Kotaku just posted their No Man's Sky review, written by Kirk Hamilton.

http://kotaku.com/no-mans-sky-the-kotaku-review-1785383774

With all the discussion about NMS going on here, I thought some of you might appreciate this.

More than simply describing the game's strengths and weaknesses (which are certainly covered), Kirk digs into the way the player's approach to the game can lead to wildly different experiences.

In short, NMS suffers when players take the "race to the center of the galaxy" approach. The repetitive nature of the game's tasks rise to the forefront, leading to an overall "shallow" experience.

During Kirk's second playthrough, he takes the opposite approach. He stays put. Makes an effort to really explore his starting planet, rather than just gather what he needs to leave and take off. He starts to notice tiny little details that help make this planet unique; details he would have missed if he were racing through as he did during the first playthrough.
He describes the process of slowly but surely traveling to the neighboring planets, taking the time to name every new discovery thoughtfully. He gets to know the solar system he is exploring, the way any of us get to know our neighborhoods. He develops farming routes, finds more tiny, unique details on each planet, becomes familiar with all of the life forms and takes time to name them all (I lost it when I saw the screenshot of "Senator Cruz" ;p).

After more than a dozen hours staying close to home, upgrading his ship, stocking up on supplies, his decision to finally travel to new, undiscovered solar systems is given weight and meaning. Only now does he have any sort of attachment to the planets he will be leaving behind. He might return some day, or he might never see this system again. That feeling right there is what makes NMS worth playing, IMO... if you can take your time with it and switch off the Min/Max side of your brain :)

After more than a dozen hours staying close to home, upgrading his ship, stocking up on supplies, his decision to finally travel to new, undiscovered solar systems is given weight and meaning. Only now does he have any sort of attachment to the planets he will be leaving behind. He might return some day, or he might never see this system again. That feeling right there is what makes NMS worth playing, IMO... if you can take your time with it and switch off the Min/Max side of your brain :)

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

That's why I've always hated the "race to the finish line" style of gameplay (it took me three years before I ever got around to doing the Skyrim storyline, probably longer for Oblivion's), I'm more of a "journey is the worthier part" kind of guy. Heck, I just checked earlier, and I have apparently deleted seven characters in Destiny, and I already have my new Hunter at level 32 on PS4, mostly through Crucible trolling (fun clip coming soon!). And yet, not a single one of my characters has ever hit the max level after Year 1, nor have I done any end-game activities since February. The most fun in Destiny (for me) is the middle ground, which is what most folks try to race through.

That said, No Man's Sky was never going to be a game for me, but reading about players' experiences really makes me feel like I'm missing out on some really great moments.

Good stuff!

That said, it's definitely better than Destiny.

This really sounds like the kind of thing I could get lost in. Too bad I don't have a PS4. Guess I wait, for now.

- No text -

I've played 40-50 hours of no man's sky. For the most part I played like the author did the second time through.

I have been to 8 star systems, two atlas interfaces. I've scanned most of the things on most of the planets I've been on. I have really enjoyed the ride thus far.

Yesterday I started to top out. My multi-tool has long since been fully upgraded to where I want it at maximum capacity. My exo suit inventory slots have also been maxed out since last week. The past 10-15 hours have been a mix between exploring a few new systems and jumping from crashed ship to crashed ship looking for more storage space.

I have been disappointed that dialogue in abandoned outposts are repeating. That I've learned all the multi-tool and ship blueprints a few times over. (I think there might be a few factory based blueprints left to discover, but hard to say) I've taken it maybe TOO slow and am reaching some of the limits of the content within a few hops of where I started.

I am concerned about my journey ahead. Because once I max out my ship I'm not sure there's much reason to get me to progress. There is the joy of discovery, which is quite cool. But if the interactions at each location, the crafting, etc are all the same then I'm mostly done. Because as beautiful and technically amazing as this game is, the scenery isn't enough to get me to explore for forever.

Things are still new though. I've recently discovered the joy of space combat now that I have a ship with weapons which actually kill pirates. I have yet to explore underwater, or much on hostile planets. I have monolith stories to collect. And I have a metric F-ton of a ways to go towards the center of the galaxy.

I expect I'm 75% of the way through the ride, and I've enjoyed pretty much every minute of it. Even cussing at the inventory management issues. =)

Be sure to visit more Atlas interfaces. They get sort of crazy.

Yeah, I know. I don't think my rig will really do it justice.

The other end of the spectrum.

Enjoyed your comments and the review.

The other end of the spectrum.

Enjoyed your comments and the review.

Is it just me, or does that say way more about the player than it does about the game? :)

The other end of the spectrum.

Enjoyed your comments and the review.

Is it just me, or does that say way more about the player than it does about the game? :)

I think it says a lot about both. :)

https://youtu.be/1E9pKU_N15A?t=40s

When everything is special nothing is.

The other end of the spectrum.

Enjoyed your comments and the review.

Is it just me, or does that say way more about the player than it does about the game? :)

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.

Everything depends on the player's imaginative engagement with the content. There is probably a metaphor for life in there somewhere. I'm not saying that NMS is the Groundhog Day of video games, but still ....

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!

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.

- No text -

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!

You have no idea how ironic this paragraph is.

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!

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.

Oh, I didn't realize that in real life you travel to distant solar systems and discover unknown flora and fauna.

- No text -

Notice on the galactic map how some stars require warp drive sigma, or tau, or theta in order for you to go there? Those systems have different resources and blueprints available, and are the next "tier" of exploration, so to speak. It's not completely new or anything, but more varied and a seemingly wider pool of variables to draw on.

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. Sure, some weird shit can happen. That's "emergent" generation, but to claim that procedural is the same as random is false, and to claim that procedural is not designed is equally false.

I have found maybe 1 world that was actually boring. All of the others were interesting in some way. And they are pretty damn fun to explore!

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 result of an algorithm, unchecked.

Earth, the result of an algorithm, unchecked. Humanity, 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.

The result of an algorithm, unchecked.

Earth, the result of an algorithm, unchecked. Humanity, the result of an algorithm, unchecked.

Which, is far more detailed and interesting than No Man's Sky's algorithm… there's more fun in 2 square miles of Earth than in NMS' entire universe.

What he means is that the algorithm isn't purely a randomizer of sets. It has some very designed rules of what goes where and stuff. Doesn't completely invalidate your point, but it does shed some light on how little black and white the issue actually is.

What he means is that the algorithm isn't purely a randomizer of sets. It has some very designed rules of what goes where and stuff. Doesn't completely invalidate your point, but it does shed some light on how little black and white the issue actually is.

I still think that in terms of raw quality, pure raw output from an algorithm will always lose to a good designer. The only thing algorithms have going for them is sheer quantity.

What he means is that the algorithm isn't purely a randomizer of sets. It has some very designed rules of what goes where and stuff. Doesn't completely invalidate your point, but it does shed some light on how little black and white the issue actually is.

I still think that in terms of raw quality, pure raw output from an algorithm will always lose to a good designer. The only thing algorithms have going for them is sheer quantity.

Has anyone even attempted to dispute that? I think that's pretty well understood and undisputed. But that doesn't mean that anything generated with an algorithm is automatically garbage.

Well you've got to start somewhere right?

Not sure how you are missing that the fact that the worlds aren't hand-designed is the attraction here, because it heightens the sense of exploration that nobody knows what might be out there.

It's definitely not my type of game, but it seems obvious why others might find it compelling.

- No text -

Well you've got to start somewhere right?

Not sure how you are missing that the fact that the worlds aren't hand-designed is the attraction here, because it heightens the sense of exploration that nobody knows what might be out there.

This is why you put secrets into your game. Design a world full of them, and so too will people wonder what they can find. Secrets are an almost completely lost art at this point though.

Though I do agree with your assessment that secrets are turning into a lost art

Now see, I've been to dozens of planets and I ain't seen nothing like that.

Has anyone even attempted to dispute that? I think that's pretty well understood and undisputed. But that doesn't mean that anything generated with an algorithm is automatically garbage.

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.

Do you think Bungie tested every possible outcome for how the Elite AI would react in every position throughout every Halo 1 map?

I mean sure maybe Rockslider has, but I doubt at release that every single possible outcome was tested. Now they definitely tested it well and made sure that a representative set fit the design that they imagine when they wrote the algorithms that defined the behaviors of the Elites...

Also your hardline stance on "designed" vs procedural is laughable. Almost any video game you play involves algorithms that react to what the player has done, whether it be in AI behavior, Physics, basically anything with an if statement in the game's code is some kind of algorithm that was designed to procedurally create the experience you have playing the game.

To debate with you on your level, I would simply say that to take your logic to it's inevitable conclusion that the ultimate game experience is a Movie because every single element that the player sees or experienced is designed for them without any hint of procedural logic or algorithm to modify it. The next step up I guess would be quick time events because they too are the most bespoke designed actions in video games, from the camera angle to the animation, input and outcome.

I agree with you on so many things, but never in the hardline, black and white way that you do.

This Reddit post sums up the sad truth regarding the hype vs. reality aspect of NMS and why people are actually justified on their disappointment, overhyped media notwithstanding (though that did help some unprepared folks get angry).

To be honest, I got quite sad after reading it up, even though I genuinely look forward to playing NMS after watching a live stream.

- No text -

A game being divisive doesn't mean it's bad.

Pretending like popular opinion on a game means anything to the individual is asinine. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that this isn't objective and that different people can and do have different opinions? It could have a metacritic of 1.0, and it still wouldn't prove anything.

Of course not. The best games are divisive.

But NMS isn't really divisive. There is a consensus. The consensus is average. You range from okay to shit. Who is calling it a masterpiece?

LOL

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/xeKHfZv

Everyone's probably seen it already, but this always makes me laugh:

Of course not. The best games are divisive.

But NMS isn't really divisive. There is a consensus. The consensus is average. You range from okay to shit. Who is calling it a masterpiece?

??????????

A LOT of people are calling it phenomenal. Here, on Metacritic, and elsewhere.

Of course not. The best games are divisive.

But NMS isn't really divisive. There is a consensus. The consensus is average. You range from okay to shit. Who is calling it a masterpiece?

No one, but as the Kotaku review makes clear, the rewards the game offers are very subjective, and two people (or even the same person) can have wildly divergent opinions about it. An "average game" does elicit such different responses.

- No text -

- No text -

Over at Vice Gaming, Patrick wrote a story about the backlash surrounding the game, with a particular focus on the subreddit and a thread that was posted there a few days ago that compiled an entire list of things that were advertised at one point, but never appeared in the game.

This whole debacle does quite a bit for me to highlight why Bungie is no longer the open developer we used to love, and is now seen by many in the general audience as just another tight-lipped, money-hungry company.

- No text -

- No text -

Over at Vice Gaming, Patrick wrote a story about the backlash surrounding the game, with a particular focus on the subreddit and a thread that was posted there a few days ago that compiled an entire list of things that were advertised at one point, but never appeared in the game.

This whole debacle does quite a bit for me to highlight why Bungie is no longer the open developer we used to love, and is now seen by many in the general audience as just another tight-lipped, money-hungry company.

All I can think of is "if you see a mountain in the distance, you can go there." That sentence got me so hyped for Destiny, and the final product was incredibly disappointing in that respect. It's hardly an open world at all. No Man's Sky, on the other hand, is an open GALAXY. How can people not be completely flabbergasted by the scale of the thing?

- No text -

All I can think of is "if you see a mountain in the distance, you can go there." That sentence got me so hyped for Destiny, and the final product was incredibly disappointing in that respect. It's hardly an open world at all. No Man's Sky, on the other hand, is an open GALAXY. How can people not be completely flabbergasted by the scale of the thing?

Opening the star map, flying around in it, and realizing what that means still blows my mind.

I really find myself in a very middle-of-the-road position on No Man's Sky. I enjoyed it immensely for 15 or 20 hours, then I completely abandoned it. I don't regret buying it or playing it. I had a blast. 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. It desperately needs some unique, hand-crafted elements or at least something more interesting to do in order to pull me back in again. And if that happens, I'll be totally down to jump back in. If it doesn't, I won't be mad or disappointed--I had my fun with the game, and I'm okay with letting it go.

This is one of times where I can totally, completely understand both sides of the argument. I think No Man's Sky is incredible for it's technical achievement alone, but I also see how folks can play it and be totally underwhelmed compared to what we were shown and told about it in advertisements.

At the end of the day, all I can really do is shrug my shoulders, say "meh," move on, and keep an eye on how the game develops from here.

Is the "you can go there" area going to be the Plaguelands?

FWIW, in the Just Cause games (well, 2 and 3 for sure), you CAN actually go to any visible landmass. Worth a try IMO.

All I can think of is "if you see a mountain in the distance, you can go there."

I always just think of people getting to other side of the big lake on Regret in Halo 2 for some reason.

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.

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).

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.

It'll be interesting to see how TLG and FFXV sell.

D:

This whole debacle does quite a bit for me to highlight why Bungie is no longer the open developer we used to love, and is now seen by many in the general audience as just another tight-lipped, money-hungry company.

I mean, they definitely are tight lipped. Not that that's inherently a problem (Im actually of the opinion that they cmunicate fairly well, apart from the nightmare that was the Exotic Shard debacle.)

As for money-hungry... Well, you know how I feel about microtransactions. And the Taken King Collector's Edition. And Playstation Exclusivity.

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.

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?

…

Though generally you have a reasonable point, its their reveal that even led the game to get developed. They'd just suffered a flood in their office that set them back quite a bit. They had already lined up their reveal, however, and they were encouraged to go through with the reveal anyway. The positive response from that reveal was a major factor in the team deciding to soldier on.