Return to “Games”

Post

Re: No Man's Sky

#556
Etsu wrote:
wizaerd wrote:Again, it's not all that new nor different. It's bigger, that's really it for be "new". But a minimap, why I want it? Is because I want to go down in caves, but I do not want to get lost in caves.
How a minimap is going to help you there? A minimap is usually useless for not getting lost, at least is the kind of minimap you can use as a compass. (The one which doesn't turn with you.) For orientation purposes a regular map would be much better.
To each their own. I can't help it if you can't use a mini map. For me, they are quite useful.
wizaerd wrote:Again, other than the technology used to generate such a large sandbox, and such a diverse variety of flora and fauna, the game is still a game, and there's not really much new as a game.
Well, I didn't play the game so I don't know what's different or what is not about it. Only for the videos I can tell that it will be extremely different to everything I usually play.
Unless you limit yourself to checkers, every piece of gameplay they've shown is nothing new or special. Every bit of it has been seen or done in some other game. True, they haven't shown everything but it's not unreasonable to think there really isn't that much more to see. I'll give the benefit of the doubt, but really... What could they possibly do gameplay wise that hasn't already been done. Not much... The innovation is in how it's built, not necessarily how it plays. And even though I don't know that for certain, it's a pretty fair assumption.
Post

Re: No Man's Sky

#557
wizaerd wrote:I take it you've not really explored caves in real life, right? Binoculars do no good in a deep, dark, and heavily branching cave.
Again the binoculars comment was an example of one possible way to do what you stated "have a set destination in mind..." and not specific to caves. You can't have a set objective in mind in a cave at all in this game. You have NO idea what is in that dark opening in the ground in order to create any such "set objective".

I absolutely think it would be a HORRIBLE idea for the game to have a filled out minimap where you could look at the map and see how big a cave system is before you entered or that there was a branch ahead when you were moving around inside. Personally I don't think an automapper would be a bad idea though, i.e. one that only filled out what you've seen but I don't think it's a HUGE deal that they don't have one. So the game isn't the best cave exploration game, that's not exactly the focus. If you want to explore caves GREAT, if it's not fun for you then do something else that is.
wizaerd wrote:Uh, yes it is. If I'm going to go exploring in a rainforest, I can make some pretty good assumptions about what I'll run into, and can prepare appropriately.
There's a HUGE difference there... you know what a rainforest is. You have some idea of the flora/fauna, etc. that inhabit it, etc. It's because of that prior knowledge you can "make some pretty good assumptions". That's not true at all in No Man's Sky. They don't have preset recognizable biomes so you can't make pretty good assumptions about what you'll run into on alien worlds when the universe doesn't even follow the same basic principles as our real world (different base elements, moons orbit planets waaay to close, etc.)
wizaerd wrote:I can still scan what's beyond a ridge and be prepared for what I might run into in reality. Exploring without any sort of plan is foolishness.
It defeats the point of an exploration game to allow you to scan ahead. They want YOU to explore. If you can scan beyond the ridge whey not just sit at your ship and launch drones to scan the entire planet surface for you, have them go into the caves and map it all out for you, launch them to other planets and moons to do the same, then move them on to the next star system and repeat until the entire galaxy is explored... all while you, the player, sit in your ship. YOU are supposed to explore, there is supposed to be risk involved, automating exploration and removing that risk would defeat the purpose of the game.
Post

Re: No Man's Sky

#558
wizaerd wrote:To each their own. I can't help it if you can't use a mini map. For me, they are quite useful.
Well, there are games when they are useful, like Rockstar games. Considering that Murray seems to be a GTA fan it would have been reasonable to find one here, I guess. It could be nice to be able to add one to your suit as an optional upgrade, with different degrees of quality regarding capacity to display information. That way not everyone needs to have one, and you can get better ones with time.
Asmodai wrote:Personally I don't think an automapper would be a bad idea though, i.e. one that only filled out what you've seen but I don't think it's a HUGE deal that they don't have one.
That could be pretty cool. That way you don't know what is ahead, but you have a decent idea of how to comeback if you feel lost or get bored.
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima
Post

Re: No Man's Sky

#559
Asmodai wrote:
wizaerd wrote:I take it you've not really explored caves in real life, right? Binoculars do no good in a deep, dark, and heavily branching cave.
Again the binoculars comment was an example of one possible way to do what you stated "have a set destination in mind..." and not specific to caves. You can't have a set objective in mind in a cave at all in this game. You have NO idea what is in that dark opening in the ground in order to create any such "set objective".

I absolutely think it would be a HORRIBLE idea for the game to have a filled out minimap where you could look at the map and see how big a cave system is before you entered or that there was a branch ahead when you were moving around inside. Personally I don't think an automapper would be a bad idea though, i.e. one that only filled out what you've seen but I don't think it's a HUGE deal that they don't have one. So the game isn't the best cave exploration game, that's not exactly the focus. If you want to explore caves GREAT, if it's not fun for you then do something else that is.
A darkened minimap that uncovers as you progress, like a FoW in RTS games. I could live with that. But it is a HUGE deal for me. Granted, not a deal breaker, I'll still play the game, but it's already lost huge amounts of immersion. Again, we're working with advanced technology, as explorers but we forgot to either invent or include something to help us map.

I have explored many caves IRL, and you can get a feel for a cave in how it branches, where it branches, how steep of an incline it is. All these things do in deed facilitate planning. Planning isn't something you do at home, and then stick with it come hell or high water. It's always being revised while you're on the go. Situational awareness and revision are all parts of exploring. You don;t just come into a cave and start heading in without several experimental forays, so you can start planning appropriately. Scanning doesn't fill in the details, just outlines of what you can expect.
wizaerd wrote:Uh, yes it is. If I'm going to go exploring in a rainforest, I can make some pretty good assumptions about what I'll run into, and can prepare appropriately.
There's a HUGE difference there... you know what a rainforest is. You have some idea of the flora/fauna, etc. that inhabit it, etc. It's because of that prior knowledge you can "make some pretty good assumptions". That's not true at all in No Man's Sky. They don't have preset recognizable biomes so you can't make pretty good assumptions about what you'll run into on alien worlds when the universe doesn't even follow the same basic principles as our real world (different base elements, moons orbit planets waaay to close, etc.)
wizaerd wrote:I can still scan what's beyond a ridge and be prepared for what I might run into in reality. Exploring without any sort of plan is foolishness.
It defeats the point of an exploration game to allow you to scan ahead. They want YOU to explore. If you can scan beyond the ridge whey not just sit at your ship and launch drones to scan the entire planet surface for you, have them go into the caves and map it all out for you, launch them to other planets and moons to do the same, then move them on to the next star system and repeat until the entire galaxy is explored... all while you, the player, sit in your ship. YOU are supposed to explore, there is supposed to be risk involved, automating exploration and removing that risk would defeat the purpose of the game.
First of all, you still know what a rainforest is. You're not some being that just popped into existence without any sort of knowledge at all. I can fly through the atmosphere of a planet, make note of forests, deserts, ice caps. So when you do start exploring, you can make some assumptions. C'mon guys, you're all acting like exploring is some spontaneous action. Scout ahead what you're going to explore. Be prepared. Scanning what is over a ridge is just part of the preparation. Exploring will still be going over that ridge, but you can be somewhat prepared for what is there.
Post

Re: No Man's Sky

#560
wizaerd wrote:I have explored many caves IRL...
You have explored many caves... on Earth IRL. This game is NOT real life. You are NOT on earth. You are NOT in the Sol System in the Milky Way Galaxy or in a universe that obeys our exact laws of physics. Therefore you have no idea what's in a cave in No Mans Sky. Lets say you do explore a bunch of caves on your starting world in No Mans Sky and you get a solid feel for what's in them... EVEN THEN as soon as you move to the next planet a large amount of that knowledge no longer applies. The developers of the game don't even know what you are going to find in a cave when you enter it.
wizaerd wrote: First of all, you still know what a rainforest is. You're not some being that just popped into existence without any sort of knowledge at all.
You, the player, know what a rainforest is. It's a specific biome on earth IRL. There is no rainforest in No Mans Sky. There is not one single plant common to a real life rainforest that will be in any biome in No Mans Sky. There is not one animal common to a rainforest that will be in any biome in No Man Sky. The developers don't even know what plants and animals you are going to find on any given planet in No Mans Sky, you sure as heck don't know. So yes, you ARE being popped into existence without any sort of knowledge of the plants and animals and enviroments and elements that are going to exist in the game.
wizaerd wrote:I can fly through the atmosphere of a planet, make note of forests, deserts, ice caps. So when you do start exploring, you can make some assumptions.
When you flew through the atmosphere of a planet and made note of forests, deserts, ice caps you were already exploring. Furthermore I'm pretty sure they've said there is only one biome per planet so your not going to get like jungles around the equator, polar ice caps, etc. all on one planet. You'll get ice planets and jungle planets and water planets and such. You can't make assumptions that icy regions might have polar bears, there are no polar bears in the game. You can't assume tropical regions have certain palm trees or whatever, the game isn't earth and you have no idea what is going to be around the next corner.
Post

Re: No Man's Sky

#561
There are still plenty of assumptions that can be made. Especially once you learn the rules and the patterns. There will be common things, and patterns. Regardless of the world, regardless of the star system. Humans made this game, regardless of the procedural nature of the game. Eventually, and probably fairly quickly, those patterns and commonalities will be evident, and our assumptions and predictions will become more accurate. Cold is still cold, hot is still hot, etc... Gravity will be constant, so certain physics will follow the basic laws of physics. I'm even willing to bet certain rules or traits of evolution will also be evident.
Post

Re: No Man's Sky

#562
Etsu wrote:
Flatfingers wrote:Absolutely there is room for games that are designed as artistic expressions of the designer. I think those come closer to being interactive novels than computer games, and miss the point of what computer games can uniquely offer, but I enthusiastically defend the right of game developers to make art games if that's what they want to do.
But that's a cliche, saying that something is less than a game and all that old crap. You are saying that there is a better way and a worst way to make games, and I can't agree with that regarding this topic.
The funny thing about cliches is that an idea only becomes cliche once most people agree it's obviously true.

Of course people can still be wrong. In the case of thinking there is a direct positive correlation between increasing player agency and being more game-like, though, I think they're not wrong. I think that correlation is real and demonstrable and important. And that's not because I'm mindlessly parroting things other people have said; it's because I've thought pretty carefully about this for many years and concluded it for myself.

It comes down to this: "play" is a verb. Play is active. It's something a person does. It's not the only kind of entertainment -- there are wonderful works of entertainment that are experienced with minimal interaction between the consumer and the work being consumed: novels, movies, plays, symphonies.

But play is a special subset of entertainment that is distinguished by actively involving a person. And it follows directly from this that the less active involvement of a person with the work, and the less agency the "player" has to affect how that playful entertainment is expressed, the less game-like that work is.

And nowhere is that more true than with computer games. The very thing that makes computer games unique and special is the power of the computer to simulate a world that can react in unexpected but plausible ways to player choices. The greater the range of a game's possible reactions to player input, and the more different forms of meaningful player input that are possible, the more that game realizes the amazing potential of this medium.

That doesn't mean it's a good game! It only means it's more game-like than an entertainment product that creates an interesting world and then tries its hardest to prevent people from interacting with that world.
Etsu wrote:And there is nothing about artistic expression that is against player's freedom. In fact, I think people ask freedom for the wrong things, but that's another matter.
In theory you may be right. There may be nothing intrinsic to artistic expression that must limit the freedom of the targets of that art to decide for themselves how to experience it.

In practice, especially today, those who want to use games as their channel for making an artistic statement usually replace player agency with developer control. The whole point of such games is to communicate an important message to those who (the developer believes) need to receive it.

But if you let players do more of what they want, they might miss the message that the artist wants to deliver. So, for their own good (because the message is so important), the agency of players must be curtailed. They need to be pushed to see what the artistic developer wants them to see, and prevented from doing what the artistic developer has decided are "wrong" things.

That leads to creating things that are more about the developer than the player, and that as a result are less game-like than things that support and encourage opportunies for players to make meaningful choices.

I support artistic freedom. If a developer wants to make a game that walks players step by linear step through a dramatic representation of some belief, and that doesn't let those players make real and meaningful choices that produce distinctive outcomes in the game world, I think the developer (up to a reasonable point) should be able to do so -- as long as sitting through that experience is voluntary.

I also support the freedom of people to conclude that sitting passively through someone's message is not playful fun, it's not sufficiently game-like (because it does not respect player agency), and it's not worth their time or money.
Etsu wrote:
Flatfingers wrote:I think these games can coexist. So my argument is not that all games must maximize player agency. My argument is that claiming that all games must maximize developer control is mistaken.
Maybe is because my English sucks, but that has been precisely my argument all along. :wtf:
I'm glad to see we agree on that, at least.
Post

Re: No Man's Sky

#563
Flatfingers wrote:The funny thing about cliches is that an idea only becomes cliche once most people agree it's obviously true.
That's the same thing that saying that if you believe very strongly in something it becomes true. No, it doesn't. At least not because of that.
Flatfingers wrote:And nowhere is that more true than with computer games. The very thing that makes computer games unique and special is the power of the computer to simulate a world that can react in unexpected but plausible ways to player choices.
I'm pretty sure that that makes perfect sense to you, but it certainly doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not particularly interesting in simulating a world at least is useful for something else. And there are other things you can simulate through videogames that are much more interesting for me that worlds. We should not confuse our personal preferences with an universal fact, it doesn't matter how many sophisticated justifications we may find that make us believe that our particular interests are a big part of the true.

Again, as interesting as simulating things may be, I find it a temporary distraction, hardly the strongest part of this medium.
Flatfingers wrote:The greater the range of a game's possible reactions to player input, and the more different forms of meaningful player input that are possible, the more that game realizes the amazing potential of this medium.
As a medium, yes, but talking about any particular game individually then no, we can't agree with that. Videogames are an amalgam of things, and interaction is just one of its many elements. (An interesting one, yes, and a very distinctive one.) But focusing in only that element doesn't give me anything meaningful. It only makes the experience more limited and smaller.

I play because I want to "feel", and I couldn't care less about which methods a game uses for giving me the best experience possible. In any case, it would be a matter of the quality of the interaction and not the quantity.
Flatfingers wrote:In practice, especially today, those who want to use games as their channel for making an artistic statement usually replace player agency with developer control. The whole point of such games is to communicate an important message to those who (the developer believes) need to receive it.

But if you let players do more of what they want, they might miss the message that the artist wants to deliver. So, for their own good (because the message is so important), the agency of players must be curtailed.
I don't know where this conclusion is coming from. It's the opposite of my experience. Maybe you could play better games, or those games you are referring are aimed to a different audience.
Flatfingers wrote:That leads to creating things that are more about the developer than the player, and that as a result are less game-like than things that support and encourage opportunies for players to make meaningful choices.
There is not such thing as "game-like", and if there is maybe is a bad thing. Who say that games should be more "game-like"? No one should say what a game should be, so taking appropriation of the word game is bad form. ("I used the word game first. You find another word for whatever you do.")

The fact that videogames use the word "game" (whatever that means) in the name doesn't mean anything. It's an old and obsolete name, but games have continued evolving since the old times. I would even add that the more a videogame is "game-like" the less a videogame is, because is going backwards, but I couldn't care less for that either.
Flatfingers wrote:I support artistic freedom. If a developer wants to make a game that walks players step by linear step through a dramatic representation of some belief, and that doesn't let those players make real and meaningful choices that produce distinctive outcomes in the game world, I think the developer (up to a reasonable point) should be able to do so -- as long as sitting through that experience is voluntary.
I can use my artistic freedom to give you complete freedom, and express my message through your freedom of choice, if that's what I want. For some reason, you seem to believe that artistic freedom, whatever that is, is in opposition to the player agenda, so a game, to be able of caring about the player, needs to be less about the developer and more about the player, when actually the job of the developer and the job of the player are completely different, so there should never be a clash between the two.
Flatfingers wrote:I also support the freedom of people to conclude that sitting passively through someone's message is not playful fun, it's not sufficiently game-like (because it does not respect player agency), and it's not worth their time or money.
I don't even know what that means.
Flatfingers wrote:I'm glad to see we agree on that, at least.
I'm pretty sure that we agree in much more than that. This kind of discussions are more about interpretation of what the other person is trying to say that what the other person is actually saying. I think there is a lot of association related to this, like for example what the word "game" means for different people. I know that everyone would try to argue that their definition of the word is the real one, but there is not such thing if everyone is actually using that word to express completely different and unrelated things, the same thing that happens with "fun" and "immersion". In the same way that some of those words were banned for some role-players communities, it should be avoided here, because as I said before the more a game is like a "game" the less a videogame is for me, and I'm pretty sure that will make no sense to certain people that still believe in the old days.
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima
Post

Re: No Man's Sky

#569
Good to hear the sounds in the game at this early stage. One thing I noticed was that there seems to always be some amount of "noise", whether that be engine noise, wind noise or music.. there doesn't appear to be moments of silence or near-silence present in the game.. which is a bit of shame to be honest. Maybe if the music was turned off there would be the possibility of no noise.

I like the idea of finding some place, maybe in a cave, where there is no sounds or no sound except for a couple of small environmental blips. Using the cave example, there'd be no sound at all other than some dripping sounds of water.. or some place in the woods, during a winter cycle, where there are no animals and no wind.. just silence..

I've only experienced moments of absolute (or near enough) silence a handful of times in my life out in the real world and they are extrmely memorable and surreal experiences. The most recent one I was a couple of years ago in rural China in February. It wasn't mid-winter, but still cold enough that there were no birds, no people working the fields, nothing.. there was nothing.. not even insects. I walked out on the farming link roads made of dirt, only about 100 yards from the village I was staying in, and was plunged into absolute silence. It was such an unfamiliar, almost alien, experience. I felt like I was the only person on the planet, standing there with nothing else moving around me. It's an other-worldly experience when this happens.. and that's my point about having this kind of experience in NMS and other exploration games, that it is alien. Something as simple as removing the familiar and things we are comfortable and used to, is enough to create a feeling of being on another world.

Anyway.. :)
Post

Re: No Man's Sky

#570
light487 wrote:Good to hear the sounds in the game at this early stage. One thing I noticed was that there seems to always be some amount of "noise", whether that be engine noise, wind noise or music.. there doesn't appear to be moments of silence or near-silence present in the game.. which is a bit of shame to be honest. Maybe if the music was turned off there would be the possibility of no noise.

I like the idea of finding some place, maybe in a cave, where there is no sounds or no sound except for a couple of small environmental blips. Using the cave example, there'd be no sound at all other than some dripping sounds of water.. or some place in the woods, during a winter cycle, where there are no animals and no wind.. just silence..

I've only experienced moments of absolute (or near enough) silence a handful of times in my life out in the real world and they are extrmely memorable and surreal experiences. The most recent one I was a couple of years ago in rural China in February. It wasn't mid-winter, but still cold enough that there were no birds, no people working the fields, nothing.. there was nothing.. not even insects. I walked out on the farming link roads made of dirt, only about 100 yards from the village I was staying in, and was plunged into absolute silence. It was such an unfamiliar, almost alien, experience. I felt like I was the only person on the planet, standing there with nothing else moving around me. It's an other-worldly experience when this happens.. and that's my point about having this kind of experience in NMS and other exploration games, that it is alien. Something as simple as removing the familiar and things we are comfortable and used to, is enough to create a feeling of being on another world.

Anyway.. :)
That was a lovely description light487. :) Considering 9 out of 10 planets are supposed to have no life, I'm guessing there should be plenty of opportunity to experience silence. It depends on how ever present the music is. The concept of negative space is incredibly important in music that accompanies movies or games, and I hope they get it right. There's something magical about the music fading into silence, your only company the lingering memory of the notes and the alien landscape stretching before you. :ghost:

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

cron