No Man’s Sky Launch Update: Exploits Removed, Sea Beds Souped-Up, Sunsets Intensified…

I want to talk about the No Man’s Sky [official site] pre-official-launch-but-post-unofficial-launch patch notes. They contain what lead developer Sean Murray describes as spoilers so if you want to go in without knowing much and have an unsullied first exploration don’t read any further.

I swear I’m about to talk about the patch and what the launch update will contain in a moment, but I also thought it would be a good time to flag up Rami Ismail’s blog post about day one patches. He’s not anything to do with No Man’s Sky and, because of various NDAs he can only talk in generalities about his own experiences BUT it’s a really useful insight into why day one patches happen and why No Man’s Sky’s patch might have happened. It focuses on the console certification process for games and the timescales for that versus what you can do on a lot of PC game distribution platforms.

Murray’s blog post on the subject notes: “We’re already proud of what we put on a disk, but if we had time, why not continue to update it?”

Now, this doesn’t address concerns like a lack of review copies for PC ahead of when people will be buying said game or the disparity between the console release date and the now-global shift to a 12 August PC release date but I do think it’s all useful stuff to know and bear in mind when approaching games.

What I’m getting at with all of this is that if you pick up the game on any of the current official release dates this isn’t really an update, it’s just the base game. But if you’ve been hungrily consuming early streams, pre-official release impressions and so on things might look a bit different so I figured it was of interest to people thinking of picking up the game:

Here are the additions Murray says the team has made over the last few weeks – they include the removal of some exploits (including the infinite warp cell one which would let a player get to the centre of the game’s universe in about 30 hours), alterations to inventories and the creation of more intense sunsets:

  • The Three Paths – there are now new, unique “paths” you can follow throughout the game. You must start the game on a fresh save, with the patch, as early choices have significant impact on what you see later in the game, and the overall experience.
  • The Universe – we changed the rules of the universe generation algorithm. Planets have moved. Environments have changed biomes. Galaxies have altered shape. All to create greater variety earlier. Galaxies are now up to 10x larger.
  • Diversity – Creatures are now more diverse in terms of ecology and densities on planets.
  • Planets – we’ve added dead moons, low atmosphere and extreme hazardous planets. Extreme hazards include blizzards and dust storms.
  • Atmosphere – space, night time and day skies are now 4x more varied due to new atmospheric system, which refracts light more accurately to allow for more intense sunsets.
  • Planet rotation – play testing has made it obvious people are struggling to adjust to this during play so it’s effects have been reduced further…
  • Terrain generation – caves up to 128m tall are now possible. Geometric anomalies have been added. Underwater erosion now leads to more interesting sea beds.
  • Ship diversity – a wider variety of ships appear per star system, and are available to purchase. Cargo and installed technology now vary more, and ships have more unique attributes.
  • Inventory – ship inventories now store 5 times more resources per slot. Suit inventories now store 2.5 times more per slot. This encourages exploration and gives freedom from the beginning. We’re probably going to increase this even further in the next update, for people in the latter game phases, and will allow greater trading potential.
  • Trading – trading is deeper. Star systems and planets each have their own wants and needs, based off a galactic economy. Observing these is the key to successful trading. We still working on adjusting this based on how everyone plays, but all trading values have been rebalanced across the galaxy, giving a greater depth. A bunch of trade exploits were uncovered and have been removed
  • Feeding – creatures now have their own diet, based on planet and climate. Feeding them correctly will yield different results per species, such as mining for you, protecting the player, becoming pets, alerting you to rare loot or pooping valuable resources.
  • Survival – recharging hazard protection requires rare resources, making shielding shards useful again. Storms can be deadly. Hazard protection and suit upgrades have been added. Liquids are often more dangerous
  • Graphical effects – Lighting and texture resolution have been improved. Shadow quality has doubled. Temporal AA didn’t make it in time, but it’s so close
  • Balancing – several hundred upgrades have had stat changes (mainly exo-suit and ship, but also weapon), new upgrades have been added.
  • Combat – Auto Aim and weapon aim has been completely rewritten to feel more gentle in general, but stickier when you need it. Sentinels now alert each other, if they haven’t been dealt with quickly. Quad and Walker AI is now much more challenging, even I struggle with them without a powered up weapon.
  • Space Combat – advanced techniques have been introduced, like brake drifting and critical hits. Bounty missions and larger battles now occur. Pirate frequency has been increased, as well as difficulty depending on your cargo.
  • Exploits – infinite warp cell exploit and rare goods trading exploit among other removed. People using these cheats were ruining the game for themselves, but people are weird and can’t stop themselves ¯\_(シ)_/¯
  • Stability – foundations for buildings on super large planets. Resolved several low repro crashes, in particular when player warped further than 256 light years in one session (was only possible due to warp cell exploit above).
  • Space Stations – interiors are now more varied, bars, trade rooms and hydroponic labs have been added
  • Networking – Ability to scan star systems other players have discovered on the Galactic Map, increasing the chance of collision. Star systems discovered by other players appear during Galactic Map flight
  • Ship scanning – scanning for points of interest from your ship is now possible. Buildings generate earlier and show up in ship scans
  • Flying over terrain – pop-in and shadow artefacts have been reduced. Generation speed has been increased two fold (planets with large bodies of water will be targeted in next update)
  • Writing – The Atlas path has been rewritten by James Swallow (writer on Deus Ex) and me. I think it speaks to the over-arching theme of player freedom more clearly now. Early mission text has been rewritten to allow for multiple endings.
  • Also of real interest to me was the little section at the end where Murray adds a little about what the team are working on now:

    “Next up we’re adding the ability to build bases and own giant space freighters. Temporal AA and my new cloud rendering tech should be coming soon too. It will really change the game again, and enhance it visually.”

    It’s interesting because when I attended the hands-on preview at Hello Games’ studio the impression I had was that the game was all about encouraging you to keep moving, keep exploring so you wouldn’t be building bases of any kind. Obviously a game can change over the course of development but the ability to build bases feels like it runs counter to so much of what I saw and thought about the general thrust of the game.

    Here’s what I said at the time:

    The game mechanics are also a point where the team needs to keep tight control. They’ve gone with a core set which are all geared around getting people to move and to explore. You can’t build because that encourages you to set down roots, there’s no multiplayer (encountering another player would be more akin to Journey, perhaps, and is expected to be an incredibly rare event) because multiplayer encourages people to cluster and stay.

    Encouraging players to move is also the reason the game currently doesn’t have temporal aspects like seasons or the deaths of suns or different biomes on a planet. “I don’t want [players] to be just staying on one planet. I think some people will but I don’t want people being like, ‘I can’t leave this until I’ve gone to the North Pole!'”

    I don’t want to speculate too much until I see the actual implementation/if it even happens because there’s been so much of that regarding No Man’s Sky, but just on a conceptual level that one surprises me.

    Disclosure: Our Alec has done some last minute writing on No Man’s Sky. He won’t write about it on the site anymore. Or make eye contact with us.

    From this site

    96 Comments

    1. Malarious says:

      I was pretty skeptical of NMS from the pre-release streams and the stuff some of the guys who got an early copy were saying about it. The patchnotes changed my mind and I preordered immediately after I finished reading them. There’s a lot of changes in there that I wouldn’t expect to be in a day one patch, but there they are.

      • General Advice Bot says:

        Never preorder.

        • dongsweep says:

          I don’t think preordering is a problem anymore. If you dislike the game or find out it is getting bad reviews before you play it you can ask for a refund. Even if the reviews are bad you can give it a fair 2 hour attempt, not miss out on the preorder special(s), and return it if your feelings match the bad reviews.

          • Troubletcat says:

            The problem with pre-ordering isn’t as simple you might get burned by a game that isn’t good… a reasonable refund policy fixes nothing.

            • Sabbatai says:

              How would you get burned if you can return the game?

            • Troubletcat says:

              You wouldn’t. That is not the entire problem with pre-ordering, though, so it doesn’t fix the problems with pre-ordering.

              Sorry if my first post wasn’t clear.

      • captainparty says:

        Same, I was on the fence and after the patch notes and then reading more blog posts, I’m all in. Day booked off work to play all in.

        • frightlever says:

          Don’t games usually unlock at 6pm? Or maybe you’re not in the UK.

      • clippa says:

        Surely we’re all waiting for confirmation of an fov slider before pulling the trigger?
        It looks to be about 45 degrees horizontal, unplayable over the other side of the room with a pad, never mind sat at your desk with mouse and keyboard.

        • PancakeWizard says:

          There’s going to be two FOV sliders: One for First person, one for ship cockpit.

          Murray confirmed in an AMA yesterday.

          • clippa says:

            Thanks man! Trigger pulled.
            I had no idea about the AMA, will have a read now.

      • trueGamer says:

        Just because of “words”? I mean, this game has been in development for about 4 years. Now they say they added all those things in 1 month?

        • Press X to Gary Busey says:

          Pretty comprehensive. Like the bullet points on the back of an expansion pack.
          They have excellent Hype Engineers.

    2. Sp4rkR4t says:

      Has anyone got the actual launch TIME for the game on PC and if there will be a pre-load?

      • Thurgret says:

        If in doubt, it’s often reasonable to assume 6pm UTC because Steam.

    3. xcession says:

      This patch adds almost everything I was skeptical about, which is a huge relief having rashly pre-ordered it the instant I first saw it years ago.

      I do hope draw distances are better on PC than they’ve demonstrated on console. In general I hope that the PC graphics can be tweaked as heavily as PC users are accustomed to.

    4. dangermouse76 says:

      So they were pushed/had to meet a launch date not finished ? This looks like stuff that would be in the a full game having gone gold.
      By which I mean this stuff was intended to be in the finished ready to sell day one game.

      • raazman says:

        It hasn’t launched yet.

      • Troubletcat says:

        Good job that stuff will be in the finished ready to sell day one game, then.

      • TechnicalBen says:

        Yes and no.

        Art is never finished. So this game and others can never be called “complete”. Though a single part could be considered finished I suppose.

        They have to set realistic limitations so it had a release date.

        The consoles have a “gold” where it is sent to be put on disc. This also applies to some digital distribution systems where they check the code runs, and give it a stamp of approval.

        Those things are somewhat negated by downloads and updates now, so things can be forever reworked or improved.

        If the changes are the Force Awakens or the “Special Edition Origional Trilogy” remains to be seen though.

        • dangermouse76 says:

          Agreed.
          My apparently poorly phrased initial comment was trying say….

          See quote:In fact most of us were back here the day after we went gold, working on this update. We’re already proud of what we put on a disk, but if we had time, why not continue to update it?

          That this IS in-fact what they wanted at gold and on disk. They just used a bit of marketing speak to put it across.So the game doesn’t come across as feature poor.

          Importantly this isn’t emotionally driven,it is simply an observation of what I think they have done. It’s not bad or wrong nor am I implying that it will detract from the experience. I think it’s just interesting viewing the work and marketing process of a game nothing more.
          And hey whats some polite chat between friends ?

          I am looking forward to seeing the game at release.

      • rochrist says:

        Kind of like pretty much any big game these days.

    5. Geebs says:

      I get the impression that they’ve added more grind (e.g. bigger galaxies) purely because the leakers have made a big deal about how quickly they’ve got through the game, and Hello are worried they’ll get slammed in the user reviews because the game is “too short”.

      Which is a bit depressing, to be honest.

      • GHudston says:

        I doubt it. Those complaints happened way too recently for them to have made such a big change in response.

      • Capt. Bumchum McMerryweather says:

        Not the case. They, like many developers, had to certify the game Gold to get it out and pressed in time for release. The 1.03 patch was used to include polish and features they were already intending to have at launch. There is a huge (and melodramatic) debate happening on reddit right now as to whether this is actually the case, however I believe it is.

        Regardless of these changes, it’s madness to accuse a game with 5 quintillion planets of being ‘too short’.

        With all of this said, I do hope the game does actually turn out to be fun, rather than just an impressive tech demo for a procedural algorithm. Here’s hoping.

        • syndrome says:

          18 quintillion tbp…. as if this is some sort of magical metric unit for measuring the amount of content and its perceived variety.

          I actually like the gameplay, but this 18 quintillion demagogical ridiculousness is getting on my nerves.

          How many different planets does Dwarf Fortress have then? Or Minecraft? Or Rimworld ffs……… Or, hmm, let’s try Elite: Dangerous…

          So fucking ridiculous, we all know there aren’t artificially sentient content-creators that cater to our needs intelligently, so every content has to be added manually — BY HUMANS — regardless of whether said content will be randomly and broadly distributed all over the 18 quintillion planets or presented in a linear fashion, i.e. as exactly 23 biomes.

          Anyhow, if this tabloid-like sensationalistic overhype brings gen pop to Dissapointmentville, it’s Hello Games’ own doing.

          It’s worth noting that the game time is artificially bloated by having you go back and forth (which is both defended and disguised by the ‘exploration’ demagogy), though I still like its concept as much as I liked Minecraft’s.

          Oh and the procedural soundtrack is brilliant.

          • syndrome says:

            “time is artificially bloated”

            People sadly don’t readily understand how some game mechanics actually work, and this one has the same inventory management aspect as Minecraft.

            If you depend on inventory management, and that is really one of the most intuitive mechanics one can think of, the capacity of said inventory is where your game lies.

            You have an actual implicit but mathematical inhibitor of player actions in your world, and all you have to do to balance it right is to change this capacity, which is what they’ve done.

            By changing the capacity you change the operating time, because your inventory is the operative buffer for solving combinatorial (i.e. crafting) puzzles. But as the game progresses you need more of this capacity because you are tackling a greater variety of problems.

            That’s your game right there. You don’t need to have 18 quintillion planets to do this right. It’s the elegance of this mechanic that works on its own. To be more expedient you need to be better at inventory management, and there is the other side of the spectrum: you also need to obtain new materials more efficiently, so this is how this game distributes materials and upgrades intelligently and tells you a little story along the way.

            So what’s to be hyped about I ask all of you?
            It’s a simple game, it’s just it’s presented as a first person sci-fi adventure without loading screens that’s new..

            Is it really that new??
            I am extremely sad that such a game doesn’t already exist, because it’s as simple as 1+1, especially six years AFTER Minecraft.

          • Capt. Bumchum McMerryweather says:

            Dwarf Fortress is perhaps the worst example of could have given there, buddy. Not only is it superb, but the amount of depth that lies in that game surpasses that of any other that was created before or since. It is, quite simply, the masterpiece of a visionary.

            That aside, I think there are a certain amount of tits that need to be calmed here. I’m not saying that No Man’s Sky is going to be amazing just because it has lots of planetz. I’m more airing my hopes that if the rest of the game holds up, then the possibility of exploration and discovery will be virtually infinite, and to be fair every video I’ve seen puts it miles ahead of Elite Dangerous in terms of content and ‘fun(tm)’. Also I haven’t seen much to suggest that such hopes would not be assuaged, so I remain cautiously optimistic.

            • syndrome says:

              You’ve clearly misread me somewhere, as I’ve simply corrected your figure from 5 to 18. Nothing else in that post was directed at you. As I’m addressing a wider audience, you may deflate that ego a bit.

              “I’m not saying that No Man’s Sky is going to be amazing just because it has lots of planetz.”

              I never said so. That’s what you implied from your defensive position.

              First of all: I did watch actual NMS gameplay. I’m not pulling my enthusiasm or lack of it to assemble any arguments. I am just being straightforwardly objective.

              So considering DF, what makes you think my statement is invalid, regardless of whether it’s a masterpiece or not? Somebody pulled that 18 quintillion number from the air, and my question is WHY was that necessary. Does it sell better and WHY are people as gullible?

              Can you see through my argument now? Would DF sell better if it was advertised as having a Graham’s number of planets?

              link to en.wikipedia.org

            • Capt. Bumchum McMerryweather says:

              God, the condescension is real. Deflate my ego? Really? What the hell is the matter with you, I’m trying to have a civilised and friendly discussion with the community of this site, not make it all about me for fucks sake. Of course I was going to assume you were addressing me. You replied to my comment and then went on a rant. It’s a fair assumption to make, especially given the tone of your comment. And actually, looking at your other replies it’s fairly clear you’re unable to join a discussion without going into snark overdrive, so I guess I’ll not take your outright fucking rudeness too personally.

          • geldonyetich says:

            “we all know there aren’t artificially sentient content-creators that cater to our needs intelligently”

            As it happens, not all game developers are convinced this is an impossibility, and will continue to push the envelope here.

          • jenkins says:

            Having 18 quintillion planets is just an artifact of using 64-bit integers for the unique planet ID, as 2^64 is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. This number wasn’t just picked out of a hat as some arbitrary threshold.

            Oddly, I enjoy the thought that a large number of planets in NMS will never be seen by human eyes – even as it makes my inner completionist break out in a nervous sweat.

            • syndrome says:

              As a programmer I call that a bullshit.

              If each one of those 18 quintillion planets has 1 biome, and just 1 plant that repeats itself, but a wildly different topology and different , technically they are different, but WOULD YOU CARE?

              It would be the same planet OVER AND OVER from your perspective, so that’s a bullshit number. If you know that much to understand that 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 equals to 2^64, you’re ought to understand that this number means nothing, it’s the decimal notation that makes it seem somehow mindboggling.

              In reality, there is no variety that amounts to that much uniqueness in this universe. This is the reason why players aren’t supposed to spend too much time exploring laterally, because there is only self-similarity to explore.

              It’s all very cleverly done.

            • syndrome says:

              EDIT
              “but a wildly different topology and different [distribution patterns]”

        • Epicedion says:

          It could have infinite stars and still be too short, if the win condition doesn’t involve many of them.

          • Premium User Badge

            Nauallis says:

            By that argument, you should absolutely love “winning” in Stellaris. Go get ’em!

            • Epicedion says:

              Oh, right, this is one of those “games” you don’t “win.” You “experience” the “variety” until you get “bored” and “wander” “off.”

            • Premium User Badge

              Nauallis says:

              Nobody knows! In the meantime I can troll people like you.

            • Stevostin says:

              There is completing and winning. You’ve completed your typical action game or RPG when you’ve seen all of the content. Which is often expressed by a dual metric for the playtime “rushing” and “taking your time”. In a game like Fallout 3, the later one is at least a factor of five of the first one. My impression is that unless you’re having a bad time with the game you’re rather after completion than just winning.

              There are game where winning is the real metric. Puzzle games typically, but that can also be strategy game, platformers etc. There’s a nicely crafted interesting challenge that really is the core of the content. Some people like them. I can be taken in that sort of challenge but it has to be real good.

              Then there are those games that are more design like a playground than a game. IE they are places for you to invent your fun. They can have “a win” condition here and there but it has to be light to not be in the way of the global design. So I don’t know if NMS is a good game, but it sure doesn’t look like a game about completion. And to be fair, they also put it that way.

            • PancakeWizard says:

              @Epicedion

              It was good enough for Frontier:Elite 2 back in ’93, why isn’t it OK to have those games now?

          • Premium User Badge

            Captain Narol says:

            You don’t really get the point of the game, it seems…

            “It is good to have an end to journey toward; but it is the journey that matters, in the end.”
            ― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness

            • Epicedion says:

              Do survival games have a point? I mean other than sitting in Early Access pretending like they’ll get a point someday.

            • Press X to Gary Busey says:

              It’s about the journey, not the destination.

              I don’t see the ending credits in many games, often losing interest halfway through for [reasons]. It’s a good mantra when I have to uninstall something that has sat untouched in the Steam library for 18 months.

            • Buggery says:

              How long you been sitting there with that quote in your clipboard?

              “The sea, the snotgreen sea, the scrotumtightening sea.” — James Augustine Aloysius Joyce, Ulysses

            • syndrome says:

              “Do survival games have a point?” -Epicedion

              “It’s about the journey, not the destination.” -Gary Busey

              “How long you been sitting there with that quote in your clipboard?” -Buggery

    6. aircool says:

      I guess this is one of those games that will have constant updates to make things more varied, or add new gameplay options. I’m not making comparisons on gameplay to Minecraft, but Minecraft was/is a game that always had more content being added.

      Of course, the reverse is possible, it could have the glacial content updates of Elite Dangerous, which are about as varied and exciting as a snow drift.

      However, ED was reasonable fun, despite its lack of depth, it just happens to have a bunch of really annoying mechanics that suck that small bit of fun out of the universe.

      • Iamblichos says:

        I think the issue for me was that the whole “game” of ED was learning to play ED. Once you had a lock on the mechanics of it, it became Space Truck Simulator.

    7. Babymech says:

      “Men removed, sky added.”

    8. Premium User Badge

      UncleBAZINGA says:

      If this is still mainly about grinding and doing the same all over again then I’m still out. Patch notes direct to the right path though.

      • Premium User Badge

        Nauallis says:

        Not flaming here, merely curious. What are/were you hoping the game to be like, that you’re disappointed about already?

      • raazman says:

        What exactly do you want to do in a game like this?

      • yogibbear says:

        Everything they’ve shown so far should’ve told you this was gonna be Starbound 3d. Not sure how you can then complain that the game has resource grind.

      • syndrome says:

        +1 to all they said… I’m curious too to hear what you had in mind..

      • PancakeWizard says:

        Define: “grinding”.

    9. geldonyetich says:

      Improvements are certainly welcome, as I’ve seen enough illicit streamers playing the game to know that No Man’s Sky is a fun romp through a procedural generated galaxy, but that’s pretty much all it is, they didn’t produce a game that produces any higher ramifications than solo exploration.

      I also find it interesting that the E3 2014 trailer looks nothing like how the game turned out to be. The actual game is a lot kludgier, lower resolution, and has an interface that is not nearly as elegant looking. Dinosaurs like that are not in the game, and they don’t stampede to knock down trees. Space traffic isn’t nearly as interesting as presented. Those most have been pre-rendered concept trailers, and frankly it feels like a bait and switch.

      Granted, I haven’t seen the post-patch version played yet. But that E3 2014 trailer is going to be the standard against which I’ll judge it.

      • syndrome says:

        That trailer is a compressed experience of the game, and everything it has to offer has somehow found its place in the game, and I frankly cannot see how the final game difers to it in any way, if except it may only difer in your head, because you took it so literally…

        If it’s hard for you to wrap your head around, why don’t you think about it this way: let’s say you are making a game (let’s call it NWS) that looks exactly like NMS looks like in 2016 — then what would be a fun-to-look-at-trailer two years prior to its release?

        You couldn’t screengrab it ofc as it wouldn’t be finished, and it looks kinda boring to screengrab anyway, because it’s a sandbox game without any guarantees there is something of interest if a player just keeps going in one direction. So what do you do?

        • geldonyetich says:

          Maybe you haven’t watched about 8 hours of footage from the “pre-release” game that the PS4 people had been playing by scoring an early copy, like I have, because I can tell you that the differences are quite noticeable. For example, if you look at a ship close up in-game, it doesn’t have nearly that much level of detail. And the dinosaurs modeled in the E3 trailer are about five times more complex and exhibit better behaviors than any creature I’ve actually seen in game.

          But I will say that the patch that was just rolled out does introduce a significant improvement. I got a chance to look at it on a Twitch stream today, and the lighting is great. Further, there were actual forests: I kid you not, prior to this patch, there were sporadic trees and shrubs and alien flora, but not one planet I saw people running around on had something that I would describe as a forest.

          • syndrome says:

            also, you are watching the console port. they originally intended the game for PC and probably stripped it all down to pass certification more easily/quickly on a PS.

          • syndrome says:

            Do you even think about why would anyone make a worse looking ship than what was presented in a trailer?
            It doesn’t make any sense, removing details from the ship is ADDED work, you know, and yet it doesn’t improve the performance that much. Like you remove 30-50 triangles and then what??

            It’s not like it had a polycount in millions. It looked as simple as it still does. If there was a better shading that’s bothering you, than think along the PC -> PS porting lines.

            Because shading can and will obviously and critically impede performance on legacy systems. And you don’t make trailers on legacy systems don’t you?

            • geldonyetich says:

              Are you in any way related to Hello Games, or did you just take it upon yourself to be Hello Games white knight for their misleading E3 2014 trailer?

              Because, for normal consumers, whether or not they are making a performance savings by cutting back from what was presented on the E3 trailer doesn’t matter. I don’t have to “wrap my head around” why I need to like being mislead. (At least it wasn’t as bad as the Elite: Dangerous Capital Cinematic trailer.)

              Also, considering the fact that they’ve only ever demo’d the game on the Playstation 4, they’ve only ever released trailers through Sony that target the Playstation 4, and they’re releasing the Playstation 4 version earlier because the PC version wasn’t ready, you’d better prepare yourself for disappointment: all signs are pointing towards the Playstation 4 version as being the definitive version they were targeting during development. At this point, we’ll be lucky if they took the time to optimize the PC version fully or give us a good mouse and keyboard interface. Not saying that’s impossible, just that all signs point towards that’s not where their developer priorities were.

            • syndrome says:

              “all signs are pointing towards the Playstation 4 version as being the definitive version they were targeting during development.”

              Well, perhaps. That doesn’t change my point. I don’t find trailer that much different from the actual game, except when you want to see a forest where there aren’t any.

              Do you even consider a possibility that not every planet has forests? That planets actually are made from predesigned biomes that have rules for this and that… So there’s a slight chance you didn’t see one because noone actually made it into a bloody forest.

              Because I saw one on a stream before this update, and you still make it sound like you thoroughly combed through the game’s 18 quintillion planets looking for one, picking every detail along the way and comparing every pixel with those in the trailer.

              Well, to each their own opinion I guess.

              “Are you in any way related to Hello Games”

              Oh we both wish I am. But I understand very well how it was made, both technically and conceptually. You could say I’m related to whatever Hello Games was doing in order to make it.

            • geldonyetich says:

              “I don’t find trailer that much different from the actual game,”

              You’re not finding it that way because the resolution of the streams isn’t as good as the trailer I’ve seen. Almost everything is much crisper and better detailed if you look at a high resolution version of that trailer.

              “Do you even consider a possibility that not every planet has forests?”

              Of course, it was the first thing that crossed my mind. However, I’ve seen them land at dozens of planets, so I figured I got a pretty good cross-sample to make a judgement.

              Although, I did go back and look at some of that earlier footage and there were more trees than I thought. Maybe it just didn’t register with me to check for forests until I reviewed the E3 2014 trailer. I will say that the trees in trailer were a lot taller and thicker than the ones that ended up in the game, but they’re also uglier, so I guess that’s a fair trade off. It’s possible that tree coverage improved post-patch, but it’s tough to say depending on

              Those dinosaurs though… I haven’t seen a creature in the release game that is half-way as good looking or that acts as compelling. Nor have I seen a single creature stampede and knock down trees like in that trailer. So the detail of the creatures is definitely misleading.

              “But I understand very well how it was made, both technically and conceptually. You could say I’m related to whatever Hello Games was doing in order to make it.”

              You’re not the only one on this comment thread who’s dabbled with procedural generation, friend.

            • geldonyetich says:

              I keep calling it a E3 2014 trailer. No, I’m wrong, it’s titled “No Man’s Sky GAMEPLAY E3 2014”. Better quality one there. Take a close look at that. Then look at any stream. Massive differences. It’s a pre-render, not the actual gameplay, it was genuinely misleading to call it that.

            • PancakeWizard says:

              @geldonyetich “all signs are pointing towards the Playstation 4 version as being the definitive version they were targeting during development.”

              You’re so, so wrong. Sony got involved very late in the day and secured console exclusivity and plenty of Ps4-centric buzz in exchange for marketing. The game was like 70% made before Sony got involved, and it was being developed as a PC game.

              Incidentally, the patch added graphical upgrades, and there are more graphical improvements in the pipeline.

            • geldonyetich says:

              @PancakeWizard
              I’ll happily eat my words if that turns out to be the case.

      • syndrome says:

        Here, let me try this again:

        – I also find it interesting that the E3 2014 trailer looks nothing like how the game turned out to be.

        I got you, now let’s see what you have to say:

        – The actual game is a lot kludgier, lower resolution

        I don’t know about this, it looks the same to me.

        – and has an interface that is not nearly as elegant looking.

        I find this new one better and more elegant. The old one was covering too much of screen estate and could’ve had more usable info more unambiguously presented, with a nicer font, design, or both. There is still some work to be done here imo, but that’s quite possibly because of the console.

        – Dinosaurs like that are not in the game, and they don’t stampede to knock down trees.

        There are huge creatures in the game, it’s just the game does not begin with them around. I haven’t seen the knocking type, but I’ve seen some huge things already, and I’ve seen something that resembled a dinosaur more than once, so why wouldn’t they procedurally knock out some procedurally placed trees from time to time, would you care to explain? Because it’s the cheapest thing to do in a game in which you knock out almost every tree, mushroom, and rock you see, and animals vary in size and move around already.

        – Space traffic isn’t nearly as interesting as presented.

        It gets better as you progress, and considering starships, I’ve seen everything the trailer had shown. You can purchase new ones, there are freighters in the space that you could attack or defend, there are space battles, you can hire ship pilots to fly with you, trade with them personally, also starships frequently land on the ground and space stations. What kind of traffic isn’t as interesting as presented, exactly?

        – Those most have been pre-rendered concept trailers, and frankly it feels like a bait and switch.

        Kudos for the satisfaction you must’ve felt after figuring this out.

    10. Janichsan says:

      Call me cynical, but I don’t really take it as a good sign when the release notes of the Day-One-Patch can basically be summarised as “reworked the central parts of the game on short notice”.

      Well, time will tell…

      • Premium User Badge

        Nauallis says:

        In that case, this might interest you, regarding why day 1 patches are common:

        link to kotaku.com

        • Janichsan says:

          I’ve read that and it addresses none of my concerns. NMS went gold pretty much exactly a month ago, which is the leaked version everyone is talking about.

          So, unless the version they burned on that gold master was even much older, they changed large parts of the game in that four weeks, including its fundamental core (the procedurally generated universe) and significant portions of the gameplay. This goes far beyond some bug fixes and refinements.

          • Premium User Badge

            Nauallis says:

            “I don’t take it as a good sign…” = Ok, so what? That they decided to optimize the game? I mean, it’s not out yet, right? Did you play a beta that nobody else saw?

            I’ll have to conclude that you either failed to comprehend what that linked article was stating, or that you’re being willfully ignorant. Cue the indignant response!

    11. LennyLeonardUK says:

      Forgive me if this is an obvious question that has already been answered elsewhere, but does anyone know whether NMS has support for flight sticks??.

      I’m kind of under the assumption that it does considering it’s a space simulator, but I haven’t actually seen anyone confirm or deny it anywhere. And every time I watch gameplay videos of people playing it they are always using a PS4 joypad (understandable considering all pre-release buildup has been done on the PS4).

      But has anyone got a definitive answer either way??.

      • raazman says:

        It is not a space simulator.

        • LennyLeonardUK says:

          Well, you fly in space though don’t you??. I was maybe being a little loose with the term ‘space simulator’, but ultimately you are controlling a space shuttle right??.

          I’d just like an answer as to whether I can do that part of the game with a flight stick or not.

          • causticnl says:

            in your words GTA is a racesim then.

            • dangermouse76 says:

              Dude your being obtuse. OP politely asking reasonable question. No need man no need.

            • LennyLeonardUK says:

              Oh I see what you’ve done there. That’s so witty, because you do actually drive cars in GTA but it’s not really a racesim is it??. No, it’s a third person action adventure open world game isn’t it. That’s so smart of you to point out and I think we can all rest a little easier now. Cheers for that clarification.

              But it really doesn’t help me does it??.

              Will it help if I admit that NMS isn’t a space sim and it holds no comparison what so ever to any space sim past present or future??. Am I now still allowed to ask a fairly simple question??.

              In this non space sim, can I use a flight stick. You see, I like using flight sticks. I use them in all types of games. Space sims, arcade shooters and what-not. I really like flight sticks, I really do.

              And I’d just like to know whether the option is available to me to use it in this non space sim game or not.

      • geldonyetich says:

        I don’t think anyone outside of Hello Games knows if it supports a flight stick because they’re the only ones who have played the PC version.

        However, although the original reply was a bit terse to the point of seeming rude, I think he’s on the right track: unlike Elite: Dangerous, No Man’s Sky was not developed with nearly as much emphasis on being a space vehicle piloting simulator, so it seems likely that support for flight sticks was very low on the developers’ priority list.

        • LennyLeonardUK says:

          Thanks for an actual informative reply.

          I never thought that the game would be as much as a simulator as something like Elite Dangerous, but the thought of flying in space on my flight stick and then exploring distant planets on foot using a mouse/keyboard really appeals to me.

          Hopefully we’ll find out on Friday.

          Thanks again.

    12. Premium User Badge

      TehK says:

      Still pretty sceptical, but these patch notes are quite promising. But I’m staying with my no-preorder policy. Let’s wait for the first few reviews.

      • Premium User Badge

        TehK says:

        Also, the comments (or the answers to comments) just reminded me that the fanboyism for this game is absurdly high.

        I know it’s weird, but answers like “It is not a space simulator” to a perfectly reasonable questions actually makes me not want to buy it… just out of spite, even though it’s single player and I don’t have to tolerate any “community”. (I’ll probably buy it, though)

    13. jenkins says:

      “Feeding – creatures now have their own diet, based on planet and climate. Feeding them correctly will yield different results per species, such as mining for you, protecting the player, becoming pets, alerting you to rare loot or pooping valuable resources.”

      Pooping valuable resources! I can now live my dream of breeding space civets – brb, preordering.

      • Premium User Badge

        Captain Narol says:

        I wonder if you can collect them on your ship like Pokemons or Spore creatures, then drop them on another planet to disturb the local ecology…

        That would be fun but that’s probably not possible… Yet ? (considering we already know that the game will get added content in the future updates)

      • Premium User Badge

        Nauallis says:

        I hear the wait times for those resources are hugely gastronomical.

        • jenkins says:

          Right? I find it hard to stomach that sort of arbitrary resource scarcity.

          • wwwhhattt says:

            But how would it play out? I’m having trouble digesting the information.

    14. Bish Bash Bosh says:

      I’m intentionally not reading too much about this game due to it’s nature. If it turns out to be a winner I want to go in blind and enjoy the sense of discovery.

      I’ll give the reviews a skim-read to get a feel for how well it’s received but as of now I remain cautiously optimistic.