Starfield - Discussion Thread

Richard Bong · Jun 13, 2023

Dirtbag_Leader said:
View: https://youtu.be/uMOPoAq5vIA

Being single player I'm getting much more of a 'Witcher-in-Space' vibe than Star Citizen competition, but sure looks great and I am excited for it. what do you guys think?

It makes, based on the video, Squadron 42 look very dated and tired. It demonstrates the problem with such a long development time.

I'm not into games I can't play with my spouse (I don't have to play with her, but I have to be able to play with her, so this is likely a pass for me.

Brictoria · Jun 13, 2023

Richard Bong said:
It makes, based on the video, Squadron 42 look very dated and tired. It demonstrates the problem with such a long development time.

I guess that depends on how you evaluate\compare "such a long development time" between the 2 games...

How Much Time Has Starfield Been in Development?

Like any major triple-A game, Starfield has been in development for quite some time. Bethesda had been trying to make a space-faring game for decades now, though any attempts at doing so never came to fruition. It wasn’t until the early 2010s, when the team trademarked the name Starfield, that the ball started rolling. Things progressed rather slowly until the release of Fallout 4 in 2015, when active development properly began.

With that in mind, how long Starfield has been in development will vary depending on your definition. As far as tangible progress goes, the game has been in active development for nearly eight years now. As far as concepts go, it was around a few years earlier than that. From what we can glean, it seems like that staggering length of time is definitely showing itself. With space combat being in the game and a healthy amount of planets to explore, we’re bound to see a grand world with Starfield.

And of course, Starfield is coming from a development studio that already had an in-house game engine, "assets", sizeable development\art\sound\etc. team, etc. that was focussed on a single game, whereas CIG had to build this from scratch while creating 2 linked (Single player SQ42 and the MMO PU) games...

Setting aside "development time", the games - while sharing a "space" environment - are very different in nature: "Starfield" is more of an "open world RPG", whereas "Squadron 42" is a more linear story-driven "Simulation" game, designed to lead into\link with an MMO (Like Rockstar's recent games GTA:V and RDR2 and their online\MMO counterparts).

Given we've only seen handpicked portions for both games (One selected to promote the upcoming release and so show the "best" it can offer, the other trying to hide as much as possible and releasing small portions\previews only where required), it's hard to compare them... And with the games being of such differing natures (Linear Vs Open World), it will be difficult to provide a fair\balanced comparrison between them.

As a side note: It was interesting to see the "Inforunners" come out with a video this morning which aligned with a "Ray's guide"'s video from several weeks ago (but using different reasoning\explanations), suggesting they also believe that we may be seeing Squadron 42's release date announced later this year...
Inforuners:

Ray's Guide:

Brictoria · Jun 13, 2023

Richard Bong · Jun 13, 2023

Brictoria said:
I guess that depends on how you evaluate\compare "such a long development time" between the 2 games...

How Much Time Has Starfield Been in Development?

Typically a full game dev cycle is 5 years. 8 years is a little long. Star Citizen/Squadron 42 is over 12 now with no release date in sight.

And of course, Starfield is coming from a development studio that already had an in-house game engine, "assets", sizeable development\art\sound\etc. team, etc. that was focussed on a single game, whereas CIG had to build this from scratch while creating 2 linked (Single player SQ42 and the MMO PU) games...

Cryengine is a game engine, so not from scratch. Note that Lumberyard and the following O3DE is still Cryengine.

Setting aside "development time", the games - while sharing a "space" environment - are very different in nature: "Starfield" is more of an "open world RPG", whereas "Squadron 42" is a more linear story-driven "Simulation" game, designed to lead into\link with an MMO (Like Rockstar's recent games GTA:V and RDR2 and their online\MMO counterparts).

Which makes Starfield much more complex an endeavor than SQ42.

Given we've only seen handpicked portions for both games (One selected to promote the upcoming release and so show the "best" it can offer, the other trying to hide as much as possible and releasing small portions\previews only where required), it's hard to compare them... And with the games being of such differing natures (Linear Vs Open World), it will be difficult to provide a fair\balanced comparrison between them.

We've seen what they've decided to show us as "their best." Comparing the two "bests" Squadron 42, comes off as not as good.
For example, character creation in Star Citizen/Squadron 42, has 2 body types, one male, one female, but Starfield appears to have variations.
The render engine for Starfield appears to have much higher fidelity, especially when it comes to skin. FPS combat appears much more dynamic in Starfield. Ship combat appeared similar.

As a side note: It was interesting to see the "Inforunners" come out with a video this morning which aligned with a "Ray's guide"'s video from several weeks ago (but using different reasoning\explanations), suggesting they also believe that we may be seeing Squadron 42's release date announced later this year...

We've gotten release dates from CIG before.

The last word, from CIG, came from Erin Roberts last summer, was "more than 2 years out." The official word before that was 2020 for Beta, before that 2016, and before that 2014. I may have missed a release date or two.

Other people's speculation is just that and I put zero stock in that.
Chris and Erin both claim "it'll be done when it's done."
I'll go with, "I'll believe it when I see it."

I see two possibilities. Starfield's release will speed up SQ42's release so it doesn't fall even further behind because of its age (less likely) or, because of Starfield's release, will cause another ground up rework for SQ42 delaying it further because it isn't up to the same standards. I would recommend betting on the latter option.

wmk · Jun 13, 2023

According to Microsoft Game Studios head Matt Booty, Starfield, at present, has fewer bugs than any other Bethesda game at launch.

"We have an awful lot of people internally playing it," said Booty. "Working with Todd and the team, I see bug counts and just by the numbers, if it shipped today, this would have the fewest bugs that any game from Bethesda has ever shipped with".

Starfield has "fewest bugs that any game from Bethesda has ever shipped with", Microsoft says

Microsoft Game Studios head Matt Booty has said Starfield, at present, has fewer bugs than any other Bethesda game at l…

www.eurogamer.net

Mudhawk · Jun 13, 2023

wmk said:
"We have an awful lot of people internally playing it," said Booty. "Working with Todd and the team, I see bug counts and just by the numbers, if it shipped today, this would have the fewest bugs that any game from Bethesda has ever shipped with".

Okay, THAT triggers my smartass reflex.
Microsoft praises the small amount of bugs.
MICROSOFT?
That's like a blind guy praising the painting of a sunset going by the smell of the drying artwork.
...
Apart from that I'm mildly looking forward to the actual game. I asume like all open World games it will be a bit of a treadmill. 1000 planets sounds like a lot but given their half procedural nature a lot of them may turn out pretty bland.
But building your own ship and base sounds fun.
Maybe it turns out to be "No man's sky" with a story.
I'd play that.

Bambooza · Jun 13, 2023

Brictoria said:
I guess that depends on how you evaluate\compare "such a long development time" between the 2 games...

How Much Time Has Starfield Been in Development?

And of course, Starfield is coming from a development studio that already had an in-house game engine, "assets", sizeable development\art\sound\etc. team, etc. that was focussed on a single game, whereas CIG had to build this from scratch while creating 2 linked (Single player SQ42 and the MMO PU) games...

Setting aside "development time", the games - while sharing a "space" environment - are very different in nature: "Starfield" is more of an "open world RPG", whereas "Squadron 42" is a more linear story-driven "Simulation" game, designed to lead into\link with an MMO (Like Rockstar's recent games GTA:V and RDR2 and their online\MMO counterparts).

As @Richard Bong pointed out CIG did start off with an engine. In fact, it would have been a good engine if the game stayed within the scope of the initial concept but given the massive scope creep of the game design the engine has needed a lot of rework to make it functional. With all that said even game studios that hand roll an inhouse engine still spend a vast majority of their game crafting time on the arts most notably asset creation with level design cinematics and actor rigging not far behind. So while CIG is making two games the added cost of SQ42 is mostly in the story elements given they are going to be using the same locations and art for both games.

The biggest contributor to CIG's long development time is their scope creep which causes them never to complete anything and as they add more content the creep turns it into tech debt that requires multiple reworks to bring it back up to the new standards. The biggest showing of that is the ships themselves with around 154 currently playable in-game not one of them is in a release state. It would have been far better for CIG to have a couple of ships to be able to test game features with until the scope has been locked in but in their situation being funded by player funds it's understandable to take on the burden for funding.

A good example of the tech debt is when you compare the Hornet with its forward-locked pilot-controlled turret to the Hurrican and Scorpius while not having a pilot-controlled turret do have compartments for ship components, even if it's unknown if the ship component sizes have been finalized. Or take the current rework time being spent on the Retaliator and extrapolate it to all the other ships and you can start to see the daunting amount of development time will be required to bring all of the ships currently in game up to what ever the end state looks like.

Until we get all of the game mechanics into the game at a basic implementation and locked down as the boundary the game will continue to be in this half-baked tech demo state. And I honestly do not see that changing any time soon given the massive amount of funding CIG continues to pull in year after year. Without outside pressure to change, there is no reason to given the continued funding success.

While we all would like to see SC move forward, it will most likely take a drop off in their yearly funding to spur on wrapping things up. The downside is that this drop will be caused by their player base giving up on the game and moving on. And with the significant-tech debt built up over the years, it could simply mean in the end it remains a half-completed game showcasing some intriguing tech demos but lacking any sort of completion.

So while Starfield is not an open-world RPG it's not the openness of the game that dictates its development cost but the amount of detail in its crafted world and the ability to manage scope.

Brictoria said:
Given we've only seen handpicked portions for both games (One selected to promote the upcoming release and so show the "best" it can offer, the other trying to hide as much as possible and releasing small portions\previews only where required), it's hard to compare them... And with the games being of such differing natures (Linear Vs Open World), it will be difficult to provide a fair\balanced comparrison between them.

As a side note: It was interesting to see the "Inforunners" come out with a video this morning which aligned with a "Ray's guide"'s video from several weeks ago (but using different reasoning\explanations), suggesting they also believe that we may be seeing Squadron 42's release date announced later this year...
Inforuners:

Ray's Guide:

Yes, these verticle slices are not very telling of what the final product will look like and I am of the mindset that I am going to wait until after the launch to see if it's worth picking up. For me, the biggest eye-opening experience on the bait and switch was with the Division and how the vertical slice was shown to be far more graphically appealing than the game ever was. And so I am far more skeptical of games that show these beautiful environments as a key feature.

Cugino83 · Jun 13, 2023

Garonman said:
Really looking forward to it. Will most likely be playing it bar a catastrophe of a review.
Big big burn from Fallout 76 though so I will be cautious before deciding to get it.

I wont compare FO76 to any other Bethesda game: that one is an MMO that include some new mechanics for player developement and was kinda of an experiment. Consider that so far Bethesda only have 1 MMO, Elder scroll Online, thatt even if successful hasn0't been a big score for the company, in fact it start of as a subcription game (on top of the initial purchase) and changed later to require only the purchase of the initial access and, eventually, additional expansion.

Starfield on the other hand is a single player game, something Bethesda have a very long and established tradition on and, so far, has not really disappointed.
I'm sure if player have the right expetation and not will not look for a compleately open word with space simulator style ship combat experience it will be a very enjoiable game... plus there will be mod support and you can bet the very talented modders comunity will add a lot of interesting thing to the "base game".

Garonman · Jun 13, 2023

Cugino83 said:
I wont compare FO76 to any other Bethesda game: that one is an MMO that include some new mechanics for player developement and was kinda of an experiment. Consider that so far Bethesda only have 1 MMO, Elder scroll Online, thatt even if successful hasn0't been a big score for the company, in fact it start of as a subcription game (on top of the initial purchase) and changed later to require only the purchase of the initial access and, eventually, additional expansion.

Starfield on the other hand is a single player game, something Bethesda have a very long and established tradition on and, so far, has not really disappointed.
I'm sure if player have the right expetation and not will not look for a compleately open word with space simulator style ship combat experience it will be a very enjoiable game... plus there will be mod support and you can bet the very talented modders comunity will add a lot of interesting thing to the "base game".

Very true.. I guess every studio should be forgiven at least one of their games. Looking at you 76. I'm not really into modding but I admit the mod community sure does release some interesting things. All in all i think its going to be a success and very enjoyable as well as filling in some time waiting for CIG to get things going

Brictoria · Jun 14, 2023

Richard Bong · Jun 14, 2023

Bambooza said:
While we all would like to see SC move forward, it will most likely take a drop off in their yearly funding to spur on wrapping things up. The downside is that this drop will be caused by their player base giving up on the game and moving on. And with the significant-tech debt built up over the years, it could simply mean in the end it remains a half-completed game showcasing some intriguing tech demos but lacking any sort of completion.

I'm afraid enough drop off to cause CIG to pay attention will result in not enough money to get to even beta, resulting in Star Citizen to simply be abandoned.

NaffNaffBobFace · Jun 14, 2023

Richard Bong said:
I'm afraid enough drop off to cause CIG to pay attention will result in not enough money to get to even beta, resulting in Star Citizen to simply be abandoned.

I recall a long while ago when they sold 10% for $45 million there was a statement saying at the point funding got to a point it wasn't sustainable they had "some levers to pull" to then sprint to the end finishing the game off with what had been Dev'd to that point.

I still have faith in that statement however I cannot say in todays gamespend era if we'd ever get to a point where funding became unsustainable:

Look at where the Games Ecosystem is to where it was in 2012 - it was once pie-in-the-sky that people would spend $1000 on a game and $60 was practically an outrage. Now the way games have been monetized out the ass any game without extra spend post-purchase is the exception, not the rule.

From a player perspective this shows in the Concierge section of Spectrum where the barrier to entry is $1000. First half of the 2010's this was a real show of support for a project which may never happen and was such an investment in to any game it really was just for the most fervent supporters of the project... today the project is much more advanced and a better bet to drop a Kay on, and games are more likely to have more money spent on them by users than they were back then... people have joined concierge asking why their concept ship isn't findable in game, because they only just placed their first pledges and didn't know some ships have not yet been built and are playable yet... Hand on heart, this Testsquardon Forum is more exclusive than Concierge.

The world has changed and some of the lines in the sand like the concierge $1000 barrier have been totally submerged as the tide has taken the wave line far up the shore.

Thalstan · Jun 14, 2023

If they got to the point they were pulling levers to save their company/game, then it means CR is done as head of CIG and head of SC/SQ42.

It also means that SQ42 is either done and has been done for years and they have not wanted to release it...or that CIG will release it in an "unfinished" state. Either way will get it panned.

Let's hope that a successful Starfield means more success for SC as well.

Richard Bong · Jun 14, 2023

NaffNaffBobFace said:
I recall a long while ago when they sold 10% for $45 million there was a statement saying at the point funding got to a point it wasn't sustainable they had "some levers to pull" to then sprint to the end finishing the game off with what had been Dev'd to that point.

I still have faith in that statement however I cannot say in todays gamespend era if we'd ever get to a point where funding became unsustainable:

Look at where the Games Ecosystem is to where it was in 2012 - it was once pie-in-the-sky that people would spend $1000 on a game and $60 was practically an outrage. Now the way games have been monetized out the ass any game without extra spend post-purchase is the exception, not the rule.

From a player perspective this shows in the Concierge section of Spectrum where the barrier to entry is $1000. First half of the 2010's this was a real show of support for a project which may never happen and was such an investment in to any game it really was just for the most fervent supporters of the project... today the project is much more advanced and a better bet to drop a Kay on, and games are more likely to have more money spent on them by users than they were back then... people have joined concierge asking why their concept ship isn't findable in game, because they only just placed their first pledges and didn't know some ships have not yet been built and are playable yet... Hand on heart, this Testsquardon Forum is more exclusive than Concierge.

The world has changed and some of the lines in the sand like the concierge $1000 barrier have been totally submerged as the tide has taken the wave line far up the shore.

I remember when that sale occurred. If the financials are accurate that size of an investment is no longer even a year of operating expensives.
And they still need an advertising budget if this ever gets to launch.

If this ever gets to launch, remember AWS isn't free, CR has ruled out most methods of keeping Star Citizen running after launch.

Cugino83 · Jun 14, 2023

NaffNaffBobFace said:
I recall a long while ago when they sold 10% for $45 million there was a statement saying at the point funding got to a point it wasn't sustainable they had "some levers to pull" to then sprint to the end finishing the game off with what had been Dev'd to that point.

I still have faith in that statement however I cannot say in todays gamespend era if we'd ever get to a point where funding became unsustainable:

True, but a lot of years have pass since then, a lot of premeses have been made, not so many have been fullfill (yet)... Investor tend to lend money where they see a chance of profit, if CIG will keep the current trend that see the backlog pile always and costant growing, with little to no plan (as far as we know) to get rid of it investor are more reclutant to open the wallet, especially if s projet do have some competition and no delivery date on sight.
May be I'm having a pessimistic point of view but I'm not so sure the option of attracting investor is so solid as CIG declare back then right now.

Look at where the Games Ecosystem is to where it was in 2012 - it was once pie-in-the-sky that people would spend $1000 on a game and $60 was practically an outrage. Now the way games have been monetized out the ass any game without extra spend post-purchase is the exception, not the rule.

From a player perspective this shows in the Concierge section of Spectrum where the barrier to entry is $1000. First half of the 2010's this was a real show of support for a project which may never happen and was such an investment in to any game it really was just for the most fervent supporters of the project... today the project is much more advanced and a better bet to drop a Kay on, and games are more likely to have more money spent on them by users than they were back then... people have joined concierge asking why their concept ship isn't findable in game, because they only just placed their first pledges and didn't know some ships have not yet been built and are playable yet... Hand on heart, this Testsquardon Forum is more exclusive than Concierge.

The world has changed and some of the lines in the sand like the concierge $1000 barrier have been totally submerged as the tide has taken the wave line far up the shore.

This is true, but we lack a foundamental information about those player that spend huge amount of money: can they really afford it?
While is unquestionable that there are lots of player with really large disposable income, is not so rare to see people trying to sell ship to recover some of the money spend, becouse in the mean time theyr life changed will family member thet need medical assistence, newborn child and other joyfull or less event.
It could also be that some of tthe big investor are just young player that while still live with parents are start working and, in a rush of excitement, spend theyr first saving in a javelin or other expensive shisp.
Sure, SC has redefine the level of investment a person is willing to spend in a game (for bad or worst), but I don't thik that, outside few player, this will be e sustainable model especially if CIG can't deliver.
Even is all the previwed content will be delivered I'll expect sooner or lather player will stop trowing money at them in this quantity since the pool of player with that amount of money will dry out and/or they'll simply archive what they'll condiered a goal and stop spending so heavily in SC.

Lorddarthvik · Jun 15, 2023

Dirtbag_Leader said:
Alright, well now that it's been a day since I first tossed in this grenade, I'll wade back in. Here's some of the 'key takeaways' of wise thoughts that probably best sum up the general Testi-take on Starfield:

Probably going to be sorely disappointed on this one; I feel MOST single-player games have moved to the miserable always-online DRM these days.

This is a HUGE one for serious spaceship guys like us. While I'm concerned that I've heard no statement on the topic yet, I remain hopeful for one key reason. If you can support 2x analog axes and 8 buttons from an Xbox controller, then why in the hell shouldn't you be able to at LEAST be able to leverage the same type of inputs on a PC? Fingers crossed. . .

I think this is key aspect of going single-player only, and hopefully that makes it a nice complement to, rather than a competitor with Star Citizen.

Always the best approach!

Also a good way to approach all new games. I'm still sour after that KSP2 debacle. . .

Here's hoping!!

I'm fairly certain it won't have any HOTAS support, but it will either get modded in, or there will be a workaround using software to make the hotas show up as an xbox controller.

I wasn't paying enough attention to one of the videos, but it is confirmed through the ESRB ratings that there will be an ingame shop, so microtransactions are confirmed!
As for what this will entail, we shall see.

Lorddarthvik · Jun 15, 2023

wmk · Jun 15, 2023

All right, I rewatched entire Starfield demo and I'm 90% sure the game doesn't allow manual planetary landings. Unless the demo didn't include them, or unless manual landing gameplay mechanics is not implemented in game yet.

-------------------
Starting at 5:37, we can the Navigation Console onboard our demo starter ship (pic 1 below)
Todd Howard says: "this is your Star Map (...) You can choose a landing spot or fast travel to known locations".

There is a SET LANDING TARGET (A) on the Star Map UI. LAND (X) appears when Howard stops the map spinning somehow -- then we can select landing spot in the middle of the forest (pic 2), or move the landing target to the nearest outpost (pic 3).

The same (X) button is then used to send the ship to The New Atlantis. The next scene we can see is a landing. It clearly looks like an automated landing (animation), the same as all other landings which can be seen in Bethesda demo. It is the same sequence in all cases: a view from below, then from the cockpit, from rear, followed by the overhead view (pics 4-5).

I'm afraid takeoff is also automated, even from the middle of the planet or a moon. Again, it looks like the same sequence, no matter if we are leaving a moon (pic 6) or a planetary landing site (pic 7).

The reason why Starfield (probably) works like that is obvious: map switching. I guess all those planets and moons which can be seen in the sky or in Star Map are simple 3D objects only. Once we click (X), the game loads a new map and spawns our ship in it. The same happens when we leave the planet or a moon; I guess this time the game loads a single Star Map map with all 100 star systems, including 15 known ones like Alpha Centauri or Sol.

Don't get me wrong -- I still think it would be a cool game. I can't wait to play it (once all day 1 major bugs are fixed ; )

-------------------

Pic 1

Pic 2

Pic 3

Pic 4

Pic 5

Pic 6

Pic 7

-------------------
For reference:

Thalstan · Jun 15, 2023

wmk said:
All right, I rewatched entire Starfield demo and I'm 90% sure the game doesn't allow manual planetary landings. Unless the demo didn't include them, or unless manual landing gameplay mechanics is not implemented in game yet.

-------------------

I'm afraid takeoff is also automated, even from the middle of the planet or a moon. Again, it looks like the same sequence, no matter if we are leaving a moon (pic 6) or a planetary landing site (pic 7).

The reason why Starfield (probably) works like that is obvious: map switching. I guess all those planets and moons which can be seen in the sky or in Star Map are simple 3D objects only. Once we click (X), the game loads a new map and spawns our ship in it. The same happens when we leave the planet or a moon; I guess this time the game loads a single Star Map map with all 100 star systems, including 15 known ones like Alpha Centauri or Sol.

Don't get me wrong -- I still think it would be a cool game. I can't wait to play it (once all day 1 major bugs are fixed ; )

-------------------
For reference:

you make some really good points. No, this doesn't have all the bells and whistles that SC has in terms of fully explorable planets.
In fact, it is much closer to what was envisioned in 2016/17 prior to the switch to physicalized planets where you would pick a point and it would put you down in an area and yes, there would have been a loading screen then too.

However, I think that the SF system isn't bad. It allows for dynamic generation of content. No cheat sheets on what you will find where. It will allow for me to play and my wife to play and have different experiences on the same planets in the same general location.

Honestly, can you go down to any planet in SC and see life actually moving around outside? Can you see life moving around INSIDE the cities instead of just T-Posing or standing on some chair?

CIG had filled the servers to capacity, yet this also means that if we want to see living planets, with real life and real NPC movements, it's going to take a lot of doing and server meshing is just the start. Honestly, they might have have dynamic server meshing to fully model individual planets if they want to have a "realistic" number of animals.

Starfield - Discussion Thread

Space Marshal

Admiral

Admiral

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Admiral

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Vice Admiral

Admiral

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Admiral

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal

Space Marshal