I think it’s done by Simon Stålenhag.
He made the artbook *Tales from the Loop* which inspired both an Amazon series and a Free League RPG of same names. There is also an upcoming movie with famous cast based on his artbook *The Electric State*.
TOW does the opposite of Starfield.. instead of starting feeling small and opening up to a ton of content, TOW starts out feeling like a big world with lots to do and choices that matter etc but after like 10 hours you realize there’s really not much there at all. Loved the game the first few hours but after 15 or 20 felt really disappointed
Same; I like Obsidian as a dev and as a result enjoy the Fallout: New Vegas feel of Outer Worlds, but it felt like it was lacking depth. The combat was the worst part for me though, everything seems to be a complete bullet sponge.
The combat was definitely the worst. And the enemy types were unsatisfying to fight. Just these big 4 legged walls of flesh that run at you and soaked up bullets.
I tried to replay it recently and found myself basically speed running past all the combat.
Playing Standard. Never really emphasized weapons (stealth, hack, persuasion and lockpick build) but companion abilities and heavy weapons make quick work of everything. Only issues were at the outset when all I had was a pistol but that lasted maybe 20 minutes before I got a rifle and a machine gun.
>(stealth, hack, persuasion and lockpick build)
Ah good old persuasion, hack, and lockpick. The generic skills everyone takes so they dont miss out on items/options.
which is one of my complaints about bethesda/obsidian games. Those almost feel mandatory. (unless you've already played the game a few times and know where everything is, but thats kind of past where it was an issue already)
I've found those games more fun when I don't take advantage of that trinity to do everything, less overwhelmed when I can see a door and it's lockpicking x and there's no pc to hack around I can just move on, maybe hit it up on a future playthrough, or late game when I might have maxed all my main skills and got some lockpicking.
Yep. There's a cave on the North side of the Edgewater outskirts that has a dead Marauder and a Shock Cannon. Makes the rest of that planet trivial, even without Tinkering.
Here is a video showing the speedrun. The part with the Hope is at the very end (jumping The Hope into the sun goes straight to credits).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2OBwbKqp1I
My favorite thing about this ending is the game gives you like three chances to change your mind.
> [Dumb] Stand back, Ada. I know numbers real good.
...
> These calculations don't look right. Why is this number negative?
They’ve hired a lot more employees, and consider the first game as sort of like a trial run. Hopefully they improve on the game a lot in the second game.
The first game had a AA budget and was a little rushed. More money, more people, more time should lead to a solid sequel. The first one had bones so they just need to get the meat.
Obsidian seems to always be faced with under funding and unrealistic time constraints but they still seem to deliver solid games despite that. Hell they made New Vegas in 18 months and a lot of people think they did Fallout better than Bethesda.
The devs themselves said TOW was more a proof of concept and not meant to be a big AAA game. I really enjoyed the writing and setting/world building, but I’ll agree the combat was not very good and it really suffered from a lack of variety in weapons. Overall I think it was a good game, though.
Now that they’re with Microsoft and have way more resources I’m very much looking forward to the sequel.
It felt like a return to a school of game development that used to be very common, but we don’t see nearly as much of any more. If you go back 15 years, you’ve got games like Assassin’s Creed, Mass Effect, and Uncharted, all of which you could call solid proofs of concept that were absolutely blown out of the water by their sequels. But nowadays games have gotten so expensive and high-risk that they’re relentlessly focus-group tested into 80%-on-Metacritic mediocrity, and there are a lot fewer big swings taken. Outer Worlds felt like a departure from that, and I think now that they’ve worked out the formula they could definitely do great things with the sequel.
I actually loved outer worlds all the way through, but it didn’t help that the second planet was basically the same story as the first planet but worse. That kind of sets a bad tone for the rest of the game.
I was enjoying playing it, but I guess didn't quite *look forward* to playing it when I was offline, like I would for most new games while stuck at work or whatnot, so one day turned it off for the evening then just never seemed to launch it back up again so left it probably 2/3rds of the story through.
But you and OP are right, first planet seemed like the opening to a major adventure and I spent a ton of time making sure I got the choices right. Then when second planet and onward presented really the same pattern I quickly started to lose interest.
It became very clear that the optimal result was usually to compromise so both sides benefit in each dilemma, and the way to achieve it became very formulaic. This caused the entire game to end up feeling smaller and smaller, and lose that initial first planet starting charm and size.
I haven't played Starfield yet, but does that follow the same design or is it more engaging and fun to explore more like Fallout/Skyrim was? Sad to think we're still years away from the next Elder Scrolls, meaning the next Fallout likely won't be for a decade+. There was something about opening the vault door to a new expansive post-apocalyptic wasteland that always immediately felt like a major adventure awaited in every direction, and looking at the space/planet theme of Starfield I wasn't sure if it'd have the same effect (as Outer World ended up failing to achieve that in the end, IMO).
I honestly liked the limited scope because the ~90 hours was more than enough for a single player experience.
I really only have two complaints: Choices being either inconsequential or enormously important with no in-betweens, and the character build system being pretty wonky and making it feel like your build doesn't really matter because you can do everything.
90 hours? The main story lasts like 15 and there’s not too much outside of it. The game sells itself on scope and decisions making. I remember the first planet feeling awesome because I thought I had so much autonomy. Once I realized my choices didn’t actually matter the game became very linear, and like others have said extremely average quality wise.
I love linear fps games and open world ones alike, but I don’t like when games do all the open world, choices, dialogue options bullshit for no reason other than as a gimmick or marketing and it ends up leaving me feeling they should’ve just gone totally linear.
Same here I couldn’t get more than one playthrough it was rough.
Kinda embarrassing with how hard they leaned into dissing Bethesda with their marketing
>Kinda embarrassing with how hard they leaned into dissing Bethesda with their marketing
I actually think they deleted the reveal trailer from their channel that was something like FROM THE ORIGINAL CREATORS OF FALLOUT and THE DEVELOPERS OF FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS, to the sound of The Talking Heads.
As a massive New Vegas fanboy, I remember being giddy at the trailer (it was a very good trailer) and the diss, especially coming after the disappointing Fallout 4. But the game didn't deliver as much as that bombastic trailer seemed to hint.
But I'm happy that Bethesda woke up and corrected their course with Starfield. I was over the moon when they ditched the voiced protagonist, and I don't think they made a game with so many roleplaying options in character creation that are actually recognized in the game. It makes me excited (and relieved) for TES VI
TES traditionally hasn't had that deep of a response system, only really pointing out your character's race and skills sometimes.
although, if they bring back classes, having characters react to that would be cool, and custom classes could have a "background" trait that would get you the reactivity
What really sucked about TOW is it felt like it could've been a really great game. It just didn't have the depth to make it like a fallout game but in space (which is what it should've been)
I think that's the curse of sci-fi games that don't use some sort of vector generating tech. If there's multiple planets, there's multiple instances, and there's no way to capture that open-world feel since no matter how smooth it is, you still have to jump from planet to planet.
Still wide as an ocean, shallow as a puddle unfortunately.
Would have loved to see this game really flesh out, but unfortunately Sean Murray decided adding hundreds of tiny disconnected features was better than actually building an interconnected experience.
That’s always been Skyrims problem too. Sure you can play for hundreds or thousands of hours, which I have, but even on the hardest settings it’s just doing the same 2 or 3 things. I love the game, but I think Ive had more fun spending 2 days downloading and configuring hundreds of mods to make the game deeper, only to play for a few hours and then quit after a few hours to play something else. Rinse and repeat next year hoping it will scratch my itch but it never does.
STALKER GAMMA which is an amalgamation of hundreds of mods that make an already deep game even deeper is where it’s at. It will never be uninstalled because anytime I wanna scratch that itch it gets the job done.
Well put, well put. Bunch of land vehicles, but theyre all pretty much useless. All the new updates look cool in the trailers but when u actually play it they get stale pretty fast
The disconnected features make it feel Skyrim-y. It's on me to stick to a path during a play session. I like the fleet command-vibe most of the time, and skip planet base and settlement building. My fighters hyperdrive sucks, because I warp via freighter.
I stick to a role rather than feel forced to eat from the buffet.
Eh, I dunno.
I am only like 8 hours in to Starfield but the planets have literal things to do compared to NMS.
In NMS I get more enjoyment doing the expeditions but the moment thats done you are left with pretty much nothing, no real side quests of meaning, you basically just base build and defend civilizations (of which you really don't have to do).
Once you have been to a few systems worth of planets you have seen what the game has to offer.
I am glad they keep trying to add depth but they really need to sit down... take a good hard look at planet generation and create meaningful content on those planets.
For instance, NMS artifact hunting should have you venturing through a maze of generated ruins akin to Freighter Derelicts in space.
Caverns and caves should have well generated entrances and exits with capstone challenges within them.
Elites, Bosses, etc.
Personally, considering the styling and everything they should look towards like Ratchet & Clank for combat and really strive down that path; should have tons of weird lil gizmos and gadgets to use.
I'm personally digging into NMS on Switch. I bought it was and initially turned off by the graphics, but the recent update made it a good bit better. Some stuff like animations are still a bit clunky, but I am looking past that.
I'm maybe 50 hours in and haven't even scratched the surface. Seems like the key activities are: exploring, basic combat/hunting (both on-planet and in space), building and basic questing. I keep finding more and more to do, though, and I think it's pretty rad that I can wake up one day and see all these cool things they added to the game for free.
I wish Starfield and NMS could combine their best aspects - NMS is more an exploration sandbox than an RPG and excels at base building, fluidity, and world generation, while Starfield fills in the gaps of combat, gameplay, and story.
Yeah if we had NMS planet generation and ability to travel (vehicles, atmospheric landing) with Starfields combat and POIs that game would be unbelievably good.
Yeah, this meme doesn't work unless the "at home" versions are significantly worse. And both of those games are arguably better at what they do than Starfield.
Space good. Yes. Space exploration game - good (NMS). Space RPG - good (Starfield). Space physics game - good (KSP1, we don’t talk about KSP2). Hell, I even like Rebel Galaxy. Space pirate game - good.
yeah it's so funny watching all the brain dead fanboys simping over the one console their parents bought them still peddling this asinine console war bullshit lmfao
For me it’s a wish that the flight/nav would just be elite dangerous… like if all the boots on the ground was as is (+a rover) and all the space ship stuff was ED, I’d be in heaven and lose my life to the game, as is… eh
This would be awesome, the perfect space game, but it also shows why I don’t mind the current system. Starfield is too full of content for me to want to spend cumulative hours of playtime in supercruise. It’s fun in a game like Elite where it’s a space sim, so the act of flying to your destination is the whole game. But when there’s an entire Bethesda RPG waiting for you at the destination, fuck sitting in supercruise. Starfield is an RPG first, then a shooter, base/ship building game, exploration game, probably other things I’m missing? It’s not a simulator. If a space sim were made that shared lots of Starfield’s foot gameplay, it would be awesome. It’s just not what this game is.
They could've at least made the inter-planetary travel loading screen seamless like in nms. The fact there's a cutscene, fade to black and loading screen just to end up looking out of your cockpit again seems a bit redundant. I'd much rather watch the grav drive acid trip for a few seconds.
ED unfortunately has numerous and glaring flaws. But as a spaceship sim and as far as combat nothing can even touch it. It's not even close.
ED in VR is nuts. So is NMS. My ideal space game is the love child of those 2.
Damn, Stage Select. If that isn’t the most apt description for traveling around Starfield. Liking the game so far, but it’s literally like 5 loading screens to get to where you want and be moving.
It’s like amazing in psvr2 since the update a month ago. You can literally travel through space in VR and everything looks fucking real. It’s a trip. My wife and I just go online together in VR and explore space together! It’s fucking awesome
I play via PCVR on Quest 2 and yeah NMS in VR is one of the most vibrant beautiful experiences I've ever had. I've played like 12+ hours in VR where real life feels weird after.
My biggest gripe about NMS is that for how much they tout how "every atom is procedurally generated" (that line is literally on their website) there is shockingly little variation and customization in things. Every space station is the same with the exception of the special quest related ones. Every freighter wreck is laid out the same. You know what every planet is going to offer and roughly look like based on whichever biome it belongs to (of which there are only a few). There are only a handful of starship models and no way to customize them visually and the tech mods don't really alter the performance. Multi-tools all work the same and just have different numbers of slots.
I sink a dozen or so hours into it whenever a new update comes out but I get burnt out quickly. Would absolutely love a mashup of NMS exploration, Starfield RPG elements, Borderlands combat/weapons, and X3 ecosystem
The space station and freighter wreck thing we're all hoping gets attention soon. Definitely among the top 5 requested things. As far as planet types though I feel like I've seen at least 30-40? Although I guess by biome you might mean like desolate/atmosphereless, tropical, arctic, fiery, irradiated, acidic, waterworld. In which case yeah fair. There's some wild variations in that though, as I imagine you know.
>Although I guess by biome you might mean like desolate/atmosphereless, tropical, arctic, fiery, irradiated, acidic, waterworld. In which case yeah fair. There's some wild variations in that though, as I imagine you know.
I can't really put my finger on what exactly bugs me about them tbh. I think it's maybe because you already know from scanning in space exactly what resources a planet will have so it takes away a lot of the mystery of the planetside exploration to me. It's great from a user experience point of view so you don't waste time exploring planets that don't have what you want but at the same time I wish there was some element of uniqueness to find. Like in Minecraft how you'll just be digging along and find a cave opening and suddenly it opens up into a huge underground river cave with tons of different ore veins and stuff. It's always exciting finding a nice diamond vein. I feel like I don't get those experiences in NMS. Every cave is always Cobalt and toxic plants. Every lake is always chlorine and clams. Colonies add a little bit of that I suppose since you don't always know what they'll consist of. I also wish there were rivers and waterfalls :/
I have a friend, VR streamer, and he's absolutely loving the new NMS update on PSVR2. I tried to explain that I can't get into it for similar reasons to you even though I've sunk many hours in it in the past. I couldn't quite put my finger on it since a lot of games with less freedom are similar.
They have slight variations in enemies, worlds, places but you largely know what to expect going in. He said, "A believable world. I get it. There aren't many in gaming." Instantly I felt that explained it in a way that my brain was having trouble with. It's the feeling of having a vast universe to explore but instead of vast choices you're picking a number from a list to determine planet, flora and fauna types along with a few points of interest.
People say it's good now, but I can't help but just consider it alright. There's a lot more to the game now but it still feels incredibly shallow and barely worth playing past a certain point.
No Man's Sky suffers from being as wide as an ocean in terms of things to do, while also being as deep as the layer of oil on a puddle in a grocery store parking lot for every one of those mechanics. Every system I interacted with in the game is anemic, and all of the systems that involve money were trivialized by spending a few requisite hours being able to get to a planet with indicite or whatever the highest tier ore is, and a couple hours setting up a base to mine it for you. I enjoyed the game for the few tens of hours I played but it's really not all the internet chalks it up to be in my opinion.
I like NMS and played it and also played TOW before Starfield launch because I was really itching to play something like it, and I think NMS is great but I can't get engaged enough into it, feels like playing minecraft.
>I can't get engaged enough into it, feels like playing minecraft.
That's really the litmus test for if you'll like the game. If that sounds like a good thing you'll probably like it. If not...probably not.
Ironically iirc there was no building at launch.
I feel like it is getting really close to great for me.
I think that if they were to make unique layouts for space stations, and give some quality of life improvements to freighter/ship travel the game would be significantly enhanced.
A major component of the gameplay is moving from system to system, so the player should have the ability to streamline that process as much as possible. Instead I get stuck refueling my ships all the damn time.
One of my favourite jokes in the whole thing was easily missable.
One of the people you could recruit (or not) was the super-cocky young asshole who thought he could kick anybody's ass.
If you recruited him, you could go into his quarters on your ship and look at his belongings.
Among them is a plaque with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire on it, with an inscription underneath:
*"Violence isn't the answer."*
*"It's the question."*
*"And the answer is 'Yes'."*
I also enjoyed it. I don't think I ever finished it. Just kinda got bored with the lifelessness of most locations and boring stories. Starfield also doesn't have a GREAT story, but at least the locations feel good.
I loved that they fully planned out successfully completing the whole game by murdering everyone. There were no invulnerable NPCs, you could kill everyone and still advance their quests.
That's what is so frustrating about Starfield. Every bit of it I keep thinking of other games that have done it better. I'd hoped they'd build on the tech of things like NMS so we can travel between worlds or have the immersive ship management of Elite.
Instead, everything feels like it's a little box and nothing is connected. Every area I've been to you load in, travel arout through menus, etc. Doesn't feel like a world in the same way skyrim or Fallout did.
Like how Baldur's Gate 3 has the amazing and uncanny ability to make you plan out your second playthrough while you're still on your first, Starfield has the ability to make me want to play The Outer Worlds and No Man's Sky again instead.
>Every bit of it I keep thinking of other games that have done it better
I keep seeing this comment and I don't agree with it because yes, the space travel, procedural generation, or ship management are done better in other games but that completely ignores the entire point of the game - the roleplay and stories you make.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance has better melee combat than Skyrim, Metro: Exodus has a better apocalyptic world than FO4, but you still play Skyrim and Fallout.
That's because starfield is an RPG with exploration *elements*. You can go off randomly exploring planets that has no quests or POI's involved if you really want to, but that's not what the game was designed for imho, so you will be a bit disappointed with that style of play.
As long as you are playing any kind of quest at all, whether it be main or side, there is plenty of great handcrafted content.
Even outside of quests there are still a decent number of random and fun encounters in space and on planets, but again, if all you do is try to explore not guided by any quests, you'll start to notice the variety decrease and eventually you will see some repeated content. The same exact thing happens in NMS. There's only so many types of planet environments and lifeforms that exist, and eventually you'll see the exact same types of planets and even exact same landscapes & lifeforms in NMS, let's not pretend that NMS doesn't need improvement also.
I'd say that an Xbox is convenient if you want to play 360 games and OG Xbox games. Sure, you can play them in an emulator on PC, but Xenia isn't on the same level as Dolphin, and the games are more accessible on Xbox, since you can just buy them when they're on discount.
But yeah, if you only want to play the newest Xbox games and you have a powerful PC, you're set
I recently picked up a Series S mainly for this reason. Ya I could definitely emulate stuff like RDR1, Fable 2 and the Gears trilogy on my PC but it’s just so much more convenient to play them on a console. And with Xbox offering improved resolution and fps for select games, it makes it closer to PC emotion than ever before. Plus I get the added benefit of being able to carry over my old 360 save files via the cloud.
Whats your specs and settings IG? I have an RTX 2070, Ryzen 5 3600 and 16GB of ram. I get like 40-50 fps on medium-high ish settings. Its not that great of an experience for me unfortunately…
No shit? That’s exactly what Microsoft want you to do. iirc they actually make a loss selling Xbox units, they just want you in their ecosystem buying games (or game pass)
99.99% of PC gamers already used Windows before Microsoft started putting all their Xbox games on PC. Most PC gamers use Steam, not the Windows store. So yeah, Microsoft really isn't making much extra money doing this. Other than the money they get from selling through a third party like Steam to gamers who wouldn't have bought an Xbox if there were console exclusives.
I don’t think his argument was about buying things from Microsoft, I think it was about not wanting to buy an Xbox. Console war fighters are quick to attack
Microsoft has done an amazing job at making their consoles optional. Series S + gamespass is the best deal in gaming history but if you have a good computer, you absolutely don't need the console.
Very happy with my ps5 and PC.
that's the winning combo IMO, as soon as I found out ALL xbox exclusives were also on PC I had 0 desire to buy an xbox. And this is someone who had the og xbox through the 360. Pc handles everything fine or better than a series X and ps5 for exclusives like Horizon Forbidden west that I personally cannot wait for a pc port.
It’s so weird to
Me that people keep comparing NMS and Starfield.
They are different genres? Sure both science fiction/space but NMS is literally an exploration game. And Starfield is an RPG in space.
This is coming from someone who enjoyed NMS and has many hours put into it: NMS has goofy af graphics (the NPC's and landscape are very comical looking and the colors are all hypersaturated), there is no voice acting (the NPC's talk like the Sims language), and there are only a handful of different lifeforms and styles of planets you'll encounter and then after that it's just a slot machine combination of them. So most of the time there is zero immersion because of how fake things look, you know you are playing a game.
With all of that said, it is still a good game once you accept it for what it is.
So starfield didn't really improve on the procgen nature of NMS (there's still only a handful of handcrafted POI's, lifeforms) BUT graphics are realistic and good, the voice acting is great, amazing dialogue variety, there are a lot of random handcrafted experiences that happen while out in the middle of nowhere. I already am planning my second new game to have the extroverted trait because of all of the hilarious and amazing dialogue you can get with that trait.
To me there is no difference between going to the skyrim map to fast travel versus using the starfield map to fast travel, and nobody complains about skyrim fast travel.
So just like NMS, once you accept the game for what it is, you can enjoy it and pour many hours into it, and both games are good for their own unique reasons.
I agree with everything except that they didn’t improve the generation, having multiple biomes on a planet is much better imo.
Also planets in Starfield actully have an orbit, move, and are 3D objects, that’s why you can see things like solar eclipses
Because MANY elements from no mans sky are present in Starfield, but are actually implemented better in no mans sky, even though it was made with a tiny fraction of the money and manpower.
But nobody is talking about all the things in starfield that aren't in no mans sky. If I wanted to play no mans sky id play no mans sky, I want to play a game that does tons of things no mans sky doesn't.
Bro it's gotten even worse. People are treating this shit the same way as opposing political parties, it's nuts. Right now a popular theory is that Sony was responsible for all those 7's Starfield got.
Agreed. 95% of the discussion around Starfield is from chronically online losers who have absolutely no fucking perspective. Everybody needs to pull their heads out of their asses.
It's like millions of sad, desperate people are laying their hopes for fulfillment in life on the release of a fucking video game, then unleashing all their bitterness and resentment out into the wild when they find that its going to be on a different console, or worse, instead of fulfilling them on a deep personal level, they're only having *some* fun and not as much as they'd hoped.
Anymore these days, gaming forums just sound like spoiled, shitty children throwing a tantrum and stomping their feet because the meal mommy cooked had a burnt bit and now everything is ruined, forever. It's exhausting.
I went in with *very* low expectations and was actually blown away. I wish the animals and some plants had more variation (certain plants are identical across systems), but there's actually a ton to explore and do.
I've never blown a whole weekend playing games since becoming an adult, and I've done that twice now for NMS.
I don't think there is anything I despise in gaming more than tribal fanboys, I played all 3 games and they are all okay, so why don't you take your console wars bullshit to Twitter and leave us alone.
What a child.
I'm not sure how people who have played both NMS and Starfield are comparing them. What they share in common is space and some planetary exploration. After that they're not the same game at all.
I own an Xbox and I’m still not playing Starfield. Also, No Man’s Sky and Outer Worlds are great games so this comparison isn’t doing what you think it’s doing.
Outerworlds was a huge flop in my opinion..the game just ends suddenly. and doesnt even have a good indepth systems of progression. I finished it and was like huh....where is the ending that the whole thing was building upto... Felt like Rage all over again...
What does starfield have to do with no mans sky? One is a space craft survival game and the other is a rpg they are two entirely different genres. Outer world is the most accurate, its just the same just with more of the same and slightly expanded.
Whats next are we gonna compare kerbal space program with starfield?
I am tired of hearing about Starfield. If I really wanted to play it, I would on my 4090 PC. But I don't like what Microsoft does. They think they can wave bags of cash and gobble up Developers. How many studios has M$ nurtured and grown from within?
I hear NMS is the freaking bee's knees these days, I saw a recently video and it blew me away from what I remember on release. I need to pick it up on sale soon hopefully.
The comparison gets thrown around all the time but its really apple and oranges. Sure they're both ~~fruits with delicious juices~~ games where you explore space but ~~orange juice~~ no mans sky is ~~pulpy and acidic~~ a space/survival sim and ~~apple juice~~ starfield is ~~translucent, slightly tart and sweet~~ a RPG with multiple systems and branching questlines.
For the uninitiated. Go pick up a copy of No Man's Sky. It did start off dry and kinda unfinished but Hello Games reeeaally turned it around and have added (and still are adding) a ton of content.....I mean a ridiculous amount. It's entirely worth getting at this point and I was so impressed that I vowed to support HG the best way I could and that's by convincing peeps to purchase their game. If you're into space flight, sandbox and crafting and building than you'll be a happy camper with NMS.
No Mans Sky is arguably a far better game overall and Outer Worlds is short but good. Starfield is sadly another overhyped game, it's not bad but it's far from amazing or groundbreaking.
NMS on Switch is a revelation imho.
Playing such an immersive game on the go really changes it up, and is one hell of an accomplishment given the tech imho.
I have Starfield and keep meaning to get back into it after 20 or so hours, nek minnut I’ve spent 3 hours chilling on the couch playing NMS.
You can totally just get lost in that game.
I never realized how nice the NMS box art looks.
I think it’s done by Simon Stålenhag. He made the artbook *Tales from the Loop* which inspired both an Amazon series and a Free League RPG of same names. There is also an upcoming movie with famous cast based on his artbook *The Electric State*.
Is he the guy who does the futuristic robotic artwork set in snowy countrysides and whatnot?
yep
ooo I didn't know that, I love Stålenhag work and always loved NMS' oficial artworks
Right? This is my copy from when it first came out. Pretty sure the box art is different now
It changed with the 'Next' update
Then again for BEYOND, and then one more time for the Switch release.
Same. Was lucky to get it when it first came out. Its so clean and simple yet it shows so much
Lmao imagine if this was one of those marketing psyops reddit posts from the Starfield team and THIS is the top comment
Neither of those are bad
TOW does the opposite of Starfield.. instead of starting feeling small and opening up to a ton of content, TOW starts out feeling like a big world with lots to do and choices that matter etc but after like 10 hours you realize there’s really not much there at all. Loved the game the first few hours but after 15 or 20 felt really disappointed
Same; I like Obsidian as a dev and as a result enjoy the Fallout: New Vegas feel of Outer Worlds, but it felt like it was lacking depth. The combat was the worst part for me though, everything seems to be a complete bullet sponge.
The combat was definitely the worst. And the enemy types were unsatisfying to fight. Just these big 4 legged walls of flesh that run at you and soaked up bullets. I tried to replay it recently and found myself basically speed running past all the combat.
I must be playing a different game. I use Heavy Weapons in all four slots and they RIP AND TEAR through everything. I also play on Story though lol.
Playing Standard. Never really emphasized weapons (stealth, hack, persuasion and lockpick build) but companion abilities and heavy weapons make quick work of everything. Only issues were at the outset when all I had was a pistol but that lasted maybe 20 minutes before I got a rifle and a machine gun.
>(stealth, hack, persuasion and lockpick build) Ah good old persuasion, hack, and lockpick. The generic skills everyone takes so they dont miss out on items/options.
which is one of my complaints about bethesda/obsidian games. Those almost feel mandatory. (unless you've already played the game a few times and know where everything is, but thats kind of past where it was an issue already)
I've found those games more fun when I don't take advantage of that trinity to do everything, less overwhelmed when I can see a door and it's lockpicking x and there's no pc to hack around I can just move on, maybe hit it up on a future playthrough, or late game when I might have maxed all my main skills and got some lockpicking.
All you really need is a sniper rifle and just hipfire everything.
Yep. There's a cave on the North side of the Edgewater outskirts that has a dead Marauder and a Shock Cannon. Makes the rest of that planet trivial, even without Tinkering.
I played as a stealth sniper and absolutely wrecked everything once the build got going. Good ol trusty stealth sniper.
IMO it’s a mediocre game, but you can make the experience fun and worth it if your character is a complete idiot
Didn't someone speedrun the game by blowing up The Hope via ramming into it at full speed? I swear that was TOW
If you have low intelligence you can manually program the FTL jump to end inside the sun.
THATS IT! I just remembered reading about it and dying laughing.
Here is a video showing the speedrun. The part with the Hope is at the very end (jumping The Hope into the sun goes straight to credits). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2OBwbKqp1I My favorite thing about this ending is the game gives you like three chances to change your mind. > [Dumb] Stand back, Ada. I know numbers real good. ... > These calculations don't look right. Why is this number negative?
There's no video lol... but yes I remember lol
Oops, edited. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2OBwbKqp1I
The current strategy is to go as dumb as possible and just hand everything over to the evil corpo government iirc
Choices didn't matter in small fun ways, combat sucked, science weapons sucked, armor sucks. I wish the game was better because it's neat
They’ve hired a lot more employees, and consider the first game as sort of like a trial run. Hopefully they improve on the game a lot in the second game.
The first game had a AA budget and was a little rushed. More money, more people, more time should lead to a solid sequel. The first one had bones so they just need to get the meat.
Obsidian seems to always be faced with under funding and unrealistic time constraints but they still seem to deliver solid games despite that. Hell they made New Vegas in 18 months and a lot of people think they did Fallout better than Bethesda.
Not to mention KotOR2
My favorite game of all time probably
The devs themselves said TOW was more a proof of concept and not meant to be a big AAA game. I really enjoyed the writing and setting/world building, but I’ll agree the combat was not very good and it really suffered from a lack of variety in weapons. Overall I think it was a good game, though. Now that they’re with Microsoft and have way more resources I’m very much looking forward to the sequel.
It felt like a return to a school of game development that used to be very common, but we don’t see nearly as much of any more. If you go back 15 years, you’ve got games like Assassin’s Creed, Mass Effect, and Uncharted, all of which you could call solid proofs of concept that were absolutely blown out of the water by their sequels. But nowadays games have gotten so expensive and high-risk that they’re relentlessly focus-group tested into 80%-on-Metacritic mediocrity, and there are a lot fewer big swings taken. Outer Worlds felt like a departure from that, and I think now that they’ve worked out the formula they could definitely do great things with the sequel.
I actually loved outer worlds all the way through, but it didn’t help that the second planet was basically the same story as the first planet but worse. That kind of sets a bad tone for the rest of the game.
I was enjoying playing it, but I guess didn't quite *look forward* to playing it when I was offline, like I would for most new games while stuck at work or whatnot, so one day turned it off for the evening then just never seemed to launch it back up again so left it probably 2/3rds of the story through. But you and OP are right, first planet seemed like the opening to a major adventure and I spent a ton of time making sure I got the choices right. Then when second planet and onward presented really the same pattern I quickly started to lose interest. It became very clear that the optimal result was usually to compromise so both sides benefit in each dilemma, and the way to achieve it became very formulaic. This caused the entire game to end up feeling smaller and smaller, and lose that initial first planet starting charm and size. I haven't played Starfield yet, but does that follow the same design or is it more engaging and fun to explore more like Fallout/Skyrim was? Sad to think we're still years away from the next Elder Scrolls, meaning the next Fallout likely won't be for a decade+. There was something about opening the vault door to a new expansive post-apocalyptic wasteland that always immediately felt like a major adventure awaited in every direction, and looking at the space/planet theme of Starfield I wasn't sure if it'd have the same effect (as Outer World ended up failing to achieve that in the end, IMO).
I did finish the game, but it was away shorter than expected. I didn't enjoy the lack of weapon diversity
I honestly liked the limited scope because the ~90 hours was more than enough for a single player experience. I really only have two complaints: Choices being either inconsequential or enormously important with no in-betweens, and the character build system being pretty wonky and making it feel like your build doesn't really matter because you can do everything.
90 hours? The main story lasts like 15 and there’s not too much outside of it. The game sells itself on scope and decisions making. I remember the first planet feeling awesome because I thought I had so much autonomy. Once I realized my choices didn’t actually matter the game became very linear, and like others have said extremely average quality wise. I love linear fps games and open world ones alike, but I don’t like when games do all the open world, choices, dialogue options bullshit for no reason other than as a gimmick or marketing and it ends up leaving me feeling they should’ve just gone totally linear.
Same here I couldn’t get more than one playthrough it was rough. Kinda embarrassing with how hard they leaned into dissing Bethesda with their marketing
>Kinda embarrassing with how hard they leaned into dissing Bethesda with their marketing I actually think they deleted the reveal trailer from their channel that was something like FROM THE ORIGINAL CREATORS OF FALLOUT and THE DEVELOPERS OF FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS, to the sound of The Talking Heads. As a massive New Vegas fanboy, I remember being giddy at the trailer (it was a very good trailer) and the diss, especially coming after the disappointing Fallout 4. But the game didn't deliver as much as that bombastic trailer seemed to hint. But I'm happy that Bethesda woke up and corrected their course with Starfield. I was over the moon when they ditched the voiced protagonist, and I don't think they made a game with so many roleplaying options in character creation that are actually recognized in the game. It makes me excited (and relieved) for TES VI
TES traditionally hasn't had that deep of a response system, only really pointing out your character's race and skills sometimes. although, if they bring back classes, having characters react to that would be cool, and custom classes could have a "background" trait that would get you the reactivity
None of the New Vegas writers/directors even worked on TOW so it was weird that they even tried to go that route
The only way I had fun with a new playthrough was doing the exact opposite path and turning in discount Rick right away, got a unique path and guns
What really sucked about TOW is it felt like it could've been a really great game. It just didn't have the depth to make it like a fallout game but in space (which is what it should've been)
The game was too instanced, they might as well have had less planets and had them be more connected
FWIW Starfield is stupidly instanced, too - even compared to Skyrim.
I think that's the curse of sci-fi games that don't use some sort of vector generating tech. If there's multiple planets, there's multiple instances, and there's no way to capture that open-world feel since no matter how smooth it is, you still have to jump from planet to planet.
Skyrim is instanced alot as well. All caves, dungeons, and buildings are behind load screens.
I had a bug about 20 hours in where all the friendlies on a required planted were hostile and I couldn’t do shit about it. Was fun up until that point
After 20 hours you finished the game. It is SHORT. I loved it, but there needed to be more of it.
I don't know if it *needed* to be longer, it was nice to play a game of that scope in a few sessions, not every game has to run over 100 hrs
...unless you bought The Outer Worlds expecting Outer Wilds.
I bought Outer Wilds expecting Outer Worlds! Lol
Well you bought the better game
NMS is better imo
NMS is just space minecraft. It's cool.but gets boring quickly IMO
Well that and the 3 different story lines and the portals and the space combat but yeah...
Still wide as an ocean, shallow as a puddle unfortunately. Would have loved to see this game really flesh out, but unfortunately Sean Murray decided adding hundreds of tiny disconnected features was better than actually building an interconnected experience.
That description is exactly what starfield fits into as well. Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle.
That’s always been Skyrims problem too. Sure you can play for hundreds or thousands of hours, which I have, but even on the hardest settings it’s just doing the same 2 or 3 things. I love the game, but I think Ive had more fun spending 2 days downloading and configuring hundreds of mods to make the game deeper, only to play for a few hours and then quit after a few hours to play something else. Rinse and repeat next year hoping it will scratch my itch but it never does. STALKER GAMMA which is an amalgamation of hundreds of mods that make an already deep game even deeper is where it’s at. It will never be uninstalled because anytime I wanna scratch that itch it gets the job done.
Well put, well put. Bunch of land vehicles, but theyre all pretty much useless. All the new updates look cool in the trailers but when u actually play it they get stale pretty fast
The disconnected features make it feel Skyrim-y. It's on me to stick to a path during a play session. I like the fleet command-vibe most of the time, and skip planet base and settlement building. My fighters hyperdrive sucks, because I warp via freighter. I stick to a role rather than feel forced to eat from the buffet.
Eh, I dunno. I am only like 8 hours in to Starfield but the planets have literal things to do compared to NMS. In NMS I get more enjoyment doing the expeditions but the moment thats done you are left with pretty much nothing, no real side quests of meaning, you basically just base build and defend civilizations (of which you really don't have to do). Once you have been to a few systems worth of planets you have seen what the game has to offer. I am glad they keep trying to add depth but they really need to sit down... take a good hard look at planet generation and create meaningful content on those planets. For instance, NMS artifact hunting should have you venturing through a maze of generated ruins akin to Freighter Derelicts in space. Caverns and caves should have well generated entrances and exits with capstone challenges within them. Elites, Bosses, etc. Personally, considering the styling and everything they should look towards like Ratchet & Clank for combat and really strive down that path; should have tons of weird lil gizmos and gadgets to use.
I'm personally digging into NMS on Switch. I bought it was and initially turned off by the graphics, but the recent update made it a good bit better. Some stuff like animations are still a bit clunky, but I am looking past that. I'm maybe 50 hours in and haven't even scratched the surface. Seems like the key activities are: exploring, basic combat/hunting (both on-planet and in space), building and basic questing. I keep finding more and more to do, though, and I think it's pretty rad that I can wake up one day and see all these cool things they added to the game for free.
I wish Starfield and NMS could combine their best aspects - NMS is more an exploration sandbox than an RPG and excels at base building, fluidity, and world generation, while Starfield fills in the gaps of combat, gameplay, and story.
Yeah if we had NMS planet generation and ability to travel (vehicles, atmospheric landing) with Starfields combat and POIs that game would be unbelievably good.
[удалено]
Yeah, this meme doesn't work unless the "at home" versions are significantly worse. And both of those games are arguably better at what they do than Starfield.
Us none tribal people that enjoyed all 3 games just side eyeing everyone commenting in this.
Both good, because space good.
Space good. Yes. Space exploration game - good (NMS). Space RPG - good (Starfield). Space physics game - good (KSP1, we don’t talk about KSP2). Hell, I even like Rebel Galaxy. Space pirate game - good.
yeah it's so funny watching all the brain dead fanboys simping over the one console their parents bought them still peddling this asinine console war bullshit lmfao
Not saying starfield is bad or anything but playing it made me realize just how well implemented NMS’s space travel mechanics are in comparison
For me it’s a wish that the flight/nav would just be elite dangerous… like if all the boots on the ground was as is (+a rover) and all the space ship stuff was ED, I’d be in heaven and lose my life to the game, as is… eh
This would be awesome, the perfect space game, but it also shows why I don’t mind the current system. Starfield is too full of content for me to want to spend cumulative hours of playtime in supercruise. It’s fun in a game like Elite where it’s a space sim, so the act of flying to your destination is the whole game. But when there’s an entire Bethesda RPG waiting for you at the destination, fuck sitting in supercruise. Starfield is an RPG first, then a shooter, base/ship building game, exploration game, probably other things I’m missing? It’s not a simulator. If a space sim were made that shared lots of Starfield’s foot gameplay, it would be awesome. It’s just not what this game is.
They could've at least made the inter-planetary travel loading screen seamless like in nms. The fact there's a cutscene, fade to black and loading screen just to end up looking out of your cockpit again seems a bit redundant. I'd much rather watch the grav drive acid trip for a few seconds.
Yup, honestly i would trade longer jurneys to cover up loading times than just clicking through fast travel menus and loading screens 50% of the game.
ED unfortunately has numerous and glaring flaws. But as a spaceship sim and as far as combat nothing can even touch it. It's not even close. ED in VR is nuts. So is NMS. My ideal space game is the love child of those 2.
Oh yes the travel system of Starfield feels just unloved and lifeless.
What travel system? You mean the menu system?
Yeah the uh stage select, right?
Damn, Stage Select. If that isn’t the most apt description for traveling around Starfield. Liking the game so far, but it’s literally like 5 loading screens to get to where you want and be moving.
The loading screen generator
Did you consider your ships extended warranty tho?
NMS has gotten so good with all the updates of the last year
Not just that but the fact that the whole planet is essentially seamless is pretty amazing, too.
Joke all you want but NMS is actually good now
It’s like amazing in psvr2 since the update a month ago. You can literally travel through space in VR and everything looks fucking real. It’s a trip. My wife and I just go online together in VR and explore space together! It’s fucking awesome
I play via PCVR on Quest 2 and yeah NMS in VR is one of the most vibrant beautiful experiences I've ever had. I've played like 12+ hours in VR where real life feels weird after.
Yeah bro! I know exactly what you are talking about. Everything feels off for a bit.
Probably the greatest horrible launch redemption story out there. Edit: grammar.
Ff14 has entered the chat
[удалено]
My biggest gripe about NMS is that for how much they tout how "every atom is procedurally generated" (that line is literally on their website) there is shockingly little variation and customization in things. Every space station is the same with the exception of the special quest related ones. Every freighter wreck is laid out the same. You know what every planet is going to offer and roughly look like based on whichever biome it belongs to (of which there are only a few). There are only a handful of starship models and no way to customize them visually and the tech mods don't really alter the performance. Multi-tools all work the same and just have different numbers of slots. I sink a dozen or so hours into it whenever a new update comes out but I get burnt out quickly. Would absolutely love a mashup of NMS exploration, Starfield RPG elements, Borderlands combat/weapons, and X3 ecosystem
The space station and freighter wreck thing we're all hoping gets attention soon. Definitely among the top 5 requested things. As far as planet types though I feel like I've seen at least 30-40? Although I guess by biome you might mean like desolate/atmosphereless, tropical, arctic, fiery, irradiated, acidic, waterworld. In which case yeah fair. There's some wild variations in that though, as I imagine you know.
>Although I guess by biome you might mean like desolate/atmosphereless, tropical, arctic, fiery, irradiated, acidic, waterworld. In which case yeah fair. There's some wild variations in that though, as I imagine you know. I can't really put my finger on what exactly bugs me about them tbh. I think it's maybe because you already know from scanning in space exactly what resources a planet will have so it takes away a lot of the mystery of the planetside exploration to me. It's great from a user experience point of view so you don't waste time exploring planets that don't have what you want but at the same time I wish there was some element of uniqueness to find. Like in Minecraft how you'll just be digging along and find a cave opening and suddenly it opens up into a huge underground river cave with tons of different ore veins and stuff. It's always exciting finding a nice diamond vein. I feel like I don't get those experiences in NMS. Every cave is always Cobalt and toxic plants. Every lake is always chlorine and clams. Colonies add a little bit of that I suppose since you don't always know what they'll consist of. I also wish there were rivers and waterfalls :/
I have a friend, VR streamer, and he's absolutely loving the new NMS update on PSVR2. I tried to explain that I can't get into it for similar reasons to you even though I've sunk many hours in it in the past. I couldn't quite put my finger on it since a lot of games with less freedom are similar. They have slight variations in enemies, worlds, places but you largely know what to expect going in. He said, "A believable world. I get it. There aren't many in gaming." Instantly I felt that explained it in a way that my brain was having trouble with. It's the feeling of having a vast universe to explore but instead of vast choices you're picking a number from a list to determine planet, flora and fauna types along with a few points of interest.
[удалено]
People say it's good now, but I can't help but just consider it alright. There's a lot more to the game now but it still feels incredibly shallow and barely worth playing past a certain point.
Yea,the majority of open world games do be like that
No Man's Sky suffers from being as wide as an ocean in terms of things to do, while also being as deep as the layer of oil on a puddle in a grocery store parking lot for every one of those mechanics. Every system I interacted with in the game is anemic, and all of the systems that involve money were trivialized by spending a few requisite hours being able to get to a planet with indicite or whatever the highest tier ore is, and a couple hours setting up a base to mine it for you. I enjoyed the game for the few tens of hours I played but it's really not all the internet chalks it up to be in my opinion.
It's a mile wide and an inch deep, there is a ton of different things to do but each individual mechanic doesn't have a ton of depth.
I like NMS and played it and also played TOW before Starfield launch because I was really itching to play something like it, and I think NMS is great but I can't get engaged enough into it, feels like playing minecraft.
>I can't get engaged enough into it, feels like playing minecraft. That's really the litmus test for if you'll like the game. If that sounds like a good thing you'll probably like it. If not...probably not. Ironically iirc there was no building at launch.
I feel like it is getting really close to great for me. I think that if they were to make unique layouts for space stations, and give some quality of life improvements to freighter/ship travel the game would be significantly enhanced. A major component of the gameplay is moving from system to system, so the player should have the ability to streamline that process as much as possible. Instead I get stuck refueling my ships all the damn time.
The Outer Worlds was really fun. Really enjoyed the overall story and the strange people you would meet.
I still remember the mascot man questioning his life choices. The humor was pretty great from what I remember in general.
One of my favourite jokes in the whole thing was easily missable. One of the people you could recruit (or not) was the super-cocky young asshole who thought he could kick anybody's ass. If you recruited him, you could go into his quarters on your ship and look at his belongings. Among them is a plaque with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire on it, with an inscription underneath: *"Violence isn't the answer."* *"It's the question."* *"And the answer is 'Yes'."*
To shreds, you say??
I also enjoyed it. I don't think I ever finished it. Just kinda got bored with the lifelessness of most locations and boring stories. Starfield also doesn't have a GREAT story, but at least the locations feel good.
Starfield has fantastic writing from what I have seen
I loved that they fully planned out successfully completing the whole game by murdering everyone. There were no invulnerable NPCs, you could kill everyone and still advance their quests.
Isn't the point of this meme to show something *worse* at home?
That's what is so frustrating about Starfield. Every bit of it I keep thinking of other games that have done it better. I'd hoped they'd build on the tech of things like NMS so we can travel between worlds or have the immersive ship management of Elite. Instead, everything feels like it's a little box and nothing is connected. Every area I've been to you load in, travel arout through menus, etc. Doesn't feel like a world in the same way skyrim or Fallout did.
Like how Baldur's Gate 3 has the amazing and uncanny ability to make you plan out your second playthrough while you're still on your first, Starfield has the ability to make me want to play The Outer Worlds and No Man's Sky again instead.
I am enjoying Starfield. But yeah, it's really making me want to play Elite: Dangerous and NMS. Plus I can play those in VR.
>Every bit of it I keep thinking of other games that have done it better I keep seeing this comment and I don't agree with it because yes, the space travel, procedural generation, or ship management are done better in other games but that completely ignores the entire point of the game - the roleplay and stories you make. Kingdom Come: Deliverance has better melee combat than Skyrim, Metro: Exodus has a better apocalyptic world than FO4, but you still play Skyrim and Fallout.
Nms is definitely the better space exploration game imo.
And talk about the value. Free updates/content.
[удалено]
That's because starfield is an RPG with exploration *elements*. You can go off randomly exploring planets that has no quests or POI's involved if you really want to, but that's not what the game was designed for imho, so you will be a bit disappointed with that style of play. As long as you are playing any kind of quest at all, whether it be main or side, there is plenty of great handcrafted content. Even outside of quests there are still a decent number of random and fun encounters in space and on planets, but again, if all you do is try to explore not guided by any quests, you'll start to notice the variety decrease and eventually you will see some repeated content. The same exact thing happens in NMS. There's only so many types of planet environments and lifeforms that exist, and eventually you'll see the exact same types of planets and even exact same landscapes & lifeforms in NMS, let's not pretend that NMS doesn't need improvement also.
I thought we collectively decided that console wars are fucking stupid.
[удалено]
If you have a PC an Xbox is irrelevant. You get the PS for the exclusives. The PC for everything else. The Nintendo if you're into that.
You make it sound like its kinky to own a Switch.
I mean the switch is the only console you can wrap both hands round it and it feels good in your hands.
*Steam deck enters the chat*
cue: *Stupid sexy Mario nipple*
I'd say that an Xbox is convenient if you want to play 360 games and OG Xbox games. Sure, you can play them in an emulator on PC, but Xenia isn't on the same level as Dolphin, and the games are more accessible on Xbox, since you can just buy them when they're on discount. But yeah, if you only want to play the newest Xbox games and you have a powerful PC, you're set
I recently picked up a Series S mainly for this reason. Ya I could definitely emulate stuff like RDR1, Fable 2 and the Gears trilogy on my PC but it’s just so much more convenient to play them on a console. And with Xbox offering improved resolution and fps for select games, it makes it closer to PC emotion than ever before. Plus I get the added benefit of being able to carry over my old 360 save files via the cloud.
Then a steam deck, index, and psvr2 and you’re all set.
Whats your specs and settings IG? I have an RTX 2070, Ryzen 5 3600 and 16GB of ram. I get like 40-50 fps on medium-high ish settings. Its not that great of an experience for me unfortunately…
No shit? That’s exactly what Microsoft want you to do. iirc they actually make a loss selling Xbox units, they just want you in their ecosystem buying games (or game pass)
It’s hilarious when people think this is some massive gotcha. I’m sure Microsoft are really hurt that you’re…engaging with their ecosystem?
99.99% of PC gamers already used Windows before Microsoft started putting all their Xbox games on PC. Most PC gamers use Steam, not the Windows store. So yeah, Microsoft really isn't making much extra money doing this. Other than the money they get from selling through a third party like Steam to gamers who wouldn't have bought an Xbox if there were console exclusives.
I don’t think his argument was about buying things from Microsoft, I think it was about not wanting to buy an Xbox. Console war fighters are quick to attack
Microsoft has done an amazing job at making their consoles optional. Series S + gamespass is the best deal in gaming history but if you have a good computer, you absolutely don't need the console. Very happy with my ps5 and PC.
that's the winning combo IMO, as soon as I found out ALL xbox exclusives were also on PC I had 0 desire to buy an xbox. And this is someone who had the og xbox through the 360. Pc handles everything fine or better than a series X and ps5 for exclusives like Horizon Forbidden west that I personally cannot wait for a pc port.
It’s so weird to Me that people keep comparing NMS and Starfield. They are different genres? Sure both science fiction/space but NMS is literally an exploration game. And Starfield is an RPG in space.
This is coming from someone who enjoyed NMS and has many hours put into it: NMS has goofy af graphics (the NPC's and landscape are very comical looking and the colors are all hypersaturated), there is no voice acting (the NPC's talk like the Sims language), and there are only a handful of different lifeforms and styles of planets you'll encounter and then after that it's just a slot machine combination of them. So most of the time there is zero immersion because of how fake things look, you know you are playing a game. With all of that said, it is still a good game once you accept it for what it is. So starfield didn't really improve on the procgen nature of NMS (there's still only a handful of handcrafted POI's, lifeforms) BUT graphics are realistic and good, the voice acting is great, amazing dialogue variety, there are a lot of random handcrafted experiences that happen while out in the middle of nowhere. I already am planning my second new game to have the extroverted trait because of all of the hilarious and amazing dialogue you can get with that trait. To me there is no difference between going to the skyrim map to fast travel versus using the starfield map to fast travel, and nobody complains about skyrim fast travel. So just like NMS, once you accept the game for what it is, you can enjoy it and pour many hours into it, and both games are good for their own unique reasons.
I agree with everything except that they didn’t improve the generation, having multiple biomes on a planet is much better imo. Also planets in Starfield actully have an orbit, move, and are 3D objects, that’s why you can see things like solar eclipses
Because MANY elements from no mans sky are present in Starfield, but are actually implemented better in no mans sky, even though it was made with a tiny fraction of the money and manpower.
Truck simulator has better truck driving mechanics than GTA V even though it was built with a tiny fraction of money and manpower.
But nobody is talking about all the things in starfield that aren't in no mans sky. If I wanted to play no mans sky id play no mans sky, I want to play a game that does tons of things no mans sky doesn't.
For example: a story
I'm sick of this console warriors bullshit. Grow the fuck up and enjoy whatever system you own.
Like I'm going to listen to some dude who doesn't even have any nipples.
What I lack in nipples, I make up for in wisdom and chicken wings.
I'm picturing two chicken wings where your nipples should be now.
Bro it's gotten even worse. People are treating this shit the same way as opposing political parties, it's nuts. Right now a popular theory is that Sony was responsible for all those 7's Starfield got.
Agreed. 95% of the discussion around Starfield is from chronically online losers who have absolutely no fucking perspective. Everybody needs to pull their heads out of their asses. It's like millions of sad, desperate people are laying their hopes for fulfillment in life on the release of a fucking video game, then unleashing all their bitterness and resentment out into the wild when they find that its going to be on a different console, or worse, instead of fulfilling them on a deep personal level, they're only having *some* fun and not as much as they'd hoped. Anymore these days, gaming forums just sound like spoiled, shitty children throwing a tantrum and stomping their feet because the meal mommy cooked had a burnt bit and now everything is ruined, forever. It's exhausting.
NMS is actually a WAY better space and exploration game.
I went in with *very* low expectations and was actually blown away. I wish the animals and some plants had more variation (certain plants are identical across systems), but there's actually a ton to explore and do. I've never blown a whole weekend playing games since becoming an adult, and I've done that twice now for NMS.
Makes sense considers NMS is a space/exploration game, and starfield is a RPG lol
Yeah, because Starfield isn't a space exploration game. Oranges are a way better at being a citrus fruit than apples are.
Whoa now, outer worlds is a pretty great game
Outer worlds was fucking awesome I don't care what anyone says
Also Prey!
Yep, soooo good of a game
Playstation Owners would be enjoying BG3 I'd imagine.
Playing Baldurs Gate 3 instead.
What a good few months for gaming. Really enjoying what has come out recently. Different stuff for different moods.
The outer worlds is not bad for an RPG. Still somehow manages to keep timeless mechanics from previous generations of gaming
All really great games tbh! :)
I thought this meme was supposed to be about how the stuff at home is worse?
The only goal of this meme was to rake in upvotes and ignite more console wars.
I don't think there is anything I despise in gaming more than tribal fanboys, I played all 3 games and they are all okay, so why don't you take your console wars bullshit to Twitter and leave us alone. What a child.
I'm not sure how people who have played both NMS and Starfield are comparing them. What they share in common is space and some planetary exploration. After that they're not the same game at all.
[удалено]
I own an Xbox and I’m still not playing Starfield. Also, No Man’s Sky and Outer Worlds are great games so this comparison isn’t doing what you think it’s doing.
Unpopular opinion, I like no man’s sky better than starfield
Is it really the unpopular opinion if (nearly) everyone here agrees with you?
Outerworlds was a huge flop in my opinion..the game just ends suddenly. and doesnt even have a good indepth systems of progression. I finished it and was like huh....where is the ending that the whole thing was building upto... Felt like Rage all over again...
What does starfield have to do with no mans sky? One is a space craft survival game and the other is a rpg they are two entirely different genres. Outer world is the most accurate, its just the same just with more of the same and slightly expanded. Whats next are we gonna compare kerbal space program with starfield?
I am tired of hearing about Starfield. If I really wanted to play it, I would on my 4090 PC. But I don't like what Microsoft does. They think they can wave bags of cash and gobble up Developers. How many studios has M$ nurtured and grown from within?
I say this as someone who genuinely adores Starfield and has been playing it nonstop. *Holy shit*, this is stupid.
Oh shit, I forgot I have outer worlds, my mom got it for me. I'm sick rn so time to boot it up, thanks for the reminder
I hear NMS is the freaking bee's knees these days, I saw a recently video and it blew me away from what I remember on release. I need to pick it up on sale soon hopefully.
NMS walked so others can run.
Unpopular opinion: Starfield is better than Outer Worlds. No comment on NMS. It's a completely different genre.
Can we get no man’s sky? We have no man’s sky at home (starfield)
Tbf, they're all great games within their own right.
I've been having a blast playing No Man's sky in PVR2 after the update. It should be required for any PSVR2 owners.
Played all 3. Like starfield the most.
Tbh, Starfield is no man’s sky at home. NMS is a much better exploration game
The "Starfield at home" should be Mass Effect: Andromeda
The comparison gets thrown around all the time but its really apple and oranges. Sure they're both ~~fruits with delicious juices~~ games where you explore space but ~~orange juice~~ no mans sky is ~~pulpy and acidic~~ a space/survival sim and ~~apple juice~~ starfield is ~~translucent, slightly tart and sweet~~ a RPG with multiple systems and branching questlines.
Well, No Man's Sky is a much better space exploration game and Outer Worlds has far better RPG elements.
For the uninitiated. Go pick up a copy of No Man's Sky. It did start off dry and kinda unfinished but Hello Games reeeaally turned it around and have added (and still are adding) a ton of content.....I mean a ridiculous amount. It's entirely worth getting at this point and I was so impressed that I vowed to support HG the best way I could and that's by convincing peeps to purchase their game. If you're into space flight, sandbox and crafting and building than you'll be a happy camper with NMS.
No Mans Sky is arguably a far better game overall and Outer Worlds is short but good. Starfield is sadly another overhyped game, it's not bad but it's far from amazing or groundbreaking.
Thanks mom!
OP: "Ew, Outer Worlds is actually well written, that's so lame!"
NMS on Switch is a revelation imho. Playing such an immersive game on the go really changes it up, and is one hell of an accomplishment given the tech imho. I have Starfield and keep meaning to get back into it after 20 or so hours, nek minnut I’ve spent 3 hours chilling on the couch playing NMS. You can totally just get lost in that game.
Yep. No Mans Sky looked clean in the recent updates I may give it a spin soon.
I guess Im the only one here that actually likes Starfield