this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
288 points (94.2% liked)

Games

32926 readers
1872 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Starfield steam page for the DLC currently shows eight user review score of 41%, making this one of the worst Bethesda DLC's released of all time. This is so horribly, shockingly bad for Bethesda, because it shows as a gaming company, they are no longer capable of delivering a really good gaming experience as they had in the past. Some of the reviews sum up quite nicely what is wrong with this DLC....

Less content than any skyrim DLC. Less than The Fallout 4 story DLCs. Doesn't change of the complaints people had with the base game, writing is still at a 4th grade level.

Quick: If you are looking to buy my answer is no, you aren't missing much content. I was really hoping to enjoy this DLC. Took about 4 hours for the main story and maybe 2 more hours to 100% the achievements.

These two reviews I think really summed up what Starfield has become, $70 for an AAAA title that has extremely little buy-in from the community, horrifically low amount of replayability and can be breezed through easily. It's mind-boggling to see this

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 171 points 2 months ago (13 children)

Remember when Cyberpunk fucked up their release. They knew they fucked up and owed it to the gamers. They told their board and stockholders to hold off, and that they needed to rebuild trust with their users before they could make line go up.

So they took their time, they redid many of the mechanics that people didn't like, the fixed all of the bugs, and then they released Phantom Liberty - one of the best expansions I have ever seen in gaming history. Good enough where it could have been a game on it's own.

That is how you rebuild trust with the community. You tell your stockholders to shut the fuck up and let you do what you do best. If they don't trust you to do that, then fuck em, they can sell their stock, why are they holding stock in a company they don't trust?

[–] [email protected] 79 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Post-2.0 Cyberpunk is one of the best gaming experiences I've had in a long time. You can tell it's a product of effort, and love for the project. They have taken in a considerable amount of feedback from pre-1.5.

Meanwhile, Starfield is a complete miss in just about every way imaginable, and the expansion has followed through the same footsteps. On top of that, the studio actively gaslit people who expressed disapproval, even when it was constructive criticism.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I fully expect them to say it's getting "review bombed" now, which is the current industry redefining of a term to make it come off as "It's not us, it's the stupid gamer's fault"

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago

It's not a review bomb if it's fully deserved. If you make a bad product, you deserve a bad review, and maybe Bethesda should have thought about that ahead of time

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 months ago (12 children)

Same with No Man's Sky. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but they buckled down and delivered on almost every promise that they failed on back at release. Not only that but every update since the game came out has been for free. Both No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk are fantastic games, and they were garbage on release. Bethesda has been doing the opposite approach and avoiding feedback from fans since Skyrim came out the first time.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Cyberpunk was buggy, unoptimized, and kind of unfinished, but the fundamental game design was sound.

Starfield on the other hand is broken at its core. The Bethesda RPG experience just does not translate to the open worlds space map they built the game on. So they can't take the cyberpunk approach because they'd have to build an entirely different game from scratch.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I don't know why anyone decided that that engine was the right way to go. The number one thing that killed the game for me was the endless loading screens. Constantly. Whenever I started feeling immersed, a new loading screen would pop up and it ruined it for me. We have engines left and right that don't need to do this anymore, but starfield, the game that's trying to base itself to be a realistic exploration game, decided that endless loading screens were still the best way to go

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

even without the loading screens it would still be terrible. get a quest, go to your ship, take off, travel to other system, land, exit your ship, walk to destination, reverse all that to turn the quest in, rinse and repeat. it's just a tedious experience.

the best part of Bethesda games is just being able to wander around aimlessly in a pretty environment, likely stumbling upon little easter eggs or side quests along the way. none of that exists in Starfield.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

Given the amount of the playable game that takes place on foot, they should have called it Field

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (6 children)

The difference is, there is no fixing Starfield, it is rotten to the core. You would have to re-do most of the story elements and writing, and the disjointed, empty world. On top of that you'd have to fix the bugs and technical limitations like the constant loading screens. At this point you would be throwing out most of the game and basically starting from scratch with a few systems done, like the ship building and possibly gunplay.

I think cyberpunk never became what many wanted, but if you let go of your expectations, it is a good game.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I might need to revisit cyberpunk, I didn't know an expansion was ever released. I kind of hit max level doing mostly side quests within 4 months of launch and lost interest.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It's pretty legit. It stands on it's own, and they also improved the base game quite a bit. I'd suggest it for sure

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (4 children)

They changed a lot, but in a good way. I had also spent a while away from the game and came back recently for the expansion. It's really good.

I would suggest starting a new character from scratch if you pick up the DLC. You'll really appreciate the new changes to cyberwear that way.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean, it all hinged in the fact that under all those glitches and bugged mechanics CDPR still had a nice game. Starfield can't be salvaged cuz the core game is just mediocre shit.

I wanna say it's a failed IP at this point, but who knows how many copies sold. What is sure is it doesn't deserve any more of my time. I have the DLC but won't reinstall that garbage

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 64 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Remember, folks: Microsoft kept these people, and fired the ones who made Hi-Fi Rush.

That, alone, was my signal the entire console was going to slowly burn down.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago

Microsoft is a fucking ghoulish, evil company. The only reason they bought Bethesda was to own their IP. They have Elder scrolls, Fallout, and Doom Because of ID games. That alone is going to bring them so much money, if they ever want to sell any of those franchises in the future, they can sell them for a fortune. That's probably the reason why they acquired Bethesda to begin with. Laying off Hi-Fi Rush after they delivered an excellent product was just pure evil.

[–] [email protected] 63 points 2 months ago (1 children)

worst Bethesda DLC's released of all time

Are we including Horse Armor here?

[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 months ago

Bethesda literally invented shitty DLC

[–] [email protected] 45 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Still better than Horse Armor. So no, not Bethesda's worst DLC.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

At least horse armor was good for the memes. This is so bland no one even cares to meme about it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

Still better than Horse Armor. So no, not Bethesda’s worst DLC.

The difference is that Oblivion wasn't bad at all. It was terrific. Starfield was trash from the beginning, then delivers a trash DLC. That's much worse. No improvement.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 2 months ago (9 children)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Microsoft really knows how to pick the winners, don't they?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

they are a reverse midas. Anything they touch doesn't turn into gold but into shit

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago

Mierdas touch

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 months ago (14 children)

This makes me feel better about them being exclusive to Microsoft now. I’m not missing anything at all.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And it was something people were hoping would save the game. But, it's unfortunately more confirmation that Bethesda can no longer produce quality games.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago (13 children)

Bethesda was obviously already toast to anyone paying attention when Fallout '76 came out. They certainly haven't improved since.

...And I can't believe that these are the motherfuckers who own the rights to Doom now.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Hey im all for giving Bethesda shit for publishing an incredibly bland game, but 8 reviews hardly seem like a solid foundation to make that title.

EDIT : I've realised that autocorrect might have gotten you since around 1, 1k user reviews still sit at around 42% positive

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago (10 children)

I've given up on every major developer/publisher, so-called AAA garbage, except for capcom for monster hunter and square enix for final fantasy. I'll be extra sad the day they too go the way of every other greedy lazy "AAA" game company...

At least indie devs care to make a good game and not try to make a money printing IP machine with some game like aspects in it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

as a hige indi/small developer fan i see great times ahad. AAA will fail, clmpanys will close and developers will find new homes in smaller teams. by 2030 i predict a golden age for AA and and perhabs also a new golden age for indi.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

I have no hope for The Elder Scrolls 6 and Fallout 5. It was a good run but like all things. Everything comes to an end.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (14 children)

I don't think this means ES6 is doomed. Did anyone play the Civ space game? It was an offshoot one-off experiment that wasn't really well recieved and they quietly moved on.

My guess is that this game pivoted during development and they ended up with something that didn't really work and shouldn't have shipped. The failure to find something good in this experiment may be isolated to this game.

The fact that they released it in the state they did could be more about their workflow and project pipeline/target milestones they need to hit than it is about their ability to execute.

The failure here is in design, ES6 has a tried and true design to follow.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago

Story and worldbuilding wise, ES6 has a very bleak future ahead. Emilio Pagliarulo, the de facto director of Starfield and lead writer, has shown that no hole is deep enough that he won't dig it further down when it comes to lack of quality and consistency. Not that Skyrim's main story was good, but it was certainly better than Starfield's. There's also the disturbing indifference of "the world" to everything happening around it. Literally nothing you do in Starfield affects anything outside its own storyline. Hell, shooting up in the air or using fucking space magic in the middle of a city generates no reaction from npcs if nobody is hit.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The problem is Starfield isn't a one off. It's the latest in a line of progressively worse games. Every game they've released since Skyrim has been worse than the one that came before it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Since Skyrim? I'd say their quality has been slowly declining since Morrowind. It wasn't that noticeable at first, since oblivion, fallout 3, and Skyrim were still quite good and fallout 4 was decent. But then fallout 76 was a mess at release, TES blades was shit, and starfield just seems lazy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

If ES6 is just a refreshed Skyrim I really see no reason to buy it. There are much more interesting RPGs than the Bethesda style nowadays.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

I actually liked beyond earth 🥲

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›