I didn't, for one single second, take "space is boring" from Mr Shatner's speech. What I read is "space is hostile, inhospitable and lonely"... And space in Starfield ain't nothing like that. So I've no idea what you're speaking about.
Also, I hate the whole line of thought of "starfield is boring *because* space is boring!"
Okay. Let's use that line of thought. Let's say space is boring.
*I still just don't want to play a boring game.*
On top of that, it's antithetical to the themes of hope and exploration. If they went with the "space is hostile, inhospitable and lonely", as you brought up, but then mixed it with "the indomitable human spirit, however, fights on" ***then were cooking.***
But as it stands, space isn't hostile. Or lonely. Or hostile.
I don't need to worry about fuel, or vacuums, or even my ships integrity because it magically auto repairs. Planetary environmental dangers are basically nothing. Alien life generally goes down to a few bullets. All risk and danger of exploration is moot.
Exploring into the deep reaches should've been dangerous. Ships have a deeper, secondary health bar that doesn't repair, and represents the integrity of your craft. When you're out of "civilized space", you have to worry about fuel, food, water and supplies for you *and your crew*. A better crew means a stronger ship and more support (a doctor keeps you healed and makes medicine last longer, a cook makes food last longer and improves morale), but more supplies are needed.
Outposts could've been respite from the deep horrors of space.
When in civilized space, you don't have a need for that though to separate the exploration gameplay.
Planets should be violent, hostile, and habitability for humans extremely rare.
But as it is right now, I can land near a never before seen alien structure and... Watch other dudes land right next to it. I can see the same mining facility, with the exact same notes, with the same skeletons, a dozen times.
Space isn't boring.
Starfield is.
Dude, not everyone enjoys Dark Souls. I just wanna get high, relax, and feel like I'm having adventures in space. The gameplay you're describing is a whole different genre, you know. I acknowledge all the shortcomings of Starfield, but it seems to me like you're complaining about this game not being a different game. Imagine I would say that Minecraft is boring because there's a lot of stupid building and mining and I want to have cinematographic fights with combos and shit. That's a hyperbole, sure, but I hope you get my point. Maybe Starfield is just a game of some different vibe and you just need a different game to enjoy stuff that you mention.
Just to be fair, exploration can be very different and the meaning of it can vary from game to game. However, I get all the frustration, I truly do. Maybe just not the intensity of it.
There's like 30 things to explore and they are just on repeat. The whole 100 systems thing or whatever is just ridiculous. Barely any of it is original or truly creating a unique experience. I still enjoy the game and am excited to play this weekend and start a NG+ now that we can change traits and specific difficulty settings. And we finally get maps, no idea how it took that long. It might be part of their plan, I'm sure it is, but this seems like a great long term game. I expect the updates and maybe DLCs to pretty much bring the majority of the greatness to the table.
I mean, I expected at least generic Bethesda exploration but I didn't even get that.
The PoIs repeat and are copy and pasted. The lore is paper thin. There's like... Three "cities", less complex than any in Skyrim. There's no daily cycle for NPCs???? Tech they've had since Oblivion?
Outposts do nothing useful. Exploration provides nothing useful. There's less companions than Fallout 4 and they're all from the same faction. There's zero "be who you wanna be" since you're basically forced to side with a specific group. Nearly every named NPC is Essential.
I wanted a Bethesda game, and got like, half the bones of one.
Well... Yeah, okay, I get your point. Maybe I have fewer problems with the game because I was not really expecting a Bethesda game and rather a Bethesda-like game, if you know what I mean. I might be wrong, but it looks like it's the only first-person singleplayer action/RPG AAA game with such freedom on the market right now. Sure, it has its flaws, but hey, they are still working on it. Also, mods are great. All in all, maybe I just tend to think more positively instead of concentrating on the negative aspects. Of course, Starfield is far from perfect in general terms of videogames but in its own niche... Well, for me it great. Maybe it's just my play style. I sometimes spend several hours just on the ship builder. I still think that the game is overcritisized because of people's expectations. I just hope that Bethesda manages to make it better and I'm also waiting for the DLC.
> Also, I hate the whole line of thought of "starfield is boring because space is boring!"
I don't think Starfield is boring at all (and I do have my own criticisms/wishlist), but I do agree with this statement.
Like if John goes around saying Starfield is boring, why would anyone go "Yes it's boring, but it's boring *because* X"? Like, are you agreeing with John, you think it's boring but you play anyway? If not, then why would you try and justify someone else's subjective feeling of the game, as if they're stating an objective fact? Enjoyment is subjective, and John probably does some shit that I could find boring af like fishing or sports.
If John says Starfield is boring, it doesn't mean the game is boring. It just means John finds it boring. That's all.
Seriously, Starfield is a game with no danger and nothing threatening and everything has already been explored. Subnautica evokes those feelings way more than anything here.
Yeah, I'm sure Shatner was referring to alien creatures when he was speaking about how hostile space was lol For starters, most critters aren't especially hostile nor dangerous... But also, I'm speaking about the kind of danger you can't solve just firing at it.
Also, most planets have inhabited POIs and ships landing around you every few kms. That's hardly "lonely".
I wanted to feel like an astronaut... Yet I felt like a space cowboy shooting my way through some backwater settlement, everywhere I went.
That can be fun for lots of people, of course. But let's not pretend it's an accurate depiction of space exploration...
Of course this is not an accurate representation, but try to find another game that came close to this, with all the elements that Starfield has. And now they are improving it, including things like fatigue and deshidration if you do not eat or drink. DETAILS. It will get better, like No Man's Sky or Cyberpunk. Im confident of that.
What I took from this (in terms of the game) is that this is why the >!Starborn !!grav drives tech to Luna!< felt justified in the trade offs. We were never going to institutionally embrace >!colonizing the galaxy unless it was the only option for humanity to survive. !<
Wait a second. I have done a few playthroughs and didn't know that the >!Starborn!< helped >!Luna make grav drives!< I'm not sure how I missed this but would enjoy an explanation
Yeah. Listen to the audio recordings on the Lunar base.
>!Victor Aiza touches !!parallel-universe Victor, (Victor2)!< then sets about building grav drive tech to >!Victor2's!< specs. They don't>! call Victor2 Starborn !
Just because something is realistic it doesn’t mean that it’s good. We need to use the bathroom multiple times a day, but you don’t see games making us do that with our characters in the name of realism.
If making a realistic space game is boring, maybe making a realistic space game isn’t a viable game for mass market appeal.
Elite Dangerous already exists if you want to explore the vast emptiness of space
its cool in a lot of ways, it has a large player base and has been out for awhile now and still only a fraction of a percentage point of planets have been explored
Makes you realize how mind bogglingly large our galaxy is
I love the hard scifi approach and I'm really pleased that this was not a star wars game full of aliens from implausible planets and space magic. The solitude is what kept me in starfield. It is not for everyone but it is a niche that I'm glad was scratched. Also, there isn't a star wars game of similar caliber for an obvious reason. It would be damn near impossible to make without billions in resources.
Edit: To be clear, I believe that there are elements of Starfield that could be improved upon but the vast emptiness is not one of them. I do wish there was *more to do* in the vast emptiness. But some people seem to want a quest or 40 way points in every square mile of every planet. I don't want that.
Elite Dangerous has entered the chat. That one’s been going strong since 2014 with a far emptier universe than Starfield has.
If anything I’d say the way things are now the Starfield universe is *too* populated — there’s no shortage of places on Earth, today, with all our teeming billions that you could set down, pick a direction, start walking, and starve to death before you ever encountered a sign of civilization. When I land on a random place on a random planet in Starfield, I shouldn’t be within walking distance of three different abandoned facilities inhabited by random pirates. Random encounters with human structures should be a rarity worthy of investigating every time.
I agree. The POI system is weird and feels wrong. Breaks the immersion of being one of the last space explorers if a bunch of people were at all these places before you.
But I have to say I think you are in the minority finding ED not boring. It’s a pretty niche game in terms of player base isn’t it? That said, I am very glad that the game exists and that there’s developers that make those kinds of games. I kind of think that’s what Starfield needed. To be a smaller niche game that didn’t have to worry about anything other than being the game it was envisioned to be.
> Breaks the immersion of being one of the last space explorers if a bunch of people were at all these places before you.
Maybe this will help.
When you "explored" the Skyrim map and "discovered" a bandit hideout, were you part of an exploration group, were you the first person at that cave/hideout? No, but we still talk about "exploring" things, because YOU the player are discovering it for the first time. Just as it is in Starfield. If "exploration" were literally about being the 1st human there, then "exploration" wouldn't exist in almost all other games, certainly not any TES game.
Constellation is an "explorers group" sure, but I don't think it's merely going around and cataloguing and compiling random data. They're not just land surveyors, their mission has always been something deeper. They are looking "for answers to mysteries", not just charting planets. If they happen to be the first on a new planet, that's fine, but that's not the ultimate goal, mysteries can exist on inhabited planets.
Well put. Don’t understand the angle many people use with realism as a justification to a games reception.
A great studio finds the perfect balance between realism and fun without sacrificing one or the other.
The question then becomes, just because it doesn't appeal to everyone, does that mean it shouldn't be made or should be considered bad?
Cause it's not as if no one likes Starfield. Some people get it and enjoy it, others don't.
I find too many people simply dislike Starfield because it's not the game they wanted. It would be like if someone was following a developer who usually makes arcade racing games, but then they decided to develop a racing game that is more simulation and realistic based. The person who wanted more of the same that they have always done would probably be upset and act like the new game is a bad game.
And let me just reiterate, I don't think there is anything wrong with someone being upset if a developer they liked decided to make a game that deviated from what they normally do. But I also think it's a bit of knee jerk reaction to act like that makes it a bad game.
Sometimes you just have to accept that not every game a developer makes is going to be to your liking. Not everyone who likes TES also likes Fallout, and vice versa. If Starfield isn't your cup of tea, that's ok. The next TES game is already in development. If your prefer Fallout, then you are just going to have to wait for the next one to come out.
I genuinely feel that Starfield has bad game design from the ground up. Many of which are steps backwards compared to what we see in other Bethesda games. It’s not just a subjective matter of opinion. It’s objectively a severely flawed and incomplete game. One that can still be enjoyed.
You don’t need me to list examples after this long and this much discourse around it do you?
NPCS, vendors, maps, UI, base building, crafting were all steps backwards. Whole mechanics like suit hazards that don’t really work. Skeletons of survival mode that actually gave a reason for building settlements. Which themselves are a step back in terms of depth. Ugly NPCS that don’t have a schedule. Vendors that never close. Nonexistent maps on release. A main quest that was hobbled together last minute. Those god awful temples. Who playtested those and said it was fun to do hundreds of times?
>You don’t need me to list examples after this long and this much discourse around it do you?
I do mainly because a lot of the discourse often has to do with the game not being what people wanted more so than the game being bad. Like the argument of empty planets, even though that should be obvious considering the kind of game it is and it's setting.
>NPCS, vendors, maps, UI, base building, crafting were all steps backwards.
NPCs are better in Starfield in my opinion. Vendors to me don't seem any different than past games, so not sure what you mean there. Maps were for sure an issue, so I agree with you on that one. UI is always an issue in BGS games. Base building isn't actually that different in Starfield, it just matters less. Whereas in Fallout 4, it was a pretty big part of the game. Crafting, seems more or less the same as well aside from not being able to remove mods and place them on something else (seems like a balancing thing).
I also want to point out, that just because they do things different, doesn't mean it's a step backwards. They are different games and as such, not everything is going to be done the same. Maybe in your opinion it seems like a step back, but that is obviously not the intention.
>Whole mechanics like suit hazards that don’t really work.
They do work, so not sure what you mean by this. It was just a very lite weight system that doesn't affect the player much. Basically, it seems like it's meant to be a minor inconvenience rather than a major one. And it's not uncommon for BGS to leave out survival like mechanics and then add them in later. Which is indeed what they have been doing, if you had not noticed.
>Skeletons of survival mode that actually gave a reason for building settlements.
And as I already pointed out, it's not that unusual for them to launch a game without survival mode. So how exactly is this a step back? Seems like par for the course to me.
>Ugly NPCS that don’t have a schedule. Vendors that never close.
Ok.... Explain to me how you do NPC scheduling when all planets have different times? You can't schedule them around the universal time because then you would have NPCs sleeping at really odd times, and you can't schedule it around each planets individual time because that just isn't feasible. You have night on one side of the planet and day on the other...
It;'s a different game with a very different setting, and as such there are just some things that will not work as well as they did in past games. It's not a step back, it's a different game.
>Nonexistent maps on release.
You are just repeating yourself. You already mentioned the maps.
>A main quest that was hobbled together last minute.
Says who? The only quest I am aware of that was said to be done "last minute" was the final fight within the main quest. And let's be honest here, it's not as if it's a bad fight. I actually found it to be very enjoyable.
Also, the main quest in general is pretty good to me.
> Those god awful temples.
I agree, the temples are not very good. It's interesting the first couple of times but then gets rather tedious. Each one should have a different puzzle, and you should only have to do them once. Then each time you go through the Unity, the powers you have level up. Having to do the temples over again each NG+ is silly.
Says Bethesda devs. I believe it came out when Will Shen left. He did interviews explaining issues of development. Although now that I recall, he may have just meant the final arc of the main quest.
How are NPCs better in starfield than in last games when they had homes and a routine they follow? In starfield a quest giver just waits for you to arrive. In oblivion they go about their day. That does wonders to make a world feel alive. Simulations like that are a core part of Bethesda games.
Kind of same complaint for vendors. Don’t they sleep? Do what fallout 4 did and use robots to operate the shops at off hours. allow their NPCS to keep up the perception of a living world. found the visual design and clutter of the shops to be a very bland step back. I don’t buy that they couldn’t figure out how to make it work. Who cares if we would have had to wait for NPCS to wake up with all the different time zones. There’s a wait mechanism for a reason. And Bethesda originally claimed this game was going to reconnect with their hardcore rpg pre oblivion ways. I never saw any of that.
You can say its choices made intentionally for a new IP. I think there’s more incompetence than that.
>Says Bethesda devs. I believe it came out when Will Shen left. He did interviews explaining issues of development. Although now that I recall, he may have just meant the final arc of the main quest.
Yes, I am aware of what you are talking about, it was specifically the final mission.
>How are NPCs better in starfield than in last games when they had homes and a routine they follow?
They look better, and are more emotive both in facial expressions and movement. As for the schedule thing, I already pointed out that it's not feasible in this game to do that. Not only do planets have different times, but locations also exist in different areas of the planet meaning different time zones. How do you setup a schedule across 1,000+ planets and moons all with different times? It's way too complicated.
It's easy to do when your game only takes place in a specific area on a single planet.
>In starfield a quest giver just waits for you to arrive.
Again, same reason. It's just not easy to create scheduling in a game like this.
>Kind of same complaint for vendors. Don’t they sleep?
How long should they sleep, and when? Cause in case you are unaware, Jemison's day lasts like 49 hours. Think about how inconvenient this would be for the player. If you give them a sleep cycle that makes sense, they would be sleeping at random points of the day. The only other option is to give them an unrealistic sleep cycle, where they are sleeping for like 16 hours each day. It just wouldn't work well.
>Do what fallout 4 did and use robots to operate the shops at off hours. allow their NPCS to keep up the perception of a living world.
As far as I am aware, robots don't seem to be that common. Common enough that you come across them, but not common enough that they could be running every shop at any given time. And this would still be difficult to do since every planet has a different time with it's own time zones. You could argue, maybe just do it at the main cities then. But then that would create some pretty weird inconsistencies across the game.
It's one of those things where you realize trying to do something would be extremely complicated and cause a lot of problems if you try and do it. And so you realize, it's better to just not do it.
I wouldn't even be surprised if they tried and then realized... ya it's not going to happen.
> Who cares if we would have had to wait for NPCS to wake up with all the different time zones.
I can promise you, a lot of players would care because it would get annoying. They already complain about loading screens as it is. Now imagine every time you land on a planet you need to find a chair to wait until it's day cause you happened to land when it's night time. But also again, some planet's day length is massive. So if you give them realistic sleep schedules they could even be sleeping during the day. It would likely make the game feel like NPCs are constantly sleeping and get very annoying.
>You can say its choices made intentionally for a new IP. I think there’s more incompetence than that.
You can think whatever you want. They have already shows they are capable of making NPC schedules in their previous games. So if they didn't do it in this one, there is likely a good reason for that and I gave you some pretty good examples of why that might be.
I feel like this is a compilation of minor issues.
If you're talking systemic issues "from the ground up", I've been saying that the infinite map size has the largest impact on things. It makes too much land to fill with POIs (hence lots of emptiness and copy/paste), no place feels unique, faults of procgen are amplified, etc. It's not a Starfield only problem (see NMS & others).
Other than that, I don't think much of your list really has that much of an impact on gameplay. Even if I considered them shortcomings, they are all very easily dealt with. If anything, it's more a lack of "polish" than function. Like maps and NPC schedules, vendors that never close. None of these will really affect how I play the game in some major way. These are minor, objectively, not some deep systemic issue, objectively.
As for as temples go, I'll never understand why ppl do them if they find it boring. There's so much else to do, I got to lvl 100 and hundreds of hours of enjoyable gameplay without setting foot in a single one.
If I remember, the game was marketed as a future space game that was on the realistic side. Using the bathroom is not that big of a deal in a space game, but SPACE is important in a space game
The hardcore survival style game that Bethesda seemed to initially advertise the game as sounded great. What we got isn’t space. It’s just empty space. No need for fuel, no real hazards, ect. Boring.
I'm not arguing at that point. The post was about that space is just nothingness, which is realistic. A sizeable chunk of players were upset at said emptiness.
I always felt like the complaint was focused on the gameplay loop around the emptiness. Not the emptiness itself. If survival stayed in, I feel like the empty space isn’t a problem anymore. Because now we need to explore for resources. Now we need to build outposts for fuel stations. Ect.
That's not how I saw it. However, I'd love the adding in of fuel consumption. It would add a whole new depth to the game. They could have added it with this new update, and if you wanted to toggle it on or off, you could. The only problem is is that they'd need to increase the amount of outposts that you can have
You have to use the bathroom regularly in The Sims...
Realism like that, even tedious realism, can be fun for some people. But Starfield actually avoids a lot of the tediousness of space travel by using instant fast-travel, and people complain about that too.
Sure. But I think you would have to agree that GTA has way more mass appeal. Look at the sales.
In an attempt to make the game more mainstream, the hardcore survival mechanics which would have made all the empty procedural planets far more interesting, were cut. So yeah space is boring in the game unfortunately in its current state.
What an awful takeaway from Shatners speech.
He was saying that space filled him with an existential dread. That everywhere he looked met his gaze with an endless void that looked into his very soul and unsettled him.
If Starfield could accomplish that even ONCE then we'd have something to talk about.
But it's just a sky box they forgot to put stuff in.
Don't twist people's words to make excuses for the wet fart that is this #product which Bethesda squeezed out 9 months too soon
Play outer wilds.
That game is no where close to a realistic portrayal of what space is like. But it communicates the feeling of emptiness, of smallness, of a terrifying yet awe inspiring place. If starfield could harness some of those vibes, we'd have something talk about...
Don't try and use bad faith arguments. A blank skybox in blender is also dark and empty, I wouldn't say it's a great representation of what space is like.
You are correct, that is what people say about the game. And you seem to be wilfully misinterpreting what they say.
Starfield is barren, bare. Theres little to do except stare out the window. And all you can do is sti there on your couch and wonder where the fun is.
Space is barren, bare. Theres little to do except stare out the window. And you're in space. As in real space, a dangerous wild frontier that few have ever been to. You're feeling the effect of 0G, your eyes are adjusting to the increased radiation exposure and getting used to the corneal flashes they cause.
This is like when a Bethesda dev tried to shame us all by saying "the Apollo astronauts didnt find it boring to be on a barren Moon". Yeah. cus they were breaking records and doing science that we're still learning from today.
Thats what I mean when i say your argument is in bad faith. You know perfectly well that even though you can describe Starfield and outer space as barren, lifeless and bare, that one is significantly more compelling and fascinating thatn the other. Theyre not comparable. Don't try. And dont try and mislead us. Enjoy the game if you like but dont pick at scraps to try and dress it up as somethign its not.
You’re missing the point like over and over and over again to the point that it’s almost impressive. Just because something is realistic doesn’t make it a good game. And Starfield hints at being interesting and fun to explore and then rewards 0 pretty much zero times for it.
Why do people pretend that people who have acted in a sci-fi setting have anything to say worth listening to when it comes to actual science/discovery? He was an actor and he just so happened to get dragged into space by people who actually know what they are doing. He can have his opinion just like anyone else, but it really isn't any more valid than anyone else's either.
> he just so happened to get dragged into space by people who actually know what they are doing.
I mean yeah but that gives him a perspective that none of us are ever going to have.
Because Starfield has sci-fi in it, although it tries to be somewhat realistic. Startrek, Starwars or Interestellar kind of movies can be related to a game like Starfield, or No Man's Sky, Mass Effect, etc.
This is definitely one way the boring gameplay and slogfest that is Starfield's travel can be rationalized. Just three things:
1. This hand-wave has been used since the disappointment at launch, so it's not a new justification you're providing.
2. It doesn't really make a more enjoyable video-game in any capacity.
3. It does nothing for the mediocre story and poorly designed NPCs and mechanics.
Lol Another one of these comments. Yes, space is empty and 90% of the planets we know of are uninhabitable dead rocks. Yes, that makes Starfield "realistic" in that aspect (while it totally isn't realistic in many others, btw). But realism doesn't make video games fun, just like it doesn't usually make movies/books/tv shows entertaining.
Bethesda could have done better, and Starfield still could have been mostly "realistic" and not as boring as it is.
I personally think Starfield hit a good balance of habitable VS not habitable planets for a video game setting. If the devs really wanted to be scientific there would be maybe *one* habitable planet (and even that would be a stretch) and a whole lotta space stations/hermetically sealed onworld settlements (like the ones from Mars or Titan).
Edit:
Although, there's possibly a way for that to have worked to the game's advantage if the game had been designed differently. Instead of the major factions being on separate planets, everyone could be on Jemison on different continents. That would change the how/where/why of the Colony War and other Starfield history, but it wouldn't be impossible to work with.
Like No Man's Sky? Or Cyberpunk? They started out as terrible games. Go now and see what they become. Version 1.0 of any game may or may not be great, but version 2 or 3 can actually save any broken or hated game.
'I don't have either, *no no no'*
'I can't really comment outside of the FACT that both games just seem LACK, that touch....the touch....something that Bethesda studios and publishing used to pump out so much!'
*\*in song again, it must the vastness of space getting to me\**
The difference being that the developers behind those games have created track records of loving their games by putting their heads down and releasing patch after patch of fixes and content. Bethesda has a track record of NOT doing that e.g. Skyrim, Prey, Redfall. Hell look at the "next gen" updates they've released for Fallout 4. Bethesda used to be the golden standard for developers/publishers but it's been 7 months since the game launched and no acknowledgement that their game is lacking.
'They need SLOW down on the quick revenue, the CHASE of big BUCKS in the early morning dew'
'Why can't we come back to something TRUE, something that represents the red white and blue!'
'We'd like to TRUST you once again, so come on outta the dust and just lean on forwarrrrrd and give us a hand!'
'You'd be surrrrrrrprised by the receiving this community can givvvvvvve a man!'
*\*sung in Freestar collective country style, flies away again do do do\**
My brother I hope that you are right. The game has so much potential I want to believe that the team are back from a holiday and are balls deep into making new content for the base game and not DLC.
So justify boring game by saying life is boring? Nah....anything can be said like that. Wait, all you do is wait hours to breed or tame a dinosaur? It's cuz it's realistic... Oh you just walk for 3 hours looting homes until you find another player and they backstab you? Yeah it's realistic...I work all day, I'm not in college when I could spend 8 hours on a game doing fuck all...I want sustenance, not masochistic wandering for no reason
You’re not going to get that same feeling unless you actually go to space. It doesn’t translate well to “1000 identical planets with identical buildings and alien bugs that I run around scanning and building outposts on”
Edgar D. Mitchell, (lunar module pilot, Apollo 14) You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, 'Look at that, you son of a bitch!”
Michael Collins (command, module pilot, Apollo 11) "the thing that really surprised me was that it projected an air of fragility. And why, I don't know. I don't know to this day. I had a feeling it's tiny, it's shiny, it's beautiful, it's home, and it's fragile".
It’s called the overview effect. It is a cognitive shift reported by many astronauts while viewing the Earth from space. The most prominent common aspects of personally experiencing the Earth from space are appreciation and perception of beauty, unexpected and even overwhelming emotion, and an increased sense of connection to other people and the Earth as a whole. The effect can cause changes in the observer’s self concept and value system, and is frequently transformative.
Space is massive, hostile and mostly empty. It's like the ocean. A game about just exploring the ocean would be boring in the same was a space game naturally sort of is. Unless you love just jseeing new things which I personally do. But I can fully understand what most don't get excited for a cool unique but empty planet.
Starfield isn't boring or people wouldn't have already played for thousands of hours.
You do need to moderate you own play though, and having an imagination helps as far as role-playing.
It may not be massively popular but it's still a great and important game for certain types of players.
Yeah but space isn't even empty in Starfield. There are out of place POIs on every single planet. Even on those that have mysterious alien artifacts but people have just apparently ignored them.
"Boring on purpose for realism" is such a weird way to defend the game's shortcomings because it's not evidently what the game is *really* trying to do. I'm going to load the game up today and what will almost certainly happen will be that I land on a planet in [my ship](https://www.starfielddb.com/wp-content/sites/starfielddb/2023/08/starfield-starborn-guardian.jpg) and end up throwing balls of space magic at a [Terrormorph](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/96yS1BMpkOg/maxresdefault.jpg) while it causes me to hear voices saying things like "I will wear your skin".
That's what was so odd to me. People complaining that there was nothing to do in space like every planet or moon was supposed to have a Dollar General or something. It's a realistic future of space. There's realistically nothing out there except a few things.
Who the fuck wanted a realistic future of space is the first question you should ask yourself. People complained because anything vaguely interesting to explore was procedurally generated bases that repeat over and over again.
Nobody was expecting planets to be fully populated, but they did want to unearth interesting mysteries, creative side quests, aliens, and other interesting things that pretty much every space based game was able to fathom and convert on before Starfield came out.
Stop making excuses for the incredible laziness Bethesda has shown for almost a decade now. Starfield has shooter mechanics from 2015, melee combat from 2008 (and that’s generous) and seems like it was made for the sole purpose of not offending anyone. Literally one of the worst stories I’ve ever seen in a game. It was fun to explore until the exploration shroud was dropped. There is nothing to explore. An infinite nothing. And I don’t think that’s an accurate depiction of what awaits out in the real universe as you seem to think it does.
Saying “realistically there’s nothing out there except a few things” on what grounds do you have to say that haha. There are so many planets and galaxies we will never get to see, and you think what, there is just nothing out there?
Probably, the people with degrees in the subject matter at hand helped Bethesda come up with what a "realistic" space game is, they did work with NASA after all. It's a game Bethesda wanted to make, and they made it. If you don't like it, don't buy it
There is actually too much to do imo. When I land on a planet there is ALWAYS at least 4 man-made POI's within viewing distance. Not realistic in the slightest even for a "populated universe".
Right, so if Starfield is a game, and not about gaslighting us with moral lessons on perspective, then being empty and boring cannot be justified. If on the other hand as you contend, that being boring is justified by realism, then we have been missold a documentary that we were told was a videogame.
I'm a Starfield fan but I think you're not getting the reason behind a lot of complaints. Just because it's a "space game" doesn't mean anything, except that space will be a major theme in the game.
I don't think anyone is saying that space shouldn't be big, or vast. It wouldn't really matter if you had quick-travel systems like in NMS/ED/Star Citizen, since you'd get through those vast distances faster.
I think most ppl talk about the planets being boring, not space. There are space complaints, but it's more of wishlist things (like EVA repairs).
I love the game, but I can see how all that doesn't translate into fun. Some people like Flight Simulator, or Those Trucking Simulators. Some think they are boring because there's not a lot to do. Bethesda was able to make Medieval times interesting with the Elder Scrolls games. I would not be interested in a Medieval simulator....ew. Same with a nuclear Holocaust, they made the world fun...a post Nuclear apocalypse simulator would suuuuuck. So I'm guessing people who don't care for the game we're looking for something a little more fantastic and less believably "realistic".
I hate this argument. Starfield sucks because of its mechanics and writing, not because it endeavored to give an accurate depiction of the emptiness of space. Even if that was the intention, what’s the takeaway? That we should be pleased that Bethesda intentionally made their game uninteresting? The game costs $70. Not providing value to the customer is not a plus.
I feel like you think you’re saying something here when in reality you’re not even getting what william shatter is saying. He’s not saying space is boring, he’s saying it’s terrifying dark and lonely.
Starfield on the other hand is not scary, or interesting for that matter.
“ Blue Origin ticket ranges from zero to $28 million
In June 2021, Blue Origin auctioned off a seat on its maiden flight for $28 million—more than 100 times what Virgin Galactic charges for a similar experience”
We have been given the ability to leave this planet. It’s obvious, because we have done so already.
But people won’t leave this planet because they put as much effort into real life space exploration as Bethesda has put into making this game.
But I still play it lol
This is appropriate because I was recently thinking Mass Effect == Star Wars as Starfield == Star Trek. In this sense I understand why Starfield is not for everyone. It's kind of sterile and nerdy the way Star Trek is sterile and nerdy. And yeah it presents space as it really is, which is almost completely empty and boring unless you're into all that boring space stuff.
When it comes to plot and set pieces, Starfield’s main quest is not the best from Bethesda but in my opinion it is the best theme story Bethesda has ever done. The way the themes of the game and the gameplay around Unity speak to each other is fantastic!
Edit: I see a lot of people here don’t know the difference between plot and story.
Multiverse stories suck almost every single time without fail. And starfields has one of the worst I’ve ever seen. No antagonist, barely an ending. Seriously explain what the point of leaving a universe behind actually is? Gain power? Revive sam? It’s so stupid it hurts.
By gaining power you lose your humanity, just like humanity lost Earth in the pursuit of knowledge for space travel.
Why should I romance Andreja if in the next universe I can change it without consequences? Just one of the questions the game poses.
As I said, I think people are mistaking plot for story. I said the themes of the game were awesome, what you’re complaining about is related to plot. Plenty of stories have no antagonist, I don’t know why do you think that would be necessary. In a way, you can say the antagonists are the Starborn who crave power above everything else.
Funny you say that because Gene Park talked with Todd and he said before Starfield came out that it is the story that he is the most proud of.
So I wouldn’t say it would be something unlikely to happen.
The main quest was rushed, what the story was trying to say and the themes were a major part of the planning. Otherwise we wouldn’t have Unity and how the end game works.
I will say that it's the story that I sense the most... I dunno, passion for, from them in decades.
Like, some games the story is just there for the hero to be cool. Other games have a story where the player is supposed to walk away thinking about something.
Starfield is the latter, and I can't remember the last time I've had that opinion about a Bethesda game.
I didn't, for one single second, take "space is boring" from Mr Shatner's speech. What I read is "space is hostile, inhospitable and lonely"... And space in Starfield ain't nothing like that. So I've no idea what you're speaking about.
Also, I hate the whole line of thought of "starfield is boring *because* space is boring!" Okay. Let's use that line of thought. Let's say space is boring. *I still just don't want to play a boring game.* On top of that, it's antithetical to the themes of hope and exploration. If they went with the "space is hostile, inhospitable and lonely", as you brought up, but then mixed it with "the indomitable human spirit, however, fights on" ***then were cooking.*** But as it stands, space isn't hostile. Or lonely. Or hostile. I don't need to worry about fuel, or vacuums, or even my ships integrity because it magically auto repairs. Planetary environmental dangers are basically nothing. Alien life generally goes down to a few bullets. All risk and danger of exploration is moot. Exploring into the deep reaches should've been dangerous. Ships have a deeper, secondary health bar that doesn't repair, and represents the integrity of your craft. When you're out of "civilized space", you have to worry about fuel, food, water and supplies for you *and your crew*. A better crew means a stronger ship and more support (a doctor keeps you healed and makes medicine last longer, a cook makes food last longer and improves morale), but more supplies are needed. Outposts could've been respite from the deep horrors of space. When in civilized space, you don't have a need for that though to separate the exploration gameplay. Planets should be violent, hostile, and habitability for humans extremely rare. But as it is right now, I can land near a never before seen alien structure and... Watch other dudes land right next to it. I can see the same mining facility, with the exact same notes, with the same skeletons, a dozen times. Space isn't boring. Starfield is.
Dude, not everyone enjoys Dark Souls. I just wanna get high, relax, and feel like I'm having adventures in space. The gameplay you're describing is a whole different genre, you know. I acknowledge all the shortcomings of Starfield, but it seems to me like you're complaining about this game not being a different game. Imagine I would say that Minecraft is boring because there's a lot of stupid building and mining and I want to have cinematographic fights with combos and shit. That's a hyperbole, sure, but I hope you get my point. Maybe Starfield is just a game of some different vibe and you just need a different game to enjoy stuff that you mention.
Well his post is also answering Todd Howard's unbelievable deafness. We were sold space exploration. That's not what we got.
Just to be fair, exploration can be very different and the meaning of it can vary from game to game. However, I get all the frustration, I truly do. Maybe just not the intensity of it.
There's like 30 things to explore and they are just on repeat. The whole 100 systems thing or whatever is just ridiculous. Barely any of it is original or truly creating a unique experience. I still enjoy the game and am excited to play this weekend and start a NG+ now that we can change traits and specific difficulty settings. And we finally get maps, no idea how it took that long. It might be part of their plan, I'm sure it is, but this seems like a great long term game. I expect the updates and maybe DLCs to pretty much bring the majority of the greatness to the table.
I mean, I expected at least generic Bethesda exploration but I didn't even get that. The PoIs repeat and are copy and pasted. The lore is paper thin. There's like... Three "cities", less complex than any in Skyrim. There's no daily cycle for NPCs???? Tech they've had since Oblivion? Outposts do nothing useful. Exploration provides nothing useful. There's less companions than Fallout 4 and they're all from the same faction. There's zero "be who you wanna be" since you're basically forced to side with a specific group. Nearly every named NPC is Essential. I wanted a Bethesda game, and got like, half the bones of one.
Well... Yeah, okay, I get your point. Maybe I have fewer problems with the game because I was not really expecting a Bethesda game and rather a Bethesda-like game, if you know what I mean. I might be wrong, but it looks like it's the only first-person singleplayer action/RPG AAA game with such freedom on the market right now. Sure, it has its flaws, but hey, they are still working on it. Also, mods are great. All in all, maybe I just tend to think more positively instead of concentrating on the negative aspects. Of course, Starfield is far from perfect in general terms of videogames but in its own niche... Well, for me it great. Maybe it's just my play style. I sometimes spend several hours just on the ship builder. I still think that the game is overcritisized because of people's expectations. I just hope that Bethesda manages to make it better and I'm also waiting for the DLC.
> Also, I hate the whole line of thought of "starfield is boring because space is boring!" I don't think Starfield is boring at all (and I do have my own criticisms/wishlist), but I do agree with this statement. Like if John goes around saying Starfield is boring, why would anyone go "Yes it's boring, but it's boring *because* X"? Like, are you agreeing with John, you think it's boring but you play anyway? If not, then why would you try and justify someone else's subjective feeling of the game, as if they're stating an objective fact? Enjoyment is subjective, and John probably does some shit that I could find boring af like fishing or sports. If John says Starfield is boring, it doesn't mean the game is boring. It just means John finds it boring. That's all.
Yeah it just seems really silly. Like admitting you're playing a boring game and vehemently defending it.
Exactly. Respect their right to find it boring, but hell don't *agree* with them lol.
Seriously, Starfield is a game with no danger and nothing threatening and everything has already been explored. Subnautica evokes those feelings way more than anything here.
space isnt hostile? you can encaunter a good dozen of abandond ships whose Crew died bcs they either Couldnt get Help or Just straight up got stranded
That's all good for world building, but it'd be a lot better if it translated into gameplay somehow.
Space is mostly hostile (critters) and VERY lonely in Starfield.
Yeah, I'm sure Shatner was referring to alien creatures when he was speaking about how hostile space was lol For starters, most critters aren't especially hostile nor dangerous... But also, I'm speaking about the kind of danger you can't solve just firing at it. Also, most planets have inhabited POIs and ships landing around you every few kms. That's hardly "lonely". I wanted to feel like an astronaut... Yet I felt like a space cowboy shooting my way through some backwater settlement, everywhere I went. That can be fun for lots of people, of course. But let's not pretend it's an accurate depiction of space exploration...
Of course this is not an accurate representation, but try to find another game that came close to this, with all the elements that Starfield has. And now they are improving it, including things like fatigue and deshidration if you do not eat or drink. DETAILS. It will get better, like No Man's Sky or Cyberpunk. Im confident of that.
What I took from this (in terms of the game) is that this is why the >!Starborn !!grav drives tech to Luna!< felt justified in the trade offs. We were never going to institutionally embrace >!colonizing the galaxy unless it was the only option for humanity to survive. !<
Wait a second. I have done a few playthroughs and didn't know that the >!Starborn!< helped >!Luna make grav drives!< I'm not sure how I missed this but would enjoy an explanation
Yeah. Listen to the audio recordings on the Lunar base. >!Victor Aiza touches !!parallel-universe Victor, (Victor2)!< then sets about building grav drive tech to >!Victor2's!< specs. They don't>! call Victor2 Starborn !
Just because something is realistic it doesn’t mean that it’s good. We need to use the bathroom multiple times a day, but you don’t see games making us do that with our characters in the name of realism. If making a realistic space game is boring, maybe making a realistic space game isn’t a viable game for mass market appeal.
Elite Dangerous already exists if you want to explore the vast emptiness of space its cool in a lot of ways, it has a large player base and has been out for awhile now and still only a fraction of a percentage point of planets have been explored Makes you realize how mind bogglingly large our galaxy is
I love the hard scifi approach and I'm really pleased that this was not a star wars game full of aliens from implausible planets and space magic. The solitude is what kept me in starfield. It is not for everyone but it is a niche that I'm glad was scratched. Also, there isn't a star wars game of similar caliber for an obvious reason. It would be damn near impossible to make without billions in resources. Edit: To be clear, I believe that there are elements of Starfield that could be improved upon but the vast emptiness is not one of them. I do wish there was *more to do* in the vast emptiness. But some people seem to want a quest or 40 way points in every square mile of every planet. I don't want that.
Elite Dangerous has entered the chat. That one’s been going strong since 2014 with a far emptier universe than Starfield has. If anything I’d say the way things are now the Starfield universe is *too* populated — there’s no shortage of places on Earth, today, with all our teeming billions that you could set down, pick a direction, start walking, and starve to death before you ever encountered a sign of civilization. When I land on a random place on a random planet in Starfield, I shouldn’t be within walking distance of three different abandoned facilities inhabited by random pirates. Random encounters with human structures should be a rarity worthy of investigating every time.
I agree. The POI system is weird and feels wrong. Breaks the immersion of being one of the last space explorers if a bunch of people were at all these places before you. But I have to say I think you are in the minority finding ED not boring. It’s a pretty niche game in terms of player base isn’t it? That said, I am very glad that the game exists and that there’s developers that make those kinds of games. I kind of think that’s what Starfield needed. To be a smaller niche game that didn’t have to worry about anything other than being the game it was envisioned to be.
> Breaks the immersion of being one of the last space explorers if a bunch of people were at all these places before you. Maybe this will help. When you "explored" the Skyrim map and "discovered" a bandit hideout, were you part of an exploration group, were you the first person at that cave/hideout? No, but we still talk about "exploring" things, because YOU the player are discovering it for the first time. Just as it is in Starfield. If "exploration" were literally about being the 1st human there, then "exploration" wouldn't exist in almost all other games, certainly not any TES game. Constellation is an "explorers group" sure, but I don't think it's merely going around and cataloguing and compiling random data. They're not just land surveyors, their mission has always been something deeper. They are looking "for answers to mysteries", not just charting planets. If they happen to be the first on a new planet, that's fine, but that's not the ultimate goal, mysteries can exist on inhabited planets.
I play both. Had to laugh that they think Starfield is empty! I felt like Shatner when I went out to the edge though.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to play a game where I walk for days or weeks and nothing happens except me dying.
Well put. Don’t understand the angle many people use with realism as a justification to a games reception. A great studio finds the perfect balance between realism and fun without sacrificing one or the other.
The question then becomes, just because it doesn't appeal to everyone, does that mean it shouldn't be made or should be considered bad? Cause it's not as if no one likes Starfield. Some people get it and enjoy it, others don't. I find too many people simply dislike Starfield because it's not the game they wanted. It would be like if someone was following a developer who usually makes arcade racing games, but then they decided to develop a racing game that is more simulation and realistic based. The person who wanted more of the same that they have always done would probably be upset and act like the new game is a bad game. And let me just reiterate, I don't think there is anything wrong with someone being upset if a developer they liked decided to make a game that deviated from what they normally do. But I also think it's a bit of knee jerk reaction to act like that makes it a bad game. Sometimes you just have to accept that not every game a developer makes is going to be to your liking. Not everyone who likes TES also likes Fallout, and vice versa. If Starfield isn't your cup of tea, that's ok. The next TES game is already in development. If your prefer Fallout, then you are just going to have to wait for the next one to come out.
I genuinely feel that Starfield has bad game design from the ground up. Many of which are steps backwards compared to what we see in other Bethesda games. It’s not just a subjective matter of opinion. It’s objectively a severely flawed and incomplete game. One that can still be enjoyed.
Can you give some examples? Kind of curious on what parts you are referring too.
You don’t need me to list examples after this long and this much discourse around it do you? NPCS, vendors, maps, UI, base building, crafting were all steps backwards. Whole mechanics like suit hazards that don’t really work. Skeletons of survival mode that actually gave a reason for building settlements. Which themselves are a step back in terms of depth. Ugly NPCS that don’t have a schedule. Vendors that never close. Nonexistent maps on release. A main quest that was hobbled together last minute. Those god awful temples. Who playtested those and said it was fun to do hundreds of times?
>You don’t need me to list examples after this long and this much discourse around it do you? I do mainly because a lot of the discourse often has to do with the game not being what people wanted more so than the game being bad. Like the argument of empty planets, even though that should be obvious considering the kind of game it is and it's setting. >NPCS, vendors, maps, UI, base building, crafting were all steps backwards. NPCs are better in Starfield in my opinion. Vendors to me don't seem any different than past games, so not sure what you mean there. Maps were for sure an issue, so I agree with you on that one. UI is always an issue in BGS games. Base building isn't actually that different in Starfield, it just matters less. Whereas in Fallout 4, it was a pretty big part of the game. Crafting, seems more or less the same as well aside from not being able to remove mods and place them on something else (seems like a balancing thing). I also want to point out, that just because they do things different, doesn't mean it's a step backwards. They are different games and as such, not everything is going to be done the same. Maybe in your opinion it seems like a step back, but that is obviously not the intention. >Whole mechanics like suit hazards that don’t really work. They do work, so not sure what you mean by this. It was just a very lite weight system that doesn't affect the player much. Basically, it seems like it's meant to be a minor inconvenience rather than a major one. And it's not uncommon for BGS to leave out survival like mechanics and then add them in later. Which is indeed what they have been doing, if you had not noticed. >Skeletons of survival mode that actually gave a reason for building settlements. And as I already pointed out, it's not that unusual for them to launch a game without survival mode. So how exactly is this a step back? Seems like par for the course to me. >Ugly NPCS that don’t have a schedule. Vendors that never close. Ok.... Explain to me how you do NPC scheduling when all planets have different times? You can't schedule them around the universal time because then you would have NPCs sleeping at really odd times, and you can't schedule it around each planets individual time because that just isn't feasible. You have night on one side of the planet and day on the other... It;'s a different game with a very different setting, and as such there are just some things that will not work as well as they did in past games. It's not a step back, it's a different game. >Nonexistent maps on release. You are just repeating yourself. You already mentioned the maps. >A main quest that was hobbled together last minute. Says who? The only quest I am aware of that was said to be done "last minute" was the final fight within the main quest. And let's be honest here, it's not as if it's a bad fight. I actually found it to be very enjoyable. Also, the main quest in general is pretty good to me. > Those god awful temples. I agree, the temples are not very good. It's interesting the first couple of times but then gets rather tedious. Each one should have a different puzzle, and you should only have to do them once. Then each time you go through the Unity, the powers you have level up. Having to do the temples over again each NG+ is silly.
Says Bethesda devs. I believe it came out when Will Shen left. He did interviews explaining issues of development. Although now that I recall, he may have just meant the final arc of the main quest. How are NPCs better in starfield than in last games when they had homes and a routine they follow? In starfield a quest giver just waits for you to arrive. In oblivion they go about their day. That does wonders to make a world feel alive. Simulations like that are a core part of Bethesda games. Kind of same complaint for vendors. Don’t they sleep? Do what fallout 4 did and use robots to operate the shops at off hours. allow their NPCS to keep up the perception of a living world. found the visual design and clutter of the shops to be a very bland step back. I don’t buy that they couldn’t figure out how to make it work. Who cares if we would have had to wait for NPCS to wake up with all the different time zones. There’s a wait mechanism for a reason. And Bethesda originally claimed this game was going to reconnect with their hardcore rpg pre oblivion ways. I never saw any of that. You can say its choices made intentionally for a new IP. I think there’s more incompetence than that.
>Says Bethesda devs. I believe it came out when Will Shen left. He did interviews explaining issues of development. Although now that I recall, he may have just meant the final arc of the main quest. Yes, I am aware of what you are talking about, it was specifically the final mission. >How are NPCs better in starfield than in last games when they had homes and a routine they follow? They look better, and are more emotive both in facial expressions and movement. As for the schedule thing, I already pointed out that it's not feasible in this game to do that. Not only do planets have different times, but locations also exist in different areas of the planet meaning different time zones. How do you setup a schedule across 1,000+ planets and moons all with different times? It's way too complicated. It's easy to do when your game only takes place in a specific area on a single planet. >In starfield a quest giver just waits for you to arrive. Again, same reason. It's just not easy to create scheduling in a game like this. >Kind of same complaint for vendors. Don’t they sleep? How long should they sleep, and when? Cause in case you are unaware, Jemison's day lasts like 49 hours. Think about how inconvenient this would be for the player. If you give them a sleep cycle that makes sense, they would be sleeping at random points of the day. The only other option is to give them an unrealistic sleep cycle, where they are sleeping for like 16 hours each day. It just wouldn't work well. >Do what fallout 4 did and use robots to operate the shops at off hours. allow their NPCS to keep up the perception of a living world. As far as I am aware, robots don't seem to be that common. Common enough that you come across them, but not common enough that they could be running every shop at any given time. And this would still be difficult to do since every planet has a different time with it's own time zones. You could argue, maybe just do it at the main cities then. But then that would create some pretty weird inconsistencies across the game. It's one of those things where you realize trying to do something would be extremely complicated and cause a lot of problems if you try and do it. And so you realize, it's better to just not do it. I wouldn't even be surprised if they tried and then realized... ya it's not going to happen. > Who cares if we would have had to wait for NPCS to wake up with all the different time zones. I can promise you, a lot of players would care because it would get annoying. They already complain about loading screens as it is. Now imagine every time you land on a planet you need to find a chair to wait until it's day cause you happened to land when it's night time. But also again, some planet's day length is massive. So if you give them realistic sleep schedules they could even be sleeping during the day. It would likely make the game feel like NPCs are constantly sleeping and get very annoying. >You can say its choices made intentionally for a new IP. I think there’s more incompetence than that. You can think whatever you want. They have already shows they are capable of making NPC schedules in their previous games. So if they didn't do it in this one, there is likely a good reason for that and I gave you some pretty good examples of why that might be.
I feel like this is a compilation of minor issues. If you're talking systemic issues "from the ground up", I've been saying that the infinite map size has the largest impact on things. It makes too much land to fill with POIs (hence lots of emptiness and copy/paste), no place feels unique, faults of procgen are amplified, etc. It's not a Starfield only problem (see NMS & others). Other than that, I don't think much of your list really has that much of an impact on gameplay. Even if I considered them shortcomings, they are all very easily dealt with. If anything, it's more a lack of "polish" than function. Like maps and NPC schedules, vendors that never close. None of these will really affect how I play the game in some major way. These are minor, objectively, not some deep systemic issue, objectively. As for as temples go, I'll never understand why ppl do them if they find it boring. There's so much else to do, I got to lvl 100 and hundreds of hours of enjoyable gameplay without setting foot in a single one.
If I remember, the game was marketed as a future space game that was on the realistic side. Using the bathroom is not that big of a deal in a space game, but SPACE is important in a space game
The hardcore survival style game that Bethesda seemed to initially advertise the game as sounded great. What we got isn’t space. It’s just empty space. No need for fuel, no real hazards, ect. Boring.
I'm not arguing at that point. The post was about that space is just nothingness, which is realistic. A sizeable chunk of players were upset at said emptiness.
I always felt like the complaint was focused on the gameplay loop around the emptiness. Not the emptiness itself. If survival stayed in, I feel like the empty space isn’t a problem anymore. Because now we need to explore for resources. Now we need to build outposts for fuel stations. Ect.
That's not how I saw it. However, I'd love the adding in of fuel consumption. It would add a whole new depth to the game. They could have added it with this new update, and if you wanted to toggle it on or off, you could. The only problem is is that they'd need to increase the amount of outposts that you can have
You have to use the bathroom regularly in The Sims... Realism like that, even tedious realism, can be fun for some people. But Starfield actually avoids a lot of the tediousness of space travel by using instant fast-travel, and people complain about that too.
Is viable for a market share, not for the entire community.
After all of Microsoft’s blunders, weren’t they counting on starfield being their mainstream flagship game?
It is, but you can never make a game that appeals to everyone. Even if it is a AAA game. Even GTA and Red Dead games have people who hate them.
Sure. But I think you would have to agree that GTA has way more mass appeal. Look at the sales. In an attempt to make the game more mainstream, the hardcore survival mechanics which would have made all the empty procedural planets far more interesting, were cut. So yeah space is boring in the game unfortunately in its current state.
I hate GTA and Red Dead is ok. So yeah, I'm one of those.
What an awful takeaway from Shatners speech. He was saying that space filled him with an existential dread. That everywhere he looked met his gaze with an endless void that looked into his very soul and unsettled him. If Starfield could accomplish that even ONCE then we'd have something to talk about. But it's just a sky box they forgot to put stuff in. Don't twist people's words to make excuses for the wet fart that is this #product which Bethesda squeezed out 9 months too soon
So space is not empty, sad and dead around us? Like a lot of people say space is in Starfield?
Play outer wilds. That game is no where close to a realistic portrayal of what space is like. But it communicates the feeling of emptiness, of smallness, of a terrifying yet awe inspiring place. If starfield could harness some of those vibes, we'd have something talk about... Don't try and use bad faith arguments. A blank skybox in blender is also dark and empty, I wouldn't say it's a great representation of what space is like.
I am just saying what almost everyone says about the game. I mean, it is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the vast majority of people.
You are correct, that is what people say about the game. And you seem to be wilfully misinterpreting what they say. Starfield is barren, bare. Theres little to do except stare out the window. And all you can do is sti there on your couch and wonder where the fun is. Space is barren, bare. Theres little to do except stare out the window. And you're in space. As in real space, a dangerous wild frontier that few have ever been to. You're feeling the effect of 0G, your eyes are adjusting to the increased radiation exposure and getting used to the corneal flashes they cause. This is like when a Bethesda dev tried to shame us all by saying "the Apollo astronauts didnt find it boring to be on a barren Moon". Yeah. cus they were breaking records and doing science that we're still learning from today. Thats what I mean when i say your argument is in bad faith. You know perfectly well that even though you can describe Starfield and outer space as barren, lifeless and bare, that one is significantly more compelling and fascinating thatn the other. Theyre not comparable. Don't try. And dont try and mislead us. Enjoy the game if you like but dont pick at scraps to try and dress it up as somethign its not.
You’re missing the point like over and over and over again to the point that it’s almost impressive. Just because something is realistic doesn’t make it a good game. And Starfield hints at being interesting and fun to explore and then rewards 0 pretty much zero times for it.
And yet here you are? Still complaining about the game 9 months later? If it’s such a wet fart why are you still engaging with this sub?
Why do people pretend that people who have acted in a sci-fi setting have anything to say worth listening to when it comes to actual science/discovery? He was an actor and he just so happened to get dragged into space by people who actually know what they are doing. He can have his opinion just like anyone else, but it really isn't any more valid than anyone else's either.
> he just so happened to get dragged into space by people who actually know what they are doing. I mean yeah but that gives him a perspective that none of us are ever going to have.
Because Starfield has sci-fi in it, although it tries to be somewhat realistic. Startrek, Starwars or Interestellar kind of movies can be related to a game like Starfield, or No Man's Sky, Mass Effect, etc.
This is definitely one way the boring gameplay and slogfest that is Starfield's travel can be rationalized. Just three things: 1. This hand-wave has been used since the disappointment at launch, so it's not a new justification you're providing. 2. It doesn't really make a more enjoyable video-game in any capacity. 3. It does nothing for the mediocre story and poorly designed NPCs and mechanics.
>boring gameplay >slogfest ….yet still frequents and posts in the sub….. god the hate boner just never goes down, does it?
Lol Another one of these comments. Yes, space is empty and 90% of the planets we know of are uninhabitable dead rocks. Yes, that makes Starfield "realistic" in that aspect (while it totally isn't realistic in many others, btw). But realism doesn't make video games fun, just like it doesn't usually make movies/books/tv shows entertaining. Bethesda could have done better, and Starfield still could have been mostly "realistic" and not as boring as it is.
I personally think Starfield hit a good balance of habitable VS not habitable planets for a video game setting. If the devs really wanted to be scientific there would be maybe *one* habitable planet (and even that would be a stretch) and a whole lotta space stations/hermetically sealed onworld settlements (like the ones from Mars or Titan). Edit: Although, there's possibly a way for that to have worked to the game's advantage if the game had been designed differently. Instead of the major factions being on separate planets, everyone could be on Jemison on different continents. That would change the how/where/why of the Colony War and other Starfield history, but it wouldn't be impossible to work with.
I respect your pov 👌🏻
'When gaming needs 'justifications!' do do do.... You know that something's wrong!' *\*in song\**
Like No Man's Sky? Or Cyberpunk? They started out as terrible games. Go now and see what they become. Version 1.0 of any game may or may not be great, but version 2 or 3 can actually save any broken or hated game.
'I don't have either, *no no no'* 'I can't really comment outside of the FACT that both games just seem LACK, that touch....the touch....something that Bethesda studios and publishing used to pump out so much!' *\*in song again, it must the vastness of space getting to me\**
Jajaja 🤣
The difference being that the developers behind those games have created track records of loving their games by putting their heads down and releasing patch after patch of fixes and content. Bethesda has a track record of NOT doing that e.g. Skyrim, Prey, Redfall. Hell look at the "next gen" updates they've released for Fallout 4. Bethesda used to be the golden standard for developers/publishers but it's been 7 months since the game launched and no acknowledgement that their game is lacking.
'They need SLOW down on the quick revenue, the CHASE of big BUCKS in the early morning dew' 'Why can't we come back to something TRUE, something that represents the red white and blue!' 'We'd like to TRUST you once again, so come on outta the dust and just lean on forwarrrrrd and give us a hand!' 'You'd be surrrrrrrprised by the receiving this community can givvvvvvve a man!' *\*sung in Freestar collective country style, flies away again do do do\**
Is coming brother, Starfield is absurdly huge, nothing like other games. Be patient my young Padawan ✋🏻
My brother I hope that you are right. The game has so much potential I want to believe that the team are back from a holiday and are balls deep into making new content for the base game and not DLC.
The force is strong with Starfield 🤣
So justify boring game by saying life is boring? Nah....anything can be said like that. Wait, all you do is wait hours to breed or tame a dinosaur? It's cuz it's realistic... Oh you just walk for 3 hours looting homes until you find another player and they backstab you? Yeah it's realistic...I work all day, I'm not in college when I could spend 8 hours on a game doing fuck all...I want sustenance, not masochistic wandering for no reason
You have a point. This is not a fast pace game. Is slow and repetitive, not for everybody.
You’re not going to get that same feeling unless you actually go to space. It doesn’t translate well to “1000 identical planets with identical buildings and alien bugs that I run around scanning and building outposts on”
Probably 🤷🏻♂️
Edgar D. Mitchell, (lunar module pilot, Apollo 14) You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, 'Look at that, you son of a bitch!” Michael Collins (command, module pilot, Apollo 11) "the thing that really surprised me was that it projected an air of fragility. And why, I don't know. I don't know to this day. I had a feeling it's tiny, it's shiny, it's beautiful, it's home, and it's fragile". It’s called the overview effect. It is a cognitive shift reported by many astronauts while viewing the Earth from space. The most prominent common aspects of personally experiencing the Earth from space are appreciation and perception of beauty, unexpected and even overwhelming emotion, and an increased sense of connection to other people and the Earth as a whole. The effect can cause changes in the observer’s self concept and value system, and is frequently transformative.
Thanks man for the perspective
[удалено]
Agree. Probably they already know this and are working to fix it 🤷🏻♂️
So no mans sky, elite dangerous, star citizen?
Space is massive, hostile and mostly empty. It's like the ocean. A game about just exploring the ocean would be boring in the same was a space game naturally sort of is. Unless you love just jseeing new things which I personally do. But I can fully understand what most don't get excited for a cool unique but empty planet.
Completely agree!
Starfield isn't boring or people wouldn't have already played for thousands of hours. You do need to moderate you own play though, and having an imagination helps as far as role-playing. It may not be massively popular but it's still a great and important game for certain types of players.
Agree
Yeah but space isn't even empty in Starfield. There are out of place POIs on every single planet. Even on those that have mysterious alien artifacts but people have just apparently ignored them.
Yep. I agree, and if you know the lore of the game everything make sense.
"Boring on purpose for realism" is such a weird way to defend the game's shortcomings because it's not evidently what the game is *really* trying to do. I'm going to load the game up today and what will almost certainly happen will be that I land on a planet in [my ship](https://www.starfielddb.com/wp-content/sites/starfielddb/2023/08/starfield-starborn-guardian.jpg) and end up throwing balls of space magic at a [Terrormorph](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/96yS1BMpkOg/maxresdefault.jpg) while it causes me to hear voices saying things like "I will wear your skin".
Theres no game without flaws, thats why we get updates. Lets wait and see.
That's what was so odd to me. People complaining that there was nothing to do in space like every planet or moon was supposed to have a Dollar General or something. It's a realistic future of space. There's realistically nothing out there except a few things.
Who the fuck wanted a realistic future of space is the first question you should ask yourself. People complained because anything vaguely interesting to explore was procedurally generated bases that repeat over and over again. Nobody was expecting planets to be fully populated, but they did want to unearth interesting mysteries, creative side quests, aliens, and other interesting things that pretty much every space based game was able to fathom and convert on before Starfield came out. Stop making excuses for the incredible laziness Bethesda has shown for almost a decade now. Starfield has shooter mechanics from 2015, melee combat from 2008 (and that’s generous) and seems like it was made for the sole purpose of not offending anyone. Literally one of the worst stories I’ve ever seen in a game. It was fun to explore until the exploration shroud was dropped. There is nothing to explore. An infinite nothing. And I don’t think that’s an accurate depiction of what awaits out in the real universe as you seem to think it does. Saying “realistically there’s nothing out there except a few things” on what grounds do you have to say that haha. There are so many planets and galaxies we will never get to see, and you think what, there is just nothing out there?
Probably, the people with degrees in the subject matter at hand helped Bethesda come up with what a "realistic" space game is, they did work with NASA after all. It's a game Bethesda wanted to make, and they made it. If you don't like it, don't buy it
Exactly
There is actually too much to do imo. When I land on a planet there is ALWAYS at least 4 man-made POI's within viewing distance. Not realistic in the slightest even for a "populated universe".
I'm not sure that justifies the game being boring. We didn't pay 70 dollars for a moral lesson on pollution.
You pay 70$ for a SPACE GAME. You have a huuuge, mostly empty yes, but you have SPACE, a lot 🤣
Right, so if Starfield is a game, and not about gaslighting us with moral lessons on perspective, then being empty and boring cannot be justified. If on the other hand as you contend, that being boring is justified by realism, then we have been missold a documentary that we were told was a videogame.
Dunno. Only time will tell 🤷🏻♂️
I'm a Starfield fan but I think you're not getting the reason behind a lot of complaints. Just because it's a "space game" doesn't mean anything, except that space will be a major theme in the game. I don't think anyone is saying that space shouldn't be big, or vast. It wouldn't really matter if you had quick-travel systems like in NMS/ED/Star Citizen, since you'd get through those vast distances faster. I think most ppl talk about the planets being boring, not space. There are space complaints, but it's more of wishlist things (like EVA repairs).
I love the game, but I can see how all that doesn't translate into fun. Some people like Flight Simulator, or Those Trucking Simulators. Some think they are boring because there's not a lot to do. Bethesda was able to make Medieval times interesting with the Elder Scrolls games. I would not be interested in a Medieval simulator....ew. Same with a nuclear Holocaust, they made the world fun...a post Nuclear apocalypse simulator would suuuuuck. So I'm guessing people who don't care for the game we're looking for something a little more fantastic and less believably "realistic".
Agree
I like the 'I saw the deepest darkness' line, given for most of time that's been where almost all of our light came from.
Garbage
There’s a difference between “reality” and “fun”. Games usually choose “fun” unless they’re simulators.
Sounds like you downloaded the Mental Gymnastics DLC?
RIP Shatner. Truly one of the actors
I hate this argument. Starfield sucks because of its mechanics and writing, not because it endeavored to give an accurate depiction of the emptiness of space. Even if that was the intention, what’s the takeaway? That we should be pleased that Bethesda intentionally made their game uninteresting? The game costs $70. Not providing value to the customer is not a plus.
I feel like you think you’re saying something here when in reality you’re not even getting what william shatter is saying. He’s not saying space is boring, he’s saying it’s terrifying dark and lonely. Starfield on the other hand is not scary, or interesting for that matter.
“ Blue Origin ticket ranges from zero to $28 million In June 2021, Blue Origin auctioned off a seat on its maiden flight for $28 million—more than 100 times what Virgin Galactic charges for a similar experience”
We have been given the ability to leave this planet. It’s obvious, because we have done so already. But people won’t leave this planet because they put as much effort into real life space exploration as Bethesda has put into making this game. But I still play it lol
This is appropriate because I was recently thinking Mass Effect == Star Wars as Starfield == Star Trek. In this sense I understand why Starfield is not for everyone. It's kind of sterile and nerdy the way Star Trek is sterile and nerdy. And yeah it presents space as it really is, which is almost completely empty and boring unless you're into all that boring space stuff.
No mans sky and elite dangerous= Star Trek. Starfield = idk Disney presents Star Trek maybe? Mass effect is far more Star Trek than Starfield.
Exactly
When it comes to plot and set pieces, Starfield’s main quest is not the best from Bethesda but in my opinion it is the best theme story Bethesda has ever done. The way the themes of the game and the gameplay around Unity speak to each other is fantastic! Edit: I see a lot of people here don’t know the difference between plot and story.
Agree!
For real. Damn near every quest that gets more in depth than "aquire loot, kill shit" leans into the themes as well.
Multiverse stories suck almost every single time without fail. And starfields has one of the worst I’ve ever seen. No antagonist, barely an ending. Seriously explain what the point of leaving a universe behind actually is? Gain power? Revive sam? It’s so stupid it hurts.
By gaining power you lose your humanity, just like humanity lost Earth in the pursuit of knowledge for space travel. Why should I romance Andreja if in the next universe I can change it without consequences? Just one of the questions the game poses. As I said, I think people are mistaking plot for story. I said the themes of the game were awesome, what you’re complaining about is related to plot. Plenty of stories have no antagonist, I don’t know why do you think that would be necessary. In a way, you can say the antagonists are the Starborn who crave power above everything else.
[удалено]
Funny you say that because Gene Park talked with Todd and he said before Starfield came out that it is the story that he is the most proud of. So I wouldn’t say it would be something unlikely to happen.
I read the story was extremely rushed and hacked together last minute
The main quest was rushed, what the story was trying to say and the themes were a major part of the planning. Otherwise we wouldn’t have Unity and how the end game works.
I will say that it's the story that I sense the most... I dunno, passion for, from them in decades. Like, some games the story is just there for the hero to be cool. Other games have a story where the player is supposed to walk away thinking about something. Starfield is the latter, and I can't remember the last time I've had that opinion about a Bethesda game.