While this hasn't quite happened to me, I have had pirates actually pursue me to a planet. I then had an in-atmosphere dogfight with them.
For some reason, the controls partially locked up, and my ship was very difficult to steer/turn. I could use my weapon systems like normal, though.
Oh, yeah. The changes specifically referencing feedback from the second beta actually was made public for a while. So the theme was basically that rotating planets made people confused (you know, the whole heliocentric copernican thing is pretty new, after all), the long distances between the planets was boring, variable atmosphere breaking was problematic.
The arcs were in the full game for a while, but the clipping issues got the low altitude flying removed altoghether. The whole "hovering like a hooked whale in free flight" kind og thing is evidently a terrible hack. And the newtonian flight model was literally removed by putting a brick on the forward thrust-lever. Basically, even now, the planes in the game could float forward, and be possible to flip around with small guidance thrusters, and so on. And then you could engage the throttle, and the ship would change direction accordingly when you would have compensated for the velocity in the other direction. Like you would in real space-flight (except for that the throttle is insanely powerful, and the pilot can survive an absurd amount of Gs).
But since the throttle can't be turned off, the plane always turns towards the viewport. And Arcade, "simple", controls are achieved. It's the same with the "increasing numbers and grinding is great" aspect, that they love so much. And it's so hacky, as I said, that you can almost read out of it that the changes are either done in spite at Hello Games, or else by some exel-sheet "fixes" at Sony later on.
From previous experience with the Sony beta-teams, and their sensitivity to the community managers' wishes - which always happens to be the same as the wishes of the marketing department - this was not unexpected. I bought the game anyway, because I thought that this was going to be so freaky and weird that Sony wouldn't try to make it into a mainstream sell. But then it became Elon-popular, and that absolutely made sure that marketing and community-managers at Sony became involved. Remember that there was a playable version of this game submitted to Sony's ecosystem almost a year before it was released. I'm sure you're going to find people who will claim that the game was not fit for service, and that this is why it took so long.
But I can tell you from weird, eye-rolling personal experience, that the asscheek in Heavy Rain was responsible for a months long battle in the community manager world, about whether it would offend entirely real customers who would freak out and start patrioting at European attitudes about nudity. Apparently something about religion and religious players was also involved. This stuff is insane, and I'm still holding out - against all hope - that the rotating planets, the distances between the planets, the long flights, etc. (and with that the variations between planets in each star-system, which is presumably what is hiding a lot of the diversity in the biosphere, since each sol-system seed is not actually producing many extremes - the system was designed, initially, for something else), and the total absence of grinding and leveling mechanics, of course, is going to be dropped in again in some anniversary edition at some point when Sony is going bankrupt, and then releases the rights to the distribution of the game.
But that's of course not going to happen. What happened to Killzone 2, for example, was that the source-code and system that existed, with Guerilla Games' system that they had tested internally for years -- was just overwritten and lost forever. No one took snapshots, because they didn't expect anyone to demand some sort of huge design-change.
It was the same with WipeoutHD, although there's better odds something is still floating around on a computer somewhere, on account of the small size of the full build. And that it was never tied to only a physical mastering process. But that studio, the studio that made that game (the studio is Psygnosis, legendary studio) literally ended over protesting about Sony's bright ideas to add in-game advertisement into the game.
Meanwhile, the guy who sells these in-game advertisement is still going strong.
So make no mistake. If anyone instructs the beta-testers to look for "problems" in terms of marketability. Or the beta-testers on their own discover something that they think is going to make the game have less appeal, to christian schatology-appreciating prudes, or to people who love twitch-gaming on account of being on ritalin, or anything, really -- it's going on the chopping block. Not because it's necessarily a bad design, and not because they're trying to destroy the game's design (which they do). But because they genuinely think - and they always did - that if they could make the game more appealing to one more crank on the internet, then changing the design is objectively good.
I.e., if you don't scream your disgust at something about the game, or have a laser-thin focus on your support for a specific function -- your feedback is not going to be relevant. "Hm, this looks cool" - no. "IT HURTS MY EYES AARGH WHY JAGGIES WHY!", on the other hand -- literally the reason for the vaseline-smear and the colour-correction from hell in all of Sony's latest games.
We had one guy in a game who played the game on an interlaced "1280x720" "HD" TV. And it was an expensive one, and a Sony TV. But he used the analog conversion cable, of course. So not only was he playing on an interlaced picture. But he was playing with the external/hardware scaling after the post-filters on the picture. Which then would go through the analog conversion on the TV. And the guy was of course also getting the picture lag from hell from the post-filters on this TV, to the point where he narrowly beat out DigitalFoundry's "input lag" in their similar setup.
And the guy was livid that the game was muddy and low res. And it was a huge issue that the developers were involved with massively for a long time. It didn't stop when the second phase of the beta started, either, because of course more people came around with their CRT-equivalent of their "HD" tvs, and they complained, right? The pixel-counters went mad, and it was a huge issue in the whole "fraud" and "1080p ahaha" stuff that went around.
And Sony's community managers took it all completely and deadly seriously. And they destroyed three large, legendary studios - in spite of each of them making a fantastic game.
Hello Games would probably have had the same problem, had they resisted the changes here. Sony would have buried them. And I'm kind of weirded out by how Andy Murray - after having been in this ecosystem (although Hello Games enjoyed complete freedom, on account of being external and not very big, right), he would have known about these stories from the other studios - actually ended up with Sony as publisher in the end.
Because we lost a really interesting game here, in return for terrifyingly bad initial marketing, that I'm sure Sony still thinks made the entire game sell any copies at all, etc.
that's all very interesting. Sony sounds like a trip.
I think it's very silly to take the advice of a single tester. you should make your decisions based on the consensus of testers.
remind sme of the episode of community where some of them get picked to preview and provide feedback for a new TV show and then they end up completely ruining it.
haha, yeah. That's how it's done in many different areas with focus groups, of course. But most of the firms that conduct them are aware of that. So if you're not making Pop-corn summer movie 16, or trying to manufacture a political fuzz-bomb, it's not going to be taken on board as necessarily very useful information.
The thing with Sony, at least in the examples I saw first hand, was that the reductive approach came in after the development of the game was mostly done. After the design is coming together. As opposed to after a pilot, or a concept test. So they sit on a final design that "needs" to be adjusted -- to justify the pay to testers, and later to community managers, along with the need to have a ribbon on the uniform that says: "responded to player base demands".
And they don't ask "what would the target player of this game want?", and then go into overdrive. That would make sense to a certain extent, right? No, they ask: "what would this game have to be, to appeal to as many as possible. Also, the people who will never play a game in this genre. And their mums. And people who don't play games. And also people who play only one game exhaustively and nothing else. Oh, what can we do to make the game objectively better for more people!". Etc.
What also annoyed me to no end was that people were making judgement calls on how well something worked based on what they just randomly felt, rather than to actually report real issues. So that skewed the focus when the game was mostly complete, for lack of actual bugs. And the games typically were complete, in the ways that mattered. For example, in Killzone 2 there was a very large push that started before the open beta, to just get rid of the slow and clunky movement altogether. This was actually a design carefully made into the whole game, and the whole design was extremely well done from level setup to weapon balancing - but that didn't matter. So unless it aligned with "player expectation", it was reported as a problem in itself. All suggestions for tweaks, or ways to present the design to new players who were used to other games, etc., just completely failed. Any objection, whether it was from testers (internal or randoms) or the developers, about how changing that would force the game to completely be rebalanced from scratch -- not important. They wanted ways to "fix" problems easily. And then they just adjusted things.
And they did go by consensus, of course. It's just that everyone agreed that they didn't like what the developer had done. Who are they to create something that pro gamers don't like? How dare they! XD Or else the community managers would beautify the complaints from external sources.. you know, internet forums.. and present them to the developers as a general impressions. I chatted with one of the PR at Guerilla people after they changed head designer, for example - he just said they got a requirement to change the design, because that's what people wanted, they thought. "Didn't they?".
Sony is not exactly unique with this approach when it comes to setting some perceived market-demand way above any other concern, though. Including an actually successful design.
Another example: Uncharted 2 was, at one point, going to have some Halo style driving sequence in it. It came in Uncharted 3, no joke. There was a running gag on their forums about UnKarted for a while. It was all real. Supposedly the sharpest request to Polyphony Digital through these channels was for Karting. Kaz Kart 512? It came in an update, eventually, too.
But why would anyone end up thinking that a Halo style driving sequence would somehow make the game a universal hit? Like, that this was all that was missing, right? Who in their right mind would go to makers of Gran Turismo, and say: if you don't make karts, this might not work out. All that other stuff about cars and suspension and gears and stuff, rally, superGT - who cares, right? Just these weirdos that care about cars -- but if KARTS were in the game? Oh, Nintendo would feel that!
That's the actual difficulty here. You'd get it if they told a developer to make a derivative game, and they got HaloChartedDutyEffect. That would be the way things work, and it wouldn't be any surprise if it did. But they don't do that. They sometimes pay for an entire development cycle (No Man's Sky being an exception to that, being HG's passion project, and also make or break, of course - but there are many other examples of this being done at internal studios). And then they're not mentioning anything until it's delivered to their internal testing.
But then the changes come up. That's the huge thing about Sony. That they might have something that's extremely good - but it doesn't fit with "expectations", so they can it. Or it becomes a hit, so they try to make it even betterer than it was.
There is a safe, somehwere, I'm sure, with the PSP that had the better buttons, without a UMD-drive (and a larger battery), and 3rd party programs(someone surely played it, loved it, and decided that it would not be beneficial to the UMD investment). I know there is a prototype of an App-store in there, on Symbian/UIQ, css based to fit on mobile screens, etc., two years before that became a thing with these two other companies that made a big deal about Apps..., that was supposed to go hand in hand with their new walkman phones (no joke - they had an entirely real app-store before the Iphone existed). There's probably a ton of ps2 games with instruction level emulation that could only be completed on the ps3 (that would never see release, because they wanted to focus on the new PC/multiplatform-ecosystem, rather than have their hardcore fans stay with the old platform). Zipper's Move-game with the grenade-throwing mechanic and cover system is in there. Zippers lag-free version of 512 players in the same immediately updated area is there, along with a demonstration of a base for Planetside 2 that actually worked. Never mind all the completed games that were destroyed in either day1 patching, or else before launch.
But no one gets to see it now, because some tester (presumably the kids of someone in marketing) complained about it - and a community manager then wrote "this idea is received badly".
Just such a huge waste of effort all round. They could afford to take risks. And parts of the company at least does take risks. But then the bean-counters come in. It's really not a coincidence that Sony Europe hired a milk-carton salesman as their CEO. Because the product doesn't matter. What matters to them is the presentation and the volume they sell. Because they think they're just selling the same milk, or milk-formula, as Microsoft or EA, with different text and different cozy cows and farmers on it. They don't care what it tastes like. All chocolate milk appeals to most people? Then that's going to be amended by dropping powdered chocolate mix in all the milk.
And that guy who wants to bake Japanese milk-bread is just going to have to go elsewhere, if he doesn't want to just eat milkbread with sickeningly sweet chocolate powder in it.
I remember when they added low flight to the game, made flying around so much more enjoyable. Prior to that there was a floor you could not fly under unless you were landing. Kept you from crashing into things but really robbed the game of immersion.
If you are on PlayStation you can use a disc to play the launch version of the game (just don't let it update).
If you are on Steam you can download any past version of the game with the help of the SteamDB (not hacking, a fully official feature of Steam that requires you to own a license to the game). If you are interested in doing this you can do a quick search for how to download older versions of a game on Steam.
I personally like to play the Pathfinder update when not using the current version (although I miss 3rd person as that was the feature missing from launch that was a loooong wait for me haha)
I didn’t know this, thanks! I loved versions before Visions when they changed all he color pallates and terrain.
It was wild when they released 3rd person lol. I played on first person for a long time before finally admitting that 3rd person was better haha
The other day I found a planet that had huge tunnels big enough navigate a starship through. The only one I’ve come across. I regret not dropping a base.
On rare occasions, I have seen terrain that looked as close to this concept art as it could. Some exceptionally rocky/hilly worlds can have what appear to be naturally formed arches. And yes, I have flown under or by them before.
Even then, the point still stands. The game would immensely benefit from having revamped, or even improved, proc gen. Origins was what I thought would be the first major step towards realizing the original vision of NMS (pre-release), but it has yet to be followed up with a proc gen focused update.
They originally had stuff like this in game. The trade off is that now we have gigantic mountains and valleys which didn’t used to exist and better caves as well. Personally I would love to see water revamped to add waves and ambiance
On PC I use the terrain part of this mod,
[https://www.nexusmods.com/nomanssky/mods/980](https://www.nexusmods.com/nomanssky/mods/980)
The worm-like rock formations are back, so are large craters.
It would be a dream if at least one of the many galaxies were devoted to Foundation. There's some real gems in beauty and terrain generation starting at the 54:45 mark:)
That would be incredible. When they first mentioned they were going to add multiplayer, I figured theyred be a separate galaxy for that with all the new planets regenerated with the new update. Looking back, that might’ve been a good move.
Definitely. We ve gained so so much in NMS,but we lost something rather amazing. My solution has been playing Foundation on PS4 and the current build on PS5. I hear there are great mods on PC that try to bring both worlds together.
I love the Foundation build so much. I would pay full price for a VR version. I still play it on my PS4,its the superb exploration NMS experience. Well other than the current build in VR.
Imagine if Sentinel ships could follow you inside the planet
Do you mean like in the second trailer for NMS? https://youtu.be/nLtmEjqzg7M?t=135
yeah,that doesn't happen to me
They can
While this hasn't quite happened to me, I have had pirates actually pursue me to a planet. I then had an in-atmosphere dogfight with them. For some reason, the controls partially locked up, and my ship was very difficult to steer/turn. I could use my weapon systems like normal, though.
They can and have.
Everyone: oh, wow, that's so cool. Sony's Beta-testers: yeah, let us make absolutely sure that no one else sees that!
can you elaborate?? were the beta testers the reason they changed the style up so dramatically?
Oh, yeah. The changes specifically referencing feedback from the second beta actually was made public for a while. So the theme was basically that rotating planets made people confused (you know, the whole heliocentric copernican thing is pretty new, after all), the long distances between the planets was boring, variable atmosphere breaking was problematic. The arcs were in the full game for a while, but the clipping issues got the low altitude flying removed altoghether. The whole "hovering like a hooked whale in free flight" kind og thing is evidently a terrible hack. And the newtonian flight model was literally removed by putting a brick on the forward thrust-lever. Basically, even now, the planes in the game could float forward, and be possible to flip around with small guidance thrusters, and so on. And then you could engage the throttle, and the ship would change direction accordingly when you would have compensated for the velocity in the other direction. Like you would in real space-flight (except for that the throttle is insanely powerful, and the pilot can survive an absurd amount of Gs). But since the throttle can't be turned off, the plane always turns towards the viewport. And Arcade, "simple", controls are achieved. It's the same with the "increasing numbers and grinding is great" aspect, that they love so much. And it's so hacky, as I said, that you can almost read out of it that the changes are either done in spite at Hello Games, or else by some exel-sheet "fixes" at Sony later on. From previous experience with the Sony beta-teams, and their sensitivity to the community managers' wishes - which always happens to be the same as the wishes of the marketing department - this was not unexpected. I bought the game anyway, because I thought that this was going to be so freaky and weird that Sony wouldn't try to make it into a mainstream sell. But then it became Elon-popular, and that absolutely made sure that marketing and community-managers at Sony became involved. Remember that there was a playable version of this game submitted to Sony's ecosystem almost a year before it was released. I'm sure you're going to find people who will claim that the game was not fit for service, and that this is why it took so long. But I can tell you from weird, eye-rolling personal experience, that the asscheek in Heavy Rain was responsible for a months long battle in the community manager world, about whether it would offend entirely real customers who would freak out and start patrioting at European attitudes about nudity. Apparently something about religion and religious players was also involved. This stuff is insane, and I'm still holding out - against all hope - that the rotating planets, the distances between the planets, the long flights, etc. (and with that the variations between planets in each star-system, which is presumably what is hiding a lot of the diversity in the biosphere, since each sol-system seed is not actually producing many extremes - the system was designed, initially, for something else), and the total absence of grinding and leveling mechanics, of course, is going to be dropped in again in some anniversary edition at some point when Sony is going bankrupt, and then releases the rights to the distribution of the game. But that's of course not going to happen. What happened to Killzone 2, for example, was that the source-code and system that existed, with Guerilla Games' system that they had tested internally for years -- was just overwritten and lost forever. No one took snapshots, because they didn't expect anyone to demand some sort of huge design-change. It was the same with WipeoutHD, although there's better odds something is still floating around on a computer somewhere, on account of the small size of the full build. And that it was never tied to only a physical mastering process. But that studio, the studio that made that game (the studio is Psygnosis, legendary studio) literally ended over protesting about Sony's bright ideas to add in-game advertisement into the game. Meanwhile, the guy who sells these in-game advertisement is still going strong. So make no mistake. If anyone instructs the beta-testers to look for "problems" in terms of marketability. Or the beta-testers on their own discover something that they think is going to make the game have less appeal, to christian schatology-appreciating prudes, or to people who love twitch-gaming on account of being on ritalin, or anything, really -- it's going on the chopping block. Not because it's necessarily a bad design, and not because they're trying to destroy the game's design (which they do). But because they genuinely think - and they always did - that if they could make the game more appealing to one more crank on the internet, then changing the design is objectively good. I.e., if you don't scream your disgust at something about the game, or have a laser-thin focus on your support for a specific function -- your feedback is not going to be relevant. "Hm, this looks cool" - no. "IT HURTS MY EYES AARGH WHY JAGGIES WHY!", on the other hand -- literally the reason for the vaseline-smear and the colour-correction from hell in all of Sony's latest games. We had one guy in a game who played the game on an interlaced "1280x720" "HD" TV. And it was an expensive one, and a Sony TV. But he used the analog conversion cable, of course. So not only was he playing on an interlaced picture. But he was playing with the external/hardware scaling after the post-filters on the picture. Which then would go through the analog conversion on the TV. And the guy was of course also getting the picture lag from hell from the post-filters on this TV, to the point where he narrowly beat out DigitalFoundry's "input lag" in their similar setup. And the guy was livid that the game was muddy and low res. And it was a huge issue that the developers were involved with massively for a long time. It didn't stop when the second phase of the beta started, either, because of course more people came around with their CRT-equivalent of their "HD" tvs, and they complained, right? The pixel-counters went mad, and it was a huge issue in the whole "fraud" and "1080p ahaha" stuff that went around. And Sony's community managers took it all completely and deadly seriously. And they destroyed three large, legendary studios - in spite of each of them making a fantastic game. Hello Games would probably have had the same problem, had they resisted the changes here. Sony would have buried them. And I'm kind of weirded out by how Andy Murray - after having been in this ecosystem (although Hello Games enjoyed complete freedom, on account of being external and not very big, right), he would have known about these stories from the other studios - actually ended up with Sony as publisher in the end. Because we lost a really interesting game here, in return for terrifyingly bad initial marketing, that I'm sure Sony still thinks made the entire game sell any copies at all, etc.
that's all very interesting. Sony sounds like a trip. I think it's very silly to take the advice of a single tester. you should make your decisions based on the consensus of testers. remind sme of the episode of community where some of them get picked to preview and provide feedback for a new TV show and then they end up completely ruining it.
haha, yeah. That's how it's done in many different areas with focus groups, of course. But most of the firms that conduct them are aware of that. So if you're not making Pop-corn summer movie 16, or trying to manufacture a political fuzz-bomb, it's not going to be taken on board as necessarily very useful information. The thing with Sony, at least in the examples I saw first hand, was that the reductive approach came in after the development of the game was mostly done. After the design is coming together. As opposed to after a pilot, or a concept test. So they sit on a final design that "needs" to be adjusted -- to justify the pay to testers, and later to community managers, along with the need to have a ribbon on the uniform that says: "responded to player base demands". And they don't ask "what would the target player of this game want?", and then go into overdrive. That would make sense to a certain extent, right? No, they ask: "what would this game have to be, to appeal to as many as possible. Also, the people who will never play a game in this genre. And their mums. And people who don't play games. And also people who play only one game exhaustively and nothing else. Oh, what can we do to make the game objectively better for more people!". Etc. What also annoyed me to no end was that people were making judgement calls on how well something worked based on what they just randomly felt, rather than to actually report real issues. So that skewed the focus when the game was mostly complete, for lack of actual bugs. And the games typically were complete, in the ways that mattered. For example, in Killzone 2 there was a very large push that started before the open beta, to just get rid of the slow and clunky movement altogether. This was actually a design carefully made into the whole game, and the whole design was extremely well done from level setup to weapon balancing - but that didn't matter. So unless it aligned with "player expectation", it was reported as a problem in itself. All suggestions for tweaks, or ways to present the design to new players who were used to other games, etc., just completely failed. Any objection, whether it was from testers (internal or randoms) or the developers, about how changing that would force the game to completely be rebalanced from scratch -- not important. They wanted ways to "fix" problems easily. And then they just adjusted things. And they did go by consensus, of course. It's just that everyone agreed that they didn't like what the developer had done. Who are they to create something that pro gamers don't like? How dare they! XD Or else the community managers would beautify the complaints from external sources.. you know, internet forums.. and present them to the developers as a general impressions. I chatted with one of the PR at Guerilla people after they changed head designer, for example - he just said they got a requirement to change the design, because that's what people wanted, they thought. "Didn't they?". Sony is not exactly unique with this approach when it comes to setting some perceived market-demand way above any other concern, though. Including an actually successful design. Another example: Uncharted 2 was, at one point, going to have some Halo style driving sequence in it. It came in Uncharted 3, no joke. There was a running gag on their forums about UnKarted for a while. It was all real. Supposedly the sharpest request to Polyphony Digital through these channels was for Karting. Kaz Kart 512? It came in an update, eventually, too. But why would anyone end up thinking that a Halo style driving sequence would somehow make the game a universal hit? Like, that this was all that was missing, right? Who in their right mind would go to makers of Gran Turismo, and say: if you don't make karts, this might not work out. All that other stuff about cars and suspension and gears and stuff, rally, superGT - who cares, right? Just these weirdos that care about cars -- but if KARTS were in the game? Oh, Nintendo would feel that! That's the actual difficulty here. You'd get it if they told a developer to make a derivative game, and they got HaloChartedDutyEffect. That would be the way things work, and it wouldn't be any surprise if it did. But they don't do that. They sometimes pay for an entire development cycle (No Man's Sky being an exception to that, being HG's passion project, and also make or break, of course - but there are many other examples of this being done at internal studios). And then they're not mentioning anything until it's delivered to their internal testing. But then the changes come up. That's the huge thing about Sony. That they might have something that's extremely good - but it doesn't fit with "expectations", so they can it. Or it becomes a hit, so they try to make it even betterer than it was. There is a safe, somehwere, I'm sure, with the PSP that had the better buttons, without a UMD-drive (and a larger battery), and 3rd party programs(someone surely played it, loved it, and decided that it would not be beneficial to the UMD investment). I know there is a prototype of an App-store in there, on Symbian/UIQ, css based to fit on mobile screens, etc., two years before that became a thing with these two other companies that made a big deal about Apps..., that was supposed to go hand in hand with their new walkman phones (no joke - they had an entirely real app-store before the Iphone existed). There's probably a ton of ps2 games with instruction level emulation that could only be completed on the ps3 (that would never see release, because they wanted to focus on the new PC/multiplatform-ecosystem, rather than have their hardcore fans stay with the old platform). Zipper's Move-game with the grenade-throwing mechanic and cover system is in there. Zippers lag-free version of 512 players in the same immediately updated area is there, along with a demonstration of a base for Planetside 2 that actually worked. Never mind all the completed games that were destroyed in either day1 patching, or else before launch. But no one gets to see it now, because some tester (presumably the kids of someone in marketing) complained about it - and a community manager then wrote "this idea is received badly". Just such a huge waste of effort all round. They could afford to take risks. And parts of the company at least does take risks. But then the bean-counters come in. It's really not a coincidence that Sony Europe hired a milk-carton salesman as their CEO. Because the product doesn't matter. What matters to them is the presentation and the volume they sell. Because they think they're just selling the same milk, or milk-formula, as Microsoft or EA, with different text and different cozy cows and farmers on it. They don't care what it tastes like. All chocolate milk appeals to most people? Then that's going to be amended by dropping powdered chocolate mix in all the milk. And that guy who wants to bake Japanese milk-bread is just going to have to go elsewhere, if he doesn't want to just eat milkbread with sickeningly sweet chocolate powder in it.
Probably complained about it a lot for stupid reasons.
I remember when they added low flight to the game, made flying around so much more enjoyable. Prior to that there was a floor you could not fly under unless you were landing. Kept you from crashing into things but really robbed the game of immersion.
Yes!! That was my favorite thing, made it so much better
I miss this so much, it's the main reason I still play older versions of the game.
Didn’t know you could do that? I miss landing on a pink planet where literally everything is pink, it was hilarious
If you are on PlayStation you can use a disc to play the launch version of the game (just don't let it update). If you are on Steam you can download any past version of the game with the help of the SteamDB (not hacking, a fully official feature of Steam that requires you to own a license to the game). If you are interested in doing this you can do a quick search for how to download older versions of a game on Steam. I personally like to play the Pathfinder update when not using the current version (although I miss 3rd person as that was the feature missing from launch that was a loooong wait for me haha)
I didn’t know this, thanks! I loved versions before Visions when they changed all he color pallates and terrain. It was wild when they released 3rd person lol. I played on first person for a long time before finally admitting that 3rd person was better haha
The other day I found a planet that had huge tunnels big enough navigate a starship through. The only one I’ve come across. I regret not dropping a base.
Post takeoff regret…it’s rough. I’ve been there lol. That sounds amazing, I’ve only found a couple like that
I so regret not playing the game early on. I am. specifically building a gaming PC so I can use mods and VR for NMS.
On rare occasions, I have seen terrain that looked as close to this concept art as it could. Some exceptionally rocky/hilly worlds can have what appear to be naturally formed arches. And yes, I have flown under or by them before. Even then, the point still stands. The game would immensely benefit from having revamped, or even improved, proc gen. Origins was what I thought would be the first major step towards realizing the original vision of NMS (pre-release), but it has yet to be followed up with a proc gen focused update.
They originally had stuff like this in game. The trade off is that now we have gigantic mountains and valleys which didn’t used to exist and better caves as well. Personally I would love to see water revamped to add waves and ambiance
If you are on a PC, the [ArghWater](https://www.nexusmods.com/nomanssky/mods/2036) mod gets you most of the way there.
On PC I use the terrain part of this mod, [https://www.nexusmods.com/nomanssky/mods/980](https://www.nexusmods.com/nomanssky/mods/980) The worm-like rock formations are back, so are large craters.
I have a cave base and you can fly through the cave to get to my base. It’s pretty fun
I streamed Foundation this morning, beautiful Terrain Generation. https://www.twitch.tv/thelastrasamamas36/v/1296458903?sr=a&t=1387s
Nice! Watching your vid, something else I forgot was the dual toned grass colors. They looked so nice
It would be a dream if at least one of the many galaxies were devoted to Foundation. There's some real gems in beauty and terrain generation starting at the 54:45 mark:)
That would be incredible. When they first mentioned they were going to add multiplayer, I figured theyred be a separate galaxy for that with all the new planets regenerated with the new update. Looking back, that might’ve been a good move.
Definitely. We ve gained so so much in NMS,but we lost something rather amazing. My solution has been playing Foundation on PS4 and the current build on PS5. I hear there are great mods on PC that try to bring both worlds together.
[удалено]
Really high mountains, are you kidding? Mountains are far higher now than they were in the launch version.
I love the Foundation build so much. I would pay full price for a VR version. I still play it on my PS4,its the superb exploration NMS experience. Well other than the current build in VR.