9.0 Amazing you got to be Bot Rateing this game to even keep it at the top of the list of thing https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kgAGoSf4aw8 this is how i see it right now $45 dollar game maybe less then that if i find even more hate reviews that are ture even older games do better this
All my friends who have played it agree that it's literally "Skyrim in Space." Some mean that as a compliment; others mean it disparagingly, with the implication that it doesn't do enough to differentiate itself. Taking both reactions together, I guess that makes it a bit of a Rorschach game.
I personally have minimal interest in outer space games, so I'll pass.
I already have a great RPG called Baldur's Gate 3, which I can also play with friends. I also have a really great space exploration sim called No Man's Sky.
From what I've read so far, it can't compare to either. BGIII is a far better RPG than Starfield and No Man's Sky offers way better planets, exploration and general movement than Starfield. Would that be correct?
So I'm wondering; is the combo good enough to be worth our time?
I'm not trying to tear down the game, every Elder Scrolls game since Daggerfall has been on top of my 'best' list, but for some reason Starfield doesn't seem very appealing. Will it need a few months in the oven while the modding comminity cooks up the quality content that saves what is at it's core a very mediocre game?
From what I've read so far, it can't compare to either. BGIII is a far better RPG than Starfield and No Man's Sky offers way better planets, exploration and general movement than Starfield. Would that be correct?
They should all just be treated as different games.
BG III offers a more curated RPG experience where the the focus is on good story and encounters designed by hand.
Whereas Starfield is a more free-roam RPG experience (like Skyrim) where you have huge world that's sprinkled with some hand-crafted points of interest and quests you're free to either follow or not as you roam around.
Whereas No Man's Sky is completely procedurally generated, and it mostly throws away having quests with stories in favor of hunting for crafting materials.
With that said, BG III is awesome game and better than Starfield. No Man's Sky is also a bit better than Starfield, but imho that difference is small enough that with a couple of patches Starfield will be its equal. But they are all different games.
From what I've read so far, it can't compare to either. BGIII is a far better RPG than Starfield and No Man's Sky offers way better planets, exploration and general movement than Starfield. Would that be correct?
They should all just be treated as different games.
BG III offers a more curated RPG experience where the the focus is on good story and encounters designed by hand.
Whereas Starfield is a more free-roam RPG experience (like Skyrim) where you have huge world that's sprinkled with some hand-crafted points of interest and quests you're free to either follow or not as you roam around.
Whereas No Man's Sky is completely procedurally generated, and it mostly throws away having quests with stories in favor of hunting for crafting materials.
With that said, BG III is awesome game and better than Starfield. No Man's Sky is also a bit better than Starfield, but imho that difference is small enough that with a couple of patches Starfield will be its equal. But they are all different games.
From the reviews I have seen, most of Starfield is procedurally generated, with the hand crafted content being limited to certain patches of certain planets? Wouldn't that make it kind of a mashup of no mans sky and Skyrim?
I will buy it and play it (once I have completed BG3 which I also think is an awesome game and given my love for trying out different class combos and exploring in general will take me about a year), if it is more Skyrim that No Mans.
The thing that I found (and still do) amazing about Skyrim was all the little quests, trivia, finds that came from exploring the world in general, which was all hand crafted.
From what I've read so far, it can't compare to either. BGIII is a far better RPG than Starfield and No Man's Sky offers way better planets, exploration and general movement than Starfield. Would that be correct?
They should all just be treated as different games.
BG III offers a more curated RPG experience where the the focus is on good story and encounters designed by hand.
Whereas Starfield is a more free-roam RPG experience (like Skyrim) where you have huge world that's sprinkled with some hand-crafted points of interest and quests you're free to either follow or not as you roam around.
Whereas No Man's Sky is completely procedurally generated, and it mostly throws away having quests with stories in favor of hunting for crafting materials.
With that said, BG III is awesome game and better than Starfield. No Man's Sky is also a bit better than Starfield, but imho that difference is small enough that with a couple of patches Starfield will be its equal. But they are all different games.
From the reviews I have seen, most of Starfield is procedurally generated, with the hand crafted content being limited to certain patches of certain planets? Wouldn't that make it kind of a mashup of no mans sky and Skyrim?
I will buy it and play it (once I have completed BG3 which I also think is an awesome game and given my love for trying out different class combos and exploring in general will take me about a year), if it is more Skyrim that No Mans.
The thing that I found (and still do) amazing about Skyrim was all the little quests, trivia, finds that came from exploring the world in general, which was all hand crafted.
Lot of Skyrim was also procedurally generated. They combine procedural generation with crafting things by hand so that the game could have hand-crafted quality stuff and at the same time a map much larger than could be crafted by hand.
In Skyrim the map was small enough that they could do enough crafting by hand to give it overall a very hand-crafted feeling. Whereas in Starfield the map is so large it's sometimes really obvious that it's just procedurally generated stuff.
Starfield has quests and stuff around just like Skyrim, but since Starfield's map is so large those are spread much more thinly. I think Skyrim did that aspect of the game much better, and in Starfield Bethesda just tried to create way too large map, making it a worse game.
This is not to say that Starfield would be a bad game, it's just nowhere as good as Skyrim.
From what I've read so far, it can't compare to either. BGIII is a far better RPG than Starfield and No Man's Sky offers way better planets, exploration and general movement than Starfield. Would that be correct?
They should all just be treated as different games.
BG III offers a more curated RPG experience where the the focus is on good story and encounters designed by hand.
Whereas Starfield is a more free-roam RPG experience (like Skyrim) where you have huge world that's sprinkled with some hand-crafted points of interest and quests you're free to either follow or not as you roam around.
Whereas No Man's Sky is completely procedurally generated, and it mostly throws away having quests with stories in favor of hunting for crafting materials.
With that said, BG III is awesome game and better than Starfield. No Man's Sky is also a bit better than Starfield, but imho that difference is small enough that with a couple of patches Starfield will be its equal. But they are all different games.
From the reviews I have seen, most of Starfield is procedurally generated, with the hand crafted content being limited to certain patches of certain planets? Wouldn't that make it kind of a mashup of no mans sky and Skyrim?
I will buy it and play it (once I have completed BG3 which I also think is an awesome game and given my love for trying out different class combos and exploring in general will take me about a year), if it is more Skyrim that No Mans.
The thing that I found (and still do) amazing about Skyrim was all the little quests, trivia, finds that came from exploring the world in general, which was all hand crafted.
Lot of Skyrim was also procedurally generated. They combine procedural generation with crafting things by hand so that the game could have hand-crafted quality stuff and at the same time a map much larger than could be crafted by hand.
In Skyrim the map was small enough that they could do enough crafting by hand to give it overall a very hand-crafted feeling. Whereas in Starfield the map is so large it's sometimes really obvious that it's just procedurally generated stuff.
Starfield has quests and stuff around just like Skyrim, but since Starfield's map is so large those are spread much more thinly. I think Skyrim did that aspect of the game much better, and in Starfield Bethesda just tried to create way too large map, making it a worse game.
This is not to say that Starfield would be a bad game, it's just nowhere as good as Skyrim.
I don't think your right about Skyrim, pretty sure I read somewhere that It was all hand crafted ( I could be wrong through), thanks for the info on Starfield , informative
I can not get into this game and I was excited for it when it released on game pass. I played it about 20 mins and it was a struggle to do that. I kept waiting for the moment that would get me hooked, but it just never came. In fairness I was tired when i fired it up so that may have led to my struggles. I was just very bored
Starfield is not perfect. But it is the game I dreamed of for years. I wanted a game where I could be Malcom Reynolds and command the Serenity or James Holden on the Roci and explore the universe. I wanted to help others, make questionable decisions, have space battles, explore the universe and its planets, build a base, and craft. I wanted more than No Man's Sky but less than space sims.
Starfield is it. It has its issues. Encumbrance in this game is magnified 10x fold. The inventory system leaves a lot to be desired, I am not a fan of forced-space battles and forced lockpicking on main quests. and there are some bugs but nothing game-breaking so far.
I have gone to bed after 1am for 3 straight nights because I get so lost in game. Just one more mission, one more outpost to design, one more planet to explore, one more existentialist experience. One night I just stood at my base and watched a sunrise. It was amazing. Its been years since I got that lost in a game and I love it.
Starfield may not be perfect, but its the perfect game for me and I could not be happier.
Keep flyin'.
There is also hope for the future when it comes to the mod community. The inventory management has already been solved by a modder in a really great way. I just hope the company takes the game serious enough to improve on what's lacking today and when it comes to inventory management and stuff, leave that to the community. The AI is harder for the community to solve or other engine bugs.
From what I've read so far, it can't compare to either. BGIII is a far better RPG than Starfield and No Man's Sky offers way better planets, exploration and general movement than Starfield. Would that be correct?
They should all just be treated as different games.
BG III offers a more curated RPG experience where the the focus is on good story and encounters designed by hand.
Whereas Starfield is a more free-roam RPG experience (like Skyrim) where you have huge world that's sprinkled with some hand-crafted points of interest and quests you're free to either follow or not as you roam around.
Whereas No Man's Sky is completely procedurally generated, and it mostly throws away having quests with stories in favor of hunting for crafting materials.
With that said, BG III is awesome game and better than Starfield. No Man's Sky is also a bit better than Starfield, but imho that difference is small enough that with a couple of patches Starfield will be its equal. But they are all different games.
From the reviews I have seen, most of Starfield is procedurally generated, with the hand crafted content being limited to certain patches of certain planets? Wouldn't that make it kind of a mashup of no mans sky and Skyrim?
I will buy it and play it (once I have completed BG3 which I also think is an awesome game and given my love for trying out different class combos and exploring in general will take me about a year), if it is more Skyrim that No Mans.
The thing that I found (and still do) amazing about Skyrim was all the little quests, trivia, finds that came from exploring the world in general, which was all hand crafted.
Lot of Skyrim was also procedurally generated. They combine procedural generation with crafting things by hand so that the game could have hand-crafted quality stuff and at the same time a map much larger than could be crafted by hand.
In Skyrim the map was small enough that they could do enough crafting by hand to give it overall a very hand-crafted feeling. Whereas in Starfield the map is so large it's sometimes really obvious that it's just procedurally generated stuff.
Starfield has quests and stuff around just like Skyrim, but since Starfield's map is so large those are spread much more thinly. I think Skyrim did that aspect of the game much better, and in Starfield Bethesda just tried to create way too large map, making it a worse game.
This is not to say that Starfield would be a bad game, it's just nowhere as good as Skyrim.
I don't think your right about Skyrim, pretty sure I read somewhere that It was all hand crafted ( I could be wrong through), thanks for the info on Starfield , informative
Sorry, I remembered wrong. I checked it, and Oblivion's map was generated with combination of procedural generation and hand-crafting, but Skyrim's map was crafted by hand.
I've beaten Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. I loved those games. I couldn't get into Starfield and quit after reaching Lunar. I don't think I'm a fan of space games, although I love practically all Star Wars games and the main Mass Effect Series. But I think that's because I can play the type of character I want in Star Wars (Jedi/Sith), which is similar to classes I play in fantasy RPGs (Paladin/Battlemage).
The story didn't grab me. I just didn't care. The combat was standard Bethesda, but without any magic to compliment my melee or gunplay. Guns didn't feel good to use, neither did melee. No armor in the game, just ugly space suits, which probably played a part in feeling detached from my character. I liked the Mass Effect space suits way better and KOTOR didn't require you to wear space suits and helmets on planets.
Anyways, I'm not saying it's a bad game or a good game. I didn't play it enough to have an opinion one way or another about it. Just sharing my experience of feeling "meh" about the game.
I guess I'm also not your typical gamer. While I loved the KOTOR series, Dragon Age Origins, BG 1 &2, Icewind Dale, and the Pathfinder's; I didn't like any of the Divinity Original Sin games or BG3. I hate the 5E ruleset apparently (concentration spells specifically).
I already have a great RPG called Baldur's Gate 3, which I can also play with friends. I also have a really great space exploration sim called No Man's Sky.
From what I've read so far, it can't compare to either. BGIII is a far better RPG than Starfield and No Man's Sky offers way better planets, exploration and general movement than Starfield. Would that be correct?
So I'm wondering; is the combo good enough to be worth our time?
I'm not trying to tear down the game, every Elder Scrolls game since Daggerfall has been on top of my 'best' list, but for some reason Starfield doesn't seem very appealing. Will it need a few months in the oven while the modding comminity cooks up the quality content that saves what is at it's core a very mediocre game?
For those that want a game set in space that focuses more on story than exploration Starfield would likely be the best choice of the three. The worth of a game largely depends on how well it matches what the prospective player wants.
From what I've read so far, it can't compare to either. BGIII is a far better RPG than Starfield and No Man's Sky offers way better planets, exploration and general movement than Starfield. Would that be correct?
They should all just be treated as different games.
BG III offers a more curated RPG experience where the the focus is on good story and encounters designed by hand.
Whereas Starfield is a more free-roam RPG experience (like Skyrim) where you have huge world that's sprinkled with some hand-crafted points of interest and quests you're free to either follow or not as you roam around.
Whereas No Man's Sky is completely procedurally generated, and it mostly throws away having quests with stories in favor of hunting for crafting materials.
With that said, BG III is awesome game and better than Starfield. No Man's Sky is also a bit better than Starfield, but imho that difference is small enough that with a couple of patches Starfield will be its equal. But they are all different games.
Remember, No Man's Sky was considered a total turd at launch by many, it's turn around is one of the better success stories in gaming.
Sounds like Bethesda wouldn't have to do nearly as much to improve Starfield, and it has the advantage of modders assisting to help make the overall experience better.
Still at days end quite likely many gamers may only enjoy one or two but not all 3 of these games for "reasons," personal tastes being one of the biggest ones.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think Starfield is better than Skyrim and BG3 each for different reasons.
BG3 started amazing and fell off the cliff by the second half of the second act. The third act was just not good. (in my opinion) Like the vast majority of CRPGs developers, few can create a complete game.
NMS is the best space sim game ever made in my opinion (after years of work by the developers) but Starfield is not a space sim. It is an RPG within a space setting.
Skyrim was a good 'experience' made great by the mods we were allowed to add to the game.
Starfield is not just procedural content. That is a rubbish statement if people are throwing that around. There is more handcrafted content in Starfield than Fallout and Skyrim combined.
Because of the little details and scope of the game and the modding scene SF will played for years and years to come. Bethesda games should really be judged on their longevity. They are not sprinter games. They are long distance runners.
I've beaten Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. I loved those games. I couldn't get into Starfield and quit after reaching Lunar. I don't think I'm a fan of space games, although I love practically all Star Wars games and the main Mass Effect Series. But I think that's because I can play the type of character I want in Star Wars (Jedi/Sith), which is similar to classes I play in fantasy RPGs (Paladin/Battlemage).
The story didn't grab me. I just didn't care. The combat was standard Bethesda, but without any magic to compliment my melee or gunplay. Guns didn't feel good to use, neither did melee. No armor in the game, just ugly space suits, which probably played a part in feeling detached from my character. I liked the Mass Effect space suits way better and KOTOR didn't require you to wear space suits and helmets on planets.
Anyways, I'm not saying it's a bad game or a good game. I didn't play it enough to have an opinion one way or another about it. Just sharing my experience of feeling "meh" about the game.
I guess I'm also not your typical gamer. While I loved the KOTOR series, Dragon Age Origins, BG 1 &2, Icewind Dale, and the Pathfinder's; I didn't like any of the Divinity Original Sin games or BG3. I hate the 5E ruleset apparently (concentration spells specifically).
The thing that I found (and still do) amazing about Skyrim was all the little quests, trivia, finds that came from exploring the world in general, which was all hand crafted.
Definitely more skyrim than no mans. Lots of little quests and trivia everywhere. So much to uncover and discover when you explore every little inch of this game.
They've combined skyrim, fallout 4, and oblivion to build this game.
People are saying there is no VATS from fallout 4. Actually, there is. It's the ship component targeting system. It feels just like VATS when you're using it.
A little bit of everything from all the bethesda titles mixed into this with so much new stuff.
Starfield is not perfect. But it is the game I dreamed of for years. I wanted a game where I could be Malcom Reynolds and command the Serenity or James Holden on the Roci and explore the universe. I wanted to help others, make questionable decisions, have space battles, explore the universe and its planets, build a base, and craft. I wanted more than No Man's Sky but less than space sims.
Starfield is it. It has its issues. Encumbrance in this game is magnified 10x fold. The inventory system leaves a lot to be desired, I am not a fan of forced-space battles and forced lockpicking on main quests. and there are some bugs but nothing game-breaking so far.
I have gone to bed after 1am for 3 straight nights because I get so lost in game. Just one more mission, one more outpost to design, one more planet to explore, one more existentialist experience. One night I just stood at my base and watched a sunrise. It was amazing. Its been years since I got that lost in a game and I love it.
Starfield may not be perfect, but its the perfect game for me and I could not be happier.
Keep flyin'.
And thats all a game needs to be. Its not the same game for everyone but usually everyone finds a few games like this and its why we all game.
The thing that I found (and still do) amazing about Skyrim was all the little quests, trivia, finds that came from exploring the world in general, which was all hand crafted.
Definitely more skyrim than no mans. Lots of little quests and trivia everywhere. So much to uncover and discover when you explore every little inch of this game.
They've combined skyrim, fallout 4, and oblivion to build this game.
People are saying there is no VATS from fallout 4. Actually, there is. It's the ship component targeting system. It feels just like VATS when you're using it.
A little bit of everything from all the bethesda titles mixed into this with so much new stuff.
Starfield does feel like a mix of technologies and systems from previous games, but the flavor and feel seems most influenced by Skyrim to me.
Ship combat targeting does feel like VATS-like from Fallout. I like how target lock is acquired and, and shield tactics. I just got the Razorleaf and I'm looking forward to taking it out for a test spin.
NMS is a totally different play experience for me. It's an open ended space fantasy not bound by reality and I love it. Starfield is my place to play Traveller and Firefly in space and I love that too.
Starfield might not do its... betters, better. The same way Skyrim is a mediocre game with great bones. Mods after the fact to fix their game are what these guys do. But Starfield. with minimal to no mods (moddings iffy atm) still has a plethora of content to play. Ships to shoot. Bad guys to mangle. Hell, above that it has a shipbuilder (quasi-good), romance (again quasi-good(less than Skyrim).
It lacks some features (and... (dlc) content from No Mans Sky), but apart from its abyssmal ui and again, abyssmal dialogue, it IS the premier game in space.
I've beaten Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. I loved those games. I couldn't get into Starfield and quit after reaching Lunar. I don't think I'm a fan of space games, although I love practically all Star Wars games and the main Mass Effect Series. But I think that's because I can play the type of character I want in Star Wars (Jedi/Sith), which is similar to classes I play in fantasy RPGs (Paladin/Battlemage).
The story didn't grab me. I just didn't care. The combat was standard Bethesda, but without any magic to compliment my melee or gunplay. Guns didn't feel good to use, neither did melee. No armor in the game, just ugly space suits, which probably played a part in feeling detached from my character. I liked the Mass Effect space suits way better and KOTOR didn't require you to wear space suits and helmets on planets.
That is the main problem I have with this game currently. The main story is absolutely terrible! It's created purely to get people into NG+ and justify running countless NG+ runs. People shouldn't feel forced to go into NG+ and lose everything they worked for in their current playthrough! When the game touts you to explore, find&collect rare loot, build outposts and create amazing Spaceships (which are both huge time and credit sinks).... it's just bullocks to have the Main Story pushing you into NG+!
The main story should stand on it's own and in my opinion it's a huge mistake and oversight on Bethesda's part the way they designed this.
Just without spoiling anything. The main story just leaves gaping holes and many unanswered questions.
More and more youtubers are putting up videos, who have done 10 NG+ runs and being disappointed and think it's a total waste of time. Not to mention it becoming a boring, repetitive slog!
I've beaten Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. I loved those games. I couldn't get into Starfield and quit after reaching Lunar. I don't think I'm a fan of space games, although I love practically all Star Wars games and the main Mass Effect Series. But I think that's because I can play the type of character I want in Star Wars (Jedi/Sith), which is similar to classes I play in fantasy RPGs (Paladin/Battlemage).
The story didn't grab me. I just didn't care. The combat was standard Bethesda, but without any magic to compliment my melee or gunplay. Guns didn't feel good to use, neither did melee. No armor in the game, just ugly space suits, which probably played a part in feeling detached from my character. I liked the Mass Effect space suits way better and KOTOR didn't require you to wear space suits and helmets on planets.
That is the main problem I have with this game currently. The main story is absolutely terrible! It's created purely to get people into NG+ and justify running countless NG+ runs. People shouldn't feel forced to go into NG+ and lose everything they worked for in their current playthrough! When the game touts you to explore, find&collect rare loot, build outposts and create amazing Spaceships (which are both huge time and credit sinks).... it's just bullocks to have the Main Story pushing you into NG+!
The main story should stand on it's own and in my opinion it's a huge mistake and oversight on Bethesda's part the way they designed this.
Just without spoiling anything. The main story just leaves gaping holes and many unanswered questions.
More and more youtubers are putting up videos, who have done 10 NG+ runs and being disappointed and think it's a total waste of time. Not to mention it becoming a boring, repetitive slog!
So a regular Bethesda game. Skyrim had a rubbish main line story as well. That is not what they do.
I've beaten Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. I loved those games. I couldn't get into Starfield and quit after reaching Lunar. I don't think I'm a fan of space games, although I love practically all Star Wars games and the main Mass Effect Series. But I think that's because I can play the type of character I want in Star Wars (Jedi/Sith), which is similar to classes I play in fantasy RPGs (Paladin/Battlemage).
The story didn't grab me. I just didn't care. The combat was standard Bethesda, but without any magic to compliment my melee or gunplay. Guns didn't feel good to use, neither did melee. No armor in the game, just ugly space suits, which probably played a part in feeling detached from my character. I liked the Mass Effect space suits way better and KOTOR didn't require you to wear space suits and helmets on planets.
That is the main problem I have with this game currently. The main story is absolutely terrible! It's created purely to get people into NG+ and justify running countless NG+ runs. People shouldn't feel forced to go into NG+ and lose everything they worked for in their current playthrough! When the game touts you to explore, find&collect rare loot, build outposts and create amazing Spaceships (which are both huge time and credit sinks).... it's just bullocks to have the Main Story pushing you into NG+!
The main story should stand on it's own and in my opinion it's a huge mistake and oversight on Bethesda's part the way they designed this.
Just without spoiling anything. The main story just leaves gaping holes and many unanswered questions.
More and more youtubers are putting up videos, who have done 10 NG+ runs and being disappointed and think it's a total waste of time. Not to mention it becoming a boring, repetitive slog!
So a regular Bethesda game. Skyrim had a rubbish main line story as well. That is not what they do.
Not sure about Skyrim, but New game+ is not something I have seen in previous Fallout games.
In fact, I'd never heard of NG+ before today so had to go look it up on Wikipedia, apparently been a game design going back to 1995.
Never played a game which has such a design, not sure I want to.
If it's not all that different than rerolling a new character to play through with different stats and abilities than I'm probably OK with it.
If each playthrough improves the player's starting position somehow ad infinitum then I'm not so sure, we'll have to see.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I've beaten Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. I loved those games. I couldn't get into Starfield and quit after reaching Lunar. I don't think I'm a fan of space games, although I love practically all Star Wars games and the main Mass Effect Series. But I think that's because I can play the type of character I want in Star Wars (Jedi/Sith), which is similar to classes I play in fantasy RPGs (Paladin/Battlemage).
The story didn't grab me. I just didn't care. The combat was standard Bethesda, but without any magic to compliment my melee or gunplay. Guns didn't feel good to use, neither did melee. No armor in the game, just ugly space suits, which probably played a part in feeling detached from my character. I liked the Mass Effect space suits way better and KOTOR didn't require you to wear space suits and helmets on planets.
That is the main problem I have with this game currently. The main story is absolutely terrible! It's created purely to get people into NG+ and justify running countless NG+ runs. People shouldn't feel forced to go into NG+ and lose everything they worked for in their current playthrough! When the game touts you to explore, find&collect rare loot, build outposts and create amazing Spaceships (which are both huge time and credit sinks).... it's just bullocks to have the Main Story pushing you into NG+!
The main story should stand on it's own and in my opinion it's a huge mistake and oversight on Bethesda's part the way they designed this.
Just without spoiling anything. The main story just leaves gaping holes and many unanswered questions.
More and more youtubers are putting up videos, who have done 10 NG+ runs and being disappointed and think it's a total waste of time. Not to mention it becoming a boring, repetitive slog!
So a regular Bethesda game. Skyrim had a rubbish main line story as well. That is not what they do.
I have to take issue about Bethesda stories, they have always been great in every game I have played which is every ES and FO and also ESO.
I've beaten Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. I loved those games. I couldn't get into Starfield and quit after reaching Lunar. I don't think I'm a fan of space games, although I love practically all Star Wars games and the main Mass Effect Series. But I think that's because I can play the type of character I want in Star Wars (Jedi/Sith), which is similar to classes I play in fantasy RPGs (Paladin/Battlemage).
The story didn't grab me. I just didn't care. The combat was standard Bethesda, but without any magic to compliment my melee or gunplay. Guns didn't feel good to use, neither did melee. No armor in the game, just ugly space suits, which probably played a part in feeling detached from my character. I liked the Mass Effect space suits way better and KOTOR didn't require you to wear space suits and helmets on planets.
That is the main problem I have with this game currently. The main story is absolutely terrible! It's created purely to get people into NG+ and justify running countless NG+ runs. People shouldn't feel forced to go into NG+ and lose everything they worked for in their current playthrough! When the game touts you to explore, find&collect rare loot, build outposts and create amazing Spaceships (which are both huge time and credit sinks).... it's just bullocks to have the Main Story pushing you into NG+!
The main story should stand on it's own and in my opinion it's a huge mistake and oversight on Bethesda's part the way they designed this.
Just without spoiling anything. The main story just leaves gaping holes and many unanswered questions.
More and more youtubers are putting up videos, who have done 10 NG+ runs and being disappointed and think it's a total waste of time. Not to mention it becoming a boring, repetitive slog!
So a regular Bethesda game. Skyrim had a rubbish main line story as well. That is not what they do.
I have to take issue about Bethesda stories, they have always been great in every game I have played which is every ES and FO and also ESO.
I disagree.
Main story quests have always been the weakest lines in my opinion.
They have great side quests and sometimes expansions.
I love Bethesda games but have not liked a mainline quest. I think the one I liked the most was Oblivion.
Comments
I personally have minimal interest in outer space games, so I'll pass.
From what I've read so far, it can't compare to either. BGIII is a far better RPG than Starfield and No Man's Sky offers way better planets, exploration and general movement than Starfield. Would that be correct?
So I'm wondering; is the combo good enough to be worth our time?
I'm not trying to tear down the game, every Elder Scrolls game since Daggerfall has been on top of my 'best' list, but for some reason Starfield doesn't seem very appealing. Will it need a few months in the oven while the modding comminity cooks up the quality content that saves what is at it's core a very mediocre game?
BG III offers a more curated RPG experience where the the focus is on good story and encounters designed by hand.
Whereas Starfield is a more free-roam RPG experience (like Skyrim) where you have huge world that's sprinkled with some hand-crafted points of interest and quests you're free to either follow or not as you roam around.
Whereas No Man's Sky is completely procedurally generated, and it mostly throws away having quests with stories in favor of hunting for crafting materials.
With that said, BG III is awesome game and better than Starfield. No Man's Sky is also a bit better than Starfield, but imho that difference is small enough that with a couple of patches Starfield will be its equal. But they are all different games.
I will buy it and play it (once I have completed BG3 which I also think is an awesome game and given my love for trying out different class combos and exploring in general will take me about a year), if it is more Skyrim that No Mans.
The thing that I found (and still do) amazing about Skyrim was all the little quests, trivia, finds that came from exploring the world in general, which was all hand crafted.
In Skyrim the map was small enough that they could do enough crafting by hand to give it overall a very hand-crafted feeling. Whereas in Starfield the map is so large it's sometimes really obvious that it's just procedurally generated stuff.
Starfield has quests and stuff around just like Skyrim, but since Starfield's map is so large those are spread much more thinly. I think Skyrim did that aspect of the game much better, and in Starfield Bethesda just tried to create way too large map, making it a worse game.
This is not to say that Starfield would be a bad game, it's just nowhere as good as Skyrim.
The story didn't grab me. I just didn't care. The combat was standard Bethesda, but without any magic to compliment my melee or gunplay. Guns didn't feel good to use, neither did melee. No armor in the game, just ugly space suits, which probably played a part in feeling detached from my character. I liked the Mass Effect space suits way better and KOTOR didn't require you to wear space suits and helmets on planets.
Anyways, I'm not saying it's a bad game or a good game. I didn't play it enough to have an opinion one way or another about it. Just sharing my experience of feeling "meh" about the game.
I guess I'm also not your typical gamer. While I loved the KOTOR series, Dragon Age Origins, BG 1 &2, Icewind Dale, and the Pathfinder's; I didn't like any of the Divinity Original Sin games or BG3. I hate the 5E ruleset apparently (concentration spells specifically).
Sounds like Bethesda wouldn't have to do nearly as much to improve Starfield, and it has the advantage of modders assisting to help make the overall experience better.
Still at days end quite likely many gamers may only enjoy one or two but not all 3 of these games for "reasons," personal tastes being one of the biggest ones.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
BG3 started amazing and fell off the cliff by the second half of the second act. The third act was just not good. (in my opinion)
Like the vast majority of CRPGs developers, few can create a complete game.
NMS is the best space sim game ever made in my opinion (after years of work by the developers) but Starfield is not a space sim.
It is an RPG within a space setting.
Skyrim was a good 'experience' made great by the mods we were allowed to add to the game.
Starfield is not just procedural content.
That is a rubbish statement if people are throwing that around.
There is more handcrafted content in Starfield than Fallout and Skyrim combined.
Because of the little details and scope of the game and the modding scene SF will played for years and years to come.
Bethesda games should really be judged on their longevity.
They are not sprinter games.
They are long distance runners.
They've combined skyrim, fallout 4, and oblivion to build this game.
People are saying there is no VATS from fallout 4. Actually, there is. It's the ship component targeting system. It feels just like VATS when you're using it.
A little bit of everything from all the bethesda titles mixed into this with so much new stuff.
And thats all a game needs to be. Its not the same game for everyone but usually everyone finds a few games like this and its why we all game.
That is the main problem I have with this game currently. The main story is absolutely terrible!
It's created purely to get people into NG+ and justify running countless NG+ runs.
People shouldn't feel forced to go into NG+ and lose everything they worked for in their current playthrough!
When the game touts you to explore, find&collect rare loot, build outposts and create amazing Spaceships (which are both huge time and credit sinks).... it's just bullocks to have the Main Story pushing you into NG+!
The main story should stand on it's own and in my opinion it's a huge mistake and oversight on Bethesda's part the way they designed this.
Just without spoiling anything. The main story just leaves gaping holes and many unanswered questions.
More and more youtubers are putting up videos, who have done 10 NG+ runs and being disappointed and think it's a total waste of time. Not to mention it becoming a boring, repetitive slog!
Skyrim had a rubbish main line story as well.
That is not what they do.
In fact, I'd never heard of NG+ before today so had to go look it up on Wikipedia, apparently been a game design going back to 1995.
Never played a game which has such a design, not sure I want to.
If it's not all that different than rerolling a new character to play through with different stats and abilities than I'm probably OK with it.
If each playthrough improves the player's starting position somehow ad infinitum then I'm not so sure, we'll have to see.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon