Pre-Release Starfield articles and discussion

[Zloth]

Trying to balance the game around two contradictory systems is impossible.

No Man's Sky would like to have a word...

It depends on the engine and the kind of game you are doing. In a game like NMS, being able to decide where you're going to land as you fly in is a very useful thing. I do a bunch of 'short hops,' too, where I just want to go from the northern to the southern hemisphere, or from a mountainous area to a beach. I system like this makes that a much better thing.

It could certainly be useful in an RPG, too, for roughly the same reasons. "The mystical power source is on a large island, shaped like a crescent moon with the points pointed northward. On the southern half of that island is a lake, also shaped like a crescent moon. If you draw a line between the two points, you'll find a pyramid at the center of the line which contains what you seek. The lake gets a bit bigger and smaller, depending on the rains, so you'll need to buzz around a bit to find the pyramid." You'll have something to find from orbit, as you are flying in, and when you're at 'helicopter altitude.'

 

[Brian Boru]

if you add contradictory systems to a game as “options”, the result is invariably to muddy the experience and leave neither a satisfying implementation

Civ would like a word
You want Always War or Always Peace?
Tech trading free-for-all, or no tech trading?
One big landmass or an archipelago?
Etc etc.

Far Cry has joined the chat:
You want boom-boom bang-bang blow-stuff-up? Sure, here are the resources, go for it!
You want No Alarms and Undetected bonuses? Sure, here are the resources, go for it!

Options are a Good Thing!

 

[Colif]

No Man's Sky would like to have a word...

No Mans Sky has had 6 years to fix itself up.

You could compare Starfield to NMS but only if you take the release versions, or wait a few years for Starfield to fix itself. Right now, its not even close.

Biggest complaint I see about Starfield (not performance related) is loading screens.
In NMS you can fly off the surface and go almost anywhere.
In Starfield its all loading screens or cut scenes.

 

[Hveðrungr]

Civ would like a word
You want Always War or Always Peace?
Tech trading free-for-all, or no tech trading?
One big landmass or an archipelago?

Archipelago doesn't work properly in Civ. The AI can't handle it. In fact I often played Civ on Archipelago precisely to get cheap wins for achievements. And assuming for the others you likewise mean a prohibition / enforcement on war / tech-trading as game options rather than as personal strategies, likewise the AI can't handle it properly and makes bad choices. In fact this whole example proves exactly what I mean. If the game is balanced for a particular type of play, adding options weakens the experience for at least one of them.

You could compare Starfield to NMS but only if you take the release versions, or wait a few years for Starfield to fix itself. Right now, its not even close.

Does No Man's Sky have a fully-featured RPG in it? See, this is where people are going wrong: Starfield and No Man's Sky aren't even the same type of game. You may as well compare Starfield to FIFA or to Tetris. Starfield is not a space sim, and was never intended to be. Of course a space sim is going to do space sim things better than a non-space sim. Likewise, if you compare Baldur's Gate to Tetris on how well you can drop blocks to Russian folk music, it's not even close. Baldur's Gate 0/10, literally unplayable.

 

[Sarafan]

If you want to play a hardcore space sim, there are other games that do that. Starfield is not a space sim.

Fair enough, but let's take the mentioned No Man's Sky for example. This isn't a space-sim (it's more like a survival game) and yet it offers manual landing. Main reason are not the costs, but engine limitations. You can't go anywhere when you land on a planet. You're limited only to a portion of it. That's one of the reasons why they didn't decide to implement manual landing. Implementing it would mean the necessity to implement whole planets and the engine doesn't allow you to do this. Of course whole planets would mean tons of procedurally generated content, but I prefer world filled procedurally generated content than a world without any content at all.

Starfield already has a huge number of systems, and it's amazing that we got manual spaceflight implemented at all

Daggerfall had the biggest game world in history of the industry. Of course it relied mostly on procedural content, but this shows that even a huge number of systems doesn't exclude the possibility to implement manual landing. I don't see a meaningful correlation between size of the world and presence or lack of manual landing sequence. Once you prepare one landing sequence, it can be used on every planet with only a simple asset swap.

Mass Effect didn't even do that, but I never heard anyone moan about that

Mass Effect 3 was released in 2012. We expect more from games as the technology advances. Also the loading screens weren't an issue in Skyrim times, but things do change, you know, and that's why people started to complain about this. Some rock textures in Starfield remind me of Oblivion graphics quality. Thankfully this will be modded in time, but this doesn't change the feeling that Bethesda is using an outdated technology. They're determined to use Creation Engine in TES VI which may be released in 2027. Given the bad performance and limited game structure of Stafield, I can't even imagine how outdated will this be in four years.

Trying to balance the game around two contradictory systems is impossible.

What balance? There's nothing to balance here. This isn't a character progression issue or discussion about weapon damage with certain skills. You either implement manual landing and full planet exploration or not. There are two alternative landing modes and Starfield doesn't include one of them.

 

[Sarafan]

You could compare Starfield to NMS but only if you take the release versions, or wait a few years for Starfield to fix itself. Right now, its not even close.

That's a good point, but I doubt that Bethesda will add manual landing option in future updates.

 

[Colif]

Does No Man's Sky have a fully-featured RPG in it? See, this is where people are going wrong: Starfield and No Man's Sky aren't even the same type of game.

It might have if the guy who was selling the idea of the game to journalists had mentioned that in any interview. He over promised and it took a few years to deliver on those promises. NMS has filled itself out a lot since launch, it almost looks fun enough to play now its got more game modes. Its not just a survival game anymore.

Considering NMS used to be comapred to Spore for all the wrong reasons, shows how far its come in that time.

I won't comment on how well Starfield is at being an RPG but I have seen reviews that question that.

I wait and see if people are praising it so highly in a few weeks when the "new purchase effect" has worn off. Most games are perfect until you play them for a while...

If I upgrade CPU to point I can play this, I might... but my track record with Bethesda games isn't positive.

 

[neogunhero]

Well, standard release is tonight in the US. I have it preloaded on Steam ready to go at 7PM. I really hope there is a Nvidia driver right before it unlocks… also I’m starting to really worry about my Ryzen 1600X not holding up. There are a few benchmarks with the RTX 2060 doing pretty decent but they all have better CPUs than I do, and I’m hearing Starfield is a very CPU intensive game. Bethesda also doesn’t have the greatest optimization practices… let’s hope for a patch and a graphics driver tonight.

 

[Brian Boru]

adding options weakens the experience

Uh no, it "changes" the experience.

The change may be a minus for some people and a plus for others. The great thing about many options is you can explore and identify your own personal suite of plusses.

Archipelago doesn't work properly in Civ

On the contrary, it works just fine—which is probably why it's been a map type in many iterations of the franchise. I've had lots of fun in Archipelago maps.

the AI can't handle it properly and makes bad choices

I don't understand what you're getting at. The AI makes bad choices in every Civ setup, otherwise it would be impossible for a human to win at difficulty levels where AI has production advantages.

Perhaps you mean AI makes diff choices to ones you'd make? That's the great thing about options—you can avoid the ones where you don't like the gameplay.

this is where people are going wrong

Nobody's going wrong, people just have diff needs and wants from their games

 

[Hveðrungr]

We expect more from games as the technology advances.

You were all over the Baldur's Gate threads complaining that it didn't have a first-person mode, I take it.

Daggerfall had the biggest game world in history of the industry. Of course it relied mostly on procedural content, but this shows that even a huge number of systems doesn't exclude the possibility to implement manual landing.

Weird, I must have forgotten the manual spaceship landing mechanic in Daggerfall. How odd that Bethesda deprecated it in Morrowind.

a world without any content at all.

If you believe this is true of Starfield and aren't merely lying, you've obviously not actually played it yet. Case in point, I just landed on a minor planet in a backwater system to run a routine scan. I've encountered a crash-landed ship whose pilot was trying to fix it, a camp of miners who want a ride off-world, a mining outpost who need help killing pirates attacking them, and a cave full of rare minerals. All this in just two landing sites on a minor non-plot world within about ten minutes. This is “without any content at all”, apparently. If someone doesn't like the game, that's fine, they can go play something else. Lying about it is just pathetic.

Once you prepare one landing sequence, it can be used on every planet with only a simple asset swap.

It's so cheap and easy to do, so you should create your own game with all the features of Starfield plus manual landing. That will show those lazy slackers at Bethesda who simply couldn't be bothered to do their jobs properly.

 

[Hveðrungr]

I won't comment on how well Starfield is at being an RPG but I have seen reviews that question that.

I wait and see if people are praising it so highly in a few weeks when the "new purchase effect" has worn off. Most games are perfect until you play them for a while...

If I upgrade CPU to point I can play this, I might... but my track record with Bethesda games isn't positive.

I don't understand why you would bother spending so much time slating a game that you've never even played, and where you didn't like the previous entries in the series. You've been all over the Starfield threads criticising it. I don't enjoy first-person shooters, so you know what I don't do? I don't waste my time on threads about first-person shooters.

The game is a Bethesda RPG in space. If you didn't like earlier Bethesda RPGs, you are going to hate this and I urge you not to waste your money. This game is not for you and that's okay, no game is for everyone, but it's spiteful to be dog-in-the-manger about it and try to put off other people just because it's not your thing.

Oh, and not that I expect it to stop you from hoping for Starfield to fail, but fwiw on the vibe trajectory:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/16a5kvu

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/16a5kvu/the_turn_this_sub_has_taken_in_the_past_48_hours/

 

[Hveðrungr]

Uh no, it "changes" the experience.

The change may be a minus for some people and a plus for others. The great thing about many options is you can explore and identify your own personal suite of plusses.

No, you've misunderstood my point. I agree that in a perfect world with infinite time and resources extra options would simply change the experience. But in the actual real world we live in, the extra time and resources required to implement extra options means that the quality has to take a hit for a given amount of time and resources available. This isn't some controversial or esoteric point, this is just basic economics. If you try to do more work in the same time with the same resources, the quality of your work will suffer.

On the contrary, it works just fine—which is probably why it's been a map type in many iterations of the franchise. I've had lots of fun in Archipelago maps.

I don't understand what you're getting at. The AI makes bad choices in every Civ setup, otherwise it would be impossible for a human to win at difficulty levels where AI has production advantages.

Perhaps you mean AI makes diff choices to ones you'd make? That's the great thing about options—you can avoid the ones where you don't like the gameplay.

As I said, I've had lots of fun in Archipelago too—because it's so much easier, because the AI can't handle it! I don't just mean the AI makes different choices. I mean it cannot figure out how to pull off naval invasions. If you ever want to play on easy mode, load up an archipelago map and populate it exclusively with militaristic opponents. They will flounder hopelessly while you sail [pun intended] to victory.

Nobody's going wrong, people just have diff needs and wants from their games

They are expecting Starfield to be a space sim rather than an RPG, and that is simply wrong. Likewise, if I went into FIFA forums and complained that it didn't allow me to craft arrows—that would be wrong. If I went into Tetris forums and complained that it didn't have an interactive economy—that would be wrong. If I went into Baldur's Gate forums and complained that it didn't have a first-person mode—that would be wrong. Of course everyone has different needs and wants from games, and that is exactly why it is so important that they realise when a game is not intended to provide them with what they need and want so they can look elsewhere—and if they fail to realise that, then they are wrong.

That's not a mean thing, it's just how it is, and by telling them they will be happier because they can spend their time with games they like rather than with games they don't like. Take Colif, for example, who says he has disliked the other Bethesda RPGs yet is thinking of buying this one! He will be much happier if he can be made to realise that he won't like this game any more than he did the other games he didn't like.

 

[Hveðrungr]

Today from PCG we have two complementary articles on Starfield, one of which slates it for its worlds being too empty:

While you can fast travel between visited locations on Starfield's worlds, you can also trek across them on foot for as long as your patience endures. But even here, you'll never feel like much of an explorer. Between the points of interest—farms, mines, pirate bases, labs—there are just great stretches of nothingness. Maybe some resources for you to mine, or alien critters for you to scan, but they otherwise feel like lifeless husks.

and the other of which slates it for its worlds being too busy:

My experience so far is that Starfield's planets don't quite feel as unexplored as they ought to. As someone who continues to derive a frankly bizarre amount of joy from jetting to random, uninhabited parts of the galaxy in Elite: Dangerous and wandering around in awe on the barren planets generated by that game's Stellar Forge tech, Starfield's planets have, to me, felt more like little, independent slices of any other Bethesda game that I now have to fast travel rather than walk between. I'm hoping that will change as I get further into the game, but right now? Starfield's planets aren't boring enough.

Sounds like Bethesda probably got the balance about right, then.

 

[Zloth]

Slates it?

No Mans Sky has had 6 years to fix itself up.

You could compare Starfield to NMS but only if you take the release versions, or wait a few years for Starfield to fix itself. Right now, its not even close.

?? I don't get it? No Man's Sky let you land from space right from the start. They've improved it over the years, but it has always been there.

 

[Pifanjr]

Starfield's over-reliance on fast travel makes it feel tiny, but it's just part of a larger problem

You can visit new star systems at the touch of a button, but exploration takes a backseat.

www.pcgamer.com

I feel like the criticism on how empty the worlds are in between POIs and how same-ish the enemies and locations feel is true for previous Bethesda games as well. I'm pretty sure 90% of players primarily use fast travel to get around, Skyrim's caves and Dwemer ruins infamously all look alike, most enemies you encounter are humanoids swinging/shooting weapons at you and most of the loot you find is vendor trash.

I do have a suspicion that the people complaining about these things are the people who played on survival mode in previous games. I can imagine Starfield feels "wrong" if you're used to the survival mode from previous games, so I'm curious if (some of) those complaints will be resolved when survival mode does get added.

 

[Colif]

I am not picking on game below as clearly APU isn't on supported lists

I actually like how it looks on 1st one, it looks like a painting

I am probably wrong about NMS, I never played it. How it was like at launch reminded me of spore, in bad ways. So I mostly ignored it ever since.

 

[FreezerBurn]

I am probably wrong about NMS, I never played it. How it was like at launch reminded me of spore, in bad ways. So I mostly ignored it ever since.

Oh, that just reminded me of the worst launch ever. My friend and I were looking forward to the Playstation 3 Socom game, and we got to play it once or twice. Sadly shortly after the launch Sony's network got hack and had to be taken offline for over a month, I wanna say this was in 2011.

 

[Brian Boru]

Interview with Todd Howard on BBC:

Starfield creator on 'choice anxiety', long games and exclusive titles

Todd Howard tells the BBC his team wondered if they 'were in over our heads' when creating the game.

www.bbc.com

I like the bit where he's asked about options and choices:

Q
"…providing untold options for players to choose between…"

A
"…they'll have at least seen all the other choices that could have been taken. It means those 20 hours will be different for every player because they were exposed to so much choice…"

Options are a Good Thing!

 

[Colif]

Entire world seemed to blame AMD for Starfield not having DLSS support, some conspiracy to make their cards look good.

Turns out, it was Bethesda being slow and just not including it in the game at launch.

Bethesda asked AMD to help get the game ready for launch, that is only reason any cards make game look good. Game was originally programmed using vulkan and then swapped to DX12, AMD were hired to help make game work at this stage as they created Vulkan and have DX 12 experience.

AMD at least made sure it works on their GPU.

Nvidia/Intel drivers were bad because it was ages before there was even a working version of the game.