That's a really refreshing video - so nice to see and hear other HG peeps enthusing - and that's NOT a dig at Sean - far from it - it's just so nice to see his infectious enthusiasm in the whole team.
I'm very much looking forward to NMS.
Game Discussions The No Man's Sky Thread
- Thread starter Dull Bladerunner
- Start date
-
- Tags
That's a really refreshing video - so nice to see and hear other HG peeps enthusing - and that's NOT a dig at Sean - far from it - it's just so nice to see his infectious enthusiasm in the whole team.
I'm very much looking forward to NMS.
Where?
Generic universe with no real structure to it (based on looking at the NMS Galaxy map.)
Small simplistic solar systems.
Very short draw distance.
Planetary bodies with atmosphere only...because of the draw distance. Draw distance limitations can be presented as "thick atmosphere".
Planetary bodies with one biome only...it will look the same no matter where you land.
No really large scale features on the terrain like the huge craters/cracks/ejecta that can be seen in ED.
Very simplistic terrain generation in terms of details.
Every gameplay element is going to be a lot more simplistic compared to ED.
Yes, NMS has vegetation, animals and atmosphere with weather. But so did Spore (and Minecraft and plenty of others). Hardly a huge advance on things that has been done before. If FD had delivered to the quality level of NMS there would have been pitchforks all over the place!
I could go on...
However!
NMS looks fantastic for what it is and it's a release day purchase for me!
That the gaming press hails it like the second coming and treats it like these things have never been done before and is "magic" is something I find somewhat amusing though...
Hi Tinman,
You ask where when I already drew up a list, just ignoring it won't make it go away.
Didn't think it would be long before Elite Dangerous unofficial Ambassador put in an appearance.
Remember we are talking about the procedural generation here so some of what you list is irrelevant.
Are the draw distances relevant? Perhaps and they are poor in NMS but it has been developed primarily for console and there is infinitely more to draw than on Elites uniform barren planets so hardly a poke int he eye for NMS there.
Likewise, complaining there isn't enough variety in the flora and fauna is a bit rich when E D has none at all LOL
Well you will b e purchasing NMS and we have both already purchased ED.
My preference is toward simulator rather than arcader so I prefer the style and complexity of ED (If and when it gets there)
I will likely buy NMS just for a quick blast but I will reserve judgement on the gameplay element.
What I ma saying is they are 3 man team I believe and their procedural generation is way ahead of anything we see in E D.
If for example ED could do deformable terrain then why wasn't it implemented in Horizons? Maybe they think that is worth a £20 add on later though? :x
Sniping aside, I just think that Frontier really need 2.1 to go well and look at their pricing to content strategy because it soon won't be the only fish in the pond.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Hmm, personally (and having worked with heightfield landscapes in games many years ago) I wasn't overwhelmed with the video of the man running across, what looked like a fairly low resolution landscape. It's pretty depressing that what Frontier can deliver to your hard drive today impresses you less than what a developer shows in a very short video with no indication of how it constitutes a product you can get your hands on right now, but C'est la vie. I wonder if it's just the apparent illusion of an earth-like environment that sways you... I'm not sure that even the most passionate Star Citizen fan is expecting a release this year but we should discuss that in the appropriate thread
Commercial release will likely be 2017, I was talking about a procedural planet update.
What the tech demo displayed was that collision detection is already in place for first person and draw distances are huge.
Terrain textures are really no big deal.
I don't think you really understand the purpose of tech demos - they are not even in game alpha.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
So much about FDs bad marketing strategy
LOL yeah but I forgot they charge for the ability to scratch your in 3rd person.
Last edited:
Collision detection and draw distance is a "leap frog" in procedural generation technology is it?
With all due respect. I don't think you really understand the purpose of procedural generation
Where?
Generic universe with no real structure to it (based on looking at the NMS Galaxy map.)
Small simplistic solar systems.
Very short draw distance.
Planetary bodies with atmosphere only...because of the draw distance. Draw distance limitations can be presented as "thick atmosphere".
Planetary bodies with one biome only...it will look the same no matter where you land.
No really large scale features on the terrain like the huge craters/cracks/ejecta that can be seen in ED.
Very simplistic terrain generation in terms of details.
Every gameplay element is going to be a lot more simplistic compared to ED.
Yes, NMS has vegetation, animals and atmosphere with weather. But so did Spore (and Minecraft and plenty of others). Hardly a huge advance on things that has been done before. If FD had delivered to the quality level of NMS there would have been pitchforks all over the place!
I could go on...
However!
NMS looks fantastic for what it is and it's a release day purchase for me!
That the gaming press hails it like the second coming and treats it like these things have never been done before and is "magic" is something I find somewhat amusing though...
To the bolded... isn't that kind of pooh-poohing Elite: Dangerous, though? I mean, aside from maybe the background simulation (which I'd argue isn't even a huge breakthrough, just taking an existing concept to a greater extreme by relying on servers rather than actually finding a way to form a proper approximation on a local device,) there's pretty much nothing about E: D that hasn't been done in games much older than Spore or Minecraft, including the original Elite or even Oolite. Even Eve arguably has far more complexity, and I specifically avoid it BECAUSE of that complexity. Sure, Elite: Dangerous does a lot of things BETTER than those old games- visuals, etc- but given you insisted on bringing up Minecraft, (which suggests you're not taking in account the complexity of a given system, simply rather it has ever existed in any form,) I'm guessing your criteria is 'Total, 100% Originality.' Which, again, E: D does not meet.
Anyway, if we want to bring up inherent limitations in the design of a game...
No Man's Sky's solar systems are far simpler, certainly, but they do appear to actually occupy the same 'space,' which is something E: D sort of decided to avoid in favor of their 'boxes/rooms' design that lets them store every station, Nav point, resource site, solar system and Funeral ship in an alternate dimension from everything else. Again, design decision, certainly much easier for them than keeping everything in the same 'overworld,' but that still is very much a technical limitation, and without being completely overhauled, it's unlikely to change. No Man's Sky? The solar systems and everything on the planets are, in their entirety, one consistent place. (And I'm a bit less certain about this one due to how long it's been, but very early articles suggested that even the entire universe is just one giant coordinate map, meaning (speed permitting) you COULD fly directly from one solar system to another, no 'boxes' needed.) The kicker actually is that there's nothing from a technical standpoint that says No Man's Sky's planets couldn't be further apart, given there's no limitation (beyond, like E: D, fuel I'd imagine) on how far you can manually fly out and again, it's a consistent coordinate system, so even if the planet was a full month away, you could aim your ship's nose at it and eventually reach it. The decision to have them closer together was made due to a combination of aesthetic and gameplay reasons, i.e. having at least some worlds within easy reach, (particularly given you need to develop and build the tech to jump between worlds,) and the whole 'Sci Fi Cover' look one would get from a day or night sky. Now, I totally get that some people aren't on board with that decision, but let's not frame it as a technical limitation. =P
The whole 'boxes' design is actually part of why I'm a bit wary about Horizons, because the space elements in E: D have already shown that while they do have consistent macro elements down pat- again, a handful of stations, designated 'resource sites,' planets as entire objects- the micro elements are pretty much tossed to the wind using things like Unidentified Signal Sources. If all the planets' "micro elements" end up following that same design choice, my concern is that a planet will have a few 'landmark' locations like a planetside station or outpost, and it will have those craters and canyons you mentioned, but then all the finer details will be entirely random and generated independent to my actual location. Meaning what I find isn't dependent on what direction I travel, or how far I go, but instead by what the game engine randomly throws in my path on a whim. Similar to how I could find Unidentified Signal Sources with the same regularity while blazing through the system at full throttle as I could when just cruising at absolute minimal thrust, because none of it actually EXISTED in the solar system to any consistent degree.
I mean, if nothing else, coming back to the exact same spot I was at half an hour ago to find all the small structures and other non-moving elements have completely changed would be a tad... disorienting. =P It remains to be seen where Frontier's going to be drawing the line between procedural-but-consistent and entirely random, but for the time being I've also got to give that edge to No Man's Sky. Every structure, tree, bush, pretty much anything that can't literally walk away on its own two/four/six/fourteen legs is in that exact spot at all times, whether I come back to it five minutes later, or fly halfway across the galaxy and come back two months down the road.
As for why the media seems so on board with NMS' planets right now; they've actually gotten to play it, given in some cases a couple of solid hours to literally run and fly around to their heart's content, and it's likely easier for members of the media- who probably hear PR buzzwords and promises all the time, and view lots and LOTS of prerendered trailers or tightly controlled tech demos- to get hyped about something they've gotten to experience, rather than just view. At this point Star Citizen's exposure as a full-fledged sci fi universe appears to be videos released when the developer wants to, and beyond lifeless barren worlds with POis, Elite: Dangerous is still on 'Yeah, our planets WILL be awesome! Eventually. Ten year plan.' Unless either of them actually deliver before the end of June, No Man's Sky is going to end up delivering more tangible sci-fi exploration elements than either game, at least until they finally catch up.
Don't get me wrong, I do recognize you're also looking forward to the game, but either you seem to be giving Frontier too much credit, Hello Games too little, or some combination of the two.
I don't believe the gap in complexity/impressiveness/whatever-you-want-to-call-it between what both teams have accomplished is nearly so clear-cut as you're making it out to be.
Last edited:
That's not what I'm saying at all.
Procedural generation isn't something new in game development, rather the opposite. Same thing applies to ED and I have never claimed anything else. The "oh...400 Billion stars! Amazing!" argument have never been a big thing for me. The accuracy of the galactic simulation on the other hand is pretty impressive. The things they have down in terms of terrain generation is also quite impressive and IMO state of the art compared to other engines out there.
What I questioned was that NMS was a "huge advance" on anything seen in ED. It isn't and in many cases is far less advanced. They have certainly been able to tackle more "things" (vegetation/life/atmosphere), but that's because they are going for a less detailed version of said things.
If you on the other hand compare the things both games have done so far then ED "wins" every time in terms of being more advanced.
Here's the thing. You're not really talking about PG here (which is what I was talking about in the previous comment). You are really talking about multiplayer vs single player, spawning mechanics and scale differences of the game world which creates their own challenges.
Going from system to system is for example something Michael have said could be done, but due to how the game is played there is very little "bang for the buck" when it comes to spending dev resources on it. I would want it too, but I agree that there are many mnay other things I rather have them focus on.
There are certainly issues with some parts of persistence in ED and I have personally written several posts about it. Especially during the Horizons Beta...who thought spawning buildings for the planet based POIs is a good idea!?!? Spawning loot drops? Sure! Materials? Fine! Ships wrecks? Ok...(I mean they could potentially have be salvaged if I came back later and they were gone). Buildings!? Nononononono...this needs to change. Something that is certainly possible by placing them with a deterministic algorithm. Something they have already done with the bigger settlements so it's certainly possible. Right now we don't really have a good mechanic for finding them if this was the case though.
ED space within a solar system is seamless and if multiplayer wasn't part of the equation (which is the case in NMS) then ED would be just as seamless. There are no "rooms" as such other than the solar system itself. What people mostly complain about in ED is the spawning mechanic which certainly can be improved and based on what has been revealed for 1.6/2.1 will be improved with us getting more POI generated at specific locations. Hopefully this will also apply to surface POIs. In NMS where the scale of the gameworld is considerably smaller encounters can instead be spawned directly around the player which gives a better sense of a connected world. This is the biggest challenge ED has due to their true to scale world and multiplayer environment. Having a faster mode of travel (supercruise) is a necessity both for gameplay, but also networking reasons. But that means you can't see the encounters spawn directly in front of you (as in real ships for example) since you would be moving to fast past them anyway. This isn't an easy nut to crack, but removing the mutliplayer and 1:1 scale isn't really an option in regards to ED, is it?
As already mentioned above. What we are really talking about here is spawning small buildings on surfaces in ED and yes...this needs to change. Every mountain, crater, crack, rock and so on in ED is exactly where it was the last time you went there. There is no reason to believe that anything else would be the case when they later add vegetation (since that will use similar placement methods as the rocks).
As for why the media seems so on board with NMS' planets right now; they've actually gotten to play it, given in some cases a couple of solid hours to literally run and fly around to their heart's content, and it's likely easier for members of the media- who probably hear PR buzzwords and promises all the time, and view lots and LOTS of prerendered trailers or tightly controlled tech demos- to get hyped about something they've gotten to experience, rather than just view. At this point Star Citizen's exposure as a full-fledged sci fi universe appears to be videos released when the developer wants to, and beyond lifeless barren worlds with POis, Elite: Dangerous is still on 'Yeah, our planets WILL be awesome! Eventually. Ten year plan.' Unless either of them actually deliver before the end of June, No Man's Sky is going to end up delivering more tangible sci-fi exploration elements than either game, at least until they finally catch up.
Don't get me wrong, I do recognize you're also looking forward to the game, but either you seem to be giving Frontier too much credit, Hello Games too little, or some combination of the two.
Once again...what my previous comment responded too was that NMS was a "huge advancement" over what ED has done, which it isn't. That's all.
All my points are with the exception of gameplay complexity are relevant to PG.
Generating and displaying a coherent terrain all the way to the horizon without "cheating" with draw distance fade out is indeed relevant.
Where did I complain about that?
FD can already do deformable terrain (see Planet Coaster). Using voxels have their own drawbacks though compared to heightmaps. They usually look rather cartoony for example. Something that isn't really an issue within the artstyle of NMS, but would not work as well in ED. Having deformable terrain in a single player experience is also quite a bit easier compared to a multiplayer one.
Don't really get why people compare ED and NMS, those two aren't doing the same stuff at all, not even close. Both have space, and thats about it. Its like comparing Mario with Dark Souls because both have a Castle
That said I'm very intrigued by NMS, gonna keep an Eye on it.
That said I'm very intrigued by NMS, gonna keep an Eye on it.
Worth noting that if you do include an exception to PG in your post- even one- then it does open the door to one's reply to focus on things other than PG. =P Although I'd still point out that the size of the solar systems, again, has more to do with aesthetic and gameplay choices than anything else. For one, starter ships don't actually have a hyperdrive, or even an inter-planet 'jump drive,' meaning if you want to get around the solar systems you've gotta space-hoof it.
Anyway, I'm starting to feel like I've stumbled on some longer-term discussion between you two and I'm missing much-needed context. xP
Basically, to explain why I initially replied, the exerpt you replied to specified how it (the procedural generation) was a huge advancement on 'anything we've seen thus far in Elite: Dangerous,' which (in my opinion, though to be fair maybe even the poster didn't mean it this way,) I believe referred to the fact that No Man's Sky's procedural generation had a lot more to DO than E: D's currently does, specifically because it is further along at this point in time. They've faced and dealt with challenges that Frontier is still going to have to deal with going forward, etc. And as someone who's watched the GDC presentation on the procedural engine used in No Man's Sky to generate everything from the rocks, trees, animals, etc, it's completely true, I haven't seen anything like that in Elite: Dangerous yet, certainly not so detailed, not yet.
If the guy you were replying to didn't mean his statement in terms of E: D's 'eventual improvement,' and was taking a more general dig, then I do apologize, but I simply believe that No Man's Sky's PG has done more at this point in time. When I compare the game that has the fully populated, explorable planets with alien species, languages, lifeforms, actual fleets, etc, etc, to the game where we can currently fly around on only the most barren of worlds in a galaxy that- while based on the Milky Way, certainly- has its own issues with generic repetition... it's kind of hard for me to see the latter as being, for lack of a better word, 'more finished.' Or that the procedural technology in E: D that is currently in front of us has to do more than NMS's.
Now, I'm not saying that Elite: Dangerous' slower, more methodical 'season expansions' approach won't eventually get it to the same level of completeness, with more detail to boot. (I mean, given how much more money I might end up having to spend to get a 'complete' Elite: Dangerous, with all the expansions, it had BETTER have more detail, or I'll be the first in here with the pitchfork. =P ) But it's still got a ways to go, and until it starts working its way down to that micro, it simply doesn't have to present the same level of detail as NMS does. That and, as you mentioned, there are still pitfalls I'm kind of wary about, like how they'll handle procedural vs. random generation for stuff like buildings. We are joined in common nononono about that one!
Our difference in opinion might come down to criteria. Your reply to me that involved very specifically focusing on just the things BOTH games have already done, and absolutely, Elite: Dangerous comes out on top. But that ends up ignoring the things that Elite: Dangerous simply hasn't done yet, or might never do, like a more robust 'tech mods' system, alien languages and diplomacy, massively varied spacecraft that handle slightly differently, etc. As such, though, when I look at them from a bird's eye view, at what each game does as a whole? Gotta give it to No Man's Sky, for now at least. Whenever Elite: Dangerous' content has progressed to the point where it is doing worlds at least slightly more complex than what it has now- ideally with at least some form of life, etc- then obviously my opinion is subject to change, depending of course on how they approach it.
Anywho, I have a greater understanding of your point of view, even if I don't necessarily agree with all of it, so I offer a peace cookie of friendship. =D
Different ways of looking at it is always the cause for disscusions.
For example...
Aren't you with that argument kind of "ignoring" all the things ED has done that NMS doesn't have and probably never will have?
For example...
Multiplayer (big one...adds enormous amounts of complexity to every single feature you implement.)
Realistic galaxy based of real science vs a more evenly spread out universe in NMS.
Far more complexity in terms of the PG generated solar systems. NMS won't have gas giants, accurate distribution of planetary bodies...I'm not even sure we'll see planets without atmosphere (due to the draw distance I mentioned earlier). So another way of looking at it is that NMS will only have rocky worlds with atmosphere.
Planets that will only have one biome per planet. Elite planets seem to be prepared for several due to things like icecaps.I also doubt NMS going to have "massively varied spacecraft that handle slightly differently" that gives more variation compared to Elite other than in regards to small visual differences between the different ships. The customization and variation that can be done to ED ships in terms of gameplay (internal modules/weapons/equipment) is rather substantial and 1.6/2.1 is going to expand on that considerably. The same can be said about "tech mods" when engineers/loot/crafting soon hits. As for diplomacy there are quite a lot of work done in ED towards factions, reputation, Powerplay and so on...I suspect the ED mission system (even with all its complaints) is going to be a lot more complex and varied too compared to NMS.
Finally...none of this is really me "talking down" on NMS as such. I'm just trying to look at these games for what they are, which is rather different from one another. If I want a fantasy/scifi experience that's a bit more causal to explore then I'll play NMS. It's going to be a first person survival game mixed with Spore and a dash of Elite. Which is awesome!
If I want something more "real", gritty with more in-depth gameplay and the multiplayer aspect attached I'll play ED.
I think you'll find me being quite positive about NMS in this thread. I do think people (especially the media) are overestimating what Hello games have done and what they can expect from that game and I do find some people are grossly underestimating what FD have achieved with ED so far.
I'm friends with everyone as long as there is a real dialog going on.
Pretty much every big space game ever.
Awesome Awesome Awesome IGN Exclusive Guaranteed 9/10, Pre-Order now. IGN EXCLUSIVE!!!
Then it's "meh, ...it's alright... It's not that great... I'm bored"*. Rant on the forum. Praise the next shiny shiny that will save us all.
*Literally me playing EvE Valkyrie last weekend.
Last edited:
I hope I never become like you. [big grin]
What is the content you are expecting from NMS then?
This is a honest question.
I think I have a reasonable idea of what NMS will be and to me that's great. I also think a lot of people will be disappointed with NMS when it doesn't live up to their expectations.
The short answer is "variety".
I want to see in different "places" diferent "things". Visualy speaking.
Last edited:
I'll give it a week or so before you have recognized all of the archetypes and patterns.
I doubt it. but it will be much longer than it took to discover the "structures" in ED.
Last edited:
Different ways of looking at it is always the cause for disscusions.
For example...
Aren't you with that argument kind of "ignoring" all the things ED has done that NMS doesn't have and probably never will have?
For example...
Multiplayer (big one...adds enormous amounts of complexity to every single feature you implement.)
Realistic galaxy based of real science vs a more evenly spread out universe in NMS.
Far more complexity in terms of the PG generated solar systems. NMS won't have gas giants, accurate distribution of planetary bodies...I'm not even sure we'll see planets without atmosphere (due to the draw distance I mentioned earlier). So another way of looking at it is that NMS will only have rocky worlds with atmosphere.
I also doubt NMS going to have "massively varied spacecraft that handle slightly differently" that gives more variation compared to Elite other than in regards to small visual differences between the different ships. The customization and variation that can be done to ED ships in terms of gameplay (internal modules/weapons/equipment) is rather substantial and 1.6/2.1 is going to expand on that considerably. The same can be said about "tech mods" when engineers/loot/crafting soon hits. As for diplomacy there are quite a lot of work done in ED towards factions, reputation, Powerplay and so on...I suspect the ED mission system (even with all its complaints) is going to be a lot more complex and varied too compared to NMS.
Finally...none of this is really me "talking down" on NMS as such. I'm just trying to look at these games for what they are, which is rather different from one another. If I want a fantasy/scifi experience that's a bit more causal to explore then I'll play NMS. It's going to be a first person survival game mixed with Spore and a dash of Elite. Which is awesome!
If I want something more "real", gritty with more in-depth gameplay and the multiplayer aspect attached I'll play ED.
I think you'll find me being quite positive about NMS in this thread. I do think people (especially the media) are overestimating what Hello games have done and what they can expect from that game and I do find some people are grossly underestimating what FD have achieved with ED so far.
I'm friends with everyone as long as there is a real dialog going on.
Huzzah for dialogue! In that case!
As for ignoring stuff E: D does that No Man's Sky doesn't, not at all, but at that point we're then drifting into differences in preference. To address your three examples;
=Multiplayer is definitely going to be a big boon, to plenty of players! ...just maybe not the ones who spend all their time in Solo, wanted an offline mode, or in my case someone who succeeded to regularly find the farthest and quietest corners of occupied space because trade routes. ;P It's not even the reason I bought Elite: Dangerous, I wanted to scratch the big, sci-fi itch that has nestled against my very soul, to have that immersive experience, and while multiplayer might have added more to do, ultimately other people did a lot to break my immersion. Basically, you would value 'Multiplayer!' to a greater extent than I, whereas I'd value 'Offline Mode!' to a greater extent than you.
-Have we ever seen No Man's Sky's galaxy from a more 'distant' scale, though, enough to speak on how it's structured? Legitimate question, if you have, I'd really appreciate a link, as I haven't. Whenever they show the galactic map, they seem to 'skim' through it at a fairly 'close' magnification, which kind of means everything is just a skimming stream of dots, and without that 'larger picture' it's hard to say from a relative perspective how much closer/further from the center the camera moves compared to the edge in each demonstration.
-The solar system complexity I will indeed concede, but a fair number of those things currently exist as non-interactive props, things I can- and goodness knows, have plenty- stared at from my cockpit at the closest possible distance. xP If nothing else, the thing borders on a massive tease. This drifts into a question, actually, what does Frontier have planned for gas giants and other bodies-not-landable? I was kind of hoping high-risk resource scooping might be a thing, where one can fight the high gravity in order to try and skim elements out of the gaseous clouds. :3
-To throw in something of my own, one thing that E: D does actually have over NMS is their ships have a greater variation in ship scale, i.e. (at least at launch,) you'll never be able to pilot something the size of an Anaconda in NMS. But when it comes to visual and performance variation, No Man's Sky does appear to edge them out due to procedurally generating their ships as well, (even the larger freighters and cruises we've seen flying around, apparently even stations,) and they will have variations in their 'performance,' whether in terms of their maneuverability, storage space or combat proficiency. This is structured a little by having a handful of ship 'classes,' i.e. vessels whose stats would be more suited to combat, trading, exploration, etc, and I think these classes might be defined by which race is responsible for 'building' the ship. But finding better ships is often going to be a combination of luck and obsessive attention to detail, i.e. checking stations and outposts you visit to see if they've any promising vessels for sale.
Anyway, I've got to point out that you've drifted into 'eventualities', several times bringing up what the game 'will have,' rather than what it does. You did it with the multiple biomes- even though right now there is only technically one landable biome, 'rock,'- then with mechanics, missions and equipment. It's great that 1.6/2.1 looks to be giving a lot of things an overhaul, and I look forward to seeing what it does. (Missions need overhauling. IT NEEDS IT. T_T ) But when it comes to 'It will EVENTUALLY be better,' you're preaching to the choir on that one, as I'm not disputing that- down the road, sometime, eventually- it'll continue building up to bigger and better things, outpacing No Man's Sky. Again, it's demanding a premium price, and taking a far longer, more calculated approach with greater resources, so I'm expecting a premium product to come out of it.
But I've found particularly passionate Star Citizen supporters tend to fall into the same argument, where it's "Oh, our game is going to have SO MUCH SHINY COOL STUFF when it's all finished, you don't even know man, you don't even know, that's why we're the best science fictiony space game out there." To which an Elite player might reply 'Yeah, sure, okay... but we've actually GOT our game right now, it's successfully done this big massive galaxy, so HA.' Regardless of what planets may be coming, or what equipment/diplomacy/mission complexity/etc may be coming, it's not here yet, (unless 1.6/2.1 released on the day I wrote this, in which case oops x3 ) and it's hard to comparatively judge something that's currently in the ether, which is why I stick with the 'wait til it's out to give it credit' approach.
Anywho, I do agree with the last bit, both games offer very different things, and that variety is key. No Man's Sky looks like it's going to be more, well, 'game-y' with a greater focus on gameplay elements rather than Elite: Dangerous' far more meticulous, 'simulator' approach. ^.^ And however long down the line I've no doubt I'll have plenty to be excited about in Elite: Dangerous when it comes to exploring planets and whatnot... I'm just vastly more excited about No Man's Sky because it's almost finished and soon, sooooon it will be miiiiiine. :3
Actually I'm not talking about personal preferences. I'm talking about different design goals between the game and what that means in terms of complexity for development. My personal preferences is that I want a little bit of both which is why I will be playing both games. 1:1 scale and multiplayer puts different challenges on the devs compared to single player and a "condensed" gameworld (smaller planets and solar system). I'm not saying a "condensed" gameworld or single player is "worse".
Can I know for certain. Of course not, but based on everything they told us and what we have seen I'm pretty sure we are going to get a galaxy/universe that basically goes from easier --> harder when going in towards the middle. Pretty much what can be seen in Spore which Sean is a huge fan of. This isn't "bad" but it IS easier to do. What I'm talking about in ED is things like how different types of stars/systems/nebula/dust are distributed around the galaxy in a believable manner and how they have simulated that.
Gas giants are certainly on the list since it was one of the first things Braben talked about during the Kickstarter. If he is excited about it and want it we will get it. Him owning the company and all.
(3:59 in the video)
[video=youtube_share;iTBvpd3_Vqk]https://youtu.be/iTBvpd3_Vqk?t=3m59s[/video]
Later they showed this work in progress of weather pattern simulation:
[video=youtube_share;BCQXXNCawF4]https://youtu.be/BCQXXNCawF4[/video]
It's just a matter of doing these things step by step. First get the geology done (terrain and later this year volcanism). Then atmosphere on top of this (and by removing the ground getting gas giants
). Then vegetation. Then life.Or as David have said:
As for animals I'm not even worried. If it's one thing Frontier have shown they are good at in other games they have done then it's animals. Don't expect these anytime soon though. And by that I mean that (planetary) alien life is probably 2-3 years away. (Thargoids is another story.)
As you say. The ships in NMS will center around a handful classes (probably the 3 you mentioned). I still suspect that ED even today will have just about as much meaningful variation in terms of "performance" as what we are going to get in NMS if you take all the ships in ED into account and all the possible combinations of weapons and internal modules that are available.
I disagree...Sure, we only have two landable "types" so far in ED (rock and ice/snow) but that isn't really a biome IMO. In ED you can on a single planet get quite drastically different vistas/enviroments depending on where you land. Inside craters, near to mountain regions, valley systems, ice cracks, smooth plains and so forth. Based on everything I've seen so far that won't really be the case in NMS (and I've watch every video). The differences between planets might be rather large, but if you see a vista like this somewhere on a planet...
...and then decide to fly to the other side of the planet you will see pretty much the same thing. According to Sean this is due to gamedesign choices. Them wanting to encourage people to explore other worlds. But I suspect there are also some technical reasons when it comes to streaming/generating the assets needed when approaching a planet.
Aren't you making the assumption that NMS will be "better"? (Since ED hasn't outpaced it yet)
Is NMS out?
Aren't you making the same mistake by assuming that the mechanics there will be "better" than ED?
In regards to diplomacy I was mostly referencing what we already have (but 1.6/2.1 will probably improve it further).
In regards to missions I was mostly referencing what we already have (but 1.6/2.1 will probably improve it further).
In regards to equipment I was mostly referencing what we already have (but 1.6/2.1 will probably improve it further...in this case rather substantially based on what we know).
Looking forward to the 22:th myself!
Also can't wait for all the posts about how NMS would be so much better if they only did X.
Followed by the devs continuing to develop it (as they have hinted).
Followed by people on forums claiming that it's a game under constant development.
And so on...
Anyway...I think we have derailed this thread quite enough. So I'm done for now!