"non existent functionality that migrated to starfield" I lost it.... "your ship is mostly a place to visit loading screens" first time seeing your content, love it
yeah, the very least they could have done in SF is simulate space travel by making it so the gravdrive jump took some time while you walked around in the ship waiting for the ETA, maybe you want to check your gear or talk to some follower NPC's or fix something in that time while you wait. now i'm not saying it should be as long as SC as 1 real life hour, but something as small as 5 to 10 minutes would have just been fine. now technically your ship's cell would be the load screen, it would just be a function of a delayed load to the next planets orbit. the ship would look like it was traveling through the cockpit when you engage the drive, and if your ship has any other window you would see the gravdrive effect, and you could view your ship in a galaxy map or something to see where you are in a seemingly real time window, it wouldn't actually be real time because of the limitations of the engine, but it would at least look like it and give the player some simulation in their mind that they were actually going somewhere and not just going through yet another load screen.
Trust me, after spending an insane portion of my 2000 hours flying in Elite just waiting to get somewhere, either in space or heading to the surface of a world... also in Star Citizen having to get out of bed, walk to a terminal, get a ride to the station, walk to my ship Before I can do more lengthy flying between places, like in Elite... I really like Starfield having a quick cut scene!
@@cwolfxuk-other i think the game should have that other option there just for the people who want it, this way everyone gets what they want. so if your the kind of person who doesn't like immersion and just wants to play the game, you can choose to turn that option off and if you like immersion, you can choose to leave it on to experience that kind of thing. the problem with SC is these loading times take really fucking long and it stops the fun of the game, idk how it works in Elite, but just from reading your comment it sounds like it might take a while, but that's why it shouldn't be a very long time, but maybe the player wants it to take longer, we have sliders for mods all the time for the exp gain for faster or slower gain, so having the set delay set to what the user wants, it's up to them in how it functions when it comes to time. i mean i run into all kinds of mods that allow these adjustments for the player that offer much more choice to the player for all kinds of things in game. like i just downloaded a cool FO4 mod that gives the player good and bad karma like the old fallout games, where you can make any NPC regardless their rank and standing become your slave settler or arrest them and take them to jail, but that mod has a shit load of other options that it's simply too much to list as it's very complex with a lot of adjustments do to the descression fo the player.
@@5226-p1e hmmm, I suppose it depends on hardware - which is why I don't get the problem. The animations of flying to a planet take a couple of seconds. Actual black loading screens - less than a second.
Playing Starfield has given me more appreciation for what they are trying to accomplish in Starcitizen. One game already feels outdated and the other like they are trying to push the limits of gaming.
I just dont understand why people are so quick to defend it just because its Bethesda, even the bad parts about it. Many of the defendants would rather die on a hill of saying the exploration is good and perfect than admit that it's not the best and try to praise the parts of the game that actually are good.
I guess the key word here is trying. At some point, any game has to have some kind of focus. Starfield is more akin to Mass Effect with a partitioned sandbox than anything like Elite or SC, since it’s juggling bits of the spaceship stuff with the standard boots on the ground RPG stuff. The experiences are simply nothing alike.
@@RobTheDoodler I disagree. Sure, any game has to have a focus, but when exploration is advertised as a core pillar and major selling point, it's perfectly fair for players to critique just how shallow and empty that exploration feels. Paying lip service to the idea of going "anywhere" in a galaxy of procedurally generated planets doesn't actually make the experience of exploring those places engaging or lively. And the comparisons to other games are relevant here - not to say Starfield needs to copy them directly, but to illustrate how much more depth and interactivity previous games, even ones much older, managed to achieve in their worlds. Things like customizable outfits, memorable NPCs with schedules and personalities, multi-level cities you can get properly lost in - these aren't lofty or unreasonable expectations, they're standard features Bethesda themselves helped establish as essential to an immersive open world. But in Starfield they took a step backwards for the sake of scale. So while it may try to juggle RPG and space elements, when the space (and world-building in general) feels this slim and empty, that's a fair thing for players to call out as a shortcoming. Scale alone isn't enough to excuse a lack of attention to the smaller details that bring settings to life.
Maybe that's an old version cause when I fly my ship I only use the screens on the ship to do things. Now I still can't get the lights to turn on though LOL
The way I see it, Star Citizen is designed to give you the immersion of being part of the world, you are not any sort of main character, there is no story, you write the story. The fact that it is a online game with over 100players a server, it brings problems, if you don't want loading screens and want the feeling of proper OpenWorld you sadly risk that the game will fail to load stuff properly when you fly into a city size of a planet with speed of light with 5buddies on board playing yenga with movable objects while freerly moving around the massive detailed designed ships. The game is in development since 10years, it is true, but it is at the moment the most ambitious space MMO and it is not made by a worldwide known giant like Bethesda which has nearly no problem with money and resources. Bugs are there in StarCitizen, but I never seen them advertise the game as a finished product, you know it is a unfinished game so before you pay big money for it, you simply make sure you know what they have to offer now.
Also, and this is a BIG also, Star Citizen has a standalone singleplayer game Squadron 42 that has gotten a TON of resources and development time and budget. Star Citizen is GTA Online, Squadron 42 is GTAV. With Squadron 42 likely being re-revealed at CitizenCon this year, with a release date of next fall, we will get a better chance at a fair VS between the two games. Starfield VS Squadron 42. As someone who has seen leaks.... SQ42 is gonna make Starfield look like the "baby's first space game" it is...
Both games have massive rpg elements,to say otherwise is lying. SC will be great but we all will be doing crossword puzzles eating tomato soup when that happens and you will need to be a whale to get anywhere unless you want to divorce life and play 6 hours a day. Selling ships for huge prices is where I stop with SC,that’s where it rightly wears it’s scam tag.
Star Citizen is great because when you get to the mission and you see a mess of derelict player ships at the landing area, you know that you are about to embark on something that will definitely have been one of the experiences of all time. Overpowered AI or invisible killer bug? You’ll never find out if you don’t step off that potentially homicidal elevator.
SC and 42 ($250 Million each) started active development in 2015. Both will enter Beta by Xmas 8 years. Same as Starfield, ($350 Million+) which has a ten year roadmap, and Rust. Last of us *TWO* ($360 million) Cyberpunk (315 million) and RDR2 ($300 Million) took 9, Cyberpunk was meant to take 13 *GTA6 ($2Billion) also started Development in 2015 along with Halo ($500 Million+) Horizon Forbidden West, Anthem and Destiny: ($500million+)* Currently Beige Field is scoring: 4.7 on PCs 3.6 on Xbox website 200K REFUNDS 8 years and up to $400 MILLION DOLLARS Sad Field Unalive Simulator It just works?
There is a obvious attempt to copy star citizen style.but it is light years away from what SC is going to be.most annoying for me in starfield is the cuts between going from the ship,to buildings in space.they just wanted to make money from using sc ideas and skip the hard part of transitions between locations an multilayer.
No actually starfield isn't trying to copy star citizen as both are very different, but only share one thing which is they are in soace, that's really it.
The transitions are likely a limitation of the engine. Anyone who’s played Fallout 4 will be familiar with this. As for multiplayer, thank goodness they didn’t put that in there. A good proper totally singleplayer game is where BGS’s strengths are.
@@RobTheDoodlerlimitation of the engine ?… what a joke, you are saying this like star citizen Disney have the same limitation, you forgot that star citizen is made in CryEngine, the engine of crisis, not made for anything that star citizen is doing. They literally changed the engine so much that is basically a separate engine from the original
@@OneTomato Well I did say likely. I don’t know the ins and outs of the engine, but all the load screen stuff is basically the same as Fallout. I guess we could chalk it up to being lazy or whatever, but I don’t think that’s the case here.
@@RobTheDoodler All games have load screen, even no man's sky and star citizen.. Whether that's a static screen with a loading bar or flying across empty space, or doing a hyper jump, or simply limiting player movement across the map to buy time for the engine. You can't load a modern 80gb game entirely into memory all at once. Some games are just better at hiding that fact.
No, Scam Shitizen has no real character progression, set in a perpetual "Beta" with just a handful of planets / moons to visit, but sold like it's a playable game, includes resets that remove everything you have ground endlessly for except for the things you paid real money for (you fools!). Full of total git players that only want to gank everyone else in the game who is just trying to get along. Favours eye candy (lots of new ships you only get to keep if you buy with real £££) over actually developing any real gameplay, just teasers of things you can do but then get bored doing. Played it for a few months, loved the graphics and immersion but hated the constant litany of bugs, then got totally disenfranchised by lies claiming only a partial reset that then turned into a full reset that lost me all my hard earned aUEC. I choose not to be treated like that, and will only ever think of returning to it once it is a "finished, polished form" (if ever) with some actual character progression, which may be never given such shoddy management. I like Fallout 4, Fallout 76, Skyrim and other Bethesda games so I expect I will like Starfield. My PC isn't quite up to playing it, so I plan to get it later once I upgrade my PC and either get it as part of a graphics card deal or on sale. The game will be better optimised by then, and Mods will be more developed too. That's my plan.
biggest difference is that star citizen is decade old $500milion+ crowd funded con. whereas star field is funded created and published by Besthesda. and then there are pronouns. 😂 rest of the differI don't even care to look for. they are same genre and style.
I love the comparison in this video.. I have both games, but I gotta say.. I've been enjoing the starfield story, and at the same time.. I can also say, that it does not compare to the star citizen's combat/ gameplay, where you can have your ship supped up, to take on certain ships, and kick their asses because you have a better weapons system and/or you have a better strategy. Overall, SC is more expensive, and more driven.. I should also add that, stafield has a better story.. so it really depends what you wanna go for. Story, or gameplay/mechanics. It's ultimately up to you.
Well yes, Starfield has a better story for now because Star Citizen is still in development, Squadron 42 is where the story aspect is going to be, we'll see how that turns out
@@Uncanny_Mountain One of them is aready finished and available for full price, one of them is in alpha for 7 years and costs half of it at minimum as i might add.
Also not really finished if it doesn't have planets, ships, vehicles, ladders and doors, and still needs mods to fix it AND HAS A TEN YEAR ROADMAP And is already dying after just a week, cost more, and took longer But go on, expert
@@Uncanny_Mountainthe goal is to have games to play, have fun its a pass time for entertaining stories, not a life long investment into some idea of an experiance that never realises itself. Theirs other things to do any try in the world that don’t include waiting forever for a game and investing thousands into it.
1,000 procedurally generated planets, most of which feel empty and devoid of meaningful experiences. They are filled with recycled dungeons, featuring the same layouts and a repetitive presence of spacer/Crimson Fleet. Even the special locations, fauna, and plants feel like carbon copies. These aspects do not inspire me to explore these different planets at all. Moreover, the constant running required between locations becomes tiresome, with each journey taking a considerable 5-10 minutes on foot. To which people might respond... "Did you really expect every planet to have an abundance of interesting things to do?" No, I didn't envision every planet to be teeming with excitement. I consciously kept my expectations low despite the game's hype and tried to understand the new traversal system. However, I still found myself disappointed with the final result. If people argue that I should only focus on areas with content, such as cities, then it further supports my point about the game's lack of interesting exploration. At that point, I would simply be moving from one quest marker to another in the cities or perhaps to a specific point on a planet, essentially eliminating any sense of genuine exploration. And I find that to be a poor game design choice. I play these games precisely for the joy of exploration. The main questline revolves around exploration, and yet, it feels relatively weak in this aspect.
While ship customization is a neat feature, I don't think it fully makes up for the weak exploration and lack of depth in other areas. For me, exploration is the heart and soul of Bethesda games, so having mostly empty worlds to explore is quite disappointing. I'm also not a huge fan of how the ship content is limited to the Creator rather than our character having interactions and relationships aboard. It feels like a missed opportunity for more immersive roleplaying. Don't get me wrong, ship building is cool, but it's not enough on its own in my opinion to elevate the game when the core exploration isn't as compelling as it could be.
Quite measured and balanced look at both games. I think the controversy over SC's development dwarfs the requisite Bethesda foibles, though. But in a vacuum, this comparison holds true.
Well you know space games ( or space sims ) technically should put some interest - a minimum - to space, you know, just like you don’t have a space game without ships
@@umadbroimatroll7918 Depends on what you mean by "core issues". Honestly, having played for nearly 60 hours, (that includes tinkering with various features like shipbuilding and base building) I have yet to see anything game breaking. Even the typical Bethesda jank is at the lowest it's ever been for a release this early. Kudos where it's due, I think this is the most polished condition of a Bethesda release I've experienced from them. Modders will have plenty of solid foundations to build on.
@@ChrisAlbertH47 At its core, I think the game falls short on what makes Bethesda games so compelling - the sense of exploration and discovery in a believable world. Some key issues as I see them: - Procedurally generated planets feel empty and same-y. They lack meaningful content to explore and reasons to return once scanned. This undermines the promised thrill of exploration. - Cities also lack life and depth. New Atlantis feels disjointed and soulless compared to living, breathing hubs in past games. Citizens are forgettable clones. - Over-reliance on repetitive quest markers removes true exploration. Fast travel is a crutch for unengaging space travel. - Lack of hand-crafted quality over simulated scale. Economy of simulation comes at the cost of fine-grained environmental storytelling Bethesda is known for. - Technical load screens disrupt pacing and sense of unified worldspace. This breaks immersion unlike seamless provinces of Skyrim. At its foundation, Starfield fails to blend meaningful discovery and simulation in a cohesive way that makes you feel like an active part of a lived-in world. It favors breadth of content over depth of interaction. For all the hype, this half-measures exploration and falls short of the promise of Bethesda worlds. The soul of their best games got lost amidst the scramble to implement so many simulated features.
Funny Both SF and SC began Development at the same time So did GTA6 Halo Infinite Cyberpunk was supposed to take 13 but were forced to release after just 9 All of them cost more too
I often wonder why, even with a massive team working on a game, years of development and millions of dollars, they still release in such a messy condition. There are indie game studios that release quality, large games in a much better condition with less money, less time and smaller teams.
Corporate bloat and these companies are doing diversity hire. Also, they can't 'crunch' any more due to all the bad publicity from overworked staff, but indie developers can
There is another difference. Bethesda fans naturally have extremely low expectations and still end up disappointed in the end. Star Citizen fans are constantly disappointed as their expectations continue to grow. However, both sets of fans share two things in common: an incredible tolerance for bugs and seemingly infinite patience.
I never discount the capabilities of Bethesda game modders, but I don't even think the Creation Engine can even pretend to do some of the things in Star Citizen. Like if it could even contain one massive contiguous planet, that would be a crazy accomplishment.
I'm sure they can, but like ABbreviated Reviews noted, the difference in limitation is due to engine differences; modders would have to refactor the Creation Engine.
@@billywashere6965 I just meant it like "will modders recreate Star Citizen's Lounge and Buildings and ships (eventually)?" More like basic asset creation and less "rebuilding a whole game", but I'm glad people were actually thinking whether it could be done. Computers are just metal and sand running on lightning to make light to give me dopamine, games are magic as far as I'm concerned.
@@AbbreviatedReviewsno but once kit is released we’ll definitely see star citizen ship assets ported to starfield. Most straight ports, some reworked with animations n effects
Good thing you showed comparison, it shows how OUTDATED STARFIELD is. Any developer using Cryengine or Unreal engine can make better space sim. Also, Starfield ship design suck balls, it is absolute uninspired GARBAGE. Star Citizen is on top in that field too.
Short Answer NO. dont even have to watch to answer. they are two differnt types of game, you might as well compare it to FTL. the closest comparison would be to compare it to SQ42, and that is still a differnt type of game but atlkeast single player`ish... To be fair Starfield could be compared to SC if you compare Bugs ;)
Starfield is AAA no man's sky. Literally a better version of it. I dunno how you boys can play that garbage called no mans sky. it is poor, boring, not aesthetically pleasing.
i just couldn’t deal with star citizen any longer. the constant worry at the back of my head that all my time playing will be wasted unless i can get back to a planet before ‘SOMETHING’ happens- because literally it could be anything- it’s just no longer an enjoyable experience. i get on to see what they’ve improved and just to chill maybe talk with other but i do not get on starcitizen to expect to have a good time anymore. starfield i’ve played for over 100 hours already and i’m enjoying every bit of it. it’s definitely a game you can turn your brain off to versus star citizens more engaging gameplay- but it’s always tainted for me by the constant worry it’ll end abruptly
while we are comparing, you forgot to mention the two biggest differences ... one starfield is released .....star citizen is on the pre-release/development phase ....Two the cost starfield premium cost me £55 ...star citizen can cost up to £ 100,000.... no joke look it up !!...plus unless you buy that package you are disadvantaged compared to other players .... its a pay to win game !!! .... then to top it all there have been some horrendous bugs in star citizen which haven't been in starfield ...bugs yes but not on the size of star citizen
starfield is nothing but a fast travel /loading screen sim.. outposts are next to useless as are your companions the ONLY reason to have them is as a pack mule... and as for the MAIN Quest line it can be completed in around 20 hours (without rushing) space combat is clunky at best and you cannot Fly to planets.. you fast travel to them.. you don't manually land or take off.. you fast travel.. game sucks ass there isn't even an FOV Slider for a pc shooter game is pathetic. ooh also you are limited to around 10 starships.. so unless your spending millions of credits build then selling you run out of room...
No because starfield is actually a game and not just a 10 years test server unfinished boring AF game that will never be completed + its actually playable not like star citizen that stuterd like crazy on my brand new monster pc 16cores 4ghz 32gb ram 12gb vram 2tb nvme is apparently not enough for star citizen
Starfield ship building is driving me crazy.... with a 32:9 the mouse is not where is should be... also resets to the left side of the screen in every single dialog.. sux. And it doesn't look next gen to me.. at all... Sometimes it looks kinda cool but mostly it's flat and boring. It looks like an aging game engine.
He took the bad ideas from good games and implemented them poorly like he always does. Because he recognizes value but not quality and he didn't have a beloved 30 year old IP to hide behind this time.
clickbait!! anyways star citizen is so much better than starfield. 13 hours in starfield and its a utter blend mess. When i hear people say it gets better after 20plus hours .. i just shake my head.
humm and the fact you got never see real player make you stress or help is Starfield ? the Great part of Star Citizen it's to do funny stuff with friends. some bugs are funny sometime :)
No, ships are not fully customizable in StarField, some types of modules are limited like combination of some weapons and some modules can´t be connected to each other.
didnt even need to watch this video, just read the tag...Starfield isn't even close to star citizen..the only thing the have in common is it take s place in space. not saying one is better than the other, but they are completely different games.
Not gonna lie, as someone who hasn't played either, barring the UI they look near identical to me. There were moments in the video I didn't realize you jumped from one game to another.
In motion, a lot of space games visually overlap. But the differences are more obvious when you look closer. Of course, with modders already dropping HD texture packs for Starfield, it'll probably get much closer over time.
I think having a simplified map encourages exploration and interaction with the game world and all their handcrafted locations, at least in Starfield. I can see why some people don't like it, but it makes sense to me. Blazing your own trail and stumbling into interesting places and scenarios are some of the best parts of Bethesda games.
Yeah I don't think Starfield would benefit much from the expansive worlds Star Citizen has. Star Citizen barely does right now. It's cool, but without gameplay associated it's just a big background. When SC has player bases and larger and more numerous NPC bases, it'll be much more valuable of a prospect.
@@TehJumpingJawa I think the game is really good despite the concessions they likely had to make. It surely would have benefited from a more seamless experience, but I imagine the majority is related to engine limitations rather than design choices.
You make a fair point that simplifying the map can encourage more organic exploration and serendipitous discoveries. However, in Starfield it seems to have been taken too far at the expense of depth and detail. While random encounters did occur for me as well, the overall world felt shallow. Blazing your own trail is only compelling if there are interesting destinations worth discovering. In Starfield, many systems are procedurally generated wastelands with little variation. And the handcrafted locales lack the level of quality we've come to expect from Bethesda. Striking a balance is ideal - a map complex enough to get lost in, with carefully crafted settlements, characters, and side quests that consistently reward exploration. Starfield lacks that magnetism pulling me from one memorable place to another. The promise of striking out into the unknown isn't fulfilled if the unknown is mostly repetitive and vacant. At the end of the day games are works of art, and art should evoke emotion. When I think of Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas, Skyrim - I feel a sense of wonder, curiosity, even nostalgia. Starfield leaves me feeling a bit empty.
Ironically, I play Star Citizen almost exclusively singleplayer... but that doesn't change the fact that Star Citizen is intrinsically a multiplayer game.
@@AbbreviatedReviews I mean Star Citizen isn't really competing either to be fair. (the Multiplayer or MMO space). I play it predominantly single player too. It in't competing, in the multiplayer or MMO space because it hasn't reached the point where it can be considered an active competitor. It's still in the preliminary 'alpha sandbox' stage. When it goes Beta, and they start stepping on toes, and be prepped to actually compete in 'the ring', and may well end up mopping the floor with other multiplayer titles such as ED, NMS, and maybe, EVE, just a little if/when they finally go live with an initial retail release. It would be nice to see CIG deliver on S42 relatively soon. Given what Bethesda have delivered, I'd like to think there's not much CIG have to worry about. (they'll probably win the Single Player title), but CIG haven't delivered anything yet, and the longer they take to do so, the more time Bethesda, and their vast modding community have to improve upon Starfield.
Also Starfields landscape look like 20 year old graphics mayne from Star Wars Galaxy. again for 400 million, and I am on a 4090 with everything maxed out and it still looks like crap for the most part, trees are flat and rocks even worse, then there are the Planet Jpegs for planets that you can fly through the flat picture of...
They are completely different games. One is VERY liberal with the use of loading screens and focuses solely on story with the taste of exploration. And star citizen has triple the budget. TRIPLE, not even fair to compare these two games
I keep waiting for someone to answer this. You said dogfighting around the orbit of a planet in starfield. Am I correct in thinking you go absolutely nowhere, and everything else is pulled around you? Like, you can't fly to the other side of a planet in starfield right? In space you're literally stationary and the setpiece is moved around you
It's a 3D space, and one that apparently isn't limited, but not one that you can travel out of to any destination. So for instance, if you go to Mars, you will always end up in a place in "orbit" that is a 3D box with a texture of Mars in the background and you can fly around within it.
Its like comparing an elephant to a dog. SC has no competition, nothing even close. The tech being used for SC is unique. The only thing that makes SC have its issues, is the server tech. But with any luck, the new meshing and other server mods will change things.
There is no server tech, SC is shallow, grindy and a 9+ YR OLD ALPHA CONCEPT, built on false promises, lofty projections and a core base of OCD dreamers, who are easily duped. Starfield is torture if you play the girly story. and falls short on so many levels.
You don't land or travel in Starfield. You are transferred there via a cutscene. Nothing similar to Star Citizen. There is no real space flight in Starfield. Just an arcade minigame in "space". Nothing similar to SC. Exploration in Starfield is a limited basic concept. SC has the POTENTIAL of a real exploration gameplay. We will see if they will make it happen. Overall there are a few similarities in both games (like in most games anyway) but no real comparison. Besides SC is not even close to a finished game.
Funny enough, at the time Fallout4 released, Keen Software has already implemented 64Bit double precision for their world generation. We are speaking somewhere around 2014 here. So even Star citizen was no pioneer of this tech. But Bethesda is apparently not able to upgrade their creation engine with meaningful tech. Since the team working on Starfield already moved to Elder Scrolls 6 this week, I still wouldn't expect any changes next time. Same old smoll maps and loading screens everywhere like it is 1999.
@@d3m3n70r Well....I couldn't care less who was the pioneer for this tech to be honest. Historically speak maybe I want to know but not at the moment. The fact is we are in 2023. The tech can do so much things and I want to see them in modern games with no excuses or discounts. Starfield could do better in many aspects. They chose not to. Apparently it was more important for them to insert new age propaganda like pronouns and trans "clones" (😂😂😂😂) than make a better space game.
I really had the hope that starfield wouldnt be technically the exact same game as outer worlds with a little base/ship-building and alibi space f(l)ights
Nothing realistic about Star Citizen, it has an arcade flight model and rudimentary physics. Starfield map data is based on NASA, planetary orbits are simulated instead of static like Star Citizen, Starfield has better Zero-G and Gravity physics compared to SC, all individual items in Starfield all have their own physics, unlike SC... Plus, Starfield is a fully working game... Starfield is a lot more realistic than SC all things considered.
Is it a problem that Star Citizen players like shitting on the game so much?... Nah it's definitely funny and kind deserved, even if we've never seen the "actual game CIG has been working on for 20 years" that I'm not convinced will be good. 😂
Both games started active development in 2015, despite Todd claiming SF was _"25 years in the making"_ Just like your claim that a Kickstarter for a single player game was when Development began on an MMO that wasn't even theoretically possible at the time. You'll also pretend Chris was supposed to produce this miracle MMO in less time than Todd took to make Starfield with half a billion dollars in cahoots with a trillion dollar Tech Monolith But go on, expert
@@Uncanny_Mountain I would completely ignore whatever "active development time" even means let alone compare the two companies or two games. My "20 years" comment is hyperbole and you shouldn't be trying to make any kind of serious analysis based of it even it was CIG giving you that number and you weren't using it to make some kind of comparison to Starfield.
This aged terribly. The peformance of Star Citizen since mid Dec has been utterly astonishing, server FPS never dipping below 40fps. Additionally, youre completely wrong about the Star Citizen community, of course there are some toxic members preying on new comers, but the majority are super helpful in learning the game, why? Because its so good we all want everyone to be good at it and have a blast! Akin to No Mans Sky although the learning to NMS is nowhere near as big as Star Citizen. Loadingscreenfield on the other hand is the polar opposite of immersion and its single player?!?!?!? That should give room for more possibilites, less restrictions. Its honestly embarrassing look at Elite Dangerous, that did something even SC and NMS cant do, 1:1 scale! Which is a really big deal. Starfield doesnt even have fully explorable worlds. At most you might get 1200km². That sounds like a lot and it is a huge game world almost Asherons Call size. But it aint the 130,000,000km²+ you can expect to find with Star Citizens worlds or even the 100,000km²+ you can find in No Mans Sky. And on Elite Dangerous there are numberous worlds going well over 1,000,000,000km² yes, thats one billion km². Be careful landing on them though, a tiny nudge down at 2km can send you smashing into the surface despite boosting at 90 degrees...
I don't think there was ever any expectation that a video about Star Citizen and a Bethesda game would ever be perpetually accurate, which I think was pretty obvious in the video, but I don't think all of your points are valid. Over the years the performance experience of SC has been wildly inconsistent depending on a number of factors including new update features, changes in player count, individual server stability and functionality, and countless other variables. Just because it was good recently for you doesn't mean it was good recently for someone else who was on a different server at a different time in a different location. For instance, I've rarely seen server FPS over 10 and that's just the nature of the beast. Server meshing _should_ make that experience more consistent for everyone, but I'm sure it will have its growing pains just like Persistence, SOCS, and other implementations. Also, the video clearly states that there are good and bad experiences with other players in the game, just like with any multiplayer game.
@@AbbreviatedReviews The video did NOT state that anywhere I'll need a quote please. Most users have reported good performance states in most areas of the game overwhelmingly since Dec 29th to be exact. If you're still having major issues your system is bottlenecking somewhere
I'm not sure how you missed it when it's the only place I mentioned the multiplayer aspect. "One of the biggest differences between Star Citizen and Starfield is the part where one of these games allows you to have a server full of idiots ready to either greatly enhance or totally destroy your ability to have fun in the game." Also, I don't think there's any way to definitively claim "most users" are doing anything in Star Citizen. However, speaking from my own experience, the server FPS is rarely in the double digits. That's the information I use and you're the first person who seems to have an experience different enough to comment about it.
@@marumaru6084 StarField 9 years and 400 million - but loading screens into and out of 'travel' and if i want my friends to check out my cool ship, i have to send them pictures of it. In SC, i can bring the guys aboard and they take the tour, then crew the ship. 9 years ago the StarCitizen P.U. was just a hangar you could walk around and look at the 3d model of your ship, sitting there.
@@marumaru6084 New playable builds every three months, sometimes more frequently. More new tech than Bethesda has delivered since Daggerfall & Morrowind... on a still-smaller budget.
The biggest Difference between the two games is. Star Citizen is an unfinished mess of Bugs and Missing content. Starfield, outside of DLC and patches. Is 'finished'. It cant and wont have any massive changes Whereas Star Citizen will. For instance, the functionality of ships in SC will improve as will the systems around it. Nothing will improve much on Starfield's Ship mechanics.
Both games started active development in 2015, despite Todd claiming SF was _"25 years in the making"_ Just like your claim that a Kickstarter for a single player game was when Development began on an MMO that wasn't even theoretically possible at the time. You'll also pretend Chris was supposed to produce this miracle MMO in less time than Todd took to make Starfield with half a billion dollars in cahoots with a trillion dollar Tech Monolith But go on, expert
@@Uncanny_Mountain .... All I said was one game is finished and one isn't. I didn't say anything about Development time. or how either company went about it. I was merely making a point that Starfield wont go through any major changes or system additions while Star Citizen still is and will. Stop getting all Defensive agressive over nothing.
Star Citizen is a mess full of annoying bug not funny like Starfield's bugs, the content of SC very poor, the animation is bad, NPC dumb AI. Starfield in contrast way better. Theres one thing Starfield worse than SC is SC sold more ship from the pledge shop than Starfield and i think thats the most important thing for Chris Robert
Here is how I see it: Starfield is like Skyrim in space. A single player experience with a lot of well written quest lines and a lot of places to explore. It also has nice features like outpost creation and ship building. It is a good game after all, but it is not a space simulation. It is a Bethesda-Like RPG with a space setting. And the most important thing: It is a finished game. On the other side, it is much harder to explain what Star Citizen is, because it is a lot, but it is very unfinished and still in Alpha.
Living in Star Citizen's Spectrum chat for the last decade, I am happy to see all those Starfield knights, whining about how shitty SC is compared to what Starfield will be, being absolutely silent now. Finally. Not saying here SF is a bad game, but this whole situation was so foreseeable. Feelsgoodman.jpg
lmao keep coping. SF is way better than expected and SC is in a terrible state rn and I say this as a 2k+ deep backer. I have more hours in SF than I have had in SC in literal years.
@@shaneprince6572So let's get this right you backed SC to the tune of 2k knowing that you only needed to spend $40 but could not be bothered to help with test data and complain about lack of development 😂😂😂😂.
@@shaneprince6572 you're obviously not engaged in the community and that's okay. That kind of a game is not for everyone. It is not meant to be played solo and things drastically change when you have invested people to play with. Whatever SC will become in the end it has a great community and already delivers an acceptable platform. SF is a technical disaster in my opinion. If you're happy buying products made on 2005 technology from a Studio that refuses to change its terrible UI and doesn't even bother making an acceptable KBM control scheme, it is absolutely okay. It is just not my kind of beer. Not to mention the absolute rubbish the outpost building system is. I'm Sorry to hear you've spend over 2k and haven't even played 60 hours. Maybe you should consider working on your impulse control then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@terencespragg5708 God forbid I complain about 11 year development when we were told SQ42 would launch in 2016. I log in for a bit every patch to see whats new, thats it.
My only complaint about starfield is that the shrubbery looks like it's from skyrim. Like they couldn't think of making different exotic non-earth plant life. Imagine going to a dark planet with 1,000 foot trees that are bioluminescent and harbor their own environments and life. It doesn't make sense that they apparently just ran out of ideas, or is it just pure laziness?
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
This may be the most split screens I've ever used in a video.
And it's the most appropriate use I've ever seen.
"non existent functionality that migrated to starfield" I lost it.... "your ship is mostly a place to visit loading screens" first time seeing your content, love it
yeah, the very least they could have done in SF is simulate space travel by making it so the gravdrive jump took some time while you walked around in the ship waiting for the ETA, maybe you want to check your gear or talk to some follower NPC's or fix something in that time while you wait.
now i'm not saying it should be as long as SC as 1 real life hour, but something as small as 5 to 10 minutes would have just been fine.
now technically your ship's cell would be the load screen, it would just be a function of a delayed load to the next planets orbit.
the ship would look like it was traveling through the cockpit when you engage the drive, and if your ship has any other window you would see the gravdrive effect, and you could view your ship in a galaxy map or something to see where you are in a seemingly real time window, it wouldn't actually be real time because of the limitations of the engine, but it would at least look like it and give the player some simulation in their mind that they were actually going somewhere and not just going through yet another load screen.
Go watch more if this guy's videos if you like these games, one of the only creators that makes me laugh LOUD
Trust me, after spending an insane portion of my 2000 hours flying in Elite just waiting to get somewhere, either in space or heading to the surface of a world... also in Star Citizen having to get out of bed, walk to a terminal, get a ride to the station, walk to my ship Before I can do more lengthy flying between places, like in Elite...
I really like Starfield having a quick cut scene!
@@cwolfxuk-other
i think the game should have that other option there just for the people who want it, this way everyone gets what they want.
so if your the kind of person who doesn't like immersion and just wants to play the game, you can choose to turn that option off and if you like immersion, you can choose to leave it on to experience that kind of thing.
the problem with SC is these loading times take really fucking long and it stops the fun of the game, idk how it works in Elite, but just from reading your comment it sounds like it might take a while, but that's why it shouldn't be a very long time, but maybe the player wants it to take longer, we have sliders for mods all the time for the exp gain for faster or slower gain, so having the set delay set to what the user wants, it's up to them in how it functions when it comes to time.
i mean i run into all kinds of mods that allow these adjustments for the player that offer much more choice to the player for all kinds of things in game.
like i just downloaded a cool FO4 mod that gives the player good and bad karma like the old fallout games, where you can make any NPC regardless their rank and standing become your slave settler or arrest them and take them to jail, but that mod has a shit load of other options that it's simply too much to list as it's very complex with a lot of adjustments do to the descression fo the player.
@@5226-p1e hmmm, I suppose it depends on hardware - which is why I don't get the problem. The animations of flying to a planet take a couple of seconds. Actual black loading screens - less than a second.
This was both hilarious and fair. Well done.
Playing Starfield has given me more appreciation for what they are trying to accomplish in Starcitizen. One game already feels outdated and the other like they are trying to push the limits of gaming.
That’s because starfield is in fact outdated. Made on an outdated engine.
I just dont understand why people are so quick to defend it just because its Bethesda, even the bad parts about it. Many of the defendants would rather die on a hill of saying the exploration is good and perfect than admit that it's not the best and try to praise the parts of the game that actually are good.
I guess the key word here is trying. At some point, any game has to have some kind of focus. Starfield is more akin to Mass Effect with a partitioned sandbox than anything like Elite or SC, since it’s juggling bits of the spaceship stuff with the standard boots on the ground RPG stuff. The experiences are simply nothing alike.
@@RobTheDoodler I disagree. Sure, any game has to have a focus, but when exploration is advertised as a core pillar and major selling point, it's perfectly fair for players to critique just how shallow and empty that exploration feels. Paying lip service to the idea of going "anywhere" in a galaxy of procedurally generated planets doesn't actually make the experience of exploring those places engaging or lively.
And the comparisons to other games are relevant here - not to say Starfield needs to copy them directly, but to illustrate how much more depth and interactivity previous games, even ones much older, managed to achieve in their worlds. Things like customizable outfits, memorable NPCs with schedules and personalities, multi-level cities you can get properly lost in - these aren't lofty or unreasonable expectations, they're standard features Bethesda themselves helped establish as essential to an immersive open world.
But in Starfield they took a step backwards for the sake of scale. So while it may try to juggle RPG and space elements, when the space (and world-building in general) feels this slim and empty, that's a fair thing for players to call out as a shortcoming. Scale alone isn't enough to excuse a lack of attention to the smaller details that bring settings to life.
the ship based travel in this game is... clunky, to be kind.
But yeh, it should have been better than it is imo. @@umadbroimatroll7918
Let’s be honest Starfield copied A LOT from Star Citizen
To be fair, most buttons in Star Citizen ships are actually clickable and do something.
Not the lights and screens though, those are truly useless 😅
old ships are ^^
new ships are filled with working buttons
Maybe that's an old version cause when I fly my ship I only use the screens on the ship to do things.
Now I still can't get the lights to turn on though LOL
Funny comparison though.
Never seen 30Ks as loading screens but makes sense... 😅
They're kind of "unloading" screens, but I still think it counts.
loading screen that causes you to lose the last 2 hours of mining
The forbidden loading screen
@@AbbreviatedReviews
So they counter-balance any loading screen?
The way I see it, Star Citizen is designed to give you the immersion of being part of the world, you are not any sort of main character, there is no story, you write the story. The fact that it is a online game with over 100players a server, it brings problems, if you don't want loading screens and want the feeling of proper OpenWorld you sadly risk that the game will fail to load stuff properly when you fly into a city size of a planet with speed of light with 5buddies on board playing yenga with movable objects while freerly moving around the massive detailed designed ships. The game is in development since 10years, it is true, but it is at the moment the most ambitious space MMO and it is not made by a worldwide known giant like Bethesda which has nearly no problem with money and resources. Bugs are there in StarCitizen, but I never seen them advertise the game as a finished product, you know it is a unfinished game so before you pay big money for it, you simply make sure you know what they have to offer now.
It's a role playing game without the unnecessary self adulation
Also, and this is a BIG also, Star Citizen has a standalone singleplayer game Squadron 42 that has gotten a TON of resources and development time and budget. Star Citizen is GTA Online, Squadron 42 is GTAV.
With Squadron 42 likely being re-revealed at CitizenCon this year, with a release date of next fall, we will get a better chance at a fair VS between the two games. Starfield VS Squadron 42. As someone who has seen leaks.... SQ42 is gonna make Starfield look like the "baby's first space game" it is...
Both games have massive rpg elements,to say otherwise is lying.
SC will be great but we all will be doing crossword puzzles eating tomato soup when that happens and you will need to be a whale to get anywhere unless you want to divorce life and play 6 hours a day.
Selling ships for huge prices is where I stop with SC,that’s where it rightly wears it’s scam tag.
@@gumpthegreat1I just hope they finish Squadron 42 as soon as possible so that all their devs can go work on Star Citizen
@@dashbolt101sthere are 3 episodes of squadron 42 and they’d just be finishing the first one
Star Citizen is great because when you get to the mission and you see a mess of derelict player ships at the landing area, you know that you are about to embark on something that will definitely have been one of the experiences of all time. Overpowered AI or invisible killer bug? You’ll never find out if you don’t step off that potentially homicidal elevator.
Best description I've heard of star citizen
😁
A spaced themed rpg vs space sim.
There are actual space sims. Star Citizen is just another RPG...
500 million Vs 300 million (42)
There is almost RPG like in SC. @@humanwithoutborders
@@humanwithoutbordersactual space sims like star citizen ? I think star citizen is probably the best representation of “space sim”
Then you do not know what a space sim is then.@@OneTomato
My opinion : They are both amazing and beautifull games
The race is on! Which will release first: Star Citizen or Starfield 2. Place your bets!
We may not survive.
SC and 42 ($250 Million each) started active development in 2015. Both will enter Beta by Xmas
8 years.
Same as Starfield, ($350 Million+) which has a ten year roadmap, and Rust.
Last of us *TWO* ($360 million)
Cyberpunk (315 million) and RDR2 ($300 Million) took 9, Cyberpunk was meant to take 13
*GTA6 ($2Billion) also started Development in 2015 along with Halo ($500 Million+)
Horizon Forbidden West, Anthem and Destiny: ($500million+)*
Currently Beige Field is scoring:
4.7 on PCs
3.6 on Xbox website
200K REFUNDS
8 years and up to $400 MILLION DOLLARS
Sad Field Unalive Simulator
It just works?
@@Uncanny_Mountain Is this a SC copypasta? 😃
@@Uncanny_Mountain holy fck gta 6 is around 2 billions?!
turns out star citizen was not a scam
There is a obvious attempt to copy star citizen style.but it is light years away from what SC is going to be.most annoying for me in starfield is the cuts between going from the ship,to buildings in space.they just wanted to make money from using sc ideas and skip the hard part of transitions between locations an multilayer.
No actually starfield isn't trying to copy star citizen as both are very different, but only share one thing which is they are in soace, that's really it.
The transitions are likely a limitation of the engine. Anyone who’s played Fallout 4 will be familiar with this. As for multiplayer, thank goodness they didn’t put that in there. A good proper totally singleplayer game is where BGS’s strengths are.
@@RobTheDoodlerlimitation of the engine ?… what a joke, you are saying this like star citizen Disney have the same limitation, you forgot that star citizen is made in CryEngine, the engine of crisis, not made for anything that star citizen is doing.
They literally changed the engine so much that is basically a separate engine from the original
@@OneTomato Well I did say likely. I don’t know the ins and outs of the engine, but all the load screen stuff is basically the same as Fallout. I guess we could chalk it up to being lazy or whatever, but I don’t think that’s the case here.
@@RobTheDoodler All games have load screen, even no man's sky and star citizen.. Whether that's a static screen with a loading bar or flying across empty space, or doing a hyper jump, or simply limiting player movement across the map to buy time for the engine. You can't load a modern 80gb game entirely into memory all at once. Some games are just better at hiding that fact.
No, Scam Shitizen has no real character progression, set in a perpetual "Beta" with just a handful of planets / moons to visit, but sold like it's a playable game, includes resets that remove everything you have ground endlessly for except for the things you paid real money for (you fools!). Full of total git players that only want to gank everyone else in the game who is just trying to get along. Favours eye candy (lots of new ships you only get to keep if you buy with real £££) over actually developing any real gameplay, just teasers of things you can do but then get bored doing. Played it for a few months, loved the graphics and immersion but hated the constant litany of bugs, then got totally disenfranchised by lies claiming only a partial reset that then turned into a full reset that lost me all my hard earned aUEC. I choose not to be treated like that, and will only ever think of returning to it once it is a "finished, polished form" (if ever) with some actual character progression, which may be never given such shoddy management.
I like Fallout 4, Fallout 76, Skyrim and other Bethesda games so I expect I will like Starfield. My PC isn't quite up to playing it, so I plan to get it later once I upgrade my PC and either get it as part of a graphics card deal or on sale. The game will be better optimised by then, and Mods will be more developed too. That's my plan.
Great stuff as always.
biggest difference is that star citizen is decade old $500milion+ crowd funded con.
whereas star field is funded created and published by Besthesda. and then there are pronouns.
😂
rest of the differI don't even care to look for.
they are same genre and style.
I think this was a good explanation of how they are different… enjoyed the sarcasm too.
This is the right way to do it, poke fun at both games.
I love the comparison in this video.. I have both games, but I gotta say.. I've been enjoing the starfield story, and at the same time.. I can also say, that it does not compare to the star citizen's combat/ gameplay, where you can have your ship supped up, to take on certain ships, and kick their asses because you have a better weapons system and/or you have a better strategy. Overall, SC is more expensive, and more driven.. I should also add that, stafield has a better story.. so it really depends what you wanna go for. Story, or gameplay/mechanics. It's ultimately up to you.
Well yes, Starfield has a better story for now because Star Citizen is still in development, Squadron 42 is where the story aspect is going to be, we'll see how that turns out
You must love the woke narrative I guess.
same here it gives me the things star citizen dont right now
@@bthegawd8113 i actually havent ran into any of those yet.
@@wolfstorm5394 I have high hopes for Squadron 42. For how expensive those ships are and the bugs here and there.. its the least they can do.
Loving Starfield. But they're honestly completely different games, offering hugely different game experiences to players. Not remotely similar.
But one did cost more and one did push new boundaries
And it's not the same one
@@Uncanny_Mountain One of them is aready finished and available for full price, one of them is in alpha for 7 years and costs half of it at minimum as i might add.
@@enigma9331 so the goal is to shit out the cheapest copy paste game as quickly as possible
OMG YOU SO BIG BRAIN 🧠
Also not really finished if it doesn't have planets, ships, vehicles, ladders and doors, and still needs mods to fix it
AND HAS A TEN YEAR ROADMAP
And is already dying after just a week, cost more, and took longer
But go on, expert
@@Uncanny_Mountainthe goal is to have games to play, have fun its a pass time for entertaining stories, not a life long investment into some idea of an experiance that never realises itself. Theirs other things to do any try in the world that don’t include waiting forever for a game and investing thousands into it.
Starfield is everything I've wanted from Star Citizen for years. Turns out I was backing the wrong project.
Lol
Exactly, Starfield defines a Space adventure game should be like which SC and No Man Sky fail
Star Citizen is closer to Everyone versus Everyone (EvE online) than to Starfield.
It is more about quarterly profits than about role playing.
1,000 procedurally generated planets, most of which feel empty and devoid of meaningful experiences. They are filled with recycled dungeons, featuring the same layouts and a repetitive presence of spacer/Crimson Fleet. Even the special locations, fauna, and plants feel like carbon copies.
These aspects do not inspire me to explore these different planets at all. Moreover, the constant running required between locations becomes tiresome, with each journey taking a considerable 5-10 minutes on foot.
To which people might respond...
"Did you really expect every planet to have an abundance of interesting things to do?"
No, I didn't envision every planet to be teeming with excitement. I consciously kept my expectations low despite the game's hype and tried to understand the new traversal system. However, I still found myself disappointed with the final result.
If people argue that I should only focus on areas with content, such as cities, then it further supports my point about the game's lack of interesting exploration.
At that point, I would simply be moving from one quest marker to another in the cities or perhaps to a specific point on a planet, essentially eliminating any sense of genuine exploration.
And I find that to be a poor game design choice. I play these games precisely for the joy of exploration. The main questline revolves around exploration, and yet, it feels relatively weak in this aspect.
What ? XD is this a joke ?
the starfield is a piace of shit. It could not be compared with Sc!
SC has much bigger abilities in gameplay
The only ship design SC allow are you to ask your bank more credit card limit, Robert need much more luxury!
While ship customization is a neat feature, I don't think it fully makes up for the weak exploration and lack of depth in other areas. For me, exploration is the heart and soul of Bethesda games, so having mostly empty worlds to explore is quite disappointing. I'm also not a huge fan of how the ship content is limited to the Creator rather than our character having interactions and relationships aboard. It feels like a missed opportunity for more immersive roleplaying. Don't get me wrong, ship building is cool, but it's not enough on its own in my opinion to elevate the game when the core exploration isn't as compelling as it could be.
Loading screens + no vehicle asks you 70 dollar
Quite measured and balanced look at both games. I think the controversy over SC's development dwarfs the requisite Bethesda foibles, though. But in a vacuum, this comparison holds true.
Well, you *do* kinda have to compare space games in a vacuum, because that is how space works.😄
Until you actually use facts instead of feelings and find Sad Field took longer and cost more
...
Well you know space games ( or space sims ) technically should put some interest - a minimum - to space, you know, just like you don’t have a space game without ships
Star Citizen is WAY better and it's still in Alpha. RIP Starfield. RIP Bethesda.
It’s a poor man’s star citizen basically. A rushed version .
I have the done that T-Shirt on starfield, love it, but Star citizen is another level.
The only thing that resembles stars in Star Citizen is its astronomical development cost.
does game cost that much or is it how much they got but not actually spend it all?
@@deangregoric4735 games rarely cost more than 100 millions, but CIG haven't spent everything
@@HolographicWingsChannel for SF that cost more than 200m only to become a meme? Games like rdr2 are awesomely crafted but that game was 540m
Well except it's multiplayer where i can the fun with my friends
short answer: No and you dont even need to know both games for that ^^
Elite Dangerous, Eve Online and No Man's Sky is the same genre as Star Citizen. Starfield isn't.
not agreed about no man's sky
no man's sky is totally different and exploration focused
Starfield may be a Star Citizen "light" but when modders are done with it, it will be the game that Star Citizen wishes it could be
exactly
modders will do us proud, but SC is for multiplayer and you will never rer create the huge scale of what they are building
Modders wont be able to fix the core issues with the game. Just add more onto it.
@@umadbroimatroll7918 Depends on what you mean by "core issues". Honestly, having played for nearly 60 hours, (that includes tinkering with various features like shipbuilding and base building) I have yet to see anything game breaking. Even the typical Bethesda jank is at the lowest it's ever been for a release this early.
Kudos where it's due, I think this is the most polished condition of a Bethesda release I've experienced from them. Modders will have plenty of solid foundations to build on.
@@ChrisAlbertH47 At its core, I think the game falls short on what makes Bethesda games so compelling - the sense of exploration and discovery in a believable world. Some key issues as I see them:
- Procedurally generated planets feel empty and same-y. They lack meaningful content to explore and reasons to return once scanned. This undermines the promised thrill of exploration.
- Cities also lack life and depth. New Atlantis feels disjointed and soulless compared to living, breathing hubs in past games. Citizens are forgettable clones.
- Over-reliance on repetitive quest markers removes true exploration. Fast travel is a crutch for unengaging space travel.
- Lack of hand-crafted quality over simulated scale. Economy of simulation comes at the cost of fine-grained environmental storytelling Bethesda is known for.
- Technical load screens disrupt pacing and sense of unified worldspace. This breaks immersion unlike seamless provinces of Skyrim.
At its foundation, Starfield fails to blend meaningful discovery and simulation in a cohesive way that makes you feel like an active part of a lived-in world. It favors breadth of content over depth of interaction. For all the hype, this half-measures exploration and falls short of the promise of Bethesda worlds. The soul of their best games got lost amidst the scramble to implement so many simulated features.
I gave up on star citizen decade ago. About 3 kids back I was excited that has since worn off.
Funny
Both SF and SC began Development at the same time
So did GTA6 Halo Infinite Cyberpunk was supposed to take 13 but were forced to release after just 9
All of them cost more too
Starfield is a game.
Starcitizen is a tech demo.
I laughed my ass off through this whole video. Had to pause it a few times. You never disappoint!
Starfield is more like Mass Effect (of a healthy individual :)
in my opinion Mass Effect (1 and 2) had a better story
We will see what happens after server meshing
I often wonder why, even with a massive team working on a game, years of development and millions of dollars, they still release in such a messy condition. There are indie game studios that release quality, large games in a much better condition with less money, less time and smaller teams.
Corporate bloat and these companies are doing diversity hire. Also, they can't 'crunch' any more due to all the bad publicity from overworked staff, but indie developers can
There is another difference. Bethesda fans naturally have extremely low expectations and still end up disappointed in the end.
Star Citizen fans are constantly disappointed as their expectations continue to grow.
However, both sets of fans share two things in common: an incredible tolerance for bugs and seemingly infinite patience.
I'm curious if any modders will effectively remake Star Citizen's content within Starfield.
I never discount the capabilities of Bethesda game modders, but I don't even think the Creation Engine can even pretend to do some of the things in Star Citizen. Like if it could even contain one massive contiguous planet, that would be a crazy accomplishment.
I'm sure they can, but like ABbreviated Reviews noted, the difference in limitation is due to engine differences; modders would have to refactor the Creation Engine.
@@billywashere6965 I just meant it like "will modders recreate Star Citizen's Lounge and Buildings and ships (eventually)?" More like basic asset creation and less "rebuilding a whole game", but I'm glad people were actually thinking whether it could be done. Computers are just metal and sand running on lightning to make light to give me dopamine, games are magic as far as I'm concerned.
@@AbbreviatedReviewsno but once kit is released we’ll definitely see star citizen ship assets ported to starfield. Most straight ports, some reworked with animations n effects
Thats not how modding works
Good thing you showed comparison, it shows how OUTDATED STARFIELD is. Any developer using Cryengine or Unreal engine can make better space sim. Also, Starfield ship design suck balls, it is absolute uninspired GARBAGE. Star Citizen is on top in that field too.
Short Answer NO. dont even have to watch to answer. they are two differnt types of game, you might as well compare it to FTL. the closest comparison would be to compare it to SQ42, and that is still a differnt type of game but atlkeast single player`ish...
To be fair Starfield could be compared to SC if you compare Bugs ;)
Playing Starfield made me appreciate no man’s sky 100%
Starfield is AAA no man's sky. Literally a better version of it. I dunno how you boys can play that garbage called no mans sky. it is poor, boring, not aesthetically pleasing.
@@UniDeathRaven lmao nice joke but happy that you are having fun with Starfield that’s what matters most at the end of the day!
i just couldn’t deal with star citizen any longer. the constant worry at the back of my head that all my time playing will be wasted unless i can get back to a planet before ‘SOMETHING’ happens- because literally it could be anything- it’s just no longer an enjoyable experience. i get on to see what they’ve improved and just to chill maybe talk with other but i do not get on starcitizen to expect to have a good time anymore. starfield i’ve played for over 100 hours already and i’m enjoying every bit of it. it’s definitely a game you can turn your brain off to versus star citizens more engaging gameplay- but it’s always tainted for me by the constant worry it’ll end abruptly
while we are comparing, you forgot to mention the two biggest differences ... one starfield is released .....star citizen is on the pre-release/development phase ....Two the cost starfield premium cost me £55 ...star citizen can cost up to £ 100,000.... no joke look it up !!...plus unless you buy that package you are disadvantaged compared to other players .... its a pay to win game !!! .... then to top it all there have been some horrendous bugs in star citizen which haven't been in starfield ...bugs yes but not on the size of star citizen
starfield is nothing but a fast travel /loading screen sim.. outposts are next to useless as are your companions the ONLY reason to have them is as a pack mule... and as for the MAIN Quest line it can be completed in around 20 hours (without rushing) space combat is clunky at best and you cannot Fly to planets.. you fast travel to them.. you don't manually land or take off.. you fast travel.. game sucks ass there isn't even an FOV Slider for a pc shooter game is pathetic. ooh also you are limited to around 10 starships.. so unless your spending millions of credits build then selling you run out of room...
No because starfield is actually a game and not just a 10 years test server unfinished boring AF game that will never be completed + its actually playable not like star citizen that stuterd like crazy on my brand new monster pc 16cores 4ghz 32gb ram 12gb vram 2tb nvme is apparently not enough for star citizen
Starfield ship building is driving me crazy.... with a 32:9 the mouse is not where is should be... also resets to the left side of the screen in every single dialog.. sux. And it doesn't look next gen to me.. at all... Sometimes it looks kinda cool but mostly it's flat and boring. It looks like an aging game engine.
Starfield is trash 😂
He took the bad ideas from good games and implemented them poorly like he always does. Because he recognizes value but not quality and he didn't have a beloved 30 year old IP to hide behind this time.
clickbait!! anyways star citizen is so much better than starfield. 13 hours in starfield and its a utter blend mess. When i hear people say it gets better after 20plus hours .. i just shake my head.
When CIG has sold enough ship , they really dont care anymore. A game take 10 year developing and even the elevator still has its own variant of bug
humm and the fact you got never see real player make you stress or help is Starfield ? the Great part of Star Citizen it's to do funny stuff with friends. some bugs are funny sometime :)
No, ships are not fully customizable in StarField, some types of modules are limited like combination of some weapons and some modules can´t be connected to each other.
didnt even need to watch this video, just read the tag...Starfield isn't even close to star citizen..the only thing the have in common is it take s place in space. not saying one is better than the other, but they are completely different games.
Not gonna lie, as someone who hasn't played either, barring the UI they look near identical to me. There were moments in the video I didn't realize you jumped from one game to another.
In motion, a lot of space games visually overlap. But the differences are more obvious when you look closer. Of course, with modders already dropping HD texture packs for Starfield, it'll probably get much closer over time.
In person, star Citizen looks much higher res, sharper, better textures and levels of detail. Which is what you get with PC exclusives.
😂
not even close
I dont know who you are or why we haven't been lifelong friends but you just got a sub. Freaking hilarious.
to be fair, Star Citizen comparison to Starfield is like comparing apples and pears
It's like comparing star trek to star wars. They're completely different
It's like comparing star trek to star wars. They're completely different
I think having a simplified map encourages exploration and interaction with the game world and all their handcrafted locations, at least in Starfield. I can see why some people don't like it, but it makes sense to me. Blazing your own trail and stumbling into interesting places and scenarios are some of the best parts of Bethesda games.
Yeah I don't think Starfield would benefit much from the expansive worlds Star Citizen has. Star Citizen barely does right now. It's cool, but without gameplay associated it's just a big background. When SC has player bases and larger and more numerous NPC bases, it'll be much more valuable of a prospect.
but they could add detailed maps in cities at least(in both games)
Starfield's ubiquitous use of fast travel runs contrary to that theory.
@@TehJumpingJawa I think the game is really good despite the concessions they likely had to make. It surely would have benefited from a more seamless experience, but I imagine the majority is related to engine limitations rather than design choices.
You make a fair point that simplifying the map can encourage more organic exploration and serendipitous discoveries. However, in Starfield it seems to have been taken too far at the expense of depth and detail. While random encounters did occur for me as well, the overall world felt shallow.
Blazing your own trail is only compelling if there are interesting destinations worth discovering. In Starfield, many systems are procedurally generated wastelands with little variation. And the handcrafted locales lack the level of quality we've come to expect from Bethesda.
Striking a balance is ideal - a map complex enough to get lost in, with carefully crafted settlements, characters, and side quests that consistently reward exploration. Starfield lacks that magnetism pulling me from one memorable place to another. The promise of striking out into the unknown isn't fulfilled if the unknown is mostly repetitive and vacant.
At the end of the day games are works of art, and art should evoke emotion. When I think of Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas, Skyrim - I feel a sense of wonder, curiosity, even nostalgia. Starfield leaves me feeling a bit empty.
Hahahahaha no its not starfield is a game not a scam star citizen will never come out and everyone with atleast a iq of 10 or obove knows this😂
no its a 15 year old game released in 2023
true. Not even the UI changed. 10km² maps like in 1999.
Empyrion galactic Survival is better as both i need to say now.
As of the moment, CIG are not competing in the single player arena.
Ironically, I play Star Citizen almost exclusively singleplayer... but that doesn't change the fact that Star Citizen is intrinsically a multiplayer game.
@@AbbreviatedReviews I mean Star Citizen isn't really competing either to be fair. (the Multiplayer or MMO space).
I play it predominantly single player too.
It in't competing, in the multiplayer or MMO space because it hasn't reached the point where it can be considered an active competitor.
It's still in the preliminary 'alpha sandbox' stage.
When it goes Beta, and they start stepping on toes, and be prepped to actually compete in 'the ring', and may well end up mopping the floor with other multiplayer titles such as ED, NMS, and maybe, EVE, just a little if/when they finally go live with an initial retail release.
It would be nice to see CIG deliver on S42 relatively soon.
Given what Bethesda have delivered, I'd like to think there's not much CIG have to worry about. (they'll probably win the Single Player title), but CIG haven't delivered anything yet, and the longer they take to do so, the more time Bethesda, and their vast modding community have to improve upon Starfield.
Squad 42?
@@dacrow1976 Right now, as far as we know, SQ42 is not playable nor released.
That's more vaporware than the main game.
me: *reads title of video*
also me: short answer no
long answer NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOO!
Load screens!
Also Starfields landscape look like 20 year old graphics mayne from Star Wars Galaxy. again for 400 million, and I am on a 4090 with everything maxed out and it still looks like crap for the most part, trees are flat and rocks even worse, then there are the Planet Jpegs for planets that you can fly through the flat picture of...
🤡 jy Praat kak. I smell a snoy don't think you know what twenty year old graphics look like
They are completely different games. One is VERY liberal with the use of loading screens and focuses solely on story with the taste of exploration. And star citizen has triple the budget. TRIPLE, not even fair to compare these two games
How do you know budget of Starfield if you say Star Citizen has triple of it.
I keep waiting for someone to answer this. You said dogfighting around the orbit of a planet in starfield. Am I correct in thinking you go absolutely nowhere, and everything else is pulled around you? Like, you can't fly to the other side of a planet in starfield right? In space you're literally stationary and the setpiece is moved around you
It's a 3D space, and one that apparently isn't limited, but not one that you can travel out of to any destination. So for instance, if you go to Mars, you will always end up in a place in "orbit" that is a 3D box with a texture of Mars in the background and you can fly around within it.
Its like comparing an elephant to a dog. SC has no competition, nothing even close. The tech being used for SC is unique. The only thing that makes SC have its issues, is the server tech. But with any luck, the new meshing and other server mods will change things.
There is no server tech, SC is shallow, grindy and a 9+ YR OLD ALPHA CONCEPT, built on false promises, lofty projections and a core base of OCD dreamers, who are easily duped. Starfield is torture if you play the girly story. and falls short on so many levels.
The biggest difference between them is that Starfield is a mediocre game while Star Citizen is a shitty tech demo.
I swear all these studios looked at what the others were doing and said "We're not doing that!" For no reason.
Starfield looks like a chinese knockoff version of Star Citizen,
You don't land or travel in Starfield.
You are transferred there via a cutscene.
Nothing similar to Star Citizen.
There is no real space flight in Starfield. Just an arcade minigame in "space".
Nothing similar to SC.
Exploration in Starfield is a limited basic concept.
SC has the POTENTIAL of a real exploration gameplay. We will see if they will make it happen.
Overall there are a few similarities in both games (like in most games anyway) but no real comparison.
Besides SC is not even close to a finished game.
Funny enough, at the time Fallout4 released, Keen Software has already implemented 64Bit double precision for their world generation. We are speaking somewhere around 2014 here. So even Star citizen was no pioneer of this tech. But Bethesda is apparently not able to upgrade their creation engine with meaningful tech. Since the team working on Starfield already moved to Elder Scrolls 6 this week, I still wouldn't expect any changes next time. Same old smoll maps and loading screens everywhere like it is 1999.
@@d3m3n70r Well....I couldn't care less who was the pioneer for this tech to be honest.
Historically speak maybe I want to know but not at the moment.
The fact is we are in 2023.
The tech can do so much things and I want to see them in modern games with no excuses or discounts.
Starfield could do better in many aspects. They chose not to.
Apparently it was more important for them to insert new age propaganda like pronouns and trans "clones" (😂😂😂😂) than make a better space game.
The only similarity is the word space in both names. Not the same thing not even close.
Spot on but your sales technique needs work, lol! Fun video.
Man you roasted SC. no loading screens until u hit 30k. Ahaha
I really had the hope that starfield wouldnt be technically the exact same game as outer worlds with a little base/ship-building and alibi space f(l)ights
SC way better and realistic than SF.
Fun>realism, there is nothing fun to do in SC
@@shaneprince6572 you don't understand what am saying. SC is way more fun, just because of realism, of realistic space views and everything else.
@@xxxbg311 SC looks better, SF is more fun, but thats just my opinion
@@shaneprince6572 troll pretending he's cool
Nothing realistic about Star Citizen, it has an arcade flight model and rudimentary physics. Starfield map data is based on NASA, planetary orbits are simulated instead of static like Star Citizen, Starfield has better Zero-G and Gravity physics compared to SC, all individual items in Starfield all have their own physics, unlike SC... Plus, Starfield is a fully working game... Starfield is a lot more realistic than SC all things considered.
Starfield is a loading simulator with the creem leftwingextremism.
Is it a problem that Star Citizen players like shitting on the game so much?... Nah it's definitely funny and kind deserved, even if we've never seen the "actual game CIG has been working on for 20 years" that I'm not convinced will be good. 😂
Both games started active development in 2015, despite Todd claiming SF was _"25 years in the making"_
Just like your claim that a Kickstarter for a single player game was when Development began on an MMO that wasn't even theoretically possible at the time. You'll also pretend Chris was supposed to produce this miracle MMO in less time than Todd took to make Starfield with half a billion dollars in cahoots with a trillion dollar Tech Monolith
But go on, expert
@@Uncanny_Mountain I would completely ignore whatever "active development time" even means let alone compare the two companies or two games.
My "20 years" comment is hyperbole and you shouldn't be trying to make any kind of serious analysis based of it even it was CIG giving you that number and you weren't using it to make some kind of comparison to Starfield.
I dunno bro.. there might be some sarcasm involved here.. :P
This video is straight up delusional. Dude has spent way too much in SC if he has to blatently lie half of the video.
So says the weird SC troll going around pretending his feelings matter
This video was seasoned perfectly with salt.
This aged terribly.
The peformance of Star Citizen since mid Dec has been utterly astonishing, server FPS never dipping below 40fps.
Additionally, youre completely wrong about the Star Citizen community, of course there are some toxic members preying on new comers, but the majority are super helpful in learning the game, why? Because its so good we all want everyone to be good at it and have a blast! Akin to No Mans Sky although the learning to NMS is nowhere near as big as Star Citizen.
Loadingscreenfield on the other hand is the polar opposite of immersion and its single player?!?!?!? That should give room for more possibilites, less restrictions. Its honestly embarrassing look at Elite Dangerous, that did something even SC and NMS cant do, 1:1 scale! Which is a really big deal.
Starfield doesnt even have fully explorable worlds. At most you might get 1200km². That sounds like a lot and it is a huge game world almost Asherons Call size. But it aint the 130,000,000km²+ you can expect to find with Star Citizens worlds or even the 100,000km²+ you can find in No Mans Sky.
And on Elite Dangerous there are numberous worlds going well over 1,000,000,000km² yes, thats one billion km². Be careful landing on them though, a tiny nudge down at 2km can send you smashing into the surface despite boosting at 90 degrees...
I don't think there was ever any expectation that a video about Star Citizen and a Bethesda game would ever be perpetually accurate, which I think was pretty obvious in the video, but I don't think all of your points are valid.
Over the years the performance experience of SC has been wildly inconsistent depending on a number of factors including new update features, changes in player count, individual server stability and functionality, and countless other variables. Just because it was good recently for you doesn't mean it was good recently for someone else who was on a different server at a different time in a different location. For instance, I've rarely seen server FPS over 10 and that's just the nature of the beast. Server meshing _should_ make that experience more consistent for everyone, but I'm sure it will have its growing pains just like Persistence, SOCS, and other implementations.
Also, the video clearly states that there are good and bad experiences with other players in the game, just like with any multiplayer game.
@@AbbreviatedReviews The video did NOT state that anywhere I'll need a quote please.
Most users have reported good performance states in most areas of the game overwhelmingly since Dec 29th to be exact. If you're still having major issues your system is bottlenecking somewhere
I'm not sure how you missed it when it's the only place I mentioned the multiplayer aspect.
"One of the biggest differences between Star Citizen and Starfield is the part where one
of these games allows you to have a server full of idiots ready to either greatly enhance or totally
destroy your ability to have fun in the game."
Also, I don't think there's any way to definitively claim "most users" are doing anything in Star Citizen. However, speaking from my own experience, the server FPS is rarely in the double digits. That's the information I use and you're the first person who seems to have an experience different enough to comment about it.
one its a game the other is an ALPHA, the alpha is much more fun hahaha
Starfield isnt perfect but at least they have delivered a game!
...a much easier game to deliver.
Single player and zero new tech.
...not not even HDR...
@@rk-jn5mp 10 years plus and £500 million spent so far with nowt to show!!!!!
@@marumaru6084 StarField 9 years and 400 million - but loading screens into and out of 'travel' and if i want my friends to check out my cool ship, i have to send them pictures of it. In SC, i can bring the guys aboard and they take the tour, then crew the ship. 9 years ago the StarCitizen P.U. was just a hangar you could walk around and look at the 3d model of your ship, sitting there.
@marumaru6084 you think Starfield was made in 1 year for 20euro or what xD
@@marumaru6084 New playable builds every three months, sometimes more frequently. More new tech than Bethesda has delivered since Daggerfall & Morrowind... on a still-smaller budget.
The biggest Difference between the two games is. Star Citizen is an unfinished mess of Bugs and Missing content. Starfield, outside of DLC and patches. Is 'finished'. It cant and wont have any massive changes Whereas Star Citizen will. For instance, the functionality of ships in SC will improve as will the systems around it. Nothing will improve much on Starfield's Ship mechanics.
Both games started active development in 2015, despite Todd claiming SF was _"25 years in the making"_
Just like your claim that a Kickstarter for a single player game was when Development began on an MMO that wasn't even theoretically possible at the time. You'll also pretend Chris was supposed to produce this miracle MMO in less time than Todd took to make Starfield with half a billion dollars in cahoots with a trillion dollar Tech Monolith
But go on, expert
@@Uncanny_Mountain .... All I said was one game is finished and one isn't. I didn't say anything about Development time. or how either company went about it. I was merely making a point that Starfield wont go through any major changes or system additions while Star Citizen still is and will. Stop getting all Defensive agressive over nothing.
@@awsm253 he's been doing it on every comment. keeps raising the "cost" of SF too. Guys like him are why I stay away from SC.
Star Citizen is a mess full of annoying bug not funny like Starfield's bugs, the content of SC very poor, the animation is bad, NPC dumb AI. Starfield in contrast way better. Theres one thing Starfield worse than SC is SC sold more ship from the pledge shop than Starfield and i think thats the most important thing for Chris Robert
Here is how I see it: Starfield is like Skyrim in space. A single player experience with a lot of well written quest lines and a lot of places to explore. It also has nice features like outpost creation and ship building. It is a good game after all, but it is not a space simulation. It is a Bethesda-Like RPG with a space setting. And the most important thing: It is a finished game. On the other side, it is much harder to explain what Star Citizen is, because it is a lot, but it is very unfinished and still in Alpha.
I mean both are falsely advertised scams. So yeah they are.
Is the bold and the beautiful the same as, as the world turns?
Make your own ships or spend a months wages on one....😂
lmfao this guy has never played star citizen
Have played Starfield even got the premium version and tbh it looks like a poor man's Star Citizen
Also, Starfield released, Star Citizen never will.
don't forget they're both in alpha.
I gave up on Star Citizen as the end is nowhere to be seen
Living in Star Citizen's Spectrum chat for the last decade, I am happy to see all those Starfield knights, whining about how shitty SC is compared to what Starfield will be, being absolutely silent now. Finally. Not saying here SF is a bad game, but this whole situation was so foreseeable. Feelsgoodman.jpg
Or maybe they have all forgotten Star Citizen exists, there's people with over 100hrs in Starfield already.
lmao keep coping. SF is way better than expected and SC is in a terrible state rn and I say this as a 2k+ deep backer. I have more hours in SF than I have had in SC in literal years.
@@shaneprince6572So let's get this right you backed SC to the tune of 2k knowing that you only needed to spend $40 but could not be bothered to help with test data and complain about lack of development 😂😂😂😂.
@@shaneprince6572 you're obviously not engaged in the community and that's okay. That kind of a game is not for everyone. It is not meant to be played solo and things drastically change when you have invested people to play with. Whatever SC will become in the end it has a great community and already delivers an acceptable platform. SF is a technical disaster in my opinion. If you're happy buying products made on 2005 technology from a Studio that refuses to change its terrible UI and doesn't even bother making an acceptable KBM control scheme, it is absolutely okay. It is just not my kind of beer. Not to mention the absolute rubbish the outpost building system is. I'm Sorry to hear you've spend over 2k and haven't even played 60 hours. Maybe you should consider working on your impulse control then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@terencespragg5708 God forbid I complain about 11 year development when we were told SQ42 would launch in 2016. I log in for a bit every patch to see whats new, thats it.
My only complaint about starfield is that the shrubbery looks like it's from skyrim. Like they couldn't think of making different exotic non-earth plant life. Imagine going to a dark planet with 1,000 foot trees that are bioluminescent and harbor their own environments and life. It doesn't make sense that they apparently just ran out of ideas, or is it just pure laziness?