| ▲ | big-chungus4 7 hours ago |
| What are people on about, there is tons to do in NMS, tons of missions, expeditions, build bases, build a corvet, hunt rate parts, ships, rifles, creatures, manage a settlement, automate crafting chains, find a lucrative trading route, and this new update apps even more things. I'd never consider NMS anything close to empty, there is so much variety in the content |
|
| ▲ | BoBaitlyn 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The game has so much stuff to do its actually overwhelming. The game is definitely a sandbox though and I think for some reason a lot of people don't like going out and doing the different things you can do in the game if the game doesn't force you to or if there's not heavy progression. I feel like the same thing happens to other sandbox games too. Minecraft is one of my favorite games of all time and I could easily spend a thousand hours in a vanilla world and still find things to do, however the game gets constantly shit on by the community no matter what it does. They speedrun through the progression and then lack any creativity to do anything else in the game. I personally love building bases and customizing and collecting things, which is a large part of the gameplay in NMS. I could spend hundreds of hours doing that but I guess some people just need a constant sense of progression and the game telling you what to do because they aren't capable of setting their own goals. Anyone who says NMS lacks content or things to do has barely touched the game. |
| |
| ▲ | oooyay an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I think what most of the commentary is on is the initial gameplay loop which has to do with planetary exploration and learning words. After that there's a multitude of new gameplay loops that become intertwined. I don't think most players get that far unless they have a very old account. | |
| ▲ | Daneel_ 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think it comes from a difference in what people want. Some people want to achieve goals, while others want to be given tools to be creative. There's a whole spectrum in between, plus other motivations as well. I enjoy being creative to an extent, but I like to solve problems, so I naturally gravitate to something with a long-term goal to achieve like Factorio (I rapidly lose interest after launching a rocket though). |
|
|
| ▲ | JohnMakin 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think people are regurgitating takes from early in the game's development - the game of the last few years is absolutely nothing like the early one and I agree, there is a surprising amount of stuff to do. |
| |
| ▲ | djeastm an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >stuff to do This is the whole problem in a nutshell. I want a Game™ and they're providing "stuff to do". | |
| ▲ | consumer451 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have never played, but I watched all the drama unfold on reddit. It makes me wonder, is this what happens when you have an underwhelming launch? "You only make a first impression once" - and there is a huge price to pay for that? In SaaS and YC, it's ship early and ship often, right? Is that absolutely not the case in games? Also, how true is it in SaaS? Genuinely curious here. | | |
| ▲ | JohnMakin 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, I believe this is a thing. I'm not sure why, but I think for game releases, especially hyped AAA games, your highest player counts are almost definitely going to be the highest in the first weeks of release, so that's the strongest impression. Almost all games see a steep drop off of concurrent players later on, then it stabilizes. Improvements later are thus much less visible, and all the players that got the bad first impression have little reason to go back. I think NMS particularly made a bad mistake compounding this by hyping up the game beyond what it could actually do when it was released - that's an unforgiveable sin to a gamer. Stuff like this, it's why I often avoid big releases for the first year or two then go play it when it's on sale. For another perfect game example - Star Wars Outlaws. Terrible, buggy release with obnoxious gameplay loops. They fixed it, now it's one of the better games I've played recently. You can go look up gameplay reviews from the last year to see people shocked at its reputation, it's a very good game now and arguably would have been a candidate for GOTY if it had released in its current form. | |
| ▲ | teamonkey 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In general that’s correct and you can generally estimate sales over the life of the game before the the end of release day. But there are also early access games, which are completely the opposite. Not very much in between those two extremes though. NMS really is an exception, that they sold well enough at launch that they can keep providing free major updates for 10 years. | |
| ▲ | throwaway314155 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk 2077 are actually proof you can have an awful launch and still pivot into a large player base and continued sales via updates. Reception for both games is largely positive despite their poor initial response. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Cyberpunk 2077 is in a worse state, though. CDPR axed multiplayer from the roadmap after launch, and the updates it got (eg. working police cars, outfit transmog) should have been there at release. NMS is no crown jewel, but Hello Games did add multiplayer and held pretty close to the original vision that was offered. It's much more "fixed" than current Cyberpunk 2077 is, at least IMO. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jader201 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | FWIW, I was there from the beginning, and stopped fairly quickly (maybe 20 or so hours in). I hopped back in a couple years later after a few updates, and agree that the quantity of content was pretty big. But the quality was not -- it still felt "empty", and never held my interest long. Last year, the same thing happened. I hopped back on after a few big updates, probably spent another 10 or so hours on it (I think I started over), and felt like I had explored all there was. I feel like all the criticisms it gets are valid. I agree that the effort of maintaining a game after 10 years is incredibly admirable, especially since ever update has been free. That's amazing. And the devs should be acknowledged for that. But the game itself still feels largely empty. The progression feels mostly repetitive without feeling like you're really moving forward in a meaningful way. And, as others have said, the proc gen still feels "vanilla". I probably won't hop back in after this update. I've learned, by now, that while many praise the new content, it'll probably just feel like more of the same to me. | |
| ▲ | seplox 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As someone who played it for the very first time just last year, those 10 year old takes ring absolutely true to my experience in the game. It was fun for a little while, but it became repetitive and shallow quickly. Different strokes, I guess. | |
| ▲ | rc5150 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think maybe you're discounting that people have agency and can decide that a game they are playing actively doesn't tick their boxes. I reinstalled it last week and put in about two hours before uninstalling again. Mile wide and inch deep is exactly the way to describe it. | | |
| ▲ | JohnMakin 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I think maybe you're discounting that people have agency and can decide that a game they are playing actively doesn't tick their boxes. > Mile wide and inch deep is exactly the way to describe it. Aren't you doing the same thing you're saying? Plenty of comments in this thread disagree with your assessment. If the game isn't for you, that's one thing, but it's a factually untrue thing to say "there's nothing to do, game is sparse after a few hours and novelty wears off" like many comments say. This suggests the person did not actually see a lot of the game, which is fine, but it's still not a trustworthy evaluation to me. | | |
| ▲ | seplox 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | "There's nothing to do" is a straw man. There are about 6 things to do over and over and over and over. |
|
| |
| ▲ | simoncion 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I think people are regurgitating takes from early in the game's development... Some are, sure. But -I say as someone who enjoys the game for what it is and still pops in every now and again to mess around with it- there's not much game in the game. Like BoBaitlyn said, it's a sandbox game. It has always been a sandbox game, and there are some folks who spend a few minutes fucking around with the sand in the box, go "WTF, this is boring as shit. I'm out!" and are boggled at the folks who enjoy playing with all the sand. There's nothing wrong with being boggled or talking about how much you hated the sandbox. Specific sandboxes tend to appeal to specific sorts of people... each one often has its own gimmick that will pull in different sorts of folks. Suggesting that most complainers are complaining from a position of ignorance when they're complaining about a lack of things to do in a game that doesn't have much game in it kinda sucks. I've been playing off and on since v1, and have played for about half of the major patches. Hello Games has added a lot of stuff, but they haven't really added in much game to the game, if you see what I'm saying? |
|
|
| ▲ | lconnell962 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think some people don't understand what a procgen survival-craft game is. They're not wrong about it being an open sandbox, that's kinda the point. People talking about taking too long getting to space might not know about the limited time expeditions you can just start in for a different take, or turning the game to creative mode so they don't need to spend time resource farming to get their ship working so they can go fly around if that's all they want from the game. The story and those quests will be rooted in building something. The space exploration will be rooted in finding a cool place loosely intended for your next base. The space battles and encounters will be part of the same core procgen survival craft cycle. I won't deny there's probably only 20-40 hours of "real content" in the game. Most of what is there is shallower, or easilly missable, without the expedition(limited-time event) that launched it. A lot of things do seem like "grind X yourself, order team to do Y every few hours, fly to Z and talk to someone" which will get repetitive if/when you keep getting the same ones. |
|
| ▲ | isotypic 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There are lots of things to do, but the actual mechanics are for doing them are shallow. The best example of this is the trading system; the way trading works is there are 7 economy types a star system can have, which determines which goods they produce (can buy in large quantities) and demand (can sell for a higher price than at normal systems). Thus the best way to make money from trading is to simply find a loop of systems which chain together the production -> demand goods. For instance, the economy types trading -> advanced materials -> scientific -> trading each produce the goods demanded by the next economy type in the chain. So the system is fairly shallow, since what you end up doing is just jump from system to system and buy and sell everything. |
| |
| ▲ | EagnaIonat 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well there is piracy and smuggling now. The latter is easy way to make cash with minimal risk. But if you want to get rich just find a few player farms and harvest. You will make millions in no time. |
|
|
| ▲ | asdff 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And all of it is like, run around, press x. load stuff in processor. take stuff out of processor. wait. load stuff in processor. take stuff out of processor. wait. oh your crops are ready. pres x, x, x, x, x, x, x. go to sales terminal, sell crops, go to processor, take stuff out of processor load in processor again. oh hey crops are ready again, x, x, x, x..... Missions: fly to randomly chosen planet in solar system and to same generated structure and find the object in the same spot as it always is in this generated structure. fly back. your crops are ready again for harvest, press x, x, x, x, x, x... |
| |
| ▲ | eclipticplane 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | My hot take on why these games get popular (including some like PowerWash Simulator that are 'press x, then x again' type games): it gives people satisfaction of completing something in a world that it is increasingly harder to accomplish what the prior generation did. | | |
| ▲ | andybak 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I find incremental (clicker) games fascinating because they are like crack for certain brains (myself included if I let them). There's something interesting going on with certain kinds of activity - exponential progression and incessant busy-ness. It tickles something that shouldn't be tickled. | |
| ▲ | asdff an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I feel like for some of them they are almost like tarpits for some gamers. Think of some gamers in mmorpgs with like thousands of hours under their belt in some game, content with grinding, learned complicated meta, have some working understanding of the in game economy. Or these other sort of "logistics simulator" games where they are making spreadsheets to min max various in game phenomenon and scaling out and compounding their efforts. It is like what if they were putting that undiagnosed hyperfocus into the local lawncare industry instead. Start off with a $50 mower at Level 1. Grind all summer gaining xp and unlocking more quests. Get enough for a riding mower with better DPS so you can do more lawns in a day and improve xp rate. Get enough to unlock a helper. Get two helpers. You stop mowing and its the helpers going out with your name on the side of the truck. Now you are a successful small business owner. Same sort of mind that optimizes the in game meta could play the real life meta too. No one tells you about this when you are 14 years old though. None of your friends are doing this. There aren't forums and discords talking about this. Everyone's gaming though. And it can be even a tar pit for smaller stuff than one's career. It is a big meme for someone to have say a beautiful base built in some game, really carefully done and really ornate, and the room they play in is an absolute disgusting disaster of trash and unclean clothes tossed everywhere. All in game chores done to a T of course. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dakial1 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People who didn't follow up their post-launch recovery still have the impression made at the launch (first impressions matter a lot). I didn't play the game (yet) but I have followed their recovery path. It is an incredible story and it seems that the game has evolved a lot. I wonder if they won't add generative AI to create infinite stories/missions inside it, that would get rid of the 10K bowls effect. |
|
| ▲ | kjs3 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Noone said it was empty. Noone said there wasn't a lot of 'stuff' in NMS. What many of us are saying is that all that stuff doesn't make the game fun. |
| |
| ▲ | andybak 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Different people find different things fun. I've never been grabbed by multiplayer FPS (I never git gud) - or souls-likes (same). I do sometimes get sucked into some Bethesda games but I need to get over the initial hump. I had a serious Minecraft problem (solo play - not groups) and had a big Beat Saber phase. I still play OG Doom but never liked Quake. I usually hate games with narratives except when I don't. Journey nearly made me weep with joy and sadness but I don't tend to go for slow, arty games in general... And - in general I want to like games, find them fascinating as a medium - but find most of them tedious when I sit down to play. |
|
|
| ▲ | messia 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| stuff to do != fun stuff to do |