Starfield vs Starfield Original : No Man's Sky

[- Ðemünhel -]

I bought Starfield as soon as it came out, hypnotized, the word is well chosen, by the marketing around this game.

I won't tell you what I think about it and what I put in my evaluation, it's extremely rude, knowing video games on almost all media since the appearance of Mario Bros on Nintendo, and even ping pong or spider on previous consoles whose name I forgot.

1 year later, after playing 3.5 hours in total, so bad is the "game" (lie about the merchandise), I bought a similar game: No Man's Sky.

Not only am I at 125 hours and I can't stop because the game is so good, but I've noticed the following:

Starfield is a monumental plagiarism, at all levels (even the new buggy that just came out, with the reactor at the back, aren't you ashamed, frankly?), of No Man's Sky, without its quality.

No one talks about it, but if you want to play the real Starfield, buy No Man's Sky, game of the decade.

[tkwoods]

Originally posted by Neo:

No man's sky feels and plays like a kindergarten game. It has cartoonish graphics and I found the gameplay boring. Only managed to play for 30 hours and it felt like I was on a never ending tutorial.

I don't hang around on their forum though saying their game sucks. I just stick to the forums for the games I enjoy.

I have to agree with you that any game is not for everyone. Games like NMS require the player to make their own story and some of us have a harder time with it. Starfield has a little of that as well but with the stories and quests it appeals to a wider audience.

[MadMarkMagee]

Originally posted by majority of voters:

Oh, grow up, the pair of you, just grow up.

It's becoming clearer by the minute that the trolls are just teens, probably finding Starfield too complicated and deep for their Gen-Z impatient, "instant gratification" needs.

[jonnin]

NMS lacks combat. You can fight, both in space and on the ground, but its trivial. The only danger is the infinite sentinel spawn alarm thing, and its only dangerous because it never stops on its own (you have to hide (ground) for a period of time or leave that solar system/land for space). Starfield did a solid job with combat; its everything else (exploring, building, survival, stuff to do like randomized side quests, wildlife, ground vehicles, running a town, capital ship, ... on and on) that NMS provides a stronger set of activities and better experience. Starfield also has better graphics (NMS uses the color schemes from spongebob or something) and a coherent main story (vs a half story atlas thing).

Both have strong points and weak points, but NMS is the better product all around IMHO (less bugs, more stuff to do being the top criteria).

[tkwoods]

Originally posted by jonnin:

NMS lacks combat. You can fight, both in space and on the ground, but its trivial. The only danger is the infinite sentinel spawn alarm thing, and its only dangerous because it never stops on its own (you have to hide (ground) for a period of time or leave that solar system/land for space). Starfield did a solid job with combat; its everything else (exploring, building, survival, stuff to do like randomized side quests, wildlife, ground vehicles, running a town, capital ship, ... on and on) that NMS provides a stronger set of activities and better experience. Starfield also has better graphics (NMS uses the color schemes from spongebob or something) and a coherent main story (vs a half story atlas thing).

Both have strong points and weak points, but NMS is the better product all around IMHO (less bugs, more stuff to do being the top criteria).

NMS has also had years of further development.

[Winged Archon]

And you came all this way to these forums to tell us this?

[Berserk Belta]

NMS is an exploration survival grinder with VERY generously sub 8 hours of human made content. Starfield isn't.

Some of the same things and themes appear in both for sure. If they seem like the same genre of game to you, enjoy.

[Emphoise]

Originally posted by jonnin:

NMS lacks combat. You can fight, both in space and on the ground, but its trivial. The only danger is the infinite sentinel spawn alarm thing, and its only dangerous because it never stops on its own (you have to hide (ground) for a period of time or leave that solar system/land for space)

Regular waves are not infinite, they stop :

-if you clear the last (5th) one
-if you hide and wait out the timer (you can run far enough away, enter a building, a base, dig a hole)
-if you reload your game (you can just save and reload, everything will reset)
-if you enter a space station, your freighter, the anomaly (complete reset)

Shooting a station spawns infinite waves of sentinel ships, but then you can just enter said station to completely reset aggro and they just disappear.

Danger is a concept that does not exist in No mans sky, survival mechanics are completely trivial once you learn how hazards and npc aggro work.

[Emphoise]

Originally posted by Berserk Va'ruun:

NMS is an exploration survival grinder

If you remove "survival" and replace "exploration" by "RNG reload item generator", you start being accurate

[JacEEEBABY]

Its too bad SF will never pull a NMS and redeem itself, instead they did the opposite and doubled down and let the game die year one.

[Ihateeverybody]

I was done with NMS in under 30 minutes. And I think 20 of those was in the Keybinding screen. REFUNDED.

We had a fundamental disagreement about what the keybinding should be for .....you know what I don't even remember. I don't know what and where the game was going for, but I knew I wanted out.

[-Lex Rock-]

the real comparison would be IF bethesda ever decides to make a multiplayer starfield game, THAT is what would be actually comparable to other popular space games.

some games to compare multiplayer starfield with would be:

-elite dangerous

-star citizen

-space engineers

[tsunshine.chris]

Y'all are still debating this? Lol.

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by Ihateeverybody:

and of course the buggy in no mans sky bears absolutely no resemblence to the Mako in Mass Effect....

...ummmm the frigate reward from one of the first expeditions is literally the Normandy.

I do love the Roamer compared to the Rev-8 simply because it handles like a vehicle rather than some third person NPC turned into a vehicle.

Both games have things they excel at and fail at.
Both games have bugs as well.

People also tend to forget No Man's Sky have also been around ten years to improve because NMS was well hated more than Starfield when it came out.

[I Denizen I]

Originally posted by tkwoods:

Originally posted by jonnin:

NMS lacks combat. You can fight, both in space and on the ground, but its trivial. The only danger is the infinite sentinel spawn alarm thing, and its only dangerous because it never stops on its own (you have to hide (ground) for a period of time or leave that solar system/land for space). Starfield did a solid job with combat; its everything else (exploring, building, survival, stuff to do like randomized side quests, wildlife, ground vehicles, running a town, capital ship, ... on and on) that NMS provides a stronger set of activities and better experience. Starfield also has better graphics (NMS uses the color schemes from spongebob or something) and a coherent main story (vs a half story atlas thing).

Both have strong points and weak points, but NMS is the better product all around IMHO (less bugs, more stuff to do being the top criteria).

NMS has also had years of further development.

Actually it hasn't.

[I Denizen I]

Lets get one thing abundantly clear around here

For most of its development NMS was made by 4 people, that expanded to 10 people in the last year, it was made in a garage attached to a friends house.

4 people working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks is 8000 developer man hours per year.
10 people is 20,000.

So NMS was made in 3 years, 2 years of four people for 16,000 man hours, and (being overly generous we'll do a full year at 10) one year of ten people for 20,000 man hours, for a total of 36,000 hours.

THIRTY SIX THOUSAND.

Post release they went to 19 people, so 19x40x50x8= 304,000 man hours.

So the entire life time of NMS has had 340,000 man hours spent on it, all the coding, all the quests, all the lore, all the graphics, every single thing that is included in NMS today, took 19 people 340,000 hours to make.

At launch Starfield was reduced to 250 developers, and they worked till at least december when the statement was made by Todd I'mabigfatliar Howard.

250 developers working a 40 hour week, gives us 250x40x12 = 120,000 man hours.

ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND MAN HOURS for 3 months.

a 3rd of the total man hours spent over 11 years on NMS in THREE MONTHS.

Starfield was in dev for 8 years, a fully staffed 450 man primary studio and 26 additional external studios worked on the game over that period.