Landing on a Planet – Star Wars: Outlaws VS Starfield VS No Man’s Sky Comparison
Landing on a Planet – Star Wars: Outlaws VS Starfield VS No Man’s Sky Comparison
28 Comments
You must give Starfield credit for being the world’s first Load Screen Simulator.
I find it super funny that a beloved game dev (Bethesda) did it significantly worse than a hated company (Ubisoft)
though NMS is still king.
Now do Elite Dangerous.
The organic landing in NMS is spectacular when compared to the others
I used to think I loved the exploration spaceship genre but the more I’ve played the more I realised I don’t have the patience for all the travel time
Elite Dangerous, no man’s sky, X4 and star citizen are the last few I’ve played and particularly star citizen has put me off the genre entirely
The idea of having to get your character out of bed, perhaps get food and drink, walk to transit to travel to spaceport, get ship from spaceport, take off and leave planet all as a prerequisite before you get to the part you want to play seems awful to me- I just don’t have the time anymore
Can someone please explain why Starfield couldn’t simply use a clever cinematic cutscene to hide the loading of the planets rather than cutting to a loading screen? It seems like that’s what Outlaws is doing.
Watched Oulaws and was thinking, “this is a long time to go without player input.”
Starfield, “a literal loading screen, wow.”
No Man’s Sky, you’re playing the whole time.
Three very differently scoped games with very different gameplay and mechanic goals.
Using clouds as a loading screen is more clever than an actual loading screen, at least.
What about Star Citizen? That is the best landing on a planet i ver experienced in a game/simulation.
Star Citizen is better than all of these.
3 completely different games. Pointless video.
I prefer Elite Dangerous. They did it right.
This isn’t necessarily praise for Starfield but a lot of that sped up flying was completely unnecessary. Doesn’t make a static loading screen any better but it did paint a more negative picture here.
It’s interesting that the most advanced and impressive one is the small indie team with a small budget vs long experienced devs that regularly makes AAA games
Also Bethesda. I beg of you it’s time for a new game engine…
Dual Universe does it best
It makes me irrationally angry how far away the person making the video started each clip, had to click forward to not watch them fly in a straight line for half a minute.
Should compare this to landing on a planet in Kerbal Space Program.
NMS doesn’t need to stream as many assets to the GPU because it has fewer structures and procedurally generated, that’s why it doesn’t need a full loading screen, though you do see a lot of LOD to make it work.
Cool. Now add Star Citizen.
Maybe a bit of an unpopular opinion but all three suck
I’ll be honest. I’ll take loading screen over cutscene I can’t make go faster. Loading screen takes less time.
Hate to bring them into this but now try Star Citizen
No Man’s Sky does flying around right, but I found the game tedious and barren otherwise.
While I appreciate the full control of landing with No Man’s Sky, that landing with Outlaws was goddamn cinematic. And seemed to be the most balanced in terms of time from space to landing.
No man’s sky is still the best
Entering and leaving planets feels amazing
Too bad the actual gameplay in NMS is so shallow.
**No Man’s Sky**: Almost seamless transition from space to planet. No loading screens that I can tell. Full freedom to land wherever you want, *chef’s kiss*.
**Star Wars**: A bit janky and clearly a cutscene being loaded up behind a bunch of clouds, but a decent attempt nonetheless.
**Starfield**: Can’t fly into the planet, opening up a menu to actually land, bland loading screen to take you out of the experience. Utter disappointment.