And some people were annoyed it didn't win game of the year...
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
213 points (92.8% liked)
Games
16407 readers
1206 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Most average game of the year.
Bethesda hasn't innovated in years, they depend nearly entirely on the name alone
and modders.
Let us all remember that one time that they thought that monetizing the mods was a good idea and a massive amount of Steam users demolished them online. Like oh you want to make awful games, make that money, then have modders make cool content that makes it worth playing, and then have the balls to ask for a cut of what they’re selling it for?
And guess what? They still do that. And the fallout 76 store and subscription is something I will never forget.
One of the games of the year!
The universe of Elder Scrolls: Spacerim just feels… strangely sparse and uninteresting, even in a lot of the places that should be interesting.
If this came out 5-6 years ago, it’d be a different story, but there’s frankly too many competitors that have done space RPG as good or better than Todd has with his latest entry.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Some people will worship anything Bethesda puts out, even when it's mid at best
load more comments
(3 replies)
I mean, I actually like the game, but I will say that anyone that thought it deserved GOTY awards is delusional and presumably in a tiny minority to think it. It wasn't even plausible that it would even win best RPG when it came out the same year as Baldur's Gate 3. Starfield may not be a terrible game, but it's definitely not great either. It's thoroughly mediocre.
Starfield is one of the most bland games ever made. Modders can't fix it or want too. This is not Fallout or Elder Scrolls. We are talking about a new Intellectual Property (IP) and it was sub-bar at release. To make people care and want to mod it. You need give them something good. Bethesda failed at this for Starfield.
Also I tried of "Bethesda release another mid game, but the modders will save it.". Can we stop this. People need to hold them to a higher standard.
Anecdotally but this is why I felt there were less interesting fallout 4 mods to me than NV despite there being more of them.
At the end of the day, people don't want to work really hard to polish a turd when they could be working on improving a flawed gem instead. New Vegas has much better meat on it's bones even if it's the same bones as 3 and 4. Starfield is like someone put a bunch of unflavored tofu on all those bones and tried to sell it as premium ribs.
Please fix your text.
Modders will fix it.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I still don't get why my parents couldn't come to my wedding
Or why my parents are UC citizens despite me having a Freestar background
Or why my parents aren't religious despite me having the Enlightened background
Or why my parents seem to exist just to give me grandma's UC marine armor (but we're Freestar?????) and an ass terrible ship my dad won in a poker game
It's a typical sign that the game lacks polish.
I don't think making the parents Polish will help anything.
Every game needs more Polish
Cyberpunk 2077 had a ton of Polish and look how it was at launch.
Got it for free with my GPU. still feel ripped off. its just so incredible boring.
Makes you wonder what they spent all that development time doing? It's not like they had to reinvent the wheel and make an all new engine.
I've sunk more time into it than it deserves and I think maybe 50% of the content that feels unfinished or half baked might have been gutted. It feels like there was more there at one point and it got hacked off and spackled over.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Same. I got two copies, actually. One with my CPU and the other with my GPU. My daughter and I both lost interest after the first day when I asked her last week if she had played it at all.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Im just sitting here wondering how anyone thought this was going to be good in the first place. Every bit of trailer or gameplay footage has made me meh from day one. "Looks like skyrim but in space" ive played skyrim.... to death.... changing the theme to space isnt exiting. Its cheap.
When I first heard about it I was excited and then I looked it up and realized it's a Bethesda game. So then I thought, Yeah I don't trust them I think I'll leave it.
They will keep doing this as long as people put up with the fact that they make crap half the time. Don't pre-order stuff just wait until it comes out and if it's good buy it otherwise no.
It's their problem that they are on a 20 year old game engine and refuse to use something more modern, and it's also their problem they don't have a quality control department. Why do we have to suffer for their mistakes?
I haven't pre-ordered a game since 2011. They aren't usually playable for a few weeks at least after launch anyway. The trend is becoming a year or two wait for games to get to the state promised pre-launch. By then they are heavily discounted or in some cases free to play. Just a way better deal.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I never got the Starfield hype either, Bethesda lost their touch years ago and proc gen rarely makes things good. I suspected it would be very average like other Bethesda games and it was.
Those auto generated planets sure tricked a lot of people. The idea of thousands of planets to explore to find out they are all generic empty spaces I bet has been fun for people to have to acknowledge
Why did people ever think that was going to work I don't know. It never even worked in No Man's Sky, the reason people consider that game good now has nothing to do with the procedural generation.
Yeah, I fell out of love with Bethesda with Skyrim, and I've never been big on scifi, so I knew it wasn't going to be for me, but even with my lowered expectations, it just looked so incredibly generic.
I guess, I forgot to factor in that it's also a AAA title. Those are, of course, prohibited by law from containing any resemblance of fun. But yeah, I don't know, it just looked like generic space game + generic shooter + generic Bethesda game. And then, as you've said, we've seen plenty games in each of those categories. Merely combining the categories, doesn't yet make for a good game.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Based on everything I've heard of it, this seems a bit too high.
It's probably about right. It's a decent game, it just doesn't hit the heights of Skyrim, and it doesn't completely deliver on an immersive, excellently executed space game either. It's just... enjoyably mid.
It's not. I personally love the game, but it has a lot of flaws and that number seems about right to me. I think it's a better game than Fallout 4.
Some of the storylines are fantastic, but they're pretty disjointed from the rest of the world. Some of them feel like they have loose ends that didn't get finished in time.
There are several game systems that are neat, but unfinished, and superfluous.
I really don't understand the dog pile this game has gotten.
I really don't understand the dog pile this game has gotten.
It's similar to the situation Cyberpunk 2077 faced. When expectations are set extremely high, nothing can meet them, and Starfield fell far short of the immense hype it generated. And frankly, the mistakes Starfield made are the same issues people have been criticizing Bethesda for since Fallout 3, and even earlier with Oblivion, depending on who you ask. Combined with Fallout 76's disastrous PR and release, this has left many people frustrated with Bethesda. Consequently, there's a strong wave of negativity surrounding the game.
For what it's worth, I'm a big fan of Bethesda's formula, and I genuinely enjoyed Starfield. However, I'm not surprised by the negative reactions. In fact, I'm somewhat glad that people are expressing their disappointment because Bethesda has a unique style, and I don't want to see them stay stuck in this creative rut. If they finally genuinely listen to the complaints, there are a lot of valuable suggestions they could benefit from.
This will sound weird, but I believe these complaints stem from a place of love for Bethesda's games. People know that Bethesda is capable of so much more, and that's why they are so passionate. Other game companies don't inspire this level of passion. Hence why I feel it is reminiscent of the negativity that surrounded Cyberpunk 2077. Both games were genuinely good, but they felt generic, safe, and they were overhyped and well below the potential of their respective developers.
The negativity doesn't make it a bad game, it really is a lot of fun. But it is warrented all the same.
P.S. I agree that some of the story lines in Starfield were fantastic, especially the faction quest lines.
Edit: Someone replied to this and then deleted it saying something to the effect of, "Cyberpunk's biggest issue is that it tried to run on old consoles, while Starfield's biggest issue is that it feels old and outdated".
Which in a lot of ways is very true. In adding my 2 cents regarding the "complaint dog pile" on Starfield, I only intended to compare the two games hype and lack of quality compared to what fans expect from their respective publishers as a way to explain why Starfield (and Cyberpunk) got more vocal hate than worse games.
I realize that my comment makes it sound like I'm saying both games have similar design issues, which I do not believe to be the case. Fwiw, I think Cyberpunk was a much more enjoyable and polished game than Starfield.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I am fine with most of the game. It's basically what I expected from a Bethesda game.
Two things stand out for me in different ways:
- The space travel feels implemented in a way that seems to show their helplessness in getting it right. It ends up with a weird mix of Freelancer and just lazy fast travel and the game doesn't portrait a clear line for me what it would actually expect me to do with it and how they would like me to travel. Especially since even the "manual" travel involves a lot of kinda-fast-travel steps. It's just weird.
- No maps in cities. It's the damn future with space travel across the universe and they forgot how to cartograph cities or planets? Come on!
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
It's an ok game.
Had a few plot points in the UC quest line that were cool. I liked that zero g casino fight.
Inventory management was shit, but that's pretty common to the creater.
Base building didn't really interest me in Fallout 4, and didn't do much for me here either. The crafting was weird. I don't like using my combat feats to make better sandwiches.
The ship customization was cool, but since you are just jumping to your destination it didn't matter much for my playthrough.
The proc gen planets were predictably empty feeling. I was worried about that after they said they were putting 1000 in. No way they could hand generate enough content to fill that, which was their strength in The Elder Scrolls.
I suspect they got caught up in the No Man's Sky hype and forgot to use their core strengths. Combine this with not enough innovation on their weaknesses and it was mid.
If they would have done an Expanse scale game, set within our solar system, where you had 2 large terrestrial planets, a number of asteroid bases, and kept their scale in check they may have been able to pull it off. But it felt just too stretched out.
I think that 7/10 review guy was right.
Base building and space ship building has definitely evolved!
Unfortunately, there's ZERO REASON to do any of it.
Even worse, newgame+, which IS required for the full Starfield experience, wipes all of your creations. What a incredibly mind boggling game decision.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I put it down after 25 hours a couple months ago and keep forgetting about it. The thought of moving inventory between my pack, the ship, and that box in the ...what's that building called where the group you joined live? I can't even remember what I was doing, or who that group was. I just can't inventory anymore.
You can prolly do the classic Bethesda "console command max carrying capacity and ignore inventory management at every turn" maneuver
load more comments
(3 replies)
Not surprised. It's OK. Played 40 hours and then got bored. Haven't touched it since. No real incentive to go back to it.
This game reminded me of how awesome no man's sky is and how I'd rather just play that. Curious if they will make a second after that horrible launch?
Man just take starfields art direction, fps combat, and NPCs (no man's sky's NPCs are too dull.) mixed into no man's sky and i'd be thrilled!! I hate the "cartoony" style, extra vibrant colors of NMS and the gunplay is absolutely atrocious, but swap that with starfield and you'd have a real gem.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I liked it. the problem is I feel very little temptation to play it again. it's not a bad game to be frank, but it's not a genre defining game either and obviously a lot of people are dissapointed with that.
I'll get in again once DLC drops and some good mod work is done. but for now I think the 100 hours I spent were fine, but enough at this point
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›