- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
I must say it is not the best RPG out there, but I feel like it would have earned more. I personally have a lot of fun playing.
While it was not a Cyberpunk-grade overhype, I think it must still have been overhyped. Because if you see it as Skyrim with better graphics, it is pretty much what you’d expect.
Some of the common criticism seems to be intrinsic to the sci-fi genre. In Skyrim, you walk 100 meters and then you find some cave or camp or something that a game designer has placed there manually with some story or meaning behind it. And as a player, you notice that, because most locations in Skyrim feel somehow unique. Even though for example the dungeons have rooms that repeat a lot. Having a designer place them manually with some thought gives them something unique.
In interstellar sci-fi, a dense world like this is simply impossible. Planets are extremely large so filling them manually with content is simply not possible. And using procedural generation makes things feel meaningless. Players notice that fast. So instead, Starfield opted for having a few manually constructed locations that are placed randomly on planets, unfortunately with a lot of repetition. But that is a sound compromise, given the constraints of today’s game development technology. The dense worlds that we are used to from other genres simply don’t scale up to planetary scale, and as players, we have to get used to that.
They don’t have to make a game based in reality. They could have made their own system where the planets are small and filled that handful with lots of stuff. They chose to make real systems and have huge planets, it doesn’t matter if there’s 10, 100, 1000 planets if they are all barren and empty. The approach they took wasn’t good for a bethesda rpg, they need the hand crafted world where they can keep things popping up. That’s just the start of the problem with the game though, it is far too similar to their existing RPGs, I get playing it safe with a formula (I mean Larian do too), but you have to have great lore and story to back it up if that’s what you want to do. Bethesda made no attempt to disguise it, it is as shameless as Ubisoft’s rehashed games. They need a new engine if that is what’s limiting them.
There’s the problem. You bought a BSG rpg wanting it to not be a BSG rpg. They will always make this style of game. If you want a different style of game, they will disappoint you.
Ive been playing BSG rpgs since Morrowind, and so I got exactly what I was expecting, with some cool extra bits on top. And as such, I absolutely love it!
I didn’t buy shit. I avoid triple A games cause they all the same disappointing overhyped crap.
Ah, so you don’t even know what you’re talking about anyway. Good grief.
True, only way to view a game is to play it. No other methods at all that exist.
Sorry but if your opinion is solely formed around all the fake outrage “reviews” then it’s no wonder you dislike the game. However, that still has no basis in the actual truth of the matter of what this game is and isn’t. And yes, your comments make it very obvious that your opinion in this matter is in fact quite stupid, sorry not sorry for the ad hominem but this is just painfully ridiculous.
Ive watched over 25 hours of someone playing it. Why do you keep making such rash assumptions?
I could call your opinions just as stupid as you think mine are, as that is what they are, opinions. But I am not going to stoop to doing that. The fact you are getting so defensive over this shows me the discussion isnt worth continuing. Good luck out there.
As if that’s the same. Jesus fucking Christ dude. You could at least admit that you have zero arguments.
Barren and empty worlds have their place in such game. If nothing more, you need contrast between lush worlds and empty rocks/iceballs to make the former stand out. I think I can call myself an Elite vet at this point with 3000 hours in, and all the landable worlds, of which there are literally more than a trillion, are barren. They still offer gorgeous views and are essential for creating the appropriate artificial lonelyness of virtual space exploration. Also, geology spotting, jetpack mountaineering and base jumping can be a fun activity during long expeditions.
Also, barren worlds will be the playgrounds for modders. Skyrim had a problem that squeezing in modded larger playerhomes and settlements was often really hard task and created tons of incompatibilites. Basically no such concerns in Starfield.
Even the less barren ones you walk 900m to a cave, just to find like 2 corpses in there. Barren worlds are useful for the reason you mentioned, but they didn’t need 1000 planets that they clearly struggled to do anything with.
People keep saying this but I’d say at worst Ubisoft does games in pairs, occasionally trios. If you play AC: Odyssey and AC: Black Flag, I assure you they will be VERY different experiences. Mechanics/combat alone are a huge distinguishing factor.
Yeah, cause Black Flag was from the end of the time they actually made games and Odyssey is in their prime rehashing era.
spoiler
sadfasfasdfsa
I tried odyssey, but it was just the same as origins. I don’t like the new AC at all, they shouldn’t even be using that IP for these games.
Why would it matter if they have huge vast empty spaces vs. still huge but comically looking empty spaces? That argument just doesn’t make sense and I heard it so much from the whole Elite vs Star Citizen debate already. No, those smaller planets aren’t filled with more interesting things because they’re smaller, the gaps between points of interests are still procedurally generated and just as empty as the other game. But after seeing realistically scaled planets it makes even SC planets look like cartoon planets, sort of like the ones from NMS. It just doesn’t look right. There’s just no gameplay benefit to it.