Was Starfield Once Multiplayer?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- There’s an outlandish theory suggesting that Starfield was originally intended to be a multiplayer experience, much like Fallout 76. While I definitely don’t want or need the game to have online features, it’s interesting to consider what COULD have been and what MIGHT still be added.
Like and Subscribe to see more videos - discussing all the games you may or may not be playing.
Not sure why this is even a doubt - it was OBVIOUSLY supposed to be multiplayer. The entire game is built around scarcity of carry weight, which Bethesda sells in ESO and in Fallout 76 to its players. Most of the POIs are all very clearly laid out as PVP encounter zones. The game's "crafting system" is not a crafting system, it is the exact same RNG legendary gear drop system used in Fallout 76, now there is even a fake currency used to randomly roll legendary drops over and over until maybe you get one you want, the only goal in the game is to gather materials. The Crimson Fleet quest hub is literally laid out to accomodate dozens of players running in and out to check mission boards. Starfield feels EXACTLY like playing Fallout 76 on a private server alone.
Might be also the game was just built off of FO76's version of the engine. Cutting out the multiplayer, and just repurposing everything else. Adding the random generated planets and the spaceship stuff. Thus it ends up playing and feeling similar.
@@Hlieyto that could be it, Bethesda is known to cannibalize older games, assets, and code to make new games.
@@pwnomega4562every studio cannibalizes older games and assets.
I never understood why Bethesda wouldn't just thread the needle and try two (or four)-player co-op instead of either single-player or MMO. Think single-player Bethesda, but player 2 can hop in and hop out as a companion. Maybe Starfield could do something like that one day?
Borderlands somebody said borderlands oh I thought Yu were talking about borderlands
@@MarCoViTV yep, that's a good example! And Borderlands even has splitscreen which is next level.
is there a way for multiplayer with mods?
Maybe but I prefer starfield as a single player.
@@TheParagonIsDead okay... so...?
Co-op makes sense even through the story jumping from timeline to timeline heck have the first play through locked to single player then when hitting ng+ as the starborn interacting with other star born like antagonists of the story
I have a wild theory that next year's "Starborn" DLC will introduce multiplayer.
I honestly love the idea of small group cooperative missions or space battles, but especially with mods in play, I can't see any real player to player interaction working (and as a fan of single player games, I hate being forced to interact with others, but appreciate it as an option).
This game is where the fallout 76 model would have worked well. Fallout 76 has turned out to be a pretty decent game, but they just don't release any actual story content for it. Just crappy daily missions. Starfield would have been fun being able to meet up and system with other players
And the first encounter with Constellation at the lodge hints that there are other members out there, even beyond the companions. There's a mission board, which asks for surveys, and....who are they for if not for other unseen members of Constellation-other players, I mean
it would explain the layout of the cities/quest hubs, how the factions work, as well as the loading screen separated cells. people complained about having to go through multiple loading screens to get somewhere, which would make sense if they were trying to split up the performance hit of multiple players in the same cell. it might have worked better that way, but i was more interested in it being a single player game like their previous work. instead we kind of got neither.
I think you hit on a core philosophical concept for the future of starfield - “so long as they are an extra and not a requirement”. The fact that we can have this conversation about this game shows its continued potential.
Would you consider a video about the outpost system and its potentials/limitations?
Ive heard some but I’d prefer your opinion as well. Thank you.
Hey man just wanted to say I really enjoy watching your videos and I hope you keep it up
Would LOVE to have Co-op in this game. Even just 1 other person. But I think connections between outposts online could be a cool feature that is actually possible
Exploring planets in Starfield became very repetitive very quickly. You would see just color swapped plants and a few similar or completely identical bases. If you could see other players hand made camps, that would totally transform planet exploration and make it really varied, creative & interesting. Your shared camp is a great idea. It is kind of heartbreaking that every TH-cam video is full of ideas (some small and simple) that would transform the quality of the writing & exploration in this game. In my opionion the writing & exploration are both very weak in Starfield. The ideas on TH-cam make you realise just how easy it would have been for Starfield to be so much better.
13:03 - I 100% think that Outpost sharing will be a thing to fill out space. In fact, I think it's the reason Starfield is designed the way it is. Very meta concept, if you think about it.
Two to four players would be nice.
A Death Stranding/ Souls online system would be perfect
Was thinking Death Stranding, but not fully sure because I haven't played it. I would also like a No Man's Sky-style of online play. Although pvp ship combat would be a no-go for me.
Play once human
I agree 100%. Would have been cool to see other people's outposts pop up on planets randomly
In terms of "traditional" Bethesda titles I think Starfield would make way more sense to add multiplayer features compared to a game like ES6. It's a new IP so it's not quite like ES where if they added multiplayer everyone would say the franchise is ruined. I strongly suspect though, given the delay of Starfield and numerous reworks of the core gameplay loop (like the entire survival aspect) in the end they just decided to "play it safe" and not rock the boat *too* much since there was already a lot going on with development.
I don't cause the clutter would cause so much issues. Unless it's couch coop
@@GoalOrientedLifting Yeah, the way they solved this in FO76 is essentially by removing most of the physics features people associate with BGS games. You can't pick up any object and throw it around or have hundreds of simulating objects at once. They might be able to replicate the physics if it's just coop, like you say. But if there was any sort of hub area, they'd certainly have to disable most of the physics features in order to efficiently replicate the data across servers.
But just in a thematic sense I think if they wanted to introduce multiplayer to one of their bigger titles, Starfield would have been the game to do it. The procedural generated worlds which are mostly empty would have been prime for player created content and multiplayer. It would make much less sense to do something like that within the context of an Elder Scrolls game.
I'm personal more of a single-player gamer, but I do like your player-crafted outpost idea.
This is a great idea. So I assume BGS will not do it. Even though they could sell tons of building parts and decorations as "creations".
The community outpost thing is almost exactly as you described it coming to fallout 76. You can submit a camp to be like a tourist spot for players to vote on and stuff.
Excellent video as usual.
Interdimensional Community Outposts is a great idea. As you said there are the different ways they could make it work.
*** Option 1 - Let users choose specific community outpost to download
- Player 1 creates a base/outpost and then uploads the outpost data (could be a simple JSON payload) to Bethesda servers.
- Player 2 creates a base/outpost and then uploads the outpost data (could be a simple JSON payload) to Bethesda servers.
- Bethesda creates some kind of Community Outpost Workshop section in the Creations menu in-game
- Player 3 downloads Player 1's base to view and use in their game
- Player 4 downloads Player 2's base to view and use in their game
*** Option 2 - Let user toggle a global setting in the game to download all community outposts whenever the player lands on a planet
- Player 1 creates a base/outpost in Jemison and then uploads the outpost data (could be a simple JSON payload) to Bethesda servers.
- Player 2 creates a base/outpost in Jemison and then uploads the outpost data (could be a simple JSON payload) to Bethesda servers.
- Player 3 lands on Jemison, during the loading process - the game downloads all the community outpost data and renders those outposts for that planet. When the player explores the planet, they find Player 1 and Player 2 outposts.
Which version would you prefer?
Also regarding Option 2 - what if there are hundreds of outpost uploads by the community on a single planet? Would planets become over populated with outposts?
A cool idea but there are some design choices that have to be worked out.
And I'm not sure any mod author can do this, as there are servers and outpost rendering involved here.
I would love if Co-op were added. I've already done a lot in the game so introducing a friend to it and helping them a little eould be very fun for me
I kept feeling that what they released as Vanilla unfinished game and then how they kept updating the game felt very much like they were still stuck in FO76 mmo game dev mode.
Bethesda's parent company Zenimax was the ones pushing starfield to be online multiplayer. They forced bethesda to make FO76 and Starfield was started as a Online RPG. They were about to go bankrupt when Microsoft bought them and had Bethesda change the game to a single player only. It was obviously for the better and this game will most likely never become online multiplayer or co-op.
Also, the game was made bare-bones for a reason. It's a very massive game and Bethesda decided to just make a base game and support it for over a decade. They saw how far Skyrim has come in 10 years and wanted Starfield to basically be a blank slate with plenty of room to add on. They plan on releasing multiple DLCs over the next several years, AND they are heavily invested in the mod community to make the game their own as well. They know how big the modding community is and basically gave them a giant sandbox to go build some castles. Now that mods are finally released, you will see just how expansive this game can get.... so strap in!
That a metric f*ckton of assumptions you got there bud.
@@Ricolaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Or, you could actually look up court documents and other interviews with both Microsoft and Bethesda to find out that it's not just assumptions on both of my points.
@@CatDadGamer Well for starters you said the game is better not as a co-op game which is objectively untrue because the mission structures are set up like MMO fetch quests.
You can have opinions just not objectively wrong ones.
The assumptions take place mainly in the second paragraph. There's absolutely no way of knowing if bugthesda will support the game long term. The main modders of their previous games don't even want to support it.
Maybe it was a possibility like how Cyberpunk 2077 had a scrapped multiplayer idea
good idea, i bet you this will be a mod in the future. 1v1 thing
yeah this game deserves to be co-op at least I'm still enjoying my solo time with it
Starfield clearly had a more ambitious vision, but was cut down due to the Series S RAM limitations (empty Planets with the same structures over & over; loadingscreen hell, no take offs, etc.)
My first thought after completing the main campaign with Sarah in tow was that she was a huge downgrade from Fallout 4 companions, which lends credibility to the notion that she and the other conpanions were tacked on at the end.
The fact that modders created Inigo and Heather Casdin for Skyrim and Fallout 4 and they are so advanced compared to anything in those games, let alone - Starfield, reinfoces the idea that they weren't planned until very late in development.
2 player would be cool, but I love single player starfield.
Awesome Background, I love the Lizzy Wizzy poster.
"There's massive untapped potential there" it has massive untapped potential everywhere.
It's a borinass game.
I wish there was pvp at the temples. Get the power, tp out, pvp player would spawn inplace of the npc. Obv able to turn it off.
Several devs said with friends a lot
I just wish we could get 4 player coop on any of there main titles I know there are mods but still
My biggest problem with Fallout 76 is the fact that he is an online game with all that intel, laggy combat, laggy movement, random disconnect, but that 80% of its content cannot be done on co-op, and the 20% (one questline) of the content that has "co-op support" has that "hacked in, fells like a coop mod to a single player game" feeling to it, constant desynch on quest objectives and markers
I honestly can't believe they made an online Fallout game and you can't do quests together, that's the one thing you needed to do
i play bethesda games for the last 15 years
and i have never used creation on my life, every single mod guide, list or good practices, are very clear to not use or disable all creation club content (mostly because of the poor support or quality/lack of script extender)
adding the next gen fallout 4 fiasco and Skyrim version limbo, bethesda now has a very minimal support or "stay on the fence" stance on mods on my opinion
I thought the game was intended to be like 76 myself at launch it was just lacking so much, and it just seemed like destiny without the co-op driven activities. The online hooks are still deep too now. Going off-line randomly will sometimes take me out of game and desktop to my Xbox login screen. Bethesda is my favorite studio, but they jumped on the "everyone else is doing it" bandwagon and took ES, FO and now Starfield with them. I don't play any games as a service titles and never will. I don't want to give up "new" games and gaming tech, but I will.
Buddy joins and it goes from couple hr game to 30 min game. I kid I kid load screen will make it hr in them alone
Maybe a discussion, but the way the game is made not possible for more then one player
Bethesda are such a pathetic studio now
All they make is Corporate Games now, Starfield is painfully mediocre
Space ships pvp would be good
Singleplayer/co-op would of been better.
If Starfield had released as a multiplayer game, I wouldn't have purchased it. I have no interest in that. Moreover, I'd be seriously disappointed that my favorite game studio had abandoned the type of game that has made me a loyal fan since Arena.
Now you have me worrying that TES6 will be multiplayer. Because if it is, then it might as well not exist for me.
Starfield was an MMO is an Interesting idea. But the "evidence" is so weak I don't think it has any credability. The similarities between Fallout 76 and Starfield seem just a consequence of being very related engines. Unlike Elder Scrolls & Fallout, the world lore for Starfield is very generic and very weak (the exception being the House Va’ruun). Personally I prefer sci-fi to fantasy. But elder scrolls is a world i love spending time in. Same with the older Fallout games. Both these franchises have such rich lore. The Starfield world is so shallow and just did not grab me in any way, I have no desire to go back, or to spend more time in that world. I just don't think BGS are good at sci-fi writing or stories. Even the art design is super generic and only a tiny variation on what we have seen in other games & movies many times. To make a good Starfield MMO they would need to do a massive amount of work to improve the world lore, writing & art design. As far as co-op goes I always play Skyrim wishing it had co-op. I never felt that with Starfield, I never thought about co-op once. With Starfield I wanted an anymous co-operative planet colonization system. So a bit like roads & zip lines in death stranding. You would land on a planet and colonization would take a crazy amount of resources. So by having hundreds of players share that planet you would all put in resources and finally the settlement infrastructure would be created. It would give you a sense of accomplishment & it would fit in with the world lore (that the human race is spreading culture across the universe). At the moment you build these little bases that no one wants, you mine materials that no one wants, you manufacture stuff that no one wants and you have to actually pay people to sit in the bases you make.
I would love starfield to be online I’ve got 250 hours in it now and have finished it twice it’s great but I don’t feel the need to grind for better gear, where in fallout 76 I’ve got over 7000 hours in that and I’m still going I enjoy grinding for better stuff . If starfield was online I’d still be in there trying to get op and seeing everyone’s ships and gear it would be fantastic. But I understand that it’s not for everyone. Thanks for your insight ❤
20 minutes and 26 seconds of "Gee if only No Mans Sky existed" Starfield aint nothing more than a pale imitation of a good game.
NMS took years to get good, Starfield needs more time.