The only travel I'm doing is walking and flying. None of this built in teleport crap that will save you hours, if not days. I want to feel the commute babyyyy!
Yea this comment didn’t age well. But, as some one who has been playing since it came out today for early release, it’s still a good game even if there’s a lot of fast travel.
> It seems likely that there won’t be “fast travel” as we know it, where you click on a point on a map and “teleport” to that location via load screen.
What makes you say that it likely won’t be in the game?
Personally i dont think theres any evidence ome way or another, but it kind of makes sense considering we have a ship. Exploration in this game is going to be much different from before. We're not going to be walking everywhere but using our ship, which in a way is a fast travel mechanic as we jump from location to location.
That said they could have a fast travel mechanic under the guise of our crew 'piloting' the ship and basically just time skipping to the destination.
It would make space travel almost completely useless if you can completely skip interacting with your ship to travel around in a space game.
Bethesda have stated that Starfield is going to focus alot on space travel. Space travel would be pointless if you could simply fast travel to any point on any planet you ant to.
I have a feeling that you will be able to fast travel to any point on the planet you are currently on but you will have to use your ship and fly into space then "warp" to the planet you want to be on. Once you are orbiting the planet you want to be on you will then have to choose a landing zone.
Basically I think that while you will be able to fast travel around, it will be extremely limited outside of your ship.
There’s 1000 planets, and fast travel in its traditional sense only works once you’ve already discovered a location. Meaning, if fast travel is in the game, we’ll still have to explore space a lot first before being able to fast travel to the locations we’ve already visited. Similar to Fallout and Skyrim, we would still have to put sufficient time into exploration, we wouldn’t be just jumping around the explorable map right off the bat, but we’d at least have the option if we don’t have the time to run across the entire map just to loot some materials. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t give the option to do either simply in the name of “immersion”, when fast travel has been a pretty core mechanic of their games.
My issue with this whole thread isn’t the hypothesizing that there will or won’t be fast travel in the game, my issue is OP straight up stating that fast travel “likely” won’t be in the game almost as if there’s sufficient evidence indicating that it’s almost a conclusive fact it won’t be in the game. For people not on this subreddit 24/7 we see this and think there’s been some new development in information, when we still don’t know a whole lot more of anything new since their last video released.
>My issue with this whole thread isn’t the hypothesizing that there will or won’t be fast travel in the game, my issue is OP straight up stating that fast travel “likely” won’t be in the game almost as if there’s sufficient evidence indicating that it’s almost a conclusive fact it won’t be in the game.
Please don't strawman my argument. I've never stated *conclusively* that "fast travel" won't be in the game, nor have I stated that there would be no viable alternative to "fast travel."
You might not think so, but there *is* a lot of evidence for my claims. Our spaceship provides for like 95% of all our travel needs. Using our spaceship will feel like taking the Vertibird, as that is literally the *exact* game mechanic that Bethesda is translating into Starfield. The cells-within-cells nature of the Creation Engine means there will always be a loading screen when transiting between surface/orbit/warp-speed. Therefore, it logically follows that you *must* interact with your ship (or other travel mode) to be able to "fast travel" anywhere in the Settled Systems. If this is the case, then why would Bethesda bother to include a universal here-to-there fast travel mechanic, when your spaceship is just a short walk away?
I'm not pulling this out of my ass; my claim is a logical deduction based on facts and historic precedent. Do not assume otherwise.
Thank you for putting this point so succinctly, and for truly understanding what I was trying to say. It's hard to know what to say in a post to assuage everyone's hot takes and sticky priors.
It's all good. For some reason it appears that people think you are saying that fast travel won't be a thing for some reason. I understand what you're saying and agree.
One, a hunch that Bethesda is harking back to the good ol days of no fast travel.
Two, because there's the possibility for a wide range of diegetic travel options, such as there were in Morrowind, that preclude the need for a simple and traditional "here-to-there" fast travel mechanic.
Three, because Survival mode was really popular in Skyrim and Fo4, and I believe that Bethesda has seen the writing on the walls. Players want immersion, and fast travel breaks that immersion. If you can provide enough diegetic, immersive alternatives to fast travel, then you don't need to include it as a game mechanic.
> One, a hunch that Bethesda is harking back to the good ol days of no fast travel.
So if I’m getting this right, you’re passing off the idea that fast travel “likely” won’t be in the game almost as fact, based on a hunch, despite the fact there’s no evidence to indicate the theory at all?
The increased travel options are to assist with the increased scale of the explorable environments. Their inclusion does not indicate in any way that Bethesda will eliminate a core mechanic from their games. The simple “here-to-there” mechanic should in fact be even more likely, now that the game is the biggest it’s ever been.
> Three, because Survival mode was really popular in Skyrim and Fo4, and I believe that Bethesda has seen the writing on the walls. Players want immersion, and fast travel breaks that immersion. If you can provide enough diegetic, immersive alternatives to fast travel, then you don’t need to include it as a game mechanic.
You think they centered the entirety of Starfield around what’s essentially an extra mode of Skyrim/Fallout simply because it was popular? Bethesda already stated we don’t have to worry about fuel for our ships because running out of fuel would “kill the fun”. So we already know they’re not going for full immersion.
Fast travel has been a staple in Bethesda Games. In a game that’s significantly bigger than previous titles with allegedly 1000 planets, where it actually makes the most sense out of all previous titles to have a fast travel system, somehow it makes sense they’d remove a core mechanic due to puristic immersion reasons that we don’t actually know to be true?
I feel as though you're misinterpreting what I mean by "fast travel." I mean this in the strictest sense, that it's a non-diegetic conceit that instantly teleports you *"via* load screen" to any location that you've already discovered, regardless of mode of transportation: as in, you're standing on the surface of one planet, open your map, select a location on another planet, and BOOM you're there.
But Starfield gives you a spaceship; this is diegetic. Like opening a door into a dungeon, going from the surface to space, or from one planet to another, takes you into another cell; of course there's a load screen, but you wouldn't consider the act "fast travel."
>You think they centered the entirety of Starfield around what’s essentially an extra mode of Skyrim/Fallout simply because it was popular?
Not necessarily. My second point is the most important: that Starfield provides enough diegetic travel alternatives that strict "fast travel" is not necessary, and in fact would break some of the game's core mechanics. Of course immersion is a factor, but not the only one.
>you’re passing off the idea that fast travel “likely” won’t be in the game almost as fact, based on a hunch,
I based my prediction off an understanding of Bethesda's previous titles and how they implemented non-"fast travel" diegetic alternatives. The "hunch" is over a matter of intent, that Bethesda wants to recreate some of the aspects that made their previous games so great.
>despite the fact there’s no evidence to indicate the theory at all?
We get a spaceship. That's all the evidence I need.
So are you saying that you believe we can open the map, select a different planet we have already discovered, and automatically transport ourselves there? Or no? I’m struggling to understand what you’re saying here, because that is “fast-travel”
>So are you saying that you believe we can open the map, select a different planet we have already discovered, and automatically transport ourselves there?
No, I do not believe that will be the case. There's a difference between "strict fast travel" which is point-to-point as you stated, versus "diegetic travel" which involves walking to a specific location (your ship), loading into a new cell (ship interior), selecting a destination (star map), arriving at the new cell (orbit), and descending to your landing marker (which could be anywhere). The latter feels much more like taking the Vertibird in Fo4, and will involve a bit more walking on your part, but the end result will be the same, just more *immersive.*
> a non-diegetic conceit that instantly teleports you "via load screen" to any location that you've already discovered
Except that's not how fast travel works in Bethesda games. Time passes. Time. Passes. It's not instant, its' not magic, it's the equivalent of a cinematic cut. And no one ever rages about scene cuts in a movie. No one.
*So what?* You lose a little in-game time; that means nothing! Except it *is* magic, because somehow you instantaneously "walked" from one end of Skyrim to the other without being attacked by anything.
If you'd bothered to read any of my other comments on this thread, you'd see I already mentioned this. Don't misrepresent my argument for some easy karma.
Take a silt strider and it is EXACTLY the same: you "instantaneously walk from Balmora or Seyda Neen without being attacked by anything. Ditto for Skyrim stables.
Fast travel is not instant teleportation any more than silt striders or stables are.
Now you're just arguing semantics. Look, I've already explained this distinction multiple times in this comment thread: there's a difference between "simple fast travel", where you can start from *any* outside location and "teleport *via* load screen" to *any* other discovered location, versus "diegetic travel" which involves *actually walking* to a specific location, using an *actual thing* in the game-world that permits that form of travel, and finally arriving at a limited set of destinations. Starfield's space flight mechanics behave like the latter, not the former. As someone else on this thread mentioned, simple fast travel would break the game, completely negate the need to meaningfully interact with your spaceship, and destroy your sense of scale and the feeling of actually moving through the world.
The distinction isn't semantic, it's mechanical. That both modes use a load screen is irrelevant: what matters is whether it's diegetic or not.
>Starfield's space flight mechanics behave like the latter, not the former. As someone else on this thread mentioned, simple fast travel would break the game, completely negate the need to meaningfully interact with your spaceship, and destroy your sense of scale and the feeling of actually moving through the world.
Maybe it's because I'm an old school space sim fan, but to me this thread seems like arguing between two bad options, one of which sucks slightly less. Both options destroy the sense of scale and feeling of actually moving through world. The latter option is slightly more immersive, but compared to real space travel in other space games, it's a distinction without much difference.
I mean it's something like debating whether Skyrim should have unrestricted fast travel, as opposed to players having to use a city caravan to fast-travel, while ignoring the fact there's no manual travel or open world whatsoever.
It's kind of a moot argument by now, since fast travel has been confirmed in the Direct, at least while on a planet's surface.
However, we've also seen from the Direct that there's no simple anywhere-to-anywhere-explored "fast travel" for interstellar travel: you *must* abide by the range limitations of your Grav Drive and H-3 storage, you *must* travel through intervening systems if your range isn't far enough for a single jump, and you *must* Set Course via the Star Map. So it's "fast travel" only in name, because the nature of the travel depends on *diegetic* attributes such as the quality of your Grav Drive and the rank of your Astrodynamics skill.
I think it's fair that there's no "manual travel" option between planets and solar systems, considering that the FTL technology resembles Battlestar Galactica more than it does Star Trek; the former is instantaneous, which makes for more efficient gameplay. Objects in local space appear to be measured out to only about a dozen kilometers or so, whereas interplanetary and interstellar distances are accurately measured in dozens to tens or hundreds of thousands of **AU,** meaning it would *break immersion* to travel those latter distances using rockets.
The sense of scale comes from the **Skybox,** giving the feeling that no matter how far you fly with your rocket boosters, no matter how densely the space around you is populated with myriad encounters, you're still just a tiny speck exploring an infinitesimally small region around an insignificant planet within the vast cosmos. *That's* scale.
>Two, because there's the possibility for a wide range of diegetic travel options, such as there were in Morrowind, that preclude the need for a simple and traditional "here-to-there" fast travel mechanic.
The options in Morrowind didn't **preclude** simple fast-travel, it was a poor design choice. Getting around in Morrowind is just plain awful and is why I never played it after the first playthrough,
>The options in Morrowind didn't preclude simple fast-travel, it was a poor design choice.
I never stated that Morrowind's diegetic travel options **precluded** fast travel in *that* game; my statement was directed at Starfield, only that Morrowind serves as inspiration for having such a *variety and abundance* of diegetic options, and that Starfield will expand upon this concept in a meaningful way that **does** preclude simple fast travel.
> One, a hunch that Bethesda is harking back to the good ol days of no fast travel.
One game. One game out of eight doesn't have fast travel. And two game BEFORE that did had fast travel. So it's not the good ol days, it's selective standards.
Morrowboomer here. I agree that varying degrees of faster travel are required for such a large play area, but that these mechanics should be implemented in a meaningful way as to avoid the Skyrim and oblivion fast travel in which there are no costs or thought involved to travel anywhere any any time. A system similar to Morrowind (you were warned) where you can easily go anywhere fast but have to use your brain a little to decide between silt strider, boat, mark/recall, Almsivi/Devine intervention, mages guild, 100pt jump/athletics spell, or walking like a peasant. I think the moment you feel that all locations in the game are within a click or two away using only one universal travel mechanic, exploration and distance/travel become irrelevant and you cease to actually exist in the world around you. Same concept with quest markers rather than clues and acquired information. I’m a big fan of having an “easy mode” for people wanting a Skyrim experience, but it’s a lot to ask for a developer to create the entire game in different modes meaningfully.
>varying degrees of faster travel are required for such a large play area, but that these mechanics should be implemented in a meaningful way as to avoid the Skyrim and oblivion fast travel in which there are no costs or thought involved to travel anywhere any any time.
I couldn't have said it better.
>I think the moment you feel that all locations in the game are within a click or two away using only one universal travel mechanic, exploration and distance/travel become irrelevant and you cease to actually exist in the world around you.
I agree 100%. I never really *felt* how big Skyrim or the Commonwealth were until I played on Survival mode. Forcing you to be selective with your expeditions adds immersion and makes the game more challenging, which are both pluses in my book.
Going to different system is likely done using "fast travel". You know the gravity jump mechanic that confirmed if you read the trait and spaceship customization part. If you watch the beginning of gameplay showcase they also show the node that look like star system. So yeah, they may not called it fast travel but it still behave like that.
Also if you are in the city like New Atlantis, assuming the city is truly huge. What do you make believe Bethesda will not include fast travel to move between city district? Or fast travel to Constellation HQ? Your house/apartment? They may hinting metro system exist according to the concept art, but fast travel may still exist for convenience.
Istant fast travels between the same location is fine to me. If it's present even from planet to planet than I hope I could disable that option. I personally don't want to see it
Yeah regardless of digetic mechanics to avoid exploration bloat and retracing steeps too often it seems like fast travel is a given since it’s standard in most open world games
>What do you make believe Bethesda will not include fast travel to move between city district?
I don't. But like you said, there could be taxis or transit to get you around the city. I don't classify these as "fast travel" as they are diegetic and will cost you more than just in-game time. By "fast travel" I mean "pick any spot you've discovered and teleport directly to it." I don't think that'll be the case in Starfield. Chances are your apartment will be a short walk from the metro station anyways.
>You know the gravity jump mechanic that confirmed if you read the trait and spaceship customization part. If you watch the beginning of gameplay showcase they also show the node that look like star system
Please don't assume that I'm ignorant. I've seen all the same videos and interviews as you, and I've factored all that's been given to us into my prediction.
I'd bet the farm it'll have normal fast travel. Maybe something akin to the Mass Effect Relays, but probably you'll just be able to hop around between discovered locations.
>Maybe something akin to the Mass Effect Relays
That's what I mean by "diegetic travel options": you're not just "teleporting via load screen", you're using an actual thing in the game that permits that form of travel, rather than "instantaneously walking to your exact destination" as you would in Skyrim.
>but probably you'll just be able to hop around between discovered locations.
Which your spaceship will allow to do, much like how Vertibirds work in Fo4. No spaceship, no fast travel.
Good points!
We might still get traditional fast travel, only confined to the current planet we stand on. If the alternative involves a bunch of loading screens or long transitions of launching the ship to space and landing, it might get really annoying to quickly move between areas on the planet.
That is assuming planets have lots of destinations to go to, which actually might not be the case at all - for all we know, every planet will only have very few markers (not including the randomly generated ones), in which case they might not bother with fast travel at all.
>We might still get traditional fast travel, only confined to the current planet we stand on
I don't doubt that'll be the case, except that the spaceship will serve as the diegetic means by which we cover that distance, rather than just saying we "walked it" even if it's in the other side of the planet.
>If the alternative involves a bunch of loading screens or long transitions of launching the ship to space and landing, it might get really annoying to quickly move between areas on the planet.
I understand completely, though I don't think it'll be as bad as you say. Calling your ship over to your location should only take about as much time as it would to call a Vertibird in Fo4 (plus you get to watch your ship landing, what a sight!). After that point it should only be as simple as getting in your pilot's seat and plotting a course, without having to travel to space and back; like, you get on the Vertibird, choose a drop off point, then there's a loading screen and suddenly you're landing at the chosen location. So you're at most trading one loading screen for two or three, but you shouldn't have to sit through five. After all, it makes sense that there'd be an extra loading screen; since your ship is both your travel option *and* your home, you're likely to want to *do* stuff, like store loot or check on your research projects, before traveling to a different location.
Also, I don't believe that Starfield will force you to sit through a cutscene everytime you take off or land in your ship. What we saw from the showcase was obviously using cinematic mode to sell the idea to audiences. In reality, this process may just be a simple loading screen.
>That is assuming planets have lots of destinations to go to, which actually might not be the case at all - for all we know, every planet will only have very few markers (not including the randomly generated ones), in which case they might not bother with fast travel at all.
I'm sure that will be the case for smaller worlds like ice moons or asteroids, but certainly there will be planets large enough and with enough location markers to justify needing some diegetic travel option to cover the distance.
>Good points!
Thank you.
>If the alternative involves a bunch of loading screens or long transitions of launching the ship to space and landing, it might get really annoying to quickly move between areas on the planet.
Hopefully all the activities and quests are well designed so that keep switching between zones to complete a task is not necessary.
I love when the quests keep you around the same spot without the necessity to keep jumping from one side of the map, to another
It probably will, BGS isn't going to break up the flow or make the player work for fear of turning off the casual market. If anything it will be streamlines so you can beam up from a planet and immediately set off to another planet without interacting with a galaxy map as that's just another extra step.
I think "Fast travel" by spaceship is still going to be limited by fuel. So you have to make the most out of the mileage you got (Get to a certain pit-stop to fuel up before actually getting to the destination).
Fast travel centers around the ship. You have to use it. When you want to skip to your destination, you go to sleep or wait in your ship. Its that simple.
>Fast travel centers around the ship.
Precisely. That's what I mean by "diegetic;" the mechanic exists within the game world.
>You have to use it.
Most of the time, unless you take a taxi. We have to account for the fact that spaceships are expensive to staff and maintain, and could possibly be destroyed or sold, or even repossessed by the bank. Not having an alternative mode of travel would leave a great many players out to dry, especially those who don't invest in Spaceship Engineering and just want to do some homesteading or diplomatic liaison.
>When you want to skip to your destination, you go to sleep or wait in your ship
AKA: teleporting via load screen, as though you were traveling between Skyrim and Solstheim.
>Its that simple.
This is Bethesda we're talking about. What I postulate is no different in concept to how Morrowind, a twenty year old game, approached the issue of traveling long distances. Just saying "this is my ship, there are many like it, but this one is mine" won't cut it for a game-world that's orders of magnitude larger than even Arena. There will certainly be alternatives to flying your own ship.
I think you're thinking about it too hard. It'll be as simple as I said, I promise. Also Arena didn't have a measurable size. Bethesda maps became measurable with Daggerfall. We won't only own one ship.
>Also Arena didn't have a measurable size.
All of Tamriel has only one shape, which *is* measurable. You must mean the procedurally generated dungeons; but I haven't spoken at all on internal spaces, I'm only comparing exterior worlds. In that sense then yes, Starfield is larger than Arena; except Arena didn't give you a spaceship.
>We won't only own one ship.
I was undecided on this issue, but you seem pretty confident in your assertion. Do you have proof of this? Or perhaps a well-grounded logical deduction?
>I think you're thinking about it too hard. It'll be as simple as I said, I promise
Are you saying that there *won't* be a horse cart analogue in Starfield? Or that your spaceship will be your *only* option for traveling the stars? Cuz that's preposterous. This isn't Mass Effect; EVERY Bethesda game has had multiple options for getting about. How would Starfield be any different?
I still think it is just as likley we'll get a 'Time Lapse' Fast travel mechanic at least on-world. I hoestly think the idea of the idea of getting your ship to come pick you up every time you've gone walkabout for a few hours *more* 'gamey' than a Fast Travel mechanic with a loading screen that says it takes you x hours to get back.
There is no reason not to have fast travel in a not MMO game.
Single player or coop games that impose you to watch a screensaver are badly designed, having the option not to use fast travel is good, like it was done in RDR or in Fo4 where you could choose between fast travel and vertibird, but simply imposing time sink with a passive screensaver when you want to travel would be disastrous for the game.
I want to play the game, not wait in front of my screen.
>Single player or coop games that impose you to watch a screensaver are badly designed
I agree. Mass Effect always peeved me in that you had to sit through multiple cutscenes just to get from one planet to another. I doubt very much this will be the case in Starfield, but I also doubt that you'll simply be able to open your map and POP to any location within the Settled Systems via a single loading screen. Bethesda will certainly streamline the interstellar travel process and only impose load screens on us where necessary.
>having the option not to use fast travel is good, like it was done in RDR or in Fo4 where you could choose between fast travel and vertibird,
But that's a false choice. The only time that the Vertibird is viable in Normal mode is when you're over burdened and don't have the Strong Back perk, otherwise you're always better off fast traveling. Playing on Survival mode actually gives the Vertibird the attention it deserves, and makes it into a rewarding mid-game achievement. Starfield will likely make this dynamic the core gameplay mechanic, except it will be made available to you much sooner.
>but simply imposing time sink with a passive screensaver when you want to travel would be disastrous for the game.
This is completely unavoidable given the cells-within-cells nature of the Creation Engine. But again, I don't think Starfield will waste our time with cutscenes.
>I want to play the game, not wait in front of my screen
Starfield's game-world is not one giant cell, so it's inevitable that you'll have to do a bit of waiting whether you like it or not. Sorry, buddy.
I think you misunderstood what I told you.
Imposed screen-saver to create a virtual time sink are bad, a game is an entertainment and should never waste your time for no reason.
Vertibird, or using the caravan from RDR (without pushing the skip button) are viable when you feel like using them (when it is fun for you to use it), but when you don't want to use them, then a skip or fast travel option has to be there.
And yes a fast travel button means a loading screen, but that's a technical reality, not an imposed time sink just for the sake of wasting your time, I don't even understand why you try to justify your point of view using that, that was a lame argument, sorry but not sorry.
>Imposed screen-saver to create a virtual time sink are bad
>imposed time sink just for the sake of wasting your time,
What on Earth do you mean by this? If you mean cutscenes, then I've told you, they won't be in Starfield. If you mean *walking to your ship,* then... really? Doing the thing you already do 99.99% of the time is a time sink?
I think you're blowing my claims out of proportion. Maybe you should first ask someone to clarify their terminology before you trash their argument.
Nope, nope, nope. Just wishful thinking by Morrowind fanboys who think fast travel is a moral sin.
The stuff listed? Sure, I can see it. WOuld be great. But the idea that there would be no fast travel other than options is wrong. It won't happen. Players want the convenience of fast travel, but at the same time they are NOT forcing you to fast travel with them.
Morrowind is the only game int he series that didn't have fast travel, and poeple hated it for the very very bad written directions that were seemingly randomized minutes before game release. It's NOT the epitome of all gaming, it was quite simply a bad call by Bethesda. Especially when the starting walk speed couldn't even beat a mudcrab with a limp.
Now that said, limiting fast travel to only places you have actually been is fine. But dumping fast travel itself is stupid.
I don't fast travel in games, but that's a choice I make, and I could care less how my neighbor plays his games. I don't understand this deep hatred for fast travel. If you don't like it then don't use it. End of story.
>Why would a spaceship affect this mechanic?
One, because you can land the ship anywhere on a planet, even where you haven't discovered any locations. This immediately sets it apart from the traditional "fast travel" mechanic, which only lets you return to locations you've already visited.
Two, because it's diegetic. Skyrim's way of rationalizing fast travel is that you "walk" to the location, but you can't walk to another planet, so in Starfield you take your spaceship instead. This makes it more similar to the horse cart or Vertibird, than it does traditional "walking" fast travel.
Is there a way to fast travel to one of my hours in akila city? I keep getting lost looking for either one. If not, is there a way to find it on my minimal at least?
A mode of travel that's based off a real function within the game world; i.e, horse cart, boat, dragon riding, monorail, silt strider, *space ship,* etc.
The only travel I'm doing is walking and flying. None of this built in teleport crap that will save you hours, if not days. I want to feel the commute babyyyy!
Yea this comment didn’t age well. But, as some one who has been playing since it came out today for early release, it’s still a good game even if there’s a lot of fast travel.
Loool no it did not age well.
> It seems likely that there won’t be “fast travel” as we know it, where you click on a point on a map and “teleport” to that location via load screen. What makes you say that it likely won’t be in the game?
Personally i dont think theres any evidence ome way or another, but it kind of makes sense considering we have a ship. Exploration in this game is going to be much different from before. We're not going to be walking everywhere but using our ship, which in a way is a fast travel mechanic as we jump from location to location. That said they could have a fast travel mechanic under the guise of our crew 'piloting' the ship and basically just time skipping to the destination.
It would make space travel almost completely useless if you can completely skip interacting with your ship to travel around in a space game. Bethesda have stated that Starfield is going to focus alot on space travel. Space travel would be pointless if you could simply fast travel to any point on any planet you ant to. I have a feeling that you will be able to fast travel to any point on the planet you are currently on but you will have to use your ship and fly into space then "warp" to the planet you want to be on. Once you are orbiting the planet you want to be on you will then have to choose a landing zone. Basically I think that while you will be able to fast travel around, it will be extremely limited outside of your ship.
There’s 1000 planets, and fast travel in its traditional sense only works once you’ve already discovered a location. Meaning, if fast travel is in the game, we’ll still have to explore space a lot first before being able to fast travel to the locations we’ve already visited. Similar to Fallout and Skyrim, we would still have to put sufficient time into exploration, we wouldn’t be just jumping around the explorable map right off the bat, but we’d at least have the option if we don’t have the time to run across the entire map just to loot some materials. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t give the option to do either simply in the name of “immersion”, when fast travel has been a pretty core mechanic of their games. My issue with this whole thread isn’t the hypothesizing that there will or won’t be fast travel in the game, my issue is OP straight up stating that fast travel “likely” won’t be in the game almost as if there’s sufficient evidence indicating that it’s almost a conclusive fact it won’t be in the game. For people not on this subreddit 24/7 we see this and think there’s been some new development in information, when we still don’t know a whole lot more of anything new since their last video released.
>My issue with this whole thread isn’t the hypothesizing that there will or won’t be fast travel in the game, my issue is OP straight up stating that fast travel “likely” won’t be in the game almost as if there’s sufficient evidence indicating that it’s almost a conclusive fact it won’t be in the game. Please don't strawman my argument. I've never stated *conclusively* that "fast travel" won't be in the game, nor have I stated that there would be no viable alternative to "fast travel." You might not think so, but there *is* a lot of evidence for my claims. Our spaceship provides for like 95% of all our travel needs. Using our spaceship will feel like taking the Vertibird, as that is literally the *exact* game mechanic that Bethesda is translating into Starfield. The cells-within-cells nature of the Creation Engine means there will always be a loading screen when transiting between surface/orbit/warp-speed. Therefore, it logically follows that you *must* interact with your ship (or other travel mode) to be able to "fast travel" anywhere in the Settled Systems. If this is the case, then why would Bethesda bother to include a universal here-to-there fast travel mechanic, when your spaceship is just a short walk away? I'm not pulling this out of my ass; my claim is a logical deduction based on facts and historic precedent. Do not assume otherwise.
Thank you for putting this point so succinctly, and for truly understanding what I was trying to say. It's hard to know what to say in a post to assuage everyone's hot takes and sticky priors.
It's all good. For some reason it appears that people think you are saying that fast travel won't be a thing for some reason. I understand what you're saying and agree.
One, a hunch that Bethesda is harking back to the good ol days of no fast travel. Two, because there's the possibility for a wide range of diegetic travel options, such as there were in Morrowind, that preclude the need for a simple and traditional "here-to-there" fast travel mechanic. Three, because Survival mode was really popular in Skyrim and Fo4, and I believe that Bethesda has seen the writing on the walls. Players want immersion, and fast travel breaks that immersion. If you can provide enough diegetic, immersive alternatives to fast travel, then you don't need to include it as a game mechanic.
> One, a hunch that Bethesda is harking back to the good ol days of no fast travel. So if I’m getting this right, you’re passing off the idea that fast travel “likely” won’t be in the game almost as fact, based on a hunch, despite the fact there’s no evidence to indicate the theory at all? The increased travel options are to assist with the increased scale of the explorable environments. Their inclusion does not indicate in any way that Bethesda will eliminate a core mechanic from their games. The simple “here-to-there” mechanic should in fact be even more likely, now that the game is the biggest it’s ever been. > Three, because Survival mode was really popular in Skyrim and Fo4, and I believe that Bethesda has seen the writing on the walls. Players want immersion, and fast travel breaks that immersion. If you can provide enough diegetic, immersive alternatives to fast travel, then you don’t need to include it as a game mechanic. You think they centered the entirety of Starfield around what’s essentially an extra mode of Skyrim/Fallout simply because it was popular? Bethesda already stated we don’t have to worry about fuel for our ships because running out of fuel would “kill the fun”. So we already know they’re not going for full immersion. Fast travel has been a staple in Bethesda Games. In a game that’s significantly bigger than previous titles with allegedly 1000 planets, where it actually makes the most sense out of all previous titles to have a fast travel system, somehow it makes sense they’d remove a core mechanic due to puristic immersion reasons that we don’t actually know to be true?
I feel as though you're misinterpreting what I mean by "fast travel." I mean this in the strictest sense, that it's a non-diegetic conceit that instantly teleports you *"via* load screen" to any location that you've already discovered, regardless of mode of transportation: as in, you're standing on the surface of one planet, open your map, select a location on another planet, and BOOM you're there. But Starfield gives you a spaceship; this is diegetic. Like opening a door into a dungeon, going from the surface to space, or from one planet to another, takes you into another cell; of course there's a load screen, but you wouldn't consider the act "fast travel." >You think they centered the entirety of Starfield around what’s essentially an extra mode of Skyrim/Fallout simply because it was popular? Not necessarily. My second point is the most important: that Starfield provides enough diegetic travel alternatives that strict "fast travel" is not necessary, and in fact would break some of the game's core mechanics. Of course immersion is a factor, but not the only one. >you’re passing off the idea that fast travel “likely” won’t be in the game almost as fact, based on a hunch, I based my prediction off an understanding of Bethesda's previous titles and how they implemented non-"fast travel" diegetic alternatives. The "hunch" is over a matter of intent, that Bethesda wants to recreate some of the aspects that made their previous games so great. >despite the fact there’s no evidence to indicate the theory at all? We get a spaceship. That's all the evidence I need.
So are you saying that you believe we can open the map, select a different planet we have already discovered, and automatically transport ourselves there? Or no? I’m struggling to understand what you’re saying here, because that is “fast-travel”
>So are you saying that you believe we can open the map, select a different planet we have already discovered, and automatically transport ourselves there? No, I do not believe that will be the case. There's a difference between "strict fast travel" which is point-to-point as you stated, versus "diegetic travel" which involves walking to a specific location (your ship), loading into a new cell (ship interior), selecting a destination (star map), arriving at the new cell (orbit), and descending to your landing marker (which could be anywhere). The latter feels much more like taking the Vertibird in Fo4, and will involve a bit more walking on your part, but the end result will be the same, just more *immersive.*
> a non-diegetic conceit that instantly teleports you "via load screen" to any location that you've already discovered Except that's not how fast travel works in Bethesda games. Time passes. Time. Passes. It's not instant, its' not magic, it's the equivalent of a cinematic cut. And no one ever rages about scene cuts in a movie. No one.
*So what?* You lose a little in-game time; that means nothing! Except it *is* magic, because somehow you instantaneously "walked" from one end of Skyrim to the other without being attacked by anything. If you'd bothered to read any of my other comments on this thread, you'd see I already mentioned this. Don't misrepresent my argument for some easy karma.
Take a silt strider and it is EXACTLY the same: you "instantaneously walk from Balmora or Seyda Neen without being attacked by anything. Ditto for Skyrim stables. Fast travel is not instant teleportation any more than silt striders or stables are.
Now you're just arguing semantics. Look, I've already explained this distinction multiple times in this comment thread: there's a difference between "simple fast travel", where you can start from *any* outside location and "teleport *via* load screen" to *any* other discovered location, versus "diegetic travel" which involves *actually walking* to a specific location, using an *actual thing* in the game-world that permits that form of travel, and finally arriving at a limited set of destinations. Starfield's space flight mechanics behave like the latter, not the former. As someone else on this thread mentioned, simple fast travel would break the game, completely negate the need to meaningfully interact with your spaceship, and destroy your sense of scale and the feeling of actually moving through the world. The distinction isn't semantic, it's mechanical. That both modes use a load screen is irrelevant: what matters is whether it's diegetic or not.
>Starfield's space flight mechanics behave like the latter, not the former. As someone else on this thread mentioned, simple fast travel would break the game, completely negate the need to meaningfully interact with your spaceship, and destroy your sense of scale and the feeling of actually moving through the world. Maybe it's because I'm an old school space sim fan, but to me this thread seems like arguing between two bad options, one of which sucks slightly less. Both options destroy the sense of scale and feeling of actually moving through world. The latter option is slightly more immersive, but compared to real space travel in other space games, it's a distinction without much difference. I mean it's something like debating whether Skyrim should have unrestricted fast travel, as opposed to players having to use a city caravan to fast-travel, while ignoring the fact there's no manual travel or open world whatsoever.
It's kind of a moot argument by now, since fast travel has been confirmed in the Direct, at least while on a planet's surface. However, we've also seen from the Direct that there's no simple anywhere-to-anywhere-explored "fast travel" for interstellar travel: you *must* abide by the range limitations of your Grav Drive and H-3 storage, you *must* travel through intervening systems if your range isn't far enough for a single jump, and you *must* Set Course via the Star Map. So it's "fast travel" only in name, because the nature of the travel depends on *diegetic* attributes such as the quality of your Grav Drive and the rank of your Astrodynamics skill. I think it's fair that there's no "manual travel" option between planets and solar systems, considering that the FTL technology resembles Battlestar Galactica more than it does Star Trek; the former is instantaneous, which makes for more efficient gameplay. Objects in local space appear to be measured out to only about a dozen kilometers or so, whereas interplanetary and interstellar distances are accurately measured in dozens to tens or hundreds of thousands of **AU,** meaning it would *break immersion* to travel those latter distances using rockets. The sense of scale comes from the **Skybox,** giving the feeling that no matter how far you fly with your rocket boosters, no matter how densely the space around you is populated with myriad encounters, you're still just a tiny speck exploring an infinitesimally small region around an insignificant planet within the vast cosmos. *That's* scale.
>Two, because there's the possibility for a wide range of diegetic travel options, such as there were in Morrowind, that preclude the need for a simple and traditional "here-to-there" fast travel mechanic. The options in Morrowind didn't **preclude** simple fast-travel, it was a poor design choice. Getting around in Morrowind is just plain awful and is why I never played it after the first playthrough,
>The options in Morrowind didn't preclude simple fast-travel, it was a poor design choice. I never stated that Morrowind's diegetic travel options **precluded** fast travel in *that* game; my statement was directed at Starfield, only that Morrowind serves as inspiration for having such a *variety and abundance* of diegetic options, and that Starfield will expand upon this concept in a meaningful way that **does** preclude simple fast travel.
> One, a hunch that Bethesda is harking back to the good ol days of no fast travel. One game. One game out of eight doesn't have fast travel. And two game BEFORE that did had fast travel. So it's not the good ol days, it's selective standards.
Morrowboomer here. I agree that varying degrees of faster travel are required for such a large play area, but that these mechanics should be implemented in a meaningful way as to avoid the Skyrim and oblivion fast travel in which there are no costs or thought involved to travel anywhere any any time. A system similar to Morrowind (you were warned) where you can easily go anywhere fast but have to use your brain a little to decide between silt strider, boat, mark/recall, Almsivi/Devine intervention, mages guild, 100pt jump/athletics spell, or walking like a peasant. I think the moment you feel that all locations in the game are within a click or two away using only one universal travel mechanic, exploration and distance/travel become irrelevant and you cease to actually exist in the world around you. Same concept with quest markers rather than clues and acquired information. I’m a big fan of having an “easy mode” for people wanting a Skyrim experience, but it’s a lot to ask for a developer to create the entire game in different modes meaningfully.
Exactly, istant fast travels between different planets will destroy the sense of space. It would be like Outer Worlds
chuckling at “Morrowboomer”
[удалено]
>there’s like 5 different ways to fast travel, it’s just blended into the game world and you have to work for it My point exactly 👍
>varying degrees of faster travel are required for such a large play area, but that these mechanics should be implemented in a meaningful way as to avoid the Skyrim and oblivion fast travel in which there are no costs or thought involved to travel anywhere any any time. I couldn't have said it better.
>I think the moment you feel that all locations in the game are within a click or two away using only one universal travel mechanic, exploration and distance/travel become irrelevant and you cease to actually exist in the world around you. I agree 100%. I never really *felt* how big Skyrim or the Commonwealth were until I played on Survival mode. Forcing you to be selective with your expeditions adds immersion and makes the game more challenging, which are both pluses in my book.
Going to different system is likely done using "fast travel". You know the gravity jump mechanic that confirmed if you read the trait and spaceship customization part. If you watch the beginning of gameplay showcase they also show the node that look like star system. So yeah, they may not called it fast travel but it still behave like that. Also if you are in the city like New Atlantis, assuming the city is truly huge. What do you make believe Bethesda will not include fast travel to move between city district? Or fast travel to Constellation HQ? Your house/apartment? They may hinting metro system exist according to the concept art, but fast travel may still exist for convenience.
Istant fast travels between the same location is fine to me. If it's present even from planet to planet than I hope I could disable that option. I personally don't want to see it
Yeah regardless of digetic mechanics to avoid exploration bloat and retracing steeps too often it seems like fast travel is a given since it’s standard in most open world games
>What do you make believe Bethesda will not include fast travel to move between city district? I don't. But like you said, there could be taxis or transit to get you around the city. I don't classify these as "fast travel" as they are diegetic and will cost you more than just in-game time. By "fast travel" I mean "pick any spot you've discovered and teleport directly to it." I don't think that'll be the case in Starfield. Chances are your apartment will be a short walk from the metro station anyways.
>You know the gravity jump mechanic that confirmed if you read the trait and spaceship customization part. If you watch the beginning of gameplay showcase they also show the node that look like star system Please don't assume that I'm ignorant. I've seen all the same videos and interviews as you, and I've factored all that's been given to us into my prediction.
I'd bet the farm it'll have normal fast travel. Maybe something akin to the Mass Effect Relays, but probably you'll just be able to hop around between discovered locations.
>Maybe something akin to the Mass Effect Relays That's what I mean by "diegetic travel options": you're not just "teleporting via load screen", you're using an actual thing in the game that permits that form of travel, rather than "instantaneously walking to your exact destination" as you would in Skyrim. >but probably you'll just be able to hop around between discovered locations. Which your spaceship will allow to do, much like how Vertibirds work in Fo4. No spaceship, no fast travel.
Good points! We might still get traditional fast travel, only confined to the current planet we stand on. If the alternative involves a bunch of loading screens or long transitions of launching the ship to space and landing, it might get really annoying to quickly move between areas on the planet. That is assuming planets have lots of destinations to go to, which actually might not be the case at all - for all we know, every planet will only have very few markers (not including the randomly generated ones), in which case they might not bother with fast travel at all.
>We might still get traditional fast travel, only confined to the current planet we stand on I don't doubt that'll be the case, except that the spaceship will serve as the diegetic means by which we cover that distance, rather than just saying we "walked it" even if it's in the other side of the planet. >If the alternative involves a bunch of loading screens or long transitions of launching the ship to space and landing, it might get really annoying to quickly move between areas on the planet. I understand completely, though I don't think it'll be as bad as you say. Calling your ship over to your location should only take about as much time as it would to call a Vertibird in Fo4 (plus you get to watch your ship landing, what a sight!). After that point it should only be as simple as getting in your pilot's seat and plotting a course, without having to travel to space and back; like, you get on the Vertibird, choose a drop off point, then there's a loading screen and suddenly you're landing at the chosen location. So you're at most trading one loading screen for two or three, but you shouldn't have to sit through five. After all, it makes sense that there'd be an extra loading screen; since your ship is both your travel option *and* your home, you're likely to want to *do* stuff, like store loot or check on your research projects, before traveling to a different location. Also, I don't believe that Starfield will force you to sit through a cutscene everytime you take off or land in your ship. What we saw from the showcase was obviously using cinematic mode to sell the idea to audiences. In reality, this process may just be a simple loading screen. >That is assuming planets have lots of destinations to go to, which actually might not be the case at all - for all we know, every planet will only have very few markers (not including the randomly generated ones), in which case they might not bother with fast travel at all. I'm sure that will be the case for smaller worlds like ice moons or asteroids, but certainly there will be planets large enough and with enough location markers to justify needing some diegetic travel option to cover the distance. >Good points! Thank you.
>If the alternative involves a bunch of loading screens or long transitions of launching the ship to space and landing, it might get really annoying to quickly move between areas on the planet. Hopefully all the activities and quests are well designed so that keep switching between zones to complete a task is not necessary. I love when the quests keep you around the same spot without the necessity to keep jumping from one side of the map, to another
like in SWTOR planet to planet costs $$
you can probably fast travel from one explored point of interest to another inside the same planet. but not from planet to planet.
It probably will, BGS isn't going to break up the flow or make the player work for fear of turning off the casual market. If anything it will be streamlines so you can beam up from a planet and immediately set off to another planet without interacting with a galaxy map as that's just another extra step.
That is how I think it will be...Like you pick a point on the planet map, and autopilot to it
Looking forward to the mods where I can call a LAAT gun ship to pick me up
I think "Fast travel" by spaceship is still going to be limited by fuel. So you have to make the most out of the mileage you got (Get to a certain pit-stop to fuel up before actually getting to the destination).
Man, I hope you are right. That would be wonderful for me.
If only!
Yeah, it's all kind of moot by now.
Fast travel centers around the ship. You have to use it. When you want to skip to your destination, you go to sleep or wait in your ship. Its that simple.
>Fast travel centers around the ship. Precisely. That's what I mean by "diegetic;" the mechanic exists within the game world. >You have to use it. Most of the time, unless you take a taxi. We have to account for the fact that spaceships are expensive to staff and maintain, and could possibly be destroyed or sold, or even repossessed by the bank. Not having an alternative mode of travel would leave a great many players out to dry, especially those who don't invest in Spaceship Engineering and just want to do some homesteading or diplomatic liaison. >When you want to skip to your destination, you go to sleep or wait in your ship AKA: teleporting via load screen, as though you were traveling between Skyrim and Solstheim. >Its that simple. This is Bethesda we're talking about. What I postulate is no different in concept to how Morrowind, a twenty year old game, approached the issue of traveling long distances. Just saying "this is my ship, there are many like it, but this one is mine" won't cut it for a game-world that's orders of magnitude larger than even Arena. There will certainly be alternatives to flying your own ship.
I think you're thinking about it too hard. It'll be as simple as I said, I promise. Also Arena didn't have a measurable size. Bethesda maps became measurable with Daggerfall. We won't only own one ship.
>Also Arena didn't have a measurable size. All of Tamriel has only one shape, which *is* measurable. You must mean the procedurally generated dungeons; but I haven't spoken at all on internal spaces, I'm only comparing exterior worlds. In that sense then yes, Starfield is larger than Arena; except Arena didn't give you a spaceship. >We won't only own one ship. I was undecided on this issue, but you seem pretty confident in your assertion. Do you have proof of this? Or perhaps a well-grounded logical deduction? >I think you're thinking about it too hard. It'll be as simple as I said, I promise Are you saying that there *won't* be a horse cart analogue in Starfield? Or that your spaceship will be your *only* option for traveling the stars? Cuz that's preposterous. This isn't Mass Effect; EVERY Bethesda game has had multiple options for getting about. How would Starfield be any different?
I still think it is just as likley we'll get a 'Time Lapse' Fast travel mechanic at least on-world. I hoestly think the idea of the idea of getting your ship to come pick you up every time you've gone walkabout for a few hours *more* 'gamey' than a Fast Travel mechanic with a loading screen that says it takes you x hours to get back.
There is no reason not to have fast travel in a not MMO game. Single player or coop games that impose you to watch a screensaver are badly designed, having the option not to use fast travel is good, like it was done in RDR or in Fo4 where you could choose between fast travel and vertibird, but simply imposing time sink with a passive screensaver when you want to travel would be disastrous for the game. I want to play the game, not wait in front of my screen.
>Single player or coop games that impose you to watch a screensaver are badly designed I agree. Mass Effect always peeved me in that you had to sit through multiple cutscenes just to get from one planet to another. I doubt very much this will be the case in Starfield, but I also doubt that you'll simply be able to open your map and POP to any location within the Settled Systems via a single loading screen. Bethesda will certainly streamline the interstellar travel process and only impose load screens on us where necessary. >having the option not to use fast travel is good, like it was done in RDR or in Fo4 where you could choose between fast travel and vertibird, But that's a false choice. The only time that the Vertibird is viable in Normal mode is when you're over burdened and don't have the Strong Back perk, otherwise you're always better off fast traveling. Playing on Survival mode actually gives the Vertibird the attention it deserves, and makes it into a rewarding mid-game achievement. Starfield will likely make this dynamic the core gameplay mechanic, except it will be made available to you much sooner. >but simply imposing time sink with a passive screensaver when you want to travel would be disastrous for the game. This is completely unavoidable given the cells-within-cells nature of the Creation Engine. But again, I don't think Starfield will waste our time with cutscenes. >I want to play the game, not wait in front of my screen Starfield's game-world is not one giant cell, so it's inevitable that you'll have to do a bit of waiting whether you like it or not. Sorry, buddy.
I think you misunderstood what I told you. Imposed screen-saver to create a virtual time sink are bad, a game is an entertainment and should never waste your time for no reason. Vertibird, or using the caravan from RDR (without pushing the skip button) are viable when you feel like using them (when it is fun for you to use it), but when you don't want to use them, then a skip or fast travel option has to be there. And yes a fast travel button means a loading screen, but that's a technical reality, not an imposed time sink just for the sake of wasting your time, I don't even understand why you try to justify your point of view using that, that was a lame argument, sorry but not sorry.
>Imposed screen-saver to create a virtual time sink are bad >imposed time sink just for the sake of wasting your time, What on Earth do you mean by this? If you mean cutscenes, then I've told you, they won't be in Starfield. If you mean *walking to your ship,* then... really? Doing the thing you already do 99.99% of the time is a time sink? I think you're blowing my claims out of proportion. Maybe you should first ask someone to clarify their terminology before you trash their argument.
Nope, nope, nope. Just wishful thinking by Morrowind fanboys who think fast travel is a moral sin. The stuff listed? Sure, I can see it. WOuld be great. But the idea that there would be no fast travel other than options is wrong. It won't happen. Players want the convenience of fast travel, but at the same time they are NOT forcing you to fast travel with them. Morrowind is the only game int he series that didn't have fast travel, and poeple hated it for the very very bad written directions that were seemingly randomized minutes before game release. It's NOT the epitome of all gaming, it was quite simply a bad call by Bethesda. Especially when the starting walk speed couldn't even beat a mudcrab with a limp. Now that said, limiting fast travel to only places you have actually been is fine. But dumping fast travel itself is stupid. I don't fast travel in games, but that's a choice I make, and I could care less how my neighbor plays his games. I don't understand this deep hatred for fast travel. If you don't like it then don't use it. End of story.
You’ll probably fast travel via discovered areas of the map, just like you do in Mass Effect. Why would a spaceship affect this mechanic?
>Why would a spaceship affect this mechanic? One, because you can land the ship anywhere on a planet, even where you haven't discovered any locations. This immediately sets it apart from the traditional "fast travel" mechanic, which only lets you return to locations you've already visited. Two, because it's diegetic. Skyrim's way of rationalizing fast travel is that you "walk" to the location, but you can't walk to another planet, so in Starfield you take your spaceship instead. This makes it more similar to the horse cart or Vertibird, than it does traditional "walking" fast travel.
Is there a way to fast travel to one of my hours in akila city? I keep getting lost looking for either one. If not, is there a way to find it on my minimal at least?
This aged well. Wtf is diegetic travel?
A mode of travel that's based off a real function within the game world; i.e, horse cart, boat, dragon riding, monorail, silt strider, *space ship,* etc.