Un-Reviews
While it's technically true that you can't really effectively review something without having experienced it, there's a point at which that sort of doesn't matter. We have a finite amount of time and money for entertainment. It may not be fair to say "that's bad" from afar, but I think it's perfectly fair to say "that doesn't look worth my time/money/concern" even if the opinion might be appended with "yet".
No Man's Sky has been drawing attention for quite some time. The color palette turned me off a bit, but the thought of a massive universe of exploration is pretty cool. Coming up on, and passing, the release date, though... reviews have failed to convey any sense of purpose to it. One review I listened to described the game as a survival game without the best parts.
So based on what I've heard, it's a game of functionally-infinite breadth, with procedurally-generated worlds farther than the eye can see in all directions. That's a good setting. It's a game in which you gather resources to improve gear to... better gather resources to improve gear to... better gather resources? Uhhh. Okay, there's often a loop like this in games, where you get better gear to tackle greater challenges that reward better gear, but it sounds like this game sort of cuts out the challenge part and replaces it with busywork of mining.
Now, I've played and enjoyed Minecraft, which sounds similar. But in that game, my motivation tends to flow from survival to building/exploring. And eventually, I get pretty well established and lose interest, maybe starting on a new map a few months later. Take the building out of that, and I get the distinct feeling I'd be bored even faster. There's some overall "quest" to reach the core of the galaxy, I guess, but no real drive or pointers by the game to do so.
More than anything else, what I hear of the game makes me think of Empyrion: Galactic Survival. NMS is certainly prettier and larger. Empyrion only has a handful of planets at this point, but it also has building and potential multiplayer (not a big draw to me, but hey). It's also still in early access/development, and didn't cost full new-AAA-game pricing.
So... NMS is impressive in one way: scope. Otherwise, it sounds pretty "meh" to me, and I'll skip it sans some good deal down the line.
On the other hand, I'm at least considering Stellaris, a 4x space game that has got some flack for... being a broad game that's good in the early stages, but lacks depth and interest in mid-/late-game. That's sort of the same criticism I'm leveling at NMS, and one that (in my limited experience) is pretty common in strategy games as well.
But I came across a review that mentioned the game allows for things like building a federation and uplifting species - stuff that fits the scifi genre/fantasy, but is often overlooked in 4x/strategy games which usually lean too heavily on crushing opposition. There's potential there which miiight make it interesting enough to pick up and play.
I totally skipped Suicide Squad just as I did Dawn of Justice. While I don't totally base my thoughts on movies by reviews, I do refer to Rotten Tomatoes at times, and for four or five days there, the Suicide Squad score kept going down. An ensemble super(anti-)hero movie with no setup? That seems almost doomed to failure, with having to introduce half a dozen characters. And yet... Guardians of the Galaxy did it with a style and charm that made that movie deeply enjoyable for me. So why not see Squad? Well... Lack of faith in the DC outings in movies lately, in part. And a general feeling that it was trying too hard to be fun - something that usually fails. Maybe I'll see it later and regret not going to the theater, but I doubt it.
No Man's Sky has been drawing attention for quite some time. The color palette turned me off a bit, but the thought of a massive universe of exploration is pretty cool. Coming up on, and passing, the release date, though... reviews have failed to convey any sense of purpose to it. One review I listened to described the game as a survival game without the best parts.
So based on what I've heard, it's a game of functionally-infinite breadth, with procedurally-generated worlds farther than the eye can see in all directions. That's a good setting. It's a game in which you gather resources to improve gear to... better gather resources to improve gear to... better gather resources? Uhhh. Okay, there's often a loop like this in games, where you get better gear to tackle greater challenges that reward better gear, but it sounds like this game sort of cuts out the challenge part and replaces it with busywork of mining.
Now, I've played and enjoyed Minecraft, which sounds similar. But in that game, my motivation tends to flow from survival to building/exploring. And eventually, I get pretty well established and lose interest, maybe starting on a new map a few months later. Take the building out of that, and I get the distinct feeling I'd be bored even faster. There's some overall "quest" to reach the core of the galaxy, I guess, but no real drive or pointers by the game to do so.
More than anything else, what I hear of the game makes me think of Empyrion: Galactic Survival. NMS is certainly prettier and larger. Empyrion only has a handful of planets at this point, but it also has building and potential multiplayer (not a big draw to me, but hey). It's also still in early access/development, and didn't cost full new-AAA-game pricing.
So... NMS is impressive in one way: scope. Otherwise, it sounds pretty "meh" to me, and I'll skip it sans some good deal down the line.
On the other hand, I'm at least considering Stellaris, a 4x space game that has got some flack for... being a broad game that's good in the early stages, but lacks depth and interest in mid-/late-game. That's sort of the same criticism I'm leveling at NMS, and one that (in my limited experience) is pretty common in strategy games as well.
But I came across a review that mentioned the game allows for things like building a federation and uplifting species - stuff that fits the scifi genre/fantasy, but is often overlooked in 4x/strategy games which usually lean too heavily on crushing opposition. There's potential there which miiight make it interesting enough to pick up and play.
I totally skipped Suicide Squad just as I did Dawn of Justice. While I don't totally base my thoughts on movies by reviews, I do refer to Rotten Tomatoes at times, and for four or five days there, the Suicide Squad score kept going down. An ensemble super(anti-)hero movie with no setup? That seems almost doomed to failure, with having to introduce half a dozen characters. And yet... Guardians of the Galaxy did it with a style and charm that made that movie deeply enjoyable for me. So why not see Squad? Well... Lack of faith in the DC outings in movies lately, in part. And a general feeling that it was trying too hard to be fun - something that usually fails. Maybe I'll see it later and regret not going to the theater, but I doubt it.
Comments
Post a Comment