It's a loading screen.I struggle to see the "depth" of Starfield. The word universe seems amazing, grand and spectacular, but in reality is shallow and lifeless.
Lets not forget the fact Neon in Starfield is designed in such a piss poor way you hit a short loading screen basically every 30 seconds going through doors.I don't really care about the tech (seems fine), but that video is atrocious from a design and immersion perspective.
Everything is okay until the horribly bland NPCs show up and reveal how boring this world is. Then the club at the end, lol... I like my dystopian futures to be cool in some way, not the all-too-current-day dystopia where the sexy club is basically androgynous quasi-men moving weirdly in the middle of a room full of lifeless and passionless NPCs from an HR brochure. It even ends in a unisex bathroom, rather fitting for any video showcasing this world.
No they are just bullshit things. This is like if I argued "Cyberpunk is so much deeper cause I can do all the fixer missions and become the most notorious merc, or I could avoid those and just do all the cop helping missions and become a good guy, or I can become a street fighting legend with all the Beat the Brat missions"
You're just being silly. Building a fucking outpost or changing the parts on your spaceship isn't some incredibly deep thing that offers different experiences for different people. Its just something you can do.
Can really see that shitty washed out filter for starfield here. Why the fuck does Bethesda do that? Multiple Bethesda have awful color filters.I mean, yeah. With all it's flaws CP2077 is a visual masterpiece fueled by the crazy amount of art, design adn production design work.
Starfield is just boring, lazy and generic in every respect except maybe for guns. (I use my own screenshots for reference)![]()
![]()
Similar, but worlds apart.Overall though they are quite similar - both under delivered at launch, extremely mid writing, very lacking in gameplay department.
But i'm not dismissing anything. I'm just saying you are overblowing these things and making it sound deeper than it is. Call me crazy but I don't consider changing my spaceship some deep thing that will give different players different experiences, as you put it.The only silly thing is dismissing parts of the game to suit your narrative, the things you mention are just variations of the basic gameplay, unlike Starfield which offers a totally different experience to the main quest.
Of course there are differences but they definitely are similar. Cyberpunk was by far the first comparative game that came to mind playing Starfield.Dumb comparison. They're such different games.
But way to start a war. Nice job lol
But i'm not dismissing anything. I'm just saying you are overblowing these things and making it sound deeper than it is. Call me crazy but I don't consider changing my spaceship some deep thing that will give different players different experiences, as you put it.
An actual sensible post instead of basically overlooking everything that Starfield does well.Cyberpunk 2077 Pros
-Story
-Characters
-Writing
-Graphics
-It has a damn map
-Overall world design; one massive city vs. several small disjointed area.
Starfield Pros
-Quest lines; faction quests are very enjoyable
-World building; ships and outposts
-Variety of worlds, scenery
-Gunplay
-Ship combat
-Overall game time; 140 hours and there is still more for me to do
Both games are enjoyable in their own way. Much of the differences, I think, are personal preference. I like the grittier, more grounded feel of Cyberpunk 2077 than Starfield. ButRiky is not wrong in saying Starfield has more in it to actually do. Having said that, I think if I made a list of cons then Starfield's would be longer.
Regardless, I think both are great games.
Is the 2.0 release free and do you know if you should start a fresh playthrough?Replaying the game again in 2.0 before jumping in DLC and yeah already after 10 mins so much more entertaining than the 20+ hours I spent with Starfield. 4 hours later and loving it.
One hilarious thing about the two.. coming from playing one onto the other, is how stark contrast the game worlds are. One is sex filled cybernetic fantasy you'd expect to find in the 80's and 90's. The other is the mediocrum if the whole human race went mormon in the far future.
Cyberpunk 2077 Pros
-Story
-Characters
-Writing
-Graphics
-It has a damn map
-Overall world design; one massive city vs. several small disjointed area.
Starfield Pros
-Quest lines; faction quests are very enjoyable
-World building; ships and outposts
-Variety of worlds, scenery
-Gunplay
-Ship combat
-Overall game time; 140 hours and there is still more for me to do
Both games are enjoyable in their own way. Much of the differences, I think, are personal preference. I like the grittier, more grounded feel of Cyberpunk 2077 than Starfield. ButRiky is not wrong in saying Starfield has more in it to actually do. Having said that, I think if I made a list of cons then Starfield's would be longer.
Regardless, I think both are great games.
Reconsider.
So are you saying CP2077 has worse gunplay/gameplay loop than starfield ?
I couldn’t disagree more if that’s the case. Cp2077 on hard mode or harder is a true treat to engage with now . The first boss in phantom liberty is especially bad ass to fight.
People don't often talk about the fact that Cyberpunk really wasn't that buggy on PC at launch, like no more than any Bethesda or CDPR game ever was. I played like 70 hours on PC and never encountered anything game breaking, even if I got the occasional physics or pathfinding jank.Those T poses were early bugs from its initial launch. I haven't seen those in quite a while.
Of course there are differences but they definitely are similar. Cyberpunk was by far the first comparative game that came to mind playing Starfield.
Comparative game that isn't made by Bethesda* lolFor you sure, for me the only similarity I see is that they're both open worlds. And even then Starfield isnt really open at all. And I think if 2.0 and Phantom werent out this wouldnt even be a conversation right now lol
First comparative games coming to mind for me playing Starfield were Fallout and Oblivion![]()
People don't often talk about the fact that Cyberpunk really wasn't that buggy on PC at launch, like no more than any Bethesda or CDPR game ever was. I played like 70 hours on PC and never encountered anything game breaking, even if I got the occasional physics or pathfinding jank.
The console ports were criminally bad and poisoned the discourse -- justifiably so. But I don't think the game would have been discussed as a disappointment in the same way if it launched on PC and next gen instead.
The other problem was that they overpromised and underdelivered on some things, and there were these tertiary aspects of the game that were held together with duct tape -- stuff like barely functioning police system, non-existent car and NPC AI, and lack of meaningful driving gameplay of any kind other than getting from point A to B, cut abilities, etc. All the stuff they addressed in 2.0. And a few things they still haven't like factions, destructible environments, and meaningful story branching.
But even with that said I don't think we would have had a serious backlash without the fact that they hyped this game up on last gen consoles and delivered a game that could barely even run.
I played around 10 hours of Starfield before concluding that my time would be better spent playing better games. Starfield may have loads of content, not disputing that, but it’s all cobbled together by loading screens and menus, so it loses the seamless immersion that Cyberpunk has.Thats such bollocks and just shows you havent played much of Starfield, if any at all. Just total nonsense.
Cyberpunk 100% has a more detailed and well designed world, but Starfield has some incredible areas, some well designed missions and dungeons, and a massive amount of unique content, ALONGSIDE the copy/paste locations.
But starfield without basic stuff like a brightness slider or a full screen option, broken or downright absent hdr AND that is getting completely revamped by modders, from space traveling, to enemy and companions ai, to upscaling tech to basic UI and QoL stuff AND with game breaking bugs is not in early access becaaaaause??l+To be fair. Cyberpunk 2077 was in Early Access for 3 years
CDPR just forgot to tell anybody
The console port problems (for next gen, at least) were overblown too though. I had some crashes, and it was weird that the world was so lifeless, but on PS5 the game played perfectly fine at launchPeople don't often talk about the fact that Cyberpunk really wasn't that buggy on PC at launch, like no more than any Bethesda or CDPR game ever was. I played like 70 hours on PC and never encountered anything game breaking, even if I got the occasional physics or pathfinding jank.
The console ports were criminally bad and poisoned the discourse -- justifiably so. But I don't think the game would have been discussed as a disappointment in the same way if it launched on PC and next gen instead.
The other problem was that they overpromised and underdelivered on some things, and there were these tertiary aspects of the game that were held together with duct tape -- stuff like barely functioning police system, non-existent car and NPC AI, and lack of meaningful driving gameplay of any kind other than getting from point A to B, cut abilities, etc. All the stuff they addressed in 2.0. And a few things they still haven't like factions, destructible environments, and meaningful story branching.
But even with that said I don't think we would have had a serious backlash without the fact that they hyped this game up on last gen consoles and delivered a game that could barely even run.
Before you start the "oh my God another thread", I would like to tell everyone that I want to discuss, not open wars between games, consoles, etc.
This is pure curiosity and discussion here.
Scan start of fights to hack an enemy with say overheat, use a smart gun to watch bullets fly and lock onto an enemy into the air, then enable your mantis blades to jump and air dash or zip around /lunge to enemies as you dismember them with finishers. Turn enemies into chunks with shotguns.I figured I get some pushback on that and maybe it is just me, but I enjoyed the gunplay a bit more in Starfield. Now that may be on me and maybe I'm not getting the right guns in CP or I need to figure out how to upgrade, but I went into one mission and literally emptied 5 or 6 magazines into a guy, including many headshots, and he kept coming. Far too much sponge for my tastes. Maybe my opinion will change later, but that's where I am right now.
Scan start of fights to hack an enemy with say overheat, use a smart gun to watch bullets fly and lock onto an enemy into the air, then enable your mantis blades to jump and air dash or zip around /lunge to enemies as you dismember them with finishers. Turn enemies into chunks with shotguns.
Don’t get me wrong I like starfield to shoot stuff, but the AI is cannon fodder, and way too many guns just felt the same to shoot.
Keep in mind too in the context of cyberpunk people being “bullet sponges” slightly makes sense due to the modifications to their bodies. However, gameplay wise, you can rip enemies apart in multiple ways if you build into it.
A galaxy. Holy shit.Reconsider.
It is. The update is for everyone regardless if you bought the DLC. The game gives you a choice whether to start afresh or jump straight into Phantom Liberty. There's a certain point in the game that the DLC unlocks and you can play it so its up to you. For continuity reasons and maybe to refresh your memory on the story, might be an idea to replay anyways. Especially with all the fixes and improvements they added to the base game,.Is the 2.0 release free and do you know if you should start a fresh playthrough?
Not sure if gunplay and world building are better than cyberpunk tbh.An actual sensible post instead of basically overlooking everything that Starfield does well.
hey now, you need to respect their pronoun choicesStarfield is Bethesda's worst single player RPG ever, so yes.
This thread and this one have proven to be fantastic shill filters.
Cyberpunk is a bit too lite on the RPG side of things for me to even compare the two experiences. Even CD Projekt Red themselves seemed to consider the game more of an action/adventure title than anything else.
Although Cyberpunk 2077 was hit with many complaints when it launched, one of the strongest ones was that it lacked many of the RPG elements that were promised or hinted at during its development. Disappointing gameplay features like lifepaths combined with the lack of customisation options causing many players to claim that Cyberpunk was more of a first-person shooter than an RPG. CD Projekt Red seemed to agree with this claim, slowly scrubbing out the word "RPG" from the game's marketing. Instead, it started to use the words "open-world adventure", including on the game's Steam page. The page previously read, "Cyberpunk 2077 is an open-world, action-adventure story set in the dark future of Night City — a dangerous megalopolis obsessed with power, glamor, and ceaseless body modification."
YesIs Mario Kart 9 much better than Gran Truismo 7 ?
In other words, only after 3 years of major updates does CD Projekt believe it deserves to be referred to as an RPG? Yeah, not something I'd be proud of.But that article is about how CDPR considers the game to be more of an RPG now than before. Your quote doesn't get to the gist of the story:
"It seems that CD Projekt Red feels like it has done enough to go back to calling Cyberpunk 2077 an RPG again as, following the current-gen update, it's changed the descriptors for the game on Steam to focus in its roleplaying features. As spotted by VRickenYT on the Cyberpunk subreddit, the Cyberpunk Steam page now reads, "Cyberpunk 2077 is an open-world, action-adventure RPG set in the dark future of Night City — a dangerous megalopolis obsessed with power, glamor, and ceaseless body modification.""
![]()
Create a character? Check.But that article is about how CDPR considers the game to be more of an RPG now than before. Your quote doesn't get to the gist of the story:
"It seems that CD Projekt Red feels like it has done enough to go back to calling Cyberpunk 2077 an RPG again as, following the current-gen update, it's changed the descriptors for the game on Steam to focus in its roleplaying features. As spotted by VRickenYT on the Cyberpunk subreddit, the Cyberpunk Steam page now reads, "Cyberpunk 2077 is an open-world, action-adventure RPG set in the dark future of Night City — a dangerous megalopolis obsessed with power, glamor, and ceaseless body modification.""
![]()
At the end of the day Cyperpunk to me is a much linear game compared to Starfield. I'm in these games for the long run and 2077 fell short especially waiting as long as we did for it.
In other words, only after 3 years of major updates does CD Projekt believe it deserves to be referred to as an RPG? Yeah, not something I'd be proud of.
What exactly makes Starfield more RPG though? Considering the depth of outcomes based on dialogue choices and actions is vastly slimmer in Starfield, not sure why you're trying to make such a strong argument out of this.In other words, only after 3 years of major updates does CD Projekt believe it deserves to be referred to as an RPG? Yeah, not something I'd be proud of.
Create a character? Check.
Loot system with rarity of gear? Check.
Multiple skill trees? Check.
Story with branching decisions? Check.
Side quests with stories & choice? Check.
I mean what else would help people see it is a rpg ? Absolutely is.