Personally, I'm thankful it will be singleplayer-only just like Skyrim, Fallout 4, etc. Nothing ruins the deep immersion of a story and roleplay experience like some other person coming in and shattering the whole atmosphere and being forced to play the game at someone else's pace because they get bored waiting for you to listen to/read all the text and poke around in every nook and cranny. Sure, multiplayer is good for games that are focused on multiplayer, but nothing beats a rich, deep singleplayer experience that one can delve into for years to come, either vanilla or with the 753732 mods that will be created.
If you never played no man sky, what I compared it to, has an option to play single player only, with friends or full open lobby with PvP. Before that it was only single player. While you a some others might just want single player, it is selfish and inconsiderate to not even give us the choice. That's what nms did and it worked brilliantly. You can play all 3 modes given your mood. Not giving the player any choice is just making sure some will never buy and play it. And for this game, it's definitely shooting themselves in the foot. And whether by modders or an expansion makes all the difference. If Bethesda does it, means they care and want to give us the option. If the modders do it, means the community has to work when the Devs just won't. Bad look imo.
@@TheOnlySillySocks But see, this game isn't No Man's Sky. It's a Bethesda single-player game in the same tradition of Elder Scrolls and Fallout. I'm sure there are those who refused to play Skyrim because it is single-player only, but it is still one of the biggest and most played games of all time, and for good reason. The quality would have been watered down by tacking on multiplayer just because they hoped to get more sales vs. putting 100% effort into the singleplayer experience. I much prefer to have a quality singleplayer game in the Bethesda tradition than a choice between a mediocre multiplayer vs. a mediocre singleplayer because they needed to get the game done for both. It already takes Bethesda many years to release one of these games singleplayer only. Also, multiplayer would guarantee that console players would never be able to enjoy game mods because of the concern for "cheating". Bethesda is one of the very few companies that allow console players to use mods in the same way as PC. Are these to be taken away from console players because a minority wants Bethesda to completely change the way they develop games to add in a tacked on multiplayer that adds very little to the game vs. what must be watered-down or removed? There are plenty of good multiplayer PvP games already out there that we don't need to transform Bethesda into being a mediocre clone rather than the unique developer they already are.
Again, please explain how, giving the choice to play co op if we wanted to, would have an effect on the game? NMS has that possibility, and as someone that played it from the start and through out its multiple free updates, nothing changed because they added the possibility to invite friends to our game... What you just said makes no sense. The game world is still the same, the missions are still the same. The only thing you would need to do is MAYBE adjust the difficulty of the missions and other stuff to fit the extra players. That's literally it. If you are just defending Bethesda because you like their games, fine, but you are literally saying, "others gaming experience dosent matter because im getting what i want" and that is extremely selfish. It dosent have to be single player or pvp. All they have to do is give us the choice, thats it. If you only play single player, how does it affect you if others want to play with friends? How does your experience change if you get to play how you want and other can play how they want too? I literally cannot understand how people can be this selfish about a title still in development, just because they like the previous games and literally not give a single f about others...
You keep talking about selfishness and yet you are the one that demands that Bethesda change the way they develop their unique style of very successful games, against the wishes of millions of fans who love their games, and against the desires of the modding community that has grown to expect a cooperation between themselves and Bethesda, only so you and a few friends can play co-op. Because of what you want, it doesn't matter that the quality goes down because Bethesda must take away features that make them unique to spend all their time balancing for group combat and constant needs to stop cheating. Not all games are for everyone and it sounds like Bethesda simply doesn't develop the sorts of games that cater to your interests, and that's okay. There are a zillion other games that do. And yes, I love Bethesda games and they are like nothing else out there and it would be an evil day indeed for them to just become another multi-player clone to appease the modern audience.
You keep insisting that they would have to change the game in order to supply the option to play single, co op or multiplayer at our choice, how? I want more players to play the game and longer, so I am selfish because I want Bethesda to have a bigger player base by allowing multiple ways of playing the game... That is just surreal... How are the fans of previous games being affected by having the game they want, with the extra possibility of playing with friends if they want to, or pvp if they want to? How? Again... Surreal... Blindly defending their choice just because it fits your needs and everyone can go play something else, when all could play the game you clearly already love before playing it, wow... And what do you care about someone else cheating in their game if you play single players? What does it affect you, playing in single player mode, that a group of friends might be exploiting the game? you have the game you want, why cant others have it too?
They might add in co-op or a battle mode later. They are planning on keeping this game going for a decade. If they don't add that in...maybe they will have to be satisfied with only being as successful as Skyrim was. I think they can handle that. Note that Skyrim is still going strong with a large player base after a decade. Also, you did not consider how the modding community is going to be sucked into this game for god knows how long since there are so many possibilities.
I hope they do. Although they themselves have said they poured money and resources into this one like no other game they did before so I would expect they want to be more successful than previous titles. I never consider what the modding community does because that's not the work of the studio. The released game has no modded content, and future modded content should never be included when judging the release version of the game. One shows the studios work, and the other the communities work. 2 different things. I am aware fallout 4 has co op, and so does skyrim, but they are mods. So, when judging those games and they are sold, they are single player only, but clearly the community wanted co op so much they did it themselves, however that is not in the shipped version from the studio, so it is not part of the game being sold. Depending on the community to fix, enrich or change their game is imo a mistake, because if co op was in at release, or added in a free update, the community would be bigger and happier with the game. It's a simple equation, would a player be happier if the game was released with the optional content or features they would have to install later as mods? yes. Would these features attract more players? yes. M&B Bannerlord is a good example. They pick some stuff from the community and put it in the game for everyone, therefore enriching the base game. should the game have been released with these features already in it and would it attract more people if it did? yes and yes. It is very important for these games to have an active community and the mods do show the intention of making the game better or to cater to specific game styles, but would the community appreciate having those features in the game in the first place and not have to make it themselves? undeniable yes.
I can see VR being one of the first big things they add to this feature wise after release if it is as successful as Skyrim or even Fallout4 mods will probably add everything else !
VR definitely makes sense for it 100%. I know a few people that will be happy if they do. But I just wish people would stop relying on modders to do the work the studio should do themselves. Modders should not be expected to be responsible for adding basic things like a co op option or fixing bugs or other obvious things the studio should get in the first place. I play a lot of games and many using mods, but I cannot give the studio a pass of basic things they don't do. Games like Total war, Mount and blade, Dayz, Arma, all games that come out with stuff missing and/or broken that the communities have to fix or add to fully enjoy the games. I just cannot give them that pass. It's on them.
@@TheOnlySillySocks maybe it's not a question of make multiplayer happen to make people happier, maybe it has more to do with the absolute headache that is to maintain as they just went through with this from FO76, the limitations of the engine make the game unplayable. most people love the aspects of bethesda games for the single player experience's and the modding also helps in that regard. people would often make the comment that bethesda should stick in the lane they flourish the most in, and that's always been single player, especially regarding the games created in the creation engine. leave the online stuff to Zenimax to make the online version of fallout, like they did with ESO.
ok, 76 was a disaster agree. in that case, and if there is a dev team out there doing that work, why not hire them and get it right on their release if they cant do it themselves? Why just go "our players are loners anyway, they dont play with others. not our games" it just makes no business sense, no marketing sense, no game sense, just limiting something to only single player because of we wont even try. and the fact some are so gung ho instead of it being better and are just content to playing alone forever xD honestly, some of the folks that left comments must be agoraphobic so much to even fear the game allowing co op...
I feel exactly the same about this game. Pretty good points. Definitely No Man's Sky has "ruined" other similar games experience 😂... it has become such a good space game!!!
People honestly have no idea what NMS is anymore. They still think its like it was on release or something. xD they need to do something like a free weekend or something for people to play it, because it has evolved and grown so much.
@@TheOnlySillySocks i came back to the game of no mans sky and yeah they added a bunch of stuff and things, but it's not really that much better, there is virtually no story no voiced NPC's and no content outside of it being a survival simulator game with limited online multiplayer capability's. when it comes to valued content such as lore and stories along with everything else you will be able to get into, it's probably going to be way better than NMS in these very needed areas. now i don't like the performance shit that bethesda added onto of the game, i like good looking games as much as the next guy, but i don't over obsess over it to the point that i play my games on the highest settings just to get the best visuals possible while driving my overall performance down to nonexistence, i would want the game to run well even if it's at the cost of some of the visuals to play the game.
agree with all except that no man sky has no story. if you say that then you literally cannot have played it. in a first play through there are well over 100 hours to get to the end of the main story. and then you have 3 more mainish story lines to do. and like you said, they are voiced npc's... you just cant understand them. that's why there is the translator, something you also have to develop to be able to have conversations... there is 3 months until September. if I was you I would give another look to no man sky because what you described isn't it.
@@TheOnlySillySocks well i suppose i will have to try it again, i just don't like reading the translator stuff, i thought maybe the developer could add in something like TTS AI voices to the game, but i understand this game is freaking old now and the likelihood of that happening is slim to none. last time i played this game, i played it on easy and i ran into a game breaking glitch that couldn't be fixed unless the dev fixed it, i was basically stuck on the first planet so i couldn't progress at all because of this one glitch, at first i thought that i just needed to start a new playthrough until i found out this bug kept happening on new playthroughs, it had to do with creating something without the needed things in order to make the thing i needed in order to make my ship lift off the planet. it's been a long ass while since i played it from then on so maybe it's fixed since then, but who knows, most of my bug reports are ignored if the vast majority of users don't have the same issue as me. outside the glitch i was able to learn the story through creative mode, and that was boring as shit, i wanted to play the game with it's mechanics, but that damn game breaking bug really stopped me from wanting to play because it just kept happening. anyway the game is installed now, so i'm going to try once again, but if i run into that same damn glitch, i swear i will never check back with this game ever again because you don't just ignore something like this with a game, it seems like instead they would rather add more useless content to the game than fix game breaking bugs.
The game might be a little older but it's still being worked on. They release a big update every 3 months or so. If it was really a long time ago, many things have changed. Hope you enjoy.
Your Correct!!!! I pray too this will go Multi Online.... I see plenty of contents.... Put all my time on it and maybe someday when I get back in Star Citizen CIG will have more content as well. I might feel sad when I get back in Star Citizen with all those broken stuff and sometimes not playable other times... in those times eventually hope Starfield will have more expansions to play with. Star Citizen will be a more lifeless space in September..... Adding creature that wanted to eat you and fixing the NPC forever standing on chairs to roam around, in planets and in space could give life... even your all alone playing in the server.
Just like with Elder scrolls or Baldur's Gate. The fanbase are annoyed the simplified version Skyrim is in the RPG scene. Starfield looks like the game that will make space sim rpg mainstream. The game looks easy to understand.
Ok, a few things. 1) I agree about the lack of Co-Op being a limiter. They intimated that Co-Op is a possibility, but not planned, likely this is built on the same tech that enabled FO76, so it likely is something they can enable, they would just have build a mode that did not conflict with some of the SP specific stuff. 2) I think you miss to whom this game is targeted to. This is not targeted towards the SC/NMS crowd. This is targeted towards people who love to play Bethesda games. 3) This game will be replayed for a long time. With or Without Co-Op. It is a Bethesda game, meaning, that very few people will ever 100% this games content. I still go back and play Fallout3, and still occasionally find new stuff. 4) Compared to NMS. this game will likely be more feature rich at launch, meaning, that NMS despite all the updates, still feels very thin on real content, and systems. It could be a lot better, with some rethinking the progression system, even with most of the systems that are already in place. Mostly, by making it take a lot longer to get into space, and starting you off on a less hostile planet, and making you work hard for your first ship, while starting you off base building and ground vehicle systems first, until you can get enough resources to buy or fix your first ship. I could go on about each stage of NMS and making it more progression based, rather than totally random, but I digress. Day One SF will be fully robust, and substantial feeling. It will have a far deeper story, and character interactions, while still having all the fun combat, mining, exploring, etc, that NMS has, not to mention a far better ships system. I think it is just missing the Co-op that we both agree on. I would really love to play with my friends, and get into trouble, and have that shared experience.
Yeah, I have been getting really frustrated with SC. Not with the community or even the bugs, but with the fact that we can never take these devs at their word because time and time again they promised something was right around the corner only to end up delaying it for another year or more, not because it needs more time , but because the priorities have shifted again. The only way I see myself sticking with SC as my space game of choice in 2024 is if the Bathesda haters are right and Starfield really does bomb in a big way.
Yeah SC has had so much funding and time that it is almost ludicrous the way they handled the development of it. I don't think it will bomb, as I said, it will probably sell and sell a lot. But could it sell more with an option to play co op or pvp in addition to single player only? Yes.
SC is just such a big project, and when it gets more "completed" it will eclipse everything else. It will probably be a while though. The development model (currently) isn't "bad". They are a lot better about promises and limiting delays now - things get pushed out maybe a quarter or two but not more. They are the most honest and transparent development team I've ever witnessed in the gaming industry - probably because of all the bad cred they got early on for their mistakes. My bet is it will be in a more playable state by late 2024-early 2025. It will never fully "release" because it is a "game development as a service", which is good IMO because it means it will just grow and improve in perpetuity as long as it keeps making money. What matters is when you feel like it is "playable" enough for you to enjoy. Squadron 42 will be more of a sim version of Starfield. Visuals probably be on-par with Starfield, but with much deeper game systems. I'm hoping for a late 2024 release for that game. Starfield will maybe hold me over until then.
I get it but for a game that got over 500 million in funding by september 2022, for what they have to show for, its surreal and they deserve the criticism. what ever the excuse, over half a billion dollars in development is absolutely insane for the result...
The thing I'm worried about is if it will allow you to fly around the planet. The video shows a cinematic clip of the ship taking off and landing only.
True. I am curious to see to what extent they just use cinematics or cut scenes to cover loading screens. Just not having seamless transitions between space and planets is a weird decision but let's see.
Something that makes me wonder is , are there life support systems that will prevent us from wandering to far from the ship? (Introvert vs extrovert traits)
It looks like it with the O2 + CO2 meter in the hud, but that could be a non factor in planets that have breathable air, so not sure how it will work. In NMS you can literally runs across a planet if you are willing to spend days doing it, I wonder if they are going to allow us to do that here as well.
i agree on the transition thing being an issue, and i believe it could be remedied via some tricks of loading we have seen in other games, where they essentially have a load screen that allows the player to walk through a threshold, the threshold is a load screen that limits the players speed and also prevents them from seeing the background content from loading up because their view is obstructed by something, like in the newer tomb raider games, you are walking through these load screens all the time and she's typically walking at a reduced speed as the next section is being loaded up. the same thing could happen in starfield, like when you enter a planet there is this obstruction called re-entry where it blinds the player for a period of time as they make the journey to a planet, and it also slows the craft down because of these forces in the atmosphere, but i guess it was just easier to make a stupid cut scene lol.
@@5226-p1e You could always compare the monotony of trying to reach the surface of a planet in Elite not very dangerous or how about leaping to a star system and then having to actually fly for fifteen real-life minutes within that system just to reach a trading post that offers slightly more for the cargo than the last system, before being attacked and having your ship destroyed. How immersive is that?
to me I feel like starfield is THE space game you know, the one everyone wanted after firefly came out. I hope Bethesda does not let us down on this one and gives one of the greatest if not the greatest space game of all time. But let me talk about the video, I'm confident that if starfield delivers on everything it promises it will be more than successful and will have a decent player count for the coming years we have SC and we have NMS so I don't think we really need a new space multiplayer game right now. But if you really need it just wait 4 months and you will have it. you forget that this game will have full mod support and Bethesda modders are quite talented. So not only will you get multiplayer you will also get new space ships, new quests, new features, and much much more thats what make Bethesda games last so long
i get your point, but 1, if you played NMS before you would know that you can choose at any time if you want to play single player, co op or have an open lobby with pvp. that's what I said. no one forces you to play NMS multiplayer, that is why it is so great, you can choose how you want to play it. Not having that feature is a negative point in my book. 2 yes it will successful but it will not have the people that want multiplayer for long or at all. not being given the choice is detrimental. 3 judging a studios development and development choices can not be done expecting the community to create mods for missing features. I judge bethesda on the work they do, not the work others will do for free.
This game is a Skyrim or Fallout but on Space, if the story and game mechanics are well done the game will have his loyal community like the other mentioned games have, and then will have a great moders community behind it. You can´t compare it to No Man Sky, nor with Star Citizen not even with Elite because is another kind of game. Bethesda games have historically targeted another type of gamer. And yes, the space sim fan will play it, but the one who will really enjoy it is the player of Fallout, Skyrim and other similar game players. Personally I have the aforementioned games as well as Star Citizen and No Man Sky, and honestly I prefer Star Citizen a thousand times more, because although No Man Sky is good, it does not have the immersion at the simulation level that Star Citizen has and although This one does not have such a wide galaxy (come on, it only has one system), what it does have is immense and with a well-developed and growing background, on the other hand, Star Citizen lacks all the level of history that the Bethesda games have. Starfield seems that it will allow to have a good part of the level of immersion that Star Citizen offers with its explorable and customizable ships but with the development of history that characterizes Bethesda so much. SegSurely as it happens to me with the Fallot series, if Starfield is well developed in mechanics and history I will return to it again and again between my Star Citizen vacations.
The story looks interesting. The gameplay looks to have almost no "sim" elements, which might appeal to some people. The planets (mark my words) will be a split between a few inhabited worlds with points of interest, and a vast number of empty procedural planets that will look cool but will only be big fields for mining resources. Without PVP, the resource collection will get grindy and old fast. Starfield will hold me over until Squadron 42 releases.
This gets to the heart of my concerns. This game seems to cry out for a shared experience, especially with the 1000 planets. It's just baffling to me, why is this scope needed when it's just me and the NPCs? For over a decade, I've been seeing folks asking for more multiplayer RPGs that aren't MMOs, but something where you can have multiple friends experiencing the story together. We have gotten a smattering of them here and there, but rarely from a AAA. Bethesda in particular has seemed extremely resistant to the notion, the closest being their eventual retrofitting of FO76 from the PVP survival experience they clearly expected/wanted, to a more cooperative PVE focused game.
*NO* If you want a shared expreince, go play NMS, Elite Dangerous or SC FFS. Or a dozen other space themed games which allow PvP interaction.Just leave the one single space themed genre designed to give the solo player a solid game experience (over the last TWO DECADES TO BE EXACT) the f@ck alone. You saw how F76 was an utter sh8te show using CK 1.0 aka THE PREDECESSOR OF THE CURRENT CK 2.0 GAME ENGINE. Which was NEVER designed to support the game mechanics of more than ONE player in the game world. WTF would you want to ruin SF with yet ANOTHER stupid & useless Battle Royale mode?
Lol funny. Honestly thought the RUclips app broke xD here's where I am right. Not doing it sorry. What if you could have Skyrim in space, with single player for those that only want single player, co op for those that want co op, and PvP for those that want PvP? Like no man sky...
Let's get a few things clear xD 1- I am asking for an addition to the single player mode, for us to play single player, co op or even pvp. I never said I wanted Starfield to be multiplayer only. I said I believe it is a good idea to add co op and pvp for the players that choose to play those modes. Making the player base larger and Bethesda possibly selling more copies. Single player is the main focus, I am just calling for an addition to invite friends or pvp if we choose to. 2- The comparison with the WoW and the like it to point out, that having multiplayer, in addition to single player, is a benefit and would help to secure the games future. 3- At no point do I say Starfield will fail XD On the contrary, I said multiple times it will sell and sell a lot. But it could sell more if co op and pvp where added as choices to play the game on top of the base single player. 4- I do realise the community and the modders give valuable contributions to many games, and starfield is probably not going to be any different. However, I can not judge the game based on what the community might or might not create. And adding co op and pvp to the single player mode should not be left to the community to do later. It should be at release. Having those features would add to the gameplay possibilities therefore the Ip and attract more players, equalling more sales. Why are so many willing to actively deny others a chance to play this game the way they want to while still getting to play the way you want to? Why is it your way or not at all? Seriously, some of the selfish comments here are incredible. "I get to have my fun but you cant have yours so ha!" Surreal... Have a Great Day.
@@johnny_hammer I get that might happen but it should not be up to the modders. Basic things like this should be on the studio and so many are just willing to deny others their fun, even if completely unaffected by it. it's ridiculous.
The mods are part of the Bethesda games culture. Without them, yes, I'd agree with you that it's not gonna hold up very long. But in reality this game is gonna be on the top charts for a very very long time.
But it comes a point where if the game is only good for the mods, is the game good? or the modding community that saw the potential and gave us the finished product for free?
@@TheOnlySillySocks people don't mod bad games because people don't play bad games. Take RimWorld for example. Amazing single player game that has thousands of mods to make it even better
the main difference between SC and SF is MMO vs single player RPG (possibly co-op?). Obviously there are plenty of technical differnces and such, but SF is far more accessible and SC is far more for the hardcores and hobbyists. SF is only as much of an SC killer as No Man's Sky was.
Starfield is so far announced as single player only, hence this video. No man sky would never be SC killer because it's entirely different, therefore i didn't mention it. One is nearly infinite and the other is nearly just a solar system... Not even remotely comparable. If anything SF might take people from SC because instead of buying ships with real money, you can just make them in game. I would venture that it a major point for some SC current players.
@TheOnlySillySocks i was pointing out how obvious it is that SF isn't an SC killer by comparing it to No Man's sky and how much that wasn't an SC killer either. Starfield scratches the same itch for general audiences but SC is far more complex, which is what some people prefer, but it also makes it less accessible to many people. Kts not an SC killer, but it certainly does stand next to eachother pretty well
I get your point but I think SF might compete more with SC than NMS. The graphics, ship builder, crews and more to see might push more into SC territory. But regardless, without any multiplayer whatsoever it will probably not compete for long.
@@TheOnlySillySocks SF is a single player RPG, while SC is an MMO. It's like comparing Skyrim to World of Warcraft (if WoW looked similar visually to Skyrim). The better comparison will be between Starfield and Squadron 42, if that releases within the next two years. Starfield will set the bar for single player space RPGs. My understanding is Starfield will be VERY surface level in its game systems, while Squadron 42 will be like SC - very deep with many sim-like features. This will make Starfield more accessible, but it may have less longevity. SQ42 will be complex enough to turn some people away who just want a casual space game, but those who enjoy that depth and the sim experience will then be rewarded with the transition from SQ42's single-player story into the SC MMO. Both SQ42 and SC are a couple of years out at least from being fully playable though, so they may not end up competing directly with Starfield if Starfield has already faded from popularity by then. In the meantime, I can guarantee you that Starfield will pull some of the players away from the SC alpha test for a short period. Knowing what I know of that community though, the vast majority will be quickly dissatisfied with the lack of depth in Starfield and will return to the SC alpha after a bit. CIG should plan for a couple of slower quarters financially after Starfield releases. Also, just a note - the "one solar system" criticism of Star Citizen doesn't seem valid to me. SC has widely been praised for having more depth and detail in its single solar system than exits in all the vastness of both NMS and Elite Dangerous by former veteran players of both of those games. I have not played those games so I can only form an opinion based on what I've seen of others playing them, and so-far I agree. SC is a full sim with Starfield-like visuals. It's buggy because it is in alpha. Also, SC will have a 2nd much larger solar system within the next year or so, and several more will follow quickly after that because they've been working on them in the background for Squadron 42. The scale of the experience of SC will dwarf all three other games (E:D, NMS, Starfield) due to the sheer depth and detail as time goes on.
@Finraen Not going to argue the rest because it's a matter of perspective. SF is nearly identical to NMS but in a SC graphics package, like i said in the video. With some diferences on how the systems work but nearly identical. But lets but the depth of the planets to the test. name something you can do in a planet in SC that you cant do in NMS. since you saw those comments i am sure they were supported in something. because i can name a few you can do in NMS that you cant do in SC, quite a few.
This game is about to be an absolute banger for 10+ years. This is the new halo to Xbox. The potential for story DLC is almost limitless. They could come out with a new handmade solar system every year with a new story and a main planet. I want to see a DLC where you discover an earth like planet with human like beings durning the Middle Ages or even a post apocalyptic planet like fallout and they just have a decent sized story to go with it. Then add multiplayer… trust me, Xbox buying Bethesda was a big power move. Coming from a big halo fan, sorry but halo is done and this is Xboxes new baby.
Oh I agree, there are so many things they could add in the future. Just wish co op and maybe pvp would be out from the start along side the single player only. This game would benefit immensely from it.
OK so I feel like You kinda asking for a bit too much I mean I get it But like This was Marketed as a single player game and I have no idea where you got the idea that single player games are more forgotten but they aren't Skyrim is like what 11 years old And people are still talking about it. Granted A few single player games In Recent times have been forgotten Like hogwarts legacy But a lot of other games haven't Like Jedi Survivor And I personally feel like Starfield doesn't need to be multiplayer game. Anyways have a good day or night.
I am not asking for it to "be" multiplayer. If you played NMS before you would know that it gives you the choice, at any time during gameplay, to play single player, to invite friends over and even to go pvp with others that want pvp. that's the issue, choice. NMS is a space rpg in the same category like SF, but it gave us the choice to play with friends, build bases, explore, fight or just f around together. without that choice it would never have the success it did. and starfield should have it as well or they are just keeping out those that want that. it's that simple, choice. that you personaly dont want it, fine. but not allowing others to have it is a little selfish. I am asking for everyone to be able to enjoy SF, not just you or others like you. Have a great day.
It will be alot NMS with human created content dotted throughout the experience....I'm so excited! I love starcitizen and NMS and mass effect light. It's gonna be amazing and mods can add content later. NMS was lacking humanity and story this seems to be fixing that and atmospheric flight will come. I get your argument but BRO just enjoy we get stop screaming that it's not exactly what YOU wanted. I also dont think this single player content will be as full as a Skyrim quest. It will sorta be fallout 4 system with generaly light content with the odd rare extended quest system. I think most of us are burned on Star Citizen at this point and just need something to scratch that itch....and this looks better than anything else.
I agree on everything except on it having to be single player only. Why cant you play single player only and I play co op if I want to? it does nothing to your game and lets others play the way they prefer. It literally hurts no one and gives some of us more options on how we want to play. just like in NMS for example. In fallout 4 and skyrim the mods had to make co op by themselves after years of the release. Why cant they just have that as an option in this one, the game of their entire portfolio where it would make the most sense? Why limit others on how they can enjoy the game if your needs are already met?
Yeah, I mean im a long time WoW player, as a matter of fact I play WoW classic still on benediction, starfield isnt trying to be a multiplayer game. Nor should it be one, we already have those. No man's sky or star citizen can't compete with what starfield is. A deep RPG game, where custom ship building, and more importantly, character building is arguably the most important part of the game. Also with the stories a single player can tell. Most of your MMO quests are mostly very bland, with its sole purpose to just give you a reward or some XP.. very few can compete with single player questlines in terms of quality.
Clearly you never played NMS, it is not an MMO, it's a space RPG, like you described starfield to be. NMS has a feature, mentioned, that allows, key word, allows co op and multiplayer. if you want to play single player only, you can. if you want to join your friends, you can, if you want to go for pvp, you can with others that also want to pvp. that's the point, give the player the choice. if you don't, then they might just exclude the ones that want to play with friends or pvp. there are a multitude of games that achieved its longevity by just giving us that choice, like NMS did.
@TheOnlySillySocks Right, there is a focus on multiplayer for NMS, and no, I haven't played it. But I doubt you can lvl your sneak skill, or mod you favorite weapons.. or make a character focused on melee combat, etc. Its not a in depth rpg in that way.
there isnt a multiplayer focus on NMS. Far from it. It just gives you the option if you want to. There are so many stories to follow, quest lines, literally hundreds of hours on your first game play. You can modd your ship, weapon, suit cargo ship, base build on planets and on your freighter, you get npcs as base crew, freighter crew, squadron mates. you don't walk around with sword no, its a space game, that's ridiculous. but every other thing yes. yes it is or it has. Most people have no idea the game NMS has become... the only diference is you dont level skils, you tailor and level every little thing of your gear, ships and freighter. Even your squad mates. If you like that sort of stuff, just do a little digging on everything you can do in NMS. just so you know, the only things NMS dosent have comparing with what we saw SF has is the ship editor and the skills tree, however, the amount of ships, looks and compositions is immense, and the skill tree is minute compared to the builds you can do in NMS with suit, ship and freighter modules. plus, the discovery feature is shared in NMS and it has co op if you eventualy want. But you dont have to. the game is designed around its single player.
This is probably the biggest underestimation of a Bethesda game ever the modding community alone will keep Starfield alive for a very long time even if it releases broken in true Bethesda tradition, People are still playing Skyrim over a DECADE after , same is true for Fallout 3 and 4. Bethesda are probably one the only game companies that can make single player games that keep people playing for such a long time to the point they re release the games on multiple generations of consoles. Perhaps the Star Citizen crowd will move on yes but that is not taking into account the fans of Bethesda games that keep these games popular for years.
At no point I denied any of the points you just made or the impact of the community. My only point, that some have completely skipped over including you is, could this game be better and have more players if they give us the option to play single player only, co op, and pvp, when and if we choose to. and the answer is yes, backed by every other game that introduced those features later on and saw their numbers explode. if you want to play only in single player, you can, but if some one wants their friends to join, why cant they? Given the nature of the game and it's announced features, it makes sense to at least offer co op as an option. I cannot judge a game on release imagining what the community might do or not do. I can only judge the shipped product, because that is the studios work. Whatever work the community does later is irrelevant to what the studio ships out as their finished product.
@TheOnlySillySocks Developing a multi-player game that is this large and complex is extremely complicated and is something Bethesda has very little experience with (see the disaster that was FO76) and thats why ESO is mainly made with third party help. When multiplayer is forced on a studio that does mainly SP, you end up with games like Redfall. There is a reason Star Citizen is taking decades to make that is because making something that large and deep work seamlessly as an online experience (pve or pvp) takes a ridiculous amount of work and money. Multi-player games are much more complex than even the largest single player RPG's out there.
OMG i have never said i want it to be full multiplayer... If you don't even know how NMS does why are you saying anything before you find out? No man sky is a single player rpg, that allows you to play with friends or pvp by inviting people to your game. Get it? its a single player game. but it allows you to invite people to your game. If you want. If not, you can the hole thing, 1000 hours by yourself. how is this so hard to understand by people? No man sky is not a multiplayer game, it is not an mmorpg. it is a single player rpg game that allows for multiplayer if you want.
@TheOnlySillySocks Not sure why you are defensive like that 🤔 I have sunk hundreds of hours in NMS and love it to bits. In fact, I saw its potential from day 1. They are not comparable, though yes, they both offer the whole "space experience" but Starfield Is very much story and character driven its got more lines of dialog than any other rpg out there and writing stories and characters takes a lot of time and money. If anything, Star Citizen is a bit more comparable to Starfield as both have an insane amount of writing that went into them. No man's sky is much more about freedom and free-form exploration than story or characters, and that is both a creative direction and a limitation due to the game being made by all of 15 people. All of these space games can coexist without competing with each other. You have the "casual" sandbox experience with NMS , The hard-core simulator with ED and SC and the Story driven Starfield that is somewhere between NMS and SC for realism.
agree in a broad sense with what you said and I will leave it to personal taste or opinion, except one thing, that NMS story didn't captivate you it doesn't mean its not there. Stated is the fact it has 139 minimum hours of storyline, mains and secondaries, and you those hours if you play efficiently focused only on completing it. Maybe you haven't played it in the last 2-3 years... When someone either makes up stuff about what you said, whether on purpose or by accident, and given I did clarify before what I said, and you still insisted on changing my words, in a rational conversation, you would be ok with that? I have no problem having a conversation with someone as long as it respects the normal rules of a conversation, and a major no no is either making stuff up, changing what is said or just ignoring it... If you play NMS then you know it was single player only for a very, very long time before it even got the first iteration of any multiplayer feature... so calling it multiplayer, even after either you playing it or me clarifying it, in the video and in the comment made before, ignoring it, misleading it or continuing to imply it to be wrong, even considering steam has it as a single player with also co op and pvp, is wrong to do in a conversation. In reverse would you not have been "defensive" or tired of being either ignored, misinterpreted accidentally or on purpose, or lied to? Being respectful means you argue the points and not ignore or twist or lie.
I was refering to recent single player games out there that ignored calls for features and or changes and died, a little similar to their other recent games where they got it wrong and even ignored the community and stuck to what they believed was best. Meaning 76 and red something released by bethesda.
I glad it's single player only because MP in every game is killing the game's industry in my opinion but what I see Starfield as is a glorified tech demo for the Creation Engine 2 which is Bethesda's in house game engine that they haven't updated in years and so far from the videos I think that the Graphics look great and having the game locked at a stable 30fps will make the game accessible to more people. Plus I am looking forward to the mods that will be made for the game some for immersion and some total conversion mods like I could see someone mod the game to be Star Wars or Star Trek
You never played No Man Sky, i can tell, because what they did was give you the option, you can choose single player only, then if you want your friends to hop in you can invite them and it becomes co op, and then if you want pvp, you can open your world to others and pvp with those that also want to pvp... 30 fps is console, if they lock it to 30 on pc that will be atrocious. mods are the community working, not the devs, you can look forward to it, but you cant judge the studios work based on what the community will do with it after. i get your point, but bethesda is not responsible for the amazing modding community that essentially took over the development of their previous games, for free...
@@TheOnlySillySocks I have played No Man's Sky and didn't like it also 30fps even on PC is stable and accessible. I just don't think every game should be MP also Bethesda doesn't make very good MP games plus Single player games last longer and can be played long after devs stop supporting them. I'm looking forward to the mods that will be made for the game which will be interesting.
why do people keep saying is single vs multi? Why cant you choose one or the other like NMS? Why cant you play it single, and I play co op? If you had played NMS before you would know you could do that. All they have to do is give the option to play with others. the same game! OPTION loool
@@TheOnlySillySocks I do choose one or the other when I choose a game Starfield was always going to SP it's the fact that when an SP game comes out people complain that it's not MP. Plus as I said before Bethesda doesn't make good MP games Fallout 76 and Redfall are examples of that
you literally just said, because they failed at full multiplayer games, and succeeded in single player games, then they shouldn't even have co op as an option... this is illogical to me.
NMS is a ripoff of EVERY sci-fi franchise that's ever been popular. Saying ANY game after NMS is "copying" NMS is silly. Multiplayer is TRASH. There's a whole community in gaming that absolutely refuses to play some multiplayer online games. For one, are you even aware of how enormously VAST the modding community is for Besthesda games, that's kept producing content, all for free, constantly improving Skyrim that's like how old now? ... and they're STILL doing it? .... and they're doing it with other Bethesda games too? ... aaaannn, oh, wait, Starfield is a Bethesda game that will present more realestate to play with for the modding community than the modding community has EVER had ... and, that's FREE DLC sized content for everyone that mods. Your game on disc is what, 200 GB? Most people playing and modding Skyrim, a super old game right now have mod lists that are 500GB alone, plus the game and all the official DLCs. Starfield, you're looking at PROPER gaming with starfield seeing base game, plus DLCs, sitting on an SSD up to 10TB once 6k and 8k textures are added by modding community, and entire populated worlds are added. Starfield will be under constant development BY THE PLAYERS, and all for free. No one will be stuck with and slave to what the base game is. You don't like something, there will be a mod to change it, remove it, or replace it, and among those will be several options to choose from. What you see is not what you get with Starfield. What you'll be getting, if you're not such a n00b to be entirely ignorant of it is a passionate modding community that will expand on and improve the game over the next decade nonstop ... and that because the game is OFFLINE, SINGLE-PLAYER As such, you're missing something. Star Citizen = complex online trash. NMS = simple online trash. NEITHER of them are moddable or have strong modding community and modding tools. OFFLINE is better because it gives this advantage. You don't have to understand it. If you disagree, you're still wrong. It's science. :P
Tell me you never played NMS without telling me you never played NMS. it allows you to play single player only, then if you want to invite friends, you can, or even if you want to pvp, you can, with others that also want to pvp. its giving us, the players, the choice. I am advocating for everyone to enjoy SF just like everyone can enjoy NMS, you and others like you are advocating for your wishes only. that's just selfish. Judging a game or it's studio on the work of the community is just silly. the community can fix, develop or change the game as they want, but the game is and only should be judged on what you buy, the base game. The fact the community exists and works for free for the game doesn't matter and it's hypocritical to just give Bethesda the thumbs up for giving the community the tools to fix, expand or change the game to their liking. that's good, but it doesn't change the quality of the finished product the studio delivered. Plus, if like what you say, you play the game heavily modified with 300gb of mods on top of the game, at what point is it still Bethesda's game and not the communities game? Do you judge Bethesda on hard the community works for them for free? On how they profit of the modders that are voluntary slaves? Working to make their ip more valuable and getting nothing in return? Does having a large modding community mean a game is great or that it needed others to work on it, besides the studio, to make it great? Is a game not great that has almost no modding community and still has tens of thousands of players online, nearly a decade after release, and have regularly released new content, expansions, features all for free? Things those games you mentioned charged for or relied on the community to create mods for? bethesda ultimately wants to sell games, and it would benefit them to, at the very least, allow for co op if we choose to. It still amazes me people are so against something that could make others happy and would not have any effect on how they personally play the game... so incredibly selfish... and that, Mr. "it's science", is a fact...
@@TheOnlySillySocks - your arguments are silly. If you're going to call anyone a "slave" for liking a game, look in the mirror. Who's giving money to who? What's the current NMS player base compared to the Skyrim player base? I'm sure there's statistics ... somewhere. ... and Skyrim came out in 2011, STILL going strong. Your arguments are weak and pathetic and you know it. Skyrim isn't online and it's still going and going and going, and that alone defeats your "ONLINE IS BEST" argument. Nah. Online is a con-job to keep sucking money out of your wallet. prove me wrong. Bethesda tried doing online with Fallout 76. It was such a disaster since it couldn't be modded the company had to sell its booty on the street like a back alley hooker to XBox just to keep going. You're just butt-hurt because I disagree with you and you can't stand being wrong, or losing. If you think winning the internet is tat important, then, delete my comment. pretend I don't exist. Block me. NMS, and Star Citizen are false equivalencies if you want to try to compare them to Starfield. They're not really moddable. Bethesda games are moddable, and despite what you think you think, Bethesda games sell BECAUSE they're moddable. That's pretty much the #1 feature of a Bethesda game, and game modding can't happen with an online game. If you think Starfield is gonna be a fail because no online ... lulz, you might try asking all the Skyrim players WHY dafuq they're still playing an 11 year old game. Perhaps try doing a search here on RUclips for Skyrim ultra modded. All the new AI tools that are coming out? Those are getting added to Skyrim by modders. the game just keeps going and growing. Same will happen with Starfield. We'll get 8K resolution, ChatGPT or equivalent interaction with every NPC in the game, and it's not "slavery". It's passion and dedication to grow an ongoing and shared experience. If you want updates to NMS, you get your mom to pay for the next expedition. I can go to Nexus and get a TB worth of content for freebs. ... but, whatever. Be mad. You like what you like, and I like what I like. :) It's just a little strange how the Steam chart shows last 30 days of players for Skyrim in the 20,000 players range and NMS in like the 11,000 players range. Online strong? lulz.
1- I never said online is best. I said having option to play online if we want is better 2- NMS has updated it's game with tens of updates, all for free and has single player, co op and multiplayer options to play. if someone wants too, they can play single player only. Haven't paied a single cent except for the game purchase to play single player, co op or pvp in NMS, wallet is still the same. proven wrong. 3- Modding is not the work of the studio, therefore are not part of the product the studio is selling. Same with anything else. A car manufacturer can make a car, and some other company makes better parts for that car, those parts are not a result of the work of the car manufacturer, so they cannot be a part of a review of the car of the production line. 4- I only delete comments there are disrespectful, and even if yours is disrespectful, I want these to remain here as a reminder of how petty and childish people online can be and that we have the right to present reason in face of lunacy. 5- Expeditions in NMS are free. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about with NMS. 6- Bethesda did a horrid job with fallout 76, but that reflects of their capability, not the genre. There are plenty of successful Co op games and online games out there. 7- AI tools, better resolution or what ever else the modders do is not a part of the finished product released by the studio. Whatever work the community does after, is done by the community, not the studio, therefore can only be used to judge the fans dedication or dissatisfaction, given the nature of the mod that was made. Irrelevant for judging Bethesda's development choices. 8- Given all your "arguments" and their inherent nature you clearly still don't get the point or, I suspect, didn't even watch the video to the end. As I have repeatedly said, what do you care if someone else is playing starfield with their friends, if you cant still play it offline in single player only? How is your gameplay affected by giving players the choice to play the game alone, with friends or against other players? You still get to play the game as single player only, and others get to play it with friends or in PvP. I don't get it... How can you honestly defend or advocate for your game play enough to not even allow others the choice to play the way they want to, if it has no effect on your gameplay? As I said I am keeping this comment and a few others like this to show how selfish, childish and disrespectful some are to the point of actively advocating for others to be outcast from the community for wanting an option different than what these folks want, even if it has no impact on themselves or others...
@@TheOnlySillySocks - i like how you try SO HARD, and conveniently ignore the STEAM data for how many players are playing NMS vs how many players are playing Skyrim. It thoroughly undermines your statement that NMS will have more staying power than Skyrim. Lol. Enjoy. You like what you like. Just say that. You don't have to say coop is better and Starfield will fail or won't last very long. The success of a game is also not studio or dev based. It's community based. It doesn't matter how "good" a game is if no one plays it. As such modder enthusiasm, participation, and involvement with games is thoroughly valid. You don't get to say it isn't. 😀 Keep trying, but, sweetheart, please stop trying so hard.
Fine, lets not ignore steam data. Most hours played? multiplayer games. most players playing concurrent ever? multiplayer games. Most sales? multiplayer games. Most longevity as a top played game? multiplayer games... CS, WoW, Dota, Pubg, etc. Staying power? CS has got to be the least updated game ever to be played for so long. WoW? please... EVE Online is a fully paid, monthly subscription space rpg in an open galaxy that dwarfs all other space games, fully multiplayer. There is no argument if you want to simply compare numbers. Do you want to cherry pick? WoW is an online RPG. no other rpg has ever come close to smelling the success of wow. If you want to just force the comparison between the success of multiplayer games vs single player games, multiplayer games win every time in every metric. I never said NMS had more staying power than skyrim. Neither here or in the video, no idea where you got that or if you are just being ridiculous at this point. I never said it will fail, i specifically say multiple times it will sell and probably a lot. clearly you have not even watched the video, my only conclusion to this at this point. There are many games that the community didn't even bother to pick up and try to fix or improve, therefore judging the potential of a unreleased game based on what you imagine the community might or might not do is illogical. the shipped game is the product of the studio and the studio alone. As I said if you actually used your eyes to read or listen to the video, The game if they would offer a co op option and a pvp option on top of the single player option. Either you are a Bethesda fanatic or just trolling at this point, neither advancing your credibility. You keep going out of your way to distort, misinterpret or plainly lie about what I have said both in the video and here. Tells everyone all they need to know about you. Please keep trying, every comment helps this video get to more people :)
the one thing wrong lol, please i have seen many things wrong with the game and i guess we will really see how it is when the game comes out to know for sure.
Starfield is a single player RPG first so judging it by how well it can no man's sky is honestly missing the point because It is like judging cyberpunk by how well it is like far cry .
didnt even watch the video or just didnt care. i didnt compare it to no man sky as a reference, I said that it should allow for single player, co op and multiplayer like no man sky...
Was curious to hear what your "but" led to. Multiplayer?, that's what you are going to go with to bash this game, which you know deep down and suspect is going to be a genre defining game. Star Citizen is more like Star Con that will never attract the kind of audience that is hopes to attract, Elite Dangerous is Elite grief the new players so that there is no new blood to keep the game alive, and No Mans Sky is space sim lite, with one dimensional furry characters and arcade like graphics. You say that Bethesda ripped off No Mans Sky yet fail to realize that Starfield has been decades in the making and predates NMS, at least conceptually. By arriving late to the party, Bethesda has had the chance to see what works in these space-fairing titles. Bethesda will not be snatching players away from these other titles, they've laid their cards on the table and time will tell if a unique ship-building game with real interiors, cities full of npc's that actually talk in English and not some garbled text, quests made by the people who have won more game of the year awards than most and a story that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Multiplayer has not been ruled out, but seen as Bethesda got their Creation Engine 2 to run multiplayer games, it might well be a possibility in the future, especially as mods will arrive within eighteen months of the games launch.
Thanks... At no point I was going to bash on it. I said multiple times it will probably sell a lot. The only thing I see missing is coop and PvP modes besides the single player mode. You might not see it. But don't lie about what I said or that I wanted to bash on it. Next time watch the video before commenting. Otherwise I might just say something wrong and you won't catch me bashing on it...
@@TheOnlySillySocks At this point I'm just grateful that Starfield is actually coming out and in less than three months. This is genuinely the only game I have wanted to play ever since it was first rumoured to be in the process of being made. You hoped for a multiplayer or co-op version and I hoped for a game where I could actually hear my character speak, I guess we'll both have to wait for mods to come out to rectify that. I based my comment on your opening remarks and the video title, which to be honest is quite provocative, plus, there might well be many casual players that play Starfield but fans of Bethesda Games are anything but casual. Posting comments regardless of whether you agree with the point being made is what helps your channel grow. I have subscribed because your content is interesting and you have valid points to make. I promise not to be confrontational again.
Thank you. You are welcome to join the discord and maybe hop on some games with or the other folks there. I like having discussions with reasonable people. The only thing I took as "bad" was the assumption. We can all be respectful if we choose to be. Have a great day.
You're comparing three completely different games. Just because it has space gameplay doesn't mean its NMS or SC. If you play the game for the first time thinking about how similar or different it is compared to other games, you're not gonna have a good time. Stop comparing, start being open minded.
If you live in a box, with only what the devs give you and don't compare it to others, then how do you know if it could have been better or not? would the game be worse if they allowed you to play 3 different modes like NMS does? if you want single player, fine. co op, sure. pvp, be my guest. is that such a problem that forever alone players need to keep others form having those options? And just about all starfield has, NMS already did. they are both single player space rpgs, very similar in many ways. although some don't know NMS at all and just hate their bethesda game is compared to another.
@@TheOnlySillySocks You're comparing them like they're the same movie in a series. You're the one who lives in the box if you're thinking they're the same game lmao
After fallout 76 i dont think they should try to make a multiplayer again,they just cannot and with redfall they failed again,their strength has always been making singlepalyer rpgs which i what i hope this game will be.
I did not say to make it multiplayer. I said to add co op and pvp along side single player. Meaning to give us the choice, whether to play it single payer, invite some friends or do some pvp, at our choice. like NMS does. It has nothing to do with 76 something they botched beyond belief. Why cant we choose to play single player or with friends? It makes no sense. Single player will still be there, just calling for the added options.
didnt even watch the video or just didnt care. i didnt compare it, i said it is a wrong move to only do single player, instead of offering single player + co op + pvp like no man sky does...
@@TheOnlySillySocks you listed things that make one game fun and used that as a basis to say another game wont be as fun because of the lack of a feature. you have your opinion, but that is comparing the 2 games even though they will be completely different games. 🤷♂
I have to disagree with your opinion. Single player games, most of the time, are far superior to multiplayer games. Look at Fallout 4 vs Fallout 76 as a prime example. Same company, same game basically, except one is multiplayer. Which one is trash? The multiplayer. I cant believe you brought forknight into this 😂. That game is trash. You want the game to be shared with your friends, go buy them a copy. You shared the experience with your friend. Congratulations 🎉
Ok, a lot of personal opinions there let me just say this. Fallout 76 is a result of Bethesda's incompetence. Many, many other studios have taken single player ips and taken them to multiplayer successfully or have introduced multiplayer side by side with single player, again successfully. Objectively judging success multiplayer are far more successful than single player only games, there is not comparison. Some profited tens of billions. Why are you so willing to actively deny others a chance to play this game the way they want to while still getting to play the way you want to? Why is it your way or not at all? Seriously, that is very selfish of you. "I get to have my fun but you cant have yours so ha!" Surreal... playground school children...
@@TheOnlySillySocks it takes time from the game devlopment to add and increas the chance of some thing going wrong. All so bethesda games have you play a hero that is meant to be speciol. Thing you forgot in comparing the game to no man sky and scam citizen is that this is a game built around a story. Having a team with no experience in this style of being forced to add co-op will lead to a over all reduced single player experience.
Ok agree it would time and resources but I would argue they would get it back in sales. But on the other point, How did the single player experience of NMS become reduced after they gave us the choice to play also in co op and pvp if we choose to? If you can name me one way, I will concede your point.
@@TheOnlySillySocks no man sky was not built as personal story where you play as some sort of hero. So there the story can not be ruined by more people. Looking at every game Todd Howard as made they all go down the same route. I will point out both fall out 76 and ESO are not Todd Howard games.
Have you ever played NMS? There are easily 200 hours of personal story and quests, etc to do... it's all about you and your place in the universe... I dont get it...
here is a problem with your analysis, multiplayer games are disastrously overrated and boring as hell when you finally understand how the concept of general online games work, at least in a single player game, there is a lot of potential for actual stories and lore that is very deep and detailed. i mean sure it would be great to play skyrim online and some people have gotten interested in this, but the feel of the game doesn't change because it's still catered to you as a single player. most multiplayer games are boring as shit, i prefer single player games in general as the overall experience isn't clouded with fomo of being online with your friends, if that's all you think what a game should be, then that's your opinion, but it's not very fitting for everyone else.
@@TheOnlySillySocks i watched the video and this was what i gathered from your views. but i believe that this is also stemming from an issue due to the limitations of the engine again, this is another creation kit created game, and sure they call it CK2, but it's mostly the same engine with it's same limitations, and FO76 is mostly still a flop, they learned that though it can be fun to make an online game, it's a pure headache from hell to maintain with this engine. besides they are much better in creating single player games using this engine.
@@TheOnlySillySocks i played it last year, but i ran into a game breaking bug that couldn't be fixed by playing a new game and i even reported it and eventually i gave up because my report was ignored for months.
yeah... so NMS is a single player game, that allows you, if you want, to invite friends to play co op with you, or even others to pvp. But it is a single player game. it just lets you devide how you want to play the game. and in my opinion, starfield would benefit from such a feature. to be clear, NMS it still is a single player game with hundreds of hours of story and stuff to do and explore, maybe thousands if you get into it. you never have to play with anyone else if you choose not to. but if you want to, it lets you do that. I did make this clear, I always mentioned in adding coop and pvp alongside single player, like NMS. If you dont know about NMS and its features, what you assume is on you, not me. So, did I say to make the game multiplayer only?
@@TheOnlySillySocks u r welcome bro) for clarity sake - i think that you should know that not everyone is fond of mmo aspects of games, thus making your points invalid 🤷♂️
@@TheOnlySillySocks OR! you could be less successful in explaining your thoughts than you expected 🤷♂ everything is possible in our weird times - so - doublecheck.. Cheers!
People have preferences, some enjoy that. I'm just glad they didn't lock the game to one view or the other and let us choose how to play. I would just like they would extend that to more parts of the game like having co op and maybe a pvp battle mode besides just single player.
Personally, I'm thankful it will be singleplayer-only just like Skyrim, Fallout 4, etc. Nothing ruins the deep immersion of a story and roleplay experience like some other person coming in and shattering the whole atmosphere and being forced to play the game at someone else's pace because they get bored waiting for you to listen to/read all the text and poke around in every nook and cranny. Sure, multiplayer is good for games that are focused on multiplayer, but nothing beats a rich, deep singleplayer experience that one can delve into for years to come, either vanilla or with the 753732 mods that will be created.
If you never played no man sky, what I compared it to, has an option to play single player only, with friends or full open lobby with PvP. Before that it was only single player. While you a some others might just want single player, it is selfish and inconsiderate to not even give us the choice. That's what nms did and it worked brilliantly. You can play all 3 modes given your mood. Not giving the player any choice is just making sure some will never buy and play it. And for this game, it's definitely shooting themselves in the foot. And whether by modders or an expansion makes all the difference. If Bethesda does it, means they care and want to give us the option. If the modders do it, means the community has to work when the Devs just won't. Bad look imo.
@@TheOnlySillySocks But see, this game isn't No Man's Sky. It's a Bethesda single-player game in the same tradition of Elder Scrolls and Fallout. I'm sure there are those who refused to play Skyrim because it is single-player only, but it is still one of the biggest and most played games of all time, and for good reason. The quality would have been watered down by tacking on multiplayer just because they hoped to get more sales vs. putting 100% effort into the singleplayer experience. I much prefer to have a quality singleplayer game in the Bethesda tradition than a choice between a mediocre multiplayer vs. a mediocre singleplayer because they needed to get the game done for both. It already takes Bethesda many years to release one of these games singleplayer only. Also, multiplayer would guarantee that console players would never be able to enjoy game mods because of the concern for "cheating". Bethesda is one of the very few companies that allow console players to use mods in the same way as PC. Are these to be taken away from console players because a minority wants Bethesda to completely change the way they develop games to add in a tacked on multiplayer that adds very little to the game vs. what must be watered-down or removed? There are plenty of good multiplayer PvP games already out there that we don't need to transform Bethesda into being a mediocre clone rather than the unique developer they already are.
Again, please explain how, giving the choice to play co op if we wanted to, would have an effect on the game? NMS has that possibility, and as someone that played it from the start and through out its multiple free updates, nothing changed because they added the possibility to invite friends to our game... What you just said makes no sense. The game world is still the same, the missions are still the same. The only thing you would need to do is MAYBE adjust the difficulty of the missions and other stuff to fit the extra players. That's literally it. If you are just defending Bethesda because you like their games, fine, but you are literally saying, "others gaming experience dosent matter because im getting what i want" and that is extremely selfish. It dosent have to be single player or pvp. All they have to do is give us the choice, thats it. If you only play single player, how does it affect you if others want to play with friends? How does your experience change if you get to play how you want and other can play how they want too? I literally cannot understand how people can be this selfish about a title still in development, just because they like the previous games and literally not give a single f about others...
You keep talking about selfishness and yet you are the one that demands that Bethesda change the way they develop their unique style of very successful games, against the wishes of millions of fans who love their games, and against the desires of the modding community that has grown to expect a cooperation between themselves and Bethesda, only so you and a few friends can play co-op. Because of what you want, it doesn't matter that the quality goes down because Bethesda must take away features that make them unique to spend all their time balancing for group combat and constant needs to stop cheating. Not all games are for everyone and it sounds like Bethesda simply doesn't develop the sorts of games that cater to your interests, and that's okay. There are a zillion other games that do. And yes, I love Bethesda games and they are like nothing else out there and it would be an evil day indeed for them to just become another multi-player clone to appease the modern audience.
You keep insisting that they would have to change the game in order to supply the option to play single, co op or multiplayer at our choice, how?
I want more players to play the game and longer, so I am selfish because I want Bethesda to have a bigger player base by allowing multiple ways of playing the game... That is just surreal...
How are the fans of previous games being affected by having the game they want, with the extra possibility of playing with friends if they want to, or pvp if they want to? How? Again... Surreal...
Blindly defending their choice just because it fits your needs and everyone can go play something else, when all could play the game you clearly already love before playing it, wow...
And what do you care about someone else cheating in their game if you play single players? What does it affect you, playing in single player mode, that a group of friends might be exploiting the game? you have the game you want, why cant others have it too?
They might add in co-op or a battle mode later. They are planning on keeping this game going for a decade. If they don't add that in...maybe they will have to be satisfied with only being as successful as Skyrim was. I think they can handle that. Note that Skyrim is still going strong with a large player base after a decade. Also, you did not consider how the modding community is going to be sucked into this game for god knows how long since there are so many possibilities.
I hope they do. Although they themselves have said they poured money and resources into this one like no other game they did before so I would expect they want to be more successful than previous titles.
I never consider what the modding community does because that's not the work of the studio. The released game has no modded content, and future modded content should never be included when judging the release version of the game. One shows the studios work, and the other the communities work. 2 different things. I am aware fallout 4 has co op, and so does skyrim, but they are mods. So, when judging those games and they are sold, they are single player only, but clearly the community wanted co op so much they did it themselves, however that is not in the shipped version from the studio, so it is not part of the game being sold. Depending on the community to fix, enrich or change their game is imo a mistake, because if co op was in at release, or added in a free update, the community would be bigger and happier with the game. It's a simple equation, would a player be happier if the game was released with the optional content or features they would have to install later as mods? yes. Would these features attract more players? yes. M&B Bannerlord is a good example. They pick some stuff from the community and put it in the game for everyone, therefore enriching the base game. should the game have been released with these features already in it and would it attract more people if it did? yes and yes. It is very important for these games to have an active community and the mods do show the intention of making the game better or to cater to specific game styles, but would the community appreciate having those features in the game in the first place and not have to make it themselves? undeniable yes.
I can see VR being one of the first big things they add to this feature wise after release if it is as successful as Skyrim or even Fallout4 mods will probably add everything else !
VR definitely makes sense for it 100%. I know a few people that will be happy if they do. But I just wish people would stop relying on modders to do the work the studio should do themselves. Modders should not be expected to be responsible for adding basic things like a co op option or fixing bugs or other obvious things the studio should get in the first place. I play a lot of games and many using mods, but I cannot give the studio a pass of basic things they don't do. Games like Total war, Mount and blade, Dayz, Arma, all games that come out with stuff missing and/or broken that the communities have to fix or add to fully enjoy the games. I just cannot give them that pass. It's on them.
@@TheOnlySillySocks
maybe it's not a question of make multiplayer happen to make people happier, maybe it has more to do with the absolute headache that is to maintain as they just went through with this from FO76, the limitations of the engine make the game unplayable.
most people love the aspects of bethesda games for the single player experience's and the modding also helps in that regard.
people would often make the comment that bethesda should stick in the lane they flourish the most in, and that's always been single player, especially regarding the games created in the creation engine.
leave the online stuff to Zenimax to make the online version of fallout, like they did with ESO.
ok, 76 was a disaster agree. in that case, and if there is a dev team out there doing that work, why not hire them and get it right on their release if they cant do it themselves? Why just go "our players are loners anyway, they dont play with others. not our games" it just makes no business sense, no marketing sense, no game sense, just limiting something to only single player because of we wont even try. and the fact some are so gung ho instead of it being better and are just content to playing alone forever xD honestly, some of the folks that left comments must be agoraphobic so much to even fear the game allowing co op...
I feel exactly the same about this game. Pretty good points.
Definitely No Man's Sky has "ruined" other similar games experience 😂... it has become such a good space game!!!
People honestly have no idea what NMS is anymore. They still think its like it was on release or something. xD they need to do something like a free weekend or something for people to play it, because it has evolved and grown so much.
@@TheOnlySillySocks
i came back to the game of no mans sky and yeah they added a bunch of stuff and things, but it's not really that much better, there is virtually no story no voiced NPC's and no content outside of it being a survival simulator game with limited online multiplayer capability's.
when it comes to valued content such as lore and stories along with everything else you will be able to get into, it's probably going to be way better than NMS in these very needed areas.
now i don't like the performance shit that bethesda added onto of the game, i like good looking games as much as the next guy, but i don't over obsess over it to the point that i play my games on the highest settings just to get the best visuals possible while driving my overall performance down to nonexistence, i would want the game to run well even if it's at the cost of some of the visuals to play the game.
agree with all except that no man sky has no story. if you say that then you literally cannot have played it. in a first play through there are well over 100 hours to get to the end of the main story. and then you have 3 more mainish story lines to do. and like you said, they are voiced npc's... you just cant understand them. that's why there is the translator, something you also have to develop to be able to have conversations... there is 3 months until September. if I was you I would give another look to no man sky because what you described isn't it.
@@TheOnlySillySocks
well i suppose i will have to try it again, i just don't like reading the translator stuff, i thought maybe the developer could add in something like TTS AI voices to the game, but i understand this game is freaking old now and the likelihood of that happening is slim to none.
last time i played this game, i played it on easy and i ran into a game breaking glitch that couldn't be fixed unless the dev fixed it, i was basically stuck on the first planet so i couldn't progress at all because of this one glitch, at first i thought that i just needed to start a new playthrough until i found out this bug kept happening on new playthroughs, it had to do with creating something without the needed things in order to make the thing i needed in order to make my ship lift off the planet.
it's been a long ass while since i played it from then on so maybe it's fixed since then, but who knows, most of my bug reports are ignored if the vast majority of users don't have the same issue as me.
outside the glitch i was able to learn the story through creative mode, and that was boring as shit, i wanted to play the game with it's mechanics, but that damn game breaking bug really stopped me from wanting to play because it just kept happening.
anyway the game is installed now, so i'm going to try once again, but if i run into that same damn glitch, i swear i will never check back with this game ever again because you don't just ignore something like this with a game, it seems like instead they would rather add more useless content to the game than fix game breaking bugs.
The game might be a little older but it's still being worked on. They release a big update every 3 months or so. If it was really a long time ago, many things have changed. Hope you enjoy.
Your Correct!!!! I pray too this will go Multi Online.... I see plenty of contents.... Put all my time on it and maybe someday when I get back in Star Citizen CIG will have more content as well. I might feel sad when I get back in Star Citizen with all those broken stuff and sometimes not playable other times... in those times eventually hope Starfield will have more expansions to play with. Star Citizen will be a more lifeless space in September..... Adding creature that wanted to eat you and fixing the NPC forever standing on chairs to roam around, in planets and in space could give life... even your all alone playing in the server.
They could have had events, battles in space or down in planets, fighting some enemy together in co op if only they add it to the game.
Just like with Elder scrolls or Baldur's Gate. The fanbase are annoyed the simplified version Skyrim is in the RPG scene. Starfield looks like the game that will make space sim rpg mainstream. The game looks easy to understand.
Ok, a few things.
1) I agree about the lack of Co-Op being a limiter. They intimated that Co-Op is a possibility, but not planned, likely this is built on the same tech that enabled FO76, so it likely is something they can enable, they would just have build a mode that did not conflict with some of the SP specific stuff.
2) I think you miss to whom this game is targeted to. This is not targeted towards the SC/NMS crowd. This is targeted towards people who love to play Bethesda games.
3) This game will be replayed for a long time. With or Without Co-Op. It is a Bethesda game, meaning, that very few people will ever 100% this games content. I still go back and play Fallout3, and still occasionally find new stuff.
4) Compared to NMS. this game will likely be more feature rich at launch, meaning, that NMS despite all the updates, still feels very thin on real content, and systems. It could be a lot better, with some rethinking the progression system, even with most of the systems that are already in place. Mostly, by making it take a lot longer to get into space, and starting you off on a less hostile planet, and making you work hard for your first ship, while starting you off base building and ground vehicle systems first, until you can get enough resources to buy or fix your first ship. I could go on about each stage of NMS and making it more progression based, rather than totally random, but I digress. Day One SF will be fully robust, and substantial feeling. It will have a far deeper story, and character interactions, while still having all the fun combat, mining, exploring, etc, that NMS has, not to mention a far better ships system. I think it is just missing the Co-op that we both agree on. I would really love to play with my friends, and get into trouble, and have that shared experience.
Yeah, I have been getting really frustrated with SC. Not with the community or even the bugs, but with the fact that we can never take these devs at their word because time and time again they promised something was right around the corner only to end up delaying it for another year or more, not because it needs more time , but because the priorities have shifted again.
The only way I see myself sticking with SC as my space game of choice in 2024 is if the Bathesda haters are right and Starfield really does bomb in a big way.
Yeah SC has had so much funding and time that it is almost ludicrous the way they handled the development of it.
I don't think it will bomb, as I said, it will probably sell and sell a lot. But could it sell more with an option to play co op or pvp in addition to single player only? Yes.
SC is just such a big project, and when it gets more "completed" it will eclipse everything else. It will probably be a while though. The development model (currently) isn't "bad". They are a lot better about promises and limiting delays now - things get pushed out maybe a quarter or two but not more. They are the most honest and transparent development team I've ever witnessed in the gaming industry - probably because of all the bad cred they got early on for their mistakes. My bet is it will be in a more playable state by late 2024-early 2025. It will never fully "release" because it is a "game development as a service", which is good IMO because it means it will just grow and improve in perpetuity as long as it keeps making money. What matters is when you feel like it is "playable" enough for you to enjoy.
Squadron 42 will be more of a sim version of Starfield. Visuals probably be on-par with Starfield, but with much deeper game systems. I'm hoping for a late 2024 release for that game. Starfield will maybe hold me over until then.
I get it but for a game that got over 500 million in funding by september 2022, for what they have to show for, its surreal and they deserve the criticism. what ever the excuse, over half a billion dollars in development is absolutely insane for the result...
The thing I'm worried about is if it will allow you to fly around the planet. The video shows a cinematic clip of the ship taking off and landing only.
True. I am curious to see to what extent they just use cinematics or cut scenes to cover loading screens. Just not having seamless transitions between space and planets is a weird decision but let's see.
Something that makes me wonder is , are there life support systems that will prevent us from wandering to far from the ship?
(Introvert vs extrovert traits)
It looks like it with the O2 + CO2 meter in the hud, but that could be a non factor in planets that have breathable air, so not sure how it will work. In NMS you can literally runs across a planet if you are willing to spend days doing it, I wonder if they are going to allow us to do that here as well.
i agree on the transition thing being an issue, and i believe it could be remedied via some tricks of loading we have seen in other games, where they essentially have a load screen that allows the player to walk through a threshold, the threshold is a load screen that limits the players speed and also prevents them from seeing the background content from loading up because their view is obstructed by something, like in the newer tomb raider games, you are walking through these load screens all the time and she's typically walking at a reduced speed as the next section is being loaded up.
the same thing could happen in starfield, like when you enter a planet there is this obstruction called re-entry where it blinds the player for a period of time as they make the journey to a planet, and it also slows the craft down because of these forces in the atmosphere, but i guess it was just easier to make a stupid cut scene lol.
@@5226-p1e You could always compare the monotony of trying to reach the surface of a planet in Elite not very dangerous or how about leaping to a star system and then having to actually fly for fifteen real-life minutes within that system just to reach a trading post that offers slightly more for the cargo than the last system, before being attacked and having your ship destroyed. How immersive is that?
to me I feel like starfield is THE space game you know, the one everyone wanted after firefly came out. I hope Bethesda does not let us down on this one and gives one of the greatest if not the greatest space game of all time.
But let me talk about the video, I'm confident that if starfield delivers on everything it promises it will be more than successful and will have a decent player count for the coming years we have SC and we have NMS so I don't think we really need a new space multiplayer game right now.
But if you really need it just wait 4 months and you will have it. you forget that this game will have full mod support and Bethesda modders are quite talented. So not only will you get multiplayer you will also get new space ships, new quests, new features, and much much more thats what make Bethesda games last so long
i get your point, but 1, if you played NMS before you would know that you can choose at any time if you want to play single player, co op or have an open lobby with pvp. that's what I said. no one forces you to play NMS multiplayer, that is why it is so great, you can choose how you want to play it. Not having that feature is a negative point in my book.
2 yes it will successful but it will not have the people that want multiplayer for long or at all. not being given the choice is detrimental.
3 judging a studios development and development choices can not be done expecting the community to create mods for missing features. I judge bethesda on the work they do, not the work others will do for free.
This game could have been my favorite game ever made. I think it will still be up there but 30FPS knocks it down quite a bit for me.
Get a pc if you care so much
This game is a Skyrim or Fallout but on Space, if the story and game mechanics are well done the game will have his loyal community like the other mentioned games have, and then will have a great moders community behind it. You can´t compare it to No Man Sky, nor with Star Citizen not even with Elite because is another kind of game. Bethesda games have historically targeted another type of gamer. And yes, the space sim fan will play it, but the one who will really enjoy it is the player of Fallout, Skyrim and other similar game players.
Personally I have the aforementioned games as well as Star Citizen and No Man Sky, and honestly I prefer Star Citizen a thousand times more, because although No Man Sky is good, it does not have the immersion at the simulation level that Star Citizen has and although This one does not have such a wide galaxy (come on, it only has one system), what it does have is immense and with a well-developed and growing background, on the other hand, Star Citizen lacks all the level of history that the Bethesda games have. Starfield seems that it will allow to have a good part of the level of immersion that Star Citizen offers with its explorable and customizable ships but with the development of history that characterizes Bethesda so much.
SegSurely as it happens to me with the Fallot series, if Starfield is well developed in mechanics and history I will return to it again and again between my Star Citizen vacations.
Its a love child of all their previous games and the ones they took inspiration from like rdr2
Never played NMS or SC, I get it.
@@TheOnlySillySocks you never played them?
The story looks interesting. The gameplay looks to have almost no "sim" elements, which might appeal to some people. The planets (mark my words) will be a split between a few inhabited worlds with points of interest, and a vast number of empty procedural planets that will look cool but will only be big fields for mining resources. Without PVP, the resource collection will get grindy and old fast. Starfield will hold me over until Squadron 42 releases.
Well this isn’t a sim game
This gets to the heart of my concerns. This game seems to cry out for a shared experience, especially with the 1000 planets. It's just baffling to me, why is this scope needed when it's just me and the NPCs? For over a decade, I've been seeing folks asking for more multiplayer RPGs that aren't MMOs, but something where you can have multiple friends experiencing the story together. We have gotten a smattering of them here and there, but rarely from a AAA. Bethesda in particular has seemed extremely resistant to the notion, the closest being their eventual retrofitting of FO76 from the PVP survival experience they clearly expected/wanted, to a more cooperative PVE focused game.
*NO* If you want a shared expreince, go play NMS, Elite Dangerous or SC FFS. Or a dozen other space themed games which allow PvP interaction.Just leave the one single space themed genre designed to give the solo player a solid game experience (over the last TWO DECADES TO BE EXACT) the f@ck alone. You saw how F76 was an utter sh8te show using CK 1.0 aka THE PREDECESSOR OF THE CURRENT CK 2.0 GAME ENGINE. Which was NEVER designed to support the game mechanics of more than ONE player in the game world. WTF would you want to ruin SF with yet ANOTHER stupid & useless Battle Royale mode?
Here is why you are wrong:
Skyrim in Space
Lol funny. Honestly thought the RUclips app broke xD here's where I am right.
Not doing it sorry. What if you could have Skyrim in space, with single player for those that only want single player, co op for those that want co op, and PvP for those that want PvP? Like no man sky...
Let's get a few things clear xD
1- I am asking for an addition to the single player mode, for us to play single player, co op or even pvp. I never said I wanted Starfield to be multiplayer only. I said I believe it is a good idea to add co op and pvp for the players that choose to play those modes. Making the player base larger and Bethesda possibly selling more copies. Single player is the main focus, I am just calling for an addition to invite friends or pvp if we choose to.
2- The comparison with the WoW and the like it to point out, that having multiplayer, in addition to single player, is a benefit and would help to secure the games future.
3- At no point do I say Starfield will fail XD On the contrary, I said multiple times it will sell and sell a lot. But it could sell more if co op and pvp where added as choices to play the game on top of the base single player.
4- I do realise the community and the modders give valuable contributions to many games, and starfield is probably not going to be any different. However, I can not judge the game based on what the community might or might not create. And adding co op and pvp to the single player mode should not be left to the community to do later. It should be at release. Having those features would add to the gameplay possibilities therefore the Ip and attract more players, equalling more sales.
Why are so many willing to actively deny others a chance to play this game the way they want to while still getting to play the way you want to? Why is it your way or not at all? Seriously, some of the selfish comments here are incredible. "I get to have my fun but you cant have yours so ha!" Surreal...
Have a Great Day.
dont you worry there will be a mod so you can choose to play starfield coop called "starfield together"
@@johnny_hammer I get that might happen but it should not be up to the modders. Basic things like this should be on the studio and so many are just willing to deny others their fun, even if completely unaffected by it. it's ridiculous.
The mods are part of the Bethesda games culture. Without them, yes, I'd agree with you that it's not gonna hold up very long. But in reality this game is gonna be on the top charts for a very very long time.
But it comes a point where if the game is only good for the mods, is the game good? or the modding community that saw the potential and gave us the finished product for free?
@@TheOnlySillySocks people don't mod bad games because people don't play bad games.
Take RimWorld for example.
Amazing single player game that has thousands of mods to make it even better
the main difference between SC and SF is MMO vs single player RPG (possibly co-op?).
Obviously there are plenty of technical differnces and such, but SF is far more accessible and SC is far more for the hardcores and hobbyists. SF is only as much of an SC killer as No Man's Sky was.
Starfield is so far announced as single player only, hence this video. No man sky would never be SC killer because it's entirely different, therefore i didn't mention it. One is nearly infinite and the other is nearly just a solar system... Not even remotely comparable. If anything SF might take people from SC because instead of buying ships with real money, you can just make them in game. I would venture that it a major point for some SC current players.
@TheOnlySillySocks i was pointing out how obvious it is that SF isn't an SC killer by comparing it to No Man's sky and how much that wasn't an SC killer either. Starfield scratches the same itch for general audiences but SC is far more complex, which is what some people prefer, but it also makes it less accessible to many people. Kts not an SC killer, but it certainly does stand next to eachother pretty well
I get your point but I think SF might compete more with SC than NMS. The graphics, ship builder, crews and more to see might push more into SC territory. But regardless, without any multiplayer whatsoever it will probably not compete for long.
@@TheOnlySillySocks SF is a single player RPG, while SC is an MMO. It's like comparing Skyrim to World of Warcraft (if WoW looked similar visually to Skyrim). The better comparison will be between Starfield and Squadron 42, if that releases within the next two years. Starfield will set the bar for single player space RPGs. My understanding is Starfield will be VERY surface level in its game systems, while Squadron 42 will be like SC - very deep with many sim-like features. This will make Starfield more accessible, but it may have less longevity. SQ42 will be complex enough to turn some people away who just want a casual space game, but those who enjoy that depth and the sim experience will then be rewarded with the transition from SQ42's single-player story into the SC MMO. Both SQ42 and SC are a couple of years out at least from being fully playable though, so they may not end up competing directly with Starfield if Starfield has already faded from popularity by then.
In the meantime, I can guarantee you that Starfield will pull some of the players away from the SC alpha test for a short period. Knowing what I know of that community though, the vast majority will be quickly dissatisfied with the lack of depth in Starfield and will return to the SC alpha after a bit. CIG should plan for a couple of slower quarters financially after Starfield releases.
Also, just a note - the "one solar system" criticism of Star Citizen doesn't seem valid to me. SC has widely been praised for having more depth and detail in its single solar system than exits in all the vastness of both NMS and Elite Dangerous by former veteran players of both of those games. I have not played those games so I can only form an opinion based on what I've seen of others playing them, and so-far I agree. SC is a full sim with Starfield-like visuals. It's buggy because it is in alpha. Also, SC will have a 2nd much larger solar system within the next year or so, and several more will follow quickly after that because they've been working on them in the background for Squadron 42. The scale of the experience of SC will dwarf all three other games (E:D, NMS, Starfield) due to the sheer depth and detail as time goes on.
@Finraen Not going to argue the rest because it's a matter of perspective. SF is nearly identical to NMS but in a SC graphics package, like i said in the video. With some diferences on how the systems work but nearly identical. But lets but the depth of the planets to the test. name something you can do in a planet in SC that you cant do in NMS. since you saw those comments i am sure they were supported in something. because i can name a few you can do in NMS that you cant do in SC, quite a few.
You know there will be a starfield online just give them time to test the waters
even so, missed opportunity imo.
This game is about to be an absolute banger for 10+ years. This is the new halo to Xbox. The potential for story DLC is almost limitless. They could come out with a new handmade solar system every year with a new story and a main planet. I want to see a DLC where you discover an earth like planet with human like beings durning the Middle Ages or even a post apocalyptic planet like fallout and they just have a decent sized story to go with it. Then add multiplayer… trust me, Xbox buying Bethesda was a big power move. Coming from a big halo fan, sorry but halo is done and this is Xboxes new baby.
Oh I agree, there are so many things they could add in the future. Just wish co op and maybe pvp would be out from the start along side the single player only. This game would benefit immensely from it.
OK so I feel like You kinda asking for a bit too much I mean I get it But like This was Marketed as a single player game and I have no idea where you got the idea that single player games are more forgotten but they aren't Skyrim is like what 11 years old And people are still talking about it. Granted A few single player games In Recent times have been forgotten Like hogwarts legacy But a lot of other games haven't Like Jedi Survivor And I personally feel like Starfield doesn't need to be multiplayer game. Anyways have a good day or night.
I am not asking for it to "be" multiplayer. If you played NMS before you would know that it gives you the choice, at any time during gameplay, to play single player, to invite friends over and even to go pvp with others that want pvp. that's the issue, choice. NMS is a space rpg in the same category like SF, but it gave us the choice to play with friends, build bases, explore, fight or just f around together. without that choice it would never have the success it did. and starfield should have it as well or they are just keeping out those that want that. it's that simple, choice. that you personaly dont want it, fine. but not allowing others to have it is a little selfish. I am asking for everyone to be able to enjoy SF, not just you or others like you.
Have a great day.
@@TheOnlySillySocks thank you for clarifying and have an amazing day
oh and i am subscribing to you
It will be alot NMS with human created content dotted throughout the experience....I'm so excited! I love starcitizen and NMS and mass effect light. It's gonna be amazing and mods can add content later. NMS was lacking humanity and story this seems to be fixing that and atmospheric flight will come. I get your argument but BRO just enjoy we get stop screaming that it's not exactly what YOU wanted. I also dont think this single player content will be as full as a Skyrim quest. It will sorta be fallout 4 system with generaly light content with the odd rare extended quest system. I think most of us are burned on Star Citizen at this point and just need something to scratch that itch....and this looks better than anything else.
I agree on everything except on it having to be single player only. Why cant you play single player only and I play co op if I want to? it does nothing to your game and lets others play the way they prefer. It literally hurts no one and gives some of us more options on how we want to play. just like in NMS for example. In fallout 4 and skyrim the mods had to make co op by themselves after years of the release. Why cant they just have that as an option in this one, the game of their entire portfolio where it would make the most sense? Why limit others on how they can enjoy the game if your needs are already met?
@@TheOnlySillySocks honestly I think mods will add multiplayer and multicrew. But it will take a year or 2. Exciting times 3 months to go.
I get that, but it's just being lazy devs and expecting the modders to finish the game imo. same with bannerlord, same with other games out there.
Yeah, I mean im a long time WoW player, as a matter of fact I play WoW classic still on benediction, starfield isnt trying to be a multiplayer game. Nor should it be one, we already have those. No man's sky or star citizen can't compete with what starfield is. A deep RPG game, where custom ship building, and more importantly, character building is arguably the most important part of the game. Also with the stories a single player can tell. Most of your MMO quests are mostly very bland, with its sole purpose to just give you a reward or some XP.. very few can compete with single player questlines in terms of quality.
Clearly you never played NMS, it is not an MMO, it's a space RPG, like you described starfield to be. NMS has a feature, mentioned, that allows, key word, allows co op and multiplayer. if you want to play single player only, you can. if you want to join your friends, you can, if you want to go for pvp, you can with others that also want to pvp. that's the point, give the player the choice. if you don't, then they might just exclude the ones that want to play with friends or pvp. there are a multitude of games that achieved its longevity by just giving us that choice, like NMS did.
@TheOnlySillySocks Right, there is a focus on multiplayer for NMS, and no, I haven't played it. But I doubt you can lvl your sneak skill, or mod you favorite weapons.. or make a character focused on melee combat, etc. Its not a in depth rpg in that way.
there isnt a multiplayer focus on NMS. Far from it. It just gives you the option if you want to. There are so many stories to follow, quest lines, literally hundreds of hours on your first game play. You can modd your ship, weapon, suit cargo ship, base build on planets and on your freighter, you get npcs as base crew, freighter crew, squadron mates. you don't walk around with sword no, its a space game, that's ridiculous. but every other thing yes. yes it is or it has. Most people have no idea the game NMS has become... the only diference is you dont level skils, you tailor and level every little thing of your gear, ships and freighter. Even your squad mates. If you like that sort of stuff, just do a little digging on everything you can do in NMS. just so you know, the only things NMS dosent have comparing with what we saw SF has is the ship editor and the skills tree, however, the amount of ships, looks and compositions is immense, and the skill tree is minute compared to the builds you can do in NMS with suit, ship and freighter modules. plus, the discovery feature is shared in NMS and it has co op if you eventualy want. But you dont have to. the game is designed around its single player.
This is probably the biggest underestimation of a Bethesda game ever the modding community alone will keep Starfield alive for a very long time even if it releases broken in true Bethesda tradition, People are still playing Skyrim over a DECADE after , same is true for Fallout 3 and 4.
Bethesda are probably one the only game companies that can make single player games that keep people playing for such a long time to the point they re release the games on multiple generations of consoles.
Perhaps the Star Citizen crowd will move on yes but that is not taking into account the fans of Bethesda games that keep these games popular for years.
At no point I denied any of the points you just made or the impact of the community.
My only point, that some have completely skipped over including you is, could this game be better and have more players if they give us the option to play single player only, co op, and pvp, when and if we choose to. and the answer is yes, backed by every other game that introduced those features later on and saw their numbers explode. if you want to play only in single player, you can, but if some one wants their friends to join, why cant they? Given the nature of the game and it's announced features, it makes sense to at least offer co op as an option.
I cannot judge a game on release imagining what the community might do or not do. I can only judge the shipped product, because that is the studios work. Whatever work the community does later is irrelevant to what the studio ships out as their finished product.
@TheOnlySillySocks Developing a multi-player game that is this large and complex is extremely complicated and is something Bethesda has very little experience with (see the disaster that was FO76) and thats why ESO is mainly made with third party help.
When multiplayer is forced on a studio that does mainly SP, you end up with games like Redfall.
There is a reason Star Citizen is taking decades to make that is because making something that large and deep work seamlessly as an online experience (pve or pvp) takes a ridiculous amount of work and money. Multi-player games are much more complex than even the largest single player RPG's out there.
OMG i have never said i want it to be full multiplayer... If you don't even know how NMS does why are you saying anything before you find out? No man sky is a single player rpg, that allows you to play with friends or pvp by inviting people to your game. Get it? its a single player game. but it allows you to invite people to your game. If you want. If not, you can the hole thing, 1000 hours by yourself. how is this so hard to understand by people? No man sky is not a multiplayer game, it is not an mmorpg. it is a single player rpg game that allows for multiplayer if you want.
@TheOnlySillySocks Not sure why you are defensive like that 🤔 I have sunk hundreds of hours in NMS and love it to bits. In fact, I saw its potential from day 1.
They are not comparable, though yes, they both offer the whole "space experience" but Starfield Is very much story and character driven its got more lines of dialog than any other rpg out there and writing stories and characters takes a lot of time and money.
If anything, Star Citizen is a bit more comparable to Starfield as both have an insane amount of writing that went into them.
No man's sky is much more about freedom and free-form exploration than story or characters, and that is both a creative direction and a limitation due to the game being made by all of 15 people.
All of these space games can coexist without competing with each other. You have the "casual" sandbox experience with NMS , The hard-core simulator with ED and SC and the Story driven Starfield that is somewhere between NMS and SC for realism.
agree in a broad sense with what you said and I will leave it to personal taste or opinion, except one thing, that NMS story didn't captivate you it doesn't mean its not there. Stated is the fact it has 139 minimum hours of storyline, mains and secondaries, and you those hours if you play efficiently focused only on completing it. Maybe you haven't played it in the last 2-3 years...
When someone either makes up stuff about what you said, whether on purpose or by accident, and given I did clarify before what I said, and you still insisted on changing my words, in a rational conversation, you would be ok with that? I have no problem having a conversation with someone as long as it respects the normal rules of a conversation, and a major no no is either making stuff up, changing what is said or just ignoring it...
If you play NMS then you know it was single player only for a very, very long time before it even got the first iteration of any multiplayer feature... so calling it multiplayer, even after either you playing it or me clarifying it, in the video and in the comment made before, ignoring it, misleading it or continuing to imply it to be wrong, even considering steam has it as a single player with also co op and pvp, is wrong to do in a conversation.
In reverse would you not have been "defensive" or tired of being either ignored, misinterpreted accidentally or on purpose, or lied to?
Being respectful means you argue the points and not ignore or twist or lie.
Another short run? Didn't he say millions are still playing skyrim and fallout all these years later?
No I did not nor did I say those specific games had short runs...
@@TheOnlySillySocks so when you said "they are setting themselves up for another short run", what were you referring to?
I was refering to recent single player games out there that ignored calls for features and or changes and died, a little similar to their other recent games where they got it wrong and even ignored the community and stuck to what they believed was best. Meaning 76 and red something released by bethesda.
I glad it's single player only because MP in every game is killing the game's industry in my opinion but what I see Starfield as is a glorified tech demo for the Creation Engine 2 which is Bethesda's in house game engine that they haven't updated in years and so far from the videos I think that the Graphics look great and having the game locked at a stable 30fps will make the game accessible to more people. Plus I am looking forward to the mods that will be made for the game some for immersion and some total conversion mods like I could see someone mod the game to be Star Wars or Star Trek
You never played No Man Sky, i can tell, because what they did was give you the option, you can choose single player only, then if you want your friends to hop in you can invite them and it becomes co op, and then if you want pvp, you can open your world to others and pvp with those that also want to pvp... 30 fps is console, if they lock it to 30 on pc that will be atrocious. mods are the community working, not the devs, you can look forward to it, but you cant judge the studios work based on what the community will do with it after. i get your point, but bethesda is not responsible for the amazing modding community that essentially took over the development of their previous games, for free...
@@TheOnlySillySocks I have played No Man's Sky and didn't like it also 30fps even on PC is stable and accessible. I just don't think every game should be MP also Bethesda doesn't make very good MP games plus Single player games last longer and can be played long after devs stop supporting them. I'm looking forward to the mods that will be made for the game which will be interesting.
why do people keep saying is single vs multi? Why cant you choose one or the other like NMS? Why cant you play it single, and I play co op? If you had played NMS before you would know you could do that. All they have to do is give the option to play with others. the same game! OPTION loool
@@TheOnlySillySocks I do choose one or the other when I choose a game Starfield was always going to SP it's the fact that when an SP game comes out people complain that it's not MP. Plus as I said before Bethesda doesn't make good MP games Fallout 76 and Redfall are examples of that
you literally just said, because they failed at full multiplayer games, and succeeded in single player games, then they shouldn't even have co op as an option... this is illogical to me.
They will fool people as usual. And what a big fail it's not multi....
NMS is a ripoff of EVERY sci-fi franchise that's ever been popular. Saying ANY game after NMS is "copying" NMS is silly.
Multiplayer is TRASH. There's a whole community in gaming that absolutely refuses to play some multiplayer online games.
For one, are you even aware of how enormously VAST the modding community is for Besthesda games, that's kept producing content, all for free, constantly improving Skyrim that's like how old now? ... and they're STILL doing it? .... and they're doing it with other Bethesda games too?
... aaaannn, oh, wait, Starfield is a Bethesda game that will present more realestate to play with for the modding community than the modding community has EVER had ... and, that's FREE DLC sized content for everyone that mods.
Your game on disc is what, 200 GB? Most people playing and modding Skyrim, a super old game right now have mod lists that are 500GB alone, plus the game and all the official DLCs.
Starfield, you're looking at PROPER gaming with starfield seeing base game, plus DLCs, sitting on an SSD up to 10TB once 6k and 8k textures are added by modding community, and entire populated worlds are added.
Starfield will be under constant development BY THE PLAYERS, and all for free. No one will be stuck with and slave to what the base game is. You don't like something, there will be a mod to change it, remove it, or replace it, and among those will be several options to choose from.
What you see is not what you get with Starfield. What you'll be getting, if you're not such a n00b to be entirely ignorant of it is a passionate modding community that will expand on and improve the game over the next decade nonstop ... and that because the game is OFFLINE, SINGLE-PLAYER
As such, you're missing something. Star Citizen = complex online trash. NMS = simple online trash. NEITHER of them are moddable or have strong modding community and modding tools.
OFFLINE is better because it gives this advantage. You don't have to understand it. If you disagree, you're still wrong. It's science. :P
Tell me you never played NMS without telling me you never played NMS. it allows you to play single player only, then if you want to invite friends, you can, or even if you want to pvp, you can, with others that also want to pvp. its giving us, the players, the choice. I am advocating for everyone to enjoy SF just like everyone can enjoy NMS, you and others like you are advocating for your wishes only. that's just selfish.
Judging a game or it's studio on the work of the community is just silly. the community can fix, develop or change the game as they want, but the game is and only should be judged on what you buy, the base game. The fact the community exists and works for free for the game doesn't matter and it's hypocritical to just give Bethesda the thumbs up for giving the community the tools to fix, expand or change the game to their liking. that's good, but it doesn't change the quality of the finished product the studio delivered. Plus, if like what you say, you play the game heavily modified with 300gb of mods on top of the game, at what point is it still Bethesda's game and not the communities game? Do you judge Bethesda on hard the community works for them for free? On how they profit of the modders that are voluntary slaves? Working to make their ip more valuable and getting nothing in return?
Does having a large modding community mean a game is great or that it needed others to work on it, besides the studio, to make it great? Is a game not great that has almost no modding community and still has tens of thousands of players online, nearly a decade after release, and have regularly released new content, expansions, features all for free? Things those games you mentioned charged for or relied on the community to create mods for?
bethesda ultimately wants to sell games, and it would benefit them to, at the very least, allow for co op if we choose to.
It still amazes me people are so against something that could make others happy and would not have any effect on how they personally play the game... so incredibly selfish... and that, Mr. "it's science", is a fact...
@@TheOnlySillySocks - your arguments are silly. If you're going to call anyone a "slave" for liking a game, look in the mirror. Who's giving money to who?
What's the current NMS player base compared to the Skyrim player base? I'm sure there's statistics ... somewhere. ... and Skyrim came out in 2011, STILL going strong.
Your arguments are weak and pathetic and you know it. Skyrim isn't online and it's still going and going and going, and that alone defeats your "ONLINE IS BEST" argument.
Nah. Online is a con-job to keep sucking money out of your wallet. prove me wrong.
Bethesda tried doing online with Fallout 76. It was such a disaster since it couldn't be modded the company had to sell its booty on the street like a back alley hooker to XBox just to keep going.
You're just butt-hurt because I disagree with you and you can't stand being wrong, or losing. If you think winning the internet is tat important, then, delete my comment. pretend I don't exist. Block me.
NMS, and Star Citizen are false equivalencies if you want to try to compare them to Starfield. They're not really moddable. Bethesda games are moddable, and despite what you think you think, Bethesda games sell BECAUSE they're moddable. That's pretty much the #1 feature of a Bethesda game, and game modding can't happen with an online game.
If you think Starfield is gonna be a fail because no online ... lulz, you might try asking all the Skyrim players WHY dafuq they're still playing an 11 year old game.
Perhaps try doing a search here on RUclips for Skyrim ultra modded.
All the new AI tools that are coming out? Those are getting added to Skyrim by modders. the game just keeps going and growing.
Same will happen with Starfield. We'll get 8K resolution, ChatGPT or equivalent interaction with every NPC in the game, and it's not "slavery". It's passion and dedication to grow an ongoing and shared experience. If you want updates to NMS, you get your mom to pay for the next expedition. I can go to Nexus and get a TB worth of content for freebs.
... but, whatever. Be mad. You like what you like, and I like what I like. :) It's just a little strange how the Steam chart shows last 30 days of players for Skyrim in the 20,000 players range and NMS in like the 11,000 players range. Online strong? lulz.
1- I never said online is best. I said having option to play online if we want is better
2- NMS has updated it's game with tens of updates, all for free and has single player, co op and multiplayer options to play. if someone wants too, they can play single player only. Haven't paied a single cent except for the game purchase to play single player, co op or pvp in NMS, wallet is still the same. proven wrong.
3- Modding is not the work of the studio, therefore are not part of the product the studio is selling. Same with anything else. A car manufacturer can make a car, and some other company makes better parts for that car, those parts are not a result of the work of the car manufacturer, so they cannot be a part of a review of the car of the production line.
4- I only delete comments there are disrespectful, and even if yours is disrespectful, I want these to remain here as a reminder of how petty and childish people online can be and that we have the right to present reason in face of lunacy.
5- Expeditions in NMS are free. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about with NMS.
6- Bethesda did a horrid job with fallout 76, but that reflects of their capability, not the genre. There are plenty of successful Co op games and online games out there.
7- AI tools, better resolution or what ever else the modders do is not a part of the finished product released by the studio. Whatever work the community does after, is done by the community, not the studio, therefore can only be used to judge the fans dedication or dissatisfaction, given the nature of the mod that was made. Irrelevant for judging Bethesda's development choices.
8- Given all your "arguments" and their inherent nature you clearly still don't get the point or, I suspect, didn't even watch the video to the end. As I have repeatedly said, what do you care if someone else is playing starfield with their friends, if you cant still play it offline in single player only? How is your gameplay affected by giving players the choice to play the game alone, with friends or against other players? You still get to play the game as single player only, and others get to play it with friends or in PvP. I don't get it... How can you honestly defend or advocate for your game play enough to not even allow others the choice to play the way they want to, if it has no effect on your gameplay?
As I said I am keeping this comment and a few others like this to show how selfish, childish and disrespectful some are to the point of actively advocating for others to be outcast from the community for wanting an option different than what these folks want, even if it has no impact on themselves or others...
@@TheOnlySillySocks - i like how you try SO HARD, and conveniently ignore the STEAM data for how many players are playing NMS vs how many players are playing Skyrim.
It thoroughly undermines your statement that NMS will have more staying power than Skyrim. Lol.
Enjoy. You like what you like. Just say that. You don't have to say coop is better and Starfield will fail or won't last very long.
The success of a game is also not studio or dev based. It's community based. It doesn't matter how "good" a game is if no one plays it. As such modder enthusiasm, participation, and involvement with games is thoroughly valid. You don't get to say it isn't. 😀
Keep trying, but, sweetheart, please stop trying so hard.
Fine, lets not ignore steam data. Most hours played? multiplayer games. most players playing concurrent ever? multiplayer games. Most sales? multiplayer games. Most longevity as a top played game? multiplayer games... CS, WoW, Dota, Pubg, etc. Staying power? CS has got to be the least updated game ever to be played for so long. WoW? please... EVE Online is a fully paid, monthly subscription space rpg in an open galaxy that dwarfs all other space games, fully multiplayer. There is no argument if you want to simply compare numbers. Do you want to cherry pick? WoW is an online RPG. no other rpg has ever come close to smelling the success of wow. If you want to just force the comparison between the success of multiplayer games vs single player games, multiplayer games win every time in every metric.
I never said NMS had more staying power than skyrim. Neither here or in the video, no idea where you got that or if you are just being ridiculous at this point.
I never said it will fail, i specifically say multiple times it will sell and probably a lot. clearly you have not even watched the video, my only conclusion to this at this point.
There are many games that the community didn't even bother to pick up and try to fix or improve, therefore judging the potential of a unreleased game based on what you imagine the community might or might not do is illogical. the shipped game is the product of the studio and the studio alone.
As I said if you actually used your eyes to read or listen to the video, The game if they would offer a co op option and a pvp option on top of the single player option. Either you are a Bethesda fanatic or just trolling at this point, neither advancing your credibility.
You keep going out of your way to distort, misinterpret or plainly lie about what I have said both in the video and here. Tells everyone all they need to know about you. Please keep trying, every comment helps this video get to more people :)
the one thing wrong lol, please i have seen many things wrong with the game and i guess we will really see how it is when the game comes out to know for sure.
well, it is what I think is wrong based on what is available so far. No game is perfect.
Star citizen is not a game it's not even in beta lol
There's a lot wrong with Starfield
What
You saw how fallout 76 floped i dont trust bethesda multiplayer games but i do know they make excelent singelplayer rpgs !
I didn't say they should make it multiplayer...
Starfield is a single player RPG first so judging it by how well it can no man's sky is honestly missing the point because It is like judging cyberpunk by how well it is like far cry .
didnt even watch the video or just didnt care. i didnt compare it to no man sky as a reference, I said that it should allow for single player, co op and multiplayer like no man sky...
Was curious to hear what your "but" led to. Multiplayer?, that's what you are going to go with to bash this game, which you know deep down and suspect is going to be a genre defining game. Star Citizen is more like Star Con that will never attract the kind of audience that is hopes to attract, Elite Dangerous is Elite grief the new players so that there is no new blood to keep the game alive, and No Mans Sky is space sim lite, with one dimensional furry characters and arcade like graphics. You say that Bethesda ripped off No Mans Sky yet fail to realize that Starfield has been decades in the making and predates NMS, at least conceptually. By arriving late to the party, Bethesda has had the chance to see what works in these space-fairing titles. Bethesda will not be snatching players away from these other titles, they've laid their cards on the table and time will tell if a unique ship-building game with real interiors, cities full of npc's that actually talk in English and not some garbled text, quests made by the people who have won more game of the year awards than most and a story that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Multiplayer has not been ruled out, but seen as Bethesda got their Creation Engine 2 to run multiplayer games, it might well be a possibility in the future, especially as mods will arrive within eighteen months of the games launch.
Thanks... At no point I was going to bash on it. I said multiple times it will probably sell a lot. The only thing I see missing is coop and PvP modes besides the single player mode. You might not see it. But don't lie about what I said or that I wanted to bash on it. Next time watch the video before commenting. Otherwise I might just say something wrong and you won't catch me bashing on it...
@@TheOnlySillySocks At this point I'm just grateful that Starfield is actually coming out and in less than three months. This is genuinely the only game I have wanted to play ever since it was first rumoured to be in the process of being made. You hoped for a multiplayer or co-op version and I hoped for a game where I could actually hear my character speak, I guess we'll both have to wait for mods to come out to rectify that. I based my comment on your opening remarks and the video title, which to be honest is quite provocative, plus, there might well be many casual players that play Starfield but fans of Bethesda Games are anything but casual.
Posting comments regardless of whether you agree with the point being made is what helps your channel grow.
I have subscribed because your content is interesting and you have valid points to make.
I promise not to be confrontational again.
Thank you. You are welcome to join the discord and maybe hop on some games with or the other folks there. I like having discussions with reasonable people. The only thing I took as "bad" was the assumption. We can all be respectful if we choose to be. Have a great day.
You're comparing three completely different games. Just because it has space gameplay doesn't mean its NMS or SC. If you play the game for the first time thinking about how similar or different it is compared to other games, you're not gonna have a good time. Stop comparing, start being open minded.
If you live in a box, with only what the devs give you and don't compare it to others, then how do you know if it could have been better or not? would the game be worse if they allowed you to play 3 different modes like NMS does? if you want single player, fine. co op, sure. pvp, be my guest. is that such a problem that forever alone players need to keep others form having those options? And just about all starfield has, NMS already did. they are both single player space rpgs, very similar in many ways. although some don't know NMS at all and just hate their bethesda game is compared to another.
@@TheOnlySillySocks You're comparing them like they're the same movie in a series. You're the one who lives in the box if you're thinking they're the same game lmao
After fallout 76 i dont think they should try to make a multiplayer again,they just cannot and with redfall they failed again,their strength has always been making singlepalyer rpgs which i what i hope this game will be.
I did not say to make it multiplayer. I said to add co op and pvp along side single player. Meaning to give us the choice, whether to play it single payer, invite some friends or do some pvp, at our choice. like NMS does. It has nothing to do with 76 something they botched beyond belief. Why cant we choose to play single player or with friends? It makes no sense. Single player will still be there, just calling for the added options.
I don’t care i’m getting the game! If you get so picky with games, what’s the use of playing!
You didn't watch the entire video did you? ;) Naughty... but thanks for the comment.
Let the game come out before you compare it to anything lol.
didnt even watch the video or just didnt care. i didnt compare it, i said it is a wrong move to only do single player, instead of offering single player + co op + pvp like no man sky does...
@@TheOnlySillySocks you listed things that make one game fun and used that as a basis to say another game wont be as fun because of the lack of a feature. you have your opinion, but that is comparing the 2 games even though they will be completely different games. 🤷♂
I have to disagree with your opinion. Single player games, most of the time, are far superior to multiplayer games. Look at Fallout 4 vs Fallout 76 as a prime example. Same company, same game basically, except one is multiplayer. Which one is trash? The multiplayer.
I cant believe you brought forknight into this 😂. That game is trash.
You want the game to be shared with your friends, go buy them a copy. You shared the experience with your friend. Congratulations 🎉
Ok, a lot of personal opinions there let me just say this. Fallout 76 is a result of Bethesda's incompetence. Many, many other studios have taken single player ips and taken them to multiplayer successfully or have introduced multiplayer side by side with single player, again successfully.
Objectively judging success multiplayer are far more successful than single player only games, there is not comparison. Some profited tens of billions.
Why are you so willing to actively deny others a chance to play this game the way they want to while still getting to play the way you want to? Why is it your way or not at all? Seriously, that is very selfish of you. "I get to have my fun but you cant have yours so ha!" Surreal... playground school children...
@@TheOnlySillySocks it's not my way, it's Bethesdas way. If I had my way fallout 76 would of been more like rust/ark/DayZ than the pve trash it is.
Keep your multiplay away
Why are you against of letting others play co op or pvp if you can play in single player? Anyway thanks for the comment :)
@@TheOnlySillySocks it takes time from the game devlopment to add and increas the chance of some thing going wrong. All so bethesda games have you play a hero that is meant to be speciol.
Thing you forgot in comparing the game to no man sky and scam citizen is that this is a game built around a story. Having a team with no experience in this style of being forced to add co-op will lead to a over all reduced single player experience.
Ok agree it would time and resources but I would argue they would get it back in sales. But on the other point, How did the single player experience of NMS become reduced after they gave us the choice to play also in co op and pvp if we choose to? If you can name me one way, I will concede your point.
@@TheOnlySillySocks no man sky was not built as personal story where you play as some sort of hero. So there the story can not be ruined by more people.
Looking at every game Todd Howard as made they all go down the same route. I will point out both fall out 76 and ESO are not Todd Howard games.
Have you ever played NMS? There are easily 200 hours of personal story and quests, etc to do... it's all about you and your place in the universe... I dont get it...
here is a problem with your analysis, multiplayer games are disastrously overrated and boring as hell when you finally understand how the concept of general online games work, at least in a single player game, there is a lot of potential for actual stories and lore that is very deep and detailed.
i mean sure it would be great to play skyrim online and some people have gotten interested in this, but the feel of the game doesn't change because it's still catered to you as a single player.
most multiplayer games are boring as shit, i prefer single player games in general as the overall experience isn't clouded with fomo of being online with your friends, if that's all you think what a game should be, then that's your opinion, but it's not very fitting for everyone else.
didnt even watch the video or just didnt care. i didnt say I think it should multiplayer only...
@@TheOnlySillySocks
i watched the video and this was what i gathered from your views.
but i believe that this is also stemming from an issue due to the limitations of the engine again, this is another creation kit created game, and sure they call it CK2, but it's mostly the same engine with it's same limitations, and FO76 is mostly still a flop, they learned that though it can be fun to make an online game, it's a pure headache from hell to maintain with this engine.
besides they are much better in creating single player games using this engine.
again i never said it should not have single player... have you played NMS in the last few years?
@@TheOnlySillySocks
i played it last year, but i ran into a game breaking bug that couldn't be fixed by playing a new game and i even reported it and eventually i gave up because my report was ignored for months.
yeah... so NMS is a single player game, that allows you, if you want, to invite friends to play co op with you, or even others to pvp. But it is a single player game. it just lets you devide how you want to play the game. and in my opinion, starfield would benefit from such a feature. to be clear, NMS it still is a single player game with hundreds of hours of story and stuff to do and explore, maybe thousands if you get into it. you never have to play with anyone else if you choose not to. but if you want to, it lets you do that. I did make this clear, I always mentioned in adding coop and pvp alongside single player, like NMS. If you dont know about NMS and its features, what you assume is on you, not me. So, did I say to make the game multiplayer only?
No
thanks for the comment :)
@@TheOnlySillySocks u r welcome bro) for clarity sake - i think that you should know that not everyone is fond of mmo aspects of games, thus making your points invalid 🤷♂️
loool did i say they should make it an mmo? xD only conclusion is you didnt watch the video or did so on mute.
@@TheOnlySillySocks OR! you could be less successful in explaining your thoughts than you expected 🤷♂ everything is possible in our weird times - so - doublecheck.. Cheers!
Can you give me an example?
who the hell plays games in 3rd person. console kiddys i suppose.
People have preferences, some enjoy that. I'm just glad they didn't lock the game to one view or the other and let us choose how to play. I would just like they would extend that to more parts of the game like having co op and maybe a pvp battle mode besides just single player.