Hi-Fi Rush Leaker Claims Starfield And Redfall's Development Is In "Rough Shape"
- Thread starter thelastword
- Start date
P
peter42O
Guest
Personally, I love the premise of the game. First person looter shooter with stealth, gadgets and the main antagonists being Vampires which we rarely get in games. Plus, unlike those other games, I can 100% fully solo in Redfall with no AI team mates which makes me super happy. Those other games were much more focused on map based gameplay which isn't Redfall. Basically an open world separated by regions/districts which is what nearly every open world game is nowadays.
To each their own but im super hyped for Redfall.
Agreed. Arkane is excellent. Their games are great and Redfall will be the game that makes them "break out".
I kinda hate to say it but after the DD, RedFall just looks kind of...boring? The world seems rather sterile; I get vampires have taken things over but where are the crumbling walls & buildings? Atmospheric fog and potentially poisonous gasses? Decaying corpses? Where are the environmental set-pieces you can trigger as you explore the map, alone or with your friends? Where's the energy?
The game just seems really flat; I get it's not a single-player centric game or trying to be cinematic, but they can still add some life to the world. Some cool set-piece moments that trigger as you explore, just to sell you more of the world. In terms of environmental complexity and activity it doesn't seem that much a step up over 360/PS3 games or early 8th-gen titles, and there are games from that period that have more going on in their environments than RedFall.
One of the big reasons it's disappointing is because this is supposed to be an UE5 game, but it looks less technically ambitious than many UE4 titles. The only thing they've shown which looks remotely UE5-level are the particle disintegration effects when vampires or that big tree died. Those looked cool, those looked like something you may not have necessarily gotten last generation. But outside of that not only does the game look like (IMO) a mid-gen (at best) XBO game at higher res, the locations themselves just look like they feel stiff and relatively empty. Not just empty of clutter (which could have been a stylistic choice), but empty of much anything going on. Even if the locations are desolate and abandoned, I'd still expect things in the environment to casually persist of their own being, especially to sell the horror atmosphere.
As for Starfield, well I think its problems are well-known. Bad framepacing (they can potentially fix this), 30 FPS cap (they need a 60 or at least 40 FPS option with this game), somewhat dated visuals (not a huge deal; it's still visually competent it just won't be in any running for Best Graphics, that's for sure)...those are issues for sure but are things that can be improved with enough time. What's made me less partial to the game is the endless talk about "250,000 lines of dialog", "1,000 planets" and stuff like that, because for me quantity doesn't mean very much; it's the quality that matters. They are taking a lot of time on stuff like that yet out of the 1K planets only one of them has meaningful content with four major cities? No planetary atmospheric reentry? Isn't this a space game?
I'm more worried about some of the design choices that team are making in padding the game out with content, instead of focusing on maximizing quality, and how much of that is bottlenecked by the Creation Engine (2). I agree with others ITT; the game will probably still be pretty good or decent, but I don't think it's going to compare as favorably to other open-world games already on the market like Zelda, Elden Ring, HFW or potentially even the next AssCreed. The competition is way more intense than when Skyrim came out, even when Fallout 4 released. Standards have grown a lot and I don't think Starfield can meet all the critical expectations, but maybe it can meet at least some or most of them.
If it needs even more time, though, then that might weaken Xbox's release schedule. Honestly I can see it getting pushed back to Q1 2024 because MS/Bethesda can't afford to underdeliver with this one at launch. However, they may try to salvage that with a demo, preferably available the day you announce a delay into 2024. Anything to pad the blow. That's assuming it gets delayed that far out, though; again I say do it if you need that extra time to polish, just make sure you've got something to negate some of the blowback as a consolidation.
The game just seems really flat; I get it's not a single-player centric game or trying to be cinematic, but they can still add some life to the world. Some cool set-piece moments that trigger as you explore, just to sell you more of the world. In terms of environmental complexity and activity it doesn't seem that much a step up over 360/PS3 games or early 8th-gen titles, and there are games from that period that have more going on in their environments than RedFall.
One of the big reasons it's disappointing is because this is supposed to be an UE5 game, but it looks less technically ambitious than many UE4 titles. The only thing they've shown which looks remotely UE5-level are the particle disintegration effects when vampires or that big tree died. Those looked cool, those looked like something you may not have necessarily gotten last generation. But outside of that not only does the game look like (IMO) a mid-gen (at best) XBO game at higher res, the locations themselves just look like they feel stiff and relatively empty. Not just empty of clutter (which could have been a stylistic choice), but empty of much anything going on. Even if the locations are desolate and abandoned, I'd still expect things in the environment to casually persist of their own being, especially to sell the horror atmosphere.
As for Starfield, well I think its problems are well-known. Bad framepacing (they can potentially fix this), 30 FPS cap (they need a 60 or at least 40 FPS option with this game), somewhat dated visuals (not a huge deal; it's still visually competent it just won't be in any running for Best Graphics, that's for sure)...those are issues for sure but are things that can be improved with enough time. What's made me less partial to the game is the endless talk about "250,000 lines of dialog", "1,000 planets" and stuff like that, because for me quantity doesn't mean very much; it's the quality that matters. They are taking a lot of time on stuff like that yet out of the 1K planets only one of them has meaningful content with four major cities? No planetary atmospheric reentry? Isn't this a space game?
I'm more worried about some of the design choices that team are making in padding the game out with content, instead of focusing on maximizing quality, and how much of that is bottlenecked by the Creation Engine (2). I agree with others ITT; the game will probably still be pretty good or decent, but I don't think it's going to compare as favorably to other open-world games already on the market like Zelda, Elden Ring, HFW or potentially even the next AssCreed. The competition is way more intense than when Skyrim came out, even when Fallout 4 released. Standards have grown a lot and I don't think Starfield can meet all the critical expectations, but maybe it can meet at least some or most of them.
If it needs even more time, though, then that might weaken Xbox's release schedule. Honestly I can see it getting pushed back to Q1 2024 because MS/Bethesda can't afford to underdeliver with this one at launch. However, they may try to salvage that with a demo, preferably available the day you announce a delay into 2024. Anything to pad the blow. That's assuming it gets delayed that far out, though; again I say do it if you need that extra time to polish, just make sure you've got something to negate some of the blowback as a consolidation.
Agreed, it looks very sterile and flat.
It appears to have none of the creativity and atmosphere of Prey.
The GamePass approach means that quality is set aside somewhat though, because it provides access to games cheaply. If a game is 6/10 or 7/10 it's still gobbled up because 'it's there and it's cheap'.
Only after the DD? You could see the "downgrade" in respect to their previous works from the very first gameplay shown.
It makes Deathloop look good in comparison.
i am not sure gamepass is at fault here. i am pretty sure the game was in development before acquisition. maybe they change direction, but didn't increase budget.
It's almost crazy to see the difference between Prey and RedFall.
Just look how alive Prey (2017) looks here:
Then compare that to the RedFall footage:
Prey had smokestacks, burning fires, splotch & impact effects on the screen when hitting enemies with melee weapons, etc. There's virtually none of that in RedFall, at least from what I noticed. I'd say Prey looks better visually in that footage than RedFall does, outside of some particle disintegration effects where RedFall has an advantage. Otherwise I can't tell how something like RedFall is a step above Prey, even if it's a 4-player coop game.
You can see where when the player punches the wood off the boarded door, it just disappears a fraction of a second after it breaks. You don't even get to see it on the floor momentarily to then disappear when out of view. It's the same with some enemy explosion effects; just quick pops before they vanish. Halo Infinite had a similar problem with the explosion effect timings being way too quick. Also there are things you feel should be present but aren't, like a visible bustling wind, scattered debris blowing across abandoned streets, some tree foliage and vegetation movements on a slightly windy empty, eerie street to make the wind the only things alive there (other than you and any enemies).
I doubt any of this changes between now and May, but it'd be nice if they did.
I haven't paid a lot of attention to their work until more recently, but maybe they've had downgrades previously, too. Now that I think about it, the RedFall footage from the last showcase seemed more impressive to me, from memory anyway.
Gonna give the previous June Showcase footage a watch, because I do think there have been some visual changes since then. The color palette might be slightly more saturated now vs. back then, but it just feels like some other things have changed, too.
I don't think you should spend so much time replying to posts like that, despite being repeatedly said they still keep calling it a back 4 blood clone.
If this exact same game and trailer were shown at a state of play, it would be treated as the next big award winning new IP and 5 people would have changed their avatars with Redfall things already
Good faith is in short supply.
P
peter42O
Guest
I don't think you should spend so much time replying to posts like that, despite being repeatedly said they still keep calling it a back 4 blood clone.
If this exact same game and trailer were shown at a state of play, it would be treated as the next big award winning new IP and 5 people would have changed their avatars with Redfall things already
Good faith is in short supply.
True and agreed. It is what it is though. I'm hyped for Redfall so im good!!! lol
Yeah I agree, I mean more in terms of evaluation.
So previously if Arkane put out their worst game in years they would receive a lot of criticism, but if it happened now with the game released on GamePass then I don't think the response from gamers (and even some critics) will be the same.
I'll probably give it a go, though one thing I've noticed with Redfall and Starfield is that the actual shooting/weapon elements of them don't look good, just not impactful and satisfying. But let's see how they turn out.