The trailer implies that these games offer worlds of boundless possibility, what it really is, is worlds with a bunch of generated primitives and sliders to change some numerical parameter. It's not that the trailers for these games lie, it's just we subconsciously expected more.
To achieve what we expect, the programmer needs to implement features that allow emergent gameplay and unpredictable situations to arise alongside procedurally generated settings. There are few single player games that actually pull this off. Dwarf Fortress, ARMA, and GTA V to name a few.
Yeah, sort of like those "32 in 1" and "112 tele-games" Atari cartridges, where each "game" was a permutation on the number of players, how the players were organized into "teams" combined with difficulty levels, or some such modifier. In reality, it was just the same game, and maybe you passed the controller around differently.
Or the cheap "pop station" handhelds that blatantly give you multiple copies of the same game, just with different "sprites": snowboarding, skiing, motorcycle racing, car racing, bike racing, etc all effectively identical.
Any programmer who codes needs to type. Just like any programmer who creates a game needs to design it. When I say the programmer needs to implement something I don't mention obvious processes like "game design" just like I don't mention typing. I also think a dedicated role of a game designer is not required in many games, especially indie ones.
Additionally, emergent gameplay, by it's nature of being emergent is not really designed. It's a sort of iterative process of implementing a feature and testing the consequences.
Surprisingly it is very similar to Minecraft, even more advanced in some areas, for example more diverse lifeforms and gear. I think Minecraft is more interesting simply because it is in 3D and you can actually build real things in it, in contrast to 2D where you only get to do cross-sections.
I wonder if you could make a 2D procedurally-generated exploration game interesting.
Terraria is a much better game than Starbound, the platforming is better done, the design is tighter, the bosses way more interesting. But it's still a pale imitation of Minecraft.
Ultimately Minecraft does more by doing less. The art and design are more interesting because they're cute and different. The roughness becomes part of the charm. Notch understood keenly that mechanics are way more important than polish.
Minecraft has a tighter focus, it doesn't waste developer time doing stupid shit for stupid reasons. So much crap that went into Starbound I could really just do without. The procedurally generated worlds, who really cares about the zillions of worlds you can explore, after you've visited five or so, you've seen them all. A lot of design effort went into making a stupid thing look and feel good.
It's like they went and built an MVP by throwing shit against the wall. You're just wasting your potential audience's time by not doing basic research. I see a ton of games like this, crap that might be good in the future, but I don't want to tough it out because the game isn't fun to play now.
Now, Starbound in all likelihood still made a shitload of money, goes to show you how much opportunity is still there in video games, but the free lunch is going to end at some point.
No Man's Sky doesn't let you build much, if anything.
This isn't Minecraft. Or Civilization. The worlds are not just procedurally generated on first visit, they're procedurally regenerated on every visit, says "How does No Man's Sky Actually Work"[1] You apparently can't affect the worlds much, if at all. The interactive elements are mostly in space, from the trailers. Planets are basically backgrounds.
Everyone's world is generated from the same random seed (so everyone's galaxy is identical) and you'll be able to see who discovered certain places first.
However, there is no simultaneous multiplayer. You won't see other players running around your world.
Why? It was a very fun game and the narrative arch was a work of beauty. The creature editor and Sporepedia granted unlimited possibilities. My real guess is that entitled players were simply out of touch with the industry capabilities.
I'm gonna answer with a comment I made here some time ago:
"Spore was a disappointment by design. Will Wright prefered "The Sim's sales than Half Life's scores"[1]. They catered to the Sim's public. That's why you have a "design everything" feature. And mechanics so simple.
I remember sprinting through the game, realizing the phases had really simple and boring mechanics, and designing all stuff in less than a minute. When I finally reached the space phase it got a little meatier, but no enough to cater my interest for long. And It had severe interaction problems (I have an interstellar empire, but I have to navigate to each planet to collect its manufactured resources? Come on!)
It was a game with a premise for the hardcore strategy/sim fans that was made to be like the Sims. Biggest disapointment in gaming ever!"
The tl;dr summary in some reviews was that it's five games in one, but each one lacks depth and possibilities and the endgame / last stage is kinda repetitive.
To achieve what we expect, the programmer needs to implement features that allow emergent gameplay and unpredictable situations to arise alongside procedurally generated settings. There are few single player games that actually pull this off. Dwarf Fortress, ARMA, and GTA V to name a few.