotaku's review:
http://kotaku.com/no-mans-sky-the-kotaku-review-1785383774

Shows that the game might be interesting if the player ignores all the hype/advertising nonsense

 

I know somebody who does ask for refunds, and personally I don't buy a movie just for the movie. If it doesn't have at least two commentary tracks and a few hours of extras it's a waste of money.

The El Mariachi/Desperado double-DVD is still one of the best movie packages I've ever bought. No Man's Sky is no El Mariachi, and Murray is no Rodriguez.

 

As far as I get it, there is a slim niche of player who this game is really made for. There is a bigger niche that might enjoy the game as long as they are aware of its severe limitations.

Problem was that the game was advertised as having something for EVERYONE, which is simply not true.


So yeah, I guess if you enjoy a walking simulator that gives you tons of same-ish vistas on procedurally generated worlds to look at, and procedurally generated wildlife to observe, without expecting much gameplay whatsoever, the game might appeal to you.

I guess the angryness of some people about the "multiplayer lies" stem more from there just not being much to the game other than travelling through the procedurally generated galaxy and walking around. Multiplayer might just be at least ONE more thing to do after that became boring some hours into the game.
Not that it would matter much if you could just hang out with other people online and name planets, farm rocks and oberve alien wildlife (read, just hang out with people and do nothing together)...

 

Watching a boring movie alone is, well, boring, but like most things it becomes infinitely more fun when you make it a social activity. A social aspect adds a huge amount of entertainment to something because you're doing it with a friend and that friendship carries over.

 

It is not some semantic argument. The developer said for years (including on national television) that you could play the game online with friends, looking at each other and interacting with each other. He described epic space battles that would be included in game, and vibrant economies. He repeatedly compared the multiplayer in NMS with the multiplayer in Journey. His description of NMS was definitely a multiplayer game. NMS was supposed to be a shared virtual universe to explore, but instead it is merely some rocks to shoot at by yourself.

This is not a semantic argument. Nobody is confused about what various words mean. The developer repeatedly and clearly described a vision for an awesome game, but then delivered a different game. Even the video on Steam shows footage that does not really exist in the game.

 

What do you think he should have done when he realised they had promised more than they could deliver? I think there are a few options. Like release a "part 1" at a lower price and "part 2" next year as a DLC. Or maybe just slash the price refund half the price to preorders and admit "yeah, we over promised, sorry. Refunds available or have this game at a lower price".

Or, for the most brilliant PR, give away the first version for free. And then people can upgrade to the "pro version" in two years time when it's finished, pre-orders get the pro-version and updates for free.

Then he could look like a hero instead of a snake.

(Obviously the free version would have a horrible splash screen that said "NMS personal edition" on it. Ooooh. I went there. )

 

You know if I were debating this or defending no man's sky at this point I would request a proof link for every single statement of yours.

However, I'm not debating this and I'm not defending no man's sky.

This is why I don't listen to pre-release promises.

In this situation most likely what happens is:

Develper says: "Our game will have multiplayer and vibrant economies, there will be epic battles..."

What developer means: "I envision a game where people will be able to travel the world together, participate in battless... thinking of it, we need to start prototyping those parts.... oh and economy would be cool, I envision that too!". I.e. he describes an ideal vision of the game that exists in his mind RIGHT NOW.

Here's how (some of the) public understand it: "I thereby swear by name of all earthern gods that our game will include multiplayer and economy, and in case our studio fails to deliver those feature, to defend the honor of our studio our team will commit seppuku on national live tv".

This is why it is in the end semantic argument.
When people/developer speaks about something, they often speak of things they would like to implement and will implement, if given the opportunity. However, the portion of the public that gets upset somehow interprets it as an equivalent of a written contract or taking an outh that a feature will be present in final release.

Then there are all those extra special people that can take a look at few screenshots and somehow envision a perfect game where they can do everything.

Human speech has a great deal of uncertainty in it, and trying to interpret every thing someone says literally will lead to great deal of disappointment. Trying to eliminate the uncertainty will lead to creation of equivalent of lawspeak or politically correct speech.

Here's also few fun possibilities. Let's say someone say "we're planning to implement feature X". That means they may not ever to actually attempt to implement it, because "planning to implement" does not mean they will implement it. Alright, now let's say someone in mid-development says "We HAVE feature X". That does not mean that final version will have the feature. By the time of the release the feature may be scrapped, disabled, and in addition to that developers may abandon a plan to ever add it to the game.

That's why it is a good idea to avoid all pre-release information and expect nothing (good). That's the best way not to get disappointed.

 

One option would have been to post an announcement stating the features were being cut back, and explain why. Then switch the price to a more realistic price point (like the $20 to $30 range that other people have already mentioned). Then explain what it will take to add all of the features described over the past three years.

If the announcement was especially well crafted, the developer could have taken the high road and looked like a hero developer who was still trying to build his dream game despite all odds. He could have chalked the entire current game up as an indie learning experience, and set the stage for NMS2 to fully realize his original dream.

But instead of doing that, by releasing a clearly incomplete game for a full $60 price, the developer has made it obvious that he wants to cash out on the existing hype. He understands that his name is mud, and he little if any interest in working in the gaming industry again. It is sad, because millions of us still want to play the game he described for the past three years.

 

Basically... there's a great deal of difference between

• What people say
• What they think/believe.
• What they do
• What they can reasonably promise
• and What they deliver in the end.

Let's say when the developer said "we will have multiplayer", he was speaking the truth and actually believed that the end version of the product will have it implemented. Then due to circumstances plans to implement multiplayer had to be abandoned, possibly permanently.

Now what? Group Seppuku on live tv to defend the honor of the clan... erm game development?

 

Start with video. It is less than one minute in length and offers multiple examples of the developer talking about multiplayer in NMS.

 

I predict that the same thing is going to happen wit SC :rofl:

 

I just had a vision of the other developers watching Sean on TV thinking "Oh, Sean why did you say that!"

Also, I reckon Sony must have pushed for them to stick to the $60 price point. They were probably just piggy-backing on the hype and wanted to get the most money they could. That's the problem with getting into bed with the corporates. What a drama!

 

I'll believe you without watching on the video, however, there's a problem with the video's title.

"Lying" means developer intentionally misled the audience.

If we're dealing with failure to deliver, then what? ("We thought we'll be able to implement that but then we couldn't") Keep in mind that "what to do in case of failure to deliver" is a question worth thinking over, because many game developers may end up in this situation, although magnitude of failure may vary.

 

The video is less than one minute long, and contains multiple examples of the developer boasting about the multiplayer aspects of NMS. Before being critical of the video's title or writing it off as a semantic argument, take the time to watch the video.

Anyway, this thread asks "Why Is No Man's Sky Getting SO MUCH HATE?" The answer is because a lot of gamers feel like the developer lied to them.

 

"-I have trained you well, my pupil; You have mastered the dark side!"

 

To me the body language does seem to suggest he's not comfortable with his answers (not to mention all the qualifying words).

 

I think the body language suggest a dude who is not a good choice for dealing with the press/public relations.

 

The point is that he's being branded a "liar" despite not necessarily having told a lie.

If I tell you I'm going to get somewhere at 7:30, and I actually arrive at 8:00, does that make me a liar? Or does it make me late? It only makes me a liar if I knew I couldn't arrive by 7:30 and said I would anyway.

The internet will do what the internet does, so I'm hardly upset about it, but I don't at all think it's fair to call that fellow a liar.

 

Some of these interviews are as recent as a few months before launch. It's more like if you said "I'll be there at 7:30", it's currently 7:25, and you're pantsless in an airport in Prague.

 

i just feel like Sean Murray experienced with dealing with the public, and just wanted to tell everyone what they want to hear.

 

So how long ago do you think they printed the boxes? The ones with a multiplayer logo on them, which was then covered with a sticker.

It could actually be that they were really close to having multiplayer, or thought they were, and had to drop it quite hastily.

 

Its easier to cut multiplayer than to create it tbh... I recall a tweet by Sean saying one shouldn't expect a mp patch in just one week (really one shouldn't expect any kind of software features in just a week)...

 

Let's talk back about procedural generation, The thing they drop the ball hard was with encounter generation, we can even argue that GTA has encounter generation (on top of static lay out) by spawning randomly generated pedestrian of various function. Most game don't pay much attention to generating "gameplay function", instead they focus on "visual layout" (rather than functional layout). Which bring to another problem, circulation in generative layout algorithm. Spelunky promise endless procedural level and deliver, it focus on function first.

http://www.polygon.com/2016/4/13/11420836/spelunky-map-creation

The lesson is, if your procedural generation isn't also emergent but rely on big number, you have simply failed at design period.

It's worth mentioning that the creator is both a designer and an artist at the same time, not a programmer, he basically implemented basic design principle as rules.

 

True dat. Yet, there must be a TON of more entertaining online activities you could do together (read online games) in the same time.
Granted, watching the glory of SOME of the procedural vistas together is certainly something worth sharing. Making fun of the often quite ridicolous misssteps I have seen the NMS procedural produce as animals is certainly way more entertaining if done with other people.

Still, there is a lot of drab boring grunt work in this game that just doesn't seem to lend to an online expierience. Farming rocks together? The only fun thing in that is trying to farm all the rock in front of the other player to troll him. Walking across planets together? Doesn't sound like something that is REALLY lending itself to social interactions.


All the while you could spend that time in either a game which makes the time you spend together way more entertaining. Or that gives you activities to do which actually DO make more sense as a way of social interactions with friends.


So my personal opinion still is, adding multiplayer to THAT game is not going to add a lot, because there just isn't much that would lend itself to play with friends and strangers.

To be honest:

1) he kind of told "I will be there at 7:30"... it wasn't even that vague. If he said "I might be there at 7:30"... okay, most people would have assumed he wouldn't make it though, and that clearly would have affected sales in this case.
He said "7:30 is a great time, I always try to be on time... Oh, btw, did you know that I can touch my nose with my tongue?"... yes, he never explicitely said he would be on time. But he implied it. To a degree where even some pessimists were fooled.

He might not be a liar. But he is quite a trickster, if his intention really was to fool people this way. Or a damn fool that cannot pick his words correctly if it was just a slip of tongue (which would be a "tourette syndrome" level of "slip of tongue").

2) You REALLY think Hello games will waste much more dev time on NMS? I don't.

IMO, if its not in the initial offering, you will not get it. For the simple reason that the game, with the current reception by critics and the vocal minority of players just became kind of toxic.

There are SO MANY thing to fix for hello games to polish this game from plain average to good. All the while all of this does not guarantee them a RoI, as people might not listen any longer to them saying "hey we just improved our game... multiplayer IS now working". Even if some people still cared, by the time they get their sh*t working, there will be so many newer and more shiny (hyped) games that those players might not have time to give NMS a second look.

Even IF the intention was to be there at 8:00, Sean will look at the heap of cash they got with their current offering, will think about the amount of time and money he would have to sink into getting there even at 8:00, and will just not bother.

I personally will assume that the amount of cash they got with this game will actually hurt the games chances for longtime improvements WAY MORE than it helps it.
Its what the evil AAA publisher would do. It makes sense from the business side. I hope to god that Hello Games is working differently, but I fear they will just do the sane thing and not touch NMS ever again, and concentrate on developing new games instead.

 

If you're trying to talk me into spending $60 on the basis of you getting your pants on and catching that flight out of Prague to land at 7:30, and instead Murgilod has drank you under the table in a Prague airport bar, then yeah, I'm going to call you a lair. And probably schedule my next holiday with Murgilod.

 

Maybe a better comparison would be if you said to me "Maybe we'll meet at PAX East this year, it's not super likely though, with the convention being this big and all that." and then you just don't show up at all. Whether you originally intended to go or not, is something different.

 

This thread has been pretty civil compared to other discussion threads about developers and their game receptions.

I would like to weigh in.

I remember seeing the demo Murray showed at the convention. The concept is interesting, however...

I was one of those devs that saw that presentation and did not fall for it. I understand the amount of work that goes into such an endeavor and I also know the limitations of computers, servers and the internet in general. There was no way that game would fly as he described it so I knew it was "exaggeration" on the extreme. I figured right there it was going to be a single person game with a "shared" experience and not true multiplier game.

That interview has been uploaded to youtube. Quite impressive for a indie dev to get on the late show over a game simply based on hype. We need more exposure on such things to promote our small but growing industry.

I am of the opinion they should have used their engine to create a Master of Orion, Galactic Civilizations or Sins of a Solar Empire style of game with that MASSIVE galaxy creation ability.

That too me would be impressive. It could have been kept to absolute abstract concepts and they could easily have included multiplier into it as its mostly just numbers being sent around with some text strings. Get rid of the First Person and be like those games mentioned and THAT would be cool. Gamers can form their own Galactic Federation or Empire or Dominion or what have you. Develop worlds to improve on them, go to war with massive fleets, form alliances, trade resources, etc.

Why I think I feel a game development itch coming on...

 

Yeah, you are a developer. But the game was not made for developers. So the zillions of people out there that didn't know it was impossible believed it would happen.

While an amazing achievement, I think the fact that a large percentage of players have already stopped playing the game, the regular Googlenews is covered with negative stuff about NMS, and the loads of videos showing him promising stuff that he couldn't deliver really says it all.

We want to defend him, but it is hard to do so. Best thing to do is to take a lesson from this. Be careful about promising more than you can deliver.

Role play...that would have been fun. Actually, my son and I were considering getting it as a reward once we made our first milestone. But not interested in it anymore. I find all that stuff you mentioned boring..but had I been able to play with friends, it might have been fun.

And...oddly, I didn't watch the hype before hand. I just heard my friends and family tell me it was going to be multiplayer and believed it. LOL

Not really disappointed as I didn't care all that much and we will find another game as our reward. But I can understand why so many are angry, especially with the price tag of the game.

 

The number of concurrent players have drop 90% after 2 weeks, That's in line with most popular games not skyrim. So it's likely most player drop around 20h/50h, which is decent, uncharted 4 don't last that long, most AAA that aren't big RPG don't last that long.

 

I understand that, but many developers go to these conventions as well (especially in the indie industry) to see the competition.

Plus even though I develop, I am also a gamer. If they had used this tech to create the next Master of Orion, Star Control, Galactic Civilization or Sins of a Solar Empire, I would sign up in a hot minute and drop 60 bucks like its burning my hands.

 

Of course! My point is that you looked at the information coming out and realized how futile it would be for someone to add multiplayer to that game....or other developers did as well.

The average player just believes what they hear. They don't question.

 

I'm sure certain changes could be arranged. For a start, would NMS have been a better game if they had used UE4?

Serious question: how do those people on average describe their experience? Is it "I got xx hours of exciting quality entertainment out of this." or more along the lines of "I gave up after xx hours of sub-par space-minecraft grinding". Time spent alone is a poor metric to judge the quality of a game imho.

 

It would've taken 1 or 2 years longer, had higher fps and higher system requirements.

If you check steam reviews, you'll see bunch of people with 20..30 hours of gameplay and negative review. Negatives/positives are evenly split.

Here are some positive reviews:

Overall, it looks good portion of people that left review decided to downvote the game because they felt strongly about some unfullfilled promise, and not because the game is bad.

So, in the end it looks like the problem with no man's sky was letting Sean Murray describe the game to the public. Would've been a smoother ride if someone else did the talking.

 

When someone says "Please sign a contract saying you will pay X price for this game, and you will be the first to have it. By the way, this game will have the following features." That does sound like a legal contract. If the game doesn't have what the developer says, the contract is void, and no money should change hands.

 

Watching this whole thing unfold over the past week on various sites...I don't understand people who put down $60 on a game based on hype and then act like they were robbed at gunpoint when it isn't the life changing experience they were expecting.

 

Except that's not what's happening. Nobody was expecting a "life changing experience" but the game that they were sold in dozens of prerelease interviews, trailers, and demonstrations. What they got instead was Early Access Survival Simulator But In Space for $60.