+1 definitely not just you. SF feels so hollow, it has no real identity. If you like running across barren wastelands to find procedurally generated 'content' then SF's exploration will be good for you, lol. Nearly every location in Skyrim is hand-made, with repeats being few and far between.
No. Not just you. I love Bethesda rpgs despite all of their quirks but Starfield is just boring. You land on a 5 sq km planet barren area, walk for 3-4 minutes to a outpost/cave/useless point of interest. Nothing happens while exploring on foot, except seeing some ships land in the distance. There are no more than 5 types of enemies. Weapon diversity is also not that great. It's all just underwhelming compared to Elder Scrolls or Fallout. I will take handcrafted world with the size of Skyrim over 1000 randomly generated planets anytime.
I disagree. Witcher 3 came out in 2016 and showcased more advanced engine. If ES6 has you loading every time you enter an interior it's going to feel old and dated.
for an elder scrolls game i don't really care about the load screens as much, but for starfield the load screens are really bad, there were so many things they could have done to remedy this to make it function much better but they didn't even try. other games in the past that had this same limitation introduced a loading cell that a person walked through to load up the next section and it never felt like a load screen because they would often put some kind of action sequence in the location and cap the players speed in situations where the game was loading the next section. case in point, the tome raider reboot games, used these loading areas to trick the player into thinking it was one massive continous cell location that just got bigger and bigger, when all along it was a load screen in desguise that they player couldn't see or even care to think about. now the engine couldn't do seemless transitions to another cell like planet to space like how it worked in NMS, but they could have very well simulated something like that to work, it just wouldn't be done quite as fast.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... But can you interact with toilet paper rolls or fill your cockpit with potatoes like you can in Starfield ? Nah, i don't think so ! Checkmate, you REDengine, you can't RPG for shit ! /s
The single one thing that truly irritates me about Starfield is that hey did not create enough variation of planetary bases . It is so weird to encounter the same base, in the same crater, with the same stuff lying around on 4 different planets.
@@winghong3 Yes, and I do not understand why this has happened. With the modular elements that are in the game, it should have been easy for Bethesda to create at least a dozen more planetary base designs.
@@winghong3 What do you mean by "how long Starfield is supposed to be" ? If you do only the quest you won't find a lot of repeated locations, you only find the repeated locations if you decide to explore the planets.
@@ni9274 Even if you just follow the story, you get repeat locations a few times. even if they try spacing them out. And with NG+.... well yes they have plenty of repeats so even if you bum rush the main story, you end up with the same thing over and over again. So it does get old fast.
There are vehicles in Fallout New Vegas and horses in Skyrim/Oblivion. There are mods that add facial expretions to skyrim that acually smile and not squint as if they ate a lemon. They are still limited to 1 expression for a single line.
Many fans saying they need this engine so the world get to be so immersive. I actually don't find starfield immersive. It is just a nicely built world, but no really positives from the engine except picking up every object, putting it somewhere and hours later the maki roll or weapon is still lying on the floor. No one else will ever interact with it except me. It is some kind of dollhouse built into a ball pit, where you play some nice stories. It makes fun, but it has many flaws in the same field like ubisoft open world games.
@@HaveButOneLifeit's a tricky thing really. Creation Engine is cheaper and allows Bethesda to let their community finish their games and expand them for 10+ years. Going to another engine would mean they have to spend years learning the new engine and then even more years making the game good enough to where it doesn't "need" mods to compete with other titles. It would also mean that the modding community won't be able to as easily port mods from one Bethesda title to the next. But if Bethesda picked up an engine like Unreal Engine 5, it would encourage modders to learn that engine too, which would help them gather more experience for jobs in game development or even encourage them to make their own games.
@@Mike-sf7ex I was using UE5 as an example since that's what most major companies are moving to like CDPR and the halo infinite rumors. The point isn't the engine Bethesda moves to, but the effects of what would happen if they were to move engine.
Someone also made the point that Starfield feels like a game that’s still sitting in 2010s, cyberpunk has seamless load screens whenever you leave an interior building or my favorite one: Dead Space 3 has seamless load screens and that game was released back at the start of 2013!!!!!
@@65firerednot true, you can fast travel once without ever seeing your ship or the landing pad it goes on. Just go to objectives from the menu, press X over the objective, then hold X to land there. Takes you directly to there.
A much smaller scope. Start small and expand once you've gotten a lot done. Start with just 10 planets, adding cities, towns, different biomes, etc. with tons of high-quality quests and content. You always add more later.
Start with one planet. Like in Final Fantasy 7, you were limited to the start buggy and one area (one planet). Complete some good (memorable, meaningful) quests, then get your ship, then start grav jumping. Then like in Frontier First encounters, get your final ship, with a huge hyperdrive, get to the final mission.
BG3 has motion captured dialogue mixed with outrageously amazing voice acting BUT that cost money and passion and Bethesda is out of at least one of those.
@@Mike-sf7ex Not much of it is any good though in Starfield... and that's not even close to being true, BG3 has 2 million 'words' and Starfield has 250,000 'lines'.
@@bligh1156 BG3 has roughly 45,980 lines of dialogue. This is coming straight from the game files itself... 2 million TEXT doesn't mean a whole lot that's just text used in the game and doesn't necessarily mean spoken words in fact a good chunk of that is probably not. Same with Starfield but again it's nearly 5x the size. Starfield has probably closer to 3 million text maybe even 4 million with all the in game lore
@@Mike-sf7exAnd most of it is crap. Quality over quantity every time. Millions of text doesn't mean much if most of it is a waste of time and effort.
@@65firered Some games are just really big in size and scope and the written content will suffer for it naturally. BG3, Starfield, even Mass Effect have very similar quality of writing and voice acting you can't compare these games to much tighter experiences like God of War or Guardians of the Galaxy.
Their tech is fucking old there’s no way anyone can deny that. Doesn’t matter how good they can make their lighting, Their animations, their rendering, everything looks like a slightly better skyrim
@@badger_ninja8681Game development tech is not the same as OS, Banking applications or government portals those things are made for functional purposes and as long as they fulfill their requirements they are sufficient, this is not the case for games they are a medium of entertainment and their flaws are very easily detected by customers so they need to focus more on providing a better experience over functionality.
@@TheEnderPearl the newest tech isn't what makes you think that. it's legitimately just forward facing features. I assure you the tech that the new tech runs on top of is old. It's a fundamental difference in design not technology.
@@TheEnderPearl If it was a tech issue and not a design issue mods would be unable to fix said issues. Mods no matter how complex requires the tech to be there to support them.
Fun fact on the shooting thing needing to be added to the engine. Back when Dark Souls 1 was made (may apply to demon souls as well) they didn't have in the engine a way to add things like flame breaths for dragons, or the lightning one for the blue drakes in the valley of drakes, so what they did was poping up multiple bullet projectiles from armored core with the needed shapes and textures, hence why they look like if they are made in blocks instead of something that actually flows. I'm not sure if that was explained properly somewhere on reddit, or a vaatividya video, but I found that pretty amusing.
I think I can explain how MODS for STARFIELD have been created so quickly. These MODS already exist for SKYRIM and FALLOUT and since STARFIELD is not that much different than those games and built within the same engine; it probably didn't take much to modify those SKYRIM and FALLOUT MODS to work within STARFIELD.
@@ni9274 Its a mix of both. They know the engine, so all they had to do was do some tweaking and seeing what worked via porting over from skyrim or fallout 4 since its the same engine. I wouldn't be suprised if someone could port over mods from skyrim or fallout 4 into starfield. Just cause bethesda is using the same ancient engine.
The thing with cobol programs is they had decades of support and bug fixes and are now freakishly stable for financial institutions, even if they have to run in overnight cycles.
The whole loading screen experience is what I would do if I am a rival company that wish it to fail, among other things, it’s not just an annoyance, it feels vicious, like it’s out to make me suffer, personally. I reinstalled 2077 the other day and I got ptsd from walking through doors. What do you mean I don’t have to black out for seconds when I walked through doors?
Lmao I had the same thing, I'd walk up to a door and feel a burst of anxiety only to immediately remind myself that there's no loading screens in this game 😂
Believe me 1 thing. No1 would complain about faces in SF if cutscenes/dialogue camera and NPC animations would be improved or better. It is not so difficult to imagine this. Imagine NPC in any footage of SF dialogue if those NPCs would move naturaly like real people do when you talking to them without your face being locked on their face as if your character is some weirdo.
I always had to use the animation mods in Skyrim, the ones w/ conditional IDLES as well as convo idles. Seeing NPCs read notes, stretch, shuffle, or use their shield to block the rian was incredibly immersive.
Yeah look at Control for example. The facial animations in that game are nothing special, pretty basic really, but they managed to hide it with good camera positioning and other clever strategies. Diverting the attention of the player sometimes is all it takes to make a presentation 100x times more enjoyable and good looking. Starfield, on the other hand, does everything it can to make the player focus on bad animations, plastic looking skin, dead eyes ecc. It's like it's throwing it at your face constantly.
You know I remember at some point downloading the Singing Settler mod for Fallout 4 game. I built something like a night club on that 1 island settlement and all the followers there. I remember 1 specific moment when Preston started a conversation about his past and such while 1 singing settler I attached to mic started singing the song called good neighbour. Together with the slow rotating disco ball it was something very special for me and also very memorable because that dialogue system was literally shining in that 1 specific moment. And I was like daaaaamn this is only possible in a BGS game. This is how much difference it would make imo if they added voice protagonist to SF (otherwise it would be pretty weird if player character was silent while using F4/ME dialogue camera) @@thebaffman4898
what's funny about this is they did a much better job with the conversation camera in FO4, the faces still didn't look as good, but somehow even though they weren't nearly as high resolution and textures, they looked much better and less of that uncanny valley look in comparison to starfields NPC's.
Best thing about creation engine is the creation kit, I think Starfield is still a win based on how much time I have spent on it and when creation engine comes out that is just going to skyrocket. For comparison I have spent around 139 hours on No man's sky and I unless I want to farm for every S tier skin I have done everything the game has to offer.
@@ZephyrusAsmodeus that has consistently been a problem for Bethesda, and not just that, each game is incredibly buggy, more so then the average triple A. Bethesda has many severe problems that I believe they should fix and that they continue to ignore. I really can not think of a comparable modding community though and the creation kit is what enables it.
This is actually way more true than I realized. After playing Starfield for 5 hours I thought to myself that this was a great canvas for mods but otherwise pretty boring. Those mods are going to come that much faster with poop engine 2
The problem isn't their engine, it's their attitude. They are lazy when it comes to making better tech. They just don't want to do it and so they find a way around it. This is why the limitations in Starfield exist - because they couldn't be bothered making it properly.
With the implementation of gamepass and obvious lower pay publishers will be subjected to under a subscription, dont expect much high quality AAA from Bethesda and pretty much Xbox ingeneral. 🤷♂️
Modders have reported internal assets/functions of the engine dating back to MORROWIND. It iS partially the engine. You need a fresh start when it comes to the artistic process. Trust me. It's both.
@phillystevesteak6982 it isn't. You could do the same with the unreal engine. This is how game engines work. It is NOT the engine, at all. Not even a little.
@johnathanera5863 it's partially the engine. Janky code persists through using the ame engine, causing the same kinds of obstacles. It's both the team and the engine.
The problem is Bethesda takes many parts from other games and tries to put them in creation engine with the Bethesda sandbox magic, this time it didn't work due to the exploration problem with the procedural generation being very boring and generic. The looting shooter aspect of Starfield is good but Cyberpunk does it better, the graphics are ok but Cyberpunk does it better, the space exploration copied NoMansSky but NMS does it better, they included the settlement system but its just filler, other sims games does it better. The companions also very similar to Mass Effect, but Mass Effect does it better. In previous games due to the exploration and the way Bethesda created the worlds, you didnt care so much to have a Joker of all trades master of none. This time around the King is naked. Also if you take in mind that they tried to copied the GTA online from Rockstar and started to create mobile games, we can predict the next game of Elder scrolls, what it will be like. Plus its the only developer who uses the modders as free bugfixers for their games and then they resell their games with deluxe editions with many mods and zero work from their part. This is called laziness.
Exploration in this game feels like a chore and reminds me of mass effect 1's planet exploration but worse cause there's no mako to speed up the process.
@@KratosisGodAt least there was stuff to do in ME1 even if most of it was just busy work. Starfield is struggling to keep up with the 2008 game design.
How is space exploraiton a copy of No Man's Sky and how is No Man's Sky is doing it better ? There is no real content in No Man's Sky, only procedural quest and activities that are not tied to unique narrative, there is also no unique locations to discover in No Man's Sky. The companions are not the focus of Starfield, and they're not similar to Mass Effect their just the typical bethesda companions. You're just factually wrong when you say Bethesda is the only game with modders that fix bugs, Cyberpunk and Witcher 3 also have mods that fix bugs. Bethesda doesn't resell games with mods.
@@65firered You clearly didn't play Starfield if you think there isn't stuff to do, Starfield has a higher amount of unique quest than every previous Bethesda game. Starfield is struggling to keep up with "2008 game design" in your head, fact is that Starfield is the biggest space RPG ever made and also the most ambitious.
Its funny you bring up Andromeda because i genuinely feel that if Bethesda's name was on that game, all the issues would've just been brushed to the side EDIT: wait Starfield doesnt have native ultrawide support?
It is, Starfield is the biggest and most ambitious space RPG ever, only comparaison would be Mass Effect but it's a very linear game and doesn't have the level of details of Starfield.
@@ni9274 Starfield is a linear game, where your choices mean bubkiss and you just end up ground hog daying till you end up on the NG+ you want to be on.
@@mightypancake2211 it’s not since you can progress through the side content in whatever way you want, and I don’t care about my choice mattering, this was never the focus of Bethesda RPG.
I bought an Xbox to play Starfield and try out game pass on the console, I’ll be returning it next Monday on the 28th day while I still can.. Starfield just does not keep my interest and I went back to finish FF16 on my ps5. When I thought about going back to Starfield and realizing I dreaded doing so I said to myself NOPE, time to return this console. I’ll be putting the money towards building a gaming pc FINALLY. Tired of the console war.
I can see how buying a console for a game and then that game not being very good might turn your entire perspective on its face. The console wars always burned honest consumers as they actively promoted anti-consumer practices.
It’s probably good that CDPR went to epic. Like Bellor said the engine is like a foundation. Plug-ins and assets are the rest of the house. CDPR has to make all their plug-ins because their the only one that uses it. Unreal has thousands of plug-ins and assets already that are built by other game devs. So CDPR can plug and play and if they don’t like a certain plugin or asset they can just change the code.
UE4 and UE5 have shader compilation stutter, current UE5 games run like shit on console. It was a bad move going away from their proprietary engine to UE.
@@Sparticulous It's probably a more complicated legal issue, but officially Bethesda doesn't rely on modders. It's the players who buy buggy games and patch them themselves.
I think technical restrictions aren't the reason why we have no vehicles in the game. They literally got spaceflight and combat working, something I never really thought the creation engine could do. And ladders! It comes down to the vision and scope of the game probably changing during development.
Cdpr most likely is moving to unreal for time savings. I remember them complaining during the launch that a lot of them had to learn red engine and it showed in the bugs and quality at launch. Probably cheaper to just pay the fee to epic until maybe a new in house software is developed, that also can take years in some cases almost a decade to build. I still remember when bf5 devs complained that Allie’s had to jump from a axis plane because of engine limitations lol 🤦♂️
I've heard through someone reliable that they're already developing their in-house engine at CDPR and with their next launch we'll get to see what it's like
One of the things I believe that set BGs games apart from others, and keeps the game fun, even with the engine a bit old, is the fact there is non a linear narrative in every way. You get to choose any direction right from the start, where in other games, even the most open rpgs, they're structured in a way that the main quest will always be your guide and will determine kinda like where will you'll be at each level. That kinda freedom does give a sense of immersion to the player that makes the game feel unique, even with all its flaws. Compare it to baldurs gate 3 for instance - act 1 will be one place, act 2 two another, and act 3 finally the city itself. So, everytime you want to replay the game, this will be the narrative structure that you will have to follow. The same is true for The Witcher 3 for example. Now in BGs games that kind of structure is diferent, you can simply have a different path right from the start. I think that this is part the aspect that makes Bethesda's games so compelling and many people kind of overlook. Still, i do very much hope they get those animations right in the future 😅
That's simply not true. The narrative especially from Oblivion onward is very linear. You are combining two aspects that are very different and outright lying about the structure of the narrative. You can freely explore the map after leaving the tutorial. The narrative itself is linear. You can't start Skyrim any other way, same with Oblivion, Fallout 4, and Starfield. The locations the narrative takes you do not change for the major events, you cannot progress the story without doing the same events. BGs are NOT different in this aspect, that is a straight lie one easily disproven. Try to progress the story in any of these games without going to the locations the game tells you to. For example, try to progress through Skyrim without going to Whiterun, Riverrun, Riften, and Skyhold, in that order.
@@65firered Not true. Exploring the world right from the start means that you can choose which narrative you can follow. You dont need to go straight do the main quest if you dont want to. Anything besides that and you're just putting in words i never said.
@@65firered obviously they wont change for major events. That was never my point. The point is - you can simply choose that right from the start which questline to follow. You can go Dark brotherhood or Thieves Guild from the start, both which will give different experiences. And i'm not also praising this aspect as some kind "genious design idea", i'm basically pointing out.
@@luisfernandootto4898 That applies to the other games as well. This is not unique to Bethesda nor does it mean the narrative is non-linear. If the narrative was non-linear you would not have a specific path to follow the main story, but you do. You said and I quote "non-linear in every way" I directly challenged your claims. Now, YOU are the one adding stipulations.
@@luisfernandootto4898 What you mean to say and what you have said are VERY different. To such an extent, you claimed that the *main* narrative was non-linear as was the entire game, and that NONE of the games you mentioned which include BG3 have this. Because even if this is what you meant from the beginning BG3 also has this.
The lack of exploration and imersion is why i didnt get this game. Tbh lukes videos saved me from 2asting 75 dollars. ❤❤. I never bought into how immersive it was gonna be. I even saw some youtubers who did lets play videos look bored to death and it was super obvious. They even questioned to finish a lets play. The graphics look 10 years old. The laod screens is bad. I dont see anything worth the money. Im getting cyberpunk 2077. That game looks immersive. Plus the story looks fun. Idk. I wanted what they promised. A true space exploration. Which it is not.
I spend 135 hours in Starfield and finished all the faction quests, mainquest and spend alot of time in the ship builder and was left disappointed. Now with the arrival of Phantom Liberty I started a new playthrough of Cyberpunk 2077 and I realise now how much more of a quality game that really is, even with it's extremely flawed launch originally. Starfield is not alive, the story is ChatGPT levels bad while the AI of NPC's probably could have used an ChatGPT level upgrade, it's so bad. I feel like Starfield fans are high on extreme levels of copium and the only redeeming quality that Starfield has is a great community of modders who will do what Bethesda can not. It is kinda sad really.
Oblivion and FO3 are two of my favorite BGS Games and when I heard the promise that SF would be Oblivion in Space I was stoked. It had a deeper RPG and I was thinking I would land on a planet, see a destination on the horizon and be distracted for hours on my to said destination. What I got was desert planet 100 with rocks sprinkled here and there and the same cave/base/locker/space baddies 100 times. I made it about 60 hours and had some cool missions with mysteries and intrigue… for about 10 hours of that. I believe that SF is the best BGS ever released… between the years of 2006-2010.
I've been a Bethesda fan for a while, and I am also sick of the excuse BGS use and just letting the modders fix it. I didn't even finish the game because it's too boring to bother to play. I'll come back in a year or so when the DLCs are out and Modders make it into an actual good game
I don’t know… I understand how it would, in some cases, be good if professionals could fact-check consumers but at the same time I really believe that if your product feels outdated when compared to competitors, it’s (whether or not based on code or on technology) not just a perception, it’s a legitimate concern. Because it means that you have something that is fundamentally in working condition on a production side, but fails on the user-side. If you have a restaurant that serves good quality food, but you take an hour to complete an order even when the place is empty, your kitchen and staff might be state of the art but it’s just not up to par with the rest of the industry which isn’t just perception.
I'm still convinced that the best path forward for Bethesda Game Studios would be to fork the latest version of id Tech, and then build/integrate tools and features as they need them when developing their next game. Then use that game's code base for the next one after that. Plus, it being a sister studio, they would always have the ear of the technical wizards at id Software. Perhaps they could spare some time to go and help them with the development/integration of their new features, and also give their dev teams crash courses in the new engine to familiarize them with it before getting deep into full-tilt development. Once upon a time, John Carmack was noted as explaining that Bethesda were not using id Tech 5 for Skyrim because it was an "unacceptable" engine for such a game. Why? Because, at that time, id Tech (and Carmack) had invested heavily in MegaTextures (the feature that he said specifically made it unacceptable). And from id Tech 4 to id Tech 6, it was a core pipeline of the engine. Well, going from id Tech 6 to id Tech 7, id Software reduced the size of the engine by ~1,000,000 lines of code. One reason for this is because they got rid of their OpenGL renderer entirely to focus exclusively on Vulkan, and another is because they also ripped out MegaTextures completely. Not only did these make the engine far more performant than it already was, but it provided for higher texture fidelity and more efficient texture streaming to boot. So, the main thing listed as making id Tech "unacceptable" for a game like Skyrim is no longer even in the engine. And all that aside, id Tech has been used to make open world (or semi-/mini-open world) games before. id Tech 5 had been used to make Rage, which was open world (and also made heavy use of MegaTextures). id Software used the code base for Rage to build id Tech 6, which was the engine underlying Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus (a leveled game and not exactly open world, but easily classifiable as semi-open world). And then there's id Tech 7 which, thanks to its improvements over 6, boasts impressively massive world spaces for Doom Eternal's levels. So, again, it's a level-based game, but the levels themselves are incredibly large world spaces that blur the lines between "level" and "open world." And considering the state of Starfield, "open world" seems to have quite a loose definition already. (And The Witcher 3 is also "open world," but it too is segmented into separate world spaces of varying sizes.) Even if Bethesda weren't to go with id Tech, there are a plethora of free and open source engines available (many of which are designed specifically for RPG game creation), which they could fork and build upon in order to start with a clean code base that everyone internally can learn and grow familiar with together. Then modders could use that same engine and its editor (if it has one) for mods; or, if Bethesda adds or changes enough to make that impossible, they could release their own iteration of the editor as a modding kit. All that to say: Bethesda Game Studios has options aside from Creation Engine, and it's very clear that Creation Engine is just too far gone and has outlived its usefulness. Bethesda simply have not done the hard work needed over the years to keep the engine up to the task they ask it to perform, and so their best path forward is to start clean with a new engine. Whether the new engine is another in-house engine used by a sister studio, like id Tech, or a free and open source one that they could fork and make their own, the simple truth of the matter is that it's time to put Creation Engine bed. (Or, they could rewrite the Creation Engine from the ground up. But that would be far too costly and labor-intensive than the two options given above.)
In regards to the RedEngine, one of the main reasons that I have heard, is that it is difficult for them to get developers for it, compared to people that can use Unreal. Also, it removes a lot of costs having to develop and maintain an engine that is not cheap. With Unreal they have a dedicated team constantly working and updating the engine. So even though their engine isn't bad at all. I would agree that I think it is the right choice for them to move to Unreal since we can assume that they know it can handle the types of games they want to make.
It's a double edge sword with a company using a game engine that is subpar to say Unreal 5. The pros are It's cost effective for your company, you are not waiting on a third party if you are trying to meet a deadline and the modding community can go have fun. The cons are the Creation engine can only do so much, and this engine Creation 2 while better than the first version looks like it's has been pushed to the limits, leaving out what other things you can do like land vehicles and space immersion
I have some major complaints with starfield , but to me it's already superior to fallout 4 and I'm having a blast playing it regardless of the fact it's missing things I wanted.
If they intake the bug fixes and code fixes from modders... maybe... if not its just trying to push the same engine again since the creation engine is the gamebryo engine... and if they just rebrand it again without any significant fixes or upgrades it will just be an empty rebrand. just like going from the Gamebryo to creation name... it was a hollow change from my understanding
@@mightypancake2211 I can't speak to everything but I do know the most visible change from someone not well versed in anything other than adding mods to the game is that gamebryo had a plugin limit of around 130-140 before the engine started breaking down (wasn't until like 2020 I think that someone made a mod to fix that for New Vegas). Creation had the max limit of 255 and eventually an update that added light plugins that didn't add to the plugin count. Creation 2 from what I see adds alot of stability and scripting fixes but I actually don't know and can't tell until modders get their hands on creation kit 2. I really don't think the issue is the engine as much as Bethesda Game Studious not having the skill to make things work within it which makes no sense. Starfield doesn't have vehicles yet Xilandro got them to work in gamebryo and BGS themselves got horses to work in Skyrim. How that is possible, i don't know but here we are. I have a very rudimentary understanding of this engine but again it seems to me the issue is specific to Todd Howard's direction and no one knows why BGS games have these issues that modders seem to fix every release but him and his team.
Did anyone notice how the photo mode in Starfield looks exactly like the photo mode mod for FO4 (and now also Skyrim)? Like, did Beth just implement that mod into Starfield or something? I mean, it looks exactly the same and has the exact same functions and UI.
Now Im 100 hrs in and I still having a great time with it - Im actually TRYING to find whats so bad about it. So far, no dice. ;) Then again, Im not playing it on PC so...
people just like to brush the surface without going deeper and i don’t mean to play for more than 12 hours like others might say. Bethesda games have always been rough around the edges but everything under that tiny little layer of shit is pure gold and people just seem to ignore that, luke himself in his review just focused on the bad things because it makes more views. the quests, side quests and factions quests are all amazing and people don’t praise that, same for the new game plus system. And yet they defend star citizen which is a blatant scam. Starfield is amazing for those who are critical enough to surpass the technical issues, if you can even call them issues since they aren’t really game changing. The invisible walls and cutscene for landing is the perfect example of that, nobody in their right mind will encounter the invisible walls unless they are explicitly trying to and landing and moving from planet to planet would have gotten really boring super quick just like it did for no man sky. In summary, don’t worry about others opinions brother, i’m really getting tired of the baffoons on the internet comparing and being overly critical on the most niche aspect of things every time. really takes out the joy of gaming sometimes
I cant take criticism anyday . but when its ONLY criticism and you know for a fact the game contains lots of really good stuff, but the reviwer chooces not to talk about it, it gets downright laughable. Also Luke Stevens dosent like Bethesda-games period - he´s more of an Ubisoft guy.@@snooptk6236
@@Hauerization Agreed. He should stick to Ubisoft games which are released like a factory every year. Same games. Released again. Same bland open worlds and poor NPC quality. Wonder where his 'skepticism' is then.
He have every right to criticese ofcource - its his job. But this is like having someone whos into europop criticising a melodic heavy metal album saying "this aint music!". @@KamleshMallick
I feel like Starfield could have been much more interesting. Some simple imaginative design decisions could have made Starfield more immersive. The game has such great physics that they just don't put to use. Why not be able to shut off the gravity in your ship or others that you boarded? Why can't other ships board you? You could board a ship, run past all the spacers, then quickly strap in and do 40 backflips and 80 mctwists and barrel rolls essentially killing everyone on board by causing them to slam against every surface due to the inertia. With the great physics in the game that would be be hilarious. Imagine using the rotational cam while you're flying to see into the cockpit window as guys go flipping around the hab module directly behind you? Then you can access a console when it's all over, initiate the grav control. Everything settles then you can switch between cameras in each room in the ship to view the recording of all the cartwheels and ppl being bounced around the ship. That would spark epic content. Also what about allowing us to simply exit our ships, and space walk and launch captured ppl out of airlocks? What about being able to simply experience the great dynamic Starfield has of the ships components breaking apart? When a ship you are in is destroyed in the game and you have stood up from the pilot seat, you fall down and nothing else. Imagine if your ship is almost destroyed, you can jump out of the cockpit and race for an emergency escape pod that you can blast out of, slated for the nearest planet/moon? You look up and see sarah morgan not quite making the pod and getting launched into space bouncing off of destroyed hab modules and the grav drive. You might be too slow and the ship breaks apart around you and you might die in an explosion or you might just be thrown into space never to be seen again. Any companions that didn't make the escape pods can be retrieved at some medical facility or must be rescued by boarding the ship that scooped them up after they were found floating unconscious in space. Or maybe have people on the ground actually tied to their ships. You attack some eclipse guys on some planet and a few remain or hear about it and they see you taking off so they run to their ships and pursue you into space. You can possibly lose them if you jump, but why don't ppl on the ground ever pursue you into space, or gangs in space ever pursue you when you land to go after you on foot? Your actions on the ground and actions in space should be connected. There are so many cool touches they could have done with the game with the systems they already have. I could go on and on with little touches but I'd be typing all night. lol
That would be fantastic, but you'te talking about a game where NPCs casually walk around in shirts on planets without atmosphere and ships can magically take off with no one in the pilot seat. I swear this game is in a state where most others enter early access. Space is just window dressing.
@@matman000000 I know man. This stuff can be corrected though with simple mods. Ships could only take off if guys get into the ship and sit in the pilot seat. The ships taking off can totally be treated like our own ships do. Some simple manipulation to the code can achieve this. Bethesda designs these games in a way that all this stuff is possible because as bad as they are at putting these things into their game, they design it as such where they leave empty spaces to easily manipulate it all. It's all open ended design at its core.
no, cdpr are walking away from red engine for a reason other than UR5 being superior and its a fairly dark one... It basically about transferable knowledge, it ultimately gives them more freedom to have "disposable" staff
There is places where the engine looks great. Inside the ship for example. But on planets stuff just looks bland. I think there could have been lots of design decisions made that would have made people ignore all the issues. A good survival mode where planets actually felt dangerous. If base building actually had a purpose other than the power leveling exploit. A lot of stuff they didn't need a better engine for. People made good games using the Unity engine with it's limitations too.
No it’s not called cheesy pasta here it’s called macaroni and cheese. It’s not orange either. The dye is called carotene. A lot of cheese manufacturers use it here but not in macaroni from the supermarket
I think it's hilarious that some people were bashing on Luke Stephens for being highly, and deservedly, critical of the Creation engine, by saying "It's Creation 2", only for Starfield to not show any significant change from Creation 1 games. Bethesda physics have made very little improvement from the days of Oblivion. The movement animations and weight of the character are really wonky. The biggest problem is that Starfield, in my few hours of playing, has offered me nothing to distract me from Creation's issues. Other Bethesda titles have succeeded in pulling my attention away from the mechanics, by setting up a world I want to engage in, and I didn't get that with Starfield.
I think people don't understand that it isn't a Engine issue but a Skill Issue. Give BGS UE5 and watch them make the same mistakes with exact same limitations. The outer worlds was made in UE4 and it had the exact same issues as FNV which was made in creation engine.
I LOVE StarField! Over 100 hours into the game. That being said, I realize the game isn’t perfect. Lol. The engine is a little dated. But I play StarField & Elder Scrolls for the stories & quests and open world adventure & cool unique experiences. IMO no other game maker does it as well. Witcher 3 and RDR2 are on the same level as BGS, but it’s a short list of games that do what BGS does.
Exactly, that's what many people will never understand. So many people bought Starfield expecting a spaceship simulator and got mad at Bethesda because it's not that at all, it's an RPG that happens to be set in space. All those people that say "Look at No Man's Sky, how can they do it while Bethesda can't?" No Man's Sky developers focused on seamless space exploration from day one of development, because it was their goal. Bethesda's goal on the other hand is just to tell good stories and give a lot of freedom to the player, and I think they succeeded at that. Both approaches are right in their own way, it just depends on what game you want to make.
@@garyr5866 I can compare them if I want. Lol. I’ve played RDR2 & Witcher 3. Loved them both. All time greats. I don’t think StarField is on that level yet, but I do think Starfield is pretty awesome, and if they add some things and makes some changes in updates & DLC I think it could be an all timer as well.
@@asura7915 that’s your opinion. But millions of people are playing Starfield and love it. And I’m sure there are people who already consider it an all timer.
Unlike Starfield, I fully expect TES6 to transcend a lot of these issues. Soley for the fact that is a type of game the engine was designed for, unlike Starfield, which is being placed into the space sim rpg sphere of things. The large expanse of the handcrafted Open world will naturally mean way less loading screens popping up with zero change to the engine. Although I 100% think they will try to get rid of the loading in for cities as that was one of the biggest mods for Skyrim. My main concern for TES6 will be gameplay systems that make it fresher than ever from past titles, and the feeling of combat not feeling like a balloon swatting contest. Melee and magic use in the first person view is a challenge not many games focus on. In fact I'd say outside of some specific medieval sims, no AAA game has ever focused on. I expect souls like combat to have some minor influence thanks to Elden Ring's massive success, but I don't think it will move their choices all that much.
The thing with moddders "fixing things" is that often those mods realmy don't. They are just "fudges" FoV in Fallout 4 still causes distortion. Key mapping for Fallout 4...there is just ONE mod for this. It works but its not great. Its a work AROUND (and it requires the script extender which Bethesda broke with every update. - and when they were really leaning into Creation Club that was extremely frequently!) Even things like the bug fixing Universal Patch seem to fall foul of author over reach where in addition to taking a really long time to identify and fix bugs the authors seem to start interpreting what the original authors may have intended. When that happens can it any longer be considered a fix? No. I don't think that mods really fix Bethesda games. And we fool ourselves when we tell each other that they do.
Bit of a hot take, but I liked the voiced protagonist in FO4, just would've liked the whole dialogue option to select, rather than just a clue about what you'll say.
One problem with having to wait for mods to fix Bethesda's games is the Xbox achievement system will get disabled. And secondly, they will miss out on a lot of quality of life mods on Fallout 4 if they want to get the achievements. And thirdly, if they plan to revisit a save in the future, the run the risk of not being able to load it because a mod isn't available or supported anymore.
I think we all have to realize that Starfield started development in 2015. Did they even know about the new consoles back then? If we assume that this game was made with the assumption that it was supposed to get played on Xbox One/PS4 some things becomes more understandable. I think it’s sad when people always say that people should use Unreal, without realizing what that means. There is often a lot of tech in custom engines that are lost when everyone is moving to engines like Unreal.
@@cecarter10 Does it really? I mean I don’t mean to sound like a Starfield simp, I would not say the game is perfect nor is it the best-looking game I have ever seen. But I would argue that I think seperate objects are way more detailed in Starfield. And I also think characters look better in terms of shaders and polycount. Also, all I'm trying to say is, that there is always a reason why things work the way they do in games, applications, etc. I was just trying to say that the reason why we might not have seamless space travel, might also be due to the age of the game itself.
@@cecarter10 The witcher 3, especially at launch and not the recent upgraded version, looks worse graphically than starfield. Just compare the ship interiors in starfield to any interior in the witcher.
I never understood defending the engine cause of how good the physics are...but Bethesda never takes advatange of it. Starfield is about the first time with the use of zero g which i will admit is an awesome feature.
@@YouGottaReplenish that's because continuing to move without input is annoying to anyone but the most avid enjoyer of space games. I'm very happy to come to a full stop
@@YouGottaReplenish true. I meant more when you are 1st person. I will say as someone who has played hundreds of hours of space engineers that it does suck losing a space ship cause its moving 1 m/s
It seems that the Unity drama has ended, it settle, I not known exactly what happen, but it seems that they had an agreement, Unity really have a crazy story, first consider an engine for trash games, then selling the engine to studios that make very good games to then fall back to this again, they make one step forward, two step backwards, now they have to begin everything all over again.
imagine that you can't crop someone up, can't loot poeple down to underwear... i already lower my expectation on TES 6 by what they did / choice at star field
the reason CDPR is moving to unreal is : 1- recruiting new talents. many people are just more familiar with unreal. 2- the MAIN REASON cyberpunk was a train wreck at launch was because the engine was NOT made for a game like cyberpunk. like they said before, they were building and modifying the red engine WHILE developing cyberpunk. it's actually insane lmao.
Yo I know this vid is old but when comes to the red engine, apparently it was giving cd project serious problems. Because the engine was design for the witcher not Cyberpunk. So lead to a lot bugs and stuff. That why cd going for unreal because they will have better support and easier to work with tools. As for the creation engine I personal cant see what it does better then any other engine besides mods. It seems to be outdated in terms of performance and visuals.
The good reason they walk away from red engine is money. They cant affort to keep up their own engine atm. From an Interview. Engines are expensive to keep up
Bethesda could avoid most of the engine issues *if,* and this is a big if, they managed to get writing on par with the other story leaders in the business. And my goodness, if you are making a visual novel with action; ei an on rails game, stop pretending we have choices when we are going to be railroaded in the same direction by the game anyway. Either through NPC's giving effectively the same answer or the outcome being exactly the same. These are the two major things that plagued Fallout 4. The story being centered around your kidnapped child while the game trying, at every turn, to get you to go help an outpost, or worse, build them. The last thing a parent searching for their kidnapped child is going to do is stop to build random bush forts out of discarded materials or help risk their lives, and their child's, by defending someone else's. Someone else's who also happens to be in an out of the way area. That is not logical. Then, you have the dialogue response choices that all lead to what amounts to the same response. That completely defeats the purpose of dialogue trees. In games like the type Bethesda *used* to make, the graphics are arguably the least important major component of the game. Story-telling, dialogue options, decisions and how the world reacts to those decisions is always first. Then the gameplay and progression loop is a close second. Presentation is also big which includes the voice acting and environmental story-telling. I have a difficult time believing that people would have a big issue with the graphics if they nailed the writing and gameplay. Or the NPC's who don't just get overly helpful with quests, but they lead you by the nose constantly. The voice acting swings from one extreme to the other so quickly I recommend a neck brace before sitting down in front of the key board. One second Cowboy Jensen is nailing it and the next old rich guy _Dad_ is speaking so slowly you'd think he was intoxicated with a severe mental impairment. And this is a constant throughout the entire game. Yes, it tackles some deep concepts, and handles some of it respectably. If you listen and don't try to make an actual decision that goes against what the game wants you to do, at which point any of that depth is destroyed because there is such a threadbare illusory tapestry that on pull brings the entire thing crashing down making you yet again question why this was not a virtual novel with some action and interactivity pieces thrown in to break up the monotony. There are literally "Choose You Own Adventure" books from the 1980's with more choice and consequence than this game and that's just plain sad. That is not the engine's fault, it is the management and the overall talent as a whole of the people working on the game. How does a game like Bg3 end up with more dialogue, over 2000 speaking NPC's, and none as poor as the bottom 70% of the characters with a speaking line in Starfield? Maybe this game should have been marketed more as a Bethesda Creation Engine in space where the real star will be what the modders make with the game, similar to what Bioware did with Neverwinter Nights back in 2001 (or 2002, I forget the release year off the top of my head)? They stated very clearly that though there would be a full single player campaign, it was not on the same level as BG 1, 2 and Throne of Bhaal. Instead, the real boon of the purchase was access tot he Aurora Toolset and fan made adventures. Oh, I know, because that isn't what people wanted. They wanted the depth and of Morrowind with the freedom of Oblivion and Skyrim minus the plot armor. Instead they got the plot armor on dialogue, not just NPC's...again. Add in 7th-10th grade level writing of that dialogue with a firm hand pulling you along each quest and this game ends up being nearly nothing like Bethesda hyped up. Seriously, some of this voice acting is so bad I was, and still am, wondering if a vast majority of it was AI generated. The concepts for this game were so bloody good, but honestly, maybe Bethesda simply does not have it anymore? You can't go from Morrowind through Skyrim then drop the quality level to Fallout 4, Fallout 76 and now Starfield level if the writing talent is still there. They obviously aren't hiring the same level of voice actors, at least not at the bottom. It's like they just pulled random people from the office and said _"Can you record these line at home then send us the raw files? Thanks."_ I hope people can shut their brains off and have a really good time with the game. I can't. Of course I sunk 500+ hours into Skyrim and could barely get 20 hours out of Fallout 4 before thankfully seeing the credits roll and never, ever going back to it. Not true, I did try once a year or so back but didn't get past meeting Preston and the Minute Men before wondering if I really had that little going on at the moment for that to be what I actually wanted to be doing. I'd rather go back and play Mass Effect: Andromeda than attempt a more through run of Fallout 4, and I have a feeling I will be waiting at least a year before I even consider trying to play Starfield again. And if the story isn't overhauled to make decisions matter at the per conversation level and the world level, I'm not even sure that will be worth it. Maybe with a couple of hundred mods installed so as to make the main story even more of a side show? Maybe remove voice acting entirely and let me read and imagine what the people sound like? Normally I will take full voice acting over partial/limited 99% of the time, but not in this case. A lot of people are calling this game a masterpiece, a lot are calling it terrible, and I'm calling it the most low-mid AAA game I've ever played, possibly outside of Fallout 4. Scoring it a 4.5 out of 10 seems fair to me. If I had to numerically break down how I subjectively felt about each aspect of the game the high point would be the graphics. Under the circumstances, that is not a good thing, and I am truly sorry for the people at Bethesda who did pour their hearts and souls in. Talent level notwithstanding, no one spends 6 or 7 years of their life pulling 60 hour weeks to make something that is a financial success but panned by the fans.
The creation engine holds up Sixteen times the load screens Sixteen times more auto generated planets Sixteen times more boring exploration Sixteen times the meh companions Sixteen times meh quests Sixteen times worse NPC animations
7:46 no it fucking isn't???? Cheesy pasta and mac and cheese are different????? Cheesy pasta is just any pasta and any cheese but good quality mac and cheese is specifically macaroni with a cheese sauce that requires more than just cheese - butter, bit of milk maybe, some pepper in there whatever but THEY AREN'T THE SAME
Where most of its issues aren't fixed and they added in several features that either should have been there from the beginning or should have never been added.
Macaroni and cheese is one of the easiest meals to make I don’t know why anyone would bother buying that stuff when all you need is macaroni and just typical things like milk and cheese everyone has in their fridges
CDPR really wanted to implement multiplayer for Cyberpunk and they gave up - I bet that's because the REDengine can't handle it. I'm not a "game engine engineer", but I would think that if an engine wasn't built with multiplayer in mind, then it's really difficult to adapt it.
I feel conflicted on exploration. I would love more to find on planets, but it just isn't realistic. Most planets would be mostly barren. Even on irl Earth with billions of people, most of the surface area is "barren" aside from some animals and plants. I would explore way more if we had a vehicle. I would care less about running into a wall so long as I get there faster. My biggest issue is not procedurally generated tiles. Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen are also BARREN and use precedural content (and they may be even more barren than starfield). I don't understand why Bethesda did not implement the procedural generation in a chunk-based system a-la minecraft. That is not new technology. As you approach the edge of one tile or chunk, simply unload the distant parts and start to load the new one seamlessly (which is already probably what it is doing when youre not looking at something). I'm not a game dev, but if Minecraft/NMS can do it, I see no reason Starfield could not.
Gamefreak is the only company I can think of that gets a bigger pass from their fans. They consistently put out not just mediocre games, bet legit 2 or 3 out of 10 games, and the fans still eat and up and by 23 million copies.
It's never the engine. But Bethesda sticks to their tools, tools that barely evolved since Oblivion. Bethesda even in Starfield somehow showed that big open spaces filled with npcs and no loading screens interiors are a thing then why is that not a standard? They split locations into separate files and have multiple people work on them asynchronously, often ending with interiors that don't fit the outside of the building, another problem is navmesh complexity as they don't seem to have figured good AI navigation still. They don't bother stitching locations at the end of creation process because it complicates potential fixes and adds complexity to AI behaviours. This could be automated but it required creation of new dedicated tools that Bethesda apparently does not like. Morrowind, FO3, Skyrim, FO4 and Starfield were essentially made inside the same editor.
The Reason Bethesda continues to use the same old outdated engine is because they have a delusional fan base that makes excuses for all the below average things in Bethesda games. No matter how many problems the games have, this cult of a group will buy the games and defend them with their lives. So there is absolutely no reason Bethesda should use a better engine, because they have a delusional fan base that claims to love buggy, glitchy, unoptimized games with below average visuals, below average gameplay and missing features. They even claim the bugs and glitches are features. All other games would be butchered if they were released in the same buggy state. But Bethesdas games get a free pass and are even praised by their cult following for this. And the small percent of Bethesda fans who actually have some brain cells, who will actually admit to the shortcomings of Bethesda games, claim that all the countless negatives about the game aren't a big deal because the modding community will fix everything for Bethesda. So Bethesda doesn't actually have to do their job, the fans will do the work for free for the $3 Billion gaming studio. If Bethesda fans were actually honest and criticized the games when they deserved criticism and didn't just make excuses for everything, Bethesda would actually have to step their game up, but that's not the case. So Bethesda doesn't need to improve on anything. They can use this same exact engine in 20 years and the fans will defend it.
I have a sneaky suspension that CDPR might not be paying for game engines or is being approached by companies (like it seems Nvidia is doing) to essentially demo their tech.
I just wanted to say. The digital foundry guys do not have software engineer or game dev background. They often get their facts wrong, and often weave in marketing talking points from certain publishers (microsoft with whom they seem to have a "special relationship") in their analysis. So when they arrogantly poo poo other peoples opinions. It shows who they really are. Pompous Internet nerds who got lucky.
That reference doesnt work..water is used in antifreeze...but antifreeze isnt used to make water..so no..its not like saying"drinkin water is like drinkin antifreeze"of course it isnt.
I'm bored of StarField already....its so leftist soccer mom PG13 "safe" vanilla story characters and dialouge is brutal.... I was hoping this would be a "forever game" that I could play for a decade but it definetly isn't
ok but you can get photo realism from Skyrim in 2023 with a good load of mods. So even if the engine is old and maybe there programing language needs some heavy work the npc looking like potato's is all Bethesda's choice. you can get there engine to put out some Amazing graphics they simply choose not to
Lazy game made by a complacent company bloated on way too much Microsoft money and years of success with average games that sell well for some reason. People don't even react when you point a gun at them. If at least the game had some creativity and vision to it, the engine issues wouldn't be a big problem. But it's lazy, copy-pasted procedural design for most of it, and derivative, half-assed, dishwater story for the rest that we've seen done better in a dozen other games.
No, the excessive loading screens, lack of 'seamless' loading, and lack of ground vehicles is due to technical limitations, period. It wasn't a creative design choice, and it's not that the customer doesn't want those missing features, that's unadulterated BS (and just a disingenuously stupid explanation, because they're always trying to reach new customers). They used a jury-rigged Frankenstein version of an old engine for a game with a scope beyond it's capabilities. And so it doesn't even run all that well, and the limitations are to allow it to run at all. I'm sure the programmers did everything they could to make it run as well as it could. The engine should've been rewritten at the core. It was a top decision to not do that, and it was likely to save money.
I'm sorry but it's pretty clear from what is in Starfield that it must have had a troubled development. You don't get copy-pasted points of interest on every planet because of engine limitations. That's just a clear sign of rushed development- which obviously makes no sense for a game that was in development for 9 years. My guess is they spent years of wasted effort trying to make their crappy ancient engine do things they were unable to get it to do, and what actually shipped is something cobbled together in the last 2-3 years because they had to ship.
tbh i feel more immersed in Skyrim than starfield. Also way better exploration in Skyrim but that just might be me
Not just you.
Definitely not just you.
+1 definitely not just you. SF feels so hollow, it has no real identity. If you like running across barren wastelands to find procedurally generated 'content' then SF's exploration will be good for you, lol. Nearly every location in Skyrim is hand-made, with repeats being few and far between.
The ability to travel from one town to the other without having to fast travel through a menu might have helped.
No. Not just you. I love Bethesda rpgs despite all of their quirks but Starfield is just boring. You land on a 5 sq km planet barren area, walk for 3-4 minutes to a outpost/cave/useless point of interest. Nothing happens while exploring on foot, except seeing some ships land in the distance. There are no more than 5 types of enemies. Weapon diversity is also not that great. It's all just underwhelming compared to Elder Scrolls or Fallout. I will take handcrafted world with the size of Skyrim over 1000 randomly generated planets anytime.
I rather play Witcher 3 all over again if I gotta play trash starfield
I disagree. Witcher 3 came out in 2016 and showcased more advanced engine. If ES6 has you loading every time you enter an interior it's going to feel old and dated.
Exactly Todd Howard is coming off like George Lucas at this point. Making us wait 57 years for trash.
Even worse, it came out in early 2015 lol
for an elder scrolls game i don't really care about the load screens as much, but for starfield the load screens are really bad, there were so many things they could have done to remedy this to make it function much better but they didn't even try.
other games in the past that had this same limitation introduced a loading cell that a person walked through to load up the next section and it never felt like a load screen because they would often put some kind of action sequence in the location and cap the players speed in situations where the game was loading the next section.
case in point, the tome raider reboot games, used these loading areas to trick the player into thinking it was one massive continous cell location that just got bigger and bigger, when all along it was a load screen in desguise that they player couldn't see or even care to think about.
now the engine couldn't do seemless transitions to another cell like planet to space like how it worked in NMS, but they could have very well simulated something like that to work, it just wouldn't be done quite as fast.
@@5226-p1e Come on man. LOADING SCREENS to walk into a building? WHY?
Yeah, yeah, yeah... But can you interact with toilet paper rolls or fill your cockpit with potatoes like you can in Starfield ? Nah, i don't think so ! Checkmate, you REDengine, you can't RPG for shit ! /s
The single one thing that truly irritates me about Starfield is that hey did not create enough variation of planetary bases . It is so weird to encounter the same base, in the same crater, with the same stuff lying around on 4 different planets.
@@winghong3 Yes, and I do not understand why this has happened. With the modular elements that are in the game, it should have been easy for Bethesda to create at least a dozen more planetary base designs.
That's cause the focus of the game isn't on exploring the proc gen content, they don't want to do No Man's Sky they want to do a RPG
@@winghong3 What do you mean by "how long Starfield is supposed to be" ? If you do only the quest you won't find a lot of repeated locations, you only find the repeated locations if you decide to explore the planets.
@@ni9274 "biggest and most ambitious space RPG" your words...
@@ni9274 Even if you just follow the story, you get repeat locations a few times. even if they try spacing them out. And with NG+.... well yes they have plenty of repeats so even if you bum rush the main story, you end up with the same thing over and over again.
So it does get old fast.
There are vehicles in Fallout New Vegas and horses in Skyrim/Oblivion.
There are mods that add facial expretions to skyrim that acually smile and not squint as if they ate a lemon. They are still limited to 1 expression for a single line.
What vehicles are in New Vegas that are driveable?
@@10kwes The ones added by Frontier mod.
Sorry for not mentioning it.
@@karpai5427Pretty much the only reason to play the mod honestly.
Amen. 1 autist made drivable cars for FNV alone, and tirple A studio couldnt? it's just plain ol lazyness nothing more
This is the issue, they should not rely on modders to "fix" their game, but make the game good from the start..
Many fans saying they need this engine so the world get to be so immersive. I actually don't find starfield immersive. It is just a nicely built world, but no really positives from the engine except picking up every object, putting it somewhere and hours later the maki roll or weapon is still lying on the floor. No one else will ever interact with it except me. It is some kind of dollhouse built into a ball pit, where you play some nice stories. It makes fun, but it has many flaws in the same field like ubisoft open world games.
They need this engine for people to easily mod it.
@@HaveButOneLifeit's a tricky thing really. Creation Engine is cheaper and allows Bethesda to let their community finish their games and expand them for 10+ years. Going to another engine would mean they have to spend years learning the new engine and then even more years making the game good enough to where it doesn't "need" mods to compete with other titles. It would also mean that the modding community won't be able to as easily port mods from one Bethesda title to the next. But if Bethesda picked up an engine like Unreal Engine 5, it would encourage modders to learn that engine too, which would help them gather more experience for jobs in game development or even encourage them to make their own games.
You kope for companys hard its nasty
@@thatonepenguinperson618you're joking right? Have you seen the state of UE5
@@Mike-sf7ex I was using UE5 as an example since that's what most major companies are moving to like CDPR and the halo infinite rumors.
The point isn't the engine Bethesda moves to, but the effects of what would happen if they were to move engine.
Someone also made the point that Starfield feels like a game that’s still sitting in 2010s, cyberpunk has seamless load screens whenever you leave an interior building or my favorite one: Dead Space 3 has seamless load screens and that game was released back at the start of 2013!!!!!
Exactly no man’s sky shits on starfield it’s very sad
To make a point, you can travel from Solitude to Riften with only 2 loading screens but can't travel from New Atlantis to Neon without at least 4.
@@tarnishedhunter222You'd think the game with a smaller more focused scope could pull that off but no.
A person that likes DS3? I feel like that's a rarity, no judgment, I'm just surprised
@@65firerednot true, you can fast travel once without ever seeing your ship or the landing pad it goes on. Just go to objectives from the menu, press X over the objective, then hold X to land there. Takes you directly to there.
Starfield should've had a smaller scope. I feel like the countless planets try to make up for the mediocrity that is bethesda
A much smaller scope. Start small and expand once you've gotten a lot done. Start with just 10 planets, adding cities, towns, different biomes, etc. with tons of high-quality quests and content. You always add more later.
Start with one planet.
Like in Final Fantasy 7, you were limited to the start buggy and one area (one planet).
Complete some good (memorable, meaningful) quests,
then get your ship, then start grav jumping.
Then like in Frontier First encounters, get your final ship, with a huge hyperdrive,
get to the final mission.
BG3 has motion captured dialogue mixed with outrageously amazing voice acting BUT that cost money and passion and Bethesda is out of at least one of those.
Starfield has like 5x the dialogue of BG3. Lol.
@@Mike-sf7ex Not much of it is any good though in Starfield... and that's not even close to being true, BG3 has 2 million 'words' and Starfield has 250,000 'lines'.
@@bligh1156 BG3 has roughly 45,980 lines of dialogue. This is coming straight from the game files itself... 2 million TEXT doesn't mean a whole lot that's just text used in the game and doesn't necessarily mean spoken words in fact a good chunk of that is probably not. Same with Starfield but again it's nearly 5x the size. Starfield has probably closer to 3 million text maybe even 4 million with all the in game lore
@@Mike-sf7exAnd most of it is crap. Quality over quantity every time. Millions of text doesn't mean much if most of it is a waste of time and effort.
@@65firered Some games are just really big in size and scope and the written content will suffer for it naturally. BG3, Starfield, even Mass Effect have very similar quality of writing and voice acting you can't compare these games to much tighter experiences like God of War or Guardians of the Galaxy.
Their tech is fucking old there’s no way anyone can deny that. Doesn’t matter how good they can make their lighting, Their animations, their rendering, everything looks like a slightly better skyrim
Microsoft tech is also fucking old. Most tech is old especially established companies, banks, and governments.
@@badger_ninja8681Game development tech is not the same as OS, Banking applications or government portals those things are made for functional purposes and as long as they fulfill their requirements they are sufficient, this is not the case for games they are a medium of entertainment and their flaws are very easily detected by customers so they need to focus more on providing a better experience over functionality.
@@badger_ninja8681 sony, capcom, cdpr, activision blizzard, rockstar have the best latest tech and it shows
@@TheEnderPearl the newest tech isn't what makes you think that. it's legitimately just forward facing features. I assure you the tech that the new tech runs on top of is old. It's a fundamental difference in design not technology.
@@TheEnderPearl If it was a tech issue and not a design issue mods would be unable to fix said issues. Mods no matter how complex requires the tech to be there to support them.
Fun fact on the shooting thing needing to be added to the engine. Back when Dark Souls 1 was made (may apply to demon souls as well) they didn't have in the engine a way to add things like flame breaths for dragons, or the lightning one for the blue drakes in the valley of drakes, so what they did was poping up multiple bullet projectiles from armored core with the needed shapes and textures, hence why they look like if they are made in blocks instead of something that actually flows.
I'm not sure if that was explained properly somewhere on reddit, or a vaatividya video, but I found that pretty amusing.
I think I can explain how MODS for STARFIELD have been created so quickly. These MODS already exist for SKYRIM and FALLOUT and since STARFIELD is not that much different than those games and built within the same engine; it probably didn't take much to modify those SKYRIM and FALLOUT MODS to work within STARFIELD.
No, it's just that modders already understand how the engine work
@@ni9274 Its a mix of both. They know the engine, so all they had to do was do some tweaking and seeing what worked via porting over from skyrim or fallout 4 since its the same engine. I wouldn't be suprised if someone could port over mods from skyrim or fallout 4 into starfield. Just cause bethesda is using the same ancient engine.
@@mightypancake2211 It’s not the same engine, it’s an updated version.
@@ni9274 Which makes it still the same engine at the core. The additions to the engines won't make that much of a difference for most mods.
The thing with cobol programs is they had decades of support and bug fixes and are now freakishly stable for financial institutions, even if they have to run in overnight cycles.
The whole loading screen experience is what I would do if I am a rival company that wish it to fail, among other things, it’s not just an annoyance, it feels vicious, like it’s out to make me suffer, personally. I reinstalled 2077 the other day and I got ptsd from walking through doors. What do you mean I don’t have to black out for seconds when I walked through doors?
Lmao I had the same thing, I'd walk up to a door and feel a burst of anxiety only to immediately remind myself that there's no loading screens in this game 😂
Believe me 1 thing. No1 would complain about faces in SF if cutscenes/dialogue camera and NPC animations would be improved or better.
It is not so difficult to imagine this. Imagine NPC in any footage of SF dialogue if those NPCs would move naturaly like real people do when you talking to them without your face being locked on their face as if your character is some weirdo.
I always had to use the animation mods in Skyrim, the ones w/ conditional IDLES as well as convo idles. Seeing NPCs read notes, stretch, shuffle, or use their shield to block the rian was incredibly immersive.
Yeah look at Control for example. The facial animations in that game are nothing special, pretty basic really, but they managed to hide it with good camera positioning and other clever strategies. Diverting the attention of the player sometimes is all it takes to make a presentation 100x times more enjoyable and good looking. Starfield, on the other hand, does everything it can to make the player focus on bad animations, plastic looking skin, dead eyes ecc. It's like it's throwing it at your face constantly.
You know I remember at some point downloading the Singing Settler mod for Fallout 4 game. I built something like a night club on that 1 island settlement and all the followers there. I remember 1 specific moment when Preston started a conversation about his past and such while 1 singing settler I attached to mic started singing the song called good neighbour. Together with the slow rotating disco ball it was something very special for me and also very memorable because that dialogue system was literally shining in that 1 specific moment. And I was like daaaaamn this is only possible in a BGS game. This is how much difference it would make imo if they added voice protagonist to SF (otherwise it would be pretty weird if player character was silent while using F4/ME dialogue camera) @@thebaffman4898
@@thebaffman4898 can't do that in a game with hundreds of NPC that move around a lot unless you're Larian
what's funny about this is they did a much better job with the conversation camera in FO4, the faces still didn't look as good, but somehow even though they weren't nearly as high resolution and textures, they looked much better and less of that uncanny valley look in comparison to starfields NPC's.
Best thing about creation engine is the creation kit, I think Starfield is still a win based on how much time I have spent on it and when creation engine comes out that is just going to skyrocket. For comparison I have spent around 139 hours on No man's sky and I unless I want to farm for every S tier skin I have done everything the game has to offer.
Yeah, I mean, why bother finishing the game when players can finish it for free right.
@@ZephyrusAsmodeus that has consistently been a problem for Bethesda, and not just that, each game is incredibly buggy, more so then the average triple A. Bethesda has many severe problems that I believe they should fix and that they continue to ignore. I really can not think of a comparable modding community though and the creation kit is what enables it.
@@aurious5821 I'm just not a fan of how they seem to be becoming dependant on it
@@winghong3 I wish more publishers would create their own mod tools so Bethesda has competition on that front
@@ZephyrusAsmodeus you aren't wrong at all. At the same time having thousands of developers adding to a game for years is a big long term win
The modders are so familiar with the engine they get fixes working in a matter of days, for free, I think Bethesda knows exactly what they're doing.
This is actually way more true than I realized. After playing Starfield for 5 hours I thought to myself that this was a great canvas for mods but otherwise pretty boring. Those mods are going to come that much faster with poop engine 2
Then why do you give them 70$ for a bare bones framework for modders?
@@N84-f3k Cause it's not a "bare bone framework for modders", they're just lying to themself
@@N84-f3k Never have, never will
EXAAAACTLY FINALLY SEE A PERSON WITH A BRAIN
The problem isn't their engine, it's their attitude. They are lazy when it comes to making better tech. They just don't want to do it and so they find a way around it. This is why the limitations in Starfield exist - because they couldn't be bothered making it properly.
With the implementation of gamepass and obvious lower pay publishers will be subjected to under a subscription, dont expect much high quality AAA from Bethesda and pretty much Xbox ingeneral. 🤷♂️
@@NateT092 look up the budget they had for Starfield !!
Modders have reported internal assets/functions of the engine dating back to MORROWIND. It iS partially the engine. You need a fresh start when it comes to the artistic process. Trust me. It's both.
@phillystevesteak6982 it isn't. You could do the same with the unreal engine. This is how game engines work. It is NOT the engine, at all. Not even a little.
@johnathanera5863 it's partially the engine. Janky code persists through using the ame engine, causing the same kinds of obstacles. It's both the team and the engine.
The problem is Bethesda takes many parts from other games and tries to put them in creation engine with the Bethesda sandbox magic, this time it didn't work due to the exploration problem with the procedural generation being very boring and generic. The looting shooter aspect of Starfield is good but Cyberpunk does it better, the graphics are ok but Cyberpunk does it better, the space exploration copied NoMansSky but NMS does it better, they included the settlement system but its just filler, other sims games does it better. The companions also very similar to Mass Effect, but Mass Effect does it better. In previous games due to the exploration and the way Bethesda created the worlds, you didnt care so much to have a Joker of all trades master of none. This time around the King is naked. Also if you take in mind that they tried to copied the GTA online from Rockstar and started to create mobile games, we can predict the next game of Elder scrolls, what it will be like. Plus its the only developer who uses the modders as free bugfixers for their games and then they resell their games with deluxe editions with many mods and zero work from their part. This is called laziness.
Exploration in this game feels like a chore and reminds me of mass effect 1's planet exploration but worse cause there's no mako to speed up the process.
I think they could have avoided a lot of these issues if they release the game 4 years ago
@@KratosisGodAt least there was stuff to do in ME1 even if most of it was just busy work. Starfield is struggling to keep up with the 2008 game design.
How is space exploraiton a copy of No Man's Sky and how is No Man's Sky is doing it better ? There is no real content in No Man's Sky, only procedural quest and activities that are not tied to unique narrative, there is also no unique locations to discover in No Man's Sky.
The companions are not the focus of Starfield, and they're not similar to Mass Effect their just the typical bethesda companions.
You're just factually wrong when you say Bethesda is the only game with modders that fix bugs, Cyberpunk and Witcher 3 also have mods that fix bugs.
Bethesda doesn't resell games with mods.
@@65firered You clearly didn't play Starfield if you think there isn't stuff to do, Starfield has a higher amount of unique quest than every previous Bethesda game.
Starfield is struggling to keep up with "2008 game design" in your head, fact is that Starfield is the biggest space RPG ever made and also the most ambitious.
Starfield is the definition of "Meh"
Mehfield
It's the first AAA beige cube.
I had a German professor in college who most disliked apathy in people. I agree. "Meh" is a curse word used in place of an opinion.
@@broark88 Starfield was boring, underwhelming, and forgettable
Its funny you bring up Andromeda because i genuinely feel that if Bethesda's name was on that game, all the issues would've just been brushed to the side
EDIT: wait Starfield doesnt have native ultrawide support?
No hdr calibration either or fov slider 😂
Im just confused as to how the "technology" didnt exist before to make their game. Its nothin more impressive than anything else they made.
It is, Starfield is the biggest and most ambitious space RPG ever, only comparaison would be Mass Effect but it's a very linear game and doesn't have the level of details of Starfield.
@@ni9274 Starfield is a linear game, where your choices mean bubkiss and you just end up ground hog daying till you end up on the NG+ you want to be on.
@@mightypancake2211 it’s not since you can progress through the side content in whatever way you want, and I don’t care about my choice mattering, this was never the focus of Bethesda RPG.
Still playing and loving the game
It had just released. Are you still, now?
@@Benzinilinguine yep
@@salbiase2117how about now?
@@VenomGamingCenter I am not playing anything currently. If I were to pick up a game rn it would be palworld tho
I bought an Xbox to play Starfield and try out game pass on the console, I’ll be returning it next Monday on the 28th day while I still can.. Starfield just does not keep my interest and I went back to finish FF16 on my ps5. When I thought about going back to Starfield and realizing I dreaded doing so I said to myself NOPE, time to return this console.
I’ll be putting the money towards building a gaming pc FINALLY. Tired of the console war.
I can see how buying a console for a game and then that game not being very good might turn your entire perspective on its face. The console wars always burned honest consumers as they actively promoted anti-consumer practices.
It’s probably good that CDPR went to epic. Like Bellor said the engine is like a foundation. Plug-ins and assets are the rest of the house.
CDPR has to make all their plug-ins because their the only one that uses it. Unreal has thousands of plug-ins and assets already that are built by other game devs. So CDPR can plug and play and if they don’t like a certain plugin or asset they can just change the code.
Yes, and pay royalties for using them. If you design it inhouse, you don't have to. Or, just rely on modders that do it for free for Bethesda.
@@pongombi always do not know how there is not some sort of violation of using free labor to fix your product
UE4 and UE5 have shader compilation stutter, current UE5 games run like shit on console. It was a bad move going away from their proprietary engine to UE.
@@Sparticulous It's probably a more complicated legal issue, but officially Bethesda doesn't rely on modders. It's the players who buy buggy games and patch them themselves.
@@pongomb CD Projekt have special license. Noone ever erlier have that with Epic. This will be like now with Nvidia and CD Projekt.
I think technical restrictions aren't the reason why we have no vehicles in the game. They literally got spaceflight and combat working, something I never really thought the creation engine could do. And ladders! It comes down to the vision and scope of the game probably changing during development.
Cdpr most likely is moving to unreal for time savings. I remember them complaining during the launch that a lot of them had to learn red engine and it showed in the bugs and quality at launch. Probably cheaper to just pay the fee to epic until maybe a new in house software is developed, that also can take years in some cases almost a decade to build.
I still remember when bf5 devs complained that Allie’s had to jump from a axis plane because of engine limitations lol 🤦♂️
I've heard through someone reliable that they're already developing their in-house engine at CDPR and with their next launch we'll get to see what it's like
@@zeroDOLLARg-RoAren't they also helping Epic with UE5 development?
The BF5 devs were definitely... special.
One of the things I believe that set BGs games apart from others, and keeps the game fun, even with the engine a bit old, is the fact there is non a linear narrative in every way. You get to choose any direction right from the start, where in other games, even the most open rpgs, they're structured in a way that the main quest will always be your guide and will determine kinda like where will you'll be at each level. That kinda freedom does give a sense of immersion to the player that makes the game feel unique, even with all its flaws. Compare it to baldurs gate 3 for instance - act 1 will be one place, act 2 two another, and act 3 finally the city itself. So, everytime you want to replay the game, this will be the narrative structure that you will have to follow. The same is true for The Witcher 3 for example. Now in BGs games that kind of structure is diferent, you can simply have a different path right from the start. I think that this is part the aspect that makes Bethesda's games so compelling and many people kind of overlook. Still, i do very much hope they get those animations right in the future 😅
That's simply not true. The narrative especially from Oblivion onward is very linear. You are combining two aspects that are very different and outright lying about the structure of the narrative. You can freely explore the map after leaving the tutorial. The narrative itself is linear. You can't start Skyrim any other way, same with Oblivion, Fallout 4, and Starfield. The locations the narrative takes you do not change for the major events, you cannot progress the story without doing the same events. BGs are NOT different in this aspect, that is a straight lie one easily disproven. Try to progress the story in any of these games without going to the locations the game tells you to. For example, try to progress through Skyrim without going to Whiterun, Riverrun, Riften, and Skyhold, in that order.
@@65firered Not true. Exploring the world right from the start means that you can choose which narrative you can follow. You dont need to go straight do the main quest if you dont want to. Anything besides that and you're just putting in words i never said.
@@65firered obviously they wont change for major events. That was never my point. The point is - you can simply choose that right from the start which questline to follow. You can go Dark brotherhood or Thieves Guild from the start, both which will give different experiences. And i'm not also praising this aspect as some kind "genious design idea", i'm basically pointing out.
@@luisfernandootto4898 That applies to the other games as well. This is not unique to Bethesda nor does it mean the narrative is non-linear. If the narrative was non-linear you would not have a specific path to follow the main story, but you do. You said and I quote "non-linear in every way" I directly challenged your claims. Now, YOU are the one adding stipulations.
@@luisfernandootto4898 What you mean to say and what you have said are VERY different. To such an extent, you claimed that the *main* narrative was non-linear as was the entire game, and that NONE of the games you mentioned which include BG3 have this. Because even if this is what you meant from the beginning BG3 also has this.
The lack of exploration and imersion is why i didnt get this game. Tbh lukes videos saved me from 2asting 75 dollars. ❤❤. I never bought into how immersive it was gonna be. I even saw some youtubers who did lets play videos look bored to death and it was super obvious. They even questioned to finish a lets play. The graphics look 10 years old. The laod screens is bad. I dont see anything worth the money. Im getting cyberpunk 2077. That game looks immersive. Plus the story looks fun. Idk. I wanted what they promised. A true space exploration. Which it is not.
The thing about Mass Effect Andromeda & Anthem was that BioWare insist to use Frostbite. Not because of EA forced them to.
This video made me subscribe to your content! Great understanding of what devs go through
I spend 135 hours in Starfield and finished all the faction quests, mainquest and spend alot of time in the ship builder and was left disappointed. Now with the arrival of Phantom Liberty I started a new playthrough of Cyberpunk 2077 and I realise now how much more of a quality game that really is, even with it's extremely flawed launch originally. Starfield is not alive, the story is ChatGPT levels bad while the AI of NPC's probably could have used an ChatGPT level upgrade, it's so bad. I feel like Starfield fans are high on extreme levels of copium and the only redeeming quality that Starfield has is a great community of modders who will do what Bethesda can not. It is kinda sad really.
Oblivion and FO3 are two of my favorite BGS Games and when I heard the promise that SF would be Oblivion in Space I was stoked.
It had a deeper RPG and I was thinking I would land on a planet, see a destination on the horizon and be distracted for hours on my to said destination.
What I got was desert planet 100 with rocks sprinkled here and there and the same cave/base/locker/space baddies 100 times.
I made it about 60 hours and had some cool missions with mysteries and intrigue… for about 10 hours of that.
I believe that SF is the best BGS ever released… between the years of 2006-2010.
I've been a Bethesda fan for a while, and I am also sick of the excuse BGS use and just letting the modders fix it. I didn't even finish the game because it's too boring to bother to play. I'll come back in a year or so when the DLCs are out and Modders make it into an actual good game
I don’t know… I understand how it would, in some cases, be good if professionals could fact-check consumers but at the same time I really believe that if your product feels outdated when compared to competitors, it’s (whether or not based on code or on technology) not just a perception, it’s a legitimate concern. Because it means that you have something that is fundamentally in working condition on a production side, but fails on the user-side.
If you have a restaurant that serves good quality food, but you take an hour to complete an order even when the place is empty, your kitchen and staff might be state of the art but it’s just not up to par with the rest of the industry which isn’t just perception.
Even better than guns being bows: the train in Fallout 3 is a hat that a NPC wears, as there are no vehicles in Creation engine (to this day).
I'm still convinced that the best path forward for Bethesda Game Studios would be to fork the latest version of id Tech, and then build/integrate tools and features as they need them when developing their next game. Then use that game's code base for the next one after that. Plus, it being a sister studio, they would always have the ear of the technical wizards at id Software. Perhaps they could spare some time to go and help them with the development/integration of their new features, and also give their dev teams crash courses in the new engine to familiarize them with it before getting deep into full-tilt development.
Once upon a time, John Carmack was noted as explaining that Bethesda were not using id Tech 5 for Skyrim because it was an "unacceptable" engine for such a game. Why? Because, at that time, id Tech (and Carmack) had invested heavily in MegaTextures (the feature that he said specifically made it unacceptable). And from id Tech 4 to id Tech 6, it was a core pipeline of the engine. Well, going from id Tech 6 to id Tech 7, id Software reduced the size of the engine by ~1,000,000 lines of code. One reason for this is because they got rid of their OpenGL renderer entirely to focus exclusively on Vulkan, and another is because they also ripped out MegaTextures completely. Not only did these make the engine far more performant than it already was, but it provided for higher texture fidelity and more efficient texture streaming to boot. So, the main thing listed as making id Tech "unacceptable" for a game like Skyrim is no longer even in the engine.
And all that aside, id Tech has been used to make open world (or semi-/mini-open world) games before. id Tech 5 had been used to make Rage, which was open world (and also made heavy use of MegaTextures). id Software used the code base for Rage to build id Tech 6, which was the engine underlying Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus (a leveled game and not exactly open world, but easily classifiable as semi-open world). And then there's id Tech 7 which, thanks to its improvements over 6, boasts impressively massive world spaces for Doom Eternal's levels. So, again, it's a level-based game, but the levels themselves are incredibly large world spaces that blur the lines between "level" and "open world." And considering the state of Starfield, "open world" seems to have quite a loose definition already. (And The Witcher 3 is also "open world," but it too is segmented into separate world spaces of varying sizes.)
Even if Bethesda weren't to go with id Tech, there are a plethora of free and open source engines available (many of which are designed specifically for RPG game creation), which they could fork and build upon in order to start with a clean code base that everyone internally can learn and grow familiar with together. Then modders could use that same engine and its editor (if it has one) for mods; or, if Bethesda adds or changes enough to make that impossible, they could release their own iteration of the editor as a modding kit.
All that to say: Bethesda Game Studios has options aside from Creation Engine, and it's very clear that Creation Engine is just too far gone and has outlived its usefulness. Bethesda simply have not done the hard work needed over the years to keep the engine up to the task they ask it to perform, and so their best path forward is to start clean with a new engine. Whether the new engine is another in-house engine used by a sister studio, like id Tech, or a free and open source one that they could fork and make their own, the simple truth of the matter is that it's time to put Creation Engine bed.
(Or, they could rewrite the Creation Engine from the ground up. But that would be far too costly and labor-intensive than the two options given above.)
In regards to the RedEngine, one of the main reasons that I have heard, is that it is difficult for them to get developers for it, compared to people that can use Unreal. Also, it removes a lot of costs having to develop and maintain an engine that is not cheap. With Unreal they have a dedicated team constantly working and updating the engine. So even though their engine isn't bad at all. I would agree that I think it is the right choice for them to move to Unreal since we can assume that they know it can handle the types of games they want to make.
It's a double edge sword with a company using a game engine that is subpar to say Unreal 5. The pros are It's cost effective for your company, you are not waiting on a third party if you are trying to meet a deadline and the modding community can go have fun. The cons are the Creation engine can only do so much, and this engine Creation 2 while better than the first version looks like it's has been pushed to the limits, leaving out what other things you can do like land vehicles and space immersion
I have some major complaints with starfield , but to me it's already superior to fallout 4 and I'm having a blast playing it regardless of the fact it's missing things I wanted.
All they have to do is slap a 2.0 at the end of it and they got themselves a new engine😂
If they intake the bug fixes and code fixes from modders... maybe... if not its just trying to push the same engine again since the creation engine is the gamebryo engine... and if they just rebrand it again without any significant fixes or upgrades it will just be an empty rebrand. just like going from the Gamebryo to creation name... it was a hollow change from my understanding
@@mightypancake2211 I can't speak to everything but I do know the most visible change from someone not well versed in anything other than adding mods to the game is that gamebryo had a plugin limit of around 130-140 before the engine started breaking down (wasn't until like 2020 I think that someone made a mod to fix that for New Vegas). Creation had the max limit of 255 and eventually an update that added light plugins that didn't add to the plugin count. Creation 2 from what I see adds alot of stability and scripting fixes but I actually don't know and can't tell until modders get their hands on creation kit 2.
I really don't think the issue is the engine as much as Bethesda Game Studious not having the skill to make things work within it which makes no sense. Starfield doesn't have vehicles yet Xilandro got them to work in gamebryo and BGS themselves got horses to work in Skyrim. How that is possible, i don't know but here we are.
I have a very rudimentary understanding of this engine but again it seems to me the issue is specific to Todd Howard's direction and no one knows why BGS games have these issues that modders seem to fix every release but him and his team.
Did anyone notice how the photo mode in Starfield looks exactly like the photo mode mod for FO4 (and now also Skyrim)? Like, did Beth just implement that mod into Starfield or something? I mean, it looks exactly the same and has the exact same functions and UI.
Elder Scrolls VI will come with the brand new creation engine 4.0
Now Im 100 hrs in and I still having a great time with it - Im actually TRYING to find whats so bad about it. So far, no dice. ;) Then again, Im not playing it on PC so...
people just like to brush the surface without going deeper and i don’t mean to play for more than 12 hours like others might say. Bethesda games have always been rough around the edges but everything under that tiny little layer of shit is pure gold and people just seem to ignore that, luke himself in his review just focused on the bad things because it makes more views. the quests, side quests and factions quests are all amazing and people don’t praise that, same for the new game plus system. And yet they defend star citizen which is a blatant scam. Starfield is amazing for those who are critical enough to surpass the technical issues, if you can even call them issues since they aren’t really game changing. The invisible walls and cutscene for landing is the perfect example of that, nobody in their right mind will encounter the invisible walls unless they are explicitly trying to and landing and moving from planet to planet would have gotten really boring super quick just like it did for no man sky. In summary, don’t worry about others opinions brother, i’m really getting tired of the baffoons on the internet comparing and being overly critical on the most niche aspect of things every time. really takes out the joy of gaming sometimes
I cant take criticism anyday . but when its ONLY criticism and you know for a fact the game contains lots of really good stuff, but the reviwer chooces not to talk about it, it gets downright laughable. Also Luke Stevens dosent like Bethesda-games period - he´s more of an Ubisoft guy.@@snooptk6236
@@Hauerization Agreed. He should stick to Ubisoft games which are released like a factory every year. Same games. Released again. Same bland open worlds and poor NPC quality. Wonder where his 'skepticism' is then.
He have every right to criticese ofcource - its his job. But this is like having someone whos into europop criticising a melodic heavy metal album saying "this aint music!". @@KamleshMallick
@@snooptk6236well said
I feel like Starfield could have been much more interesting. Some simple imaginative design decisions could have made Starfield more immersive. The game has such great physics that they just don't put to use.
Why not be able to shut off the gravity in your ship or others that you boarded? Why can't other ships board you? You could board a ship, run past all the spacers, then quickly strap in and do 40 backflips and 80 mctwists and barrel rolls essentially killing everyone on board by causing them to slam against every surface due to the inertia. With the great physics in the game that would be be hilarious. Imagine using the rotational cam while you're flying to see into the cockpit window as guys go flipping around the hab module directly behind you? Then you can access a console when it's all over, initiate the grav control. Everything settles then you can switch between cameras in each room in the ship to view the recording of all the cartwheels and ppl being bounced around the ship. That would spark epic content.
Also what about allowing us to simply exit our ships, and space walk and launch captured ppl out of airlocks? What about being able to simply experience the great dynamic Starfield has of the ships components breaking apart? When a ship you are in is destroyed in the game and you have stood up from the pilot seat, you fall down and nothing else.
Imagine if your ship is almost destroyed, you can jump out of the cockpit and race for an emergency escape pod that you can blast out of, slated for the nearest planet/moon? You look up and see sarah morgan not quite making the pod and getting launched into space bouncing off of destroyed hab modules and the grav drive. You might be too slow and the ship breaks apart around you and you might die in an explosion or you might just be thrown into space never to be seen again. Any companions that didn't make the escape pods can be retrieved at some medical facility or must be rescued by boarding the ship that scooped them up after they were found floating unconscious in space.
Or maybe have people on the ground actually tied to their ships. You attack some eclipse guys on some planet and a few remain or hear about it and they see you taking off so they run to their ships and pursue you into space. You can possibly lose them if you jump, but why don't ppl on the ground ever pursue you into space, or gangs in space ever pursue you when you land to go after you on foot? Your actions on the ground and actions in space should be connected.
There are so many cool touches they could have done with the game with the systems they already have. I could go on and on with little touches but I'd be typing all night. lol
Jesus…..this.
That would be fantastic, but you'te talking about a game where NPCs casually walk around in shirts on planets without atmosphere and ships can magically take off with no one in the pilot seat. I swear this game is in a state where most others enter early access. Space is just window dressing.
@@matman000000 I know man. This stuff can be corrected though with simple mods. Ships could only take off if guys get into the ship and sit in the pilot seat. The ships taking off can totally be treated like our own ships do. Some simple manipulation to the code can achieve this. Bethesda designs these games in a way that all this stuff is possible because as bad as they are at putting these things into their game, they design it as such where they leave empty spaces to easily manipulate it all. It's all open ended design at its core.
no, cdpr are walking away from red engine for a reason other than UR5 being superior and its a fairly dark one... It basically about transferable knowledge, it ultimately gives them more freedom to have "disposable" staff
There is places where the engine looks great. Inside the ship for example. But on planets stuff just looks bland. I think there could have been lots of design decisions made that would have made people ignore all the issues. A good survival mode where planets actually felt dangerous. If base building actually had a purpose other than the power leveling exploit. A lot of stuff they didn't need a better engine for. People made good games using the Unity engine with it's limitations too.
No it’s not called cheesy pasta here it’s called macaroni and cheese. It’s not orange either. The dye is called carotene. A lot of cheese manufacturers use it here but not in macaroni from the supermarket
On one hand, mods are much easier to make because of this, on the other, gameplay isn't advancing and it seems to be contributing to lazy design
How is it holding them back? When modders with older version (Skyrim) can do amazing things?
Where’s the link to the original vid? Its too fast
I think it's hilarious that some people were bashing on Luke Stephens for being highly, and deservedly, critical of the Creation engine, by saying "It's Creation 2", only for Starfield to not show any significant change from Creation 1 games.
Bethesda physics have made very little improvement from the days of Oblivion. The movement animations and weight of the character are really wonky.
The biggest problem is that Starfield, in my few hours of playing, has offered me nothing to distract me from Creation's issues. Other Bethesda titles have succeeded in pulling my attention away from the mechanics, by setting up a world I want to engage in, and I didn't get that with Starfield.
I think people don't understand that it isn't a Engine issue but a Skill Issue. Give BGS UE5 and watch them make the same mistakes with exact same limitations.
The outer worlds was made in UE4 and it had the exact same issues as FNV which was made in creation engine.
I LOVE StarField! Over 100 hours into the game.
That being said, I realize the game isn’t perfect. Lol. The engine is a little dated.
But I play StarField & Elder Scrolls for the stories & quests and open world adventure & cool unique experiences. IMO no other game maker does it as well.
Witcher 3 and RDR2 are on the same level as BGS, but it’s a short list of games that do what BGS does.
Exactly, that's what many people will never understand. So many people bought Starfield expecting a spaceship simulator and got mad at Bethesda because it's not that at all, it's an RPG that happens to be set in space. All those people that say "Look at No Man's Sky, how can they do it while Bethesda can't?"
No Man's Sky developers focused on seamless space exploration from day one of development, because it was their goal.
Bethesda's goal on the other hand is just to tell good stories and give a lot of freedom to the player, and I think they succeeded at that.
Both approaches are right in their own way, it just depends on what game you want to make.
You can't compare SF to the Witcher 3 and RDR2. Their masterpieces, and SF isn't anywhere near to being in their league. Not even close
@@garyr5866 I can compare them if I want. Lol. I’ve played RDR2 & Witcher 3. Loved them both. All time greats. I don’t think StarField is on that level yet, but I do think Starfield is pretty awesome, and if they add some things and makes some changes in updates & DLC I think it could be an all timer as well.
@@briancarter9404 nope . not even close
@@asura7915 that’s your opinion. But millions of people are playing Starfield and love it. And I’m sure there are people who already consider it an all timer.
more like todd's persistence to stay on the engine is what holding them back
Unlike Starfield, I fully expect TES6 to transcend a lot of these issues. Soley for the fact that is a type of game the engine was designed for, unlike Starfield, which is being placed into the space sim rpg sphere of things. The large expanse of the handcrafted Open world will naturally mean way less loading screens popping up with zero change to the engine. Although I 100% think they will try to get rid of the loading in for cities as that was one of the biggest mods for Skyrim. My main concern for TES6 will be gameplay systems that make it fresher than ever from past titles, and the feeling of combat not feeling like a balloon swatting contest. Melee and magic use in the first person view is a challenge not many games focus on. In fact I'd say outside of some specific medieval sims, no AAA game has ever focused on. I expect souls like combat to have some minor influence thanks to Elden Ring's massive success, but I don't think it will move their choices all that much.
The thing with moddders "fixing things" is that often those mods realmy don't. They are just "fudges"
FoV in Fallout 4 still causes distortion. Key mapping for Fallout 4...there is just ONE mod for this. It works but its not great. Its a work AROUND (and it requires the script extender which Bethesda broke with every update. - and when they were really leaning into Creation Club that was extremely frequently!)
Even things like the bug fixing Universal Patch seem to fall foul of author over reach where in addition to taking a really long time to identify and fix bugs the authors seem to start interpreting what the original authors may have intended. When that happens can it any longer be considered a fix?
No. I don't think that mods really fix Bethesda games. And we fool ourselves when we tell each other that they do.
Bit of a hot take, but I liked the voiced protagonist in FO4, just would've liked the whole dialogue option to select, rather than just a clue about what you'll say.
They won't get rid of the CE, because they need modders to keep their games relevant for at least 10 years after their games release.
One problem with having to wait for mods to fix Bethesda's games is the Xbox achievement system will get disabled. And secondly, they will miss out on a lot of quality of life mods on Fallout 4 if they want to get the achievements. And thirdly, if they plan to revisit a save in the future, the run the risk of not being able to load it because a mod isn't available or supported anymore.
I think we all have to realize that Starfield started development in 2015. Did they even know about the new consoles back then? If we assume that this game was made with the assumption that it was supposed to get played on Xbox One/PS4 some things becomes more understandable. I think it’s sad when people always say that people should use Unreal, without realizing what that means. There is often a lot of tech in custom engines that are lost when everyone is moving to engines like Unreal.
The Witcher 3 came out in 2015. Even then it looks light years better (pun intended).
@@cecarter10 Does it really? I mean I don’t mean to sound like a Starfield simp, I would not say the game is perfect nor is it the best-looking game I have ever seen. But I would argue that I think seperate objects are way more detailed in Starfield. And I also think characters look better in terms of shaders and polycount.
Also, all I'm trying to say is, that there is always a reason why things work the way they do in games, applications, etc. I was just trying to say that the reason why we might not have seamless space travel, might also be due to the age of the game itself.
@@cecarter10 The witcher 3, especially at launch and not the recent upgraded version, looks worse graphically than starfield. Just compare the ship interiors in starfield to any interior in the witcher.
I never understood defending the engine cause of how good the physics are...but Bethesda never takes advatange of it. Starfield is about the first time with the use of zero g which i will admit is an awesome feature.
0g is not even consistent. Spaceships come to a full stop as soon as engines are turned off and don't maintain the speed.
@@YouGottaReplenish that's because continuing to move without input is annoying to anyone but the most avid enjoyer of space games. I'm very happy to come to a full stop
@@YouGottaReplenish true. I meant more when you are 1st person. I will say as someone who has played hundreds of hours of space engineers that it does suck losing a space ship cause its moving 1 m/s
@@badger_ninja8681 If you pay attention, on many of the ships there are small thrusters that fire to bring it to a stop. They were aware.
@@levisorenson7873 cool didn't notice when I was playing.
It seems that the Unity drama has ended, it settle, I not known exactly what happen, but it seems that they had an agreement, Unity really have a crazy story, first consider an engine for trash games, then selling the engine to studios that make very good games to then fall back to this again, they make one step forward, two step backwards, now they have to begin everything all over again.
imagine that you can't crop someone up, can't loot poeple down to underwear...
i already lower my expectation on TES 6 by what they did / choice at star field
Space engineers has full planets properly implemented ingame both in PlayStation and xbox
Sorry, but Mac N Cheese is not called cheesy pasta here in the UK. It is called macaroni and cheese 😂.
Maccheroni
@@riccardoberveglieri814love how there is a prompt to translate your comment to English - checkmate 😂
@@szmr ?
@@riccardoberveglieri814 just didn’t know why you spelt it like that
the reason CDPR is moving to unreal is :
1- recruiting new talents. many people are just more familiar with unreal.
2- the MAIN REASON cyberpunk was a train wreck at launch was because the engine was NOT made for a game like cyberpunk. like they said before, they were building and modifying the red engine WHILE developing cyberpunk. it's actually insane lmao.
Yo I know this vid is old but when comes to the red engine, apparently it was giving cd project serious problems. Because the engine was design for the witcher not Cyberpunk. So lead to a lot bugs and stuff. That why cd going for unreal because they will have better support and easier to work with tools. As for the creation engine I personal cant see what it does better then any other engine besides mods. It seems to be outdated in terms of performance and visuals.
I think Epic pays CDPR to move to UE promising them they will help them with any difficulties and will make every change they need to the engine.
The good reason they walk away from red engine is money. They cant affort to keep up their own engine atm. From an Interview. Engines are expensive to keep up
Bethesda could avoid most of the engine issues *if,* and this is a big if, they managed to get writing on par with the other story leaders in the business. And my goodness, if you are making a visual novel with action; ei an on rails game, stop pretending we have choices when we are going to be railroaded in the same direction by the game anyway. Either through NPC's giving effectively the same answer or the outcome being exactly the same. These are the two major things that plagued Fallout 4. The story being centered around your kidnapped child while the game trying, at every turn, to get you to go help an outpost, or worse, build them. The last thing a parent searching for their kidnapped child is going to do is stop to build random bush forts out of discarded materials or help risk their lives, and their child's, by defending someone else's. Someone else's who also happens to be in an out of the way area. That is not logical. Then, you have the dialogue response choices that all lead to what amounts to the same response. That completely defeats the purpose of dialogue trees.
In games like the type Bethesda *used* to make, the graphics are arguably the least important major component of the game. Story-telling, dialogue options, decisions and how the world reacts to those decisions is always first. Then the gameplay and progression loop is a close second. Presentation is also big which includes the voice acting and environmental story-telling. I have a difficult time believing that people would have a big issue with the graphics if they nailed the writing and gameplay. Or the NPC's who don't just get overly helpful with quests, but they lead you by the nose constantly. The voice acting swings from one extreme to the other so quickly I recommend a neck brace before sitting down in front of the key board. One second Cowboy Jensen is nailing it and the next old rich guy _Dad_ is speaking so slowly you'd think he was intoxicated with a severe mental impairment. And this is a constant throughout the entire game.
Yes, it tackles some deep concepts, and handles some of it respectably. If you listen and don't try to make an actual decision that goes against what the game wants you to do, at which point any of that depth is destroyed because there is such a threadbare illusory tapestry that on pull brings the entire thing crashing down making you yet again question why this was not a virtual novel with some action and interactivity pieces thrown in to break up the monotony. There are literally "Choose You Own Adventure" books from the 1980's with more choice and consequence than this game and that's just plain sad. That is not the engine's fault, it is the management and the overall talent as a whole of the people working on the game. How does a game like Bg3 end up with more dialogue, over 2000 speaking NPC's, and none as poor as the bottom 70% of the characters with a speaking line in Starfield?
Maybe this game should have been marketed more as a Bethesda Creation Engine in space where the real star will be what the modders make with the game, similar to what Bioware did with Neverwinter Nights back in 2001 (or 2002, I forget the release year off the top of my head)? They stated very clearly that though there would be a full single player campaign, it was not on the same level as BG 1, 2 and Throne of Bhaal. Instead, the real boon of the purchase was access tot he Aurora Toolset and fan made adventures. Oh, I know, because that isn't what people wanted. They wanted the depth and of Morrowind with the freedom of Oblivion and Skyrim minus the plot armor. Instead they got the plot armor on dialogue, not just NPC's...again. Add in 7th-10th grade level writing of that dialogue with a firm hand pulling you along each quest and this game ends up being nearly nothing like Bethesda hyped up. Seriously, some of this voice acting is so bad I was, and still am, wondering if a vast majority of it was AI generated. The concepts for this game were so bloody good, but honestly, maybe Bethesda simply does not have it anymore? You can't go from Morrowind through Skyrim then drop the quality level to Fallout 4, Fallout 76 and now Starfield level if the writing talent is still there. They obviously aren't hiring the same level of voice actors, at least not at the bottom. It's like they just pulled random people from the office and said _"Can you record these line at home then send us the raw files? Thanks."_
I hope people can shut their brains off and have a really good time with the game. I can't. Of course I sunk 500+ hours into Skyrim and could barely get 20 hours out of Fallout 4 before thankfully seeing the credits roll and never, ever going back to it. Not true, I did try once a year or so back but didn't get past meeting Preston and the Minute Men before wondering if I really had that little going on at the moment for that to be what I actually wanted to be doing. I'd rather go back and play Mass Effect: Andromeda than attempt a more through run of Fallout 4, and I have a feeling I will be waiting at least a year before I even consider trying to play Starfield again. And if the story isn't overhauled to make decisions matter at the per conversation level and the world level, I'm not even sure that will be worth it. Maybe with a couple of hundred mods installed so as to make the main story even more of a side show? Maybe remove voice acting entirely and let me read and imagine what the people sound like? Normally I will take full voice acting over partial/limited 99% of the time, but not in this case. A lot of people are calling this game a masterpiece, a lot are calling it terrible, and I'm calling it the most low-mid AAA game I've ever played, possibly outside of Fallout 4. Scoring it a 4.5 out of 10 seems fair to me. If I had to numerically break down how I subjectively felt about each aspect of the game the high point would be the graphics. Under the circumstances, that is not a good thing, and I am truly sorry for the people at Bethesda who did pour their hearts and souls in. Talent level notwithstanding, no one spends 6 or 7 years of their life pulling 60 hour weeks to make something that is a financial success but panned by the fans.
They’ve been using the same engine since Oblivion. I wonder why their games look and feel old?
The creation engine holds up
Sixteen times the load screens
Sixteen times more auto generated planets
Sixteen times more boring exploration
Sixteen times the meh companions
Sixteen times meh quests
Sixteen times worse NPC animations
7:46 no it fucking isn't???? Cheesy pasta and mac and cheese are different????? Cheesy pasta is just any pasta and any cheese but good quality mac and cheese is specifically macaroni with a cheese sauce that requires more than just cheese - butter, bit of milk maybe, some pepper in there whatever but THEY AREN'T THE SAME
why are so many major fast travel points infront of a door that leads to another load screen
I can’t wait to play the rerereleased ultimate-definitive-anniversary-gold-edition of Starfield in 11 years. See ya then!
Where most of its issues aren't fixed and they added in several features that either should have been there from the beginning or should have never been added.
Macaroni and cheese is one of the easiest meals to make I don’t know why anyone would bother buying that stuff when all you need is macaroni and just typical things like milk and cheese everyone has in their fridges
CDPR really wanted to implement multiplayer for Cyberpunk and they gave up - I bet that's because the REDengine can't handle it.
I'm not a "game engine engineer", but I would think that if an engine wasn't built with multiplayer in mind, then it's really difficult to adapt it.
9:25 well the opposite is companies saying tobacco is harmless.
I feel conflicted on exploration. I would love more to find on planets, but it just isn't realistic. Most planets would be mostly barren. Even on irl Earth with billions of people, most of the surface area is "barren" aside from some animals and plants.
I would explore way more if we had a vehicle. I would care less about running into a wall so long as I get there faster.
My biggest issue is not procedurally generated tiles. Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen are also BARREN and use precedural content (and they may be even more barren than starfield).
I don't understand why Bethesda did not implement the procedural generation in a chunk-based system a-la minecraft. That is not new technology. As you approach the edge of one tile or chunk, simply unload the distant parts and start to load the new one seamlessly (which is already probably what it is doing when youre not looking at something). I'm not a game dev, but if Minecraft/NMS can do it, I see no reason Starfield could not.
Gamefreak is the only company I can think of that gets a bigger pass from their fans. They consistently put out not just mediocre games, bet legit 2 or 3 out of 10 games, and the fans still eat and up and by 23 million copies.
It's never the engine. But Bethesda sticks to their tools, tools that barely evolved since Oblivion. Bethesda even in Starfield somehow showed that big open spaces filled with npcs and no loading screens interiors are a thing then why is that not a standard? They split locations into separate files and have multiple people work on them asynchronously, often ending with interiors that don't fit the outside of the building, another problem is navmesh complexity as they don't seem to have figured good AI navigation still. They don't bother stitching locations at the end of creation process because it complicates potential fixes and adds complexity to AI behaviours. This could be automated but it required creation of new dedicated tools that Bethesda apparently does not like. Morrowind, FO3, Skyrim, FO4 and Starfield were essentially made inside the same editor.
Space exploration without the exploration? It just works 😁.
The Reason Bethesda continues to use the same old outdated engine is because they have a delusional fan base that makes excuses for all the below average things in Bethesda games. No matter how many problems the games have, this cult of a group will buy the games and defend them with their lives. So there is absolutely no reason Bethesda should use a better engine, because they have a delusional fan base that claims to love buggy, glitchy, unoptimized games with below average visuals, below average gameplay and missing features. They even claim the bugs and glitches are features. All other games would be butchered if they were released in the same buggy state. But Bethesdas games get a free pass and are even praised by their cult following for this. And the small percent of Bethesda fans who actually have some brain cells, who will actually admit to the shortcomings of Bethesda games, claim that all the countless negatives about the game aren't a big deal because the modding community will fix everything for Bethesda. So Bethesda doesn't actually have to do their job, the fans will do the work for free for the $3 Billion gaming studio.
If Bethesda fans were actually honest and criticized the games when they deserved criticism and didn't just make excuses for everything, Bethesda would actually have to step their game up, but that's not the case. So Bethesda doesn't need to improve on anything. They can use this same exact engine in 20 years and the fans will defend it.
I have a sneaky suspension that CDPR might not be paying for game engines or is being approached by companies (like it seems Nvidia is doing) to essentially demo their tech.
I don't understand why there weren't any alien races. I mean from a studio that makes games where you can be a cat person and orc.
Wonder if the reason CDPR is moving away from RED Engine 4 is because of the source code leak that happened shortly after CP2077's release.
I just wanted to say.
The digital foundry guys do not have software engineer or game dev background.
They often get their facts wrong, and often weave in marketing talking points from certain publishers (microsoft with whom they seem to have a "special relationship") in their analysis.
So when they arrogantly poo poo other peoples opinions. It shows who they really are. Pompous Internet nerds who got lucky.
The only thing i liked about starfield was that it made me want to play mass effect legendary edition lol
loading going through a door is so old.
Can't wait for the Starfield stans to tell us how the creation engine was the ideal fit for this and that modders will fix it.
I'm south american, and honestly american food scare the shit out of me. It so industrialize that it looks like alien food. Just being honest.
That reference doesnt work..water is used in antifreeze...but antifreeze isnt used to make water..so no..its not like saying"drinkin water is like drinkin antifreeze"of course it isnt.
I'm bored of StarField already....its so leftist soccer mom PG13 "safe" vanilla story characters and dialouge is brutal.... I was hoping this would be a "forever game" that I could play for a decade but it definetly isn't
When their ambitions is greater than their technical abilities.
ok but you can get photo realism from Skyrim in 2023 with a good load of mods. So even if the engine is old and maybe there programing language needs some heavy work the npc looking like potato's is all Bethesda's choice. you can get there engine to put out some Amazing graphics they simply choose not to
Luke, you’re wrong.
“Yes but my perception is that I’m right, so you have to acknowledge me”
Pretty convenient rebuttal
There’s a reason Bethesda stink is called ‘stink’ and not ‘style’. This shit is rough. Solid mid game.
Lazy game made by a complacent company bloated on way too much Microsoft money and years of success with average games that sell well for some reason. People don't even react when you point a gun at them. If at least the game had some creativity and vision to it, the engine issues wouldn't be a big problem. But it's lazy, copy-pasted procedural design for most of it, and derivative, half-assed, dishwater story for the rest that we've seen done better in a dozen other games.
No, the excessive loading screens, lack of 'seamless' loading, and lack of ground vehicles is due to technical limitations, period. It wasn't a creative design choice, and it's not that the customer doesn't want those missing features, that's unadulterated BS (and just a disingenuously stupid explanation, because they're always trying to reach new customers). They used a jury-rigged Frankenstein version of an old engine for a game with a scope beyond it's capabilities. And so it doesn't even run all that well, and the limitations are to allow it to run at all. I'm sure the programmers did everything they could to make it run as well as it could. The engine should've been rewritten at the core. It was a top decision to not do that, and it was likely to save money.
I'm sorry but it's pretty clear from what is in Starfield that it must have had a troubled development. You don't get copy-pasted points of interest on every planet because of engine limitations. That's just a clear sign of rushed development- which obviously makes no sense for a game that was in development for 9 years.
My guess is they spent years of wasted effort trying to make their crappy ancient engine do things they were unable to get it to do, and what actually shipped is something cobbled together in the last 2-3 years because they had to ship.