Starfield - Personal Review

[Mnementh]

JRPGfan said:

Mnementh said:

Actually, I think you can fly from planet to planet in Starfield. Only because Bethesda was so committed to their realistic setting, it takes like forever. I think Alanah Pearce proved the point by letting the game open for like five hours or so.

... Actually it is seven hours, I looked it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3cHBEWN3xI

Apparently the planets are also moving on their orbit, which is annoying for manual flight. This is the reason No Man's Sky removed that feature (and got backlash back then, because their Todd Howard variant said planets would be moving). Also No Man's Sky has a Faster Than Light drive, which makes it possible, while they also designed the systems smaller than actual solar system. Again NMS is more fantasy in the service of playability, while Starfield kinda commits to a lot of realism.

Did you watch the video?

She flew to the planet, and its a "flat" sprite.... she flew throught it, when she reached it.
She couldnt land on it, or interact with it in any way.

No man's sky, you can go from outer space, into the atmosphere, and down on the surface of a planet.

"Also No Man's Sky has a Faster Than Light drive, which makes it possible"

The otherside of the coin, is that not allowing for Faster than light drive..... is a artifical "cage" to keep players from exploreing to far out.
Hence, planets are just empty sprite moveing around. As shown by Alanah Pearce's 7 hour flying trip towards pluto.

"while they also designed the systems smaller than actual solar system. Again NMS is more fantasy in the service of playability, while Starfield kinda commits to a lot of realism."

I doubt that very much.
Ive seen videos of people playing NMS that seem really impressive in terms of scope..... the fact that its procedurally generated allows for that, not that one is more fantansy and the other is going for realism.  And again, thats fine, if Starfeild was full of odd little detail rich area's you could find ect... but its not.
Its empty, and alot of whats there on each planet seems copy and pasted.

Oh yeah, Starfield has no landing. But again, as Alanah also said in the video, the game has a different focus, different to NMS.

And yes, the solar systems in NMS are much smaller than our solar system. Easily obvious as then you started from one planet, the other planets are visible as big disks, not as little points as in our system. The difference is that Hello Games put the planets really close to each other and also made them not move. This is highly unrealistic, but it makes for a fun gaming experience as you can directly fly from one planet to another.

Bethesda had a different goal with Starfield. The committed to more realism. While I personally like the more fantastic universe of NMS more, I can at least admit that Bethesda stuck to their goal and got the probably most realistic space traveling universe ever into a game.

By the way, also the real earth is not filled with events and stuff like your usual open source game as well. I can take a hike in the real world and see for an hour the same copy-pasted forest or mountainside or field with nothing interesting. Because, quite frankly, that is the reality of the world. In tourism we often plan trips to be along a route that has some interesting sights, as we cannot just go off in random directions and hope to see something cool. That's why we play video games, because the real world is kinda boring.