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

Brackish said:
This makes me want to progress the main missions now!
Click to expand...

It is pretty good. It gives you unlimited oxygen to sprint for a little while, and doesn't take long to charge back up. Does make being encumbered a little easier.

I also like "see star stuff" which highlights all lifeforms within a reasonably big radius.
 
Last edited:
About 24 hours in and I'm beginning to lose interest. I think the thing that bugs me is how much of the game is just a blue-dot following simulator. Like, it has these vast, detailed worlds but it never really asks you to learn or understand them, instead you just follow the blue dot to the next interaction. And that's when you don't just fast travel.

Also, a minor annoyance: why the frick isn't your walking speed the same as the NPCs? It makes all the "follow X" bits needlessly annoying.
 
mrk said:
Saw this at lunch, had to share lol


Click to expand...

Man, that is brutal.

RDR2 is a 10/10 game though. Starfield is a 7/10 game at best, and its technical aspects are extremely last gen.

I don't find the world that Starfield has created immersive in the slightest, in large part due to some of the things highlighted in the video above. Almost everything about just feels fake and old hat.

Lets remember also that RDR2 came out on PS4 and Xbox One....and doesn't have a single ****** loading screen through the entire map.

Rockstar are simply a more talented developer in almost every way imaginable.

I have no idea how Bethesda made this game like it is and still have it running like **** on the latest hardware.


This one is good too:




RDR2 is a ******* work of art. Starfield...not so much.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I really should reinstall RDR2 and complete it :p

The comedy thing is that Todd Howard goes on the record comparing Starfield to games like RDR2, then the internet raises an eyebrow and goes "wait a sec" and Todd is shown to be a bit of a clown.
 
mrk said:
Yeah I really should reinstall RDR2 and complete it :p

The comedy thing is that Todd Howard goes on the record comparing Starfield to games like RDR2, then the internet raises an eyebrow and goes "wait a sec" and Todd is shown to be a bit of a clown.
Click to expand...

Starfield isn't fit to lick the cowboy boots of RDR2.

If i watched that video with no context or knowledge of any of it, I would 100% say that it was RDR2 that just came out, and Starfield that came out in 2018 (or earlier to be honest...). It is almost shocking that Starfield is the new gen console game and RDR2 is the previous gen one. Feels like we've gone backwards!

I don't hate Starfield and i'm still playing it/having some fun with it. It is just very average compared to the real best games out there.

I would get so excited if Rockstar announced an all new IP/setting for its style of games.

(and before anyone says anything - i don't give a **** that the engine can save the location of thirty bazillion Styrofoam cups or empty chunks packets :p)
 
Last edited:
Technically the engine doesn't do it, the location is stored on disk and the engine merely calls that file and loads those locations when you "load" that section of the map each time :p
 
Yea Starfield is lacking.

I think RDR2 is the better game, I think Fallout 4 was much better, even Fallout 76 being brutal.

They missed the mark, there is just nothing about Starfield that is that good, sure, it's not bad, but nothing stands out.

Graphics good, but not amazing and doesn't run well in places.

Characters and RPG pretty dull, the crimson fleet questline was good, needed to see more of that. The other questlines were dull.

Weapons, spacesuits etc ok.... but nowhere near the level of customisation compared to previous games, why?

Why can't you breakdown components to properly craft? Why can't you craft ammo?

Why is there no survival mode? You have functionality there, beds? Food? Why if you can't really make use of them?

What is the purpose of outpost building, or setting up processing when it's far easier just to buy stuff from vendors?

Where is there are purpose in the game outside of the mostly mediocre quests?

Why is the lock picking function so pointless, have any of you ever found anything decent behind a lock?

There is so much missed potential in Starfield.
 
Welp, think I am done, 100% all achievements, NG+10 and just hit level 225. Overall a 7.5, maby a tiny bit higher outta 10 I think.

As others lots of.potentiol missed. Lots of good.groundwork. think I will come back to it when shattered space is out.
 
I know it makes little sense but I'm well aware that SF is painfully average yet I'm having a lot of enjoyment with it.
I can certainly appreciate the technical etc aspects of RDR2 but had no fun with it and abandoned it after about two hours.
For me personally, there is not always a correlation between how good aspects of a game are and how much I enjoy it.
 
Mr Jack said:
About 24 hours in and I'm beginning to lose interest. I think the thing that bugs me is how much of the game is just a blue-dot following simulator. Like, it has these vast, detailed worlds but it never really asks you to learn or understand them, instead you just follow the blue dot to the next interaction. And that's when you don't just fast travel.

Also, a minor annoyance: why the frick isn't your walking speed the same as the NPCs? It makes all the "follow X" bits needlessly annoying.
Click to expand...

Every aspect of the game is a 5/10.

It's like Todd said "Bring me a mediocrity simulator" - and from the depths of Castle Bethesda, one was brought forth.
 
Noxia said:
I know it makes little sense but I'm well aware that SF is painfully average yet I'm having a lot of enjoyment with it.
I can certainly appreciate the technical etc aspects of RDR2 but had no fun with it and abandoned it after about two hours.
For me personally, there is not always a correlation between how good aspects of a game are and how much I enjoy it.
Click to expand...

I find it difficult to see how someone can enjoy a game like Starfield, but at the same time hate RDR2. I know they are slightly different beasts, in a way. However ultimately, you play as a character in a world, have an inventory, a home, can buy weapons and gear,craft things, explore, do a main story and side quests etc etc.

Maybe you just don't like cowboys? :p

I got the feeling RDR2 was just so much more lovingly crafted by real talent. Starfield, whilst still a relatively entertaining game at times, just isn't in the same league.
 
Last edited:
Noxia said:
I know it makes little sense but I'm well aware that SF is painfully average...
Click to expand...
Is it though?

If the purpose of a game is to entertain then I'd say (for some people) Starfield has been a huge success - personally, I've got nearly 280 hours in the game now and I've never once felt bored or had a lack of things to do. Elements that seem to be intensely annoying to some don't bother me and technically, the game's been remarkably good (for me) for something of this scope (I've actually only just recently encountered my worst visual bug and that's pirate ships wigging out around The Key).

I also find the comparisons to RDR2 disingenuous - there's only one company making games like RDR and GTA and that's Rockstar - I still remember complaints when Cyberpunk 2077 came out that Night City was less interactive than Rockstar's games and that it should've been more like GTA. You can always point to things that another game does better - but that shouldn't blind you to the things that the game you're critiquing does well.

Speaking of Cyberpunk (haven't played any Rockstar games since GTA IV which I *hated*), Cyberpunk's city is largely a facade. The driving has always been terrible. The cyberware was unimpressive and badly implemented. The clothing was essentially pointless. The crafting was bad. The Quick Hacks were completely unbalanced and destroyed any difficulty.

CP2077, even in its 2.0 state still has a laundry list of flaws - but that's not why I play it - I play it for the story, the characters and the missions. I play Starfield for similar reasons - and there's some really entertaining content in there!
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
I find it difficult to see how someone can enjoy a game like Starfield, but at the same time hate RDR2. I know they are slightly different beasts, in a way. However ultimately, you play as a character in a world, have an inventory, a home, can buy weapons and gear,craft things, explore, do a main story and side quests etc etc.

Maybe you just don't like cowboys? :p

I got the feeling RDR2 was just so much more lovingly crafted by real talent. Starfield, whilst still a relatively entertaining game at times, just isn't in the same league.
Click to expand...
Oh easy, RDR2 was painfully slow, there seemed to be a lag when moving the character even after tweaking to recommended settings for controls, much the same reason I don't like GTA, feels like playing in treacle :) And yeah setting plays a big part, not really fond of that setting. TBF that was an hour more than I managed of the first one! I do feel I need to give it more of a chance though.

@Aegis I personally think it is yes, that is comparing it solely to the other BSG games I know and love (except FO4 which I also didn't like) I don't really like comparing games because every one is unique and comparisons always seem a bit of a stretch. SF certainly has some great moments don't get me wrong (and I'm still really not that far in despite my playtime), it's just they are spread very thin. As an example, in FO3/NV/Skyrim etc I wanted to read the books/journals and understand what had happened somewhere, but in SF I just don't care because the world is so disjointed. Maybe average was a bit harsh, I will probs revaluate when I get further in :)
 
Noxia said:
Oh easy, RDR2 was painfully slow, there seemed to be a lag when moving the character even after tweaking to recommended settings for controls, much the same reason I don't like GTA, feels like playing in treacle :) And yeah setting plays a big part, not really fond of that setting. TBF that was an hour more than I managed of the first one! I do feel I need to give it more of a chance though.

@Aegis I personally think it is yes, that is comparing it solely to the other BSG games I know and love (except FO4 which I also didn't like) I don't really like comparing games because every one is unique and comparisons always seem a bit of a stretch. SF certainly has some great moments don't get me wrong (and I'm still really not that far in despite my playtime), it's just they are spread very thin. As an example, in FO3/NV/Skyrim etc I wanted to read the books/journals and understand what had happened somewhere, but in SF I just don't care because the world is so disjointed. Maybe average was a bit harsh, I will probs revaluate when I get further in :)
Click to expand...

To me it's just lifeless, not enough of it is curated, it doesn't have anywhere near the draw of a fallout game with it's environments and environmental story telling all over the place. Also, you're "exploring" the galaxy, "discovering" these mystical ruins. It's hard to get into that frame of mind when there is either a ship or a mining camp within visible distance of the ruin, or there is a mine with a relic in that someone just left there for some reason, and every planet is littered with left over outposts. I enjoyed some of the bigger questlines but now I can't be bothered finishing the game :cry:.
 
Noxia said:
Oh easy, RDR2 was painfully slow, there seemed to be a lag when moving the character even after tweaking to recommended settings for controls, much the same reason I don't like GTA, feels like playing in treacle :) And yeah setting plays a big part, not really fond of that setting. TBF that was an hour more than I managed of the first one! I do feel I need to give it more of a chance though.

@Aegis I personally think it is yes, that is comparing it solely to the other BSG games I know and love (except FO4 which I also didn't like) I don't really like comparing games because every one is unique and comparisons always seem a bit of a stretch. SF certainly has some great moments don't get me wrong (and I'm still really not that far in despite my playtime), it's just they are spread very thin. As an example, in FO3/NV/Skyrim etc I wanted to read the books/journals and understand what had happened somewhere, but in SF I just don't care because the world is so disjointed. Maybe average was a bit harsh, I will probs revaluate when I get further in :)
Click to expand...

The reason for RDR2 and GTAV feeling like treacle is because the games are console ports, plus the characters don't move naturally but walk at right angles.

I agree what you say about SF being disjointed. I really don't care anymore and I've been skipping all the long winded dialogue. The game really is uninspiring. With Witcher 3 and Mass Effect, I read every line, felt empathy with the characters and enjoyed the stories and quests. With SF I'm just following a blue hexagon by fast travel through load screens to the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom