1330
Another Starfield Post
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
1330 points (91.7% liked)
Memes
45745 readers
1485 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Stop complaining. Play it if you want, don't if you don't want to. People just like to be popular and liked. Everyone bandwagoned on Baldurs Gate being good but I can't think of a type of game I hate more than that. Now everyone is bandwagoning on this because A- they don't have an Xbox or a PC, or B- they want to be cool and alternative.
I mean come on, last week everyone was saying "omg Baldurs Gate has no microtransactions! Roleplaying! GOTY!" And now with Xbox/Bethesda making a game just like that, you guys instantly roast it for being......a Bethesda game.
I cannot stand turn based combat and generally avoid RPG's these days and even I think this is a ridiculous take.
I don't own BG3 but I've played at a friend's place and that game is about a thousand levels deeper than Starfield. If you like RPG's and mucking around with dice whilst you play computer games, BG3 is a god damn masterpiece.
I hate those types of games and I've still managed to sink 50 hours in bg3 and I'm not even done with the first act yet. It's the new standard for AAA gaming.
The larger studios need to take notice. All of the positive press and heartfelt words about this game have been heard the world over.
You CAN deliver a complete product with no microtransactions and have people absolutely frothing over it and make a big pile of cash.
It's REALLY not my cup of tea, but I can't pretend for one second that the game isn't the absolute tits. It's fucking amazing, really. I just can't do turn based. At that point I may as well get a DND group together.
Oh, it's turn-based?? I thought I would buy it but turn-based completely ruin the immersion for me. I never understood how you're supposed to suspend your disbelief when everybody politely waits for the opponent to strike.
Worse than turn based my dude/ dudette. It's roll for attack with in-built twin die. Ruined it for me too but I'm not going to stand in the way of the target audience enjoying a truly great game.
Yea neither am I
Well if you want to get nitpicky there's no "roleplaying" in a Bethesda games because there are no bad outcomes. Minor spoilers about BG3.
For instance in BG3 I went into a camp swords blazing and murdered everything in sight. Turns out I killed a recruitable companion along the way that I never would've found out if I hadn't read about it online. Technically speaking that's an undesirable outcome because I'm going to miss out on some content but at that moment I didn't give a fuck and similarly the game just went along with it. At no point did the game even hint that maybe I shouldn't kill that character, if anything the game told me the objective is to kill that character. Had it been a Bethesda game I 100% would've been prevented from just murdering that companion and the game had given me a chance to recruit them.
Similarly I reloaded one hard fight 4 times to save a character who was relatively important to the story. That bitch just kept on running into AOE effects and getting herself killed. BG3 didn't give a fuck if that character lived or died because the story would've continued without her. We all know how Bethesda handles characters that are important to the story, they literally cannot die.
And finally I'm currently at a point where the game gave me 2 choices, either I send one of my companions into eternal servitude or another character important to the story dies. Maybe there's a third option that lets me save both but I might've missed it. If this was a Bethesda game there wouldn't even be such a situation because it doesn't matter what you choose, either option has a bad outcome.
And those are just examples from my current playthrough. From what I've seen others play you might not even get to those decisions, which means some decisions will lock out other decisions down the line and that's once again something Bethesda does less and less with each game
Baldurs gate 3 gets praise because it's a great game, Starfield gets shit because underneath it's just Skyrim in space. Are we supposed to give praise for a game that follows a decade old design philosophy? If Doom 93 came out today should we lose our collective minds? No, because the industry has moved forward. Our expectations should be higher than Skyrim. There are good things about Starfield. The moment to moment combat seems excellent and Bethesda clearly has improved the visuals compared to FO4 and FO76. But the rest of the game seems it could've just as well been released back in 2011.
And before you think I'm some hyped up tweeb who is now disappointed that Starfield didn't live up to the hype, I haven't been hyped about a Bethesda game since Fallout 3. I'm well aware how easily Bethesda springs up hype and how the final product doesn't really match the hype they promote. I had pretty basic expectations of what Starfield might be and I feel like Starfield was pretty much in the ballpark to the expectations I had: good shooting, lots and lots of loading screens and menus and very little of actual "space". That's to say I didn't have high expectations in the first place.
That would explain why out of all of Skyrim i only remember the fact that you could kill the girl that invites you to dark brotherhood amd subsequently destroy it.
Was looking for a legit review and this seems to be it. Thank you :)
BG3 freedom gaming forever
All that gameplay you described? Is ancient. The industry has moved on as you say. You clicked through menus and virtually rolled dice to do that. That's so old, it predates video games themselves.
At least Starfield is more modern than turn based gameplay.
Exactly all the hype started after the game released and people banged on about how fucking amazing it is. Nearly 200hrs later and I concur.
It's boring
It's was a game that was in development for 4 years and they released it still in beta. Only 3 of the 7~ game destroying bugs have even been addressed yet. 4 of them existed and were reported on in the Early Access.
The writing is sub Bethesda, typical of LS.
Enemy base is very weak. Only like 10 different types of enemies in a world with hundreds.
Alright, you had me convinced until the sentence "the writing is sub Bethesda".
Yeah..no.
You honestly think BG3 has good writing? It may have had it back when Chris was writing. Not anymore.
This alone tells me you barely played the game lol, there are well over 10 distinct enemy types in the first act alone. Hell, I think you might run into close to 10 enemies before you even get off the Nautilus
And this either tells me the same as the above, or that you just have awful taste. The writing is one of the strongest points about the game, and nearly every review of the game agrees, whereas shitty writing is practically a cornerstone of Bethesda at this point.
Totally with you about the bugs, and I also find it frustrating that a lot of bg3 fans are willing to just pretend those bugs don't exist when disgusting it. Everything else you said is just idiotic though
The wiki lists 23 distinct enemy types. Again, in a world with hundreds of classic monsters: where are they?
The writing is very mid. It's cute that you're still in the honeymoon period with the game.
Predictable main story, shoehorned characters and short boring responses.
I think the microtransactions praise was more are, non predatory marketing / extracting every last cent praise. Didn't Stanfield have a premium cost to pay a week earlier or something? Is that not a similar concept, albeit nowhere near as shit as microtransactions.
Are we not all tired of being wrung out for our cash? What's so wrong with just charging what you need so that you can make a game.
My GF played it a lot and I saw so many bugs, quests breaking, and crazy difficulty spikes. But when Bethesda has some bugs? Oh my gosh, people start rioting. People just love to hate when they get the chance.
What did you GF play it on?
Yeah it's weird, I've seen a few really annoying bugs in bg3 and a fair bit of plot confusion and quest muddling - if Todd had made it people would be screaming about that and ignoring all the great parts.
Half my inventory is full of random things I don't know if I need, most from weird side quests that were never really explained or resolved in any meaningful way and I've forgotten about. The writing isn't bad but it's often confusing, I often find myself having to pick at random because I haven't memorized enough weird names and background lore to know what I'm actually saying.
The leveling and combat system is top notch though so props to them for inventing that.
And I'm certainly not saying it's not great, it's a great game and a lot of fun but if it had been the target of a anti circlejerk rather than a pro one we'd be seeing a totally different side to it.
Exactly. It always seemed to me like the game was held together by tape and toothpicks. If Bethesda, EA, Ubisoft or some other bigger company had made the game, people would give it a 6-7/10 and would complain up and down about the mechanics.