this post was submitted on 10 May 2025
389 points (97.6% liked)
Games
38529 readers
1733 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Freelancer would have been fresher in memory 15 years ago, and that's one that had seamless intra-system travel. Gameplay in Freelancer even flowed better than NMS for getting from orbit to orbit and having encounters or discoveries along the way. It just didn't have the on-foot gameplay. I had the same problem with loading screens in Everspace 2. Killed the flow. Whoever tries to do this again is going to have to make sure transitions are minimal.
And that's what I don't get about Starfield, conceptually. With this project scope, you're not competing well with NMS for ship-to-foot or orbit-to-surface transition, you're not doing better than Freelancer--a 20+ year old game--for all the in-space stuff, and the procgen hamstrings you with all the "Bethesda magic" their worlds are known for. It's like someone said "let's do Daggerfall in space" and went rigid top-down design with it, retrofitting whatever they could along the way to make a functional game around the procgen.
I maintain that if they didn't bother with the space thing, or abstracted it more to a "blip on a screen" type of topdown play like in mass effect, it would be a better game. They could have spent that time on the shooter gameplay loop not being shit.