Starfield - "space epic" from Bethesda Game Studios

[Red7]

On the other hand, if there's any appreciation for death in manly european or japanese context, it is because it in some way brings benefit to the one who is not afraid to die. That is a profound difference. When you stand to gain from an act, it cannot be called self-sacrifice. This way you can almost treat courage as the highest form of appreciation of self.

any non intellectual/risk reward behavior action is quite vulnerable to turning out u just being kuked (which is self sacrifice i guess) like muslims that capitalise on unatainable virgin vagina and gullibility of youth or 5 year olds in west "deciding" to have sex change so they cant add to overpopulation problem or compete for resources in future.

sacrifice should be no more than investment with degree of morality simply being time horizon that may to some see as not self service.
as such courage is same quality; immediate pain/risk for future safety after eradication of threat.

 

[Red7]

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.

even if its all true, it dosnt matter.

building your own ships and decking them with modded big titty followers and u can even sort of fly the it? no other game offers that, scam citizen at best will let u repaint their pointless glitchy flying cardboards. kuk roberts be like; 10 000 usd online only game u dont own virtual playboy space yacht with no titties included or possible? great deal... or u can torrent game and mod it till it crashes from servicing you rather than having bad networking code.

 

[Robotigan]

Wrapping a two-dimensional array would wrap both east/west and north/south in the same manner, which would simulate a toroid planet:

I'm not sure if players would notice when they're on the surface, but anyway you could modify the array slightly to wrap like a cube if you want to get a little closer.

 

[gurugeorge]

building your own ships and decking them with modded big titty followers

Bingo. That's really Bethesda's trump card. They know it, you know it, they know you know it, you know they know you know it.

But they'll never admit it.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Here's what happens if you don't: you get fired form your job because some gal thought you were looking at her incorrectly. She has the power to do so, since she's backed by a network of advocacy groups, form the bottom level way up to the UN(quite literally), making sure her opportunities and significance are expanded at the expense of yours; meanwhile you have nothing. Does that sound high-T to you? Here's my high testosterone idea bros, hear me out: Losing. Irrelevance. Sounds good?

[...]

Both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard called this kind of inversion ressentiment in their time, so this mindset has been going on since forever. These forces are near their zenith in American culture right now.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

building your own ships and decking them with modded big titty followers

Bingo. That's really Bethesda's trump card. They know it, you know it, they know you know it, you know they know you know it.

But they'll never admit it.

Imagine if Starfield becomes a better Subverse than Subverse.

 

[Robotigan]

He's pointing to something important, even if wording is imperfect, and I agree with this observation. The consequence of a group of people weaponizing race and ethnicity to use as an ideological bludgeon is that unlike, say, in the 90's, if you want your issues and well-being as a person to matter, you need to have a racial/sexual/identity-based advocacy group backing you. This was not the case in the past. And it simply changes the rules for everyone. So as long as you want to matter, you need some of that sexism or racism - lets just call it exclusion - done or threatened on behalf of your group. Leftists have made exclusion the rule of the game, and he's still hesitant to play it, pointing to how it ruins the concept of public good and it's not okay and so on.

If you want to get into a deeply intellectual conversation on the merits and pitfalls of various ideological frameworks, go ahead. I'm more of a pragmatist myself. I think it's a neater way to go about life than getting deep into the weeds with ideological purists who allow their convictions to corrupt their perceptions of reality. Bottom line: This entire conversation started over a Codexer's inability to cope with the ability to create black people in a character creator. You cannot philosophize your way out of this view being "comically racist" as I said.

If anything, the problem common among people working within the american mental framework is that they truly shy away from expressing their direct interests. And this goes way back. They can be deeply hurt by something, and instead of saying "this ruins my prospects, this is bad, this harms me so it has to go" they will refer to abstract values or worse, they will oppose it on the basis that they're worried that it will harm the instigator[!]. For an american mind, subsidizing foreigners is bad, because it might hurt said foreigners. Feminism is bad, because it might hurt women. This is akin to a bully stealing your lunch, and your only reaction being: "oh my god, if this continues he's going to get gluttonous and unhealthy from all the sugar; this is terrible". I can't help myself from exclaiming THIS IS BACKWARDS! anytime I encounter it. It baffles me how you made losing into en ethic. Perhaps some ideas about chivalry made you like this; since, say, the classical Athenians knew nothing of it and never encountered that problem. In fact their problem was kind of the polar opposite.

It might be a wider cultural phenomenon. In an archetypical european action movie the guy beats his enemies, gets the girl and goes on to live happily. In an archetypical american movie the guy fucking dies and gets nothing. Notably it likely saves his village/country/whatever, but you know, in the end it is romanticizing a loss(I'm reminded of that boy from Howard's Beyond the Black River here). No, it is not high or noble; it'll lead one straight to the grave, while others benefit from his sacrifice, quietly admitting he was a total loser to do so. On the other hand, if there's any appreciation for death in manly european or japanese context, it is because it in some way brings benefit to the one who is not afraid to die. That is a profound difference. When you stand to gain from an act, it cannot be called self-sacrifice. This way you can almost treat courage as the highest form of appreciation of self. So in general terms, one could claim that the chad European, or rather - of this particular european tradition, for the sake of the argument - knows no self-sacrifice, while the virgin American dies willingly so that his crush gets to be safe in arms of a cowardly man. The Hagakure comes to mind. The Japanese had no respect for women, yet they knew a thing or two about risk and virtue. This was different. But I digress.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

we're now one day closer to starfield's release date bros

 

[Red7]

building your own ships and decking them with modded big titty followers

Bingo. That's really Bethesda's trump card. They know it, you know it, they know you know it, you know they know you know it.

But they'll never admit it.

Imagine if Starfield becomes a better Subverse than Subverse.

it already did if todd wont force u to be a kuk clown. i hate kukverse so much. dc stole millions they gave him to make tina armstrong gangbang with horse and all full lenght movie and he decided that even idiot like him can make games theses days or at least milk retards in perma dev state like kuk roberts.

 

[Immortal]

building your own ships and decking them with modded big titty followers

Bingo. That's really Bethesda's trump card. They know it, you know it, they know you know it, you know they know you know it.

But they'll never admit it.

Imagine if Starfield becomes a better Subverse than Subverse.

it already did if todd wont force u to be a kuk clown. i hate kukverse so much. dc stole millions they gave him to make tina armstrong gangbang with horse and all full lenght movie and he decided that even idiot like him can make games theses days or at least milk retards in perma dev state like kuk roberts.

Pfbfbfbfbffbbb..

 

[gurugeorge]

This entire conversation started over a Codexer's inability to cope with the ability to create black people in a character creator.

No it didn't. As I said before, the problem wasn't that Black people is possible, the problem was that they chose not to show a single straight White guy (still their biggest buyers, or certainly an important segment) as a possibility. (It may actually be possible in the character creator for all we know, but it wasn't shown at all.)

That's a case of virtue signaling, and the subtext of why Bethesda thought it important to virtue signal that way (despite straight White guys still being big buyers of their product) speaks volumes.

 

[Robotigan]

But the intuition to make that call came rather from practical concerns. With no land vehicles - or atmospheric flight - having a huge seamless landmass would be just painful for the player. If you played NMS, you probably know what I mean. It does not even create an impression of a bigger world. It unintuitively makes it feel smaller - there's no frame of reference and it seems like travelling through nothingness. Beyond bases, you'll likely not see the same landscape twice, which makes it not even register as real or meaningful. I'm still going to be positively surprised if they did this the way you describe, because it's solid on technical level; and since they did not have to. Also on 4 main planets the capital settlement will be the point of reference .

I think the idea is the player will spend most of their time landing next to structures and other points of interest. My guess is they only simulated the entire surface because it made the rest of development that much easier. If a level designer wants to add a small settlement with its own questline on some random planet, they don't have to hardcode in a specific landing zone for that area. They just plonk it down with the knowledge that the landing mechanics are robust enough to accommodate wherever they decide to add the content. A peculiar trait of BGS that doesn't get enough mention (even though they themselves talk about it all time) is that their development process is basically creating a tool set so flexible and easy to work with that their developers can crank out a lot of content very quickly.

Incidentally, this way of doing things pairs really well with modding and procedural generation. Modders can create content anywhere rather easily rest assured that most of it will "just work" without the need to pour over hardcoded references and hack their way around rigid systems. And so long as you've created such a flexible system where devs and modders can plop down points of interest in any arbitrary location, you may as well write a procedural generation algorithm to do exactly that for some of the filler stuff like nondescript pirate outposts.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

we're now one day closer to starfield's release date bros

29 minutes closer
I can't wait

 

[Robotigan]

No it didn't. As I said before, the problem wasn't that Black people is possible, the problem was that they chose not to show a single straight White guy (still their biggest buyers, or certainly an important segment) as a possibility. (It may actually be possible in the character creator for all we know, but it wasn't shown at all.)

You should know that literally every character shown in a Bethesda game is made using their character creator. You're freaking out over nothing.

That's a case of virtue signaling, and the subtext of why Bethesda thought it important to virtue signal that way speaks volumes.

Nah, this is a case of Bethesda advertising a feature that they and many other character creators have struggled with for a long ass time. It's literally a joke at this point that black characters don't have many options. You can't even create a convincing black-looking character in Elden Ring.

 

[Justicar]

Trash

 

[Red7]

we're now one day closer to starfield's release date bros

29 minutes closer
I can't wait

add 2-3 years for bug fixing and matured enough (porn) mod base.

 

[Red7]

we're now one day closer to starfield's release date bros

29 minutes closer
I can't wait

add 2-3 years for bug fixing and matured enough (porn) mod base.

and by bug fixing i mean rudimentary bug fixing.

 

[Robotigan]

add 2-3 years for bug fixing and matured enough (porn) mod base.

For a forum supposedly dedicated to "old school CRPGs", you guys sure don't seem comfortable using the console to fix bugs yourself.

 

[gurugeorge]

You should know that literally every character shown in a Bethesda game is made using their character creator.

But they didn't choose to show that the player could do that in their proud showing of the character creator. Why?

Again, it seems like a bit of a gaping hole in their proud showing, in view of the fact that a large chunk of the buyers of their game will be plain old White guys.

Nah, this is a case of Bethesda advertising a feature that they and many other character creators have struggled with for a long ass time.

They have trouble making any sort of decent-looking characters, so that cancels out.

IOW, I could complain just as much about being able to make only janky-looking White characters. But you have to make some kind of janky-ass looking character - but they're not showing the possibility of making janky-ass White looking characters. Again, why?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Because they wanted to show you could make non-humans too.

 

[Robotigan]

IOW, I could complain just as much about being able to make only janky-looking White characters. But you have to make some kind of janky-ass looking character - but they're not showing the possibility of making janky-ass White looking characters. Again, why?

So now that we've clearly demonstrated that you will indeed be able to create a plain white guy in Starfield, your concern has now shifted to the much less important question of why they chose not to advertise that. So first of all, it bears mentioning that marketing has the most say over what is shown not the developers so your real contention is with the marketing not necessarily the game itself. It should come as no shock that marketing wants to broaden appeal. Even development teams may prefer that as broader appeal secures larger budgets to make more ambitious games.

But secondly, you're insinuating that not only is this a worse than neutral decision, i.e. "bad", but that it is bad enough to warrant specific mention. That opinion seems to only makes sense if you perceive reverse racism as a greater risk than the old fashioned kind. I find that notion to be asinine and I think anyone who believe it is probably projecting personal hardships onto society as a whole.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

The game isn't even out and Bethseda is already shilling out dosh for influencers to promote the game.

That's how promotion usually works, you promote the thing before it's out.

No it didn't. As I said before, the problem wasn't that Black people is possible, the problem was that they chose not to show a single straight White guy (still their biggest buyers, or certainly an important segment) as a possibility. (It may actually be possible in the character creator for all we know, but it wasn't shown at all.)

You should know that literally every character shown in a Bethesda game is made using their character creator. You're freaking out over nothing.

That's a case of virtue signaling, and the subtext of why Bethesda thought it important to virtue signal that way speaks volumes.

Nah, this is a case of Bethesda advertising a feature that they and many other character creators have struggled with for a long ass time. It's literally a joke at this point that black characters don't have many options. You can't even create a convincing black-looking character in Elden Ring.

It turns out they're all gay.

 

[Zlaja]

>Refuse to stop using the creation engine.

If the choice is the outdated creation engine that's easily moddable and a new engine that's better looking, more stable, offers more options to the developer but it's hard to mod I would still choose creation engine since I believe Bethesda no matter the tools can't make a good game. That way at least you have hope that modders will fix it.

I don't fucking understand you people who fully recognize the awful aspects of Bethesda's modern games and yet you keep playing their games BUT modded. As if downloading a few mods will completely transcend those games into something worth spending dozens upon dozens (or even hundreds) of hours on.

The only Bethesda games I can stomach playing modded are Daggerfall and Morrowind. But that's because I like those games even unmodded. Not for a second have I ever been tempted to spend countless hours on finding/downloading/testing/tweaking tons of modes for a game I can't stand in it's vanilla form.

So basically, what a hell is wrong with some of you people? Or are you just pretending to think games like Oblivion/Skyrim/Fallout 4 are shit?

 

[Butter]

>Refuse to stop using the creation engine.

If the choice is the outdated creation engine that's easily moddable and a new engine that's better looking, more stable, offers more options to the developer but it's hard to mod I would still choose creation engine since I believe Bethesda no matter the tools can't make a good game. That way at least you have hope that modders will fix it.

I don't fucking understand you people who fully recognize the awful aspects of Bethesda's modern games and yet you keep playing their games BUT modded. As if downloading a few mods will completely trandscend those games into something worth spending dozens upon dozens of hours on.

The only Berhesda games I can stomach playing modded are Daggerfall and Morrowind. But that's because I like those games even unmodded. Not for a second have I ever been tempted to spend countless hours on finding/downloading/testing/tweaking tons of modes for a game I can't stand in it's vanilla form.

So basically, what a hell is wrong with some of you people? Or are you just pretending to think games like Oblivion/Skyrim/Fallout 4 are shit?

People want Bethesda-style games that are good. Almost nobody besides Bethesda even makes this type of game, so modding the shitty ones becomes an enticing option. It is folly though; there are too many baked-in problems that you can't fix with mods.

 

[gurugeorge]

IOW, I could complain just as much about being able to make only janky-looking White characters. But you have to make some kind of janky-ass looking character - but they're not showing the possibility of making janky-ass White looking characters. Again, why?

So now that we've clearly demonstrated that you will indeed be able to create a plain white guy in Starfield, your concern has now shifted to the much less important question of why they chose not to advertise that.

The first thing I said in this conversation: "the problem wasn't that Black people is possible, the problem was that they chose not to show a single straight White guy"

So first of all, it bears mentioning that marketing has the most say over what is shown not the developers so your real contention is with the marketing not necessarily the game itself. It should come as no shock that marketing wants to broaden appeal. Even development teams may prefer that as broader appeal secures larger budgets to make more ambitious games.

But secondly, you're insinuating that not only is this a worse than neutral decision, i.e. "bad", but that it is bad enough to warrant specific mention. That opinion seems to only makes sense if you perceive reverse racism as a greater risk than the old fashioned kind. I find that notion to be asinine and I think anyone who believe it is probably projecting personal hardships onto society as a whole.

Why does "broadening the appeal" mean you have to not show a White guy?

If the old-fashioned kind of racism was a problem, none of this shit would be happening