It’s not even really an rpg with how few skills/abilities there were to select from. And how little the environment changes to allow you to solve problems differently
Basically the space flight mechanic is somewhere between Mass Effect: Andromeda and CoD: Infinite Warfare.
You use your galaxy map fast travel to go anywhere and can only fly the ship around each small “instance.”
Planetary landings are restricted to POI’s or you can land on some random spot, but the planets are broken up into chunks so you can only walk around so much before having to go back to your ship for another fast travel moment.
Not really? I feel like that was a lot closer to new Vegas. That felt like a continuation of obsidian whereas starfield very much feels like a continuation of the trends between Skyrim and FO4 within bethesdas game design. If that makes sense.
Thank you for elaborating. I honestly didn’t notice the “4” in the first comment and thought it just said “Fallout in space”, so that’s where my comment came from.
Thank you for elaborating. I honestly didn’t notice the “4” in the first comment and thought it just said “Fallout in space”, so that’s where my comment came from.
The NMS like gameplay is like a tiny part of it. It’s a story heavy RPG first and foremost. Sure, you can do a lot of NMS style stuff, like gathering resources and scanning wildlife on a thousand planets, but that’s really not why you should get the game. You should get it if you want a massive space RPG in the style of Bethesda. And yes, this time Bethesda actually made a proper RPG.
I live under a rock. How does this game compare to NMS?
It’s not an exploration game really at all. Think RPG with space theme.
It’s not even really an rpg with how few skills/abilities there were to select from. And how little the environment changes to allow you to solve problems differently
Apples to oranges i hear
Starfield is Fallout 4 set in space. No man’s sky is exploration in space. I prefer the latter.
It doesn’t.
Basically the space flight mechanic is somewhere between Mass Effect: Andromeda and CoD: Infinite Warfare.
You use your galaxy map fast travel to go anywhere and can only fly the ship around each small “instance.”
Planetary landings are restricted to POI’s or you can land on some random spot, but the planets are broken up into chunks so you can only walk around so much before having to go back to your ship for another fast travel moment.
Consider it as fallout 4 in space and you’re more than halfway there.
I thought that was “The Outer Worlds”?
Edit: a word.
Outer worlds is closer to “fallout in space” than starfield is.
Starfield is fallout without the fun stuff, which is dissapointing tbh.
Not really? I feel like that was a lot closer to new Vegas. That felt like a continuation of obsidian whereas starfield very much feels like a continuation of the trends between Skyrim and FO4 within bethesdas game design. If that makes sense.
Thank you for elaborating. I honestly didn’t notice the “4” in the first comment and thought it just said “Fallout in space”, so that’s where my comment came from.
Thank you for elaborating. I honestly didn’t notice the “4” in the first comment and thought it just said “Fallout in space”, so that’s where my comment came from.
“fallout without the wacky/fun stuff” in space.
The NMS like gameplay is like a tiny part of it. It’s a story heavy RPG first and foremost. Sure, you can do a lot of NMS style stuff, like gathering resources and scanning wildlife on a thousand planets, but that’s really not why you should get the game. You should get it if you want a massive space RPG in the style of Bethesda. And yes, this time Bethesda actually made a proper RPG.
Its fallout 4 in space. It doesnt compare to NMS. Or Elite, or Star Citizen.