Starfield: My Thoughts On - Seamless Landings, 30fps, PC Requirements

[@ravennightingale1260]

I'd definitely prefer seamless landings, but it's not a dealbreaker. I suspect Bethesda decided it just wasn't worth it for performance / release schedule / etc. reasons, and that's hard to disagree with.

[@Legion849]

Bethesda just needs to put out a functional game modders can do the rest.

[@jumblestiltskin1365]

Feel the same about seamless landings.

[@dennischeruiyot5352]

Not flying in atmosphere is crazy though. Walking around a whole planet is crazy

[@obi-wan3916]

​@Dennis Cheruiyot its part of the Todd lie isn't it. You can only really explore the planet in the immediate vicinity of your landing site.

[@autotropicplaybench1819]

​@@dennischeruiyot5352I feel you, if only because in my viewpoint their supposed extensive ship customization can better be appreciated if you can see the exterior and/or interior more while flying in the planet rather than just in space or upon its static landing in the ground. I'll give them this, iirc they are consistent in only showing the ship land and being in space with walking as THE method of exploration on the ground, which really lends more of the emphasis of the game being an RPG that happens to be in space rather than anything else. But that's about it

[@carpemkarzi]

TBH I wasn’t expecting Starfield to be a space sim but a space RPG. I suspect that if you allow seamless landing could lead to the cry for flying around planets and that is resource and development heavy. I have NMS for that freedom

[@rafaelgoncalvesdias7459]

I agree. I actually don't care having or not seamless landing. But they should not get lost on minorities wants like elite dangerous did. And halt development on more important things. They must follow a path that's exactly the border of the rpg community and space sim community. Cuz both can ruin one another game experience.

[@beardedlonewolf7695]

With the details, graphics, assets and freedom Starfield offers, it would take 20 years to finish such a game... look at Star Citizen. I'll gladly not be able to fly around planet surface to finally be able to experience an open world space RPG with such beautiful graphics.

[@shivamutreja6427]

Agree with your point on Space RPGs being different from Space sims. But then why market the whole "more than a 1000 planets" facade ?

[@TechnoMinarchist]

​​@@shivamutreja6427 Because Bethesda games are focused on heavy world building and making the place feel grounded in its own reality.

[@SkyllerRyth]

@@shivamutreja6427 Bethesda has always marketed how big their worlds are - They are doing the same for how many worlds are in Starfield.

[@doctormoobbc]

Star citizen is a good example to compare against. If you don't limit the scope, where do you stop and call it finished? Yes, Bethesda could probably have done seamless landing, but then what? It'll be atmospheric flight. And then there will be more after that and it will never get done. BGS drew a line in the sand and is focusing on what they think will make a fun and immersive game, and that's good game development.

[@nighttrain1236]

Star Citizen's problem seems not to be that they have endless tasks to do per se, but that the bloated scope has run into a technological hard-stop; for years now the MMO side of things is still a janky, slow and unreliable 50-person instance without true persistence. It's supposed to be 'thousands of players' all sharing the same world. I see no evidence that CIG has a solution to deliver a proper MMO. In terms of mechanics, ships, careers, missions etc., you're right that CIG has promised the Earth wrapped up in all their ship sales, but delivering all this bloat hinges on an MMO solution, which seems to be elusive.

[@moonlily701]

​@@nighttrain1236 You also forget that they are trying to also develop a single player game built on their MMO.

[@BGIANAKy]

30 fps locked on a modern single player game is not something to strive for. If SC was single player, I’d get 140 fps or more

[@nighttrain1236]

@@BGIANAKy The 30 fps is just on Xbox.

[@FreemanicParacusia]

@@BGIANAKy These days consoles are like a millstone around developers’ necks, forcing them to restrict themselves to what is technically possible on last-gen hardware. Cyberpunk 2077 immediately comes to mind but examples abound.

[@austintse5719]

10 years of development, 10 years of content with mods. As long as there are things to discover I'll continue playing for years to come.

[@jotunheim5302]

Starfield has been in development for over 7 years but less than 10. With full development starting in 2018.

[@shogun2215]

@@jotunheim5302 Amazing what Bethesda have achieved in 7 years while also developing a brand new engine compared to CIG who use a bastardized version of the Crytek engine.

[@jotunheim5302]

@@shogun2215 Very true

[@Assassin5671000]

@@jotunheim5302 So it's actually 5 years then and 2 years of concept ideas and some art design thrown around a table

[@jotunheim5302]

@@Assassin5671000 It also took Bethesda a number of years to create their Creation Engine 2 ...which then took another year with this recent delay to fine tune, fix bugs etc and even some id tech thrown in for some good measure to further enhance the engine's capabilities. Alot of work.

[@adavis5926]

If only Skyrim had been a door sim, I could have had the thrill of actually opening massive doors, hearing them creak, and watch my fatigue meter register a drop instead of just passing through them.

[@TheSectric]

Well, skyrim isn't a game about door opening, but Starfield is a game about space exploration, so thats a really dumb comparison.

[@adavis5926]

@@TheSectric The point is, Starfield is a space rpg, not a space sim.

[@HelplessTeno]

Very bad example but fair point. People shouldn't expect space-sim features like seemless landings and physics-accurate flight in a Space-Fallout game.

[@Scimarad]

@@TheSectric It's a very amusing comparison

[@TheSectric]

@adavis5926 yeah a shallow "rpg" like the others before it. This game will be as wide as an ocean and as deep as a puddle

[@TwistedSisler]

I totally agree with the seamless flight just being empty gameplay that doesn't add anything of value to the game. Honestly, it would probably take longer to do that than it will to load into the planet anyway. I'm completely fine with it and have always felt that it's a non-issue.

[@CreativeUsernameEh]

Having played Outer Wilds trust me the feeling of leaving an atmosphere and realizing there’s no longer an up or down: you’re in SPACE, just space, is truly a magical moment. Starfield not having that is unfortunate but it is not a dealbreaker for me.

[@BGIANAKy]

What an amazing game

[@kukipett]

Outer Wilds space is closer to your bathroom in size than to real space!! So this is easy to make that kind of transition.

[@HRZN-xj9um]

Seamless flight might be pretty hard for modders to add, but a more realistic flight model seems reasonable within about 6 months

[@a1yca7z]

you will be probably waiting longer than 6 months as the tools took basically that long to come out if we use fallout 4 as an example

[@patrickmccarron2817]

I would imagine it would be similar to Open Cities Skyrim mod, basically inserting the planetary cell on top of of the global (world space) cell. The problem here is we are talking about 1,000 planets as opposed to like 5 cities. Probably possible but not feasible any time soon. And a pain to get working with other mods.

[@technoboop1890]

@@patrickmccarron2817 I would imagine that wouldn't be as big of a problem as there are lots of different star systems. There might only be 5 planets per star system so that'd be 5 planets per area, so not all 1000 need to be loaded at once

[@charlescarnegie9380]

I think the landings will probably be a problem just because we doing know how the generation systems work yet

[@HRZN-xj9um]

@@a1yca7z I hope they come out way sooner than that. I can't wait to start modding the game.

[@1980StevieJ]

It would’ve been a nice touch if you could fly directly down to the planets surface from space, I play Elite and SC and it doesn’t bother me, I would like some sort of vehicle to travel around the surface of the planet though but I’m sure mods will sort this out in due time as the modding community around Bethesda games is nothing short of amazing 💪🙌

[@shogun2215]

Bethesda have never done seamless transitions in any of their games and it really doesn't detract from the experience. And besides, in real life if you tried landing on any planet with an atmosphere, you'd see absolutely nothing through the windows except for fire from the air friction. As for framerates, consoles will probably be stuck at 30fps but PCs will likely be able to push it well above that assuming the physics aren't tied to framerate like the old Creation engine.

[@HGHsChannel]

Physics aren't tied to framerate anymore since Fallout 76, I'd expect them to keep/ port that update to the Starfield Dev Branch

[@minecraftrichfilms3620]

@@Taffy84 they aren't limiting fps on pc only console is capped to 4k 30 on xbox series x and 1440p at 30 fps on xbox series s

[@CouchCit]

SC has re-entry flame FX and 1. They look and feel amazing to experience, and 2. You still get great views before and after the FX That being said, I don't think it's something so great that it's worth sacrificing the more enjoyable aspects of a game for. Seamless re-entry dictates so many aspects of a game that if/when it's implemented, it really needs to be more than just a sensory experience. I think that's the problem with SC now is that besides steering your ship as the pilot, it's a rather passive experience for the pilot and even more so for your crew of real players.

[@jimmunro4649]

They said no cap on PC only that can run 60 FPS +

[@m1lkm8n78]

Very good point about the air friction

[@spike238]

Atmospheric flight would have been nice , considering there is no other way to get around the planet except to walk or jetpack , not a deal breaker , still amazing

[@dennischeruiyot5352]

They will have to make ships that fly in atmosphere

[@BetrayingLight]

When you're on the planet you can put down a fast travel point and land there with your ship after a short cutscene. Don't have to fly out in space and then land again, just fast travel around the planet as much as you like. Faster than atmospheric flight but of course not that fun.

[@weswheel4834]

I think you can have realism and immersion (both of which can be important, particularly the second one) without simulating absolutely everything. There's loads that isn't simulated already (for example you get no smellovision, and no space sims that I can think of have you washing your socks).

[@gamingtonight1526]

Gameplay is a code word for simple. Simulation is a code word for sophistication! Bethesda have never been sophisticated, which is why in Witcher 3 NPCs will remember your actions, but in Skyrim you can go back to the monks at the end of the game, and they don't treat you any different than they did at the beginning!

[@id_avalon3451]

@@gamingtonight1526 this is the most retarded take on Bethesda i ever heard, They SIMULATE the world in each game in a way where all AI live their lives and travel between locations and do a multitude of tasks other games can only dream of.

[@117johnpar]

I mean, you just cant afford smellovision yet

[@adniknax8064]

Please don't let Chris Roberts read that comment or else Star Citizen gets another 10 years developement time for implementing the new washing your socks simulation.

[@NoX-512]

It’s always a balance between realism and gameplay. And preferences are personal. I prefer less realism and more gameplay, as long as it doesn’t become Mario Karts. I don’t want to have to learn to fly an F16 to play a game. I also don’t like grind. Survival games is an interesting concept, but too grindy for me.

[@jimbeaux89]

I’ve never been more excited for a game in my entire life. And I’ve been gaming since the early 90’s

[@-CrimsoN-]

Same here. No Man's Sky scratched the space RPG itch for sure, but Starfield is like a dream come true.

[@kyriosmalaka2312]

Top 10 things I learned from the Starfield Direct 1: There are no ground vehicles of any type. 2: There is no atmospheric flight. 3: There is no EVA. 4: Jumping is just glorified fast travel. There's no transit time with in-game events like interdictions happening during the flight. 5: The ship builder allows you to build all manner of useless stuff but not ships tailored to perform the wide variety of roles that make a space game like this fun and interesting to play. 6: Planetary exploration is tethered to your selected landing zone and the speed of on-foot travel. 7: The showpiece demonstration of on-foot combat is the same thing you can do in Fallout 76 with the marsupial mutation and the Secret Service jetpack. 8: The Starfield Direct showcased the Wanted background and three-star legendary gear. When people realize they can make bloodied builds in Starfield, it will become THE dominant background. 9: Both the prices of the ships and the "challenges" to rank up each skill seem ridiculously low. When you combine that with the lack of ship build diversity, the game will have no meaningful, natural grind. 10: The Starfield Direct was full of sizzle. Starfield looks impressive on the surface. It may even be a decent Bethesda game, but it's tethered to a very unimpressive space game.

[@odamarkado]

Unimpressive space 'sim' game*, thought I'd add that in

[@kyriosmalaka2312]

@@odamarkado I would say that yes you're 100% correct. It's an unimpressive space sim game, but I wasn't really looking at Starfield from that angle. Had they taken the starter ship and turned it into a bounty hunter and showed that off as a demo, I would have felt much better. They could have added extra laser weapons to take down shields and an EMP to shut down systems They could have swapped the hab for a module with prison cells. They could have crafted a non-lethal weapon to do takedowns. Then they could have showed us using the Apple watch to get a contract, right? Wouldn't it have been amazing to see that combat footage where we shut down a target's ship, boarded it, apprehended our prisoner and delivered him to a prison on some hostile moon? Things like that should be well within the reach of this game, and they fumbled the ball completely. I wanted to watch the Starfied Direct and tell Chris Roberts what's taking you so long? Did you see what Bethesda did? It was very disappointing.

[@BadYossa]

I think you are spot on with the "fidelity vs framerate" as far as console is concerned. I've been playing games since the late 70's, so I am pretty happy with how amazing most games look compared to stuff even a mere five years ago. As someone who played EVE for many yea for something more, something that EVE couldn't deliver. I tried Star Citizen and found it quite frustrating as it still very much an Alpha after many years and lord knows how much money. So, maybe Starfield will fit that niche for me. It looks good, I like the design aesthetic and customisation options, but having been burned by Fallout 76, I'm slightly reluctant to believe all that The Todd states. Time will tell. Cheers for the great vid mate

[@Legion849]

Star Citizen hit 500 million dollars in crowdfunding. The original Destiny had a budget of 500 million and Activision was the publisher. Star Citizen is going nowhere Starfield is the new thing it has full mod support and unlike Star Citizen it won't ask for more money so that Chris Roberts can buy another mansion

[@BadYossa]

@@Legion849 Nothing in your response has anything to do with my original statement mate Not trolling you, but maybe you should read something, digest and, if you feel you have to, then post a response. I found a lot of my UX with Star Citizen was plagued by poor code. It's that simple. My experience was my experience. Other user experiences are available. Terms and conditions apply. APR 12343% PA subject to status...

[@vjbd2757]

​@@Legion849 Correction: The original Destiny did not have $500 million in budget. That money was for the entire Destiny franchise that was supposed to last for 10 years. Destiny 1 had a budget of $140 million and I would bet Destiny 2 has a similar if not more budget.

[@jasonwalker7708]

My opinion on the seamless landing is that it really changes the gameplay. If you can fly on the surface then it changes combat and travel. If I could just get in my ship and blow up a bandit base why would I ever go in with guns? Also, why would I get down and explore stuff on foot when I’m able to just quickly fly wherever I want? I am not saying I’m happy it doesn’t have it but I really don’t mind it at all in the case of Starfield. I have other video games that I can do that in.

[@RCmies]

The problem for me is that as far as I understand there is no in atmosphere flight whatsoever. Otherwise they surely would've shown it. Not sure. This game seems more along the lines of what I thought Destiny would be when I first saw the trailer for it back in 2013 I think, so the fact that we are getting that type of space game is exciting. But I'm expecting this to just be a Fallout type game in space spread across multiple planets. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing, I honestly would've preferred a single solar system with planets filled with stuff.

[@ShakyChess]

Im cool about no seamless planetary landings, but like you say, im more in the RPG camp. Ive played tonnes of Elite, NMS and Star Citizen. But tbh, on all but NMS, the planetary landings take forever and i just wish it was a bit quicker. The game is an RPG with space elements, and not a space sim, so im fine without it and dunno how much it would add (or how much more taxing on the system it would be)But can totally see why some would be disappointed

[@CasepbX]

They are super fast on No Mans Sky.

[@ShakyChess]

@CasepbX yeah NMS is great for it. Quickly fly down, and just get on with what you need to do. Elite and SC you can go off, make a coffee, drink it, find the love of your life, get married and get divorced, and you'd still only be halfway to the surface

[@SetZor666]

@@ShakyChess not to mention the frustration of trying to get out of a planets atmosphere if the gravity is intense. or getting stuck in orbital rotation and missing your mark and then having to hit the escape vector, fly around the planet again and then miss it again because you got a few meters too close. i LOVE ED, but the planetary landings and takeoffs can sometimes be the absolute worst.

[@DaringDan]

I'm an SC backer and don't care about the landings. Starfield really feels to me like a PU-Lite with robust RPG trappings and amazing base building and ship customization. Things that the PU just doesn't have and let's be honest, if it did have it, it would NOT in any way shape or form be as easy to use as it looks to be in Starfield.

[@woulfhound]

So why don't you just play outer worlds then?

[@DaringDan]

@@woulfhound I did. It was great. I love NMS. Everspace was my first space VR game. I adore the PU. Star Wars: Squadrons was such a fun VR arcade style space game. I play X4 and Stellaris. Re-read what I typed in my original post, homie. It's okay to like and play multiple space games. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

[@WACC_Warlord]

@@DaringDan isn't X4 already quite a bit ahead of Star Citizen with its mechanics. I haven't played it, but I've heard it has a tremendous amount of mechanical depth.

[@maximus7288]

SC will never be finished and just keep gaslighting people

[@moonlily701]

​@Fluorine, Uranium, Carbon, Potassium X4 is a different game its more about running an economy and building up your faction with some questing. There are no planets to go to or explore.

[@dannyboy1121x]

I play Star Citizen and planetary descent is implemented in such an arcade like manner that it doesn't matter. If it was implemented like Flight of Nova, then it would be worth looking at.

[@-CrimsoN-]

Yeah agreed.

[@porkorosso7885]

I’m a big SC player and play no other game. However I am looking forward to SF big time. It will hopefully give CGI a kick up the backside.

[@anorangutan511]

I personally don't want the seamless planet entry. Every space game that has seamless entry ends up having performance issues and/or terrible rendering when in high atmosphere.

[@infrasonica]

Like others, I absolutely love the concept of seamless landings, but it isn't a deal breaker for me. Personally, I can quantify it like this: if given the option, I would pay up to double the price of the game for the feature, or would be willing to wait at least 6 to 8 months longer past the release date for the feature to be added in, maybe even up to a year. I would not be willing to pay triple the price for the feature, nor willing to wait 2 additional years for it. For me this proves that it is certainly a very high value feature, but not a must have (when the rest of the game looks this awesome), especially with the consolation that I can at least pick anywhere I want to land on the planet, as BGS confirmed.

[@DStuartB]

I personally prefer the realistic immersion way of playing. So seamless travel from space to ground is essential, in my opinion. Especially when you get it wrong when flying manually and you end up bouncing off the atmosphere😂.

[@justazack3571]

my first video ever from your channel... Your voice is so calming it made the video more calming and more intriguing

[@fszova1]

Skyrim has “open cities”…it’s only a matter of time before we have “seamless flights”

[@TNKHART]

New to the channel. New to space games. Haven't played any yet but doing some homework. Starfield looks interesting but I've been let down many times as of late. We'll see. Enjoying your content. Respects.

[@Kellett781]

Lack of seamless landing and take off, atmospheric flight is extremely disappointing but not a deal breaker. Hostile boarding of other ships on ground and in space, keeping or selling them makes up for it.

[@-CrimsoN-]

Yeppp I fully agree. It doesn't sound like it's going to be that bad and we will still have some control of movement while ships are landing and taking off. So it's all good. Just means we likely can't pick our landing spots or the spots will be preassigned destinations.

[@blazemonger1]

The Digital Foundry tech "deep dive" certainly is a great watch, which makes some excellent points very well.. Woud be nice to see it linked as you referenced it..

[@aetherial87]

Cutscene transitions from planet to space and vice versa let me keep my immersion without a boringly long or comically short flight.

[@tothesky8799]

While I do not mind the absence of seamless transition from space to planet and vice versa, I did in fact notice something during the 45 minute breakdown which did bother me. I noticed a loading screen appear when the player went from one room to another; they opened a door and the loading screen appeared, then they were suddenly in the next room. This in my opinion is unacceptable with next-gen console technology.

[@ShadowedCross]

I would love seamless landings in Starfield, but they didn’t design it to be a space simulator; instead, it is an RPG set in space, and as such, it has different priorities. I can understand why they didn’t feel it was worth the dev time when they can focus development resources on the game’s other elements. Perhaps modders will figure out how to do it, but they probably won’t for a long while, if ever.

[@gamingtonight1526]

But haven't they been working on it for 25 years? That's what they said. I hear a lot about "lack of time", but it's just a lie!

[@lmao.3661]

@@gamingtonight1526 it's been 7 years. it's their first new IP in 25 years.

[@chrisstucker1813]

@@gamingtonight1526 the idea came about 25 years ago. But It’s only been in active development for 7 years because the tech has only just came available

[@Lizardman9808]

Uh why can't be both Sim and Rpg? Oh wait that violates second law of thermodynamics.

[@chrisstucker1813]

@@Lizardman9808 too big of a scope thus too much of a risk

[@BeyondtheAgesStudios]

As a hardcore NMS player, the lack of seamless landing does ruin it for me; that being said am willing to give it a try, in the end am certain there will be mods that fix this mild annoyance. Am sure someone will incorporate a seamless landing similar to Starbourne 2, where the landing transition is you breaking through the atmosphere in a fiery spectacle effect which in fact is a loading screen.

[@pete5177]

Immersion is desirable. So smooth atmospheric transitions are too.

[@ia3630]

Great choice of words, desirable =/= necessary 😉

[@HevonCZR]

At the end of the day this is an RPG game, not a Space sim, so I understand the game not having such features

[@SpaceCinemaYT]

Ah Bethesda Games, one of the few bright stars in the game developer industry. Always get good memories when I remember playing Fallout 4 all those years ago.

[@afewsnakes]

Lol, clearly you’re younger. Fallout 4 was an immense disappointment.

[@TraphouseTCG]

Where the f*** have you been bro?

[@Kavou]

Amazing video, exactly my thoughts aswell. Love to see people tackle the subject of peformance.

[@Dellerss]

30 FPS is unplayable IMO. It works as a minimum in Microsoft Flight Simulator, but not in games on ground level. The threshold of where I feel that a game isn't laggy is generally somewhere between 70 and 80 FPS, and anything below doesn't feel smooth. I don't dare to pre-order this in case my computer can't run it properly.

[@TheoryGuy83]

I'm actually completely fine with a transition cinematic. I'm here for a Space RPG, not a Space Sim.

[@brooketohimself]

So as you're going to a destination you're hanging out on the ship and chatting with bros and arranging furniture and then you get there and pop out like you've left a fallout bunker and do that scenario, can build, do objectives. Rinse repeat along a major storyline and side-line exploration? Ok, I'm fine with it I guess. They could include a 'hurry to destination' type button in case you had nothing left to do.

[@grizzlybigbore1988]

No land vehicles? This game would have it all. Who wants to walk everywhere?

[@bushmonster1702]

bit of a red flag

[@117johnpar]

This is the same game engine where for years, to get any type of vehicle movement, they had to make the vehicle a piece of clothing, to then strap to an NPC, just to be able to move it around in the gameworld. So the idea they have controllable space flight at all here is basically mysticism.

[@valorin5762]

I mean, Starfield is not a space sim, but I am under the impression they listened very carefully to all the criticism and feature requests of Elite and SC and just included them. And then turned to other space games like NMS and Everspace 2 und merged those into the game as well. :D SO MUCH looking forward to playing this game. If it holds up only 50% to the impression I have, that would still suffice for me...

[@KenOtwell]

One thing all current space games are missing is space/planet battles. Without continuous travel through the atmosphere, how do you realistically attack a city or country from space? And how cool would that be to strafe the capital building and watch interceptors launch to chase you away? (I don't include Star Citizen as a "current" game.)

[@BiGG_X]

I will admit, in ED you could be flying through endless space in some systems that took quite a while to travel. I do like chill gameplay though. BUT sometimes on a tight schedule it really sucked lol. I enjoyed ED quite a bit. I was not a fan of cutscene landings, but after seeing the scope of this game (IF they can nail it) I can easily give up the freedom of flying into the planet to scope out where I want to land. I know people are not liking stiff requirements like this 30fps console and SSD required for people still running on HDD. But if we want better quality games, then sacrifices have to be made. Old hardware NEED to be left behind. Im really excited for this, Forza Motorsport, Skylines 2, and Phantom Liberty. My only problem right now is my RTX 3070 and its hard for me to give up since EGVA stopped making Nvidia GPUs 😮‍💨 Plus im not confident enough a 40 series gpu wont burn up my computer. Yes i know make sure the plug is seated, but still not comfortable to consider buying one.

[@Drakoni23]

It looks like at least we are getting a live landing/starting animation instead of just going to a loading screen. While I get the technical difficulties with seamless flying, in No Man's Sky lifting off, heading upwards until you leave atmosphere is a great feeling to me. As well as entering atmosphere, through the clouds until you see the landscape properly bellow you. But my biggest issue with it is the lack of planetary flight because of this. I love flying over the areas to quickly scout for buildings or for the perfect Outpost spot. So I hope they will eventually add some sort of shuttle with maximum hight or some sort of land vehicles. The last might exist for all we know. With how big the world is with randomly generated content this would be pretty cool.

[@AbuN4z1r]

The landing animation sort of is the loading screen while data is being streamed in in the background, hence the SSD requirement.

[@FAAMS1]

Its a Bethesda game for Bethesda RPG players...seamless transition from space to planet side is fundamental for me, but I do agree with you for the target market Bethesda is looking for it is of no concern!

[@fatfreddyscoat7564]

So, planetary landing is the equivalent of opening city gates in Skyrim?

[@majorlemming8099]

to me not having seamless landings just breaks up game flow a lot. i kinda see it as if i were playing red dead 2 and every time i wanted to get on my horse i would have sit through a loading screen im sure its very difficult to do and i can for see ways they could do loading into planets where it wouldnt effect things that much but its still disappointing

[@Scimarad]

Did you enjoy Mass Effect, though? I think that's more the territory we are in.

[@cmdrdarqangel7548]

Hands down, planetary landing adds to the immersion aspect of the game sphere. Without it, it's honestly just one less thing to worry about in terms of gameplay. Will it break immersion? For those who like realism, yes, but not too much that it kills the experience of the game in general.

[@apollo12002]

I do like flying to planet surfaces it’s nice immersion but its not a deal breaker , theres a lot of really good things they are bringing to this game and as long as its not a stutter fest , buggy and rendering 8 bit graphics i’m sure It will be a big hit.

[@oliverdoherty]

I never expected seamless landings, i don't think the engine is suited for it (or possibly even capable of it), and similarly so for atmospheric flight. I also expect loading transitions into the "hero" locations, such as New Atlantis. The fact that SF has ship flight/combat was a pleasant surprise from the previous showcase. Prior to that the most i'd expected was an "Outer Worlds with bells on" experience, with maybe some turret based pew-pew gameplay if ambushed while travelling between planets, but that was it. So "arcady" ship combat is fine by me too, and many successful games have gameplay based on that alone. Comparisons to NMS are somewhat pointless tbh, it's proc-gen is "purer", it has to be given the scale they deal with. After about 20 hours with the vanilla release I was somewhat saddened when i realised that the next cave I entered would be much like the last. I expect SF's more "artist-guided" approach to proc-gen will offer more unique encounters, but that still remains to be seen. In any case, although I'm cautiously optimistic, I expect the initial PC release to be a bit of a shit-show (it is the Bethesda way, from my experience) so I'll be waiting before I throw money at it.

[@steel5897]

I'm pretty sure, as DF said, a stable 60 FPS might have been impossible even at low resolutions because of the CPU calculations. Should be pretty hard to run on PC too. I'm mentally prepared to play this at a locked 40 or 45 FPS to enjoy the fidelity, the same thing I did in Cyberpunk to enjoy the ray traced visuals.

[@BGIANAKy]

What? Sc looks better and runs at 100+ on good servers

[@gergokerekes4550]

@@BGIANAKy dude, do not lie like that if the data is avilable on the DEVOLOPERS SITE. on the 3.18 version with a 3080TI and I9-10850K fps was WHOPPING FUCKING average of 58.8. bot even 60. what 100+ you talking about? 1m^2 cubicle with nothing in it?

[@Wanelmask]

@@BGIANAKy Blatantly straight-up lying. Same as you do on Spectrum, that is. So remember to don't act offended when people call you a white-knight and a shill, as you pretty much act like one.

[@BGIANAKy]

@@gergokerekes4550 obviously not intelligent enough to understand what I said. Fresh servers, my guy. Where they’re not bogged down by server lag and memory issues. As the server stays up and more people get on, the overall quality goes down. Net code is a major problem

[@Emerging95]

I’m more upset about what looks to be a loading screen to board your ship, than no seamless landings, but that’s not a big deal as long as I can walk around my ship and the loading screen isn’t too long.

[@Cybo-Man]

The lack of not being able to fight the atmosphere and manually land a behemoth of a ship really turns me off, it is what it is. I enjoy this aspect so much in my space games that without it, it just feels like an incomplete experience. Sorry not sorry

[@destin4666]

The real question is , since there is no seamless transition, is there atmospheric flight ? because that mean, no ability to travel fast and look at what's on the ground , stop around point of interest , fly above ruins or settlements , explore giant caves with your ship or fly around giant crashed space ships or stations, that's a pratical and visualy attractive part of having a space ship that can land anywhere seamlessly in my opinion.

[@Scimarad]

Again, that's why I'm thinking people are misunderstanding what this game is. I think they should be making comparisons to Mass Effect and The Outer Worlds rather than Star Citizen or Elite.

[@alexl7213]

Already noted a mod idea: voice quantum modulator -allows players to use voice to modulate different energy pattern bursts, a.k.a shout powers. How will the sci-fi deal with Dragonborn shouts? XD Unrelenting Force iiiiin Spaaaaaaaaace!

[@Jasales42]

Just let me walk down the downramp on a new world. As long as my ship doesn't auto launch to orbit when I go inside, I'm ok with non seamless landings.

[@-CrimsoN-]

It won't auto launch. Hell, in the Starfield Direct showcase, Todd's character was attacked by bounty hunters who landed in their own ship. Todd's character fought the bounty hunters and then boarded the ship. The ship then took off with Todd's character still aboard the enemy vessel. Todd's character proceeded to rampage through the ship and take control of it. All relatively seamlessly. So while, I don't think we get seamless landings, there is still some control of movement with takeoffs and landing. It's already been confirmed that we can walk around the starships while in space, which is honestly all I ever wanted.

[@7evenof9ine76]

I have said this about the game before, the idea that you can't fly around the planet surface with full control yourself and land where you want to choose kinda takes a bit of fun out of it. From what I have read you place a marker on the planet and the ship is then out of your hands and the ship then lands as close as possible to that location for you. This seems to take some of the fun and realist aspects out of the game for me, and I know it sounds petty but I'm also wondering what else is out of your hands and your just an observer. But still Starfield looks good.

[@michael_c2]

I don't think it sounds petty, this is supposed to be next gen. It's like we're being conditioned to not expect anything great anymore. Seamless landings would have been nice, 60 FPS would have been nice. It's crazy how people are basically being conditioned to not expect these things when they certainly would have added a lot to the game

[@eightbitmonkey]

Personally my only real concern is Mod Support and if creation club will continue to break them years after all DLC have been released, also since I play mainly on PC whether it will have Denuvo which in my case is a no-go.

[@Tranquilityone]

Bethesda ditching seamless landing raises more questions like how planetary exploration is handled. Once landed are we allowed to openly explore the planet? And not seamlessly exit into outer space ofc. Or are we gonna be restricted to certain biomes?

[@SetZor666]

i've heard conflicting information, but supposedly once on planet you could run around the entire thing if you had literally nothing better to do for a month, it was confirmed they are actually spherical planets.

[@mattallred]

One thing I found interesting is that during the interview between Ryan from IGN and Todd Howard, Todd said his favorite moment playing the game recently was when an enemy ship landed nearby and he boarded it during combat and it took off with him inside. One has to wonder if this forces a loading screen? I don't know.

[@Pplantsht]

Best articulated opinion piece on Starfield I've seen that has got me to calm down about the 60 fps debacle and planet to space, space to planet scripted transition as well. I'm now taking the wait and see approach. Def rooting for this game as a long time xbox fan, but can't make excuses in defense of them anymore. Starfield has got to be a homerun or they are most likely in imo done

[@72TheScarface]

I'm kinda sad for not having it in this game to be honest

[@parawill7074]

I think a great compromise for planetary landings would have been a variety of random cutscenes that show the ship going through the atmosphere and flying a distance to the landing spot. We could get treated to 3rd person shot and shots from the cockpit to add to the immersion a bit. We may not actually fly the ship down like in Star Citizen or NMS, but an extended visual sometimes being there other than the regular short cutscene would be awesome. Either way, I can live with it given the trade off with having crew and being able to walk around the ship in space. It is actually an enhanced version of Mass Effect: Andromeda in a number of ways.

[@jackvanderlinden9234]

I definitely agree. Right now the cutscenes seem underwhelming. I want to be able to discover each new planet as if I'm flying down to it, with the landscape slowly revealed through layers of clouds. Surely they could have made the cutscenes feel like seamless landings which would increase immersion, but made them skippable if you aren't a fan of that.

[@cmdrskyrunner6122]

Games will never moved forward if they only cater to what a console can run at 60fps. Maybe in a few years a new console will run it at 60. Its just the way it goes. If you cant wait then by a pc. A decent gpu will run this at 100fps at 1440p. Especially if it has dlss implemented

[@miketrans2717]

About seamless transitions, no planet overflying, no vehicles (apparently): Whatever game, whatever feature I think we can say: A missing feature is always bad but a present feature can in most cases be ignored at the player's will, so that's a big difference and not just 'subjective' like you say. For Skyrim / Fallout players who don't like it they can use the fast-travel, while I myself, because I like it, I can use the slow-approach mode in overflying the planet surface or traverse the plantet's atmosphere - if all this was in the game. By doing so I can for example discover objects, loot or NPCs which are not scripted with the story and give so an unexpected outcome in my gameplay style, more immersion for sure and results in exploration, lore etc. that would NOT have been achieved if these features were absent. So a feature which is included matters a LOT, even for players who don't like it so they can just ignore it. There is no doubt: The absence of these features is a big take-down for a space-oriented game, RPG or not.

[@worndown8280]

First game I ever played that had "seamless" landings was Starflight by Binary Systems. Amazing game considering the time it came out. Something like 200 star systems and around 1000 planets. Its my benchmark for all space games. And few live up to it even after over 30 years.

[@worndown8280]

@@alexwalters35 yea... old. lol And while they arent seamless in todays context, they were for the day. Or perhaps that was just Starflight 2. I actually went and checked, it was Starflight 2. So old that the games kind of melded together. I miss my old Tandy computer. Those 2 games and Sentinel Worlds Future Magic took up a fair chunk of time.

[@Scimarad]

I had that on the Megadrive! It's a game I instantly think of should Molybdenum come up, for some reason:)

[@Quetz33]

For landing I'd like a middle ground: it seems your ship lands automaticaly on the surface, what would be cool is that it would enter the atmosphere automaticaly, but let you handle the landing part even if it needs to be on a specific landing spot...

[@davidchandler5432]

As a longtime Elite and NMS player, seamless planetary landings is maybe one of the more overrated things us space game fans focus on. It's COOL, and I think it's an effective selling point, but it doesn't usually DO that much as far as gameplay goes. It's neat when you gotta land carefully on a high G world in Elite, but I would happily trade that for the ability to walk in our ships, board other ships, steal NPC ships, design our ships, have a crew I can interact with, all that sort of great stuff we've always dreamed of for Elite in some form or another. If those things are only possible because you keep "space" and "planetary surfaces" in separate zones, then great! Please do that, I'd much rather have the fun mechanics over seamless transition from space to ground. Another similar thing that often gets brought up and really doesn't matter is the ability to walk around a planet. People keep asking if it's possible in Starfield, and I don't think it matters one bit. It's COOL if you can walk around the entire planet/moon, but it's not something you'd actually ever do (except for a fraction of people who do it just to do it). 30FPS on console is a shame, though it does make sense when you think about all the stuff Starfield is simulating and all the physics interactions.

[@ArchReverend]

I think a happy medium here would be to have the option of seamless planetary entry, and auto landing and let the player choose. If you just want to enjoy the feeling of entering atmo and have time to do so then it would be nice to have that option, but if you only have a few hours to play and don't want to burn the few minuets it takes to enter and break atmo then it would be nice to have that option too. With games like star citizen you don't get that option and landing on planets takes around 5-10 minuets which adds up if your doing cargo runs in a fat hauler. The advantage with single player games is the auto land saves time.

[@frojoe2004]

Movies in the Theatre are 29FPS. Fidelity, imo, is so much more important than FPS. Especially since this isn't a competitive multiplayer first person shooter

[@Sirtobiwan1988]

i like seamless landings but it is far away from being important for me nice to have but in no way important if i buy the game or not the bugs and the number of them are important if i buy the game at lunch or not

[@NoX-512]

Good points. One thought that came to me, if you can fly and land anywhere on planets, for some gameplay loops and story elements, it would be like having god mode. If they introduce vehicles at some point, roaming around planets won’t be a problem.

[@malum128]

Thank you for the video! Anytime it relates to space games, your channel is my go to. As for the whole 30vs60 fps thing, it is all pretty moot for pc and Xbox players. We may be limited to one or the other at first, but give modders a few weeks and they will have all kinds of options for people.

[@-CrimsoN-]

PC won't be limited at all. It's Xbox players who will be limited, even with modding. The issue is that the Xbox is just not up to specs for Starfield. Essentially Starfield is releasing as a next gen game on an old gen system. Modders can't do anything about that. Console players will just need to wait until the new Xbox comes out to play in 60 FPS. The same thing happened with Red Dead 2. What's crazy is that they expect to get the same type of performance as PC on a $500 device lol I'm building a new PC partially for Starfield and will be going all out. At least $3000 in parts. It's overkill for Starfield, and I could easily spend $1000 for a 60FPS Starfield experience, but no way in Hell would I be able to get a 60FPS experience in Starfield on a $500 budget... so I don't see why Xbox players would expect to.

[@kubel83]

I am definitely looking forward to this. I liked everything I saw in the presentation.

[@Blurgleflargle]

To me it sounds like a mix of both technical limitations and Bethesda wanting to curate a very specific structure of exploration - note that they also avoided the subject of ground vehicles altogether, and there might not even be any in the game at all, at least without mods. So it seems they really want you to pick coordinates on the planetary map and go on expeditions, rather than play it as a typical open world game where you just cruise across the world (even though you prolly still can walk as far as you can hold down W on the keyboard).

[@Lagrangeify]

Excellent analysis, particularly coming from you with your special interest in space sims. I do think the distinction you made early is important. I'd go one louder, this game is squarely aimed very specifically at RPG fans. Seamless landings would be truly awesome but as long as the stuff we know is in it is to the standard they're claiming it is, I'm at peace with it personally.

[@davescott7680]

Based on understanding Bethesda, their engine, and what they've planned . I 100% expect that it will be instanced procedural environments where ever you chose to land. There's going to be no flying around planets. The space environment will be entirely separate, you'll pick spots to land, it'll generate map, you can go back to that map later. But that map isn't connected to any other map you generate on that planet.

[@CouchCit]

Not only that, but one of the devs basically said the game procedurally generates and loads the map as you travel around destinations, with much of it being generated by the system and then sprinkles of bespoke, hand-crafted locations mixed in. I interpreted as being similar to the cells in Skyrim, except with real-time procedural generation occurring, and my theory is the game won't have atmospheric flight nor driving because the engine isn't able to generate the map fast enough with that tech.

[@magicjack4076]

@@CouchCitit’s basically what they are doing is a Skyrim dungeon but this time it’s a planet

[@gergokerekes4550]

@@magicjack4076 skyrim dungeons never were proc genned dude.

[@magicjack4076]

@@gergokerekes4550 procedural generated and then they went in and handcrafted parts of it, they didn’t make every single dungeon by hand but they made a bunch of building blocks that connect together which is probably how they do plannets

[@michaeljamieson3582]

I would’ve liked seamless planetary landings, but at the same time I’m glad that expectations have been set well out from the release date.

[@TerraWare]

I don't think that there's anyone that wouldn't rather have seamless planetary landing/take off or atmospheric flight its just that I don't think that it's going to be a deal breaker considering the game doesn't aim to be a space sim but an open world sci fi Bethesda RPG. Maybe I'm imagining this but I could swear Todd Howard was asked about this over a year ago after they first showed the game when he said that it would be a loading screen and I believe he said that putting such a system in the game would be very time consuming to the point where it was a design decision for them to leave it out and fair enough. Personally its not a deal breaker for me even though I prefer it was more like Elite Dangerous or No Man's Sky.

[@mh22xv]

Being able to land where ever you want, topography allowing, would increase the sense of freedom immensely. And with that being possible one could also explore the planet at a low altitude, skimming the surface. I really hope Bethesda will reconsider, but I suspect there is something in this mechanic that would potentially show the games flaws which could be that the planets don’t have many interesting things to be found.

[@christophmahler]

*_ATMOSPHERIC FLIGHT_* When there is fighting on a planetary surface, the idea *to use one's spaceship to strafe - or outright bomb - enemy positions or creatures* comes naturally. That is the equivalent of *_dragonriding_* that came with the 'Dragonborn' add-on in Bethesda's SKYRIM - although less useful if one wishes to avoid 'collateral damage' among NPC questgivers... I can't imagine that the experience of passing through the atmosphere is a major issue in an RPG game - one has to fetch coffee, confident that one doesn't miss out, at some point before delving into the next *dungeon in the form of an entire planet* (think of SKYRIM's 'Blackreach', subterran ruins, connected across the world map, characterizing a lost civilization and remnant monsters)... Another equivalent to *atmospheric flight* would be the feature of _a mount_ to traverse the planetary surface quicker - unless a plausible explanation in lore is given, it would break immersion to not being able to fly in one's spaceship to a landmark - considering that Bethesda has thought of giving players the option to board ships, instead of just shooting them, it would be surprising if *a functional equivalent to a mount* is not featured (the showcased jetpacks may fullfill that function, completely but players may wonder then 'what if there were a mod for atmospheric flight ?')... SYSTEM REQUIREMENT Official system requirements are _concerning_ - considering that the vistas, environments and characters of STARFIELD don't look like a 'quantum leap' in detail, compared to the already familiar, immersive experiences of SKYRIM or FALLOUT. While the *parallel scripting deserves dedicated processing cores* (6-core CPU) - so does the data storage on an SSD - I can't imagine that e.g. technologies like real time Raytracing would alter the experience much for the better if e.g. CYBERPUNK were a valid comparison...

[@marekkos3513]

I think if the loading screen is going to look like an animated atmospheric video , then that could works well.

[@TacticalKolano]

Seamless landings: Option 1: You choose a landing pad, clear for landing, then you pilot the ship yourself, meaning you just beeline for the landing pad. Option 2: You choose a landing pad, clear for landing, and you get a cutscene of landing. Is option 2 also a seamless landing? Or is the cutscene considered a seam (in the technological meaning, yeah, but gameplay-wise)? Personally I don't mind, especially since the seamless landings don't really bring much (KSP atmospheric reentry was stressful, because of actual interesting physics and overheating).

[@DavidDrury90]

First off. I am so excited for this. More than most. I'm also a Kickstarter SC backer and elite backer. I love space games and RPGs. I already have preordered my constellation edition. With that said.... I think seamless flight missing is a huge loss for immersion but what I'm more concerned with is no atmospheric flight - at all. It's incredibly evident the issue is how the engine handles landscapes and the Cell nature of creation engine worldspaces. Ultimately the way you navigate exteriors and interiors in Skyrim and fallout will likely be much the same on starfield with a few new world spaces. Planet. Space. Exterior. Interior.

[@dh8203]

It's understandable why they went with this method, and it doesn't matter too much. They had to put the data loading in somewhere. The element that I do find missing is the ability to fly across the planet in atmosphere, not the re-entry transition from space. Flying along the planet surface, with air and ground combat elements would be fun gameplay if they could make that work. Who knows they might add atmospheric planes/gliders in the future, however I suspect the physics engine that's busy keeping the sandwiches stacked properly just wouldn't be able to keep up.

[@andrewstephen2359]

My personal thoughts here but having played SC the flying to and from a planet is amazing as is manual landing. A great feeling....the first few times then i just found it easier to let autopilot do it.

[@wesleytoone9479]

This is my thought exactly, it's really cool once or twice, after that it's just an annoyance.

[@magicjack4076]

Exact same experience in elite dangerous, you did it a few times and then you just get the auto dock

[@tomhamilton5707]

I’d like seamless landings but the big one for me is atmospheric flight. I’d love to be able to land and then fly off again to explore the planet, or land and deploy a smaller recon ship, or engage ground enemies with my ship. Lore wise this would make the most sense too for how you’d likely want to travel. We see NPC ship’s flying in the previews so know it’s possible. That said, everything looks incredible and I understand if it’s too technically challenging or a game balance breaker.

[@Scimarad]

I don't think this is going to happen though I can totally see it being added in via either mods or a later expansion (a bit like riding dragons in Skyrim)

[@eclipsicalbluestocking1182]

My bigger concern is that there doesn't seem to be any way to travel on the surface of planets besides just walking everywhere

[@jumblestiltskin1365]

I always enjoyed seamless landings in ED. Think they got it about right for my money. Id love to see that here but its not bothering me overly that it isnt.

[@tiezel5656]

Also on ps5 ?

[@andyl5297]

Also to note, Fsr with Amd is supported and no mention of dlss. Luckily I have 6800xt.

[@shattermage]

I just finished Jedi: Survivor on XSX running at the quality setting (4k30), and while it kinda drove me nuts at first being used to playing PC above that, I ultimately didn't mind because the frame TIMING seemed consistent. I think as long as the timing isn't terrible I think I can get by on 30fps on XSX for now. Hopefully some time down the road they'll patch in some quality settings of sorts to adjust, but meanwhile if I got through playing Skyrim on the 360 which was 30fps for everything, I think I'll survive.

[@infrasonica]

Sir I must say you have a great voice and cadence.

[@Viper1Zero]

Totally understand not including seamless atmospheric transitions, because that opens the game up to a whole host of other issues and we know this will already ship with problems. Honestly, as long as they kept gameplay at the forefront and immersion a close second, I think people will start to appreciate not spending the extra few minutes to enter the atmosphere and land. Still buying and still excited to check this out.

[@gamingtonight1526]

Bethesda never have done immersion. Sure, you can stop and look at some fantastic vistas, but look at the tiny towns and how few NPCs there are, compared to Witcher 3 cities! No one will ever convince me that Bethesda have done immersive games since Arena, Daggerfall and Morrowind!

[@Viper1Zero]

@@gamingtonight1526 Clearly immersion is a subjective characteristic, what pulls you in may not pull in others and vice versa. I agree on the town sizes, especially Skyrim’s “Army size.” I’ve got to suspend my disbelief that these ten dudes just took Windhelm? Ok lol

[@SetZor666]

my bet is that they tried to do seamless and the consoles just couldn't stream in the planets detailed textures/models/npcs/physics/etc and keep the framerate smooth as it went. no man's sky doesn't have much of this issue because it's 1 biome planets with very simplistic assets. it also suffers from jarring LOD transitions/pop-ins as you get closer and closer to the surface. elite dangerous also has verrrrry simple planets, most of them only have a handful of textures for the surface and a bunch of copy/paste rocks/plants scattered sparsely around.

[@karsonkammerzell6955]

Seamless landing depends on the type of game. I absolutely don't expect it from a sci-fi Skyrim, lol. Fun fact, Star Citizen wasn't even going to have it until they were looking at the tech they had and went, "You know what? We can do this." Starfield is just a different game. I'm comparing it to Mass Effect and Skyrim/Fallout more than any other game type. Starfield is a RPG set in sci-fi. Not a sci-fi game with RPG elements.

[@marks7502]

why are we seeing ObsidianAnt's face now?

[@Spike-qh2bb]

Im not bothered people like to moan about nothing, Star Citizen is a completely different game. Starfield is more my play style because its single player so no multiplayer jerks to deal with 24/7, online cheats everywhere you look.

[@ZapGamer2k11]

Although it would be cool, I don't think we are getting any kind of seamless space to planet transitions, i think it will probably be something like you select where you want to land, and their is a landing cinematic. However, I could see a mod being made to allow this sometime down the line

[@Opnn8d1]

Regarding framerate, One thing that has been the case with every Bethesda title since Morrowind using whatever version of this engine, every single script actively running cycles once every FRAME. Not every second, but every FRAME. and there can potentially be a lot of complex scripts running, each collecting and sharing data with other scripts that process a different part of the same mechanic. Depending on what the scripts are doing, this can actually cause framerate to drop noticabley. That's just from the scripts. When you factor in the whole physics tracking and collective location tracking for all items, whether physics-based or otherwise, you've got a substantial drain on resources constantly. I suspect that the console lock to 30fps is to ensure that steady performance is possible while allowing the necessary overhead needed to keep script process stacking from being as noticeable.. Consoles have a fixed system configuration. Therefore it makes sense to lock the FPS accordingly. It's safe to say that if someone were to build a gaming PC just prior to Starfield's launce, it will likely far outstrip the specs of the consoles, hence them not locking the framerate. Regarding the NPC's activity schedules... This is, assuming that it remains consistent with the way Skyrim handled it, driven by sort of a timeline that just checks where the player is when it ticks around to a specific entry. More specific, it checks to se if the player is in the cell named by the event. If so it spawns the NPC where indicated. It is yet another thing that factors in with what's running with each tick. But its footprint is not nearly as big as it would be if it were tracking actual movement in real-time. Now if they've changed how the NPC schedule aspect is processed, it could be more resource-costly... Or less, if they've managed to optimize it.