Yeah, when it’s $10 in the bargain bin and plays on my laptop like the easy time-waster game it is. Maybe in 10 years…
I have Empyrion on my wish list, and I took a deeper look at it last night because it is on sale @ 50% off. I’m also about 11 hours into NMS.
From what I can tell from a few reviews and videos, the gameplay and setting aren’t all that similar. I welcome corrections, since I haven’t played Empyrion.
-
Empyrion stresses construction of bases (first) and vehicles/ships (later); in NMS you cannot construct anything
-
NMS lets you travel the shared universe (in theory); Empyrion seems to be more your planet and close environs (moons, etc) - a difference in scale of travel
-
Empyrion, due to its emphasis on construction, has a more in-depth (or more tedious, if you wish) mining/gathering mechanic, including the need to dig deep; in NMS, there really isn’t any “digging” other than holes from your grenades
-
NMS doesn’t overwhelm you with “survival”; keep your suit charged and you’re generally fine; in Empyrion, survival is more involved, complex, and deep.
Again, I appreciate any corrections or amplifications, especially since I’m considering buying Empyrion (and not just in response to NMS disappointment).
Space combat would be more fun by having shields recharge at the push of one button rather than four.
I know what you mean. It’s a good video, thoughtful and insightful, but it’s not short.
TL;DR for it is more less that gamers were deliberately conned into thinking the game was other than it was going to be, or that the developers really didn’t know what they were doing with it.
I doubt I ever will, myself, unless it changes a lot. The basic science and flight models (both atmospheric and in space) are just way too goofy. And it’s clear the monster models and animation are half-baked: too Spore-like for me.
It’s a pity. So much potential!
I have 33 hours in the game and just purchased a better ship. Thinking I’ll hold off now and wait to see what the developer does.
I rather like the Kotaku review.
If this game were 30 bucks, I’d pick it up today.
edit: The tl;dr is that he hated it as a “get to the center of the galaxy” game but loved it when he tried again and slowed way down.
I’ve only played Empyrion, not NMS, but that seems pretty accurate. Base and ship-building are key. Basic survival isn’t too difficult, but going out to gather the rare resources is a reasonable challenge. There’s also a constant low-level need to gather food, etc.
You can travel between different planet/moon systems (all in the same solar system), but (at least the way I was playing) I always came back to my main base. Exploration was to get stuff I couldn’t get on the starter world.
It’s been a few months since I played, so some stuff might have changed since then.
I loaded up Steam to look at Empyrion. I don’t think it’s for me, but it’s worth pointing out that it’s only ten bucks right now, half off the normal price.
No, he argues rather that the community had a lot of bizarre expectations that weren’t supported by anything the developers said. With that said, he does also say the developers should have been more careful about how they framed the things they did say.
For TB, the moral of the story has been that we all ought to exercise some critical thinking when it comes to what we hear from developers years before release of a game. If they seem to you to be promising, implicitly or explicitly, something too big to be plausible, then you should probably temper your expectations. I absolutely agree. It’s what I’ve done concerning this game from the beginning, and it’s why I had accurate expectations of the game going in, and it’s why I continue to enjoy it today.
Having said all that I think the game could be much, much, much, much much better–and should be–and I hope this comes to fruition in further development. In particular, the actual, well, game parts of the game need massive amounts of development. We have right now basically a skeleton of a game. But what a skeleton.
Even if it doesn’t go in good directions on further development, I salivate thinking about what the technical achievements of this game will mean for future games three, five, ten years in the future.
No, you missed an important point. While Total Biscuit did direct advice to players to be more thoughtful about their hype, it’s quite clear from the comments and developer quotes he presented that the developers themselves made contradictory and misleading statements, compared to the final version of the game. Either the developers were deliberately manipulating the hype of the community to obtain pre-orders, or they were in conflict/confusion about where the game was actually going.
Yes but you apparently missed the point made by Total Biscuit that the developers were aware of and therefore complicit in the hype and misconstruing of the actual game direction, especially with regard to multiplayer and their contradictory and misleading statements pertaining to it.
The achievements seem unremarkable to me. The Elite universe, for example, is far more technically impressive and realistic, even without yet being able to land on worlds with atmospheres. The Spore-like creatures and plants don’t impress me at all. The flight mechanics in atmosphere and space are obviously half-baked at best, especially in space.
If you don’t like a lot of the animals you’re seeing, pay closer attention to the plants and mineral outcroppings (the discoverable minerals I mean, not the shiny mineable ones). For whatever reason, these seem to be a lot more clearly varied than the animals, and even as I discern commonalities between them, they do excellent work at keeping them varied even within type, and making the parts fit together in natural looking ways (again, not as true with the animals, to be sure, though I think people are too hard on that part of the game as well. You get some bizarre looking stuff, you also get some really majestic looking stuff, and it’s all fun.)
Same goes for geographical features. I have no idea why people say every planet looks the same. The number of dimensions of variation in geographic features, and the degree of variation in each, leads to an absolutely distinct “fingerprint” so to speak for each world I’ve seen so far.
There are indeed some very cool things in the game. Such potential!
Apparenlty so because I’m not aware of such a point about awareness having been made, but I freely admit it may be in there and I may have not been paying attention at that point or something. I’m surprised a bit, though, if he does make that point, since, as you say, he also mentions that based on everything we know it’s entirely possible the developers were just, basically, confused and unsure as to what they’d actually be able to accomplish in a reasonable amount of time. (This is the impression I have about what went wrong. And by “the developers” I mean Murray, mostly. I’m not the first to compare him to Peter Molyneux–these poor guys seem consumately unable to keep hope, hype, and reality separate in their heads. 
)
Well I’m glad the topographical variation evokes a reaction in you. It evokes reactions in others too.
Indeed. As I suggestion in my TL;DR comment.
The real answer is probably a bit of both. Hello Games knew all about where the hype was going, and didn’t clarify when they had the chance. But they liked the hype (who wouldn’t?) and in the end were confused or conflicted about what they were doing or what they would be able to accomplish at release. (ETA: who knows what was going on in-house.)
Total Biscuit was addressing his video to players, hence the salient point being the urge for gamers to not get carried away if the developer appears to be promising the moon. But there’s some fairly trenchant criticism of Hello Games along the way.
So, if the main appeal is the mechanics, procedural level generation is good. If the main focus is the levels/worlds/enemies/NPCs, not so much? If so, what possible avenues, if any, might allow algorithms to create good levels/worlds/enemies/NPCs?
[quote=“Jragon, post:193, topic:759701”]
Game Maker’s Toolkit has a good article on how Spelunky’s level generator works:
[/QUOTE]Thanks for that link, rewatching it was instructive. What do you think are the main takeaways and contradistinctions to be made? I’ve got some idea but I’d like to hear yours first.
Pump ‘n’ dump:
I see someone has already mentioned Spore. Anyone else reminded of what happened with the Oculus Rift?
This is intriguing; anyone who’s played have any feedback on Empyrion? As I mentioned above, I’m kinda sick of NMS already, and it’s looking like another rainy weekend…
Maybe you could write a novella about a game you won’t play.
I too am interested!
I’ve played both. They’re similar games, but:
Empyrion is a “builder” game, with minecraft-like elements. It’s ‘universe’ is much less diverse (a single solar system with fixed, known biomes on each world, barring mods), and there’s a lot less of everything in it. It’s harder and more detailed in its crafting, and the environments are more “realistic” looking.
That said, it’s not done. It’s at Alpha 3, and it richly deserves that alpha label. There’s effectively nothing to do once you get inter-planetary capability and have built the high end of the tech tree. It’s wildly unbalanced - either trivial or impossible, depending on the settings and what you’re doing. The universe is basically empty compared to NMS – there’s maybe ten different critters and maybe thirty different plants available in the entire solar system, and even in individual biomes there’s a lot less diversity.
Empyrion is going to be a great game, but at the moment it’s a not-very-rich sandbox with no real “game” behind it. I’m guessing it needs about 2 years more work to be a real competitor. That said, it’s a fun 10-20 hours, and it’s often on sale. I come back to it every few updates to see what it’s added, but I don’t stay.