STARFIELD discussion

[method115]

What Im looking forward to as much as anything else is the negative reviews by people with hundreds or even thousands of hours of playtime.

Probably my favorite thing about Steam. "I have 1500 hours in this game. Let me tell you why I don't recommend it."

 

[Bob Gray]

Probably my favorite thing about Steam. "I have 1500 hours in this game. Let me tell you why I don't recommend it."

Right. It's hilarious how little self awareness people can have.

 

[TeTe]

Right. It's hilarious how little self awareness people can have.

People love their hot takes

 

[MusterX]

Can't make everyone happy. A lot of people hated fallout 4... But after putting in 500 hours into it, it's a top 5 favorite game for me.

Bethesda receives a lot of complaints and haters but if I'm honest they are one of my favorite game companies of all time. Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Wolfenstein, and they even bought ID Software out of Texas that makes Doom. I would suspect I'm going to play Starfield as well.

 

[Bob Gray]

Bethesda receives a lot of complaints and haters but if I'm honest they are one of my favorite game companies of all time. Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Wolfenstein, and they even bought ID Software out of Texas that makes Doom. I would suspect I'm going to play Starfield as well.

I'm pretty much same boat. Bethesda makes a specific type of game, that also tends to have specific types of flaws. They make giant-ass huge sandboxes and give you the tools to play it how you want. But its more than that, their world building is second to absolutely none. The craftsmanship that goes into the worlds they create is one of the reasons they tend to have these little niggling issues elsewhere. Theres only so much time and effort you can put in to any feature, and for them building the world is the absolute priority bar none. Everything is else is support for that particular ideal in a sandbox setting. The combat? Never great, usually ok. Theres tons of these little things everywhere that seem a bit "off". I remember playing Skyrim and the introduction is amazing, and then watching NPCs walk up steps is weird and stands out like a sore thumb. Shit like that happens all the time, because the world is so gigantic and fully realized, but its still just a game there isnt time to make every little thing perfect, so they concentrate on the big things.

Their writing, quests and characterization is some of the most bi-polared you can find. They can have extreme lows like "I am SWORN to carry your burdens", "arrow to the knee", etc. But then they can have an incredible questline like the Dark Brotherhood from Skyrim which is practically a game unto itself, and as a questline I'd put it up against any other RPG questline, including amazing stuff like the Bloody Baron from Witcher 3. Yes, its THAT good. But then some of their other fluff quests are really bad.

All this means they arent without flaws, but their highs can be a special kind of thing that other companies just don't reach. There's so many times in the Elder Scrolls games, and even Fallouts, that I can turn a corner or find an area that just fills me with wonder. It feels like you've discovered something. Other games dont give me the same feeling.

I remember seeing this for the first time.

I was about to go to bed and just wanted to play for a few minutes before hitting the sack. Then that happened and I was up until like 3:00 am. The whole thing was so fully realized and captivating, I forgot all about the annoying side characters I had to go through to get here. All this was enhanced by the world they had created in game. Reading the lore gives the world and your place in it layers that other levels and areas in other games just dont have.

If you're playing a Bethesda game and complaining about smaller issues, I think you're missing the point of the game experiences they create. It doesn't make you wrong, your criticism is likely pretty valid in some way. But it's sort of second to whether or not the game accomplishes what it set out to do.

 

[Iactus Inferus]

I really want to be excited about this, but the gameplay was really underwhelming to me. Where is the new stuff? It will have base building, factions, Bethesda's trademark janky combat, lots of customization options... I guess the space combat is new, but it didn't really look like much. I feel like I have already played this game.

These days, imo, a lot of devs have caught up to Bethesda's RPGs and do a lot of things better. Witcher had better immersion in its world design and had better side quests, Elden Ring has better combat and the Dark Souls series matches Elder Scrolls in how interesting the lore is (albeit it was delivered to the player much differently), there's a host of sci-fi games already that have in-depth customization options for ship building. Hell, even Cyberpunk 2077 was better than Fallout 4. So, where do they excel at now? Especially when, on the surface, this just looks like Fallout and No Man's Sky mashed together? I just don't get the hype.

 

[MusterX]

I'm pretty much same boat. Bethesda makes a specific type of game, that also tends to have specific types of flaws. They make giant-ass huge sandboxes and give you the tools to play it how you want. But its more than that, their world building is second to absolutely none. The craftsmanship that goes into the worlds they create is one of the reasons they tend to have these little niggling issues elsewhere. Theres only so much time and effort you can put in to any feature, and for them building the world is the absolute priority bar none. Everything is else is support for that particular ideal in a sandbox setting. The combat? Never great, usually ok. Theres tons of these little things everywhere that seem a bit "off". I remember playing Skyrim and the introduction is amazing, and then watching NPCs walk up steps is weird and stands out like a sore thumb. Shit like that happens all the time, because the world is so gigantic and fully realized, but its still just a game there isnt time to make every little thing perfect, so they concentrate on the big things.

Their writing, quests and characterization is some of the most bi-polared you can find. They can have extreme lows like "I am SWORN to carry your burdens", "arrow to the knee", etc. But then they can have an incredible questline like the Dark Brotherhood from Skyrim which is practically a game unto itself, and as a questline I'd put it up against any other RPG questline, including amazing stuff like the Bloody Baron from Witcher 3. Yes, its THAT good. But then some of their other fluff quests are really bad.

All this means they arent without flaws, but their highs can be a special kind of thing that other companies just don't reach. There's so many times in the Elder Scrolls games, and even Fallouts, that I can turn a corner or find an area that just fills me with wonder. It feels like you've discovered something. Other games dont give me the same feeling.

I remember seeing this for the first time.

I was about to go to bed and just wanted to play for a few minutes before hitting the sack. Then that happened and I was up until like 3:00 am. The whole thing was so fully realized and captivating, I forgot all about the annoying side characters I had to go through to get here. All this was enhanced by the world they had created in game. Reading the lore gives the world and your place in it layers that other levels and areas in other games just dont have.

If you're playing a Bethesda game and complaining about smaller issues, I think you're missing the point of the game experiences they create. It doesn't make you wrong, your criticism is likely pretty valid in some way. But it's sort of second to whether or not the game accomplishes what it set out to do.

I pretty much agree on all counts. People are worried their Creation Engine is falling behind in terms of its graphics and capabilities but I felt the Starfield reveal looked pretty solid. Maybe by the time they make Fallout 5 it will be made in Unreal Engine 5 or something similar.

 

[method115]

I really want to be excited about this, but the gameplay was really underwhelming to me. Where is the new stuff? It will have base building, factions, Bethesda's trademark janky combat, lots of customization options... I guess the space combat is new, but it didn't really look like much. I feel like I have already played this game.

These days, imo, a lot of devs have caught up to Bethesda's RPGs and do a lot of things better. Witcher had better immersion in its world design and had better side quests, Elden Ring has better combat and the Dark Souls series matches Elder Scrolls in how interesting the lore is (albeit it was delivered to the player much differently), there's a host of sci-fi games already that have in-depth customization options for ship building. Hell, even Cyberpunk 2077 was better than Fallout 4. So, where do they excel at now? Especially when, on the surface, this just looks like Fallout and No Man's Sky mashed together? I just don't get the hype.

I like these types of games so I do plan on getting it but I'm certainly not all hyped up for it. Bethesda has just never really made a game that blew me away. They make good games that I enjoy but that's all I really need.

 

[MusterX]

Hell, even Cyberpunk 2077 was better than Fallout 4. So, where do they excel at now? Especially when, on the surface, this just looks like Fallout and No Man's Sky mashed together? I just don't get the hype.

Keep Fallout 4's name out yo fuckin mouth.

Fallout 4 was released in 2015, which means they started making it probably in 2010. Of course a company like CDPR's Cyberpunk is going to look better or be "improved" over older titles such as Fallout 4. Its not really a fair comparison. And honestly we don't know if Starfield is great or a bust yet. The hype comes from expecting something great from a company that has proven they can world build with the best of them.

 

[Iactus Inferus]

Keep Fallout 4's name out yo fuckin mouth.

Fallout 4 was released in 2015, which means they started making it probably in 2010. Of course a company like CDPR's Cyberpunk is going to look better or be "improved" over older titles such as Fallout 4. Its not really a fair comparison.

lmao calm down boy. It's easy and not at all unfair to compare titles with differences in time. Smash Melee is still considered the superior title in its respective series and Ultimate was released 17 years later. Dark Souls 1 is still considered by most to be the best in its respective series and DS3 came out five years later. Planescape: Torment was basically the metric most Isometric RPGs were compared to until Disco Elysium. Fallout: New Vegas is still considered by many to be the best Fallout game and it came out in 2010. Mother 3 and Chrono Trigger are still used as benchmarks for what makes a good JRPG. Comparing games across time is not only fair, it's common and essential to understanding the mechanics of what makes a game good. Plus it's five years, I'm not comparing the original Wolfenstein to Halo's gunplay here. Also, when I play games the graphics are the least of my worries. Cyberpunk having a fresher coat of paint than Fallout did not effect my feelings towards either game.

And honestly we don't know if Starfield is great or a bust yet. The hype comes from expecting something great from a company that has proven they can world build with the best of them.

My lack of hype has nothing to do with Bethesda's worldbuilding abilities.

 

[MusterX]

lmao calm down boy. It's easy and not at all unfair to compare titles with differences in time. Smash Melee is still considered the superior title in its respective series and Ultimate was released 17 years later. Dark Souls 1 is still considered by most to be the best in its respective series and DS3 came out five years later. Planescape: Torment was basically the metric most Isometric RPGs were compared to until Disco Elysium. Fallout: New Vegas is still considered by many to be the best Fallout game and it came out in 2010. Mother 3 and Chrono Trigger are still used as benchmarks for what makes a good JRPG. Comparing games across time is not only fair, it's common and essential to understanding the mechanics of what makes a game good. Plus it's five years, I'm not comparing the original Wolfenstein to Halo's gunplay here. Also, when I play games the graphics are the least of my worries. Cyberpunk having a fresher coat of paint than Fallout did not effect my feelings towards either game.



My lack of hype has nothing to do with Bethesda's worldbuilding abilities.

Which is it man, you want something old or something new. You are all over the board here. First you complain about Starfield, "where is the new", then proceed to give examples of how the old is better than the new. And BTW, Fallout 3 is not the best Fallout game. I know its subjective but Fallout 3 was panned when it released and only later gained a cult following of "Fallout purists." Its seems like at its core what you really have a problem with is Bethesda.

 

[Iactus Inferus]

Which is it man, you want something old or something new. You are all over the board here. First you complain about Starfield, "where is the new", then proceed to give examples of how the old is better than the new.

I'm not all over the board at all, just read the words I wrote and digest them. You said it is unfair to compare games with a five year gap in time. I disagreed and gave examples to back my point. None of that had anything to do with my original point of there (seemingly) being nothing new in Starfield, it was a rebuttal to your point. The games I listed are used as benchmarks to show what works in a particular genre, I'm not saying all games in those genres have to be based off of one game. It is a foundation to build off of or can be an expectation a developer wants to push against. Both of those scenarios lead to new things being done.

And BTW, Fallout 3 is not the best Fallout game. I know its subjective but Fallout 3 was panned when it released and only later gained a cult following of "Fallout purists." Its seems like at its core what you really have a problem with is Bethesda.

Well it's a good thing I said Fallout: New Vegas then. Again, read what I wrote. Digest the words. You're arguing against a point I didn't even make here lol.

 

[MusterX]

I'm not all over the board at all, just read the words I wrote and digest them. You said it is unfair to compare games with a five year gap in time. I disagreed and gave examples to back my point. None of that had anything to do with my original point of there (seemingly) being nothing new in Starfield, it was a rebuttal to your point. The games I listed are used as benchmarks to show what works in a particular genre, I'm not saying all games in those genres have to be based off of one game. It is a foundation to build off of or can be an expectation a developer wants to push against. Both of those scenarios lead to new things being done.



Well it's a good thing I said Fallout: New Vegas then. Again, read what I wrote. Digest the words. You're arguing against a point I didn't even make here lol.

Sorry, I was having a hard time taking your Boomer ass seriously when you started referencing games that are 10-25 years old like DS1 and Chrono Trigger. We don't know how Starfield is going to play out, its 90% conjecture at this point.

 

[Bob Gray]

I really want to be excited about this, but the gameplay was really underwhelming to me. Where is the new stuff? It will have base building, factions, Bethesda's trademark janky combat, lots of customization options... I guess the space combat is new, but it didn't really look like much. I feel like I have already played this game.

These days, imo, a lot of devs have caught up to Bethesda's RPGs and do a lot of things better. Witcher had better immersion in its world design and had better side quests, Elden Ring has better combat and the Dark Souls series matches Elder Scrolls in how interesting the lore is (albeit it was delivered to the player much differently), there's a host of sci-fi games already that have in-depth customization options for ship building. Hell, even Cyberpunk 2077 was better than Fallout 4. So, where do they excel at now? Especially when, on the surface, this just looks like Fallout and No Man's Sky mashed together? I just don't get the hype.

Couldnt disagree more about Witcher 3 having more immersion. If anything, that was one of it's flaws imo. Their characters and cities were top notch. Overall writing was consistently good, but the world pulling it all together just felt like a big map with all sorts of icons to clear. I never once really felt a desire in W3 to just go out in a random direction and see what happens. You always had something to do, and it usually something pretty fun. But that sandbox feel wasn't there at all. I always felt like I was being lead somewhere. That's not necessarily bad, but it's a very different experience.

 

[Bob Gray]

lmao calm down boy. It's easy and not at all unfair to compare titles with differences in time. Smash Melee is still considered the superior title in its respective series and Ultimate was released 17 years later. Dark Souls 1 is still considered by most to be the best in its respective series and DS3 came out five years later. Planescape: Torment was basically the metric most Isometric RPGs were compared to until Disco Elysium. Fallout: New Vegas is still considered by many to be the best Fallout game and it came out in 2010. Mother 3 and Chrono Trigger are still used as benchmarks for what makes a good JRPG. Comparing games across time is not only fair, it's common and essential to understanding the mechanics of what makes a game good. Plus it's five years, I'm not comparing the original Wolfenstein to Halo's gunplay here. Also, when I play games the graphics are the least of my worries. Cyberpunk having a fresher coat of paint than Fallout did not effect my feelings towards either game.



My lack of hype has nothing to do with Bethesda's worldbuilding abilities.

Havent played all of those, but think about what made games like New Vegas, Planescape and more recently Disco Elysium great. It wasnt that they blew you away with some new game mechanics. They didnt blow the doors off with some new engine capability. None of the mechanics of any of those games was particularly original. It was all in how they gave it to you.

Even Disco Elysium, which is fantastic and has some incredibly original interpretations of these mechanics, is still basically a point and click adventure game.

The thing is, generally speaking nobody's favorite games did something completely original or new. It's all in how they presented it to you. Think of every classic game and its almost always in some ways a re-iteration of the mechanics of previous games. Even New Vegas didnt really do anything differently than Fallout 3, people just think they did it better.

Doom? Nowadays people could just say "Oh, a reskinned Wolfenstein? Looks like a mod".

Any classic RTS game? "Oh, still gathering resources? Tech trees?"

Something like Prey was a goddamn masterpiece, but if someone wanted to be dismissive they could just say "Oh, this was great when I played it before. When it called Bioshock".

Any survival horror game? "Oh, more large shadowy rooms and the occasional monster to break the atmosphere of tension BORING". Callisto Protocol literally looks like a Dead Space remake, but people are completely happy with that.

Party based RPG? "More experience. More gaining levels. More classes"

In the words of the Barenacked Ladies, it's all been done. All of it. Theres rarely anything new under the sun when it comes to these games except the packaging. But, more importantly, when people look at their favorite games, just like when they look at their favorite movie, they rarely break any molds. But they put it all together in a fantastic way.

 

[mixmastermo]

Havent played all of those, but think about what made games like New Vegas, Planescape and more recently Disco Elysium great. It wasnt that they blew you away with some new game mechanics. They didnt blow the doors off with some new engine capability. None of the mechanics of any of those games was particularly original. It was all in how they gave it to you.

Even Disco Elysium, which is fantastic and has some incredibly original interpretations of these mechanics, is still basically a point and click adventure game.

The thing is, generally speaking nobody's favorite games did something completely original or new. It's all in how they presented it to you. Think of every classic game and its almost always in some ways a re-iteration of the mechanics of previous games. Even New Vegas didnt really do anything differently than Fallout 3, people just think they did it better.

Doom? Nowadays people could just say "Oh, a reskinned Wolfenstein? Looks like a mod".

Any classic RTS game? "Oh, still gathering resources? Tech trees?"

Something like Prey was a goddamn masterpiece, but if someone wanted to be dismissive they could just say "Oh, this was great when I played it before. When it called Bioshock".

Any survival horror game? "Oh, more large shadowy rooms and the occasional monster to break the atmosphere of tension BORING". Callisto Protocol literally looks like a Dead Space remake, but people are completely happy with that.

Party based RPG? "More experience. More gaining levels. More classes"

In the words of the Barenacked Ladies, it's all been done. All of it. Theres rarely anything new under the sun when it comes to these games except the packaging. But, more importantly, when people look at their favorite games, just like when they look at their favorite movie, they rarely break any molds. But they put it all together in a fantastic way.

I dunno man..

This was revolutionary

 

[MusterX]

Any survival horror game? "Oh, more large shadowy rooms and the occasional monster to break the atmosphere of tension BORING"

Just as a side note, obviously Resident Evil really broke the mold for survival horror and influenced multiple generations of games, some of which were pretty damn good. I feel The Evil Within is a good example, especially the second game.

In the words of the Barenacked Ladies, it's all been done. All of it. Theres rarely anything new under the sun when it comes to these games except the packaging. But, more importantly, when people look at their favorite games, just like when they look at their favorite movie, they rarely break any molds. But they put it all together in a fantastic way.

The key for any writing or creation, since there are no new stories, has always been "make it your own." Its probably one of the most used phrases about writing only second to "show don't tell" and that is the key to great video games as well. Its not necessarily if something new was created, but how well did you present whatever it is you are presenting and I think Bethesda is great at making things their own. Fantasy worlds and books have existed for centuries but Bethesda created Elder Scrolls with their own spins and narratives. It seems obvious to just say make it your own, just cliche undergraduate English 101 but that is the trick, that's the rub.

 

[Bob Gray]

I dunno man..

This was revolutionary

Definitely cant argue with that.

 

[Dizzy]

Just as a side note, obviously Resident Evil really broke the mold for survival horror and influenced multiple generations of games, some of which were pretty damn good. I feel The Evil Within is a good example, especially the second game.

The key for any writing or creation, since there are no new stories, has always been "make it your own." Its probably one of the most used phrases about writing only second to "show don't tell" and that is the key to great video games as well. Its not necessarily if something new was created, but how well did you present whatever it is you are presenting and I think Bethesda is great at making things their own. Fantasy worlds and books have existed for centuries but Bethesda created Elder Scrolls with their own spins and narratives. It seems obvious to just say make it your own, just cliche undergraduate English 101 but that is the trick, that's the rub.

Evil Within was created by Shinji Mikami. The creator of Resident Evil so that pry has something to do with it.

 

[MusterX]

Evil Within was created by Shinji Mikami. The creator of Resident Evil so that pry has something to do with it.

Yea I actually didn't even know that. I just know I felt they were well worth a playthrough or two. I would definitely play 3 if they made another.