this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
85 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30540 readers
135 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It sure feels impossible to have an honest conversation about Starfield online right now.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 71 points 1 year ago (8 children)

There are nine reviews on metacritic from various outlets that score the game 100/100. I would love for every single one of those reviewers to look me in the eye and with a straight face, repeat the claim that Starfield is perfect and there is absolutely nothing in the game that could possibly be improved on. If you want to know who's not conversing honestly, that'd be a good kicking-off point.

[–] Ashtear@lemm.ee 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, they wouldn't, because not all of the nine thought the game was perfect. A 100 on Metacritic only means the game placed in the top score for a given publication (4 out of 4 stars in WaPo's case, for example).

In games criticism, a top score doesn't always mean a perfect game. It can mean the game met or surpassed the current benchmark in its genre, or it simply was good enough to be in a top tier.

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Slight tangent.

Maximum score (4 stars, 5 stars, 10/10, 100%, whatever they're calling it) not meaning the game is perfect is not at all a problem to me. There are games I absolutely love and would recommend to just about anyone and even then I don't think they're "perfect".

The thing that bothers me most is how average scores specifically for games are basically never used, and below average scores are just a handful of the most broken things ever.

It's so absurd that on metacritic for games, "average" goes from 50 to 74%. In movies it goes from 40 to 64. I don't know for everyone else, but I don't consider 7 out of 10 an "average" mark. And a game so broken it almost doesn't run at all doesn't deserve 5/10 (really, I've seen some).

Anyway, review scores are silly. Read the guys' opinions, see why they like it and why they don't. Someone's absolute favorite masterpiece is someone else's most unplayable shit.

[–] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It feels a lot like scores have been artificially inflated for a long time. Like you said, games that can barely run will get a 5, or a 4 at the lowest. It’s like half the possible scores have been lopped off, so there’s no real way to tell what a score actually means. A 7 should be a perfectly serviceable game, but it’s treated like you’ve called a game complete trash for anything below a 8.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thingsiplay@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Ashtear Exactly. The 100% rating is often misunderstood. It does not mean perfect game, plus every publication has their own standards. Therefore one 100% is not comparable to another 100%. And like in your example conversions from 4/4 to 100% (because it can only be 0%, 25%, 75% or 100%), is done so an overall Metacritic score can be calculated.

For the longest time I think Metacritic is a bad for the gaming industry, if they lean too much towards (in example bonuses for developers, if they reach a certain rating).

[–] CleoTheWizard@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

I don’t think that we need to continue to “think” it’s bad for the games industry. It IS bad for the industry. Period. Very famously, obsidian got less money and lost out on a bonus from the initial release of fallout NV because it didn’t hit 80 on metacritic. We need to stop pretending these scores are objective or reflect anything about user enjoyment of a game. Users maybe, but the critic score is worse than useless. It’s downright misinformation to aggregate critic scores.

Like the entire point of critics is to provide different perspectives on a game. Why would I want their average? The average of their opinion is not the average gamer opinion and it also isn’t the average of the individual readers opinion.

I need no further proof than go look up the last 5 games you played on metacritic and try to guess the critic and user score and get within 5 points each time.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 39 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Is it possible to block a domain without blocking the OP? I'm sure they're a nice person, but they post the dumbest rage bait articles, and I'm sick of seeing them in my feed.

[–] Kiosade@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Wait it’s the same person posting all these weird rage bait articles for every new big game?

They’re always weird too because they’ll talk about an issue everyone already discussed at length like 2-4 weeks ago, as if it’s a new topic.

[–] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Feel free to block me, too. If you don’t like what I post, you won’t need to see it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just block me, bro. It won’t hurt my feelings. Curate your feed as you need to.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bermuda@beehaw.org 34 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I am so incredibly sick of posts about starfield.

[–] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And I’m really sick of people complaining about seeing posts on topics they personally aren’t interested in, instead of just scrolling by.

Looks like neither of us has gotten what they want today.

[–] chloyster@beehaw.org 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Respectfully, you are in a gaming forum, and starfield is one of the biggest games that has come out this year.

This comment contributes nothing to the topic the thread is about, besides getting a rise out of people.

Please think about this before commenting in the future. Thank you

[–] bermuda@beehaw.org 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] chloyster@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago

Thanks for understanding <3

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] LinusWorks4Mo@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I like the game. it's easy to spend hours in it if you just take it for what it is without thinking what you wanted it to be

[–] essellburns@beehaw.org 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you literally just described to secret to a content and fulfilled life.

[–] tburkhol@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No doubt. Enjoy your video games the way you want to enjoy them. I picked up RDR2 again recently, got to the point where you're supposed to break Micah out of prison, and I'm just like, fuck that guy. I'm going hunting and playing dress-up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

From what I've seen and heard, Starfield is on par with Fallout 3. I can't imagine being upset about that. Fallout 3 is great. Seems like some people wanted it to be No Man's Sky + Star Citizen + Cyberpunk and like... no, it's a Bethesda game. You know what that means already. I'm looking forward to picking it up and playing it, as I've always enjoyed their games for the weird sandboxes that they are.

[–] ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, but Fallout 3 came out in 2008. You'd think there would be some advancements in that time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dettweiler42@lemmyonline.com 14 points 1 year ago

Exactly. I went in blind. No trailers, no interviews, no hype. All I knew was it was a Bethesda space game. It started off slow, but after about 12 hrs (half of which was me goofing off and gun running for money), I'm starting to really like the game.

Seeing a trashcan explode into a tesseract-can is pretty funny, albeit a bit concerning about what other props have multiple copies embedded in them. I do hope Bethesda seriously re-evaluates their stance and does some optimization and scrubbing. The game runs ok on my system, but my card should not be screaming as hard as it is.

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

"if you just take it for what it is without thinking what you wanted it to be"

Why would I do that for any video game? With that mindset, you could claim any game is good, because you aren't actually engaging with its content on the level that it deserves.

Don't prop up bad games.

[–] reverendsteveii@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that's an intellectually dishonest way of quoting the person that you quote

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

lol it actually is what I wanted it to be.

It's a mechanically reasonably modern (it feels very comparable to Deus Ex or Cyberpunk gunplay/stealth wise, with better perk/level-up design) Bethesda RPG. You have to fly around more because it's set in space and most of space is empty, but there are still a lot of places to go and it's easy to get sucked down a rabbit hole.

My complaints are pretty mild. I'd like some kind of speeder for the empty "run a mile" bits, I miss the aimless wandering of terrestrial maps and kind of wish there had been some places set up to feel like that, and I occasionally see issues with texture loading. But it's the game the direct said it was going to be, and I'm personally very happy with it (though if it could get cleaned up enough to run a little better on my steam deck I wouldn't complain).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@beehaw.org 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

is it impossible to have a balanced conversation about starfield in particular, or does the internet ad economy tend to exclude the middle of every conversation in favor of loud antagonism and engagement bait?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] finthechat@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I feel ya, OP. I bought Cyberpunk 2077 at launch, played the hell out of it and loved every second of it. Then I tried to find honest discussion about it and it was threads full of nonstop bitching or substance-free fluff from the low sodium crowd. There wasn't a place to find balanced talk where people could share their experiences about the game while also being civil and open minded about things.

If you are just looking to create discussion, I guess this thread has been successful as it's gotten a lot of replies already.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The inventory system was acceptable 20 years ago when 1024x768 was a good resolution. Today it’s bad, and I don’t understand why some people can’t just admit that. It’s kinda telling that after an hour or so of play I started to look for mods to fix my pain points. Nearly 400k people are using the mod StarUI Inventory. I have an ultra wide monitor, and I have to configure my FoV in an ini file. It’s also an HDR monitor... I have to disable HDR on because it’s basically unplayable right now. Flashlight reflections on anything close to shiny are blinding.

The procedural generation doesn’t deserve the praise it’s getting. It’s no where near as complicated as people think. It’s not generating the terrain, it’s just picking from a set of giant pre-made tiles and dropping some rocks and trees on them. It’s not generating the buildings, just picking from a set of pre-made buildings. It’s not even filling the buildings procedurally… I had 2 quests in a row that used the same building. Identical building map, same robot you could reprogram near the front door. Same barricades, same small safe on a desk with the same 2 digikeys on a table just around the corner… There’s only so many cave maps too, but it does look like they block off some of the tunnels with rubble so it feels like more. I explored 2 caves in a row that had the same map, with the same safe up on a cliff you have to jump to.

It’s not ‘bad’, but it’s not as good as it should be. Once you start seeing it, you can’t un-see it and the vast amount of content shrinks. It makes me a little sad knowing how many people worked on this, and how long they worked on it, that we didn’t get more out of it.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ashamam@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its a great game, if it was released in 2013. Now its just average. They have doubled and tripled down on the formula, chucked a coat of paint on the engine and called it a day. Whats astonishing is that they spent so long doing it. I've done the MSQ, one faction questline and half of another and I'd say thats at least 1/3, probably closer to 1/2 of the curated storyline content of the game. All of it was ok I guess, but nothing in it jumped out as particularly well written, let along consequential and meaningful. I'm struggling to see how it ate so many dev hours.

I think these days we have a much more mature gamer audience, and Starfield seems squarely targeted at teens. There just isn't the depth of more modern game storytelling. Some I blame on the engine (well alot tbh) but some is squarely on Bethesda for playing it so safe. Does not bode well for ESVI.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I’m struggling to see how it ate so many dev hours.

Lots of stuff got added: space combat, ship building, the new research system, the rank challenges stuff, new lockpicking, and I bet loads of stuff besides that I forgot. Adding all of that stuff to a new game from scratch would take a good chunk of time, but I can imagine patching it all in to an ancient game engine that’s probably barely hanging together honestly it’s surprising they got some of it working at all

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"An honest conversation about Starfield needs to come from judging the game for what it is. And the game itself is … fine, I guess? A recent Kotaku article articulates in more detail how Starfield isn’t “humanity’s greatest achievement,” but it’s an enjoyable game and that’s fine. The menu system is extremely clunky and the aforementioned encumbrance issue is still there—all systems that haven’t changed in decades. Whether it’s deliveries or the fate of the galaxy, nobody else seems to do anything but you, the player. Just because these are hallmarks of past Bethesda games doesn’t mean that they get a free pass.

And herein lies the problem. Because Starfield is so similar to Bethesda’s previous offerings (for better or worse), Bethesda “fans” are pushing back against critiques of the game as a critique of all Bethesda properties. Looking at Sterling’s video about encumbrance again, the online defense of the game’s issues boils down to fans saying, “I can’t tell you why. I just do.” This is indicative of the lack of thought that Bethesda actively encourages in their games."

Yeah, that article does a good job at summing up the issues here. It really shows that maybe we need to have a broader conversation about how most past Bethesda games are worse in retrospect, actually. Starfield is helping to exemplify and point out that.

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tia Nadiezja over in the comments there also has good points:

"Bethesda games get a pass on serious, game-breaking problems that would kill games from other companies. Skyrim still, a decade and more after its original release, two full remasters in, has more glitches and bugs than Mass Effect: Andromeda or Cyberpunk did at launch, and those bugs did serious damage to those games' reputation.

Throw in the horrific treatment of staff by Bethesda's management and the open transphobia they've displayed, and people should not be playing this bad game. Have some standards, folks!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Renacles@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 year ago (9 children)

I like it so far, planetary exploration and the ship are the biggest letdowns.

I get the feeling that it would be a much better game if they just focused on what they are known for being good at, interesting maps and immersive worlds.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 8 points 1 year ago

Interestingly, the original elder scrolls games had a lot of procedurally generated content, it was only Morrowind that was the first “handmade” world from what I recall. But it would have been much cooler if they could have added a few interesting little secrets or stories to each planet and just had fewer of them or something.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Binthinkin@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

On Steam I have 150+ hours and in my achievements I see that only 0.7% of players have touched 100 planets.

So I don’t think that people are being honest and/or don’t really understand how big the game is.

This game is huge. I spent apx 40 hours just surveying systems. And I can for sure say that the prog gen is very well done. Very well especially when comparing to other space games and when specifically talking about POI integration. Every POI looks like it was built there, with minor glitches and imperfections people with less hours would not even notice. The POIs feel balanced especially when the environment is taken into account.

At 100 planets you really begin to understand the breadth of it. The planets I have been on have anywhere from 3-10+ POIs and you can “push” the invisible wall to prog gen more POIs which I understand breaks some immersion but I am fine with it. Some moons are devoid of anything, some have life, some have POIs, and some don’t. The planets typically have at least 3-5 resources and 3-5 flora and fauna. 6+ is common enough as well. While patterns may emerge between systems, it still feels pretty random and balanced.

And again, this game is massive. I haven’t even seen nearly all of the systems which I imagine will hold some easter eggs.

Lastly, this game is meant to be played slow. It’s an explorer game. You can’t rush or speed run this one. Sure some of the stories suck, yet plenty are good. Just like real life.

I can’t wait to see if someone does an “all systems surveyed” video. Because even if you have your surveyed maxxed you have to scan at the surface too. Unless it’s a gas/ice giant.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 9 points 1 year ago

I have about 120 hours and I also haven't touched 100 planets. I don't see the point in it, when they are mostly empty with randomly generated content that by now I've seen every possible thing that can exist, I'd just be seeing more of the same; exploring the same handful of possible base configurations across hundreds of planets isn't really exploring. None of that stuff is interesting, and the stories and dialogue aren't very interesting either. It's exactly what I expected, and I guess I just don't want that anymore. I want them to actually improve the formula and gameplay, and stop making the same exact game with a different coat of paint.

On Steam I have 150+ hours and in my achievements I see that only 0.7% of players have touched 100 planets.

So I don’t think that people are being honest and/or don’t really understand how big the game is.

But why would I want to touch 100 planets? They all feel exactly the same and there is no gameplay or role-playing reason to explore them.

[–] Renacles@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago

My experience is kinda the exact opposite, I hate how repetitive the planets are and stopped exploring them besides setting up resource collectors.

What I love about the game is the questing and ship building aspects, there is so much depth to what you can do with your ship that it's kind of ridiculous that it's such a small part of the game otherwise.

[–] ace@lemmy.ananace.dev 7 points 1 year ago

I feel that the problem right now is that Starfield can be both considered a Game of the Year contender as well as an absolute waste of money and time for different people, and they can both be completely correct based on their personal preferences.

Personally, I've already played all the Starfield (~45h) I'm likely to play for a long while. It turns out that the majority of the gameplay - random exploration, radiant questing, etc - are things that absolutely bore me, and the crafting/construction/research systems are far too rudimentary, pointless / siloed from the rest of the game, and clunky to keep me particularly interested either. So for me it's a very mid game, something I'd at best recommend picking up at a significantly discounted sale a few years from now - when there's enough mods to actually make it interesting.
On the other hand, some people I've spoken to turn out to absolutely love the radiant questing and proc-gen worlds, a few of them now having more than twice as much time as me in the game - and still loving every second they can spend in it.

load more comments
view more: next ›