Great point. I agree that people would likely forgive all of the technical and environmental shortcomings(loading screens and bland environments) if the game had even a slightly interesting story. Anything worth experiencing at all. Unfortunately it fails all 3 of those fronts.
The places where it excels (1st person gameplay compared to other B* games, ship building, and graphics imo) are not enough to make it a game worth experiencing.
It honestly should have had another 2 years in the oven to make the lore and universe more interesting.
No way Bethesda wastes another 5-8 years on a sequel with the negative reception Starfield received.
It honestly should have had another 2 years in the oven to make the lore and universe more interesting.
I don’t know, I don’t think it would have changed anything. They might have had an interesting quest or two more, but their writing philosophy of not keeping track of anything and working in isolation would not have made a decent, coherent lore in even 10 extra years, just more unconnected shit with extra tonal dissonance.
Just based on Wikipedia, many commercial failure video games have a sequel made much later on, or have their IP used in a remake or reimagining. Psychonauts is the one I remember since I like the sequel.
The original psychonauts was a cult classic though that got great reviews.
Starfield is in the opposite boat, it doesnt seem to have been a commercial failure, but fan sentiment is really low with the starfield franchise to the point that the hype around a sequel would be nowhere near what it was for psychonauts 2… But this is all my assumption, difficult to find/trust empirical data on fan interest.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Great point. I agree that people would likely forgive all of the technical and environmental shortcomings(loading screens and bland environments) if the game had even a slightly interesting story. Anything worth experiencing at all. Unfortunately it fails all 3 of those fronts.
The places where it excels (1st person gameplay compared to other B* games, ship building, and graphics imo) are not enough to make it a game worth experiencing.
It honestly should have had another 2 years in the oven to make the lore and universe more interesting. No way Bethesda wastes another 5-8 years on a sequel with the negative reception Starfield received.
I don’t know, I don’t think it would have changed anything. They might have had an interesting quest or two more, but their writing philosophy of not keeping track of anything and working in isolation would not have made a decent, coherent lore in even 10 extra years, just more unconnected shit with extra tonal dissonance.
I think they will make a Starfield 2 eventually. But most likely in closer to 15-20 years with a fresh set of developers.
Can you think of another commercial failure IP that ever got a sequel? I honestly want to know if this ever happens.
I have to look back and see if Red Dead Revolver was as disappointing as Starfield.
Just based on Wikipedia, many commercial failure video games have a sequel made much later on, or have their IP used in a remake or reimagining. Psychonauts is the one I remember since I like the sequel.
The original psychonauts was a cult classic though that got great reviews.
Starfield is in the opposite boat, it doesnt seem to have been a commercial failure, but fan sentiment is really low with the starfield franchise to the point that the hype around a sequel would be nowhere near what it was for psychonauts 2… But this is all my assumption, difficult to find/trust empirical data on fan interest.
I think that may play into Starfield 2’s favor. If properly advertised it could reignite the hype for the first game… if it delivered.