This took a lot longer than I had originally planned, but here it is. I could have talked about this game for so much longer, but that's what we have a comment section for. Lemme know what you think, and thanks for watching!
Came down here in hopes of seeing this. It was originally Interplay which became Black Isle and eventually Obsidian. Part of why "Bethesda Games" have such a reputation is because of New Vegas showing what could be done in the RPG space, after all- and that was developed by Obsidian, not BGS. Imo- Bethesda isn't good at making RPGs and doesn't have anyone who could in power.
Fallout would absolutely have stayed with Obsidian if I had any say in the matter. But while nothing Bethesda makes will likely ever top New Vegas, their games do have a certain charm to them if you take them for what they are.
@@ahomiesectional Obsidian and Black Isle Studios are two different places, although the project lead on New Vegas, Josh Sawyer, was also employed at Black Isle Studios before they closed. He didn't technically work on any Fallout games while at Black Isle, but I believe he worked on some pre-production for what would have been Black Isle's Fallout 3, with some aspects making it into New Vegas. Obsidian were licensed to make New Vegas, so it never left Bethesda's hands. Now on 2024 Bethesda and Obsidian are both owned by Microsoft and it's my (and probably many other people's) dream that Microsoft will have Obsidian and Josh Sawyer make another non-numbered Fallout game again. But I don't think Josh Sawyer really wants to, as he's said in videos on his UA-cam channel that he would prefer to work on projects where the IP isn't owned by an outside source. Still, a man can dream
I do find it funny how "the best X in a Bethesda game" is one that Bethesda had absolutely nothing to do with. Another bizarre one is that I've seen people say Doom 3 is a Bethesda game.
@jamesmeldrum4563 I would say fallout 4 was an improvement on previous games but it was still noticeably below modern FPS standards. Starfield is the only game which meets modern standards. It's not amazing gunplay but it fits right in
@@qwertyvypez I'm sorry but Fallout 4 was quite a big step up from FO3 and FNV. Starfield is a much smaller leap and lacks the bells and whistles equivalents of vats; dismemberment and kill cam. I guess it's getting down to personal taste now.
@@jamesmeldrum4563 Yeah Im talking more about shooting, how it feels etc which I think was a big improvement. I was never a fan of VATS tbh, which obviously is something you like!
@@qwertyvypez Yeah , I know what you meant and stand by my belief that the improvement wasn't that great. Anyway, I mentioned the other THREE points because they can help compensate for average gameplay. Just forget it lol.
People were not disappointed because this wasn't a Bethesda game like all the rest (with all the baggage that comes with it, good or bad), they were disappointed because it didn't offer the sense of wonder and wow factor that their other games did (Fallout 76 had the least and Fallout 4 following that). For their time, each of their releases since Morrowind offered something truly unique but as it is with any competitive market, you gotta keep improving to stay relevant. What's more, you gotta stick to your core values and NOT diminish those while trying to improve your product. Their slacking in the "innovations" department became more apparent with Fallout 4 and how they did it's RPG systems and dialogue options. They were already taking steps back from what brought them on the forefront of AAA games and with Starfield they took even more steps back, while offering little new or refreshing in return. Does Starfield feel like a unique and fun experience all in all? Sure - but you always gotta account all the other games that released before and alongside Starfield's launch. People just expected more from Bethesda in 2023 and compared to a bunch of other gaming companies (indie or otherwise) they just seem so stuck back in time. This is all coming from a big Bethesda fan, playing non-stop since Oblivion and modding the crap out of each title to get the most out of it. AAA developers lost their shit when they saw Elden Ring becoming a success. They insulted the consumers for buying into a game that has so many "archaic" systems. Know what FromSoftware does in each and every big release? They innovate juuuust a little but STICK to their guns. Leaving the RPG systems aside, when Starfield doesn't offer much in the way of "Bethesda exploration" that we all love and neither as a Space game... then why shouldn't I just buy No Man's Sky or a better RPG?
The most difficult thing about Starfield for me is what you mentioned about exploration. You get to play in a huge galaxy, sure, but the majority of planets you can land on are completely procedurally generated. While this can be done well, like in No Man's Sky, it hasn't really been Bethesda's thing since the early days of the Elder Scrolls. I am really hoping that Shattered Space brings back some of that huge Bethesda open world feel given that we now know it is going to be set entirely on Va’ruun’kai. Starfield is really missing that "handcrafted" feel, at least in my opinion. Still love the game though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@ahomiesectional Yes for instance Daggerfall did a lot of procedural generation. Once again it's a matter of context. Daggerfall's procedural systems are lackluster by today's standards, but SO are Starfield's. The fact that they mentioned wanting to go back to what Daggerfall did in a way, but improve on it again tells me that they weren't shooting for the stars in their endeavor - pun intended. Even in mindless exploration and other mundane stuff, it's just a mediocre experience: no interactive foliage to player movement (was in Fallout 4), no inclusion of the weapon debris tech - Nvidia Flex (was built for Fo4 months after it's release). No dismemberment. No snow or sand/dirt/mud displacement. Swimming feels the same as it did in Fallout 4, but worse since there's no diving. Now look at other games that have more going for them, plus exploration. So much stuff feel less stiff, more dynamic and organically interwoven with each other. TW3 which released before Fo4, then: Zelda BoTW, No Man's Sky, Horizon ZD, RDR2, Outer Wilds, The Outer Worlds, Elden Ring, Horizon FW, Zelda ToTK. These are all great/decent examples of how you do exploration and how you tie all other gameplay loops with it. Starfield released in 2023 and it felt like Bethesda took no notes/ played no other game than theirs during development/ saw these games but didn't give a crap. Hello Games was and still is multitudes less the scale of Bethesda and they made No Man's Sky, which launched as a terrible flop. Today this game and company has probably THE largest comeback in gaming history, at least where delivering on broken promises (and then some) is concerned. Everyone knows Starfield won't be worked on as much as No Man's Sky did, given Bethesda's obligation to make the next ES game in our lifetime. Shattered Space is too little too late and nobody really expects something groundbreaking from Starfield at this point. It's gonna have to go against so many fundamentals of what Starfield is, it would need to be a different game to stay relevant. Always keep this in mind: "good enough" for a 70 dollar game should NOT be able to cut it, especially by Bethesda. Cheaper games than that offer MORE and BETTER. If we get complacent with Starfield then Bethesda may as well release the next ES game tomorrow.
I'm sorry but I don't agree on the sense of wonder in the Fallout universe. The brown-washed, low contrast, atmosphere and ruined POI's are, genuinely, the most eye bleeding in any franchise. I never understood how anyone can find beauty in that. It is ugly af and let's not touch on the gear/ clothing/ weapons and gunplay. People complain about Starfields story and people now compare it to Fallout 4 but Fallout 4, in comparison to New Vegas, is dull and too on the rails. Skyrim suffers from a Main Quest which is sub par [I blame Delphine] and most players just avoid that main quest in every playthrough. Starfield, in the otherhand, allows you to, effectively, skip most of the main quest in NG+ but people don't go that far because they're stuck comparing it to other BGS games. NG+ is genuinely a good feature as you can have a forever character and play differently each leap through the Unity. It's better as a sandbox than a narrative. Just gotta break out of the typical BGS hand holding.
I feel a lot of it falls in the presentation of the world's. If they for instance, kept the POI's to the closer "core" systems but left the rest untouched. Then sent you on missions to survey those untouched worlds for LIST. Then over time you would see new outposts pop up on the habitable ones. With this in mind, have some random encounter type POI's on some of those uncharted world's. Things that shouldn't be there (secret military bases, pirate bases, weird cults, ect.). Some with side quests, some just interesting encounters. This would give players a reason to explore and break up the repetitiveness of it.
I loved this game personally. I think some of the hate comes from disappointment hyped up by expectations that random UA-camrs put on the game. But if you watch the Starfield direct video, they absolutely lived up to those expectations. It’s the unwarranted expectations of other people expecting all these unpromised features that inevitably rolled into this hype and eventual backlash. But here is the thing, most UA-camrs don’t actually care if it’s good, they care if they get clicks and nothing generates clicks like hyping a game up to high heaven only to hate on the game when it comes out. All of it just generates clicks and most people just regurgitate what their favorite UA-camr says.
@@caiooca5793 totally agree. It’s a shame because it really is a great game, especially as a space game. But, I think Space exploration games, for most people, will not be their cup of tea because of the inherent nature of the repetition required to fill up an infinite galaxy with stuff. However, I think if they only made a few planets to explore, it would lose the vastness of how space exploration games are supposed to be.
there is absolutely nothing "punk" about this game. If anything, it's the complete opposite. it"s extremely "corporate" and "safe". "punk" refers to going against corporations and the "system". In starfield, everything you do is for the corporations and governments.
The term "NASA-punk" is in reference to sci-fi sub-genres like solarpunk, steampunk, or cyberpunk. Also, much of the work the Spacefarer does for those corporations and governments is painted as morally ambiguous at best. Perhaps the quests were written in such a way to invite the player to draw their own conclusions.
@@ahomiesectional wrong. Punk refers a style that expresses opposition to authority and conventional norms. As I stated, there is absolutely nothing about anything in Starfield that does ANYTHING like that. They only used the term to try and get people to buy the game.
@@cantu7214 You are confusing "punk" with terms like "steampunk" and the like. NASA-punk means aesthetic worldbuilding in the style of NASA. Just as steampunk means an aesthetic from the steam-age era. Actual "punk" without any prefix is something else unrelated.
Naming it Nasa-punk because other genre has punk in it's name is almost a parody since it's completely missing the point of why cyberpunk and solarpunk are named this way. Hell, even steampunk although it mainly refer to an esthetic is distorting how victorian people would dress. On the contrary the Nasa "punk" is very clean and corporate. Also, thinking the quests were written as morally ambiguous to make people think is giving emil way too much credits, this isn't New Vegas.
I think the maps being mostly "radiant" is the main turndown, even "fixed" maps like new atlantis are surrounded with the repeated structures you can see everywhere, and francly there is no reason to explore said map, you will not find someone giving you an interesting quest, only the same radiant thing you find everywhere with unnamed npc on an outpost. There are a few unique maps related to main quests or character quests that look great and that's it, that gorgeous jungle is just to find where that ship crashed, you will not find anythinfg else exploring it other than animals and plants that you find everywhere else. I don't dislike being able to land any place and seeing a new map every time, but they could have had a greater creative touch in the fixed capital maps. I would love a mix of the two worlds be used in the future, like make a fallout game like 1 and 2, with 1:1 scale map, but you only explore around the settlements, and the rest is fast travel with random encounters like in 1 and 2.
I really like Starfield, but I disagree about the quests, they're... bad, some comically so. The overall story is OK, but the quests themselves are painfully bland and Bethesda dropped the ball hard on factions. The exploration is equally bad, with each planet both empty and repetitively full such that they simultaneously have everything, and nothing. For me, the game is best when I'm not taking it seriously, just running around and playing with ships, bases and random side content stuff. It's fun to do your own thing, capture ships, make ships, craft, build out your character, and find the hidden side content. That's the main game, the quests are just distracting side content.
Oh the actual quests themselves weren't great, but they did take you to some of the more interesting places available. That and the stories they supported were actually really good. The potential Terrormorph fiasco? A CEO trying to leverage political power to get away with extortion and murder? The ethical implications of literal mind-control tech? I quite enjoyed them myself.
This game had potential but crappy, repetitive space battles and tedious back and forth travel along with a boring story killed this game. There is just so much bad it makes me sad thinking we all waited years for this. Devs need to ask themselves, is our game fun?
Unpopular opinion but I really enjoy starfield. Ik it doesn’t live up to the hype. But once you accept it for what it is I found it to be a very enjoyable playthrough. I’m always a finding new ways to play and things to do. I keep finding myself coming back to it.
SAME! I plan on doing a more generalized video about this at some point, but honestly I wish more people could just enjoy things for what they are. Is it different? Yeah. Is that a bad thing? Not inherently, no. Expectations lead to disappointment, because no matter what you go into a situation expecting, at least some part of it isn't going to live up to what you're looking for.
Crazy that you feel like your opinion is the unpopular one. Hating on the game is just a way UA-camrs get clicks, and then lemmings who never played the game start repeating their UA-camr of choice’s opinions as their own. Outside of the internet, it is one of the most popular games. If it wasn’t, there wouldn’t be videos about it a year later. You don’t see any videos for Tears of the Kingdom, do you? Most games die off, but if Starfield wasn’t popular, there wouldn’t be so many hate farms dedicated to it.
Thank you for make such a grounded opinion on Starfield a title that has been controversial but still is just a good Game with few disappointing mechanics and features, i want this game to be more but maybe with some time and maybe with a few more updates and expansions it could be the great title from Bethesda where all hoping for.
This took a lot longer than I had originally planned, but here it is. I could have talked about this game for so much longer, but that's what we have a comment section for. Lemme know what you think, and thanks for watching!
Fallout 2 was made by Black Isle Studio and has no relation to Bethesda apart from them buying the IP
Came down here in hopes of seeing this. It was originally Interplay which became Black Isle and eventually Obsidian. Part of why "Bethesda Games" have such a reputation is because of New Vegas showing what could be done in the RPG space, after all- and that was developed by Obsidian, not BGS. Imo- Bethesda isn't good at making RPGs and doesn't have anyone who could in power.
Fallout would absolutely have stayed with Obsidian if I had any say in the matter. But while nothing Bethesda makes will likely ever top New Vegas, their games do have a certain charm to them if you take them for what they are.
@@ahomiesectional Obsidian and Black Isle Studios are two different places, although the project lead on New Vegas, Josh Sawyer, was also employed at Black Isle Studios before they closed. He didn't technically work on any Fallout games while at Black Isle, but I believe he worked on some pre-production for what would have been Black Isle's Fallout 3, with some aspects making it into New Vegas.
Obsidian were licensed to make New Vegas, so it never left Bethesda's hands.
Now on 2024 Bethesda and Obsidian are both owned by Microsoft and it's my (and probably many other people's) dream that Microsoft will have Obsidian and Josh Sawyer make another non-numbered Fallout game again.
But I don't think Josh Sawyer really wants to, as he's said in videos on his UA-cam channel that he would prefer to work on projects where the IP isn't owned by an outside source. Still, a man can dream
I do find it funny how "the best X in a Bethesda game" is one that Bethesda had absolutely nothing to do with. Another bizarre one is that I've seen people say Doom 3 is a Bethesda game.
Starfield combat is much better than any previous Bethesda game tbh
Not much better than Fallout 4. Better but not a lot.
@jamesmeldrum4563 I would say fallout 4 was an improvement on previous games but it was still noticeably below modern FPS standards. Starfield is the only game which meets modern standards. It's not amazing gunplay but it fits right in
@@qwertyvypez I'm sorry but Fallout 4 was quite a big step up from FO3 and FNV. Starfield is a much smaller leap and lacks the bells and whistles equivalents of vats; dismemberment and kill cam. I guess it's getting down to personal taste now.
@@jamesmeldrum4563 Yeah Im talking more about shooting, how it feels etc which I think was a big improvement. I was never a fan of VATS tbh, which obviously is something you like!
@@qwertyvypez Yeah , I know what you meant and stand by my belief that the improvement wasn't that great. Anyway, I mentioned the other THREE points because they can help compensate for average gameplay. Just forget it lol.
People were not disappointed because this wasn't a Bethesda game like all the rest (with all the baggage that comes with it, good or bad), they were disappointed because it didn't offer the sense of wonder and wow factor that their other games did (Fallout 76 had the least and Fallout 4 following that). For their time, each of their releases since Morrowind offered something truly unique but as it is with any competitive market, you gotta keep improving to stay relevant. What's more, you gotta stick to your core values and NOT diminish those while trying to improve your product.
Their slacking in the "innovations" department became more apparent with Fallout 4 and how they did it's RPG systems and dialogue options. They were already taking steps back from what brought them on the forefront of AAA games and with Starfield they took even more steps back, while offering little new or refreshing in return. Does Starfield feel like a unique and fun experience all in all? Sure - but you always gotta account all the other games that released before and alongside Starfield's launch.
People just expected more from Bethesda in 2023 and compared to a bunch of other gaming companies (indie or otherwise) they just seem so stuck back in time. This is all coming from a big Bethesda fan, playing non-stop since Oblivion and modding the crap out of each title to get the most out of it. AAA developers lost their shit when they saw Elden Ring becoming a success. They insulted the consumers for buying into a game that has so many "archaic" systems. Know what FromSoftware does in each and every big release? They innovate juuuust a little but STICK to their guns.
Leaving the RPG systems aside, when Starfield doesn't offer much in the way of "Bethesda exploration" that we all love and neither as a Space game... then why shouldn't I just buy No Man's Sky or a better RPG?
The most difficult thing about Starfield for me is what you mentioned about exploration. You get to play in a huge galaxy, sure, but the majority of planets you can land on are completely procedurally generated. While this can be done well, like in No Man's Sky, it hasn't really been Bethesda's thing since the early days of the Elder Scrolls. I am really hoping that Shattered Space brings back some of that huge Bethesda open world feel given that we now know it is going to be set entirely on Va’ruun’kai. Starfield is really missing that "handcrafted" feel, at least in my opinion. Still love the game though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@ahomiesectional Yes for instance Daggerfall did a lot of procedural generation. Once again it's a matter of context. Daggerfall's procedural systems are lackluster by today's standards, but SO are Starfield's. The fact that they mentioned wanting to go back to what Daggerfall did in a way, but improve on it again tells me that they weren't shooting for the stars in their endeavor - pun intended.
Even in mindless exploration and other mundane stuff, it's just a mediocre experience: no interactive foliage to player movement (was in Fallout 4), no inclusion of the weapon debris tech - Nvidia Flex (was built for Fo4 months after it's release). No dismemberment. No snow or sand/dirt/mud displacement. Swimming feels the same as it did in Fallout 4, but worse since there's no diving. Now look at other games that have more going for them, plus exploration. So much stuff feel less stiff, more dynamic and organically interwoven with each other.
TW3 which released before Fo4, then: Zelda BoTW, No Man's Sky, Horizon ZD, RDR2, Outer Wilds, The Outer Worlds, Elden Ring, Horizon FW, Zelda ToTK. These are all great/decent examples of how you do exploration and how you tie all other gameplay loops with it. Starfield released in 2023 and it felt like Bethesda took no notes/ played no other game than theirs during development/ saw these games but didn't give a crap.
Hello Games was and still is multitudes less the scale of Bethesda and they made No Man's Sky, which launched as a terrible flop. Today this game and company has probably THE largest comeback in gaming history, at least where delivering on broken promises (and then some) is concerned. Everyone knows Starfield won't be worked on as much as No Man's Sky did, given Bethesda's obligation to make the next ES game in our lifetime.
Shattered Space is too little too late and nobody really expects something groundbreaking from Starfield at this point. It's gonna have to go against so many fundamentals of what Starfield is, it would need to be a different game to stay relevant. Always keep this in mind: "good enough" for a 70 dollar game should NOT be able to cut it, especially by Bethesda. Cheaper games than that offer MORE and BETTER. If we get complacent with Starfield then Bethesda may as well release the next ES game tomorrow.
I'm sorry but I don't agree on the sense of wonder in the Fallout universe. The brown-washed, low contrast, atmosphere and ruined POI's are, genuinely, the most eye bleeding in any franchise. I never understood how anyone can find beauty in that. It is ugly af and let's not touch on the gear/ clothing/ weapons and gunplay.
People complain about Starfields story and people now compare it to Fallout 4 but Fallout 4, in comparison to New Vegas, is dull and too on the rails.
Skyrim suffers from a Main Quest which is sub par [I blame Delphine] and most players just avoid that main quest in every playthrough. Starfield, in the otherhand, allows you to, effectively, skip most of the main quest in NG+ but people don't go that far because they're stuck comparing it to other BGS games.
NG+ is genuinely a good feature as you can have a forever character and play differently each leap through the Unity. It's better as a sandbox than a narrative. Just gotta break out of the typical BGS hand holding.
I feel a lot of it falls in the presentation of the world's. If they for instance, kept the POI's to the closer "core" systems but left the rest untouched. Then sent you on missions to survey those untouched worlds for LIST. Then over time you would see new outposts pop up on the habitable ones.
With this in mind, have some random encounter type POI's on some of those uncharted world's. Things that shouldn't be there (secret military bases, pirate bases, weird cults, ect.). Some with side quests, some just interesting encounters.
This would give players a reason to explore and break up the repetitiveness of it.
I loved this game personally. I think some of the hate comes from disappointment hyped up by expectations that random UA-camrs put on the game. But if you watch the Starfield direct video, they absolutely lived up to those expectations. It’s the unwarranted expectations of other people expecting all these unpromised features that inevitably rolled into this hype and eventual backlash.
But here is the thing, most UA-camrs don’t actually care if it’s good, they care if they get clicks and nothing generates clicks like hyping a game up to high heaven only to hate on the game when it comes out. All of it just generates clicks and most people just regurgitate what their favorite UA-camr says.
Its the trend culture, starfield hate is a trend that people mindlessly follow.
@@caiooca5793 totally agree. It’s a shame because it really is a great game, especially as a space game. But, I think Space exploration games, for most people, will not be their cup of tea because of the inherent nature of the repetition required to fill up an infinite galaxy with stuff. However, I think if they only made a few planets to explore, it would lose the vastness of how space exploration games are supposed to be.
there is absolutely nothing "punk" about this game. If anything, it's the complete opposite. it"s extremely "corporate" and "safe". "punk" refers to going against corporations and the "system". In starfield, everything you do is for the corporations and governments.
The term "NASA-punk" is in reference to sci-fi sub-genres like solarpunk, steampunk, or cyberpunk. Also, much of the work the Spacefarer does for those corporations and governments is painted as morally ambiguous at best. Perhaps the quests were written in such a way to invite the player to draw their own conclusions.
@@ahomiesectional wrong. Punk refers a style that expresses opposition to authority and conventional norms. As I stated, there is absolutely nothing about anything in Starfield that does ANYTHING like that. They only used the term to try and get people to buy the game.
@@cantu7214 You are confusing "punk" with terms like "steampunk" and the like. NASA-punk means aesthetic worldbuilding in the style of NASA. Just as steampunk means an aesthetic from the steam-age era. Actual "punk" without any prefix is something else unrelated.
Naming it Nasa-punk because other genre has punk in it's name is almost a parody since it's completely missing the point of why cyberpunk and solarpunk are named this way. Hell, even steampunk although it mainly refer to an esthetic is distorting how victorian people would dress. On the contrary the Nasa "punk" is very clean and corporate.
Also, thinking the quests were written as morally ambiguous to make people think is giving emil way too much credits, this isn't New Vegas.
I think the maps being mostly "radiant" is the main turndown, even "fixed" maps like new atlantis are surrounded with the repeated structures you can see everywhere, and francly there is no reason to explore said map, you will not find someone giving you an interesting quest, only the same radiant thing you find everywhere with unnamed npc on an outpost. There are a few unique maps related to main quests or character quests that look great and that's it, that gorgeous jungle is just to find where that ship crashed, you will not find anythinfg else exploring it other than animals and plants that you find everywhere else. I don't dislike being able to land any place and seeing a new map every time, but they could have had a greater creative touch in the fixed capital maps. I would love a mix of the two worlds be used in the future, like make a fallout game like 1 and 2, with 1:1 scale map, but you only explore around the settlements, and the rest is fast travel with random encounters like in 1 and 2.
Agreed. I'm hoping that Shattered Space brings back a bit more of that exploration feel.
I really like Starfield, but I disagree about the quests, they're... bad, some comically so. The overall story is OK, but the quests themselves are painfully bland and Bethesda dropped the ball hard on factions. The exploration is equally bad, with each planet both empty and repetitively full such that they simultaneously have everything, and nothing. For me, the game is best when I'm not taking it seriously, just running around and playing with ships, bases and random side content stuff. It's fun to do your own thing, capture ships, make ships, craft, build out your character, and find the hidden side content. That's the main game, the quests are just distracting side content.
Oh the actual quests themselves weren't great, but they did take you to some of the more interesting places available. That and the stories they supported were actually really good. The potential Terrormorph fiasco? A CEO trying to leverage political power to get away with extortion and murder? The ethical implications of literal mind-control tech? I quite enjoyed them myself.
WTF I've got a ridiculous number of hours in this game and just found out what Barret's first name is.🤦
If it makes you feel any better, I also didn't know until i was researching for this video lmao
This game had potential but crappy, repetitive space battles and tedious back and forth travel along with a boring story killed this game. There is just so much bad it makes me sad thinking we all waited years for this. Devs need to ask themselves, is our game fun?
I cared so little about Starfield that I completely forgot it is a year old. I was sure it was only 6 months old...
Starfield is an example of how some people are content with AI-written games lmfao
I haven't played since launch but it's by far one of my favorites. I'm going to pick it back up pretty soon; I'm ready for anorher playthrough or two.
lol I won't even download a pirate version for free.
It's vacant shit.
Says the lemming that hasn’t played the game, but is repeating opinions he heard from his UA-camr of choice.
@@joker6558 Sorry - can't understand you with Todd's c*ck in your mouth.
Unpopular opinion but I really enjoy starfield. Ik it doesn’t live up to the hype. But once you accept it for what it is I found it to be a very enjoyable playthrough. I’m always a finding new ways to play and things to do. I keep finding myself coming back to it.
SAME! I plan on doing a more generalized video about this at some point, but honestly I wish more people could just enjoy things for what they are. Is it different? Yeah. Is that a bad thing? Not inherently, no. Expectations lead to disappointment, because no matter what you go into a situation expecting, at least some part of it isn't going to live up to what you're looking for.
Crazy that you feel like your opinion is the unpopular one. Hating on the game is just a way UA-camrs get clicks, and then lemmings who never played the game start repeating their UA-camr of choice’s opinions as their own.
Outside of the internet, it is one of the most popular games. If it wasn’t, there wouldn’t be videos about it a year later. You don’t see any videos for Tears of the Kingdom, do you? Most games die off, but if Starfield wasn’t popular, there wouldn’t be so many hate farms dedicated to it.
Starfield is so good
Thank you for make such a grounded opinion on Starfield a title that has been controversial but still is just a good Game with few disappointing mechanics and features, i want this game to be more but maybe with some time and maybe with a few more updates and expansions it could be the great title from Bethesda where all hoping for.