Why are people still romanticizing No Man’s Sky’s “redemption” arc?
-
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.
-
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?
I expect functional dogfights, not simulator like flight model, but something arcady in a space game with functional AI. How is that an unrealistic expectation?
Let's not even talk about a simulated universe of faction battles, which Sean even mentioned as being in the game.
-
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?
They continued to work on the game years after its bad reception. They could have stopped and ignored it. But they worked on it and gave lot of free updates that changed the game dramatically. Other companies would ask money in form of DLC in example. The launch was a disaster and they deserved the hate. But the "redemption" is a different issue and they earned the good will.
-
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.
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.
-
Why should Hello Games ditch the game?
Nobody's saying they should. We are saying that most companies would. Because most companies do.
-
Why should Hello Games ditch the game?
Well that is what lot of devs do, after scamming and getting the quick money and stop working on it. But they kept working for years, still ongoing 10 years after launch. Even with the hate they got and after they got exposed.
-
I expect functional dogfights, not simulator like flight model, but something arcady in a space game with functional AI. How is that an unrealistic expectation?
Let's not even talk about a simulated universe of faction battles, which Sean even mentioned as being in the game.
I don't know exactly what you mean with "functional dogfights [...] with functional AI", but from the looks of it, it's there already:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djIOoTjayKs
There are also different factions in the game that the player can interact with and gain/lose reputation. According to the wiki, entertaining relationships with the in-game factions net the following benefits:
- Availability of certain blueprints to purchase.
- Faction specific dialogue options.
- Possibility to start missions, which require a minimum faction standing.
- High standing will grant the player aid at times when under attack by pirates.
- Discounts on technology modules in Space Stations.
Maybe it's not as in-depth as you (and I) wish it was, but it's there already.
-
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)?
I know your question is likely rhetorical, but for the same reason. They improved on it enough to drown out the bad press and turn people's opinions.
I think that both games are good games, and they're both fun. They had to meet unrealistic release expectations both internally and externally so had a terrible experience at launch. There's clearly more money in fixing the product and improving public opinion though, so they did.
I think people often forget that many games are the product of a really significant amount of people working for a significant amount of time, and that both the company paying them and the people working would like money to go in instead of out.
Selling entertainment/art is sometimes self contradicting.
-
Why should Hello Games ditch the game?
Because, as this article that you keep linking says, they already made bank with the broken product in the first place. They could have just taken the money and closed the studio, or at least rebranding and going for the same trick again and again, as so many other actually do. They did not do that, they chose to do the opposite, which was an incredibly bold decision at the time.
You also keep linking another article showing how they made so much money recently, like in 2022, but you forget that this is now, with hindsight. In 2016 just after release, it was more dangerous for them to keep working on a game nobody trusted anymore.
And for the record, I bought NMS in 2022, and liked it okay-ish. It's far from the best game ever, but arguing like you do that "they only added stuff they said would be in the game in the first place" is clearly fallacious.
-
Well that is what lot of devs do, after scamming and getting the quick money and stop working on it. But they kept working for years, still ongoing 10 years after launch. Even with the hate they got and after they got exposed.
That's why I used the building analogy in my original post to point out the standard of professionalism.
-
I don't know exactly what you mean with "functional dogfights [...] with functional AI", but from the looks of it, it's there already:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djIOoTjayKs
There are also different factions in the game that the player can interact with and gain/lose reputation. According to the wiki, entertaining relationships with the in-game factions net the following benefits:
- Availability of certain blueprints to purchase.
- Faction specific dialogue options.
- Possibility to start missions, which require a minimum faction standing.
- High standing will grant the player aid at times when under attack by pirates.
- Discounts on technology modules in Space Stations.
Maybe it's not as in-depth as you (and I) wish it was, but it's there already.
Here's something about dogfight:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/275850/discussions/0/3819656548997536824/
You can always press S to win.
"Maybe it’s not as in-depth as you (and I) wish it was, but it’s there already."
Thanks for proving my point.
-
Here's something about dogfight:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/275850/discussions/0/3819656548997536824/
You can always press S to win.
"Maybe it’s not as in-depth as you (and I) wish it was, but it’s there already."
Thanks for proving my point.
You can always press S to win.
Don't do that?
I recently replayed the remastered versions of the old PS1 Final Fantasy games, and they have built-in cheat codes (press left and right stick to turn on God mode). I didn't do that and played the game normally.Thanks for proving my point.
You are strangely confrontational for some reason.
But anyway, my point was that the game is, and always has been, exploration first, and everything else is complementary to the main gameplay loop. You were setting your expectations up for some sort of grand RPG dogfight game that never was, and are now telling us that it's HG's fault. -
Because, as this article that you keep linking says, they already made bank with the broken product in the first place. They could have just taken the money and closed the studio, or at least rebranding and going for the same trick again and again, as so many other actually do. They did not do that, they chose to do the opposite, which was an incredibly bold decision at the time.
You also keep linking another article showing how they made so much money recently, like in 2022, but you forget that this is now, with hindsight. In 2016 just after release, it was more dangerous for them to keep working on a game nobody trusted anymore.
And for the record, I bought NMS in 2022, and liked it okay-ish. It's far from the best game ever, but arguing like you do that "they only added stuff they said would be in the game in the first place" is clearly fallacious.
Fair enough, I will address that. It's a commendable act...in the game industry, but at the same time, it is the professionalism expected in another industry, which is why I brought up the building analogy in my original post.
-
Remember that HG made £40 million in 2022 from good people like you, of course, they are going to keep at it.
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
-
You can always press S to win.
Don't do that?
I recently replayed the remastered versions of the old PS1 Final Fantasy games, and they have built-in cheat codes (press left and right stick to turn on God mode). I didn't do that and played the game normally.Thanks for proving my point.
You are strangely confrontational for some reason.
But anyway, my point was that the game is, and always has been, exploration first, and everything else is complementary to the main gameplay loop. You were setting your expectations up for some sort of grand RPG dogfight game that never was, and are now telling us that it's HG's fault."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? -
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.
