I dunno; the tech of this game is undeniably impressive, as is the art style but there still doesn't seem to be much of an actual game behind it all. It doesn't seem as if there is much longevity to this title; it's something you'll fool around with for an hour or two and then move on to a game where you can actually accomplish something. As such, I'm not sure it's worth its current price point and definitely is not something I'd risk a pre-order on. It's a shame because the concept seems sound; it's just the actual implementation that appears lacking.

Yeah, lasting gameplay is my concern. It looks miles wide but inches deep.

I'd love to be wrong in this case though...

$60 ehh?? i would like to see alot more than i've seen over the past couple years before i drop that much coin..

The_Pink_Tiger wrote on Mar 3, 2016, 19:18:
I dunno; the tech of this game is undeniably impressive, as is the art style but there still doesn't seem to be much of an actual game behind it all. It doesn't seem as if there is much longevity to this title; it's something you'll fool around with for an hour or two and then move on to a game where you can actually accomplish something. As such, I'm not sure it's worth its current price point and definitely is not something I'd risk a pre-order on. It's a shame because the concept seems sound; it's just the actual implementation that appears lacking.

I think that's a sentiment shared by a lot of people. I linked the Ars coverage of it earlier in the OOTB today, and my takeaway from it is still exactly that, where and what is the actual game? In fact they touched on that very point....

I actually was sad to see a lack of small-scale quest structure, honestly, because that leaves combat as a more "shoot at things if you want to" sort of system, as opposed to a well-defined exercise in sci-fi blasting.

Yeah. I'm firmly in the wait and see camp on this one, and I doubt it'll bear out for the good.

As I have said since this was revealed to the public, this game is going to be shallow, boring, grueling and ultimately pointless. Ultra huge galaxies with "content generation" that are interesting and fully fleshed out won't become a thing until we have 10Thz quantum processors, 512YB (Yes, yottabytes) of multiplanar RAM, Video cards that can render the world as we see it at 2000FPS with no tearing at all, and storage devices the size of rice grains that hold zetabytes of information. Hell, the world is just that complex to simulate in full, real time detail let alone galaxies teeming with billions of stars and trillions of worlds. Each unique unto itself.

This game is a joke. "Look, you discovered a plant! You can name it! Look, you discovered another plant that looks almost exactly like the last plant you just discovered except it's a different color. Isn't this exciting? Isn't this revolutionary?"

Pathetic.

nobody has even begun to tackle any kind of "procedural" storyline generation or quest structure... and that would not be impossible - just extremely difficult to figure out - thats why they always go for the low hanging fruit: the environments, items, creatures, etc.

actually i think the limit theory kid was trying to do that but he lost his mind or something and has been spinning his wheels for a few years on that.. last i heard it was "just about to be finished!!" as usual

anyways, the real business would be some kind of procedural AI that makes NPCs that react with each other and the world and the player, and do it in a somewhat convincing way - honestly with the bullshit storylines that these dumbfucks come up with these days, a computer algorithm cant do much worse... probly improve on it quite a bit

I've read the "goal" of the game is to make it to the center of the universe, I'm sure those people who enjoy exploration in Elite Dangerous will be up to the task.

The nano-bots being omnipresent on every planet seemed a little silly to me, here's an open world game but then put nano-bot police that come after you if you start killing lifeforms.

Imo this "game" is a classic example of a game engine looking for a real game... like Spore, just a teensy bit prettier and more ambitious.. at being a pointless sandbox.

This and Planet Coaster will be the games I drop money on the this summer. Between those two, I should be good until Christmas.

The_Pink_Tiger wrote on Mar 3, 2016, 19:18:
"...and then move on to a game where you can actually accomplish something."

LOL

They're really appealing to the sort of, Spaceman Spiff sense of exploring uncharted planets, and I can dig that. The game DOES look a little devoid of purpose though.

rudra wrote on Mar 3, 2016, 21:02:
nobody has even begun to tackle any kind of "procedural" storyline generation or quest structure...

Except Skyrim 5 years ago with its radiant quest thing. Boring as hell but it was there.

"Procedural storylines" is just approaching it in the wrong way. Games like Crusader Kings 2 and Dwarf Fortress are all about generating stories, and they're amazing. But people usually think of "stories" like in movies or novels, like you need characters with motivations that they communicate in speech and so on. That's what's hard to do with games. But I can't figure out why anyone wants that shit in games. Games already do amazing things (see above examples) but everyone wants them to be more like movies.

The_Pink_Tiger wrote on Mar 3, 2016, 19:18:
I dunno; the tech of this game is undeniably impressive, as is the art style but there still doesn't seem to be much of an actual game behind it all. It doesn't seem as if there is much longevity to this title; it's something you'll fool around with for an hour or two and then move on to a game where you can actually accomplish something. As such, I'm not sure it's worth its current price point and definitely is not something I'd risk a pre-order on. It's a shame because the concept seems sound; it's just the actual implementation that appears lacking.

Yeah, it definitely feels like they put the cart (world-building) before the horse (gameplay).

Still, at least they have a shipping date, unlike *some* space games.

rudra wrote on Mar 3, 2016, 21:02:
nobody has even begun to tackle any kind of "procedural" storyline generation or quest structure... and that would not be impossible - just extremely difficult to figure out - thats why they always go for the low hanging fruit: the environments, items, creatures, etc.

Actually, procedural storytelling is Ken Levine's current project.

actually i think the limit theory kid was trying to do that but he lost his mind or something and has been spinning his wheels for a few years on that.. last i heard it was "just about to be finished!!" as usual

Yeah, Josh is pretty bad at estimating deadlines. I'll give the 23 year old a break tho. He did have some kind of mental breakdown, but has come back and work on the game continues apace. After the breakdown, he stopped working at home and moved into an office in a tech park. Recently he had to give a presentation to the board:

Had to give a presentation to the 'board' today at work to be 'officially' accepted into the Tech Park (despite the fact that I've had an office and been working there for...a long time now...would have been pretty awkward had they say 'nah, get out' ).

They were very pleased with what they saw Apparently several wanted to be on my advisory team, so I've now got some serious businessfolk who will be helping me structure the timeline / work / everything else as we get closer to release (I can almost feel the communal sigh of relief at the thought of Josh having some form of 'project management' team!)

anyways, the real business would be some kind of procedural AI that makes NPCs that react with each other and the world and the player, and do it in a somewhat convincing way - honestly with the bullshit storylines that these dumbfucks come up with these days, a computer algorithm cant do much worse... probly improve on it quite a bit

Yeah, I'd be down for that, but it'll be a couple of decades before we get something decent.

Maybe this is the Sci-Fi version of Minecraft. Seem's Minecraft is doing ok for itself.

The_Pink_Tiger wrote on Mar 3, 2016, 19:18:
I dunno; the tech of this game is undeniably impressive, as is the art style but there still doesn't seem to be much of an actual game behind it all. It doesn't seem as if there is much longevity to this title; it's something you'll fool around with for an hour or two and then move on to a game where you can actually accomplish something. As such, I'm not sure it's worth its current price point and definitely is not something I'd risk a pre-order on. It's a shame because the concept seems sound; it's just the actual implementation that appears lacking.

NO. please god no. there's a million other games out there that rely solely on a small-scale quest system to make up the "content". fuck that shit. give me PvP, arena, some sort of galactic campaign with all the other players, daily/weekly/monthly objectives to do, other than that just let me explore. It's possible to have things hidden, for there to be all sorts of secrets to uncover, new mechanics to uncover by exploring, upgrading tech, your ship etc, now global faction plots.

but please god, no more fucking questing. that shit needs to die.

If the game is entertaining, I'm happy for it to be whatever it is.

That said, preordering without knowing if it's entertaining isn't something I'll be doing, especially at that price.

The only thing unique here is that you get to name things you find first and the name sticks for everyone.

Boy will those 12 year olds have fun with that. BiggusButtas, a large gas giant, etc...

The_Pink_Tiger wrote on Mar 3, 2016, 19:18:
I dunno; the tech of this game is undeniably impressive, as is the art style but there still doesn't seem to be much of an actual game behind it all. It doesn't seem as if there is much longevity to this title; it's something you'll fool around with for an hour or two and then move on to a game where you can actually accomplish something. As such, I'm not sure it's worth its current price point and definitely is not something I'd risk a pre-order on. It's a shame because the concept seems sound; it's just the actual implementation that appears lacking.

+1

Bub wrote on Mar 4, 2016, 07:34:
The only thing unique here is that you get to name things you find first and the name sticks for everyone.

I believe the name of the pilot who discovered the planets will be indicated but you do not get to name planets.
At least that is what I thought how it works.
Otherwise the naming will go way out of hand not to mention coming up with new names after a few million planets have been named.