It's crazy how they both came out around the same time, both exclusives, same Metascore and everything they complained about FF16...it applies to Starfield. Now they have to pretend it's good.
This is Karma.
Starfield | Review & Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Gamernyc78
- Start date
This is Karma.
Do we not dock points for basically releasing the same hit game twice? They did it in both cases and are about to do it again with Spidey 2.
So sequels are the same game now?
I'm buying the game, but my dissapointment is immesurable. The way Microsoft was hyping this game was just as the same as CDPR was hyping Cyberpunk 2077, like it was supposed to be The Last of Us or Resident Evil 4 of this generation.
Spider-Man 2, Final Fantasy XVI, Ghost of Tsushima, Psychonauts 2, all these games were released under player's expectations. Starfield wasn't.
I'm buying knowing i will enjoy it because im a betheda's bitch, but holy shit i was expecting Starfield to at least on par with ToTK and BG3.
Bethesda has never been that type of studio though.
If the games present the same, have the same combat, and the gameplay is largely unchanged then what do you want to me say about it?
Isn't that the opposite of what BGS RPGs are about? LMAO. People talk bout spending hours exploring and not even touching the main quest yet with Fallout and Elder Scrolls. Folks point to this as one of the big appeals of BGS RPGs. Now with Starfield it's "oh no, mainlining the main quest is the best way to play." FOH with these bots. Funny they are.
Dont Brother with mierdoso, he is just a troll, a poor oneLa loca eres tuyou'll be ight
First of all they made Skyrim which did more for its respective generation than TLOU. I’ll give you RE4 but they should be able to talk big on their game if they’ve previously released generational game changers.
I don’t know about the rest of your post but you’re talking like Bethesda has zero credibility.
Dark Souls 1,2,3 all shit?
Resident Evil 1,2,3,4 all shit?
Baldurs Gate 3?
They shouldn't bother making Fallout 5 and Elder Scrolls 6 or they will dock points
How can they be the same when the story is not the same, the gameplay is improved, and combat is actually refined and has more options?
This disingenuous ask that somehow sequels must be very different is something out of a sad console warrior playbook.
That just means the main quest is too boringIsn't that the opposite of what BGS RPGs are about? LMAO. People talk bout spending hours exploring and not even touching the main quest yet with Fallout and Elder Scrolls. Folks point to this as one of the big appeals of BGS RPGs. Now with Starfield it's "oh no, mainlining the main quest is the best way to play." FOH with these bots. Funny they are.
Resident Evil has had significant changes to its style over the years, not a good example.Dark Souls 1,2,3 all shit?
Resident Evil 1,2,3,4 all shit?
Baldurs Gate 3?
They shouldn't bother making Fallout 5 and Elder Scrolls 6 or they will dock points
Iterative titles are important but so is innovation. Video games are known for pushing the digital bar higher. It is a leading industry. If a sequel simply follows the same formula that earned it critical acclaim previously, I don’t look at that as a glowing badge of honor. I look at it like they just did the same shit twice.
Sequels should iterate off the previous entry for sure, I expect that. But if you’re going to line a sequel up with a brand new title it must be considered that one is working with a template and the other is not.
Being iterative does not make it mediocre, though - that was your original contention. Both of those games were significant advancements on the previous games.
And yet working off a template doesn't make something mediocre. Arguing that Ragnarok or HFW are mediocre because they are sequels is not only dumb, it's wrong. Additionally, the user called all exclusives mediocre, including a little game called Returnal, which was quite enjoyable. Was it goty? Of course not, but can anyone arguing in good faith say it's a mediocre game?