In the 3 years I have been playing SC i only got stuck in doors about 8 times and that was only in my first year and regarding lifts do not enter them without looking first that prevents that but haven't seen that unspawned in lift for 2 years.
And then on top of all that, Star Citizen is an MMO. You could do that whole video with your buddy walking beside you, riding the train with you, sitting in a copilot seat or operating a turret (of course in a bigger ship), or flying his own ship next to yours. In many ships he could open the cargo bay door during quantum travel, and throw beer cans into the void.
The reason why Starfield is so bad is that Bethesda uses the same Creation Engine that only got a couple of improvements, they now claim is the totaly new Creation Engine 2. Bethesda didnt bother actually making a good and new engine they did the minimum to save costs, the old engine we got a was ment for games that are decades old at this point Because of that gameplay, graphics, performance etc... suffer. On top of that Bethedsa went more main stream on removed the dark humor from the elder scrolls and fallout that made those games unique, the other feature that made Bethesda rpgs so great, the world desgin was also ruined so the game has terrible pacing with a woke and boring story and all of the engine problems. Starfield could have been great but Bethesda, like a lot of tripple a studios just messed up
Of couse it should be like that, until now calculate how much money they got and still not finished. Ten's on millions, even more than a normal studio.
@@freddy-h7s they have very good reasons, you obviously are uninformed, They are working on TWO games, star citizen and squadron 42. Almost every dev in the studio was working on s42 not star citizen, Star citizen hasn't been their focus until this year, its very outdated and still has things from 2016... but since s42 is now feature complete and in polish almost all the s42 devs are now back to working on star citizen. They managed to overhaul a ton of its outdated systems in a few months, this upcoming patch will bring in more content since the 3.0 patch back before s42 was their focus, and the content will be of much higher quality, and quantity this year and in the next few years.
@@doodle548 Yet SQ42 is still not out. Keep drinking that coolaid. At least Starfield is a released product that they can make subtle changes as it goes. But what do you have??? Hopium and delayed promises. If its not out it dosen't exist..Let us know how SQ42 is if it releases in 3 years.
@@0PsychosisMedia0 again showing how misinformed you are, squadron is in polish phase now, its an official announcement, if they were lying they could be sued, and they have the gameplay to prove it, its likely to come out late this year or early next, its fun wrecking your arguments one by one, keep eating Tod Howard’s shit, have fun playing loading screen simulator, and exploring the same 3 planets 100 times
star citizen is truely amazing, the scale is just incomprehensible. the tech behind it is so incredibly advanced, it allows for a game where its fidelity is so high its simply mind blowing. every detail down to a scratch on a window is perfected.
@@jacobmarsyeah. I play this game a lot, so I might be a little bias. The game is so immersive that you don’t even notice that there are no loading screens.
@@tommeegunn9318 It's so true,i couldn't stick to evil dangerous (test before planetary update) and have an hard time with it, more empty than SC, but with starfield ? each laoding take you out, each exploration is a pain and when you come back to SC you just want to lowfly. Too bad that starfield only exist now to make us appreciate SC more.
Starfield players: Watch the StarEngine demo, & you'll understand what you've been missing out on. In Starfield, you get loading screens & cutscenes. In Star Citizen you're always in control. No loading screens. You can look out from your apartment, take a train, get into your ship, & travel to another planet, then land.... and it's all seamless. So much more immersive! Exploration feels like exploration. Travel feels like real travel. The worlds feel more alive. Cites are the size of cities. You can run into other players doing their own thing or go on adventures with friends. You're just existing in an amazing sci-fi world. The lack of loading screens makes so much difference and those that don't experience it won't truly understand.
Lets see...one is multiplayer...the other is not. One is moddable, the other is not. One has a predefined story, the other does not (outside of squadron which isn't star citizen anymore). One is meant to run on consoles, the other is not. One is meant to be able to be played with a controller, the other is most DEFINITELY not. One will allow me to create my own imagination, the other will not. One has lots and lots and lots and lots of bugs...the other is suprisingly polished. Does starfield have design issues? You betcha. But to say that players are missing out is dumb, they are COMPLETELY different games. For te most part the players that enjoy starfield will not be playing star citizen and vice versa which means that no one is actually "missing out"
@@TheWorldsprayer let me counter each one of your arguments and please try not to get offended. Mods are not required in Star Citizen becuase it is an MMORPG sandbox. 1. Not only that, but even for SQ 42, the game is developed from the ground up using player feedback from the PU. 2. Mods are a cheap excuse for developers to release unfinished project with the expectation that players will fix it for them. No thanks, I could care less for mods. 3. Star Citizen is meant to be played with controller, keyboard, flight sticks or hotas, your choice; While SF is meant for only controllers becuase it is that simple of a game. Star Citizen is way more complex than your typical console game so that's not a win for SF. 4. SF does not allow imagination, the game is literally on rails and the story is trash, while Star Citizen allows you to make your own adventure and approach missions and circumstances as you see fit whether that be alone or with your firends. SC is all about using your imagination on how to approach emergent circumstances. It's called emmergent gameplay and SF has none of it. 5. Star Citizen has bugs because it's in development and keeps getting polished with every major and minor patch. SF is a polished turd but a turd nonetheless. SF is a 2003 game with somewhat updated graphics, SC is the game we thought we would be playing in the future when we were kids. Players that are play SF generally do not have the money/resources to build or buy a PC that can handle the game becuase it's geared towards children and allows players to play with themselves. Star Citizen allows hundreds to players to play together, coordinate, plot, and execute.
@@TheWorldsprayer I wouldnt call starfield "moddable". The mod base is dead as a doorknob, and all the best mods are far behind you if not non-existent.
@@TheWorldsprayeralso a very very very very large amount of starfield players came into star citizen. I'm a person who enjoyed starfield, and I'm not as blind as you to star citizen lol
you know its bad when the completely dead worlds in star citizen feel more alive than the living ones in starfield. and that's coming from someone who doesn't even particularly like star citizen.
both are somewhant empty wastelands... but in Starfield you have every few meters something to scan, fight, explore. at last with a modified jetpack mod i realy did enjoy exploring Starfield a lot more then SC... SC is kinda realy realy bad due to the lack of navigation or even a good map, and because its totaly barren empty
Yeah....as someone who does enjoy Star Citizen, i played starfield for i think about 30 hours. I struggle to say its a bad game. Like i had some good solid fun with the game before realizing that for the majority, i was quite bored. I was particularly underwhelmed in the populated areas. Whatever the main city is in starfield where you meet the main quest line in that boardroom type thing. That city, felt terrible to me, like everything about it was just frustrating. Part of it was the loading screens broke the immersion for me, so going from one section of the map i found myself just using the fast travel system. And by the end of my 30 hours, i had 0 reason to actually walk around, id just fast travel EVERYWHERE. Where as in Star Citizen. I find myself captivated by every environment. Almost every single time i land, even in ones that i am intimately familliar with, i find myself stopping to take in the absolute mind boggling amount of detail everywhere. It helps that i have Tobii Eye, as when im on foot, i can slow down, and really take in my surroundings as if i am actually walking around.
Being brutally honest here. I don't see how one dead world feels more alive than another dead world considering the fact nothing really happens on either said dead worlds. Perhaps 3.23 will change that in SC but at least at this current point in time. One wouldn't feel "more alive" than the other.
@@holy8782 the lack of a loading screen helps immensely with immersion. You must be a relatively new player for Star Citizen. Robert Space Industries has literally had to invent every single bit of technology. from their own graphics engine to server meshing to allow for universal persistence, to help push the capability of the game further. The planets are not procedurally generated, like they are in Starfield. Starfield is literally just watered down fallout/skyrim in space.
How can you talk about a star citizen killer if game has always been a stillborn project? Of course Starfield killed and destroyed star citizen completely. Starfield is a finished good game/ Star citizen is a raw piece of crap which doesn't even have any real gameplay and literally unplayable.
@@Yoba007 :)))) trashfield > same game engine since 2006 > graphics already outdated > no facial expressions > starefield > 10 guns in entire game > same gameplay loop since 2000 > 10 voice actors every character > most boring setting without any new ideas or innovations > stolen gameplay from no man's sky just made worse > cant manually land on planets > cant manually take off planets > same dungeon/cave/ houses on every planet > same enemy placement on every planet > same treasure locations on every planet > cant even walk around because you'll hit an invisible wall > source code is so shit a teenager can make mods for it > community would rather they dont update their games > instead download community patch > "bro its really cool just download this pack of 280 mods" > 10 DLCs which add stuff that mods added years ago > pink armor for $5 > anniversary edition with all DLC in 2023 > galaxy edition in 2040 with all DLCs plus fising > People get mad if you say it's a 7/10 game > people afraid of leaks because they show that no progresses was made since 2005 > biggest game yet > open world but still tens of loading screens inbetween locations > can't seamlessly enter a house in 2023 > fast travel puts you outside of a house so you have to go through another loading screen > no good games for the past 17 years > people never change > it just works
I started playing SC in 2019 after calling Star Citizen a scam for 4-5 years. My friend asked me "hey if I bought you a game package to play, would you play it?", I said "yeah, I will give it a shot". He bought me an Avenger Stalker Game Package. 2 Weeks later I upgraded the Stalker to a fully customized 325A, then I got to experience my first IAE, and upgraded to a Cutlass Black, and bought my first "LTI token". By IAE of the next year I owned a 600i, and then a Carrack. I am now in Concierge with about $1800 invested, all of my ships have LTI (Lifetime Insurance), and my ships MSRP value is over $2400 (thanks CCU Game). Apparently this scam is so good that it beats my wallet harder than Steam Sales do.
@@StefSubZero270 You can, but if they wipe you lose them, plus no LTI. Once the game launches if you don't have insurance and lose a ship it's gone. I don't have to worry about any of that.
Difference is... Ive played Starfield till it was over, about a month. SC is not finished and I've been playing for 4yrs now and plan on another 10 or so..
@@GoalOrientedLifting DLCs can't be counted to the "finish" roadmap... but yesm Starfild sure remember me Cyberpunk2077, but they weren't obligated to release the game, like 2077 was, and they fixed everything in a few months... it's been 6 months or so since Starfield came out
@@cunctator7622 Cyberpunk have spent over 3 years fixing their game, and they kept reintroducing gamebreaking bugs in their updates which usually took 6 months to patch out. and many of the bugs werent fixed untill 2 months of their recent DLC. They also still have promises not delivered, and dont fix certain issues like driving. It has the worst driving ive experienced in a modern game, my 2008 honda civic handles better than 98% of their vehicles. and starfield will end up with the same thing, lots of issues never resolved cause its what bethesda do, but flesh out the game over several DLCs and fix some of the major issues. CD project red and bethesda seem extremely similar in many ways when looking at their history
12 years after Kick starter, and ED still hasn't completed all they promised in 2012. Sound familiar? How many promised content expansions players and friends had to pay for, to play the expanded content together in ED. I paid once in 2013 for SC, and been playing with friends for years, who payed less than I did. SC's massive expanded scope (feature creep) is giving me way more than I paid for. But SC gets labeled a scam.
Luckily I’d say. I love the absence of useless things to do in ED, like loose 30 minuta to reach my spaceship. I know for some payers this is amazing, but I find it just annoying. I work all day, I don’t want to work even while I play a game!
please be serious, ED is a already a complete game that they are expanding. You have to pay some of the updates, ok, but you have a fly model that destroy SC in each aspect, in a game that received just a fraction of money Star Citizen get, that you can play also in VR. They are very different games, with 2 different objectives, I’d not change ED for Star citizen for any reason, because ED is exactly what I want for my space adventures.
Great video. Excellent comparison. Star Citizen wins hands down. Though... It would have been funny if once you exited you realized you forgot to put your helmet on... Not that _I've_ ever done that.
I played Starfield on day 1 and after 2hrs of playing, i regret everything. It felt so stupid that I quickly felt compelled to just try Star Citizen out even though i never planned to. Immediately fell in love with Star Citizen after playing the tutorial and already felt so much better than Starfield.
I see more and more players who didn't want to give SC a chance, come to it and say this same thing. Its what one can experience, when they take a chance and step out to think and do themselves.
@festersmith8352 I've backed since the start it was frustrating, but I dip down a few months and return and it night and day diff past 2 years it has been really good and feeling more like the game we backed
I’m so glad I went with star citizen, just learning how to take off, fly and land is satisfying in itself. Nailing a smooth landing is great. Star Citizen doesn’t hold your hand, and having to do everything yourself makes you invest effort but also the rewards are ever more sweet when you accomplish something. Also, playing with friends is the best ever in any kind of game loop you can think of inside SC.
As a Star Citizen player I can savely say an apartment like in Loadingfield is something we have all been dreaming of for a long time. But it's still just Loadingfield.
Having played both a lot, they are different games. Starfield is a story-driven single player RPG meanwhile Star Citizen is a multiplayer MMORPG. But the truth it, at their core, they both remain sci-fi space games with the same promise of giving you the feeling of living and evolving in an amazing sci-fi world, and with this promise, there is no doubt that Star Citizen already delivers way more than what Starfield delivers. It only takes 1 play session to realize it. And Starfield scope is finished, apart from bug fixes, a few very small content additions and modding, there is nowhere for it to go. Star Citizen on the other hand is just an alpha, already delivers so much with so many different gameplay loops, and its not even close from reaching its ambitions.
Sq42 will be single player and uses the same engine, same physics, same controls, same game mechanics, just not online. We really have no idea how the loading of missions will work, or how free you will be to choose what you do in Squadron yet. I assume missions will be similar to how you go to Constantine Hurston or the other NPCs with missions. Head to your CO, get your mission, and choose to go do it or a different one. Sort of like how SF does. But since we are to be conscripted into the military, not sure how free we will be to help alice figure out why her tree is talking to her.
That's why I rather wait for SQ42 release to compare these two universes, but as of now, comparing on the theme of Open World Sci-Fi, Star Citizen is already superior
The thing is, SF would compare just as badly to SQ42 - also a story-driven single-player space RPG. Worse even, because it's then also going to lose on story and world building, which are Bethesda's bread and butter supposedly.
I have been a huge backer of Star Citizen since 2016 back in the Port Olisar days. I have loved the game and the vision every single month and have always followed the development even when taking long breaks from playing. Robert Space Industries isn't settling for a triple A game. They aren't recycling assets or remastering old greats, they aren't procedurally generating new planets, they are innovating brand new technology, brand new engines, brand new server meshing, things that have never been done before... in order to deliver a truly immersive, persistent universe that lives and breathes with its player base. I have been a longtime Bethesda fan since Morrowind and Fallout 3, they were some of the greatest games of all time in terms of shear scale for their generation. I was really hoping that enterprising into a new universe with Starfield that they would be able to recapture that same grandeur in Morrowind. But this video makes it quite clear that the only way forward for truly great gaming is to innovate.
A good note that some dipwad in the comments down below reminded me of: In Starfield, nothing really matters. Its a single player game that allows you to save-scum every shitty mistake you make, every outcome you dislike, you can roll it back. In Star Citizen, there is no roll-backs. Everything is live. The highs, the lows. If you go to Jumptown and steal a players ship thats loaded with 10 million SCU worth of designer drugs, and then smash into the planet because you came in too hot, you can't take it back. The thrills of the game are real. The victories and downfalls are real and meaningful in the best of way.
@@aronhayse9895 Starfield is just filthy, star citizen is beautiful. The only scam I see is Starfield. But I know that your comment is worthy of a hater, because you bring no argument, besides look I did the same thing as you :)
Not quite true they do show the capability of there engine but it is what they intending to achieve with a constant improvements even after release and the single player SQ42 in polishing stage SF days are numbered.
Most of that isnt in game yet and the game cannot run without 20 bugs and glitches in an hour. I love Star Citizen, but lets not give it so many praises while it has been in development for many years and hasnt delivered any major patch in the last three years.
@@MrTHEPROUDWoW not delivered much in patches in a few years with persistent entity streaming and player count increased and Sq 42 in polishing and in a couple of days server meshing and volcan and much more.😂😂? ?
Get a big ship and do this again. Walking through the ships in SC and SF are great. Can also walk around those large ships while in quantum in SC, in SF, you can only walk around while in orbit or landed on planet. Inventory is another huge difference. Both have carry limits, but way more limited in SC. Also driving vehicles to locations on planets. Also flying ships on surface for air to ground attacks. Also docking small ships into larger ships in space or in atmo. 3.23 we are hoping to see fauna finally. Revised UI for just about everything is coming in 3.23 as well.
If someone asks me where is the new generation of gaming, i would tell: Star Citizen. For a long time i was looking at this game, and about a year ago i got it, and its amazing. The feel of freedom SC gives to you its so incredible.. you can do every mission in your way. No loading, no barrier, no one is blocking your game, is just you, your friends, and the amazing Persistent Universe. Yeah, SC have some bugs, its an alpha product, but as an alpha product, its better then a lot of AAA titles. If you have the conditions to play it, go for it.
The only thing that can be compared is that one is ambitious and lead by a trully passionnated guy/team for space movie & simulation game since ages. The other even with talented teams is 1000% is limited by investors / process and rush to rentability. I sincerly hope SC will redefine video game industry and hurt AAA company that are 99% focus on rentability over quality/fun/innovation nowaday.
I'd like to say that "the other" is definitely limited by investors and whatnot, but more-so limited by a game engine that is effectively 12 years old and is held together with duct tape and glue. If they would've realized that and had the wherewithal to make a new engine, or do what CDPR is doing and leaving their not-arguably better engine than Bethesda's in place for UE5, Starfield MIGHT have been able to somewhat "compete" with (at least not suck to the point where modders can't even fix it) Star Citizen.
the point is Starfield is a complete and fun game, and star citizen is an unplayable game where you cant do even a mission without having a bug ruining all the experience. Starfield didnt cost 500 million dollars,
Two space games each with a very different emphasis and platform architecture. I like the SC's MMO styling more and look forward to their single player story campaign Squadron 42. SF had the right idea but needed more time to cook and soured by Todd and his Exec Producer plus Microsoft never leaves a good idea undamaged. CIG in spite of their blunders figuring out a unique parallel multi-game project and dev model works with determined passion started from nothing but 5 people with an idea and built up to where they are now in the same relative time window SF was made leveraging long established studio resources.
Imagine if Star Citizen had a publisher. The game would have likely released 5-7 years ago, but it would have been the planned version with loading screens to go between space and landing zones, and not the entire solar system we have now.
Damn, a lot of negative comments about Star Citizen from people who obviously know nothing about it and are just parroting what they've heard/read elsewhere.
the comparison is not fair, two different games, two engines, two different gameplays, two different stories, two different capabilities and possibilities to do. To compare graphics is just a way to say that you only see the surface, i never played star citizen, maybe one day, but I've seen enough to understand it and its ways, I've played starfield, yes its not what we were promised, an yet its not bad, the only major problems i see are the loading screens and the fact that it is way to big, everything is way to far. According to Bethesda it has way more voice lines than Skyrim and fallout 4 combined, and i don't doubt it, but everything is too far apart, making soo its hard to see it all, at the end the game is very good, i was the one who was overhyped, i will come back to play it again. There is no point to compare to different things as they were alike, all there is in common is the fact they are space sci-fi.
This is a pretty fair comparison of the 2 games. Nice to see someone not just saying one is great and the other one is awful. It's worth mentioning that you can interact with NPCs in StarField, there's an actual plotline and missions you can complete, you can have NPC crew (which are basically just stat buffs but they do help in FPS combat), and there are creatures everywhere. The loading screens and fast travel kill the fun of the game for me, so I generally prefer SC, especially since I can play with friends. Hopefully, all the features I listed will be in both games soon.
it's also fairly important to mention SC is in really early stages, AI isn't responsive at all because of server loads (new server meshing tech arriving soon should fix that) and that SC's ambition is to be a realistic space sim whereas starfield is an RPG like space game. SC plans somewhat of a story line playable on the persistent universe (with friends), interactions with AI and generated speech, and creatures were recently teased for 3.23, let's hope CIG delivers for once. both games have their ups and downs, but for someone looking for an immersive space sim, SC is definitely that, whereas starfield is i suppose more for people who want to follow a story line and level up their character in a less streamlined but still remarkably immersive universe.
Feeling the bias here, ngl. Should have made them continuous cuts, and instead of clipping from scene to scene in SC, should have used a fast forward with timer to illustrate the continuity. And how much longer it takes to do anything.
Takes me like 30 seconds to get from point A to point B in Starfield, anywhere in the map. How long it take me in Star Citizen to just get into space? Like... at least 20 minutes? Maybe 25 or so? I like playing games that respect my time more.
Great video! And without naration or guiding the viewer is perfect. Prety sure weve all come to the same conclusion. But I'll admit to being a Star Citizen Fan Boy....or more likely addict
I've played more than 300hrs of starfield and alot of ng+ , played all variants and when i played star citizen recently i was blown away by the game visuals and gameplay, even with all the bugs am addicted to it. Love it. Excited to see what's next.
Comparing these game today is exactly the same when back in time people use to compare Crysis and Far cry 2. It was totally irrelevant. Crysis was so ahead of its time back in 2006 like Star citizen is today.
This is brutal. Comparing Starfield to Star Citizen is like putting a random skinny kid up against a heavyweight boxer. Sure the skinny kid can throw a punch but it never lands hard enough to mean anything and out of the two only the boxer will be remembered. Star Citizen is by no means perfect but it is here to stay, meanwhile I'd already forgotten Starfield came out, even having played it a full 30-40 hours just to give it a fair chance.
If only Star Citizen was on Steam... Loadingfield is such a mess, they should sell its name for other company, it just doesn't deserve this nice title.
1:52 there's something so creepy about how quiet it is, people walking about, no one talking, no anouncements etc, even compared to SC's current iteration, that doesn't have the subsumption AI power because DSM isn't here yet, it's just so dead.
Star Citizen is the world's first Supergame. No AAA studio could/would ever attempt it. This could only be done by the devs and supporters that wanted it.
Even this video can't capture the freedom and infinite size to small size feeling that can procure Star citizen and it will be a mmo.... After 125h + in starfield and in SC since 2013. Both can't be compared. Its like compare a F1 with a mini cooper. Both are enjoyable in different aspects. They share both the space thematic and thats all.
I find it funny how in Starfield, the entire city has like 2 landing pads... one of which your ship permanently takes up while you're there. It just feels like the whole world exists just for you, it's not a real, living, breathing world. It's a set piece built around YOU. So many NPCs are walking to and from the ship area... why? The only ship there is yours, the other landing area is empty, but the NPCs suggest it's a heavy traffic area.
Yet Starfield, with all its defects and wasted potential, delivered to me a fun that Star Citizen never did. While, in Star Citizen I've spent a lot of time looking to a boring warp animation, just to get an outpost in another planet (not star system) and die to a weird stair or elevator bug. Or server crash. My hope for SC is Squadron 42... I pray for my 3060TI can get at least 30 fps in cities...
there's a new space game coming called jump ship check it out! its a PVE multiplayer game where you loot, do missions, and more! you can even have someone piloting the ship while your outside! pretty hyped for this game as well!
Keep in mind, this doesn't make Star Citizen "the better game" - at least, compared to Starfield, there are other reasons there. Yes, SC's lack of loading screens is amazing - but that isn't why Starfield is so widely panned. And had Starfield been better planned and executed, it could have still been a great game, even with the loading screens and more limited spaces. Finally, some players may see SC proper as rather... inaccessible. Time constraints, that sort of thing, or just a disinterest in sandbox type games. Which is also fine. Squadron 42 (the single player campaign of SC) may be more to those folks' liking.
Great video but it would've been even better, if you haven't cut Star Citizen video and just speed it up when you need it. And also showing just black screen in starfield when there is a loading screen, while in star citizen you riding a train in 5x speed, for example. And without switching one screen to another.
I upgraded my pc and I want to get into star citizen but I’m afraid it would constantly take money to get the expertise I would be looking for? Is that true? Can someone chime in … I’m happy with starfield (with 127 mods) but there really isn’t much to do anymore … if it had an economy I would just mine resources
The difference between Starfield and Star Citizen is really like the difference between an all-you-can-eat buffet and McDonald's. In SC you can do whatever you want, when you want it, where you want it. And when you're done doing one particular thing you can just move onto something else. And it leaves you, even for all the bugs, crashes and jankyness, fullfilled. You keep coming back because there's always something to do, and there's always a reason to do it. In Starfield you are much more restricted, and the game feels like it's almost on rails. Aside from ship combat and shooting, there really isn't much more to do outside of quests. And when the storylines are done there isn't much of a point to playing anymore, aside from NG+, which just makes the game more of a chore then something to enjoy. Besides that the ships in SC are a bit more 'refined', they are well thought-out and look and feel like they could exist in the real world, whereas ships in starfield look like they are held together by ductape and prayers to a god that has been dead for centuries, and like they can fall apart at any given moment. That being said, i did enjoy starfield for what it was, fallout in space. But after the first NG+ the game just went down-hill for me, and enjoying it became harder and harder.
Unfair comparison. one is a story driven single player RPG that happens to take place in space and was developed during a couple of years. The other is a massively multiplayer sandbox universe simulator developed for 10+ years. You can enjoy both. Its like comparing Assetto Corsa with Need for speed.
Starfield took one of the biggest and most established game studios in the world 7 years. Star Citizen started from nothing basically, they had create a game studio, completely reengineer an entire game engine and develop server meshing tech that was thought to be impossible at the time, while also building a single player game alongside an MMO style game and they've been at it just less than 12 years now. All things considered they're quite on par with each other in that regard.
@@JmaK17 it's still completely different type of games, only thing in common is space. I hate the comparison. Single player story driven role playing games are a COMPLETELY different thing. It's like comparing world of warcraft with skyrim. Yes, there is more things to do in world of warcraft. Btw, i play both and have a pledge Cutter in SC
Since SQ42 is ferature comple, you can feel how much faster SC is developing, i'm already hyped to test 3.23 Hopefully never having to ragequit to a 30k ever ^~^
I feel like Star Citizen and other similar games is why starfield exists. Bethesda saw the space genre taking off and rushed it to have their title be early in the market. 2018, when starfield was announced we had SC 3.2. A lot of great flyable ships, Stanton in a good enough state to see the vision. Starfield cut so many corners they left a product devoid of shape. Just look at the lore. Stanton system is a corporate owned system the UEE sold to cover debt incurred after the fall of a tyrannical government. Starfield couldn’t be bothered to design a new interior for a centuries old generation ship.
starfield is the reason I bought Star Citizen... 100 hours in star field I feel like I cheated and wasted my time. $60 AAA game regrets. I've spent 45 actual dollars on Star Citizen and I haven't played any other game since in the last 4 months.
same. watched the video of star citizen and lack of loading screens, got the $45 package, started in microtech and the first time i got on the train through the mountains (the ones showed in this video for people who don't know) i was like, yep... this is it. i really wanted starfield to be so much more and am sad it wasn't.
Starfield is an RPG , Star Citizen is a space sim. Two different genre but yeah Starfield has so many loading screens due to creation engine limitations. IMO Bethesda shouldve just made their own version of Mass Effect or Outer Worlds rather than making the game open universe with 1000 empty planets.
You know, contrary to popular opinion, I actually enjoy the more logistically intensive looting system. It makes something simple- like picking up armors from dead NPCs- into something you actually have to consider the cost/benefit of before embarking on. Do I have enough time to loot these bodies before hostiles arrive/I run out of oxygen/I need to drink something? Do I have enough room in my ship for all this? Which of these items is the most important to pick up, since I can’t take it all? It also makes a massive loot haul more impressive to behold due to the time investment implied, and even turns looting into a potentially viable profession- if nobody wants to do the “work” of looting, why don’t I just go loot for them and sell the goods directly to players? Tired of looting armor one by one? I’ve got 20 sets of ADP ready to go for 300k auec, meet me at ___ Looking to upgrade your ships? I’ve got yellowjackets and M7As for half off retail ready to go. Etc. Only thing I don’t enjoy is the bugginess making loose items or tractored bodies fall through ship interiors when I QT
The only problem I have with star citizen is that although I like how you have to interact with everything realisticly, its not quite there with the smoothness and ease of use to make it properly enjoyable
@@CheeeseSandwiich yeah, I definitely use the key binds it's just not very immersive. I probably need to buy some flight controls for the best experience though
Starfiled: Complete game that takes multiple loading screens to reach a different planet. Is a single player game. Star Citizen: A playable ALPHA state game with NO loading screens to get anywhere. Is a MMO, so you can play together with friends. I think i know which one i prefer.
Earn some aUEC and buy yourself a bigger ship for this comparison, Corsair for example. Ship interior is the critical part of experience in SC and you missed it
How about everything except visuals like: Loot that is meaningful, Quests that have layers, NPCs that function properly, Fully modular ships, Campaign, factions, base building, 10x more Fauna, Skill tree, jetpacks and companions. Even with the shortcomings of starfield its still much more of a real space game than, Starcitizen: The screenshot simulator
Star30 in Xbox could be much more than just a next-gen loading simulator. . But I guess = Bethesda (?) . Also I love SC and the fact that transition is real time and not hidden behind a loading wall (of 4 layers).
The only thing that makes Star Citizen look worse in any way is how flat the textures are at times. Everything is so clean it's unreal and everything looks as if it was made yesterday.
As a Star Citizen player, I won't play starfield but you have to admit that starfield designs on the ground, are way more modern and interesting. Especially in the cities in star citizen where I always found that the design inspiration were quite old and empty. There is great ideas but its always not original at all and something seems off. The ships in SC looks incredible tho.
Should've at least: Used a ship of comparable size in SC (Corsair would have been good) Sped up the star citizen scenes instead of cutting. It would've looked way cooler.
SC has killer elevators and Starfield doesn't. SC has full persistence of objects anywhere,..... which in my mind is the biggest "WTF" moment one may have.
starfield wins in sound design. It's not overly ambitious and thus executed properly. Star citizen's sound design is insane. It has doppler effect, variable sound barrier explosions depending on the density and composition of atmosphere, variable echo depending on the topography of the planet, etc. so naturally, nothing works properly and you hear sounds at times and places you shouldn't.
The first few months after Starfield came out I justified it's lack of actual space traversal with "It's a Bethesda game, not a space game.", but I realized that argument didn't hold up because Starfield ISN'T a Bethesda game. It lacks practically everything that makes a Bethesda game unique. A dense, handmade world? Named npcs with their own homes, schedules, beds? It doesn't even have the insanely addictive looting and scrapping mechanic that Fallout 4 had or it's settlement building. So if it isn't a Bethesda game, what is it? It's not a space game either, so both of the main draws of those types of games is completely lost. It's in this weird limbo middle ground of being both and having none of what makes those games enticing. Bethesda needed to either lean into the space game hard, or make a more traditional reserved Bethesda experience. Unfortunately, like with a lot of things Bethesda has been criticized for in the past, they couldn't make up their mind, in fear of forcing the player to DO something. It wouldn't be perfect, but if Starfield actually kept that fuel management that it had before launch, alongside the myriad of survival systems that were nerfed into the ground to the point they're practically non-existent, it would've been a lot more fun.
It's funny how Obsidian put Bethesda to shame not once but twice. Once with Fallout New Vegas and again with Outer Worlds. And they did it using a fraction of their budget and time. It's disappointing because Bethesda does make great games with stunning worlds but I think their current priorities are to their shareholders, not so much their fans. I remember the first time I played Morrowind and Fallout 3 my jaw hit the floor. But as time went on, Bethesda just sorta stopped taking risks or stopped pushing the envelope. Last I checked Star Citizen raised 650M but Starfield was around 400M.... That 650M took CiG so much further than it did Bethesda. CiG had the entire open world up many years ago which was even more impressive meaning it can be done, Bethesda just didn't want to and would rather mislead fans...
Looks like it was cash grab to me. The only space game I'm aware of, before SC announced a successful KS in 2012, was the X series. After CIG announced Star Citizen, there has been a constant flow of new space fairing projects for the past decade. All seeming to want a piece of the freshly baked pie. All falling short of their promises. But only SC seems to be trying to live up to what they promised. And even a whole lot more than I paid for. All while never forcing me to spend more than I have since 2013. Now which of these projects feels like a scam, when the term is used in the way it is for SC?
Why are we even comparing a single player space arcade game to a growing space simulation meta verse? Wait till SQ42 finally comes out then compare the two. Starfield will be a spec of dust in the eyes of the gaming community.
Because the internet went crazy claiming SF would kill SC and teach CIG how to build a real space game. Gamers caused the comparison, by creating the drama the internet loves to create and consume. And honestly, as an SC player, I have had some pretty nasty crap thrown at me over the years. Its nice to see it land back in the laps of those who just love to hate. Karma is the universes way of slapping the unwise.
Funny enough theres only the same things you can do on Starfield. Mine, fight, trade and do fetch quests. Loot and etc. at least right now. But it’s just a million times better and immersive GETTING THERE to the planet, I don’t care if it’s just another bunker mission instead of some fancy kind of unique side quest number 10000
And for that piece of data, they needed 8 years. And it's a single player. They had a huge developed company behind it. They've had an engine, and they've had inspiration. And so much more possibilities than CIG at the beginning of their journey. And still, it's nothing but Skyrim in space. Thanks for nothing Bethesda.
I dunno why ppl even compare these games. I enjpy Star Citizen most of the times. But when I just want to play something like Skyrim or Fallout in a different setting, I play Starfield.
There's no question starfield is garbage, but you're jump cutting so much in the star citizen video, cutting from the apartment building lobby to the train doors opening, ignoring the corridors, stairs and 50 second waiting times. I would say the one thing starfield has over star citizen is how close the spaceport is to the cities, and how quickly you can go do things in cities and get back to your ship, loading screens aside. in star citizen it takes forever to get to your ship and this is not a fair comparison if you dont show the total time.
honestly, i like starfield even tho its definetly not worth 70€. i can understand why it gets so much hate but its still a decent game in my oppinion. star citizen has way more potential and i also like it more but still, starfield is a beautiful game
Just picture the absolute insane hype there was for starfield. Now just think is star citizens release. The game people think it’s going to be, won’t be. Purely through over hyping and over expectation.
The difference is starfield is a game that feels like a game. No different from skyrim and fallout. Star citizen is different from anything we've had before. It doesn't feel like a game.... Its immersion makes it feel like a second life. Almost like the matrix in a way
I have star citizen, played it, enjoyed it, got a little bit frustrated by its complexity, but i must say it's huge, infused with passion, hope will be ready before 2035😂. Starfield, don't even want to spend money for it, i was already heavily disappointed by Skyrim, great game, my favorite, but only after installing mods, i literally felt the developers knew that modders would have enriched the game with free contents, it's not very honest.
I have no doubt that Star Citizen is more immersive than Starfield - but don't forget that you are comparing a $50 game with one that basically requires you to constantly bleed money ...
