The No Man's Sky Thread

I really don't think NMS/HG gets anywhere near enough credit.
Amen to that.

What the launch proved for me wasn't that Sean Murray lied (he didn't - everything he said you'd be able to do you can do, and more), it was just how spoiled brat-ish the gaming community really is. :rolleyes: Sean Murray is a bona-fide genius, we are lucky to have him in the game development world, and he's also a lovely guy who really doesn't deserve all the hate from people who don't understand that game development is a process.

I really liked the game at release - and it's even better now. I just turn the multiplayer off.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
What the launch proved for me wasn't that Sean Murray lied (he didn't...
Not sure I understand these repeated attempts to rewrite history. Sean Murray definitely lied about what the game would be at release and his numerous lies are on record for everyone to see. He had the choice, as head of the project, to correct himself and avoid those lies prior to release; but he opted to not do it. He preferred to remain silent and enjoy the full weight of the pre-sales and release hype windfall without a single clarification or excuse even for over a month after release when players had confirmed some of those lies within days.

It has been a while and the game has evolved a lot since then for the better though and SM deserves a big kuddos for sticking with it, that is for sure. Imo NMS is definitely worth of being in any space sim fan library. I have indeed enjoyed it. But a big chunk of the funds he has been able to do it with have come from those release lies. There is no need to re-write that release time history, just acknowledge it and move on man.
 
Last edited:
I don't think he said all features would be there on initial release. To be honest, it's probably the cash injection from the initial release that has allowed the game to be developed into it's current state - which is that most of the stuff is in there.

The alternative way of doing it.... Star Citizen's way...
 
Not sure I understand these repeated attempts to rewrite history. Sean Murray definitely lied about what the game would be at release and his numerous lies are on record for everyone to see. He had the choice, as head of the project, to correct himself and avoid those lies prior to release; but he opted to not do it. He preferred to remain silent and enjoy the full weight of the pre-sales and release hype windfall without a single clarification or excuse even for over a month after release when players had confirmed some of those lies within days.
Well, no - it seems it's you re-writing history there I'm afraid. They were not lies - they were plans, and he was excited to talk about them. Others took from them what they would. He's a games developer & designer - he's not a corporate PR man told to hedge his bets. He talked big about what NMS was going to be, and guess what, it is. Not at release... but he never said everything would be in the game from the start.

This post explains it better than I can.

It has been a while and the game has evolved a lot since then for the better though and SM deserves a big kuddos for sticking with it, that is for sure. Imo NMS is definitely worth of being in any space sim fan library. I have indeed enjoyed it. But a big chunk of the funds he has been able to do it with have come from those release lies. There is no need to re-write that release time history, just acknowledge it and move on man.
Sorry, I just don't see it that way. People who bought it at release (like me) bought into the overall vision of the game... which has arguably now been realised in just 3 years. Can you say the same for other games (Star Citizen, Elite Dangerous...)?

Ironically, gamers need to grow the hell up.
 
I disliked NMS on release. It's much better now. Sean Murray seems like a decent bloke and I'm glad he followed through with improving the game despite the release salt.
 
Sean Murray definitely lied about what the game would be at release and his numerous lies are on record for everyone to see.

But a big chunk of the funds he has been able to do it with have come from those release lies. There is no need to re-write that release time history, just acknowledge it and move on man.
Yeah, that blatant liar, he also lied about offline mode, space legs and atmospheric landings, as well as stealing other people's ships and big game hunting and whatnot... He fully enjoyed the Kickstarter hype and pre-order sales, and his elaborate ruse with the Design Decision Forum was a con masterpiece. Now we're five years into the game and nothing materialised from these lies.

Oh wait, you were talking about Sean Murray? For a moment there I was sure it was about Braben... These lies are distinguished only with Braben not specifying when the promised lies will be delivered. Same with LEP.

Seriously though, I didn't get involved in the NMS release drama, but I watched the videos after. He certainly couldn't say no to anything he was asked, I wonder if he was somehow afraid to deny things because of publishing deal with Sony or whatever. He should've drawn a line in a few places to be sure, and face the nerd rage and diminished sales which could be the end of his studio... But what I saw there was a man that was afraid to say anything negative. And that's objectively speaking, because I wasn't interested in the game back then, bought it much later on a 50% discount iirc.

Was Sean's behaviour ethical? No, it was a lie. But the reasons behind that lie are different, and they did deliver all of these "lies" (!) and Beyond! And now there's synthesis update, still FREE in which they again make game even better (and no whinging about it like FDEV did on many livestreams).

So to recap: both lied, Sean ultimately overdelivered, your move Braben.
 
Last edited:
Seriously though, I didn't get involved in the NMS release drama, but I watched the videos after. He certainly couldn't say no to anything he was asked, I wonder if he was somehow afraid to deny things because of publishing deal with Sony or whatever. He should've drawn a line in a few places to be sure, and face the nerd rage and diminished sales which could be the end of his studio... But what I saw there was a man that was afraid to say anything negative. And that's objectively speaking, because I wasn't interested in the game back then, bought it much later on a 50% discount iirc.
I think he's just a geek, who gets excited by ideas when people ask him about them. He doesn't know when to reign it in, because that's not what geeks do. That's what corporate people do, and he's not one of them. This is where Sony should have stepped in - but they didn't, because everyone wanted to talk to Sean to see the light in his eyes & watch him get over-excited about his creation.

All this was admitted afterwards by Sean and he was very sorry for apparently "misleading" people. I think he's made up for it since, no matter which way you cut the cake.

This doesn't even come close to the entirely deliberate stunts a certain company pulled in their Kickstarter to persuade people to part with hundreds of £££... 🤷‍♀️
 
Of course we all have confirmation bias, but my experience of the release was that we (well, I) got exactly the game that I had been led to believe to expect, so the furore over multiplayer caught me completely by surprise. To put the 'outrage' in to context, I do recall several people on this thread (no longer present today) being very vocal about 'the issue', with at least one finally admitting that they had not even purchased the game.

As others have noted, other games have been over imagined by their creators, and out of the three space games we all like to chew over here, HG has knocked the ball so far out of the park that any comparisons are (or certainly should be) hugely embarrassing for both companies. I'm not suggesting that the others escape criticism, however I am often shaking my head in the other mega-thread in this section when 'excited' discussions happen about some 'new and never done before' feature that already exists in NMS. It's the same with the Elite community being eager for fleet carriers, caves, space legs, rich flora and fauna, base building, more exo-craft, PvP or PvE in the same space, an interesting core narrative set in a sand-box, water worlds.... ...the list pretty much writes itself so I'll stop there... all stuff already available in NMS.

So, I am staggered that NMS isn't quoted as the reference point for all space games - with the only (I admit large) caveat being the flight model, which is slanted towards the game-play that HG want to deliver. In all other regards it's a quite amazing feat, with now eight completely free and often very significant updates - "your move Braben" and Roberts.

As for SC - I think this is proving to be the perfect object lesson for why constraint-free IT projects, and IT projects beyond a certain size, are almost guaranteed to fail. I suspect the SC/NMS/ED topic is rich pickings for perhaps an MBA or other dissertation.

(Sorry... that ended up as a bit of an essay...)
 
Last edited:
So, I am staggered that NMS isn't quoted as the reference point for all space games - with the only (I admit large) caveat being the flight model, which is slanted towards the game-play that HG want to deliver. In all other regards it's a quite amazing feat, with now eight completely free and often very significant updates - "your move Braben" and Roberts.
I'm not - because it's not really a space game. Not like the 'other two'.

If the next big update (or NMS 2, or whatever) revamps the galaxy map and adds another flight model, that might change. As you imply, it may not be something that HG want to do... what they have delivers what they intended. Both are much the same now as they were at release. But it's the one thing that E: D has that cements its place.

However, FD should be really worried. Because no matter what happens with the 'new era' - they are so far behind NMS in every other area, it's already a lost battle if that title of "reference space game" is something they want to keep in the future IMO.
 
.... revamps the galaxy map and adds another flight model...
No argumention from me regarding the galaxy map.... and navigating and bookmarking in general... they really do suck in NMS.

The flight model has improved (very slightly) through the releases, but isn't a patch on ED's, but I'd say the ship flying is almost incidental in NMS, little more than a vehicle (grotty pun intended) to get the player from a to b, so, in that, I agree that they are quite different games. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if HG took any number of steps towards ED's flight model, but I suspect that this is unlikely.

Whilst we're on the subject, I'd also really like the planets to spin in orbit around their star.
 
No argumention from me regarding the galaxy map.... and navigating and bookmarking in general... they really do suck in NMS.

The flight model has improved (very slightly) through the releases, but isn't a patch on ED's, but I'd say the ship flying is almost incidental in NMS, little more than a vehicle (grotty pun intended) to get the player from a to b, so, in that, I agree that they are quite different games. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if HG took any number of steps towards ED's flight model, but I suspect that this is unlikely.

Whilst we're on the subject, I'd also really like the planets to spin in orbit around their star.
The call for more "realism" in NMS is an old one, but unlike E: D, NMS has never tried to be "realistic". It's very pointedly and deliberately a 1950s pulp scifi epic, and makes no apologies for that. Nor should it.

My point though is that they have cracked everything else. NMS planets leave E: D completely for dust. Base building is mature & works really well, so if that forms part of "new era" they have their work cut out for them. There's a loose open-world story narrative, which E: D lacks. NMS has NPCs that you can interact with - not so in E: D. There are a thousand ways in which NMS is arguably "better" than E: D, but the true fact of the matter is that irrespective of all of this - it's not a "space" game. Very little action actually takes place in space. In NMS, space is just the bit between where the action happens.

If HG ever decided to make a conscious effort to change that (and they could, quite easily, without breaking the game as it stands IMO) then E: D would be in serious trouble IMO. I don't count Star Citizen, because that's still not a game & probably never will be.

2020 should be an interesting year for both games. Based on past performance, my ARX is on NMS, but let's see.
 
Last edited:
The call for more "realism" in NMS is an old one, but unlike E: D, NMS has never tried to be "realistic"....
Let's be honest, NMS is no less 'realistic' than the other games - and actually I like the flight model when just pottering over a planet's surface, or boosting around hills/mountains. A bit more 'bite' and less vagueness when in space would be welcome, but it's not a big deal - but it has long been clear that flying your ship isn't the main core of the game. As I said above, I really like the art style* and, in part, why I pre-ordered.

As for 2020, I'm optimistic for NMS, although I had read that HG had already thought to 'park' NMS as they already have another project underway. However it seems they decided to continue after making a significant number of sales, and felt obliged to the new players. (My words, my memory, this may all have been imagined). As for the other projects. Well, I'm not holding my breath - indeed my HOTAS is gathering dust and has been for a while.



 
As for 2020, I'm optimistic for NMS, although I had read that HG had already thought to 'park' NMS as they already have another project underway. However it seems they decided to continue after making a significant number of sales, and felt obliged to the new players. (My words, my memory, this may all have been imagined). As for the other projects. Well, I'm not holding my breath - indeed my HOTAS is gathering dust and has been for a while.
You're basically right - Sean Murray had thought that NMS was "done" after the Visions update & wanted to move onto his next thing, but then that sparked a load of sales, and (more importantly) his senior devs got excited by a few things that they wanted to do - so that became the Beyond update (their biggest to date). He's since said that they're not done with NMS yet, and plan to keep developing it alongside their other unannounced things. The Synthesis update was a bit of a surprise, but it does back those statements up. So let's see.
 
If HG ever decided to make a conscious effort to change that (and they could, quite easily, without breaking the game as it stands IMO) then E: D would be in serious trouble IMO. I don't count Star Citizen, because that's still not a game & probably never will be.
I totally agree. I posted a while ago that this was on my wishlist - a fork of their current code to make a completely separate new game. Then upgrade the procedural generation so that the galaxy(ies), systems and bodies were more realistic - Hello Games version of FDev's stellar forge, but for non-milky way galaxies (which actually makes the job a little easier).
 
I'm not sure why it is disputed that Sean Murray blatantly lied pre-launch about quite a few aspects of the game.
All the more respectable what he and HG has achieved after that. I won't credit him as this is today's trend to promise and underdeliver at launch, patch-up the game later after it loses relevance (in many cases).
Still, Sean Murray, despite all the hate and vitriol, stood up and delivered.

I mean, at the time of NMS launch, in my eyes, Elite was the poster child of space games while NMS was laughing stock. Now, NMS is pretty much a well rounded game while Elite is... just sad.

The call for more "realism" in NMS is an old one, but unlike E: D, NMS has never tried to be "realistic". It's very pointedly and deliberately a 1950s pulp scifi epic, and makes no apologies for that. Nor should it.

My point though is that they have cracked everything else. NMS planets leave E: D completely for dust. Base building is mature & works really well, so if that forms part of "new era" they have their work cut out for them. There's a loose open-world story narrative, which E: D lacks. NMS has NPCs that you can interact with - not so in E: D. There are a thousand ways in which NMS is arguably "better" than E: D, but the true fact of the matter is that irrespective of all of this - it's not a "space" game. Very little action actually takes place in space. In NMS, space is just the bit between where the action happens.

If HG ever decided to make a conscious effort to change that (and they could, quite easily, without breaking the game as it stands IMO) then E: D would be in serious trouble IMO. I don't count Star Citizen, because that's still not a game & probably never will be.

2020 should be an interesting year for both games. Based on past performance, my ARX is on NMS, but let's see.
I don't think a 1:1 comparison is fair. NMS planets are small, '1950s pulp sci-fi' as you put it and don't need to respect and coherent framework like the Stellar Forge. I mean, even from barren planets, we'd expect Elite to deliver realistic erosion, condition, atmospheric flight model based on conditions such as weather, pressure on top of the existing influence of gravity...

These space games often get lost in their vast scope. NMS has defined its scope much better than Elite, what and how they can deliver. FDev seemingly has completely lost the plot if space legs leaks are true. Instead of being the best space flight sim while building the 'human scale' narrative on its excellent lore (on top of the perceived realism of the Stellar Forge), it will be a failed patchwork space game dreamers.
 
The call for more "realism" in NMS is an old one, but unlike E: D, NMS has never tried to be "realistic". It's very pointedly and deliberately a 1950s pulp scifi epic, and makes no apologies for that. Nor should it.

My point though is that they have cracked everything else. NMS planets leave E: D completely for dust. Base building is mature & works really well, so if that forms part of "new era" they have their work cut out for them. There's a loose open-world story narrative, which E: D lacks. NMS has NPCs that you can interact with - not so in E: D. There are a thousand ways in which NMS is arguably "better" than E: D, but the true fact of the matter is that irrespective of all of this - it's not a "space" game. Very little action actually takes place in space. In NMS, space is just the bit between where the action happens.

If HG ever decided to make a conscious effort to change that (and they could, quite easily, without breaking the game as it stands IMO) then E: D would be in serious trouble IMO. I don't count Star Citizen, because that's still not a game & probably never will be.

2020 should be an interesting year for both games. Based on past performance, my ARX is on NMS, but let's see.
I want purpose. Gameplay driven purpose. Yeay! I can build a base!....but.....why? What benefit do I get from this? Why is there not much mystery in the game? Why do all the planets look alike...and yes...they look alike. There is no danger in the game. No drama. It's space lego......nothing more
 
I'm not sure why it is disputed that Sean Murray blatantly lied pre-launch about quite a few aspects of the game.
Because I think it depends very much on how you look at it. 🤷‍♀️

I don't think a 1:1 comparison is fair. NMS planets are small, '1950s pulp sci-fi' as you put it and don't need to respect and coherent framework like the Stellar Forge. I mean, even from barren planets, we'd expect Elite to deliver realistic erosion, condition, atmospheric flight model based on conditions such as weather, pressure on top of the existing influence of gravity...
All well and good, but where is that in Elite? After six years, where is their attempt at realising this ambition? As of right now, I can land on various different biomes on NMS, and walk around, discover a wide variety of plants and animals, explore caves, oceans, feed & ride animals, permanently affect the environment & create bases. Then drive or swim around in various exocraft.

Maybe they are "small", but they don't feel small. I am small. Planets are big. 🤷‍♀️

These space games often get lost in their vast scope. NMS has defined its scope much better than Elite, what and how they can deliver. FDev seemingly has completely lost the plot if space legs leaks are true. Instead of being the best space flight sim while building the 'human scale' narrative on its excellent lore (on top of the perceived realism of the Stellar Forge), it will be a failed patchwork space game dreamers.
Yup. :(

I want purpose. Gameplay driven purpose. Yeay! I can build a base!....but.....why? What benefit do I get from this? Why is there not much mystery in the game? Why do all the planets look alike...and yes...they look alike. There is no danger in the game. No drama. It's space lego......nothing more
They could certainly do with more biomes (you can get mods that add 1000s more), but to say they all look alike is simply wrong. You clearly haven't been to that many planets. By comparison, landable E: D planets all look and behave alike. Whatever Stellar Forge may or may not be able to do, it's not currently providing any variety on landable planets. They were even all completely beige for 2+ years.

The main "game" benefit of building a base in NMS is for farming resources. Beyond that, it's just something you can do that can be as creative as you like, and you can share those creations with others if you choose. Others can visit. If you don't want to make a base - then don't. It's not compulsory. There's a lot more to the game than that.

Oh, and there's definitely danger in NMS (if that's what you want) in Permadeath mode.

You want mystery? Well, who actually are you? Why are you there, and why do you not remember a 'before'? Who is the Atlas & what is its purpose? What are the Gek and Korvax all about? What is the anomaly, and where does it actually exist? Just a few things to get you started...

E: D doesn't have bases at all... you cannot affect the environment or game world in the slightest. I can create a cave in NMS, and come back in 6 months, and it'll still be there. E: D doesn't even have caves.

Sorry, but there's really no comparison. E: D has a heck of a lot of catching up to do, because they dropped the ball big time by not focusing on planetary gameplay after 2.0 and instead faffed around with other stuff that nobody asked for or wanted. All well documented at this point, and no point in re-hashing it.

But looking at the two games side by side at this point, and NMS wins hands down on every level bar space flight.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but there's really no comparison. E: D has a heck of a lot of catching up to do, because they dropped the ball big time by not focusing on planetary gameplay after 2.0 and instead faffed around with other stuff that nobody asked for or wanted. All well documented at this point, and no point in re-hashing it.
I do love both ED & NMS and actively play both of them but this quote neatly sums up my biggest disappointment with ED. It started off with bags of promise but feels to me to have been struggling to find direction in the last couple of years or so.
 
Because I think it depends very much on how you look at it. 🤷‍♀️



All well and good, but where is that in Elite? After six years, where is their attempt at realising this ambition? As of right now, I can land on various different biomes on NMS, and walk around, discover a wide variety of plants and animals, explore caves, oceans, feed & ride animals, permanently affect the environment & create bases. Then drive or swim around in various exocraft.

Maybe they are "small", but they don't feel small. I am small. Planets are big. 🤷‍♀️



Yup. :(



They could certainly do with more biomes (you can get mods that add 1000s more), but to say they all look alike is simply wrong. You clearly haven't been to that many planets. By comparison, landable E: D planets all look and behave alike. Whatever Stellar Forge may or may not be able to do, it's not currently providing any variety on landable planets. They were even all completely beige for 2+ years.

The main "game" benefit of building a base in NMS is for farming resources. Beyond that, it's just something you can do that can be as creative as you like, and you can share those creations with others if you choose. Others can visit. If you don't want to make a base - then don't. It's not compulsory. There's a lot more to the game than that.

Oh, and there's definitely danger in NMS (if that's what you want) in Permadeath mode.

You want mystery? Well, who actually are you? Why are you there, and why do you not remember a 'before'? Who is the Atlas & what is its purpose? What are the Gek and Korvax all about? What is the anomaly, and where does it actually exist? Just a few things to get you started...

E: D doesn't have bases at all... you cannot affect the environment or game world in the slightest. I can create a cave in NMS, and come back in 6 months, and it'll still be there. E: D doesn't even have caves.

Sorry, but there's really no comparison. E: D has a heck of a lot of catching up to do, because they dropped the ball big time by not focusing on planetary gameplay after 2.0 and instead faffed around with other stuff that nobody asked for or wanted. All well documented at this point, and no point in re-hashing it.

But looking at the two games side by side at this point, and NMS wins hands down on every level bar space flight.
first thing I wasn't comparing it to ED....which yes Ed has it fair share of problems. I vs been playing NMS for quite awhike. I had a large base with over 300 hrs when that save was deleted by an update. Jumped back in and now have 200 hrs of gameplay. NMS is space lego. The short story narrative was easy and wound up to be nothing....as far as permadeath mode.....It was difficult until I got my ship off the ground. The game is way too easy. ED does have something that gives it more purpose though. That is the bgs. It could be implemented better for sure but expanding your faction gives some sort of focus and purpose. The factions in NMS are laughable at best.
 
Top Bottom