so, how is starfield in current state, the pc version specifically? I do enjoy bethesda-style games (fallout 3, nv, 4, london, skyrim, etc.). I'm aware that at launch starfield was, apparently, quite the shitshow.
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
28 points (81.8% liked)
Games
16800 readers
765 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I had the Bethesda blinders on for the first few hours, but like 15 hours in and all I'm doing is fast travelling, running out of my ship to talk to a guy, then fast travel to the mission location and maybe shoot some people, or grab something, then fast travel back.
The novelty wore off faster than any other Bethesda game I've ever played and I never did finish my playthrough.
Oof, well, that does sound bad. But, still kinda interested. Wishlisted for sale, waiting for fairly deep one
If that sounds appealing, and you enjoy Bethesda games in general, you should at least give it a shot on Game pass. Personally I really enjoyed the moment to moment gameplay - shooting, exploring, talking to people - but the loading screens can potentially ruin the enjoyment if you're expecting a seamless world.
It's still not good, imho. It's supposed to be a game about exploring space. But the "exploring" in this case is just fast travel. I grew up on Bethesda games, I hold games like Morrowind, Oblivon, and Fallout 3 in very high regard. Starfield just got so boring, so fast, I couldn't continue playing after only like ten hours, if that.
Its very average.
Space and exploration are not fun.
All misc. missions are copy and paste.
The "guild" quests are okay.
Its a 6/10 game. Worth $10-20
Was not worth waiting 10 years
I enjoy it for what it is, an "RPG" set in space. I'm using 100+ mods for it, and while that's nothing for a Skyrim playthrough, I think it's a decent amount for Starfield. They mostly address balance issues, bugs, make some things more interesting or work better, or just improve the visuals a bit.
The issue is that there aren't really many mods that change the gameplay fundamentally yet, though one of the exceptions is Starvival, which has a lot of modules you can enable, that make the game more realistic, immersive, and interesting. For example, one of the modules changes starships, adding fuel and maintenance costs, and disallowing fast travel unless you're up in space.
I think as the modding scene matures, people will find ways to fix most of the game's issues, but only time will tell.
I do hope so. However that also means that the base game needs to have a good base experience for people like to get back into it.
Personally I really like Starfield for what it is. I think it is a unique mix of RPG and space sim. I am not a big fan of pure sandbox games, and other space sims with quests often felt doing impersonal jobs. In Starfield you meet people and learn their individual story and can help them, etc. Which is just not something I have seen before in a space game. (Mass Effect is maybe the closest, but that isn't really a open world space sim game)
Of course the game could be better. One of their error was relying on procedural content generation, which is often bleak, uninteresting and unexpiring. Also the main city, New Atlantis, is just too clean, too huge and very bland. It doesn't look like it was build for people. It got a very MMO feeling to it. It looks like megalomaniacs build it, but that isn't really addressed in game. Other cities/locations are better. But the political of societal critique, which is normal for the Sci-Fi genre, is missing or not apparent enough. The devs where IMO not bold enough there, to make a clear statement.
So IMO there is a lot to do for modders, we will see if enough of them are interested in fixing that game.
Hit the nail on the head. I don't think I'd mind the size of New Atlantis so much if there was actually enough content within it, but as it is, you have to run for a while to get to anywhere, meaning you'll either fast travel or be bored while going on foot. I think Akila city is a bit better in that regard, since it's still fairly big, and has some verticality, while also being denser.
Personally, New Atlantis deserves a side-quest where you either start a revolt together with the people from the the well to take on the bourgeoisie government (which might end up creating a fascist state), or change the system electorally, establish unions, social security and public healthcare, with its own risks. Or even play the part of a populist, or help one to take over the government. The "liberal utopia" in New Atlantis is just not a stable system, there would be too much disgruntled people. Being part of change here, would be very interesting.
But that would take too much courage from Bethesda. No, I have to support my parents there, because the government doesn't care for their people.
It honestly wasn't so bad. I played about 80 hours of it, right after launch. In typical Bethesda fashion, I used a few ini tweaks and such to tailor it to my tastes. Mostly fixing the Stealth (which was horribly broken at launch) and balance changes like reducing the bullet spongyness of enemies.
Both are now patched and configurable through the built-in difficulty settings.
I enjoyed my time with it. I went in expecting a space-skyrim with typical Bethesda jank, and that's exactly what we got.
went in expecting a space-skyrim with typical Bethesda jank, and that's exactly what we got.
This is exactly what I'm expecting as well, so it's fairly likely I'll enjoy it. Wishlisted and waiting for a reasonable sale, I'm still kinda stuck in fallout: London for the foreseeable future - so not really hurting for content
I went in expecting a space-skyrim with typical Bethesda jank, and that's exactly what we got
I won't say I disliked it. There was a lot of stuff I liked, and the gunplay was substantially less painful than fallout. But the thing with Skyrim that makes it easy to get hooked for me is the fact that from wherever I am, I can just wander, and I'll find cool places to go. I'll find a cave to wander down that goes through more than one civilization before letting me out somewhere different, that I can also just pick a direction and wander.
There's nothing really in Starfield that does that. I still really liked a lot about it, and some of the city stuff pushes into feeling immersive-sim-like. But I would have preferred less solar systems, but ones that were (or had been) more fully populated by humans and felt like you were really exploring each world instead of a small area.
It's still worth playing, and the base is potentially there for some really cool total conversion type mods. But it doesn't really do the open world feeling that Bethesda was one of the few who consistently did really well.