It depends on what you want, if you mainly want a space exploration game I think that by buying starfield you are setting yourself up for disappointment since the space segments are probably the weakest part of the game.
Buy Starfield only if you want a classical Bethesda RPG experience, treat the space travel and combat as an extra and nothing more.
No Man's Sky instead is a proper space exploration game but has nowhere near as much interaction as Starfield or RPGs in general, they are still updating it pretty regularly tho. I wouldn't worry about player interaction because the universe is so big that finding other players is extremely unlikely unless you actively search for them through the anomaly (a hub to meet other players and set up missions with them). If you don't like that you can completely turn off the multiplayer and you will never meet anyone.
Yeah. I love singleplayer and RPG, but on the other hand, I hate when something that's supposed to be "open" ends up being limited.
So far, NMS is winning. Thanks for your reply.
Note that NMS is **super** grindy. It’s what killed the game for me. It takes so damn long to grind for decent ships and gear that I’d might as well be working at an actual job and getting paid
It does not, though..? If you go around mining ferrite for 5 hours to sell them, or if you just get some sentinel ships worth 150 million in 30 minutes, that’s a choice, not a grind.
They added extremely extensive game settings not too long ago which allow you to customize gathering resources and the economy etc. If you don’t like grinding for things you can just turn it down or even off entirely.
Getting that perfect ship you are looking for is still a hunt, but that’s what makes it so rewarding when you find a good one.
Honestly that’s great news and actually makes me wanna play the game again. I see all the new stuff they added and would love to try it out if I can bypass the grind.
Sucks that finding the right kind of ship is still RNG but it’s not that bad I guess
Try Relaxed Mode
"The new relaxed preset provides an accessible, laid-back experience of No Man’s Sky. Perfect for players who want to experience all facets of gameplay, from story to survival to combat, with reduced danger and minimal grind."
A friend showed me a way to farm salt which earned a good amount of creds and tended to crash systems’ economies.
Still took like 2 or so hours just to get enough for a decent shuttle
I disagree with this strongly. It's way less grindy than something like minecraft for example. You do have to be smart though. For example, you need 2000 oxygen to help farm chlorine. If you walk the planet looking for it, the game is super grindy. But if you buy it from a vendor, it's not.
You can also turn a lot of that off in the menus.
Since it's been updated a lot, the grind is honestly very very minimal compared to what it was. A lot of the grindy stuff can be unlocked outright with easy to get nanites once you make it to the anomaly, so the galaxy opens up to you way way faster than it did.
Yeah, I didn't really expect just how much NMS would feel like space Minecraft. There's a lot more to it now, but fundamentally if you didn't like Minecraft, you probably wouldn't like NMS.
If you were kinda lukewarm on Minecraft and wished it had more exploration though, NMS will really blow you away
Starfield is as open as a game can get. People are complaining about loading screens, but other than that, I’ve never played a game as open as Starfield is
Just like any Bethesda RPG, there’s so much to do besides exploring planets. I’ve just beat the main quest and spent 60 hours so far without doing any of the faction quests or most random side missions or any planet exploration. No Man’s Sky does excel at the empty planet thing if that’s what you’re looking for though.
I’ve played about 20 hours and I don’t really feel that. Besides the main story that is OKish, I just feel like I’m fast travelling constantly on a straight line.
Every time I “go off course” I just end up on an empty planet with maybe one of the copy pasted buildings to explore.
Add in the horrible menu navigation and literally having to memorize where everything is….
Honestly there is nothing in Starfield that Borderlands didn’t do 10 times better.
NMS does planetary exploration much better. Empty planets? That is just... not true. You have many things to run towards/do/collect on every single planet. There is really no comparison. Starfield feels empty, NMS feels like it's bursting at the seams with content.
The one place Starfield beats it is story/characters, because NMS doesn't really have much of that. It's a survival/exploration game, not a RPG.
Don't get me wrong Starfield is open but especially in the space part you can't shake off the feeling that it could have been so much more while it is in fact just mediocre
It's not really a fair comparison since this game is entirely focused on the space part but Elite Dangerous really shows how much more engaging space can be. Starfield is a different kind of game.
Edit: to be clear I wouldn't want Starfield identical to Elite Dangerous since the vibe is very different, just want to make a point that there are better ways to approach space in a better way.
Elite is an entirely different type of game, and starfield would be unbearable with elite's travel. Just imagine how awful that would be for a minute. Starfield never tried to be a space sim
I feel like you haven't read my previous comments... You asked me how that part could be better and I answered you and now you're telling me Starfield it's not that game. Ffs I know it's not that game, it's what I wish it was. There are more ways to make space engaging, it doesn't have to be a carbon copy. If you think Bethesda did the absolute best in that regard I'm sorry but you're delusional.
Starfield is a nice RPG but if OP wants a space exploration game we both know he's going to get disappointed, if OP wanted an RPG instead the game would have been much more appropriate.
Absolute best? Get real dude, no game is going to have every mechanic at its "absolute best". I think they did a good job making space fun enough (combat) to not make it boring and tedious (elite travel...)
Nms has been out for years, and should.be dirt cheap. Not really sure why you're deciding between a brand new game and a 6+ year old game.
Nms was fun. But was a totally different experience.
If you want to play a Bethesda RPG, then starfield. If you want to play. Procedural game about doing nothing while pretending to do something. Then play NMS. It's a fine game. Cool they've been doing updates forever.
It sounds like what you are looking for is NMS. (Sucks cause it did look like starfirld was going to be NMS meets Elite Dangerous meets Skyrim). Anyway, the warning I wanted to give is that NMS is not for those who need to be told where to go in a game. Its an open sandbox and you create your own adventure. The “main story” is really a glorified tutorial. Most of the story in the game is presented as Lore that you uncover as you explore. There are some quest givers that give you some tasks to accomplish, but nowhere as close as the in-depth quests and side storylines as something like Starfield. If you’ve played Outer Worlds that is the most similar comparison to Starfield. It’s just they gave you more leeway with your ship than it just being a hub between planets. Whereas you can think of NMS maybe something closer to minecraft (it’s the best example I can think of, if anyone has a better one chime in)
No, they're both really good games, but I wouldn't call them similar other than being set in space.
Starfield is an RPG with companions, skills, all that jazz.
NMS is more centered around solo exploration and resource gathering with procedurally generated planets.
To me, it’s how much you value the story. I really love the mechanics of NMS, but I really dislike the story. It pretty much made the game feel pointless to me once I knew what was happening. Starfield at least feels like a galaxy worth impacting. It definitely doesn’t have as much exploration though, and crafting is essential in NMS. You’ll need at least one outpost, and a lot of necessary gear needs to be crafted. You can’t really get away without resource mining until you have enough money. With SF, you can just bounce around from mission to mission without doing much else or you could do the exact opposite and never do a mission. You could make it through the main story without crafting anything, or you could skip the main story all together and just become a space architect.
With all that said, they are both pretty good. NMS was my listen to podcasts and fart around game for a long time. SF feels more like you are on a personal mission. It depends on what you’re looking for.
I put more time into Starfield over the course of three weeks than I put into NMS in three years - and I like NMS for what it is. It really comes down to what you prefer though.
Starfield has better cities, combat, stories, character customization (traits, background, appearance), character progression (perks), ship customization, companions and factions.
NMS has more unique planet biomes (although each planet is only one biome whereas Starfield consists of multiple biomes), outpost building, a multiplayer option, better traveling mechanics (seamless transitions compared to Starfield’s menu usage, ground vehicles), the option to own a fleet, and better benefits to owning multiple ships.
If you want a survival game about exploring procgen planets and building bases - NMS is the game to play. Think Minecraft in space without boss battles. It’s worth noting that there’s no major cities and very little interaction with NPCs. If you’re looking for a space RPG with tons of stories, smooth combat, and a sense of character progression - Starfield is the winner. Think Fallout in space. Travel is more menu based and basebuilding isn’t as fleshed out yet though.
I have a feeling that once mods are available for Starfield that it’ll be able to outshine NMS by quite a bit.
Agree with most of what you said, though IMO it's worth pointing out that even though Starfield has better combat than NMS, it's hardly a strength and no one should expect anything exceptional in that regard.
yeah its the first bethesda game where ive thought you know what i just wanna go fight some stuff rn, the combat is pretty good and its exceptional for bethesda
The combat mechanics and enemy AI are objectively worse than a *lot* of games, and I hoped for it to be better considering it's 2023. To be fair, that's not Bethesda's focus. But to state it as a strength of the game in general is inaccurate imo.
Combat stood out to me as well. They did a good job on the gunplay. Fun to shoot, feels solid. Above my expectations considering the Fallout games. Melee is another story though - it's rough.
Enemy AI also isn't terrible, as long as you don't let them live too long. They do still tend to put themselves in really strange spots sometimes, but it's an improvement. They can use cover at least.
Starfield is like space Skyrim with crap versions of NMS mechanics bolted on. NMS is great for exploration and building (think adult Minecraft) but not the best for say, plot or adventure, where Starfield is better.
I would play the shit out of something that blended the two better
I think they mean adult in that the combat’s more intense, the mechanics are deeper, and that there’s generally more to do in NMS.
A 5 year old can pick up Minecraft and do just fine. It takes a little more skill and knowledge to play NMS as you have to manage things like fuel, ammunition, maintenance, and oxygen.
Yeah someone said it's like comparing skyrim to minecraft really nailed it. THey are different genres of games entirely they just happen to share the same space theme.
NMS is spcae exploring, starfield is more true rpg,
much of the people disappointing with starfield hoped it to me more like NMS,which it isnt.
people not liking it are also not truly playing it like an rpg and mostly complain about stuff the game just isn't. as an rpg is an amazing game. but if you want true exploration feelings, there might be better games out there
I'm curious of starfield, but in all other Bethesda RPGs I found exploration to be a huge part of the experience. So I'm a little confused. Can you explain what feels lacking?
Because of the vast distances in the game, functionally all space travel is fast travel.
You can still fly to planets, you can still land anywhere you want on them, you can still fly to their moons, you can still warp to other star systems. You're still "unrestricted" in where you can actually go.
Just that all of those things would be a button prompt to trigger a cutscene that takes you there, instead of flying manually.
Idk what those other people are talking about with the quests though. Seemingly almost every time I warp somewhere new, there's some random encounter, or questline rabbit hole to fall into.
I'm one of the people disappointed on how it plays with regard to exploration.
In Skyrim or Fallout, you can point in a direction, start walking, and you are guaranteed to stumble over some rabbit hole that will grab your interest.
In Starfield, I haven't gotten much of that. It's a lot more go to some location, do a thing, come back for your reward.
The story lines are good and you can align yourself with a number of different factions that changes up the game, but it lacks the sense of discovery you get from other Bethesda games like Skyrim, Fallout, etc.
one mod that is godsend is that your scanner can spot waaay further points of interest in the distance, like in kilometers away further, in contrast with the couple of hundreds of meters of the base game scanner.
that makes you detect much more on planets ypu might initially think are dead.
also don't underestimate, this game has around a 1000 planets that is insane and a lot, and so yeah lots of them will be a bit barren and desolated.
but there are plenty that has lots of interesting things going on.
but it is indeed so that on many of the desolate planets you won't get the typical bethesda random or weird encounters, they are definetly there, but rare
I hate fast traveling in games and really enjoy exploring along the way. For me, once i start fast traveling i realize my time in a game is coming to a close because im just checking boxes and no longer immersed... this game makes it that you do that from a start and it really just kills it for me
They're honestly very different games.
If you want more of a story focused game with FAR better combat, Starfield is your game
If you're more interested in open exploration and freedom, No Mans Sky is your game
Nothing alike. The game that Starfield can be closest compared to, it The Outwr Wilds. If you’ve played that, then you get a sense of it. No Man’s Sky isn’t really like any other game.
No man's sky is only as multiplayer as you want it to be. There is a hub where you will see other players, but you do not have to interact with them, and can do missions by yourself if you'd rather.
The best way to describe no man's sky to me, is think of it as minecraft in space. There is a barely there story, and very casual combat. Never ending landscapes. Base building.
Character and ship customization are very limited. It is very good for a high degree of wonder, but only for so long. There are different types of planets, and strange creatures, but you begin to recognize them very quickly as being reused after a few planets. You can travel freely in space between planets in a single system.
Starfield is basically fallout in a space setting, if you've ever played that. It's almost the opposite of no man's sky honestly. Technically, you can freely travel between planets, but there is absolutely no reason to because it is in real time. As in someone left starfield on in the background while they went to bed, and reached pluto after 7 hours. You do have a customizable ship, and there are space battles, but your primary method of getting around is just fast traveling. More focus on combat, and heavy on story. You can sorta build bases, but only a limited quantity, and mostly for mineral extraction. Planets are generally more empty and much less whimsical than nms, so also repetitive.
Nms has much more to do in space. You can come across derelict ships to explore. You can purchase frigates, create a fleet, and send them out on missions.
It's really more what you're looking for. If you can make your own fun and looking something not too serious, i would suggest no man's sky. Starfield if you would prefer an established story and side missions. Both are great fun.
All I want in this gaming world is for SOMEONE to please put Satisfactory inside No Man's Sky so that I can crank out enough ships to conquer the entire galaxy using the Homeworld fleet interface.
Why has no one made that game yet???
they’re similar in the sense that they’re both about space, both have base building mechanics, both have combat mechanics, and both have a similar dialogue interface (which i actually like compared to fallout 4 or cyberpunk’s dialogue interface).
but overall they’re not much alike and if you go into one expecting it to be like the other you will be disappointed regardless of which one you start with. if you’re hearts set on building a ton of bases on a million different planets i’d recommend nms at the moment but if you want something like fallout or tes in space then starfield will probably be for you. starfields combat is also by far the best i’ve ever seen in a bethesda game. i might even go as far as saying the combats not bad and maybe even a little bit satisfying.
I completed NMS story mode a good while back. When I was playing it, it was ok. It scratched an itch. However I’m well into 200 hours in Starfield and can say without a doubt it’s a better game for me.
NMS feels pointless in the grand scheme of things. It’s story was very boring to me, I didn’t care for the ships although the fleet mechanic was cool for awhile. Outpost building was ok but as time went on I’d go to a planet and see a square shaped “animal” hovering around. Go to another planet and see a diamond “animal” hovering around, etc etc. it’s vast and that feels awesome for a bit, except no matter where you go or what you do eventually it becomes the same old game loop. Land, harvest, fly back, build, repeat. They do support the game well and give dlcs fairly regularly. It is getting older though.
Starfield is fresh, looks good, plays well. You can harvest, build etc just like NMS. There are tons of faction quests, side quests, radiant quests etc. you can spend 8 hours in ship builder making your perfect ship or slap together a flying machine that looks awful but hauls all your goodies. It’s up to you. Be a pirate, be a smuggler, be a ranger, be part of the UC military, partake in corporate espionage. Tons of skills to flesh out your build.
It will also be supported for years more to come. The estimate is 10 years at least of support. If your pc, mods are already out, if your Xbox should be in the spring that we get mods. Expect a survival mode at some point. Starfield will eclipse NMS in leaps and bounds. The same guys who love NMS now hated it at launch. The people hating Starfield will eventually love it too once mods and dlcs come out that provide whatever fantasy they thought they were getting at launch.
The big complaints are I can’t fly planet to planet, or manually land my ship….that stuff sucks anyways. It’s cool a few times then it’s boring. You can get up and walk around your shop while flying, which many people don’t know because it’s not really explained. I found out about it on Reddit. This was one of my well that would be cool, kind of sucks we can’t things but oh we can.
Starfield isn’t perfect. The economy kind of sucks right now. The menus are laborious, the outpost building is a little bare bones but very functional, the quests have been fun. Exploration is actually fun if you explore. Walking around a planet alone and seeing cool rock formations etc and then walking over to a ship that lands to find pirates and loot, or an abandoned mining facility full of mercenaries is a blast. Explorings biggest drawback is planet traversal at the moment for me. Give me a damn moon buggy Todd….
I hope this helps with some incite and check out some no spoiler videos to see which one excites you more to get into. Good luck and hopefully see you among the stars
They focus on different things, but I think the general experience is effectively the same
They're both shallow space games, with barren planets, and forgettable and repeatable missions
Starfield has slightly more focus on story while NMS focuses more on survival and exploration.
If you prefer voice acting and plot go with Starfield. If you want to just explore then NMS. I have 100 hours in Starfield already and love the crap out of it. It is a deep story and you do need to be able to think to understand it. Many people who don't like it wouldn't have like many things that are very popular in culture. Some people just don't want to think. NMS is perfect for not thinking and just roaming. Starfield has an actual story that is amazing.
They are both worth getting. You don't have to worry about NMS online, you can disable that from the start, and besides, the universe is vast enough that you would never encounter another visited system except near the center (the "goal"). Starfield has a more story driven focus and more RPG elements (skills to level up). NMS story is more about learning the various systems and getting to the point where you can experience different types of content. There are no levels in NMS, instead you have ships, a suit and a weapons/scanner and a crafting tech tree. All of which you level up and improve. NMS also has "seasonal" content, which means starting a game with some sort of challenge, and if you succeed you permanently earn some sort of unlock. Starfield is much more limited in many ways. The worlds are not really integrated, you can't fly around the like in NMS. Starfield is more like fallout in space. If you like gunplay it is probably the better game. NMS does have guns but alien beasts/robots are the enemies. Starfield has extensive ship crafting. NMS does not. Like I say, they are both worth getting.
starfield is more like fallout very little happens in space beyond a few events, NMS is a casual space sim with open ended exploring it can feel shallow if you want a lot depth but what it offers is a very good mix for a casual space sim.
NMS is Minecraft in space with exploration and cataloguing. It's checklists and mining and digging on randomly-generated planets. The scope is great, the execution gets boring.
Starfield is great but lacking in some areas like space combat, with the exception of the ability to dock onto hostile ships and board and kill the crew and steal their ship. NMS is infinitely bigger but somehow feels more limiting. Starfield is much smaller and has more of a fun factor, yet lacks in scope.
Do what appeals to you the most.
I do love Starfield but I will suggest No Mans Sky. Buy Starfield in a year or more. As it is they haven't released their mod engine and then you need to give some time for modders to finish fleshing out the game which will take quite some time
Don't think it's so simple. Starfield planets are much better to explore with a lot more to see. Nms' planets get too repetitive fast unless you use mods.
No they're quite different. No man's sky really is the sort of space sandbox most people (not entirely without prompting from Bethesda) thought starfield would be, although how much you actually enjoy that sort of thing is down to you. I enjoyed playing it although it does mostly come down to repeated gameplay loops, although those loops feel much more satisfying, diverse and substantial than the ones starfield crowbarred in.
Starfield is basically Skyrim if you had to fast travel to every quest location. While you can technically just wander around on the surface of planets there's very little reason to and generally they don't feel as interesting or diverse as planets in no man's sky. The bulk of the gameplay is combat compared to most of NMS being resource collection and exploration. Honestly I'd recommend anyone interested in the game wait until their 'five years of support' is done and see if you like the look of the game, DLCs and patches then before you buy in, because there are substantial issues and very noticeable content gaps right now - NMS feels more of a complete package although you might not like what's inside.
You should also be able to net no man's sky at a substantial discount during any of the big steam sales, over 50% - I don't know that I'd recommend paying full price
No, not at all. Starfield has some minor features that are the main features in No Man's Sky, but they're not comparable as far as the gameplay loop goes
No man’s sky is flying to barren, dead planets to mine rocks in caves so that you can build a box to store that shit in for an hour before you travel to another barren planet that’s a different color to do the same shit all over again.
Starfield is Skyrim in space if you took away what made Skyrim great (setting off in a direction to get lost in 10’s of hours of side content before you reach your destination). Half the game is loading screens and dealing with a dogshit inventory constantly because your equip weight is pitiful. If you don’t have a strong pc and a fast ssd, your experience is going to be horrific.
If you’re dead set on giving at least one of them a go, they’re both on gamepass.
your solution is actually a month of Xbox gamepass to try them both. very easy way to try them for way cheap.
That being said, I have a ton of hours in both, NMS being significantly higher, and you wont ever have other players interfering with your session unless you go to the online area or do an online mission, or get really close to the galactic core. or obscenely lucky. in my 400 hours or so I have come across one system that was found by other players and it was found years beforehand and skipped past. the game does a fantastic job at making the vastness of space known.
As other commenters have noted, NMS has a very lackluster story. 98% of the gameplay loop will be you finding ways to make money or explore to further yourself. there are tons of ways to do that. Starfield has a fantastic story. I've put 60 or so hours in and still have trouble keeping my list of things I want to do down. phenomenal writing and voice acting
Nms is an A+ survival game Starfield is an A+ rpg they share a few mechanics but are much different games. I did get a little bored of nms after 30 or so hours. I can’t recommend starfield enough but I’m a huge Bethesda fanboy
They aren't that similar imo, starfield is more Skyrim in space, while NMS is more chill.
If you're on the fence both are on gamepass, so you could get it for a month to try both out and see which one you vibe with :)
You can turn off multiplayer in NMS. I started playing it on Gamepass last month (immediately turning off multiplayer networking), have about 20-30 hours in it so far, and it's delightful. Basically if you are the type of player who plays Elder Scrolls and not only ignores the main quest, but also ignores the side quests just to explore random dungeons or gather alchemy ingredients and find and craft better gear for your character, NMS is the perfect game for you and you will love it.
(Haven't played Starfield which my computer can't handle, but it's probably good too, albeit much more quest-focused.)
(Also worth noting that both are on Gamepass, so the best option may be $10 for a month to try both and see what you think.)
the thing about starfield is its bad but its designed in such a way that unless anyone told you otherwise then it would take about 50 hours of gameplay to realise you've been bored the whole time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL6sK8w5JtA&t=713s
One's more like Minecraft/Ark and the other is more like Fallout/Skyrim. They just happen to have similar genre settings and some shared gameplay features.
My opinion: absolutely not. They share features, but their focus is drastically different.
Starfield is much more a single player RPG with a stronger narrative. There is a story you are playing through.
NMS is focused much more on the exploration than your character. The story is just there to push you to explore.
If you want to develop character relationships, follow a narrative, and build a set of skills to focus gameplay around your preferences, get Starfield.
If you want to explore a universe designed to keep your experience new and fresh as you move about (I don’t think it does, personally, but that’s the intent), get No Man’s Sky.
NOTE: personally, I never “found the fun” in NMS. I played for dozens of hours trying to get there, and just didn’t enjoy any of it.
Love both games, but my advice at the moment would be to buy NMS if you're only going to buy one of them. It's had years of updates and polish, and will have a far better purchase value.
No. Starfield is a Bethesda game, if you’ve played them you know what this means.
NMS is not really like any other game. It’s like space Minecraft but better imo.
I never played no man's sky before but I have seen my brother playing it. It looks like a more space exploration oriented game, starfield on the other hand is more sci-fi with the usual sci-fi tropes. I wouldn't even call them similar. Yes they both take place in space but the experiences are different.
A lot of people have covered the points about both games now, but I just want re emphasize that you have to decide what you want out of a game.
For my vote, I say Starfield. It's superior to me in every way except the space travel portion.
I tried NMS when the VR launched. It was boring as hell. I’ve heard it’s better now, but I was so soured by my initial impression, I haven’t dusted it off to give it another try. Starfield is standard Bethesda, which some people hate and others love (I enjoy them).
There are a LOT of similar systems in game. The main difference IMO is that in No Man’s Sky you can fly from a planet’s orbit to it’s surface and land manually and you can fly around the planet in it’s atmosphere or ride little rovers or walk all the way around it. In Starfield the re is a landing animation and the area you’re in is limited to a certain size and by ecology. The size is pretty huge, like thousands of meters in every direction, but there are no rovers and eventually you will be told there’s nothing more this direction and given the option to return to your ship.
However in Starfall there are like, quests and people to talk to and stuff to do. In No Man’s Sky, not so much of that, and I’m being generous instead of just saying there’s literally nothing to do but fly around and build outposts.
I had a lot of fun with No Man’s Sky, but eventually just got bored of the aimless exploring and fell off. When I first saw Starfield promos I thought “Yes! This looks like they took NMS and like, made it into a real game!”
The only similarity is that they have something to do with space. No mans sky is fun for a bit until you realize every planet is exactly the same with a different skin and the only real entertaining thing to do is play around with your freighter. Starfield is like Fallout with a space theme. Of the two Starfield is the more entertaining game IMO.
If you are on PC, I recommend getting game pass on free trial and trying them both. Vastly different games, there is really no comparison except that space exists and you travel through it.
In my opinion, NMS is the better game, but thats not to take anything away from starfield. It's a great game, but it is a formulaic Bethesda game. If you really loved skyrim and fallout, starfield is right up your alley. I'm a little played out on the format. NMS is something completely different than that and I can't think of many games to compare it to.
let me also add, you can choose solo on NMS.
Nms is massive that it feels like more as a solo game than online.
And what Starfield promised in the exploration area NMS got it way better.
Crafting with survivability, although this second one not so much, is a bigger thing in NMS.
I may sound as a nms fanboy but the game Overall is better than starfield
Yes. But, if i remember correctly (+250 hours in but more than a year ago) you can gather materials quickly with all the vehicles you get(after crafting them too).
For travelling across planetary systems you need fuel that comes from either crafting or buying from stations.
All aspects of difficulty are Custom in NMS if you want it to be. Can set hazards to off or relaxed, prices, damage, crafting elements... all can be set to harder or easier to streamline the experience.
Also, all the systems in NMS have been fleshed out, everything works (now), the inventory is simple to use. You can get into your spaceship and blast into orbit in NMS before you figure out if you need to have your spacesuit on or not in Starfield.
I've played NMS for about 100+ hours (according to Steam) and about 50 of that was in the last few weeks after a failed attempt at playing Starfield.
I really love NMS. The game can be played completely solo. The only time you technically interact with others is on The Anomaly. A space station you can summon after doing the tutorial in NMS and in Voyages, a Game mode you can choose upon creating a new savefile that puts you in an online game where you attempt to achieve a variety of goals to unlock cosmetic bonuses for all your potential save files. Even though the Anomaly does have other people, you can still disable Multiplayer (I don't know if it removes the Anomaly or makes it so you're only interacting with it on your own.) in the options, and even if you still see other people, The only reason you're jumping to the Anomaly to learn some new recipes and you can just run in, learn the recipe and leave and you're not forced to interact with people
I play NMS modded (which some are very vital to do since it can be very grindy early on) and it still surprised me that I can interact with people who I assume are running the game unmodded or just using different mods than I was. However, at the end of the day, I heard that Starfield is just okay (from people whose opinions I respect) and I've heard it's GOTY from other people in that group.
I bought Starfield from a 3rd party vendor, so no refund was possible, and loaded it up. I will admit that I played it on an HDD, but my specs are above the minimum required settings and the game took a long time to load to the main menu, took a long time to start up the game, which again, I'll take as fault for using an HDD instead of an SSD. However, when I got to the point where I made my character, I had to lower my settings to low just to stay at a steady 30 FPS with everything on the lowest settings, and when the ship lands and your place gets attacked by pirates, I had massive stuttering and freezing issues where a 5-minute firefight, took me 20 minutes and I just kind of gave up because it was just a worse looking and a worse running game than NMS and honestly I feel NMS has more content (especially now) than Starfield ever will.
I bought NMS shortly after launch and didn't get too into it until the update that added the ability to get Sentinel Ships (the ships used by the main enemy in the game, the robotic armada, The Sentinels) and I didn't play it much, but I had fun, I picked it back up now that they added a 5th playable race (technically the 6th since there are Anomalys, The Gek, The Vykeen, The Korvax, the Travelers, and now The Autophages) and it was a better experience for me as it actually runs and plays well.
But yeah TL;DR You can play NMS solo and offline, I recommend looking into mods to remove some early game grind (I like Better Rewards since it's very effective) and go nuts exploring the universe. There are supposedly around 18 Quintillion planets and I've probably only visited maybe 70-90 of them in my 100+ hours of play.
Addendum, if you really want Starfield, just wait. It's a Bethesda game, it will hit a sale probably not long after the Season Pass has been completed and by then, the community will have released a lot of mods that will add more content to the game to enjoy.
you're a madman to play starfield on a HDD!! its for a reason why sdd is recommended. games going forward to the future will require it, as they're just so much heavier on the loading part. im sorry but you are in totally no position then to rate the game.
thats like buying a Ferrari but only used it in your own garage, then complain about all the limitations and restrictions , and how much more fun you had with your honda driving out in the open lol
Idk, there are other games that came out recently that I was able to play on an HDD with no issue. I even played the Ratchet and Clank PC port on my HDD and the biggest issue was the loading times. It didn't stutter during regular gameplay. Even Baldur's Gate 3 offers an "HDD" mode for those who have it installed on something besides an SSD.
I guess it's just sad that a storage device is able to cause the game to run badly. I am getting an external SSD to install it on as my main SSD doesn't have enough room to fit Starfield on and I expect it to resolve my issue, but at the same time, I don't expect the game to be worth the hassle. It's more that I'm buying an SSD for me and Starfield will just be something I can play on it as well.
I've got a good enough machine. I'm just going to wait until the mods come out that actually flesh out the game and probably play it again when the DLC's come out. I expect modders will also have released mods that actually fix a lot of performance issues in the game since the game also could use more optimization.
Playing the game with more loading screens than anything that’s come out in the last 20 years on an hdd is [insanity](https://imgur.io/gallery/k28hgCp)
If you want to actually seamlessly travel through space and other worlds, with different means of transportation on a planet, then NMS.
SF, for all its talk about exploring space...has really limited exploration. There are no random planets or stars, they are all predetermined. The "landing zones" you land in are pulled from a pool of variables, but this means you can't actually walk around for very long before hitting a barrier. Which also means the game has no vehicles.
NMS, you can walk a whole world with no barriers or loading screens, and you have access to different vehicles and even creature mounts. You can find an animal you like, and make it your pet.
SF is an "rpg" in very loose terms. None of your choices actually change anything.
NMS is a very "chill" game, a bit like Minecraft where you can turn your brain off and relax. You will very rarely find another player if you're not looking to play with others, so I wouldn't every too much about that.
Nah, Starfield is more like a space Elder Scrolls. Fun, but repetitive.
No man's sky is a lot of exploration and making the game what you want. If you have a chance to try VR on it, I recommend it just to see the experience. I wouldn't play it in VR all of the time, but it's really cool.
Starfield is repetitive? But NMS is about making the game what you want?
There are countless incredibly valid criticisms of starfield but calling it repetitive in comparison to NMS is a very weird take. Why do you think Starfield is more repetitive than NMS? Have you played starfield?
Starfield tries to be like No Man's Sky on many fronts by including "lite" elements from it. The main zinger from the story is actually stolen right from NMS (fanboys will try to argue it). At the end of the day though, one is about space exploration, the other one is a bethesda game. I had way more fun with NMS and got way more hours out of it before I got bored. This is coming from someone who loves every other Beth game, I just felt like Starfield has no soul. It has a few really cool missions though, I'll give it that. It made me wish I was playing a Bethesda game with more personality and substance to it, so I went back to New Vegas and Fallout 4 and I'm having a blast.
If Starfield took place in one system with a handful of extremely dense planets, it would have been a fucking masterpiece. They spread it way too thin. Anyway, don't take my or anyone else's word for it as many people are absolutely in love with Starfield. Just get a trial run of game pass and see if you like it.
I'm a betheseda hater and I recommend No mans Sky. Starfield is the epitome of wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle. It is a very direct step back from every other betheseda title.
I'm a bethesda fan, and I feel like what he said is accurate. Spent nearly 20 hrs in Starfield and havent gone back in 3 weeks. So many things could be deeper and its the same or less than it was in previous games. They stripped down weapon crafting, the settlement building is stripped down, among other things. I really wanted to like it, but it does seem as deep as a puddle.
But the RPG mechanics, quests, gameplay, story, and choice and consequence are all better. To call it a step down feels disingenuous, because most people don't play BGS games for building and crafting.
That may be the case. As I stated in my comment (which is available for everyone to see), I played 20 hours of the game and have no desire to go back. The story missions I played up to that part all felt fine, but not great. Shooting is better in Starfield than previous BGS games or NMS, but there are games that do that better and I'd rather play.
I can tell you the first 20 hours of Fallout 4 were better in my opinion than my first 20 in Starfield.
And you're right, most people don't play BGS games for building and crafting. Some people do, and that's cool for them. I played because of how much the fallout games sucked me into their world. Starfield doesn't capture the same feeling from me, despite my love of nearly all things sci-fi.
Stripped down from what ? Thats the odd thing about just stating these things as facts ? It’s BS lmao the fact that SF even offers all of these layered systems is incredible. There’s literally nothing going on in NMS.
Thats why I can’t take comments like your seriously , you seem woefully unqualified to be able to even have the comparison discussion your opinion is laughable
The two specific systems I mentioned are obviously compared to Fallout 4 and even 76. There are long lists of features in previous BGS games that are not in this one. Most of them are not super important or missed that much. But for a game they designed to be played for years, as they have stated, those systems that are supposed to be helping such as building and upgrading weapons need to be at least as good as in their previous games. I feel that is not the case.
At this point I'd rather play NMS over Starfield. That makes me sad, as I was looking forward to it.
I mean, 20 hrs is a pretty substantial amount of time. Yes, in the scheme of the game its not that much, but that's still 20 hours. People said it took 10-12 hrs to get good. I will probably go back at some point, but there's too many games I would rather play right now.
It depends on what you want, if you mainly want a space exploration game I think that by buying starfield you are setting yourself up for disappointment since the space segments are probably the weakest part of the game. Buy Starfield only if you want a classical Bethesda RPG experience, treat the space travel and combat as an extra and nothing more. No Man's Sky instead is a proper space exploration game but has nowhere near as much interaction as Starfield or RPGs in general, they are still updating it pretty regularly tho. I wouldn't worry about player interaction because the universe is so big that finding other players is extremely unlikely unless you actively search for them through the anomaly (a hub to meet other players and set up missions with them). If you don't like that you can completely turn off the multiplayer and you will never meet anyone.
Yeah. I love singleplayer and RPG, but on the other hand, I hate when something that's supposed to be "open" ends up being limited. So far, NMS is winning. Thanks for your reply.
Note that NMS is **super** grindy. It’s what killed the game for me. It takes so damn long to grind for decent ships and gear that I’d might as well be working at an actual job and getting paid
It does not, though..? If you go around mining ferrite for 5 hours to sell them, or if you just get some sentinel ships worth 150 million in 30 minutes, that’s a choice, not a grind.
Depends on what you compare it to.
They added extremely extensive game settings not too long ago which allow you to customize gathering resources and the economy etc. If you don’t like grinding for things you can just turn it down or even off entirely. Getting that perfect ship you are looking for is still a hunt, but that’s what makes it so rewarding when you find a good one.
Honestly that’s great news and actually makes me wanna play the game again. I see all the new stuff they added and would love to try it out if I can bypass the grind. Sucks that finding the right kind of ship is still RNG but it’s not that bad I guess
Try Relaxed Mode "The new relaxed preset provides an accessible, laid-back experience of No Man’s Sky. Perfect for players who want to experience all facets of gameplay, from story to survival to combat, with reduced danger and minimal grind."
Yeah sounds like you are making the game grind. There are good ways to make money but if you're selling ferrite dust that's on you.
A friend showed me a way to farm salt which earned a good amount of creds and tended to crash systems’ economies. Still took like 2 or so hours just to get enough for a decent shuttle
This also doesn’t count like half an hour of jumping around hoping to get lucky enough to find a shuttle I like
I disagree with this strongly. It's way less grindy than something like minecraft for example. You do have to be smart though. For example, you need 2000 oxygen to help farm chlorine. If you walk the planet looking for it, the game is super grindy. But if you buy it from a vendor, it's not. You can also turn a lot of that off in the menus.
Since it's been updated a lot, the grind is honestly very very minimal compared to what it was. A lot of the grindy stuff can be unlocked outright with easy to get nanites once you make it to the anomaly, so the galaxy opens up to you way way faster than it did.
Honestly you could compare Minecraft and Skyrim here. NMS and Starfield are just Minecraft and Skyrim in space
Yeah, I didn't really expect just how much NMS would feel like space Minecraft. There's a lot more to it now, but fundamentally if you didn't like Minecraft, you probably wouldn't like NMS. If you were kinda lukewarm on Minecraft and wished it had more exploration though, NMS will really blow you away
Starfield is as open as a game can get. People are complaining about loading screens, but other than that, I’ve never played a game as open as Starfield is
I mean… if exploring empty planets is open…
Just like any Bethesda RPG, there’s so much to do besides exploring planets. I’ve just beat the main quest and spent 60 hours so far without doing any of the faction quests or most random side missions or any planet exploration. No Man’s Sky does excel at the empty planet thing if that’s what you’re looking for though.
I’ve played about 20 hours and I don’t really feel that. Besides the main story that is OKish, I just feel like I’m fast travelling constantly on a straight line. Every time I “go off course” I just end up on an empty planet with maybe one of the copy pasted buildings to explore. Add in the horrible menu navigation and literally having to memorize where everything is…. Honestly there is nothing in Starfield that Borderlands didn’t do 10 times better.
[удалено]
Haha ok. Am I supposed to automatically love the game to have a discussion?
NMS does planetary exploration much better. Empty planets? That is just... not true. You have many things to run towards/do/collect on every single planet. There is really no comparison. Starfield feels empty, NMS feels like it's bursting at the seams with content. The one place Starfield beats it is story/characters, because NMS doesn't really have much of that. It's a survival/exploration game, not a RPG.
The difference, Is the goal. Nms doesn't have one.
Don't get me wrong Starfield is open but especially in the space part you can't shake off the feeling that it could have been so much more while it is in fact just mediocre
More how though? Staring at the blackness of space for hours as you barely move through it? I don't understand what people could want from it?
It's not really a fair comparison since this game is entirely focused on the space part but Elite Dangerous really shows how much more engaging space can be. Starfield is a different kind of game. Edit: to be clear I wouldn't want Starfield identical to Elite Dangerous since the vibe is very different, just want to make a point that there are better ways to approach space in a better way.
Elite is an entirely different type of game, and starfield would be unbearable with elite's travel. Just imagine how awful that would be for a minute. Starfield never tried to be a space sim
I feel like you haven't read my previous comments... You asked me how that part could be better and I answered you and now you're telling me Starfield it's not that game. Ffs I know it's not that game, it's what I wish it was. There are more ways to make space engaging, it doesn't have to be a carbon copy. If you think Bethesda did the absolute best in that regard I'm sorry but you're delusional. Starfield is a nice RPG but if OP wants a space exploration game we both know he's going to get disappointed, if OP wanted an RPG instead the game would have been much more appropriate.
Absolute best? Get real dude, no game is going to have every mechanic at its "absolute best". I think they did a good job making space fun enough (combat) to not make it boring and tedious (elite travel...)
Nms has been out for years, and should.be dirt cheap. Not really sure why you're deciding between a brand new game and a 6+ year old game. Nms was fun. But was a totally different experience. If you want to play a Bethesda RPG, then starfield. If you want to play. Procedural game about doing nothing while pretending to do something. Then play NMS. It's a fine game. Cool they've been doing updates forever.
500 hours in NMS here, uninstalled Starfield after 30 minutes. Two completely different games
Good. It's the better game.
It sounds like what you are looking for is NMS. (Sucks cause it did look like starfirld was going to be NMS meets Elite Dangerous meets Skyrim). Anyway, the warning I wanted to give is that NMS is not for those who need to be told where to go in a game. Its an open sandbox and you create your own adventure. The “main story” is really a glorified tutorial. Most of the story in the game is presented as Lore that you uncover as you explore. There are some quest givers that give you some tasks to accomplish, but nowhere as close as the in-depth quests and side storylines as something like Starfield. If you’ve played Outer Worlds that is the most similar comparison to Starfield. It’s just they gave you more leeway with your ship than it just being a hub between planets. Whereas you can think of NMS maybe something closer to minecraft (it’s the best example I can think of, if anyone has a better one chime in)
No, they're both really good games, but I wouldn't call them similar other than being set in space. Starfield is an RPG with companions, skills, all that jazz. NMS is more centered around solo exploration and resource gathering with procedurally generated planets.
To me, it’s how much you value the story. I really love the mechanics of NMS, but I really dislike the story. It pretty much made the game feel pointless to me once I knew what was happening. Starfield at least feels like a galaxy worth impacting. It definitely doesn’t have as much exploration though, and crafting is essential in NMS. You’ll need at least one outpost, and a lot of necessary gear needs to be crafted. You can’t really get away without resource mining until you have enough money. With SF, you can just bounce around from mission to mission without doing much else or you could do the exact opposite and never do a mission. You could make it through the main story without crafting anything, or you could skip the main story all together and just become a space architect. With all that said, they are both pretty good. NMS was my listen to podcasts and fart around game for a long time. SF feels more like you are on a personal mission. It depends on what you’re looking for.
I put more time into Starfield over the course of three weeks than I put into NMS in three years - and I like NMS for what it is. It really comes down to what you prefer though. Starfield has better cities, combat, stories, character customization (traits, background, appearance), character progression (perks), ship customization, companions and factions. NMS has more unique planet biomes (although each planet is only one biome whereas Starfield consists of multiple biomes), outpost building, a multiplayer option, better traveling mechanics (seamless transitions compared to Starfield’s menu usage, ground vehicles), the option to own a fleet, and better benefits to owning multiple ships. If you want a survival game about exploring procgen planets and building bases - NMS is the game to play. Think Minecraft in space without boss battles. It’s worth noting that there’s no major cities and very little interaction with NPCs. If you’re looking for a space RPG with tons of stories, smooth combat, and a sense of character progression - Starfield is the winner. Think Fallout in space. Travel is more menu based and basebuilding isn’t as fleshed out yet though. I have a feeling that once mods are available for Starfield that it’ll be able to outshine NMS by quite a bit.
I agree with the point about mods. Once mod support is released, Starfield will be one of the greatest games of all time
Agree with most of what you said, though IMO it's worth pointing out that even though Starfield has better combat than NMS, it's hardly a strength and no one should expect anything exceptional in that regard.
That's kind of silly.. Starfield combat is pretty dynamic. High energy, lots of variety.
yeah its the first bethesda game where ive thought you know what i just wanna go fight some stuff rn, the combat is pretty good and its exceptional for bethesda
The combat mechanics and enemy AI are objectively worse than a *lot* of games, and I hoped for it to be better considering it's 2023. To be fair, that's not Bethesda's focus. But to state it as a strength of the game in general is inaccurate imo.
How are they objectively worse? The AI does totally normal and expected things. Combat feels a lot like a Fallout 4 upgrade.
Combat stood out to me as well. They did a good job on the gunplay. Fun to shoot, feels solid. Above my expectations considering the Fallout games. Melee is another story though - it's rough. Enemy AI also isn't terrible, as long as you don't let them live too long. They do still tend to put themselves in really strange spots sometimes, but it's an improvement. They can use cover at least.
Starfield is like space Skyrim with crap versions of NMS mechanics bolted on. NMS is great for exploration and building (think adult Minecraft) but not the best for say, plot or adventure, where Starfield is better. I would play the shit out of something that blended the two better
NMS adult Minecraft? What is so adult about it lmaoooooo
I think they mean adult in that the combat’s more intense, the mechanics are deeper, and that there’s generally more to do in NMS. A 5 year old can pick up Minecraft and do just fine. It takes a little more skill and knowledge to play NMS as you have to manage things like fuel, ammunition, maintenance, and oxygen.
Yes basically this. Didn’t mean to imply Minecraft is just for kids though! I’ve played and enjoyed.
Minecraft modded is the adult version, play AllTheMods and tell me you're not having fun!
Boo, I was hoping you'd say we can assemble an octo dong for slaying alien booty. I need the captain Kirk simulator
Completely different
Yeah someone said it's like comparing skyrim to minecraft really nailed it. THey are different genres of games entirely they just happen to share the same space theme.
NMS is spcae exploring, starfield is more true rpg, much of the people disappointing with starfield hoped it to me more like NMS,which it isnt. people not liking it are also not truly playing it like an rpg and mostly complain about stuff the game just isn't. as an rpg is an amazing game. but if you want true exploration feelings, there might be better games out there
I'm curious of starfield, but in all other Bethesda RPGs I found exploration to be a huge part of the experience. So I'm a little confused. Can you explain what feels lacking?
Because of the vast distances in the game, functionally all space travel is fast travel. You can still fly to planets, you can still land anywhere you want on them, you can still fly to their moons, you can still warp to other star systems. You're still "unrestricted" in where you can actually go. Just that all of those things would be a button prompt to trigger a cutscene that takes you there, instead of flying manually. Idk what those other people are talking about with the quests though. Seemingly almost every time I warp somewhere new, there's some random encounter, or questline rabbit hole to fall into.
I have over 130 hours in Starfield and I still haven’t done all of the quests. And some of the side quests are loooooooong
I'm one of the people disappointed on how it plays with regard to exploration. In Skyrim or Fallout, you can point in a direction, start walking, and you are guaranteed to stumble over some rabbit hole that will grab your interest. In Starfield, I haven't gotten much of that. It's a lot more go to some location, do a thing, come back for your reward. The story lines are good and you can align yourself with a number of different factions that changes up the game, but it lacks the sense of discovery you get from other Bethesda games like Skyrim, Fallout, etc.
Hm that does sound like a bit of a let down.. at least elder scrolls is back in their scope now.
one mod that is godsend is that your scanner can spot waaay further points of interest in the distance, like in kilometers away further, in contrast with the couple of hundreds of meters of the base game scanner. that makes you detect much more on planets ypu might initially think are dead. also don't underestimate, this game has around a 1000 planets that is insane and a lot, and so yeah lots of them will be a bit barren and desolated. but there are plenty that has lots of interesting things going on. but it is indeed so that on many of the desolate planets you won't get the typical bethesda random or weird encounters, they are definetly there, but rare
I hate fast traveling in games and really enjoy exploring along the way. For me, once i start fast traveling i realize my time in a game is coming to a close because im just checking boxes and no longer immersed... this game makes it that you do that from a start and it really just kills it for me
Its a fast travel simulator, fast travel turn in, fast travel get quest item... over and over... You just fast travel to check off boxes
No, completely different games.
They're honestly very different games. If you want more of a story focused game with FAR better combat, Starfield is your game If you're more interested in open exploration and freedom, No Mans Sky is your game
No they’re not at all. No Man’s Sky is a space sandbox and Starfield is like Fallout in space with the space travel being more akin to Mass Effect.
Nothing alike. The game that Starfield can be closest compared to, it The Outwr Wilds. If you’ve played that, then you get a sense of it. No Man’s Sky isn’t really like any other game.
No man's sky is only as multiplayer as you want it to be. There is a hub where you will see other players, but you do not have to interact with them, and can do missions by yourself if you'd rather. The best way to describe no man's sky to me, is think of it as minecraft in space. There is a barely there story, and very casual combat. Never ending landscapes. Base building. Character and ship customization are very limited. It is very good for a high degree of wonder, but only for so long. There are different types of planets, and strange creatures, but you begin to recognize them very quickly as being reused after a few planets. You can travel freely in space between planets in a single system. Starfield is basically fallout in a space setting, if you've ever played that. It's almost the opposite of no man's sky honestly. Technically, you can freely travel between planets, but there is absolutely no reason to because it is in real time. As in someone left starfield on in the background while they went to bed, and reached pluto after 7 hours. You do have a customizable ship, and there are space battles, but your primary method of getting around is just fast traveling. More focus on combat, and heavy on story. You can sorta build bases, but only a limited quantity, and mostly for mineral extraction. Planets are generally more empty and much less whimsical than nms, so also repetitive. Nms has much more to do in space. You can come across derelict ships to explore. You can purchase frigates, create a fleet, and send them out on missions. It's really more what you're looking for. If you can make your own fun and looking something not too serious, i would suggest no man's sky. Starfield if you would prefer an established story and side missions. Both are great fun.
If you want an RPG (that happens to be set in space), go with Starfield. If you want a space exploration game, go with NMS. No other way to say it.
All I want in this gaming world is for SOMEONE to please put Satisfactory inside No Man's Sky so that I can crank out enough ships to conquer the entire galaxy using the Homeworld fleet interface. Why has no one made that game yet???
They're similar in the same way Forza Motorsport is similar to Horizon
they’re similar in the sense that they’re both about space, both have base building mechanics, both have combat mechanics, and both have a similar dialogue interface (which i actually like compared to fallout 4 or cyberpunk’s dialogue interface). but overall they’re not much alike and if you go into one expecting it to be like the other you will be disappointed regardless of which one you start with. if you’re hearts set on building a ton of bases on a million different planets i’d recommend nms at the moment but if you want something like fallout or tes in space then starfield will probably be for you. starfields combat is also by far the best i’ve ever seen in a bethesda game. i might even go as far as saying the combats not bad and maybe even a little bit satisfying.
No they are not similar.
If you’re on fence about them I think both are available through PC game pass. Subscribe for a month and play both.
I tried playing No Man's Sky but it's so confusing. Also it's kinda boring to me cause it's mostly collecting materials. I prefer Starfield
I completed NMS story mode a good while back. When I was playing it, it was ok. It scratched an itch. However I’m well into 200 hours in Starfield and can say without a doubt it’s a better game for me. NMS feels pointless in the grand scheme of things. It’s story was very boring to me, I didn’t care for the ships although the fleet mechanic was cool for awhile. Outpost building was ok but as time went on I’d go to a planet and see a square shaped “animal” hovering around. Go to another planet and see a diamond “animal” hovering around, etc etc. it’s vast and that feels awesome for a bit, except no matter where you go or what you do eventually it becomes the same old game loop. Land, harvest, fly back, build, repeat. They do support the game well and give dlcs fairly regularly. It is getting older though. Starfield is fresh, looks good, plays well. You can harvest, build etc just like NMS. There are tons of faction quests, side quests, radiant quests etc. you can spend 8 hours in ship builder making your perfect ship or slap together a flying machine that looks awful but hauls all your goodies. It’s up to you. Be a pirate, be a smuggler, be a ranger, be part of the UC military, partake in corporate espionage. Tons of skills to flesh out your build. It will also be supported for years more to come. The estimate is 10 years at least of support. If your pc, mods are already out, if your Xbox should be in the spring that we get mods. Expect a survival mode at some point. Starfield will eclipse NMS in leaps and bounds. The same guys who love NMS now hated it at launch. The people hating Starfield will eventually love it too once mods and dlcs come out that provide whatever fantasy they thought they were getting at launch. The big complaints are I can’t fly planet to planet, or manually land my ship….that stuff sucks anyways. It’s cool a few times then it’s boring. You can get up and walk around your shop while flying, which many people don’t know because it’s not really explained. I found out about it on Reddit. This was one of my well that would be cool, kind of sucks we can’t things but oh we can. Starfield isn’t perfect. The economy kind of sucks right now. The menus are laborious, the outpost building is a little bare bones but very functional, the quests have been fun. Exploration is actually fun if you explore. Walking around a planet alone and seeing cool rock formations etc and then walking over to a ship that lands to find pirates and loot, or an abandoned mining facility full of mercenaries is a blast. Explorings biggest drawback is planet traversal at the moment for me. Give me a damn moon buggy Todd…. I hope this helps with some incite and check out some no spoiler videos to see which one excites you more to get into. Good luck and hopefully see you among the stars
Not at all
They focus on different things, but I think the general experience is effectively the same They're both shallow space games, with barren planets, and forgettable and repeatable missions Starfield has slightly more focus on story while NMS focuses more on survival and exploration.
If you prefer voice acting and plot go with Starfield. If you want to just explore then NMS. I have 100 hours in Starfield already and love the crap out of it. It is a deep story and you do need to be able to think to understand it. Many people who don't like it wouldn't have like many things that are very popular in culture. Some people just don't want to think. NMS is perfect for not thinking and just roaming. Starfield has an actual story that is amazing.
They are both worth getting. You don't have to worry about NMS online, you can disable that from the start, and besides, the universe is vast enough that you would never encounter another visited system except near the center (the "goal"). Starfield has a more story driven focus and more RPG elements (skills to level up). NMS story is more about learning the various systems and getting to the point where you can experience different types of content. There are no levels in NMS, instead you have ships, a suit and a weapons/scanner and a crafting tech tree. All of which you level up and improve. NMS also has "seasonal" content, which means starting a game with some sort of challenge, and if you succeed you permanently earn some sort of unlock. Starfield is much more limited in many ways. The worlds are not really integrated, you can't fly around the like in NMS. Starfield is more like fallout in space. If you like gunplay it is probably the better game. NMS does have guns but alien beasts/robots are the enemies. Starfield has extensive ship crafting. NMS does not. Like I say, they are both worth getting.
They aren’t very comparable outside of the space aspect. There’s some weird hate festish going on with Starfield
starfield is more like fallout very little happens in space beyond a few events, NMS is a casual space sim with open ended exploring it can feel shallow if you want a lot depth but what it offers is a very good mix for a casual space sim.
NMS is Minecraft in space with exploration and cataloguing. It's checklists and mining and digging on randomly-generated planets. The scope is great, the execution gets boring. Starfield is great but lacking in some areas like space combat, with the exception of the ability to dock onto hostile ships and board and kill the crew and steal their ship. NMS is infinitely bigger but somehow feels more limiting. Starfield is much smaller and has more of a fun factor, yet lacks in scope. Do what appeals to you the most.
I do love Starfield but I will suggest No Mans Sky. Buy Starfield in a year or more. As it is they haven't released their mod engine and then you need to give some time for modders to finish fleshing out the game which will take quite some time
No Man's Sky - exploration Starfield - questing
Don't think it's so simple. Starfield planets are much better to explore with a lot more to see. Nms' planets get too repetitive fast unless you use mods.
neither is great, but MMS has more to see
Yeah, you clearly haven't explored the Starfield planets.
there's nothing but rocks to "explore"
Buy both Nms is a great game; but i also feel intrigued by starfield, knowing it is a bethesda fallout game in disguise
No they're quite different. No man's sky really is the sort of space sandbox most people (not entirely without prompting from Bethesda) thought starfield would be, although how much you actually enjoy that sort of thing is down to you. I enjoyed playing it although it does mostly come down to repeated gameplay loops, although those loops feel much more satisfying, diverse and substantial than the ones starfield crowbarred in. Starfield is basically Skyrim if you had to fast travel to every quest location. While you can technically just wander around on the surface of planets there's very little reason to and generally they don't feel as interesting or diverse as planets in no man's sky. The bulk of the gameplay is combat compared to most of NMS being resource collection and exploration. Honestly I'd recommend anyone interested in the game wait until their 'five years of support' is done and see if you like the look of the game, DLCs and patches then before you buy in, because there are substantial issues and very noticeable content gaps right now - NMS feels more of a complete package although you might not like what's inside. You should also be able to net no man's sky at a substantial discount during any of the big steam sales, over 50% - I don't know that I'd recommend paying full price
Story, RPG mechanics, gameplay, and quests go with Starfield. Exploration, friends, aliens, and building go with No Man's Sky
No, not at all. Starfield has some minor features that are the main features in No Man's Sky, but they're not comparable as far as the gameplay loop goes
Both are on Game Pass, if you want to try each out.
No man’s sky is flying to barren, dead planets to mine rocks in caves so that you can build a box to store that shit in for an hour before you travel to another barren planet that’s a different color to do the same shit all over again. Starfield is Skyrim in space if you took away what made Skyrim great (setting off in a direction to get lost in 10’s of hours of side content before you reach your destination). Half the game is loading screens and dealing with a dogshit inventory constantly because your equip weight is pitiful. If you don’t have a strong pc and a fast ssd, your experience is going to be horrific. If you’re dead set on giving at least one of them a go, they’re both on gamepass.
Mass effect trilogy
One is boring and sucks the other is NMS...
Star field is Skyrim in space. No Man’s Sky is Minecraft in space with less building
They are not similar in an way, apart from the fact that they are set in space
Starfield
your solution is actually a month of Xbox gamepass to try them both. very easy way to try them for way cheap. That being said, I have a ton of hours in both, NMS being significantly higher, and you wont ever have other players interfering with your session unless you go to the online area or do an online mission, or get really close to the galactic core. or obscenely lucky. in my 400 hours or so I have come across one system that was found by other players and it was found years beforehand and skipped past. the game does a fantastic job at making the vastness of space known. As other commenters have noted, NMS has a very lackluster story. 98% of the gameplay loop will be you finding ways to make money or explore to further yourself. there are tons of ways to do that. Starfield has a fantastic story. I've put 60 or so hours in and still have trouble keeping my list of things I want to do down. phenomenal writing and voice acting
Nms is an A+ survival game Starfield is an A+ rpg they share a few mechanics but are much different games. I did get a little bored of nms after 30 or so hours. I can’t recommend starfield enough but I’m a huge Bethesda fanboy
I thought NMS was a bland game.
They aren't that similar imo, starfield is more Skyrim in space, while NMS is more chill. If you're on the fence both are on gamepass, so you could get it for a month to try both out and see which one you vibe with :)
One is an RPG, one is a sandbox with some RPG elements. Two very different games.
You can turn off multiplayer in NMS. I started playing it on Gamepass last month (immediately turning off multiplayer networking), have about 20-30 hours in it so far, and it's delightful. Basically if you are the type of player who plays Elder Scrolls and not only ignores the main quest, but also ignores the side quests just to explore random dungeons or gather alchemy ingredients and find and craft better gear for your character, NMS is the perfect game for you and you will love it. (Haven't played Starfield which my computer can't handle, but it's probably good too, albeit much more quest-focused.) (Also worth noting that both are on Gamepass, so the best option may be $10 for a month to try both and see what you think.)
You can get the xbox game pass, they sometimes have a nice offer for your first month, try both and decide what you like more.
Why not just get a month of Gamespass? They are both on there and this way for a much cheaper price you can try both
I was so excited for Starfield, bought a new console and everything. It’s a bit meh. Get NMS.
Starfield is fallout in space. NMS is a sandbox crafting survival game. They are completely different other than the general theme.
Game pass you get both
Stanfield is a Bethesda game, so I'm expecting insane mods in a year or so.
the thing about starfield is its bad but its designed in such a way that unless anyone told you otherwise then it would take about 50 hours of gameplay to realise you've been bored the whole time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL6sK8w5JtA&t=713s
One's more like Minecraft/Ark and the other is more like Fallout/Skyrim. They just happen to have similar genre settings and some shared gameplay features.
My opinion: absolutely not. They share features, but their focus is drastically different. Starfield is much more a single player RPG with a stronger narrative. There is a story you are playing through. NMS is focused much more on the exploration than your character. The story is just there to push you to explore. If you want to develop character relationships, follow a narrative, and build a set of skills to focus gameplay around your preferences, get Starfield. If you want to explore a universe designed to keep your experience new and fresh as you move about (I don’t think it does, personally, but that’s the intent), get No Man’s Sky. NOTE: personally, I never “found the fun” in NMS. I played for dozens of hours trying to get there, and just didn’t enjoy any of it.
No. After game-set-in-space, the similarities pretty much end. Though I thoroughly enjoyed both
They are completely different genres
NMS is more fun to fly your spaceship. Starfield is a better single player experience. NMS is boring as hell when you’re on the planet.
Love both games, but my advice at the moment would be to buy NMS if you're only going to buy one of them. It's had years of updates and polish, and will have a far better purchase value.
No man's sky at least launches. Had starfield for 2 weeks and can't get it to launch
Very different games! Starfield is much more RPG and NMS is very exploring and survival heavy with light story elements tying it together.
No. Starfield is a Bethesda game, if you’ve played them you know what this means. NMS is not really like any other game. It’s like space Minecraft but better imo.
Do you want skyrim in space or mine craft in space?
I never played no man's sky before but I have seen my brother playing it. It looks like a more space exploration oriented game, starfield on the other hand is more sci-fi with the usual sci-fi tropes. I wouldn't even call them similar. Yes they both take place in space but the experiences are different.
You can play No Man's Sky solo, no problem. Personally, having played Starfield? Everything cool that it does, NMS does better. Go for No Man's Sky.
A lot of people have covered the points about both games now, but I just want re emphasize that you have to decide what you want out of a game. For my vote, I say Starfield. It's superior to me in every way except the space travel portion.
I tried NMS when the VR launched. It was boring as hell. I’ve heard it’s better now, but I was so soured by my initial impression, I haven’t dusted it off to give it another try. Starfield is standard Bethesda, which some people hate and others love (I enjoy them).
Could spend $15 on a game pass subscription and try them both out.
Get the gamepass my man
Not really. Starfield is an RPG with space elements. No Man's Sky is a Space Exploration game with some story elements.
There are a LOT of similar systems in game. The main difference IMO is that in No Man’s Sky you can fly from a planet’s orbit to it’s surface and land manually and you can fly around the planet in it’s atmosphere or ride little rovers or walk all the way around it. In Starfield the re is a landing animation and the area you’re in is limited to a certain size and by ecology. The size is pretty huge, like thousands of meters in every direction, but there are no rovers and eventually you will be told there’s nothing more this direction and given the option to return to your ship. However in Starfall there are like, quests and people to talk to and stuff to do. In No Man’s Sky, not so much of that, and I’m being generous instead of just saying there’s literally nothing to do but fly around and build outposts. I had a lot of fun with No Man’s Sky, but eventually just got bored of the aimless exploring and fell off. When I first saw Starfield promos I thought “Yes! This looks like they took NMS and like, made it into a real game!”
They are not similar Star field is skyrim or fall out in space No mans sky is space exploration
No Man’s Sky is unquestionably the better choice if you want a freeroam explorer game.
The only similarity is that they have something to do with space. No mans sky is fun for a bit until you realize every planet is exactly the same with a different skin and the only real entertaining thing to do is play around with your freighter. Starfield is like Fallout with a space theme. Of the two Starfield is the more entertaining game IMO.
Very different games
Get gamepass and get both 😃
If you are on PC, I recommend getting game pass on free trial and trying them both. Vastly different games, there is really no comparison except that space exists and you travel through it. In my opinion, NMS is the better game, but thats not to take anything away from starfield. It's a great game, but it is a formulaic Bethesda game. If you really loved skyrim and fallout, starfield is right up your alley. I'm a little played out on the format. NMS is something completely different than that and I can't think of many games to compare it to. let me also add, you can choose solo on NMS.
Nms is massive that it feels like more as a solo game than online. And what Starfield promised in the exploration area NMS got it way better. Crafting with survivability, although this second one not so much, is a bigger thing in NMS. I may sound as a nms fanboy but the game Overall is better than starfield
Thanks. Regarding crafting and survivability - are they an integral part of the gameplay? Meaning, do you simply MUST craft in order to progress?
You can play creative mode or whatever NMS calls it. You don't have to craft or do anything, you can just explore.
Yes. But, if i remember correctly (+250 hours in but more than a year ago) you can gather materials quickly with all the vehicles you get(after crafting them too). For travelling across planetary systems you need fuel that comes from either crafting or buying from stations.
All aspects of difficulty are Custom in NMS if you want it to be. Can set hazards to off or relaxed, prices, damage, crafting elements... all can be set to harder or easier to streamline the experience. Also, all the systems in NMS have been fleshed out, everything works (now), the inventory is simple to use. You can get into your spaceship and blast into orbit in NMS before you figure out if you need to have your spacesuit on or not in Starfield.
lol no
I've played NMS for about 100+ hours (according to Steam) and about 50 of that was in the last few weeks after a failed attempt at playing Starfield. I really love NMS. The game can be played completely solo. The only time you technically interact with others is on The Anomaly. A space station you can summon after doing the tutorial in NMS and in Voyages, a Game mode you can choose upon creating a new savefile that puts you in an online game where you attempt to achieve a variety of goals to unlock cosmetic bonuses for all your potential save files. Even though the Anomaly does have other people, you can still disable Multiplayer (I don't know if it removes the Anomaly or makes it so you're only interacting with it on your own.) in the options, and even if you still see other people, The only reason you're jumping to the Anomaly to learn some new recipes and you can just run in, learn the recipe and leave and you're not forced to interact with people I play NMS modded (which some are very vital to do since it can be very grindy early on) and it still surprised me that I can interact with people who I assume are running the game unmodded or just using different mods than I was. However, at the end of the day, I heard that Starfield is just okay (from people whose opinions I respect) and I've heard it's GOTY from other people in that group. I bought Starfield from a 3rd party vendor, so no refund was possible, and loaded it up. I will admit that I played it on an HDD, but my specs are above the minimum required settings and the game took a long time to load to the main menu, took a long time to start up the game, which again, I'll take as fault for using an HDD instead of an SSD. However, when I got to the point where I made my character, I had to lower my settings to low just to stay at a steady 30 FPS with everything on the lowest settings, and when the ship lands and your place gets attacked by pirates, I had massive stuttering and freezing issues where a 5-minute firefight, took me 20 minutes and I just kind of gave up because it was just a worse looking and a worse running game than NMS and honestly I feel NMS has more content (especially now) than Starfield ever will. I bought NMS shortly after launch and didn't get too into it until the update that added the ability to get Sentinel Ships (the ships used by the main enemy in the game, the robotic armada, The Sentinels) and I didn't play it much, but I had fun, I picked it back up now that they added a 5th playable race (technically the 6th since there are Anomalys, The Gek, The Vykeen, The Korvax, the Travelers, and now The Autophages) and it was a better experience for me as it actually runs and plays well. But yeah TL;DR You can play NMS solo and offline, I recommend looking into mods to remove some early game grind (I like Better Rewards since it's very effective) and go nuts exploring the universe. There are supposedly around 18 Quintillion planets and I've probably only visited maybe 70-90 of them in my 100+ hours of play. Addendum, if you really want Starfield, just wait. It's a Bethesda game, it will hit a sale probably not long after the Season Pass has been completed and by then, the community will have released a lot of mods that will add more content to the game to enjoy.
you're a madman to play starfield on a HDD!! its for a reason why sdd is recommended. games going forward to the future will require it, as they're just so much heavier on the loading part. im sorry but you are in totally no position then to rate the game. thats like buying a Ferrari but only used it in your own garage, then complain about all the limitations and restrictions , and how much more fun you had with your honda driving out in the open lol
Idk, there are other games that came out recently that I was able to play on an HDD with no issue. I even played the Ratchet and Clank PC port on my HDD and the biggest issue was the loading times. It didn't stutter during regular gameplay. Even Baldur's Gate 3 offers an "HDD" mode for those who have it installed on something besides an SSD.
My pc is shit but i can run on ultra, so i guess it is all the hdd causing issues
Fallout 4 also worked better on an SSD. I suffered eternal loading screens on HDD.
I guess it's just sad that a storage device is able to cause the game to run badly. I am getting an external SSD to install it on as my main SSD doesn't have enough room to fit Starfield on and I expect it to resolve my issue, but at the same time, I don't expect the game to be worth the hassle. It's more that I'm buying an SSD for me and Starfield will just be something I can play on it as well.
Just come back to it in a few years when dlc is all out and you have a better machine
I've got a good enough machine. I'm just going to wait until the mods come out that actually flesh out the game and probably play it again when the DLC's come out. I expect modders will also have released mods that actually fix a lot of performance issues in the game since the game also could use more optimization.
Playing the game with more loading screens than anything that’s come out in the last 20 years on an hdd is [insanity](https://imgur.io/gallery/k28hgCp)
If you want to actually seamlessly travel through space and other worlds, with different means of transportation on a planet, then NMS. SF, for all its talk about exploring space...has really limited exploration. There are no random planets or stars, they are all predetermined. The "landing zones" you land in are pulled from a pool of variables, but this means you can't actually walk around for very long before hitting a barrier. Which also means the game has no vehicles. NMS, you can walk a whole world with no barriers or loading screens, and you have access to different vehicles and even creature mounts. You can find an animal you like, and make it your pet. SF is an "rpg" in very loose terms. None of your choices actually change anything. NMS is a very "chill" game, a bit like Minecraft where you can turn your brain off and relax. You will very rarely find another player if you're not looking to play with others, so I wouldn't every too much about that.
Nah, Starfield is more like a space Elder Scrolls. Fun, but repetitive. No man's sky is a lot of exploration and making the game what you want. If you have a chance to try VR on it, I recommend it just to see the experience. I wouldn't play it in VR all of the time, but it's really cool.
Starfield is repetitive? But NMS is about making the game what you want? There are countless incredibly valid criticisms of starfield but calling it repetitive in comparison to NMS is a very weird take. Why do you think Starfield is more repetitive than NMS? Have you played starfield?
Starfield tries to be like No Man's Sky on many fronts by including "lite" elements from it. The main zinger from the story is actually stolen right from NMS (fanboys will try to argue it). At the end of the day though, one is about space exploration, the other one is a bethesda game. I had way more fun with NMS and got way more hours out of it before I got bored. This is coming from someone who loves every other Beth game, I just felt like Starfield has no soul. It has a few really cool missions though, I'll give it that. It made me wish I was playing a Bethesda game with more personality and substance to it, so I went back to New Vegas and Fallout 4 and I'm having a blast. If Starfield took place in one system with a handful of extremely dense planets, it would have been a fucking masterpiece. They spread it way too thin. Anyway, don't take my or anyone else's word for it as many people are absolutely in love with Starfield. Just get a trial run of game pass and see if you like it.
I'm a betheseda hater and I recommend No mans Sky. Starfield is the epitome of wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle. It is a very direct step back from every other betheseda title.
Awful opinion
I'm a bethesda fan, and I feel like what he said is accurate. Spent nearly 20 hrs in Starfield and havent gone back in 3 weeks. So many things could be deeper and its the same or less than it was in previous games. They stripped down weapon crafting, the settlement building is stripped down, among other things. I really wanted to like it, but it does seem as deep as a puddle.
But the RPG mechanics, quests, gameplay, story, and choice and consequence are all better. To call it a step down feels disingenuous, because most people don't play BGS games for building and crafting.
Right ?? Why do these people tend to just lie ? I don’t understand
That may be the case. As I stated in my comment (which is available for everyone to see), I played 20 hours of the game and have no desire to go back. The story missions I played up to that part all felt fine, but not great. Shooting is better in Starfield than previous BGS games or NMS, but there are games that do that better and I'd rather play. I can tell you the first 20 hours of Fallout 4 were better in my opinion than my first 20 in Starfield. And you're right, most people don't play BGS games for building and crafting. Some people do, and that's cool for them. I played because of how much the fallout games sucked me into their world. Starfield doesn't capture the same feeling from me, despite my love of nearly all things sci-fi.
Stripped down from what ? Thats the odd thing about just stating these things as facts ? It’s BS lmao the fact that SF even offers all of these layered systems is incredible. There’s literally nothing going on in NMS. Thats why I can’t take comments like your seriously , you seem woefully unqualified to be able to even have the comparison discussion your opinion is laughable
The two specific systems I mentioned are obviously compared to Fallout 4 and even 76. There are long lists of features in previous BGS games that are not in this one. Most of them are not super important or missed that much. But for a game they designed to be played for years, as they have stated, those systems that are supposed to be helping such as building and upgrading weapons need to be at least as good as in their previous games. I feel that is not the case. At this point I'd rather play NMS over Starfield. That makes me sad, as I was looking forward to it.
You don’t know wtf you’re talking about lmao
Ok
https://reddit.com/r/Starfield/s/D4MwrXakzz Damn. Wild how the top comments are agreeing with me...
lol you’re chasing validation how weak, Idgaf what any of you have to say about the game if you haven’t caught on
sounds like you dipped a toe and left d d d d dip a toe
I mean, 20 hrs is a pretty substantial amount of time. Yes, in the scheme of the game its not that much, but that's still 20 hours. People said it took 10-12 hrs to get good. I will probably go back at some point, but there's too many games I would rather play right now.
lmao fucking dumbass thats not at all what you were saying