129
Some of Starfield’s planets are meant to be empty by design - but that’s not boring, Bethesda insists
(www.rockpapershotgun.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
129 points (93.3% liked)
Starfield
2847 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!
- Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)
Helpful links:
Spoiler policy:
- No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
- Add
[Spoilers]to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post. - Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
- Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!
Post & comment spoiler syntax:
<spoiler here>
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I really don't think the empty planets are the problem. Space Engineers has empty planets. Stationeers has empty planets. But they have interesting things to do on those empty planets. Problems to solve. Systems to build and improve.
Everything in Starfield feels like more clicking through (horribly outdated) menus and inventory screens. Between those and the loading screens, the only time the game is really fun is when you're shooting pirates. But there are games that do that part much much better.
I think that's how I'd summarize the whole game: lots of things to do but none of it has any depth and everything has been done much better elsewhere.
When they said this would be hard sci-fi, I actually imagined myself piloting an actual space ship and doing astronaut things, not a glorified magic plane.
If someone is looking for what Starfield offers but better, here are my recommendations at a fraction of cost:
Maybe the issue is that this game, like NMS before, tried to be everything to everyone and didn't develop towards something meaningful.
Hopefully, like NMS will find its soul and develop into something worth playing. (IMO)
EDIT: This is a stealthy way of getting recommendations ;)
Eve Online for the cutthroat privateer life.
Surprised you didn't mention the star citizen and space engineers. They have that I'm a space mining cowboy aspect nailed down pretty well.
Star citizen is more of an overpriced ship-store than an actual game.
Mostly true, but it is playable and amazing. I'm in love with the fact I can go from waking up in a bunk, to a space station, to mining a airless moon, all without loading screens seamlessly. Super immersive.
Buggy as all get out, lol
And a development pace slower than anything else
I would never recommend that scam to anyone hahaha
Also Endless Sky, which is free
Exploration and Space combat: Endless Space 2. I have my share of problems with that game but it's effectively Civilization In Space. You can explore star systems, and you can fight space pirates.
So, KSP 1&2 then? :)
or Elite Dangerous
No orbital mechanics in E:D, no in-space EVA. It does have a slightly more realistic flight model with dampening off, but it’s not true to life.
Thanks for the recommendations! I'll look into these, and already have dipped my feet into stuff like Everspace 2 and Outer Wilds. Some of these are on Xbox Game Pass as well, which is cool.
I think for me everything doesn't feel connected, to go anywhere it's always a loading screen. It is very clearly a limitation of their engine, but it just makes everything feel disconnected.
To boldly load where no one has loaded before
I think this is my issue too. Oblivion and Skryim had loading screens sure, but everything felt connected and purposeful - the whole spaceship mechanic can be entirely skipped with fast travel and just leaves everything so disconnected.
I'm actually curious how it would feel if it went Half-Life 2's route; keep the transitions in first-person view, and put up loading indicators when needed, but at least let people see/feel the transition to the next thing.
It probably would have done a lot if, after selecting a nav point to go to, you actually pushed a "Enter hyperspace" throttle on the dash, and then got a loading screen with the stars flying past.
Bethesda games are puddles of water: wide with content, but completely shallow in depth.
They didn't used to be though, which is why it's disappointing.
I can't wait for a small studio to license their platform and make star New Vegas
This is just a summary of modern Bethesda games in a nutshell, except forgetting to mention bugs as well.
I really don't know what people where expecting with Starfield
The game has some issues but, surprisingly, bugs really aren't one of them.
I think Microsoft can be thanked for that. They buckled down and lent their support to make sure Starfield didn't have constant crashes and backwards flying spaceships and whatnot.
No it really isn't. In all prior Bethesda games you could get from any place in the world to any other just by walking and maybe some loading screens if you're going from/to a city or dungeon. In Starfield you have to use menus and loading screens to get from most places to most other places.
Also, Starfield places more emphasis on amassing items due to having resources etc than the previous-worst Fallout 4, and all prior Bethesda games didn't have resources to manage, just items.
So no, while Starfield is very much like previous Bethesda games, many flaws and issues are exacerbated.
I'd like to know how many of you actually WALKED everywhere in Skyrim or Fallout, I tried it once, boring as fuck and extremely irritating when a quest took me from one side of the map to the other and back. Fast traveling is good and a majority of people that play their game use it almost exclusively where possible.
Y'all are delusional if you think people want to play walking simulators all the time in their RPGs, it's a very small group who plays them that way.
Because walking from one side of skyrims map to the other and back is TOTALLY the same as just being able to walk from Riften to Whiterun. The equivalent of which you wouldn't be able to do in Starfield.
Riften to Whiterun is like half the distance from solitude to Riften, walking between either is a chore and 99% of players wouldn't or don't do it.
Tho comparing it to Starfield is sorta hilarious because Starfield is absolutely massive and even games like NMS require going into menus to jump between systems.
Do I wish Starfield was more like NMS in that you can relatively seamless take off, fly to another planet, land, do it all over again? Yeah that'd be pretty sweet. Do I also know that the world's in NMS are way way less interesting and detailed overall and the storyline/NPC interactions are very basic? Yes I do.
Different strengths and different end goals for the games
I could understand expecting improvements before they actually showed the game off; but after the very first gameplay reveal, it should have been pretty obvious to anyone familiar with BGS that it was going to be the same as Skyrim and Fallout 4, but with a different aesthetic and theme.
Everything Starfield does to blow my expectations is that it's surprisingly stable and bug free. I'm playing it with a 1660 Super and it's actually playable (I mean, only 30 fps when outside); the card isn't even supported! Fallout 4 wasn't even playable at launch (single digit fps when anywhere near Boston) and I had the recommended specs for it.