Anyone playing Starfield?

[BlueLine7045]

Is it any good? Live up to all the hype? I'm kinda torn between wanting to buy it and waiting a little while. I am often pretty cautious with games that get overhyped, and Starfield has definitely been getting hype like crazy for at least a year now.

How would you compare it to some of Bethesda's other titles like The Elder Scrolls or Fallout?

 

[MrMacphisto]

Starfield is fun, but really repetitive once you have gone through the different type of bases that are generated on planets and moons. There are about a dozen different formats, but it gets old if you take the approach of exploring planets nonstop like I did. The actual missions and stories in the game are alright and are somewhat comparable to other Bethesda titles.

Ship combat is interesting, although the controls are a bit awkward. Shipbuilding is similar, with an interface that takes some getting used to.

If I had to rank it among Bethesda's more recent releases, I'd list them as follows:

1. Fallout New Vegas (technically an Obsidian game)
2. Fallout 4
3. Skyrim
4. Starfield
5. Fallout 3
6. Oblivion
7. Fallout 76

It's far better than Fallout 76, but it doesn't quite live up to the classics of New Vegas, Fallout 4, or Skyrim.

In short, they sacrificed detail for volume. The often cited 1,000 planets only have about 100 with actual creatures on them. In a way, this is kind of realistic when thinking about how the conditions for life are within narrow parameters, but it's a bit misleading.

Hopefully, Elder Scrolls 6 (whenever it comes out) will take the opposite approach and focus less on the size of the map or number of locations and focus more on detail and originality per location.

 

[duderino84]

I heard it is mixed. Personally, considering I've only finished Fallout 4, I am going to wait until it gets discounted enough.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

I admit, i've been musing about getting into this. I loved Privateer, and the whole ship building/space fights aspect of the game has a lot of appeal to me. I am curious about what people think about this particular aspect of the game.

 

[TMF Jeff]

I'm usually all-in on a Bethesda game, but when they announced they were going to continue using the same game engine they've been using since Morrowind it set off alarm bells for me. And since it came out, the criticisms seem to have confirmed my concerns - no vehicles, tons of loading screens, and moronic NPCs are all problems being caused by their unwillingness to invest in a new engine or just do the simpler thing and use one that already exists and is more modern and powerful.

So for me, even though I've played and loved every Bethesda RPG in the past, Starfield is a no-go for me.

 

[kurchatovium]

Is this a good game? I was thinking of trying it., but I am sight impaired now so if there is lots of starship flying I won't likely be good at it lol

 

[duderino84]

I'm usually all-in on a Bethesda game, but when they announced they were going to continue using the same game engine they've been using since Morrowind it set off alarm bells for me. And since it came out, the criticisms seem to have confirmed my concerns - no vehicles, tons of loading screens, and moronic NPCs are all problems being caused by their unwillingness to invest in a new engine or just do the simpler thing and use one that already exists and is more modern and powerful.
.

So for me, even though I've played and loved every Bethesda RPG in the past, Starfield is a no-go for me.

Is that really it? I thought the general idea was so long as the engine grew with the series (whatever it may be) it would be plausible to keep developing. My reason for not buying Starfield is less of a "lack of interest" component and more of a "likelihood of loss of interest in ratio to how much time I can have available to play." Watching Bethesda essentially go back to wanting to load everything much in Skyrim evolved format (which even Fallout 4 did) puts it in mind that there's going to be a brickwall situation I come across that prevents me from progressing. Ironically, fallout 4 is the only Beth game I've managed to finish. But I remember back when Morrowind was available on original Xbox, the numbers of hours I spent being a general thief overwhelmed the time I sank in actual quests. Just the way it is, unfortunately

Is this a good game? I was thinking of trying it., but I am sight impaired now so if there is lots of starship flying I won't likely be good at it lol

Think Fallout 4, but IN SPAAAAAACCCCEEEEE. From what I can see, you can Lego your own ship together, but it reminds me of Mass Effect in that they will let you travel anywhere you like, provided you don't want to see the ride.

 

[TMF Jeff]

Is that really it? I thought the general idea was so long as the engine grew with the series (whatever it may be) it would be plausible to keep developing. My reason for not buying Starfield is less of a "lack of interest" component and more of a "likelihood of loss of interest in ratio to how much time I can have available to play." Watching Bethesda essentially go back to wanting to load everything much in Skyrim evolved format (which even Fallout 4 did) puts it in mind that there's going to be a brickwall situation I come across that prevents me from progressing. Ironically, fallout 4 is the only Beth game I've managed to finish. But I remember back when Morrowind was available on original Xbox, the numbers of hours I spent being a general thief overwhelmed the time I sank in actual quests. Just the way it is, unfortunately

It's a pretty common opinion about what's going on there, but I'm not an expert. It's obviously possible to keep making changes to the same engine and use that, but it seems intuitive to me that doing that is not as good as using one that was built from the ground up with knowledge of modern hardware capabilities.

And I think the problems I pointed to in Starfield are the same problems they had in Fallout - Way too many loading screens, no vehicles despite the fact that they obviously belong in the genre, and limited NPC AI. I, and of course many others, predicted the game would have these problems when I heard they were going to still use the same engine, and sure enough it did.

I'm not qualified to say "Yes, that's definitely the problem," but I'm pretty confident in that diagnosis.

I had the same experience as you with early Bethesda games - I would spend more time living in their worlds than trying to "finish" the game, until Fallout 4, which I see as a turning point in their philosophy about games, and as more of an action game than a real RPG.

 

[SoleImage]

Starfield is fun, but really repetitive once you have gone through the different type of bases that are generated on planets and moons. There are about a dozen different formats, but it gets old if you take the approach of exploring planets nonstop like I did. The actual missions and stories in the game are alright and are somewhat comparable to other Bethesda titles.

Ship combat is interesting, although the controls are a bit awkward. Shipbuilding is similar, with an interface that takes some getting used to.

If I had to rank it among Bethesda's more recent releases, I'd list them as follows:

1. Fallout New Vegas (technically an Obsidian game)
2. Fallout 4
3. Skyrim
4. Starfield
5. Fallout 3
6. Oblivion
7. Fallout 76

It's far better than Fallout 76, but it doesn't quite live up to the classics of New Vegas, Fallout 4, or Skyrim.

In short, they sacrificed detail for volume. The often cited 1,000 planets only have about 100 with actual creatures on them. In a way, this is kind of realistic when thinking about how the conditions for life are within narrow parameters, but it's a bit misleading.

Hopefully, Elder Scrolls 6 (whenever it comes out) will take the opposite approach and focus less on the size of the map or number of locations and focus more on detail and originality per location.

Just curious, could you estimate how many hours of gameplay you were in when it started getting repetitive? I'm more of a casual gamer at this point and If it's closer to 50 hours of gameplay before it gets boring I might still be interested...

 

[duderino84]

It's a pretty common opinion about what's going on there, but I'm not an expert. It's obviously possible to keep making changes to the same engine and use that, but it seems intuitive to me that doing that is not as good as using one that was built from the ground up with knowledge of modern hardware capabilities.

And I think the problems I pointed to in Starfield are the same problems they had in Fallout - Way too many loading screens, no vehicles despite the fact that they obviously belong in the genre, and limited NPC AI. I, and of course many others, predicted the game would have these problems when I heard they were going to still use the same engine, and sure enough it did.

I'm not qualified to say "Yes, that's definitely the problem," but I'm pretty confident in that diagnosis.

I had the same experience as you with early Bethesda games - I would spend more time living in their worlds than trying to "finish" the game, until Fallout 4, which I see as a turning point in their philosophy about games, and as more of an action game than a real RPG.

No, I get what you mean. I guess I look at the technicalities of gameplay out of context as opposed to what is actually included in the games. Like for instance, I don't like that Bethesda and their concept of gamepad support doesn't include simultaneous input (that would be useful on devices like a Steam Controller, or navigating terrain with a joystick while trying to snipe with a mouse.... which a Steam Controller could accomplish). Added to that, it's weird that a lot of pc players that still play Morrowind recommend using the Open MW engine vs the plain game. But I guess I don't fault Bethesda on lack of vehicles because even when they give you a horse, it's essentially just another form of armor to them, in a way.

Todd Howard has basically proven people can buy Skyrim 10 times over and they'll still be satisfied in every platform. It's both odd and sad that they essentially own ID Software and see it as more of a justification for their design methods than an opportunity to build.

It was entertaining for a while, and I'm sure eventually I'll just play Oblivion instead, but yea, some developers just can't see the logical path the players want from their titles.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Just curious, could you estimate how many hours of gameplay you were in when it started getting repetitive? I'm more of a casual gamer at this point and If it's closer to 50 hours of gameplay before it gets boring I might still be interested...

Well, I have to admit that I've played 255 hours of it, according to Steam. Granted, my playstyle is also somewhat slow and deliberate when exploring. For a faster-paced gamer, that number is probably more like 175 hours, but admittedly, that is a lot of time. And I haven't even done much of the main quest.

If you enjoy exploring a lot of areas with a certain amount of repetition in design, it will keep you occupied for a while. And there are also parts of the game I haven't done much at all. There's an entire mechanism for researching weapon mods, for example. I've never bothered with it, since I ended up picking up a lot of modded guns from enemies. They also have a mining system where you can set up outposts to extract various raw materials for building all sorts of things.

So, Starfield definitely has a lot of things to do. It's just a matter of how much grinding you're willing to engage in. I tend to favor games that emphasize story more than grinding, like Baldur's Gate 3.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Is that really it? I thought the general idea was so long as the engine grew with the series (whatever it may be) it would be plausible to keep developing. My reason for not buying Starfield is less of a "lack of interest" component and more of a "likelihood of loss of interest in ratio to how much time I can have available to play." Watching Bethesda essentially go back to wanting to load everything much in Skyrim evolved format (which even Fallout 4 did) puts it in mind that there's going to be a brickwall situation I come across that prevents me from progressing. Ironically, fallout 4 is the only Beth game I've managed to finish. But I remember back when Morrowind was available on original Xbox, the numbers of hours I spent being a general thief overwhelmed the time I sank in actual quests. Just the way it is, unfortunately


Think Fallout 4, but IN SPAAAAAACCCCEEEEE. From what I can see, you can Lego your own ship together, but it reminds me of Mass Effect in that they will let you travel anywhere you like, provided you don't want to see the ride.

As far as the engine goes, it's Creation Engine 2. Starfield is the first game to use it, but it definitely has a lot of familiar aspects to it, if you've played Fallout 4. I agree with Jeff, however, that the game probably would have been a lot more impressive using Unreal 5.

That being said, it might have been harder to port over to consoles using Unreal 5. The game already is somewhat demanding for PC, and Unreal 5 could have required even higher specs. Unreal 5 is more efficient about resources than the Creation Engine, however.

 

[duderino84]

Starfield is helping Bethesda take a lot of lessons.... like instead of "the modding community will fix our game" they're learning "oh, the game has to actually be fun." Then again, they're also still trying to push out the platform that had been associated with the "Golden horse armor" dlc they tried to initiate.

 

[tickle_prince]

I enjoyed it, I went space scoundrel it was awesome been a pirate, but I didn’t get to the end of it, I got distracted by another game, and just never went back to it. Unlike Skyrim which I go back to continually