No Man's Sky [PS4, PS5, XO, XBSX|S, PC, NX, XGP]

[Shifty Geezer]

I can hypothesise a planet not to dissimilar to our own, but smaller so it has a gravitational pull that's much less than Earth...

If it were me, I wouldn't tie the game to our universal laws and try to make everything scientifically plausible. It's a computer game so anything is possible; it just has to remain plausible, so follow the game's rules. But those rules could mix up affects of gravity as it chooses to make an interesting game. A classic one in sci-fi is space-scapes with one or two huge planets in orbit (or being orbited). These are scientifically impossible as the planets would either collide, or the orbiting planet, orbiting at a such a speed to not collide, would get torn apart and be a volcanic hell-hole due to gravity. Yet the serene space-scape with its gorgeous moons is something that'd be valued in an exploration game, so rewrite the laws and let it happen.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

I spent a couple of minutes thinking about possible variables that would change the make-up of planets and their inhabitants (or lack of):

planet size, star size, planet mass, star mass, distance from star, % rocky, % water, % [type] gas, % [liquid] liquid, heat range, atmosphere depth, hollow planet, % [mineral], mineral, toxicity, radiation.

Obviously some of these would impact each other, a planet close to a large star would be very hot and would include molten rocks and metals (liquids), water would be a gas (or non-existent) and the chances of life would be zero – or at least how we understand life. A very cold planet would have gases as we know them in liquid form (like hydrogen). A mostly hollow planet could have animals with very large eyes because they need to see in darkened places. A planet with a low atmophere could be more advanced due to being able to space travel easier. Distant galaxies (i.e., those further than the big bang – travelled further / created sooner) would be much more advanced, as they’d be that much older.

I’m fairly sure that the Hello Games have already considered all of this and much, much more.

If it were me, I wouldn't tie the game to our universal laws and try to make everything scientifically plausible...

I seemed to remember hearing in one of their interviews that they wanted the game to be fun first and foremost, so it’s very probable they’re doing exactly this. I can’t help but think that the more variables that are added, the more diversity the game could have. Some sections of the universe could have made up physics, others with physics as we know them. The reality is we know very little about physics in the universe, so a simulation with a wide expectation could actually help us to learn about extreme variation.

I've probably too high expectations.

 

[London Geezer]

The reality is we know very little about physics in the universe, so a simulation with a wide expectation could actually help us to learn about extreme variation.

I've probably too high expectations.

Hang on a second... We know a fair bit about physics in the visible Universe, to the point of being strongly aware that the fundamental constants are valid throughout the Universe. We know how stars and star systems form - all in the same way. Variation in our Universe is not a result of different laws of physics, it's just changes in variables, producing different outcomes which have been calculated and witnessed - for example the different outcomes of a dying star, which are 'simply' a result of the mass of the original star.

This is a videogame so there might be some liberties to be taken, but still they would need to be limited to the context of the universe the game is set in and not just 'made up'. It's still a science-fiction game and even the most out-there science fiction is grounded to certain limitations of the laws of physics - with notable liberties such as faster-than-light travel, which even then is usually 'explained' in some way or another, usually being some technology we will not be able to invent for centuries, if ever.

'Making things up' would completely ruin the feel of the game. Might as well have magic and call it a fantasy game. Playing with the variables is where the fun will be, especially seeing the extremes.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Hang on a second... We know a fair bit about physics in the visible Universe, to the point of being strongly aware that the fundamental constants are valid throughout the Universe.

I'm not so sure about that and to quote NASA when referring to dark matter / energy:

More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery

I'm fairly sure if the most imaginative scf-fi writer couldn't dream up some creatures that exist in the universe.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This is a videogame so there might be some liberties to be taken, but still they would need to be limited to the context of the universe the game is set in and not just 'made up'. It's still a science-fiction game and even the most out-there science fiction is grounded to certain limitations of the laws of physics...

What do you think of my example with the gorgeous planetscapes?

 

[London Geezer]

I'm not so sure about that and to quote NASA when referring to dark matter / energy:

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

I'm fairly sure if the most imaginative scf-fi writer couldn't dream up some creatures that exist in the universe.

That's why I wrote visible Universe, which dark matter and energy do not (yet?) belong to.

My point is that everything in the game should be coherent and in context with whatever universe the game is trying to represent. With as many variables as you want but most certainly not 'made up laws of physics'.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[London Geezer]

What do you think of my example with the gorgeous planetscapes?

I'd say that I could take certain artistic liberties such as two big planets being relatively close to one another. It's not a crazy impossibility and in the grand scheme of things, who cares if the moon/planet is too big and would be ripped apart. If it looks pretty...
But I think it would make it more interesting if the game followed certain rules and the planet was, in fact, being ripped apart and that somehow was part of the game.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

I agree with ShiftyGeezer that some made up physics would be good. Some variation of both makes most sense as that increases the variable count.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'd say that I could take certain artistic liberties such as two big planets being relatively close to one another. It's not a crazy impossibility and in the grand scheme of things, who cares if the moon/planet is too big and would be ripped apart. If it looks pretty...
But I think it would make it more interesting if the game followed certain rules and the planet was, in fact, being ripped apart and that somehow was part of the game.

The problem with realistic universal rules is that it leads to a big lot of empty space and dead rocks with nothing to see! It's fine being an armchair explorer to learn that a moon of a planet is torn apart by the gas-giant's gravity - it sounds cool and interesting. But if you start on that planet in a game, you have nothing to see save rocks and lava. And then you fly to another realistic world of an ice giant with no atmosphere. And then another enshrouded in toxic, corrosive vapours that crush/dissolve your spacecraft. I'd much rather visit an unrealistic universe where little lava people live on the gravity-stricken moon, ice-whales fight with bubble-beings on the ice moon, and sentient gas beings launch probes out into space from their thick atmosphere to learn about the universe, only those probes malfunction and start attacking people. Change the parameters for gravity and how high you can jump and how wobbly the ground is based not on scientific principle, but what creates the funnest experiences.

One of the greatest travesties about Braben's Frontier was his interest in keeping it real. It meant really dull space-combat and a generally weak game. IMO use universal laws as a guideline to establish sane ground-rules, but make the opportunities far greater and more involving than the real universe offers up.

 

[London Geezer]

Bending laws of physics I can understand. But define 'made up'?

We already see some pretty extreme things, with our real, boring, laws. While surely missing a lot, as you said. Science fiction is all about bending these rules. Shifty's example I'd say is just bending these laws.

What exactly do you mean by made up physics?

 

[London Geezer]

One of the greatest travesties about Braben's Frontier was his interest in keeping it real. It meant really dull space-combat and a generally weak game. IMO use universal laws as a guideline to establish sane ground-rules, but make the opportunities far greater and more involving than the real universe offers up.

I totally agree. And I'm really not saying we should have a game based on real, unbendable laws. It just all needs to fit in together and make some sort of sense - bit like Star Trek. Stupid example, but even Spock's nerve pinch (or whatever it's called) "makes sense" in that universe, even if it doesn't exist in ours. Or does it?

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Is there really a difference? Lava people is surely made up physics.

I'd honestly like a combination. Spoon shaped elastic men would be great fun, just make those crazy things irregular.

 

[London Geezer]

Of course there's a difference. It all depends on the kind of universe the developers want to create, and whether they want craziness at all costs or some sort of coherence.

Made up physics such as Lava people is basically magic, a fantasy fictional element. Which would belong to a Universe where anything really would exist as nothing needs to make sense.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Okay I'd like to point out that I was suggesting that they should create the planets according to physics and suggested some variables that could be used. ShiftyGeezer talked more about 'bending physics', which to me is the same as 'made up physics'. We can argue semantics if you like, but it's only going to go so far.

It looks like the developer has already included made up physics - otherwise wouldn't a 2mile long snake require an enormous food source to sustain it? Not a desert.

If you want a statistically accurate universe, you wouldn't be able to travel around solar systems very easy and if such a technology were available, you'd spend your entire time visiting gas planets and asteroids.

Edit: the only likely ETs you'd find would be microbes.

 

[London Geezer]

Okay I'd like to point out that I was suggesting that they should create the planets according to physics and suggested some variables that could be used. ShiftyGeezer talked more about 'bending physics', which to me is the same as 'made up physics'. We can argue semantics if you like, but it's only going to go so far.

It looks like the developer has already included made up physics - otherwise wouldn't a 2mile long snake require an enormous food source to sustain it? Not a desert.

If you want a statistically accurate universe, you wouldn't be able to travel around solar systems very easy and if such a technology were available, you'd spend your entire time visiting gas planets and asteroids.

Edit: the only likely ETs you'd find would be microbes.

My point was not that I want a boring old GCSE physics universe. I would not want a game which maps our universe, so of course bending laws in necessary: not having to travel in emptiness for days, big/small planets where they shouldn't be, huge/tiny creatures in weird places, and so much more. Of course!

And a mile long snake is not made up physics! Lava people is totes made up.

For reference, I would consider a movie like the Avengers as borderline between bending and breaking laws of physics. Just so we're clear.

No one wants to play a NASA universe simulation, least of all me.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

For reference, I would consider a movie like the Avengers as borderline between bending and breaking laws of physics. Just so we're clear.

Avengers is deffo made up physics, unless of course you consider a magic electric hammer that lets a god of thunder fly when its spun as bending physics.

 

[London Geezer]

Avengers is deffo made up physics, unless of course you consider a magic electric hammer that let's a god of thunder fly when its spun as bending physics.

Errr that actually exists.

 

[London Geezer]

Anyway, to stay on topic... I haven't seen anything about this game that would make me think it has fantasy elements in it. It looks pretty straight forward science fiction, with its faster than light space travel, different kinds of planets, different creatures inhabiting those planets...

I haven't even seen people anywhere! It's all fish and crabs.

 

[Arwin]

In the interview the main designer mentions that the primary inspiration is the notion of SF that he had as a kid as the main concept they wish to capture in this game - exploration of new planets, spacetravel, etc.

Avengers: nothing borderline about that. Breaking pretty much all the way.

 

[London Geezer]

Avengers: nothing borderline about that. Breaking pretty much all the way.

A lot of it could be explained by some extremely advanced tech - much like most space operas. I read some seriously mind bending space operas in my years (Iain Banks). And NMS is nowhere near that, so in my eyes it belongs in a much more 'realistic' universe, all things considered.