No Man's Sky now

[valiant11]

This game had some really bad opinions a year ago, also here on the forum (link).
However, I got it now and I'm having a really good time. The game had two major updates this year, and it started receiving good opinions on steam.
I didn't see the game earlier, so it's hard for me to fully compare, but I think old reviews on YT do not give the game credit it deserves in current state.

If you still have it, you might want to give it a second chance now...

[Daisjun]

I would, but at $60US? Just can't justify it.

[Taleric]

Is it still just exploration with semi static vehicles and tools?

I need a good combat, survival or crafting hook to overlook placidity after titles like Empyrion and 7DtD.

That said I am eating up Fallout 4 at the moment, the survival mode is just right.

[valiant11]

I agree that 60$ is a joke. The game's only worth buying for half that price, so finding a sale price is a must.
When it comes to the game itself, I play it from the very beginning in survival mode, and it's great like that. You can check differences on youtube, cause as I said, I have never seen the game as it was a year ago. This video is nice and short - you can take a look and if it looks promising to you, check more new youtube videos about the game so you can decide.

[Taleric]

Ok pretty good. I will for sure give a look at sale then.

[DaveYanakov]

I can't justify NMS while Elite: Dangerous exists

[valiant11]

I can't justify NMS while Elite: Dangerous exists

Dave, Carl Sagan would probably have had a name for this kind of argument. Using this logic, you could also simply have said: "No other game can be justified while Minecraft exists" :)

If you have played both games however, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about planet exploration in ED compared to NMS. From all videos on youtube I could find, planet exploring and survival in ED is either non existant, or very rudimentary...

[DaveYanakov]

To put it simply, NMS is too vast. Exploring it feels pointless because No one is likely to follow even a part of your path. As a result, the core mechanic of discovering and naming things is left hollow. With Elite, the path from the core is well traveled but there are always new branches to explore as you travel further out. You have reason to seek out places to leave your mark where no one has tread before.

You also have actual humans to deal with, some friendly, others lees than. It's similar to the appeal of Eve Online as far as diplomacy and consequences go. Additionally, the lack of depth in NMS game mechanics really hurts it in my opinion. Yes, E:D can get overly complex at times but the complexity to depth ratio bears it out. Having to decide if your systems can tolerate the heat damage long enough to remain in stealth long enough to achieve an objective, for example, is something that you need to constantly adapt to due to new variables. No Man's Sky cycles are so simple that all of the activities blur together with nothing standing out as truly memorable

[Gilberreke]

I don't get why you'd compare the two, when they're not the same genre of games. NMS is an arcade game, E:D is a simulation game. Reminds me of all the arguments of old that Gran Turismo is better than Ridge Racer or vice versa.

I'm one of those people that saw the first trailer for NMS, years before it came out, and went: "yeah, that's going to be a disaster". They were showing a bunch of procedural content a la Spore and no game. Turns out it's a bunch of procedural content and no game. I've heard that the new updates are actually quite decent, but probably not worth more than $20. I might get it eventually, because I do think it looks pretty, but that's about the price I'd pay.

Elite I might get too, but I'm scared it's going to be too complicated for me, like most space explorers in that vein (I tried playing stuff like X, I just can't handle it)

[DaveYanakov]

I don't get why you'd compare the two, when they're not the same genre of games

They are exactly the same game at different levels of complexity. The core appeal for both is a large, unexplored space for people to put their mark on. Elite just happens to have a lot of side paths to doing so, making it a multi-dimensional experience.

Elite:Dangerous I mostly use as a podcast player similar to a title like Euro Truck so I don't touch on most of that complexity but it is always there if I need it. That complexity may go a little too far in the edge cases but NMS isn't nearly complex enough to keep it from being anything other than a choice between race to the middle or fidget spinner playstyles.

[valiant11]

Well, I also think that these two are more or less the same genre, I even think that E:D is the better one of the two. However, I didn't try E:D for few reasons, first - I don't like multiuser games that have no single player option. Every time I tried one of such games, I was disappointed as it always had some level of griefing, which is no fun for me. I almost bought E:D once (I like space games), but then Frontier Developments came to the idea of selling the planet additions and similar things for E:D at a full price, which utterly convinced me that I should let E:D pass without me.

But back to NMS - I think I understand what Dave meant with "vastness" of NMS. A year ago, this game apparently had no other gameplay than going "into the center of the galaxy". It isn't so at the moment. In current version, you even can not do that in the beginning, because you start in a weak ship, you first have to upgrade it, but to do that you have to raise your standing with other races, you have to build a base, you have to employ some staff in your base to do research for you, etc, etc.

So, my point is not to try to convince anyone to buy NMS (at least definitiely not for the full price, as it is not worth that much), but more to inform anyone interested, that NMS with the current updates finally has some real gameplay in it, and is worth a second look.

[Gilberreke]

I still disagree that arcade gameplay and simulation gameplay can be compared. I disagreed 15 years ago when this was the hot argument for racing games and I still do.

That being said, E:D is probably the better game of course. I'm glad that NMS is getting better though, I still think the main issue with NMS was Sony badgering them to release way too early. They shouldn't have started to lie to hide the fact that they weren't ready though.

[FlowerChild]

I still disagree that arcade gameplay and simulation gameplay can be compared. I disagreed 15 years ago when this was the hot argument for racing games and I still do.

I think it depends on the basis for comparison. I can easily say that Gran Turismo has a far more compelling meta-game of car ownership and upgrading than say Need For Speed whereas I wouldn't think it reasonable to compare the driving aspects. I think that's the kind of comparison Dave may be making with the space games.

I've played neither No Man's Sky or Elite, so that's the extent of my contribution to the discussion ;)