No reason to doubt Starfield anymore. Looking to be one of the best games ever made.

[jehurey 3,298]

20 minutes ago, Remij said:

LOL size of the map has nothing to do with the ambition of Zelda...  Zelda isn't ambitious because the map is big...  it's ambitious because all of it's gameplay is based around systems which can co-exist and function under the games laws of physics without breaking

..........on a map that big

 

But obviously we only need to read up until halfway through your post to reach the point where, conceptually, Zelda exceeds Starfield's gameplay concepts.

 

Its why I describe Starfield are fully competent from all sides, and slick.

 

Because I think they were able to cut things into smaller pieces in which they could make it look more polished.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if we end up finding out afterwards in some sort of developer post-mortem, that the space gameplay is loading in a completely different game engine, developed by different people that they brought in.

[Goukosan 2,277]

33 minutes ago, Remij said:

LOL size of the map has nothing to do with the ambition of Zelda...  Zelda isn't ambitious because the map is big...  it's ambitious because all of it's gameplay is based around systems which can co-exist and function under the games laws of physics without breaking.

 

Starfield is so much more ambitious in so many different ways... so yes, let's not compare them, because Zelda will lose in each one of them.

 

You missed the point, the point is all Those systems (Physics, chemistry, every movable object point in time etc)  co-exist and function within that huge seamless world (sky, land, caves, depths etc)... Without being a huge glitch fest.

[Remij 4,711]

1 hour ago, Goukosan said:

 

You missed the point, the point is all Those systems (Physics, chemistry, every movable object point in time etc)  co-exist and function within that huge seamless world (sky, land, caves, depths etc)... Without being a huge glitch fest.

It's not the size of the game world.  They could cut the size of the world in half, and it wouldn't make any difference.  The only thing impressive about the size of Zelda's world is that it all fits on a Switch game cart lmao.

 

The ambition comes from the freedom they give you to approach anything in any way given how the various systems interact with each other.  To build a game that can function like that takes an extremely different design approach compared to traditional games.   A game like Metal Gear Sold 5 is far more ambitious in how they allow you to approach the target in all sorts of ways, including ways in which the developer never could have planned for... than a linear Metal Gear game where you can only enter from one point, and follow a set path, which is far less ambitious.  One requires insane amounts of work and care to ensure it works without breaking, the other not nearly as much.

 

Same goes for Zelda.  It's not that the map is big... it's the freedom of the game design.

 

Starfield on the other hand has an insane amount of content, an insane amount of detailed assets, an insane amount of gameplay systems.  They're not all going to interact with each other like Zelda's physics, but they are there to immerse the player in a far deeper way.  The scope of Starfield is just far greater than Zelda.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Remij

[Goukosan 2,277]

3 hours ago, Remij said:

It's not the size of the game world.  They could cut the size of the world in half, and it wouldn't make any difference.  The only thing impressive about the size of Zelda's world is that it all fits on a Switch game cart lmao.

 

The ambition comes from the freedom they give you to approach anything in any way given how the various systems interact with each other.  To build a game that can function like that takes an extremely different design approach compared to traditional games.   A game like Metal Gear Sold 5 is far more ambitious in how they allow you to approach the target in all sorts of ways, including ways in which the developer never could have planned for... than a linear Metal Gear game where you can only enter from one point, and follow a set path, which is far less ambitious.  One requires insane amounts of work and care to ensure it works without breaking, the other not nearly as much.

 

Same goes for Zelda.  It's not that the map is big... it's the freedom of the game design.

 

Starfield on the other hand has an insane amount of content, an insane amount of detailed assets, an insane amount of gameplay systems.  They're not all going to interact with each other like Zelda's physics, but they are there to immerse the player in a far deeper way.  The scope of Starfield is just far greater than Zelda.

 

You keep missing the point.. Lol

[TLHBO 2,170]

1 hour ago, Goukosan said:

 

You keep missing the point.. Lol

You're missing his point, which is that Xbox game >>>>>>>> non-xbox game, because Xbox.

 

This is the lemming talking point for the next year I guess, that we all need to bow down to Space Fallout as the Game Of The Forever® even though half of these fucks barely ever talked about Bethesda action-rpgs before.

[Remij 4,711]

4 hours ago, Goukosan said:

 

You keep missing the point.. Lol

 

Nah...  I know exactly what you said.

[Remij 4,711]

2 hours ago, TLHBO said:

You're missing his point, which is that Xbox game >>>>>>>> non-xbox game, because Xbox.

 

This is the lemming talking point for the next year I guess, that we all need to bow down to Space Fallout as the Game Of The Forever® even though half of these fucks barely ever talked about Bethesda action-rpgs before.

God you're a fucking clown.  Like as if Starfield is going to be better than Zelda... or as if I've said any thing of the sort.  

 

 

[Twinblade★ 3,972]

Not trying to downplay TOTK's world but I would be more impressed with it if not for Death Stranding. That game had a lot of physics interactions and they layered a bunch of online systems on top of it. Of course it was on more powerful hardware, but I still feel like as far as open worlds are concerned that one is criminally underrated.

[MalaXmaS 650]

9 hours ago, Remij said:

LOL size of the map has nothing to do with the ambition of Zelda...  Zelda isn't ambitious because the map is big...  it's ambitious because all of it's gameplay is based around systems which can co-exist and function under the games laws of physics without breaking.

 

Starfield is so much more ambitious in so many different ways... so yes, let's not compare them, because Zelda will lose in each one of them.

Gotta love the sheep talking about open world games now that they had their baby Skyrim game with BOTW.

Skyrim was more ambitious than BOTW.

Now imagine Starfield.

I am buying the game.

I want to support Bethesda even with gamepas.

[sugarhigh 519]

If the game is good, I'll buy it on steam. If it's not good, I won't.

[Goukosan 2,277]

2 hours ago, Remij said:

 

Nah...  I know exactly what you said.

 

Nah you didn't because you're responding to points I didn't make. 

[-GD-X★ 7,801]

Starfield looks like No Man’s Sky reskinned with Mass Effect, but with Bethesda’s clunky gameplay. Hard pass. 

[Goukosan 2,277]

2 hours ago, Remij said:

God you're a fucking clown.  Like as if Starfield is going to be better than Zelda... or as if I've said any thing of the sort.  

 

 

 

Actually that's how this discussion started.  Slow Jonny claimed that starfield will be the biggest game (impact wise) and best game of the year

 

I reminded him that TOTK said hi and that the level of polish we got from TOTK you will not even come close to that in starfield. 

 

That somehow morphed into you thinking it was solely about map size... Lol

Edited June 12, 2023 by Goukosan

[Goukosan 2,277]

2 hours ago, MalaXmaS said:

Gotta love the sheep talking about open world games now that they had their baby Skyrim game with BOTW.

Skyrim was more ambitious than BOTW.

Now imagine Starfield.

I am buying the game.

I want to support Bethesda even with gamepas.

 

BOTW is almost 2X as large as Skyrim. 

 

"Breath of the Wild's open-world Hyrule at 61.2 square kilometers, whereas Skyrim checks in at 36.72 square kilometers"

 

But again the map size alone was not the point I was making. 

[Twinblade★ 3,972]

14 minutes ago, -GD-X said:

Starfield looks like No Man’s Sky reskinned with Mass Effect, but with Bethesda’s clunky gameplay. Hard pass. 

  
The shooting actually looks pretty good by Bethesda standards. It’s probably going to be their best playing game.

[sugarhigh 519]

Skyrim is still more impressive than BOTW, ignoring "at the time" comparisons.

[TLHBO 2,170]

2 hours ago, MalaXmaS said:

Gotta love the sheep talking about open world games now that they had their baby Skyrim game with BOTW.

Skyrim was more ambitious than BOTW.

Now imagine Starfield.

I am buying the game.

I want to support Bethesda even with gamepas.

Gotta love lemmings daring to talk about videogames at all You've got fuck all and haven't had fuck all since Obama's first term, one mediocre showcase of pc hand-me-downs doesn't change shit.

 

Know your place lemkid.

[sugarhigh 519]

I love how Sheep went all gameplay purist against Uncharted for having easy climbing, while Zelda is just straight up automatic.

[Mr. Impossible 424]

Lol if this game flops it will be the end for Xbox fanboys. 

[Remij 4,711]

1 hour ago, Goukosan said:

 

Nah you didn't because you're responding to points I didn't make. 

Yea I did.  I already explained it by making the comparison of MGS5 and a traditional MGS game.  Same parallel can be said about Zelda TOTK, and a traditional Zelda game.  MGS5 was ambitious because it allowed you to enter and approach the situation from any angle giving you the tools and game systems.  Same goes for Zelda.

 

You could make MGS5's map 20x bigger, and add parachuting and cave systems underground.... and that will not change anything.  Because what made the game ambitious stays the exact same.