this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
321 points (97.9% liked)
No Man's Sky
3361 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to No Man's Sky! This is a general community to discuss and share content about the retro-scifi space exploration game No Man's Sky.
Related Communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As a day1 NMS player who is getting a bit bored with the game, if you said to me hey there's a new game and it's pretty similar to mass effect... I'd be very interested in that!
Not every game is for everyone, I know quite a few people just don't seem to get NMS. I often take breaks from it now but each expedition / update brings me back; it's amazing how far the game has come and it still surprises me how addictive I find it after 7 years. It's awesome when a game comes out that reinvents the wheel but maybe not every game has to do that, it can just be a decent game to spend some time forgetting about our worries in?
I've not played Starfield yet but looking forward to trying it out, guess I should keep my expectations low then I'll be less likely to be disappointed.
I’m a Day 1 NMS player too and I’m really glad and impressed how much the turned the ship around. I also come back for the expeditions/updates!
You’re right, nobody excepts a new invention of the wheel every time, but to keep with your analogy, I would be nice if the at least used the newer/updated wheel instead of hanging on to 15 year old ones - sure they still work, but the newer ones offer a lot of things I’ve got used to. Or in other words, the standards have changed quite a bit.
I really don’t want to hate on the game, it’s definitely on my list and if I can justify a small PC upgrade I will definitely play it. But I’m just a bit… disappointed, that Starfield didn’t live up to the hype/promises - this is also on me, I got again caught a bit by the hypetrain.
I really hate that this has become a trend now… I really don’t know why and how, but at least in my opinion, this changed drastically over the last view years. I can remember when I rode the hypetrain until the release and wasn’t disappointed… but nowadays you really have to keep your expectations low to end up not disappointed (there are of course expectations).
Agree 100%. To borrow a phrase that's popular atm, I think it's the 'enshittification' trend at work in games just like social media. Games used to be made by comparatively-smaller teams, devs often had a very deep passion for what they were creating. I'm sure that's still the case for many devs now but with so many big developers now being owned and controlled by publishers... it's becoming less and less a passion project, and more a "how much juice can we squeeze out of this lemon" scenario. Then you've got stuff being outsourced massively to lots of little providers in order to deal with the scale of modern games, which causes fractures and lack of cohesion in the overall vision (imo).
TBH, NMS taught me a valuable lesson, not to overhype anything. And that's not to say I'm now a pessimist, more I'd say I'm a realist... prepare for the worst, hope for the best kinda thing. Then CP77 reinforced that, the one studio I still had faith in did exactly what all the others did by releasing a half-baked game that didn't live up to their claims (though I'm definitely looking forward to the new update, tempering expectations as always now).
I don't think you need to keep your expectations low, just keep them realistic. It's a Bethesda game, it plays like their other games... it's a whole ton of jank muddled up and duct taped until it holds together just enough for launch. This time they raised the bar to what counts as "holding together" to the level of the other major studios, but a lot of the gameplay systems still feel unfinished. In this I actually think it's a lot like modern NMS, where things like outpost building feel like they're actively contradictory to things like settlements; outposts in SF feel like someone did them early in the dev cycle and was then pulled off to work somewhere else and the only attention they got from then on was making sure they didn't crash the game. Then you've also got the typical Bethesda game stuff that people are acting surprised Pikachu about. The character animations look weird sometimes, low poly NPCs especially, there are too many load screens in some places, performance is poor considering the level of graphics, etc.
However, as long as you know what you're getting into, imo it's a great game. The storyline is interesting enough to be fun, but also manages to skip that annoying thing where you're off learning to be a space pirate for months while your family is being held hostage or something. Some of the side stories are excellent, and the game rewards you well for just taking your time doing stuff. I got caught with contraband yesterday... usually I hit the grav drive and escape rather than paying the fine, but I decided I didn't care and suddenly found myself embroiled in a shockingly compelling crime drama scene instead of the usual simple dialogue options. There's shit like that everywhere. There's an entire cyberpunk mini city half-hidden beneath the main city that you can just not find for dozens of hours, and when you finally get taken there it's really cool to realize it was under your feet the whole time. And these aren't even significant spoilers, there's more that I could tell you that would wreck the surprise for you.
Basically, go in expecting a game like morrowind/Skyrim/oblivion, where it's all about a huge breadth of interestint content (and yeah a fair bit of mediocre content because there's so much of it all) rather than any specific thing being the best in the genre, and you won't have to keep your expectations low.
A defining trait of those games, to me, is having everything in one big world you can wander around in (besides DLC areas, of course). The engine can't support doing that on an interplanetary scale, so Starfield feels less open to me despite the much larger scope.
I can't speak for everyone (including you) but I just can't understand that feeling. It's hugely open, it just uses tricks to capture that openness in a few places. It's nice to, say, fly down to a planet seamlessly in NMS, but we all know it's also kind of a pain in the butt sometimes, it can be annoying to land and it can take a long time and when you've done it a bunch it essentially turns into just another loading screen. Flying to or from a planet in SF is slightly less immersive but for me, it's just a tiny detail that could have been a bit better but doesn't materially impact the game.
And I've so far never reached the edge of an on-planet instance, the fields are huge and it seems to me you have to actively go hunting for the borders.
Yes, but they're also completely empty of anything interesting. In Bethesda's previous games, there were also large swaths of nothing, but there was always something hand-crafted if you ventured far enough. There is no point to going anywhere outside of the hand-crafted areas in Starfield, all of which you must fast travel to. It really kills the exploration aspect of the game, usually one of Bethesda's strong points.
Huh?
My chief complaint has been that there are too many things. If you go to a moon in the middle of nowhere, your landing site will have an abandoned research station and a secret factory and an observation post all within a couple KM around it. These aren't tied to the location, but they are hand-crafted, and as soon as the mod API drops I plan to decrease the frequency they show up, because my only complaint is that I hear after a while they get repetitive. So far I've been doing enough different things that I haven't found the same one twice, a hundred hours in.
Many of these sites contain their own storylines and characters, and links to other quests.
Maybe you and I just have different definitions of interesting. I actually got annoyed at one point during a survey mission because I kept going past something new and compelling that I wanted to explore, but I also really wanted to finish the mission I was on.
edit to add: I think it's specifically interesting to compare this to NMS, which has the exact same problem but a far lower variety of locations to stumble on, none of which have any story or link to each other at all... yet I think we're all okay with the exploration in NMS?
You're right that "interesting" is very subjective, and I don't begrudge anyone who finds Starfield's randomly generated areas interesting. It's true that there are a bunch of hand-crafted areas which are randomly placed in such areas, but as you said, it's far too easy to find copies over and over again. I just don't find the way Starfield handles random exploration fun the way I did in their previous titles. No Man's Sky does indeed have the same sort of issues, but that's kind of its whole thing, being a Minecraft-style creativity sandbox. You don't have nearly the same amount of control over creative options in Starfield.