Why are people still romanticizing No Man’s Sky’s “redemption” arc?
-
Indeed. And even delayed fulfillment of the original promises is impressive given how vast the scope of the original pitch was. I'm just happy to have it, even if it took a couple years longer than expected to get.
Take a look at Star Citizen if you want to know the alternative, OP
Bringing Star Citizen up is a race to the bottom.
-
A redemption arc implies fucking up in the first place and working to rectify the previous mistakes.
They lied and the game was missing a lot of features at launch, but now all those features (and more) are in the game, which is still being updated for free a decade later.
I don't like the game, and I wish the devs acted differently so that a redemption arc wasn't needed in the first place, but it is what it is. The devs worked their asses off, the game is now playable and feature complete and is still being updated, and from the looks of it Hello Games have learned from their mistakes and are not promising the moon for their next game.
I mean, if the game is actually good with its common space tropes as their marketing materials, instead of having the need to be culturally reframed into a "chill sandbox". 10 years of disjointed game mechanics and bugs still implies bad game design.
-
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?
I played it last year, I wasn't Impressed. It was meh at best.
-
Remember that HG made £40 million in 2022 from good people like you, of course, they are going to keep at it.
"like you"
He didn't say he bought it. He was explaining the very obvious answer to your very obvious question. Why get all weirdly accusatory and righteous?
-
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?
I think the true test of that arc will be when. Light no fire releases.
-
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?
Idk, idc. The game has been getting free updates for years and I enjoy it. Most devs would have ditched immediately.
-
Curious what they said would be in No Man's Sky that isn't now in it.
-
"like you"
He didn't say he bought it. He was explaining the very obvious answer to your very obvious question. Why get all weirdly accusatory and righteous?
Why so sensitive? What's the accusation? All I pointed out was that HG made a lot of money from people over the years; it makes a lot of sense that they did not abandon the project.
-
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?
Because instead of the usual triple a studio promising the moon for sales then delivering a pebble and not giving a shit, it was a guy who got caught up in the hype and handled it badly, and then him and his small studio worked their asses off to make the game justify the price charged. I know it's hard to drop the cynicism living in the modern world has instilled in us, but I genuinely think it was a collosal fuckup and not malicious, and they ACTUALLY put the time and effort in to deliver the promises they could and a fuckload more atuff that wasn't. In a day and age of companies lying on purpose for profit and not giving a shit, it's a breath of fresh air.
-
Because instead of the usual triple a studio promising the moon for sales then delivering a pebble and not giving a shit, it was a guy who got caught up in the hype and handled it badly, and then him and his small studio worked their asses off to make the game justify the price charged. I know it's hard to drop the cynicism living in the modern world has instilled in us, but I genuinely think it was a collosal fuckup and not malicious, and they ACTUALLY put the time and effort in to deliver the promises they could and a fuckload more atuff that wasn't. In a day and age of companies lying on purpose for profit and not giving a shit, it's a breath of fresh air.
That I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but the mythology of redemption through free update is part of being a beta tester for LNF, that's pragmatism on HG's part shift their burden to the fans, not a colossal fuck-up as you claimed.
-
I mean, if the game is actually good with its common space tropes as their marketing materials, instead of having the need to be culturally reframed into a "chill sandbox". 10 years of disjointed game mechanics and bugs still implies bad game design.
Instead of completely changing the game into something else, they opted to add features that complement the original gameplay loop, and lots of people love what the game has to offer.
There's nothing wrong with not liking NMS, and as I said, I don't like it either, but I wouldn't say that the game doesn't fit the promises made just because you don't like it. From what I remember, they promised a sandbox game with a big universe and tons of planets to explore along with your friends. NMS currently has that, plus base building, ship customization, and more. All these systems are subservient to the main gameplay loop of going to planet -> gathering resources -> building more stuff, but it's like that for every sandbox game. I don't like Minecraft and Factorio either, but like, it's my opinion. NMS never promised a 10 hrs story driven experience and cinematic cutscenes.
-
Bringing Star Citizen up is a race to the bottom.
I think they are saying "look at star citizen as the alternative" meaning never finished, but by comparison No Man's Sky is complete now?
Maybe i'm reading it wrong though.
-
Instead of completely changing the game into something else, they opted to add features that complement the original gameplay loop, and lots of people love what the game has to offer.
There's nothing wrong with not liking NMS, and as I said, I don't like it either, but I wouldn't say that the game doesn't fit the promises made just because you don't like it. From what I remember, they promised a sandbox game with a big universe and tons of planets to explore along with your friends. NMS currently has that, plus base building, ship customization, and more. All these systems are subservient to the main gameplay loop of going to planet -> gathering resources -> building more stuff, but it's like that for every sandbox game. I don't like Minecraft and Factorio either, but like, it's my opinion. NMS never promised a 10 hrs story driven experience and cinematic cutscenes.
Doesn't fit the promise made was not the argument; shoddily made, then being reframed into something else was the argument, nor was I expecting a "cinematic experience". And no, I like Minecraft, MC is crystal clear about what it is trying to be: a building game first with an open world and survival element.
I cannot say the same with NMS and its space tropes and exploration loop.
-
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?
What about Cyberpunk 2077? I remember back in the time devs claimed they worked for exhaustive hours to meet impossible requirements near launch date, why does it seems like they're the good guys now (CDPR)?
-
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?
I just wrote it off as a "oh, another space game" and tossed it on the pile. I don't care about its story.
-
Idk, idc. The game has been getting free updates for years and I enjoy it. Most devs would have ditched immediately.
Why should Hello Games ditch the game?
-
Doesn't fit the promise made was not the argument; shoddily made, then being reframed into something else was the argument, nor was I expecting a "cinematic experience". And no, I like Minecraft, MC is crystal clear about what it is trying to be: a building game first with an open world and survival element.
I cannot say the same with NMS and its space tropes and exploration loop.
I like Minecraft, MC is crystal clear about what it is trying to be: a building game first with an open world and survival element.
I cannot say the same with NMS and its space tropes and exploration loop.
Sounds to me like you had different expectations and are saying that it's somehow the game's fault.
-
I like Minecraft, MC is crystal clear about what it is trying to be: a building game first with an open world and survival element.
I cannot say the same with NMS and its space tropes and exploration loop.
Sounds to me like you had different expectations and are saying that it's somehow the game's fault.
Sounds to me you have no argument.
-
Sounds to me you have no argument.
Your argument is that the game doesn't fit its "space tropes", but somehow that's not you having different expectations than what it was actually promised and delivered?
-
Why so sensitive? What's the accusation? All I pointed out was that HG made a lot of money from people over the years; it makes a lot of sense that they did not abandon the project.
You (possibly falsely) accused a commenter of supporting HG while saying it's a stupid thing you do. You were a dick. I pointed it out.
And that's the whole story my friend.
