this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
67 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30557 readers
261 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
Whom@beehaw.org
The_Hunted_One@beehaw.org
chloyster@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
67
Bethesda responding to negative Starfield reviews on Steam (www.eurogamer.net)
submitted 11 months ago by Hdcase@beehaw.org to c/gaming@beehaw.org
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Thalestr@beehaw.org 45 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

The title made me think they were responding to users that needed customer support, but no. This:

Meanwhile, when another user lamented the amount of loading screens, the support team replied imploring the reviewer to "consider the amount of data for the expansive gameplay that is procedurally generated to load flawlessly in under three seconds".

is just pathetic. This is nothing more than low-effort damage control. Which, funnily enough, is rather fitting for Starfield in general. It's not a terrible game but it absolutely fell flat on its face on its biggest selling points. Procedural exploration will always have drawbacks but No Man's Sky absolutely smashes Starfield in this department and it came out nearly 8 years ago and made by a team a fraction of the size. And I don't expect Bethesda to put in the same effort as Hello did and make Starfield live up to its promises

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago (3 children)

but No Man's Sky absolutely smashes Starfield in this department

I had high hopes for No Man's Sky based on how people talked about it but was left underwhelmed. I found it boring and repetitive.

Starfield took a lot longer before it started feeling that repetitive (to me.) I put many more hours into Starfield (than NMS) without even thinking about it.

I just rolled credits on Starfield last night and went back to keep playing because I have a ton of unfinished quests and some goals for building my spaceship. With No Man's Sky I felt like there was nothing else to find.

(All that said, I do find a lot of the writing pretty lackluster, the planets now feel boring to look at and now predictable as to what will be there, and I do not particularly enjoy running around trying to find the last things to scan for very little payoff.)

[–] 0x442e472e@feddit.de 4 points 11 months ago

The best summary for NMS I have read is "huge but shallow". There is so much stuff to do, but everything is so shallow that it becomes boring very fast

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 4 points 11 months ago

I agree about NMS, I can't bring myself to try it again. The original feeling that everything is the same is still with me, even after reading reviews of updates.

[–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Spoilers Here

Yeah, I ended up feeling the same about Starfield as I did about NMS. A huge universe that's wildly unrewarding in every way possible. And getting to the end of Starfield, the NG+ feels exactly like getting to the center of the galaxy in NMS. Completely pointless.

The main quest of Starfield had literally no impact on the world at large. And don't get me wrong, that's totally fine. As long as it has an impact on something. But it doesn't. It all boils down to "no one can know about this" and where you stand on the issue, which in itself its meaningless because no matter where you stand, the outcome is exactly the same. You just run in circles and your choices have no effect on anything.

The side quests and faction quests are pretty good. But that's about it. The ship building system is painful, the outpost building system is so fucking bad I don't even know where to start, and it takes hours upon hours to go through levelling up, doing skill challenges, as well as research, to even get to a point where any of it is rewarding, and even then it isn't actually rewarding. At least the settlement crafting in NMS felt like building a cool house and a rad looking planet. Whereas Starfield, settlements are just massive pain in the ass mines and manufacturers.

[–] SenorBolsa@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I got my monies worth out of it, but yeah, it's missing the mark compared to their previous games.

[–] LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 29 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"The game's actually really good! Trust me guys!"

  • Average everyday game player Hodd Toward
[–] Toribor@corndog.social 1 points 11 months ago

It just works.

[–] ConstableJelly@beehaw.org 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This doesn't strike me as a bad move on their part. From the way the responses are worded, this feels very much like it's intended to counterbalance negative impressions specifically for potential buyers who might otherwise be swayed by negative comments.

If I'm on the fence about something, I can be pretty easily swayed by a negative review that enumerates things that I'm specifically on the lookout for. Like if I saw one of those reviews that said bad story and boring gameplay, I would find myself think "sounds like the Bethesda formula hasn't updated enough for me," but I could be swayed back then other way by a dev response that enthusiastically mentions the exploration and crafting. "Maybe there's enough here for me that I don't need to bother with the story."

Is it underhanded? Maybe. But it seems like a no-lose scenario either way for Bethesda.

[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 12 points 11 months ago

This doesn't strike me as a bad move on their part.

It reeks of desperation.

[–] averyminya@beehaw.org 3 points 11 months ago

I would agreeish, but from a different perspective. However,

"consider the amount of data needed to load procedural assets in under 3 seconds" is a laughable response considering the very real criticism of having so many god damn menus, all of which revolve around picking things on a map.

They have the tools to make the game however they want. I find it pretty insane that there's no consistency in how the game allows you to fast travel in space - sometimes you can select a solar system/planet and travel right from there, no map required. Other times you get to a planet and then you can't land on the planet until you open the map and "fast travel" to it, even though you're right there.

And the response says "consider" no, no I won't consider something you should have optimized before release lmao. It is how it is now and that's what I'm considering, and I've decided that it's got potential and in it's current state it sucks.

And I actually liked the game. I did not like NG+ whatsoever though. Disappointing

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's not a terrible game. I still inexplicably have hundreds of hours put into it. (according to Xbox achievements I'm one of only 6% to bother reaching level 50)

Their comment about being a different experience each time is disingenuous, though. The only major questline that "feels" any different is The crimson Fleet storyline, which I loved and legitimately had a tough decision about which way to go.

But Vanguard, Rangers, etc... are all variations on the same missions with a different faction slapped on them. It's all pretty generic stuff with the occasional cool mission tossed in. (Ryujin, for example was far to easy and uncreative until the very last mission, which was legitimately fun)

Settlements and outposts are entirely pointless. You can ignore them completely. And you never have to visit a random mining/civilian/science outpost if you don't want to. Which to me seems like a negative. If a major feature of your game can safely be ignored, you haven't integrated it properly into the larger narrative.

But yet somehow I still have just about 250 hours into it. I don't know why. Probably the ship building, which is fun as hell.

[–] Stillhart@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

(according to Xbox achievements I’m one of only 6% to bother reaching level 50)

When everyone gets to try it for free via Gamepass, you're going to get very different statistics than when everyone has to shell out the money for the game and fight through the shit gameplay thanks to sunk cost fallacy.

[–] averyminya@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago

What's the comparison score on Steam?

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 11 months ago

Sad

[–] Enzy@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

This game sure removed any hopes I had for TES6

[–] Faydaikin@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Not trying to get up your hopes. That would just be cruel of me.

But TES is still their flagship IP. It's likely to get a more "cautious" treatment than both Starfield and Fallout.

Starfield was Bethesdas version of "ambitious". And Fallout is just a testing grounds for whatever is trending.

[–] Enzy@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Using the same engine no doubt

I don't want a more graphically fancy Skyrim copy paste..... Again.

[–] Faydaikin@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago

Yes, they've been quite clear about not wanting to use anything else.