malfunkt

As an old school gamer, we dreamed of this game back in the days of Frontier Elite. It's finally here, and will appeal to some, but isn't the 'fun' game you may be looking for. It's more a meditative, immersive, atmospheric experience. It truly excels in that regard and in my opinion is worth it for this aspect. I'm an older gamer (39) and my preference is mostly towards FPS games (Project Reality, CS:GO, Red Orchestra, Insurgency, Mass Effect) but recently moved over to console exclusively as it is more relaxing. I love open-world games like GTA V (except for slow multiplayer loading times). For the larger games like Skyrim, Fallout, and Witcher I never fully finish them. As much as I love their worlds, you can still grow tired of them. No Man's Sky was destined to be divisive. Early-buyer disappointment could have been avoided if we were shown more of the specific gameplay upfront. This is on both Sony and Hello Games. They had a masterful marketing campaign underway, and it appears they gambled on withholding gameplay to maximize anticipation/revenue. In many ways, it is exactly what has been shown in the trailers, and conversely, no more than what is shown. There are hidden mysteries, and details. You have a sense of player agency that is boundless yet sharply limited by the mechanics. You will get tired of No Man's Sky, but for some you will return to it, to visit, like you would a familiar destination. It's predictable, yet always different. No Man's Sky is mathematical beauty. It is just touching the surface of what will be possible using generative algorithms. To me, part of the beauty of what No Man's Sky is what it represents, is what is possible in years to come. We will have our holodeck, so patience. In the meantime enjoy this for what it is.

I borrowed a friends PS3 just to play this. Not sure how someone can give this a low-score, what were you expecting? Friendship is Magic?* This is the best sandbox game of its type, and is thoroughly fun just messing around with the mechanics and the virtual denizens of this hyper-realistic world. I'm sure there are areas not to everyone's satisfaction, like I would like the option of increased vehicle damage. A hugely impressive effort by the coders and artists at Rockstar, many who poured years of their lives into this game so millions could enjoy. Yes it's violent, but its also funny, and packed with moments of sheer artistry.

Got this game after reading the early praise and then much of the anger after the technical issues. Perhaps as I work in application development I have a bit more patience, and I have no wrath towards the EA team. I know they are going to iron out the technical issues and once they do, what's there is actually pretty cool. I have not encountered any issues as yet. So I can only speak to the game experience. What we have here is a great simulation engine, it's like having a digital ant-farm that you cultivate and create again. It is an MMO of sorts and for a myriad of reasons, EA and Maxis have forced a multiplayer experience. I can see why many customers are asking for an offline, large scale sandbox equivalent that is after all what SimCity has always been. I would like this too, but that is not what I bought the game for. The game feels a bit more alive knowing that there are other cities growing beside you. The interaction is limited and just enough that you can play in your sandbox without someone coming over and destroying your creation. As a game, it's fairly easy to set up a functional town. Specializing and leveling up is more of a fun chore. Its enjoyable to watch the impressive details. The first time I saw criminals and police have a gun fight with funky music thrown in I knew the devs had more details in store. Also, the game has an addictive and casual nature to it. I've been so immersed in first-person shooters (Red Orchestra 2, Counter Strike Global Offensive, BF3) that I thought this would be a nice break more relaxing and less demanding. It's perfect in that regard. Expect to EA monetize it to bits. Which will be okay providing they provide quality content. Buy this game if the premise, detail, lively town-sized maps, persistent online regions, always on connection has appeal or if you can live with some of the DRM downsides. Do not buy this game if you want massive SimCity sprawls, reliable offline play, terraforming, and user mods. Oh and performance is solid too, most computer should run this well providing they have dedicated graphics card. For those that have shelled out your dough, had a rotten first week, give this a chance. If they get it running consustently (which by latest accounts is where it looks like thus isheading), compensate for the week of lost gaming, and continue to update and tweak then its worth reconsideration.

Was pretty fun but was let down by some finicky controls, horrible multiplayer implementation and character leveling imbalances. The single player portion is worth it though for some fun boxing and cardio. The Move overall was disappointing, mostly for the lackluster implementation in many titles, including Move exclusives like this one. Not worth the full price.

Really loved this game when it first came out. The persistent world, the graphics and I found it ran smoothly. However, it felt repetitive, without a sense of finale. The gunplay doesn't match up to other FPS I enjoy. Also not a huge fan of the credit of monetization model. I did purchase some weapons to give some support to the devs and for free or however much you want to pay the game is great value.

This game is massive sandbox of FPS-joy. It is like having your own amusement park packed into your console. There is so much variation of play-styles available yet Dice has managed to keep it in fine balance. For those not sure if they will like this, if you've enjoyed any of these games -Call of Duty 4:Modern Warfare, Battlefield 2, Bad Company 2, Red Orchestra, and GTA:IV - I really feel that BF3 has taken it to another level. I bring GTA:IV into the equation as BF3 has so much mayhem and depth for all of the vehicles presented plus you get a sense of freedom from the large scale. I think some of the complaints have merit (ie. some graphics issues, overly bright flashlights, ho-hum single player) and I think DICE could address some of these. But when you look at the full scope of the multiplayer it doesn't take away from what there is. I was actually quite surprised that they were able to get the PS3 to pull this off. The bad size is, lack of resolution, lower textures, nowhere near as realistic lighting effects (but still good), no anti-aliasing. I know the PC Version must be incredible, but the game mechanics are intact on the console. The animation look identical and some of the modelling is quite good given the PS3s limitations. Also the lower player count is okay, but DICE have ensured the maps are balanced. Some map areas may be a bit smaller, but be reassured, these maps are still huge even compared to Bad Company 2. There may be even some benefits of having the console version (albeit minor) such as having an integrated server browser/filter. You need to use the server browser to get into the Hardcore modes or smaller infantry frays. CoD players should give this a go - you can even have infantry only servers if you want. What I like about BF3 (and Bad Company 2 for that matter) over CoD is the destruction, suppressive fire, and battle effects that really effect how you play. You don't feel like you are fighting in rat maze. Hard to believe Destructoid gave this a 7.5 and gave Killzone 3 a 9?! KZ3 was graphically and sonically beautiful but unfortunately marred by spawn camping madness, godlike radar, predictable maps, and unbalanced sniper class. Its multiplayer has nothing on BF3 or even BC2. Also, those who enjoy tactical shooters or realistic shooters such as ArmA2 may find they really like BF3, as though not nearly realistic tactically, BF3s immersive elements of visual, audio and 'battlefield' effects bring a level of psychological immersion not seen before. To me this is almost the perfect game. I don't think Dice have 'sold out' or been tainted by EA or big money. If anything, they've both suffered and succeeded for being so ambitious. Those not wishing to shell out $1000 or more for a new game rig will find that BF3 on the PS3 will tide you over - until next year or after, when even mid-range PCs deliver the graphical guts required to render this game in its full glory. BF3 comes just at the right time with winter around the corner. I'm tempted by MW3 as well, but really, the amount of gaming hours available in BF3 are staggering - there are probably 100s of hours here, and with new maps on their way, a massive tech-tree of unlocks, this has the potential to be a seriously dangerous habit.