We Need To Have A Real Conversation About Starfield's Supposed Scope & Complexity
- Thread starter thicc_girls_are_teh_best
- Start date
The media is just incredibly hungry to see an Xbox game do well, so they are propping this one up way early.
It isn't more complex than NMS, and that one was made by 20 people a decade ago.
It is just that paid media, shills, paid astroturfers doing their job.
Ambitious, give me a brake, bigger numbers aren't ambitious it is just a PR.
It is just that paid media, shills, paid astroturfers doing their job.
Ambitious, give me a brake, bigger numbers aren't ambitious it is just a PR.
You'll have to excuse me if I type something that's already been said, it's late and I'm quite tired.
Starfield's online discourse cements one thing imo: People don't understand programming, at all.
It being 30 FPS isn't due to it "super ambitious mega giga world with thousands of things to keep track of", it's due to Bethesda hacking together many systems to a OLD ass engine.
Object permanence isn't this monster of a task that needs to take an increasingly amount of overhead, neither is the entire universe being accessible, you just load the world spaces between transitions. The game doesn't need to calculate everything, everywhere at every single second, people are just setting themselves up for disappointment believing Todd's lies once more. (He can lie to me any time though, I don't believe him but god I like hearing him talk)
Starfield's online discourse cements one thing imo: People don't understand programming, at all.
It being 30 FPS isn't due to it "super ambitious mega giga world with thousands of things to keep track of", it's due to Bethesda hacking together many systems to a OLD ass engine.
Object permanence isn't this monster of a task that needs to take an increasingly amount of overhead, neither is the entire universe being accessible, you just load the world spaces between transitions. The game doesn't need to calculate everything, everywhere at every single second, people are just setting themselves up for disappointment believing Todd's lies once more. (He can lie to me any time though, I don't believe him but god I like hearing him talk)
Prediction: it will be a poor copy of no man's sky with refined RPG elements. That's it. What this game is doing had been done by no man's sky and other games before.
Nope. The big facade will show itself when the game launches
1,000 planets but no ground vehicles to get around these planets? They are going be empty wastelands with a couple points of interest near the landing zone. Or even worse they will be just small restricted zones to each planet with barriers and invisible walls
There is no flying off to the moon you can see in the background of the planet you are on. There will likely be no day night cycles on the planets.
If you've played Mass Effect 1 expect that but no vehicles. The fact it's 2023 and their engine can't support vehicles is pretty hilarious
1,000 planets but no ground vehicles to get around these planets? They are going be empty wastelands with a couple points of interest near the landing zone. Or even worse they will be just small restricted zones to each planet with barriers and invisible walls
There is no flying off to the moon you can see in the background of the planet you are on. There will likely be no day night cycles on the planets.
If you've played Mass Effect 1 expect that but no vehicles. The fact it's 2023 and their engine can't support vehicles is pretty hilarious
I thought they specifically said in the video walkthrough that you could fly off to the moon in the background. And they do have day/night cycles (alluded to through someone saying they have the most beautiful sunsets)
I don't think NMS is the best touchstone for "most ambitious game" since it is largely algorithmically generated and was made by a relatively small team. In my mind the most ambitious game to date is probably Red Dead Redemption 2. I don't think Starfield will surpass that, but it has the pedigree to do it.
I'm sure they said a bunch of things. In reality you will do a scripted Cutscene flying off the planet and choose that moon in a menu
Wait, wait, wait. WTF! I didn't realise that this game had no ground vehicles. This is a big thing, a really really big thing that I think I just like many others have glanced over. I rewatched the direct in 2x speed and they pretty clearly say that you will have to walk back to fast travel back to your ship.
Look at how far bethesda has come from Morrowind having slow walking speed to mask the size of the world to Starfield now having to walk 1000 planets. You'll get the feel of being a planetary Jesus. I was going to mention Mass effect and mako that can be used to travel on ground, but you already mentioned it
How can we now believe all the reports and journos saying they were wowed by its scale, sure dummies you would be wowed if you have to walk every place. Doesn't this actually reduce the scale and scope of the game cause you can only go so far until you get tired of holding the W button or Left joystick forward.
Bethesda are the masters of illusion i'll give you that much.
Didn't the media praised another game that was a mess and filled with bugs? Don't we already know the gaming media is biased towards MS? Over hyping, only will do more damage!
And I will not forget sarfield previous marketing decision to fuel fan boys.
That said, I rather hear unbiased gamers opinions and try it for myself! I like to remain neutral as always!
And I will not forget sarfield previous marketing decision to fuel fan boys.
That said, I rather hear unbiased gamers opinions and try it for myself! I like to remain neutral as always!
They are just going to put a moons for big planets when in reality almost every planets has a moon and sometimes even mulitple. Then they are going to use reality in their favour this time by saying that some planets have a day that lasts for months so they didn't bother putting day and night cycles on every planet
https://www.pcgamer.com/heres-whats-happening-inside-fallout-3s-metro-train/ thats how that Engine handles vehicles
Cautiously excited but i cant remember so much hype about some game. Maybe cause its xbox exvlusive. Reminds me of mass effect.
There ll be like 3 cities, maybe 30 planets (of course parts of planet) where u ll do quest and hundred of generated garbage that ll get boring after 10 visits. I hope im wrong.
There ll be like 3 cities, maybe 30 planets (of course parts of planet) where u ll do quest and hundred of generated garbage that ll get boring after 10 visits. I hope im wrong.
Look, there is no reason to believe in any of this, we have like whole gaming history.
All that is just PR. Throughing biggest shit and watch what sticks.
Look at this year alone, we had this year Star Wars with 2 big explorable planets and few small ones. They done those in 3,5 years while using a lot of from previous games. It also has more mechanics and way more detail everywhere than Starfield.
Even NMS is more ambitious and don't get me started on Star Citizen which is in another galaxy when it comes to ambition.
I'll be getting the game on PC if it reviews well but the hyperbolic statements coming from journalists and people who don't even play space games that are trying to prop the game as Xbox's savior are annoying. It's Fallout in Space with procedurally created planets and ship building. It doesn't have the scale of No Man's Sky nor does it begin to scratch the scope or detail of Star Citizen. The fact that planetary landings are a loading screen already makes it way less ambitious than No Man's Sky which already has way more planets, multiplayer, VR, base building, Capital ship building and customization, vehicles and flying and landing on planets seamlessly without loading screens. Star Citizen has all that (except VR which is still in development) and more.
With that said, it still has its own unique elements like the Bathesda RPG elements which don't exist in NMS or Star Citizen and it has an interesting ship building system which allows you to completely overhaul the exterior looks of your ship even if it doesn't go wild with the interior like No Man's Sky allows you to do with Capital Ships. The game has promise and an opportunity to stand out in its own way but the people overhyping it as the most ambitious game or biggest game are beyond delusional.
I'll be getting the game on PC if it reviews well but the hyperbolic statements coming from journalists and people who don't even play space games that are trying to prop the game as Xbox's savior are annoying. It's Fallout in Space with procedurally created planets and ship building. It doesn't have the scale of No Man's Sky nor does it begin to scratch the scope or detail of Star Citizen. The fact that planetary landings are a loading screen already makes it way less ambitious than No Man's Sky which already has way more planets, multiplayer, VR, base building, Capital ship building and customization, vehicles and flying and landing on planets seamlessly without loading screens. Star Citizen has all that (except VR which is still in development) and more.
With that said, it still has its own unique elements like the Bathesda RPG elements which don't exist in NMS or Star Citizen and it has an interesting ship building system which allows you to completely overhaul the exterior looks of your ship even if it doesn't go wild with the interior like No Man's Sky allows you to do with Capital Ships. The game has promise and an opportunity to stand out in its own way but the people overhyping it as the most ambitious game or biggest game are beyond delusional.