It's not procedurally generated, but has the blandness and emptiness of a procedurally generated game. That's not a compliment to Starfield. I'ma say it; Skyrim remasters still look better. I havent seen a single planet that looks better than anything from Skyrim.
@@istealpopularnamesforlikes3340 he was entirely wrong. He said they're not contiguous, that it's like a different minecraft seed each time you land. This clearly shows that he was wrong idk how you can shift any of the claims around to make those statements not factually wrong.
@@inframatic you sound like you're just trying to throw any insult you can.. these comments sound like "oh yeah well you're ugly and your breath stinks!" 😂
For the record, you cannot unintentionally lie. A lie, by definition is an intentionally false statement. You can be mistaken, or have uttered an incorrect statement, but you can't lie by mistake. To add to this, while the tiles can be contiguous, they aren't really! Looking at the model of New Atlantis, it is clear that it is NOT the actual model and was made to look to be in the distance. It speaks to what may have, at one time, been something they wanted to be able to do but was nixed and hidden behind large map markers. So, I don't think you were incorrect at all.
Good to see you admit you're wrong even if you're just kinda couching it as if you're less wrong than you could've been. Bottom line is you were wrong entirely when you said it's like a random minecraft seed each time. And that they're not contiguous. Very difficult in the base game to do but still factually not what you said previously. This makes a massive difference in the mods capabilities too.
I think you guys don’t understand high level sarcasm. Luke is just being extremely petty in a funny way by saying he’s wrong. And make some good content as well
I think this test should be expanded on. Maybe someone could land on a random "pixel" and construct a very tall tower, as tall as the game will possibly let them. Then land on the adjacent pixel and see if they can spot their tower. This would prove that the game is rendering adjacent zones and not just amalgamating them based on what is known to be close by. It could very well be that the zone they picked renders a faux New Atlantis City because it knows it's in the adjacent cell.
it definitely wouldn't render anything player built. Because that engine only renders things far away if they have a generated LOD. In skyrim for example, if you add a new building, you have to run an entire utility that generates a LOD which takes a while. New Atlantis probably has an entire LOD version and that's what is being shown here. Which is very interesting, it means Bethesda originally intended for the city to be seen from far away.
Dunno, player created objects might be treated differently by the game. I wonder if this works with a random recognizable mountain range. Also I wonder if all players have the same world if they land on the same pixel.
This screams for a mod where you can land on specific coordinates (tiles), should be possible since sfse is already released. Could be made more accessible by allowing to zoom further into the planet. And the hidden wall could essentially be turned into a door, where you press e and you walk into the other zone.
to what purpose? There's literally nothing out there to find. I could see this being used for a total conversion mod, where you play a game that takes place on one planet and you explore it with a vehicle mad max style, that would be cool.
@@moonasha the reason a modder would want this is to be free to make handcrafted settlements all over a planet and allow the player roam their creation without being tethered to within a certain range of the ship
@@dr_pennysworthyes but that’s gonna be a nightmare for modders. These dudes don’t even get paid, it’s taking 10 plus years for a team of modders to ship skywind, they’re not gonna push that concept out for years to come if even the developers passed on it.
@@SpliffyHusk why are you equating such a mod that effectively just unlocks content that already exists (but is not accessible to average players as explained in the video), to skywind which is an entirely different game rebuilt from the ground up using bethesda's engine? that isn't at all what OP is proposing. I think it's a reasonable expectation to have that such a mod which allows you to explore entire planets contiguously could be made. Definitely was the very first thing that came to mind when I saw Luke's review, and I imagine others would want such a mod as well. It doesn't have to be too complex either. Someone will make the base mod which connects each small map together, while others will build upon that mod by adding things to do in the maps and a system to limit repetitive content within the same planet. And obviously the thing about not getting paid is pretty much a moot point. Modders have created massive projects without profit incentive, I'm sure you can find some examples by looking on Nexus.
@@SpliffyHusk you are talking about a whole other topic as if its the same to what I was talking about. However this is a whole other thing ill mention. If you plan to make a massive mod overhaul why would you expect to be paid? This is a passion project you should not be getting into modding expecting it to be your new job. That is like me building a pool in your back yard when you didnt ask and expecting you to pay be for it.
its not open world it a tiled world with a extreme amount of loading screens, mostly a lineal game, eg, go from point A to point B, do a task return to point A. really really boring and way out dated for 2023. its a 4 maybe a 5 out of 10
@@fishingforfun2926 Lowest rated Bethesda game on Steam. 🟢 Dynamic 30fps on world’s most powahful console, Series X. 📷 Braindead AI. 📷 Dated Graphics and Animations. 📷 Bugs and Glitches Galore. 📷 Loading Screens Galore. A engine that is over a decade old Truth hurts for this xbots, who still think it is the only game worthy of being GOTY it even came out a lot of this 10/10 reviews where fake and bought reviews
It does make me feel a little better that the zones become “real” and next to each other and that they aren’t just completely fake planets. But it doesn’t do much for gameplay to know that
I feel like the majority opinion on this is that it’s disappointing but ultimately not important. I’m well over 40 hours in and I’ve never run into a border, the landing zones are quite large and the only reason to actually try walking that far is specifically just to test if there’s a wall there. As far as actual gameplay goes it really doesn’t impact anything so I’m ok with it for now. Ive played no man’s sky also but realistically the gameplay loop as far as exploring planets is the same. If you want to reach a spot that’s hundreds of miles away, literally nobody in NMS would just land somewhere far away and start walking. Even if it’s technically possible which is cool, you’ll still go into space and then hold down the pulse drive button and it’ll auto fly you to the destination marker which honestly isn’t that different from starfield showing a 2 second cutscene to reach that other area on the planet. Obviously no man’s sky is “technically” better. But if they updated starfield to make the planets continuous I genuinely don’t think I would ever even notice since it’s not a restriction that actually comes up during normal gameplay
@@SnakeFire3 thing is in NMS if there was a landmark in the distance on a planet you would fly there in your ship or drop a vehicle to drive, whereas in starfield if it’s out of the tile you’re in there’s no way to get there. And before, I thought that meant it just wasn’t real, now I see it’s actually still there and that the tile isn’t the entire “real” zone, though it doesn’t change gameplay if you can only do this with console commands. I vastly prefer nms exploration, in starfield I gave up exploring altogether, but ironically maybe I don’t think exploration is important enough in starfield that it makes the game unenjoyable
@@wizzenberry a far better exploration game* but this is one of Bethesda’s best in terms of quests imo, starfield and nms have opposite strengths and weaknesses to each other
If you have any experience modding Bethesda games, you’ll understand Block distance in the ini settings. It’s used for encounters, draw distance, and generally making sure the player is within a zone. You can actually extend this block zone and make draw distance basically unlimited, but it breaks special encounters and might just overload your game. This is basically the Starfield version. Old tech, but it “just works”. The game developer version of duct tape on a wobbly gear.
@@sebastianbronowicki7073it's Creation Engine 2. It's like if you're saying a company is stuck on Unreal Engine when there's 5 different versions, each of them with very different capabilities.
@@sebastianbronowicki7073 creation engine has been around since elder scrolls 1 bro. its literally their own in house engine. their games require because no one makes the kind of games they make.
@@sebastianbronowicki7073 Creation engine has been around since Skyrim, but the engine it's based on is the Gamebyro engine which came out in 1997. The thing is, the idea that a game engine is obsolete simply because it's old is a misconception. A program's age doesn't determine whether or not it's outdated, Unreal is just about as old as Gamebyro, and plenty of devs still use engines from almost 20 years ago. Game engines are constantly being developed and rewritten, the creation engine isn't any different. The issue is technical debt, where you plop new things on top of the old without addressing hiccups and bugs. Those new additions ultimately have their own hiccups and bugs that need to be addressed, and as you keep on piling things on without addressing old bugs you create a mountain that may at first largely go unnoticed, but over time will begin to break things. Developers in general are constantly guilty of doing this because in the moment the old thing "still technically works" ignoring the long term effects. Bethesda is likely limited in the performance of it's engine because there's code buried deep down under everything else that wasn't addressed over a decade ago when they first started making Skyrim, potentially even older than that, and ultimately fixing it would require digging deep into the programming and spending a large amount of time rewriting it without breaking everything, which if you know anything about programming, code breaks just by breathing the wrong way. The thing is, it's the features that the Gamebyro/creation engine provide that make a Bethesda RPG a Bethesda RPG, building a new, modern, engine from the ground up that maintains those features would take serious investments in both time and money. There's a reason the two biggest game engines publicly available are both over 15 years old, and many of the biggest AAA engines share similar ages.
I really feel like the tile based landing is a total non-issue, my problem is the terrain is still almost entirely flat even when you land on a mountain.
@@HaggisDruid Thank you yes that's what I was really trying to say, cliffs and ravines don't exist in Starfield. On planets with no weather system that makes sense but anywhere you find water you will find deep ravines, and also any planet large enough to have tectonics should have jagged mountains.
Its a voxel bnased landscape literally those planetys do not support anything interesting happening out there unless an artist goes and MAKES IT like the rest of the planets which are good. This random planets and the landing zones gimmick is pintless trash imo. Go to the curated bits only these random planets are timewasters.
it isn’t? i’ve landed in many terrains that rivaled skyrim in the mountains and valleys - only thing i want to see is rivers. i see lakes enough but no running water at all
I find it hilarious how throughout the direct the developers constantly said “it’s a Bethesda game through and through” and somehow people got it in their heads that this would be the ultimate space sim.
People expecting an idealized single player star citizen were disappointed. There’s a reason they’ve been developing it for a decade. People expecting a space Bethesda game are having a wonderful time. Myself included.
I don't think people expecting to actually be able to land and explore meaningfully is a ridiculous want. Idk why people have to argue that not being so limited to fishbowl procedurally generated zones means it has to be a hardcore walking sim
Exactly, dude keeps saying "Space Sim" nothing like that was ever said.. Bethesda have never made a sim, would be insane to try that on a game this big
I'm encouraged to learn the cells can be contiguous. I'm confused why Bathesda didn't let us walk into adjacent cells to generate/load them. It doesn't seem problematic to fast travel back to your ship from a neighboring cell but then again shop inventories used to be chests clipped into the floor. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If I were to guess, they ran out of physical disc space on consoles to store cell gen data.
this does absolutely nothing to make the game better. too many clashing and disjointed themes, art design elements, gameplay mechanics, and quality disparity. and the dialog is cringe. it's like a reddit convention rather than a space colony
I think you’re 100% right. I think just a limitation of hardware storage and having to have enough data to keep populating points of interest on the maps would have destroyed normal hard drive spaces. It definitely feels like a developmental choice, and since this is an RPG that is about conversations and playing a role in space and less about the galaxy itself, I’m content with that choice. I already have games that have fully explorable planets and full landings and flying five minutes to get to a planet, but has almost no story in Elite Dangerous and No Man’s Sky.
Yeah, using the console is better than not using it because there's a console command that can tone down the bullet spongyness of enemies. Normally they get +20 HP per level, but with the command setgs fNPCHealthLevelBonus you can change it to something else.
@@qjames0077 it's not. He said one thing it wasn't correct. And he's owning up to it even if he is being sassy. The idea that it's procedural and not contiguous is absolutely different than contiguous and procedurally created prior to being released. He acted like the engine was on the spot creating planet. That's false. 😂 this is actually functionally a major difference. I've also seen people say you won't see that lake cause it's a lie. Turns out that lake on the planet you see is actually really there you may just not be able to select the pixel close enough to the lake to have it on the landing tile.
Brass tacks here is that the world isn't actually generated and handled how he thought though. True, its almost impossible or highly unlikely you'll ever take advantage of this in gameplay, which is why dev commands were used to illustrate it in a practical manner, but it IS very different than what he claimed originally....which is why he did admit that. Everything past there is interpretation/sassyness, and him saving face. TBH I don't think it matters either way, both are just arbitrary worthless bullet points fans and haters use to engage in slap fights that don't matter that they only engage in because of their personal egos and not actual concerns of game quality.
I figured it was an engine limitation. I do think that they would've wanted to have continuous planet maps the same as No Man's Sky, but my guess is that the Creation Engine couldn't handle it, so the whole cutscene/loading screen with invisible walls was their walkaround, and by not having planetary flight or land vehicles, they were able to hide this limitation to the average player.
@@randomrandom84642 your trolling but in all seriousness that's gotta be false considering its on pc lol for sure an engine limitation id think, same reason we cant just open a building door and walk in, still makes you do a mini FT black screen when entering buildings like every other Bethesda game, instanced is a good for it.
To be fair, the handful of games that give you realistic planets to explore are all using game engines built from scratch for that specific purpose. I don’t expect Unreal Engine 5 would necessarily be capable of producing a planet shaped/sized plat area either.
The funny thing is most of them weirdly make you progress quicker than if you would just have an animation (I'm on RTX 3070, so results vary). If you enter your ship the airlock animation/climbing ladder animation would take longer than just the 2-second load screen.
The loading screens just kill this game for me. I did *_ONE_* sideuqest last night, that took just over two hours to complete, and doing that required *_TWENTY SEVEN LOADING SCREENS._* It doesn't matter that the loading screens are only 2-3 seconds each - simply cutting to a black screen every 4 minutes is just totally immersion breaking. The problem here is that many of these quests take you to multiple starsystems, each of which requires MULTIPLE loading screens.
Yeah i agree that it kills the immersion. The game is okay but it's not amazing. After about 2 hours i start getting tired of playing it. Compare that to games like Elden Ring where i could literally play all day.
Yeah that's been my experience too and I'm on a high end PC...perfect game for DirectStorage (as this game is only on xbox/PC) but I'm guessing it's impossible with this engine. Feels like I'm fast traveling every 5 min...even more when you're trying to complete quests real quick to level up
This is why I just play chess. No load times and no clicking on a screen to do things like a “video” game. I mean, how much exploring do they expect us to do when I’m on a quest? Is this some sort of RPG? Have they not read Beowulf? It’s a quest not a journey through space. Jeez.
I would much rather spend hours traveling from planet to planet and system to system to get a mission done 🤡 I bet you're the type of person that fast travels everywhere in every other game and it isn't a problem there
But he was kinda wrong. We don’t know for sure if this can only be achieved with commands, but the point still stands that the world is real and Bestheda actually put the time and effort to make it all feel connected even if it’s not truly open. Honestly this whole debate is invalid because it doesn’t matter if you could travel the whole planet or not; there is simply no reason to do so.
@@hopelesslyoptimistic8231 I disagree. It does effect immersion to have load screens / FORCE players to walk BACK to their ship constantly. It doesn't make the game that much better to kill all load screens, but it does make an impact.
So complicated... It's actually amazing that No Man's Sky, a game with a far smaller budget, accomplished seamless space to planet flying despite being a shitty game when initially released.
holy shit I feel like people are just suddenly rising up NMS rep to just shit on starfield when in reality NMS is still a barebones space exploration game. there are no rpg elements no real role playing in nms, no real NPS's you remember just rng aliens at spacesports. Why is everyone acting like NMS does everything better then starfield lol.
@@idk2865on one hand i completely agree that NMS in many aspects feels empty, and the main quest isn't all that interesting. That being said the exploration and freedom the game provides is enough to keep me returning. I don't think there is any other game with such a free and expansive travelling, you see a okanet in the distance? You can go there, break its ground, build on it etc. At any point you can just do whatever. Wish there were more interesting quests tho, i like games like fallout for that reason in particular and the lack of meaningful quests is my only big gripe with nms. Can't wait to play Starfield tho. Even with its limitations it doesn't look all that bad of a game (my pc is doodoo and i see people struggling to run it even with good graphics cards)
@@idk2865 yeah it's pretty hilarous. If you look at any space sim channels/ space game channels, they are genuinely happy about starfield and the exploration it offers compared to other space games, then you have people that have played neither pooping on starfield lol.
Just because Atlantis appears between neighboring tiles as hopefully everyone would expect it to, doesn't convince me that everywhere else on all other planets is the same way. If there's a hill visible in a neighboring tile and I travel to that tile, will the hill still be there? If "contiguous" only applies to hand-placed points of interest by Bethesda, then sure, but if "contiguous" pertains to the actual procedurally generated terrain... well, you see what I'm getting at.
well, if the terrain is procedurally generated, then the tile will be always the same since it has a seed. And it makes sense what is shown but not accesible just uses the next tile seed...
You eventually hit a invisible wall on procedurally generated tiles, after about 45 minutes of walking in a straight line (which is a lot), so most of the stuff you see in any given tile you can simply walk to. As you won't be able to see anything outside of your cell until you've done an unreasonable amount of travelling that most people would never do to begin with. However, hypothetically (as I haven't tested this) if you were to land on the cell next to your first cell, you'd be able to see/find the geographic landmarks you saw from the first cell. While in cell 1 you wouldn't see any of the procedurally generated landmarks in cell 2 though, as those are only generated upon landing. So technically possible, but the issue with all of this is it's so far removed from how your average person would play the game anyway.
I know a bit about game dev, and Bethesda in particular, so, what I think is the following - there's a low polygon version of the planet, with height maps and stuff. This map includes major locations, aka cities in this case, but they're not ACTUALLY these locations, only their visuals. When you 'land' on a tile, the procedural generation does it's work and generates (or doesn't) points if interest, puts the higher res textures over the existing height map, populates it with creatures and rocks and stuff. But if you go next to a major location, all you're seeing is the low poly version of said city location that's bound to the planet map and is only used for backgrounds. Dunno if they have a script to load said location if you actually land right on top of it or close manually, or it can even load without error even if it is there due to the random generator kicking in, so even if it does have the script and does load, it won't be the same location because a lot of stuff will load differently, like rocks, trees, etc, etc. You'd need another script to make that loading persist and carry over to other tiles... Just like how a tile you previously visited would suddenly look completely different aside the general geography if you move your landing zone even one millimeter (if it was even possible) because it'll generate the whole thing from scratch and no stones, trees or poi's will align Which is actually sort of annoying because it shows that proper open world transition IS possible, if they actually wanted it... Just like how flying your spaceship near the surface, and a lot of other things would be possible, but they don't really want it nor care, as usual
@@SwurvGG You're incorrect. New Atlantis is within an entire tile. You can leave the city and explore the whole tile and other POI without any loading screens.
@@inframatic I can only imagine when people land on the moon again.. "psht this may not be proceduraly generated but it sure feels bland enough to be procedurally generated." 🤦♂️
This revelation absolutely destroys the whole claim about it being random every time you land. Their whole argument was one thing and now it's being shifted "well it still seems like it kinda feels like that cause you still can't go around the planet" yes but now we know it's a design choice, a forced limitation, those are easier to modify
People sleep on the customizable ship part. It really is incredible. Being able to land my customized ship at my outpost that I've built up from a mound of dirt and hand placed every structure, chair and wall decoration on is an incredible experience that is only available in Starfield.
@@XxWolfxWaRioRxX I’d say they’re about on par with each other to be honest. And I’ve played and enjoyed every Mass Effect game ever made. It doesn’t sound like you’ve played Starfield.
@@XxWolfxWaRioRxXthe dialogue and combat in Starfield is at least a good if not better than Mass Effect at times. Idk if you've gone and played Mass Effect recently but while it was fantastic it was released a long time ago and there is far more to do and more depth in this game. Some of the ways you can influence dialogue surprised me often.
New Atlantis is not a wall. There's a pathway that leads right outside of it into the outskirts & I've walked for miles from outside of it while landing in the city. Why? Bc you can land anywhere on a planet & walk within a 10km radius of anywhere you land from. So you can go something like 9km outside of the city before you hit that wall & then you just land outside of it. You CAN explore the ENTIRETY of planets!! Why do ppl not get this?! You just can't walk from one end of a planet to the other bc it's literally thousands of sq kms that the map would have to load at once. 10km radius to explore is already huge. These planets are HUGE!
I also had to learn the hard way that you can't just supercruise from a star systen to another without jumping in Elite Dangerous. Spend hours cruising from Proxima Centauri to Sol and when I reached distance 0 i just got a null object.
E:D had things figured out pretty well, i think. Normal hyper-jumps from star to star and supercruise around each system. It made the ship piloting feel whole, you could even manually land on bodies with no atmo, which was a nice touch. Im not too upset about the landing cutscene, i just think that the whole ship thing is just reduced to fast-traveling and combat in Starfield.
@@vavra222I haven't picked up Starfield yet, I also have zero quams with the choices of the ability land/fly. If anyone ever played star citizen and have flown for 20-30 mins quant/slow burn to clipp the geometry and explode and have to start all over again it's annoying AF lol
@@patrickm.9348 Havent played SC, but i remember hauling stuff to Hutton Orbital (Alpha Centauri) in supercruise for an hour or so, because the jump beacon was some 0.22ly away lmao. I watched tv shows and did some chores during that, it was kinda boring but i made great money relatively hassle-free.
@@kevinmlfcEverything that people wanted in Starfield but didn't get is already in No Man's Sky. That's just an objective fact. Obviously NMS doesn't have a fully fleshed out campaign in the traditional sense, but if you want the full space and planet exploration with base building and space combat then NMS has you covered.
@@DroosterH It does have a campaign now and has done for a while, its about 30 hours long and not particularly groundbreaking but it is there if you want that.
Here's a correction to this video too lol There isn't an "invisible wall" keeping you right in New Atlantis. I boost packed over the actual wall, ran up a nearby mountain which overlooked the city, built an outpost with watch tower and can see ships coming and going on the launch pads from my outpost. The "invisible" wall thing has been shown to be massive. It took someone ten entire minutes to sprint from their ship to get to it. For reference, that's the same time it would take you to sprint across Skyrim corner to corner if the map was flat. And that's in ANY direction from your landing spot. So, two Skyrim sized areas from corner to corner. From every single landing zone. Most people will never encounter this during any normal playthrough
@@PySnek flattened? No lol it's been done hundreds of times over the last decade. Just no clip and sprint from one corner to the other. It's around ten minutes
the difference is, usually the terrain isn't flat and the path always straight, and you can't sprint forever since you run out of stamina so the effective time is much longer@@imitenotbe
The guy who did this spent too much time on something dumb. He's literally removing UI elements to be able to do what hes doing...Cant use console commands and act like that's how the game is meant to be.
The landing spot won't disappear if you establish an outpost. Also, certain planets that have an ellipsis in their description have handcrafted POIs. You can anywhere on a planet or moon as long as it has a solid surface - so basically anything but a gas giant. You'll need to do this for planetary surveying ,catalogueing flora and fauna for quests as well as resource gathering for crafting. You summed it up well: Starfield isn't a space sim, it's a Bethesda rpg with a space setting.
That's what I was thinking. Would be a really cool spot to make an outpost with the city in the background. Well I'm going on about the city one. Not the only four landing spots
@@Lacttose but why? The game world is so uninteresting it's baffling. Sure, the shooting is decent but everything else is just fine. Dialogue is so stilted, characters just say their lines with terrible AI generated limp syncing, camera angles never change. If you were trying to keep everything in first person then why are we locked into conversations? I know space travel isn't supposed to be the bulk of the game but it's utterly worthless. To travel to a new mission you literally press L, then R, then you hold X and you're there. Amazing.
@@Nereosis16 Man it's just how I feel I enjoy playing the game I get a lot of fun out of it I find the world interesting. Like I'm doing main story quests then I get distracted doing side quests or exploring a planet. I find the characters interesting and their back stories. I think sometimes the dialogue is abit iffy with the wording, but I just rephrase it in my head when I choose that option.
Honestly the whole planet exploring thing isn’t even a big deal once you play the side quests and faction quest lines.. where the real meat of the game is and it’s best content.
The quests is where the most enjoyment in this game comes from, for me anyway. As barren as planets are, I see no point in running all the way across them. If there was treasure or unique encounters on the planets, sure, but there isn't. I found myself enjoying the game much, much more when I focused on the main story, factions and side quests. Now, tbf, the over-hype about the exploration is at least partially BGS's fault. I mean, Howard went on and on about exploring the vastness of the universe and the planets. That said, I do think there's a good game here, especially if you focus on the quests and ship building and ignore most of the procedurally generated caves and outposts.
True. I've played with completely contiguous planetary exploration in other games like Elite Dangerous, and apart from looking for nice spots to take screen shots, and just the feeling of "damn I could literally just walk toward that landmark and it would take me hours to get there, So realistic", there really isn't much to do gameplay wise.
I found a way around this sort of. If you just leave new Atlantis using a jet boost you can simply run a bit away and create a outpost with a landing pad. Now you have your OWN PERSONAL landing pad WHEREVER YOU WANT AS LONG AS ITS NOT RIGHT NEXT TO THE CITY. I’ve tested this and now have an outpost across the lake looking towards the city and one down in the valley looking towards the city with each their own landing pad
Wow! The lengths this guy went to to essentially mod the game in an attempt to make you technically wrong are ridiculous. Your review is accurate as is.
@@themostbestwizard You don't have to do anything. The game is perfectly playable without having to click a pixel right next to another pixel. The dude only did it to prove the tiles are connected.
@@400thekiller233 no that is wrong. You have to do more than that... and you would know it if you watched the video. Furthermore, if you do go through all the steps to make that happen the game will completely jank out because it is NOT designed to be used that way.
@@Deadener no if you had watched the video, you would know that you have to do a lot of weird stuff to make that happen... and then the game will act really janky because that is NOT how the game was designed to act.
You didn't talk about the coolest part about her flying to Pluto, she had to keep waking up every 30 min because the planets actually follow their orbits, so not only is it a "png" in the distance, it moves and rotates around the sun!
I tried going from Jemison orbit to The Eye by manual flight yesterday - trip was 5000km, or at least that was when I took a screenshot, so probably more. When I finally got there, I forgot to account for the fact that the station has an orbital velocity heading in the other direction. Overshot the station, and no matter how hard my little Frontier tried, I couldn't catch up with it going in the other direction, as I was further away from Jemison's surface xD
There already is a mod that removes the cell-border limit and be able to walk around the whole planet, It's been available since day 1 of early access, lmao
Basically. They could have allowed you to select individual tiles but decided it would be more immersive to just let you pick randomly and build landing pads if you ever wanted to go back to a place. Which I agree with if I want a space flight sim ill play no mans sky again and quit after a few days.
So instead of giving us the entire planet that's just split up into cells that load and unload as we travel they decided to do this goofy "landing zone" thing, i'd even take having loading screens between those tiles, as long as it's not going back into orbit just to land right next to the spot i was just at like i see literally no reason not to, if all of the tiles are there/can be generated then why not just let us travel between them without having to go back to the ship every time, even if it's not "intentional" a lot of players will still want to have that option (and correct me if i'm wrong but i'm pretty sure that seamless exploration was mentioned by bethesda multiple times so it was clearly intended at some point) but ig once again, let's just leave it to the modders, right?
It’s almost like they started out trying for contiguous planets completely explorable without loading screens then figured out that procedural generation on vast sizes like this is beyond boring and also got technically difficult or something and implemented the large icons, landing storage limit and invisible walls
To what end? Seems to me that outside of a few cities, Starfield just put 3 or 4 small structures per tiles. It already sounds quite boring already, not sure why you'd like to get more of that. Look at the footage in this video, isn't it already immersion breaking to see that city from afar?! In case this wasn't obvious enough, being able to see it from afar makes it even more obvious: A single city on an entire planet is stupid as fµck... Not sure why you'd want to break the illusion even more...
What promise? What in any of their marketing or statements is just a straight out lie? Please provide me a source... They spelled out what the game was and it is indeed that... Not their fault yall dreamed up something else.
Modders aren't going to "fix" anything. You're going to wait a few years for what exactly? What was promised? Works pretty well for most. The only thing I'd like the modders to do that Bethesda won't is to remove the pathetic pronouns.
I mean, yeah, I've been having a blast with it, but damn, the planet explorations are really anticlimactic, and if you want to 100% survey a planet, it's tedious af. I mean, I really spent more than an hour and a half looking for a fish on one. Also, I have this gravity jump bug that literally gets me stuck in space, forcing me to load a previous save because I can't land anywhere. I'm already 20+ hours in, but it´s basically unplayable rn for me because of this bug.
Why would anyone want to explore in a game where "1000s of planets to land on and explore" was a major talking point of the developers? It just boggles my mind.
It is very odd that they've created entire planets, but not made them seamlessly traversable... I theory, they should have been able to procedurally generate neighboring tiles once we had landed on one, so that we could cross over without any load screen... I guess one reason they didn't do this, is because then the game would have to remember and keep track of what all these locations look like. Instead the way they've done it, they can just delete the oldest one and free up memory. If we were to visit a deleted field (pixel) again later (assuming we could find it), it would probably look completely different (because the game won't remember what was created there last time).
To manage my expectations I constantly think of the world and planet exploration as a more open mass effect. Feels a bit the same. I don’t mean andromeda, I mean 1 and 2. Which I don’t find bad. I enjoy it
My problem with this system is that I don't know if they did this this way because they wanted to or because they couldn't make a system of loading and deloading zones in a seamless way. My intuition tells me that this system was made this way due to console ram limitations or ssd speed limitations or something like that and it could be modded into the game as in loading the zone you are in plus the 8 zones around you and then loading and deloading as you move. Although interes points would have to be more sparse.
Bethesda made this game on a rehashed version of a game engine that's well over a decade old. It's also why there's no land vehicles, why there's no actual flying in the game, why the graphics look dated and why frame rates struggle even on the most powerful GPUs available.
I play a fuckton of No Man's Sky but like, a lot of people seem to be acting like No Man's Sky has always been the levels of impressive it is rn. People are like "Oh Starfield can't do this this and this but No Man's Sky can" and its like.... No Man's Sky only *recently* got all these cool things, and frankly, No Man's Sky's exploration is still just as bad as Starfield's. Planets and points of interest in No Man's Sky have been roughly the same since the NEXT update a handful of years ago, and they've never added any new main storylines. They've added some new planet types, but they're all rare and you don't see them very often. I'm not sure No Man's Sky is really the flex a lot of people seem to think it is, and it really looks like people only cite NMS's seamless space to planet travel but don't understand why it works, and they don't understand how long it took No Man's Sky to get to the point its at. No Man's Sky's planets have PlayStation 2 geometry, you can only dig like 10 feet underground before you hit the barrier, outposts are all built the same and haven't really gotten an improvement in years, you can't change how your ship looks, multi-tool combat is really awkward and stilted. Like, once you've seen at least two paradise planets, you've seen all of them and for some reason despite the name "paradise planet" they all have either superheated or radioactive weather. All ice planets are the same with the only difference being tree density. Exotic planets are cool, but they don't serve as much practical purpose as they do aesthetic purpose. No Man's Sky has a much bigger emphasis on space exploration than Starfield ever advertised, and its remained virtually unchanged since the game launched. All NMS expanded on was base building, Nexus missions, and side-content. The main draw of the game, exploring planets, is still essentially launch quality. Yeah, Starfield's planets are kinda barren oftentimes too (which personally considering the setting of Starfield, I can forgive it since Starfield takes place in our galaxy while NMS takes place in a multiverse simulation inside of an alien supercomputer and absolutely can get away with wackier shit than Starfield) and NMS definitely does a better job with alien animals, but like.... at least I can actually explore these cool outposts and spend a *lot* of time looting them in Starfield. In No Man's Sky, the only interesting generated structures that you can actually get something out of are derelict freighters in space and I guess buried temples, but those are literally just "find ancient keys and use them on a box for crafting materials" I don't know, all I'm saying is that the "No Man's Sky has better planet exploration than Starfield" talking point to me feels a little uneducated considering how radically different both games are, what their developments were like, and what their approaches to planet and space exploration are. Like, to me, I don't feel lied to about the game's exploration. Like, the other day I spent two hours looting out fuel depots and communication relays and came out stacked on loot. The most amount of time you spend at a random structure in NMS is two seconds because 90% of them are just lore terminals.
very true I can tell some people here haven't played no mans sky and dont realize how empty that game is lol. Starfield atleast has some big and somewhat interesting looking points of interests, no mans sky's "exploration" is either those language nodes or the exact same looking base.@@StarRider587
@@StarRider587wasnt the seamless space to planet possibe at launch 7 years ago at release tho??? Thats not recent at all. There is no real excuse why Starfield doesnt have seamless space to planet travel, this crap was achieved nearly decade ago.
I do not understand the people who defend this game. The exploration was the biggest point of the marketing. Space travel and exploring planets is atrociously boring. There's not enough variety.
So does this imply that Bethesda originally planned to have the planets fully explorable with no invisible walls, but they couldn't manage it due to hardware limitations? Not that having a larger desert to run around is any more interesting
Im sorry but I can't get behine the whole "only 4 landing areas, they didn't want you to explore the planet" thing. Your 4 landing zones save enemy corpses and loot, so having infinite landing zones would likely fill up your memory extremely quickly. Its pretty clearly a decision made for technical reasons, and not an artistic choice they wanted the game to have.
9:10 Oh man I wish you had opened with this. I was so confused about what the issue was in both the last video and this one up till this point. OK, so tiles ARE contiguous, BUT the game doesn't allow you to travel across them because it forces you back with an invisible barrier. Ok that's an issue now. Although this does sound like something that could be turned off with mods, and if your gonna play a Bethesda game, the vanilla game is just the tutorial, modding is where it's at.
This is a great video, it was my biggest question and flaw in the game and glad it was cleared up. I wonder if that would work with user made outposts, If you made an outpost in the edge of one map and move on to the next "tile", will you be able to see the outpost. I really like Minecraft and other building games so I theorize of people building a megacity that spans multiple "tiles".
Fallout 76 has this implementation as you describe, so it’s possible definitely, but the map in that game is smaller than this and obviously not as dynamic. I’m hoping it works similar in Starfield, especially with it being single player. I’ll get my hands on it tonight.
Good question, and well, I'd say the answer is no. You need to understand what this all is to understand why. Basically, what this video means, is that Bethesda made low polygon low res models of entire planets to act as the background. When you 'land' somewhere, it takes the height map and puts higher res textures in the background chunk it cuts out of that main model, makes poi's, inhabits and loads in smaller dynamic details like rocks,boulders, trees, etc. But these things, as well as your base are all made ON THE NEW MAP that the game generated, and those poi buildings, trees, boulders and your base WILL NOT be loaded into the planet model unlike Bethesda's pre made locations which are. And I doubt they have a persistence script for that stuff, given you can't land close (although you could write one, in theory, would be pretty hefty work though). So, if you move your landing zone even a millimeter (if it was possible) your buildings will disappear, the poi's you had will disappear and will be changed to new ones in other places, and even the locations of rocks, trees and boulders will change, though not the major topography (hills and valleys, etc, all the stuff that's taken from the planet model)
Planets are massive. I totally understood why landing zones don't connect. It's like clicking on Poland and France and expecting the zones to connect. Still very impressive that the game is designed to have connected tiles. Probably they initially intended to offer the option to walk from tile to tile, maybe with the game generating locations on those connected tiles as you walk to them. An entirely pointless feature given how insanely large planets are though. Similarly, you can fly from planet to planet without fast travel, the universe in Starfield is connected in that way. It's just that the universe is so big that it would be insane to play the game that way. But some youtubers did proof the entire galaxy map does exist as one continuous mass.
Fyi, you do not need to land in the exact next pixel to see new Atlantis. If you just land close enough to it you will still see new Atlantis in the distance. It’ll just be quite a bit further away. There’s screenshots of people doing this on reddit
Since this is possible, that means it's entirely possible for there to be a mod that just loads the next tile over once you get to the edge of the map.
Yup, I'm sure we'll start seeing such mods fairly soon. I think Bethesda probably tried to have that, but ran into some issues and just decided to cut it up.
Why would you do that? takes about 10 minutes to reach the border of a tile on foot. so 10 minutes per PIXEL travel. Now count all the pixels a PLANET has. Would you like to travel 627.351.893 pixels? I guess not
I wonder if modders will be able to swell the size of a pixel and make the zones quite a bit larger. But you'd have to remove the 4 zone limit I guess. If the engine isn't designed for it it may come with no real impact on the game.
They basically missed to do three things, seamless planet entry, full planet exploration and travelling between planets via boost for example. However, something tells me that the Speed Boost which we have with the Ships was probably there to get to another planet from one planet, to skip those "7 hours" travelling Real Time.
This is nitpicking of course, but I wouldn't call an unintended mistake a lie. If you don't know that you are wrong, then it's not a lie, but simply a mistake.
Im strangely enjoying Starfield right now and im only just getting ready to leave the first visit to new atlantis. Im appreciating how much more interesting and engaging the world building is. I didnt give a shit about anyone or anything in oblivion, fallout 3 or 4, and skyrim. But already in starfield im listening to people talk, im learning the lore, and at least as far as i am, there is a bytload of good dialogue. And i find myself wondering if i will interact with characters later.
It all comes down to the fact that cities and some other POIs are statically placed in the world, meaning they will never change no matter the randomness of everything around them. This is why you can see them while being right next on an adjacent tile.
I think it's more down to, like he said in the video, the tile width is so incredibly small because the planet is extremely large. Like imagine putting a New Atlantis sized city on planet earth, and that's the full extent to the population density on that whole planet. If your largest and only city is the size of a campus, then going with full scale planets is an absolutely terrible design choice.
If this game came out 10 years ago in exactly the same state, there would be very little complaints. Society now complains about every little thing known to man!!!! The grass not green enough... too many cracks in sidewalk... the moon should be closer on date night!!!! Sheeeeshhh!!!!!
Given the landing zones sizes (pixels) relative to the planet sizes, this makes the planets in Starfield absolutely gigantic, possibly close to 1.1 scale. I don't think anyone would have the patience and dedication to explore that in its entirety even if rovers are added in. In 50h of gameplay, I never reached the end of one tile, and I have done a heck of a lot of exploration !
Seeing people crying about not being able to walk around an entire planet are genuinely nitpicking for the sake of it. Who wants to walk around an entire planet??
That's not the point of why there should be transport, the point is 1- it still takes you FOREVER to walk to poi's 2- YOU HAVE A FRIGGING SPACESHIP, WHY ARE YOU WALKING 3- it's THE FUTURE, WHY ARE YOU WALKING AROUND FOR 5-20 MINUTES, often in hostile environments, unprotected???
@mkzhero Not sure what your point is. To be honest 🤔 I'm not debating about the inclusion of ground vehicles here and would, in fact, love for it to be a thing though done well because if it's anything like the Mako is Mass Effect then that's a hard pass for me.
@@XavierLignieres it's just that usually people say stuff that's in favor of this game and against criticism, they say there's no vehicles because there's no need to have them and people who want to explore the whole planet are insane and stupid, missing the point of it being very useful outside of that with how big and barren the space between poi's is too.
@mkzhero I stand by the point that having fully seamless planetary circumnavigation is pretty useless. I have put enough time in ED , NMS and SC to say the feature is pretty overhyped on top of adding further limitations (much less or no biome diversity being the main one) the same is true for space flight though I would say that having supercruise between planets (even if a hidden loading transition like in NMS) would be a great addition to the space travel part of Starfield which I think is its biggest weak point with the beautiful ships it's got.
To me many of the issues with Starfield are actually just little nitpicks & are not a big deal. Will flying 7 hours to Pluto or landing a tile away from a major city knock a score of the game from like a 9 to an 8? Or an 8 to a 7? I highly doubt it & like you said most people won’t bother with these trivial things & will just enjoy the game. I have a friend right now who is losing their shit over characters faces, it not that big of a problem. Now if there’s a game breaking bug where I cannot finish quests then that’d be a major problem to complain about.
I don't care about being unable to fly to Pluto or anything like that. But there's so many small design choices that don't quite make sense or work and they DO add up to detract from the score.
Here’s my question… who actually wants/needs to circumnavigate a planet? Yeah I’m sure the clickthrough rate on a Timelapse video of someone walking the entire circumference of a Starfield planet would be great, but in practical gameplay terms, it’s honestly not needed.
Why lie all the time? The diamond icons are that big just because of the UI, if they would make them as small as that pixels you wouldnt see them, yes they couldve make them a little bit smaller but it wouldnt change much as you still couldnt go to the next pixel as they are really small and the icon still need to be certain size. Also why say that bethesda doesnt want you to go to the next tile and thats why there is only 4 markers for landing? How is that makes sense? What do you expect those markers to be infinite and the planet full of markers? No they get removed so you dont have 20000 icons on the planet, thats just UX design, yes they could make more than 4 but the point its still the same, even if there is 10 markers for your landing zones, they still would get removed eventually.
I think Starfield probably originally intended for the player to explore the planets contiguously but then scrapped it in a redesign where they realized that that wasn't fun. They probably left in some of the generation logic which allows this to be kinda possible, but then walled it off to sort of steer the player towards hand crafted content. Kinda seems the same way with space travel, it was likely in the game at one point but got iterated away from because the actual real scale of space turns out to be terribly uneventful
Seriously, I don't know what people think they are missing... Surprised I haven't seen a comment saying they are disappointed because your character can't get in a cryo sleep pod and travel on a colony ship across the galaxy, during which time the player has to wait the irl time to get there 😂
They also love to hate things and insist to themselves that something is bad just because they didn’t like it, while it’s getting overly positive feedback
@@fightme1265 funny how people hate game critics until the game critics like the same game they do, then their word is law and we should all respect it.
Stop called Starfield a sim. Its not one and it was never intended to be one. And yes, technically you can explore whole planets. And I have no idea why you made a deal out of the marker disappearing after 4 locations - that's just bad criticism, it makes absolutely zero difference to the gameplay or story. Yeah imagine having 500 landing icons on your one planet. That's just dumb and it exposes your obvious bias hate toward this, honestly damn good game.
The fact that these "tiles" are actually strung together and it's not a random fish bowl every landing makes Starfield a bit more impressive and immersive. Knowing that it's there and not a complete illusion makes me feel a little more respectful of the game world.
Hahahaha. Its an entirely worse version of NMS, a bunch of its ideas but 1,000 limitations placed on it. Based on a very Fallout 4 engine and mechanics, except its all the worst parts of F4 instead of its best ones.
@@travisadams6279The game isn't as revolutionary as most thought, it has disappointing limitations sure. But it's big, it's interesting, has some great atmosphere and it's fun to play. I really like Starfield it's got me addicted and really engaged, but it def isn't any 10 of 10 game. And it's clearly a dated design but I don't get why some ppl get so annoyed with other ppl liking this game just because the design isn't revolutionary. This is nothing like NMS. I think if it had more modern systems like seamless space flight and exploration like NMS it would be much more epic, but NMS is a barren universe with no real quests and no real combat and narrative. These games are totally a different vision. And they have a totally different focus. If you like Starfield, I get it. If you don't I can see why.
@@m1garand164 Im glad your enjoying it. Im not trying to give anyone a hard time just for playing it or enjoying their time with it. But I will say that hearing "Im enjoying it" over n over as a response to the quality of the game and experience (especially compared to other games like it) is very telling. Because its really no response at all to the critiques. I enjoyed watching The Room, me and my friends had a good laugh, while being fully aware that its probably one of the worst movies ever made. However much enjoyment someone might personally get out of something has nothing to do with the quality of said thing.
@@travisadams6279I wouldn't compare Starfield to "The Room". The room is so bad it's hilarious. Starfield is a good game in many aspects. It's just not Revolutionary. Ride to Hell Retribution is more the videogame equivalent of The Room. It looks like you'd prefer ppl concede Starfield is a laughably bad game with little redeeming qualities before they say they enjoy it. I honestly think Starfield is a very good game. It's a treat in my eyes.
I really enjoyed your honest review. People need to understand not all games are for everyone. Not a fan of Bethesda games, but game is good indeed. Same with Elden ring, is a masterpiece but I will not have fun playing it 😆
What BGS did with how they placed planets and other things without actually rendering it is a very economical and practical way to do it - which to me really underscores how remarkable NMS accomplished what it did with the team it had. Say what you will about the state of NMS at launch, but the fact you could take off from a planet, land in a different spot, then take off and go to another planet, then land there all without having to "reload" (read: fast travel) is truly a feat of [software] engineering.
No mans sky is not a good game. Its a cool concept but that gameplay sucks. Im sorry. It can do some of what you say because the graphics are not great and the worlds are all empty. Its reload every time you jump to a new system.
I could never get into NMS until the newest update that gave the PS VR2 mode Foveated Rendering. Holy crap, it's absolutely incredible and the immersion is astounding. As a BGS diehard, the only thing that makes me sad about Xbox Buying all of ZENIMAX is that those games will likely never go to PS VR2 (many titles would look amazing in VR). Otherwise I don't care too much because I play both Xbox and PlayStation (when life permits).
These People trying to defend Bethesda garbage is kinda crazy, The´ll cover and mod the mistakes Bethesda made just to make Bethesda look good. They need this game to succeed
Its unfortunate people expected too much, even game developers have limit on what they can create, they are only human, keep that in mind. Personally I'm really happy with starfield, and I'd even admit that its probably my pick for goty this year.....probably because it's the only new release i have interest in and really enjoyed, a breath of fresh air really, because I've been depressed, and playing starfield has made me really happy 😊
you have really low standards if you think this is GOTY material. It is hands down one of the most boring games they have put out. It is a loading screen sim. Bethesda is too derpy to move on from their tired garbage of an engine.
@@SPG8989 When it comes to video games, I don't have high standards because most games that come out ain't very good anyway. Besides, I always enjoy Bethesda games, yeah there games have dipped a bit in quality since morrowind, but I still enjoy them. I can tell you haven't actually played more than a few hours of starfield. Yeah starfields main quest isn't that good, but the side content is pretty good. But no surprise there, its classic Bethesda.
You can explore whole planet using cheats and console commands. I will adjust my metacritic review from 5/10 to 11/10. GREAT JOB BETHESTDA! IMPRESSIVE GAMEPLAY, GOTY.
People forget you can see planet loading right before your eyes in NMS. It doesnt look the same as from afar. Watching cutscene of taking off and landing is much more immersive even tho it's not seamless. I have over 30 hours in Starfield and never encountered invisible wall. I was even surprised that I could jump from the highiest building in New Atlantis and fall to the lowest floor.
@@wassafshahzad8618 And you made very disingenuous comparision. Not poping but whole planet generating because it looks different than from afar. Poping is when something additional is loading and in this case whole planet is changing to something else. and not 3 loadings because you often can use scanner to jump to your destination directly.
loding scrren to enter a startsystem loading screen to land and even a loading screen to enter a city dont forget the loading screen when you enter a building . You can add those up and it isnt 5 seconds for all of these. @@kolo5141
@@kolo5141 The problem which starfields executions is that they have assed it. I would have been far better to you drop the player of in the planet from the ships console something that outer worlds does.
I mean, lets be honest: would we *want* to be able to explore an entire planet? I kinda like the loading screen for landing and I prefer the fishbowls on planets, since it provides a more focused experience. DF actually discussed this and if you consider the point of view of being able to ensure players are always doing a thing...it makes sense
People would want to explore a planet. That’s why they initially claimed that it would be possible in the game. People spend hundreds, even thousands of hours exploring planets in No Man’s Sky. Would people want to explore entire planets in _this_ game? No. Because in this game, even the smaller explorable areas on each planet are so barren and uninspired that there’s barely anything to discover as it is. Bethesda could barely design an outpost or a canyon that was moderately entertaining. From the perspective of a game developer, the prospect of being given free reign to let one’s imagination drive their design process and fill an alien planet full of extraterrestrial creatures, human colonization projects, environmental anomalies, political or commercial conflict and intrigue, ancient mysterious, highly coveted and rare resources, idiosyncratic and unique aesthetics, and anything else one could come up with would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity- a dream come true. Instead of facilitating a creative environment in which talented and driven digital artists are encouraged and given the resources to totally immerse and express themselves within this development process, Bethesda elected to settle with the bare minimum. Totally void of artistry. Totally void of novelty. And almost entirely void of the lowest standard of entertainment. Their priorities, as demonstrated through their product, were to create something that would plausibly pass as approximate to what they promised. The planets are there, yes. The story? Yes there is a story. The spaceships? Yeah the spaceships are pretty cool and you can fly around in them. The guns? Yeah you can shoot guns. NPCs? A bunch of them. Now, are any of these most fundamental and expected features executed in a particularly exceptional way? Is Bethesda asserting itself as the legendary titan of gaming development which they claim to be? Are they justifying their unconscionably excessive paychecks and bonuses with the product they put out? As a consumer, as someone who’s given this company your money, time, and who’s life has been in large part shaped by the countless hours of unforgettable memories you cherish from having played their games throughout your life, are they upholding the standard and legacy of quality which you expect from them? Has Bethesda demonstrated that they are truly grateful for and motivated to do their best by the millions of fans that patiently anticipated and then eagerly open their wallets to them with Starfield’s release? This product is what this company has managed to provide us with their millions of dollars and four years of work. An unimaginative, contrived, mediocre, tedious, half-assed game. With so much money, time, and resources, it is obscene to hinge one’s hopes upon the expectation that “modders will fix it” or “patches” or “DLC” or “remasters”. DLC will cost you $40. Patches will be peace offerings to the complaining community in which Bethesda will expect your rousing applause for simply putting something into the game that should’ve have been in there already. Modders will labor away for free while Todd Howard writes himself a Christmas bonus from his home office. And the remaster, which is certain to come out, will be released in a few years. By that point, the standard price for games will be $100. And players will thank Bethesda for taking their money twice for the same purchase.
Honestly, I'm finding it really fun. it's no masterpiece of course and it has it's problems but we've still got DLC that'll boost the experience along with mods that'll improve the game tenfold.
i want to say you can also land on the edge of biomes. if you put a landing zone on the edge of the ice caps on most planets you can have 2 biomes on a single tile sometimes 3. it’s actually a lot easier than i expected to get them both
Join our discord server and become everything you've ever wanted. discord.com/invite/5ZYbXPf
It's not procedurally generated, but has the blandness and emptiness of a procedurally generated game. That's not a compliment to Starfield.
I'ma say it; Skyrim remasters still look better. I havent seen a single planet that looks better than anything from Skyrim.
@@istealpopularnamesforlikes3340 he was entirely wrong. He said they're not contiguous, that it's like a different minecraft seed each time you land. This clearly shows that he was wrong idk how you can shift any of the claims around to make those statements not factually wrong.
@@inframatic you sound like you're just trying to throw any insult you can.. these comments sound like "oh yeah well you're ugly and your breath stinks!" 😂
For the record, you cannot unintentionally lie. A lie, by definition is an intentionally false statement. You can be mistaken, or have uttered an incorrect statement, but you can't lie by mistake.
To add to this, while the tiles can be contiguous, they aren't really! Looking at the model of New Atlantis, it is clear that it is NOT the actual model and was made to look to be in the distance. It speaks to what may have, at one time, been something they wanted to be able to do but was nixed and hidden behind large map markers. So, I don't think you were incorrect at all.
Good to see you admit you're wrong even if you're just kinda couching it as if you're less wrong than you could've been.
Bottom line is you were wrong entirely when you said it's like a random minecraft seed each time. And that they're not contiguous. Very difficult in the base game to do but still factually not what you said previously. This makes a massive difference in the mods capabilities too.
If you need to use console commands I really don’t think the correction is needed
It's clickbait. It's the unfortunate result of full time UA-camrs
Well, you do not need to, it's just difficult to select pixels with the UI in the way.
The console commands didn't change the tiles, they just removed the markers so you could get close enough to an adjoining tile.
Never underestimate a UA-camr's depths of shamelessness. It knows no bounds and is a constant spiral towards the bottom.
I think you guys don’t understand high level sarcasm. Luke is just being extremely petty in a funny way by saying he’s wrong. And make some good content as well
I think this is proof that Bethesda originally wanted seamless planet exploration, but there may have been technical issues with the engine
They fucked up here and limited it. Frame rate and scope. CPU limitations due to storing a billion objects per location etc.
nothing about the traversal system feels like intentional design at all, it feels like a series of systems that were slapped together in an emergency.
Yes the Xbox consoles 🤣🤣
@@user-pn9xp1gz2lyeah, go back to your 100+ dollar bill to play online on your JunkStation
They said at the beginning in their first interview that it just be loading into planets
I think this test should be expanded on. Maybe someone could land on a random "pixel" and construct a very tall tower, as tall as the game will possibly let them. Then land on the adjacent pixel and see if they can spot their tower. This would prove that the game is rendering adjacent zones and not just amalgamating them based on what is known to be close by. It could very well be that the zone they picked renders a faux New Atlantis City because it knows it's in the adjacent cell.
Thats exactly what i keep wondering. We have to upvote this
Based on the original reddit post, the OP observe the city actually was rendered in full detail the closer they get to it.
This test would prove several things. Someone needs to test it.
it definitely wouldn't render anything player built. Because that engine only renders things far away if they have a generated LOD. In skyrim for example, if you add a new building, you have to run an entire utility that generates a LOD which takes a while. New Atlantis probably has an entire LOD version and that's what is being shown here. Which is very interesting, it means Bethesda originally intended for the city to be seen from far away.
Dunno, player created objects might be treated differently by the game. I wonder if this works with a random recognizable mountain range. Also I wonder if all players have the same world if they land on the same pixel.
This screams for a mod where you can land on specific coordinates (tiles), should be possible since sfse is already released. Could be made more accessible by allowing to zoom further into the planet.
And the hidden wall could essentially be turned into a door, where you press e and you walk into the other zone.
to what purpose? There's literally nothing out there to find. I could see this being used for a total conversion mod, where you play a game that takes place on one planet and you explore it with a vehicle mad max style, that would be cool.
@@moonasha the reason a modder would want this is to be free to make handcrafted settlements all over a planet and allow the player roam their creation without being tethered to within a certain range of the ship
@@dr_pennysworthyes but that’s gonna be a nightmare for modders. These dudes don’t even get paid, it’s taking 10 plus years for a team of modders to ship skywind, they’re not gonna push that concept out for years to come if even the developers passed on it.
@@SpliffyHusk why are you equating such a mod that effectively just unlocks content that already exists (but is not accessible to average players as explained in the video), to skywind which is an entirely different game rebuilt from the ground up using bethesda's engine? that isn't at all what OP is proposing. I think it's a reasonable expectation to have that such a mod which allows you to explore entire planets contiguously could be made. Definitely was the very first thing that came to mind when I saw Luke's review, and I imagine others would want such a mod as well. It doesn't have to be too complex either. Someone will make the base mod which connects each small map together, while others will build upon that mod by adding things to do in the maps and a system to limit repetitive content within the same planet.
And obviously the thing about not getting paid is pretty much a moot point. Modders have created massive projects without profit incentive, I'm sure you can find some examples by looking on Nexus.
@@SpliffyHusk you are talking about a whole other topic as if its the same to what I was talking about. However this is a whole other thing ill mention. If you plan to make a massive mod overhaul why would you expect to be paid? This is a passion project you should not be getting into modding expecting it to be your new job. That is like me building a pool in your back yard when you didnt ask and expecting you to pay be for it.
For an open world game, it's strange how closed in it makes you feel.
exactly
@@nikolasmaes99 yes todd howards lies getting exposed, this men is jsut a pathetic copy of pinochio
its not open world it a tiled world with a extreme amount of loading screens, mostly a lineal game, eg, go from point A to point B, do a task return to point A. really really boring and way out dated for 2023.
its a 4 maybe a 5 out of 10
@@fishingforfun2926 Lowest rated Bethesda game on Steam. 🟢 Dynamic 30fps on world’s most powahful console, Series X. 📷 Braindead AI. 📷 Dated Graphics and Animations. 📷 Bugs and Glitches Galore. 📷 Loading Screens Galore. A engine that is over a decade old Truth hurts for this xbots, who still think it is the only game worthy of being GOTY it even came out a lot of this 10/10 reviews where fake and bought reviews
It does make me feel a little better that the zones become “real” and next to each other and that they aren’t just completely fake planets. But it doesn’t do much for gameplay to know that
I feel like the majority opinion on this is that it’s disappointing but ultimately not important. I’m well over 40 hours in and I’ve never run into a border, the landing zones are quite large and the only reason to actually try walking that far is specifically just to test if there’s a wall there. As far as actual gameplay goes it really doesn’t impact anything so I’m ok with it for now.
Ive played no man’s sky also but realistically the gameplay loop as far as exploring planets is the same. If you want to reach a spot that’s hundreds of miles away, literally nobody in NMS would just land somewhere far away and start walking. Even if it’s technically possible which is cool, you’ll still go into space and then hold down the pulse drive button and it’ll auto fly you to the destination marker which honestly isn’t that different from starfield showing a 2 second cutscene to reach that other area on the planet. Obviously no man’s sky is “technically” better. But if they updated starfield to make the planets continuous I genuinely don’t think I would ever even notice since it’s not a restriction that actually comes up during normal gameplay
@@SnakeFire3 thing is in NMS if there was a landmark in the distance on a planet you would fly there in your ship or drop a vehicle to drive, whereas in starfield if it’s out of the tile you’re in there’s no way to get there. And before, I thought that meant it just wasn’t real, now I see it’s actually still there and that the tile isn’t the entire “real” zone, though it doesn’t change gameplay if you can only do this with console commands. I vastly prefer nms exploration, in starfield I gave up exploring altogether, but ironically maybe I don’t think exploration is important enough in starfield that it makes the game unenjoyable
@@k--music yeah nms is just a far better game, this game feels poorly made in comparison.
@@wizzenberry a far better exploration game* but this is one of Bethesda’s best in terms of quests imo, starfield and nms have opposite strengths and weaknesses to each other
@@wizzenberrynms is exploration game. Starfield has an endless amount of quests. NMS couldn’t pull that off
If you have any experience modding Bethesda games, you’ll understand Block distance in the ini settings. It’s used for encounters, draw distance, and generally making sure the player is within a zone. You can actually extend this block zone and make draw distance basically unlimited, but it breaks special encounters and might just overload your game.
This is basically the Starfield version. Old tech, but it “just works”. The game developer version of duct tape on a wobbly gear.
MAN......... MY ONLY PROBLEM UNTIL NOW ABOUT THIS GAME IS THAT YOU CAN'T DIVE INTO the water and no WATER WORLD ?!
AND it's a BIG PROBLEM FOR ME!
Bethesda has been chugging along on creation engine since what, Morrowind? Just make a new, modern engine ffs, you've already pushed it to the limit!
@@sebastianbronowicki7073it's Creation Engine 2. It's like if you're saying a company is stuck on Unreal Engine when there's 5 different versions, each of them with very different capabilities.
@@sebastianbronowicki7073 creation engine has been around since elder scrolls 1 bro. its literally their own in house engine. their games require because no one makes the kind of games they make.
@@sebastianbronowicki7073 Creation engine has been around since Skyrim, but the engine it's based on is the Gamebyro engine which came out in 1997. The thing is, the idea that a game engine is obsolete simply because it's old is a misconception. A program's age doesn't determine whether or not it's outdated, Unreal is just about as old as Gamebyro, and plenty of devs still use engines from almost 20 years ago. Game engines are constantly being developed and rewritten, the creation engine isn't any different.
The issue is technical debt, where you plop new things on top of the old without addressing hiccups and bugs. Those new additions ultimately have their own hiccups and bugs that need to be addressed, and as you keep on piling things on without addressing old bugs you create a mountain that may at first largely go unnoticed, but over time will begin to break things.
Developers in general are constantly guilty of doing this because in the moment the old thing "still technically works" ignoring the long term effects. Bethesda is likely limited in the performance of it's engine because there's code buried deep down under everything else that wasn't addressed over a decade ago when they first started making Skyrim, potentially even older than that, and ultimately fixing it would require digging deep into the programming and spending a large amount of time rewriting it without breaking everything, which if you know anything about programming, code breaks just by breathing the wrong way.
The thing is, it's the features that the Gamebyro/creation engine provide that make a Bethesda RPG a Bethesda RPG, building a new, modern, engine from the ground up that maintains those features would take serious investments in both time and money. There's a reason the two biggest game engines publicly available are both over 15 years old, and many of the biggest AAA engines share similar ages.
Bro... you weren't wrong lol - using console commands and bugging the shit out of the game is NOT how it should work.
First time playing a Bethesda game?
Todd Howard *sound of a loaded gun* "you know too much"
these people will do anything to defend a game they like. Dont ask me why.
@@MultiNumenorI never said this
Except you don’t need console commands to make the tiles connect, they always do, the hud is just hiding it
I really feel like the tile based landing is a total non-issue, my problem is the terrain is still almost entirely flat even when you land on a mountain.
Yeah, I'd like to see some verticality in the terrain generation. Deep ravines, interesting mountains with cliff edges.
@@HaggisDruid Thank you yes that's what I was really trying to say, cliffs and ravines don't exist in Starfield.
On planets with no weather system that makes sense but anywhere you find water you will find deep ravines, and also any planet large enough to have tectonics should have jagged mountains.
Its a voxel bnased landscape literally those planetys do not support anything interesting happening out there unless an artist goes and MAKES IT like the rest of the planets which are good.
This random planets and the landing zones gimmick is pintless trash imo. Go to the curated bits only these random planets are timewasters.
it isn’t? i’ve landed in many terrains that rivaled skyrim in the mountains and valleys - only thing i want to see is rivers. i see lakes enough but no running water at all
There is a lot of verticality but there’s also a lot of flat barren lands. My outpost on jemison is next to a nice slope protruding from the ground
Wow, I can't believe they turned fast travel from a convenience to a downright necessity.
Yeah because waiting 3 hours for your ship to fly you from place to place isn’t fun.
yeah cause flying into a planets orbit for 15 minutes is convenient and fun?
@@NeutroniumIon then why did they put space travel in the game?
@@idk2865 not as much fun as having a huge empty game world with no content because "realism"
@@thatguyseb8824 SO what do you want? Realism or not?
I find it hilarious how throughout the direct the developers constantly said “it’s a Bethesda game through and through” and somehow people got it in their heads that this would be the ultimate space sim.
People expecting an idealized single player star citizen were disappointed. There’s a reason they’ve been developing it for a decade. People expecting a space Bethesda game are having a wonderful time. Myself included.
I don't think people expecting to actually be able to land and explore meaningfully is a ridiculous want. Idk why people have to argue that not being so limited to fishbowl procedurally generated zones means it has to be a hardcore walking sim
Exactly, dude keeps saying "Space Sim" nothing like that was ever said.. Bethesda have never made a sim, would be insane to try that on a game this big
The warning signs were there. The main one is the studio involved.
PS3 to PS4 graphics wasn’t even worst of it.
The AI
The “exploration”
The bugs
Im glad its not space sim, I would get soo bored and fast travel is important in this kind of time consuming game
I'm encouraged to learn the cells can be contiguous. I'm confused why Bathesda didn't let us walk into adjacent cells to generate/load them. It doesn't seem problematic to fast travel back to your ship from a neighboring cell but then again shop inventories used to be chests clipped into the floor. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If I were to guess, they ran out of physical disc space on consoles to store cell gen data.
Creation Engine is duct taped together, of course they are going to take as many shortcuts as possible.
@@aw2031zap consoles are the limitation. if this was a pc exclusive it would easily be 300 gb
Probably because its a single player story driven RPG where the focus is story telling and dialog. Most everything else is backburner fluff
this does absolutely nothing to make the game better. too many clashing and disjointed themes, art design elements, gameplay mechanics, and quality disparity. and the dialog is cringe. it's like a reddit convention rather than a space colony
I think you’re 100% right. I think just a limitation of hardware storage and having to have enough data to keep populating points of interest on the maps would have destroyed normal hard drive spaces.
It definitely feels like a developmental choice, and since this is an RPG that is about conversations and playing a role in space and less about the galaxy itself, I’m content with that choice.
I already have games that have fully explorable planets and full landings and flying five minutes to get to a planet, but has almost no story in Elite Dangerous and No Man’s Sky.
You're all right in my book, Luke. Having to use console commands is just not the same.
It's clickbait. It's the unfortunate result of full time UA-camrs
Yeah, using the console is better than not using it because there's a console command that can tone down the bullet spongyness of enemies. Normally they get +20 HP per level, but with the command setgs fNPCHealthLevelBonus you can change it to something else.
@@qjames0077 nah its just bcs delusional bethesda fanbois cant fathom starfield is sht
@@qjames0077 it's not. He said one thing it wasn't correct. And he's owning up to it even if he is being sassy. The idea that it's procedural and not contiguous is absolutely different than contiguous and procedurally created prior to being released. He acted like the engine was on the spot creating planet. That's false. 😂 this is actually functionally a major difference. I've also seen people say you won't see that lake cause it's a lie. Turns out that lake on the planet you see is actually really there you may just not be able to select the pixel close enough to the lake to have it on the landing tile.
Brass tacks here is that the world isn't actually generated and handled how he thought though. True, its almost impossible or highly unlikely you'll ever take advantage of this in gameplay, which is why dev commands were used to illustrate it in a practical manner, but it IS very different than what he claimed originally....which is why he did admit that. Everything past there is interpretation/sassyness, and him saving face. TBH I don't think it matters either way, both are just arbitrary worthless bullet points fans and haters use to engage in slap fights that don't matter that they only engage in because of their personal egos and not actual concerns of game quality.
I figured it was an engine limitation. I do think that they would've wanted to have continuous planet maps the same as No Man's Sky, but my guess is that the Creation Engine couldn't handle it, so the whole cutscene/loading screen with invisible walls was their walkaround, and by not having planetary flight or land vehicles, they were able to hide this limitation to the average player.
XBOX LIMITATIONS*****
@@randomrandom84642 your trolling but in all seriousness that's gotta be false considering its on pc lol for sure an engine limitation id think, same reason we cant just open a building door and walk in, still makes you do a mini FT black screen when entering buildings like every other Bethesda game, instanced is a good for it.
Well, No Man's Sky is on Xbox (It's also on Switch lol) so I don't think it's that@@randomrandom84642
@@randomrandom84642nms plays fine on xbox so no, its creation engine being a shitfest that needed to be scrapped after fo4
To be fair, the handful of games that give you realistic planets to explore are all using game engines built from scratch for that specific purpose.
I don’t expect Unreal Engine 5 would necessarily be capable of producing a planet shaped/sized plat area either.
I've never heard some call "being wrong" an "unintentional lie". That is some world class linguistic gymnastics.
I have never seen so many loading screens in a game .
Play Prey. Basically d same segmentation.
The funny thing is most of them weirdly make you progress quicker than if you would just have an animation (I'm on RTX 3070, so results vary). If you enter your ship the airlock animation/climbing ladder animation would take longer than just the 2-second load screen.
16 times the loading screens
Honestly the game loads very fast, who cares?
Idk about you, but I rarely see loading screens! You should install the game on a SSD fyi, not a HDD. It's the minimum requirement
The loading screens just kill this game for me. I did *_ONE_* sideuqest last night, that took just over two hours to complete, and doing that required *_TWENTY SEVEN LOADING SCREENS._* It doesn't matter that the loading screens are only 2-3 seconds each - simply cutting to a black screen every 4 minutes is just totally immersion breaking.
The problem here is that many of these quests take you to multiple starsystems, each of which requires MULTIPLE loading screens.
Yeah i agree that it kills the immersion. The game is okay but it's not amazing. After about 2 hours i start getting tired of playing it. Compare that to games like Elden Ring where i could literally play all day.
Yeah that's been my experience too and I'm on a high end PC...perfect game for DirectStorage (as this game is only on xbox/PC) but I'm guessing it's impossible with this engine. Feels like I'm fast traveling every 5 min...even more when you're trying to complete quests real quick to level up
This is why I just play chess. No load times and no clicking on a screen to do things like a “video” game. I mean, how much exploring do they expect us to do when I’m on a quest? Is this some sort of RPG? Have they not read Beowulf? It’s a quest not a journey through space. Jeez.
Hdd user lol
I would much rather spend hours traveling from planet to planet and system to system to get a mission done 🤡
I bet you're the type of person that fast travels everywhere in every other game and it isn't a problem there
It's impossible to unintentionally lie. It's also crazy that this technicality is what people consider a "haha, you were wrong!"
zoomers are mentally ill, youll have to excuse them
First though that popped into my head was this being a "Well, ackshually..." moment, but what you said works.
Well, you can absolutely unintentionally lie, but I wouldn't consider this a lie.
But he was kinda wrong. We don’t know for sure if this can only be achieved with commands, but the point still stands that the world is real and Bestheda actually put the time and effort to make it all feel connected even if it’s not truly open. Honestly this whole debate is invalid because it doesn’t matter if you could travel the whole planet or not; there is simply no reason to do so.
@@hopelesslyoptimistic8231 I disagree. It does effect immersion to have load screens / FORCE players to walk BACK to their ship constantly. It doesn't make the game that much better to kill all load screens, but it does make an impact.
"Unintentionally lied" is not a lie. A lie, by definition, is intentional.
So complicated... It's actually amazing that No Man's Sky, a game with a far smaller budget, accomplished seamless space to planet flying despite being a shitty game when initially released.
Well, there‘s also nothing interesting to do or find in No Mans Sky, so Bethesda focused on the right things.
holy shit I feel like people are just suddenly rising up NMS rep to just shit on starfield when in reality NMS is still a barebones space exploration game. there are no rpg elements no real role playing in nms, no real NPS's you remember just rng aliens at spacesports. Why is everyone acting like NMS does everything better then starfield lol.
@@idk2865on one hand i completely agree that NMS in many aspects feels empty, and the main quest isn't all that interesting. That being said the exploration and freedom the game provides is enough to keep me returning.
I don't think there is any other game with such a free and expansive travelling, you see a okanet in the distance? You can go there, break its ground, build on it etc. At any point you can just do whatever. Wish there were more interesting quests tho, i like games like fallout for that reason in particular and the lack of meaningful quests is my only big gripe with nms.
Can't wait to play Starfield tho. Even with its limitations it doesn't look all that bad of a game (my pc is doodoo and i see people struggling to run it even with good graphics cards)
@@idk2865 yeah it's pretty hilarous. If you look at any space sim channels/ space game channels, they are genuinely happy about starfield and the exploration it offers compared to other space games, then you have people that have played neither pooping on starfield lol.
There's a LOT less to render, so that helps.
Just because Atlantis appears between neighboring tiles as hopefully everyone would expect it to, doesn't convince me that everywhere else on all other planets is the same way. If there's a hill visible in a neighboring tile and I travel to that tile, will the hill still be there? If "contiguous" only applies to hand-placed points of interest by Bethesda, then sure, but if "contiguous" pertains to the actual procedurally generated terrain... well, you see what I'm getting at.
well, if the terrain is procedurally generated, then the tile will be always the same since it has a seed. And it makes sense what is shown but not accesible just uses the next tile seed...
Yeah, they tired it with a random hill. It's connected
You eventually hit a invisible wall on procedurally generated tiles, after about 45 minutes of walking in a straight line (which is a lot), so most of the stuff you see in any given tile you can simply walk to. As you won't be able to see anything outside of your cell until you've done an unreasonable amount of travelling that most people would never do to begin with. However, hypothetically (as I haven't tested this) if you were to land on the cell next to your first cell, you'd be able to see/find the geographic landmarks you saw from the first cell. While in cell 1 you wouldn't see any of the procedurally generated landmarks in cell 2 though, as those are only generated upon landing.
So technically possible, but the issue with all of this is it's so far removed from how your average person would play the game anyway.
I know a bit about game dev, and Bethesda in particular, so, what I think is the following - there's a low polygon version of the planet, with height maps and stuff. This map includes major locations, aka cities in this case, but they're not ACTUALLY these locations, only their visuals. When you 'land' on a tile, the procedural generation does it's work and generates (or doesn't) points if interest, puts the higher res textures over the existing height map, populates it with creatures and rocks and stuff. But if you go next to a major location, all you're seeing is the low poly version of said city location that's bound to the planet map and is only used for backgrounds. Dunno if they have a script to load said location if you actually land right on top of it or close manually, or it can even load without error even if it is there due to the random generator kicking in, so even if it does have the script and does load, it won't be the same location because a lot of stuff will load differently, like rocks, trees, etc, etc. You'd need another script to make that loading persist and carry over to other tiles... Just like how a tile you previously visited would suddenly look completely different aside the general geography if you move your landing zone even one millimeter (if it was even possible) because it'll generate the whole thing from scratch and no stones, trees or poi's will align Which is actually sort of annoying because it shows that proper open world transition IS possible, if they actually wanted it... Just like how flying your spaceship near the surface, and a lot of other things would be possible, but they don't really want it nor care, as usual
@@SwurvGG You're incorrect. New Atlantis is within an entire tile. You can leave the city and explore the whole tile and other POI without any loading screens.
From what I can tell, the terrain/land itself isn't procedurally generated as you're loading in, but the structures, outposts etc. are.
The terrain cells were procedurally generated in development.
It's not procedurally generated, but has the blandness and emptiness of a procedurally generated game.
I'ma say it; Skyrim remasters still look better
@@inframatic I can only imagine when people land on the moon again.. "psht this may not be proceduraly generated but it sure feels bland enough to be procedurally generated." 🤦♂️
This revelation absolutely destroys the whole claim about it being random every time you land. Their whole argument was one thing and now it's being shifted "well it still seems like it kinda feels like that cause you still can't go around the planet" yes but now we know it's a design choice, a forced limitation, those are easier to modify
"Well the moon is boring, so why shouldnt video games be just as boring?" -@@madgodloki
The cope is strong in you, young padawan.
From what I've seen, the space exploration reminds me of Mass Effect but with a customizable ship as well as ship combat.
People sleep on the customizable ship part. It really is incredible. Being able to land my customized ship at my outpost that I've built up from a mound of dirt and hand placed every structure, chair and wall decoration on is an incredible experience that is only available in Starfield.
Maybe so but Mass effect had amazing characters and dialogue and the combat required some actual brains unlike Starfield
@@XxWolfxWaRioRxX I’d say they’re about on par with each other to be honest. And I’ve played and enjoyed every Mass Effect game ever made. It doesn’t sound like you’ve played Starfield.
@@XxWolfxWaRioRxX Shepard >star borne
@@XxWolfxWaRioRxXthe dialogue and combat in Starfield is at least a good if not better than Mass Effect at times. Idk if you've gone and played Mass Effect recently but while it was fantastic it was released a long time ago and there is far more to do and more depth in this game. Some of the ways you can influence dialogue surprised me often.
New Atlantis is not a wall. There's a pathway that leads right outside of it into the outskirts & I've walked for miles from outside of it while landing in the city. Why? Bc you can land anywhere on a planet & walk within a 10km radius of anywhere you land from. So you can go something like 9km outside of the city before you hit that wall & then you just land outside of it. You CAN explore the ENTIRETY of planets!! Why do ppl not get this?! You just can't walk from one end of a planet to the other bc it's literally thousands of sq kms that the map would have to load at once. 10km radius to explore is already huge. These planets are HUGE!
All these "technicalities" just show how unimaginably lazy Bethesda is. That's it
I also had to learn the hard way that you can't just supercruise from a star systen to another without jumping in Elite Dangerous. Spend hours cruising from Proxima Centauri to Sol and when I reached distance 0 i just got a null object.
Lol
E:D had things figured out pretty well, i think. Normal hyper-jumps from star to star and supercruise around each system.
It made the ship piloting feel whole, you could even manually land on bodies with no atmo, which was a nice touch.
Im not too upset about the landing cutscene, i just think that the whole ship thing is just reduced to fast-traveling and combat in Starfield.
@@vavra222I haven't picked up Starfield yet, I also have zero quams with the choices of the ability land/fly. If anyone ever played star citizen and have flown for 20-30 mins quant/slow burn to clipp the geometry and explode and have to start all over again it's annoying AF lol
@@patrickm.9348 Havent played SC, but i remember hauling stuff to Hutton Orbital (Alpha Centauri) in supercruise for an hour or so, because the jump beacon was some 0.22ly away lmao.
I watched tv shows and did some chores during that, it was kinda boring but i made great money relatively hassle-free.
Ouch. You tried, though. Kudos for that.
Hey Luke, I think you should try No Man's Sky again now that it's kinda relevant because of Starfield. That game imo deserves a second chance.
still boring af imo
@@kevinmlfc That's completely fine, I just want people to try it again after 7 years.
@@kevinmlfcEverything that people wanted in Starfield but didn't get is already in No Man's Sky. That's just an objective fact.
Obviously NMS doesn't have a fully fleshed out campaign in the traditional sense, but if you want the full space and planet exploration with base building and space combat then NMS has you covered.
@@DroosterH It does have a campaign now and has done for a while, its about 30 hours long and not particularly groundbreaking but it is there if you want that.
@@ItsAv3rageGamerI know that. It has three. But I said it's not a campaign in the traditional sense, ie. what a Bethesda fan might want.
This game has more loading screens than some PS2 games
It's wild because Ive heard you could travel the entire world in some older rpg's with 0 loading screens.
Where was this complains when outterworld came out 😮
@@justablindman1443 Well there were people calling it the Dollar Store Fallout
@@justablindman1443eveyone knows outer worlds is mediocre
@@abstr4cted496😂 it is that
Here's a correction to this video too lol There isn't an "invisible wall" keeping you right in New Atlantis. I boost packed over the actual wall, ran up a nearby mountain which overlooked the city, built an outpost with watch tower and can see ships coming and going on the launch pads from my outpost.
The "invisible" wall thing has been shown to be massive. It took someone ten entire minutes to sprint from their ship to get to it. For reference, that's the same time it would take you to sprint across Skyrim corner to corner if the map was flat. And that's in ANY direction from your landing spot. So, two Skyrim sized areas from corner to corner. From every single landing zone. Most people will never encounter this during any normal playthrough
lol have you ever played skyrim? it takes much longer than 10 minutes
@@PySnek flattened? No lol it's been done hundreds of times over the last decade. Just no clip and sprint from one corner to the other. It's around ten minutes
the difference is, usually the terrain isn't flat and the path always straight, and you can't sprint forever since you run out of stamina
so the effective time is much longer@@imitenotbe
@@phantom3969 whoooooosh
There's mountains and buildings in Starfield too lol the point was the distance, not the terrain. Way to miss it entirely
this has big "the character models look really great under the correct lighting"-energy.
One of my only complaints. We need mods pronto for the npcs.😂
The guy who did this spent too much time on something dumb.
He's literally removing UI elements to be able to do what hes doing...Cant use console commands and act like that's how the game is meant to be.
The landing spot won't disappear if you establish an outpost. Also, certain planets that have an ellipsis in their description have handcrafted POIs. You can anywhere on a planet or moon as long as it has a solid surface - so basically anything but a gas giant. You'll need to do this for planetary surveying ,catalogueing flora and fauna for quests as well as resource gathering for crafting. You summed it up well: Starfield isn't a space sim, it's a Bethesda rpg with a space setting.
That's what I was thinking. Would be a really cool spot to make an outpost with the city in the background.
Well I'm going on about the city one. Not the only four landing spots
It's also a really bad rpg
@@Nereosis16 I think thats completely subjective. I think it's probably Bethesda best RPG yet. It's probably my favorite as of right now.
@@Lacttose but why? The game world is so uninteresting it's baffling. Sure, the shooting is decent but everything else is just fine.
Dialogue is so stilted, characters just say their lines with terrible AI generated limp syncing, camera angles never change. If you were trying to keep everything in first person then why are we locked into conversations?
I know space travel isn't supposed to be the bulk of the game but it's utterly worthless. To travel to a new mission you literally press L, then R, then you hold X and you're there. Amazing.
@@Nereosis16 Man it's just how I feel I enjoy playing the game I get a lot of fun out of it I find the world interesting. Like I'm doing main story quests then I get distracted doing side quests or exploring a planet. I find the characters interesting and their back stories. I think sometimes the dialogue is abit iffy with the wording, but I just rephrase it in my head when I choose that option.
Honestly the whole planet exploring thing isn’t even a big deal once you play the side quests and faction quest lines.. where the real meat of the game is and it’s best content.
The quests is where the most enjoyment in this game comes from, for me anyway. As barren as planets are, I see no point in running all the way across them. If there was treasure or unique encounters on the planets, sure, but there isn't.
I found myself enjoying the game much, much more when I focused on the main story, factions and side quests.
Now, tbf, the over-hype about the exploration is at least partially BGS's fault. I mean, Howard went on and on about exploring the vastness of the universe and the planets.
That said, I do think there's a good game here, especially if you focus on the quests and ship building and ignore most of the procedurally generated caves and outposts.
Cope
Do you like the smell of copium?
True. I've played with completely contiguous planetary exploration in other games like Elite Dangerous, and apart from looking for nice spots to take screen shots, and just the feeling of "damn I could literally just walk toward that landmark and it would take me hours to get there, So realistic", there really isn't much to do gameplay wise.
Copium
I found a way around this sort of. If you just leave new Atlantis using a jet boost you can simply run a bit away and create a outpost with a landing pad. Now you have your OWN PERSONAL landing pad WHEREVER YOU WANT AS LONG AS ITS NOT RIGHT NEXT TO THE CITY. I’ve tested this and now have an outpost across the lake looking towards the city and one down in the valley looking towards the city with each their own landing pad
That's most likely what that guy did, it doesn't look like a new tile at all. He's way too close to New Atlantis.
@@05jake5 I think you are right cuz now that I’m thinking of it you could get to that vantage point from new Atlantis so it’s within the same time.
Wow! The lengths this guy went to to essentially mod the game in an attempt to make you technically wrong are ridiculous. Your review is accurate as is.
"The lengths"
>hiding an icon.
WOOOOOW DAMN THATS INSANE BRO SUPER HEAVY MODIFICATION
@@Deadener if you have to mod the game to do something, it isn't in the game. Nuff said.
@@themostbestwizard You don't have to do anything. The game is perfectly playable without having to click a pixel right next to another pixel. The dude only did it to prove the tiles are connected.
@@400thekiller233 no that is wrong. You have to do more than that... and you would know it if you watched the video. Furthermore, if you do go through all the steps to make that happen the game will completely jank out because it is NOT designed to be used that way.
@@Deadener no if you had watched the video, you would know that you have to do a lot of weird stuff to make that happen... and then the game will act really janky because that is NOT how the game was designed to act.
You didn't talk about the coolest part about her flying to Pluto, she had to keep waking up every 30 min because the planets actually follow their orbits, so not only is it a "png" in the distance, it moves and rotates around the sun!
And also there's days, nights and weather cycles too. I've played countless openworld games that don't bother putting rain in it.
I tried going from Jemison orbit to The Eye by manual flight yesterday - trip was 5000km, or at least that was when I took a screenshot, so probably more. When I finally got there, I forgot to account for the fact that the station has an orbital velocity heading in the other direction. Overshot the station, and no matter how hard my little Frontier tried, I couldn't catch up with it going in the other direction, as I was further away from Jemison's surface xD
@@rioplats Isn't that so cool!!!
If it's possible to do. Then somehow, somewhere, someone will mod the game to make this more accessible for the general player base.
The Problem on consoles will be extrem Performance issues. Thats why they Made the invisible Walls.
not here to be annoying... but the real general player base don't mod games
There already is a mod that removes the cell-border limit and be able to walk around the whole planet, It's been available since day 1 of early access, lmao
@@DoodleBob38 like Luke said, 99.99% of players will never do that 😂✌️
Basically. They could have allowed you to select individual tiles but decided it would be more immersive to just let you pick randomly and build landing pads if you ever wanted to go back to a place.
Which I agree with if I want a space flight sim ill play no mans sky again and quit after a few days.
So instead of giving us the entire planet that's just split up into cells that load and unload as we travel they decided to do this goofy "landing zone" thing, i'd even take having loading screens between those tiles, as long as it's not going back into orbit just to land right next to the spot i was just at
like i see literally no reason not to, if all of the tiles are there/can be generated then why not just let us travel between them without having to go back to the ship every time, even if it's not "intentional" a lot of players will still want to have that option (and correct me if i'm wrong but i'm pretty sure that seamless exploration was mentioned by bethesda multiple times so it was clearly intended at some point)
but ig once again, let's just leave it to the modders, right?
It’s almost like they started out trying for contiguous planets completely explorable without loading screens then figured out that procedural generation on vast sizes like this is beyond boring and also got technically difficult or something and implemented the large icons, landing storage limit and invisible walls
I think the guy that called you out for unintentionally lying was reaching based on what I just watched from this video.
Starfield fans sure have weird coping mechanisms.
Luke Stephens getting fact checked by Joseph Ballin.
What a time to be alive.
People expected a more comprehensive No Man’s Sky, but if it was possible it probably would’ve already been added into No Man’s Sky as a free update
It’s a completely different type of game.
It’s like saying Mordhau is better than Skyrim.
I would hope a modder can make a mod to like select the next tile over or at least be able to zoom into the planet further
To what end? Seems to me that outside of a few cities, Starfield just put 3 or 4 small structures per tiles.
It already sounds quite boring already, not sure why you'd like to get more of that.
Look at the footage in this video, isn't it already immersion breaking to see that city from afar?! In case this wasn't obvious enough, being able to see it from afar makes it even more obvious: A single city on an entire planet is stupid as fµck... Not sure why you'd want to break the illusion even more...
@@SLRModShopI totally agree with you, the people who want this will realise themselves how useless it is
I'll wait for another few years before modders have fixed the game and finally have it live up to Todd's promises.
Same
What promise? What in any of their marketing or statements is just a straight out lie? Please provide me a source... They spelled out what the game was and it is indeed that... Not their fault yall dreamed up something else.
There will be better real space exploration games by then………hopefully
Modders aren't going to "fix" anything. You're going to wait a few years for what exactly? What was promised? Works pretty well for most. The only thing I'd like the modders to do that Bethesda won't is to remove the pathetic pronouns.
Ah the ill wait years for mods comment. So generic and tired and pretty nerdy I might add
I mean, yeah, I've been having a blast with it, but damn, the planet explorations are really anticlimactic, and if you want to 100% survey a planet, it's tedious af. I mean, I really spent more than an hour and a half looking for a fish on one. Also, I have this gravity jump bug that literally gets me stuck in space, forcing me to load a previous save because I can't land anywhere. I'm already 20+ hours in, but it´s basically unplayable rn for me because of this bug.
Thats cool so now we can experience the copy pasting contiguously.
GREAT
Who the fuck would want to do that shit anyway? People are actively looking for shit to complain about, that there is no way they actually care about.
Why would anyone want to explore in a game where "1000s of planets to land on and explore" was a major talking point of the developers? It just boggles my mind.
It is very odd that they've created entire planets, but not made them seamlessly traversable... I theory, they should have been able to procedurally generate neighboring tiles once we had landed on one, so that we could cross over without any load screen...
I guess one reason they didn't do this, is because then the game would have to remember and keep track of what all these locations look like. Instead the way they've done it, they can just delete the oldest one and free up memory. If we were to visit a deleted field (pixel) again later (assuming we could find it), it would probably look completely different (because the game won't remember what was created there last time).
That would literally be impossible at this level of detail.
@@tomwhitworth1560but imagine if it was possible tho, it would be ground breaking work for Bethesda and their games going forward
Why is that odd lol? It has to run on the Xbox S series
Or seamless traversable planets is an extremely boring concept.
@@Splenda64_inc. Imagine wanted to explore but finding find it boring lol.
To manage my expectations I constantly think of the world and planet exploration as a more open mass effect. Feels a bit the same. I don’t mean andromeda, I mean 1 and 2. Which I don’t find bad. I enjoy it
My problem with this system is that I don't know if they did this this way because they wanted to or because they couldn't make a system of loading and deloading zones in a seamless way.
My intuition tells me that this system was made this way due to console ram limitations or ssd speed limitations or something like that and it could be modded into the game as in loading the zone you are in plus the 8 zones around you and then loading and deloading as you move. Although interes points would have to be more sparse.
Bethesda made this game on a rehashed version of a game engine that's well over a decade old. It's also why there's no land vehicles, why there's no actual flying in the game, why the graphics look dated and why frame rates struggle even on the most powerful GPUs available.
Okay I love starfield and no mans sky, but everything about how starfield was built just makes no man's sky even more impressive.
No man sky just doesn't have a story.
I play a fuckton of No Man's Sky but like, a lot of people seem to be acting like No Man's Sky has always been the levels of impressive it is rn. People are like "Oh Starfield can't do this this and this but No Man's Sky can" and its like.... No Man's Sky only *recently* got all these cool things, and frankly, No Man's Sky's exploration is still just as bad as Starfield's. Planets and points of interest in No Man's Sky have been roughly the same since the NEXT update a handful of years ago, and they've never added any new main storylines. They've added some new planet types, but they're all rare and you don't see them very often.
I'm not sure No Man's Sky is really the flex a lot of people seem to think it is, and it really looks like people only cite NMS's seamless space to planet travel but don't understand why it works, and they don't understand how long it took No Man's Sky to get to the point its at. No Man's Sky's planets have PlayStation 2 geometry, you can only dig like 10 feet underground before you hit the barrier, outposts are all built the same and haven't really gotten an improvement in years, you can't change how your ship looks, multi-tool combat is really awkward and stilted. Like, once you've seen at least two paradise planets, you've seen all of them and for some reason despite the name "paradise planet" they all have either superheated or radioactive weather. All ice planets are the same with the only difference being tree density. Exotic planets are cool, but they don't serve as much practical purpose as they do aesthetic purpose. No Man's Sky has a much bigger emphasis on space exploration than Starfield ever advertised, and its remained virtually unchanged since the game launched. All NMS expanded on was base building, Nexus missions, and side-content. The main draw of the game, exploring planets, is still essentially launch quality.
Yeah, Starfield's planets are kinda barren oftentimes too (which personally considering the setting of Starfield, I can forgive it since Starfield takes place in our galaxy while NMS takes place in a multiverse simulation inside of an alien supercomputer and absolutely can get away with wackier shit than Starfield) and NMS definitely does a better job with alien animals, but like.... at least I can actually explore these cool outposts and spend a *lot* of time looting them in Starfield. In No Man's Sky, the only interesting generated structures that you can actually get something out of are derelict freighters in space and I guess buried temples, but those are literally just "find ancient keys and use them on a box for crafting materials"
I don't know, all I'm saying is that the "No Man's Sky has better planet exploration than Starfield" talking point to me feels a little uneducated considering how radically different both games are, what their developments were like, and what their approaches to planet and space exploration are. Like, to me, I don't feel lied to about the game's exploration. Like, the other day I spent two hours looting out fuel depots and communication relays and came out stacked on loot. The most amount of time you spend at a random structure in NMS is two seconds because 90% of them are just lore terminals.
very true I can tell some people here haven't played no mans sky and dont realize how empty that game is lol. Starfield atleast has some big and somewhat interesting looking points of interests, no mans sky's "exploration" is either those language nodes or the exact same looking base.@@StarRider587
@@StarRider587You got issues
@@StarRider587wasnt the seamless space to planet possibe at launch 7 years ago at release tho??? Thats not recent at all. There is no real excuse why Starfield doesnt have seamless space to planet travel, this crap was achieved nearly decade ago.
I do not understand the people who defend this game. The exploration was the biggest point of the marketing.
Space travel and exploring planets is atrociously boring. There's not enough variety.
What kind AAA game doesn’t even have brightness adjustment in 2023??
So does this imply that Bethesda originally planned to have the planets fully explorable with no invisible walls, but they couldn't manage it due to hardware limitations?
Not that having a larger desert to run around is any more interesting
Yeah, that’s probably it. If you think about it, what they would’ve wanted to do will probably only be possible in like 10 years.
Bethesda simps in 2023 are wild. It's ok to ask for more from a company. It's ok.
You can buy 5 goty indies (or fucking Witcher 3) with those €70
@@Pendjior just baldurs gate 3 which is an infinitely better rpg
Im sorry but I can't get behine the whole "only 4 landing areas, they didn't want you to explore the planet" thing. Your 4 landing zones save enemy corpses and loot, so having infinite landing zones would likely fill up your memory extremely quickly. Its pretty clearly a decision made for technical reasons, and not an artistic choice they wanted the game to have.
9:10 Oh man I wish you had opened with this. I was so confused about what the issue was in both the last video and this one up till this point. OK, so tiles ARE contiguous, BUT the game doesn't allow you to travel across them because it forces you back with an invisible barrier. Ok that's an issue now. Although this does sound like something that could be turned off with mods, and if your gonna play a Bethesda game, the vanilla game is just the tutorial, modding is where it's at.
This is a great video, it was my biggest question and flaw in the game and glad it was cleared up. I wonder if that would work with user made outposts, If you made an outpost in the edge of one map and move on to the next "tile", will you be able to see the outpost. I really like Minecraft and other building games so I theorize of people building a megacity that spans multiple "tiles".
Fallout 76 has this implementation as you describe, so it’s possible definitely, but the map in that game is smaller than this and obviously not as dynamic. I’m hoping it works similar in Starfield, especially with it being single player. I’ll get my hands on it tonight.
Good question, and well, I'd say the answer is no. You need to understand what this all is to understand why. Basically, what this video means, is that Bethesda made low polygon low res models of entire planets to act as the background. When you 'land' somewhere, it takes the height map and puts higher res textures in the background chunk it cuts out of that main model, makes poi's, inhabits and loads in smaller dynamic details like rocks,boulders, trees, etc. But these things, as well as your base are all made ON THE NEW MAP that the game generated, and those poi buildings, trees, boulders and your base WILL NOT be loaded into the planet model unlike Bethesda's pre made locations which are. And I doubt they have a persistence script for that stuff, given you can't land close (although you could write one, in theory, would be pretty hefty work though). So, if you move your landing zone even a millimeter (if it was possible) your buildings will disappear, the poi's you had will disappear and will be changed to new ones in other places, and even the locations of rocks, trees and boulders will change, though not the major topography (hills and valleys, etc, all the stuff that's taken from the planet model)
Wow, but how does this effect gameplay though. Lol endless nitpicking that doesn’t actually effect anything
Planets are massive. I totally understood why landing zones don't connect. It's like clicking on Poland and France and expecting the zones to connect. Still very impressive that the game is designed to have connected tiles. Probably they initially intended to offer the option to walk from tile to tile, maybe with the game generating locations on those connected tiles as you walk to them. An entirely pointless feature given how insanely large planets are though. Similarly, you can fly from planet to planet without fast travel, the universe in Starfield is connected in that way. It's just that the universe is so big that it would be insane to play the game that way. But some youtubers did proof the entire galaxy map does exist as one continuous mass.
Damn bro, so that's just the same as Minecraft chunks. And Minecraft manage to do what starfield can't 10 YEARS ago, with a bunch of scrap!
Fyi, you do not need to land in the exact next pixel to see new Atlantis. If you just land close enough to it you will still see new Atlantis in the distance. It’ll just be quite a bit further away. There’s screenshots of people doing this on reddit
Luke its getting redundant.... say what you want and move on.... you've got 5 vids on this topic and with each one you say something else
Since this is possible, that means it's entirely possible for there to be a mod that just loads the next tile over once you get to the edge of the map.
Yup, I'm sure we'll start seeing such mods fairly soon. I think Bethesda probably tried to have that, but ran into some issues and just decided to cut it up.
Why would you do that? takes about 10 minutes to reach the border of a tile on foot. so 10 minutes per PIXEL travel. Now count all the pixels a PLANET has. Would you like to travel 627.351.893 pixels? I guess not
@@KafanskaTV Console limitations probably.
I wonder if modders will be able to swell the size of a pixel and make the zones quite a bit larger. But you'd have to remove the 4 zone limit I guess. If the engine isn't designed for it it may come with no real impact on the game.
They basically missed to do three things, seamless planet entry, full planet exploration and travelling between planets via boost for example. However, something tells me that the Speed Boost which we have with the Ships was probably there to get to another planet from one planet, to skip those "7 hours" travelling Real Time.
This is nitpicking of course, but I wouldn't call an unintended mistake a lie. If you don't know that you are wrong, then it's not a lie, but simply a mistake.
Im strangely enjoying Starfield right now and im only just getting ready to leave the first visit to new atlantis. Im appreciating how much more interesting and engaging the world building is. I didnt give a shit about anyone or anything in oblivion, fallout 3 or 4, and skyrim. But already in starfield im listening to people talk, im learning the lore, and at least as far as i am, there is a bytload of good dialogue. And i find myself wondering if i will interact with characters later.
There's a mod where you can add more launch locations, I like having only 4 because it would overload/confuse me sometimes.
Yeah so not the base game...
Which I would rather lol, more options are a bad thing apparently.@@TheKennyboy92
we dont judge game by community mods but base game @@demolisher4437
It all comes down to the fact that cities and some other POIs are statically placed in the world, meaning they will never change no matter the randomness of everything around them. This is why you can see them while being right next on an adjacent tile.
I think it's more down to, like he said in the video, the tile width is so incredibly small because the planet is extremely large. Like imagine putting a New Atlantis sized city on planet earth, and that's the full extent to the population density on that whole planet. If your largest and only city is the size of a campus, then going with full scale planets is an absolutely terrible design choice.
If this game came out 10 years ago in exactly the same state, there would be very little complaints. Society now complains about every little thing known to man!!!! The grass not green enough... too many cracks in sidewalk... the moon should be closer on date night!!!! Sheeeeshhh!!!!!
Did this really warrant a 20 minute video? Congrats on the engagement I guess
exactly lol it's so stupid
Congrats on your new house! And congrats on your success! All well deserved.
Given the landing zones sizes (pixels) relative to the planet sizes, this makes the planets in Starfield absolutely gigantic, possibly close to 1.1 scale.
I don't think anyone would have the patience and dedication to explore that in its entirety even if rovers are added in.
In 50h of gameplay, I never reached the end of one tile, and I have done a heck of a lot of exploration !
Seeing people crying about not being able to walk around an entire planet are genuinely nitpicking for the sake of it. Who wants to walk around an entire planet??
That's not the point of why there should be transport, the point is 1- it still takes you FOREVER to walk to poi's
2- YOU HAVE A FRIGGING SPACESHIP, WHY ARE YOU WALKING
3- it's THE FUTURE, WHY ARE YOU WALKING AROUND FOR 5-20 MINUTES, often in hostile environments, unprotected???
@mkzhero Not sure what your point is. To be honest 🤔 I'm not debating about the inclusion of ground vehicles here and would, in fact, love for it to be a thing though done well because if it's anything like the Mako is Mass Effect then that's a hard pass for me.
@@XavierLignieres it's just that usually people say stuff that's in favor of this game and against criticism, they say there's no vehicles because there's no need to have them and people who want to explore the whole planet are insane and stupid, missing the point of it being very useful outside of that with how big and barren the space between poi's is too.
@mkzhero I stand by the point that having fully seamless planetary circumnavigation is pretty useless. I have put enough time in ED , NMS and SC to say the feature is pretty overhyped on top of adding further limitations (much less or no biome diversity being the main one) the same is true for space flight though I would say that having supercruise between planets (even if a hidden loading transition like in NMS) would be a great addition to the space travel part of Starfield which I think is its biggest weak point with the beautiful ships it's got.
To me many of the issues with Starfield are actually just little nitpicks & are not a big deal. Will flying 7 hours to Pluto or landing a tile away from a major city knock a score of the game from like a 9 to an 8? Or an 8 to a 7? I highly doubt it & like you said most people won’t bother with these trivial things & will just enjoy the game. I have a friend right now who is losing their shit over characters faces, it not that big of a problem. Now if there’s a game breaking bug where I cannot finish quests then that’d be a major problem to complain about.
I don't care about being unable to fly to Pluto or anything like that.
But there's so many small design choices that don't quite make sense or work and they DO add up to detract from the score.
Here’s my question… who actually wants/needs to circumnavigate a planet? Yeah I’m sure the clickthrough rate on a Timelapse video of someone walking the entire circumference of a Starfield planet would be great, but in practical gameplay terms, it’s honestly not needed.
Someone who just wants to venture out and find a cool place to settle down on or wants to go from activity to activity without interruption
Why lie all the time? The diamond icons are that big just because of the UI, if they would make them as small as that pixels you wouldnt see them, yes they couldve make them a little bit smaller but it wouldnt change much as you still couldnt go to the next pixel as they are really small and the icon still need to be certain size.
Also why say that bethesda doesnt want you to go to the next tile and thats why there is only 4 markers for landing? How is that makes sense? What do you expect those markers to be infinite and the planet full of markers? No they get removed so you dont have 20000 icons on the planet, thats just UX design, yes they could make more than 4 but the point its still the same, even if there is 10 markers for your landing zones, they still would get removed eventually.
I think Starfield probably originally intended for the player to explore the planets contiguously but then scrapped it in a redesign where they realized that that wasn't fun. They probably left in some of the generation logic which allows this to be kinda possible, but then walled it off to sort of steer the player towards hand crafted content. Kinda seems the same way with space travel, it was likely in the game at one point but got iterated away from because the actual real scale of space turns out to be terribly uneventful
Seriously, I don't know what people think they are missing... Surprised I haven't seen a comment saying they are disappointed because your character can't get in a cryo sleep pod and travel on a colony ship across the galaxy, during which time the player has to wait the irl time to get there 😂
Man, gamers cope harder than literally any other fandom when it comes to defending mediocre games from criticism.
They also love to hate things and insist to themselves that something is bad just because they didn’t like it, while it’s getting overly positive feedback
People keep saying mediocre. The game is an 86 - 88...
@@alpsalish people still trying to convince themselves that those are bad scores
@@fightme1265 funny how people hate game critics until the game critics like the same game they do, then their word is law and we should all respect it.
Religion has slightly better copeium
Congrats on the new house and making this a viable source of income!
Stop called Starfield a sim. Its not one and it was never intended to be one. And yes, technically you can explore whole planets. And I have no idea why you made a deal out of the marker disappearing after 4 locations - that's just bad criticism, it makes absolutely zero difference to the gameplay or story. Yeah imagine having 500 landing icons on your one planet. That's just dumb and it exposes your obvious bias hate toward this, honestly damn good game.
So weird to see the scrutiny jedi survivor went thru over a few glitches. To starfield getting the pass on being as broken as cyberpunk.
The fact that these "tiles" are actually strung together and it's not a random fish bowl every landing makes Starfield a bit more impressive and immersive. Knowing that it's there and not a complete illusion makes me feel a little more respectful of the game world.
Hahahaha. Its an entirely worse version of NMS, a bunch of its ideas but 1,000 limitations placed on it. Based on a very Fallout 4 engine and mechanics, except its all the worst parts of F4 instead of its best ones.
@@travisadams6279The game isn't as revolutionary as most thought, it has disappointing limitations sure. But it's big, it's interesting, has some great atmosphere and it's fun to play.
I really like Starfield it's got me addicted and really engaged, but it def isn't any 10 of 10 game. And it's clearly a dated design but I don't get why some ppl get so annoyed with other ppl liking this game just because the design isn't revolutionary.
This is nothing like NMS. I think if it had more modern systems like seamless space flight and exploration like NMS it would be much more epic, but NMS is a barren universe with no real quests and no real combat and narrative. These games are totally a different vision. And they have a totally different focus. If you like Starfield, I get it. If you don't I can see why.
@@m1garand164 Im glad your enjoying it. Im not trying to give anyone a hard time just for playing it or enjoying their time with it.
But I will say that hearing "Im enjoying it" over n over as a response to the quality of the game and experience (especially compared to other games like it) is very telling. Because its really no response at all to the critiques.
I enjoyed watching The Room, me and my friends had a good laugh, while being fully aware that its probably one of the worst movies ever made. However much enjoyment someone might personally get out of something has nothing to do with the quality of said thing.
@@travisadams6279I wouldn't compare Starfield to "The Room". The room is so bad it's hilarious. Starfield is a good game in many aspects. It's just not Revolutionary.
Ride to Hell Retribution is more the videogame equivalent of The Room.
It looks like you'd prefer ppl concede Starfield is a laughably bad game with little redeeming qualities before they say they enjoy it. I honestly think Starfield is a very good game. It's a treat in my eyes.
@@travisadams6279bro NMS is the most barren game I have ever played
I really enjoyed your honest review. People need to understand not all games are for everyone. Not a fan of Bethesda games, but game is good indeed. Same with Elden ring, is a masterpiece but I will not have fun playing it 😆
For me it's Elden Ring and Baldur's Gate 3 (among others). They're just not my type of games despite how critically acclaimed and well-made they are.
What BGS did with how they placed planets and other things without actually rendering it is a very economical and practical way to do it - which to me really underscores how remarkable NMS accomplished what it did with the team it had. Say what you will about the state of NMS at launch, but the fact you could take off from a planet, land in a different spot, then take off and go to another planet, then land there all without having to "reload" (read: fast travel) is truly a feat of [software] engineering.
And no man sky's game file size is fraction of starfield
No mans sky is not a good game. Its a cool concept but that gameplay sucks. Im sorry. It can do some of what you say because the graphics are not great and the worlds are all empty. Its reload every time you jump to a new system.
I could never get into NMS until the newest update that gave the PS VR2 mode Foveated Rendering. Holy crap, it's absolutely incredible and the immersion is astounding.
As a BGS diehard, the only thing that makes me sad about Xbox Buying all of ZENIMAX is that those games will likely never go to PS VR2 (many titles would look amazing in VR). Otherwise I don't care too much because I play both Xbox and PlayStation (when life permits).
@@iamrysheemNeither is this game lol
@@spendsshanks6050 youve never played it
Floating boulders are normal? Dang it! I went to see the urologist for nothing then. Wish I would’ve known. 😂😂😂
These People trying to defend Bethesda garbage is kinda crazy, The´ll cover and mod the mistakes Bethesda made just to make Bethesda look good. They need this game to succeed
Its unfortunate people expected too much, even game developers have limit on what they can create, they are only human, keep that in mind. Personally I'm really happy with starfield, and I'd even admit that its probably my pick for goty this year.....probably because it's the only new release i have interest in and really enjoyed, a breath of fresh air really, because I've been depressed, and playing starfield has made me really happy 😊
you have really low standards if you think this is GOTY material. It is hands down one of the most boring games they have put out. It is a loading screen sim. Bethesda is too derpy to move on from their tired garbage of an engine.
@@SPG8989 When it comes to video games, I don't have high standards because most games that come out ain't very good anyway. Besides, I always enjoy Bethesda games, yeah there games have dipped a bit in quality since morrowind, but I still enjoy them. I can tell you haven't actually played more than a few hours of starfield. Yeah starfields main quest isn't that good, but the side content is pretty good. But no surprise there, its classic Bethesda.
Isn't an unintentionnal lie also called, a mistake ? Oh well
You lied about how to spell "Unintentional".
@@garrick3727 I'll try to not lie next time
You can explore whole planet using cheats and console commands. I will adjust my metacritic review from 5/10 to 11/10. GREAT JOB BETHESTDA! IMPRESSIVE GAMEPLAY, GOTY.
People forget you can see planet loading right before your eyes in NMS. It doesnt look the same as from afar. Watching cutscene of taking off and landing is much more immersive even tho it's not seamless.
I have over 30 hours in Starfield and never encountered invisible wall. I was even surprised that I could jump from the highiest building in New Atlantis and fall to the lowest floor.
Yes 3 loading screens are far more immersive then popin
@@wassafshahzad8618 Yup. You have animations of landing and taking off and actual loading screen is up to 5 seconds.
@@wassafshahzad8618 And you made very disingenuous comparision. Not poping but whole planet generating because it looks different than from afar. Poping is when something additional is loading and in this case whole planet is changing to something else. and not 3 loadings because you often can use scanner to jump to your destination directly.
loding scrren to enter a startsystem loading screen to land and even a loading screen to enter a city dont forget the loading screen when you enter a building . You can add those up and it isnt 5 seconds for all of these.
@@kolo5141
@@kolo5141 The problem which starfields executions is that they have assed it. I would have been far better to you drop the player of in the planet from the ships console something that outer worlds does.
I mean, sure, okay. Does this really change anything, though? not really. Exploration is meh and the rewards for exploring are meh
I mean, lets be honest: would we *want* to be able to explore an entire planet? I kinda like the loading screen for landing and I prefer the fishbowls on planets, since it provides a more focused experience. DF actually discussed this and if you consider the point of view of being able to ensure players are always doing a thing...it makes sense
People would want to explore a planet. That’s why they initially claimed that it would be possible in the game. People spend hundreds, even thousands of hours exploring planets in No Man’s Sky.
Would people want to explore entire planets in _this_ game? No. Because in this game, even the smaller explorable areas on each planet are so barren and uninspired that there’s barely anything to discover as it is. Bethesda could barely design an outpost or a canyon that was moderately entertaining.
From the perspective of a game developer, the prospect of being given free reign to let one’s imagination drive their design process and fill an alien planet full of extraterrestrial creatures, human colonization projects, environmental anomalies, political or commercial conflict and intrigue, ancient mysterious, highly coveted and rare resources, idiosyncratic and unique aesthetics, and anything else one could come up with would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity- a dream come true. Instead of facilitating a creative environment in which talented and driven digital artists are encouraged and given the resources to totally immerse and express themselves within this development process, Bethesda elected to settle with the bare minimum. Totally void of artistry. Totally void of novelty. And almost entirely void of the lowest standard of entertainment. Their priorities, as demonstrated through their product, were to create something that would plausibly pass as approximate to what they promised. The planets are there, yes. The story? Yes there is a story. The spaceships? Yeah the spaceships are pretty cool and you can fly around in them. The guns? Yeah you can shoot guns. NPCs? A bunch of them. Now, are any of these most fundamental and expected features executed in a particularly exceptional way? Is Bethesda asserting itself as the legendary titan of gaming development which they claim to be? Are they justifying their unconscionably excessive paychecks and bonuses with the product they put out? As a consumer, as someone who’s given this company your money, time, and who’s life has been in large part shaped by the countless hours of unforgettable memories you cherish from having played their games throughout your life, are they upholding the standard and legacy of quality which you expect from them? Has Bethesda demonstrated that they are truly grateful for and motivated to do their best by the millions of fans that patiently anticipated and then eagerly open their wallets to them with Starfield’s release?
This product is what this company has managed to provide us with their millions of dollars and four years of work. An unimaginative, contrived, mediocre, tedious, half-assed game. With so much money, time, and resources, it is obscene to hinge one’s hopes upon the expectation that “modders will fix it” or “patches” or “DLC” or “remasters”. DLC will cost you $40. Patches will be peace offerings to the complaining community in which Bethesda will expect your rousing applause for simply putting something into the game that should’ve have been in there already. Modders will labor away for free while Todd Howard writes himself a Christmas bonus from his home office. And the remaster, which is certain to come out, will be released in a few years. By that point, the standard price for games will be $100. And players will thank Bethesda for taking their money twice for the same purchase.
@@FrostRarewhy you mad😂. Move on. It’s a stupid game.
@@Lightsaglowllc im not mad at all man. I think it’s fascinating
I’m enjoying the game quite a bit, but the drama around this game is even more enjoyable.
Honestly, I'm finding it really fun. it's no masterpiece of course and it has it's problems but we've still got DLC that'll boost the experience along with mods that'll improve the game tenfold.
Sold my PS5 for XSX with GamePass and Starfield is AMAZING !!
4.5 / 5…….LETS GOOO!!!
More like 4.5-5/10 lol
I hope this is a lie because that would be really sad.
Definitely game of the year for me. Close match with BG3
i want to say you can also land on the edge of biomes. if you put a landing zone on the edge of the ice caps on most planets you can have 2 biomes on a single tile sometimes 3. it’s actually a lot easier than i expected to get them both