Starfield [Xbox|Bethesda, Sept 6, 2023]

[JBURGE]

On 6/12/2022 at 9:50 PM, Heimdallr said:

I'm not saying it is a bad thing, but the amount of things that are blatantly ripped straight from NMS (including UI features) is pretty astounding. 

The big problems NMS has are the lack of strong story to drive things along (that isn't what they wanted or were trying to do), and engaging NPC's that make the world feel deep. Those are two things Bethesda are good at.

With that said, Bethesda is also known for tons of bugs and janky combat, so we'll see how this turns out.

Dude, at the start of the video when the guy started mining Fe I was like..... uh oh 

[Kiltman]

32 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

Dude, at the start of the video when the guy started mining Fe I was like..... uh oh 

I wonder how quickly in game you’ll be able to create outposts to do all that for you. It’ll be nice if like the back 2/3rds you don’t have to stop and go mine for basic stuff. That might’ve been the case with endgame on NMS, but I just remember how much time it’d be to go find stuff just to leave a planet.

[DreamKid]

At this point, it just looks like a meh cookie cutter space RPG from a major studio.

- Not being able to fly down to a planet manually is a huge bummer. They can call it non essential all they want, but it would've been awesome and already it feels like we've been robbed of that experience.

- Regular ground combat looks standard/stale if not archaic. Looks like there's no real advanced movement or tactics you can employ and your character is a typical Bethesda stiff sammy. Enemy AI looks pretty awful with zero awareness or strategy. I'm guessing any sort of difficulty slider will only up their damage and health. I expect the combat of Starfield to get hammered quickest of all the game's aspects, that gameplay trailer was a gut punch to anyone expecting some refined approach/overhaul by Bethesda. 

- Factions and the shown cities already look very "Been there done that". 

- I share everyone else's concerns with the generated planets. 

- Not familiar with NMS, but that video from IGN was pretty damning. Hard to not see a lot of Outer Worlds in what we've seen thus far too. Starfield is really just looking like a game coming out years later than it should have.

On the positive side, I did like some of the creature models we were shown. So there's that...

 

I was already worried that ES6 was going to be a franchise killer that couldn't possibly be worth the wait and those concerns have now doubled after seeing gameplay from Starfield. I hope Bethesda can prove me wrong, but it looks like they're rocketing towards irrelevance.

[Kiltman]

2 hours ago, DreamKid said:

- Not being able to fly down to a planet manually is a huge bummer. They can call it non essential all they want, but it would've been awesome and already it feels like we've been robbed of that experience.

It would’ve been cool, but I get the trade off there. As someone who’s played a lot of space exploration games…it can get old, especially if you have to manage a ton of resources to take off. I wonder if a large part of it is so when you do land some of the random systems can setup a more enjoyable experience. So many of those games there is just nothing around. If this allows them to make the on the ground and in space parts individually better, I get it.

2 hours ago, DreamKid said:

- Regular ground combat looks standard/stale if not archaic. Looks like there's no real advanced movement or tactics you can employ and your character is a typical Bethesda stiff sammy. Enemy AI looks pretty awful with zero awareness or strategy. I'm guessing any sort of difficulty slider will only up their damage and health. I expect the combat of Starfield to get hammered quickest of all the game's aspects, that gameplay trailer was a gut punch to anyone expecting some refined approach/overhaul by Bethesda. 

I wish we saw later game combat, cause yeah it wasn’t all that groundbreaking. The teases of boosters and adding a vertical element could be fun…but need improvements. Luckily this isn’t a huge thing to fix so they hopefully can address it with the extra time.

2 hours ago, DreamKid said:

- Factions and the shown cities already look very "Been there done that". 

- I share everyone else's concerns with the generated planets. 

I agree a bit, but also like you kinda need those types of groups in a space game. The art I’m curious about is when you read some of the character stuff religion seems to be a component to the game. With various new and morphed religions popping up. That is usually a fertile ground in sci-fi. 

And yeah the planets we gotta see. If we can get at least something worthwhile on each planet minimum I’m fine with 1/4 being resources, random encounters and one crafted mission or encounter. That’s gonna be so much to do, especially as you are looking for good places to outpost.

2 hours ago, DreamKid said:

- Not familiar with NMS, but that video from IGN was pretty damning. Hard to not see a lot of Outer Worlds in what we've seen thus far too. Starfield is really just looking like a game coming out years later than it should have.

I think the NMS is definitely there, as a lot of other games. But I think the nuance that lacks in those videos is — These are systems for a big, giant Bethesda roleplaying game, in NMS that was the game. Also how long have we gotten various ores and crafting materials in Bethesda games? 

It’s just a different thing when you are just kinda gathering resources to do it, improve your tech and repeat. Yes there was a minuscule story to be found, but Starfield is the opposite. It’s like saying Arkham City and Injustice are the same because Batman is fighting people or Pokémon Go and the mainline games are the same.

Game has a little under double the voice over lines Fallout 4 had, which is even bigger when you consider they are cutting player voices they tried on that one. That’s the main game and one you don’t really see in overviews like this. They showed us a few ways it’ll be but until the game you don’t get the scope of choice.

I guess the issue I’ve had with stuff post the showing is like, what did people think this was? If you are an RPG / Bethesda fan…how did that not get you at least a little excited? It’s a universe sized sandbox to make your own.

Just seems like it’s gotten some overly harsh criticism out the gate for being exactly what people were excited for it to be.

[DreamKid]

15 hours ago, Kiltman said:

I guess the issue I’ve had with stuff post the showing is like, what did people think this was? If you are an RPG / Bethesda fan…how did that not get you at least a little excited? It’s a universe sized sandbox to make your own.

Just seems like it’s gotten some overly harsh criticism out the gate for being exactly what people were excited for it to be.

I think it comes down to the gameplay trailer showing nothing groundbreaking or even grabbing. There's nothing in there where the masses are going "Wow can't wait to get my hands on that!". 

People expected to see something new, fresh, and worthy of hype. That didn't happen, so you get a lot of the criticism we're seeing now. Add in the natural lack of trust that has come with Bethesda failing to meet expectations in recent years, across multiple releases, and the reaction becomes compounded.

IDK I really don't want to be overly negative, but I don't think the criticism/concern is unwarranted. Even the game's lore looks kind of sus with that weak cornball looking artifact plotline. 

As I said, the creature models looked good and we all know the modding community will do a lot of heavy lifting to dig endless life/content out of the game. I also refuse to believe there isn't some element in this game better than the trailer is letting on. There's no way it's some apocalyptic release with nothing of interest under the surface- cause few games are that bad and Bethesda has put too much time into it. So even though the game isn't looking like what I wanted or expected, I'll still give it a fair spin when it finally releases. 

[Kiltman]

8 hours ago, DreamKid said:

I think it comes down to the gameplay trailer showing nothing groundbreaking or even grabbing. There's nothing in there where the masses are going "Wow can't wait to get my hands on that!". 

People expected to see something new, fresh, and worthy of hype. That didn't happen, so you get a lot of the criticism we're seeing now. Add in the natural lack of trust that has come with Bethesda failing to meet expectations in recent years, across multiple releases, and the reaction becomes compounded.

IDK I really don't want to be overly negative, but I don't think the criticism/concern is unwarranted. Even the game's lore looks kind of sus with that weak cornball looking artifact plotline. 

As I said, the creature models looked good and we all know the modding community will do a lot of heavy lifting to dig endless life/content out of the game. I also refuse to believe there isn't some element in this game better than the trailer is letting on. There's no way it's some apocalyptic release with nothing of interest under the surface- cause few games are that bad and Bethesda has put too much time into it. So even though the game isn't looking like what I wanted or expected, I'll still give it a fair spin when it finally releases. 

I think everything you pointed out is valid, only point I’d push back on is pre footage the hype for this game was “It’s Skyrim, in space” or “It’s Fallout, in space” which is exactly what we saw. And we saw in the footage they are addressing the major criticism of each of those games in a conjoined way. The lack of roleplayability of Skyrim + how limiting people felt by the voiced protagonist. So adding in those choices, putting like 3-4 times as much dialog for other characters seems like a big deal.

Adding in usefulness with building was another improvement, they spent so much to add that into FO4 but there was rarely a point to it. Getting to build and staff your ship how you want actually seems to matter. Building the outposts are there for you if you want to unload tasks or it’s part of your character choice.

Yeah the snippet of fiction they showed wasn’t anything new, will probably have to wait til it comes out to see just how much of the story that consumes, there will be a ton of other stories though as there always is. 

I hope they put out some more end of game combat if they can (potentially could spoil things if aliens are involved or there is a time jump). It’s definitely the one thing that was worthy for f pause and need to delay the game I saw. Like I don’t think this will be as ground combat heavy as the other two franchises… but you want it to feel good.

Just seems like bare minimum an 8/8.5 game with how big it is and how many things there are to do. Certain things hit? It can go up higher, some seem like they will but gotta see more. I’m curious what stage in development they knew they were cutting last gen and then PlayStation, both would affect the scope and how they were doing things. I think whenever we get a Starfield 2 it’ll probably be cloud based to go beyond what a single box can do. Like 15 years away from that though.
 

Will be interesting how TES6 will be having been totally worked on in a next gen environment and being the first game worked on knowing they won’t have to shill for profits to stay afloat. I’m hoping we see them take risks in Starfield but especially Elder Scrolls. Being on gamepass I hope melts them not have to cater to the lowest common denominator like they did as they went a long.

76 was a massive failure trying to add revenue for Zenimax, but Fallout and Skyrim were both good games with some flaws. Considering this game is like those and not 76 I’m not really that worried? But maybe I should be. If the game is coming in February or March, I hope we see them at the XO this year showing like a level 30 character doing a mission and kinda how much branching they are aiming for. Being able to see that I think should get any rpg fans pumped. 3/4 noticeably different outcomes makes this kinda game soar.

[minutemancl]

Looks bad. I hope they are actually innovating for the next Elder Scrolls, specifically the combat. I can't do that uninspired, button-mashing-rewarding melee fighting again.

[Jakuvious]

On 6/20/2022 at 4:05 PM, DreamKid said:

I think it comes down to the gameplay trailer showing nothing groundbreaking or even grabbing. There's nothing in there where the masses are going "Wow can't wait to get my hands on that!". 

People expected to see something new, fresh, and worthy of hype. That didn't happen, so you get a lot of the criticism we're seeing now. Add in the natural lack of trust that has come with Bethesda failing to meet expectations in recent years, across multiple releases, and the reaction becomes compounded.

IDK I really don't want to be overly negative, but I don't think the criticism/concern is unwarranted. Even the game's lore looks kind of sus with that weak cornball looking artifact plotline. 

As I said, the creature models looked good and we all know the modding community will do a lot of heavy lifting to dig endless life/content out of the game. I also refuse to believe there isn't some element in this game better than the trailer is letting on. There's no way it's some apocalyptic release with nothing of interest under the surface- cause few games are that bad and Bethesda has put too much time into it. So even though the game isn't looking like what I wanted or expected, I'll still give it a fair spin when it finally releases. 

I genuinely don't know why anyone would've expected that. It's a Bethesda game in space. That's either going to do it for you, or it isn't. It's going to be a huge explorable world with a ton of NPCs and side quests and random stuff to do. It'll have mediocre, but sufficient combat, good enough to not drag the game down, but not good enough to carry it. It's Bethesda in space. That's always what it was going to be. I can understand people that don't want that being underwhelmed, but I don't get what would've made people expect anything different.

[DreamKid]

19 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

I genuinely don't know why anyone would've expected that. It's a Bethesda game in space. That's either going to do it for you, or it isn't. It's going to be a huge explorable world with a ton of NPCs and side quests and random stuff to do. It'll have mediocre, but sufficient combat, good enough to not drag the game down, but not good enough to carry it. It's Bethesda in space. That's always what it was going to be. I can understand people that don't want that being underwhelmed, but I don't get what would've made people expect anything different.

My thought was that Bethesda, seemingly being run by people of at least average intelligence, could see that they're rapidly being marginalized in the gaming sphere and would attempt to work their way out of the quicksand with a hyper inventive title. I guess I was giving them too much credit.

[Kiltman]

15 minutes ago, DreamKid said:

My thought was that Bethesda, seemingly being run by people of at least average intelligence, could see that they're rapidly being marginalized in the gaming sphere and would attempt to work their way out of the quicksand with a hyper inventive title. I guess I was giving them too much credit.

Seeing under the hood with the new engine I think will be a big pass/fail point in terms of notable big improvement. It was so clunky and buggy, I’m really hoping that they did well with it. Especially on improving how easily mods can work, if they made that super simple it’ll be nice.

Systems like crowds, AI, etc will be a big part of that too in terms of how much better they made this. 

Obviously more tactical things like shooting need to be good, but there is a lot of improvement to be made that you need a deep dive on or even play it to see. Kinda like with surface level it seems like they really upped the ability of choice, but we kinda have to see a lot more of it.

[Jakuvious]

57 minutes ago, DreamKid said:

My thought was that Bethesda, seemingly being run by people of at least average intelligence, could see that they're rapidly being marginalized in the gaming sphere and would attempt to work their way out of the quicksand with a hyper inventive title. I guess I was giving them too much credit.

Why would that be the lesson they're receiving? The one mainline title they've released that has been a commercial and critical failure was Fallout: 76, which was arguably the one that attempted to innovate on the formula the most. Unless we count Blades, but that's even more of an argument for them to go back to just making normal Bethesda games. Every mainline Bethesda style Fallout and Elder Scrolls game has been a huge commercial success, and everything would indicate that taking that formula into space would do the same. The whole reason this game got ridiculously hyped was from a, holy crap, those people made Skyrim, perspective. Like, that's the reason for the hype. That always has been. Just like Cyberpunk got hyped as it did because it was the Witcher 3 people. It makes no sense for them to try to reinvent the wheel when doing what they do is what has gotten them where they are now.

Also..."marginalized in the gaming sphere"? Like, respectfully, what on earth are you talking about? What does it mean to become marginalized in the gaming sphere as a studio that makes one title every 3 or 4 years anyway? How are they marginalized when they were the headlining trailer of the entire presentation?

[DreamKid]

1 hour ago, Jakuvious said:

Also..."marginalized in the gaming sphere"? Like, respectfully, what on earth are you talking about? What does it mean to become marginalized in the gaming sphere as a studio that makes one title every 3 or 4 years anyway? How are they marginalized when they were the headlining trailer of the entire presentation?

Look at the respect and position held by Bethesda within the industry a decade+ ago, then compare it to now and project it forward when/if Starfield and TES6 are average games- despite commercial success. EA has commercial success too, doesn't mean they make good games and it doesn't mean anyone respects them. If you go from being a beloved genre definer to a studio no one really expects anything but mediocrity from.... I'd call that being shuffled into a category most Bethesda folks never dreamed of.

1 hour ago, Jakuvious said:

It makes no sense for them to try to reinvent the wheel when doing what they do is what has gotten them where they are now.

Skyrim imo was a pretty bad/bland game on debut, and public opinion has soured on it throughout the years. Also, the RPG realm has evolved leaps and bounds since it's release. So if Bethesda doesn't reinvent the wheel, even the most casual gamers will wonder why the most hyped RPG(TES6) of the last 30 years is less fun to play then whatever mobile game they're currently gacked on. 

It's not like I'm shouting this into the wind either, and I'm a just casual observer of the gaming world at large. Commentators more attentive and actually plugged into the industry have been voicing concerns over Bethesda's direction far longer. And again, I don't want to be overly negative and certainly don't want any of their future titles to actually suck. I grew up playing Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout, etc. So I'm going to give Starfield a complete and total fair shot. That gameplay trailer just left me and clearly a lot of other people worried. 

[Kiltman]

Long interview with Todd Howard

sone discussion of decisions made with Starfield and things to expect. I’ll try to find a breakdown.

 

[Malfatron]

On 6/21/2022 at 1:41 AM, Kiltman said:

“It’s Fallout, in space

Fallout new vegas in space is exactly what i want

[Kiltman]

Hopefully we here about the release date at this