Up to 87 hours warts and all. Have played through some great quests. Also found plenty of bugs and annoyances, but overall it's great. The random procedural quests are a nice addition, a call back to Daggerfall. The space combat is an ok addition. Bases are the big waste of time here, but you don't really need to do one.
There are lots of nice shoutouts to your character after doing certains quests, including NG+. (Few things that don't make sense, and they could've pushed it farther -
::: spoiler spoiler
like does it makes sense to join the Crimson Fleet in the Razorleaf, better to have cut out that questline for that play thru IMO
:::
)
Overall quite satisifed and i'm enjoying it a lot. I can see getting to 100 hours easily without mods.
After 80 hours, I encountered a clear bug.
None of the security guards had armor, just walking around shirtless.
Loved it.
I just talked to a guy who was facing away from me, well his head was looking at the wall while his body was pointed at me. It was..disconcerting..(and amusing!)
*on GamePass, God knows what the launch would look like if it wasn't practically free
Gamepass is not free
Would be more, if it wasn't an exclusive.
EDIT: To clarify, all of the console exclusivity is absolute bullshit and does nothing positive for those who enjoy games, nor does it serve any necessary purpose - it's just a weapon for businesses to use against each other.
God of War. Spiderman. Horizon. Last of Us. Ghost of Tsushima. Bloodborne. Uncharted. Ratchet and Clank. Death Stranding. Grand Turismo. Persona.
Add Final Fantasy. Would also have more if they weren't exclusive.
Spite always creates a better system.
Definitely, though it can be said for every exclusive game.
Agreed. Exclusives are complete bullshit, regardless of vendor.
It's not an exclusive, it's just not on Playstation or Switch. When did people decide PC releases didn't count?
Windows is made by Microsoft. Would you feel better if people called Starfield a “Microsoft exclusive”?
Linux runs Starfield with no problems. If it's on a computer and doesn't use restrictive DRM to control how and under which circumstances you run the software, it's not an exclusive. Microsoft doesn't have exclusives anymore, which is a giant pro-consumer move that doesn't get enough applause in the gaming community. That doesn't mean they need to develop stuff for one specific DRM box owned by their biggest competitor to be "anti-exclusive".
Linux only runs it through a translation layer, Proton, it doesn’t run it natively.
Would you also not call Pokémon an exclusive just because technically it can run on a pc?
Pokémon is an exclusive because you have to pirate it / break the console's DRM to play it on PC. Also, Proton and Wine are explicitly not emulators - that's actually what WINE stands for (Wine Is Not an Emulator). Starfield is natively available for more than one platform and not only does the Proton compatibility layer handle it but it's being sold on Valve's store and the top played game on the completely Windows-free Deck. Games that are released on one console and PC aren't exclusives. God of War just isn't on xbox and Starfield just isn't on Playstation.
Do you need to buy a console to play it legally? If no, it's not a game exclusive to that console. I have a PC. I can't play exclusives like Demons Souls Remake without buying Sony's $500 DRM machine. I can play non-exclusives like Starfield without buying Microsoft's $300 DRM machine.
Pokémon is an exclusive because you have to pirate it / break the console's DRM to play it on PC
Ummm… what? Lmao according to who? Can you find me a single definition of “exclusive” anywhere that bars games that were acquired through broken drm? That’s so bizarrely specific, it could only be made by someone deadset on not being wrong in an internet argument ffs.
Also, Proton and Wine are explicitly not emulators
I literally called it a translation layer above, please read. My point is that Starfield isn’t native to Linux, just as Pokemon isn’t native to Windows. Saying that somehow one retains its exclusivity status while the other doesn’t despite this is a little silly.
and the top played game on the completely Windows-free Deck
And Pokémon is widely run on Windows as well. Still an exclusive though.
Do you need to buy a console to play it legally? If no, it's not a game exclusive to that console.
Again, according to who? This is a very specific definition that nobody has ever used until just now.
So like, if someone managed to rip a PS5 disc and play it through an emulator, it wouldn’t be an exclusive because they didn’t actually need to purchase a PS5? But if they acquired the game through dumping it off of a modded PS5, then it’s still an exclusive? This is so convoluted.
I said Pokémon is an exclusive because it's not released on other platforms. Bloodborne would still be a PS4 exclusive if an emulator could run it.
You said having to own the console is what makes it an exclusive. But I can get a game running on Windows without a console.
Starfield isn’t on Linux, just as Pokémon isn’t on Windows.
There's no such thing as a "Linux PC" though. A PC is a PC. Your PC can run Starfield with proton, or it can run it by installing windows, or it can run it by putting it in a windows VM.
Even if a game can only run on Windows and Xbox (say one of those GAAS shits that has invasive anti cheat), that's not an exclusive either. It runs on more than one platform. There's a developer endorsed way to buy the product on more than one platform. Exclusive means one platform - you can't buy and play the game unless you own one specific device.
What matters is the OS.
Xbox can run Linux, and therefore Proton. Would you say that Spider-man is on Xbox because of that? Obviously not, that’d be exceedingly stupid.
Generally, "exclusive" in this context is referring to exclusivity on a console involved in the (IMO completely unnecessary) console wars.
I do agree that PC is an important item there too but, the problems there are a bit different - for example shoddy ports (no justification for porting from x86/amd64 consoles to PC to be bad), excessive and intrusive DRM, and unreasonable delay or unwillingness to port.
Gamers keep getting dumber and dumber. I figured anyone with two brain cells to rub together would see this would be a shit game
Oh fuck right off, let people enjoy the game.
As if I’m putting a gun to anyone’s head preventing them from doing so
No, but still you feel the need to shit all over something people really like and insult them for it. So explain that. Does it make you feel good?
Yeah not gonna lie it’s pretty hilarious to see people coping and defending a deeply flawed game that they paid full price for
Yeah ok, that's your opinion. It's wrong, of course, but keep it to yourself ffs.
Why is it shit?
Outdated engine, non existend optimization, mediocre writing, lacking ship travel, dead looking NPCs, general Bethesda bugginess, lack of DLSS support
The engine is what allows the game to have a thriving modding community already.
Imagine relying on free labor to fix your broken ass game, and then having people defend you when called out for making a boring game that relies on free labor for content.
Imagine thinking that what is very probably the most hand-crafted content ever in a 3D game, with one of the broadest variety of choices for anything close to that scale, is a game lacking content.
The most handcrafted what now hahaha holy shit is that satire?
It's not an opinion. If you ignore straight procedural generation with no human input like no man's sky, Starfield is very probably the biggest 3D game ever made. The fact that it's an absolutely massive game isn't debatable in any way.
Nobody who's played it is making the ridiculous claim that they ran out of content. It's fundamentally not possible for "relying on mods for content" to be in good faith.
I'm glad you enjoy the game but compared to the level of detail and polish Read Dead 2 had five years ago Starfield feels straight up antiquated imo
Red dead 2 is obscenely tiny by comparison.
Literally everything about game development is a trade off. It's not possible to make a game at 5% of Starfield's scale as polished as a rockstar game. The difference in scale is too massive.
The scope of Bethesda games is a huge part of the point. Nobody else makes anything similar to what they offer.
Uhh… Baldur’s Gate 3?
BG3 is a top down CRPG. Having 3D assets and being a 3D game with full 3D movement aren't the same thing.
And whether it's more content is debatable. There's more pure story and production, with a lot of branching, but the overall amount of space (not counting Starfield's use of negative space because of the setting) is significantly smaller. And even in terms of total number of quest lines, Starfield has a lot. Which you can get more time out of is all about personal preference. There will be people with 1000 hours in both, easy.
You can literally play BG3 as a third person turn based action game, with an over the shoulder camera. It’s entirely 3D.
Turn based and action are mutually exclusive. It is not and does not resemble an action game.
The assets are 3D. You do not play in 3D. You do not cast a spell and have the physics of your interaction calculated in real time while 10 other characters are simultaneously acting and having their spells calculated based on the real time movements of all the other characters. You do not hit a jump button and have where you land determined by your speed and direction. The actual gameplay mechanics are all pure dice roll. There are no 3D physics in play.
Imagine having that little understanding of how and why people enjoy modding their games.
Or what an engine is lol.
UE5 is "the same engine" iterated on in the same way Bethesda's is, there are plenty of games using UE that don't run well, and it would take plenty of custom work to build to Bethesda's scale using it.
The current iteration of Unreal is completely unrecognizable from its original rendition, meanwhile this new version of the Creation Engine literally retains bugs present back in the days of Gamebryo. You simply can’t compare the two. But, in Bethesda’s defense, this isn’t due to incompetence or anything. It’s due to resource allocation and incentive.
There’s a reason most devs have been moving towards Unreal and away from making their own engines, and it’s because making your own proprietary engine takes insane amounts of time and resources - time and resources that devs don’t get any return on mind you. For most, it doesn’t make sense to dedicate loads of time to polishing an engine, when that time could be better spent on your next game - a game that you actually do get a return on.
Unreal is completely different in this regard, as Epic actually does get a return on their investment into the engine, as the engine itself is their product. So they have every incentive to polish Unreal as much as possible. That’s why it’s so insanely polished and indistinguishable from its original rendition. Not because all engines magically improve over time and at the same rate.
I know Todd Howard said that engines are somehow meaningless, and then a bunch of Bethesda fans took that and ran with it as a way to defend any criticism of the Creation Engine, but unfortunately it’s just not that simple.
And to be clear, I want the Creation Engine to succeed. I’ve been modding Bethesda games since 2013 and am still active in the modding community! The engine is rough but makes all of it possible, and the community at this point knows it so well that it’d be devastating to suddenly lose it all. But Bethesda needs to sit down and really dedicate some time to overhauling it, and unfortunately, albeit understandably, I just don’t see that happening.
The only game that scratches the space exploration itch Elite doesn't quite scratch (I mean, Elite is very good, but has it's shortcomings when it comes to on-foot stuff). Ship interiors, base building and having actual life on planets, not just some fungoida and bacterium patches, alone are a reason to be excited about Starfield. Also, jetpack combat.
Funny how Elder Scrolls veterans are enjoying the game for what it is while bitter Playstation diehards, wishful thinkers with gigabyte-sized dreams.txt and bandwagon-o'-hate jumpers are complaining about things that never were to be so loud you can clearly hear the "Reeeeeeeeeee...." from Alpha Centauri😏
I've actually been really enjoying it. It's a pleasant universe to just get absorbed in.
Sure, it's got a lot of very valid complaints (performance, UX etc.) but they matter less to me the more I get into it. Writing is not groundbreaking, but it gets pretty good. Since very good voice acting from otherwise random NPCs.
Also the first game I've played that lets me use non-binary pronouns as a third option, rather than just Gendered or not. Very cool and I hope to see more games do that.
I'd say the most disappointing thing is how straightforward almost every quest is. They don't do what Obsidian does in games like New Vegas and Outer Worlds where lots of quests have multiple resolutions, some hidden. In this game if it's not in the objective list it's usually not an option. It's the typical Bethesda experience of course, rather than Obsidian's, so it's still nice for what it is.
It's the closest I've personally felt to exploring and interacting with the worlds of Mass Effect 1 and Knights of the Old Republic in a long time. It's got that sense of wander about it for me.
Yeah the straightforward quests are sometimes a little disappointing.
I.e. there's a tiny side quest where you have to get some rich guys wedding ring back from his fiance. You go to the fiance and that say that they saw the rich guy cheating (having a conversation) with the waiter at their favorite restaurant, and that they shouldn't have to give the ring back.
I went back to the rich guy to find out if this was true, and to insert myself firmly into their drama, but there was no new dialogue from the rich guy. I just had to pick a dialogue option to either take the ring or let the fiance keep it.
It would have been nice to be able to confirm my suspicions that they were just being friendly with the waiter, not cheating, and maybe get the two back together. But no it was go to person A, get quest, speak to person B, return with ring/update that they are keeping it.
There are some great quests, and lots of cool world building, but the RP portion is sometimes a bit lacking compared to (as you mentioned) New Vegas.
Internet commenters keep getting dumber and dumber. I figured anyone with two brain cells to rub together would see that human beings can understand nuance and that not everyone likes or dislikes the same things and that the entire game is not 100% objectively bad.
People tend to think on black and white and not grayscale.
If you objectively compare the mechanics, writings and factions to fallout 4, Starfield is almost a direct upgrade from fallout 4 in several aspects. Gunplay, gun customization, rpg check choices that play more role in having a unique experience, factions that arent totally terribly written like it is in FO4, where almost all factions are unlikable or not interesting.
The people who are let down by starfield expected bethesda to not make a bethesda game in simple terms.
Do i think its GOTY material, hell no (im basically at the point of no return point in the game). Its a helluva lot better than FO4, but people treat the game like it killed their first child.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily say the exploration is as good, I think the issues about not having maps and there being a lot of loading screens are valid, but those problems don't automatically make the game horrible, and while the optimization isn't awesome after the recent update and Nvidia driver it looks decent and runs at an almost always locked out 60 FPS on my RTX 3060 with the settings lowered, so if you want the better visuals you can get there, and if you wanna play with smooth frame rate you can make that work, too. Again, not that that excuses it, but it's not irredeemably bad.
I think it's important that people understand what works about the game and what doesn't, whether they come to an end result of liking it or not, I hate to see people shit on it wholesale, and I also hate to see people defend it wholesale as well. It's got problems, but it's got successes, too.
Up to 87 hours warts and all. Have played through some great quests. Also found plenty of bugs and annoyances, but overall it's great. The random procedural quests are a nice addition, a call back to Daggerfall. The space combat is an ok addition. Bases are the big waste of time here, but you don't really need to do one. There are lots of nice shoutouts to your character after doing certains quests, including NG+. (Few things that don't make sense, and they could've pushed it farther - ::: spoiler spoiler like does it makes sense to join the Crimson Fleet in the Razorleaf, better to have cut out that questline for that play thru IMO ::: ) Overall quite satisifed and i'm enjoying it a lot. I can see getting to 100 hours easily without mods.
After 80 hours, I encountered a clear bug.
None of the security guards had armor, just walking around shirtless.
Loved it.
I just talked to a guy who was facing away from me, well his head was looking at the wall while his body was pointed at me. It was..disconcerting..(and amusing!)
*on GamePass, God knows what the launch would look like if it wasn't practically free
Gamepass is not free
Would be more, if it wasn't an exclusive.
EDIT: To clarify, all of the console exclusivity is absolute bullshit and does nothing positive for those who enjoy games, nor does it serve any necessary purpose - it's just a weapon for businesses to use against each other.
God of War. Spiderman. Horizon. Last of Us. Ghost of Tsushima. Bloodborne. Uncharted. Ratchet and Clank. Death Stranding. Grand Turismo. Persona.
Add Final Fantasy. Would also have more if they weren't exclusive.
Spite always creates a better system.
Definitely, though it can be said for every exclusive game.
Agreed. Exclusives are complete bullshit, regardless of vendor.
It's not an exclusive, it's just not on Playstation or Switch. When did people decide PC releases didn't count?
Windows is made by Microsoft. Would you feel better if people called Starfield a “Microsoft exclusive”?
Linux runs Starfield with no problems. If it's on a computer and doesn't use restrictive DRM to control how and under which circumstances you run the software, it's not an exclusive. Microsoft doesn't have exclusives anymore, which is a giant pro-consumer move that doesn't get enough applause in the gaming community. That doesn't mean they need to develop stuff for one specific DRM box owned by their biggest competitor to be "anti-exclusive".
Linux only runs it through a translation layer, Proton, it doesn’t run it natively.
Would you also not call Pokémon an exclusive just because technically it can run on a pc?
Pokémon is an exclusive because you have to pirate it / break the console's DRM to play it on PC. Also, Proton and Wine are explicitly not emulators - that's actually what WINE stands for (Wine Is Not an Emulator). Starfield is natively available for more than one platform and not only does the Proton compatibility layer handle it but it's being sold on Valve's store and the top played game on the completely Windows-free Deck. Games that are released on one console and PC aren't exclusives. God of War just isn't on xbox and Starfield just isn't on Playstation.
Do you need to buy a console to play it legally? If no, it's not a game exclusive to that console. I have a PC. I can't play exclusives like Demons Souls Remake without buying Sony's $500 DRM machine. I can play non-exclusives like Starfield without buying Microsoft's $300 DRM machine.
Ummm… what? Lmao according to who? Can you find me a single definition of “exclusive” anywhere that bars games that were acquired through broken drm? That’s so bizarrely specific, it could only be made by someone deadset on not being wrong in an internet argument ffs.
I literally called it a translation layer above, please read. My point is that Starfield isn’t native to Linux, just as Pokemon isn’t native to Windows. Saying that somehow one retains its exclusivity status while the other doesn’t despite this is a little silly.
And Pokémon is widely run on Windows as well. Still an exclusive though.
Again, according to who? This is a very specific definition that nobody has ever used until just now.
So like, if someone managed to rip a PS5 disc and play it through an emulator, it wouldn’t be an exclusive because they didn’t actually need to purchase a PS5? But if they acquired the game through dumping it off of a modded PS5, then it’s still an exclusive? This is so convoluted.
I said Pokémon is an exclusive because it's not released on other platforms. Bloodborne would still be a PS4 exclusive if an emulator could run it.
You said having to own the console is what makes it an exclusive. But I can get a game running on Windows without a console.
Starfield isn’t on Linux, just as Pokémon isn’t on Windows.
There's no such thing as a "Linux PC" though. A PC is a PC. Your PC can run Starfield with proton, or it can run it by installing windows, or it can run it by putting it in a windows VM.
Even if a game can only run on Windows and Xbox (say one of those GAAS shits that has invasive anti cheat), that's not an exclusive either. It runs on more than one platform. There's a developer endorsed way to buy the product on more than one platform. Exclusive means one platform - you can't buy and play the game unless you own one specific device.
What matters is the OS.
Xbox can run Linux, and therefore Proton. Would you say that Spider-man is on Xbox because of that? Obviously not, that’d be exceedingly stupid.
Generally, "exclusive" in this context is referring to exclusivity on a console involved in the (IMO completely unnecessary) console wars.
I do agree that PC is an important item there too but, the problems there are a bit different - for example shoddy ports (no justification for porting from x86/amd64 consoles to PC to be bad), excessive and intrusive DRM, and unreasonable delay or unwillingness to port.
Gamers keep getting dumber and dumber. I figured anyone with two brain cells to rub together would see this would be a shit game
Oh fuck right off, let people enjoy the game.
As if I’m putting a gun to anyone’s head preventing them from doing so
No, but still you feel the need to shit all over something people really like and insult them for it. So explain that. Does it make you feel good?
Yeah not gonna lie it’s pretty hilarious to see people coping and defending a deeply flawed game that they paid full price for
Yeah ok, that's your opinion. It's wrong, of course, but keep it to yourself ffs.
Why is it shit?
Outdated engine, non existend optimization, mediocre writing, lacking ship travel, dead looking NPCs, general Bethesda bugginess, lack of DLSS support
The engine is what allows the game to have a thriving modding community already.
Imagine relying on free labor to fix your broken ass game, and then having people defend you when called out for making a boring game that relies on free labor for content.
Imagine thinking that what is very probably the most hand-crafted content ever in a 3D game, with one of the broadest variety of choices for anything close to that scale, is a game lacking content.
The most handcrafted what now hahaha holy shit is that satire?
It's not an opinion. If you ignore straight procedural generation with no human input like no man's sky, Starfield is very probably the biggest 3D game ever made. The fact that it's an absolutely massive game isn't debatable in any way.
Nobody who's played it is making the ridiculous claim that they ran out of content. It's fundamentally not possible for "relying on mods for content" to be in good faith.
I'm glad you enjoy the game but compared to the level of detail and polish Read Dead 2 had five years ago Starfield feels straight up antiquated imo
Red dead 2 is obscenely tiny by comparison.
Literally everything about game development is a trade off. It's not possible to make a game at 5% of Starfield's scale as polished as a rockstar game. The difference in scale is too massive.
The scope of Bethesda games is a huge part of the point. Nobody else makes anything similar to what they offer.
Uhh… Baldur’s Gate 3?
BG3 is a top down CRPG. Having 3D assets and being a 3D game with full 3D movement aren't the same thing.
And whether it's more content is debatable. There's more pure story and production, with a lot of branching, but the overall amount of space (not counting Starfield's use of negative space because of the setting) is significantly smaller. And even in terms of total number of quest lines, Starfield has a lot. Which you can get more time out of is all about personal preference. There will be people with 1000 hours in both, easy.
You can literally play BG3 as a third person turn based action game, with an over the shoulder camera. It’s entirely 3D.
Turn based and action are mutually exclusive. It is not and does not resemble an action game.
The assets are 3D. You do not play in 3D. You do not cast a spell and have the physics of your interaction calculated in real time while 10 other characters are simultaneously acting and having their spells calculated based on the real time movements of all the other characters. You do not hit a jump button and have where you land determined by your speed and direction. The actual gameplay mechanics are all pure dice roll. There are no 3D physics in play.
ROFL.
Imagine having that little understanding of how and why people enjoy modding their games.
Or what an engine is lol.
UE5 is "the same engine" iterated on in the same way Bethesda's is, there are plenty of games using UE that don't run well, and it would take plenty of custom work to build to Bethesda's scale using it.
The current iteration of Unreal is completely unrecognizable from its original rendition, meanwhile this new version of the Creation Engine literally retains bugs present back in the days of Gamebryo. You simply can’t compare the two. But, in Bethesda’s defense, this isn’t due to incompetence or anything. It’s due to resource allocation and incentive.
There’s a reason most devs have been moving towards Unreal and away from making their own engines, and it’s because making your own proprietary engine takes insane amounts of time and resources - time and resources that devs don’t get any return on mind you. For most, it doesn’t make sense to dedicate loads of time to polishing an engine, when that time could be better spent on your next game - a game that you actually do get a return on.
Unreal is completely different in this regard, as Epic actually does get a return on their investment into the engine, as the engine itself is their product. So they have every incentive to polish Unreal as much as possible. That’s why it’s so insanely polished and indistinguishable from its original rendition. Not because all engines magically improve over time and at the same rate.
I know Todd Howard said that engines are somehow meaningless, and then a bunch of Bethesda fans took that and ran with it as a way to defend any criticism of the Creation Engine, but unfortunately it’s just not that simple.
And to be clear, I want the Creation Engine to succeed. I’ve been modding Bethesda games since 2013 and am still active in the modding community! The engine is rough but makes all of it possible, and the community at this point knows it so well that it’d be devastating to suddenly lose it all. But Bethesda needs to sit down and really dedicate some time to overhauling it, and unfortunately, albeit understandably, I just don’t see that happening.
I'm not sure why I should care whether the engine is outdated or not
I keep hearing this but it runs fine on my mid tier rig
Writing quality is subjective. It's good enough for me so far
These feel like a Bethesda calling card at this point, they have a quirky charm to me
This is EASILY the least buggy Bethesda game I can recall
Why should this bother me? It's running fine for me without it.
None of those add up to "shit game", in my mind.
But but modders will fix the 80 dollar game for free so the next game can still be from 2008
The only game that scratches the space exploration itch Elite doesn't quite scratch (I mean, Elite is very good, but has it's shortcomings when it comes to on-foot stuff). Ship interiors, base building and having actual life on planets, not just some fungoida and bacterium patches, alone are a reason to be excited about Starfield. Also, jetpack combat.
Funny how Elder Scrolls veterans are enjoying the game for what it is while bitter Playstation diehards, wishful thinkers with gigabyte-sized dreams.txt and bandwagon-o'-hate jumpers are complaining about things that never were to be so loud you can clearly hear the "Reeeeeeeeeee...." from Alpha Centauri😏
I've actually been really enjoying it. It's a pleasant universe to just get absorbed in.
Sure, it's got a lot of very valid complaints (performance, UX etc.) but they matter less to me the more I get into it. Writing is not groundbreaking, but it gets pretty good. Since very good voice acting from otherwise random NPCs.
Also the first game I've played that lets me use non-binary pronouns as a third option, rather than just Gendered or not. Very cool and I hope to see more games do that.
I'd say the most disappointing thing is how straightforward almost every quest is. They don't do what Obsidian does in games like New Vegas and Outer Worlds where lots of quests have multiple resolutions, some hidden. In this game if it's not in the objective list it's usually not an option. It's the typical Bethesda experience of course, rather than Obsidian's, so it's still nice for what it is.
It's the closest I've personally felt to exploring and interacting with the worlds of Mass Effect 1 and Knights of the Old Republic in a long time. It's got that sense of wander about it for me.
Yeah the straightforward quests are sometimes a little disappointing.
I.e. there's a tiny side quest where you have to get some rich guys wedding ring back from his fiance. You go to the fiance and that say that they saw the rich guy cheating (having a conversation) with the waiter at their favorite restaurant, and that they shouldn't have to give the ring back.
I went back to the rich guy to find out if this was true, and to insert myself firmly into their drama, but there was no new dialogue from the rich guy. I just had to pick a dialogue option to either take the ring or let the fiance keep it.
It would have been nice to be able to confirm my suspicions that they were just being friendly with the waiter, not cheating, and maybe get the two back together. But no it was go to person A, get quest, speak to person B, return with ring/update that they are keeping it.
There are some great quests, and lots of cool world building, but the RP portion is sometimes a bit lacking compared to (as you mentioned) New Vegas.
Internet commenters keep getting dumber and dumber. I figured anyone with two brain cells to rub together would see that human beings can understand nuance and that not everyone likes or dislikes the same things and that the entire game is not 100% objectively bad.
People tend to think on black and white and not grayscale.
If you objectively compare the mechanics, writings and factions to fallout 4, Starfield is almost a direct upgrade from fallout 4 in several aspects. Gunplay, gun customization, rpg check choices that play more role in having a unique experience, factions that arent totally terribly written like it is in FO4, where almost all factions are unlikable or not interesting.
The people who are let down by starfield expected bethesda to not make a bethesda game in simple terms.
Do i think its GOTY material, hell no (im basically at the point of no return point in the game). Its a helluva lot better than FO4, but people treat the game like it killed their first child.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily say the exploration is as good, I think the issues about not having maps and there being a lot of loading screens are valid, but those problems don't automatically make the game horrible, and while the optimization isn't awesome after the recent update and Nvidia driver it looks decent and runs at an almost always locked out 60 FPS on my RTX 3060 with the settings lowered, so if you want the better visuals you can get there, and if you wanna play with smooth frame rate you can make that work, too. Again, not that that excuses it, but it's not irredeemably bad.
I think it's important that people understand what works about the game and what doesn't, whether they come to an end result of liking it or not, I hate to see people shit on it wholesale, and I also hate to see people defend it wholesale as well. It's got problems, but it's got successes, too.
Them down votes, though....
Lots of buyers remorse from bethesda paypigs