Starfield is a better space game than NMS

[RL 101]

Well, it turns out that in No Mans Sky not even the Solar System or its eight planets are recreated (well, nine planets if we include Pluto). So I can't visit the interesting moons of Jupiter or see them from their orbits, because they don't exist and they aren't recreated. I also can't walk on the surface of Saturn's amazing moons, because they don't exist either. Other wonders of our own Solar System, which is the first thing that comes to mind when we think of real Space, where the best-known planets and moons are located, cannot be seen, since they are not recreated in NMS. So what "space" is that? I think you would find more similarities to real space if you drew several random dots on a piece of paper.

In Starfield the entire Solar System is recreated with an impressive setting. I can be on the surface of Enceladus, I see its appearance very similar to the real one and, thanks to the low gravity of this small moon of Saturn, I rise with the jet pack of my astronaut suit (improved to rank 4), being able to appreciate the curvature of Enceladus as it is in reality. I can visit Europa, Jupiter's amazing moon, and see how its famous reddish stripes are recreated as they are in reality. You can also see the orbital movements of the planets around the Sun, since they have their real orbits (and the moons also have their respective orbits around the planets). It is a Space that feels authentic, alive and in constant movement. Even the day and night cycles of different places are recreated, such as on Mars, with its sandy and reddish hue, with variable lighting depending on its real rotation and its distance from the Sun.

The space setting in Starfield feels believable and extraordinary. That is a marvel for anyone who likes astronomy and Space (the real one, not a fake cartoon one), with an immense amount of detail.

The "Space" in No Mans Sky, however, is a completely made-up drawing, it feels too artificial. Its spatial environment looks false, with unreal distances, unreal shapes, unreal colors, unreal names, unreal geology, non-existent physics. It does not have unique planets with their unique satellites. It's all procedural and generic with very little hand-crafted content. Its appearance is cartoonish and colorful. It does not give the sensation of being in Space, since it has no similarity with real known Space or with known astronomical data (neither distances, nor names, nor appearance, nor physics).

In Starfield, some stars, especially those closest to our Sun, also have their own real names: Alpha Centauri, Tau Ceti, etc. The planetary distances within the Solar System are the real ones (millions of kilometers between them). The Space background looks dynamic and realistic, not a cartoon drawing. The surface on planets in other systems is invented, but it corresponds to a projection based on Science on what said surface would be like according to its gravity, atmospheric pressure, climatology... As well as the flora and fauna is also created taking into account these factors. A fauna that also follows the predator-prey-scavenger biological cycle (another good detail).

In general terms, Starfield's space environment, even though it is an RPG, feels much more authentic and immersive.
Some of its elements, both in the suits, inside the ships or inside the facilities, are aesthetically reminiscent of films such as Interstellar, Europa One, Ad Astra, The Martian, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Event Horizon, Moon, Life, Alien (the first movie)... A Science Fiction with a recognizable feel. Even Mars in Starfield, with its semi-subterranean citadel (Cydonia), at times reminds me of certain scenes from Total Recall (the movie starring Arnold). That's just wonderful.

Furthermore, No Mans Sky, even after seven years since its launch, has no cities, no characters, no story beyond a text, nor well-woven subplots that serve as an impulse and motivation. It doesn't have a space sci-fi narrative background (it's just "go to the center of the galaxy and that's it"...). It does not have a good secondary structure like in Starfield. It also does not have a role-playing system with character development through dialogues and decisions with consequences, nor the choice of well-integrated factions. It does not have varied dialogues (the NPCs only say a few phrases and always the same ones everywhere) nor does the course of the narrative events vary depending on your choices. It doesn't have the amount of handcrafted content that Starfield has.

NMS does not have extremely detailed ship interiors and facilities like Starfield. The overall look of NMS is very cartoonish. Its ground combats (so to speak) also do not have the top gunplay of Starfield. Their ship battles are extremely cheesy. The bases in NMS are faux-futuristic looking and empty, with npcs that don't even move (they look like a plant). You can't customize other characters with clothes or weapons.

The space battles in NMS are a laugh, very poorly done (added several years after the game's release), you can't even modify your ship or add modules to see the changes from the inside or decorate everything to your liking. Functional work tables, infirmary, laboratory, etc. cannot be added.

These are games that can't even be compared to each other, because Starfield is several light years ahead of NMS as a space science fiction game.

[indigo]

Have you actually found The Milky Way Galaxy in NMS yet? How about even reaching the dimension our galaxy is in? You do realize, each play through takes place in a totally different universe than the previous, right?

Assuming Earth even still exists in the NMS milieu at all, as we're not even clear on what species we are, since we're all just simulated data in a failing simulation anyways, running on outdated hardware that has been kept in the basement of your local planning office, in a locked filing cabinet in the back of a disused lavatory for the past 50 years.

Nice effort though, you have determined that an Apple and Pear are not the same thing.

[Krash Megiddo]

Originally posted by RL 101:

Well, it turns out that in No Mans Sky not even the Solar System or its eight planets are recreated (well, nine planets if we include Pluto). So I can't visit the interesting moons of Jupiter or see them from their orbits, because they don't exist and they aren't recreated..

NMS doesn't claim to recreate the solar system or the milky way galaxy either. The starter galaxy is called Euclid. NMS is not an astronomical simulator by any stretch. You're looking for a different game.

[Krash Megiddo]

Originally posted by indigo:

Have you actually found The Milky Way Galaxy in NMS yet? How about even reaching the dimension our galaxy is in? You do realize, each play through takes place in a totally different universe than the previous, right?

Assuming Earth even still exists in the NMS milieu at all, as we're not even clear on what species we are, since we're all just simulated data in a failing simulation anyways, running on outdated hardware that has been kept in the basement of your local planning office, in a locked filing cabinet in the back of a disused lavatory for the past 50 years.

Nice effort though, you have determined that an Apple and Pear are not the same thing.

The OP stinks of AI generator. What do you think?

[RL 101]

Of course, an apple and a pear are not the same, because Starfield is clearly superior as a Space game.

Furthermore, in NMS, the procedural generation of planetary objects and elements on the surface follows an extremely generic and repetitive pattern that at all times reminds me that this world is absolutely false and artificial. It does not have unique variables with differentiating patterns created by hand. There is no minimum approach to the reality of Space. Almost all planets have fauna and flora with slight variations created in a generic way. You go to any random planet and there are immediately six types of plants and another half dozen fauna. The background pattern feels similar because there is no place that looks unique. In space, unique planetary bodies with inhospitable conditions are required, both from an atmospheric and geological point of view, it is not that all planets are a botanical garden with flowers.

The beauty of Space, and what Starfield recreates very well, is looking at the environment in which you find yourself and feeling that you are on the surface of those places, where the stellar bodies, the recreation of the rough terrain, the setting, the lighting, the effects of each sun on the planetary surfaces, the images of the starry sky whose elements vary their position, the orbital movements, the dynamic climatology... are in line. And Starfield achieves that in a sublime way. They have achieved a very successful setting that gives the feeling of really being in space or on the surface of some moon of Saturn. When you are on Mars or the Moon it seems that you are really on the surface of those places. You get into their world and feel like you are living a space adventure building your character in that universe. These are things that must be positively valued in Starfield.

In NMS they would first have to recreate something that minimally resembles the planetary bodies in our vicinity. However, you look at the setting and it looks like it was made by someone who has smoked psychotropic substances. A colorful space background made by a child at school, with everything full of bugs and plants. Their planets and moons are immobile, they do not even have orbital movements. It's supposed to be a space game, but it just seems like a cartoon fantasy. You cannot feel like an astronaut on the surface of an inhospitable place, because every time you arrive at a place it is full of flowers. What is that Universe? It's certainly not the one we know. The game doesn't even recreate places that even remotely resemble real known space. Damn it's quite a cartoon!

Comparing the wonderful space setting of Starfield with that of NMS is like putting an appetizing dish on the table next to junk food.

For any fan of Space and astronomy, being on Titan (Saturn's moon) and being able to see its methane lakes (which are recreated in Starfield) is a gift.

[Krash Megiddo]

Dude, train your A.I. to compare Starfield to Elite Dangerous instead if you want to obsess over scientific accuracy.

[hottnova75]

I played No Mans Sky for a couple hundred hours. It is fun, and a good game.

Thing is I agree with OP because I have already played Starfield 250 plus hours.

They have their own flavors and options. But he is right, Starfield is the better space game out of the two.

Don't count anyone out of the space game race though , as many studios are competing in this genre. Eve Online is coming out with a new expansion and some FPS combat in the next couple months. I heard that Star Citizen has Squadron 42 s first game in polish now. I have not played the NMS latest updates yet. Too busy playing Starfield when I have a chance.

[RL 101]

Originally posted by Krash Megiddo:

Dude, train your A.I. to compare Starfield to Elite Dangerous instead if you want to obsess over scientific accuracy.

Enough nonsense with AI, this is about the sensations that one game or another gives. Now we're on NMS, then I'll talk about Elite and how it took seven years after its release for the character to be able to stand and walk on some planetary surface outside the ship...how quickly we forgot about that. . .

[RL 101]

Another point is the appearance of the ships. In Starfield they have better designs and textures, you can walk around the interior of the ship (even climb on top of it externally) and make changes, add modules and see the result, with everything very well detailed. You can even add several floors with stairs and porthole windows. The amount of detail that can be seen inside the ships is crazy, with a multitude of interactable elements. In NMS you cannot see the inside of the ship, nor stand up and walk between its different modules, you cannot add changes inside or out. The ship in NMS is cartoonish, a little drawing in the center of the screen with flashes of lights and colors whose navigation is much more arcade than in Starfield.

Except for the landing issue (which in NMS are still colorful flashes with unreal distances), in everything else Starfield is several steps above NMS as a space game and as a space Science Fiction experience. With everything it has and what it offers, and with the immersion that the entire adventure provides by building your character, they cannot even be compared to each other because Starfield is clearly at a higher level.

Originally posted by hottnova75:

I played No Mans Sky for a couple hundred hours. It is fun, and a good game.

Thing is I agree with OP because I have already played Starfield 250 plus hours.

They have their own flavors and options. But he is right, Starfield is the better space game out of the two.

Don't count anyone out of the space game race though , as many studios are competing in this genre. Eve Online is coming out with a new expansion and some FPS combat in the next couple months. I heard that Star Citizen has Squadron 42 s first game in polish now. I have not played the NMS latest updates yet. Too busy playing Starfield when I have a chance.

I bet higher. If you analyze it as a space science fiction game and as a complete Space experience, with everything it offers in various sections, planets, stories consistent with the world proposed, planetary facilities, ship battles, ship modification, base construction, setting realistic, fluid gunplay, subplots, exploration, variety of locations, terrain survey (similar to Elite Dangerous, but better implemented in Starfield due to the events and points of interest, since in Elite you find an even coarser wasteland with nothing to do). Also interior designs and outdoor lighting. The whole thing makes Starfield, without a doubt, the most brilliant space game currently available, if compared 1v1 with any other Space or Space Science Fiction game.

There are people who, to try to discredit Starfield, compare it to several games of different genres. And certainly, maybe you can say "this specific section is better in this game" or "this other section is worse here"... But you already have to take different elements from different titles, while Starfield brings them all together under one game to offer a complete space adventure, with an innumerable amount of elements that other games cannot bring together as a whole. And that's when you understand how good Starfield is as a unified space sci-fi experience.

No matter where you look at it, with everything it offers globally, no space game compared individually (1vs1) offers a more complete space adventure experience with your character than Starfield (not even the so-called "simulators") , and this is just a role-playing game!

[Krash Megiddo]

Originally posted by RL 101:

Originally posted by Krash Megiddo:

Dude, train your A.I. to compare Starfield to Elite Dangerous instead if you want to obsess over scientific accuracy.

Enough nonsense with AI, this is about the sensations that one game or another gives. Now we're on NMS, then I'll talk about Elite and how it took seven years after its release for the character to be able to stand and walk on some planetary surface outside the ship...how quickly we forgot about that. . .

I might agree with you that Starfield is better in some ways than NMS. I'm certainly having more fun with Starfield than NMS right now. But the reasons you give are nonsense. Grammatically correct flowery nonsense that sounds like it came straight out of ChatGPT.

[indigo]

Originally posted by Krash Megiddo:

The OP stinks of AI generator. What do you think?

I make it a rule not to go around smelling random posters. I'm also pretty sure AI, even one as crappy as ChatGPT, would have done a much better job. I'm afraid this one has NS written all over it. That's "Natural Stupidity", which cannot be overcome by any amount of Artificial Intelligence.

[TheCr33pur]

Actually NMS has much better setup than this one, cause it is code generated worlds. That is why is it so massive and you can explore the entire planets in vary sizes. Also you can have more control of your craft, take off, fly around and explore planets. This game is horrible how they got it setup as fast travel. Wish they mention it on the store page i wouldnt have bought this garbage. Idk about the rest, heard up and down on alot of things.

This game is more of casual gameplay and not a simulation at all.

[RL 101]

Originally posted by Krash Megiddo:

Originally posted by RL 101:

Enough nonsense with AI, this is about the sensations that one game or another gives. Now we're on NMS, then I'll talk about Elite and how it took seven years after its release for the character to be able to stand and walk on some planetary surface outside the ship...how quickly we forgot about that. . .

I might agree with you that Starfield is better in some ways than NMS. I'm certainly having more fun with Starfield than NMS right now. But the reasons you give are nonsense. Grammatically correct flowery nonsense that sounds like it came straight out of ChatGPT.

But you keep talking nonsense about AI. What happens, you don't know how to write for yourself, and as soon as you see a well-written and correct text in terms of argument (which logically took me a while to put together to organize my impressions and not publish a thread of poop as you and the trolls surely tend to do? who accompany you), does that seem strange to you?

[RL 101]

Originally posted by TheCr33pur:

Actually NMS has much better setup than this one, cause it is code generated worlds. That is why is it so massive and you can explore the entire planets in vary sizes. Also can more control of your craft, take off, fly around and explore planets. This game is horrible how they got it setup as fast travel. Wish they mention it on the store page i wouldnt have bought this garbage. Idk about the rest, heard up and down on alot of things.

This game is more of casual gameplay and not a simulation at all.

After a certain amount of time visiting planets, NMS becomes more boring, because the activities in all systems are the same and the npcs always tell you the same thing. All Systems are a hodgepodge of procedurally generated modular designs, with a pattern that feels too fake and repetitive. History is also a simple text and is not surprising at any time.

Call NMS something else, but not "Space exploration." In any case it is exploration in a completely invented cartoon world. Think, for example, of an incentive as obvious as going to the surface of some satellite/moon of Jupiter, or some other place in the Solar System, and not being able to do it. because there is nothing recreated. NMS has no unique planets, everything is autogenerated, its distances, shapes and aspects are totally unrealistic. For this fact alone, NMS is a cartoon joke for anyone who really likes space and astronomy.

Starfield is several steps above in practically all sections as a Space game, evidently including the issue of space exploration, since the exploration incentives in Starfield are much higher. Both are Games, obviously, but everything in Starfield feels more accomplished and authentic. That in NMS you can't even explore the moons of Saturn, for the simple reason that they don't exist, is quite unfortunate for a game that is supposed to be "about space." What space? They are just cartoons without any parallels with reality. The feeling of being in "real" space, or on a "real" ship, or on a "real" planet, living a space adventure with your character, is much more achieved and feels more authentic in Starfield.

When it comes to driving the ship in Starfield through the orbital zone of a planet, both in first person (pilot's view) and in third person (view from the outside), the sensation is more achieved. You perceive its movement with fluid and dynamic movements, and its turns feel more authentic. The controls also give a more satisfying feel. In NMS, however, it looks like a cartoon: it's just a small drawing in the center of the screen that looks very unreal (exterior view), with a ridiculous hud (pilot's view), and its handling feels too arcadey. You can't even modify the ship with different modules, nor can you see it inside, or walk inside it.

Then there are also the details of the space environment. In Starfield everything feels more authentic. When navigating between asteroids or collecting resources on them. By leaving behind the space junk around you. By seeing the wake left by the engines (with the outside view of the camera) or the change in lighting when propulsion is used. When approaching docking yards or space stations, seeing how those structures get bigger as you get closer to them. When interacting with other ships or fighting in space, with all its visuals. When an event arises with an abandoned ship. When launching missiles you feel the shot and it looks great from outside the cockpit. The feeling of being in Space is better achieved in Starfield (although it is not a 'simulator').

Simply seeing the appearance of the satellites around a planet gives more of a feeling of being in Space.

[indigo]

Originally posted by TheCr33pur:

Actually NMS has much better setup than this one, cause it is code generated worlds. That is why is it so massive and you can explore the entire planets in vary sizes. Also you can have more control of your craft, take off, fly around and explore planets. This game is horrible how they got it setup as fast travel. Wish they mention it on the store page i wouldnt have bought this garbage. Idk about the rest, heard up and down on alot of things.

This game is more of casual gameplay and not a simulation at all.

So you do not build or use Teleporters in NMS? Not once, not ever? You always fly, possibly thousands of jumps, from one solar system to another?

See, that's where the OP lost me, when they were saying "Solar System" and clearly do not know what a solar system is.

For the record, a Solar System is made up of one or more stellar bodies and the planets and moons that orbit those solar masses. You might have a solar system, just like ours, with one star, nine planets and a selection of moons. Or you could have a solar system consisting of a Black hole, a neutron star being slowing consumed by said black hole, and a frozen ball of liquids and gasses that was once a Gas Giant, but is now merely the frozen remnants of it's core.

Now, you take a large quantity of these "Solar Systems" and spread them out, possibly around a central supermassive black hole, like Sagittarius A*, to provide a gravitational hub, and you get a Spiral Galaxy, like ours.

Then, you take a massive number of these "galaxies" and spread them far and wide, in a massive torus, and you get a "Universe".

Apartment < Town < County < Country < Planet < Solar System < Galaxy < Universe < Multiverse < String Theory

[RL 101]

Originally posted by indigo:

Originally posted by TheCr33pur:

Actually NMS has much better setup than this one, cause it is code generated worlds. That is why is it so massive and you can explore the entire planets in vary sizes. Also you can have more control of your craft, take off, fly around and explore planets. This game is horrible how they got it setup as fast travel. Wish they mention it on the store page i wouldnt have bought this garbage. Idk about the rest, heard up and down on alot of things.

This game is more of casual gameplay and not a simulation at all.

So you do not build or use Teleporters in NMS? Not once, not ever? You always fly, possibly thousands of jumps, from one solar system to another?

That is nothing more than a loading screen camouflaged between flashes around the cartoon ship, with distances and everything unreal. It looks very tacky. Then you see people asking in NMS to put a fast trip of two seconds instead of minutes so as not to waste time.