No Man's Sky from Hello Games (HAS to be seen)

[Asura]

However for many this seems to serve as an another example of 'toxicity' as if it only happens with 'gamers'. People like ... It isn't just gaming that has this problem.

To be fair though, if the topic's videogames, then that's going to be the focus. Loads of other places have issues but to focus away from the topic at hand borders on "whataboutism".

Football has a big sexism problem, but it isn't a contest to find the hobby/occupation that has the biggest toxic elements.

[Digfox]

To be fair though, if the topic's videogames, then that's going to be the focus. Loads of other places have issues but to focus away from the topic at hand borders on "whataboutism".

Football has a big sexism problem, but it isn't a contest to find the hobby/occupation that has the biggest toxic elements.

But here people are making accusations that it doesn't happen with other industries (I dont have the example to hand but the former AC dev was one). This feels like a growing trend. It is disingenuous not to acknowledge or admit is a bigger problem and not specific to our hobby. That's more my point.

[Dogg Thang]

I think it is very safe to say at this point that it happens elsewhere too. It is particularly bad in games for whatever reason (pure speculation: gamers had more reason to band together on the internet earlier than non-gamers) but yes it is clear it is not limited to games in any way.

This is a great example of internet tribalism.

It's like there are only two viewpoints. If you're okay with it, you're supposedly fine with anti-consumer practices. If you're not okay with it, you want to burn down the developer's offices and dance on their graves.

This is false equivalency though. And it happens here, about films, politics, everywhere. I have no horse in this No Man’s Sky race (other than I found the comparison video with Jurassic Park music hilarious) but being cool with something is not an equal opposite end to wanting to burn down the developer’s office, whether metaphorically or actually. Fan bases, and humans generally, need to take a look at how they react negatively to things in a big way. That needs to be cleaned up. And if you don’t like being lumped in with them because you also share a negative viewpoint, the problem is the people you’re being lumped in with because, whether you like it or not, they have then created a situation in which they can be enabled, validated and encouraged even by the most decent of people who happen to lean their direction. So in a sense, if you end up closer to them on whatever viewpoint and haven’t very carefully considered your own reaction, it becomes even more important that you try to clean up that house. Because to an extent you’re in it.

But as it happens, in many places (and certainly here), people can express negativity in a pretty calm, considered manner and not get lumped in with the angry entitled nerds of the world. I reckon it’s probably mostly about not expressing it as a personal attack, not assuming a piece of art of product is wholly yours and when it is wrong it is intended as an affront to you personally, not assuming you know everything about what it took to make and that you could do better and, instead, just expressing an opinion about the thing itself. And a huge amount of people can do that and I don’t think I’ve seen you do otherwise.

Edit: There is one other consideration here I think we (everyone) need to consider - really how important is it that we express a viewpoint at all? Does it always contribute? Does it actually serve a purpose? There are times, yeah, it actually does serve a purpose or it contributes to a conversation or sparks other thoughts that get interesting in the back and forth and that’s exactly what a board like this is for and it’s a strength. But sometimes (and I think I posted something last night and felt immediately that I was doing this), we’re just saying something to say it or make ourselves feel heard and, really, the world could have got along just nicely without it. Like for example, I have steered clear of that Helena Bonham Carter thread because, in all honesty, the fact that she rubs me up the wrong way contributes nothing. I’m expressing it now but just as an example - it wouldn’t really have been conversation except to possibly invite many cries of “me too” and I don’t necessarily think that would be a good thing.

Anyway, No Man’s Sky...

[Asura]

This is false equivalency though.

I'm not suggesting the two points of view are equivalent, though, from some kind of ethical perspective. They're just the two points-of-view that have rose to dominance within that topic; that's their only equivalency.

But as it happens, in many places (and certainly here), people can express negativity in a pretty calm, considered manner and not get lumped in with the angry entitled nerds of the world. I reckon it’s probably mostly about not expressing it as a personal attack, not assuming a piece of art of product is wholly yours and when it is wrong it is intended as an affront to you personally, not assuming you know everything about what it took to make and that you could do better and, instead, just expressing an opinion about the thing itself. And a huge amount of people can do that and I don’t think I’ve seen you do otherwise.

You might need to explain this a little better, particularly the last bit.

That being said, I don't quite agree with some of your point. I think the point at which you put a product out to the consumer, for sale, is the point at which the product ceases to be only yours and does become, in some part, the consumer's. If they buy into it, I would tolerate them expressing an opinion from a position of ownership. I don't personally do it, because I'm aware I don't own "Star Wars" for example, but I do feel that in turning these things into lifestyle brands, companies make enormous amounts of money, and as a result, they can't just rear back in surprise when the community has really taken that idea to heart.

I also don't feel as though the user should be asked to judge anything about a product from an educated position. They're educated enough to buy it, so they're educated enough to pass judgement on it. By selling it to them, you're asking them to make that decision. I don't feel a person needs to be a film-maker to express an opinion about a film, or to really understand procedural generation to express an opinion about NMS.

I guess all I was trying to say is that nuance is just lost in these arguments, and it's part of what I'm seeing referred to as an ongoing "culture war"; given, not as brazen as the recent Ghostbusters fiasco (that one was just a real mess) but concerning nonetheless.

[Dogg Thang]

Beyond this game and beyond gaming, I have seen them presented almost as two opposite extremes and that in itself is part of the problem. Apologies for misinterpreting your intention. I took it that they were presented together without an acknowledgement that one side has been core to the problem you were facing, as if they were both the problem.

[fishbowlhead]

Ultimately when the game came out, it should of been handled legally how it was at the time,

As false advertising.

Then been done with it. That’s why the system is there. It wasn’t however, which is what’s lead us down this path and to the fact there’s even still a discussion about it.

[Dogg Thang]

Yep, seems that way. I also feel there is a wider discussion about games being released unfinished or not fit for purpose and the legal obligations around this. There have apparently been a couple on the Switch that were in terrible shape (can’t remember what they were - I didn’t have any of them). This seems to be the poster child for those games but there seem to be others to a lesser degree too.

[Asura]

As false advertising.

What makes me laugh about the whole thing is that when it all comes down to it, it's about that moment on that interview where he was asked if there was multiplayer, and he kinda grinned and sort-of-kinda-maybe said yes, when he will have known that was a lie at the time.

Now he's a millionaire.

But people also voted for Trump.

[fishbowlhead]

Yep, seems that way. I also feel there is a wider discussion about games being released unfinished or not fit for purpose and the legal obligations around this. There have apparently been a couple on the Switch that were in terrible shape (can’t remember what they were - I didn’t have any of them). This seems to be the poster child for those games but there seem to be others to a lesser degree too.

Exactly, I can’t send half a box out of product to a customer then turn round and say

“Hey sorry it’s not quite finished, you knew what you were getting into”.


Why are these people getting away with it and becoming millionaires while their at it?

[Family Fry]

Ultimately when the game came out, it should of been handled legally how it was at the time,

As false advertising.

Then been done with it. That’s why the system is there. It wasn’t however, which is what’s lead us down this path and to the fact there’s even still a discussion about it.

The ASA did investigate and found they did not mislead consumers.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-11-30-advertising-standards-rules-no-mans-sky-steam-page-did-not-mislead-consumers

I personally never bought no man’s sky in the end, my hype levels started extremely high and whittled down over time, it wasn’t anything to do with the backlash it was just I never saw enough variety pre-launch and made the decision it just wouldn’t be for me.
NEXT looks like a great update but I’ve still got the same feeling about it, I may give it a punt but I reckon I may end up feeling the same.

[Dogg Thang]

The thing that jumps out with that ruling is that it feels like a very long list of things, each one getting away with it due to having stuff “similar” in the game (for me, it’s telling that they couldn’t be replicated directly) but seemingly not taking into account the whole picture - that so many things, seemingly most of the game, were only similar to what was marketed rather than actually being what was marketed.

[Brad]

Only kojima gets a day one buy from me. Everything else I need multiple reviews as the world in general cannot be trusted.

[Family Fry]

I generally know what I like the look of nowadays and never read reviews but something about no man’s sky just didn’t draw me in, I thought there would be something to tie it together and the more I saw and heard Sean talk about the more it started to look similar in all places.

I do admit nothing gets me hyped as much as Kojima, bought a PS3 for MGS4 and will definitely buy a PS5 for Death Stranding.

[Dogg Thang]

Well that’s another good point. Prebuying games comes with an element of risk. Some of that risk is on the consumer although I would argue that advertised features not being in the game is on the advertiser and that’s where there should be a clear obligation to deliver what is actually being sold. However there should also be a line drawn between a statement of intent during development and what is then actually advertised as being in the final game. Not sure about this case but I have seen other cases of “they promised” based on old development interviews as if things don’t change during development.

[Brad]

All true Dogg.

Being short of time for gaming allows be to be super selective I guess. Free stuff for pre-order? I'll get it used a year from now. Extra stuff or early access for buying deluxe version? Same. Game unfinished? Nope. Developer blatantly lied weeks from release? I'll never buy one of your products. And my #1...

Put paid DLC option in the game and invite me to buy it to save an NPC and thus continue a side story? I'll just pirate all the DLC you EA scumbags lol.