I love how this is 2 months old and very clearly states how flight and travels works in Starfield, but now post release everyone has freaked out about the exploration and planet travel not being "seemless" Good video though!
I think the biggest problem is the loading screens. I'm ok with not having seamless travel. But they could have done a better job at hiding the loading screens. Also I knew there was not going to be atmospheric flight, and I thought I would be ok with it, but now that I have played the game, it felt like such a big missed opportunity. They added all these great features in the ship builder and we can only use our ship in space, and the encounters are very limited and boring.
@@pabs9550 The real crime is they did not include planet side ships and made these interesting mech, but had them solely exist to taught you cause they banned them.
Yes this lack of this features are pretty stupid, if i want to just play an RPG with a space theme, i would play Mass Effect. instead of Starfield, and on the space sim side, Starfield is the WORST ever, folks are only talking about this game because it is a AAA from Bethesda.
There is something about elite dangerous that feels very...immeasurable. That feeling that if you leave home, you might never come back. Even if you don't go to the farthest reaches, there is something magical about the solitude you feel when you venture out. As Khan said, "It is very cold...in space".
Really nice comparison. I hate the narrative that there can be only one. There doesn't need to be a winner here. More, well crafted space games means we all win
I agree. Some people treat games like sports teams, picking one and then spending all their time belittling the others. Play what you enjoy. Play more than one of them. Have fun.
@@Sighman Yes and not only that but people treating plastic boxes and companies that make them like it's a sports team. It's laughable and ridiculous. The tribalistic nature of humans I guess.
It is important to contextualize the games at their core level. Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen and No Man's Sky are focused on space simulation (to varying degrees of realism and graphic fidelity). Starfield, on the other hand, is an RPG set in space and the focus is on lore and immersion building and player RP agency. So, really, the comparisons being bandied about by proponents of one favored game over another don't really convey to Starfield, as it is the only one of them that is a roleplaying game first and a space setting second.
Yeah I noticed that too like a lot of new people came to the space genre and think that these 3 games are the golden standard of the space genre ,when in reality they are just a sub genre like arcade side scrollers set in space ,narrative driven space games like mass effect ,arcade combat like rebel galaxy and everspace 2 ,even the outer wilds or the outer worlds I always get those mixed up where one is exploration based while the other is a bit of combat with a narrative and choices and the ship doesn't play a role more than a loading screen. And it's like they don't think that different studios with different budgets ,ideas and visions make different games for that genre and copy of each other some elements
The reason why we’re comparing them is that many of the ads presented Starfield like a space sim first down to the art-style and an rpg second. If they actually discussed the story, the factions, the lore about how it lives instead just another empty space sim I think people would be more receptive if they focused on the rpg
@@ethanspicer3471 Exactly, the early marketing gave us the impression that No Man's Skyrim would essentially be a Single Player Elite Dangerous/Star Citizen with RPG elements (which sounds cool). As more material has been released, Bethesda has clarified (though not in so many words) that it is more comparable to The Outer Worlds, (also cool but, not what we initially expected)
I get the sneaky suspicion that if you treat Starfield as a beefed up Mass Effect with Elderscrolls and Fallout sprinkled on top as opposed to the next Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen or No Mans Sky it will be far better for your expectations and overall enjoyment in the end
@karolusder1 Elite were the first as it came in 1984. The first Elite game with unlimited space were Frontier from 1993. "Frontier: Elite II" is the golden standard of space genre everyone else copied.
I like the way Star Citizen does jumps. It has long jumps but I like the fact that I can get out of my seat, walk around and do stuff within the ship. Turn the lights off, have a nap on the ship, drink a beer purchased from the station. 100 star systems sound nice, obviously better than just 1, but I love that it's all open world and no real storyline. What I'd *really* like is a 3d version of Starbound with awesome space gameplay.
I can't wait for him to come back in 3 weeks to explain how is he mad that "exploring" Starfield just ended with him seeing the same outpost setup 14 times.
I started playing NMS from day 1 and enjoyed it's simplicity in spite of the huge number of bugs. I tried playing Star Citizen during one of it's alpha release periods and as much as I liked the prospects, found the over-complicated controls too much to process. Shift this, Crtl that, Alt the other thing... Trying to learn how to fly while being repeatedly killed by stupid freaking children wanting to PvP... NO THANK YOU! A buddy with whom I play a number of co-op games together suggested Elite Dangerous and we both enjoyed that for quite a few months but ultimately dropped it. Once we got our desired ships fully upgraded, had billions in credits, the rest became kind of pointless with endless repetition. Trying to fight the Thargoids was an exercise in futility for us, so that ended badly. The Odyssey update was so bad, I felt cheated out of my money and never went back. I do still enjoy going back to NMS periodically and appreciate the Expeditions, though ultimately I wish they'd put some real effort into expanding the procedural generation to add more detail and variety. I've been looking forward to Starfield for years now. Started playing Bethesda games with the Elder Scrolls with Daggerfall through Skyrim and fully enjoyed the mod support Bethesda builds into their games. Branched into Fallout 4 after Skyrim and ultimately did ESO for a couple years and even FO 76 more recently. The modding of the games is by far the best aspect in that it allows players to create new and interesting content that can be shared and extends the life of the game for potentially years to come. I'm really hoping that Starfield permits users to mod it in such a way that new solar systems and worlds can be added. Looking at what people have done in the past (and currently) with Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, etcetera, Starfield has the potential to go way beyond.
That was a nice read. Thank you for sharing your extensive experience, which is quite similar to mine with some differences of course. Less than 50 days to go!!!
There will definitely be mods adding stuff the dead planets, adding whole planets to existings systems, and adding whole new systems to the universe map. Modders gonna go insane! Im on xbox but my eyes will be glued to the dope pc mods that'll be shown on youtube... and hopefully some good ones land on xbox as well. Although i got for 100% achievements so i wont be adding any mods until im 100% gonna be a long road... 🫠
This is a very well produced, factual, unbiased presentation that contrasts itself from so many other comparisons - thank you. For my part, I love Elite Dangerous, the multiplayer experience, and freedom to go where I like, how, and when I like. I also only play in VR which is missing in some of the others, I believe.
Thank you for your kind words. I also played Elite mostly in VR (truly one of a kind experience) until Odyssey kinda killed it for me. I continued to play it for a few months after Odyssey launched, then I completely stopped.
hold on a sec, star citizen allows the player to leave the cockpit while the ship is traveling to the destination, your not just waiting for the next destination, you can move around in your ship and do other tasks during the wait, say your ship needs some internal upgrades and or things that need to be fixed, that kind of stuff can take time but also serve as something to do to make the wait feel not so long. there could be other tasks during this transition that the player could do, like looking at the galaxy map or if there were other NPC's on board your ship, you could engage in conversation while you wait, you can upgrade their gear and their stats, stuff like that is what i would want instead of getting to the destination like i went through a stargate or something, i wish they made a stargate game, i would love this feature for the ships and leave the stargate to be instantaneous travel. i mean if you really think about it, think about how fallout 4 does their settlements, but pretend the settlement is a ship traveling in space, while you build and add onto the settlement there is a potential that you could be attacked at any moment, but then after you deal with the bad guys, you can go right back to fixing and adding to that ship, yes i just pretended my settlement is a ship in this scenario, but something like this could exist in starfield if it was part of the gameplay loop.
@@hqgamingnews i do agree with your point in the video that starfield will offer more than these other games with every other aspect, i like simulation, but i also like RPG stuff and i like a good branching story with lots to do. but when it comes to the traveling within hyperspace with the gravdrive, i don't like how arcade it is for that kind of travel, i would much prefer it be somewhat simulation, meaning that there is a wait, but like star citizen, you can walk around in your ship and do other things while you wait, just like in my other comment, the settlement system in FO4 is a perfect example of this, say you just were about to get your ass kicked in a battle and had to make a gravdrive jump to the next system to survive the attack, instead of getting to the next destination right away, i would prefer using that delayed wait traveling to the next destination to repair and upgrade my ship so when i get to my next destination i'm ready for anything that comes at me. and lets say that other ship that was kicking my ass followed me, i would be ready for their attack because i had taken the time to fix my ship, this is essentially what the settlement system was in FO4, you fixed and upgraded your ship, or settlement, and while you did this, you are attacked, and then you kill the bad guys only to go back to repairing your ship or settlement, also imagine you are also upgrading the gear on your NPC's, giving them better weapons and armor ammo and other defenses while you stave off the next attack. leave the instantaneous travel to the stargate lol. i would love if they made a stargate game at the quality of a bethesda game, but that will never happen. oh and i do like the fact that starfield is a smaller universe, i would say it's still too big given this is a bethesda game with the crafted content probably being sparsely populated on each planet, that part i'm concerned about, maybe a modder will come in and make it so there are only 300 planets to interact with, with only some of them having nothing content for resources on them, a 1000 is just too much, and it's the same way for NMS, that is overkill in the amount of planets used in the game, it's essentially a never ending gameplay loop which can make the gameplay super boring if you ask me.
@@mastah39 If GTA had Skyrim's community, level of modding support & capability, GTA would be the best driving and flight sim on the market. But to be honest, if Starfield is already a good game, I don't think people will feel the need or desire to mod it to that level. But there will definitely be mods that add atmospheric flight, more "realistic" flight, ground vehicles, and other features. I just think Bethesda opted out of that (if the planets are really full sized) because they want you to explore the game on foot.
This is what excites me most... that I don't have to worry about stumbling across some player who spends $500 a month on their game to have the best of everything and likes blowing people away because they can. It sounds like while story driven, you can go about things at your own pace.
Would love to find friends online, but the truth is, they rather like to screw your game up. Some games have the possibility to go in to anothers game and bully him, like Watch Dogs and Dying Light. What is wrong with these developers!?
That's cool as you seem to like the idea of someone(the storywriter) limiting your character choices. That for me is a deal breaker, like in Cyberpunk even when I know from the turn of events that a character in the game is a danger to me, there's no option but to get sucked into the storywriters outcome. That I am afraid is not roleplaying as far as I'm concerned, it's more of a cinematic joyride.
@@Fearlessphil100 I don't know which post you are referring to. If it's about not wanting other people in my game, I see it as an enhancment of my game experience. For me, other people messing with my game is game breaking
The flight of Elite Dangerous is hard to get used to but after getting used it to it, I prefer it to anything else - it’s so satisfying and makes everything feel very real.
Thats one of my biggest beefs with SC...its just nowhere near as atmospheric or immersive as Elite. Not to mention, Elite is also a polished, complete game lol
@@falco5150 yeah i have to agree i love star citizen and if it reaches its goals or even just smoothes out the current experience and releases it it would dwarf any other space game but currently its faults are far too big to overlook in all fairness elite has some major problems too though like engineering and sole emphasis on thargoid content
@@falco5150 Elite is pretty far from a complete game. There is literally nothing to do once you have enough money to buy all the ships. Engineering? Yeah most boring grind ever
It is indeed so very well done, and a great flight sim for space, It is not an adventurous, building and exploring game with so many different ways to play it. The two are not really even apples and oranges, more like apples and fruit salad. We all win with both to play.
@@pierce9019 I think you've missed the point of what Elite Dangerous is meant to be - it's not something where you have an "end goal" - the idea is to amuse yourself within the framework the game presents you. I fail to see how having more game-money than god suddenly means you no longer have "anything to do" - boost your favorite faction, trade rare goods, have fun tanking a planet's economy by buying everything, become a pirate, explore, do community goals, fight Thargoids. The choice is yours, and the story is yours to create. Honestly, if you have run out of things to do, then I'm sorry but you have no imagination.
Great Overview. I’ve played NMS, Elite & Star Citizen and awaiting Starfield. I have enjoyed space games for the past 50 years. Each of them give that sense of wonder for those who are inspired by space travel. I’m still hopeful we will get to travel the stars before my time is done. ❤🤘
Go check out melodysheep if you don't know his channel already! His videos satisfy exactly that same urge that draws me to space games. I have just discovered his channel and have fallen in love with the movie quality videos he made. They really instill that sense of wonder and awe and turn theoretical and abstract thoughts into a palpable reality.
I feel like Elites FTL travel would end up the best of both when they add to the ability to set up your ship in Autopilot and can walk about the interior of your ship and do other things during FTL flight
EXACTLY! That's what EVERYONE hoped will happen in Odyssey, but no. Frontier, being stubborn and clueless, ignored its own community, proving they're out of touch once again.
The thing is that FSD in ED takes like 15-20 seconds which isn't really enough to do anything else, also you should be able to autopilot multijumps which sadly isn't possible so it's just the endless menu-clicking rinse and repeat. Such fun "gameplay". But yes, FTL within a system would benefit hugely from being able to walk around.
I’ve always been an explorer at heart, and I’ve always been looking for… something more. I started with EVE Online, and being an explorer there is hyper limited. There is only exploration on a systemic level. No surface exploration at all, and stations you cannot explore at all now that they’ve gotten rid of the tiny bit of wandering around your quarters. The community and the parallel Role Playing I got to do as a member of Signal Cartel made things interesting for me there, and kept me busy for years. No Man’s Sky is like a candy cane experience. Exploration was cool, but quickly became repetitive since EVERYTHING is procedural. There are only 3 races of intelligent beings, and all animals are essentially the same. Terrain all became the same. Mountains or hills, or rocks… where was the massive deserts? The endless grasslands? It became a game where building bases and looking for unique instances of a ship was all I did in the end. And that got boring and monotonous, despite the billions of possibilities. Even the combat felt pretty simple and non-threatening once you got to a certain point. Elite Dangerous. I call it a near seamless flight simulator in space. I love the challenges associated with flying my ship, but can be a massive time suck as well. Exploration? I love looking for life out there in little hidden corners of any random system. My favorite completed challenge was finding a single strain of bacteria on a super cold planet orbiting a very dim brown dwarf. I got damn lucky, since I could hardly see anything! But while life should be rare, where the hell are the animals? Is everything a plant or a bacteria (yes)? Is there ever bodies of water or any other liquid out there (no)? You cannot ever land on a planet that has a significant atmosphere. Water world? You only get to look at it from space. Gas giant with water or ammonia based life? Sure, if you say so. Places where people supposedly live? They’re only little tiny boxes of humanity in stations or outposts, or the occasional fleet carrier. Ooooohhh, the possibilities are all EXACTLY THE SAME. Star Citizen? Haven’t tried it, don’t want to try it. I sure as hell don’t want to spend crap tons of real money to get a nice ship in a game that technically isn’t even released yet. So for me, Starfield looks like if might give me the actual RPG elements that I crave. I will actually have interactions with characters! Sure NPCs, but oftentimes real people behave ridiculously simply because they can (one reason I’ll likely not play EVE again). There will be lots of real (but curated) exploration planets and moons that will look beautiful and actually have interesting locations and terrain and plants and animals to discover. I will be able to gather a crew that actually interacts with me and is influenced by what I say and do. In time, I will get to craft a ship that looks kind of how I want it to, and actually live in it. Combat? Sure, lots, and it will feel like it was meant to happen both in space and in the dirt. Cities? Towns? Things to explore and interact with. Yeah, I wish I could control my ship more and explore in ways other than strictly on foot. I wish there were ways to expand the borders of what is possible, but the box they’re letting us play in is going to be very rich indeed. But I’ll give up many of these things to get the other things I mentioned. I feel like Starfield is going to fill in most of the gaps that the other games I have tried just cannot. So yeah, I am looking forward to this game. 😊
Yeah, the replies are true. Don't know who told you you needed to spend hundreds to play Star Citizen but clearly didn't played it. The reality is that most of the people get into Star Citizen with a 45-60$ game pack and buy the rest of the ships they like with in-game credits earned through playing. But I still get that you may not want to pay for a not finished game, its fair, but for some of us it's more about fun than about how polished it is.
For me Starfield scratches all the spots the other 3 don't. First of all, I loathe multiplayer games, for many reasons, but mostly the inevitable toxic communities stemming from griefers, etc and they are either created as cash grabs from the start or quickly devolve into pay to win hellscapes. I have never in nearly 4000 hours in ED loaded into open mode, and have done 1 group play session solely to catch a ride to Colonia on some ones carrier. The few times I actually encountered other players in SC outside of an armistice zone, I was murdered within seconds of encountering them, or they stole my ship while I was doing a box delivery on a moon... None of the people I know IRL play any of these games so, I dont have a pool of friends to play with. As for NMS... the ending to the main story killed that game for me. I was super intrigued by the story at first, but when you find out the entire thing is just a computer simulation, I was like, so Im playing a simulation of a simulation? WTF? The entire universe could literally cease to exist whenever Atlas' 16 minutes are up, whenever that is.... not that the devs will ever actually do that but thats what the lore implies, that this sim has been run millions of times and that this is that last time it will run because of too much corruption etc etc blah blah... It just ruined the only thing that kept me in the game to begin with, as I feel like the gameplay itself is a little too arcade-ish for my personal taste. ED was pretty much ruined for me with the Odyssey release... it seems like the devs over there are 10-15 years behind the rest of the gaming world regarding the FPS stuff... I would have preferred ship interiors and EVA with gameplay built around those elements but they have said that those things will never happen so... And after manually landing on my first 3000 planets I'm ready for something different. I will admit I am a fairly hardcore Bethesda geek, I have never gotten into Oblivion or Morrowind, but I have thousands of hours invested in Skyrim and the Fallout games... The modding aspect is probably the most important aspect there, which will NEVER be a thing for ED or SC. NMS is somewhat mod friendly but nowhere near the scope of a Bethesda game... Ok thanks for reading if you did. Have fun
Same. Since... IDK 20 years? I am playing single player games and whenever I change for a MMO is a problem that those games just don't have immersion as single player games. Few exceptions here and there but multiplayer isn't my thing. And NMS I honestly am playing all the time as a single player game, or at least that's how i see it. Starfield is exactly what I like. I mean, the type of a game that I love to play. When i saw Starfield I was like: It have modifiable ships... it have big space and planets; it certainly have few cities and quests on a different planets and you can build... and you can easily combine NMS; ED and SC in Starfield. Or at least the selling points without the multiplayer. On paper, Starfield is what I am trying to get from different games and it's never complete. Maybe this time?
Just a correction, ED doesn't limit to 32 players in an instance. It is a soft limit that is rarely reached without people friending up and deliberately joining instances. However, when doing that, it is possible to reach over 100 people in an instance, although (as you noted) it can get a bit janky when that happens. Overall, good video though. I think SF is going to be a good game overall, regardless of the differences (or similarities) to those other games.
TLDR; I'd say Starfield, ED, and NMS all have special and unique places in my gaming library. Each one covering a different style, and offering me something that the others don't when the mood strikes. SC might someday. ED will always have a special place for me because it was the first time I really FELT the size of our galaxy. Even travelling at impossible speeds getting anywhere significant takes TIME. Lots of time. Not to mention the fact that our galaxy is one of many, with space between them. I'll always appreciate the scope of the game and their take on realism for that. That being said, I burned out on the game because of the amount of time it takes to do things in the end game. The ship combat is great, though. It seems like SC is meant to be the next generation of this style of game, but with it's perpetual development cycle still no where near completing who knows when we'll get to experience it. I've played SC a number of times throughout its development and each time I leave it quickly, having seen its potential but also seeing that it's nowhere near a complete gaming experience (the bugs + lag chase me off). NMS is a great game in it's own right, much more casual than these other two. Travelling around in NMS feels more gamey than in ED or SC, which is great if that's what you're looking for. I've had moments where I've been amazed by the scale of NMS, but unlike in ED these feelings didn't translate to any real-world epiphanies. It's a fun game, but I don't really lump it in with the other two because of the way it feels to play. It might be a combination of the art style and the way the controls move both your ship and character in a slower, more "padded" sort of way. Starfield, now that I've sunk about 150 hours into it, is an interesting game. Big highlights, and the ever present feeling of wanting more. I think I'll be playing Starfield repeatedly for many years to come as new mods release to freshen it up. It's probably replacing Skyrim for me in that regard. Any time I get an itch to explore space, though, I won't be going to Starfield (unfortunately). It excels in creating a world that I want to explore more of, but due to the way they designed the space flight it feels the same as any other RPG where you fast travel around a planet, or continent. So it doesn't hold up as a space exploration game. The corner of the galaxy you exist in doesn't feel big. No bigger than Skyrim. It does, however, have a number of things going for it that the others don't. The character building (leveling and gear) is by far the best on this list. The gun fights, as well, are the best. SC might beat it once they eventually get around to it, but regardless, currently, Starfield wins that for me. The cities are much more interesting than the others (once again, SC might win this eventually - anyone else ever get tired of saying that?). For space combat, I prefer the more realistic approach that ED and SC have taken. Starfield is better than NMS in this regard, but worse than the other two.
usually i am a player who wants to get things done quick.. and then i experienced star citizen and i appreciate every second of it. i mean everything takes a long time and there is just no shortcuts, on top of that you need to eat and drink and soon i think also shower and use a toilet. star citizen is a fantastic game, a friend introduced me and i was just amazed from the beginning. starfield on the other hand.. i tried to like the game but the constant and never ending loading screens break it for me. also the missions never really got me
Would have loved in-atmosphere flight in Starfield, but I can easily see asset streaming being a huge problem. Pop-in would be the least of the challenges.
this still would have been possible, but the effect would have been something to obstruct the view of the player, like for example burning up in the planets atmosphere as you descend to the planet and the same thing when you enter space. but it wouldn't really be controlled in a seamless manner, bethesda have used this method before in FO4 when entering an elevator, the elevator would function as the load screen, but the player would be restricted in seeing the assets popping into frame outside of the elevator, they could move freely in that isolated location while the game loaded the next section while they waited so it would feel somewhat seamless in transition. bethesda have also upgraded their lod gen, so that pop-in wouldn't be as much of an issue especially if the decent was slowed down and not too fast during the transition to the planet. just you watch and wait, some modder out there will make it happen. as far as the drivable vehicles go in this game, i believe this can be done as well, but it's not going to be perfect, they can use existing animations of the game to make it happen or they could port over stuff from previous games to the new one, the engine is still the same engine, it's just been upgraded, but it's still mostly compatible with the old version of the engine.
@user-tp5yb4hr4w flying seamlessly across the surface from A to B, that's a different situation, though. We know the geography tiles load as we approach, instead of being loaded all at once. That's a lot of load-in with no loading screens, and you can't rely on geography to block the player's view when they're in the sky.
To answer the question in the thumbnail: No. It's a linear, story-driven, single player space game, it's NOT a multiplayer galaxy sized sandbox where you can literally do and be whatever you want and it has more loading screens than a little bit, which kills the immersion very quickly. Space is huge. It's NOT supposed to be completely explored within your lifetime. That makes you appreciate it's vastness and always makes you question what you'll discover next. In Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky (and eventually Star Citizen), you can literally play these games for years and still manage to be the first player to discover a star system or a planet that no player has ever reached. In Starfield, players will eventually explore all 1000 something planets and star systems that the game has to offer as well as the limited number of storylines and side-quests, which kills it's replayability. Additionally, Starfield is NOT a space sandbox. It's strictly a quest-based RPG. Unlike Star Citizen, Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky, Starfield doesn't give as much freedom when it comes to exploring the galaxy. From the start in Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky (after the initial tutorial planet), players can quite literally go and do whatever they want without much limitation, because the player is essentially the story, and isn't required to follow a linear path that leads to a specific ending or set of endings (although No Man's Sky does have an "ending" of sorts that the player can work towards). Once again, having limitations like this kills the replayability. Truthfully, I can play Starfield for about 150 hours and reach a few endings, experience that all that it has to offer and never have to touch the game again versus Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky, I can quite literally play for YEARS and still feel like I've discovered someplace new, because I have NO quest line that I'm forced to follow.
When I played Elite I never thought I'd go for one of the long haul farms until I did. Spending 2 days to go all the way to another system and farm materials might not have seemed like much to most players but it was great and made me feel like I accomplished something in the game. Whats it they say, its not the destination... It's the journey there that we remember
So No Mans Sky has been out for years now. The company hype preceding release was something like 'A multiplayer Game where you can join other players in the 'Verse and explore together, As said above, the chacnes of this were very very slim. Hence the joke, 'Hey, did you hear about the NMS convention? three thousand people attended, but no one saw each other'
In Elite Dangerous, that long time to get somewhere can be completely stressful. I was attacked while mining, and barely survived with only my back up life support keeping me alive. I had to jump to the nearest station to dock and repair. The feeling of getting there with less than 30 seconds of oxygen left was intense.
those moments were what made Elite great. in the old days, before they patched it out, you could jump into a system and appear right between two stars. usually meant death. you had to bookmark those systems to avoid them. the game was DANGEROUS, there was a real sense of peril. money was really tough to come by so rebuys could cripple you. they softened it a lot over the years.
That's what I like about it, made a very long trip to see the alien spacecraft when it was first sighted, was not sure I would make it back, unfortunately my team mate fired on the alien ship and he wiped us all out, those experiences are fantastic just like when you travel to a Black hole.
That's why Elite Dangerous is a simulator more than an arcade, simulators are not for all people and that's ok. We enjoy the adrenaline of a crude situation where you do not know if at the end you can make it, however, try it until the end worth it. You learn, you live the situation, you enjoy, same for flight and race sims.
@@LuiszDiaz prob 5 or 6 years ago in Elite i got my cockpit blown out in a dogfight and turned and ran on emergency O2 (10 mins), i had to get to a station fast. there was a station i could get to but there was one problem. the lore explanation for your targeting HUD is they are projected into the cockpit "glass". all i had was the jagged edges of the glass BUT, if i oriented the ship just right i could see the station HUD target in those jagged edges and head in the approximate direction of the station. i also knew when to drop out of supercruise. i made it past the mailslot with about 30 seconds of O2 left. i get a bit depressed when i think of what Elite COULD HAVE been. if anyone ever compiles a "gamer's phrasebook" under *wasted potential* it will say *see Elite Dangerous*
Considering how Bethesda is the only one who creates the type of games that you are free to be you, do whatever the fuck you want, have millions of hours of playtime and still have things to do and things undiscovered, and modders and as well, the incredible Bethesda community will probably be creating. So. *Y E S*
Personally I play nms for the shitty and infrequent multiplayer, I was 100% ready to buy an Xbox to play star field until I heard that I would be in a vast open universe on my own. I don’t know what’s worse, not being able to find other players in such a large universe, or not even having the options to look for other players. With how far nms has come in the past 5-7 years, I think I’ll stick here until consoles catch up enough to play star citizen. Star citizen looks like a good time.
I like the idea of an infinite galaxy if there's also infinite novelty, but if you're generating an infinite galaxy based on a comparatively tiny set of possible parameters, it means that you'll experience everything that infinite galaxy has to offer by just exploring a tiny, tiny fraction of it... and then what's the point
theres no point, thats what mainly i dont like of NMS and ED. Too big and all the same. Prefer much SC with a small but dense, unique and very detailed system all day
Exactly. The biggest draw of starfield is not only stealing ships, boarding ships, but making your own ship. This is something Chris Roberts talked about for star citizen, yet it’s happening in starfield. I can see myself searching for weeks for the perfect bridge, nacelle, or landing gear for my ship. I can’t wait to build in game. Going to be amazing!
The ideal game is a blend of all. I need the perfection of Star Citizen as the base, with the expansiveness and freedom of Elite Dangerous's scale and flight mechanics. I need the procedural generation and exploration fun of No Mans Sky, with the RPG and story elements of Starfield. With the ability to say fuck it all and get lost doing whatever I please
I do enjoy in No Mans Sky you can use teleporters to bounce between bases, space stations and bases you’ve visited. So I’ve I’ve hyper traveled to far and can’t get the resources to warp back home, just fly to the nearest space station and I will instantly travel back with ship and all. It’s been nice when going deeper into the clusters
i would actually be happy with smaller worlds but with a more handcrafted touch, even a 1000 is too much for everyone. But seeing that only 100 planets will have life on them that means everything important will felt more handcrafted than randomly generated. And that i feel is the best because no mans sky start to feel preety samy once you visited 10 planets
No man sky has a lot of problems IMO such as the over saturated & too cartoony colourful space, Space isn't purple nor pink it's BLACK, and most worlds don't have life which makes finding life on a planet pointless, but with 10% of planets having life it would be an amazing experience
Agreed, NMS might have quintillions of planets, but eventually they all feel the same variety of a couple of dozen. Mass Effect's handcrafted 'worlds' felt far far more personality.
@@kamelkadri2843I just couldn’t get into the cartoonish design of NMS. So much so, that I stopped playing because it was kind of hard to take seriously. I absolutely loved the overall game though.
Honestly this just opens my eyes a bit to seeing how NMS was able to really do the impossible and match the quality of games that came out far later and still managed to capture an immersive and engaging experience Star citizen and elite dangerous Defs look the best though imo star field I guess really only has missions and ship building to make it stand out :/ I guess star fields systems and exploration could be considered the best inbetween but personally I like the elite dangerous version more, NMS is amazing but a lot of the planets are too similar to be considered different imo and star citizen is just too small as of rn, if it had 5-10 systems it be perfect as I enjoy the travel, exploration, graphics, and world of star citizen the most
The perfect blend of space exploration game, for me, is to have one entire galaxy filled with procedurally generated planets/moons/space stations. However 10% of those would be more detailed hand crafted-ish planets/moons/space stations spread throughout the galaxy. They would be more detailed, have more unique life/structures on them. Truely special experiences that you can't find on most other planets, because they are scattered. The game would have a blend of the realism in Elite Dangerous (and yes I do realize Elite is not a sim) with some of the fantasy elements in No Man's Sky. The on-foot shooting, flight/dogfighting mechanics would have some arcade-ish elements but have a lot of depth to it. However normal planets can be altered by cataclysmic events. Devastating storms, asteroids strikes, ruptured cores, stars going supernova etc. Some changing the planets forever, others, completely wiping them out.
I think the video said _Elite: Dangerous_ had 40,000,000,000 star systems in its model of the Milky Way galaxy. 10% of that would be four billion star systems, each with potentially multiple planets and moons. So, that could take the number of visitable locations back up to forty billion. It is possible to make a large number of these host to hand crafted content, but only if the community of the game is encouraged to build their own cities as their factions compete to colonise space. Different sentient species could originate from different home worlds within the galaxy, so the initial release of the game would have maybe 1024 places of interest to visit that were hand crafted human colonised locations, but any player could find a new frontier and add their own content to the game. The central server only need to log where players have claimed as their colony planet, so there would be a rush to claim land and a frontier spirit to the early phase of the game. However, a simple self built homestead could in time become a minimal town if metals were found on the planet, requiring services for the miners. At some point in the colonisation of America there would have been cities in the East and bare camps in the West, with some drawn by the gold rush, so there is historical, civilisational precedent for a mixture of density of colonisation from city through town then homestead to camp. As this expands out from one location (say Mars), you aren't having to deal with billions of locations, but can imply that the game is unbounded (or at least permits, in principle, any colony on any planet or moon anywhere within one galaxy, provided that that location is not extremely hazardous). _Star Wars_ might have colonised Mustafar, but that was more for the thematically appropriate dramatic visual. So, there isn't a need to have more than about 8 significantly colonised celestial bodies, and these would involve developer hand crafted content, and multiple biomes, and multiple cities which exist in international trading relationships. This opens up the scope for diplomacy to fail and lead to war, in the manner of the board games _Diplomacy_ and _Risk._ The cities could have past histories, and there could even have been civilisations that were in their own regional diplomacy and war and their imperial expansion eventually collapsed (otherwise it would still persist today), leaving behind ancient ruins and archaeological relics, reminding the player that your current civilisation is equally impermanent when measured against millennia. So that's time (although you also have a tech tree that is planned out to allow future innovations), and space needs to be the sense of exploration of a galaxy (so travel within it has to be relatively easy and not limited by fuel and resource gathering gameplay loops), but that busy work of _No Man's Sky_ can be removed, but journeys could still take time, if the ship used is a multi-crew starship as in _Star Trek_ where there is an opportunity for stories to emerge within that space as you travel through space. The same applies to what happens aboard space stations, as the stories of _Star Trek: Deep Space Nine_ had excellent characters and the whole slow burn storyline involving the war with the Dominion. This means that at some point humans need to encounter sentient aliens in the game, perhaps via some spatial anomaly, like a wormhole, which bridges their very distant territory to our expanding frontier. I think 3 races are plenty, but you could have more. These would be developer created colonisations of their own sectors of the galaxy, the continuing expansion of which could lead to interstellar war, and even diplomatic alliances between humans and one type of aliens, who were technologically superior but numerically overwhelmed by a xenophobic species who would be coming for us next. Actually it would be possible to mod this scheme to support the species of _Star Trek_ or _Stargate_ etc. yet in doing this you would infringe copyrights, so the developer could not be behind this mod effort. What I have described is a 4X (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate) with the alien species being AI directed agents gradually colonising space, and your human species boosted in its population by AI. This means "the Wild West" of the uncolonised frontier will have you in conflict with AI rather than with other players. It actually makes more sense to support drop-in drop-out PvE play like _Destiny_ where you team up to confront a hostile world, and help each other out if you get incapacitated. Desolate wilderness punctuated by the rare oasis covered in liquid water and flora, and then even rarer planets with fauna, of which there might be eight within the whole galaxy as they would have to have been, if not hand crafted content, then they would be hand curated (i.e. the procedural generator is repeatedly run, but only the appropriate outputs are selected to populate a biome within a planet or moon and it can't migrate outside of that biome). This means, like _STARFIELD_ most places are dull rocks, but it has to be like this to be realistic, and you have maybe 400,000,000,000 planets and moons to visit, but you won't be visiting them as you will deploy deep space telescopes to capture the light of distant stars as they pass through the upper atmosphere of their local exoplanet and have parts of that light absorbed by the presence of different chemicals and thereby know through this transit spectroscopy if an exoplanet has watery clouds, and is a candidate for exploration. Now, just because the game supports this enormous scale and scope, its design doesn't ram all this down your throat and mire you into an insignificant role within a 4X. You want that to be a potential thing, but you also want to be like D.J. or Han Solo and not join in with the Rebellion to fight the Empire or with the Resistance to fight the New Order. You want players to be free to feel that they want to join into a larger conflict, but with space being so huge, you could make a living as a smuggler during an interstellar war, or even during an alien invasion (and potentially be ignorant that this is happening as this could be on a need-to-know basis within the military and high level diplomats). Summarising all of this leads to a largely PvE asynchronous MMORTSFPSRPG (Massively-Multiplayer Online, Real-Time Strategy, First Person Shooter, Role Playing Game). The multiplayer is almost always cooperative, like _Destiny_ with small lobbies coming together as it is hard to coordinate when friends' free time will overlap for cooperative play sessions. This allows a group of players to collaborate on running and repairing a starship in transit, or to go on an "away mission" somewhere potentially hostile vs. AI, or to quietly get absorbed in the construction of a new city, similar to _Cities Skylines,_ which means that time has to run at different rates for all separate sessions, so 3 players working together to build a city at what is greatly accelerated speed in civil engineering terms (otherwise it would be too dull), are in a different timeline from those off exploring space. This creates a sticky to resolve problem. The solution can be found by making the problem harder: what if player A wants to nuke player B's city from orbit? Well, you could prevent this to please B, otherwise they would surely be upset and hate the game for allowing griefers to ruin all their hours of hard work. Or... you could be concerned about A, as they won't be happy acquiring nukes in game (which are low on the tech tree, as you will ultimately be able to induce earthquakes until the planet ruptures, or "do a Snoke" and vaporise planets to nothing, or cause supernovae). The only solution is allow A to destroy a COPY of what B made, so you have a _de facto_ Multiverse, rather than a Universe. The game most like this is _Forza Motorsport 5_ as this lets you run a friend's car off the road in a race, only it isn't them driving it, but their AI mimic based off their characteristic driving style. What this means is that the vastness of space can be populated with AI bots which mimic the way real players behave, including all their faults. This prevents you travelling about and not finding anyone in the region. So, B builds a city and they have an option to publish it so others can visit, or nuke it (but only their COPY of it in their parallel universe). Another 4X mode has to keep track of who owns what in a coherent manner so it is possible for A to conquer a copy of B's city. Some would split hairs and say this isn't an MMO, which is fine (it is an "asynchronous MMO"), but if you think about the scale/scope/create/destroy design constraints, this is the only compromise. This just scrapes the surface of the idea, as the interesting aspect is that it would coauthor the narrative so that it conveys an underlying theme and then manipulate side characters so that your relationship with these NPCs would shape your choices and direct you into risk/reward scenarios you would freely opt into, or ignore (at the cost of going against any heroic traits role you had chosen to play as), so it can contrive a dramatic climax to shape the character arc of the role you have adopted to play as. Another option is to just explore the game without a chosen role to play as, and in this case the game has to construct one through spawning psychological tests which determine your _alter ego_ based on how you are playing, so you get a series of ethical choices and can choose to get involved or not, and the game will keep creating new scenarios to diagnose what you appear to be likely to naturally do, and then rely on that to manipulate you through a set of NPCs which fit that "role" diagnosis. This has already been done in _Fable_ where your actions shape your appearance.
Continued... The FPS stuff should be the only consistent point of view supported (boo!) because of VR support becoming more experiential as a result of this decision. Indeed, even on gamepad the game is much more experiential with (RS) being used for Free Look at all times, and (LS) being used for Move/Turn. This will take a bit of getting used to, but makes it far simpler to walk about (one handed) and then board a vehicle (of any kind) and steer it (change heading/yaw) or in some rare instances (roll). This doesn't preclude being able to strafe, as you just make it so that partially squeezing [L2] has (LS) be temporarily Move/Strafe. This means that you can fully squeeze [L2] in order to have (LS) tilt mean Duck/Lean whilst staying in one spot. Click (RS) to Crouch/Stand. Hold (RS) to Prone/Stand with a Strafe making you roll over onto your side, then back, then other side, then front. Click [R1] to Sprint, with it being Slide when Crouched. Click [L1] to Mantle/Jump (to grab rope, rail, ladder, vine, etc.) and hold [L1] to Swim/Jetpack in direction of gaze controlled by (RS) Free Look. Then hold [R1] to change the meaning of the face and D-Pad buttons whilst it is held down. It is in this [R1] quasimode that the face buttons do regular FPS related stuff like Reload and Swap Weapons and Melee and Tactical Item, as this gameplay is not ergonomically prioritised as the more frequently needed semantics is for the face buttons to initiate and terminate conversations with NPCs (Hi & Bye) and respond to questions from NPCs that are either personal to them, or sometimes related to the mission they know you are on especially in wartime where they feel the need to support your mission goals, this means you get an arcadey series of Yes/No questions to respond to. You can be rude and walk away mid conversation, or be polite and say Bye to excuse yourself from listening to their life story. This is not _Mass Effect_ where you are in a protective bubble exploring potential things to say, only for Shepard not to say what you prompted them to say. You can be in the midst of battle and have an NPC ask a Y/N question and your decision will tactically matter to what your support AI do. The D-Pad normally controls where you are sending your squad: Hold Up whilst holding [R2] and they will Assault the position you highlight with your gaze with (RS), but if you Hold Right whilst not holding [R2] they will sneak up in a curve to the right flank at a cover position located by your gaze with (RS), similarly with Holding Left as you get another flanking manoeuvre, but if you Hold Down they will regroup to your position. This will support bounding overwatch tactics, where you suppress an enemy target whilst commanding your squad to move up as they can't Sprint and Fire at the same time. They then cover for you when you move up to join them. This is a bit like the gameplay of _Full Spectrum Warrior_ which was used to train infantry, but in First Person rather than Third Person. So, you get to direct squads (when you get one), and to answer their mission critical tactical questions. Obviously, there are some different controls disambiguated by dint of whatever context of vehicle you happen to be operating at the time. So long as there is a way to Exit, you can revert back to normal movement, although I don't see (RS) ever changing from Free Look regardless of vehicle. A fighter may redefine (LS) to be Pitch/Roll rather than Pitch/Yaw with Click (LS) always meaning Use (such as open box, or push button for elevator, or turn engines on/off, etc.) and Hold (LS) marking for collection what is under your gaze up to the limit of the encumberance of your robot's later expandable inventory, so you aren't burdening yourself with hundreds of sandwiches, your robot assistance is getting around to picking them up after you have signalled their GPS coordinates, during which interval they could be reclaimed by someone else. You can also hold (RS) whilst situated seated in the cockpit to act as an advanced quasimode which makes the D-Pad reallocate power between different starship systems from some central (regenerating if in good repair) reserve, so you move the highlight Left or Right over a system and then Up and Down to increase or decrease power, this is similar to _STARFIELD_ and _Star Citizen_ and _Elite: Dangerous_ and _Super Star Trek_ (1978). Micromanaging this systems stuff can make a tactical difference in a dogfight, where weaponry is such that you have to get close to finish off your quarry, or choose Extra Vehicular Activity to board it and steal it for yourself. When you hold [R1] it is like holding the ALT key on a QWERTY keyboard and the keys having different meanings. Here the D-Pad provides instant access to custom inventory slots, allowing you to swap directly to four weapons, or carry more sensors, traps and grenades. However you only get 4 slots, but it is unrealistic to have as many as _STARFIELD_ due to encumberance. The way _STARFIELD_ goes wrong is in having you lug a heavy mining tool around with you, when it should be possible to get your robot to go looking for a list of mineral resources, mine them, and process the result, whilst you have the talk of optionally escorting/rescuing them. An all robot crew is a dull idea, so NPCs are used instead and the gameplay becomes more like _FTL: Faster Than Light_ or even _Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force._ Other games of interest are _Flagship_ and _Mace Griffin: Bounty Hunter_ and the sadly cancelled _Prey 2_ from Human Head studios. The 4X stuff gets very broad scale and timelines are different than that of the FPS player. This 4X has to be disjoint from the Cooperative Creative Mode, and the Competitive FPS Combat Mode, with the only way to reconcile them is to have the 4X be an RTS where players can commit multiple orders to be attempted at the end of each real time week of gameplay. This is then resolved by AI vs AI combat, and the resulting pinch points where the statistics are not a clear win by either faction are offered up as being battlefields to make a decisive change on the following week. These are open to being RTS games with player vs. player, or player vs. AI, or AI vs. AI depending on player engagement. Then the submissions of this RTS are allocated to an FPS server running a selection of maps as the RTS will be taking place at a global scale, or even a low orbit space combat battle, like _Halo: Reach._ As there could be a lot more interest in these battles, you allow multiple versions of them to take place (this is justified as it is a Multiverse), and then accumulate all the win/loss statistics to see what faction won and on that information change history and who holds what territory, and can use its resources to be able to boost their production of more units to do more exploration or conquest, or civilisation, etc. Usually when an FPS is set against the backdrop of a large war, you don't get to change history at all. This changes all that and makes your faction's collective actions feel more significant than one match. Anyway, this is the game I am working on, which people would say was over ambitious, but I knew it would be hard, especially using the C++ programming language, so I designed my own alternative that would be less error prone, more productive, and easier to maintain, with live feedback of changes so I could easily test out new ideas to see if they made the game fun. It should take another five years. I'm not setting up a website for it as I learnt from Sean Murray what a mistake it was to talk about a work in progress where anything is subject to change for aesthetic, technical, or business reasons.
One thing that is a game changer is VR. To play Elite in that mode is to experience all the exhilaration one had watching star wars for the first time in the 1970's and wishing you could partake in something like that. Waiting 40 years wasn't easy, and it isn't perfect, but boy is it so much better than flat screen. I will be interested if Bethesda goes VR like they did with FO4 and Skyrim. Then again, this is a Todd Howard productions, so there will be multiple different (slightly) releases for the next 10 years.
The difference is those games are space sims. Starfield is an rpg that happens to be in space. So it’s closer to mass effect. And I’m like you as well. Space games are my jam and they almost always have my attention when a new one is announced.
So glad someone pointed out that Mass Effect should be in this conversation. I always loved the feeling of space traversal in Mass Effect, even if it was just seeing the galaxies on a map and fast travelling/mass relaying to places. That's why I think Starfield is definitely more of an evolution of Mass Effect that borrows mechanics from NMS and SC. And I use borrow very liberally. I think many of those mechanics like mining couldn't really be done any other way, unless they used something like Mass Effects way in Andromeda. Something I really liked, actually. Pity there is no land vehicles. I hope they bring them in with DLC
@@Droid6689 That's why I said "borrows" in a very liberal sense. People think the laser mining option in Starfield mirrors that of NMS. I can't disagree. It looks like a very similar mechanic. But thinking of it, if I was to design an on foot mining feature, the only option I can think of is a laser mining option. So it could be parallel thinking or borrowed. I don't know. I don't really care, TBH. I guess I was being charitable to the naysayers of Starfield. 👍
@misterpink808 Understandable. I just think people try to attribute inspiration to things erroneously quite often. Out of everything, I would say the mining is the most likely borrowed element. But it isn't really relevant enough to note imo. Often, though, people see a large space exploration game with numerous planets and say "they took that from NMS" as if NMS invented the concept of a galaxy. I would consider Starfield a mix of NMS/Daggerfall/MassEffect/Subnautica but I think the only one it takes inspiration from is Subnautica in the basebuilding that is modular, multipurpose for resource collection and viewing a grand environment in a comfy/safe way. Maybe they aped Mass Effects system viewer.
My favorite interplanetary travel is star citizens, since the ship is fully explorable you can hop into quantum and walk through your ship, I normally go and check my cargo and weapons to make sure I'm geared up for where I'm landing.
Modding is whats going to set Starfield apart from the others. Features like planetary flight and entering/exiting the atmosphere will likely be modded in, along with some form of co-op like users have done with Skyrim. They will probably use free space on planets to construct custom civilizations, gradually filling up the real-estate the devs provided and maybe even generating new entire planets, if possible. The different preferences mentioned in the video will likely be modded in overtime as well, giving you the option to choose the type of hyperdrivr experience you want, among other things. If the game is as advertised, there really is no competition for this title.
I'm not sure what Bethesda has said about modding support, but they know it's a significant part of what makes their games popular. They're not going to leave modders without tools. I'm expecting one of the first mods to be a travel-type jetpack. It's the easiest way to implement intraplanet travel. Basically just modify how the flying works on an existing jetpack, since I don't think the in-game ones are going to be configured for long-distance travel. But I could be wrong.
Seamless space to planet will NEVER happen because it is using two different sets of technologies that the Creation Engine doesn't have, and modders will NEVER get access to that code to even try implementing such a feature. When it comes to everything else, sure since it is skyrim in space with different gameplay areas, but multiplayer will be a long stretch aswell due to the areas being totally separate instances.
@@TruthIsKey369 And that's one of the benefits of skipping multiplayer. You can get away with some solutions that just don't work in multiplayer. Well, it could work in single-instance multiplayer, where everyone's always in the same instance. I think ARK Survival works like that if you have a local host, and it's pretty much how classic single-screen multiplayer works. The biggest benefit is probably non-linear time. If everyone moves with loading zones, you can time skip, although menu pausing or combat slow motion doesn't work at all with multiplayer in a game like this.
Bethesda better hope there is a large and active modding community. It's the only way their half baked janky ass games ever get patched or fixed. Which is why 76 took such a black eye, because it was an online "live service" there was nothing a modding community could really do to fix their issues for them.
SC allows you to move around the interior of your ship while in quantum drive, in theory you could be affecting repairs, eating/drinking/cooking, and getting ready for a combat mission. right now those options are limited, but you can move around.
It's not a replacement for any of the above. They will co exist just fine especially with starfield being exclusively a single player game. I'm looking forward to trying it, but I will never get the buzz from it that an MMO provides. There's just something about being in space with your friends thats hard to distract from for long. So I think it will just be another game that gets played among others. Nice video dude btw :)
This is what I was going to say. The target audience are totally different. Single player with single player quest system. I prefer starfield to any of these other games.
I'm completely opposite, multiplayer games, especially MMO's rip me out of the immersion so hard that I can't really find them enjoyable, unless it's just goofing around with friends in a casual game. For me, there's just something about being in space _all alone_, discovering planets and secrets for the first time, and taking in the vastness in all of my solitude. Then again, I'm a hardcore introvert too so that probably plays a role in it as well.
Really solid video there! Updoot from me and whatnot :) The tiniest of comments, because it sounds like maybe it's just not particularly well implemented or explained (and yeah, definitely it isn't), but you can actually skip out of quantum in Star Citizen, by turning the power off as you're travelling. You can also be pulled out by others (through the quantum snare system available in a couple of ships, though i've encountered this only very rarely). i can't entirely tell whether this was just a case of leaving out the detail because it's not super obvious, or whether you maybe simply didn't know, and thought i'd comment to cover either eventuality. In short, and again, thanks for the video, really good stuff!
Thank you for watching. Yeah, I know about those. There are ways and reasons for you to abort QT, either by your choice or by interdiction from others (NPCs or players). I was just focusing on point A to point B travel inside a system. But thanks for keeping an eye out. Feel free to add and comment on anything you find interesting. o7
I play a bunch of those without ever thinking that one needs to replace the others or that they are even competing for my attention. I just like space games. From X4 to Everspace in VR. They're all worth playing.
@@Redridge07 Elite and X4 are not really comparable. In Elite you explore the galaxy in "One" spaceship, in X4 you build an empire between a bunch of factions that are at war with each other. The feel of the Elite and the X4 are quite different.
@@sarahnachtrose Thanks, but clearly there is some overlay in the two games. Madden and X4 are not comparable, but X4 and Elite dangerous have enough overlay to do a comparison. In fact, you just did one.
What's being advertised seems like the perfect balance. Same difference. Obviously it could come out and be terrible but what's being promised looks great 🤷♂️
@@existentialselkath1264 Not even remotely a perfect balance. Omitting any form of mutiplayer, even basic co-op is a massive turn off for many people. The game can be a single player experience for those folks and offer co-op ensuring you are not playing with griefers...TONS of games do this. The second Bethesda omitted co-op was the exact second this game should never be compared to NMS, SC or ED.
@@rimebinder I completely agree with the last sentence actually. While no man's sky wasn't multiplayer to begin with, it was focused on its seamless world whereas starfield is just an RPG in space. It's like comparing Minecraft to skyrim because the settings are similar. My main point replying to OP is about "when nobody has even played it yet". It isn't wrong to judge what's shown of a game that hasn't released yet, as long as you're aware the final game may be different. As for being the perfect balance, it's entirely down to personal preference. I personally played games like elite despite the multiplayer, not because of it, so this is perfect for me but not for everyone. I shouldn't have come across as so objective, it's just my opinion.
From thumbnail (left to right): Yes, definitely, absolutely. I have them all and I am stoked for the sheer breadth of features that Starfield allegedly has. Only time will tell.
Take off and landing doesn't really bother me but not being able to fly in atmosphere in starfield seems like a really odd and needless choice. Especially when space flight exists
This poor choice is very glaring and especially makes for an odd experience, particularly during one of the companion missions. Simply put, as not to spoil any of the game, you are tasked to land on a planet during a mission. After exploring the area, you need to proceed to another area on the same planet, but to do so, you have to fly all the way back into space (through a cut scene), highlight the planet, then "spin the globe" to locate the other region you need to reach, then through another cut scene, you leave space and land back on the same planet in a new area. All of this instead of just being able to fly through the atmosphere to reach the next destination. It is a complete disconnect from the experience...quite immersion breaking. EDIT: It seems they don't allow atmosphere flight because the game doesn't generate entire planets. When you land, the game only generates a large region around you. Apparently, if you walk far enough, you will hit an invisible wall.
Great and clear voice narration, clean and no BS visual presentation. If you keep at it your channel will surely grow. Get verified to with that glorious UA-cam check mark for added panache.
Thinking about Starfield as a replacement for any of those games is the completely wrong mindset to have, one that I think far too many naive people have. It's not trying to be a replacement for any of these games, clearly. It's just going to exist with them. Starfield is first and foremost an RPG, a Bethesda RPG (think Skyrim and Fallout 4), something that none of those other games are trying to be. What this means is that this is going to be a single-player story-driven experience with real choices and consequences, it's got handcrafted quests and locations. It's less about the realism aspect of sci-fi, and more about the fun aspect. Think Star Wars instead of Star Trek. Starfield is to Star Citizen what Battlefield is to Arma. Completely different experiences. I think it's obvious Starfield is going to be a lot different than No Man's Sky, given that it's going to be a story-driven experience first and foremost. The sandbox aspect is just layered on top of that, like with any Bethesda RPG.
I have played all of these games, except Starfield, and I agree with most of this. I am definitely looking forward to Starfield and I think it will be the best space game of its time, I believe it will be amazing. Great video.
It is from Bethesta... that makes me very suspicious.... Sorry, this company has first to proove outof controlled enviroment, that they can do anything else than a bugconcert, that has to be fixed by modders again. Oh and not to relay nice on their cute Ingameshop crap.
Feature #4 you're right in that the seamless shift from ground to space is "breathtaking", not just visually, but for what all must be going on technologically under-the-hood! Elite's FTL is a bit like driving: it's mind-blowing the first few times, but after a while, it eventually just gets mundane once the novelty inevitably wears off. Space theme specifically, I trace my roots to X-Wing vs TIE Fighter. I've always had a hardwired fighting spirit, so the "WWII in Space" elevator pitch resonates passionately with me, to the point where my legacy involves defining "WWIII in Space".
Fun fact on that #4 part with seamless transition. Star Citizen and No Mans Sky are the two that does seamless transitions when entering and exiting atmosphere. Elite Dangerous is instance based on every move. Space - Ground is behind an invisible loading screen, Normal flight - Super cruise is behind an invisible loading screen. Its all faked and really easy to spot if their servers are doing horrible or if your internet is struggling.
so far I think NMS has the experience I enjoy the most. I'm hoping Starfield will be more like Fallout 4 in space. NMS at it's heart is really a game about wandering the universe and has had other things added in to spice things up. I get the impression (since I haven't played it yet) that Starfield at it's heart is really a game about the characters involvement with Constellation, and has other things added in to spice things up. unless i'm completely misunderstanding what Starfield is going to be, they really aren't anything alike. It would be better to compare Starfield and Mass Effect.
It is more than just a few things to spice it up though. It's main story makes you think about the possibility of us living in a simulation with how well it's crafted both morally and philosophically and the side quests, base building, settlements and exploration are beyond amazing for the price. Not to mention that developers poured a lot of love into this gane (and continue to do that to this day). The new pirate freigher battles are amazing and I can't wait for the next updates!
As I suspected Starfield plays much more like Mass Effect than it plays like NMS. There is contextual overlap between the two games, but the gameplay loop overlap is pretty much limited to scanning stuff on planets. I find Starfield fun for the same kind of gameplay that attracted me to Fallout 3 and Fallout 4. NMS is it's own kind of gameplay.
This is the first 1 to 1 feature comparison. Most will just take one game list its features, then say look this one has it all. You took the features and compared them directly. Explaining them in detail, with strengths and weaknesses. This is the best comparason to date.
This is going to be my first dedicated space game, and my brain is full of curiosity just thinking about what the first 30 minutes of gameplay will be like. I can not wait.
lmao just play and dedicate to literally every other space game. sf has barely anything to offer, except the same bethesda rpg aspects and bugs like every other bethesda game
For interplanetary travel I believe you left out a very important part about star citizens travel. In a true multi-player game that is star citizen, you can get out of your seat while traveling, hang out with your friends. Inspect your ship, tinker things mess around in your massive ship, organize your stockpiles of weapons and gear have fists fights for fun, really whatever your mind and mechanics allow you to do during travel lol
The answer is no, for a few reasons: No Man's Sky is a sandbox. Elite Dangerous is a galaxy-wide MMO starship simulator. Star Citizen is somewhere between the above two, but with limitations on story, scope and gameplay mechanics and details. Starfield is what neither of the above 3 are: A Story-based RPG.
Haha, wtf? How does Star Citizen have a limitation on "story, scope and gameplay mechanics and detail", when it is not only the most ambitious space game or MMO, but game period? 🤔
Here the reason why I backed Star Citizen, when it was announced on Kickstarter: 1. I love the Wing Commander series. 2. I was excited for the Squadron 42 single play story line. 3. Mark Hamil and Gary Oldman are in it. Here are the reasons why I am disappointed now: 1. Since update to a certain version of the Alpha, my graphics card back then (NVIDIA 770 GTX) required at least 15 minutes until I could start playing, and then lagged like hell. My 2070 Super is a good replacement, but I fear that a 4070 will be needed as minimum requirement, by the time this game is released (if ever). 2. Instead of concentrating on the Squadron 42 story, they keep expanding (mucking up) the MMO part, instead of concentrating on the small things first. So... I started playing Elite Dangerous, when I got it for free at Epic Games, and was very satisfied with it as a replacement. No Mans Sky sounded interesting at the time, but I didn't want to delve into too many different games of the same genre. And now? I am actually thinking of getting this game, as it blends in many elements of what I like. Mainly though it is that it is not an MMO, as I am more a PvE than PvP player.
Starfield no question in my opinion. The hand crafted RPG elements from Bethesda intergrated with procedurally generated planets will provide a unique and incredibly interesting system to explore. The best of both worlds from a developer that's proven they can pull something like this off.
In Elite Dangerous, in-system FSD is basically also a loading screen. Whenever you drop, the server actually makes a map instance where you can fly around, that didn't exist before. In Star Citizen every map is part of the map that contains it, so you could "theoretically" crash into another ship in the 1 in a trillion chance you were in the same position during QT. I'm pretty sure collisions are off during tho. Being able to walk around in your ship during Quantum is great, especially with other players in it. Maybe one of them decides to drive a space bike off the ramp mid jump. Why not? Flying around in realistic sized solar systems in ED is pretty sweet tho. I like that part more than I like the actual gameplay.
I've never played No Man's Sky, but I have played the other 3. As for the question of travel style preference, I love Elite Dangerous exploration as a means of almost meditative relaxation: The art of the graphics & the music are soothing & beautiful enough that I've spent hundreds of hours just flying in the black of space, scanning planets along the way. With Star Citizen's travel mechanic, I get bored & antsy. As for Starfield, the lack of seamless travel doesn't bother me at all; the cut scenes just make it feel like I'm in a space movie or series. Not having long travel sequences/experiences just keeps the focus more on Starfield feeling like living a space drama like Star Wars or Star Trek, as opposed to being a space flight sim. So, all in all, I agree that neither is better or worse, they're just different experiences that will resonate with different people differently, depending on what they're looking for.
Great video buddy, I'm looking forward to Starfield and being able to explore uninterrupted by network issues or PVP focused players. the idea that visiting every planet in the game is actually possible as well makes it such a draw.
As far as travel goes, I’ll never forget the time in Star Citizen I accidentally left my ship during light speed and had to send a beacon for another player to rescue me in the empty vacuum of space. There is no possibility for that scenario to happen organically in any of the other games. Star Citizen legitimately has no loading screen or transition screens once you’re loaded into the game. I could take off from a planet and fly in low speed into space if I wanted. It would take very long to do it that way but the fact is I could. For me, that level of immersion makes it a ton of fun, but it’s also the reason I don’t play often since it requires me to dedicate a lot of time per play session. All this being said, I’m certainly excited for Starfield!
I don't think they are going to be comparable at all. Elite Dangerous is a realistic physics based simulation. Starfield is likely going to be very arcadey in comparison as its predominantly an Action RPG, not a simulation. If you're expecting Elite Dangerous levels of complexity I think you will be very disappointed. I think I personally will prefer Starfield as I like Action RPG games with a narrative and, while i love the idea of Elite Dangerous, I find it too complex to learn and a little too realistic, which leads me to get bored very quickly.
As a player wanting to play space games, I appreceate this comparison, addressing the questions I have. It answered my questions.........thanx man. Well done.
When you said you'll never be able to this in your lifetime that hits so hard. I actually get bummed out playing these games sometimes because it feels so real and so unobtainable
For me it's all about the HOSAS dogfighting. And in that aspect, I don't see how any game could compete with Star Citizen. Elite doesn't seem to be as good, although I had a hard time actually getting going in elite. Like playing in the arena, or grinding for a ship. No mans sky doesn't even have 6dof. And not having 6dof seems to also be the case with starfield. Also starfield looks like the combat is playable on a gamepad, so that can't be good. I've looked for other space sims that can be as good as star citizen at the space combat, singleplayer or multiplayer. Everspace 2 is bad because projectiles don't inherit ship velocity, so your strafes have no effect on your aim. Hunternet Starfighter is the closest it gets to being a space sim with good space combat. But TBH I prefer the faster roll, and asymmetrical strafe in star citizen.
I agree with you on the Star Citizen ship-to-ship combat; it is quite good. Regarding Elite, I mostly played the game with a gamepad (custom settings), and it is totally playable that way. You can create a really usable setup for 6DOF in Elite. And yeah, No Man's Sky is more arcade-like and the one I've played the least out of the three. o7
@@hqgamingnews the idea of being effective at flying with a game pad really turns me off from a flight model. Imagine a world where real fighter pilots could be effective with a game bad and not need a joystick.
Its kind of nice to have something to play without the total need for friends or a creative head peice on at all times. Starfield helps fill that gap between wanting to play a space game, while still immersing you in a universe's story. Great for when im waiting to play with friends, especially now since my main wingman is off at basic training
I would LOVE to play Star Citizen. However like Alan Grant, computers hate me and I am currently without. Starfield is the perfect solution to my predicament. I really think that they’re going to nail the balance between too much and too little. To balance procedural generation with hand crafted worlds. I honestly don’t know if I’ve ever been this excited for a game to release.
I put over 1000 hours into Elite Dangerous in just over a year... on ps4... Then Frontier released Odyssey and I never played another hour.... I was gutted... So I bought the xbox series x with starfield in mind.. Plus game pass.... Really excited for starfield although I intend to 'go dark' soon on the reviews and other media output as seeing it in real time for the first time is my goal.... Thanks for the upload though top draw breakdown.... o7 commanders
No Man's Sky is never going to be "replaced" by Starfield because it's a different type of game that has its own audience. Starfield will never have multiplayer, and is focused specifically on being a boots on the ground RPG where your ship plays a smaller role - that will appeal more to the Fallout/TES fanbase who want to go to planets to do quests and storylines, wheras NMS fans will miss the atmospheric flight, almost infinite universe and more nomadic style of the game.
Thousands of immersed hours in elite. Mining, exploring, trucking chasing that elite rank. Then they axed support and i realized its never going to get better. I miss having a game like that.
For me Starfields concept of interstellar travelling is the most realistic one. It basically links to the description of wormholes in the movie Interstellar: You fold a dimension and make a shortcut, so if you punch a hole through a 2d layer of material you'll be instantly at the other side ;) So this concept works well for me. On the approaches of all others I don't think it would work IRL even with energy driven shields: 1. something with mass cannot travel at speeds even close to light speed. On Elite you are constantly above that with like 30c while in a planetary system, 2. if you'd hit some sand size particles at such speeds you'd be doomed already. If it's rocks you'd even more doomed. That's another reason why I think the Starfields way would be the one more close to something realistic if we'd had the tech and energy to create actual wormholes.
No mans sky is almost paradoxical in that you could never fully explore it BUT once you have visited 10 systems you have seen basically everything in the game.
I will be playing Star Citizen for many years but I will play Star Field completly many times and come back to it depending on Mods. The two games are hard to compare as one is single player and the other in MMO.
Been and have been waiting for Star Citizen- Squadron 42. But they are still in Alpha and have been in Alpha for the past 10 years. How long does it take to make a ficken game?
Wrong question. How long does it take to build a company and the tech to make a game like star citizen? There is a reason that nothing like the vision of SC exists, even SC is far from achieving it yet and that’s kind of the point. I think the team making the game are too stuck solving the multitude of issues to make the ‘perfect’ Space sim MMO compared to making realizable goals with existing tech for a good and average space sim. They are still limited by technology such as server meshing and full persistence which is itself very ambitious combined with the excessive detail and emersion the went for. Essentially, its too much and that’s why its taking so long. It’s not just building any old game, but instead breaking grounds in almost every single gaming tech available (or not yet existing) to build a kind of matrix level game. That can’t take just 10 years, which if you want a finished game, that sucks!
When CIG will understand that developing 2 gargantuan games at the same time will take them 20 years, they will focus on only one and finish it quickly and then focus on the other and finish that one too more quickly
If Bethesda felt they could do seamless transitions and still achieve their goal they would've given it to us no doubt. While I wish seamless transition was possible, if everything else works smoother than the other games then I'll gladly accept the sacrifice.
It certainly will replace all 3 for me. The modding potential, gameplay, etc.. No reason to not think I won't sink 4k+ hours into this game as starting hours like Skyrim, Fallout, etc.
For me it was the original Elite ( I played it on an Amstrad CPC computer). The graphics were just lines, but it really started my journey into the unknown, one I continued with the sequels and now finally elite dangerous
Having played NMS extensively and just a while ago, a couple hours of Starfield, I can say they are in a different group of games. NMS is more of a space sim while Starfield is quite literally just an RPG with space slapped onto it. What Todd said about his game is not entirely true and should not be taken at face value. You cannot travel in space in such a free and open manner as compared to NMS. Any kind of travelling within a system, even a planet requires fast travel. You wanna go to another system? Fast travel. To another planet? Fast travel. Somewhere on the same planet?? Fast travel. Even the train rides in the city is a form of fast travel. Think of it like carriages in Skyrim. With that said, is the game bad then? Not really, it depends on your expectations though. If you expected this to be a NMS 2.0 then you will be massively disappointed. Just think of it as another Bethesda title and you'll do just fine.
Thank you for this comparison. While I am very excited for Starfield, all the commentaries I've seen act like this is the first video game ever to have space travel and numerous planets to explore. Every time I am like what about No Man's Sky! I realize, like you pointed out, these are ultimately different types of games, it is still worthy to note the similarities and differences.
I'm confused. You somehow released a video about game design without confusing subjective preferences for objective quality. You must have made some sort of mistake. Are you aware you are on the internet?
Dang I feel like this video should be a must watch for all the people complaining... Whats a great comparison, fairly based and lacking any noticeable bias, a difficult task these days! Well done!
This video just showed up in my youtube feed. Well done! I am a NMS player. I checked out both Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen on youtube and, though there are aspects I wish were in No Man's Sky, such as being able to travel with other players in a ship or other vehicle, and they need to optimize their multiplayer, I do not care for games which are played on server only. If I want to, I can play No Man's Sky completely offline. I am looking forward to seeing what Hello Games does next. Starfield will be another game I will watch on youtube, probably while I play NMS on my other screen. I have a computer that would play it but just barely. The game is very graphics heavy for someone with a mid-range gaming pc which "only" has 8GB dedicated video ram. I also do like the freedom NMS gives in movement. It also has so many other aspects, such as adopting creatures as pets - with mods, even the large birds/dragons that you can fly and that appeals to me. With a mod, you can speed up the ground vehicles and they are very fun to drive across the planets. I enjoy the building and the fact we can glitch-build in NMS which most games don't allow. NMS is missing actual cities and roads, as well as other things but you can't have it all in one game right?
Regarding faster travel systems, I feel No Man's Sky does it best, it's not milliseconds, like Starfield, and it's not many minutes in Elite. Starfield is a different beast. More realistic looking, but quite streamlined, with loading to planets, and millisecond planetary travel. No Man's Sky, of the solo play games, is my go-to game. But it sits well with Starfield, more than it does with Elite, Star Citizen, etc.
I just wish the star systems in NMS were slightly bigger, with actual reachable stars at the center. Something in-between what NMS is currently and Elite Dangerous is, but way more streamlined than Elite. I don't like how stars are just apart of a sykybox that we can't ever reach.
Starfield just uses wormholes. Wormholes shouldn't take that long. In my eyes that's more realistic than whatever hyperdrive bullshit people are making up to go faster than the speed of light.
In my opinion you perfectly resume and compare all of these game in a really great video without any biased moment so thank you !! have a great day and a ton of fun too 😁
I love how this is 2 months old and very clearly states how flight and travels works in Starfield, but now post release everyone has freaked out about the exploration and planet travel not being "seemless"
Good video though!
I think the biggest problem is the loading screens. I'm ok with not having seamless travel. But they could have done a better job at hiding the loading screens. Also I knew there was not going to be atmospheric flight, and I thought I would be ok with it, but now that I have played the game, it felt like such a big missed opportunity. They added all these great features in the ship builder and we can only use our ship in space, and the encounters are very limited and boring.
@@pabs9550 The real crime is they did not include planet side ships and made these interesting mech, but had them solely exist to taught you cause they banned them.
Yes this lack of this features are pretty stupid, if i want to just play an RPG with a space theme, i would play Mass Effect. instead of Starfield, and on the space sim side, Starfield is the WORST ever, folks are only talking about this game because it is a AAA from Bethesda.
There is something about elite dangerous that feels very...immeasurable. That feeling that if you leave home, you might never come back. Even if you don't go to the farthest reaches, there is something magical about the solitude you feel when you venture out. As Khan said, "It is very cold...in space".
Really nice comparison. I hate the narrative that there can be only one. There doesn't need to be a winner here. More, well crafted space games means we all win
True. I've had some Star Citizen players message me telling that "Starfield will be a good alternative until 4.0 is out".
I agree. Some people treat games like sports teams, picking one and then spending all their time belittling the others.
Play what you enjoy. Play more than one of them. Have fun.
@@Sighman Yes and not only that but people treating plastic boxes and companies that make them like it's a sports team. It's laughable and ridiculous. The tribalistic nature of humans I guess.
Just look at racing sims. The genre benefits tremendously by having multiple choices to choose from.
The Sith might disagree with you.
It is important to contextualize the games at their core level. Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen and No Man's Sky are focused on space simulation (to varying degrees of realism and graphic fidelity). Starfield, on the other hand, is an RPG set in space and the focus is on lore and immersion building and player RP agency. So, really, the comparisons being bandied about by proponents of one favored game over another don't really convey to Starfield, as it is the only one of them that is a roleplaying game first and a space setting second.
Yeah I noticed that too like a lot of new people came to the space genre and think that these 3 games are the golden standard of the space genre ,when in reality they are just a sub genre like arcade side scrollers set in space ,narrative driven space games like mass effect ,arcade combat like rebel galaxy and everspace 2 ,even the outer wilds or the outer worlds I always get those mixed up where one is exploration based while the other is a bit of combat with a narrative and choices and the ship doesn't play a role more than a loading screen. And it's like they don't think that different studios with different budgets ,ideas and visions make different games for that genre and copy of each other some elements
The reason why we’re comparing them is that many of the ads presented Starfield like a space sim first down to the art-style and an rpg second. If they actually discussed the story, the factions, the lore about how it lives instead just another empty space sim I think people would be more receptive if they focused on the rpg
@@ethanspicer3471 Exactly, the early marketing gave us the impression that No Man's Skyrim would essentially be a Single Player Elite Dangerous/Star Citizen with RPG elements (which sounds cool). As more material has been released, Bethesda has clarified (though not in so many words) that it is more comparable to The Outer Worlds, (also cool but, not what we initially expected)
I get the sneaky suspicion that if you treat Starfield as a beefed up Mass Effect with Elderscrolls and Fallout sprinkled on top as opposed to the next Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen or No Mans Sky it will be far better for your expectations and overall enjoyment in the end
@karolusder1 Elite were the first as it came in 1984. The first Elite game with unlimited space were Frontier from 1993.
"Frontier: Elite II" is the golden standard of space genre everyone else copied.
I like the way Star Citizen does jumps. It has long jumps but I like the fact that I can get out of my seat, walk around and do stuff within the ship. Turn the lights off, have a nap on the ship, drink a beer purchased from the station. 100 star systems sound nice, obviously better than just 1, but I love that it's all open world and no real storyline.
What I'd *really* like is a 3d version of Starbound with awesome space gameplay.
Empyrion Galactic survival is the game you are looking for.
@@Nemod70i second this, amazing game
@@Nemod70Thanks! I'll check it out. Although I like the SC jumps, I've basically stopped playing it entirely. It's just a boring game.
@@senadgalijasevic8568 Yeah, but you can't go planetside, so that game's not an option.
Starfield doesn’t have one fully rendered planet in it.
Main key differences I have seen-
Star citizen - tech simulator
Nms - color simulator
Elite - menu simulator
I can't wait for him to come back in 3 weeks to explain how is he mad that "exploring" Starfield just ended with him seeing the same outpost setup 14 times.
I started playing NMS from day 1 and enjoyed it's simplicity in spite of the huge number of bugs. I tried playing Star Citizen during one of it's alpha release periods and as much as I liked the prospects, found the over-complicated controls too much to process. Shift this, Crtl that, Alt the other thing... Trying to learn how to fly while being repeatedly killed by stupid freaking children wanting to PvP... NO THANK YOU! A buddy with whom I play a number of co-op games together suggested Elite Dangerous and we both enjoyed that for quite a few months but ultimately dropped it. Once we got our desired ships fully upgraded, had billions in credits, the rest became kind of pointless with endless repetition. Trying to fight the Thargoids was an exercise in futility for us, so that ended badly. The Odyssey update was so bad, I felt cheated out of my money and never went back. I do still enjoy going back to NMS periodically and appreciate the Expeditions, though ultimately I wish they'd put some real effort into expanding the procedural generation to add more detail and variety.
I've been looking forward to Starfield for years now. Started playing Bethesda games with the Elder Scrolls with Daggerfall through Skyrim and fully enjoyed the mod support Bethesda builds into their games. Branched into Fallout 4 after Skyrim and ultimately did ESO for a couple years and even FO 76 more recently. The modding of the games is by far the best aspect in that it allows players to create new and interesting content that can be shared and extends the life of the game for potentially years to come. I'm really hoping that Starfield permits users to mod it in such a way that new solar systems and worlds can be added. Looking at what people have done in the past (and currently) with Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, etcetera, Starfield has the potential to go way beyond.
That was a nice read. Thank you for sharing your extensive experience, which is quite similar to mine with some differences of course.
Less than 50 days to go!!!
There will definitely be mods adding stuff the dead planets, adding whole planets to existings systems, and adding whole new systems to the universe map. Modders gonna go insane! Im on xbox but my eyes will be glued to the dope pc mods that'll be shown on youtube... and hopefully some good ones land on xbox as well. Although i got for 100% achievements so i wont be adding any mods until im 100% gonna be a long road... 🫠
You never played X4 right? You should try... it is way better than Starfield, in fact i dare to say it is near perfect simulation.
This is a very well produced, factual, unbiased presentation that contrasts itself from so many other comparisons - thank you.
For my part, I love Elite Dangerous, the multiplayer experience, and freedom to go where I like, how, and when I like. I also only play in VR which is missing in some of the others, I believe.
Thank you for your kind words. I also played Elite mostly in VR (truly one of a kind experience) until Odyssey kinda killed it for me. I continued to play it for a few months after Odyssey launched, then I completely stopped.
hold on a sec, star citizen allows the player to leave the cockpit while the ship is traveling to the destination, your not just waiting for the next destination, you can move around in your ship and do other tasks during the wait, say your ship needs some internal upgrades and or things that need to be fixed, that kind of stuff can take time but also serve as something to do to make the wait feel not so long.
there could be other tasks during this transition that the player could do, like looking at the galaxy map or if there were other NPC's on board your ship, you could engage in conversation while you wait, you can upgrade their gear and their stats, stuff like that is what i would want instead of getting to the destination like i went through a stargate or something, i wish they made a stargate game, i would love this feature for the ships and leave the stargate to be instantaneous travel.
i mean if you really think about it, think about how fallout 4 does their settlements, but pretend the settlement is a ship traveling in space, while you build and add onto the settlement there is a potential that you could be attacked at any moment, but then after you deal with the bad guys, you can go right back to fixing and adding to that ship, yes i just pretended my settlement is a ship in this scenario, but something like this could exist in starfield if it was part of the gameplay loop.
@@hqgamingnews
i do agree with your point in the video that starfield will offer more than these other games with every other aspect, i like simulation, but i also like RPG stuff and i like a good branching story with lots to do.
but when it comes to the traveling within hyperspace with the gravdrive, i don't like how arcade it is for that kind of travel, i would much prefer it be somewhat simulation, meaning that there is a wait, but like star citizen, you can walk around in your ship and do other things while you wait, just like in my other comment, the settlement system in FO4 is a perfect example of this, say you just were about to get your ass kicked in a battle and had to make a gravdrive jump to the next system to survive the attack, instead of getting to the next destination right away, i would prefer using that delayed wait traveling to the next destination to repair and upgrade my ship so when i get to my next destination i'm ready for anything that comes at me.
and lets say that other ship that was kicking my ass followed me, i would be ready for their attack because i had taken the time to fix my ship, this is essentially what the settlement system was in FO4, you fixed and upgraded your ship, or settlement, and while you did this, you are attacked, and then you kill the bad guys only to go back to repairing your ship or settlement, also imagine you are also upgrading the gear on your NPC's, giving them better weapons and armor ammo and other defenses while you stave off the next attack.
leave the instantaneous travel to the stargate lol. i would love if they made a stargate game at the quality of a bethesda game, but that will never happen.
oh and i do like the fact that starfield is a smaller universe, i would say it's still too big given this is a bethesda game with the crafted content probably being sparsely populated on each planet, that part i'm concerned about, maybe a modder will come in and make it so there are only 300 planets to interact with, with only some of them having nothing content for resources on them, a 1000 is just too much, and it's the same way for NMS, that is overkill in the amount of planets used in the game, it's essentially a never ending gameplay loop which can make the gameplay super boring if you ask me.
In my opinion, if this game had 4-8 player coop and it was done right, it would be one of the greatest games ever made.
@@mastah39 If GTA had Skyrim's community, level of modding support & capability, GTA would be the best driving and flight sim on the market. But to be honest, if Starfield is already a good game, I don't think people will feel the need or desire to mod it to that level. But there will definitely be mods that add atmospheric flight, more "realistic" flight, ground vehicles, and other features. I just think Bethesda opted out of that (if the planets are really full sized) because they want you to explore the game on foot.
I am a solo player and Starfield is an easy choice for me and out of them all, it has a story campaign
This is what excites me most... that I don't have to worry about stumbling across some player who spends $500 a month on their game to have the best of everything and likes blowing people away because they can. It sounds like while story driven, you can go about things at your own pace.
Would love to find friends online, but the truth is, they rather like to screw your game up.
Some games have the possibility to go in to anothers game and bully him, like Watch Dogs and Dying Light.
What is wrong with these developers!?
@@memoli801 True but at least you can disable those options, I know I did
That's cool as you seem to like the idea of someone(the storywriter) limiting your character choices. That for me is a deal breaker, like in Cyberpunk even when I know from the turn of events that a character in the game is a danger to me, there's no option but to get sucked into the storywriters outcome. That I am afraid is not roleplaying as far as I'm concerned, it's more of a cinematic joyride.
@@Fearlessphil100 I don't know which post you are referring to. If it's about not wanting other people in my game, I see it as an enhancment of my game experience. For me, other people messing with my game is game breaking
The flight of Elite Dangerous is hard to get used to but after getting used it to it, I prefer it to anything else - it’s so satisfying and makes everything feel very real.
Thats one of my biggest beefs with SC...its just nowhere near as atmospheric or immersive as Elite.
Not to mention, Elite is also a polished, complete game lol
@@falco5150 yeah i have to agree i love star citizen and if it reaches its goals or even just smoothes out the current experience and releases it it would dwarf any other space game but currently its faults are far too big to overlook in all fairness elite has some major problems too though like engineering and sole emphasis on thargoid content
@@falco5150 Elite is pretty far from a complete game. There is literally nothing to do once you have enough money to buy all the ships. Engineering? Yeah most boring grind ever
It is indeed so very well done, and a great flight sim for space, It is not an adventurous, building and exploring game with so many different ways to play it. The two are not really even apples and oranges, more like apples and fruit salad. We all win with both to play.
@@pierce9019 I think you've missed the point of what Elite Dangerous is meant to be - it's not something where you have an "end goal" - the idea is to amuse yourself within the framework the game presents you. I fail to see how having more game-money than god suddenly means you no longer have "anything to do" - boost your favorite faction, trade rare goods, have fun tanking a planet's economy by buying everything, become a pirate, explore, do community goals, fight Thargoids. The choice is yours, and the story is yours to create. Honestly, if you have run out of things to do, then I'm sorry but you have no imagination.
Great Overview. I’ve played NMS, Elite & Star Citizen and awaiting Starfield. I have enjoyed space games for the past 50 years. Each of them give that sense of wonder for those who are inspired by space travel. I’m still hopeful we will get to travel the stars before my time is done. ❤🤘
o7
Go check out melodysheep if you don't know his channel already!
His videos satisfy exactly that same urge that draws me to space games. I have just discovered his channel and have fallen in love with the movie quality videos he made.
They really instill that sense of wonder and awe and turn theoretical and abstract thoughts into a palpable reality.
I love their channel! The video about the death of the Universe is mind-blowing!
I feel like Elites FTL travel would end up the best of both when they add to the ability to set up your ship in Autopilot and can walk about the interior of your ship and do other things during FTL flight
EXACTLY! That's what EVERYONE hoped will happen in Odyssey, but no. Frontier, being stubborn and clueless, ignored its own community, proving they're out of touch once again.
Thats where star citizen shines. You can play among us during a long jump and actually boot out ya homie into space lol.
"Stars above, you worry too much. If anything's going to kill you, it's the autopilot." -- an autopilot engineer
I still don't understand in ED why they don't make the autopilot an integrated part of the ship rather than a mod to equip on your ship
The thing is that FSD in ED takes like 15-20 seconds which isn't really enough to do anything else, also you should be able to autopilot multijumps which sadly isn't possible so it's just the endless menu-clicking rinse and repeat. Such fun "gameplay".
But yes, FTL within a system would benefit hugely from being able to walk around.
I’ve always been an explorer at heart, and I’ve always been looking for… something more. I started with EVE Online, and being an explorer there is hyper limited. There is only exploration on a systemic level. No surface exploration at all, and stations you cannot explore at all now that they’ve gotten rid of the tiny bit of wandering around your quarters. The community and the parallel Role Playing I got to do as a member of Signal Cartel made things interesting for me there, and kept me busy for years.
No Man’s Sky is like a candy cane experience. Exploration was cool, but quickly became repetitive since EVERYTHING is procedural. There are only 3 races of intelligent beings, and all animals are essentially the same. Terrain all became the same. Mountains or hills, or rocks… where was the massive deserts? The endless grasslands? It became a game where building bases and looking for unique instances of a ship was all I did in the end. And that got boring and monotonous, despite the billions of possibilities. Even the combat felt pretty simple and non-threatening once you got to a certain point.
Elite Dangerous. I call it a near seamless flight simulator in space. I love the challenges associated with flying my ship, but can be a massive time suck as well. Exploration? I love looking for life out there in little hidden corners of any random system. My favorite completed challenge was finding a single strain of bacteria on a super cold planet orbiting a very dim brown dwarf. I got damn lucky, since I could hardly see anything! But while life should be rare, where the hell are the animals? Is everything a plant or a bacteria (yes)? Is there ever bodies of water or any other liquid out there (no)? You cannot ever land on a planet that has a significant atmosphere. Water world? You only get to look at it from space. Gas giant with water or ammonia based life? Sure, if you say so. Places where people supposedly live? They’re only little tiny boxes of humanity in stations or outposts, or the occasional fleet carrier. Ooooohhh, the possibilities are all EXACTLY THE SAME.
Star Citizen? Haven’t tried it, don’t want to try it. I sure as hell don’t want to spend crap tons of real money to get a nice ship in a game that technically isn’t even released yet.
So for me, Starfield looks like if might give me the actual RPG elements that I crave. I will actually have interactions with characters! Sure NPCs, but oftentimes real people behave ridiculously simply because they can (one reason I’ll likely not play EVE again). There will be lots of real (but curated) exploration planets and moons that will look beautiful and actually have interesting locations and terrain and plants and animals to discover. I will be able to gather a crew that actually interacts with me and is influenced by what I say and do. In time, I will get to craft a ship that looks kind of how I want it to, and actually live in it. Combat? Sure, lots, and it will feel like it was meant to happen both in space and in the dirt. Cities? Towns? Things to explore and interact with.
Yeah, I wish I could control my ship more and explore in ways other than strictly on foot. I wish there were ways to expand the borders of what is possible, but the box they’re letting us play in is going to be very rich indeed. But I’ll give up many of these things to get the other things I mentioned.
I feel like Starfield is going to fill in most of the gaps that the other games I have tried just cannot. So yeah, I am looking forward to this game. 😊
Just a heads up, you can get any ship in Star Citizen for the $45 game price.
Starcitizen is $45 which includes a ship and nice ships can be bought ingame with ingame currency
Yeah, the replies are true. Don't know who told you you needed to spend hundreds to play Star Citizen but clearly didn't played it. The reality is that most of the people get into Star Citizen with a 45-60$ game pack and buy the rest of the ships they like with in-game credits earned through playing. But I still get that you may not want to pay for a not finished game, its fair, but for some of us it's more about fun than about how polished it is.
For me Starfield scratches all the spots the other 3 don't. First of all, I loathe multiplayer games, for many reasons, but mostly the inevitable toxic communities stemming from griefers, etc and they are either created as cash grabs from the start or quickly devolve into pay to win hellscapes. I have never in nearly 4000 hours in ED loaded into open mode, and have done 1 group play session solely to catch a ride to Colonia on some ones carrier. The few times I actually encountered other players in SC outside of an armistice zone, I was murdered within seconds of encountering them, or they stole my ship while I was doing a box delivery on a moon... None of the people I know IRL play any of these games so, I dont have a pool of friends to play with. As for NMS... the ending to the main story killed that game for me. I was super intrigued by the story at first, but when you find out the entire thing is just a computer simulation, I was like, so Im playing a simulation of a simulation? WTF? The entire universe could literally cease to exist whenever Atlas' 16 minutes are up, whenever that is.... not that the devs will ever actually do that but thats what the lore implies, that this sim has been run millions of times and that this is that last time it will run because of too much corruption etc etc blah blah... It just ruined the only thing that kept me in the game to begin with, as I feel like the gameplay itself is a little too arcade-ish for my personal taste. ED was pretty much ruined for me with the Odyssey release... it seems like the devs over there are 10-15 years behind the rest of the gaming world regarding the FPS stuff... I would have preferred ship interiors and EVA with gameplay built around those elements but they have said that those things will never happen so... And after manually landing on my first 3000 planets I'm ready for something different. I will admit I am a fairly hardcore Bethesda geek, I have never gotten into Oblivion or Morrowind, but I have thousands of hours invested in Skyrim and the Fallout games... The modding aspect is probably the most important aspect there, which will NEVER be a thing for ED or SC. NMS is somewhat mod friendly but nowhere near the scope of a Bethesda game... Ok thanks for reading if you did. Have fun
That sounds awful lot of similar to my experiences. Nice read!
Same. Since... IDK 20 years? I am playing single player games and whenever I change for a MMO is a problem that those games just don't have immersion as single player games. Few exceptions here and there but multiplayer isn't my thing. And NMS I honestly am playing all the time as a single player game, or at least that's how i see it. Starfield is exactly what I like. I mean, the type of a game that I love to play. When i saw Starfield I was like: It have modifiable ships... it have big space and planets; it certainly have few cities and quests on a different planets and you can build... and you can easily combine NMS; ED and SC in Starfield. Or at least the selling points without the multiplayer. On paper, Starfield is what I am trying to get from different games and it's never complete. Maybe this time?
Just a correction, ED doesn't limit to 32 players in an instance. It is a soft limit that is rarely reached without people friending up and deliberately joining instances. However, when doing that, it is possible to reach over 100 people in an instance, although (as you noted) it can get a bit janky when that happens.
Overall, good video though.
I think SF is going to be a good game overall, regardless of the differences (or similarities) to those other games.
TLDR; I'd say Starfield, ED, and NMS all have special and unique places in my gaming library. Each one covering a different style, and offering me something that the others don't when the mood strikes. SC might someday.
ED will always have a special place for me because it was the first time I really FELT the size of our galaxy. Even travelling at impossible speeds getting anywhere significant takes TIME. Lots of time. Not to mention the fact that our galaxy is one of many, with space between them. I'll always appreciate the scope of the game and their take on realism for that. That being said, I burned out on the game because of the amount of time it takes to do things in the end game. The ship combat is great, though. It seems like SC is meant to be the next generation of this style of game, but with it's perpetual development cycle still no where near completing who knows when we'll get to experience it. I've played SC a number of times throughout its development and each time I leave it quickly, having seen its potential but also seeing that it's nowhere near a complete gaming experience (the bugs + lag chase me off). NMS is a great game in it's own right, much more casual than these other two. Travelling around in NMS feels more gamey than in ED or SC, which is great if that's what you're looking for. I've had moments where I've been amazed by the scale of NMS, but unlike in ED these feelings didn't translate to any real-world epiphanies. It's a fun game, but I don't really lump it in with the other two because of the way it feels to play. It might be a combination of the art style and the way the controls move both your ship and character in a slower, more "padded" sort of way. Starfield, now that I've sunk about 150 hours into it, is an interesting game. Big highlights, and the ever present feeling of wanting more. I think I'll be playing Starfield repeatedly for many years to come as new mods release to freshen it up. It's probably replacing Skyrim for me in that regard. Any time I get an itch to explore space, though, I won't be going to Starfield (unfortunately). It excels in creating a world that I want to explore more of, but due to the way they designed the space flight it feels the same as any other RPG where you fast travel around a planet, or continent. So it doesn't hold up as a space exploration game. The corner of the galaxy you exist in doesn't feel big. No bigger than Skyrim. It does, however, have a number of things going for it that the others don't. The character building (leveling and gear) is by far the best on this list. The gun fights, as well, are the best. SC might beat it once they eventually get around to it, but regardless, currently, Starfield wins that for me. The cities are much more interesting than the others (once again, SC might win this eventually - anyone else ever get tired of saying that?). For space combat, I prefer the more realistic approach that ED and SC have taken. Starfield is better than NMS in this regard, but worse than the other two.
usually i am a player who wants to get things done quick.. and then i experienced star citizen and i appreciate every second of it. i mean everything takes a long time and there is just no shortcuts, on top of that you need to eat and drink and soon i think also shower and use a toilet. star citizen is a fantastic game, a friend introduced me and i was just amazed from the beginning. starfield on the other hand.. i tried to like the game but the constant and never ending loading screens break it for me. also the missions never really got me
Would have loved in-atmosphere flight in Starfield, but I can easily see asset streaming being a huge problem. Pop-in would be the least of the challenges.
Many people are asking for rovers etc, I really think that we might see a rover/shuttle as a DLC.
@@mrow7598 A rover or bike or something I could definitely see coming
this still would have been possible, but the effect would have been something to obstruct the view of the player, like for example burning up in the planets atmosphere as you descend to the planet and the same thing when you enter space.
but it wouldn't really be controlled in a seamless manner, bethesda have used this method before in FO4 when entering an elevator, the elevator would function as the load screen, but the player would be restricted in seeing the assets popping into frame outside of the elevator, they could move freely in that isolated location while the game loaded the next section while they waited so it would feel somewhat seamless in transition.
bethesda have also upgraded their lod gen, so that pop-in wouldn't be as much of an issue especially if the decent was slowed down and not too fast during the transition to the planet.
just you watch and wait, some modder out there will make it happen.
as far as the drivable vehicles go in this game, i believe this can be done as well, but it's not going to be perfect, they can use existing animations of the game to make it happen or they could port over stuff from previous games to the new one, the engine is still the same engine, it's just been upgraded, but it's still mostly compatible with the old version of the engine.
@user-tp5yb4hr4w As far as entering and exiting the atmosphere, you're probably right. They likely use that as a semi-active loading screen.
@user-tp5yb4hr4w flying seamlessly across the surface from A to B, that's a different situation, though. We know the geography tiles load as we approach, instead of being loaded all at once. That's a lot of load-in with no loading screens, and you can't rely on geography to block the player's view when they're in the sky.
To answer the question in the thumbnail:
No. It's a linear, story-driven, single player space game, it's NOT a multiplayer galaxy sized sandbox where you can literally do and be whatever you want and it has more loading screens than a little bit, which kills the immersion very quickly.
Space is huge. It's NOT supposed to be completely explored within your lifetime. That makes you appreciate it's vastness and always makes you question what you'll discover next.
In Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky (and eventually Star Citizen), you can literally play these games for years and still manage to be the first player to discover a star system or a planet that no player has ever reached.
In Starfield, players will eventually explore all 1000 something planets and star systems that the game has to offer as well as the limited number of storylines and side-quests, which kills it's replayability. Additionally, Starfield is NOT a space sandbox. It's strictly a quest-based RPG.
Unlike Star Citizen, Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky, Starfield doesn't give as much freedom when it comes to exploring the galaxy. From the start in Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky (after the initial tutorial planet), players can quite literally go and do whatever they want without much limitation, because the player is essentially the story, and isn't required to follow a linear path that leads to a specific ending or set of endings (although No Man's Sky does have an "ending" of sorts that the player can work towards). Once again, having limitations like this kills the replayability.
Truthfully, I can play Starfield for about 150 hours and reach a few endings, experience that all that it has to offer and never have to touch the game again versus Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky, I can quite literally play for YEARS and still feel like I've discovered someplace new, because I have NO quest line that I'm forced to follow.
When I played Elite I never thought I'd go for one of the long haul farms until I did. Spending 2 days to go all the way to another system and farm materials might not have seemed like much to most players but it was great and made me feel like I accomplished something in the game. Whats it they say, its not the destination... It's the journey there that we remember
Oh, Elite had its moments, that's for sure. A real shame developers didn't want to evolve ideas further.
So No Mans Sky has been out for years now. The company hype preceding release was something like 'A multiplayer Game where you can join other players in the 'Verse and explore together, As said above, the chacnes of this were very very slim. Hence the joke, 'Hey, did you hear about the NMS convention? three thousand people attended, but no one saw each other'
In Elite Dangerous, that long time to get somewhere can be completely stressful. I was attacked while mining, and barely survived with only my back up life support keeping me alive. I had to jump to the nearest station to dock and repair. The feeling of getting there with less than 30 seconds of oxygen left was intense.
those moments were what made Elite great. in the old days, before they patched it out, you could jump into a system and appear right between two stars. usually meant death. you had to bookmark those systems to avoid them. the game was DANGEROUS, there was a real sense of peril. money was really tough to come by so rebuys could cripple you. they softened it a lot over the years.
That's what I like about it, made a very long trip to see the alien spacecraft when it was first sighted, was not sure I would make it back, unfortunately my team mate fired on the alien ship and he wiped us all out, those experiences are fantastic just like when you travel to a Black hole.
@@fistovuziAgree, as in real life, space is not interested if you are stressed or not. It's crude and cold as beautiful.
That's why Elite Dangerous is a simulator more than an arcade, simulators are not for all people and that's ok. We enjoy the adrenaline of a crude situation where you do not know if at the end you can make it, however, try it until the end worth it. You learn, you live the situation, you enjoy, same for flight and race sims.
@@LuiszDiaz prob 5 or 6 years ago in Elite i got my cockpit blown out in a dogfight and turned and ran on emergency O2 (10 mins), i had to get to a station fast. there was a station i could get to but there was one problem. the lore explanation for your targeting HUD is they are projected into the cockpit "glass". all i had was the jagged edges of the glass BUT, if i oriented the ship just right i could see the station HUD target in those jagged edges and head in the approximate direction of the station. i also knew when to drop out of supercruise. i made it past the mailslot with about 30 seconds of O2 left. i get a bit depressed when i think of what Elite COULD HAVE been. if anyone ever compiles a "gamer's phrasebook" under *wasted potential* it will say *see Elite Dangerous*
Considering how Bethesda is the only one who creates the type of games that you are free to be you, do whatever the fuck you want, have millions of hours of playtime and still have things to do and things undiscovered, and modders and as well, the incredible Bethesda community will probably be creating. So.
*Y E S*
Personally I play nms for the shitty and infrequent multiplayer, I was 100% ready to buy an Xbox to play star field until I heard that I would be in a vast open universe on my own.
I don’t know what’s worse, not being able to find other players in such a large universe, or not even having the options to look for other players.
With how far nms has come in the past 5-7 years, I think I’ll stick here until consoles catch up enough to play star citizen. Star citizen looks like a good time.
I like the idea of an infinite galaxy if there's also infinite novelty, but if you're generating an infinite galaxy based on a comparatively tiny set of possible parameters, it means that you'll experience everything that infinite galaxy has to offer by just exploring a tiny, tiny fraction of it... and then what's the point
Awesome explanation. I love it!
theres no point, thats what mainly i dont like of NMS and ED. Too big and all the same. Prefer much SC with a small but dense, unique and very detailed system all day
I really wish you would have talked about the ships specifically because that's where Starfield really excels over everything else.
Definitely! Will do it, but in another video though.
Disagree. Assembling ships like a mechano set doesn’t really appeal to me. Give me well crafted designs by talented artists any day.
Yeah... I had so much fun with the ships when I played...
Exactly. The biggest draw of starfield is not only stealing ships, boarding ships, but making your own ship. This is something Chris Roberts talked about for star citizen, yet it’s happening in starfield. I can see myself searching for weeks for the perfect bridge, nacelle, or landing gear for my ship. I can’t wait to build in game. Going to be amazing!
@@ASSASSYN why do you mention star citizen lmao
The ideal game is a blend of all. I need the perfection of Star Citizen as the base, with the expansiveness and freedom of Elite Dangerous's scale and flight mechanics. I need the procedural generation and exploration fun of No Mans Sky, with the RPG and story elements of Starfield. With the ability to say fuck it all and get lost doing whatever I please
I do enjoy in No Mans Sky you can use teleporters to bounce between bases, space stations and bases you’ve visited. So I’ve I’ve hyper traveled to far and can’t get the resources to warp back home, just fly to the nearest space station and I will instantly travel back with ship and all. It’s been nice when going deeper into the clusters
i would actually be happy with smaller worlds but with a more handcrafted touch, even a 1000 is too much for everyone. But seeing that only 100 planets will have life on them that means everything important will felt more handcrafted than randomly generated. And that i feel is the best because no mans sky start to feel preety samy once you visited 10 planets
No man sky has a lot of problems IMO such as the over saturated & too cartoony colourful space, Space isn't purple nor pink it's BLACK, and most worlds don't have life which makes finding life on a planet pointless, but with 10% of planets having life it would be an amazing experience
I agree. I think the rarity I encountering life will make it that much more meaningful.
@kamelkadri2843 Yeah, I've put in 100 hours and just, can't say I've ever truly enjoyed the game. It's such a freaking grind fest.
Agreed, NMS might have quintillions of planets, but eventually they all feel the same variety of a couple of dozen.
Mass Effect's handcrafted 'worlds' felt far far more personality.
@@kamelkadri2843I just couldn’t get into the cartoonish design of NMS. So much so, that I stopped playing because it was kind of hard to take seriously.
I absolutely loved the overall game though.
Honestly this just opens my eyes a bit to seeing how NMS was able to really do the impossible and match the quality of games that came out far later and still managed to capture an immersive and engaging experience
Star citizen and elite dangerous Defs look the best though imo star field I guess really only has missions and ship building to make it stand out :/
I guess star fields systems and exploration could be considered the best inbetween but personally I like the elite dangerous version more, NMS is amazing but a lot of the planets are too similar to be considered different imo and star citizen is just too small as of rn, if it had 5-10 systems it be perfect as I enjoy the travel, exploration, graphics, and world of star citizen the most
The perfect blend of space exploration game, for me, is to have one entire galaxy filled with procedurally generated planets/moons/space stations. However 10% of those would be more detailed hand crafted-ish planets/moons/space stations spread throughout the galaxy. They would be more detailed, have more unique life/structures on them. Truely special experiences that you can't find on most other planets, because they are scattered. The game would have a blend of the realism in Elite Dangerous (and yes I do realize Elite is not a sim) with some of the fantasy elements in No Man's Sky. The on-foot shooting, flight/dogfighting mechanics would have some arcade-ish elements but have a lot of depth to it. However normal planets can be altered by cataclysmic events. Devastating storms, asteroids strikes, ruptured cores, stars going supernova etc. Some changing the planets forever, others, completely wiping them out.
Yeah that's simply impossible
@@whenisdinner2137 I didn't say it was possible, I said it would be my perfect space game..lol
Sure
I think the video said _Elite: Dangerous_ had 40,000,000,000 star systems in its model of the Milky Way galaxy. 10% of that would be four billion star systems, each with potentially multiple planets and moons. So, that could take the number of visitable locations back up to forty billion. It is possible to make a large number of these host to hand crafted content, but only if the community of the game is encouraged to build their own cities as their factions compete to colonise space. Different sentient species could originate from different home worlds within the galaxy, so the initial release of the game would have maybe 1024 places of interest to visit that were hand crafted human colonised locations, but any player could find a new frontier and add their own content to the game. The central server only need to log where players have claimed as their colony planet, so there would be a rush to claim land and a frontier spirit to the early phase of the game. However, a simple self built homestead could in time become a minimal town if metals were found on the planet, requiring services for the miners. At some point in the colonisation of America there would have been cities in the East and bare camps in the West, with some drawn by the gold rush, so there is historical, civilisational precedent for a mixture of density of colonisation from city through town then homestead to camp.
As this expands out from one location (say Mars), you aren't having to deal with billions of locations, but can imply that the game is unbounded (or at least permits, in principle, any colony on any planet or moon anywhere within one galaxy, provided that that location is not extremely hazardous). _Star Wars_ might have colonised Mustafar, but that was more for the thematically appropriate dramatic visual. So, there isn't a need to have more than about 8 significantly colonised celestial bodies, and these would involve developer hand crafted content, and multiple biomes, and multiple cities which exist in international trading relationships. This opens up the scope for diplomacy to fail and lead to war, in the manner of the board games _Diplomacy_ and _Risk._ The cities could have past histories, and there could even have been civilisations that were in their own regional diplomacy and war and their imperial expansion eventually collapsed (otherwise it would still persist today), leaving behind ancient ruins and archaeological relics, reminding the player that your current civilisation is equally impermanent when measured against millennia.
So that's time (although you also have a tech tree that is planned out to allow future innovations), and space needs to be the sense of exploration of a galaxy (so travel within it has to be relatively easy and not limited by fuel and resource gathering gameplay loops), but that busy work of _No Man's Sky_ can be removed, but journeys could still take time, if the ship used is a multi-crew starship as in _Star Trek_ where there is an opportunity for stories to emerge within that space as you travel through space. The same applies to what happens aboard space stations, as the stories of _Star Trek: Deep Space Nine_ had excellent characters and the whole slow burn storyline involving the war with the Dominion. This means that at some point humans need to encounter sentient aliens in the game, perhaps via some spatial anomaly, like a wormhole, which bridges their very distant territory to our expanding frontier.
I think 3 races are plenty, but you could have more. These would be developer created colonisations of their own sectors of the galaxy, the continuing expansion of which could lead to interstellar war, and even diplomatic alliances between humans and one type of aliens, who were technologically superior but numerically overwhelmed by a xenophobic species who would be coming for us next. Actually it would be possible to mod this scheme to support the species of _Star Trek_ or _Stargate_ etc. yet in doing this you would infringe copyrights, so the developer could not be behind this mod effort.
What I have described is a 4X (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate) with the alien species being AI directed agents gradually colonising space, and your human species boosted in its population by AI. This means "the Wild West" of the uncolonised frontier will have you in conflict with AI rather than with other players. It actually makes more sense to support drop-in drop-out PvE play like _Destiny_ where you team up to confront a hostile world, and help each other out if you get incapacitated. Desolate wilderness punctuated by the rare oasis covered in liquid water and flora, and then even rarer planets with fauna, of which there might be eight within the whole galaxy as they would have to have been, if not hand crafted content, then they would be hand curated (i.e. the procedural generator is repeatedly run, but only the appropriate outputs are selected to populate a biome within a planet or moon and it can't migrate outside of that biome). This means, like _STARFIELD_ most places are dull rocks, but it has to be like this to be realistic, and you have maybe 400,000,000,000 planets and moons to visit, but you won't be visiting them as you will deploy deep space telescopes to capture the light of distant stars as they pass through the upper atmosphere of their local exoplanet and have parts of that light absorbed by the presence of different chemicals and thereby know through this transit spectroscopy if an exoplanet has watery clouds, and is a candidate for exploration.
Now, just because the game supports this enormous scale and scope, its design doesn't ram all this down your throat and mire you into an insignificant role within a 4X. You want that to be a potential thing, but you also want to be like D.J. or Han Solo and not join in with the Rebellion to fight the Empire or with the Resistance to fight the New Order. You want players to be free to feel that they want to join into a larger conflict, but with space being so huge, you could make a living as a smuggler during an interstellar war, or even during an alien invasion (and potentially be ignorant that this is happening as this could be on a need-to-know basis within the military and high level diplomats). Summarising all of this leads to a largely PvE asynchronous MMORTSFPSRPG (Massively-Multiplayer Online, Real-Time Strategy, First Person Shooter, Role Playing Game). The multiplayer is almost always cooperative, like _Destiny_ with small lobbies coming together as it is hard to coordinate when friends' free time will overlap for cooperative play sessions. This allows a group of players to collaborate on running and repairing a starship in transit, or to go on an "away mission" somewhere potentially hostile vs. AI, or to quietly get absorbed in the construction of a new city, similar to _Cities Skylines,_ which means that time has to run at different rates for all separate sessions, so 3 players working together to build a city at what is greatly accelerated speed in civil engineering terms (otherwise it would be too dull), are in a different timeline from those off exploring space.
This creates a sticky to resolve problem.
The solution can be found by making the problem harder: what if player A wants to nuke player B's city from orbit? Well, you could prevent this to please B, otherwise they would surely be upset and hate the game for allowing griefers to ruin all their hours of hard work. Or... you could be concerned about A, as they won't be happy acquiring nukes in game (which are low on the tech tree, as you will ultimately be able to induce earthquakes until the planet ruptures, or "do a Snoke" and vaporise planets to nothing, or cause supernovae). The only solution is allow A to destroy a COPY of what B made, so you have a _de facto_ Multiverse, rather than a Universe. The game most like this is _Forza Motorsport 5_ as this lets you run a friend's car off the road in a race, only it isn't them driving it, but their AI mimic based off their characteristic driving style. What this means is that the vastness of space can be populated with AI bots which mimic the way real players behave, including all their faults. This prevents you travelling about and not finding anyone in the region. So, B builds a city and they have an option to publish it so others can visit, or nuke it (but only their COPY of it in their parallel universe). Another 4X mode has to keep track of who owns what in a coherent manner so it is possible for A to conquer a copy of B's city.
Some would split hairs and say this isn't an MMO, which is fine (it is an "asynchronous MMO"), but if you think about the scale/scope/create/destroy design constraints, this is the only compromise. This just scrapes the surface of the idea, as the interesting aspect is that it would coauthor the narrative so that it conveys an underlying theme and then manipulate side characters so that your relationship with these NPCs would shape your choices and direct you into risk/reward scenarios you would freely opt into, or ignore (at the cost of going against any heroic traits role you had chosen to play as), so it can contrive a dramatic climax to shape the character arc of the role you have adopted to play as.
Another option is to just explore the game without a chosen role to play as, and in this case the game has to construct one through spawning psychological tests which determine your _alter ego_ based on how you are playing, so you get a series of ethical choices and can choose to get involved or not, and the game will keep creating new scenarios to diagnose what you appear to be likely to naturally do, and then rely on that to manipulate you through a set of NPCs which fit that "role" diagnosis. This has already been done in _Fable_ where your actions shape your appearance.
Continued...
The FPS stuff should be the only consistent point of view supported (boo!) because of VR support becoming more experiential as a result of this decision. Indeed, even on gamepad the game is much more experiential with (RS) being used for Free Look at all times, and (LS) being used for Move/Turn.
This will take a bit of getting used to, but makes it far simpler to walk about (one handed) and then board a vehicle (of any kind) and steer it (change heading/yaw) or in some rare instances (roll). This doesn't preclude being able to strafe, as you just make it so that partially squeezing [L2] has (LS) be temporarily Move/Strafe. This means that you can fully squeeze [L2] in order to have (LS) tilt mean Duck/Lean whilst staying in one spot. Click (RS) to Crouch/Stand. Hold (RS) to Prone/Stand with a Strafe making you roll over onto your side, then back, then other side, then front. Click [R1] to Sprint, with it being Slide when Crouched. Click [L1] to Mantle/Jump (to grab rope, rail, ladder, vine, etc.) and hold [L1] to Swim/Jetpack in direction of gaze controlled by (RS) Free Look. Then hold [R1] to change the meaning of the face and D-Pad buttons whilst it is held down. It is in this [R1] quasimode that the face buttons do regular FPS related stuff like Reload and Swap Weapons and Melee and Tactical Item, as this gameplay is not ergonomically prioritised as the more frequently needed semantics is for the face buttons to initiate and terminate conversations with NPCs (Hi & Bye) and respond to questions from NPCs that are either personal to them, or sometimes related to the mission they know you are on especially in wartime where they feel the need to support your mission goals, this means you get an arcadey series of Yes/No questions to respond to. You can be rude and walk away mid conversation, or be polite and say Bye to excuse yourself from listening to their life story. This is not _Mass Effect_ where you are in a protective bubble exploring potential things to say, only for Shepard not to say what you prompted them to say. You can be in the midst of battle and have an NPC ask a Y/N question and your decision will tactically matter to what your support AI do. The D-Pad normally controls where you are sending your squad: Hold Up whilst holding [R2] and they will Assault the position you highlight with your gaze with (RS), but if you Hold Right whilst not holding [R2] they will sneak up in a curve to the right flank at a cover position located by your gaze with (RS), similarly with Holding Left as you get another flanking manoeuvre, but if you Hold Down they will regroup to your position. This will support bounding overwatch tactics, where you suppress an enemy target whilst commanding your squad to move up as they can't Sprint and Fire at the same time. They then cover for you when you move up to join them. This is a bit like the gameplay of _Full Spectrum Warrior_ which was used to train infantry, but in First Person rather than Third Person. So, you get to direct squads (when you get one), and to answer their mission critical tactical questions.
Obviously, there are some different controls disambiguated by dint of whatever context of vehicle you happen to be operating at the time. So long as there is a way to Exit, you can revert back to normal movement, although I don't see (RS) ever changing from Free Look regardless of vehicle. A fighter may redefine (LS) to be Pitch/Roll rather than Pitch/Yaw with Click (LS) always meaning Use (such as open box, or push button for elevator, or turn engines on/off, etc.) and Hold (LS) marking for collection what is under your gaze up to the limit of the encumberance of your robot's later expandable inventory, so you aren't burdening yourself with hundreds of sandwiches, your robot assistance is getting around to picking them up after you have signalled their GPS coordinates, during which interval they could be reclaimed by someone else. You can also hold (RS) whilst situated seated in the cockpit to act as an advanced quasimode which makes the D-Pad reallocate power between different starship systems from some central (regenerating if in good repair) reserve, so you move the highlight Left or Right over a system and then Up and Down to increase or decrease power, this is similar to _STARFIELD_ and _Star Citizen_ and _Elite: Dangerous_ and _Super Star Trek_ (1978). Micromanaging this systems stuff can make a tactical difference in a dogfight, where weaponry is such that you have to get close to finish off your quarry, or choose Extra Vehicular Activity to board it and steal it for yourself.
When you hold [R1] it is like holding the ALT key on a QWERTY keyboard and the keys having different meanings. Here the D-Pad provides instant access to custom inventory slots, allowing you to swap directly to four weapons, or carry more sensors, traps and grenades. However you only get 4 slots, but it is unrealistic to have as many as _STARFIELD_ due to encumberance. The way _STARFIELD_ goes wrong is in having you lug a heavy mining tool around with you, when it should be possible to get your robot to go looking for a list of mineral resources, mine them, and process the result, whilst you have the talk of optionally escorting/rescuing them. An all robot crew is a dull idea, so NPCs are used instead and the gameplay becomes more like _FTL: Faster Than Light_ or even _Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force._ Other games of interest are _Flagship_ and _Mace Griffin: Bounty Hunter_ and the sadly cancelled _Prey 2_ from Human Head studios.
The 4X stuff gets very broad scale and timelines are different than that of the FPS player. This 4X has to be disjoint from the Cooperative Creative Mode, and the Competitive FPS Combat Mode, with the only way to reconcile them is to have the 4X be an RTS where players can commit multiple orders to be attempted at the end of each real time week of gameplay. This is then resolved by AI vs AI combat, and the resulting pinch points where the statistics are not a clear win by either faction are offered up as being battlefields to make a decisive change on the following week. These are open to being RTS games with player vs. player, or player vs. AI, or AI vs. AI depending on player engagement. Then the submissions of this RTS are allocated to an FPS server running a selection of maps as the RTS will be taking place at a global scale, or even a low orbit space combat battle, like _Halo: Reach._ As there could be a lot more interest in these battles, you allow multiple versions of them to take place (this is justified as it is a Multiverse), and then accumulate all the win/loss statistics to see what faction won and on that information change history and who holds what territory, and can use its resources to be able to boost their production of more units to do more exploration or conquest, or civilisation, etc.
Usually when an FPS is set against the backdrop of a large war, you don't get to change history at all. This changes all that and makes your faction's collective actions feel more significant than one match.
Anyway, this is the game I am working on, which people would say was over ambitious, but I knew it would be hard, especially using the C++ programming language, so I designed my own alternative that would be less error prone, more productive, and easier to maintain, with live feedback of changes so I could easily test out new ideas to see if they made the game fun. It should take another five years. I'm not setting up a website for it as I learnt from Sean Murray what a mistake it was to talk about a work in progress where anything is subject to change for aesthetic, technical, or business reasons.
One thing that is a game changer is VR. To play Elite in that mode is to experience all the exhilaration one had watching star wars for the first time in the 1970's and wishing you could partake in something like that. Waiting 40 years wasn't easy, and it isn't perfect, but boy is it so much better than flat screen. I will be interested if Bethesda goes VR like they did with FO4 and Skyrim. Then again, this is a Todd Howard productions, so there will be multiple different (slightly) releases for the next 10 years.
Elite in VR is *chef's kiss*!
The difference is those games are space sims. Starfield is an rpg that happens to be in space. So it’s closer to mass effect.
And I’m like you as well. Space games are my jam and they almost always have my attention when a new one is announced.
So glad someone pointed out that Mass Effect should be in this conversation.
I always loved the feeling of space traversal in Mass Effect, even if it was just seeing the galaxies on a map and fast travelling/mass relaying to places. That's why I think Starfield is definitely more of an evolution of Mass Effect that borrows mechanics from NMS and SC. And I use borrow very liberally. I think many of those mechanics like mining couldn't really be done any other way, unless they used something like Mass Effects way in Andromeda. Something I really liked, actually. Pity there is no land vehicles.
I hope they bring them in with DLC
@@misterpink808I wouldn't say it borrows any mechanics from those games. The concept of space exploration exists separately from any specific media.
@@Droid6689 That's why I said "borrows" in a very liberal sense. People think the laser mining option in Starfield mirrors that of NMS. I can't disagree. It looks like a very similar mechanic. But thinking of it, if I was to design an on foot mining feature, the only option I can think of is a laser mining option. So it could be parallel thinking or borrowed. I don't know. I don't really care, TBH. I guess I was being charitable to the naysayers of Starfield. 👍
@misterpink808 Understandable. I just think people try to attribute inspiration to things erroneously quite often. Out of everything, I would say the mining is the most likely borrowed element. But it isn't really relevant enough to note imo. Often, though, people see a large space exploration game with numerous planets and say "they took that from NMS" as if NMS invented the concept of a galaxy.
I would consider Starfield a mix of NMS/Daggerfall/MassEffect/Subnautica but I think the only one it takes inspiration from is Subnautica in the basebuilding that is modular, multipurpose for resource collection and viewing a grand environment in a comfy/safe way. Maybe they aped Mass Effects system viewer.
@@Droid6689 I agree with you. 🙏
“Bethesda as a publisher and developer, is not widely recognised for its multiplayer experiences”
*gets an ad for Elder Scrolls Online*
^ This. It would be hard to think that there isn’t some foundation for an online game in Starfield already.
After spending HOURS total trying to come out of FSD where I want in Elite, I welcome the simplicity of Starfield.
My favorite interplanetary travel is star citizens, since the ship is fully explorable you can hop into quantum and walk through your ship, I normally go and check my cargo and weapons to make sure I'm geared up for where I'm landing.
thats until you get out of the chair and go straight into space xD
@@SkyForceOne2 facts tho lol, thankfully for me at least it doesn't happen much
Modding is whats going to set Starfield apart from the others. Features like planetary flight and entering/exiting the atmosphere will likely be modded in, along with some form of co-op like users have done with Skyrim. They will probably use free space on planets to construct custom civilizations, gradually filling up the real-estate the devs provided and maybe even generating new entire planets, if possible. The different preferences mentioned in the video will likely be modded in overtime as well, giving you the option to choose the type of hyperdrivr experience you want, among other things. If the game is as advertised, there really is no competition for this title.
I'm not sure what Bethesda has said about modding support, but they know it's a significant part of what makes their games popular. They're not going to leave modders without tools.
I'm expecting one of the first mods to be a travel-type jetpack. It's the easiest way to implement intraplanet travel. Basically just modify how the flying works on an existing jetpack, since I don't think the in-game ones are going to be configured for long-distance travel. But I could be wrong.
Seamless space to planet will NEVER happen because it is using two different sets of technologies that the Creation Engine doesn't have, and modders will NEVER get access to that code to even try implementing such a feature.
When it comes to everything else, sure since it is skyrim in space with different gameplay areas, but multiplayer will be a long stretch aswell due to the areas being totally separate instances.
@@TruthIsKey369 And that's one of the benefits of skipping multiplayer. You can get away with some solutions that just don't work in multiplayer.
Well, it could work in single-instance multiplayer, where everyone's always in the same instance. I think ARK Survival works like that if you have a local host, and it's pretty much how classic single-screen multiplayer works.
The biggest benefit is probably non-linear time. If everyone moves with loading zones, you can time skip, although menu pausing or combat slow motion doesn't work at all with multiplayer in a game like this.
@@TruthIsKey369 Play Star Citicen.
Bethesda better hope there is a large and active modding community. It's the only way their half baked janky ass games ever get patched or fixed. Which is why 76 took such a black eye, because it was an online "live service" there was nothing a modding community could really do to fix their issues for them.
SC allows you to move around the interior of your ship while in quantum drive, in theory you could be affecting repairs, eating/drinking/cooking, and getting ready for a combat mission. right now those options are limited, but you can move around.
It's not a replacement for any of the above. They will co exist just fine especially with starfield being exclusively a single player game. I'm looking forward to trying it, but I will never get the buzz from it that an MMO provides. There's just something about being in space with your friends thats hard to distract from for long. So I think it will just be another game that gets played among others. Nice video dude btw :)
Thank you and fly safe! o7
@@hqgamingnews o7 bro
This is what I was going to say. The target audience are totally different. Single player with single player quest system. I prefer starfield to any of these other games.
I'm completely opposite, multiplayer games, especially MMO's rip me out of the immersion so hard that I can't really find them enjoyable, unless it's just goofing around with friends in a casual game. For me, there's just something about being in space _all alone_, discovering planets and secrets for the first time, and taking in the vastness in all of my solitude. Then again, I'm a hardcore introvert too so that probably plays a role in it as well.
@@Znetsixe Doing it alone means you can do it entirely at your own pace. You can also reload a save if things go south and you'd rather they didn't.
Really solid video there! Updoot from me and whatnot :) The tiniest of comments, because it sounds like maybe it's just not particularly well implemented or explained (and yeah, definitely it isn't), but you can actually skip out of quantum in Star Citizen, by turning the power off as you're travelling. You can also be pulled out by others (through the quantum snare system available in a couple of ships, though i've encountered this only very rarely). i can't entirely tell whether this was just a case of leaving out the detail because it's not super obvious, or whether you maybe simply didn't know, and thought i'd comment to cover either eventuality. In short, and again, thanks for the video, really good stuff!
Thank you for watching. Yeah, I know about those. There are ways and reasons for you to abort QT, either by your choice or by interdiction from others (NPCs or players). I was just focusing on point A to point B travel inside a system. But thanks for keeping an eye out. Feel free to add and comment on anything you find interesting. o7
I play a bunch of those without ever thinking that one needs to replace the others or that they are even competing for my attention. I just like space games. From X4 to Everspace in VR.
They're all worth playing.
x4 vs elite dangerous ... which did you like more?
@@Redridge07 Elite is the one I haven't really played so I'd have to say X4.
@@DaringDan copy, I haven't played X4 and trying to decide
@@Redridge07 Elite and X4 are not really comparable. In Elite you explore the galaxy in "One" spaceship, in X4 you build an empire between a bunch of factions that are at war with each other.
The feel of the Elite and the X4 are quite different.
@@sarahnachtrose Thanks, but clearly there is some overlay in the two games. Madden and X4 are not comparable, but X4 and Elite dangerous have enough overlay to do a comparison. In fact, you just did one.
Mods can transform Starfield into "Man's Elite Citizen."
I find it hard to believe you say starfield is the perfect balance when nobody has even played it yet.
What's being advertised seems like the perfect balance. Same difference.
Obviously it could come out and be terrible but what's being promised looks great 🤷♂️
@@existentialselkath1264 Not even remotely a perfect balance. Omitting any form of mutiplayer, even basic co-op is a massive turn off for many people. The game can be a single player experience for those folks and offer co-op ensuring you are not playing with griefers...TONS of games do this.
The second Bethesda omitted co-op was the exact second this game should never be compared to NMS, SC or ED.
@@rimebinder I completely agree with the last sentence actually. While no man's sky wasn't multiplayer to begin with, it was focused on its seamless world whereas starfield is just an RPG in space. It's like comparing Minecraft to skyrim because the settings are similar.
My main point replying to OP is about "when nobody has even played it yet". It isn't wrong to judge what's shown of a game that hasn't released yet, as long as you're aware the final game may be different.
As for being the perfect balance, it's entirely down to personal preference. I personally played games like elite despite the multiplayer, not because of it, so this is perfect for me but not for everyone. I shouldn't have come across as so objective, it's just my opinion.
I found an open bottle of milk left in the table for about a year...
From thumbnail (left to right): Yes, definitely, absolutely. I have them all and I am stoked for the sheer breadth of features that Starfield allegedly has. Only time will tell.
Take off and landing doesn't really bother me but not being able to fly in atmosphere in starfield seems like a really odd and needless choice. Especially when space flight exists
This poor choice is very glaring and especially makes for an odd experience, particularly during one of the companion missions. Simply put, as not to spoil any of the game, you are tasked to land on a planet during a mission. After exploring the area, you need to proceed to another area on the same planet, but to do so, you have to fly all the way back into space (through a cut scene), highlight the planet, then "spin the globe" to locate the other region you need to reach, then through another cut scene, you leave space and land back on the same planet in a new area. All of this instead of just being able to fly through the atmosphere to reach the next destination. It is a complete disconnect from the experience...quite immersion breaking.
EDIT: It seems they don't allow atmosphere flight because the game doesn't generate entire planets. When you land, the game only generates a large region around you. Apparently, if you walk far enough, you will hit an invisible wall.
@Emloch I agree. Flying is good fun, and they put so much effort into the ship building only to then restrict your use of your ships.
@@Emlochwhat a horrible game man
Starfield hasn't done anything yet to be judged until we play it and not watching some pre-rendered gameplay footage
Great and clear voice narration, clean and no BS visual presentation. If you keep at it your channel will surely grow. Get verified to with that glorious UA-cam check mark for added panache.
Thank you, and will do.
As someone who adores Star Citizen this is easily one of the best comparison videos with it included.
Thinking about Starfield as a replacement for any of those games is the completely wrong mindset to have, one that I think far too many naive people have. It's not trying to be a replacement for any of these games, clearly. It's just going to exist with them. Starfield is first and foremost an RPG, a Bethesda RPG (think Skyrim and Fallout 4), something that none of those other games are trying to be. What this means is that this is going to be a single-player story-driven experience with real choices and consequences, it's got handcrafted quests and locations. It's less about the realism aspect of sci-fi, and more about the fun aspect. Think Star Wars instead of Star Trek. Starfield is to Star Citizen what Battlefield is to Arma. Completely different experiences.
I think it's obvious Starfield is going to be a lot different than No Man's Sky, given that it's going to be a story-driven experience first and foremost. The sandbox aspect is just layered on top of that, like with any Bethesda RPG.
nah todd howard said every planet is skyrim sized
invisible walls here we goooo
I have played all of these games, except Starfield, and I agree with most of this. I am definitely looking forward to Starfield and I think it will be the best space game of its time, I believe it will be amazing. Great video.
It is from Bethesta... that makes me very suspicious.... Sorry, this company has first to proove outof controlled enviroment, that they can do anything else than a bugconcert, that has to be fixed by modders again.
Oh and not to relay nice on their cute Ingameshop crap.
Feature #4 you're right in that the seamless shift from ground to space is "breathtaking", not just visually, but for what all must be going on technologically under-the-hood!
Elite's FTL is a bit like driving: it's mind-blowing the first few times, but after a while, it eventually just gets mundane once the novelty inevitably wears off.
Space theme specifically, I trace my roots to X-Wing vs TIE Fighter. I've always had a hardwired fighting spirit, so the "WWII in Space" elevator pitch resonates passionately with me, to the point where my legacy involves defining "WWIII in Space".
I don't want it to replace them, I want to enjoy and play them all.
Fun fact on that #4 part with seamless transition. Star Citizen and No Mans Sky are the two that does seamless transitions when entering and exiting atmosphere.
Elite Dangerous is instance based on every move. Space - Ground is behind an invisible loading screen, Normal flight - Super cruise is behind an invisible loading screen. Its all faked and really easy to spot if their servers are doing horrible or if your internet is struggling.
so far I think NMS has the experience I enjoy the most. I'm hoping Starfield will be more like Fallout 4 in space. NMS at it's heart is really a game about wandering the universe and has had other things added in to spice things up. I get the impression (since I haven't played it yet) that Starfield at it's heart is really a game about the characters involvement with Constellation, and has other things added in to spice things up. unless i'm completely misunderstanding what Starfield is going to be, they really aren't anything alike. It would be better to compare Starfield and Mass Effect.
It is more than just a few things to spice it up though. It's main story makes you think about the possibility of us living in a simulation with how well it's crafted both morally and philosophically and the side quests, base building, settlements and exploration are beyond amazing for the price.
Not to mention that developers poured a lot of love into this gane (and continue to do that to this day).
The new pirate freigher battles are amazing and I can't wait for the next updates!
That said, Elite Dangerous just makes me feel immersed. NMS could never!
E:D is a gorgeous game and it's combat is way better imo, but as a whole game I lost interest within a couple months. @@EmptyNullified
As I suspected Starfield plays much more like Mass Effect than it plays like NMS. There is contextual overlap between the two games, but the gameplay loop overlap is pretty much limited to scanning stuff on planets. I find Starfield fun for the same kind of gameplay that attracted me to Fallout 3 and Fallout 4. NMS is it's own kind of gameplay.
This is the first 1 to 1 feature comparison.
Most will just take one game list its features, then say look this one has it all.
You took the features and compared them directly. Explaining them in detail, with strengths and weaknesses.
This is the best comparason to date.
Thank you. Glad you liked it.
This is going to be my first dedicated space game, and my brain is full of curiosity just thinking about what the first 30 minutes of gameplay will be like. I can not wait.
buggy lol
lmao just play and dedicate to literally every other space game. sf has barely anything to offer, except the same bethesda rpg aspects and bugs like every other bethesda game
For interplanetary travel I believe you left out a very important part about star citizens travel. In a true multi-player game that is star citizen, you can get out of your seat while traveling, hang out with your friends. Inspect your ship, tinker things mess around in your massive ship, organize your stockpiles of weapons and gear have fists fights for fun, really whatever your mind and mechanics allow you to do during travel lol
I've already parked star citizen. Seeing that I will be able to "live that life" in starfield was eye opening to me.
I love flying in atmosphere in NMS.
The answer is no, for a few reasons:
No Man's Sky is a sandbox.
Elite Dangerous is a galaxy-wide MMO starship simulator.
Star Citizen is somewhere between the above two, but with limitations on story, scope and gameplay mechanics and details.
Starfield is what neither of the above 3 are: A Story-based RPG.
Haha, wtf? How does Star Citizen have a limitation on "story, scope and gameplay mechanics and detail", when it is not only the most ambitious space game or MMO, but game period? 🤔
Here the reason why I backed Star Citizen, when it was announced on Kickstarter:
1. I love the Wing Commander series.
2. I was excited for the Squadron 42 single play story line.
3. Mark Hamil and Gary Oldman are in it.
Here are the reasons why I am disappointed now:
1. Since update to a certain version of the Alpha, my graphics card back then (NVIDIA 770 GTX) required at least 15 minutes until I could start playing, and then lagged like hell. My 2070 Super is a good replacement, but I fear that a 4070 will be needed as minimum requirement, by the time this game is released (if ever).
2. Instead of concentrating on the Squadron 42 story, they keep expanding (mucking up) the MMO part, instead of concentrating on the small things first.
So... I started playing Elite Dangerous, when I got it for free at Epic Games, and was very satisfied with it as a replacement.
No Mans Sky sounded interesting at the time, but I didn't want to delve into too many different games of the same genre.
And now? I am actually thinking of getting this game, as it blends in many elements of what I like. Mainly though it is that it is not an MMO, as I am more a PvE than PvP player.
No, you are wrong, their focus currently (at least officially) is on SQ42
Starfield no question in my opinion. The hand crafted RPG elements from Bethesda intergrated with procedurally generated planets will provide a unique and incredibly interesting system to explore. The best of both worlds from a developer that's proven they can pull something like this off.
In Elite Dangerous, in-system FSD is basically also a loading screen. Whenever you drop, the server actually makes a map instance where you can fly around, that didn't exist before.
In Star Citizen every map is part of the map that contains it, so you could "theoretically" crash into another ship in the 1 in a trillion chance you were in the same position during QT. I'm pretty sure collisions are off during tho. Being able to walk around in your ship during Quantum is great, especially with other players in it. Maybe one of them decides to drive a space bike off the ramp mid jump. Why not?
Flying around in realistic sized solar systems in ED is pretty sweet tho. I like that part more than I like the actual gameplay.
I've never played No Man's Sky, but I have played the other 3. As for the question of travel style preference, I love Elite Dangerous exploration as a means of almost meditative relaxation: The art of the graphics & the music are soothing & beautiful enough that I've spent hundreds of hours just flying in the black of space, scanning planets along the way. With Star Citizen's travel mechanic, I get bored & antsy. As for Starfield, the lack of seamless travel doesn't bother me at all; the cut scenes just make it feel like I'm in a space movie or series. Not having long travel sequences/experiences just keeps the focus more on Starfield feeling like living a space drama like Star Wars or Star Trek, as opposed to being a space flight sim. So, all in all, I agree that neither is better or worse, they're just different experiences that will resonate with different people differently, depending on what they're looking for.
Heavily underrated video. Superb work.
Great video buddy, I'm looking forward to Starfield and being able to explore uninterrupted by network issues or PVP focused players. the idea that visiting every planet in the game is actually possible as well makes it such a draw.
As far as travel goes, I’ll never forget the time in Star Citizen I accidentally left my ship during light speed and had to send a beacon for another player to rescue me in the empty vacuum of space. There is no possibility for that scenario to happen organically in any of the other games. Star Citizen legitimately has no loading screen or transition screens once you’re loaded into the game. I could take off from a planet and fly in low speed into space if I wanted. It would take very long to do it that way but the fact is I could. For me, that level of immersion makes it a ton of fun, but it’s also the reason I don’t play often since it requires me to dedicate a lot of time per play session. All this being said, I’m certainly excited for Starfield!
Elite Dangerous has been my fav so far but I’m thinking Starfield can fill my void with more storyline and shooting
I don't think they are going to be comparable at all. Elite Dangerous is a realistic physics based simulation. Starfield is likely going to be very arcadey in comparison as its predominantly an Action RPG, not a simulation. If you're expecting Elite Dangerous levels of complexity I think you will be very disappointed. I think I personally will prefer Starfield as I like Action RPG games with a narrative and, while i love the idea of Elite Dangerous, I find it too complex to learn and a little too realistic, which leads me to get bored very quickly.
As a player wanting to play space games, I appreceate this comparison, addressing the questions I have. It answered my questions.........thanx man. Well done.
Starfield is the better game out of all the other space games and is more immersive
When you said you'll never be able to this in your lifetime that hits so hard. I actually get bummed out playing these games sometimes because it feels so real and so unobtainable
For me it's all about the HOSAS dogfighting. And in that aspect, I don't see how any game could compete with Star Citizen.
Elite doesn't seem to be as good, although I had a hard time actually getting going in elite. Like playing in the arena, or grinding for a ship.
No mans sky doesn't even have 6dof. And not having 6dof seems to also be the case with starfield. Also starfield looks like the combat is playable on a gamepad, so that can't be good.
I've looked for other space sims that can be as good as star citizen at the space combat, singleplayer or multiplayer. Everspace 2 is bad because projectiles don't inherit ship velocity, so your strafes have no effect on your aim.
Hunternet Starfighter is the closest it gets to being a space sim with good space combat. But TBH I prefer the faster roll, and asymmetrical strafe in star citizen.
I agree with you on the Star Citizen ship-to-ship combat; it is quite good. Regarding Elite, I mostly played the game with a gamepad (custom settings), and it is totally playable that way. You can create a really usable setup for 6DOF in Elite.
And yeah, No Man's Sky is more arcade-like and the one I've played the least out of the three. o7
@@hqgamingnews the idea of being effective at flying with a game pad really turns me off from a flight model. Imagine a world where real fighter pilots could be effective with a game bad and not need a joystick.
Its kind of nice to have something to play without the total need for friends or a creative head peice on at all times. Starfield helps fill that gap between wanting to play a space game, while still immersing you in a universe's story. Great for when im waiting to play with friends, especially now since my main wingman is off at basic training
I would LOVE to play Star Citizen. However like Alan Grant, computers hate me and I am currently without.
Starfield is the perfect solution to my predicament.
I really think that they’re going to nail the balance between too much and too little.
To balance procedural generation with hand crafted worlds.
I honestly don’t know if I’ve ever been this excited for a game to release.
I put over 1000 hours into Elite Dangerous in just over a year... on ps4... Then Frontier released Odyssey and I never played another hour.... I was gutted... So I bought the xbox series x with starfield in mind.. Plus game pass.... Really excited for starfield although I intend to 'go dark' soon on the reviews and other media output as seeing it in real time for the first time is my goal.... Thanks for the upload though top draw breakdown.... o7 commanders
No Man's Sky is never going to be "replaced" by Starfield because it's a different type of game that has its own audience. Starfield will never have multiplayer, and is focused specifically on being a boots on the ground RPG where your ship plays a smaller role - that will appeal more to the Fallout/TES fanbase who want to go to planets to do quests and storylines, wheras NMS fans will miss the atmospheric flight, almost infinite universe and more nomadic style of the game.
Thousands of immersed hours in elite. Mining, exploring, trucking chasing that elite rank. Then they axed support and i realized its never going to get better. I miss having a game like that.
For me Starfields concept of interstellar travelling is the most realistic one. It basically links to the description of wormholes in the movie Interstellar: You fold a dimension and make a shortcut, so if you punch a hole through a 2d layer of material you'll be instantly at the other side ;) So this concept works well for me.
On the approaches of all others I don't think it would work IRL even with energy driven shields: 1. something with mass cannot travel at speeds even close to light speed. On Elite you are constantly above that with like 30c while in a planetary system, 2. if you'd hit some sand size particles at such speeds you'd be doomed already. If it's rocks you'd even more doomed.
That's another reason why I think the Starfields way would be the one more close to something realistic if we'd had the tech and energy to create actual wormholes.
Realism and wormhole don’t go together. It’s still science fiction
No mans sky is almost paradoxical in that you could never fully explore it BUT once you have visited 10 systems you have seen basically everything in the game.
I will be playing Star Citizen for many years but I will play Star Field completly many times and come back to it depending on Mods. The two games are hard to compare as one is single player and the other in MMO.
Starfield looks great...but not being able to play with my wife makes this a no go.
They should at the very minimum allowed an 8 person co-op.
That's a very specific number. Why 8?
@@hqgamingnews It should cover most family sizes as families rarely go above 6 and are more like 3 or 4.
Been and have been waiting for Star Citizen- Squadron 42. But they are still in Alpha and have been in Alpha for the past 10 years. How long does it take to make a ficken game?
Wrong question. How long does it take to build a company and the tech to make a game like star citizen? There is a reason that nothing like the vision of SC exists, even SC is far from achieving it yet and that’s kind of the point.
I think the team making the game are too stuck solving the multitude of issues to make the ‘perfect’ Space sim MMO compared to making realizable goals with existing tech for a good and average space sim. They are still limited by technology such as server meshing and full persistence which is itself very ambitious combined with the excessive detail and emersion the went for.
Essentially, its too much and that’s why its taking so long. It’s not just building any old game, but instead breaking grounds in almost every single gaming tech available (or not yet existing) to build a kind of matrix level game. That can’t take just 10 years, which if you want a finished game, that sucks!
When CIG will understand that developing 2 gargantuan games at the same time will take them 20 years, they will focus on only one and finish it quickly and then focus on the other and finish that one too more quickly
If Bethesda felt they could do seamless transitions and still achieve their goal they would've given it to us no doubt. While I wish seamless transition was possible, if everything else works smoother than the other games then I'll gladly accept the sacrifice.
It certainly will replace all 3 for me. The modding potential, gameplay, etc.. No reason to not think I won't sink 4k+ hours into this game as starting hours like Skyrim, Fallout, etc.
Looking forward to Fallout in space!
For me it was the original Elite ( I played it on an Amstrad CPC computer). The graphics were just lines, but it really started my journey into the unknown, one I continued with the sequels and now finally elite dangerous
Vid is old but the answer is/was a big NO.
No way, Star Citizen will kick Starfield ass in 10 years from now, just need 800 Million dollars more!
The sense of sarcasm is strong with this one... 😄
Having played NMS extensively and just a while ago, a couple hours of Starfield, I can say they are in a different group of games.
NMS is more of a space sim while Starfield is quite literally just an RPG with space slapped onto it. What Todd said about his game is not entirely true and should not be taken at face value. You cannot travel in space in such a free and open manner as compared to NMS. Any kind of travelling within a system, even a planet requires fast travel.
You wanna go to another system? Fast travel. To another planet? Fast travel. Somewhere on the same planet?? Fast travel. Even the train rides in the city is a form of fast travel. Think of it like carriages in Skyrim.
With that said, is the game bad then? Not really, it depends on your expectations though. If you expected this to be a NMS 2.0 then you will be massively disappointed. Just think of it as another Bethesda title and you'll do just fine.
Thank you for this comparison. While I am very excited for Starfield, all the commentaries I've seen act like this is the first video game ever to have space travel and numerous planets to explore. Every time I am like what about No Man's Sky! I realize, like you pointed out, these are ultimately different types of games, it is still worthy to note the similarities and differences.
I'm confused. You somehow released a video about game design without confusing subjective preferences for objective quality. You must have made some sort of mistake. Are you aware you are on the internet?
This has got to be one of the most unusual compliments I've ever received, so thank you. I really appreciate it.
Dang I feel like this video should be a must watch for all the people complaining... Whats a great comparison, fairly based and lacking any noticeable bias, a difficult task these days! Well done!
Maaan, no mans sky opened a world for me that star citizen fulfilled and starfield will perfect. My opinion.
This video just showed up in my youtube feed. Well done! I am a NMS player. I checked out both Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen on youtube and, though there are aspects I wish were in No Man's Sky, such as being able to travel with other players in a ship or other vehicle, and they need to optimize their multiplayer, I do not care for games which are played on server only. If I want to, I can play No Man's Sky completely offline. I am looking forward to seeing what Hello Games does next. Starfield will be another game I will watch on youtube, probably while I play NMS on my other screen. I have a computer that would play it but just barely. The game is very graphics heavy for someone with a mid-range gaming pc which "only" has 8GB dedicated video ram. I also do like the freedom NMS gives in movement. It also has so many other aspects, such as adopting creatures as pets - with mods, even the large birds/dragons that you can fly and that appeals to me. With a mod, you can speed up the ground vehicles and they are very fun to drive across the planets. I enjoy the building and the fact we can glitch-build in NMS which most games don't allow. NMS is missing actual cities and roads, as well as other things but you can't have it all in one game right?
Regarding faster travel systems, I feel No Man's Sky does it best, it's not milliseconds, like Starfield, and it's not many minutes in Elite. Starfield is a different beast. More realistic looking, but quite streamlined, with loading to planets, and millisecond planetary travel. No Man's Sky, of the solo play games, is my go-to game. But it sits well with Starfield, more than it does with Elite, Star Citizen, etc.
I just wish the star systems in NMS were slightly bigger, with actual reachable stars at the center. Something in-between what NMS is currently and Elite Dangerous is, but way more streamlined than Elite. I don't like how stars are just apart of a sykybox that we can't ever reach.
Starfield just uses wormholes. Wormholes shouldn't take that long. In my eyes that's more realistic than whatever hyperdrive bullshit people are making up to go faster than the speed of light.
This made me miss Elite so much!
No Man's Sky - Great game
Elite Dangerous - Dying game
Star Citizen - Not a game
Starfield - Bad game
In my opinion you perfectly resume and compare all of these game in a really great video without any biased moment so thank you !! have a great day and a ton of fun too 😁
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it.