What a ridiculous comparison Starfield being a dated, dull and boring mess with a ton of loading screens has nothing to do with no man sky or light no fire. Starfield problems go way beyond procedural generation and no amount of hating on No man sky is going to change that Say what you will about No man sky but I would argue that its colorful worlds felt more real to me than starfield ever did because at least I actually felt like I was exploring an actual universe compared to just fast traveling everywhere in starfield. Ultimately, starfield biggest problem to me is not its procedural generation its the fact that it never once convinced me that its worlds or characters were real. In the end it all just ends up feeling like bad and dated computer simulation from the 90s with a lot of loading screens and a very forgettable main quest
That's a different aspect where the comparison falls short. Comparing a badly executed recent copy of a technology to the very franchise that pioneered a technology and continued to refine it for 7+ years, is akin to saying back in 2017 that Android has a Windows Phone problem. That Facebook has a Google+ problem. No it does not.
agreed, Starfield has a way bigger list of issues outside of "iTs PrOcEdUrAlY gEnErAtEd". And NMS is great for what it is today, not without issues but doesn't make sense to compare apples to oranges - how else are you going to make a universe exploration game if not using proc gen? Let's just individually build 18 quintillion planets
@@dominic.h.3363 What franchise pioneered what technology exactly? Because procedural generation has been a part of game development as far as 1980. If you're going to analyze analysis, you might want to check your facts before making a fool of yourself. The over-reliance on proc gen has been a staple of many open-world games, including NMS and Starfield, and the correlation is more than obvious to anyone who isn't sucking Murray's dick. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the only way to deal with crazy fans.
@@creepyZuckfrankly, it seems to me that Todd was trying to copy NMS, without having the proper tech and also having an outdate view about the game industry. As a niche player of the space sim genre i can tell, that Starfield sucks, it brings nothing new to the genre, and it is a horrible amalgamation of genres... One one hand it tries to be a Mass Effect game in terms of rpg and such, but lacks an interesting story, the world building is beyond stupid and boring, the characters aren't interesting... On the gameplay front, especially at the ground combat, Starfield is outdated, if you compare with Cyberpunk only in the gameplay department, Bethesda is humiliated. On the space sim part it does have all elements to be consider a space sim, but at the same time there no a single element of this gameplay loop that could be considered innovative. The space combat sucks, theres better games from the last millenium better, the exploration is completely broken, in so many levels that this alone is the sole reason why nobody likes Starfield, the ship building the best part of the game, but guess what? There are better dedicated games for this sort of game mechanics (Kerbal Space Program and Space Engineers comes to mind...)
I think Light No Fire looks like a better use of procedural. In No Man’s Sky there’s are potentially endless different species but often they do look a bit similar. But in Light No Fire, given that’s it’s just one planet, those similarities become more realistic. A zebra and a horse on earth makes sense. If Earth had horses and Mars had zebras, it would feel like lazy design and bad procedural generation because we all expect aliens to look drastically different. Using procedural generation to focus on just one planet gives you more freedom for certain species to look similar and for it to feel more realistic. I love No Man’s Sky but by trying to do multiple galaxies, planets and species really pushes the limits of procedural. Focussing on just one planet will let them go deeper. Far deeper than No Man’s Sky and Starfield.
Starfield’s biggest problem was settlements would be right next to an ancient alien temple and no one would bother to explore, but what Skyrim did was they put lore and reason behind why townsfolk wouldn’t go into ancient Nordic ruins, and I trust hello games will go with the Skyrim approach
1: Starfield has 27 unique POI buildings while former Bethesda titles had up to 350 unique locations, Starfield feels boring and repetitive AF because the developers did less than 1/10th of the work with persistent content they would normally do in the past. 2: Nothing speaks against procedurally generated locations, Daggerfall showed it could work, and nothing speaks against randomly generated infrastructure layout either, using the same modular design for ship parts to build a random variety of ships as NMS already does just with building blocks of a house. It's even easier to randomly generate interiors when you don't have to bother with matching the exterior, that's how games released 25 years ago randomized their dungeons. Nothing in random/procedural generation that is necessary to use for such a project is without precedent. All in all, your comparisons are so far off the mark, you are comparing an apple to a bicycle, instead of the usual - but still wrong - apples to oranges.
@@SpaceCoconut You compare "monuments", monolithic structures with simple geometry, to actual architecture. Even the landmark on your map says it's a monument. It's not infrastructure, it's a site. Therefore its simplicity does not apply to what a procedurally generated settlement could be, not even within No Man's Sky, since it has fully fledged settlements that show some of the modularity the new game could have as standard for its procedurally generated content.
I haven't even played Starfield, but through all the gameplay footage I watched it has "Fallout 4" fingerprints all over it. It looks like a reskin of the game. That's bad.
@@SpaceCoconutstarfield sucks because of they way they implemented it. no man's sky did it much better, by focusing all that on a single planet it will be much better than you think.
Procedurally generated world suck if you don't know how to use procedural generation. Even up until now, after 7+ years of playing No Man's Sky, I on a daily basis find interesting things in their universe that I've never seen before and that excite me. For example, just today I found a planet with mountains so high and steep that regular flora was growing on it sides (might have been a bug as well, but was epic nevertheless) and you would pass horizontally lined trees while climbing it on the jetpack. Or a tiny moon that looked almost exactly like smurfville. Not to mention that there are dynamic encounters in the world all the time so there's always something going on... So it's not procedural generation, it's how you utilize it. No Man's Sky's planets are several orders of magnitude more interesting to explore than Starfield's because Hello Games know what they are doing. Bethesda did not.
The fact that some structures are the same and the layout is the same is honestly a non-issue, it's unrealistic to want THE PERFECT game from a small company when even the big companies are not delivering anything good lately and just patch their way into it. You can either ask for the perfect game or fast releases, can't have both, otherwise you'll end up with a Todd in charge of those games
I didn't say I wanted the perfect game. You did. I also didn't say anything about wanting a fast release. Not sure who you're talking to here. I said I'd like to see them improve what they've done in NMS.
@@mzxa9988 Can't think of another game with a 1 to 1 scale open world? So assuming that is what they are trying to make and they don't FIU then their claims will be valid tbh.
Have not played No Mans Sky or Starfield, but from the one highly successful procgen game I have played, Valheim, I think the key is "nesting" enough procgen permutations together. Valheim has the macro world, and the dungeons, and the points of interest. And then since the points of interest are mostly constructed from the same building materials as what the players use to build their bases, they probably made a bunch of POIs, and then stripped them down into various levels of disrepair to make what feels like nearly infinite combinations. You know vaguely what type of POI you're seeing, but every time I return to the game I'm surprised at how large/complex and undamaged some POIs are. I think if Light no Fire takes this formula and goes about 2x or 3x deeper, they could fill an "Earth" without it being too repetitive.
Agreed.... Starfield is still on a constant downward slope in concurrent players. Imgaine them wanting to charge money for DLCs. Once LNF comes out, people are done with Starfield for good... heck Im even finding returning to NMS more entertaining and pleasing than Starfield ever was.
This is mainly because Starfield's gameplay loop doesn't compliment exploration for explorations sake. In Starfield you're looking for loot, looking for new quests and so on. The game isn't designed to allow for areas without purpose, every cave, building or npc needs to have some association with a quest, or something to offer the player. No Man's Sky is a survival game, it's designed around you gathering resources to survive and reach the next planet. All Hello Games could ever do was add more things for you to create using those resource. If you're looking for things to do in a survival game then the game isn't for you. The world, gathering and build is the game. You can't really compare these two games. One is an rpg and the other is a survival game. What matters is the gameplay loop within them. Really, it depends on the sort of game they want to create. Like, by your assessment, Minecraft or Valheim have an issue with procedural generation. And thats just not true. They're both survival games. The player goal is to gather resources and survive. To expand on that in Light No Fire, they'd be better going down an Elden Ring path. Creating difficult bosses that require teamwork and preparation. Basically similar to what Valheim did.
it can be done right, and of course you arent going to find something interesting in every star system in nms, thats the entire point of the game. exploring new star systems to find something interesting
They even said it’s not gonna have the same problem as no man’s sky, they already said there’s gonna be more detail and you aren’t gonna always be seeing repeat things. That’s the reason ur not traveling a universe but instead one world.
So your comparisons are pointless because of there being only one instance of the game that everyone will play in together. The world will be full of everyone that ever plays the game!
I guess were all hoping for many factions, good NPCs, and enough enemies and varied dungeons to explore. They are doing 1 planet. Hopefully that means theyll concentrate on the world building way more. I guess well see
They need to make the game a true mmo, but spread the players out across one giant map and split up everyone into different servers around other players near them irl
Randomly generated environments have nothing to do with a game being fun or not. I don't have to mention Minecraft do i? Starfield was just a crappy game, procedural generation has nothing to do with it. And No Man's Skys procedural generation is good, and the game is supposed to be very big because, you know, space.
I think there is some merit to what you say as my biggest issue with No Man's Sky, at least when it first came out, was that after you spend 15 mins on a planet, you have pretty much seen everything your going to see on that planet. On the other hand, I still remember Daggerfall's dungeons and until this day, I have never had a more engaging exploration experience in a game as I had in Daggerfall. I think the key is how it is used. As long as there is enough variation, it can be great.
As long as there is a lot of stuff to do, I don’t care if the buildings are the same. Hopefully the crafting and building system lets us create stuff like in no mans sky. Well like no man’s sky 10 years later lol.
【Shades Finnish Pirates】i am concerned that i will be disapointed by LNF that i look so much forward to, i have always been a fantasy player and LNF presents both the greatest potential for a great fantasy game or a AI generated flop. I could envision myself settling in on LNF, i enjoy NMS but there is no action in the game and this is the greatest flaw i see in it. It's bad going for good a PG rating with no humanoids to kill (skeletons don't count), i truly hope to see either game advance from exploration to action and i think it's important that your exploration is hindered /blocked by enemies so that it stays interesting. Fighting for your goals, it's just better than simply walking into Mordor and no one should simply walk into Mordor in a fantasy game
I think their best solution is to have environment specific buildings then about 20 to 50 different structures for each environments to ease the copy paste feeling. Even better if they a special building for when the environment don't something unique. Like desert mountain structures would be different to desert structures on flat plains and so on. I'm hoping they have mega structures with multiple different tile layout for the system to build upon.
No, we should not stop making a huge a procedural open worlds to explore, because some people don't care for that... those people can simply play games with smaller Maps... Hello games will have only one planet here to be worry about where they can focus on big variety of settlements and those empty big Open Spaces are simply the reality of true open world, they could easily fill it with some animal attacks loops and other similar basic ideas in between the villages and cities ... not every game has to be arcade packed rectangle map
fr, if you don't like the game, how about just don't play it instead of complaining and wishing it was different and there should never be a game like this again.
IMO, progen is better when you combine it with artificial intelligence. NPC with its own dialogue, own story created by AI randomly generated by progen. I think AI-driven side stories would be better. Anything from happy and relaxing to horror and chaotic storyline. A live online economy also good, all players share a single market place with S&D controlling the prices.
Would be interesting if they utilized AI to procedurally generate quests, buildings and towns. With ai being able to write entire story scripts it might be possible
I would agree with alot of this. But when i played no mans sky i was consistently finding cool shit. And Hello games has been one of the best supported games in modern gaming. With the knowledge they already have from almost a decade working with no mans sky, they have alot more knowledge than they did the first go around. I understand not giving in to the hype though, no mans skys launch was terrible and if they make the same mistake twice thatd be shitty
1) Are you talking about NMS launch or after years of updates? 2) Bethesda has decades of game dev experience too. It comes down to wait and see what happens lol
@@SpaceCoconut I don't see how this is a coherent response, they are clearly talking about NMS after years of updates, and Bethesda has zero excuse to make a bad game so it shouldn't be relevant. Hello Games has been working for years to rebuild trust in their player base, I think this is a pretty valid comment no need to be so interrogative.
I wish more people looked at what's really going on, like you do. Well done on this one! LNF, through the little footage I've seen, really doesn't impress me. It almost feels like a copy/paste of UE assets. The combat is awful and very limiting. If it does not have procedurally generated maps, then it will become very stale, very quickly. Valheim, for all its simplicity and jankiness in areas, really appeals to me because the world is so large and "unexplored". Even if I've seen it all, I love not knowing what's around the next cornor, or even seeing a piece of land from a different angle.
"Starfield proved that procedural generation sucks" - no it didn't. It proved that *HORRIBLY BAD USE OF* procedural generation sucks. And Elite (the original, not E:D) and Frontier: Elite II and First Encounters and Minecraft and about 50% of voxel-based survival games and the entire Roguelike genre and 90% of the related Roguelite genre all prove that *PROPER USE OF* procedural generation is amazing. And there are plenty of other games across a variety of genres which also prove you wrong. "And No Man's Sky proved that progen worlds and universes are unnecessarily big" - no, it didn't. It proved that when instructed to create unnecessarily big worlds, procgen does what it's told and produces unnecessarily large worlds. About 99% of the examples I referenced which prove your first point wrong, also prove this one wrong. "And Hello Games will have to prove both of those statements wrong" - no they won't, there are tens of thousands of games which have already done that for them. Worth noting, "progen" is a word in its own right, and has been specifically avoided in gaming terminology because of the fact that the word has a meaning which can be relevant in game design for purposes entirely unrelated to procedural generation. The proper abbreviated form is "procgen" in order to avoid this problem. And you'd already know that "procgen" is a widespread standard abbreviation for the term if you knew enough about game design to realise just how wrong you are about almost everything in this video. Comparing No Man's Sky to Starfield and putting them on the same level is atrociously stupid. No Man's Sky makes some mistakes with its use of procgen, and I won't pretend it doesn't, but even on launch it was a better core system with more built-in variability of its hand-crafted elements than you get from Starfield, and that's only grown since. There's exactly *ZERO* basis for comparing LIght No Fire to Starfield and suggesting that it will have the same problems. That said, NMS's core systems still have room to be improved upon before they reach the level of a solid foundation for a great game of its scale. By contrast to what Hello Games have done, Starfield's core systems are fundamentally flawed to the point that there's no way to even build a proper foundation from what's there, and any improvement of the system is going to need a ground-up rebuild of the game engine to fix underlying issues. You do raise some valid concerns baout what LNF might end up doing wrong, but they're *ONLY* preliminary concerns founded on unsupported assumptions, not backed up by *ANY* evidence that's actually present in the trailer or any statements from the devs. Those spheres *MIGHT* be like the copy/pasted villages with identical layouts in NMS, but the information we have gives good reason to suspect that they *WON'T* be. They might be like hte monoliths or space stations, which is more plausible, but there's still no reason to assume they will be. You mention the monoliths having only a small number of different variations, but those spheres, if they have only a small number of variations, *MIGHT STILL ALL BE UNIQUE* since they appear in vastly different parts of a large - but still only a single - world. If there are only 3 or 4, there's less pressure hand-crafting both/several/however many than there was hand-crafting the 3 or 4 different monolith designs, because there's only that many of them. There might be copy/pasted villages, but we've seen no indication of that. There might be no intelligent life other than players this time around. They might use modular elements like they've done on some of the newer content in NMS throughout the new game. There is precedent in prior work from Hello Games to do better than the example you're pointing to with designing homes/villages, and that could be expanded out to towns or even cities. There is precedent in other games for this to have been done and to be proven to work. Intelligent combination of procgen and hand-crafted elements can produce far more variety than you're giving it credit for. All that said, your conclusion segment is actually quite good, and addresses a lot of the nuance the content of your video lacked, but fails to expand on any of it or provide any explanations for how to actually avoid the problems of either Starfield or No Man's Sky. Which, based on what you *DID* say, is probably because you don't understand what the problems are in either case well enough to even recognise that they're markedly different problems, let alone to suggest options for how to go about fixing them.
true, look at how the updated no mans sky, its basically a different game from when it was launched also, just because starfield did it badly doesnt mean its impossible for any game to do it well. he used one example out of dozens that are much better examples, like minecraft is one that immediately comes to mind
true, look at how the updated no mans sky, its basically a different game from when it was launched also, just because starfield did it badly doesnt mean its impossible for any game to do it well. he used one example out of dozens that are much better examples, like minecraft is one that immediately comes to mind
How you know this, when the game isnt out yet and to be honest halogames have more experienced in this then bethesta, this is gargabe video and should be deleted.
I'm sorry, but I simply have to disagree with most of this video. Although it would be nice to see more unique random structures and more varied environments, the truth is that it might be a little too ambitious for only 26-37 developers, I mean No Mans Sky has 18 quintillion planets in game, they couldn't just hand craft every one, that would be absurd. Planets settlements and camps were always going to be repetitive. Starfield used it as a cheesy work around to cut costs whilst Hello Games NEEDED to use it (they are pretty much an indie studio). Overtime Hello Games has released free updates that have VASTLY improved the game, they genuinely deserve more respect. I've played the game for over a year now and while it is true that all different building variants pretty much look the same, I know for a Fact it wasn't out of laziness, the game Devs are focused and hard at work to bring new gameplay mechanics into the game, this and last year we just got ship customization, robot bodies, a new freighter (pirate one), two expeditions, and a whole new space station design! I think the procedural generation and making it feel more realistic is also not as necessary because in the lore (Spoiler Alert for the Main Plot and Story) we are confirmed to be 100% inside a simulation, so there is a lore reason why everything can be repetitive but the Devs still update textures and designs when they can. Also not to mention they've given us amazing updates whilst working on Light no Fire for FIVE YEARS, can you imagine the workload, their team was basically developing two games at once since NMS was unfinished at launch. I would argue that No Man's Sky and Light No Fire will suffer more from a Minecraft Issue, and I have to be honest that really isn't a bad thing, Minecraft didn't have the best generation but it was insanely popular for its build mechanics and simplicity. If Hello Games had more developers I would be more picky, but they've earned my respect and they will not lose it. What you are talking about is the problem with procedural generation and you are comparing it to realism. IMO the quality of a game doesn't depend on how varied its procedural generation is, its on a huge number of factors, take a look at positive example; Helldivers Two, it has extremely repetitive missions with procedural generated maps, they all pretty much look the same yet the mechanics and overall fun of the game is what made it the 2nd most played game on steam. I have a lot of Faith and Trust in Light No Fire and I am genuinely excited for this game.
Problem with folks is think that they should play NMS forever... and that is not the point! The game design, is basically made having in mind that after some dozens of hours you would get bored and and move on, maybe come back once in a while to play in coop, or to see what the current update does to the game, but in reality, NMS is trully a game where you play for a while until you get bored, because it would be completely stupid even TRY to visit all planets of NMS, NO ONE can do that even with a lifetime only playing NMS, this is by all effects mathematically impossible. Starfield on the other hand is a game that folks are trying harder to even LIKE the game, and ended up bored after a few hours and giving up to NEVER come back to this game. Also, Starfield reliance on modders may be the Achilles heel of Bethesda, because modders aren't really to keen in keep working on Starfield, while NMS doesn't have this problem since HG releases a update every year, so new players always have a ton of content, while veterans keep comming back for more.
It's over hiped like all games cause there is no company bringing out nice games no man sky was very boring and Stil is same will lite no fire no content just explore and build
i hope they handcraft the loot at least like terraria. randomly generated loot isn't fun. terraria has a really nice tier based system. as long as dungeons dont look like diablo3 and 4 dungeons and more like classic world of warcraft this game will be super addicting but man this will be the hardest thing for them to get right. the planet itself will be just fine as long as it looks pretty all the time it doesnt have to be super amazing like elden ring because thats simply impossible to achieve. as far as combat goes i think something like valheim or even skyrim is good enough it doesn't have to be super complex as long as it's fun and engaging. imma keep my expectations low because im not sure the developers know whats fun or not because their previous games aren't very convincing and i dont know what type of rpg's the developers are into. imo they should follow terrarias progressive structure the most its basically valheim but better
@@SpaceCoconut I think that's still too high of an expectation. The procedural generation will be easy to spot given time, no matter how good it is, that's just how it works. I don't think its important or will it make the game bad and I'm definitely going to be looking for bigger things in the game than the generation. I would be surprised though if it really wasn't any better than NMS.
@@danieljacksonofficial5107it will definitely not make the game worse, you really can't expect them to make thousands of different assets for a small grassy plant, a small rock, a slightly larger rock, that kind of stuff. it is so unrealistic to ask that of any game company unless their planned release date is in 20 years
@@bionicleguy32 Yeah, that's pretty much what I am saying, if they focus on the gameplay the game will be good even if the generation isn't all that good.
Starfield isn't Procedural Gen... 😂 it's chosen generated. Procedural generation is created via using proper vasted amounts of POIs and hundreds to thousands of data points that allow a game to be put together. No Man's Sky was a great beginning and foundation to Procedural generation. Starfield was a lazy attempt to try use Bethesda's old ways while trying to use a little bit of procedural... but it was the modern Bethesda approach to development. Laziness. Same ewason they continue to re-release Skyrim over and over again, oh and as of this week, Fallout 4. They have nothing new to contribute any more. Why the games have gotten more and more lazy. Which is sad cause if they properly used procedural gen they could create amazing worlds.
minecraft, valheim, even some of the no mans sky's worlds that you can find are pretty cool. the person who made this video did no research at all and is making claims based on personal experience rather than objective facts, starfield did not prove progen games are bad overall, it proved that if you don't do it right they are bad, you know, just like with any game genre.
Rubbish, Starfield is a good game and any discussion on LNF is just boring speculation. The trouble with the internet is it allows the unintelligent to regurgitate content like this.
I personally think Bethesda is lightyears behind Hello Games in working with how to make procedural generation work well. NMS from 7 years ago, sure, this would be a massive concern, but Hello Games in 2024 is pretty much one of the only companies to really build a game around that whole concept and actually make it work well. There are a few other games that implement PG well but not on anything like the scale of NMS. I would also imagine that given that a whole planet even an Earth sized one at 1 to 1 scale actually could be created easier than the universes of NMS. Things like assests can range into the 10,000 for game worlds as it is, but with the right collection of assests, with smart materials, and nodes to plug them all together, along with some AI assistance, and a good hierarchy linking like elements together, you could actually generate thousands of fully fleshed out building, structures, and sites of interest with almost a handcrafted level of detail and variation. For now i am working under the assumption that they have leveraged all of the current tech into their game, and that they have 7 years of experience with PG. So i think itll be a pretty impressive game and that the world will be interesting to explore and itll take you a fair amount of time to ever see a duplicate structure that isnt and intetionally placed building or asset.
You ARE comparing Bethesda's outdated recipes to Hello Game's first ambicious game NMS, they proved themselves right, no mans sky is still alive and doing well compared to Starfield
Ignoring past 48 hours due to upcoming Starfield update... Steam Charts data: Starfield peak was 9k on sunday. No Man's Sky peak was 7.6k at the same time.
@@SpaceCoconut also i dont know why you're comparing player counts when i said its weird that you even compare those 2 games. no mans sky isnt even a bad game
You compared them. "No Man's Sky is still alive and doing well compared to Starfield" - This is where player counts come in. Show me the console numbers and I'll concede the point. No one said no man's sky is a bad game. I'm strictly talking about the use of ProGen, using Starfield as an example. But sure, keep being defensive.
@@SpaceCoconut im not being defensive dude im also just saying what i think, starfield has other issues why it failed, no mans sky had its other issues aswell, i personally dont think its the procedurally generated system that ruins no mans sky compared to the empty rpg planets of starfield. AND all those loading screens. i mean the new hello games games will only have 1 planet, huge yes but less outlandish than the bethesda's many planet promise
Man….. chill dude. The copy paste stuff you’re talking about was pretty new when it came out. Over time it’ll all get better. More diversity. What I don’t understand is why so many of you content creators focus on “it’s going to be repetitive, boring, leaning on proc gen as a crutch” I’m sure they will do their best at not making it all copy pasta. They know where the issues are. Proc gen has been around what… how many years man. And the games that it has been used in, how many of them have been “spectacular” in their use of proc gen. Not many I’d assume. Guess it’s just sorta annoying to see a clip that’s kinda negative about something that isn’t even out yet. Picking apart a preview cutscene. Fk sake. Give it a break.z
So many gamers literally spend 10-60$ at most, play those games for hundreds of hours therefore being entertained… then complain. Why? Wait till the sht comes out and make “suggestions” in discord channels or steam. Making click bait crap as$ complainer content creator vids is so annoying. I did a search for LNF, your clip came up, and it’s one of the only negative (ish) clips I seen. And regardless of how repetitive no mans sky is/was…. As far as improvement over time… and exceeding expectations… I think it did pretty well. Be positive, it’s a much better look…
minecraft.... minecraft proves that progen with the right human touches can indeed make a interesting world to explore
What a ridiculous comparison
Starfield being a dated, dull and boring mess with a ton of loading screens has nothing to do with no man sky or light no fire. Starfield problems go way beyond procedural generation and no amount of hating on No man sky is going to change that
Say what you will about No man sky but I would argue that its colorful worlds felt more real to me than starfield ever did because at least I actually felt like I was exploring an actual universe compared to just fast traveling everywhere in starfield.
Ultimately, starfield biggest problem to me is not its procedural generation its the fact that it never once convinced me that its worlds or characters were real. In the end it all just ends up feeling like bad and dated computer simulation from the 90s with a lot of loading screens and a very forgettable main quest
That's a different aspect where the comparison falls short. Comparing a badly executed recent copy of a technology to the very franchise that pioneered a technology and continued to refine it for 7+ years, is akin to saying back in 2017 that Android has a Windows Phone problem. That Facebook has a Google+ problem. No it does not.
agreed, Starfield has a way bigger list of issues outside of "iTs PrOcEdUrAlY gEnErAtEd". And NMS is great for what it is today, not without issues but doesn't make sense to compare apples to oranges - how else are you going to make a universe exploration game if not using proc gen? Let's just individually build 18 quintillion planets
@@dominic.h.3363 What franchise pioneered what technology exactly? Because procedural generation has been a part of game development as far as 1980.
If you're going to analyze analysis, you might want to check your facts before making a fool of yourself.
The over-reliance on proc gen has been a staple of many open-world games, including NMS and Starfield, and the correlation is more than obvious to anyone who isn't sucking Murray's dick. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the only way to deal with crazy fans.
@@creepyZuckfrankly, it seems to me that Todd was trying to copy NMS, without having the proper tech and also having an outdate view about the game industry.
As a niche player of the space sim genre i can tell, that Starfield sucks, it brings nothing new to the genre, and it is a horrible amalgamation of genres...
One one hand it tries to be a Mass Effect game in terms of rpg and such, but lacks an interesting story, the world building is beyond stupid and boring, the characters aren't interesting...
On the gameplay front, especially at the ground combat, Starfield is outdated, if you compare with Cyberpunk only in the gameplay department, Bethesda is humiliated.
On the space sim part it does have all elements to be consider a space sim, but at the same time there no a single element of this gameplay loop that could be considered innovative.
The space combat sucks, theres better games from the last millenium better, the exploration is completely broken, in so many levels that this alone is the sole reason why nobody likes Starfield, the ship building the best part of the game, but guess what? There are better dedicated games for this sort of game mechanics (Kerbal Space Program and Space Engineers comes to mind...)
I think Light No Fire looks like a better use of procedural. In No Man’s Sky there’s are potentially endless different species but often they do look a bit similar. But in Light No Fire, given that’s it’s just one planet, those similarities become more realistic.
A zebra and a horse on earth makes sense. If Earth had horses and Mars had zebras, it would feel like lazy design and bad procedural generation because we all expect aliens to look drastically different.
Using procedural generation to focus on just one planet gives you more freedom for certain species to look similar and for it to feel more realistic.
I love No Man’s Sky but by trying to do multiple galaxies, planets and species really pushes the limits of procedural. Focussing on just one planet will let them go deeper. Far deeper than No Man’s Sky and Starfield.
No they dont suck. Starfield sucks as a game, procedural generation is no big factor in that.
Starfield’s biggest problem was settlements would be right next to an ancient alien temple and no one would bother to explore, but what Skyrim did was they put lore and reason behind why townsfolk wouldn’t go into ancient Nordic ruins, and I trust hello games will go with the Skyrim approach
1: Starfield has 27 unique POI buildings while former Bethesda titles had up to 350 unique locations, Starfield feels boring and repetitive AF because the developers did less than 1/10th of the work with persistent content they would normally do in the past.
2: Nothing speaks against procedurally generated locations, Daggerfall showed it could work, and nothing speaks against randomly generated infrastructure layout either, using the same modular design for ship parts to build a random variety of ships as NMS already does just with building blocks of a house. It's even easier to randomly generate interiors when you don't have to bother with matching the exterior, that's how games released 25 years ago randomized their dungeons. Nothing in random/procedural generation that is necessary to use for such a project is without precedent.
All in all, your comparisons are so far off the mark, you are comparing an apple to a bicycle, instead of the usual - but still wrong - apples to oranges.
Can you explain more clearly how my comparisons are wrong?
@@SpaceCoconut You compare "monuments", monolithic structures with simple geometry, to actual architecture. Even the landmark on your map says it's a monument. It's not infrastructure, it's a site. Therefore its simplicity does not apply to what a procedurally generated settlement could be, not even within No Man's Sky, since it has fully fledged settlements that show some of the modularity the new game could have as standard for its procedurally generated content.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
So you know what those big spheres are? You know they can’t be compared to monoliths in NMS?
I haven't even played Starfield, but through all the gameplay footage I watched it has "Fallout 4" fingerprints all over it. It looks like a reskin of the game. That's bad.
how did light no fire get compared to starfield it makes no sense
We’re comparing the procedural placement of POIs between both games.
@@SpaceCoconutstarfield sucks because of they way they implemented it. no man's sky did it much better, by focusing all that on a single planet it will be much better than you think.
Procedurally generated world suck if you don't know how to use procedural generation. Even up until now, after 7+ years of playing No Man's Sky, I on a daily basis find interesting things in their universe that I've never seen before and that excite me. For example, just today I found a planet with mountains so high and steep that regular flora was growing on it sides (might have been a bug as well, but was epic nevertheless) and you would pass horizontally lined trees while climbing it on the jetpack. Or a tiny moon that looked almost exactly like smurfville. Not to mention that there are dynamic encounters in the world all the time so there's always something going on... So it's not procedural generation, it's how you utilize it. No Man's Sky's planets are several orders of magnitude more interesting to explore than Starfield's because Hello Games know what they are doing. Bethesda did not.
NMS is the best game I’ve ever played. PSVR2 really makes it a true experience.
The fact that some structures are the same and the layout is the same is honestly a non-issue, it's unrealistic to want THE PERFECT game from a small company when even the big companies are not delivering anything good lately and just patch their way into it. You can either ask for the perfect game or fast releases, can't have both, otherwise you'll end up with a Todd in charge of those games
I didn't say I wanted the perfect game. You did. I also didn't say anything about wanting a fast release. Not sure who you're talking to here.
I said I'd like to see them improve what they've done in NMS.
@@SpaceCoconutholy antagonistic
Maybe if HG stop with their unrealistic promos "first real OW" and such
@@SpaceCoconutfrom what I heard from the interview. They do want to keep updating NMS and LNF both for the next decade.
@@mzxa9988 Can't think of another game with a 1 to 1 scale open world? So assuming that is what they are trying to make and they don't FIU then their claims will be valid tbh.
Game isn’t even out yet lol
Very astute observation! Good job! 🏆
Have not played No Mans Sky or Starfield, but from the one highly successful procgen game I have played, Valheim, I think the key is "nesting" enough procgen permutations together.
Valheim has the macro world, and the dungeons, and the points of interest. And then since the points of interest are mostly constructed from the same building materials as what the players use to build their bases, they probably made a bunch of POIs, and then stripped them down into various levels of disrepair to make what feels like nearly infinite combinations. You know vaguely what type of POI you're seeing, but every time I return to the game I'm surprised at how large/complex and undamaged some POIs are.
I think if Light no Fire takes this formula and goes about 2x or 3x deeper, they could fill an "Earth" without it being too repetitive.
The problem is also that people want a big planet, yet they expect they will find something interesting every 20 meters...
More like Starfield has a Light No Fire problem.
Agreed.... Starfield is still on a constant downward slope in concurrent players. Imgaine them wanting to charge money for DLCs. Once LNF comes out, people are done with Starfield for good... heck Im even finding returning to NMS more entertaining and pleasing than Starfield ever was.
I hate games that feel empty or boring like starfield
I honestly think they will be testing it a fair bit before release (due to past release obviously) ;)
This is mainly because Starfield's gameplay loop doesn't compliment exploration for explorations sake. In Starfield you're looking for loot, looking for new quests and so on. The game isn't designed to allow for areas without purpose, every cave, building or npc needs to have some association with a quest, or something to offer the player.
No Man's Sky is a survival game, it's designed around you gathering resources to survive and reach the next planet. All Hello Games could ever do was add more things for you to create using those resource. If you're looking for things to do in a survival game then the game isn't for you. The world, gathering and build is the game.
You can't really compare these two games. One is an rpg and the other is a survival game. What matters is the gameplay loop within them.
Really, it depends on the sort of game they want to create. Like, by your assessment, Minecraft or Valheim have an issue with procedural generation. And thats just not true. They're both survival games. The player goal is to gather resources and survive.
To expand on that in Light No Fire, they'd be better going down an Elden Ring path. Creating difficult bosses that require teamwork and preparation. Basically similar to what Valheim did.
Ok, anyone that says procedurally generated worlds sucks never played dwarf fortress for real
The key is to be able to procedurally generate the poi’s effectively. If that part is done well then it should be fine
i like procedural generation. we are not the same.
it can be done right, and of course you arent going to find something interesting in every star system in nms, thats the entire point of the game. exploring new star systems to find something interesting
They even said it’s not gonna have the same problem as no man’s sky, they already said there’s gonna be more detail and you aren’t gonna always be seeing repeat things. That’s the reason ur not traveling a universe but instead one world.
They can “say” whatever they like and it won’t really matter. We’ll KNOW when it comes out and THAT’S when it matters.
@@SpaceCoconutso you think they are just lying about it being one planet
So your comparisons are pointless because of there being only one instance of the game that everyone will play in together. The world will be full of everyone that ever plays the game!
i'm still waiting for the part when it's apparently gonna kill the game.. times ticking bucko!
Did you really just post the steam charts for an almost 10 year old game? They've sold over 10 million copies. What are you on?
It's ok if can't think critically. There are thought exercises you can do to improve those skills.
Major L take
We’ll see
NMS sucks? Says the guy who doesn’t own a PSVR2.
I guess were all hoping for many factions, good NPCs, and enough enemies and varied dungeons to explore. They are doing 1 planet. Hopefully that means theyll concentrate on the world building way more. I guess well see
But the players build the POI ?
They need to make the game a true mmo, but spread the players out across one giant map and split up everyone into different servers around other players near them irl
Randomly generated environments have nothing to do with a game being fun or not. I don't have to mention Minecraft do i?
Starfield was just a crappy game, procedural generation has nothing to do with it.
And No Man's Skys procedural generation is good, and the game is supposed to be very big because, you know, space.
Light no fire,having a smaller map, it will be more inhabited by players. Hopefully this will make the planet more interesting.
I think there is some merit to what you say as my biggest issue with No Man's Sky, at least when it first came out, was that after you spend 15 mins on a planet, you have pretty much seen everything your going to see on that planet. On the other hand, I still remember Daggerfall's dungeons and until this day, I have never had a more engaging exploration experience in a game as I had in Daggerfall. I think the key is how it is used. As long as there is enough variation, it can be great.
Luckily this is just one planet
As long as there is a lot of stuff to do, I don’t care if the buildings are the same. Hopefully the crafting and building system lets us create stuff like in no mans sky. Well like no man’s sky 10 years later lol.
No man's sky is a low bar? Is that a joke?
Was NMS successful at launch? This is the bar I’m comparing it to.
@@SpaceCoconut watch the beginning of your video again. In that part you talk about NMS in general, not its launch. 0:13
@@SpaceCoconutyou are a joke lol
edit: and so is this video
【Shades Finnish Pirates】i am concerned that i will be disapointed by LNF that i look so much forward to, i have always been a fantasy player and LNF presents both the greatest potential for a great fantasy game or a AI generated flop. I could envision myself settling in on LNF, i enjoy NMS but there is no action in the game and this is the greatest flaw i see in it. It's bad going for good a PG rating with no humanoids to kill (skeletons don't count), i truly hope to see either game advance from exploration to action and i think it's important that your exploration is hindered /blocked by enemies so that it stays interesting. Fighting for your goals, it's just better than simply walking into Mordor and no one should simply walk into Mordor in a fantasy game
I agree
Speed the process up with the terrain and flora
But you have to hand craft the content
Not sure you understand the scale they’re attempting
I think their best solution is to have environment specific buildings then about 20 to 50 different structures for each environments to ease the copy paste feeling. Even better if they a special building for when the environment don't something unique. Like desert mountain structures would be different to desert structures on flat plains and so on.
I'm hoping they have mega structures with multiple different tile layout for the system to build upon.
No, we should not stop making a huge a procedural open worlds to explore, because some people don't care for that... those people can simply play games with smaller Maps... Hello games will have only one planet here to be worry about where they can focus on big variety of settlements and those empty big Open Spaces are simply the reality of true open world, they could easily fill it with some animal attacks loops and other similar basic ideas in between the villages and cities ... not every game has to be arcade packed rectangle map
fr, if you don't like the game, how about just don't play it instead of complaining and wishing it was different and there should never be a game like this again.
IMO, progen is better when you combine it with artificial intelligence. NPC with its own dialogue, own story created by AI randomly generated by progen. I think AI-driven side stories would be better. Anything from happy and relaxing to horror and chaotic storyline. A live online economy also good, all players share a single market place with S&D controlling the prices.
Would be interesting if they utilized AI to procedurally generate quests, buildings and towns. With ai being able to write entire story scripts it might be possible
I would agree with alot of this. But when i played no mans sky i was consistently finding cool shit. And Hello games has been one of the best supported games in modern gaming. With the knowledge they already have from almost a decade working with no mans sky, they have alot more knowledge than they did the first go around. I understand not giving in to the hype though, no mans skys launch was terrible and if they make the same mistake twice thatd be shitty
1) Are you talking about NMS launch or after years of updates?
2) Bethesda has decades of game dev experience too.
It comes down to wait and see what happens lol
@@SpaceCoconut I don't see how this is a coherent response, they are clearly talking about NMS after years of updates, and Bethesda has zero excuse to make a bad game so it shouldn't be relevant. Hello Games has been working for years to rebuild trust in their player base, I think this is a pretty valid comment no need to be so interrogative.
I wish more people looked at what's really going on, like you do. Well done on this one! LNF, through the little footage I've seen, really doesn't impress me. It almost feels like a copy/paste of UE assets. The combat is awful and very limiting. If it does not have procedurally generated maps, then it will become very stale, very quickly. Valheim, for all its simplicity and jankiness in areas, really appeals to me because the world is so large and "unexplored". Even if I've seen it all, I love not knowing what's around the next cornor, or even seeing a piece of land from a different angle.
This guy needs to get a grip, procedural content is amazing.
Procedural Generated is a Lazy way to make a game, And they suck, these type of games.
How dare you compare these 2. Starfield = gargbage. Light no fire = well.. fire!
"Starfield proved that procedural generation sucks" - no it didn't. It proved that *HORRIBLY BAD USE OF* procedural generation sucks. And Elite (the original, not E:D) and Frontier: Elite II and First Encounters and Minecraft and about 50% of voxel-based survival games and the entire Roguelike genre and 90% of the related Roguelite genre all prove that *PROPER USE OF* procedural generation is amazing. And there are plenty of other games across a variety of genres which also prove you wrong.
"And No Man's Sky proved that progen worlds and universes are unnecessarily big" - no, it didn't. It proved that when instructed to create unnecessarily big worlds, procgen does what it's told and produces unnecessarily large worlds. About 99% of the examples I referenced which prove your first point wrong, also prove this one wrong.
"And Hello Games will have to prove both of those statements wrong" - no they won't, there are tens of thousands of games which have already done that for them.
Worth noting, "progen" is a word in its own right, and has been specifically avoided in gaming terminology because of the fact that the word has a meaning which can be relevant in game design for purposes entirely unrelated to procedural generation. The proper abbreviated form is "procgen" in order to avoid this problem. And you'd already know that "procgen" is a widespread standard abbreviation for the term if you knew enough about game design to realise just how wrong you are about almost everything in this video.
Comparing No Man's Sky to Starfield and putting them on the same level is atrociously stupid. No Man's Sky makes some mistakes with its use of procgen, and I won't pretend it doesn't, but even on launch it was a better core system with more built-in variability of its hand-crafted elements than you get from Starfield, and that's only grown since. There's exactly *ZERO* basis for comparing LIght No Fire to Starfield and suggesting that it will have the same problems. That said, NMS's core systems still have room to be improved upon before they reach the level of a solid foundation for a great game of its scale. By contrast to what Hello Games have done, Starfield's core systems are fundamentally flawed to the point that there's no way to even build a proper foundation from what's there, and any improvement of the system is going to need a ground-up rebuild of the game engine to fix underlying issues.
You do raise some valid concerns baout what LNF might end up doing wrong, but they're *ONLY* preliminary concerns founded on unsupported assumptions, not backed up by *ANY* evidence that's actually present in the trailer or any statements from the devs.
Those spheres *MIGHT* be like the copy/pasted villages with identical layouts in NMS, but the information we have gives good reason to suspect that they *WON'T* be. They might be like hte monoliths or space stations, which is more plausible, but there's still no reason to assume they will be. You mention the monoliths having only a small number of different variations, but those spheres, if they have only a small number of variations, *MIGHT STILL ALL BE UNIQUE* since they appear in vastly different parts of a large - but still only a single - world. If there are only 3 or 4, there's less pressure hand-crafting both/several/however many than there was hand-crafting the 3 or 4 different monolith designs, because there's only that many of them.
There might be copy/pasted villages, but we've seen no indication of that. There might be no intelligent life other than players this time around. They might use modular elements like they've done on some of the newer content in NMS throughout the new game. There is precedent in prior work from Hello Games to do better than the example you're pointing to with designing homes/villages, and that could be expanded out to towns or even cities. There is precedent in other games for this to have been done and to be proven to work. Intelligent combination of procgen and hand-crafted elements can produce far more variety than you're giving it credit for.
All that said, your conclusion segment is actually quite good, and addresses a lot of the nuance the content of your video lacked, but fails to expand on any of it or provide any explanations for how to actually avoid the problems of either Starfield or No Man's Sky. Which, based on what you *DID* say, is probably because you don't understand what the problems are in either case well enough to even recognise that they're markedly different problems, let alone to suggest options for how to go about fixing them.
iF ANYONE CAN DO IT, I TRUST HELLO GAMES TO DO IT
true, look at how the updated no mans sky, its basically a different game from when it was launched
also, just because starfield did it badly doesnt mean its impossible for any game to do it well. he used one example out of dozens that are much better examples, like minecraft is one that immediately comes to mind
true, look at how the updated no mans sky, its basically a different game from when it was launched
also, just because starfield did it badly doesnt mean its impossible for any game to do it well. he used one example out of dozens that are much better examples, like minecraft is one that immediately comes to mind
I always look to StarSector as an example for good balance. IMO, perfectly mixes the handcrafted with procedural generation.
I’ll have to check it out
you mean : " space drug lord simulator "
How you know this, when the game isnt out yet and to be honest halogames have more experienced in this then bethesta, this is gargabe video and should be deleted.
Look up the definition of “speculation”
the yap:
If it has focus on quests and multiplayer it will be more like an MMO than whatever NMS is and the repetitive nature is not new to MMOs
I'm sorry, but I simply have to disagree with most of this video. Although it would be nice to see more unique random structures and more varied environments, the truth is that it might be a little too ambitious for only 26-37 developers, I mean No Mans Sky has 18 quintillion planets in game, they couldn't just hand craft every one, that would be absurd. Planets settlements and camps were always going to be repetitive. Starfield used it as a cheesy work around to cut costs whilst Hello Games NEEDED to use it (they are pretty much an indie studio). Overtime Hello Games has released free updates that have VASTLY improved the game, they genuinely deserve more respect. I've played the game for over a year now and while it is true that all different building variants pretty much look the same, I know for a Fact it wasn't out of laziness, the game Devs are focused and hard at work to bring new gameplay mechanics into the game, this and last year we just got ship customization, robot bodies, a new freighter (pirate one), two expeditions, and a whole new space station design! I think the procedural generation and making it feel more realistic is also not as necessary because in the lore (Spoiler Alert for the Main Plot and Story) we are confirmed to be 100% inside a simulation, so there is a lore reason why everything can be repetitive but the Devs still update textures and designs when they can. Also not to mention they've given us amazing updates whilst working on Light no Fire for FIVE YEARS, can you imagine the workload, their team was basically developing two games at once since NMS was unfinished at launch. I would argue that No Man's Sky and Light No Fire will suffer more from a Minecraft Issue, and I have to be honest that really isn't a bad thing, Minecraft didn't have the best generation but it was insanely popular for its build mechanics and simplicity. If Hello Games had more developers I would be more picky, but they've earned my respect and they will not lose it. What you are talking about is the problem with procedural generation and you are comparing it to realism. IMO the quality of a game doesn't depend on how varied its procedural generation is, its on a huge number of factors, take a look at positive example; Helldivers Two, it has extremely repetitive missions with procedural generated maps, they all pretty much look the same yet the mechanics and overall fun of the game is what made it the 2nd most played game on steam. I have a lot of Faith and Trust in Light No Fire and I am genuinely excited for this game.
I personally thinks ai would help them.
Problem with folks is think that they should play NMS forever... and that is not the point! The game design, is basically made having in mind that after some dozens of hours you would get bored and and move on, maybe come back once in a while to play in coop, or to see what the current update does to the game, but in reality, NMS is trully a game where you play for a while until you get bored, because it would be completely stupid even TRY to visit all planets of NMS, NO ONE can do that even with a lifetime only playing NMS, this is by all effects mathematically impossible.
Starfield on the other hand is a game that folks are trying harder to even LIKE the game, and ended up bored after a few hours and giving up to NEVER come back to this game.
Also, Starfield reliance on modders may be the Achilles heel of Bethesda, because modders aren't really to keen in keep working on Starfield, while NMS doesn't have this problem since HG releases a update every year, so new players always have a ton of content, while veterans keep comming back for more.
You don't know how procedural generation works.
It's not an on/off issue, you have to dial it in and pretty much all games use it to a certain extent.
I agree with you. Hope that this so big earth will be occupied by interesting NPC (AI génération ?)
🤨🤨🤨
It's over hiped like all games cause there is no company bringing out nice games no man sky was very boring and Stil is same will lite no fire no content just explore and build
Wow. What an awful take. You clearly don't understand how these things work.
true
Dude you sound silly. Procedural generation is fine when done properly like in No Man’s Sky.
This is a no mans sky video wtf.
i hope they handcraft the loot at least like terraria. randomly generated loot isn't fun. terraria has a really nice tier based system.
as long as dungeons dont look like diablo3 and 4 dungeons and more like classic world of warcraft this game will be super addicting but man this will be the hardest thing for them to get right. the planet itself will be just fine as long as it looks pretty all the time it doesnt have to be super amazing like elden ring because thats simply impossible to achieve.
as far as combat goes i think something like valheim or even skyrim is good enough it doesn't have to be super complex as long as it's fun and engaging.
imma keep my expectations low because im not sure the developers know whats fun or not because their previous games aren't very convincing and i dont know what type of rpg's the developers are into.
imo they should follow terrarias progressive structure the most its basically valheim but better
I feel like with what they learned from no mans sky they are gonna pull it off
I'm optimistic, but I just hope the repetitiveness is unnoticeable.
@@SpaceCoconut I think that's still too high of an expectation. The procedural generation will be easy to spot given time, no matter how good it is, that's just how it works. I don't think its important or will it make the game bad and I'm definitely going to be looking for bigger things in the game than the generation. I would be surprised though if it really wasn't any better than NMS.
@@danieljacksonofficial5107it will definitely not make the game worse, you really can't expect them to make thousands of different assets for a small grassy plant, a small rock, a slightly larger rock, that kind of stuff. it is so unrealistic to ask that of any game company unless their planned release date is in 20 years
@@bionicleguy32 Yeah, that's pretty much what I am saying, if they focus on the gameplay the game will be good even if the generation isn't all that good.
Starfield isn't Procedural Gen... 😂 it's chosen generated. Procedural generation is created via using proper vasted amounts of POIs and hundreds to thousands of data points that allow a game to be put together. No Man's Sky was a great beginning and foundation to Procedural generation. Starfield was a lazy attempt to try use Bethesda's old ways while trying to use a little bit of procedural... but it was the modern Bethesda approach to development. Laziness. Same ewason they continue to re-release Skyrim over and over again, oh and as of this week, Fallout 4. They have nothing new to contribute any more. Why the games have gotten more and more lazy. Which is sad cause if they properly used procedural gen they could create amazing worlds.
You know this shit is gonna be bad when the first sentence is a braindead take
all starfield proved was that making those worlds completely barren sucks lol
AI will be used.
Bethesda's generated worlds suck. Plenty of games do it right. Your argument can be proved wrong in seconds.
minecraft, valheim, even some of the no mans sky's worlds that you can find are pretty cool. the person who made this video did no research at all and is making claims based on personal experience rather than objective facts, starfield did not prove progen games are bad overall, it proved that if you don't do it right they are bad, you know, just like with any game genre.
So you didnt play the game for very long lol
Rubbish, Starfield is a good game and any discussion on LNF is just boring speculation. The trouble with the internet is it allows the unintelligent to regurgitate content like this.
starfield is anything but a good game, hate to break it to you
I personally think Bethesda is lightyears behind Hello Games in working with how to make procedural generation work well. NMS from 7 years ago, sure, this would be a massive concern, but Hello Games in 2024 is pretty much one of the only companies to really build a game around that whole concept and actually make it work well. There are a few other games that implement PG well but not on anything like the scale of NMS. I would also imagine that given that a whole planet even an Earth sized one at 1 to 1 scale actually could be created easier than the universes of NMS. Things like assests can range into the 10,000 for game worlds as it is, but with the right collection of assests, with smart materials, and nodes to plug them all together, along with some AI assistance, and a good hierarchy linking like elements together, you could actually generate thousands of fully fleshed out building, structures, and sites of interest with almost a handcrafted level of detail and variation. For now i am working under the assumption that they have leveraged all of the current tech into their game, and that they have 7 years of experience with PG. So i think itll be a pretty impressive game and that the world will be interesting to explore and itll take you a fair amount of time to ever see a duplicate structure that isnt and intetionally placed building or asset.
You ARE comparing Bethesda's outdated recipes to Hello Game's first ambicious game NMS, they proved themselves right, no mans sky is still alive and doing well compared to Starfield
Ignoring past 48 hours due to upcoming Starfield update...
Steam Charts data:
Starfield peak was 9k on sunday.
No Man's Sky peak was 7.6k at the same time.
@@SpaceCoconut most nms players reside on consoles, steam charts are just a portion of the statistics
@@SpaceCoconut also i dont know why you're comparing player counts when i said its weird that you even compare those 2 games. no mans sky isnt even a bad game
You compared them. "No Man's Sky is still alive and doing well compared to Starfield" - This is where player counts come in.
Show me the console numbers and I'll concede the point.
No one said no man's sky is a bad game.
I'm strictly talking about the use of ProGen, using Starfield as an example. But sure, keep being defensive.
@@SpaceCoconut im not being defensive dude im also just saying what i think, starfield has other issues why it failed, no mans sky had its other issues aswell, i personally dont think its the procedurally generated system that ruins no mans sky compared to the empty rpg planets of starfield. AND all those loading screens. i mean the new hello games games will only have 1 planet, huge yes but less outlandish than the bethesda's many planet promise
Daggerfall o-o
No idea of what you are talking about!
Great video production, as always.
Very well said.
Man….. chill dude. The copy paste stuff you’re talking about was pretty new when it came out. Over time it’ll all get better. More diversity. What I don’t understand is why so many of you content creators focus on “it’s going to be repetitive, boring, leaning on proc gen as a crutch”
I’m sure they will do their best at not making it all copy pasta. They know where the issues are. Proc gen has been around what… how many years man. And the games that it has been used in, how many of them have been “spectacular” in their use of proc gen. Not many I’d assume.
Guess it’s just sorta annoying to see a clip that’s kinda negative about something that isn’t even out yet. Picking apart a preview cutscene. Fk sake. Give it a break.z
So many gamers literally spend 10-60$ at most, play those games for hundreds of hours therefore being entertained… then complain. Why? Wait till the sht comes out and make “suggestions” in discord channels or steam. Making click bait crap as$ complainer content creator vids is so annoying. I did a search for LNF, your clip came up, and it’s one of the only negative (ish) clips I seen.
And regardless of how repetitive no mans sky is/was…. As far as improvement over time… and exceeding expectations… I think it did pretty well.
Be positive, it’s a much better look…
Weird how so many people are butthurt in the comment section when you’re giving valid criticism in the video
It’s to be expected lol
What a silly video.
good video.
I want to ‘wander’ for hours!