You're right that the loading screens can be minimized with fast travel, but also, some of the best parts of a game like this is the immersion, which doesn't really work well with loading directly from point to point on your to-do list. I think Starfield is fine, tbh, but I do agree that the amount of loading screens is excessive. Games like NMS and Elite Dangerous have been doing seamless space travel for a long time now. There's really no excuse.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The excuse is the engine they refuse to let die. It's not a good excuse, but that's a lot of the trademark Bethesda wonk.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that tracks. I get that as a company, they're gonna wring every resource dry before ponying up the money to redevelop, but that engine's been showing its age for a while now, and Starfield is a great concept that deserved better.

[–] CharlestonChewbacca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I get what you're saying, but eliminating loading screens in a game like this just isn't feasible.

NMS or Elite Dangerous style space travel might be, but then it would have a similarly cartoonist reduced scale. I wouldn't mind that personally, but I get why they didn't do it.

My primary complaint is that the cities themselves are split up into multiple zones. If Skyrim can be entirely open, so to should Jameison.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I'm not saying they need to eliminate them entirely, just agreeing that there are way too many, and "fast travel to the plot" isn't a reasonable solution in a game like this. I do think (mostly) seamless space travel would go a very long way to helping the overall experience.