Ringu wrote:I have to say, your choice of games is somewhat... unconventional if these are what you're holding up as "proof" of NMS being "a scam"...

Have you played Shores of Hazeron?

Jetison333 wrote:You will be able to do almost anything in an open world similar to how LT will work.

If by "almost anything" you mean walk around and take screenshots, sure.

Juicy wrote:Shores of Hazeron immediately comes to mind as something that already does everything NMS tries to do while actually having gameplay. There's Rodina and Starmade, which are pretty recent, and Noctis, which came out in 2000. Battlecruiser also let you land on planets and explore in a buggy, which was in the late 90s. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

NMS is just a scam that's only popular because it was marketed towards the console market, which is full people who aren't aware games like that already exist.

Shores of Hazeron is... not comparable to NMS. Sure both have procedural generation, and similar "features", but I don't think you can argue that Shores of Hazeron is at the same level as NMS. It lacks polish in UI. It lacks polish in graphics. It lacks polish in mechanics. It was incredibly clunky, and from the time I spent with it, not actually a whole lot of fun to play. And I "play" Aurora and Dwarf Fortress.

(Also, their sketch website now seems to require you to pay to play. Which is fine. If their website didn't scream "Oh my god don't come near me I AM CONTAGIOUS" on every spidey sense channel I have the ability to perceive. If anyone has another way to gain access to it that doesn't make me want to take a flamethrower to my machine in an attempt to "purify" it, so I can give it another go, that'd be great.)

Battlecruiser was bugged as hell. Sure you could land on planets, but it was certainly not at the same level as what NMS is trying to do. Then again, BC did manage to have a level of depth not easily matched by any games to date. Not that it was all that playable anyway.

Rodina is half baked and almost completely desolate in terms of features. Oh look, I can mod in the Kepler from FTL! Cool! And it is! It just is not comparable to NMS's depth or level of gameplay. There is a point to exploring in NMS beyond finding audio logs and weapon caches. I am excited to see what happens with Rodina, especially if development picks up the pace, but it is not fair for either game to compare them to each other.

Starmade is cool, but again, it isn't a fair comparison. NMS is an exploration game. Starmade is EVE Online with voxels and shipbuilding. NMS, whatever it is, is not that. I feel no urge to "explore" in starmade. While I have stumbled across cool planets, I have no one to play with, so I spend most of my time building ships offline. Which is fine. But for me, that doesn't compare with NMS; a game about exploration and probably fear of the unknown. With starmade, most content is in other players. In NMS, running into other players is incredibly unlikely and most likely a source of excitement, but will not form the backbone of what makes NMS fun.

While Noctis has the GUIDE, which is like NMS's discovery system, I don't think it is comparable to NMS either. It doesn't have gameplay beyond exploration. NMS does.

All of the games you listed, while they share similar surface level mechanics with NMS, are either not to the same level of development or polish as NMS, or are only tangentially similar.

Kerbal Space Program is like Orbiter, but with ship building and loads of other stuff. Doesn't mean KSP is a "scam" of orbiter, you know? Just because similar games with "similar" features exist in the annals of the internet doesn't mean one of the most anticipated games of the year is a scam. The logic you use could be applied to almost any game on the market, even the ones you mention.


Even with starmade you mention, there are not only similar games in the past like starmade, a game called Blockade Runner was in development first, and if they actually get their act together, will have features well beyond what is scoped for Starmade. Is it fair to argue that Starmade is a scam of blockade runner? I don't think so; both have different planned mechanics, a different feel, and a different overall direction. Was The Jupiter Incident a scam of Homeworld? No. I could go on... but the point I am trying to make is that a game isn't a scam because there are games with similar mechanics out there. If they were, would still have Myst, Total Annihilation, the first Elite, etc. The first in every genre would cap that genre, as anything "derivative" of that original work would be a scam.

Music! Perfect analogy. There are many rappers. There are many classical composers. There are many punk rockers. Are musicians in the same genre scams of each other or their inspirations just because they have similar styles?

We haven't seen anything like NMS before, not because games haven't had similar features, but because nobody has pulled off the combination of mechanics it shows off to the degree and polish that those mechanics seem to be at.

I do apologise if my tone is aggressive. I do not intend for it to be construed as such. As this was typed quickly, I also apologize for typos/grammatical issues, as I lack time to proofread effectively.

*Edited for Snark*

Juicy wrote:

TGS wrote:It could even stand up against Star Citizen, E:D and NMS.

I would certainly hope so. All it needs to do to beat E:D is actually be finished when it's released. All it needs to do to beat Star Citizen is to actually be released at all. All it needs to do to beat NMS is to actually be a video game rather than a walking simulator that does poorly what has already been done much better multiple times. The space sim 'revival' is a complete joke, and LT is really the only hope.

I really don't understand your open hostility towards other games. E:D being the exception. E:D was and is still a very barren game. Star Citizen if they manage to pull it off (Same as Josh with LT) will be amazing. And it will be amazing in a different way to LT. It will still shine bright against LT or even brighter than LT. They will be different beasts. Different enough though that hopefully they will both have their own niche.

To simply say that LT will blow everything else out of the water simply by virtue of being finished is a bit silly and while I agree that IF Josh succeeds in his dream that LT will be great. I don't think it will "beat" Star Citizen or NMS. NMS is different. I have a hard time quantifying it. But Star Citizen "complete" as Chris wants it. Will offer many many many things that LT will not, or at least offer it in different perspectives.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and if that is what you think then more power to ya.

TGS wrote:

Juicy wrote:

TGS wrote:It could even stand up against Star Citizen, E:D and NMS.

I would certainly hope so. All it needs to do to beat E:D is actually be finished when it's released. All it needs to do to beat Star Citizen is to actually be released at all. All it needs to do to beat NMS is to actually be a video game rather than a walking simulator that does poorly what has already been done much better multiple times. The space sim 'revival' is a complete joke, and LT is really the only hope.

I really don't understand your open hostility towards other games. E:D being the exception. E:D was and is still a very barren game. Star Citizen if they manage to pull it off (Same as Josh with LT) will be amazing. And it will be amazing in a different way to LT. It will still shine bright against LT or even brighter than LT. They will be different beasts. Different enough though that hopefully they will both have their own niche.

To simply say that LT will blow everything else out of the water simply by virtue of being finished is a bit silly and while I agree that IF Josh succeeds in his dream that LT will be great. I don't think it will "beat" Star Citizen or NMS. NMS is different. I have a hard time quantifying it. But Star Citizen "complete" as Chris wants it. Will offer many many many things that LT will not, or at least offer it in different perspectives.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and if that is what you think then more power to ya.

Yeah, maybe star citizen's ridiculously cost will blow LT out of the water. I would like that game were its dev not just another greedy bastard.

Black--Snow wrote:Yeah, maybe star citizen's ridiculously cost will blow LT out of the water. I would like that game were its dev not just another greedy bastard.

We're getting seriously off-topic here but is it greedy to offer something that people are willing to buy if they are silly enough to keep buying it? Would I be a greedy bastard if I offered fantastic apples that are better than your average apple and people foolishly bought them simply because I said they were fantastic? Well now consider that while SC isn't out yet. Everything being offered presumably will be made and put in the game. If people are willing to throw their money at virtual space ships then so be it. That doesn't make the developer greedy. And if he wasn't investing all of that money back into the project (which is glaringly apparent by the production costs going into it) then I might agree with you.

Value is a perception. Chris Roberts has capitalized on value within the medium of a space game. I don't agree with his model but if it works to help produce an amazing game then I have no complaints. After all producing a game of the quality he wants is not cheap.

LT wouldn't be cheap if it weren't for the fact that Josh is exceptionally talented and has very minimal "needs" and isn't trying (I hope) to do anything too over his head. If Star Citizen is to fail it will only be because the dream is simply too big and not really doable. Which personally I've suspected that it might not be... yet.

Juicy wrote:All it needs to do to beat E:D is actually be finished when it's released. All it needs to do to beat Star Citizen is to actually be released at all. All it needs to do to beat NMS is to actually be a video game rather than a walking simulator that does poorly what has already been done much better multiple times. The space sim 'revival' is a complete joke, and LT is really the only hope.

I don't think that LT needs to "beat" any of those games. Let all those games be whatever they are meant to be. Every one of them will have its own strengths and weaknesses, will catch more or less interest on different people and will give players a significantly different experience. LT can be everything it wants to be without the need of "beating" anyone. I don't really understand why people have to make a war of this, transforming videogames to a kind of competitive sport teams. It's cool if you prefer one over the others, but it's also cool if you enjoy all of them or at least more than one.

Juicy wrote:NMS is just a scam that's only popular because it was marketed towards the console market, which is full people who aren't aware games like that already exist.

That someone makes a game you don't like doesn't make it a scam. Actually, I don't think that NMS is the same kind of game (if applicable) as the other ones, a spacesim of any kind. I think that it's its own thing, a different kind of game that just happen to be set in space. And it looks like is going to be something special and different, which is good thing. No game is for everyone.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:

Juicy wrote:All it needs to do to beat NMS is to actually be a video game rather than a walking simulator that does poorly what has already been done much better multiple times.

I've yet to see a game where i can seamlessly fly from space to ground and leave my craft there.
On full sized planets.
in fps worthy resolution

Have you seen Infinity Battlescape ? Not sure about full size planets, though!

Etsu wrote:

Juicy wrote:NMS is just a scam that's only popular because it was marketed towards the console market, which is full people who aren't aware games like that already exist.

That someone makes a game you don't like doesn't make it a scam. Actually, I don't think that NMS is the same kind of game (if applicable) as the other ones, a spacesim of any kind. I think that it's its own thing, a different kind of game that just happen to be set in space. And it looks like is going to be something special and different, which is good thing. No game is for everyone.

+1

Black--Snow wrote:Yeah, maybe star citizen's ridiculously cost will blow LT out of the water. I would like that game were its dev not just another greedy bastard.

What kind of a benchmark/argument this is? Who cares who or what kind of person a developer is when it comes to a game he made? Who cares about the cost, until it comes to buying a (final) product? Why not evaluate a game by its merits?

"Black--Snow wrote:
Yeah, maybe star citizen's ridiculously cost will blow LT out of the water. I would like that game were its dev not just another greedy bastard"

"What kind of a benchmark/argument this is? Who cares who or what kind of person a developer is when it comes to a game he made? Who cares about the cost, until it comes to buying a (final) product? "

"Why not evaluate a game by its merits"

Absolutely!
Alas, there is no existing game to evaluate.Instead there is a large number of people with a
lot of imagination, expectations und wishful thinking and a snakeoil salesman with the matching promises.
Like a preacher with his promises of Paradise and ethernal Life or a ponzi scheme fondmanager with his promises
of 30 % return per annum.
They just need your Money to make it come true.And they allways need a little more.

Safe-r wrote:

Black--Snow wrote:Yeah, maybe star citizen's ridiculously cost will blow LT out of the water. I would like that game were its dev not just another greedy bastard.

What kind of a benchmark/argument this is? Who cares who or what kind of person a developer is when it comes to a game he made? Who cares about the cost, until it comes to buying a (final) product? Why not evaluate a game by its merits?

Because price is important. A game can be the best game in the world, but if it's $10000, there's a reason to argue over its quality.

You can compare it to Graphics cards: a 980 TI is objectively better than a 750 TI, and if price was not considered you would always get the 980 TI. However, when price is considered, the 750 TI may become a better option as it's more efficient per $1. Just like games. A $20 fun space game is a lot more efficient than a $20,000 amazing space game (Referring to buying ships for like $200 each).

Except that games are not about efficiency or return value. If game is bad, then game is bad. If game is good, then game is good. It doesn't really matter if it had big budget or small. Besides that nobody is forcing people to buy a ship for 200 $ or more. Or to put more than a base price (basically placing a pre-order). So why accusing developers of being greedy instead of blaming people for being foolish (read: doing what they want with their money) and comparing the total funding value, instead of actual price of the game itself?

Alas, there is no existing game to evaluate.

I know that. That's why I am surprised that some people are already judging the game. To make it even more surprising people are not even judging the game (because it's not out yet, as you yourself have said), but its funding policy and making it into an argument by which they want to judge its quality. To me it's extremely a non-gamer approach.

Somewhat returning to topic, since it's been three months since the start of this Golden Days thread, is it ok to ask for actual information now? Something beyond "it's being worked on" and "it'll be ready when it's ready"? I'm just not feeling particularly Golden, with almost literally zero information other than the continuation of development?

Don't want to cause any upset, but would love to have *something* to make this seem like more of a non-Dark Day still...

Well, there's the fact that Josh comes to post here on the forums here at least once a week...

Dinosawer wrote:Well, there's the fact that Josh comes to post here on the forums here at least once a week...

Haha almost once a day even, sometimes anyway.

Though something to consider. "Beginning of the Golden Days" is likely to refer to LT development and Josh's mental state. Not "A return to massively divulging information for public consumption" Just judging by Josh's increased forum presence I'd say Golden days are aptly named. No it may not translate to information for us but it doesn't need to. Really the most important thing we need to know is that Josh is actively working on the game and that progress is being made. The latter mainly being a nod towards the reiterative and circular process that Josh found himself in a few times. I'm not going to speculate on that though. I will just hope.