Not really. It isn’t as good as Far Harbor aeven though the world building is better and more interesting. Of course it’s way worse than Dragonborn. But it’s definitely better than Nuka World and Automaton. And also better than the Pitt and Mothership Zeta even though it’s difficult to make comparisons with Fallout 3
Well…except the next installations of Fallout and Elder Scrolls. Let’s be honest, that’s what Microsoft were really buying, and neither are anywhere near a release.
Bethesda’s game design is just too old. Playing Starfield felt like playing an RPG from a decade ago. Bethesda just got complacent from back when they were one of the only companies that could seriously do an open-world RPG, now we have CD Projekt-Red and FromSoftware with wildly different, significantly more innovative gameplay experiences. Hell, even other AAA devs like Capcom have been able to outperform in the open world space, Dragon’s Dogma 2 was a ton of fun.
Holy fuck gamers really do have the worst memories. Cyberpunk is still a shit game after 4 fucking years of patches. CDPR has like 5 titles and one of them is pretty good. FromSoftware has a legacy of bangers a mile long. These 2 companies aren’t even in the same wheelhouse.
Cyberpunk is very much not a shit game, it’s a pretty good RPG with a great variety of character builds and fantastic writing. The devs did an absurd amount of work in order to make the gameplay significantly more fun. I’d also make the argument that Witcher 2 is a really good game, and is what popularized the series enough for Witcher 3 to be such a colossally known hit. The two companies make very different RPGs to one another, for sure, but you’re just being a contrarian if you think the pedigree of the two companies is vastly different.
but you’re just being a contrarian if you think the pedigree of the two companies is vastly different.
Even if we ignore all the other bootlicking and fanboying in the above comment, this statement alone is completely absurd. FromSoftware has developed over 50 games and CDPR has…4? Maybe 10 if you count mobile trash? By the year 2000 FromSoftware had released more successful games than CDPR has released total, good or bad, to date.
It’s no wonder that cyberpunk is such a piece of garbage really when you realize every other game CDPR ever developed has “the witcher” somewhere in the title.
No, sadly I think the design is too new. Morrowind was 22 years ago. It is the direction I’d like to see them go again. A complex world that feels lived in, and actually gives players options to play how they want and figure things out for themselves. The newer boring “design for everyone” approach sucks. There’s no soul and nothing interesting.
FromSoft is somewhat notoriously old-school. Their game design has directly evolved from their older games. Look at King’s Field and then look at Dark Souls. There’s so much similarity. Yeah, ER is more cleaned up with a fuck-ton more money and technology available, but it’s essentially the same design.
Obviously Balder’s Gate 3 is just an evolution of classic RPG design, and it did very well. I’d argue CDPR also has taken classic RPG inspiration more than modern ones. A modern RPG design wouldn’t do half the stuff Cyberpunk did, because it’s not targeting everyone (and no one).
Modern AAA design doesn’t pick a target. Their target is everyone and everything, so they do nothing well. Classic design is knowing who your game is for and making a game for them and not anyone else. Bethesda is doing the former.
Judging by how Starfield turned out, will missing either of those games (which are almost certainly going to be using the same incredibly outdated engine) be much of a loss?
The engine isn’t why Starfield sucks. Sure, the constant loading isn’t great but it isn’t the reason there’s nothing fun or interesting to do. It’s also a solvable issue, but they haven’t made the investments they need in the engine.
Starfield is just soulless. The characters are boring, the stories aren’t interesting and don’t let the player choose fun options. The universe is static and nothing matters. There’s just no reason to be involved in the world, so there’s no reason to want to be in it.
They could fix this. I’d say the way they need to go to do so is to stop targeting literally every player. They need to figure out who they’re making the game for and target them. I’m a big sci-fi fan, and I like older Bethesda games. I should have been an easy target for Starfield, but I hated it, not because of the engine but because the stories, characters, and universe weren’t engaging. The engine is an easy target to complain about, but it isn’t what’s holding them back. Indie games can do more with worse engines.
The engine really isn’t suited for the kind of game Starfield wants to be, so it really works against it. But you’re right, even if it were a new shiny engine with the same writing and characters, it would still suck. Likewise, if it had the same creaky engine but actual good stories and characters the constant loading would be easier to overlook. It just has the worst of both worlds.
For those of us that miss the lore and story/atmosphere of this games, absolutely.
Don’t get me wrong, Starfield has made me truly worried about the next installment, and I truly believe that milking Skyrim has ultimately left Bethesda in a position where open world gaming just leapfrogged them. The likes of TOTK and Elden Ring have absolutely shattered what they can show to deliver in a supposedly improved generation.
All I can hope is that Bethesda really look at the feedback they received, and take the time to make the necessary changes to their engine. That alone might be enough to at least give a retro feel to the games. I’ll still eagerly await them, but my hopes for them being GOTY are long gone.
Sometimes I wonder whether Starfield truly deserves all the bad publicity or whether people are also still upset because it became an Xbox exclusive and that is clouding their judgement. I know it does affect me for one. I got a ps5 for gaming and I’m automatically much less interested in anything that isn’t on the platform. And I was of course very disappointed when Microsoft outright bought all these huge IPs and made them exclusive to Xbox.
If you take any major gaming publications scores as at all legitimate then I have a bridge to sell you
Major publications give it a passable score because “lol glitches are Bethesdas thing”, ignoring objective critique because of reputation, as well as our of fear that they won’t be given access to the next product released by the or Microsoft because they give games “bad publicity”
Starfield is a broken, poorly written, dumpster fire of a game. It objectively doesn’t function correctly often, like many Bethesda products, and was designed by a team lead by a man allergic to basic game design ethos (seriously fuck Emil, my dog could do game design better than me "fuck design docs). It has moments of being interesting and, much like Skyrim, could be the base for some cool mods, but people hated it so much it won’t ever even get that
I was on Windows at the time and had GamePass, so I pleasantly had access included with what I was already paying for. I ended up pirating it so I could mod it (that is prevented on GamePass), because it needed mods.
No, it’s not negative because it’s MS owned. It’s a very bad game. I love older Bethesda games and I love sci-fi. This should have been an easy win for me. Wow, it was disappointing. The actual combat gameplay is fine, but everything between combat sucks. Too many loading screens taking you out of the gameplay.
The writing sucks. They make use of established sci-fi tropes, but then they don’t understand how to make them work in a story. They give you very few choices, often not including the most obvious ones.
Despite this being the “exploration” game, exploration is essentially non-existent. Every planet pretty much has the same stuff. There’s like five bases that spawn everywhere identically, and a handful of “natural” points-of-interest, which appear all over the planet identically, as well as being the same as every other planet with the same ones. You might see some benefit to explore if you’re building bases, but that system is incredibly clunky and frustrating to make operational. Even once you have things running, it’ll still require managing storages from overflowing and blocking incoming supplies. It’s really bad.
The universe is incredibly unreactive too. If you thought this was true for their previous games, it’s worse in Starfield. There’s no ships bringing supplies to colonies. No colonies being built that weren’t there at the start. No fighting between factions, besides pirates randomly and it’s the same random event that happens when you warp into a place, not something that happened because pirates are raiding a supply line or something. It just doesn’t change ever.
Basically, no. Starfield actually sucks. I really wanted to like it, but there’s nothing to like in my opinion. I’ve seen some people say they like it, but I honestly don’t get it. Every aspect seems like a downgrade from FO4, which had its own issues but had reasons to like it too.
I feel like starfield is an experiment in user driven content (mods) to sell a game. The issue with Skyrim is that there is really only one map, and before any map extension mod came out, there were so many mods out there that competed for space on the map. Even today, large world overhaul mods are constantly stepping on the toes of other mods. City redesigns are also a problem unless you’re really good at load orders and merging.
Starfield feels like each world is an open map, ready for people to start designing content: either a colony, a cave, or anything really. The story seems loose and open ended so that it won’t interfere with large collaborative content. It’s not a game they are selling, but a modding storefront. It’s like Skyrim Creations, but putting the horse (armor sold separately) before the cart.
Thanks for the review. Disappointing to be sure. I was hoping to play it at some point and that it wouldn’t suck as much as people say it does. Or that they would turn it around in time.
Still give a try, it’s not for everyone and it’s not to the same quality as their previous games but it’s honestly not a bad game. At worst I’d say it’s aggressively average. But I still have a great time with ship combat and exploration, the loading doesn’t bother me as much and people act like the quests and writing are BAD, They are not, it’s just not to the level of their previous games. But there are still a few quests I absolutely love.
I would say most of the writing is bad. There are a handful of interesting quests, but most aren’t. Then there’s things like the generation ship, which they don’t do anything interesting with, it uses the same technology as the modern ships, and also the quest path to end it is stupid. There’s also so many things that just don’t make sense in the universe it’s set in, and it’s overall just boring.
I agree overall the game is just aggressively average though. It plays fine enough, but it gives no reason to want to play it. It’s not actively painful to play, but it gives no feedback to make anything feel worth doing.
I really enjoyed the Ryujin quest line, the quest where the world was shifting, and there’s tons of great smaller quests and interactions, but I agree the generation ship was a big miss, the main quest flounders and flops hard about half way through and overall they didn’t do enough with universe building.
I was holding out hope that the modding scene would help support the game, because traditionally speaking Bethesda modders have done some incredibly amazing work on other titles. But no, alas, Starfield is such a fuckin’ trash fire that not even the modders are willing to put in the work to unfuck this heap of shit. Somebody might release a killer overhaul for it after they’ve had a couple more years to basically rewrite the entire engine, but frankly I don’t see anyone caring that much about this game to make it happen. I know of at least one guy who rather than getting involved in the mod scene, instead got on Steam and said fuck you, I’ll make my own fuckin’ Starfield, and started whipping up Spacebourne 2, and even this half-baked early access alpha jank has clear signs of being the seed of a better game than Starfield was. I’m sure that others have had similar ideas.
The UI and perk system is actively hostile to playing the game. It was one thing when you could always try to pick the lock in Skyrim and the more locks you picked the better you got. Now you must take the perk and it’s a requirement to pick locks before the next perk.
You cannot even craft or use core gameplay mechanics without perks. Booster pack? Perks. Targeting sub systems? Perk. (Which is hilarious because it’s in the tutorial mission and they just hard coded the event ship not to blow up. So until you visit the Internet you don’t actually know how to board other ships)
Out post building is ridiculously complex, resources take up a bajillion spaces in your inventories, there’s no guidance on production chains, and basic resources aren’t even on the same planet. So you’re back to just buying resources to get it off the ground and why are we even building an outpost again?
To be fair, the story, the fly here, shoot this, listen to story parts of the game are fine. But literally everything else around it is made as obtuse as possible because yes I want to go through a loading screen every time I need to access my main stash.
As some one said when it released. It’s Fallout 4 in space. But if all the ancillary stuff was made 100 percent more inconvenient.
I don’t think this means ES6 is doomed. Did anyone play the Civ space game? It was an offshoot one-off experiment that wasn’t really well recieved and they quietly moved on.
My guess is that this game pivoted during development and they ended up with something that didn’t really work and shouldn’t have shipped. The failure to find something good in this experiment may be isolated to this game.
The fact that they released it in the state they did could be more about their workflow and project pipeline/target milestones they need to hit than it is about their ability to execute.
The failure here is in design, ES6 has a tried and true design to follow.
I think ES6 will have the advantage that it won’t be a procedurally generated world, or at least I don’t hope so.
But it will probably still run on the shitty Bethesda engine that they cling onto for dear life for some reason.
I think it will never actually live up to the hype, expectations are so insanely high, and the longer it takes the higher these expectations rise it seems.
And I bet it will turn out to be another half-assed game that they hope modders will fix. Like the last bunch of games, they all require mods to be even remotely playable, but even mods can’t fix core issues.
My expectations for Bethesda dropped to bare minimum with everything that came after Skyrim.
Story and worldbuilding wise, ES6 has a very bleak future ahead. Emilio Pagliarulo, the de facto director of Starfield and lead writer, has shown that no hole is deep enough that he won’t dig it further down when it comes to lack of quality and consistency. Not that Skyrim’s main story was good, but it was certainly better than Starfield’s. There’s also the disturbing indifference of “the world” to everything happening around it. Literally nothing you do in Starfield affects anything outside its own storyline. Hell, shooting up in the air or using fucking space magic in the middle of a city generates no reaction from npcs if nobody is hit.
Point being that they can experiment and do something a little different, I don’t think that the quality of the spinoff indicates the quality of the main franchise.
and they ended up with something that didn’t really work and shouldn’t have shipped.
That sure didn’t stop the marketing department, as this game was being shoved in our faces left and right as if it was the end-all-be-all game we’d be playing with our grand children in 50 years.
My guess is that this game pivoted during development
Nah, the game matches pretty well with what Lyin’ Todd said he wanted to make almost 20 years ago
It’s also very clearly their usual design decisions but in a new setting
If anything the issue is that they stayed stuck in EXACTLY their usual development methods: no design document because Emil doesn’t like them, their writers make their quests too, and use an engine that’s absolutely not meant for the kind of game they’re making ON TOP of being ancient and garbage
The problem is Starfield isn’t a one off. It’s the latest in a line of progressively worse games. Every game they’ve released since Skyrim has been worse than the one that came before it.
Since Skyrim? I’d say their quality has been slowly declining since Morrowind. It wasn’t that noticeable at first, since oblivion, fallout 3, and Skyrim were still quite good and fallout 4 was decent. But then fallout 76 was a mess at release, TES blades was shit, and starfield just seems lazy.
Skyrim was at least an improvement over Oblivion. It showed they had the ability to recognize and fix the mistakes of Oblivion and still create an interesting world.
Cool Bethesda, just dump the Gamebryo source code off to us before you get liquidated by Shittersoft since you’re basically budgeted into making half-baked shit until you go bankrupt anyway.
They aimed at Far Harbor and arrived at The Pit, this was their chance, there’s not even random content since it’s all in the same planet, they just forgot they were doing a RPG and gave no meaningful choices, there are plenty of bad endings that just make you load a save lol.
I’ve given up on every major developer/publisher, so-called AAA garbage, except for capcom for monster hunter and square enix for final fantasy. I’ll be extra sad the day they too go the way of every other greedy lazy “AAA” game company…
At least indie devs care to make a good game and not try to make a money printing IP machine with some game like aspects in it.
$70 is going to be the new normal price for AAA. Prices haven’t increased in decades. I don’t like it, but that’s what it is. It’s not AAAA because of the price, nor is that even a thing.
AAA comes from credit rating scores. It essentially means nearly guaranteed returns. It was used to identify games that need to be stocked for game stores. AAA is going to sell. AA is slightly less but still good. Etc. There is not AAAA credit rating. That was just stupid marketing buzzwords that don’t matter.
as a hige indi/small developer fan i see great times ahad. AAA will fail, clmpanys will close and developers will find new homes in smaller teams. by 2030 i predict a golden age for AA and and perhabs also a new golden age for indi.
Even Capcom I’m not preordering. If wilds is getting good reviews a couple days after launch I’ll get it. (Even though I’m pretty sure it will be a good game)
I feel like monster hunter is kinda hard to mess up, unless they suddenly decided to make it turn based with micro transactions for extra turns or something lol
The “story” is: omg big monster messing up the ecosystem, go fight! So it’s really all down to gameplay lol
Remember when Cyberpunk fucked up their release. They knew they fucked up and owed it to the gamers. They told their board and stockholders to hold off, and that they needed to rebuild trust with their users before they could make line go up.
So they took their time, they redid many of the mechanics that people didn’t like, the fixed all of the bugs, and then they released Phantom Liberty - one of the best expansions I have ever seen in gaming history. Good enough where it could have been a game on it’s own.
That is how you rebuild trust with the community. You tell your stockholders to shut the fuck up and let you do what you do best. If they don’t trust you to do that, then fuck em, they can sell their stock, why are they holding stock in a company they don’t trust?
On that note, how is Cyberpunk still 60 euros on Steam? I know it’s been getting better with the DLC and everything, but the game’s been out for ages.
That said, I might have to buy Phantom Liberty. I bought and finished the base game like 2 or 3 years ago I think and I really enjoyed it even back then.
Personally I think it’s worth it, it’s one of the few games I happily would pay full price for again. They did a full redemption arc, their game is now up there as one of my favorites of all time, next to Witcher 3 and RDR2. I think they deserve my money. What I really think is that Cyberpunk deserves 60. How the fuck can Assassin’s Creed think that they’re on the same level (or higher) than that?
Post-2.0 Cyberpunk is one of the best gaming experiences I’ve had in a long time. You can tell it’s a product of effort, and love for the project. They have taken in a considerable amount of feedback from pre-1.5.
Meanwhile, Starfield is a complete miss in just about every way imaginable, and the expansion has followed through the same footsteps. On top of that, the studio actively gaslit people who expressed disapproval, even when it was constructive criticism.
I fully expect them to say it’s getting “review bombed” now, which is the current industry redefining of a term to make it come off as “It’s not us, it’s the stupid gamer’s fault”
It’s not a review bomb if it’s fully deserved. If you make a bad product, you deserve a bad review, and maybe Bethesda should have thought about that ahead of time
I think they have changed the driving a bit in one of the earlier updates.
Saw it in one of the patch notes but havn’t played myself so I couldn’t tell you what’s different about it…
Bad cars don’t have good maneuverability is you full press the speeding stick, I imagine that that stick is an acceleration pedal and only full press it when I don’t need to do sharp turns. I would say that cars feel maybe too real.
You playing with a controller? I always thought the driving was optimized for the controller as I can’t half press acceleration on a keyboard.
It’s a little bit better after the updates, but it’s still suboptimal I think.
Yeah, as most 1st person view games it’s just less taxing in my hands. I agree that not being to half accelerate would feel bad, you would start drifting all the time and that would suck for control. Try using W as an acceleration button, not a “forward” button. If you see that you need to take a turn stop accelerating for a while and then S before you start turning, like with a car.
I mean, it all hinged in the fact that under all those glitches and bugged mechanics CDPR still had a nice game. Starfield can’t be salvaged cuz the core game is just mediocre shit.
I wanna say it’s a failed IP at this point, but who knows how many copies sold. What is sure is it doesn’t deserve any more of my time. I have the DLC but won’t reinstall that garbage
It certainly sold a lot. Bethesda once claimed to have over 10 million players across all platforms. Even if we assume half of those were using gamepass, that’s still 5 million sales.
Of course, if you compare it to Fallout 4’s first 6 months, with reported 12 million sales on day-one, that’s a significant letdown.
Starfield is a very real “could have been”, if only [huge list of changes] happened.
I might need to revisit cyberpunk, I didn’t know an expansion was ever released. I kind of hit max level doing mostly side quests within 4 months of launch and lost interest.
Oh trust me, I had a decent time playing it. I played through it 100%, did all the side stuff, did the base building - everything. But, I still felt annoyed and bored a good chunk of the time. The game was fine. But it was only fine. I wouldn’t say it was revolutionary or anything Bethesda said, it was just… fine.
basically the major points of change was launch, then cyberpunk edgerunners clothing dlc patch (1.0 but bigs fixed). 2.0 rewrote some of the games mechanics that dropped before the expansion. and then the expansion was released (which added new endings)
I would definitely need a new character, nothing worse than picking up an old save and having zero clue about what’s going on in game. I think I’ll put that on my list, I really did enjoy the game at the time I played it, and I definitely got 100 hours playtime from it.
Cyberpunk was buggy, unoptimized, and kind of unfinished, but the fundamental game design was sound.
Starfield on the other hand is broken at its core. The Bethesda RPG experience just does not translate to the open worlds space map they built the game on. So they can’t take the cyberpunk approach because they’d have to build an entirely different game from scratch.
I don’t know why anyone decided that that engine was the right way to go. The number one thing that killed the game for me was the endless loading screens. Constantly. Whenever I started feeling immersed, a new loading screen would pop up and it ruined it for me. We have engines left and right that don’t need to do this anymore, but starfield, the game that’s trying to base itself to be a realistic exploration game, decided that endless loading screens were still the best way to go
even without the loading screens it would still be terrible. get a quest, go to your ship, take off, travel to other system, land, exit your ship, walk to destination, reverse all that to turn the quest in, rinse and repeat. it’s just a tedious experience.
the best part of Bethesda games is just being able to wander around aimlessly in a pretty environment, likely stumbling upon little easter eggs or side quests along the way. none of that exists in Starfield.
Reading it like that, the loop sounds straight off Diablo 1 on PSX. Get quests, head to the dungeon, loading screen, wipe the floor, loading screen, wipe next floor, back to town, loading screen, turn in.
That kind of loop is not bad in itself, but Bethesda applied it to the wrong type of game.
That was one of the things that really helped with the immersion for me in Witcher 3 and even Cyberpunk. You walk into a building, house, etc and the world outside just continued and was present. I’m still quite impressed with their engine and it is a bit sad that they’ll be switching to UE5 for the next Witcher.
I know! Red engine honestly is pretty great once they got the bugs worked out, I’m sad they’re leaving it. It was extremely immersive, and there’s definitely something about it that feels different.
Same with No Man’s Sky. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but they buckled down and delivered on almost every promise that they failed on back at release. Not only that but every update since the game came out has been for free. Both No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk are fantastic games, and they were garbage on release. Bethesda has been doing the opposite approach and avoiding feedback from fans since Skyrim came out the first time.
Oh god, so there is absolutely nothing they can ever do to make up for it, I guess. Even after like 10+ MAJOR updates and expansions over 6+ years for free, they can’t possibly ever do enough for some people, I guess.
At launch, for me at least, it was a cool lonely scramble to survive.
Now it’s a multiplayer game with a bunch of super easy shortcuts all over the place, even outside of the multiplayer. I enjoy playing with my friends, but the solo experience is definitely worse now.
You answered a question with a good answer, just not to the question they aske. They asked about the comment - “it’s not the game we bought into at launch”. They were talking about how a lot of people complained that what the game was at launch wasn’t what had been advertised - what people “bought into”.
You seem to be explaining why it’s “not the game you bought at launch” - which is definitely a valid argument too, just to something else.
I never figured a reason to even bother with multiplayer in NMS, except maybe to speed up base building. The only real challenge of the game is surviving the first hour, even on hardcore/permadeath.
Yeah, I have the permadeath achievement. Once you get off the first planet you’re fine.
It used to be harder for a lot longer. Now you can just teleport anywhere you want at anytime.
I didn’t play it at the time because of the bugs, but from what I saw the good parts of Cyberpunk were already present. Stuff like storytelling, interesting characters etc.
Starfield has none of that.
I just finished playing it for the first time and I was blown away right from the start! Guess I’m glad I waited for the polish, but the world design, voice acting and overall storyline was absolutely fantastic. I couldn’t help feel bad for all the artists that clearly put a lot of love in to the world only to be overshadowed by bugs and poor implementation.
I’m still mad the monowire doesn’t work how it was said it would and that the cops can’t be bribed and shit like that. It’s a great game now and a lot of fun to play but I won’t ever trust another game company again like I did with them after they made witcher 3.
The difference is, there is no fixing Starfield, it is rotten to the core. You would have to re-do most of the story elements and writing, and the disjointed, empty world. On top of that you’d have to fix the bugs and technical limitations like the constant loading screens. At this point you would be throwing out most of the game and basically starting from scratch with a few systems done, like the ship building and possibly gunplay.
I think cyberpunk never became what many wanted, but if you let go of your expectations, it is a good game.
I dislike the narrative that something is “unfixable”, everything is fixable if there is a will to do so.
I don’t know why game developers seem to have inhibitions of changing the game too much after release. For instance reworking and extending the main story in a game seems to be a big red line for them.
For instance I would have wished in Cyberpunk 2077 to actually play Vs introduction into Night City and the individual fixers myself, instead of just watching a cut scene. A DLC could have extended the start of the game a bit.
The same for Starfield, they could extend and improve the main story, characters and locations in an update, but seem hesitant to do so. Something like directors cut, that adds cut content as well as tons of side quests into the game.
If people still want to play the original game, they can make the extended story optional, like sleecting what version you want to play at the game start.
For bugs, they could work together with the community and the “unofficial patch” and engine fixer modders, instead just ignoring them. In Skyrim SSE for instance they still had many of the same bugs that Oldrim had and where fixed by thr community.
Bethesda could improve, and even fix their games, if they would decide to do so. Their DLC just doesn’t seem to be worth what they ask for, it could have been just part of a free update, so that some more people buy the base game.
I have a strong suspicion that truly talented writers who are able to build memorable stories in great worlds are few and far between, and those that are willing to work in the games industry of today are as rare as hen’s teeth. Most companies, including Bethesda, simply don’t have the talent at hand to fix their mess, or there wouldn’t be a mess in the first place. The truth is probably somewhere between this, and the ol’ “eh, good enough”.
I just ment you’d have to cut so much that at that point it would basically be a new game. I’m thinking a bit more from the dev point of view. Like an old rusted-to-hell car, everything is fixable. The question is cost: if you have to replace or re-fabricate every piece than you’re better off starting from scratch.
I’m the case of Starfield, changing the core story, characters, missions, and theme is basically the same as replacing the entire car body.
Funny thing is that shipbuilding also felt annoying to me. There were so many arbitrary restrictions that I felt like I couldn’t actually make the ship I wanted, it always felt the same
Glad I didn’t buy the DLC and decided I’ll wait for some sort of definitive edition to play Starfield again. I hope by that point it will be a better overall game and have enough new things to make it worth the time.
I am really enjoying this downfall of Bethesda, Blizzard, Ubisoft and EA, more than I enjoyed anything they published in half a decade. I wish death also to Gearbox. It’s coming and after Randy bought and promptly ruined RoR2, my schadenfreude is tingling.
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.
Hey im all for giving Bethesda shit for publishing an incredibly bland game, but 8 reviews hardly seem like a solid foundation to make that title.
EDIT : I’ve realised that autocorrect might have gotten you since around 1, 1k user reviews still sit at around 42% positive
Not really. It isn’t as good as Far Harbor aeven though the world building is better and more interesting. Of course it’s way worse than Dragonborn. But it’s definitely better than Nuka World and Automaton. And also better than the Pitt and Mothership Zeta even though it’s difficult to make comparisons with Fallout 3
Hard disagree. Enjoyed all of those dlcs.
This makes me feel better about them being exclusive to Microsoft now. I’m not missing anything at all.
Well…except the next installations of Fallout and Elder Scrolls. Let’s be honest, that’s what Microsoft were really buying, and neither are anywhere near a release.
Neither of which will matter.
Bethesda’s game design is just too old. Playing Starfield felt like playing an RPG from a decade ago. Bethesda just got complacent from back when they were one of the only companies that could seriously do an open-world RPG, now we have CD Projekt-Red and FromSoftware with wildly different, significantly more innovative gameplay experiences. Hell, even other AAA devs like Capcom have been able to outperform in the open world space, Dragon’s Dogma 2 was a ton of fun.
Holy fuck gamers really do have the worst memories. Cyberpunk is still a shit game after 4 fucking years of patches. CDPR has like 5 titles and one of them is pretty good. FromSoftware has a legacy of bangers a mile long. These 2 companies aren’t even in the same wheelhouse.
Cyberpunk is very much not a shit game, it’s a pretty good RPG with a great variety of character builds and fantastic writing. The devs did an absurd amount of work in order to make the gameplay significantly more fun. I’d also make the argument that Witcher 2 is a really good game, and is what popularized the series enough for Witcher 3 to be such a colossally known hit. The two companies make very different RPGs to one another, for sure, but you’re just being a contrarian if you think the pedigree of the two companies is vastly different.
Even if we ignore all the other bootlicking and fanboying in the above comment, this statement alone is completely absurd. FromSoftware has developed over 50 games and CDPR has…4? Maybe 10 if you count mobile trash? By the year 2000 FromSoftware had released more successful games than CDPR has released total, good or bad, to date.
It’s no wonder that cyberpunk is such a piece of garbage really when you realize every other game CDPR ever developed has “the witcher” somewhere in the title.
Cyberpunk is not at all a shit game, what are you even on about?
Can Cyberpunk even be considered an RPG? Lmao.
Why not? You have different builds and choices affect your ending and quest outcomes, what more do you want?
No, sadly I think the design is too new. Morrowind was 22 years ago. It is the direction I’d like to see them go again. A complex world that feels lived in, and actually gives players options to play how they want and figure things out for themselves. The newer boring “design for everyone” approach sucks. There’s no soul and nothing interesting.
FromSoft is somewhat notoriously old-school. Their game design has directly evolved from their older games. Look at King’s Field and then look at Dark Souls. There’s so much similarity. Yeah, ER is more cleaned up with a fuck-ton more money and technology available, but it’s essentially the same design.
Obviously Balder’s Gate 3 is just an evolution of classic RPG design, and it did very well. I’d argue CDPR also has taken classic RPG inspiration more than modern ones. A modern RPG design wouldn’t do half the stuff Cyberpunk did, because it’s not targeting everyone (and no one).
Modern AAA design doesn’t pick a target. Their target is everyone and everything, so they do nothing well. Classic design is knowing who your game is for and making a game for them and not anyone else. Bethesda is doing the former.
Judging by how Starfield turned out, will missing either of those games (which are almost certainly going to be using the same incredibly outdated engine) be much of a loss?
The engine isn’t why Starfield sucks. Sure, the constant loading isn’t great but it isn’t the reason there’s nothing fun or interesting to do. It’s also a solvable issue, but they haven’t made the investments they need in the engine.
Starfield is just soulless. The characters are boring, the stories aren’t interesting and don’t let the player choose fun options. The universe is static and nothing matters. There’s just no reason to be involved in the world, so there’s no reason to want to be in it.
They could fix this. I’d say the way they need to go to do so is to stop targeting literally every player. They need to figure out who they’re making the game for and target them. I’m a big sci-fi fan, and I like older Bethesda games. I should have been an easy target for Starfield, but I hated it, not because of the engine but because the stories, characters, and universe weren’t engaging. The engine is an easy target to complain about, but it isn’t what’s holding them back. Indie games can do more with worse engines.
The engine really isn’t suited for the kind of game Starfield wants to be, so it really works against it. But you’re right, even if it were a new shiny engine with the same writing and characters, it would still suck. Likewise, if it had the same creaky engine but actual good stories and characters the constant loading would be easier to overlook. It just has the worst of both worlds.
For those of us that miss the lore and story/atmosphere of this games, absolutely.
Don’t get me wrong, Starfield has made me truly worried about the next installment, and I truly believe that milking Skyrim has ultimately left Bethesda in a position where open world gaming just leapfrogged them. The likes of TOTK and Elden Ring have absolutely shattered what they can show to deliver in a supposedly improved generation.
All I can hope is that Bethesda really look at the feedback they received, and take the time to make the necessary changes to their engine. That alone might be enough to at least give a retro feel to the games. I’ll still eagerly await them, but my hopes for them being GOTY are long gone.
You’re not. I pirated it on release and was very glad I didn’t buy it.
Are we including Horse Armor here?
Bethesda literally invented shitty DLC
Still better than Horse Armor. So no, not Bethesda’s worst DLC.
There are 2 important words there that you’re missing.
Shattered Space is one of the Bethesda DLCs of all time.
At least horse armor was good for the memes. This is so bland no one even cares to meme about it.
deleted by creator
Welp, guess I can officially uninstall Starfield. Bummer.
Your storage drive will thank you.
I’m enjoying it.
Sometimes I wonder whether Starfield truly deserves all the bad publicity or whether people are also still upset because it became an Xbox exclusive and that is clouding their judgement. I know it does affect me for one. I got a ps5 for gaming and I’m automatically much less interested in anything that isn’t on the platform. And I was of course very disappointed when Microsoft outright bought all these huge IPs and made them exclusive to Xbox.
Having played it on games pass, which I was mostly paying for for other games I was enjoying at the time:
It’s quite literally the worst Bethesda game I’ve ever played. And yes, I’ve played Battlespire.
Honestly even the harsh reviews tend to go nicer on it than it deserves, imo
Well with an average in the 80s on metacritic one would assume it’s a very decent game. But user reviews tend to be a lot harsher indeed.
If you take any major gaming publications scores as at all legitimate then I have a bridge to sell you
Major publications give it a passable score because “lol glitches are Bethesdas thing”, ignoring objective critique because of reputation, as well as our of fear that they won’t be given access to the next product released by the or Microsoft because they give games “bad publicity”
Starfield is a broken, poorly written, dumpster fire of a game. It objectively doesn’t function correctly often, like many Bethesda products, and was designed by a team lead by a man allergic to basic game design ethos (seriously fuck Emil, my dog could do game design better than me "fuck design docs). It has moments of being interesting and, much like Skyrim, could be the base for some cool mods, but people hated it so much it won’t ever even get that
I was on Windows at the time and had GamePass, so I pleasantly had access included with what I was already paying for. I ended up pirating it so I could mod it (that is prevented on GamePass), because it needed mods.
No, it’s not negative because it’s MS owned. It’s a very bad game. I love older Bethesda games and I love sci-fi. This should have been an easy win for me. Wow, it was disappointing. The actual combat gameplay is fine, but everything between combat sucks. Too many loading screens taking you out of the gameplay.
The writing sucks. They make use of established sci-fi tropes, but then they don’t understand how to make them work in a story. They give you very few choices, often not including the most obvious ones.
Despite this being the “exploration” game, exploration is essentially non-existent. Every planet pretty much has the same stuff. There’s like five bases that spawn everywhere identically, and a handful of “natural” points-of-interest, which appear all over the planet identically, as well as being the same as every other planet with the same ones. You might see some benefit to explore if you’re building bases, but that system is incredibly clunky and frustrating to make operational. Even once you have things running, it’ll still require managing storages from overflowing and blocking incoming supplies. It’s really bad.
The universe is incredibly unreactive too. If you thought this was true for their previous games, it’s worse in Starfield. There’s no ships bringing supplies to colonies. No colonies being built that weren’t there at the start. No fighting between factions, besides pirates randomly and it’s the same random event that happens when you warp into a place, not something that happened because pirates are raiding a supply line or something. It just doesn’t change ever.
Basically, no. Starfield actually sucks. I really wanted to like it, but there’s nothing to like in my opinion. I’ve seen some people say they like it, but I honestly don’t get it. Every aspect seems like a downgrade from FO4, which had its own issues but had reasons to like it too.
I feel like starfield is an experiment in user driven content (mods) to sell a game. The issue with Skyrim is that there is really only one map, and before any map extension mod came out, there were so many mods out there that competed for space on the map. Even today, large world overhaul mods are constantly stepping on the toes of other mods. City redesigns are also a problem unless you’re really good at load orders and merging.
Starfield feels like each world is an open map, ready for people to start designing content: either a colony, a cave, or anything really. The story seems loose and open ended so that it won’t interfere with large collaborative content. It’s not a game they are selling, but a modding storefront. It’s like Skyrim Creations, but putting the horse (armor sold separately) before the cart.
Thanks for the review. Disappointing to be sure. I was hoping to play it at some point and that it wouldn’t suck as much as people say it does. Or that they would turn it around in time.
Still give a try, it’s not for everyone and it’s not to the same quality as their previous games but it’s honestly not a bad game. At worst I’d say it’s aggressively average. But I still have a great time with ship combat and exploration, the loading doesn’t bother me as much and people act like the quests and writing are BAD, They are not, it’s just not to the level of their previous games. But there are still a few quests I absolutely love.
I would say most of the writing is bad. There are a handful of interesting quests, but most aren’t. Then there’s things like the generation ship, which they don’t do anything interesting with, it uses the same technology as the modern ships, and also the quest path to end it is stupid. There’s also so many things that just don’t make sense in the universe it’s set in, and it’s overall just boring.
I agree overall the game is just aggressively average though. It plays fine enough, but it gives no reason to want to play it. It’s not actively painful to play, but it gives no feedback to make anything feel worth doing.
I really enjoyed the Ryujin quest line, the quest where the world was shifting, and there’s tons of great smaller quests and interactions, but I agree the generation ship was a big miss, the main quest flounders and flops hard about half way through and overall they didn’t do enough with universe building.
I was holding out hope that the modding scene would help support the game, because traditionally speaking Bethesda modders have done some incredibly amazing work on other titles. But no, alas, Starfield is such a fuckin’ trash fire that not even the modders are willing to put in the work to unfuck this heap of shit. Somebody might release a killer overhaul for it after they’ve had a couple more years to basically rewrite the entire engine, but frankly I don’t see anyone caring that much about this game to make it happen. I know of at least one guy who rather than getting involved in the mod scene, instead got on Steam and said fuck you, I’ll make my own fuckin’ Starfield, and started whipping up Spacebourne 2, and even this half-baked early access alpha jank has clear signs of being the seed of a better game than Starfield was. I’m sure that others have had similar ideas.
The UI and perk system is actively hostile to playing the game. It was one thing when you could always try to pick the lock in Skyrim and the more locks you picked the better you got. Now you must take the perk and it’s a requirement to pick locks before the next perk.
You cannot even craft or use core gameplay mechanics without perks. Booster pack? Perks. Targeting sub systems? Perk. (Which is hilarious because it’s in the tutorial mission and they just hard coded the event ship not to blow up. So until you visit the Internet you don’t actually know how to board other ships)
Out post building is ridiculously complex, resources take up a bajillion spaces in your inventories, there’s no guidance on production chains, and basic resources aren’t even on the same planet. So you’re back to just buying resources to get it off the ground and why are we even building an outpost again?
To be fair, the story, the fly here, shoot this, listen to story parts of the game are fine. But literally everything else around it is made as obtuse as possible because yes I want to go through a loading screen every time I need to access my main stash.
As some one said when it released. It’s Fallout 4 in space. But if all the ancillary stuff was made 100 percent more inconvenient.
I don’t think this means ES6 is doomed. Did anyone play the Civ space game? It was an offshoot one-off experiment that wasn’t really well recieved and they quietly moved on.
My guess is that this game pivoted during development and they ended up with something that didn’t really work and shouldn’t have shipped. The failure to find something good in this experiment may be isolated to this game.
The fact that they released it in the state they did could be more about their workflow and project pipeline/target milestones they need to hit than it is about their ability to execute.
The failure here is in design, ES6 has a tried and true design to follow.
I think ES6 will have the advantage that it won’t be a procedurally generated world, or at least I don’t hope so.
But it will probably still run on the shitty Bethesda engine that they cling onto for dear life for some reason.
I think it will never actually live up to the hype, expectations are so insanely high, and the longer it takes the higher these expectations rise it seems.
And I bet it will turn out to be another half-assed game that they hope modders will fix. Like the last bunch of games, they all require mods to be even remotely playable, but even mods can’t fix core issues.
My expectations for Bethesda dropped to bare minimum with everything that came after Skyrim.
Honestly, if anyone actually has high expectations for ES6 at this point, it’s totally on them.
Yeah they need to get rid of that cokehead.
Story and worldbuilding wise, ES6 has a very bleak future ahead. Emilio Pagliarulo, the de facto director of Starfield and lead writer, has shown that no hole is deep enough that he won’t dig it further down when it comes to lack of quality and consistency. Not that Skyrim’s main story was good, but it was certainly better than Starfield’s. There’s also the disturbing indifference of “the world” to everything happening around it. Literally nothing you do in Starfield affects anything outside its own storyline. Hell, shooting up in the air or using fucking space magic in the middle of a city generates no reaction from npcs if nobody is hit.
deleted by creator
Beyond Earth but I see your point, Civ has had several of these https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Civilization_(series)#Spinoffs
Point being that they can experiment and do something a little different, I don’t think that the quality of the spinoff indicates the quality of the main franchise.
I actually liked beyond earth 🥲
That sure didn’t stop the marketing department, as this game was being shoved in our faces left and right as if it was the end-all-be-all game we’d be playing with our grand children in 50 years.
My sister loves Beyond Earth; I still prefer Alpha Centauri.
What we wanted: Alpha Centauri 2
What we got: Civilisation in a $2 shop Halloween costume.
If ES6 is just a refreshed Skyrim I really see no reason to buy it. There are much more interesting RPGs than the Bethesda style nowadays.
Nah, the game matches pretty well with what Lyin’ Todd said he wanted to make almost 20 years ago
It’s also very clearly their usual design decisions but in a new setting
If anything the issue is that they stayed stuck in EXACTLY their usual development methods: no design document because Emil doesn’t like them, their writers make their quests too, and use an engine that’s absolutely not meant for the kind of game they’re making ON TOP of being ancient and garbage
The problem is Starfield isn’t a one off. It’s the latest in a line of progressively worse games. Every game they’ve released since Skyrim has been worse than the one that came before it.
Since Skyrim? I’d say their quality has been slowly declining since Morrowind. It wasn’t that noticeable at first, since oblivion, fallout 3, and Skyrim were still quite good and fallout 4 was decent. But then fallout 76 was a mess at release, TES blades was shit, and starfield just seems lazy.
Skyrim was at least an improvement over Oblivion. It showed they had the ability to recognize and fix the mistakes of Oblivion and still create an interesting world.
Cool Bethesda, just dump the Gamebryo source code off to us before you get liquidated by Shittersoft since you’re basically budgeted into making half-baked shit until you go bankrupt anyway.
They aimed at Far Harbor and arrived at The Pit, this was their chance, there’s not even random content since it’s all in the same planet, they just forgot they were doing a RPG and gave no meaningful choices, there are plenty of bad endings that just make you load a save lol.
I liked the pit…
I’ve given up on every major developer/publisher, so-called AAA garbage, except for capcom for monster hunter and square enix for final fantasy. I’ll be extra sad the day they too go the way of every other greedy lazy “AAA” game company…
At least indie devs care to make a good game and not try to make a money printing IP machine with some game like aspects in it.
deleted by creator
“AAAA” isn’t a thing. That was just Guillemot being an idiot and flailing on an investor call.
$70 is going to be the new normal price for AAA. Prices haven’t increased in decades. I don’t like it, but that’s what it is. It’s not AAAA because of the price, nor is that even a thing.
AAA comes from credit rating scores. It essentially means nearly guaranteed returns. It was used to identify games that need to be stocked for game stores. AAA is going to sell. AA is slightly less but still good. Etc. There is not AAAA credit rating. That was just stupid marketing buzzwords that don’t matter.
So Tears of the Kingdom was AAAA?
as a hige indi/small developer fan i see great times ahad. AAA will fail, clmpanys will close and developers will find new homes in smaller teams. by 2030 i predict a golden age for AA and and perhabs also a new golden age for indi.
oof ffxvi? the “rpg” which is just a action game. ff vii remakes are at least good.
I’m not a purist lol I enjoyed the hell out of FF16. I think 8 and 13 were the only ones I didn’t really care for
Nintendo’s games are still usually very good, even though their business practices suck ass.
Even Capcom I’m not preordering. If wilds is getting good reviews a couple days after launch I’ll get it. (Even though I’m pretty sure it will be a good game)
I feel like monster hunter is kinda hard to mess up, unless they suddenly decided to make it turn based with micro transactions for extra turns or something lol
The “story” is: omg big monster messing up the ecosystem, go fight! So it’s really all down to gameplay lol
Remember when Cyberpunk fucked up their release. They knew they fucked up and owed it to the gamers. They told their board and stockholders to hold off, and that they needed to rebuild trust with their users before they could make line go up.
So they took their time, they redid many of the mechanics that people didn’t like, the fixed all of the bugs, and then they released Phantom Liberty - one of the best expansions I have ever seen in gaming history. Good enough where it could have been a game on it’s own.
That is how you rebuild trust with the community. You tell your stockholders to shut the fuck up and let you do what you do best. If they don’t trust you to do that, then fuck em, they can sell their stock, why are they holding stock in a company they don’t trust?
On that note, how is Cyberpunk still 60 euros on Steam? I know it’s been getting better with the DLC and everything, but the game’s been out for ages.
That said, I might have to buy Phantom Liberty. I bought and finished the base game like 2 or 3 years ago I think and I really enjoyed it even back then.
It does go on sale from time to time. I picked it up on Xbox last year for 60% off if I recall correctly.
Personally I think it’s worth it, it’s one of the few games I happily would pay full price for again. They did a full redemption arc, their game is now up there as one of my favorites of all time, next to Witcher 3 and RDR2. I think they deserve my money. What I really think is that Cyberpunk deserves 60. How the fuck can Assassin’s Creed think that they’re on the same level (or higher) than that?
Post-2.0 Cyberpunk is one of the best gaming experiences I’ve had in a long time. You can tell it’s a product of effort, and love for the project. They have taken in a considerable amount of feedback from pre-1.5.
Meanwhile, Starfield is a complete miss in just about every way imaginable, and the expansion has followed through the same footsteps. On top of that, the studio actively gaslit people who expressed disapproval, even when it was constructive criticism.
I fully expect them to say it’s getting “review bombed” now, which is the current industry redefining of a term to make it come off as “It’s not us, it’s the stupid gamer’s fault”
It’s not a review bomb if it’s fully deserved. If you make a bad product, you deserve a bad review, and maybe Bethesda should have thought about that ahead of time
Did they fix the driving?
That was the one and only reason I gave up the game. It was amazing from the start, and then I got in a car and it was horrible, and I stopped.
I think they have changed the driving a bit in one of the earlier updates.
Saw it in one of the patch notes but havn’t played myself so I couldn’t tell you what’s different about it…
I never found that to be an issue, personally. It’s not as satisfying, as it is in other games, but i enjoyed it enough
Bad cars don’t have good maneuverability is you full press the speeding stick, I imagine that that stick is an acceleration pedal and only full press it when I don’t need to do sharp turns. I would say that cars feel maybe too real.
You playing with a controller? I always thought the driving was optimized for the controller as I can’t half press acceleration on a keyboard.
It’s a little bit better after the updates, but it’s still suboptimal I think.
Yeah, as most 1st person view games it’s just less taxing in my hands. I agree that not being to half accelerate would feel bad, you would start drifting all the time and that would suck for control. Try using W as an acceleration button, not a “forward” button. If you see that you need to take a turn stop accelerating for a while and then S before you start turning, like with a car.
I mean, it all hinged in the fact that under all those glitches and bugged mechanics CDPR still had a nice game. Starfield can’t be salvaged cuz the core game is just mediocre shit.
I wanna say it’s a failed IP at this point, but who knows how many copies sold. What is sure is it doesn’t deserve any more of my time. I have the DLC but won’t reinstall that garbage
It certainly sold a lot. Bethesda once claimed to have over 10 million players across all platforms. Even if we assume half of those were using gamepass, that’s still 5 million sales.
Of course, if you compare it to Fallout 4’s first 6 months, with reported 12 million sales on day-one, that’s a significant letdown.
Starfield is a very real “could have been”, if only
[huge list of changes]happened.I might need to revisit cyberpunk, I didn’t know an expansion was ever released. I kind of hit max level doing mostly side quests within 4 months of launch and lost interest.
It’s pretty legit. It stands on it’s own, and they also improved the base game quite a bit. I’d suggest it for sure
I was having fun, despite the flaws at launch. I’m sure with improvements and more content it’ll be a great one to revisit.
Phantom Liberty is a great expansion in its own right, combined with the 2.0 changes just made the entire experience better.
Oh trust me, I had a decent time playing it. I played through it 100%, did all the side stuff, did the base building - everything. But, I still felt annoyed and bored a good chunk of the time. The game was fine. But it was only fine. I wouldn’t say it was revolutionary or anything Bethesda said, it was just… fine.
I’m waiting for the ultimate edition that will include everything here
It’s REALLY good.
basically the major points of change was launch, then cyberpunk edgerunners clothing dlc patch (1.0 but bigs fixed). 2.0 rewrote some of the games mechanics that dropped before the expansion. and then the expansion was released (which added new endings)
They changed a lot, but in a good way. I had also spent a while away from the game and came back recently for the expansion. It’s really good.
I would suggest starting a new character from scratch if you pick up the DLC. You’ll really appreciate the new changes to cyberwear that way.
I would definitely need a new character, nothing worse than picking up an old save and having zero clue about what’s going on in game. I think I’ll put that on my list, I really did enjoy the game at the time I played it, and I definitely got 100 hours playtime from it.
I’ve had it sitting in my library, maybe it’s finally time to play it. Which is the better voice actor to pick, dude or chick?
I prefer the male voice but the female voice is more emotive. Plus the female avatar gets a nice story with Judy.
I’m the opposite. I prefer the fem VA, but I like Panam just a bit more than Judy.
Cyberpunk was buggy, unoptimized, and kind of unfinished, but the fundamental game design was sound.
Starfield on the other hand is broken at its core. The Bethesda RPG experience just does not translate to the open worlds space map they built the game on. So they can’t take the cyberpunk approach because they’d have to build an entirely different game from scratch.
I don’t know why anyone decided that that engine was the right way to go. The number one thing that killed the game for me was the endless loading screens. Constantly. Whenever I started feeling immersed, a new loading screen would pop up and it ruined it for me. We have engines left and right that don’t need to do this anymore, but starfield, the game that’s trying to base itself to be a realistic exploration game, decided that endless loading screens were still the best way to go
even without the loading screens it would still be terrible. get a quest, go to your ship, take off, travel to other system, land, exit your ship, walk to destination, reverse all that to turn the quest in, rinse and repeat. it’s just a tedious experience.
the best part of Bethesda games is just being able to wander around aimlessly in a pretty environment, likely stumbling upon little easter eggs or side quests along the way. none of that exists in Starfield.
Reading it like that, the loop sounds straight off Diablo 1 on PSX. Get quests, head to the dungeon, loading screen, wipe the floor, loading screen, wipe next floor, back to town, loading screen, turn in.
That kind of loop is not bad in itself, but Bethesda applied it to the wrong type of game.
You just described mass effect
That was one of the things that really helped with the immersion for me in Witcher 3 and even Cyberpunk. You walk into a building, house, etc and the world outside just continued and was present. I’m still quite impressed with their engine and it is a bit sad that they’ll be switching to UE5 for the next Witcher.
I know! Red engine honestly is pretty great once they got the bugs worked out, I’m sad they’re leaving it. It was extremely immersive, and there’s definitely something about it that feels different.
Red engine was hitting its limits.
UE allows them to focus on gameplay and contents over building the core engine.
Think about cyberpunk? The engine was fine (if unoptimized) but the gameplay and contents were missing.
UE will allow them to focus on their missing skillset
Given the amount of the playable game that takes place on foot, they should have called it Field
Same with No Man’s Sky. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but they buckled down and delivered on almost every promise that they failed on back at release. Not only that but every update since the game came out has been for free. Both No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk are fantastic games, and they were garbage on release. Bethesda has been doing the opposite approach and avoiding feedback from fans since Skyrim came out the first time.
Saying NMS delivered is pure copium. It has become a great game in it’s own right but it’s not the game we bought into at launch and never will be.
I’ve never played it, so I wouldn’t know. I’m just going off friends that play it and reputation.
Oh god, so there is absolutely nothing they can ever do to make up for it, I guess. Even after like 10+ MAJOR updates and expansions over 6+ years for free, they can’t possibly ever do enough for some people, I guess.
Huh? Why not? Genuine question, I never bought in at launch
At launch, for me at least, it was a cool lonely scramble to survive.
Now it’s a multiplayer game with a bunch of super easy shortcuts all over the place, even outside of the multiplayer. I enjoy playing with my friends, but the solo experience is definitely worse now.
Thats not really an answer to their question, though.
Also I disagree :)
I’m sorry if you think I didn’t give an answer. Because I did.
Wow, looks like someone’s got a a case of the muhndays!
You answered a question with a good answer, just not to the question they aske. They asked about the comment - “it’s not the game we bought into at launch”. They were talking about how a lot of people complained that what the game was at launch wasn’t what had been advertised - what people “bought into”.
You seem to be explaining why it’s “not the game you bought at launch” - which is definitely a valid argument too, just to something else.
I never figured a reason to even bother with multiplayer in NMS, except maybe to speed up base building. The only real challenge of the game is surviving the first hour, even on hardcore/permadeath.
Yeah, I have the permadeath achievement. Once you get off the first planet you’re fine.
It used to be harder for a lot longer. Now you can just teleport anywhere you want at anytime.
I didn’t play it at the time because of the bugs, but from what I saw the good parts of Cyberpunk were already present. Stuff like storytelling, interesting characters etc.
Starfield has none of that.
I just finished playing it for the first time and I was blown away right from the start! Guess I’m glad I waited for the polish, but the world design, voice acting and overall storyline was absolutely fantastic. I couldn’t help feel bad for all the artists that clearly put a lot of love in to the world only to be overshadowed by bugs and poor implementation.
… And still could bit fix that some keys are hardcoded. But I agree, with expansion the game was quite enjoyable.
I’m still mad the monowire doesn’t work how it was said it would and that the cops can’t be bribed and shit like that. It’s a great game now and a lot of fun to play but I won’t ever trust another game company again like I did with them after they made witcher 3.
The difference is, there is no fixing Starfield, it is rotten to the core. You would have to re-do most of the story elements and writing, and the disjointed, empty world. On top of that you’d have to fix the bugs and technical limitations like the constant loading screens. At this point you would be throwing out most of the game and basically starting from scratch with a few systems done, like the ship building and possibly gunplay.
I think cyberpunk never became what many wanted, but if you let go of your expectations, it is a good game.
I dislike the narrative that something is “unfixable”, everything is fixable if there is a will to do so.
I don’t know why game developers seem to have inhibitions of changing the game too much after release. For instance reworking and extending the main story in a game seems to be a big red line for them.
For instance I would have wished in Cyberpunk 2077 to actually play Vs introduction into Night City and the individual fixers myself, instead of just watching a cut scene. A DLC could have extended the start of the game a bit.
The same for Starfield, they could extend and improve the main story, characters and locations in an update, but seem hesitant to do so. Something like directors cut, that adds cut content as well as tons of side quests into the game.
If people still want to play the original game, they can make the extended story optional, like sleecting what version you want to play at the game start.
For bugs, they could work together with the community and the “unofficial patch” and engine fixer modders, instead just ignoring them. In Skyrim SSE for instance they still had many of the same bugs that Oldrim had and where fixed by thr community.
Bethesda could improve, and even fix their games, if they would decide to do so. Their DLC just doesn’t seem to be worth what they ask for, it could have been just part of a free update, so that some more people buy the base game.
I don’t think they can.
I have a strong suspicion that truly talented writers who are able to build memorable stories in great worlds are few and far between, and those that are willing to work in the games industry of today are as rare as hen’s teeth. Most companies, including Bethesda, simply don’t have the talent at hand to fix their mess, or there wouldn’t be a mess in the first place. The truth is probably somewhere between this, and the ol’ “eh, good enough”.
I just ment you’d have to cut so much that at that point it would basically be a new game. I’m thinking a bit more from the dev point of view. Like an old rusted-to-hell car, everything is fixable. The question is cost: if you have to replace or re-fabricate every piece than you’re better off starting from scratch.
I’m the case of Starfield, changing the core story, characters, missions, and theme is basically the same as replacing the entire car body.
Funny thing is that shipbuilding also felt annoying to me. There were so many arbitrary restrictions that I felt like I couldn’t actually make the ship I wanted, it always felt the same
Glad I didn’t buy the DLC and decided I’ll wait for some sort of definitive edition to play Starfield again. I hope by that point it will be a better overall game and have enough new things to make it worth the time.
I am really enjoying this downfall of Bethesda, Blizzard, Ubisoft and EA, more than I enjoyed anything they published in half a decade. I wish death also to Gearbox. It’s coming and after Randy bought and promptly ruined RoR2, my schadenfreude is tingling.
I would have enjoyed it a lot more if they had kept making good games!