Starfield Pre-Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Reinhardt]

can't wait to pirate it in 2025!

 

[Vic]

I don’t think that’s fair. The vision of what Beth is going for with Fallout is different to the Classics and NV.

You know whats also not fair, how they got the IP in the first place. Fair doesn't matter.
I think its valid, if you make a game in the same genre, with the same name, expect comparisons expect criticism. Why are we acting like Microsoft and Bethesda are underdogs? treat em like hell they don't deserve people to go soft on them.

The argument that a game is bad because it’s not like another game is retarded,

I'll just ignore the Invisible War in the room then shall I lol. I think its been said in the past about other games. Hell look at VtmB1 compared to 2, I'd even say the same thing there. I think its valid.
I think Warhorse did a better version of Oblivion than Bethesda ever could, even despite the fact they only released half of it.
I'll even do the same comparison for System Shock 3 when it eventually comes out too. I think its valid to make those comparisons.

Yes sure games have their own merits. Cyberpunk for all its failure is still a game, you can play it, you can probably have fun with it, but its an embarrassment of a game compared to what it should and could have been. This is my point.
And I think too many games are getting away with the "redemption arc" bullshit where it takes 7-8 years for them to recover from a disastrous launch. I see Starfield going the same route, hope Todd's got that apology letter and roadmap ready.

I just don’t understand your attitude. A game is better than no game? You don’t like it then don’t buy it? Starfield has massive production value, if it looks interesting to you you’ll probably get a good bang for your buck, and if not you can refund.

And Cyberpunk an embarrassment? Sorry but I grew up playing black and white games on a gameboy powered by 4xAA batteries. All of the games you call shit I have spent at least or close to 100 hours on and generally had a good time.

It’s bizarre to me getting a new awesome game and then shitting all over it. Reminds me of the fat spoiled kid from Harry Potter, Douglas or whatever.

 

[RobotSquirrel]

You don’t like it then don’t buy it?

Ah those magic words that I hear all the time, you come up with this one yourself or did you just copy and paste it from Reddit?
This argument is an excuse to deflect criticism and push this idea that games are some kind of opt-in. The fact is the types of games I want to see aren't being made, so no that doesn't cut it.
This constant consolidation and push towards "everyone plays <Game 2023> or you get no game at all" is where the industry is falling apart. Support the status quo at your peril. Corporations are not your friend.
The industry has an internal crisis even Bethesda are effected by it. Doing what you are doing is going to make it worse. If we don't hold studios to account, it'll get worse and more people will leave. People are fed up working on shit games this why! What you are doing is slowly encouraging replacing veterans with worthless diversity hires because they're easy to exploit and they don't give a crap about the games they make. Did you forget that Microsoft fired a whole bunch of developers again? they are slowly eroding each developer, its why Arkane is now shit.

And Cyberpunk an embarrassment? Sorry but I grew up playing black and white games on a gameboy powered by 4xAA batteries. All of the games you call shit I have spent at least or close to 100 hours on and generally had a good time.

And then follows up with the "works for me, I didn't see any bugs" lol, dude stay off reddit.
I came from an era where most games looked like Rogue. But here's the thing, throughout the 90s I learned to make 2D games as a kid, throughout the 2000s up until now I learned to make 3D games.
When you understand the process as well as I do you tend to expect more. By all means I fully expect people to be harsh and criticise my work, its happened in the past, it'll keep happening. Unlike Todd I don't have a PR team!

The "Shit game is better than no game" argument doesn't cut it, I have a back catalogue of games that are better and more fun, I'll just go play them I already paid for them.
But as a game developer, I want to learn from this hence why I'm here. If its gonna be a train wreck I want to know why.

 

[Vic]

“game is shit because it’s not the game I want”

 

[Vic]

I feel like a lot of game devs start hating playing games because what was once a hobby is now a job.

Do you hate playing games squirrel head? Because that’s how you sound like. All a bunch of political ramblings but not actual criticism as to why these games are actually shit. I thought you were a developer, can’t you explain to me how these games are shit exactly from a game developer perspective and not make it political? Because I do like games and good game design. Would really like to hear your valid criticism, if you have any.

 

[Latelistener]

I just don’t understand your attitude. A game is better than no game? You don’t like it then don’t buy it? Starfield has massive production value, if it looks interesting to you you’ll probably get a good bang for your buck, and if not you can refund.

And Cyberpunk an embarrassment? Sorry but I grew up playing black and white games on a gameboy powered by 4xAA batteries. All of the games you call shit I have spent at least or close to 100 hours on and generally had a good time.

It’s bizarre to me getting a new awesome game and then shitting all over it. Reminds me of the fat spoiled kid from Harry Potter, Douglas or whatever.

There is some reason in your words, but the other games aren't 1 bit anymore either (unless it's intentional). Compared to what Rockstar did with their open world simulation, Cyberpunk is just a bad joke. Their lifeless open world with question marks got a pass with Witcher 3, but it won't pass when you have a cyberpunk megalopolis.

And it's not a particularly good RPG either. So they're really dropped the ball with this one, especially with its state on release.

Did you forget that Microsoft fired a whole bunch of developers again? they are slowly eroding each developer, its why Arkane is now shit.

The only bad thing Microsoft did is that they didn't cancel Redfall a couple of years ago along with closing Arkane Austin. What happened to Arkane is entirely on Bethesda and their demand of a live service game from them. It's why Raphael left and took some veterans with him.

 

[RobotSquirrel]

I do enjoy playing games just not modern games because the majority of modern games are simplistic (though I am loving the hell out of Workers and Resources atm its my main go to at the moment its a real evolution over the TTDX style of game - I prefer it over City Skylines which I hate).
It is the case of I'm attracted to depth and complexity, and I'm sick of seeing shallow and simplistic mechanics. I've even leveraged criticism on games that are classic that I actually love (deus ex, system shock 2, Jagged Alliance 2, Xcom etc) because I'm trying to figure out what needs to be done to sort of bring everything forward and utilise the fact that we do have better technology today.

As for the rest go read through the posts I've already made in this thread, I've gone through why I think this game is going to be a disaster. I've made plenty of comments in other threads criticising Bethesda games, I've criticised lots of games, its what I do.
If you've got any specifics you want to hear about fine, but if I give you a general overview its this: Bethesda games have become too simplistic, too action based and have lost their core influences from CRPG mechanics, they use list based inventories which suck (and frankly they don't even implement them properly hence the memory leaks Skyrim has STILL), the dialogue system has been getting worse (though I will concede that Starfields is correcting Fallout 4's disastrous system) and Todd seems to just be jumping from fad mechanic to fad mechanic instead of adding depth to the existing mechanics he's actually removing depth from the mechanics over time (see his GDC talk where he admits this is a core part of his design philosophy) and just in general Bethesda games have started to become formulaic and generic, they're repeating the same beats over and over and over and over. Also I generally hate games that over emphasis loot - especially trash loot, which Bethesda are now notorious for doing and Cyberpunk too was guilty of. I think the Openworld is over-rated and its just an excuse to pad out games - especially true when everything has fast travel anyway defeating the entire point of it being open world.

I'm the opposite of most consumers, I don't care about the comfort of the familiar, I want to explore and see new ideas. Bethesda are clinging to the familiar too much.

The only bad thing Microsoft did is that they didn't cancel Redfall a couple of years ago along with closing Arkane Austin. What happened to Arkane is entirely on Bethesda and their demand of a live service game from them. It's why Raphael left and took some veterans with him.

Oh yeah definately, I wasn't blaming Microsoft exclusively, I brought that point up in the Redfall thread too. Zenimax/Bethesda was to blame for that push, but now that Microsoft controls them its going to get even worse because Microsoft are notorious for how they treat their studios.

 

[Vic]

I agree but the action based and too much loot criticism can be applied to Morrowind too, which the codex seems to love so much.

In fact, Morrowind has more random loot than Skyrim iirc.

 

[Latelistener]

Bethesda are clinging to the familiar too much.

Because the success of Morrowind is almost entirely on Ken Rolston and Michael Kirkbride. Todd Howard just wanted to make sports games when he came to Bethesda.

His only job was approving of what will be in the game and he constantly said stuff like: "Let's not make it too strange".

He's a guy without creativity that became the creative lead of Bethesda and some sort of game industry icon. It's an embarrassment.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Yes, another reminder that Todd Howard has more prestigious taste in computer games than most Codexers.

>guys, I need a retro space game to say I'm modeling this new game after
>whatabout Frontier? Or Elite?
>are you SHITTING ME, Pete?!
>oh, uh, sorry. let me just look up an old space game on wikipedia...

 

[Reinhardt]

Bethesda are clinging to the familiar too much.

Because the success of Morrowind is almost entirely on Ken Rolston and Michael Kirkbride. Todd Howard just wanted to make sports games when he came to Bethesda.

His only job was approving of what will be in the game and he constantly said stuff like: "Let's not make it too strange".

He's a guy without creativity that became the creative lead of Bethesda and some sort of game industry icon. It's an embarrassment.

morrowind is shit tho

 

[RobotSquirrel]

morrowind is shit tho

its shit its just less shit, thats the only reason I'll say anything good about it. I've criticised Morrowind before as well but its preferable compared to everything that came after.
Daggerfall is still king despite its horrific bugs. Bethesda will never get back to that peak.

 

[NwNgger]

“game is shit because it’s not the game I want”

This but unironically. Stop making games for a nebulous "wider audience" and go back to making niche games for a particular demographic again. Retards can have their "something awesome" simulator and I can have my immersive space sim. Everyone wins.

 

[Vic]

This but unironically. Stop making games for a nebulous "wider audience" and go back to making niche games for a particular demographic again. Retards can have their "something awesome" simulator and I can have my immersive space sim. Everyone wins.

there's a trade-off between production quality and targeting. If you want for a AAA game to be profitable you have to appeal to a lot of people. That's sadly the reality. On the plus side, lots of great indie games.

 

[RobotSquirrel]

On the plus side, lots of great indie games.

yeah but most of them don't see the attention or success that they really should. It's a pretty unfair industry overall, again its also a symptom of that problem I mentioned that crisis. Marketing money talks louder than talent.
It shouldn't be that way but people are stupid. As a hollywood studio told me once, "you give people too much credit, too much benefit of the doubt, people are stupid" I see that now. (I'm glad they criticised me though and not my game, their criticism of the game was glowing).

 

[tritosine2k]

"you give people too much credit, too much benefit of the doubt, people are stupid"

You can see them hung up on various flavors of kool aid "temporal anti aliasing" like overtly maligned FSR or droolworthy DLSS.

 

[just]

no antialiasing technology can save this ugly face damn

 

[tritosine2k]

Not bad for a facebook game.

 

[ropetight]

Todd.
Todd never changes.

 

[Reinhardt]

no antialiasing technology can save this ugly face damn

mods can tho

 

[HammyTheFat]

Also I generally hate games that over emphasis loot - especially trash loot, which Bethesda are now notorious for doing and Cyberpunk too was guilty of. I think the Openworld is over-rated and its just an excuse to pad out games - especially true when everything has fast travel anyway defeating the entire point of it being open world.

I've been replaying the Avernum series lately and I really enjoy what the remakes did with trash loot.

Yeah it's there, but there's not that much of it and all you have to do is ctrl click so it goes straight into a limitless junk bag. If you HAVE to include trash loot in your game for whatever reason, this is the way to do it.

 

[Lemming42]

Oblivion was bad though, they scaled down what the original vision was going to be, RadiantAI never worked, the story was a total cop out (hence the emperor dying at the very start pretty sure he was meant to have a much bigger role in oblivion), the level scalinging ruined everything and the removal of spells and skills from Morrowind made it an inferior experience over all. Fallout 3 was very much Oblivion with guns, it took Obsidian to see its flaws to have come up with a version that was superior in New Vegas, removing the level scaling, emphasis on non-linear storytelling and just overall returning fallout to a somewhat closer attempt at its roots than Bethesda could do. Skyrim was an Arcade game in comparison to Oblivion, you gutted everything and turned it into an action game, Fallout 4 made it even worse by destroying the dialogue and revolving the entire game about scrap and settlements where Fallout 76 didn't get the memo and made it even worse by taking out the quests and NPCs. Starfield is more in line with Fallout 4 but you've gone back to Skyrim/Fallout 3 like dialogue trees and perk systems. I'm not impressed by that.

I don't necessarily disagree with the overall gist of the post, but a couple counter-points:
- I don't think "this game is streamlined compared to its immediate predecessor" is necessarily a bad thing. If it is, then Morrowind completely killed the TES series by gutting Daggerfall and reducing its scope to almost nothing. Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim have far, far more in common with each other than they do with Daggerfall. After the original TES vision of Arena/Daggerfall was scrapped and replaced with the "single player MMO where everything's broken, every quest is a fetch quest, and you just kill everyone in sight" model for Morrowind, the series has been a slow attempt to figure out how much exactly you can remove to get the most out of the core "go to a dungeon and kill everyone inside" gameplay. Skyrim deciding to go all-out and remove the window dressing isn't such a bad thing, it's just the post-Daggerfall TES series embracing what it really is, which is action games with stats. Except for the loss of the spellmaker which is a terrible blow.

- RadiantAI didn't work but it was a bold attempt at doing something innovative, even if the results were almost always completely retarded. Better than Morrowind's static lifelessness and more aspirational than Skyrim's basic NPC routines.

- Fallout 3's non-linear storytelling is often better than New Vegas' (EDIT: barring the main quest, obviously). In terms of quest structure, I hasten to add, not in terms of writing. I sperg'd about it earlier in this thread but the quests in Fo3 are actually often a lot more freeform and reactive than New Vegas, which typically just offers you a couple of obvious solutions and lets you pick exactly what you want to happen. The writing in NV is far better (in terms of concepts, at least - Obsidian fucking suck at writing dialogue and generally couldn't come up with a memorable character if their lives depended on it) but in terms of actual structure and gameplay I don't think NV is any closer to Fo1/Fo2 than Fo3 is. It's still a shitty FPS/RPG hybrid that carries over most of Fo3's problems (shit combat) while offering fairly railroaded quests and a more boring, albeit far more logically coherent, overworld.

 

[Latelistener]

- Fallout 3's non-linear storytelling is often better than New Vegas'. In terms of quest structure, I hasten to add, not in terms of writing. I sperg'd about it earlier in this thread but the quests in Fo3 are actually often a lot more freeform and reactive than New Vegas, which typically just offers you a couple of obvious solutions and lets you pick exactly what you want to happen.

Just a friendly reminder that base Fallout 3 has 17 side quests (most of which are shit) and base Fallout: New Vegas has 75. The main story quest alone blows F3 out of the water with its options.

You had ONE ending in the base Fallout 3 and Bethesda was lazy enough that they didn't even bother to let you ask the super mutant to go inside the radioactive chamber instead of yourself, because otherwise you couldn't "die dramatically".

 

[Lemming42]

The main quest was absolute unfiltered dogshit, I agree - NV's is obviously vastly better. I'm gonna edit the post to put that in as a qualifier. I detailed some things about the Fo3 side quests here:
https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...ng-september-6th.122389/page-131#post-8498352

The main problem I have with a lot of NV quests is that they're either extremely linear (usually split into two clearly-defined routes) or give you exactly what you want with a skill check (two particularly standout examples being Primm, where you just tell the NCR what you, a random passer-by, think their policy should be and they immediately accept it, and the Khans in Boulder City, where you do the same thing again by passing a speech check to tell an NCR Captain what you reckon he should do and he dumbly agrees with whatever judgment you give).

Fo3 quests tend to be a bit more willing to wrongfoot you and cast you in the role of a wandering dipshit* who nobody cares about, and thus things don't tend to go your way as easily story-wise, you can lock yourself out of content by being a dick, and there's more consequences for you trying to assert yourself (Tenpenny Tower being the famous one). They also sometimes have nice bits of mini-reactivity that NV quests often don't, the Survival Guide's quality changing depending on your actions being a good one, as I mentioned in the linked post.

*barring obvious bits of stupidity like "welcome to our town, stranger, come play with our nuclear bomb"

The differences between Fo3 and NV mostly come from writing quality, in which FNV obviously wins by a landslide, but it winds me up when people act like NV was a complete game-changing revelation that managed to salvage something out of the unsalvageable Fo3. It's just not true. Most of Fo3's main problems (eg terrible combat, the game not respecting the player's time, SPECIAL hardly mattering) carry over into NV, and NV's actual quest design is typically either equivalent to or slightly less interesting than Fo3. It is a far better game than Fo3 purely based on the quality of the writing, but I don't think the two games aren't the night-and-day difference they're often posited as being.

I never agreed with the "hurr hurr NV is just a Fo3 mod" people, but they're also not entirely off the mark. Also my opinion of NV shifted a bit after playing The Outer Worlds and then going back to NV. I loved NV and thought TOW sucked, but after you play the two games side by side, you start to see a lot of issues in Obsidian's writing and quest design which are consistent between the two games.

 

[Drakortha]

I never agreed with the "hurr hurr NV is just a Fo3 mod" people, but they're also not entirely off the mark.

They are entirely off the mark.