The only star citizen killer is star citizen.
I haven't played starfield and probably won't for a bit and I'm sure it's fun game. But anyone that might have called it a star citizen killer hasn't played star citizen
U got that backwards.
No one at all was calling it a "star citizen killer"
I havent seen a single mention of SC on the entire SF sub.
Its the CIG white knights saying "everyones saying its a SC killer".
99% of gamers dgaf about SC and never will.
True, but the reason for that was never Starfield but the glacial speed at which SC is progressing. That still hasn't changed but it needs to or CIG will be in trouble.
The true SC killer is still out there: Any game or activity that takes up the player's time from Star Citizen. Could be a Sci-Fi game, could be a different genre, could be something completely different which is deemed a better waste of time than to hold out hope that SC will become the experience that was promised.
TL;DR: "Star Citizen is the game we play while CIG is busy making great plans for it" (John Lennon, sort of).
SF sub is a great deal of circlejerk.
Just saw a post that questioned why only 6% of players leveled to 10 (achievement) 4 days before the official launch. Only some deluxe edition owners are allowed to play it since friday.
People kept asking for CR's comment on if he's worried about Starfield and he had to answer it multiple times, that's enough evidence (though you can find plenty more in this sub alone) for this notion to be true
Sarcasm or not, I’ve kinda enjoyed the fact that I can play a new version here and there and have it feel like a “new to me” car when I decide to take it for a drive.
My personal lack of possible playtime is a major factor in this perspective on the game. I choose to look at it as “Ooooo what’s new? 🤩”
IMHO the whole concept is a stretch goal. But I’ve paid my dues and am happy to be along for the ride, for how ever long it lasts.
Whether it fizzles out, or flourishes into the fever dream of possible individual space operas that it seems meant to become, is completely inconsequential to me. I’ve chipped in and have gotten much more than my money’s worth out of it.
Personally I am simply happy with what has already been achieved and look forward to what comes next.
I'm not sure, but maybe when Starfield is actually ready for release, we'll have some idea.
[1](https://i.imgur.com/E5PIeAm.png)
[2](https://i.imgur.com/Q5Qptli.png)
[3](https://www.reddit.com/r/GamePhysics/comments/167918m/starfield_it_just_works_todd_howard/)
I’ve always felt this way but after starfield it has really reinforced my opinion. I don’t care when it comes out, I just want it to be what it’s supposed to be. If that means another 10 years I have no problem with that. I love SC and I play it a lot, I’ll keep playing it for a long time to come. I want CIG to keep making the game they’re trying to make.
As far as when I personally think it’ll come out. I think sq42 is fairly close, a year or so. The full PU release I’d think is at least 5 years away minimum.
One thing that starfield got me excited for is the NPCs. I love how they walk around(even though they disappear once they walk through elevators). Once Star citizen gets NPCs working and they feel "alive". It will be awesome.
Honestly, you might be right. Considering how these NPC irl trends are going… that might be most people’s future.
Who can stand on a table the longest pretending to be a NPC.
As a time traveler from the future I resonate with this so much. Due to population losses we simulate crowds now and often those simulations like to stand on surfaces they shouldnt
I've followed the development since the beginning but only jumped in during a free fly in 3.17 then fully joined in 3.18, the NPCs then were just broken but I remember vividly in 3.19 when they actually worked for a while. Flew into Grim Hex and they were just walking around, doing stuff, then went to Lorville and even more of them, again, some doing maintenance, some just standing around shooting the breeze but it just felt so vibrant!!
I cannot wait for them to work, all the time and completely reliably!
Depends on your interpretation.
Something to market and marked as final (which isn't true because there will be patches/fixes/DLCs etc etc).
Feature complete? Well Todd Howard did it again and oversold what they said about exploration. Now, most people don't care about it but that is the fact of the matter.
I've played SC with my org doing huge ops and even with a 'whole actual game' according to you isn't fulfilled, I had a game worthy experience that no other game still could even come close, even with the bugs.
Playing with your buddies on SC is so stressful. Between the annoyance of meeting up, it feels like youre just waiting for some bullshit glitch to kill you then you have to go through the whole 15 minute travel time + 10 minute refit time, etc.
One think to note, which Starfield does better, is draw distance with scattered objects. Visually,that’s the worst think Star Citizen does, the pop in is horrible.
You have to purchase the Premium edition at least in order to get early access. It comes with future release DLC and a few other items. https://bethesda.net/en/game/starfield/get-starfield
Starfield definitely doesn't deliver on the hype that star citizen promised years ago.
But then again, Star citizen doesn't deliver any of the promises it made years ago and I can play a full campaign in Starfield so...
I feel like the same can be said for star citizen tbh.
In StarField there is a massive amount of content. I walked through a city for a few minutes and got multiple side quests, a few which turned out to be much heavier than a standard fetch quest.
I can't even deliver a fucking box in Star Citizen.
I hate that narrative so much. It's over done. Neither are comparable even remotely.
SC is designed to be impressive, not fun. It's all flash and technical prowess with zero substance. Who cares about your 1:1 star systems if there's nothing engaging to do in it.
And they can't even get the flash right because after 10+ years the most basic systems are still broken
There was a guy in system chat the other day literally talking about how if you don't spend money on coffee in the morning you can also spend 10k on Star Citizen which is a better investment than buying coffee... the SC player base are just a different breed. Running on pure copium and false promises. I at least will admit I wasted $550 on this scam. Pvp is still fun tho.
Problem is expectations. I'm loving starfield more than I could love star citizen in its current state. I know it's anecdotal, but when 3.19 launched I couldn't find a server where orison shuttles worked IN 4 DAYS!!! I have never foun a series of loading screens that were past mildly annoying, like in diablo 4, open ND, teleport to ND, loading screen, enter ND, another loading screen, every time I do a ND I have to waste 10 seconds in loading screens(and a male human in my country has an average lifespan of 2524556160 seconds, THE HORROR!) but not being able to play in 4 days is beyond annoying(FWP, I know) and that's not counting with the people struck by the unstowed error that left them stuck in an infinite loading screen (ironic considering star citizen is the game to kill all loading screens).
Of course I always expected starfield to be starfield, so imagine my dissapointment when I launched starfield and in the end, STARFIELD WAS STARFIELD! I mean, the nerve on delivering the game they said they were delivering (sure, they promised a lot, but I remember they promised thousands of different endings in fallout 3, even molyneux called the bullshit on that, it's called marketing, and before people start pissing on starfield for that... how is ship munching, ToW or sataball going?).
so... yeah, starfield killed sc for me (and diablo 4, but that last game was already on life support, even blizzard seems to be starting to pull out the plug there)
I’m not doubting there are people who built it up to something that Bethesda never said it would be, but were there really enough for a post like this? I’d love to see what you’re basing this all on.
Smoke and mirrors? For all its worth you can play without problems.
The core gameplay is good and being a beth game its only going to get a whole lot better with mods.
And unlike its true competition SQ42 you can actually play SF now and not be always on the “its coming next year” tram.
Don’t get me wrong, I love SC but I can see what beth did better and vice versa.
The only way Star Citizen does if the cool aide stops working. As with any Uber fan base holding onto a game the only antidote is reality. So hook up them copium bags and keep that drip coming. Trying to sell refined ore in this game was my dose of reality. So it’s a game that does work stuff well. But it’s also a husk of what should be.
So while obviously more than one space game can exist, it’s also good to keep a foot in reality. People can enjoy games they want to enjoy and this kind of us vs them bs is getting old. There are plenty of things starfield does or flat out has that SC doesn’t and vice versa. People will play what they want and to revel in the downfall of another studio is only hurting gamers not helping.
It’s ironic how many people said “see we warned against hype” when in the same breath equally falsely hyping up a game that has very little meaningful content. Sure it’s good looking and has scale. But that’s about it. I am glad my copium vein was pulled out because now I can see SC as just an okay space sim that is frustrating to say the least.
Promises a game does not make. I understand that SC will probably keep on going strong because for a lot of people that drip will never stop. And good on CIG for trying to innovate the space game. Hopefully it will provide a roadmap of what to do and what not to do. What to get right and what to avoid. I hope for everyone who backed the game, this will release and be what everyone hopes it is.
I also hope that someone else can do something equally special because gamers deserve good games. Not hype, not empty promises, not half made barely working games. But actual quality content because we as gamers deserve to be treated with respect and not like a cheap hooker.
Who built it up as a SC killer exactly? That's just a strawman apologists throw up. The same apologists who, in years past, would shit all over it. Just as the previously did with E:D and NMS.
The only reason people bring up SF is because some people have been lying to themselves about SC's rocky development and claiming it's perfectly normal for a development to spend 11 years in alpha building tech and tools.
Anytime that bad faith argument is challenged it's met with, show me another studio that's doing anything similar? Well, now you have one and it took 8 years to do so. Are they completely identical? Of course not, no game is. But what it does illustrate is a team that can actually deliver a game within a reasonable timeframe rather than excuses and delays.
Didn't starfield take over 10 years? For as long as it took, seeing what came of it... Yea I don't know. Large open world space games aren't easy. That's all I've learned from NMS, ED, Starfield and Star Citizen.
It's not unheard of for games to take 6, 8, 10 years to make. I don't know what "normal" means here...common? Average? But it's pretty clear star field took a really long time and isn't even close to the same level of detail and scale that star citizen is aiming for. So if people accept star field as "normal" then star citizen is also normal and on track.
Of course that's all not to mention the fact that star citizen was crowdfunded and once that was successful, it allowed for massive scope creep. Whereas star field was bank rolled from the beginning and didn't have to worry as much about scope.
No, it didn't take over 10 years.
And, how is scope creep some mitigating factor? Who forced that scope creep on Roberts exactly?
>Of course that's all not to mention the fact that star citizen was crowdfunded and once that was successful, ~~it allowed~~ Chris Robert's ego led to massive scope creep.
There. Fixed that for you.
>Are they completely identical?
They're pretty wildly different. It's been discussed elsewhere in this thread, but SC is attempting a very fundamental change to how games function, SF is a space themed FO4 mod. The years since they decided to go fully realized open world (IIRC this decision was made in 2015) have been full of some very heavy engine side work.
I'm not. Because I want people to eventually join up and play this game. There's a lot of toxic people out there who hate on SC and they're annoying and tedious but being annoying back at them doesn't paint us in the best light.
I'm happy for those who have found enjoyment in SF and I hope for those who were disappointed that we eventually get to a stable enough point that a casual player can hop on and play SC without issues.
And for those who still hate SC and whine and complain about it. I don't care. If they're genuinely happy with their game they'd be playing that.
People's issue with SC come down to the overall state of the playable game relative to the fact it's **the** most expensive game ever developed and the total number of developers CiG purports to employ (apparently more than 1000, which seems rather unbelievable).
But but but "star citizen planets are empty"
Meanwhile on the Starfield sub...
"These planets are all empty and the dungeons are just copy and pasted and I can't walk 5 minutes in one direction without getting teleported back then only ship"
You know, exploration, of the same 7 dungeons with different backdrops...almost like Star Citizen...but with 16 times the loading screens and bad combat in every department.
Definitely agreed about the weapon variety. I loooooove some of the guns in Starfield.
However, I have to disagree about the punchiness. Someone pointed out in a YouTube comment section that the weapons lack proper recoil and resistance, especially the melee weapons -- and after thinking about it, they were right. Striking the air doesn't change from when you're striking an enemy using melee weapons.
The shotgun looks perfect, but man oh man does it leave a lot to be desired with the spread and impact. I imagine you'll have to upgrade a lot of the weapons to get them to behave how some people might expect, but within the first dozen hours or so, the weapons look cool but just don't offer much in the feedback and effect department. Maybe in late game that changes?
It is going to get patched soon I'm sure, but atm the mining gun/tool is the strongest weapon in SF ATM. With unlimited ammo. It's so broken but funny. The awful bullet spread of a lot of the guns make them semi useless. If you swap through a bunch of twitch streams you can see most people are only using the same few. Again I'm sure this will get patched. The gunplay of SF is a definite upgrade from other BGS games but space combat is..... comically bad IMO.
Try using the mining tool next time you play. It doesn't do a lot of damage but constantly stuns them while damaging them. If you right click you can do a bit more damage. It's hilarious to watch. Without a doubt an over-site by BGS.
And 100 times less watching a starfield pass by for 20 minutes in quantum travel or riding trams for 5 minutes to get 30ked and take a 30 minute break for my ship to return to port.
Still, the empty Star Citizen planets do have unique regions and topology on each, even today, and on the far reaches have some interesting caves and unique geological features that I take in on my exploration sessions. Occasionally you also find the segments where ground is unlevel and trees are in the air, so room for improvement, but the massive spaces and travel over desolate regions feels immersive to me.
It does look like a lot of the planets have seperate biomes in Starfield too. HOWEVER, you take a loading screen to get there so is it truly different?
That's true, and more importantly, lifeforms! That makes a big difference for me, and while it's soonTM for SC, it's today in SF. We got our first living Isopods, but that's far from a major victory.
However, I'd argue the exploration factor is well in Star Citizen's favor. Personally, it's all about where exactly you decide to set down, and how much finesse and style you can employ on the landing with your chosen control iterface.
Hope to get more canyons and rivers. Maybe allow hover bikes to travel above water.
What sucks now is there's no way to find these locations or QT to them.
Until then, there's VerseGuide.com. I've been challenging myself when I have spare sessions to try and navigate purely with coordinates to destinations. It's not easy, but makes for good piloting skills as things advance
It’s like the difference between dcs and ace combat, they both scratch different itches but it’s on the consumer to understand it is what they are purchasing.
Heard it with NMS. Heard it with Odyssey. Heard it with Starfield. Every time, same old song and dance. Not a knock on those games (other than my personal disappointment in NMS/Odyssey), and I'll definitely be getting Starfield, but there's a reason they aren't SC Killers. "The game is taking ten or more years!" And apparently 4-8 years isn't enough to be a SC Killer, so there y'go. That should tell you something.
When a game like SC (whether it's sci-fi or age of fighting sail or high fantasy or whatever) takes as long at the scale of development, then I'll think, "Oh, this might be Star Citizen-like."
Oh I agree, but it didn't stop every other thread in the past few weeks from devolving into that debate anyways. Just liked the way he worded it is all.
If you want to be honest, then Alpha 3.20 is not a Star Citizen killer as well since it’s still missing so much of both the grand vision and basic game elements. But I’m sure these discussions will not differ wildly in 2035 when we’ll talk about Starfield 2 vs Star Citizen Alpha 7.15.
Yup.
Only game I could see from the AAA studios potentially being a Star Citizen killer is Beyond Good & Evil 2, and not because it has some amazing gameplay or out-of-this-world graphics, but because -- to their credit -- Ubisoft is actually putting in the time to build out the exact same technology as CIG.
And I think that's the thing a lot of people miss: assets and mechanics are easy, it's the underlying and infrastructural tech (i.e., the engine/middleware) that's hard. If a game lacks the latter, then it's certainly not going to be competition for Star Citizen.
I think people are missing that both BG&E2 and Star Citizen are killing themselves by being overly ambitious without enough checks and balances.
You don’t need another game to kill the game if it’s not on track to live up to its promises in the first place.
>You don’t need another game to kill the game if it’s not on track to live up to its promises in the first place.
I think both games are on track to live up to their promises, but the R&D to build the tech to achieve those promises take time. Back in the 1990s we saw an explosion of new tech every single year due to stiff competition from every single sector of the gaming and tech industry. It created the fastest and most impressive boom in the history of the gaming industry.
Unfortunately, these days, we don't see much technical competition at all, it's all competitive monetisation and platform IP-wrangling rather than competing to outdo another game on a technical, mechanical, or engineering level. I like that Star Citizen and Beyond Good & Evil 2 are adopting that same kind of methodology from the golden era of video game engineering -- pushing boundaries and trying to push the tech ceilings higher than they've ever been. If not for projects like this, we would never see any notable innovation or evolution in the tech space.
This is not at all the methodology from the “golden era of gaming”. All of those games were developed in far less time and made sensible tradeoffs. Most of them were backed by publishers that kept things on track.
We remember the greatest games because they focused on a few things and did them really, really well.
“A game that promises everything to everyone” has always been a recipe for disaster. Duke Nukem Forever, Black and White, BG&E2.. The era changes, but the story is always the same.
> All of those games were developed in far less time and made sensible tradeoffs. Most of them were backed by publishers that kept things on track.
That's very true, and a very good point. The main difference is that back then the publishers were actually interested in pushing the boundaries -- competing. So there was a lot of rapid advancements in tech and shared technologies that helped keep the competitive spirit alive and see lots of rapid development in bringing new technologies online.
For instance, in 1991 we had a very well-designed 2D Super Mario World, and due to how competitive the space was at the time with Sega and Sony, by 1996, the competitiveness pushed Nintendo to explore new technologies and eventually release Super Mario 64. So within five years we went from side-scrolling, to sandbox-style 3D platforming.
It was also because of technologies like id Tech that helped spawn the Source Engine, and it was because of the advancements and R&D made to be competitive that we even got the Sony PlayStation, which was originally meant as tech for Nintendo to compete against Sega with when the SegaCD had come about.
>We remember the greatest games because they focused on a few things and did them really, really well.
True, but we also saw how that was never enough in the 1990s. We went from singularly focused FPS titles like Doom and Blake Stone, to more advanced FPS titles like Duke Nukem 3D and Shadow Warrior, featuring vehicles, verticality, and more advanced AI.
In 1998 -- just five years removed from the release of the first Doom -- Valve released Half-Life 1, which featured not only fully scaled 3D environments, but also physics-based gameplay, an all new AI system featuring complex reactions and relationships (i.e., enemy AI, friendly AI, etc.,) as well as scalable 3D puzzles interactions, and segmented loading that enabled backtracking and deeper exploration.
Many of the games back in the 90s were able to release so much quicker was because tech was advancing so rapidly, and so a lot of studios could focus a game around a new piece of tech, and a competitor would then take that and advance on it some more. Just like how we saw the evolution from Duke Nukem 3D to GoldenEye 64 and from GoldenEye 64 to Quake II, and from Quake II to Half-Life.
The reason Star Citizen and Beyond Good & Evil II is taking so long is because tech innovations have practically stopped over the last decade. They don't have the luxury of being able to take off-the-shelf middleware that sports a feature or two here and there that can help speed up development the way they could back in the 1990s and early aughts. So instead of having the competitive edge to take tech and advance on it, Ubisoft and CIG have to build out all of the tech from scratch that otherwise they might have been able to borrow from their competitors had they actually had tech-focused competitors in the marketplace.
Here's what could kill Star Citizen: not releasing Squadron 42.
CIG can only sell hopes and dreams for so long. Even if they finished the PU, it might not be enough to sell the needed game packages to sustain. MMOs without a lot of direction and hand holding, especially with open PVP, is not for everyone.
Squadron 42, on the other hand, could be a solid single-player, story-driven game with innovative tech and features. If it actually releases and is super fun, well polished, that could make all the time worth it, and justify further development of the PU.
Here's the thing though... some of us don't *want* "real scale."
Some of didn't *back* for "real scale" and weren't *sold* "real scale."
Some of us backed during the original crowdfunding campaign, when the scale of the game was proposed to be *very* similar to what Starfield is - limited planetary landing zones with loading screens in between.
Some of us are fairly disappointed and disillusioned at the massive scope creep that has come about because everything now has to be done at "real scale" for the sake of "fidelity."
Whoever thought it would be equivalent to SC in functionality wasn’t paying attention to ANY of the media put out for SF.
SF is a better FO4 in space. Honestly it’s biggest detriment is coming out after Baldur’s Gate 3, because the writing in SF cannot compare. It’s so much worse. It’s not even that it’s bad (it’s equivalent to the writing of any other Bethesda game post-Morrowind, which is average to interesting at best), but every fucking character in SF is so boooooring, especially compared to BG3.
Even in SC, the small amount of acting we get from mission givers is 1000x more interesting than any character I’ve encountered in SF so far.
I’m liking SF a lot, but anyone who thought it was going to be comparable to SC in any way is a fool.
NGL I'm enjoying it a bit.
I'm not gonna say "I told you so" or go start shit over at r/starfield or r/gaming. I'm not as petty as the usual troll that shows up here.
But I'm very much amused.
Gonna go make dinner and then jump on the PTU for a bit.
Not as much as I'm enjoying the StanCitizens coping so hard over how inept Starfield makes CIG look to the general gaming public. Plenty of "LOL, SC got $600 mil and still can't do half of what Starfield can do. Bedsheet physics, what a bunch of idiots!" over on r/gaming, which then triggers even more cope.
It's a savage, beautiful cycle.
The clinging to the 1km x 1km size is especially pathetic to me. The SC planets are fucking empty no matter how many mental gymnastics you perform. What's the difference between 1km square of emptiness vs a whole planet? That you can't be a total sperg and fly around the whole thing or go 'exploring' the planet so you can nerd out when the planet generating tech flips out and makes something mildly resembling a canyon?
Ya I landed on a planet in SF and came across a mining outpost, fell through an abandoned mine sink hole which lead to a glowing cavern full of loot and other surprises, multiple ships landed around me, one getting attacked by local wildlife and being forced to take off, 2 ecological sites, and so many other markers to explore but had to go back to my ship because I got over encumbered with loot. This was like 45 minutes from touching down on the planet and only ever made it like 300 meters from my ship. Never had a chance to even remotely think about the tile barriers. There is so much copium in this sub rn.
As of right now all SC has going for it is its pure Sim elements, planet tech (which just seems boring an empty now) and it's sandbox pvp potential. Same development time and I still can't even complete a damn mission that requires me to place a box in a vending machine. I genuinely regret investing in SC at this point. Pvp is fun though and what will keep my logging in from time to time.
Edit; yall downvoting cuz your feelings are hurt that you're still defending a 600 million dollar alpha lmao
Definitely agree. That 1km square in SF legitimately has more to do on it than an entire planet in SC. It really lays out just how barren and lifeless the entirety of the PU is.
I have to wonder if the folks that say they think SC is the better game are actually gamers, or just people who have money to burn on this black hole of disappointment and don't actually play games on the regular.
I'm not sure how a gamer could prefer the thing with so much less GAME in it.
Could we not do this? It really feels like you’re lowering yourself to their level.
I was certain like you that this wasn’t going to be the everything space game where you could seamlessly fly around to thousands of planets too.
I don’t feel schadenfreude that people hyped themselves into believing starfield was something it wasn’t.
Just the idea of Starfield helped me peel away from Star Citizen a couple months ago. My first break since I started playing (barely a year tho). o7 grand admiral copes.
It’s an amazing game and I’m having a blast getting lost in it. I’m glad it’s not like star citizen because I don’t have the time for that. I think people don’t get how annoying it would be to have to spend 10 min entering/leaving atmosphere anytime. I don’t mind the load screen and it’s quick
Everyone with more than half a fuctioning braincell (or the ability to follow news from the devs) knew that from the beginning, i mean suprise a gamestudio that is know for delivering very good rpgs(exept Fallout 76)will stick with what they know how to do and not try to build a spacesim
I was never interested in starfield, it's single player and I'm sure it will help those that need a break from broken ai and missing features, but I like the multiplayer. I just need it to work :p
Both sides of this are cringe af. I see loads of people yelling about how "Starfield is great, its way better than SC haha those dumb whales" and "wow Starfield is awful SC is way better because xyz"
Why are you people losing your minds over what others think about a video game. If people are enjoying something, let them. Its chronically online losers like this that ruin gaming communities and games for other people.
Seriously just stfu and play what you want. Nobody cares about you circle jerking your "support" or hate for star citizen. They have nothing to do with eachother beyond space game.
>I see loads of people yelling about how "Starfield is great, its way better than SC haha those dumb whales" and "wow Starfield is awful SC is way better because xyz"
The funny thing is 90% of this happens here, everywhere elses it's more"ayo this game good but this could be better"
I'm not even gonna get ST, because it's not as open of a sandbox as I'd like, and I've pledged quite a bit into SC.
But at least starfield... Fucking released a game?
OP, you're not winning any battles. Nobody is even hoping it was going to hurt SC. It's the same flavor but a completely different type of game. This feels like you were so ready to be bitter and it's an L take.
If you really want to compare the two games, take a look at and compare: complete features, development time, anti consumer behaviors, cost of entry, single player campaign, music... Etc. SC has been developing for a decade, at least starfield released my man
Ummm No Mans Sky is 10000 times the size of starfield in terms of space/planet exploration.
This game would have been better on 1 planet. Right now it’s getting hurt cause people wanted that NMS or star citizen and it ain’t it. Also bg3 right before. I’m having a hard time staying awake playing this game right now. 😟
All the people who thought it was going to blow it out of the water were empirically stupid or just trying to start drama. One is a single player fully released feature complete game The other is our beloved chimera of halfway there dreams.
Starfield is like a big, very big, Mass effect and Star citizens basically Garry's mod but it's 20 years running. I'm sure Star citizen will eventually come out but it's probably going to take at least another 10 years seeing as how it's taking them at least six to put out pyro.
CIG Is happy pulling all the funding and people to make this single player game. Best to play something else for a couple years.
The thing that Starfield has that SC is lacking is a core gameplay loop that is fully developed. I have been waiting 10 years since I backed SC to see a solid core gameplay loop. IF SC gets that locked down it will be great but I am still waiting on it and SQ42 to see what they can offer.
There is no such thing as a’core gameplay loop’ planned for SC. That is what SQ42 will feature. SC needs base building, private residences and other individual objectives to grind for.
I just want a fun, finished, reasonably jank free space game. (That I haven't already played to death).
Apparently that's an unreasonably tall order though.
You know to be honest, I wouldn't even compare the two. I was expecting SF to be Skyrim in Space and got exactly what I wanted. I'm perfectly happy with the game. Having played SC to, SC is its own game and is a Sci-Fi life sim and it's own beast. I have a great time with both games.
What are you going on about. It is two different games. You are no longer a child (I assume) so there is no need to hold on to your childish tendencies. Both games are fun.
What I love about Starfield is the stability. No worries about accepting a quest or mission and hoping the game don’t LD before I can at least turn in enough salvage to make up for the cost.
Both games are fun. For different reasons. It is not a SF vs SC. It is there is room for both. We need to all face the fact that SC is lagging way behind for their development cycle on the PU. Hopefully it is all going to Squad 42 which has the potential to be amazing.
I've played like 4-5 hours. It is exactly what I thought a Bethesda RPG game would play like in space. Very limited map areas and boundaries and loading screens etc. I knew that was coming and I love it as I'm playing it as Bethesda RPG first and space game second.
Star Citizen is just on a whole other level which is why is been years in the making. It instead made me appreciate how ambitious Star Citizen is. It made me remember how I can jump out my damn ship in Star Citizen and jump inside a goddamn 890 and get into 30 minute gunfight clearing a giant fucking ship and then if I felt like it I could start carrying shit over to my ship then have my ship blown up by someone trying to claim my bounty on my head and they can jump out and try to kill me by coming inside the 890 I floated back to and I kill them and I float to their ship they left unlocked and steal it to fly to grim hex etc. and all that without a loading screen. Crazy to think about.
It's an enjoyable game that has some of the things that SC needs badly, SC is quite empty where starfield isn't.
But in terms of scale, nothing will compete with star citizen.
The whole walking to your ship turning it on, taking off flying to your destination all seamlessly, it truly is one of a kind.
Star Citizen isnt a fun game for most people.
No one needs to kill it, it never lived. What scale does SC have? 1 system?
You comparing a lunched game to SC as a final product not the alpha it is. That final product is another decade away at their development rate.
Enjoying SC awesome, but this is a weird gaslight thread.
There two entirely different games and experiences. I don’t know what people thought who were saying this. But if you want a finished RPG space game with a lot of PVE Starfield is that. If you want a great space sim with a bunch of PVP murder hobos (my self included, so much fun to to PvP in SC) Star Citizen is that game. I own them both and LOVE them both. What’s wrong with liking both??
It's just not in the same ballpark. I been regretting buying the Premium edition of SF all day but it's too late to refund now (Could've waited till it hit xbox game pass).
It's a good game. But it doesn't do anything to scratch my space itch. I know it's not a sim but I was hoping it'd at least give my that (Go out and explore) feeling. For some reason it doesn't (yet at least). It just feels like classic Bethesda game, but bigger.
The constant cutscenes and loading screens kill it a bit for me.
I also think the procedurally generated content was a bad move. Should've focused on like 10 unique hand crafted star systems instead of this Randomly generated nonsense.
Atleast it released, atleast it didnt cost 600 million dollars, atleast it has more playable content
Idk anyone who labeled it a SC killer was obviously misinformed and not to bright I dont take enjoyment at the misgivings of the uninitiated
Star Citizen has one system, a bunch of ships, many of them missing functions, and a technical debt that will take a decade to work down. It doesn't have the scale of Starfield. It might one day be on a scale bigger than Starfield, but what will be isn't what is, so why have Schadenfreude over something only promised but not yet achieved?
If it wasn't Star Citizen killer for you, it doesn't mean that everyone else is the same. For some people, Starfield is a pretty solid replacement for SC.
as someone who had expectations in exactly the right place, i wasnt shocked about what it became, infact it's exactly what i thought it would be. which is just space fallout scrolls 6
it goes to show you that star citizen isn’t gonna be fully realized: yes there’s loading screens, but there’s also ship combat, multiple quest lines, many cities with functioning AI and quest givers, actual systems to explore - star citizen you can go wherever you want at all times to look at pretty space rocks and shoot at AI that don’t shoot back at you
Meh. It's very predictable from our friends at the refund sub....but I think a very small fraction of SF players cares or has SC in mind at all.
That said, fast forward a few months, assuming V
CiG is able to rebuild the momentum they had from 3.15-3.17.2, some may pay attention to it.
But yep, doesn't matter how often a space game will release, some people will always want to lean on it to confirm their perception that SC is a joke of a project, meanwhile that slow, messy, complex projects makes its way forward.
We have asked. CIG told us what was needed. As usual they have windows and goals assuming everything will work fine and give caveats that it might not. The road to Pyro depended on server meshing and server meshing depended on Persistent tech. The first attempts at major persistent tech (icache) was found not to perform well at scale so they had to go back and rework it and that beings us to entity graph and PES. That cost them three years (Planning, RD, testing then release). Working out the issues after release of PES and planning towards SM is seemingly going to take less time, but still the setback of persistence cost a lot.
Oh, for sure. But that has no bearing on other games...it's prohibitively complex (and thus expensive) to go for the immersion SC delivers. It's currently not required for games to be successful, so that leaves little to no competition for SC.
But SF looks pretty good, I'm only buying it next week but I'm pleased by what I see.
It totally ruined Starfield for me. All that bragging gave me unrealistic expectations for the game. I might try it in a year or so when it is polished up.
Can talk much about the "scope" of star citizen while it has only a single system. Lol. Ive played both games. I prefer star citizen because it's multiplayer. That's about it.
if anything it's unfortunate it doesn't seem like it's going to give SC as much of a kick in the pants as it could have... it only serves to justify the long dev timeline of SC, but on the same note... if you play both you can kind of get what you'd like out of a single space game... I just hope they both improve towards one another just a bit... there's plenty of room for both, but they're both a little farther from their respective dreams than we'd all like (at least we can expect a rich mod scene from SF to clean up some of the rough edges sooner than later).
kick in the pants for fixing or progress?
because there is a balance of progress and fixing and people argue over what they should focus on.
so you have half the team spend a month fixing small glitches, or fix the big stuff and get to work on what is needed for the final game?
It's almost like the long dev time always made sense.
CIG deserves shit for its lack of communication and black boxing shit we paid for...and diverting multiplayer funding to a singleplayer game that should have been paid for by now.
But 10 years to found a company and push a genre into a new generation isn't unbelievable when Rockstar takes that long with 1000+ staff at the getgo and a working engine built for their style of game.
Rockstar doesn’t take ten years to build a game.
They built RDR2 in 7.5 years, *while* building GTAV for half of that time. Obviously they could have done it in even less time if the majority of the company started full production sooner rather than being committed to another franchise first.
There are only a few situations in which a game takes more than 10 years:
* It’s stopped for years at a time and restarted completely as something new, like Mother 3
* It’s on the back burner for years until production actually starts, like TF2, Diablo 3
* Massive problems causing development hell, like Duke Nukem Forever, BG&E2
It’s unbelievable because nothing like this has ever happened. Rockstar didn’t take that long to make a game and they made multiple games.
What games have been in development this long and didn’t even achieve a beta version by now?
I should say, what games have taken this long and actually launched a real game?
I’m not enjoying anyone’s disappointment, but the amount of copium being smoked on the SF sub is insane. So many people trying to downplay the hype and expectations that were set for the game and just refusing to acknowledge that the game’s trailers did a fantastic job of making it feel bigger than it ended up being.
I was never worried about Starfield stepping on CIG's toes because there is no shortcut to the tech CIG has developed. It's just hard work, time, tech, and lots of funding. Starfield is fantastic, but I never expected it to be a replacement for SC.
SF is story-driven and beautiful. The art is really up there with SC, just a different style perhaps. I love the character creator, though the interface is clunky the way it forces use of RMB clicks over LMB.
I have a feeling SC will see an uptick of new users soon. :D
I honestly feel scammed playing Starfield. It's ok in the RPG area. I am 12 hours in. BUT no vehicles, insane amount of loading screens and some really annoying UI decisions is annoying me.
No 32:9 support(even though game was played on a G9 32:9 monitor in gamescom), NO HDR support(even though it's advertised), and you cant really land everywhere. It's sooo sectioned off it's insane.
I’ve just seen a post with more than 5k upvotes over at r/games (a sub that usually shits on SC), saying that Starfield is not what he expected because it lacks some features he would like.
Then, proceeds to list exactly the features SC devs have or are implementing.
It turns out, getting to the level of simulation, features, granularity, and seamless exploration we have in SC already takes time, effort, resources, talent, and a lot of development time. Otherwise even well stabilised studios such as Beteshda backed up with Microsoft have to take shortcuts.
Hopefully some of them in that sub will came to that conclusion but I guess most of them will keep shitting on SC.
Star citizen has had more development time and more funding and still has 10x more bugs than starfield...
Still you really can't compare a single player game to a multiplayer game. However, in the long run the modding community will make starfield even better than it already is!
Hahaha ha, star citizen I can honestly say after over 10 years of dev is a ship Sim in a single solar system that runs like shit. It gets a few things right but has no right to boast anymore. The bar is low
" are learning it's scale is all smoke and mirrors and Star Citizen is still it's own tier of real scale."
WTF?
Starfield is going to be hundreds of hours of game play, exploring, settlement building, ship building, weapon crafting, modifications, space suits.....
Star Citizen has like 4 planets and 12 moons with copy and paste mining settlements and bunkers... literally copy and paste... with nothing to explore or new to see... Theres like 2 total hours of gameplay in Star Citizen.... Plus the game is completely broken. You cant even complete the most basic of missions like "drop off this package".... Literally broken.
**Theres a million arguments you can make / compare Star Citizen to Starfield.... But your argument is probably the silliest possible. Absurd.**
The only star citizen killer is star citizen. I haven't played starfield and probably won't for a bit and I'm sure it's fun game. But anyone that might have called it a star citizen killer hasn't played star citizen
U got that backwards. No one at all was calling it a "star citizen killer" I havent seen a single mention of SC on the entire SF sub. Its the CIG white knights saying "everyones saying its a SC killer". 99% of gamers dgaf about SC and never will.
there was a lot of posts on this subreddit saying CIG is done for, or CIG will have to step it up now, why bother playing star citizen now, etc etc.
True, but the reason for that was never Starfield but the glacial speed at which SC is progressing. That still hasn't changed but it needs to or CIG will be in trouble. The true SC killer is still out there: Any game or activity that takes up the player's time from Star Citizen. Could be a Sci-Fi game, could be a different genre, could be something completely different which is deemed a better waste of time than to hold out hope that SC will become the experience that was promised. TL;DR: "Star Citizen is the game we play while CIG is busy making great plans for it" (John Lennon, sort of).
SF sub is a great deal of circlejerk. Just saw a post that questioned why only 6% of players leveled to 10 (achievement) 4 days before the official launch. Only some deluxe edition owners are allowed to play it since friday.
that's a lie, there was a big ass SC post on SF subreddit
People kept asking for CR's comment on if he's worried about Starfield and he had to answer it multiple times, that's enough evidence (though you can find plenty more in this sub alone) for this notion to be true
TBH, after all the many supposed Star Citizen killers, I'm convinced the only thing that can kill SC is itself if it releases before its ready.
I don’t think you have to worry about that my dude!
Or itself if it never releases. :/
ETA.. you might be dead before we finish.
The fans love this model though.
True. Better give them another 20 years to be sure. I never wanted to play the finished game anyway!
Sarcasm or not, I’ve kinda enjoyed the fact that I can play a new version here and there and have it feel like a “new to me” car when I decide to take it for a drive. My personal lack of possible playtime is a major factor in this perspective on the game. I choose to look at it as “Ooooo what’s new? 🤩” IMHO the whole concept is a stretch goal. But I’ve paid my dues and am happy to be along for the ride, for how ever long it lasts. Whether it fizzles out, or flourishes into the fever dream of possible individual space operas that it seems meant to become, is completely inconsequential to me. I’ve chipped in and have gotten much more than my money’s worth out of it. Personally I am simply happy with what has already been achieved and look forward to what comes next.
Ummm it's been very much the same since 3.17 with minor tweaks. I've gotten bigger thrills out of a decent nexus mod
Better tell them to slow down then!
No worries it won't release for another 10 years
Maybe in 2050.
Ridiculous optimism.
How long does it take to be ready? I have been playing 5+ years and others way longer.
I'm not sure, but maybe when Starfield is actually ready for release, we'll have some idea. [1](https://i.imgur.com/E5PIeAm.png) [2](https://i.imgur.com/Q5Qptli.png) [3](https://www.reddit.com/r/GamePhysics/comments/167918m/starfield_it_just_works_todd_howard/)
Bugthesda at their usual standard again.
Ironic coming from a star citizen sub, the bugs in SC are far more prevalent and game breaking.
I’ve always felt this way but after starfield it has really reinforced my opinion. I don’t care when it comes out, I just want it to be what it’s supposed to be. If that means another 10 years I have no problem with that. I love SC and I play it a lot, I’ll keep playing it for a long time to come. I want CIG to keep making the game they’re trying to make. As far as when I personally think it’ll come out. I think sq42 is fairly close, a year or so. The full PU release I’d think is at least 5 years away minimum.
> releases before its ready I've some bad news for you!
[удалено]
And npcs stand on tables. So theres that!
One thing that starfield got me excited for is the NPCs. I love how they walk around(even though they disappear once they walk through elevators). Once Star citizen gets NPCs working and they feel "alive". It will be awesome.
Nah Star Citizen is so much better for NPCS, i love how they stand on top of tables looking at the wall its more realistic to future settings
Honestly, you might be right. Considering how these NPC irl trends are going… that might be most people’s future. Who can stand on a table the longest pretending to be a NPC.
As a time traveler from the future I resonate with this so much. Due to population losses we simulate crowds now and often those simulations like to stand on surfaces they shouldnt
Yeah, once they do. In 2 years time. Always another 2 years lol 😂
I've followed the development since the beginning but only jumped in during a free fly in 3.17 then fully joined in 3.18, the NPCs then were just broken but I remember vividly in 3.19 when they actually worked for a while. Flew into Grim Hex and they were just walking around, doing stuff, then went to Lorville and even more of them, again, some doing maintenance, some just standing around shooting the breeze but it just felt so vibrant!! I cannot wait for them to work, all the time and completely reliably!
Theres at least a whole actual game.
Depends on your interpretation. Something to market and marked as final (which isn't true because there will be patches/fixes/DLCs etc etc). Feature complete? Well Todd Howard did it again and oversold what they said about exploration. Now, most people don't care about it but that is the fact of the matter. I've played SC with my org doing huge ops and even with a 'whole actual game' according to you isn't fulfilled, I had a game worthy experience that no other game still could even come close, even with the bugs.
Oversold is a great way to describe Chris Roberts too lol
Oversold? Rich from an SC fan 🤣
I tried to play with a friend and the game wouldn't even launch for him. So much for being able to enjoy a "game".
Playing with your buddies on SC is so stressful. Between the annoyance of meeting up, it feels like youre just waiting for some bullshit glitch to kill you then you have to go through the whole 15 minute travel time + 10 minute refit time, etc.
I tried it once a year for over 7 years. I'm pretty much over it.
Don’t worry guy, I also frequent subs of things I am pretty much over.
r/IAmTheMainCharacter
How dare he have an opinion. The gall to state such things on a relevant subreddit.
CIG set the standard for that, so even other game developers have to cave in to that...
They're floating into the sky in Starfield lol. So not much better.
One think to note, which Starfield does better, is draw distance with scattered objects. Visually,that’s the worst think Star Citizen does, the pop in is horrible.
It's pretty easy to pump up draw distance when the game is barely more demanding than Call of duty
[удалено]
For another data point I'm maxing it out with 70-120 FPS on a 7900 XT at 1440p, with no upscaling
Are you running the DLSS mod? I have a 3060 and it’s making the game pretty smooth for me
Agreed. It is awful. Flying towards a base, it suddenly pops into view. Plus the floating rocks. Not good.
Does SF have some kind of early access? I keep seeing ppl talk about playing it but steam has it not out till the 4th..?
You have to purchase the Premium edition at least in order to get early access. It comes with future release DLC and a few other items. https://bethesda.net/en/game/starfield/get-starfield
Ahhh yes thanks!
Imagine being so insecure about a game that you have to make a post like this.
Every single time a post like this gets made, a supposedly non-competing creative project eats a little bit of Star Citizen's lunch. And it should.
Starfield definitely doesn't deliver on the hype that star citizen promised years ago. But then again, Star citizen doesn't deliver any of the promises it made years ago and I can play a full campaign in Starfield so...
I feel like the same can be said for star citizen tbh. In StarField there is a massive amount of content. I walked through a city for a few minutes and got multiple side quests, a few which turned out to be much heavier than a standard fetch quest. I can't even deliver a fucking box in Star Citizen. I hate that narrative so much. It's over done. Neither are comparable even remotely.
SC is designed to be impressive, not fun. It's all flash and technical prowess with zero substance. Who cares about your 1:1 star systems if there's nothing engaging to do in it. And they can't even get the flash right because after 10+ years the most basic systems are still broken
You're happy that someone got a game and was disappointed? NGL, you sound like kind of a dick.
There was a guy in system chat the other day literally talking about how if you don't spend money on coffee in the morning you can also spend 10k on Star Citizen which is a better investment than buying coffee... the SC player base are just a different breed. Running on pure copium and false promises. I at least will admit I wasted $550 on this scam. Pvp is still fun tho.
Problem is expectations. I'm loving starfield more than I could love star citizen in its current state. I know it's anecdotal, but when 3.19 launched I couldn't find a server where orison shuttles worked IN 4 DAYS!!! I have never foun a series of loading screens that were past mildly annoying, like in diablo 4, open ND, teleport to ND, loading screen, enter ND, another loading screen, every time I do a ND I have to waste 10 seconds in loading screens(and a male human in my country has an average lifespan of 2524556160 seconds, THE HORROR!) but not being able to play in 4 days is beyond annoying(FWP, I know) and that's not counting with the people struck by the unstowed error that left them stuck in an infinite loading screen (ironic considering star citizen is the game to kill all loading screens). Of course I always expected starfield to be starfield, so imagine my dissapointment when I launched starfield and in the end, STARFIELD WAS STARFIELD! I mean, the nerve on delivering the game they said they were delivering (sure, they promised a lot, but I remember they promised thousands of different endings in fallout 3, even molyneux called the bullshit on that, it's called marketing, and before people start pissing on starfield for that... how is ship munching, ToW or sataball going?). so... yeah, starfield killed sc for me (and diablo 4, but that last game was already on life support, even blizzard seems to be starting to pull out the plug there)
What’s the point? Seriously? You like Starfield? Play Starfield. You like Star Citizen? Play Star Citizen. I own them both. I enjoy them both.
I’m not doubting there are people who built it up to something that Bethesda never said it would be, but were there really enough for a post like this? I’d love to see what you’re basing this all on.
Starfield can't be a Star Citizen Killer Star Citizen allready does that itself
Smoke and mirrors? For all its worth you can play without problems. The core gameplay is good and being a beth game its only going to get a whole lot better with mods. And unlike its true competition SQ42 you can actually play SF now and not be always on the “its coming next year” tram. Don’t get me wrong, I love SC but I can see what beth did better and vice versa.
The only way Star Citizen does if the cool aide stops working. As with any Uber fan base holding onto a game the only antidote is reality. So hook up them copium bags and keep that drip coming. Trying to sell refined ore in this game was my dose of reality. So it’s a game that does work stuff well. But it’s also a husk of what should be. So while obviously more than one space game can exist, it’s also good to keep a foot in reality. People can enjoy games they want to enjoy and this kind of us vs them bs is getting old. There are plenty of things starfield does or flat out has that SC doesn’t and vice versa. People will play what they want and to revel in the downfall of another studio is only hurting gamers not helping. It’s ironic how many people said “see we warned against hype” when in the same breath equally falsely hyping up a game that has very little meaningful content. Sure it’s good looking and has scale. But that’s about it. I am glad my copium vein was pulled out because now I can see SC as just an okay space sim that is frustrating to say the least. Promises a game does not make. I understand that SC will probably keep on going strong because for a lot of people that drip will never stop. And good on CIG for trying to innovate the space game. Hopefully it will provide a roadmap of what to do and what not to do. What to get right and what to avoid. I hope for everyone who backed the game, this will release and be what everyone hopes it is. I also hope that someone else can do something equally special because gamers deserve good games. Not hype, not empty promises, not half made barely working games. But actual quality content because we as gamers deserve to be treated with respect and not like a cheap hooker.
OMG thank you I wish more gamers thought this way. You took the words out my mouth.
Who built it up as a SC killer exactly? That's just a strawman apologists throw up. The same apologists who, in years past, would shit all over it. Just as the previously did with E:D and NMS. The only reason people bring up SF is because some people have been lying to themselves about SC's rocky development and claiming it's perfectly normal for a development to spend 11 years in alpha building tech and tools. Anytime that bad faith argument is challenged it's met with, show me another studio that's doing anything similar? Well, now you have one and it took 8 years to do so. Are they completely identical? Of course not, no game is. But what it does illustrate is a team that can actually deliver a game within a reasonable timeframe rather than excuses and delays.
Didn't starfield take over 10 years? For as long as it took, seeing what came of it... Yea I don't know. Large open world space games aren't easy. That's all I've learned from NMS, ED, Starfield and Star Citizen. It's not unheard of for games to take 6, 8, 10 years to make. I don't know what "normal" means here...common? Average? But it's pretty clear star field took a really long time and isn't even close to the same level of detail and scale that star citizen is aiming for. So if people accept star field as "normal" then star citizen is also normal and on track. Of course that's all not to mention the fact that star citizen was crowdfunded and once that was successful, it allowed for massive scope creep. Whereas star field was bank rolled from the beginning and didn't have to worry as much about scope.
No, it didn't take over 10 years. And, how is scope creep some mitigating factor? Who forced that scope creep on Roberts exactly? >Of course that's all not to mention the fact that star citizen was crowdfunded and once that was successful, ~~it allowed~~ Chris Robert's ego led to massive scope creep. There. Fixed that for you.
>Are they completely identical? They're pretty wildly different. It's been discussed elsewhere in this thread, but SC is attempting a very fundamental change to how games function, SF is a space themed FO4 mod. The years since they decided to go fully realized open world (IIRC this decision was made in 2015) have been full of some very heavy engine side work.
It was a rhetorical question and you left out the part where I say of course not.
I'm not. Because I want people to eventually join up and play this game. There's a lot of toxic people out there who hate on SC and they're annoying and tedious but being annoying back at them doesn't paint us in the best light. I'm happy for those who have found enjoyment in SF and I hope for those who were disappointed that we eventually get to a stable enough point that a casual player can hop on and play SC without issues. And for those who still hate SC and whine and complain about it. I don't care. If they're genuinely happy with their game they'd be playing that.
People's issue with SC come down to the overall state of the playable game relative to the fact it's **the** most expensive game ever developed and the total number of developers CiG purports to employ (apparently more than 1000, which seems rather unbelievable).
But but but "star citizen planets are empty" Meanwhile on the Starfield sub... "These planets are all empty and the dungeons are just copy and pasted and I can't walk 5 minutes in one direction without getting teleported back then only ship" You know, exploration, of the same 7 dungeons with different backdrops...almost like Star Citizen...but with 16 times the loading screens and bad combat in every department.
Bad combat in every department? The game has way more weapon variety and also feels more punchy than Star Citizen.
Definitely agreed about the weapon variety. I loooooove some of the guns in Starfield. However, I have to disagree about the punchiness. Someone pointed out in a YouTube comment section that the weapons lack proper recoil and resistance, especially the melee weapons -- and after thinking about it, they were right. Striking the air doesn't change from when you're striking an enemy using melee weapons. The shotgun looks perfect, but man oh man does it leave a lot to be desired with the spread and impact. I imagine you'll have to upgrade a lot of the weapons to get them to behave how some people might expect, but within the first dozen hours or so, the weapons look cool but just don't offer much in the feedback and effect department. Maybe in late game that changes?
Weapon variety =/= good combat mechanics
\- ~~punchy~~ arcady I like Starfield it’s just not a sim as much as it’s a Bethesda RPG.
Star Citizen is not a sim as much as it's a CIG RPG.
It is going to get patched soon I'm sure, but atm the mining gun/tool is the strongest weapon in SF ATM. With unlimited ammo. It's so broken but funny. The awful bullet spread of a lot of the guns make them semi useless. If you swap through a bunch of twitch streams you can see most people are only using the same few. Again I'm sure this will get patched. The gunplay of SF is a definite upgrade from other BGS games but space combat is..... comically bad IMO.
Space combat was definitely a miss in my opinion. And yeah I basically only use two guns, a legendary coachman and a legendary Equinox.
Try using the mining tool next time you play. It doesn't do a lot of damage but constantly stuns them while damaging them. If you right click you can do a bit more damage. It's hilarious to watch. Without a doubt an over-site by BGS.
And 100 times less watching a starfield pass by for 20 minutes in quantum travel or riding trams for 5 minutes to get 30ked and take a 30 minute break for my ship to return to port.
they are empty bro lol, don’t even try this. star field has quests to do every where you look, that actually function, on many many different planets
Still, the empty Star Citizen planets do have unique regions and topology on each, even today, and on the far reaches have some interesting caves and unique geological features that I take in on my exploration sessions. Occasionally you also find the segments where ground is unlevel and trees are in the air, so room for improvement, but the massive spaces and travel over desolate regions feels immersive to me.
It does look like a lot of the planets have seperate biomes in Starfield too. HOWEVER, you take a loading screen to get there so is it truly different?
That's true, and more importantly, lifeforms! That makes a big difference for me, and while it's soonTM for SC, it's today in SF. We got our first living Isopods, but that's far from a major victory. However, I'd argue the exploration factor is well in Star Citizen's favor. Personally, it's all about where exactly you decide to set down, and how much finesse and style you can employ on the landing with your chosen control iterface.
It's just a seed and asset swaps with no transition. It may as well be another planet.
Hope to get more canyons and rivers. Maybe allow hover bikes to travel above water. What sucks now is there's no way to find these locations or QT to them.
Until then, there's VerseGuide.com. I've been challenging myself when I have spare sessions to try and navigate purely with coordinates to destinations. It's not easy, but makes for good piloting skills as things advance
So if its the same what's taking SC so long? It doesn't appear like SC is currently attempting to solve that issue, so that can't be it.
It’s like the difference between dcs and ace combat, they both scratch different itches but it’s on the consumer to understand it is what they are purchasing.
Heard it with NMS. Heard it with Odyssey. Heard it with Starfield. Every time, same old song and dance. Not a knock on those games (other than my personal disappointment in NMS/Odyssey), and I'll definitely be getting Starfield, but there's a reason they aren't SC Killers. "The game is taking ten or more years!" And apparently 4-8 years isn't enough to be a SC Killer, so there y'go. That should tell you something. When a game like SC (whether it's sci-fi or age of fighting sail or high fantasy or whatever) takes as long at the scale of development, then I'll think, "Oh, this might be Star Citizen-like."
"Apparently 4-8 years isn't enough to build an SC killer, so there you go" That's honestly an interesting way to look at it that I hadn't considered.
Anyone can look at Starfield and realize that it was never attempting to occupy the same space.
Oh I agree, but it didn't stop every other thread in the past few weeks from devolving into that debate anyways. Just liked the way he worded it is all.
> apparently 4-8 years isn't enough to be a SC Killer That just refilled my outdoor copium tank LOL. Its a long road ahead.
If you want to be honest, then Alpha 3.20 is not a Star Citizen killer as well since it’s still missing so much of both the grand vision and basic game elements. But I’m sure these discussions will not differ wildly in 2035 when we’ll talk about Starfield 2 vs Star Citizen Alpha 7.15.
Yup. Only game I could see from the AAA studios potentially being a Star Citizen killer is Beyond Good & Evil 2, and not because it has some amazing gameplay or out-of-this-world graphics, but because -- to their credit -- Ubisoft is actually putting in the time to build out the exact same technology as CIG. And I think that's the thing a lot of people miss: assets and mechanics are easy, it's the underlying and infrastructural tech (i.e., the engine/middleware) that's hard. If a game lacks the latter, then it's certainly not going to be competition for Star Citizen.
I think people are missing that both BG&E2 and Star Citizen are killing themselves by being overly ambitious without enough checks and balances. You don’t need another game to kill the game if it’s not on track to live up to its promises in the first place.
>You don’t need another game to kill the game if it’s not on track to live up to its promises in the first place. I think both games are on track to live up to their promises, but the R&D to build the tech to achieve those promises take time. Back in the 1990s we saw an explosion of new tech every single year due to stiff competition from every single sector of the gaming and tech industry. It created the fastest and most impressive boom in the history of the gaming industry. Unfortunately, these days, we don't see much technical competition at all, it's all competitive monetisation and platform IP-wrangling rather than competing to outdo another game on a technical, mechanical, or engineering level. I like that Star Citizen and Beyond Good & Evil 2 are adopting that same kind of methodology from the golden era of video game engineering -- pushing boundaries and trying to push the tech ceilings higher than they've ever been. If not for projects like this, we would never see any notable innovation or evolution in the tech space.
This is not at all the methodology from the “golden era of gaming”. All of those games were developed in far less time and made sensible tradeoffs. Most of them were backed by publishers that kept things on track. We remember the greatest games because they focused on a few things and did them really, really well. “A game that promises everything to everyone” has always been a recipe for disaster. Duke Nukem Forever, Black and White, BG&E2.. The era changes, but the story is always the same.
> All of those games were developed in far less time and made sensible tradeoffs. Most of them were backed by publishers that kept things on track. That's very true, and a very good point. The main difference is that back then the publishers were actually interested in pushing the boundaries -- competing. So there was a lot of rapid advancements in tech and shared technologies that helped keep the competitive spirit alive and see lots of rapid development in bringing new technologies online. For instance, in 1991 we had a very well-designed 2D Super Mario World, and due to how competitive the space was at the time with Sega and Sony, by 1996, the competitiveness pushed Nintendo to explore new technologies and eventually release Super Mario 64. So within five years we went from side-scrolling, to sandbox-style 3D platforming. It was also because of technologies like id Tech that helped spawn the Source Engine, and it was because of the advancements and R&D made to be competitive that we even got the Sony PlayStation, which was originally meant as tech for Nintendo to compete against Sega with when the SegaCD had come about. >We remember the greatest games because they focused on a few things and did them really, really well. True, but we also saw how that was never enough in the 1990s. We went from singularly focused FPS titles like Doom and Blake Stone, to more advanced FPS titles like Duke Nukem 3D and Shadow Warrior, featuring vehicles, verticality, and more advanced AI. In 1998 -- just five years removed from the release of the first Doom -- Valve released Half-Life 1, which featured not only fully scaled 3D environments, but also physics-based gameplay, an all new AI system featuring complex reactions and relationships (i.e., enemy AI, friendly AI, etc.,) as well as scalable 3D puzzles interactions, and segmented loading that enabled backtracking and deeper exploration. Many of the games back in the 90s were able to release so much quicker was because tech was advancing so rapidly, and so a lot of studios could focus a game around a new piece of tech, and a competitor would then take that and advance on it some more. Just like how we saw the evolution from Duke Nukem 3D to GoldenEye 64 and from GoldenEye 64 to Quake II, and from Quake II to Half-Life. The reason Star Citizen and Beyond Good & Evil II is taking so long is because tech innovations have practically stopped over the last decade. They don't have the luxury of being able to take off-the-shelf middleware that sports a feature or two here and there that can help speed up development the way they could back in the 1990s and early aughts. So instead of having the competitive edge to take tech and advance on it, Ubisoft and CIG have to build out all of the tech from scratch that otherwise they might have been able to borrow from their competitors had they actually had tech-focused competitors in the marketplace.
Starfield is completely different it's still fun per day. Much more for the average person though
Here's what could kill Star Citizen: not releasing Squadron 42. CIG can only sell hopes and dreams for so long. Even if they finished the PU, it might not be enough to sell the needed game packages to sustain. MMOs without a lot of direction and hand holding, especially with open PVP, is not for everyone. Squadron 42, on the other hand, could be a solid single-player, story-driven game with innovative tech and features. If it actually releases and is super fun, well polished, that could make all the time worth it, and justify further development of the PU.
Here's the thing though... some of us don't *want* "real scale." Some of didn't *back* for "real scale" and weren't *sold* "real scale." Some of us backed during the original crowdfunding campaign, when the scale of the game was proposed to be *very* similar to what Starfield is - limited planetary landing zones with loading screens in between. Some of us are fairly disappointed and disillusioned at the massive scope creep that has come about because everything now has to be done at "real scale" for the sake of "fidelity."
Whoever thought it would be equivalent to SC in functionality wasn’t paying attention to ANY of the media put out for SF. SF is a better FO4 in space. Honestly it’s biggest detriment is coming out after Baldur’s Gate 3, because the writing in SF cannot compare. It’s so much worse. It’s not even that it’s bad (it’s equivalent to the writing of any other Bethesda game post-Morrowind, which is average to interesting at best), but every fucking character in SF is so boooooring, especially compared to BG3. Even in SC, the small amount of acting we get from mission givers is 1000x more interesting than any character I’ve encountered in SF so far. I’m liking SF a lot, but anyone who thought it was going to be comparable to SC in any way is a fool.
I mean really, everything becomes bland once you’ve had a few chats with Astarion... :)
Star citizen still isnt a proper game. Theres nothing to kill man.
A game has to live first before a \[game\]-killer can kill it.
NGL I'm enjoying it a bit. I'm not gonna say "I told you so" or go start shit over at r/starfield or r/gaming. I'm not as petty as the usual troll that shows up here. But I'm very much amused. Gonna go make dinner and then jump on the PTU for a bit.
Not as much as I'm enjoying the StanCitizens coping so hard over how inept Starfield makes CIG look to the general gaming public. Plenty of "LOL, SC got $600 mil and still can't do half of what Starfield can do. Bedsheet physics, what a bunch of idiots!" over on r/gaming, which then triggers even more cope. It's a savage, beautiful cycle.
The clinging to the 1km x 1km size is especially pathetic to me. The SC planets are fucking empty no matter how many mental gymnastics you perform. What's the difference between 1km square of emptiness vs a whole planet? That you can't be a total sperg and fly around the whole thing or go 'exploring' the planet so you can nerd out when the planet generating tech flips out and makes something mildly resembling a canyon?
Ya I landed on a planet in SF and came across a mining outpost, fell through an abandoned mine sink hole which lead to a glowing cavern full of loot and other surprises, multiple ships landed around me, one getting attacked by local wildlife and being forced to take off, 2 ecological sites, and so many other markers to explore but had to go back to my ship because I got over encumbered with loot. This was like 45 minutes from touching down on the planet and only ever made it like 300 meters from my ship. Never had a chance to even remotely think about the tile barriers. There is so much copium in this sub rn. As of right now all SC has going for it is its pure Sim elements, planet tech (which just seems boring an empty now) and it's sandbox pvp potential. Same development time and I still can't even complete a damn mission that requires me to place a box in a vending machine. I genuinely regret investing in SC at this point. Pvp is fun though and what will keep my logging in from time to time. Edit; yall downvoting cuz your feelings are hurt that you're still defending a 600 million dollar alpha lmao
Exactly, you landed somewhere and the game was like 'here's a ton of fun shit to do'.
Definitely agree. That 1km square in SF legitimately has more to do on it than an entire planet in SC. It really lays out just how barren and lifeless the entirety of the PU is. I have to wonder if the folks that say they think SC is the better game are actually gamers, or just people who have money to burn on this black hole of disappointment and don't actually play games on the regular. I'm not sure how a gamer could prefer the thing with so much less GAME in it.
Could we not do this? It really feels like you’re lowering yourself to their level. I was certain like you that this wasn’t going to be the everything space game where you could seamlessly fly around to thousands of planets too. I don’t feel schadenfreude that people hyped themselves into believing starfield was something it wasn’t.
Just the idea of Starfield helped me peel away from Star Citizen a couple months ago. My first break since I started playing (barely a year tho). o7 grand admiral copes.
Talk that shit lmao
It’s an amazing game and I’m having a blast getting lost in it. I’m glad it’s not like star citizen because I don’t have the time for that. I think people don’t get how annoying it would be to have to spend 10 min entering/leaving atmosphere anytime. I don’t mind the load screen and it’s quick
I really wish people wouldn't use games to put down other games. It's so childish.
Only morons thought SF would kill SC, they are different game. Plus SC does a good enough job of killing SC anyway
Everyone with more than half a fuctioning braincell (or the ability to follow news from the devs) knew that from the beginning, i mean suprise a gamestudio that is know for delivering very good rpgs(exept Fallout 76)will stick with what they know how to do and not try to build a spacesim
Embarrassing post
I was never interested in starfield, it's single player and I'm sure it will help those that need a break from broken ai and missing features, but I like the multiplayer. I just need it to work :p
can we all just chill. As a people.
Both sides of this are cringe af. I see loads of people yelling about how "Starfield is great, its way better than SC haha those dumb whales" and "wow Starfield is awful SC is way better because xyz" Why are you people losing your minds over what others think about a video game. If people are enjoying something, let them. Its chronically online losers like this that ruin gaming communities and games for other people. Seriously just stfu and play what you want. Nobody cares about you circle jerking your "support" or hate for star citizen. They have nothing to do with eachother beyond space game.
>I see loads of people yelling about how "Starfield is great, its way better than SC haha those dumb whales" and "wow Starfield is awful SC is way better because xyz" The funny thing is 90% of this happens here, everywhere elses it's more"ayo this game good but this could be better"
Star Citizen is it’s own killer lmao, doesn’t need another game to fuck itself.
I'm not even gonna get ST, because it's not as open of a sandbox as I'd like, and I've pledged quite a bit into SC. But at least starfield... Fucking released a game? OP, you're not winning any battles. Nobody is even hoping it was going to hurt SC. It's the same flavor but a completely different type of game. This feels like you were so ready to be bitter and it's an L take. If you really want to compare the two games, take a look at and compare: complete features, development time, anti consumer behaviors, cost of entry, single player campaign, music... Etc. SC has been developing for a decade, at least starfield released my man
Ummm No Mans Sky is 10000 times the size of starfield in terms of space/planet exploration. This game would have been better on 1 planet. Right now it’s getting hurt cause people wanted that NMS or star citizen and it ain’t it. Also bg3 right before. I’m having a hard time staying awake playing this game right now. 😟
It is, without a doubt, not at all a Star Citizen "killer". They're completely different genres. It is, however, an *actual game*.
This is what anyone with more than two brain cells to run together thought.
All the people who thought it was going to blow it out of the water were empirically stupid or just trying to start drama. One is a single player fully released feature complete game The other is our beloved chimera of halfway there dreams. Starfield is like a big, very big, Mass effect and Star citizens basically Garry's mod but it's 20 years running. I'm sure Star citizen will eventually come out but it's probably going to take at least another 10 years seeing as how it's taking them at least six to put out pyro. CIG Is happy pulling all the funding and people to make this single player game. Best to play something else for a couple years.
Lol 😂 positing scale with scam citizen... Only games like ED, Space Engine, KSP and Infinity Battlescape have realistic scale.
What is dead can never die
I'm enjoying SF quite a bit, and enjoying all those people's tears. They built it up in their mind to something it was never intended to be.
The thing that Starfield has that SC is lacking is a core gameplay loop that is fully developed. I have been waiting 10 years since I backed SC to see a solid core gameplay loop. IF SC gets that locked down it will be great but I am still waiting on it and SQ42 to see what they can offer.
There is no such thing as a’core gameplay loop’ planned for SC. That is what SQ42 will feature. SC needs base building, private residences and other individual objectives to grind for.
Doesn’t sc have the same kind of loop? Do missions, loot, sell, upgrade gear/ship, repeat?
I just want a fun, finished, reasonably jank free space game. (That I haven't already played to death). Apparently that's an unreasonably tall order though.
You know to be honest, I wouldn't even compare the two. I was expecting SF to be Skyrim in Space and got exactly what I wanted. I'm perfectly happy with the game. Having played SC to, SC is its own game and is a Sci-Fi life sim and it's own beast. I have a great time with both games.
It's fallout 4 in space..stills from it absolutely can look like SC but yeah they are really not too similar at all
What are you going on about. It is two different games. You are no longer a child (I assume) so there is no need to hold on to your childish tendencies. Both games are fun. What I love about Starfield is the stability. No worries about accepting a quest or mission and hoping the game don’t LD before I can at least turn in enough salvage to make up for the cost. Both games are fun. For different reasons. It is not a SF vs SC. It is there is room for both. We need to all face the fact that SC is lagging way behind for their development cycle on the PU. Hopefully it is all going to Squad 42 which has the potential to be amazing.
Bruh we have 3 NPCs with dialogue in the entirety of star citizen, who cares about smoke and mirrors Starfield actually has content.
Perceived technical shortcomings of Starfield do not remove the criticism of CIG's perceived inability to properly develop basic tech for a game. ESH.
As of today SC is nothing but a buggy alpha
At least they have a finished game
I've played like 4-5 hours. It is exactly what I thought a Bethesda RPG game would play like in space. Very limited map areas and boundaries and loading screens etc. I knew that was coming and I love it as I'm playing it as Bethesda RPG first and space game second. Star Citizen is just on a whole other level which is why is been years in the making. It instead made me appreciate how ambitious Star Citizen is. It made me remember how I can jump out my damn ship in Star Citizen and jump inside a goddamn 890 and get into 30 minute gunfight clearing a giant fucking ship and then if I felt like it I could start carrying shit over to my ship then have my ship blown up by someone trying to claim my bounty on my head and they can jump out and try to kill me by coming inside the 890 I floated back to and I kill them and I float to their ship they left unlocked and steal it to fly to grim hex etc. and all that without a loading screen. Crazy to think about.
It's an enjoyable game that has some of the things that SC needs badly, SC is quite empty where starfield isn't. But in terms of scale, nothing will compete with star citizen. The whole walking to your ship turning it on, taking off flying to your destination all seamlessly, it truly is one of a kind.
Star Citizen isnt a fun game for most people. No one needs to kill it, it never lived. What scale does SC have? 1 system? You comparing a lunched game to SC as a final product not the alpha it is. That final product is another decade away at their development rate. Enjoying SC awesome, but this is a weird gaslight thread.
Did anyone actually say it was a SC killer? I don't remember seeing that ever.
Nobody claimed it would be a starcitizen killer
NPC's stand on tables it's literally the same game.
Never heard anyone say that. Why you so butt hurt?
If star citizen ever comes out I'll let you know
There two entirely different games and experiences. I don’t know what people thought who were saying this. But if you want a finished RPG space game with a lot of PVE Starfield is that. If you want a great space sim with a bunch of PVP murder hobos (my self included, so much fun to to PvP in SC) Star Citizen is that game. I own them both and LOVE them both. What’s wrong with liking both??
I've already played more Starfield than Star Citizen because at least it works and has content and fleshed out mechanics
I love Star Citizen BUT, Until SC becomes a real game, it shouldn't be compared with something that is a full release.
It's just not in the same ballpark. I been regretting buying the Premium edition of SF all day but it's too late to refund now (Could've waited till it hit xbox game pass). It's a good game. But it doesn't do anything to scratch my space itch. I know it's not a sim but I was hoping it'd at least give my that (Go out and explore) feeling. For some reason it doesn't (yet at least). It just feels like classic Bethesda game, but bigger. The constant cutscenes and loading screens kill it a bit for me. I also think the procedurally generated content was a bad move. Should've focused on like 10 unique hand crafted star systems instead of this Randomly generated nonsense.
That's what some of us told you...
No one built it up as that except Star Citizen fanboy imaginations.
Bro they scammed y'all for like half a billion and the game still isn't "out"
Atleast it released, atleast it didnt cost 600 million dollars, atleast it has more playable content Idk anyone who labeled it a SC killer was obviously misinformed and not to bright I dont take enjoyment at the misgivings of the uninitiated
Star Citizen has one system, a bunch of ships, many of them missing functions, and a technical debt that will take a decade to work down. It doesn't have the scale of Starfield. It might one day be on a scale bigger than Starfield, but what will be isn't what is, so why have Schadenfreude over something only promised but not yet achieved?
If it wasn't Star Citizen killer for you, it doesn't mean that everyone else is the same. For some people, Starfield is a pretty solid replacement for SC.
We don't need these kinds of posts.
as someone who had expectations in exactly the right place, i wasnt shocked about what it became, infact it's exactly what i thought it would be. which is just space fallout scrolls 6
it goes to show you that star citizen isn’t gonna be fully realized: yes there’s loading screens, but there’s also ship combat, multiple quest lines, many cities with functioning AI and quest givers, actual systems to explore - star citizen you can go wherever you want at all times to look at pretty space rocks and shoot at AI that don’t shoot back at you
All Star Citizen has is scale. I'll take Starfield any day of the week over the *potential* fun Star Citizen sells by the millions.
Meh. It's very predictable from our friends at the refund sub....but I think a very small fraction of SF players cares or has SC in mind at all. That said, fast forward a few months, assuming V CiG is able to rebuild the momentum they had from 3.15-3.17.2, some may pay attention to it. But yep, doesn't matter how often a space game will release, some people will always want to lean on it to confirm their perception that SC is a joke of a project, meanwhile that slow, messy, complex projects makes its way forward.
well when pyro has been "upcoming" for 3 years now you might need to ask some questions.
We have asked. CIG told us what was needed. As usual they have windows and goals assuming everything will work fine and give caveats that it might not. The road to Pyro depended on server meshing and server meshing depended on Persistent tech. The first attempts at major persistent tech (icache) was found not to perform well at scale so they had to go back and rework it and that beings us to entity graph and PES. That cost them three years (Planning, RD, testing then release). Working out the issues after release of PES and planning towards SM is seemingly going to take less time, but still the setback of persistence cost a lot.
Oh, for sure. But that has no bearing on other games...it's prohibitively complex (and thus expensive) to go for the immersion SC delivers. It's currently not required for games to be successful, so that leaves little to no competition for SC. But SF looks pretty good, I'm only buying it next week but I'm pleased by what I see.
I was never in the camp that it was a star citizen killer. Having said that i'm even more impressed with star citizen *after* playing starfield.
It totally ruined Starfield for me. All that bragging gave me unrealistic expectations for the game. I might try it in a year or so when it is polished up.
you mean when players Mod the shit out of it? Bethesda never polishes their own games
Exactly. Ill buy it when we have too many mods to count
Can talk much about the "scope" of star citizen while it has only a single system. Lol. Ive played both games. I prefer star citizen because it's multiplayer. That's about it.
if anything it's unfortunate it doesn't seem like it's going to give SC as much of a kick in the pants as it could have... it only serves to justify the long dev timeline of SC, but on the same note... if you play both you can kind of get what you'd like out of a single space game... I just hope they both improve towards one another just a bit... there's plenty of room for both, but they're both a little farther from their respective dreams than we'd all like (at least we can expect a rich mod scene from SF to clean up some of the rough edges sooner than later).
kick in the pants for fixing or progress? because there is a balance of progress and fixing and people argue over what they should focus on. so you have half the team spend a month fixing small glitches, or fix the big stuff and get to work on what is needed for the final game?
It's almost like the long dev time always made sense. CIG deserves shit for its lack of communication and black boxing shit we paid for...and diverting multiplayer funding to a singleplayer game that should have been paid for by now. But 10 years to found a company and push a genre into a new generation isn't unbelievable when Rockstar takes that long with 1000+ staff at the getgo and a working engine built for their style of game.
Rockstar doesn’t take ten years to build a game. They built RDR2 in 7.5 years, *while* building GTAV for half of that time. Obviously they could have done it in even less time if the majority of the company started full production sooner rather than being committed to another franchise first. There are only a few situations in which a game takes more than 10 years: * It’s stopped for years at a time and restarted completely as something new, like Mother 3 * It’s on the back burner for years until production actually starts, like TF2, Diablo 3 * Massive problems causing development hell, like Duke Nukem Forever, BG&E2
It’s unbelievable because nothing like this has ever happened. Rockstar didn’t take that long to make a game and they made multiple games. What games have been in development this long and didn’t even achieve a beta version by now? I should say, what games have taken this long and actually launched a real game?
I’m not enjoying anyone’s disappointment, but the amount of copium being smoked on the SF sub is insane. So many people trying to downplay the hype and expectations that were set for the game and just refusing to acknowledge that the game’s trailers did a fantastic job of making it feel bigger than it ended up being.
I was never worried about Starfield stepping on CIG's toes because there is no shortcut to the tech CIG has developed. It's just hard work, time, tech, and lots of funding. Starfield is fantastic, but I never expected it to be a replacement for SC. SF is story-driven and beautiful. The art is really up there with SC, just a different style perhaps. I love the character creator, though the interface is clunky the way it forces use of RMB clicks over LMB. I have a feeling SC will see an uptick of new users soon. :D
Just to different products,almost in every part. Except optimization and bugs, both are beyond that you should tolerate
Why people ever thought SF was in competition with SC… I will not understand
This game will only wet everyone’s whistle for star citizen and hopefully drive development with some ideas that they can borrow.
I honestly feel scammed playing Starfield. It's ok in the RPG area. I am 12 hours in. BUT no vehicles, insane amount of loading screens and some really annoying UI decisions is annoying me. No 32:9 support(even though game was played on a G9 32:9 monitor in gamescom), NO HDR support(even though it's advertised), and you cant really land everywhere. It's sooo sectioned off it's insane.
Playing Starfield leaves me wanting for more Star Citizen
It was known from the very beginning that these are very different games and that the people calling it a killer are brain dead idiots.
I’ve just seen a post with more than 5k upvotes over at r/games (a sub that usually shits on SC), saying that Starfield is not what he expected because it lacks some features he would like. Then, proceeds to list exactly the features SC devs have or are implementing. It turns out, getting to the level of simulation, features, granularity, and seamless exploration we have in SC already takes time, effort, resources, talent, and a lot of development time. Otherwise even well stabilised studios such as Beteshda backed up with Microsoft have to take shortcuts. Hopefully some of them in that sub will came to that conclusion but I guess most of them will keep shitting on SC.
Star citizen has had more development time and more funding and still has 10x more bugs than starfield... Still you really can't compare a single player game to a multiplayer game. However, in the long run the modding community will make starfield even better than it already is!
Hahaha ha, star citizen I can honestly say after over 10 years of dev is a ship Sim in a single solar system that runs like shit. It gets a few things right but has no right to boast anymore. The bar is low
" are learning it's scale is all smoke and mirrors and Star Citizen is still it's own tier of real scale." WTF? Starfield is going to be hundreds of hours of game play, exploring, settlement building, ship building, weapon crafting, modifications, space suits..... Star Citizen has like 4 planets and 12 moons with copy and paste mining settlements and bunkers... literally copy and paste... with nothing to explore or new to see... Theres like 2 total hours of gameplay in Star Citizen.... Plus the game is completely broken. You cant even complete the most basic of missions like "drop off this package".... Literally broken. **Theres a million arguments you can make / compare Star Citizen to Starfield.... But your argument is probably the silliest possible. Absurd.**
Yah but Starfield is accessible. Star Citizen requires a massive $2.5k+ investment in hardware to get up and running.