Stellaris and No Man's Sky - the folly of believing in RNG

[dragoon9105]

For Purposes of Avoiding a wall of text i'm gonna split this post in two via spoiler tags.

Spoiler: No Man's Sky

No Man's Sky is at the end of the Day, a Minecraft clone who's gimmick is to double down on Randomness, the same way Wow clones always found some sort of gimmick to try and seem different. However No Man's Sky has all the problems of Indie game but now with the added pressures of being a AAA release, No game would have survived that.

As far as the Mechanics however it shows that went went too Random and ran straight into a brick wall of limitations but by that point it was too late, the cat was out of the bag, this was the prophesied Procedurally generated Mount&Blade/Star Trek Hybrid. However then the studio ran into other issues and the randomness was the only thing they had for launch and we have a good example now to look back on and see that Randomess alone doesn't make a game. When all you have in Randomness the game mechanics cant plan ahead for anything which means you cant really do anything becuase doing something would mean knowing in advance what's going to happen.

Keeping with the Minecraft example, A player comes in knowing they need to survive, once that's done they have a progression, Get Iron, then Diamonds then Ender Eyes, Then Kill Dragon. The rewards being that new area's of the game are unlocked as you go, Iron=being able to actually build Diamonds=Mid Game(Enchanting, Nether, Withers) Ender Eyes=Endgame stuff (The End, High level Enchanting, The Dragon fight) The randomness here is the world itself and really only that, It makes exploration unique and the first half of the game relatively diffrent every time but otherwise it's used sparingly outside of being used to balance things.

A Dwarf Fortress Example is obviously, Survive at any cost which requires going deeper and deeper into the world to get better/more materials to defend yourself until you activate the HFS. With the game getting progressively harder and more 'fun' as you progress. The Randomness element here only comes into what the game throws at you to try to make you have 'fun' and what resources may or may not be available to you in the world.

In No Man's sky you never 'unlock' or progress, you are in loop, Get to Planet, Do the same thing you do on every planet, then go to another. The Randomness here is the same as the above two examples, except there's no sense of real 'progression, nothing like "I need A so I can B which makes me C so I can D and eventually E"

Now this is fine, if NMS was more of a Star Trek game (or to be Dwarf Fortress Adventure Mode in space which would be fairly close) where exploring the random and interesting worlds Was the point but that clearly wasn't since then there would have been more focus on the Templates and namely the constants that define every game like the alien factions. It tried to be the prophesied procedurally generated Star Trek/Minecraft/M&B hybrid and found real life waiting for it.

Spoiler: Stellaris

Now Stellaris is another story altogether. The two games really aren't the same and its not really fair to compare NMS and Stellaris. What Stellaris seemed to be was either V2 or EU4 in Space depending on who you asked and what it is right now is a slightly more diverse Risk in Space.

If anyone has played old computerized versions of risk what the game would often do is assign all players thier territories, then the player was given control of their chosen color. They did not pick their territories (Though it varies, theres ALOT of online risk versions after all). The board was different every time and the AI generally had a different continent priority every time.

Thats the opening setup of Stellaris in a Nutshell. Different players are dropped randomly in the galaxy according to the settings you set up, And then you are given control of one of those countries. The players you meet and the order they come in are technically 'random' the order of your technologies are also 'random' the same way prize cards in risk are 'random' But just like prize cards there is a set amount of them in the deck and what they do doesn't change game to game. As far as the Players, they may be 'random' but they have the same general personalities as an AI risk player "This one is prioritizing South America, This one North America, Ect"

Though it should be pointed out this is also every other 4x Game from Civ-MoO2. Sure there are alternate win conditions but lets be real here, The most brutal and efficient way to win every 4x game is to just kill everyone else. MoO2 widely hailed as the 'best' Space 4x game of all time has only real win con, Kill everyone else until everyone either votes you in for a diplo victory, or you killed them before they got a chance too.

The difference between Stellaris and other 4x games is the ruleset, which is more derivative of Eu (Yes even the tech system) than any 4x game and the Starting setup which is completly randomized as opposed to much more predictable rogues gallery you'll find in something like Civ or MoO. It'll be these next few coming expansions that'll be what determines if Stellaris stays as Risk in Space which is fun in itself if a little stale after a bit, a fully fledged 4x game or a Grand Strategy game derivative of Ck2/Eu4 and Vicky.

 

[thedarkendstar]

For Purposes of Avoiding a wall of text i'm gonna split this post in two via spoiler tags.

Spoiler: No Man's Sky

No Man's Sky is at the end of the Day, a Minecraft clone who's gimmick is to double down on Randomness, the same way Wow clones always found some sort of gimmick to try and seem different. However No Man's Sky has all the problems of Indie game but now with the added pressures of being a AAA release, No game would have survived that.

As far as the Mechanics however it shows that went went too Random and ran straight into a brick wall of limitations but by that point it was too late, the cat was out of the bag, this was the prophesied Procedurally generated Mount&Blade/Star Trek Hybrid. However then the studio ran into other issues and the randomness was the only thing they had for launch and we have a good example now to look back on and see that Randomess alone doesn't make a game. When all you have in Randomness the game mechanics cant plan ahead for anything which means you cant really do anything becuase doing something would mean knowing in advance what's going to happen.

Keeping with the Minecraft example, A player comes in knowing they need to survive, once that's done they have a progression, Get Iron, then Diamonds then Ender Eyes, Then Kill Dragon. The rewards being that new area's of the game are unlocked as you go, Iron=being able to actually build Diamonds=Mid Game(Enchanting, Nether, Withers) Ender Eyes=Endgame stuff (The End, High level Enchanting, The Dragon fight) The randomness here is the world itself and really only that, It makes exploration unique and the first half of the game relatively diffrent every time but otherwise it's used sparingly outside of being used to balance things.

A Dwarf Fortress Example is obviously, Survive at any cost which requires going deeper and deeper into the world to get better/more materials to defend yourself until you activate the HFS. With the game getting progressively harder and more 'fun' as you progress. The Randomness element here only comes into what the game throws at you to try to make you have 'fun' and what resources may or may not be available to you in the world.

In No Man's sky you never 'unlock' or progress, you are in loop, Get to Planet, Do the same thing you do on every planet, then go to another. The Randomness here is the same as the above two examples, except there's no sense of real 'progression, nothing like "I need A so I can B which makes me C so I can D and eventually E"

Now this is fine, if NMS was more of a Star Trek game (or to be Dwarf Fortress Adventure Mode in space which would be fairly close) where exploring the random and interesting worlds Was the point but that clearly wasn't since then there would have been more focus on the Templates and namely the constants that define every game like the alien factions. It tried to be the prophesied procedurally generated Star Trek/Minecraft/M&B hybrid and found real life waiting for it.

Spoiler: Stellaris

Now Stellaris is another story altogether. The two games really aren't the same and its not really fair to compare NMS and Stellaris. What Stellaris seemed to be was either V2 or EU4 in Space depending on who you asked and what it is right now is a slightly more diverse Risk in Space.

If anyone has played old computerized versions of risk what the game would often do is assign all players thier territories, then the player was given control of their chosen color. They did not pick their territories (Though it varies, theres ALOT of online risk versions after all). The board was different every time and the AI generally had a different continent priority every time.

Thats the opening setup of Stellaris in a Nutshell. Different players are dropped randomly in the galaxy according to the settings you set up, And then you are given control of one of those countries. The players you meet and the order they come in are technically 'random' the order of your technologies are also 'random' the same way prize cards in risk are 'random' But just like prize cards there is a set amount of them in the deck and what they do doesn't change game to game. As far as the Players, they may be 'random' but they have the same general personalities as an AI risk player "This one is prioritizing South America, This one North America, Ect"

Though it should be pointed out this is also every other 4x Game from Civ-MoO2. Sure there are alternate win conditions but lets be real here, The most brutal and efficient way to win every 4x game is to just kill everyone else. MoO2 widely hailed as the 'best' Space 4x game of all time has only real win con, Kill everyone else until everyone either votes you in for a diplo victory, or you killed them before they got a chance too.

The difference between Stellaris and other 4x games is the ruleset, which is more derivative of Eu (Yes even the tech system) than any 4x game and the Starting setup which is completly randomized as opposed to much more predictable rogues gallery you'll find in something like Civ or MoO. It'll be these next few coming expansions that'll be what determines if Stellaris stays as Risk in Space which is fun in itself if a little stale after a bit, a fully fledged 4x game or a Grand Strategy game derivative of Ck2/Eu4 and Vicky.

I cannot give No mans sky any excuse tho sure it was overhyped but the developers did nothing to ease that hype in fact THEY lied to boost hype even higher they made it seem like you could interact with intergalactic empires and join their massive battles you cant. They said there was multiplayer there isn't. They said the center of the galaxy unlocked amazing secrets all it does is generate another galaxy it doesn't even have as much freedom as you should you cant even get close to a systems star.Sean Murray lied about no mans sky told people that things were in the game that aren't I think he deserves to be sued for false advertising.They released a game that should have been sold as an indie game at a triple a game price had it been sold as an indie game it would still be criminal because we would have still been lied to. Had Sean Murray had not saw the fire of hype and pour gasoline on it would be a different situation but he decided to lie and as such NMS should be allowed to died it was a financial success born of lies and deceit.

 

[dragoon9105]

The Hype is a different factor entirely, I was mostly just posting about how the game is in its current state. There's a very solid case that either Sean Murray, Sony and possibly more that there was actual criminal wrongdoing in promising features that never made it into the final game as well as refusal to admit what is and isn't in the game upon release. The Latter is probably a better case, since I dont think there were any official ads printed promising multiplayer just, subtle confirmations that people ran with.

As far as what the price was it was far too much, But I didn't buy the game, nor did I have any intent to, my response to hearing about it was the same as Star Citizen and Elite, "Cool hope its good". Because these procedural world games, like wow clones before them have a storied history of flopping. Could only give my condolences and warnings to friends that bought it in the first week.

Jim Sterling and Jon Bain (Totalbiscuit) both did some editorials on it. There's definitely something there, but really I wouldn't expect much out of a lawsuit, It'll be blood from a stone. Sony will Blame Hello Games, and Hello games will just go bankrupt and dissolve before any of the money is ever seen, still worth the case for a precedent in the industry though.

 

[thedarkendstar]

The Hype is a different factor entirely, I was mostly just posting about how the game is in its current state. There's a very solid case that either Sean Murray, Sony and possibly more that there was actual criminal wrongdoing in promising features that never made it into the final game as well as refusal to admit what is and isn't in the game upon release. The Latter is probably a better case, since I dont think there were any official ads printed promising multiplayer just, subtle confirmations that people ran with.

As far as what the price was it was far too much, But I didn't buy the game, nor did I have any intent to, my response to hearing about it was the same as Star Citizen and Elite, "Cool hope its good". Because these procedural world games, like wow clones before them have a storied history of flopping. Could only give my condolences and warnings to friends that bought it in the first week.

Jim Sterling and Jon Bain (Totalbiscuit) both did some editorials on it. There's definitely something there, but really I wouldn't expect much out of a lawsuit, It'll be blood from a stone. Sony will Blame Hello Games, and Hello games will just go bankrupt and dissolve before any of the money is ever seen, still worth the case for a precedent in the industry though.

My point is to go even further about not comparing Stellaris to NMS Sean Murray is a Cretan who lied about the game and when it flopped large outlets had the nerve to call gamers entitled and thieves if they got a refund for the game when they were the ones lied to. Stellaris might have bugs and balance issues but we were not lied to on such an enormous scales as NMS

 

[paulatreides0]

The problem with Stellaris and No Man's Sky is not RNG. In the case of no man's sky it's fundamentally flawed and shallow and empty game design. Stellaris has significantly fewer issues, but it still faces the issue that it's just rather bland and a bit shallow.

RNG is only a problem if you try to sell a game because of it being RNG. You're trying to sell a game by how every playthrough will be "unique", but you then make mechanics that are so fundamentally shallow and repetitive that having a vast, limitless universe means nothing. No Man's Sky could have been a great game. It just didn't know what it was trying to do, and what it tried to do it didn't do well. No Man's Sky saw the X and Elite franchise and failed to understand that the reason why there is more content than just randomly exploring is because doing nothing but random exploration and collection is boring as all hell. In those games you can actually set goals and meet them - in NMS you can only ever go to the next node, see "new" things, and collect more of the same crap you've been collecting for dozens of hours. If No Man's Sky had been X or Elite in an RNG universe it would have been vastly better received, because it had actual gameplay going for it.

Stellaris is a significantly less flawed product, but it mainly suffers from the flaw that everything is samey. But that is being fixed in the upcoming patches. Things like ship classes mean that ships are no longer just identical templates that differ only by how big they are and what they can fit, but their actual roles in battle (which both exist in reality and add thought to gameplay). It also suffers from something unique to GSGs - the lack of unbalance. In an even halfway decent GSG balance gameplay is just a terrible, terrible idea, especially if you want replayability. Having completely balanced sides means that the only difference between you and your opponent is the color and mesh/textures of your units. Things like having France and the Ottoblob be ridiculously powerful while countries like Albania and Byz are tiny and weak and desired by very hungry blobs makes them more fun to play because it adds a lot of variety and challenge which you simply can't have in a game where everyone starts off on the same foot. And Stellaris is steadily addressing this issue. Although I'd love it if they could do a Dwarf/Fortress style universe collection, where it procedurally generates empires and nations at game start and you can pick up as anyone that universe.

RNG is a great tool for making games. Especially for GSG and games that rely on management or even exploration games, 4Xs, and even RPGs. Civ has pretty much always been RNG, and those are all pretty good (although not really my cup of tea). Dwarf Fortress is excellent and run entirely on RNG. Rogue and Rogue-likes/lites like Dungeons of Draemor are heavily RNG based and are excellent. Stellaris is also pretty good and fun, although it needs fleshing out and it will get so over the next several years. But many developers rely on RNG as a crutch and make RNG itself the feature and produce products that have lots of RNG but no interesting features where they should instead be making interesting features and then using RNG to implement and distribute those features in an interesting ways.

 

[Facepalm]

I dunno, but didn't Civilization do RNG worlds a quarter of a century before NMS was released?

Not sure if it ever got a sequel though...

 

[Fulbert]

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.

I don't think procedurally generated content was a major part of Spore's pitch; it was in fact the user-generated content that was the main appeal to the game. Hundreds and thousands of people playing, creating new creatures, vehicles, buildings, and spaceships and uploading them to the EA servers and encountering each other's creations as foreign species and props.

That way, players had a much greater chance of stumbling upon some unique and interesting asset - unlike in No Man's Sky where all the monsters are procedurally constructed from randomly picked body parts - technically different but practically the same.

Spore had a ton of problems - but lack of asset variety due to procedural generation was never one of them.

 

[Raph]

Haven't played NMS, agree that Stellaris feels a bit empty in the content category. That will hopefully be fixed though, and not by procedural generation. I think Runemaster was supposed to go more in the direction of procedural generation/emergent storytelling but it didn't work and PDS axed it, which probably was the right choice.

There are, however, good examples of games where random generation works and produces really interesting and memorable stories. Rimworld, for instance, has really captivated me, and has been overwhelmingly positively recieved so far, despite having more or less no scripted content. Hell, you might even bring up the Sims as a succesful example of randomly generated characters producing interesting stories for players (haven't played the latest installations of that franchise, but it you can't argue against its success).

 

[Falc]

NMS and Stellaris are both sandbox games. You get dropped into them and it's up to you to have fun, using the tools given to you.

That's where things break down for NMS: there simply aren't enough different and interesting tools given to you to have fun with.

It's also where Stellaris suffers for now: there's more tools at your disposal than NMS, but there's less than in EU4. It pales a bit in comparison with Paradox standards, but to me at least it's on par with titles like Beyond Earth or Endless Space.

 

[sbytheway]

I like how OP uses "players" to mean "I, myself"

 

[heliostellar]

I get where you're coming from with the No Man's Sky critique, but Stellaris is only slightly more dependent on the RNG than any of the 4X or random-map RTS games that inspired it.

This. In MOO2 (pretty much the classic 4x space game), the galaxy was completely random. The only certainty was that there was an Orion system somewhere in the middle.

Also, while the races were generally the same through each playthrough that was not always the case. There were occasionally times when either the Sakkra or the Trilarians were Repulsive and couldn't engage in diplomacy. The tech tree is randomized, but Stellaris is not as randomized as you're making it out to be.

 

[moridin84]

4X games always have procedural generation though. The number of systems, planets, empires, etc .The main thing that Stellaris makes procedural on top is the races themselves. I don't think replacing the procedurally generated races with a set of 10 predefined races would have made any difference.

 

[Sindai]

Yeah, all of the predefined AI personalities have about as much character as the predefined races in other 4Xs. They're just not linked to the same portraits every game.

And if you'd prefer they were, it's not that much work to do. You don't even need to use a mod for it.

Stellaris really isn't comparable to NMS at all.

 

[Rath12]

Why did this have to come back?

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Aaaand you lost the majority of people on this alone.


Including me.

Hey now Spore might not have been what most people assumed it would be but it does still deliver fairly well, it just happens to be very kiddy orientated.

It still has a huge player base if you check the Sporepedia, or rather a large content creating base. The creators in that game are pretty powerful, especially if you use mods/hacks to break the complexity limit which is arbitrary anyway.

 

[EU3NOOB]

rather a large content creating base.

Exactly. It's fun creating content, but actually playing the game is fucking boring. I gave up on it after a day.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Exactly. It's fun creating content, but actually playing the game is ****ing boring. I gave up on it after a day.

I still play it now and then.

 

[thedarkendstar]

I'll be honest no man's sky is not a bad game it has some very cool features but the problem is we didn't get what we were promised.