378
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 63 points 9 months ago

It does get a lot of shit and I agree Bethesda is lacking in some creativity departments... but I'd still rate it a solid 6.5-7

I put about 80 hours into it. Enjoyed some aspects, disliked others. It's just HEAVILY mid in my opinion. Worth a playthrough if you like Bethesda rpgs

[-] Bluefold@sh.itjust.works 33 points 9 months ago

6.5/7 is fine if you're not paying $70 for the base game. It might be worth it now the costs have come down, but paying a premium price for a mid game justifies some of the shit people gave it.

That said, I played on Game Pass, big fan of the genre, and could only make it a few hours in. Just wasn't for me. But then I really enjoyed The Outer Worlds and people shit on that too.

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago

It's really weird how many people stop "a few hours in". Modern Bethesda games are notoriously slow-starts. A few hours in is still "training wheels" for the game.

I'm not saying you should go back to it, but how did you know it's not for you that quickly?

As for Outer Worlds. I enjoyed it for what it was, but I'm of the fringe view that it doesn't hold a candle to Starfield. It has more style, but less substance than Starfield IMO.

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

I feel like that hasn't been true since Oblivion. Skyrim has you getting dragon powers a few hours in. Fallout gives you a gun and you're blasting stuff right off the bat.

It's those earlier games that force you to slow down. Morrowind for example gives you cave outside the first town that will almost certainly kill you if you go in.

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 months ago

Pretty much. In Starfield, the game gives you a ship that can reach about 75% of the star systems, and you can literally just start finding/stealing ships to cross the entire galaxy at the 1hr mark. If you know where you're going, Starfield gets you in the action blazingly fast. If you don't, well, that's why they all (newer ones) hold your hand in the main story.

[-] Bluefold@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago

For me, it was a lot of small moments that added up quickly. (By a few hours, I gave it at least 10 or so). One big one was I'd chosen the talent where you get a house on a planet but with a mortgage. I thought this would be a cool way to give me an economic incentive to explore more etc.

I get to New Atlantis and follow the quest for this and I find out the 'mortgage' has no penalties, isn't paid in installments, and can only be purchased in a lump-sum. So, it was a talent that gave me the ability to purchase a house and be able to essentially rent it on a per day basis until the full amount was paid. When I finally do get there the house is empty, and not all that fun to be in. No special quests etc tied to it.

Another moment that soured it for me, and this is a minor quibble but again they added up, was visiting The Eye for the first time. There was this big pile of trash in a corridor used as the block to the door to prevent further exploration. It just entirely took me out of my immersion in what should have been an epic moment. So much so I actually took a screenshot of it at the time.

A lot of folks are likely happy to look past those things but they all added up + reviews from folks further along in the story and gameplay giving a bad impression made me move onto something new. Super happy other folks were able to find enjoyment, just wasn't for me.

I also didn't resonate with any of the companions to a degree where I found them actively annoying to be around. I know some would say 'just don't loot' but their constant calling out people who like to loot was annoying too.

Whereas with Outer Worlds I immediately loved Pravati (and most of the other companions too). Starfield I felt like I was talking to puppets only there because I was playing the game. Outer Worlds I felt a connection to their stories as much as my own.

That said, many systems in Outer Worlds were underdeveloped and parts of the game felt empty. It was a game of high highs but also low lows. It did make me excited for the sequel to build on that foundation though.

Genuinely curious, but what systems did you feel added more substance to Starfield? Dialogue choices and completing quests in various ways really made Outer Worlds shine for me, particularly in the DLCs.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 8 points 9 months ago

Ive not played a single bethesda game beside starfield that didnt hook me a few hours in. They arent that slow to start.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 29 points 9 months ago

I beat Starfield the first time before the bad reviews started overwhelming. And I still don't get it (except perhaps as hype). Bethesda games are far from perfect (people seem to forget the negativity around Skyrim being compared to Oblivion), but they scratch a particular itch that millions of gamers have and crave.

What terrifies me is that this whole "Hey look, we're getting 2006 again" attitude is exactly what's going to kill off the Bethesda "genre" the same way SquareEnix gutted the AAA Turn-Based RPG. Sure, it means we might get a black horse game out of left field (Persona 5, talking about you) but it's a shame to see so much hate on the style of game that Bethesda is.

And we need to make no mistake. While some complaints have been valid, the biggest ones that started this snowball have been things like "I shoot guns around guards and nobody comments" or "I murder an entire town and then pay a small bounty and everyone's fine with me again".

I get the "huge procedural universe is soooo boring" complaint; I don't agree with it because I loved Daggerfall and because Starfield has more hand-made content than Skyrim, but I can respect it. But that alone doesn't justify all this "worst game ever" BS. It makes Starfield sound like it's worse than initial-release NMS was (and I can say from experience, it's not).

And for me, I just crossed hour 180 with Starfield, and have not been bored once. I don't expect it to be everyone's favorite game, but it's certainly mine for 2023.

[-] chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz 15 points 9 months ago

I put 150 hours into it and loved it. Bethesda is such a giant, and I guess this game had such hype that it completely distorted reality.

Funny thing is, I had no hype for the game. I didn't think I'd even play it from the early previews and announcements.

But after it came out and people figured out it followed the Bethesda formula and was "Fallout in space", then I got interested. It had been long enough that I'd played a Bethesda game that it sounded like fun, and it was.

There are a lot of things I'd like to change and refine with Starfield. But it's still a good game.

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago

Same here. I actually expected to be disappointed from hearing the early complaints. I got an xbox subscription because there were a bunch of games I wanted to play, so I wouldn't feel bad if Starfield sucked.

Then I've ONLY been playing Starfield since.

[-] sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 months ago

That's the thing though- I've already played fallout. I've already played Skyrim. There are mods and expansion packs that give me more of the same already.

What I expected wasn't fallout in space, I expected innovation and iteration on a genre, not the exact same things in a new setting.

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 months ago

What I expected wasn’t fallout in space, I expected innovation and iteration on a genre

This is what's weird to me. Bethesda basically promised "Skyrim in Space", and that's what most of the hype started to come from. And they genuinely gave us exactly that.

People who don't like Skyrim won't like Starfield. People who wanted something more "innovative" than just Skyrim in Space with Better Graphics were creating their own sort of fabricated hype.

[-] Zahille7@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Personally, I think it feels like a bit of a mix of Oblivion and Fallout 3, but with Skyrim-like updated graphics and such. But I kinda like that anyway.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago

The thing is that for a lot of Bethesda fans the game fully missed the mark that scratches the players itch. If there's one thing people unanimously agree Bethesda games are great at it's creating a world that's interesting to explore. Starfield is by far the least interesting Bethesda game to explore, because there's nothing interesting to catch your attention?

Jake brings it up perfectly. In Skyrim you start a quest and then you start traveling to the quest location. A dragon swoops in and you fight a dragon. A spooky cave is along the way and you check it out. An hour has passed and you're not even at the quest location yet. In Starfield you start a quest, you fast travel to your ship, then you fast travel to the planet the quest is on, you land on the quest location, you walk to the actual and 10 minutes later the quest is done. Nothing interesting happened between the start of the quest and the end of the quest, except maybe for the quest itself.

In Skyrim a quest is an opportunity to explore, in Starfield a quest is a check on a checklist. I don't think Bethesda has necessarily lost its magic but I do think Starfield is missing the Bethesda magic.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 20 points 9 months ago

My mantra around it has been it's the okayest game of the year.

[-] Jessvj93@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

I've been saying it's the most Bethesda game that ever Bethesda'd.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ISOmorph@feddit.de 13 points 9 months ago

Thank you for being the voice of reason. Talk about beating a dead horse. If you listen to the internet drama you'd think Starfield is the worst game ever made.

[-] ours@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

The way I understand this is not that it's the worst game ever. It's that Bethesda should be able to deliver better games.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SeatBeeSate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 9 months ago
[-] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago

It's on game pass... which is how I justified playing it. Not really paying anything extra 🤷‍♂️

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Bademantel@feddit.de 31 points 9 months ago

I had no idea that the game is that bad. Now I really have no interest in playing it anymore.

[-] Cold_Brew_Enema@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago

I mean for me, I just got bored. It wasn't terrible, but I had no drive to pick it up again after 40 hours.

[-] XanXic@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

I'm sure too people will be like "oh but you played 40 hours! It can't be that bad" but the first 10-15 are misery from a gameplay perspective, like you're just trying to level up to get more carrying capacity and get more combat options.

[-] Bongles@lemm.ee 18 points 9 months ago

There's too many basic things locked behind perk points before you can even begin doing whatever it is. Like, I spent most of a day to grind to get to be able to buy and fly a bigger ship only to then not be able to put any extra crew on the ship because that is also a perk.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Looking back at the 50 hours I spent on it, I have to contextualize how much of it wasn't spent having fun. How many of those hours did I spend building an S-class ship and outposts with 4+ materials before I discovered that all of that was utterly worthless due to the main questline destroying everything? Building the ship certainly wasn't fun. Having a planet on my screen for three hours at a time while I scout for an outpost one pixel at a time was miserable. The point of those was that the reward would be worth it, but then during the main questline it all gets erased and you have to push the stone back up the hill again.

Contrast that with the game I spent the most time on this year: Hi-Fi Rush. It took me 80 hours to FC that game, and I was having a blast almost the entire way through! The tower was a bitch and a half before I learned the meta, beating Mimosa without taking damage took a good two dozen tries, but you know what Hi-Fi Rush has that Starfield doesn't? Exciting gameplay. A soundtrack. A story worth paying any attention to. Likeable characters. The Prodigy. Even though replaying every level on every difficulty setting is tedious as all hell, the process of doing it was still fun, and I can still open the game up and admire the Wall. I can't open up my Starfield file and admire my fully customized ship, the Death of Shame. It was erased along with every outpost and every relationship with every NPC.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Drbreen@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago

Yeah same here. Around the 40 hour mark. I found I moved onto something else. People spending time and resources on building big and different ship designs and building a base seemed pointless to me given the gameplay loop.

[-] sleep_deprived@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

I was even kind of interested, but then I got further in the main quest and figured out what the ending is...

Then I felt like there was no point to anything I did.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

It's annoying because a lot of people say it's no different to starting a new save file in any other game, but no other game encourages you to spend tens of hours on tedious pointing and clicking just to throw it away. Fallout 4's outpost system wasn't designed with the intention of deleting your settlements at any point in the story.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 14 points 9 months ago

There's this weird anti-hype going on. Realistically, for people not loving it, it's defensibly a 7 or so. There's PLENTY of us who put it a lot closer to a 10.

It's a lot of things, but it's definitely not a "bad" game.

[-] Bademantel@feddit.de 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Fair enough but it does sound very repetitive and grindy. Would you disagree?

Maybe it is not bad but it definitely didn't deliver what was promised. I know, I know, how could I expect that from Todd?

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago

Fair enough but it does sound very repetitive and grindy. Would you disagree?

How experienced are you with Bethesda games post-1995 or so? They all have the same grind-factor. The game is tuned so you can play and win with zero grind, but it has these "treadmill" mechanics that you can either embrace or skip.

If you want to max out your perks at level 328, it's absurdly grindy. But you can beat the game around level 30 or so. If for some reason you want to max out a skill/perk you don't really use, it's a bit grindy. But if you use the skills as you get them and get the skills you'll use, you unlock their levelups asically for free.

Maybe it is not bad but it definitely didn’t deliver what was promised

I hear this again, and again, and again, and again. But nobody has yet to cite one promise Bethesda objective broke with Starfield. You say "how could I expect that from Todd"? That means you know what kind of games Bethesda releases. And they promised a Bethesda game in space. And they delivered a Bethesda game in space.

I underestand people who hate Bethesda games. You can toss a pebble and hit one of them. But I really don't understand the level of toxicity this time around. I actually almost didn't buy Starfield, and boy am I pissed because it was a lot better than I expected.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz 6 points 9 months ago

I loved it. The reality of this game is so distorted. Yes, it's far from perfect. But in no way is it bad. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and not everyone will enjoy it. But so many people would have you believe it's an objectively bad game, and it isn't.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] kurcatovium@lemm.ee 26 points 9 months ago

Well, I kind of like Bethesda formula so I should be Bethesdas target. Played them since old Arena, through Morrowind to Fallout 3. Stopped there because Fallout 4 seemed like more of the same with less rpg and I did not have HW capable of Skyrim at the time.

Thinking about it I liked Morrowind the most. And the thing I liked the most about it was exploration and discovering the world, that is big, well done, believable and also changes in every region so there aren't two places that would look alike.

I haven't played Starfield, but I believe it's going to miss the exploration part of the formula. Sure, there will be different biomes on different planets, but that's not the same. I loved how I travelled the world and was amazed by every new scenery that emerged behind mountain ridge. Leaving swamp to get to volcanic plague storm lands. Then travel through beautiful lake district to emerge on vast grass planes... I fear Starfield will be like jumping through this with fast travel.

[-] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago

Bro you skipped New Vegas???

[-] kurcatovium@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's not "real" Bethesda. Have it installed right nowand it's pretty damn good. But not really in Bethesda way.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago

And the thing I liked the most about it was exploration and discovering the world, that is big, well done, believable and also changes in every region so there aren’t two places that would look alike.

... and Morrowind achieved that with an island you could chuck a frisbee across, using brown and more brown, and about six minutes of voice acting.

[-] kurcatovium@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago

Bethesda's peak moment, no jokes.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Veraxus@kbin.social 14 points 9 months ago

Two decades.

Daggerfall was way, way, way ahead of its time… but when Vijay, Peterson, & LeFay left Bethesda it was all downhill. Morrowind was a pale shadow of Daggerfall, and it only went downhill from there as each release stripped back progressively more and more of Elder Scroll’s ambition and personality. Who was responsible for all this anti-ambitious anti-progress? Todd Howard.

[-] Waryle@jlai.lu 26 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Morrowind has never been a pale shadow of Daggerfall. It's just another take on the RPG genre, and a masterful one.

Of course, it's not a RPG sandbox like Daggerfall was and that might put off the early Elder Scrolls fans, but it's superior to its big brother on numerous accounts : story lines, lore, immersion, quests, etc.

Morrowind is a handcrafted marvel with manually placed details everywhere that make the game fascinating and fun to explore, unlike Daggerfall which was big, but repetitive due to its procedural system.

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago

For some reason, Elder Scrolls is cursed. EVERY Elder Scrolls game that comes out (except Daggerfall) has a massive number of detractors about some facet of it that is "a pale shadow" of the previous.

I was around when people treated Morrowind like they are treating Starfield now. Then Oblivion had a much smaller complaint-base, but it revolved around the "disappointing lack of immersion" because Morrowind was such an opinionated game. Then Skyrim comes out and "it's like they put Training Wheels on Oblivion".

Starfield is just suffering from the same Elder Scrolls curse (but in space). To me, Starfield is a great game that might not be for everyone, but that some of those walking away from it are being told they don't like it.

And it's a bit of a problem. There's not much to change. The story is deep, so they can't add more story like NMS did. It's the most stable Bethesda game ever, so it's not about building stability. The gameplay mechanics are reasonable, so it's not about adding new systems. Bethesda might well be screwed this time - because there's nothing to change.

[-] Veraxus@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Daggerfall had some basic guiding principles that have been slowly stripped away by every new release...

  1. It was unapologetically grimdark. The lore was dark, sinister, and scary... very Robert E Howard meets Lovecraft.

  2. It was obsessed with simulation. They wanted a world that functioned logically... hour to hour, day to day, season to season, character to character, and as seamlessly as possible.

  3. It strove for tabletop-level freedom without limits. You could climb, sneak, swim... across rooftops, in streets, in dungeons... there were no barriers whatsoever.

  4. It reinforced that decisions have consequences, with multiple paths if you followed the main story.

With Morrowind, they killed the grimdark and gutted the lore. They replaced the existential dread of the lore with "weirdness". They took the mature, unflinching tone out behind the shed... replacing it with T-rated YA content. Oblivion finally completed the transition from grimdark to sterile high fantasy. This is especially heinous because the Elder Scrolls Bible laid out the franchise from Daggerfall through Oblivion, and Oblivion was supposed to be the final, the darkest, most oppressive game in the series, being literally about the end of the world.

While Morrowind strove to preserve some of the simulation, the grand multi-season scope pared this back somewhat. From there, it never evolved or advanced at all, with each new game using the same minimal, basic simulation.

The tabletop level freedom was completely axed as a guiding principle. Instead, the gameplay became much more gamey. No longer would you sink if you tried to swim while carrying too much weight, climbing has been completely non-existent, dungeoneering mechanics - and dungeoneering as a major gameplay loop - were removed en masse... and all while the seamless open world has had more and more seams - loading zones, invisible walls, etc - added.

And finally, all consequences were removed as basic principles. You could join any and all guilds or factions, your choices had no ramifications or outcomes or branching paths... there was not so much as an attempt to maintain an illusion of impact on the story or simulation.

These are the things people are talking about when they complain about each new TES game being lesser than the one before. And worst of all, they took all this withering away of ambition and applied it to Fallout, gutting the IP's very soul... and nobody really noticed this trend until Starfield, because it was a new IP that was less prone to being viewed through rose-tinted nostalgia.

Every Bethesda game that comes out (not just TES) is worse than the previous. Objectively. Because Todd Howard has removed every shred of fearless ambition from the company.

[-] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago

I actually heard recently that morrowind used some procedural tech in the generation of it's world. They just picked the generation to go with and built on top of it rather than handcrafting from scratch. Which is what starfield should've done to at least a handful of planets that are off significance.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 8 points 9 months ago

Todd Howard more like Todd Coward

[-] Cowbee@lemm.ee 13 points 9 months ago

Hot take: Starfield isn't "dated," it's actually a much better RPG than anything they've made since Morrowind. However, because they can't rely on the world building and writing of people who have either left the company or worked for a different company they acquired the IP for, Starfield has highlighted just how bad Bethesda game design and writing truly is when done in a wholly original manner.

It's still going to be a modder paradise.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 9 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/watch?v=hS2emKDlGmE

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] Xeraga@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

I've never played a Bethesda game and unfortunately Starfield isn't going to change that (at least in its current form). Based on gameplay footage and reviews I'd rather just stick with No Man's Sky. NMS seems to do the space exploration better and can already scratch that itch for me. The loading screens and fast travel are off putting enough that Starfield doesn't seem worth my time. The only feature that draws me to the game at all is the ship builder.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
378 points (100.0% liked)

Games

16408 readers
602 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS