Starfield Dev's getting a little petty on social media

[CAD4466HK]

Was just skimming the thread, but this is incorrect. You have to reload in Doom 3 and there are reload animations . And you very much need to be aware to how much firepower you have left before your next reload in Doom 3 or the game will kick your ass on higher difficulties.

This.
And you have to always make sure that your weapons are fully reloaded so that you can max out your ammo count, or you can't pick up the next ammo pack.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhlanzg9DIQ

 

[ZodaEX]

I'm not sure about "bricking your Xbox". What remember is there was some really weird stuff where some Xboxes shipped with an inferior disk reader, and others shipped with a Samsung (?) drive (which was much better?). I don't remember if it was Morrowind or not that this was an issue for. I played the crap out of it on Xbox. What did also happen is that when your save file got large enough, if literally would not load the save and wouldn't even play. This was inevitable, even if you made sure to close every door behind you and tried to pick up everything so you wouldn't leave any garbage lying around on a random floor in an inn. As was expected, my hundred or two hundred hour save at some point became completely unplayable. I think my Xbox did have an RMA at some point, but I'm not sure if it was due to Morrowind.



I think people also need to disconnect playtime with game rating and "fun". It's highly dependent on the person, but I could totally play a game without necessarily having a lot of fun in it, or thinking it's a good game. I would keep going just because I started it and I was invested in some manner. I would do it just because it's something to do that I already have going. People do this all the time in a lot of things, like getting into abusive relationships and then staying in them. I'm obviously not going to compare Starfield to that example (at least not nearly to that degree), but I think Asmongold put it best. He's dropped over 1000 hours into some games only to later think they were crap. With Starfield, I knew it wasn't great right from the getgo. I thought it sucked, and basically all of Todd's words that said otherwise came off as that padding and fluff you would put into your high school/college essay to fill out the word count the professor wanted. But I played it because I started it, and then wasted quite a few hours maxing out the powers (granted while watching films on another screen). Why? Because I like maxing shit. That was the only reason for a lot of my gameplay.

There's also the social aspect. People can say what they like and act like they're above the influence, but humans are societal. Fact is, it's a new title, it's extremely popular, and there is a huge community around it to discuss things with. That alone is a reason to play some games. I played European Truck Simulator with a friend last weekend. Personally I think it's almost equivalent to watching paint dry. I played some hours in it to buy a truck before I played with him, and then none after. Then we played it together. It was fun just because we were playing it together. The game itself I could probably not care any less for.



I mean if I had to give you a counterpoint... it would probably just be graphics. Occasionally games also come with additional "levels" of complexity in interactions that weren't present in previous titles just due to technical limitations such as processing power. The game might just play more fluidly. But yeah, I find it really hard to go back and play older 3D titles, simply due to graphics and polish. For technical limitations... for instance, for open world stuff, the open worlds also tend to be smaller. You start looking at some of the seams and realizing where they had to cut corners because they had no other choices. I can't give you any concrete examples (maybe Ocarina of Time, which is technically open world?), it's just a feeling I've experienced when replaying older titles. Now, Morrowind still has a pretty large map, I think... so I think it'll mostly be graphics for it.

What's weird for me is that it doesn't extend to 2D games, though. For sidescrollers or say Stardew Valley/Terraria, I'll play them with no issues lol. Double standard but it be how it be.


I don't think that's a valid excuse, considering how long they had to develop it, to be honest. I think they sort of realized over time that they just have a loyal fan following that'll eat up any of the shit they put out, and that their jobs are consistent and cushy. In that sort of complacent environment, there isn't any real urge to innovate or do anything too different. I think the amount of backlash from the community has been too gradual and still isn't enough to get them to change anything. Which is sad, it's not like they need to do much.

They do. But so do fans of any AAA game franchise. Nothing unique about Bethesda games in that regard here.

 

[Lakados]

I think Starfield is a fantastic Bethesda title, it follows their formula perfectly. But I think BG3 is kicking them in the teeth, yeah I know they are different games in a different genre, but it shows what a game can be and what a development team can do. And it’s just forcing other developers to step up their game, if BG3 wasn’t a thing yet I bet Starfield wouldn’t be getting even half the hate it is.

But…

BG3 fans: how could you do that to Karlach!
Larian: Yeah that wasn’t cool of us, let’s fix that!
BG3 fans: hey we found this super obscure bug that causes this to happen.
Larian: Oh shit we never even thought of that! Let’s make it an achievement and we’ll get that patched along with the rollout for it.

Starfield fans: hey we don’t like this game breaking glitch here.
Bethesda: we’ll have you tried not doing that then?

 

[ZodaEX]

I think Starfield is a fantastic Bethesda title, it follows their formula perfectly. But I think BG3 is kicking them in the teeth, yeah I know they are different games in a different genre, but it shows what a game can be and what a development team can do. And it’s just forcing other developers to step up their game, if BG3 wasn’t a thing yet I bet Starfield wouldn’t be getting even half the hate it is.

But…

BG3 fans: how could you do that to Karlach!
Larian: Yeah that wasn’t cool of us, let’s fix that!
BG3 fans: hey we found this super obscure bug that causes this to happen.
Larian: Oh shit we never even thought of that! Let’s make it an achievement and we’ll get that patched along with the rollout for it.

Starfield fans: hey we don’t like this game breaking glitch here.
Bethesda: we’ll have you tried not doing that then?

At least Bethesda replies to their customers problems. Lots of the big publishers are unwilling to do that.

 

[OutOfPhase]

I think Starfield is a fantastic Bethesda title

"Sarah Morgan liked that."

 

[Dan_D]

Was just skimming the thread, but this is incorrect. You have to reload in Doom 3 and there are reload animations . And you very much need to be aware to how much firepower you have left before your next reload in Doom 3 or the game will kick your ass on higher difficulties.

Not Doom 3, 2016 I believe. Sorry, my bad. I confused the two.

At least Bethesda replies to their customers problems. Lots of the big publishers are unwilling to do that.

The way they are responding isn't helpful at all.

 

[ZodaEX]

Not Doom 3, 2016 I believe. Sorry, my bad. I confused the two.

The way they are responding isn't helpful at all.

Right, but that's not even the same game.

 

[Dan_D]

Right, but that's not even the same game.

I was only giving an example of a game I thought had dated mechanics. I realize Doom 3 and Doom 2016 aren't the same, I simply misspoke.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I think people also need to disconnect playtime with game rating and "fun". It's highly dependent on the person, but I could totally play a game without necessarily having a lot of fun in it, or thinking it's a good game. I would keep going just because I started it and I was invested in some manner. I would do it just because it's something to do that I already have going. People do this all the time in a lot of things, like getting into abusive relationships and then staying in them. I'm obviously not going to compare Starfield to that example (at least not nearly to that degree), but I think Asmongold put it best. He's dropped over 1000 hours into some games only to later think they were crap. With Starfield, I knew it wasn't great right from the getgo. I thought it sucked, and basically all of Todd's words that said otherwise came off as that padding and fluff you would put into your high school/college essay to fill out the word count the professor wanted. But I played it because I started it, and then wasted quite a few hours maxing out the powers (granted while watching films on another screen). Why? Because I like maxing shit. That was the only reason for a lot of my gameplay.

I don't necessarily disagree here. But it just brings so many things to question that make no sense to me.

Most people playing PC games have an incredibly long Steam list of games they've never played. They also have a very limited time to play games, doubly so if they work full time and have a spouse and children. I don't even have a spouse or children yet and if I put in 3-5 hours and get nothing out of it, I'm out.

Not sure why anyone would hate play anything.

There's also the social aspect. People can say what they like and act like they're above the influence, but humans are societal. Fact is, it's a new title, it's extremely popular, and there is a huge community around it to discuss things with. That alone is a reason to play some games. I played European Truck Simulator with a friend last weekend. Personally I think it's almost equivalent to watching paint dry. I played some hours in it to buy a truck before I played with him, and then none after. Then we played it together. It was fun just because we were playing it together. The game itself I could probably not care any less for.

This I understand more. However I don't understand why people can't simply have an opinion and be in or out after they start playing game.

I went and saw more than a few Marvel movies and Star Wars films. The short version if people wanted my opinion, I'd give it. And in order to be polite if someone really liked something I'd simply say nothing (or "that's cool" etc). However then I stopped going to watch these movies. I gave them their shot, and I moved on with my life. Not sure why people can't have that kind of distance from games/gaming.

If people are still playing Blizzard and Todd Howard games, then they get what they deserve. If you like those games, that's fine. Still objectively bad though, much like the aforementioned mid Marvel and Star Wars films which also obviously have a following.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I've probably got 200 hours in Starfield. I have it on GamePass so I can't tell exactly how long I've been playing it. That being said, I haven't touched it in weeks. Primarily, I enjoyed the ship builder. The rest of the game was just OK. It handles the illusion of choice poorly and once you've run through everything there is really no reason to replay it. The only choices that matter are your faction quests and even then, in most cases those choices don't matter much either. The only thing that changes is whether or not you get bitched at by all of your companions. The most meaningful choice is siding with UCSysDef or the Crimson Fleet. If you side with the latter then you make an enemy of UCSysDef forces wherever you go. That's about it.

The irony there is that even that choice doesn't matter because you can join every faction in the game and it doesn't even affect your status in any other faction.

You can't kill any quest giving NPC. There are no consequences for anything. There is no emergent gameplay. There is no immersive sim aspect for a game that claims to be an immersive sim. It's also not really an RPG for those that like that kind of a game either, because that would be based on constructing a character, having hard numbers for perks (and also perks that work and aren't bugged), and being able to play a character as you want. But as you say, you don't really have options to make choices.

Starfield is just a bunch of systems thrown together that work sometimes.

And it's kind of sad/depressing. Because I think there is obviously a large amount of people that really want an immersive space sim that has some scale. I don't think anyone is expecting the lie of "1000 planets to explore". But certainly if there were 3-5 worlds to explore, space flight, options on how to complete things, dialog choices that change things, stakes that matter, zero fetch quests, zero telphone, and characterization that isn't bland, then people would buy it in droves.

 

[Flogger23m]

The irony there is that even that choice doesn't matter because you can join every faction in the game and it doesn't even affect your status in any other faction.

Fallout 4 was kind of similar. It had voiced dialogue, which is better than silent, but had less options. With Starfield going back to being dialogue-less, I assumed they would at least add a bit more in terms of dialogue options and whatnot. But it seems like it is more like FO4.

In FO3/NV, you could kill almost anyone. I still enjoyed FO4, I think the exploration and quest design was still good. But the amount of player choice and not being able to really change the story (outside of more or less predetermined endings) suffered.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

Not sure why anyone would hate play anything.

I want to make it clear that I didn't "hate" it. The only thing I hate are the people that mindlessly went around trying to silence anyone that disliked it and/or brought up (many!) things in it that were clearly underbaked. I REALLY like space sandbox-ish games, and I got it for free with my CPU. Overall, I'm fine with it. Would I have purchased it for full price? Lol no. But I'm fine with the game, just not what it puffed itself up to be. Considering the effort they put into it, I think $30-40 is the most I would pay for it, if I actually had to pay. The most frustrating thing about it, is what it could have actually been, and how long it took to come out.

As far as going around collecting all of the powers, I just did it as a thing of closure. I literally meant that 99% of my attention was dedicated to just watching stuff in the other monitor. I can play with my peripheral vision remarkably well, and pay attention to both at the same time. I quit the game basically immediately after. Seeing all of the different starts was also entertaining.

So not much of a "hate" play, just a "meh" play. Objectively, I think the game is very, very meh, especially when compared to Todd's claims.

"Sarah Morgan liked that."

Thanks for reminding me of how much I ended up hating Sarah Morgan by the end of this. The companions kind of sucked. I started her route with, "Oh yay blue eyed blonde, lezgo" and ended it with, "... can... can I just... get a divorce... please?"

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I want to make it clear that I didn't "hate" it. The only thing I hate are the people that mindlessly went around trying to silence anyone that disliked it and/or brought up (many!) things in it that were clearly underbaked. I REALLY like space sandbox-ish games, and I got it for free with my CPU. Overall, I'm fine with it. Would I have purchased it for full price? Lol no. But I'm fine with the game, just not what it puffed itself up to be. Considering the effort they put into it, I think $30-40 is the most I would pay for it, if I actually had to pay. The most frustrating thing about it, is what it could have actually been, and how long it took to come out.

As far as going around collecting all of the powers, I just did it as a thing of closure. I literally meant that 99% of my attention was dedicated to just watching stuff in the other monitor. I can play with my peripheral vision remarkably well, and pay attention to both at the same time. I quit the game basically immediately after. Seeing all of the different starts was also entertaining.

So not much of a "hate" play, just a "meh" play. Objectively, I think the game is very, very meh, especially when compared to Todd's claims.

I mean, to me I feel like you're splitting hairs.
Is the only difference between 'hate' and 'meh' active dislike vs passive displeasure?
I promise I'm not trying to pick at your opinion or your feelings on the title, but I don't at all understand even bothering to play a game that I don't have an active interest in. I'll admit to watching stuff while I play games, but the game is always in the front seat and whatever else is up is in the background.

Because to me, even everything you're describing as you describe it would be something I wouldn't want to spend my time on or pay money for.

 

[Dan_D]

The irony there is that even that choice doesn't matter because you can join every faction in the game and it doesn't even affect your status in any other faction.

I think that's because the faction quests are the meat of the game's quests. Most everything else beyond the lame main quest are the radiant quests which are all brainless fetch this, kill that, type of repeatable nonsense.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I think that's because the faction quests are the meat of the game's quests. Most everything else beyond the lame main quest are the radiant quests which are all brainless fetch this, kill that, type of repeatable nonsense.

Right, but the choice has no consequences.

Considering that at best the whole point of this game is NG+, wouldn't it make more sense to have the choice have weight and then you can explore a different choice on the next play through? What's the point if you can basically see 95%+ of the content on the first run through? That's what is so dumb about this game. It would actually benefit greatly from being able to go murder-town through the game and would make sense as after the first run through you know why you're collecting artifacts. It would make sense to make the length of a single play through shorter and have more consequence due to choice rather than simply making all paths possible on a single play through.

There is no ability to play any amount of grey or ends justifying means or simply making evil decisions, etc would require actual writing and consequence. Consequence that would actually make the game interesting.

 

[DukenukemX]

Did you replay them without any mods, though?

Better question is did I originally play them without mods? I don't think I've ever played a Bethesda game without mods. This disappointed me with Fallout 4, because they made it so you could never get achievements if the game is modded. Back when the game was released in 2015, I had a Radeon HD 7850 and that was just not playing Fallout 4 perfectly. There were mods that helped boost performance by better optimizing the textures, and of course a boobs mod. I'm playing BG3 with a boobs mod, because for some reason there's no such thing as women with large breasts. Even Starfield I've modded the game to help reduce time waste.... and booty mods. I gave up on Starfield to finish BG3, because BG3 is better. It's funny that a fantasy game with blood, violence, and gay sex is totally fine, but you're not allowed to have women with a breast size larger than A cup. Remember, BG3 is game of the year and I still modded it. The stuff I did to Skyrim makes even new games today look old.

View: https://youtu.be/sKEcn7yedms?si=dVWeHriZTZjHlLVr

I literally had this mod, and then some.

 

[t1k]

Not Doom 3, 2016 I believe. Sorry, my bad. I confused the two.

I figured you might have meant Doom 2016. I had forgotten if that game even had reloading . Just the double barrel shotgun I think? Because game logic!? It's been ages since I played that.

When it comes to Bethesda games I neither love nor hate them. I always end up just messing around until I'm bored in their games. Peculiar combination of open-world sandbox and story/rpg elements. I think I generally prefer games that are a little more focused and constrained in their design. Bethesda games have a unique flavor; I will give them that.

 

[Dan_D]

I figured you might have meant Doom 2016. I had forgotten if that game even had reloading . Just the double barrel shotgun I think? Because game logic!? It's been ages since I played that.

I believe the double-barrel is the only one with a reload animation. I haven't played the game since it was new. I finished it and never touched it again.

When it comes to Bethesda games I neither love nor hate them. I always end up just messing around until I'm bored in their games. Peculiar combination of open-world sandbox and story/rpg elements. I think I generally prefer games that are a little more focused and constrained in their design. Bethesda games have a unique flavor; I will give them that.

That's been my experience as well.

 

[Lakados]

Better question is did I originally play them without mods? I don't think I've ever played a Bethesda game without mods. This disappointed me with Fallout 4, because they made it so you could never get achievements if the game is modded. Back when the game was released in 2015, I had a Radeon HD 7850 and that was just not playing Fallout 4 perfectly. There were mods that helped boost performance by better optimizing the textures, and of course a boobs mod. I'm playing BG3 with a boobs mod, because for some reason there's no such thing as women with large breasts. Even Starfield I've modded the game to help reduce time waste.... and booty mods. I gave up on Starfield to finish BG3, because BG3 is better. It's funny that a fantasy game with blood, violence, and gay sex is totally fine, but you're not allowed to have women with a breast size larger than A cup. Remember, BG3 is game of the year and I still modded it. The stuff I did to Skyrim makes even new games today look old.

View: https://youtu.be/sKEcn7yedms?si=dVWeHriZTZjHlLVr

I literally had this mod, and then some.
View attachment 620467

They are rough games to play vanilla, even when they were new and exciting the community mods were better at fixing major gameplay issues than the devs were and as the game was patched many of those mods went away. But I remember frequenting Nexus to download mods to fix quests, dialog, items, etc. Boobs, Butts, Bulges, and class enhancement were just some icing.

But back in the early 2000s the idea of a weekly patch for these sorts of games was an absurd notion.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

I mean, to me I feel like you're splitting hairs.
Is the only difference between 'hate' and 'meh' active dislike vs passive displeasure?
I promise I'm not trying to pick at your opinion or your feelings on the title, but I don't at all understand even bothering to play a game that I don't have an active interest in. I'll admit to watching stuff while I play games, but the game is always in the front seat and whatever else is up is in the background.

Because to me, even everything you're describing as you describe it would be something I wouldn't want to spend my time on or pay money for.

It's really not splitting hairs? Something that I hate would be a 1-3/10 game. Something that I'm "meh" about would be 4/10-6/10. I rarely have a real blast playing most games, but those games would be 7-10/10. My minimum bar for continuing something is if I'm having a mildly good time of it. That's what "meh" is. It's playable, and I have an okay time with it. It's really hard for me to work up the willpower to actually pick something new up, especially with "return to office" draining my time and energy so much. So my steam library is huge, but I'm not bouncing around game to game constantly to try to find the next addiction, like when I (on a whim) tried Rogue Legacy and ended up surprisingly having a blast with it. I'm just nitpicky. Anyway, I'm tired of this topic. TL;DR everyone is different.

 

[cjcox]

"We don't understand. You all aren't listening to us. We've posted truth, and you ignore us." - Starfield Developers posting on MySpace

 

[DukenukemX]

They are rough games to play vanilla, even when they were new and exciting the community mods were better at fixing major gameplay issues than the devs were and as the game was patched many of those mods went away. But I remember frequenting Nexus to download mods to fix quests, dialog, items, etc. Boobs, Butts, Bulges, and class enhancement were just some icing.

But back in the early 2000s the idea of a weekly patch for these sorts of games was an absurd notion.

To this day the only way to play Skyrim is to install a community patch that fixes a number of bugs because Bethesda won't. They re-released the game a half dozen times already, not that I ever bought more than one version of the game. The issue is that newer mods require Special Edition, while I'm still on initial DX9 version. Bethesda has fragmented the modding community because instead of just updating Skyrim, they require another purchase.

 

[Tengis]

Bethesda games to me feel stale. I agree with the huge rant. Fallout 2 was one of my favorite games of all time - I didn't even finish 3 or 4.

 

[schlitzbull]

Arkane Lyon (Dishonored series) are developing Blade, with Bethesda as publisher. Wolfenstein was similarly developed by a different studio.

Whether or not I'm as excited in Arkane since Deathloop, idk (or Arkane Austin's massive blunder with Redfall) but it's separate than whatever Bethesda make as a studio.

Fair enough that makes sense. That is a logical thought process I've used in the past as well. I've just been burned year after year after year and I'm not giving Bethesda the benefit of the for anything. After playing Alan Wake 2 and Ready or Not this year, I was reminded of what games feel like that actual care and love was put in to them. Bethesda is just another company owned by the suits at this point.

 

[DukenukemX]

Yep, games boring. Not a game engine issue. Doesn't make it better, but boring game is boring.

View: https://youtu.be/vVZ8Tx12dFY?si=oRe3EP6CnCUhd6wV

 

[Tengis]

Yep, games boring. Not a game engine issue. Doesn't make it better, but boring game is boring.

View: https://youtu.be/vVZ8Tx12dFY?si=oRe3EP6CnCUhd6wV

The engine is boring... and, like I said above, stale -_-

I love the Fallout universe but I cant get past how stale the engine makes worlds feel.

 

[MrGuvernment]

"We don't understand. You all aren't listening to us. We've posted truth, and you ignore us." - Starfield Developers posting on MySpace

To be stereo typical, but that is the mentality of most developers..."Design by developers" is an expression I use often...

 

[PeaKr]

The dialog in this game is painful to experience. After awhile I was clicking through entire paragraphs just to get to the end and felt my choices wouldn't make a difference anyway. This is a polite way of saying the writing was terrible, further, slathering on a greasy layer of woke ideology makes it unbearable. Exploring the planets was a similar experience. It was mildly fun creeping up on camps, taking out enemies but the locales weren't that unique and the ai is as tired as their engine. IMO the 15yo Crysis has better ai. The crafting is time consuming and overly complex for such mediocre upgrades, you're better off collecting legendary gear. As a big Skyrim/Fallout fan I expected far more and bought the game on release. I feel Skyrim was orders of magnitude more appealing, bethesda nailed the atmosphere of that world, I still play the soundtrack on occasion. A lot of heart went into it. In Starfield, the 30-40 quests i played through are boring af. I had 0 interest in 90% of the characters or helping them solve their problems.

The developers trying to justify this game is a sign of the times we live in. I imagine 10 years from now they'll still be trying to defend the game rather than accepting the truth. Instead of wasting time arguing with players they should be fixing the game, Cyberpunk style, but part of me feels there's way too much to fix. I think most of the positive reviews you see are people who got a thrill flying around in space, exploring worlds, building ships, crafting some gear and trusting that bethesda still had the magic sauce after all these years only to realize later on that they'd been sucker punched.

 

[M76]

I still don't get all the hate Starfield is getting. Blanket statements like "it is trash and boring" are meaningless to me. How is it worse than Fallout 4 or Skyrim? To me it seems to be an improvement on almost all fronts compared to those games.

I think it plays great as an FPS and as an immersive sim also. For a game to be immersive it doesn't have to allow the player to alter the story or kill quest giving NPCs. I think Alien Isolation is one of the best immersive sims out there even though you can't influence the story in it at all.

I'd understand all the upturned noses if we had a plethora of games that already exist that are better open world space games than Starfield. But compared to nothing Starfield is a helluva lot better. I take it with open arms and want more like it. Sure it has things that could be much improved, but which game hasn't? Is it buggy? No more than Skyrim was. So why is Skyrim adored almost universally while this gets so much hate? I see no reasonable explanation outside of gamers becoming spoiled brats who sperg out at the slightest inconvenience or when reality doesn't meet their often unrealistic expectations exactly on the head.

 

[NightReaver]

So why is Skyrim adored almost universally while this gets so much hate? I see no reasonable explanation outside of gamers becoming spoiled brats who sperg out at the slightest inconvenience or when reality doesn't meet their often unrealistic expectations exactly on the head.

How long ago did Skyrim come out again?

Sorry, the formula is stale by now. Feel free to like the game, but there's nothing "spoiled" about wanting a company like Bethesda to finally raise the bar.

 

[M76]

How long ago did Skyrim come out again?

Sorry, the formula is stale by now. Feel free to like the game, but there's nothing "spoiled" about wanting a company like Bethesda to finally raise the bar.

"It is stale" - also doesn't tell me what exactly is so wrong with it that it is unfit for consumption. Outer Worlds also uses the exact same formula, that's only 4 years old, didn't get mass hate for being stale, or trash or outdated.
You want change for the sake of change? Sometimes more of the same is just what the doctor ordered. So what other formula would you want? Make it a looter shooter?

I also want them to raise the bar, that doesn't mean I need to shit all over the game and call it utter trash. It is maybe a 7 out of 10 instead of a 10 out of 10 it could've been, but people talk about it with more vitriol than the day before gets, the game that was a literal scam.

 

[Lakados]

I still don't get all the hate Starfield is getting. Blanket statements like "it is trash and boring" are meaningless to me. How is it worse than Fallout 4 or Skyrim? To me it seems to be an improvement on almost all fronts compared to those games.

I think it plays great as an FPS and as an immersive sim also. For a game to be immersive it doesn't have to allow the player to alter the story or kill quest giving NPCs. I think Alien Isolation is one of the best immersive sims out there even though you can't influence the story in it at all.

I'd understand all the upturned noses if we had a plethora of games that already exist that are better open world space games than Starfield. But compared to nothing Starfield is a helluva lot better. I take it with open arms and want more like it. Sure it has things that could be much improved, but which game hasn't? Is it buggy? No more than Skyrim was. So why is Skyrim adored almost universally while this gets so much hate? I see no reasonable explanation outside of gamers becoming spoiled brats who sperg out at the slightest inconvenience or when reality doesn't meet their often unrealistic expectations exactly on the head.

The best way I can describe it is the game feels 15 years old. If Starfield had come out in 2010 it would have been awesome and the mods for it that would be available would have people still talking about how awesome it is.
But it’s 2023 the bar is a little higher, and there isn’t any official modding tools for Starfield yet which doesn’t even let it stand along side its predecessor’s.

 

[NightReaver]

The best way I can describe it is the game feels 15 years old. If Starfield had come out in 2010 it would have been awesome and the mods for it that would be available would have people still talking about how awesome it is.
But it’s 2023 the bar is a little higher, and there isn’t any official modding tools for Starfield yet which doesn’t even let it stand along side its predecessor’s.

Pretty much. Ngl, I made it no further than the character creation screen.

As soon as I saw the same old tired Bethesda choices I just clocked out. Glad I didn't buy it.

 

[mvmiller12]

The real travesty is that Microsoft bought Bethesda and Activision/Blizzard. They COULD have bought Paradox instead of either or any of those and had a roster of actual good games and IP, and... since Microsoft already has Obsidian and nXile, I might even have been able to look forward to more Tyranny (criminally underrated game that will, sadly, be unlikely to ever get a sequel).

 

[Tengis]

"It is stale" - also doesn't tell me what exactly is so wrong with it that it is unfit for consumption.

Every game in this engine "feels" the same... meaning Starfield "feels", what, 15+ years old? Sure they made improvements over the years but there is nothing exciting about feeling the same as Morrowind and every game that has come after it.

I feel like most of my Bethesda woes would go away if they switched to UE4/5.

 

[DukenukemX]

The best way I can describe it is the game feels 15 years old. If Starfield had come out in 2010 it would have been awesome and the mods for it that would be available would have people still talking about how awesome it is.
But it’s 2023 the bar is a little higher, and there isn’t any official modding tools for Starfield yet which doesn’t even let it stand along side its predecessor’s.

Starfield suffers from the same problems as Mass Effect Andromeda and that's a 2017 game. Lots of human characters that look like robots. It's also a game that's as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle. Lots of empty planets to explore. In Skyrim if I walk into a cave I can find a huge side quest where I help a goddess and get a unique sword, or maybe I can get into the Thieves guild and meet a lot of interesting characters. Cicero is a far more interesting character than anything in Starfield, despite the outdated animation that was even outdated in 2010. The side quests suck in Starfield and the main quest is equally as bad. Skyrim though has so many interesting side quests that many people never complete the main quest, even though the main quest is also good. Baldur's Gate 3 is not much different in game play to Baldur's Gate 2, but yes the graphics are so much better. The game is also extremely buggy by Act 3. So many game breaking bugs in BG3 by Act 3.


View: https://youtu.be/Aqni_6wfXRs?si=MIkCyX7Ly85Cfyfi

The real travesty is that Microsoft bought Bethesda and Activision/Blizzard. They COULD have bought Paradox instead of either or any of those and had a roster of actual good games and IP, and... since Microsoft already has Obsidian and nXile, I might even have been able to look forward to more Tyranny (criminally underrated game that will, sadly, be unlikely to ever get a sequel).

Microsoft has bought other studios in the past like Rare, and that didn't go so well for them. You can't just buy studios and their IP's and expect talent to stick around. Look at Metal Gear games without Hideo Kojima. Hideo Kojima went on to make other... questionable games but they were a lot better than Metal Gear Survive. Usually when a studio is bought is when developers jump ship to go make their own studio, with black jack and hookers. Like when Activision bought Blizzard and then suddenly a bunch of them left to go make Riot with games like League of Legends. Now Microsoft buys them and I'm sure more of the same will happen, except that Blizzard hasn't made a good game since 2009, so it can't get worse from here on out. Right?

It can't get worse, right guys?

View: https://youtu.be/l69BP1uhlMs?t=643

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I still don't get all the hate Starfield is getting. Blanket statements like "it is trash and boring" are meaningless to me. How is it worse than Fallout 4 or Skyrim? To me it seems to be an improvement on almost all fronts compared to those games.

I think it plays great as an FPS and as an immersive sim also. For a game to be immersive it doesn't have to allow the player to alter the story or kill quest giving NPCs. I think Alien Isolation is one of the best immersive sims out there even though you can't influence the story in it at all.

I'd understand all the upturned noses if we had a plethora of games that already exist that are better open world space games than Starfield. But compared to nothing Starfield is a helluva lot better. I take it with open arms and want more like it. Sure it has things that could be much improved, but which game hasn't? Is it buggy? No more than Skyrim was. So why is Skyrim adored almost universally while this gets so much hate? I see no reasonable explanation outside of gamers becoming spoiled brats who sperg out at the slightest inconvenience or when reality doesn't meet their often unrealistic expectations exactly on the head.

Would it help if I said all of those games are trash?

I realize clearly that isn’t the prevailing opinion as they’ve all sold a million-bazillion copies. People like McDonalds and Todd Howard. Just how it is.

 

[Lakados]

Starfield suffers from the same problems as Mass Effect Andromeda and that's a 2017 game. Lots of human characters that look like robots. It's also a game that's as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle. Lots of empty planets to explore. In Skyrim if I walk into a cave I can find a huge side quest where I help a goddess and get a unique sword, or maybe I can get into the Thieves guild and meet a lot of interesting characters. Cicero is a far more interesting character than anything in Starfield, despite the outdated animation that was even outdated in 2010. The side quests suck in Starfield and the main quest is equally as bad. Skyrim though has so many interesting side quests that many people never complete the main quest, even though the main quest is also good. Baldur's Gate 3 is not much different in game play to Baldur's Gate 2, but yes the graphics are so much better. The game is also extremely buggy by Act 3. So many game breaking bugs in BG3 by Act 3.


View: https://youtu.be/Aqni_6wfXRs?si=MIkCyX7Ly85Cfyfi

Microsoft has bought other studios in the past like Rare, and that didn't go so well for them. You can't just buy studios and their IP's and expect talent to stick around. Look at Metal Gear games without Hideo Kojima. Hideo Kojima went on to make other... questionable games but they were a lot better than Metal Gear Survive. Usually when a studio is bought is when developers jump ship to go make their own studio, with black jack and hookers. Like when Activision bought Blizzard and then suddenly a bunch of them left to go make Riot with games like League of Legends. Now Microsoft buys them and I'm sure more of the same will happen, except that Blizzard hasn't made a good game since 2009, so it can't get worse from here on out. Right?

It can't get worse, right guys?

View: https://youtu.be/l69BP1uhlMs?t=643

Exactly, IP is great, but you need talent and resources to make any use of it. Microsoft has the money to hire those, but software development is one of those things you can throw endless supplies of money at and still get nothing. You need a very specific set of Managerial skills to wrangle a crapload of neuro spicy software developers to get a workable product out of them. Small teams are easier, but takes a long long time produce results and that is counter to how corporate math dictates a project should work. So the only option is to throw manpower at it but you always end up with a too many cooks situation.
Good management makes great software, and good managers are really hard to find.

 

[M76]

Every game in this engine "feels" the same... meaning Starfield "feels", what, 15+ years old?

That doesn't mean anything inherently bad. For example I've been waiting for a game to re-capture the feeling of the original Deus Ex, a 23 year old game, but none come close ever since.
Besides the only thing that is decidedly outdated about Starfield are the area transitions. Do I wish it was seamless? Yes, I do. Would it make playing the game significantly better? Hell no, I barely notice the transitions when I get into the game.

Sure they made improvements over the years but there is nothing exciting about feeling the same as Morrowind and every game that has come after it.

Well, I'd love to feel the same as playing any of my favorite games from 15-20 years ago in modern games.

I feel like most of my Bethesda woes would go away if they switched to UE4/5.

I was thinking the same when FO76 came out, but now I'm not so sure. UE is no guarantee of quality. It would just become one more mass produced game and loose some of its uniqueness.

Would it help if I said all of those games are trash?

For starters you wouldn't look like someone who uses a double standard. I think Outer Worlds is far lesser game than Starfield. But I'm not talking about individuals, I'm baffled by the poor reception of starfield in general.

I realize clearly that isn’t the prevailing opinion as they’ve all sold a million-bazillion copies. People like McDonalds and Todd Howard. Just how it is.

I'm not seeing people suddenly claiming the big mac is no longer edible. This is something unique to gaming, and I can't help but think it is entitlement. But I just can't trace where it is coming from. Maybe it is the hateclick collecting influencers.

Starfield suffers from the same problems as Mass Effect Andromeda and that's a 2017 game. Lots of human characters that look like robots. It's also a game that's as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle. Lots of empty planets to explore. In Skyrim if I walk into a cave I can find a huge side quest where I help a goddess and get a unique sword, or maybe I can get into the Thieves guild and meet a lot of interesting characters. Cicero is a far more interesting character than anything in Starfield, despite the outdated animation that was even outdated in 2010. The side quests suck in Starfield and the main quest is equally as bad. Skyrim though has so many interesting side quests that many people never complete the main quest, even though the main quest is also good.

Well, I think your problem is not that the games are deep as a puddle, but that you only waded into them ankle deep, and then quickly pulled out. I found much more meaning in Starfield than Skyrim, more interesting locations to explore. And I don't mean given meaning to by the carrot at the end of the dungeon. That's actually outdated game design. I mean exploring the location being its own reward even without finding some superweapon or flashy armor hidden there. Even Mass Effect Andromeda has some great side characters and things that it does better than any other RPG. Like giving a proper epilogue.

 

[horrorshow]

How is it worse than Fallout 4 or Skyrim?

Two words: Load. Screens.

I'm basically just teleporting around via the crummy UI to random places.

There is no sense of "space".. (no pun intended)