Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment Re: Given the reviews (Score 1) 207

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) 207

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) 207

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) 207

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) 207

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:50 hours of crap. (Score 3, Interesting) 207

For those who have someone escaped the drama associated with NMS and want to learn what all the fuss is about, this review does a great job of explaining - not just listing the missing features, but showing the emotional impact it had on fans who were incredibly hyped for the game.

There are some scam games on Steam that are designed to last two hours to get past the refund limit.

No Man's Sky is one of these.

I think that may be accidental - at least, I don't credit the devs with the skill to cook that up. The problem here is that the game is missing nearly every promised feature, but there's no way to discover that until you leave the first planet. Then it all turns to shit. The timing, specifically, was likely a coincidence, but Hello Games definitely knew what they were shitting out.

Also, the game crashes frequently even on console, but it can go hours between crashes. For PC, we're used to that sort of shit, and while I think that's still worth a refund, you wouldn't get mass outrage. On the console OTOH, Just Works (TM) is the freaking point of console games.

Still, had the game not been missing almost every promised feature, I think the player base would have been content to wait for a patch to fix the crashes.

Comment Re:It's Sony - duh (Score 5, Informative) 207

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:It's Sony - duh (Score 2) 207

50 hours? No way.

You could spend 50 hours in NMS just looking for any of the 100 missing promised features. Sure it's not all a lie? Surely it's there somewhere? Dammit.

The marketing for this product was likely illegal under most nations' consumer protection laws - heck, it was so blatant that even under US law they probably crossed the line. When a product is "not fit for purpose", playtime isn't a relevant factor. If Sony's giving refunds, it's only because their legal team told them to stay clear of fraud. I'll give Steam credit for actually caring about customer trust.

Comment Re:Fair use (Score 1) 153

It would be fair use only if used infrequently. For example, if you want to quote someone else's article in your article, that's fair use. However, if your entire business is dependent upon making snippets from thousands of articles, that's no longer fair use, it's commercial use.

No, you're wrong.

First, fair use applies to both commercial and non-commercial uses. For example, when Mad Magazine did a movie parody, that would be fair use, even though the magazine us sold for an increasing cheap price and is a commercial venture.

Second, the previous poster didn't really explain it well. Fair use is when a copyrighted work is used without permission in a way that, but for fair use, would be infringing, but which is not infringing because it is in the general purpose of copyright to allow such a use. It's evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and is completely fact dependent. This, any particular use might be a fair use, but not just any use actually is.

There's a test for finding out whether a use is fair or not. It has four factors, though it isn't a matter of adding up how many factors go one way or another, and depending on the case, one factor might be treated as outweighing another. Plus, it's just a tool; other factors can be considered too.

The factors are: 1) the purpose and character of the use, such as whether the use is for profit or not, whether the use would advance the progress of knowledge by resulting in something new or otherwise helpful; 2) the nature of the work being used, such as whether it is fictional and therefore very creative and worth protecting, or factual, and therefore not worth protecting quite so much (how a work presents itself is also often relevant in copyright; if you claim that something is a fact, even though it's made up or is just a hypothesis, others may get to treat it as a fact) as well as whether the work being used has already been published or not; 3) the amount of the work used, and how important to the work that portion is; and 4) whether the use will have a negative effect on the value or market for the work (positive effects are not considered).

Snippets of this type -- in aggregate, mind you -- have repeatedly been found to be fair use in the US because for the first factor, although the use is commercial in nature, it provides a benefit to society in being able to search for this material (which of course requires as much material as possible to be used in constructing the index, even though the index itself, as opposed to the results of a search, is not made available), the second factor may weigh against the use depending on the material being indexed, but it is not treated as being very important, obviously the whole work must be used to make the index for the index to be useful, so the third factor doesn't matter, and for the fourth factor, it doesn't harm the market for news articles to be able to find them and to see in one or two lines why they match your search terms. It doesn't matter if that's the business model.

And if you think this is extreme, look at time shifting, which is bad on all of the first three factors, but is sufficiently successful on the fourth so as to be fair use (in a general way, since again it is highly fact dependent)

Slashdot Top Deals

"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy." -- Dr. Emilio Lizardo

Working...