top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 159 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (102 children)
  • [–] 40 points 3 years ago* (15 children)

    I mean, I wouldn't put Starfield in the same family as Diablo IV, with most of the game behind a microtransaction wall. Bethesda promised Skyrim in Space. We got Skyrim in Space. Skyrim is a polarizing game (much like Witcher 3 is, often for opposite people/reasons).

    I don't think Starfield is "not so bad", I'm having the best gaming experience I've had in a year or two. I think all the critiques are valid, but I don't really care about most of them.

    So why should I play a game I don't enjoy to punish the makers of the game I do enjoy? I have a very limited amount of gaming time. It gets the game I'm having the most fun with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    I feel like I'm in some sort of fugue state with everyone comparing this to Skyrim. In what way is this like Skyrim? Skyrim, for all its flaws, at least had hand crafted worlds with interesting things to see and do in them. From what I've seen of Starfield, that has been completely replaced by procedurally generated barren worlds. Like yeah, you can 'explore' them, but for what? What is there even to find?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (83 children)

    Oh maybe those who didn't like it far whatever reason accept that things are subjective and their experience is not universal. Plenty of people have enjoyed this game and found things to like even if it's not perfect. You don't like it, that's also a valid point of view, but you can't dictate to other people that they also shouldn't enjoy it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 83 child comments
  • [+] 28 points 3 years ago (76 children)
  • [–] 28 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (54 children)

    Because a lot of gamers don't feel fooled. They expected a Bethesda game and got a Bethesda game for all the good and ill that entails.

    You're entitled to dislike the game, but complaining that it's not something else is silly. It's like the people who complain about a lack of easy mode in Dark Souls. Sometimes a game isn't for you and it's ok to move on and play something else, but trying to convince other people they're wrong for enjoying it is a fools errand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 54 child comments
  • load more comments (54 replies)
  • load more comments (21 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 119 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    This entire thread is hilarious. I've been paying for therapy like a sucker, I didn't know you could get infinite amounts of free psychoanalysis just by suggesting that Starfield is somewhat underwhelming.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (3 children)

    The amount of gaslighting I've seen gamers do to themselves over this game has been wild. "Is it me? Maybe I'm the problem. Maybe I just don't like games anymore?"

    They'd rather do that than admit that a Bethesda game kinda sucks. And if you say it's not good, people will come after you. The super Bethesda defenders keep claiming the game is getting review bombed, but from what I've seen it's the other way around. If you say something negative about it, people will jump on your case. I've seen so many streamers and YouTubers try and cover their asses when trying to speak critically about this game to keep the Todd brigade from forming a mob in their comment sections.

    It's been such a wild game release.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 97 points 3 years ago (20 children)

    Yeah, it's pretty underhwelming. There's a lot of people who claim Starfield is a "great Bethesda game" but "people hyped it up too much." In my opinion, it's a terrible Bethesda game. The best thing those games do right is you can set off in a direction and along the way, find a world full of little things. Landmarks, unique little stories, side quests, and even just interesting items to grab. Starfield dropped all of this in favor of incredibly generic proc gen planets that have the same couple of outposts you'll see on every planet. Like THE SAME. The interiors are THE SAME. Every safe, dead body, message log is THE SAME.

    It lacks the one thing that brought me back to Bethesda games despite all their flaws.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    God, I couldn't put my finger on why I didn't like it. I was just so bored, even with the exploration which I normally love. All of the fun parts of FO4 and Skyrim are missing. Just walking around and enjoying the world is completely missing, replaced by a pretty shitty space travel mechanic.

    Fast travel to space, then fast travel to another planet. Fast travel to the surface and bunny hop to an objective through a boring city/space station/whatever. Fast travel back to your ship and do it all over again. I never made it far in the story because I couldn't be bothered to give a damn. The characters were completely uninteresting at best. oh average they were mildly annoying.

    Let me take off from the planets surface and fly in to space a few times before you lock me in to fast traveling. Let me fly from space and scream in to the atmosphere, shooting over the surface looking for a safe place to land, and navigate my way in to the city. Maybe 90% of the surface is uninteresting, that's fine. But let me at least have some fun learning that.

    They made every safe choice, and lost the sense of adventure. Because adventures aren't supposed to be safe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
  • [–] 87 points 3 years ago (30 children)

    Lost interest in a few hours I was sad.
    Great potential, horrible interface, wonky mechanics

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Same. The interface looks kinda cool, but the UX is awful, and the story is boring. The biggest reason it doesn’t capture you IMO is you just jump around from place to place instantaneously right from the start and there’s no obvious reason to just go exploring somewhere. In Skyrim you’re literally on foot and the world slowly expands around you and you become interested in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 3 years ago

    In Skyrim you’re literally on foot and the world slowly expands around you and you become interested in it.

    Yeah, and exploration wisey I prefer Oblivion even more. Skyrim feels smaller and less varied, and horses and other fast-travel options are cheaper and easier available.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    I got to hear a talk from a level designer who worked on Skyrim at Bethesda who had since left the company, and we needled them with some questions about Starfield and it was interesting at the time but even more interesting in the hindsight of now playing the game.

    We kind of intuited through some of their answers that it sounded like they felt that with Skyrim, individual level designers and programmers and people had way more freedom to put stuff into the game; many of the more memorable side quests and interactions were never remotely planned to be in there but were just threwn together by a couple people who stayed overnight recording voices and programming in these quests and interactions and stuff, and it sounded like they did not think that was was the case with Starfield and it was a much more rigid and controlled dev environment, which would explain why so much of the stuff feels like it's randomly generated stuff you've already seen instead of coming across these weird handcrafted things.

    They also talked a lot about open world level design in general and talked about how good open world level design is often inspired by Disney world, where they pay super close attention to sightlines where ever you are to make sure there's always (ideally multiple) interesting things to see and explore. You shouldn't need a waypoint or hud marker ideally, you should just walk out of one thing, look around and go "hey that looks neat let me go see what's over there", discover something magical, walk out and repeat. That kind of feeling made sense and resonated with me at the time and made me think of the new Zelda games and some of the better open world games I've played, but now in the context of Starfield, it feels like the loading screens between planets pretty fundamentally broke that cycle, and disrupted that feeling of exploration that Skyrim gave you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (16 replies)
    [–] 66 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    It's not Bethesda's greatest game but it's not a terrible game in general. I definitely think companies need to stop over hyping their games as some groundbreaking game of the decade only to release a generic RPG.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    Can we really be honest with ourselves for a second. It's not the greatest game ever and it's not the worst game ever. It can just be a game that some people like and others don't.

    I personally like it, but I can %100 see why others might not. It doesn't need to be deeper than that really.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago

    I'm like 90% certain they planned on a method to travel between systems without jumping or fast traveling.

    He3 was supposed to be collected for jumping. However, if you run out near a planet that doesn't have any, it would be very difficult to get anywhere. It would also mean one of the very first things any user would have to do is set up an outpost for he3 or buy a lot of it from vendors.

    If there was a way to travel between planets and systems, even if it took a few minutes, new users could at least play around wherever they are and eventually set up an outpost to speed up the process. Maybe it would only be reasonable for planet-to-planet within the same system, but you would be able to find he3 somehow.

    Also, the whole thing with jumping to a new system. If your travel path includes another system that you haven't visited yet, you have to stop there first. It doesn't make much sense from a gameplay perspective unless they planned on having users actually travel it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 56 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    I find the hype of something is inversely proportional to the quality of the end product. If some game company put 7 years into a game and their marketing was, "could be alright, see how you like it". I'd be all over that shit like white on rice.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 45 points 3 years ago (22 children)

    This is how I thought everyone felt about Cyberpunk 2077, but even on launch it was a pretty sweet Bethesda-game by CDPR.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • load more comments (17 replies)
    [+] 42 points 3 years ago (5 children)
  • [–] 27 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    You mean $10 for GOTY edition with all the bonus DLC so they can go ahead and rerelease the same thing but with "HD" graphics and another $70 pricetag

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 41 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    Accurate. But props to Bethesda for not including Denuvo so I didn't have to feel cheated by paying for it.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 40 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I intentially skipped all that hype on Starfield because I don't trust Bethesda, and it's starting to look like I was right.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 40 points 3 years ago (13 children)

    Just like i said when it was announced

    Bethesda is a shitty game dev studio.. lol

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I never watched any trailer because i assumed that's what the game will be like. But after watching some gameplay, it's somehow worse. Some things look really good, it has these trailer moments. But some textures for example are straight up 480p. A part of me thought that they learned from fallout 4 or fallout 76, but that's not how you print money, right?
    The fact alone that the UI is laughably bad, is just one thing, but the loading times, in a game where you spend so much time opening and closing your inventory shouldn't be accepted, ESPECIALLY since a modder fixed their UI on day one. But SOMEHOW there are people out there defending that bullshit. If i would care for Bethesda games and spending ours collecting space trash, i'd be livid. Their next game i 6 years will still be just a bit better looking than skyrim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (11 replies)
    [–] 38 points 3 years ago

    At first, I thought the quality seemed "meh" because it was released so close after the masterpiece that was Baldur's Gate 3. Everyone had high expectations and that's a hard game to follow, I believed.

    After removing myself from Baldur's Gate 3, I discovered that I was wrong. Starfield still a "meh" game when taken on its own.

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    My personal biggest disappointment is the repeating point of interest. Yesterday I was on two planets and both had, even on the same planet itself, three times the same mine shaft, twice the same outpost, twice the same hole in the ground, with even mobs and ore placed on the same spots.

    Seriously, this should never happen under any circumstances. It was the first time in the game I kind of felt the negative grow. While I still enjoy the rest.

    That said, it's also true that the game is average in many aspects, which is enough to be enjoyable for me but not others.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 34 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    Will Skyrim remain as Bethesda's greatest triumph? Find out in the next episode of Elder Ball Z: "Skyrim is the greatest after all"

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 32 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (18 children)

    240 times. It took me two minutes to finish the "minigame" last time I did it. That's 8 hours of grinding to max out every skill. Not 8 hours of fun gameplay and visually interesting dragon fights and dungeon crawls, 8 hours (that's eight hours) of flying from one shiny spot to the next. Eight. 8. Hours. Of slow-ass zero G floating.

    Last time I booted the game up, I fast traveled to my ship, took off, and heard Sarah say she has something for me. Something about that same line played for the millionth time absolutely killed my motivation to play, and I haven't started the game up in like a week. The romance system is too much too fast. I went from "flirting" with Sarah to married in like 4 hours. We've known each other for all of one in-game month. Maybe I'm just a broken person, but the way we talk sounds so disingenuously infatuated.

    I think about the concept of playing, and it sounds fun in theory, but realistically what am I gonna get done in the next 8 hours? I'll talk to people that I don't care about to move through a story that I'm fundamentally disinterested in because I know that >!in order to max out the dragon shou–I mean, Starborn powers, I'll need to jump through and abandon alternate universes like Rick Sanchez but not as an ironic critique of internet nihilism. Hours and hours and hours wasted on >!timelines I don't care about just to get to the end game where I... have strong powers and a good ship, and can't connect with any of the characters because they'll be the tenth iteration of the same ones that I could never convince myself to care about before.!<

    Maybe in a year or two after the game has been updated, I'll check it out again. Maybe I can shut my brain off for a minute and pretend I'm not >!grinding through universes!< if it doesn't take me eight hours to max out all the powers. Or maybe I'll just play BG3 when it comes to Xbox and forget that Starfield ever existed in the first place

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 3 years ago (13 children)

    The fact BG3 came out just before Starfield made me dislike the game even more than I probably would have I think. I went from playing probably the best RPG ever to Starfield, which doesn't even try to make you think you're playing any role except the chosen one. The fact that you join Constellation and almost instantly become not just a full member, but the person who everyone else takes orders from is rediculous.

    The story sucks, the gameplay is bland, and there are so many friction points that constantly make you think about the fact you're playing a game. It's honestly sad. I love sci-fi so I was reasonably excited for the game, even knowing it'd be a modern Bethesda game, and it still let me down. The sci-fi concepts in the game aren't even done well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • load more comments (13 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 31 points 3 years ago

    Anon is not wrong.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    this is why I never buy Bethesda at release. Let the modders come, and perhaps Bethy will fix some shit themselves, you never know... give it six months or a year and you'll always have a better experience, and often cheaper and with more dlcs.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [+] 18 points 3 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
    load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 18 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I suppose the money you're spending on marketing is money you're not spending on the game

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    The thing about word walls is it's simple and it just works. You suck the ancient text, behold the epic fanfare and leave. Temples, on the other hand, make for a great spectacle the first time you experience it. Then you realize you have to do the same ritual again and again.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›