132
Some of Starfield’s planets are meant to be empty by design - but that’s not boring, Bethesda insists
(www.rockpapershotgun.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
132 points (93.4% liked)
Starfield
2870 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!
- Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)
Helpful links:
Spoiler policy:
- No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
- Add
[Spoilers]to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post. - Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
- Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!
Post & comment spoiler syntax:
<spoiler here>
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is just a summary of modern Bethesda games in a nutshell, except forgetting to mention bugs as well.
I really don't know what people where expecting with Starfield
The game has some issues but, surprisingly, bugs really aren't one of them.
I think Microsoft can be thanked for that. They buckled down and lent their support to make sure Starfield didn't have constant crashes and backwards flying spaceships and whatnot.
No it really isn't. In all prior Bethesda games you could get from any place in the world to any other just by walking and maybe some loading screens if you're going from/to a city or dungeon. In Starfield you have to use menus and loading screens to get from most places to most other places.
Also, Starfield places more emphasis on amassing items due to having resources etc than the previous-worst Fallout 4, and all prior Bethesda games didn't have resources to manage, just items.
So no, while Starfield is very much like previous Bethesda games, many flaws and issues are exacerbated.
I'd like to know how many of you actually WALKED everywhere in Skyrim or Fallout, I tried it once, boring as fuck and extremely irritating when a quest took me from one side of the map to the other and back. Fast traveling is good and a majority of people that play their game use it almost exclusively where possible.
Y'all are delusional if you think people want to play walking simulators all the time in their RPGs, it's a very small group who plays them that way.
Because walking from one side of skyrims map to the other and back is TOTALLY the same as just being able to walk from Riften to Whiterun. The equivalent of which you wouldn't be able to do in Starfield.
Riften to Whiterun is like half the distance from solitude to Riften, walking between either is a chore and 99% of players wouldn't or don't do it.
Tho comparing it to Starfield is sorta hilarious because Starfield is absolutely massive and even games like NMS require going into menus to jump between systems.
Do I wish Starfield was more like NMS in that you can relatively seamless take off, fly to another planet, land, do it all over again? Yeah that'd be pretty sweet. Do I also know that the world's in NMS are way way less interesting and detailed overall and the storyline/NPC interactions are very basic? Yes I do.
Different strengths and different end goals for the games
I could understand expecting improvements before they actually showed the game off; but after the very first gameplay reveal, it should have been pretty obvious to anyone familiar with BGS that it was going to be the same as Skyrim and Fallout 4, but with a different aesthetic and theme.
Everything Starfield does to blow my expectations is that it's surprisingly stable and bug free. I'm playing it with a 1660 Super and it's actually playable (I mean, only 30 fps when outside); the card isn't even supported! Fallout 4 wasn't even playable at launch (single digit fps when anywhere near Boston) and I had the recommended specs for it.