video games

No Man’s Sky: Failure To Come Together

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, www.SeventhSanctum.com, and Steve’s Tumblr)

Sorry this is late.  Busy few weeks, but now I’m back to my pre-release analysis of No Man’s Sky.  After all I love games and i love procedural generation.

We’re counting down to No Man’s Sky’s release in August.  We’re approaching the big release, and once again I’m seeing posts on the Internet asking if it will succeed or fail.  This is not unusual, but it’s time for another round of them apparently.

I’ve speculated on this possible failure before, but often concern’s about NMS focus on this component or that.  From the possible sameness of worlds to uninteresting space travel, there’s concerns about some elements, of the game.  These concerns are legitimate, but often they miss what No Man’s Sky Is about.  There’s a larger picture here for concern.

No Man’s Sky is a game about synergy, as is fairly obvious when you step back and look at the game.  Characters mine to get resources to craft new items to let their spacecraft travel farther.  Their adventures may require them to fight enemies with spacecraft that they hijacked by developing rare hacking chips, chips whose blueprints were found exploring a ruined building.  A strange technology, found in an alien ruin, may let someone survive on a toxic world.  No Man’s Sky is all about things coming together.

This is not surprising as video games are about synergy.  Good controls bring a character to live.  Clever mechanics entice the mind that learns them and influences the game experience.  Music and graphics work together to set the mood.  Good games depend on pieces working in harmony.

For No Man’s Sky, it’s even more dependent on the synergy – that’s really it’s selling point.  Where procedural worlds and exploration and crafting and all come together, the game offers a whole of an experience.  It’s not a game with clear boundaries, which is the point – it’s a supposed seamless exploration experience.  It just happens to be a very big one based on some very, very smart use of math.

This synergy is also where it can fail.

Because No Man’s Sky relies on the parts of the game coming together, there’s several possible modes of failure that can occur.

Poor Synergy: One way the game can fail is if the different parts don’t support each other properly.  Perhaps the ability to acquire resources makes the crafting parts too hard – or too easy.  Straightforward planetary exploration might contrast with hyperkinetic space combat, creating tone shifts that are hard for players to adapt to.  If the parts of the game don’t come together correctly, the game suffers because the synergy of the promise is gone – even if the parts are good.  This may be the biggest synergy risk of NMS because a dev and even a testing team would be unlikely to catch it due to being used to the product.

The Flaw: Another way I can see NMS fail is if one part of the game is done so poorly that drags the rest of the game down.  Planetary exploration is an area I’ve worried about, and if it is poorly done or dull, that diminishes the thrill of the rest of the game.  Truly egregious resource gathering could be another fun-killer as the rest of the game depends on that.  One poor part of the game could drag the rest down – the synergy backfires when one part fails really hard.

The Drudge: NMS also has to make sure that its individual components are good enough to support the game, because though one bad component might drag the game down, so can many mediocre ones.  The game may not fail on its many fronts, but if too many are uninspired or uninteresting, the synergy of them makes the game not good, but dreadfully mediocre.  The synergy of game component’s can be a double-edged swords when many are just uninspired.  I think people may be more forgiving of a game with one big flaw and ambition than one that just kind of plots.

Though I’m sure that Hello Games has thought of this, it’s worth considering for analyzing the game once it’s out, and for analyzing future games of its type.  Synergy is the strength of the gaming art.

It’s also a place where failure can happen, even if the parts are right or mostly right.

– Steve

No Man’s Sky: Why The Delay Is Good

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, www.SeventhSanctum.com, and Steve’s Tumblr)

So if you’ve been following No Man’s Sky, and haven’t heard that A) the game was delayed, and B) some people had a meltdown over it, you’ve been living under an extremely insulated rock.

So anyway, the game is delayed.  Though I’d like to address some of the bizarre reactions on it (including death threats to the lead and to a reporter), as I’m focusing on the game I’d like to discuss the delay.  Also there’s only so much I can write “stop it you morons.”

So, NMS delayed.  Good.

Why do I say good?  Because that’s a sign of two things:

  1. That Hello Games knows that there’s more work to be done.
  2. That Hello Games will admit there’s work to be done and do it.

First, as noted earlier, the NMS team seems to be doing everything right to actually make the game work.  Right focus, right methods, etc.  The fact that they can outright say “no, we need more time” means they’re aware enough of what they’re doing to take more time.

Secondly, the fact they will admit this in public, for a game whose hype has become a living thing entirely separate from their own efforts, is a good sign for the final product.  Unless the problems were epic, they probably could have gotten away with a flawed game with a day 0 patch or something.  They didn’t – that speaks to an honest about getting a good product.

The delay tells me NMS is probably going to live up to the (actual, not imagined) hype.  The team can say “stop, wait” as opposed to tossing out a game that – let us be blunt – would probably get a lot of love anyway.

I’m reminded a bit of Starbound, another game that I’m looking forward to (and that sadly, I will have to play through before OR after NMS because its pure crack to me).  The team has taken extra time to work on it, but as of the last beta I played – and I played through the game 3 times Early access – it’s evolved amazingly.  Time can make a better product (ask Blizzard).

The delay may be painful for some of us, but it’s just another sign we’re going to get a good product.

– Steve

Why ‘No Man’s Sky’ Can And Should Only Be So Deep

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, www.SeventhSanctum.com, and Steve’s Tumblr)

I’m looking forward to No Man’s Sky – which is apparent if you see my Twitter, Facebook, blogs, or just talk to me. The procedural space adventure fascinates me as it pushes all my buttons – and of course I’m big on procedural generation, so of course I’m following it.

Acknowledging this, this is fair warning you’re gonna see some No Man’s Sky posts. It’s relevant to my interests, to what I do here, so I hope they’e informative and interesting.

As I’ve scanned internet posts and Steam communities, one useful insight I’ve seen is that the game may face an issue of being “a mile wide and an inch deep.” A game, in short, of great breadth but not a lot of depth. I think this concern is worth addressing, as it reveals some truths about games, procedural games, and their development.

The concern is one I feel is legitimate for some in the audience. NMS’ videos make it clear that the game presents an enormous Sandbox galaxy, with straightforward systems of crafting, exploring, fighting, trading, and reputation-building. This may be enough for many (such as myself), and certainly enough for a broad, wide adventure – but it may not be enough for everyone attracted to the premise.

The “mile wide” may stand for people, but for some people the game may not have the depth they want – or the kind of depth they want. You won’t be building structures, negotiating trade agreements, or going on elaborate story quests – hallmarks of other games and science fiction. For some NMS will have everything they want – for others it’ll be a beautiful galaxy that might not have what they want, or enough of it.

I analyze what I see from NMS’s designers and ads, because watching this dream game evolve has taught me a lot about games and procedural generation. The concern about NMS not having the depth some one made me ask, simply, what if the game tried to add more?

It’s not hard to imagine adding some more classic science fiction elements from the novels that inspired it. Take the simple alien language engine and add some negotiation and trade deals. Allow some encounters to spawn some quests – like smuggling something thorough a blockade. Maybe even a bit of building or improving buildings. Just a bit more maybe . . .

. . . and this is where it gets complicated.

First, even if there is a desire to add “more” we’re talking a game with a setting the size of a galaxy, filled with procedural content so large the devs had to make in-game probes to study the worlds. Any addition of new features could produce development nightmares, adding them onto an already careully developed and tweaked engine.

Second, the developers would have to choose what new features to add to their already polished set. What would sell? What do people want? S much work is procedural, so much unknown, can the devs predict what people will want? Will they be able to balance demands? They can’t be sure how people will react to the game – potential pirates may become explorers, traders decide to cut out the middlemen and become pirates, and explorers may drop their archiving duties to just swap rare minerals for cash. Throwing in more features requires careful consideration of how the audience will reacts.

Third, if the new items could be added, then comes the question of testing. Adding new features onto procedural content produce a new nightmare of testing it and making sure nothing else broke and all the pieces work together. That “mile wide” part means a lot more testing work when you try to make that “inch” a bit deeper.

Fourth and finally the extreme “width” of the game means that, with too much “depth” the game might become a muddle of choices and options. NMS may give you the stars, but its focus on being a kind of space exploration/survival game provides useful boundaries for play. Throw in a few more features and a game that already provides little direction could end up a muddle.

Those concerned about depth have a legitimate concern – for some of the audience (again, I think most people buying NMS who are informed will know what they’re getting). But I think the creators have a sweet spot of features for this grand enterprise, and changing beyond that is fraught with dangr.

Is it the right choice? Well, we find out in June 2016 . . .

– Steve

www.StevenSavage.com

www.InformoTron.com