You're viewing a single thread.
The game is kinda meh from what I've seen? Any positive impressions?
The most positive I've heard is that it is a by the numbers Bethesda rpg game. It doesn't try to be anything more. If you liked fallout 4 and skyrim odds are you'll like this.
What if I liked FO3 and New Vegas and hated FO4?
Then you have good taste in games.
What if I liked Fallout 76?
Nobody's perfect.
Then you are objectively right
FO3 was kind of a disaster in terms of narrative and roleplay. And the established world building.
They got rid of the dialogue wheel and went back to a list of options (influenced by character background / skills), so at least there's that, I suppose.
Then wait a few months and check some of the in-depth reviews before investing your time. Bethesda's most well known for its looter shooters with RPG styling.
I imagine this will follow in similar footsteps. It'll be well designed, well armed, but it's not going to be an RPG where your decisions have lasting impact. But hopefully I'm wrong
Still downloading for me, but I see more than one review saying it takes a long time to get good. I'm keeping my expectations low.
EDIT: Glad I was warned it starts slow. It does get better if you stick with it.
EDIT 2: It entertained me for a week. It's no Skyrim, or even Fallout. I would have been pissed if I'd paid for it.
I think it's pretty ok off the bat.
The only major gripe I have is how segmented the world is by fast travel.
You can't just wander around getting into trouble the same as you could in earlier Beth titles. You have to fast travel here, then fast travel there, oh and now you're done with this "dungeon"? Go fast travel here and there to get back to the city, then fast travel out to your next planet, then fast travel down to the surface.
Maybe that experience gets less abrasive over time, but I don't feel like it will.
One of it's strengths is the really detailed and interesting environments the game dumps you in early on. Starfield really does look and run great. Granted, I do have a 4070 Ti and 13600k, so maybe get the input of someone with a more average system.
The armor/weapon/environment systems are also pretty cool, and the loot is unique and interesting, but I haven't gotten that far into the game, so I can't say if it keeps up the pace.
Anyway, to cut this rant short, Starfield is fun, gorgeous, and a little flawed, but it's a game that's absolutely worth playing. Maybe not $100 "early access" worth playing, but I wouldn't feel ripped off if I paid $70.
Starfield really does look and run great.
Run great? Absolutely not.
I get 120fps in Elden Ring at medium, 2070, 64gb ram, i9-12900k.
Just got done with Armored Core, rock solid 144fps at medium all the way through, never a blip.
This runs at 30fps on lowest settings. It runs like absolute crap. It's incredibly jarring to go from games that are gorgeous and well made with high performance to this thing running like something 20 years ago. Absolutely zero optimisation.
It will get a seriously negative response from the average pc user when user reviews start hitting due to this performance.
So it's more Destiny than No Man's Sky.
Best comparison I've heard (by Gopher, if I recall correctly) is Outer Worlds, but less silly, and bigger by several orders of magnitude.
Yeah Outer Worlds was awesome but very limited. So limited that it almost felt linear.
I’ve heard nothing but good things about gameplay. But it runs like shit on most systems. A RTX 3080 at 1440p ultra can’t get 60 fps in cities.