The Video Game Critic

Has anyone tried this game yet?

I admit to being curious, and following the reports with interest. Any thoughts?

I personally quite like the discovery and exploration aspects of it. It's not a very "actiony" game (the combat is probably the weakest part of the whole thing, actually), and since everyone has had different expectations for it, I can't guarantee that it'll appeal to everyone's taste. However, what No Man's Sky does well, it does very well, and I can see myself eventually getting to the center of the universe.

Haven't played this but read a review that was kind of interesting. You're basically fly between planets gathering resources, exploring and engaging in occasional combat. What the reviewer loved was the sense of isolation - he appreciated the fact that wasn't being bothered by other players and NPGs.

That struck a chord with me because when I play video games I love to be in my own world. There's a time and place for multiplayer, but in general I play games to get AWAY from the real world. Guess I'm just not very social.

I have no horse in this race, but I am reading a lot of discontent with how the game was hyped, versus what the game currently is. Having missed the E3 promotional video, I really did not pay attention until all the commotion about no early release reviews and the day one patch. It seems like a slow paced exploration game, but it seems it may have been presold as something quite different

The reviews have been overwhelmingly negative on this one. I might try it once it hits the bargain bin.

Gets repetitive after a few hours. Not worth the asking price.

Man... I had friends who were very hyped up for this game. Glad I stayed away. Looking into the release has been very interesting. It seems like the developers lied/cut out a lot of features they promised to be in the game:

vg247.com wrote: planetary physics
ship classes with meaningful differentiation
faction reputation with meaningful gameplay impact
homogenous resource availability
asteroid landings
space station and fleet destruction
large fleets
traveling freighters
large scale battles the player can join
in-atmosphere battles
NPCs outside trading posts and other docks
ringed planets
sand planets
flying between stars (as opposed to warping via the Galactic interface)
complex creature behaviour including environmental interaction
rivers
points of interest such as large structures and crashed freighters
hacking locked doors
radio chatter
interaction with other players

Apparently some guy has linked real life videos of where the developers promised something in the game and then showed how the game didn't actually do any of those things. Pretty interesting. I can't support this game even if it becomes a budget game (very likely) in the near future.

The funniest part is all the people who are still defending Hello Games, even when there's overwhelming evidence that they lied. Those conversations usually go something like,

"They never said it was going to be multiplayer!"
"Yes they did. Here's a video of them saying it."
"Well, that's because what you find gets shared with other players. They never said you could meet other people!"
"Yes they did. Here's a video."
"Well, it's a huge game made by, like, twelve people. You shouldn't hold them to such insane standards!"
"Then they shouldn't have made promises they couldn't keep."
"I already told you, they haven't lied about anything!"

This is interesting. I missed the initial hype and all the promises, and just saw an exploration game. I totally get people being upset at being sold a product that did not match the hype - I have experience with that, as I saw Hudson Hawk in the theater, and I wanted my money back too.

In years to come, No Man's Sky may be judged differently, apart from its hype. It looks interesting to me, but I also don't want to support a company that many of my fellow (and more informed) gamers tell me has acted in bad faith.

This reminds me though of the infamous Atari 2600 version of E.T. In the last few years, E.T. has gained back a measure of support from some retro gamers, saying its not so bad, or its not bad given it was made in a few weeks by one person, or most people don't understand it, or didn't read the instruction manual, or other notions. I have made similar arguments for other games, saying 'hey look at all these extenuating circumstances - give the game a break". To a larger extent, every retro gamer has probably had that 'Look past the old timey graphics, and just enjoy the gameplay' conversations.

How we see a game is filtered by how we think about it going in.