“When the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there. They certainly weren't bored."
Yeah I think that might be because they were on the moon and not pressing WASD to walk around a fake moon
If you landed in an in-game fake moon it would be a wonderfully interesting plot thread.
I think I saw a documentary about that recently
Yeah they should 100% have a flat planet somewhere. Held up by a turtle.
It also bugs me that Bethesda keeps saying that the game is about exploration and finding new planets, but so far every planet I've visited has some kind of building upon it. Its clear that people have been on this planet before, so why the hell should I explore this planet? At least give me some incentive or a better reward for finding a true empty planet.
You're not wrong, but OTOH, it's pretty funny to see a planet having a building on it equated to the planet being explored, considering Earth was still being explored thousands of years after the first buildings.
Yeah thats true. In Bethesda's dictionary exploration means: find minerals, 7 life forms and 3 unique geological formations. And by unique we mean like on the other planets.
Or because they didn’t show up at the moon after a loading screen
Customer: I didn't like the taste of this cake.
Management response: Dear customer, thank you for taking the time to try our cake. This is a cake, which is sweet and tasty by definition. We made the cake so customers can enjoy the cake and taste the typical cake ingredients which taste sweet and tasty. The cake experience as we created should appeal to everyone because cake is tasty.
Customer: Wtf, it tastes like wet socks!
Management: Cake
Customer: Hey there, customer outreach person; how does it feel to repeat yourself over and over again?
Management response: As a large-language model, I am unable to experience feelings the way humans do. Moreover…
You're enjoying the cake wrong, it's supposed to taste like shit
Our survey of shit-enjoying-customers proves that more than 99% of them like our cake.
Just wait until some suckers make you a better cake for free.
I blame other cake makers for making good cakes and setting unrealistic expectations for cake making.
The cake is a lie
This was a triumph.
It's the most* realist immersive cake you'll ever find.
16x the detail.
Now with optional toppings. Plate included in the deluxe cake edition available for limited time only!
collectors edition plate has been replaced with cardboard
I didn’t find any of the responses to be insightful, more a marketing reply to convince people who are off put by the negativity. This is coming from someone who’s played the game nearly 80 hours. Still disappointed by it, but I have a hoarding sim problem
Bethesda games make hoarding painful though.
Are you kidding? Slowly unloading your ship 200 pounds at a time and waiting for it to hopefully actually transfer to the pods is so fun. Not to mention they have absolutely no storage so you need a wall of them that you must then manually search to find anything. The best is when your cargo ship doesn't fit on the landing pad so you have to carry it all yourself. Or you could build a convoluted network of shipping docks and either manually fuel them or create another convoluted network of shipping docks just to ship helium 3 to all the other shipping docks. Fuck I love loading screens.
Rage aside, the game itself was pretty fun for a run or two, but after that the shallowness really showed. Outposts suck ass though. I made shitty ones and figured I'd hit ng+ before actually caring about them, but I couldn't make myself care. Benches go outside, I don't give a shit.
God I'm just remembering how bad it is now. If the terrain isn't perfectly level go fuck yourself, you can't expand your hab. I build a fucking boardwalk with multiple levels and shopfronts in FO4, I had nearly full map coverage for artillery, I could attract settlers to live there and defend it. Now I just drop an extractor and power and fuck off.
Real talk inventory and weight limits are 99% time completely useless mechanics that detract from gameplay.
yeah not having the ability to have shops and all that stuff like fallout 4 sucks, hopefully they will keep adding things like they did to fo4 to get the game to a better state
I mean, to be fair in every Bethesda game you had to do some...let's call it "inventory management".
At least in Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim
I had a barrel outside caius' house that I dumped all my extra stuff into. One barrel held everything. My current storage outpost has... At least 10 resource storage crates? And that's still not enough. Plus actually hauling all that shit from mining outposts.
Replying to myself because I just can't get over how shitty storage is. I can carry my armor, pack, like 8 guns, and way too many consumables, then stack another 130 or so on top of that. The giant ass storage crates as tall as me? 100, take it or leave it.
I mean, to be fair in every Bethesda game you had to do some...let's call it "inventory management".
At least in Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim
I prefer the use oxygen to run mechanic over the now you can only walk mechanic. But yeah, it could be better. Let me hold all the guns Bethesda, encumbrance isn’t fun. I should just use the console and add that mod that reenables achievements
I wish these idiots would quit trying to tell the people playing the game that they are wrong for not liking it. Like, no man, listen to them, this is feedback. You can't take all of it without a pinch of salt but if you see a common theme, then you should address it.
Bethesda, simply put, doesn't know how to react to criticism. Instead of taking this feedback and improving their product they double-down and insist that you should like it because they said so. If it's boring it's boring man. They are simply as disconnected as possible. Remember the whole canvas bag fiasco? Then they said "ah, canvas costs too much, we aren't planning on doing anything with the nylon one"... deal with it in other words. Then they were puzzled why people disliked them to all hell.
I can’t believe how ignorant you are of the worldwide canvas shortage of 2018. Canvas became a global strategic resource. Lack of canvas destabilized numerous nation states.
The idea of frivolously wasting that precious canvas on a video game trinket is frankly offensive.
-Bethesda, probably.
They wasted all the canvas on influencer merchandise some months prior.
How that's not false advertising is beyond me.
Well, there is a class action lawsuit against them in regards to that and other things FO76 related.
Dont forget about the moldy helmet, how fun.
(it was only for some exclusive edition, not the normal collector helmet, but still)
Yup. And shitty plastic shell for the rum. Then people who requested refund got their info and CC numbers leaked by their system which they took offline immediately.
they took the criticism of fallout 76 and continued working on it, still getting updates to this day when most other places would have left it to rot
I'm not 100% sure but I think FO76 is maintained by BGS Austin. They seem to be far more interested in taking feedback and making the game better than the main Bethesda studio. FO76 may be fundamentally flawed but post-launch it's definitely getting more care than Skyrim, FO4 and Starfield combined.
They also took class action lawsuits for that game as well, so that might be affecting that push to fix the game. But even if they fix it, doesn't negate the fact they said they don't plan on fixing canvas issue, or any problem they caused. Only when there was an outrage they reacted. Remember the horse armor for Skyrim or when they tried to sell mods that were included in previous game. I do.
horse armor was oblivion
Thanks for the correction. Same company though.
yeah. and i guess the 2 expansion packs made up for that fuckup because i hear nothing but great things about the sheogorath expansion
Some of Starfield’s planets are meant to be empty by design — but that's not boring. “When the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there. They certainly weren't bored." The intention of Starfield's exploration is to evoke a feeling of smallness in players and make you feel overwhelmed.
May as well boot up SpaceEngine then.
Starfield, the epitome of scientifically correcty simulations. Why would I expcet my Starship Travel Simulator 2000 to be a fun-focused game after all, durr.
scientifically correct
Why doesn’t nasa just open up the starmap and simply fast travel to the moon or mars?
they do basically except they give spacex a chunk of money to have their rocket tp them
It really evoked a feeling of smallness in me. Namely how small and devoid of content the universe feels.
This is made worse because every inhabited planet I go to has some elaborate situation just waiting for me to solve it. For example: I land on the landing pad, walk 30 meters through a gate and am greeted by a hostage situation in a bank where the hostage negotiator is going to let me, some random, go do his job instead of him, trusting me with the lives of everyone involved without even blinking.
I have played most of the fully 3D Bethesda RPG games and I am accustomed to their game design, bugs, and janks.
But the only thing I hate about Starfield is just the way the game always talks about how amazing exploration of the unknown is (heck, your main character is even a part of the explorer group name Constellation) while trying everything it can to stop player to do just that (overly rely on teleportation, cannot travel seamlessly between planets, etc...)
It feels like you are playing an institute scientist in an fallout game, always stay in your high tech base and only travel using teleportation to the outside world
This is a major turn off for me and there is no way to fix it
100%. The best part of Bethesda open world games is exploring the open space between towns, quests, objectives, etc. Fast travel is an option, but rarely necessary. If you rely on it you will miss lots of cool stuff.
Not so in Starfield, the space between objectives is literally empty space.
I mean, that's why it's called "space", right? That's literally what it is.
And space travel isnt actually a fun adventure, but the point of a video game is to romanticize the concepts. Not make them as boring and realistic as possible
There's lots of actual stuff in interplanetary space that you can pull on for inspiration on how to make an interesting game.
You can have counters with shady trader types that are only in the vast gulf between the systems, there could be rogue planets with billion year old abandoned cities to explore filled with automated defences for you to fight and interesting loot at the end. Distant ancient asteroids that contain the seeds of the first life in the universe that when you interact with temporarily give you status change that you can only get from asteroids and temporarily gives you super strength or something, allowing you to complete missions in a way you otherwise would not necessarily have done.
The way these kind of side quests are supposed to work is the player is plodding along trying to get from point A to point B and on the way they get sidetracked by this side quest (the clue is in the name Bethesda). Maybe it changes their priorities or how they're going to tackle and upcoming mission. Side quests are not supposed to be independent standalone things, they're supposed to integrate with the main story. They're not supposed to be something you find easily there's supposed to be something you come across on your own as you're exploring the environment, but you can only do that if the developers bothered to provided environment for you to explore. If they just teleport you to your destination then there's no opportunity for this kind of emergent gameplay.
Loads of stuff you can put between the star systems.
I agree. Unless that's the whole point of the game you are making, and then it's just the nature of the game. Flight Sim is one of my friend's favorite games, but not so for me. At least they aren't telling people that they are wrong about it being boring because it's realistic and realism is better or some crap.
There is, in fact, a very heated debate on whether or not simulators that stay true to form are actually games. With the argument being, they are either toys or simulators.
"I had fun playing with it" isnt exclusive to games, as a ball is not a game but I would gladly throw it against a wall for hours by myself with some music.
But lots of people would likely shit on an attempt to rebrand those things as "video toys" when the distinction is largely only relevant to people studying design, so the heated debate is mostly between academics and pedants.
yes. the point is it doesn't work well in a video game.
So why are you playing it then?
That's a fair opinion to have, but my preference is actually exploring the towns. I love that Starfield removed many of the middle of nowhere winding dungeons that I got so bored of. (Dwemer/Nord ruins in Skyrim and office buildings/other skyscrapers in fallout 4.)
Yeah it's quite an accomplishment to make the vastness of space feel claustrophobic and small.
Some of the response to the reviews is bizarre - one seems to try to claim that the planets are not boring because they're realistic and the real world is boring, and that the player is probably just overwhelmed by the awesomeness of it all.
It almost feels like the game Devs have convinced themselves that they've been working on the greatest game ever made and when told "no you haven't" they're responding by saying "you just don't get our vision".
It's an ok game. I'm actually less bothered by the loading screens and more by the old fashioned story telling. This game would have been amazing if released closer after Skyrim. But it's been 12 years and we've had Witcher 3, Cyberpunk and Baldurs Gate 3 that have changed expectations. All of them are better at evoking a sense of emotional engagement with the game, and actions having meaningful consequences in the plot. Subplots like the bloody baron in Witcher 3, or Judy in cyberpunk have stuck with me in a way characters and events in Skyrim and now Starfield just never have.
Problem is I suspect Bethesda will focus on all the loading screen / sense of scale complaints and not register the more important (imo) issues with the stories, characters and gameplay. Less but better is the real lesson I think.
Funny thing is, they don't care. As long as they have fans who will complain but still buy their product at full price... they simply don't care. This is evident with every product of theirs. Fallout76 had bugs originating from FO4 that were patched by community but were reintroduced in FO76.
I'm actually fine with personally, but what I dislike is that Starfield is too grindy and slow.
If a significant amount of people "misunderstood" you, it's not their fault, but yours for not clearly communicating or not tailoring your communication for the target audience.
Same here: if people play the game "wrong", you didn't design it properly and/or marketed it completely wrong.
Sure, there will always be "dumb" (or too clever) individuals who you simply can't properly address and satisfy, but if the group is large enough to be loud, you failed your job.
If a significant amount of people "misunderstood" you, it's not their fault, but yours for not clearly communicating or not tailoring your communication for the target audience.
I find this ironic, because even the tutorials in the game only communicate half of the information you need. A lot of them just outright expect you to have played one of their games before. I could imagine if this was someone's first Bethesda RPG, they'd be confused as hell. Plus there are a few things unique to Starfield that are confusing even if you've played every one of their games before.
No Man's Sky has had no loading screens during gameplay, and space to planet transitions on full planets, since what... 2016?
The Creation Engine is just too damn old.
Edit @Dark Arc: You're right. Creation Engine is just too damn shitty, I guess. I called it "old" because the gameplay feels so antiquated.
"Engines" are not static things. What we call "Unreal Engine" goes back to the 90s.
These comments always bug me as a programmer because it's like someone calling a 2023 Camero old because it doesn't have the acceleration of a 2023 Mustang... The "age" almost certainly isn't the problem, it's where the effort has or hasn't been put in to the engine and more importantly the game itself (e.g., carrying on the metaphor, the Camero might be slower getting up to speed because all the R&D for the last 3 years was on a smooth ride).
Yeah to be honest what strikes me the most about companies like Bethesda is just how little they've improved over the decades. There's nothing stopping them from making major improvements like removing loading screens, adding vehicles finally (I wonder if the ships are really a hat like the train in fallout 3), fixing the buggy ass collisions and physics, or any number of dumb shits they just keep leaving in game after game. It really speaks to the institutional inertia and spaghetti mess their code must be.
I would assume those things are just not prioritized by management because they've never been things that have caused sufficient outrage and/or aren't seen as things that can increase sales... You can't exactly use "look we fixed physics" in a marketing video to sell a new game. Maybe you can use "look we have vehicles"... but what's the number of people that will really care? What % will that increase sales?
e.g. maybe someone would care if EA made your need for speed character able to get out of the car and walk around... Do I care? Nah.
(I bothered to look at the Wikipedia page and) they added multiplayer support to Creation Engine for Fallout 76, that was a huge undertaking.
I mean fixing these things can definitely increase sales, but you're right not in the sense that they are directly marketable. The thing that makes games really blow up is word of mouth, people recommending them to their friends, and you get that best by making a game with overall quality. It's basically a given at this point that Bethesda games are buggy messes that get fixed by modders. Every time you have a major bug, game crash, or save corruption it takes you out of the world and forces you to remember you're playing a game that barely works, which makes you like it less. All of this hurts sales, if not today in the future. So yeah, they probably aren't prioritized by management, but management is wrong. They often are.
Fair assessment, though I'd critique:
Every time you have a major bug, game crash, or save corruption it takes you out of the world and forces you to remember you’re playing a game that barely works, which makes you like it less.
These aren't the improvements you said you wanted ;) Fixing physics, adding vehicles, etc are features/major changes that can increase instability/take a lot more time to QA.
Creation Engine is static. Others, you are right, change.
Bethesda revealed in June 2021 that they were working on a new iteration of the engine called Creation Engine 2, and that it would power their upcoming games Starfield and The Elder Scrolls VI. Creation Engine 2 features real-time global illumination and advanced volumetric lighting.
Just slapping number 2 at the end doesn't mean it's better. That's like how Microsoft made Edge browser by forking IE11 and it's suppose to be better. And how big of a joke is volumetric lighting and "real-time global illumination"... hahaha. Oh my. Source 1 had that when Half-Life2 was released. Advancement.
Creation Engine is static. Others, you are right, change.
Points out it does change.
jUst sLappInG a nUmbeR 2 aT tHe End dOesN't mEan iT's bEtTer
That's like how Microsoft made Edge browser by forking IE11 and it's suppose to be better.
It is... By a lot, ask any web developer. Even before they switched to using Blink under the hood it was a significantly better browser. Now it's literally a reskinned Chrome. Meanwhile IE11 is a complete mess that requires a ton of hacks to get it to do what you want.
In both cases IE -> Edge and Edge -> Chrome Microsoft changed the literal browser engine. ... This just kinda makes my point even more so, the general public has no idea what constitutes an "engine change" and can't judge whether that will yield the results they want.
Oh my. Source 1 had that when Half-Life2 was released. Advancement.
You've seen how low poly Half-Life 2 is right...? Destiny 2 only allows certain areas to have the flashlight on because if they don't plan for it the flash lights can tank their frame rates (seriously) -- but hey "Left 4 Dead 2 had a flashlight in source engine!" /s.
I can almost guarantee Half-Life two also didn't have "Global illumination", maybe real time lighting for the flashlight, but Global Illumination is a much bigger thing.
In case you haven't figured it out, it's a joke that their engine doesn't change. Whether they want it or not, they have to at least adapt some things and am well aware of that. Joke is that they do so seldomly and we don't see much progress in quality.
By a lot, ask any web developer.
I am a web developer and have been for 20 years almost. So I know what am talking about. I know IE, whether I like it or not, so intimately I can still quote all the bugs they had from IE6 onwards. All Edge did, was drop legacy compatibility mode, nothing else. Underlying Trident engine got a minor bump. Hence why I quoted it. But by all means please enlighten me with your Google skills in order to justify the fact Bethesda scammed you out of your money once again.
You’ve seen how low poly Half-Life 2 is right
Yes, and number of polygons means nothing. Which is why there's an ongoing joke about people needing to upgrade their computers to run Starfield, when there are better looking games out there which run much much better.
And you are equating global illumination with ray tracing, which is not the same thing. You can do partial global illumination without doing ray tracing. Only thing that means, coming from Todd Howard's mouth is that they are not using baked in lights, which I don't believe him either. Remember how FO76 had 16x the details? But in reality they copy and pasted foliage that many times and called it a day with same shitty textures. Yeah, that kind of Todd treatment is expected whatever he says. Even if they did do ray tracing it doesn't matter one bit if game is boring, which it is.
Also, I gave HL2 and Source engine as an example as a joke as well, since game looked awesome and ran on pretty much any hardware. With the release of Lost Coast, which is what you should be comparing Starfield to, it was demonstrated what Source can do. Lost Coast was released in 2005 and looks significantly better and demonstrates many things Bethesda these days boasts about.
In the end, if all that matters to you is what Todd tells people and then pretends he didn't and number of polygons so be it. I on the other hand like my games to be entertaining, regardless of how they look.
All Edge did, was drop legacy compatibility mode, nothing else. Underlying Trident engine got a minor bump.
Initial public release of Microsoft Edge. Contains improvements to performance, support for HTML5 and CSS3.
"Minor bump" that fixed 4,000 bugs, and added HTML5 and CSS3.
I suppose ES6, C++11, Java 8, Python 3, etc are also just "minor bumps."
I didn't even buy the game, it didn't seem interesting to me. I just am frustrated by the fundamental lack of understanding about what an "engine" is and the fact that they're almost always being iterated on in different ways.
Diversity of engines is a good thing, everything shouldn't be Unreal Engine, Blink, V8, Clang, etc
That's true, but the comments are valid when talking about Bethesda games
No man sky also barely has a story and has zero voice acting. It's apples and oranges, just because they're both fruit doesn't mean they can be compared
Except you just compared them in saying they are both fruit. In fact, saying they are both fruit is finding a commonality between them when comparing. There are many metrics on which Apples and Oranges can be compared. They are different colors, have a different internal structures, and different juice content. These are negatively correlated comparisons. More positive correlations would be that they are both roughly spherical, provide vitamin C, and grow on trees.
I have always hated that expression. You can compare anything since comparison is just the act of identifying similarities and differences (positive and negative correlations). One can make meaningful comparisons between and apple and a suspension bridge if the situation calls for it.
Ohhh my godd, me too. It's so anti-intellectual.
To anyone who might care, you can identify an apple as a low-quality orange, but that doesn't also mean the apple is a low-quality apple; they're optimized to different ends. That is, I think, the point of the expression.
But, if we're trying to evaluate them on something like taste, which is entirely subjective, yeah, I'm comparing those shits. And, I'm going oranges all the way.
You shouldn't compare apples and oranges because they are both great but for different reasons and purposes. It isn't anti-intellectual to recognize that apples are way better for pies than oranges are but if you want some amazing juice and don't want to go through a whole process to make it good; oranges are the way to go.
This and the many other examples I didn't want to fill this page with are the reason why it's a saying. It's much faster than prefacing what exactly said apples and oranges are going to be used for before giving a real answer and I personally feel it shouldn't at all be taken literally.
While I don't disagree with you in spirit, the use case for most instances of the expression are to dissuade the act of comparison at all because the two quantities are so dissimilar that the correlations are irrelevant.
It is an anti-intellectual statement because it presupposes that the person doing the comparing is not able to distinguish between meaningful comparisons and ones which are irrational but support their argument. It ranks up there with "big words" as far as I am concerned, saying more about the person they are being said by rather than the person they are being said to.
So why not stand on that hill when it's relevant?
I do. That is a side effect of always standing on the hill. I am there when it matters, but also when it doesn't. Such is the curse of my superpowers.
They are completely different games though. Watchdogs 2 had less loading screens than Hitman 3, but that doesn't really mean much to say.
They are compared because they both are advertised as filling the same niche, of space exploration with emphasis on exploration.
Except they don't really? And I didn't see that much. Starfield to me seemed like it was being advertised as for RPG fans, and that they would have a lot of dialogue. And that space was just a setting, not the main character.
Fuck. I mean I even liked Starfield but this level of mishandling the public perception is absolutely unreal.
Honestly, this behavior of responding to player feedback and arguing about how "it's just because you didn't play the game right!" is kinda unhinged.
It also, to me, really takes Bethesda's mask off and reveals what their culture must be as a company. Based on these responses, they seem so convinced that they shit gold that they've stopped entertaining feedback or trying to innovate much in their games much at all. Kinda confirms some of the criticism I've seen of them since Fallout 4 and 76 came out.
It seems to me like someone in the PR department decided they needed to "try something new," and then didn't actually run the idea by anyone who could say this is a stupid plan. Someone on the community management team got a promotion and thought it was time to make a bold move, and they were absolutely wrong.
Part of me believes this was triggered by them only getting one nomination in The Game Awards.
They botched it on a lot of fronts. Them not getting a nom makes sense to me.
I love that steam reviews can make companies take notice and is harder to shove away compared to other types of reviews with how it's always there on the store page.
It was a heart warming situation when I saw Blizzard's game get mixed reviews. They didn't release games anywhere else until now and getting a reality check was a much needed thing for them.
Landing on the boring planets wasn't my problem with the boring game.
The ground combat was terrible. The space flight was terrible. The space combat was terrible. And it was wedged into every activity for no reason other than lazy design to pad things.
And then there was the UI...
You can't "feel small" when the game makes you a fiddly murder hobo in the tutorial.
There may in fact be a few games where empty spaces and a sense of vastness actually contribute to the atmosphere and make for an enjoyable game. But NOT in a game that’s divided by fucking loading screens with not a single “vista” to look out at.
Everyone seems to be missing the point so I'll let Todd Howard remind you all, "We're going to be doing a lot of add-on content for Starfield."
$5 horse armor folks. That's Bethesda. Stop paying them to make garbage, or at least stop complaining about it.
Cool, so I'll wait to pick this game up until it's $10 on a steam sale in 5 years, and play the community's modded version.
I'm not sure the game is popular enough to get quite the modding support of the community like previous Bethesda games.
I disagree purely on the point that what Starfield is, more than anything else, an amazing platform to make a mod on. Not a great game per se, but the setting and overall theme leave a lot of room for Bethesda to cash in on the work of others as is tradition.
Luckily only tried it once on gamepass. For sure has some interesting parts to it (I did like the ship designer) but it hit me on the second location I explored - this is pretty much a Skyrim reskin. The are randomised dungeons everywhere for no goddamn reason whatsoever, my goddamn spaceship can only fit like 5 suits.... alright. Been there, done that, I'm out.
Looking for a re-release in 5 yrs with all the add-ons and mods, maybe I will get it then.
Pirated it but it wasnt worth the disk space. Tried it for a couple hours but it was so boring. I have done a quest for a bank where I was supposed to collect money. It went like this:
Fast travel to the ship.
Fast travel to the planet the person is on
Talk with them.
Fast travel back to ship
Fast travel to bank planet
Fast travel to bank.
Talk to bank guy to get money.
Next bank quest.
Rinse and repeat
Badabing badaboom now that's a $90 value
I just wonder how someone can encounter randomly generated content when all these handcrafted locations exists where all the story and quests happen.
I played like 30 hours before I even came across random generated content.
And those things definitely felt like end-game stuff.
Why get it then and support this bs? We got this trash because people kept buying Skyrim and circlejerking it
Looks like Bethesda discovered ChatGPT.
Some of those replies are as bland, hunky-dory and sanitized as can be, with a dash of "you're playing it wrong".
Corporate speak incentivizes bland language. Standing up for as little as possible brings as few enemies as possible, after all. Unfortunately, an empty, bland proposal can only result in empty, bland art.
oh good, this reminds me I haven't bothered to leave a negative review yet. let me correct that.
Starfield frustrates me, because in many ways its a major step in the right direction. It has much better roleplaying mechanics than Skyrim or Fallout 4, but at the same time the lore is half-baked and the skill system is fairly weak. It has great potential, but a lot of it feels toned down and less "real" because of it. Space exploration has a lot of potential as well, but setting every objective so far apart on planets ruins exploration by filling it with monotonous procgen.
That's why I'm fairly confident that once properly patched, and mods/DLCs are in full swing, it will probably be remembered very fondly despite the release state. It'll pull a Cyberpunk.
I think everything you said here is spot on except the idea Starfield will improve pike Cyberpunk at this point because Bethesda's attitude really doesn't indicate that they seem to admit anything needs fixing.
With that said I doubt many people expected Cyberpunk to do as well later on so you are probably right and I hope you are for the game and genre. I really like the aesthetic of Starfield and want it to succeed.
I'm just so tired of getting such half baked stuff at release.
One annoying thing about the "make your own stories" concept is that content us going to be recycled. My followers don't say anything new or have new things to do etc because it's all baked in but also on this supposedly open RPG landscape.
I would agree with you if Bethesda games haven't always been saved by modders, rather than Beth themselves. If we had to depend on Beth to fix their own game, Skyrim would've been abandoned long, long, long ago, same with Fallout 4.
That's true and what worries me the most after wanting Starfield to do good. I've been playing Starfield for a bit only to find myself moving to Cyberpunk sooner than later lately.
No harm in waiting for Starfield! It will only get better, while Cyberpunk is largely complete. I loved cyberpunk, especially the DLC.
I hope it does and I think it will but again with the reliance Bethesda puts on the community I'm nervous.
Anyway I've gotten much of the way through at 100 hours and have enjoyed it - definitely got my money's worth - but I just sort of hit a wall. To be fair you'll do that with most games but it seems like Stanfield is just bland.
We'll certainly see! I trust modders.
Yeah, Bethesda games have always been... playable, I guess, but hardly any good, without modding, at least as far back as Oblivion. Morrowind was the last game they made that was just good, out of the box, without needing mods.
So I figured in a year or two Starfield will be good, with mods, just like Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 4 were all bland at best on release, until mods made them good.
100% I actually think Starfield has the best bones, even if it has the worst meat, so to speak, so adding meat gives it a much higher ceiling in a few years time.
The problem is that starfield is modern warfare III of Bethesda but people trying to see it as next skyrim, Bethesda ai generated almost all this game and looped it in roguelite shape, the only things evolved is mechanics as you've said yourself, and again as you've said yourself, this game will be saved by modders
Procedural generation is not AI, don't spew nonsense.
The world is now full of technology that used to have real names, but is now called AI so that investors spunk themselves as they high five each other in shareholder meetings.
Oh I'm anti-Bethesda and Bethesda practices, I'm just sure it will eventually be a great game once the community steps in and fixes it. It isn't an excuse for Bethesda, but rather admiration for the modding community, and an example of why FOSS and a rejection of the profit motive is so good.
I agree with you) communities solve everything
i dont know why people shit on bethesda for "letting modders fix the game"
i dont really know any other developer that embraces the modding community as much as bethesda does, and i wish other games had the same amount of modding capability that bethesda games do
I think it's fully possible to criticize Bethesda's incomplete and highly flawed game design and praise their willingness to support the modding community with great tools at the same time.
But two things are true. It's a step back from no man's sky and it's not worth playing more than 50 dollars for.
A step back in what sense? Technically? Yeah probably. Starfield is the first Bethesda game to have working ladders(one slight sort of exception in Fallout 4) lol. But in terms of story, and world building, I think it's fair to say Starfield is much ahead in that.
That'd be more meaningful if Bethesda had ever managed to create a story with any worth. Sometimes the bones of a decent story are there, but the execution is usually amateur hour.
In my opinion Starfield has the best story Bethesda has written. Not entirely saying much, but the main story and the side stories are at least more interesting and less predictable that Fallout 4 and Skyrim quests.
Assuming you haven't already, you should give Morrowind a shot. If you can get past the dated graphics and mechanics, the story is by far Bethesda's best work imho.
Yeah, I have played Morrowind(well actually TES3MP) and in terms of flexibility and story Morrowind is definitely great, my issue is that my least favorite aspect of Bethesda games are the tedious winding dungeons(why NV and Starfield are my favorite because they have the least of that) and Morrowind unfortunately has a lot. One aspect of Morrowind that I really enjoyed actually though, was the opportunity to be given information to actually take notes on(I wrote down directions quest givers gave for example) and Starfield was the only other Bethesda game I've played with a taste of that. Although unfortunately much less.
Man, feels like we played totally different games regarding Morrowind. Most of Morrowind's dungeons are the smallest of any Bethesda game, and honestly it had the least amount of quests that even sent you to dungeons. Still, if you found them tedious you found them tedious. (anychance you installed other mods besides MP?)
All the same, I think the story is by far Bethesda's magnum opus. (I mean Bethesda proper, since New Vegas was Obsidian and all)
And while I find exploration in Starfield to be extremely tedious, I will say they employed a "Skyrim/FO4" style sensibility where each dungeon should roughly take 10-20 minutes, making for nice bite sized chunks of gameplay.
I completely agree that NV had stellar use of dungeons that almost never overstayed their welcome.
Though if you want real tedium, in both winding dungeons and exploration, give Daggerfall unity a try. Great game, but my god does it go on and on and on.
Starfield was super fun until it wasn't. I have no desire to ever go back to it. Skyrim on the other hand....
For me it was super boring until I left Constellation, fun for 10 or so hours after that, super boring for a few more, and now I haven't played it in over 2 months.
I actually just peaced out of constellation right away because I felt like the reason I was there was bullshit. I had 30 hours of fun doing side quests, came back to constellation because I heard there were powers I was missing. Acquiring them was tedious and they weren’t even that useful. I grinded out the main story and quit once I got the credit roll. Zero desire to go through it again
Skyrim on the other hand....
Do you think to an extent it's just familiarity? It is relaxing for you to go back to something you're so familiar with, you aren't surprised by it.
You got downvoted, but yes, and mods. Starfield will be looked at a lot more favorably when everyone is playing a modded version of the game.
... I liked it
its fun, I liked the main story although it does have its slow spots, the vanguard terrormorph quest was pretty cool, but after a while like all games it gets kind of tiring, this game still feels like it needs some work, hopefully it will get even more post release content than fallout 4, there is a lot of space they can add stuff
Hey surprise surprise a soulless corporation does soulless corporation things.
This doesn't read soulless corporation to me. This reads Todd Howard's bruised ego. He's one of the directors of the whole studio after all, and could very well be behind this decision.
Amusing that the article gets the response of the first review wrong.
The negative review doesn't only mention that the empty planets are boring, but that the populated ones are the same locations over and over again.
I miss Games like Starbound. So much to see and do. Unbelievable good atmospheric Music under a Sky full of Stars while building you first Base. This was one, if not the, first game to give me a feeling of smallness in comparison to the Universe.
I also loved starbound. My problem was the late game became very gamey, with the linear planet tier progression to get better materials. Once I got past the progression and beat the final boss there was nothing fun left to do, even with all the base building stuff they put in.
There's nothing wrong with a game ending at the final boss tbh
Is Starbound really about the bosses, though?
I really enjoyed these "Space-Dungeons" where you could Upgrade your Weapons at the End or get a Terraforming Device for an Emerald-Forrest Biome or something like that.
Me: I'm bored
Bethesda: No you're not.
Me: Oh
The failure is absolutely deserved
Slow news day, eh IGN?
amid Starfield's ‘mixed’ user review rating of 69%.
Nice.
You can reply to reviews on Steam????
Yeah? There's a comment section and developers comments get highlighted on the store page. As far as I know it's been like this for many years.
Yeah that's how developers respond to negative reviews or problems that their players have.
I remember reading that quote before the game launched. Weird.
Bethesda games are always boring trash. The real game won't even appear for another year or two at least (after the modders have finished fixing all the bugs, the horrible writing, the design flaws).
Bethesda games are always boring trash.
Compared to the average game? I don't agree. Compared to entirely exceptional games like Fallout: NV, yeah. But you don't have many options if you enjoy open world fps RPGs, and Bethesda games are sometimes the only passable option. I mean, I'd take Starfield over Elden Ring any day, because of personal preference, not because it's a better game- but my own preference means I also couldn't say it's a worse game.
But you don’t have many options if you enjoy open world fps RPGs, and Bethesda games are sometimes the only passable option.
This is only true if it's literally true that it has to be "first person". There are, in my opinion, way too many 3rd person semi-RPGs with a vast, open world that are very similar to Bethesda games. It has gotten to the point with me where there are only so many games like this I'll even play, because they're huge time drains and they come across as basically the same game with a different skin or setting.
3rd person semi-RPGs with a vast, open world that are very similar to Bethesda games
With the "charm" of Bethesda game(that I don't really know how exactly to describe) the only other recent games I can think of are Outer Worlds and Cyberpunk.
I think that may be right for first person only, but many games that are largely played in third person fit the bill to me: Witcher 3, Elden Ring, Horizon, and even the latest Zelda games to an extent.
I know I'm leaving many other titles out here too, I'm just listing ones I've personally played.
No Man's Sky is even close to being on the list IMO but it's not quite RPG enough to fit in the same category.
Players are really kinda spoiled for choice when it comes to large, open world games with quasi RPG elements.
I've personally grown kinda sick of the genre.
There's standouts of course (I actually think all the ones I listed are pretty excellent), but all of them require hundreds of hours to complete and I'm just sick of the same game type after a while.
I think that may be right for first person only
It's not so much about the first personness of it. It is just that the only examples of games I can think of that meet what I'm talking about are first person. I never played Horizon or Zelda games(past the OG), but for the Witcher 3 and Elden Ring I personally never enjoyed them- despite genuinely trying, mainly because of the style of combat(an actually Bethesda games give you much more choice, but also more clunkiness in that) but also because of imo a lack of engaging freedom(or psuedochoice) in dialogue. Although, Witcher is definitely closer, but Elden Ring felt like an RPG only in that you had stats. Fallout: NV was not fun because of the stats, Fallout: NV was fun because it felt like you could immerse yourself and engage with a living world in a way that actually felt somewhat free. There's a reason there are so many Youtube videos with premises like "playing Skyrim as chef" or whatever, it is fun to build your own stories, with your own character, in a world that it feels like they can genuinely interact with. FROM Soft games I think intentionally make you feel detached from the world, and the Witcher has you following the story of an existing character. The interaction and choice in Bethesda games is definitely often shallow, but at least it exists.
I haven't played it but if that stuff is what you're looking for I think baldurs gate 3 might be for you.
I've never really felt like the dialogue choices in any Bethesda game save maybe new vegas (which I don't even think was technically a Bethesda game) had a lot of real impact on the game. In Skyrim I think there were maybe a handful of times that it mattered. Most times in those types of games I wind up exercising the entire dialogue tree because usually it lets you, and sometimes that's the only way to get some side quest or whatever.
The combat in Bethesda games save some of the Fallout series is actually pretty bad IMO. In Skyrim, the combat doesn't feel like combat at all and feels more like two characters swiping air near each other.
The thing that's the most disappointing about most of these games to me is the squandered potential. At first there feels like there's depth there, and if you try to get there it is shown to be a facade.
They have a lot of breadth to their games but IMO they're as deep as a puddle.
A bigger open world just means less interesting things to do. This is how I've seen Starfield described.
I didn't know Johnathan Blow worked for Bethesda.
Hah, that first quoted review is like playing Elite Dangerous. Really love that game. However, Starfield doesn’t have VR, so I’m not interested in going down that path. VR in Elite (except for ground ops) is amazing, and a spaceflight/sim absolutely should have a VR option IMO.
Yeah I think that might be because they were on the moon and not pressing WASD to walk around a fake moon
If you landed in an in-game fake moon it would be a wonderfully interesting plot thread.
I think I saw a documentary about that recently
Yeah they should 100% have a flat planet somewhere. Held up by a turtle.
It also bugs me that Bethesda keeps saying that the game is about exploration and finding new planets, but so far every planet I've visited has some kind of building upon it. Its clear that people have been on this planet before, so why the hell should I explore this planet? At least give me some incentive or a better reward for finding a true empty planet.
You're not wrong, but OTOH, it's pretty funny to see a planet having a building on it equated to the planet being explored, considering Earth was still being explored thousands of years after the first buildings.
Yeah thats true. In Bethesda's dictionary exploration means: find minerals, 7 life forms and 3 unique geological formations. And by unique we mean like on the other planets.
Or because they didn’t show up at the moon after a loading screen
Customer: I didn't like the taste of this cake.
Management response: Dear customer, thank you for taking the time to try our cake. This is a cake, which is sweet and tasty by definition. We made the cake so customers can enjoy the cake and taste the typical cake ingredients which taste sweet and tasty. The cake experience as we created should appeal to everyone because cake is tasty.
Customer: Wtf, it tastes like wet socks!
Management: Cake
Customer: Hey there, customer outreach person; how does it feel to repeat yourself over and over again?
Management response: As a large-language model, I am unable to experience feelings the way humans do. Moreover…
You're enjoying the cake wrong, it's supposed to taste like shit
Our survey of shit-enjoying-customers proves that more than 99% of them like our cake.
Just wait until some suckers make you a better cake for free.
I blame other cake makers for making good cakes and setting unrealistic expectations for cake making.
The cake is a lie
This was a triumph.
It's the most* realist immersive cake you'll ever find.
16x the detail.
Now with optional toppings. Plate included in the deluxe cake edition available for limited time only!
collectors edition plate has been replaced with cardboard
I didn’t find any of the responses to be insightful, more a marketing reply to convince people who are off put by the negativity. This is coming from someone who’s played the game nearly 80 hours. Still disappointed by it, but I have a hoarding sim problem
Bethesda games make hoarding painful though.
Are you kidding? Slowly unloading your ship 200 pounds at a time and waiting for it to hopefully actually transfer to the pods is so fun. Not to mention they have absolutely no storage so you need a wall of them that you must then manually search to find anything. The best is when your cargo ship doesn't fit on the landing pad so you have to carry it all yourself. Or you could build a convoluted network of shipping docks and either manually fuel them or create another convoluted network of shipping docks just to ship helium 3 to all the other shipping docks. Fuck I love loading screens.
Rage aside, the game itself was pretty fun for a run or two, but after that the shallowness really showed. Outposts suck ass though. I made shitty ones and figured I'd hit ng+ before actually caring about them, but I couldn't make myself care. Benches go outside, I don't give a shit.
God I'm just remembering how bad it is now. If the terrain isn't perfectly level go fuck yourself, you can't expand your hab. I build a fucking boardwalk with multiple levels and shopfronts in FO4, I had nearly full map coverage for artillery, I could attract settlers to live there and defend it. Now I just drop an extractor and power and fuck off.
Real talk inventory and weight limits are 99% time completely useless mechanics that detract from gameplay.
yeah not having the ability to have shops and all that stuff like fallout 4 sucks, hopefully they will keep adding things like they did to fo4 to get the game to a better state
I mean, to be fair in every Bethesda game you had to do some...let's call it "inventory management".
At least in Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim
I had a barrel outside caius' house that I dumped all my extra stuff into. One barrel held everything. My current storage outpost has... At least 10 resource storage crates? And that's still not enough. Plus actually hauling all that shit from mining outposts.
Replying to myself because I just can't get over how shitty storage is. I can carry my armor, pack, like 8 guns, and way too many consumables, then stack another 130 or so on top of that. The giant ass storage crates as tall as me? 100, take it or leave it.
I mean, to be fair in every Bethesda game you had to do some...let's call it "inventory management".
At least in Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim
I prefer the use oxygen to run mechanic over the now you can only walk mechanic. But yeah, it could be better. Let me hold all the guns Bethesda, encumbrance isn’t fun. I should just use the console and add that mod that reenables achievements
I wish these idiots would quit trying to tell the people playing the game that they are wrong for not liking it. Like, no man, listen to them, this is feedback. You can't take all of it without a pinch of salt but if you see a common theme, then you should address it.
Bethesda, simply put, doesn't know how to react to criticism. Instead of taking this feedback and improving their product they double-down and insist that you should like it because they said so. If it's boring it's boring man. They are simply as disconnected as possible. Remember the whole canvas bag fiasco? Then they said "ah, canvas costs too much, we aren't planning on doing anything with the nylon one"... deal with it in other words. Then they were puzzled why people disliked them to all hell.
I can’t believe how ignorant you are of the worldwide canvas shortage of 2018. Canvas became a global strategic resource. Lack of canvas destabilized numerous nation states.
The idea of frivolously wasting that precious canvas on a video game trinket is frankly offensive.
-Bethesda, probably.
They wasted all the canvas on influencer merchandise some months prior.
How that's not false advertising is beyond me.
Well, there is a class action lawsuit against them in regards to that and other things FO76 related.
Dont forget about the moldy helmet, how fun.
(it was only for some exclusive edition, not the normal collector helmet, but still)
Yup. And shitty plastic shell for the rum. Then people who requested refund got their info and CC numbers leaked by their system which they took offline immediately.
they took the criticism of fallout 76 and continued working on it, still getting updates to this day when most other places would have left it to rot
I'm not 100% sure but I think FO76 is maintained by BGS Austin. They seem to be far more interested in taking feedback and making the game better than the main Bethesda studio. FO76 may be fundamentally flawed but post-launch it's definitely getting more care than Skyrim, FO4 and Starfield combined.
They also took class action lawsuits for that game as well, so that might be affecting that push to fix the game. But even if they fix it, doesn't negate the fact they said they don't plan on fixing canvas issue, or any problem they caused. Only when there was an outrage they reacted. Remember the horse armor for Skyrim or when they tried to sell mods that were included in previous game. I do.
horse armor was oblivion
Thanks for the correction. Same company though.
yeah. and i guess the 2 expansion packs made up for that fuckup because i hear nothing but great things about the sheogorath expansion
May as well boot up SpaceEngine then.
Starfield, the epitome of scientifically correcty simulations. Why would I expcet my Starship Travel Simulator 2000 to be a fun-focused game after all, durr.
Why doesn’t nasa just open up the starmap and simply fast travel to the moon or mars?
they do basically except they give spacex a chunk of money to have their rocket tp them
It really evoked a feeling of smallness in me. Namely how small and devoid of content the universe feels.
This is made worse because every inhabited planet I go to has some elaborate situation just waiting for me to solve it. For example: I land on the landing pad, walk 30 meters through a gate and am greeted by a hostage situation in a bank where the hostage negotiator is going to let me, some random, go do his job instead of him, trusting me with the lives of everyone involved without even blinking.
I have played most of the fully 3D Bethesda RPG games and I am accustomed to their game design, bugs, and janks.
But the only thing I hate about Starfield is just the way the game always talks about how amazing exploration of the unknown is (heck, your main character is even a part of the explorer group name Constellation) while trying everything it can to stop player to do just that (overly rely on teleportation, cannot travel seamlessly between planets, etc...)
It feels like you are playing an institute scientist in an fallout game, always stay in your high tech base and only travel using teleportation to the outside world
This is a major turn off for me and there is no way to fix it
100%. The best part of Bethesda open world games is exploring the open space between towns, quests, objectives, etc. Fast travel is an option, but rarely necessary. If you rely on it you will miss lots of cool stuff.
Not so in Starfield, the space between objectives is literally empty space.
I mean, that's why it's called "space", right? That's literally what it is.
And space travel isnt actually a fun adventure, but the point of a video game is to romanticize the concepts. Not make them as boring and realistic as possible
There's lots of actual stuff in interplanetary space that you can pull on for inspiration on how to make an interesting game.
You can have counters with shady trader types that are only in the vast gulf between the systems, there could be rogue planets with billion year old abandoned cities to explore filled with automated defences for you to fight and interesting loot at the end. Distant ancient asteroids that contain the seeds of the first life in the universe that when you interact with temporarily give you status change that you can only get from asteroids and temporarily gives you super strength or something, allowing you to complete missions in a way you otherwise would not necessarily have done.
The way these kind of side quests are supposed to work is the player is plodding along trying to get from point A to point B and on the way they get sidetracked by this side quest (the clue is in the name Bethesda). Maybe it changes their priorities or how they're going to tackle and upcoming mission. Side quests are not supposed to be independent standalone things, they're supposed to integrate with the main story. They're not supposed to be something you find easily there's supposed to be something you come across on your own as you're exploring the environment, but you can only do that if the developers bothered to provided environment for you to explore. If they just teleport you to your destination then there's no opportunity for this kind of emergent gameplay.
Loads of stuff you can put between the star systems.
I agree. Unless that's the whole point of the game you are making, and then it's just the nature of the game. Flight Sim is one of my friend's favorite games, but not so for me. At least they aren't telling people that they are wrong about it being boring because it's realistic and realism is better or some crap.
There is, in fact, a very heated debate on whether or not simulators that stay true to form are actually games. With the argument being, they are either toys or simulators.
"I had fun playing with it" isnt exclusive to games, as a ball is not a game but I would gladly throw it against a wall for hours by myself with some music.
But lots of people would likely shit on an attempt to rebrand those things as "video toys" when the distinction is largely only relevant to people studying design, so the heated debate is mostly between academics and pedants.
yes. the point is it doesn't work well in a video game.
So why are you playing it then?
That's a fair opinion to have, but my preference is actually exploring the towns. I love that Starfield removed many of the middle of nowhere winding dungeons that I got so bored of. (Dwemer/Nord ruins in Skyrim and office buildings/other skyscrapers in fallout 4.)
Yeah it's quite an accomplishment to make the vastness of space feel claustrophobic and small.
Some of the response to the reviews is bizarre - one seems to try to claim that the planets are not boring because they're realistic and the real world is boring, and that the player is probably just overwhelmed by the awesomeness of it all.
It almost feels like the game Devs have convinced themselves that they've been working on the greatest game ever made and when told "no you haven't" they're responding by saying "you just don't get our vision".
It's an ok game. I'm actually less bothered by the loading screens and more by the old fashioned story telling. This game would have been amazing if released closer after Skyrim. But it's been 12 years and we've had Witcher 3, Cyberpunk and Baldurs Gate 3 that have changed expectations. All of them are better at evoking a sense of emotional engagement with the game, and actions having meaningful consequences in the plot. Subplots like the bloody baron in Witcher 3, or Judy in cyberpunk have stuck with me in a way characters and events in Skyrim and now Starfield just never have.
Problem is I suspect Bethesda will focus on all the loading screen / sense of scale complaints and not register the more important (imo) issues with the stories, characters and gameplay. Less but better is the real lesson I think.
Funny thing is, they don't care. As long as they have fans who will complain but still buy their product at full price... they simply don't care. This is evident with every product of theirs. Fallout76 had bugs originating from FO4 that were patched by community but were reintroduced in FO76.
I'm actually fine with personally, but what I dislike is that Starfield is too grindy and slow.
If a significant amount of people "misunderstood" you, it's not their fault, but yours for not clearly communicating or not tailoring your communication for the target audience.
Same here: if people play the game "wrong", you didn't design it properly and/or marketed it completely wrong.
Sure, there will always be "dumb" (or too clever) individuals who you simply can't properly address and satisfy, but if the group is large enough to be loud, you failed your job.
I find this ironic, because even the tutorials in the game only communicate half of the information you need. A lot of them just outright expect you to have played one of their games before. I could imagine if this was someone's first Bethesda RPG, they'd be confused as hell. Plus there are a few things unique to Starfield that are confusing even if you've played every one of their games before.
No Man's Sky has had no loading screens during gameplay, and space to planet transitions on full planets, since what... 2016?
The Creation Engine is just too damn old.
Edit @Dark Arc: You're right. Creation Engine is just too damn shitty, I guess. I called it "old" because the gameplay feels so antiquated.
"Engines" are not static things. What we call "Unreal Engine" goes back to the 90s.
These comments always bug me as a programmer because it's like someone calling a 2023 Camero old because it doesn't have the acceleration of a 2023 Mustang... The "age" almost certainly isn't the problem, it's where the effort has or hasn't been put in to the engine and more importantly the game itself (e.g., carrying on the metaphor, the Camero might be slower getting up to speed because all the R&D for the last 3 years was on a smooth ride).
Yeah to be honest what strikes me the most about companies like Bethesda is just how little they've improved over the decades. There's nothing stopping them from making major improvements like removing loading screens, adding vehicles finally (I wonder if the ships are really a hat like the train in fallout 3), fixing the buggy ass collisions and physics, or any number of dumb shits they just keep leaving in game after game. It really speaks to the institutional inertia and spaghetti mess their code must be.
I would assume those things are just not prioritized by management because they've never been things that have caused sufficient outrage and/or aren't seen as things that can increase sales... You can't exactly use "look we fixed physics" in a marketing video to sell a new game. Maybe you can use "look we have vehicles"... but what's the number of people that will really care? What % will that increase sales?
e.g. maybe someone would care if EA made your need for speed character able to get out of the car and walk around... Do I care? Nah.
(I bothered to look at the Wikipedia page and) they added multiplayer support to Creation Engine for Fallout 76, that was a huge undertaking.
I mean fixing these things can definitely increase sales, but you're right not in the sense that they are directly marketable. The thing that makes games really blow up is word of mouth, people recommending them to their friends, and you get that best by making a game with overall quality. It's basically a given at this point that Bethesda games are buggy messes that get fixed by modders. Every time you have a major bug, game crash, or save corruption it takes you out of the world and forces you to remember you're playing a game that barely works, which makes you like it less. All of this hurts sales, if not today in the future. So yeah, they probably aren't prioritized by management, but management is wrong. They often are.
Fair assessment, though I'd critique:
These aren't the improvements you said you wanted ;) Fixing physics, adding vehicles, etc are features/major changes that can increase instability/take a lot more time to QA.
Creation Engine is static. Others, you are right, change.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Engine
Case and point
Case in point
Huh, thanks for the tip!
Casing point
Just slapping number 2 at the end doesn't mean it's better. That's like how Microsoft made Edge browser by forking IE11 and it's suppose to be better. And how big of a joke is volumetric lighting and "real-time global illumination"... hahaha. Oh my. Source 1 had that when Half-Life2 was released. Advancement.
Here's an in-game example of that global illumination.
Points out it does change.
It is... By a lot, ask any web developer. Even before they switched to using Blink under the hood it was a significantly better browser. Now it's literally a reskinned Chrome. Meanwhile IE11 is a complete mess that requires a ton of hacks to get it to do what you want.
In both cases IE -> Edge and Edge -> Chrome Microsoft changed the literal browser engine. ... This just kinda makes my point even more so, the general public has no idea what constitutes an "engine change" and can't judge whether that will yield the results they want.
You've seen how low poly Half-Life 2 is right...? Destiny 2 only allows certain areas to have the flashlight on because if they don't plan for it the flash lights can tank their frame rates (seriously) -- but hey "Left 4 Dead 2 had a flashlight in source engine!" /s.
I can almost guarantee Half-Life two also didn't have "Global illumination", maybe real time lighting for the flashlight, but Global Illumination is a much bigger thing.
This is Half-Life 2 with global illumination: https://youtu.be/WWYpKRETv8k?si=9eTDmx10m3l9nwdR
Here's an old forum from 2005 talking about how "real global illumination isn't yet possible" https://gamedev.net/forums/topic/348797-half-life-2-global-illumination/3282572/
In case you haven't figured it out, it's a joke that their engine doesn't change. Whether they want it or not, they have to at least adapt some things and am well aware of that. Joke is that they do so seldomly and we don't see much progress in quality.
I am a web developer and have been for 20 years almost. So I know what am talking about. I know IE, whether I like it or not, so intimately I can still quote all the bugs they had from IE6 onwards. All Edge did, was drop legacy compatibility mode, nothing else. Underlying Trident engine got a minor bump. Hence why I quoted it. But by all means please enlighten me with your Google skills in order to justify the fact Bethesda scammed you out of your money once again.
Yes, and number of polygons means nothing. Which is why there's an ongoing joke about people needing to upgrade their computers to run Starfield, when there are better looking games out there which run much much better.
And you are equating global illumination with ray tracing, which is not the same thing. You can do partial global illumination without doing ray tracing. Only thing that means, coming from Todd Howard's mouth is that they are not using baked in lights, which I don't believe him either. Remember how FO76 had 16x the details? But in reality they copy and pasted foliage that many times and called it a day with same shitty textures. Yeah, that kind of Todd treatment is expected whatever he says. Even if they did do ray tracing it doesn't matter one bit if game is boring, which it is.
Also, I gave HL2 and Source engine as an example as a joke as well, since game looked awesome and ran on pretty much any hardware. With the release of Lost Coast, which is what you should be comparing Starfield to, it was demonstrated what Source can do. Lost Coast was released in 2005 and looks significantly better and demonstrates many things Bethesda these days boasts about.
In the end, if all that matters to you is what Todd tells people and then pretends he didn't and number of polygons so be it. I on the other hand like my games to be entertaining, regardless of how they look.
Really? So Chakra was just a fever dream I had? (https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-edge-gets-better-against-chrome-and-other-browsers-javascript-benchmarks)
"Minor bump" that fixed 4,000 bugs, and added HTML5 and CSS3.
I suppose ES6, C++11, Java 8, Python 3, etc are also just "minor bumps."
I didn't even buy the game, it didn't seem interesting to me. I just am frustrated by the fundamental lack of understanding about what an "engine" is and the fact that they're almost always being iterated on in different ways.
Diversity of engines is a good thing, everything shouldn't be Unreal Engine, Blink, V8, Clang, etc
That's true, but the comments are valid when talking about Bethesda games
No man sky also barely has a story and has zero voice acting. It's apples and oranges, just because they're both fruit doesn't mean they can be compared
Except you just compared them in saying they are both fruit. In fact, saying they are both fruit is finding a commonality between them when comparing. There are many metrics on which Apples and Oranges can be compared. They are different colors, have a different internal structures, and different juice content. These are negatively correlated comparisons. More positive correlations would be that they are both roughly spherical, provide vitamin C, and grow on trees.
I have always hated that expression. You can compare anything since comparison is just the act of identifying similarities and differences (positive and negative correlations). One can make meaningful comparisons between and apple and a suspension bridge if the situation calls for it.
Ohhh my godd, me too. It's so anti-intellectual.
To anyone who might care, you can identify an apple as a low-quality orange, but that doesn't also mean the apple is a low-quality apple; they're optimized to different ends. That is, I think, the point of the expression.
But, if we're trying to evaluate them on something like taste, which is entirely subjective, yeah, I'm comparing those shits. And, I'm going oranges all the way.
You shouldn't compare apples and oranges because they are both great but for different reasons and purposes. It isn't anti-intellectual to recognize that apples are way better for pies than oranges are but if you want some amazing juice and don't want to go through a whole process to make it good; oranges are the way to go.
This and the many other examples I didn't want to fill this page with are the reason why it's a saying. It's much faster than prefacing what exactly said apples and oranges are going to be used for before giving a real answer and I personally feel it shouldn't at all be taken literally.
While I don't disagree with you in spirit, the use case for most instances of the expression are to dissuade the act of comparison at all because the two quantities are so dissimilar that the correlations are irrelevant.
It is an anti-intellectual statement because it presupposes that the person doing the comparing is not able to distinguish between meaningful comparisons and ones which are irrational but support their argument. It ranks up there with "big words" as far as I am concerned, saying more about the person they are being said by rather than the person they are being said to.
So why not stand on that hill when it's relevant?
I do. That is a side effect of always standing on the hill. I am there when it matters, but also when it doesn't. Such is the curse of my superpowers.
Captain Pedant AWAAAAYYYY!
This made me giggle like a little girl
They are completely different games though. Watchdogs 2 had less loading screens than Hitman 3, but that doesn't really mean much to say.
They are compared because they both are advertised as filling the same niche, of space exploration with emphasis on exploration.
Except they don't really? And I didn't see that much. Starfield to me seemed like it was being advertised as for RPG fans, and that they would have a lot of dialogue. And that space was just a setting, not the main character.
Good job, guys, I'm sure that'll fix it.
Fuck. I mean I even liked Starfield but this level of mishandling the public perception is absolutely unreal.
Honestly, this behavior of responding to player feedback and arguing about how "it's just because you didn't play the game right!" is kinda unhinged.
It also, to me, really takes Bethesda's mask off and reveals what their culture must be as a company. Based on these responses, they seem so convinced that they shit gold that they've stopped entertaining feedback or trying to innovate much in their games much at all. Kinda confirms some of the criticism I've seen of them since Fallout 4 and 76 came out.
It seems to me like someone in the PR department decided they needed to "try something new," and then didn't actually run the idea by anyone who could say this is a stupid plan. Someone on the community management team got a promotion and thought it was time to make a bold move, and they were absolutely wrong.
Part of me believes this was triggered by them only getting one nomination in The Game Awards.
They botched it on a lot of fronts. Them not getting a nom makes sense to me.
I love that steam reviews can make companies take notice and is harder to shove away compared to other types of reviews with how it's always there on the store page.
It was a heart warming situation when I saw Blizzard's game get mixed reviews. They didn't release games anywhere else until now and getting a reality check was a much needed thing for them.
Landing on the boring planets wasn't my problem with the boring game.
The ground combat was terrible. The space flight was terrible. The space combat was terrible. And it was wedged into every activity for no reason other than lazy design to pad things.
And then there was the UI...
You can't "feel small" when the game makes you a fiddly murder hobo in the tutorial.
There may in fact be a few games where empty spaces and a sense of vastness actually contribute to the atmosphere and make for an enjoyable game. But NOT in a game that’s divided by fucking loading screens with not a single “vista” to look out at.
Everyone seems to be missing the point so I'll let Todd Howard remind you all, "We're going to be doing a lot of add-on content for Starfield."
$5 horse armor folks. That's Bethesda. Stop paying them to make garbage, or at least stop complaining about it.
Cool, so I'll wait to pick this game up until it's $10 on a steam sale in 5 years, and play the community's modded version.
I'm not sure the game is popular enough to get quite the modding support of the community like previous Bethesda games.
I disagree purely on the point that what Starfield is, more than anything else, an amazing platform to make a mod on. Not a great game per se, but the setting and overall theme leave a lot of room for Bethesda to cash in on the work of others as is tradition.
Luckily only tried it once on gamepass. For sure has some interesting parts to it (I did like the ship designer) but it hit me on the second location I explored - this is pretty much a Skyrim reskin. The are randomised dungeons everywhere for no goddamn reason whatsoever, my goddamn spaceship can only fit like 5 suits.... alright. Been there, done that, I'm out.
Looking for a re-release in 5 yrs with all the add-ons and mods, maybe I will get it then.
Pirated it but it wasnt worth the disk space. Tried it for a couple hours but it was so boring. I have done a quest for a bank where I was supposed to collect money. It went like this: Fast travel to the ship. Fast travel to the planet the person is on Talk with them. Fast travel back to ship Fast travel to bank planet Fast travel to bank. Talk to bank guy to get money. Next bank quest. Rinse and repeat
Badabing badaboom now that's a $90 value
I just wonder how someone can encounter randomly generated content when all these handcrafted locations exists where all the story and quests happen.
I played like 30 hours before I even came across random generated content.
And those things definitely felt like end-game stuff.
Why get it then and support this bs? We got this trash because people kept buying Skyrim and circlejerking it
Looks like Bethesda discovered ChatGPT.
Some of those replies are as bland, hunky-dory and sanitized as can be, with a dash of "you're playing it wrong".
Corporate speak incentivizes bland language. Standing up for as little as possible brings as few enemies as possible, after all. Unfortunately, an empty, bland proposal can only result in empty, bland art.
oh good, this reminds me I haven't bothered to leave a negative review yet. let me correct that.
Starfield frustrates me, because in many ways its a major step in the right direction. It has much better roleplaying mechanics than Skyrim or Fallout 4, but at the same time the lore is half-baked and the skill system is fairly weak. It has great potential, but a lot of it feels toned down and less "real" because of it. Space exploration has a lot of potential as well, but setting every objective so far apart on planets ruins exploration by filling it with monotonous procgen.
That's why I'm fairly confident that once properly patched, and mods/DLCs are in full swing, it will probably be remembered very fondly despite the release state. It'll pull a Cyberpunk.
I think everything you said here is spot on except the idea Starfield will improve pike Cyberpunk at this point because Bethesda's attitude really doesn't indicate that they seem to admit anything needs fixing.
With that said I doubt many people expected Cyberpunk to do as well later on so you are probably right and I hope you are for the game and genre. I really like the aesthetic of Starfield and want it to succeed.
I'm just so tired of getting such half baked stuff at release.
One annoying thing about the "make your own stories" concept is that content us going to be recycled. My followers don't say anything new or have new things to do etc because it's all baked in but also on this supposedly open RPG landscape.
I would agree with you if Bethesda games haven't always been saved by modders, rather than Beth themselves. If we had to depend on Beth to fix their own game, Skyrim would've been abandoned long, long, long ago, same with Fallout 4.
That's true and what worries me the most after wanting Starfield to do good. I've been playing Starfield for a bit only to find myself moving to Cyberpunk sooner than later lately.
No harm in waiting for Starfield! It will only get better, while Cyberpunk is largely complete. I loved cyberpunk, especially the DLC.
I hope it does and I think it will but again with the reliance Bethesda puts on the community I'm nervous.
Anyway I've gotten much of the way through at 100 hours and have enjoyed it - definitely got my money's worth - but I just sort of hit a wall. To be fair you'll do that with most games but it seems like Stanfield is just bland.
We'll certainly see! I trust modders.
Yeah, Bethesda games have always been... playable, I guess, but hardly any good, without modding, at least as far back as Oblivion. Morrowind was the last game they made that was just good, out of the box, without needing mods.
So I figured in a year or two Starfield will be good, with mods, just like Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 4 were all bland at best on release, until mods made them good.
100% I actually think Starfield has the best bones, even if it has the worst meat, so to speak, so adding meat gives it a much higher ceiling in a few years time.
The problem is that starfield is modern warfare III of Bethesda but people trying to see it as next skyrim, Bethesda ai generated almost all this game and looped it in roguelite shape, the only things evolved is mechanics as you've said yourself, and again as you've said yourself, this game will be saved by modders
Procedural generation is not AI, don't spew nonsense.
The world is now full of technology that used to have real names, but is now called AI so that investors spunk themselves as they high five each other in shareholder meetings.
Oh I'm anti-Bethesda and Bethesda practices, I'm just sure it will eventually be a great game once the community steps in and fixes it. It isn't an excuse for Bethesda, but rather admiration for the modding community, and an example of why FOSS and a rejection of the profit motive is so good.
I agree with you) communities solve everything
i dont know why people shit on bethesda for "letting modders fix the game"
i dont really know any other developer that embraces the modding community as much as bethesda does, and i wish other games had the same amount of modding capability that bethesda games do
I think it's fully possible to criticize Bethesda's incomplete and highly flawed game design and praise their willingness to support the modding community with great tools at the same time.
When players are tired of paying to be game testers then things will change. Until then, go mine some ore or whatever, I haven't played it.
-Bethesda, maybe
I played 50 hours of Starfield. I had fun.
But two things are true. It's a step back from no man's sky and it's not worth playing more than 50 dollars for.
A step back in what sense? Technically? Yeah probably. Starfield is the first Bethesda game to have working ladders(one slight sort of exception in Fallout 4) lol. But in terms of story, and world building, I think it's fair to say Starfield is much ahead in that.
That'd be more meaningful if Bethesda had ever managed to create a story with any worth. Sometimes the bones of a decent story are there, but the execution is usually amateur hour.
In my opinion Starfield has the best story Bethesda has written. Not entirely saying much, but the main story and the side stories are at least more interesting and less predictable that Fallout 4 and Skyrim quests.
Assuming you haven't already, you should give Morrowind a shot. If you can get past the dated graphics and mechanics, the story is by far Bethesda's best work imho.
Yeah, I have played Morrowind(well actually TES3MP) and in terms of flexibility and story Morrowind is definitely great, my issue is that my least favorite aspect of Bethesda games are the tedious winding dungeons(why NV and Starfield are my favorite because they have the least of that) and Morrowind unfortunately has a lot. One aspect of Morrowind that I really enjoyed actually though, was the opportunity to be given information to actually take notes on(I wrote down directions quest givers gave for example) and Starfield was the only other Bethesda game I've played with a taste of that. Although unfortunately much less.
Man, feels like we played totally different games regarding Morrowind. Most of Morrowind's dungeons are the smallest of any Bethesda game, and honestly it had the least amount of quests that even sent you to dungeons. Still, if you found them tedious you found them tedious. (anychance you installed other mods besides MP?)
All the same, I think the story is by far Bethesda's magnum opus. (I mean Bethesda proper, since New Vegas was Obsidian and all)
And while I find exploration in Starfield to be extremely tedious, I will say they employed a "Skyrim/FO4" style sensibility where each dungeon should roughly take 10-20 minutes, making for nice bite sized chunks of gameplay.
I completely agree that NV had stellar use of dungeons that almost never overstayed their welcome.
Though if you want real tedium, in both winding dungeons and exploration, give Daggerfall unity a try. Great game, but my god does it go on and on and on.
Starfield was super fun until it wasn't. I have no desire to ever go back to it. Skyrim on the other hand....
For me it was super boring until I left Constellation, fun for 10 or so hours after that, super boring for a few more, and now I haven't played it in over 2 months.
I actually just peaced out of constellation right away because I felt like the reason I was there was bullshit. I had 30 hours of fun doing side quests, came back to constellation because I heard there were powers I was missing. Acquiring them was tedious and they weren’t even that useful. I grinded out the main story and quit once I got the credit roll. Zero desire to go through it again
Do you think to an extent it's just familiarity? It is relaxing for you to go back to something you're so familiar with, you aren't surprised by it.
You got downvoted, but yes, and mods. Starfield will be looked at a lot more favorably when everyone is playing a modded version of the game.
... I liked it
its fun, I liked the main story although it does have its slow spots, the vanguard terrormorph quest was pretty cool, but after a while like all games it gets kind of tiring, this game still feels like it needs some work, hopefully it will get even more post release content than fallout 4, there is a lot of space they can add stuff
Hey surprise surprise a soulless corporation does soulless corporation things.
This doesn't read soulless corporation to me. This reads Todd Howard's bruised ego. He's one of the directors of the whole studio after all, and could very well be behind this decision.
Amusing that the article gets the response of the first review wrong.
The negative review doesn't only mention that the empty planets are boring, but that the populated ones are the same locations over and over again.
I miss Games like Starbound. So much to see and do. Unbelievable good atmospheric Music under a Sky full of Stars while building you first Base. This was one, if not the, first game to give me a feeling of smallness in comparison to the Universe.
I also loved starbound. My problem was the late game became very gamey, with the linear planet tier progression to get better materials. Once I got past the progression and beat the final boss there was nothing fun left to do, even with all the base building stuff they put in.
There's nothing wrong with a game ending at the final boss tbh
Is Starbound really about the bosses, though?
I really enjoyed these "Space-Dungeons" where you could Upgrade your Weapons at the End or get a Terraforming Device for an Emerald-Forrest Biome or something like that.
Me: I'm bored
Bethesda: No you're not.
Me: Oh
The failure is absolutely deserved
Slow news day, eh IGN?
Nice.
You can reply to reviews on Steam????
Yeah? There's a comment section and developers comments get highlighted on the store page. As far as I know it's been like this for many years.
Yeah that's how developers respond to negative reviews or problems that their players have.
I remember reading that quote before the game launched. Weird.
Bethesda games are always boring trash. The real game won't even appear for another year or two at least (after the modders have finished fixing all the bugs, the horrible writing, the design flaws).
Compared to the average game? I don't agree. Compared to entirely exceptional games like Fallout: NV, yeah. But you don't have many options if you enjoy open world fps RPGs, and Bethesda games are sometimes the only passable option. I mean, I'd take Starfield over Elden Ring any day, because of personal preference, not because it's a better game- but my own preference means I also couldn't say it's a worse game.
This is only true if it's literally true that it has to be "first person". There are, in my opinion, way too many 3rd person semi-RPGs with a vast, open world that are very similar to Bethesda games. It has gotten to the point with me where there are only so many games like this I'll even play, because they're huge time drains and they come across as basically the same game with a different skin or setting.
With the "charm" of Bethesda game(that I don't really know how exactly to describe) the only other recent games I can think of are Outer Worlds and Cyberpunk.
I think that may be right for first person only, but many games that are largely played in third person fit the bill to me: Witcher 3, Elden Ring, Horizon, and even the latest Zelda games to an extent.
I know I'm leaving many other titles out here too, I'm just listing ones I've personally played.
No Man's Sky is even close to being on the list IMO but it's not quite RPG enough to fit in the same category.
Players are really kinda spoiled for choice when it comes to large, open world games with quasi RPG elements.
I've personally grown kinda sick of the genre.
There's standouts of course (I actually think all the ones I listed are pretty excellent), but all of them require hundreds of hours to complete and I'm just sick of the same game type after a while.
It's not so much about the first personness of it. It is just that the only examples of games I can think of that meet what I'm talking about are first person. I never played Horizon or Zelda games(past the OG), but for the Witcher 3 and Elden Ring I personally never enjoyed them- despite genuinely trying, mainly because of the style of combat(an actually Bethesda games give you much more choice, but also more clunkiness in that) but also because of imo a lack of engaging freedom(or psuedochoice) in dialogue. Although, Witcher is definitely closer, but Elden Ring felt like an RPG only in that you had stats. Fallout: NV was not fun because of the stats, Fallout: NV was fun because it felt like you could immerse yourself and engage with a living world in a way that actually felt somewhat free. There's a reason there are so many Youtube videos with premises like "playing Skyrim as chef" or whatever, it is fun to build your own stories, with your own character, in a world that it feels like they can genuinely interact with. FROM Soft games I think intentionally make you feel detached from the world, and the Witcher has you following the story of an existing character. The interaction and choice in Bethesda games is definitely often shallow, but at least it exists.
I haven't played it but if that stuff is what you're looking for I think baldurs gate 3 might be for you.
I've never really felt like the dialogue choices in any Bethesda game save maybe new vegas (which I don't even think was technically a Bethesda game) had a lot of real impact on the game. In Skyrim I think there were maybe a handful of times that it mattered. Most times in those types of games I wind up exercising the entire dialogue tree because usually it lets you, and sometimes that's the only way to get some side quest or whatever.
The combat in Bethesda games save some of the Fallout series is actually pretty bad IMO. In Skyrim, the combat doesn't feel like combat at all and feels more like two characters swiping air near each other.
The thing that's the most disappointing about most of these games to me is the squandered potential. At first there feels like there's depth there, and if you try to get there it is shown to be a facade.
They have a lot of breadth to their games but IMO they're as deep as a puddle.
A bigger open world just means less interesting things to do. This is how I've seen Starfield described.
I didn't know Johnathan Blow worked for Bethesda.
Hah, that first quoted review is like playing Elite Dangerous. Really love that game. However, Starfield doesn’t have VR, so I’m not interested in going down that path. VR in Elite (except for ground ops) is amazing, and a spaceflight/sim absolutely should have a VR option IMO.