http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/no-ma...
Doesn't look too good.

I'm on the side of the fans of this game. It's absolutely beautiful! Yeah yeah....we know better graphics, but it's not what this game is about. Great soundtrack and exploration is top! For those, who lack patience, just skip this game and stop the hate.

hopefully will have this tonight. i can't wait. something lovely looking and relaxing to play that lasts more then 2 hours.

Interesting. I never encountered any planets with tree-like plants myself, all what I've seen was giant mushroom-like or cactus-like plants.

But what are you exploring for? Is there a goal? Its that part of this game I can't grasp, why would you want to fly around and shoot rocks and plants over and over again with no progression to work towards?

your goal is the centre of the galaxy...also there is some story stuff in there too i hear, as well as an alien language to decipher. ultimately though it's a survival game. you gather ingredients to craft. you craft to make tools, better equipment, better ships. you want those things to survive other planets and ultimately bring you closer to your goal.

i mean, minecraft doesn't have a goal and yet its one of the most popular games ever.

No Man's Sky is a divisive game, the User Reviews on MetaCritic are proof enough of this: 326 Positive, 43 Mixed, and 224 Negative. With some people giving the game 8's, 9's and 10's and others giving it 0's, 1's and 2's, while others giving it 4's, 5's and 6's. So MetaCritic's User Score is an almost appropriately 5.0, with the bad scores being almost as many as the good scores.

Still, it's important to know some things like the flight controls are extremely simple with even takeoff and landing automated for streamlining purposes, some taks are very repetitive and require a certain amount of grinding, then there's the "objective(s)" of the game which is/are what you want it/them to be. There's no "point" to it, that's the whole point. (Didn't intend for it to be pun.)

You do what you like for as long as you want till it stops being fun/enjoyable. For exampe, if you want to keep exploring, go explore. If you want to fight other ships and enemies, go fight them. If you want to discover new planets or animal species, go discover them. If you like collecting resources, go collect them. And if you want to reach the center of the game's universe, go do everything that you need to do in order to be able to do so, etc. And if at any time you get bored of something, you can always go do something else.

No Man's Sky is as much or as little as you make it to be, and the experience you will get out of the game will depend largely on what type of player you are and what is or isn't fun/enjoyable to you and for how long, in the case of an activity that is fun to you.

Below is an excerpt from a news post in the official site of No Man's Sky by Sean Murray, creative director of the game, and founder of Hello Games:

"What do you do in No Man's Sky?

Here is what No Man’s Sky definitely is:

- Exploring a universe of pretty procedurally generated worlds, with beautiful creatures
- Trading with NPCs
- Combat against robots/mechs and cool space battles
- Survival/crafting in a universe sized sandbox
- An awesome procedural soundtrack from my genuine favourite band (check the NMS album out here)
- For one small moment, you might feel like you’ve stepped into a sci-fi book cover

That means this maybe isn’t the game you *imagined* from those trailers. If you hoped for things like pvp multiplayer or city building, piloting freighters, or building civilisations… that isn’t what NMS is. Over time it might become some of those things through updates.

For instance, freighters and building bases *are* coming!

At launch though, it’s an infinite procedural sci-fi-space-survival-sandbox unlike anything you have ever played before. If you decide to play it, you’ll see just how closely it plays to those trailers, and to our original vision. It’s a weird game, it’s a niche game and it’s a very very chill game.

This game might not be for everyone, I expect it to be super divisive, but I’m sat here watching playtesters right now who weren’t supposed to be in, but just wanted to play and chill out. I can’t wait for you to experience that for yourselves."

Source: http://www.no-mans-sky.com/2016/08/what-do-you-do-...

More info about what you do in No Man's Sky in a more Q & A form in the links below:

NeoGAF - So, what do you DO in No Man's Sky?:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94699...

An excerpt from the NeoGAF thread:

"So will all of this actually be fun or worth it?

- Well that depends, it might get boring quickly or the variety of combinations might keep things fresh at least for a few dozen hours. People play Destiny, Far Cry 4, Dark Souls or Don't Starve, games which have extremely repetitive and annoying elements for a lot of people but are still loved by a great many people. My point is, No Man's Sky clearly has gameplay, and while exploration is directly encouraged and essential, it's not the only thing you can do in the game. It's not a walking simulator by any stretch. You earn money, have a goal you can pursue, upgrade your gear, engage in combat, have a lot of dangerous situations etc. That being said, it might turn out to be a boring game, it depends on balance, how interesting the activities are and a number of factors, one of which is the player himself. It's not a game for everyone, but those are rare anyway."

Reddit - “What do you do in No Man’s Sky?” and other questions – Answered:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments...

Just like that NeoGAF thread stated, it will have many activities like you can find in many open world games like Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, etc. But a lot of them will also involve a certain amount of repetition and grinding just like in said games, so if none of that is appealing, then most likely this game isn't for you.

I hope this helps people understand what No Man's Sky is and isn't a little more clearly.

I'm not a minecraft player but don't you build a base to make it through the night?

you're unlikely to be able to build a diamond sword or a train cart. but i was mentioning minecraft because of it's "pointlessness". there is no goal, no conclusion. you exist in its world, you do what you fancy doing at the time in a procedural generated landscape and then you turn it off. and if either game share a common "goal" it's that of survival. the planets atmosphere kills you, weather kills you, creatures kill you...and the only way to keep surviving is to get off that rock and move somewhere else.

ultimately though this is a foundation. they're already talking about base building being added. something people seem to want...why? i have no idea.

I look at what has been shown and what has been released and I find it impossible to be disapointed. That is unless you created your own expectations outside of expecting a good game based on what has been shown.

For me the reviews on pc are what will count if I'm to buy it. My niggling feeling that it's getting bad reviews on console are that it's totally new ground gameplay wise for those playing it.

Believe it or not i had this same thought when i first played Mass Effect 1, when exploring the milky way. Of course it was all limited then but it did actually cross my mind - if there's little reason to visit many of the planets then i might not do it more than once or twice. It's an idea that looks beautiful on paper, but when you're actually playing it the timer in your head begins to tick before wanting a story to take over.

Exploration without a motive does become repetitious, same thought with MGSV The Phantom Pain and with the unreleased FFXV. Open world games need to start balancing their gameplay with the lore. not all just about wondering and losing yourself.

There is lore. Quite a lot of it even in the 5 hours i've played...plus an entire language to decipher... And puzzles too surprisingly..both moral based and math based so far. But i don't see why open world games need to start doing that. Let the games be what they want to be. If they all start doing the same thing where's the fun in that?

They would have to add a reason to build a base to warrent it. Currently there is no reason to stay on a planet at all...and i'm not sure why you'd want to in a game that lets you land on an almost infinate number of them. But if its what people want who am i to argue.

I think it's the every action I do, needs to be validated crowd but as you said Korn, who are we to begrudge? If it's not what the devs want in their game tough crap really.

So far, I've seen 3 different languages. After learning a small portion of the first, I know some of the lore, with a small clue as to what's going on, or maybe it was an event, I have no idea. This game needs a person to pay attention while playing to unfold clues. The game doesn't hold your hand, that's for sure. So far since I've been playing, there is a point and progression. If building new more powerful ships and items isn't progression. What is? Getting to the center isn't progression?

As far as hype, if a person got too hyped, it's there problem imo.

It does have a story. I think it's more about the ratio that's in question from the reviews. I haven't played this yet, still have to in order to get a real sense of gameplay.

-------

In my opinion though, open world seems to be the future games are heading towards. but how much exploration is enough or should be? I think exploration for open world games should remain "available" but also "optional", in the sense that you could easily jump into, but also "jump out" into a campaign. where there's a real story/dialect and missions "guiding" you to complete the campaign.

This is something that actually ALL open world games should always think about. FFXV especially, where i have seen lots of car driving. which has me a little skeptical. It's definitely a valid topic brought up since the marketing that was in MGSV:TPP. exploration is great idea but it shouldn't be the meat of the game. too much saturation can lead to too much derailing.

I cant believe this discussion. As Korn mentioned....in the latest update change log, there is something about one of three paths You are taking by Your actions in the game. The meaning of the paths will be probably explained later in the game. Exploration and why? Why not? Minecraft is a good comparison here. Of course...it´s not that deep system, but You can build equipment, enhance it, buy ships, upgrade it, keep Your radiation shilds or whatever ready............if You don´t feel comfortable with this game, why even argue about it´s features. It´s not gonna change. There are plenty of other great games. But I can see why......people are so tempted to buy this game, because they like the look and idea, but then they realize it´s not really for them.....but still.....at least we can ruin the experiece for others, by constantly questioning every aspect of the game. :-D So funny. Take this game as Subnautica....there also isnt´t some ultimate goal in doing things like exploring the sea, building bases and stuff.......and still developers upgrade it more and more, adding content and there are shitloads of people, who love it. There is something about mysterious energy pulse, but it´s not really something You are pursuing from the beginning of the game. NMS will be similar IMO.

cannot wait, get my PC version of GoG in 6hrs :)

i'm still waiting for a valid argument to suggest why that should be the case. why do ALL games need exploration to be an optional element with a story at it's core? i appreciate it's what you want, but if all games where as you described it would be a very boring gaming landscape. i mean, i like the fact that games like crackdown with it's lack of story but focus on sandbox gamplay is nothing like GTA who's story takes precedent over it's world, or how games like mafia or LA noire's world are just a means to ground the story and give context to locations. or how games like minecraft or no mans sky exist almost purely for the joy of exploration and discovery.

Bad example, Crackdown has a story - police officers (known as Peacekeepers) patrolling crime infested districts, controlled by 3 factions of crime lords. the game is mission based like GTA. I believe however Crackdown's popularity was mainly through it's multiplayer aspects.I would say another bad example - Minecraft's success wavers over with level creation and the ability to destroy/rebuild, which adds greater replay value in exchange. naturally with any level building game there is no story because you're the creator of your own world. with no man's sky the world is pre-constructed leaving you with just the option to explore it.

not saying exploration games can't co-exists with real story driven games. these types of games can become repetitious. hence the mixed opinions with this game.

Played an unhealthy amount of this over weekend. Got a nice roomy 30 slot spaceship for a cool 4.7 million. Been hunting drop pods to get my suits inventory space up enough so it stops being a pain in the ass. Pimped out my suit to resist most planetary conditions that are thrown at me. And i'm still only in my 4th system searching out the backstory of atlus and still need to peice together these 3 alien races languages. Didn't expect to get so absorbed into it. Yet to see a planet i consider beautuful either. But am currently on a planel largly made up of gold...hence having the cash to buy a 4.7 million ship lol.