Ulysses 31
Member
Consequence is that you might like the game less since you're skipping the side quests.
-
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.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I personally was not trying to be "idiotic" about bringing it up I was not going to bring up a spoiler I haven't seen here yet
Banjo64
cumsessed
And you must only play it when there’s a full moon.Here is the correct way to play Starfield for it to be a 10/10 experience:
Wasn’t calling you out. Seeing it all over twitter and reddit.
drganon
Member
If you dont, your copy of starfield turns into redfall.And you must only play it when there’s a full moon.
Topher
Gold Member
I've played enough of the main quest line to figure out why folks are saying to complete it first and I'm not doing it. I'd say play the main quest up to the point where it becomes clear. It is fairly early in the quest line. At that point, you will have enough info to decide for yourself. I really don't think it is a reason to bypass all the side content personally.
For those who want to know more, here's an example.
For those who want to know more, here's an example.
When you played Skyrim, if you still played side quests even after you learned shouts then I'd say that's the way to play Starfield. That's what I'm going to do.
Giallo Corsa
Gold Member
G'damn steam forums man 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gudji
Member
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Here is the correct way to play Starfield for it to be a 10/10 experience:
That wouldn't be a problem if an initial playthrough wasn't ~ 20 hours. I actually like the concept of a game that opens up more with successive New Game+ playthroughs, maybe with new story beats and paths you can do based on items gained near the end of previous playthroughs. But those initial playthroughs need to be brisk, like 5 hours or something like that, and the game has to be explicitly built around the concept and advertise that to players upfront.
Hopefully some modern AAA game comes along which does it the right way. Starfield doesn't seem to be that game.
Last edited:
Matt_Fox
Member
Bernoulli
M2 slut
first impressions
A theoretical Han Solo simulator has long been our dream game. For decades there’s been almost nothing that comes even close to that idea and now suddenly there’s both Starfield and Star Wars Outlaws. Neither is exactly what we had in mind, but we can only hope that they’re both successes, so that it encourages even more space travel games and more chances at a dream come true.
From that perspective alone we were very much looking forward to Starfield, even if the almost complete lack of hands-ons previews was highly suspicious. Bethesda has never taken criticism well though and so it was little surprise to find them trying to withhold review copies until the last minute – although the bizarre logic they used for who did and didn’t get a copy until now was certainly unexpected.
Their actions immediately birthed a host of conspiracy theories but, as ever, the simplest explanation was the correct one: they were trying to hide the fact that the game’s not very good. It’s also not very bad, but the one thing we didn’t expect is what a poor first impression the game makes. And that is likely what Bethesda has been most concerned about.
If we were scoring Starfield’s marketing campaign we’d give it a straight 10/10, as that 30 minute preview at the Xbox Games Showcase was fantastic and seemed to suggest a classic for the ages – a sci-fi version of Skyrim that allowed you to do anything and go anywhere. However, last year’s gameplay footage gave a truer picture of the game, where it was more obvious that it was the same old Elder Scrolls/Fallout formula, just with a slightly different coat of paint.
We’ve played around three or four hours now, including the first three story missions and a few side activities; the game starts out with you cast as a lowly miner, who discovers a mysterious metal artefact that a semi-secret group of explorers called Constellation have been looking for. Touching the artefact gives you a brief vision (that is highly reminiscent of a similar scene in Mass Effect) which instantly convinces a Constellation rep to give you their spaceship and robot, and induct you into their club.
None of this makes much sense but it all moves along at a welcomingly fast pace. Naturally, the first mission is a tutorial in all but name and it introduces you to all the core elements of the gameplay. You also get a first impression of the game’s visuals and while the underground cave you find yourself in looks fairly good, and the facial animation is a definite step up from Bethesda’s usual potato-faced people, both are still clearly behind the current gen technology curve.
metro.co.uk
A theoretical Han Solo simulator has long been our dream game. For decades there’s been almost nothing that comes even close to that idea and now suddenly there’s both Starfield and Star Wars Outlaws. Neither is exactly what we had in mind, but we can only hope that they’re both successes, so that it encourages even more space travel games and more chances at a dream come true.
From that perspective alone we were very much looking forward to Starfield, even if the almost complete lack of hands-ons previews was highly suspicious. Bethesda has never taken criticism well though and so it was little surprise to find them trying to withhold review copies until the last minute – although the bizarre logic they used for who did and didn’t get a copy until now was certainly unexpected.
Their actions immediately birthed a host of conspiracy theories but, as ever, the simplest explanation was the correct one: they were trying to hide the fact that the game’s not very good. It’s also not very bad, but the one thing we didn’t expect is what a poor first impression the game makes. And that is likely what Bethesda has been most concerned about.
If we were scoring Starfield’s marketing campaign we’d give it a straight 10/10, as that 30 minute preview at the Xbox Games Showcase was fantastic and seemed to suggest a classic for the ages – a sci-fi version of Skyrim that allowed you to do anything and go anywhere. However, last year’s gameplay footage gave a truer picture of the game, where it was more obvious that it was the same old Elder Scrolls/Fallout formula, just with a slightly different coat of paint.
We’ve played around three or four hours now, including the first three story missions and a few side activities; the game starts out with you cast as a lowly miner, who discovers a mysterious metal artefact that a semi-secret group of explorers called Constellation have been looking for. Touching the artefact gives you a brief vision (that is highly reminiscent of a similar scene in Mass Effect) which instantly convinces a Constellation rep to give you their spaceship and robot, and induct you into their club.
None of this makes much sense but it all moves along at a welcomingly fast pace. Naturally, the first mission is a tutorial in all but name and it introduces you to all the core elements of the gameplay. You also get a first impression of the game’s visuals and while the underground cave you find yourself in looks fairly good, and the facial animation is a definite step up from Bethesda’s usual potato-faced people, both are still clearly behind the current gen technology curve.
Starfield first impressions - Our first evening with Bethesda’s new epic
GameCentral begins its review coverage of Starfield with a detailed look at the opening hours and initial missions.
metro.co.uk
Last edited:
balls of snow
Member
Here is the correct way to play Starfield for it to be a 10/10 experience:
ehh..it would be mindblowing ( and therefore worth the rush to new game + )
if it was all a loop and you somewhow take control of your progeny in new game + or some shit.
Thirty7ven
Banned
I think IGN spoils it if you search for it on Google. If what I read was legit then lol.
Batiman
Banned
Look at who’s doing the upvotes. You people are serious………
“watching a bunch of videos” wow
Bernoulli
M2 slut
I have at the game ( bad performance because of my trash GPU) and the videos are accurate tbh
Time to ditch that engine and move to something else
Man I am under the impression that this game ´s fanboys go dumber and dumber by each passing day.
Each time I go to this thread I see a new restriction to impose on myself to have a nice experience. « Don’t go explore » « don’t do space travel » « only beeline the MSQ » etc.. etc..
Three days ago they shouted everywhere that it would be the ultimate space fantasy with « unparalleled freedom », and now look where we have ended up, they tell you to play it like a linear COD campaign otherwise everything falls apart. The worse is they are happy with it.
Once again Xbox fanboys are pathetic people willing to say ok to whatever shit MS dares throwing at them instead of asking for expectations to be met.
Can’t wait to read in the next days that « you are not supposed to make a melee build » « game is not made for playing the bad guy » « don’t try to be a space merchant » etc.. to justify the thousands shortcomings this shell of a game shows
Each time I go to this thread I see a new restriction to impose on myself to have a nice experience. « Don’t go explore » « don’t do space travel » « only beeline the MSQ » etc.. etc..
Three days ago they shouted everywhere that it would be the ultimate space fantasy with « unparalleled freedom », and now look where we have ended up, they tell you to play it like a linear COD campaign otherwise everything falls apart. The worse is they are happy with it.
Once again Xbox fanboys are pathetic people willing to say ok to whatever shit MS dares throwing at them instead of asking for expectations to be met.
Can’t wait to read in the next days that « you are not supposed to make a melee build » « game is not made for playing the bad guy » « don’t try to be a space merchant » etc.. to justify the thousands shortcomings this shell of a game shows
Last edited:
bender
What time is it?
That doesn't make a differing opinion "wrong".
Freeman76
Member
how can ppl defend this is beyond me, geez
space combat was the major thing that i was looking for
Play everspace 2 then. Starfield is a lot more than a space combat game, even though there is plenty of that in it. The discourse around this game is nothing short of pathetic, most of you havent even played it!
Whinge whinge whinge, jesus its like a playground.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
Lokaum D+
Member
wrong quote
Last edited:
Lokaum D+
Member
Yeah i did played for 20 hours and didnt find the "unparalleled freedom" anywhere, like i said the bethesda RPG elements are good, dialogue and Sidequest, anything else related do gameplay or space exploration is a huge disappointement imo.
take a look at this if u want ( but you probably won't cause it don't fit your narrative that starfield is the supreme space game ) and you ll see the difference os size, scale and the feel unparalleled freedom with no loading screen required.
Last edited:
XesqueVara
Member
Even If Starfield is Buggy is still way off off what CP2077 was in release, Game was pratically broken on Consoles.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Terrible comparison lol, 2077 was broken on consoles for year(s) after release. Starfield doesn't have 1/10th of the kind of issues 2077 had.
Yeah, that will go with the release. Funny enough, the early access version achievements also aren't counting towrads the game pass quests for daily achievements. It's not being read as a game pass app by the console at the moment.
Last edited:
Bernoulli
M2 slut
On PC Cyberpunk was the best looking game, even today it doesn't even come close
And you are comparing a game that released on PS4 and X One to the current gen
Last edited:
vaibhavpisal
Member
Cyberpunk had system level issues. Bethesda invented those systems in open world games, alongside Rockstar.
Topher
Gold Member
Yes, better looking but still inherently broken. Starfield is the better game in every possible way outside of visuals, imo. I'm looking forward to the Cyberpunk reboot though.
Last edited:
Madflavor
Member
“Cyberpunk 2077 was worse at launch.”
Oh okay. That makes everything we saw in that video with Starfield acceptable in 2023. Civilians not reacting to you spraying bullets like a maniac in public, and point a gun at their face. Nah it’s fine. It fine. Cyberpunk was worse at launch so it’s fine. Starfield’s a great modern AAA game.
Oh okay. That makes everything we saw in that video with Starfield acceptable in 2023. Civilians not reacting to you spraying bullets like a maniac in public, and point a gun at their face. Nah it’s fine. It fine. Cyberpunk was worse at launch so it’s fine. Starfield’s a great modern AAA game.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Why so salty lol.
People are directly commenting on a video comparison between the two, of course the topic of Cyberpunk being utterly busted at launch will be brought up.
lefty1117
Gold Member
Yeah I think that's where Bethesda erred - these kind of comparisons were widespread for at least a year before the game launched and they didn't do anything to temper expectations. Starfield is not the same kind of game as Elite. It doesn't do the same things. It's an RPG set in space, not a space simulation. Elite has no story, no voiced cutscene content in game, no main plot to follow and no long side quests. You can't pick up and move items. You can't create your own outposts, build your own ships. In Starfield you can do those things, but you don't have the same fidelity of the galaxy, space travel & flight model. Incidentally, Star Citizen seems to be trying to do everything and you can see where that projec is at right now. It's hard.
Elite focuses on the gameplay systems while Starfield focuses on the story elements. Those are the fundamental core differences. Bethesda allowed people to continue to think it was a space simulator and now they have a lot of disappointed potential customers - that's on them. If you can resolve in your mind what the differences are and accept Starfield for what it is, there's a heck of a lot of fun to be had I think. At least I'm finding it to be so. Some people won't be able to get over the disappointment that it isnt' what they hoped it would be.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
Yeah i don't understand that kind of argument
Oh look that game was bad at launch it's okay for this one
No it's not, and gamers keep forgiving devs like this and pre-ordering games
This is why we'll never get good games day one anymore, instead we have 40 bucks early access to play the mess a few days earlier
Bojji
Member
On PC it was ok at launch. I played it for few hours on release day at didn't encounter many bugs.
For this comparison, water physics was added to CP after many patches, not there on day one.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
The AI is completely broken in starfield
How is that better and even if Cyberpunk was worse why should that be ok? that was almost 4 years ago and on last gen consoles
Starfield was going to come out in November 2022 imagine in what state it was at that time
And for their next game they are going to use the same engine again
Draugoth
Gold Member
Here is the correct way to play Starfield for it to be a 10/10 experience:
This excuse just proves people's points that the game is nowhere near a masterpiece.
Games should be fun from beggining to end & NG+ should be a way to reward players for their investment
If a game requires you to play 50 hours to enjoy it, then it's not a game, it's a chore, like having to work a boring job just so you receive a salary at the end of the month.
BG3 ACT 3 and 4 maybe broken technically-wise, but they are still a blast to play just like ACT1 and ACT2.
Topher
Gold Member
Not going to say "it's fine" or "ok". Starfield has problems. I've been very vocal about them. Starfield also does a lot of things very well. A fully responsive cast of NPCs isn't one of them. It is a bit hit and miss. Once I had a bunch of NPCs react to a thrown grenade. Another time, they did nothing at all. I think I mentioned in this thread where my companion ignored a merc attacking me. Clearly the AI needs some work. But I think it should be pointed out that this is still early access and we all knew there were going to be issues until the day one patch is released. Now if all these problems persist as badly post day one patch then I think it's all fair game.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I never played the game until it got at least a years worth of patches, by the time it got a native PS5/Series app, it was in a much better state in terms of mitigating bugs.
Compared to that, Starfield might as well be a Nintendo first party game at launch.
Red5
Member
It's an awesome modern AAA game because I enjoy it despite what you listed, they're not even gamestoppers like CP 2077 bug, Even so it's the least buggy Bethesda game released and second to Morrowind in terms of how good it is.
AGRacing
Member
Draugoth
Gold Member
Pretty sure this is due to the engine's limitation,
Bad idea to create procedural generation on an engine that was originally envisioned for manually crafted quests.
Topher
Gold Member
That depends on whether you buy into this theory that you have to finish the game and start over to enjoy. I think that is completely false. I'm 20+ hours in and having a blast. Once I realized why these people were saying finish the game then I realized that it was completely absurd. I mean......if that's how folks want to play then that's fine, but these people need to stop saying this is the way the game SHOULD be played, because that's just not necessarily the case.
Eh....this BG 3 comparison needs to stop.
Last edited:
Bernoulli
M2 slut
I will wait for a patch too if it can improve the performance but it doesn't make sense that early access users are paying $100 and just one patch a few days later will change the game
It was the same story with Cyberpunk, wait for the magic day 1 patch that will fix everything, i took months for improvements
I still think the real problem with Bethesda is their engine And they should ditch it for TES
Topher
Gold Member
I agree on the engine. It needs to be retired.
Draugoth
Gold Member
I hope this becomes a wakeup call for Bethesda and they ask money from Microsoft to actually develop a new engine. The tech used on the engine is very old. Creation Engine 2.0 is not even a new engine, just an update like you do on already released games.
They need to make a Creation Engine 2, like Unreal does.
Last edited:
Bernoulli
M2 slut
Topher
Gold Member
Gudji
Member
TES VI will have the same engine I bet. They don't care.
Draugoth
Gold Member
Sleepwalker
Member
Lol!
Also someone spoiler tag me and tell me why you should beat the main campaign first, i dont care about spoilers but also dont give me mega spoilers, just the gist of it.