Game Discussions The No Man's Sky Thread

...I am concerned that the most comfortable way to play will be with a game controller.

This seems likely to me, given how much jumping in and out of ships there seems to be, and how much walking about there has been in every demo so far.

So, I'll be very interested to see how FDev approach ED's walking-about aspect, given their community is (I suspect) very HOTAS-centric. I, for one... (don't you love Roman numerals...) ...don't much fancy swapping to and fro between WASD/mouse and HOTAS/Powergrid... but then maybe a mapping of hat-controller for WASD, and yaw/pitch, or better headtracker, for mouse might work..... oops... went imagineering...

Anyway, it certainly seems that NMS is shaping up to be much more a gamey-game, which fits with the sci-fi book-cover aesthetic they've gone for. I like the look tbh, just as I like the more realistic look FDev have gone for - plenty of room for both methinks.
 
Last edited:
You could have both hooked up - HOTAS for flight, switch to gamepad for land travel. No reason it couldn't work.

The game isn't really about flying though, is it? From the videos I've seen it looks very straightforward. The game seems to be more about crafting and exploring that fancy dogfighting.
 
The game isn't really about flying though, is it? From the videos I've seen it looks very straightforward. The game seems to be more about crafting and exploring that fancy dogfighting.

Theyre focusing all the media on the wow factor of the planets because it's it's most distinct feature. That doesn't mean flying and combat in space aren't significant.
 
After watching the game play footage, I pre-ordered NMS through Steam. Gives me something to look forward too this summer really. :)

I do like the PG planets / wildlife. When I found out this was developed by a team of four people my eyes had a cartoon ay-ooo-gah moment. The lack of stars in space flight leaves me a bit mystified, but maybe their demos are in nebulae. Hard to tell until release.

I do hope Vive/OR support will be forthcoming soon. That would be a killer combo.
 
The lack of stars in space flight leaves me a bit mystified, but maybe their demos are in nebulae.

As far as I understand it, this is set in some alternate universe. There's no galaxies, it's more like the whole universe is one giant galaxy packed full of cloudy nebulas. I don't think you'll ever see black space in NMS.
 

I'm not really sure they really get the concept of procedural generation though:

And if other galaxies are similar to our own, that means there will be a similar number of planets. In other words, around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 other worlds.


That’s a good five digits longer than the number of planets in No Man’s Sky, but considering that No Man’s Sky is a video game made by a handful of people, it’s astonishing that the number even comes close.

There isn't a massive difference between creating one PG world and [an arbitrarily large number]. The important factor is having enough parameters that they'll seem varied and not repetitive. There might be some challenges with having a huge number of worlds in the universe map; but once you pass a few hundred you'll be loading (or generating) those on-demand anyway, so once you have a map that's dynamically loading systems as you pan/rotate about, again the total number doesn't really matter.
 
The fact that No Man's sky from a tiny dev team are light years ahead technically in procedural generation than FD is worrysome.
FD wanted us to pay full price for an add on which had none of the technical brealk-throughs displayed in NMS.

Deformible terrain? Nope
Caves and underground sections? Nope.
Plant life? Nope
Animal life? Nope
Active geology? Nope
Atmospheres? Nope.
Climate? Nope.

This is why Elite expansion thus far is such a rip off IMO. They are giving a fraction of content for what others give for a much higher price.
Now when it comes to gameplay, let's wait and see. NMS might be useless, it may not be a better game.
But as far as proceduraly generated content is concerned Braben has been out-Brabened and ED left light years behind.
It also looks as though star Citizen is leapfrogging FD in this regard so they really need to raise their game if they want Elite Dangerous to be relevant in 2017.
 
Last edited:
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: NMS
The fact that No Man's sky from a tiny dev team are light years ahead technically in procedural generation than FD is worrysome.
FD wanted us to pay full price for an add on which had none of the technical brealk-throughs displayed in NMS.

Deformible terrain? Nope
Caves and underground sections? Nope.
Plant life? Nope
Animal life? Nope
Active geology? Nope
Atmospheres? Nope.
Climate? Nope.

This is why Elite expansion thus far is such a rip off IMO. They are giving a fraction of content for what others give for a much higher price.
Now when it comes to gameplay, let's wait and see. NMS might be useless, it may not be a better game.
But as far as proceduraly generated content is concerned Braben has been out-Brabened and ED left light years behind.
It also looks as though star Citizen is leapfrogging FD in this regard so they really need to raise their game if they want Elite Dangerous to be relevant in 2017.

Not sure about Star Citizen, there is a whole thread. So far what they have shown in this regard is a video of a bump map with a blue sky. If you think that's a leap-frog on the tectonic plates and crater science that Frontier delivered in the first part of the unfinished Horizons then I doubt there is much Frontier can do to appease you. Personally I'm kind of glad that Frontier have taken the approach of getting the science behind an airless world correct rather than slapping a blue sky on a height field.

As for NMS, looking forward to finding out if the game is actually fun and really I'm baffled that you can comprehend how much "content" it has at this stage.
 
Last edited:
The fact that No Man's sky from a tiny dev team are light years ahead technically in procedural generation than FD is worrysome.
FD wanted us to pay full price for an add on which had none of the technical brealk-throughs displayed in NMS.

Deformible terrain? Nope
Caves and underground sections? Nope.
Plant life? Nope
Animal life? Nope
Active geology? Nope
Atmospheres? Nope.
Climate? Nope.

This is why Elite expansion thus far is such a rip off IMO. They are giving a fraction of content for what others give for a much higher price.
Now when it comes to gameplay, let's wait and see. NMS might be useless, it may not be a better game.
But as far as proceduraly generated content is concerned Braben has been out-Brabened and ED left light years behind.
It also looks as though star Citizen is leapfrogging FD in this regard so they really need to raise their game if they want Elite Dangerous to be relevant in 2017.

The ELITE worlds are a lot more realistic-looking, and have staggering scale, but NMS may well turn out to be more fun. We won't know until we play.
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: NMS
The ELITE worlds are a lot more realistic-looking, and have staggering scale, but NMS may well turn out to be more fun. We won't know until we play.

One thing I'm actually quite curious about when it comes to E: D's eventual approach to more complex planets- life-bearing ones with atmosphere, etc- is how they're going to handle what I'm assuming will at least be a similar procedural generation of assets, rather than trying to handcraft an entire galaxy worth of lifeforms. As has been mentioned, Elite does go for a far more grounded visual look, which is great in terms of feeling like this is a future that could come about, but on the flip side I'm wondering if they're going to be restricting the variety of things like flora, fauna, even life-bearing skies or seas, to fit within that same 'grounded' approach. One thing NMS does seem to have going for it is (if you're into this sort of visual style, I mean,) that they've gone full science fantasy, meaning ala Doctor Who they can just toss out pretty much anything that comes to mind; large icky slime creature? Sure! Giant sand worms? Okay! Vibrantly colored jeweled crab? No problemo. Bipedal bunny-eared furry sasquatch? We've got five of those! You want a planet filled with enough mushrooms to make a gourmet chef blush? Look! LOOK AT ALL OUR MUSHROOMS AHAHAHAHAHA...

Ahem...

Basically, I wonder if all the planets that will feature life in Elite: Dangerous, will only have creatures that are based upon life found on our own planet, or if they'll stretch out in more exotic directions. This applies to stuff like trees, grass and shrubbery as well as animal life, of course.
 
Last edited:
One thing I'm actually quite curious about when it comes to E: D's eventual approach to more complex planets- life-bearing ones with atmosphere, etc- is how they're going to handle what I'm assuming will at least be a similar procedural generation of assets, rather than trying to handcraft an entire galaxy worth of lifeforms. As has been mentioned, Elite does go for a far more grounded visual look, which is great in terms of feeling like this is a future that could come about, but on the flip side I'm wondering if they're going to be restricting the variety of things like flora, fauna, even life-bearing skies or seas, to fit within that same 'grounded' approach. One thing NMS does seem to have going for it is (if you're into this sort of visual style, I mean,) that they've gone full science fantasy, meaning ala Doctor Who they can just toss out pretty much anything that comes to mind; large icky slime creature? Sure! Giant sand worms? Okay! Vibrantly colored jeweled crab? No problemo. Bipedal bunny-eared furry sasquatch? We've got five of those! You want a planet filled with enough mushrooms to make a gourmet chef blush? Look! LOOK AT ALL OUR MUSHROOMS AHAHAHAHAHA...

Ahem...

Basically, I wonder if all the planets that will feature life in Elite: Dangerous, will only have creatures that are based upon life found on our own planet, or if they'll stretch out in more exotic directions. This applies to stuff like trees, grass and shrubbery as well as animal life, of course.


My thoughts on this are that there will be a 'parts' warehouse...and the game just picks a series of numbers...equatable to a position on a body...or plant...and it attaches said items in interesting ways.

How big the warehouse will be is going to be a challenge for any game....but the idea is fairly straightforward.

(Now, I have problems with Spore....but the way they handled critter creation was interesting...and would be kind of fun if NMS or E: D added player capability to make parts for the game.)

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The ELITE worlds are a lot more realistic-looking, and have staggering scale, but NMS may well turn out to be more fun. We won't know until we play.

This will be the interesting test.

If you think of these types of games as being built on a continuum between simulation and game..Elite is closer to a simulation than a game...and NMS is closer to a game than a simulation.

Both offer something to each type of player...but game folks are unhappiest if the program is to 'simmy' and sim player are unhappiest when the program is to 'gamey'.

What's nice is we will have two different 'modern games' that offer something for both markets.
 
My thoughts on this are that there will be a 'parts' warehouse...and the game just picks a series of numbers...equatable to a position on a body...or plant...and it attaches said items in interesting ways.

How big the warehouse will be is going to be a challenge for any game....but the idea is fairly straightforward.

(Now, I have problems with Spore....but the way they handled critter creation was interesting...and would be kind of fun if NMS or E: D added player capability to make parts for the game.)

Parts warehouse is a possibility, definitely. In the case of NMS there's actually a Game Informer interview back in 2014 that dug into the nitty gritty behind their work on the game, some of the reasons they decided on things like having planets closer together, etc. When it came to creatures, plants, etc, (to paraphrase from the video,) Sean essentially said;

"So when you make a character in an MMO or that kind of game for the first time, you have all these sliders you can use to make that 'your' character. We have something sort of like that in game for everything. Every creature, tree, rock, grass... so the artist will build something like this-" *gesturing to a random creature on the screen* "-...actually, it won't be this one, you know, they'll build something that's just a prototype, then they model it out in something called (ZedBrush? ZenBrush?) and you're basically just making things out of clay. So they don't so much model in polys or things like that, and they don't do texturing and things like that so much. And then they bring it into game, and they can click a button and it will show them hundreds of variants. And then they can click it again and it will show them hundreds more. And this will be just one creature type, and there'll be hundreds of creature types in game, and each one will have a practically infinite number of variations."

I'll include the link below, but my interpretation is that the artist basically comes up with the rough shape of each creature type that are very roughly modeled, and probably already given a set of animations. When they run it through the generator, it will adjust such things as size, proportions, textures, colors, possibly additional (maybe non-animate) appendages like horns, even finer details like the shape of the head or whether the limbs end in feet, hooves or hands; and I believe that it will even make small adjustments to animation depending on other details in the variant. So very large variants will generally be programmed to move with a slower, lumbering gait appropriate to their size, whereas a much smaller variant could scuttle more quickly. What's interesting to me is that, when he was clicking through some of the variants for one specific four-legged shape, the variants seemed to range from rodent-like creatures to lizards, so there seems to be a lot of 'wiggle room' in a given creature type.

I think the interview was linked a couple of years ago, buuuut I'll link it again. =D Roughly 21 minutes in is where he starts talking about procedural creatures.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/featu...te-behind-the-scenes-tour-of-no-mans-sky.aspx
 
Last edited:
Its all sci-fi. All these games.
.
But that is what keeps me backing them on KS, early alpha, pre release etc. Let ED be ED and so on.
.
NMS, I hope, will be immersing in a full on, sort of, modern take on a 50's/60's sci-fi universe.
We can get lost in all sorts of games, they then become a sort of reality for us. But isn't that why we're buying them, so we can get lost in another persons creation/idea. Like the movies or t.v. (well perhaps not t.v. these days :().
.
I do think NMS will live upto some of the hype, whereas other games have fallen short. But its to be expected, there are always winners and losers in everything. Maybe losers is not the right word, lets say 'unlucky devs', whereas the hype, just suffocated the end product. In many ways its our own fault, we shouldn't always get carried along with the hype. But although many of us would say we don't.. we actually do, a lot of the time. :p
.
I don't mind.. There are games I think now, perhaps I shouldn't have bothered with. But then again, I have them and I revisit all the games I have, occasionally. Then I think 'yes' I see why I backed/supported it. Very few I would turn the clock back on. Perhaps StarForge, we all have skeletons.. [haha]
 
...
There isn't a massive difference between creating one PG world and [an arbitrarily large number]. The important factor is having enough parameters that they'll seem varied and not repetitive.
...

Absolutely. What a lot of people don't get is that PG is not about creating a huge number of highly variable examples of something - that's just the payoff. The mechanics are all concerned with creating one exemplar that is highly variable. Once the algorithm is working then using it to create a staggering number of iterations is the easy part.
 
Yeah, I believe the creature creation in NMS is just procedural values being passed to the attributes of pre-defined models with rule-sets. If this then use these legs if using those legs then pick one of these textures and combine with these values etc.

ED goes through the same process to build the galaxy using a rule-set that keeps it grounded in science and rules to build each section of the spiral milky-way. I believe the stations & outposts are also built from pre-fabs though I don't know if they procedurally choose how stations fit together with rules or if someone has had to go through and pre-selected them.

When I was studying Computer Sience & AI we did Dawkins Biomorph and programmed various assets to draw an insect or creature or pizza or whatever with some randomisation many times. You can then pick two creatures from a generation and combine the assets to produce children and combine them with a simple genetic algorithm. Eventually you are supposed to end up with the best evolved bug/creature/Pizza based on the two parents you choose for each generation. Quite good fun.

Anyone remember Creatures?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom