First, let me state that I have not played No Man's Sky, and for a good reason that I will outline below.
No Man's Sky and Stellaris share certain elements that both make players want to play the game before it's released and make players don't want to play the game after they actually try it.
Those tweo effects are caused by one thing: randomized content. You see, both No Man's Sky and Stellaris allow you to explore a vast, randomized galaxy. Sure, there are tons of differences, so someone's bound to sya they cannot be compared, but let me use an analogy of a movie. A horror movie that takes place in space (e.g. Alien) and an action movie that takes place in space (e.g. Aliens) and a fantasy movie that takes place in space (e.g. Star Wars) are all very differet, but that does not mean they cannot be compared in their portrayal of an alien setting.
So, both games rely on procedularly generated content to entertain. But such content is and will be for many more years superficial. The deeper you go, the harder such content is to generate and games have finite budgets. But randomness gives the illusion of infinite possibilities, which is only made more notable by the setting (space brings out ideas ofendless variety).
There was another game that promised the same; some of you may be too young to remember it. it was called Spore. That game died and it's only ever brought up now as an example of how belief in Random Number God is not enough to carry a game that lacks content. But it is enough to sell it.
No Man's Sky has become a focal point of major controversy. As far as I know, the game deliveres what it promised, but what is promised is not what people believed it would be. Faith in randomness is still strong and will always be. It is also still flawed and it will always be. A hundret types of soap, even a million is not an interesting choice if the only differences are colour and size. But 5 bars of soap that differ in scent, ability to generate bubbles, how they affect sensitive skin, their antibacterial capabilities, how they interact with hard water and what is their price is an interesting choice.
Based on the recent DDs, it would appear that Paradox has realized the folly of putting to much faith in just the ilussion of infinite possibilities. I am rather convinced that Wiz will take this game into the realm of good games, where proccedural generation and scripted content are intermixed (see CK2 for reference), not living in two different towns, on two different planet. That being said, Stellaris should be a lesson for having too much faith in randomness. I hope future Paradox games do not repeat its mistake.
No Man's Sky and Stellaris share certain elements that both make players want to play the game before it's released and make players don't want to play the game after they actually try it.
Those tweo effects are caused by one thing: randomized content. You see, both No Man's Sky and Stellaris allow you to explore a vast, randomized galaxy. Sure, there are tons of differences, so someone's bound to sya they cannot be compared, but let me use an analogy of a movie. A horror movie that takes place in space (e.g. Alien) and an action movie that takes place in space (e.g. Aliens) and a fantasy movie that takes place in space (e.g. Star Wars) are all very differet, but that does not mean they cannot be compared in their portrayal of an alien setting.
So, both games rely on procedularly generated content to entertain. But such content is and will be for many more years superficial. The deeper you go, the harder such content is to generate and games have finite budgets. But randomness gives the illusion of infinite possibilities, which is only made more notable by the setting (space brings out ideas ofendless variety).
There was another game that promised the same; some of you may be too young to remember it. it was called Spore. That game died and it's only ever brought up now as an example of how belief in Random Number God is not enough to carry a game that lacks content. But it is enough to sell it.
No Man's Sky has become a focal point of major controversy. As far as I know, the game deliveres what it promised, but what is promised is not what people believed it would be. Faith in randomness is still strong and will always be. It is also still flawed and it will always be. A hundret types of soap, even a million is not an interesting choice if the only differences are colour and size. But 5 bars of soap that differ in scent, ability to generate bubbles, how they affect sensitive skin, their antibacterial capabilities, how they interact with hard water and what is their price is an interesting choice.
Based on the recent DDs, it would appear that Paradox has realized the folly of putting to much faith in just the ilussion of infinite possibilities. I am rather convinced that Wiz will take this game into the realm of good games, where proccedural generation and scripted content are intermixed (see CK2 for reference), not living in two different towns, on two different planet. That being said, Stellaris should be a lesson for having too much faith in randomness. I hope future Paradox games do not repeat its mistake.
Last edited:
- 50
- 13
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
