-
Yeah, that's a fair piece and I think it's why so many Gamers-with-a-capital-g hate it so much - it's because it's not FOR them. It's not goal-orientated. It doesn't have a 50hour+ campaign (who has time for those campaigns?!). It's about atmosphere and immersion and aesthetics, it clearly has a sense of humour and irony. These are not things your average Gears Of War fan is into.
That's not to say the game doesn't have problems. There're a lot of bugs, and the game design is flawed (it clearly wants you to play the Atlas path one way but doesn't give you enough information to do so, leading to frustration at the end unless you've spoiled it for yourself on the internet). But I'm confident those bugs will get ironed out, and I'm also confident they'll add more to do in this wonderful universe they've created. For now there's nothing else like it.
ReekBlefs-
I've been replaying a fair bit of Civ 4 lately. (5 was so shit). I've been a fan of the Civ games since the beginning and for me it's a bit of the same thing. I've never been very good at it but I enjoy the hell out of making it up as a go along. There are people who can win games with spreadsheet precision, but that's not how I play the game. And that's what I love about the series. I can play it how I want to. There are very few games like that.
Aroogah
Interesting take on NMS. I think this articulates a fair bit of my thoughts on this type of game.
No Man's Sky is Elite for the 21st century. Pointless? Maybe – but also sublime
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/19/no-mans-sky-elite?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard