https://www.thejimquisition.com/post/starfield-empty-spaces-review
that's the actual review, don't bother with this shitty forbes article
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
48 points (74.0% liked)
Starfield
2850 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!
- Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)
Helpful links:
Spoiler policy:
- No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
- Add
[Spoilers]to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post. - Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
- Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!
Post & comment spoiler syntax:
<spoiler here>
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This 100% was said about Skyrim. Bethesda just makes weak RPGs with no stakes or personality.
I don't think it's fair to call Bethesda games RPGs. They're more like environmental looter shooters. And if you take them kind of easy breezy not serious you can have fun. But you're not going to get real roleplay.
You'll find some cool stories, but not roleplay
I so disagree. I think Skyrim, for example, is all about roleplaying but extremely shallow in the RPG mechanics side of things.
I mean to say, the gameplay is shallow, but that shallowness allows casual players to essentially ignore the mechanics and play characters from bandits to farmers or merchants or nomads or whatever they want. It's the purest form of roleplaying and I think that's why Skyrim in particular is still so popular.
That said, my fav is Morrowind because I love stats driven, cronchy RPG mechanics.
You may or may not be right about Skyrim
But 1000% Morrowinds Stat driven cronchy bs was bae (and the best world IMO, God I hated Skyrim from the jump just for that - Funky mushroom land getting around on silt striders to fucking HELL PORTALS to....... Every generic fantasy land ever, dragons and all 🙄)
And they turned Cyrodill from a cool interesting tropical jungle into... Fable 4.
Fr that bothers me to this day. Wtf happened to Bethesda’s unique settings? Nothing coming from the elder scrolls IP has matched Morrowind in that regard and I have no idea why.
Todd Howard is why
load more comments
(2 replies)
They're action rpgs
I'm not sure if everyone's opinion just changed over night, but saying anything bad about Skyrim or Bethesda games used to get you downvoted to hell in casual video game communities, and this is even a Bethesda community.
People praise Skyrim like it's the greatest game ever, like it's the only game they ever played. What happened?
It's mostly people who grew up playing Skyrim who are super positive about it in my experience.
Eh, I mean I grew up playing Skyrim and love it, but I can also admit that that’s nearly all nostalgia and that it’s a staggeringly shallow game.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Bethesda delivered a Bethesda game. What exactly were people expecting? This is exactly what I expected and am loving it.
It looks like one, but isnt as enjoyable as ones before. Might have been a bad choice to navigate the world in menu format. Quick travel to X location to explore. No walking around a big world, but many small ones. Even tiny ones.
It wouldn't have been horrible if they did it in an Immersive way. For example, Mass Effect had it's big hologram system map. You walk up to it and it zoomed to it, or whatever happened, and it didn't take you out of the world into a menu. It's still a menu, but it feels like it's part of the world. Similarly, the Fallout menus are in the pop boy. While not perfect, it does help it feel Immersive.
The Starfield UI doesn't even try. They give you the watch thing like they're going to do the Fallout menu thing, but then they just don't. There is zero attempt to make it feel like part of the universe. They have the navigation consoles that open the system map, but it still just opens the same menu. That's still better than what you do 99% of the time though.
The one thing you've always been able to say about Bethesda, is despite the many flaws of their games, their new game generally always improves on the previous game in some way.
Not with Starfield. Pretty much every mechanic in Starfield is a regression, and worse, than the games that came before it. The Mechanics, The Perk System, Settlement Building, "Exploration", Character models and faces/etc. All fundamentally worse than previous games.
A lot of people want to dismiss these criticisms as haters just hating on the popular thing, but the thing is that I'm not hating on it.
I'm frustrated, and disappointed. They left so much potential in the game to wither on the vine because they couldnt take the last baby steps give them the polish and critical eye they needed. Its like they got 5 feet from the finish line, shrugged their shoulders, and said good enough and walked away.
I want this game to be good. I can see how it can be good. and it shouldnt be reliant on the modders to pick up the unfinished pieces and make it good by finishing them.
Bethesda is not some small indie dev doing their best by themselves and deserving of understanding. This is a multibillion dollar company that can and should have done better, and deserves to be held accountable and criticized for the legitimate issues.
On the other hand, I cannot stand Oblivion, Skyrim or any Fall out game but I am loving Starfield.
load more comments
(2 replies)
That is how I feel. I've put so many hours into their games. If you like their games chances are you enjoy this one. The differences for a new IP are great, but much of the feel is there.
I didn't think I'd be able to play it for quite awhile since I don't have anything that can play it right now. Then I realized game pass can be played on some Samsung TVs and mine is one. Was worth the $17 to try it out and for the most part it has ran great.
I saw a video that claimed no one would have expected the way starship travel works and I'm like "I totally expected it to be work this way!" From the moment they announced it was still on Creation, I had expectations that space travel would be simple cell changes and not seamless travel. I actually expected it to be janky as fuck, too, when actually doing space combat but it's actually quite fine. I mean, the AI is dumb as shit, but it's not full of weird bullshit. The things that did not meet my expectations are all actually good things. I expected it to barely run; it runs fine even with unsupported hardware. I expected to see bugs aplenty; at worst, I've seen some ragdolls spaghettifi.
Maybe it just took getting a relatively stable release for people to realize they have always been fairly shallow action oriented games, with light story and narrative elements that aren't even that well written. There's nothing else to really whine about. 🤷🏻♂️
I imagine the starships are still hats on an invisible NPC.
I doubt it. My suspicion is that the player is sitting still the whole time and everything is being moved around them. This does several things that are smart. Physics for the player stay the same, with gravity being down, without any extra work. It also removes concerns about floating point errors happening around the player, so they could theoretically fly forever in one direction without issues.
There was one part of a certain quest where I board someone else's ship and they take off while I am standing in the bridge; it clearly shows the game is capable of moving these ships as actual vehicles. But you only ever get to see them in motion everywhere else while locked in the seat, in empty space. Cuz even if you were to stand up while at full throttle, the ship stops as soon as you get up.
They haven't always been action focused games, but they have been moving more and more that way since Oblivion. I played Morrowind for the first real time (I bounced off after not understanding the game the first time) a year or so ago. I spent my first few hours without any combat. I'm not saying that figuratively. It was literally no combat. The game was totally accepting that that's how I wanted to play. There's also plenty of story and interesting mechanics to interact with. Now they make shallow theme parks that try to get you onto the next ride as fast as possible. If you have five minutes without action they think you'll get bored and leave.
When I say action, I really just mean how you play and not necessarily just focused on combat. They focus on the actions you can take, over the dialogue choices you can make. Even Arena and Daggerfall were light on what you could actually change through story stuff, and were more about the player having fun in a myriad of ways. Morrowind, too. Especially with it's somewhat unique dialogue system. You didn't really have choices, as much as being given heaps of information based on keywords. But your choice of how you explored, handled enemies, and what not was incredible.
Plus, they wouldn't be able to warp without moving space around them.
Really thoigh, that sounds incredibly plausible.
Yeah couldn't have said it better myself. I'm actually quite impressed with the creation engine improvements. FO4 ran like shit on good hardware when it released. Also based on the newest discoveries it seems like modders actually have a good chance to allow interplanetary travel without fast traveling. I have a theory that the CE devs got the engine 90% of the way there on PC but Bethesda just needed to pull the trigger and release it with feature parity between Xbox S S/X and PC.
Yup, and it has some level of replayability that previous titles didn't have.
"An ocean wide, and a thimble deep" has been said about every Bethesda game since Oblivion
true, and I have played an unhealthy amount of modded skyrim. let's resurrect the idiots who killed Morrowind, and remind them of their crimes.
It's a Stephanie Sterling review, they've had beef with Bethesda for a long time and recently over Zenimax treatment of a trans employee (which is a fair thing to be annoyed by, but hardly the fault of Todd's team at Bethesda). I wouldn't put much stock in their review of this.
It reads as very biased. They have some good points but every sentence is riddled with negative adjectives. Seems very childish in my opinion. You can see that in all the screenshots as well. Especially talking about uninspired artstyle even though this artstyle is pretty unique in gaming and I really liked it personally.
Maybe? It's a particularly "edgy" games reviewer, it's part of the deal. Thing is, from where I'm standing, it's rather less biased than the people defending the game. At least the review is making specific arguments I am not seeing counterarguments for; I'm seeing "it's subjective" and "they're mad about stuff" (which is only a rational argument if you also go into how/why that's making their arguments shit) and... excuses.
To play Devil's advocate: even if Jim hates BSW with a holy passion and is firmly determined not to like anything about it ever (even the review isn't all negative), that doesn't make it all wrong. "I don't like people criticizing games I like" is natural and fine, but doesn't make for a lot of discussion. The review makes claims one can argue against - that's great, that's discussion. "Well you're just wrong/mad" is less useful.
Are they wrong, then?
Since reviews are highly subjective its impossible to be wrong, except when you make factual mistakes like missing mechanics or technical facts.
My question was an attempt at getting people to elaborate. Like... no, seriously, what is wrong about the review? Bearing in mind that it, too is a piece of media with a given category: Edgy Angry Review Person, a true if hackneyed classic? A lot of the points seemed fair enough to me, but then I'm not a fanboy or hater. "Toss out the entire review" is not very nuanced and blaming it on them being "mad" is downright unconvincing.
For the record, I don't think subjectivity is a good defense. How well you like the browngray paintjob is subjective. How well you like the menu, controls and writing are subjective. "This game is significantly smaller, buggier and less varied than it pretends" are at least a lot less subjective, and those seem like fairly popular takes.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Whoops I guess I'll stop having fun then.
Elite Dangerous is as wide as the galaxy and deep as a puddle but that was fun for long time too.
Almost every time something negative is said about Starfield, it feels like walking into a room with Draco Malfoy, Geoffrey Baratheon and bully Maguire bullying on Bethesda/Todd.
But here in this thread, on the worst review I've seen so far, people are actually chill, acknowledging the flaws, but enjoying the game. It's such a fresh breath of air.
Aside from Jim being characteristically edgy and doing the "angry reviewer thing", a major cliché in itself... yeah, checks out. I played for an hour, have been meaning to get back to it... and kind of don't want to.
I will say, as someone who is enjoying my time with it at about 30 hours currently… I felt the same way my first several hours. Which sucks - they absolutely bungled the intro hours of this game - but now that I’ve pushed through that awkward intro I’m having a great time. It’s scratching the same itch that Skyrim did. It’s what I hoped Fallout 4 would be but… in space.
I do tend to run to my ship and physically sit myself in the pilot seat before fast traveling… helps keep me immersed. It’s also a good middle-ground between the convenience of fast traveling to/from star systems and planets versus an endless fast travel menu sim.
I've played thru it once and i'm on NG+. It's about as expected from a BethRPG. It's a fun game with lots of flaws, but I can feel the hook there sucking me back in. I'm happy with my purchase it's a game worth playing IMO. (I especially like how they did the ending and how it feeds into NG+)
view more: next ›