this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
287 points (94.4% liked)

Games

32750 readers
2193 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Starfield steam page for the DLC currently shows eight user review score of 41%, making this one of the worst Bethesda DLC's released of all time. This is so horribly, shockingly bad for Bethesda, because it shows as a gaming company, they are no longer capable of delivering a really good gaming experience as they had in the past. Some of the reviews sum up quite nicely what is wrong with this DLC....

Less content than any skyrim DLC. Less than The Fallout 4 story DLCs. Doesn't change of the complaints people had with the base game, writing is still at a 4th grade level.

Quick: If you are looking to buy my answer is no, you aren't missing much content. I was really hoping to enjoy this DLC. Took about 4 hours for the main story and maybe 2 more hours to 100% the achievements.

These two reviews I think really summed up what Starfield has become, $70 for an AAAA title that has extremely little buy-in from the community, horrifically low amount of replayability and can be breezed through easily. It's mind-boggling to see this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This makes me feel better about them being exclusive to Microsoft now. I’m not missing anything at all.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

You're not. I pirated it on release and was very glad I didn't buy it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Well...except the next installations of Fallout and Elder Scrolls. Let's be honest, that's what Microsoft were really buying, and neither are anywhere near a release.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Judging by how Starfield turned out, will missing either of those games (which are almost certainly going to be using the same incredibly outdated engine) be much of a loss?

[–] Cethin 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The engine isn't why Starfield sucks. Sure, the constant loading isn't great but it isn't the reason there's nothing fun or interesting to do. It's also a solvable issue, but they haven't made the investments they need in the engine.

Starfield is just soulless. The characters are boring, the stories aren't interesting and don't let the player choose fun options. The universe is static and nothing matters. There's just no reason to be involved in the world, so there's no reason to want to be in it.

They could fix this. I'd say the way they need to go to do so is to stop targeting literally every player. They need to figure out who they're making the game for and target them. I'm a big sci-fi fan, and I like older Bethesda games. I should have been an easy target for Starfield, but I hated it, not because of the engine but because the stories, characters, and universe weren't engaging. The engine is an easy target to complain about, but it isn't what's holding them back. Indie games can do more with worse engines.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

The engine really isn't suited for the kind of game Starfield wants to be, so it really works against it. But you're right, even if it were a new shiny engine with the same writing and characters, it would still suck. Likewise, if it had the same creaky engine but actual good stories and characters the constant loading would be easier to overlook. It just has the worst of both worlds.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

For those of us that miss the lore and story/atmosphere of this games, absolutely.

Don't get me wrong, Starfield has made me truly worried about the next installment, and I truly believe that milking Skyrim has ultimately left Bethesda in a position where open world gaming just leapfrogged them. The likes of TOTK and Elden Ring have absolutely shattered what they can show to deliver in a supposedly improved generation.

All I can hope is that Bethesda really look at the feedback they received, and take the time to make the necessary changes to their engine. That alone might be enough to at least give a retro feel to the games. I'll still eagerly await them, but my hopes for them being GOTY are long gone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Neither of which will matter.

Bethesda's game design is just too old. Playing Starfield felt like playing an RPG from a decade ago. Bethesda just got complacent from back when they were one of the only companies that could seriously do an open-world RPG, now we have CD Projekt-Red and FromSoftware with wildly different, significantly more innovative gameplay experiences. Hell, even other AAA devs like Capcom have been able to outperform in the open world space, Dragon's Dogma 2 was a ton of fun.

[–] Cethin 6 points 2 months ago

No, sadly I think the design is too new. Morrowind was 22 years ago. It is the direction I'd like to see them go again. A complex world that feels lived in, and actually gives players options to play how they want and figure things out for themselves. The newer boring "design for everyone" approach sucks. There's no soul and nothing interesting.

FromSoft is somewhat notoriously old-school. Their game design has directly evolved from their older games. Look at King's Field and then look at Dark Souls. There's so much similarity. Yeah, ER is more cleaned up with a fuck-ton more money and technology available, but it's essentially the same design.

Obviously Balder's Gate 3 is just an evolution of classic RPG design, and it did very well. I'd argue CDPR also has taken classic RPG inspiration more than modern ones. A modern RPG design wouldn't do half the stuff Cyberpunk did, because it's not targeting everyone (and no one).

Modern AAA design doesn't pick a target. Their target is everyone and everything, so they do nothing well. Classic design is knowing who your game is for and making a game for them and not anyone else. Bethesda is doing the former.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

now we have CD Projekt-Red

Holy fuck gamers really do have the worst memories. Cyberpunk is still a shit game after 4 fucking years of patches. CDPR has like 5 titles and one of them is pretty good. FromSoftware has a legacy of bangers a mile long. These 2 companies aren't even in the same wheelhouse.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can Cyberpunk even be considered an RPG? Lmao.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Why not? You have different builds and choices affect your ending and quest outcomes, what more do you want?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Cyberpunk is very much not a shit game, it's a pretty good RPG with a great variety of character builds and fantastic writing. The devs did an absurd amount of work in order to make the gameplay significantly more fun. I'd also make the argument that Witcher 2 is a really good game, and is what popularized the series enough for Witcher 3 to be such a colossally known hit. The two companies make very different RPGs to one another, for sure, but you're just being a contrarian if you think the pedigree of the two companies is vastly different.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 months ago

but you're just being a contrarian if you think the pedigree of the two companies is vastly different.

Even if we ignore all the other bootlicking and fanboying in the above comment, this statement alone is completely absurd. FromSoftware has developed over 50 games and CDPR has...4? Maybe 10 if you count mobile trash? By the year 2000 FromSoftware had released more successful games than CDPR has released total, good or bad, to date.

It's no wonder that cyberpunk is such a piece of garbage really when you realize every other game CDPR ever developed has "the witcher" somewhere in the title.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Cyberpunk is not at all a shit game, what are you even on about?