-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
cripterion
Member
Lokaum D+
Member
i really wonder how this game got 87 geez.
i m out, the gameplay loop is soooo boring and there is nothing else to do, i m droping this at 20 hours mark and this is at best a 7/10 game if wasnt for some Sidequests and dialogues this game would have been a 5 or 6/10 imo.
Why a 7.5bi developer cant pull something like EP2, ED or even NMS is beyond me.
( this was Alpha, this game is already at full release)
i m out, the gameplay loop is soooo boring and there is nothing else to do, i m droping this at 20 hours mark and this is at best a 7/10 game if wasnt for some Sidequests and dialogues this game would have been a 5 or 6/10 imo.
Why a 7.5bi developer cant pull something like EP2, ED or even NMS is beyond me.
( this was Alpha, this game is already at full release)
Last edited:
iHaunter
Member
I can tell you this with watching a bunch of videos. This game barely crests 6/10 mark.
Last edited:
Die Namek Ability
Member
Seems to be the growing consensus now that ppl have had it in there hands for a few days
amigastar
Gold Member
Really? I'm so pissed the game appearently didn't live up to the hype.
But i will try myself on Wednesday and i hope i get some enjoyment out of it.
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
A few things to note here, Ubisoft are fucking masters at open world. Folks can cry and bitch about bloat or DLC or some shit, but what i mean is merely based on how well those teams can create functional open worlds. So I'm not even remotely shocked that Massive is able to pull that off, Bethesda on the other hand.....they are a solid team, but what they do best with NPC's world building and other designs, they struggle with certain open world ideas and favor more dated concepts.
Like loading from one place to another in terms of buildings or something, where something like Watchdogs or AC series would have seamless no loading between those areas to maintain some immersion or something.
Looking at some of the videos by Digital Foundry, several things are noticed. 1. Its not just loading from space to planet, its loading from room to room, building to building and even when they go on the sub-way system.
Its the engine showing its age and I understand that Starfield is a different concept, but this game right now is proving that they simply can't continue to keep using this same engine with the same excuses, its clear its holding the team back greatly from some very common sense ideas for open worlds. I don't even care if the space shit has a loading thing based on design and structure (like to allow for preset moments, like you think you'll get a friendly landing and your so called buddy has ratted you out to the space cops for smuggling space meth) lol I understand they have a method to do certain things and I don't want to make this sound like Starfield MUST be like this or that...
but when going into the ship, going into a building, going into a room, going onto a train...I don't believe we need a loading screen here and this is simply the engine showing its age.
What fucking mission or quest does anyone think MUST rely on any of those things having a loading screen?
its not the end of the world sure, but I feel even last gen, this would be considered dated.
FeastYoEyes
Member
Played a lot this weekend so far. The main quest and the vibes of Constellation carried me through the first 10 hours. A lot of the reviews said the game picks up and it really does when the central mystery is introduced. I love the characters, especially Sarah, Alejandra, Barrett and the CEO guy. Hardest game to put down all year.
Topher
Identifies as young
Eh....hard to take a rating at face value from someone watching videos of others playing the game. If you just mean you don't think this game is for you based on what you've seen then sure.
I'll say this. The game doesn't live up to the space exploration hype. That is certain. But beyond that, this is a kickass Bethesda game in its own right. Yes.....plenty of flaws but is it fun? Yeah, it really is. As others have said it takes a while for it to click. Clicked for me tonight and now I'm just having a blast. Saying all that just to say.....do yourself a favor and go in with an open mind and give it time.
FIREKNIGHT2029
Member
Yea, I know he was hyped for it. He’s an old school Bethesda fan like myself. I tend to agree with a ton of his reviews so I can already tell this game will disappoint me a lot in the free roaming and exploration aspect. I totally understand what he meant when he says it doesn’t feel like Skyrim, I sensed that when the leaks for the game started dropping about invisible walls and fast travel loading everywhere.
I’m gonna be trying it out once it goes live on PC GamePass. I’m very glad I didn’t preorder this on Steam like I was tempted to. The Steam reviews will be absolutely brutal with this game I feel. A lot of people expecting Skyrim in space are going to be sorely disappointed.
Zuzu
Member
That snowdrop engine is producing some good stuff with both SW Outlaws & the new Avatar game using it. It seems to be a very capable and versatile engine.
cripterion
Member
Yeah not the end of the world but It's disappointing though, they touted this as a next gen experience and they could also have foreseen this considering some mods like open cities fixed their game design ages ago.
Hopefully modding brings out the true potential in Starfield :
I thought this is the vibe the game was going for :
Wallpaper · GTGRAPHICS
Kostenlose HD und 4K Weltraum-Hintergrundbilder zum Herunterladen auf GTGRAPHICS
gtgraphics.de
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
There you go.
The game also has several oddities and inaccurate design choices like these, which prove that the game is not built on hardcore realism. For example.
1) Main NPCs walking in no sleeves in freezing temperatures.
2) There are beer bottles and chairs out in the open, in an environment that's -167* temperature and with 0% oxygen. This is copy-pasted stuff that appears on multiple such planets.
Last edited:
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
"I've played this game 20 hours in the last two days and it sucks!" is... a take, I guess.
Last edited:
Lokaum D+
Member
I need to play the game for how many hours to form an opnion ? 30/40/100/500 ?
I never said the game sucks, i just said that for ME after 20 hours the gameplay became boring and was not clicking anymore. For what this game promissed and actually delivered 7/10 is a great score.
Now if my opinion dont serves you, i give you some options like a RPG, u can:
1 respect my opnion and move on with your life.
2 put me on ignore or dont quote me anymore.
3 stop bitchng about someone opinion and play the game in order to form your own.
4 go back to Starfield reddit where everyone is praising the game.
Your choice.
Last edited:
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
I'm not saying you need to play more, I'm saying you've played 10 hours a day since the game came out which is crazy to me. I personally can't imagine NOT being bored with a game if I put that much time into it so quickly.
jm89
Member
You need to finish the game 3 times in order enjoy it. All 3 playthroughs need to be unique, and you need to be upside down whilst doing or else it doesn't work. Specific rules need to be followed for you to enjoy, that's what they tell me
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
Sleepwalker
Member
Holy crap this is by far the worst clip I've seen of this game.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
When RDR 2 came out, I took a 5-day PTO from my office, which was bookended by 2 weekends. So 9 days in total.
I didn't do anything but play RDR 2 for 10+ hours every day for the next 9 days. Didn't get bored at all and ended up finishing the game in 150 hours total. It is one of my most favorite gaming memories.
cripterion
Member
It already started! And no doubt Bethesda is counting on that to keep us hooked.
All in all, game should be in a pretty nice state for us that have regulard edition and have to wait till 6th of september.
Depending on how things go, I might get the Steam version.
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
There you go.
The game also has several oddities and inaccurate design choices like these, which prove that the game is not built on hardcore realism. For example.
1) Main NPCs walking in no sleeves in freezing temperatures.
2) There are beer bottles and chairs out in the open, in an environment that's -167* temperature and with 0% oxygen. This is copy-pasted stuff that appears on multiple such planets.
Mutha fuck, you spotted some GEMS! lol
They should have had races, like you can pick from robot to human or something. If she is some android, robot etc, it would make sense so......yea they fucked up.
I love how Synths exist in Fallout of all games, yet in a game literally about space and the future we don't have robots that look and act like humans lol
Either they fucked up BIG time or its a huge reveal later that they do actually have androids or future DLC oorrrrrrr the fucked up big time lol
I mean shit, I know I'll love the game too
adamsapple
but I don't see how anyone can win the realism argument with this title, its best to let this one go as I'm sure we can find lots of shit that just doesn't really make sense with this game at the moment. Not enough is in Starfield for anyone to make an argument it was made for some realism type thing and I know with time as this keeps coming up, you'll soon take on that same view =) This isn't a hill to die on imho
F
Why dissing him spending a lot of time in the game where u have people hyping up this game with things such as "this game gets better on 2nd playthrough/get better the more time spend on it"
Nothing1234
Banned
It's crazy to me that people are not happy with a 87/88 score. That's very good.
It’s going to be a meme game for the ages. Hard to believe that this is the game that MS and its shills hyped to the moon and 8% of GAF posters thought would get a metacritic score over 95. The power of good marketing I guess.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
To be fair to him,Mutha fuck, you spotted some GEMS! lol
They should have had races, like you can pick from robot to human or something. If she is some android, robot etc, it would make sense so......yea they fucked up.
I love how Synths exist in Fallout of all games, yet in a game literally about space and the future we don't have robots that look and act like humans lol
Either they fucked up BIG time or its a huge reveal later that they do actually have androids or future DLC oorrrrrrr the fucked up big time lol
I mean shit, I know I'll love the game too
Not enough is in Starfield for anyone to make an argument it was made for some realism type thing and I know with time as this keeps coming up, you'll soon take on that same view =) This isn't a hill to die on imho
adamsapple
only jumped in at this point. My original discussion was with
SportsFan581
. We were discussing flight controls and interplanetary / space exploration. His argument was that Starfield is a game grounded in realism, which is why there is no seamless space exploration like No Man's Sky.I do not agree with this point, as there is plenty of stupid stuff (like the ones I shared) in the game that isn't grounded in realism at all.
The simplest explanation is the right one here: Bethesda couldn't figure out how to do seamless interplanetary and space exploration so they cut corners and barely taped together a fast-travel system so they can release the game.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
87 is a VERY good score. It always is.
I won't speak for others of course, but my belief is that this game is not an 87. It should be in the high 70s or low 80s at best. The MC score right now is similar to Halo Infinite. Outlets like Windows Central gave Halo Infinite a 10/10, and it settled at an 87, but the game had/has too many problems to deserve that score.
Bethesda did curate review outlets so there is a chance Starfield loses a few points when other reviews start dropping in.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Still 87 for me. Perhaps new reviews came in, and this is slightly delayed. Still 87 (XBS), 88 (PC), and 88 (OC) for me.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
More like no 11/10 no but , on forums that is, Joe casual just buys .
Last edited:
Flutta
Banned
More like lied about it. NMS got shit on for years because they lied about the multiplayer. Starfield is protected by both Bethesda and Xbox shills all over the internet. The least we could do is call a spade a spade.
J3nga
Member
There will be a shitstorm on steam once the game is available to everyone come september 6th. Steam is a very harsh and toxic place that knows no mercy and shit like this won't fly. It takes years of updates just to get 'positive' reviews. But probably Todd Howard will get away by doing nothing thanks to modders.
Last edited:
SRTtoZ
Member
I get that but it's still a flaw when your game doesn't get interesting until the 10 hour mark. The same shit happened with FF13. "It opens up after the first 10 hours!! KEEP PLAYING!!". Fuck that. Not that Starfield is that bad but it's their job to pull people in before they give up on it. A few hours? Okay, 10 hours, not okay. I don't know about everyone else, but I value my time.
Read carefully, people are not happy with the game. And judging by discussion here, the score is way higher than it should.
I don't understand how can you make such medicore game given the budget, the time and manpower of Bethesda.
They could absolutely decide to make one of the best games ever with such resources. They could push the genre, perfect the game in some key areas, anything really.
But they decided to rehash their old ideas with their old engine, even more restrictive.
They don't get any inspiration from other games that came out in the past that set some standars for the industry.
The story and dialogue presentation is 15 years old, when in the meantime we had Witcher 3 for example. Even BG3 which is top down isometric games have better dialogue and story presentation that blows this out of the water.
Their design is archaic, the studio just craves mediocrity, and people simply justify it with: "yeah, it's Bethesda game".
Unknown Soldier
Member
Bethesda games are all about the crazy mods you can make for them. In many ways, the base game is almost an afterthought to the community.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
I saw a load of people complaining they had to run 300 metres to the objective lol.
Watch karaks review. He nails it for me.
This game looks amazing I need to check it out. Can I get out the ship when it lands and explore those bases etc in first or third person?
FunkMiller
Member
What is it about an industry stuffed with executives who only care about filling their own pockets that means you don’t understand when this type of thing happens?
I guess I'm a romantic
Also there are examples of studios who can convert the resources to awesome games: Elden Ring, BG3, Zeldas etc.
Ogbert
Member
I like NMS and it is an enjoyable sandbox game, but the idea that it has anything like as complex as Starfield is absurd. The reason why the seamless transition was possible was because the planets have next to nothing going on.To be fair to him,
I do not agree with this point, as there is plenty of stupid stuff (like the ones I shared) in the game that isn't grounded in realism at all.
The simplest explanation is the right one here: Bethesda couldn't figure out how to do seamless interplanetary and space exploration so they cut corners and barely taped together a fast-travel system so they can release the game.
What’s odd about the starfield planet travel is not the fact that there’s loading, simply that the UX design is so clunky. It should be like Destiny 2. Pick a planet, press a button.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
What should always concern you or whatever you want to put into these stupid reviews, is when you see high scores giving out like candy and you can't objectively look at the reviews that dissect the game properly and give it lower scores.
Even I don't want to admit with some of my favorite games that some of the parts doesn't negate enough of the flaws in order for that game to be a solid 9 versus maybe just a decent six or seven.
That's why you should objectively look into reviews and look at the flaws that a lot of people are finding and fundamental design issues. This is one of those cases that you cannot overlook the issues enough for it to score higher than a certain score. That's why you should raise an eyebrow at something really high when the issues that we've seen persist. And at the same time you can can't really expect this to be coupled anywhere near those titles that are riddled with less issues and also have much better stories and execution.
I certainly hope they don't have the same problems with the other scrolls or they really are in deep trouble.
Even I don't want to admit with some of my favorite games that some of the parts doesn't negate enough of the flaws in order for that game to be a solid 9 versus maybe just a decent six or seven.
That's why you should objectively look into reviews and look at the flaws that a lot of people are finding and fundamental design issues. This is one of those cases that you cannot overlook the issues enough for it to score higher than a certain score. That's why you should raise an eyebrow at something really high when the issues that we've seen persist. And at the same time you can can't really expect this to be coupled anywhere near those titles that are riddled with less issues and also have much better stories and execution.
I certainly hope they don't have the same problems with the other scrolls or they really are in deep trouble.
Slicker than your average
Banned
Yes. As much as I dispise eurogamer. Id take their review over someone called Xboxfanatic anyday of the week.."More established reviewers"
So bad?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Technically, that is not the case. NMS could stream one planet's data on a 100 MB/s HDD successfully. Bethesda could very easily stream a target planet's data with a 2.5 GB/s SSD.
The fact that Starfield does not have seamless transitions and manual landing and taking-off is mostly because of (1) archaic design decisions, (2) an outdated engine, and (3) the extra time it'd have taken Bethesda to do this.
Streaming the data would absolutely not be a problem -- regardless of complex quests or terrains etc, technically speaking.
zeldaring
Banned
LOL that guy sounds so annoying.