Now that all the bickering with a certain twat has stopped, I'm just going to put out my actual opinion.
No Man's Sky is very clearly a game, and in my view, it objectively is a good game. It has clear motive from the minute you start, and the player has a lot of options to take them towards completing that object. There's challenges that the player must overcome, and I feel as though the game has strong messages and meaning which it's using the gameplay to convey. From just the game design perspective, without studying or nitpicking, the high-range goals of the game are good.
From a technical perspective, the game suffers some major flaws, such as performance, quality issues and network issues, however these can be attributed towards launch teething problems. Hello Games did confirm that there's no multiplayer via their Twitter earlier, so I'm not sure why people are saying otherwise. Presumably, this issues will completely disappear with patching and the PC launch, although it does seem like more gameplay-oriented issues, such as "slow movement speed" or "small inventory space" (depending on who you ask) may not change and could irritate players.
Do I personally want to play it, however? No. Subjectively, this isn't my cup of tea. While I'm happy that there's no multiplayer (I'm a Singleplayer kind of guy), I'm somebody who needs stronger direction and story; this game requires a lot of self-motivation and finding your own path. I've kind of tapered out of playing Fallout 4 because I finished most of the side-quests, and I'm only playing GTA V still because I managed to get LSPDFR going, which I'm using for non-gameplay reasons. Also, I don't like things to be too subtle and buried in subtext; call me a handicap, but I do struggle picking up on background story, especially if it's abstract and alien such as in this game. Another aspect which I'm worried about is that I feel like the space-combat unfortunately pales in comparison to a game like Freespace 2 (which, to be fair, is entirely about space-combat and will of course do that super awesome), and that was the main thing that intrigued me.
A major problem for me is that with the huge number of planets, I know there's quite a chance for many bland, empty worlds which would simply ruin my play-experience (and this also extends to the random-generation of animals and aliens). While big numbers are nice, I really do believe that the developers should have used the tools to manually generate individual planets and get ~100 really cool, extremely detailed worlds with heaps of content rather than making 1 quadrillion (or however many) worlds where there's no guarantee that I'm going to see or do anything cool. While I guess that ruins the technicality of the game, ultimately the most important part (to me) is the gameplay, and I don't quite feel like walking around on a bunch of sand-dunes or rock-surfaces where there's no life, buildings or anything else to see. Everybody will have a different experience of the game, but I've seen a fair bit that simply looks quite dull.
The art and the music are stunning, and for that I have deep respect. It just simply isn't how I want to spend my time, however. I find that space and medieval are the two environments that are hardest to get me interested in, and this hasn't sold me.
