-
The latter in particular is very interesting, including the purposely misleading statements from Hello Games. Personally I'm staying away.
The latter is full of shit imo. He opens by saying that anticipation for NMS was only matched by Spore in recent times. I'm a gamer and I've literally never heard of Spore. Has this guy not heard of Grand Theft Auto?
All that stuff about 'purposely misleading statements' is bullshit too. Any large IT project has scope changes during its lifetime. Clearly multiplayer is something that they thought they had time to add later on, it's only the neckbeards who've seized on it like it's final proof of Sean Murray's evil. It's just so weird. The guy is clearly an honest, humble, intelligent, talented guy who's running an indie studio from Guildford - I do not understand the level of hatred he's getting.
What I also don't get is the sheer number of 'gamer vbloggers' who have a negative opinion on this. Are they really respected in the industry? No wonder gamergate happened.
ReekBlefs-
The latter is full of shit imo. He opens by saying that anticipation for NMS was only matched by Spore in recent times. I'm a gamer and I've literally never heard of Spore. Has this guy not heard of Grand Theft Auto?
It's a fair comparison. Spore was pretty hyped when in progress. Came from the guy behind SimCity and The Sims, and was aiming for letting the player be the god in an intelligent design type of development.
GTA, Fallout etc are all hyped now but everyone expects more of the same. NMS (and Spore previously) were a new take on things rather than a more polished version of the previous game (okay, GTA3 was pretty revolutionary, but I don't remember it being as interesting an idea as Spore). Pity Spore turned out to be crap. -
As Duncs says below, it's pretty apt as they were aiming to do something very different (not to dissimilar from the reason NMS was so hyped).
There's a difference between scope creep, saying that a feature may be implemented in the future development of the project, and saying that it's in the project when it isn't. He flat out lied. There's no possiblity to meet other players in game, and trying to be vague making out that it's very unlikely due to the huge scope of the game world is just incredibly dishonest and purposely deceptive.
I'm sure Sean Murray is a lovely guy, but he's used some misleading statements and diverted away from answering questions in order to keep the hype train rolling. I don't think he's getting much in the way of hatred, much less proof that he's evil. What I find more difficult to understand are the people who feel the need to defend him at the expense of ourselves, the consumers.
Why don't you understand that there are people with negative opinions on something? And how do you feel that correlates to their respect in the industry? And what does any of this have to do with gamergate?
I like my media critics to be unbiased and outline the pros and cons of whatever it is they're reviewing. I don't understand why that's not a positive thing? Would you rather the world was populated by IGN-type places?
duncs
mmccarthy
The two folks whose opinions I was waiting on before making a decision on NMS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc7nCZ1h5Po
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCG9YLeIB98
The latter in particular is very interesting, including the purposely misleading statements from Hello Games. Personally I'm staying away.