Mediocre Arachno-Lad
Banned
I still have no clue what the hell you're trying to say.When you make a choice, it unfolds in game world via simulation till it reaches the state you had chosen.
Any examples?
I still have no clue what the hell you're trying to say.When you make a choice, it unfolds in game world via simulation till it reaches the state you had chosen.
That people use the "it's not a space sim, it's skyrim in space" line to
Its also a game in a different setting then what you listed...How so? Starfield is a sci-fi action RPG
And?So is Mass Effect 3. What's your point?
What, you gonna tell me that Starfield has bigger scope because you can land on procedurally-generated planets with copy-pasted outposts?
Those poll results.
So much for "game of the generation".
How do choices in Baldurs Gate 3 play out via simulation??
Where did I say you personally said that?When did I personally say any of this in that post?
It's sci-fi. You don't have to be so desparate with splitting hairs, dawg.Its also a game in a different setting then what you listed...
Did you miss the part where Mass Effect 1 did that to the same capacity in 2007? And actually did it better, since you could navigate those planets on a rover that was pretty fun to control.So yes, procedurally generated space game in 2013 would have been a big deal to many as what other game in that setting would be doing that to compete with them?
The first Elite did that, along with a seemless simulated galaxy in 1984. Parkan did those things in 1997 as a first person action game. There're plenty games in the last 30 years to which Starfield doesn't compare favorably, including Bethesda's own titles. Not as an RPG, and especially fucking not, as a "space game".If it released in 2013, that couldn't factually be the case, as what other game would be compared to it where you are flying in space, going to planet, docking ships etc?
How do choices in Baldurs Gate 3 play out via simulation??
It's this generation's TitanfallThose poll results.
So much for "game of the generation".
Honestly, it's starting to feel like some of these guys only started gaming on the Xbox One and pretty much only play games that are exclusive to that platform and/or are on gamepass.
I get he wont have had the opportunity to play BG3 yet because it's yet to release on Xbox, but both Divinity OS games have the exact same systems in place when it comes to consequences and how they can manifest in the game world across a single save file.
These sorry dudes just need to play more games and broaden their horizons, it's as simple as that really.
It's this generation's Titanfall
Agreed.
What is insane, is its not even like Fallout 3, Fallout NV or Skyrim etc didn't have choice and consequences, those games 100% had those types of elements for anyone to really be asking why Starfield doesn't.
I think anyone making such RPGs should be considering making many choices based on BG3's reception.
Why would i hate the idea of being able to select a choice to throw someone out of the airlock? lol
That's harsh on Titanfall.
This is actually the most frustrating element in all of this. Bethesda have progressively been dumbing/watering down their RPG's from Oblivion onwards and we have now arrived at a point where Starfield barely shares anything in common with Morrowind as far as the RPG/immersion elements go.
Frankly it's inexcusable, so how anyone can say this is their best work with a straight face is beyond me. It barely classifies as an RPG (funnily enough, I also said that about Fallout 4 at the time of it's release and Starfield is even worse than that).
Same problem that Final Fantasy XVI had actuallyHmmm one is available on playstation and the other isn't. I'm not sure you're going to get a fair response on this one haha.
When you make a choice, it unfolds in game world via simulation till it reaches the state you had chosen.
It's hand written as well. Just much more involved compared to making a choice by reading text, then game adjusts a few NPCs and dialogue according to your choosing. It's simpler to do so developers are able to put more of them.
Apples to oranges comparison really.
Frankly it's inexcusable, so how anyone can say this is their best work with a straight face is beyond me.
Watch from 7:44
I still have no clue what the hell you're trying to say.
Any examples?
Why would it matter?
I don't see how the setting or genre being that different would change that tbh. You'd have to explain to us how that couldn't work cause we are having a hard time understanding how Starfield could not have the same complex web.
Watch from 7:44
It having different types of game design makes all the difference.
Having a Baldurs Gate 3 style complex web in Starfield style RPG will take forever to play test and stabilise. Nobody can make it.
Yet Baldur's Gate 3 exist.....
How did they do that?
Good things take time, if it will take a long time, its worth it to do. Look at Cyberpunk, they rushed that shit right out the door in 2020, yet BG3 went into early access...know why? Cause it wasn't done, sure it will take "forever to play test and stabilize" yet in 2023, its BG3 that is getting the praise for being as good as it is and Cyberpunk having years of people making fun of it.
I don't wish to have Starfield in that bunch...
So...maybe with its sequel, they can look into having a return to those crazy choices like, choose this faction and nuke this planet. We care about how great the game can be as gamers, not how long it might take them to test it, if I knew they could have those choices in like BG3 and it would take 3 years....I'd rather not have Starfield this year.
I love what this team does, this is not against how great the game currently is, merely that is understood it COULD be better based on how we know they did those choices in the past. So I like Starfield enough to want it to be the best it can be, we both know it can have those elements as its not like Fallout 3 was made from some magic dust or something lol
LONG LIVE MEGATON! lol
Oh I see the difference.Do you see difference in AI between something like Dishonoured 2 and something like Last of Us 2?
Uh-huh.Bethesda games use immersive sim style AI.
Oh I see the difference.
Dishonored 2, like all Arkane games, has dogshit AI, TLOU 2 easily topples it. Both games have the same AI states of idle/investigate/alert/combat, but TLOU 2 plays all of those out much better, in all aspects. You're confusing a simple high/low chaos system for something complex going on under the hood, but there's literally nothing else there.
It's not AI that makes Dishonored an immersive sim, but a consistant interactivity of the environment. Emergent gameplay.
You know, something that Baldur's Gate 3 also excells at. Which, I feel, is the most understated aspect of the game.
People celebrate Baldur's Gate 3 as an instant classic CRPG. Meanwhile, it's also one of the best immersive sims out there, second only to Prey 2017.
Saying that as someone who loves immersive sims, and despises tabletop-inspired diceroll-driven bullshit in my games.
Trying to fault BG3 for lack of simulated systems is a fool's errand.
Uh-huh.
Fallout 3 comparison is more apt. From what I am hearing, it should be comparable to Fallout 3.
Baldurs Gate 3 should be compared to games like Wasteland 3. If you wanna compare it to first person/ 3rd person games, then Bioware games are more comparable.
The choices in BG3 can have a character
- live or die.
- A character join your party,
- a character go to the city of Baldur's Gate cause you saved them and now they have missions for you.
Why the fuck would that be different in Starfield?
You can live or die, a character can join your crew or not, a character can go to a different city in the star system and be like "thank you for saving me from that lost space station, I have a job for you to thank you"
Nuking a town is merely an example, it is to show you choices can clearly exist with Bethesda's games.Yes, this how Baldurs Gate 3 plays. I understand the web of choices.
It's inherently different from nuking a town
lol stop man, they very much can be compared.That's how they are different and cannot be compared.
Nuking a town is merely an example, it is to show you choices can clearly exist with Bethesda's games.
lol stop man, they very much can be compared.
They have choices and effects from those choices, Starfield can have those same choices.
Because they are different, doesn't fucking mean THEY HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT 100%, that it makes zero sense and argues in favor of being inferior solely based on the idea of what they did in the past.
This is not 2008.
Such an excuse cannot fly and it simply makes no sense to argue in favor of less choice, less complex, less variety and less realism in regards to how humans make choices.
Saying that both games are different is fucking moot, that is the point we've been making btw, they are different in areas where Bethesda should be excelling in.
As in, from Fallout 3 nuke Megaton based on a choice
should EVOLVE TO
Starfield nuke planet based on a choice.
fuck you telling me? That would be bad in Starfield? Less is better? Dumbed down is better? The natural progression of their titles suggest that would be a concept that fits right in with Starfield and Bethesda should 100% be taking a strong look at what Baldur's Gate 3 is doing and their first DLC should be looking to implement those types of choices in the writing.
I don't even see how it benefits them TO NOT have more choices seeing the success of BG3, so if you love Starfield, shit you should want it to be striving to be the very best.
Before you start the "oh my God another thread", I would like to tell everyone that I want to discuss, not open wars between games, consoles, etc.
This is pure curiosity and discussion here.
So, first of all, I have not played Cyberpunk or Starfield. I have watched many videos about those games. Graphic analysis, tech analysis, gameplay analysis, meme videos and more. I have started playing video games in 1994 so I have some "experience" in gaming and I think that I understand a thing or two when I watch a video about a game.
Please note that I have played Witcher 3 from CDPR and Skyrim from Bethesda.
So all these days (after Starfield released), I am getting the sense that it is like Skyrim but in the future, the way characters talk, behave, walk, even running. I watched many videos that compare Starfield to older games claiming that older games like RDR2 are far better technically, graphically etc. Then I saw this video:
Why the hell Starfield looks so bland and un inspired. It is like they were bored when making this game. Is Cyberpunk 2077 better than Starfield?
He was wrong about the Crimson Fleet quest. You get chewed out by UC SysDef the first time you kill innocents when undercover (what he highlighted), but do it again and you get jailed and banished by UC SysDef, who then become your enemy and attack on sight as you have chosen the pirate life. You then have no option to see the quest through as a pirate.
This then forces your companions to question your motives (Did you just want the money? Are you just an evil bastard?)
If you’re gonna rant like a looney in a video, it helps to get your facts right and make sure you are correct!
Edit: Also, whilst doing this quest: 1) I ratted out a guy who was helping me do an early mission. He got thrown out the pirates and swore to avenge me. I was then duly jumped by him and a gang in space at some point later in the game. 2) I befriended certain other characters who then came back to help in the final big battle on that quest chain (which is pretty much exactly his point in how BG3 was so much better in this regard).
You're clearly not understanding what's being presented to you here.
What you're describing all happens within a single questline where the consequences of your actions are telegraphed. The example scenario given in BG3 doesn't even manififest itself as a result of a quest playing out (in fact, the actions that he took in wiping out the settlement weren't the result of a quest at all, it was the outcome from a random interaction). It's an example of where doing something random and seemingly cometely unrelated can have huge ramifactions further down the road, unbeknown to the player at the time of carrying out those actions.
And the bottom line here is that you can't even do the same sort of thing (or have the same sort of outcome) in Starfield because of the fact that they give every single NPC that might have meaning/significance at some point protected status.
It's almost as if the developers both didn't trust the player, and couldn't be bothered to account for the number of possibilities random player interactions would and could result in. So much for "simulation".
Starfield isn’t anywhere close to being as good as I’d hoped. I like it, but it’s so “safe” it’s almost offensive. The writing is legitimately terrible.
I haven’t touched Cyberpunk, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t a better game.
You’re clearly very condescending.
I understand perfectly what the guy in your video was saying about the crimson fleet quest, and I understand perfectly he was wrong. That is all.
Looking forward to your next snark!
The best critique for me, is absolutely this. Starfield is SAFE. I really enjoy the game, but it is Bethesda making a Bethesda game and not pushing the boat out or risking anything. It's literally, this works..the fans love it...give them more of that. But, this can make it feel sterile in places.
Pure comfort gaming for fans like myself. It delivers everything a fan expects from Bethesda and what is there, that is more, is extremely safe imo.
Great game, a solid 8.5 out of ten for me. I love it and will be playing it for years but it's not a groundbreaking achievement in the genre, like I hear balders gate 3 is.
It's almost as if the developers both didn't trust the player, and couldn't be bothered to account for the number of possibilities random player interactions would and could result in. So much for "simulation".
How's this for snark?:
"he's wrong if I ignore all the facts presented to me".
Saddest thing about all this? That this scenario described in BG3 is one you would have had the opportunity to manifest in Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and New Vegas. All previous Bethesda games. They've since streamlined almost every aspect of their games and treat their audience like dumb dumbs, removing as many as possible potential unintended questline fail states as possible.
As outlined, you cannot do the same thing (or similar) in Starfield because they don't allow you to. The end.
Starfield commits the worst sin of all. Not only are some people invincible (where they drop down on their knees but always recover), others quite simply don’t react to being shot at all - I hate that stuff!While I went into this game with the expectation you can kill mostly everyone because it's a Bethesda game, I happened to remember that I experienced invincible NPCs more than I should have in Fallout 4 as well sadly.
My guess is that this is a new IP and it was a design choice but not a good one imo. Everyone I know who played starfield all had this quick save moment of what if i shoot this companion or NPC. All of us were disappointed.
Kill everyone mod will definitely be one of first mods I download once my main playthrough is finished.
How's this for snark?:
"he's wrong if I ignore all the facts presented to me".
Saddest thing about all this? That this scenario described in BG3 is one you would have had the opportunity to manifest in Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and New Vegas. All previous Bethesda games. They've since streamlined almost every aspect of their games and treat their audience like dumb dumbs, removing as many as possible potential unintended questline fail states as possible.
As outlined, you cannot do the same thing (or similar) in Starfield because they don't allow you to. The end.
How is the base game in CP after the 2.0 update?
When i played it (on the hardest difficulty) i got overpowered so fast it got boring. I basically spread Contagion and some other stuff i don't remember and were done.
The best critique for me, is absolutely this. Starfield is SAFE. I really enjoy the game, but it is Bethesda making a Bethesda game and not pushing the boat out or risking anything. It's literally, this works..the fans love it...give them more of that. But, this can make it feel sterile in places.
Pure comfort gaming for fans like myself. It delivers everything a fan expects from Bethesda and what is there, that is more, is extremely safe imo.
Great game, a solid 8.5 out of ten for me. I love it and will be playing it for years but it's not a groundbreaking achievement in the genre, like I hear balders gate 3 is.