No Man's Sky - Switch release due on 7th October

I still struggle to conflate the prevailing narratives from before and after release. Before the game came out the one question repeated over and over was "what do you actually do in No Man's Sky". The hype surrounding the game was at such high levels partly because a lack of clarity over the content in the game meant people were free to imagine what to expect from the release. And yet, following release and the massive negative backlash, the overriding reaction is that the game was misadvertised and sold based on false promises. How is it that these two seemingly conflicting narratives exist? If so little about the game was known, how can the backlash be one against misadvertising?

If the negative reception was one of disappointment in the game not delivering on expectations, then fine. But what we have is this incorrect consensus in the gaming community that Sean Murray set clear, defined expectations for the game which were not delivered. This just isn't true.

So yeah, it all just feels like bandwagoning and unfair vilification rather than the legitimate criticism it should be.

Great gif though

I don't agree with it.

But that Gif is genius.

OrangeRakoon wrote: Before the game came out the one question repeated over and over was "what do you actually do in No Man's Sky".

That's a common misconception. If anyone had taken the time to actually read/watch/listen to Sean Murray pre-release, they'd have known exactly what you "did" in NMS. When the game came out and the majority of things that he said you could do turned out to be outright lies, that's when people got pissed.

It's not this big mystery, he made loads of promises (some just weeks before release) and most of them were not present in the final game.

But we've been round and round this enough times now I guess, nothing new to be learned until HG actually start talking to their customers.

It's overblown, definitely. I mean, it's a game not the end of the world. I also think that Murray didn't mean to mislead. However he did, for whatever reason, vastly overstate what the game would be upon launch. Hard not to feel jilted somewhat.

Also, it's hard not to see this as a response to NMS's ASA referral:

"Steam Store Pages Now Only Able To Use In-Game Screenshots"

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/1 ... reenshots/

Murray was still claiming the game had multiplayer in the form of players being able to meet each other on launch day. Not months or weeks before the game came out, but when it was actually available to buy and play.
I don't see how that can be anything but intentionally misleading people.

OrangeRakoon wrote:...How is it that these two seemingly conflicting narratives exist? If so little about the game was known, how can the backlash be one against misadvertising?

If the negative reception was one of disappointment in the game not delivering on expectations, then fine. But what we have is this incorrect consensus in the gaming community that Sean Murray set clear, defined expectations for the game which were not delivered. This just isn't true...

That'a good call, OR. I feel that a lot of the frustration - and, well, seemingly outright anger, to be fair - has been caused by folk viewing a few video clips of Sean Murray talking and then adding two and two together to make eight. Personally I steered clear of watching most of the interviews and reports... it seemed as if the speculation and hype was getting out of control.

One aspect that I do struggle to understand is the multiplayer angle. Now, I recognise that there is a video clip where Murray suggested that players could theoretically meet each other, but that was pretty swiftly countered by the fact that the chances of this happening were incredibly small. And yet some folk thought that this meant hundreds of pilots would be grouping together and fighting side-by-side.

But time has passed and it seems as if the general accepted knowledge is that "Murray lied, there is nothing to do in NMS and people should get fifty pound refunds". The bandwagon has been rolling at high-speed it's gonna be tough to change these perceptions. I still think that Hello Games will be working on a raft of enhancements and improvements in a similar vein to how Evolution Studios did with DriveClub... but it does feel as if a lot of damage has already been done. To be fair, Sony doesn't appear to have done a great job in supporting Hello Games - as a global company and publisher of the game, I am sure they could have provided way more guidance in terms of communication and "managing the message".

Tl;dr Crazy expectations; keep quiet Murray; step up Sony; excited for future enhancements.

jawafour wrote:
One aspect that I do struggle to understand is the multiplayer angle. Now, I recognise that there is a video clip where Murray suggested that players could theoretically meet each other, but that was pretty swiftly countered by the fact that the chances of this happening were incredibly small. And yet some folk thought that this meant hundreds of pilots would be grouping together and fighting side-by-side.

Lagamorph wrote:Murray was still claiming the game had multiplayer in the form of players being able to meet each other on launch day. Not months or weeks before the game came out, but when it was actually available to buy and play.
I don't see how that can be anything but intentionally misleading people.

Brerlappin wrote:What? Really?? So him saying there is multiplayer, you can grief opposing players, that there would be faction wars, and all the other lies or "exaggerations" wasnt him setting expectations that werent delivered? C'mon son. He lied his strawberry floating arse off.

I know you're still a fan of the game, Jawa, and more power to you, but come on. Denial ain't just a river in Spain, baby

Preezy wrote:I know you're still a fan of the game, Jawa, and more power to you, but come on. Denial ain't just a river in Spain, baby

. Preezy, man, definitely - a big part of this problem has been Murray's mouth; I don't recall a case where a game developer has been on TV on so many occasions and, upon reflection, it seems that perhaps the guy was way out of his depth.

I think that created the situation where some folk literally expected a fully-simulated universe(s); from stardust down to sand granules and everything in between. It was never going to happen and, unfortunately, NMS will find it hard to break away from those perceptions no matter what Hello Games does.

Even so, they've said one thing that I do believe - that they're working hard on delivering enhancements to the game. We've heard nothing about what these improvements are or when they'll arrive, but I think Hello Games will have moved to an "actions speak louder than words" approach and the update(s) will arrive out of the blue. Yeah, I've still got faith .

I still like NMS as well, but I didn't expect it to get so samey (or so frustrating) so quickly. I mean, just the thought of having to trudge around yet another world searching for one or more of those "only appears for 30 seconds" birds, or any other ridonculously hard to find other animals, is enough to put me off playing for weeks.

I take the view that this game is the new Spore - some like it, but on the whole it disappoints the gaming community. Still though, we are another step closer to a fully realized simulated galaxy, and I wholly appreciate the effort HG has gone to.

Its just good to know that its not just Peter Molyneux who can create the Molyneux effect.

1>3>4>2 wrote:

DML wrote:Its just good to know that its not just Peter Molyneux who can create the Molyneux effect.

I, for one, welcome our new Murrayneux overlords.

I suppose whats so interesting about this game is that if they don't overpromise the world, gamers probably wouldn't have had any hype for it at all, it wouldnt have been picked up as a major first party release and it would probably have been a much smaller game of no real consequence. Its a victim of its own hype, but it kind of only exists BECAUSE it was hyped. It had to be.

I think in the end it became a bit of a runaway train and steamed out of control, and the hate has been a little ridiculous, but they did build that hype, and there are so many lies in the trailer. They were selling the vision in their heads, not the reality of the actual game.

Brerlappin wrote:What? Really?? So him saying there is multiplayer, you can grief opposing players, that there would be faction wars, and all the other lies or "exaggerations" wasnt him setting expectations that werent delivered? C'mon son. He lied his strawberry floating arse off. Theres actual video evidence of him lying about features that the game doesnt have. You straight up cant dispute it. He lied on camera. Its about as straight forward as evidence gets.

Lagamorph wrote:Murray was still claiming the game had multiplayer in the form of players being able to meet each other on launch day. Not months or weeks before the game came out, but when it was actually available to buy and play.
I don't see how that can be anything but intentionally misleading people.

Murray sought to clarify expectations for No Man's Sky ahead of its launch on PlayStation 4 tomorrow, August 9, in North America, and on PC on August 12, explaining in a series of tweets that players shouldn't go into the experience anticipating a multiplayer-focused game.

"To be super clear — No Man's Sky is not a multiplayer game. Please don't go in looking for that experience," Murray wrote in the first of a series of tweets.

Yes there are also several interviews with Sean Murray where he talked about multiplayer and how it would work in the game, with lobbies and seeing other players, but if you have to be very selective with the quotes you listen to in order to believe this was a clear, defined expectation.

Preezy wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote: Before the game came out the one question repeated over and over was "what do you actually do in No Man's Sky".

That's a common misconception. If anyone had taken the time to actually read/watch/listen to Sean Murray pre-release, they'd have known exactly what you "did" in NMS. When the game came out and the majority of things that he said you could do turned out to be outright lies, that's when people got pissed.

It's not this big mystery, he made loads of promises (some just weeks before release) and most of them were not present in the final game.

But we've been round and round this enough times now I guess, nothing new to be learned until HG actually start talking to their customers.

I disagree. If you go back over the large majority of features talked about prior to release, which we have before, they are present in the final game. Many are not implemented in the way people expected them to be - but again, that's because of the lack of clarification and detail of what you actually do in the game. It's not a misconception.

There is multiplayer, everyone is in a shared universe, you can name planets and creatures for others to discover

OrangeRakoon wrote:There is multiplayer, everyone is in a shared universe, you can name planets and creatures for others to discover

In this world, Wikipedia is a bigger multiplayer game than CoD.

It's been said before that Twitter is the biggest MMO of them all

Obviously though wikipedia is not a videogame (even if you might argue for it having gamified elements). No Man's Sky clearly is a videogame. The comparison you're making is silly.

Just a thought... I wonder if any GRcadian purchased No Man's Sky thinking that it was a multiplayer game?

I would be surprised if that were the case. Sure, we can point to instances where Murray did indeed answer a question by talking about multiplayer aspects in a way which perhaps was misleading... but, even though I hardly looked at the pre-launch hype, I was certainly clear that the chances of bumping into another player were extremely remote. It was unlikely that we'd be in the same area of the universe, let alone next to each other.

OrangeRakoon wrote:It's been said before that Twitter is the biggest MMO of them all

Obviously though wikipedia is not a videogame (even if you might argue for it having gamified elements). No Man's Sky clearly is a videogame. The comparison you're making is silly.

But the point I'm making is that simply uploading information to share with others doesn't make something a multiplayer game either. It's like having leaderboards or comparing achievements in any other single player game.

You can't call it a shared universe when two people in the same place at the same time can't actually interact or even see each other.

Didn't Murray tweet that he was amazed that 2 people had found the same spot on the same planet so soon after the game's release? He didn't tweet anything like "well that can't happen because there isn't any multiplayer", his reaction totally made it appear like these intergalactic meet-ups were physically possible, when in fact they're not.

jawafour wrote:Just a thought... I wonder if any GRcadian purchased No Man's Sky thinking that it was a multiplayer game?

I would be surprised if that were the case. Sure, we can point to instances where Murray did indeed answer a question by talking about multiplayer aspects in a way which perhaps was misleading... but, even though I hardly looked at the pre-launch hype, I was certainly clear that the chances of bumping into another player were extremely remote. It was unlikely that we'd be in the same area of the universe, let alone next to each other.

This was made clear, and I don't think anyone was expecting lobbies and matchmaking, or "traditional" multiplayer setups, but when two people on the first day found themselves in the same place, on the the same planet, at the same time, they could not see each other, or tell in any way that there was another player present. Because there was no multiplayer. It wasn't a case of the odds of being able to find someone else being incredibly small, which is fine, it just wasn't a feature included at all, which isn't.

Knoyleo wrote:But the point I'm making is that simply uploading information to share with others doesn't make something a multiplayer game either. It's like having leaderboards or comparing achievements in any other single player game.

You can't call it a shared universe when two people in the same place at the same time can't actually interact or even see each other.

It's similar to leaderboards but I don't think it is the same. It's a shared universe because you're in the same "instance" of the universe as everyone else thanks to the sharing of planet/creature names. In a game about discovery knowing that when you find a new planet you actually are the first person to go there, rather than just you haven't been there on your local copy before, is part of the experience. The game universe around you is always changing in real time as other people play.

It's not traditional multiplayer, but it's clearly different from playing say Ratchet and Clank. I don't think it's wrong to call it multiplayer. And in this case, when they had brought up the distinction between multiplayer and "traditional" multiplayer before, I don't think a clear, defined expectation of traditional multiplayer was set up. That was the initial point!