Not really. I just can't stand people spouting nonfactual nonsense. If anything I somewhat admire your low satisfaction threshold.
the biggest issue here is that people assume they should all like the same game. games, like books, are different and people should not expect to all like the same new AAA game. Especially in this case as it's somewhat an experimental RPG. you could say bethesda is to blame for it by not making it clear how the game plays (basically a single player fallout 76). writing was never their strong suit, and I didn't bother with doing any quests until 20+ hours in because I knew what to expect. In this case gameplay wise it's just my jam.
Well, I'm in this thread to actually learn about the game. Given it's mostly your posts, I read them. I've been waiting for a game like that since maybe Frontier : Elite II. Many people do, that's what made scams like Star Citizen (and NMS...) even possible. But looking on Starfield gameplay I'm not even mildly interested in trying it. On other hand, Beth is a nasty corp that's been really spitting in their audience' face. Lastly, lol, it's codex. People will scrutinize, bitch and moan. It's the part of shitposting charm.
Yeah, same boat here. Of course it's disappointing that Starfield doesn't offer the sort of fully seamless sandbox that you see in NMS or Elite (or Chris Roberts' retirement vehicle), but it's also entirely understandable. I actually started following this thread a couple weeks ago because I'd read some schadenfreude-bait commentary from Star Citizen fans, worrying that Starfield would upstage their darling. So I came into this thing with unrealistic expectations.
Leaving those expectations aside, I wouldn't even mind a more segmented, story-driven experience--it's worked well enough for several RPGs set in space, like Mass Effect for example--except that we are talking about Bethesda. Bethesda's traditional strengths are openness and freedom (and spending ten hours in Mod Organizer for every hour you spend playing). Turning a Bethesda game into what appears to be a collection of disconnected corridor-shooter setpieces seems bizarre on its face. Add in the questionable decision to allow instantaneous fast travel from
anywhere besides your ship, and one may begin to feel as if the "space" component of Starfield is just a tacked on minigame.
That's where the complaints about loading screens come from, IMO, not from any real concern about long loading times or out of any real desire for manual travel across whole solar systems. The design paradigm just seems self-conflicted, or at least against type. "Bethesda does Bioware" reads like a bait and switch. When you buy a Coke, you don't want it to taste like flat beer.
But I may still give Starfield a shot, treat it like a looter shooter with a background cast of San Francisco HR ladies. It seems like it should play similarly to Cyberpunk, which I enjoyed well enough for what it was. Vic's commentary has been enlightening, and like you I admire his commitment to positivity. I also very much appreciate Codex's commitment to criticizing the shit out of everything; it's saved me a lot of money and time over the years. Given the state of the video games' industry (and the constellation of media shills attached to it), having someone who will reliably talk you out of their products is invaluable. Worst case, even if you go ahead and buy a game Codex has eviscerated, you'll go into it with your eyes open.
The mechanics are in there for a much better game, though I think the discourse is rampant with critics who want the game to be something else entirely. If you're truly going to understand and critique the game, you need to take 1000 planets at face value and quit worrying about the loading screens. In practice, the game loop seems to center around landing on a planet for a mission, taking in the scenery, exploring some locations, harvesting resources, and leaving for the next one. Possibly making more planetary pitstops towards your next location. Here's how the game should support this better:
1) Reimplement the fuel system and add a survival mode. Much like FO4, the reason some mechanics feel shallow is because there's not enough pushing you to engage with them. Space segments and procedural settlement outposts are trivialized because it's too easy to blast past them and ferry yourself around between the major cities
2) There's unironically too many POIs which is causing players to meander on planets for too long, stumbling into repeat POIs. From what I can tell, there's more POI variance between planets than on a single one. Duplicate POIs shouldn't spawn in the same cell and should quit spawning in new cells once the player has encountered one. Some landmarks like featureless caves can be exceptions since they're useful resource pools. Radiant missions can also induce duplicate spawns (more on that later). But overall this change would make it more apparent when players have tapped out a planet of interesting locations and move on.
3) More connector quests. A lot of the quests, especially the radiant outpost ones, stay on-planet. Some of that is good but there needs to be more ways to send the player around while exploring. Most major questline acquisition seems to be heavily concentrated around the city hubs. There should be more that are found through a radiant event directing you towards planets.
4) POI locations should be priority queued rather than randomized so players encounter variety more consistently.
5) The major cities are given way too much prominence in general which makes the map feel too small. There should be minor settlements with a questline or two dotted around the map. You don't need custom level kits for each, a few distinguishing features is good enough.
