"Thus far that aspect of the narrative hasn't developed into anything of note, however. The lingering supposition of dishonesty has been the main driving force behind a story that has otherwise been quite uneventful."
Really? I have been playing far less than 10 hours and I find the story quite intriguing.
@hystavito: That depends largely on the server you choose. On certain servers you encounter people who only are there to fire their gun while on others cooperation and team play are much more common.
That said, I think that several mechanics discourage a COD type of play. The main ones are the number of players and the dimensions of the maps. In COD a player can run around the borders of the map and shoot or stab people and, if he is good enough, he will be rewarded for it. If you do that in BF you will get killed very quickly. The maps are too big to fool around on the border and the encounters begin often at a much larger distance. A player who don't think about his flanks is a very dead player.
@hystavito: I strongly disagree. Battlefield is not Call of Duty. If most players have the good sense to stay with their squad and, even better, follow the orders of their commander, you can see quite clear battlelines, ambushes and similar stuff. The sense of being part of a battle is what makes BF special.
@koospetoors: I suspect that the word you are looking for is "hysterical" rather than "psychitic".
I don't think that NMS is worse than ET, of course. It's a decent indie game centered on an impressive technology. It's main issue is the price tag (it is worth about 20-30$, not 60) and Sean Murray, a guy who should take a good hard look at how Peter Molyneux ruined his own carreer. When I was in my 20s, Molyneux was a gaming legend. He was universally respected after such games as Populous, Theme Park, Syndicate, Magic Carpet and Dungeon Keeper. He he had only one little problem: he adored sitting in front of a camera and oversell his games. He managed to destroy his own reputation and, after the emberassing Godus, he is more or less a pariah.
Yes, many people take games seriously and sometimes way too seriously. It's in human nature. Somebody likes football, others polish their sailing boat or plant flowers. We are passionate about our interests. Personally, I have a family and a good career. I know for a fact that there are more important things than my PC and my games, However, after 25 years of gaming I am passionate about this industry. I love when a developer shows genuine respect for gamers (thanks CDPR!) and I hate to see its mirror opposite (Todd Howard with Oblivion, Molyneux and now Sean Murray).
@Cataclysmic0001: I freely admit that the procedural generation is technically impressive (although it is unclear if the feat truly belongs to HG: http://www.pcgamer.com/company-claims-no-mans-sky-uses-its-patented-equation-without-permission/). All this, however, is quite uninteresting. Over the years I have seen many mediocre games which were technically impressive. The technology must serve the gameplay, not the other way around.
@Fallenlords69: I certainly hope that you are right. However, I suspect that HG will need to learn the lessons learned by Bethesda. Daggerfall was a huge game but most of its villages and labyrinths were procedurally generated. That led to a vast but bland map. Still, the amount of things to do were so many that the game was far more entertaining than NMS. Later Bethesda decided to focus on narrower but well-designed maps. That's why Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim are far better games than Daggerfall.
Valgua1977's comments