Pre-Release Starfield articles and discussion

[neogunhero]

Went through a lot of reviews and didn't really find any problems with preordering. The combat is looking good, the ship/base building looks to be amazing (few have even tried that at all) main story is supposedly one of the better ones, and the graphics/music are fantastic.

Two reviews I’ve read have stated that they haven’t done much base building apart from putting up a quick little shack on a planet. One review (can’t remember which one, read too many already lol) was saying they felt there was a serious lack of incentive to build bases, and that they felt it was only useful for storing and collecting resources. I hope that once players dive into the game there is a lot more to it than just that. My main thing is that I hope there are things you can only do from bases you’ve built, not more of the same stuff you already get from your ship or houses you can buy. The actual mechanics of it look amazing and I’d love to get into building a proper home base at some point in the game, but I don’t want to have to wait until I’ve already grinded out tons of money and resources to dump into it.

 

[Alm]

The two reviews I saw said that the tutorial was off-putting and not so fun but the story was engaging and pulled them back in.

 

[Brian Boru]

GMan loves it 35m

Gameranx likes it 17m

 

[Frindis]

And then you have this guy (together with his friend) with an insane amount of time played:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mmQmfuMCos

 

[Ryzengang]

Went through a lot of reviews and didn't really find any problems with preordering. The combat is looking good, the ship/base building looks to be amazing (few have even tried that at all) main story is supposedly one of the better ones, and the graphics/music are fantastic. I can live with bugs, I can live with it not being the greatest Bethesda game ever, because for me that will always be Morrowind anyways as it is hard to beat that first true RPG love. I'll get a few days of fun, some digital stuff/DLC, and most likely some pretty cool exploration experiences. For a "low price" of 84,99 USD, that is a win in my book.

Yea, already have it preloaded on my machine. Most of the issues I've seen aren't major problems for me. I just want to shoot and loot in space with RPG elements. Also, I never expected it to be my favorite BGS game because I've always preferred traditional fantasy settings to space/sci-fi. It never had a chance at being better than Oblivion from my POV.

 

[Colif]

Google is broken, searching for Star Failed doesn't bring the game up.... silly search engine. that is the games name

Can't wait for the glitch videos... will make Cyberpunk look perfect on release.

Maybe I should call it No Mans Sky 2. Might take 5 years to get right

 

[Zloth]

75 from PCG.

Grabbing some popcorn and heading to those comments straight away.

You do need to add a few points to PC Gamer's scores if you are going to compare them to other sites. PC Gamer has NEVER given a perfect score to a game. A game has to be pretty incredible to get above the low 90's. 75 on PCG might be more like an 81 on other sites.

I'll be watching to see how things shape up. Inventory issues sound like something modders can do something about. The DLC might be able to do something about same'y main quest missions.

 

[Zloth]

No Steam reviews yet!? Maybe they have it locked off until the game releases properly. Rats, I wanted to know how good the game was based on the opening cinematic and character creation system!

 

[Pifanjr]

Two reviews I’ve read have stated that they haven’t done much base building apart from putting up a quick little shack on a planet. One review (can’t remember which one, read too many already lol) was saying they felt there was a serious lack of incentive to build bases, and that they felt it was only useful for storing and collecting resources. I hope that once players dive into the game there is a lot more to it than just that. My main thing is that I hope there are things you can only do from bases you’ve built, not more of the same stuff you already get from your ship or houses you can buy. The actual mechanics of it look amazing and I’d love to get into building a proper home base at some point in the game, but I don’t want to have to wait until I’ve already grinded out tons of money and resources to dump into it.

Personally I hope you don't have to build a base at all without missing out on any major game mechanics. Similarly to Fallout 4, where you can ignore settlements completely if you want without missing out on much.

 

[ZedClampet]

Steam forums are a shat-show. Lots of very angry children complaining that their 4090s that they actually don't own can't run the game.

But Bethesda hatred seems to be very popular, so I wouldn't expect great user reviews. Hard to say, though, these people may just enjoy getting reactions on the forums.

 

[Colif]

Steam forums are a shat-show. Lots of very angry children complaining that their 4090s that they actually don't own can't run the game.

they need to try harder as it does work on 4090 quite well actually

Spoiler

Its a bit harder on less beefy PC though.

No DLSS is complaint but there is a mod that adds DLSS 2 now.

Works better on AMD...

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

You do need to add a few points to PC Gamer's scores if you are going to compare them to other sites. PC Gamer has NEVER given a perfect score to a game. A game has to be pretty incredible to get above the low 90's. 75 on PCG might be more like an 81 on other sites.

I'll be watching to see how things shape up. Inventory issues sound like something modders can do something about. The DLC might be able to do something about same'y main quest missions.

Yup, its one of the things I've generally liked about PCG reviews, they dont always get taken away by the hype with scoring.

 

[Colif]

people still read reviews? I haven't read a review for a game in um... a long time now. Better to just watch Youtube videos once game is released.

 

[Ryzengang]

I think with reviews people can get really hung up on scores when it really matters how all the components weigh out for you, not the reviewer. I can totally see why someone would have problems with Starfield (I'm only 80 minutes in so these are just initial impressions), but most of the major gripes people have with the game are non-issues for me.

The non-continuous travel is totally fine with me, because travel time is going to get annoying quickly and I'll just end up fast traveling regardless. The procedural stuff being repetitive doesn't matter to me because I was never going to deeply engage with it anyways. I'm here for the main events (e.g., main quest, faction questlines), not what is on a random gas giant in bumfuck nowhere lol.

Ultimately, I rarely have trouble seeing different viewpoints on a game because it makes perfect sense. Some people are going to be deeply disappointed by the travel restrictions in the game, and that's totally fair. It just doesn't matter to me personally. Just weight the pros and cons based on your own tastes and expectations and that's all you need to do. I don't think reviewers are the problem (usually), I think a lot of the audience is bad at interpreting them.

 

[ZedClampet]

people still read reviews? I haven't read a review for a game in um... a long time now. Better to just watch Youtube videos once game is released.

I don't watch Youtube gaming videos. I don't read many professional reviews, either. I usually just read tons of user reviews.

 

[Brian Boru]

I don't think reviewers are the problem (usually), I think a lot of the audience is bad at interpreting them.

Quite right. A problem which goes way beyond entertainment reviews.

If I see a new reviewer and for some reason might be interested in their take, I'll look at a few of their previous reviews on products with which I'm familiar. That tells me very quickly what their expertise standard is, and if their views are likely to be useful to me.

Of course it's tough if you don't have a personal history to draw on—eg you're young or new to the subject—then a lot depends on those you're inclined or compelled to trust.

 

[Frindis]

Ultimately, I rarely have trouble seeing different viewpoints on a game because it makes perfect sense. Some people are going to be deeply disappointed by the travel restrictions in the game, and that's totally fair. It just doesn't matter to me personally. Just weight the pros and cons based on your own tastes and expectations and that's all you need to do. I don't think reviewers are the problem (usually), I think a lot of the audience is bad at interpreting them.

I often watch 5-10 reviews of a game, see what their perspectives are, and then I use that information to see if there is much difference in how they review the game when it comes to the positives and negatives. Often if a game is really bad, the majority of the reviewers will logically see much of the same flaws in the game and the same goes if it is very good. The problem is when there is a wider gap as with Starfield and then I'll cut through a lot of the info and go straight to the core aspects that are important to me.

Since the price was pretty steep for Starfield, it took a bit more work to be certain that it had those core aspects for early access play. So far I have been correct in my assumptions because the game is for me a fantastic journey into the unknown ( because space is.....never mind).

 

[Colif]

I often watch 5-10 reviews of a game, see what their perspectives are, and then I use that information to see if there is much difference in how they review the game when it comes to the positives and negatives.

i do that with almost everything I am going to buy. Though once again its mostly Youtube videos. Sometimes I have to wait 8 months for them to review the thing I want to buy... okay, that was only my GPU which I bought 8 months before any reviews appeared for it. I don't like going in blind.

Also, this guy is just making click bait as he has tested almost every Nvidia GPU with this game, and the results are getting more predictable as each one is released, I feel sorry for this dead horse. All these videos will be redundant once they fix game

he testing gpu performance in wrong area, Hardware unboxed found a better spot. The spot he in is CPU intensive, not GPU.

 

[Sarafan]

I’ll just leave this here without a comment. It’s from a 10 year old indie game.

View: https://youtu.be/_rPlmD7Nk4c?si=7Gn-_tmEZzomlSy9

 

[Zloth]

A few more years than 10!

 

[Hveðrungr]

I’ll just leave this here without a comment. It’s from a 10 year old indie game.

View: https://youtu.be/_rPlmD7Nk4c?si=7Gn-_tmEZzomlSy9

Thank the Great Serpent that Starfield doesn't make me waste my time doing that every time! This was a really valuable watch to remind us all that the idea that Starfield was ever going to be a boring space sim with this kind of mechanic was always utterly stupid. Can you imagine the sub-60 IQ of someone who'd complain about this kind of tedious grind not being in a role-playing game like Starfield or Mass Effect, where it has no place? “Skyrim doesn't make me personally fletch every arrow, 0/10 literally unplayable”. Baffling that that is the level that so many idiots on Twitter and Reddit have sunk to in their desperation to find something to hate about Starfield.

 

[Pifanjr]

3.5 minutes and I'm pretty sure it hadn't even landed at the end of the video.

If you want to waste a lot of time flying somewhere, I recently learned it is possible to fly from one planet to another in space in Starfield, it just takes a couple of hours.

 

[Sarafan]

Thank the Great Serpent that Starfield doesn't make me waste my time doing that every time! This was a really valuable watch to remind us all that the idea that Starfield was ever going to be a boring space sim with this kind of mechanic was always utterly stupid. Can you imagine the sub-60 IQ of someone who'd complain about this kind of tedious grind not being in a role-playing game like Starfield or Mass Effect, where it has no place? “Skyrim doesn't make me personally fletch every arrow, 0/10 literally unplayable”. Baffling that that is the level that so many idiots on Twitter and Reddit have sunk to in their desperation to find something to hate about Starfield.

I understand your arguments, but keep in mind that this can be an option, not a necessity. If someone wants to manually land on a planet then let him do this. If you want fast travel, no problem! I don't want the manual landing mechanics to replace fast travel completely. Both systems can function simultaneously. The only reason Bethesda haven't implemented manual landing are the engine limitations and development time. Creation Engine was very good in Skyrim, but that was almost 12 years ago. Damn, it was still nice in Fallout 4 in 2015, but you could already then see its limitations, especially in areas with large buildings.

If you want to waste a lot of time flying somewhere, I recently learned it is possible to fly from one planet to another in space in Starfield, it just takes a couple of hours.

Yes you can, but the final effect won't be as you expect it to be. Basically if you try to fly manually from one planet to another, you'll experience a growing planet with extremely blurred textures and you can fly through it. So it's pointless. You're limited to fast travel. Pretty much the same as in The Outer Worlds, but with less game content density per square kilometer. It's still a very good game. I don't deny it. The engine limitations are becoming really annoying though. Probably Bethesda won't drop it before TES VI is released, so...

 

[Brian Boru]

I'll cut through a lot of the info and go straight to the core aspects that are important to me

Yeah, makes sense.

game is for me a fantastic journey into the unknown

Uh hang on, can I reconsider above?

it is possible to fly from one planet to another in space in Starfield, it just takes a couple of hours.

Hey, Mars Truck Simulator!

 

[Hveðrungr]

keep in mind that this can be an option, not a necessity. […] Both systems can function simultaneously.

No, this is a common fallacy. You even touch later on one reason yourself: the enormous cost of implementing this. It would not be a good use of resources for Bethesda to waste money adding in this system which is grossly inappropriate to an RPG, and only belongs in hardcore space sims, which this is absolutely not supposed to be. If you want to play a hardcore space sim, there are other games that do that. Starfield is not a space sim.

The other reason why it's a fallacy, and in my opinion the more important one, is that if you add contradictory systems to a game as “options”, the result is invariably to muddy the experience and leave neither a satisfying implementation. Your old indie game could do tedious landing sequences competently to please those who want that because that was what it was focussed on. Starfield already has a huge number of systems, and it's amazing that we got manual spaceflight implemented at all—Mass Effect didn't even do that, but I never heard anyone moan about that. (If anything, people moaned more about the existence of the bit of Mass Effect that was most like it, the MAKO.) Trying to balance the game around two contradictory systems is impossible.

Here's a funny cartoon I saw today about applying the “let's add in everything fans ask for!” mentality to consumer goods, but it works for video games too: