It might not be a 5, but it’s as mid as mid goes.
Generic, bland, Mass Effect shits all over it.
Starfield | Review & Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Gamernyc78
- Start date
Generic, bland, Mass Effect shits all over it.
Personally I think Bethesda formula has run its courses. 12 years ago, Skyrim was the shit because of its vast open world, complex quests and RPGs system(with shit combat), somethinf that no games could dream of.
Nowadays as games budget get larger, many game studios can replicate that complex quests, vast open world and RPGs even better.
All Bethesda have now is a bloted shitty game engine that hamstring the whole game and inflate dev time.
Nowadays as games budget get larger, many game studios can replicate that complex quests, vast open world and RPGs even better.
All Bethesda have now is a bloted shitty game engine that hamstring the whole game and inflate dev time.
God of War Ragnarok, Returnal, Ratchet and Clank are polished, finely tuned experiences with good gameplay, story, graphics and whatnot. That’s not mediocre, do not lie to yourself.
How's building stuff? Really like that so hope I can spend a lot of time with that. Can you build both ships and outposts and how extensive would you say it is, as in can you add decorations and stuff or is it just pick a room and crate it?
Spent 10h with the game. It is bad guys. I'll copy a few comments I've mad to friends since that's a better summary than rewriting:
The space combat is terrible, the procgen elements weak, the increase in scope hasn't brought anything new to the table (I said this about Elden Ring too, not a Bethesda specific complaint) and has diluated their core gameplay loop. This game won't satisfy anyone in the long term except perhaps the most casual gamer. The space and exploration elements are weak and done better elsewhere, and the BGS elements are done better in their other core games, each side is tearing at the other and it undermines the whole experience. PC performance is attrocious (no reviewers mentioned this) and there are a lot of bugs, just not game breaking bugs (reviewers were wrong about this also) so the game is in a weird spot where it is both defended for not being as bad as reviewers said, while also being worse than reviewers said. I played 10h today. I went into it with an open mind, if you liked it I'm glad, but there are many objective gameplay elements (such as the endless loading screens and as Todd described it "schizophrenic" nature of gameplay) which make it very unsatisfying so far. I quit the game for the first time today and my first thought was "I should reinstall Cyberpunk."
To speak of the shizophrenic nature of the game, here is a summary from a main story quest I did:
Use loading screen to travel to a planet. Use loading screen to travel to a house. Dialogue. Dialogue. Use loading screen to travel to a second planet. Dialogue, Use loading screen to travel to a third planet, actually we visit a space station orbiting it. Kill some generic enemies, listen to an audio log, travel to a fourth planet, kill some generic enemies, dialogue, use a loading screen to return to the original planet. It is like an MMO storyline. It's boring, it's meaningless, it's contrived. I don't care in the slightest. Another awkward example of how fast travel and load screens ruin the game: I had to travel to a planet to speak to someone, open a menu, travel to planet, I get taken out from landing on the surface to get interrupted by a cutscene "scanning your ship for contraband...all clear" then I needed to reopen the menu and reclick my original travel location to travel to the surface. You can use a menu to travel and the game interrupts you to pass some meaningless, non-interactive cutscene, before forcing you to remenu and redo what you just did. It sucks, it breaks the immersion, it makes the game feel horrible. I cannot imagine how it would feel to have all these elements recur over the course of a 50 hour playthrough.
The space skybox limitations feel the worst. It doesn't feel immersive, it doesn't feel interesting, it is the worst part of the game. I watched Private Sessions' stream earlier and he was literally speechless at how bad the space combat was. It's shit, I can't mince words. It would be better off not in the game. It's no wonder Emil said the space combat was optional because it is weak. But why then did they make a space game if the actual space mechanics are weak? I don't know. All I'm left thinking is if I wanted to play a BGS game Skyrim, Oblivion or FO4 would be better. If I wanted to play a space RPG, Mass Effect would be better. If I wanted to play a space game, NMS or Outer Wilds would be be.
Lots of small issues that don't make much sense. E.g. you can be on the moon (Earth's moon), 0.17G, gliding through the low grav and you click reload and...you freeze and immediately fall where you are. It's horrible. No map, no FOV slider, no FPS cap, no accessibility options, poor PC optimization (I was getting 99% GPU utilisation and 32% CPU) with wide swings, e.g. 30fps in exterior zones, 85 in interior zones. Why did they design the game like this? It doesn't add anything except poor performance and 16x the empty boring maps. The quest line feels absolutely BAD just a few hours in. You get given a ship for the most meaningless reason, everyone is your friend and wants to journey with you with no qualms, you begin the main quest and immediately start fast travelling around to speak to one person before continuing. It SUCKS. There is no way the average person is going to finish this. Facial animations are Outer Worlds tier, and the writing is the same millenial ironny garbage as OW, full of stupid quips (Joss Whedon ruined an entire generation of writers) and lame jokes that will age as well as Borderlands 2.
I'm really struggling to find a reason that anyone should play Starfield outside of a) it's new, and b) it's a new Bethesda game. If you want a space game, go play NMS/Outer Wilds/Mass Effect before you go for this. If you want an RPG, go play BG3. If you want more Bethesda, sure, buy this, but you would have bought it regardless. I think IGN's 7 was pretty generous all things considered, and anything more than a 7.5 is literally delusional. Shills might disagree with my post, but in the long run I'm certain it will be a Halo Infinite like situation where most acknowledge the game is fundamentally flawed and the reviews are completely wrong.
Do NOT buy this. Either pirate it or play it on Games Pass (if you're on PC) because as a full priced game it is absolutely terrible. In past 3 months I've played Baldur's Gate 3, Armored Core 6, and Final Fantasy 16, and this. This is by far the worst of the lot, and coming off the back of BG3 (which I spent 75h in) it quite literally feels last gen. BG3 really did create a new standard because I cannot play this without feeling like I've gone back in time to CP2077's release on last gen consoles, except the reception is better.
The space combat is terrible, the procgen elements weak, the increase in scope hasn't brought anything new to the table (I said this about Elden Ring too, not a Bethesda specific complaint) and has diluated their core gameplay loop. This game won't satisfy anyone in the long term except perhaps the most casual gamer. The space and exploration elements are weak and done better elsewhere, and the BGS elements are done better in their other core games, each side is tearing at the other and it undermines the whole experience. PC performance is attrocious (no reviewers mentioned this) and there are a lot of bugs, just not game breaking bugs (reviewers were wrong about this also) so the game is in a weird spot where it is both defended for not being as bad as reviewers said, while also being worse than reviewers said. I played 10h today. I went into it with an open mind, if you liked it I'm glad, but there are many objective gameplay elements (such as the endless loading screens and as Todd described it "schizophrenic" nature of gameplay) which make it very unsatisfying so far. I quit the game for the first time today and my first thought was "I should reinstall Cyberpunk."
To speak of the shizophrenic nature of the game, here is a summary from a main story quest I did:
Use loading screen to travel to a planet. Use loading screen to travel to a house. Dialogue. Dialogue. Use loading screen to travel to a second planet. Dialogue, Use loading screen to travel to a third planet, actually we visit a space station orbiting it. Kill some generic enemies, listen to an audio log, travel to a fourth planet, kill some generic enemies, dialogue, use a loading screen to return to the original planet. It is like an MMO storyline. It's boring, it's meaningless, it's contrived. I don't care in the slightest. Another awkward example of how fast travel and load screens ruin the game: I had to travel to a planet to speak to someone, open a menu, travel to planet, I get taken out from landing on the surface to get interrupted by a cutscene "scanning your ship for contraband...all clear" then I needed to reopen the menu and reclick my original travel location to travel to the surface. You can use a menu to travel and the game interrupts you to pass some meaningless, non-interactive cutscene, before forcing you to remenu and redo what you just did. It sucks, it breaks the immersion, it makes the game feel horrible. I cannot imagine how it would feel to have all these elements recur over the course of a 50 hour playthrough.
The space skybox limitations feel the worst. It doesn't feel immersive, it doesn't feel interesting, it is the worst part of the game. I watched Private Sessions' stream earlier and he was literally speechless at how bad the space combat was. It's shit, I can't mince words. It would be better off not in the game. It's no wonder Emil said the space combat was optional because it is weak. But why then did they make a space game if the actual space mechanics are weak? I don't know. All I'm left thinking is if I wanted to play a BGS game Skyrim, Oblivion or FO4 would be better. If I wanted to play a space RPG, Mass Effect would be better. If I wanted to play a space game, NMS or Outer Wilds would be be.
Lots of small issues that don't make much sense. E.g. you can be on the moon (Earth's moon), 0.17G, gliding through the low grav and you click reload and...you freeze and immediately fall where you are. It's horrible. No map, no FOV slider, no FPS cap, no accessibility options, poor PC optimization (I was getting 99% GPU utilisation and 32% CPU) with wide swings, e.g. 30fps in exterior zones, 85 in interior zones. Why did they design the game like this? It doesn't add anything except poor performance and 16x the empty boring maps. The quest line feels absolutely BAD just a few hours in. You get given a ship for the most meaningless reason, everyone is your friend and wants to journey with you with no qualms, you begin the main quest and immediately start fast travelling around to speak to one person before continuing. It SUCKS. There is no way the average person is going to finish this. Facial animations are Outer Worlds tier, and the writing is the same millenial ironny garbage as OW, full of stupid quips (Joss Whedon ruined an entire generation of writers) and lame jokes that will age as well as Borderlands 2.
I'm really struggling to find a reason that anyone should play Starfield outside of a) it's new, and b) it's a new Bethesda game. If you want a space game, go play NMS/Outer Wilds/Mass Effect before you go for this. If you want an RPG, go play BG3. If you want more Bethesda, sure, buy this, but you would have bought it regardless. I think IGN's 7 was pretty generous all things considered, and anything more than a 7.5 is literally delusional. Shills might disagree with my post, but in the long run I'm certain it will be a Halo Infinite like situation where most acknowledge the game is fundamentally flawed and the reviews are completely wrong.
Do NOT buy this. Either pirate it or play it on Games Pass (if you're on PC) because as a full priced game it is absolutely terrible. In past 3 months I've played Baldur's Gate 3, Armored Core 6, and Final Fantasy 16, and this. This is by far the worst of the lot, and coming off the back of BG3 (which I spent 75h in) it quite literally feels last gen. BG3 really did create a new standard because I cannot play this without feeling like I've gone back in time to CP2077's release on last gen consoles, except the reception is better.
OP
OP
Nice, I am familiar with all of them but I'll Def keep them on my radar. EA just has stuck to my brain because every game I've played and then looked at their review scores were so in sync with my taste that Thyve stuck to me.
PC performance is absolutely terrible. I thought it was just poorly optimised (and it is) but practically everyone seems to get 30-45fps on medium settings regardless of GPU. I get 30-45 fps in open world in 1440 widescreen, and 60-80 indoors. But this is what people with better CPUs and GPUs get. People with 4070s and 4080s get this performance. It's safe to say the game was rushed, the lack of a great number of basic features shows it. Microsoft probably spent millions in manpower to get this shipped by release and cut everything they could to make that feasible. Steam forums and Nexus Mod commentary show a more honest picture of the state of the PC version that Reddit or reviews, so hopefully this becomes more well known, but if you're on PC Microsoft just fucked you like CD Project Red fucked last gen console players with CP2077 release. You're getting an inferior product because they spent all their time optimising it elsewhere. Parity clause effects us all huh?
OP
OP
Whoa appreciate your feed back. So night and day from Twitter where I'm bombarded with Microsoft fan reviews like "omg I haven't had so much fun before doing space combat but it's difficult" to "oh man the tiles and the loading aren't that bad". I'm glad you gave your honest opinion, thanks.
I can't say I watch a lot of Luke Stephens, but his Starfield review is really honest and quite good. I remember his Redfall review, also honest and impartial. Might be worth checking out.
OP
OP
Yeah I saw a heap of people shilling it like that on Reddit. I can't say nobody would enjoy it, but there are very deep structural flaws in how the game has been designed, and a fundamental mismatch in design styles. It's incredibly shallow and unfulfilling as an experience (so far). You could play literally anything else, AC6 has the same review score and was definitely a better experience imo.
I enjoyed it until I got to new atlantis, truthfully, the game is way better than Fallout 4.
BUT, it's also more broken, it won't stop crashing. at all.
The workaround of turning FSR off worked quite well until I got to New Atlantis, no matter what I do, what Settings I use, the game crashes. It's unreal how poorly optimized this game is.
BUT, it's also more broken, it won't stop crashing. at all.
The workaround of turning FSR off worked quite well until I got to New Atlantis, no matter what I do, what Settings I use, the game crashes. It's unreal how poorly optimized this game is.
OP
OP
If a game us shallow and doesn't have great combat, it just kills the game for me no matter how good a story may be. I'll play this later down the line at a friend's house or when I can get it somehow for free.
I don't expect it to be bad honestly.
Nothing revolutionary, but Bethesda fans may like it.
Now it just feel like unpolished turd which may get a pass 10 years ago but now.
Also I don't like the new Air Conditioner game, feels like the games was designed for Souls-tard, probably diviation from Air Conditioner games
I disagree that the game was rushed. This is just the unfortunate side-effect of using a shit engine. You can polish a turd as much as you'd like, but it will ultimately still be a turd.
OP
OP
D
Deleted member 223
Guest
If PC gamers ding it on Steam there goes the potential for millions of sales. It could basically become a gamepass title only.