Game Discussions The No Man's Sky Thread
- Thread starter Dull Bladerunner
- Start date
-
- Tags
It's simple.
A real galaxy could "look like" the one in ED.
The galaxy in NMS does not represent by any means the structure or the content of any real galaxies. There are some many things wrong at fundamental levels that i don't even begin explaining it. It should be very obvious. It is just a infinite set of systems with colourful spheres lumped together. And that is fine!
Given the multiverse concept, a galaxy and universe could look however it wanted to. If the laws of physics can be the way we have them now, there's no reason why they couldn't be changed to fit in with the way NMS's work now. If there are infinite universes with different physical properties, then NMS becomes a reality.
Unless the rules of physics are very different in a multiverse universe, then yeah the setup is impossible, planets way too close.
To stay on topicHas anyone seen any videos showing what happens if you choose not to accept guidance from the Atlas? Is that a significant choice or just it just limit the amount of tutorial style advice you get at the start?
I'm purposefully not watching videos or reading any spoilers, so I have no idea.
I chose to accept because I didnt want to miss out on anything.
Reddit will have your answer no doubt.
Last edited:
That's a nice and substantial logical rebuttal.
This is what I was talking about. To say that promises were not kept (provable), or that the finished article does not match what was implied by the marketing (certainly that case can be made) is something that responded to with insults. Why insult if you're enjoying it? It shouldn't effect you at all...
...unless it creates a nagging little feeling at the back of your mind that you're really not enjoying it as much as you've convinced yourself that you have.
1. I haven't defended DBOBE, so what does that have to do with anything?
2. You appear to be conveniently forgetting that Frontier announced they canned the offline mode before the games final release (with an offer of a refund to those who felt they had been let down). Sean Murray did nothing at all to inform people about what the truth was, and it appears this came about only because two people intentionally went looking for each other.
Sorry, but this is nonsense (as is the multiverse "concept" as a scientific theory, which it isn't and will never be, and i say this as a theoretical physicist). Take the structure of solar systems, as an obvious example. In NMS there are main stars and planets are supposed to orbit around that. By some strange accident however, all planets in NMS are very close together, the distance between them is much, much smaller than the distance between each planet and the star. Now imagine a model of a solar system (a star at the center and then planets in orbits around that). How would this model look like for the systems in NMS? Just for illustration purposes one example: It would be a star and at some distance a cloud of planetary bodies. All planets would need to have almost identical orbits, and periods, and be almost "in phase". It should be clear, that this is by no means a typical configuration of a planetary system. On the contrary, it's absolutely singular. Finding a single system of this kind in a real galaxy is extremely improbable. And in NMS every single system looks like this. This is not a question of multiverse mumbo jumbo, it's elementary.
And this is just one thing.
Look, i really like NMS. But if there is one thing i learned, then it's not to compare it with ED. That would be like comparing "The Martian" with "Star Wars". You can enjoy both, but not if you judge each by the standards set by the other.
Actually the rules of physics in our universe is what allows life (as we know it to exist). Another universe with different physics just wouldn't be like ours in any way shape or form. Technically speaking we live (for all intents) in an infinite universe so everything you see in NMS should be possible somewhere. However that also means that somewhere in the universe monkeys are writing Shakespear and Darth Vader exists. Pretty sure our universe doesn't worth like that regardless.
The issue with NMS is that it doesn't obey any known laws of how planetary systems get created / mass distribution and so on. A different universe with different rules probably wouldn't even have planets. I don't see how it matters its just a hyper unrealistic version of our universe, thats all. Nothing wrong with a bit of fiction, its when people start believing that the universe outside our doorstep is actually like that, that you have to start worrying.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -<Removed>
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, really?
If you're going to go by that logic, then every game ever created is completely realistic. WoW, minecraft, pong... they're all 100% realism based on the "laws" and information from any of the billions of universes out there.
The original comparison was the realism between NMS and ED. ED's game universe is based off of the scientific data that we have now, and NMS is based on some Sean Murray acid trip.
Not saying that makes one better or worse than the other. But saying that NMS has any realism based off some whacky unsubstantiated theory is just silly.
Exactly .. NMS is fictionalised and stylised to make it enjoyable for the player as we all know that a 1:1 galaxy can sometimes be a little "too" much
A very interesting video from Digital Foundry about NMS's voxel tech.
https://youtu.be/zzL6q1n4ijk
Yes, that is an interesting video take on the game. I think over recent years, many games have got prettier but many lack much depth. Now this plays to the mainstream players and there is nothing wrong with that, if its what players like.
Now I play a few games that are voxel based, some of these are very in-depth, although not the prettiest by any means. But for me graphics are not the important thing, game-play quality is.
.
Now I'm not saying NMS is in-depth or not, I don't get to play until tomorrow and won't really know until I get fully into it just how deep of a game it is. Now many will say after seeing a video on YT.. 'its rubbish, Arcady'.. Well unfortunately that doesn't mean anything, if you haven't played or even given it time, then you can't really form a constructive view on it. So any game-play reviews within a few weeks, will be very bias and probably have an agenda at heart.
.
Fun games, can be as in-depth as the most 'serious' sim game. There is no real difference, I play all types and prefer sandbox/open-world sim style games. Space wise for sci-fi sim style, I'll go into Rogue System or possibly Evochron. For a more in-depth realistic space experience perhaps Space Engine or Orbiter. Building and mechanics it would be Space Engineers, KSP or Interstellar Rift. General space games that give a little of each, would be SC, ED etc.
.
Ultimately I want a game to keep me engaged. I don't mind if that is simplistic, mechanics or control wise, to a certain degree. Provided it keeps my mind interested and focused on the game and what I want from it, then I'll be happy playing it.
I am yet to see if NMS will do that (tomorrow it begins
) and won't know for sure, for some time to come (you have to give sandbox games time, even ones that end up pretty bad)..
What HG have done here is quite remarkable, the scale is vast and the variation in flora and fauna, according to the video there (if that is to be believed), is impressive. I hope the game proves to be what I first wanted to get into, a couple of years back, which is complete escapism in a sci-fi exploration world of latter years styling.
The whole game itself is a credit to the indie developer, they have set the gaming world ablaze, whichever way players think, they are ultimately talking about NMS. Few games have that affect, be that wanted or un-wanted attention.
.
I'm looking forward to tomorrow and many weeks beyond, hopefully months or years, who knows how long a game like this will keep players engaged. That is down to the player and what they expect to get from the game..
.
If modding comes into NMS, then I expect the game to get even more legs, longevity wise.
.
Choice in games is important. If your mood tells you 'sim' then load that. But really, just load whichever game your mood tells you, that way you don't miss out on much and of course, you can move from one game to another, if you give games the chance to engage your mind, you'll not miss out on gaming. [smile]
I won't be playing on console but I will be playing on my couch in various states of inebriation. I can't really do that with Elite, though I've tried. ED just doesn't translate well to couch for me. When I play ED I need to be in my chair with my joystick, keyboard and headphones.
I can see myself playing NMS while my wife cuddles with me.
I mentioned it before but i can do it again.
In NMS you land on planets and explore POI or collecting materials for crafting...
In ED you can land on atmoshereless planets explore the POI or collecting materials for crafting...
Difference? NMS is revolved around it, you can see some funky looking planets like in starbound and have to throw away any resemblance of belief in order to enjoy it. Seriously, a tropical world in NMS 22°c and the moment a rain storm comes, its goes down way below freezing point -44°c but nothing on the world is effected by the sudden drop only the player and its lifesupport.
The POI are the same repeating stuff we have in ED...from small outpost, crashes some cargo ect.
Difference of exploration:
In NMS you are to belief you are the first one that discovered a world and catalogues its flora and fauna, while at the same time a giant space station flys over it, and the occasional sentient alien race sits their...or the sentinels guarding the planet, while wings of ships fly over your head...
In ED you get lonely, isolated, paranoid, and carefull the moment you leave habitated space you are on your own, your survival aspect is not getting cought between stars and not underestimating your fuel consumption. The end mechancis of course are not as detailed as that for NMS.
In the end.
ED is a game with a exploration part.
NMS is a exploration game.
Both have different ways in doing it, but have the same aspects in other parts.
Personally for me , NMS is like being a kid running in a busy park trying to find funny insects or birds jump through bushes and break some twigs. While his imagination runs wild.
That isnt a bad thing at all, just different taste.
I will get NMS when the price drops, that for me is whats holding me back as a absolut sci-fi fan.
and? Or just stating the obvious?
I hope you do realize with that premise every discussion about reality comes immediately to an end cause the concept of 'reality' is arbitrariness then. But I trust that in one of the Uni-versions you are actually that person who is able to understand what we're all talking about here (while in another one I'm just the horse manure under your shoes).
There is only one concept of reality and that's the correct one. How can you have different versions of reality? That doesn't make sense.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
You argument from authority is meaningless. Are you a theoretical physicist in any other universes? No, so how you can start making statements about the universe or other universes is beyond me - you can't do that lol
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Wow, really?
If you're going to go by that logic, then every game ever created is completely realistic. WoW, minecraft, pong... they're all 100% realism based on the "laws" and information from any of the billions of universes out there.
The original comparison was the realism between NMS and ED. ED's game universe is based off of the scientific data that we have now, and NMS is based on some Sean Murray acid trip.
Not saying that makes one better or worse than the other. But saying that NMS has any realism based off some whacky unsubstantiated theory is just silly.
No - ED is based on scant data and 99.9999% of the galaxy has been made up. Yes it follows our physical universe as far as we know it but it's certainly not a realistic depiction of it.
NMS is obviously not our galaxy, so it must be a different reality - you just need to use your imagination.
That whole "you're the first" but you're not thing doesn't excite me at all. I want to be there with no other inteliigent life around - maybe there will be less of that as you work your way in?
You claim that 'if the people think its bad design it is bad design, even if the devs like it'. But as there are always some who hate it, your logic falls flat on its face as that would mean every game isbadly designed. Which people were trying to explain to you before...
That does seem to be the fashion.
I believe knightshark was talking about the concept of the multiverse as a whole, which from my limited understanding of the subject is far from confirmed... and also massively off topic