miskStarfield has "something big going on behind the scenes"
đ° đ đ± đŠ đł đŠ đ° đź đAside from completely redesigning the world and side quests, thereâs nothing they can tack on to the game as is that would make it worth playing again. Itâs boring and missing the one thing they actually did pretty well in everything else: environmental storytelling. You canât exactly use environmental story-telling when your gameâs environment is mostly randomly generated; which is what all the areas outside the main cities are. Randomly generated set-pieces that are scattered around an otherwise empty planet.
abraxasStrange. I have more playtime in starfield than Skyrim. And the thing that draws me in is the story.
Itâs like it got most things right that Outer Worlds got wrong.
Yall are getting downvoted, but I think itâs great that you have a game you like. I can even see the perspective of this being a better Outer Worlds. I think people like myself are just upset that we didnât get scifi skyrim. Just saying âscifi skyrimâ got me excited again for a game that they unfortunately did not release. Donât take the downvotes personally imo, people are just mad at Bethesda.
Yall are getting downvoted, but I think itâs great that you have a game you like.
100%. I get baffled that Starfield gets so much hate, but then some of my favorite games arenât very popular (Book of Hours anyone? lol)
I can even see the perspective of this being a better Outer Worlds
Yeah. Outer world was in reality the polar opposite of Starfield. A game that was excessively theme-driven but had lackluster âeverything elseâ to go with it. A little (less than Outer Worlds used) bit of tongue-in-cheek âSpacerâs Choiceâ could have worked like Vault Boy does in Fallout, and I wish Starfield had done something like that. But on story and gameplay alone, Starfield destroys Outer Worlds.
I think people like myself are just upset that we didnât get scifi skyrim
This is the funny part. If I had to describe why I love Starfield to someone who had been living under a rock and hadnât ever heard of it, Iâd say âbecause itâs like Skyrim in spaceâ. In so many ways, if Iâm being honest.
The thing is, the biggest critique people have against Starfield isnât all the crazy bugs (we remember those from Skyrim) or the really tropey shit, or anything in between. Itâs that they donât find Starfield âfunâ in this hard-to-place sort of way. Perhaps thatâs you? If so, maybe you can see how someone would feel about Starfield if, for some reason, it clicked as fun from the start.
Now, I have some complaints about Starfield. But most of them have to do with things that Skyrim didnât even try (the shipbuilder, which I hear has improved of late) or the lategame (which means I got my fun out of it).
Also, Iâve learned not to take downvotes too badly most of the time. Everyone has opinions, and just because I reserve downvote for the rare âthis person is an absolute idiotâ doesnât mean other people do :)
Yeah Iâd say it was an issue of not âclickingâ at first, but I think I defined it a bit more before I dropped my first playthrough. For me, the primary appeal of a Bethesda RPG is that âtake off in a direction, youâll find a storyâ feel. Starfield kinda has it, but they broke it up with weird design choices. The insanely frequent, lengthy cutscenes cut into the continuous flow. Having to travel at all between planets broke up the action and flow. The choice to use procedural generation was odd and really took away from the more intentional feel of prior Bethesda games, and really cut away some of the quality and quantity of environmental storytelling.
Thatâs my very surface level opinions from what I remember. Itâs been a minute since I played it at release.
For me, the primary appeal of a Bethesda RPG is that âtake off in a direction, youâll find a storyâ feel
I donât entirely disagree.
The insanely frequent, lengthy cutscenes cut into the continuous flow
You mean the ship going into warp or landing loading screen? There arenât really a ton of cutscenes. If I had to give a tedious downside, it would be the âpower minigameâ but at least it ends with a violent encounter with a strongish enemy 9 times out of 10
The choice to use procedural generation was odd and really took away from the more intentional feel of prior Bethesda games
See, THIS might be where my age plays me. My first Bethesda game was called âArenaâ, and it was all procedural. My second Bethesda game was âDaggerfallâ and it was ABSURDLY huge procedural. Iâve never seen some procedural elements as a downside to extend the plot (and in fact, Skyrimâs radiant quest system is procedure), as long as there was sufficient hand-made content.
Now hereâs the thing. By all reports (both self-reports that can be questioned, but also people who dug into game files), Starfield has more handmade content than Skyrim. Itâs just that the thousand planets above and beyond that were procedural. I LIKE that balance. A lot. It solves the âMorrowind problemâ (Morrowind was slammed at first because the world was SO much smaller than Daggerfallâs) for me. But I can see how other people who dive into into the procedural content might step back and say âboy this game is so reptitiousâ. Sometimes our gameplay loops define our enjoyment. I know I hated Persona 2 for years for the dumbest reason ever - I got addicted to the casino minigame and lost track of the story, then found the casino game too tedious and I had no desire to play the game anymore.