I know y'all come to me for hot takes about the latest games, so I've got some opinions about No Mans Sky (only 9 years old, it's practically brand new).

It's a remarkable game, very fun, very engaging. Love it. But, also, I can't help thinking all the time about how it could be better...I mean, yes, it still has a surprising number of bugs for a nine year old project still in active development and still selling OK. But, also... 1/?

So, you know how the pitch here is that there are billions of different worlds in No Mans Sky? You could play forever and never see them all. OK, fine, neat trick, but there's a remarkable amount of "sameness" to every planet.

I have done literally no research on how NMS, specifically, works, but I think I understand how they make a game with billions of worlds, based on my understanding of procedural generation in games (an area I like to read about, but never actually do anything with). 2/?

The idea is you build a system that takes as input a seed, and for each unique seed, you get a unique world. The key being every time you input that seed, you get the same world. So, random, but repeatable. Given this, if you want two billion worlds, you need a 32-bit number for the seed. Everything else is boring implementation details.

But, my wish is that the system knew how to build more variety and realism on the planet. Why aren't there poles that are colder? 3/?

And, that's not a different set of problems from the ones they already solved. They could have made each planet far more interesting without having to store any more data. 32 bits defines the planet, no matter the complexity.

I get the game decision to have a variety of worlds you have to visit to get various resources...it'd be a different game if you never needed to travel into space, but there's already a lot of ways to play the game, maybe a landlubber play style would also be fun. 4/?

I'd like each planet to have distinct biomes, as we have on earth. They created a creature engine that works remarkably well to make weird but mostly realistic creatures (I mean, there are an unusual amount of big-butted creatures in No Mans Sky sashaying around, but they mostly seem like realistic evolutionary paths, given how bizarrely varied earth creatures are).

That creature engine could make dozens of distinct biomes for a planet, instead of the seemingly half dozen or less. 5/?

They currently have seemingly about two(?) surface biomes, one cave, and two water (deep and shallow). That's cool and all, but it feels really samey when you spend any notable time on a single planet, like for bases and settlements. It doesn't really feel like "exploring".

So, I think what I'm getting at is that the the billions of worlds thing is a bit. A gimmick. They made a great game, but you're not going to spend time looking at each world...you're not gonna find a lot of surprises. 6/?

But, it doesn't have to be a gimmick. Apparently they're working on a new game, Light No Fire, and maybe they're thinking the same way, and maybe the system that spits out worlds will spit out better worlds nine years later. Our computers are bigger, everything is cheaper, maybe they had technical limitations.

But, it's neat. And, I may like thinking about "how do you make billions of worlds that can be visited by any player, without storing billions of worlds" as much as playing the game.

7/7

OK, so, I guess they've been doing exactly that. Apparently, there used to be a lot fewer biomes, more sameness, etc. And, it is an amazing game, and I do love it. And, I love that they're still adding stuff without nickel and diming users with various monetization strategies...it's still a game worth buying after nine years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmU3_6BK-Ro