Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re: Given the reviews (Score 1) 195

Indeed. While the landscape goes through LOD changes (although way slower than should be necessary, given that they're not doing any physics, no flowing water, nothing of the sort), there's apparently no LOD work with plant and animal models - they're always the same resolution no matter how close or far they are from you. So the game simply can't afford to have too many of them. Not a problem when they're tiny, but when they're big things that should be able to be seen from far away...

Comment Re:No good-guys here (Score 1) 195

Which was yet another lie.

1) Players playing has gone down over 90% since then on average. At off peak it's a fraction of even that. It makes no difference.

2) There is no attempt at real-time network traffic whatsoever. Nothing sends out real-time packets. Nothing is designed to receive them.

3) There is no player model in the game's files. There's some comically bad development models, along with weirdness like a monkey in a hat and the Fallout logo. But no actual player model.

There is no multiplayer. It's not a "bug". It is simply not there, and they know it.

Comment Re:Given the reviews (Score 1) 195

To be fair, the landscapes can often be quite beautiful. The procedural generation algorithm can have its limitations, but it also shows promise. It was just released too soon. It's actually IMHO the best part of the game. The "game" aspects are what are terribly done.

And concerning procedural generation, it was crippled by their lack of optimization, which prevented them from having large plants / animals without making the already bad pop-in unacceptable. So everything is kept small to moderate in size, which eliminates the "epicness" of planetary exploration. The potential can really be seen with things like the Big Things mod (though you can also see why they cut it, they would have gotten endless bug reports about the pop-in).

Comment Re:Huh (Score 1) 195

The sad thing is, even with the game in the state that it's in, if the development house had been at all decent, had at all play tested, they could have turned it into something that'd be at least decent to play. By means of:

1) Instead of all resources densely available on each planet, resources should be rare and sparse, so you have to actually look and survive.
2) Instead of all buildings densely spaced on each planet, each planet should have between "zero" and "a few" things present so that you don't experience basically the entire game on your first planet.
3) Scanning shouldn't tell you exactly where things are, only approximations, so that it's not just a "fly right to the marker, walk for fifteen seconds, then either pick it up in no time at all, or waste a ton of time mining".
4) In return for upping the actual "exploration" elements that the game was sold on, vastly reduce the busywork grind.

Unfortunately, the developers have actually taken every opportunity to increase the grind since it was released.

Comment Re:Huh (Score 1) 195

Indeed. NMS is built around a painful clicky grind. Seriously, you have to land, mine up resources, take off, click dozens of times to craft warp cells, click to load them, click through the slow, awkward starmap, wait through the animation, repeat four more times until you're out of warp cells and ready to repeat... all in order to go a bit over 1000 light years. Out of nearly 180000 that you have to do to reach the center. Where you're told that the game will utterly change, where planets get weirder and the life stranger and all sorts of other things are going on (none of that is true) and to reach the "ending", which turns out to be nothing more than the game actually punishing you for getting there by zooming out and crash landing your ship in the next effectively identical galaxy.

Comment Re:It's Sony - duh (Score 5, Informative) 195

The developers weren't just intentionally vague, they outright lied, straight yes-or-no answers to straight yes-or-no questions about what was in the game, just days before the release. Then even after release they continued to lie about it. When two players went to the same place at the same time to see each other (something the developers had continually insisted was possible), the developers pretended it was a bug - even though they knew damn well that it was physically impossible. The game has no real-time net traffic needed to support multiplayer and there is no serious player model included in the game files (there's a couple comical temporary development models in there, along with a monkey in a hat, the Fallout logo, and a bunch of other amusing stuff, mind you).

The reason that so many people played for so long before seeking refunds was because the developers kept insisting that things were in the game that most definitely weren't. And they put in this huge "grind" to try to slow everyone down, to drag out how long it would take for them to find this out. When a player playing nonstop for 20 hours managed to reach the center of the galaxy (the goal) on the same day as release, going through the relentless over-and-over clicking to do so, the developer's "solution" to the "problem" was to cut the distance you travel per warp by a third, tripling the clicky busywork. And they introduced a bug at the exact same time they did so.

And BTW, after being told that everything's at the center of the galaxy - that the creatures get weirder, there's more going on there, that there's a big exciting ending there, you know what's actually there? Absolutely nothing. You go to the center and the game actually punishes you. There's no ending, just an animation of you flying out of the center and it crash lands you in the next galaxy, which is no different from the current one.

Comment Re:We need this (Score 1, Insightful) 227

Seriously, we need people actively looking into making those new type of batteries instead of just researching them and never do anything with the research, like we've seen for the past 5 to 10 years.

That's right! That's why my cell phone which uses more power than my cell phone of 10 years ago with a battery less than a third the size lasts significantly longer - because everyone's been "never doing anything with the research", right?

Good research results make news. Their employment in commercial products generally doesn't.

Comment Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. (Score 1) 152

I don't "misunderstand" anything, that is exactly what the device did. It didn't precool anything, it didn't ramp anything down, it just randomly shut off when too many people had their AC on (aka, when it was hottest). And in Iowa in July, even if you did know when it was about to go off and tried to "precool" (which I assure you, does not work well), you'd be burning up long before the AC kicks back in.

Slashdot Top Deals

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One to hold the giraffe and one to fill the bathtub with brightly colored power tools.

Working...