Starfield - No Man's Bethesda

[sXeth]

So its okay.

The deep-dive at the last Microsoft showcase admittedly really piqued my interest, but these reviews are really bringing the game back into the reality that I always kind of expected the game to settle into: apparent mediocrity.

I wonder if Microsoft are starting to regret their acquisition of Bethesda. Starfield doesn't seem close to being a Redfall, but it definitely doesn't appear to be the critical hit that they were probably depending on, and combined with Redfall, this hasn't been a great showing for Bethesda and Team Green.

I mean, MS has only themselves to blame, when Bethesda hasn't put out a MEtacritic (not the be all and end all, but a decent barometer) over 5 in 12 years since Skyrim. And their recent history is trainwrecks upon trainwrecks of bad PR and questionable games with only Doom basically managing to escape it.

Its kind of like watching someone become a record exec and sign bands that were big when they were in high school.... with no idea or concept of their current output (or in Minecrafts case, there was no current output from Mojang lol)

 

[Ag3ma]

There is some concerning news coming out on twitter, like you can only land on a planet 4 times before the game deletes other planets from memory making it impossible to return to previous planets youve been to before. Probably has to go with the random generation and the game not being able to save infinite randknky made things in your game, so i dont know how much of an impact this will have.

I'm inclined to call this out as bollocks now.

Were this true, it's incredibly stupid. So stupid, and so contrary to the ethos of the sort of game Starfield would wish to be, it is hard to believe a company could allow it to occur. Therefore, it almost certainly does not occur.

The planets are apparently procedurally generated. What I can believe is that it keeps a "memory" of the planet after the initial generation, so if you go back to it, everything is in the place you left it. However, after a certain threshold is reached (time away from the planet, enough other planets visited) it potentially wipes that memory and has to create a new procedural generation if you ever go back. Or, if you like, a point may come where you are unable to go back to the planet in the state it was first experienced. But you sure as hell can go back.

 

[09philj]

I might buy this somewhere down the line.

Or I could play Fallout: New Vegas again.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I've heard the term "Skyrim in Space" bandied about a lot. That's nice. I'll wait for a half-off sale on the inevitable "Game of the Year" edition (even though we all know this game ain't winning Game of the Year awards). By then there should be plenty of mods to make extended playtime worthwhile.

 

[Dreiko]

Yeah so I hear seeing people say the game was overhyped, but I don't know anyone who was actually hyped for the game lol.


Maybe the thing is that it's an exclusive so some people out of tribalism gasslit themselves into thinking it'd be on the same plane as BG3 or FFXVI or something? I dunno.



But yeah, it looks interesting enough, it's better than no man's sky at least. Whenever it eventually makes it to ps5 (skyrim was supposed to be an exclusive too I think lol) I'll prolly give it a try.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I'm inclined to call this out as bollocks now.

Were this true, it's incredibly stupid. So stupid, and so contrary to the ethos of the sort of game Starfield would wish to be, it is hard to believe a company could allow it to occur. Therefore, it almost certainly does not occur.

The planets are apparently procedurally generated. What I can believe is that it keeps a "memory" of the planet after the initial generation, so if you go back to it, everything is in the place you left it. However, after a certain threshold is reached (time away from the planet, enough other planets visited) it potentially wipes that memory and has to create a new procedural generation if you ever go back. Or, if you like, a point may come where you are unable to go back to the planet in the state it was first experienced. But you sure as hell can go back.

Watch the reviews. Luke Stephens actually lays this out as true. Planets are not "fully explorable". Planets are just tile-sets that are randomly generated when you land and each planet will let you land (aka generate) up to four spots at a time before it will delete the oldest landing spot to generate a new one.

And apparently each landing zone you generate is fairly small. It might have a copy pasted mine, or other point of interested that is repeated over and over again, but each explorable area is fairly small and not worth exploring unless you get one with a clear point of interest in it at random.

 

[Ag3ma]

I might buy this somewhere down the line.

Or I could play Fallout: New Vegas again.

I wonder if it might get some middling reviews not because it really is that mediocre, but because it's not quite the game people are expecting. People may be expecting "Fallout / Elder Scrolls in space", but it's actually No Man's Sky, Star Citizen or Eliteangerous with some more RPGish elements: a procedurally generated sandbox, rather than a conventional strong narrative RPG.

 

[Dreiko]

Watch the reviews. Luke Stephens actually lays this out as true. Planets are not "fully explorable". Planets are just tile-sets that are randomly generated when you land and each planet will let you land (aka generate) up to four spots at a time before it will delete the oldest landing spot to generate a new one.

And apparently each landing zone you generate is fairly small. It might have a copy pasted mine, or other point of interested that is repeated over and over again, but each explorable area is fairly small and not worth exploring unless you get one with a clear point of interest in it at random.

Aren't they supposed to be this game's take on the procedurally generated dungeons and quests in skyrim? Like yeah they won't keep up with the hand-crafted stuff obviously.

 

[Ag3ma]

Watch the reviews. Luke Stephens actually lays this out as true. Planets are not "fully explorable". Planets are just tile-sets that are randomly generated when you land and each planet will let you land (aka generate) up to four spots at a time before it will delete the oldest landing spot to generate a new one.

And apparently each landing zone you generate is fairly small. It might have a copy pasted mine, or other point of interested that is repeated over and over again, but each explorable area is fairly small and not worth exploring unless you get one with a clear point of interest in it at random.

Okay, I see what's going on here. This is dangerously close to complaining for the sake of complaining - it's not something that's going to be an issue for the majority of players.

Firstly, the planets are fully explorable - in a sense. Yes, the planets are a set of procedurally generated tiles, and it's not going to remember them infinitely. But you can go anywhere.

When players hit the tile edge it's going to demand a loading screen to put the next tile in, and if players explore too far they can't go back to the exact tiles they experienced. But contextually, each of these "tiles" is about the size of Skyrim. So, very big.

The game is not designed around players exploring whole planets, because it's quite a low priority thing to do. People generally don't do this in games of that sort: they land, do some stuff, and head off again, because checking out many thousands of square kilometres of random stuff (most of which is the same old same old, because procedural generation) generally just isn't very worthwhile. There are POIs, people explore around the POIs a bit, but they overwhelmingly don't head off on a globe-trotting trek.

 

[sXeth]

I've heard the term "Skyrim in Space" bandied about a lot. That's nice. I'll wait for a half-off sale on the inevitable "Game of the Year" edition (even though we all know this game ain't winning Game of the Year awards). By then there should be plenty of mods to make extended playtime worthwhile.

I mean, irregardless of the actual quality of the games (barring Redfall esque trainwrecks), I could've told you at the start of the year that the GotY nominees would be Tears of the Kingom, Final Fantasy 16, Armored Core 6, Baldurs Gate 3, and Starfield. +obligatory random indie choice that wont actually win.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

The Bethesda FPRPGs may well be my favourite game series, but I look at Bethesda releases as early access. They might well be good already, but there isn't much point playing them until the modders have turned it into the full release in a couple of years time when it will be way better, and probably a good deal cheaper and gave some official DKC too.

 

[Ag3ma]

I mean, irregardless of the actual quality of the games (barring Redfall esque trainwrecks), I could've told you at the start of the year that the GotY nominees would be Tears of the Kingom, Final Fantasy 16, Armored Core 6, Baldurs Gate 3, and Starfield. +obligatory random indie choice that wont actually win.

Fundamentally nearly all major awards ceremonies are either created by the industry to promote and reward themselves, or where independently created are "captured" by the industry (through lobbying, sponsorship and other mechanisms) for the same purpose.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Okay, I see what's going on here. This is dangerously close to complaining for the sake of complaining - it's not something that's going to be an issue for the majority of players.

Firstly, the planets are fully explorable - in a sense. Yes, the planets are a set of procedurally generated tiles, and it's not going to remember them infinitely. But you can go anywhere.

When players hit the tile edge it's going to demand a loading screen to put the next tile in, and if players explore too far they can't go back to the exact tiles they experienced. But contextually, each of these "tiles" is about the size of Skyrim. So, very big.

The game is not designed around players exploring whole planets, because it's quite a low priority thing to do. People generally don't do this in games of that sort: they land, do some stuff, and head off again, because checking out many thousands of square kilometres of random stuff (most of which is the same old same old, because procedural generation) generally just isn't very worthwhile. There are POIs, people explore around the POIs a bit, but they overwhelmingly don't head off on a globe-trotting trek.

This conjures up the age-old debate of, “at what point is a game *big enough*?” I’d imagine this type of explorative design is only good for resource gathering and/or pillaging. There will be nothing lasting or meaningful beyond that for any of these places unless you don’t go over the tile limit and the game keeps track of it for the player.

I’ve never played NMS, but based on general consensus it seems they figured out a good enough procedural solution based on the latest updates that fixed things.

 

[Ag3ma]

I’ve never played NMS, but based on general consensus it seems they figured out a good enough procedural solution based on the latest updates that fixed things.

I play Elite: Dangerous. Some people who like the exploring style do put a high premium on a sort of immersive quality, that there's a world and they can go everywhere etc. For instance, E: D worlds have a set geography: that crater, that mountain range, that chasm is always there, and there are a layer of POIs that are likewise permanent. After that, there are temporary "event"-like things (crashed satellites, mining outcrops) that are procedurally generated, and some of the cosmetic effects (surface rocks, and where some of the stuff is in the POIs).

However, in another sense, players mostly kind of don't actually use this. Even explorers will tend to go to a POI, drive around a bit and exploit some of the mining and so on, and leave. It would take frigging hours and achieve nothing to drive all the way round even a 2000km diameter moon. Some people will, just for the sake of it, but very few will want to do it regularly. Thus there definitely are some people who will find the lack of permanent worlds and having to move between tiles frustrating, but I also think that isn't many players, and far from a deal-breaker for most of them.

 

[FakeSympathy]

Interesting take. I always thought ME1 was a flawed masterpiece. Looking at all the comments, maybe it has to do with the fact that Bioware had a dedicated writers and story while Starfield does the Bethesda thing of having the story as more of a second priority over exploration

 

[CriticalGaming]

Interesting take. I always thought ME1 was a flawed masterpiece. Looking at all the comments, maybe it has to do with the fact that Bioware had a dedicated writers and story while Starfield does the Bethesda thing of having the story as more of a second priority over exploration

Ok so maybe I'm crazy but since when has Bethesda's writing ever been good? Like Bethesda if anything has good world building and freedom within that world to sort of immerse yourself into, but the vast majority of their actual storylines are just kind of...there. Sometimes they hit on a really good idea in a side quest story line, but for the most part their games aren't really about a good plot they are about good worlds that you can get lost in.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Ok so maybe I'm crazy but since when has Bethesda's writing ever been good? Like Bethesda if anything has good world building and freedom within that world to sort of immerse yourself into, but the vast majority of their actual storylines are just kind of...there. Sometimes they hit on a really good idea in a side quest story line, but for the most part their games aren't really about a good plot they are about good worlds that you can get lost in.

You might consider this an aspect of world building, but the cosmology of the Elder Scrolls universe, when it gets down to the actual metphysics of it, is absolutely wild. The actual plots never took much advantage of it, but it credit where credit is due, Michael Kirkbride created a work of mad genius there.

 

[CriticalGaming]

You might consider this an aspect of world building, but the cosmology of the Elder Scrolls universe, when it gets down to the actual metphysics of it, is absolutely wild. The actual plots never took much advantage of it, but it credit where credit is due, Michael Kirkbride created a work of mad genius there.

I'm sure, but that's also the same point I make about the Souls games in that they don't have stories, they have lore and worldbuilding and those are not the same. Worldbuilding adds greater context to the story you might be currently writing but it doesn't replace an actual story.

 

[sXeth]

Ok so maybe I'm crazy but since when has Bethesda's writing ever been good? Like Bethesda if anything has good world building and freedom within that world to sort of immerse yourself into, but the vast majority of their actual storylines are just kind of...there. Sometimes they hit on a really good idea in a side quest story line, but for the most part their games aren't really about a good plot they are about good worlds that you can get lost in.

Morrowind's was interesting enough with a couple of (at the time) interesting subversions. Although paced terribly and broken up by a few "f off and go level up" phases.

Funnily, Skyrim is (in broad strokes) the same basic outline. But everything is ludicrously "dumbed down" and every trope and cliche is played arrow-straight.