Starfield - Epic Shit Takes from Bethestards

[Lemming42]

Introducing vehicles is supremely weird because it's the type of feature that, if it were ever going to be a thing, should have been done in early development. It would have to have been decided on extremely early on so that planets could be built around it. I don't understand this model of game development at all.

It's weird enough that BG3 is still adding scenes and quest solutions in patches after the alleged "final release", but at least they're relatively minor things and BG3 was essentially feature complete. Adding entire modes of gameplay like this in post-release patches is absurd. Are we to take it that they spent like seven years working on half a game, and we're getting the other half drip-fed to us over the course of the next decade, and that the "release version" of Starfield was lacking even basic features so that we have to wait until fucking 2033 to play the actual game? What kind of setup is this?

 

[Fedora Master]

Vehicles won't help the "empty zone with 3 landmarks" design.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Introducing vehicles is supremely weird because it's the type of feature that, if it were ever going to be a thing, should have been done in early development. It would have to have been decided on extremely early on so that planets could be built around it. I don't understand this model of game development at all.

Vehicles won't help the "empty zone with 3 landmarks" design.

I think that they were delusional enough as to believe that the procgen environments were 'immersive' enough not to warrant prioritizing mount vehicle implementation and that the procgen locations were good enough as to warrant the tedious walk between them.

 

[ind33d]

Introducing vehicles is supremely weird because it's the type of feature that, if it were ever going to be a thing, should have been done in early development. It would have to have been decided on extremely early on so that planets could be built around it. I don't understand this model of game development at all.

Vehicles won't help the "empty zone with 3 landmarks" design.

I think that they were delusional enough as to believe that the procgen environments were 'immersive' enough not to warrant prioritizing mount vehicle implementation and that the procgen locations were good enough as to warrant the tedious walk between them.

the game was made in a modular fashion like Traveller, they probably intended the creation club mods to be like supplements or splatbooks. so by default there would be no aliens but you could buy the "Aslan" DLC and then there would be cat pussy everywhere, or if you wanted more companions you could buy 200 guys for $9.99 like Veterans. this is all contingent on modders actually doing work, but I can understand what Todd was envisioning. the base game has to be as boring and inoffensive as possible or else it would conflict with potential total conversions being sold on the shop

 

[Vic]

I think there are two potential reason for introducing vehicles now:

1) They released the game in an unfinished state and are going to keep adding stuff, weather in the form of free updates, DLCs or paid mods. This development model is becoming more and more common. I wrote about it somewhere else recently but it's actually an improvement for gaming because, thanks to the digital distribution model, instead of just shipping out the game on CD once, developers can keep working on the game and adding more content and features for years to come. I don't mind the initial release not being "content complete" as long as they keep working on it and making it better.

2) They are addressing player complaints and trying to "salvage" the game. That's a viable strategy and happened to No Man's Sky. Maps and land vehicle were one of the major features players wanted to see in the game. The issue with this approach is that players don't actually know what they want. They can't properly explain why the game is "boring". So just adding what your players are voicing to you won't fix the game because it's the developers themselves who need to understand how to make a good game.

I really hope that vehicles had been planned from the beginning, along with a lot more content that they will keep adding. If it's just addressing complaints and trying and salvage the game, it won't probably do much good anyway.

I'm curious to see how these buggies will drive. I can't imagine Bethesda doing a good job with it. Anybody remember Skyrim horses? Your horse was a better mountain climber than you.

 

[Lemming42]

the game was made in a modular fashion like Traveller, they probably intended the creation club mods to be like supplements or splatbooks. so by default there would be no aliens but you could buy the "Aslan" DLC and then there would be cat pussy everywhere, or if you wanted more companions you could buy 200 guys for $9.99 like Veterans. this is all contingent on modders actually doing work, but I can understand what Todd was envisioning. the base game has to be as boring and inoffensive as possible or else it would conflict with potential total conversions being sold on the shop

I wonder if this is actually the case because it doesn't sound right to me. They know enough to know that for there to be a vast modding community, they need to actually entice modders. Starfield does have some solid systems but modders - and more importantly, players - don't tend to think "oh, there could be a really good game here if I spend the next three years of my life working to fix it, with my work being scuttled by every official update" in any great numbers.

If they wanted to do what you suggest, surely we'd already have a module, rather than waiting on Shittered Space. The game would have released with module packs already, adding whole Vvardenfell-sized planets full of details and quests. They'd have to demonstrate the potential themselves rather than just shitting out half a game and expecting everyone else to pick up the slack. Someone'll be along to say "but that's what they've always done!" but it's not really; all their other games are feature complete and fully coherent without any mods.

Interestingly, what you're describing sounds like what the original plan was for TES Arena back in the day - sell the base game and then release countless expansions which are installed on top of it and make each of the procgen'd cities more unique, with big storylines to follow and dungeons to explore. It never came to fruition in part because they realised it was a shit idea, so if Todd's thinking the same thing will work thirty years later, he must have had a shock when reality hit.

 

[MjKorz]

Vehicles won't help the "empty zone with 3 landmarks" design.

They just need to use procgen to populate the planets with all sorts of aggressive wildlife, then you'll get some emergent gameplay.

 

[Vic]

Vehicles won't help the "empty zone with 3 landmarks" design.

They just need to use procgen to populate the planets with all sorts of aggressive wildlife, then you'll get some emergent gameplay.

Did you play the game? There is wildlife almost everywhere. Plus random space ships landing near you with enemies or other events in addition to the POIs.

 

[MjKorz]

Vehicles won't help the "empty zone with 3 landmarks" design.

They just need to use procgen to populate the planets with all sorts of aggressive wildlife, then you'll get some emergent gameplay.

Did you play the game? There is wildlife almost everywhere. Plus random space ships landing near you with enemies or other events in addition to the POIs.

There's not enough, needs to be more. If you're going for procgen environments at least make them chaotic so that amusing and unexpected shit can happen.

 

[ind33d]

I think there are two potential reason for introducing vehicles now:

1) They released the game in an unfinished state and are going to keep adding stuff, weather in the form of free updates, DLCs or paid mods. This development model is becoming more and more common. I wrote about it somewhere else recently but it's actually an improvement for gaming because, thanks to the digital distribution model, instead of just shipping out the game on CD once, developers can keep working on the game and adding more content and features for years to come. I don't mind the initial release not being "content complete" as long as they keep working on it and making it better.

2) They are addressing player complaints and trying to "salvage" the game. That's a viable strategy and happened to No Man's Sky. Maps and land vehicle were one of the major features players wanted to see in the game. The issue with this approach is that players don't actually know what they want. They can't properly explain why the game is "boring". So just adding what your players are voicing to you won't fix the game because it's the developers themselves who need to understand how to make a good game.

I really hope that vehicles had been planned from the beginning, along with a lot more content that they will keep adding. If it's just addressing complaints and trying and salvage the game, it won't probably do much good anyway.

I'm curious to see how these buggies will drive. I can't imagine Bethesda doing a good job with it. Anybody remember Skyrim horses? Your horse was a better mountain climber than you.

actually, shouldn't there be hovercars like on Coruscant? Cyberpunk 2077 has them and that game is supposed to be a lower technological level

 

[Late Bloomer]

actually, shouldn't there be hovercars like on Coruscant? Cyberpunk 2077 has them and that game is supposed to be a lower technological level

 

[Vic]

Cyberpunk 2077 has them and that game is supposed to be a lower technological level

I'm not sure if that's the case. Both settings developed differently. Humanity in Starfield was facing extinction and had to develop space travel and colonization in order to save themselves. Cyberpunk is more a dystopian setting where the city is "an overripe fruit that began to stink" to quote from Akira. They didn't have to struggle for survival so their technological research went into improving every day life and higher level needs like sex and vanity.

If you look at the Jetpacks in Starfield, it seems like they are powered by some sort of combustion engine? Because they explode if you shoot them. Maybe they haven't developed advanced hovercraft technology yet.

Of course that is thinking in-game. The real (and less fun) reason is that Bethesda was probably too lazy to implements other modes of transportation. The cities are also quite small in-game to fit in hovercars.

 

[Joryyyy]

NASAPUNK

They should've let Kirkbride write some lore for Starfield.

Somebody made a recent video about him:

This is perhaps one of the worst videos I ever saw. Most of the video is talking about pronouns or seething at Kirkbride writings

 

[Lemming42]

Playing another old DOS space game called "Hard Nova" from 1990 and yet again I'm struck by how much Starfield echoes a lot of these 30+ year old space games in many of its systems, and especially in its design philosophies, such as having a galaxy that's very big but has basically fuck-all of interest in it. I would not be surprised to find out that Todd's directive was to essentially make one of them but with FPP combat.

There's something oddly nostalgic about Starfield and I think this is why. I liked some things about Starfield on my first playthrough but after replaying/discovering so many of these older space games recently, I think Starfield comes across in a more positive light as a spiritual successor to them. I think its main problem is that it's come decades too late; I keep imagining what it'd be like if the exact same game were released in, like, 1996 (on an era-appropriate engine, obviously). It would feel like a quantum leap forward and a perfect union of space games and first-person action games - you can actually walk around on planets in first-person! You can board enemy ships with Doom-like gameplay! It's just a shame those achievements are literally meaningless in 2024, especially considering almost everyone who played this was expecting another MW/Fo3/Skyrim.

 

[Hace El Oso]

I think its main problem is…

Loading screens. The game is a collection of loading screens.

I keep imagining what it'd be like if the exact same game were released in, like, 1996 (on an era-appropriate engine, obviously). It would feel like a quantum leap forward and a perfect union of space games and first-person action games.

Starfield in 1996 wouldn’t have been an endless chain of loading screens. You would have flown your spaceship around, from place to place, bumping into people, places and situations along the way.

 

[ind33d]

I think its main problem is…

Loading screens. The game is a collection of loading screens.

I keep imagining what it'd be like if the exact same game were released in, like, 1996 (on an era-appropriate engine, obviously). It would feel like a quantum leap forward and a perfect union of space games and first-person action games.

Starfield in 1996 wouldn’t have been an endless chain of loading screens. You would have flown your spaceship around, from place to place, bumping into people, places and situations along the way.

the loading screens aren't the problem: the fast travel is too good. a lot of skill in Morrowind or Daggerfall came from optimizing your travel route to avoid unnecessary engagements or contracting a disease. this isn't possible in starfield because there is no fuel and the random events are too sparse. bethesda could fix this problem by making the universe more dense, like adding more capital cities and making questlines that take place all in one location.

it feels like the star systems were intended to have a faction/rep system beyond just Freestar vs UC. at minimum they should have had three factions so that whenever you helped one faction it would upset the other two. in the vanilla game you can be a UC Terrormorph death squad leader and a Freestar Ranger at the same time. it makes literally zero sense. meanwhile in Morrowind...

 

[Hace El Oso]

the loading screens aren't the problem: the fast travel is too good. a lot of skill in Morrowind or Daggerfall came from optimizing your travel route to avoid unnecessary engagements or contracting a disease. this isn't possible in starfield because there is no fuel and the random events are too sparse. bethesda could fix this problem by making the universe more dense, like adding more capital cities and making questlines that take place all in one location.

My point is that you do not actually traverse any space. No journey, no adversity, no adventure, no sense of scale. You continually teleport from one point to another as close as possible to your NPC of choice. That is boring.

 

[ind33d]

the loading screens aren't the problem: the fast travel is too good. a lot of skill in Morrowind or Daggerfall came from optimizing your travel route to avoid unnecessary engagements or contracting a disease. this isn't possible in starfield because there is no fuel and the random events are too sparse. bethesda could fix this problem by making the universe more dense, like adding more capital cities and making questlines that take place all in one location.

My point is that you do not actually traverse any space. No journey, no adversity, no adventure, no sense of scale. You continually teleport from one point to another as close as possible to your NPC of choice. That is boring.

yeah i think they should copy a lot of mechanics from Death Stranding, space trucking in starfield is fucking awful. you literally just accept the mission and appear at your destination with the reward

 

[Gargaune]

Introducing vehicles is supremely weird because it's the type of feature that, if it were ever going to be a thing, should have been done in early development. It would have to have been decided on extremely early on so that planets could be built around it. I don't understand this model of game development at all.

AAA studios seem to be more and more subject to reactive panic, desperate to chase favourable YouTube clickbait absent any sort of design vision. Starfield's reception was bad and, among many other things, people bitched that the game has no rovers, so now Bethesda's adding rovers. Doesn't matter whether the gameplay structure can support them in any meaningful way, what matters is the ensuing viral marketing that "Bethesda listened!" and "Starfield is saved!" The same thing happened to Cyberpunk 2077 - bad reception, people bitched about not having multiple player homes (again among many other things), so CDPR added purchasable apartments despite being completely pointless in the game's loops. People bitched about the Metro fast travel, some obsessive modders even made something themselves, so CDPR added one too despite being - guess what? - completely and utterly pointless.

Marketing departments rule the roost, but their effect on game design seems to be worse than even that of the suits of old as a function of headcount and control - it was easier for designers to prevail upon a couple of guys "at the top" to support their vision, but it's pointless to even try with an army of mid-level marketers, they're too many and they're not high enough to benefit from taking chances. Fixing core design is hard and expensive, but jangling keys in front of the YouTubes? Yeah, that's a good ROI.

It's weird enough that BG3 is still adding scenes and quest solutions in patches after the alleged "final release"

There's no such thing. A game gets its "final release" only when it catastrophically bombs and takes the developer down with it. Sven might "finish" BG3 by early 2025, but come 2035, Todd Howard will patch it. You want a game that's had a "final release?" Try Redfall.