Looks awesome.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/7/5186774/exploration-sim-no-mans-sky-coming-from-hello-games (http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/7/5186774/exploration-sim-no-mans-sky-coming-from-hello-games)
Jesus de la Christ, that looks incredible
ooh :)
I hope it turns out well. The art style reminds me a little of Enemy Starfighter: http://enemystarfighter.com/ (http://enemystarfighter.com/)
Holy dogsh't.
saw this
BUT
i think its MMO
Well, I love this.
BTW, a nice little indie space exploration and dogfighting game called Rodina is going to release on 12/13. While it is not wholly "finished" (as in, it is fully playable but the developer intends to continue to add to it post release), it looks fun.
http://elliptic-games.com/
not very realistic at all. the guy didnt even towel off before getting in his starfighter. do you know how expensive starfighter upholstery is? not to mention dog fighting in a pair of wet swim trunks!
I am not sure what the scope will be?
Will we be able to build stuff? Just walking around or flying in space to discover a neverending procedurally generated game world doesn't sound like something that would be fun apart from the technically interesting bits. Not so fun as a game though?
But if you can build stuff as well then things might get interesting!
more words:-
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/12/09/first-look-no-mans-sky/#more-179362
or for the lazy:-
No Man's Sky trailer, first broadcast on December 7th as part of the Spike VGX awards, opens by stating that the game's "every atom" is procedural. What follows shows a character emerging from an ocean full of fish, climbing inside a spaceship and flying into space in a single contiguous motion, interspersed with quick shots of different planet surfaces, gigantic space stations, space combat, deformable terrain and more.
It's fantastic, and exciting, and it leaves you with no sense of what the game is. The trailer shows you just enough to suggest it might contain everything you can imagine. It's the space game you always wanted, as far as you know.
Luckily I had an advantage. When I first saw the trailer, it was a few days before the VGXs, and it was with the nervous, tired, excitable Hello Games development team. I spent two hours afterwards quizzing them about procedural generation, but also about what you actually do in No Man's Sky.
Every player in No Man's Sky will begin their life somewhere along the edge of a galaxy. Everything in the trailer takes place in a single solar system near the galaxy's edge and, red grass aside, on Earth-like planets. "It helps to ground people and I think if we hadn't shown that, people would go, 'what the fuck?'" Sean Murray, lead developer on No Man's Sky, is choosing his words carefully. "It's quite weird to see a thing that isn't a fish, in the water. And so we have grounded the trailer in a particular solar system that kind of makes sense for people."
Which suggests it's not going to make sense later. The loose objective for players of No Man's Sky is to head away from the edge and towards the galaxy's centre. As you do, the planets you visit along the way become more mutated, more dangerous.
"I hate doing this, but it is the simplest way to give people hooks for the game. Games that we will get compared to, rather than I would compare us to, would be Minecraft, DayZ, but also Dark Souls to an extent and probably Journey." Murray is torn by these descriptions. "I hate the idea that people will go around and say, 'It's like Minecraft but in space.' Fuck off!"
Let's just get it out of the way. No Man's Sky is Minecraft in space. Also I would compare it to DayZ and Dark Souls. I haven't played much of Journey, so – twist – I'd throw in Spore instead.
I'm being an ass, but these are useful points of comparison for the ways in which No Man's Sky differs as much as for the ways in which it is similar.
New Eridu is a comparitively Earth-like planet.
As you make your way towards the centre of the galaxy, the planets you pass are stepping stones along the way. You'll land your ship on them and go hunting for resources. Those resources then, in some unexplained way, aid you in upgrading your ship and yourself. These upgrades allow you to travel larger distances, or maybe make you faster, or probably improve your guns. It's still ambiguous.
The other reason we're not seeing beyond these worlds is that Hello Games want No Man's Sky to be about discovery. "What we wanted to get across was a sort of frontiersmanship, a sense of mystery and wonder. For me exploration is seeing something no one has seen before, and for your experience to be unique."
This is also why the game is procedurally generated. At one point during the conversation, an odd, exciting question is raised: is No Man's Sky the first game without a skybox? If you're standing on a planet's surface and look up, every single dot in the sky is an actual star you can go visit. If you see a tree three miles away, you can walk to it and find out what's underneath it.
Exploration and resource gathering are the ways, really the only ways, in which the game is similar to Minecraft. The planets you land on aren't cube-shaped and it's unlikely you'll build a house on them. They are the equivalent of Minecraft's network of underground caves: exciting to find, unique to you, and full of materials which give them significance and value despite not being handcrafted.
Any planet you discover on your journey is marked on your galactic map, along with its name, its atmosphere and what resources you found there. If you choose to, you can then share that information with every other player, uploading it so that it's shared across everyone's galactic map.
You'll get credit for discovering it. You'll also, if the materials there are valuable, attract players to come visit. No Man's Sky isn't a multiplayer game, in as much as you'll never see another player. But the galaxy is the same between everyone and actions of "significance" will be shared. If you kill a single bird, that won't be shared. If you make an entire species of bird extinct, then those creatures will blink out of existence for everyone.
That means you might want to keep quiet about a planet of valuable resources, so others don't come and deplete it. I also instantly start thinking of ways to be devious. Can I upload false information to the galactic map? Can I lure people to a system full of pirates and then, when their ships crash and burn, steal materials from their ghostly hulls?
When I ask these questions, Murray is light on specifics, but hopes players will work cooperatively. "There are some things that you could do for the wrong reasons. You could broadcast certain information for the wrong reasons. But generally people are playing together cooperatively to the benefit of everyone. You can be a dick in the game if you want, but it has less point and less value."
These are the ways in which the game is like Spore, or to a lesser extent Dark Souls. It's a singleplayer experience, but one enriched by a community playing with shared purpose.
All the ships are procedurally generated, too.
This maybe makes the final point of reference a little strange. DayZ is dependent on other players to fuel its survivalist anecdotes. Yet it's the game Murray mentions most.
"We are designing a set of rules, not designing a game, and I think when I talk about DayZ that's how those feel to me. Your experience in DayZ is your experience, and there's a set of rules in that 200km square that you then go out and experience and make stories in. And that is what we want."
Those systems-driven experiences begin with the way the galaxy is constructed – "Every Atom Procedural" – but extend to every part of the game design. "If there's a crashed ship, it's there because a ship has crashed. If there is a trading outpost, those things are there for real reasons, and the way the creatures behave around those, and the type of creatures you see are there for real reasons."
It's about moving the design away from strictly authored experiences, in which your actions are tightly scripted and controlled, in favour of something more expressive.
"You will at all times feel very vulnerable in this universe and not necessarily empowered," explains Murray. "You have an enormous amount of freedom, but maybe not masses of power at your disposal."
The emphasis on exploration and discovery, and that reference to Journey, doesn't mean the experience of playing as passive. More than any of the claims about the size of the universe, this is the stuff that I find exciting.
"It has a set of core mechanics that you can choose how to deal with situations, and how to interact with people, and how to upgrade yourself and how to upgrade your ship," says Sean. "We want you to make choices at all times as you go through. Like in your ship, how much cargo, how much fuel to take, and we want you to live with those choices."
"You can be that guy who just wants to walk around, find one planet and just explore that," says Murray "But you can also play this game and not care about exploration at all and be all about building yourself up. You can also work to help other people, you can be that person. There are like a lot of different roles you can fill."
They don't want to closely define the experience. That's the opposite of my goals in describing the game, but I appreciate the overall philosophy. "You are not going to boot up the game and find a 15 minute tutorial. You are not going to find a classic RPG structure.
"We want things that happen to you to have real meaning because of those choices, in a similar way to I feel like DayZ does, and for you to want to survive in that game."
Note the word "survive". Failure is a big part of No Man's Sky, although it sounds as if the exact mechanics aren't set in stone.
"How it is at the moment, is that you can't die, but you can lose everything," explains Murray. "There is no saved game. Your game will be saved, your progress is saved all the time as you go along, but if your ship is destroyed then you go back to a lifepod and you've lost that ship, and that is your everything."
If you decide to fill your ship with fuel and go on a risky trip to a distant, dangerous solar system, you could find yourself in trouble. "If you warp in and it is to a solar system that is full of pirates and you get shot down, then you have lost all of that. You can then rebuild from there, and you will be where you are in that universe."
It's your ship which defines how quickly you can progress between solar systems, so losing it would be a big blow. But if you're lucky, you might crash land on a planet full of useful resources. "You perhaps find things that you can't even make use of at the time and earmark that for yourself or your friends to cooperate with you to build yourself back up."
This ship is here because it crashed, not because a designer placed it.
"I think probably if you were going to think of anything, you would think of games like roguelikes. If you want to put it in a box, which I would rather you didn't, then that for me is the most similar experience."
I love my roguelike box and I am happy to put No Man's Sky inside.
I'm being an ass again. I understand Murray's reticence in drawing comparisons. They don't want to be hammered for not including features from games they never had any intention of mimicking in the first place.
Even other space games don't necessarily sit well with Murray as direct comparisons. EVE Online is the only one mentioned during the interview, although he's still as keen to stress the differences as much as the similarities.
"Don't take this the wrong way, but our background is as console developers, and I think everything about the game bears hallmarks of that," says Murray. "In terms of your controls, in terms of the fluidity of the game, this is not a quirky, hard-to-decipher experience."
Roguelikes, upgradeable ships, and Dark Souls, yes. But not necessarily tech trees and context-sensitive right-click menus. Hello Games are still the company that made the peppy, stunt racing Joe Danger.
Their commitment to capturing that same good "feel" is reflected in No Man's Sky's four-person development team. Of the three programmers, Murray does the "really big" procedural systems, and Hazel McKendrick is mainly focused on creatures and the look of planets. That leaves Dave Ream to focus solely on "gameplay".
As if to underline its importance to the team, it's Grant Duncan, the game's sole artist, that first brings up the subject. "Going from Joe Danger to this is obviously a bit of a leap, but we've always been really obsessed with that feel of games. When you start playing a game, the way you're interacting with it, the way the jump feels, the movement, feeling smooth. In Joe Danger we were completely obsessed with that, and we still are obsessed with that."
"It's weird because my work isn't in the trailer," says Ream. "You can't feel the game by looking at it." The little bit of camera shake as you blast into space, though? That was him.
This sounds like minor detail, but these details matter. You're mad if you think they don't. More than that, they ground No Man's Sky's ambitious claims more so than the Earth-like fish in the water. "It's not some tech demo that we're putting together," says Murray.
I'm relieved. After separating out the bold claims of its procedural generation to focus instead on mechanics, I can start to imagine myself playing the game. I can see that loop of activity: the minutes and hours of planetary exploration leading to the minutes and hours of upgrading, of travel, of discovery, and of combat. Maybe this is the space game I've always wanted.
It's still far too early to tell, but you're allowed to be excited to find out.
Check back tomorrow for a second article focused on the procedural generation and art design of No Man's Sky.
Any idea when it's released? Or I missed that
I am not all that impressed. The water flowing down the windscreen looked nice, but I am not going to wet my pants over it. And let me just state they don't simulate every atom, or even anywhere close to that. Consider that your mouse has enough atoms to spread many zeros across your screen. Maybe they call their basic render/logical pieces "atoms", but that is deceptive and not just a little hype laden.
This is what worries me:
"Let's just get it out of the way. No Man's Sky is Minecraft in space. Also I would compare it to DayZ and Dark Souls. I haven't played much of Journey, so – twist – I'd throw in Spore instead."
This means they are trying to make several games at once (a huge red flag). Also, notice the ego of whoever is talking in non too small. As a side note- I am personally working on a game that combines the good elements of Civilization (whatever version you like best), Master of Orion, Skyrim, X-Wing Versus TIE Fighter, and Super Mario Brothers.
To look at the trailer and the interview and see nothing more than hype, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
got your grumpy trousers on? :P
Yeah, I don't pay any attention until it's released. They can claim whatever they want but too many of these games kind of fade away. I'm waiting on Star citizen and Shipbreakers which should both be released by 2020
noob... Im still waiting on Road to Moscow. ::)
WANT!
Any word on a release date?
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 09, 2013, 06:02:51 PM
noob... Im still waiting on Road to Moscow. ::)
Was that one delayed? ;)
I agree with some of the comments on that trailer, that procedurally generated might mean "looks nice, but it has no soul".
It could be good, but it could also be trying to mix too many kinds of games into one package and we know how that tends to end up. If it's even released at all.
Seeing is believing.
Nice find JH. Let's see how this evolves.
Yeah...glad to see this thread bubbling over with positive karma.
Lol, well JH, the trailer is just a hype-train isn't it? I mean, what actual game mechanics does it show now?
Its cool what we see in the trailer, no doubt, but as far as I am concerned just because of the potential of gameplay and the pretty pictures. The sense you can go anywhere you can see. The sense everything is procedurally generated and virtually limitless. That's all pretty cool indeed, but it doesn't neccessarily make for a great or fun game, especially not anymore once the novelty of just exploring wherever you want to go wears off.
According to the words of the interview, the game should have some depth and action too, but we don't really see how this all works in the trailer. That's why I am skeptical.
Quote from: Yskonyn on December 10, 2013, 08:07:28 AM
Lol, well JH, the trailer is just a hype-train isn't it? I mean, what actual game mechanics does it show now?
Its cool what we see in the trailer, no doubt, but as far as I am concerned just because of the potential of gameplay and the pretty pictures. The sense you can go anywhere you can see. The sense everything is procedurally generated and virtually limitless. That's all pretty cool indeed, but it doesn't neccessarily make for a great or fun game, especially not anymore once the novelty of just exploring wherever you want to go wears off.
According to the words of the interview, the game should have some depth and action too, but we don't really see how this all works in the trailer. That's why I am skeptical.
No...you're right. I'm sure the idea of the game will end up being better than the actual product we get. That is almost always the case unfortunately.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 10, 2013, 10:55:42 AM
Quote from: Yskonyn on December 10, 2013, 08:07:28 AM
Lol, well JH, the trailer is just a hype-train isn't it? I mean, what actual game mechanics does it show now?
Its cool what we see in the trailer, no doubt, but as far as I am concerned just because of the potential of gameplay and the pretty pictures. The sense you can go anywhere you can see. The sense everything is procedurally generated and virtually limitless. That's all pretty cool indeed, but it doesn't neccessarily make for a great or fun game, especially not anymore once the novelty of just exploring wherever you want to go wears off.
According to the words of the interview, the game should have some depth and action too, but we don't really see how this all works in the trailer. That's why I am skeptical.
No...you're right. I'm sure the idea of the game will end up being better than the actual product we get. That is almost always the case unfortunately.
I like to hope for the best.
What I see from the trailer is that they've mastered a kind of god-like planet creation algorithm. Whether they're as good at making a space combat game with all that remains to be seen, but I am hoping for the best.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 09, 2013, 01:27:33 PM
not very realistic at all. the guy didnt even towel off before getting in his starfighter. do you know how expensive starfighter upholstery is? not to mention dog fighting in a pair of wet swim trunks!
And sand all over. If everything is Procedural, how will that work in a MMO?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 10, 2013, 07:51:54 AM
Yeah...glad to see this thread bubbling over with positive karma.
well... Im positive its moving along better then GhostRiders game. ;)
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 09, 2013, 05:43:47 PM
got your grumpy trousers on? :P
I sympathize. I liked the style of the trailer -- for a trailer -- for a game it might get old in about 10 minutes. Plus, I've just been flying the DCS Su-25T, which is about as close to a sports car with blasters as I ever want to pretend to fly. Plus, a few minutes of TAke on Mars convinced me that people have barely scratched the surface of what you can do in space games and it looks like No Man's Sky takes all the most superficial aspects of space games and makes them even more superficial.
Quote from: MengJiao on December 10, 2013, 12:01:10 PM
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 09, 2013, 05:43:47 PM
got your grumpy trousers on? :P
I sympathize. I liked the style of the trailer -- for a trailer -- for a game it might get old in about 10 minutes. Plus, I've just been flying the DCS Su-25T, which is about as close to a sports car with blasters as I ever want to pretend to fly. Plus, a few minutes of TAke on Mars convinced me that people have barely scratched the surface of what you can do in space games and it looks like No Man's Sky takes all the most superficial aspects of space games and makes them even more superficial.
Maybe...but playing Take on Mars is sort of like watching paint dry.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 10, 2013, 12:23:56 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on December 10, 2013, 12:01:10 PM
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 09, 2013, 05:43:47 PM
got your grumpy trousers on? :P
I sympathize. I liked the style of the trailer -- for a trailer -- for a game it might get old in about 10 minutes. Plus, I've just been flying the DCS Su-25T, which is about as close to a sports car with blasters as I ever want to pretend to fly. Plus, a few minutes of TAke on Mars convinced me that people have barely scratched the surface of what you can do in space games and it looks like No Man's Sky takes all the most superficial aspects of space games and makes them even more superficial.
Maybe...but playing Take on Mars is sort of like watching paint dry.
While you try to figure out if the stuff really is paint. Alien paint, man. Annd where there's wet alien paint, maybe there are some alien artifacts and you might see them if you could figure out how to move that camera arm without snapping off your relay mast.
Quote from: MengJiao on December 10, 2013, 11:55:24 AM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 09, 2013, 01:27:33 PM
not very realistic at all. the guy didnt even towel off before getting in his starfighter. do you know how expensive starfighter upholstery is? not to mention dog fighting in a pair of wet swim trunks!
And sand all over. If everything is Procedural, how will that work in a MMO?
Each time something new is 'found' it is procedurally generated, only to be there for the next player who comes. Of course then that part is 'found already' and part of the 'known universe'.
So its only procedurally generated the first time something gets found. At least that's how I understand it.
Much like the indie game Malevolence
Quote from: Yskonyn on December 10, 2013, 01:47:08 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on December 10, 2013, 11:55:24 AM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on December 09, 2013, 01:27:33 PM
not very realistic at all. the guy didnt even towel off before getting in his starfighter. do you know how expensive starfighter upholstery is? not to mention dog fighting in a pair of wet swim trunks!
And sand all over. If everything is Procedural, how will that work in a MMO?
Each time something new is 'found' it is procedurally generated, only to be there for the next player who comes. Of course then that part is 'found already' and part of the 'known universe'.
So its only procedurally generated the first time something gets found. At least that's how I understand it.
Much like the indie game Malevolence
Makes sense. Though it brings up the "server age" phenomenon: in the old MMO(RPGs) like Star Wars or Acheron's Call, servers that had been running for a long time were very different from those that where just starting up. I remembering wandering an relatively old server in Star Wars and finding there were hardly any players, but vast regions of their houses and such. So (pure speculation), but in a procedural MMO, the advantages of being in the first wave to hit a server might be even greater and the spectacle of old servers might be even more depressing.
I've recently come back to NMS. A lot has changed since it was released and a very significant amount of content has been added. I'm focusing on the base expansion story line so I can build solid outposts with the goal of getting into Exocraft. Having vehicles to get around planets quickly is critical to me being able to stick with this game in the long term. Over the last several days, I've put many hours into this and I'm really hooked. So much so, that I haven't played anything else, despite a strong desire to get into MSFS2020, Crusader Kings III and Iron Harvest and play around with the latest build of Star Citizen.
Anyway, if you're like me, having liked NMS on release overall, but just weren't thrilled with the state of game at release so you put it aside...its totally worth revisiting.
Is it still extremely grindy JH?
I last played it maybe a year ago and the grinding was pretty bad. I'm OK with it to a degree but I felt it was a bit excessive on how much distance I had to travel to what amounted to early game fetch quests.
Quote from: jamus34 on September 03, 2020, 05:48:50 PM
Is it still extremely grindy JH?
I last played it maybe a year ago and the grinding was pretty bad. I'm OK with it to a degree but I felt it was a bit excessive on how much distance I had to travel to what amounted to early game fetch quests.
It is grindy, which is why I'm so laser focused on getting Exocraft. I'm sick of going on 10 to 20 minute walks looking for resources or deposits. Having the buggies and trucks will make life a lot easier. I'm also using teleportation systems a lot, rather than flying everywhere. My base has a teleporter and every space station has one too. So rather than flying back and forth, you can just teleport in.
There are a lot of other quality of life modules and techs you can unlock that make the grind less obvious, or frustrating.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on September 03, 2020, 05:38:16 PM
I've recently come back to NMS. A lot has changed since it was released and a very significant amount of content has been added. I'm focusing on the base expansion story line so I can build solid outposts with the goal of getting into Exocraft. Having vehicles to get around planets quickly is critical to me being able to stick with this game in the long term. Over the last several days, I've put many hours into this and I'm really hooked. So much so, that I haven't played anything else, despite a strong desire to get into MSFS2020, Crusader Kings III and Iron Harvest and play around with the latest build of Star Citizen.
Anyway, if you're like me, having liked NMS on release overall, but just weren't thrilled with the state of game at release so you put it aside...its totally worth revisiting.
I have recently come back to the game as well, and find myself logging on as much as I can. It is grindy, and samey in many places, but I find it relaxing. For the most part, I only get into combat when I want to. Occasionally I get jumped by a pirate, but so far I have been able to best them. The worst encounter I had was against three dangerous pirates. But they jumped me close enough to the space station, that NPC ships joined my fight, and together we took them out. That was fun.
The game has changed alot as you say. I am having trouble finding the blueprints for my base components. For example the research stations. So up to this point, I have mostly been working out of a freighter.
Anyway, having fun...
Same here, been playing with 2 friends. Its a very relaxing game.
I got lucky with my first freighter! It turns out to be a C class vessel while my mates both have a lesser capacity D level one.
Been building up my fleet expanding rooms inside the freighter to make it my mobile HQ.
Meanwhile I Am following the main story at a leisurely pace.
I'm curious as to what you guys are using for a controller in NMS. I tried getting back into the game last December but I was using an Xbox controller and found I wasn't very good at space combat with it. Does the game support a Joystick or are you using KB & Mouse, and or controller?
I'm using an Xbox controller. I'm comfortable with this.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on September 03, 2020, 06:35:14 PM
The game has changed alot as you say. I am having trouble finding the blueprints for my base components. For example the research stations. So up to this point, I have mostly been working out of a freighter.
Anyway, having fun...
The most economical way to get blue prints for base construction is to follow the base expansion secondary mission plot. As you follow it and accomplish your goals, blue prints will be unlocked and given to you for the most important components, structures and technologies. Alternatively, you can go to the Nexus Hub on the Anomaly. There are technology merchants there selling blueprints for just about everything. Just remember, when you buy blueprints, you need salvaged data, which is something you'll have to farm on planets from buried technology pods.
Quote from: trek on September 04, 2020, 07:09:59 AM
I'm curious as to what you guys are using for a controller in NMS. I tried getting back into the game last December but I was using an Xbox controller and found I wasn't very good at space combat with it. Does the game support a Joystick or are you using KB & Mouse, and or controller?
I use keyboard and mouse. Tried to get my Warthog dailed in but the flightmodel doesnt fit very well.
Quote from: Yskonyn on September 04, 2020, 11:06:02 AM
Quote from: trek on September 04, 2020, 07:09:59 AM
I'm curious as to what you guys are using for a controller in NMS. I tried getting back into the game last December but I was using an Xbox controller and found I wasn't very good at space combat with it. Does the game support a Joystick or are you using KB & Mouse, and or controller?
I use keyboard and mouse. Tried to get my Warthog dailed in but the flightmodel doesnt fit very well.
+1 on keyboard and mouse.
The game is not really meant as a tactical starship "simulation" IMHO. As you know, the viewpoint is fixed, and HUD is minimal. Tricky flying is minimized with auto landings. Combat is basically "follow the enemy HUD marker, then fire when they cross your sights." Actually, its kind of arcade-like. So for me, mouse and keyboard are fine.
NMS is also about the only game that I can endure playing in VR for long periods of time.
It's controls are very nice and I never get motion sick.
Thanks for posting all of this.
I didn't hate NMS when it was first released - I didn't follow the game long before development so I wasn't aware of the hype train that had built up. I actually just appreciated the game for what it was, although got bored with it not long after launch.
I reinstalled and gave it a go last night for about 6 hours. Much more engaging and the performance was much better.
The addition of base building is nice. The waypoint system was also much needed. walking around kind of sucks, and it seems like it will take a long time to develop an exocraft.
I wish there was a map but I guess thats part of the allure with a space exploration game.
I finally have all of the exocraft. It took me about 15 hours of game time following the base expansion and specialist secondary mission lines to get them. You can do this much faster by unlocking the craft bays with technology merchants on the anomaly, but you unlock a lot of additional tech for free by working through the mission lines...it's also rewarding to unlock the blueprints and build stuff yourself.
Anyway, I'm still improving my exocraft with advanced modules, but they aren't as game changing as I thought they would be. I'm going to take them to some other worlds and see how they alter the exploration experience. Then I'll focus on capital ship and freighter advances before resuming the main story plot lines.
Pretty cool update hit today - Comapnions
https://www.nomanssky.com/companions-update/ (https://www.nomanssky.com/companions-update/)
Quote
Adopt an alien creature and explore the universe side-by-side in the Companions update! Take care of your new friend as they find hidden resources and protect you from hostile aliens, or genetically modify their eggs and breed unique, never-before-seen creations!
Its like Spore fused with NMS. Pretty nifty!
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 17, 2021, 11:25:33 AM
Pretty cool update hit today - Companions
https://www.nomanssky.com/companions-update/ (https://www.nomanssky.com/companions-update/)
Watched the video and one thing that really stood out is the realistic running movements. Why oh why do so many wargames (looking at you Graviteam and Battlefront!) have this "fakey" running or walking thing going on where the distance characters move is completely disjointed from how many steps they take? It's something I find quite annoying and No Many's Sky has figured out how to do it right and I wonder why our wargames can't enjoy the same..... :(
Quote from: 88mmkwk on February 17, 2021, 05:35:18 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 17, 2021, 11:25:33 AM
Pretty cool update hit today - Companions
https://www.nomanssky.com/companions-update/ (https://www.nomanssky.com/companions-update/)
Watched the video and one thing that really stood out is the realistic running movements. Why oh why do so many wargames (looking at you Graviteam and Battlefront!) have this "fakey" running or walking thing going on where the distance characters move is completely disjointed from how many steps they take? It's something I find quite annoying and No Many's Sky has figured out how to do it right and I wonder why our wargames can't enjoy the same..... :(
Money. Thats probably motion capture done professionally in a studio. Doubt BF or graviteams budget stretches to that. We are lucky to have what we have,.