Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
News Content Gallery About Donate Discord Contact
  • 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 - "space epic" from Bethesda Game Studios

Gastrick

Cipher
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
1,243
It's always a huge fucking red flag to me when a marketing department is spending months culling footage they can pre-select to have the best fidelity and smoothest quality,
Are you sure about that?

pUM5pKC.png
 

ropetight

Novice
Joined
Dec 9, 2018
Messages
38
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Whole game looks bit goofy, ships look like they have been made from scrap.
Modular, utilitarian designs make a lot of sense for a space game. Aerodynamics doesn't make much sense in a vacuum. That it incidentally works really well with a building system is an exciting coincidence that I'm glad Bethesda has taken advantage of.
Ship design can be modular and still not look like something scavengers put together.
Aerodynamics aside, for radiation shielding in deep space and armor (for combat and against space debris) you would want ship modules to be grouped more tigthly, to have more form.

Bethesda stick with this design probably because it was easier to implement in ship designer.
But, somehow I have feeling that scrap freighter ship design will be the least of our concerns when Starfield launches.
 

Zeriel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
10,439
[Trigger Warning]

I wish the graphics were better. I need the graphics to be better.

There's something off or just plain bland about the art style. People will say "Skyrim is ugly in comparison", and sure, maybe technically, but it is evocative. There is nothing evocative about this. It just isn't exciting to look at, save maybe the space battles.
 

Late Bloomer

Educated
Joined
Apr 7, 2022
Messages
379
[Trigger Warning]

I wish the graphics were better. I need the graphics to be better.

There's something off or just plain bland about the art style. People will say "Skyrim is ugly in comparison", and sure, maybe technically, but it is evocative. There is nothing evocative about this. It just isn't exciting to look at, save maybe the space battles.

I heard the same thing from a few different friends. None of them like sci-fi much at all though. Are you a fan of sci-fi?
 

Zeriel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
10,439
[Trigger Warning]

I wish the graphics were better. I need the graphics to be better.

There's something off or just plain bland about the art style. People will say "Skyrim is ugly in comparison", and sure, maybe technically, but it is evocative. There is nothing evocative about this. It just isn't exciting to look at, save maybe the space battles.

I heard the same thing from a few different friends. None of them like sci-fi much at all though. Are you a fan of sci-fi?

Not as much as fantasy. But I do like it a lot when done well. Certainly more than modern day stuff.

Pandorum is one of my favorite films, I even enjoy average but mediocre stuff like Oblivion. I just don't think there's much interesting here. Ironically I kind of digged the "NASA-punk" thematics they were teasing originally, but the final result just looks extremely generic to me where it's not very exciting. Not sure why, I'd have to really drill down and think about it.
 

Gargaune

Magister
Joined
Mar 12, 2020
Messages
1,758
There's something off or just plain bland about the art style. People will say "Skyrim is ugly in comparison", and sure, maybe technically, but it is evocative. There is nothing evocative about this. It just isn't exciting to look at, save maybe the space battles.
Agree on what we've seen on Starfield, but I wouldn't say Skyrim had great art direction either regardless of tech. It was pretty in the way natural vistas usually are, but both it and Oblivion were pretty subdued in their visual compositions. Bethesda's Fallout entries had a stronger visual identity, but that's 'cause they leaned into the original aesthetic.
 

DeepOcean

Arcane
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
7,215
I noticed that a few youtubers that still cover Star Citizen all got videos to calm down their sheeple, it turns out some whales were asking for a second if it was still a good idea to waste 35000,00 dollars on a game when there is a risk of Bethesda, of all developers, releasing a more functional version of their 7 years still in alpha game.
 

HarveyBirdman

Savant
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
987
Pros:
>with Starfield in the rearview mirror, we are that much closer to being disappointed by TES VI

Cons:
>+X% skills (again!)
>marvel-tier dialogue
>guns 300 years in the future include a P90 with a hotwheels skin, and your great, great, great, great grandfather's double barreled shotgun
>empty procedurally generated crap everywhere
>narratively bankrupt premise
>visually boring at every level
>soundtrack is already on my nerves
>looks like the most generic sci-fi i've ever seen
 

anvi

Prophet
Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
6,279
Location
Kelethin
Pros:
>with Starfield in the rearview mirror, we are that much closer to being disappointed by TES VI

Cons:
>+X% skills (again!)
>marvel-tier dialogue
>guns 300 years in the future include a P90 with a hotwheels skin, and your great, great, great, great grandfather's double barreled shotgun
>empty procedurally generated crap everywhere
>narratively bankrupt premise
>visually boring at every level
>soundtrack is already on my nerves
>looks like the most generic sci-fi i've ever seen
I read about this the other day, it makes me think they could have trouble with this game.
 

Zeriel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
10,439
>there are people who didn't read HarveyBirdman's future posts a week ago

smh shaking my head
 

Sunsetspawn

Arcane
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
708
Location
New York
Ship design can be modular and still not look like something scavengers put together.
Aerodynamics aside, for radiation shielding in deep space and armor (for combat and against space debris) you would want ship modules to be grouped more tigthly, to have more form.
Fuck outta here. You want lots of modules on stalks sticking out from the main hull, with the majority of them being empty decoys.
 

Robotigan

Educated
Joined
Jan 18, 2022
Messages
160
Aerodynamics aside, for radiation shielding in deep space and armor (for combat and against space debris) you would want ship modules to be grouped more tigthly, to have more form.
Armor's not gonna do dick against anything that means you harm (nor several things that don't). It's just gonna waste valuable energy when accelerating/decelerating. The space solution to anything big enough to see is avoidance and redundancy measures. You're gonna want a ship where it's easy to add and replace components.
Bethesda stick with this design probably because it was easier to implement in ship designer.
If it's as cool as advertised, that's plenty reason enough.
 

anvi

Prophet
Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
6,279
Location
Kelethin
Todd on if you can fly your spaceship from outer space to a planet

that's really just not that important to the player so lets just make sure it's awesome when you're on the surface and awesome when your in space and those realities look as good as they can be and play as good as they can be for those realities.
If only they had a button that made it awesome instead, then you could just press the button...
 

S.H.O.D.A.N.

Learned
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
133
turns out some whales were asking for a second if it was still a good idea to waste 35000,00 dollars on a game when there is a risk of Bethesda, of all developers, releasing a more functional version of their 7 years still in alpha game.

If someone's stupid enough to drop 35k on StarCitizen, they're likely stupid enough to think Starfield is meant to fill the same niche.
 

Cryomancer

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
7,952
Location
Frostfell
Watched the gameplay demo. 300 years in the future and ... Double barrel shotguns!!! And NEON P90.

Being able to enter any planet and fully explore, probably be procedural generated quantity over quality

"OVer a 100 systems"
"over 1000 planets" https://youtu.be/jMHBSUZvs5k?t=810

It will be the new "sixteen times the detail?"

Lastly, a (g)old video >>

 

Lim-Dûl

Educated
Joined
Apr 11, 2022
Messages
231
Watched the gameplay demo. 300 years in the future and ... Double barrel shotguns!!! And NEON P90.

Being able to enter any planet and fully explore, probably be procedural generated quantity over quality

"OVer a 100 systems"
"over 1000 planets" https://youtu.be/jMHBSUZvs5k?t=810

It will be the new "sixteen times the detail?"

Lastly, a (g)old video >>


I wouldn't trust them to do one single planet right
 

Jarmaro

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
1,252
Location
Lair of Despair
There was 5 years of difference between the releases of Oblivion and Skyrim. Then four years between Skyrim and Fallout 4. There will be 8 years of difference between the releases of Fallout and Starfield, at the very least. The had a few more years to polish the game, and so far they haven't shown anything for it. What were they working on?
Making their own version of Sim Settlements in Starfield? (Todd admitted he's a huge fan of that mod, and it's one of the most popular Fallout 4 mods)
Spending years figuring out the procedural generation?
Rewriting the engine?
Comitting unholy amount of hours to hand-crafting important locations?

Nothing shown so far justifies the gap. They have shown gimmicks, not crucial features. Are they truly so bankrupt imaginatively that the best they can do is stealing ideas of modders and making an entire game around it?
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
42,721
There was 5 years of difference between the releases of Oblivion and Skyrim. Then four years between Skyrim and Fallout 4. There will be 8 years of difference between the releases of Fallout and Starfield, at the very least. The had a few more years to polish the game, and so far they haven't shown anything for it. What were they working on?
Making their own version of Sim Settlements in Starfield? (Todd admitted he's a huge fan of that mod, and it's one of the most popular Fallout 4 mods)
Spending years figuring out the procedural generation?
Rewriting the engine?
Comitting unholy amount of hours to hand-crafting important locations?

Nothing shown so far justifies the gap. They have shown gimmicks, not crucial features. Are they truly so bankrupt imaginatively that the best they can do is stealing ideas of modders and making an entire game around it?
Might want to recheck your data.
 

Modron

Arcane
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
5,245
Nothing shown so far justifies the gap. They have shown gimmicks, not crucial features. Are they truly so bankrupt imaginatively that the best they can do is stealing ideas of modders and making an entire game around it?
Yes.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
10,979
>guns 300 years in the future include a P90 with a hotwheels skin, and your great, great, great, great grandfather's double barreled shotgun
Some designs just don't need to change. The AK should be one of those, I'm pretty sure we'll still be using those in 300 years.
 

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