I must say it is not the best RPG out there, but I feel like it would have earned more. I personally have a lot of fun playing.

While it was not a Cyberpunk-grade overhype, I think it must still have been overhyped. Because if you see it as Skyrim with better graphics, it is pretty much what you’d expect.

Some of the common criticism seems to be intrinsic to the sci-fi genre. In Skyrim, you walk 100 meters and then you find some cave or camp or something that a game designer has placed there manually with some story or meaning behind it. And as a player, you notice that, because most locations in Skyrim feel somehow unique. Even though for example the dungeons have rooms that repeat a lot. Having a designer place them manually with some thought gives them something unique.

In interstellar sci-fi, a dense world like this is simply impossible. Planets are extremely large so filling them manually with content is simply not possible. And using procedural generation makes things feel meaningless. Players notice that fast. So instead, Starfield opted for having a few manually constructed locations that are placed randomly on planets, unfortunately with a lot of repetition. But that is a sound compromise, given the constraints of today’s game development technology. The dense worlds that we are used to from other genres simply don’t scale up to planetary scale, and as players, we have to get used to that.

  • charred@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly I haven’t been looking at the public reception at all because I’ve been playing it since it released. I didn’t even know people weren’t loving it, it’s exactly what I want from a Bethesda game and more (136 hours so far)

  • ShadowRam@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    My biggest complaint is still an RPG being consolified, meaning its menu’s are all shit because of controllers.
    Interactions in this game would me so much better if it were designed from the ground up for mouse, point and click, drag, etc.

    My only other complaint is I wish I could fly and land the craft myself similar to No Man’s Sky. You can land on planet, shit is still random gen, but there’s some hardpoint spots where your ship can land in a city or outpost.

    The positive sides that surprised me is the ship building is great. Always wanted a game that allowed this kind of ship building.
    Space Engineers or similar are great, but can be too much detail. This snap together modular blocks is nice middle ground.

    I’m also impressed the engine is able to handle so many micro collisions of items on the ground.

    • aesopjah@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ship building is fun, but man they are lacking in detail.

      What is the difference between these two cockpits? Idk, build it twice and find out. Oh, they’re identical, then why even have a second one?

      Oh, this giant 3x3 module must have a ton of stuff in it! Nope, the 2x1 is actually better. But which one? Dunno, try them all and reload.

      You’re ship is too big in either length, width, or height. Which one is it? Dunno, I just figured I’d throw all the errors together into one warning and let you figure it out.

      Modders sure have their work cut out for them…

  • sverit@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know, gameplay is more important than tech, but for an AAA game it’s kinda disappointing techwise. No 32:9 support, HDR is mediocre, no FOV settings, language cannot be properly changed,…

    • Psythik@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what happens when you’ve been using the same engine since 1997, and just slap a fresh coat of paint on it every few years instead of actually improving it like Unreal.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is there HDR? Because I’m certain there’s no option for it on PC.

      • sverit@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are no ingame settings, which is bad. But when you activate HDR in your Windows settings the game seems to use HDR. It just looks rather bad imho (black levels too high).

  • Poob@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So much of the game is simply infuriating, and I’m not all that far in yet.

    The menus are attrocious. It feels like wading through mud every time you try to get to menu. Half of them are locked to what feels like 10fps. You go into the map and it’s 37 presses of the tab key to get out, or else use the awkward as fuck hold tab to exit. The inventory menus are a fucking joke. It took two weeks for modders to fix all of Bethesda’s UI garbage that they have to fix every time a new game comes out. How is there not an option to sort by value/weight yet?

    There’s a lot of time wasting crap too. If you want to go to a different planet you have to walk to your ship, go up the ladder and go to the cockpit, watch an animation to sit down in the cockpit, watch a cutscene to take off, open the map, find your planet, set course, watch a cutscene as you jump to the planet, open the map again, find where you want to land, watch a cutscene as you land, get out of your ship. That’s a lot of steps. Unskippable cutscenes every time you go somewhere sucks.

  • verysoft@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They don’t have to make a game based in reality. They could have made their own system where the planets are small and filled that handful with lots of stuff. They chose to make real systems and have huge planets, it doesn’t matter if there’s 10, 100, 1000 planets if they are all barren and empty. The approach they took wasn’t good for a bethesda rpg, they need the hand crafted world where they can keep things popping up. That’s just the start of the problem with the game though, it is far too similar to their existing RPGs, I get playing it safe with a formula (I mean Larian do too), but you have to have great lore and story to back it up if that’s what you want to do. Bethesda made no attempt to disguise it, it is as shameless as Ubisoft’s rehashed games. They need a new engine if that is what’s limiting them.

    • jossbo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s the problem. You bought a BSG rpg wanting it to not be a BSG rpg. They will always make this style of game. If you want a different style of game, they will disappoint you.

      Ive been playing BSG rpgs since Morrowind, and so I got exactly what I was expecting, with some cool extra bits on top. And as such, I absolutely love it!

      • verysoft@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t buy shit. I avoid triple A games cause they all the same disappointing overhyped crap.

            • DarkThoughts@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sorry but if your opinion is solely formed around all the fake outrage “reviews” then it’s no wonder you dislike the game. However, that still has no basis in the actual truth of the matter of what this game is and isn’t. And yes, your comments make it very obvious that your opinion in this matter is in fact quite stupid, sorry not sorry for the ad hominem but this is just painfully ridiculous.

              • verysoft@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ive watched over 25 hours of someone playing it. Why do you keep making such rash assumptions?
                I could call your opinions just as stupid as you think mine are, as that is what they are, opinions. But I am not going to stoop to doing that. The fact you are getting so defensive over this shows me the discussion isnt worth continuing. Good luck out there.

    • Shurimal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They chose to make real systems and have huge planets, it doesn’t matter if there’s 10, 100, 1000 planets if they are all barren and empty.

      Barren and empty worlds have their place in such game. If nothing more, you need contrast between lush worlds and empty rocks/iceballs to make the former stand out. I think I can call myself an Elite vet at this point with 3000 hours in, and all the landable worlds, of which there are literally more than a trillion, are barren. They still offer gorgeous views and are essential for creating the appropriate artificial lonelyness of virtual space exploration. Also, geology spotting, jetpack mountaineering and base jumping can be a fun activity during long expeditions.

      Also, barren worlds will be the playgrounds for modders. Skyrim had a problem that squeezing in modded larger playerhomes and settlements was often really hard task and created tons of incompatibilites. Basically no such concerns in Starfield.