Bethesda has finally shared the first gameplay footage for its highly anticipated space-faring RPG, Starfield, offering a 15-minute-long glimpse at the incredible worlds and vehicles that players can expect when the game arrives next year. The footage reveals a HUD that should be very familiar to fans of Bethesda’s Elder Scrolls and Fallout games, opening into a rocky environment that takes the character into a facility where they face off against pirates and other adversaries with futuristic weapons. Director Todd Howard goes on to show much more from the game, including new locations such as New Atlantis, the character creator, an outpost building system, ship customization, space combat, countless planets to explore, and more. Starfield will launch in 2023 for PC and Xbox Series X|S.
The year is 2330. Humanity has ventured beyond our solar system, settling new planets, and living as a spacefaring people. From humble beginnings as a space miner, you will join Constellation — the last group of space explorers seeking rare artifacts throughout the galaxy — and navigate the vast expanse of the Settled Systems in Bethesda Game Studios’ biggest and most ambitious game.
In this next generation role-playing game set amongst the stars, you will create any character you want and explore with unparalleled freedom as you embark on an epic journey to answer humanity’s greatest question: What is out there?
Source: Xbox Wire
Discussion (19 replies)
Join Discussion →Looks like they'll be out-Star Citizen'ing Star Citizen...
It's been a long wait since Fallout 4.
They could have a space game where you fly around a SINGLE planet and mine asteroids and fight others for rights... and as long as it releases to retail it would STILL OUT STAR CITIZEN, STAR CITIZEN!
Every game that actually sees a retail release that began development at a date later than 2011!! has out done Star Citizen.
I'll pay $60 for that 15 minutes and pay more for the DLC later! ? I feel like it's been forever since I've looked forward to a game. Now I have this and Diablo.
Soooo... Fallout meets a mini No Man's Sky? Sounds okay to me.
The space graphics look good but the planetary graphics look extremely sparse and dated and that frame rate needs serious work. Hopefully those things will be improved before release.
What is this sniz?! StarMeetsSkyAt76?! So, Bethesda took YEARS just to reuse everything in FO, a pinch of SC, with A LOT of No Man's Sky? I hope Hello Games are receiving the proceeds. ?
The graphics/textures/animations looks so outdated I couldn't continue to watch it.
OhHHhh, looky-looky! Pronouns with extra! ?
~it is all a dream, I'll wake up soon~
It didn't feel outdated to me. But what do I know.
You saw the part where this is Bethesda, right?
Modders, start your computers!
I played Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout4, even Fallout 3 without mods first and still enjoyed them. Acting like bethesda games are unpayable without extreme modding is gross over dramatization.
Frankly I don't get all the negativity towards starfield, so many people hating on it, and none has a legitimate reason, they just throw out some generic adjective and call it an argument.
I think there's some genuine concern about the 'new' functionality being brought in, as well as how poorly Fallout 76 went - but it could also be that Fallout 76 was an afterthought because Bethesda was investing most of its resources in Starfield!
Yeah I played most of those, but beat only a couple.
Playable - certainly. But you have to be willing to gloss over a lot of quirks and bugs, especially shortly after release. And I've never thought their graphic engine was that good - it always looked a bit plasticy and the animations janky with spotty performance.
I was against Fallout 76 by default, it was unnecessary, and not their field of expertise. I mean the creation engine is janky even on single player, it was obvious that it would be a friggin disaster for a multiplayer title. It's as if Ferrari started making city buses, sure they could probably pull it off, but it wouldn't be very good or profitable.
I have put hundreds of hours in Oblivion, Skyrim and F3, only using some cosmetic mods. I have over 100 hours even in F4, which I played the least. The community patches were always news to me, I never actually encountered any of the issues they fixed.
The quirks are a byproduct of the creation engine, there is no fix for that, the creation engine sucks, But just as I enjoyed Cyberpunk 2077 shortly after release, I'm sure I'll enjoy Starfield too. Sometimes gamers seem like such a whiny bunch, oh, there is a T-pose glitch that happened once in the game, now everything is ruined and the game is an 1/10, REEEEEEEEEEEE.
Same for Mass Effect: Andromeda, which I beat in its much-maligned release state, and had a blast. Basically the week of release. I then proceeded to play through it two more times, once at each of the two highest difficulty levels, and it only got better.
I still have a chip on my shoulder for the self-unaware memelords that tanked that game's reputation. They were literally all wrong, and managed to miss all of the real shortcomings for annoyances that didn't even amount to Bethesda-grade game-breaking release bugs!
I pre-ordered ME:Andromeda, and the internet actually convinced me I made a mistake, until I started playing it and realized it is actually fine.
That's because its real shortcomings only manifest themselves in the second half of the game, a good 25-30 hours into it at least.
If I had to rank the launch state of games from worst to best it would be like this:
I'm of the same feel. I saw the video for Star field and and it looked fine to me. I'm hoping for a great game I can enjoy and expect it. Will need to see a lot more before I consider pre ordering. But I'm rather positive they will get my money.
What I don't want was that game we ended up getting that was supposedly like Fallout.. Outer Worlds. I just couldn't make the jump and enjoy that one like I wanted too.