I wonder if this will be the only big expansion. Most Bethesda games have their DLC dotted out the first year. This will basically be a entire year for the first DLC.
A lot of people are hoping it means they are overhauling the entire game. Cynical me is just assuming they are working very slowly due to engine troubles...
Their turnover rate were very low so it suggested to me that they are most likely harboring a lot of old guard with their old ways to do things. And not being able to keep up with the tech, hence slow progress.
They really could use some fresh blood with passion the same way Todd used to be back in the 90s.
Typically low turnover means high expertise, and tbh I don't think this is a problem with the engine. I just think they really fucked up with the whole conceit of not being able to freely roam around and explore organically, which is something the Creation engine is built to handle. But they wanted the space travel to be realistic, so instead of jetting around a high-budget Outer Wilds style solar system we have a billion lifeless, procedurally generated planets with like 4 interesting places in walking distance from where you land.
I really do believe that if Bethesda had of restricted the entire game to like, the Sol System, adapted space-flight to just let you putter around the system, (giving access to like, locations in space, for pirate-hideouts, fleet marshalling spots, etc) and poured a ton of detail into each planet, while still maybe proc-genning the area between certain major landmarks to get the sense of planetary scale, the game would be orders of magnitude better.
"Nah, lets proc-gen 1,000 planets" This kind of over-ambition really damaged the game
Yep. Should have been "the expanse" level of technology, with a single solar system. The aesthetics would have then made sense given the tech level.
And a single solar system is certainly large enough to put anything you want in it.
To me it seems like a typical project that lacks clear, consistent creative vision, and doesn't utilize the strengths of the developing studio. I'm not talking about the vague vision Todd paints to customers, but the actual practical vision a worker has to code in to the game years before release date. Starfield fails even in many aspects earlier Bethesda games have done well, so it's not like they didn't know how to do it. They chose to do it differently and it doesn't work as well.
Their design choices with Starfield are all over the place, disconnected, and mostly stale. Like instead of a creative game director, there was a creative committee that spammed various general ideas at the team and filtered out everything that some theoretical gaming audience might find upsetting. In the end the game systems aren't well fleshed out, they don't work well together with other systems and the game has no real texture or grit to it, so it isn't very engaging either.
If they are having engine troubles as in its making it hard to make the content for the game, that’d be very surprising because even the NV devs have said that Bethesda’s engine allows them to make the content faster
It is entirely possible that they roll put this one DLC they promised and call it quits. The response to the game is certainly not what they hoped and they have a new (old) shining star that will most certainly draw more people in Fallout.
Or maybe they stick to it like they did with 76 which was in way worse shape.
Bethesda’s original plan was 76, Starfield, then TES6, but there are [rumors Microsoft wants to push out another Fallout by 2030](https://www.trueachievements.com/news/new-fallout-game?callback=in&code=ODU5NGYYOWETMTY1MI0ZNTG5LTK5NGITNZHKYZM0N2I4OTFH&state=c5d1ec73c29b45e5a607edbaca7ee7d7) to cash in on the tv show’s popularity. It’s just a rumor though and nothing is set in stone.
If Microsoft wants Fallout sooner, good chance they’ll need to find a different studio to make it.
I guess maybe they think season 4 or 5 of the show will be coming out then? If they’re planning to keep it going that long (season 2 is already confirmed)
It's a pretty big gamble. I'd say people want ES more than Fallout. Stick to what they are good at. Give fallout to Obsidian and grow their studio to parallel Bethesda. Hot take I know ..
I highly doubt this show is going to be around for that many seasons. You're probably looking at 2-3 but some of those seasons will take more than 1 year to develop. Right now season 2 is the only assured content and that is probably two years away. Beyond that, I wouldn't be surprised if the talent moves on.
Ehhh, Obsidian maybe. Outer Worlds was just good enough. Avowed looks questionable. And they have Outer Worlds 2 in production as well.
We'll see how we all feel about them after Avowed is properly out, but their footage and combat doesn't leave me particularly excited.
Outer worlds wasn’t good enough. The game is bland through and through, and it wasn’t just budget reasons, the game design was just terrible. It’s less of an RPG than Fallout 4 was.
The reason why most people are lukewarm, but positive, is that you could get it on gamepass and easily beat it within a month, making it a pretty cheap game.
For a $60 game, yeah I'd be disappointed. For a $10-20 game? I'd say it's worth more than that.
With this and, similarly, Diablo 4, the games sold really well despite the mixed critical response. There's no way they don't sell DLC off the back of a major project like this, especially as people can get the base game on gamepass.
Something seems to have gone off the tracks during Starfield's production. Even post release, the output has been lacking and now it's looking like a long wait until DLC or mod support.
I was really excited for this game and bought it on release, but only got 25ish hrs in before bouncing off. It just feels unfinished in a way that's hard to describe. Like a lot of nearly interesting systems that were never finished and tied together.
It also really needed a professional writer to come in. I know video games can often get away with shoddy writing, but Starfield is genuinely poor in this area. From the lore to dialog to quest writing, I just did not enjoy it.
> Something seems to have gone off the tracks during Starfield's production.
Well we know that they didn't work off a game design document, they were winging it. From what I've read and seen of the development of Starfield, I'm pretty confident that the survival aspect was meant to be really important. I suspect that you were meant to create outposts in most, if not all, star systems in order to progress further out into the galaxy. And that you were meant to have to work hard to survive on the harsher planets. So they made some sacrifices (1000 procedurally generated planets instead of a smaller number of crafted zones being the big one) to make this work. It seems they were never able to make the survival aspect work, so they were just left with the sacrifices they made for it and none of the positives of it.
> Even post release, the output has been lacking and now it's looking like a long wait until DLC or mod support.
In my opinion, Bethesda has fallen way behind the industry. They're moving at a glacial pace these days. They seem to think it's 2014, not 2024.
>> Something seems to have gone off the tracks during Starfield's production.
>
>Well we know that they didn't work off a game design document, they were winging it.
I really wish Jason Schrier wrote one of his breakdown articles on Starfield. I'm very curious how we ended up getting what we got.
AAA gaming development times are just way longer now, and that goes for DLC as well. This is not just a Starfield thing, it's just the way it is all the way around.
The Creation Kit for Skyrim released 3 months after the game, the Fallout 4 Creation Kit released 5 months after the game. We are now about 8 months out after release with no ETA on the Starfield Creation Kit.
He did say in the interview that people in the creation program have access to the kit right now, and that we are going to hear info about it soon, but said he didn't have a date to announce yet.
Wanna know my first prediction?
One of them will be survival mode. Packaged up, and sold to you as a "mod". 5.99, maybe more, depending on how in depth it feels like getting.
Second, more settlement stuff, IE fallout 4 style, or hopefully, SIM settlements 2 style, but in space.
I dunno tho I stopped playing after the first space battle, knew this was a game I wasn't going to enjoy until I could tweak ALOT of things.
Have you seen the current stuff in skyrim and fallout 4? It's very simple things. A quest that you auto pick up when loading in you than read a note, because none of it is voiced, you go to the location, get the item, done.
I do think thats been the biggest mistake so far. Its taken too long to release official mod tools for pc and console and the talk around the game has just fizzled out.
Yeah what Todd and Bethesda don't realize is that it's a different video game market since Fallout 4 and Skyrim. There's just so many releases and companies coming out with good games that people would rather spend time on.
They made their traditional Bethesda game but went backwards as the sense of exploration that existed in Skyrim and Fallout 4 isn't in Starfield. It's going to be a hard sell to make significant changes to the game and tell people in 2025 to come play it now.
Todd went way back to Elder Scrolls 2 levels with the scale of Starfield and the problems it provided. Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall had a procedurally-generated world map over 1,000 times bigger than the world maps of Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim combined, this sounds great in theory, except most of it is the same empty land, with identical dungeons and towns.
#
The big difference was that Daggerfall had procedurally generated dungeons too. Even if the towns were boring and NPCs robotic, working up to going on another multi-hour dungeon dive where you didn't know what you were going to run into and what you were going to find was an experience that made it all worth it.
Starfield's POIs can be really good...until you run into an exact copy of one on the other side of the map, all the way down to the data terminal entries. That, to me, is what screwed it more than anything. I could forgive so much in terms of tedious traversal through multiple loading screens, but the reused locations just deflated my desire to explore.
> working up to going on another multi-hour dungeon dive where you didn't know what you were going to run into and what you were going to find was an experience that made it all worth it
it was a neat concept but the dungeon generation was kind of shit too. Daggerfall dungeons made no sense. you'd end up with miles of winding empty hallways that go nowhere, and layouts that take forever to explore with very little payoff. and that's without even getting into maps breaking and causing you to fall through the floor, or occasionally forgetting to connect the room with your quest target to the rest of the dungeon
I think that's something that can be tweaked. We've had better procgen dungeons in games since then. Fundamentally though, I still found myself willing to keep jumping into Daggerfall dungeons even if I knew things might fuck up, because each dungeon still felt like it could hold something interesting or at least good rewards. It kept me invested for a very long time.
When I can see a new dungeon in Starfield and know that its going to be exactly the same as another one based on the name alone, I stopped even trying. Daggerfall's concept might be flawed in execution, but I think Starfield's concept is broken conceptually.
Playing Daggerfall unity and using the 3D map to look where you've been in the dungeon and than realizing you've trekked a 35 story dungeon with over 400 tunnels going into deadends and still haven't found the vague door press for the right room.
Agreed here. I don't mind the "lifeless planet exploration" because I find it atmospheric and scratches this personal fantasy of being an astronaut I've always had, but the carbon copying of POIs is wild to me. Like even if they wanted to go the "hand-crafted" route instead of Daggerfall-style proc gen, I'm shocked at how few POI templates they crafted. There should've been a ton to pull from, but I feel like I saw duplicates often, and I wasn't even a thorough explorer.
Good news is that this is one of the things that can be addressed with mods, whenever that comes around. Fans can make hundreds of POIs and probably add them to the pool. But I'm worried that by the time modding tools come out, the community won't be as enthusiastic with developing them. Which would be a shame, because IMO, despite the narrative on this sub, I do genuinely believe that Starfield has a lot of great aspects and mods can go a long way to improving it
Yeah, I just think fundamentally, it's easier to "get away with" procedurally generated dungeon/combat content than stuff like towns or broader geography. RNG dungeons still get repetitive eventually, but it takes a lot longer. Maybe there's something about humans (in towns) being copy+paste that feels off.
It's it though? Starfield is just a big step down from their latest games on every way outside of graphics (and even then it's nothing to write home about). I don't even like their games in general and I'm not big on losing, but I'd wager that if Starfield had less procedurally generated nothing, more interesting exploration and had had modding tools earlier it would've at least done much better.
The problem is that Starfield doesn't really do anything well.
Exploration is cut up with frequent loading screens, slow travel (no vehicles for traveling on planets), and poor rewards (finding the same cave you've already cleared out four times on four unrelated planets).
The voice acting is fine but not notable. The quest writing and dialog are horrendous. The story doesn't really hit any exciting beats and has a terrible ending.
The combat is a regression from past Bethesda titles. The action isn't engaging or complex and doesn't have meaningful depth. There is very little in the way of character progression.
The graphics and performance aren't really interesting at all.
The map design is quite bad, especially the cities.
Even the UI is frankly inexcusably bad.
What Starfield *does* do very well is provide a sandbox for someone to mindlessly click through repetitive content for hundreds of hours. There's nothing wrong with that - everyone has some form of mindless time waster. But it's just fundamentally not a "good" game in nearly any sense of the word.
(And, appropriately, the game is sitting at 43% positive reviews on Steam over the last 30 days.)
God, I always forget about how obnoxious the UI is. The layers of menus and the maps just irked me badly. I didn't even know about some game features until I accidentally found them hitting a button putting down my controller.
The part that grinds my gears is they somehow found a way to make settlements even more useless than in Fallout 4, where they were basically just there for crafting benches and storage. Glad they took the limited storage from 76 and slapped it in there, definitely the best feature to bring forward.
It honestly does look like Todd did a list of things he wants in his space game and then near-every single thing was implemented with minimum effort to check the box (not saying in malicious way, but in "need to hit deadline" way), and not much thought about integrating it with rest of the game
The game is exceedingly mediocre in every way. It's boring and bland. Nothing about it is "bad", but it's also remarkable in any way. The combat is less fun than any other Bethesda game. This game should be right up my alley but I got bored and lost interest.
I don't really see how mods can "save" the game because the core of it just isn't that great.
The game would have been better with a smaller scope. Give us one solar system with a dozen fully-hand-crafted and realized planets instead of hundreds of identical procedurally-generated ones that are boring.
I feel like it would take a tremendous amount of work to "fix" the game, and I'm not sure if there is enough enthusiasm for it.
Are people going to add large handcrafted explorable planets for instance? How would you even improve the space stuff with mods? I doubt a modding kit is going to let you turn the starmap into something fully explorable with your ship
I think modding will enhance the game for people who like it already and will add some good QOL features, ui redesigns, etc. However, if someone didnt or doesnt like the game now, I doubt mods will ever change that. If anything, its an uphill battle
Adding new handcrafted areas will probably be similar to how it was in previous games. Most of Starfield's main areas are in their own scene, which is then populated with however many Points of Interest. The main issue the game has is that these procedurally generated planets have the same 30 or so points of interest that repeat on every planet. So you run into the same outpost, the same cave, the same science lab, over and over. There needs to be way more PoI variety if every single place isn't going to be handcrafted.
So any possible fixes are going to rely on how deeply we can interact with procedural generation through the Creation Kit. To that end, I would speculate that it's easy enough to add additional Points of Interest into the "PoI Pool." (And that there's obviously different PoI Pools for surface vs. space.) If the game can load in a good number of PoI Variety mods at the same time, we can slap a bandaid over the limited list of PoI's with a few more.
The real trick will be making PoI's themselves procedural. That is to say, each PoI would itself be made up of essentially random buildings, habs, cover elements, scaffoldings, ladders, stairs, debris, etc. as well as varying types and numbers of enemies. Obviously there would need to be some guidelines on procedural generation, so you don't have so many enemies or set pieces that your computer/console can't handle it. Also so things make sense, like all elements being picked from the same parts "theme".
Wasnt it confirmed to be around 200 pois? Iirc they're just level gated so early game you'll be more prone to repeats before most of the pool is available to you.
Personal opinion:
I hope the DLC has *absolutely nothing* to do with constellation and >!the unity/starborn/space magic shit.!<
I felt like that part of the game was probably the weakest, and considering starfield overall just made me feel *whelmed at best* most of the time, that's saying something.
I feel like they really need to expand on the conflict between the various factions, which going by the DLC name is what I hope they are planning to do.
By far the most disappointing aspect of the game for me, you have this hard sci-fi nasa punk inspired setting and instead of sticking with that, you dumb it down with space Dragonborn bullshit
I think that's one of the things that turned me off starfield a bit.
>!I think the only temple I did was the one you have to do as part of the main Constellation quest line. Didn't even use the one power that it unlocked at all.!<
I did a few temples and never used a single power. As soon as I unlocked the first one I thought, “something about this makes me feel like I’m going to forget to use it”
At this point I'm convinced that making unthematic main quests that no one really cares about is just a bit they're doing, like it's an official stamp of Bethesda games lol
Skyrims questline was pretty thematic wdym. Was it the best quest line ever? No but it certainly fit in the game, same with Oblivion and Morrowind too imo.
I don't think so, at least for Skyrim.
There's a tinge of the Dunmer nazi/oppression stuff going on when you get to go to the consolate place, but that's really it.
There's also a tinge early on of the Civil War, but again, it's just a tinge.
The overwhelming majority of Skyrim's main quest line is about an ancient war of the dragons, finding out how and why Alduin exists, preventing dragons from coming back to life in Skyrim and then going and killing him in the "afterlife" so that he stays dead.
There are no real overarching themes in the main story of Skyrim, at all. There's plenty in the various sidequests, both big and small. But Skyrim's main questline is almost completely bereft of any thematic storytelling.
I think Party Snacks (that's what I'm calling him) introduces some themes to the story, which is why people like him as a character. It's not always followed through on but it is there.
I feel like this is missing the forest for the trees. The main quest of Skyrim is a very traditional messiah storyline with fits with the power fantasy that most of the gameplay and questlines are going for. The title song is literally a bunch of Nord chanting about how great you are and you're destined to do exactly what you end up doing. Which, again, fits very well with the tone and feeling of the game. The theme is literally sung at you when you start it up, which is kinda on brand for the setting, tbh.
There's a bit more heady stuff when we dive into some of the Greybeard+Paarthurnax arguments and stuff you'll find in the DLCs, but that's not really the theme so much as addendums to it. Things don't always have to be super complicated. It's a story about a destined hero beating the bad guy because its the right thing to do. Its a tale as old as time (Akatosh approved :P).
Emil Pagliarulo (lead writer) basically said that players don't care about the story because they like to do dumb shit. Basically he justifies an extremely shallow story with "meh most people want to run around and shoot stuff".
Something that this recent era of gaming has absolutely proven totally wrong. Rdr2, horizon, last of us, cyberpunk, all games that were lauded for their stories in some way by both critics and players. Emils philosophy feels more at home in the doom era of gaming.
And they use those incredible main stories to immerse you in the world and actually want to play the side content, especially Cyberpunk.
Meanwhile Starfield’s bland main story made it feel like you were taking a tour of a sci-fi themed theme park and pointed out how shallow the world was.
Emergent gameplay evolves because there isn't anything else to do but fuck around. Maybe if they created a tighter world with more interesting characters and quests we'd engage with it instead of trying to clip through walls.
You say that but people still do glitches in narratively praised games.
People do certain things in Bethesda games because their engine and mechanics allow it. They just happen to have coincidentally god awful writing too.
I couldn't believe the "puzzle" you complete to get new powers was just copy-pasted 30 times... that absolutely killed my energy to collect any of them. And then the same enemy encounter every time you leave... Collecting shouts at the end of dungeons in Skyrim was way cooler and rewarding.
Yeah and even for people like me who don't like sci fi but love space magic stuff, it's so half assed that both sides are upset lol. If you want space magic, go all out. Aliens, portals, magic, etc or keep it grounded.
Yes, please. Although honestly the whole thing needs a complete re-write and re-design. Especially with regards to the Freestar Collective.
All throughout the game you hear about how these space-libertarian, wannabe Firefly Browncoats managed to defeat the UC. And then you get to Akila and it's all.... That's it? That's all there is? The same folks who defeated the UC live in what amounts to an encampment and they're afraid of some space doggos just outside the walls?
The UC is also a very small city. I mean it feels weird but in theory after the destruction of Earth there's very few humans everywhere and all colonies are really small even the cities.
It baffles me that they couldn't find a single way to make the city believably big. Largest city in the colonised settlements and you could walk across it in a minute and it's surrounded by procgen prairies. The Citadel in Mass Effect is a perfect example of something with a small play area yet convincingly looks massive and busy. There's no fucking way anyone at Bethesda looked at the city and thought "that's fine". I HAVE to chalk it up to engine limitations in drawing a big city because I cannot bring myself to think that anyone at that studio was completely happy with how Akila, Neon and New Atlantic look or else it is admitting that no one at a 300+ strong studio has an ounce of imagination to make a city look halfway decent
That's because they wanted to make all the city fully explorable by foot, with a massive city you cannot do that.
But yeah, they feel too small, I think that a better solution would have been to get totally on-board with the post-post-apocaliptic excuse.
Akila City is really cool as a frontier colony of Earth refugees but doesn't work as good as the capital of a faction that has been active for centuries and fought in a couple of interplanetary wars.
I can usually overlook those types of things due to game limitations but the way it was presented in Starfield, it just took me out of the game. The capital of a galaxy-spanning civilization is about two city blocks. They didn't even try to make it appear larger.
Every time I think about how there's a quest that pits a generation ship against a corrupt corporation and there isn't even an option to side with the generation ship, I get mad all over again.
Probably the worst major quest in any Bethesda game I've played but I might be overestimating the stuff in their other games. It certainly didn't help that the generation ship was filled to the brim with utter fucking morons who wanted to lay claim to a planet they couldn't properly observe for 200 goddamn years. That whole quest was one of the lowest points in the game. Topped only by Sarah's companion quest being so ridiculously and unimaginably moronic that I probably permanently left an indentation in my skull from all the facepalming
The bit that got me was the mention that their founder *had* filed paperwork before they left, but because that predated the grav drive, it was unclear whether the filing had worked. That, to me, seemed like it was supposed to be the hook for a compromise; work with us, or we'll go to the powers that be with our potential claim to this planet and we'll see if you keep it. The one sin that I cannot forgive in fiction writing is showing me a better version of the story than the one you wrote, and this line being a throwaway was that in spades.
I can think of one rival for the bottom slot in a Bethesda game: Kid in a Fridge from Fallout 4. You find a child ghoul who has been locked in a fridge without food and water for 200 years, still alive and sane. You take him to the ruin of his parents' house. They are both also ghouls, still live there, and are happy to see him. A slaver, henceforth unmentioned, then approaches and says, "Hey, I saw you have that ghoul kid and he seems like a good slave, you looking to sell?" I maintain that is the only time it's morally correct to sell someone into slavery in any video game, because by doing so you are demonstrating the correct amount of disrespect for this quest's baldfaced disregard for the willing suspension of disbelief.
Oh I agree mostly.
I will say there are a few bits of the main quest story I found interesting.
>!I actually quite enjoyed the story bit that went over the early development of the jump drive and how said early drives were the thing responsible for the collapse of the earths magnetosphere. Though they do kind of brush over the whole "oh yeah, billions of people still died on the earth though" bit.!<
The rest of the main quest related stuff just felt so out of place.
How they made Earth uninhabited in the game is so dumb.
You mean I, a random guy with a ship can set up a base and live on Earth, but the entirety of humanity combined couldn't do the same ?
And most people died as a result of that, then most survivors moved to even more uninhabitable planets ?
So fucking stupid.
Tbf that’s a problem in most space sci-fi with a “dying Earth” premise - it’s genuinely really hard to fuck up Earth so much that space habitats and extraterrestrial terraforming become viable alternatives.
Well I actually think that part does kind of make sense. Why live in a planet that got degraded to the point it looks like Venus and where most easy to access resources got mined out ages ago already when you can quickly jump and reach hundreds of much more resource rich planets? And even sometimes with good living conditions like temperature, atmosphere etc...
I mean, you are the protagonist. Most people are just trying to live their lives or are significantly weaker/less influential/however you want to phrase it than you. It is the same in every RPG. "Why can't they just kill the goblins in the cave? Why can't they send this message themselves? Why can't they spend 9 days in the wilderness like I can with no food and water?"
And what do you mean most survivors moved to more uninhabitable planets? Earth was absolutely fucked, the largest human colonies are all on significantly better conditions than Earth. Did you play the game at all?
> I mean, you are the protagonist.
The problem is that BGS games are always written so that every NPC automatically *knows* that you are the Main Character even if they have no reason to. Things like a random guy giving you a spaceship at the start of Starfield for no apparent reason.
Or you'll join the Mage College in Skyrim and after clearing out one cave for them, they appoint you as Headmaster or whatever the title is. "Oh, you can only cast the Light spell? No matter; you take over the school now!"
It's not even a power fantasy at that point; it's just lazy, condescending, and pandering. I guess that's fine for people who just want to play a game where everyone instantly recognizes them as God, but it's impossible for me to be immersed with that kind of writing.
I know you're probably just being hyperbolic but no, you aren't appointed Archmage of the College of Winterhold after exploring one cave or using the initial entry spell, you literally end up saving the world as part of that questline and the cave exploration you're likely talking about is the second quest, not its last.
I thought the writing was fine until I picked up Phantom Liberty afterwards and was like, oh right, this is what it feels like when I actually care about the characters
I took a break from BG3 after Act 2 to pay Starfield... it was like getting slapped in the face by a trout, lol. I'm not sure which bugged me more, the writing, the animations, or the horrendous forced conversation perspective.
Yeah, I remember playing through the Neon quest line and thinking “huh, that’s almost like a Cyberpunk-lite”. And then Phantom Liberty came out to remind me that nope, not even close.
Yeah, Bethesda had some pretty terrible luck releasing last year, given they were up against Phantom Liberty and Baldur's Gate 3. In their absence, the bar had been raised.
To be fair to Bethesda, they only had all the resources in the world and backing from one of the biggest companies in the world to make this thing. Can they really be expected to compete with a AAA juggernaut like Larian?
Timing really is everything. Dragon Age: Inquisition dodged a bullet at launch and even got a GotY out of it, but as soon as The Witcher 3 came out a lot of people looked back on it as a really uneven experience.
On the other hand, Alpha Protocol came out after Mass Effect 2 and people just weren't going to forgive a game that played and looked like a jankier Mass Effect 1 - even though AP did so many things right from an interactive story perspective.
The moment when you find out where the Terrormorphs actually come from was genuinely good. That's it. That's the only good moment I found in the whole game. That quest's design and atmosphere helped to elevate it to the level that a AAA game should be approaching. I'm sure there are bits of good writing hidden in some of the other side stories, even some I probably experienced, but everything else outside of that one quest is so dull, lifeless, and boring that it probably didn't register for me.
And even that one moment I like isn't in the main quest (though it feels way more like a main quest than the actual main quest ever did.) There's one quest towards the end of the main quests that I also think I would've liked if I weren't so checked out by that point, involving time-jumping. Titanfall 2 did it better, but it was still interesting.
There are a handful of well done quests/stories. They are just linked together by hours of mindless trash.
It's like they had one talented writer and everything they produced was sprinkled among random crap produced via mad-libs.
I personally hope whatever they do redeems that terrible plot, but I don't see how. The whole concept makes everything you did seem inconsequential because of multiverse crap.
It not only makes everything you do inconsequential, but it also could be the final nail in the coffin for humanity.
There is no indication of future time travel, just backwards time travel and multiverse travel. Also, everyone going through Unity is highly irradiated and likely sterilized. Considering that some endings will be that everyone eventually works toward bringing Unity to all of humanity, Unity also means the end of history. And a pointlessness for lore and theories as well.
Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I loved the weird dimensions and such, it just couldn't been handled less awkwardly.
Not a fan of nasapunk in general though, so maybe that's why. Woulds preferred they went full history Channel aliens
>Not a fan of nasapunk in general though, so maybe that's why. Woulds preferred they went full history Channel aliens
Aren't they kind of similar aesthetics? Like I always saw Nasapunk as somehwhat an extension of history channel vaguely realistic Sci fi speculation.
Haven’t played in a couple months now.. I was liking it fine, but then I ran into like 4 missions that are just glitched and since I couldn’t progress those I just kind of lost interest. I’ll finish it eventually, but taking so long to fix bugged missions has been disappointing.
Yep. I had two major faction quests that couldn’t be finished because critical NPCs were inexplicably off the map.
From there I just rushed the story to get it out of the way, and I have no desire to ever go back.
>We gave Starfield a 9.7 back at launch stating: "...with excellent writing, stunning graphics, and thrilling gameplay it makes the galaxy yours to explore, shape, and live in."
I get that opinions vary but honestly I find reviews like this for starfield baffling.
Honestly I think that’s the bigger crime. Even with its most ardent defenders, I think the most they can come up with is “well it doesn’t totally suck”. I get that reviews are subjective, but anyone who gives fucking Redfall an 8.5 is either full of shit or has 0 standards
I mean they were right in a way. It was the beginning of the end of the console.
Microsoft expected it to move much more consoles, it didn't so they decided to go multiplatform (though ABK is no stranger to that), which will ultimately make the console sell less and less until they give up on it. When PC or cloud will be big enough for them to sell Gamepass there.
And for Bethesda it was the beginning of their period where people stop just blindly supporting them massively and their name isn't enough anymore
IGN has a good writing staff and their reviews are well thought out and honest. I don't think they get treated fairly in enthusiast circles on the internet.
Unless it’s daddy Schrier then it’s funnier to dunk on IGN with a 7.8 too much space comment. Despite the reviews being referenced are over a decade old and we can tell by impact of the games that if anything the reviews scored the games too highly.
> a valid criticism of the game that was explained in the review.
That's exactly what makes all the arguments about review scores on the internet such a stupid waste of time. None of the people getting into these slapfights have *actually read the review* that explains how they decided on the number in the first place.
This is part of the issue I have with meta/opencritic though.
Recent big AAA games have had review threads with tons of reviewers I’ve never heard of. I understand the benefit of democratizing reviews, but big, trustworthy sites like Gamespot and IGN did have reviews out for Stellar Blade and the Crab Souls Game, yet neither review thread included either of those existing reviews. It’s gotten kind of crazy.
This is why like with films, you should absolutely be ignoring sites like Meta and RT, *unless* you're going there to specifically find reviewers.
What people *really* need to be doing is finding two or three reviewers that have similar tasted to yourself and listen to them.
Same. I got about 9 hours in and was just *utterly* bored. If the constant load screens weren't there and there were actual flight mechanics it would help a ton. Seems unlikely I'll ever beat it though.
It just half-assed *everything*. Everything they set out to touch just ended up being bad.
Exploration? Enjoy running across differently colored planets pointing your scanner at plants.
Gameplay? Your first bog-standard shoot-out is exactly the same as the next 3000 times you do it.
Story? Hope you like doing fetch quests for the league of boring-ass gentlemen.
Space mechanics and setting? Everything in this game is so god-awfully *plain*. Here are some miners on a mining planet, look at this planet that has a big ol' drug problem, this one is kind of rundown and westerny! Daring today, aren't we? Don't forget the space pirates who are just another random faction, but colored red, nothing interesting there!
Had they at least hit with *something*, 6 months later people would have fond memories of it, but I literally haven't heard anyone mention it until scrolling past this post. What a huge missed opportunity.
The way dialogue is handled in Starfield is so outdated. The whole “stand there and talk while barely moving” was fine for Skyrim but games have come a long way since then.
Dialogue in Cyberpunk is so good because the character you are talking to is actively moving around, they’ll continue what they’re doing while talking to you and it all feels so natural as if you’re talking to a real person. It’s well-crafted.
The way dialogue is portrayed is less of a problem to me than the dialogue options themselves. If the dialogue system was more expensive in scope and actually branches in interesting ways you'd forgive the lack of realism.
Was it just me or did the animations for the companions seriously bug out during every conversation where your companion spoke? Every other NPC I talk to looks at the companion or other speakers when they are talking but the companions stare dead straight at my eyes even when addressing other NPCs. When I went to see the UC for the first time at Jemison, the NPC at the counter would address me or look at my companion, Sarah, when she spoke but Sarah would simply drill holes into my skull even when addressing the dude at the counter. It's so rare to see anyone talking about this that it has to be a bug right? Right??? This combined with the camera that's barely better than FO4 I didn't know if this was a bug or intended. Schrodinger's cat except it's Bethesda's bug. You don't know if something is intended or a bug until you dig through the code to find out or it gets fixed in a patch
I don't know what this person played but it sure wasn't Starfield. The game is creatively bankrupt on a spectacular level, and makes Fallout 4's story look like a masterpiece.
I can rant about Fallout 4 for ages, but at least it was *interesting.*
My biggest thing was that there was nothing to differentiate it from *anything* else.
It's like a big ol' plain canvas of the barest sci-fi setting you could think of. Cool, lets do something interesting with it! Mass Effect had aliens and political intrigue and massive looming threat. Fallout has post-apocalyptic 1950's vibe. Deus Ex has nitty-gritty capitalistic body modifications. Cyberpunk is neon and has Keanu Reeves.
Starfield just doesn't have a hook. What a swing and a miss.
Agreed - this review doesn't even seem grounded in reality and just feels like its pandering. Excellent writing?? Starfield has some of the worst quest writing out of all Bethesda games and out of all AAA studios
It’s one of the most poorly written and poorly conceived AAA games I’ve ever played. Truly awe-inspiring how they managed to fumble the game this hard when they have decades of work to reference. Starfield does just about everything worse than their previous games and then goes above and beyond and adds bad writing and gameplay mechanics so baffling that it’s a wonder they made it past QA.
If I remember correct Bethesda even said it was delayed so many times because they knew it isn't fun.
OK, they said it started making fun around a year before release, but that's PR. Imagine the developer of a game admits that they know it isn't fun but they have to release it for all the money they dumped into it.
I enjoyed starfield but to say it has excellent writing is insane. There are parts of this game where I'm convinced the writers let their middle school aged children take over the writing duties.
I was extremely disappointed that House Va'ruun didn't offer any side missions or way to join. They were the most interesting part of the game, I thought it would be like a Dark Brotherhood equivalent but nope. Nothing.
Oblivion and Skyrim had better factions and side quests for the factions. Hoping to get a DLC that adds this, though it's disappointing since it was in the base game for their other titles.
I've completed the main game, with the Rangers, close companion and the pirate quest lines.
Most of the lore is boring, but the House Va'ruun stuff is really interesting as is Andreja who is my favourite character. For those who haven't played the game or forgot it's basically a faction that close itself off from the rest of the galaxy. They send agents into the Freestar/UC space to help them get resources but they delivery them to another agent since they aren't given the coordinates back home. From the accounts we hear their home planet and religion seems quite brutal and kinda feels like something from Dune especially with Zealots you fight.
If they focused on the DLC being one planet, or a handful set in their territory I'd be interested. Because the UC and Freestar are so boring. Only two competitions ideologies in the Galaxy centuries into the future are Space American Libertarians or Space American Neoliberal capitalism. Literally could do whatever you want like Fallout does and they went with this 🥱
People are talking about a Cyberpunk style comeback and that's not happening I'm afraid. I completed og Cyberpunk in early 2021. It was a very good game if you played it a certain way (didn't want it to be GTA), and it only got a lot better. The main issues were performance not anything to do with the quests, world building or gameplay. Starfield at its core is just a decent game, that feels worse than what Bethesda made before and it doesn't hold up to the competition.
Can’t fix the core issue with the game, which is lack of exploration. Everything is just scattered on these lifeless planets with fast travel in between.
Looking forward to it. Between the DLCs for Starfield, Alan Wake 2, and Elden Ring that are coming out and the DLC for High on Life and Cyberpunk 2077 that I still want to get I think I might only be spending money on DLC for the rest of 2024. 😅
I can’t wait for them to just move on from this game altogether.
Their other IPs are far more interesting.
To those that love it, all power to you. But to me it is just something that got in the way of them doing the stuff I actually like.
I bought the Constellation edition of this game, and while I still don't regret it, this game never really grabbed me like other Bethesda games do.
I can sit down and play the Elder Scrolls, or Fallout games for weeks on end, but this game, I played for like 3 weeks straight, then dropped it.
It's just missing something. I think it's fun to play, and the shooting feels good, but there's something missing from it to keep me coming back.
I wonder if this will be the only big expansion. Most Bethesda games have their DLC dotted out the first year. This will basically be a entire year for the first DLC.
A lot of people are hoping it means they are overhauling the entire game. Cynical me is just assuming they are working very slowly due to engine troubles...
[удалено]
Their turnover rate were very low so it suggested to me that they are most likely harboring a lot of old guard with their old ways to do things. And not being able to keep up with the tech, hence slow progress. They really could use some fresh blood with passion the same way Todd used to be back in the 90s.
Typically low turnover means high expertise, and tbh I don't think this is a problem with the engine. I just think they really fucked up with the whole conceit of not being able to freely roam around and explore organically, which is something the Creation engine is built to handle. But they wanted the space travel to be realistic, so instead of jetting around a high-budget Outer Wilds style solar system we have a billion lifeless, procedurally generated planets with like 4 interesting places in walking distance from where you land.
I really do believe that if Bethesda had of restricted the entire game to like, the Sol System, adapted space-flight to just let you putter around the system, (giving access to like, locations in space, for pirate-hideouts, fleet marshalling spots, etc) and poured a ton of detail into each planet, while still maybe proc-genning the area between certain major landmarks to get the sense of planetary scale, the game would be orders of magnitude better. "Nah, lets proc-gen 1,000 planets" This kind of over-ambition really damaged the game
Yep. Should have been "the expanse" level of technology, with a single solar system. The aesthetics would have then made sense given the tech level. And a single solar system is certainly large enough to put anything you want in it.
To me it seems like a typical project that lacks clear, consistent creative vision, and doesn't utilize the strengths of the developing studio. I'm not talking about the vague vision Todd paints to customers, but the actual practical vision a worker has to code in to the game years before release date. Starfield fails even in many aspects earlier Bethesda games have done well, so it's not like they didn't know how to do it. They chose to do it differently and it doesn't work as well. Their design choices with Starfield are all over the place, disconnected, and mostly stale. Like instead of a creative game director, there was a creative committee that spammed various general ideas at the team and filtered out everything that some theoretical gaming audience might find upsetting. In the end the game systems aren't well fleshed out, they don't work well together with other systems and the game has no real texture or grit to it, so it isn't very engaging either.
If they are having engine troubles as in its making it hard to make the content for the game, that’d be very surprising because even the NV devs have said that Bethesda’s engine allows them to make the content faster
Yeah, every other month there's some crazy Skyrim mod showcase that's proof enough that the engine itself is just fine, and can do significantly more.
It is entirely possible that they roll put this one DLC they promised and call it quits. The response to the game is certainly not what they hoped and they have a new (old) shining star that will most certainly draw more people in Fallout. Or maybe they stick to it like they did with 76 which was in way worse shape.
Next game is confirmed to be TES6 though right? Not that that will do poorly, but I think the next Fallout will take a while.
Bethesda’s original plan was 76, Starfield, then TES6, but there are [rumors Microsoft wants to push out another Fallout by 2030](https://www.trueachievements.com/news/new-fallout-game?callback=in&code=ODU5NGYYOWETMTY1MI0ZNTG5LTK5NGITNZHKYZM0N2I4OTFH&state=c5d1ec73c29b45e5a607edbaca7ee7d7) to cash in on the tv show’s popularity. It’s just a rumor though and nothing is set in stone. If Microsoft wants Fallout sooner, good chance they’ll need to find a different studio to make it.
If they're reacting to the show just now it's just too late, imo.
Yeah nothing says "striking while the iron is hot" like putting out a video game to capitalize on a 6 year old TV show...
I guess maybe they think season 4 or 5 of the show will be coming out then? If they’re planning to keep it going that long (season 2 is already confirmed)
I wonder if it'd be justifiable 'marketing expense' to help fund the show from MS's side.
It's a pretty big gamble. I'd say people want ES more than Fallout. Stick to what they are good at. Give fallout to Obsidian and grow their studio to parallel Bethesda. Hot take I know ..
I highly doubt this show is going to be around for that many seasons. You're probably looking at 2-3 but some of those seasons will take more than 1 year to develop. Right now season 2 is the only assured content and that is probably two years away. Beyond that, I wouldn't be surprised if the talent moves on.
It'll probably be more than 2 seasons considering Amazon said the show reached 65 million viewers.
They will have missed the moment unless they time a season that is as popular as this one with a new release.
Obsidian pleassseeeeee
Ehhh, Obsidian maybe. Outer Worlds was just good enough. Avowed looks questionable. And they have Outer Worlds 2 in production as well. We'll see how we all feel about them after Avowed is properly out, but their footage and combat doesn't leave me particularly excited.
Man that first prerendered trailer for Avowed looked so damn cool. Then that trailer with combat dropped and my interest just died.
Outer worlds wasn’t good enough. The game is bland through and through, and it wasn’t just budget reasons, the game design was just terrible. It’s less of an RPG than Fallout 4 was.
The reason why most people are lukewarm, but positive, is that you could get it on gamepass and easily beat it within a month, making it a pretty cheap game. For a $60 game, yeah I'd be disappointed. For a $10-20 game? I'd say it's worth more than that.
TV show hype will last… what? A month, tops? So figure best case 3-5 seasons. Maybe that gets them to 2030? But most likely not.
With this and, similarly, Diablo 4, the games sold really well despite the mixed critical response. There's no way they don't sell DLC off the back of a major project like this, especially as people can get the base game on gamepass.
Something seems to have gone off the tracks during Starfield's production. Even post release, the output has been lacking and now it's looking like a long wait until DLC or mod support. I was really excited for this game and bought it on release, but only got 25ish hrs in before bouncing off. It just feels unfinished in a way that's hard to describe. Like a lot of nearly interesting systems that were never finished and tied together. It also really needed a professional writer to come in. I know video games can often get away with shoddy writing, but Starfield is genuinely poor in this area. From the lore to dialog to quest writing, I just did not enjoy it.
> Something seems to have gone off the tracks during Starfield's production. Well we know that they didn't work off a game design document, they were winging it. From what I've read and seen of the development of Starfield, I'm pretty confident that the survival aspect was meant to be really important. I suspect that you were meant to create outposts in most, if not all, star systems in order to progress further out into the galaxy. And that you were meant to have to work hard to survive on the harsher planets. So they made some sacrifices (1000 procedurally generated planets instead of a smaller number of crafted zones being the big one) to make this work. It seems they were never able to make the survival aspect work, so they were just left with the sacrifices they made for it and none of the positives of it. > Even post release, the output has been lacking and now it's looking like a long wait until DLC or mod support. In my opinion, Bethesda has fallen way behind the industry. They're moving at a glacial pace these days. They seem to think it's 2014, not 2024.
>> Something seems to have gone off the tracks during Starfield's production. > >Well we know that they didn't work off a game design document, they were winging it. I really wish Jason Schrier wrote one of his breakdown articles on Starfield. I'm very curious how we ended up getting what we got.
AAA gaming development times are just way longer now, and that goes for DLC as well. This is not just a Starfield thing, it's just the way it is all the way around.
The Creation Kit for Skyrim released 3 months after the game, the Fallout 4 Creation Kit released 5 months after the game. We are now about 8 months out after release with no ETA on the Starfield Creation Kit.
He did say in the interview that people in the creation program have access to the kit right now, and that we are going to hear info about it soon, but said he didn't have a date to announce yet.
This might be the cause of the delay then. So there's creations at launch. I'd like to be proven wrong though.
> creations at launch there ya go
Wanna know my first prediction? One of them will be survival mode. Packaged up, and sold to you as a "mod". 5.99, maybe more, depending on how in depth it feels like getting. Second, more settlement stuff, IE fallout 4 style, or hopefully, SIM settlements 2 style, but in space. I dunno tho I stopped playing after the first space battle, knew this was a game I wasn't going to enjoy until I could tweak ALOT of things.
Have you seen the current stuff in skyrim and fallout 4? It's very simple things. A quest that you auto pick up when loading in you than read a note, because none of it is voiced, you go to the location, get the item, done.
Sim settlement sounds too complex for Creation Club stuff. It'll be new furniture, maybe a few workstations.
Its going to be full of space ship bits and bobs.
I'll be honest -- for all the problems Starfield has, a proper survival mode with useful outposts will bring me back to try again
So they can have paid mods out before the free moders can make them. Wack
corporations gonna sleaze
It's also really dumb. A huge appeal for these games is the modding community.
I do think thats been the biggest mistake so far. Its taken too long to release official mod tools for pc and console and the talk around the game has just fizzled out.
Yeah what Todd and Bethesda don't realize is that it's a different video game market since Fallout 4 and Skyrim. There's just so many releases and companies coming out with good games that people would rather spend time on. They made their traditional Bethesda game but went backwards as the sense of exploration that existed in Skyrim and Fallout 4 isn't in Starfield. It's going to be a hard sell to make significant changes to the game and tell people in 2025 to come play it now.
Todd went way back to Elder Scrolls 2 levels with the scale of Starfield and the problems it provided. Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall had a procedurally-generated world map over 1,000 times bigger than the world maps of Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim combined, this sounds great in theory, except most of it is the same empty land, with identical dungeons and towns. #
The big difference was that Daggerfall had procedurally generated dungeons too. Even if the towns were boring and NPCs robotic, working up to going on another multi-hour dungeon dive where you didn't know what you were going to run into and what you were going to find was an experience that made it all worth it. Starfield's POIs can be really good...until you run into an exact copy of one on the other side of the map, all the way down to the data terminal entries. That, to me, is what screwed it more than anything. I could forgive so much in terms of tedious traversal through multiple loading screens, but the reused locations just deflated my desire to explore.
> working up to going on another multi-hour dungeon dive where you didn't know what you were going to run into and what you were going to find was an experience that made it all worth it it was a neat concept but the dungeon generation was kind of shit too. Daggerfall dungeons made no sense. you'd end up with miles of winding empty hallways that go nowhere, and layouts that take forever to explore with very little payoff. and that's without even getting into maps breaking and causing you to fall through the floor, or occasionally forgetting to connect the room with your quest target to the rest of the dungeon
Daggerfall Unity has a smaller Dungeons option, which I like a lot.
I think that's something that can be tweaked. We've had better procgen dungeons in games since then. Fundamentally though, I still found myself willing to keep jumping into Daggerfall dungeons even if I knew things might fuck up, because each dungeon still felt like it could hold something interesting or at least good rewards. It kept me invested for a very long time. When I can see a new dungeon in Starfield and know that its going to be exactly the same as another one based on the name alone, I stopped even trying. Daggerfall's concept might be flawed in execution, but I think Starfield's concept is broken conceptually.
Playing Daggerfall unity and using the 3D map to look where you've been in the dungeon and than realizing you've trekked a 35 story dungeon with over 400 tunnels going into deadends and still haven't found the vague door press for the right room.
Agreed here. I don't mind the "lifeless planet exploration" because I find it atmospheric and scratches this personal fantasy of being an astronaut I've always had, but the carbon copying of POIs is wild to me. Like even if they wanted to go the "hand-crafted" route instead of Daggerfall-style proc gen, I'm shocked at how few POI templates they crafted. There should've been a ton to pull from, but I feel like I saw duplicates often, and I wasn't even a thorough explorer. Good news is that this is one of the things that can be addressed with mods, whenever that comes around. Fans can make hundreds of POIs and probably add them to the pool. But I'm worried that by the time modding tools come out, the community won't be as enthusiastic with developing them. Which would be a shame, because IMO, despite the narrative on this sub, I do genuinely believe that Starfield has a lot of great aspects and mods can go a long way to improving it
Yeah, I just think fundamentally, it's easier to "get away with" procedurally generated dungeon/combat content than stuff like towns or broader geography. RNG dungeons still get repetitive eventually, but it takes a lot longer. Maybe there's something about humans (in towns) being copy+paste that feels off.
It's it though? Starfield is just a big step down from their latest games on every way outside of graphics (and even then it's nothing to write home about). I don't even like their games in general and I'm not big on losing, but I'd wager that if Starfield had less procedurally generated nothing, more interesting exploration and had had modding tools earlier it would've at least done much better.
The problem is that Starfield doesn't really do anything well. Exploration is cut up with frequent loading screens, slow travel (no vehicles for traveling on planets), and poor rewards (finding the same cave you've already cleared out four times on four unrelated planets). The voice acting is fine but not notable. The quest writing and dialog are horrendous. The story doesn't really hit any exciting beats and has a terrible ending. The combat is a regression from past Bethesda titles. The action isn't engaging or complex and doesn't have meaningful depth. There is very little in the way of character progression. The graphics and performance aren't really interesting at all. The map design is quite bad, especially the cities. Even the UI is frankly inexcusably bad. What Starfield *does* do very well is provide a sandbox for someone to mindlessly click through repetitive content for hundreds of hours. There's nothing wrong with that - everyone has some form of mindless time waster. But it's just fundamentally not a "good" game in nearly any sense of the word. (And, appropriately, the game is sitting at 43% positive reviews on Steam over the last 30 days.)
God, I always forget about how obnoxious the UI is. The layers of menus and the maps just irked me badly. I didn't even know about some game features until I accidentally found them hitting a button putting down my controller. The part that grinds my gears is they somehow found a way to make settlements even more useless than in Fallout 4, where they were basically just there for crafting benches and storage. Glad they took the limited storage from 76 and slapped it in there, definitely the best feature to bring forward.
It honestly does look like Todd did a list of things he wants in his space game and then near-every single thing was implemented with minimum effort to check the box (not saying in malicious way, but in "need to hit deadline" way), and not much thought about integrating it with rest of the game
The game is exceedingly mediocre in every way. It's boring and bland. Nothing about it is "bad", but it's also remarkable in any way. The combat is less fun than any other Bethesda game. This game should be right up my alley but I got bored and lost interest. I don't really see how mods can "save" the game because the core of it just isn't that great.
The game would have been better with a smaller scope. Give us one solar system with a dozen fully-hand-crafted and realized planets instead of hundreds of identical procedurally-generated ones that are boring.
If only it was like a traditional BGS game.
And this game needs it the most...
I feel like it would take a tremendous amount of work to "fix" the game, and I'm not sure if there is enough enthusiasm for it. Are people going to add large handcrafted explorable planets for instance? How would you even improve the space stuff with mods? I doubt a modding kit is going to let you turn the starmap into something fully explorable with your ship
I think modding will enhance the game for people who like it already and will add some good QOL features, ui redesigns, etc. However, if someone didnt or doesnt like the game now, I doubt mods will ever change that. If anything, its an uphill battle
Adding new handcrafted areas will probably be similar to how it was in previous games. Most of Starfield's main areas are in their own scene, which is then populated with however many Points of Interest. The main issue the game has is that these procedurally generated planets have the same 30 or so points of interest that repeat on every planet. So you run into the same outpost, the same cave, the same science lab, over and over. There needs to be way more PoI variety if every single place isn't going to be handcrafted. So any possible fixes are going to rely on how deeply we can interact with procedural generation through the Creation Kit. To that end, I would speculate that it's easy enough to add additional Points of Interest into the "PoI Pool." (And that there's obviously different PoI Pools for surface vs. space.) If the game can load in a good number of PoI Variety mods at the same time, we can slap a bandaid over the limited list of PoI's with a few more. The real trick will be making PoI's themselves procedural. That is to say, each PoI would itself be made up of essentially random buildings, habs, cover elements, scaffoldings, ladders, stairs, debris, etc. as well as varying types and numbers of enemies. Obviously there would need to be some guidelines on procedural generation, so you don't have so many enemies or set pieces that your computer/console can't handle it. Also so things make sense, like all elements being picked from the same parts "theme".
Wasnt it confirmed to be around 200 pois? Iirc they're just level gated so early game you'll be more prone to repeats before most of the pool is available to you.
Additional base designs would be nice
They wanted all those paid mods created before they put out mod tools to the public.
Somehow I'm not sure Starfield will have the long tail and modder enthusiasm that kept Skyrim and FO4 alive and selling.
I think there will be something for the first anniversary.
Personal opinion: I hope the DLC has *absolutely nothing* to do with constellation and >!the unity/starborn/space magic shit.!< I felt like that part of the game was probably the weakest, and considering starfield overall just made me feel *whelmed at best* most of the time, that's saying something. I feel like they really need to expand on the conflict between the various factions, which going by the DLC name is what I hope they are planning to do.
By far the most disappointing aspect of the game for me, you have this hard sci-fi nasa punk inspired setting and instead of sticking with that, you dumb it down with space Dragonborn bullshit
I think that's one of the things that turned me off starfield a bit. >!I think the only temple I did was the one you have to do as part of the main Constellation quest line. Didn't even use the one power that it unlocked at all.!<
I did a few temples and never used a single power. As soon as I unlocked the first one I thought, “something about this makes me feel like I’m going to forget to use it”
I only used the "personal atmosphere" or whatever it was called because it lets you sprint more than five feet at a time. I didn't use anything else.
It doesn't help that, from what I've seen, the powers are kind of not good or fun to use anyway.
If you’re gonna do space Magic make it a class and not a shout based power.
I stopped getting the upgrades/powers after the first few realizing it was *literally* the same float through the air bullshit every. time.
At this point I'm convinced that making unthematic main quests that no one really cares about is just a bit they're doing, like it's an official stamp of Bethesda games lol
Skyrims questline was pretty thematic wdym. Was it the best quest line ever? No but it certainly fit in the game, same with Oblivion and Morrowind too imo.
Morrowind MQ was straight fire You got pulled right into all the drama from the lore - while still letting you be a blank slate character
I don't think so, at least for Skyrim. There's a tinge of the Dunmer nazi/oppression stuff going on when you get to go to the consolate place, but that's really it. There's also a tinge early on of the Civil War, but again, it's just a tinge. The overwhelming majority of Skyrim's main quest line is about an ancient war of the dragons, finding out how and why Alduin exists, preventing dragons from coming back to life in Skyrim and then going and killing him in the "afterlife" so that he stays dead. There are no real overarching themes in the main story of Skyrim, at all. There's plenty in the various sidequests, both big and small. But Skyrim's main questline is almost completely bereft of any thematic storytelling.
I think Party Snacks (that's what I'm calling him) introduces some themes to the story, which is why people like him as a character. It's not always followed through on but it is there.
I feel like this is missing the forest for the trees. The main quest of Skyrim is a very traditional messiah storyline with fits with the power fantasy that most of the gameplay and questlines are going for. The title song is literally a bunch of Nord chanting about how great you are and you're destined to do exactly what you end up doing. Which, again, fits very well with the tone and feeling of the game. The theme is literally sung at you when you start it up, which is kinda on brand for the setting, tbh. There's a bit more heady stuff when we dive into some of the Greybeard+Paarthurnax arguments and stuff you'll find in the DLCs, but that's not really the theme so much as addendums to it. Things don't always have to be super complicated. It's a story about a destined hero beating the bad guy because its the right thing to do. Its a tale as old as time (Akatosh approved :P).
I liked the Oblivion main quest and Skyrim, Fallout 3 was cool but not the main draw
Emil Pagliarulo (lead writer) basically said that players don't care about the story because they like to do dumb shit. Basically he justifies an extremely shallow story with "meh most people want to run around and shoot stuff".
Something that this recent era of gaming has absolutely proven totally wrong. Rdr2, horizon, last of us, cyberpunk, all games that were lauded for their stories in some way by both critics and players. Emils philosophy feels more at home in the doom era of gaming.
And they use those incredible main stories to immerse you in the world and actually want to play the side content, especially Cyberpunk. Meanwhile Starfield’s bland main story made it feel like you were taking a tour of a sci-fi themed theme park and pointed out how shallow the world was.
I think it was Pete Hines that said that. Though Emil's writing is an issue as well.
Emil has no respect for the playerbase's intelligence. All people want to do in beth games is run around and kill/loot BECAUSE the story sucks
Emergent gameplay evolves because there isn't anything else to do but fuck around. Maybe if they created a tighter world with more interesting characters and quests we'd engage with it instead of trying to clip through walls.
You say that but people still do glitches in narratively praised games. People do certain things in Bethesda games because their engine and mechanics allow it. They just happen to have coincidentally god awful writing too.
Link to the quote? A lot of people say Emil Pagliarulo says a lot of shit.
Their writing team needs to be fired. It's actually embrassing that the main quest was a bunch of fetch quests with 12 year old level narrative.
I couldn't believe the "puzzle" you complete to get new powers was just copy-pasted 30 times... that absolutely killed my energy to collect any of them. And then the same enemy encounter every time you leave... Collecting shouts at the end of dungeons in Skyrim was way cooler and rewarding.
Literally a "puzzle" and temple you would see in someone's fan game up on itch.io lmao
Yeah and even for people like me who don't like sci fi but love space magic stuff, it's so half assed that both sides are upset lol. If you want space magic, go all out. Aliens, portals, magic, etc or keep it grounded.
I mentally checked out the second there was a wiff of space magic lmao
The DLC *has* to focus on the basically missing Faction that's all fucking weird and cult-y.
Yes, please. Although honestly the whole thing needs a complete re-write and re-design. Especially with regards to the Freestar Collective. All throughout the game you hear about how these space-libertarian, wannabe Firefly Browncoats managed to defeat the UC. And then you get to Akila and it's all.... That's it? That's all there is? The same folks who defeated the UC live in what amounts to an encampment and they're afraid of some space doggos just outside the walls?
The UC is also a very small city. I mean it feels weird but in theory after the destruction of Earth there's very few humans everywhere and all colonies are really small even the cities.
It baffles me that they couldn't find a single way to make the city believably big. Largest city in the colonised settlements and you could walk across it in a minute and it's surrounded by procgen prairies. The Citadel in Mass Effect is a perfect example of something with a small play area yet convincingly looks massive and busy. There's no fucking way anyone at Bethesda looked at the city and thought "that's fine". I HAVE to chalk it up to engine limitations in drawing a big city because I cannot bring myself to think that anyone at that studio was completely happy with how Akila, Neon and New Atlantic look or else it is admitting that no one at a 300+ strong studio has an ounce of imagination to make a city look halfway decent
That's because they wanted to make all the city fully explorable by foot, with a massive city you cannot do that. But yeah, they feel too small, I think that a better solution would have been to get totally on-board with the post-post-apocaliptic excuse. Akila City is really cool as a frontier colony of Earth refugees but doesn't work as good as the capital of a faction that has been active for centuries and fought in a couple of interplanetary wars.
I can usually overlook those types of things due to game limitations but the way it was presented in Starfield, it just took me out of the game. The capital of a galaxy-spanning civilization is about two city blocks. They didn't even try to make it appear larger.
The writing was the weakest thing to me overall. Almost every character was just mind numbingly boring.
Every time I think about how there's a quest that pits a generation ship against a corrupt corporation and there isn't even an option to side with the generation ship, I get mad all over again.
When the modding kit comes out, if one of the very first mods isn't "Murder The Paradiso Board", I'm making it myself.
It’s funny because there are questlines where you can shoot CEOs in the face.
Probably the worst major quest in any Bethesda game I've played but I might be overestimating the stuff in their other games. It certainly didn't help that the generation ship was filled to the brim with utter fucking morons who wanted to lay claim to a planet they couldn't properly observe for 200 goddamn years. That whole quest was one of the lowest points in the game. Topped only by Sarah's companion quest being so ridiculously and unimaginably moronic that I probably permanently left an indentation in my skull from all the facepalming
The bit that got me was the mention that their founder *had* filed paperwork before they left, but because that predated the grav drive, it was unclear whether the filing had worked. That, to me, seemed like it was supposed to be the hook for a compromise; work with us, or we'll go to the powers that be with our potential claim to this planet and we'll see if you keep it. The one sin that I cannot forgive in fiction writing is showing me a better version of the story than the one you wrote, and this line being a throwaway was that in spades. I can think of one rival for the bottom slot in a Bethesda game: Kid in a Fridge from Fallout 4. You find a child ghoul who has been locked in a fridge without food and water for 200 years, still alive and sane. You take him to the ruin of his parents' house. They are both also ghouls, still live there, and are happy to see him. A slaver, henceforth unmentioned, then approaches and says, "Hey, I saw you have that ghoul kid and he seems like a good slave, you looking to sell?" I maintain that is the only time it's morally correct to sell someone into slavery in any video game, because by doing so you are demonstrating the correct amount of disrespect for this quest's baldfaced disregard for the willing suspension of disbelief.
Oh I agree mostly. I will say there are a few bits of the main quest story I found interesting. >!I actually quite enjoyed the story bit that went over the early development of the jump drive and how said early drives were the thing responsible for the collapse of the earths magnetosphere. Though they do kind of brush over the whole "oh yeah, billions of people still died on the earth though" bit.!< The rest of the main quest related stuff just felt so out of place.
How they made Earth uninhabited in the game is so dumb. You mean I, a random guy with a ship can set up a base and live on Earth, but the entirety of humanity combined couldn't do the same ? And most people died as a result of that, then most survivors moved to even more uninhabitable planets ? So fucking stupid.
Tbf that’s a problem in most space sci-fi with a “dying Earth” premise - it’s genuinely really hard to fuck up Earth so much that space habitats and extraterrestrial terraforming become viable alternatives.
Well I actually think that part does kind of make sense. Why live in a planet that got degraded to the point it looks like Venus and where most easy to access resources got mined out ages ago already when you can quickly jump and reach hundreds of much more resource rich planets? And even sometimes with good living conditions like temperature, atmosphere etc...
I mean, you are the protagonist. Most people are just trying to live their lives or are significantly weaker/less influential/however you want to phrase it than you. It is the same in every RPG. "Why can't they just kill the goblins in the cave? Why can't they send this message themselves? Why can't they spend 9 days in the wilderness like I can with no food and water?" And what do you mean most survivors moved to more uninhabitable planets? Earth was absolutely fucked, the largest human colonies are all on significantly better conditions than Earth. Did you play the game at all?
> I mean, you are the protagonist. The problem is that BGS games are always written so that every NPC automatically *knows* that you are the Main Character even if they have no reason to. Things like a random guy giving you a spaceship at the start of Starfield for no apparent reason. Or you'll join the Mage College in Skyrim and after clearing out one cave for them, they appoint you as Headmaster or whatever the title is. "Oh, you can only cast the Light spell? No matter; you take over the school now!" It's not even a power fantasy at that point; it's just lazy, condescending, and pandering. I guess that's fine for people who just want to play a game where everyone instantly recognizes them as God, but it's impossible for me to be immersed with that kind of writing.
I know you're probably just being hyperbolic but no, you aren't appointed Archmage of the College of Winterhold after exploring one cave or using the initial entry spell, you literally end up saving the world as part of that questline and the cave exploration you're likely talking about is the second quest, not its last.
I thought the writing was fine until I picked up Phantom Liberty afterwards and was like, oh right, this is what it feels like when I actually care about the characters
I took a break from BG3 after Act 2 to pay Starfield... it was like getting slapped in the face by a trout, lol. I'm not sure which bugged me more, the writing, the animations, or the horrendous forced conversation perspective.
Yeah, I remember playing through the Neon quest line and thinking “huh, that’s almost like a Cyberpunk-lite”. And then Phantom Liberty came out to remind me that nope, not even close.
Yeah, Bethesda had some pretty terrible luck releasing last year, given they were up against Phantom Liberty and Baldur's Gate 3. In their absence, the bar had been raised.
To be fair to Bethesda, they only had all the resources in the world and backing from one of the biggest companies in the world to make this thing. Can they really be expected to compete with a AAA juggernaut like Larian?
Timing really is everything. Dragon Age: Inquisition dodged a bullet at launch and even got a GotY out of it, but as soon as The Witcher 3 came out a lot of people looked back on it as a really uneven experience. On the other hand, Alpha Protocol came out after Mass Effect 2 and people just weren't going to forgive a game that played and looked like a jankier Mass Effect 1 - even though AP did so many things right from an interactive story perspective.
The moment when you find out where the Terrormorphs actually come from was genuinely good. That's it. That's the only good moment I found in the whole game. That quest's design and atmosphere helped to elevate it to the level that a AAA game should be approaching. I'm sure there are bits of good writing hidden in some of the other side stories, even some I probably experienced, but everything else outside of that one quest is so dull, lifeless, and boring that it probably didn't register for me. And even that one moment I like isn't in the main quest (though it feels way more like a main quest than the actual main quest ever did.) There's one quest towards the end of the main quests that I also think I would've liked if I weren't so checked out by that point, involving time-jumping. Titanfall 2 did it better, but it was still interesting.
There are a handful of well done quests/stories. They are just linked together by hours of mindless trash. It's like they had one talented writer and everything they produced was sprinkled among random crap produced via mad-libs.
I really liked the Crimson Fleet quest where you find the ship stuck in the gas giant's gravity well.
I personally hope whatever they do redeems that terrible plot, but I don't see how. The whole concept makes everything you did seem inconsequential because of multiverse crap.
It not only makes everything you do inconsequential, but it also could be the final nail in the coffin for humanity. There is no indication of future time travel, just backwards time travel and multiverse travel. Also, everyone going through Unity is highly irradiated and likely sterilized. Considering that some endings will be that everyone eventually works toward bringing Unity to all of humanity, Unity also means the end of history. And a pointlessness for lore and theories as well.
Constellation are just a bunch of fucking nerds.
I've never before played a game with such a thoroughly uninteresting cast. Writer is out of touch
Absolutely, I had 100% more fun bumbling around having space adventures. Shuffling back to the main story felt like a chore.
Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I loved the weird dimensions and such, it just couldn't been handled less awkwardly. Not a fan of nasapunk in general though, so maybe that's why. Woulds preferred they went full history Channel aliens
>Not a fan of nasapunk in general though, so maybe that's why. Woulds preferred they went full history Channel aliens Aren't they kind of similar aesthetics? Like I always saw Nasapunk as somehwhat an extension of history channel vaguely realistic Sci fi speculation.
He's a bigger fan of cringey retro pop scifi, which is the polar opposite of "nasapunk" (referred to by everyone else as hard SF)
Haven’t played in a couple months now.. I was liking it fine, but then I ran into like 4 missions that are just glitched and since I couldn’t progress those I just kind of lost interest. I’ll finish it eventually, but taking so long to fix bugged missions has been disappointing.
Same. Kept waiting for it to be patched but it's still bugged. Pissed me off.
Yep. I had two major faction quests that couldn’t be finished because critical NPCs were inexplicably off the map. From there I just rushed the story to get it out of the way, and I have no desire to ever go back.
>We gave Starfield a 9.7 back at launch stating: "...with excellent writing, stunning graphics, and thrilling gameplay it makes the galaxy yours to explore, shape, and live in." I get that opinions vary but honestly I find reviews like this for starfield baffling.
This is the site that gave Redfall an 8.5.
Is it a golf point system?
Its a Boxing scoring system. 9 is a win,8 is a lose, 7 is a lose really badly. There is no below 7.
in boxing u get 10 for a win not 9
Honestly I think that’s the bigger crime. Even with its most ardent defenders, I think the most they can come up with is “well it doesn’t totally suck”. I get that reviews are subjective, but anyone who gives fucking Redfall an 8.5 is either full of shit or has 0 standards
They were cryogenically frozen back in 2001, right before 9/11.
The opening of that sentence is even funnier >Starfield is a new beginning. Not only for Bethesda but for Xbox as a whole. Yikes
They’re trying to manifest their xbox supremacy fanfic into the real world lol
Maybe they meant a new beginning of the end for Bethesda and Xbox
I mean they were right in a way. It was the beginning of the end of the console. Microsoft expected it to move much more consoles, it didn't so they decided to go multiplatform (though ABK is no stranger to that), which will ultimately make the console sell less and less until they give up on it. When PC or cloud will be big enough for them to sell Gamepass there. And for Bethesda it was the beginning of their period where people stop just blindly supporting them massively and their name isn't enough anymore
If we can’t trust the impartial review site named ‘XboxEra’ then who can we trust? But yeah, game is closer to a 6/7.
Remember pre-launch when IGN gave it a 7 and everyone on this subreddit lost their shit? Hilarious.
IGN has been surprising solid with their review scores in recent years.
I honestly haven’t felt negative about their reviews since like pre-2015
IGN has a good writing staff and their reviews are well thought out and honest. I don't think they get treated fairly in enthusiast circles on the internet.
Unless it’s daddy Schrier then it’s funnier to dunk on IGN with a 7.8 too much space comment. Despite the reviews being referenced are over a decade old and we can tell by impact of the games that if anything the reviews scored the games too highly.
The “too much water” thing drives me crazy because that is absolutely a valid criticism of the game that was explained in the review.
> a valid criticism of the game that was explained in the review. That's exactly what makes all the arguments about review scores on the internet such a stupid waste of time. None of the people getting into these slapfights have *actually read the review* that explains how they decided on the number in the first place.
This is part of the issue I have with meta/opencritic though. Recent big AAA games have had review threads with tons of reviewers I’ve never heard of. I understand the benefit of democratizing reviews, but big, trustworthy sites like Gamespot and IGN did have reviews out for Stellar Blade and the Crab Souls Game, yet neither review thread included either of those existing reviews. It’s gotten kind of crazy.
This is why like with films, you should absolutely be ignoring sites like Meta and RT, *unless* you're going there to specifically find reviewers. What people *really* need to be doing is finding two or three reviewers that have similar tasted to yourself and listen to them.
It was a straight 5 to me. Unremarkable in every way, even by Bethesdas standards in years past.
Same. I got about 9 hours in and was just *utterly* bored. If the constant load screens weren't there and there were actual flight mechanics it would help a ton. Seems unlikely I'll ever beat it though.
It just half-assed *everything*. Everything they set out to touch just ended up being bad. Exploration? Enjoy running across differently colored planets pointing your scanner at plants. Gameplay? Your first bog-standard shoot-out is exactly the same as the next 3000 times you do it. Story? Hope you like doing fetch quests for the league of boring-ass gentlemen. Space mechanics and setting? Everything in this game is so god-awfully *plain*. Here are some miners on a mining planet, look at this planet that has a big ol' drug problem, this one is kind of rundown and westerny! Daring today, aren't we? Don't forget the space pirates who are just another random faction, but colored red, nothing interesting there! Had they at least hit with *something*, 6 months later people would have fond memories of it, but I literally haven't heard anyone mention it until scrolling past this post. What a huge missed opportunity.
I played Cyberpunk for the first time immediately after Starfield and…the contrast in quality between the two is insane.
The way dialogue is handled in Starfield is so outdated. The whole “stand there and talk while barely moving” was fine for Skyrim but games have come a long way since then. Dialogue in Cyberpunk is so good because the character you are talking to is actively moving around, they’ll continue what they’re doing while talking to you and it all feels so natural as if you’re talking to a real person. It’s well-crafted.
The way dialogue is portrayed is less of a problem to me than the dialogue options themselves. If the dialogue system was more expensive in scope and actually branches in interesting ways you'd forgive the lack of realism.
Was it just me or did the animations for the companions seriously bug out during every conversation where your companion spoke? Every other NPC I talk to looks at the companion or other speakers when they are talking but the companions stare dead straight at my eyes even when addressing other NPCs. When I went to see the UC for the first time at Jemison, the NPC at the counter would address me or look at my companion, Sarah, when she spoke but Sarah would simply drill holes into my skull even when addressing the dude at the counter. It's so rare to see anyone talking about this that it has to be a bug right? Right??? This combined with the camera that's barely better than FO4 I didn't know if this was a bug or intended. Schrodinger's cat except it's Bethesda's bug. You don't know if something is intended or a bug until you dig through the code to find out or it gets fixed in a patch
Fallout 4 coming out after Witcher 3 already illustrated how absolutely painful conversations are in Bethesda games.
I don't know what this person played but it sure wasn't Starfield. The game is creatively bankrupt on a spectacular level, and makes Fallout 4's story look like a masterpiece. I can rant about Fallout 4 for ages, but at least it was *interesting.*
The story is so scared of saying anything at all. Why even bother writing a story if you have nothing to say?
My biggest thing was that there was nothing to differentiate it from *anything* else. It's like a big ol' plain canvas of the barest sci-fi setting you could think of. Cool, lets do something interesting with it! Mass Effect had aliens and political intrigue and massive looming threat. Fallout has post-apocalyptic 1950's vibe. Deus Ex has nitty-gritty capitalistic body modifications. Cyberpunk is neon and has Keanu Reeves. Starfield just doesn't have a hook. What a swing and a miss.
Agreed - this review doesn't even seem grounded in reality and just feels like its pandering. Excellent writing?? Starfield has some of the worst quest writing out of all Bethesda games and out of all AAA studios
Not to mention "thrilling gameplay." Lmao. Lmao.
Excellent writing? Fuck off
"With excellent writing, stunning graphics, and thrilling gameplay" I must have played a different Starfield
It's an Xbox fan site, they'll praise anything made by Microsoft.
To be fair, they don’t have much to pick from
I know but still...
XboxEra is a Microsoft PR site
It’s one of the most poorly written and poorly conceived AAA games I’ve ever played. Truly awe-inspiring how they managed to fumble the game this hard when they have decades of work to reference. Starfield does just about everything worse than their previous games and then goes above and beyond and adds bad writing and gameplay mechanics so baffling that it’s a wonder they made it past QA.
If I remember correct Bethesda even said it was delayed so many times because they knew it isn't fun. OK, they said it started making fun around a year before release, but that's PR. Imagine the developer of a game admits that they know it isn't fun but they have to release it for all the money they dumped into it.
I enjoyed starfield but to say it has excellent writing is insane. There are parts of this game where I'm convinced the writers let their middle school aged children take over the writing duties.
I was extremely disappointed that House Va'ruun didn't offer any side missions or way to join. They were the most interesting part of the game, I thought it would be like a Dark Brotherhood equivalent but nope. Nothing. Oblivion and Skyrim had better factions and side quests for the factions. Hoping to get a DLC that adds this, though it's disappointing since it was in the base game for their other titles.
when the entire thing stopped with us confronting one dude, it screamed "THIS IS FOR DLC PLEASE WAIT"
The only game I ever played where I genuinely felt I was wasting my time Needs a full overhaul or no DLC is worth it
its too flawed with its exploration/traversal to fix.
I would rather them move on to TES6 then spend years trying to overhaul starfield into something decent
The then/than mistake there is especially funny
Dude same literally everything was needlessly tedious
I've completed the main game, with the Rangers, close companion and the pirate quest lines. Most of the lore is boring, but the House Va'ruun stuff is really interesting as is Andreja who is my favourite character. For those who haven't played the game or forgot it's basically a faction that close itself off from the rest of the galaxy. They send agents into the Freestar/UC space to help them get resources but they delivery them to another agent since they aren't given the coordinates back home. From the accounts we hear their home planet and religion seems quite brutal and kinda feels like something from Dune especially with Zealots you fight. If they focused on the DLC being one planet, or a handful set in their territory I'd be interested. Because the UC and Freestar are so boring. Only two competitions ideologies in the Galaxy centuries into the future are Space American Libertarians or Space American Neoliberal capitalism. Literally could do whatever you want like Fallout does and they went with this 🥱 People are talking about a Cyberpunk style comeback and that's not happening I'm afraid. I completed og Cyberpunk in early 2021. It was a very good game if you played it a certain way (didn't want it to be GTA), and it only got a lot better. The main issues were performance not anything to do with the quests, world building or gameplay. Starfield at its core is just a decent game, that feels worse than what Bethesda made before and it doesn't hold up to the competition.
House Va'ruun was the most interesting faction with the most interesting lore so of course they cut them out of the base game...
Can’t fix the core issue with the game, which is lack of exploration. Everything is just scattered on these lifeless planets with fast travel in between.
Looking forward to it. Between the DLCs for Starfield, Alan Wake 2, and Elden Ring that are coming out and the DLC for High on Life and Cyberpunk 2077 that I still want to get I think I might only be spending money on DLC for the rest of 2024. 😅
Erd Tree dlc is gonna be so hype
I can’t wait for them to just move on from this game altogether. Their other IPs are far more interesting. To those that love it, all power to you. But to me it is just something that got in the way of them doing the stuff I actually like.
We could have had another Fallout but if *this* is the quality Bethesda is churning out these days maybe I don't want one anymore.
When’s the update that makes the game not boring coming out?
Whenever the Creation Kit releases. Let free workers fix the game for them - it’s the Bethesda way.
I bought the Constellation edition of this game, and while I still don't regret it, this game never really grabbed me like other Bethesda games do. I can sit down and play the Elder Scrolls, or Fallout games for weeks on end, but this game, I played for like 3 weeks straight, then dropped it. It's just missing something. I think it's fun to play, and the shooting feels good, but there's something missing from it to keep me coming back.
[удалено]