- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I must say it is not the best RPG out there, but I feel like it would have earned more. I personally have a lot of fun playing.
While it was not a Cyberpunk-grade overhype, I think it must still have been overhyped. Because if you see it as Skyrim with better graphics, it is pretty much what you’d expect.
Some of the common criticism seems to be intrinsic to the sci-fi genre. In Skyrim, you walk 100 meters and then you find some cave or camp or something that a game designer has placed there manually with some story or meaning behind it. And as a player, you notice that, because most locations in Skyrim feel somehow unique. Even though for example the dungeons have rooms that repeat a lot. Having a designer place them manually with some thought gives them something unique.
In interstellar sci-fi, a dense world like this is simply impossible. Planets are extremely large so filling them manually with content is simply not possible. And using procedural generation makes things feel meaningless. Players notice that fast. So instead, Starfield opted for having a few manually constructed locations that are placed randomly on planets, unfortunately with a lot of repetition. But that is a sound compromise, given the constraints of today’s game development technology. The dense worlds that we are used to from other genres simply don’t scale up to planetary scale, and as players, we have to get used to that.
You must log in or register to comment.
I know, gameplay is more important than tech, but for an AAA game it’s kinda disappointing techwise. No 32:9 support, HDR is mediocre, no FOV settings, language cannot be properly changed,…
That’s what happens when you’ve been using the same engine since 1997, and just slap a fresh coat of paint on it every few years instead of actually improving it like Unreal.
Hey look, elden ring doesn’t have even 21:9 support, hdr was broken for a while at launch, and no fov setting
From software has always been pretty crappy from a technical standpoint.
I didn’t see the Internet awash with complaints about it strangely.
Because their history is being so bad technically that elden ring was an improvement to what people were expecting.
And Bethesda isn’t known for their buggy games lmao?
I mean… have you played dark souls 1 without the community patch with k&m? Not only the controls, performance is… uf.
I never did play the PTD, I have heard it was very rough though.
First time a really playing Dark Souls was when the remaster came to PC, then binged 2 and 3 and played through all endings on ER when it came out and put 300 hours in, waiting on the DLC eagerly.
I also did mod elden ring quite a bit, including dlss+fg from the much hated PureDark, and the excellent seamless coop mod along with a 32:9 support mod.
Ultimately my point is people are nitpicking Starfield lmao
Is there HDR? Because I’m certain there’s no option for it on PC.
There are no ingame settings, which is bad. But when you activate HDR in your Windows settings the game seems to use HDR. It just looks rather bad imho (black levels too high).
It’s just a number. Play the games you like and don’t care what others think.
Exactly review scores are meaningless, early reviews even less so.
Harsh. I avoided most marketing for this game and honestly it’s a great game. Alternating between PC and Steamdeck works great. I haven’t had any tech issues or crashes.
The largest single issue with the game is the atrocious menus. I get that the radial design benefits controllers, but even with gamepad layouts it’s ass. Editing ships is ass, selecting destinations is ass, God forbid you try to find out which mission is closest to you without memorizing which systems are connected to where.
The user interface at nearly every turn is bafflingly obtuse. On top of cool features like the option to go to your cockpit or board a ship, you get insanely weird decisions like no waypoint system? There is technically a waypoint option but it’s definitely not a usable system.
Also what’s with the galaxy map? Fuckin mass effect had this shit figured out 15 years ago. With a banging soundtrack for the menu lol
Also why the hell is there no tutorials for these crazy indepth systems and menus… like if they need to suck tell me how to bear it
There is a big issue with tedious repeating animations. Like standing up from the cockpit. Or docking a station. The hand made content is still there it’s just placed into the world procedurealy.
My biggest complaint is still an RPG being consolified, meaning its menu’s are all shit because of controllers.
Interactions in this game would me so much better if it were designed from the ground up for mouse, point and click, drag, etc.My only other complaint is I wish I could fly and land the craft myself similar to No Man’s Sky. You can land on planet, shit is still random gen, but there’s some hardpoint spots where your ship can land in a city or outpost.
The positive sides that surprised me is the ship building is great. Always wanted a game that allowed this kind of ship building.
Space Engineers or similar are great, but can be too much detail. This snap together modular blocks is nice middle ground.I’m also impressed the engine is able to handle so many micro collisions of items on the ground.
My biggest complaint is still an RPG being consolified, meaning its menu’s are all shit because of controllers.
That’s weird because I’m playing on console and the menus and UI are shit with a controller too.
I don’t think the engine allows for such an open world. The engine is built around cells, and BGS shot itself in the foot by making a game in a setting that requires open-ness using an engine that only works with enclosed spaces.
Implementing dynamic asset streaming would’ve been a massive hurdle that would’ve likely broken so many other things and delayed the entire release by a year or two. I can understand why they didn’t go that route, especially during the pandemic. For what its worth, the terrain gen and all is still pretty impressive, even if you cannot seamlessly travel around.
I agree that they could’ve hidden some parts better though, like why can’t I select an existing landing spot from within the ships cockpit instead of having to use the map? They already show you the markers when you’re in the scanning mode anyway so that could’ve been a pretty quick thing to do. After all it works with other targets already too.
A lot of the negativity seems to stem more from the fake outrage though.
Ship building is fun, but man they are lacking in detail.
What is the difference between these two cockpits? Idk, build it twice and find out. Oh, they’re identical, then why even have a second one?
Oh, this giant 3x3 module must have a ton of stuff in it! Nope, the 2x1 is actually better. But which one? Dunno, try them all and reload.
You’re ship is too big in either length, width, or height. Which one is it? Dunno, I just figured I’d throw all the errors together into one warning and let you figure it out.
Modders sure have their work cut out for them…
Luckily mods have already addressed the menu problems for PC. StarUI and Undelayed Menus.
Shouldn’t even remotely be necessary for a studio this size. But whatever.
The only other actual negative I feel for the game at this point (20ish hours) is the skill points/system feeling like 5% good choices and 95% pointless garbage.
I just don’t understand why some key binds are random. Why am I using b to add favorites? Why not f. Or x to exit the ship. Why not q? It just seems like the binds are just chosen at random when there are available keys where my hands are already resting.
I love that 0 is to heal but O is to repair my ship. I’m constantly just mashing both because I can’t remember which is which when my shields are down and I’m trying to dodge a missile.
Until this very second I thought my game was bugged because 0 (zero) wasn’t repairing my ship. I was literally going into the menus to repair my ship mid battle.
Most common bug for me so far is the invis cloak glitching and becoming visually permanent (but not the effect on stealth. Boo)
Honestly not even a tiny problem for a Bethesda vet.
7/10 basically space skyrim
I haven’t played a new Bethesda game since Skyrim came out in 2011. So I went into starfield expecting Skyrim in space. I knew it would rely on more radiant randomly generated systems. I knew it wasn’t going to have entire planets. Based off my expectations, I believe they have all been met. I’ll probably log a ton of hours into the game. Was it overpriced? Maybe. But I don’t really buy new games all that often, so it’s hard for me to say.
When you do the math on pennies per hour, it’s hard to argue that it’s overpriced.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Create a handful of small, dense “gamefied” worldspaces and people will complain that the world is not big and open enough and that it’s not realistic or immersive to have such small and dense “planets”. Create thousands or trillions (in case of Elite:Dangerous) of procedurally generated planets with realistical amounts of POI-s, and people will complain about boring, sparse worlds with little to do on and where it takes too much time to go anywhere. Try to hit a middle ground, and people will still complain.
Same thing with spaceflight. In Elite you can fly seamlessly everywhere in a system. Only real loading screens are jumps from one system to another. People complain regularly about long travel times (average being only a few minutes), how travel is not gameplay and how “boring” it is and that instantly warping from planet to planet would be so much better. And then people complain about warping mechanics in Starfield.
The developers can never win with the internet-dwelling “gamers” with these sorts of games. There will always be a very loud minority who complains that the game is not what they imagined would be their perfect game. Bear in mind that most people who like the game are busy playing the damn game and not leaving reviews.
As for overhype, oh, there was so much of it in space sim circles. People seriously believed that Starfield will be killing Elite and Star Citizen in one fell swoop. Of course, most of these people were already discontent with Elite and Star Citizen and when Starfield obviously didn’t fulfill their wishful thinking, they’re now even more discontent and loud.
Me personally? I’m waiting til I can get a new GPU so I can start tinkering with spaceship builds (really love the NASA-punk aesthetic, especially the interiors), guns and suits. And Starfield seems to have perfected jetpack combat, one aspect I really like about Elite, but which is kind of limited there (can’t swap jetpacks, and the combat suit has a crap jetpack even after upgrading it while the suit with the good one is not that suitable for combat). Can’t wait to make my Mobile Infantry build operating from a Firefly-class ship🙃
Not sure why you got down voted. You hit the nail on the head. I like elite but stopped playing after “mile wide and inch thick” syndrome became clear. I never got into star citizen because even though I got a ship it always gave me problems to run.
Slightly off topic rant: people talk about “space sims” like its an actual thing you can simulate (uhhhh we haven’t invented that stuff yet sir) and it drives me crazy. I like flight sims but even when I know the real thing is more difficult and complex I know the dynamics have some relation to reality unlike a super magical warp drive thing.
Kerbal is a space sim. Engineers might be too.
Very good point. I meant that calling elite and star citizen sims seems silly to me
I feel like you’re straw manning the issues with the game. Sure some people are disappointed by the lack of depth in the setting. But there are PLENTY of other things to be not like: primarily in my book, the game should be called “Loading Screenfield” since you spend more time in loading screens than anywhere else.
There is a pretty big thread from a few days ago where people discuss the things that are underwhelming about the game. Overall, it’s not a bad game, but not great either. Considering the number of actually great games it’s competing with right now (looking at you BG3 and soon Cyberpunk Phantom Liberty), I think it looks even more meh in comparison.
I think the Steam rating seem pretty spot on.
the game should be called “Loading Screenfield” since you spend more time in loading screens than anywhere else
Not going to argue whether there are too many load screens before I can upgrade my PC and play it. What I will say, though: Starfield is not exactly unique in having lots of load screens, and I think that limitations of Creation Engine play the main part. Travel in Elite is also a load screen after every minute or two if you need to travel to any star system more than a few jumps away. Same goes for X3, which consists of roughly 50x50 km sectors connected by warp gates (loading screens) and in early game you’ll need to always go through many sectors to reach anywhere.
Considering the number of actually great games it’s competing with right now (looking at you BG3 and soon Cyberpunk Phantom Liberty), I think it looks even more meh in comparison.
Depends on whether one considers these (unarguably good, especially BG3) games as competition for Starfield. I think competitors to anything should be considered in the genre of that something–eg Infant Annihilator is not competing with Purple Disco Machine, they’re just so wildly different things. I’m a big space ship nerd and for me neither BG3 nor Cyberpunk is not even remotely competing for attention. The competition to Starfield could be Elite, Star Citizen, No Mans Sky, X4. Either Star Citizen or No Mans Sky are maybe the closest competitors thematically.
Elite is the main competitor for me, and has excellent space flight mechanics, plus is the only game in existence to have a 1:1 scale simulation of the Milky Way galaxy. Starfield has arcade-y space flight (more of a space shooter than space sim), but seems to have done the on-foot gameplay better than Elite–especially when it comes to on-foot exploration and the life on planets. Starfield also has ship interiors and the ability build ships from ground-up. All of of this fills the niches Elite lacks, so in a sense they’re more complementary than competitive.
Starfield is not exactly unique in having lots of load screens
Two things: First, that in NO way makes it better.
Second, I haven’t played X3 in a LONG time, but X4 has a similar structure of warping between systems. Thing is, there isn’t any load time when you warp. You’re not looking at a 5 second animation followed by a black loading screen for another 5 seconds just to travel from a planet to its moon. You also have to fly to those jump points, so you get to actually fly your ship. In Starfield, you just point at a blue dot and then load. Arrive in your system, get scanned, load some more. Etc.
I think competitors to anything should be considered in the genre of that something
Interesting. I don’t actually think of Starfield as a space flight game since that’s such a minor part of the game and you don’t actually fly much, you mostly load screen between areas. I think of Starfield as an RPG with some space flavor, which is why I compared it to two other RPG’s. You’re mostly quick traveling between locations and then talking/role playing. The space flight is a (sadly) minor part of the game.
In fact, I think Elite is a terrible comparison. But I get that the niche seems to be your jam so I get why you’d want to compare and contrast the two.
RPG with some space flavor, which is why I compared it to two other RPG’s
Sure, it is RPG first and foremost, space flight distant second. But it’s certainly not your typical swords-and-spells fantasy world RPG. Mass Effect would be the closest, but has even less space ship stuff. In fact, I don’t think there has recently been another thematically similar game.
Star Citizen and Elite are IMO thematically much closer to Starfield than BG3, especially when we consider the core game mechanics (turn based party RPG vs. realtime first-person gunplay). The former two and Starfield boil down to your character using a spaceship to travel between planets and space POI-s, dogfighting in space and gunfights on foot with exploration, salvaging/scavenging, trading, bounty hunting and other activities to fill your time with.
Turns out that people really like to complain.
Honestly I haven’t been looking at the public reception at all because I’ve been playing it since it released. I didn’t even know people weren’t loving it, it’s exactly what I want from a Bethesda game and more (136 hours so far)
Already 136 hours? Do not forget to get some sleep :)
Haha don’t worry I can take care of myself. The game has launched while I’m in a gap between finishing an industrial work placement and beginning my final year at uni so I’ve been making the most of it. Thank you for your concern!
Okay enjoy then
Honestly I assumed that the critical reception would be middling, the zeitgeist is done with this studio and it’s games. Which is completely fair they are janky and weird and frankly often break in un-fun ways.
It’s a BGS game warts and all and I had a great time with it. I love these big, ambitious, broken games and this is a better than average one of them.
I’m still sad that stellar overload failed. I easily put more hours in that and it never made it out of early access.
They don’t have to make a game based in reality. They could have made their own system where the planets are small and filled that handful with lots of stuff. They chose to make real systems and have huge planets, it doesn’t matter if there’s 10, 100, 1000 planets if they are all barren and empty. The approach they took wasn’t good for a bethesda rpg, they need the hand crafted world where they can keep things popping up. That’s just the start of the problem with the game though, it is far too similar to their existing RPGs, I get playing it safe with a formula (I mean Larian do too), but you have to have great lore and story to back it up if that’s what you want to do. Bethesda made no attempt to disguise it, it is as shameless as Ubisoft’s rehashed games. They need a new engine if that is what’s limiting them.
There’s the problem. You bought a BSG rpg wanting it to not be a BSG rpg. They will always make this style of game. If you want a different style of game, they will disappoint you.
Ive been playing BSG rpgs since Morrowind, and so I got exactly what I was expecting, with some cool extra bits on top. And as such, I absolutely love it!
I didn’t buy shit. I avoid triple A games cause they all the same disappointing overhyped crap.
Ah, so you don’t even know what you’re talking about anyway. Good grief.
True, only way to view a game is to play it. No other methods at all that exist.
Sorry but if your opinion is solely formed around all the fake outrage “reviews” then it’s no wonder you dislike the game. However, that still has no basis in the actual truth of the matter of what this game is and isn’t. And yes, your comments make it very obvious that your opinion in this matter is in fact quite stupid, sorry not sorry for the ad hominem but this is just painfully ridiculous.
Ive watched over 25 hours of someone playing it. Why do you keep making such rash assumptions?
I could call your opinions just as stupid as you think mine are, as that is what they are, opinions. But I am not going to stoop to doing that. The fact you are getting so defensive over this shows me the discussion isnt worth continuing. Good luck out there.As if that’s the same. Jesus fucking Christ dude. You could at least admit that you have zero arguments.
Why would it matter if they have huge vast empty spaces vs. still huge but comically looking empty spaces? That argument just doesn’t make sense and I heard it so much from the whole Elite vs Star Citizen debate already. No, those smaller planets aren’t filled with more interesting things because they’re smaller, the gaps between points of interests are still procedurally generated and just as empty as the other game. But after seeing realistically scaled planets it makes even SC planets look like cartoon planets, sort of like the ones from NMS. It just doesn’t look right. There’s just no gameplay benefit to it.
They chose to make real systems and have huge planets, it doesn’t matter if there’s 10, 100, 1000 planets if they are all barren and empty.
Barren and empty worlds have their place in such game. If nothing more, you need contrast between lush worlds and empty rocks/iceballs to make the former stand out. I think I can call myself an Elite vet at this point with 3000 hours in, and all the landable worlds, of which there are literally more than a trillion, are barren. They still offer gorgeous views and are essential for creating the appropriate artificial lonelyness of virtual space exploration. Also, geology spotting, jetpack mountaineering and base jumping can be a fun activity during long expeditions.
Also, barren worlds will be the playgrounds for modders. Skyrim had a problem that squeezing in modded larger playerhomes and settlements was often really hard task and created tons of incompatibilites. Basically no such concerns in Starfield.
Even the less barren ones you walk 900m to a cave, just to find like 2 corpses in there. Barren worlds are useful for the reason you mentioned, but they didn’t need 1000 planets that they clearly struggled to do anything with.
it is as shameless as Ubisoft’s rehashed games.
People keep saying this but I’d say at worst Ubisoft does games in pairs, occasionally trios. If you play AC: Odyssey and AC: Black Flag, I assure you they will be VERY different experiences. Mechanics/combat alone are a huge distinguishing factor.
Yeah, cause Black Flag was from the end of the time they actually made games and Odyssey is in their prime rehashing era.
spoiler
sadfasfasdfsa
I tried odyssey, but it was just the same as origins. I don’t like the new AC at all, they shouldn’t even be using that IP for these games.
Starfield is the classic Bethesda experience but the hype around it implied it wouldn’t be. The classic Bethesda experience is fine, it’s a good base of a nice, free-form game that lacks polish. They are also games that need at least a few mods to actually be good. Vanilla Skyrim, etc sucks after you start modding it. Even if all you download is an end, a weather, the unofficial patch, and the better dialog and message box controls mods. Playing starfield I was immediately like “where is better dialog and message box controls?”
The game has potential but a thing that bothers me is landing on a planet and it says I explored 90% of it before I even exited the ship. I went to earth and there was no evidence of there ever being life and major cities. No ruined homes, no cities, no like… Mt Rushmore head that broke off and found where it isn’t supposed to be, no statue of liberty torch. Nothing. They could have crafted a really cool ruined earth and instead it was just… sand and rocks. What do you think is behind that rock? Another rock. And when it comes to Earth, you don’t need to have everything be where it needs to. The tip of a pyramid in Egypt makes sense but I see nothing wrong with finding the broken Washington monument in the middle of what was the Atlantic ocean. Or the broken big Ben in the middle of what was Japan. If any planet should have gotten randomly generated assets of ruins or even just manually crafted, it should have been Earth.
Most planets are empty and give you almost no reason to explore them. The game is about exploring planets, but playing this game makes me want to play Starbound instead.
I also don’t know why everyone compares it to Skyrim when I feel like I’m playing Fallout 4 instead of Skyrim. Skyrim would have been an improvement, I wasn’t a fan of FO4.
that lacks polish
I’d say creation engine is showing its age more than it lacks polish. The game looks pretty good and I’ve encountered virtually no bugs so far. People’s faces are a bit off though, as many have pointed out.
Creation engine is a double edge sword, on one had, it is super moddable. The mods you can put in for skyrim are insane. You can turn it into a completely different game.
I would say that the game isn’t unpolished because of the engine though. Not in the ways I’m talking about anyway. The quests, dialog, locations, animations are all just a bit off, unpolished, and stiff. None of these really have anything to do with the engine aside maybe animations and locations. And given the eldersouls mods that give very animated combat animations, the combat mods that add wound systems and combos, etc, I don’t think that’s what’s holding them back.
Yes creation engine is old, but I dont think it’s what makes the game feel unpolished for me.
spoiler
sadfasfasdfsa
I must say it is not the best RPG out there, but I feel like it would have earned more. I personally have a lot of fun playing.
If you care so much about what others think you probably aren’t enjoying it as much as you think.
I keep seeing this “Skyrim in space” moniker from the people who are lukewarm yet still positive about the game. I’d argue you can’t even say that. From what I’ve seen, the game is a regression in a lot of ways. Skyrim and other earlier BGS titles are superior products.
Person who hasn’t played the game weighs in
Yep. Saw what I would be buying and didn’t waste money. Funny how that makes me the dumb one in your eyes?
Gotta have that credit card number locked in by the E3 launch apparently.
You can’t really form an opinion of a game you’ve never played aside from surface level or opinions from others.
Yes I can. Just did. There isn’t some magic epiphany when you get your greasy nubs on the keyboard and the software is running locally on your machine. I see everything there is to see and know everything there is to know about it because I looked extensively. Not buying it.
Like you have any power to invalidate my opinion because you gave some dumbass corp money. I’m not the idiot who bought dogshit and try to convince everyone else it’s not just to make myself feel better.
Sure you “can” but it’s not actually an informed opinion until you see or experience it yourself, no need to be a pedantic ass.
Have you actually played the game? No you didn’t
It literally has the same mechanics and systems simply shuffled around, rebalanced and presented differently.
