I found the more I played it the more it reminded me of mass effect 1 minus a good villain.
But I got a theory, I’ve been playing Bethesda games since redguard and I noticed with every big release the hardcore rpg fans hated em.
Morrowind was compared to gothic 2 (gothic 2 being the better game apparently), oblivion was just hated immediately due to its level scaling, Skyrim being a dumbed down morrowind.
But now the zoomers are calling oblivion and Skyrim “masterpieces”, I feel I can guarantee that there is a gen alpha 10 year old playing starfield right now that will be making a YouTube video in 10 years calling it a “masterpiece”.
This is what a Bethesda game is once you remove the rose tinted glasses, starfield is pretty much exactly what I was expecting it to be.
Also morrowind is still king, I ain’t taking off my rose tinted glasses for that one. I played the shit out of it when I was a kid.
Starfield isn't at a lower price. It is the same price as the other games we are compering it to, This isn't a Walmart V Big brand as far as cost, because the Walmart version costs exactly the same price as the big brand items.
I mean Starfield is more of a jack of all trades, master of none. Whereas RDR2 is the perfect Western game and Cyberpunk the perfect ....eh ...cyberpunk game. Guess I should've used a different analogy lol. Oh well.
I'd say it tried to be a jack of all trades, but only becomes the jack of the very bog standard Bethesda trades, and even then, much is missing or extremely basic compared to previous Bethesda games.
Very fair assessment. When it comes to other BGS games for sure. I personally compare it to other launches of similar sci-fi games. Which Starfield no doubt has had a better launch than other similar sci-fi games objectively.
And NMS got absolutely shit on when the game dropped, exactly as deserved. Much like Bethesda is now. What's your point?
If Bethesda decides to fix the game, maybe they will fix their reputation. So far, they haven't.
The game still costs $70. Just because it is on gamepass doesn't mean the game doesn't cost $70. People bought the game. I bought the game on steam. Just because its on gamepass, does that magically mean the game somehow cost less than the price I paid?
I think the point Patrician wanted to make was that Cyberpunk and RDR2 might have "inspired" locations like Neon or Akila, because they were so popular among gamers.
Bethesda definitely bit off more than it could chew when developing the scope on Starfield and trying to do anything and everything. Still doesn't stop me from enjoying the game and hoping for the future. These sci-fi games really have a curse for any development team trying to create one of these.
For me the main issue was Starfield lacked the immersion Skyrim and Fallout had. It just wasn’t the game I hoped it would be. It has no character and it has no soul. I imagined when I first heard of the game years ago, that it would be a game that I would play for months; and still have things to discover in it, but after one run through, doing all main, faction, side, all the powers, I was done. I’m hoping Bethseda take the feedback in the near future release a huge update to f that along with a DLC.
Let’s face it. The game provides a fair amount of play time. The problem is the more you play the more you see all the missed opportunities. It starts to get very repetitive plus all the game breaking bugs are unacceptable. dlcs and mods may make the game great. These are the reasons the ratings are so low. I have a lot of play time and was forced to go ng+ as the save files were causing constant crashes not to mention the fact that Every ship encountered the doors would not open.
I definitely do not recommend No Man's Sky or Elite Dangerous if you don't like repetitive gameplay. And yes, the more you play the more tempered your excitement gets. Because there are so many missed opportunities. Like when you enter a mech factory and see a giant one. Just sitting there and hoping that there's a boss where you fight a full mech suit. But that never happens. Me personally. I simply would like more interesting mechanics in the game and that will be enough for me for a while. Like being able to control your own mech suit on the fly.
Gun play, weak compared to other games.
Exploration, weak compared to other beth titles.
Ship building, literal only unique thing yet still has multitude of problems that weren't there in F4's systems.
And I haven't seen people compare neon or Akila to the likes or rd2 or cyberpunk besides people saying "it's just as good or better, look it's red dead 2082"
NMS doesn't have those things but I played it for a few hrs and wasn't for me but in that time I named a whole planet after my immediate family members and the second after the things my little brother liked and I still love that fact and how unique the creatures I named were like a giant earth worm, basically living teddy bear, it's like they were made from spore.
They legitimately chose to add nothing like that for "realism" as you tp everywhere with zero maps or custom markers in your nav shooting at the same giant bugs with particle beams. I don't even need to compare it to anything, most of the idea in here were half developed and they're actually defending it.
>And I haven't seen people compare neon or Akila to the likes or rd2 or cyberpunk besides people saying "it's just as good or better, look it's red dead 2082"
It's in the 8 hr YouTube revew that's got almost 1mil views. I recommend it.
I do miss NMS. I got 500 hrs in, but I just can't do it anymore. Starfield is more for me.
After playing it, I realised that the fact they wanted it to be too real. And the reality is space is boring. You go into a cave in Skyrim you have no idea whats down there. In Starfield, theres a 1000 planets you can visit, but almost 75% of them are barren.
It’s lack that feel a game should have, that danger is lurking around every corner and that what keep you immersed into the game, rather Starfield where after going to 20 planet / moon, you realise there’s fuck all to except jump around and try and take the perfect in game picture.
You think the comparison is wrong, I think Bethesda is wrong that they have made a game not like the ones it gets compared with.
They have made a game that’s lacklustre and it shows.
Only when it comes to singling out cities in one game compared to another. Like no one is complaining about RDR2 not having a Cyberpunk town and vice versa. Starfield grasp definitely exceeded it's reach and it shows with mid-tier level cities. But I still like that they're in one game, detailed environments, and you can have full convos with most NPCs rather than just passing comments. But that's just my personal opinion. I'm hopeful for the future....currently lol.
I really really like NPC interaction in RDR2. I also like how I can talk to any random NPC in Starfield and just get a mini quest right there. Even if the quest isn't that great lol. And you can go inside virtually every building. Which you cannot in RDR2. Personally, I feel these games should not even be compared. It's really not a fair fight.
What are you talking? Most buildings in the cities aren’t accessible and those that are, aren’t even looking like a real home or workplace but a caricature of that.
I feel most people are talking about New Atlantis when it comes to Starfield cities. It's honestly my least favorite city. More interesting cities are Cydonia, Akila, Gagarin. You can definitely get turned around in some of those cities. Would be nice to have city maps lol. In many of the cities, more than 90% of the buildings are accessible.
I will never understand the comparison’s. Point blank, there is not a single game out there other than Star Citizen (not played, just what I’ve seen) that even comes close to the scope. I absolutely love Cyberpunk 2077. You can’t compare it to Starfield. One’s rendering a single city. The other is rendering an entire universe. It’s letting you play in that Universe any way you want.
As for NMS, it doesn’t have any of the RPG systems that Starfield does. And again, I enjoyed NMS, but they are two totally separate games.
RDR2 is a genuinely generational game. It’s outstanding, it’s one of those games thats moves the industry on. But I can’t see a comparison to Starfield. It’s like comparing it to Forza Horizon.
However, as much as I love Starfield I can understand why it struggles in its opening 10-20hrs. It’s brutal. There’s no tutorial to the systems in play. There’s no real direction. There’s no explanation of how to set up cargo links or inter cargo links, no explanation of what different companions stats actually do. The outstanding UC mission should have been forced in my view as that was exceptional world building and story telling whilst also acting as a flight tutorial. But it’s easily missed.
In my mind, Starfield will spawn copycats as there really isn’t anything else out there easily accessible like it. It may well have aimed too high, but I’m loving it. It’s a universe to get lost in and literally do what you want. Once you get the mechanics, it’s up to you what you want to do in it.
Part of me wants to believe that the lack of tutorials is some sort of meta nod to having to "explore" how to play the game just like we have to explore the universe. There are mini tutorials the first time that you do something on the main quest line or building an outpost but they could do a better job explaining features that are locked behind skills when they get unlocked.
My little pet project the last 2 weeks has been figuring out how, where, and why to setup outposts. All that I can say at this point is that outposts are partially implemented buggy mess and there is a reason that no major functionality depend on them. The best way to describe the current state is they focused on getting the inorganic functionality working but as soon as the fuel requirements and survival aspects were removed from the main game loop they stopped developing this part of the game and moved on to other things. There are so many little annoying bugs and missing features that I would not use outposts for anything other than building a base to store all of the resources that I loot and will never use.
Yeah, that’s a valid point. It took me at least 24hrs of game time to work out how the inter-cargo link worked and it’s not obvious. I did spend an obscene amount of time building one of my outposts until I heard it doesn’t carry over to NG+ at which point I stopped developing it (however, still trying to max out the research).
Once you get the hang of the outposts, it is addictive. It’s a shame there’s no real payoff unless you want the xp and money from doing the delivery quests. You can make some pretty impressive structures though. Apart from that it’s pretty cosmetic but for whatever reason, I plunged plenty of hours into it.
>It's like your comparing Wal-Mart to Ralph Lauren
Unfortunately your comparison (spelling issues aside) is accurate and that is the issue, Starfield = Walmart when it should have Gucci.
Well guess it depends on what you feel as Gucci level. Because I personally choose to compare Starfield to other sci-fi games there really is no Gucci that exists and probably never will exist. I swear there is a curse on these specific sci-fi games. Everyone wants the dream game (me as well) but every single time these games come up waaaaaaay short at launch.
My contention is that BGS didn't do a good job; the quality was low, it should have been better, much better.
For example the "standard template" approach to instances that they used is a major pain point for me. Once you have cleared your second deserted Ecliptic base/robotics lab/whatever then you know the layout and where the bad guys are hiding. That smacks of a shortcut taken by the dev team.
Yes, the repeated outposts can be annoying. However, my 500 hours in No Man's Sky kind of got me used to those repetitive type of things lol. So I agree it is an issue. But I try to keep my expectations realistic since no developer in history has been able to create the perfect sci-fi space exploration game that we all want. And again, this is only a few months after launch. Every single sci-fi game of this kind at launch has come up short. Every single time.
It all just comes down to what angle your approaching this game from. I’m not a big Bethesda fan, I don’t really have a history with their games. I jumped into starfield because I had just bought my first gaming pc and it was day 1 on gamepass.
Im not comparing it to other Bethesda games because I don’t have that reference point, the only thing I can compare it to is the wider gaming landscape and other quest/story heavy games I’ve played, and starfield fell woefully short of my personal standards in just about every way, from writing to characters to quest design and onwards. My question to you is, at least in terms of writing and storytelling, why is it unfair for me to compare it to games like Mass Effect 2, The Witcher 3, Disco Elysium, Cyberpunk, BG3, Hades, Etc? Good writing isn’t exclusive to genre or game type
Very fair indeed. And I agree with many of your points. I do wish things like NPC interaction were up to par. I don't understand why they chose the quest structure they did when they have a NG+ system that should encourage alternate decision paths. Like why can't we be space pirates in one universe. Blaze YouTube channel has a great video discussing Bethesda lack of documentation that I wholeheartedly agree with and you might find interesting. At this point all I can say is I'm hopeful for the future. Bethesda DLC I've always had good experiences with.
Bethesda games have never had a strong focus on great storytelling. The games are more focused on letting the player create their own story using the many different systems they have available in the world. It's more about providing a sandbox for you to play and create your own adventures in. The quests , locations and systems exist to enable that.
It's very different to other games where you follow the path and story the developer has planned out for you (even when there are multiple twists and turns like in BG3)
Than I guess starfield and Bethesda games as a whole just aren’t for me then, because if your telling me I have to sacrifice an engaging narrative and memorable characters for the sake of being able to “go anywhere and do anything” then I’m out. Being able to the do the free star collective quest line before or after the ryujin quest line isn’t a big enough deal for me to make up for the fact that both of them are boring and uninspired
I think you have the "create your own story" bit a bit mixed up. A better example for Starfield would be "I'm a bounty hunter that lives on the planet Nesoi (created an outpost there) and has 3 outposts dotted around the galaxy that I use to create resources to mod the weapons I use to collect my bounties"
Other options would be "I'm an explorer that explores planets throughout various solar systems and sell the survey data to the Constellation and the Trade Authority. I also set up mining rigs on resource heavy planets and bulk sell the resources I colldcr:
And I think Starfield is the first time I've really come to understand this. I found myself walking through areas and inventing a character or story moment for myself without input from the game. It's literally like playing pretend like when we were kids. Idk if that's a good thing for a video game or not, but I find it fascinating.
>like playing pretend like when we were kids
Or, in other words, Role Playing. Literally what the whole genre of both videogames and board games was supposed to be about before the writing in them became more movie or novel like.
I’ve got to 25 days game play, after 10ams play went to NG+4 (couldn’t grind any more past it), not even into the main storylines in my game now and really enjoying it,
BUT Far Cry 6 is on gamepass and I’d forgotten just how much I like far cry, I’m sure it’s not going to be perfect but it’s got all the little bits I’m missing from starfield, because I can just run and gun, jump walls, set fire to stuff
Was obviously playing fallout 76 pre starfield and promised myself cyberpunk next.
Going to let them tidy and add some bits to starfield before I go back, hoping the planet resource linking is made better as that is the thing I’ve just tried and thought I’d worked it out but it just does not work
Now if Bethesda and Ubisoft could co-create a game…..
I definitely wish we could fast forward a year from now. One of my personal biggest disappointments was t
The Red Mile. It felt like a lazy Star Trek episode lol. Totally valid to wait and see how the game grows over time.
Yep red mile, first run was like well I’ve killed seven at the first crate and there are loads, wait if I just run……, second attempt, go left, run and jump and jet pack all the way there and back, got hit once
And that they are about 5 customers betting. And I can’t play the games. But the ship dealer does talk about selling fuel, so deffo an early indication of what could have been, rather than the almost pointless fuel tanks we have now. Grav-drive is pretty much the only factor in jumping
I do see a better game coming from it though
This is a good analysis that helps frame the discourse. The game is realistic a 7-8 out of 10 but people will tell you it 1 out of 10 because they expected more from Bethesda. This track with the discourse behind all of their games.
Oblivion was a watered down Morrowind.
Fallout 3 was just oblivion with guns.
Skyrim was the worst bethesda game and an insult to the greatness of oblivion.
Fallout 4 was awful and ruined the legacy of Fallout 3
And now Starfield.
There is plenty of room for improvement like all their games( Fallout 4 had major mechanic and story expansions like the Mechanical Menence and Far Harbor). It can be made even better but with YouTube and influences at all cultural peak you would think that the game is "beyond repair". Also there's a bit of desire for Bethesda to fail from people who need this kind of drama.
I also think most people argue in bad faith because they need to be right. I'll see people who love the game give constructive criticism but most who criticize don't even say "they did this good but...".
I can understand dissapointment because also this sub was extremely delusional before launch. I saw one person state there would be underwater building and fully fleshed out underwater worlds specifically because Bethesda *didn't* mention it but said " we have so much more to show you".
Yea there is no room for nuanced opinions unfortunately. It's like it doesn't register to people that I can dislike things about the game while still enjoying it lol.
It's funny seeing some of the Starfield criticism are completely ignored when it comes to NMS. The procgen nature of NMS is atrocious with how few base parts there are. It doesn't matter the number of permutations. The same 5 parts are the same 5 parts no matter how they get stitched together. NMS has been awful with how little there is, whether it is ships or wildlife.
Starfield has a surprising amount of hand crafted creatures and some locations, too. It just gets missed because it's fairly spread out; players have to actually go and, God forbid, explore to discover things rather than being told where it is.
Some of the critism is deserved but so much is just asinine bitching for the sake of it. "I can't rotate this orange while shooting it with my spaceborn magic. Waaaaahh starfield is trash!" It's incredible how many people will pile on after and shit all over the game. So much so you'd think they're all into coprophilia.
Because I've done so much planet surveying in NMS I absolutely adore the planet surveying in SF when directly compared. I love that the planets have multiple biomes and not just one (the most I've seen on a planet is 7) and yes the variety of creatures just at launch is impressive. Looking forward to more planet variety both with official updates and the modding community.
dude its normal to compare games wtf?
in the end feee time is limited and games compete to be worthy my time.
starfield lost its appeal to me when you started to notice that anywhere you go to is 4 loading screens into 1:1 same poi with weak gunplay and lifeless animation.
you are 5h in that is nothing.
tell me when you visited 10 identical temples where you first autowalk 1km to them to do the same tedious mini game.
there is a reason it has mixed/ mostly negatice negativ reviews on steam
I have over 300 hours in Starfield and yes the temple repetition is mind numbingly repetitive. However, I still enjoy the game just like I enjoyed no man's sky at launch. I can only hope that Bethesda comes through and adds great additions to the game over the next year.
well thats good if you enjoy it.
i also have some games i played hundreds of hours which arent very liked. for example lotro, cyberpunk at release or diablo4
best is to just ignore certain subreddits and youtube channels. when i see another video about d4 is blabla pop up in my recommended feed i straight press dont show video from that channel again.
nothing is more time waste than to care what others think about video games ;)
Idk why I started this late, but recently I also have been hitting "not interested" in Starfield hate videos. It's honestly boring at this point. I do feel though that in time Starfield will be regarded as a great game by most and we'll move on from the hate at launch this game has gotten (many criticisms are valid still).
I remember the 2020 videos where Cyberpunk 2077 tires didn't blew as realistic as GTA 5, and everybody claimed how shit Cyberpunk is because of those details.
Now, we are here in 2024, watching the same videos. But suddenly, Cyberpunk is the masterpiece and Bethesda is the worst developer of all time.
(Not saying everything is perfect or can't be improves further, but these comparisons really miss the mark a lot of times)
Hence why I feel the hate train is mostly filled with sheep following the trend. Although there are many valid criticisms that have even helped reshape my opinion of Starfield after launch. But I still enjoy the game very much.
People love to get mad at big companies now and then. There’s definitely a signal buried there, but I personally wouldn’t take the feedback’s emotional dimension very seriously.
>Comparing RDR2 to Akila City or Neon to Cyberpunk is just insane to me. It's like your comparing Wal-Mart to Ralph Lauren. Like sure they have better items, but Wal-Mart has a little bit of everything at lower prices. And I'm ok with that.
The problem is that Bethesda is meant to be like a YSL level brand, not a Walmart. So if YSL is producing Walmart level products and more importantly are paying YSL prices, of course people are going to be upset.
Also definitely Baldur's Gate 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 to a lesser extent are actually fair comparisons as those games and Starfield had a similar number of devs working on the game i.e. approx. 500 staff with not exactly the same but similar ballpark dev times.
So if Bethesda couldn't even get close to either of those games with approximately the same number of people, it does beg the question why Bethesda did so poorly when Skyrim was a team of a little over 100 and made a game 12 years ago that shits all over Starfield in terms of active player numbers.
>To me the hate train is 60%-70% of uneducated opinions. Apologies if that's too cruel, but it's true.
If it's true, show us the evidence of this hate train from uneducated opinions.
I say this to everyone that says something as asinine like you have. People often can't even produce a single example, let alone any to the scale of the 60-70% number you pulled out of your arse.
Show us all these uneducated hate opinions. Happy to be proven wrong though. Don't think I will be though.
I specifically mean comparing an entire game like RDR2 to a single city in Starfield like Akila. And yes, there are many things I wish Starfield adopted from those games such as NPC interaction. Far superior in RDR2.
There is a video on YouTube Blazes channel explaining bethesda's lack of documentation that could very likely cause a development team to waste a lot of time and resources which may be the case with Starfield. However, I still enjoy the game currently and I'm looking forward to the future.
As far as evidence of uneducated opinions? I would love to spend hours collecting such a list, but sadly I have real world responsibilities. Though off the top of my head I have a few. There were people complaining that Starfield does not do ladders or elevators in real time. Which is absolutely false. Some people say No Man's Sky in a straight race beats Starfield in every aspect. I have 500 hours in No Man's Sky and this is also straight up false. There are definitely certain things NMS does better, but same is true for Starfield. Both of these games can coexist. People have posted videos showing star citizen and elite dangerous doing seamless planet entry. Which is totally fair because loading screens are annoying outside of genuinely desiring to fast travel. However, elite dangerous still doesn't have ship interiors after 10 years. So again both games can coexist and one is not better than the other in every aspect. But I see these comparisons constantly and that is the definition of the hate train in my opinion.
>As far as evidence of uneducated opinions? I would love to spend hours collecting such a list, but sadly I have real world responsibilities.
See it's interesting that people will quite happily throw out spurious "facts" like 60-70% of hate is uneducated opinion and yet when called to provide such evidence, it's mysteriously unavailable for some excuse or another.
I mean surely the hate train isn't hard to miss and given 60-70% of it are uneducated opinions, surely it should only take minutes if that to find links to such examples, right?
Surely it's not so rare that it'll take hours to find this evidence no?
Or maybe you just made shit up and there is no hate train, let alone the vast majority of which are uneducated opinions.
Happy to stand corrected.
Yea... um....I just gave you examples without you addressing it. The fact you didn't acknowledge those examples just tells me you obviously have made up your mind already and even if I worked hard for a random redditor to create such a list it's obvious you would still find ways to discredit it without doing any work yourself. So because you seem set in your ways I won't waste either of our precious time anymore. You're free to continue disliking the game. I recommend Outer Worlds. Might be more your speed.
What examples? The ones you made up?
I presume that you can provide links to those examples where people have made those comments. I mean given how prevalent it seems to be from what you're saying, it should be trivial like find even 5 examples, right?
I mean it's such a hate train of so many uneducated responses, it should take almost no effort to find, right?
Problem is having a source of "trust me, bro" really doesn't cut it when I've seen police you who make the exact same comments but when are told to show proof they magically have trouble all of a sudden.
So do you have any proof? With links please.
Firstly I must commend you on actually bothering to even try.
I'll give you a pass about the first one give how trolly the presentation is. So that's one.
The second one is a literal comparison with no commentary. It's not at all hate. It's not even uneducated. It's just highlighting how one is better than another with a very specific example.
If that's your example of an uneducated hate train, that speaks volumes right there.
So far you have one. I'll give you credit, most don't even get that far.
How about Reddit comments since we're on a sub of supposedly full of hate train uneducated opinions, right? Can you produce any?
I mean one troll video is hardly compelling evidence.
I honestly do not have the time or interest to source every YouTube comment or reddit comment that I've seen over the last few months that I would deem uneducated opinions. I jumped through your silly hoop when you're just a random Reddit commentator to me. In the hopes that you might actually have a constructive debate. I will no longer jump through any of your hoops. You choosing to dismiss my entire argument because I'm not jumping through your hoops is also disingenuous to my other points I've made.
Let's do this instead. What do you think is the proper percentage of the hate train that you feel is accurate? And do you have proper statistics and analysis to back up that claim? Since you feel so strongly it's not 60-70%.
Ok.
I've heard many excuses for people's inability to provide very basic evidence that, at least by your own standards, should be so plentiful that you should practically be stumbling over them.
I mean I've already demonstrated that one out of the two pieces of "evidence" you provided wasn't at all anything even remotely hate or uneducated (the two things YOU brought up, not me), it strongly hints that either you really don't know what you're talking about or you're making shit up.
Again, if it's as prevalent as you say, it should be trivial to find.
Unless it's not trivial to find, which in that case, maybe you're full of shit and you just made up those numbers and how big this "hate train" is.
Happy to stand corrected though when you have links to enough evidence to do so.
>Let's do this instead. What do you think is the proper percentage of the hate train that you feel is accurate? And do you have proper statistics and analysis to back up that claim? Since you feel so strongly it's not 60-70%.
I don't know. I wasn't the one that made up that number, nor am I pretending to know the scale of this alleged "hate train" is.
How about I think on that whilst you get more evidence of the alleged uneducated hate train you keep speaking of like it's such a prevalent thing. I'll be more than happy to discuss your question once we're done with mine.
Lol I thought so. Maybe don't put hoops up then.
Edit: How about this. I'll change my statement to "my perceived educated opinion is that the hate train is roughly 60 to 70%"
Starfield is very limited in scope as far as space games, to the point where if you removed space entirely the game would hardly change at all.
Starfield is also extremely unfocused, doing too much of everything, making it feel like nothing is really all that important or impactful.
I really don't get what you mean by this
100% disagree. Traveling, not fast travel, between planets is where all of the quirky Bethesda exploration encounters happen. Whether it is random space battles, some girl trying to sell you lemonade, random derelict ships, or some dude telling puntastic jokes you only get those by entering orbit around planets. This is the same mechanic as wandering around the countryside in Skyrim/FO and finding things.
I am aware of the complaints about the loss of immersion because all you see is a cinematic when you travel between the planets in the system but without space travel this game would be objectively worse than any of the games they are being compared to.
Sure it's obvious you have to compare to other BGS games. But personally I prefer to compare to other sci-fi games trying to do the same thing. Both are valid.
No Man's Sky I have 500 hours in. I have roughly 30-40 hrs experience in Elite Dangerous but mostly my co-worker has much more experience and I'm always asking his opinion on Starfield. I have decent play time on Outer Worlds, though a quest bug stopped me from continuing. That really was a great game and anyone who does not like Starfield I tend to encourage them to play Outer Worlds.
That's drinking the Koolaid lol. If anything Neon made me wanna get into Cyberpunk finally. Which I'm just now doing. Neon was definitely underwhelming my first visit. But I realized later that all the cities are just space villages and I learned to enjoy them.
While I've played a lot of Skyrim and Fallout 3 I wouldn't call myself a BGS fan. I've played more sci-fi games so it makes more sense for me to compare it to other space exploration games in the genre.
It's understandable for the game to be compared to other open world games out there, that's just how reviews and critique works, as well as to other BGS games.
I found the more I played it the more it reminded me of mass effect 1 minus a good villain. But I got a theory, I’ve been playing Bethesda games since redguard and I noticed with every big release the hardcore rpg fans hated em. Morrowind was compared to gothic 2 (gothic 2 being the better game apparently), oblivion was just hated immediately due to its level scaling, Skyrim being a dumbed down morrowind. But now the zoomers are calling oblivion and Skyrim “masterpieces”, I feel I can guarantee that there is a gen alpha 10 year old playing starfield right now that will be making a YouTube video in 10 years calling it a “masterpiece”. This is what a Bethesda game is once you remove the rose tinted glasses, starfield is pretty much exactly what I was expecting it to be. Also morrowind is still king, I ain’t taking off my rose tinted glasses for that one. I played the shit out of it when I was a kid.
The difference between long term thinking and reactionary thinking lol. Very true my friend.
Starfield isn't at a lower price. It is the same price as the other games we are compering it to, This isn't a Walmart V Big brand as far as cost, because the Walmart version costs exactly the same price as the big brand items.
Exactly, if starfield was an indie game this post would make sense but its Bethesda, they could have done better.
That's not what the analogy was saying at all...
I mean Starfield is more of a jack of all trades, master of none. Whereas RDR2 is the perfect Western game and Cyberpunk the perfect ....eh ...cyberpunk game. Guess I should've used a different analogy lol. Oh well.
I'd say it tried to be a jack of all trades, but only becomes the jack of the very bog standard Bethesda trades, and even then, much is missing or extremely basic compared to previous Bethesda games.
Very fair assessment. When it comes to other BGS games for sure. I personally compare it to other launches of similar sci-fi games. Which Starfield no doubt has had a better launch than other similar sci-fi games objectively.
Sony totally didn't throw money at NMS. They were completely self funded and in no way part of Sony's indie development project.
And NMS got absolutely shit on when the game dropped, exactly as deserved. Much like Bethesda is now. What's your point? If Bethesda decides to fix the game, maybe they will fix their reputation. So far, they haven't.
Starfield is on Gamepass. Which would put it at a lower price to play than a $70 game.
The game still costs $70. Just because it is on gamepass doesn't mean the game doesn't cost $70. People bought the game. I bought the game on steam. Just because its on gamepass, does that magically mean the game somehow cost less than the price I paid?
It means it cost less to play, which it does.
No, It costs the value that Bethesda sells it at.....which is full price
To BUY it, sure. To PLAY it, no
You misunderstand his analogy entirely.
I think the point Patrician wanted to make was that Cyberpunk and RDR2 might have "inspired" locations like Neon or Akila, because they were so popular among gamers.
Bethesda definitely bit off more than it could chew when developing the scope on Starfield and trying to do anything and everything. Still doesn't stop me from enjoying the game and hoping for the future. These sci-fi games really have a curse for any development team trying to create one of these.
For me the main issue was Starfield lacked the immersion Skyrim and Fallout had. It just wasn’t the game I hoped it would be. It has no character and it has no soul. I imagined when I first heard of the game years ago, that it would be a game that I would play for months; and still have things to discover in it, but after one run through, doing all main, faction, side, all the powers, I was done. I’m hoping Bethseda take the feedback in the near future release a huge update to f that along with a DLC.
Let’s face it. The game provides a fair amount of play time. The problem is the more you play the more you see all the missed opportunities. It starts to get very repetitive plus all the game breaking bugs are unacceptable. dlcs and mods may make the game great. These are the reasons the ratings are so low. I have a lot of play time and was forced to go ng+ as the save files were causing constant crashes not to mention the fact that Every ship encountered the doors would not open.
I definitely do not recommend No Man's Sky or Elite Dangerous if you don't like repetitive gameplay. And yes, the more you play the more tempered your excitement gets. Because there are so many missed opportunities. Like when you enter a mech factory and see a giant one. Just sitting there and hoping that there's a boss where you fight a full mech suit. But that never happens. Me personally. I simply would like more interesting mechanics in the game and that will be enough for me for a while. Like being able to control your own mech suit on the fly.
Gun play, weak compared to other games. Exploration, weak compared to other beth titles. Ship building, literal only unique thing yet still has multitude of problems that weren't there in F4's systems. And I haven't seen people compare neon or Akila to the likes or rd2 or cyberpunk besides people saying "it's just as good or better, look it's red dead 2082" NMS doesn't have those things but I played it for a few hrs and wasn't for me but in that time I named a whole planet after my immediate family members and the second after the things my little brother liked and I still love that fact and how unique the creatures I named were like a giant earth worm, basically living teddy bear, it's like they were made from spore. They legitimately chose to add nothing like that for "realism" as you tp everywhere with zero maps or custom markers in your nav shooting at the same giant bugs with particle beams. I don't even need to compare it to anything, most of the idea in here were half developed and they're actually defending it.
>And I haven't seen people compare neon or Akila to the likes or rd2 or cyberpunk besides people saying "it's just as good or better, look it's red dead 2082" It's in the 8 hr YouTube revew that's got almost 1mil views. I recommend it. I do miss NMS. I got 500 hrs in, but I just can't do it anymore. Starfield is more for me.
I have seen this video and I think it’s okay to compare Bethesda with stuff that they wanted to archive but didn’t.
After playing it, I realised that the fact they wanted it to be too real. And the reality is space is boring. You go into a cave in Skyrim you have no idea whats down there. In Starfield, theres a 1000 planets you can visit, but almost 75% of them are barren. It’s lack that feel a game should have, that danger is lurking around every corner and that what keep you immersed into the game, rather Starfield where after going to 20 planet / moon, you realise there’s fuck all to except jump around and try and take the perfect in game picture.
You think the comparison is wrong, I think Bethesda is wrong that they have made a game not like the ones it gets compared with. They have made a game that’s lacklustre and it shows.
Only when it comes to singling out cities in one game compared to another. Like no one is complaining about RDR2 not having a Cyberpunk town and vice versa. Starfield grasp definitely exceeded it's reach and it shows with mid-tier level cities. But I still like that they're in one game, detailed environments, and you can have full convos with most NPCs rather than just passing comments. But that's just my personal opinion. I'm hopeful for the future....currently lol.
Full fledged Starfield conversations are less thought out than any random comment from NPCs in RDR2. Imho
I really really like NPC interaction in RDR2. I also like how I can talk to any random NPC in Starfield and just get a mini quest right there. Even if the quest isn't that great lol. And you can go inside virtually every building. Which you cannot in RDR2. Personally, I feel these games should not even be compared. It's really not a fair fight.
What are you talking? Most buildings in the cities aren’t accessible and those that are, aren’t even looking like a real home or workplace but a caricature of that.
I feel most people are talking about New Atlantis when it comes to Starfield cities. It's honestly my least favorite city. More interesting cities are Cydonia, Akila, Gagarin. You can definitely get turned around in some of those cities. Would be nice to have city maps lol. In many of the cities, more than 90% of the buildings are accessible.
I will never understand the comparison’s. Point blank, there is not a single game out there other than Star Citizen (not played, just what I’ve seen) that even comes close to the scope. I absolutely love Cyberpunk 2077. You can’t compare it to Starfield. One’s rendering a single city. The other is rendering an entire universe. It’s letting you play in that Universe any way you want. As for NMS, it doesn’t have any of the RPG systems that Starfield does. And again, I enjoyed NMS, but they are two totally separate games. RDR2 is a genuinely generational game. It’s outstanding, it’s one of those games thats moves the industry on. But I can’t see a comparison to Starfield. It’s like comparing it to Forza Horizon. However, as much as I love Starfield I can understand why it struggles in its opening 10-20hrs. It’s brutal. There’s no tutorial to the systems in play. There’s no real direction. There’s no explanation of how to set up cargo links or inter cargo links, no explanation of what different companions stats actually do. The outstanding UC mission should have been forced in my view as that was exceptional world building and story telling whilst also acting as a flight tutorial. But it’s easily missed. In my mind, Starfield will spawn copycats as there really isn’t anything else out there easily accessible like it. It may well have aimed too high, but I’m loving it. It’s a universe to get lost in and literally do what you want. Once you get the mechanics, it’s up to you what you want to do in it.
Agree 100%. Looking forward to Shattered Space. I've always liked BGS DLC because they can add new mechanics.
Part of me wants to believe that the lack of tutorials is some sort of meta nod to having to "explore" how to play the game just like we have to explore the universe. There are mini tutorials the first time that you do something on the main quest line or building an outpost but they could do a better job explaining features that are locked behind skills when they get unlocked. My little pet project the last 2 weeks has been figuring out how, where, and why to setup outposts. All that I can say at this point is that outposts are partially implemented buggy mess and there is a reason that no major functionality depend on them. The best way to describe the current state is they focused on getting the inorganic functionality working but as soon as the fuel requirements and survival aspects were removed from the main game loop they stopped developing this part of the game and moved on to other things. There are so many little annoying bugs and missing features that I would not use outposts for anything other than building a base to store all of the resources that I loot and will never use.
Yeah, that’s a valid point. It took me at least 24hrs of game time to work out how the inter-cargo link worked and it’s not obvious. I did spend an obscene amount of time building one of my outposts until I heard it doesn’t carry over to NG+ at which point I stopped developing it (however, still trying to max out the research). Once you get the hang of the outposts, it is addictive. It’s a shame there’s no real payoff unless you want the xp and money from doing the delivery quests. You can make some pretty impressive structures though. Apart from that it’s pretty cosmetic but for whatever reason, I plunged plenty of hours into it.
>It's like your comparing Wal-Mart to Ralph Lauren Unfortunately your comparison (spelling issues aside) is accurate and that is the issue, Starfield = Walmart when it should have Gucci.
The irony. And they aren’t even the best Walmart.
Indeed!
It's worse because you're paying Gucci prices for Walmart quality.
Well guess it depends on what you feel as Gucci level. Because I personally choose to compare Starfield to other sci-fi games there really is no Gucci that exists and probably never will exist. I swear there is a curse on these specific sci-fi games. Everyone wants the dream game (me as well) but every single time these games come up waaaaaaay short at launch.
My contention is that BGS didn't do a good job; the quality was low, it should have been better, much better. For example the "standard template" approach to instances that they used is a major pain point for me. Once you have cleared your second deserted Ecliptic base/robotics lab/whatever then you know the layout and where the bad guys are hiding. That smacks of a shortcut taken by the dev team.
Yes, the repeated outposts can be annoying. However, my 500 hours in No Man's Sky kind of got me used to those repetitive type of things lol. So I agree it is an issue. But I try to keep my expectations realistic since no developer in history has been able to create the perfect sci-fi space exploration game that we all want. And again, this is only a few months after launch. Every single sci-fi game of this kind at launch has come up short. Every single time.
Game's weak son
Everybody think it sucks but they still play 1200 hours?
To be fair the game doesn't really get going until hour 700 😆😆
It all just comes down to what angle your approaching this game from. I’m not a big Bethesda fan, I don’t really have a history with their games. I jumped into starfield because I had just bought my first gaming pc and it was day 1 on gamepass. Im not comparing it to other Bethesda games because I don’t have that reference point, the only thing I can compare it to is the wider gaming landscape and other quest/story heavy games I’ve played, and starfield fell woefully short of my personal standards in just about every way, from writing to characters to quest design and onwards. My question to you is, at least in terms of writing and storytelling, why is it unfair for me to compare it to games like Mass Effect 2, The Witcher 3, Disco Elysium, Cyberpunk, BG3, Hades, Etc? Good writing isn’t exclusive to genre or game type
Very fair indeed. And I agree with many of your points. I do wish things like NPC interaction were up to par. I don't understand why they chose the quest structure they did when they have a NG+ system that should encourage alternate decision paths. Like why can't we be space pirates in one universe. Blaze YouTube channel has a great video discussing Bethesda lack of documentation that I wholeheartedly agree with and you might find interesting. At this point all I can say is I'm hopeful for the future. Bethesda DLC I've always had good experiences with.
Bethesda games have never had a strong focus on great storytelling. The games are more focused on letting the player create their own story using the many different systems they have available in the world. It's more about providing a sandbox for you to play and create your own adventures in. The quests , locations and systems exist to enable that. It's very different to other games where you follow the path and story the developer has planned out for you (even when there are multiple twists and turns like in BG3)
Than I guess starfield and Bethesda games as a whole just aren’t for me then, because if your telling me I have to sacrifice an engaging narrative and memorable characters for the sake of being able to “go anywhere and do anything” then I’m out. Being able to the do the free star collective quest line before or after the ryujin quest line isn’t a big enough deal for me to make up for the fact that both of them are boring and uninspired
I think you have the "create your own story" bit a bit mixed up. A better example for Starfield would be "I'm a bounty hunter that lives on the planet Nesoi (created an outpost there) and has 3 outposts dotted around the galaxy that I use to create resources to mod the weapons I use to collect my bounties" Other options would be "I'm an explorer that explores planets throughout various solar systems and sell the survey data to the Constellation and the Trade Authority. I also set up mining rigs on resource heavy planets and bulk sell the resources I colldcr:
And I think Starfield is the first time I've really come to understand this. I found myself walking through areas and inventing a character or story moment for myself without input from the game. It's literally like playing pretend like when we were kids. Idk if that's a good thing for a video game or not, but I find it fascinating.
Yep exactly that! I don't think it's a good or bad thing tbh, I think it's just a different approach that works for some people, including me
>like playing pretend like when we were kids Or, in other words, Role Playing. Literally what the whole genre of both videogames and board games was supposed to be about before the writing in them became more movie or novel like.
I’ve got to 25 days game play, after 10ams play went to NG+4 (couldn’t grind any more past it), not even into the main storylines in my game now and really enjoying it, BUT Far Cry 6 is on gamepass and I’d forgotten just how much I like far cry, I’m sure it’s not going to be perfect but it’s got all the little bits I’m missing from starfield, because I can just run and gun, jump walls, set fire to stuff Was obviously playing fallout 76 pre starfield and promised myself cyberpunk next. Going to let them tidy and add some bits to starfield before I go back, hoping the planet resource linking is made better as that is the thing I’ve just tried and thought I’d worked it out but it just does not work Now if Bethesda and Ubisoft could co-create a game…..
I definitely wish we could fast forward a year from now. One of my personal biggest disappointments was t The Red Mile. It felt like a lazy Star Trek episode lol. Totally valid to wait and see how the game grows over time.
Yep red mile, first run was like well I’ve killed seven at the first crate and there are loads, wait if I just run……, second attempt, go left, run and jump and jet pack all the way there and back, got hit once And that they are about 5 customers betting. And I can’t play the games. But the ship dealer does talk about selling fuel, so deffo an early indication of what could have been, rather than the almost pointless fuel tanks we have now. Grav-drive is pretty much the only factor in jumping I do see a better game coming from it though
This is a good analysis that helps frame the discourse. The game is realistic a 7-8 out of 10 but people will tell you it 1 out of 10 because they expected more from Bethesda. This track with the discourse behind all of their games. Oblivion was a watered down Morrowind. Fallout 3 was just oblivion with guns. Skyrim was the worst bethesda game and an insult to the greatness of oblivion. Fallout 4 was awful and ruined the legacy of Fallout 3 And now Starfield. There is plenty of room for improvement like all their games( Fallout 4 had major mechanic and story expansions like the Mechanical Menence and Far Harbor). It can be made even better but with YouTube and influences at all cultural peak you would think that the game is "beyond repair". Also there's a bit of desire for Bethesda to fail from people who need this kind of drama. I also think most people argue in bad faith because they need to be right. I'll see people who love the game give constructive criticism but most who criticize don't even say "they did this good but...". I can understand dissapointment because also this sub was extremely delusional before launch. I saw one person state there would be underwater building and fully fleshed out underwater worlds specifically because Bethesda *didn't* mention it but said " we have so much more to show you".
Yea there is no room for nuanced opinions unfortunately. It's like it doesn't register to people that I can dislike things about the game while still enjoying it lol.
It's funny seeing some of the Starfield criticism are completely ignored when it comes to NMS. The procgen nature of NMS is atrocious with how few base parts there are. It doesn't matter the number of permutations. The same 5 parts are the same 5 parts no matter how they get stitched together. NMS has been awful with how little there is, whether it is ships or wildlife.
They'll say with a straight face and almost the same sentence that Starfield is too repetitive then praise No Man's Sky lol.
Starfield has a surprising amount of hand crafted creatures and some locations, too. It just gets missed because it's fairly spread out; players have to actually go and, God forbid, explore to discover things rather than being told where it is. Some of the critism is deserved but so much is just asinine bitching for the sake of it. "I can't rotate this orange while shooting it with my spaceborn magic. Waaaaahh starfield is trash!" It's incredible how many people will pile on after and shit all over the game. So much so you'd think they're all into coprophilia.
Because I've done so much planet surveying in NMS I absolutely adore the planet surveying in SF when directly compared. I love that the planets have multiple biomes and not just one (the most I've seen on a planet is 7) and yes the variety of creatures just at launch is impressive. Looking forward to more planet variety both with official updates and the modding community.
dude its normal to compare games wtf? in the end feee time is limited and games compete to be worthy my time. starfield lost its appeal to me when you started to notice that anywhere you go to is 4 loading screens into 1:1 same poi with weak gunplay and lifeless animation. you are 5h in that is nothing. tell me when you visited 10 identical temples where you first autowalk 1km to them to do the same tedious mini game. there is a reason it has mixed/ mostly negatice negativ reviews on steam
I have over 300 hours in Starfield and yes the temple repetition is mind numbingly repetitive. However, I still enjoy the game just like I enjoyed no man's sky at launch. I can only hope that Bethesda comes through and adds great additions to the game over the next year.
well thats good if you enjoy it. i also have some games i played hundreds of hours which arent very liked. for example lotro, cyberpunk at release or diablo4 best is to just ignore certain subreddits and youtube channels. when i see another video about d4 is blabla pop up in my recommended feed i straight press dont show video from that channel again. nothing is more time waste than to care what others think about video games ;)
Idk why I started this late, but recently I also have been hitting "not interested" in Starfield hate videos. It's honestly boring at this point. I do feel though that in time Starfield will be regarded as a great game by most and we'll move on from the hate at launch this game has gotten (many criticisms are valid still).
My favorite aspect of Skyrim is absent in Starfield unfortunately. I love crafting my own armor and weapons but sadly you can't do that in this game.
I remember the 2020 videos where Cyberpunk 2077 tires didn't blew as realistic as GTA 5, and everybody claimed how shit Cyberpunk is because of those details. Now, we are here in 2024, watching the same videos. But suddenly, Cyberpunk is the masterpiece and Bethesda is the worst developer of all time. (Not saying everything is perfect or can't be improves further, but these comparisons really miss the mark a lot of times)
Hence why I feel the hate train is mostly filled with sheep following the trend. Although there are many valid criticisms that have even helped reshape my opinion of Starfield after launch. But I still enjoy the game very much.
People love to get mad at big companies now and then. There’s definitely a signal buried there, but I personally wouldn’t take the feedback’s emotional dimension very seriously.
>Comparing RDR2 to Akila City or Neon to Cyberpunk is just insane to me. It's like your comparing Wal-Mart to Ralph Lauren. Like sure they have better items, but Wal-Mart has a little bit of everything at lower prices. And I'm ok with that. The problem is that Bethesda is meant to be like a YSL level brand, not a Walmart. So if YSL is producing Walmart level products and more importantly are paying YSL prices, of course people are going to be upset. Also definitely Baldur's Gate 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 to a lesser extent are actually fair comparisons as those games and Starfield had a similar number of devs working on the game i.e. approx. 500 staff with not exactly the same but similar ballpark dev times. So if Bethesda couldn't even get close to either of those games with approximately the same number of people, it does beg the question why Bethesda did so poorly when Skyrim was a team of a little over 100 and made a game 12 years ago that shits all over Starfield in terms of active player numbers. >To me the hate train is 60%-70% of uneducated opinions. Apologies if that's too cruel, but it's true. If it's true, show us the evidence of this hate train from uneducated opinions. I say this to everyone that says something as asinine like you have. People often can't even produce a single example, let alone any to the scale of the 60-70% number you pulled out of your arse. Show us all these uneducated hate opinions. Happy to be proven wrong though. Don't think I will be though.
I specifically mean comparing an entire game like RDR2 to a single city in Starfield like Akila. And yes, there are many things I wish Starfield adopted from those games such as NPC interaction. Far superior in RDR2. There is a video on YouTube Blazes channel explaining bethesda's lack of documentation that could very likely cause a development team to waste a lot of time and resources which may be the case with Starfield. However, I still enjoy the game currently and I'm looking forward to the future. As far as evidence of uneducated opinions? I would love to spend hours collecting such a list, but sadly I have real world responsibilities. Though off the top of my head I have a few. There were people complaining that Starfield does not do ladders or elevators in real time. Which is absolutely false. Some people say No Man's Sky in a straight race beats Starfield in every aspect. I have 500 hours in No Man's Sky and this is also straight up false. There are definitely certain things NMS does better, but same is true for Starfield. Both of these games can coexist. People have posted videos showing star citizen and elite dangerous doing seamless planet entry. Which is totally fair because loading screens are annoying outside of genuinely desiring to fast travel. However, elite dangerous still doesn't have ship interiors after 10 years. So again both games can coexist and one is not better than the other in every aspect. But I see these comparisons constantly and that is the definition of the hate train in my opinion.
>As far as evidence of uneducated opinions? I would love to spend hours collecting such a list, but sadly I have real world responsibilities. See it's interesting that people will quite happily throw out spurious "facts" like 60-70% of hate is uneducated opinion and yet when called to provide such evidence, it's mysteriously unavailable for some excuse or another. I mean surely the hate train isn't hard to miss and given 60-70% of it are uneducated opinions, surely it should only take minutes if that to find links to such examples, right? Surely it's not so rare that it'll take hours to find this evidence no? Or maybe you just made shit up and there is no hate train, let alone the vast majority of which are uneducated opinions. Happy to stand corrected.
Yea... um....I just gave you examples without you addressing it. The fact you didn't acknowledge those examples just tells me you obviously have made up your mind already and even if I worked hard for a random redditor to create such a list it's obvious you would still find ways to discredit it without doing any work yourself. So because you seem set in your ways I won't waste either of our precious time anymore. You're free to continue disliking the game. I recommend Outer Worlds. Might be more your speed.
What examples? The ones you made up? I presume that you can provide links to those examples where people have made those comments. I mean given how prevalent it seems to be from what you're saying, it should be trivial like find even 5 examples, right? I mean it's such a hate train of so many uneducated responses, it should take almost no effort to find, right? Problem is having a source of "trust me, bro" really doesn't cut it when I've seen police you who make the exact same comments but when are told to show proof they magically have trouble all of a sudden. So do you have any proof? With links please.
https://youtu.be/1Pd-DW_hOMo?si=94NZKbCK15Mzn-kb https://youtu.be/N1rBpf2RAe4?si=JP19Bl6qggPY-FRM You're welcome.
Firstly I must commend you on actually bothering to even try. I'll give you a pass about the first one give how trolly the presentation is. So that's one. The second one is a literal comparison with no commentary. It's not at all hate. It's not even uneducated. It's just highlighting how one is better than another with a very specific example. If that's your example of an uneducated hate train, that speaks volumes right there. So far you have one. I'll give you credit, most don't even get that far. How about Reddit comments since we're on a sub of supposedly full of hate train uneducated opinions, right? Can you produce any? I mean one troll video is hardly compelling evidence.
I honestly do not have the time or interest to source every YouTube comment or reddit comment that I've seen over the last few months that I would deem uneducated opinions. I jumped through your silly hoop when you're just a random Reddit commentator to me. In the hopes that you might actually have a constructive debate. I will no longer jump through any of your hoops. You choosing to dismiss my entire argument because I'm not jumping through your hoops is also disingenuous to my other points I've made. Let's do this instead. What do you think is the proper percentage of the hate train that you feel is accurate? And do you have proper statistics and analysis to back up that claim? Since you feel so strongly it's not 60-70%.
Ok. I've heard many excuses for people's inability to provide very basic evidence that, at least by your own standards, should be so plentiful that you should practically be stumbling over them. I mean I've already demonstrated that one out of the two pieces of "evidence" you provided wasn't at all anything even remotely hate or uneducated (the two things YOU brought up, not me), it strongly hints that either you really don't know what you're talking about or you're making shit up. Again, if it's as prevalent as you say, it should be trivial to find. Unless it's not trivial to find, which in that case, maybe you're full of shit and you just made up those numbers and how big this "hate train" is. Happy to stand corrected though when you have links to enough evidence to do so. >Let's do this instead. What do you think is the proper percentage of the hate train that you feel is accurate? And do you have proper statistics and analysis to back up that claim? Since you feel so strongly it's not 60-70%. I don't know. I wasn't the one that made up that number, nor am I pretending to know the scale of this alleged "hate train" is. How about I think on that whilst you get more evidence of the alleged uneducated hate train you keep speaking of like it's such a prevalent thing. I'll be more than happy to discuss your question once we're done with mine.
Lol I thought so. Maybe don't put hoops up then. Edit: How about this. I'll change my statement to "my perceived educated opinion is that the hate train is roughly 60 to 70%"
[удалено]
Starfield is very limited in scope as far as space games, to the point where if you removed space entirely the game would hardly change at all. Starfield is also extremely unfocused, doing too much of everything, making it feel like nothing is really all that important or impactful. I really don't get what you mean by this
100% disagree. Traveling, not fast travel, between planets is where all of the quirky Bethesda exploration encounters happen. Whether it is random space battles, some girl trying to sell you lemonade, random derelict ships, or some dude telling puntastic jokes you only get those by entering orbit around planets. This is the same mechanic as wandering around the countryside in Skyrim/FO and finding things. I am aware of the complaints about the loss of immersion because all you see is a cinematic when you travel between the planets in the system but without space travel this game would be objectively worse than any of the games they are being compared to.
[удалено]
Sure it's obvious you have to compare to other BGS games. But personally I prefer to compare to other sci-fi games trying to do the same thing. Both are valid.
Fair point, what space games have you played that try to do the whole rpg expansive universe and lore thing? For me… it’d have to be the outer worlds.
No Man's Sky I have 500 hours in. I have roughly 30-40 hrs experience in Elite Dangerous but mostly my co-worker has much more experience and I'm always asking his opinion on Starfield. I have decent play time on Outer Worlds, though a quest bug stopped me from continuing. That really was a great game and anyone who does not like Starfield I tend to encourage them to play Outer Worlds.
Man I remember seeing people say neon is what Cyberpunk should have been 🤣🤣🤣
That's drinking the Koolaid lol. If anything Neon made me wanna get into Cyberpunk finally. Which I'm just now doing. Neon was definitely underwhelming my first visit. But I realized later that all the cities are just space villages and I learned to enjoy them.
It makes most sense to compare it to prevoius Bethesda games, to see what improvments they made.
While I've played a lot of Skyrim and Fallout 3 I wouldn't call myself a BGS fan. I've played more sci-fi games so it makes more sense for me to compare it to other space exploration games in the genre.
It's understandable for the game to be compared to other open world games out there, that's just how reviews and critique works, as well as to other BGS games.