Starfield Thread - Shattered Space expansion coming September 30th

[Gargaune]

Here we go again, selective quotes and "I WINS"

You keep repeating the same defense over and over. We all know it's a game. We all know games have abstractions. That's not a defense for a stupid design decision.

Man, I guess Starfield must be a pretty good game after all if you've already run out of legitimate gripes.

Speaking of "I WINS". I really doubt anyone wants to read the same lengthy list of issues with the game in every post.

Get a better argument.

You never address the argument, you always quote around it like ChatGPT with a chickenshit instruction. Here it is again:

The mechanic you claim to want would involve the player dying or having to stop and quickly repair their suit after every single shot they took. This is undesirable for the same reasons realistic damage is undesirable in most games, outside of tactical combat simulators like Operation Flashpoint or horror games.

 

[Lemming42]

This is how it's used in the game. It's the game design I'm criticizing.

I'm not sure I understand what the criticism is, in that case. Is it that:

- Starfield presents space suits as viable combat armour (this is not the case, people are wearing them because it's what they have available and many people resultantly die. Yes, they have combat stats, but at no point are they presented as being akin to power armour). There isn't anything else in the setting they could feasibly wear into combat, from what I've seen
or
- The player and enemies can take multiple hits (true of virtually every other videogame ever, including the majority of pure FPS games)

You said that the design philosophy of FPS games is to have less abstraction, but the first wave of FPS games were arguably even less realistic in that sense than RPGs of the era - Wolfenstein 3D's SS guards would take about 10 - 15 bullets from an MP40, Doom's Barons of Hell would eat rockets to the face, System Shock had enemies that would shrug off a Magpulse hit. Even the slightly less spongey games, like Outlaws, had enemies being shot, visibly bleeding and flinching, and then walking off like nothing happened. Soldier of Fortune, advertised at the time as realistic, would have enemies get shot and play a pain animation for a second before fully recovering (and the player character was wearing nothing but a jacket most of the time). Even 2000s FPS games, which leaned towards less spongey enemies and more "realism", had nigh-invincible player characters and enemies who'd take at least a couple shots (Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, etc).

The criticism you're making is not only not unique to Starfield (I know you acknowledged this), but also not uniquely pronounced in Starfield. Even pure FPS games don't generally try to do what you're asking for.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

You never address the argument, you always quote around it like ChatGPT with a chickenshit instruction. Here it is again:

The mechanic you claim to want would involve the player dying or having to stop and quickly repair their suit after every single shot they took.

Nigger, I don't want that mechanic, I want Bethesda not to use space suits as armor.

Why is this so difficult to grasp for you?

 

[Modron]

If they were impenetrable, soldiers would wear them and never die. But they're clearly not designed to be shot at, or they wouldn't be firing metal balls at them, they'd be shooting them with bullets and setting off grenades near them.

They're not worn for the same reason you don't see bomb disposal suits on the battlefield combat requires are certain degree of mobility. If you read the article they fire those bearings and pointed basalt at greater velocity than most assault rifle rounds achieve.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

I'm not sure I understand what the criticism is, in that case. Is it that: blahblahblah

I already wrote it and quoted it. If you don't understand it, well, that's a you problem.

 

[Lemming42]

I'm not sure I understand what the criticism is, in that case. Is it that: blahblahblah

I already wrote it and quoted it. If you don't understand it, well, that's a you problem.

So the stuff about "the design philosophy of FPS games" and the stuff about how you can see people being shot and not dying was a red herring, and the actual criticism is that people wear spacesuits into combat in Starfield, right?

In that case, I'd again point out that they're not suggested to be power armour in-universe. People wear them into combat, people die in combat from gunshot wounds while wearing them. In fact, the core gameplay loop revolves around you killing people who have chosen to wear spacesuits into combat, often in large numbers.

There doesn't seem to be anything else they can use - they're in space, they have to wear spacesuits, and the setting doesn't appear to have power armour or Mass Effect style personal shielding or whatever, so there's literally nothing else that people can wear. There are some helmets with metal visors rather than transparent ones, and accordingly, they tend to have better damage resistance - a stats-based abstraction to imply the decreased likelihood of the user being killed by gunfire.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

They're not worn for the same reason you don't see bomb disposal suits on the battlefield

So, you think a space suit is like a bomb disposal suit?

Please tell me what kind of metal plates are in the average space suit.

combat requires are certain degree of mobility.

You're making an argument in my favor here.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

So the stuff about "the design philosophy of FPS games" and the stuff about how you can see people being shot and not dying was a red herring, and the actual criticism is that people wear spacesuits into combat in Starfield, right?

No?

The latter issue makes the former worse.

In that case, I'd again point out that they're not suggested to be power armour in-universe.

Again:

This is cope. It's armor. It has armor stats. You use it in combat.

 

[Levenmouth]

Like I said, Bethesda games aren't the only ones with this issue on some level. But they are the only ones dumb enough to take space suits that in some cases look like present-day space suits, and try to pretend that this will be remotely helpful in combat, or remotely useful after being shot full of lead, lasers or shrapnel.

Modern space suits have multiple layers of kevlar and other durable materials and get tested by firing ball bearings at them out of 40 foot long pressure tube https://phys.org/news/2021-09-nasa-ballistic-air-gun-hurls.html because micrometeorites are out there traveling at great velocities.

This is very impressive.

Instead of simply dropping the object under test, as is common in most settings, they shoot it with a steel ball going 3000 ft/second.

AK-47 rounds only go 2,350 ft/s. It doesn't say what mass these NASA balls have, so it's a bit difficult to compare the amounts of energy transferred to the suit.

Grenade shrapnel goes around the same speed as the AK round initially. Sniper rifles are closer to the 3000 mark but remain below it.

 

[Lemming42]

Again:

And again: what else do you want them to wear? Power armour doesn't exist in the setting, and people have to wear some kind of spacesuit while in space.

 

[Levenmouth]

Again:

And again: what else do you want them to wear? Power armour doesn't exist in the setting, and people have to wear some kind of spacesuit while in space.

Once the mods come out the answer will be: as little as possible.

 

[Modron]

So, you think a space suit is like a bomb disposal suit?

Yeah I think they're both pretty bulky and resistant to balistics and shrapnel.

Please tell me they couldn't have a plate under anyone of the multiple layers of material in a spacesuit in Starfield.

You're making an argument in my favor here.

I was arguing against your statement dismissing spacesuits as not being ballistic resistant when that is one of their primary design goals, spacesuits are the one of the biggest expenses in any mission. Not saying there wouldn't need to be some suspension of disbelief in playing a fantasy in space.

 

[Silverfish]

in the story, Max is not canonically getting shot repeatedly in the head and cock every three seconds

Actually, I feel like this would explain a quite a bit of Max Payne 2.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

And again: what else do you want them to wear?

If the battlefield has oxygen? Anything. Literally anything other than the, I assume, expensive space suit that's the only thing standing between you and certain death if your ship springs a leak.

This is what I'm talking about when I complain they wear them everywhere.

If there is no oxygen, maybe getting into protracted gun battles isn't a great idea for either side. I don't see why this is controversial.

That or, hey, maybe don't make the space suits look like space suits. Make them look like armor, like in Mass Effect. Or, if you're lazy, just put some in-universe explanation, like how it's self-sealing (it isn't, which is why you need to repair it) and is made of a special material that protects better than the average space suit of today would.

Anything to explain why you and your enemies don't die, despite the fact that the bullets clearly penetrate their suits and yours, or you wouldn't take damage, and your enemies wouldn't die.

 

[darkpatriot]

So the stuff about "the design philosophy of FPS games" and the stuff about how you can see people being shot and not dying was a red herring, and the actual criticism is that people wear spacesuits into combat in Starfield, right?

No?

The latter issue makes the former worse.

In that case, I'd again point out that they're not suggested to be power armour in-universe.

Again:

This is cope. It's armor. It has armor stats. You use it in combat.

So is what you want? That there is no armor in the game? or is it that you don't want people to even be able to get in gun fights in vacuum conditions and other hostile environments since it would be far too dangerous? Is there something you think they should have done that would be better, or is this just an empty criticism?




Because I would like there to be armor in the game, and I would also like for there to be gun fights in vacuum conditions and other hostile environments.

I am willing to accept the abstraction that people are not constantly dying from space suit ruptures just as much as I am willing to accept the abstraction that people are able to eat multiple gunshots and continue to live and move around just fine.

 

[Gargaune]

So the stuff about "the design philosophy of FPS games" and the stuff about how you can see people being shot and not dying was a red herring, and the actual criticism is that people wear spacesuits into combat in Starfield, right?

It's his MO - says something stupid, gets put in a corner, then starts flailing around trying to pretend he said something else. He'll tell you he cares about "design" and he'll tell me he just doesn't want them looking like space suits. But hey, maybe it's fashion design.

 

[Modron]

Make them look like armor, like in Mass Effect.

So your argument is you can't suspend disbelief for people wearing ballistic armor but you can for magical forcefield generators that mass effect had.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

I was arguing against your statement dismissing spacesuits as not being ballistic resistant when that is one of their primary design goals

Resistant to small bits of space debris, not a barrage of armor piercing rounds from a gun.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here though, since assuming that every space suit is now a bomb disposal suit is something I don't know how to respond to.

 

[Modron]

Where did I say every space suit is a bomb disposal suit quit being autistic.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

So your argument is you can't suspend disbelief for people wearing ballistic armor but you can for magical forcefield generators that mass effect had.

Verisimilitude. Again, "it's just a game, bro" or "it's just a story bro" isn't an argument.

I like Lord of the Rings. It's fantasy. But I wouldn't like it if some Hollywood movie came out and put 1950s UFOs with aliens that look like wombats in it.

Old argument, gay argument. Next.

Where did I say every space suit is a bomb disposal suit quit being autistic.

Please tell me they couldn't have a plate under anyone of the multiple layers of material in a spacesuit in Starfield.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

I am willing to accept the abstraction that people are not constantly dying from space suit ruptures just as much as I am willing to accept the abstraction that people are able to eat multiple gunshots and continue to live and move around just fine.

Again, you're using the same argument.

Problem: X isn't believable.
Bethesda solution: make it less believable.

 

[darkpatriot]

I was arguing against your statement dismissing spacesuits as not being ballistic resistant when that is one of their primary design goals

Resistant to small bits of space debris, not a barrage of armor piercing rounds from a gun.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here though, since assuming that every space suit is now a bomb disposal suit is something I don't know how to respond to.

Well, there is certainly plenty of room to include materials that are resistant to ballistic projectiles in a bulky space suit. And in fact, you can specifically add in extra ballistic protection via modifying a suit. So it is a thing in game and I would assume a decent level of ballistic protection is built into suits given how bad space piracy is and the fact they they fought a space war a little while ago. Included in that would be some ability to self-seal ruptures, especially for more advanced suits.

I guess, if I am understanding correctly, you just don't like the design aesthetic and want them to look more like battle armor since you feel space suits are too balloon like in their qualities. I like the space suit aesthetic though, tbh. Space Battle Armors are too overdone so it is nice to see something different.

I would like greater differences in the design though, if I were to critic the space suits. Too many look too similar, imo.

 

[Lemming42]

If there is no oxygen, maybe getting into protracted gun battles isn't a great idea for either side. I don't see why this is controversial.

Getting into a gun battle is dangerous no matter what environment you're in. It's not presented as being safe. People die in this game a lot, and their spacesuit-clad bodies slump to the floor. You take part in dangerous scenarios where death is a possibility for both you and enemies, same as any other action game. Saying that they're unwise to fight in zero g is the same as saying they're unwise to be shooting at each other at all - it's true, but then I'm wondering what scenarios you would accept in an action game.

The pertinent point is that no alternative option exists for the people in Starfield - they need to wear spacesuits in zero g, no oxygen, or otherwise hazardous environments. As this is an action-adventure game, gunfights sometimes break out in these environments, and people thus find themselves wearing spacesuits while in combat.

I'd also again point to the jetpack-shooting mechanic - you can very viscerally see on-screen that these suits, with the boost packs on, are quite fragile and that a stray shot can result in death for the wearer.

Anything to explain why you and your enemies don't die, despite the fact that the bullets clearly penetrate their suits and yours, or you wouldn't take damage, and your enemies wouldn't die.

I don't think there's any need when nobody really has any trouble buying the abstraction - everyone understands that the people in Starfield are in danger when a gunfight breaks out. Just like there's no need to explain why Lara Croft, Max Payne, Duke Nukem, Cate Archer, Gordon Freeman (if he loses suit power) and every other videogame protagonist is able to be shot multiple times without permanent injury or death. It's not necessary for the game to explain that Lara Croft's tank top is lined with kevlar, and it'd look weird and make the setting feel bizarre if they did.

 

[Gargaune]

Edgy Non-Gamer, if the suits "have armour stats" and Bethesda "uses them as armour", maybe that's why they don't lose their environmental protection until they're severely damaged. And your argument's back to "I don't like that they look like that!

"

P.S. You're on a roll, feller. Keep it up and we'll make this thread bigger than BG3's in no time!

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Getting into a gun battle is dangerous no matter what environment you're in.

Again:

Problem: X isn't believable.
Bethesda solution: make it less believable.

The pertinent point is that no alternative option exists for the people in Starfield - they need to wear spacesuits in zero g, no oxygen, or otherwise hazardous environments. As this is an action-adventure game, gunfights sometimes break out in these environments, and people thus find themselves wearing spacesuits while in combat.

>It's an action game, so everyone you meet is retarded and suicidal.

Hmm. No, that's not right. Let's fix it:
>It's a *Bethesda* game, so everyone you meet is retarded and suicidal.

Better.

I don't think there's any need when nobody really has any trouble buying the abstraction

Except the guy you're talking to. How many others might agree with me? Take a poll and get back to me.