The 'Starfield' Situation Is Just Getting Sad...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 гру 2023
- 👉 All my links: linktr.ee/lukestephens 👈
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The latest round of news surrounding Starfield has just gotten sad and pathetic and it's led me to a realization that Starfield and Bethesda themselves have become the entertainment to us gamers for all the wrong reasons... People are enjoying the discussion surrounding the game more than the game itself, and that's a hallmark sign of a lolcow...
--
Starfield is an action role-playing game developed by Bethesda Game Studios and published by Bethesda Softworks. The game takes place in a space-themed setting, and is the first new intellectual property developed by Bethesda in 25 years. It was released for Windows and Xbox Series X/S on September 6, 2023.
Starfield is the first new intellectual property (IP) by Bethesda Game Studios in over twenty-five years, and has been described by director Todd Howard as "Skyrim in space". The studio had been delving into space-themed games since as early as 1994, according to Howard. They had acquired the rights to make a game based on the Traveller role-playing system, but shortly lost them. Their Delta V game in 1994 had been part of this Traveller license but had not been fully realized. The 10th Planet was a cancelled space combat game from which the atmosphere of Starfield was derived. Howard stated they had rights to Star Trek in the 2000s and he pitched an idea for a role-playing game in that setting, but this failed to be approved.
While Bethesda had wanted to do a science fiction game for some time and had strong ideas for its gameplay style, it took a while to cement the ideas behind Starfield that would distinguish it from other science-fiction games already released. They came onto a theme which lead artist Istvan Pely dubbed "NASA punk", that although set in humanity's future, used technology that can be traced to origins in various National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) space missions. Bethesda's team began writing a fictional narrative of events by decade of the approximately 300 years from development to the game's present, in order to ask "And now man is living amongst the stars: what does that mean?", according to Howard.
Starfield's concept had been in the studio's planned development plans for some time prior to the trademarking of the name in 2013. Of other potential names for the game, Howard said, "There were no other names. It had to be 'Starfield'." He said active development of the game had been ongoing since the release of Fallout 4 in November 2015. By mid-2018, the game was in production, had already been in development for some time and was in a playable state. Starfield is the studio's first game made using Creation Engine 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
╔═╦╗╔╦╗╔═╦═╦╦╦╦╗╔═╗
║╚╣║║║╚╣╚╣╔╣╔╣║╚╣═╣
╠╗║╚╝║║╠╗║╚╣║║║║║═╣
╚═╩══╩═╩═╩═╩╝╚╩═╩═╝
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe and I'll be your bestest friend!
#starfield #gaming #xbox - Ігри
Check out my second channel for LOADS more content and stream highlights: ua-cam.com/channels/5Pi8DHUItNgbGVhjh4kVgQ.html
Recorded/Edited content is better
so bethesda are really taking the procedural generation seriously, especially with outsourcing responses using Chat GPT lol.
Starfield is 🗑🗑️
I can't believe a self proclaimed proud skeptic is still this upset by the fact a Bethesda game doesn't have seemless space travel 3 months after release... That's wild
At least your getting good content by ripping into Bethesda during a slow news week😂
"Starfield isn't boring because people went to the moon" is a new level of cope that is beyond definition. I've never seen anything like this in my 50+ years of gaming. It's absolutely shocking. Yes Bethesda, there wasn't anything on the moon, but those men faced down impossible odds and had nothing but their suits and a tin can protecting them from a cold, lonely death in space. Starfield players are sitting on a couch holding a controller staring at a bland rendered wasteland that they paid money for. The pathetic attempt at equivalency is baffling.
And you know they were actually on the moon.
Excited for es6?👀😂😂
Exactly.
They actually stood there. I dont own Starfield, because looking at rocks on a screen is not the same as experiencing something in person. I mean, captain obvious, but apparently it has to be spelled out for them.
imagine a game so bad that an ai can't find enough good points to counter the bad review and had to rely on "Starfield isn't boring because people went to the moon".
”50 plus years of gaming” doubt
I don't feel bad for Bethesda at all. Bethesda made decisions either with the game or when communicating with the community, and they have earned the consequences of their actions.
And they had examples of doing shit wrong already, that's the worst part. Major examples, like CP77 at launch and NMS at launch. Their own F76 too. Nothing learned, nothing at all :C I know this game will be much better at some point, but this aura will just follow Bethesda for the next decade with 2 failed debuts back to back.
@@gaalanonim4503wouldn't say fallout 76 is a failure
@@rayosborne8617at launch it absolutely was.... They had to come back and put more money into it fixing. Just like all the other games he listed. Bethesda will have to dump money fixing it like they did No Man's Sky
Agreed, they need to answer the phone. The consequences of their own actions is calling.
@@jfelton3583 That was Hello Games, but the point I suppose is still the same. I would like to remind you of past Bethesda titles where they release a patch once in a blue moon....then the players come in with an unofficial patch to actually fix the game.
The funniest part is that a couple of astronauts that went to the Moon *actually said it **_was_** boring.* Frank Borman (appropriate name, probably qualifies him as an expert) specifically said "it was only interesting for about 30 seconds". I wonder if Bethesda would be happier with _that_ review.
If thats true then they sent the wrong man or they didnt go at all. What an unbelieveably arrogant quote.
how can it be boring if the chances are pretty high that you die in space 500.000 km away from earth? xD
@@davidilling6850 every space mission before first successful space mission is SUICIDE MISSION
they would die in every wrong decision they could take
and you sit in front of your monitor and keyboard saying "how can it be boring?"
@@Holdo23 - They'd been though it hundreds of times in the simulators. Also, Borman didn't even get to land, so he just stared at grey rock for a couple of hours while mission control nagged him.
Unlike sailors in the age of discovery, astronauts knew pretty much exactly what they were going to find. No monsters, no exotic girls, no cities of gold. Just grey rock and grey dust.
I'm sure the first ones were excited because they knew they were the first ones, but soon they had to start bringing their own entertainment. And the fact that they regarded _golf_ as entertainment tells you just how boring it must have been.
dude the moon is barren af. It's just rocks and blackness. You've simulated this exact situation millions of times and now you're there and it feels like a simulation. The human brain is a complex instrument that requires stimulation. It'd be virtually impossible *not* to be bored on the moon anything past an hour.
The Apollo program astronauts suffered a lot from boredom. It was a serious psychological issue. For a lot of that trip there was simply nothing to do. Being able to cope with that is something astronauts were selected for.
It might be a bit of an oversimplification to categorize it solely as boredom. When you experience something as "boring" you are in a state of being weary and restless due to lack of interest or stimulation. The term "isolation" or "confinement" may be more accurate to describe the psychological challenges faced by astronauts. Being able to cope with prolonged confinement in isolation is indeed something astronauts were selected for.
@@aexetan2769They could still speak to eachother so it wasn't like they were completely isolated. The confinement was a big problem though. I think it's a combination of various factors. If we want to conquer space we better get used to small confined spaces fast.
Not to mention it was their JOB and not a GAME.
Jesus fuck, the hubris to equate Starfield to the fucking moon landing. That's the death knell for me with this corporatized company.
They were so bored that after the third set landed, they demanded, and got, a lunar rover to drive around...unlike Starfield players. 😂
I was grounded for about 10 years straight. I got used to boredom.
I should go into space.
Another thing that baffles me is that planets are supposed to be deserted but every single one of them has abandoned buildings generated at a fixed rate.
Yea you turn up to a planet with an ancient artefact on it and from the top of the ancient temple you can see A FUCKING SCIENCE LAB?! Did these scientists not think to check out the floating rocks less than 1k away??? Makes me wonder why they went down the ‘explorer’ route cause we ain’t discovering shit. EVERYWHERE has been visited. It wouldn’t be too bad if said science lab was unique but they’re just the same copy and pasted ’dungeon’. God I hope ES6 is what we need it to be!
This and the lack of POI variety is what eventually killed the game for me, also the fact the mod tools are STILL not out, so the nexus page for Starfield is baren and lame. BGS killed this game by not having mod tools at launch.
Bethesda has actually made changes to how content is loaded making modding much harder. It's hard to say what is going to happen in the future but it looks like Bethesda does not give two shits about community content beyond the money they can make out of it.@@5erase
and you are the first one to "scout" any planet like the resort, I mean wtf, no one tried to scout :D
Yep. Actually barren planets would have been immersive at least. Instead we got content-barren planets that don't even look barren.
The biggest disappointment of Bethesda games is seeing the potential of what their games can be but noticing Bethesda is stuck in their ways and brushing off legit criticism
Starfield releases and all of a sudden every Bethesda game in history has been a failed experiment. Gamers are weird af.
"Stuck in their ways" is a polite way of saying incompetent.
@@thatoneguyfaded Corporate sympathizer detected
I liked Starfield, but I definitely agree... I saw some good general ideas, there was potential, I did see it, but the execution fell short. Overall, I got a weird feeling that alhough I still liked it, it's the end of an era and if they still stick to the same old and don't take more chances in the future... I'm not sure I'll like (and buy) their next game. Starfield was good enough, but just barely cleared the bar. At no point did it wow me, a feeling I got with Skyrim for example. Skyrim felt like a revelation when I first played it.
@@lonewitness oh totally, it's an honor to be the smartest person in the room lol in no world does your detector offend me my guy.
I actually think Starfield has a set a new standard for many years to come. It will be the game design students' case study as of an example of what NOT to do.
Only if it loses money.
Rather like the pvp map in ESO, which is about to turn TEN YEARS OLD, and the only change they made was to...remove some animals.
More like, look at how shitty our product can get and these sheep just keep buying it while complaining about it. As long as you give them your money, they dont care if you dont like the game.
haven't they said that it's a their most succesful game yet ?
WRONG. They will do EXACTLY what this dumpster fire did.
He's got balls to say this with Todd Howard standing behind him.
That Todd Howard is as fake as the world in -Skyfield- -Starrim- -Starfield.
I'm sick of studios blaming consumers for their product being bad. You don't just see it with gaming studios it is everywhere in the entertainment industry.
It’s this sick sense of entitlement that people have. Constructive criticism isn’t a thing anymore. It’s either your 💯 on board or your stupid and have issues.
Bethesda acting like Hollywood. I'm surprised they haven't started calling their customers racists yet. CDPR at least had the decency to apologize over and over again, and patch the crap out of Cyberpunk, to fix it as quickly and best as possible.
Or Larian, who delivered a fantastic game on release day, but still keep pushing out patch after patch, already adding in DLC worthy extra content for free.
Yep, like disney Star Wars and amazon rings of power. Both failures blame their fans for being stupid, racist, sexist, or any other ist you can think of.
The woke Movie industry has excelled at blaming consumers for their bad products these past few years. They've nearly perfected it.
Comparing actual astronauts that trained for years and risked life and death to achieve something no other man had ever achieved to me, that's sat on my sofa in my Spider-Man underpants drinking mountain dew playing an underwhelming game and saying we should have the same feelings is absolute One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest level of madness
And who had to endure a very boring month or so in a tiny spaceship, with not much to do.....
Well said 👍
Also, astronauts absolutely get bored in space, that's why they go through psychological training to avoid cabin fever.
Todd is Bethesda's biggest problem because he thinks he knows what makes us happy in games. He is like parents who think that playing the piano will make us happier than playing football with our friends
My parents where like that, "insert hobby we say he likes but actually does not like here"
I THOUGHT YOU LIKED CHEESEBURGERS
Everytime they get so pissy when you say otherwise like it's your fault they had a false take of your likes.
And then Nexus mods comes in and denies you making modes that fix Bethesda racism and forced LGBTQ propaganda problem s
F them both
I mean your parents knew you for longer than you did my bets on them lol
Except the piano is a plastic piece of overpriced chinese crap with an horrible teacher, while your friends has a ball with a star signature on it and you have plans to go to the pool afterward.
This game was one of the weirdest gaming experiences of my life. I was hyped. I dropped an extra lil moola to get the deluxe edition and play a few days early. I had my Xbox set for auto update and reinstall. All set.
On release, I was hyped. Stoked. Out of my God damn mind with excitement. I played, oh boy did I play. A couple hours a day, for two weeks. I built ships, I imagined myself a vigilante pseudo pirate, trying to set up a base in which I could steal a ton of ships and have an awesome fleet.
For two weeks, I put in the hours, and I was hooked. It felt like it would last forever, and I hadn't consciously noticed the cracks and flaws.
Then, out of nowhere, I just stopped playing, and stopped wanting to play. This overwhelming feeling of innane boredom had blanketed my outlook on the game, so I just stopped.
For two weeks, I had been hooked and immersed and happy. The wall of boredom and disappointment hit me so hard, and so swiftly, it felt like I had been stabbed in the back.
And that's my Starfield experience, and I'll never get a second shot at that.
😂
Why so dramatic😅😅
Exactly my experience.
Wtf are you talking about
Poetry
The fact that there are indie games that let you explore planets in space without loading screens and Bethesda couldn’t accomplish this with a 8 year development cycle is hilarious to me lmao
Haha hilarious and underrated comment
Um yeah those games are also alot smaller that's not very comparable
@@redninja3056even if Bethesda made starfield small with only 2 planets they still couldn’t do no loading space to planet traversal. Their engine is ancient and is ass and literally everything
@@redninja3056no man’s sky?
Yeah and to put it into perspective: Red Dead 2 had a 8 year development cycle and that game was made for 2013 hardware lol
Todd menacingly lurking in the shadow behind you was a great flair touch for this video
It just works.
@@NicoTheCinderace
*Todd with a gun to Luke's head*
IT JUST WORKS, RIGHT!?
I honestly thought afew times that his head is moving. It scared the crapp out of me
Ohhhhh, Todd.
Absolutely crazy that a company would give this kind of response to customers, I hope they don't get away with it lightly.
They always do.
Only because people keep giving them money. If players stop buying their steaming turds of horrendously awful games then they would learn from it
Oh they will.
You mention the AI responses to reviews but I think that just encapsulates what Starfield is... It feels like a game that was made entirely by AI and then the developers just connected the dots and fixed bugs. Those responses to the reviews certainly sounded more human than most of the dialogue in the game!
Bro what people are talking to so I can hear what is apparently actually human lol
@@Badgerinary Nice try AI-generated comment, but I see through your ruse.
Bethesda really has no idea what they are doing... it's hilarious to watch.
Yeah... but hey, they are now in the best company with Activison/Blizz, while those at least know how to milk their customers dry to the bones. :/
Todd has lost the plot years ago. He is not just some PR face, he is the game director aka the guy who is responsible for everything in every game he has directed. He is the "last word" guy (other than producers and board of directors). He OK'd everything you see in Starfield.
They have until 2027, if they don't hit the targets, Microsoft is going to pull the plug and exit the gaming business.
This isn't doing their futures any good going forward.@@CallMeTeci
The simple thought that this game could be enjoyable without vehicles is hilarious and absurd to me.
yeah, they aren't milking their customers, but they lied to their customers about some game features@@CallMeTeci
The last years have shown us that it´s always a good idea to berate your customers for not "understanding" your game.
it's weird how they never learn...
@Messi-rw9ng it's like they don't get that if they treat customers good they'll make more money 🤯🤯
@@BrandenToyotaexactly, they would have made my money if they hadn't screwed me on fallout 76 as bad as they did, I learned back then and skipped out on this game and damn am I happy I did
They built a game for Todd, not for the average gamer, he’s old and stuck in the past and it’s keeping these new games from reaching their full potential
@@davidm.schreckii1426 Then you didn't learn quick enough I'd say. As soon as Fallout 76 was marketed to be an always online PvP thing with zero NPC of note I already saw where that was headed. And mind you, I had preordered the game but cancelled my preorder based on the info I garnered then. I told many people including friends this was headed for disaster... and then 2018 rolled in.
I took an equal critical eye with Starfield and looked carefully for the things that were clearly not gonna happen as well as the things that actually were cool in design. Waited 2 weeks until after official release to proof my prediction right and/or wrong and eventually made my decision.
Seeing the direction a game is headed isn't difficult but you have to remain critical of what you see versus what is realistically to be delivered. Also weight carefully for yourself what you find important and not while playing any given game, to determine if something thats complained about (or hyped) is really something YOU care about.
Absolutely agree less is more. Most games feel like they are trying to be bigger but often at the cost of not being better.
Trying to make their pond look like an ocean with the same amount of water.
Starfield reminds me of Daggerfall, but as a futuristic Sci-fi. This type of open world was great in the late 90s, but in the 2020s it doesn’t cut it anymore. A big open world is pointless if it doesn’t have anything in it.
Daggerfall didn't had as many loading screens as Starfield because no ship and planet transition. Daggerfall was better, you can walk anywhere any city without break/loading, with mods that fast forward time for travel on horse. Starfield is bs. Daggerfall was far good for its time, Starfield is outdated at its launch.
@@ProtiumPowerAnd don't forget there's actually some fun shit to look forward to like discovering how to summon the Daedric princes or figuring out the convoluted political schemes behind the various quest givers. In Starfield you just raid random buildings on otherwise samey and deserted planets while dragging yourself back to your immortal and essential quest givers, until you decide to f--k off to another parallel universe.
Daggerfall is actually immersive and fun.
I played daggerfall for the first time this year, and ive enjoyed it more than starfield, really sad about it because i was so hyped. At least daggerfall had some cool engaging character progression, and other stuff like climbing. (also daggerfall has horses, while starfield cant give us ground vehicles 30 years later.)
45% of people being LESS excited for ES6 is terrifying. I know I'm part of that group. But think, there are people who are still as excited, more excited or even apathetic. So 45% of the sample for your customer base being less likely to engage with your product should really make you get your act together. But like Luke said, I doubt they're taking it seriously.
Yes. The TESVI subreddit just posted this same poll, and most people said they were more excited. Really disappointing that some are tempting BGS to further pursue the lowest common denominator.
That was 45% of people who answered a poll
It's most likely 60-65%
Tes 6 will be released in a post gta6 and witcher 4 world there is zero chance it won't be disappointing especially since bethesda refuses to ditch their ancient engine and hire actual writers.
I won't be purchasing it. After paying full price for 76 i refuse to support Bethesda in any way shape or form. But if by some miracle tes6 is decent, I'll be sure to put on my eye patch and peg leg for it.
@@ryanberman5314 Yeah, that's why I said sample. It's hard to know how everyone feels, but it's probably about what you said.
Boggles my mind that Todd Howard thought the game’s entire draw would be, “You are in space. How crazy is that?” and that’s it.
Boggles my mind that no one told him that there have been games set in space before
Freespace 2 is still my favorite space combat game
@@AssortedGamer696 Star Sector is mine.
@@CoolSmoovie Ayyy, my fav space game.
Obligatory shilling, get adjusted sector mod.
Elite Dangerous, for all its flaws, was already giving that feeling-much more immersively-almost a decade ago.
Mass effect is the highlight.
when Todd kept saying a thousand planets, i knew it was over for that game. this especially saying after what we had with no mans sky at launch and we already know procedurally generated mean same thing over and over with tiny variation. only he some found a way to disappoint even further by not even committing and just making tiny parts of the planet explorable before you hit invisible wall.
Todd would say there’s thousands of things to do about a game with thousands of chairs to sit in. He is so embarrassing
just imagine 6 planets with 6 handcrafted worlds like elder scrolls. That would of made the game worth playing.
It’s gonna be a rough day at Bethesda when they realize the way they develop their games isn’t gonna work in today’s environment
The problem with that conclusion is it fails to account for the only metric that people at BGS/Zenimax upper management care about.
Dolla dolla bills, y’all.
And by that metric, Starfield is doing just fine. Certainly not bad enough to force the acceptance of hard truths.
@@jspotter89Its the dolla bill that kills yall 😔
To bad that Starfield is doing relativity great even with the backlash
Maybe the real problem is with an echo chamber of a community that expects perfection? Gamers are going to be in for a shock when devs just stop making games because whatever they do, they get slammed by a community of spoiled, overgrown children who will always criticize no matter what you do.
@@Lurch-Bot Agree 100%
I never thought I'd see the day where Bethesda would try and one-up their Fallout 76 response to player feedback.
I never thought I would see the day when Bethesda would release a game that is hated more than Fallout 76.
I did. I seen a video where they showed how the engine couldn't even make a train move, and that was way back in F4. I knew starfailed couldn't succeed with that engine..nor is it anywhere near possible for a dev team to build 1000 planets. That's like 1000 games. Lol. People were stupid to think this game would work.
Given the 76 one was just a step up from previously I'm not surprised. The direction of the step up is surprising. Why be dumb enough to basically immortalize your mistake on Steam? At least with limiting it to a news cycle people can forget some time down the road instead of people seeing the double down on every negative review.
@@JwhateverJnuka world literally has a moving train ☠️
As a non-BGS fan who has watched a close friend (who is a BGS fan) go through this same cycle of betrayal several times over the past decade and still learn nothing, I can say with full certainty is that all that is going to happen in response to this is Todd Howard is going to make some comment next time he is on stage somewhere about how they got "some much-deserved criticism" and the crowd will erupt into cheers, fully completing the cycle and setting them back up at square one of the betrayal cycle, ready to fall for all the exact same shit when it happens again for ES6.
Man is the only animal that will trip on the same rock twice... or three times... or four times... or five times...
I remember when I first played Starfield, I was so awe'd by the buildings that you could find on the map
10 hours later, I see the same building like 100 times
I 100% would have rather had 4-5 real planets than 1000 copy pasted pois. The sad thing for me is that I think the real reason they went the 1000 planet direction wasn’t purely marketing , the engine just isn’t capable of making even a single fully realized/explorable solar system.
Agreed. I don't mind having all the planets, but pretty much every landing is the same. I land my ship and wherever I land I can see two or three man-made structures nearby. Within about 10 seconds of leaving the ship there will almost always be another ship that enters the area and lands nearby. I'd much rather that they just added interesting POI's on a small portion of the planets so I would have a reason to scan each one.
@@mattolsen353 exactly it’s the formulaic feeling that really breaks immersion and for me the fun.
How exactly do you make a "real" planet in a video game? And how would 4-5 planets be different from 1000 planets, other than the fact that you simply have less planets to travel to?
Not saying that there isn't a problem with exploration in Starfield, but I don't see how fewer planets would necessarily help.
@@tomekkobialka I believe the though is rather than giving us 1000 planets that are mostly empty except for randomly generated POI's is instead a couple of planets that are more fledged out. Imagine landing your ship anywhere (almost) you want in an area as big and decorated as say Skyrim.
@@mattolsen353 How exactly can you populate a planet in such a way that landing a ship anywhere on it will give you an area as decorated as Skyrim? Skyrim took years to complete (don't know the timescale exactly), yet it's only 15x15km big. A planet is much larger than that, of course. I don't see a way that you can recreate TES or Fallout-style exploration on planets. You'd have to do something like Outer Wilds, where planets are absolutely tiny, but that wouldn't work within the "NASA-punk" framework of Starfield as it isn't realistic.
Again, copy-pasted POIs is a valid criticism of Starfield, but my point is that I have yet to come across a solution to the problem that's better than the one Bethesda did. Perhaps A.I. could do something but I don't think the technology is quite there yet.
(You do say that you'd rather only explore a small portion of the planet, which is fair enough, though I feel like the ability to land anywhere on a planet is a core element of Starfield. Besides, people are mad enough that you can't directly land on planets like in NMS. Imagine the criticism if the game came out and you could only land at certain locations!)
My general feeling is that the Starfield concept was "doomed" from the start, and that Bethesda made a pretty good attempt at making the most of this concept. But I am more than happy to be proven wrong.
Bethesda is on full cope mode. They know their games is lacking in so many ways and they just can’t accept that players see through the facade that is Starfield.
And they know that the biggest problems are fundamental, meaning they know they can’t do anything about it
They have no choice. The flaws of starfield cant be fixed with patches, updated, or dlc. They cant fix it if they wanted to
@@mchapman2424 They can fix it they're just not willing to. I can tell you as a modder of past Bethesda games and looking through Starfield's internal data structure that many of these problems could be fixed but for that Bethesda has to give af first, and they clearly don't.
@@mchapman2424Get rid of the ai planets, get a few handcrafted planets, expand cities, many things could be redone and added via a large free dlc to expand on things.
Just look at how different No Man Sky is compared to its original release
@@Joel-wx7zk Different and includes FREE updates (or at least I think) I also find No Mans Sky opening a lot stronger than Star-field
Great review, more and more games are focusing on "how many things there are to do" instead of "content people engage with" - its a shame but also an opportunity (for devs to do it better). The only thing missing here is a nod to the online community that QQ whenever there are not 100+ hours of content in a game - we brought this partly on ourselves :/
If people were as easily entertained as these companies think they are, all those minecraft let's plays that keep booming up every 5-10 years would be in the thousands of episodes by now.
thats right, there could literally be exactly 1 million things to do, but if exactly zero of them are engaging, than that means that you practically have zero things to do
I nver understood the thing about Side Quests in Starfield. I always compare it to Skyrim, going into a Draugr infested Dungeon with magic traps and Different enemy types like an Draugr Deathlord and a dragon priest at the end is just different from going into your 5th randomly generated cave and kill the same 5 priates with guns over and over again
I put 90 hours into starfield. I cant remember a moment that stood out or something that I would want to talk about with friends. This game feels like its 5 years too late and they took 7 only to produce a half baked disappointment. Thats the one word I say discribes it best. A disappointment
And my concern is that TES VI is already too late. Its hour was actually right after Fallout 4. The rabbit trails of 76, TES Blades, and Starfield kept BGS from building further upon their expertise for about 8 years.
And while they were trying to "keep from being defined, man," they were overtaken by a soul-swallowing corporatism that has driven out the people most inspired and most competent to make TES VI. This is my real suspicion.
90 hours? Bravo! After 40 hours I was like, ok I had it with this game. Next!
Ps: Before Starfield I played Baldur's Gate 3, don't need to tell more I guess...
Even as someone who generally liked Starfield, it's wildly disappointing. It's an OK game that could have been a fantastic game with a few better design choices, and that's the worst thing about it.
@@wardvandecotte9253 And I made the mistake of pausing my Starfield playthrough to play Phantom Liberty.
My only standout moment was making a character that looked like Richard Ramirez who I named Ramirez in game, and when Vasco called me that it gave a good chuckle. I refunded an hour later
I recently watched an interview featuring several people who had worked on Skyrim, and it got me thinking: why doesn't Starfield have the same magic? What struck me was the revelation that they were all former employees of BGS who have since moved on. It made me wonder if BGS is no longer the same company it once was.
Like BioWare. And Rockstar.
Most companies are this now. Newbies with less passion and talent wearing the husk of their betters
@@elvickRULESExactly kind of like Luke’s analysis of Souls games compared to H Bomber guys.
Keep yo nigga on a leash
@@elvickRULES Agreed! They have become Stagnate!
Bethesda isn't the same company it once was yep, same goes for Konami, Rockstar, WB and a bunch of others. If you want to keep playing games you like, follow the careers of the people that made them and see what they did when they moved on. That's why so many people in the business like Warren Spector and Hideo Kojima generate excitement - they did good work in the past, you're excited to see what falls out of their brain next.
"When the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there." Why? The moon is a frontier. When the astronauts arrved at the moon, they found a hazardous environment: No breathable air, no water, exposed to radiation, a sterile soil, dust, which can cause misfunctions in your equipment, and the high uncertainty to ever come back to earth. If you can’t see even those base things, how can you make a game about it and give the player some sort of feeling to be at those places yet make seemingly empty places interesting? There were many things they could have done, to make places like the moon at least atmospherical appealing, but had no idea about how…
I spent two hours trying to build a ship that looked even remotely close to my dream Space Apartment™. When I stepped inside, I found that the door to my cockpit was gone...because I'd put a window on the roof of the adjoining module. That, coupled with the sheer BAFFLING decision to only make a small handful of arbitrary parts rotatable (and not even rotatable, just flipped along a single axis) killed my desire to engage with the game any further.
Poor Todd didn't find out in 10+ years of leading BGS that the sole reason his games have garnered so much appreciation and fame is the atmosphere their open worlds exude. He literally had a golden goose in whoever works in the art department and chose to throw it away almost completely, just because HE wanted to make a "realistic" game about SPACE.
Realistic theme yet fantasy based mechanics. Worst combo. A great scifi galaxy with many intelligent races with factions and unique cultures with their own type of weapons, ships and equipment. But that would take actual effort and imagination.
Yet you can walk around on planets without your suit on😂😂
He somewhat understood part of the appreciation, but failed to understand it. A key factor in Bethesda game is the sandbox, but he failed to understand that the sandbox was always filled with stories and life. He thought making an empty world has the same sandbox character as TES or Fallout and this is his big mistake. If they made just "20" explorable planets instead of a thousand and filled them with lore, the game would have received much less criticism.
He hasn't thrown anything away. Starfield is not Bethesda's be all and end all. The game is fine, it's not great, but there are many good things about it. Yes, some criticisms are absolutely justified. But the commentary I'm seeing here is a complete over-reaction. It's an OK game, it really doesn't need to be over-analyzed.
@@gavinw77 good things do tell
"You actually need an IQ of 500 to find the enjoyment in watching paint dry."
*Galaxy brain super intelligence*
"Meh still more entertaining than starfield"
Works for Bob Ross.
I lick the paint
"Look at you, Mr. Too good to run on barren planet for 10 minutes, 1000 times."
This is a funny comment and all, but I hope nobody currently designing a space game takes you too seriously. The problem with Starfield's empty planets is NOT that they were too empty. As a matter of fact, they _weren't empty enough._ Look at Mass Effect's planet exploration, for instance: similar "emptiness" as in Starfield, but not nearly as boring a gameplay experience.
I've played so many Bethesda games for hundreds of hours each. I couldn't even make it past the tutorial before I quit out of severe disappointment. Once I realized that your spaceship is functionally useless and space travel was not in this space exploration game, that was the final nail in Bethesda's coffin for me.
I'm so glad I waited for several months - and then figuring out not buying it is the right decision.
Its such a sad end for Todd... He cut off the legs of his game!
This may sound controversial, but this is 100% expected from this studio at this point. I knew this game would be like this, so didn't buy it so I could wait to see what people thought. I'm sad I was right, because it would be cool to see Bethesda build consumer rapport rather than abuse it, but I'm just absolutely not surprised this is what the game turned out to be, unfortunately.
I agree. Bethesda has been sucking so bad since 2011. Skyrim was their last good game
I felt the same way.
@@sensacionsombria5125 Skyrim was the tipping point, tho. Still great visual design and fun world to explore(not too big, not too small), but the gameplay got severely dumped down. Loot-tables became worse, meaning the player was always given what the devs deemed to fit the current player level(Stupid shit leather wearing bandits suddenly have moonstone ingots in their inventory and other expensive stuff). Writing also was a fat "meh" to "hamfisted garbage". Cool idea, but bad execution in most cases when it came to the writing. The Dragonborn DLC felt like a last good whimper from the BGS writer team.
Most of us older fans knew this would be case.
When I played my first 25 hours of Fallout 4, I knew that was it for Bethesda. The end. When writing quality takes such a huge dump, you know there are bigger problems at the whole organization. Fallout 4 was my first negative review on Steam and I still remember being kinda shook when I realized I had to look elsewhere for quality content.
The difference was, Fallout 4 brought in mostly new fans and that's why it received good reviews - the thing with Fallout is, it is such a good franchise concept, anyone's first Fallout is a unique and unforgettable experience. Having played Fallout 1, 2, 3 and NV, I knew better. They should've learned from (Obsidian) New Vegas' writing and their own amazing immersion of Skyrim. They didn't.
You're completely right. That's what happens when they become big. The best solution is to move on from triple-A games and start focusing on indie games
Bethesda's day of reckoning has long been overdue, and I'm beyond glad that I lived long enough to see it. Ever since Skyrim they've essentially just been making AA games with a AAA budget and then relying on the modding community to fix stuff that they're too lazy to fix. And yes, it is laziness because if modders are able to add a lot of these things the day of launch, it means that Bethesda, with millions of dollars and hundreds of people on the team could have fixed it, but they didn't.
Starfield feels like the spent the first five years of development trying to figure out what the game was, and then during development either didn't have things locked down, or had to massively scale things back due to how janky and ancient Creation Engine is at this point. It's honestly laughable that Todd gave this version a number like something seriously changed in it aside from better lighting and more detailed objects - stuff which they're only getting praise for because people are used to their games looking like they're a generation behind everything else at least.
Can't at all feel sorry for these guys, especially after having the gall to tell hundreds of people that their feelings about a game they spent $70-100 dollars on are completely invalid and that they're just too stupid to see how brilliantly Bethesda has designed the game...after dropping dozens or hundreds of hours into it. Starfield sucks, Bethesda sucks, and Todd Howard sucks. If he had any common sense or decency he'd retire now before he spends the next decade fucking up Elder Scrolls 6. His five minutes are up, his ideas and design decisions are horribly dated and completely out of touch with the current abilities of the current-gen tech, and he refuses to change anything because it would be too difficult for him to adjust.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that until Todd retires or is fired, Bethesda will never do any better because he'll never let them. I mean, Fallout 76 was a fucking nightmare and a half at launch and yet he still has a job.
Todd wasn't in charge of 76. The irony is he neglected it, but still gets blamed for it.
@@StoneAgeWarfare "16 times the detail". People tend not to forget the face of the person hyping it up. Whether he was in charge of it or not is irrelevant. He endorsed it when it should have been cancelled.
@@StoneAgeWarfareTodd is in charge of every game that Bethesda makes
There is no day of reckoning, Bethesda made tons of profit from Starfield thanks to its massive marketing. That's what AAA is now. Selling people lies and raking in the profits, because people ALWAYS fall for the next hype cycle. Every single time.
I personally find hilarious that they went with the "You are just too low IQ to understand Rick and Morty" route in a serious manner.
Ironically one of the major reasons why I didnt buy Starfield was precisely because they advertised 1000 planets.
I got it on gamepass. But when I heard 1000 planets I also was like "seriously, that's to much, there won't be content!" Not surprised in the least I was right. I don't know why companies think larger and larger worlds is better than smaller worlds with more content. Smh
When this game came out, I was so hyped. After 2 days are started pointing out out empty and boring the game is, the lack of fun side quests etc. everyone called me trash and stupid, lol
When you learn that Bethesda has stopped having a main game design document for everyone to follow when creating a game, Starfield makes sense. Not only does the game feel bland and fairly corporate, it feels like a sheer mess.
And it's a sheer mess that Bethesda will defend with basically the response of "well you have to have a high IQ to understand Starfield."
Wait, what? Was that mentioned somewhere in a development blog or similar?
@@ashemedai Emil Pagliarulo, lead game designer at Bethesda, mentioned it in an interview or something. If you watch PatricianTV's videos he cites the source.
@@alecstewart2612 emil pagliarulo needs to go I swear
In case anyone is wondering where this comes from, it's called "Talks From Story". It's a presentation by Emil Pagliarulo where he explains why Bethesda sucks at making games and he does it by accident. For reference, they actually stopped using design documents during the development of Fallout 3.
True. Fallout and Elder scrolls had a team of creatives writing lore for players to become invested in. Starfield just felt like Fallout 4: In Space!
You nailed the ChatGPT use. Absolutely nailed it. I said this on another video, but people need to remember that Microsoft spent $10 **BILLION** dollars on ChatGPT. They also bought Bethesda. Of course they're absolutely going to use one to defend the other, and Luke, you absolutely demonstrated it here, IMO. 👍
Lukiepoo is so good that he doesn't need chatGPT, he copies other people's work instead!!
No, I don't think that he nailed it. Chatgpt simply got trained on the very responses Bethesda actually typed out and then copypasted to hundreds if not thousands of reviews. Chatgpt thus learned that this is a good response to a review of Starfield. AI doesn't create, AI copies. Get that into your head.
No AI is that passive agressive by itself.
And I don't think they typed "...please lowkey shittalk the customer in your generated response."
That first response from a "dev" reeks of ai. The quotation marks around the astrounaut quote are completely out of place. Who is it supposed to be quoting?
@@yaldabaoth2
However, that would have existed just the same at the time, as if you were to change the game in the prompt you would get a very similiar response.
The real problem is all game studios trying to spend 10 dollars to make 100. Profit margins are unrealistic, and 98% of the modern industries problems can be attributed to one thing: Greed. "Cut corners and cut them fast!!"
its almost like the game is just a vehicle for "the message"
This seems to be the point people miss.
Is a guy curious as to why people like this game when it is boring? He needs only to understand that worldview informs emotions and comfort and the worldview of this game is "awake"..
The guys who like this can't tell you why they do- or if they do explain it it won't make sense because you'll be standing there trying to figure out if they played the same game you played.
They often like it because the game told them things about its world that were in line with their biases. And they subconciously realized that, felt comfortable, and received a positive emotional response to that affirmation and comfort. Hence.... they like the game.
For people who AREN'T driven by the "awake" mindset, this game lacks the emotional confirmation bias and is boring. We don't get anything from the bland interactions or physics(?). We see a terrible letdown packed with politics
This needs to be said: Never feel bad for hating a product, and talking negatively about it. The customer is always right is the foundation of business. Today it has become acceptable for companies to release broken, unfinished garbage and sell it full price....and then speak down to people, call them names if they don't like it in an attempt to gaslight the customer into thinking the problem is them. It is disgusting, it is ass-backwards, and it needs to stop. This company has decades of experience, had 8 years to work on this, and are financially backed by one of the largest companies in the world - they are zero excuses. Stop defending these companies and supporting this garbage or it will continue and get worse. The game is completely unacceptable as a full-priced, AAA 2023 RPG, just like the last game they released.
I agree with everything but "the customer is always right". Customers may demand stupid things, illogical things, things that are simply contrarian to the product or service. I think "always listen to what you customer say" is more ambivalent yet better. Listen, then decide what to use of the feedback. But listen honestly and openly first.
@@Namorat "The customer is always right" is actually not the full quote. For some reason people decided to shorten it, which was a bad idea because it actually destroys the original intent of the quote. The original is "The customer is always right in matters of taste". Because a customer can be wrong in matters of fact, but they can't be wrong in matters of opinion.
I'm not surprised people in a business feel defensive over their products. What does still shock me is the number of (supposed real people) on the internet who will talk down to and gaslight fellow customers who don't enjoy the product they enjoy. How does a supposed real human who is not a bot, become a zombie thrall serving a corporation on the internet for free? And why?
The customer is always right _in terms of taste_. Everyone always forgets that last part. In the world of video games, it's pure taste, so yes, the customer is always right.
Ask a mechanic, plumber, electrician, hvac guy....anyone in the trades. Customers are idiots and don't know what's best for them.
I agree. The majority of customers are shit. For example the amount of shitters I hear demand a dry beverage such as a dry cappuccino is ridiculous. A cappuccino IS NOT MEANT TO BE DRY!!! Especially from modern coffee shops. Caps are meant to have depth. It's not a drink that's only foam. But of course shitty customers think they know how to make drinks.
I don't defend Bethesda. But to say the customer is always right is incorrect. I think it's more accurate to say the customer should be served. @@isthisoneunavailable
Whod you copy this vid from?
I remembered the beauty of a dense, atmospheric world like 'Gothic' (at the time of launch) when I first played Monster Hunter World and was really really wondering why so few companies go for density (like CP2077) rather than sheer size (Starfield) of a map/world
"Astronauts weren't bored in space."
1. They were actually there.
2. One mistake, no matter how small, and they were dead.
Like people,when game companies take themselves too seriously the fun stops.
'But the moon was empty too!" Only Todd's people could unironically compare the sense of achievement felt from one of mankind's most technically difficult, risky, resource intensive and time consuming endeavours to.......a couple of loading screens. J Tap Dancing C.
The first thing Buzz Aldrin did upon landing on the moon was empty his bladder into his catheter bag. Todd sought to emulate that experience with Starfield. Frankly, he achieved that and then some.
Reviewer: "I'm bored"
Bethesda: "No you're not."
Reviewer: "There are too many loading screens."
Bethesda: "No, there are not."
Overwhelmed? Overwhelmed with sheer disappointment.
The annoying thing is they're trying to act like they wanted realism for this game and that's why 90% of planets are empty, but they still have the worst facial animations of any AAA game developer, breaking any efforts to make it feel real and the game is bare of any lifeforms. If this was supposed to be realistic, why aren't there any Aliens at all? With the endless dimensions and galaxies, surely there'd be some aliens that aren't just the same 4-5 species of vague space animals recycled throughout the barren landscapes?
By far the worst offense that Starfield has committed is that it could have been Elder Scrolls 6.
I tried to point this out elsewhere and received a fair bit of hate for it. No one asked for this game. Literally no one. A new IP meant a minimum of 5 year delay between games that people actually wanted. IMO they risked their entire company on this pipe dream.
@@craigslitzer4857 The problem isn't the new IP. It's because Bethesda fucked it up. Honestly it probably would be worse if this was ES 6 instead. If they knew what they're doing it wouldn't have matter if this was ES 6 or Starfield
Doesn't matter, ES6 will/would have been crap anyway.
@@craigslitzer4857 💯
@@randomthings1293 💯
Larian actually released BG3 early for fear it would be overshadowed by SF. The only reason Larian moved their release date up was because BGS moved SF's up.
All that and Larian definitely didn't have anything to worry about. Going from playing BG3 to SF was painful, and the problems with SF were more obvious after playing such an in-depth game like BG3.
It's like eating the most exquisite food that is out there, made by best chefs in the world, and then getting into worst fastfood you know at 4 a.m. to eat some barely cooked shitburger.
I'm getting the BG3 physical release next year, along with a PS5.
Starfield? Might buy it when it's 90% off on Steam, when good mods have been made.
Basically the reason BG3 have problems that needs to be patched is because of Bethesda. So screw you, Todd.
@@voiceofreason4551 you might be waiting then, the modders are walking away because they don't have the tools, and Bethesda has flat out sai they might let the modders "fix" the game, and charge you for the modders work
Heck, every NPC in Baldur's gate has an actual name. Only things that don't are generic monsters
Funny how the ChatGPT response was way more honest than the actual 'customer support'
*Gollum, Rise of Kong, Starfield, Redfall, Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice league.*
Yeah, Im gonna stick with my indie games like Rimworld and Terraria, thanks...
I was thinking these were AI-generated from jump, and the reason is simple: they all start with the same generic introduction that pastes in what the AI perceives as the key topic of the review, into the same opening every single time, but what it picks up on as the key topic is very narrow and fails to capture the overall review. People don't usually do that, but systematically making that mistake over and over? AI definitely does that.
"The customer is always right in terms of taste" is the original quote
That I can agree with.
Yes, Karens will use the more well known shortened saying. Not that it validates Bethesda's responses.
People aren't aware the quote is basically saying, from a business sense if the customer wants something then it's an excellent choice, they can buy it right away.
That is not the "original quote."
And as long as the customers are buying, no need to change anything. So maybe we should stop buying these crappy games.@@robjsmiles
If you fact check that, you'll find that it actually isn't the original quote at all. "Right or wrong, the customer is always right." was seemingly the original usage of the quote, but is often shortened to "The customer is always right."
Takes literally no time at all to not be a zombie that regurgitates something their stoned ass friend said while miffed about their day at work.
*The astronauts weren't bored.*
Yeah, just like going to an beach in an videogame Its the same as going in real life, right????
*Jeez, Bethesda Its dead...*
The new TES will be such a failure that it will mean the end of Bethesda. It is quite obvious that the same engine will be used again. And this will be Todd's last mistake...
You know why the Astronaut's that went to the Moon weren't bored when they got there? Cause they actually had stuff do to on the moon.
They had a vehicle too.
Lol, that’s because they went to the real moon as opposed to a moon that’s generated in a game!
No loading screen. They took a real rocket there and back. They had limited supply of food, fuel, and oxygen. The trip was a battle for survival. They had a mission. They had to take samples of moon rocks, conduct experiments, plant a flag, and take pictures. Moon has no atmosphere so they had an unobstructed view of space and Earth from a distance/perspective no one had seen before. They were the first in history to experience what they did.
And they were actually flying/navigating to the moon - not fast travelling.
@@iprfenix 💯
maybe the rebrand was too soon.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 we're all here from the same vid
Yeah honestly I like lukeypoo
Im glad you brought up star citizen, as contrversy aside, it shows that the capacity to travel between planets real time, get in and out of your ship and even go in and out of orbit, all without a single loading screen is possible
as someone who loved the game, these critiques are all valid and make sense. great video. subbed!
This is truly hilarious. Rather than accepting the criticism and maybe learning they are actively trying to defend what they did wrong. How do they plan to grow like this?
"How do they plan to grow like this?"
their engine is literally 2 decades old. they have no intention to "grow" at all or progress their goal to be a better developer/company. as Todd Howard said once, "It just works" and it really does. people still buy their shit at full price and they just accept being memed because it still gives them clicks.
They don’t plan to grow at all…….their modding community will take care of them no matter how terrible the game is.
Grow? They’re a huge studio they don’t need to grow. They should’ve maintained their original status quo, but they keep getting worse and worse unfortunately
@@dukejohnson1956 grow as in get better, improve
@@constructivesuffering Doesn't really have anything to do with woke.
Bethesda has lost its touch. They have the resoucers, they have the ideas and even the charisma. But instead of going deep, deliverying what people want, they want something bigger they can't achieve. So they pretend they did. And I bet it's Todd's fault.
I think it's GG for Bethesda
Todd is out of touch most of all decisions were made by or ran by him lol
Nah, it is pretty much par for course for them. It just gets memory holed that this is their MO. Things will get better because of modders and the fact Bethesda has to step up for sales if nothing else and 5+ years from now people will forget again this is normal.
It’s scary because there are a few little things that could totally flip Starfield into a decent game.
-Combat Gore
-Ship Surface travel
-Some sort of planetary conveyance besides your jet pack.
Just those 3 things would make it a fun game. They completely did everything they could to restrict the player from enjoying the game for what it is.
"they have the ideas"
No they don't have any ideas, that's why the game is so bland and boring.
My best friend, who spent all last generation playing with me and other friends on Playstation 4, bought a Series X instead of a Playstation 5 just to play this game. Now he is stuck with it and, aside from Call of Duty, can't play any games online with us anymore. He got me to watch him play it and said "Look at how awesome this is!" while genuinely running around and doing nothing. He defends the game like he's being paid to, and it's been painful watching his slow realization that he spent nearly $600 to play one of the most boring games released in years, whilst alienating all of his online friends. He has missed so many fun moments with us that it genuinely saddens me. I think I'll get him a PS5 for Christmas out of pity.
Personally, I think 10 planets would have been good, or maybe 100 if Todd REALLY wanted to give players room to mod the game (which was a major problem with Fallout 4, they packed the map so tight modders were complaining that they had no place to put any of their custom assets) but make it really clear that those others planets are for modders to fill, perhaps by centering the story in a certain area of the Galaxy (think like Mass Effect's Council Spaces in the lower half, Terminus Systens in the upper half, and the Attican Traverse dividing them in the lore. In the gameplay we don't see this much, but just bear with the idea)
Instead, Todd demanded 1000 worlds, which is just completely unrealistic. He also made traversing this massive galaxy an absolute fucking nightmare so even FINDING content was difficult in and of itself unless you were sticking to the main story missions and whatever hub world you want to dick around in for five hours trying to find every single breadcrumb.
I think Todd fell for the Ubisoft Mentality: Bigger Worlds Are Better. As someone who put 200 hours into Assassin's Creed Valhalla: THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT. If you make a world too big, then it stops being fun because you're spending more time traversing it than interacting with it... You know, one of the main selling points of a VIDEO GAME.
I agree with you comment but just out of curiosity, why did you spend 200 hours on a game I feel you didn't enjoy.. (neither did I nor most of people I've talked to or read reviews) why not, you know: -play for 20;
-figure out it's shit;
-quit game / uninstall;
-...
-profit?
@@RealShuraalexsunk cost fallacy a lot of the time
Good point that their responses to reviews are written by AI. They did the similar thing when they created the game. 😕
AI might have been more creative in the setting tbh…
"reviews are written by AI." or been paid
Starfield was being defended by those who are Xbox/Microsoft fans that felt criticism towards the game, was an attack on them.
I’m an Xbox/Microsoft fan and I think Starfield is ass. Played about 3 hours of it and tapped out.
@@kfitz2711i played 40 mins at got out
It WAS, lol. Microsoft foolishly bet big on Starfield after not releasing almost any games on the entire platform for a FULL YEAR.
@@kfitz2711 i was just saying in general. Watched videos of Xbox fans that didn't like if and they were criticized in comments as "Sony ponys" or "PS Fanboys" when that clearly wasn't fhe case
The game is just bad and yeah lot of Xbox fans refuse to accept it because it was supposed to be their big game to compete with Playstation first party games.
They theoretically could have made an even more in-depth mass effect-meets-skyrim if they had stuck with the 6 or 7 main planets, and simple exploration of space and "empty" planets, and people probably would have loved it. Skyrim style depth on a few planets would have gone a lot farther than trying to fake no-man sky "thousands of worlds" without any tech to actually back it up.
Idk if youll see this or if you already know this but the design director emil has said both that he ignores reviews or criticism and doesnt even look at it. Im not 100% sure on the wording but i know that was the gist of it. He also on video has talked about how he hates having a design document for a game because he thinks it slows things down and gets outdated so there is no design document for starfield, nobody updating one, none to reference for developers working on the game. I think thats absurd and i think it shows when you look at starfield as a finished product.
Ignoring consumers' feedback is a business waiting for failure.
lol, you used to be named "Lukie poo"?
LMAO
Not being able to fly the spaceship around the planet is the worst for me. I wanted to find a nice place to build my outpost, so I would have to fast travel from one point to the next on the same planet and wait for it to load so I could have a look around... I got so fed up of that I haven't gone back to play it since September :( I really wanted to like the game too.
Aaaaaaand Bethesda lead writer just made a Twitter essay about how everyone is stupid and wrong for criticizing the game...
I remember Tod Howard saying that fallout 76 was a "couch game" as in just to get more devs in to switch focus to starfeild, and if thats the case, and starfield was their gem. Id hate to see how bad ES6 will be.
The thing with Starfield is that it is not only "smack to the face" for true BGS fans, but also for everyone else who payed 70$ for this "next gen" game while I belive you can call it "past gen".
“Next gen” just means upgraded graphics to BGS, soon as I saw the gameplay trailers before the game even came out I saw how the gunplay looked exactly the same to fallout 4 and 76, people called me a hater, well at least I don’t hate myself for buying starfield, if they put it on sale for $10 then maybe I’ll consider trying it lmao
When I heard about the 1000 planets that threw up a giant red flag to me straight away. I just knew if their marketing was relying on some crappy procedural generation, the rest of the game was going to be weak.
Took me a few minutes to notice Todd behind you, and it jumpscared me when I noticed.
I’ve been keeping an eye on star citizen for a long time and recently got into it. And it’s everything I imagine it would be and more. Doing everything without load screens makes such a huge difference and it all looks so good. The gameplay is also awesome.
Be prepared for all of the jank and glitches and waiting.
It’s all fun and games until CIG decides to wipe the server and you lose all your progression worth 100+ hours. But the game still looks pretty interesting and it has been coming along slowly but surely. I actually check on the game progress time to time and am very hopeful about it when it finally leaves the alpha stage.
@@PurushNahiMahaPurush Lets hope its not another 10 years before it leaves alpha.
In response to Bethesda's moon analogy : Games aren't real life. Games are supposed to entertain and be fun for the most part, not simulate real life. That's why we don't die in one hit in most games or why our character doesn't get muscle cramps from running/jumping from hours of playing in a game. You can take elements from the real world and apply them to the game to elevate the experience and increase the engagement with the player (like adding the sense of gravity and weight to games to make hitting something feel more impactful), but that's not what Starfield is doing.
For those who don’t know: In Star Citizen, when you warp to another planet, that’s not a “playable loading screen” - you can stop mid warp and fly in the abyss of space.
I agree. Here's another cool part: if you power your ship off when you are in low orbit around a planet, the ship falls to the planet. Actually, if you watch "Star Citizen: The War for Jumptown", a guy gets an air kill, from a ground vehicle, while being space dropped to the planet from a low orbit ship. Oh, did I mention the day night cycle that is based on the fact the planets actually spin?
Even though there are more creatures and more planets in Starfield, I prefer playing Star Citizen. I only played Star Field one day and grew bored.
I mean, it is a "playable loading screen", hidden behind the warping mechanic - which is a good decision, don't get me wrong.
Same as in Elite Dangerous. And that game was made many years ago.
@@dementedpnot quite, you can freely roam around the system in FSD mode, but the take doesn't load the destination target until you drop off, which is when the game actually loads the planetary or station environment. This is most noticeable on a weak machine and a bad network connection when you transit from orbiting a planet to the glide mode. Depending on the circumstances, you can be stuck in place unmoving, but with camera shake and speed lines, for a couple or seconds.
Though I haven't played SC, so I can't be sure how it really works there
What is also crazy to me about this game is that with all this procedural generation and “infinite possibilities” 99.9% of planets have almost exactly the same topography and have no interesting places, nothing that stands out, no planet with beautiful mountains, flowing rivers and waterfalls, unique planets where there’s bioluminescent life forms so it glows a certain colour at night, no unique fauna or vegetation like maybe massive creatures walking around a planet that’s mostly overgrown fungus, volcanic maps where there’s magma everywhere and you can see volcanoes in the distance. There’s just nothing interesting to even see, once you’ve visited half a dozen-a dozen planets you can call it quits, you won’t find anything much more unique or interesting to even just walk around in
The review from square zero was spot on! And the build systems for the ships and the outposts feels empty and their limitations are the biggest disapointment for me. Let me just decide where I want my doors, ladders and furniture ffs! And the outposts, god that is a disappointing mess... i played over 6000h at FO76 almost just building camps, that will definetly never happen in starfield in my case.
The first two sentences of the reply from the Starfield employee cracked me up 😂. A “No your experience is wrong because we left worlds empty on purpose” reply was defiantly going to connect with the community in a positive way. 😂
I read or watched something on this a while back. The person noted that every planet has some generated content that is man made. If a planet had no man made objects and you were actually discovering new worlds, it might be better. If we could set up the very first outpost on an uncharted world and entice miners or tourists to come to it. Instead, there is no sense of discovery and exploration (either consciously or subconsciously).
How very dare you think our game is bad! Why I'll have you know that we made it bad on purpose. So there.
Good day, sir.
@@Grobut81that’s the funniest 💩 ever lololol. I’m going to randomly think about that Starfield response and laugh for weeks. 😂😂😂
Defiantly
Clearly they outsourced customer support to some company in India where they just use chat gpt to deal with stuff like this. Pretty insane the world we live in.
Exactly the impression I got as well, lol
You are correct, i work with ai and it reeks of it.
racist, I don’t know why you all gotta bring India in to this
@@Levi4084 seriously, dude?
@@Levi4084 god damn ok Patesh
The main issue as far as I see it is that BSG has forgotten (or maybe never knew) the core loop that made their games so engaging and fun:
1) Accept a quest from some NPC. Maybe it's interesting, maybe it's not.
2) Begin *walking* to the quest marker.
3) Get distracted along the way. Explore a cave, check out those ruins over yonder, defeat that bandit camp.
4) After 1 to 2 hours of getting lost in the world, remember what you originally set out to do.
5) Finally make it to the quest marker, complete the little sidequest, then return to the original NPC.
I can imagine an amazing version of Starfield that retained this core loop. Where instead of walking you're flying an awesome spaceship around. Instead of caves/ruins you're finding interesting planets, epic space battles, or strange anomalies. Ideally they would have scrapped the Creation Engine entirely and rebuilt it from the ground up, or licensed an engine from another company. But even if they were dead set on sticking with CE2, I think this loop could have been successfully implemented even with a few too many loading screens.
It really is a shame. There was an idea here that could have been amazing. Unfortunately they didn't just miss the mark, they didn't even seem to have the right target.
I get why they stick with the engine; its expensive to switch. Not just in licensing, but in retraining and new talent acquisition. But yeah, at this point the Creation Engine is either too limited, or they aren't willing to invest in improving it. Which means they also wouldn't be interesting in investing in a brand new (to them) engine.
All you have to do is fire up CyberPunk to see what a modern game looks and plays like. It's almost cringe-inducing to fire up Starfield after a good CyberPunk session. What is Bethesda doing?
This drama is more entertaining than playing starfield.
Taking a morning dump is more entertaining than Starfield
You know what's funny? Starfjeld gave me a newfound appreciation for The Outer Worlds; and that game is a 7/10 at best itself
outworlds sucks ROFL....oh boy you haven't played starfield...i've played outworlds and it has no dungeons, its super boring just like fallout NV was.nothing to do in the gameworld...so go back to outworlds...lol and starfield is rated at 8.5...and thats from over 90 publication with a metacritic of 8.6 on pc and about 8.4 on xbox...so the "obsidian" crowd who hates bethesda and the fact the own the fallout franchise isn't really the group thats playing bethesda games..they're like you and starfield lives in your head.
@@westoftherockies You mean all these publications that said "We have to give it a high score because we gave Skyrim a high score, and because we don't want to anger Bethesda and Microsoft. because then they won't give us access for new releases in the future for us to review."?
Really a great archievment to get that score under such circumstances...
And also... sorry to say it: Starfield hardly has dungeons. I also find it funny that you call Fallout NV was boring and had nothing to do in the gameworld... did you actually play NV? Doesn'T sound like it if you make such a claim.
@@westoftherockies oh, & Outer Worlds got a better Critic review on Metacritic and Opencritic than Starfield got. So.cope harder, Bugthesda boy 😆
@@westoftherockies The first leaked review for SF literally said he WANTED to give it a better score, and he was an xbox only gamer and reviewer. he gave it an 85 . OW was more fun to play from the start than SF. Heck, Skyrim is still more fun to play than SF
@@westoftherockies
Objectively you are incorrect about new vegas' world. No matter which way you choose to go or what to do the game is developing the world and enticing the gamer to get invovled in the events of the places they visit. Even giving retroactive reasons to go back and visit older places or by prepping the player for future conflicts. I'll give ya that the game certainly isn't finished but the game had a strong game world vision for the player to get invested in. And this is on a development level. Starfield doesn't really do much of this or make the world exciting enough to explore. On top of the fact that the worlds are small making the exploring that much more lame/tedious.
Outerworlds is boring in the beginning tho. I will not contest that. I actively stay away from replaying that game because of how boring that opening is.
The thing is that while Starfield was a technological step forward for Bethesda (despite the buggy Creation Engine and all the issues), it feels like the whole studio has regressed in terms of storytelling, creating interesting characters, making an open world with interesting places to visit, etc. This is why I'm literally scared of how bad TES VI might turn out to be (that and the bs Bethesda is doing with mods in Skyrim right now).
Starfield wasn't a technological step forward though, there is literally nothing in the game that is a step forward. Hell it's worse than Fallout 4 released 8 years ago, it's a step backwards. Nothing in the game is impressive and or revolutionary.
Companies only take ur feedback seriously when u hurt their bank balance. Stop buying their game and they will change.
That typo is honestly the exact type of error the inner transformer model of ChatGPT might make. A major part of the model mechanic is trying to guess the next token based on learned semantics, and "knew" is very semantically similar to "known" and would probably have a very similar position in the model's semantically encoded vector space. It's a shortcoming of the model's training that "knew" had a higher probability of being the next token than "known".
Rare to find someone who actually has some sense and doesn’t think that ChatGPT functions off of ‘space magic'
@@es68951 To be fair... I am a Machine Learning Engineer who specializes in NLP search...
Knew isnt one token though, otherwise its true
@@es68951 Wait, it doesn't? Well, there goes my entire belief system on how ChatGPT works.
@@romansenger2322 I mean, yeah... The prediction is also bidirectional and the token is masked in training which I also sort of simplified.
The lack of consequences (Able to do every factions missions) was ridiculous and felt empty. And the endless loading screens just killed immersion completely for me. Wanted to sit in cockpit and fly myself into space and back down somewhere else then land and walk out of my ship. But nope gotta hit 3 loading screens
I've yet to play the game, I'm downloading it on game pass to try without paying full price lol. Do the loading screens take forever even when the game is installed on an SSD? Because that's impressively shitty if so. The whole big advantage of the "next gen" consoles is the SSD upgrade.
Able to do every faction quest not ridiculous. It actually creates more freedom to tell your story. If your character doesnt fit the FSC faction then dont play it. However if you want your character to have an allegiance change from FS to UC then that should be an option.
@@merksmovies25lol it’s not allegiance change if every faction treats you the same without really acknowledging your status with the others
@@masoclevine836 it doesnt need to. I could care less. I would rather have the option to play all four than be limited to specific decisions. I get to Play the game my way.
Skyrim also didn’t have consequences. Games very much of it’s time. They have barely updated their gameplay loop. They keep getting worse at making rpgs as they keep using dated gaming loops.
I don't know if is only my save, or because I'm playing on the Xbox Series S, but the biggest problem for me was the bugs, a lot of bugs. Some times my ship just became a mess after a big load, other times I was just teleport to knowhere and high after trying to land in a planet...