|
Cross-Section posted:
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
dr_rat posted:When they show the solar system map when talking about mars it seems earth is shown pretty lifeless and barren, so humanity hosed it up pretty majorly I guess. I'm pretty sure you can land on the Moon though, when they showed our solar system briefly in the deep dive (the part where they were talking about Mars I think), you could briefly see the Moon is called Luna, and later on it shows up in the lower-left compass/watch/thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 14:41
|
|
|
webmeister posted:I'm pretty sure you can land on the Moon though, when they showed our solar system briefly in the deep dive (the part where they were talking about Mars I think), you could briefly see the Moon is called Luna, and later on it shows up in the lower-left compass/watch/thing Yeah I'd be really surprised if you couldn't visit the mars but couldn't visit the moon. That's defiantly a location people would want to visit and not to hard to make either. You know mostly desert rock with some craters, possible with some human junk scattered around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
The mass effect comparison jumps out at me and in that game it wasn't anything more than the game just not taking place on earth. It exists, it's inhabited, you just can't go there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
Have they said anything about gas giants? You wouldn't be able to land, of course, but could possibly build something in orbit
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:The latest trailers got me more interested then the last one, but I am still a little hesitant, I want to see if there is going to be a whole load of old Bethesda jank unfixed because they'll wait for the modders to fix the same problems again. given that skyrim's unofficial bugfix patch has it's own mod that removes most of the "fixes" arthmoor did maybe starfield might be less buggy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
ymgve posted:Have they said anything about gas giants? You wouldn't be able to land, of course, but could possibly build something in orbit They could also have moons with some cool views
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 15:42
|
|
|
They are holding back the footage of visiting earth to get another hype boost before launch. The main benefit of being owned by Microsoft is that they've been able to work with the MS Flight Simulator team for a couple years now. It's the second DLC and will bring in-atmosphere flight for an additional 150GB. You see that city? You can go there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3xp-SnZDoY
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
Starfield flight simulator. Fly your ship down and rescue strand civilians on mountain top. Mug them for all their caps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
PeePot posted:They are holding back the footage of visiting earth to get another hype boost before launch. The main benefit of being owned by Microsoft is that they've been able to work with the MS Flight Simulator team for a couple years now. It's the second DLC and will bring in-atmosphere flight for an additional 150GB. Can't wait to bomb groverhous with proton torpedoes in Starfield
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 16:15
|
|
|
webmeister posted:I'm pretty sure you can land on the Moon though, when they showed our solar system briefly in the deep dive (the part where they were talking about Mars I think), you could briefly see the Moon is called Luna, and later on it shows up in the lower-left compass/watch/thing In the Direct, they showed the player walking on Luna, Pluto and Mercury. They gave Mercury caves with glowing mushrooms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:They gave Mercury caves with glowing mushrooms. They know things NASA don't obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
8one6 posted:Option one: Oh no, Earth was destroyed by an asteroid made of dark matter. It's just not there anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
Here’s some work that might make people more confident in the possibilities of procedurally generated environments, though I doubt that Starfield is using techniques this modern (and likely for good reason; who knows how well the meshes generated here decimate or otherwise scale down to be practical on consoles) https://twitter.com/_akhaliq/status/1671191880262926336
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
Holy poo poo that looks amazing. Want to land a Helio Courier on one of those helicopter pads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 19:03
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:In the Direct, they showed the player walking on Luna, Pluto and Mercury. I kinda like that approach, but also would have preferred realistic representations of Sol's planets. But I don't hate this, and don't mind the direction they went.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I doubt that Starfield is using techniques this modern (and likely for good reason; who knows how well the meshes generated here decimate or otherwise scale down to be practical on consoles) Also a reason they wouldn't be using something like this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.09310.pdf posted:C.3. Runtime I mean it's still really cool, but um this is not a real time thing at the moment. Still could be interesting for asset generation before hand to be placed on a map or what not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Also a reason they wouldn't be using something like this: Oh no, I assume they wouldn’t be generating at runtime, but as part of the production process of those 1,000 worlds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
I feel like a lot of people don't really get how the planet stuff is set up for Starfield. As far as I understand it, there are 3 layers to this. The first layer is the procedurally generated universe. Once you've got good systems in place it really isn't hard to generate a lot of very nice looking but empty planets. A dozen worlds or thousand aren't that different. In fact Bethesda has said that one of the largest bottlenecks was coming up with the names for all the systems/planets/moons. These are deterministic so everyone sees the same overall landscape and don't actually take up that much space because they're generated on the fly. The second layer is handplaced content. New Atlantis will always be on Planet Jemison on the shores of the same body of water. Most of the stuff on the main story path will be made up of this stuff and it's basically what you know from previous Bethesda games. The third layer is where people seem to really get confused. It's probably easiest to think of it as an extension of the random encounter system they started using in Fallout 3. In the old version, a location like the Super Duper Mart parking lot would be flagged as a random encounter spot. The system could dynamically drop in a couple of actors and props, say a locked fridge and some scavengers arguing over it. There were severe limits over what they could add, there were limits on where they could be placed and the spawns weren't permanent because you needed to reuse the spot for later random encounters. Now in Starfield you can drop entire permanent locations into the overworld as you explore. They can be daisy chained together so that if you drop in a Science Outpost it can generate a second location as a quest target. This stuff isn't procedural, it's handcrafted and then placed into the game in a procedural manner. You can approach a planet with no assigned content, land at a randomly chosen location and when you walk out there will be probably be a couple of points of interest within a kilometer or two from you. There are probably controls that govern how densely placed points of interest are based on biome, faction control, level, distance from major populations centers and so on. You shouldn't be asked to take pictures of wildlife on an airless moon for instance. This is necessary because people wildly underestimate how big things are at a planetary scale. Imagine if you will an 11x11 grid of Skyrims, 121 total. That's an absurd amount of game space, but you would still need to multiply it by one hundred thousand times to get the surface area of even a relatively small planet like Earth. It is literally impossible to hand craft a planet. If the system works as intended, you should be able to go to any point on any planet and still find the intended amount of handcrafted content. The real question should not be about the procedural planets. It should be if Bethesda has enough modules behind their DM screen to drop in front of the player as they explore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
A question I personally had was if you would even explore the whole of any planet or if it would more like you can land the ship and it makes a zone, and you can only go so far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
There's nothing to indicate you can't, except that planet are very big.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Now in Starfield you can drop entire permanent locations into the overworld as you explore. They can be daisy chained together so that if you drop in a Science Outpost it can generate a second location as a quest target. This stuff isn't procedural, it's handcrafted and then placed into the game in a procedural manner. Pretty sure they said things like random science outposts would also be procedural generated based off chunks of crafted modules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Pretty sure they said things like random science outposts would also be procedural generated based off chunks of crafted modules. I don't believe so. If you have a link to something like that I'd like to see it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
So we have space ships we can use in space but not on planets. We have planet sized planets, but I haven't seen anything about vehicles for exploring planets. Do we get a horse? A dune buggy? Or when we land on Tamriell do we need to hoof it on foot all the way to the Throat of the World?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 20:06
|
|
marshmallow creep posted:So we have space ships we can use in space but not on planets. We have planet sized planets, but I haven't seen anything about vehicles for exploring planets. Do we get a horse? A dune buggy? Or when we land on Tamriell do we need to hoof it on foot all the way to the Throat of the World? You're gonna be able to roll around on your heels like the mechs from Heavy Gear 1 & 2. EDIT: NOT like "Heelies"
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
I believe Bethesda is suppose to be doing more gameplay reveals closer to launch. I hope we hear about planet vehicles at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
I don't think there are vehicles. If you want to go to somewhere distant on a planet you get on your ship and choose a new landing point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
Yeah it may be the situation that they'll drop you down in an area populated with people and places, and bro if you wanna walk towards the horizon and into an endless grey zone of resource nodes, fauna, and geographic features, you do you. But if you want more Stuff to Do you're gonna get back on the ship and touch down again in what is effectively a new and distinct area.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
Someone is surely going to tie a brick to their analog stick and crash their Xbox when the generated tiles use up all the RAM
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:In the Direct, they showed the player walking on Luna, Pluto and Mercury. Funny thing to notice: unlike on all the other worlds, the whole time they're on the moon they look at the ground and never at the sky. Uh-oh
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
Nah, the point is that it ceases being "an endless grey zone of resource nodes, fauna, and geographic features" as you walk towards it. It populates the world with the handcrafted stuff as you explore. Unless you're on a planet where the point is that there's nothing there. The density of points of interests should be a set value and only the amount of time you spend exploring determines how many actually get deployed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
marshmallow creep posted:So we have space ships we can use in space but not on planets. We have planet sized planets, but I haven't seen anything about vehicles for exploring planets. Do we get a horse? A dune buggy? Or when we land on Tamriell do we need to hoof it on foot all the way to the Throat of the World? I think they will intentionally limit wanting to go too far from landing sites. You don't need a 1000 planet-sized planets for any gameplay reason. You don't even need one. I think what they are doing is creating "a planet", which has like four dozen landing sites, which have interesting things within a kilometer or two. And maybe you can theoretically leg it from one landing site to another through empty, procgen terrain, but why would you want to? The whole debate about vehicles and atmospheric flight just seems silly to me. Whether it's a good game depends entirely on how good the handcrafted content they are going to sprinkle around the landing sites, not any of that noise about real scale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 20:37
|
|
|
8one6 posted:Option one: Oh no, Earth was destroyed by an asteroid made of dark matter. It's just not there anymore. Are we even sure that any of the planets will have a size that is meaningfully planet-scale? For one, it's utterly stupid from a gameplay point of view. What, I'm gonna land on Earth and fly for several hours just to clear one continent? Also, we haven't seen Space-to-Planet continuous gameplay in a way that makes me think it's *that* similar to No Man's Sky. I'm sure it will be *mostly* continuous, but at times it looks like you enter into orbit-range and if it's a heavy-civ planet they scan your ship, then you just load into a spaceport? At that point a lot of planets could just be like entering cities in Skyrim, where you have relatively fenced off curated areas meant to contain lots of interactive pieces, but beyond those boundaries, not so much. So it wouldn't really be a stretch to render an Earth-planet if you just land at a designated point and it's either a gleeming metropolis or barren wasteland with maybe an accessible Fallout vault. Although I really do like the idea of Flight Simulator integration, where you could literally fly to the small town you grew up in and see that it's just a giant sand dune but some faint small town qualities remain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
marshmallow creep posted:So we have space ships we can use in space but not on planets. We have planet sized planets, but I haven't seen anything about vehicles for exploring planets. Do we get a horse? A dune buggy? Or when we land on Tamriell do we need to hoof it on foot all the way to the Throat of the World? I'm pretty sure they implied in the Direct that the planets aren't 100% traversable. You pick a landing site and then you have a large chunk of surface to explore (they mentioned 1km square tiles, they didnt say if ti was more than one per landing site), and if you want to go beyond that, you find another landing site. I think expecting every planet to be fully traversable like the planets in No Man's Sky are for instance is going to lead to disappointment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Nah, the point is that it ceases being "an endless grey zone of resource nodes, fauna, and geographic features" as you walk towards it. It populates the world with the handcrafted stuff as you explore. Unless you're on a planet where the point is that there's nothing there. The density of points of interests should be a set value and only the amount of time you spend exploring determines how many actually get deployed. I hope so, because the version I posted is as old as Daggerfall and Arcanum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
AirRaid posted:I'm pretty sure they implied in the Direct that the planets aren't 100% traversable. You pick a landing site and then you have a large chunk of surface to explore (they mentioned 1km square tiles, they didnt say if ti was more than one per landing site), and if you want to go beyond that, you find another landing site. They did mention just being able to run for as long as you want in any direction and it will just procedural generate, but like daggrfall if you want to actually go to a location you'd just generally fast travel there, unless its a generated mission from an outpost which is like "go kill the raiders to the west of here that keep attacking us" or what ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:I think what they are doing is creating "a planet", which has like four dozen landing sites, which have interesting things within a kilometer or two. And maybe you can theoretically leg it from one landing site to another through empty, procgen terrain, but why would you want to? If there are like 4 dozen landing sites per planet I would be happy with that. I think it's much more likely to be 3 or 4 for the majority of the planets which aren't feature planets like Mars and the like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:And maybe you can theoretically leg it from one landing site to another through empty, procgen terrain, but why would you want to? To find the perfect spot to build a settlement, same reason I sailed around for hours with building supplies in Valheim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
They've shown that you can land anywhere multiple times. It's probably a little inaccurate in order to find flat enough terrain that your ship doesn't look hosed, but it is most definitely not just a few predetermined spots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
That's awesome to hear, I must have overlooked that in the previews, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 21:46
|
|