Why are people still romanticizing No Man’s Sky’s “redemption” arc?
-
This might be unpopular, but it feels like the “redemption” story around No Man’s Sky has become more of a cultural comfort narrative than an honest look at what happened.
Let’s be real — most of those updates were just delivering delayed promises, not generosity. The game we were originally sold was missing a lot of advertised features, and Hello Games never actually apologized for lying. On top of that, every update brings more bugs and half-fixed systems, and the community acts like free beta testers for Light No Fire, while still framing it all as “passion” and “commitment.”
It’s like Hello Games built a shoddy, unfinished building, declared it open anyway, and then decided to use it as a testing ground for their next building — and somehow it wins “Best Ongoing Building” every year.
So why do people keep buying into this narrative? Because it’s a comfortable story? Or is it somekind of parasocial relationship going on there?
NMS made 78 million in 2016, this can't be compared to a failed AAA game or indies where devs walk away from financial failure, another emotional argument?
According to the number of upvotes, it seems that their angst is a reflection of the game industry in general. Hello Games had indeed performed to expectations by not walking away, but does that warrant mythologising the redemption arc? Even when the state of the game is buggy?
lol, look at OP's only other post. Looks like another account for my block list.
-
This might be unpopular, but it feels like the “redemption” story around No Man’s Sky has become more of a cultural comfort narrative than an honest look at what happened.
Let’s be real — most of those updates were just delivering delayed promises, not generosity. The game we were originally sold was missing a lot of advertised features, and Hello Games never actually apologized for lying. On top of that, every update brings more bugs and half-fixed systems, and the community acts like free beta testers for Light No Fire, while still framing it all as “passion” and “commitment.”
It’s like Hello Games built a shoddy, unfinished building, declared it open anyway, and then decided to use it as a testing ground for their next building — and somehow it wins “Best Ongoing Building” every year.
So why do people keep buying into this narrative? Because it’s a comfortable story? Or is it somekind of parasocial relationship going on there?
NMS made 78 million in 2016, this can't be compared to a failed AAA game or indies where devs walk away from financial failure, another emotional argument?
According to the number of upvotes, it seems that their angst is a reflection of the game industry in general. Hello Games had indeed performed to expectations by not walking away, but does that warrant mythologising the redemption arc? Even when the state of the game is buggy?
Praise where praise is due: They did pump out a ton of free updates. Does this compensate for the terrible state the game was released in? That's something everyone needs to judge for themselves imo.
Does the game have what they once promised now? Is it "good" yet? I think that's a more difficult question. If I was to criticise Hello Games for anything, than that even now they have not met some of the expectations they set. At least not for me personally.
And I'm not talking about bs speculation or hype, I am talking about things they have said would be in the game, some of which are still not here, and many of them feel like an alpha version of what you would expect. I can't help but feel disappointed even today.
-
Remember that at that point the game was allready 8 years old had had several large updates. Not counting few spikes from the updates first four years the game had under 2000 player/month in steam. Financially looking the pragmatic choice would have been to stop the development, but they did not.
There has been several games from big publishers that were abandoned shortly after release, even if it still was possible to fix the game. Battleborn, Anthem, Concord. And even more games that are still in theory playable, but are just full if bugs or not fun to play.
But so far i can think only three games that had bad start, but devs kept working on it and eventually managed to make fun games. No mans sky, Fallout 76 and Cyperpunk 2077
Yes, I have already said this is commendable...in the gaming industry, but not in other industries in terms of project delivery, hence the building analogy in my post.
-
lol, look at OP's only other post. Looks like another account for my block list.
Lol, thanks, that's a badge of honour in true Reddit style.
-
Praise where praise is due: They did pump out a ton of free updates. Does this compensate for the terrible state the game was released in? That's something everyone needs to judge for themselves imo.
Does the game have what they once promised now? Is it "good" yet? I think that's a more difficult question. If I was to criticise Hello Games for anything, than that even now they have not met some of the expectations they set. At least not for me personally.
And I'm not talking about bs speculation or hype, I am talking about things they have said would be in the game, some of which are still not here, and many of them feel like an alpha version of what you would expect. I can't help but feel disappointed even today.
Given the number of upvotes by posts, it seems that the reaction to Hello Game is a reflection to the industry rather than the actual quality of the game and the intention of Hello Games.
-
This might be unpopular, but it feels like the “redemption” story around No Man’s Sky has become more of a cultural comfort narrative than an honest look at what happened.
Let’s be real — most of those updates were just delivering delayed promises, not generosity. The game we were originally sold was missing a lot of advertised features, and Hello Games never actually apologized for lying. On top of that, every update brings more bugs and half-fixed systems, and the community acts like free beta testers for Light No Fire, while still framing it all as “passion” and “commitment.”
It’s like Hello Games built a shoddy, unfinished building, declared it open anyway, and then decided to use it as a testing ground for their next building — and somehow it wins “Best Ongoing Building” every year.
So why do people keep buying into this narrative? Because it’s a comfortable story? Or is it somekind of parasocial relationship going on there?
NMS made 78 million in 2016, this can't be compared to a failed AAA game or indies where devs walk away from financial failure, another emotional argument?
According to the number of upvotes, it seems that their angst is a reflection of the game industry in general. Hello Games had indeed performed to expectations by not walking away, but does that warrant mythologising the redemption arc? Even when the state of the game is buggy?
There's a lot they promised that isn't even in the game now, and frankly is not really possible. They've also added a lot that they never promised.
Also some things like coop are still jank
-
"Don’t do that?"
I didn't press S to win, they still circle around in an arc. And they can barely kill the player when he is not moving. Is that good dogfighting AI in a space game?"You are strangely confrontational for some reason."
Because it is a common tactic for NMS fans to claim others have "different expectations", which you have done twice already."exploration first"
Precisely, Minecraft started as a building game, NMS started as an open-world sandbox, or is it an aesthetic planetarium? Does that mean expecting good dogfights is unwarranted? Would you please check their original promotional material on what they are selling?Minecraft started as a building game, NMS started as an open-world sandbox, or is it an aesthetic planetarium? Does that mean expecting good dogfights is unwarranted?
It's a sandbox exploration/crafting game, not a combat/flight sim game. The survival aspect in Minecraft is barebones and monsters are stupid and useless, so what? Why is Minecraft "crystal clear" about being a "building game with a survival element" but you still insist on NMS being a "space game"? What does space game even mean? Can't two space games provide different experiences, a different focus on different mechanics, or is good dogfighting a prerequisite to all space games?
Would you please check their original promotional material on what they are selling?
I did. I could count the number of SECONDS space battles featured in their pre-release trailers on one hand. The major focus was always on exploring planets, taking in the sights and gathering resources.
Because it is a common tactic for NMS fans to claim others have "different expectations", which you have done twice already.
I'm not a NMS fan. I think the game sucked. I hate sandboxes.
You, however, had different expectations.
-
Yes, I have already said this is commendable...in the gaming industry, but not in other industries in terms of project delivery, hence the building analogy in my post.
Why would you force other industry term on the gaming industry? Thats just silly. It like saying apple is a bad fruit because it makes for a lousy boat.
Gaming is pretty unique platform in a way where the product is measured by unquantifiable metric called fun, but you want to compare it in standards of other products.
In the end they kept working on a bad product where others would have stopped and ended making it good.
-
Minecraft started as a building game, NMS started as an open-world sandbox, or is it an aesthetic planetarium? Does that mean expecting good dogfights is unwarranted?
It's a sandbox exploration/crafting game, not a combat/flight sim game. The survival aspect in Minecraft is barebones and monsters are stupid and useless, so what? Why is Minecraft "crystal clear" about being a "building game with a survival element" but you still insist on NMS being a "space game"? What does space game even mean? Can't two space games provide different experiences, a different focus on different mechanics, or is good dogfighting a prerequisite to all space games?
Would you please check their original promotional material on what they are selling?
I did. I could count the number of SECONDS space battles featured in their pre-release trailers on one hand. The major focus was always on exploring planets, taking in the sights and gathering resources.
Because it is a common tactic for NMS fans to claim others have "different expectations", which you have done twice already.
I'm not a NMS fan. I think the game sucked. I hate sandboxes.
You, however, had different expectations.
"You, however, had different expectations."
Why are you keeping hammering the flight sim angle? Did I say 6 DOF and Newtonian physics? And you wonder I got defensive? xD"What does space game even mean? Can’t two space games provide different experiences, a different focus on different mechanics, or is good dogfighting a prerequisite to all space games?"
Fair enough, then take it out; the abandoned mode should be the default. Everyone is finding combat so bad that it is obnoxious anyway, and I wouldn't mind for it to become a fantasy planetarium like Space Engine mods.
"I’m not a NMS fan. I think the game sucked. I hate sandboxes."
I love them, I can do so much with them, this is not this one, though. Sandbox doesn't mean there is an excuse for bad mechanics. -
Why would you force other industry term on the gaming industry? Thats just silly. It like saying apple is a bad fruit because it makes for a lousy boat.
Gaming is pretty unique platform in a way where the product is measured by unquantifiable metric called fun, but you want to compare it in standards of other products.
In the end they kept working on a bad product where others would have stopped and ended making it good.
Ain't that the absurdity? It is a silly analogy, and they are asymmetrical; if the same action applies, would it have a different reaction in the other place? Would Hello Games have the reputation as they have now?
"Why would you force other industry terms on the gaming industry?"
Judging from the reply here...well, you tell me... -
This might be unpopular, but it feels like the “redemption” story around No Man’s Sky has become more of a cultural comfort narrative than an honest look at what happened.
Let’s be real — most of those updates were just delivering delayed promises, not generosity. The game we were originally sold was missing a lot of advertised features, and Hello Games never actually apologized for lying. On top of that, every update brings more bugs and half-fixed systems, and the community acts like free beta testers for Light No Fire, while still framing it all as “passion” and “commitment.”
It’s like Hello Games built a shoddy, unfinished building, declared it open anyway, and then decided to use it as a testing ground for their next building — and somehow it wins “Best Ongoing Building” every year.
So why do people keep buying into this narrative? Because it’s a comfortable story? Or is it somekind of parasocial relationship going on there?
NMS made 78 million in 2016, this can't be compared to a failed AAA game or indies where devs walk away from financial failure, another emotional argument?
According to the number of upvotes, it seems that their angst is a reflection of the game industry in general. Hello Games had indeed performed to expectations by not walking away, but does that warrant mythologising the redemption arc? Even when the state of the game is buggy?
Oh look an idiot!
-
This might be unpopular, but it feels like the “redemption” story around No Man’s Sky has become more of a cultural comfort narrative than an honest look at what happened.
Let’s be real — most of those updates were just delivering delayed promises, not generosity. The game we were originally sold was missing a lot of advertised features, and Hello Games never actually apologized for lying. On top of that, every update brings more bugs and half-fixed systems, and the community acts like free beta testers for Light No Fire, while still framing it all as “passion” and “commitment.”
It’s like Hello Games built a shoddy, unfinished building, declared it open anyway, and then decided to use it as a testing ground for their next building — and somehow it wins “Best Ongoing Building” every year.
So why do people keep buying into this narrative? Because it’s a comfortable story? Or is it somekind of parasocial relationship going on there?
NMS made 78 million in 2016, this can't be compared to a failed AAA game or indies where devs walk away from financial failure, another emotional argument?
According to the number of upvotes, it seems that their angst is a reflection of the game industry in general. Hello Games had indeed performed to expectations by not walking away, but does that warrant mythologising the redemption arc? Even when the state of the game is buggy?
The last time I played it was like 2018-19, but even then it felt very much "mile wide, inch deep."
-
This might be unpopular, but it feels like the “redemption” story around No Man’s Sky has become more of a cultural comfort narrative than an honest look at what happened.
Let’s be real — most of those updates were just delivering delayed promises, not generosity. The game we were originally sold was missing a lot of advertised features, and Hello Games never actually apologized for lying. On top of that, every update brings more bugs and half-fixed systems, and the community acts like free beta testers for Light No Fire, while still framing it all as “passion” and “commitment.”
It’s like Hello Games built a shoddy, unfinished building, declared it open anyway, and then decided to use it as a testing ground for their next building — and somehow it wins “Best Ongoing Building” every year.
So why do people keep buying into this narrative? Because it’s a comfortable story? Or is it somekind of parasocial relationship going on there?
NMS made 78 million in 2016, this can't be compared to a failed AAA game or indies where devs walk away from financial failure, another emotional argument?
According to the number of upvotes, it seems that their angst is a reflection of the game industry in general. Hello Games had indeed performed to expectations by not walking away, but does that warrant mythologising the redemption arc? Even when the state of the game is buggy?
Delivering on delayed promises is more than most game companies will ever do. Their actions in fixing and adding to the game is the apology. Every update does bring bugs but you say this like the game is in an unplayable state. It's perfectly fine 99% of the time and the 1% it's not is usually fixed within the week. As a day 1 owner who could barely run the game on launch it's come so fucking far. It literally took half an hour for the game to boot during those early days. There wasn't much to do on top of that. The systems were confusing and the game would crash almost every time you booted it. Everything has been fixed and refined for FREE!
Compare this to a company like Paradox and Colossal Order who killed Cities Skylines 2. That game released in the sorriest state I think I've ever seen in my life(including SimCity 5). The graphics are ass. The simulation didn't actually work. The traffic was worse than the original. Every system in that game was fucked beyond belief. On top of that they charged people on day 1 for additional content. Content that took almost 2 years to deliver. Now their original dev team got fired and a complete unknown with two games is supposed to take over the current king of a genre for a redemption arc. Cities Skylines 2 was murdered and set the modern city builder genre back almost 2 decades by continuing the reign of SimCity 4 as the best Modern City Buider ever.
When you compare that to what Hello Games has done with No Man's Sky you will see why we celebrate them. This isn't some exaggeration or accident. It's years of steady, consistent work that has turned a broken and potentially career ending product into the recommended space sim of this generation.
-
You can support HG, but that doesn't mean that others have no right to think that it is not a smart thing to do. Spare me your ad hominem tactic, please.
I will try one more time to get the point across.
I'm not calling you a jerk because I'm insulting you ad hominem and think HG is good. I'm calling you a jerk because you were a jerk. And I agree with you that HG is not good.
Ad hominem would be if I disagreed with you.
-
I will try one more time to get the point across.
I'm not calling you a jerk because I'm insulting you ad hominem and think HG is good. I'm calling you a jerk because you were a jerk. And I agree with you that HG is not good.
Ad hominem would be if I disagreed with you.
I mean, calling me a dick is already an Ad hominem. You are a jerk because you are a jerk is just circular reasoning, so there is just nothing but insults and ad hominem. xD
-
Ain't that the absurdity? It is a silly analogy, and they are asymmetrical; if the same action applies, would it have a different reaction in the other place? Would Hello Games have the reputation as they have now?
"Why would you force other industry terms on the gaming industry?"
Judging from the reply here...well, you tell me...If i must abide by your original metafora i would say:
They promised grandiose skycraper and delivered shotty apartment complex and the tenant who had bought the apartments were understandably angry. Very few of the tenants stayed anyway, but by all means the building was a failure to the point it would be completelly understandable to have the whole building just bulldozed.
But where most companies would just disbanded and or disapeared with the money, they kept working on the building. Added new floors, made the yard nicer, lowered the prices of the apartments and the whole time tried their best to keep the remaining few people living there happy. And after few years (decates really if you think how much faster gaming industry develops than housing) the place started to be closer what the original brochure said.
Eventually new people start to get intrested about the apartments and the people who originally bought the apartments started to move back in without paying any additional fees. And while the windows were little smaller and the shower tiling were little different than originally promised, people seem to like living there. In a way the constant repairs and the new additions to the place, make it even better to some people.
The point that makes that building special is that nine times out of ten, in these situations the tenants are left with unhabitable home or even closed down building. And even more often the tenants need to pay additional fees to acces the fixed parts of the building.
Is this purely genorosity from the builder? Of course not. They also have bills to pay and in the end its their livelyhood and they surely have investers waiting a return for their money. But is it monumental showing of backbone from the builder to not walk away from the project, but keep working on it. Absolutelly.
-
Remember that HG made £40 million in 2022 from good people like you, of course, they are going to keep at it.
Your comment makes no sense.
Yes, they made money from sales of the game. This does not explain why they continue to publish free updates for the last 10 years.
-
This might be unpopular, but it feels like the “redemption” story around No Man’s Sky has become more of a cultural comfort narrative than an honest look at what happened.
Let’s be real — most of those updates were just delivering delayed promises, not generosity. The game we were originally sold was missing a lot of advertised features, and Hello Games never actually apologized for lying. On top of that, every update brings more bugs and half-fixed systems, and the community acts like free beta testers for Light No Fire, while still framing it all as “passion” and “commitment.”
It’s like Hello Games built a shoddy, unfinished building, declared it open anyway, and then decided to use it as a testing ground for their next building — and somehow it wins “Best Ongoing Building” every year.
So why do people keep buying into this narrative? Because it’s a comfortable story? Or is it somekind of parasocial relationship going on there?
NMS made 78 million in 2016, this can't be compared to a failed AAA game or indies where devs walk away from financial failure, another emotional argument?
According to the number of upvotes, it seems that their angst is a reflection of the game industry in general. Hello Games had indeed performed to expectations by not walking away, but does that warrant mythologising the redemption arc? Even when the state of the game is buggy?
My favorite game to compare NMS to is actually battlefront 2, one of if not the single worst launch in video game history, after realizing their mistakes putting in the time and effort to make the game actually run well then continuing to update the game for free even after no one is expecting more content. Yes the core mechanics of BF2 is not the best even though there isn't a single loot box or p2w mechanic left. Same with NMS the core game is still the same, it's not a brand new concept or ground breaking new mechanics to the same game they just keep working on it, fixing bugs and adding new things. I genuinely think with the state of companies like Bungie charging for Destiny expansion in 2026, a 70$ Pokemon game with 30$ dlc, and AAAA flops this is all we can ask for back your games, COMMIT to long term development and not charge for what seems like a joke of content backed by fomo
-
I mean, calling me a dick is already an Ad hominem. You are a jerk because you are a jerk is just circular reasoning, so there is just nothing but insults and ad hominem. xD
That's literally not what an ad hominem is. I can't make you understand this. You need to read the wiki page.
-
If i must abide by your original metafora i would say:
They promised grandiose skycraper and delivered shotty apartment complex and the tenant who had bought the apartments were understandably angry. Very few of the tenants stayed anyway, but by all means the building was a failure to the point it would be completelly understandable to have the whole building just bulldozed.
But where most companies would just disbanded and or disapeared with the money, they kept working on the building. Added new floors, made the yard nicer, lowered the prices of the apartments and the whole time tried their best to keep the remaining few people living there happy. And after few years (decates really if you think how much faster gaming industry develops than housing) the place started to be closer what the original brochure said.
Eventually new people start to get intrested about the apartments and the people who originally bought the apartments started to move back in without paying any additional fees. And while the windows were little smaller and the shower tiling were little different than originally promised, people seem to like living there. In a way the constant repairs and the new additions to the place, make it even better to some people.
The point that makes that building special is that nine times out of ten, in these situations the tenants are left with unhabitable home or even closed down building. And even more often the tenants need to pay additional fees to acces the fixed parts of the building.
Is this purely genorosity from the builder? Of course not. They also have bills to pay and in the end its their livelyhood and they surely have investers waiting a return for their money. But is it monumental showing of backbone from the builder to not walk away from the project, but keep working on it. Absolutelly.
Ah, yes, I knew about the divergence of this analogy. Let me add the drama.
Yet, it's not even following the original blueprint, where the property owner simply speculates what the next move of the builder will be. Some think this property is hot looking from the outside, some think there is a redemption arc going on, some think there are too many leaks in the wall, some thinks the water pressure and the heater are not working well enough, some think it's just ugly from the inside, some think there is the builders is not communicating at all, some homes vanished, some moved out and gone.
That's a nice sitcom.
