Starfield hasn’t hurt No Man’s Sky’s popularity – it may have even helped it
Starfield hasn’t hurt No Man’s Sky’s popularity – it may have even helped it
No Man's Sky has had a great month, coincidentally around the launch of the other big space adventure of the day.
No Man's Sky has had a great month, coincidentally around the launch of the other big space adventure of the day.
...
No Man's Sky has been one of the best examples of a video redemption story, and developer Hello Games never stopped expanding the game with new content, and more features. Just recently, the procedural space adventure celebrated its seventh anniversary with the Echoes update, and it doesn't look like there's an end in sight to this support.
But do these updates bring back players? The answer is an emphatic yes! Hello Games founder, Sean Murray, recently revealed that No Man's Sky is having "its biggest month in the last few years." Interestingly, this is happening across all platforms where No Man's Sky is available - so PC, consoles, Mac, and even VR.
Having played a lot of NMS and now sinking time into Starfield, these comparisons need to stop. NMS and Starfield are wildly different games.
It's just like when people compare Terraria and Minecraft, or Overwatch and TF2. It's a poor comparison beyond the vague theme of each game.
NMS and Starfield are both set in space, give the player a spaceship, and let the player land on planets. That's where the similarities end.
It's strange, people can't seem to help themselves.
Even the Star Citizen community was full of people talking about how Starfield was finally going to deliver as the superior sandbox space sim.
Space Game is not a genre, it's a setting. Bethesda RPGs are gonna Bethesda RPG, no matter how you flavor it.
I don't think it's unfair to point out that many of the people who were interested in Starfield leading up to launch thought they were getting more of a space sim than they did, proceeded to look for alternatives, and NMS was there being pretty good at what it does now. The OP article demonstrates this and is not a comparison between the games. In my case, Starfield just reminded me that NMS exists and I decided I'd rather be playing it. Fundamentally comparing the games is ridiculous, but it's no surprise that NMS ended up in the conversation.
Maybe they should have paid attention to what was actually being said by the Devs then. They clarified that it wasn't going to be like NMS/Elite/etc at least a year out from release.
I recently started playing NMS again right before Echoes, although I didn’t know Echoes was coming up. While I never made a conscious link between seeing all of the news about Starfield and me choosing that game when I was last looking through the plethora for something to inspire me, I think it may have had a subconscious effect on my choice.
Both also have base building mechanics, survey objectives, jet packs, mining lasers, but that’s really where the similarities end.
They would be very similar. if Bethesda was competent both games have lots of similar elements from, yes having ships to scanning resources on a planet to having a jetpack. So it is fair and understandtable to compare these games pretty much the biggest difference is that Bethesda not having seamless apace travel and I ain't letting them off the hook for "well they are just different games 🤓" bullshit.
I have played both. I prefer No Mans Sky. It’s just a better game by far.
could you elaborate on what you like better? I am liking Starfield but at 48 hours the lack of depth in the procedurally generated places is showing.
Also the universe feels too full. Like you can pick some random spot on a random moon and when you land you can see buildings in every direction and ships are landing near you. Like the entire galaxy is more populated than Montana!? All of it!? I haven't found ANYWHERE remotely empty across 30 planets now! Breaks the immersion a little bit for me.
NMS at least has planets without buildings or signs of life, but they're certain types of planets (eg. lifeless/airless) There are definitely some that have far fewer ships going around too.
NMS is more expansive in some ways, but also fairly shallow in terms of some of the core mechanics. There's a lot of things to do like having a settlement or building a fleet and sending the fleet on missions, but again, it's a bit shallow. At the beginning you're largely focused on resource collecting to build a base, and unlock upgrades. Over time you can automate a lot of this and focus on other things. However, if you don't like the resource collecting to unlock things, you're probably not going to enjoy it.
I think the space flight and combat in NMS feels better. For whatever reason, in Starfield space flight and combat feels very slow to me. It doesn't help that the UI in the starship does this weird laggy update. The seamlessness of flying into a planet can be fun in space combat and the ships will follow you.
NMS has way more copy-paste assets. Starfield at least has grand cities and some unique set pieces or a few different options ,but every crashed freighter in NMS is identical. The buildings in NMS have a tiny bit of variance but they're all like 1-2 room buildings. All space stations and space ports are identical (just the core race changes). There are pirate space stations, but they're the same basic one but darker and they've moved the vendors inward a bit into tents instead of stalls. A little bit of this is baked into the story of NMS to some extent, but that doesn't exactly help it.
Lol tell this to people who are upset that every planet doesn't have a thriving colony in it. The "empty planets" are frustrating to them.
Not that you or they are wrong, it just highlights that matters of opinion on things like this are a spectrum, and sometimes you end up on the far end. I like that I can land on a planet and have something besides just rocks, but also that's it's procedurally generated so that it isn't the same every time. It's false replayability, sure, but if I like playing the game, it doesn't matter to me that the layouts are the same.
I enjoyed the planetary exploration in No Man’s Sky. Some planets have an outpost, but most don’t. In No Man’s Sky there are several alien races and artifacts they left behind you can learn their language from.
There are a huge number of planets, and some have strange reality altering properties. They have different weather and conditions. There is a ginormous amount of alien life that you can catalogue and interact with and even tame. The planets themselves show a huge variety of differences. There is even underground and underwater environments with unique life suited to those environments.
The base building is fun. You can do a lot and you can even travel to galactic hubs and worlds that other players have worked on.
Even travelling through space is more fun. You are able to fly to planets and land on them seamlessly. You can own several different space ships and even giant freighters that can contain your ships and frigates you can send to other star systems.
I honestly cannot fathom how would you could possibly think that no man's sky is a better game by far.
No Man Sky's is a good engine / tech demo to build a game on, but it's barely a game.
Ground combat suck, space combat sucks, the story is just random notes tucked away with zero interesting characters or character development.
It's basically just grinding it out to fly around and scan a bunch of plants that look identical but have a slightly different name.
Really? You can't fathom how someone would consider NMS a better game? Both games are barely comparable other than using space as a backdrop. Judging by the reaction online, it seems like many people were lead to believe that Starfield would be a space sim and came up wanting when it was more of a sci-fi Fallout, with mostly optional engagement with the space elements. For those people, I can see merit in recommending they check out No Man's Sky, which has a shallow, bit widely-spread space simulation to engage with.
I don't think it's useful to try and argue which game is better, but I would much rather play No Man's Sky any day of the week. Bethesda RPGs have long lost their luster for me since the Oblivion days, and now just stand as a testament of disappointing writing, stagnant technology and under-baked systems. Starfield does not show any meaningful signs of breaking the norm.
I thought this way back when i first played it. But I've been spending the lasts days playing and it got so much better.
The environments are no longer the same everywhere, sure you will find matching planets but they don't all look like asteroids with hair anymore. Minerals dont stick out of the ground anymore. And underground caves exists.
The multiplayer aspect got better too (or so i hear, didn't get to try it yet).
The stories are more engaging with specific npc's interacting with you.
Never thought space combat sucked? It's not to the level of Elite Dangerous, but it's somewhat entertaining, and accomplishes what need to be done imo.
It's an MMORPG so of course you have grinding, and for my current playthrough it isn't boring yet. I've got a minecraft vibe, where you upgrade gear and ammass items for future uses.
love that you can get pets now and use them for more than simply have around, I got some kind of panther yesterday, was able to mount some guns to it and now it helps me in combat (kinda tedious to use idk if i fully figured it out yet, but sometimes the companion won't attack).
All that and i only started playing, there's the whole frigate thing, and also settlements to protect. I'm told you can have some kind of fleet to send on missions, and i'm certain there's other huge content i'm missing that i dont know of yet.
The space exploration seems leagues better in No Man's Sky than Starfield.
I would certainly hope so as that is No Man’s Sky entire gameplay loop
Title is a bit click-baity, but the core message is the game has seen a boost in users since it's recent update that was just before the starfield launch.
A rising tide lifts all boats.
I don't think it's surprising that a sci fi game with exploration elements from a major AAA studio renewed interest in a sci fi survival/exploration game from a smaller studio. If you want more of the exploration part of Starfield, No Man's Sky is the natural option.
Why do we need to keep pitting these games against each other, aside from being set in space they're not even remotely similar gameplay wise. One is a survival game framework, the other is a RPG/Lifesim. There's plenty of room for both in the market.
Super Mario World is waaaay better than your Genesis' Sonic, loser! My console supports the gnarly SuperFX chip! What about yours?
Nah, SNES doesn't have "BLAST PROCESSING", Mega Drive ftw.
They're defintely way different games. NMS is more sandbox and procedural focused, whereas Starfield is a story focused game. Both are buggy space games lol.
Thank you for saying it. I’m getting tired of all of these “Starfield is NMS but worse” takes form people that have obviously played neither.
NMS is a space exploration game.
Starfield is a lite-RPG with a space theme.
Starfield held my interest for a week. It's okay, but it's my least favorite polygon-based Bethesda game besides F76. The aging engine just wasn't made for a game of this scope. I tried No Man's Sky and didn't like it, just not my thing.
I've played to 150 on fo76, the funniest thing to me is that npcs were an after thought for 76 and still feel more real than starfields citizens... So odd
I played Starfield on the Game Pass and was bored to tears after four hours. It made me want to explore space, but everything is so half-baked in Starfield that it drove me to reinstall and start playing more No Man’s Sky.