• 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.

Starfield | Review Thread

What scores do you think StarfieId will get?

  • 40-45%

    Votes: 3 0.5%
  • 45-50%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 50-55%

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • 55-60%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 60-65%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 65-70%

    Votes: 2 0.3%
  • 70-75%

    Votes: 5 0.8%
  • 75-80%

    Votes: 15 2.3%
  • 80-85%

    Votes: 81 12.5%
  • 85-90%

    Votes: 241 37.3%
  • 90-95%

    Votes: 243 37.6%
  • 95-100%

    Votes: 55 8.5%

  • Total voters
    646
  • Poll closed .

SodaZA

Member
Jammed the whole weekend and i'm a bit shocked to agree with the IGN review
The base game alone is a 7 or 8
With mods it'll be a 9 or 10 that's for sure

But i'm enjoying it nonetheless
(Minus the space exploration aspect, NMS basically ruined my expectation for space exploration)
 

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
Jammed the whole weekend and i'm a bit shocked to agree with the IGN review
The base game alone is a 7 or 8
With mods it'll be a 9 or 10 that's for sure

But i'm enjoying it nonetheless
(Minus the space exploration aspect, NMS basically ruined my expectation for space exploration)

You've p[probably already played more than IGN so I trust your opinion more. lol

I'm glad I just wanted fallout 4 in space as its delivered on that an more so its more a 9/10 for me so far.

woke up first thing, first day of my holiday. Coffee is made. I'm going in!
 

killatopak

Gold Member
Outposts can bring in credits and extract minerals and do other things while you play missions. If building that stuff isn't for you then fine, but just because it isn't content you would enjoy doesn't mean it isn't content. It is. But put that outside and you've still missions galore that are going to stack up a ridiculous number of hours.

But if the game isn't for you then it isn't for you. Probably would be best do try Baldur's Gate 3 like you said.

Here's the OT:
Not going to lie here so I'll just give my impressions on FO4 since that seems to be similar to outposts considering I haven't had the game yet.

Settlements were very terrible in my opinion on a fresh playthrough. Why you ask? Because there simply isn't any reason for them to exist on a gameplay perspective. This however changed when I went through survival mode. It's an excellent feature that I thought that was not only immersive but also very helpful in the way the game is played in that mode. I'm hoping that would be the case for Starfield as well and they'll have survival mode or that outposts in SF can function in the same manner as settlements though I doubt it with the existence of your mobile ship. And yes you can also acquire cap and materials passively from settlements in FO4.
 

ShaiKhulud1989

Gold Member
How much of Starfield’s explorable areas are seamless like Skyrim’s? It’s not just explorable areas, it’s areas you explore without meeting a loading screen. All the areas in the world don’t mean anything if you have to constantly load them in and break immersion.
Thing is, with Starfield's structure Bethesda essentially killed it's own winning formula. And this is a hard statement from a guy who spent 50 hours in SF and kinda enjoying his time with the game despite some major flaws, undercooked features and sad state of a PC port.

Bear with me.

In every Bethesda game everything revolved around the emergent gameplay in clear big overworld that you can roam freely to your heart's content. Skyrim, The Commonwealth, DC, Cyrodiil and even Morrowind (depsite the loading between cells) were huge locations where you could visibly go anywhere, do anything and explore them at your own pace. Even the MSQ missions were designed to take the advantage of it: usually the quest markers were so far removed from one another, that you would've explore the map in a very unique pace even if you rush through the story.

Oh! I see a lanmark! I should check it! Oh, there's a quest there! Oh, some interesting abandoned mall with cool enviromental sidestory! Oh, I've found a dragon shout in a random mine! Wow, Oblivion gates out of nowhere! I hope you've catched my drift.

Starfield does not work this way due to it's essentially fractured structure. Story took me 28 hours (I've reloaded to a no-turning-point save and now clearing the side activities from there) and you can rush it TOTALLY ignoring the rest of Starfield world in it's entirety through the menu teleports. All because the game is not a continious journey through the vast overworld, but a set of moderately-sized locations separated by a menu. In essence, traversal in Satrfield is basically beam-me-up-Scottie sim. You can otally ignore base buiilding, space fairing and even faction quests. The game has ZERO hooks for you to even care about them. That's why at a two or three points during MSQ the game will kick you in the nuts and demand you to level up and obtain a huge sum of credits, because it has no emergent gameplay to draw you into the other content otherwise.

You don't even know what content will be interesting for you, because you can't see in with your own eyes while roaming the overworld. On one moon I've found a cave full of dead miners, raiders and some dino remains. I thought 'wow, that's the enviromental storytelling master-class from the Bethesda I've always loved'. The I've found the exact same cave 5 times after that. Even the story mission are reusing random seed outposts and even dungeons.

The irony here, the only part of SF you can't just outright ignore is the story. All the space magic (basically quite lazy reskins on familiar spells and shouts) are locked behind the story progression. And unlike Skyrim, it's not the early couple of quests but the latter half of the plot.

I dunno, man. I kinda love the game regardless (it's a solid 7.5 for me), but Todd's unhinged desire to create a game to rival NMS/Skyrim/Destiny, all of them at the same time, essentially killed the core that worked so well for like 20+ years. And I'm not sure that the modding will somehow fix that. It's a Bethesda Identity Crisis.
 

Tomeru

Member
I'll be trying this when it hits go in a couple of days, but just so I understand the exploration part:

Exploring planets is cool (its just like exploring in skyrim), but exploration in space is non existent?
 
Thing is, with Starfield's structure Bethesda essentially killed it's own winning formula. And this is a hard statement from a guy who spent 50 hours in SF and kinda enjoying his time with the game despite some major flaws, undercooked features and sad state of a PC port.

Bear with me.

In every Bethesda game everything revolved around the emergent gameplay in clear big overworld that you can roam freely to your heart's content. Skyrim, The Commonwealth, DC, Cyrodiil and even Morrowind (depsite the loading between cells) were huge locations where you could visibly go anywhere, do anything and explore them at your own pace. Even the MSQ missions were designed to take the advantage of it: usually the quest markers were so far removed from one another, that you would've explore the map in a very unique pace even if you rush through the story.

Oh! I see a lanmark! I should check it! Oh, there's a quest there! Oh, some interesting abandoned mall with cool enviromental sidestory! Oh, I've found a dragon shout in a random mine! Wow, Oblivion gates out of nowhere! I hope you've catched my drift.

Starfield does not work this way due to it's essentially fractured structure. Story took me 28 hours (I've reloaded to a no-turning-point save and now clearing the side activities from there) and you can rush it TOTALLY ignoring the rest of Starfield world in it's entirety through the menu teleports. All because the game is not a continious journey through the vast overworld, but a set of moderately-sized locations separated by a menu. In essence, traversal in Satrfield is basically beam-me-up-Scottie sim. You can otally ignore base buiilding, space fairing and even faction quests. The game has ZERO hooks for you to even care about them. That's why at a two or three points during MSQ the game will kick you in the nuts and demand you to level up and obtain a huge sum of credits, because it has no emergent gameplay to draw you into the other content otherwise.

You don't even know what content will be interesting for you, because you can't see in with your own eyes while roaming the overworld. On one moon I've found a cave full of dead miners, raiders and some dino remains. I thought 'wow, that's the enviromental storytelling master-class from the Bethesda I've always loved'. The I've found the exact same cave 5 times after that. Even the story mission are reusing random seed outposts and even dungeons.

The irony here, the only part of SF you can't just outright ignore is the story. All the space magic (basically quite lazy reskins on familiar spells and shouts) are locked behind the story progression. And unlike Skyrim, it's not the early couple of quests but the latter half of the plot.

I dunno, man. I kinda love the game regardless (it's a solid 7.5 for me), but Todd's unhinged desire to create a game to rival NMS/Skyrim/Destiny, all of them at the same time, essentially killed the core that worked so well for like 20+ years. And I'm not sure that the modding will somehow fix that. It's a Bethesda Identity Crisis.
I haven't played the game yet myself but I've been watching a ton of streams and you summed up how I felt watching the gameplay perfectly.

I was looking for the seamless exploration and wonder that caused me to spend over 4000hrs in Skyrim and I couldn't find it in any of the streams I watched. The exploration in the game just looks disjointed and soulless compared to Skyrim.

I'll play the game in a few days and I'll try to extract as much fun as I can from it but I can already tell it's not the Skyrim in space I was hoping for, and for that I'm very disappointed.

I totally agree that mods won't save this game (for me at least). It's the structure of the game that's the issue and I don't believe modding can fix that.
 

FunkMiller

Member
Starfield does not work this way due to it's essentially fractured structure. Story took me 28 hours (I've reloaded to a no-turning-point save and now clearing the side activities from there) and you can rush it TOTALLY ignoring the rest of Starfield world in it's entirety through the menu teleports. All because the game is not a continious journey through the vast overworld, but a set of moderately-sized locations separated by a menu. In essence, traversal in Satrfield is basically beam-me-up-Scottie sim. You can otally ignore base buiilding, space fairing and even faction quests. The game has ZERO hooks for you to even care about them. That's why at a two or three points during MSQ the game will kick you in the nuts and demand you to level up and obtain a huge sum of credits, because it has no emergent gameplay to draw you into the other content otherwise.

This is the part I‘ve found incredibly disappointing. I don’t care about how high my performance is that much, or how good the graphics are, I care about gameplay. And the gameplay I love in these types of massive games is exploration and discovery. Tears Of The Kingdom is incredibly good at it, as is Elden Ring. That’s why they are GOTYs. Hell, even Skyrim did it brilliantly.

The fact this game has none of it ruins the whole damned experience for me.
 

Markio128

Gold Member
Just a thought.

Would it have been feasible for BG to have created one main planet with content similar to Skyrim, with the caveat that you’d need to visit the other planets for resources in order to save that one main planet? Seems like a simpler concept to me.
 

Alan Wake

Member
This is the part I‘ve found incredibly disappointing. I don’t care about how high my performance is that much, or how good the graphics are, I care about gameplay. And the gameplay I love in these types of massive games is exploration and discovery. Tears Of The Kingdom is incredibly good at it, as is Elden Ring. That’s why they are GOTYs. Hell, even Skyrim did it brilliantly.

The fact this game has none of it ruins the whole damned experience for me.

I'm thinking the opposite. The fact that I can finish the main game in 28 hours (if that is true) means that Starfield is open to more players than just the ones who have the time to put hundreds of hours into a game. I simply don't have that kind of time, and that they still give me the opportunity to play and even finish the game is a good thing. We can all choose HOW we want to play Starfield, which I think is great.

I've just started the game so I don't know if I ever will finish it. But at least I know I could.
 

FunkMiller

Member
I'm thinking the opposite. The fact that I can finish the main game in 28 hours (if that is true) means that Starfield is open to more players than just the ones who have the time to put hundreds of hours into a game. I simply don't have that kind of time, and that they still give me the opportunity to play and even finish the game is a good thing. We can all choose HOW we want to play Starfield, which I think is great.

I've just started the game so I don't know if I ever will finish it. But at least I know I could.

You can finish Tears Of The Kingdom in an hour.

The length of the game isn't important. It's how the gameplay is constructed. And if you're making a game that you claim is an open, explorable world, then you had better make sure you have discoveries worth finding, and routes of travel that have the player stumble on emergent gameplay or set pieces.

Even Bethesda knew how to do this with Skyrim. The fact they've completely lost this element of their gameplay loop is extremely disappointing - especially in 2023 when the technology is there to accomplish it.
 

DragonNCM

Member
I'm starting to understand some of the reviews that scored the game lower than others. My gripes list is growing.

I just spent 10 minutes trying to find my way out of this maze of a facility after I cleared a bunch of mercs out of it. I just wandered around until I finally found the right path out of the place. Not having any sort of map is really annoying.

Combat is just ok. It is a garden variety shooter. But I have a feeling this is part of the game that some have said gets much better later on. I hope so, at least.

Ship combat and movement is extremely basic. Bethesda put little effort into this and that is extremely disappointing. Your ship and the enemy ship just circle around each other blasting away until one blows up. There is no strafing. No reverse throttle. No Z axis. Not even roll. Literally point the ship in a direction and go forward. That's it. More like a naval ship than a space ship. Everspace 2 is better space ship game than Starfield. Not even close.

On the positive side, the story is good so far. The characters are interesting. I don't think the animation is as bad as some have said. It is a good looking game. I've listed more negatives than positives, but I'm not suggesting this is a bad game at all. Just think these things I've complained about could have been much better.
Game opened up for me after 23 hours of playtime. If you fallow mainquest only, game is boring but if you pick some faction quest it is getting a lot better.
 

Alan Wake

Member
You can finish Tears Of The Kingdom in an hour.

The length of the game isn't important. It's how the gameplay is constructed. And if you're making a game that you claim is an open, explorable world, then you had better make sure you have discoveries worth finding, and routes of travel that have the player stumble on emergent gameplay or set pieces.

Even Bethesda knew how to do this with Skyrim. The fact they've completely lost this element of their gameplay loop is extremely disappointing - especially in 2023 when the technology is there to accomplish it.

Yes, but finishing such a big game in an hour isn't even trying to actually play the game. There's a difference between that and approximately 30 hours during which I can actually experience some things. For the rest I can't speak because I haven't gone far enough into the game yet. Clearly there are different opinions about how fun Starfield is to play and what the exploration is like.
 

Mephisto40

Member
Been playing this all weekend, just working through the main story, and this is getting a solid 7/10 from me so far, this may go up once I start doing some of the side content, but I feel like all i'm doing is fast traveling from one location, speaking to somebody, and then fast traveling to the next location, over and over again, there doesnt seem to really be any "exploration", or any need to do anything other than jump from location to location
 
Last edited:

peish

Member
how does the NG+ works for storyline? i need to complete the first time then the real story unveils? like Castlevania? could it be time travel if i need to replay story sections?
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
Souls games took the crown from them IMO.
Since Skyrim released From got busy and released Dark Souls 1,2,3, Bloodborne, Sekiro, and Elden Ring.
Fromsoft games took nothing from bethesda games, those are combat centric games and combat in bethesda games have always been abysmal and not why people play their games.

They are 2 completely different genres of action rpgs.

It's like comparing forza motorsport and crash team racing.
 
Last edited:

Draugoth

Gold Member
Well, they did try to warn us

uGr58kz.jpeg
 

SJRB

Gold Member
Nice I stand corrected

This is much cooler than selecting in a map


You still need to go in an options menu to tag the system though. You need an active mission or marker. And this doesn't work all the time. At least I tried in between planets in the same system and then it doesn't work, I still had to travel via the starmap.

It's also not consistent about when to show the cockpit grav drive animations.

It seems a bit buggy sometimes but it's hard to pinpoint so sometimes you think "is it me? Am I missing something" but it's just the game.

Cargo hold is another weird bug that sometimes the option to access the hold just isn't in the menu if you fasttravel directly into your ship, and you're like "wait, am I going crazy? Pretty sure I did it this way last time" but exiting and re-entering the ship somehow brings the option back.
 

DragonNCM

Member
Fromsoft games took nothing from bethesda games, those are combat centric games and combat in bethesda games have always been abysmal and not why people play their games.

They are 2 completely different genres of action rpgs.

It's like comparing forza motorsport and crash team racing.
From Fallout & Skyrim Starfield is best in combat department.
Gunplay is rly solid.
 

simpatico

Gold Member
Woke up this morning and the algo sent me a dialog video of a pair of girl boss "bad ass" assassin mercs from the game. Way more immersion breaking than any loading screen simulating space flight. Good lord was Bethesda hiring from Ubi at one point?
 

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
FYI regarding ng+:


When the in laws leave and I get back on the grind (hoping today) I am 100% mainlining the story to get to NG+

I also don't blame anyone who doesn't, to each their own

Totally did us no good to upgrade to the premium version

That image is comparing random goofy looking folks in Starfield to story characters in BG 3. The absurd BG 3 comparisons continue.....
Yeah while the goofy looking NPCs might be distracting and sometimes even funny to look at its for sure not something I am going to compare to other games like it has some merit this makes game A better
 
Last edited:

lefty1117

Gold Member
Here's the thing, you didn't land or take off anywhere. You just went through a couple of menus, sat through a loading screen and magically teleported.

So no, it's not "all there".
True. I guess I just don't care about the thing I want to do taking another 10 minutes before I can do it. I just want to get to it.

I will give you this though - it would be nice if we had some more travel transitions to cover the loading screens.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Yeah while the goofy looking NPCs might be distracting and sometimes even funny to look at its for sure not something I am going to compare to other games like it has some merit this makes game A better

I have no problem with comparisons used to genuinely point out how a game could be improved. But do we really need to compare Starfield to anything to realize the facial expression of NPCs could be improved? Seriously?
 

chlorate

Member
That BG3 comparison is absurd. In Alien (1979), Ridley Scott deliberately cast a bunch of fairly unattractive, middle aged actors to be the cast to give the impression that the crew were middle-class expendable schlubs in space. Bethesda probably had a similar idea.
 

damidu

Member
I have no problem with comparisons used to genuinely point out how a game could be improved. But do we really need to compare Starfield to anything to realize the facial expression of NPCs could be improved? Seriously?
yeah we should.
otherwise they compare it to previous bethesda jank from 15 years ago, and call it “a vast improvement”
 

Topher

Gold Member
yeah we should.
otherwise they compare it to previous bethesda jank from 15 years ago, and call it “a vast improvement”

Eh....I don't need to look at any game to figure out that the NPC expressions in Starfield can be really screwed up. I'm not playing the we/they game.
 
Top Bottom