I get the others to various degrees but not The Outer Worlds, that game was aggressively average. Also while Cyberpunk is great it's repetitive on replays because of how narrative driven it is. I just can't play it as much as FO or ES.
It truly was not fair that Starfield had to come out right when Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty came out. Phantom Liberty (and even the base game with the 2.0 rework) makes Starfield look like a sad joke...
Starfield is the Duplo of Star Citizen's Lego. After playing both fairly extensively, Starfield kind of feels like the ships have training wheels and SC feels like trying to ride a unicycle while invisible people are kicking you in the ass.
Starfield, No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous, Dual Universe, the list goes on. Every time a "space" game is announced or released it's the same conversion and it drives me crazy why people want this to fail so badly they'll try to use any mental gymnastics that supports their bias. If the game happens it could be a huge shift towards the next technological advancement in gaming, if it doesn't the video game industry goes back to the lifeless, unimaginative, "AAAA" corporate cash grab people apparently can't live without.
It's the same story as WoW. Every MMO that came out for at least the decade following its release was labeled as the potential "WoW killer". Still happens on occasion but less frequently. Ironically, all the adverts for Starfield had me itching for a space game and after some research I ended up choosing Star Citizen instead. I've always labeled Starfield as "the greatest Star Citizen advertisement".
No Man's Sky doesn't fit that description tho, while its release was a disaster, hellogames changed and added so much stuff to it that it's really a completely different game now and a pretty good one, too.
@@koo-hip9406 elite feels a bit wrong in your list, not only is it an actual concurrent of star citizen, both projects also started around the same time
@@k3v1n73 The list was less about how similar they were and more about the conversation that inevitably happens because a game has "space" in it's description.
@@justalex4214 What they've done for NMS since launch doesn't matter in the context of what I'm talking about. NMS is a good game, but the point being made was anytime a space game get announced or releases the conversation inevitably has to turn to the "SC killer" topic.
@bighorn6964 I'm in much deeper (Space Marshal) but I've literally logged over 1000 hrs, prior to 3.15. So? Technically- I've gotten my money's worth. However - one of my former Org mates was in 25k - prior to 3.0. Haven't seen him in years.
Haha - I love Star Citizen and follow it as a hobby, but I haven't actually logged on and played since Overdrive. 100% potential is right, but the game itself is hot garbage after you get past the 'WOW THIS IS AMAZING' honey moon period.
There's way more posts that Tomato isn't showing from the SC sub that try to actually push that "SF is gonna bring down SC." Then there's way more that were just deleted entirely. I could sort of see bgs using SF as an attempt to capitalize on the old heads of SC that are upset about the time it's taking to make SQ42. Honestly though, it was mostly the bgs fanboys who had whipped themselves up into a frenzy about it being a competitor. Who of which would get upset when I said it will be nothing more than fo5.
Well to be fair, BGS did promote the game like a competitor. They DID NOT reveal to anyone that the planets would be seperated by load screens. They did not reveal that there would be no other forms of transportation in-atmosphere, nor did they reveal that ship interiors would be in a separate instance from the planetary exploration, or that there would be limited biomes and limited planetary exploration opportunities. They framed the game as if it would have lots of exploration opportunities like No Man's Sky and space combat and ground combat bridged together like Star Citizen. In many ways, you cannot blame people for walking away from the Bethesda presentations THINKING that the gamew ould be like Star Citizen based on what Bethesda did not say. The company knew exactly what they were doing in their marketing, and I don't see anyone ever calling Bethesda out for the way they purposely mislead people based on what they didn't tell people. You can go back just before rleease and find plenty of videos and comments from peopple who were -- based on the weasley framing from Todd -- that you could seamlessly circumnavigate planets. Although, "seamless" came with a big asterisk that yes, you could circumnavigate planets, but through tiles separated by loading screens. It's not the fans fault for Bethesda not being clear about their intentions.
Well... they are content creators they need to deliver someting every day it doesn't matter if misleading or if conflicts with previous posts, I agree with you comparing a RPG with a Space sim is completely pointless ... like why "contra didn't kill metroid" ... "Why coffe didn't kill tea" .... etc at the end we all fall on the same trick we click the video view counter increase and life continues,.
They are related, they're both space game, and there are stuff to compare. Like ship combat, flight, space to atmosphere transitions, ship designs, interiors and many many more
Not once, and I mean this with all sincerity, there wasn't a single moment that I believed Starfield would get people to stop playing Star Citizen. I played the game on gamepass for about a week and just went back to playing Star Citizen. Space was an afterthought in that game, and that was the whole reason I was there.
Loading screens help improve performance by preloading assets and optimizing memory usage. This ensures that the game runs smoothly once the player is in the game world. Plenty of good games out there that still use loading screen. If a game is not your cup of tea, then I doubt the reasoning is mainly due to it having a loading screen.
@@blackmamba___ Have you played Star Citizen and then Starfield? The difference in immersion is stark. No one enjoyed the endless loading screens of Starfield.
The loading screens were the nail in the coffin for me after X4 and Star Citizen. X4 does loading screens right. Just enough for optimisation, not so much immersion is impacted.
I get the urge to play Starfield when certain aspects of SC annoy me, like the endless bugs/server issues, the lack of any real story or sense of progression, and the glacial speed of development. And I get the urge to play SC when certain aspects of Starfield annoy me, like the complete lack of immersion, the over-reliance on procedural generation, and the outdated graphics & game engine. But with all that being said…it’s almost like they’re two different games trying to do two completely different things that just happen to have a similar sci-fi space setting.
Starfield and Star Citizen are two different games. Star Citizen is a metro and elevator simulator and Starfield is a loading screen simulator. Star Citizen is rather empty, lacking in NPC's. Starfield NPC's make you wish they'd just bugger off and go stand on chairs. Starfield shipbuilding is fun, sure, but it also reminiscent not of something 10 years ago, they remind of Morrowind dungeons, only less yellow and having less variation.
One is still in development(I know some of you don't accept that and still insist on calling it a finished product), and one was shipped as a finished product.
I have always believed the thing that will kill SC is its own internal fun and balance. All the ingredients of a great game are there but they need to be combined into an overall fun experience. It has to have depth and counter play. A high skill ceiling but not too complicated that meh players can't enjoy it. The standard ship combat encounter will probably be the largest factor on success or failure. If one ship is the best for everything it will fail. If combat is just too slow... or repetitive... or (gasp) boring.... it will fail.
I disagree. If one ship is exceptionally strong and serves as a "meta," it could improve the game. You can progress in order to buy the better ships while also outfitting them with unique and rare components. However, I doubt they’ll take that approach. Instead, they’ll likely create carbon copies of each ship for "balance." This would lead to a pay-to-win situation since they sell ships for real money.
@@yous2244I think that would make it worse. I dont think there should be a better ship. I've seen too often where everyone picks "the best thing" and it makes the games extremely boring. A ship should excell in a specific role, strengths and weaknesses. I think it will be a gameplay mistake to make small ships non viable. Multiple paths to victory in play styles/customization and progress is a huge part in what determines a good game.
@@yous2244 see i dont even think that is good game design. Each exploration ship (large and small) should have a use benefit. The carrack should not be the answer for everything. Players needed can be one balancing factor, maybe some ships scan longer ranges... some go further without refueling, some have specialized drone equipment, some have better weapons or defense for hostile areas but have less functionality... all these should be a factor... one ship just doing everything makes it basically pointless for other ships to exist. Variety brings health to the game
Quality of gameplay... I have played Star Citizen for 11 years now, with all it´s bugs, and it is the only game I have played for so many years. I played Starfield for 20 minutes and that was all it took to realize how bad a game it was and I refunded it. Star Citizen is to space games, what Half-Life was to FPS games. New ways of doing things. Starfield said to have 20 years of development, but I think they confused that with 20 year old game mechanics. 2 loading screens just to get into your ship, which is bigger on the inside than outside..... I laughed so hard when I uninstalled it and I laugh every time I hear the name "Starfield".
I don't like Star Field but how the hell can you play Star Citizen for 11 years? I think it has potential but after playing for a couple of weeks and coming out of the honeymoon(this is awesome) phase, the game is a shitpool and completely unplayable
@@yous2244 Because it is not a game yet. Seeing it grow through all these years has been worth the time. And now, as the development is going faster it is even more exciting. I don't get triggered about bugs, because they will be fixed in the end.
"...despite the more finished nature of the space RPG from Bethesda?" Let's be fair, Starfield wasn't finished either. But seriously, with and after Skyrim it became extremely clear that they were never going to improve on their formula unless they really had to. Which honestly, is fine their style of game is usually pretty user friendly by providing snipits of action or story that don't take a lot of time. Starfield's greatest sin was breaking that one rule. It was the same casual experience but with absurdly obstruse UI, quests, and long loading times. It broke it's own rule of being an easily accessible game and that made the simplicity horrifying rather than charming. I like to compare it to many of the failed 'souls-like' games where the miss the mark usually because they rely too heavily on the combat formula without the other needed features. The combat is very simple so you can focus on things like boss attack patterns and the environment primarily. If it's just a slug fest, or bosses just break conventional rules just to be harder, then you break the risk-reward system and the game ends up falling flat. Bethesda broke their own formula without adding anything to compensate. The higher level of detail was lost when there was no value in it. Guns and their specific ammos are just obtuse to try and manage for the pitiful amounts of damage they deal. Travel is cumbersome without any way to optimize ontop of no real consequence or value to it other than turning in quests. Where it's true competition lay amongst other single-player games, it was never going to hold anyone's attention for long. Especially with other, much more polished and feature-rich games coming out around it. It's a shame because while I never had much optimism due to their track record, I had hoped that Starfield would actually be different and engaging. As it stands, it's a slightly more convenient space-ship builder compared to Space Engineers.
Starfield definitely wasn't finished, but moreso than SC. I do think SC is starting to see some features and QoL added that makes it fall more into line with what we'd expect from a game though. Just get SQ42 out of the way! lol Thanks for your thoughts!
@@SpaceTomato For sure, no amount of Bethesda bugs can truly match our beloved bug citizen. They've definitely been getting as many features out as they can so they can start focusing more on QoL. Like I am sad to see structural salvage being at the very bare-bones state that it's at but having something is still better than nothing, and they can always improve from a baseline faster than just spending years on a T0 just to need to overhaul it because of new systems!
Never understood why the comparison of SF was made to SC when it would only compare to SQ42. Also a little clarification on your title. The only thing that can kill star citizen is Chris Roberts.
"Does not show signs of moving towards a fun experience..." That one got me, so many game studios (including CIG of late) seem to have lost track of the fact that this is a GAME; if it is not fun, people won't waste their time on it. Plenty of time to do work at, well, work - while earning money.
SC has always been for folks who want more of a "universe sim" experience, which not everyone finds fun. But a game doesn't have to please everybody. 🤷🏿♂️
@@LucidStrike if a game forces you into tedium for the sake of tedium it's not a very good game, no matter the genre. there's a balance they have to strike, I think they're pretty good about finding it too. People are complaining about features they haven't played with yet
@@a.j.6832 Ironically, one mans tedium is another mans fun. Many games are tedious which for the sake of can be considered a subjective view. That does not automatically mean it isnt fun. Obviously some people consider SC gameplay fun. May not scratch your itch. I dont find COD game play fun. Others do. A balance does need to be struck, but I dont think what they have is far off. Many people already like whats there. Its just different, and that is ok.
Starfield would have been a great game if it was released 10 to 15 years ago when Bethesda built the engine the game was developed in. However, Starfield and Star Citizen were never meant to compete with each other in the same space (no pun intended). It's like saying Need For Speed and iRacing are both racing games, so why didn't Need For Speed Heat topple iRacing. Same overarching genre, totally different subgenres. That being said, I did enjoy Gem Reviews' unhinged ramblings about how Starfield would change the universe as we know it.
Great video man, a nice retrospective and measured overview of Star Citizen right now. I enjoyed Starfield but don't see myself coming back for its expansion. It also all feels like so long ago already.
I do really hope they can expand on the IP in a good way. It just needs some more nuance put into the design of the game overall. Thanks for checking it out, D :)
I suspected that they weren't at the same level of world technology, when not a single time a ship was shown landing from space, and not even flying in atmosphere in the entire Starfield direct, then i remember, they didn't spend years on R&D to achieve the same degree of planetary seamless travel, let alone plenty of other things, they pretty much did Bethesda stuff, and the fact that they did a degree of vehicle gameplay is pretty cool, but not even close to what you have in the current SC experience, even in it's greatly unfinished state.
Starfield was always just an appetizer for Star Citizen. Back when Bethesda did the full gameplay reveal I was watching the Easy Allies stream of the event. Ben Moore (who was still with EZA then) made a comment during the space combat sequence that he just wants a game where he can sit in a turret of the ship with his friends and travel together. I had to comment that the game Ben was describing was not Starfield, but Star Citizen. People were putting Star Citizen expectations onto Starfield that it was NEVER going to live up to.
For me Star Citizen cost £26 for a mustang alpha and runs far better than it has a right to on a GTX 1060 running at 60fps after tweaking a few settings relative to the server status.....Starfield won't even launch and I straight up refuse to upgrade for something running on the creation engine! when literally everything else I actively play.....apart from Cyberpunk runs well enough.....And let's face it CIG's tone deafness is nothing compared to Bethesda.
Statfield got me back into star citizen. I didn’t like star citizen because for the longest time I forced myself to play it like a console game. But I was spoiled about Star Citizen’s immersion. So much so that I was disappointed by Starfield’s lack of equivalent immersion and forced myself to learn to play Star Citizen with keyboard and mouse and enjoy it so much more now. Starfield is good go just pass time casually.
Whilst I would've hoped that Starfield would the little kick that CIG needs, it's not even close to a similar game and wouldn't even be close to a Star Citizen killer. Elite Dangerous would've been a closer one, but they fumbled it
Star Citizen in its current state is not just a tech demo by the definition of the term. It's years beyond that. 'Tech demo' is pre-pre-alpha. That's what was shown at GDC before Kickstarter.
It didn't kill anything other than Bethesda. It couldn't have killed SC, because it managed to have simultaneously equal amounts of corporate ick and the ugly impact of businesspeople affecting gake quality with their business agendas, while also being a badly made game. It's a complete shambles.
Honestly, we need another star citizen game that is more player friendly if we want to compare. It takes the info from the solo player community and multi crew community. Gives ships that can be solo flight but is advanced with having a proper crew. Npc or real. While also giving that ship vibe that star citizen gives.
I love how the start of the video shows so many people go "Yeah its different, but who cares?" - Guarantee you those same people also quickly hopped on the "Yeah but its a different game to Star Citizen, they arent comparable! Starfield isnt as bad as you make it out to be, its just different" Absolute nutjobs.
I recall installing SF on the XBOX a while ago, while I was taking a break from SC. After playing the whole Fallout franchise, the thought of Bethesda tackling an open-world space RPG caught my attention so I dived in. There was a lot of potential and the early gameplay was decent enough, but there was one specific moment that made me put SF down and immediately re-install SC. As in literally walk upstairs, and install it there and then. That moment was hitting a loading screen when coming into land at a planet. The fact that I could not fly from orbit all the way down to the intended landing zone made me realise that imperfect as it is, SC offered that seamless flight experience, and SF didn't. To this day I haven't been back to SF, and I think they massively, massively dropped the ball by not introducing a seamless flight experience.
There will be tons of games like star citizen just in different settings. The SC formula can be applied to cowboys, pirates, mil sim, whatever you want
@@aguy446 Is it really the "SC formula?" or has this game been made before. Massive MMO with broad range of career and activity paths. Sounds like 100 other titles already available and not sitting in alpha.
@@aguy446 ofcourse, but for now, not a chance. Game development is very expensive. Most game studios are working in their comfort zone that works for them.
I was a crazy Starfield fan when I heard about it, when I played it was amazing, star citizen had built up the feeling for me of REALLY BEING IN SPACE, but starfield... as soon as I got in the ship, walked around and saw the NPC's, Tried going on the train and way more that is what had done it to me, I think that Starfield could have been way more than what it was and still is today but, No these games are NOTHING alike not at all.
As a guy who bought Star Citizen for exploration loop, I really genuinly thought that Starfield will kill it. Perspective of getting 100 systems (even though procedurally random generic generated), starship with crew and modularity (even though without smooth transitions ship-to-foot/space), after years of promises from CIG (I'm backer since 2016) was really speaking to me. I'm not playing SC for FPS or space sim bits. I was most happy with SC, when they added new planets and since 3.14 and Crusader/Orison, I didn't had anything new to explore. So I thought that explorer players like me will just drop. Well I was wrong. No game can really get close to what this broken mess of tech demo can give me. It's my go to afternoon game for better or worse.
It really COULD have been a great exploration game, but it had a bit of an identity crisis. If it didn't need to be a mass market Xbox hype machine with a big story, it probably could have been a great exploration game.
I definitely think this was a good display of the strengths of Star Citizen while also accurately and fairly admitting the downfalls all presented in a constructive and honest way.
Starfield is the best 5/10 game I own. It is a disappointing SciFi rewrite of Oblivion with nothing new and squandered all the potential it had. Star Citizen still has potential and is my favourite game despite its issues.
I love ship building in Starfiled, but the one thing that really annoys me about it is the game automatically transfers cargo whenever you change ships. This causes you to build up a large amount of duplicate interior objects that you have to sell to get rid of. You also may get special guns you placed in your armory or captain's locker transferred to cargo and have to go digging for them. Because of this I don't bother with a fleet of specialized ships. I just create one multi-purpose ship so I am not changing ships all the time. I would rather have specialized ships however. Cargo should stay with the ship, with the option to transfer it. I don't want all my aluminum and iron in my cargo ship transferred to my Science/exploration ship because it takes up all of its cargo space. And even with this, the problem does not go away. I also like boarding and taking ships, so the cargo issue remains when I take over the ship. I can just minimize the issue, not avoid it.
Hi Tomato i always viewed Alpha as something where you create crutial parts of game core system and decide how most things will work. Beta fixing bugs and polishing and expanding what is inside and adding more. "Final" something like minecraft you have game but you add more stuff and fix what is broken. But it would be nice to see delivery missions work 90% of the time.
The worst thing is that they are calling skull and bones a quadruple A game. And everything about that game doesn't even come to 5% of what star citizen already has even in alpha.
The only thing that makes sc an mmo is projecting imagination into a future make believe world of possibilities where those things actually exist, they dont
Starfield was a bethesda game through and through. Everyone knew it going in. What starfield did was remind the hardcore SC fans that they are still dealing with a buggy broken tech demo meanwhile other fully functioning space games (good and bad) continue to be developed and released. Starfield delivered a fully-fleshed out and functioning mediocre game and SC is still a broken mess 12 years and counting.
The Yogi mechanic: This approach tends to emphasize equipment and ship loadouts over player skill and strategic maneuvering, leading to a few key issues that could ultimately detract from the game’s longevity and depth. Equipment Over Skill The Yogi mechanic often focuses on maximizing the effectiveness of ship components and weaponry, creating a scenario where victory hinges more on optimal gear than on player skill or tactical acumen. This shift can lead to combat encounters that feel less engaging, as players might rely on pre-configured setups rather than developing their piloting skills or understanding of the game’s mechanics. Lack of Depth A flight model that prioritizes equipment adjustments can create a shallow gameplay experience. While customization is a key aspect of Star Citizen, a balance is necessary to ensure that player skill remains a significant factor in combat. When players can simply equip the best gear and achieve success without mastering flight mechanics or tactics, the sense of accomplishment diminishes. Impact on Community Engagement For an MMO designed to be played for years or even decades, the focus on equipment can stifle community engagement and competitiveness. Players may feel less motivated to improve their skills or engage in strategic play when they can rely on a superior setup to secure wins. This could lead to a stagnant community, where fewer players are willing to engage in meaningful challenges. Long-Term Viability Ultimately, if the emphasis on equipment continues to overshadow player skill, it could undermine the long-term viability of Star Citizen. An engaging MMO thrives on the evolution of its gameplay and the continuous development of its community. A flight model that fails to reward skill and strategic thinking risks alienating players who seek deeper, more rewarding combat experiences. Conclusion To preserve the integrity and excitement of ship combat in Star Citizen, it’s crucial for developers to strike a balance between equipment and player skill. Fostering a deeper, more skill-based flight model will enhance the game's engagement and ensure its longevity as a premier MMO experience.
Bro they have been cranking it up over there approaching citcon and IAE, super stable PTU right now on 4.0 code (just with stuff turned off) and a bunch of new ships coming, possibly a second new star system (Nyx) on top of Pyro soon after it comes
@@stevechil5226 That is all technical. But we are not after a tech demo. Flight model is broken and they keep going the wrong direction and don't listen to what player say... Instead of fixing ship light they made "Oblivion" nights. They changed the skybox to appeal casuals. They're adding instances. The space stations after PO are just video game maps with magical elevators acting as loading screens. They changed and tamed Pyro... And most of all, they don't even seem to know where they are going with this game. Except, selling ships...
@@cedric5947 The flight model isnt 'broken'. Just a vocal minority is upset with changes. Broken would mean you couldn't fly or ships would be encountering massive flight bugs. Most of those complaints are about ship combat with the flight model. If SC came out today with the current flight model it would be fine to those picking it up. The only ones with a problem would be old heads that are nostalgic about alpha game play.
@@ephalanx1 Except that I made absolute noobs try it and the first thing they said is that it's unintuitive and feels like a chore. Then they laughed at the space brake.
Starfield's NPC companions are abysmal. Like, Sarah always saying "I have something for you"... and it's a stick. (1 friggin unit of a next-to-worthless resource.) They all make brain-dead decisions akin to RPGs of 30 years ago. Ship design is too limited and entirely too tedious. The few blocky component choices make them all look like junkyard salvage projects. Endless grind economy, invisible wall borders, time-sink "I can loot better" crafting, terrible housing and customization, no real career paths and junk loot in every corner. The real kicker for me was the "chosen one" storyline. It's been so overused that it's completely lost it's appeal. When I found out the MC gets "jedi powers", I lost any love for the game.
On paper Starfield is the perfect game for me. I like single player. I like story, progression, base building, 'making my own adventure'. But it felt so flat. The world is so boring, the tech so outdated. The gameplay systems are literally skyrim in space, even getting the voice in skyrim is how you get your powers in Starfield. And those powers also felt so jarring when the game presents itself more towards hard retro sci fi. And then the loading screens. You can't endure this Starfield after experiencing a single session of Star Citizen. This just shows the value of those extra years CIG took to make object container streaming and the rest of the tech to make it possible to stream in content on the fly with no visible loading screens.
Skyrim allowed you to have an idea and play the game as a thief, fighter, wizard. You could spend the whole time stealing and fencing goods. Starfield was the same game no matter what background you took. In Star field, if i wanted to smuggle goods, i could take a job at a terminal, menu screen to planet, get scanned, menu screen to landing, job done. If i failed the scan mode i could kill all the uc ships, but would have a 200k bounty. No problem, reload, pass the test donthe smuggling. No skill, no challenge, mostly menus and loading screens. In star citizen i have to find the drugs, load them up, fly to a place to sell them, hope theres no other players there, unload the drugs, make the sale, get out before someone turns up. Even when youre successful, youre always on edge. Starfield really only had the storylines to play. There wasnt really star trading, salvage etc... even bounty hunting didnt really have a lot of depth in starfield. Starfield was a nice distraction until bugs corrupted my save files but i havent wanted to get back in the game. Sc is a game inwant to log into everyday.
I am playing Starfield as I listen to this video. Sadly, I've played hundreds of hours of Starfield since it was launched, but I've barely touched Star Citizen.
@SpaceTomato Isn't 3.24.1 now the last of the 3.x series? from the last 2.x, starting from 3.0, what has 3.x brought us? What was it like pre 3.0, and now that we are at the end of 3.x, how long as it been for 3.x and what did we get for that amount of time, since 3.24.2 is 4.0 under the hood, we have a complete life for the 3.x branch. Might make for a video?
I'll be honest, Star Citizen looks awesome. However, Starfield is an actual game. It even had an expansion. I'll be in my grave before Star Citizen even gets out of Alpha...
Star Citizen and Starfield aren't even in the same category. Even with the bugs, Star Citizen is Ferroro Rocher to Starfields supermarket brand milk chocolate. Not even remotely close.
I did a couple of play throughs of Starfield, I enjoyed the faction storylines and overall enjoyed the game. Then I was done. I think one of the biggest draws for Star Citizen is the seamless environment transitions. Nothing beats the first time you break atmosphere and look back at the planet. I think every citizen has that moment etched into their memory.
Not even going to watch the video before I comment. Starfield has all the tools to have beaten SC to the punch, but they missed the mark. For whatever backend reasons, they: -Decided that scientists on the moon had NOTHING to do but just being there was cool and used that as a base line for moon exploration -Thought empty planets devoid of POI's that matter wouldn't feel devoid of life and character -That there didn't need to be an end game loop and replaying the core game over and over was enough -That there needed to be countless loading screens to manage the games backend -That players didn't really want to be flying their ships (its fine we cant park them anywhere, but flying was a huge sell for the game and they really missed the mark). They could have learned from NMS and SC but instead they just made Skyrim in space, which I guess they promised but that's not what I thought it was going to be when they said that. Starfield was so close to being the great space game SC wants to be that its really disappointing that its so mediocre. Custom ships? Not half bad gunplay? Player housing and custom bases? 100 systems? So close and yet so far. Interesting to note, if NMS released today AS IS, with all of its improvements and the collective memory if its failed launch wasn't a thing, I 100% think it would have rocked CIGs boat hard enough that they would be making changes. NMS is doing everything CIG has promised but on a lesser scale (read: more feasible and without needing to reinvent the wheel) and you don't have to spend 300$ to stay relevant in pvp.
I'm fairly sure a lot of content that is being kept away from Star Citizen is already in Squadron 42, you can tell from the videos we have seen in the past years and we are only now seeing those changes come to PTU... Just remember, they can't spoil too much and that is likely why we got to see Stanton and Pyro first outside of Squadron 42... or I am just super high on copium and only Sol is featured in Squadron 42.
I enjoyed Starfield. Was it a great game? Not really, but I had fun playing it. I played it at launch and people asked me if it was like Star Citizen. They are two completely different games. It’s ok to like different kinds of games. People making this comparison are speaking from a place of emotion. Has nothing to do with reality.
@@Havoc_762 😂 you know he's nerfing stuff he cannot control its pretty sad. To fast, nerf... he got killed by some ship, nerf... corsair killed him, nerf!!
I'm not some brain washed long time backer, I backed in 2022. And I actually spent more on Starfield than I did on Star Citizen 100vs70 but I feel like even with SF's "polish" it leaves me infinitely more unsatisfied with the product than SC. SF is nothing more than a fast travel simulator with senseless, inconsequential dialog sprinkled in.
Starfield got me back to Star Citizen
Same lol
After getting back into it a bit before the launch I was suprised how much better SC is even with all of its problems.
Same here
Facts
As long as it's sharing the space-game love around!
Starfield got me back into Cyberpunk, Fallout 4, Fallout New Vegas, The outer Worlds. Starfield made me want to play anything other than starfield.
😂😂😂😂 that was such a suprise that ending 😂
Same
I get the others to various degrees but not The Outer Worlds, that game was aggressively average. Also while Cyberpunk is great it's repetitive on replays because of how narrative driven it is. I just can't play it as much as FO or ES.
It truly was not fair that Starfield had to come out right when Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty came out. Phantom Liberty (and even the base game with the 2.0 rework) makes Starfield look like a sad joke...
Tbh it's cool that games can do that, in a way.
Every time I’ve fired up Starfield, it just made me want to stop and go play Star Citizen. Miss the immersion and flight.
Starfield is the Duplo of Star Citizen's Lego.
After playing both fairly extensively, Starfield kind of feels like the ships have training wheels and SC feels like trying to ride a unicycle while invisible people are kicking you in the ass.
I knew that any RPG would never be a death knell for a sim game. They aren't remotely the same kind of game except similar setting of "space".
YUP
Starfield, No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous, Dual Universe, the list goes on. Every time a "space" game is announced or released it's the same conversion and it drives me crazy why people want this to fail so badly they'll try to use any mental gymnastics that supports their bias. If the game happens it could be a huge shift towards the next technological advancement in gaming, if it doesn't the video game industry goes back to the lifeless, unimaginative, "AAAA" corporate cash grab people apparently can't live without.
It's the same story as WoW. Every MMO that came out for at least the decade following its release was labeled as the potential "WoW killer". Still happens on occasion but less frequently. Ironically, all the adverts for Starfield had me itching for a space game and after some research I ended up choosing Star Citizen instead. I've always labeled Starfield as "the greatest Star Citizen advertisement".
No Man's Sky doesn't fit that description tho, while its release was a disaster, hellogames changed and added so much stuff to it that it's really a completely different game now and a pretty good one, too.
@@koo-hip9406 elite feels a bit wrong in your list, not only is it an actual concurrent of star citizen, both projects also started around the same time
@@k3v1n73 The list was less about how similar they were and more about the conversation that inevitably happens because a game has "space" in it's description.
@@justalex4214 What they've done for NMS since launch doesn't matter in the context of what I'm talking about. NMS is a good game, but the point being made was anytime a space game get announced or releases the conversation inevitably has to turn to the "SC killer" topic.
Starfield is the last straw to push me into pledge for Star Citizen
A starter pack only, I hope...
$45 for a game that may some day be finished.
Or
$60 for a single player load screen experience.
@lordfraybin a lose lose. Lol i spent 3000 on star citizen
@bighorn6964 I'm in much deeper (Space Marshal) but I've literally logged over 1000 hrs, prior to 3.15.
So? Technically- I've gotten my money's worth.
However - one of my former Org mates was in 25k - prior to 3.0.
Haven't seen him in years.
@@lordfraybin dam. Ig we both must suffer together
Haha - I love Star Citizen and follow it as a hobby, but I haven't actually logged on and played since Overdrive. 100% potential is right, but the game itself is hot garbage after you get past the 'WOW THIS IS AMAZING' honey moon period.
True
They need more stability and in-game help to make the pacing and experience better
Starefield commited unalive
Not sure why people compare games that aren't really related and try to say one will kill off the other
There's way more posts that Tomato isn't showing from the SC sub that try to actually push that "SF is gonna bring down SC."
Then there's way more that were just deleted entirely.
I could sort of see bgs using SF as an attempt to capitalize on the old heads of SC that are upset about the time it's taking to make SQ42.
Honestly though, it was mostly the bgs fanboys who had whipped themselves up into a frenzy about it being a competitor. Who of which would get upset when I said it will be nothing more than fo5.
Well to be fair, BGS did promote the game like a competitor. They DID NOT reveal to anyone that the planets would be seperated by load screens. They did not reveal that there would be no other forms of transportation in-atmosphere, nor did they reveal that ship interiors would be in a separate instance from the planetary exploration, or that there would be limited biomes and limited planetary exploration opportunities. They framed the game as if it would have lots of exploration opportunities like No Man's Sky and space combat and ground combat bridged together like Star Citizen.
In many ways, you cannot blame people for walking away from the Bethesda presentations THINKING that the gamew ould be like Star Citizen based on what Bethesda did not say. The company knew exactly what they were doing in their marketing, and I don't see anyone ever calling Bethesda out for the way they purposely mislead people based on what they didn't tell people. You can go back just before rleease and find plenty of videos and comments from peopple who were -- based on the weasley framing from Todd -- that you could seamlessly circumnavigate planets. Although, "seamless" came with a big asterisk that yes, you could circumnavigate planets, but through tiles separated by loading screens.
It's not the fans fault for Bethesda not being clear about their intentions.
"space" isn't a genre of game. It's a location.
Well... they are content creators they need to deliver someting every day it doesn't matter if misleading or if conflicts with previous posts, I agree with you comparing a RPG with a Space sim is completely pointless ... like why "contra didn't kill metroid" ... "Why coffe didn't kill tea" .... etc at the end we all fall on the same trick we click the video view counter increase and life continues,.
They are related, they're both space game, and there are stuff to compare. Like ship combat, flight, space to atmosphere transitions, ship designs, interiors and many many more
Not once, and I mean this with all sincerity, there wasn't a single moment that I believed Starfield would get people to stop playing Star Citizen. I played the game on gamepass for about a week and just went back to playing Star Citizen. Space was an afterthought in that game, and that was the whole reason I was there.
The quick answer is, Loading Screens. That is what killed interest in Starfield for me.
Loading screens help improve performance by preloading assets and optimizing memory usage. This ensures that the game runs smoothly once the player is in the game world.
Plenty of good games out there that still use loading screen. If a game is not your cup of tea, then I doubt the reasoning is mainly due to it having a loading screen.
@@blackmamba___
Have you played Star Citizen and then Starfield? The difference in immersion is stark. No one enjoyed the endless loading screens of Starfield.
The loading screens were the nail in the coffin for me after X4 and Star Citizen. X4 does loading screens right. Just enough for optimisation, not so much immersion is impacted.
@@blackmamba___ it's like a bot typed this out lmao
@@blackmamba___simping for loading screens is a new one
I get the urge to play Starfield when certain aspects of SC annoy me, like the endless bugs/server issues, the lack of any real story or sense of progression, and the glacial speed of development. And I get the urge to play SC when certain aspects of Starfield annoy me, like the complete lack of immersion, the over-reliance on procedural generation, and the outdated graphics & game engine.
But with all that being said…it’s almost like they’re two different games trying to do two completely different things that just happen to have a similar sci-fi space setting.
Starfield and Star Citizen are two different games. Star Citizen is a metro and elevator simulator and Starfield is a loading screen simulator. Star Citizen is rather empty, lacking in NPC's. Starfield NPC's make you wish they'd just bugger off and go stand on chairs. Starfield shipbuilding is fun, sure, but it also reminiscent not of something 10 years ago, they remind of Morrowind dungeons, only less yellow and having less variation.
And ONE is single player and the other is Multi-player.
One is still in development(I know some of you don't accept that and still insist on calling it a finished product), and one was shipped as a finished product.
Yup!
SC was already much farther ahead on a technological level than Starfield. The things they demonstrated SC had in 2017 at a much higher fidelity
I have always believed the thing that will kill SC is its own internal fun and balance. All the ingredients of a great game are there but they need to be combined into an overall fun experience. It has to have depth and counter play. A high skill ceiling but not too complicated that meh players can't enjoy it. The standard ship combat encounter will probably be the largest factor on success or failure. If one ship is the best for everything it will fail. If combat is just too slow... or repetitive... or (gasp) boring.... it will fail.
Yogi is killing SC
I disagree. If one ship is exceptionally strong and serves as a "meta," it could improve the game. You can progress in order to buy the better ships while also outfitting them with unique and rare components. However, I doubt they’ll take that approach. Instead, they’ll likely create carbon copies of each ship for "balance." This would lead to a pay-to-win situation since they sell ships for real money.
@@yous2244I think that would make it worse. I dont think there should be a better ship. I've seen too often where everyone picks "the best thing" and it makes the games extremely boring. A ship should excell in a specific role, strengths and weaknesses. I think it will be a gameplay mistake to make small ships non viable. Multiple paths to victory in play styles/customization and progress is a huge part in what determines a good game.
@@tcunero the best thing in it's specific field
@@yous2244 see i dont even think that is good game design. Each exploration ship (large and small) should have a use benefit. The carrack should not be the answer for everything. Players needed can be one balancing factor, maybe some ships scan longer ranges... some go further without refueling, some have specialized drone equipment, some have better weapons or defense for hostile areas but have less functionality... all these should be a factor... one ship just doing everything makes it basically pointless for other ships to exist. Variety brings health to the game
Quality of gameplay... I have played Star Citizen for 11 years now, with all it´s bugs, and it is the only game I have played for so many years. I played Starfield for 20 minutes and that was all it took to realize how bad a game it was and I refunded it. Star Citizen is to space games, what Half-Life was to FPS games. New ways of doing things. Starfield said to have 20 years of development, but I think they confused that with 20 year old game mechanics. 2 loading screens just to get into your ship, which is bigger on the inside than outside..... I laughed so hard when I uninstalled it and I laugh every time I hear the name "Starfield".
I don't like Star Field but how the hell can you play Star Citizen for 11 years? I think it has potential but after playing for a couple of weeks and coming out of the honeymoon(this is awesome) phase, the game is a shitpool and completely unplayable
@@yous2244 Because it is not a game yet. Seeing it grow through all these years has been worth the time. And now, as the development is going faster it is even more exciting. I don't get triggered about bugs, because they will be fixed in the end.
"...despite the more finished nature of the space RPG from Bethesda?" Let's be fair, Starfield wasn't finished either.
But seriously, with and after Skyrim it became extremely clear that they were never going to improve on their formula unless they really had to. Which honestly, is fine their style of game is usually pretty user friendly by providing snipits of action or story that don't take a lot of time. Starfield's greatest sin was breaking that one rule. It was the same casual experience but with absurdly obstruse UI, quests, and long loading times. It broke it's own rule of being an easily accessible game and that made the simplicity horrifying rather than charming.
I like to compare it to many of the failed 'souls-like' games where the miss the mark usually because they rely too heavily on the combat formula without the other needed features. The combat is very simple so you can focus on things like boss attack patterns and the environment primarily. If it's just a slug fest, or bosses just break conventional rules just to be harder, then you break the risk-reward system and the game ends up falling flat. Bethesda broke their own formula without adding anything to compensate. The higher level of detail was lost when there was no value in it. Guns and their specific ammos are just obtuse to try and manage for the pitiful amounts of damage they deal. Travel is cumbersome without any way to optimize ontop of no real consequence or value to it other than turning in quests.
Where it's true competition lay amongst other single-player games, it was never going to hold anyone's attention for long. Especially with other, much more polished and feature-rich games coming out around it. It's a shame because while I never had much optimism due to their track record, I had hoped that Starfield would actually be different and engaging. As it stands, it's a slightly more convenient space-ship builder compared to Space Engineers.
Starfield definitely wasn't finished, but moreso than SC. I do think SC is starting to see some features and QoL added that makes it fall more into line with what we'd expect from a game though. Just get SQ42 out of the way! lol
Thanks for your thoughts!
@@SpaceTomato For sure, no amount of Bethesda bugs can truly match our beloved bug citizen. They've definitely been getting as many features out as they can so they can start focusing more on QoL. Like I am sad to see structural salvage being at the very bare-bones state that it's at but having something is still better than nothing, and they can always improve from a baseline faster than just spending years on a T0 just to need to overhaul it because of new systems!
Mass Effect 3 is already 13 years old??? F**k I feel old now...
Yeah it's pretty wild.
Nah Starfield actually made me pledge to Star Citizen and play the game for a few month lmfao fuck Starfield
Starfield killed itself, lol, dead on arrival!
Never understood why the comparison of SF was made to SC when it would only compare to SQ42. Also a little clarification on your title. The only thing that can kill star citizen is Chris Roberts.
@@Power5 Because the general gaming community is unable to differentiate between SQ42 and Star Citizen after 10 years. It‘s all just „Star Citizen“.
"Does not show signs of moving towards a fun experience..." That one got me, so many game studios (including CIG of late) seem to have lost track of the fact that this is a GAME; if it is not fun, people won't waste their time on it. Plenty of time to do work at, well, work - while earning money.
SC has always been for folks who want more of a "universe sim" experience, which not everyone finds fun. But a game doesn't have to please everybody. 🤷🏿♂️
@@LucidStrike if a game forces you into tedium for the sake of tedium it's not a very good game, no matter the genre. there's a balance they have to strike, I think they're pretty good about finding it too. People are complaining about features they haven't played with yet
@@a.j.6832 Ironically, one mans tedium is another mans fun. Many games are tedious which for the sake of can be considered a subjective view. That does not automatically mean it isnt fun. Obviously some people consider SC gameplay fun. May not scratch your itch. I dont find COD game play fun. Others do. A balance does need to be struck, but I dont think what they have is far off. Many people already like whats there. Its just different, and that is ok.
Starfield would have been a great game if it was released 10 to 15 years ago when Bethesda built the engine the game was developed in.
However, Starfield and Star Citizen were never meant to compete with each other in the same space (no pun intended). It's like saying Need For Speed and iRacing are both racing games, so why didn't Need For Speed Heat topple iRacing. Same overarching genre, totally different subgenres.
That being said, I did enjoy Gem Reviews' unhinged ramblings about how Starfield would change the universe as we know it.
Great video man, a nice retrospective and measured overview of Star Citizen right now. I enjoyed Starfield but don't see myself coming back for its expansion. It also all feels like so long ago already.
I do really hope they can expand on the IP in a good way. It just needs some more nuance put into the design of the game overall.
Thanks for checking it out, D :)
I suspected that they weren't at the same level of world technology, when not a single time a ship was shown landing from space, and not even flying in atmosphere in the entire Starfield direct, then i remember, they didn't spend years on R&D to achieve the same degree of planetary seamless travel, let alone plenty of other things, they pretty much did Bethesda stuff, and the fact that they did a degree of vehicle gameplay is pretty cool, but not even close to what you have in the current SC experience, even in it's greatly unfinished state.
Starfield was always just an appetizer for Star Citizen.
Back when Bethesda did the full gameplay reveal I was watching the Easy Allies stream of the event. Ben Moore (who was still with EZA then) made a comment during the space combat sequence that he just wants a game where he can sit in a turret of the ship with his friends and travel together.
I had to comment that the game Ben was describing was not Starfield, but Star Citizen. People were putting Star Citizen expectations onto Starfield that it was NEVER going to live up to.
Starfield held zero challenge with poor simple space combat with near empty planets.
For me Star Citizen cost £26 for a mustang alpha and runs far better than it has a right to on a GTX 1060 running at 60fps after tweaking a few settings relative to the server status.....Starfield won't even launch and I straight up refuse to upgrade for something running on the creation engine! when literally everything else I actively play.....apart from Cyberpunk runs well enough.....And let's face it CIG's tone deafness is nothing compared to Bethesda.
Statfield got me back into star citizen. I didn’t like star citizen because for the longest time I forced myself to play it like a console game. But I was spoiled about Star Citizen’s immersion. So much so that I was disappointed by Starfield’s lack of equivalent immersion and forced myself to learn to play Star Citizen with keyboard and mouse and enjoy it so much more now. Starfield is good go just pass time casually.
Keyboard and Mouse. 😢
Starfield wasn’t an anything killer.
@@Xaxxus it might have been a starfield killer though.
Bethesda killer..
anyone who thought starfield was gonna be a killer of anything, have never played a bethesda game XD
Whilst I would've hoped that Starfield would the little kick that CIG needs, it's not even close to a similar game and wouldn't even be close to a Star Citizen killer. Elite Dangerous would've been a closer one, but they fumbled it
Both Starfield and Star Citizen I enjoyed, but Starfield is not a Star Citizen's killer, and neither Star Citizen, a Starfield's killer.
Star Citizen in its current state is not just a tech demo by the definition of the term.
It's years beyond that. 'Tech demo' is pre-pre-alpha. That's what was shown at GDC before Kickstarter.
It didn't kill anything other than Bethesda. It couldn't have killed SC, because it managed to have simultaneously equal amounts of corporate ick and the ugly impact of businesspeople affecting gake quality with their business agendas, while also being a badly made game. It's a complete shambles.
starfield is a loading screen simulator
Honestly, we need another star citizen game that is more player friendly if we want to compare. It takes the info from the solo player community and multi crew community. Gives ships that can be solo flight but is advanced with having a proper crew. Npc or real. While also giving that ship vibe that star citizen gives.
I love how the start of the video shows so many people go "Yeah its different, but who cares?" - Guarantee you those same people also quickly hopped on the "Yeah but its a different game to Star Citizen, they arent comparable! Starfield isnt as bad as you make it out to be, its just different"
Absolute nutjobs.
"why did this game not kill this other game which is settled into a different genre and only remotely thematically related"
Yeah this video is dumb, but SC news and content is slow...
Only Star Citizen will kill Star Citizen.
I recall installing SF on the XBOX a while ago, while I was taking a break from SC. After playing the whole Fallout franchise, the thought of Bethesda tackling an open-world space RPG caught my attention so I dived in.
There was a lot of potential and the early gameplay was decent enough, but there was one specific moment that made me put SF down and immediately re-install SC. As in literally walk upstairs, and install it there and then.
That moment was hitting a loading screen when coming into land at a planet. The fact that I could not fly from orbit all the way down to the intended landing zone made me realise that imperfect as it is, SC offered that seamless flight experience, and SF didn't.
To this day I haven't been back to SF, and I think they massively, massively dropped the ball by not introducing a seamless flight experience.
There will be no other game like Star Citizen, simply because no studio wants to waste money and gamble this big.
@@maxvonkrieger5043 it took almost a billion dollars for star citizen to not be made
There will be tons of games like star citizen just in different settings. The SC formula can be applied to cowboys, pirates, mil sim, whatever you want
@@aguy446 Is it really the "SC formula?" or has this game been made before. Massive MMO with broad range of career and activity paths. Sounds like 100 other titles already available and not sitting in alpha.
@@robertmorrison107 No that's actually extremely inaccurate. Glad I could clear that up for you
@@aguy446 ofcourse, but for now, not a chance. Game development is very expensive. Most game studios are working in their comfort zone that works for them.
Starfield killed himself
Loading screens..and loading screens for the loadins screens 😂
I was a crazy Starfield fan when I heard about it, when I played it was amazing, star citizen had built up the feeling for me of REALLY BEING IN SPACE, but starfield... as soon as I got in the ship, walked around and saw the NPC's, Tried going on the train and way more that is what had done it to me, I think that Starfield could have been way more than what it was and still is today but, No these games are NOTHING alike not at all.
Sooooo many reasons why. And, worst, Starfield could have been a great game if not for Bethesda making it.
As a guy who bought Star Citizen for exploration loop, I really genuinly thought that Starfield will kill it. Perspective of getting 100 systems (even though procedurally random generic generated), starship with crew and modularity (even though without smooth transitions ship-to-foot/space), after years of promises from CIG (I'm backer since 2016) was really speaking to me. I'm not playing SC for FPS or space sim bits. I was most happy with SC, when they added new planets and since 3.14 and Crusader/Orison, I didn't had anything new to explore. So I thought that explorer players like me will just drop. Well I was wrong. No game can really get close to what this broken mess of tech demo can give me. It's my go to afternoon game for better or worse.
It really COULD have been a great exploration game, but it had a bit of an identity crisis. If it didn't need to be a mass market Xbox hype machine with a big story, it probably could have been a great exploration game.
I definitely think this was a good display of the strengths of Star Citizen while also accurately and fairly admitting the downfalls all presented in a constructive and honest way.
The sizzle reel at the start had me dying laughing. They didn't even black out their names.
The two aren't even comparable in my opinion. 😂
Starfield is the best 5/10 game I own. It is a disappointing SciFi rewrite of Oblivion with nothing new and squandered all the potential it had. Star Citizen still has potential and is my favourite game despite its issues.
I love ship building in Starfiled, but the one thing that really annoys me about it is the game automatically transfers cargo whenever you change ships.
This causes you to build up a large amount of duplicate interior objects that you have to sell to get rid of. You also may get special guns you placed in your armory or captain's locker transferred to cargo and have to go digging for them. Because of this I don't bother with a fleet of specialized ships. I just create one multi-purpose ship so I am not changing ships all the time. I would rather have specialized ships however.
Cargo should stay with the ship, with the option to transfer it.
I don't want all my aluminum and iron in my cargo ship transferred to my Science/exploration ship because it takes up all of its cargo space.
And even with this, the problem does not go away. I also like boarding and taking ships, so the cargo issue remains when I take over the ship. I can just minimize the issue, not avoid it.
In the meantime, Star Citizen laughs its way to the bank. RIP, Starfield. Loading screen ......
Hi Tomato i always viewed Alpha as something where you create crutial parts of game core system and decide how most things will work.
Beta fixing bugs and polishing and expanding what is inside and adding more.
"Final" something like minecraft you have game but you add more stuff and fix what is broken.
But it would be nice to see delivery missions work 90% of the time.
to answer the title of this video:
1. because starfield sucked
2. because star citizen isn't a game yet
The worst thing is that they are calling skull and bones a quadruple A game.
And everything about that game doesn't even come to 5% of what star citizen already has even in alpha.
Even if Starfield was not utter thrash... why would a sibgle player RPG kill a MMO? It's like expecting Skyrim to kill WoW.
The only thing that makes sc an mmo is projecting imagination into a future make believe world of possibilities where those things actually exist, they dont
@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n agreed. But still, this is the concept, and they don't overlap at all.
@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0nlast time I checked SC had 99 players more in a session than Starfield
Starfield was a bethesda game through and through. Everyone knew it going in. What starfield did was remind the hardcore SC fans that they are still dealing with a buggy broken tech demo meanwhile other fully functioning space games (good and bad) continue to be developed and released.
Starfield delivered a fully-fleshed out and functioning mediocre game and SC is still a broken mess 12 years and counting.
The Yogi mechanic:
This approach tends to emphasize equipment and ship loadouts over player skill and strategic maneuvering, leading to a few key issues that could ultimately detract from the game’s longevity and depth.
Equipment Over Skill
The Yogi mechanic often focuses on maximizing the effectiveness of ship components and weaponry, creating a scenario where victory hinges more on optimal gear than on player skill or tactical acumen. This shift can lead to combat encounters that feel less engaging, as players might rely on pre-configured setups rather than developing their piloting skills or understanding of the game’s mechanics.
Lack of Depth
A flight model that prioritizes equipment adjustments can create a shallow gameplay experience. While customization is a key aspect of Star Citizen, a balance is necessary to ensure that player skill remains a significant factor in combat. When players can simply equip the best gear and achieve success without mastering flight mechanics or tactics, the sense of accomplishment diminishes.
Impact on Community Engagement
For an MMO designed to be played for years or even decades, the focus on equipment can stifle community engagement and competitiveness. Players may feel less motivated to improve their skills or engage in strategic play when they can rely on a superior setup to secure wins. This could lead to a stagnant community, where fewer players are willing to engage in meaningful challenges.
Long-Term Viability
Ultimately, if the emphasis on equipment continues to overshadow player skill, it could undermine the long-term viability of Star Citizen. An engaging MMO thrives on the evolution of its gameplay and the continuous development of its community. A flight model that fails to reward skill and strategic thinking risks alienating players who seek deeper, more rewarding combat experiences.
Conclusion
To preserve the integrity and excitement of ship combat in Star Citizen, it’s crucial for developers to strike a balance between equipment and player skill. Fostering a deeper, more skill-based flight model will enhance the game's engagement and ensure its longevity as a premier MMO experience.
I really wish all those people who said that Starfield would kill SC, play would have a comment to say now, since that didn't happen.
"only Star Citizen can kill Star Citizen"... And it's doing it with tremendous talent lately.
Bro they have been cranking it up over there approaching citcon and IAE, super stable PTU right now on 4.0 code (just with stuff turned off) and a bunch of new ships coming, possibly a second new star system (Nyx) on top of Pyro soon after it comes
@@stevechil5226 That is all technical. But we are not after a tech demo. Flight model is broken and they keep going the wrong direction and don't listen to what player say...
Instead of fixing ship light they made "Oblivion" nights. They changed the skybox to appeal casuals. They're adding instances. The space stations after PO are just video game maps with magical elevators acting as loading screens. They changed and tamed Pyro... And most of all, they don't even seem to know where they are going with this game. Except, selling ships...
@@cedric5947 The flight model isnt 'broken'. Just a vocal minority is upset with changes. Broken would mean you couldn't fly or ships would be encountering massive flight bugs. Most of those complaints are about ship combat with the flight model. If SC came out today with the current flight model it would be fine to those picking it up. The only ones with a problem would be old heads that are nostalgic about alpha game play.
@@ephalanx1 Except that I made absolute noobs try it and the first thing they said is that it's unintuitive and feels like a chore. Then they laughed at the space brake.
Starfield's NPC companions are abysmal. Like, Sarah always saying "I have something for you"... and it's a stick. (1 friggin unit of a next-to-worthless resource.) They all make brain-dead decisions akin to RPGs of 30 years ago.
Ship design is too limited and entirely too tedious. The few blocky component choices make them all look like junkyard salvage projects.
Endless grind economy, invisible wall borders, time-sink "I can loot better" crafting, terrible housing and customization, no real career paths and junk loot in every corner.
The real kicker for me was the "chosen one" storyline. It's been so overused that it's completely lost it's appeal. When I found out the MC gets "jedi powers", I lost any love for the game.
Just watching the SQ42 ingame clips crushes Starfield by far.
It's really because nobody made a space MMO with high level of detail yet Star Wars Galaxies pioneered it IMO
Nice! Can't wait to hear what you have to say about this. Thanks for these videos
On paper Starfield is the perfect game for me. I like single player. I like story, progression, base building, 'making my own adventure'. But it felt so flat. The world is so boring, the tech so outdated. The gameplay systems are literally skyrim in space, even getting the voice in skyrim is how you get your powers in Starfield. And those powers also felt so jarring when the game presents itself more towards hard retro sci fi.
And then the loading screens. You can't endure this Starfield after experiencing a single session of Star Citizen. This just shows the value of those extra years CIG took to make object container streaming and the rest of the tech to make it possible to stream in content on the fly with no visible loading screens.
Star field and it’s loading screens and handicaps made me get into star citizen
Yogi is killing Star Citizen
Because starfield is a shit game.
Skyrim allowed you to have an idea and play the game as a thief, fighter, wizard. You could spend the whole time stealing and fencing goods. Starfield was the same game no matter what background you took.
In Star field, if i wanted to smuggle goods, i could take a job at a terminal, menu screen to planet, get scanned, menu screen to landing, job done. If i failed the scan mode i could kill all the uc ships, but would have a 200k bounty. No problem, reload, pass the test donthe smuggling. No skill, no challenge, mostly menus and loading screens.
In star citizen i have to find the drugs, load them up, fly to a place to sell them, hope theres no other players there, unload the drugs, make the sale, get out before someone turns up. Even when youre successful, youre always on edge.
Starfield really only had the storylines to play. There wasnt really star trading, salvage etc... even bounty hunting didnt really have a lot of depth in starfield.
Starfield was a nice distraction until bugs corrupted my save files but i havent wanted to get back in the game. Sc is a game inwant to log into everyday.
"Only Star Citizen Can Kill Star Citizen" is so true
Sorta like a few others around here. Starfield is how I learned about SC.
The single player game didn’t kill the multiplayer games momentum. Shocker.
I am playing Starfield as I listen to this video. Sadly, I've played hundreds of hours of Starfield since it was launched, but I've barely touched Star Citizen.
@SpaceTomato Isn't 3.24.1 now the last of the 3.x series? from the last 2.x, starting from 3.0, what has 3.x brought us? What was it like pre 3.0, and now that we are at the end of 3.x, how long as it been for 3.x and what did we get for that amount of time, since 3.24.2 is 4.0 under the hood, we have a complete life for the 3.x branch. Might make for a video?
Yeah I knew pretty much everything you talked about and agree fully. They simply don't compare.
Until these reductive click bait titles end, I'll be calling this channel, Salt-E Tomato
Okay cultist
It’s RUclips everyone’s a pawn being driven by the algorithm.
I'll be honest, Star Citizen looks awesome. However, Starfield is an actual game. It even had an expansion. I'll be in my grave before Star Citizen even gets out of Alpha...
Star Citizen and Starfield aren't even in the same category. Even with the bugs, Star Citizen is Ferroro Rocher to Starfields supermarket brand milk chocolate. Not even remotely close.
I did a couple of play throughs of Starfield, I enjoyed the faction storylines and overall enjoyed the game. Then I was done. I think one of the biggest draws for Star Citizen is the seamless environment transitions. Nothing beats the first time you break atmosphere and look back at the planet. I think every citizen has that moment etched into their memory.
You can’t kill that which doesn’t exist.
Facts
Because Starfield was as wide as an ocean and as deep as a puddle.
Not even going to watch the video before I comment.
Starfield has all the tools to have beaten SC to the punch, but they missed the mark. For whatever backend reasons, they:
-Decided that scientists on the moon had NOTHING to do but just being there was cool and used that as a base line for moon exploration
-Thought empty planets devoid of POI's that matter wouldn't feel devoid of life and character
-That there didn't need to be an end game loop and replaying the core game over and over was enough
-That there needed to be countless loading screens to manage the games backend
-That players didn't really want to be flying their ships (its fine we cant park them anywhere, but flying was a huge sell for the game and they really missed the mark).
They could have learned from NMS and SC but instead they just made Skyrim in space, which I guess they promised but that's not what I thought it was going to be when they said that. Starfield was so close to being the great space game SC wants to be that its really disappointing that its so mediocre. Custom ships? Not half bad gunplay? Player housing and custom bases? 100 systems? So close and yet so far.
Interesting to note, if NMS released today AS IS, with all of its improvements and the collective memory if its failed launch wasn't a thing, I 100% think it would have rocked CIGs boat hard enough that they would be making changes. NMS is doing everything CIG has promised but on a lesser scale (read: more feasible and without needing to reinvent the wheel) and you don't have to spend 300$ to stay relevant in pvp.
Starfailed!
SC forever!
.....in development!
I'm fairly sure a lot of content that is being kept away from Star Citizen is already in Squadron 42, you can tell from the videos we have seen in the past years and we are only now seeing those changes come to PTU...
Just remember, they can't spoil too much and that is likely why we got to see Stanton and Pyro first outside of Squadron 42... or I am just super high on copium and only Sol is featured in Squadron 42.
Because it was shit. Next question.
Cause the game was bad. And even remotely similar to SC. SC is still bad as of now, though cause idk... its not even remotely finished yet.
You can't kill something that hasn't even been alive.
Starfield is great, i play it.... but is NOT a star Citizen competitor. People should play it and understand why.
You can't kill one which is not alive.
I enjoyed Starfield. Was it a great game? Not really, but I had fun playing it. I played it at launch and people asked me if it was like Star Citizen. They are two completely different games. It’s ok to like different kinds of games. People making this comparison are speaking from a place of emotion. Has nothing to do with reality.
That Tittle xD
This year, Star Citizen is doing it's best to kill itself.
Agreed.. Yogi is killing the ship gameplay and someone needs to stop him.
@@danny1988221 Who would've thought allowing a sound engineer to develop a flight model would turn out badly..🤔
Also my first thought reading the video title 😂
@@Havoc_762 😂 you know he's nerfing stuff he cannot control its pretty sad. To fast, nerf... he got killed by some ship, nerf... corsair killed him, nerf!!
Starfield was one of the most boring game experiences of my life and this is coming from someone that played Shenmue on Dreamcast back in the day.
Great video! Let’s hope they continue to lean into the dream
I'm not some brain washed long time backer, I backed in 2022. And I actually spent more on Starfield than I did on Star Citizen 100vs70 but I feel like even with SF's "polish" it leaves me infinitely more unsatisfied with the product than SC.
SF is nothing more than a fast travel simulator with senseless, inconsequential dialog sprinkled in.
"Only Star Citizen Can Kill Star Citizen" ... 🤣🤣🤣 it's so true!
It decided that Star Citizen was doing a good job killing itself, and just let it be. Also, Starfield was immensely underwhelming.
This was a Very well done video! Nice work Sir!
Had it not been for starfield I wouldn't have started playing Star Citizen. So imo that's the best thing that trash game was good for.