Talk:No Man's Sky

RE Clean up tag - see talk page
Hi. The introduction is too long and can be incorporated into other sections, as it's for laypeople I'd expect a brief overview and some info on the controversy surrounding release. Also seems a bit like a fan article instead of neutral. I'd expect something like The Sims or World of Warcraft pages. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines: "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." I see that other editors such as  and  have made similar suggestions. E ribbon toner (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I still believe the POV is far from neutral.Porphyro (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I still think the entire article is far too long, the introduction is extremely far too long and the article still reads more than a fanzine blog than a neutral, reliable & factual (and I realise those 3 things are not the same), it also is lenient & downplays various factually incorrect statements made by Sean Murray. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There are several things to keep in mind. First, NMS got coverage from a lot of varied sources, including many outside of the video game industry. This makes how to treat it unique compared to your average game. It was being followed by non-gamer, and the volume of coverage is why there is a whole section outlying the fallout from the hype. There's probable some gameplay condensing that can be done, but that's all sourced, and follows appropriate VG guidelines here. There's no trivia involved. Now, on POV and downplaying Murray's statements, we have to remember we have to stay to reliable sources. The media was far more lenient on Hello Games when NMS came out than the players. They still criticized the missing elements, etc. but they didn't report with the same intensity of dislike and hatred (though they did report on some of the fan backlash). We can't include things RSes do not report. That includes the POV issues (we can't present POV that is not published), nor can we talk to any of Murray's statements that the press never talked about. (That is, we know multiplayer was a big issue, the press did call that out, but that's primarily it). There is no way under WP rules to change the general POV that is otherwise given by the bulk of RSes, even though I know very well that that was not fully indicative of the mode of the players of the game at the time. No sources, no way to include. --M asem (t) 14:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's written like a biased "fanzine"? The only issue I agree with is that the lead is a bit long and could probably be condensed to three paragraphs instead. Could you provide examples of what isn't neutral? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to editing, but this article really needs some condensing. I've been reading other Wikipedia pages for games like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft, and the condensed 3 paragraph intro lightly touching on gameplay and concluding with reception is a great format. The NMS wiki page needs this condensing. I'm not sure if there is lack of neutrality though. Quance (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * NMS is not like most other games in that it has a rather unique reception/reaction to release, which is not easy to explain in just one or two sentences. That's why the lede is larger than most. Note that the lede does only touch on gameplay and development in one paragraph, as appropriate, we just have to give more time to discuss where the reaction to NMS came from. -M asem (t) 16:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While true, some of the info isn't that important to be listed in the lead. Stuff such as "The British band 65daysofstatic assisted in developing the game's music, with sound designer Paul Weir developing systems to procedurally generate the soundtrack." and "other aspects once given the planet coordinates, requiring no further data to be stored or retrieved from game servers." could be removed, while "Though the game was a top seller in August 2016 in both the United Kingdom and North America, perception of the title fell in the months following release" could be condensed to just "Though the game was a top seller a few weeks after launch, perception of the title fell in the months following release". Just some suggestions. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how NMS should be treated any differently to any other wikipedia article on a controversial topic. We already have articles for Daikatana, Battlecruiser 3000AD and Derek Smart for example, and for something closer to our current year, we have the very tight & concise article for Star Citizen. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has actually pointed out or removed the specific examples the game trivia tag implied in the weeks following my question, I simply removed it for the time being. As for the lead, I believe that it has now been trimmed enough that it is around the ideal size with three paragraphs that summarize the entire article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Differentiating Next reception from the original?
I haven't seem many, but I have definitely seen some sites re-review the game, either the xbox release or the Next version on either PS4/PC, giving it a new score. I wonder how we can handle a unique case like this. Maybe have a separate table for the Next-based scores. --M asem (t) 03:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer if we use their new opinions in prose rather than newly scored numbers in a separate table. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Request to add a new 'Next' update sub section.
Next pretty much blew up and brought back acclaim to No Man's Sky. It would only make sense to add a entire new sub section to it, so new players reading the wiki are informed that the game has been properly updated. ShivamLH (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There already is one. --M asem (t) 17:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Name in italics?
I’m confused, why is “No Man’s Sky” always in italics in this article? Is it supposed to be this way? Am I missing something? BisestoAyden (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * @BisestoAyden: The titles of significant works are placed in italics—works such as books, films, music albums, and video games. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See MOS:MAJORWORK for the guideline. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we be updating the box art?
Every outlet has updated their box art for NEXT, and likely will for Beyond. Is there an objection to updating the box art to correspond to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidsnake1211 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It's recentism. The original art has been the cover for the last three years, it's the more identifiable cover. If needs be, add it to the main body with critical cometary about the change. But to be honest, it doesn't strike me as being an important enough change to warrant it. - X201 (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This. We shouldn't update historical box art due to post-release/update marketing pushes. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 13:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible major update tomorrow (7/16)
Between the social media teases as well as both Xbox and Steam systems showing content updates, there looks to be a new update due for release tomorrow (July 16) called Desolation, but there are no further details yet. I'm just making a note/heads up on that in case of vandalism/early edits before sourcing confirms. --M asem (t) 06:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Prior Art: Noctis
There should be mention of prior art. The idea of aimless exploration of a procedurally generated universe was established by Noctis around 2000. The claim this dev team thought it up on their own is disingenuous and it would be nice if its eccentric original programmer (Alessandro Ghignola) would get at least some recognition, since they are paying him nothing for thinking up all their core ideas. From the article: "The game's original prototype was worked on by Hello Games' Sean Murray, who wanted to create a game about the spirit of exploration inspired by the optimistic science fiction of Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein, and the cover artwork of these works in the 1970s and 1980s." No. The original prototype was Noctis and was coded by Ghignola, and all his key ideas were stolen by Sean Murray, repackaged, and claimed for his own. It's like Apple claiming ownership of BSD because they added a nice window manager on top. It's ruthless, and wholly at odds with the beautiful and generous open-world experience Ghignola invented and Hello Games profits from. Maybe if they had some class, they might throw him $100,000 since he definitely deserves it. I'm sure someone can diplomatically introduce these matters into the text. I will refrain from doing so. 110.235.225.8 (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding this link that draws the connection between Noctis and No Man's Sky, and provides descriptions and images. 110.235.225.8 (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * We have no sources at all that say that Hello Games took any of the ideas from Noctis (there had been other space exploration games before Noctis like Elite too), and in the world of video games, unless you're talking 1-for-1 cloning, using similar concepts as older games is generally seen building upon them, so even if Hello Games did borrow for Noctis, that's not typically seen as a bad thing. (The Apple comparison would be the case if they too Noctis' actual code and built NMS around it without crediting Noctis). So there would have to be far for reliable sourcing to make this claim. --M asem (t) 14:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Plot section should be split to two paths; also there could be more writers
According to https://nomanssky.fandom.com/wiki/Storyline, NMS has two plotlines: the Artemis Path (the one described in the Plot section of main page) and the Atlas Path. The latter should be added.

Also I guess there are more writers working on NMS since the narrative is often reworked, especially with the "No Man's Sky Next" update.

Gibranalnn (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Writers
Copying my edit note on blanking the Writer field here for visibility: Rewrite this as prose in the Development section. The infobox should only contain individuals credited as Lead writers. If it requires this much explanation, it doesn't belong in the infobox. -- ferret (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

On the Plot section
The game has two plotlines: the Artemis Path and the Atlas Path (see https://nomanssky.fandom.com/wiki/Storyline); both share the same beginning sequence (spawning on a hazardous planet).

Thus the Plot section should be rewritten so that both plotlines can be described. Gibranalnn (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)