Bethesda are individually rebutting Starfield Steam reviewers, defending the loading breaks and "empty" worlds
Bethesda are individually rebutting Starfield Steam reviewers, defending the loading breaks and "empty" worlds
Bethesda's heaping plateful of space-spaghetti Starfield presently rejoices in the status of a Mixed Steam user review …
You're viewing a single thread.
Starfield frustrates me, because in many ways its a major step in the right direction. It has much better roleplaying mechanics than Skyrim or Fallout 4, but at the same time the lore is half-baked and the skill system is fairly weak. It has great potential, but a lot of it feels toned down and less "real" because of it. Space exploration has a lot of potential as well, but setting every objective so far apart on planets ruins exploration by filling it with monotonous procgen.
That's why I'm fairly confident that once properly patched, and mods/DLCs are in full swing, it will probably be remembered very fondly despite the release state. It'll pull a Cyberpunk.
They have to rebuild the entire game to make it fun. Every mechanic is poorly implemented.
Shipbuilding? Inconsequential.
Gun modification? Same as it ever was.
Food and drink? Why do I give a shit?
Base building? Just as janky as FO76.
Research? Annoying progression block.
The map? So spread out that everything is behind a loading screen.
Everything from stem to stern is just...bad. Stop using the fucking Creation engine you dumbasses! That's why nothing fucking works! You don't have an engine that's even capable of supporting a large space game. Why did they think it could? Sunk fucking cost fallacy out the ass.
I'm completely disgusted by the thought, but I'm like 90% sure they half assed everything "knowing" modders would fix it and they fully intend on charging you for those mods...
It's absolutely fucking disgusting that Bethesda feels entitled to the profits of other peoples work to fix their shit games... They are testing out the new creation store with an update to Skyrim coming very soon and have already built starfield with that in mind (modders have already spoken about the difficulty of modding starfield at the moment because of these changes.)
They pitch it as a boon to modders as they'll get paid, but modders always had links to patron accounts that Bethesda/(now Microsuck) couldn't get their greedy fingers on... I hope no one mods the game to be honest even though I preordered it with the high hopes of modding making the game even better than Skyrim... Greed kills again.
The criticism that Bethesda doesn't finish their games because they expect volunteer modders to has been around since at least Oblivion IIRC. I always thought it was BS, but since Fo4 was essentially remade from the ground up into a now quite beloved game by the mod scene they may have considered this with Starfield. Bethesda now is more Zenimax than the Bethesda of 10 years ago so while I didn't believe it then I have less reason to doubt now.
Shipbuilding doesn't need to be rebuilt, just add the fuel mechanic back to give drive upgrades weight and add more space content.
Gun Modification is fine, it doesn't need to be overhauled. It can be better, and cosmetic paints could be added I suppose.
Food and Drink just need the previously hinted at survival mode, so you actually have to plan trips. Not rebuilt from the ground up.
Base building is fine-ish, just needs more benefits.
Research just needs rebalancing, it's fine as a gate for progression.
The map just needs distances cut in half for proc-gen formulas and more locations added to the pool.
The game doesn't really need to be rebuilt, it just needs a survival mode, some new assets and uses for base building (reinforced by survival mode), and distances cut in half for proc-gen.
What made Bethesda games decent was how dense the maps were, but there is no density here.
Skyrim and Fallout are games where you can pick a direction, go, and probably find something weird or interesting - a side quest, a fun environmental story, etc. Starfield literally cannot have this by design because everything is on a different planet, in a different system - the density of the map is gone, and scattered across a giant cosmos that can't be navigated without loading screens.
What happens on a procgen planet if I pick a direction and go? The same thing, every time - a boring cave or outpost filled with the same bullet sponge spacers as literally everywhere else.
There needs to be actual stuff to do outside of quests to make the game fulfilling. There's so much nothingness.
The cities are more dense, actually. The open space is far less dense though.
Skyrim and Fallout 3/4 were games where you could pick a direction and find something fun. New Vegas isn't, but it more than made up for it with roleplaying and quests, which Starfield generally does better than Skyrim, Fallout 3, and Fallout 4.
The procgen content is 5-10% of the game, Starfield just fundamentally isn't a Skyrim clone. Trying to play Starfield as though it is is just determination to be disappointed.
Do I think Starfield is perfect? Absolutely the fuck not, it's just not an imperfect game because it isn't Skyrim, it's an imperfect game on its own merits.
I just think it needs a ton of work before it has a Cyberpunk-level renaissance.
100% agree! Thankfully, Bethesda games function almost similar to FOSS, and will be fixed by the community. As I've demonstrated, the fixes for Starfield meaningfully boil down to a well-balanced survival mode, and reducing the locus of exploration and adding more locations to the proc-gen pool. These are 100% achievable via mods.
DLCs are planned in abundance for Starfield, and will similarly go a long way in adding more hand-crafted content.