• devbo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    i had a lot of fun. i think people just expect too much from this type of game and bethesda. look at no mans sky, i still think its just as boring as when it released but it has gained a great following. people now seem to just assume if a game is made by a AAA team everyone must love it regardless of personal taste. in my opinion that mind set is the reason most AAA get focus grouped to death. im scared that people are going to kill off the type of games i like because everyone acts like its crime to release a game that doesn’t appeal to everyones exact tastes/desires.

    i will say though starfield is my least favorite bethesda game since oblivion. starfield 7/10

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Still a 7? Just curious, what made it fun for you? What were the expectations? Legit curious, as finding a good comment about the game that doesnt sound salty af is far in between.

      I found games skyrim fun for 60ish hours and than got extremely bored. Never touched it again. Starfield looked like that but barren as hell, which is not what it is sold as. Those are my personal reasons for not touching it though!

      • devbo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        well, i thought of it as fallout 4 in space before playing. it has a couple core gameplay changes i liked and a couple i didn’t. it is the slowest paced bethesda game for sure, which is why i think most people call it boring. if you didnt replay skyrim i doubt you would replay this game. i give it a 7/10 for people of my taste and i would consider myself the intended audience. i have played bethesda games since oblivion and average about 200 hours per bethesda game, usually 3 playthroughs seperated by about a year or 2. for reference here are my top bethesda games:

        1. Fallout: New Vegas - 9/10(obsidian for a major win)
        2. Fallout 3 - 9/10
        3. Oblivion - 9/10
        4. Skyrim - 8/10
        5. Fallout 4 - 8/10
        6. Starfield - 7/10
        7. Fallout 76 - 3/10 - i wish i could enjoy this game

        these scores reflect how much i enjoyed each game. but if New Vegas had no technical issues it would be 10/10 for me.

        • Cowbee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          New Vegas has no technical issues if you mod it properly these days!

        • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Ye, that makes perfect sense, thanks! From your other scoring, i can see the game isnt that bad, but just average. Even compared to the others, which are rated a lot higher. From this i can also assume id enjoy the game for like 30sh hours, because this isnt 100% my jam. For me that wouldnt be worth the full price, but i can understand for somebody that would put 200h in np it would be worth it :)

          • Zahille7@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah it’s not a bad game by any standards, but it’s not mind-blowingly great either. It has some cool and interesting concepts.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          New Vegas

          Mirrors from a tower plant magically turning into solar panels when installed on an airbase? 0/10 unplayable.

    • I knew what to expect, and I was still disappointed. I was expecting the constant loading, and the jank, and the shit AI, etc. I was also expecting the world building to be decent, and the quests to be interesting. That’s what makes it a disappointment; the one good thing about a Bethesda RPG is totally absent in Starfield.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      People expected a game about exploration. Because it’s a Bethesda game, and because it’s a space bethesda game, and somehow Bethesda managed to make a game that doesn’t really have exploration in it despite having loads of planets.

      Why did they not just make a single solar system full of curated content, why did it have to be set in the vast universe forcing them to use random generation, that is full of nothing? They sent themselves up to fail on this one.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      look at no mans sky, i still think its just as boring as when it released

      I get opinions are subjective, but I don’t believe this is a fair opinion to have, based on the amount of new content they have released over the life of the game. They’ve added more quests and more things to do and explore.

      It’s a very sandboxy game, which may be what you’re speaking towards (if you don’t enjoy sandbox games that is)?

      • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I bought it about 2 years after launch, played through the main story, and then kinda got bored with it because it’s just the same thing over and over again. I came back after the first major update, played it for a few weeks and then got bored again because it was mostly a “fixing things to how we wanted them to be”. I played after the next major update as well and while it did bring some new life back into the game, it’s still essentially just “build a base to put these few things in and collect resources so you can build more stuff” or “do these pointless side quests so that you can buy/build more stuff”.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Thanks for the clarification. I am curious about one thing though?

          Are you a ‘sandbox’ type of player, or a ‘guided path’ type of player (if you had to choose one)?

          I’m wondering if you’re the latter type of player, and if it has driven your outlook on the game, throughout all the years it’s existed, with all the additional content added to it throughout those years?

      • Zahille7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        There’s no voiceover work to be spoken of. You’re constantly just reading dialog and menus. The loop isn’t that different from almost any other open world survival crafting game, except it has spaceships you can fly from planet to space - just like in Space Engineers an arguably better space sandbox game that’s actually a sandbox.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          My comment was directed towards this though, and not what you mentioned …

          i still think its just as boring as when it released

          … I was challenging the before and after nature that the OP was commenting about, especially after all the new content that was added to NMS over the years.

          When I mentioned sandbox that was because I was trying to determine if he’s a ‘guided path’ versus ‘sandbox’ type of player, and maybe that’s what might be driving his boredom factor throughout the life of NMS, versus the before and after nature comparison.

          As far as your comment goes (see below), none of that talks towards the boredom of the NMS game, just a similarity to other survival games, as well as mentioning another sandbox game that you thought was better.

          There’s no voiceover work to be spoken of. You’re constantly just reading dialog and menus. The loop isn’t that different from almost any other open world survival crafting game, except it has spaceships you can fly from planet to space - just like in Space Engineers an arguably better space sandbox game that’s actually a sandbox.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The problem is that the game fell flat even on a lot of basic expectations, especially exploration.

      When you first arrive on a new star, you’re automagically orbiting the “most important planet”, if it has one. Without doing anything other than arriving, you already know all the inorganic resources of every planet and moon around that star (you don’t know where, but you already know it’s there without a scan). Not only that, you know which planets have abandoned mines or settlements and where. While flying in orbit, if “nothing happens” in the first 10 seconds, nothing will happen, period. POI in space all have to be fast traveled to.

      It manages to be worse than NMS where the parallel is obvious, like in scanning fauna/flora, where you activate the scanner, point and click and call it day. But do it 8 times just to say it’s different.

      Shipbuilding is fun, but the fucked that up by locking many parts behind two different skills, Piloting and Starship Design. It really feels like something they did because they couldn’t figure a way to balance the economy around ship prices. They could’ve made it so that you get access to better parts by completing faction missions, that’d give actual reason for the players to do them other than sheer curiosity, but nope, spend precious skill points to get better ship parts!

      This game is a pile of bad design decisions on top of more bad design decisions and whether the company is AAA or not is irrelevant. Bad implementation, aka errors and bugs, is a matter of coding. Bad design is a matter of direction, or lack thereof.