Relax, there's trillions of other moons, if you travel far enough.
Relax, there's trillions of other moons, if you travel far enough.
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.
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.
Ad: "Ghostbusters stars Tom Hanks."
You: "No, it doesn't."
Liability: Yes. Because that's false advertising.
Understand the difference?
It takes about fifty hours to reach the center, where all the promised great things that are missing are said to be (hint: they're not).
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".
I'm ultimately repeating what has been said over and over again here, but perhaps this will add a tiny bit more emphasis:
RAID IS NOT BACKUP.
Get BackBlaze for off-site backups. Or CrashPlan. Whatever. Just get something that is off-site that isn't going to lose your data when your RAID dies because of a controller failure, or a fire, or a flood, or an earthquake, or because a virus or hacker nuked your disks.
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...
Well yes, he was the one taking point on everything. Who knows what other people in the company thought.
If I was a programmer for HG, I'd be pretty mad about how he's managed this whole thing.
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.
Pop-in = things suddenly appear in the landscape (landscape features, plants, animals, etc). Not a problem when they're appearing as tiny dots on a distant horizon. BIG problem when they're appearing right in front of you.
Because the "flying around the galaxy" aspect is pretty limited, and deliberately slowed to a crawl.
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).
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.
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.
Indeed, at least PC users have mods, like "Low Flight" (takes off the game's annoying "training wheels" that take any semblance of fun out of flying over a planet) and "Big Things" (so that trees and rocks can be bigger than the tiny default ~7 meter maximum)
To do nothing is to be nothing.