***The Official Starfield Thread*** (As endorsed by TNA)

The game is quite simply ugly. I figured maybe it's just the colour palette but when they pan to New Atlantis the vegetation models look like they're from 10 years ago. Overall nothing about this game looked even half-decent besides the ship-building. I could rag on it for hours but meh, what's the point. It's clear what we'll get from BGS.

If nothing else this showcase vindicates CIG for taking their time with Star Citizen because it shows what the alternative's like (and truthfully in not that much less time). For me I wasn't following it too much because I'm not that invested in Bethesda games but I am a huge open world fan so it's sad to look at what's next and see mostly a dearth of anything worth playing. Oh well.
 
Ugly goes a bit far I feel and as has been pointed out, the graphics have never been a strong point for Bethesda. It was always the story and the world/object interaction the engine provided.

The general view I'm hearing is very mixed and unimpressed overall. Hopefully they'll release another long clip to start fleshing things out.
 
I actually think the planets hardscapes look better than any other open world game of scale beyond a single planet. The rest did indeed look less than cutting edge but not awful. Well their faces on NPC's and characters still way off I feel. There is enough there for it to be a play through I feel at least if you have xbox games pass but otherwise £20-£30 game for me on what we have seen. It actually more than I thought we would get still tbh after their last effort.
 
Sure BGS games always looked a certain kind of drab but I think that at that time they weren't necessarily so far off from others, but today it's a different story and it's also less excusable given the technological advancements and how much easier it is to achieve. Plus they were a bigger piece of the open-world pie and had their own niche so you could excuse more because it was less common - again not the situation today. I mean one of the first criticisms is how similar they look to NMS so already they're starting with the impression of being derivative, which automatically prompts the questions of so then what are you excellent at or unique/novel? And sadly the answer is coming up blank.

I think that if the gameplay looked excellent then all these other concerns would be seen as much more minor, but that didn't happen so since we can't hang our hat on just the strength of the gameplay then naturally people are going to look for other areas where they might be strong in and the problem is we're just not finding them.
 
Calin Banc said:
Features have been pushed forward, but most are very much "alive".
Click to expand...
I caught a video just the other day, that showed clips of Erin Roberts talking about some Sqn42 stuff and asserting that it would be here "next year"... back in 2017, with subsequent clips of him saying the same thing in the following years. That stuff still isn't here.
I don't really care either way. I got bored of the latest patches and burned out on having to reacquire all my stuff after the resets, so I'll just dip in occasionally and look more toward when everything is finalised and actually released.

As for Starfield, it seems like a good little bit of fun and I'll go into it with hopes rather than expectations. I don't think it looks especially drab, as real life is rarely as bright and colourful as many games... In that regard, I'd say it's more immersive as a result, with the non-drab games actually looking too cartoony.

But all this stuff about everything having to have the bestest evah graphics, and the most realistic immersive gameplay, and flawless engine programming, and all that... kinda reminds me of favourite games like Wing Commander and Freespace, where the landing zone on a planet or station was just a static screen with menu options for Hangar, Briefing and Takeoff embedded into the scenery. We enjoyed those games well enough and even retro uses of such interfaces have worked nicely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
ttaskmaster said:
I caught a video just the other day, that showed clips of Erin Roberts talking about some Sqn42 stuff and asserting that it would be here "next year"... back in 2017, with subsequent clips of him saying the same thing in the following years. That stuff still isn't here.
I don't really care either way. I got bored of the latest patches and burned out on having to reacquire all my stuff after the resets, so I'll just dip in occasionally and look more toward when everything is finalised and actually released.

As for Starfield, it seems like a good little bit of fun and I'll go into it with hopes rather than expectations. I don't think it looks especially drab, as real life is rarely as bright and colourful as many games... In that regard, I'd say it's more immersive as a result, with the non-drab games actually looking too cartoony.

But all this stuff about everything having to have the bestest evah graphics, and the most realistic immersive gameplay, and flawless engine programming, and all that... kinda reminds me of favourite games like Wing Commander and Freespace, where the landing zone on a planet or station was just a static screen with menu options for Hangar, Briefing and Takeoff embedded into the scenery. We enjoyed those games well enough and even retro uses of such interfaces have worked nicely.
Click to expand...

That's why I've said they've been pushed forward, as in further in time :D . Maybe some got cancelled, but until it gets out, some major ones are still there on the table.

Thing is, those games were fun at that moment in time. I liked Freelancer, but always wanted to explore the planets while the gameplay felt too arcadeish to the point it affected the story - the "german" ships were so powerful compared to "usa/americans" one that in case of a conflict "usa" would have lost. You can't come back with the same simple gameplay mechanics and loops over and over again without felling boring and old.

And in regards to graphics, Morrowind and Oblivion I think were quite at the top during their launch. Only later with Skyrim and Fallout series the games went a little back.
 
The point is that some games still emulate the simpler interfaces and gameplay elements, rather than trying to go all out for the massive AAA total body immersion type experience, and end up doing quite well out of it.
I think people are expecting ever-bigger, ever-better from every game and it's just not feasible, or even necessary. I'd even argue that it's why some games failed.
 
Depends what you want from a game, I guess. Copy - > Paste game after game like some many franchises (with some actual steps back here and there) or actually push things forward? For some it works, for others not so much. Plus, you can always have difficulty settings to cater the experience for each user.

To give you an example, in Skyrim, going to the north, during a storm, you can be naked, running around, jumping in the ice cold water, do whatever you want without an issue. That kinda breaks the immersion, even more so when you find a journal of an expedition that mentions the cold and how hard it was for them due to it.

I enjoy a Die Hard type of move from time to time, but when a movie wants to be a bit realistic with firearms, however the characters are basically noobs... again, suspension of disbelief goes out the window. :)

PS: For what's worth, I liked more Max Payne 1 and 2 than 3, although the 3rd had better animation and physics. :)
 
Calin Banc said:
Depends what you want from a game, I guess. Copy - > Paste game after game like some many franchises (with some actual steps back here and there) or actually push things forward? For some it works, for others not so much. Plus, you can always have difficulty settings to cater the experience for each user.

To give you an example, in Skyrim, going to the north, during a storm, you can be naked, running around, jumping in the ice cold water, do whatever you want without an issue. That kinda breaks the immersion, even more so when you find a journal of an expedition that mentions the cold and how hard it was for them due to it.

I enjoy a Die Hard type of move from time to time, but when a movie wants to be a bit realistic with firearms, however the characters are basically noobs... again, suspension of disbelief goes out the window. :)

PS: For what's worth, I liked more Max Payne 1 and 2 than 3, although the 3rd had better animation and physics. :)
Click to expand...
The 1 thing good about Bethesda games is how good the mod community is, like you just mentioned about immersion there is a mod where the cold will kill you if you aren't prepared. I love Skyrim and FO4 but never play them vanilla always with mods and it'll b the same with this one hopefully.
 
Rabid Wolf said:
The 1 thing good about Bethesda games is how good the mod community is, like you just mentioned about immersion there is a mod where the cold will kill you if you aren't prepared. I love Skyrim and FO4 but never play them vanilla always with mods and it'll b the same with this one hopefully.
Click to expand...
On that front at least you'll be delighted to learn theres already a huge buzz behind the scenes on the modding servers I'm on which is interesting they're all looking forward to modding and even a "community patch" to be a central hub for all user submitted fixes for the game when it arrives. If only I could get excited for the game itself I think Elite: Dangerous did all this a lot better but its not a big name studio so doesn't get anything like the attention its Bethesda/Microsoft so everyone goes nuts for it if was wasn't everyone would be "meh".
 
Last edited:
Calin Banc said:
Depends what you want from a game, I guess. Copy - > Paste game after game like some many franchises (with some actual steps back here and there) or actually push things forward? For some it works, for others not so much. Plus, you can always have difficulty settings to cater the experience for each user.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of making things more or less difficult, as it's essentially still the same experience. This is why I suggested earlier that making various features optional would be the better route - Those who want full immersion and hour-long realistic pre-flight checklists can geek out to their hearts' content, while those who want to just blast off into powered-up combat could just choose that instead.

This is why pushing things forward is great in theory, but so often just wrecks the game because everyone has a different idea on what direction forward actually is.
For example, as the Assassin's Creed games progressed they kept adding more and more new features. The basic combat improved a bit, with more moves, counters and especially the ability to initiate your own moves instead of having to wait for the NPC to attack.... but then they started adding in all these minigames, like the alleyway tower-defence attempts and building your little gangs of NPC assassins to go off and do NPC-only missions.
 
Rabid Wolf said:
The 1 thing good about Bethesda games is how good the mod community is, like you just mentioned about immersion there is a mod where the cold will kill you if you aren't prepared. I love Skyrim and FO4 but never play them vanilla always with mods and it'll b the same with this one hopefully.
Click to expand...

Sadly not everything can be fixed or not all mods play nice together or be easy to install. But yeah, modding community will have some fun with this. :)

ttaskmaster said:
I'm not a fan of making things more or less difficult, as it's essentially still the same experience. This is why I suggested earlier that making various features optional would be the better route - Those who want full immersion and hour-long realistic pre-flight checklists can geek out to their hearts' content, while those who want to just blast off into powered-up combat could just choose that instead.

This is why pushing things forward is great in theory, but so often just wrecks the game because everyone has a different idea on what direction forward actually is.
For example, as the Assassin's Creed games progressed they kept adding more and more new features. The basic combat improved a bit, with more moves, counters and especially the ability to initiate your own moves instead of having to wait for the NPC to attack.... but then they started adding in all these minigames, like the alleyway tower-defence attempts and building your little gangs of NPC assassins to go off and do NPC-only missions.
Click to expand...
Exactly, optional stuff is great. It just needs to be developed good enough.
 
Poneros said:
The game is quite simply ugly. I figured maybe it's just the colour palette but when they pan to New Atlantis the vegetation models look like they're from 10 years ago. Overall nothing about this game looked even half-decent besides the ship-building. I could rag on it for hours but meh, what's the point. It's clear what we'll get from BGS.

If nothing else this showcase vindicates CIG for taking their time with Star Citizen because it shows what the alternative's like (and truthfully in not that much less time). For me I wasn't following it too much because I'm not that invested in Bethesda games but I am a huge open world fan so it's sad to look at what's next and see mostly a dearth of anything worth playing. Oh well.
Click to expand...
The problem with star citizen is, it will forever be in development because its always trying to push the limits. Utilising the latest hardware and improving graphics, gameplay, stability etc. I remember when i first backed this game the requirements were something like a 3570k and a gtx 680 for optimal performance. God knows what it is now, last i tried i had a 9900kf and a rtx 3090 and it still ran like rubbish.
 
Jay85 said:
The problem with star citizen is, it will forever be in development because its always trying to push the limits. Utilising the latest hardware and improving graphics, gameplay, stability etc. I remember when i first backed this game the requirements were something like a 3570k and a gtx 680 for optimal performance. God knows what it is now, last i tried i had a 9900kf and a rtx 3090 and it still ran like rubbish.
Click to expand...
No longer runs like "rubbish" since the 3.17 patch...
 
Jay85 said:
How long ago was this? Might give it another try, my 5th or 6th try lol.
Click to expand...
Almost 3 months ago. They are adding core tech that changes the renderer and many people are getting large frame boosts.

More to come throughout the year but it's still very much an alpha, but a brilliant one at that when you play a session that doesn't encounter any or much game breaking bugs lol.

Tbh I wouldn't try it now. Wait for patch 4.0 which should come out in 12 months time hopefully
 
It's a Bethesda RPG so naturally I'm interested.

However after the poop-show that was FO4 and FO76, there's no way I'm buying this until it's been released and given the community nod.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Almost 3 months ago. They are adding core tech that changes the renderer and many people are getting large frame boosts.

More to come throughout the year but it's still very much an alpha, but a brilliant one at that when you play a session that doesn't encounter any or much game breaking bugs lol.

Tbh I wouldn't try it now. Wait for patch 4.0 which should come out in 12 months time hopefully
Click to expand...
I still read up on it every so often and see whats coming but it changes so quickly i do wonder what the end goal is at the end of the journey. I know someone who has invested thousands but he really enjoys it so i guess it makes sense if you want that kind of immersion and have the cash to invest into it.

Ah that boost sounds good, i was barely getting 60fps with a lot of frame drops down to 40/50 at times, not unplayable but for flying around it felt abit stuttery.

Don't mind waiting another 12 months, waited this long already whats another 12 lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom