So.. Starfield...

[bjornk]

7 minutes ago, d4rkn3v4r1n said:

yep. Bethesda already stated that the majority of the planets will be "Empty" Space.

Utterly boring, even if it meant to click an "EXPLORE" button 1000 times.

[ss4142]

59 minutes ago, d4rkn3v4r1n said:

lets be honest, no one ever would explore the whole planet. Because in the end, it is boring. Yeah NMS did it, but what else do you find 300km in what you couldnt find in the first 3 km?

 

I expeceted loading zones to be a thing.

You dont get the point. In nms when you see a planet you can say there is a planet. Call it lifeless repetitive whatever you want. You can dive in to surface, land anywhere you want, orbit around the planet and whenever you want you can go out of atmosphere. What will we think when we auto land to starfield planets with loading zones? There is no actually a planet man. Its just an instance. You are not in a planet. It is the Matrix They lied to you. That feeling disappoints me a little. 

[bjornk]

22 minutes ago, ss4142 said:

You dont get the point. In nms when you see a planet you can say there is a planet. Call it lifeless repetitive whatever you want. You can dive in to surface, land anywhere you want, orbit around the planet and whenever you want you can go out of atmosphere. What will we think when we auto land to starfield planets with loading zones? There is no actually a planet man. Its just an instance. You are not in a planet. It is the Matrix They lied to you. That feeling disappoints me a little. 

It became obvious that there was no actual planet when they revealed there was no atmospheric flight in the game. When you activate landing you are teleported into an instanced map.

[Miauzi]

 

As I understand it - according to the information known so far, you will NEVER be able to enter all places aka areas of even one single planet.

It seems - that there will be one or more zones for individual selected planets - in which you can land with the ship or which you can enter at all (travel on the ground).

Since these zones have at most several times the size of a Skyrim map or a Fallout map ... this is only a tiny part of a planet.

Please compare the area around the city of Boston in the USA - which is the game zone of Fallout 4 - with a map of the USA or a world map of the Earth.

Once you have reached the end of the map aka the "border" - there is not the next zone behind it but -> NOTHING.

 

Actually, that has also been clear ... for my wife and me - we both play the current "Elite" and once searched for the crash site of a spaceship on a moon the size of our earth-moon. Without the exact coordinates, we would have had to fly search patterns for many years - the topography is NOT "compressed" like in the Fallout or TES games - but a 1:1 image.

---

In the end, however, this will not matter for engagingly interesting content ... and it will be interesting - if you get the tools - to be able to build and implement further areas aka "biomes" for a selected planet or moon.

 

[d4rkn3v4r1n]

3 hours ago, ss4142 said:

You dont get the point. In nms when you see a planet you can say there is a planet. Call it lifeless repetitive whatever you want. You can dive in to surface, land anywhere you want, orbit around the planet and whenever you want you can go out of atmosphere. What will we think when we auto land to starfield planets with loading zones? There is no actually a planet man. Its just an instance. You are not in a planet. It is the Matrix They lied to you. That feeling disappoints me a little. 

 

Maybe. But who really thought this will be a Star Citizen or a NMS, ED and so on? Its Bethesda. Its a Elder Scrolls/Fallout with a Space Theme. Of course there will be loading zones etc.

 

 

[Wandering_Mania]

Well I said this on the Steam hub in the same discussion, and I'll say it here as well:

Empyrion is already outdoing Starfield.

 

Want to walk around whole planets? Done, do it.

Want to have more than 1000 planets to explore? Done, Build a 'Capitol Vessel(space ship)' and visit all 1000+ stars that each have planets, stations, moons, asteroid belts, and so on.

Want to skip the walking and drive a hover vehicle? Done, build one from a blueprint, or create your own.

Want to skip the driving and pilot an aircraft? Done, Build a 'Small Vessel'.

Want the game to be out right now, and for less money? Done, Empyrion is only $20USD and out now on the Steam store, instead of the $100USD and a 4 day wait, or $70USD and a 9 day wait.

 

I mean, this may sound like somehow, in some way that I'm a 'shill' for Empyrion; But I can assure anyone I have received no money from the developers of that game. I just think that, from what we have seen so far about Starfield, Empyrion is already way ahead of it in almost every aspect. And I just really like Empyrion.

[FauxFurry]

51 minutes ago, Wandering_Mania said:

Well I said this on the Steam hub in the same discussion, and I'll say it here as well:

Empyrion is already outdoing Starfield.

 

Want to walk around whole planets? Done, do it.

Want to have more than 1000 planets to explore? Done, Build a 'Capitol Vessel(space ship)' and visit all 1000+ stars that each have planets, stations, moons, asteroid belts, and so on.

Want to skip the walking and drive a hover vehicle? Done, build one from a blueprint, or create your own.

Want to skip the driving and pilot an aircraft? Done, Build a 'Small Vessel'.

Want the game to be out right now, and for less money? Done, Empyrion is only $20USD and out now on the Steam store, instead of the $100USD and a 4 day wait, or $70USD and a 9 day wait.

 

I mean, this may sound like somehow, in some way that I'm a 'shill' for Empyrion; But I can assure anyone I have received no money from the developers of that game. I just think that, from what we have seen so far about Starfield, Empyrion is already way ahead of it in almost every aspect. And I just really like Empyrion.

The Steam page says that it is a survival game. It seems like people are getting distracted by the setting rather than keeping the game type in mind. If there is a wide open space game with persistent interrelated characters and factions with their own plotlines, then it would be comparable to Starfield.

One could say that Kenshi beats the Fallout series because it is larger and more varied post-apocalyptic landscape without loading zones though it is a sandbox RPG completely devoid of plot while plot is one of Fallout and Fallout 2's main attractions.

[Wandering_Mania]

1 hour ago, FauxFurry said:

The Steam page says that it is a survival game. It seems like people are getting distracted by the setting rather than keeping the game type in mind. If there is a wide open space game with persistent interrelated characters and factions with their own plotlines, then it would be comparable to Starfield.

One could say that Kenshi beats the Fallout series because it is larger and more varied post-apocalyptic landscape without loading zones though it is a sandbox RPG completely devoid of plot while plot is one of Fallout and Fallout 2's main attractions.

Well, it is. But it is also an RPG. As one is 'Role Playing' the made character, your main goal is to survive.

 

But look at some mods/settings that are added to Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, Fallout 4, and others, that add more of a 'Survival feel' to it.

- Mods in Skyrim like RN&D (Realistic Needs and Diseases), INeed, all the different 'Restroom' needs mods, SL and it's sex needs.

- The 'Survival' modes for New Vegas and Fallout 4.

 

Empyrion just adds the needs to eat & drink, plus stay warm without overheating, and not freezing. While roaming around and doing what you want to do. Plus it's primarily MP, but you can play it solo if you want. And yes, Empyrion also has no 'load screens', outside of the first 'loading into the game'. And I haven't played Kenshi, so I can't really comment on that one.

 

But I mean what RPG isn't also a 'survival game'? What video game period isn't a 'survival game'? Just because one game has actual 'on rails' quests, and another has minimized 'jobs/missions/quests', doesn't really change the overall premise of the game type. I just think that term of "survival game" has become so muddled that it no longer has the intended meaning, and is mostly seen as a deterrent now days.

[FauxFurry]

21 minutes ago, Wandering_Mania said:

Well, it is. But it is also an RPG. As one is 'Role Playing' the made character, your main goal is to survive.

 

But look at some mods/settings that are added to Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, Fallout 4, and others, that add more of a 'Survival feel' to it.

- Mods in Skyrim like RN&D (Realistic Needs and Diseases), INeed, all the different 'Restroom' needs mods, SL and it's sex needs.

- The 'Survival' modes for New Vegas and Fallout 4.

 

Empyrion just adds the needs to eat & drink, plus stay warm without overheating, and not freezing. While roaming around and doing what you want to do. Plus it's primarily MP, but you can play it solo if you want. And yes, Empyrion also has no 'load screens', outside of the first 'loading into the game'. And I haven't played Kenshi, so I can't really comment on that one.

 

But I mean what RPG isn't also a 'survival game'? What video game period isn't a 'survival game'? Just because one game has actual 'on rails' quests, and another has minimized 'jobs/missions/quests', doesn't really change the overall premise of the game type. I just think that term of "survival game" has become so muddled that it no longer has the intended meaning, and is mostly seen as a deterrent now days.

The concentration of gameplay type is of paramount importance to genre classification. Resident Evil has puzzles yet is not a Puzzle Game like Myst. Dragon's Dogma is an Action RPG but it bears very little similarity to a turn-based RPG such as Divinity: Original Sin.

Pointing out that a Survival Game technically has RPG elements isn't going to win over a prospective audience who are only interested in the curated content sort of quests.

[Wandering_Mania]

50 minutes ago, FauxFurry said:

The concentration of gameplay type is of paramount importance to genre classification. Resident Evil has puzzles yet is not a Puzzle Game like Myst. Dragon's Dogma is an Action RPG but it bears very little similarity to a turn-based RPG such as Divinity: Original Sin.

Pointing out that a Survival Game technically has RPG elements isn't going to win over a prospective audience who are only interested in the curated content sort of quests.

I don't think your quite getting what I'm trying to say.

In every game, the main goal is to 'not die' or you get a 'Game Over' or 'Reload from last save/checkpoint' right? Well, isn't that in itself 'survival'?

The amount of complexity shouldn't matter in how one goes about surviving, just that you do what it takes to survive. Weather it be 'shooting all the enemies before they can kill you', or 'eating, drinking, staying warm, and so on'.

 

Games are what they are, and adding all these extra little nameplates on them, when a good portion of them contain mostly the exact same elements in different quantities, styles, skins, themes, and so forth; Is pretty much irrelevant. Kill or avoid the baddies, make sure you don't lose, pick up such-&-such items, use such-&-such items, interact with so-&-so, it's all the same stuff; The only real differences are how those objectives are presented via skin-plates/graphics, overall story and narrative, and how much of each element there is.

 

See what I'm saying?

[FauxFurry]

4 hours ago, Wandering_Mania said:

I don't think your quite getting what I'm trying to say.

In every game, the main goal is to 'not die' or you get a 'Game Over' or 'Reload from last save/checkpoint' right? Well, isn't that in itself 'survival'?

The amount of complexity shouldn't matter in how one goes about surviving, just that you do what it takes to survive. Weather it be 'shooting all the enemies before they can kill you', or 'eating, drinking, staying warm, and so on'.

 

Games are what they are, and adding all these extra little nameplates on them, when a good portion of them contain mostly the exact same elements in different quantities, styles, skins, themes, and so forth; Is pretty much irrelevant. Kill or avoid the baddies, make sure you don't lose, pick up such-&-such items, use such-&-such items, interact with so-&-so, it's all the same stuff; The only real differences are how those objectives are presented via skin-plates/graphics, overall story and narrative, and how much of each element there is.

 

See what I'm saying?

That is not what is meant by Survival Game any more than having combat in an action RPG makes it a Fighting Game. The main focus of a Survival Game is resource gathering, resource management, finding or building then maintaining shelter and harsh punishments for taking damage from the environment or predator/enemy characters (injuries, disease or possible permanent character loss) with each of these things having multiple well fleshed out systems dedicated to simulating human needs and infirmities.

 

The labels help people to understand what kind of gameplay will make up the majority of the product that they are purchasing without accidentally wasting their money on something that they will not enjoy very much of if they do not wholly dislike what they get due to the presence of the elements that they do not care to engage with.

[Wandering_Mania]

2 minutes ago, FauxFurry said:

That is not what is meant by Survival Game any more than having combat in an action RPG makes it a Fighting Game. The main focus of a Survival Game is resource gathering, resource management, finding or building then maintaining shelter and harsh punishments for taking damage from the environment or predator/enemy characters (injuries, disease or possible permanent character loss) with each of these things having multiple well fleshed out systems dedicated to simulating human needs and infirmities.

 

The labels help people to understand what kind of gameplay will make up the majority of the product that they are purchasing without accidentally wasting their money on something that they will not enjoy very much of if they do not wholly dislike what they get due to the presence of the elements that they do not care to engage with.

Well how is that different from an 'RPG'? Some systems may be lacking or not in place at all, but that doesn't change the fact that your goal is 'Survival'.

 

I mean at this point it seems like your doing the same thing as everyone else, and intentionally ignore the straight facts that are presented. Deluding, and over complicating things in order to retain some semblance of the irrelevant labels. Then trying to argue the blunt facts, with those nonsensical complications, because the simplicity of those facts makes every game no longer 'special' or 'unique'.

 

But I got some hard facts for you; Their not 'special' or 'unique'. They may have different elements in different quantities, and they may have been built on different 'engines', and they may have different looks, stories, and skins; But at all of their cores, they are nothing more than the same programming language, and commands. And they are all built on top of borrowed ideas. As every "new innovative" game, has borrowed something from past games that where made.

[Miauzi]

Vor 13 Minuten sagte FauxFurry:

Das ist nicht das, was mit „Survival Game“ gemeint ist, genauso wenig wie der Kampf in einem Action-Rollenspiel es zu einem Kampfspiel macht. Das Hauptaugenmerk eines Überlebensspiels liegt auf dem Sammeln von Ressourcen, dem Ressourcenmanagement, dem Finden oder Bauen und anschließenden Aufrechterhalten von Unterkünften und harten Strafen für erlittenen Schaden durch die Umwelt oder durch Raubtier-/Feindcharaktere (Verletzungen, Krankheiten oder möglicher dauerhafter Charakterverlust), wobei jedes dieser Dinge zutrifft mehrere gut ausgearbeitete Systeme zur Simulation menschlicher Bedürfnisse und Gebrechen.

 

Die Etiketten helfen den Leuten zu verstehen, welche Art von Gameplay den Großteil des von ihnen gekauften Produkts ausmachen wird, ohne versehentlich ihr Geld für etwas zu verschwenden, an dem sie nicht viel Spaß haben werden, wenn ihnen das, was sie bekommen, nicht aufgrund der Präsenz überhaupt nicht gefällt der Elemente, mit denen sie sich nicht auseinandersetzen möchten.

 

The label on a game is really only for -> thinking lazy people - who are told by advertising what they need and what they SHOULD buy.

I too have made the mistake for many years of buying games and believing the text on the packaging ... or even the prices in various computer magazines.

So more than 2/3 of all games have been pure bad buys.

It seems to take enough time in life to realise ... that a purchased game is only a platform for one's own game concept in one's head.

StarField could be such a platform - but for me there are a number of things that speak against it actually making it.

[ss4142]

12 hours ago, bjornk said:

It became obvious that there was no actual planet when they revealed there was no atmospheric flight in the game. When you activate landing you are teleported into an instanced map.

Thats true. If we accept the game just like that we may enjoy it more.

[Kraven12]

I see this game as "basic" and that in a year or so will not be the same after the mods are released. So all the "bugs" or limits currently will have been modded out at some point. Will this mean after a playthrough or three will there be ground vehicles. seamless planet walking, or planetary landing? Most likely. So I am not going to bad mouth game because modders who have a history with "improving" Bethesda games and pushing the limits where the original dev's  were to afraid to tread or were to convinced "it could not be done". 

Edited August 31, 2023 by Kraven12

[bjornk]

20 minutes ago, Kraven12 said:

I see this game as "basic" and that in a year or so will not be the same after the mods are released. So all the "bugs" or limits currently will have been modded out at some point. Will this mean after a playthrough or three will there be ground vehicles. seamless planet walking, or planetary landing? Most likely. So I am not going to bad mouth game because modders who have a history with "improving" Bethesda games and pushing the limits where the original dev's  were to afraid to tread or were to convinced "it could not be done". 

 

Will pay 70 dollars for a game that is not only buggy and has multiple missing features and refuse to criticize it or its developer, because some random people might potentially make it better in the future, free of charge... I'm no longer surprised to see people openly admitting such an utterly ridiculous mentality, believing it's perfectly rational.

[Kraven12]

26 minutes ago, bjornk said:

 

Will pay 70 dollars for a game that is not only buggy and has multiple missing features and refuse to criticize it or its developer, because some random people might potentially make it better in the future, free of charge... I'm no longer surprised to see people openly admitting such an utterly ridiculous mentality, believing it's perfectly rational.

 

That is your opinion man, woman, they, them, I really do not care. at my age why hide any opinion? Gonna be honest(again) I will still pick this up on the 6th bugs and all if it has it, despite "holier than thou" commenter may have.  My thought was with all the hate coming from the "haters" over the last couple of months after PlayStation debacle and what developers have put out there, the game will not be the same as with all Bethesda games after what modders will come up with or what many feel they need to "fix" as I feel it is a waste of time to complain about it's current state or any expectations that was not in game to someone's head canon. Did it clear it up more for ya?

Edited August 31, 2023 by Kraven12

[bjornk]

4 minutes ago, Kraven12 said:

That is your opinion man, woman, they, them, I really do not care. at my age why hide any opinion? Gonna be honest(again) I will still pick this up on the 6th bugs and all if it has it, despite "holier than thou" commenter may have. 

 

You can do whatever you want, of course, I'm just pointing out the delusion in that mentality.

[Wandering_Mania]

3 hours ago, Kraven12 said:

Gonna be honest(again) I will still pick this up on the 6th bugs and all if it has it, despite "holier than thou" commenter may have.

And I am now, and always have been honest; And this US$100 for 5 days early, US$70 delayed release, is a classist tactic. But I get nothing but ridiculed for having that opinion. Because the blind acceptance of the sheeple has gotten way outta hand.

 

I mean how many days does it take before it becomes wrong? 15? 30? 60? How many days?

 

3 hours ago, Kraven12 said:

My thought was with all the hate coming from the "haters" over the last couple of months after PlayStation debacle and what developers have put out there

I hate the game not because it wont come out on PS5, because I don't even have a PS5. I hate the game for it's blatantly classist and anti-consumer price-tags.

[Mexicola88]

1 hour ago, Wandering_Mania said:

And I am now, and always have been honest; And this US$100 for 5 days early, US$70 delayed release, is a classist tactic. But I get nothing but ridiculed for having that opinion. Because the blind acceptance of the sheeple has gotten way outta hand.

 

I mean how many days does it take before it becomes wrong? 15? 30? 60? How many days?

 

I hate the game not because it wont come out on PS5, because I don't even have a PS5. I hate the game for it's blatantly classist and anti-consumer price-tags.

What about the first DLC Shattered Space? It's not like that is for free, the Premium Edition owners also get that. What does a decent story DLC cost nowadays 25-30 bucks? If the DLC costs 25 bucks and the EA is then 5 bucks, where is the problem if some ppl want to play it earlier for 5 bucks on top of the game price? That is less than a pack of cigarettes costs in my home country.

[Wandering_Mania]

4 minutes ago, Mexicola88 said:

What about the first DLC Shattered Space? It's not like that is for free, the Premium Edition owners also get that. What does a decent story DLC cost nowadays 25-30 bucks? If the DLC costs 25 bucks and the EA is then 5 bucks, where is the problem if some ppl want to play it earlier for 5 bucks on top of the game price? That is less than a pack of cigarettes costs in my home country.

And yet again the "but but DLC" argument. And you know what I say to that? I say: Who Cares?

Because if it was truly all about the DLC, then the US$70 version would have the same release date as the US$100. But that's not what it's about, and it's why that also makes it classist.

 

And if all that isn't enough of a reason for you; Keep in mind that the day 1 "DLC" is nothing more than cut content, that is resold to people at an extra charge anyway. And it could have just been included in the base game at release for everyone. Even more reinforcing the fact that they are attempting to normalize classism.

[Mexicola88]

9 minutes ago, Wandering_Mania said:

And yet again the "but but DLC" argument. And you know what I say to that? I say: Who Cares?

Because if it was truly all about the DLC, then the US$70 version would have the same release date as the US$100. But that's not what it's about, and it's why that also makes it classist.

 

And if all that isn't enough of a reason for you; Keep in mind that the day 1 "DLC" is nothing more than cut content, that is resold to people at an extra charge anyway. And it could have just been included in the base game at release for everyone. Even more reinforcing the fact that they are attempting to normalize classism.

That DLC won't be released day 1. By your logic the game could also be completly free...

 

Just download an illegal copy if you hate how they do things, but then you also don't have the right to complain about the game.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Mexicola88

[Wandering_Mania]

2 hours ago, Mexicola88 said:

Just download an illegal copy if you hate how they do things, but then you also don't have the right to complain about the game.

Yeah, and I could also just try my luck by installing some random malware as well; But I ain't doin' it.

 

2 hours ago, Mexicola88 said:

That DLC won't be released day 1. By your logic the game could also be completly free...

And I never said it had to be free. I did say that it needed to have only one release date, but all the blind defenders of that, seem to do nothing more than deflect off of that point; You included.

[Mexicola88]

2 hours ago, Wandering_Mania said:

Yeah, and I could also just try my luck by installing some random malware as well; But I ain't doin' it.

 

And I never said it had to be free. I did say that it needed to have only one release date, but all the blind defenders of that, seem to do nothing more than deflect off of that point; You included.

What about the DLC huh?

Of course that is an argument, the only reason i bought the premium edition is because the first story DLC is already included, else i would have bought the standard version.

You just try to hate the game for some weird reason. If you hate the game, why even care about it huh? Got nothing better to do? I will for example never buy Baldurs Gate 3, but you won't see me in a Baldurs Gate 3 forum or Reddit or whatever, just to spread hate about the game.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Mexicola88

[WandererZero]

2 hours ago, Wandering_Mania said:

And I never said it had to be free. I did say that it needed to have only one release date, but all the blind defenders of that, seem to do nothing more than deflect off of that point; You included.

 

Or, what's of value to you, is different than what is of value to others. What I value (early access, the DLC, etc) is different than what you value. Both are completely valid. My threshold for and price tag for what I consider valuable and convenient is mine alone to decide. People have a right to choose. You're free to disagree with that; however...labeling anyone who doesn't agree with you as a sheeple, etc....my dad used to have a great phrase for folks like you: increasing the volume of your voice, does nothing to improve your argument.

 

Between moving the goalposts and complaining about how the price tiers are supposedly 'classist'...what you fail to understand is that your values differ from others...but the premise you keep trying to smuggle in is that their values are somehow wrong because they conflict with yours. Your projection reveals itself here, as you accuse others of being elitist/classist, while you yourself keep trying to put yourself on a pedestal of "I'm more right than you".

 

I've been watching this thread for a bit, and most, if not all of your 'arguments' boils down to "Stop liking what I don't like!", which makes you smell like reddit so bad, it makes me want to offer you a stick of deodorant.

Edited August 31, 2023 by WandererZero