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

decto said:
100 hours in and no mods used, that's for another playthrough.

Part of the value is that the game is built to support mods on both PC and console, building and supporting that doesn't come for free so while it is community content is is enabled by Bethesda.
Click to expand...

Part of it's value is that people are willing to work free, that doesn't come from Bethesda.

Well, it's free development so it does come for free.

Of course Bethesda enable free labour, why wouldn't they? they know from experience that they can throw anything out there and the fans will make the game they couldn't be bothered/weren't talented enough to make.
 
Apex said:
This modern gaming in a nutshell. If you are prepared to wait you will get the best first-time and ongoing experiences and much cheaper. NMS, CP, - the list is endless. And this tells you just want modern game dev is all about, they're simply unwilling to do the job properly first time.
Click to expand...
One thing I don't think is being talked about enough is the 'Game Passification' of games - I think Starfield is a worrying sign of things to come.

My biggest personal issue with Starfield is the skill system - it's absolutely absurd and gatekeeps a lot of the fun elements of the game - it's purposefully designed to slow players down and force them to invest more time in the game. To unlock everything you need to get to level 328 (with all my time in the game I'm only level 77) and sooo many of the fun skills are locked behind a bunch of useless ones.

It's the single most cynical thing I've seen since Horse Armor and I've a feeling that a lot of upcoming MS games are going to have similar mechanics to try and keep people subscribed to Game Pass.

no-sir-i-dont-like-it.gif
 
They released a game that is too big and empty, make 10% of the planets but make them well, I've sunk in over 100 hours and I'll be playing it for a while to come because there is something there that I like, not sure what but there must be.

I'm hoping the DLC will fill up some stuff rather than just expand, I suspect it will just expand though, hopefully they have gotten the message that the copy and paste thing is just not up to snuff.

Oh and once again I'll repeat myself that this game needs a bloody navigation system that works, I'm not getting any younger so remembering where a space station was 3 weeks ago isnt top of my list of things to remember....turning off the gas stove is enough for me nowadays.
 
TNA said:
They did fail at managing expectations. I went in lower than most and was still disappointed. It felt like they did not innovate at all from 10-15 year's ago and in some instances regressed.

Still though, I like Fallout/Elder Scrolls type games and once I realised what this game was I still enjoyed it

I mean look at Jono. He was quite the critic from the start and he has now put in more hours than I have :cry:
Click to expand...

Aegis said:
I wasn't ever disappointed with Starfield - baffled and frustrated a few times maybe :D

I might've gone in considerably less jaded though since the last Bethesda game I played was Skyrim (skipped FO4 and 76).
Click to expand...

Whilst elements could be better polished, as a whole package Starfield is brilliant. I do agree it was oversold with expectations exceeding reality; esp around planet exploration, scale of cities and unique / interactive planet & solar system level points of interest.

It was clearly presented as a long-term vision with ongoing development support with expansions, community mods etc etc.

Problem is that the only real competition are either long serving; having gone through years of developments, updates, expansions and mods or are mmorpgs so a different genre and scale. I think some expect the Starfield gameplay and longevity to be that of an mmorpg from the start.
 
Aegis said:
One thing I don't think is being talked about enough is the 'Game Passification' of games - I think Starfield is a worrying sign of things to come.

My biggest personal issue with Starfield is the skill system - it's absolutely absurd and gatekeeps a lot of the fun elements of the game - it's purposefully designed to slow players down and force them to invest more time in the game. To unlock everything you need to get to level 328 (with all my time in the game I'm only level 77) and sooo many of the fun skills are locked behind a bunch of useless ones.

It's the single most cynical thing I've seen since Horse Armor and I've a feeling that a lot of upcoming MS games are going to have similar mechanics to try and keep people subscribed to Game Pass.

no-sir-i-dont-like-it.gif
Click to expand...


I agree, I think M$ are interested in keeping people subbed by chaining them to grinds (D4 is a clear example of slowing down progression) rather than making great games, it's exactly what has happened to the TV streaming model. They do it by stretching a show over 8 episodes when there's only enough content for 4 well paced episodes.
 
Apex said:
I agree, I think M$ are interested in keeping people subbed by chaining them to grinds (D4 is a clear example of slowing down progression) rather than making great games, it's exactly what has happened to the TV streaming model. They do it by stretching a show over 8 episodes when there's only enough content for 4 well paced episodes.
Click to expand...
Much like loot-boxes and mtx's for 'XP boosters' and the like, these things are insidious and they negatively impact game design. I haven't played Forza Motorsport yet but I'm wondering if this 'forced slow progression' manifests itself there too..?

I have to give Bethesda credit there - they've always been innovative when it comes to finding ways to rinse their players for cash :D

Fallout 76 was shameless.
 
Last edited:
Scrutinize said:
Whilst elements could be better polished, as a whole package Starfield is brilliant. I do agree it was oversold with expectations exceeding reality; esp around planet exploration, scale of cities and unique / interactive planet & solar system level points of interest.

It was clearly presented as a long-term vision with ongoing development support with expansions, community mods etc etc.

Problem is that the only real competition are either long serving; having gone through years of developments, updates, expansions and mods or are mmorpgs so a different genre and scale. I think some expect the Starfield gameplay and longevity to be that of an mmorpg from the start.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the whole. But would say you need to live up your name more as I would not say it is brilliant :p
 
Apex said:
I agree, I think M$ are interested in keeping people subbed by chaining them to grinds (D4 is a clear example of slowing down progression) rather than making great games, it's exactly what has happened to the TV streaming model. They do it by stretching a show over 8 episodes when there's only enough content for 4 well paced episodes.
Click to expand...

This will be the downsides of subscription based models and games.

It is a cynical thought, but it does make you wonder why they have made it so stupidly large with copy and paste dungeons everywhere, filled to the absolute brim with loot/rubbish...

As mentioned also, it could be why the skill tree is the way it is.

I also wonder if that is why there is conveniently no interplanetary/system communication when it suits them..."Please fly 20 light years to a planet, and then walk a kilometer to somewhere on it so that a person can tell you a simple thing, or just simply tell you to then go elsewhere"

As i said before, so much of the game seems superfluous. It does indeed seem intentionally padded out with rubbish.
 
Last edited:
Aegis said:
Much like loot-boxes and mtx's for 'XP boosters' and the like, these things are insidious and they negatively impact game design. I haven't played Forza Motorsport yet but I'm wondering if this 'forced slow progression' manifests itself there too..?

I have to give Bethesda credit there - they've always been innovative when it comes to finding ways to rinse their players for cash :D

Fallout 76 was shameless.
Click to expand...

Who can forget the canvass bag? that turned out to be one made of the cheapest thinnest nylon imaginable, and when people complained they made up a story about a "Worldwide shortage of canvass ".

:cry:

gamestoday.info

Breaking news: worldwide canvas shortage of 2018 finally over - Fallout Games Guide

Looks like Bethesda pick-locked a safe and found the world's supply of canvas brcause now there's enough for everyone apparently! - Guides, Gameplays, Videos and more other about this game.
gamestoday.info gamestoday.info

 
Last edited:
Apex said:
Who can forget the canvass bag? that turned out to be one made of the cheapest thinnest nylon imaginable, and when people complained they made up a story about a "Worldwide shortage of canvass ".

:cry:
Click to expand...
That was a doozy :D

Incidentally, for anyone playing Starfield that has no experience with Fallout 76, it's well worth 25 mins. of your time to watch Skill Up's *brutal* takedown of FO76 at launch:

www.youtube.com

Fallout 76 - The Review (2018)

Look, I know I'll get a lot of hate for this video but I don't care. The idea that releasing a game this broken, unfinished and uninteresting while charging ...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

Can't recommend this video enough - gives some great context to where Bethesda is today with Starfield vs. where they were then :eek:
 
I see some slating of Fallout 76, but I actually thought it was pretty good.

I bought it late, only about a year and a bit ago and was an almost final polished version, I got it for about £12 on a deal and got a few hundred hours of good enjoyment out of it for that money.

Can't complain.

As of today I think it's the better game, and I'd say you should go buy Fallout 76 today on the cheapest deal you can find and wait for a year or so for Starfield to be sorted out.
 
BUDFORCE said:
I see some slating of Fallout 76, but I actually thought it was pretty good.

I bought it late, only about a year and a bit ago and was an almost final polished version, I got it for about £12 on a deal and got a few hundred hours of good enjoyment out of it for that money.

Can't complain.

As of today I think it's the better game, and I'd say you should go buy Fallout 76 today on the cheapest deal you can find and wait for a year or so for Starfield to be sorted out.
Click to expand...
I recommend you watch that video and see what Starfield could have been :)

The Wastelanders update did a lot of heavy lifting to overhaul FO76 but in its release form it was shockingly bad.

Skill Up went back to review FO76 after Wastelanders for those that are interested:

www.youtube.com

Fallout 76 in 2020

I played Fallout 76 Wastelanders. --You can find my second channel here;https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrz5bPbYB3xh1aSTisZw0EKBJMMPzPX1PSkill Up Gami...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
Last edited:
TNA said:
I enjoyed Starfield infinitely more than RDR 2 which bored me to death.I am actually going to install it for the 4th time now to try and complete it once done with Cyberpunk DLC.

I hate how it is designed. You **** up a mission and you need to start all the way from the beginning and wait for the long sequence riding in to town with your horse and listen to the same tripe over and over again. No quick save, no proper auto saves. Can’t stand the lack of freedom. Too scripted and on rails for my liking.
Click to expand...
Not so sure on that myself. I completed RDR2 around 6 times. graphical i found it better(strangely), far more immersive, i even found the npc's more interesting i found i just wanted to go back again and again, starfield is getting like a chore, an addictive chore though, leaving the last of the main mission till ive completed everything else.
i think the thing thats a real downer on starfield is so demanding on hardware, i know a 3070 is fab anymore but 1440p at medium settings with fsr and 80% render is rubbish imo
 
MCFC_ANDY said:
Not so sure on that myself. I completed RDR2 around 6 times. graphical i found it better(strangely), far more immersive, i even found the npc's more interesting i found i just wanted to go back again and again, starfield is getting like a chore, an addictive chore though, leaving the last of the main mission till ive completed everything else.
i think the thing thats a real downer on starfield is so demanding on hardware, i know a 3070 is fab anymore but 1440p at medium settings with fsr and 80% render is rubbish imo
Click to expand...

Each to their own I suppose. If there was quicksaves in rdr 2 I am sure I would enjoy it more.
 
MCFC_ANDY said:
Not so sure on that myself. I completed RDR2 around 6 times. graphical i found it better(strangely), far more immersive, i even found the npc's more interesting i found i just wanted to go back again and again, starfield is getting like a chore, an addictive chore though, leaving the last of the main mission till ive completed everything else.
i think the thing thats a real downer on starfield is so demanding on hardware, i know a 3070 is fab anymore but 1440p at medium settings with fsr and 80% render is rubbish imo
Click to expand...
That's pretty disappointing - my previous GPU was a 3070 and I'd have been equally annoyed not to be able to run this at high/1440p.

Have you tried the DLSS mod(s)?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom