..that's a good point. And also beautiful. Still -- just want to point out that from a technical point of view, it really doesn't make much sense to implement real-time reduction of the surrounding star-system like they have in NMS (read: information outside the immediate rendering context is reduced/transformed to a 2d plane depending on the angle you're looking at it from). And then write a completely new engine and rendering system outside the planet cluster.

It's like saying that it makes sense to make a car with one specialized engine for each gear.

But what does make sense is that HG might have become convinced that they shouldn't spend time on implementing longer distance space-flight, instead of mashing the planets closer together. Which.. is sort of what they've been saying. That everything has been geared, specially since this year, into making the close space surrounding the space-station easy to reach. To the point where they have "toned down" planetary movement (to nothing) because it was "confusing" to some players, etc.

I would have preferred some sort of more dynamic speed on the flight, I guess. The same type of pulse-drive they have now, just with another step in between planets. So the longer distance, the more empty space, the higher speeds.

I mean, again, just making the point that when they have implemented different speed phases depending on proximity to stations and planets. Does it really make sense that they wouldn't have had a similar system for the other jumps? Like - "oh, awesome, we managed to solve something no one has ever done properly before. But now, let's not take any risks, so let's write a traditional engine solution for everything else in the game, just so we can have some normal loading screens. And then pump the surfaces full of blur-effects so it looks like everything else on the market. Really, let's not be arrogant here with our graphics tech! Remember, we need to give people what they expect, or we'll bomb!".

Doesn't strike me as the most obvious way they'd solve this.

What is probable is that they'd remove the transition steps completely. For avoiding the possibility of having to spend "too long" traveling (imagine the comments - I'm so bored with all the warping!". It takes so long to travel between the "spheres in the heavens". I feel very disoriented. Etc. Disaster!

And also have no fetches of any kind outside the local system to stop unpredictable things from creating "potential issues". (I've talked to a middle-manager at a dev once who insisted that it didn't matter that heaps were faster and more resource-efficient in a project. Because he knew that linear and brute force eventually would get the job done every time. We'd go.. "but, but.. you see, math.. here's logic.. proof... running time analysis. Determined maximum number of node jumps given abstract framework limited to 24 character sequences. Wouldn't have any of it - so boss demanded that the solution should be /safe/. Turns out, they made a lot of money, so they must have been right!).

But the way you transition between planets and space is the same method they'd use, right... Except that part is much more elaborate, and with objects that have more detail meted out in a very short amount of time.

I mean, we do get that, right? That when you see the landmasses from orbit, and travel down to land on the specific large blob that turns out to be a mountain - this is the same process as approaching another star-system. Just with more detail dropping in at a much higher rate?

Seamlessly approaching planets from a distance as well, determining how it looks at every step of the way (that is, instead of swapping out the flash-card for a new one real fast when no one's looking). It's the same impossible feat here. And it has just not been done before.

But no - there's a wall behind the last planet, and the sun is fake. End of discussion. Clearly, there's a skybox there, because otherwise the ram would be too small from the number of stars in the galaxy having to be sored. Thank you for being open-minded and respectful of other people's views. *sigh*

Why, thank you :)
And yeah, that really doesn't make much sense.

Indeed. Confusing to players who don't understand nor want the experience of actual, realistic-inspired space travel and prefer things to be just static. And also, easier to code for the Devs.

That's what Rebel Galaxy already does really, really well. Kind of impressive, really - and so subtle you might not even notice it. And it requires you to actually pilot the ship while you're flying, too - as any cluster of asteroids or scrap, just like enemies, planets and stations, will pull you out of warp and into sublight speed. And, even more impressive, if you run into friendlies and engage your engines with them along their broadsides, it'll actually limit your speed to theirs so you can cruise along with them. The further your course differs from theirs, say if you pull away mid-flight, the faster you get again. That's a really nice, hands-off system they got there. Also, if the game needs more time to render something in front of you, you'll slow down a bit as well - barely noticeable, and prevents things from just popping up. It's awesome, and did I mention the incredible cool sound design with it all? The OST, SFX, and voice - "Accelerating to sublight" whenever you leave the proximity of stations, proximity warnings when collisions are imminent, lots of cool stuff and big focus on ship-style broadside battles. Also, see attachment :)

There's little reason to go as deep as having not a static backdrop for a system, but actual stars there. While it may be fun to just point your nose at one of these dots and say "Engage!" before realizing you have to press the button yourself... and then ending up in this specific system... not doable. For one, the jumpdrive has limited range. The chances of you picking a star you can reach are very small. In that direction, there might not be any within your range. And highlighting those few that are would be awkward, too - either way to few, or the other way around, way too many so the HUD is overloaded with too much crap. For there to be a fluid transition from system to system, each of these stars would have to be an actual thing, yeah, as you said. That would require a gigantic system to even be able to store these coordinates, and so many, with very few, like, 5% or so, actually visually moving when engaging warp. That's not worth the effort for that kind of a game NMS is.

I'd rather have them develop multiplayer. It wouldn't need much resources in terms of servers, as it would still be all offline, until you actually get to a system with another player in it. That's when there needs to be an instance created, and only this one system has to be run via server. Granted, there might be quite a few systems at the same time, probably one hundred or so. It's all singleplayer, until you enter a system someone else is currently in - then, drop-in, drop-out multiplayer for this one system. Logging in / out could have some beam-style visuals or something like that.

That is an excellent point and, funnily enough, precisely what I was worried about before the game got released - when people told me that I'll get an entire galaxy to explore, I usually responded with "For most people, majority of what you can find in space is not that interesting." What I hoped for was that Hello Games would try to strike a nice balance between making the game feel as authentic as possible while also make exploration interesting - you know, keep up the illusion of exploring a galaxy while populating it with interesting things to find. As it stands tho, things veered so far into the unrealistic territory that I no longer feel like I'm exploring a galaxy, I feel like I'm exploring a bunch of stationary globes loosely connected by tubes which completely shatters any semblance of immersion, I can only suspend my disbelief so far. Again, for me. Even Starbound manages to make the illusion a lot more believable, using a lot more limited tools (which is incidentally why I played it for like 8 hours past last two days. That game is goood.)

Oh I absolutely agree with that. I know I'm going on and on about how galaxy could be generated in a lot more intriguing way, but the game has many far more serious problems than that, lack of meaningful content to begin with. They can worry about generation of star systems later.

Well, there can only be so much interesting stuff. Just like there wouldn't be any "good", if there was no "evil". You need "evil" to recognize the "good", you need "uninteresting" to recognize the "interesting".

What I mean to say I guess is, every life form seems to have the same basics - legs, arms, head, maybe a tail. Throwing a dice there can lead to some freakish creatures no doubt, but, where is the stuff that doesn't fit these categories? Let's say, gigantic slugs. Huge shape-shifting blobs. Things where you can't tell apart front from back. While a mantis with crab body and spider legs is interesting to look at, there are too many random, but still same-ish combinations of creatures out there. Maybe that's in line with evolution theory - and it's just when you find the right planet that'll have slug-like blobs with glowing orbs on their back - or is it their front...?

I've been playing Stardew Valley the last few days, unlocked everything it has to offer. Starbound is very much like it, isn't it? Stardew Valley in Space and 2D-platformer style. Do you explore other planets or space stations, too? I need to look into that some more, maybe it's something I might enjoy.

Agree it's not valid constructive complains its just whining for sake of whining like a 10 year old do.

Welcome to 2016 it seems this what you should do these days whine like 10 year olds go read steam forums its pathetic.

Oh and most retarded of them all is angry joe review man is he reyarded little child he wants things in the game that was never gonne happen anyway. Plus bugs he encounter many patch plus with knowledge is a small indie studio you can't actually think its bug free do you?

Sure NMS have its flawes but its still a awesome game and fun to explore but not like Angry Joe and millions og other retarts want then this game is not for them.

After NMS review i rate AJ show 4/10 now, what a retard.

NMS discover realy nice planets exploring i give it a 8/10 if some annoying bugs solved and some things like more different NPCS and more NPC action it could easly raise to 9/10 or more.

I must say sinds i got the game no crashes no stutter no bugs so maybe im lucky.

Almost 30 hours played and i still love it.

I don't think the issue is what the game is.
It's what it was promised to be.
People don't like being deliberately lied to.

I'm not in much of a rush, but that may be only me. I bought it, haven't played it yet, because I'm still waiting for another game to get closer to release to buy the best hardware I possibly can at that time. My current hardware is so 2008, it won't run newer titles.

That being said, I was kinda expecting them to keep working on NMS and patch in a few more things after fixing the bugs. I mean, they're a small indie team, cut them some slack... sure, you can't do all these things they promised, yet, at least. I'mma still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Though massive refunds might take away their ability to work much more on the game...

Are they at fault? Yeah. Bad communication, all the way, and promises which weren't held, yet. But the other half of the equation is the pure, massively out-of-control hype machine. Absolutely no hard feelings on my part.

...normally, and for every other faceplant of a release in the last bunch of years, I'd agree with that. The amount of "we're nervous about what people will say", or "I don't know what we should tell them, so let's talk about the weather" stuff has become a very predictable trend. Take the Double Fine kickstarter, for example. Very little normal marketing, and a lot of vague promises. On top of a mostly silent discussion going on under the radar that essentially amounted to: we need to simplify the game so the early players won't scream about how difficult the puzzles are, and that the game is a throwback to a dead genre that should be buried forever, just like Sain Kieron Gillen said in the long-long ago. Etc.

In the same way, developers - like Double Fine were - are genuinely afraid of announcing real problems or admit actual faults in the planning. Because, as was demonstrated at the time, any single sensational comment, no matter how much out of context, will be paraded on top of every gaming news site in approximately three minutes after the statement is made.

But in the case of NMS, what happened was something else entirely. What HG did was not say anything practically until they were on top of the release (or the date that was planned at the time, at any rate). Sean declared on e3 that he would rather "go dark", and then not announce anything until the game was finished. And then they did that, save for a few interviews. For example, the entire Gamespot cavalcade, and the IGN rick-roll featurette was spun out of one live gameplay demo segment at PAX. The Kotaku articles weren't based on anything. Any amount of other articles flatly invented features that never were mentioned by anyone, or seen in any of the gameplay demos.

And then the game fails to live up to /that/ hype, for some curious and inexplicable reason. And the same article convention writers are outraged that their hopes and dreams are crushed. 500 upvotes on Reddit! It's practically every gamer on the planet, and all are outraged! Now click my article in Forbes that spoils the game and declares it a turd of the ages. And while you're at it, see my youtube video on how Sean Murray exploited your beliefs in the next coming of Jesus, that you got after watching my other video on youtube!

..I mean, I've been in and out of blogs and gaming article stuff since the 90s. I've never managed to be able to write articles that meet the expectation of a headline-grabbing sensation serial. My reviews have been rejected by a long list of both commercial and free sites. The ones that got published netted me hate-mail from people who started reading something and didn't feel "entertained" enough.

And in that environment, where I basically was musing about gaming at the forefront of tech (as it was in the 90s), and interactive entertainment becoming main-stream (as it has, even without the requirements many imagined not that long ago, really), I got to speak with devs who have basically dropped massively better paying jobs, just to do exactly what I was talking about, to create something creative that pushed boundaries on interactive story-telling.

And they tell me about the "realities" in the industry. Which is that if they cannot please the headlines on Gaf, reddit and youtube - preferably all at once. Then they're going to lose their job. Several studios silently end without anyone noticing in this way - they aren't flashy enough, and their director doesn't sell something sensational enough, and the studios just disappear altogether. And end up being middle-ware makers, or have small-time jobs on publisher projects with stable pay. Where they create "Shooting Many Guns At Once 18", just like they didn't want to. Before retiring and getting a real job.

Or, I guess they're all basically waiting for an indie studio to do something creative, market it as something weird and untraditional, that then actually succeeds as something other than a cult hit. Something that defies the industry process with a publsher backed sales-package, that then ends up being a success in sales.

So you can imagine what we think of the headlines now. Where, as always, the paid bloggers and publishing partner type gaming sites don't have the incentive to hype No Man's Sky. But still need to create attention-grabbing press. Or where the sprouts in the "gaming expert" audience - who really consist of people who don't have an education, don't know programming, don't know design, who have marketed themselves by their skill at knowing things about games - create gaming news by sainting, or crushing, a popular figure in the headlines. Like happened with Double Fine and Tim Schafer, or any number of other previously well-known characters - who basically escape all attention if at all physically possible. Because they know, from experience, that they don't want to make, and cannot make, a product that pleases the Reddit headline/youtube type audience.

In the end we're still waiting for that indie studio to succeed. And it looked quite good there for HG for a while, all the way up until the last 3 months. :)

Just out of curiosity...why would you buy a game you have no intention of playing at the present time?...;) If you wanted to upgrade your hardware first, as you mentioned, then why not spend the money on your new hardware and buy the game later when you have the hardware you want already installed? I mean...the game is only going to get cheaper as time moves on...plus it would mean you'd also get the benefit of several game patches, too. Makes no sense to buy a game at full pop just to let it sit on the shelf for months, eh?...;) Who knows...in just six months the game might be selling for half-price or less--and would have most of its shortcomings addressed. Just thought I'd mention it...

Because I'm 1) not short on money and 2) am only waiting for release of another game and 3) supported the other games development with money already, too. I'm just 4) willing to spend money on what I think I'll enjoy. Also 5), Horizon Omega as a bonus here, for preorders. Didn't go wrong there, either, as I personally like the Horizon much more than the default starter. That's 6 good reasons why. ;)

What, I don't get the patches that are coming because I bought it already and won't install it for a few months...?! Nobody told me...! ;)

Unless, ya know, they pull something like a Dying Light on this. You know, where the game is available, you put it off to buy it later, and when you want to buy it you can't buy it anymore? That.

It's just a principle I go by. If it's something I'm interested in, I'm buying full price either way. If I wanted to, I could be playing this tomorrow on the best hardware on the market right now. But I'd rather play this and the other game on the best hardware on the market when that comes out.

Oh, also 6), I'm a maniac.