Steam installeren
inloggen
|
taal
简体中文 (Chinees, vereenvoudigd)
繁體中文 (Chinees, traditioneel)
日本語 (Japans)
한국어 (Koreaans)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgaars)
Čeština (Tsjechisch)
Dansk (Deens)
Deutsch (Duits)
English (Engels)
Español-España (Spaans - Spanje)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spaans - Latijns-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Grieks)
Français (Frans)
Italiano (Italiaans)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Hongaars)
Norsk (Noors)
Polski (Pools)
Português (Portugees - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Braziliaans-Portugees)
Română (Roemeens)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Fins)
Svenska (Zweeds)
Türkçe (Turks)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamees)
Українська (Oekraïens)
Een vertaalprobleem melden
There are literally only 2 reasons Starfield has this ending:
1. No Man's Sky had this exact story-driven ending (traveling to another dimension through space, the sequence even looks extremely similar):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-7H-Zasq9c
Note the date. (And lol at "Terrible game")
2. They needed an excuse to reset NPCs and other flags, since they couldn't find a convenient way to cull these and prevent them from corrupting old saves
If you aren't joking then this is actually hilarious anyway, because it's a perfect example of just how naive someone must have been to take Starfield's nomination seriously
Honestly i feel like that is just living in the hope that Human intelligence doesn't drop that low.. so it's better to pretend it doesn't.
I don't think that qualifies as "extremely similar." NMS's sequence looked like every Star Trek episode during warp speed.
But I liked the music. Kind cool. But come on, when it comes to visuals, SF is gonna take that win.
It's a collection of stars zooming away from the camera. Sure, Starfield's ending has some Carl Sagan space dust, but that's the only important difference. It came out over 7 years later and had 10 times the budget so I should hope they could give us something marginally more interesting than dots on the screen to look at - a bar they just barely cleared.
Sorry buddy, #5 on your list is actually a perfect example of Bethesda aping last-gen games, not an innovation.
I can tell you one that does 3, 4 and 6-10:
Fallout 4
Would you call 1080p an innovation compared to 720p? Better graphics is not innovation and I would not call Starfield photo-realistic anyway so we can safely disregard 1.
NG+ is also not innovative outside of BGS, plenty of other studios have implemented it, From Software with Elden Ring for example. There goes 5.
Procedural Generation of empty planets was done before. Everyone sh*t on No Man's Sky for it, why is Starfield different? Oh dear, there goes the last point. Shame.
You should try Undertale! :D
Sorry, does this have something to do with Starfield being innovative?
It's not even thousands. It's basically just Fallout 4 + No Man's Sky or Space Engineers, two games that came out contemporaneously with Fallout 4.
This is a fair point, the backdrop visuals are pretty good, not as stunning as CP77, but good all the same.
Nah, proc-gen is nothing new and Minecradt is still the king of true world generation.
Ship building is iffy, but I can see giving it a half-point.
Play Fallout(4) and you'd be disappointed in what Starfield offers ... so it losses to an older Beth game even.
Since when is NG+ an innovation? The concept has been around for a very long time.
Rockstar is still king of the sandbox in this regard.
None of which are innovative when they've all been done elsewhere, usually better.
Doesn't even hold a candle to CP77.
Play older Beth games, the radiant quests aren't innovations even compared to games Beth has already published.
That is simply a lie, Beth's engine is known for easy modding but they aren't the only dev to provide offical modding tools.
Besides, even if it was true, how is it innovative to continue doing something you always have?