The lack of seamless space to ground transit is somewhat unfortunate but I'm not too bothered by its absence, that's the kind of feature that sounds cool at first but with how often we're going to be transitioning I doubt it would keep its luster long.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangSome crafty fan has figured out and replicated Starfield’s Star Map
The real positions of stars in the galaxy was determined by several observations which sometimes differ significantly. To match the stars visible in the video with real ones, it's important to know which real data was used by the developers. Currently the primary goal is to try to match the most likely star catalogues against the confidently identified stars with proper optimization algorithms to find a closest match. This will help calibrating the reconstruction, identifying the missing stars and even prediction of the missing parts of the map.
Insights
A couple of insights were gained from the data:
- Of the "over 100" stars announced for the final game, 75 were visible. Seven were labeled, three of them match real stars in position, name and other properties
- The game uses Gliese numbers and the known systems had correct relations to each other. Therefore it's likely that all stars are real, some of them renamed
- Over ten other unlabeled systems have been identified
- The systems with unknown labels (NARION, VOLII, CHEYENNE, JAFFA) are renames of real systems
- Of the 7 named systems in the trailer, the 5 leftmost ones had their name on the right side of the planet. The rightmost ones had their name on the left side. Barring other explanations, this might imply that the horizontal center of the map is somewhere between JAFFA and VOLII
- The visible map is mostly to the right of SOL. In this video, it says "Our game is set [...] in an area that extends outward from our solar system for approximately 50 light years". That weakly implies that sol is somewhat centered. This collides with the observed fact that we already saw stars pretty far out of a 50 LY sphere around sol. But while the video is official, it's pretty questionable overall: The video animation doesn't match what the spoken description. Also the settled systems are called an "area of our solar system", which almost certainly is not correct.
Edited by SgtRicko on Jul 9th 2022 at 2:04:31 AM
Australia has rated it 18+ for drug use.
The Australian ratings board is notoriously anal about drugs. Saints Row IV had to straight up remove an entire mission to even get rated here because said mission involved getting high.
Hold that, because the game's confirmed to be 30 FPS on console, with no 60 FPS mode coming for it in the future.
Considering what happened Redfall last month, this is all I can do in reaction:
Like, when 2 big launches for the Xbox Series X can't run at anything above 30 FPS on the "World's Most Powerful Console", it really becomes a cause for concern if its even worth investing in future Console tech, because Microsoft could coast along just fine with Game pass.
Watch SymphogearHence why I will most likely get it on PC. Plus, if I could handle TOTK being 30 FPS, then I can do the same for Starfield.
Again, I really don't want to be suckered in by Bethesda. And I have no doubts that it'll be buggy on release, as it is a sad trademark of this company. But dang it, they sure know how to deliver when it comes to this sort of hype and the like. Plus, what they showed was really exciting.
We should be lucky they delayed to this year then, because behind the scenes details shows that by its original launch date last year, the game was so bad it would have made Redfall look like a master piece by comparison.
Watch SymphogearCombat does not really seem all that interesting from their video. Traditional shooter gameplay, albeit with jetpacks. However, there was a single thing that interested me...the gravity power at the end of the combat showing. THAT was the thing I feel was missing from the gameplay trailers, an actual power. Most shooters tend to be rather boring unless there's some kind of power or something shaking up the formula. Starfield showed none of that until those last few seconds of the combat.
"In a move surprising absolutely no one"Being a huge fan of shooters, I thought the combat looked fine. Given all the mobility on hand, and how different planes of gravity will affect your movement, alongside all the gun customization, it's more than enough.
Helps that Id Software is actually assisting Bethesda on that front, which does explain all the added mobility.
Though, I am looking forward to taking over other ships. Finally, I can play as a Space Pirate.
Eh, I enjoyed Fallout 4 well enough, gameplay-wise. Far from perfect, but enough for me to come back again and again.
It was 4's story that killed me. Who is doing the story for Starfield?
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
No Man's Sky is a pretty superficial comparison, not only is Bethesda a significantly larger and better funded company but Starfield is not the same game as No Man's Sky. NMS procedurally generated an entire galaxy, Bethesda is just generating a thousand planets and manually placing relevant events/game features.
The scale is entirely different, due to its scope and reliance on automation the former was always doomed to fail. Starfield has more constrained ambitions and hasn't abandoned the personal touch.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jun 12th 2023 at 9:03:14 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangWell, they made me want this game.
Mind you, I'd bet a good bit of money that the game will be nearly unplayable on release. Though I suspect it will be good aside from that.
Leviticus 19:34Different scale, sure, but promising one thousand unique planets? You're telling me that by using a combination of the personal touch plus procedurally generated content, they're going to be able to make one thousand planets that are going to feel unique from each other? Forgive me if I'm still massively skeptical of that promise even if it's a company as big as Bethesda doing it.
Hitokiri in the streets, daishouri in the sheets.
Sure, I'm not arguing that Starfield will be perfect. I like what I've seen but it's more then possible that it'll be underwhelming. It's just that comparisons to NMS are easy to make but not particularly helpful, it and Starfield are sufficiently distinct that comparing them is practically apples to oranges.
I do doubt that the 1000 planets (assuming that's correct and they're not fudging on the details) will all be unique and/or winners. They did mention that some will be barren, albeit containing resources.
Still though, that works for me. Just means I'll have to choose carefully which planets are worth exploring.
Edited by LDragon2 on Jun 12th 2023 at 6:40:50 AM

And now my optimism for the game has taken a hit.
Mike Burnfire's video covers a decent amount of the misgivings I had myself; the biggest one being the perk system. From the looks of things, it's basically Fallout 4's system all over again, with the starting perks not making any radical gameplay changes and instead simply giving stat buffs. Furthermore, a couple of positive comments I've seen online - such as choosing one's religion - also got shot down in this video, since Mike and his buddy made the point that all choosing a particular faith does is just place unusual player conditions upon you, such as having to jump constantly in order to keep certain bonuses and avoid penalties.
And then the big one... Apparently, we might not be able to control our ships in atmosphere, and in fact might not even be able to choose landing sites. Instead, space and planetside are essentially separate instances. It's still not very clear as to how exactly will this be reflected in gameplay, but TL;DR, don't expect seamless spaceflight and planetary exploration as in No Man's Sky or Star Citizen.
Edited by SgtRicko on Jun 16th 2022 at 9:13:27 AM