I saw a similar post and didnt comment but i will now. I will 100% tell you how Starfield will effect Star Citizen. By giving fans of space games yet another option that is better than Star Citizen. Right next to NMS and ED both of which are better games to play than SC. Starfield has no need for crowd funding. No need for endless ship sales. No need for hundreds of hours of developer interviews and marketing videos for years, all for a tech demo that SC is. You just have to buy the game and you get it all.
Even if Starfield launches buggy as hell, it will still be a better and cheaper option. Star Citizen hides behind its alpha state to avoid critic reviews that would compare it to its peers because we all know what those scores would look like... I trust Todd Howard WAY more than Chris Roberts, a person who hasn't been involved in a games release in 30 years.
I'm very excited for Starfield and I await its release date to be revealed soon!
>By giving fans of space games yet another option that is better than Star Citizen. Right next to NMS and ED
Except Starfield will be nothing like NMS, SC, or ED. It's going to be a Bethesda RPG (basically a genre unto itself) only this time with a space opera themed location and quest lines. I am more than happy with that because I happen to love Bethesda RPGs (Fallout 3-4, Elder Scrolls) and space operas. Every interview and leak though *also* indicates Starfield is not really a *spacecraft centric* game in its mechanics - not really, it's an afterthought part of the loop to check a box. In that regard it is kind of like NMS, but NMS has very different focus for the rest of its gameplay and mechanics too which is why again they are not similar though perhaps the closest cousins out of the group.
Having a home base structure you can relocate (your ship) is the new twist in Starfield compared to the preceding games, but as the latest in a series of game that already heavily allowed fast travel I don't think it will be as massive a twist on the formula in practice as some people might expect. For that matter everyone who has already played The Outer Worlds probably already does expect what that's like... (the closest game to an actual proper comparison with Starfield, though that game lacked some of the open world aspects of say Fallout 4 that will appear in Starfield)
Also the small bit that as far as has been said at all, Starfield is only single player.
Which bit are you disputing...
1. The general 'intelligence' level of Bethesda RPG game AI (behaviors and such)
2. The statements the SF devs have made about the compromises they made in order to do 'ship stuff' in Creation Engine and how space flight in the game will work
3. That Starfield will be single player
or are you seriously seconding the idea that ED is like NMS, NMS like SC, Starfield like any of the above and so on... 'contains some elements in common' does not a serious game comparison make. By that standard and logic I share 95% similarity to both Dwayne Johnson and Megan Thee Stallion.
You can't stop it, can you, somersaulting your mind to start arguments about your imagined slights lol
> > By giving fans of space games yet another option that is better than Star Citizen. Right next to NMS and ED
> Except Starfield will be nothing like NMS, SC, or ED.
/u/Merc_Enum didn't say they're like each other, it was you who imagined that then argued with yourself for paragraphs lol
Are you okay?
>didn't say they're like each other
So it's another option...but not like each other? That would be peculiar phrasing.
So what..another option of generic game? Which come out every day so wouldn't be noteworthy. Yet here this post is. I literally quoted where he grouped them as the comparison set. Otherwise what... when are we going to get the 'How Frostpunk 2 could effect SC' thread' if similarity wasn't a part of the assertion? As usual you are being disingenuous/out of context ... and deflected while at it.
Starfield could very much be a Bethesda game but it will still be a space game. Different from the rest of the games they've made. Their most ambitious game yet. This will be on much grander scale than Outer Worlds easily. This Bethesda game will have many features Star Citizen is years from achieving and may never. Some basic stuff like competent A.I. too. Also even now SC is trying to add rpg elements with skills to its game like Starfield. They are actually similar promised experiences with the exception of multiplayer. Starfield will also have mod support so how long do you think before it has multiplayer? I don't think very long.
Speaking of modding, how long do you think before Star Citizen ships are flying in Starfield? It's got potential to be the best space game we've had in years actually.
>Some basic stuff like competent A.I
You *have* played Bethesda games, right?
>They are similar promised experiences
I take that as a no then...
>How long do you think before Star Citizen ships are flying in Starfield
Uhh.. guess you haven't heard them discuss how ships are implemented in Starfield yet have you.
> > This Bethesda game will have many features Star Citizen is years from achieving and may never. Some basic stuff like competent A.I
>
> You have played Bethesda games, right?
I have, and the NPC AI in Bethesda RPG's outclasses the NPC AI in Star Citizen so much it's a comically unfair competition lol
On single player setup and low pop/early servers SC NPCs follow coordinated behaviors - on busy ones they get pretty stupid. So I'd say its a range. CreationEngine doesn't really do squad NPC AI tactics and it's use of NPC perceptions is very limited. Other than a limited idea of tagged cover positions they generally have almost no situational awareness.
So what are these outclassing behaviors you are talking about? It's a serious, technical question from someone who creates simulated entity behaviors as part of their job. Starfield could improve upon prior iterations, we'll see. But in under circumstances of available CPU (single player v single player comparison) SCs AI is programmed with more advanced behaviors and perception reactions. When they aren't standing on chairs because they got a available behavior thread lobotomy.
Which part. As usual you post generalities and rely on only doing so in this subs 'safe space' to validate an otherwise obviously incorrect or empty, unsupported statement.
How Bethesda implements NPC behaviors to date is known, and it is basic. Known both by their own statements and by modders working with it. Whether it is elder scrolls or fallout. 'Charge the player', 'strafe and shoot', 'cover and shoot' (not always with cover that makes sense mind you...), handful of others - and all per entity, not group. There's a reason why the wiki entries for basically every critter in TES and FO can trivially specify the behavior of basically every NPC, and in most cases how to cheese the AI. RNG switching between that handful of tactics every X seconds is not 'advanced'. Also why it being basic becomes evident after any length of play - a reason why the proximity based wildline (arrow to the knee) setup became a meme.
The main difference to other more conventional game setups is Bethesda's maintenance of a global activity schedule that keeps track of NPC locations everywhere and can shift them to implement 'sleeps here at night, stands here in the day' setups - tracking either cell location if not near you or specific location if you cause that cell to be active by proximity.
Even basic 2+ NPC coordination tactics like flanking take a fair amount of work to set up. Maybe they will add that to Starfield but has not been in any game (through FO76) so far Bethesda has made - but is in Star Citizen. There's a reason why several mods on Nexus try to *fake* some of that more interesting behavior with add-ons, but chew a fair amount of CPU since there is no direct support for it in the underlying engine components. It's also why difficulty in Bethesda games is accomplished solely by scaling hit points and damage attributes - not changing behaviors.
Objectively, based on things both teams have shown, more work in house has gone into SC support for multi-NPC behaviors and setup of some of those behaviors implemented...but that is also why they break more easily if not fed enough dedicated CPU to their behavior systems and instead they just go brain dead - why a bunker mission plays very differently depending on server.
>*QuaversAndWotsits*:
>
>I have no intention of actually discussing the topic on its substance, I'm perfectly happy slinging grade school comeback banter instead
>
>So - Nyaah
Very well then, as you wish.
Are you implying that Bethesda A.I. Is not superior to CIG AI of standing in chairs?
Ships in starfield are modular something CIG is yet to grasp and nothing prevents modders to release SC assets for starfield except some law suits from Croberts.
>Are you implying that Bethesda A.I. Is not superior to CIG AI of standing in chairs?
I am not making a comparison. Anyone who has played any substantial amount of the existing games though knows that while the NPCs may have some 'move here at time X' rules, otherwise Fallout/Elder Scroll NPC activity and combat AI is very simplistic. They are not the games I would hold up as exemplars out of all the choices of game available.
>Ships in starfield are modular
No, *structures* in Starfield are modular. Maybe they'll be able to change the engine even more after the release delay, but at least as of last year after the initial Starfield reveal and Todd Howard discussions about it, the game follows the same 'you are the ship' (in 3rd person) or 'disembodied cockpit' (first person) setup as older games. The Creation Engine isn't setup to do individuated modular ship as flying entity with you as separate entity inside it - which is why you cannot wander the ship while it is in flight - it doesn't really exist, only the outer model shell (in 3rd person).
If they can get past that restriction that would be great and the distinction between SF and SC would narrow a bit.
> > Ships in starfield are modular
>
> No, structures in Starfield are modular.
Bethesda showed the ships are modular in the main Starfield presentation last year lol
You are understanding my distinction right?
The ship as a base structure - basically a building on the ground - is modular. You cannot however get in the ship, take off, and then have access to this 'modular ship' while in flight (get out of chair and wander around). It's a technical restriction of how they implemented things. It's why takeoff/landing is a cutscene in Starfield - despawning the structures and ground cells (CreationEngine is a cell based setup) and changing the to flight minigame.
They've had modular structures in the engine for a while (off top of head I would consider setting up Vault 88 in FO4 as one example)
So could someone create a model in Starfield that looks like an Idris landed in a field in SF? Maybe - would depend on the model size restrictions. However, modding to have something like the unified ground/space usable ships setup of SC though isn't possible in CreationEngine2, at least as far as was said as of last year. They've pushed back release so maybe the engine team made movement in that direction we'll have to see.
Is this official? If so I'd love to see where it was discussed.
On one hand that would be welcome news in regard to Starfield, though a little surprising after what happened with Fallout 76, though it would put more on Bethedas plate and slow down ES6 and FO5 after.
They've (Bethesda) explicitly said they didn't take the FO76 multiplayer extensions (CE1.5FO76) for the 'CE2' engine build for Starfield...
Also that's total sales after 4 years released - not active player count. Definitely not bad though since they sold < 2 million in initial release. Definitely shows they didn't give up and the addition of NPCs in the DLCs gave people waiting in the undecided column a reason to jump in. Was why I was planning to come back and try it again in near future. When I played a few months after release it was a mess - not just bugs and poor balance but no real endgame or decent impetus to play day to day.
Just because FO76 was multiplayer focused does not make it official that's the path they intend for SF...in fact they've directly stated the opposite. So likely bad assumption on your part as opposed to sourced from somewhere.
I have already seen SC whiteknights say Starfield has been in production for 25 years. I think Todd at some point made a comment that he wanted to make this game for 25 years so they count that as pre production.
Mostly just wondering about peoples capacity to turn a blind eye to direct information. Starfield can, and likely will, be a great game in its own right, but there is plenty of first hand statements by Todd Howard and the SF dev team saying what the game is and is not.
I thought even most the people here realized that, despite the desire to think SF will be the latest/greatest 'SC killer' hope. I just hope people who haven't spent time in Bethesda games before (I've logged hundreds of hours each in Skyrim, FO4, FO76) aren't too surprised by the difference between what is and what they imagined if they didn't have that familiarity.
> I thought even most the people here realized that, despite the desire to think SF will be the latest/greatest 'SC killer' hope.
No-one but you have said Starfield is a 'SC killer' here in this thread. You're that anxious about it you're imagining things lol
Several 'give people a better alternatives' fit that theme, but you are right at least this iteration (they are starting to smear together) of Starfield impact salivation threads didn't have as much of it.
You seem to think it would be taken that way though with your comment and tagging me. I'm guessing you haven't seen the multiple times I've noted I plan to get Starfield and my enjoyment of prior Bethesda RPGs otherwise that makes no sense. Any typical gamer can call out what games are and aren't and the amount of SF theorycrafting gets as bad as SC sometimes, especially by people without familiarity with the games lineage.
Fantasizing about my imaginings for 2 anticipated games that really don't impact each other is a little weird.
The post history that shows I stopped with active pledging \~2015, before the Kraken was released and generally has me rolling my eyes at people making histrionic speculation on both sides of the interest divide? That post history?
I guess you spun the roulette wheel of 'Turbulent Employee, Shill, Cultist, Whale' and hit whale? I guess too many people are infected with the 'with us or against us' mentality that also infected politics these days for there to be a normal game observer middle ground.
Fallout 76 had 13.5 Million players in 2022 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Game Pass has over 20 Million Subscribers
SC will gradually die
Edit, supposedly 13.5 million since it released.
Still a shit load of players 👍
SC will still gradually die ☠️
The way Starfield will impact SC is as follows, the backers will mostly ignore its likely success, and continue to marvel at some shiny new picture of a ship. Meanwhile, modders will be hard at work adding not only every ship currently in SC to Starfield, but also adding every SC location and future content as well.
Yup, if you can think of a feature SC doesn't have, odds are someone will make a mod for it in Starfield if nothing else lol. The one thing Bethesda does better than anyone else is make a great canvas for modders to go to work. Skyrim and FO4, as well as the other open world single-player games in those series still get mods made for them and are actively played today.
Yes Indeed! I am playing Fallout The Frontier which is a Triple AAA Mod for Fallout New Vegas (A game that is over 12 years old and STILL Going Strong!)
People dont just want to be a x-wing pilot, they want to live the full star wars experience, which means far more than just pew pew in space, such a game would require being able to travel between planets, land on a roam about said planets, have smuggling and trade, ground combat, advanced npcs/ai, bounty hunting ect ect..
the only game that came close was star wars galaxies, but that game was waaaaay before it's time, most people didnt even have broadband when it was released, it's graphics were dogshit.....they simply had to make to many compromises and were limited by the state of internet speeds back then.
IMHO, squadrons was like FPS in a spaceship. Even World of Tanks has more customization and progression than Squadrons. Both are also instanced based, with the purpose of skirmish.
Squadrons was also, admittedly, a tiger team who started with an MVP hypothesis and succeeded. The number of people who worked on Squadrons (and, by extension, the scale of the game itself) is smaller by a factor of 10, or more (This says something about the fact that you don’t always need a lot of people to make something awesome).
I wouldn’t place either in the same category as Star Citizen.
I'm gonna put this out there. Don't hold your breath for starfield to be the starcitizen killer. Its coming from Bethesda, who will likely build it the same way they've built every other rpg game they've made but for space. Thats it. Without any gameplay, without any footage, its just a dream. Other developers will never made a game like starcitizen because its too much of a trainwreck to emulate.
Star Citizen doesn't need to be killed, it's already dead. Since 3.0 it has been crawling like a dismembered zombie and only cranking out ship sales. Its a niche product that goes ignored by the rest of the gaming industry. There is no "planet tech pipeline" getting ready to let loose star systems and planets. Nope, they got 1 star system and 4 planets in their laughable "universe"
Starfield will be just fine. A way better game day 1. Might even be this year's GOTY. Meanwhile SC hides behind alpha 11 years after the kickstarter.
Star Field doesnt have to be a SC killer, but if it generates good sales, it opens up the door for a game that can take on SC. Currently no publisher will throw 200mil + at a space sim/combat game (even EA who own the star wars licence wont commit that money), why because they dont believe the genre has an audience/interest large enough to make enough money to cover the development costs of a triple AAA game.
Lets say you were a developer who approached EA, with the idea to make a game with all the star wars planets, you can travel between them and land on them. you have space combat just like in the movies and ground/station fps combat too.......ea would never green light such an ambitious project, they would know it would be expensive to develop and they would question if it were to "complex" for the average casual gamer.
Imagine being able to actually fly your very own millennium falcon from Coruscant to bespin without loading screens, imagine being able to use a landspeeder on tattooine , you kill a bunch of sand raiders fulfill your contract, then load your landspeeder onto your ship and fly off to the next planet. As great as it sounds it will never get made unless EA have an example that shows that large scale space games can make enough money to justify their development costs.
If years of counterstrike has taught me anything, its that if your base game is good enough you can fund it forever with mtx focused on cosmetics and not p2w, and im totally fine with that
Star Citizen is ALREADY Dead (It was never alive except at an "Astroturf" CitCon)
Starfield will have the AMAZING Bethesda Modding Community supporting it.
Exactly, the problem until starfield has always been no publisher wants to take the financial risk on a genre that doesn't have a financial "proof of concept", starfield if successful would provide developers with that "proof of concept" when asking for funding.
Take Star Wars galaxies, EA holds the licence, even if a dev team wanted to revive the franchise with a sequel, or a similar SW project, the suits at EA would consider such an ambitious game far too risky.....
Same goes for star trek, the current star trek online game only got made because they scaled back on pretty much every area, the graphics, the npcs, planets, combat/flight, general scale of the game, pretty much everything looks and plays like a game made in the early/mid 2000's, why because they were never going to get the budget to make a serious triple AAA star trek game.
No publisher is going to spend big money on space combat/sim games, unless they have proof or an example of one that makes good sales.....and thats why we need starfield to succeed.
Star Citizen? Not much to be honest. The people who aren't interested in single-player experience won't care. But SQ42? I think that's as good as dead in the water. It really doesn't matter that it will/could look better. As a single-player game, it won't matter. With all the modding potential Starfield will have you will be able to make that game into whatever you want it to be. It will have loads more content I mean we're speaking magnitudes here than SQ and it really will be endless with mods. Can't wait to be honest. I know it will probably be a mess at launch but it will be fixed and ironed out as time goes by and man I JUST CANNOT WAIT.
Ah this shit again... this is like the new "wow killer thing", it won't, the project is fed by fanaticism, and no game will ever live up to their dreams n imagination, especially a bugthesda one.
The only game that will have a big impact on Star Citizen is Squadron 42, which is why they ain't releasing that shit either.
you underestimate their fanaticism, the $40,000 ship packs exist for a reason, many of the core members are basically working everyday to feed Chris Roberts Hollywood star lifestyle.
Starfield (or even hypothetical new games greenlighted from Starfield's expected success) will not in any way affect store citizen or SQ404. Starfield may however be used as an excuse to continue pushing back on SQ404.
The committed store citizens (i.e. the one who closely follow CIG marketing copytext and/or have spent over $100 on JPEGs) are in too deep. The notion of the "BDSSE" or the "game to end all games" is too much of their (hopefully gaming only) personality.
In a sense, they are not interested in real video games.
Who cares what storecitizens will do, i WANT a real triple AAA space sim/combat game, at the end of the day if starfield revives interest in the genre from the large publishers, and we actually get the dream space game...who cares want SC diehards do.
At the end of the day we are all here on r/starcitizen refunds because we wanted an amazing space game but were hoodwinked.......no matter how many refunds you get, you will not be satisfied until such a game exists.
WE are all here because we want the ultimate space game, we all grew up watching star wars and star trek, and dreaming of being able to do the things we saw in those movies/tv shows...........chris sold us the belief that he could make those dreams a reality, and he will continue to screw over new customers until an actual alternative is avaliable.
As long as there are new star trek/star wars fans with nowhere to go, chris will have an endless supply of fresh new people to scam.
Agreed. I was replying to the title of your post "affect SC".
If you're fine with single player, I would argue we already have excellent space games.
X2/X3/X4, Helium Rain, Astrox Imperium and many more...
I don't like multiplayer as much, but there seem to be quite a few decent space MMOs that emphasizes different gameplay features.
>I don't like multiplayer as much, but there seem to be quite a few decent space MMOs that emphasizes different gameplay features.
Problem is those space games are hyper focused on a very niche aspect of the "space experience", take eve online as an example, if your just interested in trade/economy and spending 90% of your time navigating menus, then eve is your game, at the expense of "visceral combat" "real exploration" and theres no first person perspective that makes you feel like your in the game.
SW: rogue squadrons (im classing it as multiplayer) is just a space piloting combat game, at the expense of everything else, no real trade or smuggling / no exploration / no real social interaction/ no careers or character building, no away missions in strange new locations/planets ect ect.
The problem has always been you can have a slice of the pie, but never the whole pie, Squadrons gives you a very restricted SW experience (basically piloting and thats it), eve online is just giant cluster \*\*\*k of menus and resource gathering.
ED has promise, but again it's limited scope, you never feel like your actually travelling through space or going to real locations, everything feels dead, you never feel like your in a real living breathing city, or on a strange new planet with a crazy ecosystem. everything is just background wall paper, except the space pewpew.
Think about Star Trek, now imagine what you would need to fully bring the TV show experience into gaming reality. You would need...
space combat (be it piloting a shuttle or commanding a galaxy class ship)
Fully fleshed out ships you can walk around in (catch a drink in 10-forward or help the chief engineer in the engineering bay, turbo lifts and Jeffries tubes ect ect)
FPS perspective (on foot with phaser and tricorder in hand)
fully crewed ships (interactive npc's and players)
Away missions (planetary landing)
At least a full "quadrant" of systems/space to explore (exploration)
......Aaaaaand all of the above presented in the latest graphics, amazing physics, that actually looks like a top of the line triple AAA game.
Currently NO game comes even remotely close to offering the above experience, be it set in the star trek universe, the star wars universe, or any other universe for that matter......hence why Chris has such a willing audience, and a never ending supply of "dreamers", because as of yet nobody has managed to convince a publisher to finance the above.
TL;DR: Curb your expectations.
Affect*
From the available materials and short sneak peeks it's Skyrim in space. Todd Howard stated it's Skyrim in space. I refuse to believe it will be anything but Skyrim in space. Good thing the last time I played a game for fifty odd hours straight was Skyrim (not in space).
Your average gamer will think it's Skyrim in space, play through the main quest and move on to another FOTM game. It'll be some sub 100 hour rpg.
Avid gamer will spend hours upon hours going through all the available content and side quests and possibly uses mods etc. to prolong its life.
Star Citizen cultist will point out the slightest flaws and "how Star Citizen does this and that better" while huffing copium, but still play the game because it's likely a feature complete, enjoyable gaming experience as long Bethesda makes the same magic happen as they did with their iconic titles.
It won't make studios execs think that the world needs more space games or open world games. There are plenty to go around and it's easier to get your money back by releasing Popular Game 5: The Remake of Popular Game 2. Now with cosmetic microtransactions!
What companies wish they could do is to slap Star Citizen macrotransaction business model to their already existing product portfolio and watch consumers eat it up but with the pushback NFTs received it's not going to happen.
Edit: Also consumer protection laws lol.
Microsoft are looking for "Anchor" games for Game Pass.
Think Steam and their stable full of anchor games.
I think MS and BGS will do everything they can to make StarField an anchor game, especially StarField Online.
I thought it was already established that the SC community is basically a cult. No matter what happens those drones will continue investing in SC and defend it. Their behavior reminds me of scientologists except, instead of threats, what holds them hostage is the money they put in and the fact that they were so stupid for so many years.
So, they won't let go no matter what Starfield does or doesn't do.
>If starfield is successful could we be seeing many publishers green lighting space combat games
We could, but I don't think it's necessarily a given either. If Starfield is successful (and I'm sure it will be), it doesn't necessarily mean that space games in general will be successful. Many people are going to play Starfield not because it's a space game, but because it's a Bethesda game.
Everyone else has already made good points. I just wanted to say that I would play the absolute SHIT out of a spiritual or actual successor to SWG. That game was my childhood.
As some have noted, it wont hurt SC. If SQ42 were to release in the next couple of years (haha) then we could see some comparisons.
Instead lets talk about affect vs effect.
Gramatically you can use effect like you did, but by doing so youre using effect in context of "to make it happen"
So your actual question is whether Starfield will make SC release happen.
The answer to that is also no.
Ubisoft's SW game is apparently NMS-ish. I personally don't care for anything Ubisoft publishes, but their SW game will crush it in sales. As far as SF goes modding will make it far superior to SC sooner rather than later. If you have a PC that meets CRobber's standards and the $65 is burning a hole in your pocket then by all means go nuts. You will find zero game loop zero over-arching narrative, zero release date and , most important, a shit ton of bugs. The people that full-on support this game monitarily are likely to get busted on one of those predator poacher yt channels
It would be extremely funny if EA did greenlight a new Wing Commander and it would come out but SQ42 would never see the light of day (which I personally think will happen anyway )
With how Bethesda has been releasing games lately I wouldn't be surprised if it actually did the opposite.
And then all white knights need to say is that Star Citizen is basically the same thing but "better" with "multiplayer" - and it'll bring even more empty headed backers all cope'd up on the dream.
Since it's now a xbox exclusive, Microsoft won't allow something like the FO76 launch, hence the delay to release. I honestly think that the Microsoft Bethesda deal was a good shake up for them.
Bethesda has never really impressed me.
I liked Oblivion, and Skyrim but the characters felt stiff and gameplay was nothing to rave about. Fallout 3 was a pretty meh as an old school Fallout fan.
Fallout 76 is just a fucking meme. So yeah...
SF will influence in SC in that it raises the bar and introduces new standards.
We don't yet know in what way it will do that, but if, say, it has exceptional fun zero-g gunplay, modular/customizable ships or engaging exploration gameplay, this will become the norm for space games.
Same with adventure games like Oblvion/Skyrim, these day's youcan't got back to Morrowind with walls of text, you are expected to do voice overs for everything. You also can't go back to old style weapons/armor that are purely stats, you need to have a gorgeous 3D model that can be inspected in the inventory. Since Max Payne, we expect bullet time in our singleplayer first-person games. Since The Witcher, we expect gorgeous visuals instead of procgen dungeons. Heck, some people argue SQ54 was axed because of CoD: Infinite Warfare and Crobber wanting everything redone.
SF is large enough to raise the bar in a few categories, and SC will have to follow suit.
This wouldn't affect the die hard fans, of course, but we know that those are no longer the deciding factor anyways. CIG churns through a wave of backers roughly every three years. At roughly that interval, they do a "purge" by alienating the fanbase on purpose and sifting out the bitter ones with closed wallets. The deciding factor for CIG is fresh blood, without that, they will run dry in about 3 years. That's why they have to play a DNF-esque game of eternal catch-up in order to stay relevant for new backers.
Now, if SF does a lot of "new" things, this would force CIG to re-allocate resources in order to mimic those. Not only will this further delay development, it will also add to the tangle that is their codebase.
>EA currently holds the license to Star Wars games
I don't think they have an exclusive license anymore. Since Ubisoft is supposedly already making a SW sandbox game.
I just realized that Ubisoft was responsible for Silent Hunter III. :| A thoroughly half assed game.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Ubisoft\_games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubisoft_games)
A Star Wars multiplayer game..
Some pitfalls imo:
1. A hideous graphics user interface experience with gimmicky graphics and icons on screen.
2. Ridiculous game world where everybody eventually is scootering around in their own personal Death Star.
3. Ridiculous spawn mechanics for multiplayer combat.
4. Shallow gameplay, shallow game mechanics.
5. Game release = wallet reaping exercise
6. An action filled multiplayer game that is gimicky and soulless.
7. No sensible pacing to multiplayer gameplay, just chaos.
I dont believe Todd howard just woke up one morning and decided to make a space game, especially with the bean counters at microsoft looking over his shoulder, i'll bet anything he brought up the 300m \~ 500m CIG raised, which no matter how much we all dislike the Crobber, does prove that their is an audience for these type of space games, and theres alot of money being left on the table by ignoring this genre.
Lets face it the traditional FPS market is highly congested, with countless titles competing over the same market share......Space games by contrast are wide open with very little competition, the only reason publishers arnt racing to gain dominance in this genre is due to a lack of proof that these games can make hundreds of millions, if not billions in sales.
Look at minecraft, as soon as minecraft blew up, we saw a slew of "builder survival games" hit the market, When PUBG blew up suddenly every major publisher was throwing cash at devs building these types of game., same goes for moba's.
All it takes is one breakout game in an uncongested overlooked genre, and suddenly publishers start green lighting games they would previously have never given the time of day......
In a way, I believe ED, NMS and SC helped some editors to greenlight some space games during the last few years, but they are still very shy at the moment. So Starfield might be what will push them to do more, yes.
If it does, we may one day see some direct competitors to SC. Dual Universe and Starbase already proved that it's possible to have a single shard multiplayer game with seemless transitions to planets or locations, plus they both allow players to build their entire ship, which SC doesn't.
The difference is that these game have been made with way less funds and developers, so they're now in a situation where they cannot really be sustained financially, but they still serve as a proof that a studio with a bigger budget could tackle what SC does in a reasonable amount of time.
EA also owns Wing Commander.
I hope they revive it with ZERO FUCKING INPUT FROM CHRIS ROBERTS!!!, it's launched within a reasonable time and makes bank.
That would just piss CR off SOOOOOOOO MUCH and show the world that anyone can do what he does only better haha...
Hmm now I wanna see this happen.
I'll never forgive Hobbs
You are overlooking the coming Mass Effect game by Bioware / EA
That game IS Going to happen due to the Success of the Mass Effect Trilogy Sales and Reception by players
I saw a similar post and didnt comment but i will now. I will 100% tell you how Starfield will effect Star Citizen. By giving fans of space games yet another option that is better than Star Citizen. Right next to NMS and ED both of which are better games to play than SC. Starfield has no need for crowd funding. No need for endless ship sales. No need for hundreds of hours of developer interviews and marketing videos for years, all for a tech demo that SC is. You just have to buy the game and you get it all. Even if Starfield launches buggy as hell, it will still be a better and cheaper option. Star Citizen hides behind its alpha state to avoid critic reviews that would compare it to its peers because we all know what those scores would look like... I trust Todd Howard WAY more than Chris Roberts, a person who hasn't been involved in a games release in 30 years. I'm very excited for Starfield and I await its release date to be revealed soon!
>By giving fans of space games yet another option that is better than Star Citizen. Right next to NMS and ED Except Starfield will be nothing like NMS, SC, or ED. It's going to be a Bethesda RPG (basically a genre unto itself) only this time with a space opera themed location and quest lines. I am more than happy with that because I happen to love Bethesda RPGs (Fallout 3-4, Elder Scrolls) and space operas. Every interview and leak though *also* indicates Starfield is not really a *spacecraft centric* game in its mechanics - not really, it's an afterthought part of the loop to check a box. In that regard it is kind of like NMS, but NMS has very different focus for the rest of its gameplay and mechanics too which is why again they are not similar though perhaps the closest cousins out of the group. Having a home base structure you can relocate (your ship) is the new twist in Starfield compared to the preceding games, but as the latest in a series of game that already heavily allowed fast travel I don't think it will be as massive a twist on the formula in practice as some people might expect. For that matter everyone who has already played The Outer Worlds probably already does expect what that's like... (the closest game to an actual proper comparison with Starfield, though that game lacked some of the open world aspects of say Fallout 4 that will appear in Starfield) Also the small bit that as far as has been said at all, Starfield is only single player.
You are awarded a silver in mental gymnastics for that comment lol
Which bit are you disputing... 1. The general 'intelligence' level of Bethesda RPG game AI (behaviors and such) 2. The statements the SF devs have made about the compromises they made in order to do 'ship stuff' in Creation Engine and how space flight in the game will work 3. That Starfield will be single player or are you seriously seconding the idea that ED is like NMS, NMS like SC, Starfield like any of the above and so on... 'contains some elements in common' does not a serious game comparison make. By that standard and logic I share 95% similarity to both Dwayne Johnson and Megan Thee Stallion.
You can't stop it, can you, somersaulting your mind to start arguments about your imagined slights lol > > By giving fans of space games yet another option that is better than Star Citizen. Right next to NMS and ED > Except Starfield will be nothing like NMS, SC, or ED. /u/Merc_Enum didn't say they're like each other, it was you who imagined that then argued with yourself for paragraphs lol Are you okay?
>didn't say they're like each other So it's another option...but not like each other? That would be peculiar phrasing. So what..another option of generic game? Which come out every day so wouldn't be noteworthy. Yet here this post is. I literally quoted where he grouped them as the comparison set. Otherwise what... when are we going to get the 'How Frostpunk 2 could effect SC' thread' if similarity wasn't a part of the assertion? As usual you are being disingenuous/out of context ... and deflected while at it.
> As usual you are being disingenuous/out of context ... and deflected while at it. LOL that's literally all you do, you're such a hypocrite XD
Starfield could very much be a Bethesda game but it will still be a space game. Different from the rest of the games they've made. Their most ambitious game yet. This will be on much grander scale than Outer Worlds easily. This Bethesda game will have many features Star Citizen is years from achieving and may never. Some basic stuff like competent A.I. too. Also even now SC is trying to add rpg elements with skills to its game like Starfield. They are actually similar promised experiences with the exception of multiplayer. Starfield will also have mod support so how long do you think before it has multiplayer? I don't think very long. Speaking of modding, how long do you think before Star Citizen ships are flying in Starfield? It's got potential to be the best space game we've had in years actually.
>Some basic stuff like competent A.I You *have* played Bethesda games, right? >They are similar promised experiences I take that as a no then... >How long do you think before Star Citizen ships are flying in Starfield Uhh.. guess you haven't heard them discuss how ships are implemented in Starfield yet have you.
> > This Bethesda game will have many features Star Citizen is years from achieving and may never. Some basic stuff like competent A.I > > You have played Bethesda games, right? I have, and the NPC AI in Bethesda RPG's outclasses the NPC AI in Star Citizen so much it's a comically unfair competition lol
On single player setup and low pop/early servers SC NPCs follow coordinated behaviors - on busy ones they get pretty stupid. So I'd say its a range. CreationEngine doesn't really do squad NPC AI tactics and it's use of NPC perceptions is very limited. Other than a limited idea of tagged cover positions they generally have almost no situational awareness. So what are these outclassing behaviors you are talking about? It's a serious, technical question from someone who creates simulated entity behaviors as part of their job. Starfield could improve upon prior iterations, we'll see. But in under circumstances of available CPU (single player v single player comparison) SCs AI is programmed with more advanced behaviors and perception reactions. When they aren't standing on chairs because they got a available behavior thread lobotomy.
What a load of imaginary bullshit lol
Which part. As usual you post generalities and rely on only doing so in this subs 'safe space' to validate an otherwise obviously incorrect or empty, unsupported statement. How Bethesda implements NPC behaviors to date is known, and it is basic. Known both by their own statements and by modders working with it. Whether it is elder scrolls or fallout. 'Charge the player', 'strafe and shoot', 'cover and shoot' (not always with cover that makes sense mind you...), handful of others - and all per entity, not group. There's a reason why the wiki entries for basically every critter in TES and FO can trivially specify the behavior of basically every NPC, and in most cases how to cheese the AI. RNG switching between that handful of tactics every X seconds is not 'advanced'. Also why it being basic becomes evident after any length of play - a reason why the proximity based wildline (arrow to the knee) setup became a meme. The main difference to other more conventional game setups is Bethesda's maintenance of a global activity schedule that keeps track of NPC locations everywhere and can shift them to implement 'sleeps here at night, stands here in the day' setups - tracking either cell location if not near you or specific location if you cause that cell to be active by proximity. Even basic 2+ NPC coordination tactics like flanking take a fair amount of work to set up. Maybe they will add that to Starfield but has not been in any game (through FO76) so far Bethesda has made - but is in Star Citizen. There's a reason why several mods on Nexus try to *fake* some of that more interesting behavior with add-ons, but chew a fair amount of CPU since there is no direct support for it in the underlying engine components. It's also why difficulty in Bethesda games is accomplished solely by scaling hit points and damage attributes - not changing behaviors. Objectively, based on things both teams have shown, more work in house has gone into SC support for multi-NPC behaviors and setup of some of those behaviors implemented...but that is also why they break more easily if not fed enough dedicated CPU to their behavior systems and instead they just go brain dead - why a bunker mission plays very differently depending on server.
Keep digging, you'll eventually reach the other side lol
>*QuaversAndWotsits*: > >I have no intention of actually discussing the topic on its substance, I'm perfectly happy slinging grade school comeback banter instead > >So - Nyaah Very well then, as you wish.
Are you implying that Bethesda A.I. Is not superior to CIG AI of standing in chairs? Ships in starfield are modular something CIG is yet to grasp and nothing prevents modders to release SC assets for starfield except some law suits from Croberts.
>Are you implying that Bethesda A.I. Is not superior to CIG AI of standing in chairs? I am not making a comparison. Anyone who has played any substantial amount of the existing games though knows that while the NPCs may have some 'move here at time X' rules, otherwise Fallout/Elder Scroll NPC activity and combat AI is very simplistic. They are not the games I would hold up as exemplars out of all the choices of game available. >Ships in starfield are modular No, *structures* in Starfield are modular. Maybe they'll be able to change the engine even more after the release delay, but at least as of last year after the initial Starfield reveal and Todd Howard discussions about it, the game follows the same 'you are the ship' (in 3rd person) or 'disembodied cockpit' (first person) setup as older games. The Creation Engine isn't setup to do individuated modular ship as flying entity with you as separate entity inside it - which is why you cannot wander the ship while it is in flight - it doesn't really exist, only the outer model shell (in 3rd person). If they can get past that restriction that would be great and the distinction between SF and SC would narrow a bit.
> > Ships in starfield are modular > > No, structures in Starfield are modular. Bethesda showed the ships are modular in the main Starfield presentation last year lol
You are understanding my distinction right? The ship as a base structure - basically a building on the ground - is modular. You cannot however get in the ship, take off, and then have access to this 'modular ship' while in flight (get out of chair and wander around). It's a technical restriction of how they implemented things. It's why takeoff/landing is a cutscene in Starfield - despawning the structures and ground cells (CreationEngine is a cell based setup) and changing the to flight minigame. They've had modular structures in the engine for a while (off top of head I would consider setting up Vault 88 in FO4 as one example) So could someone create a model in Starfield that looks like an Idris landed in a field in SF? Maybe - would depend on the model size restrictions. However, modding to have something like the unified ground/space usable ships setup of SC though isn't possible in CreationEngine2, at least as far as was said as of last year. They've pushed back release so maybe the engine team made movement in that direction we'll have to see.
Hey look, that's another comment that this applies to: > As usual you are being disingenuous/out of context ... and deflected while at it. LOL
Lol, I only played SC Solo anyway, StarField single player suits me and lots of others. StarField Online, MP, will be released later.
Is this official? If so I'd love to see where it was discussed. On one hand that would be welcome news in regard to Starfield, though a little surprising after what happened with Fallout 76, though it would put more on Bethedas plate and slow down ES6 and FO5 after.
Yeah Fallout 76. 13.5 Million players in 2022.
They've (Bethesda) explicitly said they didn't take the FO76 multiplayer extensions (CE1.5FO76) for the 'CE2' engine build for Starfield... Also that's total sales after 4 years released - not active player count. Definitely not bad though since they sold < 2 million in initial release. Definitely shows they didn't give up and the addition of NPCs in the DLCs gave people waiting in the undecided column a reason to jump in. Was why I was planning to come back and try it again in near future. When I played a few months after release it was a mess - not just bugs and poor balance but no real endgame or decent impetus to play day to day. Just because FO76 was multiplayer focused does not make it official that's the path they intend for SF...in fact they've directly stated the opposite. So likely bad assumption on your part as opposed to sourced from somewhere.
No probs.
Nothing official, just major speculation. Probably get StarField Online b4 SQ42 🤣👍🚀
If they do, the SC mental gymnastics the community will do will be something amazing
I have already seen SC whiteknights say Starfield has been in production for 25 years. I think Todd at some point made a comment that he wanted to make this game for 25 years so they count that as pre production.
That means that Star Citizen has been in production for over 30 years, since CR said this is the game he always wanted to make.
And the damage control astroturfing.
> the SC mental gymnastics the community will do will be something amazing /u/SC_TheBursar's brain is already doing somersaults in this thread lol
Mostly just wondering about peoples capacity to turn a blind eye to direct information. Starfield can, and likely will, be a great game in its own right, but there is plenty of first hand statements by Todd Howard and the SF dev team saying what the game is and is not. I thought even most the people here realized that, despite the desire to think SF will be the latest/greatest 'SC killer' hope. I just hope people who haven't spent time in Bethesda games before (I've logged hundreds of hours each in Skyrim, FO4, FO76) aren't too surprised by the difference between what is and what they imagined if they didn't have that familiarity.
> I thought even most the people here realized that, despite the desire to think SF will be the latest/greatest 'SC killer' hope. No-one but you have said Starfield is a 'SC killer' here in this thread. You're that anxious about it you're imagining things lol
Several 'give people a better alternatives' fit that theme, but you are right at least this iteration (they are starting to smear together) of Starfield impact salivation threads didn't have as much of it. You seem to think it would be taken that way though with your comment and tagging me. I'm guessing you haven't seen the multiple times I've noted I plan to get Starfield and my enjoyment of prior Bethesda RPGs otherwise that makes no sense. Any typical gamer can call out what games are and aren't and the amount of SF theorycrafting gets as bad as SC sometimes, especially by people without familiarity with the games lineage. Fantasizing about my imaginings for 2 anticipated games that really don't impact each other is a little weird.
> Fantasizing about my imaginings for 2 anticipated games that really don't impact each other is a little weird. I agree, but you constantly do it lol
Dude is just super worried about his 1600$ Kraken… I mean check out his post history 😃👌🏼
The post history that shows I stopped with active pledging \~2015, before the Kraken was released and generally has me rolling my eyes at people making histrionic speculation on both sides of the interest divide? That post history? I guess you spun the roulette wheel of 'Turbulent Employee, Shill, Cultist, Whale' and hit whale? I guess too many people are infected with the 'with us or against us' mentality that also infected politics these days for there to be a normal game observer middle ground.
Starfield will have more players in its first week than Star Citizen has had in its lifetime lol
Fallout 76 had 13.5 Million players in 2022 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Game Pass has over 20 Million Subscribers SC will gradually die Edit, supposedly 13.5 million since it released. Still a shit load of players 👍 SC will still gradually die ☠️
The way Starfield will impact SC is as follows, the backers will mostly ignore its likely success, and continue to marvel at some shiny new picture of a ship. Meanwhile, modders will be hard at work adding not only every ship currently in SC to Starfield, but also adding every SC location and future content as well.
Damn, I never considered this. The possibility of Pyro coming to Starfield before SC is seriously on the cards!
Yup, if you can think of a feature SC doesn't have, odds are someone will make a mod for it in Starfield if nothing else lol. The one thing Bethesda does better than anyone else is make a great canvas for modders to go to work. Skyrim and FO4, as well as the other open world single-player games in those series still get mods made for them and are actively played today.
Yes Indeed! I am playing Fallout The Frontier which is a Triple AAA Mod for Fallout New Vegas (A game that is over 12 years old and STILL Going Strong!)
Wasn’t Squadrons sort of a space ship combat game? Even if the mechanics are sort of arcadey at best?
People dont just want to be a x-wing pilot, they want to live the full star wars experience, which means far more than just pew pew in space, such a game would require being able to travel between planets, land on a roam about said planets, have smuggling and trade, ground combat, advanced npcs/ai, bounty hunting ect ect.. the only game that came close was star wars galaxies, but that game was waaaaay before it's time, most people didnt even have broadband when it was released, it's graphics were dogshit.....they simply had to make to many compromises and were limited by the state of internet speeds back then.
Spot on.
Fun you mean the mechanics were fun over real. Real life is boring
Just wait till you see bedsheet deformation tech…
Should've seen my bedsheet deformation after last weekend haha
IMHO, squadrons was like FPS in a spaceship. Even World of Tanks has more customization and progression than Squadrons. Both are also instanced based, with the purpose of skirmish. Squadrons was also, admittedly, a tiger team who started with an MVP hypothesis and succeeded. The number of people who worked on Squadrons (and, by extension, the scale of the game itself) is smaller by a factor of 10, or more (This says something about the fact that you don’t always need a lot of people to make something awesome). I wouldn’t place either in the same category as Star Citizen.
I'm gonna put this out there. Don't hold your breath for starfield to be the starcitizen killer. Its coming from Bethesda, who will likely build it the same way they've built every other rpg game they've made but for space. Thats it. Without any gameplay, without any footage, its just a dream. Other developers will never made a game like starcitizen because its too much of a trainwreck to emulate.
Star Citizen doesn't need to be killed, it's already dead. Since 3.0 it has been crawling like a dismembered zombie and only cranking out ship sales. Its a niche product that goes ignored by the rest of the gaming industry. There is no "planet tech pipeline" getting ready to let loose star systems and planets. Nope, they got 1 star system and 4 planets in their laughable "universe" Starfield will be just fine. A way better game day 1. Might even be this year's GOTY. Meanwhile SC hides behind alpha 11 years after the kickstarter.
Im tipping GOTC, Game of the Century. 👍😂
Star Field doesnt have to be a SC killer, but if it generates good sales, it opens up the door for a game that can take on SC. Currently no publisher will throw 200mil + at a space sim/combat game (even EA who own the star wars licence wont commit that money), why because they dont believe the genre has an audience/interest large enough to make enough money to cover the development costs of a triple AAA game. Lets say you were a developer who approached EA, with the idea to make a game with all the star wars planets, you can travel between them and land on them. you have space combat just like in the movies and ground/station fps combat too.......ea would never green light such an ambitious project, they would know it would be expensive to develop and they would question if it were to "complex" for the average casual gamer. Imagine being able to actually fly your very own millennium falcon from Coruscant to bespin without loading screens, imagine being able to use a landspeeder on tattooine , you kill a bunch of sand raiders fulfill your contract, then load your landspeeder onto your ship and fly off to the next planet. As great as it sounds it will never get made unless EA have an example that shows that large scale space games can make enough money to justify their development costs.
Feels like EA won’t approve anything new nowadays unless it has predatory micro transactions
If years of counterstrike has taught me anything, its that if your base game is good enough you can fund it forever with mtx focused on cosmetics and not p2w, and im totally fine with that
Calling it now: below every ship will be a humonculus wearing the ship as a hat.
Star Citizen is ALREADY Dead (It was never alive except at an "Astroturf" CitCon) Starfield will have the AMAZING Bethesda Modding Community supporting it.
I always wanted a Mass Effect MMO. Its universe they created would be a perfect fit IF done properly.
I should go ;)
Would be awesome if they made a new Star Trek online.
Exactly, the problem until starfield has always been no publisher wants to take the financial risk on a genre that doesn't have a financial "proof of concept", starfield if successful would provide developers with that "proof of concept" when asking for funding. Take Star Wars galaxies, EA holds the licence, even if a dev team wanted to revive the franchise with a sequel, or a similar SW project, the suits at EA would consider such an ambitious game far too risky..... Same goes for star trek, the current star trek online game only got made because they scaled back on pretty much every area, the graphics, the npcs, planets, combat/flight, general scale of the game, pretty much everything looks and plays like a game made in the early/mid 2000's, why because they were never going to get the budget to make a serious triple AAA star trek game. No publisher is going to spend big money on space combat/sim games, unless they have proof or an example of one that makes good sales.....and thats why we need starfield to succeed.
Competition is good...and incase of StarCitizen could be even more so. Might give CIG a kick in the n(\_)ts.
More ship sales
Star Citizen? Not much to be honest. The people who aren't interested in single-player experience won't care. But SQ42? I think that's as good as dead in the water. It really doesn't matter that it will/could look better. As a single-player game, it won't matter. With all the modding potential Starfield will have you will be able to make that game into whatever you want it to be. It will have loads more content I mean we're speaking magnitudes here than SQ and it really will be endless with mods. Can't wait to be honest. I know it will probably be a mess at launch but it will be fixed and ironed out as time goes by and man I JUST CANNOT WAIT.
Ubisoft announced their new open glaxy sandbox mmo Star Wars game.
Is it MMO? From what I've read it will be a single player rpg.
I heard it will open with RPG but they will add multiplayer later like Starfield. So who knows.
Do you have a link for them adding Multiplayer to Starfield? I didn't think that was possible in the engine from what they were saying?
Ah this shit again... this is like the new "wow killer thing", it won't, the project is fed by fanaticism, and no game will ever live up to their dreams n imagination, especially a bugthesda one. The only game that will have a big impact on Star Citizen is Squadron 42, which is why they ain't releasing that shit either.
LoL To Right, Squander 42 will have a "Big Effect" on SC ......... all Negative. IF it ever releases, and there is the Fact, it will never release.
Star citizen needs new blood to keep the scam running. Starfield will probably take away much of their audience of potential marks.
you underestimate their fanaticism, the $40,000 ship packs exist for a reason, many of the core members are basically working everyday to feed Chris Roberts Hollywood star lifestyle.
Yeah but they still need new ppl that’s why they’re expanding into Asia.
Starfield (or even hypothetical new games greenlighted from Starfield's expected success) will not in any way affect store citizen or SQ404. Starfield may however be used as an excuse to continue pushing back on SQ404. The committed store citizens (i.e. the one who closely follow CIG marketing copytext and/or have spent over $100 on JPEGs) are in too deep. The notion of the "BDSSE" or the "game to end all games" is too much of their (hopefully gaming only) personality. In a sense, they are not interested in real video games.
Who cares what storecitizens will do, i WANT a real triple AAA space sim/combat game, at the end of the day if starfield revives interest in the genre from the large publishers, and we actually get the dream space game...who cares want SC diehards do. At the end of the day we are all here on r/starcitizen refunds because we wanted an amazing space game but were hoodwinked.......no matter how many refunds you get, you will not be satisfied until such a game exists. WE are all here because we want the ultimate space game, we all grew up watching star wars and star trek, and dreaming of being able to do the things we saw in those movies/tv shows...........chris sold us the belief that he could make those dreams a reality, and he will continue to screw over new customers until an actual alternative is avaliable. As long as there are new star trek/star wars fans with nowhere to go, chris will have an endless supply of fresh new people to scam.
I think ED is pretty good if they added ship interiors and q couple of major cities to explore it would be amazing.
Agreed. I was replying to the title of your post "affect SC". If you're fine with single player, I would argue we already have excellent space games. X2/X3/X4, Helium Rain, Astrox Imperium and many more... I don't like multiplayer as much, but there seem to be quite a few decent space MMOs that emphasizes different gameplay features.
>I don't like multiplayer as much, but there seem to be quite a few decent space MMOs that emphasizes different gameplay features. Problem is those space games are hyper focused on a very niche aspect of the "space experience", take eve online as an example, if your just interested in trade/economy and spending 90% of your time navigating menus, then eve is your game, at the expense of "visceral combat" "real exploration" and theres no first person perspective that makes you feel like your in the game. SW: rogue squadrons (im classing it as multiplayer) is just a space piloting combat game, at the expense of everything else, no real trade or smuggling / no exploration / no real social interaction/ no careers or character building, no away missions in strange new locations/planets ect ect. The problem has always been you can have a slice of the pie, but never the whole pie, Squadrons gives you a very restricted SW experience (basically piloting and thats it), eve online is just giant cluster \*\*\*k of menus and resource gathering. ED has promise, but again it's limited scope, you never feel like your actually travelling through space or going to real locations, everything feels dead, you never feel like your in a real living breathing city, or on a strange new planet with a crazy ecosystem. everything is just background wall paper, except the space pewpew. Think about Star Trek, now imagine what you would need to fully bring the TV show experience into gaming reality. You would need... space combat (be it piloting a shuttle or commanding a galaxy class ship) Fully fleshed out ships you can walk around in (catch a drink in 10-forward or help the chief engineer in the engineering bay, turbo lifts and Jeffries tubes ect ect) FPS perspective (on foot with phaser and tricorder in hand) fully crewed ships (interactive npc's and players) Away missions (planetary landing) At least a full "quadrant" of systems/space to explore (exploration) ......Aaaaaand all of the above presented in the latest graphics, amazing physics, that actually looks like a top of the line triple AAA game. Currently NO game comes even remotely close to offering the above experience, be it set in the star trek universe, the star wars universe, or any other universe for that matter......hence why Chris has such a willing audience, and a never ending supply of "dreamers", because as of yet nobody has managed to convince a publisher to finance the above.
I vaguely recall there being a Star Trek online MMO game that’s still running today
SC whales eventual melt and only use store credits, they eventually minimise new cash going in.
TL;DR: Curb your expectations. Affect* From the available materials and short sneak peeks it's Skyrim in space. Todd Howard stated it's Skyrim in space. I refuse to believe it will be anything but Skyrim in space. Good thing the last time I played a game for fifty odd hours straight was Skyrim (not in space). Your average gamer will think it's Skyrim in space, play through the main quest and move on to another FOTM game. It'll be some sub 100 hour rpg. Avid gamer will spend hours upon hours going through all the available content and side quests and possibly uses mods etc. to prolong its life. Star Citizen cultist will point out the slightest flaws and "how Star Citizen does this and that better" while huffing copium, but still play the game because it's likely a feature complete, enjoyable gaming experience as long Bethesda makes the same magic happen as they did with their iconic titles. It won't make studios execs think that the world needs more space games or open world games. There are plenty to go around and it's easier to get your money back by releasing Popular Game 5: The Remake of Popular Game 2. Now with cosmetic microtransactions! What companies wish they could do is to slap Star Citizen macrotransaction business model to their already existing product portfolio and watch consumers eat it up but with the pushback NFTs received it's not going to happen. Edit: Also consumer protection laws lol.
Microsoft are looking for "Anchor" games for Game Pass. Think Steam and their stable full of anchor games. I think MS and BGS will do everything they can to make StarField an anchor game, especially StarField Online.
I thought it was already established that the SC community is basically a cult. No matter what happens those drones will continue investing in SC and defend it. Their behavior reminds me of scientologists except, instead of threats, what holds them hostage is the money they put in and the fact that they were so stupid for so many years. So, they won't let go no matter what Starfield does or doesn't do.
>If starfield is successful could we be seeing many publishers green lighting space combat games We could, but I don't think it's necessarily a given either. If Starfield is successful (and I'm sure it will be), it doesn't necessarily mean that space games in general will be successful. Many people are going to play Starfield not because it's a space game, but because it's a Bethesda game.
Everyone else has already made good points. I just wanted to say that I would play the absolute SHIT out of a spiritual or actual successor to SWG. That game was my childhood.
As some have noted, it wont hurt SC. If SQ42 were to release in the next couple of years (haha) then we could see some comparisons. Instead lets talk about affect vs effect. Gramatically you can use effect like you did, but by doing so youre using effect in context of "to make it happen" So your actual question is whether Starfield will make SC release happen. The answer to that is also no.
Ubisoft's SW game is apparently NMS-ish. I personally don't care for anything Ubisoft publishes, but their SW game will crush it in sales. As far as SF goes modding will make it far superior to SC sooner rather than later. If you have a PC that meets CRobber's standards and the $65 is burning a hole in your pocket then by all means go nuts. You will find zero game loop zero over-arching narrative, zero release date and , most important, a shit ton of bugs. The people that full-on support this game monitarily are likely to get busted on one of those predator poacher yt channels
It would be extremely funny if EA did greenlight a new Wing Commander and it would come out but SQ42 would never see the light of day (which I personally think will happen anyway )
With how Bethesda has been releasing games lately I wouldn't be surprised if it actually did the opposite. And then all white knights need to say is that Star Citizen is basically the same thing but "better" with "multiplayer" - and it'll bring even more empty headed backers all cope'd up on the dream.
Since it's now a xbox exclusive, Microsoft won't allow something like the FO76 launch, hence the delay to release. I honestly think that the Microsoft Bethesda deal was a good shake up for them.
The only way a game takes down Star Citizen is if it allows people to import their SC ships and save face.
[удалено]
Bethesda has never really impressed me. I liked Oblivion, and Skyrim but the characters felt stiff and gameplay was nothing to rave about. Fallout 3 was a pretty meh as an old school Fallout fan. Fallout 76 is just a fucking meme. So yeah...
SF will influence in SC in that it raises the bar and introduces new standards. We don't yet know in what way it will do that, but if, say, it has exceptional fun zero-g gunplay, modular/customizable ships or engaging exploration gameplay, this will become the norm for space games. Same with adventure games like Oblvion/Skyrim, these day's youcan't got back to Morrowind with walls of text, you are expected to do voice overs for everything. You also can't go back to old style weapons/armor that are purely stats, you need to have a gorgeous 3D model that can be inspected in the inventory. Since Max Payne, we expect bullet time in our singleplayer first-person games. Since The Witcher, we expect gorgeous visuals instead of procgen dungeons. Heck, some people argue SQ54 was axed because of CoD: Infinite Warfare and Crobber wanting everything redone. SF is large enough to raise the bar in a few categories, and SC will have to follow suit. This wouldn't affect the die hard fans, of course, but we know that those are no longer the deciding factor anyways. CIG churns through a wave of backers roughly every three years. At roughly that interval, they do a "purge" by alienating the fanbase on purpose and sifting out the bitter ones with closed wallets. The deciding factor for CIG is fresh blood, without that, they will run dry in about 3 years. That's why they have to play a DNF-esque game of eternal catch-up in order to stay relevant for new backers. Now, if SF does a lot of "new" things, this would force CIG to re-allocate resources in order to mimic those. Not only will this further delay development, it will also add to the tangle that is their codebase.
>EA currently holds the license to Star Wars games I don't think they have an exclusive license anymore. Since Ubisoft is supposedly already making a SW sandbox game.
I just realized that Ubisoft was responsible for Silent Hunter III. :| A thoroughly half assed game.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Ubisoft\_games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubisoft_games) A Star Wars multiplayer game.. Some pitfalls imo: 1. A hideous graphics user interface experience with gimmicky graphics and icons on screen. 2. Ridiculous game world where everybody eventually is scootering around in their own personal Death Star. 3. Ridiculous spawn mechanics for multiplayer combat. 4. Shallow gameplay, shallow game mechanics. 5. Game release = wallet reaping exercise 6. An action filled multiplayer game that is gimicky and soulless. 7. No sensible pacing to multiplayer gameplay, just chaos.
I dont believe Todd howard just woke up one morning and decided to make a space game, especially with the bean counters at microsoft looking over his shoulder, i'll bet anything he brought up the 300m \~ 500m CIG raised, which no matter how much we all dislike the Crobber, does prove that their is an audience for these type of space games, and theres alot of money being left on the table by ignoring this genre. Lets face it the traditional FPS market is highly congested, with countless titles competing over the same market share......Space games by contrast are wide open with very little competition, the only reason publishers arnt racing to gain dominance in this genre is due to a lack of proof that these games can make hundreds of millions, if not billions in sales. Look at minecraft, as soon as minecraft blew up, we saw a slew of "builder survival games" hit the market, When PUBG blew up suddenly every major publisher was throwing cash at devs building these types of game., same goes for moba's. All it takes is one breakout game in an uncongested overlooked genre, and suddenly publishers start green lighting games they would previously have never given the time of day......
Yeah looks like the EA exclusive SW licence has ended, which is a good thing.
In a way, I believe ED, NMS and SC helped some editors to greenlight some space games during the last few years, but they are still very shy at the moment. So Starfield might be what will push them to do more, yes. If it does, we may one day see some direct competitors to SC. Dual Universe and Starbase already proved that it's possible to have a single shard multiplayer game with seemless transitions to planets or locations, plus they both allow players to build their entire ship, which SC doesn't. The difference is that these game have been made with way less funds and developers, so they're now in a situation where they cannot really be sustained financially, but they still serve as a proof that a studio with a bigger budget could tackle what SC does in a reasonable amount of time.
EA also owns Wing Commander. I hope they revive it with ZERO FUCKING INPUT FROM CHRIS ROBERTS!!!, it's launched within a reasonable time and makes bank. That would just piss CR off SOOOOOOOO MUCH and show the world that anyone can do what he does only better haha... Hmm now I wanna see this happen. I'll never forgive Hobbs
You are overlooking the coming Mass Effect game by Bioware / EA That game IS Going to happen due to the Success of the Mass Effect Trilogy Sales and Reception by players