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 - Epic Shit Takes from Bethestards

Vic

Savant
Undisputed Queen of Faggotry Bethestard
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
4,488
Location
[REDACTED]
yup, it's definitely an FPS :lol:

but big improvement over FO4 combat, not sure about FO76 as I never played it.

I think mods can make it even better, somehow
 

Robotigan

Learned
Joined
Jan 18, 2022
Messages
399
The game needs to be fun tho
Absolutely, but innovation/unique != fun and as a separate matter, I think people underrate just how much narrative set-pieces color an otherwise mundane gameplay experience. Haven't played BG3, but is Mass Effect or TW3 or RDR2's core gameplay more engaging than Starfield? Probably not. They're just narratively denser. The better comparisons are probably games like Tears of the Kingdom, Valheim, and yes even No Man's Sky. The obvious takeaways are the best ones: more seamless experience and co-op if possible.
 

Daedalos

Arcane
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
5,582
Location
Denmark
Mini spoiler review from me. 7.5/10.

Preface:I just completed Starfield with 65 hours in the game, alot of side quests, and the main quest done.I haven't really played a lot of Bethesda games before, Fallout 3 and 4 being the only ones, because I enjoy the fallout franchise. I don't think defending shortcomings of any Besthesda game with "it's a just a bethesda game" is justifiable. For the record, I was underwhelmed by both fallout 3 and 4, and felt they did not live up to the expectations of fallout 1+2 and the entire franchise as a whole. On to the review...

Story, world building & writing: Bethesda games were never really the pinnacle of storytelling, world building or writing for me, and Starfield is no exception. The main quest is incredibly boring and slow-going, and only really picks up until the final missions, but actually ended on a pretty interesting note in terms of the multiverse and starborn stuff, that interested me, and I had hoped they would explore that more. But up until the last few missions, the main quest was painfully bad, and that is really worrisome in a big grand RPG, that is very story driven.

Now, a lot of the sidequests are actually pretty cool, specifically the faction side-quests, and I enjoyed most of those, especially the UC and the UC Sysdef ones. But nothing about the side quest overall story and especially writing blew me away. They were decent to just OK in most areas.

The overall writing style just feels abit, neutered, bland, tame, it lacks some spark, and I'm not talking about some crazy dialogue with all crazy shit happening, or action and drama happening every 5 seconds, theres just something about the written dialogue that is somewhat off-putting to me as a whole.

Choices and Consequences: Something I normally look forward to ALOT in big RPGs is C&C, choices and consequences. You made that choice? Well here's how the entire world is affected by it, or this and that NPC. Entire quests are missed, entire towns/planets are now inaccessible and so on. Starfield doesn't really have alot of C&C. It has some, but it doesn't feel very deep. Your actions doesn't really seem to matter all that much, other than a few lines of dialogue from whatever NPC drives the quest. That's sad. I wish they have explored this much more, especially given the NG+ effect of the endgame.

UI+ This area is where the game really annoyed and lost me. The UI is terrible, simply put. I am constantly fucking encumbered, I have to jump to hoops all the time, to make the UI tolerable, it's micromanagement at its worst. Menus feels slow, clicks everywhere, it just doesnt feel intuitive. The UI needs ALOT of work, and actively made me hate the game. Just equipping items was a hassle, scrolling through all the junk. Not to mention all the fucking useless junk you can pick up, but it has weight to it.

Having no in-game map on the ground also annoyed me quite abit, as I got lost a few times, and would have loved a little map to orient myself in the bigger areas.

Graphics/aesthetics: Starfield is actually not a bad looking game, overall. The worst part of the entire deal for me, were definitely the character models and animations. They are very poorly done, and the creation engine really shows it age. It is super terribad? No, but it's enough to break he immersion for me when talking to people.

The planets, the landscapes, the little finer detail of each room, those things were all pretty cool and great.The design of the space suits, the design of the quests and worlds were surprisingly cool, and that "NASAPUNK" vibe they went with, worked surprisingly well.

Combat/space combat: Combat actually feels pretty good and solid. The weapons pack a punch, sound great, and they feel like they belong. Alot of weapon variety too.

Space combat, however, was incredibly frustrating for me. Espectially on "Very hard" as enemies blow you up instantly. The UI and controls, it all feels very clunky and annoying.

Enemy variety is VERY bad, however, I felt I always fought generic "SPACER" nr. 500, or the terrormorph or some form of that. The game needed alot more enemy variety to make it interesting in combat. You get bored of the combat quite quickly.

Sound/Music: Another thing Starfield doesnt relatively well, is the sound design, and the music. The music was intense at times, and felt beautiful and great. The sounds from weapons and the world were very nice. I enjoyed it alot.

Exploration: The explorative aspects of Starfield have been talked about alot, and for me, I don't mind the constant load screen, and the warp jumping all over, but alot of the worlds simply feel dead.Overall, I actually enjoyed the exploration, but its tied to many of the side quests, so its kind of hand-crafted exploration, which I dont mind. I loved finding stuff on planets for side quests, exploring the facilities and what happend etc.

Technical implementation/performance: Starfield is not bug-free, despite what many people claim. I didn't even have many bugs, but they were definitely noticeable. Enemies stuck on stuff all the time, npcs clipping through stuff, slow downs and just stuff not appearing.

The performance of the game is TERRIBLE. It didn't even launch with DLSS, and even with DLSS on lower systems, the game runs just "okay". If you have to rely on mods to make your game run ok, something is wrong.

Conclusion: Starfield is actually a decent game, a fun game. It has some really high highs, but also some really terrible lows for me personally.

So why only the 7.5 score? Well, for me, a big singleplayer story driven RPG, needs to hit a homerun in that department if you want 8.5-9-10 scores, on top of having top notch combat, top notch UI, visuals and everything else. Starfield doesnt have that, but comes close in different areas.

If you enjoy Bethesda type games like Skyrim, morrowwind, and whatever, fallout 4 I guess, I can understand why you would perhaps rate the game higher at like an 8/10 or even 9/10, but that's still not really objective in my opinion.

Will I replay Starfield in NG+? Maybe, but maybe not. I am at the moment not terrible keen on jumping into the game again after having just completed it with 65 hours playtime and seen the best sidequests.
 

toro

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
14,123
Now my icon changed again, from before:

Untitled213.png


and now:

Screenshot-2023-09-09-002448.jpg


I have no idea what this means.

You had 4.. now I count 5 stars... You know exactly what it means.

That's the count for your neurons.
 

dukeofwoodberry

Educated
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
Messages
393
The game needs to be fun tho
Absolutely, but innovation/unique != fun and as a separate matter, I think people underrate just how much narrative set-pieces color an otherwise mundane gameplay experience. Haven't played BG3, but is Mass Effect or TW3 or RDR2's core gameplay more engaging than Starfield? Probably not. They're just narratively denser. The better comparisons are probably games like Tears of the Kingdom, Valheim, and yes even No Man's Sky. The obvious takeaways are the best ones: more seamless experience and co-op if possible.
That's a good point, the combat kind of sucks in all those games but set pieces make it seem better. In a game like this the shitty gameplay stands put more. There's not as much story, party interaction, ect to break up the shitty combat. It's a lot of shitty combat into more and more shitty combat.

Bg3 combat is fun by comparison
 

Vyvian

Educated
Joined
Jul 11, 2023
Messages
237
Slightly better than Fallout 4's shooting. Feels really similar though which isn't necessarily a bad thing for Bethesda games.
 

AwesomeButton

Proud owner of BG 3: Day of Swen's Tentacle
Patron
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
16,318
Location
At large
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
Raiders in leather jackets in Fallout 1 attacking you with 10mm pistols while you're wearing T-51b power armour and carrying a plasma rifle? The last marine in a squad reckoning he can take on Gordon Freeman, who he's just watched kill all his friends? Street thugs trying to kill JC Denton, who they can see is a cyber-man with all kinds of mad shit? Dumbasses in shirts trying to kill Commander Shepard? Crappy Kilrathi scout ships trying to take you on in Wing Commander while you're in a Hornet?
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
8,919
Location
Italy
I'm getting retard ratings from people in Eastern Europe: where the fuck have you guys even seen a tranny on a street? Because I sure have never seen one.
i live in a once 100k people city. there was ONE, and it was sort of renown exactly because he was just 1 out of 100k.
 

dukeofwoodberry

Educated
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
Messages
393
Bg3 combat is fun by comparison
apples and oranges

better question is how good is starfield's combat compared to other FPS, for FPS I only played the other fallouts as I don't like shooters
It's apples and oranges because it takes a lot of work for larian do design those combats. They're all set pieces. Combat in this is way easier to make. It's just either super easy, turn your brain off and shoot things. Run away if you're low then re engage. Or you aren't strong enough to kill them and there's nothing to do.
 

Vic

Savant
Undisputed Queen of Faggotry Bethestard
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
4,488
Location
[REDACTED]
Bg3 combat is fun by comparison
apples and oranges

better question is how good is starfield's combat compared to other FPS, for FPS I only played the other fallouts as I don't like shooters
It's apples and oranges because it takes a lot of work for larian do design those combats. They're all set pieces. Combat in this is way easier to make. It's just either super easy, turn your brain off and shoot things. Run away if you're low then re engage. Or you aren't strong enough to kill them and there's nothing to do.
maybe you're not a native speaker but "apples and oranges" means you are comparing 2 different things, in your case FPS combat vs turn based combat. You can't logically say one is better than the other.
 

Hellraiser

Arcane
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
11,375
Location
Danzig, Potato-Hitman Commonwealth
Slightly better than Fallout 4's shooting. Feels really similar though which isn't necessarily a bad thing for Bethesda games.

Honestly I find the shootan worse than Fallout 4 somehow, maybe because the spread dicerolls are more noticeable (accuracy lower on guns?) than in Fallout 4? Maybe the game penalizes twitch shooting from the hip more? Maybe it is the lack of vats, especially of the "I win" crit meter? Or maybe I just miss drugging up my character on psychojet for the bullet time for the hard fights.
 

Hellraiser

Arcane
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
11,375
Location
Danzig, Potato-Hitman Commonwealth
Just merging the inventory space between you, the ship and your companions would be an even bigger improvement.

Add outposts to that, no reason they couldn't make it cycle as vendors already allow selling from the ship, what's the fucking problem to add a few more entries to the array that UI function loops through.

Transfer from ship to outpost and vice versa is stupidly clunky. You can technically do it from a special building if you have a landing pad, but that has fuck all for storage space while there can be only one of it in the outpost. So once again it ends up with the player character sprint-limping to the ship with severe carbon dioxide poisoning and almost no HP, as you drag almost a ton of resources from one to the other. It's particularly fun when you set one up on a planet filled with onboxious predators.
 

Vic

Savant
Undisputed Queen of Faggotry Bethestard
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
4,488
Location
[REDACTED]
It deserved a few more expansions tbh. People just disliked it for being a reskin of Civ V, but it was an ok game in itself (and not as a 'spiritual successor' to SMAC).
yeah, development was cancelled because of the bad reception, so game never really got good
 

dukeofwoodberry

Educated
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
Messages
393
Bg3 combat is fun by comparison
apples and oranges

better question is how good is starfield's combat compared to other FPS, for FPS I only played the other fallouts as I don't like shooters
It's apples and oranges because it takes a lot of work for larian do design those combats. They're all set pieces. Combat in this is way easier to make. It's just either super easy, turn your brain off and shoot things. Run away if you're low then re engage. Or you aren't strong enough to kill them and there's nothing to do.
maybe you're not a native speaker but "apples and oranges" means you are comparing 2 different things, in your case FPS combat vs turn based combat. You can't logically say one is better than the other.
You can though. One is better than the other. It's more like comparing steak to ground meat. They're different but one is better
 

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