Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Starfield Thread - Shattered Space expansion coming September 30th

Lemming42

Arcane
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,616
Location
The Satellite Of Love
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?
 
Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
18,718
Location
大同
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

Learned
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
1,585
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

Savant
Undisputed Queen of Faggotry Bethestard
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
5,678
Location
[REDACTED]
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

Arcane
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,616
Location
The Satellite Of Love
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.
 

Vic

Savant
Undisputed Queen of Faggotry Bethestard
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
5,678
Location
[REDACTED]
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

Educated
Joined
Jul 11, 2022
Messages
530
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

Learned
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
1,585
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

Scholar
Joined
Apr 7, 2022
Messages
3,368
actually, shouldn't there be hovercars like on Coruscant? Cyberpunk 2077 has them and that game is supposed to be a lower technological level
maxresdefault.jpg
 

Vic

Savant
Undisputed Queen of Faggotry Bethestard
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
5,678
Location
[REDACTED]
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

Literate
Joined
Jun 7, 2024
Messages
17
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

Arcane
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,616
Location
The Satellite Of Love
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

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
3,502
Location
Bogotá
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

Learned
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
1,585
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...

leddjRP.png
 

Hace El Oso

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
3,502
Location
Bogotá
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

Learned
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
1,585
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

Arcane
Joined
Mar 12, 2020
Messages
3,483
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.
 

FrostRaven

Literate
Joined
Dec 9, 2023
Messages
13
Todd Howard has gone back on his word a few times on the issue of the vehicles. Allegedly it was planned but discarded because they wanted to pad the progression. That's how I interpret what he said in this interview, but I will quote:

When asked why there are no land vehicles in Starfield, Howard says that it was something they considered, but in the end it would effectively "change the gameplay" a bit too much from their vision.

"Once you do vehicles, it does change the gameplay. So by focusing [on]: 'Once you land in your ship, then you're on foot,' it let us really, for the players, make it an experience where we know how fast they're seeing things."

Howard went on to remind players of the jetpack that you can upgrade throughout your time in Starfield, which can act as a vehicle of sorts, especially if you're finding the standard walking speed a tad slow for your liking.

"In one sense, you have a vehicle - obviously, you have your spaceship and can go around in space. And then, on the surface, you have a jetpack, which you can upgrade. Which is super fun; obviously, planets have different levels of gravity, which makes that unique for many planets."
I read a few interviews and don't remember in which one flatly admitted it again, it was just to make the game last longer. This is in opposition with his previous interviews of Skyrim and Fallout 4 where he said that he wanted to make it so that if you are in a map you fill find something interesting in one minute walking in any direction. Back in the day I thought this was ridiculous, because there was no "breathing space" to explore and have random encounters... but planet exploration is just so boring that they had to add a "space jeep" to make the grind less painful.
 

v1c70r14

Educated
Joined
Feb 8, 2023
Messages
226
Location
World of Goo
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.
This is a misdiagnosis, you say they are being reactive when the issue is that they don't have any sort of coherent design or vision in the first place and can't deliver on quality and fun. You also can't blame marketing for this, they're just putting out there what the team is saying they're making and are planning on.

Cyberpunk 2077 was a vaporware mess that put game devs through the meatgrinder as the leadership failed on all levels. When they were marketing car customization and tuning, several apartments and a train system in the game's PR they were writing IOU:s, making promises they failed to deliver on. You're right that these alone without the vision of the game they were a part of that was cut down into something completely different don't do much for the game. What they sold the game as, and in many ways seemed intent on making the game into, was something with GTA elements. A focus on driving, the vehicles themselves, the open world dynamic shootouts, a Cyberpunk world-space fully realized. In that context the trains made a lot of sense, the GTA series had them back in GTA2 (and in the first game but the second was more futuristic) and they contributed an additional way of navigation, allowing you to skip long drives and just go above or underground directly to a location, and if you were chased by law enforcement or anyone else it was an interesting place for a pursuit, the train tracks electrifying anyone who walked over them just before the train arrived. They make sense for the same reason they make sense in the real world if you're going for a world simulation.

In the end Cyberpunk 2077 wasn't GTA though, the wanted system was entirely broken, vehicular sections were few and entirely scripted, and the GTA convention of trains, being able to buy apartments and properties, and the car customization which were all cut didn't really have a place in the game anymore after the failure to deliver on that larger design promise reducing them into pointless fluff, but at least it was additional content. The game we got was Deus Ex: Human Revolution done in the style of Ubisoft, highly cinematic FPS segments with a lot of trashy busywork entirely lacking the dynamism of GTA.

No Man's Sky wasn't reactive either, they just completed the things they weren't able to before Sony's deadline hit them, but unlike Cyberpunk the vision never changed to such a degree as to invalidate this cut content they had been marketing.

Starfield never did market rovers or vehicles, so in this case they are reacting to feedback, but to a failure of their own game design and not "bitching". They actually thought people would have a great time slowly walking across large empty sub-Daggerfall procedurally generated squares and that this would be just as fun as the totally curated moment to moment gameplay of Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind. It's even weirder since you had horses in the later TES games but in the far future of Aboriginal soul-stares there are no ground based vehicles for transportation. Rovers are actually fixing a problem the game has, the issue is that none of the content is worthwhile and playing Starfield is a terrible experience in the first place, marred with issues so fundamental they could never fix it without remaking the game from scratch. Getting to content will be quicker, but because that content is bad it doesn't matter.

It's not the fault of marketing, it's early design failures and leadership failures to maintain a consistent vision and ensuring that the various part of the games mesh and make sense.
 

Vic

Savant
Undisputed Queen of Faggotry Bethestard
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
5,678
Location
[REDACTED]
I don't see how adding vehicles will improve the game either. It doesn't take that long to walk from point A to point B. If they would make the rovers "immersive" that could be cool though. By that I mean there is an animation whenever you enter and leave the rover. That would add a bit to the "cinematic" atmosphere you have while exploring, while also "nerfing" the rovers themselves, because now you have something like a (don't laugh) "loading screen" whenever entering and leaving the vehicle, so it's not always the best option for transport and potentially mostly used to haul cargo back to your ship.

Oh yeah, are they adding garage bays to the ships to store rovers in? How are they planning to integrate them into the exploration loop I wonder. Don't tell me the rovers will just teleport with you...
 

Gargaune

Arcane
Joined
Mar 12, 2020
Messages
3,483
This is a misdiagnosis, you say they are being reactive when the issue is that they don't have any sort of coherent design or vision in the first place and can't deliver on quality and fun. You also can't blame marketing for this, they're just putting out there what the team is saying they're making and are planning on. [...] It's not the fault of marketing, it's early design failures and leadership failures to maintain a consistent vision and ensuring that the various part of the games mesh and make sense.
But the two aren't mutually exclusive, and while core design failures are rampant and the main reason we get the AAA games we do today, I think it's also undeniable that the post-release support cycle is increasingly and negatively influenced by a desire to distract public reaction on the cheap. Taking CBP's example, you said so yourself:

being able to buy apartments and properties, and the car customization which were all cut didn't really have a place in the game anymore after the failure to deliver on that larger design promise reducing them into pointless fluff, but at least it was additional content.
And yet they chose to cram them back in absent any sort of meaningful integration into the game's mechanical loops. The initial "promise" is a moot point because games change through development and cut systems all the time, CBP moreso than others, and these concepts just weren't relevant to the released product anymore - they didn't fit the final "design vision", but they were slapped onto it after the fact only to score cheap publicity points with a gullible, hyperactive audience because said audience had latched onto these "promises" without a more profound understanding of their requisite designs.

I'd even argue against calling them "additional content", particularly when it comes to the Metro system. The apartments would've needed some proper survival mechanics woven into the gameplay, but that in turn would've relied on major changes to systems and narrative pacing, so CDPR gave them the most rote busywork buffs imaginable for sleeping or taking a shower or some shit, nothing more than a transparent token effort. The Metro, however, is literally non-playable, it's just an optional real-time cutscene and an obscene monument to CBP's biggest design mistakes, but it sure as fuck got the lemmings excited.

And now the same thing's happening with Starfield - Todd's quoted just two posts above yours defending the exclusion of land vehicles as a deliberate design decision, not a concession to limited development time, and yet now the idea's making a surreptitious comeback. Why? It's not going to be gameplay content proper because the rest of the mechanical structure wasn't built to support it (vehicle gameplay needs vehicle combat, resources etc., this thing will be less "playable" than early CBP's driving, having less eyecandy and not even any traffic to needle through), but the rovers themselves aren't a costly undertaking and they'll successfully grab headlines.

It's just a marketing exercise where the devs are addressing superficial public feedback, rather than a genuine design fix or restoring cut content. The marketing departments monitor public reactions and report with "customers are screeching about X, Y and Z", which leads to the determination that X is hard, Y is expensive, but Z is cheap even if it's pointless and should help pursue that trendy "redemption arc" narrative. And that's how you get multiple apartments in a Cyberpunk where you head home twice and cars in a Starfield with no Lord Humongous - i.e. key-jangling.


P.S. Nevermind NMS, that thing was a true blue ripoff long before any Sony deadline approached holding a baseball bat, it's a different kettle of fish.
 

PlayerEmers

Educated
Joined
Sep 15, 2023
Messages
215
Location
Brazil
Howard went on to remind players of the jetpack that you can upgrade throughout your time in Starfield, which can act as a vehicle of sorts, especially if you're finding the standard walking speed a tad slow for your liking.
the fuck? what is he talking about? the only upgrades I could find for jetpacks were to increase the boosts and charge times (useless most of the time).

nothing would increase horizontal speeds to move faster through the empty planets.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom