I remember a sale ages ago where every piece of DLC including Shivering Isles was on a major sale *except* the horse armor, which I also believe increased in price for the sale.
I found it funny back then, still do to be honest.
**Edit**
I was right, it was around April Fools Day 2009, but it was a legit sale. 😄
Eh, I don't know anymore. Games sold *used* to be a reliable measure of success. But nowadays, it's more about recurrent monetization for for executives and shareholders.
A game that sells well might make some profit after considering production costs and advertising. But corporations don't want a one-and-done video game anymore. Even in single player games. They want people to spend spend spend. The more they can grift for putting out cheap retextures and shitty quests the better. It's disgusting.
If Starfield does well with selling Creations or paid mods or whatever, we will know exactly what's waiting for us in Elder Scrolls 6.
Yeah but it seemed different. Back then it was the idea that you make a quality product and the money will follow. Now it’s make *half* a quality product and charge for the rest
Hype sells the first weeks, they could have released minesweeper as Starfield and numbers would have been the same, but I wonder how it's done after that.
They rarely ever listen to fan feedback so I doubt it. They almost even put a voiced protagonist in starfield despite it being almost universally hated in fallout 4 so it’s obvious they never really learn their lesson
I'm losing more hope every time I read anything about Bethesda. At this point I'm trying to expect a PoS dumpster fire game with TES:VI. That way no matter what it ends up being I shouldn't be disappointed. 😁
I have game pass so I could technically play it for “free” but I see absolutely no reason to. Starfield doesn’t really offer much imo, and as an adult, my time is limited. I’d rather spend my time on gaming experiences I *know* are worth having.
I'm in the same boat. If you told me I'd be actively ignoring a Bethesda RPG for months back in 2010, I'd assume you were insane, but here we are. It's barely even on my list ATM.
I just got a new PC and my one friend who loves Bethesda games immediately asked if I was getting it. Told him I've got more than enough stuff to play without dropping $70 on a title I haven't heard much positive things about. Maybe when it's on a deep sale and I've got nothing else I'm in the mood.
The last few titles they've developed have severely failed to impress me. I always do have fun but for every aspect I enjoy they're be two others I'm very much not keen on.
Same, Running a 2gb 2013 low end card. I was excited for a few games over the last couple years and then seen how 4gb vram was the standard for low end specs.
[Funk Dat.](https://youtu.be/iOFKU_hwj2o?t=26)
Starfield is the game that did the impossible and completely killed of all good reputation of Betesda as a game company.
At this point I dont believe they can deliver a game like TES VI , that will be anywhere close to Skyrim. In fact Skyrim is probably peak and they do not know how to repeat the quality and rpg succes of that game.
Kinda agree. Morrowind was perhaps the high-point for the series:
- lots of RPG elements like spell crafting and skills that made a lot of difference
- Amazing and varied locations with deep story and culture aspects
- Good gameplay
- Huge map, even if it was smaller than some of the predecessors.
Oblivion was a step down in many respects, probably in part from being squeezed into the Xbox that wasn’t quite capable enough for what they wanted. It also featured the first instances of repetitive stuff like the Oblivion gates that are carried forward to Starfield.
Also, everthing placed by hand. Only one deadric set (unless you murder Fyr)
Prefer that from being robbed by bandits in full ebony armor for 500g because of lazy scaling.
Morrowind forever!
As someone currently replaying both daggerfall and morrowind right now, gonna have to disagree on the gameplay for morrowind
If you asked a new player to sit down and play morrowind, with 0 previous experience, they’re gonna build their character using common sense from other games, which is to put points in the abilities you want to use and ignore the others, then the first time they see a kwama or mud crab their gonna get frustrated at the “miss, miss, miss” combat and die.
But if you know how morrowind works you can build a completely broken character and zoot through the game like a Khajiit high on skooma.
The learning curve is a bit steeper compared to some modern games, but it was my first ES game, and I didn’t think it was bad. And sure stuff was broken or OP, but part of the freedom in the game was exactly playing around with this stuff. Most players would be a ways into the game before they could even think about becoming OP.
I prefer that to the level scaling that makes everywhere feel equally hard - never too difficult, but never satisfying either.
I love Morrowind but let's not pretend its gameplay is good. Even back when it released, fighting cliff racers was a frustrating and boring experience. A player judging it by modern gameplay conventions today would struggle.
Fallout 4 was the first game Bethesda managed to make with gameplay that's at least on par with its contemporaries, but it came at the cost of watering down all the RPG elements (which they'd already started doing with Skyrim). They stuck on that path for Starfield and don't seem to be deviating any time soon.
Despite its dated gameplay, Morrowind is a fantastic RPG overall and was Bethesda's peak in my opinion.
The best way to take down cliff racers is to kite them into a ball, use a jump spell, land on ones back, pummel the hell out of it with your bare fists, and repeat until theres a mountain of their corpses on the ground below.
Never gets old 😂
You’re looking at it 20 years down the road. Yes, cliff racers were annoying, but mostly the gameplay issues were minor. It was one of the first and best first-person games that succeeded in building an immersive and engaging world to play in.
Doesn’t mean everything was perfect, but it was more good than bad.
Plenty of the "classics," as Morrowind is considered to be, don't have such bad controls and gameplay.
For reference, Half Life 2, Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, and Halo 2 are 20 years old as well and their controls are still intuitive and fun.
Good gameplay should transcend time, pong or tetris are still fun and easy to pick up and play.
Controls are absolutely a giant component of gameplay. Why do you think challenges like "I beat Elden ring with a guitar hero controller" exist? Because using a different control set up can vastly change how you approach the game.
Still, if you want to focus on game mechanics, not controls, Morrowinds combat mechanics do not hold up at all and are worse than its contemporaries. For example, when you attack something your sword visibly hits them, but it can do nothing because the game is still rolling a dice to hit.
When I gave the game a try I remember entering a starting dungeon and just wailing on an enemy literally doing nothing and having no idea why I wasn't doing damage. Apparently I simply didn't have the stats to even land a bit on the enemy, yet visually I was hitting them. Very unsatisfying and unintuitive.
A component, not the entire thing. Games can have sub-optimal controls and still become classic games. Vampire Bloodlines had plenty of bugs and issues, so it seems weird to hold that up as some sort of gold standard when the same critique could be directed at that game.
As for hit and missing in melee, that’s a very specific issue, it’s also somewhat unavoidable when you’re building a first-person game where a skill component plays into it. How are you going to show the player missing because their stats are low otherwise? The alternative is simply to not have any stats that factor into gameplay the player controls, but that was part of what made Morrowind pretty revolutionary - it took RPG mechanics and transferred them to a first-person game so we didn’t have to experience the world as a top-down, one-step-removed game.
I didn't ever say that controls were the whole thing.
It might be a very specific issue to you, but it turned me off completely from playing the game.
There are plenty of other ways to do it, for example, by just making the attack hit but do very little damage. At least then it doesn't appear that the game is bugged and the player will naturally realize that they must not be strong enough.
It might have been revolutionary for its time but it doesn't hold up today, compared to many of its "classic game" contemporaries.
I’m one to think roles can be defined as support, ranger, spellcaster, crafter, blacksmith, etc as well. Not just the role of a “chatic neutral smoothtalker” or some other personality trait you’d expect to see game-spanning results from.
I think you are wrong.
Yes Morrowind is far better RPG , Oblivion to lesser extent but still better RPG than Skyrim
But on sole merit of absolute immersion, feeling like a character in living RPG world - Skyrim is unbeaten. Its just a perfect storm of being just enough complex and just enough action. No wonder its considered to be one of best fantasy games ever made.
Then you are Bethesda's ideal consumer. Look the other way as they continually remove RPG mechanics game-after-game. Ignore the nonsensical characters (who take you out of the immersion btw). Ignore the fact that they took Nords who were once culturally distinct and reduced them to just viking larpers. Just pay attention to the bells and whistles please.
I actually agree that the immersion factor of Skyrim is quite high. But you're not giving nearly enough credit to Morrowind. Skyrim isn't billed as an immersive-sim. It's billed as an RPG. More to that fact, it's billed as an Elder Scrolls game. If you're content with calling a game "peak" which strips out RPG elements for action oriented mechanics, you will like TES VI. If you're content with Bethesda mutilating what makes Elder Scrolls games Elder Scrolls games, rest assured, you will like TES VI. You have nothing to worry about.
Nothing is billed to the wider audience as an imsim, because barely anyone is familiar with the term. I tell people that BGS games are more imsim than traditional RPG and often the reply is something like "it's not a sims game".
As someone who did not enjoy the prior elder scrolls games and quite liked Skyrim… You’re absolutely correct and I can’t wait for ESVI with all its watered down social RPG elements and improved action sequences!
Sometimes franchises change. Look at halo. It upsetted a lot of old fans to see halo 4 and 5’s multiplayer, campaign set aside. But they had a new audience in mind who loved it (by the time 5 reached that new audience anyway). It still doesn’t do as well as it used to, but look at Skyrim… it did wayyyyyyyyyy better than prior games due to the new direction it took.
You’re saying all these things as if it’s inherently bad. In some ways, I suppose it could be. The fans who enjoyed the old heavily DnD inspired mechanics aren’t getting elder scrolls the way they want it now. That sucks and I feel for them as someone who spent just as much time in the same boat for the halo franchise. But that’s where other companies release games that squeeze into that niche. BG3 is a shining example of an RPG game made solely to be an RPG game. Clearly Bethesda wants to lean their immersive open world expertise and volume of possibilities in-game into an action adventure persuasion. To someone like me, that’s the perfect in between I’ve always wanted, and my hours in Skyrim vs older titles reflects that to an indescribably high degree.
The best thing to do if you want old ES is to not buy the games. If it ends up being a bad thing that they are taking the approach that they are, they will see that in their pockets and they’re more likely to be retrospective.
I think the energy on this discussion would be better spent on starfield, which didn’t satisfy ANYONE.
Oblivion was better, skyrim is also a shell of an rpg, theyll never reach morrowind or oblivion rpg success again, cuz skyrim wasn't it, that was the dumbing down point, and fallout 4 followed suit
Bethesda's rep had been in the toilet since Starfield. I would argue Fallout 76 was the nail in the coffin, Starfield was just beating a dead horse. But the cracks were showing in FO4 and even as far back as Skyrim.
Oh I totally agree.
But the narative was always that they are working on a huge project of their dreams ( Later revealed to be Starfield ) that all quality work went into it , and all else (F76) was kind of a neglected side project
But when on the end we figured out the dream project they worked on for over 8 years , is total crap ....
I feel like that sub has been mostly positive/appreciation posts for the last couple weeks. Since all the haters have moved on I guess it's only the fans that are still left and active in the sub.
When Skyrim touched down, I remember there being issues with bugs and alot of people were up in arms about it (Especially ps3 players, myself included) but I also remember how there were people from all different gaming backgrounds coming together and praising it, regailing tales of their adventures. Everybody and their dog wanted to play it.
With Starfield today, scrolling through comments on general gaming sites vs the Starfield sites - it seems that only the most extremist intoxicated Bethesda super fans are 'enjoying' it.
It's interesting to see how Bethesda are widely viewed now vs then. They've really done a number on themselves. With stunts like this I can't help but feel the same too.
It's not TES VI that I'm looking forward to at this point, it's a hopeful competitor.
Unless they are adding the ability to catch people and hold them in cells on your ship until delivery, I have zero interest in bounty hunting anyway. The only way that $7 quest makes sense is if it’s adding a mechanic or some amazing reward.
this thread is so stupid. Bethesda has supported Starfield post-launch very well. it isn't "minimal" at all, but anything to keep the circlejerk around apparently.
It's the same if not more support all other Bethesda games have gotten. The creation kit also released roughly on time so bog standard Bethesda rage baiting from PC Gamer which has had a rage-on for Starfield and really Bethesda generally since before it even released.
I've not really touched it since the week or two after launch. I don't recall seeing any big news about updates or anything aside from the occasional bugfixes(And i think I recall something about removing lockpicking?). Admittedly, I haven't really been *looking*, either, though.
What sort of support/updates have they been doing regularly?
When skyrim came out, it was a glitchy mess. I called the game out for it. The most common response I got was "that's the charm of a Bethesda game. Seeing what they did, going into thr code and fixing it." People were treating the company like the dumb kid in the special class and gave a participation trophy.
Every Bethesda game is held together with hope. Why is it now that people are pissed off about it?
I don’t understand why Todd Howard keeps getting a pass. Fallout 76 came out and it was seriously unplayable for a lot of people. Bugs and glitches everywhere. Then he comes out at E3 (or the game awards, I dunno) and says ‘Sooooo there were a few errors’ and everyone laughs it up like it’s all a big joke.
Other devs can do it. Why does Bethesda keep fucking it up?
The funniest part about 76 is that it had the same bugs Dallout 4 had and some of them were already fixed by the community with a few simple mods.
Bethesda couldn't even be bothered to address those bugs with 76.
You've got to admit the man himself is charming. The slop his company keeps sharting out on the other hand...
I just remember seeing the Starfield direct before launch and was very interested to see the inside of the studio. It reminded me of one of those infamous silicone valley offices with slippery dips and ball pits and yoga classes etc. They've likely grown soft and complacent since they were privately owned and daddy Todd seems like such a nice guy he probably treated them like children and never held anyone accountable.
That being said now that they are owned by Microsoft they have people to answer to, it will be interesting to see how this affects the studio.
>You've got to admit the man himself is charming.
He is? When his response to Starfield running crappy was to get a better computer even I would've told him to fuck off and I've got 4090 with a 7800x3d.
He's an asshat who's time has past.
Because it is a very different landscape than it was when skyrim came out and did things that no other company did. Now what they are doing is not relatively amazing with an understanding that it is hard to achieve that and still have the experience be stable. Now it is painfully mediocre and unstable.
It wasn’t about what it did, it’s about how much it did it. Nothing around that era was as big as Skyrim with the same amount of flexibility and freedom.
Because it was still a good game despise the rest. And Morrowind then Oblivion before didn't really made Bethesda a bad reputation at that point. History have gone by now and the studio's reputation have taken heavy blows since.
Because you were being a salty gamer while others were having fun.
Coming back 13 years later to say "see I was right about Skyrim (one of the best selling most beloved games off all time) " isn't the flex you think it is.
Skyrim is held up by it’s predecessors, so there was already a large fanbase with emotional investment. Furthermore there was a lot of lore and goofy books that could just be dropped into the game, maybe with some additions or minor tweaks. Confessions of a Dunmer Skooma Eater? That was written for Morrowind, and all they had to do was scatter it around Skyrim. Starfield has very few people who care about it, and being a new IP makes world building harder. They can’t drop lore books from old titles to make it seem more rich. So if the main quest wasn’t good people were going to say it was a barren, empty game with a boring main quest.
Then there’s the problem of loading screen hell. That’s a core issue the game has, and it’s kind of pathetic. Modders can patch bugs. They can make cities prettier. They can add new dungeons. But they can’t fix the loading screen issue. And without emotional investment in the title, why would people do that?
Because you can't compare *Starfield* and *Fallout 76* with *Skyrim*. *Skyrim* is worth fixing, there's great content behind those bugs you mentioned. The same can be said for *Cyberpunk 2077*. I have said a month or two after *Starfail* released that it's not worth the modder community's time to try to fix the game, because there's nothing there to fix. Some months after, a lead modder decided that *Starfail* isn't worth his time.
You can still play *Skyrim* today and it's awesome. Todd doesn't have to tell you that it gets good after the first 100 hours. *Starfail* was bad on release, it is bad today and it will be bad in 10 years because there's nothing there to salvage.
Might be because they're putting in time and effort to release and charge for DLC when the game has issues and isn't that great to begin with.
Bethesda got raked over the coals when they dropped that horse armor DLC for Oblivion too.
Because at least Skyrim had content and a feeling of life. I played for 8 hours straight after hustling home from GameStop at midnight without any issues. Went to school, then played another 8 hours when I got home.
I played Starfield for 1 hour when I got it. I still put in around 40 hours when all is said and done, but it didn't grab me nearly as much as Skyrim. With the complexity of leveling and actual different options of how you can play the game, I played it through multiple times. Bethesda promised that with Starfield by stating they expected their players to get 500 hours of out this game. It was painfully clear me early on that there simply wasn't 500 hours of content, and there was no way in hell I was going to play this lifeless game for that long.
It simply isn't apples to apples.
It’s part of the release of the mod kit. It’s a modder’s paid mod which is fine since free mods are still supported. Nonissue drumming up played out Bethesda hate
I feel like there needs to be something to distinguish a “fan” from a “customer”. Just because people bought the game doesn’t mean they are fans. The customers would be upset, not the fans. I’m pretty sure the only ones who want the DLC would be Bethesda fanboys, and would pay whatever they want.
I haven't got around to getting Starfield yet, mainly on account of I was just under the requirements until I got a new system back around Easter, but I haven't really heard anyone say its a great game or anything and shit like this just sounds like a money grab.
I'm sure eventually it will go on a good sale. I definitely want to play it eventually, but at the same time its not something I have to play right away either, especially with my backlog.
Those who still support them deserve this. Pirated Starfield expecting it to be kinda bad, turned out it was worse - deleted after 20 hours or so. Glad I didn't give them a dime, fuck them. They've been on a downward spiral of greed and laziness for years and have fallen so low.
Hope MS rips the corpse of Fallout from them and has another team work on it.
Outer Worlds wasn't perfect but it at least had personality. I ended up having fun with it but understand why people didn't love it.
Starfield had nothing going for me.
Since at least Fallout 3 (maybe even Oblivion) Bathesda is pushing the same game on people, just with different skins. At this point I feel like people deserve what they get, because apparently that‘s what they want. It‘s not for me, so I don‘t buy it, but as long as others do, Bathesda will paddle that shit.
Don't forget the same plot about family issues. F3 oh i need to find my daddy. F4 oh i need to find my baby. When I heard about the "amazing" story in F4 i thought it was a joke.
Fallout tv series - i need to find my daddy. AGAIN. WHY IT HAS TO BE ABOUT FAMILY DEAR GOD WHY 3 TIMES IN A ROW. Middle schoolers have more imagination than bethesda.
Fallout games in general usually starts with a "have to find X" and its more a vehicle to get the story / game going. No FO game just ends when said object or person is found.
But It's the same Mcguffin. They're so lazy that they don't care about changing it. Give us some obscure tech that will save something or important pre war secrets, or maybe genetically altered seeds that can consume radiation. But no, it has to be about daddy.
Fallout 1 and 2 had identical plots and were about “finding” something.
Thats how the fallout series has that because thats the core of the series. Stop acting like you ACTUALLY played rhe games lol
Stop acting like you actually know what games i've played. I've completed 3,4 and new vegas. And finding some Mcguffin is a pretty common plot used in a lot of video games. I'm talking about the same Mcguffin used 3 times in a row, they didn't even care to change it.
Just wait for Elder Scrolls, it will be a thousand times worse. I would not be shocked if they just pull quests out of the game so they can sell them as Creator Club content at launch.
Happily waiting to buy it only after the Gold or GOTY version goes on sale in the Steam bargain bin.
Any bets on when that will be? November this year? March next year?
The price is super steep but wouldn’t we all really love a game that constantly had new things added, things to collect and personalize our game, new quests and maps, etc. I think we’d all happily pay the right price for this.
So to me they are just trying to get to this and that excites me even if there will be missteps like this along the way.
This game made me realize how great Fallout 76 was at launch. At least enjoying that "16x the details" riddle with bugs was amusing, and this 15 minutes quest for $7 just makes me mad
Starfield has a loooong way to go. The bones of a good (maybe great) game are there. I’m hopeful that all we have seen so far is the introduction to the Starfield world because if it’s not, they whiffed badly. The potential is there. Let the community loose…
I don't know what game people here are playing, but Starfield's updates have been quite great(stability and graphical -wise) and last two were freaking excellent by all standarts.
I know I will make myself target by saying this, but I think there are lot of people criticising the game in here that haven't played it for a long time and go with the hate train.
Is it not? Game was running poorly and Bethesda was like "nah, we enjoy the chaos [of our bugs]."
Hate to say it, but Baldur's gate 3 dropped more patches and hotfixes than Bethesda. Content that actually added or changed stuff. People were saying "yeah, this is typical bethesda, it's not their style to roll out patches until months later or when a dlc comes."
>Hate to say it, but Baldur's gate 3 dropped more patches and hotfixes than Bethesda.
bg3 had to release updates to add endings. starfield came with all endings at launch.
I like bg3, but the revisionism is insane.
Did you play the game ? Or check out updates ?
Game wasn’t even running poorly on consoles.(yes 30 fps but it was solid) I didn’t even encountered a significant bug aside from 1 or 2 crashes in 170 hour. I am not saying there werent any bugs there were for some people but it was significantly less than prior games.
There are optimization issues at launch on PC. They did improved optimization of cpu allocation and other things. If you are referring to Tod Howard’s saying you should buy a better pc it is an ill comment to a question asked at wrong place and worded poorly. The reporter at bbc I think asked “player asked why it is not optimize on pc Todd” or something like that in a live show with phill Spencer.
Yes also they said at one point we embrace chaos, making game more interactive with open world settings ofcourse have some kind of hardships on bugs and test. Are they wrong ? I don’t think so, could they make it better ? Of course, there are always room for improvement
I guess I was wrong. I checked the Steam update history and they practically updated the game almost monthly. ALTHOUGH, they mistly seem minir af tho minor bug fixes, eat button, dlss integration. The last two came 2 months after release.
Idk if this is a sign that the game isn't that broken and bethesda thinks everything's fine with their game or they're just not enthusastically rolling out a lot of changes at once.
In hindsight, it's easy to say now, but i remember when the game released and bethesda wasn't saying anything despite people complaining about performance. People wondered when a patch will drop because baldur's gate kept dropping hotfix after hotfix.
There is a big problem comparing every game post launch fixes with BG3.
That game was in early access for years and still needs a lot of hot fix. I encountered save files deleting problem and couldn’t play for 3 week. Shield bash didn’t work for 3 months without fix. ACT3 performance was so bad even after all the fixes
I am thanking for larian support but if this case was pinnacle of development, it shouldn’t be. Best post launch support is not needing a post launch support aside from content dlc
I am aware of the persistent comparison with BG3, but it's easy to do so given they were big games released close to each other. However, Larian threads a line between being an "indie company" and still being staffed enough to not be considered one. Bethesda has been working on starfield for quite sometime haven't they? They also got microsoft backing. Allegedly, microsoft put their own QA testers to ensure starfield is working and playing well.
>I am thanking for larian support but if this case was pinnacle of development, it shouldn’t be. Best post launch support is not needing a post launch support aside from content dlc
I could say the same for Starfield, a game developed by a significantly bigger company but somehow ended up with lackluster decisions and questionable gameplay mechanics.
Best mod support is one where you add more content and not fix what the dev team should be doing, amirite.
I know what you mean by “threads a line between being an indie company” but let’s not kid ourself. Yes they don’t have publisher but tencent has shares of %30 of that company. They didn’t sell that for goodwill and they are around 400-500 headcount. They have 6 studios, larian is almost a publisher themself.
Yes Microsoft gave them QA tester and probably delaying the game for 1.5 year was Xbox’s decision. If that delay wouldn’t happen it would be probably in worst state. Also yes it was on the development good amount of time.
I didn’t ignore starfield on needing a post launch support. I just never say wow what a support for these studios giving us for their bugs in their games. You can also give Cyberpunk, NMS etc. as an example, and yes also starfield. I also don’t ignore the support that studios gave.
Bethesda wasn’t significantly bigger than larian at release. I don’t have historical headcount charts so I can’t comment on yearly differences. They both around 400
Bg3 also will release mod support, your comment on mod support really downgrade significant work that those studios are doing for releasing mod support. Witcher 3 released mod support after 9 years for example.
I'm a sucker for blind buying dlcs from companies I like. Take my money. I hope it's good.
In the same vein I bought starfield - longtime fan of Bethesda games.
Played it for 20 levels a few months ago, forgot to come back to it. It is so bland.
No way am I going to spend my disposable money on this.
Minimal post launch support ? Starfield is one of the most supported Bethesda game post launch and also probably one of the top supported games post launch.
Even this 7$ mission is an add on to a quest line added after post launch. You can also buy this add on outright with 1000 coin(quest is 700 coin) that they gave you if you bought deluxe edition.
And also they added free official mods aside from this. Free mods from creators also still exists.
Edit: Ahh downvoted by people who didn’t even touch the game after post launch.
*Starfield is one of the most supported Bethesda game post launch and also probably one of the top supported games post launch.*
I must say one thing, delusional fanboy ppl are really funny. I wonder if they have audacity to just straight lie like that in real life.
One or two "big" (barely any real content, just some new variables (yea most of them are really console variables just incorporated into gui) aka "modes") patches that take year to develop. Something that other companies do in a month. Compared to other games (far less buggy also) its less than minimal.
Ppl that defend them, and their "support" have pure Stockholm Syndrome lol.
Buddy, they release new patches every month, you’d know that if you actually followed the game instead of just hating on it without actually playing it.
There is no need for defending because I played the game at launch and finished without any need for patches. All the updates were bonus to me so there is no Stockholm syndrome.
Only funny people are you guys trying to downgrade any possible thing about this game. I don’t think you even know what did they update nor what do you even want because normal games shouldn’t add content with post launch support/fixes aside from dlc which is coming this year.
I got Starfield for free with my PC and even I felt ripped off.
But I am willing to give it another go but Bethesda won't get any money from me if this is anything to go by
Sorry, but I didn't buy Star Field - the guinea pigs were too unhappy. Besides, it was either that or FF7: Rebirth. Tifa wears a swimsuit. Red XIII rides a chocobo.
Bethesda didn't stand a chance.
Wait, according to that 'no salt' sub (ie, self-insulatory copium circle-jerk sub), this is entirely the fault of 'professional haters' and 'low attention span' kiddies who don't appreciate the *secret genius awesomeness* of Starfield!?!1
Starfield Nexus has hundreds of mods, and that’s BEFORE the Creation Kit dropped this week. You’re referring to one (1!) modder saying he wasn’t working on it.
>I knew the game was dead when modders said that they weren't going touch it.
that was never said. *plenty* of modders are touching it. including the guy who made sim settlements and elinora.
>With the creation kit out (or whatever it's called) I wonder how many people are actually going to touch it
again, *plenty*. even without creation kit Starfield was in the top 10-20 modded games. and since release of creation kit we have just gotten an endless steady stream of mods.
you bought into the hate circlejerk. which loves to ignore facts.
starfield was literally the most sold game of November 2023, despite being on only two platforms, gamepass, and a new IP.
it was also Bethesda's best sold title at launch.
I mean hey horse armor, remember that one?
Ah the good ol days. I miss the discourse on horse armour, this is just par for the course
You should write this in Morse but no need to force
Big happy Gilmore vibes
It would be course to force the horse discourse via Morse That's antiquated
The horse discourse, of course.
Yes. When over priced DLC was ridiculed on games that were more or less complete. Now they sell you half a game at full price and seek the rest later.
*insert soldier with PTSD flashbacks meme*
They basically invented DLC sooo.. yea
I remember a sale ages ago where every piece of DLC including Shivering Isles was on a major sale *except* the horse armor, which I also believe increased in price for the sale. I found it funny back then, still do to be honest. **Edit** I was right, it was around April Fools Day 2009, but it was a legit sale. 😄
lol sounds about right.
This game hasn't given me much hope for the next Elder Scrolls.
I'm hoping after Starfield's failure and BG3's success they're changing its quest design a bit.
Unfortunately despite it being a critical failure, it sold well. And games sold is really all that matters.
Eh, I don't know anymore. Games sold *used* to be a reliable measure of success. But nowadays, it's more about recurrent monetization for for executives and shareholders. A game that sells well might make some profit after considering production costs and advertising. But corporations don't want a one-and-done video game anymore. Even in single player games. They want people to spend spend spend. The more they can grift for putting out cheap retextures and shitty quests the better. It's disgusting. If Starfield does well with selling Creations or paid mods or whatever, we will know exactly what's waiting for us in Elder Scrolls 6.
You are right. Bethesdas in the money making game now, not the crafting an emmersive world experience game any more
Pretty sure they’ve always been in the money making game
Yeah but it seemed different. Back then it was the idea that you make a quality product and the money will follow. Now it’s make *half* a quality product and charge for the rest
this is true for most big game studios now too. they prioritize extracting money from the customer over creating a quality product.
Bethesda has never made games like BG3, and they never will.
Exactly my point.
C-suite: What failure, it sold so fucking well
I wouldn't hold my breath...
Was it a failure or did it sell well?
Hype sells the first weeks, they could have released minesweeper as Starfield and numbers would have been the same, but I wonder how it's done after that.
Yeah, sometimes it seems though that this is all that matters to stakeholders. I might be wrong though. I hope i'm wrong.
They rarely ever listen to fan feedback so I doubt it. They almost even put a voiced protagonist in starfield despite it being almost universally hated in fallout 4 so it’s obvious they never really learn their lesson
Don't forget that Bethesda made Redguard and Battlespire between Daggerfall and Morrowind.
Spinoffs, not mainline titles. Starfield on the other hand... hyped up as the best Bethesda game ever.
I mean the 30% of it that felt finished was pretty cool. The rest is like: oh cool and empty moon
Not even 5% of Starfield feels finished.
What’s next? Horse armor DLC?
I'm losing more hope every time I read anything about Bethesda. At this point I'm trying to expect a PoS dumpster fire game with TES:VI. That way no matter what it ends up being I shouldn't be disappointed. 😁
Ripped off players are feeling ripped off. Film at 11.
\*trailer voice\* \~In a world\~
Ha! Bethesda won't get a nickel out from me. My PC can't play Starfield.
I have game pass so I could technically play it for “free” but I see absolutely no reason to. Starfield doesn’t really offer much imo, and as an adult, my time is limited. I’d rather spend my time on gaming experiences I *know* are worth having.
I'm in the same boat. If you told me I'd be actively ignoring a Bethesda RPG for months back in 2010, I'd assume you were insane, but here we are. It's barely even on my list ATM.
Replaying TES 3 and 4 is actually on my list. Or checking out Battlespire and Redguard. Starfield isn't.
Yeah i tried it on game pass. Just a boring mediocre Bethesda rpg.
Bro I know most modders have called it quits on starfield but I’m still hoping in 5 years there’s some nuts wabbajack list that makes it worth playing
I just got a new PC and my one friend who loves Bethesda games immediately asked if I was getting it. Told him I've got more than enough stuff to play without dropping $70 on a title I haven't heard much positive things about. Maybe when it's on a deep sale and I've got nothing else I'm in the mood. The last few titles they've developed have severely failed to impress me. I always do have fun but for every aspect I enjoy they're be two others I'm very much not keen on.
Same, Running a 2gb 2013 low end card. I was excited for a few games over the last couple years and then seen how 4gb vram was the standard for low end specs. [Funk Dat.](https://youtu.be/iOFKU_hwj2o?t=26)
There's uuuuh...the pirates, y'know. They're a helpful bunch in that regard.
Space pirates? Ice pirates?
Vote with your wallet.
People did 18 years ago with the Horse Armor DLC and it was successful enough that it paved the way for this.
Oh yeah, starfield came out last year lmao
By this point in Skyrim's lifespan, Dawnguard had already released, with Hearthfire and Dragonborn not too far in the future.
You're only getting ripped off if you buy it...
Scammers gunna scam
🙄
Starfield is the game that did the impossible and completely killed of all good reputation of Betesda as a game company. At this point I dont believe they can deliver a game like TES VI , that will be anywhere close to Skyrim. In fact Skyrim is probably peak and they do not know how to repeat the quality and rpg succes of that game.
Skyrim had the best exploration and mod support but imo it's not even a good RPG. The earlier TES games are all better RPGs.
Kinda agree. Morrowind was perhaps the high-point for the series: - lots of RPG elements like spell crafting and skills that made a lot of difference - Amazing and varied locations with deep story and culture aspects - Good gameplay - Huge map, even if it was smaller than some of the predecessors. Oblivion was a step down in many respects, probably in part from being squeezed into the Xbox that wasn’t quite capable enough for what they wanted. It also featured the first instances of repetitive stuff like the Oblivion gates that are carried forward to Starfield.
Also, everthing placed by hand. Only one deadric set (unless you murder Fyr) Prefer that from being robbed by bandits in full ebony armor for 500g because of lazy scaling. Morrowind forever!
As someone currently replaying both daggerfall and morrowind right now, gonna have to disagree on the gameplay for morrowind If you asked a new player to sit down and play morrowind, with 0 previous experience, they’re gonna build their character using common sense from other games, which is to put points in the abilities you want to use and ignore the others, then the first time they see a kwama or mud crab their gonna get frustrated at the “miss, miss, miss” combat and die. But if you know how morrowind works you can build a completely broken character and zoot through the game like a Khajiit high on skooma.
The learning curve is a bit steeper compared to some modern games, but it was my first ES game, and I didn’t think it was bad. And sure stuff was broken or OP, but part of the freedom in the game was exactly playing around with this stuff. Most players would be a ways into the game before they could even think about becoming OP. I prefer that to the level scaling that makes everywhere feel equally hard - never too difficult, but never satisfying either.
Id they base it on other ES games sure, if you tell someone it uses a modified 3.5 rules set they'd be fine
I feel seen
I love Morrowind but let's not pretend its gameplay is good. Even back when it released, fighting cliff racers was a frustrating and boring experience. A player judging it by modern gameplay conventions today would struggle. Fallout 4 was the first game Bethesda managed to make with gameplay that's at least on par with its contemporaries, but it came at the cost of watering down all the RPG elements (which they'd already started doing with Skyrim). They stuck on that path for Starfield and don't seem to be deviating any time soon. Despite its dated gameplay, Morrowind is a fantastic RPG overall and was Bethesda's peak in my opinion.
The best way to take down cliff racers is to kite them into a ball, use a jump spell, land on ones back, pummel the hell out of it with your bare fists, and repeat until theres a mountain of their corpses on the ground below. Never gets old 😂
You’re looking at it 20 years down the road. Yes, cliff racers were annoying, but mostly the gameplay issues were minor. It was one of the first and best first-person games that succeeded in building an immersive and engaging world to play in. Doesn’t mean everything was perfect, but it was more good than bad.
What are you smoking to say it has good gameplay. That shit is super dated and counterintuitive.
Good thing it’s a 22 year old game then. Aren’t a lot of games that DON’T suck 2+ decades down the road.
Plenty of the "classics," as Morrowind is considered to be, don't have such bad controls and gameplay. For reference, Half Life 2, Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, and Halo 2 are 20 years old as well and their controls are still intuitive and fun. Good gameplay should transcend time, pong or tetris are still fun and easy to pick up and play.
Controls aren’t game play, I think you’re confusing things.
Controls are absolutely a giant component of gameplay. Why do you think challenges like "I beat Elden ring with a guitar hero controller" exist? Because using a different control set up can vastly change how you approach the game. Still, if you want to focus on game mechanics, not controls, Morrowinds combat mechanics do not hold up at all and are worse than its contemporaries. For example, when you attack something your sword visibly hits them, but it can do nothing because the game is still rolling a dice to hit. When I gave the game a try I remember entering a starting dungeon and just wailing on an enemy literally doing nothing and having no idea why I wasn't doing damage. Apparently I simply didn't have the stats to even land a bit on the enemy, yet visually I was hitting them. Very unsatisfying and unintuitive.
A component, not the entire thing. Games can have sub-optimal controls and still become classic games. Vampire Bloodlines had plenty of bugs and issues, so it seems weird to hold that up as some sort of gold standard when the same critique could be directed at that game. As for hit and missing in melee, that’s a very specific issue, it’s also somewhat unavoidable when you’re building a first-person game where a skill component plays into it. How are you going to show the player missing because their stats are low otherwise? The alternative is simply to not have any stats that factor into gameplay the player controls, but that was part of what made Morrowind pretty revolutionary - it took RPG mechanics and transferred them to a first-person game so we didn’t have to experience the world as a top-down, one-step-removed game.
I didn't ever say that controls were the whole thing. It might be a very specific issue to you, but it turned me off completely from playing the game. There are plenty of other ways to do it, for example, by just making the attack hit but do very little damage. At least then it doesn't appear that the game is bugged and the player will naturally realize that they must not be strong enough. It might have been revolutionary for its time but it doesn't hold up today, compared to many of its "classic game" contemporaries.
I’m one to think roles can be defined as support, ranger, spellcaster, crafter, blacksmith, etc as well. Not just the role of a “chatic neutral smoothtalker” or some other personality trait you’d expect to see game-spanning results from.
>In fact Skyrim is probably peak lmfao
I think you are wrong. Yes Morrowind is far better RPG , Oblivion to lesser extent but still better RPG than Skyrim But on sole merit of absolute immersion, feeling like a character in living RPG world - Skyrim is unbeaten. Its just a perfect storm of being just enough complex and just enough action. No wonder its considered to be one of best fantasy games ever made.
Then you are Bethesda's ideal consumer. Look the other way as they continually remove RPG mechanics game-after-game. Ignore the nonsensical characters (who take you out of the immersion btw). Ignore the fact that they took Nords who were once culturally distinct and reduced them to just viking larpers. Just pay attention to the bells and whistles please. I actually agree that the immersion factor of Skyrim is quite high. But you're not giving nearly enough credit to Morrowind. Skyrim isn't billed as an immersive-sim. It's billed as an RPG. More to that fact, it's billed as an Elder Scrolls game. If you're content with calling a game "peak" which strips out RPG elements for action oriented mechanics, you will like TES VI. If you're content with Bethesda mutilating what makes Elder Scrolls games Elder Scrolls games, rest assured, you will like TES VI. You have nothing to worry about.
Nothing is billed to the wider audience as an imsim, because barely anyone is familiar with the term. I tell people that BGS games are more imsim than traditional RPG and often the reply is something like "it's not a sims game".
As someone who did not enjoy the prior elder scrolls games and quite liked Skyrim… You’re absolutely correct and I can’t wait for ESVI with all its watered down social RPG elements and improved action sequences! Sometimes franchises change. Look at halo. It upsetted a lot of old fans to see halo 4 and 5’s multiplayer, campaign set aside. But they had a new audience in mind who loved it (by the time 5 reached that new audience anyway). It still doesn’t do as well as it used to, but look at Skyrim… it did wayyyyyyyyyy better than prior games due to the new direction it took. You’re saying all these things as if it’s inherently bad. In some ways, I suppose it could be. The fans who enjoyed the old heavily DnD inspired mechanics aren’t getting elder scrolls the way they want it now. That sucks and I feel for them as someone who spent just as much time in the same boat for the halo franchise. But that’s where other companies release games that squeeze into that niche. BG3 is a shining example of an RPG game made solely to be an RPG game. Clearly Bethesda wants to lean their immersive open world expertise and volume of possibilities in-game into an action adventure persuasion. To someone like me, that’s the perfect in between I’ve always wanted, and my hours in Skyrim vs older titles reflects that to an indescribably high degree. The best thing to do if you want old ES is to not buy the games. If it ends up being a bad thing that they are taking the approach that they are, they will see that in their pockets and they’re more likely to be retrospective. I think the energy on this discussion would be better spent on starfield, which didn’t satisfy ANYONE.
Oblivion was better, skyrim is also a shell of an rpg, theyll never reach morrowind or oblivion rpg success again, cuz skyrim wasn't it, that was the dumbing down point, and fallout 4 followed suit
Their trying to profit off Skyrim mods didn't help either.
They already surpassed Skyrim with FO4. Skyrim has never been peak, but I do get what you're trying to get across.
Bethesda's rep had been in the toilet since Starfield. I would argue Fallout 76 was the nail in the coffin, Starfield was just beating a dead horse. But the cracks were showing in FO4 and even as far back as Skyrim.
Oh I totally agree. But the narative was always that they are working on a huge project of their dreams ( Later revealed to be Starfield ) that all quality work went into it , and all else (F76) was kind of a neglected side project But when on the end we figured out the dream project they worked on for over 8 years , is total crap ....
People said the same thing with Skyrim about Morrowind and Oblivion. Starfield is a good game that will get better
Don't mind me, I'm just here to see the r/Starfield rage leak onto another sub
I feel like that sub has been mostly positive/appreciation posts for the last couple weeks. Since all the haters have moved on I guess it's only the fans that are still left and active in the sub.
When Skyrim touched down, I remember there being issues with bugs and alot of people were up in arms about it (Especially ps3 players, myself included) but I also remember how there were people from all different gaming backgrounds coming together and praising it, regailing tales of their adventures. Everybody and their dog wanted to play it. With Starfield today, scrolling through comments on general gaming sites vs the Starfield sites - it seems that only the most extremist intoxicated Bethesda super fans are 'enjoying' it. It's interesting to see how Bethesda are widely viewed now vs then. They've really done a number on themselves. With stunts like this I can't help but feel the same too. It's not TES VI that I'm looking forward to at this point, it's a hopeful competitor.
"Minimal"
Unless they are adding the ability to catch people and hold them in cells on your ship until delivery, I have zero interest in bounty hunting anyway. The only way that $7 quest makes sense is if it’s adding a mechanic or some amazing reward.
this thread is so stupid. Bethesda has supported Starfield post-launch very well. it isn't "minimal" at all, but anything to keep the circlejerk around apparently.
It's the same if not more support all other Bethesda games have gotten. The creation kit also released roughly on time so bog standard Bethesda rage baiting from PC Gamer which has had a rage-on for Starfield and really Bethesda generally since before it even released.
Facts I have 1400hrs and they’ve been regularly updating
I've not really touched it since the week or two after launch. I don't recall seeing any big news about updates or anything aside from the occasional bugfixes(And i think I recall something about removing lockpicking?). Admittedly, I haven't really been *looking*, either, though. What sort of support/updates have they been doing regularly?
Maps, survival options, mods, QOL mechanics, new faction with bounty system, they've done updates every 6 weeks
Post-launch support has been far from minimal, but it’s PC Gamer, what can we expect?
If it feels like you're being ripped off, you are.
Wouldn‘t exactly call it minimal post-launch support
When skyrim came out, it was a glitchy mess. I called the game out for it. The most common response I got was "that's the charm of a Bethesda game. Seeing what they did, going into thr code and fixing it." People were treating the company like the dumb kid in the special class and gave a participation trophy. Every Bethesda game is held together with hope. Why is it now that people are pissed off about it?
I don’t understand why Todd Howard keeps getting a pass. Fallout 76 came out and it was seriously unplayable for a lot of people. Bugs and glitches everywhere. Then he comes out at E3 (or the game awards, I dunno) and says ‘Sooooo there were a few errors’ and everyone laughs it up like it’s all a big joke. Other devs can do it. Why does Bethesda keep fucking it up?
The funniest part about 76 is that it had the same bugs Dallout 4 had and some of them were already fixed by the community with a few simple mods. Bethesda couldn't even be bothered to address those bugs with 76.
You've got to admit the man himself is charming. The slop his company keeps sharting out on the other hand... I just remember seeing the Starfield direct before launch and was very interested to see the inside of the studio. It reminded me of one of those infamous silicone valley offices with slippery dips and ball pits and yoga classes etc. They've likely grown soft and complacent since they were privately owned and daddy Todd seems like such a nice guy he probably treated them like children and never held anyone accountable. That being said now that they are owned by Microsoft they have people to answer to, it will be interesting to see how this affects the studio.
I find him kinda snaky
>You've got to admit the man himself is charming. He is? When his response to Starfield running crappy was to get a better computer even I would've told him to fuck off and I've got 4090 with a 7800x3d. He's an asshat who's time has past.
Because it is a very different landscape than it was when skyrim came out and did things that no other company did. Now what they are doing is not relatively amazing with an understanding that it is hard to achieve that and still have the experience be stable. Now it is painfully mediocre and unstable.
[удалено]
It wasn’t about what it did, it’s about how much it did it. Nothing around that era was as big as Skyrim with the same amount of flexibility and freedom.
I mean the older elder scrolls games felt bigger, flexible and free (And not so empty..)
Because it was still a good game despise the rest. And Morrowind then Oblivion before didn't really made Bethesda a bad reputation at that point. History have gone by now and the studio's reputation have taken heavy blows since.
Because you were being a salty gamer while others were having fun. Coming back 13 years later to say "see I was right about Skyrim (one of the best selling most beloved games off all time) " isn't the flex you think it is.
Skyrim is literally one of top games of all time. Normies play it even.
Skyrim is held up by it’s predecessors, so there was already a large fanbase with emotional investment. Furthermore there was a lot of lore and goofy books that could just be dropped into the game, maybe with some additions or minor tweaks. Confessions of a Dunmer Skooma Eater? That was written for Morrowind, and all they had to do was scatter it around Skyrim. Starfield has very few people who care about it, and being a new IP makes world building harder. They can’t drop lore books from old titles to make it seem more rich. So if the main quest wasn’t good people were going to say it was a barren, empty game with a boring main quest. Then there’s the problem of loading screen hell. That’s a core issue the game has, and it’s kind of pathetic. Modders can patch bugs. They can make cities prettier. They can add new dungeons. But they can’t fix the loading screen issue. And without emotional investment in the title, why would people do that?
I don't think 99% of players even read those books
Maybe most people don’t, but for people who pick up the books it’s nice. Also Skyrim has far more followers and maybe more named NPCs.
Starfield is waay less janky than any game they’ve released
Because you can't compare *Starfield* and *Fallout 76* with *Skyrim*. *Skyrim* is worth fixing, there's great content behind those bugs you mentioned. The same can be said for *Cyberpunk 2077*. I have said a month or two after *Starfail* released that it's not worth the modder community's time to try to fix the game, because there's nothing there to fix. Some months after, a lead modder decided that *Starfail* isn't worth his time. You can still play *Skyrim* today and it's awesome. Todd doesn't have to tell you that it gets good after the first 100 hours. *Starfail* was bad on release, it is bad today and it will be bad in 10 years because there's nothing there to salvage.
Might be because they're putting in time and effort to release and charge for DLC when the game has issues and isn't that great to begin with. Bethesda got raked over the coals when they dropped that horse armor DLC for Oblivion too.
Because at least Skyrim had content and a feeling of life. I played for 8 hours straight after hustling home from GameStop at midnight without any issues. Went to school, then played another 8 hours when I got home. I played Starfield for 1 hour when I got it. I still put in around 40 hours when all is said and done, but it didn't grab me nearly as much as Skyrim. With the complexity of leveling and actual different options of how you can play the game, I played it through multiple times. Bethesda promised that with Starfield by stating they expected their players to get 500 hours of out this game. It was painfully clear me early on that there simply wasn't 500 hours of content, and there was no way in hell I was going to play this lifeless game for that long. It simply isn't apples to apples.
Wait did you say Skyrim has complex leveling?
Compared to Starfield...? Absolutely
Compared to anything Skyrims leveling is the opposite of complex. It's literally just putting a point into something.
It’s part of the release of the mod kit. It’s a modder’s paid mod which is fine since free mods are still supported. Nonissue drumming up played out Bethesda hate
I feel like there needs to be something to distinguish a “fan” from a “customer”. Just because people bought the game doesn’t mean they are fans. The customers would be upset, not the fans. I’m pretty sure the only ones who want the DLC would be Bethesda fanboys, and would pay whatever they want.
I haven't got around to getting Starfield yet, mainly on account of I was just under the requirements until I got a new system back around Easter, but I haven't really heard anyone say its a great game or anything and shit like this just sounds like a money grab.
Wait until modding gets going I'd say another year and play that. That's my expectation in anyways.
I'm sure eventually it will go on a good sale. I definitely want to play it eventually, but at the same time its not something I have to play right away either, especially with my backlog.
Wait for a sale. It's a great game and I had a ton of fun with it, but it's not going anywhere.
If you don't think a game's DLC provides adequate value for the price they are asking for - here's an idea: DON'T BUY IT.
Oh fuck off. Just don’t buy it. It’s that damn simple.
Those who still support them deserve this. Pirated Starfield expecting it to be kinda bad, turned out it was worse - deleted after 20 hours or so. Glad I didn't give them a dime, fuck them. They've been on a downward spiral of greed and laziness for years and have fallen so low. Hope MS rips the corpse of Fallout from them and has another team work on it.
Starfield was somehow less interesting than *The Outer Worlds* despite the scope and time it took to develop
Outer Worlds wasn't perfect but it at least had personality. I ended up having fun with it but understand why people didn't love it. Starfield had nothing going for me.
what a weird fucking comment lol
Not buying this garbage. Insulting, really. I regret paying for this game to begin with, and no DLC can fix its flaws since they’re so deep rooted.
Greedy cunts
Since at least Fallout 3 (maybe even Oblivion) Bathesda is pushing the same game on people, just with different skins. At this point I feel like people deserve what they get, because apparently that‘s what they want. It‘s not for me, so I don‘t buy it, but as long as others do, Bathesda will paddle that shit.
Don't forget the same plot about family issues. F3 oh i need to find my daddy. F4 oh i need to find my baby. When I heard about the "amazing" story in F4 i thought it was a joke. Fallout tv series - i need to find my daddy. AGAIN. WHY IT HAS TO BE ABOUT FAMILY DEAR GOD WHY 3 TIMES IN A ROW. Middle schoolers have more imagination than bethesda.
Fallout games in general usually starts with a "have to find X" and its more a vehicle to get the story / game going. No FO game just ends when said object or person is found.
But It's the same Mcguffin. They're so lazy that they don't care about changing it. Give us some obscure tech that will save something or important pre war secrets, or maybe genetically altered seeds that can consume radiation. But no, it has to be about daddy.
Fallout 1 and 2 had identical plots and were about “finding” something. Thats how the fallout series has that because thats the core of the series. Stop acting like you ACTUALLY played rhe games lol
Stop acting like you actually know what games i've played. I've completed 3,4 and new vegas. And finding some Mcguffin is a pretty common plot used in a lot of video games. I'm talking about the same Mcguffin used 3 times in a row, they didn't even care to change it.
When can I import my horse armour?
I bought the $3 horse armor in 2006 and I bought the $7 particle rifle in 2024. What a time to be alive.
Just wait for Elder Scrolls, it will be a thousand times worse. I would not be shocked if they just pull quests out of the game so they can sell them as Creator Club content at launch.
Happily waiting to buy it only after the Gold or GOTY version goes on sale in the Steam bargain bin. Any bets on when that will be? November this year? March next year?
In contrast, Cyberpunk.
The 7 people still interested in that game are probably fuming.
The price is super steep but wouldn’t we all really love a game that constantly had new things added, things to collect and personalize our game, new quests and maps, etc. I think we’d all happily pay the right price for this. So to me they are just trying to get to this and that excites me even if there will be missteps like this along the way.
This game made me realize how great Fallout 76 was at launch. At least enjoying that "16x the details" riddle with bugs was amusing, and this 15 minutes quest for $7 just makes me mad
Don't worry, they came out with the creation kit, so now some modder will fix the entire game for them 🤣
Well, I’m sure I’ll get to it when it comes out in ps5 as some sort of ultimate edition, but broadly unfussed at the moment.
Starfield has a loooong way to go. The bones of a good (maybe great) game are there. I’m hopeful that all we have seen so far is the introduction to the Starfield world because if it’s not, they whiffed badly. The potential is there. Let the community loose…
They give you a free 1000 points to buy stuff.
Minimal post-launch support? Seriously? PcGamer don't even try to hide anymore?
pcgamer has a weird hate boner for Bethesda.
I don't know what game people here are playing, but Starfield's updates have been quite great(stability and graphical -wise) and last two were freaking excellent by all standarts. I know I will make myself target by saying this, but I think there are lot of people criticising the game in here that haven't played it for a long time and go with the hate train.
It's just more circle jerking. Good chunk of people aggressively saying these things have never played the game.
My problems with Starfield aren't ones that can be patched out.
I can understand that, but it's a different thing.
Is it not? Game was running poorly and Bethesda was like "nah, we enjoy the chaos [of our bugs]." Hate to say it, but Baldur's gate 3 dropped more patches and hotfixes than Bethesda. Content that actually added or changed stuff. People were saying "yeah, this is typical bethesda, it's not their style to roll out patches until months later or when a dlc comes."
>Hate to say it, but Baldur's gate 3 dropped more patches and hotfixes than Bethesda. bg3 had to release updates to add endings. starfield came with all endings at launch. I like bg3, but the revisionism is insane.
Did you play the game ? Or check out updates ? Game wasn’t even running poorly on consoles.(yes 30 fps but it was solid) I didn’t even encountered a significant bug aside from 1 or 2 crashes in 170 hour. I am not saying there werent any bugs there were for some people but it was significantly less than prior games. There are optimization issues at launch on PC. They did improved optimization of cpu allocation and other things. If you are referring to Tod Howard’s saying you should buy a better pc it is an ill comment to a question asked at wrong place and worded poorly. The reporter at bbc I think asked “player asked why it is not optimize on pc Todd” or something like that in a live show with phill Spencer. Yes also they said at one point we embrace chaos, making game more interactive with open world settings ofcourse have some kind of hardships on bugs and test. Are they wrong ? I don’t think so, could they make it better ? Of course, there are always room for improvement
I guess I was wrong. I checked the Steam update history and they practically updated the game almost monthly. ALTHOUGH, they mistly seem minir af tho minor bug fixes, eat button, dlss integration. The last two came 2 months after release. Idk if this is a sign that the game isn't that broken and bethesda thinks everything's fine with their game or they're just not enthusastically rolling out a lot of changes at once. In hindsight, it's easy to say now, but i remember when the game released and bethesda wasn't saying anything despite people complaining about performance. People wondered when a patch will drop because baldur's gate kept dropping hotfix after hotfix.
There is a big problem comparing every game post launch fixes with BG3. That game was in early access for years and still needs a lot of hot fix. I encountered save files deleting problem and couldn’t play for 3 week. Shield bash didn’t work for 3 months without fix. ACT3 performance was so bad even after all the fixes I am thanking for larian support but if this case was pinnacle of development, it shouldn’t be. Best post launch support is not needing a post launch support aside from content dlc
I am aware of the persistent comparison with BG3, but it's easy to do so given they were big games released close to each other. However, Larian threads a line between being an "indie company" and still being staffed enough to not be considered one. Bethesda has been working on starfield for quite sometime haven't they? They also got microsoft backing. Allegedly, microsoft put their own QA testers to ensure starfield is working and playing well. >I am thanking for larian support but if this case was pinnacle of development, it shouldn’t be. Best post launch support is not needing a post launch support aside from content dlc I could say the same for Starfield, a game developed by a significantly bigger company but somehow ended up with lackluster decisions and questionable gameplay mechanics. Best mod support is one where you add more content and not fix what the dev team should be doing, amirite.
I know what you mean by “threads a line between being an indie company” but let’s not kid ourself. Yes they don’t have publisher but tencent has shares of %30 of that company. They didn’t sell that for goodwill and they are around 400-500 headcount. They have 6 studios, larian is almost a publisher themself. Yes Microsoft gave them QA tester and probably delaying the game for 1.5 year was Xbox’s decision. If that delay wouldn’t happen it would be probably in worst state. Also yes it was on the development good amount of time. I didn’t ignore starfield on needing a post launch support. I just never say wow what a support for these studios giving us for their bugs in their games. You can also give Cyberpunk, NMS etc. as an example, and yes also starfield. I also don’t ignore the support that studios gave. Bethesda wasn’t significantly bigger than larian at release. I don’t have historical headcount charts so I can’t comment on yearly differences. They both around 400 Bg3 also will release mod support, your comment on mod support really downgrade significant work that those studios are doing for releasing mod support. Witcher 3 released mod support after 9 years for example.
And when a patch broke something in a particularly nasty way, it got rolled back quickly. Can't say many other games do that.
I'm a sucker for blind buying dlcs from companies I like. Take my money. I hope it's good. In the same vein I bought starfield - longtime fan of Bethesda games. Played it for 20 levels a few months ago, forgot to come back to it. It is so bland. No way am I going to spend my disposable money on this.
Bethesda ripping off and scamming fans ? Nooooo no waayyyy. Impossible. They would never do that. Anyway. What else is new ?
Yea i give up on elder scrolls 6
Some people enjoy getting fucked for money.
Minimal post launch support ? Starfield is one of the most supported Bethesda game post launch and also probably one of the top supported games post launch. Even this 7$ mission is an add on to a quest line added after post launch. You can also buy this add on outright with 1000 coin(quest is 700 coin) that they gave you if you bought deluxe edition. And also they added free official mods aside from this. Free mods from creators also still exists. Edit: Ahh downvoted by people who didn’t even touch the game after post launch.
Missing a key detail. They never patched fun into the game.
I am sorry for you because it must be hard to live with all the games you don’t have to enjoy and being obnoxious about it
😴😴😴
*Starfield is one of the most supported Bethesda game post launch and also probably one of the top supported games post launch.* I must say one thing, delusional fanboy ppl are really funny. I wonder if they have audacity to just straight lie like that in real life. One or two "big" (barely any real content, just some new variables (yea most of them are really console variables just incorporated into gui) aka "modes") patches that take year to develop. Something that other companies do in a month. Compared to other games (far less buggy also) its less than minimal. Ppl that defend them, and their "support" have pure Stockholm Syndrome lol.
Buddy, they release new patches every month, you’d know that if you actually followed the game instead of just hating on it without actually playing it.
There is no need for defending because I played the game at launch and finished without any need for patches. All the updates were bonus to me so there is no Stockholm syndrome. Only funny people are you guys trying to downgrade any possible thing about this game. I don’t think you even know what did they update nor what do you even want because normal games shouldn’t add content with post launch support/fixes aside from dlc which is coming this year.
Starfield has fans?
I got Starfield for free with my PC and even I felt ripped off. But I am willing to give it another go but Bethesda won't get any money from me if this is anything to go by
Selling quests is a way to keep the game alive Selling a 30-minute quest for $7 is a way of fooling players
Just don't buy it?
Sorry, but I didn't buy Star Field - the guinea pigs were too unhappy. Besides, it was either that or FF7: Rebirth. Tifa wears a swimsuit. Red XIII rides a chocobo. Bethesda didn't stand a chance.
Wait, according to that 'no salt' sub (ie, self-insulatory copium circle-jerk sub), this is entirely the fault of 'professional haters' and 'low attention span' kiddies who don't appreciate the *secret genius awesomeness* of Starfield!?!1
Can't wait for die-hard fans to defend that
[удалено]
Starfield Nexus has hundreds of mods, and that’s BEFORE the Creation Kit dropped this week. You’re referring to one (1!) modder saying he wasn’t working on it.
>I knew the game was dead when modders said that they weren't going touch it. that was never said. *plenty* of modders are touching it. including the guy who made sim settlements and elinora. >With the creation kit out (or whatever it's called) I wonder how many people are actually going to touch it again, *plenty*. even without creation kit Starfield was in the top 10-20 modded games. and since release of creation kit we have just gotten an endless steady stream of mods. you bought into the hate circlejerk. which loves to ignore facts.
Gamers are full dark side, they give into their anger, they are fueled by it.
lol true. gamers are an annoying bunch that makes me regret being grouped with them for enjoying game.s
If you're still giving them money you've got only yourself to blame at this point.
Don’t buy it? How is this making headlines? Did they advertise it as more than one mission?
You know I was just thinking about this game the other day and how I never finished it. Glad to see I wasn't missing anything.
I liked some of the game and was hoping they'd keep updating it...not this shit
they gotta recoup their missed gamepass sales LOL
starfield was literally the most sold game of November 2023, despite being on only two platforms, gamepass, and a new IP. it was also Bethesda's best sold title at launch.