- No text -

Funny how taking our time and simply enjoying a game can give us a completely different impression of the quality of it, huh?

One can only take your time and enjoy a game if there's something there to enjoy. In my mind at least, finding the minute differences that make your planet special are stupid because that doesn't feedback into the game in any meaningful way. Why not explore a planet that's designed, so that you can uncover whatever the designers leave for you? NMS is just a formula. Nothing deeper. There's no guarantee your planet is interesting in any way. You're not going to find the ruins of a civilization and uncover the reason behind their demise for example. But if someone carefully designed that planet, then that would be fun to explore!

When I go hiking, I'm not expecting to uncover an ancient civilization. I revel in the cool plants and bugs I come across, though.

I guess I need less of an adrenaline jab than you do.

There is a difference between a game and real life. There's a reason why we typically do things in games that is impossible or unlikely in actuality, whereas the other stuff we actually do do.

Funny how taking our time and simply enjoying a game can give us a completely different impression of the quality of it, huh?

One can only take your time and enjoy a game if there's something there to enjoy. In my mind at least, finding the minute differences that make your planet special are stupid because that doesn't feedback into the game in any meaningful way. Why not explore a planet that's designed, so that you can uncover whatever the designers leave for you? NMS is just a formula. Nothing deeper. There's no guarantee your planet is interesting in any way. You're not going to find the ruins of a civilization and uncover the reason behind their demise for example. But if someone carefully designed that planet, then that would be fun to explore!

The systems that procedurally generated the game were designed by designers who paid very close attention to them.

Wrong. You think they checked each and every one of the 16 quintillion planets? That is physically impossible. Nearly all of the worlds in that game were never given any personal attention of a designer. The result of an algorithm, unchecked.

The Penny Arcade strip? It says more about the player and it accurately describes what happens when you rush through the game. I realized I was doing that and stopped. When I go back, it'll be when I have time to take my time and soak everything in.

That's where I'm at. I enjoyed the 20 or so hours I spent with it, but it was definitely wearing thing for me, and I don't feel like I was "rushing" through the game. Exploring is it's own reward at the beginning, but with each additional planet, everything became more and more of the same. I'll return to it sometimes, I'm sure, and I'm hopeful for the future and what they'll ultimately turn the game into.

But, as Cody is so willing to point out, procedural generation can only take you so far. Each planet seems unique upon first sight, but it doesn't take long for it to lose it's magic (for me, obviously) when you just encounter the same four or five buildings over and over again. Heck, even the "puzzles" you solve to unlock the computers in those buildings repeat after less than ten encounters.

This is kind of what I was getting at in the Speaking for Itself post. Once you are over the initial marvel of procedural generation, what is left? Your enjoyment of the game came from that marvel, not from the game itself.

As far as press goes, is there ANY benefit to announcing your game so early? Are you really missing out in sales of you announce your game say, 3 or 4 months before release? I don't see any.

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to announce your game say, 4 months from release, detail your game fully knowing what will ship and what won't, and then releasing? A reasonable amount of time for hype, but close enough out that you've already got your game locked down, thus eliminating the possibility of broken promises.

That's what makes sense to me.

I don't see the benefit either. Showing your game at E3 generates hype, by why do it three years out from release? Just put out a press release and some concept art or something, then actually show the game say no more than six months before it ships. I don't think announcing it so early is helping it reach a bigger audience or anything--no one really cares when a game is so early in development (especially not the wider audience that isn't paying attention anyway).

I understand a game like Destiny requiring an announcement so far ahead. You have partnerships and deals and stuff that need to fall into place. For instance, the red bull codes, deals for PS4 exclusivity, toys, T-Shirts, etc. So those other companies need to know well ahead of time to plan their promotions.

But No Man's Sky?

…

As far as press goes, is there ANY benefit to announcing your game so early? Are you really missing out in sales of you announce your game say, 3 or 4 months before release? I don't see any.

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to announce your game say, 4 months from release, detail your game fully knowing what will ship and what won't, and then releasing? A reasonable amount of time for hype, but close enough out that you've already got your game locked down, thus eliminating the possibility of broken promises.

That's what makes sense to me.

I don't see the benefit either. Showing your game at E3 generates hype, by why do it three years out from release? Just put out a press release and some concept art or something, then actually show the game say no more than six months before it ships. I don't think announcing it so early is helping it reach a bigger audience or anything--no one really cares when a game is so early in development (especially not the wider audience that isn't paying attention anyway).

IIRC, Bethesda is pretty good about this. Fallout 4 was announced six months before release and I think it was very much done.

Also, "holy crap only 3-6 months to wait!!" generates its own kind of hype.

As far as press goes, is there ANY benefit to announcing your game so early? Are you really missing out in sales of you announce your game say, 3 or 4 months before release? I don't see any.

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to announce your game say, 4 months from release, detail your game fully knowing what will ship and what won't, and then releasing? A reasonable amount of time for hype, but close enough out that you've already got your game locked down, thus eliminating the possibility of broken promises.

That's what makes sense to me.

I don't see the benefit either. Showing your game at E3 generates hype, by why do it three years out from release? Just put out a press release and some concept art or something, then actually show the game say no more than six months before it ships. I don't think announcing it so early is helping it reach a bigger audience or anything--no one really cares when a game is so early in development (especially not the wider audience that isn't paying attention anyway).

To be fair, when they announced the game at E3 2013, they said it would be available in January of 2014. The game has been delayed many, many times over. At one point Hello Games' office flooded and all of their computers fried. They had to re-write everything from notes they'd taken using old backups as their framework. There's also Sony's involvement. My professional experience tells me that the original game didn't even have the survival or crafting elements, and Sony stepped in and said "you can't sell a tech demo as a game" which forced longer delays while they figured out systems for actually interacting with the world(s) they'd developed. I have zero evidence to support this, just a strong feeling that comes from having spent my 10,000 hours in the industry.

I'm trying to remember. Bungie put the Destiny preorder out after just the first Pathways out of Darkness trailer right? Long before they showed more than just a few short second of actual gameplay? I always thought that was really dumb.