563
Starfield is now mostly negative in recent reviews
(store.steampowered.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023
563 points (94.6% liked)
Games
16746 readers
543 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
i had a lot of fun. i think people just expect too much from this type of game and bethesda. look at no mans sky, i still think its just as boring as when it released but it has gained a great following. people now seem to just assume if a game is made by a AAA team everyone must love it regardless of personal taste. in my opinion that mind set is the reason most AAA get focus grouped to death. im scared that people are going to kill off the type of games i like because everyone acts like its crime to release a game that doesn't appeal to everyones exact tastes/desires.
i will say though starfield is my least favorite bethesda game. starfield 7/10
People expected a game about exploration. Because it's a Bethesda game, and because it's a space bethesda game, and somehow Bethesda managed to make a game that doesn't really have exploration in it despite having loads of planets.
Why did they not just make a single solar system full of curated content, why did it have to be set in the vast universe forcing them to use random generation, that is full of nothing? They sent themselves up to fail on this one.
after starfield i finally played Outer Wilds (not a typo) and goodness, i have so much more memories with that game than starfield, despite the fact i finished it in half the time i beat starfield
if you're craving incredibly crafted space exploration play Outer Wilds, don't look up anything about it though, it's one of those that will make you wish for amnesia so you can experience it again for the first time
The expansion is very good too if you haven't played it yet. Luckily my memory isn't the best so when I managed to replay the game after finally picking up the DLC I got to rediscover many parts of the game.
oh i did, it was absolutely wonderful and terrifying
Yeah "reduced frights" mode was required for me to get through some sections lol. Incredibly well done addition though.
I actually haven't finished the DLC because that single menu option very literally gave me nightmares. I gotta suck it up and play.
it's worth it! but don't be ashamed to take breaks, the devs know how to do horror well and it shows
i think they thought it would be more fun than most people seem to think it is. and being wrong is an easy path to failure.
Make it some weird bizarre aliens that can live without atmosphere and have it set on an extremely small pair of binary moons set to real scale.
I knew what to expect, and I was still disappointed. I was expecting the constant loading, and the jank, and the shit AI, etc. I was also expecting the world building to be decent, and the quests to be interesting with tons of distractions that keep you coming back. That's what makes it a disappointment; the actually good things about a Bethesda RPG are totally absent in Starfield. It's just the mechanics and formula; none of the flair or personality.
If only old school Bethesda fans had warned us of this trend of Bethesda removing the very things that make their games worthwhile for their last four major releases.
Still a 7? Just curious, what made it fun for you? What were the expectations? Legit curious, as finding a good comment about the game that doesnt sound salty af is far in between.
I found skyrim fun for 60ish hours and than got extremely bored. Never touched it again. Starfield looked like that but barren as hell, which is not what it is sold as. Those are my personal reasons for not touching it though!
well, i thought of it as fallout 4 in space before playing. it has a couple core gameplay changes i liked and a couple i didn't. it is the slowest paced bethesda game for sure, which is why i think most people call it boring. if you didnt replay skyrim i doubt you would replay this game. i give it a 7/10 for people of my taste and i would consider myself the intended audience. i have played bethesda games since oblivion and average about 200 hours per bethesda game, usually 3 playthroughs seperated by about a year or 2. for reference here are my top bethesda games:
these scores reflect how much i enjoyed each game. but if New Vegas had no technical issues it would be 10/10 for me.
Ye, that makes perfect sense, thanks! From your other scoring, i can see the game isnt that bad, but just average. Even compared to the others, which are rated a lot higher. From this i can also assume id enjoy the game for like 30sh hours, because this isnt 100% my jam. For me that wouldnt be worth the full price, but i can understand for somebody that would put 200h in np it would be worth it :)
Yeah it's not a bad game by any standards, but it's not mind-blowingly great either. It has some cool and interesting concepts.
It's on game pass if you want a (potentially) cheaper way to try it.
No thanks. Im personally against gsme pass. I dont like their model snd prefer to own things
yeah pretty much. i wouldnt recommend it to anybody that doesn't love bethesda's other games.
New Vegas has no technical issues if you mod it properly these days!
Can I mod new Vegas to make it look or perform better on an Xbox? The graphics really break my immersion.
The Xbox version sucks ass, easily the buggiest version. Play it on PC, anything can run it now.
Mirrors from a tower plant magically turning into solar panels when installed on an airbase? 0/10 unplayable.
Not op but I too give it 6 or 7. I liked the story. I liked shooting things. I liked the dialogue. I liked the base building. Liked the graphics, it was super quick for me on my 4900 xt. But everything was liked. Not loved. It was mediocre in everything. The POI were fun, but there are like 10 that get recycled. I like the planets but they're also recycled. I like the cities but they're all the size of a tiny town. It's fun but it was sold as something grand which undersold it's promises. First colony outside of earth, biggest civilization, has like a population of 100 if that. They should have sold the entire story as worlds on the rim. Not the hub of humanity.
yeah i would agree with you for the most part. i guess im lucky i ignored the hype after the announcement. i have seen the hype train derail too many times.
I get opinions are subjective, but I don't believe this is a fair opinion to have, based on the amount of new content they have released over the life of the game. They've added more quests and more things to do and explore.
It's a very sandboxy game, which may be what you're speaking towards (if you don't enjoy sandbox games that is)?
There's no voiceover work to be spoken of. You're constantly just reading dialog and menus. The loop isn't that different from almost any other open world survival crafting game, except it has spaceships you can fly from planet to space - just like in Space Engineers an arguably better space sandbox game that's actually a sandbox.
My comment was directed towards this though, and not what you mentioned ...
... I was challenging the before and after nature that the OP was commenting about, especially after all the new content that was added to NMS over the years.
When I mentioned sandbox that was because I was trying to determine if he's a 'guided path' versus 'sandbox' type of player, and maybe that's what might be driving his boredom factor throughout the life of NMS, versus the before and after nature comparison.
As far as your comment goes (see below), none of that talks towards the boredom of the NMS game, just a similarity to other survival games, as well as mentioning another sandbox game that you thought was better.
I bought it about 2 years after launch, played through the main story, and then kinda got bored with it because it's just the same thing over and over again. I came back after the first major update, played it for a few weeks and then got bored again because it was mostly a "fixing things to how we wanted them to be". I played after the next major update as well and while it did bring some new life back into the game, it's still essentially just "build a base to put these few things in and collect resources so you can build more stuff" or "do these pointless side quests so that you can buy/build more stuff".
Thanks for the clarification. I am curious about one thing though?
Are you a 'sandbox' type of player, or a 'guided path' type of player (if you had to choose one)?
I'm wondering if you're the latter type of player, and if it has driven your outlook on the game, throughout all the years it's existed, with all the additional content added to it throughout those years?
Usually the latter, but I have played various sandbox games over the years. I find that sandbox style games tend to get boring after a while due to the repetitive nature and little variation. I'd usually skip the "fetch" quests in RPGs for the same reason.
It's cool to build huge bases, but I see little point in if there's only like 5 useful things that you can put in it. The majority of my space was taken up by storage containers.
Yeah it's funny to mention NMS, as what I've heard from most people is that you'd have money AND get more value by buying that particular today over Starfield
Starfield is essentially NMS with a storyline and better graphics.
i watched all of the update for NMS. the updates are cool but non of them made it more interesting. i would like to say i think it is a good game, but at the end of the day starfield aligns with my likes much better.
The problem is that the game fell flat even on a lot of basic expectations, especially exploration.
When you first arrive on a new star, you're automagically orbiting the "most important planet", if it has one. Without doing anything other than arriving, you already know all the inorganic resources of every planet and moon around that star (you don't know where, but you already know it's there without a scan). Not only that, you know which planets have abandoned mines or settlements and where. While flying in orbit, if "nothing happens" in the first 10 seconds, nothing will happen, period. POI in space all have to be fast traveled to.
It manages to be worse than NMS where the parallel is obvious, like in scanning fauna/flora, where you activate the scanner, point and click and call it day. But do it 8 times just to say it's different.
Shipbuilding is fun, but the fucked that up by locking many parts behind two different skills, Piloting and Starship Design. It really feels like something they did because they couldn't figure a way to balance the economy around ship prices. They could've made it so that you get access to better parts by completing faction missions, that'd give actual reason for the players to do them other than sheer curiosity, but nope, spend precious skill points to get better ship parts!
This game is a pile of bad design decisions on top of more bad design decisions and whether the company is AAA or not is irrelevant. Bad implementation, aka errors and bugs, is a matter of coding. Bad design is a matter of direction, or lack thereof.
And upgrades locked behind levels, plus not having all parts at all shipyards (or even all parts of one brand at their main location).
I agree that the skill-locked purchase of physical equipment is garbage but I found myself sticking on the question of if you got the 'de-facto' best ship part for each category because you had the relevant skill.
Like some quest is occuring and, in dialogue, you have a choice locked by being the most-skilled pilot and choosing it leads to one set of the best ship parts. How does that flow? Does that read as the same thing, or is it more enjoyable now as a reward for character build?
You got my idea wrong
I meant that, as a reward for finishing a quest, or series of quests, the ship parts become available. It's not "choose to get a ship part during the quest", it's "complete quest, vendors now sell new stuff".
For instance, completing mission 4 of the UC Vanguard opens up B class parts because "congratulations, we're promoting you" or, given how that questline flows, "We're promoting you because things are getting dangerous and you need access to the extra stuff". Completing the final mission unlocks C class parts. But those are only at the Deimos Staryards, since they're the sole contractor for UC. It wouldn't make sense to complete their questline and also get access to FC's B and C class ship parts, for that you'd have to complete their Freestar Ranger questline. That's the idea.
i agree that the exploration outside of the main areas is very sparce, but i think its important to cosider thats is what was promised, and the lore backs it up. i liked the hand-crafted areas a lot but outside of those areas tends to feel like NMS with a couple generic things to do every some often. but i still enjoyed building my bases and running in a circle around them destorying all abandon factories with rando baddies i could find.
i agree the fact that they are a AAA studio is irrelevant, but most people do judge things differently when considering this. its too often i see people praising indie games that i eventually try and hate. but i dont freak out and call it terrible, i stop playing. and i see well made AAA games that i greatly enjoy get review bombed for defending there design decisions which were based of what the designers consider fun.
but i dont agree that they made a "pile" of bad decisions. Again i think they were trying to make a fun game and most of the designer probably enjoyed playing it before releasing. but the majority of people who thought bethesda was making "their" dream space shooter didn't like it so know bethesda is evil for some reason. i liked this game, i will play the dlc, and likely replay it.