>mine resources to fuel ship >if objective is 3 minutes away then use ship to get there faster >mine objective >mine generic resources to refuel ship >repeat
compelling gameplay
No man's sky had seamless transition from space to planets and that was the most impressive thing about it. starfield doesn't have that, or even flying over planets.
Just going by what they've shown so far I think I'll enjoy SF way more.
I started playing NMS recently and if you ever thought Bethesda's games are wide as an ocean and shallow as a puddle then NMS is a million times worse.
There's a lot of neat ideas in the game and some interesting features but most of them are very very shallow.
Shooting feels weightless and bland. It's actually preferable to get the rocket boots mod for your exosuit and just zip around the planet surface away from enemies than actually fighting them.
Flying is simplistic (made me appreciate Elite Dangerous a LOT more) and dogfighting is the worst I've seen in any game ever. You either try to aim manually and it'll feel super sluggish or use the lockon feature which trivializes space combat.
You can't visually customize your space ships without using save editors. There are different weapons and mods for your ship but it's not very deep, most of them are just +X% to stat changes.
It has multiplayer but it doesn't really feel like it was built for it. I was hoping me and my friends could get a nice capital ship (after a while I managed to get a pretty awesome S-class Resurgent Star Destroyer, that thing is immense) adn all use that but nope, Their access to the features of my capital ship is very very limited.
There's also a lot of things that you'd think are nobrainers that are very oddly absent from the game like being able to trade ships with other players, selling your guns/tools or just being able to open the fricking galaxy map when you're not in space.
Biggest thing tho: modding. NMS is a lot more limited than SF.
I feel like some developers nowadays lack focus or something like that. Or maybe it's like they don't want to make a game, but rather a world to escape to.
When I think of old sci-fi games like r-type, mdk, doom, abuse, shadowrun, starcraft, f-zero... they all knew they were games and tried to be great games. The fantasy world was just flavoring.
Things have changed.
What an original comparison. Has your tiny brainlet finally made a connection that every other drooling moron on this board hasn't already spammed a million times? Do you want a fricking medal for your groundbreaking observation, you sniveling cumguzzler? Please, grace us with more of your mongoloid "insights" so we can laugh at your pathetic attempts to appear even remotely intelligent, you knuckle-dragging troglodyte. I'll be over here not holding my breath for your next shitpost, you eternal summergay. Lurk more, post less. have a nice day.
0. There are some obvious inspirations, but the way combat, inventory, dialog, and spaceflight work is almost completely different, at least from what I've seen in the direct. I say this as someone who has over 200 hours in NMS.
>pic rel
0 because starfield has confirmed content
Ok. Under what statue.
statute
wtf is a statute?
Fine, it's under a sculpture
>no man's skyrim
Not at all since Starfield is a Bethesda RPG while NMS barely has any interesting quests and is 90% minecraft.
No Man's Sky has been more technologically advance than Starfield since 2016.
Its just gonna be outer worlds w a no mans sky artstyle.
It already has more of a story and customization than NMS did at launch.
>mine resources to fuel ship
>if objective is 3 minutes away then use ship to get there faster
>mine objective
>mine generic resources to refuel ship
>repeat
compelling gameplay
meant to quote
Also landing in NMS is railroaded and autopiloted, there's nothing interesting about it and it certainly doesn't make or break a game.
you can manually land wherever you want unlike starfield
It's gonna be like Fallout 76
I find it funny that the first thing they showcased after they landed on a planet was shooting some rocks for resources
No Man's Skyrim indeed
No man's sky had seamless transition from space to planets and that was the most impressive thing about it. starfield doesn't have that, or even flying over planets.
anyone having hopes in starfield is either a moron, a fanboy, or a marketer
I've never played a Bethesda game before, and I'm not getting payed to post, so I suppose I'm a moron.
smoothbrain poster
Just going by what they've shown so far I think I'll enjoy SF way more.
I started playing NMS recently and if you ever thought Bethesda's games are wide as an ocean and shallow as a puddle then NMS is a million times worse.
There's a lot of neat ideas in the game and some interesting features but most of them are very very shallow.
Shooting feels weightless and bland. It's actually preferable to get the rocket boots mod for your exosuit and just zip around the planet surface away from enemies than actually fighting them.
Flying is simplistic (made me appreciate Elite Dangerous a LOT more) and dogfighting is the worst I've seen in any game ever. You either try to aim manually and it'll feel super sluggish or use the lockon feature which trivializes space combat.
You can't visually customize your space ships without using save editors. There are different weapons and mods for your ship but it's not very deep, most of them are just +X% to stat changes.
It has multiplayer but it doesn't really feel like it was built for it. I was hoping me and my friends could get a nice capital ship (after a while I managed to get a pretty awesome S-class Resurgent Star Destroyer, that thing is immense) adn all use that but nope, Their access to the features of my capital ship is very very limited.
There's also a lot of things that you'd think are nobrainers that are very oddly absent from the game like being able to trade ships with other players, selling your guns/tools or just being able to open the fricking galaxy map when you're not in space.
Biggest thing tho: modding. NMS is a lot more limited than SF.
Cope
I feel like some developers nowadays lack focus or something like that. Or maybe it's like they don't want to make a game, but rather a world to escape to.
When I think of old sci-fi games like r-type, mdk, doom, abuse, shadowrun, starcraft, f-zero... they all knew they were games and tried to be great games. The fantasy world was just flavoring.
Things have changed.
What an original comparison. Has your tiny brainlet finally made a connection that every other drooling moron on this board hasn't already spammed a million times? Do you want a fricking medal for your groundbreaking observation, you sniveling cumguzzler? Please, grace us with more of your mongoloid "insights" so we can laugh at your pathetic attempts to appear even remotely intelligent, you knuckle-dragging troglodyte. I'll be over here not holding my breath for your next shitpost, you eternal summergay. Lurk more, post less. have a nice day.
It will be bad for a different reason.
> NMS: Massive Scope, Shallow content
> SF: Tight scope, Obsidian content
0. There are some obvious inspirations, but the way combat, inventory, dialog, and spaceflight work is almost completely different, at least from what I've seen in the direct. I say this as someone who has over 200 hours in NMS.
We already konw it's technologically inferior to pic related.
>unironically suggesting the mako
The absolute state of doomposters