"Does not show signs of moving towards a fun experience..." That one got me, so many game studios (including CIG of late) seem to have lost track of the fact that this is a GAME; if it is not fun, people won't waste their time on it. Plenty of time to do work at, well, work - while earning money.
SC has always been for folks who want more of a "universe sim" experience, which not everyone finds fun. But a game doesn't have to please everybody. 🤷🏿♂️
Starfield, No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous, Dual Universe, the list goes on. Every time a "space" game is announced or released it's the same conversion and it drives me crazy why people want this to fail so badly they'll try to use any mental gymnastics that supports their bias. If the game happens it could be a huge shift towards the next technological advancement in gaming, if it doesn't the video game industry goes back to the lifeless, unimaginative, "AAAA" corporate cash grab people apparently can't live without.
It's the same story as WoW. Every MMO that came out for at least the decade following its release was labeled as the potential "WoW killer". Still happens on occasion but less frequently. Ironically, all the adverts for Starfield had me itching for a space game and after some research I ended up choosing Star Citizen instead. I've always labeled Starfield as "the greatest Star Citizen advertisement".
No Man's Sky doesn't fit that description tho, while its release was a disaster, hellogames changed and added so much stuff to it that it's really a completely different game now and a pretty good one, too.
@@koo-hip9406 elite feels a bit wrong in your list, not only is it an actual concurrent of star citizen, both projects also started around the same time
@@k3v1n73 The list was less about how similar they were and more about the conversation that inevitably happens because a game has "space" in it's description.
@@justalex4214 What they've done for NMS since launch doesn't matter in the context of what I'm talking about. NMS is a good game, but the point being made was anytime a space game get announced or releases the conversation inevitably has to turn to the "SC killer" topic.
There's way more posts that Tomato isn't showing from the SC sub that try to actually push that "SF is gonna bring down SC." Then there's way more that were just deleted entirely. I could sort of see bgs using SF as an attempt to capitalize on the old heads of SC that are upset about the time it's taking to make SQ42. Honestly though, it was mostly the bgs fanboys who had whipped themselves up into a frenzy about it being a competitor. Who of which would get upset when I said it will be nothing more than fo5.
Well to be fair, BGS did promote the game like a competitor. They DID NOT reveal to anyone that the planets would be seperated by load screens. They did not reveal that there would be no other forms of transportation in-atmosphere, nor did they reveal that ship interiors would be in a separate instance from the planetary exploration, or that there would be limited biomes and limited planetary exploration opportunities. They framed the game as if it would have lots of exploration opportunities like No Man's Sky and space combat and ground combat bridged together like Star Citizen. In many ways, you cannot blame people for walking away from the Bethesda presentations THINKING that the gamew ould be like Star Citizen based on what Bethesda did not say. The company knew exactly what they were doing in their marketing, and I don't see anyone ever calling Bethesda out for the way they purposely mislead people based on what they didn't tell people. You can go back just before rleease and find plenty of videos and comments from peopple who were -- based on the weasley framing from Todd -- that you could seamlessly circumnavigate planets. Although, "seamless" came with a big asterisk that yes, you could circumnavigate planets, but through tiles separated by loading screens. It's not the fans fault for Bethesda not being clear about their intentions.
Well... they are content creators they need to deliver someting every day it doesn't matter if misleading or if conflicts with previous posts, I agree with you comparing a RPG with a Space sim is completely pointless ... like why "contra didn't kill metroid" ... "Why coffe didn't kill tea" .... etc at the end we all fall on the same trick we click the video view counter increase and life continues,.
They are related, they're both space game, and there are stuff to compare. Like ship combat, flight, space to atmosphere transitions, ship designs, interiors and many many more
Starfield and Star Citizen are two different games. Star Citizen is a metro and elevator simulator and Starfield is a loading screen simulator. Star Citizen is rather empty, lacking in NPC's. Starfield NPC's make you wish they'd just bugger off and go stand on chairs. Starfield shipbuilding is fun, sure, but it also reminiscent not of something 10 years ago, they remind of Morrowind dungeons, only less yellow and having less variation.
Haha - I love Star Citizen and follow it as a hobby, but I haven't actually logged on and played since Overdrive. 100% potential is right, but the game itself is hot garbage after you get past the 'WOW THIS IS AMAZING' honey moon period.
I have always believed the thing that will kill SC is its own internal fun and balance. All the ingredients of a great game are there but they need to be combined into an overall fun experience. It has to have depth and counter play. A high skill ceiling but not too complicated that meh players can't enjoy it. The standard ship combat encounter will probably be the largest factor on success or failure. If one ship is the best for everything it will fail. If combat is just too slow... or repetitive... or (gasp) boring.... it will fail.
I disagree. If one ship is exceptionally strong and serves as a "meta," it could improve the game. You can progress in order to buy the better ships while also outfitting them with unique and rare components. However, I doubt they’ll take that approach. Instead, they’ll likely create carbon copies of each ship for "balance." This would lead to a pay-to-win situation since they sell ships for real money.
The Yogi mechanic: This approach tends to emphasize equipment and ship loadouts over player skill and strategic maneuvering, leading to a few key issues that could ultimately detract from the game’s longevity and depth. Equipment Over Skill The Yogi mechanic often focuses on maximizing the effectiveness of ship components and weaponry, creating a scenario where victory hinges more on optimal gear than on player skill or tactical acumen. This shift can lead to combat encounters that feel less engaging, as players might rely on pre-configured setups rather than developing their piloting skills or understanding of the game’s mechanics. Lack of Depth A flight model that prioritizes equipment adjustments can create a shallow gameplay experience. While customization is a key aspect of Star Citizen, a balance is necessary to ensure that player skill remains a significant factor in combat. When players can simply equip the best gear and achieve success without mastering flight mechanics or tactics, the sense of accomplishment diminishes. Impact on Community Engagement For an MMO designed to be played for years or even decades, the focus on equipment can stifle community engagement and competitiveness. Players may feel less motivated to improve their skills or engage in strategic play when they can rely on a superior setup to secure wins. This could lead to a stagnant community, where fewer players are willing to engage in meaningful challenges. Long-Term Viability Ultimately, if the emphasis on equipment continues to overshadow player skill, it could undermine the long-term viability of Star Citizen. An engaging MMO thrives on the evolution of its gameplay and the continuous development of its community. A flight model that fails to reward skill and strategic thinking risks alienating players who seek deeper, more rewarding combat experiences. Conclusion To preserve the integrity and excitement of ship combat in Star Citizen, it’s crucial for developers to strike a balance between equipment and player skill. Fostering a deeper, more skill-based flight model will enhance the game's engagement and ensure its longevity as a premier MMO experience.
I get the urge to play Starfield when certain aspects of SC annoy me, like the endless bugs/server issues, the lack of any real story or sense of progression, and the glacial speed of development. And I get the urge to play SC when certain aspects of Starfield annoy me, like the complete lack of immersion, the over-reliance on procedural generation, and the outdated graphics & game engine. But with all that being said…it’s almost like they’re two different games trying to do two completely different things that just happen to have a similar sci-fi space setting.
Statfield got me back into star citizen. I didn’t like star citizen because for the longest time I forced myself to play it like a console game. But I was spoiled about Star Citizen’s immersion. So much so that I was disappointed by Starfield’s lack of equivalent immersion and forced myself to learn to play Star Citizen with keyboard and mouse and enjoy it so much more now. Starfield is good go just pass time casually.
I love ship building in Starfiled, but the one thing that really annoys me about it is the game automatically transfers cargo whenever you change ships. This causes you to build up a large amount of duplicate interior objects that you have to sell to get rid of. You also may get special guns you placed in your armory or captain's locker transferred to cargo and have to go digging for them. Because of this I don't bother with a fleet of specialized ships. I just create one multi-purpose ship so I am not changing ships all the time. I would rather have specialized ships however. Cargo should stay with the ship, with the option to transfer it. I don't want all my aluminum and iron in my cargo ship transferred to my Science/exploration ship because it takes up all of its cargo space. And even with this, the problem does not go away. I also like boarding and taking ships, so the cargo issue remains when I take over the ship. I can just minimize the issue, not avoid it.
I did a couple of play throughs of Starfield, I enjoyed the faction storylines and overall enjoyed the game. Then I was done. I think one of the biggest draws for Star Citizen is the seamless environment transitions. Nothing beats the first time you break atmosphere and look back at the planet. I think every citizen has that moment etched into their memory.
I'm fairly sure a lot of content that is being kept away from Star Citizen is already in Squadron 42, you can tell from the videos we have seen in the past years and we are only now seeing those changes come to PTU... Just remember, they can't spoil too much and that is likely why we got to see Stanton and Pyro first outside of Squadron 42... or I am just super high on copium and only Sol is featured in Squadron 42.
Starfield would have been a great game if it was released 10 to 15 years ago when Bethesda built the engine the game was developed in. However, Starfield and Star Citizen were never meant to compete with each other in the same space (no pun intended). It's like saying Need For Speed and iRacing are both racing games, so why didn't Need For Speed Heat topple iRacing. Same overarching genre, totally different subgenres. That being said, I did enjoy Gem Reviews' unhinged ramblings about how Starfield would change the universe as we know it.
I was a crazy Starfield fan when I heard about it, when I played it was amazing, star citizen had built up the feeling for me of REALLY BEING IN SPACE, but starfield... as soon as I got in the ship, walked around and saw the NPC's, Tried going on the train and way more that is what had done it to me, I think that Starfield could have been way more than what it was and still is today but, No these games are NOTHING alike not at all.
I definitely think this was a good display of the strengths of Star Citizen while also accurately and fairly admitting the downfalls all presented in a constructive and honest way.
"...despite the more finished nature of the space RPG from Bethesda?" Let's be fair, Starfield wasn't finished either. But seriously, with and after Skyrim it became extremely clear that they were never going to improve on their formula unless they really had to. Which honestly, is fine their style of game is usually pretty user friendly by providing snipits of action or story that don't take a lot of time. Starfield's greatest sin was breaking that one rule. It was the same casual experience but with absurdly obstruse UI, quests, and long loading times. It broke it's own rule of being an easily accessible game and that made the simplicity horrifying rather than charming. I like to compare it to many of the failed 'souls-like' games where the miss the mark usually because they rely too heavily on the combat formula without the other needed features. The combat is very simple so you can focus on things like boss attack patterns and the environment primarily. If it's just a slug fest, or bosses just break conventional rules just to be harder, then you break the risk-reward system and the game ends up falling flat. Bethesda broke their own formula without adding anything to compensate. The higher level of detail was lost when there was no value in it. Guns and their specific ammos are just obtuse to try and manage for the pitiful amounts of damage they deal. Travel is cumbersome without any way to optimize ontop of no real consequence or value to it other than turning in quests. Where it's true competition lay amongst other single-player games, it was never going to hold anyone's attention for long. Especially with other, much more polished and feature-rich games coming out around it. It's a shame because while I never had much optimism due to their track record, I had hoped that Starfield would actually be different and engaging. As it stands, it's a slightly more convenient space-ship builder compared to Space Engineers.
I'm not some brain washed long time backer, I backed in 2022. And I actually spent more on Starfield than I did on Star Citizen 100vs70 but I feel like even with SF's "polish" it leaves me infinitely more unsatisfied with the product than SC. SF is nothing more than a fast travel simulator with senseless, inconsequential dialog sprinkled in.
Never understood why the comparison of SF was made to SC when it would only compare to SQ42. Also a little clarification on your title. The only thing that can kill star citizen is Chris Roberts.
It s depressing that nothing can force CIG to hurry up. They are in no rush to make gameplay in SC. It seems CIG are too relaxed with infinite funding.
At this point im convinced their project is so financially unstable they are giving upon their backers and even new players simply they must continue to milk the whales. They probly realized having a handful of mentally ill backers who buy anything you list(cuz they exist out there) is a favorable model then trying to keep or even get new 45.00 customers(who eat at server costs especially if they must grind 24/7). I think that explains their insane customer service that seeks to drive away smart customers so they dont scare off new whales
I never thought this, first and foremoest because it's a single player game and there is a whole other vibe to it, more over because it's more like a classical powercreep and looter game built in to it, and that the game wasn'"t at all build to experienced physicalized situational gameplay in a multiplayer environment like SC is, plus it's not seamless. I was never really interested in it. There's something pointless of exploring massive amounts of planets on your own. I only played no man's sky for a week and was already bored. There's several ways to do minecraft and once you seen minecraft (where you can build stuff yourself and it only becomes about that)... I'm just not interested anymore if I see a variation to it. And starfield was about customizing your ship, but most of it was "looter shooter in space". I was never hyped for it.
For me Star Citizen cost £26 for a mustang alpha and runs far better than it has a right to on a GTX 1060 running at 60fps after tweaking a few settings relative to the server status.....Starfield won't even launch and I straight up refuse to upgrade for something running on the creation engine! when literally everything else I actively play.....apart from Cyberpunk runs well enough.....And let's face it CIG's tone deafness is nothing compared to Bethesda.
Star field wasn’t a bad game. It was a bad game when Star Citizen and Balder gate 3 exists. But it did make me check out other space games (ED and No Mans Sky) and realize what I want is Star Citizen Edit: oh and have if every ship have a huge negative gives the ships characters where every other space game pretty makes them all the same and the direction of progress clear. The full freedom of choice (of exactly how you want your ship) actually destroys real choice
The worst part is starfield is actually a better game then starcitizen. Even its “you must be a snake cult guy now” DLC is like citizen kane compared to starcitizen… seriously star citizen is so bad it will go down in history as the worst game ever made when costs and time are counted
It didn't kill anything other than Bethesda. It couldn't have killed SC, because it managed to have simultaneously equal amounts of corporate ick and the ugly impact of businesspeople affecting gake quality with their business agendas, while also being a badly made game. It's a complete shambles.
Quality of gameplay... I have played Star Citizen for 11 years now, with all it´s bugs, and it is the only game I have played for so many years. I played Starfield for 20 minutes and that was all it took to realize how bad a game it was and I refunded it. Star Citizen is to space games, what Half-Life was to FPS games. New ways of doing things. Starfield said to have 20 years of development, but I think they confused that with 20 year old game mechanics. 2 loading screens just to get into your ship, which is bigger on the inside than outside..... I laughed so hard when I uninstalled it and I laugh every time I hear the name "Starfield".
I don't like Star Field but how the hell can you play Star Citizen for 11 years? I think it has potential but after playing for a couple of weeks and coming out of the honeymoon(this is awesome) phase, the game is a shitpool and completely unplayable
Surely nobody expected Starfield to 'kill' SC or even eat into it's momentum, to think that is just plain dumb and just as dumb to continually compare the two. They are completely different in just about every way. Even if they were the same there's plenty of room to have multiple games of the same type. Fed up of the Starfield hate train too, I enjoyed it, I accepted it for what it is just as I accept and enjoy SC for what it is and all its flaws lol.
@@yous2244I did say "completely different in just about every way". My point being, as I said, comparing them is just dumb and I'd extend that to say lazy.
Why compare a space rpg to a space sim? Starfield is more comparable to mass effect than star citizen. But i love both and play them for different reasons.
@@Havoc_762 bruh I'm just saying what it's officially classified as. If a person looked up star citizen it would be labeled an MMO trading and combat first person immersive sim...most people won't know CIG changed the description. But ok it's an MMO...even more reason not to compare it to Starfield.
Clickbaity title. Of course a single player game didn't kill an MMO. I know it is cool for the kiddies to dump on Starfield, but I genuinely enjoyed it, and hopefully I will enjoy SC as well.
The only thing that makes sc an mmo is projecting imagination into a future make believe world of possibilities where those things actually exist, they dont
No, the Bethesda fanboys are angry every time anyone brings up how and why Starfield failed and why it was bad when measured up against Star Citizen. Had it managed to be a startling success and eat into Star Citizen's funding, lots of people would have been patting Bethesda on the back and deriding CIG for not doing a job as well as Bethesda.
Starfield was nuked by 100 million active sony playstation users. And their indignant appeasers. Star citizen is not designed for console game play. Theres no potatos newtonian mechanics.
Go back to some of his videos ahead of Starfields launch --- According to the comments it was going to 'Kill Star Citizen' and Bethesda was going to show CIG how a Real game studio gets things done
Vanilla couldn't touch it. 100 mods? Makes it better than almost every game, this freaking decade!! And modding really is the real lesson Citizen can learn from it. If the players could mod Citizen, we would litterally have nothing wanting. Except new features, which we can all agree we have enough of. And plenty to be finally filling the game with content!
Are mods under N.D.A. - like people are not allowed to video or stream the game if it has mods? ---there are 550 people watching StarField streams on twitch right now and thats Huge numbers for that game ..the new DLC got some activity back on the game. 2.2 Thousand people are watching Star Citizen streams right now .. to equal that you would need Starfield, No Mans Sky, EvE, X4, Everspace and HellDivers 2 Combined. (I added Helldivers because for whatever reason - that was the latest game that was going to 'kill star citizen' xd
Starfield is honestly a really fun game. I get it wasn't what a lot of people wanted but It's by no means a pile of garbage, I think It's gotten to the point that people are group think hating the game.
"The only thing that can kill star citizen is Star Citizen" truer words can't be said. And to be honest, IMHO, they're doing a fantastic job....at killing it.... The latest change to quantum travel is a perfect example....🙄🙄
