• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Starfield xbox series Gameplay leaked

The Madlads did it.
insider-gaming.com

Starfield is Bethesda's Least Buggiest Game to Date, Say Sources

With Starfield in the hands of media and creators, there's been one question I've wanted answered for months - Is Starfield full of bugs?
insider-gaming.com insider-gaming.com
Our first public comment about Starfield being a polished game came from journalist Tyler McVicker, who's currently under an embargo for the title. Despite being under the embargo, McVicker took to Discord to say, "Also, 15 hours in and not a single bug".

Taking one person's comments at face value is never enough, so I reached out to my contacts to delve a little deeper.

Speaking with several sources under the condition of anonymity who are currently under embargo and couldn't speak publically about the game, McVicker's comment is the same sentiment given by everyone I've spoken to. Five individuals, who have a varying amount of time put in the game have all said that the amount of bugs they've experienced can be counted on one hand. In fact, most said one or two at most, with everyone I spoke to having put dozens of hours into the game. In addition, it was also said that almost all the bugs that were found have already been listed to be fixed in the Starfield Day 1 patch.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lol how did we go from "the start screen is bad" to "the game should have earth sized, detailed walkable worlds, and no load screens anywhere, and a lot of quests everywhere"

And we're still almost a week away from early access lol

Honestly for the next step on the concern we should talk about sports, Bethesda games are supposed to be immersive right? Are we supposed to believe there's no interplanetary football? or some created sport like Blitzball? i mean if FFX did it 20! years ago how comes Bethesda can't do this in 2023

Imagine a trait about you being a top striker, the best in the galaxy, you have fangirls everywhere coming to you, but if you ignore them, they can go crazy and try to murder you, is it rly asking for that much?!?!
 
owandeseis said:
Lol how did we go from "the start screen is bad" to "the game should have earth sized, detailed walkable worlds, and no load screens anywhere, and a lot of quests everywhere"
Click to expand...
We've actually at a point 'I saw that tile logic limits in freaking Morrowind and broken animations are dating back from Oblivion', don't exaggerate.
 
clarky said:
Dude, the "world" they have have created here is many magnitudes bigger than anything else they have done before. Explore away.
Click to expand...
..as long as I stick to the planets and points they have predetermined? They pushed exploration of "over a thousand planets" and if these things are true, exploration is going to be limited to points of interest spots. If that is the case, why even allow users to land anywhere else if it will be nothing but sand/rocks? As a consumer, I am allowed to be disappointed.

No O owandeseis , nobody is asking for earth sized and detailed planets. Or at least I am not. I am disappointed that all of the talk about exploring planets seems to be very limited. I was at least hoping I could wander upon a random outpost or something. I hope it is all a misunderstanding and I will be pleasantly surprised next week.
 
clarky said:
Dude, the "world" they have have created here is many magnitudes bigger than anything else they have done before. Explore away.

They have been pretty upfront about the 1000 planets thing with only 10% having life on them. Not sure why you are disappointed?
Click to expand...
I think to most gamers who didn't follow every preview of Starfield thought it would be like an amazing expansion of No Man's Sky. It's frustrating you can't land yourself wherever you want, and when you land there are distinct zones you can't cross. Not to mention there are no ground vehicles
 
March Climber said:
To clarify my post above(as I'm not sure why it's being taken the way it is by multiple people). There are three things when it comes to the look of a game:

1) Technical Graphics(Features like AO, Ray Tracing, etc)

2) The Art Direction(how unique, vibrant, bland, or ugly does your game look even though it may have all of the technical stuff above)

3) Animation(how stiff or smooth does your game look even if it might have the above 2)

Examples: Netherrealm Studios excel at 1 and 2, but MK has been notorious for looking like a stiff game, thus number 3 is usually their weak point. Capcom on the other hand, are great at 2 and 3(or 1 and 3), but usually number 3(animation) is where they excel the most, as a lot of Japanese developers tend to focus the most on animation.

This is what I feel about Bethesda

1 - Good enough
2 - Ranges from Great to Good enough
3 - Mediocre

My point with number 3 being Bethesda's weak point doesn't mean that I think they're bad at 1 or 2. I recognize that Starfield looks graphically and artistically good, but that same old zoom-in to stiff character/lip movement will always make me realize I'm playing a Bethesda game. It's inescapable and my suggestion to anyone who hates it is to just deal with it or wait for mods, because they won't change it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really speaking to your post. More to general stuff.

I don't think the facial animation is very good.
 
rhodesianshepard said:
I think to most gamers who didn't follow every preview of Starfield thought it would be like an amazing expansion of No Man's Sky. It's frustrating you can't land yourself wherever you want, and when you land there are distinct zones you can't cross. Not to mention there are no ground vehicles
Click to expand...
Why would they think that? You don't need to follow every preview of the game. Theres only one, the direct. which was excellent and set expectations. If you haven't seen it go check it out, its a great presentation.

You can land anywhere you want btw.
 
Last edited:
clarky said:
You can land anywhere you want btw.
Click to expand...
Even on water?
1c6b685be6c62e07beaa0202b68abb06--tattoo-quotes-rock-climbing.jpg
 
Montauk said:
And how do you do that over (seemingly your demand) every single direction on a planet-scale environment, across 1000 planets?

Using magic? Or is it a time machine so you can borrow computers and software from the future?
Click to expand...

It's actually quite simple. You DON'T do 1000 planets.

Sometimes less is more.

Nobody dislikes Skyrim because the map is too small. Nobody would have disliked Starfield if it only had 15, or 25, or 50 planets. But, they might dislike it because it's 1000 planets are boring.
 
Raven77 said:
It's actually quite simple. You DON'T do 1000 planets.

Sometimes less is more.

Nobody dislikes Skyrim because the map is too small. Nobody would have disliked Starfield if it only had 15, or 25, or 50 planets. But, they might dislike it because it's 1000 planets are boring.
Click to expand...
LOL You can't really win with some people.
 
clarky said:
LOL You can't really win with some people.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they shouldn't have. Was simply answering a question.

I'm glad they did 1000, I'm looking forward to the desolation found on some planets. This is outer space after all, not Galactic Zoo Keeper.
 
took some time - 20 minutes and most of the concern is coming from people prising Sony games. concern is real. Repeating the same false statements, cruising a game they will never play, just because of pure jealousy. Don't you havegames to play on your favourite plastic box?
 
Raven77 said:
It's actually quite simple. You DON'T do 1000 planets.

Sometimes less is more.

Nobody dislikes Skyrim because the map is too small. Nobody would have disliked Starfield if it only had 15, or 25, or 50 planets. But, they might dislike it because it's 1000 planets are boring.
Click to expand...
This literally makes no sense, the illusion of many solar systems is what is important. You're only gaining with this amount of planets, you're losing nothing. The planets that have meaningful stories and characters would be there regardless. What you'd lose if like you say they only had 50 planets is that sense of scale and wonderment. Using a line from a favourite of mine, "seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no one has gone before".
 
naguanatak said:
But that's the thing... If you cannot travel back to your ship instantly or call it to your location (which is possible for a long time now) your own actions would have consequences. You would be able to 'feel more' and have the weight of your decisions on your shoulder. I'm not saying NMS game design or gameplay mechanics are built for that though. NMS can be boring, and for me that is part of the beauty and fun of it. Boredom isn't the death of fun for me as it is for most others it seems. I can sit and just breathe, observing and dealing with the intense feelings that get brought up through that. And NMS is a meditative experience for me sometimes.
For most, these are stupid things because we live in a world where people want instant gratification and game designers have to cater to that most of the time.
Almost all of the things you do in games feel inconsequential.
That's why Death Stranding is such a gem for me and for others (most?) its just a boring walking simulator.
Click to expand...
Totally understand where your coming from. Some games I want it and some not so much. It's also a time thing for me and also having too many games doesn't make me put much effort into games these days as soon as I come across something I don't quite like I'll move on to another game. Which was also a problem when I used to get my games for free in the 360 days. As soon as I had to buy my games when my 360 broke I started enjoying games a lot more as I put more effort into them. Hence I'm considering leaving subscription services and just buy the games I really want.
 
Montauk said:
What's your specific problem with what's seen here?
Click to expand...
I think that was pretty clear in the video I was replying to. Sand everywhere. Leaked comments about only seeing rocks for 40 (?) minutes of walking.

Honestly though, I am done responding to this thread, or at least the topic of exploration. Not that you did anything wrong by asking. I have made my point that I expected more from exploring the open parts of the planets and there are those that disagree. It is not the end of the world for me, I still have the game preinstalled, my Starfield edition headset charged and Starfield edition controller ready to go. It's not like I am hating on the game, I have a few hundred dollars invested in it so my expectation is I will enjoy it.
 
Diogodx said:
Beth: We are making a Beth RPG like Skyrim and Fallout but in Sapce.

Gamers: The game is not a space sim. We mad!!!!!!!:messenger_pouting:
Click to expand...
I mean I'm all in for this game, I am counting hours until it unlocks, but they just literally said you can walk across all the planets. It could have been quite small planets or anything but they said you can walk through all of them. And you can't because after running 20 minutes straight you get a prompt telling you your reached the limit.

I wouldn't mind there are limits, I mean on the video there's nothing to do anyways, it's rocks rocks sand and rocks, so no problem if you can't run 20 hours like this to cross the whole planet, but THEY SAID you can. This is objectively just a lie.

You can't expect people do be disappointed in such situations. I don't talk about haters who anyways would hate the game because it is not on PS5 but I talk about actual gamers who're interested in the game.
 
SenkiDala said:
I mean I'm all in for this game, I am counting hours until it unlocks, but they just literally said you can walk across all the planets. It could have been quite small planets or anything but they said you can walk through all of them. And you can't because after running 20 minutes straight you get a prompt telling you your reached the limit.

I wouldn't mind there are limits, I mean on the video there's nothing to do anyways, it's rocks rocks sand and rocks, so no problem if you can't run 20 hours like this to cross the whole planet, but THEY SAID you can. This is objectively just a lie.

You can't expect people do be disappointed in such situations. I don't talk about haters who anyways would hate the game because it is not on PS5 but I talk about actual gamers who're interested in the game.
Click to expand...
Thats not what was said. I see why it can be interpreted as such but they only said you can explore entire planets, which is technically true.
 
reinking said:
I think that was pretty clear in the video I was replying to. Sand everywhere. Leaked comments about only seeing rocks for 40 (?) minutes of walking.

Honestly though, I am done responding to this thread, or at least the topic of exploration. Not that you did anything wrong by asking. I have made my point that I expected more from exploring the open parts of the planets and there are those that disagree. It is not the end of the world for me, I still have the game preinstalled, my Starfield edition headset charged and Starfield edition controller ready to go. It's not like I am hating on the game, I have a few hundred dollars invested in it so my expectation is I will enjoy it.
Click to expand...
It is realism my friends there is marny planets that mights only have sand and nothin else
 
SenkiDala said:
I mean I'm all in for this game, I am counting hours until it unlocks, but they just literally said you can walk across all the planets. It could have been quite small planets or anything but they said you can walk through all of them. And you can't because after running 20 minutes straight you get a prompt telling you your reached the limit.

I wouldn't mind there are limits, I mean on the video there's nothing to do anyways, it's rocks rocks sand and rocks, so no problem if you can't run 20 hours like this to cross the whole planet, but THEY SAID you can. This is objectively just a lie.

You can't expect people do be disappointed in such situations. I don't talk about haters who anyways would hate the game because it is not on PS5 but I talk about actual gamers who're interested in the game.
Click to expand...
they said you can explore the whole planet. Thats not a lie.
 
Negotiator101 said:
This literally makes no sense, the illusion of many solar systems is what is important. You're only gaining with this amount of planets, you're losing nothing. The planets that have meaningful stories and characters would be there regardless. What you'd lose if like you say they only had 50 planets is that sense of scale and wonderment. Using a line from a favourite of mine, "seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no one has gone before".
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense. Many people would argue that gameplay is more important than maintaining an illusion, as you put it.
 
Antagonizing and commenting on haters does nothing.

Honestly until we get legit constructive reviews take it all with a grain of salt and behave.

Haters can hate on the sideline. If the game is good, it will do all the talking it needs to
 
To be fair what I would have done if I was managing the game is make it 50 planets and have them at the beginning ing of the game initially generate what is on those planets for the players game. I'd build in vehicles that can be designed and dropped in for exploration.

Add more planets and new missions with expansion packs.

I'd preferred a more streamlined experience and storyline to just endless nothingness for the sake of being big.
 
Diogodx said:
Beth: We are making a Beth RPG like Skyrim and Fallout but in Sapce.

Gamers: The game is not a space sim. We mad!!!!!!!:messenger_pouting:
Click to expand...
😂 so you're really going to act like Bethesda didn't hype the hell out of this "25 years in the making" game to make it seem like MUCH more than just "Fallout in Space"??

Ok bro.
 
reinking said:
..as long as I stick to the planets and points they have predetermined? They pushed exploration of "over a thousand planets" and if these things are true, exploration is going to be limited to points of interest spots. If that is the case, why even allow users to land anywhere else if it will be nothing but sand/rocks? As a consumer, I am allowed to be disappointed.

No O owandeseis , nobody is asking for earth sized and detailed planets. Or at least I am not. I am disappointed that all of the talk about exploring planets seems to be very limited. I was at least hoping I could wander upon a random outpost or something. I hope it is all a misunderstanding and I will be pleasantly surprised next week.
Click to expand...
I'm confused, were you expecting every single planet to be covered in handcrafted points of interest? They've been very clear that that's not the case, and that's a completely ridiculous thing to expect.

Of course you'll be able to wander upon a random outpost, all this stuff has already been confirmed.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to planetary scale games it all comes down to what you want regardless of what the dev actually programs into a game.

1. Tons of planets. Limited scope of land mass. But jammed with content you need to have fun, explore and fast travel

2. Tons of planets. Huge scope to wander around forever. 98% of it is barren. 2% of it is content you have to find. Every planet eventually has some stuff to explore

3. Tons of planets. Huge scope to wander around forever. Replicates what we know in real life. Aside from Earth, all planets are wastelands of rock and toxic gas with nothing going for it. For sake of gaming, the studio makes a small number have content, but the 500 other planets have nothing on it except mindlessly walking around

I prefer #1.
 
Last edited:
ManaByte said:
Click to expand...


10 freaking hours to hit the bounds?

Ok, anyone concerned on this is a troll

I played Elite Dangerous and No man's sky, never ever have i spent that much time just going into a direction. Who the fuck has the time for that. You're literally walking for 10 hours, the time it takes to beat many games.
 
Gambit2483 said:
😂 so you're really going to act like Bethesda didn't hype the hell out of this "25 years in the making" game to make it seem like MUCH more than just "Fallout in Space"??

Ok bro.
Click to expand...

?????

Have you been checked out of the internet for a while, they've said this for years.

kotaku.com

Starfield Is 'Skyrim In Space,' Says Todd Howard

Bethesda shares more info on its spacefaring role-playing game
kotaku.com kotaku.com
 
Buggy Loop said:
10 freaking hours to hit the bounds?

Ok, anyone concerned on this is a troll

I played Elite Dangerous and No man's sky, never ever have i spent that much time just going into a direction. Who the fuck has the time for that. You're literally walking for 10 hours, the time it takes to beat many games.
Click to expand...
Its 10 minutes of running in a straight line that timer i believe. Still a non issue either way.
 
Gambit2483 said:
😂 so you're really going to act like Bethesda didn't hype the hell out of this "25 years in the making" game to make it seem like MUCH more than just "Fallout in Space"??

Ok bro.
Click to expand...
Todd's first line in the Direct is basically "Imagine Fallout or Elder scrolls but set in space".

Next line " This our first new universe in 25 years but its still a BGS RPG through and through.

Seems like your head has made the game into something it can't possibly live up to.
 
Last edited:
Buggy Loop said:
Oh, i thought it was too accelerated for 10 mins. What's up then for the other guy saying he got to bounds in 40 mins. I don't get it.
Click to expand...
We don't know, maybe different landing areas are different sizes. Sketchy information off a few leakers. We will all know if the game blows in around T minus 95 hours.............................................
 
A 10 minute limit is smaller than trying to run from one end of Fallout or Skyrim to the other side. Granted, that Starfield video doesnt show if it's clearly one boundary to the other, or if he started in the middle of the map and just went halfway to one boundary side.
 
xHunter said:
Wasnt it said to be 40 mins until you reach the border?
Click to expand...

We need more info but if he started in the center of the "zone" ... and ran (and jet packed) in a straight line for 10 mins at roughly 6mph (guessing rate of speed) ... meaning this zone is roughly 2 x 2 miles ... or 4 square miles ... I could easily see someone spending 40 minutes exploring a "zone" ... regardless, if he indeed started at the center, it would appear that the width or length is roughly 20 mins when running in a straight line without stopping? Add in fighting, mining, farming resources, exploring/questing etc I don't get the problem but I will reserve my opinion until launch. This could be a special zone, or adjacent to one, or the rate of speed I guesstimated could be off, or I suck at math ...


Thinking Think GIF by Rodney Dangerfield
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

This is Starfield
2
59
577
semiconscious replied
Leaked gameplay videos from cancelled open world metro 4 build
Rumor 
21
436
HAYA8U5A replied
LTTP: Stalker 2 (Xbox Series X)
7
260
EverydayBeast replied
Shenmue IV leaked gameplay trailer [Confirmed fake]
Rumor  2 3
135
2K
rkofan87 replied
Xbox Series X / ROG Ally Combo
44
826
FudgeIt replied
Top Bottom