You're criticizing their marketing when its (as you've mentioned before) and indie team. They don't have a marketing team, what do you expect?

Also as far as I'm concerned, the combat looks like a small part of the game. I'd still be fine if there wasn't any combat at all, I'm buying it for the exploration. That's just what I enjoy.

found this in a PC gamer comment section and it addresses why I find this thread obnoxious

Me too. I am really not making my hype over the roof so it turns out to be something else than I wanted, Because If it turns out to be something else I won't be disappointed because I had my hype low.

Hard to believe since you're defending this game against the slightest apprehension.

Well if they have no marketing team I would expect them to just show gameplay.

And that is what I thought they did, but others are saying they have some super special marketing strat to make the game look bad so when it comes out it is better than expected... Seems very unlikely to me, which is why I judge it based on what I see and will judge it when it comes out based on what it is.

I don't like to assume that it is going to be good based on absolutely nothing other than blind faith and the assertion that the team are just dumb at marketing but geniuses at game design.


I'm just judging what we have been shown, yet people are disagreeing based on pure faith.

That is why this thread is obnoxious... I'm saying "from what they have shown us there isn't much", not "ignore what we are being shown, there isn't much". Those disagreeing are saying "ignore what we are being shown, it's going to be great!".

I think we can all agree that what we have actually seen of the game and heard about its design, the game isn't good. From there you can make the leap of faith and assume that actually it is a great game but "the marketing team is doing a bad job" or "there is no marketing team" or "trust me they are just holding back with the marketing material so people don't get bored!" etc etc etc etc. Or you can make the leap of faith and assume it's going to be bad (which no one in the thread is doing).

You're the other side of it.

you're trying very hard to make people who like what they see to feel like idiots, as well at putting the game down as much as you can, its really annoying.

Simply not true, I'm judging from what we know for sure, and not making statements like:

"They don't have a marketing team, what do you expect?"
"the game has a much wider scope than some people give it credit for"
"don't you guys understand something called "they didnt show you everything?""
"they wont make another dlc's because they already have enough money"
"the devs didn't show you everything so you can get bored so fast.."
"Lets also not forget they haven't even really shown any sort of trailer for the combat"

All this is just wishful thinking and excuses, while the """other side""" is people who have watched and read all available information and are judging based on facts.

If you want to delude yourself go right ahead, but you can at least admit it instead of shitting up the thread with your fantasy and headcanon.

The opposite side of the other side saw every single thing as well, like its not just wishful thinking and excuses. and we are not deluding ourselves, we know this game is going to be something that the devs said in the videos of them talking about the game and about its origins. so if you think we are deluding ourselves with fantasy and stuff, then this is not a game you like.

Haha ok mate, sure... I just hope you won't be disappointed.

its not about getting disappointed when I get the game because I know its going to be good(not deluding myself)
like lets make a comparison between a space game made by HG and a space game made by ubisoft/rockstar/EA etc..
Any Big company space game:
limited space(1 solar system)
better graphics
more employees
making the game in a year since they have lots of employees
finishing it and contains glitches and stuff.
they don't respect the game enough and its going to be shot down by critics.

HG space game:
smaller size(in gb's)
cartoon graphics
endless universe(not limited)
more variety of things like animals
making it with passion and with a small team that work hard to turn out great.
lil bit of glitches but not too many like(assassins creed)
critics saying the game is good
you know why? because they have been working on it for a long time, they have been trying to perfect it for so long(Not like ubisoft who makes a game each year and turns out to be bad. lets add an exception for ubisoft because watchdogs2) even though they had a small team, they still did it and perfected it. and obviously people are going to love it. so you should reconsider stuff about the game because It might turn out great(not because I am deluding myself).

You clearly have no idea what making a game is like.

Let's assume two thirds of the game's file size is assets, like music, textures, and character models, which is generous considering this is a game that's selling itself on procedural generation. That's still 2 GB of code that's been written, for game play, for their server integration, for their supposedly unique lobby system that would enable you seeing another player in your game. 2 GB is a very large amount of code, and it's foolish to assume that you will see "very few" glitches. Most modern games, even those with large development times, will have a substantial number of glitches solely because of the magnitude of the game.

And let's get on to your assumptions. Triple A game developers are not incapable of making a good game. In fact, they're usually quite good at making good games. You don't get the resources necessary to make large games with large teams from nothing, you're clearly doing something right if you're making enough money to produce games with those circumstances.

Second, you act like a large team can't have passion in the game they're producing. People don't become game developers because of the money, the starting wage as QA testers is below the median yearly income of America, and the average wage of the grunts of the game industry is pretty much on the median. People makes games because they like games, even those who are contracted under a large company.

Third, your very listing of the features from each game shows how little you actually understand the scope of the very game you're defending. Limited space in a game can mean one of two things. One, it's procedurally generated, but they just limit how much will be generated because to create more would be an allocation of resources on either the client or the server that they do not want, or cannot maintain, which is much harder for a game that has higher graphical fidelity. Or two, it's hand-crafted, which means they had team members design every section of that world, which is a much greater volume of work that just procedurally generating everything, since you have to go in an place every last object that the player will ever spot. And for a game that's supposedly going to have planets the size of planets, it's impractical. In fact, if you're making anything on that large of a scale, it's much easier to just procedurally generate the entirety of it.

This also is reflected in you believing a larger variety of animals is somehow impressive as well. You can procedurally generate creatures just as easily as you can procedurally generate planets. If we even assume there's 6 different variables that are modified per creature (head, body, legs, body features, size, aggressiveness), and assume 1 of them, aggressiveness, is binary, if you put 5 different options for each of the remaining 5 variables (which is giving credit that they don't just accept a variable for size and it scales accordingly, which would give it a near infinite number of options) and then RNG create creatures out of the options, you create 3125 unique looking creatures after only designing 20 visual assets, and create another 3125 versions of an opposite temperament.


Lastly, critics don't give a fuck who creates a game, they care if the game is fun. If a Triple A developer makes a fun game, which they do accomplish, it's why they're Triple A developers, then a critic won't judge them on the size of their company, they'll give them a good rating and that's that.

So please, at least understand what you're arguing for before you start spouting out your defense of it.