The fact that this game was actually nominated as "best RPG" with the likes of baldurs gate 3 and final fantasy XVI is ludicrous enough.
to be fair, ffxvi is not really an rpg either.
It’s just so bland and formulaic. Against deep RPGs like BG3, it just pales in comparison.
The funny thing is, I think the fact that the RPG mechanics are finally better than the last game developed by Bethesda, instead of worse, highlights just how mediocre Bethesda games are.
I still think once mods and DLCs come out in full force it will be remembered more positively.
Agreed. Twas the only thing I thought while playing. This would be better with mods. Which is a sad state because I spent real money on a mod sandbox without the mods.
Yep, I had below Fallout 4 expectations and actually ended up enjoying it more, as I highly value the RPG aspects. It's still a completely mediocre RPG, but it has a huge sandbox and a ton of potential.
The difference between a Ubisoft game and a Bethesda game is that Bethesda employees still enjoy coming to work.
Sure. I think big budget gaming needs to die, and games need more dev time for less work and higher pay, with worse graphical fidelity and better art styles.
If Bethesda games are so mediocre, why are they so popular among players who love to put hundreds of hours into them? I can't imagine them all playing total conversion mods.
It's become such a custom to poop on Bethesda for making "shallow", "uninteresting" games that still everybody talks about. As if there weren't enough real flaws in their games to give them heat for.
Because mediocrity and popularity go hand in hand, it's the profit motive at work. Being largely inoffensive and generally palatable is profitable.
That's not the definition of mediocrity. Trying to appeal to a bigger audience doesn't make a game mediocre in the same way not every niche game has the potential of being a masterpiece just by not being that much likeable.
Some games are popular and good.
What's good and what's popular do not necessarily align. Removing "complicated" features for the sake of mass appeal makes the game worse, but more profitable, much of the time.
Also not true. Complexity alone doesn't make a good game / movie / book / piece of art. And lack thereof doesn't make anything worse.
Why is it that when many people like a thing because that thing appeals to masses, it's automatically categorised as lower quality?
Nobody seriously claimed Starfield to be the game of all games. It's good. It's fine. It's not perfect. So what?
The Best RPG list is basically Baldur's Gate 3, and four more games to make it look like it has competition. It doesn't.
I still think TotK is a better game overall than BG3.
For me it came pretty close between the two but eventually BG3 came out on top. Totk was great but after 200+ hours I was done with Totk. I currently have almost 200 hours in BG3 and I feel like there's still so much more to play. I also feel like most of my issues with BG3 (like the poor performance in act 3 and some questlines breaking) are things Larian will fix while the issues with Totk (no rebinds, not being able to infuse weapons from inventory, menus in general, almost everything related to the sage powers) are unlikely to get fixed.
Completely agree, TotK could really use some serious QoL improvements.
And maybe a less brutally aged console to play it on.
I played 25hrs of Starfield out of which 20 felt the exact same
I will admit to carrying most Koroks for several minutes rather than trying to make another vehicle out of bits that aren't all there.
I can't help but think they wanted me to be a bit more elaborate than just gluing the poor little guy to a horse harness.
BG3 certainly needed a few extra months to bake. There's still a bit where you can get trapped in a conversation with Mol in Act 1 because as soon as you come out of the cutscene, you're instantly in range of her to start the dialogue again.
Apparently they released early to beat Starfield, which is hilarious because I've seen few games so shat on this year.
Just an FYI in case you're still playing.
There is a feature of you keep playing that lets you build things without the source objects being there, and spending a bit of the ore you get.
This trivialises all the korok things by just sticking them to a hoverbike haha
Yeah, I discovered that quite late on.
I do think ability unlock quests should be highlighted in this sort of game. I didn't even go and get the master sword for ages, because I thought that quest was the end of the game (and indeed when I went to the quest I thought was the end, went deep down into the actual end game area by mistake, and only got deterred by a giant enemy I couldn't kill).
Depends entirely on how much you care about story and characters.
I guess, but that's not the kind of game that TotK is. The star of BG3 is the characters, where the star of TotK is the world.
Right, and whether one game is "better" than the other depends on which thing a person likes more.
Yes, which is why I started my comment with "I still think"...
You think BG3 is better. This is fine.
They're both 10/10.
I actually didn't say whether I liked one or the other better. I'd probably pick TotK overall because it has more replayability (without having to start everything over), but if I'm in the mood for a story game, BG3 is the obvious choice.
BG3 was a buggy mess and the story has much to be desired. They should have kept the Chris Avellone writing.
I have not played it. I love scifi and open world games, but the trailers never spoke to me.
The universe looked so generic. I know Bethesda tried to force the label of “NASApunk” (whatever that means) but it just ended up with the same aesthetic of all those DeviantArt pages where people draw angular, scalloped metal scifi greeble over modern pictures. I didn’t feel any kind of vision coming out and grabbing me.
That’s aside from all the optimization and technical issues that I hear are bad even by Bethesda standards.
I watched part one of a play through. The moment I heard United colonies and Freestar Collective. I knew it was going to be the most generic space setting possible.
I'm a huge Bethesda fan and I absolutely love everything bethesda.
I can unfortunately say that many people will not be impressed with this showing. Outside of a few key characters, most NPCs are forgettable. Most quest designs are basic, and some are outright stupid - like some stranger just giving you the keys to unlock everything.
Skyrim has so much storytelling and "oh wow" moments.
You might find 5-6 of them in the 100+ hours you play. Not to say that won't change in the future.
Skyrim also had immediate recognition, spun off memes, and people were riffing on it from day 1.
Who is Starfield's best girl? Everybody basically crushed on Aella and Lydia.
What's the most gimmicky saying? Arrow to the knee, you're finally awake, etc
Starfield just has no life, no joie de vivre - wide as a lake but shallow as a puddle.
I'm curious what the design, and reaction to, of Starfield might say about what we'll expect from ES6. For three games now (Fallout 4, Fallout 76, and Starfield), have been marked by Settlement building and Radiant quests.
While radiant quests were there in Skyrim, in these later games it felt a lot like Bethesda were making it a core part of the mission design structure. There are a lot of blurred lines in Starfield that make it difficult to tell them apart. (That's more a comment on main missions being so generic than the radiant quests being so good, unfortunately).
Settlement building seems to be a core part of Bethesda's DNA now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the narrative follows a Kingmaker style where you build up a settlement of rebels over time or similar. I imagine the other ES staples will be tied to this too, Thieves Guild = establishing a branch within your new settlement to attack Big Bad Evil Vs joining an established one etc.
I really wonder how much of this poor reaction to Starfield makes its way through to actual change, but my feeling is ES6 will have a lot of hype, but similar feelings of disappointment. I hope I'm proved wrong.
Ultimately, unless they deviate from the formulaic structure (follow arrow on compass to have awkward uncanny conversation with a mannequin who tells you to go to copy and paste dungeon where you have asynchronous combat against copy and pasted enemies) eventually, people will have the same gripes with ES6 that they didn't know they had with Skyrim. At this point, Creation Engine games are nostalgic, but Bethesda thinks they're still the future.
I can't imagine Beth cares about game awards as long as their sales are good.
It would get them some more downloads, but it might just be too difficult for them to achieve since their games are all the embodiment of "Jack of all trades, master of none."
The thing is that a lot of players like it that way, but it won't ever win any awards.
I don't see settlement building as a core part of Starfield, I am 160h in (NG+3) and have not touched settlement building at all.
It is a feature of the game, but it is completely optional.
Bethesda did not over promise anything, didn't over hype. They said they wanted to create Skyrim in space, and that is exactly what Starfield is. For better or for worse.
Starfield being a disappointment to some is only because those players over hyped themselves.
Starfield was 60 pretty ok hours on game pass, I personally have nothing against it, don't care about it much. But those who actually give a shit about The Game Awards: why? Slim list of nominees, several categories total bollocks anyway, judges vote worth 90% against 10% crumbs to the public vote ( see 'how are winners selected' https://thegameawards.com/faq )
Why would you want extensive public participation in an award ceremony? If you want a popularity contest just look at sales numbers. What purpose do awards even serve if they aren't curated beyond validating your own preferences?
this is fair but then why hold a public vote at all when it has next to no chance of affecting the outcome anyway?
Yeah, that's a bit silly, for sure.
Seriously, just drop it then. They need to clarify their role.
Nicely said! I had the same feeling but just didn't know how to put it into words.
Awards are purchased
I mean Blades Gate 3 has all rights to be GOTY of the year, everyone has been calling it since it got out, but I'm 100% certain that less than 20% of the voters will have players all GOTY nomeene's. Hell Alan Wake got out two weeks ago. What I care a bit more is for things me coach's. I'm a CS2 player and I'm sincerely hoping Christine "Potter" Chi will win it, she was so dedicated, and gave her true best, I'm truly happy her team win and J don't even follow Valorant
It's an excuse for me and some buddies to get drunk and yell at Geoff keighly for a couple hours.
I put very little stock in them as a true reflection of quality in the industry, though it's occasionally nice to see Indies and smaller devs get some recognition.
Painfully average is how I'd describe it. There's games with better graphics, better RPG elements, better open world, better space sim, better procedural generation use, better writing, better any one thing (except maybe ship building?). For a game that promised it all it's turned out to be your average jack of all trades, master of none.
It still strikes all the checks I was looking for, whereas the alternatives might be better in some ways but flunk or are completely absent in others. I'm never gonna let GOTY tags determine what I enjoy.
So, The Outer Worlds of 2023?
Played both, and I'd argue that Outer World's is significantly stronger if only for its companions. Starfield I sunk a good few hours into and I struggle to remember one name. Starfield made me the Main Character and there wasn't much room for anyone else. Outer Worlds has some pretty fun companion side-quests.
Starfield wins at the sheer quantity of ideas it threw at the wall, Outer Worlds for the decent to good quality of the ideas it threw at the wall. Neither was brilliant, but on my personal preference Outer Worlds has way stronger bones leading into the sequel.
Nah, Outer Worlds was pretty good. Writing and freedom of choice were stellar, RPG aspects were also really well done, the game was just short and felt small. Starfield doesn't have any aspects that were actually good, everything is average at best.
Don't worry Bethesda, you can try again at next year's game awards after you've fixed the bugs and modders have added the features!
after you’vethe modders have fixed the bugs
Let's not give developers the habit of relying on modders to finish their games. I'm tired of studios releasing half ass games
From what I understand they even fucked with the engine so much that they made modding even harder now and for whatever reason they're not releasing the mod tools any time soon so the big names aren't even trying to mod the game...
It's like they looked at what made all their previous titles popular, looked at the community, and said "nah, fuck that. What the people really want is no mod support, 6 distinct POIs, and TONS of loading screens."
Sorry to be unclear, I was being sarcastic and agree with you. The awards are rightfully based on what is actually released, which discourages this habit.
Gotcha, sadly, these are some people's sentiment regarding AAA studios. Modders are a blessing but then these companies find ways to exploit the passion of their community and fans.
And year after that, and the year after that, and so on for the next 15 years as they re-release it.
They don't need to rerelease it.
Skyrim Special edition released in 2016 and is still one of the most played games on Steam. (place 69, nice)
I really regret thinking the extra time to polish would result in a game where we don't need modders to make things decent. The mod tools aren't even out and people have rebalanced multiple systems to be way better than Bethesda came up with.
Played my full version demo before purchasing. Was bored on day one. None of this surprises me.
What's the point in making a game "as stable as possible",
when it's not even fun?
Aren't you just polishing shit at that point?
It is more stable than their other releases, but that's a very low bar.
I'd never call it stable without that very important context.
Plus, it doesn't pass that bar by more than a few inches.
Yeah, it isn't the best game, so it doesn't belong between the nominations.
Also because so many amazing games came out this year.
But that doesn't make it a bad game though. Had plenty of fun with it.
It got a best audio nominee at the golden joysticks and a best rpg at the game awards. Taking up air that could have been used for actual worthy contenders but big money's get the auto nomination
It definitely doesn't deserve best RPG.
It might win the most "it's alright I guess", game of the year award.
Yeah. It's a good game. That's all. Pretty formulaic and not Bethesda's finest work. Good, but nothing award worthy.
Both spider man 2, re4, and tears of the kingdom are just as formulaic if not more, yet there they are. And SM Wonders is somehow super innovative, just because it is not the exact same formula of all marios but the exact same formula "a little bit harder"
I enjoyed it for about 70h, then i got sick of all the loading.
I just need properly updated skyrim. Better graphics, similar amount of loading screens, better npc's, better mechanics but the same old fantasy setting.
Oh and all the mods, something about sculpting my own vuloptuous barbie doll character to turn into the ultimate killing machine.
What I don't understand is why it even has loading screens. Surely it would be possible for them to level stream that stuff, after all the actual handcrafted environments are not that big, The rest of the planet is procedurally generated.
Partly the engine.
Consoles. I blame most of starfields issues on Microsoft and the need to have it work on garbage Xbox. I just wish we could get a game like this without having to cripple the shit out of it so it will work on some shit hardware console.... But I get it, most people don't have a PC that can play most games if they even have a PC at all...
I'm not bitter, you're bitter! :P
Given the cost of GPUs nowadays I don't blame them. It used to be reasonable...
Bloody hell. I don't even think i have that many hours in most of the games i consider my favourites
I finished the story and did some sight seeing and tried to build an outpost to make fat stacks but somehow i couldn't find the right location after 4 hours of searching and that's when i ditched the game.
I enjoyed it for 3-5 minutes and then it crashed before hitting a save point.
When a game like Hardspace has better writing than your game, you fucked up.
Which is not a knock on Hardspace by-the-by. It's just that writing isn't the focus of that game, and even Blackbird said, "let's take a big swing at this anyways".
And the early access people hated the plot too.
I wish Hardspace would work again. It had lots of potential before they crippled it.
Yeah, I played it back to back with cyberpunk TPL and it felt pretty sterile and soulless by comparison.
Jankfield's poor technical and creative debt have come full circle.
I played it for 30 min and did not enjoy it past the first 10.
Same with me. As soon as I realized that there is no sane way to travel from planet to planet even within the same system without fast travel, I stopped playing the game. Starfield literally made space boring.
Fast travel is the only sane way, without changing the lore and setting of the world, to travel from planet to planet inside of a system.
Space is gigantic and even the distance between planets in a system are huge.
Travel between planets, without having to wait real time hours or days to arrive, would need some kind of faster than light propulsion, but the only way to travel faster then light in the lore and world setting is with gravjumps.
The only thing I would change with the current space travel is using micro gravjumps animation between planets instead of the normal fly sequence shown when travelling inside of a system.
The designers chose this setting and lore, and could have chosen otherwise for the sake of game experience.
Additionally, there's no reason for the fast travel to have to be distinct, separate from gameplay, as loading screens.
Elite Dangerous keeps you in your cockpit, replaces the outside view with an animation while it loads the system you're jumping to. When landing on a planet, there are various "entering the atmosphere" effects on suitable planets to mask swapping from space to the landable planet.
For ED, in-system FTL is time consuming and you can shave off around 25% of the travel time by doing it manually (risking overshooting and having to loop back around), or you can have the ship's computer do it. ED is multiplayer and you can be yanked from this "supercruise" by players and NPC pirates, so it works mechanically to make the player waste time with it. In Starfield they could show you the ETA and give you the option to skip it or to wander around your ship during it while the ship does its thing.
If you're in a menu on your ship when FTL would end with autopilot, stop the clock before leaving FTL, pop up a message in the corner saying the ship is ready to drop from FTL, and let the player exit it manually from the cockpit so you can't get ambushed while you're on the other side of your ship.
No changes to setting or lore needed, except that there's a basic autopilot now.
As far as programming that goes, the engine already uses loading during gameplay when you're on the overworld, and they have done that since Oblivion. Overworld is set up in chunks, they keep a certain number in each direction around you loaded, and load/unload while you move around.
I won't say it would be easy to expand that background loading functionality, but I will say that they've had many many years to attempt it.
Thats sounds amazing, too bad i dont enjoy Sci-Fi
So? The writers weren't forced to make there only be grav drives
And Tolkien was not forced to hinder the Hobbits from inventing full automatic guns, but the Lord of the Rings would be completely different if he hadn't.
And the same is true for Starfield and other options of FTL. It would be a completely different game, with a completely different story.
Starfield is hard sci-fi at it's core, with the exception of the grav drive and the powers/unity, a near future setting that is in most parts plausible and possible, a realistic game set in a realistic universe.
They could implement a timewarp mechanic like Kerbal Space program does and just speed up time.
But that's more or less what they have done with the flyby animation shown when travelling inside of a system. You could interpret that as watching a rapidly speed up version of the, boring because space is a huge and empty void, travel.
I am just bummed about it that's all. I feel like it would have served the game better if it had mass effect style fast travel menu because realistic space travel doesn't add a lot to the game if you can only fight in space but not travel from place to place.
Bought Starfield, still can't play it. Linux, nvidia no MUX switch. Starfield won't use the discrete GPU. Doesn't even know its there. Thrown every launch option I could find at it. Uninstalled and hidden now. Worst purchases I ever made on a game.
Oldrim and Starfield are the only bethesda games I didn't buy on super sale. I'll never make that mistake again. I even purposefully bought it without waiting for sales to throw some support to the devs for building the majority of my favorite games I've ever played.
The up side is that after about two weeks of tinkering I bought Baldurs Gate 3 on a whim. Been playing it non stop ever since. I might not have bought BG3 if bethesdas didn't have such a shity unpayable game at launch, so in a way I thank them. BG3 has far exceeded my every expectation. What I thought would be a mediocre time waster turned out to be the best game I've ever played.
That sounds more like a issue with your proton configuration then a fault of the game.
Have you tried to change the proton configuration, to force it to use the discrete GPU?
Nvidia GPUs are known to be problematic in Linux, not only with Wine/Proton
Yes I've done so much tinkering to everything I can possibly do. Like 5 hours of 2 minute game time testing. Enough to negate a steam refund!
Telling proton to use prime-run. Custom protons, every launch option that matched my specs on protondb.
__NV_PRIME_RENDER_OFFLOAD=1 __GLX_VENDOR_LIBRARY_NAME=nvidia %command% doesn't work at all.
It's not just a Linux issue. I read on steam, a guy only got Starfield to launch in windows after disabling his primary GPU in bios via MUX which sadly isn't an option for me.
I've tried everything but Wayland. If you've got some magic to try I'm all ears.
If you have a newer Nvidia card, Wayland works just fine, and more optimally than X in multi-monitor scenarios, as X locks the refresh rate to the lowest monitor's setting across the board.
I have a 3090 and Wayland lets me use all three of my monitors at their native refresh rates.
It's funny that you're bitching about the game being bad because it doesn't run on an OS it wasn't designed to run on. That's kind of a silly thing to get up in arms about. Linux gamers are lucky that Proton works as well as it does the majority of the time, and I think you've taken that aspect for granted.
It’s funny that you’re removed about the game being bad because it doesn’t run on an OS it wasn’t designed to run on. That’s kind of a silly thing to get up in arms about. Linux gamers are lucky that Proton works as well as it does the majority of the time, and I think you’ve taken that aspect for granted.
Maybe so. Seems like there is a bunch of removed about the game to go around even on windows using nvidia though. And if Larian can get it right you'd think bethesda could. Even on windows.
Also I have no idea if the game is bad. I cant even play it so I cant say if the game sucks or not. Here in a few years when it's playable if it's playable I'll make that decision. By then the modding community will have had a chance to do their thing and hopefully make the game an even better game.
Nobody has ever respected Bethesda for their quality work on engines.
Larian also has not been famously known for the last three decades as the studio with the most bugs on AAA titles.
Modding will kick off more next year when they release the official kits and tools. Surprised that wasn't priority number 2 after ironing out the bugs.
Also, what distro are you running? I didn't have problems getting it to work on Endeavour, once I got a Steam copy. You can't run the Xbox launcher games properly AFAIK and they're markedly worse for modding anyways.
I'm using Garuda.
You have it running on a muxless optimus laptop? What launch options are you using and what proton?
Bought SF through steam as well.
Tried EOS before Garuda. Following the asus-linux instructions they recommended manually installing nvidia drivers. Following the arch wiki I bricked my install a few times before moving on. Like I said in another post I give no shade to EOS as it was defiantly operator error. I think I was trying to use mkinitcpio to rebuild initramfs and if I remember correctly EOS uses dracut. At least thats what I think I remember causing my issue, been around a year ago.
Yeah EOS uses Dracut, that's probably the issue there.
I've had success using the Nvidia-DKMS package on both a laptop (with a 1650) and the aforementioned 3090 machine.
I've never had to manually rebuild initramfs, whenever a major enough system upgrade happens the package manager is designed to automatically rebuild the file, which typically happens every time you update the Nvidia drivers.
Does Garuda have the option to use the DKMS package? I think that's what made the difference for me.
Yeah I have the dkms installed.
So you are running the 3090 on a optimus laptop?
What about your proton version. I've tried all but the latest GE version.
What about your launch options? Are you using Prime render offload?
Sorry, I am running the 3090 on a rig running an Intel 12-7000KF. I haven't had much experience with Optimus configuration, since I don't think the 1650 has Optimus either.
I haven't gotten Starfield to run on the 1650, but that was a spec issue. What kind of card are you trying to run it with? Might just be that Starfield is too intensive to run, which was the case for me.
I pretty sure its a optimus issue as there are 2 GPUs, integrated AMD and discrete NV 3080.
I run rdr2 at 90 fps max everything, cp2077 at 60 fps ray tracing and all with only a few settings toned down. Last time I checked 130 fps in borderlands3, 70-80 fo4 moded to hell, 60 in Skyrim AE utra moded to hell. 130 in tomb rader shadows. BG3 at 70+ when im not in the gate city. Max 12 fps in SF with nvtop showing no usage in the 3080 and max usage for the AMD GPU.
Its not a configuration issue. Its either a SF issue or nvidia driver issue. Being as how SF doesn't even recognize that I have a nvidia card I'm betting money on SF being the issue. That and my research points me to others on windows having issues with discrete GPUs not being recognized either in SF and being solved by disabling MUX in bios forcing the use of discrete GPU.
Thanks for trying though. It is appreciated.
Rock on my friend.
....why didn't you just refund it?
Even if you passed the 2h window because of troubleshooting, Steam Support would probably still allow it if you explained you couldn't get it to work at all
I tried, steam said NO!
I played it and really liked it. I did everything I could do with my first playthrough. I started ng+ but just couldn't continue. A bunch of cool systems in theory but just not enough substance. The copy and paste assets gave me fatigue. It scratched that Bethesda game but I am a bit disappointed. I really wonder why it took so long. It sorta feels like a bunch of reused elements from fallout. Like did they scrap a bunch? I've seen many more in depth games from smaller studies lately. On a side note I started playing Cyberpunk with new dlc afterwards and damn I really like that game
It's real nova, choom.
Feel like this games gonna get the NMS treatment and be relatively playable maybe 3 years down the line..
As it stands the game has some merits (tons of planets, dungeons are compelling enough while you’re still seeing new ones) but it feels like the size of the world really caused the world design overall to suffer.
I'm sorry but Bethesda doesn't deserve three years to make a game work. They should make it work on launch and delay it until it's worth launching. They have billions of dollars and ownership from a major tech conglomerate. It's entirely unacceptable for them to release an unfinished product.
Games are never finished now with the internet. The whole industry has agreed to say "fuck it, we'll fix it in post" for basically every single project.
Yeah Bethesda doesn't get the same amount of leeway that a small dev that was clearly way in over their heads gets
They'd have to rip out and replace the entire plot, which I don't think they would do
I honestly don't think so. NMS sky started from a rock solid space exploration engine, but that was basically it, and has then layered on most of the other parts of a space sim on top since then, but most of Starfield's biggest issues seem to be because their game engine can't handle the scales needed for seamless space exploration.
So at this point Starfield devs have spent a ton of time and effort building a space sim game on an engine not suited for it, and that means that every cut scene and animation and scripted event is built around this engine, making it really time consuming just to bug test, let alone fix any problems that arise from changing or upgrading that engine, let alone designing the old missions and stuff to work with more continuous travel.
I have more faith that 5 years from now NMS will be fleshed out into a really rich and full story driven game, then that Starfield will have fixed it's fundamental exploration / loading screen problems.
NMS was purpose-built to be a space game.
Starfield was built on an ancient engine that's always been for ground-based games.
It's such a huge sunk cost fallacy that keeps Bethesda using the same dogshit engine. "We've used it for years!" Yeah but it's been fucking garbage for years too.
stuff to work with more continuous travel.
I bet you would be surprised if you were to find out that it is possible already. In space one can already move from one planet to another, only thing that is missing is the loading of new space "map" on demand. And more importantly move from one planet to another and then dock with spacestation. As shown by https://www.nexusmods.com/starfield/mods/3541.
Now you might ask the very obvious question: why isn't this correctly implemented to allow seamless travel in both space and on planets in vanilla Starfield? We may know only after someone does full introspection what happened during development but my speculative guess is that Xbox Series S which is much weaker than X is the primary reason for all this segmentation in all aspects of Starfield.
Traversal is technically possible yes, but it's not possible to traverse at a speed which would be feasible or fun, indicating that their engine isn't capable of unloading and loading new assets in fast enough as you move around. Probably the same reason that even Neon needs to be hard split in half instead of just unloading the assets from the part of the city you're not at at the moment.
And bruh blaming the S with no information is asinine when not a single other game struggles with traversal on it, including massive open world's like GTAV, Cyberpunk, Flight Simulator and even other space sims like NMS.
Given that this game also chose to procedurally spawn the same bases over and over again, I think their issues are firmly routed in their development process, not hardware limitations.
Traversal is technically possible yes, but it’s not possible to traverse at a speed which would be feasible or fun, indicating that their engine isn’t capable of unloading and loading new assets in fast enough as you move around. Probably the same reason that even Neon needs to be hard split in half instead of just unloading the assets from the part of the city you’re not at at the moment.
Speeds that the above mentioned mod adds. Until CK is added the debate of switching of one space map to another seamlessly is useless, since the current implementation is missing the hook to load the next map whilst the same hook is implemented between ship take off and space (even when player is not at the helm). Yeah, but New Atlantis is much bigger and allows the player to boost pack from the MAST top floor to another skyscrapers roof and then get down to commercial level and trade stuff without any load screens, at least on PC.
And bruh blaming the S with no information is asinine when not a single other game struggles with traversal on it, including massive open world’s like GTAV, Cyberpunk, Flight Simulator and even other space sims like NMS.
It's worth noting that out of all the platforms that Larian has developed its masterpiece for, the Xbox Series S is probably the most restrictive. This is because it only has 8GB of high-bandwidth memory, to store the game while running and use as VRAM (the remaining 2GB gets used for system functions).
The graphs start at the beginning of September, with the game using just over 5.2GB for general game RAM and around 3.5GB for VRAM. By November, though, Larian had shaved this down to 4.7GB and 2.3GB respectively. The RAM reduction is a pretty decent 10% drop but the reduction in VRAM usage is a massive 34%.
Gneitling pointed to the "almost non-existent" RAM increase from current-gen systems to Xbox Series S as a major pain point. Also "it always scaled on PC" is nonsense. Every AAA game in the past decade or so has their assets made once so they run on min spec. Increasing sample counts a bit here and there for high settings isn't what you could truly have done with more power. Min spec matters.
The article has many such remarks from other devs as well. So why couldn't the segmentation of Starfield be because of Xbox Series S? Keep in mind the latter article is now roughly three years old.
Because Larian specifically struggles with local co-op, not with loading new sections of the map.
As I've said, Cyberpunk runs perfectly fine on the S while loading in more geometry faster on the fly, and it's far from alone in that. Starfield's limitations are clearly a result of Bethesda's ancient engine and not hardware limitations since other devs using different engines can accomplish what they failed at on the same hardware.
The sad part is that Microsoft pulled the original 2022 release to fix a lot of the bugs.
So really the updates have to be pretty impactful.
I'm still optimistic, because fallout 76 did finally get there!
I’m still optimistic, because fallout 76 did finally get there!
This is sarcasm, right?
It really got nowhere, and then started charging premium subscriptions to cover most of the mechanics that have sucked since day 1. Repair kits? You got em. You're not constantly locked in the treadmill of deciding to do something and giving up halfway to go farm screws from office fans because your weapons have degraded to useless conditions. You pay to avoid bullshit like that.
Doesn't sound like it got there, sounds like they might have improved their netcode, which was spaghetti to be perfectly honest so easy to have improved upon, and maybe the engine use for things not T-posing and floating around. I'm sure those bat fuckers are technically internally still dragons though. The core gameplay loop still sucks. Pick a direction, veer off to fix your shit, and ultimately get annoyed because there's only so many fucking times I can go to the adhesive shed or the fucking office with all the fans before I'm just done with the worst mechanic ever invented.
I love Starfield, not as much as I love Skyrim or even Morrowind, but I really love it.
I am at 160ish hours and have seen only a small amount of the quests and barely touched the base or ship building part.
There is so much in the game and with the innovative spin on new game plus I am able to build my own narrative again and again.
I can play the perfect angle in one NG+ and a devil in another, I can be the freedom loving Ranger in the next, a mad loner who only interacts with others as much as needed to finish his perfect planetary base, or a starship fanatic who wants to collect and/or build the best ships.
You don't have those kinds of freedom with Baldurs Gate 3 or other RPGs, you can't really leave or mostly ignore the narratives of those games to create your own, not on the scale as it is possible with Starfield.
Starfields quests are fun, yes they are all separate from each other but that is in my eyes a good thing in this case as it allows to play the game as you like.
All the quests are like basic Lego blocks, you can connect them together in any way you want but they don't change each other but that's not needed as I have my own narrative and stories in my mind for this run or character.
Sure, games like Baldurs Gate 3 or Cyberpunk 2.0 have better storytelling, better NPCs, but they are at the same time extremely limited and narrow experiences, sure you have side quests and all but once played the game that's mostly it.
Starfields freedoms come with limits like the loading screens sure, but that is a price I am willing to pay for having a sandbox like universe to explore and roleplay in.
As a pure entertainment product, that can be consumed without any own creativity, is Baldurs Gate better, without doubt.
But as a expansion tool for your imagination, that's where Starfield (or any other Bethesda RPG) shines.
But as a end note: What have the Starfield developers consumed when they created the utterly bad and boring temple "puzzles". In Todd's name WHY????
You clearly haven't played baldur's gate and shouldn't make comparisons based on your limited experience with it.
I have played and completed it, very recently, and I stand to my words.
BG3 has a great story and it was fun to play once. But it is not a game I will play again, at least not for years.
BG3 is like a good movie, impressive and great story telling but after I seen it once it is done and will go on the shelf.
That's where Starfield differs, in BG3 I command great written characters through adventures, in Starfield I play more or less an avatar of myself but on a Spaceship. And that is something I come back to again and again, just like I go back to Skyrim, Morrowind or Fallout for years now.
Maybe you have Not realized just how much your choices affect the "linear Story" and how much permutation there is in follow up quests or alternate pathways through the same quest. I guess thats the beauty of it. Most of the quests an Narrative fit into each other so neat One might suspect this way was the only possible way, just because of how good it is presented.
Yes, but that still is like reading the same book but with a few pages changed. I am still only moving characters through a stage play, not roleplaying.
I can't have a completely changed or different way to play the game or be myself/anything in the world of the game.
Both games are great but they can't really be compared, not much more as you could compare a high budget musical with a high budget improv theatre play.
Sure both are plays on a theatre stage (or RPG in case of the games) but beside that they don't have really much in common.
But maybe it is just to complicated for me to fully express or explain what I mean as I am not a native speaker and I am therefore limited in my words and formulations.
Your love for the game is valid but criticisms of the game are also valid. The biggest flaw starfield has is the massive amount of gameworld it provides. In skyrim, CP2077, BG3, Morrowind, Zelda, and whatever else you want to think of, you can pick a direction and go.
In nearly every case, the game is designed to take you somewhere, give you something, reward you for straying off the main path. In Starfield, both space and planet side, youre likely to run into a whole lot of nothing. Which is realistically fine, the universe is already a vast amount of nothing, but in game design that makes for a boring and lackluster RPG and that is the biggest problem SF has. That doesnt take away from the players like you who want this experience though, but thats kind of why Space Sim games are a niche experience.
As a pure entertainment product, that can be consumed without any own creativity, is Baldurs Gate better, without doubt. But as a expansion tool for your imagination, that’s where Starfield (or any other Bethesda RPG) shines.
You should seriously, seriously go play BG3.
You don’t have those kinds of freedom with Baldurs Gate 3 or other RPGs, you can’t really leave or mostly ignore the narratives of those games to create your own, not on the scale as it is possible with Starfield.
Seriously, BG3. (Between Dark Urge, custom character choices, etc, go.)
I have played it and I liked it.
But after completing it with one character I have no intention of doing another play through anytime soon.
Yes you have different character choices but in the end it is always the same linear story.
Yes, you could say the same about Starfield but it is not.
In Starfield if I want I can ignore the main quest more or less completely and play a bounty hunter who only builds his base to have a place for his collection of coffee cups he takes from every place he goes.
In BG3 they give you predefined experience (now in Dark Urge flavour) which is great for telling a story but not so great for creating a world to really roleplay in.
Both games are fun for what they are, they are just not fun in the same way for everyone.
I think i See your point now with the example of the bounty hunter.
The point that most People are making is thta starfield is a really blank canvas where you can Insert your own Narrative into a lot of Actions but the game does Not react towards that Narrative, while BG3 does react to some of your RP reasons and all the other reasons for your RP that the game cannot predict, it cannot react to and therefore feel unsupported.
That is a valid Take that Bethesda games have Solid setting in which People can choose internal Roleplay but this does Not meant other games where the game also gives you external Stimulation to Roleplay certain aspects Limit your creativity. For my playtrough there were several decisions which where reflected in the World but also other principles that i made up, that only influenced my decisions passivly without beeing spelled out in the Texts.
For example i choose a knowdledge hungry Wizard which made me Do queationable choice s with devils even tho 2 People of my Party already suffered under devils. No choice spelled out "Gimme All knowledge of the Planes what ever the Cost" but thats where my own internal RP made the choice more fitting than other.
Man its really Hard to express my thoughts on this using a foreign languages. I hope my point comes across
Yes, I can grasp what you mean.
It is a role-playing on a different level, and with that it has its own merits and shortcomings.
Baldurs Gate 3 is a role play on a lower, more character centric, level which limits the freedom of the player but allows for the game to have a tighter, more interconnected storytelling.
Starfield is a role play on a higher, more player centric, level which allows for way more personal freedom of the player at the costs of having a story with pieces flying loose through the air, so to speak.
The venn diagram of people who like both of those types will most likely don't have a huge overlap.
Neither of those games are bad, they are just fundamentally different.
The problem is how disjointed everything is. Skyrim and Fallout, I can literally walk across the entire map. I can run into a random plot, some fun environmental storytelling, anything really - there's no sense of discovery for a game so vast as Starfield. Everything is a known quantity which is why you can fast travel to and from basically every area.
All these other functions built into the game are superficial and/or incomplete at best. Ship building is basically pointless, as you can carry a massive crew in a tiny freighter, regardless of crew capacity or passenger capacity of your vessel. Modding weapons is more or less the same as it was in Fallout 4. The environments that are available to explore are all dead with fuck all, and all the tunnels and mines are filled with the same bullet-sponge spacer enemies. You would think with smaller, chunked zones we'd have some very detailed environments that make use of the fact that they are relatively small spaces, but instead everything is truncated with a loading screen and entirely lacking in depth.
I am at 160ish hours and have seen only a small amount of the quests
So you've just been having fun with the most basic of systems that are not much different from all previous games, while barely having touched the things most people are complaining about? The mechanics and stability are pretty good. It's the bland stories within the uninspired quests that are a major source of disappointment.
And to say only a Bethesda RPG does while BG3 doesn't have the kinds of roleplaying you're describing tells me you haven't actually played BG3. Or any actually good RPG for that matter.
What you are trying to say is that Starfield is a sandbox RPG, while BG3 is a Linear Story RPG.
Both are fun in their own ways. You just vibe more with the sandbox aspect.
I bet you also enjoy Minecraft for the same reasons.
The fact that this game was actually nominated as "best RPG" with the likes of baldurs gate 3 and final fantasy XVI is ludicrous enough.
to be fair, ffxvi is not really an rpg either.
It’s just so bland and formulaic. Against deep RPGs like BG3, it just pales in comparison.
The funny thing is, I think the fact that the RPG mechanics are finally better than the last game developed by Bethesda, instead of worse, highlights just how mediocre Bethesda games are.
I still think once mods and DLCs come out in full force it will be remembered more positively.
Agreed. Twas the only thing I thought while playing. This would be better with mods. Which is a sad state because I spent real money on a mod sandbox without the mods.
Yep, I had below Fallout 4 expectations and actually ended up enjoying it more, as I highly value the RPG aspects. It's still a completely mediocre RPG, but it has a huge sandbox and a ton of potential.
The difference between a Ubisoft game and a Bethesda game is that Bethesda employees still enjoy coming to work.
Sure. I think big budget gaming needs to die, and games need more dev time for less work and higher pay, with worse graphical fidelity and better art styles.
If Bethesda games are so mediocre, why are they so popular among players who love to put hundreds of hours into them? I can't imagine them all playing total conversion mods.
It's become such a custom to poop on Bethesda for making "shallow", "uninteresting" games that still everybody talks about. As if there weren't enough real flaws in their games to give them heat for.
Because mediocrity and popularity go hand in hand, it's the profit motive at work. Being largely inoffensive and generally palatable is profitable.
That's not the definition of mediocrity. Trying to appeal to a bigger audience doesn't make a game mediocre in the same way not every niche game has the potential of being a masterpiece just by not being that much likeable.
Some games are popular and good.
What's good and what's popular do not necessarily align. Removing "complicated" features for the sake of mass appeal makes the game worse, but more profitable, much of the time.
Also not true. Complexity alone doesn't make a good game / movie / book / piece of art. And lack thereof doesn't make anything worse.
Why is it that when many people like a thing because that thing appeals to masses, it's automatically categorised as lower quality?
Nobody seriously claimed Starfield to be the game of all games. It's good. It's fine. It's not perfect. So what?
The Best RPG list is basically Baldur's Gate 3, and four more games to make it look like it has competition. It doesn't.
I still think TotK is a better game overall than BG3.
For me it came pretty close between the two but eventually BG3 came out on top. Totk was great but after 200+ hours I was done with Totk. I currently have almost 200 hours in BG3 and I feel like there's still so much more to play. I also feel like most of my issues with BG3 (like the poor performance in act 3 and some questlines breaking) are things Larian will fix while the issues with Totk (no rebinds, not being able to infuse weapons from inventory, menus in general, almost everything related to the sage powers) are unlikely to get fixed.
Completely agree, TotK could really use some serious QoL improvements.
And maybe a less brutally aged console to play it on.
Yuzu is all you need!
I played 25hrs of Starfield out of which 20 felt the exact same
I will admit to carrying most Koroks for several minutes rather than trying to make another vehicle out of bits that aren't all there.
I can't help but think they wanted me to be a bit more elaborate than just gluing the poor little guy to a horse harness.
BG3 certainly needed a few extra months to bake. There's still a bit where you can get trapped in a conversation with Mol in Act 1 because as soon as you come out of the cutscene, you're instantly in range of her to start the dialogue again.
Apparently they released early to beat Starfield, which is hilarious because I've seen few games so shat on this year.
Just an FYI in case you're still playing. There is a feature of you keep playing that lets you build things without the source objects being there, and spending a bit of the ore you get. This trivialises all the korok things by just sticking them to a hoverbike haha
Yeah, I discovered that quite late on.
I do think ability unlock quests should be highlighted in this sort of game. I didn't even go and get the master sword for ages, because I thought that quest was the end of the game (and indeed when I went to the quest I thought was the end, went deep down into the actual end game area by mistake, and only got deterred by a giant enemy I couldn't kill).
Depends entirely on how much you care about story and characters.
I guess, but that's not the kind of game that TotK is. The star of BG3 is the characters, where the star of TotK is the world.
Right, and whether one game is "better" than the other depends on which thing a person likes more.
Yes, which is why I started my comment with "I still think"...
You think BG3 is better. This is fine.
They're both 10/10.
I actually didn't say whether I liked one or the other better. I'd probably pick TotK overall because it has more replayability (without having to start everything over), but if I'm in the mood for a story game, BG3 is the obvious choice.
BG3 was a buggy mess and the story has much to be desired. They should have kept the Chris Avellone writing.
I have not played it. I love scifi and open world games, but the trailers never spoke to me.
The universe looked so generic. I know Bethesda tried to force the label of “NASApunk” (whatever that means) but it just ended up with the same aesthetic of all those DeviantArt pages where people draw angular, scalloped metal scifi greeble over modern pictures. I didn’t feel any kind of vision coming out and grabbing me.
That’s aside from all the optimization and technical issues that I hear are bad even by Bethesda standards.
I watched part one of a play through. The moment I heard United colonies and Freestar Collective. I knew it was going to be the most generic space setting possible.
I'm a huge Bethesda fan and I absolutely love everything bethesda.
I can unfortunately say that many people will not be impressed with this showing. Outside of a few key characters, most NPCs are forgettable. Most quest designs are basic, and some are outright stupid - like some stranger just giving you the keys to unlock everything.
Skyrim has so much storytelling and "oh wow" moments.
You might find 5-6 of them in the 100+ hours you play. Not to say that won't change in the future.
Skyrim also had immediate recognition, spun off memes, and people were riffing on it from day 1.
Who is Starfield's best girl? Everybody basically crushed on Aella and Lydia.
What's the most gimmicky saying? Arrow to the knee, you're finally awake, etc
Starfield just has no life, no joie de vivre - wide as a lake but shallow as a puddle.
I'm curious what the design, and reaction to, of Starfield might say about what we'll expect from ES6. For three games now (Fallout 4, Fallout 76, and Starfield), have been marked by Settlement building and Radiant quests.
While radiant quests were there in Skyrim, in these later games it felt a lot like Bethesda were making it a core part of the mission design structure. There are a lot of blurred lines in Starfield that make it difficult to tell them apart. (That's more a comment on main missions being so generic than the radiant quests being so good, unfortunately).
Settlement building seems to be a core part of Bethesda's DNA now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the narrative follows a Kingmaker style where you build up a settlement of rebels over time or similar. I imagine the other ES staples will be tied to this too, Thieves Guild = establishing a branch within your new settlement to attack Big Bad Evil Vs joining an established one etc.
I really wonder how much of this poor reaction to Starfield makes its way through to actual change, but my feeling is ES6 will have a lot of hype, but similar feelings of disappointment. I hope I'm proved wrong.
Ultimately, unless they deviate from the formulaic structure (follow arrow on compass to have awkward uncanny conversation with a mannequin who tells you to go to copy and paste dungeon where you have asynchronous combat against copy and pasted enemies) eventually, people will have the same gripes with ES6 that they didn't know they had with Skyrim. At this point, Creation Engine games are nostalgic, but Bethesda thinks they're still the future.
I can't imagine Beth cares about game awards as long as their sales are good.
It would get them some more downloads, but it might just be too difficult for them to achieve since their games are all the embodiment of "Jack of all trades, master of none."
The thing is that a lot of players like it that way, but it won't ever win any awards.
I don't see settlement building as a core part of Starfield, I am 160h in (NG+3) and have not touched settlement building at all. It is a feature of the game, but it is completely optional.
Bethesda did not over promise anything, didn't over hype. They said they wanted to create Skyrim in space, and that is exactly what Starfield is. For better or for worse.
Starfield being a disappointment to some is only because those players over hyped themselves.
Starfield was 60 pretty ok hours on game pass, I personally have nothing against it, don't care about it much. But those who actually give a shit about The Game Awards: why? Slim list of nominees, several categories total bollocks anyway, judges vote worth 90% against 10% crumbs to the public vote ( see 'how are winners selected' https://thegameawards.com/faq )
Why would you want extensive public participation in an award ceremony? If you want a popularity contest just look at sales numbers. What purpose do awards even serve if they aren't curated beyond validating your own preferences?
this is fair but then why hold a public vote at all when it has next to no chance of affecting the outcome anyway?
Yeah, that's a bit silly, for sure.
Seriously, just drop it then. They need to clarify their role.
Nicely said! I had the same feeling but just didn't know how to put it into words.
Awards are purchased
I mean Blades Gate 3 has all rights to be GOTY of the year, everyone has been calling it since it got out, but I'm 100% certain that less than 20% of the voters will have players all GOTY nomeene's. Hell Alan Wake got out two weeks ago. What I care a bit more is for things me coach's. I'm a CS2 player and I'm sincerely hoping Christine "Potter" Chi will win it, she was so dedicated, and gave her true best, I'm truly happy her team win and J don't even follow Valorant
It's an excuse for me and some buddies to get drunk and yell at Geoff keighly for a couple hours.
I put very little stock in them as a true reflection of quality in the industry, though it's occasionally nice to see Indies and smaller devs get some recognition.
Painfully average is how I'd describe it. There's games with better graphics, better RPG elements, better open world, better space sim, better procedural generation use, better writing, better any one thing (except maybe ship building?). For a game that promised it all it's turned out to be your average jack of all trades, master of none.
It still strikes all the checks I was looking for, whereas the alternatives might be better in some ways but flunk or are completely absent in others. I'm never gonna let GOTY tags determine what I enjoy.
So, The Outer Worlds of 2023?
Played both, and I'd argue that Outer World's is significantly stronger if only for its companions. Starfield I sunk a good few hours into and I struggle to remember one name. Starfield made me the Main Character and there wasn't much room for anyone else. Outer Worlds has some pretty fun companion side-quests.
Starfield wins at the sheer quantity of ideas it threw at the wall, Outer Worlds for the decent to good quality of the ideas it threw at the wall. Neither was brilliant, but on my personal preference Outer Worlds has way stronger bones leading into the sequel.
Nah, Outer Worlds was pretty good. Writing and freedom of choice were stellar, RPG aspects were also really well done, the game was just short and felt small. Starfield doesn't have any aspects that were actually good, everything is average at best.
Don't worry Bethesda, you can try again at next year's game awards after you've fixed the bugs and modders have added the features!
after
you’vethe modders have fixed the bugsLet's not give developers the habit of relying on modders to finish their games. I'm tired of studios releasing half ass games
From what I understand they even fucked with the engine so much that they made modding even harder now and for whatever reason they're not releasing the mod tools any time soon so the big names aren't even trying to mod the game...
It's like they looked at what made all their previous titles popular, looked at the community, and said "nah, fuck that. What the people really want is no mod support, 6 distinct POIs, and TONS of loading screens."
Sorry to be unclear, I was being sarcastic and agree with you. The awards are rightfully based on what is actually released, which discourages this habit.
Gotcha, sadly, these are some people's sentiment regarding AAA studios. Modders are a blessing but then these companies find ways to exploit the passion of their community and fans.
And year after that, and the year after that, and so on for the next 15 years as they re-release it.
They don't need to rerelease it.
Skyrim Special edition released in 2016 and is still one of the most played games on Steam. (place 69, nice)
I really regret thinking the extra time to polish would result in a game where we don't need modders to make things decent. The mod tools aren't even out and people have rebalanced multiple systems to be way better than Bethesda came up with.
Played my full version demo before purchasing. Was bored on day one. None of this surprises me.
What's the point in making a game "as stable as possible",
when it's not even fun?
Aren't you just polishing shit at that point?
It is more stable than their other releases, but that's a very low bar.
I'd never call it stable without that very important context.
Plus, it doesn't pass that bar by more than a few inches.
Yeah, it isn't the best game, so it doesn't belong between the nominations.
Also because so many amazing games came out this year.
But that doesn't make it a bad game though. Had plenty of fun with it.
It got a best audio nominee at the golden joysticks and a best rpg at the game awards. Taking up air that could have been used for actual worthy contenders but big money's get the auto nomination
It definitely doesn't deserve best RPG.
It might win the most "it's alright I guess", game of the year award.
Yeah. It's a good game. That's all. Pretty formulaic and not Bethesda's finest work. Good, but nothing award worthy.
Both spider man 2, re4, and tears of the kingdom are just as formulaic if not more, yet there they are. And SM Wonders is somehow super innovative, just because it is not the exact same formula of all marios but the exact same formula "a little bit harder"
I enjoyed it for about 70h, then i got sick of all the loading.
I just need properly updated skyrim. Better graphics, similar amount of loading screens, better npc's, better mechanics but the same old fantasy setting.
Oh and all the mods, something about sculpting my own vuloptuous barbie doll character to turn into the ultimate killing machine.
What I don't understand is why it even has loading screens. Surely it would be possible for them to level stream that stuff, after all the actual handcrafted environments are not that big, The rest of the planet is procedurally generated.
Partly the engine.
Consoles. I blame most of starfields issues on Microsoft and the need to have it work on garbage Xbox. I just wish we could get a game like this without having to cripple the shit out of it so it will work on some shit hardware console.... But I get it, most people don't have a PC that can play most games if they even have a PC at all...
I'm not bitter, you're bitter! :P
Given the cost of GPUs nowadays I don't blame them. It used to be reasonable...
Bloody hell. I don't even think i have that many hours in most of the games i consider my favourites
I finished the story and did some sight seeing and tried to build an outpost to make fat stacks but somehow i couldn't find the right location after 4 hours of searching and that's when i ditched the game.
I enjoyed it for 3-5 minutes and then it crashed before hitting a save point.
When a game like Hardspace has better writing than your game, you fucked up.
Which is not a knock on Hardspace by-the-by. It's just that writing isn't the focus of that game, and even Blackbird said, "let's take a big swing at this anyways".
And the early access people hated the plot too.
I wish Hardspace would work again. It had lots of potential before they crippled it.
Yeah, I played it back to back with cyberpunk TPL and it felt pretty sterile and soulless by comparison.
Jankfield's poor technical and creative debt have come full circle.
I played it for 30 min and did not enjoy it past the first 10.
Same with me. As soon as I realized that there is no sane way to travel from planet to planet even within the same system without fast travel, I stopped playing the game. Starfield literally made space boring.
Fast travel is the only sane way, without changing the lore and setting of the world, to travel from planet to planet inside of a system. Space is gigantic and even the distance between planets in a system are huge. Travel between planets, without having to wait real time hours or days to arrive, would need some kind of faster than light propulsion, but the only way to travel faster then light in the lore and world setting is with gravjumps.
The only thing I would change with the current space travel is using micro gravjumps animation between planets instead of the normal fly sequence shown when travelling inside of a system.
The designers chose this setting and lore, and could have chosen otherwise for the sake of game experience.
Additionally, there's no reason for the fast travel to have to be distinct, separate from gameplay, as loading screens.
Elite Dangerous keeps you in your cockpit, replaces the outside view with an animation while it loads the system you're jumping to. When landing on a planet, there are various "entering the atmosphere" effects on suitable planets to mask swapping from space to the landable planet.
For ED, in-system FTL is time consuming and you can shave off around 25% of the travel time by doing it manually (risking overshooting and having to loop back around), or you can have the ship's computer do it. ED is multiplayer and you can be yanked from this "supercruise" by players and NPC pirates, so it works mechanically to make the player waste time with it. In Starfield they could show you the ETA and give you the option to skip it or to wander around your ship during it while the ship does its thing.
If you're in a menu on your ship when FTL would end with autopilot, stop the clock before leaving FTL, pop up a message in the corner saying the ship is ready to drop from FTL, and let the player exit it manually from the cockpit so you can't get ambushed while you're on the other side of your ship.
No changes to setting or lore needed, except that there's a basic autopilot now.
As far as programming that goes, the engine already uses loading during gameplay when you're on the overworld, and they have done that since Oblivion. Overworld is set up in chunks, they keep a certain number in each direction around you loaded, and load/unload while you move around.
I won't say it would be easy to expand that background loading functionality, but I will say that they've had many many years to attempt it.
Thats sounds amazing, too bad i dont enjoy Sci-Fi
So? The writers weren't forced to make there only be grav drives
And Tolkien was not forced to hinder the Hobbits from inventing full automatic guns, but the Lord of the Rings would be completely different if he hadn't.
And the same is true for Starfield and other options of FTL. It would be a completely different game, with a completely different story.
Starfield is hard sci-fi at it's core, with the exception of the grav drive and the powers/unity, a near future setting that is in most parts plausible and possible, a realistic game set in a realistic universe.
They could implement a timewarp mechanic like Kerbal Space program does and just speed up time.
But that's more or less what they have done with the flyby animation shown when travelling inside of a system. You could interpret that as watching a rapidly speed up version of the, boring because space is a huge and empty void, travel.
I am just bummed about it that's all. I feel like it would have served the game better if it had mass effect style fast travel menu because realistic space travel doesn't add a lot to the game if you can only fight in space but not travel from place to place.
Can't really form an opinion about an RPG in 30 minutes playtime. Hell, I doubt you even know Starfield has magic powers.
It was influenced by the internet calling it bad, you are allowed to admit it.
Just don't call it your opinion.
Starfield bad
Okay, who downvoted this? Come clean, buster. My opinion about a video game is objective fact and you must agree with it.
I like it 🤷♂️
Bought Starfield, still can't play it. Linux, nvidia no MUX switch. Starfield won't use the discrete GPU. Doesn't even know its there. Thrown every launch option I could find at it. Uninstalled and hidden now. Worst purchases I ever made on a game.
Oldrim and Starfield are the only bethesda games I didn't buy on super sale. I'll never make that mistake again. I even purposefully bought it without waiting for sales to throw some support to the devs for building the majority of my favorite games I've ever played.
The up side is that after about two weeks of tinkering I bought Baldurs Gate 3 on a whim. Been playing it non stop ever since. I might not have bought BG3 if bethesdas didn't have such a shity unpayable game at launch, so in a way I thank them. BG3 has far exceeded my every expectation. What I thought would be a mediocre time waster turned out to be the best game I've ever played.
That sounds more like a issue with your proton configuration then a fault of the game.
Have you tried to change the proton configuration, to force it to use the discrete GPU?
Nvidia GPUs are known to be problematic in Linux, not only with Wine/Proton
Yes I've done so much tinkering to everything I can possibly do. Like 5 hours of 2 minute game time testing. Enough to negate a steam refund!
Telling proton to use prime-run. Custom protons, every launch option that matched my specs on protondb.
__NV_PRIME_RENDER_OFFLOAD=1 __GLX_VENDOR_LIBRARY_NAME=nvidia %command%doesn't work at all.It's not just a Linux issue. I read on steam, a guy only got Starfield to launch in windows after disabling his primary GPU in bios via MUX which sadly isn't an option for me.
I've tried everything but Wayland. If you've got some magic to try I'm all ears.
If you have a newer Nvidia card, Wayland works just fine, and more optimally than X in multi-monitor scenarios, as X locks the refresh rate to the lowest monitor's setting across the board.
I have a 3090 and Wayland lets me use all three of my monitors at their native refresh rates.
It's funny that you're bitching about the game being bad because it doesn't run on an OS it wasn't designed to run on. That's kind of a silly thing to get up in arms about. Linux gamers are lucky that Proton works as well as it does the majority of the time, and I think you've taken that aspect for granted.
Maybe so. Seems like there is a bunch of removed about the game to go around even on windows using nvidia though. And if Larian can get it right you'd think bethesda could. Even on windows.
Also I have no idea if the game is bad. I cant even play it so I cant say if the game sucks or not. Here in a few years when it's playable if it's playable I'll make that decision. By then the modding community will have had a chance to do their thing and hopefully make the game an even better game.
Nobody has ever respected Bethesda for their quality work on engines.
Larian also has not been famously known for the last three decades as the studio with the most bugs on AAA titles.
Modding will kick off more next year when they release the official kits and tools. Surprised that wasn't priority number 2 after ironing out the bugs.
Also, what distro are you running? I didn't have problems getting it to work on Endeavour, once I got a Steam copy. You can't run the Xbox launcher games properly AFAIK and they're markedly worse for modding anyways.
I'm using Garuda.
You have it running on a muxless optimus laptop? What launch options are you using and what proton?
Bought SF through steam as well.
Tried EOS before Garuda. Following the asus-linux instructions they recommended manually installing nvidia drivers. Following the arch wiki I bricked my install a few times before moving on. Like I said in another post I give no shade to EOS as it was defiantly operator error. I think I was trying to use mkinitcpio to rebuild initramfs and if I remember correctly EOS uses dracut. At least thats what I think I remember causing my issue, been around a year ago.
Yeah EOS uses Dracut, that's probably the issue there.
I've had success using the Nvidia-DKMS package on both a laptop (with a 1650) and the aforementioned 3090 machine.
I've never had to manually rebuild initramfs, whenever a major enough system upgrade happens the package manager is designed to automatically rebuild the file, which typically happens every time you update the Nvidia drivers.
Does Garuda have the option to use the DKMS package? I think that's what made the difference for me.
Yeah I have the dkms installed.
So you are running the 3090 on a optimus laptop?
What about your proton version. I've tried all but the latest GE version.
What about your launch options? Are you using Prime render offload?
Sorry, I am running the 3090 on a rig running an Intel 12-7000KF. I haven't had much experience with Optimus configuration, since I don't think the 1650 has Optimus either.
I haven't gotten Starfield to run on the 1650, but that was a spec issue. What kind of card are you trying to run it with? Might just be that Starfield is too intensive to run, which was the case for me.
I pretty sure its a optimus issue as there are 2 GPUs, integrated AMD and discrete NV 3080.
I run rdr2 at 90 fps max everything, cp2077 at 60 fps ray tracing and all with only a few settings toned down. Last time I checked 130 fps in borderlands3, 70-80 fo4 moded to hell, 60 in Skyrim AE utra moded to hell. 130 in tomb rader shadows. BG3 at 70+ when im not in the gate city. Max 12 fps in SF with
nvtopshowing no usage in the 3080 and max usage for the AMD GPU.Its not a configuration issue. Its either a SF issue or nvidia driver issue. Being as how SF doesn't even recognize that I have a nvidia card I'm betting money on SF being the issue. That and my research points me to others on windows having issues with discrete GPUs not being recognized either in SF and being solved by disabling MUX in bios forcing the use of discrete GPU.
Thanks for trying though. It is appreciated.
Rock on my friend.
....why didn't you just refund it?
Even if you passed the 2h window because of troubleshooting, Steam Support would probably still allow it if you explained you couldn't get it to work at all
I tried, steam said NO!
I played it and really liked it. I did everything I could do with my first playthrough. I started ng+ but just couldn't continue. A bunch of cool systems in theory but just not enough substance. The copy and paste assets gave me fatigue. It scratched that Bethesda game but I am a bit disappointed. I really wonder why it took so long. It sorta feels like a bunch of reused elements from fallout. Like did they scrap a bunch? I've seen many more in depth games from smaller studies lately. On a side note I started playing Cyberpunk with new dlc afterwards and damn I really like that game
It's real nova, choom.
Feel like this games gonna get the NMS treatment and be relatively playable maybe 3 years down the line..
As it stands the game has some merits (tons of planets, dungeons are compelling enough while you’re still seeing new ones) but it feels like the size of the world really caused the world design overall to suffer.
I'm sorry but Bethesda doesn't deserve three years to make a game work. They should make it work on launch and delay it until it's worth launching. They have billions of dollars and ownership from a major tech conglomerate. It's entirely unacceptable for them to release an unfinished product.
Games are never finished now with the internet. The whole industry has agreed to say "fuck it, we'll fix it in post" for basically every single project.
Yeah Bethesda doesn't get the same amount of leeway that a small dev that was clearly way in over their heads gets
They'd have to rip out and replace the entire plot, which I don't think they would do
I honestly don't think so. NMS sky started from a rock solid space exploration engine, but that was basically it, and has then layered on most of the other parts of a space sim on top since then, but most of Starfield's biggest issues seem to be because their game engine can't handle the scales needed for seamless space exploration.
So at this point Starfield devs have spent a ton of time and effort building a space sim game on an engine not suited for it, and that means that every cut scene and animation and scripted event is built around this engine, making it really time consuming just to bug test, let alone fix any problems that arise from changing or upgrading that engine, let alone designing the old missions and stuff to work with more continuous travel.
I have more faith that 5 years from now NMS will be fleshed out into a really rich and full story driven game, then that Starfield will have fixed it's fundamental exploration / loading screen problems.
NMS was purpose-built to be a space game.
Starfield was built on an ancient engine that's always been for ground-based games.
It's such a huge sunk cost fallacy that keeps Bethesda using the same dogshit engine. "We've used it for years!" Yeah but it's been fucking garbage for years too.
I bet you would be surprised if you were to find out that it is possible already. In space one can already move from one planet to another, only thing that is missing is the loading of new space "map" on demand. And more importantly move from one planet to another and then dock with spacestation. As shown by https://www.nexusmods.com/starfield/mods/3541.
And on planets the landing zones aren't placed in a vacuum, topological details like mountains are visible from adjacent zones. As shown by https://youtu.be/Fy0eG7MFSTM?si=ZwaE3OzmEf9IxbwZ&t=841 by 2kliksphilip.
Now you might ask the very obvious question: why isn't this correctly implemented to allow seamless travel in both space and on planets in vanilla Starfield? We may know only after someone does full introspection what happened during development but my speculative guess is that Xbox Series S which is much weaker than X is the primary reason for all this segmentation in all aspects of Starfield.
Traversal is technically possible yes, but it's not possible to traverse at a speed which would be feasible or fun, indicating that their engine isn't capable of unloading and loading new assets in fast enough as you move around. Probably the same reason that even Neon needs to be hard split in half instead of just unloading the assets from the part of the city you're not at at the moment.
And bruh blaming the S with no information is asinine when not a single other game struggles with traversal on it, including massive open world's like GTAV, Cyberpunk, Flight Simulator and even other space sims like NMS.
Given that this game also chose to procedurally spawn the same bases over and over again, I think their issues are firmly routed in their development process, not hardware limitations.
Speeds that the above mentioned mod adds. Until CK is added the debate of switching of one space map to another seamlessly is useless, since the current implementation is missing the hook to load the next map whilst the same hook is implemented between ship take off and space (even when player is not at the helm). Yeah, but New Atlantis is much bigger and allows the player to boost pack from the MAST top floor to another skyscrapers roof and then get down to commercial level and trade stuff without any load screens, at least on PC.
Expect of course if there were dev stories related to it sprinkling out periodically, latest being from Baldurs Gate 3 devs: https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-dev-shows-off-the-level-of-optimization-achieved-for-the-xbox-series-s-port-which-bodes-well-for-future-pc-updates/
Other devs have stated these: https://www.gamesradar.com/xbox-series-s-could-bottleneck-some-next-gen-games-developers-suggest/
The article has many such remarks from other devs as well. So why couldn't the segmentation of Starfield be because of Xbox Series S? Keep in mind the latter article is now roughly three years old.
Because Larian specifically struggles with local co-op, not with loading new sections of the map.
As I've said, Cyberpunk runs perfectly fine on the S while loading in more geometry faster on the fly, and it's far from alone in that. Starfield's limitations are clearly a result of Bethesda's ancient engine and not hardware limitations since other devs using different engines can accomplish what they failed at on the same hardware.
The sad part is that Microsoft pulled the original 2022 release to fix a lot of the bugs.
So really the updates have to be pretty impactful.
I'm still optimistic, because fallout 76 did finally get there!
This is sarcasm, right?
It really got nowhere, and then started charging premium subscriptions to cover most of the mechanics that have sucked since day 1. Repair kits? You got em. You're not constantly locked in the treadmill of deciding to do something and giving up halfway to go farm screws from office fans because your weapons have degraded to useless conditions. You pay to avoid bullshit like that.
Doesn't sound like it got there, sounds like they might have improved their netcode, which was spaghetti to be perfectly honest so easy to have improved upon, and maybe the engine use for things not T-posing and floating around. I'm sure those bat fuckers are technically internally still dragons though. The core gameplay loop still sucks. Pick a direction, veer off to fix your shit, and ultimately get annoyed because there's only so many fucking times I can go to the adhesive shed or the fucking office with all the fans before I'm just done with the worst mechanic ever invented.
I love Starfield, not as much as I love Skyrim or even Morrowind, but I really love it.
I am at 160ish hours and have seen only a small amount of the quests and barely touched the base or ship building part. There is so much in the game and with the innovative spin on new game plus I am able to build my own narrative again and again. I can play the perfect angle in one NG+ and a devil in another, I can be the freedom loving Ranger in the next, a mad loner who only interacts with others as much as needed to finish his perfect planetary base, or a starship fanatic who wants to collect and/or build the best ships.
You don't have those kinds of freedom with Baldurs Gate 3 or other RPGs, you can't really leave or mostly ignore the narratives of those games to create your own, not on the scale as it is possible with Starfield.
Starfields quests are fun, yes they are all separate from each other but that is in my eyes a good thing in this case as it allows to play the game as you like.
All the quests are like basic Lego blocks, you can connect them together in any way you want but they don't change each other but that's not needed as I have my own narrative and stories in my mind for this run or character.
Sure, games like Baldurs Gate 3 or Cyberpunk 2.0 have better storytelling, better NPCs, but they are at the same time extremely limited and narrow experiences, sure you have side quests and all but once played the game that's mostly it.
Starfields freedoms come with limits like the loading screens sure, but that is a price I am willing to pay for having a sandbox like universe to explore and roleplay in.
As a pure entertainment product, that can be consumed without any own creativity, is Baldurs Gate better, without doubt. But as a expansion tool for your imagination, that's where Starfield (or any other Bethesda RPG) shines.
But as a end note: What have the Starfield developers consumed when they created the utterly bad and boring temple "puzzles". In Todd's name WHY????
You clearly haven't played baldur's gate and shouldn't make comparisons based on your limited experience with it.
I have played and completed it, very recently, and I stand to my words. BG3 has a great story and it was fun to play once. But it is not a game I will play again, at least not for years. BG3 is like a good movie, impressive and great story telling but after I seen it once it is done and will go on the shelf.
That's where Starfield differs, in BG3 I command great written characters through adventures, in Starfield I play more or less an avatar of myself but on a Spaceship. And that is something I come back to again and again, just like I go back to Skyrim, Morrowind or Fallout for years now.
Maybe you have Not realized just how much your choices affect the "linear Story" and how much permutation there is in follow up quests or alternate pathways through the same quest. I guess thats the beauty of it. Most of the quests an Narrative fit into each other so neat One might suspect this way was the only possible way, just because of how good it is presented.
Yes, but that still is like reading the same book but with a few pages changed. I am still only moving characters through a stage play, not roleplaying.
I can't have a completely changed or different way to play the game or be myself/anything in the world of the game.
Both games are great but they can't really be compared, not much more as you could compare a high budget musical with a high budget improv theatre play. Sure both are plays on a theatre stage (or RPG in case of the games) but beside that they don't have really much in common.
But maybe it is just to complicated for me to fully express or explain what I mean as I am not a native speaker and I am therefore limited in my words and formulations.
Your love for the game is valid but criticisms of the game are also valid. The biggest flaw starfield has is the massive amount of gameworld it provides. In skyrim, CP2077, BG3, Morrowind, Zelda, and whatever else you want to think of, you can pick a direction and go.
In nearly every case, the game is designed to take you somewhere, give you something, reward you for straying off the main path. In Starfield, both space and planet side, youre likely to run into a whole lot of nothing. Which is realistically fine, the universe is already a vast amount of nothing, but in game design that makes for a boring and lackluster RPG and that is the biggest problem SF has. That doesnt take away from the players like you who want this experience though, but thats kind of why Space Sim games are a niche experience.
You should seriously, seriously go play BG3.
Seriously, BG3. (Between Dark Urge, custom character choices, etc, go.)
I have played it and I liked it. But after completing it with one character I have no intention of doing another play through anytime soon.
Yes you have different character choices but in the end it is always the same linear story. Yes, you could say the same about Starfield but it is not. In Starfield if I want I can ignore the main quest more or less completely and play a bounty hunter who only builds his base to have a place for his collection of coffee cups he takes from every place he goes.
In BG3 they give you predefined experience (now in Dark Urge flavour) which is great for telling a story but not so great for creating a world to really roleplay in.
Both games are fun for what they are, they are just not fun in the same way for everyone.
I think i See your point now with the example of the bounty hunter. The point that most People are making is thta starfield is a really blank canvas where you can Insert your own Narrative into a lot of Actions but the game does Not react towards that Narrative, while BG3 does react to some of your RP reasons and all the other reasons for your RP that the game cannot predict, it cannot react to and therefore feel unsupported.
That is a valid Take that Bethesda games have Solid setting in which People can choose internal Roleplay but this does Not meant other games where the game also gives you external Stimulation to Roleplay certain aspects Limit your creativity. For my playtrough there were several decisions which where reflected in the World but also other principles that i made up, that only influenced my decisions passivly without beeing spelled out in the Texts. For example i choose a knowdledge hungry Wizard which made me Do queationable choice s with devils even tho 2 People of my Party already suffered under devils. No choice spelled out "Gimme All knowledge of the Planes what ever the Cost" but thats where my own internal RP made the choice more fitting than other.
Man its really Hard to express my thoughts on this using a foreign languages. I hope my point comes across
Yes, I can grasp what you mean.
It is a role-playing on a different level, and with that it has its own merits and shortcomings.
Baldurs Gate 3 is a role play on a lower, more character centric, level which limits the freedom of the player but allows for the game to have a tighter, more interconnected storytelling.
Starfield is a role play on a higher, more player centric, level which allows for way more personal freedom of the player at the costs of having a story with pieces flying loose through the air, so to speak.
The venn diagram of people who like both of those types will most likely don't have a huge overlap.
Neither of those games are bad, they are just fundamentally different.
The problem is how disjointed everything is. Skyrim and Fallout, I can literally walk across the entire map. I can run into a random plot, some fun environmental storytelling, anything really - there's no sense of discovery for a game so vast as Starfield. Everything is a known quantity which is why you can fast travel to and from basically every area.
All these other functions built into the game are superficial and/or incomplete at best. Ship building is basically pointless, as you can carry a massive crew in a tiny freighter, regardless of crew capacity or passenger capacity of your vessel. Modding weapons is more or less the same as it was in Fallout 4. The environments that are available to explore are all dead with fuck all, and all the tunnels and mines are filled with the same bullet-sponge spacer enemies. You would think with smaller, chunked zones we'd have some very detailed environments that make use of the fact that they are relatively small spaces, but instead everything is truncated with a loading screen and entirely lacking in depth.
So you've just been having fun with the most basic of systems that are not much different from all previous games, while barely having touched the things most people are complaining about? The mechanics and stability are pretty good. It's the bland stories within the uninspired quests that are a major source of disappointment.
And to say only a Bethesda RPG does while BG3 doesn't have the kinds of roleplaying you're describing tells me you haven't actually played BG3. Or any actually good RPG for that matter.
What you are trying to say is that Starfield is a sandbox RPG, while BG3 is a Linear Story RPG.
Both are fun in their own ways. You just vibe more with the sandbox aspect.
I bet you also enjoy Minecraft for the same reasons.
Yeah, I like Minecraft 🤣
Everyone loves to hate Bethesda