I'm worried that Starfield is gonna suck and here's my main reason for it

FrankWza said:
If you liked skyrim you're going to like starfield. Pretty simple. I think that's where expectations should be and where the bar has been set by the devs
Click to expand...
Pretty much.
Think Skyrim/Fallout in space....done.
If you didnt like Skyrim or Fallout then assume you wont like Starfield.

As for it sucking......I would almost avatar bet the game will NOT suck.
I just like Black Swan too much to get rid of the avatar any time soon.
 
Black_Stride said:
Pretty much.
Think Skyrim/Fallout in space....done.
If you didnt like Skyrim or Fallout then assume you wont like Starfield.

As for it sucking......I would almost avatar bet the game will NOT suck.
I just like Black Swan too much to get rid of the avatar any time soon.
Click to expand...

At this point I think it's less about if the game sucks (it'll likely be a quality experience) and more a question of will it be good enough to stand out in the market, to be something that sets a standard and shows MS 1P can compete in the AAA space better than they have over the past 10+ years.

That's the level of pressure it feels like is on Starfield now, especially after RedFall. And consider this is with a publisher MS acquired; if it feels like there is a downward trajectory in quality post-acquisition, I see no reason why anyone with a brain would want Microsoft to acquire yet more publishers.
 
Same here, Drizzle. When I saw the trailers, I thought, "It looks like Fallout 4 in space." That is a problem for me, because I did not like Fallout 4. I liked Fallout 3 a lot (as well as all the Elder Scrolls games I've played), but I got bored with Fallout 4. I just couldn't get into it. I think the main problems were the base-building, which felt like an annoying distraction to me, and my overall fatigue with Fallout's world and mechanics (e.g., rooting through one lifeless building after another for scrap).

When I watched Starfield trailers, I saw those same elements -- emphasis on building and crafting, tedious collection of resources, etc. The main difference, of course, is that the world(s) of Starfield will be different than the world of Fallout. Even there, though, I'm not seeing anything that draws me in. The art style seems rather dull, and the environments sterile/mechanical. Maybe they'll release more inspiring footage later.

I don't mean that Starfield will be a bad game. I expect it will review well and be a financial success. I'm just saying I don't like the Fallout 4 vibes I get from it.
 
Last edited:
Another settlement needs your help, now in space.

No thanks todd.


I haven't enjoyed a bethesda game in forever so hopefully they can rollback the years lol
 
feynoob said:
Grow up people. It's Bethesda. Stop overreacting.
200.gif
Click to expand...
That's right it is Bethesda. Same place that gave us fo76. I think we all agree it's gnna be shit then
 
from the gameplay videos available it's clearly has much better gunplay than Fallout 4, I think it will be a much better game
 
Black_Stride said:
You say that as if there are alot of games that use the Bethesda Game Studios formula.
Click to expand...

Maybe the formula has less market appeal in 2023 than it did in 2011 or 2016? All I'm saying is, there's been a lot of innovation in open-world RPGs since then, not just in terms of game systems but also immersion and level of interaction with the world, physics etc.

In some of those areas the Starfield footage that's been shown didn't look particularly impressive. IMO.
 
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
Maybe the formula has less market appeal in 2023 than it did in 2011 or 2016? All I'm saying is, there's been a lot of innovation in open-world RPGs since then, not just in terms of game systems but also immersion and level of interaction with the world, physics etc.

In some of those areas the Starfield footage that's been shown didn't look particularly impressive. IMO.
Click to expand...
Dont Do That Smh GIF by Harlem

You know nothing of what you are typing.
 
22•22 said:
Typical response from one that thinks in warrior mode. It's a thread about a game man. Fuck wherever it's released on.


So childish this sort of interpretation.

Nothing personal just see this bullshit a lot
Click to expand...
Its bs thread. Saying random shit to bash game. Creating needless FUD
 
I'm hoping it will be amazing and make me want to buy an x box. Fallout 3, NV and Skyrim are some of my all time favorite games. Fallout 4 was good to me but didn't have the same magic as 3 or NV. I actually liked the building aspect of it and ended up spending a lot of time there... I also played through it 4 or 5 times trying to create different character styles and I feel like it did allow for some fun builds. Like my fat Louie CK character who was low intelligence but super high luck. Would run into a room and everyone would kill themselves with ricochet. Stuff like that was great. Or the super stealth build with a silenced pistol where you could VATS everyone in a room without ever being noticed. Story was fine but nothing to write home about and there were some pretty great quests. But it definitely didn't feel like your choices made as much a difference as they did in the other games.
 
FrankWza said:
Recent headline topics are not random shit.
Click to expand...

Having an opinion and critique whilst taking lots of references into account isn't random shit as well.

This whole mindset where x game on platform x must have a agenda is so juvenile. (Although is does happen ofcoure)
 
feynoob said:
Dont Do That Smh GIF by Harlem

You know nothing of what you are typing.
Click to expand...

If Starfield's environments are as sterile as RedFall's, then yes it's gonna be a big problem. I don't just mean that in terms of the visuals but also level of physics and interactions. If I'm opening a chest I should be able to see my character's hands opening the chest. If I shoot a gas pipe I should expect to see gas constantly spewing out from where I shot it and continue doing so at least until I exit that area and come back, or maybe after some time lapse where the gas just stops coming out.

There are other games that do that stuff, even open-world ones, I'm expecting Starfield to have that type of interaction with the environment at least. I hope it's not like RedFall where everything uses the same bullet texture, or cars spontaneously blow up when shot in the tire, suck the fire back into themselves, and remain fully intact without breaking apart even though they've blown up.
 
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
If Starfield's environments are as sterile as RedFall's, then yes it's gonna be a big problem. I don't just mean that in terms of the visuals but also level of physics and interactions. If I'm opening a chest I should be able to see my character's hands opening the chest. If I shoot a gas pipe I should expect to see gas constantly spewing out from where I shot it and continue doing so at least until I exit that area and come back, or maybe after some time lapse where the gas just stops coming out.

There are other games that do that stuff, even open-world ones, I'm expecting Starfield to have that type of interaction with the environment at least. I hope it's not like RedFall where everything uses the same bullet texture, or cars spontaneously blow up when shot in the tire, suck the fire back into themselves, and remain fully intact without breaking apart even though they've blown up.
Click to expand...
Your first problem is comparing this game to redfall.
Your 2nd mistake is not understanding Bethesda world.

Their games are defining genre. From Morrowind to Skyrim, and apocalyptic world with fallout 3-4.

I think Bethesda knows what they are doing. Their world building is high-class. The only one that I can consider it higher than them are Rockstar with red dead and GTA. Other than that, no one is close to them.

Their last open world is fallout 4. Even with weak combat, they delivered stellar world.

Starfield is going to be ok and will have a huge world that players can interact with. It's not going to have the mess that is redfall.

The only problem is creation engine that they are using.
 
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
If Starfield's environments are as sterile as RedFall's, then yes it's gonna be a big problem. I don't just mean that in terms of the visuals but also level of physics and interactions. If I'm opening a chest I should be able to see my character's hands opening the chest. If I shoot a gas pipe I should expect to see gas constantly spewing out from where I shot it and continue doing so at least until I exit that area and come back, or maybe after some time lapse where the gas just stops coming out.

There are other games that do that stuff, even open-world ones, I'm expecting Starfield to have that type of interaction with the environment at least. I hope it's not like RedFall where everything uses the same bullet texture, or cars spontaneously blow up when shot in the tire, suck the fire back into themselves, and remain fully intact without breaking apart even though they've blown up.
Click to expand...
Just go back and play Skyrim and you'll know what you'll get.

Bethesda focus on object interactivity, and everything is affected by physics, you'll probably be able to pick up and look at every cup and build a tower of them, and wreck it all down, if you want.

And the physics engine will probably be a complete mess sometimes and you'll see space mammoths flying in the air. It's always like that. Embrace it, just makes the first impressions more fun, the game can still be awesome.

I doubt you'll be able to blow a hole in the ground or break a door or anything like that though. It'll most likely be a static world with extremely high object interactivity. Player avatar animations improve with every Bethesda Maryland release but don't expect any Rockstar animations here, hopefully that means it'll play better.
 
Last edited:
GhostNTheBashShell said:
Seriously, Bethesda has been the same since day 1. A main story that's like 7 hours long but the open world is so interesting that finishing the main story is basically coming to the finality of your playthrough, however long that is. After 150 hours of Skyrim I finished the game lol.


See: every Bethesda game, Starfield has no reason to deviate. There's NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING like a Bethesda game.
Click to expand...
This man gets it. People aren't still playing Skyrim and Fallout 4 because of all the dumb and shitty reasons people keep using to knock Bethesda games. There is some underlying magic there which is tough to quantify, something Bethesda does so much better than all other devs who might have prettier games with more sound mechanics.
 
Dirk Benedict said:
I want to see system requirements. That will be the fuse starter. I've seen some placeholder shit, but watch it end up being a 3090 or some shit(phew) for Ultra 4k.
Click to expand...
lol u be lucky if it will end up wanting 3090 at 4k

it will most likely require a 4080 with dlss /balanced to hit a barely consistent 60 fps at 4k. mark my words. 3090 may scrape by at 55 60 fps at 1440p dlss q

game will be horribly optimized. i await 700 800p 30 fps on series s with extremely downgraded and watered down graphics + 1250 1300p 30 fps on x with severe cutbacks and still drop frames here and there

it will simply be a disaster, this much I'm sure. Starfield , if bethesda let alone, would be a game they'd most likely release in the tail end of 2024. but they're probably crunched to death which will cause disasterous results
 
Gorgon said:
I don't believe it's gonna suck. If I had an Xbox or gaming PC I'd just wait for a few reviews to be sure it doesn't stink, but I belive I'd buy it at launch, no prob. It won't be kingdom come, but it won't be worse than FO4 either. I think you guys are safe.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm probably gonna get it too unless it comes out and it's like a total disaster on Fallout 76's scale. Probably gonna get my money's worth anyway, even if it will have all those things from Fallout 4 that I hated. The setting alone just makes my nipples too erect.

GenericUser said:
Nice 200 word essay
Click to expand...
95c.jpg
 
Daneel Elijah said:
Redfall is a game that should not be out as the first 70 $ game from Microsoft. If they can give us this and be happy of the state it is now, they can do anything. I do not remember a Sony or Nintendo game that was in this state.
Click to expand...

I mean I don't want to get into list wars here but there have been some notable missteps by Sony and Nintendo. In terms of mulitplayer - plenty of examples of MP titles that were deficient at launch by all these publishers.

I think it would have been better if MS hadn't made Arkane throw away the PS5 work. Knowing they'd be releasing it to sink or swim on PS at $70 may have woken them up - especially if Sony had been able to see it pre-release and give their independent opinion. But anyway, here we are.

Daneel Elijah said:
With more of the game as a day one patch than in the disk. With bugs that are obvious but let in anyway. In a state that is contrary to what has been promised and taken for granted (60 fps). The fact that they either were thinking that Redfall was acceptable to publish in this state or was doomed so better gain whatever money you can recoup with it is not what we should be wanting from a console maker like Xbox.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending Redfall or Xbox - yes Redfall is a poor quality product and what's worse, it's a First party release at full price. That doesn't mean what follows has to be bad as Sony and Nintendo have proven before. Different teams, different games, different objectives.
 
Fredrik said:
Just go back and play Skyrim and you'll know what you'll get.

Bethesda focus on object interactivity, and everything is affected by physics, you'll probably be able to pick up and look at every cup and build a tower of them, and wreck it all down, if you want.

And the physics engine will probably be a complete mess sometimes and you'll see space mammoths flying in the air. It's always like that. Embrace it, just makes the first impressions more fun, the game can still be awesome.

I doubt you'll be able to blow a hole in the ground or break a door or anything like that though. It'll most likely be a static world with extremely high object interactivity. Player avatar animations improve with every Bethesda Maryland release but don't expect any Rockstar animations here, hopefully that means it'll play better.
Click to expand...

But that's kind of the worry; being able to pick up a ton of objects, look at them, scatter them around is great but what if objects that should break don't break? What if the way they fall is static and not dynamic enough? And they can't really afford to have glitches pop up due to the physics like a flying space mammoth unless that mammoth ironically looks alien enough that you can believe it's able to fly, but if it's T-posing while doing so...😬

What I'm basically saying is I think it needs to have some noticeable advances in how you can interact with things, regardless of its scale because other open-world games have been increasing levels of interactivity (at least in terms of dynamic physics with objects) to where more of the world feels like an actual place instead of just window dressing. Especially with how much MS are putting into this game and the funding they should be able to provide. I know their Creation Engine has its limitations but enough overhauls should have been put in place for Starfield and better to do them now than wait for the next Fallout or Elder Scrolls to do them then.
 
Drizzlehell said:
Surprising, considering that there are more versions of Skyrim than there are moons around Jupiter.
Click to expand...
It's easier to see when think about it. People like guns more than swords and FO4 incorporated "mods" into the main gameplay, then the creation center even moreso, the games are basically endless sandboxes.
 
You guys know how many games lets you play them while they are still downloading? Thats game development now. We can play the games while they are still being developed.
 
I loved Skyrim and whilst I didn't love Fallout 4, I did enjoy it for the most part, so I'm still pretty optimistic that Starfield will be a great game. The only genuine concern I have for the game is that combat ends up being a bit lacklustre. Fingers well and truly crossed.
 
Markio128 said:
I loved Skyrim and whilst I didn't love Fallout 4, I did enjoy it for the most part, so I'm still pretty optimistic that Starfield will be a great game. The only genuine concern I have for the game is that combat ends up being a bit lacklustre. Fingers well and truly crossed.
Click to expand...
I'm really just waiting to see what the new combat gimmick is, if it even exists. We know it'll have the same shooting, stealth, melee as always.

No magic this time. Probably not VATS. There's something else missing. I guess flight counts, but hoping for another core combat element.
 
Last edited:
ToadMan said:
I mean I don't want to get into list wars here but there have been some notable missteps by Sony and Nintendo. In terms of mulitplayer - plenty of examples of MP titles that were deficient at launch by all these publishers.

I think it would have been better if MS hadn't made Arkane throw away the PS5 work. Knowing they'd be releasing it to sink or swim on PS at $70 may have woken them up - especially if Sony had been able to see it pre-release and give their independent opinion. But anyway, here we are.



I'm not defending Redfall or Xbox - yes Redfall is a poor quality product and what's worse, it's a First party release at full price. That doesn't mean what follows has to be bad as Sony and Nintendo have proven before. Different teams, different games, different objectives.
Click to expand...
Understandable. No need for list wars. And I should not talk about Redfall without having played it first too. I think that the game is already a 70$ sink or swim game with PC so putting it on the PS5 would not have changed much, especially as Microsoft would care even less of the reception there. Only a Sony block would have changed things, but I doubt it. Your last paragraph is were I strongly disagree. in general, yes I would agree with you. A lot of redemption storied exist. And we do not always need to wait for the next game as No man's sky proves even a bad game can get really good with time and efforts.

But this is different. Redfall problem is not that it is a bad game. It is that it is a bad game that got a 1 year delay. And the second game that had the same problem after Halo Infinite under Xbox management. We have a french proverb: Never two without three. It makes me really afraid of Starfield being the third one. Failures can happen, but they often have reasons behind it. Redfall should not be out in this state. And this is Xbox fault. I asked you for a Sony/ Nintendo equivalent because even if a game can be shit first party are at least polished in general.No need to, just a honest reminder that this is not what first party is/ should be.
I should not be worried about Starfield, as they are made by another studio, with a different engine, and none of the GAAS/ coop elements that can fuck up a game that Redfall had. But I am worried. Worried that Xbox will decide that they need a Spiderman 2 answer no matter the cost. Worried that they need a AAA game in 2023 more than they need a GOTY 2024 game. Worried that the Xbox "mierdas touch" is real and not just warrior bullshit. I should not. But I am. And sadly there is reasons to be, if the rumors of Starfield having a rough dev time are true.
 
Punished Miku said:
I'm really just waiting to see what the new combat gimmick is, if it even exists. We know it'll have the same shooting, stealth, melee as always.

No magic this time. Probably not VATS. There's something else missing. I guess flight counts, but hoping for another core combat element.
Click to expand...
If the shooting feels as good as COD/Destiny, etc., then it won't really need any gimmicks - however, haphazard performance would kill that one stone dead. Hopefully the show in June can alleviate these fears a little.
 
Markio128 said:
If the shooting feels as good as COD/Destiny, etc., then it won't really need any gimmicks - however, haphazard performance would kill that one stone dead. Hopefully the show in June can alleviate these fears a little.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it wont obviously. Typically you expect less flawless action controls, and more tactical options like an RPG. Guess we'll see.
 
Punished Miku said:
Yeah, but it wont obviously. Typically you expect less flawless action controls, and more tactical options like an RPG. Guess we'll see.
Click to expand...
From what little they have shown, it appears to be real-time gun combat for the most part. It looked decent enough indoors, but not so good in the outdoor sections - it just looked a bit choppy to me. Saying that, Cyberpunk was the same really and I enjoyed that game. Hopefully, you can go in full-crack stealth mode. I think that is how I'd like to play the game anyway. I mostly enjoyed Skyrim as a ranger.
 
I don't think Todd Howard games have changed much since Daggerfall except the graphics have gotten better. If you like Todd Howard games, you'll probably like Starfield. If you don't, you probably won't.

Mods are always the real star of Todd Howard games anyways.
 
I don't think it will be a bad game, per se. It's a Bethesda game using Bethesda formula, since FO3, but now in space. It will most probably review good. High 80's to early 90's Meta even.

But as with the tradition of every singleplayer Bethesda game, it will be broken tier bugfest garbage at launch.

Thumb rules before playing any upcoming Bethesda SP RPG:

1. Try to play the game on PC, if possible for the best experience. Mods - cosmetic, content and performance, give you a game that almost is a brand new one compared to the limited set of developer/publisher curated mods on console.

2. Wait a year for the bugs to be fixed, by either the community or the devs themselves, a stable release that you can play from start to finish, expansions are a bonus.
 
Cmon gamers, its not that complicated.

Was skyrin a downgrade frim Oblivion? Yes...in both quest writing (procedural generation), loot variety, guilds, and rpg elements and attributes. Casuals and 20 year olds are the only ones who dont know the damn difference.

Fallout 4 was a step even further in that direction, and then fallout 76 was another example of their inability to have a modern engine.

I loved bethesda up to oblivion, but have no faith starfield will have the creative quests, or thorough rpg elements it once did.

Maybe instead of going crazy towards games like cyberpunk and CDPR whom actually are ambitious and have creative writing for their quests, we realize which devs are actually phoning it in for sake of quantity
 
Despite the fact that you qualify the idea that you want it to be good, ot seems more like you want it to be bad. At this point the glass is still half full......
 
It could go either way. I think the biggest danger for this game is that it's just like their other rpgs...in space. Which I guess would be fine but unless they really work on reinventing their old formula then I will probably lose interest quickly. Haven't been able to stomach another playthrough FO4 or Skyrim.
 
I'm still not concerned, but Redfall and the weird conjecture about MS being hands-off is certainly not helping.

I just think Starfield is so much more important, and if it fails I just don't see what MS could do to revive the brand in time.

That's usually enough motivation for companies to get it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PS5 Dualsense is pish for one main reason
2 3
103
879
onQ123 replied
The Real Reason Games Suck
2
64
4K
Ogbert replied
  • Poll
[POOL] - Which is your main gaming platform and why?
Social  3 4 5 6 7
309
677
Dr.Morris79 replied
I'm a bit worried.....
6 7 8 9 10
483
29K
Pejo replied
I bought Funko Fusion for the PS5... I had my reason.
7
630
Super Lemon Drop replied
Top Bottom