Starfield has its advantages, like free movement in a spaceship, good action, and story. No Man Sky is more of a survival game, the goal of which is primarily to farm resources and explore different planets. Animals in No Man Sky are generated, but not in Starfield, also No Man Sky on the one hand feels like an arcade game which many players don’t like. Both games are good, the main thing is which aspects of the game are more important to you.
Good points. All i have to say is that No Man's Sky isn't lacking in story. I'd debate that it is better than Starfield. Other than that, rest of what you said is true. Good video!
Both are good and have positive or better aspects than the other but both also could use improvements so I say play what you enjoy I enjoy both so I play both
@@shaggy3741Agreed! NMS's story and lore is peak sci-fi for those wanting to take the time and unravel it. I feel like I'm reading the novels from back in my day (80s baby)
Ahm ..i cant walk around in my small Ship but in my big Carrier ...dont tell me you dont have a Big Carrier in NomansSky ?The Action in No MansSky is shooting down dump and Buggy KI ...and the Only Chalange you get here are some " Elite" Pitates who are just simple BulletEater...no Smart Ki 😂StarField is just OverHyped Mid BullCrap by a BIG Publisher ..theres no RPG..no SpaceExploration ..just FallOut with Reskinned Weapons looking more Spacy to shoot the Same Dump KI again and again
I would like the people to remember that 12 people worked on NMS. Development time was 3 years tho it would be around 7-8 years before it became legitimately good. 250 from a major AAA developer worked on Starfield. Development time was 7 years.
@@faith9113 woah bro, I'd take a fallout 3 in space any day. It's not even 1/10th of that game in any aspect, I guess the graphics are arguably slightly better
*You missed one thing in the meteorite details* In No Man's Sky, the smaller ones will blow up when shot, *but you can dig holes with your guns in the bigger ones.* You can even fly trough them if the hole is wide enough.
he missed a lot of things. Like fire can actually damage you in fire storms, as well as volcanoes, there are so many more biomes and so much more. He also didn't show riding animals.
In terms of gameplay. No man's sky is WAAY more fun. In terms of graphics Starfield is bettter. But in a videogame I think we can all agree that gameplay is more important...
@@KanooPhaPha94 Starfield did have fun quests you can get just from walking down the street without even talking to NPCs. I've never ran into the planet boundaries. I think you'd have to be intentionally looking for that to run into them.
Way more fun? I got bored pretty quickly after 2 hours in... Everything is dull and repeatable. The cartoonish look and feel make it looks fake. NPCs are mindless auto-reply machines. What's the point to be able to fly around the planets if there's not much to explore?
I am thoroughly enjoying Starfield, but after putting in 200+ hours into NMS VR….I’ve never experienced anything like it. Being able to build your own outpost and actually sit inside of it and then just fly aimlessly through the ozone layer into the galaxy….Starfield could never.
@@heysupguys30that’s the problem. WITH mods. The game developers gave us what we wanted without needing mods. You’re literally waiting for the community to fix what the developers screwed up
After just getting no man’s sky….everything is too gummy. I wanna eat the planets 🪐 Meanwhile Starfield reminds me of prison food. I don’t want to eat it, which is good for non-food products. But it also looks gray and depressing
@@Jim-Bagel Welcome to space. NMS is fantasy game while Starfied stays as much realistic as it can. Most of the time, gummy food - which is delicious - kills you faster than ordinary one.
Reach 150 hours in No man Sky and still so many things to discover.. 35 years of gaming I can judge what’s a good game and I can say NMS is almost perfect.
I have 1400 hours in NMS and still feel the same way! I refunded Starfield after 2 hours because it barely ran and two consecutive save files corrupted. After that I was like screw this shitty AI-generated trash. Never worth any real money. This game is a AI generated tech-demo, and it's just awful.
for all the dampness and imperfections of Starfield, it is 2 orders of magnitude higher than No Man's Sky. No Man's Sky has outdated graphics, virtually no physics, no ray tracing and no voice acting for dialogue (text only)
@@maxg9357Besides dialogue (speech) the rest is fully moddable and makes your PC hardware give its best and you get way better graphics and physics than Starfield. Maybe in couple years Starfield receives mods and then surpass its spiritual mentor. For now NMS is way funnier to play.
For me the key difference lies in the fact that in NMS, planets are truly planets and space is truly space, whereas in Starfield, a planet is just a piece of surface generated after a long loading time and space is just bubbles between which you need to move with more loadings. Because of this the atmosphere of a space adventure is completely killed in Starfield. You just don't believe in that world.
The planets may be spherical, but don't pretend the space and distances you travel are "real" at all. Just disguised loading screens. Nothing like starfield ofc but it's still all "faked"
Yeah, when i found out that basically the space flight was just the menu and some flashy and cool cutscenes i just leave the game, i know some people say its more of a roleplay/history game and not an exploration game but damn, i think the strongest point of an space game is being able to explore
I guess "Starfield" is just like "Outer Worlds"? The key aspect why "No Man's Sky" stood out from most space games is how starships enter/exit planets. There is no loading screen on that part and they totally coded the game to "seamlessly" fly in and out of planets (with 1-2 seconds of lag). I am still at awe on how they programmed that part of the game. Jumping systems and entering portals/warps still has a loading wormhole animation. But it was done nicely that most players don't mind it. Mostly everything in the game is procedural from creature and planet creation to music generation. NMS just feels like a modern version of the "Starflight" classic game. :-)
My fun with NMS is to play that game in VR. The feeling in a ship to see it front to back and all around inside and outside without moving the ship is very nice, something you can't see when you play non-VR
what VR are you using? i have tried playing some steam gasmes in VR with my Occulous Quest 2 , But the Link and going through PC doesnt really work that well. maybe its cause im not using 5g but still a slower internet . not sure
@@Cryptorocker2000 Meta Quest 2. Are you using airlink or cable? On my side, I use the cable and I have set occulus as openxr by default. Maybe by taking a look on this points could help ... ?
@@TheMaulam12345It IS a bad game. The only good things it has is spaceship building and character creation (which is pointless if the rest of the game sucks) Remember that No Mans Sky was developed by 12 people in 3 years, and Starfield by +250 (being super conservative) in 7 years
There's 2 kinds of Meteorites in NMS. There's solid objects and ones that you can completely harvest via terraforming. 7:12 There are fire patches on scorched planets that use more thermal hazard protection than usual, and going in the middle of one will cause you to take damage, first to your shield then your health cores.
And using the worst looking starship, at least show off the sentinel starship or a living ship or at the very least and exotic. Plus he ain't showing off the freighter base building
Yep just by the budget starfield should be better. And while no mans sky looks stunning on my average gamer pc starfield runs at 30 fps while not looking that better in my opinion. And the sense of exploration its just way better in nms
@@telmomourajr it's not just the budget, starfield was worked on by an ENTIRE AAA developer for 7+ years and the best they could come up with is a ripoff of NMS and can only run on 30 fps. and there's a lot of delusional ppl out there calling this game good 😂😂😂
😂 😂 😂 Correct! that's why No Man's Sky is a god game and Starfield its nothing! Also Warframe, Destiny, Fallout CoD and Diablo 4 they all loading screen borringggggggg! Sean Murray beats them all. HelloGames and Sean Murray is on top of the world 😊❤🎉🎉 I did bought No Man's Sky on ps5 and pc now I just need to buy 2 more Switch and xbox 😊❤ ❤ ❤
@@subhyoyogg2394 all of the UC and vanguard quest lines were great, the main quest were you phase through two different universes is pretty sick. Those are just two small examples. For characters that are memorable, Walter, Andreja, adoring fan, barret, heller, Hadrian, and especially vasco are very memorable.
there's also an 8 wheeler a hover transport a submersible a bike, also there was an expedition that allowed you to keep a giant worm as a pet, so there's that
@@TheParagonIsDead i have seen you all over these comments polishing Bethesda's bishop. damn dude, i wasnt a nms fan but if we compare its seven years to 76 and its time, not only is it easy to give a "best case scenario" that best case is *fallout 76* (morrowind, fallout 3, oblivion, and skyrim fan blow me) starfield is slop made by a giga dev team that will be forgotten to the sands of time, like it deserves. like fallout 76 deserved (like jesus christ even with a tv show to hype it the damn game only has 10k more players) while no man sky is going to keep giving people an actual, well designed, written, stylized (that means its not gonna look dated in 5 years as badly as starfield will dolt. like holy shit the real time refraction on planet atmosphere makes me as a physics nerd cry) ROLE PLAYING GAME. that even after a decade and a shitty in house Bethesda "pay me money" workshop cant genuinely compete with. no man sky may not have charisma checks and lockpicking. but you have no intelligence or taste
I see its not 100% accurate, because you are taking fire damage in the incorrect site in NMS, you actually can die by taking fire damage from enemies, or from the atmosphere. Also you can die by falling from high sites but the most common thing is to take great damage. Another thing is in NMS the ground can be mined too. And something important in both games is the effect of the atmosphere to the player, beacuse of that, the gravity can change and also the damage you take every certain time, but after all its a good comparison
This comparison made me appreciate how good No Man's Sky actually is. NMS is from 2016 and the first game released from dev's 'Hello Games'. The only problem with NMS is the story in my opinion.
I like the story, even though it's not that long. In my opinion, it's very good, and for those who don't know, it revolves around an alien called Artemis who needs to be rescued and in the end he dies and we discover that the universe is a simulation. I think hello Games could invest in one in Mans sky 2, with the continuation of the story, telling about Apollo and Artemis, since the game tries to indicate that they are friends of our character.
In every Bethesda game I have ever played I have always suspected that there is a contest among the Bethesda graphics people to see how many different shades of brown they can come up with.
I haven't played Starfield but I have played both Elite Dangerous and currently atm No Mans Sky. like Starfield, ED and NMS didn't start out with ground transportations when they first came out. They added ground transportation on later free DLC updates. I would Assume Starfield will do the same.
I’ve been telling myself that this initial release of Starfield is just a giant …. Almost blank lol…. canvas for them to get out into the wild and use it for DLC content for years to come. The question is when it ….invariably?…. does happen, despite their best intentions …… will it be any better
Bethesda doesn't usually do that kind of thing (unless it's a paid DLC that would be released in like 5 years) but the mods are probably already working on it so I suggest you take a look at nexusmod maybe you can find something on that theme.
you can actually get fire damage in No Man's Sky... some planets have fire storms and have fire on the ground, if you stand in that fire you get damage.
@@omegagrifon9530 2023 NMS is way better than todays starfield despite all the polemics, starfield just have better graphics since its a PC focused game and a AAA
Also I just now noticed, apart form fire damage that was shown not fairly between games, there was no showing of landing and taking off sequence from both games starships 1st person views, in NMS before you take off, your starship will show "Main Engine Ignition Started" with loading bar on main panel, when you are landing, in NMS your ship will show "Initiating landing sequence" and depending on starship type, like Solar Sail ship and Sentinel Interceptors - you get extra animations when taking off and landing by your starship unfolding and folding it's wings depending if you land or take off, plus for Solar Sail ships - if you get into upper atmosphere of planet, your ship will unfold the sails that regenerate your launch thrusters and if that ship goes into hyperjump to another star system - your ship folds in and tucks in sails which makes sense cuz if we would have such starships IRL, a hyperjump might break them off and yes when you do land with sail ship it doesn't just fold in wings but also sails.
Combining all the good parts of nms and starfield would be a dream Sprawling alien cities, foot combat and the graphics from starfield Gameplay, immersion and basically everything else from nms
The fact that you can fly from one planet to another, actually entering each planet without a dozen loading screens, is an immediate win for NMS for me
The comparison has some unfair things: - No mans sky launched in 2016 but the game has updated until this year, so both are 2024 - There's no comparison betwen enviorenment because no man's sky has planets with a lot of variety, for example extreme climate wich requires high level upgraded suit or going constantly in to ship/basement. - In no man's sky like 95% of the things are mining-able, but the game also allows to to build/delete terrain over the world in order to gain resources, redesing the terraint to build a base, make tunnels etc. - The swim has special tools/upgrades and even a submarine to explore, can also build a base underwater - The spacial ship in no man's sky is a whole thing, allows to travel, fast travel, jump, fight, recruit allies to fight, buy a freighter and custom it, buy a fleet, assign tasks, take desitions, claim and build in settlements, and a plenty more. Both are "space" games, but Starfield is more focused on fight/roleplay while No man's sky is focused on exploration.
I'm a new NMS player in 2023 because Starfield bombed. Perhaps if Bethesda put in 7 years of updates to make it good, I'll pick up Starfield on sale in 2030. If Bethesda has no plans to take the game multiplayer, then the game has no chance. I really enjoy the community putting out glyph portal addresses and coordinates to S class starships and multi-tools. 50 hours in NMS and I already got an OP starship and multi-tool. Now I work my way towards earning parts for base building. Taking portals to see other peoples bases is enjoyable. There are some really nice community bases out there in the galaxy.
Let me remind you that every planet in Starfield is handmade by the developers and still don't look as good as most of No Man's Sky's proceedurly generated planets. That's sad.
Можно поподробней, какая интрига в NMS? NMS все таже бесконечная песочница с гуглом +/- скучных одинаковых планет. В Starfield, к этому прибавляем отличный сюжет, интересные побочные задания и прекрасная графика с персонажами и прорисованными красивейшими городами и диалогами с озвучкой, В итоге: Starfield - топ игра с космической тематикой, NMS - тупо бесконечная песочница
@@sergeyignatenkov6595 Где ты в Starfield отличный сюжет нашёл? унылые квесты принеси подай. В NMS и то сюжет получше будет, хотя тоже так себе. "красивейшие персонажи"😁 это ты про страшных пучеглазых ботов с рыбьими глазами? В итоге: Starfield - унылый неоптимизированный кал. Симулятор загрузок. Игра про космос без космоса. Песочница с одинаковыми пустынными планетами. Тупые боты противники времён Oblivion. Некст ген сюжет - собери 10 артефактов и станешь довакином
@@ВасяИванов-н8ю всё относительно. Что в NMS лучше, кроме бесшовного передвижения? И вопрос второй - назови RPG игру с темой космоса лучше чем STARFIELD на данный момент.
@@sergeyignatenkov6595 Отвечаю на первый вопрос - Для меня сюжет и боёвка что в Starfield, что NMS примерно на троечку. Во всём остальном NMS в разы лучше. В NMS за год выходит по 3-4 глобальных обновы - бесплатных, а в Starfield выпустят пару дополнений с ценником по 50$ Вообще сравнивать Starfield с NMS неправильно. NMS - не про квесты - это космо песочница, а Starfield - сюжетная игра в космическом стиле, её скорей с киберпанком сравнивать нужно. На второй вопрос - Elite: Dangerous, NMS это в которые я играл
Unless you want the newest content . I completed the storyline when I first started nearly 2 years and 2000 hours of game play ago but found that, for the new content, one must complete the Artemis Path, Trace of Metal quest and have visited a Harmonic camp. I have had at least 6 new saves over time but completed the storyline again for the 2nd time on my newest save, which I normally don't do on new saves. I think it's worth it, though it did take me back at first when I heard about it.
In general, the same as in Starfield. No one forces you to complete every quest, although they are very interesting there and reveal little stories from the life of cities on planets.
Finally, a reasonable person. I don't get all the crapping on Starfield. Let's all not forget how many sky released. And it took them over six years to fix the game.
No mans sky on flatscreen is boring, but when I put on my PSVR2, I have 5-9 hour sessions. I end up forgetting about reality and just get lost in doing whatever. Vr and just being able to explore freely without quests or loading screens is what makes NMS better than starfield imo.
You have fire damage wrong in NMS. You didn't find a hot enough fire. Pretty much the same thing happens as in Starfield - you start taking damage, but you see your health bar rapidly decrease and your exosuit tells you that extreme heat has been detected, then you die.
C'est cool, il manque plus que tu refasses la même chose aujourd'hui avec la mise à jour 5.0 de Nomad Sky. 😁 Avec tous les graphismes et les shaders qu'ils ont été refaits de 0.
Graphics style of NMS isn't meant to be realistic, it's loosely based on a 70`s sifi comic book look. Hence the arcade game mechanics. Whereas Star field is going for a more realistic look
If you are looking for exploration and freedom and don't care about going far in the sci-fi = NMS If you are looking for a story-driven game, quests and interaction in a so-called "NASA PUNK" style = Starfield One day, a brand new IP will bring the best from both games and deliver the masterpiece that we expect.
@@krzysztofwozny9742 please, less, way less.... Starfield sucks, it is a wana be Mass Effect / No Man's Sky failing in BOTH, its an HORRIBLE rpg, AND it is an horrible space sim.
I was really hoping they'd do something with the Nasapunk aesthetic. Expected New Atlantis to be cobbled together from old space station parts but instead it looks like a generic sci-fi town.
@@Dampy.69 It's a modern city, it looks like a modern city. No one would make a city from cobbled together space station parts and make it a nation's capital.
No you don’t… What are you on? There are hundreds of pages of lore, mechanics, stories, quests, so so much. I have 200 hours and I’m still finding new things.
I finally have a ps5 (slim) and I can fully immerse myself in NMS without freezes and lags. Dudes, my dream is to buy a ps vr2 and just go live in this world, build an empire, etc
@darkcrusiderThey say that the Starfield is super realistic (wich NMS never claimed that) and I only expirienced bugs and glitches, and planets are very empty also
@@Chainsmoker65Who was the dumb shit that claimed that? It's certainly more realistic than NMS but, not that realistic, also what bugs? I experienced some bugs but nothing game breaking, i actually have 130hrs of fun and 10 NG+, never got anything bad
@@Chainsmoker65Maybe you are not playing right, since it's a story driven game not a survival exploration one, the planets are not that empty, maybe you should land in the ones that actually has some civilization and do some quests there, empty planets are there for grind, because again, it's a story driven game, not an sandbox
Personally I am surprised that NMS doesn't have "cars" for planetary exploring. :( Both games seem to be highly qualified. I still haven't bought Starfield, because it is still so darn expensive. :(
This comparison shows us that even in 2024 (more like 2023) the gaming industry has yet to create a game the encompasses all the right elements, to give us that perfect space experience. Spacebourne 2 makes an attempt at this, but lacks the budget. Hopefully, with DLC'S and mods, Starfield can make a comeback like NMS
Some things in this comparison are stupid, like the fire damage, for instance, you just did wrong in NMS buddy, those damaged machinery can only heat you up in cold enviroments, they wont burn you, if you are going for fire damage you should go on the top of a volcano, there the player can take fire damage, also you can take fire damage from fire storms, OR the flamethrower that the Sentinel mech has. Also, caves in NMS arent POIs like they are in Starfield, they are sort of contained biome too, so much so that sometimes you need to explore to find subterranean creatures that only spawn in caves. What i saw here was mostly a safe comparison between this two games, because if we went full out on it Bethesda would only have the rpg and story elements to back it up.
The comparison he made was very shallow, at times he also implies that there are no things in Starfield that do exist, like when he says that you can have an animal ally if you don't have sky and it suggests that Starfield doesn't have one, or when he makes comparisons of worlds and in no mas sky everyone is full of things but in starfield he immediately entered some lifeless worlds.
@@carloswright1140Starfield doesn't need 30 hours to be good, what happens is that the first mission takes around 4 hours, if you're quick, and the rest is people's time discovering the game's basic mechanics, I've played all the Bethesda games , I already started playing with 70% of the game's potential, some slow people can take more than 30 hours to understand the game, And people say there should be a better tutorial, I think that doesn't make sense because most people always skip tutorials , besides having all the necessary information about the game in the game menu.
@@creatvice5303 even if true, you literally shoot a plant, make some animal feed pellets, feed an animal and it could be your pet, animal type permitting...this is within a few minutes of starting the game, though you may need to learn the pellet recipe, think its a known recipe now actually
In nms, theres actual fire that forms on exreme planets that can kill you quick. Also, he didnt even show the awful nms bug where it appears you are floating above water
I haven't played either of these games but from this video it seems like no-mans-sky is more cartoony. Even the space ship looks 'drawn' rather than an immersive game. Kinda surprises me really considering the ages of each game.
@@Rabid-Pinocchioyou should crack it open. The sense of exploration is insane. Most of the planets you go to have never been visited by any other player. There is so much to do and so much to see that it’s physically impossible to explore the entire game. Interestingly that’s an important motif in the story without giving any spoilers
That thing you stood on for the fire wasn't actually on fire you have to go to a fire olanet to display the fire in the game. If you play no mans sky for real you would of known that!
At least No Man's Sky has built-in VR support and everything shown in the video can be done in the first person. Including controlling the spaceship directly through a virtual controller and so on. This is a very big competitive advantage)
Sir you forgot to compare Physics like the ones within a Star System and gravity on planets. For example. When your ship is still in Starfield the simulated orbit around you completes its cycle. When your ship is still in No Mans Sky everything else is still too because No Mans Sky doesn't have a simulated orbit.
@@Spacecoke You can never truly simulate a planet. Wake up. Have you ever tried to dig deep into a planet in NMS? The planet in NMS is just a fake spherical layer of material randomly generated and made believed, just as any other game. And basically, the thing you see on your monitor is just a bitmap, it's not even a real thing.
Несмотря на все плюсы No man's sky, цветовая гамма объектов, обилие жизни на планетах не добавляет реалистичности. Если смотреть просто визуально, то Starfield в этом отношении лучше
Have you played no man's sky storyline? It's insanely in depth and the main protagonist (spoiler alert) is an alien mass that can read your thoughts and causes you as the player to rethink your own sanity. It's crazy.
@@Filsoh he may not explained well, but in fact NMS can only be described as Ancestral / Universal simulation, and the player is basically the interface wich you interact, so YEAH, it has a lot of depth, far more than Bethesda Star "wanabe NMS / ME" field has with the bs about multi-verse (wich the game Quantum Break from Remedy does way better than Starfield wanabe Loki ending).
The fact a 2016 indie game is so easily compared to a $400 million dollar budgeted AAA Bethesda game proves how creatively bankrupt Starfield really is.
Don't forget that No man's sky was horrible the launch day and the next couple of years Starfield don't even have a month and have a better story and a Lot of side quest. Not just exploring planets
There are a lot more to do in Starfield than in NMS. A lot more fun imo, at least for a longer time. Loved NMS but it's too "short"/quick to see everything you can do.
what? i try no man sky for that seemless travel from planet to space, space to planet, do it a few time, not interested anymore, it feel so cheap and dull, nothing to be proud, but all of those starfield trasher keep pointing this feature. If it has detail like star citizen, then yes it is rational to use it as a point to trash starfield, but no man sky? nah.
So was this the "latest version" of No mans sky, available? Just curious b/c I only played it when it first released... but dang that was a long time ago! (or at least feels like it)
No man's sky is still updating and each update the game has got better, they keep updating the game with more content and for free, it's insane how the game has changed since it's released.
They're two different games. Should probably compare Stanfield to other space rpg and nms to other sandbox space games, like Space engineers or something.
Actually NMS basically created the modern staple for how a complete space sim game should aim at, and honestly, Bethesda get way to late in the party to even be relevant for the space sim genre, in fact, Bethesda is the second failed attempt to copy NMS (the first was Mass Effect Andromeda), design in an RPG, format, and honestly so far the game that get CLOSE to bridge RPG and Space sims, is and indie game that most folks never heard about called SpaceBourne 2
@@Alice_Sweicrowe the truth is that Starfield has space sim elements enough the yes be compared with other games from the genre and inevitably with NMS. So no, it isn't just rethoric.
Keep in mind that 'No Man's Sky' started from nothing. 'Starfield' is a game baked for years, after the decades of success (esp from 'Skyrim') and wealth gathered by Bethesda. Bethesda no longer a small company and should have put out a much better game.
These are completely different games in terms of gameplay. It's like comparing Saints Row and Fortnite just because both are cartoonish third person shooter with cars, buildings, planes and water physics. I know that hating Starfield is hyped these days and people starve for views/clicks, but people who really play the game and understood the idea don't waste time making useless comparisons.
I wouldn’t say that Saints Row and Fortnite are similar; these games have nothing similar to each other. I'm not trying to make money or hate Starfield, I create what people want to see and this is my hobby.
You don't want them compared because Starfield was such a trash game that compared to anything it gets obliterated. And instead of just admitting it's a bad game you have some weird need to defend it. If anything is useless here it's your opinions.
@@GhostOfSnuffles I don't need to defend any game, most of my time I'm playing and having fun instead of wasting my time with others opinion. Beyond that, if you check right now at steam charts, you can see that Starfield is the 9º most played game, disconsidering gamepass players. Haters gonna hate, gamers gonna play.
@@GhostOfSnuffles nope, it is because u only compare good part of no man sky vs bad part of starfield and u ignore the good part of starfield which it has more. and the good part of no man sky that keep being brought up is that seemless travel from planet to space and being able to fly on planet, it just better in term of having that feature while starfield dont has it, in term of quality, it is nothing like star citizen, no man sky flying feel so cheap and dull travel from planet to space is so simple, a few second, u are in space, nothing to be proud of only a bit better than starfield loading screen.
@@liamlinson7563 And what difference does it make to the problem? How long did it take for it to be fully playable? NMS has been a disaster whether you like it or not.
Starfield has its advantages, like free movement in a spaceship, good action, and story. No Man Sky is more of a survival game, the goal of which is primarily to farm resources and explore different planets. Animals in No Man Sky are generated, but not in Starfield, also No Man Sky on the one hand feels like an arcade game which many players don’t like. Both games are good, the main thing is which aspects of the game are more important to you.
Good points. All i have to say is that No Man's Sky isn't lacking in story. I'd debate that it is better than Starfield. Other than that, rest of what you said is true. Good video!
Both are good and have positive or better aspects than the other but both also could use improvements so I say play what you enjoy I enjoy both so I play both
@@shaggy3741Agreed! NMS's story and lore is peak sci-fi for those wanting to take the time and unravel it. I feel like I'm reading the novels from back in my day (80s baby)
Nms also has free movement in frigates which serve a similar purpose as the ships in starfield. Also you can Dock your normal ships on them.
Ahm ..i cant walk around in my small Ship but in my big Carrier ...dont tell me you dont have a Big Carrier in NomansSky ?The Action in No MansSky is shooting down dump and Buggy KI ...and the Only Chalange you get here are some " Elite" Pitates who are just simple BulletEater...no Smart Ki 😂StarField is just OverHyped Mid BullCrap by a BIG Publisher ..theres no RPG..no SpaceExploration ..just FallOut with Reskinned Weapons looking more Spacy to shoot the Same Dump KI again and again
I would like the people to remember that 12 people worked on NMS. Development time was 3 years tho it would be around 7-8 years before it became legitimately good. 250 from a major AAA developer worked on Starfield. Development time was 7 years.
not 250 though, if you include all actual developers, its closer to 1000. insane how they managed to fuck up so bad.
@@ripbraincells8534 todd 'chess club' howard needs to wake up and realise he cant just make fallout 3 anymore
and after 7 years development time for starfield ... its still shit, or as a particular someone (cosideci) put it: _this game is fcking trash_
ua-cam.com/video/5O9ll8PhJR8/v-deo.htmlsi=jvSPg81k5n9mJq4s
@@faith9113 woah bro, I'd take a fallout 3 in space any day. It's not even 1/10th of that game in any aspect, I guess the graphics are arguably slightly better
*You missed one thing in the meteorite details*
In No Man's Sky, the smaller ones will blow up when shot, *but you can dig holes with your guns in the bigger ones.* You can even fly trough them if the hole is wide enough.
He also missed another thing, in no mans sky you can get damaged from environmental fires.
@@jaydenhite8142 The enviroment fires will also increase the thermometer reading if you're close enough, no matter the weather.
Oh, how I LOVE doing that. 😌👌
he missed a lot of things. Like fire can actually damage you in fire storms, as well as volcanoes, there are so many more biomes and so much more. He also didn't show riding animals.
You can even build a base inside the hole
In terms of gameplay. No man's sky is WAAY more fun. In terms of graphics Starfield is bettter. But in a videogame I think we can all agree that gameplay is more important...
No mans sky have better graphics
There's nothing to do in No Man's Sky while in Starfield there is a fun quest around every corner
@@Matiu0syou must be trolling, starfield is super laggy and you can’t even go anywhere in your planet since there is a limit and always loadings
@@KanooPhaPha94 Starfield did have fun quests you can get just from walking down the street without even talking to NPCs. I've never ran into the planet boundaries. I think you'd have to be intentionally looking for that to run into them.
Way more fun? I got bored pretty quickly after 2 hours in... Everything is dull and repeatable. The cartoonish look and feel make it looks fake. NPCs are mindless auto-reply machines. What's the point to be able to fly around the planets if there's not much to explore?
I am thoroughly enjoying Starfield, but after putting in 200+ hours into NMS VR….I’ve never experienced anything like it. Being able to build your own outpost and actually sit inside of it and then just fly aimlessly through the ozone layer into the galaxy….Starfield could never.
Oh starfield def will with mods and vr ofc! It just came out.
It's not the point of Starfield... It's straight irrelevant trying to compare the 2 games because they are not of the same genre.
@@heysupguys30that’s the problem. WITH mods. The game developers gave us what we wanted without needing mods. You’re literally waiting for the community to fix what the developers screwed up
After just getting no man’s sky….everything is too gummy. I wanna eat the planets 🪐
Meanwhile Starfield reminds me of prison food. I don’t want to eat it, which is good for non-food products. But it also looks gray and depressing
@@Jim-Bagel Welcome to space. NMS is fantasy game while Starfied stays as much realistic as it can.
Most of the time, gummy food - which is delicious - kills you faster than ordinary one.
Reach 150 hours in No man Sky and still so many things to discover..
35 years of gaming I can judge what’s a good game and I can say NMS is almost perfect.
I have 1400 hours in NMS and still feel the same way!
I refunded Starfield after 2 hours because it barely ran and two consecutive save files corrupted. After that I was like screw this shitty AI-generated trash. Never worth any real money.
This game is a AI generated tech-demo, and it's just awful.
A few thousand hours here and I am with you
for all the dampness and imperfections of Starfield, it is 2 orders of magnitude higher than No Man's Sky. No Man's Sky has outdated graphics, virtually no physics, no ray tracing and no voice acting for dialogue (text only)
@@ehenningsenGo out touch some grass amk😂
@@maxg9357Besides dialogue (speech) the rest is fully moddable and makes your PC hardware give its best and you get way better graphics and physics than Starfield. Maybe in couple years Starfield receives mods and then surpass its spiritual mentor. For now NMS is way funnier to play.
For me the key difference lies in the fact that in NMS, planets are truly planets and space is truly space, whereas in Starfield, a planet is just a piece of surface generated after a long loading time and space is just bubbles between which you need to move with more loadings. Because of this the atmosphere of a space adventure is completely killed in Starfield. You just don't believe in that world.
The planets may be spherical, but don't pretend the space and distances you travel are "real" at all. Just disguised loading screens. Nothing like starfield ofc but it's still all "faked"
Yeah, when i found out that basically the space flight was just the menu and some flashy and cool cutscenes i just leave the game, i know some people say its more of a roleplay/history game and not an exploration game but damn, i think the strongest point of an space game is being able to explore
Totaly agreed, i stoped to play the game the moment i réalised that the first time i jumped in the ship.
Dude stop comparing two different games, the only thing comparing them is the thematic, one is an RPG and the other one is an adventure game.
I guess "Starfield" is just like "Outer Worlds"? The key aspect why "No Man's Sky" stood out from most space games is how starships enter/exit planets. There is no loading screen on that part and they totally coded the game to "seamlessly" fly in and out of planets (with 1-2 seconds of lag). I am still at awe on how they programmed that part of the game. Jumping systems and entering portals/warps still has a loading wormhole animation. But it was done nicely that most players don't mind it. Mostly everything in the game is procedural from creature and planet creation to music generation. NMS just feels like a modern version of the "Starflight" classic game. :-)
My fun with NMS is to play that game in VR. The feeling in a ship to see it front to back and all around inside and outside without moving the ship is very nice, something you can't see when you play non-VR
Elite is amzing too....Starfields ShipFlight is so....Pointless😅
what VR are you using? i have tried playing some steam gasmes in VR with my Occulous Quest 2 , But the Link and going through PC doesnt really work that well.
maybe its cause im not using 5g but still a slower internet . not sure
@@Cryptorocker2000 Meta Quest 2. Are you using airlink or cable? On my side, I use the cable and I have set occulus as openxr by default. Maybe by taking a look on this points could help ... ?
After the patch in june the ultimate way to play NMS in VR is the PSVR2...very crisp and supersmooth
You can free look. Alt on pc but not sure what the key is on controller
I'm sure starfield is fine in its own way, but Nms is absolutely perfect for me, so much things to discover.
starfield is not a bad game at any mean, just mediocre at best. too much hype.
@@TheMaulam12345because Bethesda definitely didn't promise to make a game of the century did it?
@@TheMaulam12345It IS a bad game. The only good things it has is spaceship building and character creation (which is pointless if the rest of the game sucks)
Remember that No Mans Sky was developed by 12 people in 3 years, and Starfield by +250 (being super conservative) in 7 years
@@sekinnnnn1121It's impressive how there are games that were developed by a few people and are superior to a giant company.
Both are good.
shooting into water from a firearm and from a plasma weapon, the effect will of course be different... it cannot even be compared.
seems a pissed off 12 yo made this video, couldn't hack "the walk" in permadeath and thought that was all the game offered
exactly, he didnt even use the projectile weapons on nms
@@MerthisReal But its the same effect as the other. No mans sky lacks detail
@@Forest762 yeah no shit it's a AA game.
@@MerthisReal Just saying that i could have been better, and it might even get added in an update.
There's 2 kinds of Meteorites in NMS. There's solid objects and ones that you can completely harvest via terraforming.
7:12 There are fire patches on scorched planets that use more thermal hazard protection than usual, and going in the middle of one will cause you to take damage, first to your shield then your health cores.
The funny thing is, he's also doing NMS really dirty by picking some of the worst looking planets he could find XD
That's cheating 😂😂😂
Only showed radioactive planets
lol for starfield he showed barren moons
@@wihx9071 thats 90% of the planets. For NMS he chose the bottom 15% most ugly
And using the worst looking starship, at least show off the sentinel starship or a living ship or at the very least and exotic. Plus he ain't showing off the freighter base building
The mere fact that this comparison even exists, makes me an unbeliever in Starfield.
Yep just by the budget starfield should be better. And while no mans sky looks stunning on my average gamer pc starfield runs at 30 fps while not looking that better in my opinion. And the sense of exploration its just way better in nms
So you never played it. Makes sense... you're just another one they fooled.
The game is GREAT!
Starfield is poop
@@fjorddenierbear4832 another lie on your record.
@@telmomourajr it's not just the budget, starfield was worked on by an ENTIRE AAA developer for 7+ years and the best they could come up with is a ripoff of NMS and can only run on 30 fps. and there's a lot of delusional ppl out there calling this game good 😂😂😂
Space exploration VS Loading Screen
😂 😂 😂 Correct! that's why No Man's Sky is a god game and Starfield its nothing! Also Warframe, Destiny, Fallout CoD and Diablo 4 they all loading screen borringggggggg! Sean Murray beats them all. HelloGames and Sean Murray is on top of the world 😊❤🎉🎉 I did bought No Man's Sky on ps5 and pc now I just need to buy 2 more Switch and xbox 😊❤ ❤ ❤
@@ukchub6633 👍
Space exploration resource gathering sim vs open world space story driven rpg.
Two sides… of two different coins.
Describe one memorable character from star field then story rig man😂,or at least tell us about the story line that you claim about@@TheParagonIsDead
@@subhyoyogg2394 all of the UC and vanguard quest lines were great, the main quest were you phase through two different universes is pretty sick.
Those are just two small examples. For characters that are memorable, Walter, Andreja, adoring fan, barret, heller, Hadrian, and especially vasco are very memorable.
starfield transport - just standing there
no man's sky transport - drives around in a monster stuck
there's also an 8 wheeler a hover transport a submersible a bike, also there was an expedition that allowed you to keep a giant worm as a pet, so there's that
Starfields gonna have buggies ina few months.
Down forget NMs had 7 YEARS of updates to get where it is today.
@@TheParagonIsDead i have seen you all over these comments polishing Bethesda's bishop. damn dude, i wasnt a nms fan but if we compare its seven years to 76 and its time, not only is it easy to give a "best case scenario" that best case is *fallout 76* (morrowind, fallout 3, oblivion, and skyrim fan blow me) starfield is slop made by a giga dev team that will be forgotten to the sands of time, like it deserves. like fallout 76 deserved (like jesus christ even with a tv show to hype it the damn game only has 10k more players) while no man sky is going to keep giving people an actual, well designed, written, stylized (that means its not gonna look dated in 5 years as badly as starfield will dolt. like holy shit the real time refraction on planet atmosphere makes me as a physics nerd cry) ROLE PLAYING GAME. that even after a decade and a shitty in house Bethesda "pay me money" workshop cant genuinely compete with.
no man sky may not have charisma checks and lockpicking. but you have no intelligence or taste
@@sylanwindrunnergaming4318 wow that’s fucked up 😂
Really, Insulting intelligence based on just enjoying a videogame?
@@TheParagonIsDead nope just calling you dumb because you hadnt taken the time to sit down and play a game before saying it isnt something. stewpid
NMS freedom is unbelievable soo many things to do love my hauler
I feel more alive in no man’s sky then star field in my opinion
Please elaborate. I've played Starfield not NMS
@@nomadicstrengthgo find out yourself 😂 😂 😂
@@ukchub6633 i did. Holy. Fuck.
@@nomadicstrengthlmao
@@nomadicstrengthTrue character arc
If No Man's Sky had the shooting mechanics of Starfield, it would literally be the perfect space faring, wanderer game.
I see its not 100% accurate, because you are taking fire damage in the incorrect site in NMS, you actually can die by taking fire damage from enemies, or from the atmosphere. Also you can die by falling from high sites but the most common thing is to take great damage. Another thing is in NMS the ground can be mined too. And something important in both games is the effect of the atmosphere to the player, beacuse of that, the gravity can change and also the damage you take every certain time, but after all its a good comparison
This comparison made me appreciate how good No Man's Sky actually is. NMS is from 2016 and the first game released from dev's 'Hello Games'. The only problem with NMS is the story in my opinion.
It wasn't their first game.
Their first game was Joe Danger
My bad, thanks for the correction guys.
@@IraFuse_422 np =)
I like the story, even though it's not that long. In my opinion, it's very good, and for those who don't know, it revolves around an alien called Artemis who needs to be rescued and in the end he dies and we discover that the universe is a simulation. I think hello Games could invest in one in Mans sky 2, with the continuation of the story, telling about Apollo and Artemis, since the game tries to indicate that they are friends of our character.
In every Bethesda game I have ever played I have always suspected that there is a contest among the Bethesda graphics people to see how many different shades of brown they can come up with.
Try Oblivion. That game looks like an acid trip. "So many colours, man...."
Wish someone could mix the best aspects of both games and make the ultimate Star Wars online experience. Loving no man’s sky though
I haven't played Starfield but I have played both Elite Dangerous and currently atm No Mans Sky. like Starfield, ED and NMS didn't start out with ground transportations when they first came out. They added ground transportation on later free DLC updates. I would Assume Starfield will do the same.
I’ve been telling myself that this initial release of Starfield is just a giant …. Almost blank lol…. canvas for them to get out into the wild and use it for DLC content for years to come. The question is when it ….invariably?…. does happen, despite their best intentions …… will it be any better
And wow was elite a diff experience at launch.
Starfield won’t add new content.
the difference is no man's sky "dlc" updates are all FREE. Bethesda will make us pay $20-30 for each one.
Bethesda doesn't usually do that kind of thing (unless it's a paid DLC that would be released in like 5 years) but the mods are probably already working on it so I suggest you take a look at nexusmod maybe you can find something on that theme.
You should also compare dev team sizes and budget.
you can actually get fire damage in No Man's Sky... some planets have fire storms and have fire on the ground, if you stand in that fire you get damage.
One is independent the other one is supposed to be a AAA but well I hope starfield will get better over years
Players will fix and add a lot of things through mods, the game was given to us as a base
One Is the biggest fraud of the last 10 years with all the features missing up at the launch and the other One Is supposed to be a AAA
@@omegagrifon9530 2023 NMS is way better than todays starfield despite all the polemics, starfield just have better graphics since its a PC focused game and a AAA
no man sky is so much better in many thing
Lol, Starfield is probably the greatest game youll never play.
Also I just now noticed, apart form fire damage that was shown not fairly between games, there was no showing of landing and taking off sequence from both games starships 1st person views, in NMS before you take off, your starship will show "Main Engine Ignition Started" with loading bar on main panel, when you are landing, in NMS your ship will show "Initiating landing sequence" and depending on starship type, like Solar Sail ship and Sentinel Interceptors - you get extra animations when taking off and landing by your starship unfolding and folding it's wings depending if you land or take off, plus for Solar Sail ships - if you get into upper atmosphere of planet, your ship will unfold the sails that regenerate your launch thrusters and if that ship goes into hyperjump to another star system - your ship folds in and tucks in sails which makes sense cuz if we would have such starships IRL, a hyperjump might break them off and yes when you do land with sail ship it doesn't just fold in wings but also sails.
Starfield is a pretty game but no mans sky has things that actually make that kind of game fun.
Starfield is very fun as well.
@@Joseph-wh5of I really prefer Fallout, by far by far, but I dont think Starfield is that bad from what I have seem. the game looks ok.
Combining all the good parts of nms and starfield would be a dream
Sprawling alien cities, foot combat and the graphics from starfield
Gameplay, immersion and basically everything else from nms
Please dont bring combat
-How many loading screens do you want?
Todd Howard: Yes
3:42 cool transition
The transport part😂😂
maybe 10 years later starfiled can reach no man sky level
but only the lvl of 2023 :D
Well said
They are two different games lol
@@TheParagonIsDead are you mad? both open world space game.
@@MrN080DY I just think it’s unfairly hated.
The fact that you can fly from one planet to another, actually entering each planet without a dozen loading screens, is an immediate win for NMS for me
The comparison has some unfair things:
- No mans sky launched in 2016 but the game has updated until this year, so both are 2024
- There's no comparison betwen enviorenment because no man's sky has planets with a lot of variety, for example extreme climate wich requires high level upgraded suit or going constantly in to ship/basement.
- In no man's sky like 95% of the things are mining-able, but the game also allows to to build/delete terrain over the world in order to gain resources, redesing the terraint to build a base, make tunnels etc.
- The swim has special tools/upgrades and even a submarine to explore, can also build a base underwater
- The spacial ship in no man's sky is a whole thing, allows to travel, fast travel, jump, fight, recruit allies to fight, buy a freighter and custom it, buy a fleet, assign tasks, take desitions, claim and build in settlements, and a plenty more.
Both are "space" games, but Starfield is more focused on fight/roleplay while No man's sky is focused on exploration.
I'm a new NMS player in 2023 because Starfield bombed. Perhaps if Bethesda put in 7 years of updates to make it good, I'll pick up Starfield on sale in 2030. If Bethesda has no plans to take the game multiplayer, then the game has no chance. I really enjoy the community putting out glyph portal addresses and coordinates to S class starships and multi-tools. 50 hours in NMS and I already got an OP starship and multi-tool. Now I work my way towards earning parts for base building. Taking portals to see other peoples bases is enjoyable. There are some really nice community bases out there in the galaxy.
Hear hear nms is one of the best game in the world. Starfield is not even online multilayer 😂 😂 😂 wrong comparison.
Why multiplayer? It’s a single player masterpiece with a spectacular update coming every 6 weeks.
Another difference between the two is that NMS constantly receives major content updates with stories, rewards, fixes, additions for free.
Starfield isnt a space exploration game its loading screen simulator
I couldn’t compare the two, both very different and equally brilliant
No Mans Sky is beautiful.
Frrr
Time to do another comparison with worlds part 1 update. Huehue
The mad man at Hello games strikes again
Let me remind you that every planet in Starfield is handmade by the developers and still don't look as good as most of No Man's Sky's proceedurly generated planets.
That's sad.
And the variety nms offers is unmatched
The fact that Starfield doesn't have vehicles and underwater swimming is so deal breaking... Shame
They will, and they will.
В Старфилд визуал хороший, но вроде как делать нечего, зато в No man's sky интрига в игре, хочется исследовать игру.
Можно поподробней, какая интрига в NMS?
NMS все таже бесконечная песочница с гуглом +/- скучных одинаковых планет.
В Starfield, к этому прибавляем отличный сюжет, интересные побочные задания и прекрасная графика с персонажами и прорисованными красивейшими городами и диалогами с озвучкой,
В итоге: Starfield - топ игра с космической тематикой, NMS - тупо бесконечная песочница
@@sergeyignatenkov6595 Где ты в Starfield отличный сюжет нашёл? унылые квесты принеси подай. В NMS и то сюжет получше будет, хотя тоже так себе.
"красивейшие персонажи"😁 это ты про страшных пучеглазых ботов с рыбьими глазами?
В итоге: Starfield - унылый неоптимизированный кал. Симулятор загрузок. Игра про космос без космоса. Песочница с одинаковыми пустынными планетами. Тупые боты противники времён Oblivion. Некст ген сюжет - собери 10 артефактов и станешь довакином
@@ВасяИванов-н8ю всё относительно. Что в NMS лучше, кроме бесшовного передвижения? И вопрос второй - назови RPG игру с темой космоса лучше чем STARFIELD на данный момент.
@@ВасяИванов-н8ю , плиз прочитай внимательно про "красивейшие персонажи" это ты сам придумал )
@@sergeyignatenkov6595 Отвечаю на первый вопрос - Для меня сюжет и боёвка что в Starfield, что NMS примерно на троечку. Во всём остальном NMS в разы лучше.
В NMS за год выходит по 3-4 глобальных обновы - бесплатных, а в Starfield выпустят пару дополнений с ценником по 50$
Вообще сравнивать Starfield с NMS неправильно. NMS - не про квесты - это космо песочница, а Starfield - сюжетная игра в космическом стиле, её скорей с киберпанком сравнивать нужно.
На второй вопрос - Elite: Dangerous, NMS это в которые я играл
In my opinion it is unfair to compare games from 2016 and 2006
I agree. Companies used to care back in 06
00:42 i mean ma guy you are shooting a laser beam into the water what did you expect
thankyou so much for this vid
In NMS you can have a life and enjoy the game without actively following the story/missions.
Unless you want the newest content . I completed the storyline when I first started nearly 2 years and 2000 hours of game play ago but found that, for the new content, one must complete the Artemis Path, Trace of Metal quest and have visited a Harmonic camp. I have had at least 6 new saves over time but completed the storyline again for the 2nd time on my newest save, which I normally don't do on new saves. I think it's worth it, though it did take me back at first when I heard about it.
@@soulssong2u i really have no idea what you're talking about haha shit i have to play some missions i guess
You can do that in starfield you know that right
Same as starfeild?
In general, the same as in Starfield. No one forces you to complete every quest, although they are very interesting there and reveal little stories from the life of cities on planets.
Thanks for the video, waiting for the next video comparison of Baldur's Gate 3 and Black Myth Wukong
A Liberdade de No Man’s Sky e surreal, sair sem dos planeta sem carregamento, os mods, os proprios update da empresa mt bons
left out that you can actually ride the animals in nms
I enjoy both games. Sure both games has its pros & cons, but I do enjoy both games.
Finally, a reasonable person. I don't get all the crapping on Starfield. Let's all not forget how many sky released. And it took them over six years to fix the game.
Great way to live life my dude.
No mans sky on flatscreen is boring, but when I put on my PSVR2, I have 5-9 hour sessions. I end up forgetting about reality and just get lost in doing whatever. Vr and just being able to explore freely without quests or loading screens is what makes NMS better than starfield imo.
No man sky psvr2 with the new Update is outstanding, and the only game i PLAY right now. Starfield was a disapointment🤮
I will always like NMS more. this game went from Shit to Masterpiece and it is not stopping.
You have fire damage wrong in NMS. You didn't find a hot enough fire. Pretty much the same thing happens as in Starfield - you start taking damage, but you see your health bar rapidly decrease and your exosuit tells you that extreme heat has been detected, then you die.
No mans sky will be played for years and Starfield will be forgotten after 1st year and collecting dust
Only because the developers cared about their product. Remember it took 10 years to get this game where it's at now!
Well said
Why? It sold well and has a few dlcs coming, with a major update coming around once a month.
@@david2727fr
@@david2727and in 10 years Bethesda will still be trying to make people forget this
C'est cool, il manque plus que tu refasses la même chose aujourd'hui avec la mise à jour 5.0 de Nomad Sky. 😁
Avec tous les graphismes et les shaders qu'ils ont été refaits de 0.
Graphics style of NMS isn't meant to be realistic, it's loosely based on a 70`s sifi comic book look. Hence the arcade game mechanics. Whereas Star field is going for a more realistic look
Especially if you look at the building options and posters. DEFINITELY futuristic combined with 70’s advertising look
Love both games. More space games the better.
If you are looking for exploration and freedom and don't care about going far in the sci-fi = NMS
If you are looking for a story-driven game, quests and interaction in a so-called "NASA PUNK" style = Starfield
One day, a brand new IP will bring the best from both games and deliver the masterpiece that we expect.
A beand new IP, or just Starfield 2.
@@krzysztofwozny9742 please, less, way less.... Starfield sucks, it is a wana be Mass Effect / No Man's Sky failing in BOTH, its an HORRIBLE rpg, AND it is an horrible space sim.
This game already exists, but it is still in early access, it is called SpaceBourne 2, and is made by one single dev.
I was really hoping they'd do something with the Nasapunk aesthetic. Expected New Atlantis to be cobbled together from old space station parts but instead it looks like a generic sci-fi town.
@@Dampy.69 It's a modern city, it looks like a modern city. No one would make a city from cobbled together space station parts and make it a nation's capital.
I’m in line with NMS. So many amazing things to do, so much to see
Got NMS when it came out and I’m still learning things in the game.. I have played star field a total of 30 minutes and I know every detail…
Its because nms is build by intelligence small group of developers while Starfield are American company xD. If you know what I mean
No you don’t…
What are you on? There are hundreds of pages of lore, mechanics, stories, quests, so so much.
I have 200 hours and I’m still finding new things.
@@ukchub6633learn how to put together a sentence before bashing a masterpiece making company for their intelligence 😂
@@TheParagonIsDead idiot 😂 😂 😂
You are deeply mistaken in thinking that you know every detail, my friend, you are deeply mistaken...
I finally have a ps5 (slim) and I can fully immerse myself in NMS without freezes and lags. Dudes, my dream is to buy a ps vr2 and just go live in this world, build an empire, etc
Deux jeux absolument magnifiques et magiques
👍
Definitely!
Gotta redo this one, NMS had a pretty good update.
No Man's Sky > Starfield.
@darkcrusiderAnd I also regret buying Starfield
@darkcrusiderThey say that the Starfield is super realistic (wich NMS never claimed that) and I only expirienced bugs and glitches, and planets are very empty also
@@Chainsmoker65Who was the dumb shit that claimed that? It's certainly more realistic than NMS but, not that realistic, also what bugs? I experienced some bugs but nothing game breaking, i actually have 130hrs of fun and 10 NG+, never got anything bad
@@Chainsmoker65Maybe you are not playing right, since it's a story driven game not a survival exploration one, the planets are not that empty, maybe you should land in the ones that actually has some civilization and do some quests there, empty planets are there for grind, because again, it's a story driven game, not an sandbox
not sure, but i don't think buddy kows how to operate greater than and less than symbols
Personally I am surprised that NMS doesn't have "cars" for planetary exploring. :( Both games seem to be highly qualified. I still haven't bought Starfield, because it is still so darn expensive. :(
Easy win for No man’s sky
Bruh 💀
Lol no, NMS is boring
@@williamwolfstein6170Hahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahaha do you play no men's sky, I think no or you are played 30 minutes.
@@williamwolfstein6170 If NMS is boring starfield must be solitary confinement.
@rulingmoss5599 love Starfield and no man sky. Why does one have to be better? They are both great for there own reasons.
Starfield
Can you remake this with No Man's Sky : Worlds Part 1 update ?
Oh no, it doesn't even compare now....
Honestly this makes me more excited for the next AAA space game because I’m sure they are learning a lot from these 2 games.
Starfield was supposed to be game changing for new gen... all they did was create a load screen simulator on a 10 year old engine🤦♂️
This comparison shows us that even in 2024 (more like 2023) the gaming industry has yet to create a game the encompasses all the right elements, to give us that perfect space experience. Spacebourne 2 makes an attempt at this, but lacks the budget. Hopefully, with DLC'S and mods, Starfield can make a comeback like NMS
Space games are hard. I wish we could take every single one of them and mash them into a single product. Each one has its strength and flaws.
Some things in this comparison are stupid, like the fire damage, for instance, you just did wrong in NMS buddy, those damaged machinery can only heat you up in cold enviroments, they wont burn you, if you are going for fire damage you should go on the top of a volcano, there the player can take fire damage, also you can take fire damage from fire storms, OR the flamethrower that the Sentinel mech has.
Also, caves in NMS arent POIs like they are in Starfield, they are sort of contained biome too, so much so that sometimes you need to explore to find subterranean creatures that only spawn in caves.
What i saw here was mostly a safe comparison between this two games, because if we went full out on it Bethesda would only have the rpg and story elements to back it up.
Exactly and you don't have to play 30hrs before fun starts 😅
The comparison he made was very shallow, at times he also implies that there are no things in Starfield that do exist, like when he says that you can have an animal ally if you don't have sky and it suggests that Starfield doesn't have one, or when he makes comparisons of worlds and in no mas sky everyone is full of things but in starfield he immediately entered some lifeless worlds.
@@carloswright1140Starfield doesn't need 30 hours to be good, what happens is that the first mission takes around 4 hours, if you're quick, and the rest is people's time discovering the game's basic mechanics, I've played all the Bethesda games , I already started playing with 70% of the game's potential, some slow people can take more than 30 hours to understand the game, And people say there should be a better tutorial, I think that doesn't make sense because most people always skip tutorials , besides having all the necessary information about the game in the game menu.
@@creatvice5303 even if true, you literally shoot a plant, make some animal feed pellets, feed an animal and it could be your pet, animal type permitting...this is within a few minutes of starting the game, though you may need to learn the pellet recipe, think its a known recipe now actually
In nms, theres actual fire that forms on exreme planets that can kill you quick. Also, he didnt even show the awful nms bug where it appears you are floating above water
I haven't played either of these games but from this video it seems like no-mans-sky is more cartoony. Even the space ship looks 'drawn' rather than an immersive game. Kinda surprises me really considering the ages of each game.
So in no man’s sky you start with that ship then you can get better looking ships and better ships in general and you can make your own ships.
No Mans Sky IS more cartoony
The art style is based on 70's sci-fi
@@sekinnnnn1121 Oh, that's interesting. Thanks for the input. I've had the game for a few Months but have not yet cracked it open.
@@Rabid-Pinocchioyou should crack it open. The sense of exploration is insane. Most of the planets you go to have never been visited by any other player. There is so much to do and so much to see that it’s physically impossible to explore the entire game. Interestingly that’s an important motif in the story without giving any spoilers
That thing you stood on for the fire wasn't actually on fire you have to go to a fire olanet to display the fire in the game. If you play no mans sky for real you would of known that!
7:10 that's not how you take fire damage in NMS. You find a planet with a hot climate
No es justo comparar un juego que lleva desde 2016 sacando actualizaciones a un juego que se estrenó en Septiembre 6. Recientemente.
Habla mucho del gran videojuego que es Starfield.
No mans sky was made by 12 people with around a $10 million budget
Starfield was made by 250 people with a $200 million budget
Spot the difference
At least No Man's Sky has built-in VR support and everything shown in the video can be done in the first person. Including controlling the spaceship directly through a virtual controller and so on. This is a very big competitive advantage)
Sir you forgot to compare Physics like the ones within a Star System and gravity on planets. For example. When your ship is still in Starfield the simulated orbit around you completes its cycle. When your ship is still in No Mans Sky everything else is still too because No Mans Sky doesn't have a simulated orbit.
yet, when it does though it won't operate using a newtonian model
But thats irrelevant because when you are in space the planets are just png,s it's not a simulation of planets it's an illusion of planets.
Bruh NMS doesn't have loading screens
@@Spacecoke You can never truly simulate a planet. Wake up. Have you ever tried to dig deep into a planet in NMS? The planet in NMS is just a fake spherical layer of material randomly generated and made believed, just as any other game.
And basically, the thing you see on your monitor is just a bitmap, it's not even a real thing.
it doesnt matter if there's an orbit because the planets arent even really there. who gives a fuck?
Несмотря на все плюсы No man's sky, цветовая гамма объектов, обилие жизни на планетах не добавляет реалистичности. Если смотреть просто визуально, то Starfield в этом отношении лучше
but starfield has a great story with rpg dialog and fun shooting 🔫
Have you played no man's sky storyline? It's insanely in depth and the main protagonist (spoiler alert) is an alien mass that can read your thoughts and causes you as the player to rethink your own sanity. It's crazy.
@@Dubstepticon47 Insane in depth is a bit stretching it...
@@Filsoh he may not explained well, but in fact NMS can only be described as Ancestral / Universal simulation, and the player is basically the interface wich you interact, so YEAH, it has a lot of depth, far more than Bethesda Star "wanabe NMS / ME" field has with the bs about multi-verse (wich the game Quantum Break from Remedy does way better than Starfield wanabe Loki ending).
you mean a boring story, dialogs that dont matter and mediocre shooting?
@anthonyp8260 you are a crying 😢 sony fan boy 😆
space suits make sense to have no fire damage, you think when humans are exploring the galaxy they aren't going to ad fire protection too suits
The fact a 2016 indie game is so easily compared to a $400 million dollar budgeted AAA Bethesda game proves how creatively bankrupt Starfield really is.
made by 40 people, but really a 10 person core group and an even smaller 4 person startup
The transport part 😂 🤣
you can take fire damage in no mans sky on volvanic planets when a firestorm occurs and fire spawns
No man's sky (2016) vs. Starfield (2023)
There should be more fun in Starfield but it isn't. There are many things missing in Starfield.
Don't forget that No man's sky was horrible the launch day and the next couple of years
Starfield don't even have a month and have a better story and a Lot of side quest.
Not just exploring planets
There are a lot more to do in Starfield than in NMS. A lot more fun imo, at least for a longer time.
Loved NMS but it's too "short"/quick to see everything you can do.
what? i try no man sky for that seemless travel from planet to space, space to planet, do it a few time, not interested anymore, it feel so cheap and dull, nothing to be proud, but all of those starfield trasher keep pointing this feature. If it has detail like star citizen, then yes it is rational to use it as a point to trash starfield, but no man sky? nah.
I love ❤ this music. Is the ingame music on either game like this?
Hab beides gespielt und No man sky ist meiner Meinung nach, das gelungenere spiel!
So was this the "latest version" of No mans sky, available? Just curious b/c I only played it when it first released... but dang that was a long time ago! (or at least feels like it)
All the things shown in the video could have been done in a 2018 version. There is so fucking much more
Now compare the launch games. No updates 😂
You think Bethesda is updating this😂
exactly, then starfield might have a fighting chance
No man's sky is still updating and each update the game has got better, they keep updating the game with more content and for free, it's insane how the game has changed since it's released.
They're two different games. Should probably compare Stanfield to other space rpg and nms to other sandbox space games, like Space engineers or something.
Actually NMS basically created the modern staple for how a complete space sim game should aim at, and honestly, Bethesda get way to late in the party to even be relevant for the space sim genre, in fact, Bethesda is the second failed attempt to copy NMS (the first was Mass Effect Andromeda), design in an RPG, format, and honestly so far the game that get CLOSE to bridge RPG and Space sims, is and indie game that most folks never heard about called SpaceBourne 2
@@efxnews4776 Rhetoric.
@@Alice_Sweicrowe the truth is that Starfield has space sim elements enough the yes be compared with other games from the genre and inevitably with NMS.
So no, it isn't just rethoric.
@@efxnews4776 Rhetoric
@efxnews4776 Just to ensure you I know what I'm talking about, one of the names in the thank you for the credits is mine. So, yes, Rhetoric.
Keep in mind that 'No Man's Sky' started from nothing. 'Starfield' is a game baked for years, after the decades of success (esp from 'Skyrim') and wealth gathered by Bethesda. Bethesda no longer a small company and should have put out a much better game.
Both games are fun and SUPER AWESOME!!!!
Sadly, I can't comment because of exclusivity
7:03 you can literally jump in volcanoes or go to a planet full of constant Detrimental Fire Storms.
These are completely different games in terms of gameplay. It's like comparing Saints Row and Fortnite just because both are cartoonish third person shooter with cars, buildings, planes and water physics. I know that hating Starfield is hyped these days and people starve for views/clicks, but people who really play the game and understood the idea don't waste time making useless comparisons.
I wouldn’t say that Saints Row and Fortnite are similar; these games have nothing similar to each other. I'm not trying to make money or hate Starfield, I create what people want to see and this is my hobby.
They're both different games that allow you to explore space.
Therefore, that common aspect of these two different games can be compared.
You don't want them compared because Starfield was such a trash game that compared to anything it gets obliterated. And instead of just admitting it's a bad game you have some weird need to defend it.
If anything is useless here it's your opinions.
@@GhostOfSnuffles I don't need to defend any game, most of my time I'm playing and having fun instead of wasting my time with others opinion. Beyond that, if you check right now at steam charts, you can see that Starfield is the 9º most played game, disconsidering gamepass players. Haters gonna hate, gamers gonna play.
@@GhostOfSnuffles nope, it is because u only compare good part of no man sky vs bad part of starfield and u ignore the good part of starfield which it has more. and the good part of no man sky that keep being brought up is that seemless travel from planet to space and being able to fly on planet, it just better in term of having that feature while starfield dont has it, in term of quality, it is nothing like star citizen, no man sky flying feel so cheap and dull travel from planet to space is so simple, a few second, u are in space, nothing to be proud of only a bit better than starfield loading screen.
I like the background song, I thing it would be a great addition to Starfield
Biomes
No Man Sky : varied with beautiful sky
Starfield : begging modders to make it look less boring
And the disaster at the launch of nms with all these bugs... Strangely, you don't mention it, why? 😂😂
@@wilfridbrion1544 didnt starfield take 8 years to make?
@@liamlinson7563 And what difference does it make to the problem? How long did it take for it to be fully playable? NMS has been a disaster whether you like it or not.
yeah its clear this was a late..."you guys wanna just let the modders fill in the blanks" decision in the creative process
Starfeild has no biomes, just one per planet