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 Wow, and I thought the existing Sednoids were neat (Score 2) 2

A sednoid (2014 FE72) with an orbit out to 3000 AU (0,05 light years)? Talk about extreme, I would have been happy just for a couple more "ordinary" sednoids! But that's exactly the sort of thing you want to see if you're of the view that trying to group the universe into a neat collection of "stars" with "planets" orbiting them is oversimplistic. This lends credence to the notion that you're going to get shared debris between different stars, rogue planets that don't orbit stars, etc. Because with large bodies reaching that far out, it becomes pretty easy to perturb them to leave the solar system altogether.

I have no clue what the discovery of 2013 FT28 is going to say about the possibility of an additional large planet in our solar system, but I look forward to the papers on it! Hopefully it won't rule one out, and will instead better constrain an orbit

Comment Re:Given the reviews (Score 0) 453

Indeed, literally days before the release Sean was at Darmstadt telling a German interviewer that the game is just like in the trailers.

The trailers were, of course, all rigged. You can even find the models they used to rig it in the unpacked game files - lacking the articulations and animations needed for actual use in game.

And then let's not forget the "pretend that the lack of multiplayer is a bug because too many people are playing" aspect once players started discovering the ruse.

Comment Re:I'm having fun (Score 0) 453

Actually, no. It was very explicitly defined. Sean Murray, right up to days before the release, made explicit, yes-or-no responses to things contained in the game. Almost all of which were false. When things started turning out to not be in the game, such as multiplayer, he pretended it was a "bug" that people couldn't see each other - even though it was demonstrably not supported, including there being no real-time network traffic and no player models in the game files.

It's not a case of "buyers filling in the gaps". It's a case of the developer deliberately trying to deceive customers about what the game contained. Including putting a deliberately long painful grind to reach the center of the galaxy, and telling people that all sorts of neat stuff was near the center, to keep them playing for long periods of time. A cynical individual would view that as them deliberately trying to get people to play for too long to get a refund.

Comment Re:If your ads for "Titanic" say the ship sinks (Score 0) 453

Apparently you don't know the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact.

Ad: "Ghostbusters is funny"
You: "It wasn't funny."

Liability: None. Because that's an opinion.

Vs.

Ad: "Ghostbusters stars Tom Hanks."
You: "No, it doesn't."

Liability: Yes. Because that's false advertising.

Understand the difference?

Comment Re:50 hours of crap. (Score 2) 453

You'd have as much luck "meeting up" in Super Mario Brothers. There is no real-time networking traffic and no player models in NMS. The "whoops, there must be a bug" reaction is a baldfaced lie.

And the claim that it's unrealistic to reach the same place are BS. There are not 2^64 stars in the starting galaxy (Euclid), only a few tens of billions. And everyone starts out roughly the same distance from the center, which means that they're all in a narrow spherical shell containing only a tiny fraction of those stars. It's rare in the game to not come across systems discovered by others, even when you're not trying.

(The 2^64 claim is valid, but only in that there are 2^32 galaxies)

As for day and night, the game is totally inconsistent about that. You can approach the "day" side of a planet and have it turn out to be night, and vice versa. Really it's hard to think of something in the game that's *not* totally glitched. Even keyboard support is glitched - punctuation in naming discoveries gets mixed up. I mean, how the heck do you even manage to mess up something like that? Oh god, let's not get into the naming filter that lets through names like "Cum Mountain" but bans words like "Cousin" and "Can't".

Comment Re: Given the reviews (Score 1) 453

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) 453

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 2) 453

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) 453

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) 453

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can* you believe?!" -- Bullwinkle J. Moose

Working...