Starfield

tangoseal said:
No don't like it and usually ignore all threads but the madness is that I was attacked for kind of not liking it but now I really don't like it. It's absolutely clear now that the game is hated by far more people than love it. The video if you ff to the last 3td really makes its great points and it has over a mil views
Click to expand...
A game being worse than you expected does not make it a bad game, but it can make people feel that way. And that's what is happening with Starfield.
Opencritic/metacritic and Steam reviews put Starfield as an average or slightly above average game, and that's what it is... Just average. But people expected it to be amazing and so it comes off worse.

Also worth mentioning PS5 owners have been piling on this game since before release and they love bring told how bad Starfield is, which drives a lot of ragebait content like this.
 
tangoseal said:
No don't like it and usually ignore all threads but the madness is that I was attacked for kind of not liking it but now I really don't like it. It's absolutely clear now that the game is hated by far more people than love it. The video if you ff to the last 3td really makes its great points and it has over a mil views.
Click to expand...
It is definitely not the greatest game, but it isn't terrible (IMO) either. Not sure why you would be attacked for not liking it. I don't much care for Taylor Swift, but apparently lots of people do. I am OK being in the minority for both. Trying to tell people who enjoy something why they shouldn't (and vice-versa) is just a sad commonality nowadays.
 
tangoseal said:
No don't like it and usually ignore all threads but the madness is that I was attacked for kind of not liking it but now I really don't like it. It's absolutely clear now that the game is hated by far more people than love it. The video if you ff to the last 3td really makes its great points and it has over a mil views.
Click to expand...
Glad to see you've learned absolutely nothing. As here you are still unable to let it go and just agree to disagree about the game. You say you were attacked, no you prodded the beehive and was surprised when the bees started to sting. You realize you are trying to prove to people who like the game, that what they like is actually utter crap? How do you expect it to go, that we will roll over and tell you, that no you were right all along and we are stupid people who like stupid games?

I don't even know where do you get the idea from that there are more people hating the game than liking it. How many people watch an obnoxious videos lamenting the game's perceived shortcomings is not proof of anything. I'd wager that most people who watch this hate-clickbait have never played the game, they just love to hate things. Steam review are 78% positive, but even if we disregard that and assume there are more people not liking it, what then? We should just fall in line, is that what you suggest? Herd mentality for the win?
 
tangoseal said:
No don't like it and usually ignore all threads but the madness is that I was attacked for kind of not liking it but now I really don't like it. It's absolutely clear now that the game is hated by far more people than love it.
Click to expand...
Given the player numbers, I disagree. You have ZERO evidence to prove this is the case. Internet hyperbole from the vocal minority is not evidence.
tangoseal said:
The video if you ff to the last 3td really makes its great points and it has over a mil views.
Click to expand...
So? I've seen the video and while I agree with many of the talking points, I still think its a pretty good game that at its core is fun to play. I'm the one around here who's trashed Bethesda for their laughable laundry list of bugs and dated game design and retarded game mechanics. Even so, that doesn't make the game bad. There is still a lot I like about it despite the fact that it could have been so much more.
 
M76 said:
I don't understand how some people can just suspend their morals because it is a game. Even if I know it is not real, doing shitty things still makes me feel horrible.
Click to expand...

Kind of missed this but, I mean, I totally have some lines that make me feel bad or ones that I won't cross because they leave a very bad taste in my mouth, but... for some reason I like stealing everything that isn't nailed down (and pickpocketing everyone) and my favorite activity in Grand Theft Auto is running around with a chainsaw. But everyone in some games (Skyrim?) was talking about how much they wanted to attack the children, and I'm like, "Nope, I don't get that". But that's their prerogative.

It's just a game, games are for release and for fun. If you can get emotionally invested in them and actually feel like your actions are your own, great. But not all of us play that way.

TaintedSquirrel said:
A game being worse than you expected does not make it a bad game, but it can make people feel that way. And that's what is happening with Starfield.
Opencritic/metacritic and Steam reviews put Starfield as an average or slightly above average game, and that's what it is... Just average. But people expected it to be amazing and so it comes off worse.

Also worth mentioning PS5 owners have been piling on this game since before release and they love bring told how bad Starfield is, which drives a lot of ragebait content like this.
Click to expand...

This is the right take, in my opinion, though it goes both ways. I think a lot of people preordered this and have some post purchase justification (and/or worship Bethesda) and aren't willing to admit it's average, so they'll also vote it to 10 and put down everyone that doesn't like it. This shows in its current steam rating. If you look at its overall "All Reviews" rating, it's "Mostly Positive" (73%). And I'm pretty sure the early "Recent Reviews" showed that, too. However if you look at it now, it's "Mixed" (66%) for Recent Reviews. I'll be curious to see how it evolves.

As for me, despite my current long-ish playtime in it, I'll probably be rating it "Not Recommended". There's just too much buggy crap, too many clunky game mechanics, too much tedious crap. To give you an idea, you know the first Mass Effect and the portion where you could land on mostly barren planets to explore them? That thing everyone hated? That was one of my favorite parts of the game. I've put hundreds of hours into Space Engineers, even hundreds more into No Man's Sky, and I'm definitely a fan of these type of games but... this game is just... such a disappointment, I guess. There are so many things that could have been, but never were, and considering how long they spent on this I just don't see much excuse. I'm glad it came for free for me, but if I actually paid for it I think I would have ended up returning it within 2 hours lmao.

On the upside, I really noticed my upgrade to this 4090 in this game, wow. I don't know if it's also the tightened timings on my ram kit combined with my 7800X3D, but I turned off upscaling and VRS and have all of the settings maxed out, yet I'm getting 76-85+ FPS even in New Atlantis, and everywhere else I'm usually breaking over 100 (3440x1440 res). This is pretty awesome. Game hasn't crashed for the past week or so, so I wonder if they released a stability patch at least. Too bad it... doesn't actually look all that amazing either way lol. I like some of the texturing on some of the objects, but... like my freaking NG+ ship looks like it could have come out of Halo 1. Wtf is this garbage?
 
Last edited:
tangoseal said:
No don't like it and usually ignore all threads but the madness is that I was attacked for kind of not liking it but now I really don't like it. It's absolutely clear now that the game is hated by far more people than love it. The video if you ff to the last 3td really makes its great points and it has over a mil views.
Click to expand...
So have you figured out that lvl 1 skill that you completely overlooked that I pointed out?
 
For ES6 I hope Bethesda seriously ups their game in terms of ambition and overall quality standards. If they don't, I think Todd Howard should step down so someone with higher standards and more ambition can lead the studio.
 
peppergomez said:
For ES6 I hope Bethesda seriously ups their game in terms of ambition and overall quality standards. If they don't, I think Todd Howard should step down so someone with higher standards and more ambition can lead the studio.
Click to expand...
I don't think they will. They've literally been building games the same way for 20 years. Also, unless its early in the development process for that game, its already pretty well set in stone and will be just as dated as Starfield or their last several titles. If its early, there is hope if Bethesda ever actually hears about all the comparisons to Cyberpunk 2077 and how CDPR basically does everything better than Bethesda does. (Hilarious given the reaction to the game two years ago.)
 
Dan_D said:
I don't think they will. They've literally been building games the same way for 20 years. Also, unless its early in the development process for that game, its already pretty well set in stone and will be just as dated as Starfield or their last several titles. If its early, there is hope if Bethesda ever actually hears about all the comparisons to Cyberpunk 2077 and how CDPR basically does everything better than Bethesda does. (Hilarious given the reaction to the game two years ago.)
Click to expand...
Sadly I think that you're right. I really hope that Bethesda does improve their game literally and figuratively since they do have some very appealing aspects of their game design. But tn.ir mediocrity and laziness is just unacceptable in my opinion, especially now in 2023 when other triple-a and even indie studios have proven how good RPGs can be.

At this point they are resting on their laurels and their marketing More than the actual product they deliver is what is driving their sales. I bet most Starfield sales were made on pre release hype and Todd's golden words. There are probably a lot of mildly disappointed gamers out there and I think it would be a lot harder for Bethesda to pull that same move with ES6, but the marketing will probably succeed again. Bethesda sure know how to move units even if their work is borderline shoddy.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't think they will. They've literally been building games the same way for 20 years. Also, unless its early in the development process for that game, its already pretty well set in stone and will be just as dated as Starfield or their last several titles. If its early, there is hope if Bethesda ever actually hears about all the comparisons to Cyberpunk 2077 and how CDPR basically does everything better than Bethesda does. (Hilarious given the reaction to the game two years ago.)
Click to expand...

I think both No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk have proven that gamers are totally willing to forgive you, change their minds, and play your title if you actually put honest effort into making it better. I got absolutely lost in NMS for a good long while. It's definitely grindy, but I enjoyed it, and it's made leaps since its inception.

Unfortunately, I don't know if Bethesda is ever going to do this.
 
peppergomez said:
Sadly I think that you're right. I really hope that Bethesda does improve their game literally and figuratively since they do have some very appealing aspects of their game design. But tn.ir mediocrity and laziness is just unacceptable in my opinion, especially now in 2023 when other triple-a and even indie studios have proven how good RPGs can be.

At this point they are resting on their laurels and their marketing More than the actual product they deliver is what is driving their sales. I bet most Starfield sales were made on pre release hype and Todd's golden words. There are probably a lot of mildly disappointed gamers out there and I think it would be a lot harder for Bethesda to pull that same move with ES6, but the marketing will probably succeed again. Bethesda sure know how to move units even if their work is borderline shoddy.
Click to expand...
Why should they tho? You people buy up their shit like crazy. They know that they can put out a trash game and have the community fix it for them. People like just give Bethesda a pass for some reason.
 
vegeta535 said:
Why should they tho? You people buy up their shit like crazy. They know that they can put out a trash game and have the community fix it for them. People like just give Bethesda a pass for some reason.
Click to expand...
Don't include me with that group. I've skipped their last 3 games including Starfield for the reasons stated above. But yes, I agree with you a 100%. Gamers get swindled by hype time and time again.
 
When did a game not playing the way someone wants it to turn into the game being bad?

You want your perfect game? Get the funding and make it. A certain other space game that was supposed to release 9 years ago shows what happens when you promise lots of "cool" bullshit though.
 
FearTheCow said:
When did a game not playing the way someone wants it to turn into the game being bad?
Click to expand...
When they announced COD: Infinite Warfare. That is the first instance I remember when a game was hated and mass disliked for no other reason that people were expecting something different.
 
I watched a few clips of that video, and he definitely has many valid points. I don't think that means the game is just total utter shit. The game can be more than the sum of its parts. I still find it lukewarmly enjoyable. But disappointing? Sure. The honeymoon phase does seem to be over. Steam recent ratings have gone down further, to 65% from 66%. Considering the sheer volume of reviews on Steam, going up or down 1% is a decent amount of players. It might stabilize or go back up, but currently it's at 65%. The "All Ratings" score also dropped 1%.

The problem with starting a game that's definitely at least playable but has a lot of issues is that once you start it you're already invested. As a working adult, the hardest part is just starting something sometimes, not continuing it. Once you start, it's harder to also put it down because it's something that you think you can comfortably come back to it when you get home from work. That keeps me playing some games way longer than they have any business being played. So I see a lot of people saying "well you played a hundred or something hours of it, it must be good and enjoyable" on Steam. No, it can be about as enjoyable as grinding shit in an MMORPG (that is to say, it's tedious garbage) and I would play it just because it's a way to lukewarmly waste time. People do that all the time. In my experience picking new things as you get older is just harder.

I think I'll try to collect all of the power levels (ie get to NG+10, as tedious as it is; at least I watch stuff while doing it), and then maybe do the Crimson Fleet and Ryujin questline in the NG+10, redo the main quest one more time (to see what "meaningful" choices NG+ provides), and then wrap the experience up. Afterwards I'll leave my steam review. Then people can't bitch about me not playing it enough, though they'll still bitch about me playing it too much to leave negative feedback. But they can go <too graphic so I decided to replace it>.

FearTheCow said:
You want your perfect game? Get the funding and make it. A certain other space game that was supposed to release 9 years ago shows what happens when you promise lots of "cool" bullshit though.
Click to expand...

Responding with "make your own" is always the worst "counterargument" that you can make. In double quotes because it's not a counterargument, it's shifting the goalpost. "Can you make something better" is utterly irrelevant. Can you go make a better rocket than SpaceX? A better Tesla car than Tesla? Well, I guess you shouldn't complain about Teslas burning up then. Yeah hold on let me just fund my multimillion (or billion) dollar company (with my nonexistent business degree), get extremely lucky with growing it, and then hire a bunch of developers that actually all happen to be competent, and release my own AAA title. Businesses that exist today have had to go through multiple luck checks to begin with. Expecting someone to even have the means to replicate that, just as the BASELINE to be able to complain about something is asinine.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
I watched a few clips of that video, and he definitely has many valid points. I don't think that means the game is just total utter shit. The game can be more than the sum of its parts. I still find it lukewarmly enjoyable. But disappointing? Sure. The honeymoon phase does seem to be over. Steam recent ratings have gone down further, to 65% from 66%. Considering the sheer volume of reviews on Steam, going up or down 1% is a decent amount of players. It might stabilize or go back up, but currently it's at 65%. The "All Ratings" score also dropped 1%.

The problem with starting a game that's definitely at least playable but has a lot of issues is that once you start it you're already invested. As a working adult, the hardest part is just starting something sometimes, not continuing it. Once you start, it's harder to also put it down because it's something that you think you can comfortably come back to it when you get home from work. That keeps me playing some games way longer than they have any business being played. So I see a lot of people saying "well you played a hundred or something hours of it, it must be good and enjoyable" on Steam. No, it can be about as enjoyable as grinding shit in an MMORPG (that is to say, it's tedious garbage) and I would play it just because it's a way to lukewarmly waste time. People do that all the time. In my experience picking new things as you get older is just harder.

I think I'll try to collect all of the power levels (ie get to NG+10, as tedious as it is; at least I watch stuff while doing it), and then maybe do the Crimson Fleet and Ryujin questline in the NG+10, redo the main quest one more time (to see what "meaningful" choices NG+ provides), and then wrap the experience up. Afterwards I'll leave my steam review. Then people can't bitch about me not playing it enough, though they'll still bitch about me playing it too much to leave negative feedback. But they can go <too graphic so I decided to replace it>.



Responding with "make your own" is always the worst "counterargument" that you can make. In double quotes because it's not a counterargument, it's shifting the goalpost. "Can you make something better" is utterly irrelevant. Can you go make a better rocket than SpaceX? A better Tesla car than Tesla? Well, I guess you shouldn't complain about Teslas burning up then. Yeah hold on let me just fund my multimillion (or billion) dollar company (with my nonexistent business degree), get extremely lucky with growing it, and then hire a bunch of developers that actually all happen to be competent, and release my own AAA title. Businesses that exist today have had to go through multiple luck checks to begin with. Expecting someone to even have the means to replicate that, just as the BASELINE to be able to complain about something is asinine.
Click to expand...
Good points all around
I just decided to hold myself to a higher standard in terms of how I spend my gaming time and avoid mediocre games no matter how appealing the marketing may be. I also avoided cyberpunk when it came out for similar reasons. I just refuse to play unfinished poorly created games. If they get better over time, then I will if they are ones that appeal to me. If Bethesda get off their ass and actually create a good game with Starfield then I'll buy it. I'm not holding my breath given their piss poor quality standards. Which is a shame because their marketing really did make the game seem like it had the potential to be awesome.
 
peppergomez said:
For ES6 I hope Bethesda seriously ups their game in terms of ambition and overall quality standards. If they don't, I think Todd Howard should step down so someone with higher standards and more ambition can lead the studio.
Click to expand...
The next skyrim game is being done on the newest unity game engine and I would imagine the next Fallout game as well. Bethesda knows their current engine is old and outdated. Its been talked about. I'm guessing at the time they started making Starfield they thought they could get by with their current engine. That was years ago of course and they probably decided along the way they didnt want to spend the time or money on moving over to a newer game engine like Unity 5. Now will a new game engine guarantee a better game? It will certainly help in many ways. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. A new engine will make sure they have the right tools and better tools to do it.
 
Skott said:
The next skyrim game is being done on the newest unity game engine and I would imagine the next Fallout game as well. Bethesda knows their current engine is old and outdated. Its been talked about. I'm guessing at the time they started making Starfield they thought they could get by with their current engine. That was years ago of course and they probably decided along the way they didnt want to spend the time or money on moving over to a newer game engine like Unity 5. Now will a new game engine guarantee a better game? It will certainly help in many ways. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. A new engine will make sure they have the right tools and better tools to do it.
Click to expand...
It is? I thought ES6 was going to be on the same engine as Starfield.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
I watched a few clips of that video, and he definitely has many valid points. I don't think that means the game is just total utter shit. The game can be more than the sum of its parts. I still find it lukewarmly enjoyable. But disappointing? Sure. The honeymoon phase does seem to be over. Steam recent ratings have gone down further, to 65% from 66%. Considering the sheer volume of reviews on Steam, going up or down 1% is a decent amount of players. It might stabilize or go back up, but currently it's at 65%. The "All Ratings" score also dropped 1%.

The problem with starting a game that's definitely at least playable but has a lot of issues is that once you start it you're already invested. As a working adult, the hardest part is just starting something sometimes, not continuing it. Once you start, it's harder to also put it down because it's something that you think you can comfortably come back to it when you get home from work. That keeps me playing some games way longer than they have any business being played. So I see a lot of people saying "well you played a hundred or something hours of it, it must be good and enjoyable" on Steam. No, it can be about as enjoyable as grinding shit in an MMORPG (that is to say, it's tedious garbage) and I would play it just because it's a way to lukewarmly waste time. People do that all the time. In my experience picking new things as you get older is just harder.

I think I'll try to collect all of the power levels (ie get to NG+10, as tedious as it is; at least I watch stuff while doing it), and then maybe do the Crimson Fleet and Ryujin questline in the NG+10, redo the main quest one more time (to see what "meaningful" choices NG+ provides), and then wrap the experience up. Afterwards I'll leave my steam review. Then people can't bitch about me not playing it enough, though they'll still bitch about me playing it too much to leave negative feedback. But they can go <too graphic so I decided to replace it>.



Responding with "make your own" is always the worst "counterargument" that you can make. In double quotes because it's not a counterargument, it's shifting the goalpost. "Can you make something better" is utterly irrelevant. Can you go make a better rocket than SpaceX? A better Tesla car than Tesla? Well, I guess you shouldn't complain about Teslas burning up then. Yeah hold on let me just fund my multimillion (or billion) dollar company (with my nonexistent business degree), get extremely lucky with growing it, and then hire a bunch of developers that actually all happen to be competent, and release my own AAA title. Businesses that exist today have had to go through multiple luck checks to begin with. Expecting someone to even have the means to replicate that, just as the BASELINE to be able to complain about something is asinine.
Click to expand...
Because a tesla doesn't have a gas engine, should I say it's a bad car? Because the interior of a vehicle doesn't use the materials and have the look I want, should I call it a bad vehicle?

It's sad that people can't take a step back and judge a game by reality and not what they imagine or wanted the game should be.
 
tangoseal said:
No don't like it and usually ignore all threads but the madness is that I was attacked for kind of not liking it but now I really don't like it. It's absolutely clear now that the game is hated by far more people than love it. The video if you ff to the last 3td really makes its great points and it has over a mil views.
Click to expand...

reviews have definitely turned after the initial launch...Steam reviews and overall reviews have taken a nosedive...nothing wrong with not liking a game and posting your impressions...a thread is not about only giving praise to a game...a heavily hyped game like Starfield brings out the usual group who don't want to believe it's anything less than a 10/10 masterpiece
 
FearTheCow said:
Because a tesla doesn't have a gas engine, should I say it's a bad car? Because the interior of a vehicle doesn't use the materials and have the look I want, should I call it a bad vehicle?

It's sad that people can't take a step back and judge a game by reality and not what they imagine or wanted the game should be.
Click to expand...
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I too watched the video before it was even posted here and I think he made some fair points. It wasn't a slobbering review like the initial ones, but it wasn't "hateful clickbait for views" or whatever someone else said, either. I thought it was a pretty fair take that highlighted some of the things that the game does well, and also poorly.

I'm certainly not telling anyone not to enjoy the game or anything, but pointing out actual shortcomings isn't hating for no reason or hating just to hate. I think pepper and StoleMy have perfectly valid perspectives.
 
I've been avoiding all reviews and the subreddit for this game because people's over hyped, self induced expectations always leads to disappointment and a bunch of loud but small group of complainers over stupid shit.

Just started actually working on the main story, hit lv 30 and I'm having a blast. The games combat is a bit dated but solid feeling to me. Hacking is a bit repetitive but even master locks are not really hard. The side quests have been amazing so far, only have the crimson fleet quest chain out of the major factions but I was absolutely enthralled by the entire UC vangaurd quest chain.

The biggest falling point for this game is its UI, it's a very clunky, slow and not pretty way to get shit done but it does work.

I came to this game looking for a weird skyrim fucked mass effect vibe and that's exactly what I'm getting from it. I don't think I would pay full price for it but as a gamepass game it's a major highlight.

Can't wait till molders have had their way with this game in a year so I can revisit it again with a bunch of new/improved shit.
 
Last edited:
Apparently damage scaling gets harder in each NG+

NEW GAME PLUS HAS A SECRET MODIFIER

Anyone been playing New Game Plus might be noticing that it's getting different each time through. What's happening is that in every New Game Plus you start, enemies start taking less damage from your attacks and you start taking more and more damage.

​
NG1​
NG2​
NG3​
NG4​
NG5​
Damage Received​
+15%​
+30%​
+44%​
+57%​
+69%​
Enemy Damage Received​
-5%​
-10%​
-15%​
-20%​
-25%​
​
NG6​
NG7​
NG8​
NG9​
NG10​
Damage Received​
+79%​
+88%​
+94%​
+99%​
+100%​
Enemy Damage Received​
-30%​
-35%​
-40%​
-45%​
-50%​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Click to expand...
 
Furious_Styles said:
It is? I thought ES6 was going to be on the same engine as Starfield.
Click to expand...
No they announced the next in the series was going to use the Unity engine. I'm guessing they will do so for the next Fallout as well since it comes out after it but I haven't heard if they will or not. We're talking 2028 or thereabout though so its going to be a while.
 
Skott said:
No they announced the next in the series was going to use the Unity engine. I'm guessing they will do so for the next Fallout as well since it comes out after it but I haven't heard if they will or not. We're talking 2028 or thereabout though so its going to be a while.
Click to expand...
Share the source of the announcement, please. There has never been a AAA or AAAA game released that uses Unity Engine. One would think there is a reason for that.
 
peppergomez said:
Good points all around
I just decided to hold myself to a higher standard in terms of how I spend my gaming time and avoid mediocre games no matter how appealing the marketing may be. I also avoided cyberpunk when it came out for similar reasons. I just refuse to play unfinished poorly created games. If they get better over time, then I will if they are ones that appeal to me. If Bethesda get off their ass and actually create a good game with Starfield then I'll buy it. I'm not holding my breath given their piss poor quality standards. Which is a shame because their marketing really did make the game seem like it had the potential to be awesome.
Click to expand...
Man, I love this universe where Starfield is a mediocre game and there are a plethora of more enjoyable games just waiting for me to play them.

Starfield is far from perfect, but it is far more appealing and enjoyable to me than anything else was this year on the AAA front. If you don't like Starfield now waiting won't change that. Same thing is true for Cyberpunk 2077. If you didn't like it when it came out doubtful that 1-2 years of waiting would've changed anything for you, it was still the same game. And while I haven't yet tried the famous 2.0 version, I have my doubts that it is really so much better that it would've been worth waiting 3 years for it.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
I watched a few clips of that video, and he definitely has many valid points. I don't think that means the game is just total utter shit. The game can be more than the sum of its parts. I still find it lukewarmly enjoyable. But disappointing? Sure. The honeymoon phase does seem to be over. Steam recent ratings have gone down further, to 65% from 66%. Considering the sheer volume of reviews on Steam, going up or down 1% is a decent amount of players. It might stabilize or go back up, but currently it's at 65%. The "All Ratings" score also dropped 1%.
Click to expand...
I have no definite answer as to why the review scores are going down, but I have a suspicion that a bunch of people amped themselves up on this exact kind of video and don't even give the game a fair shake. The game is definitely more than the sum of its parts, and especially than a list of bugs that rarely occur when you are actually playing it and not deliberately trying to break it for memes.

No, I'm not saying that being buggy is a non-issue, or it would not be better if the bugs were completely non-existent. Only that I've enjoyed the game very much in spite of the occasional glitch. And that 100 hours was totally worth every cent I paid for the game.
StoleMyOwnCar said:
The problem with starting a game that's definitely at least playable but has a lot of issues is that once you start it you're already invested. As a working adult, the hardest part is just starting something sometimes, not continuing it. Once you start, it's harder to also put it down because it's something that you think you can comfortably come back to it when you get home from work. That keeps me playing some games way longer than they have any business being played. So I see a lot of people saying "well you played a hundred or something hours of it, it must be good and enjoyable" on Steam. No, it can be about as enjoyable as grinding shit in an MMORPG (that is to say, it's tedious garbage) and I would play it just because it's a way to lukewarmly waste time. People do that all the time. In my experience picking new things as you get older is just harder.
Click to expand...
That's the weirdest argument I've ever seen. Makes zero sense to me. I can easily stop playing games I don't like. My library is chock full of games that have less than 2 hours on them that I have absolutely zero intention of touching ever again. On the other hand Starfield was propelled into my top 10 in hours played
StoleMyOwnCar said:
I think I'll try to collect all of the power levels (ie get to NG+10, as tedious as it is; at least I watch stuff while doing it),
Click to expand...
But of god's sake why? I never bothered with collecting all the powers, because I don't find it interesting at all. That doesn't make the game disappointing, or mediocre. You seem to be ruining your own fun by insisting on doing stuff you don't enjoy.
 
Skott said:
No they announced the next in the series was going to use the Unity engine. I'm guessing they will do so for the next Fallout as well since it comes out after it but I haven't heard if they will or not. We're talking 2028 or thereabout though so its going to be a while.
Click to expand...
Armenius said:
Share the source of the announcement, please. There has never been a AAA or AAAA game released that uses Unity Engine. One would think there is a reason for that.
Click to expand...
Only thing that I found was this: Bethesda confirmed back in October of last year that Starfield would be using an overhauled engine for the studio with Creation Engine 2. Link
 
Armenius said:
Share the source of the announcement, please. There has never been a AAA or AAAA game released that uses Unity Engine. One would think there is a reason for that.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly it was one of JuiceHead's videos where he reported it.
 
When are the patch's coming for Starfield to get that hot mess running better? no one should not need a $2000 video card to play a free game.
 
crazycrave said:
When are the patch's coming for Starfield to get that hot mess running better? no one should not need a $2000 video card to play a free game.
Click to expand...
A.) Starfield isn't free. Even if you are playing it on GamePass as I am, its not free. It's simply included with a subscription.
B.) While the game could probably run better, I've had a pretty decent experience running it on my RTX 3090 FE. Getting a third party DLSS plugin certainly helps. It also runs surprisingly well on a 12900K and Radeon 6700XT.

There isn't going to be a magic patch that's going to make the game suddenly run like whatever AAA game your thinking of that runs great and looks better than Starfield. There is a lot more to why a game runs a certain way than people seem to think there is. Games made on different engines are not directly comparable. Just because a one game looks worse than another doesn't mean it should automatically run better as a result of that.
 
Dan_D said:
A.) Starfield isn't free. Even if you are playing it on GamePass as I am, its not free. It's simply included with a subscription.
B.) While the game could probably run better, I've had a pretty decent experience running it on my RTX 3090 FE. Getting a third party DLSS plugin certainly helps. It also runs surprisingly well on a 12900K and Radeon 6700XT.

There isn't going to be a magic patch that's going to make the game suddenly run like whatever AAA game your thinking of that runs great and looks better than Starfield. There is a lot more to why a game runs a certain way than people seem to think there is. Games made on different engines are not directly comparable. Just because a one game looks worse than another doesn't mean it should automatically run better as a result of that.
Click to expand...
It was free for me with an AM5 combo from Best Buy, you shouldn't need to find a plug-in from a third party to add DLSS or XeSS to the game if the gpu is supported, just now getting Intel Arc A 770 to fire up the game without crashing to desktop on 4887 driver, also I have all three venders to run Starfield on and it would be nice for them to patch the game with it already like Forspoken is patched up with FSR 3 / Xess and DLSS already.

Hate we need upscaler's now even at 1080p to get 60fps, I can run FSR 3 on Intel now in Forspoken which can be a little faster then XeSS.
 
peppergomez said:
Good points all around
I just decided to hold myself to a higher standard in terms of how I spend my gaming time and avoid mediocre games no matter how appealing the marketing may be. I also avoided cyberpunk when it came out for similar reasons. I just refuse to play unfinished poorly created games. If they get better over time, then I will if they are ones that appeal to me. If Bethesda get off their ass and actually create a good game with Starfield then I'll buy it. I'm not holding my breath given their piss poor quality standards. Which is a shame because their marketing really did make the game seem like it had the potential to be awesome.
Click to expand...

My annoyance is Todd acted and kept acting like this was pretty much going to be the absolute best game ever, and the culmination of all his hopes and dreams. Many 10/10 critic reviews feel bought out. And then you have Bethesda fanboys that are just blindly agreeing. Then you get in, and find that demonstratively it is only a few of the things it made you think it was, to anywhere near quality level promised. When I watched the ads (this was after I had the game; I normally don't watch much hype stuff before I play anything), I realized that all of Todd's words came off the same way as me in college, attempting to inflate the importance and quality of my shitty essays.

The game can still be a moderately enjoyable voyage. I said that from the getgo, but it's a very far cry from what they tried to make it seem like. A 6/10 or 7/10 rating is about right. It's not weird to keep playing a 6/10 or 7/10 game after you're invested, even after you realize it's mediocre.

FearTheCow said:
Because a tesla doesn't have a gas engine, should I say it's a bad car? Because the interior of a vehicle doesn't use the materials and have the look I want, should I call it a bad vehicle?
Click to expand...

Sure. You can call a vehicle (or anything) bad for any reasons you want. Not everyone will agree with those reasons. There are people in this day and age which will call my builds bad because they're "ugly" and don't have a monolithic color scheme. I happen to not give a shit about how my system looks as long as it performs well. Some people do. Everyone has their own standards, and subjective basis for judging something. None of which has anything to do with your original statement that I was arguing against, which was about not being able to call something bad if you can't make something better. Which is again nonsense.

FearTheCow said:
It's sad that people can't take a step back and judge a game by reality and not what they imagine or wanted the game should be.
Click to expand...

It's obvious that's going to put a burden on your users when there's a divide between expectation and reality. Todd set this game up too high, especially with 10 years of development. At some point, cognitive dissonance will set in when people realize it's not many of those things. People buy games (especially preorder games) partially due to expectations. So this makes no sense. You can 100% rate a game based on the divide between expectation and reality. There are also many things which a lot of people dislike about the game that has nothing to do with some weird meta subjective reality bubble that you're trying to put everyone in. The graphics being dated have nothing to do with that. The shitty UI has absolutely nothing to do with that. Just examples.

I didn't actually hype myself up much for this title. I wasn't even going to buy it. The only reason I have it is because it came free with my CPU, and at the time I bought my CPU I didn't even know it was coming with it.

M76 said:
I have no definite answer as to why the review scores are going down, but I have a suspicion that a bunch of people amped themselves up on this exact kind of video and don't even give the game a fair shake. The game is definitely more than the sum of its parts, and especially than a list of bugs that rarely occur when you are actually playing it and not deliberately trying to break it for memes
Click to expand...
Absolute nonsense. There is way more positive propaganda than negative for this game. Like it's not even a question. The metacritic and opencritic ratings are still high, and the official videos from Todd have way more views than these people criticizing it. And yeah sure these bugs I'm encountering where my gun can do enough damage to heal enemies, or how I start an NG+ sometimes and not be able to save or open my inv. Yes. Those are 100% just "lol you were totally trying to just break this" bugs. Yep. I literally have a video of a corpse doing artifacting and then inflating into a large cubic formation. Wanna see it? You can definitely tell I was "trying to break it for memes".

And yes, the game is still more than the sum of its parts. Otherwise I wouldn't give it a 6-7/10. It would be like 4-5/10 at highest.


M76 said:
No, I'm not saying that being buggy is a non-issue, or it would not be better if the bugs were completely non-existent. Only that I've enjoyed the game very much in spite of the occasional glitch. And that 100 hours was totally worth every cent I paid for the game.
Click to expand...
I have been reading many of your posts throughout this topic. However neutral you're trying to seem to come off, you're failing miserably at it, so I'd be inclined to say that you would be dismissive of any and all problems with the game while acting like you're not. Which is kind of the issue with Bethesda.

M76 said:
That's the weirdest argument I've ever seen. Makes zero sense to me. I can easily stop playing games I don't like. My library is chock full of games that have less than 2 hours on them that I have absolutely zero intention of touching ever again. On the other hand Starfield was propelled into my top 10 in hours played
Click to expand...
Apparently a lot of subjective ways of thinking that are different from your own make 0 sense to you, so that's hardly a surprise.

M76 said:
But of god's sake why? I never bothered with collecting all the powers, because I don't find it interesting at all. That doesn't make the game disappointing, or mediocre. You seem to be ruining your own fun by insisting on doing stuff you don't enjoy.
Click to expand...
Because I'm paying more attention to what I'm watching than what I'm doing, and I like killing the two bosses at the end over and over anyway. It's just something to do on the side. I know you'll just reply with "makes zero sense to me", which is apparently a counterargument when used in the context of "this person is just different from me" somehow.
 
Anyway, I'm not going to sit here and go DukenukemX too much on this game, so that's all I'm going to say with regards to "is this a good/overrated game or not", and probably will be ignoring any further "is this shit or not" discussions about this game. I felt like I played enough of the game to at least give it this many walls of text.

The TL;DR is I still find/found it okay to play. As I said I think it's a 6-7/10. It's an okay game. I don't need to be playing a 10/10 game to have enough fun to continue doing something. But it has a lot of problems. It's not hard to find those with google searches (ie when I encountered something stupid in game, I googled it and found many Reddit/Bethesda forum users complaining about the same thing), and many of them don't even have anything to do with the huge divide between expectation (ie propaganda) and reality. It's frustrating that Bethesda will likely never fix these issues and continue relying on users to do so, and many of those users will ignore said issues for acting like this thing is just the best goddamn game ever. That's simultaneously the reason why it could have been so much more but wasn't, and also the reason it will stay what it is. And this will likely be what their next game is like, too.
 
Last edited:
My take on the game is that its typical of Bethesda. It's overly ambitious in some respects and hobbled by its dated systems and design. The game forces you to do a lot of inventory management and deal with a lot of BS that you shouldn't have to on that front. Graphics not withstanding, the game feels old. But like many of Bethesda's games, it has a certain charm and is definitely more fun than it should be. Frankly, I'd have enjoyed the game for the price of admission based on the ship building alone. I have no idea how many hours I have in the game but a substantial amount of them have been in the ship builder. I've modded the game significantly to allow me to build bigger, better and more complex designs than what the game normally allows and I'm having a blast doing it. Even without the mods I still enjoy ship building.
 
Dan_D said:
My take on the game is that its typical of Bethesda. It's overly ambitious in some respects and hobbled by its dated systems and design. The game forces you to do a lot of inventory management and deal with a lot of BS that you shouldn't have to on that front. Graphics not withstanding, the game feels old. But like many of Bethesda's games, it has a certain charm and is definitely more fun than it should be. Frankly, I'd have enjoyed the game for the price of admission based on the ship building alone. I have no idea how many hours I have in the game but a substantial amount of them have been in the ship builder. I've modded the game significantly to allow me to build bigger, better and more complex designs than what the game normally allows and I'm having a blast doing it. Even without the mods I still enjoy ship building.
Click to expand...

You should really play Space Engineers if you haven't already. Bit of a learning curve, but I think you would have a blast with it eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top