Talk:No Man's Sky/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

• This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --99.104.188.162 (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with this page and it was one of the most talked about games revealed at the VGX (Video Game Awards in 2013). It's gotten many articles from gaming websites!

• This page is a quick article that catalogues something that exists, and is referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.62.184 (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• This page should not be speedily deleted because... (all information is correct and there is no other page providing information on No Man's Sky. ) --114.76.232.18 (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• This page should not be speedily deleted because... there's a lot of hype for this on various video game blogs. It seems genuinely notable, not like something that should be pulled as self-promotion or such. --76.118.100.92 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• This page should not be speedily deleted because...It's relevant and contains correct information. (your reason here) --184.155.183.63 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• This page should not be speedily deleted because... it's fine, and appears accurate with correct references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.14.14.110 (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(not a) PS exlusive?

http://no-mans-sky.com/press/sheet.php?p=no_man%27s_sky

platforms are listed as "TBA", so probably not a PS exlusive. Right now, the article looks like it is though, so maybe we should change that? Ceremony64 (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No, because the only platform we can reliably reference is the PS4. The article is only stating known platforms, if the other platforms had been announced they would be added, at the moment listing other platforms would be pure guess work. - X201 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dorggingoa: Could you please explain why you are persistently reverting and adding Windows as a platform when there are no reliable sources to support it.? -X201 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to note that while this recent GI article [1] says that it was announced for PC, I can find no intermediate source from December when it was announced to today that mentions release platforms - the only thing I can find all starts with the Sony announcement and establishing PS4/Vita as the initial targets. Yes, I want this on PC, I think Happy Games knows everyone wants it on PC, and everyone's assuming this is the case, but they simply have not provided a firm announcement. --MASEM (t) 05:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree, the only Hello Games comment I can find is that they'd like to see it on PC, not that they will be releasing it on PC. It will probably happen, but there are no sources to back it up at the moment. - X201 (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

While there isn't a 100% confirmation out there, in this interview, the dev says the game is "using next-gen consoles and PCs to make that content for us" does indicate a PC release as well as console releases beside PS4. GameSpot also lists xbone and PC as platforms. Ceremony64 (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That quote doesn't help as pretty much all console games are created on PC. The GameSpot database isn't reliable as it contains user created content, just like Wikipedia. Sorry for abrubtness of this, I'm on a tablet. - X201 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, hes not talking about creating the game on PC. He's talking about creating/generating worlds on the fly while running the game on "next gen consoles and PCs".Ceremony64 (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Edge Magazine #270 has a major feature on the game, and per many sources that have access to the print version, it affirms PC after a time-limited exclusive on the PS4. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

See also section

Are all those links necessary? Yeah this is a 'unique' game, but just because the game is different doesn't mean similar games should be mentioned. Lots of games are different and unique. I see this as odd and unnecessary as if say Until Dawn had a See also section with Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls in it, or maybe Wolfenstein: The New Order with a See also section consisting of 10 random first-person shooters. So, is the See also section necessary? —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes because it gives the reader links to similar games. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 01:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

But that then makes it prime for everyone to include their favorite open-space-exploration-sim. The reader's understanding of this game is not improved by knowing of these others. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it once more based on Catmando999's weak argument and Masem's valid points. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this?

Isn't this something that isn't out yet? When I tried to create an article for an upcoming game it was deleted. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 05:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it has received a significant amount of attention in the press due to the ambitions of the game. As such, it meets notability guidelines. If all you can say about a game that it is due to come out soon, that's not enough for notability and will likely see deletion. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Subjective line in intro

"No Man's Sky represents a vision of a broad, attention-getting game that Hello Games has had in place since the formation of the company, set aside while they secured their financial wellbeing through other, less risky titles such as the Joe Danger games. "

This is pretty subjective wording that sounds like an advertisement without a source. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It comes as a summary from the development section about their "Project Skyscraper" idea, and because it is in the lede, does not require a source as long as that is provided in the body (it is). I know that I wrote the majority of that line and, outside of wanting this game in my hands ASAP, have no connections to Hello Games or anyone else associated with, and that I think that fairly summarizes the intent behind this game. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with CrocodilesAreForWimps - I think it deserves a source. Tal Galili (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Crocodilesareforwimps, and I feel that even if it is approapriate in this way, this sentence should belong in the development section instead of the introduction. Above this, I feel that most of the intro's contents are too specific, and should belong in the gameplay and development sections, per WP:MOSBEGIN. Zamaster4536 (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The intro is supposed to summarize the contents of articles, and of the development aspects, it's summarizing a significant part of the development section. It has been sourced now, of course, and it cannot be subjective as that is exact how the interviews with Hello Games describes it (avoiding the OR angle) --MASEM (t) 12:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because it is sourced does not mean it is neutral. That review shows a favorable bias and keeping this sentence does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. With several editors already expressing agreement, I am removing it from the lead. Furthermore, more of the development sections seems too long and rather self promotional and would likely benefit from a neutral rewrite.MartinezMD (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The favorable bias is not generated by WP but by the sources covering the game - the entirety of the mainstream media is watching this game with high hopes and strong interest and they are going to give the game the type of importance; we at WP are not falsely creating that. It's how this game is being covered by third-party, independent sources. Very few of the sources are dependent or first-party sources, so we're following the way that third-party independent sources have covered this game as per WP:RS. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Heads up on possilbe mistaken release date

The PSN store was briefly updated to have NMS out on 3/3, but since has been removed, and RSes that have checked with Sony affirm the game is still due for June release (they speculate 3/3 is the pre-order start date). However, there are other RSes that haven't done their homework reporting the 3/3 date. Barring new info from Sony or Hello Games directly, we should watch to make sure the release date says June '16. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Potential release delay

Kotaku is reporting that the release date may be delayed. They are couching it in "source says" language though, and no official word yet. For now I don't think there is enough to update the release date, hopefully there will be official word shortly one way or another. — Strongjam (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I see several sites duplicating this (including the BBC) from Kotaku's source, so we won't update until we have an official word, which if this delay is true, will probably be in the next day or so to head off rumors by Sony. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As of today (13 June), the official game site is still listing release dates in June: 21st (North America), 22nd (Europe, and 24th (UK). --Iahklu (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Legal issues

Hi @Masem:,

Fantastic work on No Man's Sky. Just now I read about Genicap's statement on the superformula. One question though, can we already call it "legal issues", since it isn't clear if Hello Games in fact did infringe upon their patent, and if so, if Genicap will take legal action? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Good point, I will change to "Intellectual Property issues" since that covers the same for both Sky and Genicap. If later Genicap takes action, then we could change it. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Steam release date

I noticed some minor issues with this, but I'm just posting here to say that Steam often releases at different times in different regions, despite what the official release date should be. Look at the release date for Dark Souls III and you'll see the same thing (states April 11, officially announced to be April 12). In short, don't take what Steam states as 100% official. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No talk about whether there is SteamOS (GNU/Linux) support for this release? I heard it was planned however I can't find the original source for that now, hence looking on the wiki page.. Would be nice to have something written to clarify what the situation is here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.97.38 (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I never remember seeing it planned. It was always PS4 and Windows. --MASEM (t) 12:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox caption

Let me start by saying that WikiProjects have zero authority to impose restrictions on any articles. That consensus needs to come from the local community or from wide ranging discussion on the village pump. The caption was removed, I put it back, and it was removed again. So I am starting this. The caption describes what the image is. For all we know that could be any image related to No Man's Sky. We don't know for sure that it is the cover art without the caption. Removing it reduces the information on the article. This is not acceptable in my opinion but since I was reverted it is time to discuss it. --Majora (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Way back, I had the caption that specifically noted the imagery of the Atlas front of center, which I think is important to note. I do agree that if we're just say "cover art of game" , yeah, we're wasting space, but I do think we should have an expanded caption that explains (to a degree) what is seen on the cover, thus justifying the caption's inclusion. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That is fine Masem. Be my guest. But to remove it entirely is imposing false consensus by people that do not edit this article normally. What utter nonsense. To think that a handful of people in a WikiProject can decide amongst themselves to remove something from literally thousands of articles is ludicrous. --Majora (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Going back to the linked discussion [2] I will point out that yes, if the caption is clearly stating the obvious "here's the cover art", it's pointless , and that does follow from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Infoboxes_and_leading_images. But I do think that a longer caption to explain the cover is perfectly fine here too, getting past the normalative idea that is of concern here. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Captions should properly describe the image in as few words as possible. I had no idea what an "atlas" was (I only watch this article for guideline violations), but the caption assumed I did. It should be re-worded to explain what it is, or simply omitted, as infobox captions mostly need to be self explanatory. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Could say "showing the Atlas (universal encyclopedia) at the center". Or something along those lines. --Majora (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Then it's also expected I should know what the importance of the "universal encyclopedia" is before I even have a chance to read the article. And even then it's a bit wordy and not really needed. Many infoboxes omit stuff like this for the same reason. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

PC Release Date

Although the website says August 12th worldwide for the PC (Microsoft Windows) release date, it's most likely a mistake/improper wording. The website has shown the Aug 12 worldwide release date for about 2 weeks now. Steam and GoG are yet to update their NA release date from Aug 9 to Aug 12. The same goes for the IAm8Bit Explorers Edition of the game. The game is less than a week from release (Aug 9), therefore, the NA release date for PC is August 9th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.249.160 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: According to Gog (can't get source), they've changed the date to Aug 12, but have yet to receive any confirmation from Hello Games, and have emailed users notifying them of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.249.160 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is why if we put Aug 12 (the best date we can confirm from the most direct source being Hello Games), we're fine. If it actually comes out the 9th, we'll update this at that time. (More interesting and yet to be addressed is why the PC version might be 3 days after the PS4 version, no explaination has been given) --MASEM (t) 21:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

And now the question is moot; PC release on 12 Aug is confirmed. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

On multiplayer

Because we're getting IPs that are not paying attention to the sources, here are sources that explicitly state there is multiplayer, akin to that as in Journey (already sources in article) [3] [4] and [5]. The point that has been made is that the chance of encountering another player, at least initially, is very very low, but it remains a multiplayer game since this interaction can happen. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

And to re-iterate, given though at face value this tweet [6] states "not a multiplayer game", it is important to understand the context of the tweets and those that follow it, plus everything else documented. It is not "multiplayer" like an MMO that you'ld be meeting people left and right (this is the point of Murray's tweet here, to try to tell people expecting to trip over lots of players that they won't be). Murray's stated before about their "server room bubble" feature that if you do encounter another place by chance, you'll have some limited interaction possibilities with them. The game is multiplayer, but just not the usual type of MP game people want. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Two players on the same planet at the same time cannot interact with each other http://www.polygon.com/2016/8/9/12417202/no-mans-sky-no-multiplayer-twitch-stream They don't even experience the planet in the same way (one sees it in daytime, the other at nighttime, even though they are standing in exactly same place) 173.160.130.14 (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"No Man's Sky is not a multiplayer game"

So says the creator in exactly those words - https://twitter.com/NoMansSky/status/762688708764135425 Two players on the same planet at the same time cannot interact with nor even see one another - http://www.polygon.com/2016/8/9/12417202/no-mans-sky-no-multiplayer-twitch-stream

No Man's Sky is not a multiplayer game. 173.160.130.14 (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Scroll up next time. --Majora (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah how about you don't completely dismiss me [redacted] and read the NEW article that just came out today? 173.160.130.14 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is presently only based on the experience of two people. As the article states, there are valid reasons that they might not have been able to interact (two different servers for example). I am sure that with Polygon sending a request to Murray to determine what exactly is happening we'll get a better answer. However we do have at present a detailed description from Murray/Hello Games of their multiplayer model that did account for chance meetings, and until they state otherwise (and not in the manner Murray said off the cuff yesterday) we'll keep it as a multiplayer game. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: I removed this section and this section only because the comment was already moved to the other one making it a duplicate and for the blatant personal attack. For you to restore it is extremely troubling considering you are a sysop. --Majora (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I was more worried that this was a valid section. The last comment at 22:50 is a bit troubling and I'm about to excise it, but this section should not have been flat out removed as it is completely appropriate to discussion. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that again multiplayer was removed. I can't be bother to count if I'd be breaking 3RR if I reverted, but it seems like we have consensus to keep multiplayer for now. Perhaps it's time for semi-protection. — Strongjam (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

And to further stress, even though this is being reported, they all are giving the benefit of the doubt for Hello Games to explain the contradiction or problem if there is one from the previous GI interview. [7] [8] In a few days I am sure we we get clarity (if not by tomorrow). --MASEM (t) 02:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if players are not able to see and interact with each others (as claimed by Sean prior to release), would the fact that planets named by other people are able to show up in other player's worlds? Just how far can you bend the definition of a "multiplayer" game, anyway? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I would argue, going into the realm of OR here, that no, that doesn't qualify. It's the same concept as a leaderboard, and an SP game having online leaderboards would not make it suddenly multiplayer. But I really would want to see what Hello Games clarifies this as. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

True, I somehow didn't think of that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Another factor though, is that it is implied that if you destroyed one of the space stations in the game, that station will also be destroyed for other players. That's a game-changing effect across the board for all, which I would then consider is a MP game (But as Murray's stated, far from one in a traditional sense). Still waiting to see exactly what Murray comes back with. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

See Steam. The game has no multiplayer, only single-player. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

But as pointed out above, this conflicts with statements made by Hello Games and as storefront pages, they aren't the reliable source. Right now, we know there's a lot of journalists that have pinged Hello Games to explain that encounter issue yesterday, so we'll likely get an answer sooner than later, but given the best sources (eg direct interviews) state there's MP, it should stay MP until we have a convincing sourcable reason to change otherwise. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That wouldn't be a reliable source for the PS4 situation. Right now all we have are pre-release sources that say it would have multiplayer and post-release sources that say maybe it doesn't have multiplayer. The WP:RS I've read all seem to take the position that it's not clear if there is multiplayer, or if there is a server issue, etc.. — Strongjam (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Another two players have reported not being able to see each other or see each other's interactions with the universe[9]. 49.213.18.116 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Reddit isn't a reliable source. We just need a clear statement from a reliable source in order to update the article. - Strongjam (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/NoMansSky/status/762688708764135425 if this tweet from Sean Murray isn't enough to keep it labeled as single player, no amount of factual information will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneManslies (talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

We've talked about this specific Tweet above. Context is super important, as if you read all the other tweets around it, he's saying, paraphrasing, "this is not what most people would call MP", and later does state there are things that are related to MP features they claimed to have. Now, it could very well not have any real MP, and once Hello Games or Sony affirms that, we'll strip the MP out of this article, but we have several sourced interviews that discuss the MP nature of this game that override what a single tweet or a store page says. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to add I am perfectly satisfied that using a footnote on the "multiplayer" in the infobox, with the note pointing to the two relevant sections of the article that talk about the MP aspects, is the best way to present the flux nature of whether MP really exists or not in lieu of any concrete statement from Hello Games or Sony. Once we have a confirmation either way, it can be easily removed. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Didn't the disc version of the game ship with a line of text saying it was a single player game? If so, shouldn't that be definitive? Ianbrettcooper (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, at least at this point. Yes, they've stepped around the issue but there's also several reasons the two players may have no seen each other. We should really wait until some type of official word from Hello Games comes out. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"Some Quotes About Multiplayer From Sean Murray"

Regarding multiplayer, many people desiring NMS to be a robust multiplayer experience have published a lot of wishful thinking on that issue, and there seems to be a tendency to believe them rather than to believe the overwhelming number of statements that Sean Murray and Hello Games have made about the issue saying that the game isn't for fans of multiplayer games. Sure, at one or two points, it seems Sean Murray was basically cajoled into saying yes to the idea of meeting and playing with friends, but if you look at the quotes in context, it's clear he was not comfortable saying that, and he had a lot more to say about it, playing down those expectations. If we look at some more quotes in context, we can find that the main thing Sean Murray has always said about the game is that it's not an MMO. Here are some examples:

10 June 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYoGN2zgXQU Sean Murray: "No Man's Sky isn't an MMO. You know, it's actually quite far from an MMO, and we never set out to build that type of game, alright? We want everyone to share the same universe, we want people to feel the impact of other players, but there are so many things that are core to MMOs that just do not suit our game. The very first thing is an MMO tries to crowd everyone together, right. We do the total opposite of that - we take them and spread them as far apart as we can, scatter them across the universe, it's the worst idea for an MMO, right. There are no lobbies or anything like that. You're generally playing, not alone, because you're surrounded by the life of the planets and space and everything else around you, erm, you know this kind of living breathing universe, but you are, you know, you are, kind of playing the role of an, of an explorer, of a frontiersman, you know, of a kind of classic sci-fi character, of just being, in the, in the great unknown, on the kind of final frontier, right, and you aren't there with, necessarily, all your friends, because they are, like, light years away."

3 November 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWhSdSAm7To Sean Murray: "We really, like, are very careful to downplay any multiplayer aspects and in some ways I feel like just saying like there is none, you know. Forget about multiplayer, right? Erm... This is not an MMO, it's not a game you sit down and play with your friends. That's just... there are loads of games that do that, and they're way better at it than us. You want a deathmatch, No Man's Sky is not for you."

10 March 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ORFgfhj_hM Sean Murray: "Multiplayer for the game, actually, we've always said, is kind of not really a big focus, actually. You know, if you want an MMO, or a deathmatch game or something like that, then there's loads of other games that cater for that really well... But actually going to a planet and another player being in the same space at the same time is incredibly rare, erm, and it's something that, depending on how many people play the game, might not even happen basically, erm, but if it does we want people to have a little sense of that, but it's NOT a game about going and playing a deathmatch, or having a big battle with each other, but a little bit like Journey or Dark Souls, we want players to have a little sense that other people are playing the game at the same time..." Interviewer: "So you are saying that if my friend travels to the same place I am at, we could play together for a while?" Sean Murray: "Er, no. That's not really what the game is about. It's not, like, again with that, with, when you talk about multiplayer, I think it just gives people the wrong impression. Like I said, that's, that's not what we're trying to build and it's not, if, it's not what people should be thinking about going into the game." Ianbrettcooper (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2016

Please change the first sentence: "was released worldwide August 10th" to "released on Playstation 4 on August 10th" as the PC release date is still two days away as discussed.

96.243.236.174 (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done But it has been released worldwide for PS4 players. Yes, us PC players still have to wait and for some reason it is delayed, that might be reason to change, but for a summary lede, the current statement is sufficiently accurate. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Too many subsections

Just a heads up that there are currently way too many subsections listed in the article, especially under development. We should only be using around three max per section, and the later half of the section could be split into a new "Release" section. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Splitting the second half to "Release" makes sense, but I have never seen any MOS that suggests only about 3 subsections per section. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Any well written, FA type game article does not have this amount, which is what I was basing it on. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Time review in review box

I had added the Time review into the review infobox, but it looks like I was reverted, so I thought I'd check here. I think it's a good idea to include since Time is a high-quality outlet outside traditional video games media. Per the template instructions for {{Video game reviews}} such sources "may be more accessible to a non-gamer audience and place the subject in a greater cultural and societal context than is possible at a narrowly focused video gaming publication.". Is there any objection to me adding it back in? — Strongjam (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The Time review should definitely be in there for exactly that reason. (Still surprised we're waiting on more scores too from the normal sources, but...) --MASEM (t) 16:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Heads up - watching for PC performance/won't start problems

There does seem to be a fair number of people on the social media-verse reporting severe problems with the PC launch (won't start, terrible fps, etc.). I'm watching the usual sources for any detailed discussion about this. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Polygon is reporting on the issues, they also note the mostly negative user reviews on Steam due to the poor launch. — Strongjam (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I feel like there may be some deserved mention about the Steam reviews.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/275850/

Mostly negative (at least for the PC port, which I've heard is running horribly), conflicting with most critic reviews. Perhaps this may be worth including somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtixBit (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No, not directly at least. If a reliable source writes about the negative steam reviews than it should be added into the article, but until that happens we should avoid trying to do our own analysis on user reviews. — Strongjam (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty. I know Totalbiscuit's streaming it right now, hopefully he'll have some stuff on it.ArtixBit (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)ArtixBit

Just by themselves, user scores are self-published and are not reliable, so yes a credible source reporting on it for example would be fine. The same goes for Metacritic user scores as well and I would also avoid YouTube video links. In general though I would strongly recommend waiting for many more critic scores to gain a good overview of the reception and avoid conflicting edits, common with widely and highly anticipated games like this. For example the current link says positive despite the average reviews listed as "mixed or average" and it could quickly go either way or stay put. Frankly Man (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

We could call out to several RSes that have reported on the PC launch issues that the user scores are poor, and that's sorta implied by the present statement about the launch issues (Note that I have not looked hard to see if journalists are tying those to the hype aspect - if they are, that's perhaps a reason to be explicit about the scores at launch). That said, I would rather make sure we avoid the RECENTISM that these review scores reflect the long-term state of the game, given that we're still waiting for other sites to file their final reviews for the PS4 version. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone who's played the game, I honestly think the people complaining about the poor performance and screaming refund refund refund simply don't know how to properly adjust settings for optimal performance. That said, I agree it is likely just the general rabble of recentism, let's wait for the clamor to die down before we start taking those reviews as potential article material, people are so wanting instant gratification without a single mistake ever these days. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 22:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• As a note, for most games, this type of user grumblings are generally never covered or if they are, they are usually low-key, and on WP we rarely cover these. But I think it is important to note this here given the amount of hype and how much this has been documented compared to the previous games that were hyped to insane levels (B&W, Spore, and Fable). This is likely going to be a topic of many an essay about how one should or should not market their games. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The Steam reviews should be at least be seen as indicative of the customer's initial reception for the PC release of the game, as Steam is the platform that is used to distribute the game on PC. The issue at hand is more that these reviews can be deleted and edited on the fly; however the reviews are on the store page which can be accessed through a web-browser, and therefore archived: http://archive.is/sPbaD for example. Something to consider once the initial reaction is in the past and not right now, at least. Other considerations (for other review sites as well) are bot-made reviews to inflate or deflate perceived reaction, but user-made reviews are often quite indicative of the customer's reaction to a product at a point in time. Soupymierr ([[User

Bot-made reviews on Steam..? Excuse me, but are you... serious? Do you really think that anyone would cough up, say, $60,000 (the price of a thousand copies) just to be able to give them bad reviews..? (Which, by the way, would barely even dent the score, considering that there's over 25,000 reviews for the title on Steam currently). If you didn't know, you can't review games on Steam that do not exist in your Steam library, so that's frankly a tinfoil-level notion in the context at hand -- that is, Steam reviews being mixed. 141.8.88.41 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Do reviews stay if the game is refunded? I wouldn't underestimate the community if so. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

talk:Soupymierr|talk]]) 00:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

What we are fortunate to have is that we have secondary sources today that have called out on how negative the users reviews are on Steam as of its day-1 release. We don't need to worry about if those Steam reviews all suddenly go positive after what ever bug fix is put in place, that fact is "archived" by these sources.--MASEM (t) 00:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2016

Murray noted an iconic shot from the original Star Wars which featured two suns risin on the planet Tatoonie as the "perfect alien image" that captured the nature of science fiction.[36]

Please change the spelling of "Tatoonie" to "Tatooine" because Tatooine is the desert planet in "Star Wars" that Murray is referring to. Therefore:

Murray noted an iconic shot from the original Star Wars which featured two suns risin on the planet Tatooine as the "perfect alien image" that captured the nature of science fiction.[36]

Autumnlbennett (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done and also fixed the "risin" typo and added a Wikilink to the planet. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Reddit Discussion Detailing Missing Game Content

Archived Reddit Discussion This discussion details a long list of game features that were either promised or shown (in videos) yet are somehow missing from the released game. Should this be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80F3:1200:9F0:32C6:E3FD:26D (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. Maybe news article are better. NgYShung ^huh? 06:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The list has been mentioned in RSes, so we can allude to it, which I've added in the Reception area. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion gives proof for everything, so it is at least reliable. The tricky part is how to list it since people would still criticize it for being on Reddit. 2602:306:80F3:1200:9F0:32C6:E3FD:26D (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's user generated content, so even if everything is sourced back to statements from Hello Games it doesn't matter. We need to stick to what reliable published secondary sources say (see WP:SECONDARY). Masem's edit sourced to a reliable source is a good example of how we can cover it. — Strongjam (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The numerous interviews where the developer equivocally stated that certain features were in the game, and then the subsequent game itself (lacking said features), is a primary source. Depending on what you consider a reliable source, many of these missing features can be found in secondary sources. Even without secondary sources, there is no ban on primary sources and editors including primary sources in an article, a list on reddit comparing what a primary source said before & the end result, is a "middleman" that Wikipedia doesn't necessarily need to reference. A bit of common sense would go a long way for this. Without needing to go into much detail that could result in a charge of "original research" and breach common sense editing, the most obvious example of the non-existent features is the multiplayer ability to see and interact with other players. It does not exist. There are sources on this, just a quick search on "no mans sky no multiplayer" comes up with gamerant, pcgamer, polygon, independent.co.uk among others. My view is that these missing features, along with the awful technical quality and game crashes, are the two major reasons for the negative backlash, and surely compile enough sources from reviews regarding missing content and it should satisfy with sources.Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Name origin

I think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article that the game's name is a play at the historical term no man's land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F2:2280:89F9:8C21:738:E0EB:17F2 (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

two notes on reception section

First, as most of the major sources have finally submitted their reviews and most are based on the PS4 version, I've made it clear the review scores on the table are primarily PS4 unless noted (eg PC Gamer's).

The other point is that about the inclusion of the MC score. There are two key things going on with reviews to highlight: one that they have a wide range (proving the concern Murray had that the game is divisive) and that can be sourced to a non-MC source, and that on average they fall on the upper half of a 100 point scale (that the wide range is not "terrible" to "average" , but "average" to "great"). That's where the MC number is needed, even though it is apparent in the table, having it next to the wide range gives the prose reader (and screen/mobile readers) a quick idea what the bell curves of scores sit. For a game with an typical reception that don't have the wide range, just dropping what the MC classification in works fine, but this is different case, and just because it might be done at FAC doesn't mean its a requirement to keep out of all articles. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• It just seems redundant to list what the table directly near it also lists. Nobody is doubting that the game had mixed reception from critics. And what does a score of 72 (or any number) mean to a non-gamer who's only reading the article to see what the fuss is about? Numbers like this don't really belong in prose due to that reason. And is there a valid reason not to apply typical FAC edits to an article that isn't currently nominated? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, I would make sure it is "72 out of 100" so they know what the max range is. Keep in mind that the table may not be immediately visible to all readers (on mobile it will appear before the text), so repeating key points in prose is good. And unless the FAC is widely practiced or proposed to be put into practice, there's no requirement that non-FAC should take up changes at FAC without good reason - each article is its own case unless MOS and guidelines specify it (which they haven't here). Further, in this case, IAR would apply here for the issue to distinguish the general side the reviews fell on. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • No requirement yes, but also no reason not to either, as FAs are meant to be what every article should eventually strive for, so applying the same types of edits now shouldn't be controversial (unless consensus against it rises). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
      • While FAs do represent the quality every article strives for, it should not be assumed that just because something was practiced in one FA it should be assumed to be a standard for all other articles. Presently, WP:VG/GL doesn't have advise towards this nor the WP as a whole. If one felt a specific change met at one or more FAs would be reasonable to actually document or present as a adoption for guidelines, that can definitely be done, but we shouldn't assume just because it happened at FA it has universal applicability. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Video game reviews box

So MC PC reviews are in, but for now there aren't that many PC reviews. For the reviews box there are two possible layouts. 1) The multi-platform layout with each platform being it's own column, or 2) one column with a platform tag for the reviews.

If there was roughly even number of reviews between platforms I'd prefer the first option, however as it is now the PC column is mostly empty so I think the second option (single column) is better for now. Any other opinions or preferences? — Strongjam (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Expand to see infobox samples

Reception Aggregate score Aggregator Score PC PS4 Metacritic 62/100 71/100 Review scores Publication Score PC PS4 Destructoid N/A 7/10 Electronic Gaming Monthly N/A 7/10 Game Informer N/A 7.5/10 GameRevolution N/A GameSpot N/A 7/10 GamesRadar+ N/A IGN N/A 6/10 PC Gamer (US) 64/100 N/A Polygon N/A 6/10 VideoGamer.com N/A 6/10 The Guardian N/A Metro N/A 6/10 PC Magazine N/A Time N/A US Gamer N/A Reception Scores for PS4 unless otherwise noted Aggregate score Aggregator Score Metacritic 71/100 (PS4) 62/100 (PC) Review scores Publication Score Destructoid 7/10 Electronic Gaming Monthly 7/10 Game Informer 7.5/10 GameRevolution GameSpot 7/10 GamesRadar+ IGN 6/10 PC Gamer (US) 64/100 (PC) Polygon 6/10 VideoGamer.com 6/10 The Guardian Metro 6/10 PC Magazine (PC) Time US Gamer References

I prefer the single column noting the PC ones as the exceptions. There's no indication that the sites that did the PS4 will do a separate review for the PC and even if one or two did we can work that into a single column more efficiently than the two -column format. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• The double column template is a relic of Wikipedia's past and shouldn't be used. Also, there is no need to note what reviews were PC only, as other, better written game articles do not do this, and the name of the publications here clearly says PC, so it's also redundant. (You wouldn't note PS4 for a review by PlayStation Magazine would you?) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've switched it to the single format template, leaving out the PC qualifier, except for in the MC score section, where it wouldn't be clear which one is which. — Strongjam (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The PC designation for the two reviews that do it is necessary. Without that, the Polygon review (for example) is impossible to tell if they reviewed the PS4 or the PC version (they reviewed the PS4 version, for reference). --MASEM (t) 02:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Why don't we do this for other games then? Half the reviews for Dark Souls III were PS4, with the other half being PC, but nobody ever felt the need to differentiate them. The only thing that separates the two versions for NMS is the worst performance on the PC, which is already properly sourced in the article, so I still find this unnecessary. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sony Publisher / "Distributor" On PS4?

Quick question; looking around, several other sites list Sony as a publisher on the game but not this wiki page, why is that? Sony did actually box & print the PS4 version, they also paid for marketing. GFK Chart Track also has No Man's Sky under the Sony label with Sony Computer Entertainment as the publisher, same for the PEGI rating site and the ESRB one which both have Sony written where the publisher normally is. So how exactly is Sony not a publisher on this game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.179.143.185 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sony's own page for the game says they did not publish it, so who are we to argue? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No Man's Sky refunds

Saw this on Game Revolution that looks to be something that could be mentioned in the article: Steam Is Accepting No Man's Sky Refunds By Users With More Than 2 Hours Of Playtime. GamerPro64 20:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently this was a fluke, Steam is back to refusing refunds outside the normal period. We'll see if this is discussed further but for right now it doesn't make sense to include just based on that article. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

See the following link from Gameinformer (Update) Steam Is Not Making Exceptions To Its Refund Policy For No Man's Sky that will explain Steams refund policy. 193.88.106.96 (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to create a new topic so I hope no one minds me piggybacking on this topic (it kinda deals with my comment) Source 185 is linked to a comment that's not accurate. It says "Many users sought refunds for the game" The source link doesn't say that, though. It says "Many players are defending the push for refunds." A big difference between "Many users sought refunds" and "Many players are defending the push for refunds" Basically, qualifying refunds with "many" is factually wrong. While I don't doubt that a lot of players sought refunds, it's not confirmed by the source link. The proper way it should read on Wiki is "Many players defended unsatisfied users who sought refunds outside normal return policies" or just drop "Many" from the sentence. 71.48.252.154 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a very good point. - X201 (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed "Many". As an aside we use "Many" 12 times in that section, may be an idea to see if those uses are correct too - X201 (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Conforming to Wiki standards

Hi everyone, I get that I'm new and that there's a number of you fans who are very engaged with this page and that's awesome. I've made a starting edit to the page because although it's richly detailed, it doesn't conform to certain Wiki standards precisely because of that. Since the No Man's Sky Wikipedia page is not for gamers but is for gamers and non-gamers alike, it needs to be more concise and also make clearer mention of the ongoing controversy. The current controversy is probably what a lot of people want to look up and thus an encyclopaedic summary of that is a very important part of the article. People who want very detailed gameplay information don't come to Wikipedia. The other stuff is awesome but should be on a specific Wiki. Basically it's too long, too detailed, not too coherently structured and seems to address the controversy in a non-clear way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Organization "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles on video games should give an encyclopedic overview of a game and its importance to the industry. Readers should be presented with a concise overview of the game's plot and gameplay. Plot sections, if necessary, should be no more than approximately 700 words to retain focus. It is also important for readers to be able to learn how the game was developed and its commercial and critical reception. Because the encyclopedia will be read by gamers and non-gamers alike, it is important not to clutter an article with a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." Thanks! Looking forward to making a great article with you. E ribbon toner (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Normally, the gameplay of a game doesn't get a great deal of coverage, it's about the development and reception, so yes, we normally keep those short since they can't usually be fully sourced. But NMS has had a considerable amount of coverage on its gameplay, so it is fully reasonable to have a longer-than-normal section about it, as long as we have the large number of sources for this; the procedural generation aspect is what mainstream sources have been drawn too. Further, it is necessary to understand how much has been stated about the gameplay in reflecting on the reception that the game has gotten (eg missing features). Normally you'd be right if there wasn't any significant interest in a game but NMS has drawn attention from outside the gaming world so addressing the game's fundamental structure in more detail makes sense. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

One thing though I will add: the Gameplay section does need to be restructured, which will probably reduce some of its size and avoid redundancies (including some information that probably is more dev related), but its still going to be several paragraphs long per above. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: I completely disagree. I don't want to ruin the hard work you've put into it, but at this point this article is rambling, hard to follow, poorly structured and seems to only be designed for people who are fans of the game. It needs to conform to gaming article standards as well as style and neutrality. I don't want to get into an editing war with you so we need to improve this article together, and I think you need to consider the possibility that it needs to be cut down, restructured and made encyclopaedic. E ribbon toner (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I've done a number of FACs for video games, I know how they are to be structured. Considering the amount of coverage this game has gotten, this is following right along with VG guidelines. There is wordsmithing and other improvements that need to be made, but you're wrong about this being rambling, hard to follow, etc. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: I know you've put a lot of hard work into this and you're clearly a huge fan. I've never played this game, I'm neither a fan nor a hater, I have no personal stake in this. What I and others expect from Wikipedia is a concise overview of a topic. I came to this page expecting to find an encyclopaedic entry, but instead found a page that was too long, too detailed, and didn't cover the controversy clearly. It was rambling and hard to follow. That's why I'm here. To you it wouldn't be any of those things because you wrote it and engage with the article and game regularly. Try and imagine that you're someone else reading it. Someone who doesn't play this game, even someone who isn't a gamer, and ask if it's still engaging, comprehensible, and offers a concise overview. As you have stated, it's a mainstream game that's grabbed the attention of non-gaming media outlets. Thus its audience now includes non-gamers and so it needs to be more pedestrian and layperson friendly. Have a read of the links in the cleanup templates, including [Video Games - What is appropriate]. I think you'll find that there's some things we're going to have to change to ensure it's accessible to everybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E ribbon toner (talk • contribs)

Okay, that's a bad starting point. I'm fully aware of the dislike for the game from the forums and the like, but there's no "controversy" over this game. There is a lot of discussion about the hype, the lack of communications, the lack of features, etc. and these are all located in the reception section about the game. As that is still ongoing, and we have not had any statement from HG or Sony on the situation, it does not make sense to give that any more weight right now, as otherwise that would be RECENTISM. We will continue to add to those sections as more resolution comes down the line. And in terms of non-gamers, that's the way this is written. Most of the article is about the game's inspiration and development, specifically how the game crafts the worlds; there's not that much that is gameplay specific. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93: [Video Games - What is appropriate] includes "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." I don't think non-gamers would really get anything out of this article, needs to be easier for them to read. (Also thanks for helping fix up my cleanup templates!) :) E ribbon toner (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The number of tags added is ridiculous, and many of them duplicative. How about we just stick to a few for now okay? — Strongjam (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Definitely got ridiculous. Just didn't think anyone was taking me seriously since the last cleanup templates were reverted. Super glad you're happy to work out something together :) E ribbon toner (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: @Strongjam: @Dissident93: Hi :) So, whatever you think of these games, they're on par with or larger than No Man's Sky. [V], [Sims 3], [[10]], [[11]] and [of Warcraft]. They generally have smaller introduction section, more concise gameplay and plot (we might be able to make one section with subheadings instead of two because much of the stuff is repetitive), much clearer structure (structured paragraphs with topic and closing sentences, use of subheadings, keeping on topic when within appropriate subheadings, not unnecessarily repeating information in multiple sections). I'm a bit worried about how the current No Man's Sky controversy is addressed too, it seems to argue in favour of the game instead of neutrally. Whilst it is using proper sources it's arranging the information in a way that gives No Man's Sky the last word and arguments in their favour seem to come after and refute every argument against them. e.g. "No Man's Sky also suffered several technical problems at launch... Hello Games has committed to fixing technical issues with the release, while planning to expand features of the game in time." Gives me the impression that No Man's Sky is a great game with unwarranted widespread hate... which is not what I want to hear, I want to hear sides of arguments in a balanced and impartial way. Don't need to change the information regarding the controversy, just the tone and how it is structured and presented, which is basically what I do for a living so I can help with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E ribbon toner (talk • contribs)

Keep in mind for all but Spore, all those other games are parts of a series, so a lot of their gameplay rests on gameplay from the series article or previous iterations. Spore's gameplay borrows from a lot of other previous game styles, so its also can offset much of that. NMS has rather unique gameplay outside of being an FPS, a survival game and having space combat, so there's a lot of new details to cover.

And you're arguing against how the reliable sources cover this game. First, we still need to write a proper reception section that goes through all the details of what they liked and disliked about the game. That's just a time consuming process but that will introduce many negative elements into the reception. But even taking that, none of the RSes diss the game in the same fashion as many players are doing (outside of someone like Jim Sterling). We can't include user complaints directly though we can include the various RSes that have discussed the negative feedback from players and the hostility towards HG. We're limited by our verifyability policy at this point. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I definitely wasn't arguing against how the sources were arguing, unless I didn't read all of them. It's definitely a controversy. I don't think it's recentism to emphasise it more clearly, it's part of the game's importance... this negative reception is very noteworthy and has been covered pretty well (obviously outside forums), which is why I'm even here. (Also, interesting topic on its own because it relates to hype and developers not including caveats and potentially hive mind, pretty significant moment for developers I think.) We can decrease the emphasis later if the long view happens to show it's not very important. Proper reception section is a great idea. Also, agree with you when you say there needs to be details with gameplay. What we can do is make it clearer and remove redundancies, as well as make the info conform to clearer sections and subheadings so that people can navigate the information better. Do you have anything against the other things I've pointed out? Am I able to start editing without them being redacted immediately? I'll make smaller edits and go section by section so it's easier for us to work together. I'd like to begin with the introduction, making it smaller and more concise. The stuff I take out can be used later in the article. Would really like to work with you to help make this page what it should be, I think you've clearly done an awesome job, so I want to build on what you've done, not bulldoze it. E ribbon toner (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there's some redundancies within the gameplay, I noted that above. But please see a previous section above that we're not suppose to have extensive sub-headings in an article, and arguably we might have too many already. Now I will say that we're likely at a point where a Development of No Man's Sky article is readily feasible, but I wouldn't split it off until after we got a fully reception section in place. But keep in mind that most of that stuff for development is exactly the type of material we are severely lacking for most other games and so the fact we can document it extensively here is very important. This is the type of material that our VG guidelines is the "non-gamer" stuff that we want to show.

But in terms of the fan response, and what we can actually source, there's clearly a lot of disassified players, but the media are not showing the same type of angry towards HG/Sony (more concern about their silence), so we have to report what is filtered from the upset player base as reported by the media. We have that in the last few sections of the article (eg talking about poor reviews, the list of missing features, the attempts for refunds), but I know there's a "Sean Murray is a liar"-type fanatics out there that we simply can't source to anything reliable. I suspect we're still going to see stories on this aspect for a few more weeks and that might flesh out the issues with the user-base reception. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I can find a few reliable sources that have covered the backlash, so will include them when I have time to come back and make edits. Again, would like some assurance that I'm welcome to make edits, as you seem very protective over this page. E ribbon toner (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

What I've seen outside what is not already included that covers the player backlash doesn't seem to be from reliable sources, and/or jumps the gun. For example, there was a spat of articles on fans upset when a redditor found their discoveries in the game appeared to be wiped, but after a few days, it was proven to just be a temporary thing. That's not appropriate to be covered here (that's the RECENTISM issue). For the areas we have covered like the negative reviews/scores and the rebate aspects, we waited to make sure they were a legit thing and covered those appropriately. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93:: Do you think that this article is interesting and readable to non-gamers? That's the reason why I've used the gaming standards tag, happy to not use the tag even if you think that it isn't suitable for non-gamers. Genuine question. E ribbon toner (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any clear and explicit violations of WP:VG guidelines, so I'm not sure why you keep claiming this. The main problem with this article is that it's overall long and redundant in parts. Also, articles don't need to be "interesting" or pertain to a particular group, they just need to be WP:READABLE and follow WP:MOS. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from, maybe "interesting" wasn't the clearest word to use. All good though, I'm sure you guys will clean this up! :) E ribbon toner (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@E ribbon toner: I'm not sure why you added 5 different cleanup tags to this article, though. Can we remove some of the redundant cleanup tags here? Jarble (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Jarble: I was concerned that, since there weren't any clean-up tags before, that although there's some overlap none are exactly the same, and so removing one would remove an important focus. But which ones did you think were redundant and could be changed? :) E ribbon toner (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't. The only major problem this article has currently is that it's too long (but splitting the dev section into it's own article will fix that). Anything about being "interesting" to non-gamers has no merit with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the article is fully readable for them in my opinion, outside of length. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I don't mean interesting in the way that it evidently it came across, so sorry about that. I meant more like I don't think it's easy to navigate for someone wanting to skim for a brief and concise overview, so thus it's "boring", although definitely the wrong word to use. I found it to be this, and I'm comparably a non-gamer, and thought that my insight as a non-gamer might be valuable, considering there's probably a lot of non-gamers wanting to hear about this right now. Anyway, really sorry to irritate you man. E ribbon toner (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93:: [Video Games - What is appropriate] literally says "Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." Was wondering where I got that word from and there it is in the guideline! E ribbon toner (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

And I still fail to see how this isn't readable specifically to non-gamers. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend looking at how the game was covered in the New Yorker [12] or the Atlantic [13] discuss the game. Both of these are non-gamer sources, and notice that their focus is on the game's engine and procedural generation, which is what a significant portion of this article is about, so we are matching. They actually don't talk too much about gameplay, but a nominal gameplay section is needed for completeness. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Preparing to split off development

In the next few days, I will plan to split off the Development section to its own article. I plan to leave the promotion/marketing section in places, only because some of this then ties in with the reception aspects (the hype and reaction to it), but I would like to make sure I'm not missing anything obvious before I do that split.

Keep in mind that I (or someone) still needs to flesh out a full reception section to address specific points made across the reviews. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A simple paragraph summarizing the development will still exist right? That's how other splits are normally done in large articles. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Likely moving what's in the lede to that place with perhaps a bit more expansion of a sentence or two and referencing. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done the split - please note that at least as I type this there are broken refs on both pages, but one of the ref-rescuing bots should be along soon to fix it. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Validity of developer statements as a source

The clearly observable fact that there is no multiplayer lobby, and widely reported lack live multiplayer aspects of the game call the developer's claims in doubt, and make me question using their statements as a legitimate source for this article. These were either planned features that were removed from the delivered product, or forward-looking statements about future features. I'll be researching the procedure for invalidating the developer as a valid source of gameplay facts, since they have demonstrably misrepresented aspects of multiplayer and procedurally-generated sentient NPCs. - JeffJonez (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

First, "sentient aliens" is meant to distinguish from the average fauna that exist on the planet (they have a language, they engage in trade, etc.), not that they have a specialized AI going on (which is never claimed by the developers).

Second, on the MP aspect, while Occum's Razor tells us right now that the MP features they planned are not in the game (since no one has been able to meet up and see each other), we still know they are working on patching and updating the game. Perhaps it is just a software switch they need to throw to enable it and that they held back on it at launch. But we have gotten no further clarity on this at all unfortunately. That's why we have led the section that says HG claims that the game has MP, and that we include the findings of players as reported by RSes that there is no observable MP yet. Given that most everything else they've said is still in the game (or yet to be discovered, since you can't readily prove a negative in a near-infinite game), there's no reason to be trying to claim the developer is unreliable. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of all of the developer's statements aside, the Gameinformer.com interview from 10 December 2014 is certainly a poor source for the current game's state of play. That's where the "open lobby" claim seems to come from, and I suspect the veracity of the article would be improved it that material primarily sourced from it were removed. I'll wait for consensus on that last bit. - JeffJonez (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Granted, that GI interview is the only significant place where I've seen any HG member discuss the MP server approach they used/planned to use to any degree. However, it's also not something discussed in passing - its clear there was effort into how MP would work. (Every other major discussion about MP in NMS always points back to this interview). As you saw, I did change the wording to make it speculative, and it is important to note it was discussed to be included and then has yet to be seen in release which is part of the furor towards this game. I would really hope we get an official statement to be able to clear it up. I would say that in time, if the matter is never addressed while HG is still supporting the game, removal at that point or at least relocation and rewording would be appropriate, but we're still in this period that it doesn't make sense to remove too quickly. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Refactoring out a section on "Marketing and Public Relations Issues"

This would be a rather unusual VG-related section but clearly the aspects of the hype buildup and letdown/followup to release are a significant subject of this article already. To that, I'm thinking of refactoring what we already have to craft a new top-level section separate from the existing promotion and marketing section and more on the three-way interactions between HG/Sony, users, and journalists regarding the marketing hype. This would take much of what's in the "pre-release issues" section as well as some of what's in the main Reception section that is not directly associated with critical reviews or sales/player counters. It would likely be broken up as "Announcement and pre-release buildup", "Near release", "After release", and "Analysis" as its subsections. Just seeking input before doing this refactoring. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Genre

In effect, isn't No Man's Sky more of a space trading and combat simulation game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8C01:FCF0:24C0:8CEA:80DB:AFCE (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really. The game is built on the core survival aspects (exploration, resource gathering) with trading and combat atop it, rather than central to it. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

On multiplayer, again

So I see multiplayer has been removed from the infobox again. Given how long it's been and there's been no developer clarification, I suggest we just leave it out for now. It's been a magnet for vandalism and it's difficult to summarise the issue in the infobox. — Strongjam (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we still need to address it in the infobox so I've just adapted the footnote so that we're not acting like it was never claimed, it remains a point of contention without any resolution. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutral POV Check

This article right now seems to be a bit of a battlefield. One of my edits (which included grammatical fixes) was reverted twice by User:Masem, possibly because it seemed slightly critical of Murray. In any case, the statement that Murray "urged caution" should have sources when it first appears in the introduction, rather than only elsewhere in the article, and if the claim is that Murray was urging caution at a point where journalists were not, then this too needs to be cited. Right now the article contains no mention of certain things that were promised in interviews and other content which are not present in the final game: the lack of sky-boxes, fauna that interacts with the environment, sand worms, meaningful post-game content. It seems to me that much of the debate around the presentation of this game is not being neutrally presented in the article. Porphyro (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Both Murray and some journalists (Kris Graft and Kyle Orland, specifically as listed in the "Issues over Promotion") expressed caution that the hype was making the game bigger than it was being made to be before launch. Additionally, most everything you're listing are elements that were never actually said in any reliable source nor were commented on by reliable sources following the launch (stuff like the multiplayer, on the other hand, yes). I know the reddit list has all those features, but as noted with the ASA probe, what Murray has said in interviews, etc. cannot be taken as official promotion about the game. He said a lot of stuff that may or may not have made it and that fueled the hype, and this is a point made in the "Issues over promotion" section (including Sony's president commenting on the lack of a PR approach). So we are presenting this neutrally, we can't present though from the viewpoint of a disappointed player (though we have several RSes including Geoff K's recent statement that recognize many are upset about the final product). This has the right neutrality. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me preface this by saying that I don't own the game. I have no real agenda and I am not a disappointed player. I also respect your opinion but will offer these counter-arguments to your claim that the POV is neutral here. I have not seen evidence that Murray pre-empted these journalists in attempting to clarify hype about the game. Also, while the interview comments of Murray and others can't be taken as *official* promotion of the game, I see no reason for these statements, properly sourced, to not make it into the article. In fact, given the key status of these statements about the game made in more casual settings to the hype and subsequent disappointment, I would argue that it is essential that these make it into the article, and would like to see at least a subsection addressing promises that were not delivered. If Murray's overzealous promotions and promises can't make it into the article, the fact that a single comment attempting to manage expectations does, makes me feel that this topic might not be being reported on fairly. Porphyro (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Two separate points here:

1) On Murray and pre-emption: a few days before release, he tweeted several times, with several statements that basically was trying to cool off the hype. See [14], [15]. (We had problems here with that as the line "No Man's Sky is not a multiplayer game" led to numerous ppl to try to strip out the MP aspects at that point, but this all before we knew what the situation was).

2) On missing features: It is not so much what he said would be in it, but the observations by third-parties in reliable sources of what was not in it that we have to work from. For example, I know we can RS'ly find something that says there would have been planetary rotation, which is clearly not in the game (the whole "moons fixed on skybox" thing), but the lack of this feature is not something covered to any degree in RSes. On the reddit forum, and elsewhere, sure its readily discussed as a clear example that can't be an issue tied to procedural generation, but those aren't our reliable sources. On the other hand, the lack of multiplayer is a massively-covered missing feature that was promised ahead of time, so that's fair game to include. I do note we have in the lede presently "while lacking several marketed features, including a multiplayer element, that further marred the players' experience with the game." We may not be able to list all the lacking features, but we can readily allude that this wasn't just one or two small things and instead a flub of massive proportions.

As a final note, there is also the long-standing fact that HG or Murray has remained quiet about what actually happened. There is a benefit of doubt that we should expect that at some point we are going to get a statement from them about what happened (the pending discussion Geoff Knightly claims he'll have with Murray will likely help), and that will impact how we write further about this. On the other hand, if months from now there's not a peep out of HG, we might have to write in a different manner. As such we should tread carefully. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is clearly not neutral, and heavily leans towards being a total a Sean Murray apologist & excuse essay. In the opening paragraphs, the line "leading Murray ... to recommend caution due to the indie nature and niche appeal of the title" is a complete fiction, he repeatedly and constantly lied about game features that never even came close to being in the game upon release. Only once he was caught out as lying when the game leaked before release day did he try to tamp down the hype, pretending that the game wasn't multiplayer despite repeatedly saying that you could see & interact with other players if they are on the same planet on US national television shows! That is just one of the examples. He lied constantly about his game. The gaming media who almost to a person had helped build this hype without any significant scepticism or demanding proof, went on another "gamers are idiots" tear blaming the buyers for buying into the hype they created, for a game that was built by a lying developer who deliberately hid the fact his game was not complete & would not be as advertised. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Except that this article does get into the issues around all the pre-release hype and the claims and apparently lacking features in the last main section of the article. There are media that blame the media for the hype. Very little of these published opinions are putting blame on gamers solely, unlike other previous controversies. And then its the after-the-fact 3 months of silence that no one seemed to excuse for that we do talk about. The problem with the above stance is that that bitterness is not something reflected in reliable sources, though they do touch on how jaded players were towards HG and Murray and that we have covered too. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

A new situation to kept atop of

Polygon with update. It appears a disgruntled HG employeed got to the official twitter to post the "NMS was a mistake" message, but we don't have many more details beyond that. I'm only noting this in case we get more out of it, but I would not include this yet in the article without more context. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: Thanks for letting me know about this discussion. See this Forbes article for more on the mystery of the tweet/ hack thing. They also link to reports from Kotaku and Mashable on the matter. — Gestrid (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Forbes' contributors are not RSes for facts (particularly in a questionable situation like this), but there are many sources reporting on this too. For this, I'd like to see resolution to know how to include this first, rather than as the story goes. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at WP:VGRS for clarification on your meaning. I did not realize Forbes did that. And the article I linked above was from a contributor, not staff. Still, they link other sources that are likely more reliable than Forbes in this case. — Gestrid (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I see we have clarification from the BBC now [16] but I think I've seen other articles comment on this in relationship to the lack of silence that HG has had since release on how the naysayers have influenced the post-game reception without their input. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Another new situation...(though may not be related)

Valve is requiring all Steam store page images to be in-game shots. It's implied, but not affirmed, that NMS was part of it, but as this change is not yet set for a few weeks, we might not know for a bit. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016

Please alter: At release In additional to its mixed response from journalists and reviewers, to: At release In addition to its mixed response from journalists and reviewers, for grammatical amelioration.

NoeticRatiocination (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Space flight simulation game

Could someone write a short, two or three sentence summary of the NMS debacle for the Space flight simulation game article? I'm not that familiar with the game (never played it), but think it's relevant to the genre as a whole. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  13:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• What's the debacle have to do with the setting itself? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

History. Also, people's expectations WRT the features that fans of the genre want and dream about vs. what reality can actually deliver. SharkD  Talk  23:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Open world

It's mentioned in the article, and the article is in the category, but should "Open world" be mentioned in the infobox? SharkD  Talk  21:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Open world is not considered a genre, but rather a description of gameplay/theme (like science fiction) and thus not allowed in the infobox. Confusing, I know, just check the previous multiple discussions about this at the WP:VG talk page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Current ARG

There seems to be an ARG going on, in anticipation of a new patch, but I believe we should wait to include any details until we have confirmation what this is building towards. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to add, there's definitely something going on but beyond pointing towards an August update, it's not clear. I'm holding off on purpose to make sure it's actually an update, and then I can add details about the ARG. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)