The Starfield one looks like Mos Eisley in 1978. đ
Aggravating-Dot132
To be fair, city in AC is just an empty shell with cutscenes. Looks good though, if you don’t care about what’s inside.
Butterscotch1664
AC gets a lot of flak for being very big but a lot of empty repitition. I personally like that as someone who doesn’t get much time for gaming. I can jump in, do some shit, then go cook dinner or whatever.
I somehow spent 40 hours on Starfield and I don’t even know what I did. It was mind numbingly boring. Apparently there’s something about magic powers? I didn’t even get that far. My breaking point was finding some random guy on a planet who needed to be escorted back to his ship. 10 minutes walking across an empty desert with no enemies to shoot at. I got him to his ship, shut the game down, and never went back.
SongOfTheSeraphim
Starfield is one of the worst games Iâve played in a good while. Canât believe itâs even talked about anymore.
Hutzzzpa
sure
let’s compare two complelty different games
Edit : different genres, I’m dumb
ilikemarblestoo
Are one of these supposed to be bad?
closetweeb69
Real talk though. What is the fucking point of having ancient style city walls in the space age?
De_Lancre34
Ah yes, famous self sustained cities-settlements on another planets, with population of 20 people and 10 buildings.
kyyjuh
Since Skyrim, every cities in Bethesda’s games have been so small that it break the immersion, even with the suspension of disbelief. But Skyrim was released in 2011 and has almost no generic NPCs in towns other than guards.
Fallout 4 is post-Apo, so that makes sense.
Starfield has none of these excuses. It has generic NPCs and “towns” that look like small theme parks full of wandering tourists.
Meatslinger
The even more ridiculous thing about Akila City there (Starfield) is that itâs not just a âcityâ; itâs supposedly the capitol of a spacefaring faction that was, in lore, capable of manufacturing and fielding enough manpower and resources that they fought a vast interstellar war involving mechanized walking suits, space battles involving dozens of starships, and ground combat against bioengineered monsters. According to the gameâs plot, their opponents suffered at least 30,000 losses over several years of fighting. One of the supposed many battlefields, a planet called Niira, saw so much fighting that the planet itself was deemed uninhabitable. But weâre to believe it was all orchestrated from a small frontier town that doesnât even pave its streets.
I appreciate that Bethesda wants to do the whole âsee that mountain? You can climb itâ thing with their world, but it means the scale of things can only ever be small. You canât have sprawling futuristic metropolises as described in lore when you need humans to design every square inch of it. I couldâve forgiven a skybox city model that you canât explore; at the very least the illusion would have fit whatâs being explained to the player as theyâre standing in it. But itâs unimpressive when they say âthis is our capitolâ and its population is eclipsed a hundred times over by the real town of Tombstone, AZ (pop. 14,000 at its peak).
TapaTop_
Anvil > Creation
And by far…
madladolle
Not just a city, but the fucking capital of a major faction – it is ridiculously small
dutchblizzard
bethasda was never good at proper sizing cities. their so called big cities are always small village sizes
alancousteau
I really loved what was Starfield promising. Space exploration, is also why Mass Effect is probably my all time favourite. But that city puts me off the game so much. I don’t want to see he wild west in this futuristic game setting. And those constant loading screens from leaving a building and entering into another. What year is this, 2004? I haven’t touched the game since last November when I bought it and played for 3-4 hours.
Latey-Natey
I think the RPG assassinâs creedâs cities got waaay better with each entry. Like Alexandria was kinda small, Odyssey had some pretty large cities and towns like Athens and the place Oikosof was (that place was surprisingly big for being such a small place), but Valhalla actually nailed cities, the ones which werenât big felt big, and there were plenty of genuinely big cities which you could explore and even do parkour in unlike in Origins and Odyssey where most parkour was either set paths or climbing up stuff.
thicclunchghost
Starfield’s criticisms seem fairly earned, but this picture isn’t really apples to apples.
AC is a game about terrain and not much more. How many of those buildings have doors you can go through? How many NPC’s can you interact with beyond just crashing into them? How many even have names?
They’re essentially different genres of games, picking an aspect one caters to, and one doesn’t, will of course show a disparity.
Chumbuckeneer
Memphis is the place to be. I can almost imagine being there as I play.
SquishyBaps4me
City has different requirements depending on what country you are from. In the UK to be a city you would need a cathedral, but they removed that requirement. All you have to do is apply to be a city now.
Sim city made people think it was a size or population thing.
robustedmcfurry
TBF Ubisoft did a great job recreating a semi-realistic city in their game. Like the city from The Division 1/2 are still amazing to look at. Assassin’s Creed Unity Paris looks good. Assassin’s Creed 2 still have the best Venice in the gaming history.
TheN1njTurtl3
Assassins creed orgins was good but it was a bit annoying how they filled it with so much crap as well, I don’t want to do some random fetch quest to get to a certain level so I can do the main quest, atleast if you want me to do side quests make the side quests interesting and not the same thing over and over again
Hairless_Human
Comparing 2 completely different games. Makes total sense.
TechieTravis
AC has a single large city that is modeled after a real place. Starfield has multiple small cities that are made up.
Overall_Implement326
Starfield looks far better.
itsRobbie_
Ah yes, one big city vs multiple cities on multiple planets. Can we stop acting like these starfield disses are some kind of gotcha? The map of AC origins is 31 square miles. ONE starfield landing zone is 19.6 square milesâŠ.
Technical_Roll3391
As much as i hate Ubi. I will always give their developers/designers the upmost credit and respect for their world building and world design. For instance, for as much flak that the Watchdogs series got on the whole, you can’t deny that Chicago/San fran and London were meticulously designed down to even the smallest details (London especially). And paris was a masterpiece.
berfraper
Akila makes sense, but New Atlantis doesn’t. It’s supposed to be a large city, not just a shipyard, a plaza, a few stores and a couple of buildings.
Frozen_Shades
Took me 1 hour to abandon Starfield. Sadly I did purchase it and didn’t refund it soon enough.
Played the tutorial and thought, “Is this a joke”? Tropes, terrible characters, I half expected characters to break the 4th wall the game was so packed with disappointing encounters. When I reached the first combat encounter I had to pause the game and sit back in disbelief. I had never been so bored and unimpressed with a major video game release.
TBF, I had been playing Baldur’s Gate 3 for a month. BG3 when compared to Starfield just made me hate the Starfield that much more. I even think that BG3 isometric graphics are superior.
DerangedAndHuman
Starfield is the Divergent of games. Made for the most amount of mass appeal to the point that there is literally no soul in it. An AI could have made it and we would not have noticed. Starfield is bland Uncle Bens rise, with no seasoning.
30 Comments
Such a massive disappointment
The Starfield one looks like Mos Eisley in 1978. đ
To be fair, city in AC is just an empty shell with cutscenes. Looks good though, if you don’t care about what’s inside.
AC gets a lot of flak for being very big but a lot of empty repitition. I personally like that as someone who doesn’t get much time for gaming. I can jump in, do some shit, then go cook dinner or whatever.
I somehow spent 40 hours on Starfield and I don’t even know what I did. It was mind numbingly boring. Apparently there’s something about magic powers? I didn’t even get that far. My breaking point was finding some random guy on a planet who needed to be escorted back to his ship. 10 minutes walking across an empty desert with no enemies to shoot at. I got him to his ship, shut the game down, and never went back.
Starfield is one of the worst games Iâve played in a good while. Canât believe itâs even talked about anymore.
sure
let’s compare two complelty different games
Edit : different genres, I’m dumb
Are one of these supposed to be bad?
Real talk though. What is the fucking point of having ancient style city walls in the space age?
Ah yes, famous self sustained cities-settlements on another planets, with population of 20 people and 10 buildings.
Since Skyrim, every cities in Bethesda’s games have been so small that it break the immersion, even with the suspension of disbelief. But Skyrim was released in 2011 and has almost no generic NPCs in towns other than guards.
Fallout 4 is post-Apo, so that makes sense.
Starfield has none of these excuses. It has generic NPCs and “towns” that look like small theme parks full of wandering tourists.
The even more ridiculous thing about Akila City there (Starfield) is that itâs not just a âcityâ; itâs supposedly the capitol of a spacefaring faction that was, in lore, capable of manufacturing and fielding enough manpower and resources that they fought a vast interstellar war involving mechanized walking suits, space battles involving dozens of starships, and ground combat against bioengineered monsters. According to the gameâs plot, their opponents suffered at least 30,000 losses over several years of fighting. One of the supposed many battlefields, a planet called Niira, saw so much fighting that the planet itself was deemed uninhabitable. But weâre to believe it was all orchestrated from a small frontier town that doesnât even pave its streets.
I appreciate that Bethesda wants to do the whole âsee that mountain? You can climb itâ thing with their world, but it means the scale of things can only ever be small. You canât have sprawling futuristic metropolises as described in lore when you need humans to design every square inch of it. I couldâve forgiven a skybox city model that you canât explore; at the very least the illusion would have fit whatâs being explained to the player as theyâre standing in it. But itâs unimpressive when they say âthis is our capitolâ and its population is eclipsed a hundred times over by the real town of Tombstone, AZ (pop. 14,000 at its peak).
Anvil > Creation
And by far…
Not just a city, but the fucking capital of a major faction – it is ridiculously small
bethasda was never good at proper sizing cities. their so called big cities are always small village sizes
I really loved what was Starfield promising. Space exploration, is also why Mass Effect is probably my all time favourite. But that city puts me off the game so much. I don’t want to see he wild west in this futuristic game setting. And those constant loading screens from leaving a building and entering into another. What year is this, 2004? I haven’t touched the game since last November when I bought it and played for 3-4 hours.
I think the RPG assassinâs creedâs cities got waaay better with each entry. Like Alexandria was kinda small, Odyssey had some pretty large cities and towns like Athens and the place Oikosof was (that place was surprisingly big for being such a small place), but Valhalla actually nailed cities, the ones which werenât big felt big, and there were plenty of genuinely big cities which you could explore and even do parkour in unlike in Origins and Odyssey where most parkour was either set paths or climbing up stuff.
Starfield’s criticisms seem fairly earned, but this picture isn’t really apples to apples.
AC is a game about terrain and not much more. How many of those buildings have doors you can go through? How many NPC’s can you interact with beyond just crashing into them? How many even have names?
They’re essentially different genres of games, picking an aspect one caters to, and one doesn’t, will of course show a disparity.
Memphis is the place to be. I can almost imagine being there as I play.
City has different requirements depending on what country you are from. In the UK to be a city you would need a cathedral, but they removed that requirement. All you have to do is apply to be a city now.
Sim city made people think it was a size or population thing.
TBF Ubisoft did a great job recreating a semi-realistic city in their game. Like the city from The Division 1/2 are still amazing to look at. Assassin’s Creed Unity Paris looks good. Assassin’s Creed 2 still have the best Venice in the gaming history.
Assassins creed orgins was good but it was a bit annoying how they filled it with so much crap as well, I don’t want to do some random fetch quest to get to a certain level so I can do the main quest, atleast if you want me to do side quests make the side quests interesting and not the same thing over and over again
Comparing 2 completely different games. Makes total sense.
AC has a single large city that is modeled after a real place. Starfield has multiple small cities that are made up.
Starfield looks far better.
Ah yes, one big city vs multiple cities on multiple planets. Can we stop acting like these starfield disses are some kind of gotcha? The map of AC origins is 31 square miles. ONE starfield landing zone is 19.6 square milesâŠ.
As much as i hate Ubi. I will always give their developers/designers the upmost credit and respect for their world building and world design. For instance, for as much flak that the Watchdogs series got on the whole, you can’t deny that Chicago/San fran and London were meticulously designed down to even the smallest details (London especially). And paris was a masterpiece.
Akila makes sense, but New Atlantis doesn’t. It’s supposed to be a large city, not just a shipyard, a plaza, a few stores and a couple of buildings.
Took me 1 hour to abandon Starfield. Sadly I did purchase it and didn’t refund it soon enough.
Played the tutorial and thought, “Is this a joke”? Tropes, terrible characters, I half expected characters to break the 4th wall the game was so packed with disappointing encounters. When I reached the first combat encounter I had to pause the game and sit back in disbelief. I had never been so bored and unimpressed with a major video game release.
TBF, I had been playing Baldur’s Gate 3 for a month. BG3 when compared to Starfield just made me hate the Starfield that much more. I even think that BG3 isometric graphics are superior.
Starfield is the Divergent of games. Made for the most amount of mass appeal to the point that there is literally no soul in it. An AI could have made it and we would not have noticed. Starfield is bland Uncle Bens rise, with no seasoning.
And yet both cities are as soulless as a rock.