Is there any hope for a Starfield redemption story?
I really like the initial concept of the game. Going into deep space in a kinda-ish grounded way. Resource management, exploration, smuggling shit, etc.
Then in comes the Starborn shit. Which is so moronic, I couldn't believe they just recycled Skyrim. AGAIN!
And yet they have the gall to claim realism when people complain the planets are literally devoid of any activity. In their bullshit drag- starborn whimsical storyline. What the frick Todd?
The blandness is just unforgivable. There are hospitals less sterile than Starfield. No raider cruelties, no dismemberment, no unique kills depending on atmosphere, there's just nothing there. Could have done so much cool things. Imagine a random chance of a headshot in a no atmosphere fight not killing your enemy, but bursting his helmet. Put space things in your space game already. All the animations feel like they come from a multiplayer game, like Fo76. So much recycling.
Mods are promising. Especially the ones that add proper survival elements to the game.
>Food, water, sleep
>disease/condition system
>different buffs and debuffs depending on your status
>actual working hazard system
>Ship fuel management system
>Proper energy management (example, grav driving at full power might cause harm to your ship)
Tons of good stuff in ship building too, despite not even having a proper modkit. But none of that can fix the blandness and the outright boring world building and quests.
The DLC might. But it's a long shot. How can they fix this mess?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
If you need mods to make the game fun then its not a good game.
Yeah, but this is Bethesda. They have an abusive relationship with mods. If you want to know what they'll put in DLC's, just look at the mods.
They literally copied an entire Nv quest mod into Fo4. They'll use the survival mechanics the most popular mod has if they want to add survival mechanics. Which they will, just look at Fo4 again.
> They literally copied an entire Nv quest mod into Fo4
They didn’t.They are both heavily inspired by Agatha Christie and the actual quests are quite different.It‘s kind of telling though that neither bethtards nor obsidrones could tell what it was referencing.
The biggest Skyrim modders have dropped Starfield entirely because it's a bad game.
Who gives a frick about steam counts? Starfield isn’t a live service, those 300,000 people have all bought the game, money has been made. Also, Starfield’s player count will rise when CK and DLC is released, like every Beth game so why even bother talking about it now?
I love how an article about the Skyrim Together modder somehow got turned into all big modders are quitting Starfield. The funniest thing tho is that he used Starfield as a scapegoat to deflect from his own incompetence. The real reason he’s not gonna mod multiplayer into Starfield because he’s incapable of doing so, just like he failed to add multiplayer to Fallout 4. So his schtick about Starfield being too boring to mod was just a convenient out.
*is because
>Starfield isn’t a live service, those 300,000 people have all bought the game, money has been made.
Holy cope lol.
>who cares about concurrent active players
There is zero collective interest in Starfield even among Bethesda's own fanbase. The game is a complete failure. Compared to Skyrim or even Oblivion and Morrowind where people continue to actively play and purchase these games yearly, Starfield has made Bethesda a net negative of capital.
>The real reason he’s not gonna mod multiplayer into Starfield because he’s incapable of doing so, just like he failed to add multiplayer to Fallout 4. So his schtick about Starfield being too boring to mod was just a convenient out.
Holy shit, you treat modders like your battered housewife. No wonder they quit in droves.
#
>Starfield isn’t a live service, those 300,000 people have all bought the game, money has been made
Starfield is a Game with like 10 years development time.
Those are not good sales for them
>Starfield is a Game with like 10 years development time.
More like 7 years in actual development, was an idea in Todd’s head for longer.
>Those are not good sales for them
They were extremely good sales for a game that was also available day one on gamepass on both Xbox and PC, Steam wasn’t Starfield’s primary market. Also, a large portion of the steam sales were the more expensive $75 special edition that got players early access.
No, Starfield will never be redeemed. It's inherently bad. A total waste of time for everyone involved. They spent 8 years on this dumpster fire.
All the major modders have abandoned ship. Half the people who came out and used their status in the community to work on the community patch have already left or haven't contributed shit while instead working on Skyrim.
That's fine as long as the modded game is fun
This, especially with Bethesda titles as the game would literally break the mods or vice versa.
No and it will go below 6k before July.
No. It's over. The only chance at a redemption story is TESVI but that won't matter for years.
Bethesda has a chance to turn this around with the two large expansion DLCs they will produce. They better be fricking amazing and rework the game.
Then Starfield might be an okay to fun game, with a horrible bland setting, shit tier 'nasa-punk' aesthetic and annoying music.
If TES6 fails it might be the end of Bethesda as a company.
>Is there any hope for a Starfield redemption story?
just stop.just stop.
Life is not an anime story there is no redeption story,starfield sucks full stop.
Everything about it is bad,the engine,the gameplay,the gunplay,the models,the lack of cities,the loading screens,the dialogue,the companions,the armor,the weapons...every.single.thing. about it is just bad.
Sadly have to agree with anon here
NMS design was never set in stone and the team was ready from the start to build upon the game.
Cyberpunk 2077 already had a great story and worldbuilding but it was gameplay and technical frick-ups that kept it down. Most of it was fixable too tho.
Frick, even Fallout 77 wasn't as fricked from the get-go since it's core game was basically Fallout 4 which wasn't a bad game but a medicore rpg. Bugs can almost always be fixed and It was and always will be possible to build upon the gameplay or to cut down the cashgrab shit in games like this.
But Starfield...
Starfield is such a huge frick-up in so many levels it's honestly impressing.
It's the magnum opus of Bugthesda worst design practices. There is not a single part of that game that wasn't fricked over in some way.
>can't fix the engine stuff
The way they creation engine handles locations would never be compatible with large open-world space exploration game. It was always designed to chop the world into one large general world area and smaller individual cells. NMS/KSP styl planet exploration requires proper random world generation and data loading in real time.
Creation engine would never be able to run seamless location transition in the background without massive changes to how the engine works.
>can't fix the story or the world
Bethesda games never shine to brightly with their writing outside of some individual side-storylines. What they had instead, were two large and interesting universes which on their own were enough to explore even without any good narrative pushing you forward.
Starfield has none of that. It wasn't established decades ago by actual competent writers and it wasn't expanded upon by multiple games, comics, books etc.
The only way story could be any good would be to have an actual coherent storytelling involved this time with properly designed characters . We all know Bugthesda simply doesn't know how to tell a story in such a way.
1/2
>can't fix the gameplay
Now this should actually be fixable in general and probably any other studio would manage but not the modern Bethesda.
This is entirely the fault of how they deal with their products post-release.
Release the game. Makes some fixes to it so it works at the very least. Add some content later. Make a remaster maybe after 5-6 years. Move on.
Now if the base stuff is good enough this approach is correct. It worked for many other games before. But for Starfield the amount of content they would need to add could rival even the Witcher 3 DLC's
Even Skyrim wasn't expanded that much if you think about it and Skyrim was probably their most content-rich game, if you include the creation club stuff you can now get in a bundle with Anniversary Edition.
And that just talking about the content. Mechanics wise, none of their games really changed with any DLCs and they didn't probably need to, but Starfield does. If CDPR can re-design their entire progression system 2 years after the launch Bugthesda has no excuses.
>can't fix the pussy design
That's just entirely on Bugthesda again. They turned into pussies. Starfield is probably their most safe, bland and casual-friendly game so far.
This games does absolutely NOTHING to intentionally invoke any kind of negative feeling in you. There is nothing disturbing, nothing revolting, nothing challenging the way you think.
Think back to rape demons in Morrowind or Synth paranoia in Fallout 4, realization of falmer origins in Skyrim or entire Dark Brotherhood questline in oblivion.
Starfield does nothing. Even the most "degenerate" planet is so SFW that it's fricking painful. And that shitty boring design can be felt trough everything. Items, characters, music, dialog, gameplay literally everything.
They even took the fricking shouts form Skyrim instead of making the alien powers work more like the traits from Fallout. Game changing abilities that can be both a blessing and nuisance.
2/2
Oh and the worst part about Starfield is that all those things were never that much broken to being with.
They are just os fricking medicore it's worse than being worse.
You will have fun for 10-20 hours but that's it. It will never get better.
This game was designed to bait you into thinking it's bigger than it really is or even can be.
And no amount of mods will ever change that.
Keep in mind how the only 'alien' stuff in Starfield is the Starborn crap as well. 99.9% of everything else alien are just strange animals. There aren't advanced civilizations of intelligent species or really any sort of conflict that would make the setting interesting. Any sci-fi setting (40k, Mass Effect, Star Wars, even Dune) understands the fundamentals that you need meaningful conflict in order to make a setting interesting. Humanity isn't being threatened by anything worthwhile in Starfield, which is the problem.
I mean they could make them "hard" sci-fi with no aliens interesting but why the frick then would you put this starborn shit there to being with? Other than just ripping-off Skyrim ofc.
wrong
>believing bugthesda will actually put any effort on their games
...
>Is there any hope for a Starfield redemption story?
most of the ""redemption"" stories out there are just hard marketing campaigns with a few updates that don't really touch the core issues games have, starslop will continue to be a starslop. at least the ship building was fun, too bad about everything else
>most of the ""redemption"" stories out there are just hard marketing campaigns
Sadly this anon speaks the truth. Cyberpunk was never that bad and No Man’s Sky is still trash.
>No Man’s Sky is still trash.
NMS is still what it was at launch, just with more shit and polish. People think that "fix" means turning the game around 180 so it becomes something totally different that will now appeal to them.
Hint: do not await for Elder Scrolls 6. It is going to suck like Starfield, if not even worst.
>play single player game
>beat it
>stop playing
woah no way
When your game can't compete with a game you made over a decade ago something has gone horribly wrong.
Skyrim is shit.
That’s literally all due to mods, nobody plays vanilla Skyrim 12 years after launch. When Starfield has mod support the comparison will be less disingenuous.
Yes, they’ve abandoned a game they can’t really mod yet.
I'd rather play unmodded Skyrim than modded Starfield.
>nobody plays vanilla Skyrim 12 years after launch
I do.
Also most mods are superficial and don't change the core game, so the cope that "i totally don't like skyrim i just like modded skyrim" is hilarious. Stop trying to fit in already.
>Also most mods are superficial and don't change the core game
Yeah, but a lot of the ones that do are the ones everyone uses (UI mods, levelling mods, new quests/dungeons) etc. just because most mods are dumb shit like changing dragons into macho man doesn't mean vanilla skyrim is the same thing.
Even with all that shit stacked on, it's still fricking Skyrim. No one is sad that Outer Worlds doesn't have UI or dungeon mods, because Outer Worlds isn't a good game at it's core. Skyrim is obviously is.
Skyrim is trash.
>beat the game
you're moronic and insane.
It's don't count me, i finished that mission.
Also i pirated starfield naturally, and i would pirate it even if it was available in my country.
yeah this article is just journalists being clickwhoring Black folk as usual. All single player heavy games drop off hard like this.
Take Elden Ring for an example. That was the big game everyone was shitting over how good it is yet it dropped from 953k to 45k in 6 months, 96% drop.
>Is there any hope for a Starfield redemption story?
hahaha....
no.
nope.
zero.
Modders have abandoned it and went back to Skyrim, Fallout and Morrowind. Without modders they have nothing.
There's nothing remotely worthwhile about the game. The crafting system is utterly useless because your weapons don't scale. Engaging in weapon customization is just a waste of your time when any moment you enter combat the enemies will instantly drop weapons that are inherently superior to whatever you modded. 'Unique" weapon share the same problem that they becomes useless really fast due to lack of scaling. How did they frick up THIS badly? Even Fallout 4 managed to have a better crafting system than this since you can use the 10mm you start with for the entire rest of the game if you want to keep modding it as you level. Setting is bland as shit, DEI nonsense everywhere and it doesn't feel like a sci-fi adventure full of wonder but a day at the DMV. The ship building is the only remotely somewhat good aspect of the game, and they even manage to frick that up because you can't customize the interior of the ship; only the exterior, which is a huge bummer for a game where a majority of your time takes place inside your ship.
no. they should put all resources into tes 6 and abandon starfailed.
There should have been way more cities+sprawl on "main" faction worlds.
But let's be real I prefer this.
It can still be fixed
Todd Howard has said that people at Bethesda wanted to make Starfield for more than twenty years. I believe him. A spacegame was probably one of the ideas they discussed after Daggerfall.
Starfield and Daggerfall share a lot of their core design. a
As places in Daggerfall functionally only exist as fast travel destinations, so too is space in Starfield only a map where you select where to travel next. Mostof the quests are randomly generated with a few handcrafted quest lines. The main story is nothing world threatening and can be safely ignored. Random loot, 2 dimensional NPCs.
Really, Starfield as it is now, with more primitive graphics, would have been a visionary masterpiece if it had followed upon Daggerfall.
This is cope though. Daggerfall has an interesting setting, a multitude of factions, and actual stuff to do despite its procedural generation; not even to mention its spell crafting and enchanting. Starfield has a grand total of zero interesting factions. Also while Daggerfall had temples you could join with defined deities, the religions in Starfield are extremely uncompelling. Even the Children of Atom in Fallout 4 are more compelling and have a more coherent system of beliefs than Starfield's vague, undefined syncretic monotheism. Could Todd have genuinely wanted a space game? Possibly, but Starfield has nothing going for it; it's lazily made and there's really no soul put into it or care. I find it extremely difficult to believe that this game is Todd's passion project when the games he was heavily involved with in the past had actual.. passion.
No, THIS is top tier daggerfall cope.
>multitude of factions, and actual stuff to do
means frick all in Daggerfall, I agree with the other anon about it resembling Starfield in a sense.
Having the what, 30 factions that Daggerfall had doesn't mean shit when they're all functionally identical to each other. They all have functionally the same quests and more or less the same rewards. There's no real unique quests or stories associated with them. They just sort of "exist" there in the game world, it really makes no difference joining one faction vs the other within their archetype or where you're playing in the world except for where you have to fast travel to to get and turn in quests and rewards.
Daggerfall seems deep on its surface but replaying it now you realize it has the width of an ocean and depth of a puddle.
>Daggerfall has an interesting setting
This means frick all too when 99% of the lore is found in books that the average player is not going to pick up and read. The interesting lore isn't actually shown through gameplay at all outside of stuff like daedra summoning and that's a minor piece of endgame content.
>This is cope
Your reading comprehension sucks. I indirectly called Daggerfall a masterpiece. My point is that Starfield shares its core design and would have been a masterpiece had it come out 20 years ago. Since it came out in 2023 though its mechanics are enemic and its graphics and presentation too advanced to harmonize with Daggerfalls fast trabel to randomly generated locations style. Starfield feels boring because the game looks too good for your brain to gloss over the inconsistencies in auto generstion.
>crafting, factions, stuff to do
Starfield has all of that to the level of Daggerfall too. It's not interesting because nowadays,people rightfully expect more.
Daggerfall was made almost 30 years ago and by a fraction of people working on Shitfield
Don't even dare to compare the two.
If a game made with Daggerfall design approach was made today it would be vastly different than Daggerfall and probably better then Starfield.
If Starfield was made in the 90s but with the same dev approach it would be even worse than Arena.
Daggerfall at the very least doesn't railroad you into anything.
Holy Christ your reading comprehension sucks balls.
>Starfield as it is now, with more primitive graphics, would have been a visionary masterpiece if it had followed upon Daggerfall.
vs
>If Starfield was made in the 90s but with the same dev approach it would be even worse than Arena.
Nice projection homosexual but you need a better argument than "learn2read lmao"
Games in the 90s were very primitive. The shit you can do in Starfield was prime gaming in the 90s. Take the procedural generation of Starfield for example. In Starfield it feels silly zo have pirates hang out a couple hundred meter from a terramorph and a couple hundred meter from a four man crew building a random pipe to nowhere. None of us would have bat an eye at procedural generation like that in Daggerfield. Because back then games had less details for random generation to screw up.
tl;dr: Dumb fricking idiot. Work on your reading comprehension.
Also dev approach =/= Starfield as it is now
You absolute fricking cretin, any redeeming shit that you have in Starfield now would never be made in the 90s because there was neither tech nor the knowledge to do so.
>The shit you can do in Starfield was prime gaming in the 90s
Play any RPG from the 90s, aside of Arena or Daggerfall you fricking zoomer. There was a reason TES only took-off after Morrowind
>None of us would have bat an eye at procedural generation like that in Daggerfield
Because there was nothing fricking better. People also did not complain about VGA resolution and shitty sound quality too. What kind of a dick-sucking Bethesda-drone argument even is this?
>Also dev approach =/= Starfield as it is now
Dev approach is what made starfield shit. Zero design documents prove it. Go suck-off Todd somewhere else.
>Dev approach is what made starfield shit.
For a 2023 game. Because Starfields design is stale and Betheada hasn't changed their formula up in ages. That means the pretty graphics and production values don't match up to the level of roughness of gameplay and jank.
Starfield, as it is now, just with worse graphics, would have been amazing 20 years ago.
Now stop sperging out because your reading comprehension is child like.
>Starfield, as it is now, just with worse graphics, would have been amazing 20 years ago.
You are delusional you dumb c**t.
You never played a single rpg from the 90s
Starfield is to bland of a game to make any impression even today.
>too bland a game to make any impression even today
You have it in reverse. It takes more for a game to make an impression today than in the past. What is in Starfield would have made it a great game 20 years ago.
>never played an rpg from the 90s
In your whole ape out you never once said that Starfield and Daggerfall not share a structure. Just that Starfield would not have beem a success in the 90s. You have already conceeded that my comparison is spot on.
>In your whole ape out you never once said that Starfield and Daggerfall not share a structure.
You didn't even play Daggerfall did you?
Minecraft also shares a structure with Daggerfall.
So does No Man's Sky and every single other procedurally generated sandbox game.
A structure. Or rather a piece of it. And Minecraft and No Man's Sky are actually way closer to Daggerfall then Starfield is.
Things that Daggerfall and Starfield DO NOT share you braindead shill.
>classes
>class progression system
>actual factions and faction relations
>rng and skill based combat
>magic system
>enchanting system
>open, nonlinear story
>multi-layer armor system
Things Daggerfall doesn't have nor any RPG game in the 90s would.
>special powers ripped from Skyrim
>perk trees
>shipbuilding
>equipment modding ripped from Fallout 4
>base building
>physics
>scanning ripped from NMS
>classes
Starfield has them.
>class progression system
You mean leveling? Because Daggerfall doesn't have more than that either.
>factions
Starfield has them. The factions also interact with each other.
>rng and skill based combat
Starfield has both of those.
>magic system
Like half the criticism mentions that Starfield screwed up the realistic setting by adding space magic.
>enchanting system
You can craft and modify weapons in Starfield. Functionally identical to enchanting.
>open, nonlinear story
Yeah? Daggerfalls story isn't as nonlinear as you think. It's go from this dungeon to that and speak with that noble, then do that dungeon. It only looks complicated because there are two quest lines going on at the same time.
>multi-layer armor system
You are wearing space suits. Can't really mix and match those.
>things no RPG in the 90s would have
Would all have made Starfield one of the most amazing games of the 90s. Which is my point.
You are low IQ and extremely emotional. Go frick off and play Daggerfall without your unity port and with at most 10 mods. You'll see what a janky beast it is.
>Starfield has them.
Backgrounds are not fricking classes. They simply pre-pic some skills for you and give some dialogue.
Daggerfall had advantages and disadvantages and major/minor skills as well.
>You mean leveling? Because Daggerfall doesn't have more than that either.
Progression varies for different classes. A mage has more ways to level than warrior. Classes have various XP rates. Some features are also tied to factions. Spell making to Mages Guild for example.
>Starfield has them. The factions also interact with each other.
For 20 hours not even once i have found an instance of factions actually interacting with each other.
In Daggerfall you can literally get tasked with killing another's faction leader and you can improve one factions standing byt helping another.
>Starfield has both of those.
Last time i checked Starfield had a fricking hitbox-based system so stop lying. You use mostly the same weapons with the same effect.
>Like half the criticism mentions that Starfield screwed up the realistic setting by adding space magic.
Rightfully so. The point was however to showcase that Starfield and Daggerall do not share design. Also skyrim shouts are not a magic system.
>You can craft and modify weapons in Starfield.
You can craft the same weapons and change 3-4 things about them. Fallout 4 mod system but even more barebones.
>Daggerfalls story isn't as nonlinear as you think
Go outside the dungeon. Get a letter. Continue the quest or don't, who the frick cares, the world is your oyster now.
>You are wearing space suits. Can't really mix and match those.
You are naked under the spacesuit?
>Would all have made Starfield one of the most amazing games of the 90s. Which is my point.
There was a reason we didn't have those features back then.
> You'll see what a janky beast it is.
I played it on dos-box in 2010. Arena too. And? You tried to argue it had the same design as Starfield. Don't move the goalpost you pussy.
2/10 bait.
Won't bite again.
>Backgrounds are not fricking classes
They are. Every character can learn any skill. It is no different in Daggerfall.
Major/minors and advantages are a different, but not by itself better way to handle character generation. Starfield has lots of options to choose from as well while leveling.
>mage has more ways to level than warrior
Oh wow, the ability to spam rest and cast spells facing a wall. If you want that you can craft random crap in Starfield for XP.
>For 20 hours not even once i have found an instance of factions actually interacting with each other.
The pirates and other factions fight each other. In the actual game world. It's not just a numerical value that goes down when you do quests. One of the quests in Starfield is to kill the pirates leadership...
>Starfield has no rng
Doesn't it have damage ranges on its weapons? Whatever, a hit chance does not automatically make the combat any better.
>skyrim shouts are not a magic system.
False.
>Starfield and Daggerfall do not share a design
Mate, the primary way you traverse and interact the world is taken straight out of Daggerfall. Just instead of hitting t and getting on your boat to the next map zone you open the map and get in your ship to travel there. Most of the game is randomly generated, you can get random quests and there is some hand crafted content as a main story. Starfield has the Daggerfall formula, while TES III to V had a set map. The core design of Starfield is Daggerfall with random guild quests replaced by hand crafted content.
>You can craft the same weapons and change 3-4 things about them.
That's more than you can do with a given item in Daggerfall.
>You are naked under the spacesuit?
You probably wear some type of specialised under garment for temperature regulation. A 'multi-layer armor system' still makes little sense with whole body suits which space suits have to be.
>You tried to argue it had the same design as Starfield.
I made my point. You ranted about random stuff.
Yeah, but only if someone tips the feds off about all the pizza on Emil’s PC and he an heroes in a very public, very spectacular fashion.
The setting is shit. There is no recovery from it. There is no sense of wonder in an exploration based game. It's bland and boring. No alien babes and no factions to care about. Instead of bluberry alien girls in skimpy clothes there are fat mutts and pajeets. No alien worlds with different architecture and culture. There is nothing to discover, nothing to care about, nothing interesting visually or thematically.
The only thing that could save it, would be a complete overhaul mod being made that turns it into one of the most popular Space Opera settings like Star Trek, Star Wars or 40k. Then fans of those settings maybe would migrate and supplant original game and "playerbase". This will not happen of course. Modders are attention prostitutes, they won't bother with this game.
It's over for starfield, because they made it boring. You look at anything from Starfield and there is nothing to draw your attention. Nothing that would make you ask "wtf is this, what's going on here, who is this, what's this place?" And then seek answers
Massive DLC few years down the line that overhauls core mechanics, fixes bugs and adds lots of polish. It worked for cyberflop.
>It worked for cyberflop.
no it didnt
Does anyone trust Steam statistics?
I agree with most of these posts. Starfield was dull and sterile. Nothing stands out. Nothing is interesting.
>proving once again that every journalist is full of hype shit even beyond the nepotism and obnoxious politics
>The blandness is just unforgivable.
>Starfield was dull and sterile. Nothing stands out. Nothing is interesting.
Leftists have been de-sexualizing and de-lifing this genre since ME, it seems they know to reign in the wokeshit a bit at this point but they are afraid to take any chances against it.
Imagine if Star Control 2 came out today with the Syreen.
Imagine if Farscape came out today.
This game is so obviously the end result of several ugly horses in a stable, each designed by a committee to please politics and shareholders and not to be entertaining. Designed by robots instead of people with any spirit left.
Design by box-ticking.
You are just as much of a homosexual as Bethesda is.
Your reaction to make the game better is literally nothing but coomshit cloaked in culture war bullshit, and adding the equivalent of the Asari (biowares most embarrassing creation). I want actual alien aliens, not something for a dysgenic, non reproducing mutt like you to drool over.
Your brain is some disgusting marriage of /misc/ cloaked in leftist cope to try to fit in with your millennial peers hence I don't value your opinions at all so that's fine. I can tell by your mannerisms you're of little societal worth, and this is all you have, which contributes to your angry interactions.
worst game they ever made has nothing their previous games had to keep you playing and doesnt really add anything new or better.
No, you have to have an admission that you fricked up to have a redemption story and bethesda/microsoft can't do that
It's too sterile. Image Starfield if the following were added:
>Racism
>Enslavement
>Hate crimes
>Torture
>Sexual slavery and rape
>Gore
Fallout 3 had all of those and even Fallout 4 still had some.
And suddenly they decide to troon out and drop anything that might offend someone. Why?
They clearly have the experience with all sorts of crime and atrocities in their older games. That's what made it interesting to explore a raider camp. See what kinda horrible shit went down before you got there.
How could they not recognize their own strenghts? Bethesda is just so hard to grasp in their way of thinking. Like when Fo4 was announced I figured they would have learned something from New Vegas and try their own take on it. But nope, instead they went the complete opposite direction. Dumbed everything down to absurd lengths and insert more cawadooty instead of RPG. And also
>We want the sims crowd
And then they tried to backpedal with the DLC's but too little too late and the whole basegame was a mess. Can't build an RPG on that no matter how much the DLC's faked to be one.
>redemption
Just let it die
To me, the story makes the whole game unsalvageable.
Most games (and movies, shows, books, all fiction) have an uphill battle in trying to trick the consumer into thinking what they're doing or seeing matters: a fictional story but it has real-seeming stakes, empathetic characters that you want to care for, etc.
But Starfield's story is like this one simple trick to invalidate the sense of meaning in anything you do in game.
So now that Starfield clearly hasn't met expectations, I think Bethesda's best choice is just to abandon it completely. Why bother trying to salvage the game with more story DLC in a setting where nothing the player does really matters?
Why bother trying to salvage the IP when any potential sequel is just going to be "nothing in the last game mattered because it was a different universe, also nothing you do in this game will matter because it'll be a different universe" ?
Mods will not get me to play this game again. Bethesda is no longer a company I can abide. Unless their next game uses a completely new engine, actually interesting game mechanics, and the writing isn't dogshit like every bethesda game before it, I will no longer support them. I'm not going to be swayed by the "big" names of their games anymore. ES6? Who gives a frick. It's still Bethesda.
Bethesda slithered by for years relying on the tired style of play their games offered because there was no good competition... but now since they have to compete with other up and coming RPG developers, this apple has fallen way off the tree.
>Is there any hope for a Starfield redemption story?
Turning it into a porn simulator once the necessary mods are available not only to add the sexy time action, but also to make the characters actually look attractive and not like characters out of a Family Guy ripoff
Even with porn mods, why would you play this garbage over Fallout 4? Everything about the game is fundamentally worse than Bethesda's previous titles. The graphics and character models are even somehow worse.
Fricking thought the galaxy would propably satisfy some people fetishes though, even if the rest of the game sucks
>Is there any hope for a Starfield redemption story?
No because the setting has no IP recognition. It's just people in space. No alien races, no odd setups like WH40k's imperium and warp, no cool factions like KoToR's sith vs jedi. It's unremarkable.
When has Todd ever fixed a game when he could get away with it
This was supposed to be Todd's passion project, but it really feels like a sloppy corporate money grab instead. Like it was designed by some committee and made in the cheapest possible way by outsourcing everything that was possible and cutting corners at every turn to save money. Even Fallout 4 with all its faults feels more polished than this turd, and Todd never cared about the Fallout series all that much.
bethesda games (from all of their subsidiaries [such as id]) have been gradually declining in quality and becoming more generic and uninteresting (inoffensive) as bethesda has grown. now that bethesda is owned by microsoft, it's essentially over.
their games all seem like design-by-committee affairs, where the committee is composed of artficial-hair-color college-indoctrinated safe-space/cry-closet types that don't like games, but do like policing morality like toy tyrants.
Looking back, Oblivion was already pretty sterile (compared to Morrowind), but Fallout 3, released like 2 years later still had a lot of adult themes: slavery, discrimination, prostitution, drugs, gore, maiming and torture. Skyrim and Fallout 4 toned it all down (Skyrim especially), but Starfield feels like a children game hiding under superfluous adult only certification. Even thugs in my country are more vicious than pirates in Starfield, and I luckily live in a pretty safe country. Hell, even night clubs in Starfield look and feel like if people who designed them never actually been to any night clubs themselves.
They still haven't released the CK?
still haven't. It's over for bugfield
>Resource management
what the frick made you think this was part of the concept
The game reminds me of the ship building quest in the game.
A bunch of corpo's sit around a table and pitch bad idea's.
Then you take all their bad idea's and throw them into the ship.
I haven't played it, but I have a hunch something didn't go as they planned during development. Kind of like the radiant AI for Oblivion, which was ambitious for the time, but caused problems and had to be toned down.
No.
Cyberpunk 2077 had interesting ideas behind it, and even as buggy as it was, it was still a fine game. It just has absolutely deranged levels of hype surrounding it. No Mans Sky was similar.
Who was hyped for Starfield? Nobody. The setting is a boring snorefest. The story is bad. The gameplay mechanics are bad. The planets are bad. Everything about Starfield is bad. It has no positive qualities. You can't build on something with mods if the structure is rotten. Further, who would even want to mod it? Modding is primarily due to interest, and as mentioned, nobody cares or is interested in Starfield.
This, even the people that wanted to try it were like "this looks boring but I'll give it a shot because Todd/ES"
They are well fricked without a DLC that would essentially be a complete overhaul of the game which will still leave it with that badly baked cake taste as boring factions and location will still exist as ugly foundation.
Not to mention the world they have released this in is versus BG3, the polar opposite of their non levels of interactivity, non guided play, and wooden puppet talking head convos.
If that weren't enough, DD2 is coming to make them look even worse on the open world engaging scale.
They were lucky they chose space and not releasing VI on this schema so the direct comparisons won't be made as much. But Todd is in real trouble here.
Starfield fails even as a Bethesda game. The exploration in Starfield is shit and that's the primary gameplay loop of Bethesda TES and Fallout games. Not to mention loading screen everywhere. Sure, those were common in other Bethesda games as well, but Starfield took it to the entirely new low.
>make scifi game
>it's not hard scifi, which could be interesting
>call it "nasapunk" a meaningless term that the game doesn't even stick to aesthetically
>no aliens
>no cities
>no content
>no abandoned megastructures and ringworlds
>a galaxy full of nothing, with nothing to do
>mechanics are so bad that even generic moment to moment gameplay sucks
Quite honestly my main question is, what were they thinking? The setting of the game is so soulless (this is a buzzword I almost never use yet is apt here), so bland and without anything interesting or memorable that its baffling how it even launched. Surely this would have been caught early in the pre alpha throwing ideas around phase?
Shartfield is shit but it's a single player game, homosexual. That headline means absolutely nothing you live service game brained mongrel
Cope.It‘s not going to sell any dlc.
Starfield was always going to get a lot of sales at release. That it fell of so hard so quickly is what is concerning. Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim all dominated RPG discussion for years after their release. Skyrim probably still has more concurrent players today than Starfield.
We will have to wait and see how the big DLCs for Starfield will do. Right now interest seems to be lackluster.
>Skyrim probably still has more concurrent players today than Starfield
Starfield was never going to be as popular as a fantasy RPG, nevermind the most popular single-player RPG of all time.
Sci-fi can be as huge as fantasy.
Let's be honest. Starfield is doubtful to reach the market position that Oblivion had. Every RPG fan was talking about Oblivion half a year, a year still after release.
Context is quite different, but people like you ignore it to make your point. Oblivion came out in 2006, new generation with leaps in technology, there wasn't many games like it etc.
But perhaps you weren't around back then.
I mean, yes, Starfield is not a jump like Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim were. It is also facing serious competition from other open world games. Thank you for elaborating on why Starfield is likely going to be a failure for Bethesda.
Idiot.
Well, if you want to say "starfield sucks!" just go ahead and say it, you don't have to make up dumb comparisons in an attempt to justify it.
>EVERY RPG fan was talking about Oblivion for uh.. a year after release!
kek
shit game, shit company
Elite did everything that Starfield do in 1984 on a fricking BBC Micro...
I'm surprised somebody actually remembers existence of BBC Micro.
Elite has fun space combat, unlike starfield.
Why do people have such a massive hate boner for Starfield when The Outer Worlds is 10x as dogshit. In the grand scheme of space RPGs Starfield is only worse than KOTOR.
They want a tortanic. Which is also why there's little discussion about Starfield. It will be flooded by homosexuals "eager" to "offer criticism"
OW and Obsidian aren't worth talking about.
Starfield released relatively recently and from one of the biggest western rpg studios, besides that people were shitting on Outer Worlds well after a year, eventually it runs out.
I hate nubioware but Mass Effect IS bigger and the first Games are better than Starfield.
Also Phantasy Star is better too.I can even put Star Ocean 2 remake , 6(even 4) and Planetscape as better than Starfield even though SO has shit story and Planetscape a shit combat
Starfield is beyond redemption. The only way to salvage anything from it is to have a complete overhaul mod. The base game's story, setting, characters and quests are truly mediocre at best.
I feel like I would in and out repeatedly this poorly textured grey haired woman....uhhhwoaaaah!
They'll probably do something but the number one issue imo is the setting and writing is just so boring, I don't know how they'd fix that except through drastic rewrites which does not seem likely.
>FeMC with 1000 wiener stare
Why does nobody want to play our game?
No
I stopped thinking about this game immediately after playing it for one day on game pass
every aspect of the game sucks wiener
every single thing about this game is a shit thread making up a magnificent shit tapestry, and it literally makes no sense to take the engine and remake an entirely new game which is what would have to happen to make it enjoyable
game just isn't fun. It's ugly, shit writing, bad gameplay, just another shit
>muh heckin space exploration
game that doesn't even live up to that fantasy
DO NOT REDEEM SIRS
Starfield is boring shit. Zero clout for the game in 2024. You're just irritated and very much wish to hope and believe that Bethesda couldn't have possibly shat the bed 2 games in a row in a 9 year timespan. Which would make the situation especially dreadful considering TES 6 (Bethesda's final gambit) is the next game and thus, based on Fallout 76 and Starfield's performance, its future is fearful.
My advice to you? Forget Starfield completely (even CP2077 is leagues above it atm) and brace yourself for TES 6, the only game that will matter (for good or bad) when this post-Skyrim Bethesda saga ends.
>brace yourself for TES 6, the only game that will matter (for good or bad) when this post-Skyrim Bethesda saga ends.
Correct. We are all waiting for TES 6. That's why people don't really mind Fallout 76 or Starfield. But if TES 6 is shit as well, the dam will break.
worse than that my dude.
They will make a game called "FNV 2" and it will, somehow, be even more dumbed-down than TES 6.
>The blandness is just unforgivable. There are hospitals less sterile than Starfield.
This is often the issue with large open world space games. Space itself is sterile and bland. Devs should have watched some old scifi tv shows or read scifi space opera books to find out what actually made space adventures fun and engaging.
No. Even after several updates, it still has little more than 6500 players on average. Mods can't save it when people can play less woke games from Todd like Fallout 4 or Skyrim. It doesn't look like a game that can redeem itself given people no longer trust Bethesda.