The worst thing a video game can do is be boring. Buggy games can be fun as you laugh at the absurdity of the physics. That was honestly one of the reasons I stuck with fallout 3, because I loved that you could turn someone supersonic with enough landmines. Even if the game crashes and you lose progress, you can’t lose the fun you had playing the game.
I recently replayed fallout 3 after starfield failed to scratch my Bethesda itch, and I realized how much more alive the world felt (and how much less often I saw a loading screen when doing quests).
I am going to make a fallout 3 mod that brings the starfield experience, you can now only fast travel and it adds two loading screens between every location. It will also remove every NPC that isn’t strictly quest related and make them immortal. It will also level the wasteland and replace it with a procedurally generated landscape with absolutely nothing to discover in it.
Don’t forget to replace the map view with a field of sparse blue dots floating in a sea of black.
I think Fallout 3 has the best execution on atmospheric storytelling and plenty of unique, branching quests to compliment that. The takeover of Tenpenny Tower where you let the ferals in will go down as one of the most memorably crazy quests I’ve played in a game. Completely unrestrained in its brutality. Modern Bethesda is so sanitized and as a result, utterly boring.
Wait till you play New Vegas.
I have many times and it’s easy to see they made a stronger rpg with better writing, but it’s harmed by the setting. Wandering through the desert doesn’t hit the same for me as the capital wasteland nor are the stories told by random scenes you can find as compelling.
I know that I’m probably supposed to say that New Vegas is perfect, but I gotta say that Fallout 3 is my favorite. Now if we could have a Fallout 3 made by Obsidian…
the problem with Fallout 3 is the world is dead, because nothing you do at X matters in Y.
Its a collection of segregated short stories,isolated in their own little worlds with no contact or interaction with eachother, all plopped into a single map, with nothing connecting to anything else. The only lasting impact of anything outside their own isolated containers is to your nebulous karma stat, which only affects peoples general disposition towards you.
Huh i replayed that game several times Not once do i remember letting the gouls in to ten penny tower
I was very confused, when it was nominated in the steam awards for most innovative game. Made me a bit sad when people do not know what great games are out there that only cost 1/5 of a AAA borefest.
Lol I’ll give Bethesda credit for a lot of things, but innovation definitely isn’t one of them.
I’d say radiant AI was innovative, but they haven’t done anything like that in almost 20 years now.
Oblivion was the last truly innovative game they made. Not that I dislike their more recent games, but they’ve been coasting on Oblivion ever since.
RDR2 was nominated this year for at least one category
It came out years ago, hasn’t been updated significantly, and the online component was abandoned. It’s a fine game but why the fuck was it in on the ballot for anything? There were a few games this year like that. So weird.
Yeah. Hogwarts legacy and EA football as game of the year is very weird aswell.
Guess there is some brigading in some corners of the internet going on. Or most of the people just have a one dimensional taste in games.
I thought it was Steam players colluding to meme about it… Because it’s obviously not true
The New Game + was one of the most innovative mechanic that came out this year.
It isn’t the Game of the Year award.
deleted by creator
*New for Bethesda
Other games have had similar features for years.
It certainly seems telling that everytime a news story about Starfield comes up, the picture with it is just a boring headshot of some normal looking person (or occasionally a pic of the ship builder). Bethesda’s other games at least had distinct looks, some sense of art and aesthetic that gave them identity, even Oblivion’s potato people.
It certainly is telling, but not for the reasons you think, I suspect. The game has plenty of glorious eye candy, but why highlight that when only negative media gets engagement?
NG+ was a pretty big disappointment. There are a couple of dialogue choices which reference [Starborn] but for the most part you have to play questlines all over again as if you weren’t Starborn at all. Seriously, I’ve lived through this situation seven times already - why can’t I cut to the fucking chase that I know exists.
cause that would require effort, and planning, and design.
3 things that were clearly missing during the development of the actual game.
i’m sure they’ll release 200 dollars of DLC to fix it all, so don’t worry! /s
Haven’t the modders, who in general always fix all of bethesda’s bullshit, mostly gotten bored of this game? I know it was big news when the guy behind the big Skyrim multiplayer mod started working on this star field one and then declared the game stupid and quit.
One of the people who made Skyrim Together came outright saying that they gave up on making the same mod for Starfield because the game is just shit
The mod tools haven’t been released yet.
I think some modders like the challenge or enjoy making a shitty game more fun for the community to actually play
I mean, if a modder has so much ability and creativity that they can essentially rewrite the whole game (because nothing short of that will save this absolute snoozefest of a story) they might as well create their own game and make bank in the process.
Modding a game doesn’t make much sense if the foundation sucks. So much wasted effort, making mods for already good games is much more rewarding in my experience (released about two dozen for different games)
Really, really wanted to like this game. Morrowind was like, my entire childhood. Bethesda have been on a downward spiral for so long to me and I’ve completely lost my faith in their titles. Starfield felt soulless to me when I played. A game that’s supposed to be about an organization of explorers, where the exploration consists of fast travel and loading screens. Starfield did a lot of things and it didn’t do any of them phenomenally, and only a few of them adequately.
Haven’t played the game.
I’m curious as to how exactly the space exploration differs from Elite Dangerous.
Because in that nearly decade old game, space exploration does largely consist of fast travel warping to systems, scanning them and potentially any planets from your ship, scooping fuel from the stars, avoiding white dwarfs and neutron stars… And its absolutely enthralling.
Curious as to how they screwed up a proven formula.
The weird one to me is that they made it sound like a space survival game where the ship and its maintenance was going to be a primary game element, but other than the ship builder and random encounters outside a planets, it seems like it’s hardly a thing.
Elite has a sense of scale and seamless transitions between places (even if they are just well-disguised loading screens). The planets feel planet sized, and you can move around them or between them freely in hypercruise (or whatever the system for traveling inside systems was called). There isn’t any fast travel system as far as I’m aware – if you want to get to the other side of the galaxy, the journey will take you days or weeks, even with a kitted out exploration ship. This, combined with the sense of scale and incredibly well made map system, makes it feel like an expedition, even if the journey itself is extremely lonely and repetitive. Despite Elite’s many, many flaws - they absolutely nailed this aspect of a space game.
Starfield feels like clicking through menus to get to boring minigames with different skyboxes. It cannot be overstated how non-immersive the travel and “exploration” is compared to ED.
*Edited disclaimer: I gave up a couple of hours in. If there’s a good game in this mess that you get to after 100 hours, as some people have said, I’m sure as fuck not sticking around to find out. More likely it’s just the sunk cost coping mechanisms kicking in.
The space exploration for Starfield only happens in orbit of another planet. From the few hours I played before I gave up on it you couldn’t even fly to a station nearby the planet, you had to fast travel to it which was a loading screen then you had a loading screen for docking on to the station and then another loading screen for getting into the station
Basically Warframe minus any of the good parts from the sounds of it
These two games might both be set in space but they are in wildly different genres.
Why is it important that this game be declared bad? It seems so odd that articles about a game’s steam reviews get attention. It’s like there’s a group of people that are dying to say ‘I told you so’ but no one outside the group really cares.
Because if it is bad, pretending it’s great is doing everyone except Bethesda a disservice. Early on, the hype and fanboyism were relentless, they pumped it up as a “huge game” and their “most polished” or some such shit… and it just isn’t really. They have had ages and a lot of capital to try to make it a good game, but a lot of people aren’t convinced that it is. Let alone as good as the massive marketing pushes ahead of release would have you believe.
“Remember: they’re still Bethesda”, “remember the Skyrim hype?” etc was met with denial, eye-rolling and condescension, so the temptation to go “told you so” is pretty strong when proven right five minutes later.
Since then, their PR goons have been going around passive-aggressively sniping at reviews and explaining e.g. that ackchyually the dullness is intentional, and what do gamers know about games anyway (therefore it’s actually good and it’s the players that are wrong). I didn’t think that was particularly classy, either.
Some people still like it for whatever reason, but there are also tons of valid reasons not to.
In short: the backlash against all of this is pretty predictable, and is being shared in a community where it’s fairly on-topic.
its seems like most of those negitive reviews have 60+ hours, some of the top negitive reviews are 250+ hours. the standard for boring seems a little funny to me.
Sunk cost. Some people got so hyped up for it, they felt like they had to like it. Turns out that’s not how it works and it’s just… Not a great game.
I mean, we see this kind of review all the time. It’s generally people that run out of things to do and start complaining that the game doesn’t have infinite content.
Oh for sure, a lot of that too. But I’ve also noticed an overall essence of boredom and disappointment especially when compared to initial expectation, so it wouldn’t do to dismiss most criticism in this way. Bethesda really fed into the “big immersive universe 25 years in the making” thing and even, for example, emphasized the player’s ship in marketing, even though you hardly really fly the ship at all in-game. NPCs feel flat and buggy, most planets are largely empty, and most quests are just… Fetch quests.
I feel like, as with most Bethesda titles, mods are going to breathe new life into this one eventually.
I feel like Bethesda really missed the mark on what makes their games special.
You can see the improvement in quest design and writing with questlines like the crimson fleet but it’s missing the glue holding everything together, the fantastic open world map that’s always there and Starfield does not have.
I think mods are eventually going to make Starfield into another timeless classic but they’ve never felt necessary before, Skyrim took everyone by storm as soon as it came out.
I don’t even believe mods could save this game. The major things it lacks are also symptoms of the decrepit engine they keep using; such as the overall size of each individual zone of the game and why you have to load between ground, space, and star systems.
I would not be surprised if the space segments were considered interior cells, as they’re actually quite small and empty if you fly around to find the invisible walls.
The art of countering a bad review:
Negative review at 2hrs (refunded)
-Hey, you barely even opened the game!
Negative review at 5hrs
-You can’t say that, you’re barely through the tutorial!
Negative review at 15hrs
-You just haven’t gotten to the good bits yet!
Negative review at 30hrs
-You rushed through it and missed all the good stuff!
Negative review at 60hrs
-Well if you played that long, it can’t have been bad!
I think it’s a fair shake to play the entire game before giving it a review. A game this size, 100-250 hours seems like enough time to have done everything to confirm it is, indeed, boring as shit.
You play for a while because you feel like you should and really want to like it. Quest after quest you start to figure out that you don’t actually enjoy what you’re doing, and it takes a while to first figure out why, and then to break your addiction
Ikr. If I find a game not fun an hour in then I quit. The fuck these people have time for to play 60+ hours on a mid game
Sometimes you just stick with it to see how god awful it is, or just so you can beat it and wash your hands of it.
Having 100+ hours in it doesnt invalidate any criticism you have.
heres my rough story about how I did 100+ hours in it and why that doesnt make it good.
Yeah, I got bored at 360 hours. If course, I’d be bored with virtually everything after 360 hours, but some people must have higher expectations.
Seeing how some people put like 6000 hours into Skyrim they might have.
Bethesda games are games we usually can play thousands of hours over decades and still enjoy. We’re only holding them to the standards they set.
Huh… interesting. I got so bored of it that I forgot about it and moved the fuck on. I’m bored of most games, even the “good ones.”
Cool? Find a new hobby maybe, one where you don’t post comments that add absolutely nothing to the conversation.
Like yours?
