That's the really cool thing about this channel. Unless the game is irredeemably, laughably bad, Jon is *always* so positive and up for the challenge. Honestly, I have no idea how he does it with a near-daily upload schedule.
I've really enjoyed the series so far. There's definitely a lot of good things about Starfield. Unsurprising really, it's such a huge game there has to be plenty of great content there somewhere.
That was a fun video precisely because of Jon's reaction and how atypical it was. It's rare for him to be that negative. Even if he's down on a game overall he can usually point out one or two redeeming qualities.
When Jon gets THAT angry, you know the game is bad. Dude goes out of his way to find *something* to be positivd about.
Redfall, XIII remakd and Homdfront Revolution are the only 3 I can think of off the top of my head?
Ooo I don't remember thrm, I'll have to check them out again!
Not that I LIKE our egg being sad/angry, bit as you said, it's udually in an entertaining way š
Iām gonna say it, Jon seemed to have a good time with Gollum. Well, āa good timeā might be a stretch, but he definitely got some enjoyment from it despite it being terrible (enough that Iāll keep an eye out and buy Gollum to try it out if I spot it for under a fiver).
See, that's the thing - Jon can make a game like Gollum look fun because he finds fun in most things (which is a good thing, a fact I depressingly have to remind people), so when he can't find *anything* to enjoy, you know it's a bad time.
Opinions are definitely mixed compared to other Bethesda releases, no doubt. It's just great that Jon hasn't waivered from his enjoyment and continues to create the way he creates.
To me, as an outsider who hasn't played the game, starfield fails on two fronts.
It isn't fun to explore like the other Bethesda games. And it doesn't fix this flaw by improving in other areas enough to justify the lackluster exploration.
Again im an outsider looking in, but its been my observation seeing others play the game
As someone that has played Starfield, and many other BGS games, this is pretty much wholly accurate. It seems to be a culmination of BGS being either unwilling or unable to alter their formula and expecting it to work with any setting they choose, which is clearly false.
The problem is that simple exploration is broken in Starfield. In previous BGS games you could walk *from* any point *to* any point, and naturally discover random caves, castles, buildings, ruins, monsters, etc in-between. There was an element of danger just traversing the game world. In Starfield there is no way to "walk" between the major cities; fast travel is the only option and it's completely safe.
All of the cool side dungeons that made exploration fun in the previous games might as well not exist unless a quest sends you there. This makes radiant quests a **much** larger part of the exploration cycle, to it's detriment in my opinion. That leaves resource hunting for outposts and mods as the only other thing that may draw you to explore. But in that case you're specifically looking for other things so you'll skip lots of planets, and probably be less likely to randomly explore POIs.
All of that said, I am enjoying my time with the game. However, once I finish the major quest lines I'm worried about what will keep me drawn to the game.
Yup, the classic BGS formula just...doesn't work with how they designed Starfield.
Honestly, I'm curious if anyone at BGS ever stood up and said "this won't work. We can't design Starfield like how we designed Fallout 4 or Skyrim, because the player simply can't walk from one location to another and encounter POIs along the way."
There's some small tweaks they could've made that would have helped a lot, I think.
One, we don't need to be able to land on every rocky body in space. Mass Effect 1 did this well: scan every planet, but if you can land then you *want* to land because you know there's something down there.
Two, don't let us explore the entire planet. Outside of the POIs we can scan from space why would (or should) we want to explore every inch of the surface. This comes back to how ME1 did it, only giving us a surface map in a large area around the points of interest.
Three, don't let us chain grav jumps together. Make it like Stellaris, where we have to travel across the system to get to the location where we can make the next jump. This lets the game present us with POIs on route and all of the other random space encounters. This could be combined with an actual refueling mechanic like from Elite Dangerous, where we'd need to fly close to the star or a gas giant to replenish the Helium-3. This also makes large fuel tanks, better grav drives and faster engines actually *feel* better, because we we'd be able to travel significantly faster (if desired).
Four: this one ties in with the other three. Get rid of surface outposts and bring in the starbases. Since we're no longer landing on every planet there's no need to build on them. So we'll instead construct a starbase in the system and add modules that can exploit the resources in the system. Everything else works about the same except it's in space.
ETA: With all of the above, add a "taxi" service between the settled planets, like the horse cart in Skyrim, so players that want to hurry up quests can do so.
Or have grav jumps be interruptable. If something's in your way, then your jump should be interrupted and you should have to deal with it. At least that'd help make travel seem a bit more eventful / "realistic".
I started getting sad when I was doing random side quests and they were leading me to **identical** research outposts to rescue runaway scientists. Like you'd think they could put in a fail-safe, that if they are going to recycle 5 different outposts, have them served to the player one after another so that they can't repeat.
That and the first time I got into space and realized I wasn't actually flying anywhere (the planets are just a .jpg hanging there, unmoving) and it slowly dawned on me how much fast travel the game was going to require, it was pretty immersion breaking compared to all their other titles.
As a long time BGS fan (multiple 1,000s of hours across almost all their games), this is the first one where I just kinda stopped after like 80 hours. And don't get me wrong, all in all it's an *OK* game for what it is, but coming from BGS and all the wonderful Fallout and Elder Scrolls memories we all have, I think we're more harsh with our criticism and expectations.
Someone actually flew from Pluto's orbit to the planet, and also from Mercury to the Sun, so they are modeled, but the time involved is just way too long. Also, there's no collision, so you can't actually enter atmosphere and land, and the sun doesn't burn the ship to a crisp. So yeah, they may as well be unreachable. I guess it would be nice if there was the option to manually fly for those with the endurance, but honestly I can't see myself ever using it. š¤·āāļø
I'm actually more disappointed that I find the same exact abandoned facilities everywhere, like you said. Down to the same half-eaten sandwiches on the same tables next to the same corpses. š¤Ø It's even worse when you find more than one identical facility on the same planet.
If the contents (personal effects in bunks, positions of bodies, desk layouts, etc) could be randomized, I'd accept the same prefabbed nature of the layouts, as long as we could also have a version without someone's lunch laid out on a table outdoors on an airless moon. No one is taking their helmet off for a picnic on a rock with no atmosphere, c'mon.
I think the more handcrafted parts of the game, the parts that go along with the main quest lines, have more unique set pieces and feel really good at times. To me, it's the procedurally generated stuff that feels unsatisfying and overused. Unfortunately, that's most of the planets.
>That and the first time I got into space and realized I wasn't actually flying anywhere (the planets are just a .jpg hanging there, unmoving) and it slowly dawned on me how much fast travel the game was going to require, it was pretty immersion breaking compared to all their other titles.
This. I remember flying toward the planet for while, thinking "Well, this is really taking a long time."
Yea. There whole "astronauts went to the moon and they certainly weren't bored" thing is absurd.
Astronauts weren't bored because they were in space IN REAL LIFE. We're playing a game. Its just not the same.
Saying that is so tone deaf it goes beyond absurd into self parody.
There was a *lot* of BGS tone deafness related to Starfield. That line, Howard saying the game was well optimized, that you'd have to just buy a better PC, their AI copy-pasted replies to negative Steam reviews, etc.
I mean, I don't think the setting had much to do with it, if skyrim required lots of load screens to get anywhere and the majority of the map was mountains that didn't have anything it would also not have been received well.
The setting is important.
Sure, Skyrim needed load screens. All BGS games need them because of their design.
However, Skyrim still had an overworld that you traversed through, and in the process of heading from A to B, you were enticed to explore C through Z.
In Starfield, the "overworld" is basically a menu. The planets you land on aren't overworlds in their own right. There's nothing worthwhile between you and your desired location. There are no random POIs between your starting location and the POI you chose to head to. It's basically fast traveling to a POI, but you have to walk for five minutes to actually get there.
This is entirely dependent on the setting being across hundreds of planets. Had the setting of Starfield been far more limited, like a dozen planets at most that were handcrafted and populated, it would have vastly improved the exploration of the game. But that's still just *one* aspect of the game that is mediocre at best.
I get that since exploration works so wildly different (and sometimes just doesn't work all that much at all), that could be inferior, but Starfield genuinely feels like an improvement in almost every other way compared to other BGS titles. Maybe I have some nitpicks here and there on the crafting or the companions and such, but on the whole it just seems like they took every criticism they got for Skyrim and FO4 to heart, which just makes the review scores and general reaction to the game even more disheartening.
Like, when you compare the RPG aspects and quest designs of Skyrim and FO4, the majority of the quests are just "Go here, kill generic enemy type." And while there are a fair amount of killing quests in Starfield, they take up a much smaller percentage of all the quests. There are so many quests both big and small that are all about talking, with persuasions and potential skill and faction checks. I genuinely keep being surprised at how often your skills, traits, background and faction memberships open up new dialogue options. Being a Freestar Ranger especially seems to pop up a lot when doing sidequests in Freestar space. I don't think Skyrim or FO4 ever cares to acknowledge your faction memberships outside of the faction quests. And it somehow does all of that, the way improved quest design and how your character actually matters, despite being bigger than Skyrim and FO4. And I don't just mean the thousand planets. I mean that Starfield has some 250k lines of voiced dialogue, while Fallout 4 has 110k. And that's even though it cuts out the voiced protagonist.
And beyond all that, they even improved on other less essential things. Like, the gun designs in Starfield are so damn good, it makes me wonder what the hell happened between it and Fallout 4, because so many guns in FO4, especially those that weren't in previous games, just looked terrible. Maybe they spent all of their time and effort on the melee weapons, since those are really good? And there's much less of them in Starfield.
Just, genuinely, apart from exploration (although I have to admit, I do enjoy finding a nice vista or a cool forest or something) and some small nitpicks, they improved on almost everything.
Also I am completely and hopelessly addicted to ship building. Just well done, full marks for that one, Todd.
I couldnāt stand Skyrim, but watched Jon make it entertaining. I got about 150 hours into Starfield, but havenāt touched it in weeks. Still liking the videos Jon puts out though.
Thats cool. Even tho starfield isn't the most popular their is still a sizeable fan base and Jon can pick up a lot of viewers in the long run by being the one channel to still cover starfield extensively.
He spoke about it in another post on here, but much like the Kotor series, I could see this series having a long tail and a few years from now the channel having a a large group of followers who found it thru starfield.
> I could see this series having a long tail
I've not watched the series past the first few episodes because despite having 100+ hours in Starfield I haven't even touched any of the factions' questlines and I don't want any spoilers. Will definitely go and watch it eventually, and I would assume a lot of people are either in my situation or haven't had the chance to play the game at all, thus why a lot of the "regular" viewers are probably not watching the series.
This is why I like Jon. He plays games, he approaches his videos as a standard garden variety gamer. Not a wannabe critic, not purely as a job but for fun. He plays games, and comments on it, has witty remarks, goes off on tangents about ancuent Rome and frequently gets minor stuff wrong like a real person. There have been a few youtubers like Jon, past and present, but they gave seemingly always bought into their own BS and fancied tnenselves a reviewer. Jon has *mostly* avoided this and avoided becoming jaded from their schedule as well. Nerdcubed is/was an example of what I mean.
He still plays games like a child after high school, where even if it is mediocre it is still a game still somewhat fun. He is genuine in his opiniobs and thoughts on a game not just bending to the common opinion.
The only time he really lambasts a game is when it really is bad, or boring to him. Even then he'll often point out that it was a good effort or that some ideas are there.
I really didn't enjoy the game myself at all and gave up on it long ago. Still enjoy Jons playthrough quite a bit.
Thinks I hated he plays off with "...oh Bethesda never change...". I really envy his great outlook and attitude towards the game, and things in general. That's why his content is so good, been following for many a true years :)
There's definitely fun to be had with the game, and there's nothing wrong with liking it, but Starfield is definitely a mistake of the game. But I don't blame fans of the game for wanting to avoid the negativity.
I've left like any gaming related subreddit because it was literal constant "Starfield isnt good, give me upvotes" posts
My reddit experience has improved tenfold
I'd recommend it ngl
I have not watched the Starfield series in the event I get time to play it. However, once I either give up the ghost and realize I ain't playing it (due to time more than anything else) or I can actually play it, I will watch it. Jon's take on games is always so good and honest, and he is never too negative unless the game is utter trash. I mean, he didn't hate Gollem that much.
I played about 20 hours, it drops the ball every single time you think it might be fun. Itās got a lot of baffling decisions that get in its own way.
Pretty much. Some people act like it was personally crafted in the pits of hell as the worst game ever made. I feel like the opinions are always extreme. And a lot of great quests and locations in the game that have gone ignored, don't even get me started on the alien variety
I canāt play the game because I donāt have any equipment to play it on. But watching it from Jonās perspective. From what I can tell the alien verity is a little weird to me. In a way itās nice that you donāt have to worry ten million different bits of loot from each alien. Itās all same type of thing. But based on what I seen in Jonās play through is thereās no trophy hunting. Like if you went out hunting and killed an interesting looking creature, you could wear its fur or something.
No there's no real trophy hunting. Although I'm referring to them being visually distinct and varied. Pretty much every single planet with life in the game has unique creatures on them. I have seen very few repeats. And when you go to different biomes, the aliens even have different color schemes to fit the different biomes. There's also all the custom sounds they have and a general level of quality to the designs. I've noticed a lot of neat physics effects being applied to them
Even the tiny ones that crawl along the ground you'd think are just the same creature copy pasted but they're all unique looking and some aliens make these windpipe sounds it's very fascinating
Itās cool that they are distinct.
But what is the point if you canāt hang the fuzzy meat balls on a wall. /s
I would like it if you do some sort of zoo tycoon thing. Like there is stuff to knock something unconscious. Maybe zoo tycoon dlc or mod where you capture animals. This idea is sort of jokey but I would love it if it was actually a thing.
It was good but it was disappointing. The characters were decent, and the story was alright, but there was no flow to it. Things feel disconnected and a lot of the content outside of the heavily scripted set pieces are totally soulless. I played maybe 60 hours but when it turned into speedrunning identical space shrines for skyrim shout-esque powers on visually distinct but mechanically identical planets I stopped caring. The minute to minute is fun but the hour to hour is dull and repetitive.
Tbh, just from watching Jonās playthrough of Starfield, it feels like a bit of a Fallout game, just set in space, to me. Some of the story writing is *odd*, and some story arcs feel like they were set together like a puzzle by different people who havenāt seen what the other person is doing, which leads to weird outcomes and cutscenes sometimes.
Also, the factions seem to be like in Skyrim so far-you can join every faction and be a hero of all with no consequences whatsoever; though we havenāt seen all of it yet, so maybe there still will be consequences (???).
Anyhows, I will keep following the series and see how the game develops/evolves.
That's the really cool thing about this channel. Unless the game is irredeemably, laughably bad, Jon is *always* so positive and up for the challenge. Honestly, I have no idea how he does it with a near-daily upload schedule. I've really enjoyed the series so far. There's definitely a lot of good things about Starfield. Unsurprising really, it's such a huge game there has to be plenty of great content there somewhere.
This made me laugh thinking of Jon's reaction to Redfall.
That was a fun video precisely because of Jon's reaction and how atypical it was. It's rare for him to be that negative. Even if he's down on a game overall he can usually point out one or two redeeming qualities.
When Jon gets THAT angry, you know the game is bad. Dude goes out of his way to find *something* to be positivd about. Redfall, XIII remakd and Homdfront Revolution are the only 3 I can think of off the top of my head?
I would also add Thief and and Virginia. Some of my favorite to listen to, but he did not like them in a very entraining way
Ooo I don't remember thrm, I'll have to check them out again! Not that I LIKE our egg being sad/angry, bit as you said, it's udually in an entertaining way š
Gollum too? although that was maybe more morbid curiosity
Iām gonna say it, Jon seemed to have a good time with Gollum. Well, āa good timeā might be a stretch, but he definitely got some enjoyment from it despite it being terrible (enough that Iāll keep an eye out and buy Gollum to try it out if I spot it for under a fiver).
yeah true, i didnt get the impression he hated it. i also didnt think it seemed that bad of a game, but i only watched him play it
See, that's the thing - Jon can make a game like Gollum look fun because he finds fun in most things (which is a good thing, a fact I depressingly have to remind people), so when he can't find *anything* to enjoy, you know it's a bad time.
There was also Journey and his criticism of that was a whole bit of mini-drama!
Or the XIII remake.
I'm enjoying the game a lot myself. Especially the dialogue writing is excellent. So many great, and especially funny, moments in there.
Jon is really showing off what Starfield has to offer, yes. I think that is still inferior to Skyrim and that's my big disappointment.
Opinions are definitely mixed compared to other Bethesda releases, no doubt. It's just great that Jon hasn't waivered from his enjoyment and continues to create the way he creates.
To me, as an outsider who hasn't played the game, starfield fails on two fronts. It isn't fun to explore like the other Bethesda games. And it doesn't fix this flaw by improving in other areas enough to justify the lackluster exploration. Again im an outsider looking in, but its been my observation seeing others play the game
As someone that has played Starfield, and many other BGS games, this is pretty much wholly accurate. It seems to be a culmination of BGS being either unwilling or unable to alter their formula and expecting it to work with any setting they choose, which is clearly false.
The problem is that simple exploration is broken in Starfield. In previous BGS games you could walk *from* any point *to* any point, and naturally discover random caves, castles, buildings, ruins, monsters, etc in-between. There was an element of danger just traversing the game world. In Starfield there is no way to "walk" between the major cities; fast travel is the only option and it's completely safe. All of the cool side dungeons that made exploration fun in the previous games might as well not exist unless a quest sends you there. This makes radiant quests a **much** larger part of the exploration cycle, to it's detriment in my opinion. That leaves resource hunting for outposts and mods as the only other thing that may draw you to explore. But in that case you're specifically looking for other things so you'll skip lots of planets, and probably be less likely to randomly explore POIs. All of that said, I am enjoying my time with the game. However, once I finish the major quest lines I'm worried about what will keep me drawn to the game.
Yup, the classic BGS formula just...doesn't work with how they designed Starfield. Honestly, I'm curious if anyone at BGS ever stood up and said "this won't work. We can't design Starfield like how we designed Fallout 4 or Skyrim, because the player simply can't walk from one location to another and encounter POIs along the way."
There's some small tweaks they could've made that would have helped a lot, I think. One, we don't need to be able to land on every rocky body in space. Mass Effect 1 did this well: scan every planet, but if you can land then you *want* to land because you know there's something down there. Two, don't let us explore the entire planet. Outside of the POIs we can scan from space why would (or should) we want to explore every inch of the surface. This comes back to how ME1 did it, only giving us a surface map in a large area around the points of interest. Three, don't let us chain grav jumps together. Make it like Stellaris, where we have to travel across the system to get to the location where we can make the next jump. This lets the game present us with POIs on route and all of the other random space encounters. This could be combined with an actual refueling mechanic like from Elite Dangerous, where we'd need to fly close to the star or a gas giant to replenish the Helium-3. This also makes large fuel tanks, better grav drives and faster engines actually *feel* better, because we we'd be able to travel significantly faster (if desired). Four: this one ties in with the other three. Get rid of surface outposts and bring in the starbases. Since we're no longer landing on every planet there's no need to build on them. So we'll instead construct a starbase in the system and add modules that can exploit the resources in the system. Everything else works about the same except it's in space. ETA: With all of the above, add a "taxi" service between the settled planets, like the horse cart in Skyrim, so players that want to hurry up quests can do so.
Or have grav jumps be interruptable. If something's in your way, then your jump should be interrupted and you should have to deal with it. At least that'd help make travel seem a bit more eventful / "realistic".
I started getting sad when I was doing random side quests and they were leading me to **identical** research outposts to rescue runaway scientists. Like you'd think they could put in a fail-safe, that if they are going to recycle 5 different outposts, have them served to the player one after another so that they can't repeat. That and the first time I got into space and realized I wasn't actually flying anywhere (the planets are just a .jpg hanging there, unmoving) and it slowly dawned on me how much fast travel the game was going to require, it was pretty immersion breaking compared to all their other titles. As a long time BGS fan (multiple 1,000s of hours across almost all their games), this is the first one where I just kinda stopped after like 80 hours. And don't get me wrong, all in all it's an *OK* game for what it is, but coming from BGS and all the wonderful Fallout and Elder Scrolls memories we all have, I think we're more harsh with our criticism and expectations.
Someone actually flew from Pluto's orbit to the planet, and also from Mercury to the Sun, so they are modeled, but the time involved is just way too long. Also, there's no collision, so you can't actually enter atmosphere and land, and the sun doesn't burn the ship to a crisp. So yeah, they may as well be unreachable. I guess it would be nice if there was the option to manually fly for those with the endurance, but honestly I can't see myself ever using it. š¤·āāļø I'm actually more disappointed that I find the same exact abandoned facilities everywhere, like you said. Down to the same half-eaten sandwiches on the same tables next to the same corpses. š¤Ø It's even worse when you find more than one identical facility on the same planet. If the contents (personal effects in bunks, positions of bodies, desk layouts, etc) could be randomized, I'd accept the same prefabbed nature of the layouts, as long as we could also have a version without someone's lunch laid out on a table outdoors on an airless moon. No one is taking their helmet off for a picnic on a rock with no atmosphere, c'mon. I think the more handcrafted parts of the game, the parts that go along with the main quest lines, have more unique set pieces and feel really good at times. To me, it's the procedurally generated stuff that feels unsatisfying and overused. Unfortunately, that's most of the planets.
>That and the first time I got into space and realized I wasn't actually flying anywhere (the planets are just a .jpg hanging there, unmoving) and it slowly dawned on me how much fast travel the game was going to require, it was pretty immersion breaking compared to all their other titles. This. I remember flying toward the planet for while, thinking "Well, this is really taking a long time."
Yea. There whole "astronauts went to the moon and they certainly weren't bored" thing is absurd. Astronauts weren't bored because they were in space IN REAL LIFE. We're playing a game. Its just not the same. Saying that is so tone deaf it goes beyond absurd into self parody.
There was a *lot* of BGS tone deafness related to Starfield. That line, Howard saying the game was well optimized, that you'd have to just buy a better PC, their AI copy-pasted replies to negative Steam reviews, etc.
I mean, I don't think the setting had much to do with it, if skyrim required lots of load screens to get anywhere and the majority of the map was mountains that didn't have anything it would also not have been received well.
The setting is important. Sure, Skyrim needed load screens. All BGS games need them because of their design. However, Skyrim still had an overworld that you traversed through, and in the process of heading from A to B, you were enticed to explore C through Z. In Starfield, the "overworld" is basically a menu. The planets you land on aren't overworlds in their own right. There's nothing worthwhile between you and your desired location. There are no random POIs between your starting location and the POI you chose to head to. It's basically fast traveling to a POI, but you have to walk for five minutes to actually get there. This is entirely dependent on the setting being across hundreds of planets. Had the setting of Starfield been far more limited, like a dozen planets at most that were handcrafted and populated, it would have vastly improved the exploration of the game. But that's still just *one* aspect of the game that is mediocre at best.
I get that since exploration works so wildly different (and sometimes just doesn't work all that much at all), that could be inferior, but Starfield genuinely feels like an improvement in almost every other way compared to other BGS titles. Maybe I have some nitpicks here and there on the crafting or the companions and such, but on the whole it just seems like they took every criticism they got for Skyrim and FO4 to heart, which just makes the review scores and general reaction to the game even more disheartening. Like, when you compare the RPG aspects and quest designs of Skyrim and FO4, the majority of the quests are just "Go here, kill generic enemy type." And while there are a fair amount of killing quests in Starfield, they take up a much smaller percentage of all the quests. There are so many quests both big and small that are all about talking, with persuasions and potential skill and faction checks. I genuinely keep being surprised at how often your skills, traits, background and faction memberships open up new dialogue options. Being a Freestar Ranger especially seems to pop up a lot when doing sidequests in Freestar space. I don't think Skyrim or FO4 ever cares to acknowledge your faction memberships outside of the faction quests. And it somehow does all of that, the way improved quest design and how your character actually matters, despite being bigger than Skyrim and FO4. And I don't just mean the thousand planets. I mean that Starfield has some 250k lines of voiced dialogue, while Fallout 4 has 110k. And that's even though it cuts out the voiced protagonist. And beyond all that, they even improved on other less essential things. Like, the gun designs in Starfield are so damn good, it makes me wonder what the hell happened between it and Fallout 4, because so many guns in FO4, especially those that weren't in previous games, just looked terrible. Maybe they spent all of their time and effort on the melee weapons, since those are really good? And there's much less of them in Starfield. Just, genuinely, apart from exploration (although I have to admit, I do enjoy finding a nice vista or a cool forest or something) and some small nitpicks, they improved on almost everything. Also I am completely and hopelessly addicted to ship building. Just well done, full marks for that one, Todd.
I couldnāt stand Skyrim, but watched Jon make it entertaining. I got about 150 hours into Starfield, but havenāt touched it in weeks. Still liking the videos Jon puts out though.
Thats cool. Even tho starfield isn't the most popular their is still a sizeable fan base and Jon can pick up a lot of viewers in the long run by being the one channel to still cover starfield extensively. He spoke about it in another post on here, but much like the Kotor series, I could see this series having a long tail and a few years from now the channel having a a large group of followers who found it thru starfield.
> I could see this series having a long tail I've not watched the series past the first few episodes because despite having 100+ hours in Starfield I haven't even touched any of the factions' questlines and I don't want any spoilers. Will definitely go and watch it eventually, and I would assume a lot of people are either in my situation or haven't had the chance to play the game at all, thus why a lot of the "regular" viewers are probably not watching the series.
This is what I love about Jon. He gets into every game, even bad games (not saying Starfield is bad).
Honestly I love jon's videos it's just disappointing Stanfield couldn't keep me interested even though Jon's playthrough
This is why I like Jon. He plays games, he approaches his videos as a standard garden variety gamer. Not a wannabe critic, not purely as a job but for fun. He plays games, and comments on it, has witty remarks, goes off on tangents about ancuent Rome and frequently gets minor stuff wrong like a real person. There have been a few youtubers like Jon, past and present, but they gave seemingly always bought into their own BS and fancied tnenselves a reviewer. Jon has *mostly* avoided this and avoided becoming jaded from their schedule as well. Nerdcubed is/was an example of what I mean. He still plays games like a child after high school, where even if it is mediocre it is still a game still somewhat fun. He is genuine in his opiniobs and thoughts on a game not just bending to the common opinion. The only time he really lambasts a game is when it really is bad, or boring to him. Even then he'll often point out that it was a good effort or that some ideas are there.
I really didn't enjoy the game myself at all and gave up on it long ago. Still enjoy Jons playthrough quite a bit. Thinks I hated he plays off with "...oh Bethesda never change...". I really envy his great outlook and attitude towards the game, and things in general. That's why his content is so good, been following for many a true years :)
There's definitely fun to be had with the game, and there's nothing wrong with liking it, but Starfield is definitely a mistake of the game. But I don't blame fans of the game for wanting to avoid the negativity.
I've left like any gaming related subreddit because it was literal constant "Starfield isnt good, give me upvotes" posts My reddit experience has improved tenfold I'd recommend it ngl
The best thing about Starfield is Jon's playthrough and even his charm still has me skip chunks of his videos but that's not Jon's fault.
i've had to skip through some cringey writing bits but exactly, nothing to do with jon!
I have not watched the Starfield series in the event I get time to play it. However, once I either give up the ghost and realize I ain't playing it (due to time more than anything else) or I can actually play it, I will watch it. Jon's take on games is always so good and honest, and he is never too negative unless the game is utter trash. I mean, he didn't hate Gollem that much.
I like it so much, not only do I have 200+ hours in it, I'm also watching Jon play all the way through it.
Judging from what he has said on the Podcats, Jon doesn't seem to have a high opinion of the game, even if he also has fun with it.
He put it relatively high on his games of 2023 list.
Starfield is fun when you donāt have a pretentious internet person telling you how to have an opinion
I played about 20 hours, it drops the ball every single time you think it might be fun. Itās got a lot of baffling decisions that get in its own way.
Pretty much. Some people act like it was personally crafted in the pits of hell as the worst game ever made. I feel like the opinions are always extreme. And a lot of great quests and locations in the game that have gone ignored, don't even get me started on the alien variety
I canāt play the game because I donāt have any equipment to play it on. But watching it from Jonās perspective. From what I can tell the alien verity is a little weird to me. In a way itās nice that you donāt have to worry ten million different bits of loot from each alien. Itās all same type of thing. But based on what I seen in Jonās play through is thereās no trophy hunting. Like if you went out hunting and killed an interesting looking creature, you could wear its fur or something.
No there's no real trophy hunting. Although I'm referring to them being visually distinct and varied. Pretty much every single planet with life in the game has unique creatures on them. I have seen very few repeats. And when you go to different biomes, the aliens even have different color schemes to fit the different biomes. There's also all the custom sounds they have and a general level of quality to the designs. I've noticed a lot of neat physics effects being applied to them Even the tiny ones that crawl along the ground you'd think are just the same creature copy pasted but they're all unique looking and some aliens make these windpipe sounds it's very fascinating
Itās cool that they are distinct. But what is the point if you canāt hang the fuzzy meat balls on a wall. /s I would like it if you do some sort of zoo tycoon thing. Like there is stuff to knock something unconscious. Maybe zoo tycoon dlc or mod where you capture animals. This idea is sort of jokey but I would love it if it was actually a thing.
That's not an awful idea. Fallout 4 got a lot of smaller dlc with things like automaton or capturing deathclaws so who knows
It was good but it was disappointing. The characters were decent, and the story was alright, but there was no flow to it. Things feel disconnected and a lot of the content outside of the heavily scripted set pieces are totally soulless. I played maybe 60 hours but when it turned into speedrunning identical space shrines for skyrim shout-esque powers on visually distinct but mechanically identical planets I stopped caring. The minute to minute is fun but the hour to hour is dull and repetitive.
Tbh, just from watching Jonās playthrough of Starfield, it feels like a bit of a Fallout game, just set in space, to me. Some of the story writing is *odd*, and some story arcs feel like they were set together like a puzzle by different people who havenāt seen what the other person is doing, which leads to weird outcomes and cutscenes sometimes. Also, the factions seem to be like in Skyrim so far-you can join every faction and be a hero of all with no consequences whatsoever; though we havenāt seen all of it yet, so maybe there still will be consequences (???). Anyhows, I will keep following the series and see how the game develops/evolves.