No wonder Starfield feels like such a downgrade from previous Bethesda games.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Dibdabs

It's a very disappointing game.  I sprang $10 for a month of Game Pass to try it and I'm glad I paid no more.  It's just a pretty standard looter-shooter with a very thin layer of sci-fi pasted onto the usual kind of fantasy mmo they make.  The graphics seen 10 years old, the NPCs are wooden-looking and uninteresting, I couldn't care less about the storyline TBH and having micro-loading screens for something as simple as climbing through a hatch or opening a door is just shoddy programming.  The ship construction is nice, but ships are superfluous as fast travel dominates the game completely.

I find myself playing Elite Dangerous and Spacebourne 2 instead!

Kyleran

Not sure the overall consensus is that Starfield is a bad game. Oh look, it's not. Considering how many idiots unfairly give it a 0 or 1 rating, toss all those out and it's probably a solid 8 out of 10.

Ratings

87% OpenCritic

7/10 IGN

7/10  Steam

For those who believe it's pretty good do we still give credit to the 27 out sourcing teams?

Anyone ever watch the ending credits of a modern animated film, there's dozens of studios, hundreds if not thousands of artists and what have you.

Large scale game development probably shares a lot in common with the film industry and as noted some of the listed studios work with the biggest names in the gaming industry.

Long story short, nothing to see here, just another over-rated streamer running off at the mouth.

Stop listening to idiots folks just because they are popular on the Internet...

maskedweasel

I think it's a great game, but it's still derivative of other Bethesda games. I think they could have probably changed some things to give a newer feel to the combat. But imo it'll probably just keep growing like the other games did with mods and stuff. I'm definitely not mad at it. 

Sovrath

It's my thought that it probably is a decent game. I've started it but non consensus one way or another.

I imagine giant games do outsource stuff.

And now to watch the video of a streamer I can't really stand.

Sovrath

Dibdabs said:

I find myself playing Elite Dangerous and Spacebourne 2 instead!

So you really wanted Elite Dangerous (spacebourne?) and so you purchased a game from a company known to make role playing games with LOTS of stories and an emphasis on exploration?

Not sure what you really were expecting.

Dibdabs

Sovrath said:

Dibdabs said:

I find myself playing Elite Dangerous and Spacebourne 2 instead!

So you really wanted Elite Dangerous (spacebourne?) and so you purchased a game from a company known to make role playing games with LOTS of stories and an emphasis on exploration?

Not sure what you really were expecting.

Do pay attention.  "I sprang $10 for a month of Game Pass to try it and I'm glad I paid no more".   I've rented it for a month for the price of a couple of beers because I'm not naïve enough to blow excessive money on hyped games these days.  If I had enjoyed it I'd have then bought it, but it's a rubbish game to me.  Elite Dangerous and Spacebourne 2 are games I already own and actually enjoy.  They have no RPG aspect but are far superior as sci-fi games.

I was actually hoping for a solid sci-fi game WITH some good RPG elements - I play a lot of RPGs and MMORPGS.  Starfield's role playing aspect is pitifully poor to me and the sci-fi is just a layer of cheap paint.  It's a game that's a mile wide and frost-deep.

Tiller

A lot of software development pieces and parts are outsourced to various venders all over the world these days more than ever. Its cheaper labor and a lot of work goes to India, the Philippines ect. This all started to uptick during GWB era and is nothing new.

Terazon

It is well reviewed and is selling well. 
What is the problem here?
Hipster pile on project?
Tear it down! Tear it all down!

Sovrath

Dibdabs said:

Sovrath said:

Dibdabs said:

I find myself playing Elite Dangerous and Spacebourne 2 instead!

So you really wanted Elite Dangerous (spacebourne?) and so you purchased a game from a company known to make role playing games with LOTS of stories and an emphasis on exploration?

Not sure what you really were expecting.

Do pay attention.  "I sprang $10 for a month of Game Pass to try it and I'm glad I paid no more".   I've rented it for a month for the price of a couple of beers because I'm not naïve enough to blow excessive money on hyped games these days.  If I had enjoyed it I'd have then bought it, but it's a rubbish game to me.  Elite Dangerous and Spacebourne 2 are games I already own and actually enjoy.  They have no RPG aspect but are far superior as sci-fi games.

I was actually hoping for a solid sci-fi game WITH some good RPG elements - I play a lot of RPGs and MMORPGS.  Starfield's role playing aspect is pitifully poor to me and the sci-fi is just a layer of cheap paint.  It's a game that's a mile wide and frost-deep.

yeah, yeah, I get it, it doesn't matter if you paid 10 bucks or a thousand. I don't judge how much money people spend. I'm just wondering what you were expecting because so far it's a Bethesda role playing game through and through.

So, going into it what were you expecting?

Kyleran

Sovrath said:

Dibdabs said:

Sovrath said:

Dibdabs said:

I find myself playing Elite Dangerous and Spacebourne 2 instead!

So you really wanted Elite Dangerous (spacebourne?) and so you purchased a game from a company known to make role playing games with LOTS of stories and an emphasis on exploration?

Not sure what you really were expecting.

Do pay attention.  "I sprang $10 for a month of Game Pass to try it and I'm glad I paid no more".   I've rented it for a month for the price of a couple of beers because I'm not naïve enough to blow excessive money on hyped games these days.  If I had enjoyed it I'd have then bought it, but it's a rubbish game to me.  Elite Dangerous and Spacebourne 2 are games I already own and actually enjoy.  They have no RPG aspect but are far superior as sci-fi games.

I was actually hoping for a solid sci-fi game WITH some good RPG elements - I play a lot of RPGs and MMORPGS.  Starfield's role playing aspect is pitifully poor to me and the sci-fi is just a layer of cheap paint.  It's a game that's a mile wide and frost-deep.

yeah, yeah, I get it, it doesn't matter if you paid 10 bucks or a thousand. I don't judge how much money people spend. I'm just wondering what you were expecting because so far it's a Bethesda role playing game through and through.

So, going into it what were you expecting?

I know I would be expecting it to be Fallout 4 in space, well, minus the infected/zombies.

Gorwe

Oh look. It's Asmon stirring up drama. Again. /yawn.

Dibdabs

Sovrath said:
So, going into it what were you expecting?

You are remarkably obtuse.  In case you missed it in the last post...
"I was actually hoping for a solid sci-fi game WITH some good RPG elements - I play a lot of RPGs and MMORPGS.  Starfield's role playing aspect is pitifully poor to me and the sci-fi is just a layer of cheap paint.  It's a game that's a mile wide and frost-deep."

Scot

Terazon said:

It is well reviewed and is selling well. 
What is the problem here?
Hipster pile on project?
Tear it down! Tear it all down!

It is part of the media cycle which streamers like that idiot above (even I have heard of him and I avoid gooner streamers like the plague). The "thing" is the best "thing" ever, the likelihood of it now becoming the worst "thing" ever depends on how inflated the hype was. So the media starts by creating a story, this is the best thing ever, if that holds it will run with it, if it does not it switches to "worst thing" ever, the important thing is to keep the story running.

Now I do think Sf was over hyped, it does not live up to the expectations that players were expecting. But that's mostly due to Microsoft and the gaming media over selling how great it is. The gaming media rather than saying "we made a mistake" (that's something the media never does about anything) switches to "worst thing" mode. The streamers do this very quickly, gaming sites will do a more reserved follow up article down the line. In Sf defence I will say this is par the course, every game that really gets the rumour mill running gets over hyped so the potential for "its a bad thing" down the line is always there.

From what everyone has said it is a very good game, just not as great as many hoped for. Down the line it will (as all Bethesda games do) just get better. Is this cycle of media coverage damaging to our hobby, yes I think it is, we have angry players sounding of about every wunderkind release every year and that cannot be good. We need realistic reviews, typically every game in my eyes gets on average an extra 5 to 10 points at Metacritic. 

lahnmir

Ohh look, another member of the faux outrage club. Tiring.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

Shaigh

Kyleran said:

Not sure the overall consensus is that Starfield is a bad game. Oh look, it's not. Considering how many idiots unfairly give it a 0 or 1 rating, toss all those out and it's probably a solid 8 out of 10.

Ratings

87% OpenCritic

7/10 IGN

7/10  Steam

For those who believe it's pretty good do we still give credit to the 27 out sourcing teams?

Anyone ever watch the ending credits of a modern animated film, there's dozens of studios, hundreds if not thousands of artists and what have you.

Large scale game development probably shares a lot in common with the film industry and as noted some of the listed studios work with the biggest names in the gaming industry.

Long story short, nothing to see here, just another over-rated streamer running off at the mouth.

Stop listening to idiots folks just because they are popular on the Internet...

Bethesda getting 7/10 by IGN makes it likely its mediocre given that IGN are best known for inflated scores on big titles. 76% positive on steam is mediocre. 33% negative among metacritic playerbase is not something to write home about.

People used to love bethesda releases, it feels like those days are over.

Sovrath

Dibdabs said:

Sovrath said:
So, going into it what were you expecting?

You are remarkably obtuse.  In case you missed it in the last post...
"I was actually hoping for a solid sci-fi game WITH some good RPG elements - I play a lot of RPGs and MMORPGS.  Starfield's role playing aspect is pitifully poor to me and the sci-fi is just a layer of cheap paint.  It's a game that's a mile wide and frost-deep."

When you said you went back to elite dangerous I was thinking you were expecting elite dangerous with with rpg additions, that’s what I was driving at.

you can feel free to deintensify.

though while we’re on the subject, which rpg’s do you think had better sci-fi elements because I’m not familiar with any that seem solid sci-if. 

Certainly not in an Asimov type of way.

Sovrath

Scot said:

Terazon said:

It is well reviewed and is selling well. 
What is the problem here?
Hipster pile on project?
Tear it down! Tear it all down!

It is part of the media cycle which streamers like that idiot above (even I have heard of him and I avoid gooner streamers like the plague). The "thing" is the best "thing" ever, the likelihood of it now becoming the worst "thing" ever depends on how inflated the hype was. So the media starts by creating a story, this is the best thing ever, if that holds it will run with it, if it does not it switches to "worst thing" ever, the important thing is to keep the story running.

Now I do think Sf was over hyped, it does not live up to the expectations that players were expecting. But that's mostly due to Microsoft and the gaming media over selling how great it is. The gaming media rather than saying "we made a mistake" (that's something the media never does about anything) switches to "worst thing" mode. The streamers do this very quickly, gaming sites will do a more reserved follow up article down the line. In Sf defence I will say this is par the course, every game that really gets the rumour mill running gets over hyped so the potential for "its a bad thing" down the line is always there.

From what everyone has said it is a very good game, just not as great as many hoped for. Down the line it will (as all Bethesda games do) just get better. Is this cycle of media coverage damaging to our hobby, yes I think it is, we have angry players sounding of about every wunderkind release every year and that cannot be good. We need realistic reviews, typically every game in my eyes gets on average an extra 5 to 10 points at Metacritic. 

I also blame the players.

there is a contingent of players who take what is said, build it up in their minds and when the game can’t match what’s in their head they melt down.

the caveat to that with this game is when they say you can explore a planet that says to players “you can explore a planet.”

even though it’s a large area, players are going to rightfully expect more. 

They should have also allowed for landing properly on planets but I suppose that was a design decision.

Scot

Sovrath said:

Dibdabs said:

Sovrath said:
So, going into it what were you expecting?

You are remarkably obtuse.  In case you missed it in the last post...
"I was actually hoping for a solid sci-fi game WITH some good RPG elements - I play a lot of RPGs and MMORPGS.  Starfield's role playing aspect is pitifully poor to me and the sci-fi is just a layer of cheap paint.  It's a game that's a mile wide and frost-deep."

When you said you went back to elite dangerous I was thinking you were expecting elite dangerous with with rpg additions, that’s what I was driving at.

you can feel free to deintensify.

though while we’re on the subject, which rpg’s do you think had better sci-fi elements because I’m not familiar with any that seem solid sci-if. 

Certainly not in an Asimov type of way.

Your not going to get many TV series or films done in an Asimov style or for that matter any SF writer before the millennium style either. Look what they did to "I Robot", added a tired SF trope to a great story.

JeroKane

Kyleran said:

Not sure the overall consensus is that Starfield is a bad game. Oh look, it's not. Considering how many idiots unfairly give it a 0 or 1 rating, toss all those out and it's probably a solid 8 out of 10.

That's because, just like those so called official reviewers, many gamers just rush through the main story and play around a little in the ship builder, which is the most polished part of the game.

But the moment you deviate from the story and start going deep into the side content, the typical Bethesda reality hits you in the face and you experience how buggy this game is.
The game has plenty game breaking bugs, like for example if you complete one of the faction quest lines, before you progressed far enough into the story quests, you hit a game breaking bug where you can no longer progress the story and literally forced to start over the game!
Same withplenty side quest that can literally bug out on you at any given time, unable to complete it other than reloading and early enough save to restart it.

What is also bad with this game, is the little amount unique assets this game has. Like has been mentioned before, many planets look exactly the same! Spawn the same kind of outposts, same caves, etc.

Even in the main Story line you run into repeated Dejavu's. It's even hilariously bad with enemy NPC's, where I had to raid a gang encampment before getting into a cave to retrieve another artifact, where from the dozen or so enemies that spawn, over half of them were the exact same bald guy! It was like a gang of clones. Probably yet another bug in the spawn algorithm.

Another issue which I find rather immersion breaking, is the Citizen NPC's you see roaming around in some of the main cities in the game.  Here too they all look alike and a disapointing low polygon count, maybe one/two dozen or so unique total NPC assets and that's it.
Only the named NPC's are more unique here and there and have a higher polygon count.
Akila City is an exception, but they probably just recycled some assets from Fallout for the classic wild west look lol.

They definitely put some good effort in New Atlantis and Neon, the ship builder (though it has plenty of annoying issues/quirks in itself and could use improvement).
Everything else, including main story is quite disappointing and feels rushed.

I admit there are some really good side quest lines (that far outshine the main story content), though many of them are buggy/glitchy and can bug out on you at any given time, forcing you to reset from an earlier save (if you have it... since the amount of saves you have is limited).

Sovrath

Scot said:

Sovrath said:

Dibdabs said:

Sovrath said:
So, going into it what were you expecting?

You are remarkably obtuse.  In case you missed it in the last post...
"I was actually hoping for a solid sci-fi game WITH some good RPG elements - I play a lot of RPGs and MMORPGS.  Starfield's role playing aspect is pitifully poor to me and the sci-fi is just a layer of cheap paint.  It's a game that's a mile wide and frost-deep."

When you said you went back to elite dangerous I was thinking you were expecting elite dangerous with with rpg additions, that’s what I was driving at.

you can feel free to deintensify.

though while we’re on the subject, which rpg’s do you think had better sci-fi elements because I’m not familiar with any that seem solid sci-if. 

Certainly not in an Asimov type of way.

You’re not going to get many TV series or films done in an Asimov style or for that matter any SF writer before the millennium style either. Look what they did to "I Robot", added a tired SF trope to a great story.

Yeah that was kind of my thought. What do people really mean by sci-if as there are people who don’t understand think Star Wars is sci-if.

Played mass effect 2 and got more of a Star Wars vibe than sci-fi.

only game I can remember with a science fiction bent was Andromeda. And that’s an old game.

Terazon

The side quests is where the game opens up. The reason I love the game is because of the crazy amount of depth the content holds outside of the main storyline. 

The great thing about Bethesda games is everyone’s experience is different. 

Nanfoodle

Everyone out sources. Larger the project the more its outsourced. Also, this is a good game. Solid even. My guess most of the trash talk and ratings is coming from Xbox/MS haters. Fan Boy PS gamers that want to promote Sony like they are the redeemer of video games. Fact is, if its a good game. I dont care who makes it, I will play it. 

Dattelis

I think around 50% of people dont really care if the game was good or bad, they may be more interested in the game's modding potential. Personally, I never liked vanilla Skyrim. I dont think any game really ever lives up to its 'hype' though. Cyberpunk is a good example.

Tiller

Gorwe said:

Oh look. It's Asmon stirring up drama. Again. /yawn.

Yeah but why not? He makes good money bullshitting with folks online. He's kind of a basic guy so that's probably why he has a huge following. Honestly sometimes I agree with him, other times I really don't, kinda like the forums here. I can't really bash on him, everyone needs to make a living anyway you can I guess lol. 

ValdemarJ

Sovrath said:

They should have also allowed for landing properly on planets but I suppose that was a design decision.

What do you mean by this? I see a planet, I pick a spot to land and my ship lands there.

Are you referring to the transition loading screen? Even No Man's Sky isn't really seamless in this way. It just does a very good job at fooling players into thinking it's seamless, which maybe Starfield could have done better. No Man's Sky also offer in atmosphere flight, which is completely unrealistic when you're talking about spacecraft functioning as aircraft.

Terazon said:

The side quests is where the game opens up. The reason I love the game is because of the crazy amount of depth the content holds outside of the main storyline. 

The great thing about Bethesda games is everyone’s experience is different. 

Last night I decide to go fully scan Alpha Centauri and Jemison in particular. Plus, I wanted to explore the market industrial outposts. I'm at the last outpost and they send me to clear out a Crimson Fleet group that was holed up in an abandoned outpost. The thing was a huge maze of interconnected passages and rooms. There were hidden passages, vertical passages that required a little jet pack parkour, locked passages, and routes blocked off by destructible terrain. It was awesome.

After that little mission I was heading towards the next unexplored marker when Andreja pulled me aside to talk about her fit with Constellation, our relationship (as exploration partners - I'm not doing romance this play through at all), and how it all fits together. It was memorable RPG moment.

I really can't think of a better RPG in a science fiction setting at this point; certainly not Mass Effect where players are railroaded into 1 of 2 obtuse and clunky virtue paths. The choices I make in Starfield affect how other characters, people, and factions interact with me. That meets and exceeds the standard for being an RPG and does it as well as most others and about the same as every other Bethesda game before it.