10 Things I Want to See From Starfield - The List | MMORPG.com

System

10 Things I Want to See From Starfield - The List | MMORPG.com

While everyone's eyes are fixated on Baldur's Gate 3, Kanishka is looking ahead to Starfield, which releases in September. Here are ten things he wants to see from the RPG when it launches.

Read the full story here

Sovrath

"But Bethesda has also delivered Hi-Fi Rush, Prey, DOOM, and DOOM Eternal, among other rock-solid titles in recent years. A game free of major bugs and performance issues is at the top of my list when it comes to expectations from Starfield."

I don't think Bethesda developed them. If you look at the games Bethesda developed, they seem to have bugs here and there.

olepi

"I have given up hope that Star Citizen [releases] before I turn into a fossil but one can hope. "

I think you left out "releases". There is no indication that Star Citizen will ever release. No roadmaps have a release date, I don't think there is even a date for beta. All of the plans and schedules by the developer have turned out to be ludicrously wrong.

I'm most excited by the ability in Starfield to create mods, like in Skyrim. Modders can populate a lot of those 1,000 planets; I think this will make Starfield the premier space game for the next 10 years. If someone manages to create a multi-player version ....

Pher0cious

Sovrath said:

I don't think Bethesda developed them. If you look at the games Bethesda developed, they seem to have bugs here and there.

I don't think he understands difference between developer and publisher. Or having more than 1 game engine in existence.

olepi said:

"I have given up hope that Star Citizen [releases] before I turn into a fossil but one can hope. "

Don't you see? Scammed Citizens commercial launch in 2016!

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Scot

Sovrath said:

"But Bethesda has also delivered Hi-Fi Rush, Prey, DOOM, and DOOM Eternal, among other rock-solid titles in recent years. A game free of major bugs and performance issues is at the top of my list when it comes to expectations from Starfield."

I don't think Bethesda developed them. If you look at the games Bethesda developed, they seem to have bugs here and there.

Kanishka did say "But Bethesda has also delivered" not developed, but yes he could have been clearer. And publishers (rightly or wrongly) get kudos or blame from titles not just studios.

Sovrath

Scot said:

Sovrath said:

"But Bethesda has also delivered Hi-Fi Rush, Prey, DOOM, and DOOM Eternal, among other rock-solid titles in recent years. A game free of major bugs and performance issues is at the top of my list when it comes to expectations from Starfield."



I don't think Bethesda developed them. If you look at the games Bethesda developed, they seem to have bugs here and there.

Joseph did say "But Bethesda has also delivered" not developed, but yes he could have been clearer. And publishers (rightly or wrongly) get kudos or blame from titles not just studios.

But then technically, Bethesda has delivered buggy games as well. I think his point was "they deliver solid games with less bugs) but they deliver all sorts of games, some with a lot of bugs and some "not so much."

Not that bugs ever really bothered me. Except for all those damn mosquitos this summer!

GlacianNex

Following BG3 release it will be a very tough act to follow. They will be held to the same standard that Larian studios delivered.

I wish them luck - but something tells me they will pale in comparison.

Pher0cious

GlacianNex said:

Following BG3 release it will be a very tough act to follow. They will be held to the same standard that Larian studios delivered.



I wish them luck - but something tells me they will pale in comparison.

1000% disagreed. They are not comparable at all.

BG3's world scale is miniscule compared to Starfield.

BG3 is a turn based dnd tactical game. Starfield is a fps real time with rpg leveling.

BG3 is fantasy. Starfield is Sci Fi

Starfield has space ship building. That is comparable to BG3's what? Nothing.

Starfield has planetary base building. That is comparable to BG3's what? Nothing.

You fly a space ship in Starfield and you choose your crew members. That is comparable to BG3's what? Nothing.

GlacianNex said:

They will be held to the same standard that Larian studios delivered.

The standard for a dnd game. That's not what Starfield is. I have news for you, not everyone is into dnd or turn based tactical games.

I'm pretty tired of people forcing comparisons of games meant for different group of audiences and have nothing in common. All because you want to force the drama. Your versus mentality is cringe.

cameltosis

I am very much on the fence with Starfield.

On the one hand, I really enjoyed the Elder Scrolls series and the modding scene was great. On the other hand, I really disliked the Fallout series.

Where will Starfield sit?

I think I'll wait a bit and watch some decent gameplay videos before I purchase. I am also curious about whether the game will have many sandbox features. Their RPGs usually don't have much, but space games often have a fair amount of sandboxy stuff. I have no interest in playing through a generic dull story, but I'd love to build a space empire, create my own moon base etc!

Ridrith

They've already talked about some of this, roughly 100 of the 1000 planets will have stuff on them. The other 900 are mostly barren/resource planets. Resources will be important, so chances are, we'll be zooming around doing exactly that.

OG_Solareus

its too hyped, gonna be a dud imho

Sovrath

cameltosis said:

I am very much on the fence with Starfield.

So am I. Was talking to a friend who asked me if I was excited about Starfield. Wasn't sure how to answer. I could be? I generally lose interest quickly with science fiction games unless they are 4x games. So for me it's a "we'll see." Maybe the exploration and art design will be interesting enough to keep me playing. I'll want too see more game play when it comes to this game.

OG_Solareus said:

its too hyped, gonna be a dud imho

Nah, I don't think so. Bethesda usually delivers decent albeit "buggy" games. I think it will be fine. Might not be to everyone's taste but "it will be fine."

ValdemarJ

templarga said:

I want the world to feel alive and full and fresh and awesome. I read a post about No Man's Sky recently because I want to love that game. It seems right up my alley and I should like it. But paraphrasing and borrowing from that post, the game just feel like a whole lot of nothing. Its just empty to me and almost too big (I Guess like the vacuum of space). I feel like I am on a directed mission and there is just stuff. Its not required, there is little reason to go from planet to planet except the missions, and when I do, its just not interesting to me.

Sorry I am stumbling over my words. But whatever I am trying to say is what I do not want from Starfield and is, at the same time, my biggest fear. In Skyrim and Fallout games, the world is full and alive and interesting. I want the same from Starfield.

Your post makes perfect sense to me. It really is a game about nothing and I completely understand why it doesn't click for you.

It is one of my favorite all time games ever. I have a lot of time in it on both Steam and Xbox.

NMS has become a playground game like Minecraft where there isn't a point but you can explore ideas. NMS is packed with tropes, themes, and a couple of narrative adventures that cover science fiction culture and history. I have thousands of hours of playtime and the reason I most often put it down for a while is because I've run out of ideas I want to explore and the game doesn't strongly facilitate developing or inspiring new ones.

What I'm hoping for is something like you just described, a more thematically focused, cohesive, experience with many of the ideas that NMS offers in a Bethesda built "world".

I'm also hoping the integrated mod framework and Creation Club for Skyrim and Fallout 4 is there and it doesn't end up being monetized like FO76 (which is otherwise also excellent). I'll pay a fee for well built assets, mods, and adventure modules.

ValdemarJ

Sovrath said:

Scot said:

Sovrath said:

"But Bethesda has also delivered Hi-Fi Rush, Prey, DOOM, and DOOM Eternal, among other rock-solid titles in recent years. A game free of major bugs and performance issues is at the top of my list when it comes to expectations from Starfield."



I don't think Bethesda developed them. If you look at the games Bethesda developed, they seem to have bugs here and there.

Joseph did say "But Bethesda has also delivered" not developed, but yes he could have been clearer. And publishers (rightly or wrongly) get kudos or blame from titles not just studios.

But then technically, Bethesda has delivered buggy games as well. I think his point was "they deliver solid games with less bugs) but they deliver all sorts of games, some with a lot of bugs and some "not so much."

Not that bugs ever really bothered me. Except for all those damn mosquitos this summer!

Adding to what you said; Taking Bethesda the publisher out of the equation, there isn't just one Bethesda studio, or Arkane studio, and so on. Some studios have multiple team independently run, but managed by the parent company. The Bethesda running FO76 isn't the same Bethesda building and launching Starfield.

Ghostwire Tokyo, a Bethesda Softworks game, is made by Tango which is owned by Zenimax Asia and published by Bethesda Softworks.

There are a few minor technical issues with Ghostwire, most notably horrible default controller settings, some performance stuttering, and load times. Bethesda takes the blame for that, and maybe rightfully so, because as the in house publisher they should have demanded better quality from Tango.

But that is different from the technical problems we see in Bethesda Studios games using another engine built on by a different team entirely.

Starfield's engine isn't going to be the exact same as previous versions. It may still share some flaws or limitations. That's what I think probably worries people. FO76 fixed a lot of jank from FO4, but not everything and some of the "bugs/features" that carried over are very annoying.

Sorry for the long post, but the devil is in the details (in my opinion) and it's worth drilling down into a little.

Nanfoodle

I personally think the Engine they have been using, makes Bethesda games have the odd bugs we have all grown used too, when playing their games. My guess, we gonna see allot of bugs that will make us laugh. 


https://youtu.be/OfmvgCKjmLQ  

Angrakhan

"Choices That Actually Matter"

While I'm excited for Starfield, I'm not holding my breath on this one. I can't really think of an RPG like this where choices actually for-realzies matter. Even in games like Cyberpunk 2077 or Fallout which sorta set the bar for this metric, how much do your choices really matter? Maybe the last chapter of the game you commit to a certain faction and then you get a different set of epilogue text as the credits roll by with a different background image? What's worse is they typically break your immersion with a big warning statement "WARNING: IF YOU CONTINUE YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REVISIT THE OTHER AREAS OF THE GAME UNTIL YOU FINISH THE MAIN STORY" or something similar. That's your queue to create a new save game so you can reload from there and do all the endings without having to start from scratch.

Now, I love Cyberpunk 2077 and the Fallout games, and all the Elder Scrolls games and other RPGs that at least make the attempt. I mean it's better than funneling you into one fixed ending no matter what you do, but let's be honest getting 1 of 6 possible endings still isn't really what I would call choices that ACTUALLY matter.

I don't think you're going to see choices actually matter until RPGs are built upon an AI engine that adjusts every minute aspect of NPC interaction with you based on what you do in the game. I'm sure someone's already working on something like that. I just don't think Starfield is it. Maybe I'm wrong? Hope so.

olepi

ValdemarJ said:

templarga said:

I want the world to feel alive and full and fresh and awesome. I read a post about No Man's Sky recently because I want to love that game. It seems right up my alley and I should like it. But paraphrasing and borrowing from that post, the game just feel like a whole lot of nothing. Its just empty to me and almost too big (I Guess like the vacuum of space). I feel like I am on a directed mission and there is just stuff. Its not required, there is little reason to go from planet to planet except the missions, and when I do, its just not interesting to me.

Sorry I am stumbling over my words. But whatever I am trying to say is what I do not want from Starfield and is, at the same time, my biggest fear. In Skyrim and Fallout games, the world is full and alive and interesting. I want the same from Starfield.

Your post makes perfect sense to me. It really is a game about nothing and I completely understand why it doesn't click for you.

It is one of my favorite all time games ever. I have a lot of time in it on both Steam and Xbox.

NMS has become a playground game like Minecraft where there isn't a point but you can explore ideas. NMS is packed with tropes, themes, and a couple of narrative adventures that cover science fiction culture and history. I have thousands of hours of playtime and the reason I most often put it down for a while is because I've run out of ideas I want to explore and the game doesn't strongly facilitate developing or inspiring new ones.

What I'm hoping for is something like you just described, a more thematically focused, cohesive, experience with many of the ideas that NMS offers in a Bethesda built "world".

I'm also hoping the integrated mod framework and Creation Club for Skyrim and Fallout 4 is there and it doesn't end up being monetized like FO76 (which is otherwise also excellent). I'll pay a fee for well built assets, mods, and adventure modules.

NMS is multi-player though; go to a major space hub and you will see people. It can feel like an MMO. I guess Starfield wont have that.

NMS is a true sandbox; there is a story, and some quests and such, but after you have built up your bases, your freighter, your frigates, your economy, what is left to do? I reached almost to the money cap and decided I was done, not learning anything new anymore.

I bet we do see a lot of NMS stuff in Starfield. It's like free marketing, NMS came first and showed what was popular. Just copy some of that.

Iselin

All I really want to see is a good immersive story and good exploration on the way to discovering the origin of the alien artifacts.

It's been a while since I've played a good sci-fi game.

Mass Effect games and FO4 were games I enjoyed the most while getting to the bottom of the story. Good combat along the way is a bonus but not what I'm most interested in.

Dattelis

Can't wait for modders to take this game apart and make a new game out of it.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

richrem1

Consider this is also being made for XBox. If not, they will have released it already; broken and and full of bugs. I think Microsoft Game Studios might be holding them to a higher standard, though that maybe stretching it. Also why is it ok with Microsoft Game Studio to have a game running at 30 fps on their hardware? 30 fps is meant for animation, or even video (usually 24). 60 fps is the standard, and has been for a long time. So enjoy your wonderful game play at 30 fps. Why else buy an Xbox right? LOL

Alverant

I heard this may be an Epic game store exclusive. Is that correct?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Mr.Gutsy

Alverant said:

I heard this may be an Epic game store exclusive. Is that correct?

Incorrect. You should stop listening who or whatever you were listening to. That place is all lies.

Groqstrong

Pher0cious said:

GlacianNex said:

Following BG3 release it will be a very tough act to follow. They will be held to the same standard that Larian studios delivered.





I wish them luck - but something tells me they will pale in comparison.

1000% disagreed. They are not comparable at all.



BG3's world scale is miniscule compared to Starfield.



BG3 is a turn based dnd tactical game. Starfield is a fps real time with rpg leveling.



BG3 is fantasy. Starfield is Sci Fi



Starfield has space ship building. That is comparable to BG3's what? Nothing.



Starfield has planetary base building. That is comparable to BG3's what? Nothing.



You fly a space ship in Starfield and you choose your crew members. That is comparable to BG3's what? Nothing.

GlacianNex said:

They will be held to the same standard that Larian studios delivered.

The standard for a dnd game. That's not what Starfield is. I have news for you, not everyone is into dnd or turn based tactical games.



I'm pretty tired of people forcing comparisons of games meant for different group of audiences and have nothing in common. All because you want to force the drama. Your versus mentality is cringe.

I could be wrong but I don't think thats what he meant. Larian surpassed the expectations of its audience and drew the ire of other developers for setting the bar too high. I will take a guess and say the audience of BG3 will cross over into Starfield. Will Starfield surpass the expectations of that same audience? We'll have to wait and see. The games themselves are rpgs but in their own genres of it so that is not coming into question. However players will draw comparisons on how well the developers raised the bar for their respective genre.