You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
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.
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?
Skyrim, for all its flaws, at least had hand crafted worlds with interesting things to see and do in them
Virtually 100% of main and faction story arcs are hand-generated content. I would go further and say Starfield used more distinct model-sets than Skyrim did.
For context, Skyrim's map was ALSO procedurally generated, but most (or all) of the content was built on top of it by hand. We have comparable amount of manually generated content in Starfield, and then tons of procedural content allowing for a larger overall world.
Starfield is approximately 100,000x larger than Skyrim. So yeah, a lot of it is going to be procedurally generated. But you follow a general path, and everything along that path is NOT.
So... no fugue there. Both have similar amounts of handmade content, but Skyrim has a lot of filler content, and that filler content is largely barrel worlds, something that works because planets tend to be barren.
What is there even to find?
Granny Valentine's singing in orbit Mrs. Kurtz school field trip Space pilgrims
Just a few random orbital encounters that I've found. Planet side there are plenty of structures to explore but no real reason to do it; the random loot system ensures you're as likely to find something exploring on your own as you are fulfilling a bounty contract. There is no special reward or motivation to exploring vs finding these structures via a mission.
What part of Diablo 4 is behind a microtransaction wall? Some skins?
The problem with both games is they disrespect the player's time by turning everything into a slog.
That's way more of an issue with modern game design trying to maximize hours played while minimizing actual content than paid skins. Those may suck, but to be fair it was Bethesda who introduced the damn thing in the first place. I'd rather pretend the premium skins don't exist but have a fun game than have no microtransactions and a boring 150+ hours of empty world with a total of 35 hours of interesting beats.
What part of Diablo 4 is behind a microtransaction wall? Some skins?
I think it's "Most of the skins".
The problem with both games is they disrespect the player’s time by turning everything into a slog.
I can't speak for Diablo 4 on this, but that's not Starfield. Just like other Bethesda games, Starfield clearly gives feedback when you're leaving major storylines and running procedural content. Radiant Quests have mixed reception, but the number of radiant quests you actually need to complete any Bethesda game is in the single-digits.
If you stick to main-story and faction-mainline quests, you touch virtually nothing that wasn't hand-crafted for your pleasure. No slog. No grind. No nothing. And I find it pretty easy to differentiate between the handcrafted side-quests and the procedural side-quests. If you don't, just ignore the more obscure-seeming side quests anyway.
a boring 150+ hours of empty world with a total of 35 hours of interesting beats
Is this a personal self-discipline problem of yours? A game with 35 hours of great content is worth the price of a game like Starfield, and you can just NOT go out and play the "150+ hours of empty world" if you don't like it. While I haven't beaten Starfield yet (I like procedural content and spend a lot of time in it), that mainline content isn't gated behind doing procedural stuff. That stuff was added on top of the content you directly pay for.
For me, I love going system to system finding ships to pirate. I haven't really gotten into planetary exploration yet. Maybe I won't enjoy that as much, or maybe I will. If I don't enjoy it, I just won't do it and it won't detract from the game.
Really? 35 hours of great content?
Exactly what parts of Starfield struck you as great?
I'll agree that around the 30 hours mark of my playthrough I was thinking the game felt big and expensive and was excited to spend more time in that universe.
But it wasn't long after that even the faction quests ended up just so repetitive in scope and even level design that I was over it.
The number of loading screens just to go from point A to B for a fetch quest is probably the worst of any open world game...ever.
It's like they finally had SSD tech so they just decided to throw any concern over loading out the window in game design.
The story is mediocre, the voice acting is meh, the gameplay loops are extremely repetitive.
The thing you like is the one thing I also enjoyed of ship combat with boarding enemy ships. That was done well, outside of the fact you can't physically go outside your ship.
And "you can play 35 hours without hating it" as the barometer of whether a game is satisfactory sells yourself and your time short. You as a consumer deserve more, and making excuses for outdated and poor game design doesn't do yourself any favors. Legitimate complaints about games getting their fair amount of attention leads to better games, as happened with games like No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk. The only way Bethesda's game devs are going to get the appropriate resources from management to focus on making a game that doesn't waste your time with repetition on the next one is if there're enough complaints about the repetition in this one that management is concerned about repeating bad press which might impact sales.
You do yourself and the devs disservice minimizing or dismissing complaints and only do the execs a favor.
That's great if you don't feel that way. I'm guessing that as you put more hours in the title you'll feel different, but hope that's not the case and your enthusiasm remains. But for many players that were quite excited for the game, it ended up being rather disappointing.
Really? 35 hours of great content?
Exactly what parts of Starfield struck you as great?
The major city locations. The major factions/plots. But specifically, I was referring to the approximate amount of hand-made content from previous research. If you don't think handmade Bethesda content is great, well obviously don't buy it like I wouldn't buy another Witcher title.
The number of loading screens just to go from point A to B for a fetch quest is probably the worst of any open world game…ever.
Not my experience. It's worse than any seamless game, but I found the loading screens and loading times to be pretty reasonable compared to other games. Specifically, I noted that loading times were shorter. And as much as people bitched about the "sequence" loading screens, they're a whole lot nicer than the black-screen-with-image I was used to in the past.
The story is mediocre, the voice acting is meh, the gameplay loops are extremely repetitive.
Now you're going full-subjective. As my college English professor used to remind us, "I didn't like it" is not a real metric for quality. I don't agree the story is mediocre. I don't agree the voice acting is meh. And I don't agree the "gameplay loops" are repetitive. Unless you choose to stick with the intentionally repetitive content.
And “you can play 35 hours without hating it” as the barometer of whether a game is satisfactory sells yourself and your time short
Actually, my metric was "35 hours of GREAT non-procedural content". YOUR metric is 35 hours without hating it. It may help to remind you that I also enjoy the procedural content. But a lot of people are whining that the whole game is procedural, despite having comparable hand-made content to any other Bethesda game.
If you don't like Bethesda games, you shouldn't be complaining about Starfield, the same way I don't complain about some fancy wine sucking (I don't enjoy wine). If you DO like Bethesda games, your critiques above probably apply to them more than Starfield. Same issue. This is a good "wine" for people who like "wine".
You do yourself and the devs disservice minimizing or dismissing complaints and only do the execs a favor.
I'm doing myself and devs a disservice by loving a game because it's the game I was looking for and the game I was promised? Do you even hear yourself? When I have a hankering for Whiskey, if someone puts a glass of Macallan 25 in front of me, I'm not going to bitch. I'm going to enjoy it. No matter who I'm doing a disservice because it's not a Budweiser
I dunno why you're getting downvoted, cause you're completely right. The microtransaction hell in Diablo is all for shit like horse armor. The game plays exactly the same whether or not you've spent an extra dime. With that being said, it is 100% bullshit to have any extra transactions, micro or not, in a $90 game.
He's getting downvoted because despite everything you said, the valid complaints about Diablo 4 are not similar to complaints about Starfield.
It's not the "Diablo 4 microtransactions for skins is OK" (which I disagree with) that got him downvoted, it's "both games disrespect the player's time".
Why can't we have both and the people who want to play each type of game enjoy what they like.
I personally haven't found SF or D4 to be a slog. D4 remained fun for me though the story and clearing the map which took me up to lv60 and then I put it down to pick up again later, SF is a long game but I haven't felt like I've had to grind or repeat content to keep up, everything I've done is a bespoke quest and that's given me enough experience and cash to level up what I want and buy a top level ship, etc
If you don't like long games you may well find those games a slog but then you have games like the new Assassin Creed focused at people who want shorter games.
Why can’t we have both and the people who want to play each type of game enjoy what they like.
We can. But they're different. I have a problem with microtransaction-driven games, even if it's skins. I won't fault you if you like D4, but D4 is the first (second if you count the mobile shit) Diablo game that I haven't put 100 hours into, or even played. The complaint about microtransactions is valid and objective however, and there have been criticisms on cosmetic-microtransactions for almost a decade now. It's not a feature by any stretch of the imagination, and nobody who plays the game seriously prefers "$25 armor set" to "customizable armor set"
Nobody "has to enjoy" Starfield. But the topic of the hour is whether Starfield was overhyped or (imo) whether Starfield is a valid target for the kind of criticism that came up when BG3 came out and other game studies complained it was too well-polished.
There are objective complaints and subjective ones. I don't care about the subjective ones. You don't want base-builders, so be it. You don't want procedural quests, whatever. Sometimes I play games with a playtime of 30 minutes because I don't want a long game. But Starfield was not misleadingly advertised or a bug-riddled mess. We got Skyrim in Space, and that's what we were promised.
That's a breath of fresh air. I'd appreciate that even if I didn't want to play Skyrim in Space. If someone comes out with a game and says "It's just like Witcher 3", I'll thank them and never touch it. I won't fault the game for being like another popular game I happen to hate.
I only brought up D4 here because people are saying Starfield is "just like D4"
Ok, I make you right on the MTX in Diablo and I'll never engage with the season passes or paid skins myself.
I wouldn’t put Starfield into the same family in most cases, just in the case that it was overhyped and made people buy it before anyone knew they were being taken for a ride by the developers.
the case that it was overhyped and made people buy it before anyone knew they were being taken for a ride
I'm still waiting. I'm not the only one. We keep asking for a list of things that were hyped about Starfield that we're missing, and so far that list is exactly zero items long. Most of the things people are bitching about, I would have told them 2+ years ago Starfield wasn't going to have, and nobody ever promised.
Further, how are we "taken for a ride"? I've spent $20 on Starfield so far (Xbox game pass) and have had nothing but a fucking blast. Are they secretly screwing me by making me enjoy it?
I'm going to reiterate what I said elsewhere. To my understanding, Bethesda promised me Skyrim in Space. When Starfield came out, Bethesda delivered Skyrim in Space. What exactly is fraudulent or misleading about any of that? I'm sorry if you expected Minecraft in Space or No Man's Sky 2. But nobody ever said this would be that.
Please see my original comment’s EDIT section for clarification.
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.
OK, but don’t you see how Bethesda keeps making concessions with every successive game they make?
How else are they going to buck that trend if gamers don’t wake up and say, “fool me twice, shame on me”?
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.
They expected a Bethesda game and got a Bethesda game for all the good and I’ll that entails.
That's also all we were promised. No false advertising here. Bethesda knows what Bethesda fans want, and they make the game Bethesda fans want. It's literally the only gaming experience left where I don't feel like I have to over-research and pirate-demo to figure out if I should buy a game.
Yeah, I was willing to concede with Cyberpunk that although it was a good game on PC/Next Gen from day one, it had a lot of issues on the formats most people own, and CDPR had overpromised the level of detail and systems in the city.
However I can't recall anywhere where Todd, Bethesda or MS promised stuff more than "Bethesda RPG, but in space".
Yeah. But I love that about CP. I got it dirt cheap when everyone was bitching, and just waited for them to fix it before I started playing. Best $17 I ever spent for a new AAA game! I can be patient.
When CDPR is done releasing patches and DLC, then I'll buy CP 2077. Of course, not all games require this kind of patience, but with CP 2077's rocky history, I think it's warranted. I've waited this long. I can wait a bit longer for that Definitive Edition and enjoy a truly finished product.
It's pretty fun nowadays honestly. Definitely worth more than I paid :)
thousands of planets to explore would imply exploration is going to be exciting I'd personally assume
They also said that most of them would be desolate and procedurely generated. They never promised a thousend hand crafted planets.
Permanently Deleted
I like the idea of space as a frontier, the vast lifeless expanses and the few habitable parts in between. The fact that Bethesda found a way to make all those lifeless planets actually explorable, even if there is nothing to do there than ambient open world content and resource gathering.
Permanently Deleted
You're sensing a bit of bias? Because they're telling you that they like the game?
I'm sensing a bit of bias from you, being completely unable to understand someone else's point of view once you've made your mind up
Perhaps you should invest in an anemometer because you seem to be having difficulty telling which way the wind is blowing here. I'm simply an objective buyer that does their research before pulling the trigger on products.
Right, but the problem with your logic is in thinking your viewpoint is concrete and everyone else's is wrong. Fun is subjective, you can't tell people they didn't have fun with the game
I didn't buy the game, and I am enjoying it immensely.
You can throw as many buzzwords at it as you like, but that doesn't diminish the lived experience of people who had fun with the game. Why are you so insistent on convincing people they didn't enjoy it? There must be a buzzword for that mindset too.
I'm not convincing people they didn't enjoy it. I'm merely suggesting that you could be experiencing choice-supportive bias. If you're truly happy with your investment, then by all means, continue enjoying it. Just don't be shocked when someone with different standards shares an opinion that blindsides you and compels you counter it.
Ever met someone who bought a crappy car and they're like, "oh yeah, I love this car", and you're thinking, "I would never buy a car like that. No one should" They obviously see a value in it that you do not, however justified their view of that purchase is.
I just think that most of the long-time Bethesda fans, if they haven't already, will one day realize that Starfield wasn't all it was cracked up to be. If they're relatively new to Bethesda games, that's probably a different story for a different generation of gamers. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
What about the people who played it on Game Pass and still enjoyed it.
I'm just happy you got to use the new term you learned! Color me impressed!
I agree with all your points but cannot disagree more on the inclusion of a difficulty slider for Souls games. I have been very adamant about a difficulty slider "cheapening the experience" or "jeopardising the artistic intent", but it really doesn't make a difference - at all.
If your enjoyment of the game stems from the fact that the game is difficult and the inclusion of a difficulty slider cheapens your "sense of accomplishment", then you might have to reevaluate your priorities.
Consider people with disabilities, for example, who are interested in the lore of Souls games and want to experience them themselves but can't because the games present themselves to be too difficult (for example in the way some bosses in Elden Ring have seemingly endless attack chains that give you no breathing room at all, requiring very precise input on the player's side), thus gatekeeping the experience from a potentially enthusiastic and interested player.
Or consider people who are just not interested in a hyper tense and difficult time and just want to experience the story and atmosphere of the game. What's wrong with that? How does that impact your enjoyment of the game if their experience is completely separate from yours?
For reference, I have platinumed numerous FromSoft Souls games and would not feel any less "proud" of that if the games had difficulty settings.
Nailed Souls on the head. I'm an older gamer and my reflexes are dead. I never really liked hard games. I like the story. I bought Bloodborne for the lore, and fully regret it. Hours of fighting the same area with zero progress is NOT why I wanted to play it. I bought Elden Ring after I found out there were cheat mods, tried to play it without them and enjoyed nothing, so added the Easy mod knowing I risked screwing up my Elden Ring account (whatever that means to me), having to play offline the whole time.
I regret buying Elden Ring because I don't want to have to almost pirate the game I bought just to play it because they want to make it hard.
Thing is you're trying to compare two different things, one is the (lack of) quality of the product in general compared to what was promised, the other is a design choice.
The irony is, I feel that sentence is more applicable if "lack of quality" is assigned to Soulslike games and "Design Choice" to Bethesda games.
Weird design choice to have games riddled with bugs that need to be fixed by modders 🤷
Could you quantify "riddled with bugs that need to be fixed by modders" regarding Starfield?
Every complaint I've seen so far has involved bullets, physics, or the AI. In my own experience, I've seen exactly 1 bug (the outpost-won't-respond bug) and it only hit me once and was easy to fix.
My first issue with Elden Ring was crash-bugs and screen-stutter. It didn't like my monitor streaming (all my other games were fine, including games using raytracing). And crashing every couple hours sucked. I haven't had one Starfield crash yet.
Also, have you ever ridden torrent across the sky? I have.
I don't claim my experience is everything, but I've seen far more bugs in Elden Ring than in Starfield.
I'm not talking about a game specifically, I'm talking about the way the studio works in general.
If you go back to the comment chain the original complaint is about a lack of quality control (releases full of bugs, missing features, bad UI, bad optimization), the other complaint is about a design choice (the game is hard because the devs intentionally made it so). My point is that it's two different things and saying "Your complaint about Bethesda's game is the same as complaining about Fromsoft not including a difficulty setting." is a false equivalency.
I meant to discuss Souls games' exclusion of difficulty sliders in a vacuum, separate from the Garfield discussion.
As prefaced in my comment, I agree with your points about Garfield: the developers should definitely be held accountable for their shortcomings and for hyping up a product that falls flat of its promised contend.
But I don't agree with difficulty sliders being shunned by the "hardcore" community. I feel like this nurtures an elitist environment that doesn't do its fanbase any good other than gatekeeping and separating fans.
Again, just a separate discussion altogether, not related to the Garfield discussion.
What shortcomings, what did Bethesda promise in Starfield that isn't there?
I love how people keep asking this question, yet nobody is answering us when we do. Almost like they can't name a single thing Bethesda promised that we didn't get.
But OMG, the landing sequence isn't seamless. Let's burn the game to the ground.
I haven't played the game myself, tbf - just mirroring other people's opinions of the game. The game could be amazing for all I know - I just know that the reviews haven't been stellar and that the community response to the game isn't all too great.
Astutely said. 👍
Reviews seem to have hovered around 7 which is think is fair and by far from a bad title. I'd probably be a bit more lenient and go to an 8 due to the subject matter since I'm a huge sci-fi fan.
Reaction depends on the community, of all my big gaming friends in real life are enjoying it, as are the hosts of several podasts I listen to.
Please see the EDIT section of my original comment and then tell me if you still stand by your statement.
I get it for "free" because I sub to xbox service. I'd have paid $70 for it, though. As for time, I could have spent it in other games, but it's the first really fun gaming experience I've had in quite a while.
It's easy to make accusations against Bethesda fans like this, but they're unfalsifiable. You could make the same accusations of people enjoying any other game and there's nothing they could do to prove they actually enjoy the game. Except that they DO actually enjoy the game.
I've played about 20 games this year. If I had to pick only 1 to play (which isn't far from the truth anymore with my second job), it would be Starfield. And you might be surprised at the names of games that rank below it on the list. Like Elden Ring (which I will never touch again after my cheat-easy-mode run), Hitman WoA, etc. Maybe I won't be playing it in a year, or two years. Maybe I will.
I think it's interesting you brought up Souls Games. Quite literally your first paragraph, I feel about them. I have 100% buyer's remorse about Bloodborne, and lesser buyer's remorse about Elden Ring. Neither will I ever touch again. To some extent, I kept trying to convince myself the story is worth their unwillingness to give gamers the controls that would actually make the game fun... and I gave up trying to have fun playing it.
I always find it funny that Hello Games over promised and the backlash was such that GOG extended its refund policy, but Bethesda does the same thing every time they release a game and gamers just call it a Bethesda game and that's the end of it or "modders will fix it"...
No Mans Sky was nothing like what Hello Games promised.
Starfield is exactly what Bethesda promised.
I don't see the discrepancy.
This is what I don't get, Bethesda were very clear about what the game was and wasn't in the lead up to release, yet some people seem to have convinced themselves it was going to be something entirely different and are now angry about that.
Please see the EDIT section of my original comment and then tell me if you still stand by your statement.
There is no "original comment"... There are no comments of yours in this thread with an EDIT. They're all just telling people to look at your "original comment"... But there isn't one
It's driving me crazy how many people are claiming Bethesda overpromised. I could have written an accurate review (critiques and all) of the game based upon what I saw/heard before its release.
Please see the EDIT section of my original comment and then tell me if you still stand by your statement.
Stop spamming this everywhere! WHAT FUCKING ORIGINAL COMMENT?? These people are replying to someone else, not you. There isn't even a comment of yours for them to be replying to!!
Please see the EDIT section of my original comment and then tell me if you still stand by your statement.
What did Starfield overpromise that we didn't get? As far as I can tell, we got exactly what we expected - Skyrim in Space.
Take my money, Bethesda, and give me more Skyrim in Space please.
Please see the EDIT section of my original comment and then tell me if you still stand by your statement.
Please STFU.
Bethesda promised Skyrim in space and that's what we got, a game exactly like the one they released 12 years ago but in space. They should have just called it Skyrim: Space Edition.
i don't entirely agree with that statement about it being identical to a 12-year-old Skyrim. But if it were true, what's the problem? This whole "bleeding edge stupidity" thing was the first reason we all started to hate AAA games 20 years ago.
Maybe you're too young, but "can it handle Farcry" was an insult to AAA. Now if it doesn't use every graphics acronym under the sun at once, and have multi-phased smell reflection when you walk into the bathrooms, then it's shit.
Also, for the record, a 2014 Engine (UE4) remained the top engine for basically anyone to make games in until last April. Improvements in graphics have slowed down because we're getting closer and closer to the limit.
Please see the EDIT section of my original comment and then tell me if you still stand by your statement.
NO!!
Huh? Starfield is the best RPG Bethesda has made since Morrowind, because it's an actual RPG. It has the best quest design since Oblivion, with almost none of the quests boiling down to "Go there, kill guys", but actually needing to talk to people, pay attention to the environment, interact with the world and make choices (and your Background, Traits, Skills and faction membership all add new ways for you to go about a quest.) The weapon design is an incredible improvement over Fallout 4. Almost everything in Starfield is either a massive step up or a return to form compared to their previous work and you don't actually know what you're talking about.
And that's not even to mention things like the ship building system, which is genuinely extremely impressive.
We must be playing different games. Every storyline quest I've done has been:
- Go to this random place
- Gun down everyone in sight because my mandatory companion can't stealth.
- Talk to the named bad guy.
- See if I win a coin flip. 4a. Walk out with a McGuffin. 4b. Gun everyone down again, then walk out with the McGuffin.
It's nothing but, "Go there, kill guys," as you call it. Everything is a fetch quest with faceless mooks between me and whatever fifth turn I need to take to get to the end of the corridors in the space dungeon.
And comparing the game to Morrowind is laughable. Morrowind was an amazing feat of world building based on actual player choice. Starfield is a bunch of boxes to tick to see the next space cliche.
To me this reads like you havent done the Ryujin plotline which has a lot of stealth involved, and the UC/Crimson Fleet one that has some detective work/stealth
You're absolutely right and if I can muster up the energy to start the game back up then Ryujin is probably going to be my first stop.
You're expected not to kill anyone during the entire Ryujin storyline as it's "bad for business". It's all social and sneaky stealth.
its sorta the same idea as like metal gear solid (5 in particular). You COULD kill people during missions, its just not the optimal option for rewards. You 100% could go guns ablazing if you really hated stealth, but it kinda ruins the point of the game.
The Ryujin quest line could be done by running straight through it.
Stealth in the game is an absolute joke.
Half the damn quests don't even require me to leave the city they started in. Maybe you just had bad luck picking all of the quests that are like that and none of the others and I had the opposite. Or maybe you did 3 quests and are talking out of your ass. I don't know, I wasn't there when you played the game. I mean, did you even do anything other than main story? Join a faction, do sidequests, anything? Because I could point you to half a dozen quests just in early game New Atlantis that are entirely reliant on dialogue, choices etc. without any killing and that do not give you a mandatory companion. Like, do the UC Security quests, investigate the brownouts in the well, talk to the preacher guy, the art guy in Jemison Mercantile, the collector guys in Terrabrew, the bartender at Viewport, the scientist by the tree. The game will literally put half of these quests in the quest log from ambient dialogue, and the other half you get from just engaging with the world and talking to NPCs in the first city you visit. It's not like these are incredibly hidden quests you have to go out of your way to find. Hell, when you go to Akila the game just plops a hostage negotiation right in your face. I mean, come on, you're either being wilfully disingenuous or you played that game blind as a bat.
And if you don't believe me and don't want to bother playing the game yourself again, just look at the playthrough of somebody like Many A True Nerd. He did a lot of the quests I just mentioned.
I'm curious, you mentioned the hostage scenario at Akila. Does talking down the Shaw gang give you a peaceful method of obtain the artifact near the end of that quest? I try not to save scum so when that whole ordeal went south I had to gun my way through everyone outside of the cavern, then of course only after half her people were dead did Shaw bother striking up a conversation. Not trying to be an ass here, I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not that would've actually changed with prior gameplay.
I tried a few side quests and none of them were at all compelling, though I'll admit I didn't bother going too deep with most of the factions. I don't know, each one I tried consisted of walking back and forth and listening to people talk about trees being too loud or some shit I couldn't care about. Maybe if I'd gone to Space Tokyo or signed up with the space pirates that would've been different. But following the main storyline and tooling around the first few planets was repetitive and just more Bethesda-style gun in, then take the shortcut out after getting the thing. I gave up on the game after around 20 hours of not enjoying the experience.
If you're liking the game then good for you but my experience was that none of the choices I made actually mattered and the world Bethesda built was bland and cliche. And the game mechanics themselves were nothing ground breaking at all, except maybe ship building but that took way too much effort to grok. I tried to like the game but couldn't.
I don't know. I didn't manage to talk them down on my first playthrough, so who knows, but I don't think so. But I also don't think every game or even every RPG needs to be designed with a complete pacifist route in mind. The Shaw Gang mission is also about the only one I can think of that actually fits completely with the "formula" you described, outside of maybe the tutorial.
Also, yeah, Space Pirates might actually be a quest for you, or rather being an undercover agent in the space pirates. You just get straight up thrown out of UC SysDef and have them as your enemy if you run and gun those missions, so you have to sneaky, use your persuasion and actually look around your environments if you want to stay with the good guy faction. The part on the cruise ship is especially good for this. Your choices there definitely matter in that regard.
Maybe it's just a game for people that are really into space in a specific way. Like, sometimes I'll just look at pictures of the surface of Venus or Mars and think about the fact that there's billions of these worlds just existing with no observer. Just rocks, dust, storms, rain, volcanoes, all types of things being there and happening, even though no one can see it.
Yeah, okay, between you and Dudewitbow I'm halfway convinced to give Ryujin and the Crimson Fleet a try.
Haven't done Ryujin yet myself, but I hear it's great. Supposedly lots of covert stealth stuff. I personally also enjoyed the Freestar Rangers quest. It's got more political intrigue than the others I've done. (Also leads you to the Porrima system, which has one of the more interesting and bigger sidequests in it.)
One compliment I will also give the factions as a whole is that you don't immediately become the leader or second in command. Hell, you stay a Deputy until the end of the Rangers quest and only then become a full ranger. It actually feels like an earned promotion.
I’m not them, but yes you can talk you way through that encounter not firing a single shot and still get the artifact. Many quests are like that.
Yeah, that happens when you just skip dialogue
I haven't skipped any dialogue and I agree with them completely.
Have you actually read the dialogue? Have you even played Morrowind?
Morrowind treats NPCs like theyre hyperlinks in a Wiki. Click on Balmora on any NPC and get the exact same blurb.
There's like 10 characters that are actually unique and most of em still pull from the wiki when you click on a generic talk option.
my mandatory companion can’t stealth
So tell your mandatory companion to "wait here" when you plan to Stealth Archer. Or give her a chameleon suit. Ironically, the "stealth archer" meme is the most valid critique of Bethesda games, and you're complaining because it isn't working well for you.
Plenty of people have enjoyed this game and found things to like even if it's not perfect.
"People enjoy the slop so the slop must not be that bad."
but you can't dictate to other people that they also shouldn't enjoy it.
Yes but we can absolutely point out they're enjoying slop and are probably the biggest contribution to mainstream games becoming more and more soulless slop.
"I'm Mr High and Mighty, upon my golden gaming chair. I only sample the finest 10/10 works of art and have no time for lowly 7/10 slop that the peasents enjoy. If only they'd accept that I know better what they should be allowed to enjoy"
That's you that is.
Please see the EDIT section of my original comment and then tell me if you still stand by your statement.
Also, if you're perfectly happy eating fast food instead of fine dining, who am I to say otherwise? But if too many people consistently stop investing in fine dining experiences, they go away and then all we have is an ever-reducing quality of the fast food experience.
I only sample the finest 10/10 works of art
No? I'll admit that something like Enderal: Forgetten Stories, while very fun and better than Skyrim in a lot of ways, is still like an 8/10 even though I like it a lot. If we're going on the game alone and not how great and generous the developers are to the community, Deep Rock Galactic is a 9/10.
have no time for lowly 7/10 slop that the peasents enjoy.
7/10 for Starfield is incredibly generous. It's a 5/10 if we're all being honest and not circlejerking about Bethesda.
If only they'd accept that I know better what they should be allowed to enjoy
You can like and play whatever you want.
But if you share the opinion that overall quality of games, especially triple A titles, has gone down in the past 10-15 years, and you can sit here and give Starfield: Yet Another Wide as an Ocean but Deep as a Puddle + Boring Experience from Bethesda ™️ is a 7/10; I don't think you really have the right to complain about the declining quality of video games when you're essentially contributing to it by claiming incredibly mediocre games are above average.
If you feel good that you paid $70-100 for what's really feels like a $40 barely out of early-access game, hey, I can't change your mind.
My opinion is fact and everyone else is wrong. I also watch a million essays over the decline of gaming on YouTube so I am very informed.
Fair points... I suppose. I'm just trying to relay the message that rewarding developers for downgraded experiences--whether through outright full-price purchases or XBGP billable hours to Microsoft--only begets more ever-downgraded experiences in the future.
what I find more wild is as usual the toxic gaming community can't handle opinions. I like the game, I don't care if others don't, but acting like I don't have "standards" cause you don't like it is rediculous. Likewise, I got bored so fast of baulders gate 3 but apparently it's the second coming of christ and I must be wrong. No, I get why people love it, it just wasn't my jam. Starfield is
its so depressing that people still seethe this much over others liking a game they didnt