A lot of ED skills work very well with boost and thruster mode. Boosting behind the enemy and staying above and behind them and targeting subsystems, turning down power to go silent and using asteroids as cover etc. You need to get the piloting and targeting skills though. I found it very enjoyable.
no mans sky’s story is really deep and every update things change with the story so every major update i replay to notice what’s different and overtime they’ve explained everything more clear in the story but also leaves enough up to you for roleplay it’s kinda smoove ngl
Someone asked why you'd want to spend several minutes flying from one planet to another.... because flying through space is fun, especially when pirates scan you and decide you have cargo worth dying for
@@RobTheDoodler Great argument, our planets are bland because thats how it is! We can't add more color because then it wouldn't look real! Nevermind that space magic and regular humans tanking full mags of ammo exist. Realistic doesn't equal fun. There are several ways they could have made the planets/space look alot better/more fun and still keep the same colors. Stop defending bad work.
@@ettan5812 If you played the game, you’d know there actually are some colorful biomes with a wide variety of fauna, but you can’t just have every rocky planet with no atmosphere looking like a Fortnite map. There’s a difference between the believability of world design and ludonarrative dissonance in combat. Getting one shot by a pistol would be gamebreaking after all.
You forgot to mention the world borders in Starfield, you can just walk around an entire planet in no man’s sky- no clue why you would do that, but you can, whereas in Starfield, you only get a little sandbox, which is completely randomly generated every time you land on the planet.
It's not "completely random", if you land in the same spot each game you get the same terrain. The land gen is done using a the coordinates on the globe as it's seed. The rest (POIs) are random though.
Not to mention if you change something on the planets terrain it’s will stay that way when you come back no matter where it is. Was honestly pretty disappointed in how Star field managed there planets
@@DastardlyPilot Some updates (or just time? will cause the terrain to return if you dig through it with the terrain manipulator, but yeah. And bases usually don't randomly disappear like modifications to terrain sometimes do (it's the reason people often advise not to build underground, lest you come back to find your base submerged in rock)
@@stellarhyme3 I’ve had 6 different attempts to enjoy no man’s sky, I desperately want to. It’s a fucking boring dull game. I already have 170 hours in starfield
One of the many details of NMS that I love is the shared galaxy. You may play single-player all the time, but still find planets, animals and more discovered and named by other players, and even bases built by other players, there for you to visit.... It's a great motivator for building an impressive, creative base!
Maybe I was under estimating No Man's Sky, I just got into it recently. But something cool I wanted to shout out I think it's cool that you can learn the alien languages over time, I found it pretty immersive when I tried to talk to my first alien and it spit jibberish at me.
Base building in NMS is next level. While Starfield seems to be more pragmatic, NMS has some of the most incredible base builds I've seen outside of Minecraft. People have seriously crafted wonders.
I just started no man's sky and i gotta say the snap building system is quite impressive when you get in to actually learning how to build things properly. It isnt perfect but im hooked on it. The combat though is awful. I basically just use it as a base building game. And i like the sense of freedom it gives. That's all i really wanted.
I played Starfield for a few weeks until the thought of playing it sounded horrible. I’ll go back to it when mods and DLC make it better. This made me play NMS for the first time starting a few weeks ago. It’s exactly like people say. The new player experience is really bad, but gets better once you’ve gotten passed the initial learning curve and being totally weak phase. Traveling is obvious a million times better than Starfield. Both games have laughably easy space combat. Both are sandboxes but NMS feels way more like Minecraft in space. That’s kinda the vibe. I also think both games have the same issue with procedural generation. In both games, you encounter the same things over and over and over and over. Both games seem like they can go on forever adding content but I think NMS has a way better foundation. The creation engine in Starfield just need to go into the trash. Both games feel like trash for ground combat on console. I swear it’s like these developers never played Halo or Destiny. If you’re going to make a shooter on console, just please copy how Bungie does it. It just FEELS so much better. In the end, I think NMS is just a lot better. It’s an 8. Starfield is a 6.
What do you think modders or DLC can do to improve Starfield? Not trying to be adversarial, this is a legitimate question I ask myself. I really don't believe that moddders or any DLC's (that are going to be written and developed by the same people that made the base game) can actually fix what is wrong with this game to it's core.
No Man's Sky is the ultimate RPG. Its just all on you to make up your role. There isn't really anything thats not available across the board for every "role". Though there are perks for ships and multitools. You pick your charachter and their style and your ship type and all that, and it could be to suit the persona you created. But nothing is stopping you from being a badass Vykeen pirate in all black with the hardcore armor flying a pink explorer that looks like a pair of tats with a rainbow jet trail. 😂
@@ninjadejedi I don't need the affirmation of ones and zeros to have a good immersive time. You shoot at someone, they shoot back. You attack a fleet, the space cops come at you. You destroy the freighter, the Outlaw guild gives you respect. And you can show off your William H Badass III suit in the anomaly.
@ninjadejedi the world doesn't react to you in SF. Point a gun at an NPC and they continue on with their day. Terrormorphs attack NA and if you go anywhere else in the colony outside the space port, and they act like nothing is happening. Show up as a Starborn in an alien ship, no one gives a shit or reacts in any way other than a brief line from the technician.
@@jackskelington7377 yeah I was surprised to see that... you steal a ship, super easy, Its more work to jack a car in GTA. Nobody chases you. Nobody is looking for it. You land at the port in your stolen ship... no questions. And then you pay 2 grand to register it and make the entire galaxy forget it ever happened. All that cargo inside just isn't obviously stolen anymore either. The cops cheerefully greet you 🤣. And then... the ship you left behind to jack this one, and every other ship you ever sat in, is right there for you too. Immersion.
@@gwoody4003 I mean, what would be the appeal of capturing ships if you lost the one you were using prior? It would kill the entire game mechanic. If BGS designed it that way, guaranteed people would not bother at all since chances are good they’re just capturing a downgrade.
No Man Sky I managed to pick up on the cheap about a year ago, and I've decided there is only one real way to play, PSVR! I came from Elite Dangerous, playing on a large projector screen in the basement, reveling in the sounds and the news broadcasts. And i knew the game was going to die when they stopped the news. That role play made the world. No Man Sky has so much freedom, that they opted instead to minimize the story. But the moments you get ... Wow. There is a sense of wonder coming to someone else's base, or landing on a world where the lighting is chromatic, or your first derilict freighter. But then the feeling passes. No Man Sky lets you get in and get out whenever you want. Somethig will happen somewhere, but overall it's of no universe shatterin consequence. You could argue that is what the main story teaches, without spoilers, to enjoy the time spent in the world while you can, because there are so many worlds out there but you can't see them all. So, taking that vibe, and putting it in VR. There is no way that i could do combat like elite with a couple of playstation's plastic wands, but i can get a good approximation of handling an actual flighter stick and grabbing the throttle. Might be a little janky, but when you move from space and fly over a new planet, trying to decide where to land, flying upside down for a better view or dodging between mountains, fantastic. Now that they added pirate attacks from space to land, to suddenly have things explode around you and go running (yes running) to you fighter, or call it down from the sky, as a movie magic moment that you organically happens. Is there a reason for it, No. There are no factors or larger story, it just happens. If you are ok with just happenings, you understand NMS. Lastly, mining. I understand the grind, the building, the get the thing, but i've never really enjoyed the raw resource gathering. Now though, i am physically pointing at crap and making it go bye bye. I've getting surrounded by curious creaturea because i gave one a food pellet, and the are surrounding my feet with sad cat eyes. And i can breed them into enormous monsters later if i wish to be a dr frankenstein. To build a base is different than walking into Your base, and taking a closer look at the models. Heck, i recently learned the solar spaceship model, while not only coming forward in space, also has mechanics with thermal vents based upon your speed. But yes, No Man Sky is not elite, the models are not accurate, it is nearly impossible to die, there is no "you are the center of the universe" or "raxla" story, but it is a game of childhood wonder. Not too deep but everything feels amazing, even though you know it's all the same. Now that you can go on adventure with friends and there are questing mechanics past end game, it extends the shelf life, but in the end, you go, do something, get something, come back. I can't imaging playing NMS outside of VR, because it's that look cool factor and wonder of life in general that it shares. To those of us who have been on the planet awhile, and the days merge into each other (wake up, go to work , eat, sleep, consume, do it again) No Man Sky shows you that, and says it ok... and you wonder at the beauty of it all. And when you have to put it down to go through more dredgery of the wake eat work sleep cycle, it will be there for you when you once again need a sense of wonder.
@@bealotcoolerifyoudid7217 There actually was't VR in elite for me. Was playing on Xbox. When switched to playstation, (justified the vr purrrchase as the whole family beig stuff in the house with the pandemic, Beat Saber might keep us active), turns out it, there was no VR on console. It would have been so cool if they did. I used to purposely turn off the auto flight (forget the name) so i could zip through space compounds and run rescue missions. I could just imaging. Not the same in No Man Sky, but you can pick up a similar feeling.
It may seem petty, but I'm still chalking up lack of interiors as my reason for quitting ED. I was fine with the grindy systems and the repetitive loops, but on top of all the other issues, no interiors and the stance against them killed my interest.
As much as I love No Man's Sky, the ground combat is such a drag, despite Hello Games' attempts to improve it. Space combat is a bit better but I wouldn't choose it as an activity. The best space combat I've ever had in a space game is Rebel Galaxy, which uses broadside style.
The loading in Starfield is weird, because in some cases like the elevators, the map is already loaded, and in some place, you don't even need to use the elevators, like in New Atlantis where you can jump from the upper part of the city to the spaceport, and in Neon where you can jump from the Ebbside to the otherside or to the landing pads. I think they made the loading for some cases with populated locations but didn't have time to determine when it's needed for places and when it's not, this is especially weird since they've been doing the elevator loading before. This also is the case for grav jumping, because in a mission of Crimson fleet where you join in the ship of a smuggler and you're just a passenger, the ship grav jumps from Jamison into another system without loading
no offense but after the last 4-5 years of bethesda why didn't you get gamepass and test it before buying, I wanted this to be good, but I was leery about it so spent 10$'s on gamepass.
Try an MMO or find a other hobby you can also play older games like in emulators or actual hardware. Most games this days are not good or tend to get boring fast. I personally think starfiel was a refreshener from that as it feels like the old games I use to play and I don't think it's dated or the graphics looked bad I seen worse on new games.
@@wolfwing1 I forgot console players have that option and because it's Microsoft they do it for PC. Been gaming since 1978 Atari 2600 and don't do subscription services unless I have to for a movie. The "will never pay $100" is to say games got really pricey over the years for the same crap. 😂😂 It's all good though.
You've obviously missed NMS update, where they added large capital freighters with very large customizable interiors, and basically your own little starfleet on top of that. So point for the ships for SF is not fair.
Comparing Starfield and No Man's Sky is like apples and oranges. One is an open world RPG, the other is a survival exploration game. One is AAA budget and a massive development team, the other was developed on a tiny budget by an indie studio. Yes they're both set in space but they are two totally different games.
My thoughts with 800 hours in NMS, and now 30 hours in SF. Combine the 2 and you have the perfect game. Separate, NMS lacks content(missions/story), and SF lacks exploration and flora and fauna. Eventually I feel like I will miss multiplayer also, but so far I haven't. The aspect I love about SF so far is there is so much to do content wise, and I have barely scratched the story chain.
I actually really agree with you on this… so good on you for not be being straight up “Nms is better than starfield… so starfield is garbage” imo they aren’t even similar as games… both verry different games with a few similarities being scanning and that’s about it
So, No Man´s Sky has the freedom with weapon modification, Starfield the freedom in spaceship creation...? I am ok with base construction, so i suffer less than you, Yamiks, i might even enjoy it a little. But i do dread two things: the loading screens and, what you didn´t even mention, the FACES!
When people say "No Man's Sky" isn't an RPG, they mean there isn't a defined path with a built-in story with branching paths for them to follow. And they're right, of course: I am 46 and grew up with the classics, but some people have no concept of a sandbox and are incapable of interfacing with them as "role playing games" (even though, by definition, they still are), or enjoying them. I prefer less story than more, and more emergent behaviors/situations in RPGs, but that's kind of an old-school approach. People these days are trained to think of RPGs as cinematic experiences, punctuated by quick-time action sequences. I have a feeling you understand that, but in case you're being obtuse, there ya go.
Considering the kind of mods that have come out for previous Bethesda games (take, for instance, Open Cities) I have a feeling at some point Starfield will become really, really great. It'll just take a long time (and the blood, sweat, and tears of a bunch of talented people.) It's not as solid a send-off as even Skyrim was, but there ya go.
Bethesda are circus clowns that haven't made a decent game since Morrowind. I'm still salty Black Isle sold them the Fallout rights instead of Troika Games.
If there was one feature I’d like NMS to take “inspiration” from it would be the mini-camp system from fallout-76/BDO/survival-games so you could quick-kit in some short term without needing to go through the base location registration system. That and a core story/gameplay loop worth a damn but I have (mostly) accepted it’s sandbox with rusty pins underneath “charms” at this point. Or better yet a FULL COMBAT OVERHAUL with more enemies and behaviours, less slow-projectile low impact pew pew and way less clunk and camera-drag everytime you take a hit.
NMS is long overdue a ship customisation system. They have a decent variety of ships but getting the type/design/stats\look/colour/components/flair you want (freighters included) is utterly dependant on a mix of low percentile RNG and community stargate address registries to “shop for” things you may like/want/May-never-otherwise-encounter. I’d definitely label the low variance RNG as NMS second biggest flaw (after the still awful/unengaging combat).
on the other hand, hunting for your own ship is imo more enjoyable then just point and click the things you want on it, for me finding my own ship feels more special...
I'm more for a ship crafting and ship interiors... Also what NMS needs is a new class of ship small corvettes and frigates and here where the crafting will comes to play, comes the cradlfting And yes, you could have the fighter customization either, after all the ships already came in randomly generated parts.
@@onbekend1631 Make it so that when you scrap a ship, you can choose to lose out on some of the profit to keep specific parts to later tack onto one of your ships. That way, you can both hunt for ships and customize.
Honestly from me the combat system is nms’s most lacking feature. It wouldn’t even be super difficult for hello games to create new enemy types and variety in sentinel forces. New weapons and even melee weapons wouldn’t be super difficult to add. Im not a game dev but I’d imagine hello games definitely could revamp their combat system.
The thing that really kills starfield's outpost system for me is that it's an immense amount of effort for essentially no point. Resources are worthless, and manufactured components are too heavy for their value to be worth selling either; there's no built in way to ship out goods for sale, so the only reason you'd engage with it is the xp except the autonomous manufacturing options Don't give you any xp, and have so many niggling complications that it's harder to build a balanced system than if you were trying to make a house of cards out of boiled lasagna noodles. There's a wide variety of decoration objects you can build, and you can hand place whatever you want using the build menu if you want, but there are no interior walls, foundation pieces, or anything else you would need to make your outpost any more aesthetically pleasing than a lego house made out of only 2x2x2 beige blocks. And the snapping tolerances need to be reduced by about 90%.
Tutorial in Starfield actually works. No Man's Sky keeps telling me to push the square and circle buttons on my controller while it is set for mouse and keyboard.
I love starfield but i do agree with every point you said with comparing with nms but what wins for me for starfield is the setting and the questing. But also there is minor stuff that makes a game good like the god tier music, object placing and handcraft and the writing.
I think it all boils down to NMS representing pure emergent gameplay - and THAT it does a million times better and more varied than Starfield. But if you want elaborate story quests, Starfield is your game.
Let us not forget we are comparing a game that took years to reach its current state of good, to a day one version of another. Also, while I really loved NMS (in its final state), Starfield has made me feel things I haven't felt since Skyrim and is truly something special. Finally, all recent signs point to Bethesda being fully committed to improving many of the lacking elements in Starfield, specifically exploration. I'm excited to see how the game grows in the next year.
Since you mentioned the beginning of no mans sky.... You should also mention the fact Hello Games was only a team of 12 people, and an Indie Developer without a billion dollar bank account. Bethesda, is a multi billion dollar corporation with over 500 people working on Starfield, for alledgedly 25 years, and 8 years of active development. 7 years Coincidentally being the timeframe it took for Hello Games to get no mans sky where it is today, and yet Bethesda delivered a very lacking game, almost like they designed that intentionally with charging you for additional content in mind. Pretty important facts you convienently left out.
And you can’t compare a ORIGINAL GAME to a copy wanna be 😆 😂😂 a 2016 IDEA with not THAT MUCH MONEY and a 2023 NEW GEN??? NEW GRAPHICS?? MORE POWERFUL MECHANICS?? 😂😂😂😂😂
I really couldn't agree more. I constantly stumble into little bits of Lore I want to know more about. Just walking through the museums is fascinating. I like NMS for what it is... but it's just not on the same level.
I would also deduct points from starfield in mining due to, it's pretty much pointless it is, ethe amount you get is so miniscule compared to what you need and could just use an outpost to get, or even just buy from a shop.
True, and then you start mining and you suddenly have infinite resources. Also, you don’t need to bother with either since vendors basically hand you all the resources you’ll ever need in that game.
I played NMS for 3 days, got a sentinel ship, explored a bunch of planets, built multiple bases, got a freighter, after that it's kind of pointless to play it
At a certain point every game is like that. You'll get to, "why do it." Doesn't matter the game. Even if it's a collection game. Sooner or later, you collect it all then it's, "why do it." SF will be no different. You will get to that point.
Stalker makes more sense now. Used to love playing that with mods that made everything more dynamic. I haven't seen any game with parallax mapping use as good as theirs since.
And maybe Starfield is more like Skyrim + Mass Effect. It's not fair comparing NMS with SF only because are games about space. One is relaxing and the other is more about role.
When you go into the Steam/Xbox store looking for an open world game tag not only is Starfield but probably a dozen other games are going to pop up as recommendations including Subnatica, Space Engineers, Astroneer, and No Man's Sky. All of those are different style of games but the person who's going to decide isn't going to buy based on genre but rather which one looks more fun. It doesn't matter if comparing any of those games is fair because the point of publishers selling games isn't to be fair but rather to make sales, and the point of the person buying whichever game is to have the most fun for their purchase.
I would fervently argue that Starfield isn't even a RPG. I never felt like I was able to role play anything other than a goody two-shoes gung ho explorer. The story is that linear and lacking any consequences for choices. NG+ is just Rick and Morty versions of the exact same linear inconsequential storytelling.
The best starship RPG game this year is Everspace 2. It’s ships and combat are awesome, exploration is awesome, planets are awesome. And the RPG story missions are great. So check it out.
I've got over 200 hours into Starfield. I have spent a lot of time "exploring" and building ships and waiting for venders to refresh to sell my junk. I have over 800 hours into No Man's Sky. They had a rough release but it's a great game now. It's not even close, No Man's Sky is a WAY better game in every way. I have literally spent entire nights warping across the galaxy discovering new planets and never saw the same thing twice. Starfield's space combat is stupid simple. All you have to do is keep the target in that huge circle and you will hit, no aiming needed.
You know in Starfield you have (to a degree) a stealth fly mode? The less pips you have in active systems the less you are visible to enemies. It kind of works, but depends on how many enemies are around you and how away they are from you. I kinda wish there were power presets you can change with a short cut.
It doesn't matter in NMS there's a limitless universe one planet is bigger than every planet map in starfield and its suppose to be a smaller game on last gen lmao
@@trvpmusic2569 By that metric, Elite Dangerous is WAAAAY better. Has a fully simulated Milky Way galaxy, many many billions of stars and possibly trillions of planets. Elite dangerous has been out a very long time and not even 0.1% of the entire galaxy has been traveled to by the entire player base combined since launch, and yet it feels like the most empty space game I have ever played. There is absolutely nothing to really do outside populated space in ED. The thing that both NMS and Starfield have way more of, but they do it in different ways. Some people like what both games have on offer and at a certain point it is up to taste, but both games have a lot more varied and interesting things to find and do than Elite Dangerous and with a lot more story about them too, even if the story isn't all that amazing.
@@wruenvadam bruh....No Man Sky has 255 galaxies 95% of players haven't even made it out the first one, it has over 18 quintillion planets. Do you know what a Quintillion is ?? Lol Starfield doesn't even make up 0.1% of No Man Sky literally 🤣
@@trvpmusic2569 It's a space sim, and yes it is on console as well as PC. Now it isn't as big as No Man's Sky, but my point is it has way more systems and planets than Starfield, but that game most definitely is not better. Size is not everything, and just because you have all those stars and planets doesn't mean anything when you are never going to be able to visit all of them even if you played the game nonstop from the moment you are born to the moment you die. It's pointless to have that many planets. Elite Dangerous has trillions of planets that I will never be able to see, just like No Man's Sky has Quintillions of planets that I also... will never be able to see... then what is the point of them being there? Ah, just so you can say there are trillions or quintillions of planets. It's such a ridiculous number that it is basically meaningless. That number alone doesn't make No Man's Sky better than Starfield and is a lazy metric to use. You can have opinions about Starfield and why you think it sucks or is worse than No Man's Sky or whatever, but simply saying, "More planets is more better," is ignorant of the fact that it can make a game feel an inch deep if not done correctly, like Elite Dangerous. Starfield has its issues, but using game size isn't a metric anyone should be using to judge which one is better. More planets ≠ Better gameplay. There are other way more logical and intelligent critiques and comparisons you can use against Starfield. I have seen them and agree with many but I still enjoy Starfield more than No Man's Sky. Because for me, Starfield is closer to my kind of game than NMS even with all its flaws. Really I'm not sure why you brought this up considering the original post had absolutely nothing to do with that you wrote.
Starfield went a wierd direction. In many cases you can avoid loading screens in let's say New Atlantis as long as you don't have to use a door and yet they punish you with a loading screen if you decide to fast travel. Like the shuttle in New Atlantis. There is a animation for the shuttle. Which this could hide the loading screens and that kind of tricks could lessen the amount of black screen circle loaders.
So he says the combat in nms is “Fucked” some reason. Is it because he saw that you have superpowers in Starfield & thought to himself, “I wish I had that nms since 2016”?
Bethesda fanboys don't like it when you compare Starfield with any other space game, only with RPGs. Why? Because all the other space games did everything better
If Starfield came out around the same time as Skyrim, it probably would've been received better. The reverse to that is if Skyrim came out today it might have been received the same way Starfield has been received now.
I have to say. ORANGES ARE BETTER THAN APPLES. They are efficient in preventing scurvy. ...Also I'm not allergic to them (Disclaimer: this argument is being made for the sake of a laugh, I'm not actually trying to convince people oranges are better than apples)
I decided about twenty hours into Starfield that I was missing too many aspects of NMS. Also knowing my "end game" in NMS ends up being more portaling to-&-fro to various bases; I thought "Get it out of your system, & then go BACK to Starfield... Maybe once your TIRED of exploring space & finding cool planets? You'll find cool stuff in Starfield." SO far, NMS is better by far.
Спасибо, Yamiks, хороший обзор! Я не играл в Starfield. No Man's Sky играл с VR вскоре после релиза, но довольно быстро наскучила (возможно, ещё вернусь к ней). Elite Dangerous заиграл до дыр, но её проблемы ты и так хорошо озвучил в других роликах.
NMS needs to give a FPS update for sure, I'm surprised they haven't yet. Might cause a lot of unwinding of the source code. What's great about NMS is it has a "good skeleton" to build up on though. I don't get that feeling with starfield.
Honestly it looks like they might be going for one, given that they recently enough made changes to how sentinels work, and introduced a new type of multitool. Hopefully they do, the current system has become quite difficult for new players trying to complete early sidequests involving the sentinels
Starfield, by definition, is not a space sim. You can't claim it is because there's space elements. Genres have definitions for a reason. Just like MMS is not an RPG even if it has RPG elements. Yamiks is factually wrong on that.
If you are playing a character that you can mold and shape as your own, it's an RPG. If you are playing an exact character who is bound by some level of laws(Like Batman doesn't kill people for example) you are playing a character, not a role. You aren't deciding who or what that character is, you're jsut playing their story. Witcher 3 is not an RPG. Skyrim is. Geralt can't just go crazy and start stabbing townsfolk, that's not his nature. Skyrim, sure you're the Dragonborn but that's just a concept of what you are. The Dragonborn can be a wizard or an Archer or whatever race you want it to be. Geralt is a white haired Witcher who does things a certain way.
interesting take. However commonly it's not recognized. saddly RPG is a very loose term and witcher is considered RPG...even Batman games are. thou by those standarts you can go further as well... so yeah .. slippery slope etc etc
The release of Starfield saw a lot of people driven to return No Man's Sky. Coincidentally, every No Man's Sky person I watch/follow has played Starfield. Best of both worlds really.
I tried No Man's Sky, but found it EXTREMELY dull and boring; Minecraft has more fun things to do in their game than No Man's Sky. Starfield is goated though
@@azm01 No Man's Sky has boring, bad graphics and a lifeless universe with no interesting companions, factions, lore, music, questlines, side quests, cities, ship building mechanics, or RPG elements.
NMS is a game aimed more at young people, Starfield is a game for adults, with blood, death and sex. Starfield has better space combat than NMS, it's not complicated to control the energy, you don't need to put energy into the grav, only if you want to escape, and you can put weapons to disable the enemy ship, dock and invade the enemy ship, kill everyone, get a lot of loot rather than just destroying the ship, and you can keep the ship for yourself or sell it, you can't do that in NMS. Is Alien Creatures better at NMS? They don't even fight back, you kill them and don't get anything good, sometimes you find very strong aliens in high level systems, which give good loot and Xp, it's much more fun to hunt aliens in Starfield, and more profitable.
18:16 Your character didn't drown, it died from environmental damage... the water was toxic and it overcame the suits protection. Now to be fair, the whole environmental thing was a joke because unless you do something like what you did, you never have to worry about environmental protection
Hey NMS has...SPACE in THEIR space game. Got WHOLE planets too. An ACTUAL planet you can fly to and seamlessly land on. Those kids at Hello Games are just craazzyyy. Hello Games released poorly but they were a BEGINNING company and that team put EVERYTHING on the line for it. They're houses, they're savings. What has these multi, MULTI BILLION dollar companies RISKED? What will they EVER risk. Nothing. Slopthesda has access to a...Kzillion dollars , what's their excuse for this...SLOP. Slopfield brought to yo by Slopthesda. NMS is not perfect but the team working on it actually CARES. THAT you can tell. What the hell does Bethesda care about?, ANOTHER release of...Skyrim.
I think starfield loses on the rpgish catagory because it's just so terribly done, too many core abilities locked behind skill points, to many stupid boring challenges, and so on.
They have massively increased the number of options for customising your playthrough. You can make pretty much everything easier or harder, to the point where survival isn't really an issue anymore. Boot up the game and have a look next time you're bored, and you might be pleasantly surprised.
I just started a few weeks ago. NMS really has to do a better job with new players, but once you’re passed the new player phase it’s way more fun and the survival elements are perfect for balance and honestly, are kinda trivial unless there’s a weather event. And once you get a terrain manipulator, you can literally just run underground as long as you want and totally avoid all environmental hazards. And eating refills your life support and again, you get so much meat from killing animals, it becomes trivial. But yeah, I had to put about 20 hours in before it got better…
I got to try a few hours of starfield last night and tbh, I don't see what people are complaining about. You COULD call it just reusing the formula... but what's wrong with the formula? Big open world, lots to collect and explore, really good character creator with some actually interesting perks, I just don't see what's wrong with any of it. Sure it's more of the same but different, but these games were popular because the gameplay loop is good, why fix something that isn't broken? As to bugs, ITS A BETHESDA GAME FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, SAYING THERE ARE BUGS IS LIKE SAYING WATER MAKES THINGS WET. Starfield is good, not a masterpiece from what I played, but definitely not some dumpster fire, and new games don't have to revolutionize game design, the tried and true methods are just as good.
I think there's also a point to make about system requirements, as much as it is a dead horse. A current midrange gaming PC would still struggle in Starfield and IMO it doesn't have the Graphics/Gameplay to be "next gen". Also, it might be a very weird take, but a lot of Starfield reminds me of Warframe, especially the scanning, but in a lot of ways the Gameplay isn't too different either (which for fast paced combat is not a bad thing).
Starfield is also 120gb, with far less content, and overall things. Where as NMS sits at a WHOPPING...20gb despite delivering a far more in depth exploration system, base building system, entirely explorable planets, seamless planet entry and travel, a complete ocean biome with its own creatures, and cave systems...etc etc.. Kinda makes me think Bethesda has just filled the download with filler code just for the sake of taking up hard drive space.
There is actually a random encounter in Starfield with an NPC you can meet while exploring, he has an alien pet thats walking with him. Even with unique name. I think they add pets in a DLC, I mean u can already have farms in your base with aliens with the zoology skill
So basically Starfield looks like a Wish copy of No Man's Sky despite having benefitted from 10x the budget of the latter... Bethesda performance at its peak right there. One would only hope they make a slightly more intense effort for Elder Scrolls 6, but doubt is here to stay.
Starfield was by far one of the games that MOST dissapointed me, i played NMS while waiting for starfield so i could have a taste of space until starfield came out, when starfield came out i tossed NMS away, i played 9 hours of starfield and i got bored by the 6th hour, i find myself going back to NMS and having loads of fun.
Compare the game to whatever you want. Any comparison with another game is valid as long as you make logical comparisons. It should be compared to every space game where you fly a spaceship because that's a part of the game. It should also be compared to every space game where you engage in FPS combat because that's a part of the game. It should be compared to role-playing story-driven games even though starfield doesn't actually have any real role-playing decisions to make. It still is story driven and calls itself a role-playing game even if it fails horribly in that regard. The only people that don't want you to compare it are the ones that know it falls on its face when you do.
for me its 1 with a game i can actually play on my Lap top vs another game i got that cant run for shit and crashes on load , so for me i'd Say No mans Sky takes the cake and it ate it too and went home full , and slept like a champ.
Hey Yamiks, whats your opinion on X4? I just got into it recently coming from Elite, and its just everything I wanted from a space game basically, even tho no planet landing, it has just so much stuff that you can do
@@TheYamiks haha I can understand somewhat what you mean. The worst part for me as a new player is that, its just so so terrible to explain mechanics and how things work in general. But the whole "Kinda-Grand Strategy" had sex with "Space sim" is quite fun for me. Now I`ll just go back to dock my ship on a ship docked on a ship docked on a ship and steal some freighters :')
@@SaintInix yea I got quite addicted to it, usually when a game goes for the 'oh its sandbox' there is nothing to do, but there are a ton of optional story plots to manipulate the universe as well as as the means to do whatever you want on your own, plus modding.
You have to appreciate that Bethesda took the players time into consideration. I love that I have the option to run to my ship, take off, go In to space, plot a jump, enter a new system, land at a planet. That's great for immersion if I have a full night to play. But I also love that if I only have a hour to play, I love that I can save time using fast travel. Bethesda really did well giving the players that freedom of choice. 👍
Correction : there is "free float" mode in Starfield ship flight - Yamiks = wrong. (press & hold space on PC)
Watched it, thought it, found the comment
check my last videos!
Yeah and it improves a lot with the skils.
A lot of ED skills work very well with boost and thruster mode. Boosting behind the enemy and staying above and behind them and targeting subsystems, turning down power to go silent and using asteroids as cover etc. You need to get the piloting and targeting skills though. I found it very enjoyable.
yeah so you can side strafe and go behind enemies and fly around them, like x2 when you get that upgrade making combat trivial.
no mans sky’s story is really deep and every update things change with the story so every major update i replay to notice what’s different and overtime they’ve explained everything more clear in the story but also leaves enough up to you for roleplay it’s kinda smoove ngl
agreed
Someone asked why you'd want to spend several minutes flying from one planet to another.... because flying through space is fun, especially when pirates scan you and decide you have cargo worth dying for
Or aliens, bounty
It's remarkable how much more colourful and full of life No Man's Sky looks.
kinda boring after sometime though
Starfield’s meant to look more like our actual world though. The vast majority of planets in the galaxy are just not going to be fanciful colors.
@@RobTheDoodler Great argument, our planets are bland because thats how it is! We can't add more color because then it wouldn't look real! Nevermind that space magic and regular humans tanking full mags of ammo exist.
Realistic doesn't equal fun. There are several ways they could have made the planets/space look alot better/more fun and still keep the same colors. Stop defending bad work.
@@ettan5812 If you played the game, you’d know there actually are some colorful biomes with a wide variety of fauna, but you can’t just have every rocky planet with no atmosphere looking like a Fortnite map. There’s a difference between the believability of world design and ludonarrative dissonance in combat. Getting one shot by a pistol would be gamebreaking after all.
It looks like cartoon not realistic, starfield looks good like real.
You forgot to mention the world borders in Starfield, you can just walk around an entire planet in no man’s sky- no clue why you would do that, but you can, whereas in Starfield, you only get a little sandbox, which is completely randomly generated every time you land on the planet.
Some people did that (walk the whole way around a planet in NMS). I could never have the patience 😂
It's not "completely random", if you land in the same spot each game you get the same terrain. The land gen is done using a the coordinates on the globe as it's seed. The rest (POIs) are random though.
Not to mention if you change something on the planets terrain it’s will stay that way when you come back no matter where it is. Was honestly pretty disappointed in how Star field managed there planets
@@DastardlyPilot Some updates (or just time? will cause the terrain to return if you dig through it with the terrain manipulator, but yeah. And bases usually don't randomly disappear like modifications to terrain sometimes do (it's the reason people often advise not to build underground, lest you come back to find your base submerged in rock)
Not many people seem to know, but NMS also added a power management system to the spaceship not too long ago.
Boring game
@@theod6898 Not as boring as Starfield.
@@stellarhyme3 I’ve had 6 different attempts to enjoy no man’s sky, I desperately want to. It’s a fucking boring dull game. I already have 170 hours in starfield
@@theod6898agree with you starfield is boring compared with no man's sky
@@theod6898how could you enjoy starfield but not no man sky?
One of the many details of NMS that I love is the shared galaxy. You may play single-player all the time, but still find planets, animals and more discovered and named by other players, and even bases built by other players, there for you to visit.... It's a great motivator for building an impressive, creative base!
No mans sky with better planet generation is perfect. It makes the planets look better
What Starfield achieved was to make me redownload NMS :D
Maybe I was under estimating No Man's Sky, I just got into it recently. But something cool I wanted to shout out
I think it's cool that you can learn the alien languages over time, I found it pretty immersive when I tried to talk to my first alien and it spit jibberish at me.
Based comment
Base building in NMS is next level. While Starfield seems to be more pragmatic, NMS has some of the most incredible base builds I've seen outside of Minecraft. People have seriously crafted wonders.
I just started no man's sky and i gotta say the snap building system is quite impressive when you get in to actually learning how to build things properly. It isnt perfect but im hooked on it. The combat though is awful. I basically just use it as a base building game. And i like the sense of freedom it gives. That's all i really wanted.
the combat is there just to say it is there, the game is about exploration alone...almost a sandbox in that
I played Starfield for a few weeks until the thought of playing it sounded horrible. I’ll go back to it when mods and DLC make it better.
This made me play NMS for the first time starting a few weeks ago. It’s exactly like people say. The new player experience is really bad, but gets better once you’ve gotten passed the initial learning curve and being totally weak phase.
Traveling is obvious a million times better than Starfield.
Both games have laughably easy space combat.
Both are sandboxes but NMS feels way more like Minecraft in space. That’s kinda the vibe.
I also think both games have the same issue with procedural generation. In both games, you encounter the same things over and over and over and over.
Both games seem like they can go on forever adding content but I think NMS has a way better foundation. The creation engine in Starfield just need to go into the trash.
Both games feel like trash for ground combat on console. I swear it’s like these developers never played Halo or Destiny. If you’re going to make a shooter on console, just please copy how Bungie does it. It just FEELS so much better.
In the end, I think NMS is just a lot better. It’s an 8. Starfield is a 6.
What do you think modders or DLC can do to improve Starfield?
Not trying to be adversarial, this is a legitimate question I ask myself. I really don't believe that moddders or any DLC's (that are going to be written and developed by the same people that made the base game) can actually fix what is wrong with this game to it's core.
Whoa, hold on, you forgot to tell us how much LSD was actually needed.. wtf bro lol
DRUUUUUUUGS!!!!!!!!!
Huehuehuehuehue
I'd compare starfield to the outer worlds instead
That would be too easy
Heck, let's go deeper and compare it to the Outer Wilds.
Absolutely
For sure, while there is some similarities with NMS, most of Starfield is far more like Outer Worlds.
Because Starfield doesn't stand a chance against No man's sky?
No Man's Sky is the ultimate RPG. Its just all on you to make up your role. There isn't really anything thats not available across the board for every "role". Though there are perks for ships and multitools.
You pick your charachter and their style and your ship type and all that, and it could be to suit the persona you created.
But nothing is stopping you from being a badass Vykeen pirate in all black with the hardcore armor flying a pink explorer that looks like a pair of tats with a rainbow jet trail. 😂
The problem is if the world does not react to your "badass Vykeen pirate" then it is pointless.
@@ninjadejedi I don't need the affirmation of ones and zeros to have a good immersive time.
You shoot at someone, they shoot back.
You attack a fleet, the space cops come at you.
You destroy the freighter, the Outlaw guild gives you respect.
And you can show off your William H Badass III suit in the anomaly.
@ninjadejedi the world doesn't react to you in SF. Point a gun at an NPC and they continue on with their day. Terrormorphs attack NA and if you go anywhere else in the colony outside the space port, and they act like nothing is happening. Show up as a Starborn in an alien ship, no one gives a shit or reacts in any way other than a brief line from the technician.
@@jackskelington7377 yeah I was surprised to see that... you steal a ship, super easy, Its more work to jack a car in GTA. Nobody chases you. Nobody is looking for it. You land at the port in your stolen ship... no questions. And then you pay 2 grand to register it and make the entire galaxy forget it ever happened. All that cargo inside just isn't obviously stolen anymore either. The cops cheerefully greet you 🤣.
And then... the ship you left behind to jack this one, and every other ship you ever sat in, is right there for you too.
Immersion.
@@gwoody4003 I mean, what would be the appeal of capturing ships if you lost the one you were using prior? It would kill the entire game mechanic. If BGS designed it that way, guaranteed people would not bother at all since chances are good they’re just capturing a downgrade.
No Man Sky I managed to pick up on the cheap about a year ago, and I've decided there is only one real way to play, PSVR!
I came from Elite Dangerous, playing on a large projector screen in the basement, reveling in the sounds and the news broadcasts. And i knew the game was going to die when they stopped the news. That role play made the world.
No Man Sky has so much freedom, that they opted instead to minimize the story. But the moments you get ... Wow. There is a sense of wonder coming to someone else's base, or landing on a world where the lighting is chromatic, or your first derilict freighter. But then the feeling passes.
No Man Sky lets you get in and get out whenever you want. Somethig will happen somewhere, but overall it's of no universe shatterin consequence. You could argue that is what the main story teaches, without spoilers, to enjoy the time spent in the world while you can, because there are so many worlds out there but you can't see them all.
So, taking that vibe, and putting it in VR. There is no way that i could do combat like elite with a couple of playstation's plastic wands, but i can get a good approximation of handling an actual flighter stick and grabbing the throttle. Might be a little janky, but when you move from space and fly over a new planet, trying to decide where to land, flying upside down for a better view or dodging between mountains, fantastic.
Now that they added pirate attacks from space to land, to suddenly have things explode around you and go running (yes running) to you fighter, or call it down from the sky, as a movie magic moment that you organically happens. Is there a reason for it, No. There are no factors or larger story, it just happens. If you are ok with just happenings, you understand NMS.
Lastly, mining. I understand the grind, the building, the get the thing, but i've never really enjoyed the raw resource gathering. Now though, i am physically pointing at crap and making it go bye bye. I've getting surrounded by curious creaturea because i gave one a food pellet, and the are surrounding my feet with sad cat eyes. And i can breed them into enormous monsters later if i wish to be a dr frankenstein. To build a base is different than walking into Your base, and taking a closer look at the models. Heck, i recently learned the solar spaceship model, while not only coming forward in space, also has mechanics with thermal vents based upon your speed.
But yes, No Man Sky is not elite, the models are not accurate, it is nearly impossible to die, there is no "you are the center of the universe" or "raxla" story, but it is a game of childhood wonder. Not too deep but everything feels amazing, even though you know it's all the same.
Now that you can go on adventure with friends and there are questing mechanics past end game, it extends the shelf life, but in the end, you go, do something, get something, come back.
I can't imaging playing NMS outside of VR, because it's that look cool factor and wonder of life in general that it shares.
To those of us who have been on the planet awhile, and the days merge into each other (wake up, go to work , eat, sleep, consume, do it again) No Man Sky shows you that, and says it ok... and you wonder at the beauty of it all. And when you have to put it down to go through more dredgery of the wake eat work sleep cycle, it will be there for you when you once again need a sense of wonder.
I envy you the VR in Elite. I got motion sickness from it and can't do it. How awesome that must be!
@@bealotcoolerifyoudid7217 There actually was't VR in elite for me. Was playing on Xbox. When switched to playstation, (justified the vr purrrchase as the whole family beig stuff in the house with the pandemic, Beat Saber might keep us active), turns out it, there was no VR on console.
It would have been so cool if they did. I used to purposely turn off the auto flight (forget the name) so i could zip through space compounds and run rescue missions. I could just imaging.
Not the same in No Man Sky, but you can pick up a similar feeling.
No man's sky in vr is just incredible, I love just landing on a new planet and exploring cliffs and beaches
The coughing fit about ED was awesome! Frontier listen to us damn it!!!!
They won't and ED will eventually fail and fade away cause of it.
@@Fuzzycatfur unfortunately, I feel that you're right
I think Starfield stacks well against ED. Kind of like how you could campare it's skills to ED's Engineering.
It may seem petty, but I'm still chalking up lack of interiors as my reason for quitting ED. I was fine with the grindy systems and the repetitive loops, but on top of all the other issues, no interiors and the stance against them killed my interest.
When you're a space sim gamer, no one can hear you scream. Or at least Frontier can't.
In Skyrim, you can equip a pickaxe as a weapon and swing at the vein in first person to mine it. At least I think, that's vanilla
Vanilla, no mods
As much as I love No Man's Sky, the ground combat is such a drag, despite Hello Games' attempts to improve it. Space combat is a bit better but I wouldn't choose it as an activity. The best space combat I've ever had in a space game is Rebel Galaxy, which uses broadside style.
The loading in Starfield is weird, because in some cases like the elevators, the map is already loaded, and in some place, you don't even need to use the elevators, like in New Atlantis where you can jump from the upper part of the city to the spaceport, and in Neon where you can jump from the Ebbside to the otherside or to the landing pads.
I think they made the loading for some cases with populated locations but didn't have time to determine when it's needed for places and when it's not, this is especially weird since they've been doing the elevator loading before.
This also is the case for grav jumping, because in a mission of Crimson fleet where you join in the ship of a smuggler and you're just a passenger, the ship grav jumps from Jamison into another system without loading
Yeeep.. there is a theory that physics engine prevents elevwtors to work
This will be the last $100 game I purchase. Games have become stagnant and quick to becoming boring. Good video as always. ❤
Then why are you buying it?
no offense but after the last 4-5 years of bethesda why didn't you get gamepass and test it before buying, I wanted this to be good, but I was leery about it so spent 10$'s on gamepass.
Try an MMO or find a other hobby you can also play older games like in emulators or actual hardware. Most games this days are not good or tend to get boring fast. I personally think starfiel was a refreshener from that as it feels like the old games I use to play and I don't think it's dated or the graphics looked bad I seen worse on new games.
@@Juliett-A paid for early access. 😂
@@wolfwing1 I forgot console players have that option and because it's Microsoft they do it for PC. Been gaming since 1978 Atari 2600 and don't do subscription services unless I have to for a movie. The "will never pay $100" is to say games got really pricey over the years for the same crap. 😂😂 It's all good though.
The scanner in Mass Effect Andromeda (2017) is quite similar . Not sure which came before
The whole opening of starfield is the opening of mass effect 1
Todd Howard can’t make a game anymore
You've obviously missed NMS update, where they added large capital freighters with very large customizable interiors, and basically your own little starfleet on top of that. So point for the ships for SF is not fair.
Comparing Starfield and No Man's Sky is like apples and oranges. One is an open world RPG, the other is a survival exploration game. One is AAA budget and a massive development team, the other was developed on a tiny budget by an indie studio. Yes they're both set in space but they are two totally different games.
My thoughts with 800 hours in NMS, and now 30 hours in SF. Combine the 2 and you have the perfect game. Separate, NMS lacks content(missions/story), and SF lacks exploration and flora and fauna. Eventually I feel like I will miss multiplayer also, but so far I haven't. The aspect I love about SF so far is there is so much to do content wise, and I have barely scratched the story chain.
I actually really agree with you on this… so good on you for not be being straight up “Nms is better than starfield… so starfield is garbage” imo they aren’t even similar as games… both verry different games with a few similarities being scanning and that’s about it
So, No Man´s Sky has the freedom with weapon modification, Starfield the freedom in spaceship creation...?
I am ok with base construction, so i suffer less than you, Yamiks, i might even enjoy it a little.
But i do dread two things: the loading screens and, what you didn´t even mention, the FACES!
@DominiqueSimpson-pg4bb if you are not a bot you are very sad
When people say "No Man's Sky" isn't an RPG, they mean there isn't a defined path with a built-in story with branching paths for them to follow. And they're right, of course: I am 46 and grew up with the classics, but some people have no concept of a sandbox and are incapable of interfacing with them as "role playing games" (even though, by definition, they still are), or enjoying them.
I prefer less story than more, and more emergent behaviors/situations in RPGs, but that's kind of an old-school approach. People these days are trained to think of RPGs as cinematic experiences, punctuated by quick-time action sequences. I have a feeling you understand that, but in case you're being obtuse, there ya go.
Considering the kind of mods that have come out for previous Bethesda games (take, for instance, Open Cities) I have a feeling at some point Starfield will become really, really great. It'll just take a long time (and the blood, sweat, and tears of a bunch of talented people.) It's not as solid a send-off as even Skyrim was, but there ya go.
Bethesda are circus clowns that haven't made a decent game since Morrowind. I'm still salty Black Isle sold them the Fallout rights instead of Troika Games.
Dooms are good games
@@sebastians2559 they didn't make those either. They just bought ID and published what ID put out.
Worry not!
They are now owned by Microsoft. 😂
If there was one feature I’d like NMS to take “inspiration” from it would be the mini-camp system from fallout-76/BDO/survival-games so you could quick-kit in some short term without needing to go through the base location registration system.
That and a core story/gameplay loop worth a damn but I have (mostly) accepted it’s sandbox with rusty pins underneath “charms” at this point.
Or better yet a FULL COMBAT OVERHAUL with more enemies and behaviours, less slow-projectile low impact pew pew and way less clunk and camera-drag everytime you take a hit.
And more dungeons, they did it good with the derelict freighters, i don't know why they don't keep it going with more diverse stuff like that
@@nelsoncaceres6005 if they overhaulder the crashed ships and freighters and made cool undeground cave pirate hideouts
NMS is long overdue a ship customisation system. They have a decent variety of ships but getting the type/design/stats\look/colour/components/flair you want (freighters included) is utterly dependant on a mix of low percentile RNG and community stargate address registries to “shop for” things you may like/want/May-never-otherwise-encounter.
I’d definitely label the low variance RNG as NMS second biggest flaw (after the still awful/unengaging combat).
on the other hand, hunting for your own ship is imo more enjoyable then just point and click the things you want on it, for me finding my own ship feels more special...
@@onbekend1631 Why not both?
I'm more for a ship crafting and ship interiors...
Also what NMS needs is a new class of ship small corvettes and frigates and here where the crafting will comes to play, comes the cradlfting
And yes, you could have the fighter customization either, after all the ships already came in randomly generated parts.
@@onbekend1631 Make it so that when you scrap a ship, you can choose to lose out on some of the profit to keep specific parts to later tack onto one of your ships. That way, you can both hunt for ships and customize.
Honestly from me the combat system is nms’s most lacking feature. It wouldn’t even be super difficult for hello games to create new enemy types and variety in sentinel forces. New weapons and even melee weapons wouldn’t be super difficult to add. Im not a game dev but I’d imagine hello games definitely could revamp their combat system.
The thing that really kills starfield's outpost system for me is that it's an immense amount of effort for essentially no point. Resources are worthless, and manufactured components are too heavy for their value to be worth selling either; there's no built in way to ship out goods for sale, so the only reason you'd engage with it is the xp except the autonomous manufacturing options Don't give you any xp, and have so many niggling complications that it's harder to build a balanced system than if you were trying to make a house of cards out of boiled lasagna noodles. There's a wide variety of decoration objects you can build, and you can hand place whatever you want using the build menu if you want, but there are no interior walls, foundation pieces, or anything else you would need to make your outpost any more aesthetically pleasing than a lego house made out of only 2x2x2 beige blocks.
And the snapping tolerances need to be reduced by about 90%.
Starfield just isn't a spacesim. It's not simulating anything and there's no real space.
Tutorial in Starfield actually works. No Man's Sky keeps telling me to push the square and circle buttons on my controller while it is set for mouse and keyboard.
I love starfield but i do agree with every point you said with comparing with nms but what wins for me for starfield is the setting and the questing. But also there is minor stuff that makes a game good like the god tier music, object placing and handcraft and the writing.
I think it all boils down to NMS representing pure emergent gameplay - and THAT it does a million times better and more varied than Starfield. But if you want elaborate story quests, Starfield is your game.
Starfield Coming in with those GTA 3/Vice city water physics
Let us not forget we are comparing a game that took years to reach its current state of good, to a day one version of another.
Also, while I really loved NMS (in its final state), Starfield has made me feel things I haven't felt since Skyrim and is truly something special.
Finally, all recent signs point to Bethesda being fully committed to improving many of the lacking elements in Starfield, specifically exploration. I'm excited to see how the game grows in the next year.
Since you mentioned the beginning of no mans sky....
You should also mention the fact Hello Games was only a team of 12 people, and an Indie Developer without a billion dollar bank account.
Bethesda, is a multi billion dollar corporation with over 500 people working on Starfield, for alledgedly 25 years, and 8 years of active development. 7 years Coincidentally being the timeframe it took for Hello Games to get no mans sky where it is today, and yet Bethesda delivered a very lacking game, almost like they designed that intentionally with charging you for additional content in mind.
Pretty important facts you convienently left out.
And you can’t compare a ORIGINAL GAME to a copy wanna be 😆 😂😂 a 2016 IDEA with not THAT MUCH MONEY and a 2023 NEW GEN??? NEW GRAPHICS?? MORE POWERFUL MECHANICS?? 😂😂😂😂😂
I really couldn't agree more. I constantly stumble into little bits of Lore I want to know more about. Just walking through the museums is fascinating. I like NMS for what it is... but it's just not on the same level.
NMS VR has killed Starfield’s experience for me. Not that I won’t continue to play it, but as a whole feels like to many corners were cut.
I would also deduct points from starfield in mining due to, it's pretty much pointless it is, ethe amount you get is so miniscule compared to what you need and could just use an outpost to get, or even just buy from a shop.
True, and then you start mining and you suddenly have infinite resources. Also, you don’t need to bother with either since vendors basically hand you all the resources you’ll ever need in that game.
I played NMS for 3 days, got a sentinel ship, explored a bunch of planets, built multiple bases, got a freighter, after that it's kind of pointless to play it
At a certain point every game is like that. You'll get to, "why do it." Doesn't matter the game. Even if it's a collection game. Sooner or later, you collect it all then it's, "why do it." SF will be no different. You will get to that point.
Stalker makes more sense now. Used to love playing that with mods that made everything more dynamic.
I haven't seen any game with parallax mapping use as good as theirs since.
And maybe Starfield is more like Skyrim + Mass Effect.
It's not fair comparing NMS with SF only because are games about space. One is relaxing and the other is more about role.
When you go into the Steam/Xbox store looking for an open world game tag not only is Starfield but probably a dozen other games are going to pop up as recommendations including Subnatica, Space Engineers, Astroneer, and No Man's Sky. All of those are different style of games but the person who's going to decide isn't going to buy based on genre but rather which one looks more fun. It doesn't matter if comparing any of those games is fair because the point of publishers selling games isn't to be fair but rather to make sales, and the point of the person buying whichever game is to have the most fun for their purchase.
12:45 Teleporting House… Dude it took me 15 minutes to stop laughing maniacally after hearing this 😂😂😂
No man sky smokes Starfield out of the water
I would fervently argue that Starfield isn't even a RPG. I never felt like I was able to role play anything other than a goody two-shoes gung ho explorer. The story is that linear and lacking any consequences for choices. NG+ is just Rick and Morty versions of the exact same linear inconsequential storytelling.
The best starship RPG game this year is Everspace 2. It’s ships and combat are awesome, exploration is awesome, planets are awesome. And the RPG story missions are great. So check it out.
11:50 that look of time stop in dishonored in a way ( well like all time stop XD)
I've got over 200 hours into Starfield. I have spent a lot of time "exploring" and building ships and waiting for venders to refresh to sell my junk. I have over 800 hours into No Man's Sky. They had a rough release but it's a great game now. It's not even close, No Man's Sky is a WAY better game in every way. I have literally spent entire nights warping across the galaxy discovering new planets and never saw the same thing twice. Starfield's space combat is stupid simple. All you have to do is keep the target in that huge circle and you will hit, no aiming needed.
You know in Starfield you have (to a degree) a stealth fly mode? The less pips you have in active systems the less you are visible to enemies. It kind of works, but depends on how many enemies are around you and how away they are from you. I kinda wish there were power presets you can change with a short cut.
It doesn't matter in NMS there's a limitless universe one planet is bigger than every planet map in starfield and its suppose to be a smaller game on last gen lmao
@@trvpmusic2569 By that metric, Elite Dangerous is WAAAAY better. Has a fully simulated Milky Way galaxy, many many billions of stars and possibly trillions of planets. Elite dangerous has been out a very long time and not even 0.1% of the entire galaxy has been traveled to by the entire player base combined since launch, and yet it feels like the most empty space game I have ever played. There is absolutely nothing to really do outside populated space in ED. The thing that both NMS and Starfield have way more of, but they do it in different ways. Some people like what both games have on offer and at a certain point it is up to taste, but both games have a lot more varied and interesting things to find and do than Elite Dangerous and with a lot more story about them too, even if the story isn't all that amazing.
@@wruenvadam bruh....No Man Sky has 255 galaxies 95% of players haven't even made it out the first one, it has over 18 quintillion planets. Do you know what a Quintillion is ?? Lol Starfield doesn't even make up 0.1% of No Man Sky literally 🤣
@@wruenvadam oh you said Elite Dangerous, never heard or played that is it on console like Starfield and NMS ?
@@trvpmusic2569 It's a space sim, and yes it is on console as well as PC. Now it isn't as big as No Man's Sky, but my point is it has way more systems and planets than Starfield, but that game most definitely is not better. Size is not everything, and just because you have all those stars and planets doesn't mean anything when you are never going to be able to visit all of them even if you played the game nonstop from the moment you are born to the moment you die. It's pointless to have that many planets. Elite Dangerous has trillions of planets that I will never be able to see, just like No Man's Sky has Quintillions of planets that I also... will never be able to see... then what is the point of them being there? Ah, just so you can say there are trillions or quintillions of planets. It's such a ridiculous number that it is basically meaningless. That number alone doesn't make No Man's Sky better than Starfield and is a lazy metric to use. You can have opinions about Starfield and why you think it sucks or is worse than No Man's Sky or whatever, but simply saying, "More planets is more better," is ignorant of the fact that it can make a game feel an inch deep if not done correctly, like Elite Dangerous. Starfield has its issues, but using game size isn't a metric anyone should be using to judge which one is better. More planets ≠ Better gameplay. There are other way more logical and intelligent critiques and comparisons you can use against Starfield. I have seen them and agree with many but I still enjoy Starfield more than No Man's Sky. Because for me, Starfield is closer to my kind of game than NMS even with all its flaws. Really I'm not sure why you brought this up considering the original post had absolutely nothing to do with that you wrote.
I gotta disagree on the ahip building. NMS has freighters that do feel good to build out when you get used to it. The little ships are just cockpits.
The illusion is shattered. This is my first video seeing the Yamiks face.
Sure would be a shame if turrets didn't take up a fire group. Wouldn't wanna make the game *too* casual.
Good comparison. Need ED: Oddesy vs Starfield, especially compare FPS mechanics and structures on planets.
hmmm.. might think of it, but i've talked about this in the past.
might consider it thou!
No man sky has mechs that makes the game much fun than starfield
Starfield went a wierd direction. In many cases you can avoid loading screens in let's say New Atlantis as long as you don't have to use a door and yet they punish you with a loading screen if you decide to fast travel. Like the shuttle in New Atlantis. There is a animation for the shuttle. Which this could hide the loading screens and that kind of tricks could lessen the amount of black screen circle loaders.
So he says the combat in nms is “Fucked” some reason. Is it because he saw that you have superpowers in Starfield & thought to himself, “I wish I had that nms since 2016”?
Bethesda fanboys don't like it when you compare Starfield with any other space game, only with RPGs. Why? Because all the other space games did everything better
Starfield doesn't have ground vehicles because Bethesda wants to delay players from knowing about the boundary thing for as long as possible.
If Starfield came out around the same time as Skyrim, it probably would've been received better. The reverse to that is if Skyrim came out today it might have been received the same way Starfield has been received now.
19:00 nms DOES have craters
they aren't common though, and most aren't very big
but they are there, don't spread misinformation
No Man's Sky > Snorflop
Starfield looks and feels so outdated I seriously gave up after 20h. It's incredible to me that this past their quality control.
I have to say.
ORANGES ARE BETTER THAN APPLES. They are efficient in preventing scurvy. ...Also I'm not allergic to them
(Disclaimer: this argument is being made for the sake of a laugh, I'm not actually trying to convince people oranges are better than apples)
Eve online added exploration way before all these other space games
Just out of curiosity where does everybody think the X series of games land in these comparisons?
Come to think of it, you can pretty much do all of what you can do in both games in the lesser known game called Empyrion: Galactic Survival lol
That is a good game.
game is underrated
I had more fun messing around in space engine than i did NMS
NMS is incomparable to Starfield - they fill two separate niches. NMS is exploration focused, while Starfield is story-focused.
I decided about twenty hours into Starfield that I was missing too many aspects of NMS. Also knowing my "end game" in NMS ends up being more portaling to-&-fro to various bases; I thought "Get it out of your system, & then go BACK to Starfield... Maybe once your TIRED of exploring space & finding cool planets? You'll find cool stuff in Starfield." SO far, NMS is better by far.
Спасибо, Yamiks, хороший обзор!
Я не играл в Starfield.
No Man's Sky играл с VR вскоре после релиза, но довольно быстро наскучила (возможно, ещё вернусь к ней).
Elite Dangerous заиграл до дыр, но её проблемы ты и так хорошо озвучил в других роликах.
NMS needs to give a FPS update for sure, I'm surprised they haven't yet. Might cause a lot of unwinding of the source code. What's great about NMS is it has a "good skeleton" to build up on though. I don't get that feeling with starfield.
Honestly it looks like they might be going for one, given that they recently enough made changes to how sentinels work, and introduced a new type of multitool. Hopefully they do, the current system has become quite difficult for new players trying to complete early sidequests involving the sentinels
Would definitely like an animation update for the character like when running, walking and punching yk
how about how neither have modifiable melee weapons?
Starfield, by definition, is not a space sim. You can't claim it is because there's space elements. Genres have definitions for a reason. Just like MMS is not an RPG even if it has RPG elements. Yamiks is factually wrong on that.
Basically whats more cheaper rn and more refine is nms so no question needed
If you are playing a character that you can mold and shape as your own, it's an RPG. If you are playing an exact character who is bound by some level of laws(Like Batman doesn't kill people for example) you are playing a character, not a role. You aren't deciding who or what that character is, you're jsut playing their story. Witcher 3 is not an RPG. Skyrim is. Geralt can't just go crazy and start stabbing townsfolk, that's not his nature. Skyrim, sure you're the Dragonborn but that's just a concept of what you are. The Dragonborn can be a wizard or an Archer or whatever race you want it to be. Geralt is a white haired Witcher who does things a certain way.
interesting take. However commonly it's not recognized.
saddly RPG is a very loose term and witcher is considered RPG...even Batman games are.
thou by those standarts you can go further as well... so yeah .. slippery slope etc etc
Who mines in skyrim with the animations? Just attack it with a pickaxe
I love NMS, and eventually I will purchase Starfield and like it too.
Exactly, I’ll eventually play Starfield again when they add back features they purposefully left out for DLC and mods get support on Xbox.
The release of Starfield saw a lot of people driven to return No Man's Sky.
Coincidentally, every No Man's Sky person I watch/follow has played Starfield.
Best of both worlds really.
I tried No Man's Sky, but found it EXTREMELY dull and boring; Minecraft has more fun things to do in their game than No Man's Sky. Starfield is goated though
@@thequeen901 Nice defending mate, you hoping to get payed? Why even bring up minecraft.
@@thequeen901no man’s sky actually runs good unlike star field capped at 30fps 😂😂
@@ettan5812 Because No Man's Sky has less content and is less fun than Minecraft
@@azm01 No Man's Sky has boring, bad graphics and a lifeless universe with no interesting companions, factions, lore, music, questlines, side quests, cities, ship building mechanics, or RPG elements.
NMS is a game aimed more at young people, Starfield is a game for adults, with blood, death and sex.
Starfield has better space combat than NMS, it's not complicated to control the energy, you don't need to put energy into the grav, only if you want to escape, and you can put weapons to disable the enemy ship, dock and invade the enemy ship, kill everyone, get a lot of loot rather than just destroying the ship, and you can keep the ship for yourself or sell it, you can't do that in NMS.
Is Alien Creatures better at NMS? They don't even fight back, you kill them and don't get anything good, sometimes you find very strong aliens in high level systems, which give good loot and Xp, it's much more fun to hunt aliens in Starfield, and more profitable.
doesn't nms also have a vr function?
18:02 i thought i was watching a Anomaly video. Similar accent but exact same laugh lol
I'm expecting No Man Sky 2 to be amazing. All I would need is more of the same with improved graphics. I think they did amazing.
In fact we are already playing "No Man's Sky 4".
18:16 Your character didn't drown, it died from environmental damage... the water was toxic and it overcame the suits protection. Now to be fair, the whole environmental thing was a joke because unless you do something like what you did, you never have to worry about environmental protection
I thought "mimi-cing nms" was some random space game until I saw the ship mid-warp
Hey NMS has...SPACE in THEIR space game. Got WHOLE planets too. An ACTUAL planet you can fly to and seamlessly land on. Those kids at Hello Games are just craazzyyy. Hello Games released poorly but they were a BEGINNING company and that team put EVERYTHING on the line for it. They're houses, they're savings. What has these multi, MULTI BILLION dollar companies RISKED? What will they EVER risk. Nothing. Slopthesda has access to a...Kzillion dollars , what's their excuse for this...SLOP. Slopfield brought to yo by Slopthesda. NMS is not perfect but the team working on it actually CARES. THAT you can tell. What the hell does Bethesda care about?, ANOTHER release of...Skyrim.
I think starfield loses on the rpgish catagory because it's just so terribly done, too many core abilities locked behind skill points, to many stupid boring challenges, and so on.
NMS survival stuff killed me. It was just a huge chore even if it was amazing to fly from world to world.
They have massively increased the number of options for customising your playthrough. You can make pretty much everything easier or harder, to the point where survival isn't really an issue anymore. Boot up the game and have a look next time you're bored, and you might be pleasantly surprised.
But you could play without the survival things. Are you mentally handicapped?
i just vibe in relaxed more lol
Ironically, Starfield stripped out their survival stuff
I just started a few weeks ago. NMS really has to do a better job with new players, but once you’re passed the new player phase it’s way more fun and the survival elements are perfect for balance and honestly, are kinda trivial unless there’s a weather event.
And once you get a terrain manipulator, you can literally just run underground as long as you want and totally avoid all environmental hazards. And eating refills your life support and again, you get so much meat from killing animals, it becomes trivial.
But yeah, I had to put about 20 hours in before it got better…
NMS just needs to improve on-foot combat and add more enemy variants. Then there'll be no reason to ever touch Starfield again.
I got to try a few hours of starfield last night and tbh, I don't see what people are complaining about. You COULD call it just reusing the formula... but what's wrong with the formula? Big open world, lots to collect and explore, really good character creator with some actually interesting perks, I just don't see what's wrong with any of it. Sure it's more of the same but different, but these games were popular because the gameplay loop is good, why fix something that isn't broken?
As to bugs, ITS A BETHESDA GAME FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, SAYING THERE ARE BUGS IS LIKE SAYING WATER MAKES THINGS WET.
Starfield is good, not a masterpiece from what I played, but definitely not some dumpster fire, and new games don't have to revolutionize game design, the tried and true methods are just as good.
I think there's also a point to make about system requirements, as much as it is a dead horse. A current midrange gaming PC would still struggle in Starfield and IMO it doesn't have the Graphics/Gameplay to be "next gen".
Also, it might be a very weird take, but a lot of Starfield reminds me of Warframe, especially the scanning, but in a lot of ways the Gameplay isn't too different either (which for fast paced combat is not a bad thing).
Starfield is also 120gb, with far less content, and overall things.
Where as NMS sits at a WHOPPING...20gb despite delivering a far more in depth exploration system, base building system, entirely explorable planets, seamless planet entry and travel, a complete ocean biome with its own creatures, and cave systems...etc etc..
Kinda makes me think Bethesda has just filled the download with filler code just for the sake of taking up hard drive space.
There is actually a random encounter in Starfield with an NPC you can meet while exploring, he has an alien pet thats walking with him. Even with unique name. I think they add pets in a DLC, I mean u can already have farms in your base with aliens with the zoology skill
So basically Starfield looks like a Wish copy of No Man's Sky despite having benefitted from 10x the budget of the latter... Bethesda performance at its peak right there. One would only hope they make a slightly more intense effort for Elder Scrolls 6, but doubt is here to stay.
Starfield was by far one of the games that MOST dissapointed me, i played NMS while waiting for starfield so i could have a taste of space until starfield came out, when starfield came out i tossed NMS away, i played 9 hours of starfield and i got bored by the 6th hour, i find myself going back to NMS and having loads of fun.
I'd say the best description of No Man's Sky is, it is a Highly Expansive Open World Adventure Game
Compare the game to whatever you want. Any comparison with another game is valid as long as you make logical comparisons. It should be compared to every space game where you fly a spaceship because that's a part of the game. It should also be compared to every space game where you engage in FPS combat because that's a part of the game. It should be compared to role-playing story-driven games even though starfield doesn't actually have any real role-playing decisions to make. It still is story driven and calls itself a role-playing game even if it fails horribly in that regard. The only people that don't want you to compare it are the ones that know it falls on its face when you do.
for me its 1 with a game i can actually play on my Lap top vs another game i got that cant run for shit and crashes on load , so for me i'd Say No mans Sky takes the cake and it ate it too and went home full , and slept like a champ.
i played no man sky for 50hrs , i played starfield for 200. im going back to starfield when mod support drops. dont ever see myself going back to NMS.
Hey Yamiks, whats your opinion on X4? I just got into it recently coming from Elite, and its just everything I wanted from a space game basically, even tho no planet landing, it has just so much stuff that you can do
I respect X4 choices......even if they are 100% wrong
@@TheYamiks haha I can understand somewhat what you mean.
The worst part for me as a new player is that, its just so so terrible to explain mechanics and how things work in general.
But the whole "Kinda-Grand Strategy" had sex with "Space sim" is quite fun for me.
Now I`ll just go back to dock my ship on a ship docked on a ship docked on a ship and steal some freighters :')
X4 is cool, I've played some of the X games and the freedom to build and do things almost like a single player version of EVE mixed with freelancer
@@SaintInix yea I got quite addicted to it, usually when a game goes for the 'oh its sandbox' there is nothing to do, but there are a ton of optional story plots to manipulate the universe as well as as the means to do whatever you want on your own, plus modding.
You have to appreciate that Bethesda took the players time into consideration.
I love that I have the option to run to my ship, take off, go In to space, plot a jump, enter a new system, land at a planet. That's great for immersion if I have a full night to play. But I also love that if I only have a hour to play, I love that I can save time using fast travel.
Bethesda really did well giving the players that freedom of choice. 👍