Starfield - Epic Shit Takes from Bethestards

[MadMaxHellfire]

normies that have low standards.

i wish they did. instead they have NO standards, they eat whatever they're told to because they have no idea what's going on and don't even want to know.

 

[Be Kind Rewind]

I would almost bump it up a grade if it had explorable ocean worlds like Kamino.

You might think you want the Bethesda take on deep ocean planetary exploration but you don't, it'd not be any more fun than farting around on the surface of any other planet, with the same couple of points of interest strewn around in the same box, over and over and over again. It's almost habitual for Codexers to shit on something without any sort of context or perspective so I thought I might rise above that by examining this with reference to what does exist and not some ideal that is only in my mind. My thesis is that regardless of the many design and gameplay flaws of Bethesda they're missing even more than that, a being-there-ness, and I don't see why you would want the space or aquatic planetary setting without it.

Perhaps the three strongest examples of that which leap out when considering games that have attempted any such thing of late would be No Man's Sky, Outer Wilds and Subnautica. None of the rest can really compare to the freeform but entirely meaningful exploration in Outer Wilds, with the constant tornadoes and storms ravaging the surface so strongly that the tiny islands shoot up into the higher atmosphere, or the possible journey into the planet's core aided by an alien jellyfish, or the secret in the one calm place of the world. The place is not just heard and seen, and what a great presentation it is, but also felt through the gameplay, being at the mercy of the elements as the player is. Mechanical gameplay importance and aesthetic merged totally.

Subnautica is more or less Minecraft with better graphics set on a single plateau on an ocean, far less interesting to look at and less going on, there are the additional survival mechanics, of requiring air and only being able to drive underwater vehicles at certain pressures, but it is enough to have some appeal to the fantasy of exploring a deep sea, giving the player some feel for the vulnerability of such a proposal.

No Man's Sky has similar problems as Starfield in that you'll come to learn the patterns of procedural generation and so have less reason to explore, but far less so, and features vibrant underwater worlds just as lush and dense as the surface of planets. There was an update dedicated only to the deep sea released, but even before that the game didn't make much of a distinction between what lay above and beneath the waves, so you might find sunken ruins and the like as you would find on land, as well as aquatic life that was generated just like the flying animals and land creatures. When people talk about video games they often do so autistically as if they were spreadsheets, whereas some of the best qualities of NMS lies in creating a truly procedural ambient soundscape, with dynamic weather effects that have impact on the gameplay. It might be shallow but it nails the atmosphere.

Perhaps it's unfair to compare it to these games since they are supposedly in other genres, but even the Codex favorite piñata Bioware used to get it right in many ways. They're rightfully shat on for making terrible "RPGs" but what they did do correctly was atmosphere even if it had little mechanical impact. In KOTOR you had Manaan, a Kamino fanfic planet, and you did get to descent into the depths. Despite being depicted in a souped up Neverwinter Nights engine for consoles the surface had a pleasant sense of place, with a light cloudy sky and the ocean stretching endlessly towards the horizon in the skybox.



Bioware could get away with it because they were in the business of making focused and cinematic action adventures with light RPG elements and players didn't expect to be able to go anywhere and do anything. It's enough to set the mood, give you a sense of where you are, but not more than that. It was the Star Trek matte painting, which might not seem like much but it makes a difference. Bioware would return to an ocean planet in one of their final DLCs for Mass Effect 3, Leviathan, and once again despite their failure to provide an RPG or even good action gameplay someone at the office did understand at least some of the appeal of the fantasy of visiting other worlds. Like George Lucas' Kamino the surface is stormy and rainy, and eldritch horrors lurk in the calmer depths.



With Bethesda you would get none of this, you wouldn't get the bespoke exploration of Outer Wilds and the mysteries or adventures of that game, on a mechanical level Bethesda makes poor looter shooters, so if you visited an alien aquatic world there would need to be lootable humans there, there would be the same clutter and architecture as in the rest of the galaxy, due to how they put together content, and since this is a space game of a scope too large to make things by hand it would feature radiant content. But it's also not a simulationist game, you wouldn't have to worry about air supplies, and certainly not leviathans of the depths, Bethesda is not Piranha Bytes that would give you a taste of late game challenge if you ventured in the wrong direction, not that there is a right or wrong direction since this is procedurally generated. You're never going to be on a raft in a planetary wide simulated ocean, at the mercy of the elements, or diving into the marine trenches.

At the same time you're also going to be missing the craftsmanship of a well put together tiny set, of a great skybox, and all the small details you'd see in a more cinematic game. Basically I'm saying that inherently, by being made by Betheda, with their content pipelines and design process, it's inevitable that you'd get something boring and generic and it wouldn't feel as if you just landed on a waterworld, it would be more of the same. Mechanically, aesthetically, superficially, in any way that counts you might as well be looting sporks being worth 2 credits in a lunar base.

 

[Fedora Master]

normies that have low standards.

i wish they did. instead they have NO standards, they eat whatever they're told to because they have no idea what's going on and don't even want to know.

 

[Iucounu]

You might think you want the Bethesda take on deep ocean planetary exploration but you don't

Since an ocean lacks boundaries, Bethesda would likely just use invisible borders, just like I'm told they did on Starfield's land areas. And the water column beneath the surface is mostly empty, making it hard to add gameplay on your way down to the bottom. Bethesda would likely just use loading screens.

My thesis is that regardless of the many design and gameplay flaws of Bethesda they're missing even more than that, a being-there-ness, and I don't see why you would want the space or aquatic planetary setting without it.

Perhaps the three strongest examples of that which leap out when considering games that have attempted any such thing of late would be No Man's Sky, Outer Wilds and Subnautica.

I've overlooked Outer Wilds due to its artstyle, but the setting sounds interesting. Thanks for mentioning it.

Subnautica is more or less Minecraft with better graphics set on a single plateau on an ocean, far less interesting to look at and less going on, there are the additional survival mechanics, of requiring air and only being able to drive underwater vehicles at certain pressures, but it is enough to have some appeal to the fantasy of exploring a deep sea, giving the player some feel for the vulnerability of such a proposal.

I might add ARK Survival Evolved here also, even though I've mostly played its land areas (that are likely better). It has an open ocean (confined by a huge space station) populated by prehistoric sea monsters.

Bioware could get away with it because they were in the bussiness of making focused and cinematic action adventures with light RPG elements and players didn't expect to be able to go anywhere and do anything. It's enough to set the mood, give you a sense of where you are, but not more than that.

I'll add SOMA as well, it too has smaller/linear levels with a nice mood:

Bethesda makes poor looter shooters, so if you visited an alien aquatic world there would need to be lootable humans there, there would be the same clutter and architecture as in the rest of the galaxy

Only way lots of humans would make sense underwater is if there was a local, man-made underwater city or other structure. Spreading them out in the entire ocean would be incredibly silly.

 

[ind33d]

I would almost bump it up a grade if it had explorable ocean worlds like Kamino.

You might think you want the Bethesda take on deep ocean planetary exploration but you don't, it'd not be any more fun than farting around on the surface of any other planet, with the same couple of points of interest strewn around in the same box, over and over and over again. It's almost habitual for Codexers to shit on something without any sort of context or perspective so I thought I might rise above that by examining this with reference to what does exit and not some ideal that is only in my mind. My thesis is that regardless of the many design and gameplay flaws of Bethesda they're missing even more than that, a being-there-ness, and I don't see why you would want the space or aquatic planetary setting without it.

Perhaps the three strongest examples of that which leap out when considering games that have attempted any such thing of late would be No Man's Sky, Outer Wilds and Subnautica. None of the rest can really compare to the freeform but entirely meaningful exploration in Outer Wilds, with the constant tornadoes and storms ravaging the surface so strongly that the tiny islands shoot up into the higher atmosphere, or the possible journey into the planet's core aided by an alien jellyfish, or the secret in the one calm place of the world. The place is not just heard and seen, and what a great presentation it is, but also felt through the gameplay, being at the mercy of the elements as the player is. Mechanical gameplay importance and aesthetic merged totally.

Subnautica is more or less Minecraft with better graphics set on a single plateau on an ocean, far less interesting to look at and less going on, there are the additional survival mechanics, of requiring air and only being able to drive underwater vehicles at certain pressures, but it is enough to have some appeal to the fantasy of exploring a deep sea, giving the player some feel for the vulnerability of such a proposal.

No Man's Sky has similar problems as Starfield in that you'll come to learn the patterns of procedural generation and so have less reason to explore, but far less so, and features vibrant underwater worlds just as lush and dense as the surface of planets. There was an update dedicated only to the deep sea released, but even before that the game didn't make much of a distinction between what lay above and beneath the waves, so you might find sunken ruins and the like as you would find on land, as well as aquatic life that was generated just like the flying animals and land creatures. When people talk about video games they often do so autistically as if they were spreadsheets, whereas some of the best qualities of NMS lies in creating a truly procedural ambient soundscape, with dynamic weather effects that have impact on the gameplay. It might be shallow but it nails the atmosphere.

Perhaps it's unfair to compare it to these games since they are supposedly in other genres, but even the Codex favorite piñata Bioware used to get it right in many ways. They're rightfully shat on for making terrible "RPGs" but what they did do correctly was atmosphere even if it had little mechanical impact. In KOTOR you had Manaan, a Kamino fanfic planet, and you did get to descent into the depths. Despite being depicted in a souped up Neverwinter Nights engine for consoles the surface had a pleasant sense of place, with a light cloudy sky and the ocean stretching endlessly towards the horizon in the skybox.



Bioware could get away with it because they were in the bussiness of making focused and cinematic action adventures with light RPG elements and players didn't expect to be able to go anywhere and do anything. It's enough to set the mood, give you a sense of where you are, but not more than that. It was the Star Trek matte painting, which might not seem like much but it makes a difference. Bioware would return to an ocean planet in one of their final DLCs for Mass Effect 3, Leviathan, and once again despite their failure to provide an RPG or even good action gameplay someone at the office did understand at least some of the appeal of the fantasy of visiting other worlds. Like George Lucas' Kamino the surface is stormy and rainy, and eldritch horrors lurk in the calmer deeps.



With Bethesda you would get none of this, you wouldn't get the bespoke exploration of Outer Wilds and the mysteries or adventures of that game, on a mechanical level Bethesda makes poor looter shooters, so if you visited an alien aquatic world there would need to be lootable humans there, there would be the same clutter and architecture as in the rest of the galaxy, due to how they put together content, and since this is a space game of a scope too large to make things by hand it would feature radiant content. But it's also not a simulationist game, you wouldn't have to worry about air supplies, and certainly not leviathans of the depths, Bethesda is not Pirhana Bytes that would give you a taste of late game challenge if you ventured in the wrong direction, not that there is a right or wrong direciton since this is procedurally generated. You're never going to be on a raft in a planetary wide simulated ocean, at the mercy of the elements, or diving into the marine trenches.

At the same time you're also going to be missing the craftsmanship of a well put together tiny set, of a great skybox, and all the small details you'd see in a more cinematic game. Basically I'm saying that inherently, by being made by Betheda, with their content pipelines and design process, it's inevitable that you'd get something boring and generic and it wouldn't feel as if you just landed on a waterworld, it would be more of the same. Mechanically, aesthetically, superficially, in any way that counts you might as well be looting sporks being worth 2 credits in a lunar base.

They should just have a Bioshock biome where the planet is all water and the landing sites are some structures or caves underwater. That way you don't need swimming since the cells are interiors, but you can still have aquatic elements.

 

[Be Kind Rewind]

I've overlooked Outer Wilds due to its artstyle, but the setting sounds interesting. Thanks for mentioning it.

I don't think I can oversell Outer Wilds, even before mainstream faggots found out about it the prototype put together as a student project was totally unique in the medium and the game was in development hell for a long time and it's only in playing the final product you'll understand why. Outer Wilds does two things, exploration and dynamism. The more I talk about it the more I'd ruin the experience of getting to know it yourself firsthand but the small scale and artstyle are contrivances to make the entire thing work. In what other game can you land on an asteroid only to find all entries to it frozen over with ice, and then wait until the orbit comes closer to the sun so you can enter it after being heated up? Where you can walk on the crumbling floor of a hollow rocky planet as it gets bombarded from its moon that has explosive volcanic activity, a molten lava ejection solidifying and hitting the spot where you landed your ship, and it and the section of the planet breaks away, robbing you of a way off planet. If you have any love for science fiction, atmosphere, exploration, and the rest of it Outer Wilds will blow your mind, and the DLC had one of the best depictions of generational ships I've seen in a video game.

It's the best space exploration game because there's not just things to find and mysteries to uncover, but because the act of exploration itself is entirely tied to the setting and gamespace, it's not just there as a backdrop. The only thing that compares are either something like Space Engine that isn't a game but does give you a sense of scale of the universe, and older games that made spaceflight either interesting, like Starflight or Protostar: War on the Frontier, or non-trivial, like Shuttle: The Space Flight Simulator, or something newer, like Kerbal Space Program, that makes the difficulty of launching into space in the first place the subject of the game, but those aren't about exploring other worlds so much as about space itself.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Outer Wilds is certainly unique and worth a playthrough but a "space exploration" game it is not.

Its tiny planets make SPORE look like simulator by comparison.

 

[Be Kind Rewind]

Outer Wilds is certainly unique and worth a playthrough but a "space exploration" game it is not.

Its tiny planets make SPORE look like simulator by comparison.

Already addressed this in my previous posts multiple times, if you want realistic scope then have fun with Space Engine I guess, because there are no games doing that. Either you abstract heavily in one way or another, or you go procgen with nothing to find out there, making the exploration part invalid.

 

[Jarmaro]

Not feeling like reading every page of this thread, so it might have been already discussed, but...what do you guys think about the post-Creation Kit release state of Starfield?

Let's take a step back and try to see the things from a Bethesda's perspective, possibly a bit more positively than it should be seen: Starfield has currently low reputation and is lambasted left and right, but so was Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 4 and Fallout 76. Nowhere to the same degree, but still. They are used to this. Bethesda made this game with a long-term plan of support, not in any positive "constant content updates", but with a vision of harnessing the power of the community through the creation club.

Except the Creation Kit is late, way too late compared to their other titles. For Fallout 4 it took around 5 months. We are approaching almost a year without modding tools for Starfield, and the less said about the DLCs released so far the better. Starfield is not looking too well right now.

But. Buuuut. Everything Bethesda has done over the years and Todd's various statements in the showcases and interviews shows a certain belief in modding community that goes further along than just 'modders will fix that'. The community has been ready to start modding since the release and is literally begging Bethesda to do the job for them. This is where that strange vision comes into play. I think everyone knows of Bethesda's attempts at monetizing modding by now, and like every big game company they are relentless in the pursuit of money.

What I've heard lately on Reddit and Discord is very interesting. Bethesda has been in contact with major modders for Skyrim and Fallout 4 for some time, giving them beta releases of the Creation Kit for Starfield, working with them to gain feedback and brainstorm over the approach to the engine and the tools. Allegedly some changes made modders rather upset, but that's beside the point, other than showing Bethesda is taking it seriously. Just recently they had some modders literally flought to bethesda's studio for a tour:


To my knowledge, the people who have access to the beta Creation Kit are people like EnaiSiaion - the creator of the most popular gameplay overhaul for Skyrim, Ordinator - or Kinggath, the creator of Sim Settlements, a great mod for Fallout 4 that pushed its settlement building system to the limit while also providing several chapters of story alongside it, very well received to my knowledge. Todd Howard himself cited Sim Settlements as an example of great modding.

Bethesda wasn't blind to Kinggath achievements in particular and semi-hired him for leading a team of modders making Creation Club content, which resulted in East Empire Expansion Creation Club mod, decent from what I've heard. Except now you pay for it, not download it for free. Well, the guy mods well, so good for him to be recognized and making a bank from working by modding full-time.

However, this shows the sinister approach of Bethesda to modding and the probable future for Starfield. You know that the modders weren't just sitting idly and giving random feedback to Bethesda, they've been making mods the entire time they had the tools in early access. They probably already cooked a lot of content, big or small. Bethesda's goals for Starfield are long-term and founded on belief the community will make the effort to enrich the game, and by using the big modders and giving them the tools months ahead they can ensure that there are some big mods being released right away alongside the Creation Kit.


Now, there are three futures that I see:

Good Ending: Great modders have worked tirelessly to make competent gameplay overhauls, new story content (not main story, obviously) and improve base building into something useful and fun. These mods are getting dropped for free at the same time Creation Kit is released or soon after, either on Nexus Mods or as free Creation Club content with the blessing of Todd Howard himself. The community is happy, as at this point getting anything is like being granted water on a desert.

Bad Ending: Great modders have worked tirelessly and after Creation Kit is released you will be able to enjoy their wonderful mods that make Starfield vastly better experience...right after you pay the price for those mods on the Creation Club website. Nothing's free, the community melts down and the money flows. The greed wins. That would be shortsighted and not work in favour of long-term Starfield support, but a corporation wouldn't kneecap a project's long-term earnings by focusing on short-term money benefits, right...?

No-Hope-Left Ending: Modders have done nothing substantial as the mooding tools were half-baked so far. Vastly delayed Creation Kit launches after a year from release with nothing to show for it. The mods are being make from scratch once the tools are released, so it will be another year or two before we see anything worth looking at. The modding community for Starfield never reaches its potential and remains a shadow to Fallout and Skyrim's. The Starfield slowly dies, disappearing from sight of everyone.

 

[ind33d]

Starfield just needs an FCOM-style rebalance and better loot tables. A few dungeons and additional POIs thrown into the planet generation would solve most of the issues. All the tilesets are already made. Just copy Star Explorers, give the NPCs bigger titties, 10/10 IGN

 

[markec]

The issue is that not many people find Starfield interesting. Even if the modding tools are great and mods completely free it will not matter if there are not many modders willing to invest time on it.

 

[Late Bloomer]

Not feeling like reading every page of this thread, so it might have been already discussed, but...what do you guys think about the post-Creation Kit release state of Starfield?

I read your entire post. To answer your question though, I don't think Starfield will ever have a redemption arc. The Creation Kit will not help Starfield become a good game. Modders with interest and the skill to manifest that interest (heh autism) will not help. Starfield released and died with a whimper and will stay that way. Sure, the DLC will bring eyes, people trying to justify the money, hoping and praying that Bethesda will be able to channel some of that old magic (yeah yeah laugh it up) that made them special, but it wont work. Starfield is not what anyone wanted nor asked for. ES6 / F5 (whichever comes first as that shit for brains tv show might change things) will be their last hurrah. I don't think they have the skill, the leadership, nor the will to make a good game. It's over.

 

[Gargaune]

Starfield is not what anyone wanted nor asked for.

This is the most bizarre part of it for me - why Todd Inc. went for this thing in the first place. I can understand a creative's yearning for novelty, but let's face it, big subsidiary studios don't operate on concern over staff boredom. Bethesda already had two healthy IPs to leapfrog in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, so I can only imagine the impetus for Starfield (the fiction and the IP) was driven by a design aspiration, maybe the idea that they were on to some procedural tech that needed a space setting to be fully leveraged... Except that was clearly not the case in retrospect, and what they got was a lacklustre fiction, a boring random map generator, and a disjointed rendition of their "classic" Bethesda experience that even modders can't and won't try to fix.

So it was just a plain ol' mistake? Okay, sure, but it just seems like a very expensive mistake from an otherwise veteran outfit in the industry. It's just weird seeing authors get things so wrong about their own creations, though it's no uncommon.

 

[Hammer Of The Heretics]

I got to watch the Fire Phone debacle from the inside. Sometimes otherwise decent organizations do make really expensive mistakes.

 

[ind33d]

Starfield is not what anyone wanted nor asked for.

This is the most bizarre part of it for me - why Todd Inc. went for this thing in the first place. I can understand a creative's yearning for novelty, but let's face it, big subsidiary studios don't operate on concern over staff boredom. Bethesda already had two healthy IPs to leapfrog in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, so I can only imagine the impetus for Starfield (the fiction and the IP) was driven by a design aspiration, maybe the idea that they were on to some procedural tech that needed a space setting to be fully leveraged... Except that was clearly not the case in retrospect, and what they got was a lacklustre fiction, a boring random map generator, and a disjointed rendition of their "classic" Bethesda experience that even modders can't and won't try to fix.

So it was just a plain ol' mistake? Okay, sure, but it just seems like a very expensive mistake from an otherwise veteran outfit in the industry. It's just weird seeing authors get things so wrong about their own creations, though it's no uncommon.

because in development it was simulationist. what do you think happened? some 75 IQ grugs playtested Starfield, ran out of Helium, got stranded on Arrakis, and died of dysentery, so daddy government sanded off all the sharp edges so nobody's feelings got hurt. it's like that fucking Half-Life 2 hallway where some retard kept going left for three hours

 

[markec]

Starfield is not what anyone wanted nor asked for.

This is the most bizarre part of it for me - why Todd Inc. went for this thing in the first place. I can understand a creative's yearning for novelty, but let's face it, big subsidiary studios don't operate on concern over staff boredom. Bethesda already had two healthy IPs to leapfrog in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, so I can only imagine the impetus for Starfield (the fiction and the IP) was driven by a design aspiration, maybe the idea that they were on to some procedural tech that needed a space setting to be fully leveraged... Except that was clearly not the case in retrospect, and what they got was a lacklustre fiction, a boring random map generator, and a disjointed rendition of their "classic" Bethesda experience that even modders can't and won't try to fix.

So it was just a plain ol' mistake? Okay, sure, but it just seems like a very expensive mistake from an otherwise veteran outfit in the industry. It's just weird seeing authors get things so wrong about their own creations, though it's no uncommon.

Maybe I am wrong but I remember reading somewhere that this was Todds dream project, something he always wanted to make. Imagine having a complete creative freedom, huge company and endless money on your disposal to make a game you want, that is a dream of any gamer.

Just to be informed that certain features needs to be cut, some elements scaled down. All due lack of talent capable of staying true to your vision, being forced to compromise just to make the game reality.

Only for the end product to be a soulless husk of a game that only people who want to justify money spent pretend to enjoy.

Fitting end for Todd, to have his dream hollowed out just like he did to TES and Fallout, two beloved franchises.

 

[Konjad]

Starfield is not what anyone wanted nor asked for.

This is the most bizarre part of it for me - why Todd Inc. went for this thing in the first place. I can understand a creative's yearning for novelty, but let's face it, big subsidiary studios don't operate on concern over staff boredom. Bethesda already had two healthy IPs to leapfrog in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, so I can only imagine the impetus for Starfield (the fiction and the IP) was driven by a design aspiration, maybe the idea that they were on to some procedural tech that needed a space setting to be fully leveraged... Except that was clearly not the case in retrospect, and what they got was a lacklustre fiction, a boring random map generator, and a disjointed rendition of their "classic" Bethesda experience that even modders can't and won't try to fix.

So it was just a plain ol' mistake? Okay, sure, but it just seems like a very expensive mistake from an otherwise veteran outfit in the industry. It's just weird seeing authors get things so wrong about their own creations, though it's no uncommon.

Maybe I am wrong but I remember reading somewhere that this was Todds dream project, something he always wanted to make. Imagine having a complete creative freedom, huge company and endless money on your disposal to make a game you want, that is a dream of any gamer.

Just to be informed that certain features needs to be cut, some elements scaled down. All due lack of talent capable of staying true to your vision, being forced to compromise just to make the game reality.

Only for the end product to be a soulless husk of a game that only people who want to justify money spent pretend to enjoy.

Fitting end for Todd, to have his dream hollowed out just like he did to TES and Fallout, two beloved franchises.

And this is a good thing. Todd Low IQ "Who's laughing now" Howard ends up being proven a scamming retard, Gaider's masterpiece with his amazing writing gets a few hundred players tops, while Larian sells bagzillions of copies of a turn-based RPG.

Bethesda deserves this for what they made Fallout to become.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

And although Howard thinks that's "perfectly understandable," he says it's just not the experience Starfield sets out to provide. "I do think for us—particularly me—going into a science-fiction game, I want to be able to land on all the planets. I want the game to say 'Yes' to us, knowing that that content is gonna be different than you've seen from us in the past."

I like Todd but his head seems stuck in, like, 1990. He still seems to think Starflight is the pinnacle of gaming because you can "go anywhere" (which was also his favourite thing about Arena, apparently). Doesn't matter that there's nothing to actually do when you land, the appeal is simply that you can go anywhere.

If Starfield had released in 1990 - exact same game, but with older technology and released on DOS - it would definitely have been an all-time classic that people would still be playing/pretending to have played today, and would have been absolutely seismic and influenced games to this day. But it's not 1990, it's 2024, and I don't get how he can still think it's impressive to be able to click on a planet and be greeted with a giant empty procgen space with nothing in it. Even Mass Effect already did this with the shitty Mako maps. His "dream game" is shit that's already been done over and over again. He literally thinks, speaks and acts like someone who's been in a coma for three decades and has just woke up.

Next up he'll release a game that plays exactly like Wolfenstein 3D and enthuse that "it's my dream game because you're in first person, it's like you're really there".

I'm pretty sure he doesn't play non-Bethesda games that aren't sport games. He never did, and he is simply not interested in playing. That's why he's so out of touch that he has no idea 'you can travel anywhere' in hundreds of games by now - for him Starfield was the first game he could travel anywhere.

Starfield didn't even had proper maps on release, it's clearly not in the intended state. Covid fucked them over and they had to greatly scale down the game, like the removed fuel system. Since points of interest can be more easily added later it was probably the first thing to cut to be able to release it in time (which Todd and Cheng sold as "we could have more planets but we left it at 1000" and "not all will have life because it's more realistic that way")

https://fandomwire.com/starfield-cut-due-to-covid/

 

[Konjad]

Yeah, covid must've killed all the skilled developers at Bethesda.

 

[Odoryuk]

FF14 treatment anytime soon.

 

[Harthwain]

I think everyone knows of Bethesda's attempts at monetizing modding by now, and like every big game company they are relentless in the pursuit of money.

And I think this will be the final nail to the coffin, if they prioritize squeezing money over gaining more long-term support for their game via modding.

The first reason why modding worked was because Bethesda's games were easy to mod however people wanted. This isn't the case with Starfield and I wouldn't be surprised if there were limits to that still, even with Creation Kit. The second reason why modding worked was because mods were accessible for people for free. As far as I am aware, Skyrim Creation Club for "official" mods was ultimately a failure. I see no reason why a similar attempt in Starfield would yield better results, especially with the lack of free modding.

 

[Tyrr]

Bethesda must be shitting their pants with MS going on a rampage against useless game studios right now.

 

[Yosharian]

A mod like Ordinator or Sim Settlements presents itself as a value proposition: is it worth the time and hassle to install this thing, make sure it's working, then play it and risk it being utter trash that makes the game worse.

When you add a price tag to that, my response is that you can go fuck yourself.

Not to mention that most of these overhaul-style modders are morons who play with base Fallout 4/Skyrim, and so their mods are basically impossible to integrate into larger lists.

The vast majority of larger mods are utter trash quite honestly. The best mods are ones that modify existing game mechanics to make them much better, or improve vastly on what's already there in some way.

 

[ind33d]

Bethesda must be shitting their pants with MS going on a rampage against useless game studios right now.

if MS were serious about making video games they would pay a third party $20 an hour to shit out POIs for Starfield. if microsoft could just sell black women instead of entertainment products, they would. that's clearly all they care about. i'm actually convinced that every free market company is bankrupt and the entire "economy" runs on ESG bucks

 

[Cologno]

I think you're one of about 30 people who still think whatever this economic system the West calls a "freemarket" is actually that. Not knocking, revelations in recent years made quite astonishing how established the governments were in the tech industry from the beginning.